Inside the Circle

Inside the Circle; romantic comedy, USA, 2021; D: Javier Colon Rios, S: Stefy Garcia, Omar Mora, Justin Lee, Valeria Gonzalez  

Rocio is a woman working as a lawyer, trying to find the love of her life. She meets Giancarlo, a comicbook fan who designs apps. Even though their first encounter is clumsy, Rocio agrees to meet him again and go on a date. He even tells her about a circle he is doing on the floor, using toilet paper, wherein the person standing inside has to tell the truth. The two fall in love and become a couple, but their different worldviews start to burden their relationship. They break up. Two years later Rocio is about to get married to a different man, but suddenly changes her mind. Two years later, she is seen with Giancarlo and their kid together.  

“Inside the Circle” is “Annie Hall”-light, a bitter-sweet grown up romantic comedy about the trials and tribulations of a couple, though it is far less stylistically playful or innovative as the former. Some of its best bits arrive in the first half, when the story is both funny and brutally honest: the first meeting between Rocio and Giancarlo at a party, for instance, isn’t as ideal as most romantic comedies would put it, since Giancarlo returns back to the sitting Rocio and whispers to her in Spanish that her pants ripped on the front, a hole revealing her red shirt underneath. He just tried to warn her, but she takes it as an insult. Still, Giancarlo is such a different type on a personality that Rocio cannot resist but to go on a date with him. During a walk, he reveals his peculiar philosophy: “If I date because I need to date, I feel like I’m wasting my time. If I’m not doing it, I do other things that I love.” Rocio wonders what would happen if he stays alone during old age, and he even has an answer to that: “It means I did what I loved with the time I’ve had.” Later on, he even admits his ideal relationship would be four days with the person he loves, and the rest of the week free time off for himself. The movie thus explores people adapting to each other to try to change and do what is best for both, not just for the one. Occasionally, the movie is fun while toying with some ideas, such as presenting each chapter as a printed text somewhere, as it appears on a blackboard, a parking ticket or even on the screen of a mobile phone. Unfortunately, the main actress, Stefy Garcia, is a much better actor than her counterpart, Omar Mora. Likewise, after 50 minutes, the film runs out of steam and inspiration, and we are left with dry, standard dialogue and a soap opera-like relationship drama for the next half an hour, up until the very refreshing and tantalizing ending. The leitmotif of a circle, including a painting of it in Rocio’s room, symbolizes the full circle the couple undergoes (even in the form of a ring). The movie has its moments, and yet one just wishes it had more of them, and on a higher level.  

Grade:++

The House of Yes

The House of Yes; black comedy, USA, 1997; D: Mark Waters, S: Parker Posey, Josh Hamilton, Tori Spelling, Freddie Prinze Jr., Geneviève Bujold  

During a hurricane, Marty arrives with his fiancèe Lesly to Virginia to introduce her to his bizarre family: his brother Anthony; eccentric mother; and mentally unstable twin sister Jackie-O, who is obsessed with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Jackie-O is puzzlingly jealous of Lesly, until Anthony finds out Jackie-O had incest with Marty, who she still loves. Anthony reveals that secret to Lesly, who has sex with him as revenge, but then regrets it. Yet Marty also had sex with Jackie-O that night. Unwilling to let him go, Jackie-O shoots Marty, while Lesly flees from the house in panic.  

“The House of Yes” is an unusual black comedy which, although shaky in the finale, still announced the future shrill side of the debut director Mark Waters (“Freaky Friday”, “Mean Girls”). Some parts in the film are brilliant, mostly in some deliciously snappy dialogues which at times almost reach the level of E. Lubitsch or P. Chayefsky (“One day I woke up stupid”. - “What’d you do?” - “I went back to bed.” - “That was wise”; “Pennsylvania is just this state that’s in your way when you’re trying to get someplace else.”), and there is even one touching little line by Marty, who says he saw Jackie-O apply make-up, and then just wash it away in tears, at which point he knew he had to go to New York. Underrated actress Parker Posey is excellent as the feisty Jackie-O and steals the show with her sharp antics, whereas a couple of moments even have some higher directorial touch, such as the hilarious moment where, inside the house, Jackie-O has invested a lot of energy to make her own hair look good, but someone opens the door and the breeze just “blows out” her hairdo into a mess. However, the film has two problems. Firstly, what does the title even mean? It is never truly explained and thus remains confusing. Secondly, the whole subplot of Jackie-O being obsessed with Jacqueline Onassis leads nowhere and feels like an intruder, and should have thus been simply removed from the film. It distracts from the main theme of this incest satire. The movie even starts off with archive footage of Mrs. Onassis interwoven with Jackie-O dressed into the former’s pink dress, and the viewers always wonder where the movie is going with this, but unfortunately, it seems it itself doesn’t know, since it plays no role (Jackie-O is already sufficiently depicted as mentally unstable without this masquerade) which makes the confusing ending feel incomplete and arbitrary. “The House of Yes” needed some polish, but you still enjoy in its spicy-macabre dish, and cannot say “no” to it.  

