' ' Cinema Romantico: January 2024

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Afire


Beware all ye who enter Christian Petzold’s cunning German drama “Afire” in search of a likable protagonist; Leon (Thomas Schubert) is anything but. He’s a novelist, for God’s sake, one trying to put the finishing touches on his second book, a book called “Ham Sandwich,” for God’s sake, and who has tagged along with his friend Felix (Langston Uibel) on a retreat to the country to do just that. As played by Schubert and costumed by Katharina Ost, Leon is a lumpy, grumpy square, walking, talking indigestion, truly bringing the word dyspeptic to life, his resemblance to James Corden turning that try-hard inside-out into a never-really-try-at-all, or something. Mostly, Leon masquerades like he’s working, and gets huffy with Felix when he asks Leon to go along to the beach because it will drag him away from the work he is pretending to do, and gets even huffier with their unexpected third house guest Nadja (Paula Beer) keeping them up all hours of the night because she’s having, shall we say, a bit too much fun in the next room. Rather than confront her, or engage with her, he spies on her, and he then he spies on Felix, too, and an acquaintance (Enno Trebs) with whom Felix makes fast friends, peeping on life, evoked in Petzold’s keen point-of-view shots and underlined in Schubert’s air and expressions of jealousy and petulance. 

It’s an arty and sometimes electric manifestation of the observation in Neil Simon’s “Biloxi Blues” about existing merely as a witness, standing around watching, refusing to get in the middle of it, and which becomes all the more dire by virtue of a raging forest fire that gradually encircles them; for all intents and purposes, Felix is standing around watching the world burn. Leon, however, almost proves too prickly, making it difficult to believe he and Felix would be friends in the first place, or that Nadja would take such interest in him, flaws that can be written off by the deliberately questionable POV only up to a point. And if the conclusion initially seems to traffic in the perpetual myth that fiction is best culled from real life, ultimately it suggests something closer to a writer writing his way into real life, and which might have resonated with greater depth of feeling had the surrounding characters left a mark. 

Monday, January 29, 2024

Poor Things


In writing about “Shakespeare in Love” years ago for Premiere Magazine (in an essay collected in his book The Big Picture), and more specifically, writing about Gwyneth Paltrow’s Oscar-winning turn in the same movie, William Goldman noted that it was a great part: after all, she got to play a girl and a boy. That observation returned to me watching Emma Stone in director Yorgos Lanthimos’s “Poor Things” as a kind of updated version of Frankenstein’s monster, Victoria Blessington turned Bella Baxter, a woman who jumps to her death as the movie opens only to be brought back to life by Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) who she might call God but who proves less mad than sweetly, paternally eccentric. There is one catch though - Bella is resurrected by way of a brain belonging to an infant, meaning that despite being a grown woman, cognitively she is starting from scratch. That means Stone gets to play an adult and a toddler but all rolled up into one, yielding a feat of oddball physicality, an actor’s dream, a little like Vincent D’Onofrio in “Men in Black” but with the veneer of prestige drama. And though Stone is superb, limbs flailing, arms akimbo, a performance as Elaine Benes’s dance, she’s superb in so far as the role goes, ultimately limited by the movie she’s in.

Because “Poor Things” also wants to turn its Frankenstein monster story into one of female liberation as Bella eventually leaves her weirdly moving makeshift family behind to see the world with the help of a scurrilous attorney played by Mark Ruffalo with the air of a patrician pirate. If you have seen a previous Yorgo Lanthimos movie, it might not surprise you to learn that this liberation takes a decidedly lewd turn, and why not, that’s all part of it, sexual liberation. But the longer “Poor Things” goes, the clearer it becomes that sexual liberation is virtually all it is interested in, as intellectual and epicurean pursuits are blithely mentioned but never really explored nor followed up on. What’s more, Bella’s interiority winds up feeling all the more superficial contrasted against the vitality of the exterior world rendered by so many grand visual effects and production design. Indeed, Lanthimos’s camera still feels as leering and sneaky as ever, in those patented fisheye shots and voyeuristic angles, constricting the character, compromising her freedom, still just a rat in a director’s cage.

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Some Drivel On...the Oscar Nominations

Oscar nominations, so many ripples in the rain.

So, how’s it going? The new membership of the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, I mean, which after deserved blowback in recent years has embraced diversity and youth while still retaining enough outmodedness to make the spirit of the Cocoanut Grove proud: after all, Billie Eilish and Leonard Maltin are Academy members now! And you can see this in the nominations for the 96th Academy Awards, unveiled yesterday, which were as vexing as they were satisfying (and can all be found here), especially where Best Picture was concerned, utilizing all ten slots to encompass a wide spectrum. If there was anything that decidedly wasn’t a surprise, it’s that my Top 5 Favorite Movies of the year earned a total of zero nominations, including “Fallen Leaves,” which I might have thought had a chance, for something, maybe. Eh, whatever. You can stream it on Mubi; watch it anyway; who cares; watch the other Aki Kaurismäki movies on Criterion; watch a middling thriller! 

2024 was defined in so many ways by the Barbenheimer phenomenon and continued apace in the nominations, though if Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” still leads both the global and domestic box office sweepstakes, Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” won in terms of Academy Award nods with 13 to 8. (Yorgos Lanthimos’s “Poor Things,” in fact, earned 3 more nods than “Barbie,” further evidence of the old William Goldman line about nobody knowing anything.) That baker’s dozen includes not only the big uns like Best Picture and Best Director and Best Actor for Cillian Murphy, but Best Score and Best Sound, where even an “Oppenheimer” agnostic such as me would confess to its excellence. It even dragged Emily Blunt to a Best Supporting Actress nod, an incredible performer for whom this blog has repeatedly stanned, so don’t come for us (me), but who, through no real fault of her own, is an acting non-entity in her nominated role. Penélope Cruz in “Ferrari” would have eaten her lunch.

