7 Lives of Lea

The 7 Lives of Lea  

- a Genenda (sic)

TVMA - 2022 - Netflix

 

By now everyone knows that TVMA doesn't mean anything when it comes to the actuality of who sees what.  It's rated this way because of content that is in the "MA" class, but that doesn't make it mature.  It is obviously aimed, [yes I can use that word because I am a free agent and write whatever I want to on this blog.  I am not in a union, or conscripted by a company, or a slave to a cultural bias or ideal that is corrupted by political power or money.  Ah hem...so...] ...aimed at the youth culture that are it's main cast, most of which are in high school, which is that period where gender, sex, relationships, and figuring out our place in this world are the driving forces behind our actions at that age.  So why not influence, right?

 

It IS mature if you're the producer, meaning that as a producer, the world of Netflix is not immune to onslaught of the gender agenda.  Gendenda?  That's a good new word.  Might as well adopt it, make it part of the lexicon of actual English words, just like so many other revisionists have done.  Like "gay" for instance.

 

I don't care what you think of me as a reviewer.  It's more important to tell the truth...call the spade black and the flower yellow, whatever...honest dialogue is lost now in any case, because we've left the solidity of common moral belief, and are chasing after our own "dream", whatever that is.  Ok, I'm not part of that.

 

But the producers of this show are definitely sold out on the idea that crossing genders is a "normal" part of life, and to hide such things is a bad idea all around.  

 

Let me phrase this as if I were the producer of this show, or in a conversation with one of the writers: 

 

 "Listen, to have stability, to have peace, to bring maturity, kids need to make decisions early about who they are.  If they have feelings for the same sex, it's better for them to get it out now, to say it.  I want this show to be all about that, so set it up that the parental figures in the story have actually LIED about who they are, and it brings about ruin in the end.  The main character, she sees through that.  And oh, make sure her best friend is definitely gay, and show her in a normal relationship with a girlfriend, yet she can also have a straight friend as well and it's all good, right?"

 

Look, the world is full of ideas.  But one idea that is simply intellectually, morally, historically, and psychologically insufferable, is that people in high school can make good decisions about their choice of gender attraction.  EVERY kid on the block has at one point or another "thought" about the same sex, and we know for a fact have explored those thoughts and feelings in real life.  That does NOT determine sexual preference.  A kid playing Doctor with the same sex kid next door does not "make" them homosexual.  Nope, most likely it is the presence of a pushy, deterministic, decidedly ultra-liberal, biased piece of MEDIA that pushes our children to believe that their feelings in this way "mean", or are conclusory, that they are homosexual, and therefore might as well "come out with it".  

 

Ok, so...Netflix, why don't YOU come out with all of the notes from your internal meetings between writers and producers, and....oh yeah, the people who pay the bills in general at your house, so we can read them for ourselves?  Mel B?  Shawn and Dan L?  Noah B?  Jerry S? ...a host of others?

 

Like that's going to happen.

 

And why do I get the sneaking suspicion that if I keep writing like this, my blog will mysteriously disappear one day? Well, only if it gets noticed.  Like it ever has.  Only 11K views.  That's not enough weight to throw a glass of water on a volcano.  BUT...I'd bet there are not just a few of us out here with glasses of water like mine to toss.

- Agitatus

Warrior Nun

Warrior Nun   2022              

2 Seasons

2 simple terms:

 

Radical Feminism

 

Lesbians 

 

Easiest review I've ever written.


 

 

- Agitatus

Don't Look Up  

2021 

R - 2 hr 18 min 

 

There could not be a better painting, photograph, article, poem, or song that describes the current state of our culture at large than the film “Don’t Look Up”.

 

But of course, it’s really much bigger than that.  The last 5 minutes of the film sum it up quite well at the dinner table.  Thank you Timoth’ee Chalamet.

 

While a completely fictional comedic farce, the internal contents of Don’t Look Up underscore the nature or our media, leadership, prurient idolatry, and collective narcissism, and in essence, our humanity,.  And not to be outdone…our place in time.  As large as a comet, the juxtaposition of banal false hope and real love could not be more distant than east…is to west.

This is a must-see for all those who are addicted to having their tongues firmly planted in one or the other cheek in any given moment.  But concurrently, the effect can be as devastating to our conscience as a look into a mirror while illuminated at 5400K bright daylight.  

Brilliant.  As well written, executed. and as devastating as any Ben Hur, Citizen Kane, or Apocalypse Now could have been.  At this film’s cornucopia of images, convergence of politics with reality, and poignant paraleipsis, irony is at it’s finest, and even Shakespeare would have been envious.

Enjoy Responsibly.

