SEARCH RESULTS

< Back Sanctuary questions relationships and power dynamics with one unusual pairing Rumble Films, 2023 96 min Director/Writer: Micah Bloomberg / Zachary Wigon Reading Time: 5 minutes Sanctuary Timeless (GBV57KVQUTLVCWVJ) 00:00 / 05:14 📷 : Licensed from Shutterstock Honeybush Nonfamily dramas with strong adult and/or socioeconomic themes Barley: Movies and TV shows with a lot of dialog Chris Chaisson 2023-06-28 Sex scandals tend to dominate headlines in the worlds of business and politics. Not only is a lot of money and power involved, but the public is often eager to catch these influential figures in both compromising and hypocritical positions. Such scandals have unseated individuals, thrown large entities into brief turmoil, and provided fodder for late-night talk shows everywhere (some of which have similar scandals of their own). However, once the news breaks, very little attention is afforded to the events that may have led up to the information leak. Given the permanent loss of privacy the anonymous whistleblower often suffers, what level of desperation must they have reached to motivate them to come forward in the first place? The new erotic thriller Sanctuary dives into this very dynamic. Sanctuary drops us in the middle of a long-standing, erotic business agreement between Hal and Rebecca. Hal is a trust fund baby, the mid-30s son of an exceedingly wealthy, recently deceased businessman. For many months, Rebecca has privately served as his dominatrix, role-playing as he wishes and degrading him for his sexual pleasure. With the passing of his father, Hal is set to take over the business as CEO and thus seeks to end his meetings with Rebecca after a final meeting in his hotel room. As he says, he wants to “match his insides with his outsides,” a line he stole from his father’s memoirs. Rebecca is put off by being suddenly jettisoned from Hal’s sex life, and rather than take it in stride, she proceeds to blackmail him immediately after their last hurrah. She informs him that she has video of their sessions and will release them unless he adheres to her monetary demands. Hal must decide whether to give in to Rebecca or call her bluff, letting his secrets be known to his future peers and the public at large. The notion of powerful men seeking a submissive role in their sex lives may be a familiar narrative. Many judges and politicians have this detail revealed when their privacy gets exposed, rationalizing it as the need to find pleasure in being powerless given the pressures of their powerful positions. Sanctuary subverts this expectation with Hal. Though he has financial security and a business being handed to him, he is quite meek and insecure. While this initially appears to be a by-product of his dynamic with Rebecca, the only other character on screen, Hal’s lack of assertiveness comes through in his phone conversations with others. He never comes across as a powerful, domineering, or self-assured voice when talking to anyone, regardless of status. Deep down, he feels a level of guilt for his advantages in life and remains in his father’s shadow. He grieves his father’s absence, in part because he is not ready for a patriarchal role. On the other side, Rebecca at first seems to be handling her dismissal very poorly for no apparent reason. She has what appears to be an established business with other clients and has been compensated well. However, her role in Hal’s sex life has made her emotionally invested beyond business. She feels that the only reason he is ready to take over the company is because of the confidence that she has instilled in him through their affairs. Rebecca cites the fact that Hal was very timid when approaching her initially and developed enough self-assurance to write out a script for her to adhere to during their meetings. As the evening wears on, it becomes clear her emotional investment and demand for money go beyond just her pride in Hal’s development. The one-location indie serves as a long tug-of-war between a character with material power and a character with inner fortitude. Hal can only use his wealth and influence as a way to intimidate Rebecca, while she can use psychology to push back. This back-and-forth lends credence to why Rebecca is svelte and dainty rather than a large intimidating physical presence that the audience might associate with a dominatrix. Her understanding of Hal’s psyche stems from the fact that their role-playing is not so much the physical, S&M style often portrayed in kinky sex thrillers, but more mental. Writer Micah Bloomberg and director Zachary Wigon cleverly reveal the backgrounds of each character during both their foreplay and their haggling, so it never feels that they are bringing it up strictly for the audience’s benefit. Additionally, it explains Rebecca’s last gasp attempt to stay in Hal’s life. The best comparison for this two-character, one-location thriller is the 1994 film Disclosure , starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore. As in every Michael Douglas movie, he plays a lusted-over businessman dealing with a scorned ex-lover (okay, maybe not every movie). Adapted from a Michael Crichton novel, Disclosure co-stars Meredith (Moore) as his boss, suing him for harassment over an encounter that she secretly initiated. Sanctuary feels similar in the sense that the other half of a private, socially taboo relationship has some modicum of power to manipulate the situation against a more traditionally powerful figure. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back How Do You Like Your Cinema? What You Said about What You Watch Reba Chaisson 11/16/23 Reading Time: 15 minutes 📸: Licensed from Shutterstock When I conducted interviews with studio executives from HBO and October Films 25 years ago, one of the things they shared with me was that they received tons of scripts and videotapes from aspiring filmmakers, so much that it was impossible to review all the submissions. They suggested then that there is more cinema content available than places to display them. Less than ten years later, television and video technology exploded with the advent of DVDs, streaming channels, and movie websites. Today, we also have smart TVs, smartphones with advanced video functionality, and television on demand. The days of true appointment TV watching (having to be available when our favorite show airs) have long gone by the wayside. Undoubtedly, this new technology has spoiled us. We can pretty much see any show we want, any day or time that is convenient for us, and even any time zone we are in. No longer do we have to suffer through periods where there seems to be nothing on television we like. There’s plenty in terms of quantity and variety – and we can watch it any time we want! Well, maybe. While some of our favorite streaming series drop all the season’s episodes at once (potentially enabling what researchers call “ binge watching ”), others are released to us on a weekly basis throughout the season. We conducted a survey to learn how people like their streaming shows served to them. What we found was consistent with Statista’s finding that the younger we are, the stronger our sentiments on the subject. We asked more than 400 adults to tell us how they like to watch their favorite television series. A quarter of them told us first that they like “Traditional” appointment TV shows. Such shows are typically episodic, consisting of 12–16-week seasons with one new episode per week. Think shows like Chicago P.D. , F.B.I. , Found , etcetera. Prior to Smart TVs and satellite technology like DirecTV and Dish, you had to record the show on your VCR/DVD or be in front of your television when the show aired. Chart 1 - Respondents' Television Preferences Sixteen percent of survey respondents indicated they prefer “Limited series” - short focused serials consisting of 3-10 episodes. Think Game of Thrones , Breaking Bad , and Special Ops: Lioness . Although Limited series (or miniseries) sometimes evolve into multiple seasons, they are initially intended as a single story extended across several episodes. Not surprisingly, more than half (57%), though, told us that they like a mix of both Traditional and Limited series. This is not surprising given the new technologies ushered in over the last 20 years that allow for easy recording of our favorite Traditional shows on the major networks (free TV) and streaming platforms that make them available to us the way a library does books. Pick what you want to see and pull it off the shelf (hit play) when you’re ready. While it sounds blissfully convenient, it still falls short of the utopia many of us want to achieve. Limited Series TV Utopia For those who indulge in Limited series, we asked how they like to receive their content. More than 70% of these respondents indicated they wanted all the episodes available to them at once. This result is not surprising given the technology available that allows for controlling not only what and how much we watch, but when. The respondents seem to suggest that since the controls are already in our hands, why unnecessarily suppress our appetites for a series we are enjoying. Releasing all the shows at once allows for the cinematic experience we prefer. Chart 2 – Limited Series Appetite Much of the remainder of the group (27%) indicated that one episode per week worked for them. This is especially interesting because it suggests that a fair number of people who like focused series are patient enough to let the story play out over time. This could also be tied to occupation or personal responsibilities that make them unavailable for series viewing more than a few hours a week. While they are living their cinematic utopia, the majority, however, are not. We wondered if there were some concerns about serving up all of a season’s episodes at once. The Virtues and Risks of Limited Series TV Utopia Television researchers correlate the availability of all a season’s episodes to us as lending itself to binge-watching, which they define as “viewing suspenseful dramatic, narrative content for a considerable amount of time: often more than three or four hours.” While binging has a negative connotation, it isn’t presented in the research as a one-dimensional concept. In fact, researchers distinguish between “ problematic ” and “ non-harmful ” binge-watching. Problematic binge-watching is the use of television content to distract from everyday worries and feelings of loneliness. These, according to researchers, can lead to complacency and a reticence to persevere at important tasks – something my mother often referred to as malaise. In short, it has the potential to make us lazy and apathetic. Non-harmful binge-watching, on the other hand, is the gratification we receive from becoming immersed in the story and characters on-screen, as well as “critical thinking and social conversations” we develop as a result of the television-viewing experience. Psychology Today also reports on a study that found that not all TV-watching is bad. They write, “Some TV shows are complex and will keep you mentally stimulated. If you have fun or revealing conversations with your friends and family about TV shows, that’s a big plus: Social connection is as good for you as exercise.” Even this, though, should not be in lieu of activities like reading, exercising, and stretching the brain with crossword or jigsaw puzzles. So, while reasonably, non-harmful binge-watching is preferred over problematic, the former can gradually morph into the latter if it becomes our only source of leisure, escape, or activity. Why Limited over Traditional series? For survey respondents who indicated they preferred Limited over Traditional series, we asked them why. What they told us can be grouped into five categories: succinctness of story, quality of show, enjoyment, completeness of story, and self-control issues. Several examples of each are