Grade:++

Armed and Dangerous

Armed and Dangerous; comedy, USA, 1986; D: Mark L. Lester, S: John Candy, Eugene Levy, Meg Ryan, Robert Loggia, Kenneth McMillan, James Tolkan

After he was framed for stealing, police officer Frank loses his job and thus decides to eductate himself to work as a security guard. He becomes friends with the ex-lawyer Norman, who in turn falls in love with supervisor Maggie, the daughter of Cpt. O'Connell. After a robbery of a warehouse, Norman poses as a tricky question; where does the 4 million $ union money go to? It turns out that union president Carlino wants to take the union money by having his men steal the van during the route, use it to finance Colombian drugs, and collect the insurance money. For that purpose, union treasury Lou is shot, and Frank and Norman are framed for his murder. However, Frank and Norman foil the kidnapping of the money van, get rehabilitated, whereas Carlino is arrested.

Canadian comedians Eugene Levy and John Candy starred in seven movies together, but ''Armed and Dangerous'' is often considered one of their weakest efforts, a tiresome, underwhelming comedy. The entire movie looks like anyone could have written it, even a 12-year old based on some simplistic jokes, since the screenwriters (among them even Harold Ramis) seem to have saved their better gags for some other movie. It is puzzling as to how little humor it has, how little it has to offer, and how little inspiration it has to even warrant doing this story in the first place. The opening sequence starts off sympathetically—the main protagonist, cop Frank, climbs up a tall tree to save a cat on top, but once there, realizes he is afraid to climb down, so a fireman truck is called for help, while Frank just tells them to hurry, ''because the cat is scared''—but the viewers will soon be disappointed to find out it is practically the only good joke in the entire film. Too many ideas lead nowhere, are too banal or in a cheap shot, such as the sequence where Frank and Norman hide inside an aerobic class, lie down and watch women's behinds in front of them, or when they disguise themselves as a gay couple—Frank as a transvestite, Norman as a man in a leather costume, which has two holes behind revealing Levy's butt-cheeks. The obligatory car stunt sequence at the end is there to try to save the movie, but the viewers have by that time already wasted their time. Unfortunately, one cannot escape the overall impression of ''Armed and Dangerous'': it is running on empty. 

Grade:+

Beauty, Brains, and Personality

Beauty, Brains, and Personality / Girls' Night In; comedy, USA, 2021; D: Emmett Loverde, S: Alexis Phillips, Tiana Tuttle, Samantha Skelton, Samantha Elizabeth Johnson

A girl is narrating a tale about three women: Jessica, Lynette and Candace are best friends. Jessica is considered attractive and popular with men, but is kind of dimwitted; Lynette is the intelligent one, but lonely, as she has been single for three years now; Candance has a positive personality. One evening, Jessica proclaims that she is the "beauty", while Lynette is the "brains" and Candance the "personality" of them three. Angry about these remarks, Lynette and Candance break contact with Jessica. However, they each decide to prove they are more than said labels: Jessica applies for a job as a secretary; Lynette applies to pose nude as a supermodel; while Candance decides to undergo artificial insemination and raise a baby by herself. The three make up. The girl narrator is revealed to be Candance's baby, Maddie, as she welcomes the three for a visit.

