WIDOWS: TIFF 2018 HIGHLIGHT #2

It’s a little corny to compare Widows to Ocean’s 8 (can you believe critics actually get paid to do this?). You might as well compare Widows to Sugar & Spice or even Set It Off. We get it - female heist movies. They’re all the same. Although in all fairness, Widows & Set It Off would make a helluva double feature as both movies are partially about women forced in to a life of crime because their backs are against the wall.

To give my friend John Cribbs of The Pink Smoke some credit, Widows should really be compared to something like The Wire as it’s not only about a big score, but it also touches on corrupt politics, racial profiling and issues concerning poverty & crime in impoverished neighborhoods (in Widows it’s Chicago instead of Baltimore).

There are some fair comparison to Heat however. I certainly don’t think Widows is as good as Michael Mann’s crime masterpiece but it does deserve to be mentioned in the same discussion. From the beautiful cinematography & robbery masks to the way they acquire one of the members of their crew (reminiscent to how Deniro picks up Dennis Haysbert as the last-minute driver), Widows is from the school of Mann’s Heat.

Heat / Widows

Heat / Widows

And like Heat - there are a couple of minor plot holes and other various elements that could have been ironed out more. But most folks don’t give Heat that much flack so we shouldn’t do it to Widows (seriously, I don’t understand how Val Kilmer got away so easily at the end of Heat. Can someone please explain that part of the movie to me?). And having a couple of former Michael Mann collaborators in the form of Colin Farrell & Viola Davis makes the Mann connection a little more valid...


Widows is the kind of movie that might end up in my top 10 of the year under the “frustrating but rewarding category”. Besides some of the questionable decisions made by a few of the characters, the movie could have been longer or, like John Cribbs said, a mini-series. The source material is based on a series from the 80’s so I give Steve McQueen credit for compressing the story down to an enjoyable two hour movie.

Daniel Kaluya does an excellent job as the film’s villain and Robert Duvall steals the few scenes he’s in. Of the main characters, Viola Davis shines (Cynthia Erivo does go toe to toe with Davis in any scenes they share).

This one is a little different from Hunger or 12 Years A Slave. While Widows certainly lets its beliefs & politics be known, they aren’t forced down the audiences throat (and Steve McQueen manages to make a few poignant statements about race in America in two quick moments better than certain specific entire films have done so far in 2018). The cinematography in Widows almost acts as a form of social commentary in some parts. But this isn't a "message movie". If you don't put too much in to this and take it as an entertaining heist movie you'll be satisfied. Widows deserves all the hype it’s getting. But it also deserves more than lazy comparisons to Ocean’s 8 or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (???).

IN DEFENSE OF BLACKHAT...

It's no mystery that I'm a Michael Mann fan. Look how well people know me...

Another friend of mine even made it a point to post some of the many negative Blackhat reviews on my facebook page just to rub it…

So yes, what you're about to read are the views of a diehard Michael Mann fan...

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – for a studio filmmaker Michael Mann is a breath of fresh air. He makes an honest attempt at trying to be different and somewhat experimental (when compared to most other mainstream directors). He also influenced a new generation of films that makes places like Los Angeles (Drive & Night Crawler) & Chicago (The Dark Knight) seem like the coolest places on earth (that opening bank robbery scene from The Dark Knight is straight out of Heat, right down to the music).

This isn’t so much of a review as it is a critique on what I feel some people got wrong about Blackhat (guest contributor Nathaniel Drake Carlson already did a superb job reviewing the film). I will say that Viola Davis had a couple of quick shining moments in her performance as “Agent Barrett”, and I was happy to see Ritchie Coster (“Kassar”) used as a villain in something besides one of the many different Law & Order incarnations (he’s seriously an updated/slightly more menacing version of Peter Stormare in my opinion). I also feel Holt McCallany (“Agent Jessup”) is an underrated actor who seemed to fit perfectly in the Michael Mann universe. Instead of stacking his cast with 3-5 famous/known actors (like he did with Heat, Public Enemies and The Insider), Michael Mann used two well known actors, one of which (Viola Davis) is really only in the first half of the film and the rest a cast of solid supporting actors who played their positions well.

Anyway, let’s address that “Technobabble” headline shown in that last image.
The crux of that review was that the dialogue used in Blackhat was way too convoluted and only real hackers could understand what the hell was going on (it should be acknowledged that actual hackers felt Blackhat was fairly authentic).
I have an issue with folks complaining about the dialogue (or “technobabble”) used in Blackhat because it seems a little unfair. Remember in 2004 when Shane Carruth made his directorial debut with Primer and everyone loved it (well, maybe not everyone, but you know what I mean)? In fact, what people seemed to love so much about the film was the smart/scientific dialogue and how Carruth gave his audience credit in not explaining every single little detail about time travel & wormholes. There was a level of familiarity to the dialogue in Primer that most people didn’t get right away (admit it – you did not fully understand Primer from top to bottom after the first viewing and if you say you did you’re lying). But instead of giving up on it people went back and rewatched the film over & over making it a lightweight cult classic (naturally the $7,000 budget also made Primer a sought after film). Someone even made up a time travel diagram to go along with the film.

