Movies

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie’ Review: Hiding in Plain Sight

      by

      The “Back to the Future” star time-travels through his career in this documentary, charting his experiences learning to live with Parkinson’s disease.With apologies to Dr. Emmett Brown, you don’t need a flux capacitor to build a time machine. All you need to do is make a film. “Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie,” a new biographical documentary from Davis Guggenheim (“An Inconvenient Truth”), zips through the “Back to the Future” actor’s career with humor and style; it gives the impression that its subject is willing to answer any question. Fox appears, head-on, in contemporary interviews with an off-camera Guggenheim. None of the charisma and charm that made him a star have diminished.But much of what distinguishes “Still” — as it’s simply titled onscreen, sans marketing hook — is how cleverly it has been edited. While this documentary draws on a standard tool kit of re-enactments and archival material, its best device is to use clips of Fox’s own movies as a counterpoint to his words, as if Fox weren’t playing fictional characters, but himself.In a way, he was. “Still” charts his experiences learning to live with Parkinson’s disease, a diagnosis he kept private for years before going public in 1998. One montage — tackily but irresistibly set to INXS’s “New Sensation” — illustrates how he managed to hide his illness in plain sight. Movies like “For Love or Money” (1993) and “Life With Mikey” (1993) reveal his practice of putting an object in his left hand to mask its trembling. What looked like nimble character work was, even then, documentary evidence.Guggenheim presents this sequence as if it were depicting an illicit drug binge, in part because Fox discusses his habit of popping Sinemet pills to keep up his level of dopamine, which is deficient in Parkinson’s patients. The segment ends by cutting to the present-day Fox, who says he needs more pills and asks Guggenheim for a couple of minutes so that the meds can kick in, to make him less “mumble-mouthed.”“Still” certainly doesn’t sugarcoat Fox’s life with Parkinson’s. An early scene shows him taking a spill across the street from Central Park. At another point, a makeup artist gives him a touch-up because a fall has broken bones in his face. But such moments are reminders of just how much any movie would necessarily leave unseen.The film establishes a brisk, appealing pace early on, as Fox, the only formal talking head (although we see him with his family), recalls how he came to acting. The title comes from one of Guggenheim’s queries: “Before Parkinson’s, what would it mean to be still?” Fox answers, “I wouldn’t know.”After moving from his native Canada to Hollywood, he says, he lived in an apartment so cramped that he washed his hair with Palmolive and his dishes with Head & Shoulders. Marty McFly emerges as an almost autobiographical creation, because the making of “Back to the Future” (1985) required Fox to engage in a bit of temporal dislocation himself. To fulfill his obligations to the sitcom “Family Ties” while making the movie, he had to shuttle between sets, with little sleep in between. In another toe-tapping montage — this time scored to Alan Silvestri’s “Back to the Future” theme — “Still” conveys the sheer whirlwind of what Fox’s life was like as drivers chauffeured him from one place to another and he could barely keep straight which role he was playing.Fox’s wife, Tracy Pollan, who appeared with him as a love interest in “Family Ties” and as a possible salvation for the cocaine-addled magazine employee he played in “Bright Lights, Big City” (1988), is held up as a rare person who could stand up to his arrogance during his peak period of stardom. “Still” becomes something of a love story, of how Pollan stayed with Fox not just through his sickness but during long gig-related absences and what he characterizes as a period of alcoholism.But the documentary is, perhaps improbably, not a downer in the least. It isn’t oriented primarily around illness, even as it shows Fox working with doctors and aides throughout. It’s a character study in which Fox reflects on his life with quick wit and self-deprecation. “If I’m here 20 years from now, I’ll either be cured or like a pickle,” he says. The real-life Marty McFly may not have a time machine. But he now has this crowd-pleaser of a movie.Still: A Michael J. Fox MovieRated R for language. Running time: 1 hour 35 minutes. Watch on Apple TV+. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Unfinished Business’ Review: Skimming the Surface of Women’s Basketball