“Barbie’s” haul was mostly down along the production line, which is all richly deserved, even as its unlikely omissions in a couple top line categories will provide unwanted ammunition to the freshmen economics students claiming “Barbie” is doing capitalism rather than being art. What’s more, Ryan Gosling earned a Supporting Actor nod (yay!) while Margot Robbie was, well, let’s avoid the word snubbed, shall we, and say, laughably overlooked, as if the Academy toed the Pop Culture Company line that Gosling stole the movie even while Robbie (her turn in “Barbie” in conjunction with her cameo in “Asteroid City” made her this useless blog’s Performer of the Year) was, in fact, making the whole movie right in front of their face with her face. And though America Ferrera got a Supporting Actress nod, undoubtedly because she recited the Big Monologue, Gerwig herself was left out of the Best Director race, all the more remarkable because she was also left out of the Best Director race for “Little Women” (2019) but wasn’t for “Ladybird” (2015) for which she deserved a Direction nomination least. Sigh. It’s complicated. She knows.


Though I would have put Sofia Coppola number one on my ballot for “Priscilla,” Gerwig was more deserving than Lanthimos for “Poor Things,” a movie which I will write about, eventually, and where I thought the direction ultimately interfered more than enhanced. As it is, a woman was nominated, Justine Triet for the French drama “Anatomy of a Fall,” and Jonathan Glazer was nominated too, for “The Zone Interest,” and because of that, it’s hard not to be a little happy. These are people, like their fellow nominee Martin Scorsese for “Killers of the Flower Moon,” who try to make films, not movies, to paraphrase Kit Ramsey, whether they work or not, for you, or for me, or for anyone else. Anyway, that category is Christopher Nolan’s to lose, just as “Oppenheimer” is certainly the favorite for Best Picture, leaving me to dream of Oprah returning to present it so she can modify her Golden Globes envelope-opening from “Oppenheimerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!” to “the Father of the Atomic Boooooooooooomb!”)  

In terms of the acting categories, the biggest news was Lily Gladstone becoming the first woman of Native American descent to be nominated for an Oscar with “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Jeffrey Wright earning his first Oscar nomination as Best Actor in “American Fiction.” Paul Giamatti, meanwhile, earned his first Best Actor nomination in “The Holdovers.” And though I had problems with the latter, I didn’t have a problem with Giamatti, and even if I did, I don’t think I’d care. It should be His Time; his inexorable march to the podium in March would be well deserved and overdue, and he might be Hollywood’s most unwittingly equipped to go through the next six weeks without letting the stress affect him. In fact, in our era, where these races are monitored so closely and dished about so incessantly there are no longer any real surprises, let’s close this recap by ranking the coronation levels for our probable acting winners.


1. Robert Downey Jr., Best Supporting Actor for “Oppenheimer.” LEVEL: Reagan over Mondale. 
2. Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Best Supporting Actress for “The Holdovers.” LEVEL: LBJ over Goldwater.
3. Lily Gladstone, Best Actress for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” LEVEL: Clinton over Bush.
4. Paul Giamatti, Best Actor for “The Holdovers.” LEVEL: Obama over Romney. 

Monday, January 22, 2024

Top 10 Movies of 2023

My favorite moment at the recent Emmy Awards was not anything that happened during the Emmy Awards themselves. No, it happened seconds before the Emmy Awards began, in the traditional last-ditch red-carpet interview, in this case with Natasha Lyonne, nominated for Comedy Series Lead Actress for “Poker Face.” The interviewer asked for Lyonne’s favorite television shows to which Lyonne, at the ceremony to honor achievement in television, remember, said she didn’t really watch much TV, preferring old Hollywood movies. Then she looked right into the camera, and as if suddenly being clued into her wavelength, the cameraperson zoomed in on Lyonne, right into her close-up, who then said, simply, “Cinema.” I feel like I often want to cosmically high-five Natasha Lyonne, so let’s say, in that moment I wanted to cosmically double high-five her.

Cinema.

For several months I had planned, I really had, to include the “Fishes” episode of the comedy-drama Hulu television series “The Bear” in my Top 10 movies of the year. Not just to stir the pot but because it was really that high in quality, and because in running six minutes over an hour, coming across self-contained, and playing like the unofficial sequel to “The House of Yes” (1997) it felt akin to a movie. In recent years, it would have made the cut. In this one, it didn’t. I had to sacrifice the bit. 

The last proper year-end Top 10 on Cinema Romantico was 2019, before the world partially ended. I concocted a year-end Top 10 in 2020, but that was a list tailored emphatically to 2020, untraditional, anything goes; more than half the ten weren’t even from 2020. The last two years, in 2021 and 2022, by the close of December, I felt mentally bankrupt, unable, or maybe just unwilling, to go through the exercise of the Top 10, although that also partially stemmed from feeling like I just hadn’t seen enough movies, and that not enough movies were worthy of a year-end list. In 2023, though, I did, both see enough movies and think enough worthy of a list, meaning one was in order. 

True, the industry is still in a state of flux, and still in the middle of shaping itself, I think, into something we will not be sure of until it’s already here, and the effects of the necessary SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes are still waiting to be felt where release dates are concerned. But if nothing else, where the movies themselves, and only the movies themselves, were concerned, 2023 was alright. (Click on the title to read the full review.)

Top 10 Movies of 2023

10. The Adults, Dustin Guy Defa

All the world’s a stage, with an indie bent.

9. Killers of the Flower Moon, Martin Scorsese

America as a mafia state. 

8. Showing Up, Kelly Reichardt

An indelible, and thorny, ode to the struggle of making art.

7. Barbie, Greta Gerwig

Would that all blockbusters were this creative, and this joyful, and this alive. 

6. Asteroid City, Wes Anderson

Artifice and emotion, indivisible. 

5. Ferrari, Michael Mann

“The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” for the Antonioni crowd, or something.

4. Priscilla, Sofia Coppola

A 60s love song gone wrong. 

3. Reality, Tina Satter

It not only bends reality, ahem, back in on itself by literally transcribing it (the movie is culled entirely from the interrogation transcript of Reality Winner), it is a formal triumph, visually invigorating despite the limited location, and with two turns by Sydney Sweeney and Josh Hamilton that deserve to be mentioned among the best of the year.

2. Full Time, Éric Gravel 

In which the ingredients of everyday life are all you need for a, quote-unquote, pulse-pounding thriller.

1. Fallen Leaves, Aki Kaurismäki 

Transcribing the human condition to screen. Perhaps it’s dangerous, or just foolish, to deem any work of art as perfect, so I dunno, let’s just say this one never seems to step wrong.

Friday, January 19, 2024

2023 Random Awards

As always, her eminence Nicole Kidman is here to present Cinema Romantico's annual awards of cinematic randomness.

