Four reasons why the Circle is essential quarantine TV viewing

Hello readers, I'm currently split between writing stuff and seeing if I can pitch it to bigger places. This is a pitch I'm sending elsewhere but hopefully it's interesting enough on its own to put on a blog. 

The show, which is currently airing its Brazil season, involves contestants in various rooms of an apartment who are in isolation for three weeks and only talk to each other through social media. Before the virus caused such massive shifts to our world, the American version of this show was already among the buzziest things on television. Now that the quarantine has gone into effect, this is surreptitiously one of the most prescient mirrors into our present-day state.

-The show is a mirror for our situations but shows us the best of what we could be

The contestants are quarantined but that's not getting them down. The characters dance for no one but themselves (in one of the most bizarre and best sequences of the show), keep themselves happy and busy, make incredible friendships, and occasionally fall for one another (or who they think those other people are)

-It's so clever, that it can easily be considered the next step in evolution for reality TV

The contestants don't just live there doing nothing but have "Big Brother/Survivor" style strategy. The twists are that conversations happen in a combination of single or group conversations and all-in chats. Additionally, catfishing is allowed and encouraged. With no physical space, contestants can't know who's talking to whom or if contestants are who they say they are

-The show is all about authenticity and loyalty (or the perception of those two things)

The show is a fascinating social experiment, because it is so relevant to the way that we present ourselves in a society in which we are freer than ever to play around with our identity in online spaces. And in the past three or four weeks, that's even more the case!

-The show is one of the few feel-good moments we can experience as Americans

If you're feeling that the Americans are bungling things up and haven't been doing anything right for a while, these American contestants are great at supporting one another and communicating. The Brazilians currently playing this game are more judgmental, less communicative, and bad at distinguishing relationships. True, it's a sampling of only 15 people from each country, but do the best of us not exist in those people?

Video: Counting down my top 12 performances of the year

Probably the last 2019 in review video. Jordan Lage and I count down our top 12 favorite performances.  Thanks so much Jordan!
Because this is a longish one at 29 minutes, let's add some time stamps:
Time stamps: 0:37 Jordan #12 Roman Griffith Davis/Thomasin McKenzie (tie): JoJo Rabbit 2:02 Orrin #12 Eddie Murphy, Dolemite is My Name, #11 Ian McKellen, The Good Liar 4:22 Jordan #11 Davine Joy Randolph, Dolemite is My Name, #10 Wesley Snipes, Dolemite is My Name, #9 Charlize Theron, Bombshell 5:44 Orrin #10 Margaret Qualley, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, #9 Laura Dern, Marraige Story, #8 Daniel Craig, Knives Out 8:08 Side discussion: Who's the best actor to play Bond 9:05 Jordan: #8 and #7 Matt Damon, Christain Bale, Ford vs Ferrarri 9:51 Orrin #7 Ray Liotta, Marraige Story, #6 Natalie Portman, Lucy in the Sky 11:30 Jordan #6 Park So-dam, Parasite 12:24 Orrin #5 Kang-ho Sang, Parasite 14:06 Jordan #5 Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory 15:46 Orrin #4 Scarlett Johansson, JoJo Rabbit 17:00 Jordan #4 Rene Zellweger, Judy 19:12 Orrin #3 Jonothan Pryce, The Two Popes 20:37 Jordan #3 Leonardo DiCpario, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 21:52 Orrin #2 George McKay, 1917 22:51 Jordan #2 Awkwafina, Farewell 24:44 Orrin #1 Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes 27:16 Jordan #1 Robert DeNiro, The Irishman
Jordan Lage  is a co-founder of a the Atlantic theater company and has many impressive credentials. His website is www.jordanlage.com

They Shoot Horses Don't They: The Film vs The Book

Based on the fascinating sub-culture of dance marathons that popped up as a form of exploitative Depression-era entertainment, They Shoot Horses Don't They was written by Horace McCoy in 1935 based on his own experience as a bouncer at some of them in California. It took over three decades to adapt the film. By that time, it was more of a time capsule than period commentary.

Both the film and book feature an extremely depressed character who has to be put to death through assisted suicide (sorry about the spoiler but the title sort of gives it away in both case), but the book portrays the lead character as someone who can't see the hope in her lot in life whereas the film is more of a direct commentary on how capitalism has created a crapsack world for the people at the bottom. After all, they're forced to dance for their supper, what could be more metaphorical.

