Megan McLachlan is in Savannah, Ga., for SCAD Savannah Film Festival, Oct. 26 through Nov. 2.
So many great films have premiered at the SCAD Savannah Film Festival this week, but it’s hard to see them all. Luckily I got to see three films anchored by three major performances.
The Report
Continuing his streak of one helluva movie year, Adam Driver truly delivers a powerhouse performance in The Report, written and directed by Scott Z. Burns. Driver stars as senate investigator Daniel Jones, who uncovers CIA torture tactics on detainees suspected of terrorism or terrorist connections.
This film would actually be a good double-feature with Clemency, because of the interesting juxtaposition. Both are essentially about humans doing harm to other humans and the effects from it. In Clemency, it eats away at the people performing the death row executions; in The Report, the men behind the torture seem to get their jollies off it.
Early on in the film, James Mitchell (Douglas Hodge) and Bruce Jessen (T. Ryder Smith) present their ideas to the CIA on more efficient ways of getting intel from individuals possibly connected with terrorist groups, and these ideas include insects, mock burial, and of course waterboarding, among others. While things seem pretty bleak in our government right now, this scene was a stark reminder that it’s been bleak for a long time. These snake oil salesmen hock these untested strategies and are paid $80 million of tax-payers’ money in return.
Annette Bening plays Dianne Feinstein, who tasks Jones with creating the report, and the cast is rounded out with other major supporting players like Jon Hamm, Corey Stoll, Ted Levine, and Maura Tierney.
Pain and Glory
The way Alfonso Cuaron’s Roma was last year’s most personal Best Foreign Language film entry, the same can be said for this year’s Pain and Glory from Pedro Almodovar.
Pain and Glory stars Antonio Banderas as director/writer Salvador Mallo, who’s riddled with chronic pain and depression and hasn’t been creating in quite some time. Really, to describe the film in one sentence is difficult, since it meanders a bit, but in a fluid, natural way. The film starts out with the lure of the reunion between the director and his former star (hilarious Asier Etxeandia), then becomes a reuniting between Salvador and his lost love (Leonardo Sbaraglia), before ultimately becoming a reconciliation between the artist and himself. Penelope Cruz plays Salvador’s mother Jacinta in flashbacks, and Antonio Banderas has never been better. Could he secure his first Oscar nom for this role? I would love to see that (though it’s a crowded race this year).
It’s also always interesting to me when films depict “brilliant” writers and directors and never actually show their work, but here, Almodovar shows us Salvador’s work come to life through his beautiful prose and the audience knows they’re watching a genius (well, maybe two in this case).
Seberg
“Wait, this is a true story?” whispered a couple of SCAD students behind me at the end of the film. Clearly, they didn’t listen to last year’s You Must Remember This podcast, that covered Jean (Seberg) and Jane (Fonda), examining the differences between the politically-active actresses and why one is the old hot lady on Grace and Frankie and the other tragically met her demise in Paris in 1979.
The film directed by Benedict Andrews opens on Seberg’s (Kristen Stewart) face, while she’s being “burned at the stake” as Joan of Arc in her first feature length film. A fitting introduction to an actress who would become a martyr for her political leanings. Seberg gets romantically and politically involved with black activist and cousin of Malcolm X Hakim Jamal (Anthony Mackie) and soon Hoover’s FBI is tapping her phone lines and watching her every move.
But this isn’t a bored-white-girl-that-wants-attention power move. Seberg was ahead of her time, and while the film only briefly touches upon it, she joined the NAACP at the age 14 in Iowa, way before she was a movie star. She’d always had an interest in civil rights and equality. As much as I resist Kristen Stewart, she gracefully slips into the Seberg role. Stewart has been selecting interesting parts lately (except for maybe the upcoming Charlie’s Angels), and with each one, she seems to shed that nervous lip-biting energy she made popular in Twilight.
