|
Review by Joseph Fayed  Egoist doesn't ask its audience how one should process grief, but instead how you live with it when it is all you have known. This heartbreaking Japanese queer drama puts emphasis on personal tragedies. But with its depressing themes comes a great challenge, a script that deserves to be more mellowed out, and with certain rushed plot points, it feels the opposite was happening. Mr. Kosuke (Ryohei Suzuki) is now an openly gay fashion magazine editor in Tokyo. Growing up, he lived in fear of his true identity and lost his mother, too. He meets Ryuta (Hio Miyazawa), his new personal trainer, and the two grow very close. He soon meets Ryuta's mom and feels a connection to her, just like he had with his mother. Then, one day, Mr. Kosuke receives news no one expected that puts deeper meaning on the relationships he has. One of the best things the film offers is the romance between its two leads. The strong chemistry between Suzuki and Miyazawa is present throughout. Opposites, especially in social classes, rarely attract, contrary to what popular culture has taught you. However, there is sincerity presented between the two main characters that causes sparks to fly and doesn't feel cheesy. Mr. Kosuke's sheer generosity towards Ryuta is not met with any third-party opposition. I could see how one would find this boring, but those scenes of them being cute together carry you through most of their relationship and the best parts of the film.  What the film doesn't properly address is its mommy issues. Everything centered around Ryuta's mother unleashes chaos — and not the fun, campy kind. Her introduction serves as the moment when the pacing of this queer romance becomes too rushed for enjoyment. Her character as a whole feels shooed in almost. The little buildup in anticipation of her on-screen arrival contributes to this feeling. Her introduction, set over a homemade dinner, needed to happen before the end of the first act as her son's key characteristic, that he had a mom he was very close to, remained an afterthought for far too long.
Death is another topic this film has absolutely no idea to approach. It's implied Mr. Kosuke has been through hell and back in his life, so when another death occurs in the climax, we begin to see him crack. This film takes the title from most horror films for a most unexpected death. But it's unintentionally hilarious how melodramatic Ryohei Suzuki's acting becomes from this point forward. His reaction to this untimely loss doesn't feel like the cathartic release he's been waiting for. It comes across as constipation with two tears — one from each eye — for dramatic effect. Still struggling to keep up with the pace in the latter half, the grim reaper decides to make a more drawn-out departure for another character. At least this one could be blamed on illness, but Mr. Kosuke and his kiss of death illicit heartbreak one last time. Egoist is a film that is held back by grief and family. Its romance had strong promises but intertwined with plot devices that are too rushed, everything falls apart. This being a queer romance doesn't mean it's entitled to have a happy ending, but its major shift wasn't even becoming too bleak. It was just too weepy to function — a true ego death. Egoist is now in theaters. Rating: 2.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Joseph Fayed  If you follow true crime, and specifically familicide, you have likely heard of Jennifer Pan. The Netflix documentary What Jennifer Did gives a summary of the brutal crime that took place and the investigation into it. Under the helm of director Jenny Popplewell, not even the horrific details alone can save this documentary from lacking any insight beyond the surface level to explain why someone like Jennifer would be driven to kill. In November 2010, Bich Ha Pan was murdered and her husband Huei Hann Pan was severely injured inside their home in Markham, Ontario, Canada. Their 24 year old daughter Jennifer was upstairs, tied up but unharmed and managed to make a frantic 911 call. As the only survivor who is able to recount what happened, Jennifer shares how three men broke in and attacked her family. But soon investigators begin to question Jennifer and her story falls through. Jennifer and three co-conspirators were later convicted of first-degree murder. This documentary follows the course of the investigation that began in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Instead of presenting Jennifer and her parents' lives and building up to the murder, this peels back certain key moments that, in hindsight, may have lead to the murder. This formatting is largely due to the heavy reliance on footage of Jennifer from police interrogation rooms. Law & Order, this is not. Not that there typically is a problem with telling a true story in chronological order, but so much of it consists of the detectives simply rehashing what Jennifer said. There's no fresh perspective given here from any of the main talking heads, which defeats the purpose of revisiting what was once a highly publicized case in the first place.  One angle to the story to was massively overlooked was the allegation that the Pan's were "Tiger Parents" — a stereotype of strict parenting often associated with Asian households. Hinted at by a former friend of Jennifer's, who receives a real lack of screen time in comparison to the detectives, this was the most we learned about Jennifer's struggles with her parents. In the case being built against Jennifer, a lot of the information we learned was sidelined in favor of Jennifer's eventual confession. Three other people were convicted of the same crime, but the documentary did not treat their involvement as the same. Overall, a lot that happened outside of Jennifer's three separate interrogations by police was ignored to talk about said interrogations as if it doesn't already exist online.