listed in the chart below. Chart 3 – Appeal of Limited Series Respondents who prefer Limited series cite substantive elements of the presentation to support their preference for such shows. The series are shorter, which makes the stories tighter and leads to both presenting conflicts and resolving problems quickly. Importantly, they cite Limited series as having a resolution, which indicates the significance of this to their television viewing experience. Fewer than a handful indicate that they struggle with control issues, noting tendencies toward problematic binging and making conscious efforts to avoid doing so. Think of the recent Paramount+ series, Special Ops: Lioness , with Zoe Saldana, Nicole Kidman, and Michael Kelly. The eight-episode serial was quite complex, layering in several storylines of military action, politics, undercover complications, and the leader’s (Saldana’s character) family life challenges. The complete, suspenseful story with an all-star cast packed a powerful punch, and still left you wanting to see it again – and again and again. It takes a conscious effort to avoid this. Engaging in other social and physical outlets helps us manage this. Why Traditional series over Limited? We also asked those who preferred Traditional over Limited series about the appeal of such shows, which, to be fair, do not all fit the definition of focused content. Mixed with suspenseful narratives like Chicago P.D. , NCIS , and Fire Country are the ultra-popular reality and talent shows like The Bachelor , Survivor , The Voice , and America’s Got Talent . What respondents had to say about watching Traditional series can be categorized into six groups: breadth and length of series, enjoyment, time for investment in the show, anticipation/suspense, lifestyle, and familiarity. Several examples of each are noted in the chart below. Chart 4 – Appeal of Traditional Series Most interesting about the responses is the emphasis placed on the investment of time to immerse themselves in the story and characters of Traditional series. Limited series are too “short term” to develop these elements of a show, so getting one episode at a time is the perfect cadence for them, and in some cases, it suits their lifestyles quite well. Consider the series, Chicago P.D ., soon to be entering its 13 th season. Could Sergeant Voight’s tough but loyal persona be appreciated in an eight-episode Limited series? Probably not. Generally, fans of the show (of which I am one) come to love him because the series, over time, allows for getting to know his depth and breadth of character. Also, unlike a Limited series, the Traditional series are reliable. Viewers are confident they will “stick around for more seasons.” Interestingly, though, a fair number of respondents indicate that they watch Traditional series simply because they grew up on this type of television viewing. Some habits are hard to break – or we simply have no need or interest in tampering with something that works for us. Are Demographics a Factor in Television Preferences? Our data shows that a wide range of people (ages 30-60) enjoy viewing Traditional series, while those younger and 45-60 prefer Limited series. That is, while 64% of Traditional series viewers consist of people ages 30-60, just under a third of Limited series viewers are 18-29 years of age and more than 1/3 rd are 45-60. By far, Traditional series is least preferred by 18-29 year-olds, where they comprise only 20% of Traditional series viewers. Chart 5 – Preference for Limited and Traditional Series by Age Group Data from Pew Research shows that few 18-29 year-olds are married with children. They are also either in college or in the nascent stages of their careers/occupations. It is not surprising, then, that 80% of our respondents reported earning less than $100,000 a year. At this age, some are in college, many are still supported by their parents, and most have few obligations, all situations that allow them to have some disposable income. This life stage, then, affords young people relative luxuries like streaming channels such as Netflix, Hulu, MAX, Showtime, Paramount+, and others, where Limited series are found in abundance. On these channels, the volume and breadth of content are wide and stream around the clock. So, for young people with energy, streaming channels are Limited series utopia on Earth. Other than those over 60, Limited series are least preferred by 30-44 year-olds, where they make up only a quarter of respondents who indicated they indulge in them. Many people in this age group are starting families and simultaneously gaining some traction in their careers/occupations. Although 40% of this group reported making $100,000 or more per year, research indicates they are careful about their spending and focused on shoring up the family’s savings for emergencies and college funds as opposed to paying for premium channels, where Limited series are typically available. Statista recently conducted a survey and found that the most popular streaming channels were, in order, Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, and Hulu. Disney+ is likely one of the few premium channels 30-44 year-olds subscribe to because of its abundance of children’s programs. Amazon Prime is likely another because of its shopping benefits like free delivery. Few Limited series are available on Amazon Prime, however ( Jack Ryan is one of few exceptions), as the channel primarily streams movies and reruns of Traditional series. Forty-five to 60-year-olds make up the largest segment of Limited series viewers at 35%. They are also the highest earners, where 2/3 rd of this group reported having annual incomes of $100,000 or more. They are also homeowners with families that include children who are in college or nearing high school graduation. Now settled into their careers and making a comfortable living, people in this age group can better afford multiple streaming channels. This includes periodically adjusting the household’s streaming channel configuration with the ages of their children – and to their own cinematic tastes. Finally, more than half the people who reported making less than $50,000 per year are over 60 years of age. This is a sad commentary that speaks to the struggles of our older adults, many of whom have spent four or more decades working to be comfortable in their retirement. Unfortunately, it also suggests that this group has little money to commit to streaming channels for indulging in Limited series that they just might enjoy. In our data, this group makes up just 8% of those who watch Limited series. To sum, yes, demographics do indeed play a role in our television viewing preferences. Access to advanced television technologies influences the type of content we watch. Our cinematic tastes vary by age. But the extent to which we can indulge these tastes is constrained by our ability to pay for it combined with our own financial priorities. Understanding this, we have to wonder if the content we watch is a matter of preference or a reflection of what we have learned to enjoy because it is all that has been available to us. How do we explain what we watch? When we consider demographics, it raises the question: How much of what we watch can be attributed to cinematic taste versus conditioning and family budget considerations? Money is typically a consideration in most decisions as the overwhelming majority of us don’t have it like that. But I can’t help but feel for the large segment of society that is unable to engage in the content choices across the many streaming platforms to even see if there’s something there that resonates with them. Perhaps streaming companies can consider demographic factors like age, income, and even disability in developing a sliding fee scale to enhance content accessibility. In any event, while we have come to accept constraints around content access as the norm, we also have to acknowledge that these constraints shape our choices around the content we watch. Responding to questions around attribution are rarely, if ever, simple. Appreciating the complexity of the one posed here, though, allows us to at least ponder the degree to which our content choices are due to cinematic taste or conditioning. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve further into this. Suffice it to say that undoubtedly, a bit of both plays into our preferences. Summary Comedian, Chris Rock, performed a bit in his Bigger and Blacker show, about arriving home from work and hearing a litany of complaints from his wife about people she had encountered throughout her day – family, friends, co-workers, etc. Tired and wanting his dinner to re-energize, he shouted, “Can’t I just get my big piece of CHICKEN?!” Similarly, and according to the data, most people who prefer Limited series want all their episodes at once. For them, these shows are succinct and of high quality. They are also rich, with well-developed characters, and stories that are complete. Watching them exemplifies the non-harmful binge-watching described by researchers that relates the gratification we receive from becoming immersed in the story and characters, and critically thinking through and talking about the content afterwards. None of our respondents mentioned engaging in conversation with family, friends, or colleagues about the shows. But we can reasonably assume that they do, given that we all generally talk to others about things we enjoy. Why then delay their gratification by releasing one show per week to those who are ready for more? Not doing so reminds me a bit of the famed Pavlov dog experiment - there is a fear that these viewers will engage in problematic binge-watching. This is not an issue for those who prefer Traditional series. They enjoy the breadth and length of the shows, and the fact that they are available only once per week suits them fine. They like how the plots develop over time, and they get to know the characters over time. Seeing the shows once per week gives them something to look forward to. It even feels familiar to them as many of them grew up watching television this way. By contrast, you can even say that people who prefer Traditional series are relatively patient. Regarding Limited series specifically, perhaps wanting all episodes at once primes these viewers to be impatient. To want everything everywhere and all at once (yes, this was intended). But the existing research doesn’t point to this as problematic. Indeed, our data suggests that those who prefer Limited series show no signs of having an unhealthy appetite for such content. So, come on streaming channels! Can you just give these viewers their big piece of CHICKEN?! Survey Demographics References Ehrenfeld, Temma. (2021). Watching (Too Much) TV Is Bad for Adults, Too. Psychology Today , (2021, June 8) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/open-gently/202106/watching-too-much-tv-is-bad-adults-too Flayelle, Maeva, Elhai, Jon D., Maurage, Pierre, Vogele, Claus, & Brevers, Damien. Identifying the psychological processes delineating non-harmful from problematic binge-watching: A machine learning analytical approach. Telematics and Informatics , 74, Article 101880. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736585322001137#:~:text=Non%2Dharmful%20binge%2Dwatching%20is,by%20negative%20reinforcement%20motives%2Fimpulsivity . Fry, Richard and Cohn, D’vera. (2011). The Households and demographics of 30- to 44-Year-olds. Pew Research Center , (2011, June 27). https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/06/27/iv-the-households-and-demographics-of-30-to-44-year-olds/ Pew Research Center. (2019). Millennial life: How young adulthood today compares with prior generation. Pew Research Center , (2019, February 14). https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/02/14/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations-2/ Rubenking, Brigett and Bracken, Cheryl Campanella. (2021). Binge watching and serial viewing: Comparing new media viewing habits in 2015 and 2020. Addictive Behaviors Report , 14, Article 100356. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853221000195?via%3Dihub Rubenking, Brigett, Bracken, Cheryl Campanella, Sandoval, Jennifer, Rister, Alex. (2018). Defining new viewing behaviours: What makes and motivates TV binge-watching?, International Journal of Digital Television , 9(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdtv.9.1.69_1 Stoll, Julia. (2021). Share of adults who prefer whole seasons of TV shows on streaming services to be released at the same time in the United States as of October 2019, by age group, Statista (2019, October). https://www.statista.com/statistics/687388/binge-watching-preference-usa/ Woo, Angela. (2018). The Forgotten Generation: Let's Talk About Generation X. Forbes , (2018, November 14). https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/11/14/the-forgotten-generation-lets-talk-about-generation-x/?sh=74d1762676d5 Zandt, Florian. (2023). The Most Popular Streaming Services in the U.S. Statista , (2023, July 20). https://www.statista.com/chart/25382/most-used-video-streaming-platforms/ Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back They Cloned Tyrone serves as a self-aware hodgepodge of its biggest influences Federal Films, 2023 122 minutes Director/Writer: Tony Rettenmaier / Juel Taylor Reading Time: 5 minutes They Cloned Tyrone Enough Said (H8TYLJFIJ9GJWSB6) 00:00 / 05:10 📷 : Used with permission, Netflix Matcha: Mysteries or whodunnits White: Movies and TV shows that make you laugh, or involve urgency, like chase scenes or other physical activity Chris Chaisson 2023-08-26 If you have self-proclaimed independent thinkers in your social circle, you have probably heard the expression “simulation theory” before; maybe more times than you care to. However, the sentiment that we are living in a universe where our decision making and life paths are programmable and even predetermined has been growing for quite a few years now . Such a theory is impossible to prove, lending to endless speculation from conspiracy theorists. There is obvious privilege in even entertaining such theories, as no one struggling to make ends meet can bother to care about a question with no definitive answer. It is nonetheless fun to opine over, and a more provable hypothesis is that of how images in news and media shape our opinions, particularly regarding communities with whom we have little to no interaction. Director Juel Taylor’s new Netflix feature They Cloned Tyrone presents a universe where individuality is intentionally suppressed. They Cloned Tyrone follows Fontaine, Slick and Yo-Yo, a drug dealer, pimp and prostitute thrust together in an effort to discover why Fontaine seems to have survived a fatal encounter. Upon finding an underground lab in the basement of what appears to be a dope house, they discover that an organization is cloning Black personalities who occupy stereotypical traits. On top of this science experiment, they find that the same organization is performing hypnosis on the Black community through their food supply and their nightlife entertainment to mold them into a monolithic group. Shaken by the abrupt revelation, the three decide to fight back and expose the truth to the world. This Blaxploitation-influenced mystery hardly serves as the first film to entertain conspiracy theorists. In no uncertain terms, it pays homage to cult classics like A Clockwork Orange, The Matrix , and the more recent horror film, Us . It ponders similar questions to the others, such as “Are we living in a simulation?” or “Are we under constant surveillance?” More specifically, They Cloned Tyrone dives into exactly what its title suggests, which is that powerful organizations may be cloning personalities that reinforce negative stereotypes by manipulating their memories. Fontaine becomes aware of what he represents and must come to grips with his own lack of uniqueness. Along with Slick and Yo-Yo, he realizes that how he reacts to these revelations may allow him to claim and retain his individuality, even if it makes him a threat to the status quo. As previously stated, They Cloned Tyrone is not the first film centered around characters discovering their own programmed behavior and the conspiracy behind it. Nonetheless, the movie manages to find its own lane in its visual stylistic choices. Despite taking place in the present day, its cinematography and costume design are modeled after the Blaxploitation films of the 1970s. Shaft, Super Fly, Blacula, and Willie Dynamite are a few of the more popular titles for those unfamiliar with the movement. Though the genre is applauded for making Black people the central focus of its stories rather than ancillary characters, Blaxploitation films were also castigated for perpetuating negative stereotypes that associated Black people with crime. This duality makes it a perfect style for They Cloned Tyrone to adopt, and the costuming, hair and makeup, and cinematography mirror that ‘70s look to a tee. Even with the film’s technical accomplishments, it takes strong acting and great comedic timing to overshadow the film’s weaknesses. Fontaine appears in virtually every scene, and after the first 20 minutes or so, Slick and Yo-Yo are never far behind. John Boyega, Teyonah Paris and Jamie Foxx exhibit their undeniable chemistry throughout the film’s two-hour running time. Additionally, other cast members in the film, such as Keifer Sutherland and David Alan Grier, have proven track records of delivering in multiple genres, specifically comedy. In particular, Foxx and Paris deliver punch lines with the same cadence and inflection that many Blaxploitation actors of the past had mastered. Merging an older style with a contemporary film certainly requires adept on screen talent, and They Cloned Tyrone accomplishes this with its shrewd casting. The most direct comparisons to this Netflix original have already been stated. To go off the beaten path, They Cloned Tyrone also resembles a 1960s-political thriller, The Manchurian Candidate . In this conspiracy theory film, a prisoner of war is brainwashed into attempting an assassination of a U.S. presidential candidate who is considered a threat to Communism. While less tied to the government, Tyrone addresses the same overarching theme of social engineering and influential powers dictating our every move. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back Why and How Short Films are Made An Examination of Short Films and How They Serve Aspiring Filmmakers Chris Chaisson 11/12/22 Reading Time: 9 minutes 📸: Photo from Pixabay In 2011, a short web series called The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl premiered on YouTube. Its premise related to much of its viewership, centering around a young Black woman navigating uncomfortable situations in the professional, social and dating worlds. The exposure it received from YouTube helped Awkward Black Girl to spin off into a very successful HBO series known as Insecure . The creator of both, Issa Rae, has now forged her path into mainstream Hollywood, and it all started with a simple short showcasing her creative chops. Given the high demand for content across all platforms, there is always a chance that a modest project can morph into something big. Many cinephiles are familiar with some of the big-screen to small screen spinoffs, such as The American President becoming The West Wing , or A Few Good Men setting the table for JAG . However, many talented filmmakers lack the resources to produce expansive projects that gain the attention of influential representatives or studios. Creating a television series or a feature length movie requires budgets in at least the seven-to-eight figure range, usually valuated by professionals known as line producers. So what’s the best use of the underdog’s modest means? Many go the route of what’s known as a short film. With running times typically ranging anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour, shorts offer filmmakers a chance to showcase their storytelling and directing abilities. The small-scale project often serves as a foot in the door for their future endeavors. Short films can have any one of several purposes. Many filmmakers make a short for what’s called a proof-of-concept, whether for a feature-length flick or television pilot. As there are countless scripts waiting to be looked at, a project that has gone from the page to the screen is more likely to garner attention from studio executives. “Proof of concept is great,” says Alex Morsanutto , director of Operation: Cavity . “Because if you have a bigger idea, you could show a producer, or an agent, maybe your manager, ‘Hey, this is what I'm thinking of, something that I'd like to do as my next project. I already have this visual example of what it's going to be like. This is the proof of concept. All you need to do is get me the money and we're in business.’” Furthermore, a story may come off as too difficult or expensive to produce, or not capable of captivating an audience for the allotted time. In these instances, even filmmakers who have some notoriety produce proof-of-concept shorts. There are several interesting examples to choose from, perhaps most notably Robert Rodriguez’s The Customer is Always Right , Zack Snyder’s Die Free , and Neill Blomkamp’s Alive in Joburg. These projects paved the way for Sin City , 300 , and District 9 , respectively. None of these three award-winning blockbusters would likely have been made without their proof-of-concept shorts preceding them. Such was also the case for the creators of the Saw horror franchise. Leigh Whannell and James Wan struggled to find the funding necessary for their script, so they instead made a short film, moved to Los Angeles, and screened it for producer Gregg Hoffman . It made a strong enough impression for them to secure funding of what is now a very popular horror series that earned far more than it spent. The most common purpose in a proof-of-concept is to attract investors with a visual representation of what the filmmaker hopes to create. Directors aim to establish the look and feel of the movie more so than the specifics of the narrative. Whannell and Wan’s short consisted of a gruesome torture scene, consistent with what each feature ended up containing. Similarly, Die Free , the aforementioned short for 300 , runs only a minute and a half, but it provides a glimpse into the stylized violence and cinematography that 300 fans know very well. Conversely, some such projects are based entirely around a character. Similar to Issa Rae’s Awkward Black Girl series, Mike Judge produced a series of animated shorts surrounding Milton, a character frequently bullied by his office co-workers. The shorts became mainstays on MTV and Saturday Night Live in the ‘90s. Later, Judge incorporated Milton into his second feature in 1999 that would become a cult classic known as Office Space , with Milton playing an ancillary character. Some filmmakers go another route, opting to enter their shorts into a short film festival. Many in-person festivals serve as a hub for both creators and investors. A filmmaker can find not only financiers to fund future projects but also like-minded peers for future collaborations. With enough exposure and accolades from events, short films have the potential to climb their way into Oscars consideration. Over 90 short film festivals are considered Oscar qualifiers , and the entries to these festivals all have a chance to be recognized by the Academy. Along these lines, filmmakers can take their completed short and screen it in theaters for seven straight days in one of six major U.S. cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, or Miami. Matthew A. Cherry’s very popular short film Hair Love won the 2020 