Personally, I love Primer (I watched it a month ago and it still holds up) but to the average person, I’m sure it doesn’t sound fun to have to follow along with a chart in order to fully understand/enjoy a movie. Almost sounds like homework doesn’t it? But at the end of the day, people familiar with Primer don't seem to mind the extra work that goes in to understanding & enjoying it. It'd be nice if Blackhat had the same type of fans.
Here we are 11 years later and Michael Mann makes a perfectly timed film about computer hacking & cyber crimes (see: Anonymous, the sony email hacks and the controversy surrounding The Interview) using smart/appropriate dialogue that pertains to the subject matter and everyone has an issue with it. “The dialogue doesn’t make any sense” complained half the critics who wrote about Blackhat. I love how in 2015 half the population reads two Huffington post articles about the Anonymous hackers and/or the controversy surrounding high level email hacking then claim to be html code-geniuses, yet Michael Mann makes a film on the subject and suddenly everyone acts like a 90 year old grandparent trying to understand how computers work. Had Michael Mann spent his time trying to explain all the intricate ins & outs of computer hacking terminology to the audience he would have gotten ripped apart for crafting boring dialogue. It’s like he was in a lose/lose situation. Perhaps this is a compliment to Mann. I guess he’s held to a high standard (which he should be). Maybe people expect consistent greatness from him with every film (if you’re responsible for stuff like The Insider, Thief & Heat it’s understandable that people would expect greatness from you).

A lot of what I’m complaining about here echos my recent review of Spike Lee’s Da Sweet Blood Of Jesus. Not every Mann film is going to be a masterpiece. Some of his films are made strictly for entertainment and to be cool (and there's nothing wrong with being cool as long as it's natural).

There's also an issue of inconsistency here. Some of the same critics who loved Primer didn’t like Blackhat. “Top critics" like Steven Rae & J.R. Jones gave Primer praise while they trashed Blackhat. If you look at it from my point of view, that doesn’t make sense. Do people hold the Bourne films to the same high standards as they do Mann’s action films? No they don’t (and Blackhat is certainly in the same genre as the Bourne series only it has more style).

This is Miami Vice all over again. For some reason people failed to catch that Miami Vice was an adaptation of the television show of the same name and wanted some gritty cop drama. It’s Miami Vice. What the fuck were people expecting? You knew what you signed up for when you bought the ticket to see it. Even if you haven’t seen the original show/source material, you still knew the vibe of Miami Vice (and you know what? Miami is a fairly cheesy place. It’s a fun place that I love to visit, but there’s a layer of cheese over that city that Mann captured in my opinion). Are people so full of themselves that they can’t allow a film to be cool and, dare I say, a little bit cheesy every once in a while? I know Blackhat isn’t a masterpiece. It’s not without criticism.  The basic plot alone (the good guys use a likeable bad guy to capture an even worse bad guy) has been done a million times. Chris Hemsworth's accent/demeanor seems a little forced at times (as do certain lines of dialogue) and it’s never quite spelled out how an MIT-trained computer wizard knows how to defend himself/beat people up so well (I guess all his time in prison surrounded by hardened criminals toughened him up?). The romantic relationship between our love interests did kind of come out of nowhere, and from the outside looking in I can see how people had issues with the editing and jumpiness of the film (I personally didn’t mind it at all, but I can see how that could be offputting to some). But Blackhat still falls in line perfectly with Michael Mann’s post-Heat universe and continues to push that cool/sleek yet jazzy/chaotic style of his. A film critic on Deadline recently wrote a "What Happened To Michael Mann?" themed review on Blackhat and to that I have to respond by saying; nothing happened to him.

The final moments where Hemsworth is stalking the main henchman from behind through a crowd of people is no different than the final moments of Public Enemies when Christian Bale does the same to Johnny Depp...

Blackhat

Public Enemies

One of the shootout scenes in Blackhat (where Holt McCallany shines for a brief moment) is filmed in the same fashion as the shootouts in Heat & Public Enemies. There's a tense scene where Chris Hemsworth & co-star Tang Wei are on the run and escape on to the subway and I was immediately reminded of the final scene in Collateral when Jaime Foxx & Jada Pinkett jump on the subway to escape from Tom Cruise.

Collateral 

Blackhat

And like most Mann films (Thief, Heat, Public Enemies, Manhunter) Blackhat starts somewhat abruptly in the midst of some kind of heist with minimal dialogue.

I say all that to say if you love/like/enjoy Mann's previous work, I honestly don't understand why you'd dislike Blackhat so much. It's completely understandable as to why it may not be your cup of tea (don't forget all the weak points I called out earlier) but to so strongly dislike it means that you dislike his overall style in his other films.

I guess I’m a little sensitive to all this because Blackhat almost feels like Michael Mann’s first feature film in close to a decade (without meaning to sound too harsh, Public Enemies has obviously not stood the test of time and has become quite a forgettable film).
Blackhat won’t be in theaters for much longer, which means it’ll be available on DVD/Blu-Ray fairly soon. To those that misunderstood it upon your initial viewing, or avoided it because of all the bad press, maybe find some time in 2015 to get familiar/revisit this film with more of an open mind and allow yourself to be entertained instead of nitpicking at all the accuracy and pointing out what could & couldn't happen in real life.


make sure to listen to Pink Smoke contributor Eric Pfriender's recent podcast on Blackhat

BLACKHAT (NATHANIEL DRAKE CARLSON)

Last night I went to the movies with my fiancee in hopes of finally watching Blackhat. But to my surprise, the screening was cancelled because no one bought tickets to the show before we had the chance to purchase ours. Now...the theater we went too was the kind of theater were patrons are more prone to support the latest bi-monthly Kevin Hart project or a throwaway trashy thriller like The Boy Next Door (the movie my fiancee & I ended up watching). But this still adds to all the negativity surrounding Michael Mann's latest film (almost all the reviews are negative and/or snarky).

