Tag: movies

Articles about movies

Review: ‘We Are the Radical Monarchs,’ starring Anayvette Martinez and Marilyn Hollinquest

July 20, 2020

by Carla Hay

A scene from “We Are the Radical Monarchs” (Photo courtesy of PBS)

“We Are the Radical Monarchs”

Directed by Linda Goldstein Knowlton

Culture Representation: Taking place in California, the documentary film “We Are the Radical Monarchs” features a racially diverse group (African American, Asian and Latino) of parents, women and girls who are involved in the Radical Monarchs, a social-justice group for girls of color that was formed in Oakland as an alternative to the Girl Scouts.

Culture Clash: The Radical Monarchs are taught politically progressive ideals, but the group gets criticism from conservatives who think the group is inappropriate for children or exclusionary of white people.

Culture Audience: “We Are the Radical Monarchs” will appeal primarily to politically liberal people or people who believe in social-justice groups.

A scene from “We Are the Radical Monarchs” (Photo courtesy of PBS)

How young is too young for kids to learn about social-justice activism? That’s up to children’s parents or legal guardians, but the documentary “We Are the Radical Monarchs” shows how two unapologetically liberal-minded women in the San Francisco Bay Area decided to form a social-activist group for girls called the Radical Monarchs, as an alternative to the non-political Girl Scouts.

Directed in cinéma vérité style by Linda Goldstein Knowlton, “We Are the Radical Monarchs” (which was filmed from 2015 to 2017) obviously won’t appeal to everyone politically, but at the very least it shows how the members of the Radical Monarchs are being taught to express their rights to free speech in their quest to make the world a more open-minded and tolerant place. The girls in the documentary are bright, inquisitive and respectful of each other and of adults.

The Radical Monarchs launched in December 2014, in Oakland, California, when co-founder Anayvette Martinez, a single mother, saw that her then-10-year-old daughter Lupita was part of a Girl Scout troop that treated issues related to people of color as secondary or not as important as other issues. As Martinez says in the documentary, “I wanted her to have a troop that centered her as a girl of color.”

Martinez (who was a community organizer at the time) joined forces with like-minded Marilyn Hollinquest to co-found the Radical Monarchs specifically for girls of color and as a way to teach them to be involved in social-justice issues. They decided to affiliate the Radical Monarchs with Black Lives Matter, after being inspired by the August 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown (an 18-year-old unarmed African American) by white police officer Darren Wilson.

The documentary shows Martinez and Hollinquest leading the Radical Monarchs’ first troop (with girls ranging in ages from 8 to 11) in discussions about race, gender identity, LGBTQ issues, police brutality, Black Lives Matter, peaceful protests, immigration, affordable housing, civil rights and fighting against discrimination. The Radical Monarchs often have guest speakers (who are usually activists) at their meetings. Transgender women and people with disabilities are among those shown in the documentary as guest speakers.

And just like the Girl Scouts, the Radical Monarchs get badges. But the Radical Monarchs badges are for achievements in political activism and social justice, rather than specific careers or non-political hobbies. (Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza is shown attending a few Radical Monarchs events as a show of support, such as when she hands out merit badges.) And even though the Radical Monarchs are not old enough to vote, the girls are very politically involved, since the documentary shows them doing things such as attending protests and marches (including the 2017 Women’s March in San Francisco); speaking at city council meetings; and visiting with politicians in California’s state capital of Sacramento.

Hollinquest (who has a background as a development director dealing with laborer rights) explains the need for the Radical Monarchs to exist: “Youth get underestimated a lot [for] how much they see, hear and know. And because of the adults around them being uncomfortable talking about topics, then things don’t get talked about. So, for us, the Radical Monarchs is the safe place where they can come. We are trained, and we can talk about these issues in a comfortable way.”

Martinez and Hollinquest met while they were in graduate school at San Francisco State University. Both women say in the documentary that they identify as “queer” (Martinez and Hollinquest are just friends, not a couple) and outspoken feminists. In addition, Hollinquest and Martinez say that they are teaching their Radical Monarch members to have progressive views, but they also encourage the girls to always ask questions about what they are taught and what they see around them.

The documentary shows that self-acceptance, inclusion and standing up for others who are being discriminated against are values that are constantly being taught to the girls. There are question-and-answer sessions where the girls are allowed to ask anything they want. And they are encouraged to support each other like sisters. For example, when one of the girls breaks down and cries when remembering how she was bullied in school because of her skin color, the other Radical Monarchs rally around to hug her and comfort her.

And the girls are taught to look carefully at the media to understand that who controls a media outlet has a lot to do with how that media outlet shapes stories and puts out certain images. For example, in a session called Radical Fashion, members of the Radical Monarchs are shown two different female-oriented magazines—InStyle and Ms.—and asked to point out the differences in how women and girls are portrayed in each magazine. Not surprisingly, the girls say that they think Ms. portrays the female gender more realistically and has smarter articles. The girls are then told that Ms. magazine was founded and is owned by women, while InStyle is not.

“We Are the Radical Monarchs” thankfully doesn’t get distracted with bogging down the documentary with “expert” political commentary from people who have nothing to do with the organization. Instead, the filmmakers let the interview commentary come directly from people who are involved with the Radical Monarchs, as members, leaders or parents. For example, when the Radical Monarchs visit the California State Capitol Building in Sacramento, the film shows highlights of the visit as the girls interact with the politicians there (such as state senator Holly Mitchell), rather than pivot to overstuffing the documentary with separate interviews with the politicians.

One of the Radical Monarch girls named De’yani, who’s interviewed in the documentary, comments on being the only African American girl in her Girl Scouts troop. By contrast, in the Radical Monarchs, she says, “You get to learn cool stuff about social justice and race, compared to talking about selling cookies and money and stuff.”

Indeliso Carillo, a mother of one of the Radical Monarch girls, comments: “So many of our kids feel invisible. And this is a place for them to not feel invisible and to really develop into believing that they have a place here and a voice that needs to be heard.” Laticia Erving, another mother of a Radical Monarch, adds: “Radical Monarchs gives her a sisterhood of young girls who look like her. Their focus is making a change in the world.”

The documentary also addresses the criticism, ridicule and hate that the Radical Monarchs get from people who think the group is damaging to children. Archival clips from Fox News are included as expressing some of this criticism, which usually argues that the girls are being “brainwashed” and that the Radical Monarchs are a “racist” group.

Although the Radical Monarchs leaders do not say explicitly say that white girls are not allowed to join the group, the larger question that the documentary filmmakers should have asked is, “How many white girls have wanted to join the Radical Monarchs?” Because if the answer is “none,” then there’s no racist discrimination. But if white girls wanted to join but were turned away (and the documentary did not present any evidence that this has happened), then that would definitely be racial discrimination.

It also speaks to another big question: “How many white parents would feel comfortable letting their child join a group where a white person would be in the racial minority and the group discusses uncomfortable topics such as racism against people of color?” The Radical Monarchs leaders say that their members already know what it’s like to live every day in a country where they are a racial minority and treated like a second-class citizen just because of their race. And that’s why the group was created in the first place: so that their members can be in a group where being a non-white person isn’t a “minority” stigma.

Rene Quinonez, a father of one of the Radical Monarchs, comments on the current reality of living in the United States: “White folks set the standards of beauty … education … everything in our community. That’s a huge injustice. When we create a space for these young women, it’s not excluding everyone. It’s about recognizing the injustice of these women not having this space [in the overall U.S. population].”

One of the most emotionally moving scenes in the documentary is when the Radical Monarchs visit with former Black Panther Party member Cheryl Dawson, who tells them what it was like to fight for civil rights in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the girls asks Dawson if police brutality has gotten better or worse since the days when she was a Black Panther. Her chilling response: “It’s gotten worse.”

Several of the adults in the documentary (including Dawson and Radical Monarchs co-founders Martinez and Hollinquest) say that they wish that they had a group like the Radical Monarchs when they were kids. It’s mentioned many times in the film that one of the biggest issues facing the group leaders is how to expand their program, since they are constantly being asked if they will start Radical Monarchs chapters in cities outside of the San Francisco Bay Area.