Oscar for Best Animated Short after first airing in theaters alongside The Angry Birds Movie 2 , Jumanji: The Next Level , and Little Women . Hair Love was later adapted to a 12-episode animated series by HBO Max. An option for filmmakers still in school is to compete in the Student Academy Awards, put on by the Academy every year. The award ceremony offers a Gold, Silver and Bronze medal, any of which can be nominated for its corresponding Academy Award category (Best Live Action Short, Best Documentary Short, or Best Animated Short). According to the Oscars official website, 63 medalists from the Student Academy Award have been nominated for an Oscar and 11 have won. So what does a short film cost to make? The most honest and least popular answer is of course, “depends.” While budgets for past short films are harder to unearth than blockbusters, SAG (Screen Actors Guild) defines a short project on a low budget scale as being entirely shot in the United States for a maximum budget of $50,000, running no longer than 40 minutes. A list of expenses would normally include location rentals, cast and crew wages, craft services, and equipment, along with other minor costs. Given the prorated nature of some of these expenses, the more concise your shooting schedule, the cheaper your shoot. For short films, many directors use their circle of friends to fulfill roles on both the cast and crew. If possible, many use that same network to acquire the camera, lights and possibly even location needed at a discount. They often supplement that with on-screen talent looking to develop what is known as an actor reel to showcase their work. In this instance, actors are usually willing to accept less pay in exchange for the opportunity to bolster their acting resumes. Raising the money to produce a short could prove challenging. The easiest, and most commonly recommended, way, is to have rich, generous friends and family. Aside from that, filmmakers often have to cultivate relationships and operate on a quid pro quo basis with the people or businesses that can help them. If you’ve ever seen the “Special Thanks To” section closing out the end credits, that tip of the cap is usually to the people or places that provided food, a location, or some other helpful service for little or no cost to the filmmaker. Aside from individual investors to pitch to, many firms specialize in financing films. For creators, the best way to approach such investors is to have a clear and concise description of the film you wish to make, how much money you need and detailed explanations on how the money will be used.. Some people have locations locked down but need help paying the crew. Others have enough money for labor but need help renting equipment. In any case, the needs should be explicitly stated and possibly even itemized. The most important aspect of a filmmaker’s pitch is transparency, as any investor will be wary of the potential that they are being taken advantage of. There are good lessons to be learned in the stories of past short films made. While the aforementioned examples make the short-to-feature pipeline seem chock full of success stories, far more go unnoticed or receive negative reception. In a famous example, a young USC student named George Lucas produced his short entitled Electronic Labyrinth: THX-1138 4EB . It was later adapted into a feature shortened to just THX-1138 , thanks to his good friend Francis Ford Coppola’s production company, American Zoetrope. However, the Warner Brothers executives that Coppola received funding from despised THX-1138 and demanded a refund on their investment. This anecdote gives insight into the potential setbacks an aspiring filmmaker can suffer, even when receiving the funding he or she needs. Nonetheless, perseverance allowed Francis Ford Coppola to create The Godfather and recoup his losses. I just hope that George Lucas kid turned out alright. For more on short films, listen to Season 1, Episode 3 of the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast . Tune in on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart Radio, and more. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back The Piano Lesson reminds us of the similarity of our stories Mundy Lane Entertainment, 2024 125 minutes Director/Writer: Malcolm Washington / Virgil Williams, Malcolm Washington, and August Wilson Reading Time: 5 minutes The Piano Lesson Life in Wonder (YZTFZ6JOABMIRD4V) 00:00 / 07:20 📷 : Used with permission, Netflix Barley: Movies and TV shows with a lot of dialog Ginger: Thought-provoking movies and TV shows Reba Chaisson 2024-12-04 Many of us hold on to trinkets. We have boxes and drawers stuffed with small but meaningful cards and gifts that we just cannot bring ourselves to part with. These things carry a lot of sentimental value for us, and they can be exchanged for no amount of money. That Willie Mays baseball card. The special note we received from an aunt after graduating. The plastic jewelry box gifted to us by a sibling when we were just 8 years old. The $2 bill our dad gave us when they were freshly minted. Or the journals or special drawings our children made for us when they were in second grade. Except for the Willie Mays baseball card, these keepsakes aren’t worth much on the open market. But what if they were, and cashing them in could add a significant boost to our family’s life? Denzel Washington’s son, Malcolm, takes up August Wilson’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play, The Piano Lesson , which explores this very hypothetical. With an all-star cast in tow, Malcolm Washington takes on the tall task of directing a period piece about a Black family in 1930s Pittsburgh whose ancestry dates to the time of early enslavement in the South. Boy Willie, played by John David Washington, arrives at his sister’s place in Pittsburgh with his friend Lymon (Ray Fisher) and a truck full of watermelons from Mississippi to sell. Brash and outspoken, Boy Willie aspires to buy the Mississippi land of his family’s former enslaver. Even selling all the watermelons leaves him short to buy the 100 acres, so he wants to sell the family’s prized piano which has long sat silent in his sister Berniece’s possession. Played by Danielle Deadwyler ( Till , The Haves and Have Nots ), Berniece makes it unequivocally and emphatically clear to her brother that she “is not selling that piano.” She even threatens to shoot him when he tries to do so anyway. Samuel L. Jackson plays Boy Willie’s and Berniece’s uncle, Doaker, who owns the home where Berniece lives and where much of the film is set. Doaker is easy-going but makes it clear that he is to be respected in his own home. As the siblings bicker constantly over the fate of the piano, Doaker lets it go on for so long before he puts his foot down and insists that Boy Willie back off. Doaker is quite deft at this as he gets Boy Willie’s attention, while also acknowledging that the fight over the piano is between the two siblings and not him. Amid Boy Willie’s and Berniece’s bickering is the presence of the family’s former enslaver, Sutter, who is deceased. Berniece insists she frequently sees his ghost upstairs, and the audience shares this sighting with her along with water flowing across the floors and doors creaking. Berniece believes Sutter haunts them because of the way her family came to be in possession of the piano, as well as the circumstances under which he died. In our Crumpets piece on horrors and thrillers, we note that villains are typically known in horror movies, and that their innocent victims need to take time to “[figure] out how to defend themselves and their loved ones from them,” who in this case is Sutter’s ghost. Perhaps Berniece’s insistence that she maintains possession of the piano is her way of protecting Boy Willie and her child from him until she figures out how to rid herself of Sutter’s haunting. Nonetheless, as the original owner of the piano, Sutter’s ghost adds a mystique to the film that is not just about giving a fright, but about sending a chill up our spines and making horror’s presence palpable. In some respects, The Piano Lesson brings to mind Tyler Perry’s 2020 film, A Fall from Grace . The latter’s setting is present day Atlanta, and the subject matter of each film is very different. The two movies are similar, however, in their rising action. Towards the end of both films, the level of suspense is raised from something more than anticipated in the drama we expected to experience when we sat down to watch these films. What the two also have in common is the southern urban aesthetics, despite The Piano Lesson ’s setting being more dated than A Fall from Grace and situated in the Northeast rather than South. The homes in each have dark wood interiors and are dimly lit, but the dark hues are quite effective in drawing the audience into the story. Indeed, Doaker enlightens the audience when he effectively takes center stage in The Piano Lesson . His ensuing monologue explains the significance of what to some might be nothing more than a heavy, old-fashioned piece of furniture with numerous carvings. From him, we get a history lesson about the piano but learn a thing or two in the process that helps us consider the real value of those trinkets we keep. In The Piano Lesson: Legacy and a Vision , Washington said he wanted to respect the playwright’s work but to update it in some ways to “speak to the current times,” including language, images, and sounds. He addresses this, in part, by infusing timely orchestral music with deep soulful sounds, danceable tunes, and even on-screen performances by Erykah Badu. The mix of 1930s costumes with the day’s decor, dance styles, jazz, gospel, and today’s R&B offer a cinematic experience that reaches beyond the intrigue of the story to connect us to the family and keep us fully engaged in the film. Viewers are likely to find themselves not wanting to miss anything in this period piece, when such movies typically lose our interest, and we gladly excuse ourselves to get popcorn or go on a bathroom break. That the film accomplishes this level of engagement without racy scenes or excessive profanities is impressive, and interestingly, consistent with the cinema of the era. In addition to the mystique around the piano itself, The Piano Lesson offers intrigue, horror, romance, and a mix of music delivered through powerful songs and strong acting. And because of this fusion, the film is likely to both attract and engage viewers across a wide age range, albeit a narrow ethnic group given its subject matter. My hope is The Piano Lesson will get us to consider – no, remember – how similar our stories are and the ties that bind us, still. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