Listen, I understand people's skepticism about this film (...kinda). Mann's last few efforts have been either misunderstood (Miami Vice) or problematic (Public Enemies). And Chris "Thor" Hemsworth as a computer hacker? Eh, I get it. But if we can buy the 300lb version of Forest Whitaker as a samurai hitman (Ghost Dog) or a puny framed Ryan Gosling as an ass-kicking baddass (Drive), why can't we accept Hemsworth as a hacker?

So in an effort to try and counter all this negative press, I'm sharing a piece that was originally posted by PINNLAND EMPIRE contributor Nathaniel Drake Carlson on his facebook page a few days ago.

Also make sure to read his recent piece on Mann's The Keep (R.I.P. Edgar Froese)

Enjoy...

(I'll see you all in 10-15 years at a nearby upscale repertory theater when film comment suddenly decides that all of Michael Mann's post-Collateral work is suddenly misunderstood & underappreciated)

As noted earlier I loved this and found it a quite thrilling experience (both thematically and aesthetically/viscerally). In truth, I would have been surprised if I had not given my own predispositions toward what Mann is doing here. Still, I have little doubt that what I appreciated most was much of the reason why many others have been put off. It is or can be an assertively alienating picture, but that's not a mistake or an error in judgment--it's the inevitable result of this narrative mode and the formal experiments Mann is conducting. Because this is most certainly an experimental picture for Mann. It's an attempt to find a way of fusing his early style with his later or more recent one--not so much a middle ground as whole new form and that alone is sufficiently impressive. The fact that he pulls it off so splendidly makes it even more so. He does this I think by very wisely establishing the picture with one mode (that of the later mode, flatter and more muted all around) and then using that as equivalent to a narrative "slow burn" before things explode into his more famous High Mythic style. It's a fascinating choice once you recognize it as it works well to shift between the modes and find a way for them to co-exist. It's hard to imagine how such an attempt at integration or fusion could work otherwise. The late Mann style, with which this movie starts, is really perfected here to a kind of peak point and made me think most of his superb early 00's CBS series, Robbery Homicide Division. These two are closest in accomplishment and this feels like the natural progression or extension of that. In both cases, character and plot as well as visual scheme are pared down and flattened so that there are only the most minimal pronounced elements and all is cast with equal prominence against the same canvas (a not incidental and also apt analogy for the cinematic screen). It is its own kind of iconography to be sure but far from the Baroque expressiveness of earlier days (or the latter half of this picture). The sketchiness of characterization equates to an essentialism that contributes to the mythic as well. It's how Mann has found a more modern and less ostentatious way to communicate those same core principles and ideas that have suffused all of his work. But rather than the immediately palpable thrill of it, it's a slow, evenly paced sinking in, a truly hypnotic form that smuggles across its contents in almost subliminal, subconscious fashion. 

The specifics of Mann's formal compositions always amaze and compel and find an appropriate way to complement his ideas, but the radical nature of the overall formal and narrative accomplishment here matches that. The ultra subdued flattening or evening out subsumes all narrative detail and character detail to the primacy of an undisturbed surface, a steady flow (a template inaugurated with the now famous bravura opening sequence in Ali). All that is recognized as mattering or not mattering exists then as subconscious detail, recognized as primary or ultimate detail. Again, what matters to Mann however is keeping the surface level and all distinct detail functioning on a level below that, a more foundational level. This is also the level, the source, of the archetypes and it's a subtle means of linking the modern to pre-modern as well as establishing a perspective which accommodates both, accommodates all. It's a perspective of ultimate abstraction, the far reaches of where to go with any narrative form. Then of course this steadiness flares out in sudden flashes that are also superficially flattened, the space between objects rendered superfluous, irrelevant. And yet the impact is still felt, transmitted, transmuted.

The shift back to Mann's more famous mode of more obviously heightened expression is gradual and nuanced but it is there and I really do think he's trying to explicitly work out a way to keep both modes relevant and vital. He doesn't ever shift fully out of the new back into the old--it's not as schematic as all that--but he does emphasize the difference in register, in tonality or scale. Those measurements are also abstractions but they're more clearly discerned and related to the objects on screen, the character's experiences as such, the "plot". So you get the extraordinary forced angle image of Hathaway's cell phone majestic and obtuse, not dissimilar to the 2001 monolith. And the very brief image of a skyscraper seen by Viola Davis's character at a pivotal moment. The mythic or iconographic signifiers are more legible as well here within this context though their reality, their truth, has always been with us. It's just more clearly understandable in the latter section of the picture when talk and tech and complex details are swept away by pure motion, pure movement, the expressivity of visceral emotions, all those things that the first half has kept in check and subdued (all this still exists only and ever as streaks of color against the sky, against the screen, and Mann never lets us lose focus on that either). Hemsworth himself is Mann's idealist alter ego writ large and complete with Mannian accent. It's suddenly clear why he is a perfect casting decision as someone more supposedly appropriate superficially would be incomplete for the character as Mann sees him, someone who must represent both intellectual acumen and physically demonstrable strength or sheer presence. This requirement too is a "superficial" one but Mann makes us realize how little is diminished and how much can be enhanced by decisions made on this level, taking all implications fully into account. It's not subtle though but nor is it meant to be. The romantic angle functions in a similar way, shorn of all pretext and reduced to the purity of essence yet again. Interestingly it recalls the Scott Glenn-Alberta Watson relationship in The Keep which was severely truncated with or without Mann's involvement but most definitely functions as mythic component regardless. Here he seems to have embraced that particular super succinct presentation as formally apt.