As with many start-up nonprofits, fundraising and not having enough money are major issues. And the documentary shows how grass-roots the Radical Monarchs organization was in its first few years: The group didn’t have an official office and instead worked out of Martinez’s home. However, the Radical Monarchs did get a lot of media coverage almost from the beginning of their launch. That exposure was crucial in helping their name recognition and building on that success.

The documentary also gives a personal background on Martinez and Hollinquest, who say that even though they share the same political ideals (and coincidentally, the same birthday), they have very different upbringings and personalities.

Martinez, who says she’s the more extroverted co-founder, grew up in San Francisco as the daughter of Central American immigrants. Her mother was a feminist and her “biggest advocate” who encouraged Martinez to get a college education, while Martinez’s conservative father expected her to have a more old-fashioned lifestyle. Martinez says she was the first openly queer female editor-in-chief of the California-based college student newspaper La Gente, and she got a lot of death threats because of it.

Hollinquest, who says she’s more introverted than Martinez, grew up in a strict Pentecostal household in the rural city of Tulare, California. Her parents were so conservative that Hollinquest says that she wasn’t allowed to wear trousers when she was a child. And she was also taught that women had to be submissive to men. Needless to say, her coming out as queer must have been a shock to her family, although Hollinquest doesn’t go into details over what that experience was like for her. She’s obviously in a place of self-acceptance now, and is spreading that self-acceptance message to girls who might not get that support in their own homes or at school.

A great deal of the documentary shows how Martinez and Hollinquest launched Troop 2 for the Radical Monarchs while still leading Troop 1 and while still working in their day jobs. It’s as exhausting as it sounds. Fortunately, they had plenty of volunteers who eventually came on board to lead Troop 2. The documentary includes footage of Martinez and Hollinquest having meetings planning their goals for the Radical Monarchs’ growth and expansion.

Some of the girls (including Martinez’s daughter Lupita) helped evaluate potential leaders of Troop 2 and gave their feedback on which ones they thought were the best. Lupita is one of the most articulate and poised girls in the group, but there are no signs that she let her mother’s Radical Monarchs position of power go to her head. And when Lupita tells an emotional story about how she and her mother were evicted from their home after the landlord raised the rent to an amount they could no longer afford, it isn’t with a self-pitying attitude but with a take-charge positive attitude that the experience fuels their fire to fight for affordable housing for people who are less fortunate.

“We Are the Radical Monarchs” doesn’t try to hide that it’s heavily biased toward liberal causes and the Democratic Party. (The documentary includes the expected reactions to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.) But putting party politics aside, this documentary is a fascinating look at how girls are speaking out and taking action for human-rights issues that matter deeply to them. And it wouldn’t be surprising if some Radical Monarchs alumni get elected to political office someday.

PBS premiered “We Are the Radical Monarchs” as part of the “POV” series on July 20, 2020.

Review: ‘Easy Does It,’ starring Ben Matheny, Matthew Martinez, Cory Dumesnil, Susan Gordon, Bryan Batt, Dwight Henry and Linda Hamilton

July 18, 2020

by Carla Hay

Matthew Martinez, Cory Dumesnil and Ben Matheny in “Easy Does It” (Photo courtesy of Gravitas Ventures)

“Easy Does It”

Directed by Will Addison

Culture Representation: Taking place in the United States in July 1977, the comedy “Easy Does It” has a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few Latinos and African Americans) representing the middle-class, working-class and criminal underground.

Culture Clash: Two dimwitted con artists go on a road trip, kidnap a man, and go on an armed robbery spree while trying to outrun two female gangsters who are after them for unpaid debts.

Culture Audience: “Easy Does It” will appeal mostly to people who like high-octane but incoherent action comedies.

Linda Hamilton in “Easy Does It” (Photo courtesy of Gravitas Ventures)

The action-comedy film “Easy Does It” is as scatter-brained and messy as the two simple-minded con artists who are the story’s protagonists. Directed by Will Addison, who co-wrote the screenplay with “Easy Does It” co-star Ben Matheny, “Easy Does It” is the type of movie that could have been improved with more imaginative writing. But the movie ends up dragging because the silly action scenes become too repetitive and lead to a very predictable ending.

The first scene of “Easy Does It” is an indication of how bad this movie is when it shows a small group of homeless-looking people under a bridge watching a fist fight between two other dirty and disheveled men. It’s July 1977, in a run-down part of Aberdeen, Mississippi, and there’s a pile of betting money for this fight. The observers soon find out that this brawl has been rigged by the two “fighters,” who run off before the angry mob can get to them. The two con artists are so dumb that they forget to grab any of the cash that was in the betting pile.

Who are these losers? They are best friends  and trailer mates Jack Buckner (played by Matheny) and Scottie Aldo (played by Matthew Martinez), who work together as dishwashers at a grungy diner. But what Jack and Scottie really want is to get rich without having to work hard. Jack is the alpha male of the duo, since he’s the one who comes up with often-outlandish money-making schemes. Scottie is a slack-jawed follower who goes along with Jack’s ridiculous ideas.

One day, while they’re at work washing dishes in the back of the diner, Jack and Scottie pretty much get chased out of their job, when their boss Mack (played by Charlie Talbert) finds out that a business in which he invested on Jack’s recommendation turned out to be a money-losing dud. Mack storms into the back room where Jack and Scottie are working and unleashes his rage on them, by calling them “white trash” and throwing dishes at them.

Jack and Scottie’s boss isn’t the only person who’s furious with them. A local crime lord named “King George” Montgomery (played by Linda Hamilton, in cornrows and looking very butch in a men’s suit) is after them because of unpaid debts. King George has an equally ruthless daughter nicknamed “Blue Eyes” (played by Susan Gordon), who is sent to do a lot of King George’s dirty work.

While holed up in their trailer, Jack is looking through his mail when he sees a postcard which reads, “Dear Jack, if you’re reading this, I’m dead. Kiss, kiss. Mom. P.S.: Left you something under that pier.” Jack explains to Scottie that when Jack was a child, he and his mother visited San Clemente, California, where they went to a beach with a pier.

Jack is convinced that his mother buried something valuable underneath the pier and that whatever the treasure is, it can solve their money problems. Jack decides that they’re going to take a road trip to San Clemente to find that hoped-for treasure. Scottie willingly agrees, because they also want to get away from King George.

But not so fast. Before they can leave, Jack and Scottie are ambushed in the back of their car by King George and Blue Eyes, who threaten them with violence over their unpaid debts. A scuffle ensues, and Scottie and Jack manage to get King George and Blue Eyes out of the car before racing off. But do you think King George and Blue Eyes will let Jack and Scottie get away so easily? Of course not.

Jack and Scottie’s road trip begins during the Fourth of July holiday weekend, so there’s an abundance of patriotism while they drive through the Southwest. (And you can bet that fireworks will be part of the cartoonish violence in this movie.) The problem with the road trip is that Jack and Scottie have no money. The only way they want to get gas is by stealing it or by stealing money to pay for the gas. They decide to steal the gas.

At a gas station, Jack and Scottie show that their stupidity knows no bounds. They are shocked to find out that the gas pump doesn’t work unless the gas is paid for in advance. A nerdy customer points out this fact to them, so this bumbling duo decides to force the clerk who controls the gas pumps inside the gas station’s convenience store to let them have the gas for free.

What starts out as a simple robbery turns into a kidnapping when Jack and Scottie end up taking the nerdy customer as a hostage. The hostage’s name is Collin Hornsby (played by Cory Dumesnil), and he begs to be let go because he says he has a fiancée waiting for him at home. Jack and Scottie end up dumping Collin in a deserted area. But when Jack figures out that Collin’s harmless and geeky appearance can help them with more armed robberies, they go back and retrieve him as a reluctant accomplice to a crime spree.

The rest of “Easy Does It” basically consists of a series of armed robberies that Jack and Scottie commit, with Collin as their decoy/shield, at places like diners and convenience stores. Hot on their trail is Blue Eyes, as well as an arrogant Texas cop named Officer Owens (played by Bryan Batt) and a jaded sheriff named Chief Parker (played by Dwight Henry), who grow increasingly frustrated—just as viewers of this movie will be increasingly annoyed at how repetitive and unimaginative the chase scenes are.

