WHERE'D YOU GO, BERNADETTE?

Cate Blanchett     Billy Crudup      Trojan Bellisaro     Kristen Wiig     Laurence Fishburne     James Urbaniak

     For a fun and rewarding experience, Bernadette fulfills the promise that most Richard Linklater films do. It’s about marriage, parenting, and family, but branches out further into “kookiness”, self-actualization, neighbor relations, and adventure, and with some scenes shown against the breath-taking seascapes for which Antarctica is famous.  Along with the seascapes, there are wonderful Escher-like shots that are meant to disorient the viewer, compliments of cinematographer Shane F. Kelly (A Scanner Darkly, Boyhood). 

     The first half of the story is a bit unnerving, with Bernadette (Blanchett) at her most manic, alternating between being a comedian and a complete nut job. Her husband Elgie (Crudup), a Microsoft techie, adored her initially when she had just won a “genius” award for architecture, but now seems incomprehensible of her frantic leaps in everyday living.  They have a daughter Becky (Bellisaro), who is very mature and astute at the young age of 12, and it’s clear that she has a closer relationship with her mother than her father.

     After visits with a psychiatrist (Greer) and an FBI agent (Urbaniak), Elgie tries to make things right, but he is not fast enough:  Bernadette has disappeared.  And this will not be the first and only time. Intrigued?  You should be.

     Linklater has a knack for bringing in the viewer as if he/she is a part of the family.  We identify with Bernadette and her need for privacy and alone time, with Elgie’s befuddlement/attraction to her, and the child Becky’s better understanding of the adults than they do of themselves.  All this brings the story alive for us, and we become invested in the outcome. 

     Cate Blanchett is a wonder to behold as an actress who can mesmerize while bringing home the truths of her characters.  In this case, she plays to Billy Crudup’s strengths as an actor who lives in his character to best advantage.  Kristen Wiig is perfect as a locally admired mother who, like Elgie, is mystified by women going against type.  Wiig has a way of bringing authenticity to her characters in a way that makes us laugh and cry at the same time.  This must be Trojan Bellisaro’s break-away moment playing an astute teenager who is thoughtful, loving, and perceptive to its best advantage.  I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about her in the years to come.

An award-worthy picture of contemporary personal/family drama that propels us forward.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

ALIEN: COVENANT

Michael Fassbender     Katherine Waterston     Billy Crudup     Danny McBride

       This version of Ridley Scott’s Alien series is to serve as an origin story, explaining how the alien came to be, and following up on his Prometheus production (2012), in which the origins of humankind were considered.  Alien:  Covenant elaborates on that theme and lets us know what happened to two of the characters that were in Prometheus and are now missing.

     It helps to have seen the previous renditions of Scott’s Alien films before viewing Covenant because it explains the origin of the alien in the first Alien movie and some of the characters are referenced here, although it’s not entirely necessary.  This could stand alone as a sci-fi thriller in its own right, showing the dynamics of a group of people on a space ship for long periods of time, their encounters with another planet and the beings inhabiting it, and the fascinating subject of human-like robots in human society.  

     Captain Oram, taking over from the previous captain’s sudden death is an unsympathetic character who appears far too weak to lead such an important mission.  This character takes the prize for being the most annoying.  He has significant disagreements with Daniels (Waterston), the wife of the former captain and someone who is much more forceful in personality.  That she seems more artificial has less to do with her acting than with the script and direction.  The most effective and intriguing are the two robots both played by Michael Fassbender, on whom the whole story turns.  Fassbender is incredibly good at playing both, who are similar, but with subtle differences and very discrepant aims.

     Exploring new worlds—especially in space—takes courage, and in Ridley Scott films moral grounding as well, because ethical choices crop up repeatedly.  One instance of that occurs when newly installed Captain Oram (Crudup) finds that the spaceship Covenant is near a planet showing life and the possibility of its being closer than the one they’re headed to, to start a settlement, prompts him to want to explore it.  Disagreeing, Daniels reasons that that would put too many of their crew and settlers at risk.  The dilemma is one of exploration with possibilities versus caution.  Another instance of critical choices occurs when Mother, the space ship’s computer, warns of dangers in getting too close to a planet where some of Covenant’s crew is already exploring, the pilots disagree about whether to go ahead or not.  But the spouse of one of the pilots is down there, and he insists on forging on down to save her.  Director Scott regards these dilemmas partly as a means to excite the viewer, but to elicit a certain amount of agony of conscience as well.

     Fans of the previous Alien movies, will relish the appearance of the alien creatures in this film, their appearances heralded by an ominous bug entering the human’s ear or nose, then bursting forth in a bloody birth.  This takes place on the planet Oram insisted on exploring, and they are accounted for by the appearance of a familiar figure.  These encounters are the most exciting and frightening scenes in the film, culminating in a furious battle on the return ship toward home.