Small Axe depicts the multifaceted experiences of people from Carribbean islands living in Britain during a tumultuous period. < Back Small Axe depicts the multifaceted experiences of people from Carribbean islands living in Britain during a tumultuous period. Turbine Studios, 2020 60 minutes Creator: Steve McQueen Reading Time: 6 minutes 📷 : Licensed from Shutterstock Small Axe Port Town (NGKEV1LNFLSDFQ2A) 00:00 / 07:24 Honeybush Nonfamily dramas with strong socioeconomic themes Masala Chai Movies and TV shows about toughness and athletic competition Reba Chaisson 2021-07-25 Small Axe is a series of five film shorts ranging from just over one hour to a little over two. The distinct docudramas focus on the experiences of people from the Caribbeans living in Britain between the late 1960s and early 1980s. The filmmakers exquisitely capture the aesthetics and cinematography of the era through dim lighting, signage, and tight spaces. Afros, big glasses, bell bottom pants, and soulful sounds of Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” Al Green’s “Still in Love,” and Bob Marley’s reggae take us back to the house– and on‑campus parties of the period, further driving home the old-school feel. As depicted in “Mangrove,” the first episode of the series, any place Blacks gather is viewed by British law enforcement as a place where crime and conspiracies are plotted, even Mangrove Restaurant where West Indian cuisine is served. Despite immigrating to Britain to pursue “educational and economic opportunity,” people from the Virgin Islands and countries like Jamaica and Antigua endure suspicion by police who patrol their communities on foot and by car. Men are continuously and casually harassed, beaten, and arrested by police who simply resent them for standing alone on a corner, walking down the street, or even looking them in the eye. The brutality reminded me of documentaries like Eyes on the Prize that chronicled the Jim Crow South, where Blacks were relegated to segregated communities and forced to adjust their upbeat and confident demeanors when White police officers came around. They did this out of fear of being beaten and/or arrested—for being Black. And interactions with police traumatize and change people when there is no justice and accountability. In 1970, the late Roscoe Lee Brown starred in a film set in the segregated South called The Liberation of L.B. Jones. I remember my older sister watching it on television when I happened to see a scene where two White officers on patrol in a Black community at night, stopped a woman walking home with a bag of groceries. One coerced her into the back seat of their vehicle and let her out sometime later. Clearly ruffled and shaken, she was without one of her shoes, turning her ankle as she got out of the car. Her blouse was buttoned incorrectly, and her skirt was twisted. I was young—very young—but even I knew what happened in that back seat. The sweaty officer slicked his hair back, got in the front passenger seat, (His partner remained in the driver’s seat during the assault.) bid the woman ‘Good evening,’ and calmly drove off. Watching the police encounters across several of the Small Axe episodes brought back this memory of the police operating in Black neighborhoods in the South with impunity. While similar scenes are not depicted in Small Axe, the series shows women like Altheia Jones and Barbara Beese being dismissed, arrested, and frequently called derogatory names by law enforcement. Played by Letitia Wright (Marvel Cinematic Universe, Black Panther) and Rochenda Sandall (Line of Duty, Criminal: UK), both women vehemently protest, resist police action, and lead calls for justice and accountability. In the “Red, White and Blue” segment, Leroy Logan, played by John Boyega, joins the London police force with the aspiration of changing the way policing is conducted in West Indian communities. He quickly learns how challenging this is when his fellow mates are unwelcoming in the station house and unsupportive on the streets. During walking patrols in the community, he is also treated as a traitor by residents, soon realizing that it is lonely being a bridge between his community and the police. Frustrated, he breaks down and declares “Sometimes I think this earth needs to be scorched, replanted, so that something good will come of it.” Not all West Indian experiences in Britain are portrayed as negative though. “Lover’s Rock” depicts a house party where young men and women dance, drink, smoke ganja, and even fall in love. A slice of heaven, the party makes it clear that the group strives to carve out a space where its members can freely express themselves and tune into their culture through music and dance. Many of the songs played by the DJ are quite familiar to the group as evidenced by several sing-alongs. Even a spiritual bonding occurs during the playing of a highly popular instrumental reggae tune called “Kunta Kinte.” The music, dancing, and even cat-mouse love games at the party are entertaining, though the sing-along and single-song dance scenes go on for much, much too long. Long, drawn-out, over-narrated, and monotonous or silent scenes are the downsides of Small Axe, particularly when contrasted with the substantially shorter emotional scenes. In “Alex Wheatle,” Alex, played by Sheyi Cole (Boxing Day, Made in Hollywood), is shown laying isolated on a floor in a straitjacket and revealing his deadpan eyes for 1 minute and 45 seconds. No music, no movement, no dialog, only this long period of silence. On the other hand, an emotional scene over a family dinner in “Education,” the final episode, is short-lived, only 60 seconds. I cannot help but feel that the audience needed to share in the family’s emotion and feel its pain in order to connect with the cost and significance of racist educational practices. In crucial moments like this, the films missed opportunities to immerse the audience in the stories and give viewers the space to absorb the messages being posited. The big takeaway from Small Axe though, is for Blacks in the U.S., specifically Baby Boomers and older, to appreciate the similarity in struggles with Blacks in Britain. In doing so, it broadens viewers’ perspectives about the treatment of Blacks in the West and informs thinking about strategies for progress. If you like good music and can tolerate the dim aesthetics of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, this could be a worthwhile view. Listen carefully to the dialog though. Occasionally, the West Indian dialect and British accent can be tough to discern. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

Operation: Cavity makes a strong statement about understanding experiences from a kid’s point of view. < Back Operation: Cavity makes a strong statement about understanding experiences from a kid’s point of view. Silvermine Productions, 2022 18 minutes Director/Writer: Alex Morsanutto Reading Time: 2 minutes 📷 : Used with permission, Alex Morsanutto Operation: Cavity Seeing Results (N1PNDA1PEINSBVGA) 00:00 / 02:58 White Movies and TV shows that make you laugh, or involve urgency, like chase scenes or other physical activity Yarrow Movies and TV shows about illness or set in hospitals or similar medical institutions Reba Chaisson 2022-09-25 Operation: Cavity is a comedy about four friends who devise a scheme to get revenge on their dentist for the years of filled cavities, pulled teeth, and awkward x-rays. It is a short, hilarious film that packs a big punch, with multiple settings and bright aesthetics that bring back memories of childhood films like The Sandlot , The Bad News Bears , and Mighty Ducks . The exquisite cinematography and continual movement of the story time-travels us to the days when we were 10 and 11 years old: loyal to our friends and doing goofy stuff like challenging people—knowing we would get our butts kicked. Indeed, the inciting event of Operation: Cavity occurs when Douglas, played by Jonathan O’Reilly, gets clobbered while standing up for his friend Timmy, played by Declan Foley. Doug’s subsequent visit to the dentist brilliantly presents the experience from his vantage point, with bright lights, whizzing tools, and intimidating instruments—and care providers. Something so necessary appears nonetheless quite daunting, if not traumatic, through Doug’s eyes. As far as he and his friends are concerned, the dentist exists to inflict pain. Realizing what a visit to a medical provider looks and feels like from a child’s point of view may take some audience members aback. The experience is quite scary, and the procedures are seen as assaultive rather than caring acts. They are traumatizing rather than calming. And dental work amounts to punishment for a crime they didn’t commit. This is sure to motivate adults to consider ways to mitigate children’s anxieties around what they see as “the dreaded visit to the dentist,” with more comforting words offered by providers, perhaps. Permitting parents/guardians into the room for procedures and allowing children headphones so they can listen to the music of their choice may also help. Made as a proof of concept for a young adult TV series, director Alex Morsanutto's short film conveys strong themes about what friendship means to pre-adolescents and the importance of appreciating experiences from a child’s perspective. The fact that the cast is age-, gender-, and racially-diverse adds an inclusive element to this relatable work of art. Available on Film Shortage Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

The Untold Story of Mild Sauce will make you chuckle and reminisce < Back The Untold Story of Mild Sauce will make you chuckle and reminisce Ill-Hio Films, 2021 13 minutes Director/Writer: Anton Deshawn / Johnathan Craig and Anton Deshawn Reading Time: 3 minutes 📷 : Used with permission, Anton Deshawn The Untold Story of Mild Sauce Cats And Dogs Living Together (ECIADMH14RKW9MLT) 00:00 / 03:16 Oolong Movies/shows that make you laugh or involve physical activity like exercise/dance Ginkgo Biloba Youthful, lighthearted, and fun movies and TV shows Chris Chaisson 2023-04-11 For anyone who vividly remembers ‘90s R&B and VH1 programming, The Untold Story of Mild Sauce will offer quite a few chuckles. Shot in mockumentary style, the story raises the curtain on fictional R&B group Mild Sauce, a four-person boy band comprised of Vonn, Juju, Heno, and Dre, and their manager Stony Mack. Between narration and confessional-style interviews, director Anton Deshawn splices in Mild Sauce’s music videos. The choreography and vocals are clearly meant to poke fun at hit songs by the extremely popular groups of the era, namely New Edition, Boyz II Men and Dru Hill. Interestingly enough, the humor hits harder now that R&B music has transitioned away from this style. In the ‘90s and early 2000s, boy bands in pop and R&B were so revered that it would be tough to imagine anyone producing a satire of them. Contemporary groups largely consist of individual acts that collaborate across other genres and lean heavily on sex appeal. The generation-old trends that The Untold Story of Mild Sauce mocks make it easier to look back and laugh at styles that were universally admired at the time. The funniest element of The Untold Story of Mild Sauce is without a doubt the lack of accountability that permeates the actual VH1 Behind the Scenes -style interviews. Generally, the artists and managers alike never own up to any of their transgressions. They instead point the finger at other parties, rationalize their actions or simply deny details that have already been proven true. Mild Sauce turns this into a recurring gag, where the members do not take responsibility for the downturns in their careers or in their personal lives. In one particular interview, a Mild Sauce member will not even give kudos to a female R&B group (likely a nod to TLC or En Vogue) that outsold them at the time. Similarly, Stony Mack does not own up to ripping off the band, just as most managers never do. As is common in VH1 Behind the Scenes stories, a publicist, manager or record label executive takes advantage of the group’s success and cheats them out of money. Mack’s denial is consistent with a vast majority of stories we hear from the music industry, where the swindler acts as though other expenses prevented the band from getting paid out. The interview segments cleverly mimic those from every documentary or biopic that we watch about feuding artists and deceitful management. At this point, so many of our favorite musicians from the past have decided they hate each other, so we may as well poke fun at the never-ending feuds. The Untold Story of Mild Sauce serves as part satire, part time-machine, and executes both equally well. Available on Kweli TV Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back Faithfully Yours puts “trust” up for debate Millstreet Films, 2023 96 minutes Director/Writer: André van Duren / Elisabeth Lodeizen, Paul Jan Nelissen, André van Duren Reading Time: 5 minutes Faithfully Yours Trust Yourself (F0N4V1AHF7FIM00K) 00:00 / 