Line of the Year: “I don’t play him as an alien, actually. I play him as a metaphor. That’s my interpretation.” - Jeff Goldblum, “Asteroid City”

Best Terminology of the Year: Mojo Dojo Casa House, “Barbie” 

Best Monologue of the Year: Ayo Edebiri, Bottoms. As a high school senior unlucky in love, Edebiri brings the house down in a wild, wandering, sixty-second monologue comically embodying that singular sense of teenage defeatism in which she envisions her whole life as being over before it has even truly begun. 

Best Dog: Fallen Leaves. A canine that is not a plot device, nor one to engender cheap sentimentality, but a manifestation of the idea that dogs are balms for our broken spirits. (Honorable Mention: the dog in “Showing Up” demonstrating how dogs always manage to lie down in exactly the wrong spot, and how we don’t really mind.)


Best Shot: Priscilla. I can’t seem to source the full image, which is unfortunate, but even half the image will do, with Elvis Presley (Jacob Elordi) himself leaning over the teenage Priscilla (Cailee Spaeny) with one arm pressed up against the wall, like the wall is her high school locker, and transforming a kind of model image of youthful romantic reverie into a brewing nightmare. 

The Annual Ruffalo Award (presented to the best unnoticed performance in a movie): Summer Joy Campbell, Bottoms. Ayo Edebiri is hilarious, so is Rachel Sennott, and Ruby Cruz steals the movie, really, but it is Joy Campbell who best harnesses director Emma Seligman’s penchant for eye-level shots by rendering them a window into her scorned soul. (Honorable Mention: Indira Varma & Charles Parnell turning information drops in “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” into gleeful art.)

The Annual Elevator Killer Award (presented to the best cameo in a movie): Margot Robbie, Asteroid City. The most gasp-inducing moment in a movie that is a play as a television documentary is when all three of these layers suddenly give way to a fourth layer, a scene on a balcony, or two balconies, that is, one of which Robbie’s character steps out onto as she becomes nothing less than the living, breathing embodiment of the old writerly adage to Kill Your Darlings. 

The Annual Yosemite Sam Award (presented to the best Looney Tune in a movie): Margot Robbie, Barbie. Emma Stone is garnering considerable acclaim for the physical expressiveness of her turn in “Poor Things,” and it’s well deserved, but Robbie’s physical expressiveness as the living fashion doll was equally exemplary, never more than the scene when her character is fleeing the Mattel Execs. Even now I feel as if I can’t hope to express what Robbie does except to say that without the aid of effects, she seems to animate herself, her arms and legs moving with an exaggerated fluidity that improbably comes across independent of her own body. 


The Annual Buck C. Turgidson Award (presented to the best facial expressions in a movie): Michelle Williams, Showing Up. It’s not just one facial expression, even if a few of the withering glares she affixes Maryann Plunkett, playing her character’s mother slash boss, because who wants to work with their parental figure, are side-splitting, but all the facial expressions. Because this performance - this movie - is made from Williams’s facial expressions, a working, or maybe just struggling, artist appraising life all around her. 

The Annual When Strangers Do Meet in Far Off Lands Award (presented to the best Meet Cute in a movie): Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning. Reminding us why writer/director Christopher McQuarrie is the master of working around Tom Cruise’s inherent sexlessness, he turns the airport hunt for a MacGuffin into a frisky, unofficial first date between his leading man’s IMF agent and Haley Atwell’s pickpocket.  

The Annual “Isn’t This a Lovely Day (To Be Caught in the Rain)” Award (presented to the best dance in a movie): The Adults. True, the dance in “Poor Things” is also great, but that dance feels like a lateral move, in a manner of speaking, from the 2018 “Isn’t This a Lovely Day (To Be Caught in The Rain)” award winning dance in “The Favourite.” What’s more, the “Poor Things” dance just sort of exists unto itself whereas the dance of three siblings in “The Adults” not only quotes my favorite movie dance, but it also joyfully encapsulates and puts a button on a movie exploring the nature of performance.  

The Annual Ruby Slippers Award (presented to the best prop in a movie): Minifridge, Barbie. One quick image in the movie’s remarkable “Parallax View”-like montage of the patriarchy (Montage of the Year) in which a minifridge door is thrust open, functions like a wormhole, the Tannhauser Gate from a dude’s tailgate cosmically tunneling back to his college dorm. 

The Annual Penélope Cruz Award (presented to the best hair in a movie): Adam Driver, Ferrari. It’s more than a little ironic that the Annual Penélope Cruz Award goes to someone in a Penélope Cruz-starring movie that is not Penélope Cruz. But then, “Ferrari” is a Michael Mann movie, and if there is one thing we know about a Michael Mann protagonist, even if his life is falling down all around him, his hair will still look good. 


The Annual Keira Knightley Green Dress Award (presented to the best costume in a movie): Josh Hamilton, Reality. Sometimes the grim reaper comes dressed not in a black cloak but an unflattering short-sleeved shirt straight off the clearance rack at Kohl’s.

The Annual Cinema Paradiso Award (presented to the best cinema scene in a movie): Fallen Leaves. The deadpan Scandinavian version of the “Platoon” scene in “The Naked Gun.” 

The “Now We Can Eat” Award (presented to the best meal in a movie): The Iron Claw. Three brothers shoved into the front seat of pickup truck, tooling down the road, blasting Tom Petty, shoving fast food into their mouths, it’s the happiest moment, really, in a sad, sad movie. Youth has rarely seemed so ravishingly wasted on the young. 

The Annual “Then He Kissed Me” Award (presented to the best use of pop music in a movie): Crimson and Clover by Tommy James & The Shondells in Priscilla. That eternal tremolo guitar has never sounded so foreboding.

The Annual “Best of My Love” Award (presented to the second-best use of pop music in a movie): Don’t Do Me Like That by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers in The Iron Claw. See Also: Best Meal.

The Annual Tour Eiffel Award (presented to the best image of The Eiffel Tower in a movie): Full Time. When a single mother forced to spend the night in a seedy motel in Paris because she can’t get back to her home in the faraway suburbs due to a transit strike wakes up to see motel art of the famous open-lattice iron structure perched along the Seine and then goes to the window to see the city waking up in the alley below, it’s a pertinent reminder of how the City of Light looks to everybody else. 