Along the way, Jack and Scottie smoke a lot of marijuana and hide out in deserted areas. To disguise themselves during the robbery, they use a “patriotic” face bandana (for Jack) and face paint (for Scottie). When their robberies make the news, they get nicknamed by the media: Jack is called the Star-Spangled Bandit, while Scottie is called the Apache Warrior. Collin, who says he works in telephone customer service for a catalogue company, is in way over his head with this criminal activity, but somehow he starts to get the hang of it, and he develops a friendship of sorts with these two moronic outlaws.

The madcap tone of “Easy Does It” can best be described as influenced by the drug-induced incoherence of the 1998 Hunter S. Thompson road-trip movie “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” (starring Johnny Depp as Thompson) and the redneck culture of the TV series “The Dukes of Hazzard,” but without an interesting story to tie it all together. The dialogue in “Easy Does It” is absolutely terrible, and the acting from most of the cast isn’t much better. And there’s almost nothing to like about any of the characters in this movie.

As the chief gangster King George, Hamilton seems to be having the most fun in her campy role. Hamilton is an alum of several “The Terminator” action flicks (which aren’t known for being Oscar-worthy intellectual projects), but she still must have been cringing a little inside when she had to utter lines in “Easy Does It,” such as, “Promises don’t butter any bread, fellas” or “I want you, Jack … on a platter.”

“Easy Does It” doesn’t take itself too seriously. But between the sloppy editing, the mindless dialogue and the missed opportunities to create genuinely funny and memorable characters, “Easy Does It” is actually not that easy to watch because it’s like watching a headless chicken running around in circles until everything mercifully comes to an end.

Gravitas Ventures released “Easy Does It” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and on VOD on July 17, 2020.

Review: ‘The Sunlit Night,’ starring Jenny Slate

July 18, 2020

by Carla Hay

Jenny Slate in “The Sunlit Night” (Photo by Eirik Evjen/Quiver Distribution)

“The Sunlit Night”

Directed by David Wnendt

Culture Representation: Taking place in Norway and New York, the comedy/drama “The Sunlit Night” has an all-white cast of characters representing the middle-class.

Culture Clash: A female struggling painter artist from New York City takes a job as an apprentice to a grouchy and famous male painter artist, who lives as a recluse in Norway.

Culture Audience: “The Sunlit Night” will appeal primarily to people who like independent films that have plenty of quirky characters but not much substance.

A scene from “The Sunlit Night,” with (in front row) Gillian Anderson (third from left), Alex Sharp (third from right), Zach Galifianakis (second from right) and Jenny Slate (far right). (Photo by Eirik Evjen/Quiver Distribution)

When it comes to live-action comedy/dramas or “dramedies” that Jenny Slate stars in, it’s time for her to move on from playing the type of “stuck in a rut” woman who’s still living with her parents or still trying to launch a career, long after most people have already figured out what they want to do with their lives. (See 2017’s “Landline” and 2014’s “Obvious Child,” which is still the best movie that Slate has starred in so far. )

The dreadfully bland comedy/drama “The Sunlit Night,” starring Slate (who is long past her 20s, even though she looks younger than her real age), is yet another independent comedic film where she plays someone who gets a rude awakening that she has to start living her life like a responsible adult. In “The Sunlit Night,” Slate (who is one of the film’s producers) plays the character of Frances “Fran” Cohen, a New York-based painter artist who’s struggling to make a living from her art. German director David Wnendt makes his English-language film debut with “The Sunlit Night.”

In the beginning of the movie, Frances has recently broken up with her boyfriend Robert (played by Dan Puck) whom she’s been comfortably living with in the Hamptons. It’s implied that Robert was taking care of all of Frances’ financial needs, because now that the relationship is over, she’s suddenly found herself broke and homeless.

Frances has to move back in with her parents—Levi (played by David Paymer) and Mirela (played by Jessica Hecht)—at their cramped New York City apartment. She doesn’t share the details with her family about what went wrong in the relationship with Robert (and it’s not mentioned in the movie at all), but Frances’ parents assume that Robert was the one who ended the relationship. That assumption annoys Frances, although she doesn’t correct them.

Frances isn’t just upset about her love life. Her career isn’t going so well either. The opening scene of the film shows three pretentious art critics evaluating one of Frances’ art pieces that’s hanging on a wall, and making it clear that they don’t think the piece is good enough. One of the critics describes Frances’ work as “pedestrian,” as she sits uncomfortably in the room, listening to them while they give their negative reviews.

Frances has also recently gotten rejected for an artist residency in Tokyo. “Maybe I’m not an artist,” Frances says in a voiceover. “Maybe I’m just the daughter of two other artists.”

Frances’ mother Mirela (who designs upholstery textiles for well-to-do clients) and father Levi (who’s a medical illustrator) both make their livings as artists, but they have opposite personalities. Mirela is nurturing and supportive, while Levi is quick-tempered and tactless. Frances’ younger sister Gabriella, nicknamed Gaby (played by Elise Kibler), also lives in the apartment.

One evening, while the family is having dinner together, Gabriella surprises them with the news that she’s gotten engaged. Frances is happy for her sister, but Levi and Mirela aren’t thrilled because they don’t like her fiancé Scott Glenny. (The movie doesn’t go into details over why the parents disapprove of this relationship.) Levi immediately ruins Gabrielle’s big news about her engagement by announcing that he and Mirela are separating and they’re selling the apartment.

Feeling like her life is falling apart (and also desperately needing a new place to live), Frances jumps at the chance to work for a famous but reclusive artist named Nils Auermann (played by Fridtjov Såheim) in the remote Arctic district of Lofoton in Nordland, Norway. It’s only a summer job, and Frances has been warned that Nils can be very demanding and difficult (he fired the previous person who had the job), but Frances takes the opportunity anyway to be Nils’ apprentice.

Nils is painting a yellow mural on a local Viking Museum’s abandoned barn. He’s entered the project into a national arts competition. And he needs someone to help him finish painting the barn. The apprentice who has the job is required to live on Nils’ property.

When Frances arrives at Nils’ place, she immediately sees why he has an unpleasant reputation. He’s a rude and very self-centered taskmaster. And he immediately tells Frances that they will have long work hours (from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), and that she will only be allowed to work on her own art in her own free time.

Frances’ living arrangements are also less-than-ideal: She has to live in a small, messy trailer. A previous tenant has written this message on the trailer cupboards: “Welcome to Hell,” as a warning of what’s to come. Frances not only has to deal with culture shock, but she also has to adjust to Arctic Norway’s environment of the sun never really setting, even at night.

Frances covers and paints over the trailer windows in order to get some sleep. And she has some unexpected company with a young goat that keeps showing up in her trailer. Despite Nils being such a cranky and gruff boss, Frances feels a little bit of kinship with him, because art critics have used the same words to describe Nils’ art and Frances’ art: “lazy, cold, not working.”

In the nearby Viking Village, Frances visits the Viking Museum and meets an eccentric named Haldor (played by Zach Galifianakis, in yet another weirdo role), who’s the museum’s manager and who insists that people call him Chief. Haldor/Chief isn’t from Norway. He’s actually an American from Cincinnati, but he considers himself to be an expert on Norwegian culture and history—so much so, that he’s always dressed in a Viking outfit, and he stars in the museum’s short history videos that are shown in the museum’s visitor screening room. Frances is slightly amused by Haldor/Chief, which is more amused than most people watching this movie will be by this insufferable Viking wannabe character.

Nils has color-coded how the barn should be painted, while Frances says in a voiceover she’s the type of artist who prefers finger paint. Because he is very particular on how he wants the barn to be painted, Nils and Frances inevitably clash. When Nils loses his temper with Frances over how she painted part of the barn (too sloppily, in his opinion), he grabs her arm and yells, “The barn is like a cathedral to me!” Frances immediately defends herself and shouts back, “Don’t touch me ever!”