 

- Agitatus

Mosquito Coast 2021

TV-MA Season 1 -  7 Episodes

I remember very well the details of the Peter Weir film of the same name, with Harrison Ford, 1986.  Every actor in that film was an icon, or became one.  Hellen Mirren, River Phoenix, Martha Plimpton, all the members of the family.  

 

The same genius myopic vision of the progenitor of the Paul Theroux novel is now a direct descendant, the nephew, of the author, Justin Theroux.

 

It would seem that the casting here could not have been more fitting, as it was self-applied by the actor himself, and the director, and the producer.  Yep, all the same.  And I say fitting, because the character he plays, for all practical purposes, may very well be him in real life.  He is noted as saying that he has no ambition...ok...no "street" ambition as the character in the AppleTV series might also say he does not.  But Justin certainly fits the profile of the lone genius and multipod, as he's had his hand in every position except possibly script girl.  

 

The Series, well, it's a different animal than the earlier film, that's for sure.  The same theme of anti-societal, or anti-oligarchical innovation and system disruption is in the main character, yes, but the sum of the plot parts could not be any more different, and definitely caught up with the 2K world.  

 

I'll have to say that this series takes many of it's cues after Breaking Bad, as so many TV series since then have.  The gritty reality, the brutal characters, the hair-raising tension/suspense, but mostly...the main character, Allie Fox...all point in the same dangerous direction as Breaking Bad.  There are many moments when I swear it's Bryan Cranston on the screen and not Theroux.  The way he puffs his chest out, and calmly, dismissively hands out his decisive and ultimately persuasive directions to his family, of course in this case the whole operation up front from the start and not a coverup.  Walter White had us all strung along for some time with his "case" of underdog, and his heroism in the face of cancer and "the man", until you couldn't help but get sick of all of the people he used and killed.  Here, we have a much more elevated hero/anti-hero it seems, that while guilty of activities that have led to people being hurt, we might be much more persuaded to align ourselves with because of his seemingly absolute affection for the family, and his hatred of all things hypocritical and wasteful. His empathy for the disenfranchised could not have been more poignantly stated than when he labels all of those indigent souls running around under the city concrete as being "simply no longer able to consume...non-consumers...so that's their crime...they can..." no longer participate in the great capitalist engine, my words for what he said.  Yeah, that was a very clear moment that encapsulated the "insight" of his character, and the "cover" for his drive to action.  

 

However, we know that all great altruistic utopians had as much ego as anyone else, and many a justification for their excesses in obtaining their goals, including such subtle subterfuge even as playing the heartstrings of their family members.  Yet most characters of this nature it is believed, have historically had some genuine love for the end result being prosperity and the comfort of their own.  This is of course the very same trait that also leads these cavalier souls to be blinded by their programs of change, or their rendition of human revolution.  

 

The thing that struck me most about this season 1 was the effect that Allie Fox's drive and behavior had upon his family, specifically his son, near the end of the season.  We see his teen-aged son come to grips with and experience a few things that even those of a later age, 21 to 30 yo maybe, have not had to deal with.  A devastatingly tough and quick way to grow old before your time.  

 

Well, it's a thriller, well produced, directed, acted, lensed...ok, most of it is Justin's doing, yes, but if something is good and gripping as this story is, you can't help but get drawn in and begin to take sides.  

- Agitatus

  Inventing Anna  

    2022 TV-MA Limited Series

Captivating.  That's what this one is.  Innescapable, once you're in the grip of the drama.  So if the first episode doesn't hit you as your kind of material, you should turn it off before it's too late.

 

The journey we take with this young lady is not really about her at all.  Ok, wait...although that's true, it also sounds like the show's "disclaimer" really, wherein every episode has a giant and unmistakable text near the start that reads, "This whole story is completely true.  Except for the parts that are totally made up".

Ok, but really...it's not about Anna Delvey/Sorokin, as fascinating as she is.  It is indeed about our indulgent and glittery self-serving culture that could even conceivably spawn something like Anna.  It IS based on the completely true story of Anna Sorokin, aka Delvey, and that, if you're not in the know about, you'll just have to research for yourself to find out the dissimilarities, if you like, but there are few.  

 

I could over-write this and make much of the cultural implications, but honestly, I found this piece of cinematic "journalism" enlightening, entertaining, engrossing, and revealing.  It's revealing mostly if we look at ourselves through this lens, IF we happen to be one of the personality types present and accounted for in the lineup of victims and perps.  Anna is both, it seems, victim and perpetrator, although in the end I don't think (warning, authorial opinionated position here) that we still know exactly what created Anna, other than possibly a hole in childhood that was left wide open to the overwhelming nature of pop society at large, and most specifically that of the $ and fashion worlds, the "Center of the world" as Anna puts it.  She wanted to be there, in the center of it.  

