Ron: Welcome to a new Stereo Geeks Special! This week, we’re previewing the Academy Awards 2021. I’m Ron.
Mon: And I’m Mon.
Ron: Let's jump into it. Best Picture. And the nominees are The Father. Judah and the Black Messiah. Mank. Minari. Nomadland. Promising Young Woman. Sound of Metal. The Trial of the Chicago Seven. That's quite an interesting list.
Mon: It's probably the most diverse and varied that we've had at the Oscars in a while. One could argue that it's probably down to the fact that in 2020, a lot of films weren't able to be released, they weren't produced, and it's given us a different flavor. But I don't know how to feel about it.
Ron: I feel like some of the films on this list don't belong here. I know that sounds harsh, but the quality is so varied.
Mon: I agree.
Ron: And that's kind of how I'm feeling about all the nominees this year. I can't understand what the criteria was for the nominees.
Mon: I think it's based on who campaigned the hardest. But at least it's not as bad as the Golden Globes. That was a shocker.
Ron: Let's not even talk about that. You can definitely see that it's much more diverse, on the Oscars side, at least in terms of race, I guess. We still have very few female directors and writers and producers. The ratio is extremely unbalanced, but some how it's better this year than it was in previous years, so I guess we should be happy?
Mon: I guess we could say it's baby steps. Though, this is the 93rd Academy Award. So, wow, this is a very old baby. [laughs]
But you know what, despite it all, I'm pleased to see that there's such a variety of storytelling, storytelling styles, and the kind of characters and actors who have been recognized this year. I really hope it's not just a case of, oh, we couldn't find anything else because there wasn't as much being put out there, and that we go back to square one next year. I really don't want that to be the case because we now have a taste of just how different it can be. The Academy has been trying, but it hasn't been trying hard enough.
And that's very obvious with the Best Picture selections. Why are they there just eight? What happened to Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom? Why isn't that here? Or even One Night in Miami?
Ron: I have such a bone to pick with the Academy, about One Night in Miami because, why is that not here? And I had the same feeling about The White Tiger. I think those two films should have rounded off this category.
Mon: And when you will have the potential to reach ten, why do you keep stopping before that?
Ron: Then why have ten at all? So, we have a lot to say already and it's just the first category.
Mon: And we haven't even talked about the films yet!
Ron: Okay, so let's just start off with my pick for this category, Judas and the Black Messiah. I think that's a lot of people’s pick, to be honest. This is a really well-put-together film. It's got tension. It's got these moments which break the tension. It has probably the best performances this year, amazing music, and a message that unfortunately is still resonant in 2021. I think this is the complete package.
Mon: Okay, so I'm not an 11 out of 10 with this movie, as much as you are. I do feel like it had an issue in the middle. And the issue was that we didn't have Daniel Kaluuya on screen.
Ron: Okay.
Mon: And I felt his absence, and I felt like the story felt his absence as well. The first act and the third act? Wonderful. The second act, definitely sagged for me, anyway. So it's probably not as accomplished as I hoped it to be.
Ron: Oh wow, that's not how I felt, at all. Yes, I feel like the second act could have done with more of Fred Hampton’s story, but LaKeith Stanfield’s performance is just so powerful that it had me invested throughout. And I actually kind of felt like there were times when I had to look away from the screen, because the intensity, not from the action, but from the emotion, was so powerful. I just couldn't keep watching it.
Mon: No, I agree with you. LaKeith Stanfield is outstanding and at times I felt like he was even better than Kaluuya, which is saying something because Daniel Kaluuya’s performance is such a scene stealer. But I think, for me, in the middle, after we had these instances of meeting the rest of the Black Panthers, and there are these side characters, especially the one played by Algee Smith, I just felt like we needed more. We needed to build these characters up more because whatever happens to these characters, you definitely feel the impact.
And these are real people, they’re fictionalized versions of these real people. And you definitely feel that tension, the suspense, the fear, the injustice of it all. But had the film structured it so that we could have spent a little bit more time with the side characters more, maybe I wouldn’t have felt Kaluuya’s absence that much in the second part.
It just felt like they were trying to fill that hole with the side characters. Well, those people are just as important, and have just as compelling stories, but we just don't get to see it on screen.
