Blog Archives

The Tomb Raider Reboot: Women in Action Films

4/27/2020

By Zoe Leininger

Having women in action roles is not a new phenomenon in the film industry. From Star Wars’ (George Lucas, 1977) Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) subverting the idea of a damsel in distress and rescuing herself, to Wonder Woman’s (Patty Jenkins, 2017) Diana (Gal Gadot) showing what a woman can be without the constraints of societal gender roles, strong female characters have resonated with both male and female audiences. Even taking into account the resounding success these characters and others like them have had, it is clear the genre of action and adventure movies has long been, and still is, overwhelmingly dominated by male characters.

When it comes to strong, compelling female leads in film, the 2018 film Tomb Raider has one of the best that I’ve seen in a while. Directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug and starring Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft, this film is a reboot of Simon West’s Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) starring Angelina Jolie. The original film is based off of the video game Tomb Raider that was first released by British gaming company Core Design in 1996. Vikander brings an intensity and vibrance to the role that makes her a great choice for the kick-butt protagonist Lara Croft.

Lara (Alicia Vikander) solving a puzzle to open an ancient tomb .

Lara Croft is a young woman living in London who works as a bicycle courier. She is the heiress to a large fortune but refuses to accept it because it would mean acknowledging that her missing father Lord Richard Croft (Dominic West) is dead. She finds a message that he recorded for her before he disappeared that instructs her to burn all his research on the legend of a Queen named Himiko who was said to have a curse that caused all that she touched to die. Instead of destroying the research, she decides to use it to try to find him. She teams up with a ship Captain Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) whose father disappeared along with Richard to figure out what happened to them. They soon find out that there is a bigger conspiracy going on when they are captured by a group of men lead by Mathias Vogal (Walton Goggins) who are hunting for Himiko’s tomb.

This arc that her character takes highlights the fact that there shouldn’t need to be a distinction between action heroes and female action heroes. Lara goes through the same difficulties that Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford)( Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981) or Ben Gates (Nicolas Cage) (National Treasure, 2004) such as tensions with her father and being betrayed by those she trusts. Like these men, she is smart and resourceful as well as attractive. There are a couple shots of Lu Ren gazing at her on the boat, as well as a boy at a restaurant she delivers for in the beginning having a crush on her. It is a realistic sort of attractiveness, not the provocative, sexualized female warrior that women in this role are often portrayed as.

The “fox hunt” at the beginning of the film highlights Lara’s adventurous side.

As a character, Lara develops really well. There is depth to her at the beginning of the film that keeps growing as the film progresses. The first time we are introduced to her she is being beaten in a boxing ring by another female boxer. This establishes right off the bat that she is athletic and capable, but not invincible. In fact Vikander herself put on twenty pounds of muscle while training for the role (Cohen, 2018).Her reaction to her defeat shows us she is determined and driven, if somewhat aloof. The reason for her aloofness is soon revealed when we learn who her father is and that he is presumed dead. She is stuck in the past, refusing to believe her father is dead and always up for a challenge. This last trait is shown in the beginning when she agrees to be the fox in a bicycle “fox hunt” through the streets of London. Not only does this episode give us a fabulous street chase, we see her attitude shine through as she knows that she is just as good, if not better, than any of the boys chasing behind her.

The shift in her character comes when she finds clues to what happened to her father. Through flashbacks of her memories of him and conversations with other people we learn that she is directionless after losing him. She is educated but working as a bike courier and she has distanced herself from her father’s world of “boardrooms and business deals” saying that “I’m not that kind of Croft”. She is in a meeting with her lawyer to sign the document declaring her father is dead when she finds a key hidden inside one of his Japanese puzzle boxes. She runs out of the shiny, modern conference room to go to her family’s crypt. This scene marks the turning point she has as she decides to stop running from the past, but find out it’s secrets.

Lara and Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) walking through the forest after being captured by Vogal (Wolton Goggins).

While her initial launch into action is her need for her father, when she does find him she has to make a choice for herself on what she will do next. Her father is upset that she didn’t burn his research as he asked her to and now an organization called Trinity is close to opening the tomb. She combats his protests against her going to fight back against Vogal saying that he taught her to never give up. To his claim that he was a different man when he taught her that she says “Well, I am still his daughter”. She went into the journey to find her father, but at this point she learns that she needed to learn how to be herself without him. She makes the decision to save him by opening the tomb for Vogal. She leads the party inside, and ultimately stops Vogal from getting out to give Trinity the weapon they found inside.