It DOES tell us a great deal about our current culture's obsessions, and their failings, and is in high contrast with the relationships that surround her, and the strain that those obsessions may bring to bear on us.

 

So, for an enlightening and emotional trip I'd say was worth the undertaking, Inventing Anna is worth the indulgence, pardon my persistent puns.


- Agitatus

The Last Duel

 

The Last Duel 2021 -  2.5 hrs R

There is nothing that Ridley Scott and Scott Free Productions cannot do, it would seem any more, with all of the groundbreaking cinema successes that he’s had.  And as far as cinematography is concerned, this is another film that could easily define what that term means.  Most likely an Oscar for the Photography.

My immediate surface takeaway is that “truth triumphs over love”.  So, that means that one of those must suffer.  It seems in this story’s presentation by Sir Ridley that one cannot have love and the truth, or truth together with love.  

The last image we have of the conflicting part of the story, “the wrap” as it were, is of the bloody, truthful, knight riding through the wide gate into the open, and facing only the unfinished cathedral in the 1300s.  So the knight crosses himself, subservient to God, the Church, and the “holy alliance” of church and state, with obvious approval by all.  All except of course we, the audience, the Lady, and the primacy of whatever it is we ultimately choose to believe in this “case” which…incidentally has been tried not by God, not by jury, and not by church judgement, or settled privately, but…by Ridley Scott.

Who would we choose to believe?  It would seem, hands down if a poll is taken, that the Lady will be believed.  Her perspective is not only the last we see of the 3 main participants that the plot is built around, but also the one that we can gain the most sympathy with as we progress through the story.  We quite naturally do not side with our “supposedly noble night”, although he certainly puts up a good case of the Charlie Browns.  And we cannot morally support the handsome squire played by Adam Driver, as his position is corrupted by the gain of property, maidens (same thing here), licentiousness, male-domination, and class power.  The way that the “illegal entry” of said Knight is framed, no matter which view is taken, IS technically rape.  Therefore, logic alone would suffice to state that the Lady is innocent, her cause just.  We are left then to the cruel happenstance of the laws of this time, coupled with a child king whose emotions make him giggle at the idea of anyone dying.  This leaves us, the audience, helpless in the director’s choice, which “seems” to lean in the direction of the Knight whose desires are more “inherently sincere” (our dark knight who has a great love of Latin, sincerity of Love by declaration, and whose viewpoint allows that the woman really wanted him, really deep down desired to be “free of” her base designation of chattel, living in denigration, etc...and of course the perspective that allows that she "took" off her shoes at the bottom of the staircase, rather than tripping over them in her haste to flee).

So Ridley, not to be politically incorrect, decides in our new era-of-the-day known as the era of “the Woman”, coupled with that of Post-Christianity (as a religion per se), to behead men, truth, and the Church all at once in a brilliant stroke of cinematic and rhetorical near-genius (nod to Ben Affleck, co-writer and scene-stealer), and in favor of…Love.  In this case it is equated in our minds upon this viewing as the Truth.  Well, Love and Truth are supposed to be the same, are they not?

I mean…weren’t we supposed to side with the noble knight embodied in Matt Damon?  Why didn’t we?  Was he really pathetic?  Yeah, why is he pathetic?  Is it the scars on his face, maybe that ghastly hairdo? Why did the film, the story…end with him riding triumphantly through the streets of a dark age of France and into the open before the symbol of an age of organized religion, giving complete acquiescence by crossing himself, and we still suspiciously feel inwardly distrustful of that ending?  Why is he not a true hero?  Why did his blessing on a child’s head with his bloodied hand inside of an iron glove almost seem a mockery?  Untrue…unjust even?

We have no room for either male contender in our conclusion.  They are both wrong, both adjudicated as guilty in one way or another.  One is guilty of chivalry which leaves one dry and wanting for genuine relationships, and freedom for the female to be who she truly must be, on equal grounds, having only a myopic vision of marriage, women, love, sex in general, a lonely and isolated viewpoint, as per this version of history presented to us, which is highly accurate, historically in any case.  And the other…debauchery, usury, and a continual claim over women that is not in any way perceived to be “better” than that of the noble knight.   Also highly accurate. They are on opposite, but equal grounds.

So in the end, we’re left with the triumph of the woman, who sits in a field of flowers with her child, smiling at the little one, and we learn that our noble knight dies in a war, and she inherits in perpetuity the ownership of said estate and a lifelong existence without any man at all (and we most rightly conclude that this particular woman, in any case, had good reason to abstain from the male form).

Bravo Ridley, great job.  You have cut off the head of said dragons and skewered manhood once and for all.  Thank you so much for clearing that up for us.  