Ron: You know what, that's why we have these conversations because I quite liked the kind of time that we spent with the other characters. I felt like it fleshed out the entire Black Panther movement, what was happening at that time, and it set up the third act for me because we took that time away from Fred Hampton, and we spent it with these people who are kind of struggling without him. They have a mission, they know what they want to do, but they don't have a leader, they’re kind of living off his letters, and it's difficult because you basically don't have a head, the rest of your body's trying to figure out what to do. I thought that that actually worked quite well, and it gave the third act that much more gravitas. But as a whole I think this film was really good. And that's why it's definitely our top pick. That final scene, though?
Mon: Yeah. And the way it's shot? It's not shot in this gratuitous fashion, which you know, most other films, most other directors would have gone down that route. It's so emotionally powerful. And I was listening to the NPR PCHH podcast, and they mentioned that a lot of this story is based off of the recollections of Fred Hampton’s wife, which explains the viewpoint that we see in the last scene.
I'll just point out one more criticism, and it's easier to criticize a film which is very good and which you like a lot, because you will always see the niggling points that could have been better. And I think this, whatever we’re saying about it, is more a testament of how good this movie is, rather than how bad it is. Okay, so this is just my last criticism.
The two actors playing the leads, which is LaKeith Stanfield and Daniel Kaluuya, they are so much older than the characters that they're playing. And I think when you realize just how young these boys were when these events took place, it makes you perceive the actions of these characters in a very different way. A 17-year-old making the decisions that this “Judas” was making is very different from a 29-year-old. And the power of a 21-year-old Fred Hampton, as opposed to the very powerful presence of the 30-odd year-old Daniel Kaluuya, is completely different. So, I wonder how this film would have been perceived had they chosen actors who were age appropriate.
Ron: That's a really good point. I was shocked at the end when the title card came up, and it said Fred Hampton was actually killed when he was 21. Oh my gosh. Like, he managed to accomplish a lot in such a short time. But his nemesis was a child, and very easily manipulated. I understand where you're coming from with that. I think the movie still has a lot of strengths, despite the inaccuracies with the ages. But yeah, I feel like that would have been putting a lot on young actors. I'm sure there are some young actors who could definitely pull this off, but for that length of time, like the entire film really, it's a lot.
Mon: And it's probably not a burden we need to put on young actors.
Ron: Exactly. But yeah, our pick for this category is definitely Judas and the Black Messiah. Now let's talk about the others.
Mon: Okay. Shall we get the stuff that we didn't like out of the way and then talk about what we did?
Ron: Okay. So, let's talk about the Trial of the Chicago Seven, because that kind of happens at the same time as Judas and the Black Messiah.
Mon: In fact, there is a tiny cameo by an actor playing Fred Hampton.
Ron: Exactly. I don't know why this movie is here.
Mon: Yeah, me neither.
Ron: So, that's a good start.
Mon: Let me put it this way, with a story like this, which, again, it is a real, true life story about a very, very difficult time for all the people involved, and you make it into this slick, witty, repartee-fest. It just doesn't work. Because this story, irrespective of how jocular or irreverent the actual events were, there was emotional heft that these people were feeling. This movie is a joke. And it made be very angry to watch this film because it treated events at the superficial level. If I need to replay all those things, then I’ll just read about it. But to be with these characters in the room, in the courtroom, to suffer with them. We needed that emotional impact of what they're doing. We don't get that. We don't get that from the first scene, and it continues in the same way, and it just made me angrier with every scene.
Ron: I feel like any movie that, once you watch it, you have to do like a ton of research to understand why or how things are accurate or inaccurate. That's not a good film. It's the same problem that we've had with a lot of blockbusters over the years. If you have to tell us why this scene was included, or what dialogue you didn't include in a Star Wars film or a Marvel film, then you haven't done your job. And this movie, we had to do a ton of research afterwards.
Mon: And there's one thing to be said about the fact that you watch something or you read something and it inspires you to find out more about these incredible people involved in the story. It's a completely different matter that you go in wondering, what is this? Is this actually a joke? Is he making fun of these people? And then you find out the real events, the real stories and how it impacted them, and you come away wondering, so this was a vanity fest? And there it is, nominated for Best Picture, as opposed to so many accomplished stories. I'm a little bit outraged.
Ron: If you compare this to One Night in Miami, which really was fictional, that movie made so many statements about the four people involved, and this movie didn't try to do that at all.
Mon: No, but after the fact, Sorkin kept on saying that he was making a film which was ‘of the time’.