The narrative itself eventually culminates in a confrontation both climactic and dialed down, our attention diverted as fast work is made of the opposition. And this is fascinating and revealing as well because here yet again we have this most familiar trope of so much contemporary pop cinema, the antagonists revealed as dualist mirror image inverses of one another and yet virtually equal in a an anti-social or sociopathic disconnect (another recent example of this being Fuqua's hugely underrated and similarly unappreciated The Equalizer). The villain in this case is made as minimalist as all the rest--his monetary motives being so familiar as to be almost incidental, a pretext again to something more foundational, at once simpler and more vast, an elemental figuration. He is made distinct by the motive for his violence and his underlying ideology (e.g. "When I close my eyes everything else ceases to exist"). Hathaway, meanwhile, is a figure of similar existentialist solitude but (as with McCall in The Equalizer) capable of being reached by love and motivated by it even if that results in a rush of torrential vengeance or justice doled out with presumed due force. He exists as a solitary figure with all allegiances understood as inevitably transitory ones but he is more interested in removing himself than others, the assertion of an ultimate freedom. So we get the final awesome set piece in which Hathaway attempts just such an assertion, dressed in white against a white airport wall, calling up the emptiness of the canvas with the implied fullness of all possible meaning. It's an appropriately formal and aesthetic act of being blanched out, white upon white, or, to be more precise, a nihilist erasure set against the ultimate. It's the kind of move described beautifully by Ignatiy Vishnevetsky as "so hard-boiled existentialist that it verges on mysticism."

-Nathaniel Drake Carlson (Januray 21, 2015)

BLACK CHARACTERS AREN'T ALWAYS "TOO GOOD", "TOO BAD" OR INVISIBLE...

This piece was brought on by recent articles/essays/opinions given by folks like Nelson George & Bell Hooks (click the names to go to each article).

With all the criticisms of recent films like; Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Django: Unchained & Flight (all understandable especially in the case of the first two) - I genuinely don’t think people are exploring cinema as much as they could these days. I know that sounds a little pompous & presumptuous (and it is) but it’s also true.
People  have enough time on their hands to write 2,000+ word essays, reviews & articles with a negative or disappointed tone (which I totally understand) yet seem to be unaware of the recent films & performances that are breaking stereotypes and they don’t seem to be putting forth the effort to focus on, write about or promote those few recent positive examples. Some of what Nelson George wrote about is nothing new. Just last year The Help was one of the most popular films in this country and other shit like The Green Mile & The Legend Of Bagger Vance exist. It’s no mystery that many non-black filmmakers don’t know how to portray complex black characters.

I still agree with most of what Nelson is saying. He brings up some amazing points about some recent films many black people are blindly in love with when they should be questioning certain aspects of those films.

Personally, I think a lot of Black movie watchers are too accepting and compliant when it comes to our place in film. All it takes is a prominent black actor winning an academy award or Morgan Freeman cast in a shiny supporting role and everything is fine. Everyone got so amped about Django to realize that the most interesting characters in that film - a film about slavery - were white. Let’s also not forgot that the delivery of a lot of the dialogue between the black characters in Django sounded like a cheap 70’s blaxploitation film instead of a western (just another example of Tarantino's childish facination with people of color).
We need extra critical opinions to counter all the other people out there who just blindly accept the sometimes basic and/or ridiculous representation of black people in film. Sometimes it feels like a losing battle which is why I’ve been trying to distance myself from most things race-related in film in order to enjoy the good cinema out there and not go crazy. But no matter how hard I try to ignore it I can’t resist giving my 2 cents. Again - Hooks & George make great points in their writings. Nelson George even went so far as to acknowledge films like Do The Right Thing & Daughters Of The Dust in his recent article but that was the late 80’s/early 90’s. How about some recognition for recent films? They do exist…kinda,

And on a sidenote, I'm getting a little frustrated with films like Do The Right Thing & Daughters Of The Dust being the only examples of important/great/classic works in the Black film canon. There's decades of films ranging from Story Of A Three Day Pass to Chameleon Street.


Anyway, part of the problem is that one or two films like Django comes out and for whatever reason all the problems concerning race are rested on the shoulders of those one or two films. A lot of energy is spent critiquing them and not much energy is left to focus on the few good films out there. Imagine the number of people that read what Nelson George or Bell Hooks have to say. They have some small power to promote good films. All they needed to do was mention the few good recent films out there that counter what they don't like and I'm certain people would have been inclined to explore more.

Candace Evonofski in George Washington (2000)

At the start of the last decade filmmakers like Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch & David Gordon Green crafted some of the most complex, conflicted & imperfect black characters in recent years with misunderstood masterpieces like Bamboozled, Ghost Dog & George Washington (I'm fully aware George Washington is considered a Terrence Malick knock-off and is also a black story told from the perspective of a young white filmmaker but in my opinion the story was handled with care and didnt fetishize the subjects). Bamboozled was filled with nothing but flawed & intriguing characters who wanted to do good but slipped up along the way. As the movie progressed we saw the dark side of some characters who seemed non-threatening at first. Pierre De La Croix (Damon Wayans) set out to prove how networks executives were wrong in their understanding of black characters on television but eventually turned in to one of them. At the start of the film Sloan (Jada Pinkett) was a pushover secretary who took orders from a bossy De La Croix but by the end of the film she kills him. Womack (Tommy Davidson) was only motivated by money and would essentially do anything to be on television (like performing in black face) but by the end of the film he realized he was wrong and couldn’t do it anymore (Davidson's performance is also one of the greatest supporting roles in the last 20 years). Mos Def's character, who was all afro centric & pro-black, ended up murdering a fellow black man (Savion Glover) at the end of the film.