Just as the world of action films is mostly populated by men, Lara finds herself the only female among a crowd of men hunting for the tomb. She is following after her father in his quest for the mystic. After she embarks on her adventure she is surrounded only by men. Her character grows as she holds her own in this situation, escaping from Vogal, figuring out puzzles and performing daring stunts with determination. This film is an adventure that firmly plants Vickander’s Lara Croft among the ranks of Hollywood’s action heroes.

Works Cited:

Cohen, Jess. “Every Workout Alicia Vikander Did to Prepare for Tomb Raider”. E!News. Entertainment Television, 27 Feb. 2018. Web. April 2020.

Fargo: Series Review

4/24/2020

By Mason Leaver

In 1996, Joel and Ethan Coen directed and released the dark-comedy-murder-mystery Fargo. It quickly became a cult classic (as many Coen Brothers classics have). Then, almost 20 years later in 2014, FX released a new series by the same name. The TV mini-series ran for ten episodes, focusing on many of the same themes and motifs as the original film. I was a latecomer to the series, and began watching the first season in the fall of 2019.

It was one of the best shows I had ever seen.

Now, in 2020, Fargo has released two more seasons, in 2015 and 2017. Another season is soon on the way. Fargo has been well received in all three seasons, having won 3 Golden Globes, over 50 other awards, and been nominated for over 200 awards. Fargo has managed to deliver a consistently entertaining, thought provoking, and stylistically told story in just 30 episodes, skillfully borrowing from and improving on the film it is inspired by.

The first season of Fargo is the most directly tied to the original film. The story focuses heavily on a detail from the film (which makes watching the original film very important). But more interestingly, the show uses many visual cues that are meant to tie the show and the film together. The main character, Lester Nygaard, played by Martin Freeman, and Jerry Lundegaard, the main character of Fargo 1996, can be seen as two interpretations of the same sort of character. The other main character of the season, Molly Solverson, also shares many visual similarities with the protagonist of the film, Marge Gunderson. The show also plays heavily into Fargo (1996)’s motif of the disillusioned small town police officer trying to bring about justice despite her department’s objections.

Jerry Lundegaard, played by William H. Macy, and Lester Nygaard, played by Martin Freeman.

However, the first season of Fargo’s strongest points are not in its similarities to the film, but in the ways in which it expands on the ideas of its predecessor and how it improves in storytelling and style. The plot of the first season is very complex. It has many twists and turns throughout, and overall provides a story that feels very intelligent and intricate. Part of this complexity comes from the show’s length, sitting at about 10 hours compared to the 2 hours afforded to the film. Of course, a large part of this also comes from the direction of showrunner and creator Noah Hawley, who has breathed new life into the project. The characters of season one of Fargo, while similar in some aspects to the characters in Fargo 1996, have a depth which the film was unable to achieve. Freeman’s performance as Lester Nygaard is deep and complicated; Lester is a character that everyone can understand and hate simultaneously. Perhaps the most captivating performance in the entire series is Billy Bob Thornton’s performance as Lorne Malvo, the villain of the show. Malvo is one of the most interesting and terrifying villains I’ve ever seen, right up there with Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men (2007), also a Coen Brothers production. Malvo is a character of a Biblical nature, often making references to the Good Book, and the show has many visual hints and clues that he may be more than he seems (his name itself is an anagram for Moral Novel). The first season of Fargo also takes major strides stylistically from the relatively tame style of the film. Interesting editing and use of voice over, great musical choices, and very surprising story choices all make for a very strong opening for the series.

Lorne Malvo in silhouette

The second season of Fargo takes place in the 70’s, following the story of Molly Solverson’s father, a state ranger in Fargo. Two rival crime family’s have gotten into a gang war with Fargo caught in the middle, and it is up to Solverson to put a stop to it. This season once again focuses on the goodhearted cop working against his own station to bring about justice, but manages to deliver it in a very different way. The ineffectual police work featured in season two is very different from season one.