Ron: Of what time?
Mon: Exactly. I think the problem with the fact that Aaron Sorkin created this film comes down to the fact that he has often, in his interviews, blatantly been aware of how ignorant he is, and then doubled down on it. And it seems like this film just continues in the same vein. Yeah, you might chuckle during some of the scenes, but then, where is that impact? Where is that emotion? The performances are so good. They're all good. I mean, even Eddie Redmayne is good, and that’s saying something because he's always Eddie Redmayne. But like, I need to feel something. And he throws in this scene where this person is saying that he's basically putting his life on the line for the cause that he believes in. And I’m like, it just feels like a line, irrespective of what the real person did. That to me is not a good film.
Ron: This felt like a movie.
Mon: [laughs] Yeah.
Ron: Judas and the Black Messiah felt like a story. This felt like a movie. I think one of my biggest problems is I don't like Aaron Sorkin’s writing. I don't like his style. It’s very particularly him. It’s very manufactured. People talking over each other; people bantering all the time. It feels so fake. And it kept taking me out of this movie over and over again. And it brings me back to the same point: what is the criteria for these films to get nominated?
Mon: Films like this getting nominated just to remind you that marketing is very powerful.
Ron: Absolutely. Because there's no way that this is of the quality that some of the other films on this, just this Best Picture list are.
Mon: I agree with you. And the problem is that when I finally got around to watching this film, I had somewhat forgotten who the creator was. And then like a few scenes in I was like, this is Aaron Sorkin isn't it? [laughs] And then I went and checked, and I found it out, and then I was like, you know what, maybe my internal biases are making me hate this film, but it’s not true.
Ron: I didn't know Aaron Sorkin had created this.
Mon: Oh?
Ron: And I was watching it and I was like, why is everything so weird? Why does the language of this film feel like a film? And then I saw who created it and I was like, oh, this makes so much sense now.
Mon: And it upsets me because I feel like you can overcome some of your own prejudices, your own style and make something which is really powerful. But this film is not it.
Ron: This is definitely not winning anything, if it wins something, I will riot.
Mon: I really hope it doesn't win anything.
Ron: Okay. So, let's talk about Mank.
Mon: Well, we just talked about Aaron Sorkin, so we're gonna talk about his frequent collaborator, David Fincher.
Ron: Look, I understand that Mank has been a passion project for David Fincher. He has been working on it for years, and I'm very happy that he's managed to make this. Unfortunately, this is not a good film. Even by David Fincher’s standards. I'm not a Fincher fan, I’ll just say it now. Like Aaron Sorkin, Fincher has a very distinct style. Some of the stylistic elements are actually quite engaging.
Mon: I like Fincher’s Zodiac. I enjoyed that film a lot. But a lot of Fincher’s other stuff? No, thank you.
Ron: And I think my biggest problem with Fincher’s work is that he should not have anything to do with female characters. I just can't. I just can't with him.
Mon: It's actually funny that we're talking about these two films back-to-back, because there is a very distinct pattern in both these films which is that you have these waifish, nubile, coquettish women in both films. In Trial of the Chicago Seven, they literally make up a beautiful blonde detective just for the purpose of fiction. Ugh. And she has no characteristics aside from being somebody's love interest. And there's also one secretary who is outstandingly good looking, and I'm like, you can't get a normal looking person? And we have the same issue with Mank. Mank’s assistant is this extremely emaciated looking girl. His wife is this dead looking woman. Then there’s the very young Amanda Seyfried. And Mank is being played by Gary Oldman, who is a very good actor, but this role in this film just does justice to no one.
Ron: What bothered me so much was the difference in the ages of the characters versus the actors playing them. You have Gary Oldman playing Mank at a time when Mank was way younger than Oldman is now. But you have Seyfried, and you have Tuppence Middleton, who is pretty much the same age as Seyfried, playing Mank’s wife. And I'm just like, she looks like his granddaughter. And it's not even accurate to the actual characters! It was just so disorienting. And it took me completely out of the film.
This is again another film that felt like a film. The problem is a Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood, and that's what Mank is. It’s literally about the screenwriting process. So, I can see why people will love it. I just found that for me, the things that didn't work in this film, outweighed the very few things that did.