A very interesting account of the origin of the aliens in earlier pictures.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland

20th CENTURY WOMEN

Annette Bening     Elle Fanning     Greta Gerwig     Billy Crudup     Lucas Jade Zumann 

         A film about women, yes, but just as much about motherhood.  It’s 1979, and Dorothea (Bening) has tenants and an occasional visitor in her 19^th Century house in Santa Barbara.  She has her son Jamie (Zumann), Julie (Fanning) who comes only by night to talk and sleep in Jamie’s bed, Abbie (Gerwig), an artist who’s run away from home and renting a room, and William (Crudup) who has a room in the house but is doing major remodeling of it.  Perhaps without realizing it, Dorothea has created a family with the utmost intention of providing the best she can for her son.  It’s a little bit sad that she has no awareness of her own needs in this regard. 

        Jamie is a thoughtful child who asks his mother probing questions that, to him, she avoids answering (like, whether she’s happy); and when at one point she asks why he’s not open with her, Jamie retorts that he’s not the one who doesn’t talk.  And when she asks why he has done something dangerous, he smartly asks her why she smokes.  These questions do not seem to get through to her.

          Later, she becomes more anxious about Jamie’s progress (understandably—he’s 14-15) and enlists the help of Julie and Abbie, with both of whom, Jamie seems to have a close relationship.  She had already engaged William, thinking that Jamie needed a masculine influence  (never realizing until someone pointed it out that the two had little in common). 

          What follows is the story of young women influencing the development of a teenage boy.  Dorothea has grave misgivings from time to time, but when she confronts Julie and Abbie she gets her misconceptions corrected and is reassured (thanks to her trust and confidence in them).  This is a fine illustration of how motherhood can just be a muddling through, with no guarantee of the outcome.  Dorothea has many soul-searching moments about how she’s doing as a mother, but unlike most mothers, she has younger people close by to explain to her what is going on.

           In observing Dorothea, we get the perspective of her generation, instructive to a fault, prone to deny anything negative (although anxious about it), but wanting to maintain control of a son’s life.  To her credit, she trusts her “family”, and steps aside for Julie and Abbie to be his primary advisers (not that they have everything together).  Williams gently supports and advises her, but is respectful of her space.

          Perhaps this is a modern day fable about feminism and motherhood and how both need to accommodate to a changing world.  Women need help in their mothering and need to consider some of their own interests.  Men can help by being more sensitive to women and letting go of some of their feeling of responsibility for them.

          Mike Mills, writer-director of the film, has said it is partially autobiographical, and I think that is apparent in his sensitivity to Dorothea’s situation as she perceives it and the different perspectives shown by the characters.  Above all, I appreciate his nonjudgmental, empathic depiction of the characters.

          Bening, Fanning, Gerwig, and Crudup are perfect in their roles, and young Zumann is a treasure in his portrayal of a young man beset by so many influences.  Music by Roger Neill enhances every scene and helps us enjoy the lightheartedness of the whole production.

Motherhood as you’ve not seen it before.

Grade:  A                                                          By Donna R. Copeland

YOUTH IN OREGON

Frank Langella   Mary Kay Place   Billy Crudup   Christina Applegate   Josh Lucas   Alex Shaffer   Nicola Peltz

          Ray Engersol (Langella) has received bad news from his doctor and as a retired physician and friend of his pals who have passed on, he knows what is ahead, and decides on his own to make the trip to Oregon where medical aid in dying is legal.  One of the film’s primary assets is the portrayal of family members’ reactions to his announcement, and how the crisis interplays with other disturbing life events going on at the time.  Ray’s daughter Kate (Applegate) is the one experiencing the strongest negative reaction, and she is hysterical in arguing against her father’s decision.  Ray’s wife Estelle (Place) reflects the weariness of a long-term caregiver (Ray has a history of heart disease) who has spent most of her life deferring to her husband.  Kate’s husband Brian (Crudup) is often caught in the middle between his wife and others in a conflict, and he does make the sensible decision to drive Ray from New York to Oregon for an appointment he has made.  Kate is at first bound and determined to do it herself, but her daughter has precipitated a crisis, so it’s best for her to stay home.

          It’s a relief for the viewer when en route to Oregon, Ray, Brian, and Estelle decide to stop and see the Engersols’ estranged son Danny (Lucas) and Brian’s college-age son Nick (Shaffer).  Both sons are loathe to see their family, but when they learn all the facts about the reason for the trip, they help mitigate conflicts and join the caravan.  A big mistake of Ray is his withholding medical information from his family that would help them understand and empathize with his position.  When he finally confides in Danny, it makes a huge difference in his attitude.  I hope families viewing Youth in Oregon will take note in case they’re ever in this situation.  Knowing about the seriousness of illness is essential to being able to accept such a momentous decision.

