REVIEW: Babygirl

O Nicole Kidman, what can’t thou do? What heights canst thou not reach?

In Babygirl, Dutch director Halina Reijn is intent on liberating us unenlightened Americans from the shackles of shame and fear. Her modus operandi is to throw us headfirst into a world of dominance and submission, of power-plays and betrayal. Without pitch-perfect performances from Kidman and her costar, the sizzling Harris Dickinson, Babygirl would flatten into cheap comedy. Yet against all odds, this movie works, turning us on and teaching us a lesson all at once. 

It takes a special type of plot to have several people in the audience walk out halfway through the movie, one of them muttering “disgusting…” under her breath. Babygirl is sure to be repulsive, even offensive, to some people. The movie follows Romy Mathis – girlboss CEO of a robotics automation company, mother to two well-adjusted teenagers, and wife to an adoring husband (Antonio Banderas). Yet something is off in this charmed life. In the very first scene, Romy, after faking an orgasm with her husband Jacob, tragically and hilariously runs to another room and masturbates to cheap Internet porn. Romy has love and riches, but is hiding a shameful secret that is ruining her life: she craves submission in the bedroom. Samuel (Harris Dickinson), an enigmatic intern at her company, quickly sniffs this out. He draws her into an affair that she can’t resist, and the film snowballs from there. 

Although Babygirl received generally positive reviews, the negative feedback tends to point out that actually, Romy and Samuel are villains. “In a real-life scenario, Samuel would have been instantly fired,” says the Standard. The Guardian notes that as Romy conducts her affair, “Her poor husband…is left wrangling the kids and trying to direct his latest off-Broadway show.” NPR laments that the film “…feels out of touch with our post-MeToo era.” This criticism misses the point. Babygirl is a work of fiction, not a documentary. Its purpose is to lead us out of the noose of shame and into the open air of pleasure. 

For this reason, the scenes featuring only Romy and Samuel are the lifeblood of the film. In their first rendezvous, Samuel is unsure of himself but organically comfortable with giving orders. Go stand in the corner. Get down on all fours. Eat this strawberry-flavored candy out of my hand. “You’re mine,” he says without words. The scene is a potent mix of awkwardness and passion. It works because Samuel is neither a sadist nor a douchebag. Unlike the infamous Christian Grey, who “likes to whip little brown-haired girls like you because you all look like the crack whore—my birth mother,” Samuel wears his power well. Samuel knows what he’s doing. 

In another scene, a nervous Romy invites her lover to a fancy hotel room. She follows his directions, taking off her dress and getting on her knees in front of him. The scene changes, and suddenly it is Samuel performing for her, swaying to George Michael’s “Father Figure” as Romy’s eyes follow his body. This is the female gaze at its best, and Samuel is its perfect recipient. Here is someone comfortable in his own skin. Here is someone who knows that what he puts out will be well-received. Reijn’s talent is channeling just the right combination of danger and allure. Beauty, power, dominance – it doesn’t take much to convince the audience that these are virtues to be admired.

There are certain aspects of this movie that I think are superfluous. Reijn alludes to Romy’s childhood, which was apparently full of cults and gurus, in engineered EMDR therapy sessions. Romy’s assistant ends up discovering the affair and extorting Romy for a promotion. There is a girl-boss final moment that feels contrived. None of these B-plots are necessarily bad, but they’re a distraction from the central theme: what Romy wants and what Samuel can give. 

When the pair are inevitably caught, culminating in a violent altercation between Jacob and Samuel, Jacob is distraught that his wife would be enraptured by such cheap thrills like submission. “Female masochism is nothing but a male fantasy,” he mutters through tears. “No, you’re wrong. That’s a dated idea,” says Samuel, to the man he has just cuckolded. The people agree, Harris Dickinson. Give the people what they want. 

REVIEW: Blue Velvet

When I was 15 years old, my life changed forever when my dad took me by the shoulders, looked me in the eye, and said “Watch Blue Velvet. Trust me.”

At the moment, I wasn’t quite aware that he was prompting me to watch a two-hour psychosexual meditation on the dark underbelly lurking beneath society’s surface, featuring sado-masochism, drug-addled perverts, and erotic blackmail. But watch it I did. Then I closed my laptop and stared up at the ceiling for an hour contemplating my newly-lost innocence. 