Jarmusch's Ghost Dog is probably one of the best examples of a complex Black character even if it is starting to become a bit dated. Although he's a peaceful, meditative & almost teddy bear-like "protagonist", he's still a cold blooded assassin who kills without remorse (on some level he’s just as much of a bad guy as the people he kills). One minute he's befriending a young girl on a park bench and the next minute he's murdering a house full of people. Also, for someone who's clearly pro-black and full of racial pride (it’s subtle in the film, but he is), Ghost Dog takes orders from a white person who eventually kills him in the end.

Viola Davis in Solaris (2002)

Viola Davis, whose presence as a black woman in the world of science fiction alone is rare, gave an interesting performance in Soderbergh’s remake of Solaris (2002) as a scientist struggling with her sanity. A few years later Mos Def portrayed an overzealous police officer who crosses the line and essentially stalks a pedophile ex-convict in The Woodsman (2004). His character represents a question of morality & ethics. Sure he's going above and beyond his call of duty by checking in on Kevin Bacon's character because he's convinced he'll molest another child but he's also breaking the law by harassing Bacon's character as he has yet to actually do anything wrong since being released from prison. Mos Def's character is somewhat of a slimy snake but a good guy at the same time. What followed Mos Def's performance in The Woodsman was a bit of a "mini explosion"...

Between 2005 & 2006 we saw quite a few incredibly underrated performances from black actors that countered some of what George Nelson & Bell Hooks have issues with in the form of Forest Whitaker (Mary), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children Of Men), Danso Gordon (Dear Wendy), Danny Glover & Issach DeBankole (Manderlay) and Anthony Mackie (Half Nelson). All of these actors played characters who were either "bad" but had some kind of charm or good quality or they teetered between being good & bad...

Anthony Mackie in Half Nelson (2006)

While all the actors listed above were excellent complicated, conflicted black characters, Anthony Mackie & Forest Whitaker were a cut above the rest yet were overshadowed by their co-stars (in Mackie's case) or by another film (The Last King Of Scotland came out the same year as Mary). I can’t praise Anthony Mackie's performance as Frank in Half Nelson enough. At the end of the day he was a "bad guy". He was a drug dealer and was responsible for the incarceration of the main character’s brother. He was a bit of a snake. But he was kind of a likeable snake. He had a genuine love for Andrea (Shareeka Epps) and tried to look out for her on some level. He had a charm that made you forget his bad side. Sure on some level he perpetuated the stereotype of the black drug dealer but what was kinda clever was that we never actually saw him dealing drugs or sitting around a bunch of uncut packs of heroine like typical characters found in films like Menace To Society or New Jack City.

As for Forest Whitaker’s performance in Mary, I don’t want to repeat myself too much so you can read about it in the first section of my review from a few months ago.

Charles Parnell in Pariah (2011)

Recent works like Ballast (which I wrote about on here a few months ago as well) gave a more realistic portrayal of depression among African Americans. It also paints characters that are overall good but have some dysfunctional qualities that they need to work on. 
But next Anthony Mackie in Half Nelson, no other recent portrayal of a complex, realistic, imperfect black character comes close to Charles Parnell in Pariah. A lot has been said about Adepero Oduye's breakout role as "Alike" but Charles Parnell's performance as Alike's father deserves just as much praise in my opinion. Here's a guy who's not only in denial about his daughter's sexuality, but is a bit homophobic, kind of an asshole, not around as much as a father should be, and clueless as to what’s going on in his daughter's life. But at the end of the day he is a good person and does care about his Alike. 
Normally it’s the mother character that's supposed to give the unconditional support. Pariah did the opposite. It’s the bible thumping mother who turns her back on Alike and Parnell is the supportive parent in the end. This performance counters all the negative criticism that the father character in Beasts Of The Southern Wild received. Pariah may not have gotten any academy award nominations like Beasts Of The Southern but both films are still on the same plateau (lets be honest). So for all the critics out there who placed everything concerning the portrayal of the "bad dysfunctional black father" on the shoulders of that one performance in Beasts Of The Southern Wild, maybe it would have helped if you mentioned that there was an equally popular film out there with a more realistic father character released less than a year ago.

At the end of the day I'm sick of people who clearly only watch 5-10 movies a year give their generalized opinion on cinema on a large platform.

Manderlay (2005)

Although Von Trier's Manderlay was a bit of a mess and kind of proves George's point about some white filmmakers (European white filmmaker in this case) not being able to understanding certain things concerning black people, Danny Glover's role as the deceptive house slave was far more interesting than Samuel L. Jackson in Django,

I know most of the examples I gave are independent or art house but the accessibility of indie & art house films (like Beasts Of The Southern Wild) is much easier to come by today then they were 20 years ago. Mainstream films & indie films are less segregated so the excuse that some of the films & performances I wrote about aren’t easy to come by doesn’t really fly anymore.

The films & characters that some African Americans act like don’t exist actually DO in fact exist on both an independent & mainstream level (yes, in a very small numbers, but they still exist). Instead of focusing so much on the negative, which does outweigh the positive, maybe we can focus on the few good examples of complex, unique, imperfect & interesting black characters as something to learn from. By only focusing on the negative (which is NEVER gonna go away) we're indirectly insulting & ignoring actors like Anthony Mackie, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Forest Whitaker & more who gave great & unique performances that don’t come around too often. That was my main problem with Nelson George's article. Instead of just complaining, maybe people like George, Hooks and other prominent voices can give solutions along with their criticism. Maybe readers would be more inclined to discover or revisit certain films and possibly some young aspiring filmmakers (of any race) would have good references to build from. I’m not satisfied in any way with the overall portrayal of black people in film (probably never will be fully satisfied). Of course there needs to be better crafted black characters in film but let’s not act like they don’t exist at all.