Frances storms off to get some time away from her aggressive boss. But defending herself from his physical harassment is a turning point in her relationship with Nils, because he now knows that she’s no pushover. Later, he makes a semi-apology to Frances by telling her: “You and I are complete opposites, Frances. I am not used to people … But we complement each other.”

One day, while driving with Nils in his car on a deserted road, Frances sees a solemn-looking man, who’s around her age, wearing a black suit and walking with a suitcase on the road. Frances asks Nils if they can offer the man a ride, but Nils says no.

Frances sees the mysterious suit-clad man again at a local diner. She begins talking to him and tells him that she’s sure that she’s seen him before in New York. And by the way she looks at him, it’s obvious that she’s very attracted to him and interested in getting to know him better. This sad-looking man acts very aloof with her, and he rebuffs her attempts at a friendly conversation.

Frances sees him again later at the Viking Museum. And this time, she finds out who he is and why he’s in Norway. His name is Yasha (played Alex Sharp), and it turns out he really is from New York. Yasha is in Norway because his Russian immigrant father, whom he worked with at his father’s bakery in New York, has died, and Yasha is fulfilling his father’s wish to have a traditional Viking funeral in Norway.

And where is Yasha’s mother? Her name is Olyana, and she stayed in Russia, and never immigrated to the United States, as Yasha and his father had hoped. Yasha is very estranged from his mother, and he hasn’t invited her to the funeral. But that doesn’t stop Olyana (played by Gillian Anderson) from showing up anyway.

The biggest problem with “The Sunlit Night” is that it’s a lot duller than it should be. Galifianakis usually plays goofballs who are supposed to be annoying, but his Haldor/Chief character in this movie has no moments that are truly funny. It’s almost as if he’s there as filler. Anderson does a Russian accent that isn’t very convincing, while the Yasha character is just a grieving shell of a man, so he doesn’t have much of a personality.

The relationship between Frances and Nils, which is supposed to be the center of the story, seems devoid of anything memorable, except for the scene where they have a physical confrontation. There are a few pretentious moments when Frances namechecks some famous fine-art pieces in comparisons to her current life situation, but only art buffs will really appreciate some of these semi-humorous references. And even the “romance” scenes in the movie fall flat.

Rebecca Dinerstein Knight adapted “The Sunlit Night” from her 2015 novel of the same title. The book is based on her own “fish out of water” experiences as a New Yorker living in a remote part of Norway. But what works in a book doesn’t always work in a screenplay, since the pace of “The Sunlit Night” moves as slowly as a glacier moving through the Arctic.

An example of what’s wrong with this movie is how it mishandles a possible friendship between Frances and a bored Coop Prix supermarket worker (played by Luise Nes), whom Frances randomly meets at the supermarket in the frozen-food section. (This supermarket worker says her name is Kay, but she is identified in the film credits only as “Fridge Girl.”) Frances asks this young woman if she would like to pose for a painted portrait for Frances. Fridge Girl says yes, and immediately walks out of her job that day to go with Frances, without telling her boss or co-workers.

The next thing you know, Fridge Girl is posing nude for Frances in Frances’ dumpy trailer. Who does that? The movie never bothers to answer that question, because there’s no insight given into Fridge Girl’s character and why she’s the type of person to just impulsively walk out of a job to go with a stranger to pose for a nude portrait in a dingy trailer in the middle of nowhere.

Although the movie shows that Fridge Girl has posed for multiple nude portrait sessions for Frances, there’s no real inkling of what kind of conversations they might have had outside of those portrait sessions. Viewers don’t get to see the development of a possible friendship between the supermarket worker and Frances. Instead, viewers see more of Fridge Girl’s naked breasts than her personality.

Another thing about the movie that’s a missed opportunity is how little of Norwegian culture it shows, except for over-the-top Viking stereotypes that are played for laughs. Frances doesn’t seem very curious about getting to know other local artists who might live in the area, or even traveling in her free time outside of the stifling atmosphere of working with Nils. (Going to a local diner and a local grocery store doesn’t count.)

Maybe Frances’ lack of interest in exploring more of Norway is an example of how shallow she is or maybe how lazy the screenwriting is in not making the book more interesting for the movie. Conveniently, Frances’ “love interest” just happens to be a fellow New Yorker who’s in Norway. If you were to believe what’s presented in this movie, Norwegian men just aren’t interesting enough for Frances.

And did Frances really mature emotionally from this experience? What happens when her summer apprenticeship with Nils ends? Those questions are answered in the movie, but the conclusion isn’t particularly insightful.

Frances has the type of arrested-development lifestyle that might be somewhat cute when you’re in your 20s. But it’s not cute when you’re way past that age. If people want to see a comedy/drama film about a struggling female artist who recently broke up with her boyfriend, moves back in with her parents in their New York City apartment, and has a younger sister whose life is going more smoothly than hers, then writer/director/actress Lena Dunham already made that a much-better movie with “Tiny Furniture.”

Quiver Distribution released “The Sunlit Night” on digital and VOD on July 17, 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-twMQ4SOuE

Review: ‘Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!,’ starring Kaye Ballard

July 18, 2020

by Carla Hay

Kaye Ballard in “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” (Photo courtesy of Abramorama)

“Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!”

Directed by Dan Wingate

Culture Representation: Taking place in the United States, the documentary “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” features an all-white group of senior citizens in the entertainment industry discussing the career of entertainer Kaye Ballard, including Ballard herself.

Culture Clash: Ballard experienced sexual harassment, hostile work environments and career slumps during her more than 75 years in showbiz.

Culture Audience: Besides the obvious target audience of Kaye Ballard fans fans, “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in stories about the Golden Age of Hollywood and mid-20th century Broadway.

Kaye Ballard and Ann-Margret in “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” (Photo courtesy of Abramorama)

The documentary film “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” (directed by Dan Wingate) is a pleasant and often-humorous ride down Kaye Ballard’s memory lane of her seven decades in the entertainment business. It’s not going to reveal anything particularly new, and it’s the type of documentary that’s really just a compilation of interviews and archival footage. But it’s the closest thing to a filmed memoir for Ballard, who died in 2019 at the age of 93.

Born in Cleveland in 1925, Ballard’s birth name was Catherine Gloria Balotta. She was one of four children of Italian immigrants Lena and Vincenzo (later called Vincent James) Balotta. Long before she changed her stage name to Kaye Ballard, she knew from an early age (5 years old) that she wanted to become an entertainer. By the age of 16, Ballard was touring with comedian Spike Jones. And she went on to become a prolific actress and singer on stage, in movies and on television—even back in the days when entertainers were pressured to stick to one category of where to perform.

Ballard was a headliner on Broadway and for her nightclub shows, but in movies and television, she almost always had supporting roles, and they were usually comedies. Therefore, although she was famous, she wasn’t a superstar who was a household name worldwide. She mentions in the documentary that a highlight of her career was being on the cover of Life magazine in 1954 (for her starring role in the Broadway musical “The Golden Apple”), in one of famed photographer Richard Avedon’s rare photo shoots for Life magazine.

Because she’s a known comedian, Ballard mugs for the camera and jokes around a lot during her interviews. For almost the entire documentary, Ballard just talks about her career. The documentary’s big gaping void is the lack of information about her love life. Although she never married and did not have children, she doesn’t even discuss things such as if she ever fell in love, who she dated, or even if she had crushes on anyone.

The only time in the documentary that Ballard opens up about her personal life in this film is toward the end when she says, “I had the most wonderful family in the world.” She then talks about how close she was to her beloved grandmother, but her relationship with her parents wasn’t always as close.

Ballard describes her mother Lena as emotionally distant, although they did reconcile their differences toward the end of Lena’s life. As for Ballard’s dad, she says: “My father could never say ‘I love you.’ He’d say, ‘Well, I wish you good luck, always.’ He was the most noble man I knew.”