      by

      Unfortunately, this documentary about the W.N.B.A. and the New York Liberty hits the rim and then bounces out — it’s only close to good.This documentary about professional women’s basketball keeps toggling between two subjects so big, each could easily fill an entire series: the W.N.B.A. and one of its founding teams, the New York Liberty. The title refers both to the league’s constant battle for recognition since its creation in 1996 and the Liberty’s fruitless (so far) quest for a title. But “unfinished business” also describes this scattershot film, which is directed by Alison Klayman (“The Brink,” “Jagged”).The biggest asset here, as with the W.N.B.A., is the roster of formidable women. Most of the talking heads are effortlessly charismatic, especially the guard Teresa Weatherspoon, who led the Liberty’s early years, and the 2021 rookie DiDi Richards. The first anchors reminiscences about the 1990s and the second is part of the effort to recover from an abysmal 2-20 season in 2020. (The Liberty’s governor and co-owner Clara Wu Tsai is one of the documentary’s executive producers.)Aside from nail-biters from classic games, the film is hampered by elusions and little sense of drama — Klayman could have mined the Liberty’s rivalry with the Houston Comets much more effectively, for example. And for all the talk about the obstacles women face in professional sports, including sexism and homophobia, there is no mention of the contentious appointment of Isiah Thomas, who had been sued for sexual harassment when he worked for the Knicks, as Liberty team president in 2015.It’s hard to begrudge “Unfinished Business” for emphasizing empowerment and sisterhood, but these women deserved more. They can take it.Unfinished BusinessNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes. In theaters and available on Amazon Prime Video. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Monica’ Review: Mother and Daughter, Both Alike in Dignity

      by

      Trace Lysette and Patricia Clarkson star in this subtle chamber drama.The characters in the family drama “Monica” are not a talkative bunch, at least not with each other. Monica (Trace Lysette) is a transgender woman who has learned, at great cost, what it means to be alone. She was expelled from her home by her mother, Eugenia (Patricia Clarkson), at a young age. Now she works as a massage therapist by day, and collects extra tips by doing video sex work. She endures with panache the indignities of other people’s interest, brushing off harassers with confident ease. Yet her most intimate moments consist of one-sided conversations. Monica makes calls to her absentee lover. She begs for a response, but her pleas go to voice mail.Monica’s unhappy solitude is disrupted when she receives a call from her sister-in-law, Laura (Emily Browning). Laura informs Monica that Eugenia is very ill, and she invites Monica to the family home to reunite with her mother. Monica returns, but no one has told Eugenia that Monica is her abandoned child.Monica allows herself to be introduced as a stranger, and she moves into Eugenia’s home. For most of the film, Monica acts as her mother’s caretaker. Eugenia is perplexed by her presence — she did not intend to get a hospice nurse. But despite Eugenia’s ignorance, the characters are drawn to each other. They are both women who carry themselves with a great deal of dignity, as well as pain.The director Andrea Pallaoro doesn’t burden this delicate tale of reconciliation with long monologues or extensive back stories, and the performances are compelling in their restraint. Both Lysette and Clarkson are naturally magnetic actors, and they don’t waste the attention they’re given on excess sentimentality. They bear their characters’ burdens with little more than a furrow of an eyebrow. Monica and Eugenia face each other’s scrutiny, and both performers respond to the challenge by protecting their characters’ mysteries.Pallaoro devises ways for his camera to amplify this feeling of examination. He shoots in a square aspect ratio, and this subtle technique gives the frame an entrapped quality. Monica and Eugenia are filmed in close-ups so tight that the image doesn’t seem to leave them room to breathe. Late in the film, Eugenia writhes in apparent agony over a pillow that is too hot. It’s to the credit of Pallaoro and his cinematographer Katelin Arizmendi that the air has seemed oppressively hot for hours before Eugenia’s complaint is made aloud.As the ailing Eugenia gasps for air, Monica adjusts her bedding and holds her hand. Eugenia slips into silence. With assured performances and an equally assured camera, no one needs to speak to understand when the aches are soothed.MonicaRated R for nudity, sexual content and language. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘BlackBerry’ Review: Big Dreams, Little Keyboards