There are no heroes, and nothing to believe in.  Absolutely nothing.  Everyone sucks, religion is dead, and we’re all better off giggling our way forward much like the teenage king here, which reminds me very much of a number of "adolescent adults" that I’ve observed as they sit in front of a game console with more, and never-exhausted weapons at their disposal with which to kill and giggle at their opponents.  Sorry Gamers, I love games and playing as well at times, so this is only an analogy, not a slam against all gamers, ok?

You’ll say, “ok, well that’s what it was like then”.  And I say that dramatic films are never about “then”, they’re always about Now. Just like there is no such thing as a real documentary either, IMNSHO.

- agitatus

Nebraska (Sir)

Nebraska (Sir) - Bruce Springteen 1982-Columbia Records

I've always had some distance in my mind when listening to "the Boss".  No particular reason.  In the same way I had never fully listened to this album or read the lyrics until April 1st of this year, '21.  After listening closely I know why the "distance" was there, and a large part of me has shied away from diving into Bruce's dark pool. 

 

From start to finish NEBRASKA is backwoods hick despair, as in sad, depressing, lonely.  Unbelievable, and unbelievably distant from even my own dark experiences.  And I've had a few myself.

The first song reminded me of the film "Natural Born Killers".  And they became progressively darker after that.  Of course, there is a reason for that, as his subject matter was influenced by Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard To Find", along with the Terrence Mallick film "Badlands", and his own research into the 1958 killings by Charles Starkweather and girlfriend Caril.  That pair has become the stereotypical young renegades associated with other works besides Natural Born Killers and Badlands, a slew of films like "The Sadist", "Kalifornia", and "Starkweather", and other songs such as "Small Town" by John Mellencamp, and probably "Take the Money and Run" by Steve Miller Band. 

 

We could give Bruce a great deal of artistic credit here and say possibly that since the language is always in the 1st person (even when he's singing from the electric chair/gallows) he is actually portraying these points of view, totally personalizing them, acting them out, projecting.  But in channeling someone, we become them, as that's inferred, so therefore to your audience, the singer is the person, especially when the acting is good.

 

I found myself wanting to know, however, after several tracks, who this "Sir" is that he repeatedly addresses.  It made sense when his song character was in front of the judge, but then he does it quite often in other songs and consistently includes the address to "Sir" when he's being ironically apologetic.  You get the definite sense that he does NOT like this Sir.  His usage of the impersonal pronoun is not respectful, but blaming, in a backhanded way.  He is, without being direct, identifying for us, the audience, ANY authority.  One senses it could be God, if it weren't for the fact that he also backhandedly declares he is an atheist on the same album...ok, his narrative voice declares it.

We can be reasonably assured that his answer to the "Sir" question would be "corporate bosses", or anyone who owns anything, seeing as how he's a confirmed blue-collar communist, the real kind.  He's immensely popular with struggling life-forms, the bottom of the ladder, the subjects of his songs.  He often feigns having had their same experiences, identifying with them; hicks, wayfarers, factory workers, migrants, street people, drunkards.  

 

Jesus himself "identified" with people like that, so it could be seen as a virtue.  But the identification was one of association, and not necessarily like-mindedness.  Jesus continually drew people away from their lifestyle and asked them unabashedly to "follow me", not "pick up your gun and point it at the nearest rich target you can take down".   Or for that matter, any target, as that is an expression of your anger over being in a world simply filled with meanness and doom.  What we're likely missing here, as it is usually missed by those who perpetrate such chaos, is that they are contributing to the meanness and doom, and have become embodiments of it, extensions of it.  In taking that control, they are essentially admitting they are controlled by the very thing they hate.  It's a vicious Catch-22.

 

This also reminds me of a moment in the TV series "The Expanse", wherein the captain is challenged by a crew member with this rhetorical question: "You know what your problem is?  You think that just because someone is the underdog that they're also the good guy". 

 

I may not give the album another listen, but I am certainly going to do some more research into Bruce's historic motivations, and I'll be reading the lyrics again.  Poetry and prose both reveal things after more than one round.

- Agitatus

The One

Netflix - Season 1 -  2021 - TV-MA

Several obvious problems in logic can spoil an otherwise very effective show. 

1.  The opening of the show drops us into the middle of the story and conflict without very much contextual preparation.  They’ve done a good job of telling the backstory sprinkled throughout, yes, and it’s clear why the service that The One Company provides is compelling, but the emphasis on the negative effects, compounded by the disaster waiting to happen underneath of a murder and coverup almost seems too soon. We are way deep inside of a plot and coverup story line that seems like we should be watching Season 2 instead of getting established.  I believe the show is assuming we’ve completely bought into the idea a bit early. 