Ballard had a 2004 autobiography called “How I Lost 10 Pounds in 53 Years: A Memoir,” so this documentary is just a more updated version of that book, with the added context of archival clips. It’s clear from watching this film that Ballard is one of those entertainers who didn’t seem to have any close friends outside of showbiz. Everyone who’s interviewed in this documentary is someone from the entertainment business—usually people who’ve worked with Ballard at one time or another.

And they have nothing but good things to say about Ballard. (Some of the people interviewed in for this documentary have since passed away, including Jerry Stiller, Liz Smith, Carol Channing and Harold Prince.) Other people interviewed in the documentary are Ann-Margret, Carol Burnett, Michael Feinstein, Elaine Paige, Sandy Stewart, attorney/producer Mark Sendroff, Peter Marshall, Rex Reed, Mimi Hines, Joy Behar, Donna McKechnie, Woody Allen, Sandy Stewart and “Perry Como Show” producer Gary Smith.

The movie has a mostly chronological look at Ballard’s career. And, for the most part, Ballard has the expected fond memories, while the talking heads in the documentary give Ballard effusive praise. Commenting on Ballard’s 1959 album “The Fanny Brice Story in song,” Reed gushes, “She was more Fanny Brice than Barbra Streisand.” Stiller says about Ballard, “She made more people famous than you can imagine.”

Ballard also mentions that Mama Rose in the musical “Gypsy” was the “the best role ever written” that she got to perform. She also says some of her best working experiences were on “The Perry Como Show.” And she also retells the well-known story of how she rejected the “My Coloring Book” song (written by famed Broadway songwriting duo John Kander and Fred Ebb) because she didn’t think she would be believable singing it, so she suggested that Stewart sing it instead.

In one way or another, all of the people interviewed say that Ballard was a consummate professional who enjoyed helping other entertainers be their best. Behar shares a story about how, early in her career, she had a guest cameo on “The Steve Allen Comedy Hour” in 1967. Behar says she was so nervous that she flubbed the first take of the scene.

But after getting a pep talk from Ballard, who was on the set and standing near the camera, Behar sailed through the second take. Behar says in the documentary, “And so, I’m forever indebted to Kaye Ballard for helping me in my first humble day of showbiz where I was really scared.”

Ballard is certainly ebullient and upbeat in the documentary, but she does talk about some of the down sides of her showbiz career, such as being targeted for sexual harassment by comedian Phil Silvers and being blackballed by Johnny Carson. She also went through periods of time, especially when she got older, when she couldn’t get as much work. And because she wasn’t conventionally beautiful, she wasn’t considered a “leading lady” type for film and TV.

According to Ballard, Silvers wanted Rose Marie to be his leading lady in the 1951-1952 Broadway musical “Top Banana,” but Ballard was cast instead. Ballard says that Silvers sexually harassed her, and when she rejected his advances, she claims that he tried to get her fired and “he made my life miserable for 10 months.” When “Top Banana” was made into a 1954 feature film, Ballard says, “He didn’t let me do the movie, and I’m glad, because it was a bomb.”

As for getting on Carson’s bad side, she says it was because she was misquoted in a magazine article about her experience being a guest on his talk show. Carson never asked her back on his show and he didn’t seem to care about getting her side of the story. However, since showbiz is full of egos that are huge and fragile, even the nicest person can end up making enemies.

Ballard shares her philosophy on dealing with haters: “When somebody tries to get me down, it makes me stronger. I stick with it.” She says it’s one of the reasons why she refused to quit “Top Banana,” because she didn’t want to give Silvers the satisfaction that his bullying was going to run her out of the show before her contract ended.

In the documentary, Ballard’s tales of positive experiences far outnumber any negative experiences. Even when her contract was not renewed for the game show “Hollywood Squares,” it gets a positive spin in the documentary. Former “Hollywood Squares” host Marshall and Ballard both say in the documentary that she ended up not being a good fit for “Hollywood Squares” because she wasn’t good at deceiving the contestants, which is part of the game.

And she has some surprisingly nice things to say about a few showbiz people who had reputations for being difficult off-stage. Ballard comments on Lenny Bruce: “Many people get the wrong impression of Lenny Bruce. They think he was a dirty old man, but he was anything but—he was a sexy young man.” And on Jerry Lewis, Ballard says: “I’m one of the few people in the world who loves Jerry Lewis.”

If there’s one tiny criticism of Ballard’s commentary it’s that she tends to name-drop a little too much when she talks about celebrities who came to see her perform on stage. However, it can be excused as someone who was awed and humbled that people she respected took the time to watch her live performances.

And she certainly was surrounded by plenty of talented people. Ballard says that when she moved to New York City and lived in Greenwich Village, she says her best friends were Maureen Stapleton, Eli Wallach, Ann Jackson and Marlon Brando. By the way, she describes Brando as “just brilliant, lovely to know.”

One of the best production aspects of this documentary is that it has a lot of great archival footage that’s very well-edited with the interviews. Clips from Ballard’s TV appearances over the years are especially wonderful, because most of the clips won’t be seen on TV again anytime soon. And as the subject of the documentary, Ballard is the movie’s best asset, since she has a very engaging way to her storytelling.

Because “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” isn’t the type of documentary that shows Ballard’s life off-stage, the film looks a lot like a feature-length “sizzle reel,” with commentary from Ballard and her colleagues about her career. Ballard seemed to be fiercely protective about her private life, so it’s no surprise that this documentary doesn’t offer any new insight about how she shared her life with anyone outside of her work.

Abramorama released “Kaye Ballard: The Show Goes On!” in select U.S. virtual cinemas on July 17, 2020.

Review: ‘Carmilla,’ starring Jessica Raine, Tobias Menzies, Greg Wise, Hannah Rae and Devrim Lingnau

July 17, 2020

by Carla Hay

Hannah Rae and Devrim Lingnau in “Carmilla” (Photo by Nick Wall/Film Movement)

“Carmilla” 

Directed by Emily Harris

Culture Representation: Taking place in 1780s rural England, the drama “Carmilla” has an nearly all-white cast (with one black person) representing the  wealthy and middle-class.

Culture Clash:  When a mysterious teenager recuperates from a carriage accident in an unfamiliar family’s home, her presence causes conflicts among the widower, his teenage daughter and governess who live there.

Culture Audience: “Carmilla” will appeal primarily to people who like coming-of-age dramas that have arthouse sensibilities.

Jessica Raine and Hannah Rae in “Carmilla” (Photo courtesy of Film Movement))

The haunting period drama “Carmilla” is a perfect example of a movie that does a lot with a little. The film’s cast consists of less than 10 people, and the movie was filmed in just 22 days, according to the “Carmilla” production notes. But “Carmilla” (beautifully written and directed Emily Harris) far surpasses many other movies with considerably larger budgets and casts.

Based on the 1872 Gothic novella “Carmilla” by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, this movie adaptation makes a few changes from the source material. The novella was set in 19th century Austria, while the movie takes place in 18th century England—the 1780s, to be exact. Many of the characters in the book are not in the movie. The story’s innocent teenager is named Laura in the book but is named Lara in the movie. And the biggest change in the movie is that it’s not a vampire story, although the erotic and intimate undertones of sharing blood are definitely part of the movie.

It was a bold and ultimately wise choice for writer/director Harris not to make this movie version of “Carmilla” a vampire story. First, it would put this movie in the horror genre, which would distract from the true essence of the story: It’s a meditation about how two teenage girls react to a repressive society when the girls start to have feelings for each other that go beyond friendship.

And secondly, any film about a teenage vampire is going to get inevitable comparisons to the blockbuster “Twilight” movie series, which was a hit with audiences but ridiculed by more artistically minded people, such as movie critics and filmmakers. And there have already been a horror-comedy Web series and a movie based on the “Carmilla” novella.

The “Carmilla” movie from writer/director Harris is imbued with a quiet, deliberate aura that manages to convey the oppressive but physically lush atmosphere where the story is set. It’s an insular world where disobedience and being different, especially if one is of the female gender, are met with cruel punishment. In a rural, isolated manor, 15-year-old Lara (played by Hanna Rae) has a very regimented and sheltered life, but she has the type of curiosity that makes it apparent that she’s feeling stifled.