"Beauty, Brains, and Personality", alternatively also known as "Girls' Night In", is a solid, but surprisingly inconsequential film built solely on one wrong remark said by one of the three female protagonists. Despite a very good cast of the three, played well by Alexis Phillips, Tiana Tuttle and Samantha Skelton, the thin story is always a notch below their talent, never truly igniting or inspiring them to do anything more than just to be 'meagre cute'. There is no real story per se, it is more of a 'slice-of-life' film about these three characters interacting, but their dialogue is just so bland, negligible, trivial and unimportant. It is unusual how such three attractive women can be so boring in a movie. The jokes are simply not funny. They play out like a sitcom with only a handful of good moments. In the opening act, Jessica is introduced as the attractive-dumb one, lamenting about how she is worried about her skin, causing an exchange with Lynette: "Goop dries out my skin. If I have a dry skin, I'll look old. I'm not gonna go out looking old!" - "People do it all the time". Jessica also wants to borrow Lynette's apartment for her date, because Lynette's apartment "looks smart". How can an apartment look "smart"? By the appearance in the movie, one does not get the impression of it. Already this beginning shows the rather scanty foundations of the film. 

The main tangle is a bit of a stretch: one could in theory accept that Jessica would proclaim that she is the "beauty" of the group (though, ironically, she is actually the least attractive woman of the three), and that Lynette is the "brains", but what does she mean when she labels Candance as the "personality" of the group? What personality? Feisty, cynical, introverted, emotional, determined...? It is unclear. Yes, she is described as someone with a sunshine smile, but what does that have to do with a personality? Moreover, why wouldn't someone with a brain have a personality? Ultimately, while one could accept that someone could be categorized as either "brain" or "beauty", the "personality" label is an intruder since it is rather vague. The three women then go out to try to prove they are more than just these labels. Lynette, the "brain", decides to try out to be a supermodel, to prove she can also be the "beauty", which makes sense. Jessica, the "beauty", decides to find a job in a high profile company, to prove she can also be the "brains". Also makes sense. But Candance's path makes no sense. She wants to become pregnant and raise the baby all by herself. Why? What does that have to do with having something more than the (vague) notion of "personality"? She is the weak link. At least there is a funny scene at the sperm bank, where Candance can't make up her mind about which of the men on the photos she wants to pick to become pregnant, so she asks the doctor: "Can I get two donors and mix them up in the test tube?" Another good comical moment with a point is when the viewers hear Jessica's answering machine: "If you are male, and you're cute, and you are looking for Jesse, you maybe in luck." Unfortunately, the rest of events are just too thin to carry the film, and thus, despite a sweet reveal of the identity of the narrator at the end, the movie rarely engages. 

Grade:+

Instant Karma

Instant Karma; fantasy drama, USA, 2021; D: Mitesh Kumar Patel, S: Stew Jetson, Samantha Belle, Nancy Mercurio, Karl Haas, Ac Larkin, Keegan Luther

Just as Jeff finally finds a job as a driver for U-Lift, his car breaks down, and he is helped by a homeless man, Harry, to push it away from the street. The next day, Jeff's girlfriend Samantha informs Jeff that her friend left for a visit to India, and thus left his car to her, so she gives it to Jeff so that he can drive again. As a reward, Jeff gives Harry a couple of dollars. Later, Jeff is surprised when he finds ten times more dollars in the back of his new car. Some time later, when meeting him again on the street, Jeff gives Harry some food. Later, Jeff finds ten times more food in the back of his car. Samantha and Jeff realize that they they will be recouped ten times for what ever they give out to anyone, not just Harry, while driving that specific car. A woman with a gun takes some money from Jeff. Later, he drops off a gangster, but finds a bag in the back of the car, containing a million $. Samantha and Jeff are overwhelmed, but the gangster calls them, claiming they stole his money. Jeff is forced to give the gangster the money to save his life. He had a small statue of Shani, the god of karma.