Mon: I struggled from the very start with the fact that it's in black and white. It echoes a lot of the cinematic techniques that Orson Welles used when creating Citizen Kane. At the same time, there is this polished veneer over the film that just doesn't work. There are ways to fuzzy it up a little bit with filters, or whatever. There are technical ways to do it, which makes it feel ‘of the time’. I really struggled with feeling any sense of place with this film. As you said, it felt like a film. It felt like an homage to filmmaking and screenwriting, but it fell flat on both, because we don't like any of these characters.
And this weird obsession with creating these fast-talking, beautiful women, who are there just to be observed and admired, but they don't have any personality. It was old when it started, it is supremely old in 2021.
Ron: I think this has been my problem with Fincher’s female characters for a very long time. They literally only exist for the male characters’ plotlines. They don't have any inner life, and I just don't understand how they keep making films like this over and over again, and they keep getting recognition. How's that possible? I feel like Mank has a chance, but it'll be silly.
Mon: I feel like it will be disappointing if Mank wins, but at the same time, it’s probably the frontrunner simply because the Academy loves film about films.
Ron: So, let's move on to The Father. Why is this movie on this list?
Mon: Because it's cinematically brilliant.
Ron: So, this is yet another film on this list that feels like a film. The problem is The Father was based on a play. And this film feels very much like a film that's based on a play. Throughout the entire runtime I was like, this was a play, wasn't it?
Mon: I loved The Father, up until the last scene.
Ron: Interesting.
Mon: I loved how slick the cinematic techniques were. My problem is that the subject matter deserves far more heft, and a lot more nuance than direction like this can give it. And I was on board, I was seriously on board with this film for its entire runtime, until that last scene happened where I felt like Anthony Hopkins was really trying hard for that Oscar. I think that last scene was so melodramatic. It felt completely out of place from everything else that had happened before. We are not going to spoil what the subject matter is. But the way it plays out; it's suspenseful, it's tense, and it's a novel way of handling the subject matter. But again, there's no emotional core. And that's what disappointed me. Because the emotional core is brought in literally at the end. And that's when it fell flat. But I didn't hate it as much as you did, that's for sure.
Ron: I’m really intrigued by this because I didn't like this movie at all.
Mon: Wow, really.
Ron: I liked what it was trying to do. I hated the slickness. Like you said, it didn't fit with the subject matter. It’s just that it took me out of it so completely, that it made me dislike the movie intensely. I was like, this is just the wrong treatment for this film. It's so bad. And it's so disrespectful. You're trying to tell people about something that is horrifying. That is something that people are living with, that people will be living with. It made me feel very angry.
Mon: And I'm completely on board with what you're saying, and I completely agree with you. I'm actually in two minds about it because as much as I hate the subject matter that they use to make this very slick film, I can't get over how brilliantly, cinematically technical it is.
Ron: Okay.
Mon: And that's probably what the Academy is seeing, which is why this film, of all films, is one of the nominations in the Best Picture category.
Ron: Wow, that's… I'm really surprised that we’ve had such different interpretations of this. I was kind of hoping that it would be a horror film, because it's treated that way. It kind of works as a horror film, but I just feel like it doesn't do justice to this extremely important, difficult topic. And I don't think it's correct. We'll come back to the performances later when we do talk about those. But I'm surprised that we had such different interpretations but it's interesting that we do.
Mon: No, I agree with you, but I can definitely see it from the Academy's point of view.
Ron: Okay.
Mon: But I'm worried that this film will win.
Ron: Oh no.
Mon: Because, you know what that does, right? It’ll just set a precedent and suddenly we'll see a spate of these with diminishing returns, and even less respect for subject matter. Well, let's see.
Ron: Yeah.
Mon: Okay, so the biggest surprise for me is definitely Sound of Metal. Because I don't think a film like this in any other year would have got a shoo-in. Even for like, performance-wise, it may have been ignored in another year, but the film getting a Best Picture nom? Surprised. Supremely surprised. But very, very happy.
Ron: Me too. I have been hearing about this film for so long, and I was really surprised that the Academy actually looked at something that was kind of small, and said, yep, this deserves it.
Mon: What I like about Sound of Metal is that it's bold in its take on a subject matter which has been done to death in Hollywood, but it's done in a very respectful way. Which is funny because we just talked about The Father which is disrespectful to its subject matter. But here with Sound of Metal, I feel like it's the complete opposite. And I feel like it's been a long time coming.