BLACK WOMEN IN INDEPENDENT FILM IN 2011 (Dark Girls, Pariah & The Black Power Mixtape)

'Pariah' (2011)

I don't wanna get carried away and make a crazy statement like: "There was an EXPLOSION of black cinema in 2011" (something I'm sure a lot of people would be quick to say) but at the same time, there was enough to make a small dent, which is better than nothing (Pariah, Black Power Mixtape & Dark Girls). Most of these films were centered around a demographic that often gets overlooked and is constantly misunderstood & misrepresented on the big screen: Black Women. I imagine some of you may be thinking; "But Marcus, what about The Help?." In my opinion, even though I love Viola Davis, the whole vibe of The Help comes off like another Drivin' Miss Daisy to me (just my opinion). It's a confusing mixture of humor, drama & oversimplified racism. From the poster, to the trailer, which came off somewhat "upbeat", it gives off this vibe as if to say: "Oh Boy that segregation sure was a doozy! Ah boy, being black in the 1950's sure was wacky, wasn't it?" I'm honestly amazed (and VERY confused) at the amount of positive reviews and acclaim The Help has been getting. But at the same time I get it. It makes (some) white people feel good about themselves and (most) black people will blindly support anything "black" without putting too much thought in to it (there, I said it). As I watched Octavia Spencer win an academy award the other night it almost made me cringe as everyone in attendance gave her a standing ovation.

Precious was another recently praised film that also confused me. It brought up all these emotions and feelings that honestly make me feel like I'm alone in this world sometimes. Upon receiving an article from my father about how Hollywood likes dysfunctional black characters (which is kind of true), stemming from Mo'nique's academy award win for best supporting actress in 2010, I had this to say (you may wanna read this article below before going any further):

"Hollywood Likes Dysfunctional Black Characters"

And now read how my simple email response to my father slowly turned in to an essay/rant hybrid...

the person who wrote this article doesn't completely know what they're talking about.

for example:

"Okay, so we all know that Mo'Nique deserved the best supporting actress Oscar she won this past Sunday. Her performance in "Precious" was brilliant, and there’s no way I’m going to diss my homegirl"

NO! her performance wasn't "brilliant". shes not even a good actor. its just a novelty. a comedic personality plays a serious role for the first time, and people automatically jump all over it. Actually, id like someone to point out the difference between Mo'nique's character in precious and the actress who played Ice Cube's mother in Boyz N' The Hood. Where's her academy award?? Plus, the span between those two characters is almost 20 years. that's proof right there that black film isn't really moving forward. in fact its come full circle. 20 years later, and the same angry, single, bad black mother character is still being portrayed (and praised).

another example that the person writing this article doesn't know what they're talking about:

"Of the six black Oscar winners since 2002, only Morgan Freeman and Jamie Foxx played African-Americans who were even close to normal."

no way. he's talking about morgan freeman's oscar win for "million dollar baby". its like black people don't even realize that in a pivotal scene in million dollar baby, morgan freeman's character beat up a black person to defend a white person...the same white person who called him a "nigger" at the beginning of the movie. But he's morgan freeman, so no one (especially black people) can criticize him, because hes the wise sounding, smooth talking, old black guy. but i see through that. I'm not fooled. how many role's has morgan freeman played the helpful black sidekick to the white lead? or how many times has he played the wise, mysterious black person who always helps the lead white character (sometimes sacrificing his own life)? plenty.
Black people aren't critical enough if you ask me. we accept things way too easily. its like black people are saying; "did a black person just win some shiny trophy?? well, I'm gonna automatically support that person and the movie, and not even take the time to break down what the movie is about, or break down the performance of the character." and the few times a black person does criticize negative black roles, the black community pulls that "why do black people always have to tear down other black people?" crap. i don't wanna hear that shit. and white people don't want to say anything about negative black roles, because their scared someone is gonna pull the race card.
to say Hollywood likes dysfunctional black characters is kinda vague, because how many white actors have been nominated or won oscars and other various awards for playing dysfunctional characters? plenty. There's bigger issues concerning black people in film today

-Marcus

Now here we are two years later and not much has changed. A lot of the things I said in that email response above still apply today. I'm sorry (actually I'm not sorry) but characters like Tyler Perry's "Madea" (which looks like it wont be going away any time soon) and Mo'Nique's performance in 'Precious' have a negative effect on the image of black women. And I'm not denying that Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis didn't give great performances in The Help, but at the same time, I'm done with movies like that. Is it possible to make a film showing black women not just in a positive light (because that's a little vague vague), but show how beautiful, attractive, complex and talented they are? Thanks to recent films like Pariah, Dark Girls (which has yet to be released) and The Black Power Mixtape (which is starting to develop quite a lil' cult following), things are lookin' up!

