Strange Magic, Hot Summer
Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke
I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative. However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, though better options may be on the horizon. (Note: Anything in bold blue [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)
Here’s the trailer:
(Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size;
activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)
If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy). To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows:
⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.
What Happens: We begin in an unspecified U.S. location (seems to be in the Midwest, a frequent location for indie films), with images in the old 4x3 ratio shot on 16mm so we’re immediately put into a situation that feels odd to contemporary sensibilities, where we meet a somewhat (in varying degrees) oddball family: father Daryl Dent (Paul Sparks) sees himself as an emerging chef who wants to open his own restaurant—maybe named Beautiful and Real Food (did Donald Trump suggest that?) even though he’s not all that successful at flipping burgers at a local fast-food-franchise, but the whole family has to pinch pennies to stake his proposed operating costs; daughter Rachel (Rachel Resheff)—the name she’s called in a couple of reviews I’ve read, although my notes and the IMDb cast list cite her character as Danielle (IMDb says Rachel, whomever she might be, is played by Jessica Pimentel), a confusion which fits the tone of this odd film quite appropriately—seemingly the most normal of the bunch, running lights for a local theatre production, though she’s clumsy at it; son Drew (Owen Campbell) who works in a pet shop, comes home one day with pregnant girlfriend, Marlene (Guy Birney), whom he’s devoted to even though he’s not the father of the baby-to-be (she moves in with the family, no hesitations); and, most focused-on-of-all, Mom Diana (Annie Parisse), a pharmacist who suddenly discovers her bank account’s been drained by hackers she mistakenly trusted. (We also get some scenes with Marlene’s mother, Monica Church [Constance Shulman], a former actor looking for a crucial interview and her lauded return to the stage, which others besides me see as an obvious notation of Norma Desmond’s [Gloria Swanson, an actual silent-celeb] famously-deluded-silent-screen-star in Sunset Boulevard [Billy Wilder, 1950].)
Basically, except for a few cutaways to other characters at times, what the film does for the rest of its weird exposition is to follow Diana and Marlene as they go to a location Marlene’s pinpointed on a computer as the place where Diane’s thief resides; however, when they get there they find 2 strange twin sisters, Nina (Judith Roberts) and her unnamed (as best I followed these scenes) sibling (body double Charlotte Harvey with Robert’s head superimposed on her). These women apparently don’t have anything to do with the rip-off of Diana’s funds, yet Diana and Marlene stay the night with them where they hear the sound of a train passing nearby. ⇒Diana seems to be in the woods at night, sees a person with her head wrapped in a cloth (reminds me of Rene Magritte’s 1928 painting, The Lovers), then wakes up outside to find the train is simply a little toy, yet the sisters insist it’s the one that brings deliveries to them. Diana decides to stay with the sisters, Marlene drives back home, we see Monica on stage in a play (seemingly the one lit by Danielle (Rachel?).⇐ Well, that’s all, folks!
So What? As I’m still on cautious-COVID-watch regarding movie theaters I must admit there’s little there at present to draw me in anyway. (I’m sure if I really care I’ll be able to find The Little Mermaid [2023] [Rob Marshall] and/or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 [James Gunn] soon enough on Disney+ streaming, while big-splash-Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse [Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, Justin K. Thompson] will flow just fine without me [grossed $221.6 million globally in its debut weekend] as I saw plenty of multiverse Spider-Men in live-action Spider-Man: No Way Home [Jon Watts, 2021; review in our January 6, 2022 posting] with Tom Holland, Tobey McGuire, and Andrew Garfield; I am intrigued by You Hurt My Feelings [Nicole Holofcenter] starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus [95% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, a most hearty 82% average score from the misers at Metacritic], but because it opened in only 912 domestic [U.S.-Canada] theaters, with a global haul so far of just $3 million I have a feeling it’ll be available on streaming soon also.) So I searched through recent streaming options, came up with a documentary on Donna Summer which I mainly watched out of curiosity—review farther below—as I’m only marginally familiar with her music, leaving me to take a chance for the feature review this week about something I’d never heard of, Giving Birth to a Butterfly, apparently made in 2021 but just now getting to be available for streaming (when you can find no mention of something in Wikipedia you know it’s officially-obscure).