 

2. One of the more obvious flaws of The One becomes evident about the middle of the 2nd episode.  We are following several threads of relationships that have married people obtaining DNA matches from "The One" company.  The program and acceptance for getting a match should have been limited to SINGLES ONLY.  Then there wouldn’t be all this heartbreak.  It seems funny to me, actually very obvious, that the primary method for bringing tension into the story is over-emphasizing married couples at the expense of the large number of singles that would likely snap this service up like crazy. We hardly meet any.  They are not in any way a significant part of the plot. 

Credit goes to the opening sequence however in establishing the overarching conflict right away, visually especially.  The very first shot of the show is a deep-sea diver finding a body behind a rusted ship panel.  Then immediately after a convincing speech to the public about The One, Rebecca walks out, and the body bag of the dead person found underwater is opened and closed again by a police person.  Gruesome.  

3. Peripheral themes abound, but most notably LGBTQ expectations and marital androgyny are seen as status quo, and like the over-emphasis on marital involvement in The One program, so are the saturation and normalcy levels of queer presence.  The question most people should have after so many TV series of this nature is, “Are there now an overabundance of “different” people than what could be considered “normal”?”  If I were an alien that learned earth’s languages and its topography and sociology enough to watch this and other television shows as examples of what human behavior is really like, I’d be inclined to say, “People from earth certainly are diverse sexually and they have expanded their consciousness of that into an almost asexual state of affairs, even though the older generation it would seem still have some outlying but largely insignificant qualms about it.”  - memo to space central, planet QuardX8 (a planet where all humanoid life is completely amalgamated sexually and asexual reproduction and gestation are 100% across their “species").  

I am only on episode 3 at this time, but I want to make a prediction about what a casual audience might say about this show, after the last episode... and it is an either/or.  I believe what we’re seeing is 1.  “the potential for better science, if it weren’t in the hands of such dishonest and immoral people”.  In other words, the science is real, but being handled the wrong way, and should probably not be privatized, but made available as a right, and an expectation.  I could be wrong, but it seems that it may be this way.  Or 2. "Of course the science is correct, how can it not be?  But the real point is that something this delicate should never be let out of its cage until studies can be done on the real effects, and definitely should be relegated to singles". 

 

So…don’t mess with DNA until we’re truly ready for it".  BUT...in EITHER scenario, because of the juxtaposition of the science of DNA leading to "inevitability", and the mixed, or androgynous nature of many of the key relationships, it is ex post facto of how the latter presumes the former.

Another peripheral theme that keeps cropping up in the form of a question is about the integrity of human relationships.  Quite a few times during these first 2 episodes the phrase similar to, “Was it Love, or was it just sex?” comes into play, and examples of both kinds of relationships are juxtaposed in the story.  At least that’s an honestly good theme, but of course, which gender is not the concern in the subtext of this series. 

 

We largely replace our logic and thinking when undertaking a film, TV series, and even a book. It's called "suspension of disbelief", and most of us, frankly, have a memorized path to that switch, on autopilot.  We normally don’t really want to find that kind of stuff out...problems with logic, or the story, making the connections... because it can spoil the fun.  A consistent question of some of my friends when I was in Columbia College Film School was,  “Doesn’t knowing all that stuff kind of…uh, spoil the movie?”  I've not found it that way. But on the other hand a few questions come up regarding the "fun".  Is it possible that spoiling the fun might be good for us?  Like vegetables instead of cake?  I say you can still have your cake, but vegetables are a must in any case.  And isn't the problem with being on autopilot essentially just that...that someone else is driving then?  When it comes to morality, I want a completely faithful Chauffeur driving my car, not just any Uber Driver.  I guess the most immediate solution for anyone is: watch, enjoy (eat your cake, fine), but make sure you've had your vegetables, and always refer to your faithful Chauffeur.  For those who believe that they do not have a Driver....why are you reading this?

  

 

Approach with skeptical caution being drawn into an argument you were not thinking about having.  I think that’s my new “review” motto.

- Agitatus

Me, Myself, and the Dying Indecision

2021, today actually

NR- 62 Yrs 89 dys 5 hrs

I've been here many times before.  I'be been blogging about film and music and "k"ulture and America and faith and logic and mystery and love and...ok mostly film, true.

I'm tired.  This blog has been around 17 years out of the above 62+.

If you have enjoyed my comments, articles, film, book or music reviews, and you think they have actually added to your life, or added to the world's body of knowledge in such a way that actually makes a difference, then please write me a note and tell me.  I'd love to hear it.  ...... preturnatural1@gmail.com

I almost never hear from anyone except possibly people that I know, and only if I prod them, normally, and I'm not offended, really.  But there have been 10,437 page views to this day, and approximately 5 comments.  It's quite possible that my articles are SO good, so convincing in fact that it leaves people speechless.  I have my doubts.  I'm more concerned that I've left people possibly bored, intimidated and angry, or possibly thumped you all with diction that is too veiled to really do any earthly good.  Or heavenly for that matter.