The film wisely weaves in the thread of sexism being part of the FBI investigation, even if it doesn’t come out and say it. In the 1960s, women are pushed aside. FBI investigator Jack Solomon (Jack O’Connell) is married to Margaret Qualley’s Linette, who’s studying to be a doctor, a fact that’s whispered about at parties. Then, at dinner with the Solomons, Vince Vaughn’s Carl Kowalski berates his wife and daughter (Jade Pettyjohn), the latter of which has the same blonde pixie haircut that Seberg dons.
To the men in Seberg, the actress represents changing times and gender dynamics, something that the FBI is not on board with, otherwise they would not be investigating Jean’s life. She may cheat on her husband, but she doesn’t do anything illegal in the eyes of the law. But the fact that she’s a woman running around on her hubby makes it a problem. And the fact that it’s woman having sex with men that aren’t white makes it even more of a problem. While watching Seberg, I couldn’t help but think of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood and wonder what would have happened if the world lost Jean Seberg in grisly tragedy in 1969 instead of Sharon Tate, since one represents an end of innocence and the other might have sparked something else entirely.
I hope that the students who left the theater will go home and learn more about Jean Seberg, who should be more than a footnote in movie history.
Thank you for your remarks on “Seberg” Megan. Let us hope people will look into the truth of Jean Seberg. Aside from the aforementioned podcast I would recommend the truth be found in the books “Jean Seberg Breathless–Her True Story” and/or “Neutralized: The FBI vs. Jean Seberg”. Or the upcoming documentary film “Movie Star: The Secret Lives of Jean Seberg”. All were thoroughly researched and include first-hand accounts by people who knew Seberg personally. And no, there was no happy ending with Jean Seberg. No FBI agent came to her to deliver her FBI file personally as depicted in the movie “Seberg”. Then again, the filmmakers did little research as they acknowledged at TIFF recently, which includes not even informing Seberg’s family of their project…
I do not cease to be amazed how most people here, who have ACTUALLY SEEN, “Pain and Glory”, loves it and comparisons with last year’s “Roma” come to the surface (what is more, this is Almodovar’s “8 1/2”, “Amarcord” and “Day for Night” all at once, which are bigger words for any cinephile).
But I can’t help noticing how much Sasha is skipping talking about the film, which is an obvious AMPAS treat, pure Oscarbait, even more so than “Roma” was. Superb performances, including TWO international stars, one of them previous Oscar winner? Check. Superb score by previous Oscar nominee? Check. Superb screenplay, personal one by a previous Oscar winner? Check. Superb direction by a previous Oscar nominee? Check. Glowing reviews and accurate b.o. for a Foreign Language film? Check. Talking directly to the soul of the writting, acting and directing branches, being a film about film and how difficult is to find inspiration and to reflect your story and message? Check. Likely critics darling, specially for Antonio Banderas performance (critics like Alonso Duralde, already openly stated that… you know, critics that ACTUALLY vote for film critics awards)? Check
So, once has to wonder, is anyone NOT doing something right? Oh, I know, get back to praise (again) a stand up comedian turned up film actor/producer, playing a stand up comedian turned up film actor/producer, in a Netflix (studio who has already a crowded offering and who has way better chances with Marriage Story and The Irishman) in a film directed by who?… or why not, again lobby about Ford vs. Ferrari, a.k.a. “the film that no one is actually caring for”.
(and yes, I am aware, Parasite is going to be the main P&G competitor, and P&G probably can win only Lead Actor at best… but we are talking about a film that is viably aiming for at least International Film, Actor and Score nominations and is on the edge of Cinematography, Original Screenplay and Director, at least, with outside shot for Supporting Actress, Film Editing and Picture itself). I am realistic on its options but certainly one has to wonder, why Sasha is skipping even giving a short note if she EVEN saw the film (I directly asked her, no reply)
Or maybe, if she for example hasn’t seen it yet or even if she has, her and most other pundits’ disinterest in it is telling something. For a non-English language film to get into best picture, the talk about it needs to be strong, people need to be driven to see it (think of Parasite, everyone was really excited about seeing Parasite and were given possibilities to see the film, and because of this they showed up and praised it) and if people aren’t talking about it, maybe they just aren’t seeing it. And even if they have seen it, the Oscar pundits are mostly ignoring it in their best picture predictions (on Gold Derby only two pundits are predicting it to get a best picture nomination, Puig as the #9 film and Gray as the #5 film but still for example behind The Two Popes) and that means that they are not hearing enough about it, they are not feeling enough of an awards push, they aren’t seeing a way for that film to get nominated. And that usually means that there isn’t much of a push, that the film isn’t doing well, that it isn’t being seen by everyone, and eventually, that it isn’t getting a best picture nomination.
