Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

_{Viola Davis gives an exceptional and fully committed performance as blues singer Ma Rainey}

It’s not typically the kind of film I’d seek out but the Oscar buzz and nominations made me check it out. It’s based on the play by August Wilson and while I’m not a big fan of plays, I can appreciate that sometimes staging a film like a play can work to its advantage by giving the viewer the feeling that they’re a fly on the wall, observing characters, scenes, and secrets.

Ma Rainey is definitely staged like a play, with the majority of the film comprised of lengthy scenes in the same three or so rooms of the recording studio where “Mother of the Blues” Ma Rainey (who I learned was, in fact, a real person) is making a new record. This stylistic choice is beneficial to doing some of the things it sets out to do, like bringing us closer to the characters and anchoring us to one location, but it’s almost too contained–to the point of being claustrophobic (which could absolutely be what director George C. Wolfe was going for, but it didn’t work for me).

Despite some successful production design and costuming, Viola Davis is the real draw here and gives a great performance as Ma Rainey. However, throughout the film I got the feeling that she (and the screenplay) only scratched the surface of Ma’s character. It seems like there’s so much more to tell, so it’s baffling why there’s not more of her. Ma Rainey’s name is in the title of the film, but it goes many lengthy scenes without her being mentioned or appearing. Instead, there’s a large focus placed on her bandmates. Ranging from the pragmatic Cutler to the naïve and high-dreaming Levee (Chadwick Boseman), they’re given just enough details to flesh them out, though it’s Levee who has the meatiest role. Chadwick Boseman gives a good performance here (his last on screen performance, it would turn out) as the tormented trumpeter who’s determined to make a name for himself. It’s a good part and Boseman puts a lot of raw emotion into it, but if I had watched it without knowing he was nominated for an Oscar for the role, I wouldn’t have thought it anything remarkable.

The film is only one hour and thirty minutes, but the lengthy tangential, and occasionally irritating monologues slow down the pace. As smart as the language and passionate as the performances, it just reminds you that people don’t talk that way in real life. There’s also an incredibly jarring scene in the film’s final few minutes that is shocking in its violence and doesn’t feel completely earned.

Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom didn’t receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and it’s not hard to see why. The story just isn’t robust enough. There’s enough good material in August Wilson’s play and the real-life story of Ma Rainey herself to make for a compelling biopic, but shackling the film to the framework and staging of its play source material keep it from elevating it to greatness.

7/10

Mank

_{Mank’s technical achievements can’t make up for an uninteresting story and underdeveloped characters}

I’ll preface this review by saying that I’ve never seen Citizen Kane (gasp!)

Mank is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a prominent Old Hollywood screenwriter arguably most famous for Citizen Kane, which many film critics and historians cite as the greatest film of all time. While Mank’s writing of Kane is the backdrop of the film, little focus is paid to his actual writing process. This is a shame, since it would’ve allowed the audience more insight into his psyche than we were given. (Plus, I’m always into movies about writers and the process of writing.) Instead, director David Fincher chooses to focus a large portion of the film on the governmental and Hollywood studio politics of the 1930s, which I found hard to care about and be fully invested in, especially since the characters involved in the political arguments, sandals, and intrigue weren’t fully realized.

While the film is decidedly focused on Mank, he really isn’t given the chance to develop as a character despite a fully committed performance from the always reliable Gary Oldman. As the alcoholic Mankiewicz finds himself battling with political and professional adversaries in his personal life, there’s more than enough fertile ground for creating drama and high stakes. However, the narrative structure is so jumpy as it flashes back to events in Mankiewicz’s past that slow down the film and really don’t serve a greater purpose. I understand that Fincher’s intent was to mirror the jumping-around-in-time aspect of Citizen Kane—and in that respect he succeeds—but it really doesn’t work here to propel the narrative or allow us to get fully invested in any of the characters. The pieces are there but they remain jumbled instead of clicking together.

The rest of the performances are fine (though not of the flashy Oscar-bait variety as some of the others in this year’s crop of nominees), with the other standout being Amanda Seyfried as actress Marion Davies. But despite the clear acting chops on display, the performances can’t make up for a poor screenplay without true character arcs or growth. I suppose you could argue that Mank going from not caring about receiving screenwriting credit for Kane at the beginning of the film to desiring it at the end counts as growth, but even then it’s flimsy.

