I am not an auteurist

Clarification of the subject: I am a big fan of the auteur theory. That is not what this post is about.

Yesterday morning I was very belatedly listening to an episode of The Next Picture Show, the podcast hosted by staff of the former website The Dissolve, in which they were discussing a pair of Sofia Coppola films: Marie Antoinette and Priscilla. The structure of the show is to compare a new release to a classic that it echoes, one each week in a two-week pairing, and choosing two films from the same director's career is not uncommon. (A recent show I listened to was their 400th, so they've had to stray from the purity of the conceit on plenty of occasions, plus are rapidly using up their available pool of "classic" films. Though I do love Marie Antoinette so in this case I think it qualifies.)

As the discussion progressed to Priscilla, I found two things very unsurprising:

Hosts Scott Tobias and Keith Phipps basically loved the movie.

Host Tasha Robinson, long branded the show's contrarian, did not love it, though she respected it. 

(Fourth host Genevieve Koski, who produces the show and sometimes doesn't appear in the main episodes, was somewhere in between.)

I described the above reactions as unsurprising, but that is only a criticism in the case of Scott and Keith, because I agree with Tasha and have the same basic reservations about Priscilla that she does.

It can be hard to defend Tasha Robinson. Although she is undoubtedly a critic with immaculate film coverage and is easily the most well spoken of the four, in terms of having a voice and a delivery made for podcasts, she can sometimes dominate the discussion and occasionally comes off as a blowhard. Plus there are all those contrarian opinions, some of which are more defensible than others.

But you know what?

Give me a contrarian any day over a person who blindly rubber stamps the latest film from an acclaimed auteur.

Sofia Coppola certainly fits that description, perhaps more so than any other female working director. You know when you are watching a Sofia Coppola film. (Except, maybe, On the Rocks.) And I love Sofia Coppola, having named Lost in Translation my #1 film of 2003 and having felt very strongly about The Bling Ring, The Beguiled and the aforementioned Marie Antoinette.

But you know what? Coppola does not make a great film every time out, as evidenced by previous misfires Somewhere and the similarly aforementioned On the Rocks. Priscilla is better than those two, but it now joins that group, to some extent. (If you want my thoughts on the one feature film of hers I haven't mentioned, I want to like The Virgin Suicides more than I do, but I still respect it quite a lot.)

Scott and Keith appear to find Coppola incapable of misstepping. One of them also talked about how Somewhere, which had a decidedly middling reception at the time of its release, has lately been embraced as the classic that it is. Maybe I have to watch Somewhere again, but I doubt I would reach that conclusion.

Even On the Rocks was thrown some love. "It's her least essential film, but it's still pretty good." Um, no it isn't. 

Today I am interested in examining this compulsion.

If I were being truly cynical, I would say it stems from fear. If you think someone is going to call your critical bonafides into question if you don't like the latest movie from a respected auteur, you will find yourself emphasizing all the things you like about it, and dismissing anything that doesn't work for you.

But even in that case, you should be able to acknowledge the things that didn't work for you in a free-ranging, 30-minute discussion of the type they have on The Next Picture Show. Tasha was very reasonable in stating her concerns with the movie, which I won't rehash here (you can read my review if you want). It was like she was begging Scott and Keith to meet her halfway. Instead, they just kept doubling down, gainsaying anything that she said and coming across more like the contrarians themselves. Not in a disrespectful way, but more as a sign of their own recognition of the absurdity of their contrasting opinions, the other two were laughing in spite of themselves -- almost as though this were a snapshot of the podcast's core personality dynamic writ large. (I find it an interesting side note that the two men were the ones in favor of the movie directed by a woman, while the two women were critical of it.)

Or it could come from insecurity. If some people think a master made a masterpiece, and you did not see it that way, maybe the problem was with you and you didn't get something essential about it. I feel this sometimes especially about older classics that I am just seeing for the first time. But you have to have the confidence to state that something about a film doesn't work the way it should or as advertised, because I guarantee you there is someone else out there that feels the exact same way. 

