Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

[kihei]

Sans Soleil (1982) Directed by Chris Marker 9C

"Watching Sans soleil is a bit like being exposed to someone else's dream without being allowed to share it; it has the texture of an hallucination, more than anything. But it is a structured hallucination, with a clear emotional journey, albeit one whose content changes, I think, from viewer to viewer and viewing to viewing."—Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy

Sans Soleil is not an easy movie to explain. The film is a hybrid documentary type of film essay containing images from Tokyo primarily but with side trips to Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and, in a curious digression, San Francisco (for a little film analysis of Hitchcock’s Vertigo—it fits right in, though). Even the notion of authorship is shaky here as Marker has his hands in many pots (direction, script, cinematography, editing, music) but often credited under an alias, Sandor Krasna. While an endless stream unfolds of engrossing, often haunting images, some digitally treated, a female narrator in English reads from a series of letters as Krasna, their author, muses about everything from cat temples in Japan to the poor people of Cape Verde to petrified animals in Guinea-Bissau. Like a good tour guide Marker takes meaningful detours, but it is Tokyo that fascinates him, and seemingly there is nothing about Tokyo that he finds uninteresting. He looks at the city from many picturesque angles, pleasantly and insightfully rambling on about a host of impressions. These letters really do seem like the kind of informed chat one might have with a friend back home—letters that read like literature, that is. But there is something else going on, too, a rumination on the fragility of memory and its function. The narrator recites, “Remembering is not the opposite of forgetting, but rather its lining. We do not remember, we rewrite memory much as history is rewritten.” Time and memory are a bee in Marker's bonnet. What becomes very slippery is the whole notion of memory and its relationship to time, image and word--its relationship to the past. Image and memory are intimately linked, but the linkage is treacherous, especially so when we add language to the equation. One implication: perhaps Marker/Krasna is hinting that we and the people we love don’t really share the same memories at all. Memory is a very lonely business that is ultimately played for an audience of one.

Criterion Channel

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Sans Soleil (1982) Directed by Chris Marker 9C

"Watching Sans soleil is a bit like being exposed to someone else's dream without being allowed to share it; it has the texture of an hallucination, more than anything. But it is a structured hallucination, with a clear emotional journey, albeit one whose content changes, I think, from viewer to viewer and viewing to viewing."—Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy

Sans Soleil is not an easy movie to explain. The film is a hybrid documentary type of film essay containing images from Tokyo primarily but with side trips to Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and, in a curious digression, San Francisco (for a little film analysis of Hitchcock’s Vertigo—it fits right in, though). Even the notion of authorship is shaky here as Marker has his hands in many pots (direction, script, cinematography, editing, music) but often credited under an alias, Sandor Krasna. While an endless stream unfolds of engrossing, often haunting images, some digitally treated, a female narrator in English reads from a series of letters as Krasna, their author, muses about everything from cat temples in Japan to the poor people of Cape Verde to petrified animals in Guinea-Bissau. Like a good tour guide Marker takes meaningful detours, but it is Tokyo that fascinates him, and seemingly there is nothing about Tokyo that he finds uninteresting. He looks at the city from many picturesque angles, pleasantly and insightfully rambling on about a host of impressions. These letters really do seem like the kind of informed chat one might have with a friend back home—letters that read like literature, that is. But there is something else going on, too, a rumination on the fragility of memory and its function. The narrator recites, “Remembering is not the opposite of forgetting, but rather its lining. We do not remember, we rewrite memory much as history is rewritten.” Time and memory are a bee in Marker's bonnet. What becomes very slippery is the whole notion of memory and its relationship to time, image and word--its relationship to the past. Image and memory are intimately linked, but the linkage is treacherous, especially so when we add language to the equation. One implication: perhaps Marker/Krasna is hinting that we and the people we love don’t really share the same memories at all. Memory is a very lonely business that is ultimately played for an audience of one.

Criterion Channel

Almost picked this for Movie Club but opted for the shorter, La Jetee. Though I'll probably watch this around the same time as well.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Any 80s film of this genre you have to rate on a Maximum Overdrive scale.

Like for example, Chopping Mall (1986) would usually get like a standard 3/10, but to do the film it’s deserved justice, we must use the Maximum Overdrive rating system, which gives it an easy 9/10.