Even if Pain & Glory is in theory the kind of film that voters might appreciate, and it’s well-liked by those who happen to see it doesn’t mean that it is getting nominated (and at least not in almost every single category that SPC is mentioning in their FYC poster), and it definitely doesn’t mean that you should scold or ridicule Sasha or the films that she wants to support just because they don’t happen to be the ones you support.
Also, people mostly don’t seem to compare it to Roma as in “it’s better than Roma” or “it’s as good as Roma”, they’re comparing the two as personal-seeming films by Spanish-language filmmakers. And it’s not Amarcord and it’s not Day for Night as the former is very joyous and the latter is very playful, and this film is too reserved to be either on a scale required to make those comparisons feel meaningful (it’s phenomenal but it’s not either of those things). I should have rewatched this a while ago but from what I recall something like Smultronstället would feel like a more appropriate comparison
Come on, you know quite well, as anyone that pays attention, that the site is simply ignoring anything about this film but Banderas (and look at the position in the ranking, when he has the most glowing raves along Phoneix, but without the divisive reception of the film, and also is the one that has won TWO awards already, with several critics stating he will pop up at the Awards circles, meaning they are quite sure they may or might vote for him, already), and its position as International film… again, ignoring Oscar nominated for director and winner for original screenplay Almodovar as a contender. Cruz (who was nominated for way less in a worse film, Nine, and is an Oscar winner, and also is more likely nominee this year than Marina de Tavira was last year) in Supporting (which I would say is a weaker category this year, and I see less obvious picks listed). 3 times Oscar nominee Alberto Iglesias (who never was nominated for a Best Picture nominee) is also absent from the contenders list. Anyone who has seen the trailer itself, not to mention the film, knows cinematography is a contender also. But I wouldn’t be complaining if this was something new… I am because I am getting tired of this, every year. Let’s take 2018 for example… BlackKklansman was an obvious contender for multinominations and wins since CANNES, but this site tiptoed around it barely mentioning it and getting it as longshot anywhere. They listed it because of Lee’s dueness but always really low in the ranks. And later, when Bohemian Rhapsody’s trailer hit, was mostly overlooked, and when the film started breaking b.o. records, it was the reviews that prevented taking it as a serious contender. We all know how that worked out… Lee won Screenplay and BR won every single nom but Picture… and people here were talking about SURPRISES, when they were obvious outcomes for months.
Objectively speaking (remember, I do not like Almodovar as a person, and I would rather see Parasite, which I will be seeing next tuesday or Wednesday, at last!, from a director who never fails to me, sweep), Pain & Glory is a SAFE bet for International Film, Actor and Score nominations and a likely/possible nominee at Cinematography, Original Screenplay, and a contender (to a minor extent, because of how crowded or how much depending of campaigning they are going to be) Picture, Film Editing, Supporting Actress. We are talking about a film that is competing with actual arguments for up to 8 nominations, that is raved, that is a success economically (in the arthouse circle, 1,8 million domestic, 32 million worldwide, which is many many times its budget), and that has really strong narratives in several categories for getting nominations and actual wins (Director, Actor, Cinematography, Score, International Film) and that started campaigning for Oscars… in Cannes (waaaaay before ANY other film this year), slowly building up for the Awards season. I guess if Parasite wasn’t the phenomenom of the year, this site’s consideration of P&G would be radically different and closer to the one Roma had last year (ehem, P&G happens to be better than Roma, if my an extremely narrow margin, because I think it is the more honest and heartfelt film).
