More stories

  • in

    Film Festival Season Comes to New York

    Wanda ProductionsIn the mood for something shorter? The New York Shorts International Film Festival has over 300 films, including “Booksmart” (shown here, 3 minutes, France), “Quico” (12 minutes, United States), “Genius Artist” (8 minutes, China) and “Bienvenidos A Los Angeles” (15 minutes, United States). More

  • in

    The Empty Spectacle of Marilyn Monroe’s Fantasy Fetus in ‘Blonde’

    “Blonde” pretends to imagine how Monroe would have felt about her pregnancies. Instead, it jarringly shoves a C.G.I. fetus into her midcentury mind.In “Blonde,” the director Andrew Dominik’s fever-dream fictionalization of Marilyn Monroe’s life, Monroe (Ana de Armas) gets pregnant in a celestial fantasy sequence. As she swigs champagne on the beach with her two lovers, the stars above them realign into an expanse of wiggly sperm. Cue gestational montage! A clump of cells appears. A pulsating embryo sprouts, resembling a gelatinous crimson shrimp. Soon a beatific, photorealistic fetus is floating in a sparkling peach brine, its fully articulated form dappled in inexplicable rays of light.Monroe is lured into aborting that pregnancy, but when she conceives a second time, her sentient fetus reappears. Now, it’s telepathic. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you?” the fetus asks Monroe. “You’re not the same baby,” she whispers toward her own belly. The fetus replies: “That was me. It’s always me.”Marilyn Monroe’s chatty, regenerating fetus — she calls it “Baby” — has emerged as a scene-stealing sensation. Critics have called it “goofy,” “despicable” and “cruel.” Some have even pegged it as inadvertently propagandistic — this mode of fetal puppetry is a familiar anti-abortion gimmick. But Monroe’s dialogue with her pregnancy, which originated in the 2000 Joyce Carol Oates novel on which the film is based, is also a product of the star’s troubled self-conception, and in that context, the fetus’s corny, sanctimonious message makes a kind of sense. What is jarring is the contemporary look of the fetus: a schlocky, seemingly computer-generated figure that recalls pop-culture fantasy images invented long after Monroe’s death. It’s a rendering so lazy, it suggests a stubborn incuriosity about how Monroe would have actually experienced her pregnancies, even as the film presents them as character-defining events.Pregnancy can inspire profound acts of projection. The fetus, an unseen body inside of a body, suspended between nonexistence and existence, is defined by parental expectation and cultural imagination. It is the personification of a mother’s desires and fears, her sublimated anxieties and internalized judgments. And the Monroe of “Blonde” has plenty of issues to cast onto a prospective baby. Abandoned by her father and abused by her mother in childhood, she has become world famous as an infantilized sex object who calls all of her lovers “Daddy.” Her ventriloquized fetus is voiced by the child actor (Lily Fisher) who plays Monroe as a little girl, when she was still Norma Jeane. When Monroe communicates with her fetus, she is talking, with pity and loathing, to herself.“Blonde” is stubbornly incurious about how Monroe (Ana de Armas) would have actually experienced her pregnancies.NetflixWhat I can’t understand is why the thing looks the way that it does. In putting the fetus on display, Dominik has made a tediously literal attempt to depict Monroe’s interior life. But why would Monroe, in the early 1950s, imagine her fetus in the form of a C.G.I. baby? Why would her visualization of pregnancy resemble the smooth-skinned, preternaturally glowing fetus that appears, 70 years later, in the pregnancy app on my iPhone?The maternal imagination is not, after all, a spontaneous soul connection. It’s a historical construction, one informed by the aesthetics, politics and technology of the time in which the pregnancy occurs. And the magic unborn in “Blonde” is an ahistoric imposition — an image that feels plucked from the narrow imagination of a modern male director. At the time of Monroe’s first pregnancy in the film’s version of her life, fetal imagery was a rudimentary fascination. Photographs published in Life magazine in the 1950s included black-and-white images of a squid-like translucent embryo and skeletal fetal remains. The vision of the fetus in “Blonde” — spectacularly well lit, fused with cosmic imagery, presented as a free-floating independent being — was not developed until after Monroe’s death. It has its roots in a 1965 Life magazine spread, “Drama of Life Before Birth,” by the Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson.For the magazine, Nilsson produced a series of photos of sperm, embryos and fetuses representing the stages of human gestation. Though the cover subject is advertised as a “Living 18-week-old fetus shown inside its amniotic sac,” a note inside clarifies, “This embryo was photographed just after it had to be surgically removed from its mother’s womb,” a process it “did not survive.” Nilsson was celebrated for capturing “living” fetuses within their “natural habitat” (women), but he largely photographed the lifeless products of surgical abortions and miscarriages, which he then submerged in aquariums, lit sumptuously, staged to appear as if they were floating amid starry skies, and shot at a remove.Nilsson’s photographic tricks obliterated any trace of an actual woman’s body. The images, published at the height of the space race, were constructed as alien, analogized to galactic exploration and coded as masculine. One image of a 13-week fetus, which looks as if it is nestled inside a nebula, is titled “Spaceman.” Life quotes “a leading Swedish gynecologist” who declares: “This is like the first look at the back side of the moon.”The 1965 Life magazine spread of Lennart Nilsson’s photography has profoundly influenced the pop-cultural life of the fetus. A note accompanying the article said the “embryo was photographed just after it had to be surgically removed from its mother’s womb,” a process it “did not survive.”Photo 12/Universal Images Group, via Getty ImagesThe Life feature would profoundly influence the aesthetics of both anti-abortion activists and the director Stanley Kubrick, whose model of the Star Child in his 1968 film “2001: A Space Odyssey” was partially based on Nilsson’s shots. In turn, Kubrick’s serene, fiberglass-smooth, omnipotent being would inform decades of imagined pop-culture fetuses, from the wisecracking, doll-eyed fetus of the 1989 rom-com “Look Who’s Talking” to the computer-generated fetal images that drift through pregnancy-tracker apps and animated internet videos purporting to explain “life.”These images have the power to remove the fetus from the realm of a pregnant woman’s visceral experience and expose it as a public visual spectacle. And they yank the mind toward a pernicious modern suggestion: that the idealized fetus exists independent of a woman’s body; that it floats, in the cultural imagination, far above the earthbound woman herself.Now, this vision has been nonsensically ported into the midcentury brain of Marilyn Monroe. That is a suspect choice, given Dominik’s insistence on recreating the iconography of Monroe’s life in obsessive detail. “Blonde” blinks between full color and black-and-white, shuffling aspect ratios and swapping lenses to more closely mirror Monroe’s most famous photographs and scenes, which Dominik then twists to signal Monroe’s perspective on being made an object.In an interview with Decider, Dominik explained that he visualized the fetus in an attempt to access “Norma’s feelings” about her pregnancies. “Baby was real,” he said. “I wanted Baby to be real.” And yet Dominik’s brief glimpse into Monroe’s mind reveals nothing. All that can be found in there is a YouTube womb-cam.In her book “Disembodying Women,” the medical historian Barbara Duden traces the public exposure of the fetus — and its rising cultural supremacy — over the latter half of the 20th century. She calls this process “the skinning of woman.” “Blonde” is also a movie about a woman being flayed by the culture at large. First, by the Hollywood of her own era, which made her into a sex symbol. And now, by the Hollywood of ours, which has claimed to access her mind, only to serve up a recycled stock image of a magic fetus. More