B-roll footage in documentaries annoys me to no end, but this one goes overboard with it. Whether it's driving their squad car in slow motion or solemnly staring off into space, it's such a bizarre direction, and I don't understand why some directors insist on doing that. Netflix has been riding the true crime wave for a decade, but lately they've been lacking the bite they were once known for having. What Jennifer Did belongs in the hands of an actual journalist. Or at least someone who can convince witnesses, close friends/family, and legal experts on both sides to come forward and ask them questions they have yet to address. A title card at the very end reveals the four convicted will be granted a new trial in the murder of Bich Ha Pan. Of course, this documentary completely ignores that potentially life altering update, and it's a head scratching ending to say the least. As this story is ongoing, I hope whoever examines this case next gives it a more comprehensive effort. Dateline and Keith Morrison, don't let us down. What Jennifer Did streams on Netflix beginning April 10. Rating: 1/5 Review by Joseph Fayed  Photo Credit: Peter Mountain/Netflix. One of the biggest news stories of 2019 was the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking minors. Once his downfall became public, scrutiny grew onto his ultra-wealthy and/or famous associates who had spent a great deal of time with Epstein. One such friend was Prince Andrew. Scoop follows a team of producers who tried to get ahead of the developing story and land an exclusive interview with the Duke of York, who is unsure of how to rehabilitate his image. This biopic has many gotcha moments but gets too stuck in its format to make this dramatic retelling any more captivating. The film follows the crew of the BBC news program Newsnight, who, amidst the ongoing scandal with Jeffrey Epstein, decide to shift their focus onto Prince Andrew's ties to Epstein. Previously, their affiliation with each other had been nothing more than tabloid filler. However, upon accuser Virginia Roberts coming forward to share her story, news producer Sam McAlister (Billie Piper) and anchor Emily Maitlis (Gillian Anderson) race to be the first to get the Prince's thoughts on the allegations. In the meantime, those working for the Prince question if speaking out is really the right move for him. The characterization of Sam McAlister feels a tad bit like she is trying to Girlboss up the ranks of British television. She makes it her top priority to secure this interview, and we see her in action pursuing that, but it is very tame. Sam isn't written to be so ruthless that it's comical, like this archetype typically is. Instead, she's too reserved to have much focus on her. In what's arguably the greatest highlight of her career, she is reduced to essentially saying, "This is your reputation now, Andrew; let us know if you want to chat by Monday." It's not the mic drop moment it was intended to be, and once the interview actually takes place towards the end of the film, Sam is not much else besides background noise despite her crucial role in making it all possible.  Photo Credit: Peter Mountain/Netflix. Gillian Anderson's ability to not make herself appear complacent regarding her big Prince Andrew interview is a warm welcome. For a film about a team of people working in the media, the journalist asking the tough questions is the only one less interested in the sensational elements of the story. There is a particular line of dialogue about another associate of Epstein that Emily says that I would have liked to see be explored further. Emily's reputation as a soft but hard interviewer is touched upon when she speaks to Prince Andrew and his staff beforehand. Still, in a story about abuse, it should be explained why she was perceived that way by someone who has such a high profile.