Lara has an emotionally distant widower father named Mr. Bauer (played by Greg Wise), so the main adult figure in her life is Lara’s strict and very superstitious governess Miss Fontaine (played by Jessica Raine), who is in her 30s and who controls almost every aspect of Lara’s life. When Lara asks questions such as, “Where do spirits go?,” Miss Fontaine tells her about heaven.

There’s a dark side to Lara having Miss Fontaine as a teacher/authority figure. Miss Fontaine, just like many people of that era, believes that being left-handed is a sign of evil. And because Lara is left-handed, Miss Fontaine has inflicted some torturous methods to force Lara not to use her left hand when she’s writing, including hitting Lara’s left hand and making Lara wear her left arm in a tightly bound sling.

Miss Fontaine also physically abuses Lara by hitting her repeatedly as a way of punishing Lara for other reasons. One of these punishments happens when Lara is caught hiding one of her father’s books that has illustrations of people being tortured. Miss Fontaine severely disciplines Lara about the book because the teenager took the book from her father’s study without his permission.

“You and your left hand, playing with the devil,” Miss Fontaine scolds Lara while physically assaulting her. Miss Fontaine also orders Lara to pray to repent for her sins. There are two other servants shown in the Bauer household—a maid named Margaret (played by Lorna Gayle) and a stableman named Paul (played by Daniel Tuite)—but Miss Fontaine is at the top of the household’s employee hierarchy. Margaret and Paul are essentially supporting characters that passively follow orders.

Being an only child with no friends has made Lara a very lonely teenager. She has been anticipating the visit of another teenager named Charlotte, who is the daughter of a family friend. But Charlotte has become very ill, so her visit has been postponed. (Charlotte had planned to stay at the Bauer home for several months.) There’s a scene where Lara, with a melancholy expression on her face, burns a letter that she had written to Charlotte, since it doesn’t make sense to send the letter now that Charlotte is too ill to write back.

The movie also shows how the isolation and physical abuse that Lara is enduring has taken a toll on her mental health. In another scene, Lara is shown waving her left hand over a candle flame, until she deliberately lets the hand linger too long over the flame and she gets a minor burn.

The household gets a jolt from its usual monotony when a teenage girl (played by Devrim Lingnau), who’s around Lara’s age, is unexpectedly brought to the manor. She has been in a carriage accident, where she was the only passenger and the driver has died. The identity of this girl is a complete mystery.

A local physician named Doctor Renquist (played by Tobias Menzies) comes to the manor to examine this enigmatic girl and finds no visible injuries. However, she is mute. Is it because of the trauma of the accident or something else? The decision is made to keep this girl isolated in the house until she is well enough to speak and they can find out who her family is. Miss Tobias orders Lara to stay away from the girl.

Lara can’t understand why she can’t see or talk to this girl. In a private conversation with tells Miss Fontaine, Lara asks if the mystery girl is really Charlotte. Lara tells Miss Fontaine a theory that the girl might be Charlotte who could have miraculously recovered from her illness, and her carriage crashed in a rush to get to the manor.

Miss Fontaine firmly shuts down that theory because she says that if the girl were Charlotte, Lara’s father would have recognized her. This scene adeptly shows how Lara is so desperate for companionship that her imagination has gone wild about who this mystery girl might be. The expression on Miss Fontaine’s face is one of concern and dread.

Of course, the inevitable happens, and Lara visits the forbidden room where the mystery girl is. At first, the girl remains mute. But eventually, she shocks Lara by speaking to her. The girl still won’t say anything about who she is, including her name. Instead, she tells Lara that Lara can think of a name to call her. The mystery girl likes the name Carmilla, so they decide that will be her name.

Carmilla and Lara begin to meet in secret, and they become fast friends. Lara is entranced by Carmilla, who is a lot more worldly and sophisticated than Lara, even though Carmilla still withholds a lot of information about herself. And there’s a growing attraction between Lara and Carmilla that is more than platonic. They play games involving blood vows and breathing/air restriction that have not-so-subtle tones of eroticism, which is expressed when Lara and Carmilla begin kissing and and canoodling with each other.

Miss Fontaine senses that something has changed with Lara, because Lara is at an age when she will be curious about sex. The governess has also noticed how Lara is fascinated with the mystery girl in the home because Lara keeps wanting to talk to Miss Fontaine about the girl.

In a private conversation, Miss Fontaine decides to have a talk with Lara about sexuality without going into uncomfortable details. Miss Fontaine tells Lara that Lara will have certain feelings now that she’s becoming a young woman, but she must learn to control those feelings. The governess also opens up a little about her past (by hinting that she used to be promiscuous), by telling Lara that when she was younger, she got in trouble by acting on those feelings too much.

Miss Fontaine tells Lara that she wished that she knew when she was younger when she was acting on those feelings that all she really wanted was excitement. “Don’t confuse your feelings, Lara,” Miss Fontaine warns. “Don’t make the same mistakes I did.”

One of the best aspects of “Carmilla” is that it doesn’t just take the easy route of focusing mainly on the budding relationship between Lara and Carmilla. The movie also masterfully shows how a control-freak like Miss Fontaine isn’t in control of her own life as much as she’d like to pretend that she is. It’s a subtle commentary on the rigid roles that were forced upon women in society back then.

In many ways, this stern governess (who does not seem to have any family or friends) is just as stifled and isolated as Lara—perhaps even more so, because Miss Fontaine’s services in the Bauer household will no longer be needed when Lara becomes an adult. (And in those days, it was common for girls to get married at the age of 15 or 16.) And because Miss Fontaine is a childless spinster, she’s somewhat of an outcast herself in that society. Miss Fontaine has less options than Lara, whose family wealth makes Lara’s future more secure than Miss Fontaine’s.

But, for now, Miss Fontaine sees a lot of her younger self in Lara—and she doesn’t like what she sees. And there’s an unspoken power struggle between Miss Fontaine and Carmilla over Lara’s attention, which motivates certain choices that are made by the end of the story. This movie version of “Camilla” also has more overt messaging than the novella about homophobia and how religion can play a role in mistreating others who are “different.”

“Carmilla” presents a mesmerizing Gothic atmosphere, due in large part to top-notch work from cinematographer Michael Wood, composer Philip Selway, production designer Alexandra Walker (a “Harry Potter” film alum) and Oscar-winning costume designer John Bright (“A Room With a View”). Selway, who’s the drummer for Radiohead, has his original, appropriately haunting song “Ghosts” playing during the end credits. All three actresses in the “Carmilla” power struggle—Raine as Miss Fontaine, Lingnau (who makes her feature-film debut in “Carmilla”) as Carmilla and Rae as Lara—do a superb job in their roles.

Writer/director Harris should be commended for making “Carmilla” a movie worth seeing for anyone who likes to immerse themselves in a world that can be gorgeous to look at but menacing at the same time. People who want to see an exact replication of the original “Carmilla” novella might be disappointed. However, today’s movie audiences have certain over-the-top bloody expectations for vampire films that would not have served this movie well. Thankfully, the filmmakers of this “Carmilla” movie did not take that predictable route, which would have cheapened the message of this movie.

Film Movement released “Carmilla” in select U.S. virtual cinemas on July 17, 2020.

Review: ‘Widow of Silence,’ starring Shilpi Marwaha, Ajay Courey, Noorjahan Mohammad Younus and Bilal Ahmed

July 17, 2020

by Carla Hay

Shilpi Marwaha in “Widow of Silence” (Photo courtesy of Barefoot Pictures/Oration Films)

“Widow of Silence” 

Urdu with subtitles

Directed by Praveen Morchhale

Culture Representation: Taking place in Kashmir, the dramatic film “Widow of Silence” has a predominately Kashmirian cast (with some Indians) representing the middle-class and working-class.

Culture Clash:  A woman whose husband has disappeared several years ago must fight against prejudice, financial pressures and sexual harassment for being in an ambiguous marital status known as “half-widow.”

Culture Audience: “Widow of Silence” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in independent arthouse films about South Asian cultures.