The just-barely/maybe-not CCAC’s not up on it much either as the RT positives are based on only 20 reviews, while the MC average score barely registers as it’s inspired by only 5 evaluations (2 supportive, 2 mixed, 1 negative), so based on a few comments that say this film evokes aspects of David Lynch, I decided to give it a try (fortunately, it wasn’t much of a financial investment to do so, nor did it take too much out of my life with its almost-unheard-of-restricted-running-time). It’s not really as strange as I’d expect from Lynch, there really isn’t much plot development except for the 2 women’s road trip, and it’s really hard to get interested in most of the characters given either their marginal-quirkiness or lack of blossoming into a full screen presence, so maybe this isn’t something to draw your attention unless you’re just extremely ready for something that won’t look or feel like most others you’d see, certainly not the summer’s ongoing plethora of big-budget-blockbusters or even the standardly-odd/intensely-serious independent offerings that try to sneak in some viewer dollars as options to more-mainstream-fare. Certain alternative-attitude-critics claim they see/write about some films so that you won’t have to; normally, I’m not in that group, but this time I may well be because, while I could find certain aspects of this story intriguing the farther along it went in its exposition, I can’t really get too excited about it. However, just so this isn’t a complete loss for any of us, although I must admit I have no idea what the title’s supposed to refer to, but to give it some meaning here I’ve added a short nature video (3:00) of an actual butterfly giving birth to its next generation. (Warning [?]: for some silly reason, it’s age-restricted so you have to verify you’re an adult [even then it might not be allowed in Florida, just like books, trans-people, and immigrants] even though there’s nothing inappropriate here [or with the Florida outcasts], for anyone of any age.)
Bottom Line Final Comments: As noted above, the CCAC’s lukewarm toward this film (seems very few of them even tried to find it, let alone offer an opinion, which kind of reminds me of a lyric from Willie Nelson’s "Red Headed Stranger" [1975 album of the same name]: “He bought her a drink and he gave her some money / He just didn’t seem to care” with an attitude toward this film that feels a bit like “Just wait ‘til tomorrow / Maybe [... Butterflies] will ride on again.” OK, I know I’m stretching here, but I feel the weirdness of this story—what there is of it—gives me some creative license to wander a bit.) The RT positive reviews come in at 70%, while the MC average score is (no surprise) notably lower at 54%. Roger Moore of Movie Nation gets right to the point of those who don’t care for … Butterfly: “But the entire enterprise feels like a piece of experimental theater that needs further workshopping before it’s ready for the stage. We all have a higher tolerance for this sort of intentionally opaque drama/dark comedy decorated with the odd lovely turn of phrase on the stage and the actors are right in front of us and thus too vulnerable to catcalls. [¶] I mean, ‘I don’t mean to be rude. But you don’t make much sense’ [a line from the film spoken by Marlene to Nina—or maybe her twin; it’s hard to tell].” Still, the film does have (at least some marginal) defenders such as The New York Times’ Beatrice Loayza who says … Butterfly is a: “beautifully peculiar debut feature, [that] strikes a balance between tender and vaguely unsettling […] The mannered, intentionally stilted performances give the drama a stagey feel, which vibes with the film’s ethereal aesthetics. But the forced profundity of the ‘Butterfly’ script undermines the film’s enthralling sense of atmosphere, which drips with melancholy, menace and wonder.” (About the best praise you’ll find.)
At times I was utterly fascinated with it (not all that often, though), other times it just gets frustrating that nothing comes of most of the plot set-ups, although we do get a sense of Monica fulfilling her self-styled-sense of wonder on the stage (I assume in the play where Rachel’s doing the lighting). When I was most attracted to … Butterfly I considered giving it 4 stars as a radically (except for echoes of Lynch) different experience, but when it just seems to wander aimlessly I was more in the mood for a dismissive 2 stars, so I compromised on 3 stars as I don’t think this film’s fully formed, yet there are interesting aspects. If you’re intrigued enough to spend $4.99 for a rental (Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, other platforms) go for it; otherwise, maybe you’d like my usual review finisher of a Musical Metaphor, in this case the Doors’ "People Are Strange" (on their 1967 Strange Days album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezc05A4s2g because when you’re in situations as askew as some of what you’d see in Giving Birth to a Butterfly you could easily relate to lyrics such as: “When you’re strange / Faces come out of the rain / When you’re strange / No one remembers your name.” Strange days, indeed; interested? Or, maybe you'd prefer the true David Lynchian content, so you should just meander over to Mulholland Drive (2001), one of his strangest and best.
SHORT TAKES
Here’s the trailer:
I include no plot spoilers in this review because it's a documentary of known facts.