I reserve the 1/10 for the films that are so bad they're good, where both Maximum Overdrive and Chopping Mall would fall for me. They're terrible, but they're fun because they're terrible. Watchers is actually (not good per se but) kind of really cool. I wouldn't compare it to these films. It has that genuine fun 80s feel that Stranger Things tried to reproduce. It's not good but fun, but the fun doesn't come from making fun of the movie. Don't know if that makes sense.

Sans Soleil (1982) Directed by Chris Marker 9C

"Watching Sans soleil is a bit like being exposed to someone else's dream without being allowed to share it; it has the texture of an hallucination, more than anything. But it is a structured hallucination, with a clear emotional journey, albeit one whose content changes, I think, from viewer to viewer and viewing to viewing."—Tim Brayton, Antagony & Ecstasy

Sans Soleil is not an easy movie to explain. The film is a hybrid documentary type of film essay containing images from Tokyo primarily but with side trips to Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and, in a curious digression, San Francisco (for a little film analysis of Hitchcock’s Vertigo—it fits right in, though). Even the notion of authorship is shaky here as Marker has his hands in many pots (direction, script, cinematography, editing, music) but often credited under an alias, Sandor Krasna. While an endless stream unfolds of engrossing, often haunting images, some digitally treated, a female narrator in English reads from a series of letters as Krasna, their author, muses about everything from cat temples in Japan to the poor people of Cape Verde to petrified animals in Guinea-Bissau. Like a good tour guide Marker takes meaningful detours, but it is Tokyo that fascinates him, and seemingly there is nothing about Tokyo that he finds uninteresting. He looks at the city from many picturesque angles, pleasantly and insightfully rambling on about a host of impressions. These letters really do seem like the kind of informed chat one might have with a friend back home—letters that read like literature, that is. But there is something else going on, too, a rumination on the fragility of memory and its function. The narrator recites, “Remembering is not the opposite of forgetting, but rather its lining. We do not remember, we rewrite memory much as history is rewritten.” Time and memory are a bee in Marker's bonnet. What becomes very slippery is the whole notion of memory and its relationship to time, image and word--its relationship to the past. Image and memory are intimately linked, but the linkage is treacherous, especially so when we add language to the equation. One implication: perhaps Marker/Krasna is hinting that we and the people we love don’t really share the same memories at all. Memory is a very lonely business that is ultimately played for an audience of one.

Criterion Channel

That's a 10/10 for me, IMO one of the absolute gem of cinema.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I reserve the 1/10 for the films that are so bad they're good, where both Maximum Overdrive and Chopping Mall would fall for me. They're terrible, but they're fun because they're terrible. Watchers is actually (not good per se but) kind of really cool. I wouldn't compare it to these films. It has that genuine fun 80s feel that Stranger Things tried to reproduce. It's not good but fun, but the fun doesn't come from making fun of the movie. Don't know if that makes sense.

Makes sense to me.

So basically it’s like Near Dark?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Makes sense to me.

So basically it’s like Near Dark?

Near Dark is a better, more efficient film and made with a lot more skills. Watchers is just fun, it's badly made. But yeah, I'd still put it closer to Near Dark than to Maximum Overdrive!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Demonios tus ojos (Sister of Mine, Aguilera, 2017) - Now this is somewhat of a weird film. Just like the broken English of this DVD case's tagline (Watch what you see... Can change the way you look), even though it tries real hard, it ends up only almost making sense. It's about our relation to images, our own and those we watch, and it starts with a few interesting elements going that way: making a staring lady flee by pointing a camera at her, the porn website and the video of the sibling, the mirrors, the spycam, the unseen movie of the protagonist... But the dots don't really connect and the causality between having seen these images and the impact it has (or they have) on reality is clumsily established. Two moments of utterly brilliance punctuate this otherwise uneven film: 1) the moment of the first forbidden kiss, which I had to go back to in order to really confirm there were glitches in the fabric of the film itself (and not spots or special flashes in the bar) and 2) the ending with the most amazing and surprising cameo, with another film being invited (not alluded to, but quoted, with excess) into this one - a film that's more clearly and more efficiently about our relation to images, may I say the champion of all films regarding the relation between images and reality. These two moments point to the film's materiality, making it something that we - spectators - are looking at. The original Spanish title, Damn Your Eyes, is a lot more relevant to what the film aims to do. How perv? Just the right amount. 7/10

 

[Osprey]

Master of the World (1961) - 6/10 (Liked it)