Independent fantasy drama "Instant Karma" is a gentle contemplation on whether people do good deeds only because they know they will get some sort of a reward for it, or if they do good deeds out of their own honest, altruistic conviction. The basic premise—a car magically reimburses the driver Jeff tenfold for every item he gives out to someone—is intruiguing, acting almost as some sort of a "guaranteed investement", and has a certain degree of awe and excitement in the first half. The movie has some neat little details and artistic touches, such as the supporting character of the homeless Harry who has a few humorous signs on the street (such as "Blah, blah, blah...Money... Blah, blah, blah... Food... Who reads signs anyway? Please help" or "My wife told me to wait here. That was 10 years ago") or the idea that singer Josh West enters Jeff's car and accepts to sing to Samantha on the iPhone, upon which the movie transitions elegantly from the lyrics Josh West sings live to the lyrics Josh West sings in the song in the music montage, in which Jeff driving the car and giving items to Harry. The cinematography is great, using several drone shots which give the movie a modern look. However, the story loses steam in the middle, effectively not being able to "squeeze" much more out of this concept in the second half. The remaining plot rides on a repetitive wave, since there are no more surprises or further versatile takes on said plot, except in the strange finale, where the movie suddenly shifts to a crime film, which feels shoehorned. Despite giving the movie intensity, this crime finale came way too late into the story to feel like it fits, and instead feels more like an "intruder". Though it has a clever little trick: a gangster tells Jeff he has the chance to pick his own outcome on a piece of paper—on one paper, it is written "Let you go", and on the other, "Kill you". However, the gangster writes down "Kill you" on both papers. Jeff, however, outfoxes him when he picks one paper, and eats, claiming that since the other paper has "Kill you" written on it, he must have picked the "Let you go" paper. While it could have been more inspired in exploiting all the potentials of the concept, "Instant Karma" offers some thoughtful observations on balance in the world, selfishness, honesty, and righteousness.

Grade:++

Ordet

Ordet; drama, Denmark, 1955, D: Carl Theodor Dreyer, S: Henrik Malberg, Emil Hass Christensen, Birgitte Federspiel, Preben Lerdorff Rye, Cay Kristiansen  

A farm somewhere in Denmark, run by the Borgen family. The 27-year old Johannes lost his mind and now preaches in the meadow to nobody, thinking he is the reincarnation of Jesus; his brother Mikkel is losing his faith, and awaits his third child with his pregnant wife, Inger; the youngest brother, Anders, is in love with Anne Petersen, but her father is against the marriage because they belong to a different religious denomination than the Borgens. Anders’ father Morten tries to persuade Mr. Petersen to allow the marriage, but to no avail. During childbirth, Inger delivers a stillborn baby, and dies herself later. Johannes disappears, but returns for the funeral and invokes God to bring Inger back to life. Miraculously, Inger indeed awakens, and hugs Mikkel.  

Included in Roger Ebert’s Great Movies list, Carl Theodor Dreyer’s penultimate film, and his only one filmed in the 19 50s, “Ordet” is a simple, minimalist, but demanding contemplation on the power of faith made in the raw, ascetic style of Tarkovsky and Bresson—who also incorporated Christian themes of suffering in the cruel world until salvation and nirvana in one way or another, bringing about a catharsis, almost as a reward for the characters enduring the hardships while keeping their good heart. “Ordet” is indeed very good, but still a little bit overrated. It is better written in the first half, where it has some inspired dialogue ("I believe a lot of miracles happen secretly", says Inger), as opposed to the second half which has too much conventional, almost soap opera-like lines. Likewise, its pacing is uneven, sometimes absorbing and fascinating, sometimes lingering for so long until it starts to drag. Its biggest problem is that the story is deeply entrenched into an ideology (in this case, religion), and thus lost its appeal to the non-religious viewers.  

The dialogues are pretty clever in the first half. Mikkel is a symbol for the rational man to whom religion plays less and less of a role in his life, claiming that he doesn’t even have “faith in faith” anymore, whereas his brother Johannes is his extreme counterpart, so religious that he thinks he is Jesus. Their father Morten laments that “miracles aren’t happening anymore”, establishing a crisis among them, until a rejuvenation in the finale. A few neat symbols are displayed, such as the long take in the meadow, where Johannes goes to the left, and Morten, Mikken and Anders go after him—almost to place a subliminal image that they will be following him in the end. The doctor, after helping save Inger’s life, later gently teases Morten: “What do you think helped more: my medicine or your prayers?” That is the only moment in the film that takes a more critical review process of religion, which should have used more of that, since similar movies such as Bergman’s “Winter Light” and Allen’s “Hannah and her Sisters” seem much fresher today due to their more objective observations. As a movie promoting the power of religion, it is misleading and disingenuous. But it is powerful as an allegory of people trapped inside a single mindset, unable to change their grey lives, until they accept an outsider with an open mind, thinking outside the box, who shows them how to transform, restructure their lives for the better.  