Season two of Fargo is likely the weakest of the three seasons released so far. This isn’t to say it’s bad, but it struggles to leave an impact compared to seasons one or three. The characters of season one are not as compelling as those of other seasons, and the story does not feel as complex. The gang war of season two lacks the intimacy that season one and season three feature; many caught up in it are characters which we spend little or no time getting to know. This is not to say the entire season is bad, however. There are still plenty of tense and surprising moments in this season. Stylistically this season leaves even more of an impact than its predecessor, most noticeably through a frequent use of split screen editing and other forms of fast paced editing. The score especially stands out, which was never a strong point of the film. Perhaps the most impactful aspect of this season are the major risks that are taken in the story. Without spoiling anything, this season features some very unique choices, which I can imagine some audience members will love and some will hate. Despite being the weakest of the three seasons, the second season of Fargo is still worth a watch.

An example of split-screen editing in Season Two of Fargo.

Season three of Fargo is where the show truly shines. Once again, the story focuses on the disillusioned cop struggling against her fellow police officers, but once again, for very different reasons. The story of this season feels fresh and very different, even more original than the first season. Ewan McGregor gives two excellent performances, playing twins Emmit and Ray Stussy. McGregor manages to make the Stussy twins feel very different from each other, while also giving them plenty of similar idiosyncrasies. It’s a convincing performance that could not have been easy to pull off. Once again, the show manages to create new and interesting characters, most noticeably in the Stussy twins and the terrifying V.M Varga, played by David Thewlis. Season three of Fargo makes some very interesting choices in how they tell their story, including a lengthy animated section in one episode, as well as a scene which far surpasses the unique choices of season two, in an encounter which seems to borrow from Twin Peaks. It’s perhaps the strongest season of the show so far, and it continually surprises you at every turn.

Ewan McGregor portraying the Stussy twins.

I write this exploration of the seasons of Fargo as one review rather than three because Fargo is, at its core, one unified story which explores the same themes and ideas over and over through different lenses. Stripped down of all of the fascinating characters and captivating stories, both the film and series Fargo are about exploring fundamental questions. What are the highest highs and lowest lows of human morality? What is justice? Is it a virtue or is it dangerous to be sure that one is right, and that everyone else is wrong? These are some of the questions that Fargo constantly asks the audience. Even the show’s opening title sequence, which faithfully insists that “This is a true story” forces the viewer to ask questions about truth and fiction. But most centrally (especially in season 3) is the struggle between order and chaos. What is the world, most fundamentally? Order, or chaos? The very beginning and end of the third season address these themes most directly, but Fargo does not provide it’s audience with an easy answer.
Fargo (1996) as well as seasons one through three of Fargo are available now on Hulu, with another season coming soon. Fargo is well worth the price of a temporary subscription.

Sound Designing Hopelessness: King Kong's “Insect Pit” Sequence

4/20/2020

by Landen Kennedy

In an interview with Chuck the Movieguy, Peter Jackson discusses how important his 2005 remake of King Kong is to him. He says he was around twelve years old when he first tried (and obviously failed) to remake his favorite movie. He tried one other time (after he had a film career) to remake the film, but was ultimately unable to. Finally, after the massive success of his Lord of the Rings adaptation, he was able to fulfill his life-long dream.

His adaptation of the iconic monster movie is unlike any adaptation since the original 1933 film. At just over three hours (or three hours and twenty-ish minutes if you opt for the extended version of the film) this is no simple feat to get through. A lot of the criticism of this movie is because the first hour or so has no Skull Island, no dinosaurs, and certainly no Kong. Instead we see Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) as they both find themselves lured onto a large boat by Carl Denham (Jack Black).

From Left to Right: Carl Denham (Jack Black), Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler)

Carl is a filmmaker who is looking for a big break. He has come into possession of a map of a hidden island and is willing to stake his career on finding it and filming a movie set on it. The film is set during the Great Depression, so Ann is eager to join Carl’s cast, and Jack has to be tricked into boarding the ship before it takes off in order to get him on board. Jack is the film’s screenwriter and Ann is its leading lady.