  • in

    ‘Ten Tricks’ Review: Trying to Drum Up Some Magic

    In Richard Pagano’s indie comedy, Lea Thompson plays a brothel’s business-savvy madam with a ticking biological clock.The microbudget comedy “Ten Tricks” pairs a last performance of a burned-out magician (Albie Selznick) with the erotic goings-on of the brothel nearby. The film follows a madam, Grace (an earnestly crafted turn by Lea Thompson), in her last-ditch effort to become pregnant, and intersperses slapstick scenes of her prostitutes servicing clients with magician-related plot for comedic relief in between.The veteran casting director Richard Pagano (“X-Men: The Last Stand,” “Hotel Rwanda”) wrote and directed the film, adapted from his play of the same name that debuted in Los Angeles in 2003. The film version, set in a nonspecific recent time and shot in black-and-white by the cinematographer John Bailey, feels decidedly stuck in the past. Pagano makes frequent use of silent film-era-style intertitles, which pinpoint the key dialogue from a scene in advance only to end up highlighting the script’s inability to stand on its own. The mishmash of an incessant, distracting musical score also fails to provide first-aid.The film deluges viewers with cringe-worthy moments sourced from harmful stereotypes, like a “crazy” Asian prostitute and a Pakistani customer made to look like Aladdin, who is into the Kama Sutra.The movie also serves as a textbook example of the male gaze; the only male brothel worker is excluded from the nudity and hyper-objectifying camera angles, which the film traffics in when it comes to the women. And despite her strong effort, even Thompson can’t deliver the film’s attempt at a three-dimensional female protagonist.There is truly no magic here.Ten TricksNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 28 minutes. Watch on Fandor. More