So, the film was shot chronologically, and you can tell how that impacts the actual film and the characters, because you see an evolution of how they meet, and how they end up, and I really like that. It's hard to talk about this one because I think we all know the subject matter. But it's such a small contained personal story. It's a real surprise that it’s not doing anything huge and massive and cinematic. The performances aren't over the top and larger than life. It's just the little things. It's like the natural feeling of this film. And that's what’s got me really excited about it being on the nom’s list. Hopefully setting a precedent for these films which feel like they're of the earth and of the people. I hope we get to see more of them.
Ron: As far as I'm concerned, The Father should have done what Sound of Metal did. Pitting these two against each other, my choice would be Sound of Metal because it is right there with the characters. There's nothing flashy about it. I don't think films like this about people, families, your inner life, they don't need to be flashy. The Father doesn't work because of that. Sound of Metal works because it stays contained. It's one person, his journey, his realizations, his evolution as a person.
All of that through a simple lens, and I mean that not just from the storytelling angle, but from the camera point of view, because there's nothing slick about this film. You don't see that… you know that filter that films have that tell you that it's ‘a film’. No. You feel like you're there, in the middle of that stage, next to him, listening to the drums or you're there in that dining room with all these people, just signing to each other. You're there in the story throughout. And that's what I really, really loved about Sound of Metal.
If it wins, which I don't think it will, but if it does, that will be amazing. Because this is a really quiet, personal and impactful film. There aren’t grand messages here. It's just about people being people. And I think the Academy needs more films like this.
Mon: I also think that one of the boldest moves of this film is really to have this positive message at the end, which, for a story like this, when it comes to Hollywood, doesn't usually end with. And it's not a spoiler to say that's how the film ends. Riz Ahmed himself has been very, very vocal about the message of this film. And I think the whole package, it may not be as polished as The Father, or Mank, but you don't want it to be, because it will take you out of the film, it will take you out of being with this person, with these people.
I'm so glad that it's getting this kind of recognition. It may have slipped a lot of people's radars, but now that it's on the noms list, hopefully a lot more people will see it and will open their mind to watching different kinds of film.
Ron: Yeah. Sound of Metal, it really didn't feel like a film. It felt like you were with these characters, and you were just experiencing life. And I think that's basically because the sound editing is probably the best.
Mon: It's phenomenal. I don't think the average viewer will notice a lot of the technical aspects of a lot of films, but it's hard to miss with Sound of Metal, which really utilizes the sounds beautifully throughout the film. And sound itself is a character in the film. Just for that, I think, okay, the technical award, yes, please give it to them. But also, just the use of it could be enough for it to get the Best Picture nod, who knows.
Ron: The thing is that the more I talk about it, the more I want this film to win, because it's just really good.
Mon: And the fact that they cast actors who are from the Deaf community, who do know ASL. The fact that they went out of their way to make sure that their lead actor knows ASL. He's not the only one who is going around talking to people, when everybody around him is Deaf. They really put a lot of thought into making this feel as natural, as real, as possible. And I think that's the beauty of this, it feels real.
Ron: Absolutely.
Mon: And we could go on about some of the nuances that they include, which makes it even more natural, but we'll let you enjoy that.
Ron: Yeah, definitely. This is one of the most immersive films this year, and you should definitely check it out. So, Minari. I’m going to put it out there that I don't think this film will win because Parasite won last year, and oh my god no. The Academy can't do that.
Mon: You have to read two films in a row? [laughs] Considering the amount of controversy surrounding this film, for no reason. Because the Golden Globes decided that it was only a foreign film, even though the majority of it is shot in America, with American actors and producers. I'm glad the Academy put it in Best Picture.
Ron: Because that's where it deserves to be. I mean, what were the Golden Globes thinking?
Mon: This is a very American film.
Ron: Yes!
Mon: I understand that they’re talking in a different language, and they’re eating different food, and the characters don't look “American”. But this is an American film. This is the American dream.
Ron: This is exactly what a lot of Americans have lived through. But the thing is that it's about American immigrants and way too many people apparently think that that's not American. Okay, so tirade aside. This is such a beautiful film. Again, like Sound of Metal, I just felt so immersed in it from the moment it began. The thing is that with family films, you don't have to have these huge events. It can be these little moments that keep adding up, and they make you think, okay, my family has their issues, I can get through it, or my family is really great, but these little issues are becoming too much. And Minari, is all about that. It's about this family coming together under very weird circumstances that some of them have got them into.