      by

      The struggle to sell a revolutionary gizmo fractures a friendship in this lively, bittersweet comedy.In Matt Johnson’s “BlackBerry” — a wonky workplace comedy that slowly shades into tragedy — the emergence of the smartphone isn’t greeted with fizzing fireworks and popping champagne corks. Instead, Johnson and his co-writer, Matthew Miller (adapting Jacquie McNish and Sean Silcoff’s 2015 book “Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of BlackBerry”), have fashioned a tale of scrabbling toward success that tempers its humor with an oddly moving wistfulness.That blend of patter and pathos was also evident in Johnson’s previous feature, “Operation Avalanche” (2016), as was an intrepid filming style that effortlessly conjures the rush of innovation. This time, we’re in Waterloo, Ontario, in 1996, where Mike Lazaridis (a perfect Jay Baruchel) and Doug Fregin (Johnson) — best friends and co-founders of a small tech company called Research in Motion (RIM) — are trying to sell a product they call PocketLink, a revolutionary combination of cellphone, email device and pager. While waiting to pitch a roomful of suits, Mike is distracted by an annoyingly buzzing intercom. Grabbing a paper clip, he quickly fixes it, noting that it was made in China. Disgust flits across his face, an expression we will remember when, much later, mounting problems force him to embrace a manufacturing option he despises.Clever callbacks like this allow “BlackBerry” to hauntingly connect the story’s downward slide with the innocence and optimism of its early scenes. The corporate types don’t understand Mike and Doug’s invention, but a predatory salesman named Jim Balsillie (a fantastic Glenn Howerton), gets it. Recently fired and fired up, Jim sees the device’s potential, making a deal to acquire part of RIM in exchange for cash and expertise. Doug, a man-child invariably accessorized with a headband and a bewildered look, is doubtful; Mike, assisted by a shock of prematurely gray hair, is wiser. He knows that they’ll need an intermediary to succeed.Reveling in a vibe — hopeful, testy, undisciplined — that’s an ideal match for its subject, “BlackBerry” finds much of its humor in Jim’s resolve to fashion productive employees from RIM’s ebulliently geeky staff, who look and act like middle schoolers and converse in a hybrid of tech-speak and movie quotes. It’s all Vogon poetry to Jim; but as Jared Raab’s restless camera careens around the chaotic work space, the excitement of disruption and the thrill of creation become tangible. It helps that the director is more than familiar with the feel of a friend-filled workplace: It’s how he’s been making movies since his first feature, “The Dirties,” in 2013.Fortified with strong actors in small roles — Michael Ironside as a pit bull C.O.O., Martin Donovan as the boss who sees the peril in Jim’s ruthlessness — “BlackBerry” remains grounded when the money rolls in and übergeeks from Google are enticed by multimillion-dollar offers. Some of the financial machinations, like Jim’s frantic attempts to fend off a hostile takeover by Palm Pilot, are less than clear; but “BlackBerry” isn’t just the story of a life-altering gadget. Long before that gadget’s death knell sounds in the unveiling of the iPhone, Jim has so thoroughly insinuated himself between the two friends that an image of a forgotten Doug, gazing down from a window as Jim and Mike head off to a meeting, is almost heartbreaking.More than anything, perhaps, “BlackBerry” highlights the vulnerability and exploitability of creatives in a cutthroat marketplace. The push-pull between genius and business, and their mutual dependence (brilliantly articulated during Jim and Mike’s sales pitch to a wireless provider), is the movie’s real subject and the wellspring of its persistent yearning tone. “When you grow up, your heart dies,” Doug says at one point, quoting “The Breakfast Club.” The sad sweetness of the Kinks’ “Waterloo Sunset,” played over the end credits, is just the cherry on top.“The person who puts a computer inside a phone will change the world,” a shop teacher once told Mike. He was right; and if “BlackBerry” has a flaw, it’s perhaps in neglecting to trumpet the momentousness of that change, one that has made it seem we will all be typing with our thumbs forever.BlackBerryRated R for “Glengarry Glen Ross” language and “Silicon Valley” fashion. Running time: 2 hour 2 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Fool’s Paradise’ Review: No Talent? No Problem!