Again, I simply can’t wait to see Parasite. But this year we have a couple of masterpieces already (Us, Pain and Glory) and it is sad that they are not as high in the consideration lists as they should be.
-Perhaps Banderas’ performance is getting raves due to people not focusing on his film as much. For example Driver seems to be praised just as much as Banderas but the praise disappears under general praise for Marriage Story
-Two awards don’t mean anything at this point. In theory the two awards could even be the last (not saying that they are going to be, just that we can’t deduce anything based on two awards)
-Almodóvar has been nominated and won his awards in the non-foreign language film categories for one film. It’s not like we expect every single film by Sofia Coppola to be an Oscar contender these days, even though she makes great movies
-Just because Cruz has gotten nominated for less doesn’t mean that she gets automatically nominated for everything, particularly as people aren’t emphasizing her in their reviews (of the Metacritic reviews of 100 that I could access, only The Playlist gives her more than a few words), and Nine was a different situation, a film coming up at the end of the year where buzz had built for a long time before the movie was seen and thus her getting a nomination was easier (the same does not apply for Pain & Glory as there clearly isn’t as much hype about it as an Oscar contender). And Tavira was in an Oscar juggernaut, which Pain & Glory clearly isn’t.
-No pundit seems to predicting Pain & Glory for score and few people are talking about that score as anything that must be nominated. No pundit seems to be talking about the cinematography as something that must be nominated or predicting it. Just because something is worthy doesn’t mean that it is going to be nominated
-Sasha praised BlacKkKlansman a lot last year and I don’t think it ever left her predictions, and considering the eventual nominations it did get (missing actor and cinematography), a mostly calm approach to predicting it was clearly a smart choice
-When Bohemian Rhapsody premiered, there was clearly talk about it, pundits watched it, they moved Malek up their predictions even if they doubted the film’s chances. This is proof of what I argued for, if no one is talking about your movie or seeing it, they clearly aren’t enthusiastic about it or feeling like they need to see it. The box office and the best actor buzz did that for Bohemian Rhapsody, for Pain & Glory people don’t seem to be excited about seeing it despite the talk about Banderas
-I agree that there are masterpieces this year that are unsung in the race this year (personally films such as Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Hidden Life, An Elephant Sitting Still, The Souvenir, Long Day’s Journey into Night and others come to mind) but that doesn’t mean that the predictions are wrong or that Sasha is doing something wrong (especially to the extent that she would need to be attacked, she doesn’t deserve her favorites and predictions to be ridiculed as terrible)
remember, I am talking about a film that is actively campaigning for Oscars, and in a really well calculated and executed campaign that started back in Cannes with a blast (Banderas finally winning something in competition). Not just a masterpiece but a masterpiece that is hungry for awards. Yesterday I just saw the Jimmy Kimmels interview to Banderas… he didn’t forget to point out about his heart surgery and how he has changed his career and life since then… it is part of the narrative in the campaigning and inherently connected with the character in the film. Added fact: Almodovar has stated on record, they are in a very good position to WIN (not to be nominated) some Oscar. He knows something (and Bryce just confirmed in another post, that the film seems to be hitting strong with AMPAS members).
Of course they’re campaigning (and Banderas in particular seems to be doing good work) but who know for example what motivated Almodóvar’s comments. You argue that he has a big ego and that might effect things, he might just be saying that this film is kind of “serious” to an extent that Oscar voters in what people generally think of them might respond to this movie more. And Academy screenings are kind of shaky as a way to assess things as most movies that are talked about seem to have good Academy screenings, and one never knows whether that memory will stay to the point when they vote for awards (as someone who has organized a small-scale ballot for some family members who probably watch around the amount of movies voters watch (20-30), surprisingly often they rave about something but forget that they’ve even seen it a few months later and vote for movies they weren’t as impressed by when they watched them because they remember them better)
fact is, I never seen Pedro Almodovar SO confident in winning anything. Not even the Goya.