          This is Joel David Moore’s first time directing a feature-length film on his own, and the script is Andrew Eisen’s first screenplay, so the quality of the filmmaking is impressive, including Joel P. West’s mood-capturing music and Ross Riege’s inventive and beautifully colored cinematography.  The story and depiction of the characters are realistically presented with the complexities often found in modern-day families.   When I worked at a cancer center, I was often struck by the number of instances in which families have additional crises in their lives that they have to deal with—cancer is only one of other crises, such as alcoholism, drug dependency, house fires, and acting-out children.  The filmmakers here seem to know that well enough to include it.

          Frank Langella’s astute portrayal of an older man who has always been in control of his life and his dogged pursuit of his goals steers the movement of the story and keeps its focus in the face of tremendous emotional resistance.  Billy Crudup reflects well the miseries of his character torn by various pressures and trying to accommodate his wife’s frequent instruction to “Do something!”  Christina Applegate is adept in modulating her performance across different roles—nurturing, supportive mother and horrified, scolding mother; loving wife and goading wife and daughter.  Josh Lucas’ subtle portrait of an estranged son with long-standing conflicts with his father instantly moving to an understanding, supportive stance toward him is very well done.  The young actors Nicola Peltz and Alex Shaffer depict the essence of normal teenage efforts to separate from their parents.  Mary Kay Place’s character is one that seems beaten down and turning to crutches to help her along, and Place accomplishes that to a tee.

      The title of the film puzzled me, but I read that “Youth” is a play on the word ‘euthanasia’—rather lame, if that is true, especially since a knowledgeable friend of mine (Cindy Merrill, Co-founder of Texas Death with Dignity and local advocate for the Death with Dignity National Center) pointed out that euthanasia is illegal in every state.  Oregon and five other states allow what is termed 'medical aid dying' and 'physician assisted dying'.

       Youth in Oregon is especially helpful in demonstrating the steps in physician-assisted dying in a neutral setting with characters we haven’t become emotionally attached to—presumably to help us be more objective in confronting such a sensitive topic.  The filmmakers keep the viewer guessing as to exactly how the story will conclude until the very end. 

Youth in Oregon is a sensitive exploration of the controversial topic of physician-assisted suicide and one family’s variable reactions when confronted with it.

Grade:  B                           By Donna R. Copeland

JACKIE

Natalie Portman   Peter Sarsgaard   Greta Gerwig   Billy Crudup   John Hurt   Richard E. Grant

          The opening scene:  A black screen and loud, dirge-like music with sound winding down like someone stopping an old phonograph player clues you in for the mournful tragedy that is to follow.  In Jackie, director Pablo Larrain has created an artistically rendered film that pays homage to Jacqueline Kennedy, wife of slain President John F. Kennedy, and the aftermath of his assassination.  We get a behind-the-scenes view of her efforts in planning his funeral, the many resistances she encounters, the conflicts she has with some, and the intrusive advice she receives, regarding funeral planning and her children for instance, from so many.  Above all, we see an intelligent woman whom many considered shallow and pretentious take the helm and manage to honor her husband in the way she wanted, which was based partly on her keen knowledge of history but as well on her own deeply felt, genuine emotions.

           Larrain jumps around in time perhaps to help convey an impressionist “painting” of the woman and give the viewer a sense of the turbulence experienced by the country after the assassination.  Scenes are interspersed with an interview conducted by “A Journalist” (Crudup)—presumably Theodore H. White, a family friend—whom Jackie had asked soon after his death to write about John Kennedy’s legacy for Life Magazine.  This is apparently where the comparison was made with their years in the White House as “Camelot”, the subject of a Broadway Play, the last song of which was Kennedy’s favorite.  Jackie wanted the article to convey the import of the song:  “Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.” 

        Other scenes portray Jackie’s interactions with Bobby Kennedy (Sarsgaard); her efforts, assisted by William Walton (Grant), in restoring the White House; poignant moments of intense grief and loss; and conversations with a priest (Hurt) during a stroll in Arlington Cemetery.

          The film is a tour de force for actress Natalie Portman as Jackie.  She is in virtually every scene, and gives us a convincing picture of a beautiful, intelligent, accomplished woman of great complexity who could dismiss the most presumptuous adversary with a terse, incisive comment.  At the same time, Portman needed to show the Southern and Catholic influences in Jackie’s background, along with that of privileged wealth.  

        Peter Sarsgaard doesn’t look much like Robert Kennedy, but it is easy to see the resemblance in his actions and tone, whether he is grieving for his brother, supporting the widow, or voicing his anger and disappointment about the curtailment of what he hoped would be a brilliant and lasting legacy.  Billy Crudup as the sometimes cheeky journalist challenging and complimenting his interviewee shows us the awkwardness of the situation, his attempts to maintain objectivity, and finally succumbing to her charm.  Greta Gerwig's performance as Jackie's lifelong friend and White House Secretary is nuanced and appropriately low key.