Once we FINALLY get to Skull Island, the film picks up and turns into an adventure unlike any other. Things quickly turn south as several sailors are killed by the natives and Ann is carried into the jungle by Kong. The survivors head off into the jungle to find her. They encounter many dangers in the ancient jungles of Skull Island, but none are quite as horrific and memorable as the infamous “insect pit” sequence.

Most films follow a standard plot structure. There is the introduction to the characters, world, and story. Then there is the inciting incident (in this case, Carl and his cast departing for the island). Next there is the rising action (all of the obstacles encountered on the island). Finally, of course, the climax (Kong breaking free in New York City), and the end of the movie. In many films, there is a moment during the rising action where all hope is lost, the characters are in their lowest state, and the audience awaits for the moment when hope will be restored and we can continue on to the climax and then resolution. In King Kong, the “insect pit” is this exact moment.

Watch the Scene:

When I first saw this scene as a young person, this scene was one of the most unforgettable scenes I had ever watched. To this day I can still remember the unsettling feeling I had while watching it. It is a return to form for Jackson, who before making his blockbuster epics, was a B-horror indie filmmaker. This scene looks straight out of a horror movie.

As you could see in the scene, the crew has fallen into a pit. Kong had trapped them on a large tree that had fallen across a chasm, and then pushed it down to the bottom. Those who miraculously survived the fall find themselves in the lowest point of their lives. Carl’s camera, his whole purpose in life, is shattered. Lumpy (Andy Serkis), the ship’s cook has lost his best friend. Many other sailors have lost friends as well. Jack is the farthest he has been from finding Ann so far. In just a few moments, large, prehistoric insects begin to emerge from the nooks and crannies of the canyon walls.

Why this scene is so effective is its use of sound. The sound design in this sequence is so atmospheric and terrifying because of how minimalist it is. There is a very slight, droning, almost whining musical score in the background of the scene. This eerie musical tune is hard to pick out because the diegetic sounds, those that occur within the world of the film (the guns and bug noises for example), almost drown it out. We hear the sounds of desperate survivors fighting for their lives. We hear the crying of sailors, the groaning and grunting as they fight for their lives, the screaming as they are picked off one by one, and most terrifying of all, the inhuman, alien sounds of giant insects.

In many sequences like this, where the characters encounter a dangerous obstacle to overcome, the music would usually be louder in an attempt to create the emotion the director is aiming for. This scene uses the simplest musical sounds it can and instead relies on the sound design of the characters and the world to create the hopeless feeling that Jackson wants us to feel. We can sympathize more with Lumpy as he mourns the death of his closest friend when all we can hear is his whimpering tears. We can feel more uneasy and scared when we only hear the twisting, creaking, clicking noises of the insects as they get closer and closer. We can only cringe with absolute horror as we hear Lumpy’s screams muffled as his head and limbs are sucked into the gaping, toothy mouths of giant worms.

The sequence does not skimp on the duration of the events either. The survivors’ struggle lasts for several minutes before Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), the star of Carl’s film, and Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann) return with men and guns to save the rest of the crew. At this moment, the music picks back up and the characters’, as well as we the viewers’, hope is restored.

In my opinion, this sequence is one of the highlights of the film simply for the way it creates an atmosphere that is unforgettably terrifying. Several of the action sequences in the film, such as the Kong versus two dinosaurs fight scene, a swamp monster scene (in the extended version only), and a dinosaur stampede scene help to establish Skull Island as a place where man is the bottom of the pecking order. We watch sailor after sailor die in increasingly brutal ways, but it is the least energetic and action-packed scene that ends up burned into the viewer’s memory. The bug pit is a masterpiece of a sequence, combining the adventure/monster movie genre with slow and quiet horror.

Works Cited:
https://youtu.be/yqi_C2vOars

A Modern Fantasy: Onward Review

4/17/2020

By Bill Friedell

Pixar makes its first foray into the fantasy genre with Dan Scalon’s Onward (2020). Mixing humor, heart, and even some tears, Onward brilliantly fuses the tropes of fantasy with a world that reflects our own complacent world as it complements a story of brotherhood. Onward follows Ian (Tom Holland), a sixteen year old elf and his older brother Barley (Chris Pratt) as they are given the chance to be reunited with their deceased father for a single day with a magic spell. However, the spell doesn’t bring him completely back, bringing back only half of him. To bring back the top half, Ian and Barley must go on a quest to find a gem to finish the spell.