      by

      A hapless man who barely speaks becomes a movie star in Charlie Day’s scattershot Hollywood satire.Charlie Day casts himself as a passive, nearly silent actor, Latte Pronto, in his feature directing debut, “Fool’s Paradise.” There’s something grudgingly admirable about the voluble star essentially spending an entire film doing reactions. But it’s a disastrous move in a Hollywood satire that already needs to be more than a grab bag of jokes.In Day’s strained, shapeless story, a desperate publicist, Lenny (Ken Jeong), attaches himself to Latte. Freshly released from a psychiatric ward, Latte is hired as the look-alike replacement for a big star (Day again) who dies while shooting a western.Day, a sitcom warrior pushing 16 seasons on “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” throws everything at the wall to see what sticks. That means a series of stale bits about showbiz shallowness, opportunistic agents (Edie Falco plays Latte’s) and producers, and everyone who puts up with them.At least the supporting cast members freely fly their freak flags. Adrien Brody nails a clueless, hey-bro cool as Latte’s reckless, friendly co-star. Ray Liotta bulldogs along amusingly as the western’s producer, while John Malkovich goes apoplectic as some kind of éminence grise. Kate Beckinsale vamps as Latte’s glam new wife, and Common plays a paranoid ex-star of superhero movies.Turning off one’s brain for the film would be easier without witnessing the weak attempt at a tragic arc for Lenny — it’s more of a squiggle. You’d need to be Blake Edwards to pull this off. One wishes Day had looked further afield than Hollywood for inspiration.Fool’s ParadiseRated R for language, some drug use and sexual content. Running time: 1 hour 37 minutes. In theaters. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Disney’s Losses From Streaming Narrowed in the Last Quarter

      by

      The company’s earnings were buoyed by its theme parks and cruise ships. It also announced it would soon put Hulu content on Disney+.To understand the forces that have been roiling the biggest media companies, look no further than Disney’s earnings. Streaming economics are improving — considerably so. But not fast enough to offset declines in traditional television, which is in free fall.Disney said on Wednesday that losses in its streaming business for the most recent quarter totaled $659 million, an improvement from a year earlier (and a vast improvement from the October-to-December period, when losses totaled $1.1 billion). Streaming revenue climbed 12 percent, reflecting a sharp increase in revenue per paid Disney+ subscriber, a metric investors watch closely.The problem: Disney still relies on old-line TV channels for a colossal portion of its profit — and those outlets are being maimed by cord cutting, sports programming costs and advertiser pullback. Disney’s linear networks (ESPN, Disney Channel, ABC, National Geographic, FX) reported $1.8 billion in operating income, down 35 percent from a year earlier. Revenue fell 7 percent.Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive, called the decline of traditional television “a worrisome circumstance” in an earnings-related conference call with analysts. Disney shares fell by more than 4 percent in after-hours trading on Wednesday.As part of its push toward streaming profitability, Disney announced that content from Hulu would be made available on Disney+ to subscribers of both services in the United States. Mr. Iger said this “one app experience” would roll out by the end of the year. Hulu, which does not operate overseas, will also continue as a stand-alone product.Disney+ content is primarily aimed at children and families. The addition of more generalized Hulu content would “increase engagement and increase our opportunity in terms of serving digital ads — growing our advertising business,” Mr. Iger said.Disney said it would raise the price for ad-free subscriptions to Disney+ later this year, in part to push more viewers toward cheaper subscriptions that allow for advertising (which, in turn, would allow Disney to increase advertising rates). Disney most recently raised the ad-free price in December: Those subscriptions now cost $11, up 38 percent from what Disney previously charged. The option with advertising costs $8.Disney owns 67 percent of Hulu, with Comcast holding the balance. Under a 2019 agreement, Disney has an upcoming opportunity to buy out Comcast. (Estimates start in the $9 billion range.) Mr. Iger indicated on Wednesday that Disney would like to make that deal.