Grade:+++

Winter Light

Nattvardsgästerna; drama, Sweden, 1963, D: Ingmar Bergman, S: Gunnar Björnstrand, Ingrid Thulin, Max von Sydow, Gunnel Lindblom  

Winter. Tomas is a Protestant pastor of a small parish. He is visited by a couple, Karen and Jonas, who ask for guidance. Jonas returns and confesses in private his depression caused by a news article that the Chinese will soon obtain nuclear weapons, which might lead to a doomsday war. Tomas admits he himself is succumbing to doubt in the truth of religion. Jonas later commits suicide. Tomas is visited by Marta, a woman who confesses her love to him, but he insists that he can only love his wife who died four years ago. A church assistant tells Tomas about how Jesus suffered much more from the abandonment of his followers and God.   

“Winter Light” aligns with director Ingmar Bergman’s obsession with death since its whole story is basically just a giant allegory on dying and the passage of time, and highly unflinchingly and direct in this edition: in the opening shots, pastor Tomas is holding a mass in a church, but only a handful of people are attending, and in the aftermath, only scarce pennies are found from the church donations, all to symbolize how the time of this is slowly coming to an end. Tomas himself is in an existential crisis, doubting in the truth of religion, contemplating if he wasted his entire life. Even the setting is during winter, the end of a cycle, whereas Tomas is sick from a flu, almost as to show how even his physical state is dissolving. Bergman crafts the minimalist story in his typical conventional, grey style, but his writing rises to the occasion, stinging with staggering sharpness in some bleak dialogues. The 6-minute sequence of Marta reciting her letter and looking directly into the camera, describing her pain from a rash, offers one of the best lines Bergman ever wrote: “God, why have you created me so eternally dissatisfied? Why must I realize how wretched I am? Why must I suffer so hellishly for my insignificance?” Rarely was he able to get to the point of some universal human truths in such a concise, fast manner.  

In another sequence, the depressive Jonas asks for guidance, but Tomas just proves to be even more negative than him while describing his own thoughts: “I put my faith in an improbable and private image of a fatherly God. One who loved mankind, of course... but me most of all! Do you see Jonas what a monstrous mistake I made?” He concludes: “If there is no God, would it make any difference? Life would become understandable. What a relief.” Bergman creates a codification of events on a certain level: Tomas suffers from anxiety because he receives no feedback from God, but that is paralleled by Marta’s situation, who loves Tomas and awaits his feedback, but she receives nothing from Tomas, either, who chastises her for “mimicking” the behavior of his late wife. Negligence, insignificance of frail, limited lives, and pain of desolate isolation in the cold world are the main themes of the film. Tomas realizes he has been following a deception, but in the end just continues the empty tradition, unable even to change. While some of Bergman’s obsessions with religion and always the same autistic lamentation about the suffering in the fatalistic world tend to get stuck running around in circles, “Winter Light” is one of his best achievements, an unassuming film with some timeless themes presented in an understanding way.  

Grade:+++

The Suicide Squad

The Suicide Squad; fantasy action thriller, USA, 2021, D: James Gunn, S: Idris Elba, Margot Robbie, John Cena, Joel Kinnaman, David Dastmalchian, Daniela Melchior, Michael Rooker, Viola Davis, Joaquin Cosio, Sylvester Stallone (voice)

Six convicts and/or metahumans—archer Bloodsport, Harley Quinn, Peacemaker, fish-human mutant King Shark, Polka-Dot Man with superpowers, Ratcatcher 2, who can control rats—augmented by Colonel Flag—are assembled as a black-ops Suicide Squad and get the government asignment to go to the South American island-nation Corto Maltese, whose pro-American government was replaced in a coup d’etat by the anti-American dictator Luna and his General Suarez, and destroy the fortress Jotunheim, where secret experiments are conducted on an giant alien starfish creature, Starro, which could be used as a giant weapon against the US. After a lot of obstacles, the Suicide Squad finds out it was the US government that oversaw the experiments 30 years ago, during the Cold War. The 40ft tall Starro escapes from Jotunheim, spreading thousands of starfishes to control the people, but the Suicide Squad is able to kill it.  