Both Holland and Pratt are perfectly cast as their respective characters. While neither role stretches the acting chops of either actor, they manage to use that to their advantage, pouring in all of Holland’s timid, sweet demeanor and Pratt’s boisterous lovability into their characters. Combining these two actors’ voices together creates a believable, brotherly chemistry.

The blending of fantasy with the modern world works excellently as it not only works from a visual perspective, but also from a thematic standpoint. The movie clearly states that the world is the way it is because of convenience and complacency, losing touch with its magical roots. Ian finds himself being insecure and continually failing to stand up for himself. And just as Ian doesn’t remember his father, the world has forgotten about magic. Throughout the film, there are many instances of characters regaining a fantastical element associated with their fantasy pasts, such as the Manticore (Octavia Spencer) who goes from being a restaurant manager whose glory days are behind her to a winged warrior hero. In Ian’s quest to regain his father for a day, he learns of magic and gains the confidence he lacked in the beginning. Ian’s change over the course of the film, feeling both organic and is satisfying. Barley also gets depth and an arc of his own as he remembers only a few memories of his father and has his own heartbreaking reason why he wishes to see his father.The writing also works well beyond the themes and character arcs. The screenwriters masterfully weave setups and payoffs for both comedic and emotional payoffs.

A humorous and heartwarming scene of Barley (Chris Pratt) and Ian (Tom Holland) dance with their Dad (his lower half) not only creating time to breathe in the narrative, but becomes a key moment in Ian's journey for what he truly needs.

The overall style of the film feels very authentic to the fantasy genre and gives a sense of timelessness, despite feeling very modern. There’s touchstones of fantasy storytelling such as the various mythical creatures who inhabit this world, an opening prologue that explains the context of the world, and a quest for a macguffin. The music also has touches of fantasy-esque instrumentation, such as when Ian is about to walk into his high school. And while the aesthetics are modern mixed with fantasy, there isn’t any overt pop culture references or forced incorporations of trends. The audience is mercifully spared from the characters doing something cringe worthy such as floss dances as it would remove from the timeless feel that the film exudes, while still dealing with the world of today and the challenges it presents us.

Overall, Onward is a delightful fantasy adventure that is full of emotion and fun. It gives clear and satisfying arcs to the characters and ties their character journeys into the larger themes of the film as presented by the world around them. If you are a fan of the fantasy genre, animation, or well told stories, Onward will have something for you to marvel at.

Call of the Wild Review

4/10/2020

Zoe Leininger

This fun, fast paced film directed by Chris Sanders is the most recent in a long line of screen adaptations of Jack London’s classic novel, The Call of the Wild. It is an enjoyable, family-friendly adventure story about a domesticated dog, Buck, who gets stolen from his life of luxury and taken into the Alaskan Yukon. The story follows Buck as he finds his place and identity in the wilderness of Alaska.

Given Sanders directing background of films such as How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and Lilo and Stitch (2002) perhaps it is not surprising that his take on the well loved story uses a CGI model for the main character, as well as all the other animals in the film. While this choice picks up a lot of criticism from fans of the original story, I personally found it to be one that enhanced the overall style and aesthetic of the film.

CGI Buck takes the lead role in this interpretation of Jack London’s classic novel.

From the first time we are introduced to Buck, he and the world around him appear the slightest bit fake. This is not a bad thing. The story is told from the point of view of Buck and he is a big dog with a big personality. The CGI gives us more of this personality than would be possible with the use of real animals. This fact, combined with really nice POV shots of what Buck sees, help us as an audience to get inside Buck’s mind the same way we could with any human protagonist.

John Thornton (Harrison Ford) confronts Hal (Dan Stevens) about how he treats the dogs.

The hyper realistic feel of Buck adds to the overall feeling that the film is slightly larger than life. The picturesque landscape is bright and colorful as the dogsled team flies over the snow in a way that accents this style. The towns and the humans in them are animated and colorful as well to give a sense of playfulness to the fantastical quality of the film.

Perrault (Omar Sy) and Buck come to an understanding about who leads the sled team.