Best Movie Tweet: See Below. For the “Michael Clayton” hive. If you know, you know. RIP Tom Wilkinson. 


Thursday, January 18, 2024

Ferrari

The life of Enzo Ferrari spanned 90 years, rich enough to fill an almost 500-page book by Brock Yates. But in bringing “Enzo Ferrari: The Man, The Cars, The Races, The Machine” to the big screen, director Michael Mann, working from a long-gestating script by the late Troy Kennedy Martin, eschews an overarching account of Italy’s most famous racing and sports car entrepreneur with big slabs of critical Life Details to instead convey one year in Enzo’s life, 1957, full of personal and professional tribulation and culminating in a tragic Mille Miglia, the once-famed open-road motorsport endurance race. Mann has always favored exerting extreme pressure on his characters to see how they respond, and by narrowing his focus in “Ferrari,” his aim is not to summarize Enzo’s life but more specific, to get under the man’s hood, so to speak, and see what makes him tick.


“Ferrari” is not a heist movie but sort of opens in the vein of one with Enzo lighting out from the Modena countryside home he keeps with his mistress Lina (Shailene Woodley) by giving his car a running start, hopping behind the wheel, letting it coast along, and then, finally, starting the engine. He needs to make it back to Bologna in time to have morning coffee with his wife Laura (Penélope Cruz), who knows of Lina, and who demands this ritual to maintain appearances. Putting up such fronts is essentially the crux of “Ferrari’s” drama. Bologna reveres Enzo, which is demonstrated in an early scene at a barbershop where he entertains the regulars with comic witticisms while literally maintaining his appearance by getting a shave. Indeed, Driver wears his suits, wears his hair, and like in a brief scene of his character on the road in which rapid-fire cuts capture him coolly shifting gears, he exudes an air of control at all times, indifferent to the swirling chaos, unaware it’s threatening to consume him.

“Two objects,” Enzo explains at one point, “cannot occupy the same point in space at the same moment in time.” He’s referring to cars on a racetrack, but he may as well be highlighting the impossible dualities of his own life. Indeed, an early scene of Enzo attending Mass does not so much juxtapose the ovular communion wafers with the image of so many ovular stopwatches as Ferrari’s rival Maserati breaks a record on the track as link them together, racing inextricable from life itself. This idea is literalized in Enzo’s relationship with Laura given that she owns half his Ferrari business, and because the company is verging on bankruptcy, and Enzo is told he needs complete control for the necessary steps to keep it afloat, he must convince his relatively estranged wife to sign over her half to him, a volatile seesaw. In their frequent spats, and occasional eruptions of sex, they are at once made for each other and utterly incompatible, manifesting “a terrible joy and deadly passion.” That’s Enzo again, talking about his own life talking about racing. 

Their scenes together are as ferocious as any on the track, and on full display in their introductory quarrel when Laura pulls a pistol, takes deliberately bad aim at her exasperating man, and shoots, leaving a hole in the wall not far from Enzo’s head. It’s Chekov’s Gun, in other words, but going off already, in a manner of speaking, which not only immediately establishes the combustible nature of their relationship, but how death permeates “Ferrari” from the figurative waving of the flag. Mother and father still grieve for their son Dino, having died only a year earlier from muscular dystrophy, making daily visits to his grave. Dino’s presences hovers over everything and is complicated by Enzo’s son Piero (Giuseppe Festinese) with Lina, of whose existence Laura is unaware, though comes to suspect, as if the 12-year-old’s illegitimacy is preventing cauterization of the gaping emotional wound.  

The serene countryside scenes in Modena contrast against the more frenzied nature of Enzo’s life in Bologna, but too often, that’s all they are, symbols, not least because Woodley lacks the same pulse as Cruz. The latter seems to receive cues from the opera sequence midway through, virtually transmitting emotions directly to us as a soloist might with an aria. And though Lina is a calmer character, she is meant to instill a passion of her own, that she won’t just sit around in the shadows, and Woodley struggles to effuse the humanity and electricity of that struggle. I will not comment on the quality of the accent, because that’s out of my jurisdiction, but I was also left wondering if Woodley was mistakenly charged by Mann with focusing so much on the accent, she forgot to give a performance.


Just as Enzo struggles to compartmentalize these separate lives, he struggles to compartmentalize the racetrack from his home life too. The opening images of a young Enzo in a race car inform the movie to come, one in which no longer fit to race, he is left to issue demands and instructions to his drivers, transforming them into avatars, an extension of his ego, and of his obsession. The racing scenes are themselves further extensions of that obsession. Thrilling isn’t the right word, they are more intense than that, no, more visceral, even elegiac, as conveyed in a sequence where Ferrari drivers compose letters to their loved ones before going off to the Mille Miglia. One of Enzo’s cars might win, but victory is compromised by death, a scene so unsentimentally gruesome as to take your breath away, a man at the wheel who is confident, and in control, until suddenly, he is not, wreckage strewn behind him.

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Leo's Special Sauce

Kaleb Horton wrote a fantastic profile of the singer-songwriter Jason Isbell for GQ that published last Friday. And though it is more than worth reading in full, especially if you’re an Isbell fan, or even if just curious about what acclaimed singer-songwriters are like these days, there was one passage of special fascination to the blog. Because Isbell starred in Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” which we reviewed yesterday, and shared some scenes with Leonardo DiCaprio. Leo is an actor who often comes across guarded in interviews, not that I necessarily blame him, and through nothing more than a rather comic episode of flatulence on set (not his), Isbell provides as unique a window into Leo’s acting process as you’re probably ever gonna get. You should read the whole story at GQ, which we link right here so click, but below we have quoted Isbell’s tale of Leo’s process in full. 


“So one night, after I'd done a couple scenes and been kind of anxious and stressed about it, we got to the scene where my character [Bill Smith] and Leo’s character [Ernest Burkhart] were in the house. My biggest scene in the movie. We're sort of talking shit to each other, and our wives and sisters are at the dining room table, and it keeps cutting back and forth between the two of them and me and him.

"We did that scene for three or four hours, and we kept riffing and getting more intense. And sometimes I would hear Marty laugh from the other room because I was just being like a redneck getting in a fight.

"And at one point we're standing up, in each other's faces. He's telling me he's gonna shoot me. Blow my fucking head off. And it's dead quiet. There's about 30 crew people in the room. And it's a tiny house.”