“We’ve had some conversations with them already,” he said. “I can’t really say where they end up.” Mr. Iger notably started the conference call by congratulating Comcast, an archrival, on the success of its animated “Super Mario Bros. Movie,” which has collected $1.2 billion worldwide.Disney+ subscriber counts have abated over the past six months, in part because Disney has pulled back on expensive “subscriber acquisition” efforts — marketing campaigns that try to persuade people to subscribe. Disney+ now has about 158 million subscribers worldwide, a 2 percent decline from December, with most of the loss coming from ultra-low-priced subscriptions in India. Disney+ peaked with 164 million subscribers in October.Disney had 231.3 million subscriptions across Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ in the quarter, down from 234.7 million in December.“The Mandalorian” is one of several lavish original Disney+ productions.Lucasfilm Ltd.Unlike most of its competitors, Disney has a safety net in the form of theme parks. Operating profit in the company’s Parks, Experiences and Products division climbed 22 percent, to $2.2 billion, as Disney resorts in Shanghai and Hong Kong finally began to recover from the pandemic. Disneyland Paris continued its attendance surge, which started last summer with the opening of a Marvel-themed expansion.Attendance also increased at Disney World in Florida and Disneyland in California, although higher costs — the introduction of a new “Tron”-themed roller coaster, for instance — dented profitability in Florida. Disney Cruise Line bookings were strong, partly because of a recent expansion of its fleet, the company said.It was Disney’s first full quarter under the second reign of Mr. Iger, who returned as the chief executive in November. He replaced Bob Chapek, who was ousted by the board following a series of blunders, including the company’s response to contentious education legislation in Florida. The fallout from that matter has led to a legal battle with Gov. Ron DeSantis over Disney World’s future expansion and oversight.On Wednesday, Mr. Iger said the company was “evaluating where it makes the most sense to direct future investments” for theme park construction, a clear reference to the standoff in Florida. Disney said last month — before the deteriorating situation with Mr. DeSantis — that it had earmarked $17 billion for Disney World expansion projects over the coming decade.When asked by analysts about the tense situation in Florida, Mr. Iger reiterated that Disney viewed it as unconstitutional retaliation for its opinion on the education legislation.As a whole, Disney generated $21.8 billion in sales, a 13 percent increase compared with last year, slightly surpassing analyst projections. Disney reported earnings per share of 93 cents, excluding certain items affecting comparisons, on par with analyst expectations.Disney is in the midst of eliminating roughly 7,000 jobs, or roughly 4 percent of its global total, as part of a campaign to cut costs by $5.5 billion. There have been two rounds of layoffs so far; the final round is expected by the end of the month.The company continues to pour money into original Disney+ programming. The third season of “The Mandalorian” arrived on the service in March. Another lavish series set in the “Star Wars” universe, “Ahsoka,” is scheduled to roll out on Disney+ this summer.At the same time, however, Disney said it would begin removing some content from its streaming services, particularly in overseas markets where growth potential is limited. It did not give any examples of the content. Because content costs are amortized over time, early removal would cost Disney up to $1.8 billion. But the move will save Disney money over the long term because the company will not need to pay residual fees (a type of royalty) to show creators. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      15 Fashion Triumphs From Cannes Over the Decades