With this aesthetic in mind I found the casting choices to be particularly excellent. Harrison Ford as grumpy old hermit John Thornton is the obvious star as he uses his understated and subtle method to offer a convincingly heartfelt performance when communicating with the CGI Buck. This style of Ford’s contrasts with and accentuates the personality we see in Buck and the almost surreal nature of Buck’s interactions with the wolf pack near the end of the film. Omar Sy and Cara Gee are also extraordinary as the dog sled drivers Perrault and Francoise who take Buck on their mail driving team. They play off of each other very well and are able to add to that larger than life feeling with their performances with the CGI animals.

Overall, this film offers a fresh take on the classic novel that hasn’t been done in any of the previous adaptations of the story. The mix of amazing live action performances and stunning CGI work adds a modern flavor to the film that makes it playful and heartwarming at the same time.

Force Majeure: Fighting Back Against a Hero Culture

4/6/2020

By Ravi Ahuja

It is no secret that the modern film industry is dominated by superhero movies. Much ink has already been spilled about the cultural phenomenon that is Marvel, and it is not my goal to add to that ocean. In truth, it seems to me that the superhero movie actually fits into a broader category in Hollywood, one that is as old as the industry and even more dominant. This category is that of the hero movie. The hero movie is defined very loosely as a movie driven by a hero protagonist(s), characters that take bold and brave actions, sacrificing their own comfort for some ideal of justice or truth. Even if the protagonist is not so specifically heroic, they are at least extraordinary. The hero movie is not specific to any one genre, setting, or movement, but has stayed a relevant form of storytelling ever since the very first recorded stories. While there is certainly nothing wrong with depicting heroism through stories, the overwhelming majority of Hollywood movies have some form of hero protagonist, especially the ones with big budgets and large box-office pulls. There are still exceptions to this rule, with directors like Noah Baumbach and Richard Linklater consistently making great slice of life movies, but for the most part, a viewer interested in seeing depictions of normal people as main characters has to turn to indie or foreign films. Force Majeure, a Swedish film directed by Ruben Östlund, is not unique in its realistic portrayal of ordinary people, but unlike many other slice of life movies, it is explicitly against the heroism we so commonly see in television and movies.

From left to right: Harry (Vincent Wettergren), Tomas (Johannes Kuhnke), Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli), and Vera (Clara Wettergren)

The premise is simple: a family of four take a weeklong ski vacation in the French Alps. On their second day there, however, they witness a controlled avalanche that briefly appears as if it might hurt or even kill them. Tomas (Johannes Kuhnke), the father, runs away from his family at the last second, while Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli), the mother stays protecting her children. This incident drives the rest of the movie, as Tomas and Ebba face a crumbling relationship in the wake of both of their responses to the situation.

The movie’s structure shows what the filmmakers view as important, as the key scene of action occurs only 30 minutes through the runtime of the film. The movie is not about the avalanche itself, but how that avalanche affects the different characters and their relationships between each other. Th avalanche scene is hugely important, but not climactic. The main conflict of the film revolves around Tomas’ selfishness and cowardice during this moment, as Ebba is distraught to see her husband not prioritize herself and his children in a disaster situation. The conflict is escalated further by Tomas’ refusal to admit the truth of the situation, insisting that he did not run, that he could not have run. He is ashamed of his own weakness, and breaks down later in the movie due to his own self-hatred, regressing to a toddler-like state of wailing. This emotional immaturity is shared by Ebba, albeit in a different way. Rather than throw a tantrum, she pretends he doesn’t exist for a short time, then acts coldly to him without communicating her hurt to him. In fact, rather than talk to him directly about her feelings or concern, Ebba instead brings it up for the first time at a dinner with another couple, grilling and humiliating him in front of others. After they discuss it in private, she then does the same thing again in front of a different couple out of anger that Tomas won’t admit what happened. Both Tomas and Ebba refuse to act like adults and resolve the situation, but instead choose to hurt each other and maintain their own pride.