I will say that Fincher did a good job making Mank look and feels like a film straight out of the 1930s, with great attention to detail paid to production design, sound, and costuming. It’s also a handsome looking film, with deep blacks and sharp, crisp whites. Unfortunately, though, Mank is another film in this year’s batch of Oscar-nominated films that I’d qualify as Just Okay. There’s solid source material and the framework of interesting characters, but little attention is paid to developing them into fully realized people or creating an engaging plot with real stakes.

While some viewers will no doubt be swept away by the film’s Old Hollywood charm and technical successes, solid production values can’t make up for a poor story. Had Mankiewicz himself written the film, I wonder if he would be so eager to take credit?

6/10

Godzilla vs. Kong

_{The MonsterVerse continues with the long-awaited face-off between Godzilla and Kong}

As the first big ol’ blockbuster I’ve seen in the theater since before COVID, Godzilla vs. Kong does not disappoint in terms of monster brawls and thrilling action sequences bolstered by some truly awesome CGI. As if that wasn’t enough, it also gifts us with the single greatest piece of dialogue and delivery in film all year. If you weren’t as delighted as I was after watching an irritated Kyle Chandler yelling, “You should be in school!” at Millie Bobby Brown, well, we clearly appreciate different things.

Chandler’s dialogue and delivery throughout the entire movie was awful and unintentionally hilarious. Unfortunately, his role as Millie Bobby Brown’s scientist father (one of the few carryovers from 2019’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters) is indicative of a larger problem with the film’s screenplay, which is filled with expository dialogue and a lack of a robust and compelling story. (While these kinds of movies don’t feel the need to give us a hefty, brain-teasing story, I did feel like the plot of King of the Monsters was more thought-out.)

But flimsy plot and screenplay aside, I really enjoyed the movie and had a great time the whole way through. It was very watchable and a visual feast so it’s surprising the runtime was kept fairly reined in at a trim two hours, especially since there were many plot points that could’ve easily filled a longer runtime. Personally, I wouldn’t have minded it going another hour. The fight scenes were killer (especially when paired with the killer score), the cinematography (especially that of Skull Island and Hollow Earth) was truly incredible—even breathtaking in some instances—and the plot never felt slow or biding its time until the next big action scene.

Like other films in the MonsterVerse, the human characters are flimsy at best and have one defining trait in lieu of development (Frazzled Scientist, Rebellious Teenager, Conflicted Researcher, etc.). I understand the rationale behind placing minimal importance on the human characters and shoving them aside so the monster mayhem can ensue, but these kind of movies work best when we’re invested in the humans as well. Without human anchors, what do we care if families are torn apart and entire cities are destroyed? Somehow, it makes the stakes seem smaller.

It’s frustrating because the framework for interesting character arcs and development is there, but not fully realized. The best human character elements of the film involve Rebecca Hall as Kong expert Ilene and her relationship with an orphaned Skull Island native, Jia. Their relationship is refreshing in its genuineness and is miles away the heart of the movie. But even more affecting is Jia’s relationship with Kong himself. She and Kong communicate via sign language, and the true friendship and understanding between child and beast is both a welcome surprise and an incredibly smart decision on the part of the filmmakers. There’s some genuine affecting moments involving Kong that caught me off guard and gift us with emotion that hasn’t been present in the MonsterVerse thus far. While Godzilla is a kickass Titan in his own way, in terms of emotional intelligence, Kong is miles above Godzilla. To give Kong this new development allows him to grow as a character and let us see another gentler, emotive, and yes, forlorn side to him besides the fierce Titan he is. Despite both Titans getting top billing in the title, I’d argue that this is 100% Kong’s movie.

As the film progresses, there are some plot elements (not so much twists, but unexpected narrative turns) that genuinely surprised me. Some were incredibly cool, like the concept and scenery of Hollow Earth (hello, spin-off!), while some were a little silly and felt like they belonged in a different movie (one particular plot point involving gravity comes to mind). Some could’ve used extra time to flesh out details and build up suspense, but the fact that the plot details of a monster movie can catch me off guard is impressive and made the journey throughout the film that much more entertaining and engaging.

Godzilla vs. Kong is a film of contradictions. It’s both narratively simple and complex. Its Titan characters are developed but its humans are not. It’s bonkers with Titan brawls and reserved on human action. Despite that, in terms of its high entertainment value and achieving what it set out to do, it’s a success. I’m not sure where the MonsterVerse goes from there, though there’s plenty of fresh ground to mine after some new plot developments in this one. So if someone’s serving up another helping of giant prehistoric monsters and apes battling it out? Sign me up…just give me a little human character development, too.

8/10