David Lynch, the celebrated director of Blue Velvet who recently passed away at the age of 78, was a giant of filmmaking. In movies like Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, and Eraserhead, Lynch introduced audiences to revolutionary ways of seeing the world. I always suspected that Lynch was some kind of hologram placed on Earth by an advanced alien species, hovering somewhere between genius and madness, meant to transport us mortals into a higher plane of existence. His filmmaking talent even added a word to our lexicon – “Lynchian” – meant to connote surrealism that uses a dreamlike aesthetic to expose malice, absurdity, or hypocrisy in society. This “uncanny valley” quality that Lynch’s films embodied earned him a cult following as well as mainstream appeal. 

Nowhere are these Lynchian elements more at play than in Blue Velvet, released in 1986. The film features Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini), a battered woman blackmailed into sexual slavery by the sadistic Frank (Dennis Hopper). In an ironic twist, Frank’s games reveal masochistic urges repressed deep in Dorothy’s psyche. She is simultaneously repelled and titillated, expressing these conflicting emotions by initiating a sadomasochistic relationship with the clean-cut Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan), who is ashamed of his urges but drawn to the alluring older woman. The three characters – Frank, Dorothy, and Jeffrey – exit society’s confines and enter a lusty place of debauchery and degeneracy. 

Through colorful metaphors, a haunting score, and cast members that are clearly willing to bare all for the sake of art, Blue Velvet earned its place in film history. The marriage of surrealism and erotica, tragedy and eros, death and love – these are philosophical concepts that artistic leaders have wrestled with for millennia. More recent films featuring BDSM dynamics, like Secretary, Fifty Shades of Grey, and Babygirl, can only aspire to the emotional power that Blue Velvet oozes. Each scene is perfectly calibrated to press the audience’s buttons. So enduring is the film’s appeal that the Michigan Theater specifically chose to play it to honor Lynch’s legacy. This type of masterpiece earns either one star or five stars, but nobody leaves the theater without an opinion. 

There is only one filmmaker who can somehow master horror, erotica, surrealism, and mystery all at once. That man is David Lynch. In my opinion, to even write a traditional film review of his work is to diminish his genius. So I will leave it at that – anyone who hasn’t watched Blue Velvet is missing out. 

REVIEW: Gladiator II

Gladiator II is not my Roman Empire. The much-anticipated sequel to Ridley Scott’s Gladiator, released in 2000 to an enraptured audience, is deficient in almost every respect. From meandering plotlines to undeveloped characters, Gladiator II will have audiences on the edge of their seat – ready to get up and leave. 

While Gladiator saw Maximus Decimus Meridius – an exiled Roman general – reduced to slavery, forced to serve a corrupt emperor, and on a noble quest to avenge his murdered family, Gladiator II sees Lucius Verus Aurelius – the exiled Prince of Rome – reduced to slavery, forced to serve corrupt twin emperors, and on a noble quest to avenge his murdered family. Yet where the first Gladiator lived up to its promise of grandeur personalities fighting a larger-than-life battle, Gladiator II falls short. Paul Mescal (a grieving Lucius), Pedro Pascal (the Roman General Acacius), Connie Nielsen (Maximus’s former lover Lucilla), and Denzel Washington (the delightfully conniving Macrinus) are all phenomenal actors. But they cannot make up for a script that has no idea where it’s going. 

Director Ridley Scott seems determined to recreate the magic of the first movie, yet turns his all-star cast into Atlas, holding up a failing plot on their backs. Dialogue veers off into the melodramatic, especially when it comes to Lucilla, who apparently has no role in this movie except to stand around looking beautiful and sad. Twin emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) giggle about like two spoiled, all-powerful drag queens, but do little in the way of meaningful development or emotional depth. The most tragic of all is Mescal, who spends much of the film glowering into the distance and changing deeply-held beliefs on a whim, depending on what a stagnating plot needs him to do. 

Nor can extravagant fight scenes and wild plot twists make up for the lack of any emotional core. Scott leans heavily on CGI in his Colosseum – great white sharks, rings of fire, and whatnot – but I heard more suppressed laughter in the theater than oohs and ahhs. Scenes that were meant to spark tears were forced into the plot too quickly without the necessary suspense, attempting to break tension that just wasn’t there. I’ll withhold the two major plot twists for the sake of spoilers, but even Washington, playing a former-gladiator-turned-master with big ambitions, is not given the proper tools to make his character work. Crucial scenes were either introduced too quickly, giving me whiplash, or drawn-out excruciatingly slowly, making me yawn. 

