Thursday, January 14, 2016

A Farewell to a Gentleman Actor



Colonel Brandon, the Sheriff of Nottingham, Professor Severus Snape, Hans Gruber. Alan Rickman didn’t just play these characters, he created them.  “Jo” Rowling, as he called the author of the Harry Potter books, is the first to recognize how much Rickman added to Severus Snape, the character he played for so many years in the Harry Potter films. And I believe there will never be a better Sheriff for Robin Hood, nor a better Colonel Brandon to make Mary Anne regain her faith in humanity and all of us Jane Austen readers to wish such a man would come along to save us from despair and disappointment.

Rickman was an artist in every sense of the word. He didn’t begin acting until he was 28 –he was a graphic designer before that- and he didn’t make a film until he was 41. His first film was a very Hollywood action movie, Die Hard, but it was that much better because of his portrayal of Hans Gruber, who went on to be considered among the top movie villains of all time.

 Alan Rickman was also a very good director, directing two great women and friends of his: Emma Thompson in The Winter Guest (1997) and Kate Winslet in A Little Chaos (2014). How much sadder does it feel to see that his art grew and that we know he had so much more to give us!





There are two films that Alan has left behind, which we will see with the same heart break that we saw the films that “outlived” Philip Seymour Hoffman or listen to David Bowie's Blackstar, released just a couple of days before his death. The first is Eye in the Sky, in which he stars alongside Helen Mirren and Aaron Paul, playing Lieutenant General Frank Benson, the man placed as a go-between Mirren's military Colonel and the board of government representatives tasked with the ultimate decision of whether ridding East Africa of some of its most dangerous militants is worth the death an innocent young girl. The second is Alice through the Looking Glass where he voices (with that incredible and inimitable voice of his!) the blue caterpillar.


He has been immortalized by his films, yet we will miss him dearly.

I’ve Seen that Movie Too






Carol feels like an old film. It is set in the America of the late fifties, but that is not what makes it anachronistic, but rather it’s belief that the audiences watching it are stuck in that time period. We're not. Not to say that its a bad film. Carol has a lot going for it, in particular the very detailed and beautiful photography and amazing production and costume design, enhanced by the two gorgeous actresses that play the title roles, Cate Blanchet, as Carol, and Rooney Mara, as Therese, now both candidates for an Academy Award for their performances.
   
Rooney Mara as Therese

The trouble with the movie is that it suffers from what I will call the Brokeback Mountain syndrome, which is that while supposedly addressing the issue of homosexuality through a love affair in a place (Brokeback) or time period (Carol) in which the discrimination against those relationships was extreme, in order to call out that discrimination, it does so almost apologetically, directed at a straight audience, as if it were trying to “sell” the love affair to straight folk. In the process of doing this it sacrifices reality.

Cate Blanchet as Carol
This approach starts with the fact that both films use straight actors to play people of a different sexual orientation. The audience knows this because we live in a world of instant information, so it somehow already detracts from the subversive intent of a film that is trying to show the fluidity of sexuality. Wouldn’t the beautiful Jodie Foster or Portia De Rossi been a better casting choice in Ms. Blanchet’s role? And Rooney Mara could easily have been played by Ellen Paige or even Kristen Stewart, who showed much more realism with a gay role in Clouds of Sils Maria (also about the relationship between an older woman and a young gay woman). They most likely would have brought more realism to the roles but, more than that, isn’t the point to offer these roles to actors that are probably looking to expand the landscape?

This is really an oddity, considering that Carol director, Todd Haynes, is identified with the New Queer Cinema movement. Haynes has addressed sexual identity and societal norms in other of his films, like Far From Heaven, Poison and Safe.