“The Suicide Squad” is the bloodiest superhero movie up until that time, which is a dubious honor: it has style and sheer creativity, yet just like “RoboCop 2”, its violence became so extreme that it diminished its enjoyment value and numbed the audience. Unlike Gunn’s contagiously fun “Guardians of the Galaxy”, which worked so well because of the bonding, chemistry and charm of its sympathetic characters, “The Suicide Squad” feels hampered down since there are so many unlikeable characters, and thus the viewers cannot root for them. The only somewhat good characters are Ratcatcher 2, Colonel Flag and Bloodsport, yet King Shark, Polka-Dot Man and Peacemaker are just downright creepy criminals, and one cannot extract sympathy from them—even ignoring ethical issues aside, there are unnecessary, sensless deaths and vile cruelty (in one, King Shark simply grabs a man and eats him in one bite). Even the similarly R-rated “Deadpool” had more measure and balance when juggling with hard-core violent elements. 

It is clever that “invisible” titles are shown to mark chapters in the plot, and several of them are stylish: for instance, when Bloodsport, Flag and the Polka-Dot Man escape from a van, giant flames behind them form letters saying: “Operation Jotunheim”. But then one of them rejects it and wants to save Harley Quinn first, so the last word of flames is extinguished, and a new one forms, saying: “Operation Harley”.  The story is very bitter and unflinching in its portrayal of real world politics: from weapons of mass destruction getting out of control; through anti-American dictators who are even worse than previous pro-American dictators; the necessity to perpetrate a crime to prevent an even bigger crime; up to the nature of black operatives who are illegal precisely because a government is ashamed of revealing its dubious programs. Margot Robbie definitely profited the most out of this, since she got the best of all versions of Harley Quinn she ever played in a movie. Despite some brilliant moments and highly stylistic sequences (during the prison escape, Harley imagines colorful flowers instead of blood coming out of slain soldiers), "The Suicide Squad" never really feels as if it connects as a whole due to its ill-conceived or mismanaged gory ideas. The movie needed less of Tarantino and more of James Gunn. But its finale is one grand example of insane creative genius: the scene where the giant, 40 ft tall alien creature finally emerges, and titles in a freeze frame show up saying: “Suicide Squad vs. Starro the Conqueror”, is a small perfection of inspiration.

Grade:++

The Square

The Square; art-film / drama / satire, Sweden / Germany / France / Denmark, 2017, D: Ruben Östlund, S: Claes Bang, Christopher Læssø, Elisabeth Moss, Marina Schiptjenko, Terry Notary, Dominic West 

Christian is a curator at an art museum. In order to attract an audience and try out something new, he approves the idea of a 4*4 meter square drawn on the city square, where people can enter and demand help from society. In the midst of all this, he struggles with numerous personal problems: his wallet and mobile phone are stolen in a confidence trick, but he gets them back when he inserts letters threatening to call the police to all tenants of a building where he geolocated his phone. However, now an immigrant boy accosts Christian since his parents accused him of theft. Christian also has a one night stand with an American reporter, Anne, but doesn’t want a relationship. After a controversial video promoting the museum is released, which shows a blond girl entering the square and exploding from a land mine, Christian resigns.  

Overrated “The Square” is assembled almost like a Bunuel-style surreal satire on the modern world, demolishing and deliberately refusing to yield to the classic three-act structure of storytelling, yet it is a set of episodic vignettes which get so random at times that the movie itself loses its compass and becomes aimless. 70 minutes into the film, and you still do not know what this story is about. You get from one bizarre moment to another, and wonder when the whole thing is finally goint to end already, and then it ends and that’s it. It has several good moments, one neat comical situation (after great sex, Christian suddenly does not trust Anne that she will throw away the condom with his sperm in it, so the two pull it on both sides and won’t let go), and at least two scenes with a great example of a visual style (the subliminal, aesthetic image of a person’s shadow only seen on the street, while the person is outside the frame; the camera going up in a spiral as it tracks Christian and his two daughters climbing up spiral stairs, creating an illusion as if the stairs are just shrinking beneath them), yet it also embodies some of the worst traits of European 21st century art-films: tedious-pretentious vague symbolism; a disparate set of scenes without any ability for a narrative; shock as a compensation for lack of inspiration. 

Speaking of latter, there is an ill-conceived, cringe worthy 10-minute sequence of a shirtless artist acting like an ape during a high-society dinner, until he assaults a woman, so the guests intervene and beat him up. The message is clear—how easily civilized people can fall back into primitivism—but a message alone cannot carry an entire film. A movie needs a cinematic assembly more than just a message. While aspirational, ambitious and stylish thanks to director Ruben Ostlund, it is indicative that this film forgets its square from the title, a sanctuary of sorts, and just moves on. The symbolism is that the protagonist wanted to create an artistic stand, using a small square as some sort of place for an utopia and philanthropy, while in reality the entire society around him acts indifferent and suspicious towards everyone else (even when Christian trusts and tries to help a girl in trouble, this turns out to be a confidence trick in which she robbed his wallet), drawing a conclusion that art lost touch with modern people, able now only to deliver disingenuous artistic placebo. However, in its own indifference and contempt towards its story and characters, “The Square” ultimately became the very thing it criticized: a disingenuous artistic placebo.  

Grade:++

Sex/Life

Sex/Life, erotic drama series, USA, 2021, D: Patrizia Rozema, Jessika Borsiczky, Samira Radsi, S: Sarah Shahi, Mike Vogel, Adam Demos, Margaret Odette, Li Jun Li  

New York. Billie is a woman in her 30s who seemingly has it all: she is married to a caring husband, manager Cooper; has two lovely kids; and lives in a suburban house. However, secretly she longs for the sexual excitement of her life when she was a student and single. When she crosses paths with her ex-lover, the wild Brad, a record producer, she starts hanging out with him and writes down her fantasies about him. Cooper reads her journal on the laptop and is very upset, and even confronts Brad to stay away from Billie. Feeling remorse, Billie tries to spice up her sex life with Cooper, like having sex in a pool of a random house at night. Cooper even gets hit on by his boss, Francesca, but declines. Things get back to normal between Billie and Cooper—but just as she settles down, she changes her mind and rushes off to see Brad again.  

“Sex/Life” unravels like a more direct, female version of Wilder’s film “The Seven Year Itch”, depicting marital problems after the couple’s lives entered a certain routine with time. It owes the most of its intrigue to a great performance by the leading actress Sarah Shahi as the heroine Billie, but also to screenwriter Stacy Rukeyser who has a certain sense for conjuring up a few clever, humorous dialogues, since her specific touch can be sensed in the three best written episodes; 1, 2 and 8. For example, in the first episode, Billie wants to have sex with Cooper in bed, but as they start, he cannot focus, as he is more interested in watching a sports game on TV behind her. After that, Billie gets her vibrator, but its batteries fail her too, and the crying of the baby is heard downstairs. Her frustration is almost palpable. Billie’s narration then comments: “It’s been 18 months since the last time Cooper went down on me. I expelled an entire human being in half that time.” In episode 8, a prude, conservative mother confronts her about going to a sex party, and Billie has a perfect response: “I never judged you for not liking sex. So I expect you to not judge me for liking it, either”. In another episode, while sitting at a station, an old lady gently cautions Billie that her lactating breasts have caused two wet spots on her shirt. You rarely get a TV series so brutally honest these days, which is something that should be complimented. 

Unfortunately, the rest of the episodes, not written by Rukeyser, are less inspired, and often feel more like a soap opera, following always the same pattern: Billie going back and forth between her husband Cooper and her ex-lover Brad. It would have been good if she could make up her mind after a dozen of such repetitions. Because this way the story is just going around in circles. The dialogues from episode 3 onwards become too stale, schematic and ordinary. A triple psychological analysis of the situation Billie finds herself in is interesting, though: one interpretation could be that some people are simply never satisfied with whatever they get in life, and always strive towards the illusion of something better. Another could be the old saying that there are two types of guys—the ones that are good lovers; and the other that are good husbands—and that she wants both, even though no man can be both. This is hinted at in the now legendary sequence in episode 3, where Cooper follows Brad to see what he has what he doesn’t—and then Brad turns around in a shower, revealing he has a bigger dick (the only scene in the entire series that this is shown). Billie herself says at one point that she has 85% of all she wants with Cooper, but also needs “that other 15%”. A third one is the bitter realization that Billie’s days of youth are behind her, as she has now settled down and can only be a mother to her kids (the next generation), but refuses to grow old and still runs back to Brad, the symbol of her youth and days of carefree sex. Her escape to Brad is a vain attempt to escape the passage of time and turn back the clock. In that sense, she is a tragic character, torn by her refusal of accept fatalism. “Sex/Life” refuses to enter into moralizing, and has just enough spark and passion to outweigh its more repetitive storyline in the middle episodes.  

Grade:++