Then it could just be a case of giving deference to a great artist. Even if they made a movie that was less than their best work, you don't want to denigrate their overall output in the way a mixed or negative review would do. It's almost like this awesome creative force doesn't have the power to withstand your pan. If anything, that person has a lot more power to withstand it than the fledgling newcomer would. 

I feel like none of these things are stumbling blocks for Tash. And this is why I will always defend Tasha. She may reach some conclusions I don't agree with, which is the nature of differing subjective viewpoints on films among the critical community. Worse, she may reach some conclusions where I can attack the logic of her reaching that conclusion, beyond the conclusion itself. But never do I think she has decided she likes a movie even before she has started watching it. I have exactly zero doubt that Tasha Robinson considers every movie on its own terms, and this is the sort of critic I fancy myself being, as well.

I'm sure Scott and Keith fancy themselves that sort of critic. What critic wouldn't. And in truth, I often admire them considerably more than I admire Tasha. They may not sound as professional in the podcast medium as she does, but their thoughts are always well researched and soundly argued.

The thing is, I can't get over the idea that on some level, they aren't being as critical as they should be about the work of a favorite director. They are not going to surprise us. They are going to provide us reactions that fall well within the critical mainstream.

Take their favorite films of 2023, for example. Scott went for The Zone of Interest. I believe Keith went for Killers of the Flower Moon. (Genevieve, who is being neglected in this post, was not on that show. Part of her problem is that she is a TV editor and has to watch a lot more TV than movies, so she might be selecting from 20 movies for her best of the year, and 15 of them would be films discussed on the podcast.)

Tasha? She anointed Saltburn as her #1.

Now, Saltburn is my least favorite of those three films, but it was still barely in my top 30 for 2023. (Oops, no, it was my #33.) And I find it to be a much more interesting choice, one that does not just elevate the most recent offering from one of the industry's undisputed greats. 

A triple feature extravaganza to close out my 2023 theatrical viewings

It takes a lot to pull off a successful theatrical triple feature.

On Thursday night I did it, and wrapped up the movies available theatrically I'd determined I must see before I post my 2023 rankings on Tuesday.

All of Us Strangers, The Iron Claw and Priscilla all finally hit theaters here on Thursday, the last new release date before my deadline. (Fortunately, I've already seen Anatomy of a Fall, the big January 25th release, through U.S. iTunes.) I defied the odds and saw them all in succession after getting off work for the day. 

I should say that a triple feature is not quite as difficult as I've made it sound, if you are only going off my recent history. It's been less than two months since my last triple feature, in fact. But that was a peculiar set of circumstances: three consecutive James Bond films as part of a marathon in which the start time of the next movie was five minutes after the previous movie ended. 

A triple feature where the start times were established independently of one another? After you've worked a full day? When no film starts later than 8:50 p.m.? That's another matter.

A successful triple feature starts with something like having the movie theater downstairs from where you work, as you know I do because I've told you about it before. Cinema Kino in Collins Place is just an elevator ride down from my office on the fifth floor of 35 Collins Street. I've taken advantage of this proximity a number of times before, but in truth, not as often as I'd like or as often as you'd think I would.

All of Us Strangers started at 4:10, which meant I didn't really need to get down there until about 4:25 to ensure an on-time entry after the trailers. I would normally work until a little after 4:30, but on office days we all tend to cut out a little early in acknowledgement of our commute time. Don't judge us too harshly.

So I packed up at 4:20. This was fine for my other two colleagues who were there, as they promptly did the same. This immediately got the wheels spinning in my head, because I had to ride down the elevator with them for reasons of social politeness without then doing a beeline directly for the theater. It's not that I couldn't have told either of them I was going straight to a movie -- even though one of them is my boss -- but packing up a few minutes early to go to a movie feels a bit untoward. 

So instead of striking out for the train, as they would expect, and then being caught in stride with them for however long (they were likely going to the same train station), I told them I had to get something from the chemist (pharmacy), which is also on the edge of the food court area just like the cinema is. This was actually true as I had been wanting to pick up some bandaids and heartburn tablets, but I didn't need to do it right then. I did complete the errand even though I was worried it would make me miss the start of All of Us Strangers. It didn't.