But since gay actors can and do play straight characters, why not have straight actors play gay people, even though, in this case, the gay relationship is at the center of the plot? So, let’s leave that aside. The next faux pas of the movie is the relationship of the main protagonists itself. Does anyone really believe in love at first sight? Is that romantic at all in the twenty-first century? Or are we to assume that this is what happened among gay women in that time period? Watching Carol you can’t help but think: who behaves like that? What adults seriously fall in love at first sight and with literally no context beyond their good looks, they turn their lives inside out. Even if we accept that the sexual magnetism was strong, the movie never really develops anything else. There is never any complexity in the relationship between Carol and Therese. That may have passed muster in those Hollywood films of old that no one (not even back then) really believed, but in the twenty-first century of Supreme Court rulings and a stronger movement towards gender equity, it is hard to swallow.



And while both Ms. Blanchet and Ms. Mara, who have more than proven their value as superb actresses, are good in their roles, there is really nothing that extraordinary about their acting. That is, nothing like how we’ve seen them act before, for example Ms. Blanchet in Elizabeth I or Ms. Mara in Girl With a Dragoon Tattoo. Unless, again as was the case with Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback, the award is for acting like a homosexual person in a love relationship.

Finally there is the very contrived plot in this screen adaptation. Carol, played by Ms. Blanchet, is about to lose custody of the child she supposedly loves profoundly, yet when the drunken husband takes away her daughter and threatens to file for full custody, does she follow in another car to make sure her child is all right? Does she call him back to negotiate and get him to come to his senses? Does she even try to see her daughter? No, she picks up her suitcase then gets Therese, the much younger woman she has fallen in love-at-first-sight with, played by Ms. Mara, and goes on a road trip! She’s seen this woman all of two times, one for less than five minutes. So, this is love?


Despite the mink coats and money Carol obviously possesses, the road trip they take is to the worst little towns and motels possible in the Midwest, and in winter! And yet still they somehow manage to get caught on tape in the process. In the end (spoiler alert), Carol cedes custody of the child she loves in exchange for the young woman she barely knows but apparently loves more. Is this really a happy ending?

Could it be that even though the director is gay, he is a man and so this all appears plausible to him? What did the author of the book intend as the happy ending? The book on which Carol is based, “The Price of Salt” by Patricia Highsmith (author of other novels taken to the big screen, like Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train, or Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley), may answer some of the questions raised. Ms. Highsmith is rather legendary for having been a person who did not like people much and who, despite being gay herself, discriminated against black people and was outspokenly anti-Semitic. She did not have long term relationships or children, and was described as rather cruel and harsh. An anecdote, it seems she lived with cats and about three hundred snails in her garden in England and once took hundreds of snails in a handbag to a cocktail party saying they were her "companions for the evening".




Most of the audience will know little of this and will remember only Mr. Haynes adaptation, which is, again, captivating in its visual beauty, with its old Hollywood-style actresses in a romance –a gay romance- story with a happy ending. All very straight and acceptable, but not very real.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The Martian: Ridley Lite


If you’ve been following my blog for a while you know I am a fan of Ridley Scott. (See posts: The Insightful World of Ridley Scott – 4/13, No Two Replicants- 5/13). There are therefore few Ridley Scott movies that I do not like (The Counselor, GI Jane), but I do recognize that even within the well made films he has two styles, which I will call Ridley Deep and Ridley Lite. I like both, don’t get me wrong, but obviously prefer the former. The Martian, the movie that opened in theaters yesterday, is Ridley Lite.

By now it’s clear that a genre Scott dominates is science fiction, and Blade Runner and Alien are the jewels in his crown in that field. Those two, along with Prometheus (the Alien prequel or sequel, nobody is quite sure which), are Ridley Deep. They are deep because the magnificently depicted future and story line is not flat and acts mainly as a setting to have us reflect upon the ways of us humans within this little planet called Earth, a speck in the universe.

Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) in Blade Runner

In Blade Runner the meditation is around technology and our relationship with the machines we create “in our own image” (there’s a divinity theme there, frequent in Scott’s movies) and perfect to the point that they become independent of us and, ultimately, turn on us. But there is more. It is also about the limits of our humanity. When the replicant Roy Batty gives his beautiful Tears in the Rain speech at the end of the movie (“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it?”), after demonstrating the depths of his humanity, we’re thrown into a whirlwind of thought about the things we create and destroy, the extent of our feelings for others, the world we were given and have gone through with such disdain.


Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and cat in Alien

Alien pits humans, a woman this time, against a being that has possibly been engendered as a weapon by those “God-like” creatures we see in Prometheus. This is the weapon that the humans in the corporation behind the Nostromo want the crew to bring back to Earth. As Ash, the android on board the ship, so aptly states: “The Alien is a perfect organism. Superbly structured, cunning, quintessentially violent (…) How can one not admire perfection.” The value of human life for corporate greed could be one way to put the theme behind the movie. It’s also somewhat present in Blade Runner, where the Tyrel Corporation has created the replicants for profit. Again we are looking at the limits or boundaries of our humanity. And it is ultimately the woman –a gender much disdained in our world- who faces the Alien. She says: “This is Ripley,W564502460H, executive officer, last survivor of the commercial starship Nostromo signing off (…)Come on cat.”


Matt Damon in The Martian

And then there is The Martian, much closer to the present than the other futuristic movies, about a NASA mission to Mars; no corporations this time, although in real life there is already a private company looking into getting people to Mars. It’s hard to find a deeper theme here than the story line itself, basically a space Robinson Crusoe. Could it be that we’re to reflect on whether the NASA program should be continued? Maybe a lesson in how  one life is worth the billion dollars it takes to save it? Maybe that Mars is really not quite that uninhabitable and should be the next planet to colonize? That’s already a given, more so now, with those photos of liquid water sent from Mars.

Even so, it is a movie worth watching, because nobody does science fiction like Ridley Scott. The panoramic views of Mars, like the awe inspiring opening views in Prometheus, the detail with which technology is presented, the FX, the cinematography, set design, acting, score and more; everything so carefully executed. Matt Damon is great in the movie and totally outperforms the other actors in the movie and leads it, sort of like Sigourney Weaver did in Alien. It is about a man’s will to survive and also our scientific minds. But it’s still lite because this is as far as it goes and because it has such a good-feely sentiment to it, kind of like a better Armageddon.



The Aries space craft in The Martian


It is also, curiously, a little bit careless in its science. Not to the point of Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, with its Wall-E-like fire extinguisher scene, but it does kind of melt down towards the end. For example, the story probably takes place in the not too distant future, but still probably no earlier than 2080, given that it’s estimated we could send a small human mission to Mars around 2030, but it will probably take longer to develop the Aries IV space ship we see in the Martian.  So about 80 years into the future, yet everybody on Earth is totally 2015. Then there is the pretty well known fact (it’s been on NPR) that a lot of the equipment needed for a human mission to Mars has already been developed, including the MOXIE, the machine that separates the Hydrogen from the Oxygen. So scenes like the one where Matt Damon blows himself up trying to do just that is something baffling. We also know quite a lot about Mars, for example the gravity (62% lower), the radiation a person would suffer on Mars (forcing humans to have to live underground), and more.  A lot of which is omitted in the movie. The implausibility of the final rescue scene is well within Gravity sloppiness.



Space rescue in The Martian

Ridley Lite is still Ridley Scott, which is to say he’s still way better than most directors. So enjoy. The Martian is a movie that will keep you in your seat, eyes glued to the screen, rooting for the man everyone wants to bring home. It is a movie that fills you with a warm feeling about the strength of the human spirit and the power of the human mind, in particular when it decides to "science the hell" out of things.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Rising From the Ashes

 
    
Summer can be the perfect time for a hiatus from a movie blog. It’s the time of year for the film industry to make the big dollars that company stockholders are expecting, so it’s blockbuster season. A rather arid time for lovers of film as art. However, my hiatus has been only in part been due to this. I’ve also been on vacation and away from movie screens, as much as that has been hard to do.