In 1868, a mad inventor (Vincent Price) holds an expedition team (Charles Bronson and others) against its will aboard his airship as he flies it around to teach the world a lesson. Clearly inspired by the success of Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, it's basically the same story, just high in the air instead of deep underwater. It'd be a rip off if it weren't based on two other Jules Verne novels, itself, so the author basically ripped himself off. I'm a fan of Verne and the film adaptions of his novels from the 50s and 60s, but I wasn't familiar with the source novels in this case and had never heard of this film, so I was eager to check it out. It's not as good as '20,000 Leagues,' the plot makes even less sense and the budget isn't nearly as good (so the effects look cheap and there's a lot of re-used film footage), but it's still entertaining, imaginative and colorful. There's nothing else quite like a Jules Verne fantasy, and it's interesting how he predicted zeppelins and bombers. The story maybe isn't the best, but almost all of the movie takes place on the airship, which I liked, and Vincent Price is fun in roles like this, even if they're a bit hammy. Bronson felt a bit miscast at first, but he made more sense as the film went on. Anyways, I liked it as a bit of a B movie matinee version of '20,000 Leagues'.

 

[Osprey]

Please help me understand the hate for Leslie Jones.

In her new movie, she date rapes Eddie Murphy. Does that help?

 

[JunglePete]

Please help me understand the hate for Leslie Jones. Why?


She might not be the best performer on SNL, but I always thought she provides great support, and her confidence is a great quality.

She is not funny and obnoxious. She is great for one scene or two but then you just get tired of schtick. I do think she wasn't that bad in Coming 2 America though but the script was very average and wasn't as edgy as the first. I heard EM is thinking of making a Beverly Hills Cop IV and I hope he doesn't do it the 3rd one was so bad and Inspector Todd isn't with us anymore to save the show.

 

[nameless1]

Fair enough. I cannot disagree with either of you.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I'll just say this: I think SNL alumni is a largely weak batch and I don't hold in much esteem most comics who come out/are rooted in a sketch and improv background. There's obviously been some good ones, but I find it's largely a bare field.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Je t'aime, je t'aime (1968) - 6/10

Still made more sense than Tenet. An absolutely exhausting watch.

 

[nameless1]

I finally watched Monos, and I am actually rather impressed by it. With elements from both Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies, the movie is a rather comprehensive and realistic portrayal of child soldiers and the rebel groups that utilizes them. Playful and peaceful at times, only to be juxtaposed by sudden bouts of brutal violence, the filmmakers are able to continuously keep the characters interesting, and as a result, the audience becomes more engaged too. While there are issues with the movie, overall, it is one of the better work on the subject matter that I can remember.

Frankly, I am impressed by the realism of the movie, which is likely provided by one of the actors, The Messenger played by Wilson Salazar, who was a former child soldier. I have studied numerous rebel and terrorist groups for one of my classes in university, and the methods that they show to both indoctrinate and control the soldiers are very accurate. The scene where members are forced to reveal sins or transgressions by others is especially poignant, because these self-criticism sessions are often a mainstay of Marxist-Leninist groups to so-called "purge the impurities", which in reality is a divide-and-conquer tactic in order to maintain loyalty. Furthermore, I also find it the way it shows the development of splitter groups believable. Sometimes, people often gets more extreme, and perhaps the environment, often harsh, contributes to it.

Technically, it is also top-notch. The subject is very heavy, but I cannot help but be mesmerized by the beautiful cinematography. The environment can be inhospitable, but there is still beauty in destitution, and the camera fully captures it. Coincidentally, it also helps to reinforce the juxtaposition of serene and violence that the director uses to keep the audience engaged. It is hard to believe that such polish camerawork came out a production that had about half its funds when it first started. I also really like the music too, as it is rather memorable and unique, and it often adds to the atmosphere.

As much as I like the work, there is a big issue with the pace, as it is a movie of two halves. In the first half, set in the mountains, it feels rather slow, as the director uses the time to establish the characters. Unfortunately, I often lose attention as a result, because the action seems to go nowhere. The second half, though, saves it. Now set in the jungle, all the seeds planted in the first half finally comes to fruition, and everything comes full circle. This is also where the majority of the elements from Lord of the Flies and Heart of Darkness are concentrated, and with influences from two seminal works in literature, it is perhaps why there feels like a vast improvement in the experience.