           Mica Levi’s music and Stephane Fontaine’s cinematography support and enhance the excruciating drama played out on the screen, and Noah Oppenheim’s screenplay is an even-handed, historically accurate commentary on the “Camelot” years of John and Jacqueline Kennedy.  Pablo Larrain’s synthesis of all the components into a captivating whole should earn him praise and justifiable award consideration.

An insightful, artistic portrayal of a sometimes controversial American legend.

Grade:  A                                 By Donna R. Copeland

THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

Billy Crudup     Ezra Miller     Tye Sheridan     Thomas Mann     Michael Angarano     Olivia Thirlby

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a docudrama about a well publicized research project conducted at Stanford University by psychologist Philip Zimbardo attempting to show that the environment in prison shapes guards’ and prisoners’ behavior more than their dispositions or past experiences.  The film, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez with script written by Tim Talbott, is based on Zimbardo’s 2007 book, The Lucifer Effect.  Zimbardo saw this research as a follow-up to a study in the previous decade by another psychologist, Stanley Milgram, who showed that subjects would comply with an authority figure even to the point of increasing shocks to other subjects to lethal levels when instructed to do so by the research observer.  (The person pressing the button was unaware he/she was not actually delivering a shock.)  The point in both studies was that authority figures and the institutional environment wield a considerable degree of influence over an individual’s behavior. 

           Undergraduate students at Stanford were recruited for a psychological study of the effects of the prison environment on prisoners and guards and paid $15 a day for their participation.  They were only superficially screened for psychological problems, criminal background, or medical problems.  Nine students and one alternate were randomly assigned to be guards, and the same number for the prisoners. 

         To test his hypothesis of inherent characteristics of the participants determining behavior, Zimbardo instructed the guards to foster disorientation, depersonalization, and loss of identity.  This was done by having them arrested in their homes, strip searched, put in dresses and stocking caps, given numbers for their names, and chains put around one of their ankles—all done in order to make the prisoners feel powerless.  To reinforce this, guards were put in standard khaki garb, given mirrored sunglasses to avoid eye contact with the prisoners and wooden batons.  They were instructed not to hit or harm the prisoners in any way.

            The experiment was conducted in a building on campus, with offices converted into cells and using the hall for dining.   The prisoners were to stay in their cells day and night for the duration, except when they were eating, and then they couldn’t talk to one another. 

Early on, within a day or so, the guards—who were told they would be observed by research staff at all times—began using abusive tactics, including hitting and psychological torture.   Even when this was brought to Zimbardo’s attention, he frequently chose not to intervene or he would make promises to the prisoners that he had no intention of keeping.  Any act of rebellion on the part of the prisoners was met with harsh punishment, such as taking away their beds and giving them a bucket for toileting but not allowing it to be emptied. 

            In a short amount of time, some of the prisoners started to fall apart, and ask to leave the study.  It was determined later that not only had 1/3 of the guards resorted to sadistic behaviors, Zimbardo acknowledged that even he had lost his objectivity.  When an observer who came on the scene toward the end of the first week, deemed the experiment as unethical, Zimbardo was convinced to end the research on the sixth of the planned 14 days. 

          In retrospect, Zimbardo concluded that his expectation that the study would prove that, under certain conditions, even good people might behave badly was met.  He subsequently testified as an expert witness in the court martial of one of the Abu Ghraib guards that the man’s behavior was a function of the system, as opposed to his being a “bad apple”, as the government claimed.

           Criticisms of the Zimbardo study include a small sample size, a biased selection of the participants (all white middle class young men), and my own thought that the research staff and guards acting as if the “prisoners” had actually committed and been convicted of crimes, invalidates the study.  Additionally, no personality measures were administered or background information of the participants was obtained.  Without this information, the conclusion that it was the environment that brought out sadistic behavior is weak.

           To me, this is a horrific film to watch; the cruelty and unjustified behavior on the part of the guards made me take a number of breaks during the screening (I watched it at home via a link).  This made me question why the film was made at all; it’s an example of what not to do when people have power over others.  There is a well-known, accepted principle in psychology that to improve people’s behavior it’s more effective to model good leadership than to show poor/bad/evil modeling. 

           Unfortunately, there is no explanation of the study results at the end of the film by Dr. Philip Zimbardo.  I doubt the general public will be able to come away with a clear understanding of the rationale of the work or Zimbardo’s interpretation of it.  This would have greatly enhanced the film, and provide give an illuminating picture of the Abu Graib phenomenon that would be helpful.  

          As far as the film, the actors do a fine job in depicting the characters in the study.  Billy Crudup is especially noteworthy as Zibardo.

Viewer beware.

Grade:  D                                    By Donna R. Copeland