He leans in closer. His voice gets low and somber, like he’s about to reveal a secret to his FBI handler.

“And somebody on the crew farts, and it's very loud. And it's particularly funny because you could tell that whoever did it had lost a great battle trying not to fart. You could just hear in the pitch of it, that they were doing everything they could possibly do. And then because everybody in there is the best in the world at their job, nobody laughed. Nobody stood.

"And immediately, I thought of Farticus. You know, Spartacus, but I am Farticus. Leo and I start laughing at the fart. It's funny. Having never done a movie before, I think we're just gonna laugh for a minute and start over.

"But somewhere in that laugh, Leo folds it into his character. All of a sudden, it's Ernest laughing at Bill. And in that moment, I thought, this is why one of us has an Oscar, and one of us is me because I just got outgunned; I was laughing like an idiot. I was no longer a character, but he was still Ernest. It taught me about taking acting seriously, because he never even left character. He was laughing in character. It was impressive.”

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Killers of the Flower Moon

Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” begins with a burial. Not of a body but of a ceremonial pipe, a few Osage elders placing it under dirt to mourn the assimilation of their people into the white man’s world, the latter marked by a subsequent scene in which the Midwestern American tribe forcefully relocated to Oklahoma literally strikes it rich by dancing in spurting crude oil. But this moment doubles as the first appearance of Robbie Robertson’s score. “Osage Oil Boom” is the official title of this musical selection, but the rhythmic drumming and slide guitar riff suggest a blues song, call it The Osage Blues, this moment giving way to a newsreel montage documenting how the indigenous tribe became the wealthiest people on the planet practically overnight. It demonstrates how Scorsese and his co-writer Eric Roth effectively dramatize their adaptation of David Grann’s book of the same name, not only conveying crucial information but using the newsreel device to evoke a feeling of distance while also subtly shifting the point-of-view from the Osage to our own, or maybe I should say, to mine, a white man’s. Indeed, not long after, a train rolls into the Oklahoma reservation, the camera gliding through the train car, finding Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), returned from WWI, wearing his uniform and cutting the image of a hero even though in no time he will emerge as the villain. As he sizes up so many Osage on the train platform, it’s as if he’s a parasite who has just entered their bloodstream. 


Ernest moves in with his uncle William Hale (Robert DeNiro), passing himself off as ally to the Osage but insisting his nephew call him King, laying bare his dynastic intentions. The script might draw out King’s precise role as orchestrator of the Osage murders, but this no whodunit, both the devilish twinkle in DeNiro’s eyes and his character’s leading conversations with Ernest laying bare his two-faced nature and daring us not to see what Ernest fails to see. This requires Leo to do something he mostly hasn’t, play dumb. (DiCaprio was dumb in “Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood,” but not to this degree.) He virtually dims before our very eyes, improbably melding the thickness of John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson in “O Brother, Where Art Thou” with Matt LeBlanc of “Friends.” (I swear, there is one DiCaprio reaction that is stolen straight from the Joey Tribbiani playbook.) And when King warns Ernest of speaking to the Osage without having something to say, what they call Blackbird talk, the way DeNiro and DiCaprio literally cheep back and forth is as unsettling as it is comical, like a predatory adult stringing along a hopeless child. There’s a sucker born every minute, the ruthless capitalist P.T. Barnum probably didn’t say, and this moment lives it. 

King gently browbeats Ernest into courting Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), a romance with an ulterior motive, meaning to use marriage to acquire her oil headrights. It’s aesthetically tricky, this relationship, given Ernest’s established feeble-mindedness, though in some respect, this is where DiCaprio’s casting becomes key, because despite those fake teeth, bulging out his jaw, he still looks like Leo. But it also works because of Gladstone. Mollie gets a key line about being keen to Ernest’s desire to marry for money, but it’s the actress’s air that really sells it, that Mollie is on to him but also oddly charmed by his simpleness. When she invites Ernest home for dinner, Gladstone’s sloped smile and a small chuckle seem to crack open her character’s thought process, viewing him as a goofy innocent, begetting a grave mistake. 

As their relationship plays out, King’s scheme intensifies and widens, ordering the killings of not only Mollie’s sisters to intensify Ernest’s eventual financial windfall, but other Osage, too. These murders are not elaborately staged, just sudden, violent, and not thoughtless so much as unthinking, forcing us to see them as King and his minions see their indigenous counterparts, hardly as people at all, just specimens in the way. This trail of bloodshed can’t help but recall the “Layla” sequence of “Goodfellas,” in which DeNiro’s Jimmy Conway kills off participants of his Lufthansa heist, yet pointedly without the tension of that accompanying Derek and the Dominoes song against so much grisly death, leaving just the grisly death, reducing any mythological sense of the American West to its brutal truth. And these echoes of Scorsese’s own past mafia movies go even further by innately evoking the land of the free as a kind of mafia state. There are even references that go beyond Marty; one shot of King lying back in a barber’s chair recalls a similar one of DeNiro as Al Capone in “The Untouchables.”

The longer “Killers of the Flower Moon” goes, the more you feel its epic three hours and twenty-six minutes, designed to wear you down as it becomes an excruciating crucible in watching a white man squirm. King guides his charge to poison his wife to claim her riches, a plot point that DiCaprio’s performance has cleverly laid the groundwork for, making him seem just smart enough to grasp the evil of his act but also dumb enough to think he has no way out, a man virtually boiling in his own inaction, as one image of a fire burning just outside the windows of Mollie’s home essentially illustrates, trapping Ernest in his own emotional underworld. By the time the FBI shows up, their investigation hardly matters since we, the audience, already know everything anyway, the patient way Agent Tom White (Jesse Plemons) goes about uncovering the scheme suggesting he does too. The real drama is in seeing Ernest gradually made to grasp and confess his culpability. 


By yoking us so relentlessly to Ernest’s point-of-view, it’s true that Mollie’s perspective suffers. Only occasionally, and even then, only briefly, do we see “Killers of the Flower Moon” through her eyes. And no matter how much emotion, vulnerability, dignity, and disappointment Gladstone successfully imbues in her implicit symbiosis with the camera, she can’t help but come across at least partly as a symbol. But this also goes back to the very beginning, the shifting of the point-of-view from Osage, a recognition on Scorsese’s part of his own limitations in telling her story on account of the color of his skin. Perhaps that rules the movie out of order for you, even in spite of its aesthetic triumphs, but then, in a way, Scorsese rules his own movie out of order too through a stunning coda that, in a sense, leaves the movie itself behind, exposing its own artifice, not only summarizing how so many Native American stories were cheaply re-engineered for own amusement, or buried that like ceremonial pipe and deliberately forgotten, but implicates the storyteller, which is to say Scorsese himself.  

