Showing posts with label the bubble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the bubble. Show all posts

Friday, December 30, 2022

The year we defiantly repudiated COVID-19

Twenty twenty-two was the year I got COVID. Three people in my family got it, actually. My younger son was first in early April, and I followed him in late April. My older son didn't get it, that we know of, until September. My wife has still never tested positive.

I say "that we know of" because I now think I may have gotten it twice. In September, I had some sort of COVID-y symptoms, but it was not the first time in the six months since my documented bout that I'd had some sort of light sniffles that proved to be nothing -- it was about the sixth time. So I never tested, but when my son had the same symptoms a few days later, we did ultimately test him and he returned a faint line indicating a positive result. I tested negative at that time but it stands to reason I might have been positive before that. (Bad Vance. Bad, bad Vance.) The point is, any of us might have had it another time and not tested, though my wife was vigilant about testing so it's pretty certain she's COVID immune.*

* - we understand that no one has a proven immunity to COVID-19, and would not intentionally contribute to any misinformation about the virus. 

I'm telling you all this to set up the context for how weird it was that we so definitively moved away from COVID in the second half of the year, both on a collective level as a society and a personal level in our minds.

And since this is a movie blog, my inclination is to determine how that change was reflected in the movies we watched.

The moment when I realized how much this cognitive transformation had occurred was when I watched Claire Denis' Stars at Noon about three weeks ago.

This movie was a pretty big whiff for me, which is funny because it took down one of the top prizes at Cannes -- though I'm finding that other critics and viewers were similarly put off by it. (Cannes results never promise to translate to general success with audiences.) 

There were plenty of things I didn't like about it -- the stars, the plot, the failure to make any of it interesting -- but one of the biggest things that took me out of it was the fact that the characters wore masks at various intervals throughout, not as some essential part of the story or themes, but to place the story within a specific historical context ... that historical context being within the last two years.

All I can tell you was that when I saw these masks, I said to myself: "We're still doing this?"

On the one hand, given the long gestation period for most movies, we should only just now be seeing movies where the telltale masks of COVID-19 could be incorporated into the story. Because that production schedule has been collapsed in recent years, and because some filmmakers worked hard to get out movies that directly dealt with the pandemic in order to engage with something that was consuming us both mentally and physically, we ended up seeing movies with masked characters nearly two years ago, around the start of 2021. One might have even snuck out in 2020, I don't really remember. (Actually yes, a small independent film I reviewed and enjoyed called Love in Dangerous Times was released in November of 2020, as just one example.)

On the other hand, though, my reaction to seeing the masks told me that COVID was a cultural and sociopolitical context that we wanted to stop grappling with the moment it was "over." I suspect any movies still coming out that are trying to deal so directly with the pandemic will seem like johnny come latelies as well.

What a weird realization. Clearly this is a world transformative event, and the sort of thing we should be collectively wrestling with for years, maybe even decades to come. But we, as moviegoers, are viewing it as some embarrassing mistake that we want to get past as soon as possible, never to discuss again.

I think this sort of gets at the intended timelessness of movies. You know how in movies, a character will say "My brother died 17 years ago" rather than "My brother died in 1983"? It's this sort of dialogue-writing trick that is designed to set the movie in an eternal sense of "now." Even if that person in real life would be more likely to list the year, the important thing for the viewer is to know how long ago it was, to get an idea of how fresh the wound still is. We do this so that a movie can always seems like it is taking place "now."

But movies made during COVID lose that, especially if they incorporate masks when it's not an essential component of the themes being considered. Rather than taking place in the eternal "now," that movie takes place in 2020 or 2021, and for the rest of its life as a work of art, it will remind us of this period we want to forget.

However, earlier in the year this was not yet a problem.

I really enjoyed Judd Apatow's The Bubble, even though it was the consummate COVID-19 movie, about characters trying to make a blockbuster effects film involving green screens and motion capture, while also social distancing. I watched that on the 1st of April -- happy April Fools Day -- before any of us had actually had COVID. That was a different time, but also, COVID-19 was central to the story, not just a design detail like it was in Stars at Noon.