      by

      Movies aren’t the only thing to watch. The film festival has made red carpet waves since “being seen” became mainstream.If the Met Gala is the all-star showcase of red carpet entrances, the Oscars the skills championship, and the MTV Video Music Awards the X Games, then the Cannes Film Festival is effectively the playoffs: an extended period in which celebrities show up multiple times in clothes high and low, demonstrating all their moves.And though outfits seem to be getting increasingly extreme with the proliferation of social media, a look back through the history of the festival’s runway (oops, red carpet) — which this year runs May 16-27 — reveals that it was, in fact, ever thus.The Croisette boulevard has always been a catwalk and we, the rapt audience looking on.The actress Elizabeth Taylor grasps the arm of her husband at the time, the film producer Mike Todd, at the Cannes Film Festival, wearing a Balmain gown and Cartier tiara.Malcolm McNeill/Mirrorpix, via Getty Images1957Elizabeth TaylorWhen she attended Cannes on the arm of her third husband, the producer Mike Todd (who was there to promote “Around the World in 80 Days”), Ms. Taylor was Hollywood royalty, and she dressed the part — from the tip of her diamond Cartier tiara to the hem of her white Balmain gown and the fingertips of her opera gloves. The princess dress would forever after be a festival staple (not least on Princesses Grace and Diana when they would take their own Cannes bows).Catherine Deneuve attended a screening of “Les Cendres” by Andrzej Wajda at Cannes in an Yves Saint Laurent T-shirt dress.Gamma-Keystone, via Getty Images1966Catherine DeneuveMs. Deneuve attended Cannes with her then-husband, the photographer David Bailey, in a long seaside-striped sequin Yves Saint Laurent T-shirt dress. She was a de facto YSL ambassador before that term had even entered the fashion playbook (back then, the usual appellation was “muse”). She would remain one for decades, loyally wearing YSL onscreen and off. When it comes to casual glamour, however, this dress set the tone, proving the concept was not an oxymoron, but a whole potential genre unto itself.Jane Birkin toted her signature picnic basket as a handbag to Cannes.Gilbert Giribaldi/Gamma-Rapho, via Getty Images1974Jane BirkinMs. Birkin popped up at Cannes with her beau, Serge Gainsbourg, and a picnic basket as a handbag, toting it not just during the day, but on the red carpet with a glimmering frock. Reportedly discovered in a fishing village in Portugal, it was the Birkin bag before the Birkin bag. It became a symbol of the British star and of a certain je ne sais quoi in boho style and the freewheeling nature of Cannes.Madonna arrived for the premiere of her film “Madonna: Truth or Dare” (known internationally as “In Bed with Madonna”) in a pink Jean Paul Gaultier coat that she shed to reveal a satin undergarment set.Dave Hogan/Getty Images1991MadonnaShe came to Cannes to unveil “Madonna: Truth or Dare” — and herself. Decades before Lady Gaga stripped down to her undergarments on the Met Gala steps, Madonna walked the carpet for her premiere in a voluminous pink taffeta coat by Jean Paul Gaultier — only to drop it at the last moment to reveal a white satin cone bra, knickers and a garter belt set. She jolted the public out of their torpor and started a new era of peekaboo dressing.Sharon Stone came to the premiere of “Unzipped” unbuttoned — a satin skirt parted to uncover a bedazzled romper.Stephane Cardinale/Sygma, via Getty Images1995Sharon StoneIn 2002 Ms. Stone came to Cannes as a member of the film festival jury and revived her flagging profile by walking the red carpet in a different fashion statement every night. But years before that, she made dressing noise when she arrived at the premiere of “Unzipped” in a champagne-colored satin skirt that was, well, unbuttoned to reveal a bedazzled romper beneath. Ever since, shorts have been a festival staple.For the screening of “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” Johnny Depp