Despite my complaints about pace, I do think this is a very good script, especially in terms of character development. The employment of Lord of the Flies is an especially nice touch, because not only does it highlights the innocence lost suffered by the child soldiers, it also makes the audience conflicted by their increasing cruelty and brutality. I especially like the character of the hostage, because she, like her child soldier captors, becomes hardened as the movie progressed. Her development from foreigner with good will to heartless survivor seems realistic and somewhat chilling. Smartly, the movie makes no moral judgment either, and as a result, the characters remains interesting, even though they do questionable things, and all the feelings the movie evokes arise organically. Add on the ambiguity towards the fate and action of some of those characters, it just makes the movie even more interesting and opens more questions.

I have this one at 7.25/10. There are a lot of things to like, but I think it is likely because I am more familiar with the subject matter, so I got more out of it. Also, the pace is a fatal issue. The setup is just way too long, and that would cause a lot of people to lose interest, before they get rewarded. I also docked some points for the lack of creativity and originality, because I recognize that the filmmakers lifted large parts of both novels it is inspired by. Overall, it is a good movie, but it is far from a masterpiece.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Near Dark is a better, more efficient film and made with a lot more skills. Watchers is just fun, it's badly made. But yeah, I'd still put it closer to Near Dark than to Maximum Overdrive!

I always liked Corey Haim for some reason... License To Drive, Dream A Little Dream. even Lucas.

So I’ll have to check out Watchers and see what I think of it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I always liked Corey Haim for some reason... License To Drive, Dream A Little Dream. even Lucas.

So I’ll have to check out Watchers and see what I think of it.

I don't remember Lucas, but I'm with you on the other two! Add to that The Lost Boys too.

Watchers... It's kind of the same as Silver Bullet, but cheaper, with cooler Haim and a genius dog.

 

[kihei]

Rocks (2019) Directed by Sarah Gavron 7A

Rocks (Bukky Bakray) is a 15-year-old student who attends a multiracial secondary school for girls in London. She and her crew of best buds are a fresh, effervescent lot, full of energy and spirit. However, Rocks world changes dramatically when her mother suddenly abandons her and her six-year-old brother Emmanuel (D'angelou Osei Kissiedou--scene-stealer of the year), claiming she needs time to get her head together. She leaves a little bit of money, but not enough to pay for the electricity. Rocks tries to hide her predicament from her friends, only causing more stress to them and herself. Eventually the streets beckon, but she still fights to keep childcare services from separating her and Emmanuel. This sounds on paper like a dire piece of British coming-of-age "kitchen sink" realism that is depressing as hell. But Rocks isn't anything of the sort. Yes, Rocks faces some hard times, but her good nature and pluck are more than likely to see her through. Adolescents can adapt fast, and Rocks is by nature resilient. The whole cast of this movie is a delight and they are very good actors. Allegedly they are all amateurs, but I would guess most of these girls have some training and were just waiting for an opportunity to act. The interrelationships here seem exactly right--the movie is a very convincing portrait of how middle teens behave and of the quicksilver nature of their emotions. Never saccharine or pandering, Rocks is one of the most likeable movies I've seen in the past couple of years.

Sidenote: If the movie has a message, it is a very subtle one: "Look at this potential, how can we possibly let it go to waste?"

TIFF.net

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I don't remember Lucas, but I'm with you on the other two! Add to that The Lost Boys too.

Watchers... It's kind of the same as Silver Bullet, but cheaper, with cooler Haim and a genius dog.

Lost Boys was easily his best film IMHO so I kind of figured it went without saying.

I just watched the trailer for Watchers and it looks like it has the right blend of 80s cheese with a decent storyline.

Not sure about the dog playing Scrabble, but I’ll go with it.

 

[Osprey]

Angels With Dirty Faces (1938) - 8/10 (Loved it)

A released criminal (James Cagney) returns to his old neighborhood to find that his childhood friend (Pat O'Brien) is now a Catholic priest. With one looking to re-establish his life of crime and the other to reform the community (I won't spoil which is which), the two old friends find themselves at odds with one another, especially when it comes to an impressionable group of young boys. If you ever watched Going My Way and thought, "I like this, but wish that it had gangsters," this is the film for you! Humphrey Bogart has a supporting role as one of the gangsters, since this was before Hollywood figured out that making him a good guy and giving him top billing was box office gold. Instead, Cagney is the star here and was good enough to be nominated for Best Actor. I really liked the story (which was also nominated for an Oscar) and the ending. Overall, I quite enjoyed it and can see why it has the reputation of being one of the best gangster films. Thanks to the posters who persuaded me to add it to my list many months ago.