PARIAH

At the very end of Pariah, a coming of age tale about a New York teen coming to grips with being a lesbian, I couldn't help but worry that newcomer; Adepero Oduye (who gave an AMAZING performance in her first starring role) might turn in to another Shareeka Epps - another young black actress who gave an equally commanding & original performance in Half Nelson, but has yet to be seen in much since (which was over 5 years ago). Sure, there may be factors as to why we haven't seen her in many other films (maybe she just didn't want to act that much or maybe she wanted to focus on school give her age). But I tend to lean towards whats probably the real reason - the American movie industry is pretty messed. Generally speaking, American filmmakers don't seem to know how to portray black female characters that don't look a certain way. I mean really, stop and ask yourself why Nona Gaye (Ali), Naomie Harris (Miami Vice), China Shavers (Beginners) and even Nia Long (who's clearly found the fountain of youth) don't turn up in more films in starring roles.Look at European actresses who have made the transition in to mainstream/American studio films like Juliette Binoche, Marian Cotillard and Audrey Tatou. How come beautiful black actresses based out of France like Aissa Maiga (Bamako, Russian Dolls) or Mati Diop (35 Shots Of Rum) haven't made the same transisiton? Surely acting ability or beauty isn't the question. I know Kerry Washington has been holding it down, but she cant do it all by herself. What makes Kirsten Dunst, Natalie Portman, Cameron Diaz or Emma Stone more attractive or more appealing than the aforementioned black actresses? I mean, I know we all know the real reason, but I'm just sayin'...
At the moment things are looking up for Adepero Oduye. At the golden globes Meryl Streep gave her a shout out in her acceptance speech and then overnight she got signed to a talent agency. Lets see how the film industry can use her.
In Pariah we follow "Alike"; a Brooklyn teen who isn't exactly in the closet, but isn't exactly openly gay either. She almost leads a double life. When she's home or around her parents (a religious mother who senses that Alike is gay, and tries to "fix" her; and a father, also in denial about his daughter's sexual orientation, although slightly more caring) she tries to dress and act more feminine. When she's not at home or around her parents she dresses more "boyish", hangs out with one of her only (also gay) friends and frequents a popular gay club. As the film progresses things kinda start to spiral out of control for Alike and she learns things about herself and the people around her which forces her to grow up and mature faster than others her age. Pariah walks the same path as films like Mouchette, Match Factory Girl & Welcome To The Dollhouse (Adepero Oduye's performance was also reminiscent of Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple).

THE BLACK POWER MIXTAPE

Its obvious that the Swedish documentary The Black Power Mixtape wasn't JUST about Angela Davis, but at the same time she was (literally) the poster child for the film. Next to the section that focused on Stokely Carmichael, the parts on Angela Davis are probably the most memorable. I've always been intrigued by Davis and this documentary just heightened that intrigue. From her signature afro right down to the way she carries herself in interviews, she's one of a kind. It makes me wonder why more films don't focus on her. Its a sad state of affairs when there's more of a demand for a Sarah Palin biopic then there is for one on Angela Davis (or even someone like Assata Shakur for that matter). The Black Power Mixtape is a documentary made out of hours of edited footage taken by Swedish filmmakers in the 1960's & 1970's who went to Oakland and Harlem to document the Black Power movement for the Swedish news. The doc features great archival footage of speeches and interviews from many prominent black civil rights figures and revolutionaries (Davis, Carmichael, Bobby Seale, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, Eldridge Cleaver, etc) with up to date interviews and voice-over commentary from artists like Erykah Badu, Talib Kweli & Questlove. This documentary has structure but its also chaotic and unstructured at the same time (if that makes any sense) which is what I love about it so much.
I think the most unique thing about the making of this film is that even though its captured through the eyes of white Europeans, it still doesn't objectify or misrepresent black people in any way. But at the same time I shouldn't be all that surprised given that so many modern European directors like; Michael Haneke (Code Unknown & Cache), Nicolas Provost (The Invader) and Claire Denis (No Fear, No Die & 35 Shots Of Rum) seem to be the main directors making most of the progressive films concerning black people and race issues today.

DARK GIRLS

Bill Duke is similar to Tom Noonan. As an actor he's mostly known for stuff like Predator & Commando (similar to how as an actor Noonan is mostly know for Monster Squad & The Last Action Hero) but as a director Duke focuses on more personal stories (like Tom Noonan's directorial debut; What Happened Was..., which might be one of the most personal & real stories to ever be put on the big screen in the last 25 years). Duke's latest documentary; Dark Girls addresses real issues concerning black women and could have easily been twice as long. When I caught this at Toronto it was nice to see a packed theater. When you're like me and go to the regular movie theaters I go too (Anthology Film Archives, IFC center, Film Forum, etc), you're use to being one of the only black people there (even at screenings of films that speak directly to black people).

Dark Girls is a complex film about the racism, struggles & pressure black women face all over the world. Duke focuses on internal racism inside of the black community (black men not being attracted to black women because their too dark, black women being encouraged by their family to be with someone lighter or white so they don't have dark kids, etc), and he interviews everyone from actresses like Viola Davis to "every day" women. Certain aspects of the documentary were summarized and wrapped up a little too nicely for my taste, but at the end of the day this documentary dealt with issues that other films haven't so its a success in my book.