Of course, no film symbolizes our societal departure from the pandemic times more than Top Gun: Maverick. That was released near the mid-point of the year on May 27th, and went on to shatter box office records, proving once and for all that you can't push movie audiences permanently to the small screen. This behemoth has grossed nearly 1.5 billion dollars worldwide, and has become Tom Cruise's biggest hit ever. Every calculation he did to delay the release as long as possible -- this was the last movie delayed by COVID to finally debut, almost to the point where it was becoming a punchline -- was validated and then some.

Top Gun has paved the way for other big theatrical moneymakers, most notably Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and now Avatar: The Way of Water. It's a chicken and the egg thing. Would audiences have remembered they craved a big-screen spectacle without it? We can't really say, but as ever, even at age 60, Cruise clearly has the entertainment industry on his shoulders ... and don't be surprised to see his next two Mission: Impossible movies racking up similar dough. (Before Avatar 2 I saw a little featurette on the making of the soon-to-be-famous motorcycle base jump stunt, and I have to say I am excited.)

I'd be lying, though, if I didn't say that part of the desire to return to theaters was the collective desire to give COVID the middle finger. We still don't want to play fast and loose with our health, but even the most progressive of us seem to trust in the efficacy of the vaccines ... while those who never believed in them never cared anyway. Together, it means that we trust the fellow members of our society, even the fringiest and least compliant, to not get us sick. Or if they do, we feel confident enough that we'll recover ... confident enough to embrace movies like we used to, embrace the social intimacy that is part and parcel to them. At least the biggest ones with the most star wattage.

But even the smaller movies have been coming to us in a torrent, even if we haven't needed to -- or been able to -- go to the movies to see them. A common theme in my writing over the past month has been how difficult it's been for me to stay on top of an ever-growing list of movies to check out on my Letterboxd watchlist. I think the biggest change is in the streamers. In past years, Netflix was the only one that put out a new movie each week -- sometimes multiple -- that felt like it was part of the larger cinematic conversation, not just some minor foreign film they acquired on the cheap. This year, Amazon upped its own frequency to about that level, and if others were behind, they weren't behind by much.

It's hard not to leave the year without a sense of optimism for where we're going, both in our physical health as a society and in the health of the film industry. Seeing the money to be had through a well-made theatrical release, studios will surely want to try to duplicate the success of Top Gun: Maverick, knowing that an appetite is there if only they can feed it. But the appetite for movies seems to be there generally, meaning streamers may continue to up their game, even if the most expensive ones that don't get the desired number of eyeballs (such as Netflix's The Gray Man) still prove the underlying flaws in the model. 

This may be a bubble -- no pun intended, Judd Apatow -- and it may be about to burst. 

But maybe if it only bursts by 25%, I'll actually be able to stay on top of my 2023 watchlist.

Note: After writing this but before posting it, I got COVID again. So did my wife, finally. I had my positive test on Tuesday, she got hers on Thursday. Oh well. I decided not to change anything I've written because the majority of what I said is still perfectly true ... only my personal experience of it has changed slightly. 

Sunday, April 3, 2022

A very talented Hollywood family

Mid-week this week I learned there was a new Judd Apatow movie hitting Netflix on Friday. Exhibit Q of how I have had my head in the sand when it comes to news about upcoming movies.

Since I went the whole week without reviewing anything on ReelGood, I wanted to make sure to see The Bubble as soon as possible. (It's been a schizophrenic time on ReelGood. Three weeks ago, I reviewed no movies. Two weeks ago, I reviewed four movies. Last week, I reviewed no movies again.)

But I actually took it one step further than that. I decided to get myself primed on Thursday night by rewatching my #2 of 2020, The King of Staten Island, which I've decided (after one viewing) is my favorite Apatow-directed movie, especially after The 40 Year Old Virgin came up short on a revisit last year. 

