PREVIEW: Oscar Nominated Shorts: Documentary

Billy Porter wearing Christian Siriano at the Academy Awards, 2019.

The Oscars are an event in many realms: fashion, celebrity gossip, film. Here is decided the best in that dress, the least-promising Hollywood marriages, and the most powerful audiovisual works of the year. While I love all sorts of movies, I have always been partial to short films. They have so much to accomplish in a fraction of the time feature-length films have; it’s thus a unique medium that results in stories with an odd edge to them. Often you’re left with surreal feelings after being thrown into and out of another world. I’m much more poignantly affected in this way.

For the 15th year, Oscar-nominated shorts are being shown in theaters all over. Determine your favorites and see if the Academy agrees on February 9th.

The documentary category will surely be a treat this year, with five selections from around the world featuring the heavy-hitting work of journalistic artists. Choose from a variety of showtimes through February 13th!

Tickets: https://www.michtheater.org/show/2020-oscar-shorts-documentary/

PREVIEW: The Song of Names

The film The Song of Names, which is based off of Norman Lebrecht’s novel of the same name, is currently showing at the Michigan Theater. It is about the search for a lost brother and lives altered, for better or for worse, by music. I am excited to see this movie because I recently finished the novel, and I’m interested to see how the story is told on the big screen (I’m stubborn and refuse to see movies based on books before reading the book).

For showtimes and ticket information, visit the Michigan Theater website.

REVIEW: 2020 Oscar Nominated Shorts – Animation.

List:
Hair Love – Matthew A. Cherry and Karen Rupert Toliver
Dcera (Daughter) – Daria Kashcheeva
Memorable – Bruno Collet and Jean-François Le Corre
Sister – Siqi Song
Kitbull – Rosana Sullivan and Kathryn Hendrickson

The Bird and the Whale (Highly Commended)
Henrietta Bulkowski (Highly Commended)
Hors Piste (Highly Commended)
Maestro (Highly Commended)

Hair Love, Dcera, Memorable, Sister, and Kitbull are contenders for this year’s Oscar nominated shorts in animation, and The Bird and the Whale, Henrietta Bulkowski, Hors Piste, and Maestro are highly commended films also playing at Michigan Theater. Like every year, the style and media of the films differ tremendously, each with its own merits that make it an interesting watch.

The series opens up with Hair Love, a film that’s full of pastels and backgrounds that look like it’s been coloured in with pencil crayons. It’s heartwarming and sweet, and although it’s not as visually rich as some of the other shorts, the pacing in its storytelling is perfect. A father does his daughter’s hair for the first time with a little encouragement – an interaction that develops their relationship in the absence of her mother.

Although Hair Love was produced by entertainment giant Sony Pictures, it feels pretty organic. People need people, and the film does a good job capturing that spirit when the father and daughter bond and rely on each other when their family fabric is pulled and twisted by the lack of her mother’s presence.

Daughter (Dcera) has the momentum and framing of motion picture cinematography. The characters look imperfect, textured puppets with painterly faces, an expressiveness teased out with an unflinching gaze. The camerawork, jarring and claustrophobic, frames the tenuous relationship between father and daughter. Despite the closeness of the camera, there is an endless distance between the two, and the short film takes us to a quiet hospital room to reflect on the course of their relationship and the moments lost so long ago.

Daughter is beautiful and sad. The yearning for love and comfort is pinned delicately in scenes like butterfly taxidermy. There is no dialogue, but Daughter doesn’t need any to convey the emotions told through space and time, through elegantly laid out shots and a silence that stretches between father and daughter until a bird flies into the hospital window.

Memorable follows in the same vein using puppets full of post-impressionistic strokes. Louis, a painter, watches the world around him become strange, surreal, and unfamiliar. The film is imbued with the style of van Gogh in many scenes. It turns his perspective into works of art – a cellphone puddles into moving shades of gray, his family members’ faces become molded and abstract, and his wife becomes nothing more than a few brushes of paint. Life around him falls apart until he is left in an empty world with only himself in it.