First some background:

The idea of a free dance contest with the last man standing winning a big prize seems like an easy idea to romanticize alongside Gatsbyesque parties. At the time, dancing was associated with the liberation of the jazz age and  a healthy rebellion against puritan mores. But with the desperation bought on by the depression, contestants became more and more adept at gaming the system. The contestants learned to sleep standing up and were increasingly ok with a small chance in hell of getting a prize because the guarantee of free meals, health care, and shelter was enough. The promoters made bank on offering these as cheap sideshow attractions where people could spectate and feel superior to the dancers.

Now back to the film:

In the world of dance marathons, we find Gloria (a young Jane Fonda) who is pretty much at the end of her rope in terms of hope for herself or the world around her. It's a novelty in and of itself that a character in such a state of depression was made the protagonist of a film in the first place. The book offers some more backstory about how she had to enter into a sexless marriage in Texas just to have a roof over her head. Gloria exists in a time and place where she doesn't have agency to earn a living. Her decision to go to Hollywood isn't driven by the kind of "42nd Street"-type dream of being a star. Rather she just thinks she might be able to make some cash as an extra.

Gloria is paired up with a down-on-his-luck actor named Robert (Michael Sarrazin, if you haven't heard of that name, don't worry) who has grander artistic ambitions (again, the book delves into this by mentioning that he'll use his prize money to finance a short film) but needs the immediate money of a good project.

The story features an eclectic cast of characters for the other dancers. In both the book and the film, experienced couple Ruby and James (a young Bruce Dern and Bonnie Bedelia) represent the true-to-life phenomenon of professional dancers entering the contests to provide fame recognition. There's also a temptress for Robert played by Susannah York and a chipper elderly sailor (who only exists in the film) played by Oscar-winner Red Buttons.

In the book, there's also a contestant who is forced to leave the contest because he's wanted for murder, a jealous Spanish dancer, Pedro, who shoots the organizer in frustration, and her partner who doubles James and Ruby in being experienced and providing exposition.

One might assume these characters were eliminated in the film adaptation because they have their own storylines that complicate the central theme of doom. Pedro, like Gloria, chooses to want to throw away his future which is contrasting to those who play by the rules of the contest. I originally assumed that Buttons' character was added into the cast as a way to add color and diversify the age range, but his demise (I won't spoil his fate completely) adds to the sense of doom.

And then there's the devious show promoter, Rocky, who riles up the audience on the mic. Character actor Gig Young won an Oscar for the role as a man who knew how to keep the crowds entertained. As York's character has a nervous breakdown, he shows a shred of humanity in getting her to safety, but for the most part, the film hinges on the slow reveal of just how villainous he and the contest are.

The book actually splits Rocky's role into two: Rocky is the announcer but the man behind the scenes is his boss Socks Donald takes over behind the scenes. For the most part, they're relatively moral people trying to make a buck.

Additionally, Gloria's negativity is countered with far more first-person narration talking about just how miserable Robert is because Gloria is his partner. It's possibly repeated so often because Robert is dealing with guilt for shooting Gloria.

Book vs Movie
The movie has the electric performances of Jane Fonda, Bruce Dern, Gig Young, and Red Buttons, but the book is more than just a cesspool of depression. A depressed character in a depressed world isn't as rich as a depressed character in a difficult world whose choice to give up is contrasted by various people with the same circumstances across the spectrum of hope.

The 2019-2020 Oscars season needed better headlines

Within an hour of the Oscar nominations the following Monday, The Hollywood Reporter had two stories commenting on the lack of diversity at the Oscars (here, here) and commented on it in a third while highlighting the general theme all day on their blog and Deadline took 75 minutes to indict the Oscars for the same thing. The Daily Show did a piece on it the issue that night and The LA Times released a house editorial that the Oscars are still white and male the next day. Since the counterfactual #Oscarsowhite campaign in the 2015-2016 Oscar cycle, the Oscars have become one of the most hyper-policed litmus tests of whether Hollywood is meeting arbitrary benchmarks set from by an entertainment media that’s rampantly consumed with identity politics. The movie industry and these Oscars deserve better headlines than this.