SOLARIS: MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE

RELAX, FILM SNOBS! Just hear me out. Oh...before we go any further, i want you all to know that i DON'T think the 2002 version is better than Tarkovsky's (although cliff martinez's soundtrack for soderbergh's solaris is definitely better). Hopefully by now my previous entries on Miami Vice and Fear X have made you change your minds on those movies, and you're ready to move on to this one. Like many people, when the steven soderbergh remake of the classic 70's sci-fi film was released almost 10 years ago, i blindly hated it. I did go to see it, but i went in wanting to hate the movie from the get-go. It never stood a chance. For the most part, remakes are not only bad, but totally uncalled for. Some may say that this remake wasn't necessary, but at the same time, i feel like this is something soderbergh felt he really needed to do. He wanted to share a great movie with a new generation. A mostly younger generation of Americans who wouldn't have the patience to sit through the Tarkovsky version (as sad as that may be). Yes, he made his version half the length of the original, focused more on the love story aspect of solaris, removed & added some things, but had he tried to recreate every shot and have his actors redeliver every single line from the 1972 script, people would've hated that too (remember gus van sant's 'psycho'??). He must have known he was getting in to a lose/lose situation. A big part of people's hatred for remakes comes from that belief that someone is trying to capitalize or make a quick buck off of a foreign or classic movie, because Americans are too lazy to read subtitles and need actors they can recognize. Some of that IS actually true, but in steven soderbergh's case with solaris...gimme a break. By the time he got around to making this, he had already won a palme d'or and an academy award. Had he wanted to capitalize or make a quick buck off of something, surely he was smart enough to know that remaking a Russian arthouse film for the A.D.D. American movie audience wasn't going to get the job done.
Steven Soderbergh is quite the film buff (i learned this from listening to his commentary tracks on various dvd's). 'Solaris' is a film that he clearly loves. Now, and I'm speaking to my fellow movie nerds out there, have you ever had those movies that you love so much that you want to share with other people, and when you finally do, they hate it? I've had that happen to me plenty of times. You know, you loan a friend a movie or recommend something off of netflix, hoping they'll love it as much as you, and upon returning your dvd or reporting back what they thought about the movie, they hated it. Its a pretty shitty feeling. I imagine that's how Steven Soderbergh felt about solaris. I think he knew it needed to be updated (ok, maybe it didn't NEED to be updaed). I'm pretty sure he could sense that one of the reasons Tarkovsky's classic film wouldn't gain much of a new or young audience was due to the constant change and advancement of technology within science fiction films that movie audiences are so use to these days (and there's been a HUGE change between 1972 and 2002). That shouldn't be the sole reason to remake a movie (its not like the special effects and science fiction elements of the 1972 solaris are bad or dated), but at the same time, I don't really think it can be argued that the updated technology (courtesy of James Cameron, who produced the movie) in Soderbergh's remake looks amazing.

a shot of the planet solaris from the 1972 film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the special effect, but...

at the same time, with recent technology, we get shots and scenes like this which look beautiful. In my opinion, you get even more of a feeling that the planet of solaris is one giant being/lifeform in the 2002 version over the 1972 version (sorry just my opinion). Solaris in the 2002 remake...

A shot of inside the space station in the 1972 version...

The space station on solaris in the 2002 remake (soderbergh kept the basic layout and design, but gave it a more modern look and less colorful/2001 a space odyssy-ish)...

In the last decade, people have finally started to (SLOWLY) come around and accept the fact that not only is the 2002 solaris remake "not bad", but its actually great. Really, what can you honestly say (for those of you who have ACTUALLY seen it) about the solaris remake that's bad. Surely not the acting. Especially from George Clooney. Not for nothing, this is one of those few recent George Clooney films that wasn't designed around his smug awesomeness showing him getting out of tight situations all while looking as cool as possible (see the ocean's movies, out of sight or o brother where art thou for further examples of this. not that some of those movies aren't bad, but still...). Recently Clooney has slowly been breaking that stereotype and appearing in films like; 'The American' and 'Syriana', where he actually dies in the end (oops, sorry). Clooney gives a damn good performance in 'Solaris' in the title role as psychiatrist; Chris Kelvin. A man dealing with the loss of his wife, who at the same time has to go in to space to investigate the mysterious goings-on of a space crew that wont return to earth. As corny as this sounds, in some scenes you can see the angst all over Clooney's face at many crucial scenes in the film. And the chemistry between Clooney and Natsasha Mcelhone (the female lead) is great. Along with being a "science fiction" film, Solaris is also a love story. Yes, its an unconventional love story, but still... You need chemistry in a love story, and there's plenty of it in solaris. Soderbergh shows this chemistry by doing something slightly different with his version. We see a lot more flashbacks and learn how the two lovers met, fell in love and what eventually drove them apart. Also, the supporting cast, specifically Viola Davis, does an amazing job as well. There are some key scenes that highlight Davis's performance; her characters introduction in the film and the scene when she's trying to convince Kelvin that his wife isn't real. Ulrich Tukur gives an eerie and sad performance as Clooney's friend 'Gibarian', one of the most notable characters from the original. Jeremy Davies however, does get a little annoying after a while because it feels like he's trying way too hard to be the weird guy. Some of his mannerisms and the way he delivers certain lines seem kinda forced. But with that performance aside, which still isn't even that bad, the acting in solaris is great. And lets not forget about the jazzy editing, which is highlighted in the "first sleep" sequence. Soderbergh made this during the period when he was experimenting the most with editing, and everything he did seemed to come out so great (like in the limey and out of sight).

Kelvin & Hari in 1972

Kelvin & Rheya in 2002 (not sure why soderbergh changed the name of the female lead, but whatever) 

"Gibarian" from the 1972 version, warning the title character about the dangers of solaris and the strange effect it has on people who stay on the planet for too long.

"Gibarian" in the 2002 Solaris 

Now, the ONE thing i can say that soderbergh's solaris has over Tarkovsky's is the soundtrack (as i said earlier). This isn't even up for debate. Cliff Martinez, who's done the music for quite a few soderbergh films (traffic, king of the hill, sex lies & videotape), made one of the greatest soundtracks of all time in my opinion. The music enhances the film so much its ridiculous. Its probably the films strongest attribute. There's just something perfectly beautiful, atmospheric, haunting and rhythmic about it. I cant say enough good things about the music. So...great music, great performances, great special effects (for a movie like solaris, that does matter) and soderbergh did manage to keep the basic plot and overall "spirit" of solaris. With that being said, i ask you all to give it another chance. I did, and now its become one of my favorite rediscoveries. Its a beautiful film to watch.
The next "misunderstood masterpiece" I'll be exploring will be either; ghost dog or trouble every day (all are films i mentioned in my previous misunderstood masterpiece: 'fear x'). I'll do both eventually, but I'm not sure which one I'll do first.