Saturday, January 13, 2024

The Great Heisman Race of 1997

The sixteenth entry of the fourth season of ESPN’s apparently never-ending 30 for 30 documentary series “The Great Heisman Race of 1997” is named for what became that season’s showdown between Michigan Wolverine Charles Woodson and Tennessee Volunteer Peyton Manning to be named the most outstanding player in college football. As a movie, it’s better than most of these now definitively average offerings in so much as director Gentry Kirby eschews talking heads and modern context to construct his film entirely from archival footage. It’s an approach I prefer, though in coming close to exclusively employing ESPN clips, going so far as using old College Gameday player profiles to explain his subjects, the whole thing starts to feel a little too much like a lengthy episode of College Gameday itself, and crucially lacks any larger meaning, just a nostalgia trip. And though I might be criticizing, I am not entirely complaining. Where college football is concerned, I’m not necessarily opposed to a nostalgia trip. And as someone who happened to be on the campus of the University of Iowa during that banger of a 1997 CFB season, four months I both wish I could have back for several reasons and would not want back in any way, shape, or form, my foremost takeaway from “The Great Heisman Race of 1997” was, hey, remember when Iowa running back Tavian Banks was briefly a Heisman contender?

picture of my TV

Look at that. There he is, wedged between two future NFL Hall of Famers and ahead of two future high profile NFL busts. (Banks was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars and his professional career was almost over before it began on account of injury.) Indeed, Banks had a September to remember, gaining almost 900 yards and scoring 13 touchdowns in 4 games...against inferior competition. In their first game in October against #7 Ohio State, Banks basically got skunked and that was it, unwantedly adding his name to the illustrious, in a manner of speaking, list of so-called September Heisman winners. And so even if I told myself I would not subject you, extremely frustrated Cinema Romantico reader, to another college football post until August, sorry, but “The Great Heisman Race of 1997” only interested me in so much as wanting to count down my Top 5 September Heisman winners.

My Favorite September Heisman Winners:


5. Tavian Banks, Iowa, 1997. In retrospect, he was never as cool as Ronnie Harmon. 


4. David Klingler, Houston, 1991. More of an August Heisman, really. At the controls of a semi-infamous lawless frontier of an offense and relentlessly hyped in the preseason, Klingler hurled six touchdown passes in his first game against overmatched Louisiana Tech before Houston was clobbered by The U in their second game. His Heisman campaign sunk like a stone.


3. Jacory Harris, Miami, 2009. Harris was more electrifying in three September games than his fellow Hurricane Gino Toretta was the whole season in 1992 when he really did win a Heisman Trophy.


2. Kyle Orton, Purdue, 2004. Not enough people, it seems to me, remember that the future NFL journeymen, and so-called Altoona Gunslinger, really, honestly, truly was atop all the Heisman straw polls early in the fall of 2004 before it came crumbling down


1. Denard Robinson, Michigan, 2010, 2011. He could never finish the deal, and militant football coaches would tell you that it’s all about finishing. But then, Gaudí did not finish the Sagrada Família, and one could make an argument that there was never a better college football player than September Denard Robinson. 

Friday, January 12, 2024

Ray of Light

In doing research, so to speak, for my THRILLERS ONLY 2024 movie preview, I was looking into a thriller that failed to make the cut, “The Marsh King’s Daughter,” starring Daisy Ridley and Ben Mendelsohn. As I have noted before, in a profession generally marked by vanity, few modern actors are as willing to let themselves look like complete shit as Ben Mendelsohn. When they needed someone to be covered in grease and filth opposite Ryan Gosling in “The Place Beyond the Pines,” there was only one man for the job. But in consulting Mendelsohn’s bio, I realized that one of the Melbourne native’s earliest roles was on the Australian TV series “The Henderson Kids” opposite another Melbourne native this blog has mentioned once or twice or two thousand times, Kylie Minogue. And that discovery led me to an even greater discovery. This:


Where do we even go from here? Do we dream of an alternate universe where Ben Mendelsohn is more in the Ryan Gosling mode, one where he and Kylie became, like, the Down Under Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan? Or do we imagine what life looks like on Earth 2, where Mendelsohn became an international heartthrob and Kylie became a character actor so that the other Kylie, the phony American one, can’t remember her name, could finally trademark the name Kylie in peace? Or do we just let it be, this image, one glorious chance, as the Princess of Pop herself might say, to step back in time.

Tuesday, January 09, 2024

Swift the Great and Powerful

The only thing that you, extremely frustrated Cinema Romantico reader, want to read less than a Golden Globes take is a Golden Globes take 48 hours after the Golden Globes already sunk to the bottom of the pool at the Beverly Hilton. If you want us to refund your click, no problem, just email the technical administrator at [email address not found]. It’s just, I’m intrigued by them, the Globes, that is. Well, not so much about the awards themselves as the celebrities, which have always been the true point of the Globes, or more precisely, a celebrity.

Because if Golden Globes host Jo Koy hadn’t thrown his writers under the bus mid-foundering of his opening monologue at this past Sunday’s awards show, I would have felt sorry for him. Anymore, hosting an awards show is an exercise in flop-sweat futility. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, the modern exemplar of hosting, I would contend, and nobody’s fools, have seen the writing on the wall and now won’t go anywhere near it except in those occasional years of host-less Oscars when they briefly play faux hosts. Even in the old days, hosts were frequently doomed, but the backlash would arrive in more manageable waves. In the era of social media, it’s all at once, a firehouse of vitriol, evoked in how Koy palpably could tell in real time just how bad he was bombing. That would have been bad enough. I mean, it’s one thing for Twitter to render judgement, it’s another for Taylor Swift, who in a delicious twist went from The Golden Globes-iest to the Globes’ preeminent arbiter of taste when Koy, perhaps trying to right the ship, perhaps momentarily blacking out from in-over-his-headedness, joked about the Globes having fewer shots of Swift than an NFL game.