was accompanied by his girlfriend at the time, Kate Moss.Patrick Hertzog/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images1998Kate MossMinimalism came to the Croisette courtesy of Ms. Moss, attending the premiere of “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” with her then-boyfriend, Johnny Depp. Ms. Moss wore a black cocktail dress with ostrich feathers at the top and almost no makeup with merely a touch of diamonds and barely-there sandals. She made everyone else look overdone and overdressed, washing the Augean stables of Cannes clean.Tilda Swinton walked the Croisette in a metallic pantsuit.Daniele Venturelli/WireImage2007Tilda SwintonMs. Swinton strode the carpet in a metallic pantsuit, proving that a woman does not need a big dress to make a big statement.Linda Evangelista in a gold Lanvin dress.Kurt Krieger/Corbis, via Getty Images2008Linda EvangelistaMs. Evangelista posed like a gold Greek statuette in Lanvin at the premiere of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Models had become key parts of the festival’s opening evening mix, upping the fashion ante even further.Lupita Nyong’o in a chiffon Gucci dress.Venturelli/WireImage2015Lupita Nyong’oMs. Nyong’o seemed to embody springtime itself in a green pleated Gucci chiffon dress accented with crystal flowers. It was only a few months after Alessandro Michele had taken over as creative director of the Italian house, and the dress heralded the arrival of a new aesthetic and Hollywood love affair with Gucci.Amal Clooney in an Atelier Versace dress.Andreas Rentz/Getty Images2016Amal ClooneyMs. Clooney made her Cannes debut in a classic butter yellow Atelier Versace dress with a high slit on one leg, entirely overshadowing her husband, George, at the premiere of his film, “Money Monster,” and, once again, proving style and substance are not antithetical concepts.Rihanna in a Dior couture gown.Vittorio Zunino Celotto/Getty Images2017RihannaShe made her first Cannes appearance at the “Okja” premiere in an ivory Dior couture gown with a long matching coat and New Wave-style sunglasses. Two years later, Dior owner LVMH would announce a deal with the artist for her own fashion line, and though it was shut down during the pandemic, her ability to channel cool has never wavered.Kristen Stewart, in a Chanel dress, removed her Louboutins to ascend the stairs barefoot.Andreas Rentz/Getty Images2018Kristen StewartMs. Stewart’s short chain mail Chanel dress was a fighting mix of armor and crystals, but what really made news was her decision to doff her Christian Louboutin stilettos and walk up the stairs barefoot. Coming a year after the actor complained about the festival’s unspoken high heels dress code, it was an unmistakable fashion throw down and, well, a step forward for wardrobe equity.Isabelle Huppert in a Balenciaga gown.Andreas Rentz/Getty Images2021Isabelle HuppertThe French actress made the ultimate elegant refusal of Cannes convention in a high-necked, long-sleeved all-black Balenciaga gown, matching boot leggings and matching shades. It cut through the carpet froth and excess like a knife.Spike Lee in a colorful suit made by Virgil Abloh for Louis Vuitton.Eric Gaillard/Reuters2021Spike LeeThe sole man in this trendsetting list, Mr. Lee put ye olde penguin suits to shame as jury president, eschewing the usual tuxedo or white dinner jacket for a bouquet of sunset-toned suiting, by Virgil Abloh for Louis Vuitton. He did the right thing.Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a Gaurav Gupta gown.Stephane Mahe/Reuters2022Aishwarya Rai BachchanSometimes, it seems like the wide open skies of the Côte d’Azur encourage even wider skirts on the Cannes carpet, but Ms. Bachchan topped them all in a fantastical creation from Gaurav Gupta that made her look like some sort of alien smoke goddess materializing on Earth. Sometimes, it really does seem like the looks at Cannes are out of this world. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Ruben Ostlund Doesn’t Want You to Get Too Comfortable