05:56 📷 : Used with permission, Netflix Ginseng Suspenseful and intense thrillers Honeybush Nonfamily dramas with strong adult and/or socioeconomic themes Reba Chaisson 2023-05-24 In her 2014 TED talk , Professor Anne Curzan, a linguist at the University of Michigan, addresses how words get into dictionaries and become legitimated as part of our everyday vernacular. During her lecture, she states, “I am struck as a teacher that we tell students to critically question every text they read, every website they visit — except dictionaries.” Hmmm. I wonder then about the degree to which we take the meaning of some words for granted, words like “trust.” Dictionaries write that trust is all-inclusive, that a person is all-in with their belief and/or reliance on a person or thing. But Professor Curzan later states in her talk that words and their meanings are fleeting, changing over time. Perhaps this is the case with the word “trust,” which is at the center of Dutch director André van Duren’s film, Faithfully Yours . Beginning in present-day Netherlands, Faithfully Yours is about two close female friends, Bodil (Bo) and Isabel (Isa), who take a break from their stressful jobs and go away for the weekend. Both are married and professional women. Bo, a judge whose husband Milan is a physician, and Isa, seemingly a professor or researcher whose husband Luuk is a mystery writer, take these excursions to attend intellectual events. This weekend, they tell their spouses, respectively played by Nasrdin Dchar ( D3 12 van Oldenheim , Rabat ) and Gijs Naber ( Judas , Penoza ), that they are attending a lecture in Belgium. We begin to realize something is off when during their talk on the train, Isa gives her phone to Bo and informs her where she needs to be and when to text Luuk over the first half of the weekend. Bo looks mildly surprised until Isa adds, “Luuk’s totally unaware that I know he installed a GPS tracker on my phone. ... I got myself a burner phone. This is my number.” Handing Bo a piece of paper, Isa concludes, ”And after that, you’re free to do your thing for the rest of the weekend.” Bo smiles and replies, “Thanks. Next time I’ll make the plans.” The exchange comes across as perfunctory for the two women. And when they arrive in Belgium, situate themselves in front of the Oostende train station to take a picture “for the boys back home” and then go off in opposite directions, it becomes clear that these weekends along with the detailed planning are indeed routine for them. Bo heads to the spacious cottage she owns and Isa checks into her usual exclusive hotel. Weekend escapes are typically marketed as ways of getting away from stresses and routine that dominate our everyday lives. So escaping is about changing it up, letting go, and having a bit of uninhibited fun as Bo and Isa do on this weekend - in their own unique ways. Played respectively by Bracha van Doesburgh ( Kerstappels , De maatschap ) and Elise Schaap ( Ferry , Undercover ), the two women are enjoying themselves when Luuk calls Bo distressed that he cannot reach Isa. He has injured himself and needs her to return home. Bo relays the message to Isa who says she will stop by the cottage for her phone before leaving. But things go awry when Bo returns from a swim to find a pool of blood in the foyer of her cottage and no sign of Isa. Unable to reach her by phone, Bo alerts the Belgian authorities and notifies Luuk and Milan back in The Netherlands. Both arrive later, and over the next few days of the investigation, relations begin to devolve as Luuk blames Bo for Isa’s disappearance. In this sense, Faithfully Yours is similar to the 2014 film Gone Girl , where Ben Affleck plays a man whose wife suddenly disappears and questions around what happened to her linger for much of the movie. This is where the similarities end however, as Gone Girl was dark with an ominous tone. While Faithfully Yours is serious and suspenseful, it is neither dark nor scary. Indeed, what is revealed about Milan and Luuk during this stressful period is their level of intentional dependence on their wives and the lengths they go to keep them within their control. This does not occur through physical handling, but rather emotional manipulation and modern-day technology. The fact that the methods used do not involve touching does not make it any less problematic, invasive, or suffocating for the women. In fact, they make it feel like broken trust. Over the course of the 96 minute film, we come to understand that Bo and Isa’s weekend excursions are not so much about escaping the stresses of their jobs, but much more so about escaping the constraints of their spouses. The matter does beg the question though: Are Luuk and Milan manipulating and controlling because they are generally distrusting? Or has Bo and Isa’s dishonesty about how they spend their weekends bred their husbands’ distrust of them? Perhaps it’s time for “trust” to be critically questioned as something that suggests full investment. Maybe a new definition that reflects the flawed nature and fallibility of human beings is in order – at least for now. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

From prioritizes three-dimensional characters in its dystopian universe < Back From prioritizes three-dimensional characters in its dystopian universe Epix Studios, 2022- 52 minutes Creator: John Griffin Reading Time: 5 minutes 📷 : Licensed from Shutterstock From A Most Sinister Kind (DDEBPQXXMUPGG39Y) 00:00 / 04:55 Ginseng Suspenseful and intense thrillers Yarrow Movies and TV shows about illness or set in hospitals or similar medical institutions Chris Chaisson 2023-05-04 Sci-fi horror projects tend to be pretty cut and dry with their good guys, bad guys, and missions. The lead characters are bad mamma-jammas who know how to operate every weapon ever created. The villains are ugly, bloodthirsty and otherworldly. The mission boils down to fight or flight: defeat the bad guy or get away safely. But what if the bad guy cannot be defeated and the setting cannot be escaped? The story and character representation need to shift to other aspects, especially to maintain a several episodes-long TV show. The new horror series From masterfully manages its breakaway from these established archetypes. From takes place in a present-day dystopian universe, centering around a community of strangers trapped in a nowhere town surrounded by the forest. In addition to their inability to leave, they have to barricade themselves inside at sundown to stay safe from ravenous monsters in the form of ghostly humans protruding from the woods. The monsters can only enter through open doors or windows and retreat at sunrise, but when they get inside, they kill and devour the town residents in brutal fashion. The townspeople are led and protected by the town sheriff, Boyd, his deputy Kenny, Father Khatri, a paramedic named Kristi, and several others. Despite its sci-fi horror premise, this MGM+ original series picks its spots to be gory and violent. Rather than going the action route, From is much more character-driven than one might guess. It differs from many other post-apocalyptic works in that the characters still have some semblance of free will. In sci-fi shows like The Walking Dead or The Last of Us , the protagonists essentially have to keep fleeing the flesh-eating monsters to survive. In From , the citizens of this town live ordinary lives during the day and hole up inside at night, relying on trust and cooperation. This caveat creates interesting distinctions in the characters’ behavior. The mix of personalities reveal opposing mindsets about how to handle such a grim reality, allowing different audience members to identify with different characters. For instance, Jade spends all of his time trying to figure out a way to escape the town. As a bachelor with no family who’s lost his best friend, Jade’s focus is not on providing, protecting, or cultivating relationships. He simply wants to get back to his old life. In complete contrast to Jade’s attitude is Fatima, who makes it a point to celebrate life and community with her acts of generosity, even in such a bleak atmosphere. She even says to another character at one point that she does not know how she would return back to her old life if they were all to escape. Jim and Tabitha must factor their children, Julie and Ethan, into every decision they make, protecting them before all else. In context, all of these characters’ actions and behaviors feel justifiable, but the characters nonetheless clash simply over their contrary approaches to coping. The premise of From contributes to one of its biggest strengths—the diversity of its cast. Sci-fi projects tend to be predominantly White, often a reflection of their writer’s rooms. While there are plenty of White characters, Boyd, Kevin, and Kristi are all from underrepresented demographics (Black, Asian and Hispanic, respectively). All three characters have heavy speaking roles, positions of authority, and depth to their personalities. Though many projects are capable of incorporating this range of diversity into their cast, some fall back on the excuse of the time period or geographic region for not doing so. Having a premise in which the cast of characters randomly wind up in an undetermined dystopian setting, creates an opportunity for many people of color to appear on screen. Aside from their racial/ethnic backgrounds, the characters vary in age, gender and marital status as well. Since the citizens of From must cooperate with one another to gather resources and survive, their interactions (cordial or not) reveal their multi-dimensionality. Given the hallucinations and ominous threats that the seemingly trapped townspeople experience, From feels the most similar to a season of American Horror Story . In spite of its surrealism and occasional graphic scenes, much of the story revolves around the backgrounds of the lead characters and their differing philosophies on how to stay alive. While From is not for the queasy or faint-of-heart, it provides an array of personalities that appeal to various audience segments. For added fun, take a shot of rum every time you hear the word “talisman.” Cast Harold Perrineau as "Boyd" Ricky He as "Kenny " Shaun Majumder as "Father Khatri" Chloe Van Landschoot as "Kristi " David Alpay as "Jade" Pegah Ghafoori as "Fatima" Eion Bailey as "Jim" Catalina Sandino Moreno as "Tabitha" Hannah Cheramy as "Julie" Simon Webster as "Ethan" Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back Game of Thrones Audience Appeal The Enduringness of Story Reba Chaisson 7/22/22 Reading Time: 18 minutes 📸: Licensed from Shutterstock About 20 years ago, I sat down separately with several film and television development executives in Los Angeles to talk about their aesthetic priorities and what influenced their decisions to greenlight a project. I wrote the findings of the interviews in my book, For Entertainment Purposes Only? (Lexington Books, 2000). Each person gave me permission to disclose his or her company’s names because it was essential to lend credence to the views of such influential leaders in the business. Among the people I spoke with were development executives from HBO and October Films, the latter company went defunct in 1999 and now exists as Focus Features. I flew out to Los Angeles to join them for lunch after each kindly responded to my letter (sent via regular mail) to interview them about their work. It was an engaging hour with each. They helped me understand the elements they look for in a film and their rationale for them, as well as some of the challenges they face in the review and selection process. The business priorities of both people were consistent with respect to the goal for a film project, mainly that is is profitable as measured by premium channel subscribers and modest ticket sales, respectively. They also noted that generating "buzz" was