The first sign that this probably would not happen was when my wife told me she wasn't sure she could handle a more than two-hour musical from a director she didn't like. (I didn't like Carax' Holy Motors either, but was willing to look past that). I then considered going by myself for the first feature and having her join me by Uber for the second, but then I discovered they were charging $40 per carful per movie, and it didn't seem worth it just for myself. So Annette was out. (Thinking about it now, I wonder how they would have handled the separate admissions. I probably would have had to drive out and drive back in, which just seems like a hassle and a headache.)
Zola was still on, and we purchased our $40 carful. But it started to possibly slip through our fingers when they pushed back all theatrical screenings by a week's time in order to avoid possible lockdown cancellation, meaning our drive-in trip was shifted from August 6th to August 13th.
Friday the 13th probably should have been an omen of some sort, as soon after that, all theatrical screenings were cancelled for 2021.
But Zola itself was not lost.
I had noticed earlier in the week that it was available for premium $19.99 rental through U.S. iTunes, though it took me a few days to put two and two together: I could rent Zola and we could have the drive-in in our own living room.
I set it as a surprise for my wife, and she loved the surprise. I think she loved the surprise to a greater extent than it was actually a good surprise. Suffice it to say that in lockdown, we all need a surprise.
If I'd been really clever, I would have assembled additional props or special foods to kind of simulate the drive-in experience, but let's just say my sense of cleverness is a bit dulled right now. Besides, #lockdown.
I only wish the movie had delivered more on our hopes and expectations.
I probably had it too hyped coming in, as I've been hearing about this for what feels like a year now, and it was easy to imagine it being really off the hook. I'd heard it likened to Spring Breakers, which makes sense given the Florida setting and certain stylistic choices. But that probably also set the bar way too high for me, since as you know, Spring Breakers was my #2 movie of the entire last decade.
I could tell right away that it wouldn't pop like Spring Breakers, which could be the difference between cinematographer Benoit Debie and cinematographer Ari Wegner. When I looked up Wegner's credits, I expected to find a neophyte working on one of his first films, given the sort scuzzy look of Zola. (Intentionally scuzzy, but scuzzy is scuzzy.) However, that's not the case at all -- Wegner has worked with both Justin Kurzel (True History of the Kelly Gang) and Peter Strickland (In Fabric). I thought Kelly Gang looked terrific, and that In Fabric looked ... scuzzy. I have no doubt the aesthetic was intentional in both places, but I wanted something crisper here.
There are far bigger problems than the film's look, though. There are two main ones as I see it:
1) The story is not as over-the-top absurd as I expected it would be. Given the Florida setting, I expected a truly bizarre odyssey of strange characters, hilarious circumstances and unexpected twists and turns. The actual story is a very banal and sad weekend escapade involving strippers turning tricks under the iron grip of a despicable pimp. The details of what happened do not seem particularly extraordinary. Check that -- they are extraordinary for your average, everyday citizen, but they are not extraordinary by the standards of movies made about lowlifes and people at the margins of society. The way Zola was sold to me was that I would not be able to believe what happened next, and that's a comparison to other similar movies, not to my own life as a dad in Australia. It just didn't live up to that. Nor was it funny, as I thought it was supposed to be. I mean, darkly funny, but still funny. I did laugh sometimes, but my overall takeaway was that this was all just sad, and not kind of delightfully preposterous as I thought it was supposed to be.
2) We don't learn enough about the characters. This is particularly problematic for Zola herself (Taylour Paige), the one whose tweet storm became the raw materials for this movie. She is supposed to be our surrogate -- Stefani (Riley Keough) does get to tell the story at one point, but only for five minutes of obvious exaggeration we can't trust -- so the fact that we don't get to know her at all is a real issue. A movie does not have to prioritize character development -- Spring Breakers does not -- but when the story is told from one particular person's perspective (and the movie is named after that person), not having much of a sense of that character is indeed a shortcoming. If one of the characters had been the narrator of Spring Breakers as Zola is here, it would have been a problem that we didn't know more about her at the end, but that is an ensemble piece being viewed by a disinterested, omniscient eye. Zola's eye is the eye here, but it's empty.
You should still see the movie, but just temper your expectations. Like, a lot.
Oh, and it occurs to me that the subject "MIFF from A to Zed" still sort of works, if you incorporate my Thursday night viewing. All Light, Everywhere can just take the place of Annette as the A.
Should have waited and discussed them both in the same post. Curses!
Our living room drive-in kicks off a weekend of MIFF-related activity, and I'll probably be back tomorrow to tell you about more of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment