Welcome to 2025! This is the first post of the year. Last night was the Golden Globes, but this was written before the awards were announced on Sunday evening. It is wild to think that we are 25 years into this century already. Time actually flies by. I get more grey-haired and still write about the movies that I am watching. The holiday season means that there is more watching, and I will spread out some of the reviews. This week is The Brutalist that I saw last night, and then The Substance that I watched on TV the night before. Others to come include the Donald Trump The Apprentice movie as well as the film adaptation of the Broadway musical Wicked.
The Brutalist: This movie was nominated for a Best Picture for the Golden Globes, among its seven nominations, which also included Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor and Actress. It was on this buzz that I wanted to seek it out. It is only playing at a single theatre here in Toronto. Written and directed by Brady Corbet, who was known for his prior work Thirteen among others. The movie is 3 hours and 35 mins with a 15 minute Intermission at the 1:40 mark. In the broadest description, it is a story of a married Hungarian Jewish architect, named Laslo Toth, in post World War II establishing himself in a new life in the United States from Europe. He is initially separated from his wife, Erzsebet played by Felicity Jones, and neither are certain whether the other is living or dead. Played ably by Adrian Brody, Laslo begins his US story by being picked up by his cousin in Pennsylvania, who is married and owns a furniture store. While working with the cousin, Laslo is asked to quote a job to the son of a rich industrialist for a new library at the expansive house at the family estate. The industrialist, played by Guy Pearce, becomes an important part of Lalso’s life. From modest beginnings, the industrialist and the architect become involved in an important community building project.
I struggled with this movie in a way that I don’t very often. It was hard to pin point it for me. It was not straightforward movie telling, all the while being filmed in chronological order. It was long with a pace that felt slow. When it was all done, I marvelled at the performance by Brody, because he plays a man who had his own demons. His struggles and challenges are many, from being in a foreign land with no support, and even the support he receives doesn’t turn out as you might hope. Then there are challenges with his business partner and also his wife. This was evident throughout the telling of this tale. Split into parts by time, part one introduces the characters and the project and it is from 1946-1952. Then part two is from 1953 to 1960. Brody who has no trouble showing anger and expressing his thoughts, he also can be very quiet with his deepest feelings. Most notably with this, is in his work; the building that he has designed and all of its symbolism. I will note that the character of Laslo Toth is fictional, as well as the industrialist, but he could very well be a Rockefeller or Henry Ford. Unlike Ford, the industrialist isn’t blessed with any talent beyond making money. Yet he can recognize artistry in others. Felicity Jones as his wife has her own challenges with her relationship with her husband, their situation, as well as her own skills and education as a journalist. She tries to steer her husband, all the while feeling as though he doesn’t have the same passion for her as he did before. She is also accompanied by her niece, the daughter of Laslo’s sister. All these characters interact with Laslo, but also with the industrialist and his son and daughter.
After seeing Conclave, I came away thinking that Ralph Fiennes will finally win an Oscar. I still believe this because overall I like that movie better than this one. But I can be convinced that the breadth of the Brody performance is greater and shows more depth of emotion. Toth leads a complicated life where he is not in charge of it. Others hold the cards and are sure to ensure that he is a aware of this fact. I do think now upon reflection and discussion that the Epilogue is crucial. It brings much of it together, although for me in a way where I feel as though I would more fully understand all that happened only through a re-watch. I am not sure whether I am prepared to spend another three-plus hours with this material. It is unlikely. Is this the best drama of the year? I am not sure. I don’t think so. But it is ambitious and the performances make it worthy of consideration.
The Substance: In another Golden Globe category, Demi Moore was nominated in the Best Actress category of musical or comedy (?) for this “body horror” film. Her co-star Margaret Qualley was also nominated as Best Supporting Actress. I had no idea what “body horror” meant, but upon viewing it seems to be channelling a movie like The Fly, where the Jeff Goldblum character turns from human into a fly-human Brundel-fly combination to the point where he became unrecognizable. Here the 62-yo Moore plays Hollywood Star Walk of Fame recipient Elisabeth Sparkle who is celebrating her 50th birthday. Sparkle has a Jane Fonda workout like show, which in many ways mirrors the 1980s Twenty Minute Workout and all of its over-sexualized images. Her TV executive boss Dennis Quaid, in an over-the-top repulsive performance, decides to release her and head in a younger direction. While she is seeing a doctor, she has a note slipped into her pocket which reads that this company changed their life with a phone number. Elisabeth in an act of aging defiance chooses to make the call and see what this offer is.
With very little instruction, Elisabeth picks up a do-it-yourself package with vaccuum-packed instruments and mysterious substance that is supposed to “be all you”. She takes the chance and immediately feels that a mistake has been made. In short a younger version of herself is created, although the two share an existence where each gets to live fully for seven days at a time, without exception before then going into a form of hybernation. There are consequences for taking longer of the others time. Predicatably things go awry. Unpredictably, the consequences and sequence of events goes far beyond what you might expect, with the resulting effects being, like Dennis Quaid, over-the-top. There were 11,000 gallons of fake blood used in the filming which tells you really all that you need to know. In many ways, it is a lot like the ending of Carrie at the prom or perhaps The Shining with the elevator.
Does Moore and her co-star deserve nominations for this performance? As I watched I wasn’t convinced. It seemed that the nomination comes from the willingness to be nude on screen, which for me isn’t acting. Even at 62 years old. In the third act, there were some moments of physical acting, but I feel as though the make up was doing more of the acting than the actor themselves. As opposed to a horror movie, I feel that this is more of a gross-out. There are so many needles scenes (which for me are very uncomfortable and trigger me) but also shots of deteriorating and aging body parts. It is disconcerting and went beyond where it needed to. Is this worthy of a nomination? No. Is it Musical or Comedy? No. It was silly to the point of ridiculousness which in itself is laughable, but it isn’t a comedy. I do think that a horror performance can be nomination worthy, like Toni Collette in Hereditary which comes immeditately to mind. I do not see either performance as worthy of the win.
Mondays With Robbie 