The predominant story line among this school of cultural writers whose take on film criticism can no longer be divorced from activism is that Hollywood has had a long history of failing three groups: racial minorities (defined arbitrarily as “people of color”), women, and people on the LGBQT+ spectrum. As such they owe it to three groups in the present to rectify decades of injustice.

This year there was one Hispanic actor (if you want to classify him as European because nominee Antonio Banderas is from Spain, try telling that to his agent and look at how pigeonholed he has been in his career) and one black actor among the twenty nominees. The other chief complaint was that Greta Gerwig was not nominated for “Little Women” in the directing category.

What many of these #oscarssowhite activists are guilty of doing is taking on a microscopic view when convenient to their data. In the last 20 years of Oscar, 16.5% of the acting nominees have been people of color and & 11.75% of the acting winners have been black. The black population in the US according to the Census is 12.1% which is within less than half a percentage. In other words, any claims that the Academy hasn’t done justice to the black acting community is largely moot unless you’re going out of your way to erroneously read data.

Today’s brand of armchair activist point to extreme spikes in an oscillating cycle rather than present an accurate picture of progress. These intersectional activists conveniently ignore that 6 of the past 7 Best Director winners are people of color which is surely a cause they champion as well as women directors. Additionally, the number of films with black themes has gone up each year with “Green Book”, “Black Panther”, “BlacKKKlansmen”, “Fences”, “Hidden Figures”, and “Moonlight” nominated for best picture the past three years and several more--"Birth of a Nation" "Mudbound" "Race" Loving" "Free State of Jones" "Sorry to Bother You" "Little" "Blindspotting", "United Kingdom" and "Last Black Man in San Francisco"—popping up as well. If these activists don’t acknowledge these gains, where’s there credibility?

Furthermore, what is the incentive of studios to pander to such a group of activists that is most likely to make negative noise? To blanketly call Hollywood unfairly liberal is an overstatement, but the Academy Awards in their current form are producing the kind of films that Black Lives Matter activists can’t possibly be dissatisfied with. Last year’s slate alone had 7 of 8 films with intersectionalist liberal themes: “Vice” was critical of the Bush administration, “Roma” was a female-centered film set in Latin America, “Bohemian Rhapsody” had a queer lead character, “Favorite” was female-centered, and “Green Book”, “Black Panther” and “BlacKKKlansman” had black themes.

This isn’t to suggest that there is nothing to advocate for in terms of visibility. As the low number of female directoral nominees and East Asian and Hispanic actors over the years dictates, there are valid arguments for the marginalization of these subgroups. However, these activists need to concede the grand intersectional argument—that its white men as a whole that are seeking to exclude everyone else in a cabal of sorts—before they can seriously advocate for specific issues in cinema.

At the end of the day, the activists have to ask themselves what they’re even fighting for.

Are they asking for a mandatory quota? Considering the long history of the Oscars and the price of upsetting longstanding traditions, few people in the Academy (even the people sympathetic to the cause) would want that. We can even look at how this happened in practice just one year ago when the Academy attempted to burnish images of elitism by instituting a popular film category a year ago. The producers and fans of films like “Black Panther” and “The Avengers” protested the new designation because they knew it would lead to those films being ghettoized. Any quotas for disenfranchised groups will be seen as a de facto statement against such labels.

Besides, the current rules are the current rules. They could be subject to change but members are explicitly asked to vote for the best. This seems like a simple enough directive, but the current level of noise by the new class of film critics and their advocates on twitter seem to show a lack of consensus.The week after the controversy erupted, Stephen King, a known liberal, tweeted on twitter that he was following the rules as stated and he got attacked so heavily on twitter that he briefly garnered bad press before he back-tracked and apologized. How can a proper discussion of what the rules should be take place when the conversation is so muddled that people can’t speak up?

If this is the case, why should this voting body have to shoulder the headlines of these (not necessarily accurate) imbalances? Why should the film makers, actors, and craftsmen have to endure complaints that their crowning moments of being selected as the best in their field are not signs of progress because they’re the wrong skin color, sexual orientation or gender? 

The bottom line is that if there are any issues with film visibility, micro-policing the Academy on a year-by-year basis is not a solution. Rather the industry needs to be specific and exact about what the representative problems are in the industry and place it in the context of bigger headlines in the movie industry. People looking for a true dissection of what's affecting film deserve better headlines than this.