The soundtrack is also stunning, just as vivid and as bright as the visuals. When the world around Louis disintegrates and the music fades, the sense of loss feels personal and profound. Memorable does a good job building up this moment. First, the details are lost, turning people and objects into broad strokes. Then the meaning is lost, the paint pooling and disappearing.

We see a different kind of loss in the short film Sister, an exploration of things that could’ve been. The film is very tactile; the textures used lends itself to the distinctiveness of the animation. In a scene, the brother pulls on his giant sister’s belly button, the cottony material used to make the puppets twisting like an umbilical cord out of her until he lets go and she deflates like a balloon. Everything looks very soft and sweet, finished with a muted colour palette of black and white and a faded red.

Despite its subject matter, Sister touches very lightly on the political aspect of China’s one child policy, alluding to it in post-film dedication. Instead, it focuses on the emotions of the narrator, the feeling of loss of not just a person, but an entire life missed because of it. Shots of mundane, every-day life are intertwined with surreal imagery to tell the story of Sister.

Kitbull is very cute, cushioning some of the gloomy undertones. It’s not as emotionally heavy-handed as a few of the other shorts nominated, but there’s a sweetness that prevails. The animation is descriptive; each expression and emotion is detailed through the movements of the stray kitten and the pitbull, even though their art is relatively simplistic. The two characters slowly grow closer together, helping each other get by in daily life, whether it’s from boredom or from hurt. It’s not ground-breaking or riveting, but Kitbull is still a solid film with a happy ending. It’s endearing and hopeful – a good note to end on.

Catch the Academy nods before February 9th.

REVIEW: Color Out of Space

SPOILER WARNING- you have been made aware.

This movie was much scarier than I expected it to be! A heads-up- there is blood and gore, scary creatures, lots of jump scares, and Nicholas Cage. However, the movie’s gorgeous colors and scenery almost made up for the fact that I was covering my eyes in fear and wincing at gross things for half of the second hour of the movie.

The movie is set in a gorgeous forest, in an old house, and at the beginning of the movie, we got to see the landscape, as well as the large, charming old house they live in. One thing I think was missing from the movie was that they did not do enough set-up of the family dynamic. I felt like the people were just actors living in the same house, rather than a family that cared for each other. This often made the stakes not feel as high for me when someone was in danger, or hurt, etc. I think if the family’s bonds had been established more at the beginning, I would have been more invested in the characters’ relationships and their interactions.

I like how the meteorite affected each person/animal in the family differently, but I also thought that made some of its effects somewhat confusing. For example, the first time the dad switches into the angrier version of himself, I was unsure of whether he was just having an outburst, or if he really was being possessed. But I did really like that none of them believed each other that something was going on because they all had different experiences of strange-ness.

My favorite part for sure was the usage of colors, which was the indicator that the meteorite’s evil was present. I like how it was used both very brazenly, like when the colors came shooting out of the well, but I also liked how it could be very subtle too, like when you saw little shards of it in the ice of a drink. I also liked how the color was limited to very bright blues, purples and pinks, because I think it made it look much more cohesive. It was cool how at the end everything was white, as though the evil from the meteorite had pulled all the color out of the world. It was also impactful at the very end, when the hydrologist, Ward, was standing on the dam. The colors were much more dark and sort of orangey-red, which was a huge contrast to the colors that had been all over the farm only 5 minutes earlier in the movie.

I noticed a couple of inconsistencies with the movie, or things that I think should have been better explained or elaborated. One of the big ones was the significance of the bug that came out of the meteorite. I never saw it touch anyone, or anything, it just flew around in a couple of scenes. However if it was supposed to be the catalyst of all of the destruction, I didn’t quite get that, because a bunch of the mishaps happened before we even saw it hatch. I also was confused a bit on the role of the old man in the woods. I understand that he was listening to the aliens in the ground, but his role seemed like it was added just for that, and he seemed so 2-D as a character. Also, when they went to find him and heard the tapes rolling, it was somewhat indiscernible what was being said, so that did not have as much as an impact as I think it should have.