Ajay Chourey in “Widow of Silence” (Photo courtesy of Barefoot Pictures/Oration Films)

When a woman’s husband goes missing in Kashmir, her life can turn into a living hell of uncertainty and being targeted by predators. The harrowing drama “Widow of Silence” (written and directed by Praveen Morchhale) portrays with emotional urgency how having a vague marital status in this part of the world can ruin the lives of women and children whose household patriarchs have disappeared.

India’s and Pakistan’s decades-long brutal conflict over the republic of Kashmir has resulted in certain types of casualties that are rarely covered in mainstream media. These casualties are the marriages and identities of the countless wives whose husbands have disappeared, usually after the men were taken into custody by military or government officials. If these missing men are married, their wives who are left behind become “half-widows,” because it’s unknown if their husbands or alive or dead.

This uncertain marital status leaves the wives in precarious situations that make them vulnerable to con artists, corrupt government officials and members of society who will shun them. Even though “Widow of Silence” is a fictional drama, writer/director Morchhale based the story on what many real-life “half-widows” go through in Kashmir.

In “Widow of Silence,” Aasia Jilani (played by Shilpi Marwaha) is a law-abiding nursing attendant at a local hospital. She lives with her 11-year-old daughter named Inaya (played by Noorjahan Mohammad Younus) and mother-in-law (played by Zaba Banoo). But there’s a major void in their lives: Aasia’s devoted husband Mustaq Ahmad has been missing for seven years, after he was mysteriously taken into custody by Indian police, who claimed they needed to interrogate him.

Aasia refuses to believe that Mustaq is dead, but in Kashmirian society, having a missing husband means that Aasia is an outcast to many people. She can’t have legal claim to her husband’s property unless she files papers to officially declare him dead. That’s not an option for Aasia, since she believes that there’s a possibility that her husband is alive and will come back to her. She doesn’t want to divorce him because, in many Kashmirian communities, being a divorcée is an even bigger stigma than being a widow.

Because she is the only income earner in her household, Aasia is teetering on the brink of poverty and financial ruin. She and many other “half-widows” in the area are suffering through the same fate, as they deal with a government bureaucracy that is slow to respond to their needs. Appointments with government officials (who are almost always men) can take months to get. And when they do get an appointment with a government official, he could be corrupt and demand sexual favors.

That’s what happens to Aasia when she gets a long-awaited appointment with a smarmy government official (played by Ajay Chourey), who’s in charge of the local registrar that declares births and deaths. It should be noted that “Widow of Silence” writer/director made an interesting choice to give names to only two characters in this movie: Aasia and Inaya. It’s perhaps symbolic, because they are the only people who speak up and stand up for themselves when they are being harassed and bullied.

The government official starts his predatory sexual harassment by seeming to be concerned enough about Aasia’s situation that he wants to discuss options with her. He asks Aasia to tell him about her husband, and she says that Mustaq was an engineering graduate but unemployed at the time he disappeared. The government official’s questions become more probing: Was Aasia’s husband a military or political activist? Does she have plans to remarry?

Aasia says that Mustaq was not involved in any activism and that he was just a husband and father. Mustaq owns land totaling one-third of an acre, and Aasia wants ownership of the land transferred to her name. She says that she went through this same procedure four months ago and was already asked the same questions.

In this meeting, the government official recommends that Aasia take a half-widow’s pension. If she wants to get her husband’s property in her name, she would have to declare him dead. And if he’s declared dead, she would only be entitled to one-eighth of her husband’s savings. The rest of the money would go to his side of the family.

The government official tells her that government bureaucracy can be slow. But what he really means (and what he makes clear when he sexually harasses her later in a separate meeting) is that he can make things go quicker if she gives him the kind of attention that he wants. He suggests that she sell the property to someone he knows who’s willing to buy the land. And the government official wants a “commission” for this sale. Aasia balks at that idea.

And in a separate meeting that happens later in the movie, he tries to manipulate Aasia with money again, by telling her that government officials like him need extra funds to help take care of their own families. It’s an obvious request for a bribe, but Aasia doesn’t take the bait, and she tells him that she’s practically broke.

He then starts complimenting her effusively: “You are young and beautiful and should have some fun.” He reminds her again that bureaucracy can be slow, but he can find the time to help “young and beautiful ladies like you.” He places his hand on her shoulder and suggests that they meet at a hotel to further discuss how he can help Aasia get her husband’s death certificate.

Aasia knows exactly what’s going on, so she pushes his hand off of her, quickly gets up and leaves—making it clear that she’s not going to give in to this sexual harassment. She also doesn’t let him down easy, as she expresses her disgusted with the harassment and she’s not going to change her mind. And later, when he still persists, she slaps him in the face. But when someone this corrupt gets rejected in this manner, what does that mean for Aasia?

Meanwhile, Aasia is dealing with some big issues with the family members who live with her. Her ailing mother-in-law has become mute, ever since her son disappeared. Aasia’s daughter Inaya is being bullied at school by other students because Inaya is living with the stigma of having a missing father. Inaya has been getting in fights at school to defend herself, and she might get expelled for it if this fighting continues.

Although Inaya and the mother-in-law are not central characters in the story, “Widow of Silence” shows, in a heartbreaking manner, the emotional devastation that they also feel because of Mustaq’s disappearance. Inaya keeps asking her grandmother, “Grandma, was my father a bad person?”

Aasia chastises Inaya for asking this question when she knows that the grandmother has not spoken in seven years. Inaya’s response is chilling when she says that Aasia doesn’t really talk to Inaya either. It’s an example of how the disappearance has caused a rift between the mother and daughter.

Meanwhile, there are some other supporting characters whom Aasia is in regular contact with, and they give further context to the story. Aasia has a nurse co-worker (played by Tahmida Akter), who scolds Aasia (usually when they’re in the break room together) for not declaring her missing husband dead and moving on with her life.

Because Aasia doesn’t drive, she relies on shared rides and public transportation to get around town. One of the rideshare drivers who takes care of her transportation needs on a regular basis is a truck driver (played by Bilal Ahmed), whose friendly demeanor and sense of humor bring some light-hearted moments to this serious drama. (Ahmed is a real-life car driver in Kashmir. According the production notes for “Widow of Silence,” all of the movie’s cast members, except Marwaha and Chourey, are non-professional actors, because writer/director Morchalla wanted real-life Kashmir people in the movie.)

And just because Aasia’s marital status is in limbo doesn’t mean that she’s given up on love. She has a boyfriend (played by Ahsan Bismil), and they’ve been semi-secretly dating for three years. He wants to marry her, but she’s very reluctant to take the necessary steps to declare that her marriage to Mustaq is over. In Kashmir, a “half-widow” can get married to someone else if her missing husband remains missing after four years.

And then there’s Aasia’s father (played by Habibulla), who tells her that she should get married to her suitor. Aasia’s father offers to raise Inaya with Aasia’s mother, because he believes that most men don’t want to marry a widow with children. Aasia still clings to the idea that her husband could be found alive.

When Aasia tells her father that she’s gotten a tip from someone that Mustaq is likely being held in a prison, her father scolds her for being gullible. He reminds her that she’s already checked hospitals and prisons multiple times and is probably being put on a wild goose chase from someone trying to con money out of her: “Why do you trust these informants?” he asks Aasia. “They have made it a business.”

“Widow of Silence” portrays with emotionally wrenching detail how difficult it is for someone in Aasia’s situation to hold her life together while trying to search for a missing husband and dealing with the relentless problems that come from being a “half-widow” in a society that treats women and children as second-class citizens. Her emotional isolation is palpable when she says at one point: “Life is suffocating, but I’m alive.”

As the emotionally torn Aasia, Marwaha gives a powerfully understated performance as someone whose resolve and sanity are constantly questioned and tested as she goes through this ordeal. This isn’t a weepy or hysterical melodrama, because “Widow of Silence” accurately portrays how women in this culture, more so than in Western cultures, are often told to keep their misery to themselves.

As the title of the movie implies, half-widows are expected to suffer in silence. There are no counselors or therapists for women like Aasia. There are no attorneys rushing to help her. In telling this impactful story, writer/director Morchhale gives a brutally honest depiction of what countless half-widows endure when their husbands are taken away by the government, and what can happen when that pain is allowed to fester and is pushed to the brink.