Stats List: The Oscar Class of 2019

For eight of the nine films ("Parasite" being the exception) that got nominated in the 2019/2020, this has been an exceptional year in terms of big-name stars finding themselves in Oscar nominated films. "1917" would also be a little short of big name talent if not for the cameos but they still count. 

Here is a list in alphabetical order of actors in a 2019 Best Picture nominee:

Adam Driver, Alan Arkin, Al Pacino, Alfie Allen, Andrew Scott, Anna Paquin, Archie Yates, Austin Butler, Azhy Robertson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bill Camp, Bobby Cannavale, Bob Odenkirk, Brad Pitt, Brian Tyree Henry, Bruce Dern, Chris Cooper, Christian Bale, Colin Firth, Dakota Fanning, Damien Chazelle, Dean Charles-Chapman, Eliza Scanlon, Emile Hirsch, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Frances Conroy, George McKay, Harvey Keitel, Jack Huston, Jesse Plemons, Joaquin Phoenix, Joe Pesci, Jon Bernthal, Josh Lucas, Julie Hagerty, Jung-eun Lee, Kang-Ho Song, Kurt Russell, Laura Dern, Lena Dunham, Leonardo , Luke Perry, Margaret Quayle, Margot Robbie, Mark Strong, Matt Damon, Meryl Streep, Mike Moh, Noah Jupe, Raphael Roncal, Ray Liotta, Ray Romano, Rebel Wilson, Richard Madden, Robert DeNiro, Roman Griffith Davis, Saiosre Ronan, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson, So-Dam Park, Shea Whigham, Stephen Merchant, Sun-Kyun Lee, Taiki Wahiti, Timothee Chalemett, Timothy Olyphant, Thomasin McKenzie, Tracey Letts, Wallace Shawn, Woo-Shik Choi, Yeo-Jeong Cho, Zazie Beets

Here's a list of where each of these actors now stands on the all-time list of Best Picture nominee appearances:
11 Robert DeNiro: Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter, Mission, Raging Bull, Awakenings, Goodfellas, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, Irishman, Joker
9 Leo Dicaprio: Titanic, Gangs of NY, Aviator, Departed, Inception, Django, Wolf of Wall Street, Revenant, Once Upon a Time in H'Wood
8 Brad Pitt: Babel, Curious Case of Ben Buttons, Inglourious B's, Tree of Life, Moneyball, 12 Years a Slave, Big Short, Once Upon a Time H'wood
8 Al Pacino: Godfather I, Dog Day Afternoon, Godfather II-III, Scent of a Woman, Insider, Irishman, Once Upon a Time in H'Wood
7 Meryl Streep: Julia, Deer Hunter, Kramer vs Kramer, Out of Africa, Hours, Post, Little Women
6 Harvey Keitel: Taxi Driver, Bugsy, Piano, Pulp Fiction, Grand Budapest Hotel, Irishman
6 Matt Damon: Good Will Hunting, Saving Pvt Ryan, Departed, True Grit, Martian, Ford v Ferrarri
5 Benedict Cumberbatch: Atonement, War Horse, 12 Yrs a Slave, Imitation Game, 1917
5 Tracey Letts: Big Short, Ladybird, The Post, Little Woman, Ford vs Ferrari
5 Christian Bale: Fighter, American Hustle, Big Short, Vice, Ford vs Ferrari
5 Sam Rockwell: Green Mile, Frost/Nixon, 3 Billboards, Vice, Jojo Rabbit
5 Saiosre Ronan: Atonement, GBH, Brooklyn, Ladybird, Little Women
5 Shea Wigham: Silver Linings Playbook, Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle, Vice, Joker
4 Scarlett Johansson: Lost in Translation, Her, JoJo Rabbit, Marriage Story
4 Bruce Dern: Coming Home, Django Unchained, Nebraska, Once Upon a Time in H'Wood
4 Bill Camp: 12 Years a Slave, Birdman, Vice, Joker
4 Jesse Plemons: Bridge of Spies, The Post, Vice, Irishman
4 Colin Firth: Engl. Patient, Shakespeare in Love, King's speech, 1917
4 Joe Pesci: Raging Bull, Goodfellas, JFK, Irishman
3 Chris Cooper: American Beauty, Seabiscuit, Little Women
3 Alan Alda: Aviator, Bridge of Spies, Marriage Story
3 Margot Robbie: Wolf of Wall Street, Big Short, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
3 Joaquin Phoenix: Gladiator, Her, Joker
3 Bob Odenkirk: Nebraska, Post, Little Women
3 Frances Conroy: Scent of a Woman, Aviator, Joker
3 Timothee Chalamet: Call Me By Your Name, Ladybird, Little Women

As we can see, where your name is on the marquee doesn't always align with how many great movies you're in. Some people like Tracey Letts, Shea Wigham, and Bill Camp just get all the breaks.