important, Hollywood’s term for ‘talk’ and media attention about a project. This helped the project's popularity and increased its chances of critical acclaim in the form of awards and positive reviews. A strong consistency in my talks with all of the people I spoke with, including Smoke Signals (1998) writer/director Chris Eyre, was remaining true to the values of what was then considered independent film. Also described as artsy works with budgets under $20 million, independent film carries the tacit mandate of telling intimate stories with deep characters portrayed with strong acting. These projects differ from major (or mainstream) studio productions in several respects. Mainstream studios typically incur high production costs, emphasize splash over story substance, use high‑profile actors to carry the film, and are motivated to maximize ticket sales at the box office or rake in advertising revenue on television. In short, the focus of major studios is on the commercialization of the films they produce and distribute, measuring a project’s success in dollars more so than accolades. Of course, there are exceptions in that many mainstream films are simply great, with strong stories and acting such as Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox’s Titanic (1997) and New Line Cinema’s Lord of the Rings (2001), both high‑grossing and award‑winning films. But exceptions notwithstanding, mainstream film contrasts sharply with independent film, which endeavors to stay true to the art form by consistently telling compelling stories with high-quality cinematic presentations. Examples of 'indie' films in the '90s were Miramax’s Smoke Signals (1998), October Films’ The Apostle (1997) and Fox Searchlight’s Boys Don’t Cry (1999), all of which won multiple independent film awards and the last even won an Oscar for best acting. Recently, films such as Annapurna Pictures’ If Beale Street Could Talk (2018) garnered Oscar and Golden Globe wins for acting in 2019, and A24’s Moonlight (2016) won the Oscar for best film in 2017. All of these films fit the mold of indie as defined years ago, but there is a spirited debate occurring in the industry today over what indie is. The indie debate concerns what constitutes independent film and whether budget should factor into a project’s classification as indie or mainstream. Admitting my bias here, I agree that budget should not be a factor in making this determination, and instead the emphasis remain on the story and the quality of its presentation. I will save these arguments for another day. But it is worth mentioning that none of the arguments considers where the original programming of premium and streaming channels fits, whether in the form of movies or television series. At this point, even this doesn't matter, though. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, any arguments that assert where these platforms belong in the schema would be moot, now that the channels have become vessels for distributing theatrical releases of films of all types. It will be interesting to see if this changes as the public's sensitivity to news reports on COVID-19 diminishes. Years ago, HBO’s original programming was considered independent because it adhered to the indies' tacit mandates which required: that the film be produced independently of major ones; and that besides profit, the measures for success must lie heavily in the project's critical acclaim. Today, like HBO, companies like Netflix and AMC not only develop award winning movies, but also television series. Their success is measured in the indie tradition of awards and of course, channel subscribers rather than commercial advertising dollars. Because of this differentiation, we consider original programming to be of the indie mold. So, in addition to assessing just how well independent studios have remained true to the sector’s values, I wondered if the aesthetic priorities of the industry 20 years ago reflect the aesthetic tastes of the audiences they seek to attract today. If audience preferences align with studio priorities, it would suggest that it is the appeal of a story that endures, and audiences simply thirst for a good cinematic presentation of it. Given this, the story’s underlying elements could offer insights into what can potentially predict the success of a film or television project. Back in the Day Twenty years ago, DVRs had not yet arrived; VCRs were the recording devices of the day. Cable TV was limited, with just a handful of premium movie channels like HBO and TMC. The worldwide web was on the cusp of exploding into homes and moving into mainstream prominence. Mobile phones were quite literally just a phone, not the handheld microcomputers that we use today to manage our everyday lives and stay in constant touch with friends and family through texts, emojis, social media posts, and instant photos. So, with the technological revolution we have experienced since the turn of the century, have audiences’ cinematic preferences for independent works changed too? This is the question I wanted to explore, and I designed a survey on the HBO series, Game of Thrones (2011) to help me with some answers on this. About GoT Described in part as a fantasy drama, Game of Thrones (GoT) is a television series set in medieval times about a battle over seven kingdoms. The first seven seasons depicted battles among the various factions leading up to the showdown in the final season, which premiered April 14, 2019. In addition to war, the show integrates elements of politics, gender, race, class, and age. GoT’s U.S. viewership quadrupled over its seven seasons, growing from about 2.5 to more than 10 million on average per episode. By comparison, The Sopranos (HBO, 1999-2007) series finale drew 11.9 million and The West Wing (NBC, 1999-2006) pulled approximately 8 million viewers on average. GoT generated a lot of buzz over its first seven years, making it arguably the most talked about series, with cultural critics, pundits, psychologists, and marketers weighing in on its value and offering explanations for its appeal. With these achievements, it can be argued that GoT is an outlier because of its wild popularity. I can counter that it is because of its reach that the show warrants a teasing out of the elements that appealed to so many people. In short, GoT seemed to exemplify viewers’ aesthetic tastes, making it a very appropriate choice for the study. Viewer Demographics The online survey was administered over two days, March 27-28, 2019, prior to the release of season 8. It consisted of 11 questions posed to 540 individuals across the country who were 18 or older, asking about their level of interest in the season 8 premiere of GoT. With a response rate of 89%, the survey contained 482 responses and a completion rate of 86%. The sample yielded a margin of error of +/-4.6% at a 95% confidence level. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated they were somewhat to very likely to watch the season 8 premiere. Of these, 53% were women. People ages 45-54 made up the largest segment at 28%. Each segment of 18-24 and 25-34 year-olds comprised 19%, for a total of 38%. The respondents’ ages are consistent with those noted by Variety , which identified the key demographic for GoT as 18 to 49 years old. Together, they make up more than 70% of the sample. I was unable to find a mainstream television series that matches GoT’s ratings and breadth of appeal across age groups. Most have a younger or older audience, not both. The series boasts an IMDB rating of 9.5 on a 10‑point scale! ABC’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013-2020) comes to mind when considering a mainstream show that rates high among 21-34 year-olds in particular. The action packed, science fiction series had a rating of 7.5 as it approached its eighth season, with approximately 2.3 million viewers. It was twice nominated for an Emmy in the visual effects category only, suggesting that story and depth of characters do not explain the show’s appeal. Instead, its staying power is its ability to draw advertising revenue and its syndication potential. On the older side of the age band is ABC’s Castle (2009-2016). The underrated show is about a writer who partners with a female detective to develop material for his novels, but he falls in love with her along the way. The series ran for eight seasons, and won Emmys for music, People’s Choice awards for Favorite TV Drama, and TV Guide awards for acting. A high quality show with an IMDB rating of 8.5, it pulled strongly among 45-64 year olds . Despite being canceled more than five years ago, the show still enjoys syndication and is quite popular. But in short, nothing comes close to the broad appeal of the Game of Thrones series. More than 3/4th of survey respondents indicated they had at least some college education. Interestingly, Game of Thrones is often described as one of the smartest shows on television, with Walton, a writer for Forbes's , commenting that it was: “[So] smart, in fact, that it can be hard to follow. ” While the educational attainment of the largest audience segment in the sample has some college level education, a fifth of viewers indicated they have attained something less. This suggests that the show’s audience is not monolithic and has something for everyone. The show's appeal is further indicated across income groups. Just under 40% earn $35,000-$74,999. One quarter earn $75,000-$149,999. Thus, the audience is diverse even across income. Together, the sample’s demographics point to Game of Thrones as having a very broad appeal, spanning age bands, education segments, income, and in grabbing the interest of both men and women. Critical Acclaim The critical acclaim of cinematic work is one standard of measure for assessing a film or television production. It manifests in awards and positive reviews that essentially validate several elements: the quality of the story being told; depth of the characters; and strength of the acting. It stands to reason then that a successful production is one that garners a lot of prestigious awards. Awards are the film and television industry’s nod to the strength of a show or movie’s critical elements. GoT won numerous prestigious awards over its first seven seasons: a Golden Globe for acting and multiple Emmy awards for Outstanding TV Drama Series, acting, production design, music composition, and visual effects just to name a few. The show’s accolades are reminiscent of drama series like AMC’s Breaking Bad (2008-2013), Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale (2017- ), and ABC’s Scandal (2012-2018). Like GoT, Breaking Bad and The Handmaid’s Tale won multiple Golden Globes for Best TV Series and best acting performances. These along with Scandal , won Emmys in all or some categories, including Outstanding Drama Series, writing, acting, cinematography, production design, and others. Baffling is a notable series like HBO’s The Wire (2002-2008), which was only twice‑nominated for Emmys in writing and received no Golden Globe and Emmy nominations for acting. The show’s IMDB rating is 9.3 out of 10, second in the aforementioned only to GoT which has a 9.5. One journalist described it as “ the greatest television [program] ever made. ” The explanations for this absence of tangible critical acclaim for The Wire is still being debated more than a decade after the show’s series finale. Nonetheless, accolades such as these attest to the critical acclaim of these shows. But still, do the tastes of viewers support the industry’s notions about GoT? Audience Appeal The most interesting and poignant finding from the survey is how respondents described GoT’s appeal for them. Based on the frequency in their responses to the question regarding what they find appealing in the Game of Thrones , the single, most prominent element that grabs their interest is 'characters.' Blake, a writer with CNN noted