I'm not BORED myself, oh no...I'm simply trying to decide if this blog should continue to be a point of reference in my life in which I continue to pour time and effort and real energy into without seeing any other benefit other than something equivalent to a journal.  I have one of those.  I've written in it and read it to myself sometimes to see how far I've come along in my attitudes or ideas, always a bit embarrassed at my own language or naiveté or brash misrepresentations to myself.  Well, at least those are only for myself.  THIS however is public knowledge, so I do regularly scour it for error, faux pas, or your general run-of-the-mill outright blasphemy.

I have considered signing off by making one of those dreaded, painfully subjective "lists" of my top 100 favorite films of all time, the likes of which I know all of you are just simply dying to read.

But seriously, I don't find that much at fault in most of this work I've done.  I just have other pursuits to manage that are bringing more rewards.  BUT, I am giving this up with some reluctance, I guess more because of how long I've been in the habit of doing it, rather than if it's really something effectual.

So....YOU CAN CAST YOUR VOTE FOR "PLEASE AGITATUS, PLEASE KEEP WRITING, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN READING THIS BLOG FOR YEARS, ALL ALONG, AND I'VE FAILED TO EVER SAY SOMETHING, I'M SORRY!!!   

I'LL POST A COMMENT NOW AND THEN TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAS MEANT TO ME!!"

Write to this address: preturnatural1@gmail.com

...or conversely, just remain silent and I'll be the judge of whether I continue or not.    Thank you one and all, whoever the all is.

- Agitatus

I Care a Lot

Home Invasion, the suit and tie kind.

I Care a Lot 2019  R - 106 min

If you could condense Breaking Bad into less than 2 hours, you'd get this, only the female version, and a very different kind of "drug"...money.  $$   

Our main character, Marla, is the most savvy and ruthless kind of schemer to be found.  She is in a Lesbian relationship with a partner in "legal" crime...trafficking in the elderly right in front of the legal system, preying on outliers that do not have good family protection.  The problem with one of her clients?  The lady has quite a bit of family protection.  The cast includes Dianne Wiest, Peter Dinklage, Chris Messina, and Eliza Gonzales, along with other supporting roles, all incredibly well-defined characters, a result again of...good casting.

The acting is brilliant, and so is the edit on this one, very fast paced and exciting with some adrenaline inducing scenes.  There is an air of the comic about this, the dark side, but the dark side overwhelms the comic fairly quickly, so it's just drama for the most part.  And the reason I cite Breaking Bad here is because oddly enough, as evil and menacing a person as our protagonist is, there is a point where you find yourself rooting for her and wanting to protect her, because dang it, there is someone/thing more evil than she is!  And you "feel" for her girlfriend as well.

No spoilers here of course, but you do have to take care to watch out who you're taking care to watch out for....as a way of putting it.

Yet we have another one to put in the Girl/Girl category bin, which is growing all the time.  Fascination has never been higher with lesbians, love between same-sex partners, and coupled with authoritative female dictatorshi....uh, I mean leadership, while simultaneously placing men in roles of high vulnerability, cliche' weaknesses and "good old boy" politics and law (such as we see from the judge in particular in this film).  It's like a gender turkey shoot out here.

So "I Care a Lot", while it may have some kind of surface motivation of another expose on the corrupt capitalist system we live in, is a Venus Flytrap of a film, injecting us with more liberal line-towing.  As per usual...great film, horrible inner core.

The "R" rating means restricted, of which I've been thinking lately, that much like they have "R"ed light districts in Europe, maybe we should have "R" film districts that you have to go to in order to view films like these, instead of on Netflix where we all know our teenagers and vulnerable minds go at night when unsupervised and snicker under their blankets at cheddar like this.  I'm not really a "star" person, but if pressed, I'd have to give this 4.5 for quality of filmmaking, and 0 for moral cleanliness.

- Agitatus

Orphan Black

AmzPrime 2013  TV-MA

The label "TV-MA" fits this demi-drama ONLY with regards to the displays of visual material and vocabulary, but it definitely does NOT mean "MATURITY".  This is yet another DNA-Drama that is attempting to manufacture a fiction based on the "what if" scenario of the production of multiple clones and distributing them throughout a populace, as some sort of experiment, most likely to do with the comparison/contrast of their lives.  Therefore in reality this is an exposition on the nature/nurture debate, and it is obviously falling heavily on the side of nurture, while DNA-based research proponents would love nothing more than to prove that science wins and the nature of the molecule would reign supreme over that which is "learned". 