Mon: And it's really about the four of them, and then the five of them, coping with this unfulfilled, unrequited dream, and trying to fit in. But it doesn't require any of those cliches, any of those tropes, any of those stereotypes to actually take that story forward, to actually make these characters grow and evolve. It’s really heartfelt. It’s really distressing. It's very sad, but again it's very real, because these are the ups and downs of being alive, being human, having a goal, trying to achieve that dream and trying to be supportive of the people in your life who may not be thinking straight.
Ron: What Minari says, really quite beautifully, is that you can want something, you can work towards it, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. But you can still keep trying to do your best.
Mon: Plans change. There are circumstances out of your own hands which will change how you live life. But despite it all, try and look on the bright side. And I really like this message from this film.
Ron: What I love about the central family is that they give each other chances, but they also know when you can't give any more chances. They have the boundaries, they have the barriers, they allow each other to grow and evolve, make mistakes, and just be real. I think that's what really made me love Minari because it's a very real film.
These are not circumstances that we’d find ourselves in; we're hardly gonna be farmers. But I could still see a lot of our story. And a lot of immigrants are going to see themselves in the family in this movie.
Mon: Anybody who's moved out of their regular circumstances into something completely different, be it moving from the city into the suburbs or moving from the suburbs to the farmland, you are going to understand these characters, you're going to understand just how different it is to cope with a new circumstance. And the feeling of constantly reaching for a dream that is always moving its goalposts, is completely understandable to all, it is a universal feeling. If you're going to let the fact that you have to read most of this film stand in the way of you realizing what a resonant film this is, you're doing it wrong. Give this film a chance.
Ron: Yeah, I think a lot of people have really enjoyed this film. I think the small population who refuse to read films have not seen it, but I don't think this film is made for them anyway. This is just a very well-accomplished experience, and I'm really, really glad that it's getting the recognition it is because I loved it. Again, this is a very quiet film like Sound of Metal. Nothing huge happens. It's just these little moments that you feel as a human being.
Mon: Look, if a film is gonna resonate with you emotionally and it's gonna make you feel happy or sad or makes you cry at the right moments, then it's doing it right.
Ron: And everybody in this film has an important part to play. What I really loved about the way Minari is put together is that it's not too expansive. It's just the five of them; from time to time, we get to see a couple of people here and there, but it’s self-contained the same way Sound of Metal was contained with one character and the circumstances around him. And that's why these films really work because they don't aim for something that they can't reach. That's really accomplished filmmaking in my book. I think Minari has a really good chance of winning. I don't think it will, because people are gonna keep equating it with Parasite, but…
Mon: The two films have nothing in common.
Ron: No.
Mon: Just the fact that you have to read them.
Ron: Actually, what I really felt about Minari was this connection with The Farewell, because they both have grandmums. And I'm a sucker for a great grandmum.
Mon: [laughs]
Ron: And both the films have this feeling, you know, like this grandmom is just so important to everybody's life, and the way they were actually navigating the world. I'm still really angry that The Farewell did not get nominated for anything because it should have won it. It was such a good film. In that sense, I hope, Minari can actually give The Farewell, its day in the sun, because there's a really cute grandmom in it, and it's a really sweet story. And it's very affecting, so yeah, hey, here’s hoping!
So talking about wildernesses, Nomadland really takes us out there into the wilderness. I really didn’t know what to expect with this film but, wow, what an experience.
Mon: Nomadland really is an experience. What I like is that this film follows a very favoured category of films, not only beloved by the Academy, but by film viewers in general: a love of Americana. But Nomadland looks at America from a completely different point of view. And it actually makes me wonder why we haven't seen this before? The circumstances that Frances McDormand’s character finds herself in, in the places that she visits, that she lives in, the people that she meets. This is really part of America and has been for a really long time. But we're only seeing it now.
It's not really a celebration of America, of the people, it's just life. And I really like that because this is one person who's not trying to make waves. She's just trying to get through life, and I love that about this film.
Ron: I totally had an existential crisis watching this movie. I was just like what have I done for my retirement? Because this is what this film is about. We don't get to see movies or stories about people after they reach a certain age, and definitely don't get to see stories about women after they reach a certain age. This movie is exactly about that. It's about people who’ve finished working, who can no longer work within the very corporate structures of our daily lives. How do they continue on?