Overall I thought it was a good movie for its genre. I wonder if the things that were kind of left hanging were because of H.P. Lovecraft’s original story that this was based on, or if it was the fault of the movie producers. Either way, I understand that a horror movie is more focused on the horror part than the storyline, and they definitely got the horrifying part right. There were many scenes where I needed to look away because the deformities that the meteorite caused were absolutely just plain gross, or something was very bloody. I did not expect this movie to be as scary as it was, so I don’t have much to comment on in that respect, as I have little experience with horror movies. Plus I was mostly covering my eyes during those parts. However, I did enjoy the mystery and the build-up, and even though I do not like horror, I could definitely appreciate some of the more artistic elements of the movie.

 

PREVIEW: Color Out of Space

Color Out of Space, starring Nicholas Cage, just came out on January 24th, and is called to be fantasy/sci-fi (and thriller, on some websites). The movie’s main characters must fight a parasite that comes down from space in a meteorite, with the apocalypse on the line. The movie is an adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft short story.

The movie is playing at the State Theater in the evenings until February 3rd, so go see it while you can!

Buy tickets and see the official trailer at: https://www.michtheater.org/show/color-out-of-space/

REVIEW: 1917

If you’re a fan of gritty movies, then be sure to check out 1917 while it’s still in theaters. As my fellow history buffs know, World War I was an exceptionally brutal conflict of epic proportions, and this film does a fantastic job of portraying that reality. From a tactical perspective, the movie didn’t really miss a beat, although the faceless Germans, as in just about every other WWI film, were characteristically inaccurate with their M98s. The military realities depicted in 1917 moved beyond the battlefield: while scenes of chaotic gunfights and mortar shellings provided an honest look into the face of the conflict, 1917 managed to capture the thankless nature of life as a soldier. Unlike most war films, which seemingly always leave the audience feeling somewhat warm and fuzzy, as the hero eventually receives some sort of well-deserved recognition in one form or another, 1917 leaves even the casual viewer feeling hollow. I was stunned by the way in which the film managed to trivialize the unbelievably heroic actions of the protagonist. While it felt like the film was underselling the gravity of the hero’s actions, it seems like this choice was deliberately made in an effort to more accurately tell the story of Alfred Mendes, the director of the film’s (Sam Mendes) grandfather. In this way, 1917 does great justice to the genre and avoids the trappings of the fairy-tale war film.

1917, while maintaining a strong essence of realism, is also incredibly entertaining from a purely dramatic perspective. Many war films, in my opinion, foreshadow with disappointing ham-handedness, resulting in a relatively boring plotline for people who pay closer attention. 1917 almost completely avoids this issue, as the entire picture is excitingly unpredictable; the dizzying camerawork makes you feel only slightly less disoriented than the soldiers themselves while somehow managing to keep the central narrative clear. 1917 is one of the most unique films that I’ve seen in quite a while, as it delicately weaves scenes of high-octane action into a broader tapestry of depressed sensibilities. Again, if you’re a person who detests leaving the theater feeling ethically unsatisfied, then steer clear, but if you enjoy utterly intense emotional rollercoasters, then give 1917 a shot.

Lastly, I thought that the film, although it lasted 120 minutes, needed more time. After only about ten minutes, the main sequence of events began, leaving me desperate for more background information on the protagonist’s family and life away from war. Additionally, after the climax of the film, we’re given only about ten minutes of downtime before the credits, so again, an extra fifteen minutes of background footage could have significantly increased my emotional involvement. Overall, 1917 delivered a bit more than what I’d hoped for, even though my expectations for it were quite high.

 

8.5/10