The sheer details about the accusations against Epstein don't receive too much focus here, which I could understand because it is not a story about his victims ultimately. While these allegations were not breaking news at the time of the Newsnight interview, a closer examination of how the Royal Palace would have reacted would have helped expand the story. You can't convince me that the only person around Prince Andrew regularly who is worried for him is his secretary. Not showing more of the palace in full-on crisis mode leading up to the interview was an inaccurate look at how an institution handles itself. Even seeing direct communications from Queen Elizabeth — an unseen character in this — would have better reflected the reality of the PR nightmare Prince Andrew landed himself in than what we were shown. In Scoop, we hear from the man at the center of a sensationalized story whose behavior during an interview became worldwide news. The reenactment of that interview is done very well, but those storylines behind the scenes of Newsnight and the Royal Palace go nowhere. What we are left with is that this highly anticipated expose came together like a fluff piece in a matter of days. The BBC and the Royal Palace get too much of a pass here, and it's disappointing because this was a groundbreaking moment for investigative journalism and the monarchy that was heavily underutilized. Scoop streams on Netflix beginning April 5. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Joseph Fayed  There's nothing traditional about On the Adamant simply because nothing like it has been profiled before. In this documentary, director Nicolas Philibert is granted access to a special day program, L'Adamant Day Center, for adults living with mental illness. The program's location stands out because it isn't inside any building you pass by on the street; it's a boat docked on the Seine River in Paris. The scenery around it isn't the only vibrant thing, as we see a colorful group of characters interacting with each other. It also proves how the heart and soul must be considered when discussing the mind and how to nurture it. The documentary is not very interview-heavy, which works in its favor. It refrains from focusing too heavily on the program's support staff except for moments where they require interaction with the patients, such as when going over their daily agenda. The archetypes the ensemble fits into are established early on. Examples include the artist who never quite made it, the older woman seeking affection, the single mother who lost custody of her son, etc. You can tell that during one-on-one interviews with each patient, they feel comfortable talking about themselves. Those conversations don't always feel like straightforward answers to straightforward questions. They give insight into their lives by first discussing a day in the life onboard the Adamant and then implying what brought them here and what they hope to gain. Telling the documentary in real time with its subjects humanizes those with mental illness better. The lack of focus on experts in mental health, for one, means nothing is eating away from the time we could be focusing on the actual participants in the program. Second, focusing on their diagnosis tends to lean towards addressing the negative aspects of mental illness rather than the positive. It would have been a major distraction from the uplifting moments of the group activities, so tonally, I'm glad this barely touched the surface level of mental illness because the alternative would've been exploitative.  The overarching theme of this is creativity and personal freedoms being granted by an institutional force and what that entails. Most of what we see is how people can flourish under conditions that allow both structure and flexibility. One of the most fascinating parts of the documentary is of an older man who talks deeply about his love for cinema and his own close brushes with fame. His segment and the others feel intimate — even if they have vague answers to what was being asked of them. All they wanted was someone to listen to them, and the filmmakers respected that.
Passion for art doesn't need to feature one breaking the fourth wall or dropping shocking revelations. On the Adamant is meant to be an introduction into the lives of a small group of people with mental illness; it has the exact opposite approach as a documentary bringing awareness to the subject would typically have. All you need to be aware of is that people and a program like this exist, and then perhaps you should be motivated to research how these can be funded wherever you live. Vive la France and their humanistic approach towards treating mental health. On the Adamant is now in theaters. Rating: 4/5 Review by Joseph Fayed  Revenge thriller Femme from directors Sam H. Freeman and Ng Choon Ping expands the idea behind their 2021 short into a feature. Addressing themes of sexuality, identity, and openness about the former, the film establishes conflicting narratives quite effectively. Two strong leading performances bring the heat to a script that prioritizes style and substance. Jules (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett) is a drag queen performing at a London nightclub. One night, outside the venue, he encounters Preston (George MacKay). The two exchange some words, which leads to Preston and his friends violently beating Jules. Months later, Jules, out of drag, encounters Preston, but he does not recognize him. The closeted Preston tries pursuing a relationship, but Jules is secretly in pursuit of something else: revenge. Jules' actions make them an anti-hero. The film's script does a good job of laying out the internal struggles both leads face in their lives. The film also lacks the use of internal monologue, a la Taxi Driver, and that decision alone gives the character of Jules more subtlety in their actions. We gradually learn more about Preston, and although he is more of an open book than Jules, his characterization makes the ending all the more worthwhile.  The cinematography is exceptional. Certain moments leading up to something climatic are presented in hot pink or red, while scenes where the characters are supposed to feel isolated or alone are presented in blue. A color contrast like this is very creative and adds an extra layer of beauty to a story that is both figuratively and literally dark — in both subject matter and taking place mainly in the evening.
Nathan Stewart-Jarrett and George Mackay both drive it home with their performances. Stewart-Jarrett walks the fine line between authenticity and a persona he is putting on, and I don't mean his drag act. MacKay portrays his character as both short-tempered and with convincing cognitive dissonance. Directors Freeman and Ng pose the question of whether identity could ever be tainted if it is stripped away from us. They give their perspective answer on that and do not make the film feel like it has been dragged out beyond the opening act. The chemistry between Nathan and George is strong and their scenes together feel genuine whether they are acting as friend or foe. Femme builds its suspense in all the right places. It is both stylish and sexy and has the bark and bite to show you how complex revenge can be. The fluidity of these characters and how they become intertwined is so well done, and I hope that now that all eyes are on them, this is just the first of many more collaborations between the filmmakers. Femme is now playing in theaters. Rating: 5/5 |