Especially when, for the main character, everything's gone. Like, literally, the town that she called home is gone. And somehow, she has to keep continuing. It's really disconcerting when you think about the circumstances, but it's also very positive in the sense that she still finds a community, she still finds things to do, she still keeps on keeping on. This is such a great movie.
MonL One of the things you've heard a lot of recently has been found family and how a lot of communities, how a lot of people from different communities engage more and are more fulfilled, from their found families rather than their own families, for a variety of reasons. With Nomadland, and to an extent even with Sound of Metal, it really is that sense of finding your place within a found family, being accepted within a community. In Sound of Metal, the main character has to go out of his comfort zone, and eventually he needs to find himself in a new community.
Same with Nomadland. She had a life, she had a family, she had a town. Now she has none of that. So how does she navigate life? And we see her being so resistant and hesitant about this new journey that she's taking, the people that she's meeting and how different everything is by the end of it. It's this wistful, almost aspirational feeling, but not aspirational in the sense that we want to emulate her life, but aspirational in the sense that she's looking at it from a very positive point of view.
Previously, films that are very much about American landscapes, American wildernesses, there’s a very glamorous lens through which these stories are told. Nomadland is the opposite. This is not glamorous. Because let's be honest, you're living in a van and traveling from place to place, getting seasonal jobs, there’s nothing glamorous about that. But it's a job, you're making money, you're meeting people, some experiences are great, some experiences aren't. Yeah, that sounds more like life. And I really like that this film is trying to celebrate the ‘uncool’.
Ron: That's a really good point. But again, like Sound of Metal, Nomadland also involves people from the actual community that it was about. And I think that really made a difference to how this story feels. Because if everybody was an actor, I don't think we would have got that authenticity. There would have been something artificial about it.
Mon: It's that authenticity that I loved. The way the characters talk, because they’re literally talking about their real lives. It feels like you're watching a documentary, and you're learning about these fascinating people who are so interesting in their own ways, and it's almost a detached way that they're talking about these quite traumatic incidents in their lives, but at the same time, it's a part of their life so they're just telling it as it is. And I think if an actor was doing it, there’d be a lot of drama and melodrama, you’d have to tone it down. And because these people are so natural and authentic as you said, it makes it feel so real.
Ron: This film could have easily devolved into histrionics. You don't get that, even once. It's as quiet as the landscapes that it shows us. Nomadland might actually have a really good shot. Because it's telling a story that is very much American, but slightly different from what we usually see. So, it may just win.
Mon: I hope so.
Ron: I think it has a good chance. So finally, Promising Young Woman.
Mon: I'm shocked. I'm shocked this made it this far, seriously. There was so much controversy around it from like the get go. It aired at Sundance, 2020, and after a bunch of rather positive reviews, there was suddenly a lot of negativity. I don't think I would have watched this film, especially after the discourse, I definitely did not want to watch this. So, I kind of got all the spoilers of this film before I watched it, because my thought was that I'm not going to watch it, so I don't care. And the more I know about it, the better because I'll be informed.
And I think, in a way, I'm still glad that I did spoil it for myself because I don't know if I could have got through the tension without the spoilers. But at the same time, I'm like, oh, you know, past me will be kicking myself.
Ron: You know, I did the same thing. In fact, I read an entire Twitter thread about the ending. So, I knew exactly what to expect. Or at least, that's what I thought when I started watching the movie and then I was like, this is not what I thought it was going to be at all. It's so different from everything that has been said in the reviews. What is happening?
Mon: I'm also surprised because there has been a lot of discourse about that ending and especially about the ending. I think a lot of people were on board with this film till the last act. In a way, I understand. But I also feel like they weren’t watching it properly. In the sense that I feel like a lot of people, with that final act, have imprinted what they thought on to what the director was doing. I guess films are open to interpretation, so it's fine. But it's been sort of tarred and feathered when I don't think the reading is correct.
Ron: Okay so that was my impression as well, because, from everything that I read about the ending, it felt like it ends at a very low point for the people that we care about in this film. And I was like, that's not fair. But it doesn't end there. I actually feel like Promising Young Woman takes the time to give viewers catharsis, when a lot of other films would not have done that. So, I think what's happening is that what people are calling the end of the film is not the end of the film.