The problem with this series...well, there are many actually...is that there is a continual barrage of insistent LGBtQ+++ Alphabet Soup incursion that is not only distracting and annoying, but completely unnecessary, and an obvious plant by the writers of said show.   As in the main character with this foil...aka one homosexual friend that consistently and blazingly pre-dominates every single episode with his intrusion and near comical cliche' homosexuality.

The latest, and I have to say the last, episode that I will be watching of this juvenile creation, Ep. 3 of Season 1, had the homosexual friend "babysit", in which case the end resulted in both children being found by the responsible adult female in a state of cross-dressed clothing, the boy dressed in a nightclub dress complete with beads and makeup, and the little girl in a dad-shirt, tie, and a man-hat.

It does not take one long to understand exactly where this series is intending us to go, manipulated into believing that human biology and our future lies in the cellular selection of "the fittest" and the random selection of genetic material that will supposedly dictate our identification, and will of course include our tolerance of the same as acceptable and "normalized". 

The show has a definite agenda that is easy enough to see.  It took me 2.5 episodes to see it coming.

This reviewer is also without any need to dive further as well into the dramatic drawbacks of the show which depend on the tension between the protagonist and said homosexual friend, who consistently bicker over every step she is taking in her journey, and which he is privy to, as is necessary when being a "conscience" that must bring the dilemma to the surface because honestly, there would be no other way to hook us... the audience... into said drama without it.  In other words, the "foil" is also the audience's foil.  Ok, it's a clever writer's trick, and one that steadfastly escapes those who are regularly addicted to soap operas.

Negative 5 stars, if that's possible.  Please do not waste your time.

- Agitatus

The Professor and the Madman

The Professor and the Madman 2019

TV-14 - 124 min

Mel Gibson didn't have to wear a kilt for this one, but he brought back the accent that was only a shade away from the Scottish used in Braveheart.  

His character here, the Professor James Murray, was credited with establishing the beginnings and methodology behind the Oxford English Dictionary, which ended up in 12 volumes, 415 thousand words, and 1.8 million illustrative quotations.  And he did it of course with the help of a small army of English-speaking people, and others of some fairly intellectual, yet flawed origin, and amid controversy over the same.  He did not see the end of the dictionary as it was finished long after he had passed away, but it seems that finishing it was no longer then a part of his personal goal.

This story is not just another historical recall, but an intimate look at faith, hope, and love, and the lasting qualities that abide in us in the current life, and that words never completely capture.  This is a beautifully written piece that is fleshed out in a spectacular and believable way.  What else should we expect with Mel Gibson and Sean Penn in the major roles, and surrounded with the likes of Natalie Dormer, Eddie Marsan, and Steve Coogan, faces familiar from so many other successful roles, and very nicely cast here.  I don't believe that the role that Jennifer Ehle played as the professor's wife was given enough space, or possibly not directed as well as she could have been, but she did pull off the "stoic" part without a flinch.  But of course a large part of her supporting character in this was in fact supposed to be confluenced.  The casting and acting made this really work.

Without spoiling it, I'll just say that though the story takes quite a few unexpected turns, and provides high drama, and leads us down a path to a very satisfactory conclusion,  it shakes the balance of the tension of hero/villain and turns that attention where the real villains lie in that English time period, and without some overwrought sense of agenda or any forced affectations.  Here I am using words that will likely be challenged by the Oxford dictionary if I'm not careful.  Affectations....I should look that up to find out it's origin!

So in any case, put this one on your list if you like great personal drama, history, a big dose of romance floating around in it, family ties and challenges, and humanity in general.   Great film.

- Agitatus

While We're Young

2015 - R - 1h37m

Brilliantly written, witty, very witty, 1/2 biting satire and the other half is as seriously straight as Ben Stiller can get, although possibly not possible.  He's always that visiting character Ben in Meet the Fokkers.  Does this help in this instance?  Yep, you bet, perfect casting.  Ben always seems to manage that edge of "I'm being screwed here", and he does it very well.

 

Could not have gotten closer to his opposition in the casting than with Adam Driver, and paired with Naomi Watts as his married partner in life.  

 

What I carried away the most from this was a truth that the industry...ok, wait, our entire social structure in these last 2 decades in particular...values youth above experience.  It's a well-known phenomenon aka age discrimination, aka gerontophobia.  It's sponsored by people who define what "prime" means.  But in truth, it's also a product of selfish ambition, which again, in this particular culture and over the last 20 years has been in great disproportion.