I wasn’t completely gone.  I did treat myself to some very excellent documentaries, in particular The Wolf Pack and Amy, which I comment in the Fresh Cuts section of this blog (I reiterate my invitation to click the Fresh Cuts tab to see ratings and short comments on all the films I see).

 I also saw the blockbusters that got the good reviews, in particular Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and Man from UNCLE. I reveal my age by telling you that I enjoyed watching Mission Impossible and Man from UNCLE as TV shows, when I was a child; this makes it just that much more fun to show up for these–so much better – film versions of the shows.

The fifth installment of Mission Impossible did not disappoint. Tom Cruise is certainly committed to his work and the airplane lift-off scene, where he didn’t use a double or green screen, is truly worthy of applause, as is the motorcycle chase scene in the movie (amazing editing!). It’s a very fun film to watch, which I know is what Cruise was going for and what he’s best at. 

Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation


Man from UNCLE has director Guy Richie’s style, established with his two Sherlock Holmes films, which is to say it is also a fun movie worth paying to see. The beautiful Alicia Vikander, of A Royal Affair stature, made more famous by Ex-Machina this year, delivers her charm in the movie, and entices in her cold war relationship with Arnie Hammer, one of the two very good looking leading men of this first in what promises to be a film series. Television on the big screen.

Arnie Hammer, Alicia Vikander and Henry Cavill in Man from UNCLE

All said, it was the American July release of the German movie Phoenix that really rose above all other as the must see movie of the year for me… so far (fall begins). The director is renowned German director Christian Petzold (Barbara) who again works with the amazing Nina Hoss (Barbara, A Most Wanted Man) in a movie about the enduring trauma of the holocaust in post war Germany. The movie takes place immediately after the fall of the Third Reich, as we see in the opening scene where American soldiers stop a car travelling with two holocaust survivors in Germany: Nelly (Hoss) and Lene (Nina Kunzendorf). Nelly bears the scars of the war both internally and externally, requiring plastic surgery, and Lene, the one person that truly loves Nelly, bears profound scars internally and quietly. They look to each other for emotional survival after the colossal trauma of what each has lost and suffered, but Nelly’s husband Johnny is still alive and with him some unbearable secrets. The movie has most definite resonances of Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, as Nelly and her husband Johnny begin to weave a fascinating and lethal web of deceit.

Nina Hoss and Nina Kunzendorf in Phoenix


The acting in the movie is superb, as is the story-telling. There is a little of film noir and a lot of that dark feeling around this time period that is so well conveyed by European films. European film makers, without necessarily using explicit and graphic scenes of the horror of the Holocaust, are able to express such horror with truly creative subtlety. This film now joins such great films of this sub-genre, like Swedish director Ingmar Bergman’s Das Schlangenei (The Serpent’s Egg), or Hungarian director István Szabó’s Mephisto. It is a story about the nature of human beings in times of extreme tribulations and what we are willing to endure and forgive, because of love; how we are also able to betray and destroy; and, ultimately, how we can regenerate, like the mythological Phoenix, and rise from the ashes or our lives, again and again. 



Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Teach Your Children Well



There is one territory that humans are only at the brink of uncovering: our brain. The fascinating to the point of magical world of the brain and mental health is yet to be well understood and our studies are really in their infancy. But we have made progress, definitively moving away from the psychoanalytic couch into a sphere where we’ll be using the tools of genomics, neuroscience, and exposomics to forge ahead in our knowledge; and it seems we’re letting the kids (and their parents too) in on some of the its neat workings in this wild ride of a movie, Inside Out, that is Disney Pixar’s digitally animated incursion into Riley’s brain!