Tomas and Ebba’s situation only begins to improve through the advice and help of one of their friends, Mats, who is present at the second dinner that they fight through. Mats tries to be a reasonable neutral party, consoling both Tomas and Ebba. To Ebba, he explains that in survival situations such as the one that they experienced, your ‘fight-or-flight’ system is triggered, and that it is impossible to know what one would really do in such a circumstance until it's been lived through. To Tomas, he reminds him of the importance of ensuring your own safety first before being able to help others, such as when the air pressure in a plane cabin drops. It is during this conversation that Mats brings up his views on heroism that comprise the central theme of the film.

“I believe that the enemy is the image we have of heroes. All these stories about heroes. And the pressure to be a hero and do heroic acts in terrible situations. But the truth is, when reality is staring you in the face, and you’re afraid to die, very few of us are heroic.” (Force Majeure)

(From left to right:) Ebba, Fanny (Fanny Metelius), and Mats (Kristofer Hivju) discuss heroism

Of course, despite his help, even Mats is not immune to the anti-heroic principles of the film, as he too fights with his girlfriend and shows a tendency towards anger later on, further cementing the idea that there are very few heroes in real life.

The end of the movie does have something of a redemptive arc for Tomas and Ebba, but this too is far from the heroism of Hollywood. When the family goes on one last ski run together in thick fog, Ebba gets separated and lost, presumably injured. Tomas runs off into the swirling snow and fog to find her, and returns carrying her triumphantly, for a moment suggesting some kind of heroic change for Tomas. However, this scene is immediately undercut by a sense of awkwardness. The reunited family just stands there and looks at each other for a few seconds before Ebba gets up and walks back into the fog to get her skis, seemingly unharmed, and the scene abruptly ends. Even after a brave rescue, there is no illusion of heroism. Instead, we are offered the film’s familiar awkwardness of reality.

The next and final scene of the family’s bus ride home offers us a reminder that even these faint glimmers of heroism are only temporary. As the bus driver dangerously lurches his way down the mountain, Ebba demands to get off the bus. She is the only voice saying out loud what most of the bus seems to be thinking, that the bus is unsafe and needs to be stopped. She looks several times to Tomas to support her, but he stays silent. When the doors open, the bus erupts into pandemonium, with people yelling and rushing to get out. It is Mats again who ends up being the closest thing to a hero, getting everyone’s attention and telling them to calm down, helping people off the bus, while Tomas still stays silent. Mats’ captain-like order for the women and children to get off first brings to mind the example he used earlier in the film of the MS Estonia. According to him, only 137 people survived out of 850, and these survivors had to trample over dead bodies and knock down children in order to live. This is the example he uses of a survival situation where it is impossible to tell what one might do in order to survive, yet when faced with disaster himself (albeit a much, much smaller one), he is able to maintain his cool and help others while Tomas is useless yet again. This does not appear to go unnoticed by Ebba, who asks Mats, not Tomas to carry their daughter. It is important to remember, however, that despite Mats’ ability to display some level of heroism, he is far from idealized as a character or made to be special.

By the end of the film, we are left with an assorted cast of complicated characters. Some are likable, some are detestable, some can even be admired. All of them, however, are flawed, and none of them possess any traits that would separate them from the ordinary people that we all have in the cast in our own lives. Both main characters are portrayed as unhero-like as possible through their actions, yet they are no closer to being villains. They are petty, awkward, and angry, yes, but they are also loving to their children, willing to help each other, and committed to their relationship. In short, they are people, nothing more, nothing less. While Tomas and Ebba might not fit the Hollywood ideal of the heroic protagonist, that does not make them, or Force Majeure, any less important.

Uncut Gems: Finely Crafted Chaos

4/3/2020

By Landen Kennedy

Adam Sandler gained his fame by being a young star on Saturday Night Live, until he left and began acting in films. Since his early comedies, such as Happy Gilmore (Dennis Dugan, 1996) and Billy Madison (Tamra Davis, 1995), critical reception of his work has become more and more negative. Yet, if you look through his career, especially in more recent years, you will find a few hidden gems within his filmography. A few notable performances are in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch Drunk Love (2002) and in Noah Baumbach’s The Meyerowitz Stories: New and Selected (2017).
The Safdie Brothers, best known for their anxiety-inducing 2017 film Good Time, have stated several times that they have tried to make Uncut Gems (2019) with Adam Sandler for several years. After establishing credibility, they finally were able to team up with Sandler, and the result is the finest work from either of their careers. The Safdies have been rising stars in the indie film realm for some time, skyrocketed by Good Time and now solidified by Uncut Gems. The Safdies are sure to be names to keep an eye on in their future endeavors.