      by

      The Swedish director, this year’s jury president for the Cannes Film Festival, talks about his approach to making films.For a filmmaker whose most recent movie was nominated for three Academy Awards and who has twice won the Palme d’Or, the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it might sound strange to hear Ruben Ostlund say he doesn’t focus on success.“I’m much more interested in when we fail as human beings than when we succeed,” said the Swedish director, who will lead the jury at this year’s festival, which runs from Tuesday to May 27.Mr. Ostlund, 49, won the Palme d’Or, last year for “Triangle of Sadness,” a class satire set aboard a doomed luxury yacht, and for his previous feature, “The Square,” an unsparing sendup of the art world, in 2017. Mr. Ostlund is one of only nine filmmakers who have multiple Palmes d’Or to his credit — and one of three to win the award for consecutive films.After its success at Cannes, “Triangle of Sadness,” which was Mr. Ostlund’s first film entirely in English, went on to become an art-house hit in both Europe and America, and was nominated for three Oscars — for best picture, best director and best original screenplay — but didn’t win any.In his three most recent features, starting with 2014’s “Force Majeure,” Mr. Ostlund has consciously tried to get away from a certain type of European art-house film that is often cerebral, challenging and severe.“I wanted to create a wild, entertaining ride at the same time that I was trying to talk about the content that I thought was important or that I was curious about, and not making a contradiction between those things,” he said in late April during a video interview, speaking from his house in Campos, Majorca.He pointed to the political comedies of Lina Wertmüller, the Italian director whose 1974 film “Swept Away” was a clear touchstone for “Triangle of Sadness,” and the surreal provocations of the Spanish filmmaker Luis Buñuel as examples of serious-minded films that are also great fun to watch.Arvin Kananian, left, and Woody Harrelson in a scene from “Triangle of Sadness,” which Mr. Ostlund won the Palme d’Or for last year.Neon, via Associated PressIn a statement announcing Mr. Ostlund as jury president in February, festival organizers called the decision a “tribute to films that are uncompromising and forthright and which constantly demand that viewers challenge themselves and that art continue to invent itself.”“Contrary to popular belief, thought-provoking cinema can also be popular,” Philippe Bober, one of the producers on “Triangle of Sadness,” wrote in an email.“We want to make uncompromising auteur films but also to embrace the audience,” Mr. Bober continued. He has worked with Mr. Ostlund since 2005.“The bad news for producers,” Mr. Bober added, referring to himself and the film’s other Oscar-nominated producer, Erik Hemmendorff, “is that if you want to make good films, you have to support your directors’ radicalism when they are experimenting with form and content for a long period of time before you make money.”The critical and popular acclaim for “Triangle of Sadness” seems a vindication of Mr. Bober’s faith in Mr. Ostlund.The humor, often acid-laced, that makes the Swedish director’s films so entertaining is often deeply discomfiting — and sometimes downright squirmworthy. This has proved divisive, with some viewers regarding his work as manipulative or downright cruel (“Triangle of Sadness” includes an audaciously long vomiting scene), and others hailing him as an uncommonly perceptive social commentator.“I think all my approaches in my films are looking at human behavior, creating dilemmas,” Mr. Ostlund said, “in order to try to tell something about us human beings.” He added that he tried to create “scenes where I believe that, yeah, this is an accurate and a true picture of our behavior” without pointing fingers.“I’m happy,” he added, “if I can reach the level of a really good sociological experiment.”According to Owen Gleiberman, chief film critic for Variety magazine, “Triangle of Sadness” is “very much a movie of its moment.”“It’s about the 1 percent, and it’s about the 1 percent getting their comeuppance. And that’s a good theme and it’s a gratifying theme,” said Mr. Gleiberman, who attended his first Cannes Film Festival in 1996. At the same time, he said he felt that the film was “too in love with its own satirical excess.” While he was delighted by the unexpected Palme d’Or win for “The Square,” he felt “Triangle of Sadness” was less deserving of the prize.“There’s no rule that says that a director shouldn’t take the Palme d’Or twice in five years,” Mr. Gleiberman said. “But when that happens, it’s usually an indication not that he has made two masterpieces, but that he’s become a Cannes darling.” As such, the fact that Mr. Ostlund was tapped to head the Cannes jury, Mr. Gleiberman added, “makes perfect sense.”“I think all my approaches in my films are looking at human behavior, creating dilemmas,” Mr. Ostlund said, “in order to try to tell something about us human beings.”Ana Cuba for The New York Times“I hesitated a little bit because of the burden of the position actually,” Mr. Ostlund said about being asked to chair the jury. His eight co-jurors include the American actors Paul Dano and Brie Larson, the Argentine director Damián Szifron, and the French filmmaker Julia Ducournau, who won the Palme d’Or in 2021 for “Titane,” a controversial body-horror film.Even though no one person gets to decide the winners, the awards at Cannes often become identified with that year’s jury president. Historically speaking, the films that have taken the Palme d’Or, Mr. Gleiberman suggested, are “not some list of masterpieces.”“It’s more like the good, the bad and the ugly,” he said.Mr. Ostlund seemed all too aware of this when he suggested that the Palme d’Or awarded by a jury president is “something that can follow you then through your career,” for good or for ill.But Mr. Ostlund said it was important, above all, for him to endorse what Cannes stands for. “For me, it is the festival in the world that is on the barricades fighting for cinema” and a “provocative approach to cinema as an art form,” he said.“The last year when I had been traveling around with ‘Triangle of Sadness,’ I have tried to really promote cinema, talked about the advantage of cinema, talked about what are the qualities of watching things together instead of sitting in front of an individual screen,” he added.The Hungarian filmmaker Kornel Mundruczo, another Cannes favorite, said that the festival connected him to an “ethical, fundamental state of what does that mean to be a filmmaker and a true believer in film as the seventh art.”Films by Mr. Mundruczo, 48, and Mr. Ostlund have shared lineups at Cannes several times. In 2014, they both headlined the festival’s Un Certain Regard sidebar: Mr. Mundruczo’s “White God” won top prize and Mr. Ostlund’s “Force Majeure” took the jury prize. Three of Mr. Mundruczo’s other films have screened in the main competition at Cannes; he was invited to be a juror at Cannes twice but declined because of prior commitments.While expressing reservations about running films like horses in a race, Mr. Mundruczo, who has chaired juries at other festivals, said he enjoyed the experience — and not only because it forced him to take in multiple films a day.“As a jury member, you feel like you can give your taste, your honesty and your vision of the future of cinema and all your love of cinema,” Mr. Mundruczo said in an interview in Berlin, where he lives.Mr. Ostlund, who has also served on film festival juries before, said it was important to take care of the group dynamics and make sure everyone “feels that they are seen.”“I think I will have a very Swedish approach when it comes to running the jury,” he said.“It will be a democracy.” More