Mon: I feel like a lot of people are reading the actions of the character in that final act as premeditated and intended when, in all honesty, she didn't foresee what happened. The final scene is completely different. That's forethought, foreplaning, good on our protagonist for thinking that. But what actually happens, she didn't foresee it, and it's hard to explain without spoiling it so we’re not gonna spoil it for you. But what we want to say is that the hate towards that final act, it seems uncalled for. Because, as you mentioned with Minari, sometimes you have a plan, and that plan goes to hell because of circumstances out of your control. And that's what happens to our main character.
Ron: So, moving on from the ending, because that's the controversial part, let's move to the rest of the film.
Mon: Yeah.
Ron: My gosh, the tension. Too much tension. I was like, whoa, slow down, but you can't slow down. That's what this movie is about.
Mon: It's hard to talk about this film because it's disturbing and distressing from the very first scene, but because it's directed by a woman, it's not gratuitous. It centers our protagonist in a genre which has often sidelined the actual people who are suffering, the actual victims.
Ron: Promising Young Woman makes you realize what a difference the person behind the camera can make. The subject matter of the story? We've seen it before. The way Promising Young Woman has done it. We have not seen this much. There are a lot of really horrid things that happen and we don't see any of it. But a lot of people watching this movie will be like, I know exactly what happened.
Mon: It goes back to why we loved the Birds of Prey movie from last year so much. Because it’s viewed from a completely different lens, it makes you feel differently about it, as well. It isn’t there to titillate or sensationalize something which is a real horror. It’s looking at this subject matter from the perspective of somebody who's suffering a loss, but it centers that loss, it centers the horror, without actually showing it. And I really appreciate the fact that a), we have this film, and b) it’s up for a Best Picture nom.
Ron: Totally. I was not sure what to expect when I went into this film because of everything that I had read about it and still this film managed to surprise me every single step of the way. Even the ending scene that I knew was going to happen, even that I was like, oh, whoa, is this really happening? And it's a really well-made film.
We keep talking about the slickness of films like The Father and The Trial of the Chicago Seven and Mank. And this film doesn't have that kind of slickness, but it's still so, so polished. It feels like a suspenseful narrative, and it was shot in 23 days! I honestly don't know how they managed to pack in that much story in less than a month. But it is so well done.
Mon: I completely agree with you. It's got this vibe of being colorful and peppy. She works in a cute little coffee shop which is so vibrant, and her manager, played by Laverne Cox, is the most amazing side character ever. She's such a sweetheart! And the main character’s parents are against type? But also, they are just so concerned and involved, and they’re so earnest in their wish for their daughter to have the best life that once was headed towards.
But the darkness that this film has is completely understandable because the main character is facing an injustice, an injustice that she can't correct, so she's going about it in the only way that she can. It's a revenge flick, but it's a very realistic kind of revenge flick, which is weird to me. Which is weird because we watched it, but also that it is getting some recognition.
I will say that this film may not be for everyone. And it's completely understandable if that final act really does disturb you. That it does anger you. You are not wrong in that feeling. I think, go into that third act with an open mind. Don't let the biases of the discourse that you read or come across change how you perceive what is happening. I would not have given this film a shot had it not been nominated for the Oscar noms. Really I was like, I will let it slide. I don't care. But I would have missed out.
Ron: I felt like I needed some fortitude to actually watch this film. And you definitely need that because the tension is ratched up to 20, but not for the reasons that you think it should. I definitely feel like if there was a male director and a male writer, this movie would have been a really, really awful experience, but it wasn't. We had women behind the screen, women on the screen. And that's why this film, for me, really worked.
Mon: It's definitely not going to win. [laughs]
Ron: It's a very accomplishment film, though.
Mon: Yeah, this film is cohesive in a way that Trail of Chicago Seven and Mank feel like they are, but they're not, because they've tried too many things at the same time. This one is very, very clear in its subject matter and in its central story and it goes with it. This is a story first and a film second.
Ron: So yeah, those are the Best Picture nominations. Our pick is Judas and the black Messiah. We have made it very clear which ones we don't want. But let's see who wins. So, who do you think should win Best Picture at the Academy Awards 2021? Let us know. We'd love to hear from you.
You can find us on Twitter @Stereo_Geeks. Or send us an email [email protected]. We hope you enjoyed this episode. And see you next week!
Mon: The Stereo Geeks logo was created using Canva. The music for our podcast comes courtesy Audionautix.
[Continuum by Audionautix plays]
Transcription by Otter.ai, Ron, and Mon.