After being forced out of college basketball coaching, more or less, the late horse’s ass Bob Knight took an analyst job on ESPN, and once broke a cardinal rule of live tv by taking a big swig of his drink in full view of the camera to dismiss what he saw as the whole frivolous affair. And whether it was the joke’s simple lameness, or its implication that she’s thirsty for the camera, when CBS cut to Swift after Koy’s crack, Swift pointedly did not laugh, did not even smile, she just coldly took a drink of champagne, dismissing him with a sip. The host could have literally said “I’ll show myself out,” walked right out stage left and never returned and no one would have blamed him. Indeed, it was only made worse later when Jim Gaffigan presented an award and cracked a joke at which point the camera cut to Swift roaring with laughter. She was like Johnny Carson, in other words, the way he would wave a comic he liked over from the stage to the couch on the old Tonight Show, yet more biting, more demanding. She became the NFL’s foremost unofficial brand ambassador in 2023, and here she became something like a real-time pop cultural kingmaker, all ye who aim jokes her way beware. 

The tabloids reported that after “Barbie” won for Box Office Achievement, which Swift’s “Eras Tour” was also up for, she left. That’s probably why the cameras never returned to her table. She’d rendered judgement on their whole show too. Like a Gucci-clad Daniel Plainview, she was finished.

Monday, January 08, 2024

Cinema Romantico 2024 Movie Preview: THRILLERS ONLY

It was a gloomy December in Chicago, literally speaking, with the city logging, according to WGN, only 34% of its possible sunshine for the month. January hasn’t been much brighter to this point, adding to a general feeling of malaise that always accompanies the post-holiday blues. But as gloomy as it is, do you know what just happened? No, not the Golden Globes. (I’m apparently so on the outs with Bruce Springsteen that I honestly didn’t even realize he was nominated for one.) The new Renny Harlin movie dropped, that’s what. Hey, “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” is no “Die Hard,” that goes without saying, but lemme tell you something, jack, no 2023 thriller was “Die Hard 2: Die Harder.” True, I have yet to see Harlin’s conspiracy thriller “The Bricklayer” because the only theater showing it in the greater Chicagoland area is in the Chatham neighborhood which is a schlep for this blogger. But it’s streaming, too, just a click away, and if 2024 portends a lot of gloom and doom on the national front, if you’re pro-democracy and human compassion anyway, at least the thriller forecast looks a little rosier. Indeed, it’s time once again to preview the forthcoming movie year strictly through the lens of thrillers.

(Releases are, of course, ranked on the Runaway Jury Scale, measuring each new thriller’s potential for glorious middlingness, 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest.)

Cinema Romantico 2024 Movie Preview: THRILLERS ONLY

The Bricklayer. See above. We give it...4 Runaway Juries


The Beekeeper. If Jason Statham is followed around at all times by a cloud of bees a la Pigpen, we will bump this up from 4 Runaway Juries to the hallowed 5.

Fast Charlie. This Pierce Brosnan as a fixer thriller was from 2023, yes, and it was released, not pushed, though it never screened at any movie theater I saw, and I still haven’t streamed it. I’ll get to “Maestro,” okay, man, stop hassling me, but first things first, and “Fast Charlie” comes first. We gave it 3 Runaway Juries last year and we increase it to 3 1/2 Runaway Juries this year.  

Lift. Kevin Hart pulls an impossible heist. Movie from a box. We give it...1 Hamburger Helper Cheeseburger Macaroni

I.S.S. The Cold War is back so it only makes sense that the Cold War thriller is back too with US and Soviet, er, Russian astronauts duking it out aboard the International Space Station. We give it...3 Runaway Juries, down from 4 because while no one loves middling thrillers more than this blog, a middling thriller really should not have needed to be Ariana DeBose’s Oscar follow-up. 

The Amateur. Oh hey, here’s a 1981 Cold War thriller about a CIA operative Taking Justice Into His Own Hands all rehabilitated for the Second Cold War with Rami Malek taking the reins from John Savage. We give it...3 Runaway Juries 

No, not this one.

Love Lies Bleeding. First, I was confused, because I thought this middling thriller was released in 2008. Then I was going to write off this new “Love Lies Bleeding” because of the poster, and then I was going to throw bouquets at its Revenge Gets Ripped tagline, and then I was going to write it off again because the A24 sheen suggests more prestige in the guise of pulp than just pulp, but there’s something about it, too, that suggests “Pain and Gain” retrofit as early John Dahl, and man, we need early John Dahl as much as we need Renny Harlin. We give it...The Kill Me Again Badge of Hope 

Knox Goes Away. I don’t know, Michael Keaton as a contract killer with dementia sounds suspiciously like that Liam Neeson movie “Memory” where his contract killer is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Then again, that movie was partially redeemed by Monica Bellucci, and maybe her majesty Marcia Gay Harden can redeem this one. We give it a very tentative...2 1/2 Runaway Juries

In the Land of Saints and Sinners. Speaking of Liam Neeson, he’s back as an ex-assassin battling the IRA which sounds just about right, almost too just about right. We give it...2 Runaway Juries

Liam Neeson TBD. Last year’s THRILLERS ONLY preview failed to include Liam Neeson’s “Retribution,” because in concocting the preview, there was no information on “Retribution,” leading me to strongly suspect the entire movie went through pre-production, filming, and post-production in 2023, prior to its August 25th release. Therefore, this spot is reserved for whatever Liam Neeson thriller is still in the 2024 hopper right now, like “Cold Storage,” possibly, which was written by 90s middling thriller titan David Koepp, and which Wikipedia suggests is filming and IMDb suggests is in post-production. Gimme a release date and I’ll give you 4 Runaway Juries. 