Amy Poehler as Joy

Not only does Inside Out present children with a fascinating view of some of the mechanisms and complexities of our brains (yes, a movie that actually gets kids to think about something), but it does so in such a dynamic and creative way, and with such rounded out and developed characters, that it completely engages the viewer emotionally. That’s a lot to say, especially when the characters are supposedly one-dimensional emotions: joy, sadness, disgust, fear and anger. The movie is a feat of writing, animation and also voice acting. I have to stop here and give a loud cheer for the amazing Amy Poehler and how incredible she is as the voice of Joy! Truly, what a joy she is! What a way to give life to an animated character! All the voice casting is wonderful in this film, to tell the truth, which just makes Amy’s art all the more impressive. Richard Kind is tearfully great as Bing Bong, Riley’s imaginary friend, Phyllis Smith plays sadness, Bill Hader is fear, Lewis Black anger and Mindy Kailing disgust. Perfect casting!




Minnesota born Director Peter Docter, of Up and Monster’s Inc. stature, in collaboration with Philippine art director Ronaldo Del Carmen, have made a movie that lifts us out of the theatre and takes us on an emotional roller coaster ride into the brain and emotions of its main protagonist, eleven year old Riley who has been uprooted from her life in Minnesota and taken to San Francisco, where her dad has moved to pursue his career.  Simple enough, except for the changes that this event and her growing up mean to her brain.


Richard Kind as Bing Bong

With this movie Pixar is also taking another step in the right direction of breaking away from the little “boxes” society likes to create around situations and people. It does so by choosing the interesting story line, as we’ve mentioned, but also by finally casting another female lead. Of the fifteen feature films Pixar has released, this is only the second that has a female lead. The other one was Brave. The difference with Brave, however, is that that movie seemed to be set on making a statement about having a female lead, a “hey, Pixar is finally casting a female lead and she’s strong and brave, even though she’s a girl!”. Where as in Inside Out there’s no need for the statement. It’s more natural. The person in whose brain we’re inside just happens to be a girl, a hockey playing, smart and great girl. So in our still quite sexist society, boys / men can feel just at home with the movie as girls have always had to feel with all other Pixar films. Brave, however, still holds the honor of having the only female director a Pixar film has ever had, albeit a co-director. Brenda Chapman, who co-directed Brave, went on to become the first woman to win and Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Inside Out, while not directed by a woman, does have Meg LeFauve as one of the screenplay writers.




So this movie does it right and gets rewarded in the process. Inside Out made over $90 million dollars on its opening weekend, which means, in terms of all 15 of Pixar’s films, that it has only been topped by Toy Story 3. It would not come as a surprise if Amy Poehler received a –well deserved- Academy Award nomination for her voice acting.

What should be most rewarding to the makers of Inside Out, however, is that it is providing a thought provoking, emotionally charged, creative, quality film for children. And this is good. This is, hopefully, a drop in the bucket of helping them be just that much better than their parents. And that's the best thing film can do, teach them well.




Sunday, June 14, 2015

This is a Woman!


This is a woman: the intelligence analyst.

This is a woman: the CIA Director.

This is a woman: the head of the organized crime ring.

This is a woman: the field agent that brings her down.

Spy, the movie about these women, comes as a cool breeze in the stale troposphere of male-dominated comedy and action movies! Kudos to self-confessed "feminised geek", writer and director Paul Feig (also of Bridesmaids, The Heat and forthcoming female-cast Ghostbusters). But really this movie would be nothing without the wonderful cast led by the amazing and absolutely delightful Melissa McCarthy and the equally talented Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Allison Janney! The cast makes Spy the best comedy I’ve seen in a while and these women prove that comedy is totally a woman’s thing. Feig himself wrote, in a piece entitled “Why Men Aren’t Funny”:

Is modern society now ready to transition away from the Myth of Male Hilarity? After all, today's world has erased most of the survival needs that once required a woman to inflate the comedic self-worth of the men around her. Grocery stores, police departments and in vitro fertilization perform the functions once reserved for her Y-chromosome counterparts. The 21st-century woman is finally free to reveal her comedic superiority and inform her penised inferiors that they will never again be permitted to make that "in my pants" joke.