I’m not saying that Gladiator II doesn’t have entertaining moments, but you would be better served re-watching the original. Because without a strong sense of direction, Gladiator II’s Rome is pure clownishness. 

REVIEW: Anora

Yet another masterpiece from director Sean Baker. “Anora” is possibly the movie of the year, winning the prestigious Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival last May. The film manages to be wildly entertaining and heartbreakingly tender, fusing together comedy and tragedy in a sincere, never tacky, plot. Baker has added a crowning jewel to his already impressive list of achievements – his movies, like “Tangerine,” “Red Rocket,” and “The Florida Project,” are all superb depictions of people living life on the edge. 

Anora (played by the excellent Mikey Madison) is a sex worker dancing in an upscale Manhattan club. She’s bratty and charming and sexy; the golden strands woven into her hair, her big brown eyes and pouty lips, and a thick Brooklyn accent seduce both clientele and audience. We might be tempted to make assumptions about this street-smart stripper, but she’s unfailingly competent at her job, wooing the helpless men around her with a sharp confidence and glamour, and even pulling out an accented Russian upon request. 

Yet Ani – as she prefers to be called – makes a cardinal mistake: she falls in love at the job. The object of her mascaraed eyes is Ivan (played by the up-and-coming Mark Eydelshteyn), who woos Ani with an ADHD, marijuana-fueled manic appeal and a ready checkbook. The relationship is initially transactional but quickly morphs into genuine affection. The trouble is that Ivan’s sexual adventures are paid for by his father, a wealthy Russian oligarch, who will surely not take kindly to his son’s gallivanting with an American stripper. 

Indeed – as anybody but Ani and Ivan could have foreseen – the relationship does not have a happy ending. I’ll spare any spoilers, but let’s just say that there is a scene where Ivan, pulling up his pants with one hand, sprints away from his own mansion and into the city, leaving behind two hired thugs and a weeping, half-naked Ani in his wake. This marks the end of the first act of the film, and it’s only downhill from here. 

It would be easy to divide the characters of “Anora” into two categories. The bourgeoisie and the plebeians. The upper class and the working class. The rich kids and their imprisoned servants. The buyers and the sellers. Baker avoids such cliches. Ani is no damsel in distress. She is unfailingly self-sufficient, brash and confident, completely sure of her own worth. But even the toughest Brooklyn girl has a breaking point, as one of the aforementioned hired thugs, Igor (played by a silent-but-strong Yura Borisov), empathetically foresees with a knowing eye. I say “empathetically” here because Igor and Ani are two sides of the same coin. Two young people, essentially enslaved by a spoiled brat, competently but dutifully making their way through an uncaring city. 

In a way, Ani is much like the impoverished kids playing make-believe in the Orlando motels that Baker depicted in “The Florida Project.” She has learned how to take care of herself, but yearns for love. She is equal parts brazen and naive. She and Ivan live in the same city, but in completely different worlds. And as she soon finds out, her dreams are pure fantasy.

REVIEW: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Right after watching “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre,” and right before a sleepless night of terror and anxiety, I had an argument with my friend. From my perspective, the film is a perfectly-constructed yet meaningless slasher movie exploiting an understanding of human psychology to menace audiences for no real reason. As Roger Ebert said back in his 1974 review, “it’s simply an exercise in terror.” From my friend’s perspective, the film is a master class of storytelling and theme, harnessing the horror genre as a vehicle through which to express family infighting, fear of disability, and the inherent dread of living in small-town Texas. 

I wasn’t buying that – what about the movie’s constant reversal back to tired old horror tropes to express these themes? That doesn’t strike me as very creative, or very revolutionary. “Abigail,” my friend said, looking at me like I just told her Marvel movies are the height of cinema, “‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’ invented those tropes.”

Released in 1974 by director Tobe Hooper, “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” is the prototype of horror movie filmmaking that Gen Z’ers like me already know in our bones. In Tropedia, a wiki for artistic tropes, the movie is credited as a “Trope Maker,” the first example of themes that would eventually become wildly familiar. The movie follows Sally and her wheelchair-bound brother Franklin, who are traveling, along with three friends, through rural Texas to visit their grandfather’s grave. They’re on this road trip because of a string of grisly grave robberies that have been terrorizing and mystifying the town. 

Things get weird quick. The squad soon picks up a scary hitchhiker, who seems mentally ill and cuts Franklin with a knife. When they run out of gas and stop at a gas station, it is suspiciously out of fuel. After deciding to knock on a nearby dilapidated-looking house for help, the group is confronted by Leatherface, a deranged murderer, and his three cannibalistic accomplices. The group kills the kids off one-by-one, with only Sally emerging alive but traumatized. 