I’ve been piling up reviewing the documentaries of celebrities lately, starting with Michael J. Fox, then Gordon Lightfoot, most recently Mary Tyler Moore, so here’s yet another one, this time about Donna Summer, the “Queen of Disco” (although she felt such a moniker implied too much of a limitation to her abilities as a singer/stage presence so in 1978 she went in a very different direction with her version of “MacArthur Park,” a semi-operatic-song I’ve never cared much for [“Someone left the cake out in the rain / I don’t think that I can take it / ‘Cause it took so long to bake it / And I’ll never have that recipe again”—yeah, “Oh, no” couldn’t be more appropriate; but what do I know? She got her first #1 hit with it, despite the success of her earlier work!]), with brief info on her upbringing in Boston, then an exploration of the ups and downs of her career with a lot of interview footage of her along with commentary by co-director/co-executive producer (and Donna’s daughter) Brooklyn that lets us see how she evolved from a girl with a powerful voice in church (her parents wanted her to be the next Mahalia Jackson (but Donna often saw herself as ugly, inadequate, haunted by the sexual abuse from a relative in her early years) to an international sensation with her huge hit of “Love to Love You Baby,” which is sensual enough when you merely hear it, but in some footage of her live performances you might wonder how the crowd in the auditorium didn’t break into an orgy no matter what the security forces might have tried to restore order. We learn the song really took off when the original 1975 3:21 version was extended to 17:03—long enough for you to have an orgasm while listening to it (the BBC banned it, even as it was a hot seller)—which got great airplay in Europe (adding to her earlier emergence as an actor in a Munich, Germany version of Hair), then on late-night U.S. radio, then in the discos, which—along with her other hits of that era—led to that “Queen” designation, fortified by lots of footage here of dancing, by Donna and her fans.
There’s no doubt this was a beautiful, talented, sensual woman on stage, but this doc also allows us to understand how she felt this was just a manufactured public role (a quite successful one, however) that didn’t reflect her true, private self, where she never forgot that church heritage, even as audiences tore off their clothes (even underwear) to throw on stage for her while she performed.
During this time her marriage to Helmuth Sommer ended in divorce (1976), but she found family support by bringing her 3 sisters on tour with her as backup-singers, yet she worked so much she felt she was a poor mother to her own 3 daughters over the years, plus as she tried to somewhat return to her Christian roots she supposedly made remarks that alienated her loyal gay community, but she finally found stability, happiness with new husband Bruce Sudano (1980), along with gaining notice as the first Black female singer on MTV. Ultimately, she died at age 63 in 2012 from lung cancer, but little’s said about it here. Along the way in this film we see her with or talked about by, among others, Elton John, Johnny Carson, Quincy Jones, Dionne Warwick, Merv Griffin, etc. If you’re a fan of her work I’m sure you’ll find a lot to like here, if (like me) you don’t know much about her previously (certainly, I heard her on the radio a lot back in her heyday, but that was in context with a lot of others; on screen you’ll get a mini-catalogue of “I Feel Love,” “Hot Stuff,” “Last Dance,” “She Works Hard for the Money”), there’s a quite a lot to learn packed in here, but somehow I still just don’t feel as connected to her as I did to those other celebs in their docs, but maybe that’s just me, because I paid a lot more attention to their careers when they were at their peaks. The CCAC’s generally supportive with RT positive reviews at 84%, the MC average score at (a predictably lower) 62%, so if you want to see it you’ll need to subscribe to HBO (several planned cablecasts coming up soon) or their Max streaming platform (cheapest option is $10 monthly if you need to subscribe). If not, you can just indulge in my Musical Metaphor, a version of “Love to Love You Baby” (from her 1975 album of the same name) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Wog t5LZfY, a live performance in Germany where you get the disco context, her sensual presence even on a small stage, and those marvelous gold platform boots. (What more could you possibly ask for?)
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
(1) A detailed report on the global film industry (but you have to pay some to get the full report); (2) Actors union approves strike authorization; (3) For Pride Month, a history of the gay best friend in movies (for considerably more on the larger context of this major topic in eras of American cinema, see The Celluloid Closet; (4) Disney takes $1.5 billion write-off after pulling titles from streaming services; (5) Being Mary Tyler Moore director talks about his project (this is a later-found-follow-up to my 5/31/2023 review of this documentary; you'll find the link to it is noted above).
We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list). Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage. If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us! Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post. You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).
*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.
If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please
use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.
OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.
Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 32,238 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):
No comments:
Post a Comment