  • in

    ‘God’s Creatures’ Review: A Crisis of Conscience

    Emily Watson is terrific at telegraphing how a mother’s love grinds against her moral code in this atmospheric seaside drama.“God’s Creatures,” a sparing, atmospheric drama, opens underwater. We see a burst of bubbles and hear a muffled bellow. Then the image cuts to the ocean surface, where gentle wavelets belie the turbulence below.The same might be said of the insular Irish fishing village where the movie takes place. Though the story begins with a drowning, the parochial residents of the region retain high spirits, whether carousing at the townie bar, harvesting oysters for sale or relishing the angelic warbling of Sarah (Aisling Franciosi), a local songstress. Yet a baleful score and slow, forbidding shots of the landscape suggest that evil lurks nearby.The film centers on Aileen (Emily Watson), an affectionate mother and factory worker — she toils on an assembly line alongside Sarah — whose prodigal son, Brian (Paul Mescal), moves home unexpectedly after many years abroad. Aileen is delighted about the return of her golden child, until a devastating crime leaves her unsure of whether she really knows him at all.The directors, Saela Davis and Anna Rose Holmer (“The Fits”), are skilled engineers of apprehension. As news of the offense spreads through the town, a chasm opens between Aileen and Sarah, and the filmmakers shepherd us down its center with a series of sinister sounds and images. Every maritime mundanity — the clack-clack-clack of oysters dropping into a bucket, say — pulses with pain or menace.“God’s Creatures” is ultimately a movie about the collision between a mother’s fidelity and her moral conscience, and Watson is terrific at telegraphing how these instincts grind against each other to terrifying ends. Even in a simple story line that sometimes wants for psychological clarity, the power she wields is undeniable.God’s CreaturesRated R. It has the mouth of a sailor. Running time: 1 hour 34 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on Apple TV, Google Play and other streaming platforms and pay TV operators. More

  • in

    ‘Argentina, 1985’ Review: All the Prosecutor’s Men

    Santiago Mitre’s impassioned dramatization of the Trial of the Juntas benefits from a gentle evocation of collective memory.Like a pair of old wingtips polished with wax, “Argentina, 1985” spins a notable piece of history into an impassioned courtroom drama flecked with quaint humor. The movie centers on the Trial of the Juntas, a milestone Argentine case in which a civilian court tried former military leaders for brutal crimes committed while the country was under a right-wing dictatorship.The director, Santiago Mitre, finds a flinty protagonist in the chief prosecutor, Julio Strassera, who assumed the role during the early days of Argentina’s precarious reinstalled democracy. Mitre sketches Strassera (Ricardo Darín) as a scoffing sourpuss whose fidelity to his work strains against an enduring mistrust of others. He softens in domestic scenes, where the genial presence of his wife and two children uncover both the dangerous stakes of the case — the family receives death threats — and Strassera’s caring side.Unspooling patiently, the film makes frequent use of a montage effect to abridge months of historical detail, layering brief moments, reenacted archival footage (shot with the pneumatic cameras and lenses of the period) and original television coverage to paint a sprawling picture of Strassera and his team’s efforts. Mitre sometimes spotlights a single story within these composite sequences; for instance, one woman’s distressing account of giving birth while captive bookends a collage of court testimonies. (More than 800 witnesses testified in the actual trial.)These stylings evoke a gentle sense of collective memory that compensates for the film’s more grandiose moments, including Strassera’s overwrought final address. Cinema prizes a good man making history, but this story’s heroes are manifold.Argentina, 1985Rated R for political thrills. In Spanish, with subtitles. Running time: 2 hours 20 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Hocus Pocus 2’ Review: Still Spelling Trouble

    The Sanderson sisters return, bringing the same spooky humor with some modern twists.Disney’s “Hocus Pocus” is one of the company’s few true cult classics; after an initial negative reception when it was released in 1993, the Halloween-themed comedy starring Bette Midler, Kathy Najimy and Sarah Jessica Parker as a trio of campy witch sisters gained a fan base through seasonal VHS rentals and repeated airings on ABC and the Disney Channel. And while its new sequel, “Hocus Pocus 2,” may be a blatant attempt by Disney to continue propping up its streaming platform Disney+ (where the movie has its debut), it manages to capture the same hokey magic of the original while creatively updating its humor.In a slight retread of the first film’s plot, “Hocus Pocus 2” follows two present-day Salem teenagers, Becca and Izzy (Whitney Peak and Belissa Escobedo), who accidentally bring the witchy Sanderson sisters back to life while performing their yearly Halloween night ritual. (The teens’ interest in witchcraft and the occult is benign, a very 2022 detail that might not have come across the same way 30 years ago.) High jinks ensue as the girls race to stop the witches from kidnapping the town’s genial mayor (Tony Hale) and casting an immortality spell that would make them all-powerful, while also making amends with their former friend, the mayor’s daughter, Cassie (Lilia Buckingham).Anne Fletcher (“Step Up,” “The Proposal”) directs this sequel, but follows the same goofy comedic approach of the Kenny Ortega-directed first film — namely, how the sisters react to modern inventions like robot vacuums, Amazon’s Alexa and Walgreens. Even a few meta-jokes nod to the Sanderson sisters’ popularity in the world of drag. Thankfully, with a cast rounded out by Doug Jones, Hannah Waddingham and Sam Richardson, the brew-haha’s aren’t solely concentrated in the three leads.Hocus Pocus 2Rated PG. Running time: 1 hour 43 minutes. Watch on Disney+. More

