Battle of the Sexes – 8

What a relief, after seeing a trio of heavy, intellectual films at the New York Film Festival, to watch a thoroughly enjoyable, funny and teary, battle in which almost everyone is a winner, above all Billie Jean King. The movie is more about her complicated love life than her tennis, but there is enough historic verisimilitude – including play-by-play from Howard Cosell – to remind you of the real-world stakes at play. Emma Stone is a bit bland, without Billie Jean’s edge; but the supporting cast is delightful: Steve Carrell above all, then Alan Cumming, Sarah Silverman, Elisabeth Shue, to name the recognizable faces.

Boom for Real: The Late Teenage Years of Jean-Michel Basquiat – 5

The artist Jean-Michel Basquiat is the hole at the middle of this documentary: we never hear his voice, don’t see his paintings, learn nothing of his background, and catch only fleeting glimpses of his face. Instead, we get talking heads remembering the days when he emerged on the Lower East Side scene. What the film does provide is a shocking reminder of what terrible shape New York was in from 1978 to ’81. But the gaping hole left me hungry. (NYFF)

Zama – 6

Sort of a cross between Last Year at Marienbad and Aguirre, Wrath of God, this Argentine period drama offered memorable still images – loved that tricorner hat! – but not much continuity or sensible plot. Life was pretty crummy in Spanish South America, and I was happy to have a shower afterward. A bit of a senseless slog. (NYFF)

Mother! – 5.5

An intense two hours of close-ups of a bewildered Jennifer Lawrence’s face, as she copes with a haunted house and situations beyond her control. It’s not a movie that makes much sense, but neither does a Hieronymous Bosch altarpiece. Javier Bardem is only slightly nicer than he was in No Country for Old Men, but in a Gaslight sort of way. For unrelenting dread, devoid of musical background, this was a well-made movie. I grade it so low only because I wouldn’t want anyone to go see it on my account.

Wind River – 7.9

If you think the West Texas of Hell or High Water was bleak, wait until you see Wyoming’s Wind River Indian Reservation in Taylor Sheridan’s follow-up film. Not only is it bleak topographically, economically and psychologically, we see it in the depth of winter, with snow blanketing all signs of life. But bleak can be beautiful, and here the photography creates a mood that is the takeaway, if not the point, of the movie. Jeremy Renner’s Marlboro Man and Elisabeth Olsen’s in-over-her-head FBI agent populate the landscape, along with sullen, disaffected Native Americans: I don’t think there is a smile in the entire 107 minutes. While the story is told almost exclusively through the eyes of Renner and Olsen’s characters, the scene that explains the mystery is somehow shown us through the perspective of the two corpses.

An Inconvenient Sequel – 6

Preaching to the choir, or more like droning to the choir, Al Gore is a plodding, un-nuanced presence to spend two hours with. The early scenes of global warming’s effects are bracing, but they are never really put in context and quickly give way to the former Vice President’s leadership training seminars. Shots of the Paris Climate Conference are of interest, but it’s hard to believe that our hero Gore is really playing a pivotal role. And then when Trump is elected and pulls the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, you wonder where this meandering documentary is heading. If you only see one environmental movie this year, make it Tomorrow.

Logan Lucky – 7.5

A totally fun movie, filled with colorful characters and a believably silly heist plot. It’s never clear whether we’re laughing at or with the good-old-boys of the NASCAR world. The fact that they get away with their robbery and nobody gets hurt suggests that Director Steven Soderbergh didn’t mean to insult; the movie’s lack of acceptance in the South, however, makes one wonder. Channing Tatum, Adam Driver and Daniel Craig are good company, and the film’s ambiguous ending actually provides something to think about as you leave the theater.

Detroit – 8

Not a fun movie. In the first part you feel you are in the middle of Detroit’s 1967 race riot. In the next, you are held captive in the Algiers Hotel Annex as a trio of white policemen brutalize a random group of blacks, and two white girls. Then, in almost a coda, you see justice denied, thanks to all-too-familiar legal tactics. Will Poulter, the white police villain, will never get an award for his ugly, but extraordinary portrayal. Director Kathryn Bigelow maybe won’t, but should. Fifty years later we still have Charlottesville and Black Lives Matter, but I like to think Detroit is a historic relic and a useful reminder.