In the movie I had about half of the first of two bottles of Pepsi Max from 7/11, which are vastly discounted when you buy two, as well as those miniature Reese's peanut butter cups that come in a bag, which is a newly available item in Australia. I'm not talking about the sort you individually unwrap. No, these are smaller and unwrapped. Mmm mmm good.

The transition to The Iron Claw at 6 p.m. was going to be tight. But All of Us Strangers runs 105 minutes, meaning the 110-minute time between the two start times should have worked perfectly, if you assume about the same number of trailers and other ads beforehand.

It didn't quite work out that way.

And here I should probably tell you about my means of seeing these movies, because it's relevant to the way it all went down.

Cinema Kino accepts my critics card, so I was entitled to get into each of these movies for free. But there's something a little unsavory about asking for multiple free movies at once, because it has the potential to perturb the person behind the counter. It shouldn't change their procedure, but I'd prefer to avoid being caught in even a single moment of awkwardness in which the other person resents me for taking advantage of the system. (I'm not a typical American who likes to stand up for my entitlements.)

So while I did consider getting my tickets for all three movies at once -- or at least the first two, since I'd have a longer gap between #2 and #3 -- ultimately I opted to get them each individually, hoping that I'd get a different person each time and avoid the awkwardness of explaining "Yes, it's me again, asking to get a free ticket and requiring you to pull out your clipboard and record my information, as well as having to confirm it through the senior person working at the time." (Spoiler alert: I actually did get my tickets from three different people so didn't have even a single moment where we both laughed about how it was me again, let alone two such moments.)

When All of Us Strangers ended, it was 6:12. So already 12 minutes into the pre-show for The Iron Claw.

I thought about reliving the old, pre critics card days, where I would pay for one movie and sneak into the second. Since I wasn't going to be paying anyway, it wouldn't even be a crime this time. But Cinema Kino has eight different screens, and after popping my head into one and finding a different movie about to start, I realized I didn't have the appetite to go do this in six others. As it turned out, that was a good choice, as The Iron Claw ended up being on the opposite end of the theater from All of Us Strangers, so I would have had a lot of failure before I had success.

Feeling a bit of pressure now, I did get back in line, fortunately only having one ticket buyer ahead of me. But this was still a minute or two lost and then the usual extra minute or two it takes to get my free critics ticket issued to me.

So The Iron Claw was already playing when I did finally get to my seat. I don't think I missed much. It looks like there was an opening scene in black and white before the movie switched to color for the rest of the running time. I got in during that opening scene. 

Here I finished that first Pepsi Max and ate a small bag of gummy snakes. Dinner proper would wait until before Priscilla.

And even with the 132-minute running time of The Iron Claw, I did have a much bigger gap, more like 20 minutes, before even the 8:50 start of trailers for Priscilla. My intention was to walk to the nearby Subway and get a sandwich to bring in with me while I drank that second Pepsi Max.

Of course, leave it to this moment to realize that the Subway isn't there anymore, or not where I thought it was, anyway. 

When I didn't find it in one direction, I committed to walking in the other direction ... at which point I wondered if I hadn't walked far enough in the first direction. And then I kept on turning more corners and finding only sit-down restaurants still open. (The faster service restaurants cater primarily to the 9 to 5 workers who make up the vast majority of the workforce in this part of the city.)

Finally, when I was starting to get desperate (and hungry), and wondering whether I'd need to eat popcorn for dinner (but wanting something more solid after the peanut butter cups and snakes), I came across a Grill'd, where I usually have sit down burgers but where they also do takeaway. I ordered a bacon cheeseburger, and crammed it in my backpack, and that's what I ate during Priscilla, where I missed a few minutes of ads but saw all the trailers before the movie. (Also, I think ten minutes of fruitless walking did me some good at this point. Need to get the blood flowing.)

At 11 o'clock when this was all over, I was exhausted.

Which is a good way to describe my current state in general. I am so ready for this to be over on Tuesday. It's Saturday now, and I probably have five more movies to watch: two today, one tomorrow, one Monday and one on Tuesday night before I fully finalize my list about 12:30 a.m. Wednesday morning my time.

As usual, I will get there, and then I will rest.