I always suspected I have might like Staten Island more than I should have, though I do know some other people who think it's the bee's knees. A second viewing -- to confirm or reverse my initial impression -- had been in the back of my mind for a while now, and the Friday debut of The Bubble made a good excuse to finally get it on the docket.

Nope. I still loved it. Great movie.

The Bubble is actually a very different sort of movie for Apatow, a Hollywood satire that resembles something like Don't Look Up or (way back when) Wag the Dog in tone a lot more than it resembles something like This is 40. It's also a COVID-era satire more explicitly than any movie that has yet been made, or at least that I've seen.

And you know what? I really liked this too. A friend threatened to set me off on the wrong foot by messaging me, just before I started, that it was so bad he had to turn it off, but I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the absurd spirit of it.

I'm not here to talk in depth about either of these movies (there will be a review of The Bubble up, presumably on Monday), but rather, to talk about four key participants, who all happen to be in the same family.

Apatow has long been an ardent practitioner of nepotism, but as it turns out, he's one of those who gets away with it given the quality of what he's working with. When he casts his wife, Leslie Mann -- an actress before she met him -- and his daughters Maude and Iris, it's no Adam Sandler casting Jackie Sandler situation. These are three talented women, and they make his projects immeasurably better.

First let's start with Mann. I have been fond of her ever since I first saw her, in another personal favorite, The Cable Guy. Mann met Apatow while she was auditioning for the film. I'll admit I find her adorable, but she's also frigging hilarious. She has a real knack for comedy that has been on display in both Apatow's films (Knocked Up and This is 40 in particular), and those with which he appears to have no involvement (such as The Other Woman and Blockers). She can also bring it in scenes that are played more as drama, though examples do not immediately come to mind. And though she has made an appearance in many of Apatow's films, he's got a judicious sensibility for how to use her -- for example, she's not in either Trainwreck or The King of Staten Island. She's a spoiled actress in The Bubble, and Mann gets the perfect balance between going over the top and grounding the character in something familiar. She takes a lot of the ways we would expect her to play the role and flips them slightly, which is a strength of the film on the whole. 

The family member who is in Staten Island is their older daughter Maude, who is currently 24. (They got planning that family pretty quickly after Cable Guy, though it should be noted that they obviously didn't rush things too much, as they've never looked back.) Maude Apatow has become known to people who watch Euphoria, though I am not one of those, so I know her from The King of Staten Island. (And about four other of her father's films in which she played children of varying ages, though I wasn't focusing on her work when I watched those movies.) The work she does in Staten Island is really strong. She takes a role that could have been a throwaway -- the main character's sister, who leaves for college early on in the narrative -- and gives it an incredible amount of specificity. She's a straight talker who shows equal parts love and annoyance with her wayward sibling, and she's got that New York attitude without overplaying it. The strength of her character shines through without her seeming like a saint, and it's one of a handful of smaller performances that gives this film its enviable verisimilitude.

The remaining daughter is Iris, who is 19, and who was also in those earlier Apatow films. I came to really notice her in the Netflix series Love, in which she played a child actress, and did so with a real -- here's that word again -- specificity. She was bratty but had a heart, and it's something she must have seen a lot in her peers, if not displayed herself, growing up in such a family. (The bratty part at least; the heart part is not so certain.) In The Bubble she plays a vapid Tik Tok star who is hired to appear in the film within the film not because of any acting ability, but because she has 120 million followers. There are a lot of ways to overplay a vapid Tik Tok star, but she resists all of those instincts to give us what a real 2022 19-year-old Tik Tok star looks like -- flat affect, above-the-fray attitude, and a way of dismissing you that is all the more eviscerating for its lack of effort. It's one of the funnier low-energy performances I have ever seen -- Steven Wright would be proud. 

Nepotism most often annoys us, and rightly so. But some people who started their careers as favors to family members -- Sofia Coppola and Jason Schwartzmann within the Coppola family alone -- really blossom.

Others, like the Apatows, had it all along.