Rose Byrne and Melissa McCarthy in Spy

To answer Feig’s question, yes, we are more than ready to transition away from the myth and it’s been a long time coming. Frankly, the 3.52 billion women around the world are still patiently, non-riotously, not even in a protesting manner still waiting for equity, so being able to enjoy two hours of great, female-led comedy is water to this equity-thirsty crowd! This movie not only puts women in the front and center, it does so while very beautifully showing the absurdity of sexism. How even in our modern society, even in so called “developed” nations, women are all but invisible to the world unless they are beautiful and fulfill the roles our sexist society assigns them. It is thus that, in the movie, the brilliant analyst that has led the top Bond-like male spy, played by Jude Law, is called a lunch lady and given a rape whistle and hemorrhoid wipes as the, once again, Bond-like gadgets with which to thwart would-be assassins when she’s sent into the field. But with sparkling eyes, brilliant wit, and a dazzling smile, Melissa McCarthy’s Spy breaks that glass and we cheer and laugh her way out of the boxes created for women.

Great combat scene; Melissa McCarthy and Nargis Fakhri in Spy

It’s with a heart full of gratitude that we go to a movie like this, even if it is just a comedy (or maybe because it is). These are discouraging days for women, ones in which conservative men (and some self-hating women) try to take away even basic choices and push women back into nineteenth century situations. These are days where we painfully watch television commercials and shows that we thought, in our youth, would be things of the past in the 21st century, not ones that glorify the most superficial and antiquated stereotypes about women, popular shows of the most sexist eras like Mad Men, The Astronaut Wives Club, Pan Am, The Playboy Club, to name but a tiny few. 


Melissa McCarthy and action actor Jason Statham in Spy.

These are days where women watch in astonishment how even gay and transgender men are forging ahead on issues of equity and respect at a time when it almost seems women are losing ground in both. (Well, not surprising, really. They are men, after all). With respect to the Supreme Court, for example, and as is stated in an article in the New York Time, Justices’ Rulings Advance Gays; Women Less So:

At the same time [as the gay agenda is advanced], legal scholars say, the [Supreme] court has delivered blows to women’s groups in cases involving equal pay, medical leave, abortion and contraception, culminating in a furious dissent last month from the court’s three female members (…) we live in a society that now seems more receptive to gay rights than women’s rights generally, so it is disheartening but not surprising to see that reflected in decisions like Hobby Lobby, which failed to see the link between contraception access and women’s equality.

More recently, referring to the case of transgender Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner, the feminist scholar Elinor Burkett writes in another New York Times piece, Do Women and Men Have Different Brains:

I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes. Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.
That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.
People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long. And as much as I recognize and endorse the right of men to throw off the mantle of maleness, they cannot stake their claim to dignity as transgender people by trampling on mine as a woman.

All this is, really, no laughing matter. And yet, there are many ways to erode sexism and, yes, comedy is one of them.


Melisssa McCarthy and Jude Law in Spy.


It is our hope that men who see a movie like Spy will really see these women and observe the spectacle of absurdity that is a sexist man. It is our hope that they may even do a double take and begin to open their eyes to every woman that surrounds them and think: yes, this is a woman, a human, a unique and wonderful individual!

Monday, May 25, 2015

Furiosa Road


More is certainly not better. With just that line I could end the commentary to George Miller’s fourth installment of his Mad Max series: Mad Max, Fury Road. I’m drawn to writing more, however, because so many critics have praised the movie (98% average critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes) and some have even gone as far as to praise it for its “feminist” slant. This I cannot abide. 

There are so many things wrong with Fury Road that make it, in my opinion, the least of George Miller’s four takes on the Mad Max character. How women are treated in this installment is a big part of what’s wrong. Many –including some sexist male groups- seem to have concentrated on Charlize Theron’s character, Imperator Furiosa, to claim –or protest- the “feminist” angle. Yes, Theron’s character is a smart, strong woman fighting to get back to the home she was taken from as a child and, in doing so, freeing and taking with her the young and beautiful brides held captive by Immortan Joe, the depraved and cruel leader of their post-apocalyptic world. Throughout most of the movie, Theron’s character is the one battling Immortan Joe’s men, carrying Mad Max, played rather mutely by Tom Hardy, rather like an albatross around her neck. The fact that the movie is called Mad Max, Fury Road and not Imperator Furiosa, Fury Road kind of does away with the centrality of her character and, through most of the final half of the movie, Max pretty much takes back his hero stance, shoving Theron into assistant role.

Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa

It’s serves to remember that women were not absent from Miller’s previous Mad Max installments. The character known as Warrior Woman (actress Virginia Hey) is central to Max’s escape in Road Warrior and, what’s more, the community of survivors in that movie was led by Big Rebecca, an older, wise woman who, by the way, was not fat. In Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, installment three of the series, it is a woman who reigns over Bartertown, the last outpost of “civilization”, she was the villain to Mel Gibson’s Max: Aunty Entity played magnificently by Tina Turner.


Virginia Hey as Warrior Woman in Road Warrior
Tina Turner as Aunty Entity in Thunderdome

In Fury Road, what does provoke considerable fury is that there is a group of very fat women, also held captive by the cult leader, who are literally milked, like cows! It is a grotesque scene that totally dehumanizes and reduces women to chattel. Strangely, these much abused women who are the actual mothers in the film (they are the producers of what is called “mother’s milk”) are not the ones rescued by Theron or Hardy. The ones who take up screen time as the damsels in distress are the Victoria’s Secret-like models that the cult leader and all his men are sent chasing to retrieve. Even the plot line is debased this way. In Road Warrior, it was gasoline everyone was after. Here, it’s the pretty women. Even the gray haired women who have survived for years in the desert –though it’s not even hinted how- end up giving up their lives for the beauties.




The early Mad Max movies were made in the eighties. Maybe it’s a sign of our modern times so plagued by misogynist images in violent video games, an explosion of internet pornography that is redefining sex, to the detriment of women, and a continued absence of smart, strong, female lead characters in the movies that makes some people feel that Fury Road is somehow a “feminist” take.

Even beyond that, nothing much works in Fury Road, besides the sometimes overbearing display of CGI.  While some may find the acrobatics and pyrotechnics neat to watch, they also serve to detract from any realism in this film. Road Warrior felt plausible, it had a gritty realism that made that post-apocalyptic world feel real. The story there was also simple and didn’t have the gaping loose ends of Fury Road. Like, for example, the gasoline and bullet reserve town where Furiosa was originally headed but that is never mentioned again. (Who kept manufacturing all the bullets? In Road Warrior, bullets were a scarcity, Max had two). There is no background to Immortar Joe’s cult, to his control over the water, the weird boys, all the people that survive on sand; everything is mixed together and borrowed, very “willy-nilly”, from the previous Mad Max movies. You can tell the producers are betting on viewers being distracted by the visuals and the noise.

And Max. The only thing this movie retains of the original Mad Max character is the title. This movie really should have been called Imperator Furiosa, Fury Road because Mad Max, who is literally mad in it, plagued by hallucinations and terrors, is but a ghost of his former screen self. Tom Hardy may look tough, but he comes off as not only very quiet but also rather unintelligent.

Mel Gibson and Tom Hardy as Mad Max

We don’t really know if Mad Max served to create Mel Gibson’s screen persona or the other way around, but Mel’s Max was a rounded out character. He would never have narrated his own story! He was the legend. He spoke more, to be certain, and, while he appeared ruthless and focused on his own survival, through playing off the Feral Kid and his dog named Dog, we got that he was the unsung hero (until Thunderdome). And even though the Road Warrior was a brutal film -because less can many times be more- Gibson’s Max was still able to convey some humor, completely lost in Hardy’s.

So, yeah, Fury Road is a bigger, louder, better tech movie, with a whopping $150 million dollar budget, compared to Road Warrior’s $3.5 million, but more is certainly not better.

And Imperator Furiosa is still light years away from being Ellen Ripley.