From Left to Right: Benny Safdie, Adam Sandler, Josh Safdie

Some spoilers for Uncut Gems below

The film follows Howard Ratner (Sandler), a Jewish jeweler and salesman in the Diamond District. He sees clients from several corners of the celebrity world, including NBA star Kevin Garnett (played by Garnett himself). Howard has received an extremely rare, uncut, black opal from Africa, and he allows Garnett to borrow it for good luck in that night’s basketball game. Howard trades the opal for Garnett’s Championship ring, which he temporarily pawns off for some quick cash. Howard plans to sell the opal for millions at an auction, but when Garnett is late on his deal of returning the opal, Howard finds himself in trouble. Howard owes a lot of money to some dangerous people, and they are tired of him being late to his payments.
On top of Howard’s financial struggles are his adulterous relationship with one of his coworkers, which leads to his marriage falling apart. He also has an addiction to gambling, which leads him to bet any money he receives, which he could use to pay off some debt, in an attempt to get even more. These problems keep piling up on Howard’s shoulders and shortly after the film begins, they start to wobble as Howard is unable to balance all of his problems, debts, and secrets.
If Good Time was a film that put viewers on the edge of their seats, Uncut Gems makes them fall out of their chairs and onto the floors. This film is an emotional experience, where you feel sympathy, anger, and anxiety all at once. One way the Safdies’ film creates this anxious atmosphere is their chaotic dialogue. There are few moments without dialogue in this film, and when there is dialogue, there is a lot of it. Characters constantly talk at the same time, yelling over each other and creating loud, jarring, and chaotic sequences.
The film is set in 2012 and features events and performances by celebrities from that year. I already mentioned that Kevin Garnett has a large role. Garnett has never acted before, but his performance is actually not that bad, and he is able to deliver lines and emotions without them feeling wooden or abnormal. The 2012 NBA season is an important aspect of the film, as Garnett needs Howard’s opal for good luck to win games, and Howard regularly bets money on Garnett and the Celtics. The film also features popular musical artist The Weeknd as himself.
Sandler’s performance is the star of the show. Howard is an energetic people-person. He is always after potential clients and always trying to get people to do things for him. He is just as loud as everyone else in his world, but we also get to see more depth in a few sequences. At one point in the film we see the weight of all of the constant chaos in Howard’s life force him to his breaking point. He begins sobbing in his office and Sandler really gives it his all. The sequence is emotional and raw, but also not without a few jokes. His girlfriend reveals that she has gotten a tattoo of his name on her body, which only makes Howard more sad as, “Now you can’t even be buried with me.” This is a reference to Howard’s Jewish ethnicity and the traditions of his culture. It plays out hilariously, but we also see his pain. Sandler really brings his A-Game.

Kevin Garnett (Left) views the black opal with Demany (Lakeith Stanfield, Center) and Howard (Right)

The film is not all intense, anxiety inducing sequences. There is quite a bit of humor. It certainly is not a comedy film, but Howard’s character is so loud and behaves in such specifically strange ways that at times it is hard to not chuckle or grin. In one instance, Howard runs into The Weeknd at a local club where he is performing. Howard suspects his girlfriend is cheating on him with The Weeknd, so he gets into a fist fight with him. In another instance, Howard convinces a relative to bid against somebody at an auction to try and drive the price of an item up. He is positive that the other buyer will pay as much as he can, however, he misreads the situation and his relative ends up needing to pay an exorbitant amount of money that he does not have. It’s not humor that you laugh at, but more something that is so ridiculously unlucky that you cannot help but feel a kind of awkward comedy about the entire situation.
The Safdie Brothers’ dizzying tale earned high critical praise, and nominations at several awards shows, such as the Film Independent Spirit Awards, where it won for Best Director and Best Male Lead. I enjoyed the film a lot, but because of the high level of profanity used in the film, it can be difficult to recommend to others unless I know that they can tolerate the amount of profane language used. If that kind of thing does not bother you, and you can tolerate the building intensity, then you will likely find something to love about this film.