Others like Alan Alda and Phoenix get treated relatively shabbily by this metric (considering the cruelty that "Crimes and Misdemeanors" was snubbed while "Hannah and her Sisters" wasn't?) and poor Laura Dern never was in a Best Picture nominee before this so she gets shafted completely.

New Oscar nominees I saw 1917, Parasite, Little Women plus Judy (and JoJo Rabbit)

I watched "1917" "Parasite" and "Little Woman" and felt they were excellent choices for the Oscar. Although it's not in the video, "JoJo Rabbit" also blew me away.

With "Little Woman", I admit I had a bit of bias against both period pieces of this era and
films that seemed to be targeted to females. I had to push through those biases in the first half hour to keep my mind on the movie but once the love triangles and tuberculosis and family problems mounted, I am glad I stuck it through. The film is emotionally there but has its own sense of joy about those lucky
enough to be born to a family of sisters. The film celebrates an earlier era of courtship where people didn’t meet grinding on the dance floor or on dating apps while also commenting on the distances it might create. On the whole, it's a very emotionally satisfying movie.


"1917", "Parasite", and "Jojo Rabbit" all blew me away.


"1917" is a technical marvel that makes you aware of the additive value of good cinematography in the best possible way. Roger Deakins is perhaps the only household name among cinematographers and he will be even more famed after this. Like "Little Woman" the film starts off slow and it builds and someone on home viewing might give up on it but that would be a massive shame because the film is an emotional ride. It's almost existential as a man has to find his purpose and then his purpose overtakes him to the point of exhaustion and everything else.


"JoJo Rabbit" I was concerned about because I'd just seen "Death of Stalin" and "Life is Beautiful" so I thought this has been done before but I don't know why I made this foolish mistake in retrospect: How many films have there really been in this genre?  The film makes the right movie at every juncture of the story and is supremely clever in its view of the war from a child's point of view. Sam Rockwell, once again, is great (he's on quite a roll), and Scarlet Johansson steals the show. She handles the arduous task of raising a difficult child as a single mother with such joy and resolve that I have no problem with her winning an Oscar this year. It handles World War II with a mix British absurdist humor (not unlike Monty Python which tackled the same subject matter), poetry and sentiment.


"Parasite" is the kind of deep dive into class that you don't see too often. It's extraordinarily layered in symbolism and visually dense. The film's biggest trick is introducing us to a tragedy (the class divide), but showing a larger tragedy lurking underneath the surface and building up the tension until these two tragedies collide. It plays with time and dramatic irony (what some characters know while others don't) perfectly well.

"Judy" is basically a TV movie with a good performance but what's the point of a movie if only to show off a good performance?





And here's my JoJo Rabbit review (with two strangers)

Oscars Eve 2020 Wish List featuring Adam Spector

What's most revealing about what happens when the Oscar nominations are announced is what we were all thinking the night before. On Oscars Eve, Adam Spector and I discussed how strange it would be if J. Lo was nominated for "Hustlers" and how dismayed I'd be if "Two Popes" got snubbed (it didn't). The dramatic Adam Sandler snub didn't actually register with either of us and we both agreed that we'd be excited for Laura Dern.



Part II is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaqwiTSV34&t=64s


Adam's reaction column is here and I disagree quite strongly but I had a lot of fun with Adam here:
https://www.dcfilmsociety.org/adam2002.htm

Just saw three new Oscar BP nominees: 1917, Parasite, Little Women plus Judy

The Oscars really hit it out of the park with their best picture selections. Even if I wasn't as moved by Marriage Story than others, I think it's an excellent choice (for contrast purposes on what's usually done in that genre) for a curated list of nine great films to represent this year.

"1917" and "Parasite" blew me away and "Little Women" is an excellent film as well. Greta Gerwig's film required me to overcame my genre bias but once I did that, I thought it was a wonderful film.