For the scaredy-cat in me, that plot is riveting enough. But for the snobby film reviewer, I’m amazed to watch the first seeds of the modern horror genre being planted. The abiding horror of remote southern towns? Sounds a lot like “Children of the Corn.” A group of rowdy youngins being picked off by a murderer? “Scream,” “Friday the 13th,” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” come to mind. That murderer using a chainsaw to run down his victims…does that remind anyone else of “American Psycho”?

Few movies are remembered for both spawning a whole genre and perfect cinematography. Shot after shot in “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre,” the tension is stretched, streeetched, streeeeetched – and then breaks. In one memorable scene, the camera zooms in on Sally’s terrified, vividly-green eyes as her assailants feast on human flesh around an elegant dinner table. “Yes please,” say artistic giants like Ridley Scott, Guillermo del Toro, Stephen King, and Quentin Tarantino, who have all praised and drawn inspiration from the film. This is the stuff of nightmares. And of history.

REVIEW: The Apprentice

Roy Cohn is a malicious vulture on screen: he flicks his tongue over his lips, piercing eyes bulging out of the sides of his face, head bobbing as he sizes up his prey. His philosophy can be summed up as “play the man not the ball,” and he backs up that worldview with a hidden backroom filled with incriminating tapes he uses to blackmail the necessary judge, politician, or prosecutor. In “The Apprentice,” we see how he turned a young, ambitious Donald Trump into the former president America knows today.

Director Ali Abbasi’s fantastic Donald Trump origin story is shepherded by the acting chops of its two stars: Jeremy Strong, tragic figure of  “Succession,” as Roy Cohn, and Sebastian Stan, squared-jawed Marvel hero, as Donald Trump. When the two meet in an exclusive NYC club in the 1970s – Cohn already an established lawyer and Trump a real estate upstart looking to impress his draconian father – thus begins a relationship that will last decades. Trump is struggling with a lawsuit alleging anti-black discrimination against his tenants. Cohn, the shrew political operator, makes his problem go away. Perhaps he sees something in the young man desperate to make a name for himself. Perhaps he simply likes having the tall, blonde, handsome – as he says, “thoroughbred” – Trump around. Either way, the apprentice is born. 

Aside from the first meeting scene, which sets the stage, the plot zooms through key points in the Trump timeline. He’s buying the decrepit Commodore hotel! He’s fighting for a tax break from anti-corruption mayor Ed Koch! He’s being interviewed on TV! He’s buying casinos! He went bankrupt! He’s back again! Roger Stone is convincing him to run for office under the slogan “Make America Great Again”….well, we know how that ends up. 

Many Americans are only familiar with the third act of Trump’s story. “The Apprentice” introduces us to the first and second. The plot is certainly entertaining enough to captive audiences for its two-hour runtime. But the emotional core of the movie is the relationship between Cohn and Trump, played to perfection by both actors, and its evolution as Trump goes from apprentice to master of the universe. Trump’s intoxication with Cohn – who journalist Wayne Barrett described as having “the presence of Satan” – is plenty juicy. But Trump’s surpassing of Cohn, even betrayal of Cohn as Trump gains power, is much more poignant. 

Alongside actors Strong and Stan is an incredibly talented supporting cast. Fred Trump (Martin Donovan) is as terrifying as he is bushy-eyebrowed. Fred Trump Jr. (Charlie Carrick), Trump’s older brother who died young from alcoholism, should have his own movie. The best in the bunch is perhaps Maria Bakalova as Trump’s first wife Ivana, the Czechoslovakia-born powerhouse, who is a capable interior designer as well as socialite to the New York City elite. This hardworking drive would eventually lead to her divorce, with Trump, jealous of people seeing his wife as his business equal, leaving Ivana for his mistress. 

Obviously (at least in my opinion), Abbasi’s releasing of the movie just 25 days before the election is a political move. Trump’s campaign manager duly responded, calling the movie “garbage” and “malicious defamation” that “sensationalizes lies” about Trump. I certainly do not believe “The Apprentice” will sway any Trump voters to the other side. In fact, the movie will most likely contribute to his cult of personality. Who is this businessman, this charlatan, this leader of men, this future president, this bumbling idiot. To whom did we vest the most power in, perhaps, the entire world. Who is The Donald? Do we want to find out?