 

[Puck]

Rocks getting good press, nominated for BAFTAs
'Nomadland,' 'Rocks' lead more diverse BAFTA nominations

Hell or High Water stars re-uniting on different project. I like Ben Foster.
Chris Pine and Ben Foster to Reunite for Thriller ‘Violence of Action’

Upcoming movies 2021

 

[nameless1]

Angels With Dirty Faces (1938) - 8/10 (Loved it)

A released criminal (James Cagney) returns to his old neighborhood to find that his childhood friend (Pat O'Brien) is now a Catholic priest. With one looking to re-establish his life of crime and the other to reform the community (I won't spoil which is which), the two old friends find themselves at odds with one another, especially when it comes to an impressionable group of young boys. If you ever watched Going My Way and thought, "I like this, but wish that it had gangsters," this is the film for you! Humphrey Bogart has a supporting role as one of the gangsters, since this was before Hollywood figured out that making him a good guy and giving him top billing was box office gold. Instead, Cagney is the star here and was good enough to be nominated for Best Actor. I really liked the story (which was also nominated for an Oscar) and the ending. Overall, I quite enjoyed it and can see why it has the reputation of being one of the best gangster films. Thanks to the posters who persuaded me to add it to my list many months ago.

There was Hong Kong remake back in 1986. This one is still far superior.

 

[OzzyFan]

I finally watched Monos, and I am actually rather impressed by it. With elements from both Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies, the movie is a rather comprehensive and realistic portrayal of child soldiers and the rebel groups that utilizes them. Playful and peaceful at times, only to be juxtaposed by sudden bouts of brutal violence, the filmmakers are able to continuously keep the characters interesting, and as a result, the audience becomes more engaged too. While there are issues with the movie, overall, it is one of the better work on the subject matter that I can remember.

Frankly, I am impressed by the realism of the movie, which is likely provided by one of the actors, The Messenger, who was a former child soldier. I have studied numerous rebel and terrorist groups for one of my classes in university, and the methods that they show to both indoctrinate and control the soldiers are very accurate. The scene where members are forced to reveal sins or transgressions by others is especially poignant, because these self-criticism sessions are often a mainstay of Marxist-Leninist groups to so-called "purge the impurities", which in reality is a divide-and-conquer tactic in order to maintain loyalty. Furthermore, I also find it the way it shows the development of splitter groups believable. Sometimes, people often gets more extreme, and perhaps the environment, often harsh, contributes to it.

Technically, it is also top-notch. The subject is very heavy, but I cannot help but be mesmerized by the beautiful cinematography. The environment can be inhospitable, but there is still beauty in destitution, and the camera fully captures it. Coincidentally, it also helps to reinforce the juxtaposition of serene and violence that the director uses to keep the audience engaged. It is hard to believe that such polish camerawork came out a production that had about half its funds when it first started. I also really like the music too, as it is rather memorable and unique, and it often adds to the atmosphere.

As much as I like the work, there is a big issue with the pace, as it is a movie of two halves. In the first half, set in the mountains, it feels rather slow, as the director uses the time to establish the characters. Unfortunately, I often lose attention as a result, because the action seems to go nowhere. The second half, though, saves it. Now set in the jungle, all the seeds planted in the first half finally comes to fruition, and everything comes full circle. This is also where the majority of the elements from Lord of the Flies and Heart of Darkness are concentrated, and with influences from two seminal works in literature, it is perhaps why there feels like a vast improvement in the experience.

Despite my complaints about pace, I do think this is a very good script, especially in terms of character development. The employment of Lord of the Flies is an especially nice touch, because not only does it highlights the innocence lost suffered by the child soldiers, it also makes the audience conflicted by their increasing cruelty and brutality. I especially like the character of the hostage, because she, like her child soldier captors, becomes hardened as the movie progressed. Her development from foreigner with good will to heartless survivor seems realistic and somewhat chilling. Smartly, the movie makes no moral judgment either, and as a result, the characters remains interesting, even though they do questionable things, and all the feelings the movie evoke arise organically. Add on the ambiguity towards the fate and action of some of those characters, it just makes the movie even more interesting and opens more questions.

I have this one at 7.25/10. There are a lot of things to like, but I think it is likely because I am more familiar with the subject matter, so I got more out of it. Also, the pace is a fatal issue. The setup is just way too long, and that would cause a lot of people to lose interest, before they get rewarded. I also docked some points for the lack of creativity and originality, because I recognize that the filmmakers lifted large parts of both novels it is inspired by. Overall, it is a good movie, but it is far from a masterpiece.