  • in

    ‘Mona Lisa and the Blood Moon’ Review: Escape From New Orleans

    This hyper-stylized quasi-superhero movie by Ana Lily Amirpour follows a mental hospital patient with supernatural abilities; it looks a lot more fun than it actually is.“Mona Lisa and the Blood Moon,” the third feature by the writer-director Ana Lily Amirpour (“A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night”), is a quasi-superhero movie that feels in step with something like “The Suicide Squad” or “Birds of Prey.”It, too, lays hard on the confetti-colored visuals and slick violence. And its lead, Mona Lisa (Jong-seo Jun), a mental hospital patient with telekinetic abilities, is only a hero insofar as we’re rooting for her to come out on top.Having broken out of the asylum, her mangled straitjacket mistaken for a fashion statement, Mona Lisa meets the clever stripper-single mother Bonnie (Kate Hudson), whom she saves from an unceremonious beat down. Blank-eyed and completely out of touch with the ways of the world, Mona Lisa is a mostly-silent, Edward Scissorhands-like character who might be mistaken for an innocent were she not also a literal puppet master able to control people’s bodies with her mind.Bonnie takes advantage of her new pal, directing the directionless Mona Lisa to force strangers into making sizable A.T.M. withdrawals. Naturally, there’s also a determined cop (Craig Robinson) on their tail, with the stakes of the manhunt heightened by an unconvincingly adorable friendship between Mona Lisa and Bonnie’s son, Charlie (Evan Whitten).The setting, a violet-drenched New Orleans, takes on the sweaty haze of a 3 a.m.-nightclub, but for all its glowing hyper-stylization and giddy needle drops, “Mona Lisa” only ever manages to tread shallow waters. Its comedy lands flat and its moments of emotional catharsis (when, for instance, Mona Lisa scares off Charlie’s egg-tossing bullies, or Charlie clashes with his neglectful mother over her exploitation of Mona Lisa) feel perfunctory. The movie, more often than not, has the look and feel of an edgy music video, which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if it weren’t also oddly boring.Mona Lisa and the Blood MoonRated R for bloody self-inflicted violence and street assault. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. In theaters and available to rent or buy on Apple TV, Google Play and other streaming platforms and pay TV operators. More

  • in

    ‘What We Leave Behind’ Review: A Father’s Final Project

    At 89, Julián Moreno began building a home in Mexico for his children who had immigrated to the U.S. His granddaughter made the poignant documentary “What We Leave Behind.”When Iliana Sosa’s grandfather Julián Moreno turned 89, he stopped making trips from Mexico to El Paso, Texas, where Sosa’s mother lives. In her documentary “What We Leave Behind,” his granddaughter follows Moreno to his home in the Mexican state of Durango and watches as he undertakes one last project: building a house next to his own that his children who migrated to the U.S. might return to.With an approach that is more elegiac than sociological, the director signals the passage of nearly seven years with the progress of the new building and the evidence of Moreno’s decline. He shovels a bit. He fries an egg that begins sunny side up but ends scrambled. He carries a plank, annoyed that he can’t carry two. A quad cane appears.Eschewing the politics of policy, “What We Leave Behind” honors the poetics of a life: Moreno’s memories of his long-dead wife; his affection for the land; his fealty to his son Jorge, who is legally blind and lives with him; but also his belief in hard work. His face holds traces of the handsome young man pictured on the ID card he used as a bracero — an agricultural worker issued a temporary work permit to come to the United States after World War II.Compositionally calm but never static, the documentary trusts in motes of beauty: a dog lapping water out of a mop bucket; Jorge’s green bristled broom poised above a courtyard floor as he listens; a once-sturdy man lying in bed, his family surrounding him. “What We Leave Behind” insists upon power in stillness, and the poignancy in staying — and leaving.What We Leave BehindNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 11 minutes. In theaters and on Netflix. More