Tomorrow (Le Demain) – 7

A group of French filmmakers sought to counter the despair provoked by climate change and the ongoing Sixth Extinction by finding examples that show how the world could survive in a better, sustainable way – sort of a filmic version of John Lennon’s Imagine. I can’t say it was convincing – more on that in a minute – but several of the concepts were new to me and quite startling. First, the structure: the film identified five areas where existing models showed the way to a better future: Agriculture, Energy, Politics, Economy and Education. They traveled the world in their research, although a majority of the exemplars were to be found, not surprisingly, in Europe.
Agriculture touted urban farming (e.g., in Detroit), which fostered direct-to-consumption produce, eliminating wasteful packaging and transportation. More interesting was the claim that small farms could be two-to-four times more productive than the large-company single-crop farms that dominate the U.S. market. For one thing, nature abhors a monoculture, and the big farms degrade the soil and require increasing amounts of chemicals to be productive. The small-farm example showed how many crops could be grown in the same space – for instance, basil, tomatoes and grapes – organically, using far fewer resources. The heavy reliance on grain in our diet was also seen as bad for the environment, whereas fruits and vegetables are healthier are require less processing.
Energy I am familiar with, thanks to RMI and others, and the film didn’t have to dig very far to find examples such as Copenhagen’s, and eventually all Denmark’s, renunciation of fossil fuels in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power. The last stumbling block is cars, and here Copenhagen, which I can’t wait to visit, is moving forward by favoring bike lanes, walking paths and public transportation.
For Politics, the film looked to Iceland, where citizens, but apparently not the government, have experimented with legislature-by-lottery. Choose your parliament by having citizens draw lots and you will come up with a governing body that takes its job very seriously (here, the analogy is to a jury), is a cross-section of the population and is not beholden to special interests. [One of California’s Republican gubernatorial candidates has an equally revolutionary idea, called Neighborhood Legislature, in which small districts of 12,000 people each elect a representative who then gets to vote on the local Congressman.]
The novel idea in Economy was a complementary currency, a form of money that doesn’t replace the pound or Euro but is valuable only inside a limited jurisdiction, which could be an entire European country but seems to have taken off mainly in British towns. The film didn’t say how the complementary currency is valued vis-à-vis the official government currency – i.e., why would people prefer it – but the benefits are clear: it keeps the local economy humming because you can use it buy coffee at your local coffee shop but probably not Starbucks and definitely not in the town next door. Moreover, you can’t earn interest on it by saving, so it encourages local spending. On a large scale, Switzerland seems to have this going, and it was suggested that a complementary currency would enable Greece to get its economy running again. The economists interviewed also surprised me by explaining than 97% of money (maybe in Britain, with a somewhat smaller percentage in other places) is created not by the central government, but by private banks issuing loans! Another shining light was an envelope manufacturer who was committed to low-energy use and low waste and paid no dividends to shareholders, eschewing the goal of making anyone rich.
The model in Education was Finland, which scores at or near the top in national surveys. The trick there, which brought applause from the Santa Barbara audience, is lack of testing: “We teach for learning, not for the test,” said the interviewed principal, who was also shown tossing kids in the air and having lunch with students in the cafeteria, which, like every part of the schooling, is free to age 16.
Yes, it was heartening to see that so many people are committed to better ways of doing things. It was slightly discouraging to see that the film was completed in 2015 and has made zero impact (it only reached us via a special screening sponsored by local environmental groups). And while the models may have made good sense, they all, in one way or another, require large commitments of manpower – think of how many small farmers would be needed to substitute for Cargill’s production; enlightened leadership – at a time when our politics are in total dysfunction; and massive buy-in by populations more diverse, not to say splintered, than Copenhagen’s. Above all, the hope for a better future instilled by the movie was deflated upon leaving the theater when I realized that for now and the next few years we are living in the world of Donald Trump. At least I am in California.

Dunkirk – 5

Dunkirk is an unpleasant assault on the senses, the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan stretched out for two hours. We see death by suicide, by being shot in the back, burned at sea, strafed from the air, blown up on the sand, drowned in vessel hold, shot from the sky, machine-gunned at close range, knocked down the steps – and that doesn’t count the half-dozen ships that get sunk by German aircraft with untold anonymous deaths resulting. Aside from the always brilliant Mark Rylance and the dependable Kenneth Branagh, the actors are a fairly indistinguishable lot, and half of the little dialogue there is is lost in murmurs or foreign accents. The expected upbeat saga of Dunkirk (see, most recently, Their Finest Hour) is reduced to a footnote in favor of an unrelieved essay on the horror of war. Someone, maybe director Christopher Nolan, described Dunkirk as an “Impressionist” painting. I get that, but only if the artist were Goya, not Monet.