that critics often laud the complexity of the characters in GoT. Arya’s character, for example, defies her expected role to marry royalty and instead becomes a fighter determined to avenge her family. And Daenerys, who began as a victim and over time built an army and nurtured dragons, now wields undeniable power. The depth of the characters and their transformation over the series resonate with the experiences and aspirations of many everyday people who strive for strength and courage. There are also other character elements that we recognize in ourselves, such as: the cunningness of Littlefinger; the immaturity of Joffrey; sadly, the brutality of Ramsay; and even the gentility, loyalty, and empathy displayed by Tyrion and Jorah. Viewers relate to these in terms of what they see, hear and in some cases experience every day. Thus, the characters in the series display both broad and deep ranges of humanity, reinforcing the idea that the show has something that appeals to everyone. Second in text frequency are ‘storyline’ and ‘story,’ indicating their high importance for respondents. GoT is a story of race, gender, politics, and the wielding of political and military power to conquer. Examples of these are: the ruthlessness practiced by those in power to keep it and gain more; dark skinned people being brought out of bondage by a blond, white woman; young and older women occupying seats of power like Sansa and Cersei, respectively. Viewers can connect with these elements in large part because they are relevant to present-day issues and events. As I wrote in my book , cinema has historically been tied to the events of the day so it can resonate with people’s lives during that period. For example, a flood of war and comedy productions are released during times of military conflict, the former to reflect reality and the latter to provide an escape from its horror. Recently, Aaron Sorkin, a writer of The West Wing , noted that the series almost did not air because the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke soon after the show was penned. Said Sorkin, “[We knew] we simply can’t do this right now. People will giggle.” Today, strong political divisions and race and gender issues are playing out on television news programs and in social media, making the GoT storyline especially palpable. We found no major differences in the show’s appeal for men and women. Both emphasize characters and story as appealing elements, highlighting drama, action, acting, fantasy, and intrigue as important but relatively minor. The notable difference between the two is the appearance of ‘nudity’ for men and ‘love’ for women. But even these do not come close to the two primary draws of characters and story. Escapism and Anticipation ‘Action,’ ‘plot,’ ‘dragons,’ ‘fantasy’ are also highlighted by respondents, so it is evident that the level of escapism provided by GoT is quite high. Forty‑one percent planned to decorate their homes and/or wear GoT‑themed costumes for the viewing, which exemplifies the degree to which entertainment in general provides for escape from everyday routines. With sports, some fans wear jerseys, guzzle hats and paint the team’s colors on their faces to immerse themselves into the event. With cinema, some viewers carry props and don period clothing and costumes imitating those worn in a film or show. Star Wars and GoT are just two examples of this. More than half of respondents who indicated they were likely to watch the premiere planned to watch it with friends and/or family, and many were preparing for its airing much like football fans do for the Big Game. They shared plans to prepare meals, and 4 out of 10 indicated they were somewhat likely to very likely to purchase a big screen television for the event – a fairly common phenomenon for the Big Game . A handful indicated they would binge on the previous episodes to build excitement for what’s to come in the season 8 premiere. In addition to show loyalty, the constant media buzz about GoT spurs its anticipation even before trailers of the premieres are released. For example, a simple search of Game of Thrones articles yielded more than 209 million results. Even if half of these were duplicates, the sheer number demonstrates the wild popularity and interest in the show by journalists, scholars and viewers. By comparison, a search of The West Wing yielded 126 million and AMC’s Mad Men (8 seasons) 150 million. GoT‑related publications were exceeded only by the AMC series, Breaking Bad (5 seasons), which had 241 million hits, ABC’s Scandal (7 seasons) 336 million and HBO’s The Wire (5 seasons) with a whopping 389 million. College courses have been developed to explore the cultural success of GoT as well as The Wire , and many academics have commented on the appeal of Scandal . Conclusion The findings here suggest that the tastes of today’s audience do indeed align with those of Hollywood’s independent sector of yesterday, and that story is the point of intersection. The multigenerational appeal reinforces this along with the use of terms like ‘characters,’ ‘story,’ ‘storyline,’, ‘action,’ and ‘plot,’ to pinpoint the elements of the show that account for their interest and enjoyment. Viewers simply have a strong affinity for the characters depicted in the show and the quality of the story unfolding on the screen, which is consistent with the aesthetic priorities articulated by the development executives I spoke with 20 years ago. We can say then that these qualities are enduring aspects of a cinematic work in that they stand the test of time. Then, now and very likely in the future of cinema, these elements will be the factors by which the potential viewership and critical acclaim of an independent film or television series are predicted. The fact that many viewers can enjoy these original programs (at times commercial‑free) and in the comfort of their own homes with family and friends is a bonus. Indie contrasts sharply with mainstream works that pull in audiences with the implied promise of adrenaline rush through action, splash, quick cuts, brief interactions among characters, popular music genres, often cartoonish characters, and recognizable actors with fantastic bodies who appear in the presentation. This strategy has worked for the majors over the past 60 years or so, and particularly since the advent of home computers, mobile phones, DVRs, and DVD players. These technologies have made movie tickets easy to buy and shows easy to record, rent, and even purchase. While many of these works are truly enjoyable, indie film and television series offer a different cup of tea. And it is clear from this analysis that its appeal exists across multiple segments of people—and that story and characters are the threads that connect them. (Originally published April 2019) Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!

< Back Acidman uses sci-fi to make a statement about meeting people where they are Manageable Monkey, 2023 87 minutes Director/Writer: Alex Lehmann / Chris Dowling and Alex Lehmann Reading Time: 4 minutes Acidman The Great Beyond (RVQZ12B923YUQG2A) 00:00 / 05:17 📷 : Licensed from Shutterstock Sage Movies and TV shows with low-key characters Yarrow Movies and TV shows about illness or set in hospitals or similar medical institutions Reba Chaisson 2023-04-10 I must disclose my bias against science fiction cinema up-front. I am just not feeling this genre. But I will admit I do indulge my family on occasion and happen upon one, two, maybe three that I have enjoyed over the years: The Empire Strikes Back – I like Yoda; Alien – gross, but good; the original television series, V – good suspense. None of these matters, though, since despite Acidman’s synopsis alluding to sci-fi, the film has very little to do with extraterrestrials, UFOs or any other interplanetary objects – fortunately. Acidman is about the reuniting of a daughter, Maggie, with her long lost father, Loyd. Close and inseparable when she was a child, the two became estranged when Loyd, a successful engineer, suddenly left the family and never made contact again. After a long search, she arrives at his home - an isolated mobile trailer with the word “Acidman” spray-painted across the window in orange. She finds him nearby with his dog, Migo, looking a bit annoyed. Kind, but begrudgingly hospitable, Loyd shows her around his home, including the unkempt room where she can stay. During her visit, Maggie learns of her father’s fascination, or rather, ongoing communication, with extraterrestrials that manifest as lights in the sky at night. Seeing him super-excited that they care enough about him and the planet Earth to reach out and watch over him, Maggie, played by Dianna Agron ( The Family , I am Number Four ), indulges him. Throughout Acidman , Loyd, played by Thomas Haden Church ( Spider-Man: No Way Home , Sideways ), repeatedly asks Maggie “Why are you here?” Her reply is always a loving and consistent, “I told you, I came to see you, to check up on you.” Loyd occasionally zones out in the middle of the two talking, and at these moments Maggie says, “Dad? Dad?” and waits patiently for him to reconnect. Realizing there is a problem, she offers to take him to see someone. But he ignores her and asks once again, “Why are you here?” We fervently believe that no one knows us better than we know ourselves. But how often have our parents proved us wrong? While something is amiss with Loyd and he has abandoned the world to create one that is better suited for him, he suspects there is a purpose to his daughter’s visit and that it has little if anything to do with him. Thus, he persists in his question to Maggie, “Why are you here?” Several themes run throughout this film. One of which is the tendency to collapse all mental illness into the monolithic view that they all lead to unpredictable, dangerous behavior. Something seems to be awry with Loyd but at one point, the “townies” harass him at his home, and he pulls out his shotgun and shoots several rounds into the air to scare them away. While this frightens Maggie, who perceives this as Loyd shooting at the kids, Loyd asserts and rightfully so, “I didn’t shoot at them. I shot in the air to scare them off.” Another point in the film concerns young adults’ preoccupation with being or becoming like their parents. Maggie berates her father for leaving her and the family and fears she could do such a thing, as if it is a hereditary trait. It brings to mind a theme in the 2023 film Saint Omer where a central character, Rama, expressed concerns about being like her mother who was emotionally detached from her. As well in the lighthearted 2007 movie, This Christmas , where Ma’Dere so feared her teenage child would be like her wayward husband and saxophonist that she refused to support her son in his musical pursuits. Maggie, in Acidman , carries the baggage of her father and conflates it with DNA. Yet another theme in the film is the imploring upon people to begin relationships where people happen to be in their lives. Maggie wants to connect with her father but struggles to find a receptor — a place to plug in or common ground — largely due to the impediment his mental illness presents. He is unavailable to her in the usual ways — as a confidant for example as he was when she was a child, or as a source of comfort through her struggles and disappointments. After a knock down drag out fight, she realizes that to see her father and to have the relationship she desires with him, she must not only accept where he is in his life. She must also meet him and deal with him in that space. I did not expect to like this movie, but the strong messages overwhelmed me. Consider making contact with Acidman if it seems like your cup of tea. Previous Next Sign-up for new reviews, exclusives, deep dives, and more First name Last name Enter your email here I agree to the terms & conditions Sign-up Thanks for joining us!