Thanks for this. I still don't know why this movie just didn't hit me the way it should have. But at least now I can comprehend more of it's good qualities. Maybe the first half/set-up put me off? Maybe I just didn't attach the adolescent aspect of it? Maybe it's because of it's to directly borrowed subject material? Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood when I watched this? I don't know, but thanks for this review.

 

[nameless1]

Thanks for this. I still don't know why this movie just didn't hit me the way it should have. But at least now I can comprehend more of it's good qualities. Maybe the first half/set-up put me off? Maybe I just didn't attach the adolescent aspect of it? Maybe it's because of it's to directly borrowed subject material? Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood when I watched this? I don't know, but thanks for this review.

It is not for everyone, that is for sure. I only like it because of familiarity with the subject matter. Otherwise, I suspect this movie will look to be another adaptation of Heart of Darkness and Lord of the Flies, and people might be turned off by that.

 

[Osprey]

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) - 7/10 (Really liked it)

After shipwrecking off of the coast of a South American island, an author (Joel McCrea) swims ashore and discovers a chateau whose owner (Leslie Banks) hunts people for sport. This film and the 1924 short story that it's based on have inspired dozens of other films and stories in which man becomes the hunted, such as Predator, The Running Man, Battle Royale, The Hunger Games and, of course, that one episode of Gilligan's Island, just to name a few. Whereas the short story has only three characters, this adaptation adds several more, most notably Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong, who starred together in King Kong the following year. In fact, the director/producer team, the composer and the jungle sets are also the same as King Kong. Basically, when this film's production was underway, producer Merian C. Cooper realized that he could re-use the sets and some of the actors to make a gorilla picture and got approval from RKO to fast track it. It was neat to watch the jungle parts and know that the sets would soon be re-used for King Kong. Most of it isn't exactly recognizable, but one shot of the characters running across a fallen tree spanning a chasm is very recognizable. I also liked the chateau interior set, which has great character and a castle horror vibe. The story is somewhat simple and the film is rather short (only 62 minutes)--it is based on a short story, after all--but it's still a nice half horror / half adventure for 1932 that's made even more interesting by its history and legacy. Curiously, the film lapsed into the public domain in 1960, so it's easy to find and watch today. Above is the full film.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Draft Day (2014) - 8/10

I still like Moneyball better but fantastic sports film this. I'm not a football fan but it's tense and you become really invested in the stakes. The acting from Costner is great and Chadwick Boseman as well in the brief scenes he's in. There are some of the usual generic bits in sports films but they don't really affect this much since it's mostly all about the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Same director as Ghostbusters 1/2 and Stripes.

 

[kihei]

Proxima (2019) Directed by Alice Winocour 5B

Sarah, an engineer chosen to be an astronaut, is called upon to replace a flight member for an excursion to a space station that will last a year. This opportunity is something that Sarah has been dreaming of since she was a child. It is a chance she cannot pass up. But Sarah is also a divorced mother with an eight-year-old girl, Stella (Zelie Boulant-Lemesle). Though Stella’s father is willing to step in and take care of her, the thought of separating from Stella for so long is traumatic for both Sarah and her daughter. How will they both manage to adjust to the situation? That’s a good premise, and it opens up exploration of an interesting topic, how women, especially mothers, can face different challenges in their workplace than their male counterparts do.

Unfortunately, despite fine performances by Green and Bouland-Lemesle, Proxima has a lot of problems. For starters, the movie is a cold fish whose central colour scheme of unrelenting gray doesn’t help the matter. The most interesting scenes don’t deal with mother and daughter, but with Sarah’s physically gruelling training (I finally learned how astronauts get into those cumbersome space suits). And the movie sends mixed messages. Yes, we know that women astronauts are as capable as their male counterparts, but Sarah’s separation anxiety and her willingness to break important protocols on her daughter’s behalf seriously put into question Sarah’s fitness for the mission. Also, some of the sexism in the film, like the leader of the mission introducing Sarah by saying she is French so her cooking will be good, seems like an unwelcome blast from the past. No non-Neanderthal male this side of Piers Morgan would introduce a colleague that way. Proxima isn’t a horrible movie, but it should have been a whole lot better.

subtitles

TIFF.net