Argylle. “Delirious” meets “Romancing the Stone.” As far as X meets Y movie pitches go, this is a solid B. As such, we give it...3 Runaway Juries

Road House. A touchy subject for some, I realize. And if I feel as if Jake Gyllenhaal might be one of the few actors we have who could credibly effect a credible and original spin on the ass-kicking spiritualism of Patrick Swayze, I have to say, the poster in conjunction with the UFC-character details gives me pause, skewing a little too Joe Rogan, as does the IMDb synopsis, stipulating the Florida Keys road house of the title is a place “where things are not what they seem.” It’s the 2020s and everything, including anything that is absolutely not, is a conspiracy. We give it...2 Runaway Juries


LaRoy. You know it’s promising because a suicidal guy mistaken for a hitman sounds like some thriller from 1986 that I might have stumbled on while skimming the 1986 in film Wikipedia page looking for a middling thriller, just updated with a perfectly cast John Magaro as the ordinary guy caught in criminal quicksand and Steve Zahn in a bolo tie. Everyone else will be at “Godzilla x Kong” on April 12th; I’ll be one theater over at “LaRoy.” We give it...5 Runaway Juries

Wanted Man. This movie about a detective extraditing a woman from Mexico that stars Dolph Lundgren and Kelsey Grammer (and Michael Paré!) sounds like it really is from 1986, like some guy at Carolco Pictures greenlit a movie with Ivan Drago and the psychiatrist on “Cheers.” It even appears they never updated the faux placeholder title from 1986, one that forces us to knock this down to...2 Runaway Juries

Wolfs. The only person George Clooney has better chemistry with than Julia Roberts is Brad Pitt. Then again, did you see “Ticket to Paradise?” We give it...3 Runaway Juries

Ballerina. From Screen Rant: “With emotive depth and hard-hitting physicality, (Ana) de Armas is slated to play the killer dancer out to destroy those responsible for her family’s deaths.” What an incredible sentence. I almost wish this movie wasn’t a spinoff from the John Wick universe, which makes me have to take it seriously, and it would work better in terms of the THRILLERS ONLY preview if I didn’t have to take it seriously. It’s complicated. We give it...3 1/2 Runaway Juries

Joker: Folie à Deux. I’m still not ready to talk about it. I might never be ready to talk about it. 

Friday, January 05, 2024

In Memoriam: Tom Wilkinson


“I suppose everyone becomes a character actor once they’ve passed 45,” Tom Wilkinson told OC Weekly in 2005 ahead of “The Exorcism of Emily Rose.” “I guess when you get past 40 you become a character actor,” Wilkinson said to W Magazine in 2008 in advance of the HBO “John Adams” miniseries. I haven’t stopped thinking about these two quotes since coming across them in the wake of Wilkinson’s death at the age of 75 on December 30th. Did he not know he was repeating himself, or was this his rehearsed line, one that he kept revising? I suppose that doesn’t really matter. It’s the lines themselves, and what they seem to communicate, the invisible demarcations of age in Hollywood, how even an actor tough to pigeon-hole could be pigeon-holed, and how he felt about that pigeon-holing as a character actor: wry acceptance, dry derision, weary reluctance. But then, how else would you classify Wilkinson? As an everyman? That fails to convey how he imbued each character he played with personality, individuality, which as I see it, is precisely what made him a character actor. And maybe his knowing what he was went a long way toward informing how he always knew who his characters were. 

Born in London in 1948, graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 1973, Wilkinson mostly worked in British television, or occasionally on the British stage or in a British movie, until he became a regular Hollywood player in the mid-to-late 90s. By then, Wilkinson had passed both 40 and 45, his own unofficial delineations for character actor, meaning that by the time he had quote-unquote made it, he already was one, with a jowly, rumpled visage more befitting of a middle manager, or family practice practitioner, or professor than a Hollywood leading man. His one genuine leading role in Todd Field’s indie “In the Bedroom” (2001) not only earned him a Best Actor nomination but felt like Wilkinson picking away at the leading man persona, leaving the scab of a star underneath. 


Wilkinson’s breakthrough, so to speak, was 1997’s “The Full Monty” in which several steel workers in northern England turn to male stripping. It earned Wilkinson the BAFTA for Best Supporting Actor and demonstrated his gift for doing “two diametrically opposed things,” as then-HBO Films President Colin Callender told W, “at the same time,” wearing both the weight of a whole life and career upended and, eventually, the lightness of forging an unexpectedly new path. In the ensuing year’s “Shakespeare in Love,” his character’s arc was even more two dimensional, a financier riven with a love for the theater, but Wilkinson appropriately gives it a theatrical relish that never feels over the top or unbelievable. In his triumphant scene as Romeo and Juliet’s Apothecary, when he takes the stage with fear in his eyes, we laugh because it’s funny even though Wilkinson as the Apothecary is never taking it anything less than seriously, which it makes comically moving too.

As Dr. Howard Mierzwiak in Michel Gondry’s “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (2004), by both director Michel Gondry’s remembrance and co-star Mark Ruffalo’s too, Wilkinson struggled with the filmmaker’s approach, perhaps stemming from the chaos deliberately instilled on set. Whatever the case, and however he felt, it’s a testament to Wilkinson of what he achieved anyway in playing the doctor who invents and administers a memory erasure procedure. Though the main plot concerns characters played by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, both patients, what has most lingered with me in the two decades since is Kirsten Dunst as Mierzwiak’s receptionist, and who, it turns out, had an affair with the doctor, only to have it wiped from her memory, brought home in a heartbreaking close-up evincing someone who wants to remember something…and can’t. Wilkinson, though, is quietly playing off that fact throughout, withdrawn in his air, hunched in his posture, and subtly clueing us into that twist long before it happens by essentially playing Dunst’s opposite, a man sitting on a memory he doesn’t want.


As tamped down as Wilkinson was in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” he was volcanic in “Michael Clayton.” I loved Tony Gilroy’s legal thriller when it was released in 2007 and it has become one of my favorite movies since. (I even put it on my totally not legit Sight & Sound ballot.) As the eponymous fixer, “Michael Clayton” is George Clooney’s movie, but in a way, Wilkinson’s character is the most crucial and, by extension, Wilkinson’s performance is the most crucial too. As Arthur Edens, an attorney who has begun making a case against his own greedy, murderous corporate client, Wilkinson embodies the movie’s brilliant jigsaw structure by deftly putting all his character’s tricky layers together into one: a manic depressive, a legal shark, a mad prophet, an exhausted adult who suddenly sees the world through the eyes of a child. The character emerged as something like a Howard Beale for the new millennium, perched as the movie was on the edge of the 2008 Financial Crisis, suggesting that the only place unrelenting lust for profit could take a person is right off the deep end. “I’m not the enemy,” says Michael. “Then who are you?” asks Edens, a line Wilkinson drains of all showiness, just letting it lie there, holding a mirror up to us as much as Michael Clayton.