 

This is the story of a man and woman (both equally treated to a great degree here, although the story centers around the 2 male's initial relationship and goals) who are looking back with both longing, and celebration.  But mostly longing.  The loss of youth, the idea of being parents past, the pull of the need for success, the possibility of being fruitless in the face of dynamic personal effort...all play into how the story works when they meet the carefree, giving, inventive, selfless, seemingly original younger version of who they would like to be.  We think the magnet to be natural, but is it?  No spoilers here.

 

Great performances all around, very funny, dripping with irony and good spirits.  

- Agitatus

Ratched (or is it "Retched"?)

Ratched 2020

TV_MA

(TV "Maturity Analysis" needed?)

The LGBTQ+++ Alphabet community strikes again, this time with a sure-fire script for the uninitiated into their wares, selling marginalism juxtaposed over and against emotional hope and anathema relationships gone totally normal.  Buffoonery also abounds in the area of chauvinistic political overlords, aka Gov. of California played by the the overly capable Vincent D’Onofrio, of earlier fame on Law and Order, Criminal Intent, albeit a great many pounds later it seems, something on the order of Orson Wells (he actually elicits that aire, with the goatee still intact, etc).  

Overboard acting and “new” noir is offset by the incredibly bright and crisp cinematography, showcasing deep focus and almost painfully stark lines.  This is NOT Casablanca…it’s Casablanca invaded by a Disney colorist and mise en’ scene by the likes of John Alcott of The Shining (there is a list of a crew of 4 separate cinematographers on IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7423538/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1).

But people, let’s be “straight” about this ok?  It’s a plot over-poisoned/whelmed by schmarmy same-sex overtones and over the top aggrandizing of the state of queer culture.  The theme of “set my people free” seems to take the day, and at the expense of course of the Catholic Church, or any church authority, and as I said, womanizing politics.  It is conveniently placed back in a time when those themes were “in extremis”.  So just like the almost neon contrasting atmosphere of the scenes, so is the sexuality overexposed.  

I quit the series when Ratched finally kissed the much older and I think not properly cast Cynthia Nixon.  “That’s it”   I declared, and turned it off.  

Wait, let’s throw in euthanasia as a serious subplot, and anti-death penalty as well.  California, ye shall surely fall off into the ocean as many have predicted.  Man, get your head out of that gutter.

- Agitatus

Nightcrawler

Nightcrawler 2014

R - 1Hr 57Min   -  Netflix

I see I'm late to the game here as usual, viewing an older movie that seems fresh to me, at least.

 

The resemblances here to Taxi Driver are plenteous and obvious to anyone who knows a great plot.  Louis Bloom's hair in fact (Jake Gyllenhaal) echoes the different stages of unkempt and disheveled or tied up in a knot states of psychosis that the character finds himself in, as did Travis Bickle in an oily state, or a Mohawk, in his time of crisis in Scorsese's internalized drama. The "lonely man", single mind, up against the world, and finding the violent and disturbing and consistent state of affairs on the street does what he needs to do to maintain self-protection.  In Taxi Driver it's a gun.  In Nightcrawler, it's a camera.  But in both, at least at the beginning, our protagonist is searingly open-faced, vulnerable, almost naive. 

But the analogy breaks down about half way through the film.  Our man Louis it turns out is a Narcissist of the highest order, and Travis in Taxi Driver...well he was simply a kitty-cat lover in the end, and at despair over his own self, along with everyone else.  Travis did not have a perspective of himself that was healthy or disciplined outside of angst, and a conflicted person internally, whereas Louis, in Nightcrawler, is always highly aware of who he is, who others are, and in control.  A real psychopath, a complete abuser of relationships, a ladder climber of the first order.

The really disturbing thing for us, the onlookers to this media tragedy, is that we can see that this is what shapes our voyeuristic nature, our need of inside information, first-hand accounts, our seeming need for abject horror over and above good news or news that may be of political importance.  We crave dirt, salivating over death at times, embellishment drawing us in, as a rule, and will never admit it openly.  At least that is the case until we get absolutely tired of it.  It's not about news gathering, or about Louis, or even greed...it's really about us, or at least one version of a great many of us, as we salaciously want to see the blood on the pavement, the final moments of a life.

Concerning the NEWS...There have been many expositional pieces in cinema...Broadcast News (1987) or Network (1976), all the way back to Citizen Kane in '41. Nightcrawler utilizes the far end of a single human's psyche, and absolutely opaque behavior as the catalyst for the news being conveniently exploitative.

 

It's great, tense, and action packed as films go, with some nail-biting driving scenes and anticipation of events. So it's a fascinating, while also sadly reflective piece of film.  7 or 8 out of 10.

Here's a short list of like-minded subjects to take a look at if you've never seen them:

 

Ed TV

All the President's Men

Talk Radio

Natural Born Killers

The Truman Show

A Face in the Crowd

Broadcast News

Network

Medium Cool

 
- Agitatus