Oration Films released “Widow of Silence” in select U.S. virtual cinemas on July 10, 2020.

Review: ‘We Are Freestyle Love Supreme,’ starring Lin-Manuel Miranda, Anthony Veneziale, Christopher Jackson, Thomas Kail, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Bill Sherman and Chris Sullivan

July 17, 2020

by Carla Hay

Lin-Manuel Miranda, Chris Sullivan, Anthony Veneziale, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Andrew Bancroft, Bill Sherman, Christopher Jackson and Arthur Lewis in “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” (Photo courtesy of Hulu)

“We Are Freestyle Love Supreme”

Directed by Andrew Fried

Culture Representation: Taking place primarily in New York City and partially in the United Kingdom, the documentary “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” tells the story of the multiracial musical improvisational group Freestyle Love Supreme, whose most famous member is Tony-winning star Lin-Manuel Miranda.

Culture Clash: The members of Freestyle Love Supreme struggled for years to make a living from their craft, and then the group’s loyalty and work schedules were tested after Miranda and musical director Thomas Kail went on to mega-success with the Tony-winning musicals “In the Heights” and “Hamilton.”

Culture Audience: “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of Lin-Manuel Miranda and musical theater that includes hip-hop.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, Christopher Jackson and Anthony Veneziale in the mid-2000s in “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” (Photo courtesy of Hulu)

The feel-good documentary “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” shows what can happen when several tight-knit friends in a musical improvisational group manage to keep the group going for several years, despite the members’ individual careers and personal lives going on divergent paths. Directed by Andrew Fried, who began filming footage for the documentary in 2005, “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” is a breezy ride through the group’s story, even if it it feels like a lot of inevitable behind-the-scenes turmoil was deliberately left out of the film. The documentary includes exclusive interviews (everyone in the group is interviewed separately), as well as archival on-stage and off-stage footage, spanning from the mid-2000s to the group’s stint on Broadway in 2019.

Freestyle Love Supreme’s most famous member is Lin-Manuel Miranda, the Tony-winning star/creator of the stage musicals “In the Heights” and “Hamilton.” Miranda (whose nickname in the group is Lin-Man) is an original member of Freestyle Love Supreme, which was formed in New York City in 2004. But the documentary shows that the origins of Freestyle Love Supreme really began in 1999, during a road trip taken by group co-founder Anthony Veneziale (also known as Two-Touch) and Thomas “Tommy” Kail, the group’s musical director who went on to direct the original Broadway productions of “In the Heights” and “Hamilton,” as well as most of Freestyle Love Supreme’s stage shows.

According to what Kail says in the documentary, he and Veneziale (who met when they were students at Wesleyan University) went on a road trip from New York City to Iowa, to help a friend make an independent film. During the trip, the only way they could stay awake was by listening to the B-side of the Daft Punk song “Around the World.”

“Anthony freestyled for four straight hours,” says Kail of that road trip. “That, in some way, was the seed for Freestyle Love Supreme.” Freestyle Love Supreme then became a collective of friends who would get together at the Drama Book Shop, which was their creative “lab,” according to Kail. Although Kail isn’t an on-stage performer for Freestyle Love Supreme, he is credited with being the behind-the-scenes architect of the group’s career.

Freestyle Love Supreme then honed their improvisational skills so that their on-stage act became randomly choosing words volunteered by the show’s audience, and then making up hip-hop-infused, often-comedic stories about those words right there on the spot. Veneziale (who also co-founded the improv FLS Academy) is the group’s emcee, who interviews audience members during the show and brings some audience members on stage. This highly interactive format makes every Freestyle Love Supreme show truly unique, which is in contrast to the traditional theater format of doing the same show for every performance.

The other original members of Freestyle Love Supreme are Christopher Jackson (also known as C-Jack); Bill Sherman (also known as King Sherman); Chris Sullivan (also known as Shockwave); and Arthur Lewis (also known as Arthur the Geniuses). Miranda and Kail went on to collaborate on “In the Heights” (which went to Broadway in 2008) and “Hamilton” (which made its Broadway debut in 2015), with both musicals including Jackson (who is Miranda’s best friend) as a co-star.

After the success of “In the Heights” and “Hamilton” made Miranda, Jackson and Kail too busy for Freestyle Love Supreme on a regular basis, Freestyle Love Supreme added new members to the group. The documentary does a very good job of putting a spotlight on each member, so that people can know what their unique contributions are to Freestyle Love Supreme. (Freestyle Love Supreme has also had numerous guest performers, including Daveed Diggs and Wayne Brady.)

Miranda, who is a self-described “theater geek,” is shown to be an energetic optimist but also a perfectionist who can be very hard on himself. Jackson, who is more laid-back than Miranda, is described as the “dad” of the group, since he’s the oldest member and the first member of Freestyle Love Supreme to get married and have children.

Sherman, who plays keyboards and has a goofy sense of humor, used to be Kail’s roommate and remains very close to Kail. Sullivan, who does most of Freestyle Love Supreme’s beatboxing, is the “actual musical heartbeat of the group,” says Kail. Lewis, who plays keyboards, is described as the group’s most intellectually gifted member and “the ethereal one” of Freestyle Love Supreme, according to Kail.

Freestyle Love Supreme’s newer members are also given a spotlight: Utkarsh Ambudkar (also known as UTK The INC) is described by Miranda as “the best nuts-to-bolts rapper in the group.” James Monroe Iglehart (also known as J-Soul) is praised by multiple people as being the best singer in the group. Andrew Bancroft (also known as Jelly Donut) seems to be in awe of his group mates and says he still can’t believe that he’s in Freestyle Love Supreme.

And by the time that Freestyle Love Supreme began headlining on Broadway, the group had added its first permanent female member: Aneesa Folds (also known as Young Nees), who expresses how star-struck and honored she is to be in Freestyle Love Supreme. Why did it take so long to add a woman to the group? Probably because after the #MeToo movement happened, Freestyle Love Supreme wanted deflect any criticism that this group deliberately excludes people who aren’t of the male gender.

It probably never crossed their minds to invite women into their group before, because it’s clear from the archival footage that Freestyle Love Supreme operated very much like a fraternity, but not in a mean-spirited way. However, because of heightened awareness of how gender discrimination against people who aren’t cisgender males has been an ongoing problem in the entertainment industry (and society in general), it no doubt prompted Freestyle Love Supreme to take a hard look at their own decision making in whom they were inviting to be a part of their exclusive club.

The documentary doesn’t call attention to why Freestyle Love Supreme was a male-only group for about 15 years, probably because the male members of the group don’t want to address this issue on camera. Instead, the movie puts an emphasis on all the camaraderie they have—perhaps a little too much emphasis, to the point where it looks sugarcoated. There’s a lot of screen time devoted to soundbites where the members of Freestyle Love Supreme praise themselves and each other.

Jackson comments on how Freestyle Love Supreme is a privilege of being able to work with his closest friends: “If more people had this experience, truly, the world would be a better place.” Ambudkar says that he felt an instant connection to the members of Freestyle Love Supreme: “Whatever Freestyle was doing, it fit me like a well-worn hoodie.”

Miranda says that in the group’s early days, there was a real struggle to build a fan base, but the audience grew when the show improved and because Freestyle Love Supreme didn’t give up: “We had to work hard [for an audience]. The show worked.”

Some of the documentary’s best archival footage is of a pivotal point in the early career of Freestyle Love Supreme, when the group was invited to perform at the 2005 Edinburgh Fringe Festival in Scotland. No one knew at the time that Miranda was three years away from finding Broadway fame and acclaim with “In the Heights.” But during this trip to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, the members of Freestyle Love Supreme considered it to be the highlight of their careers so far.

There’s a real infectious joy in this footage that shows their youthful optimism, as they roam the streets of Edinburgh and soak up Scottish culture. The documentary also includes footage of the group reading their first negative review together. And even that moment of the group getting some scathing criticism has a lot of humor and shows how closely bonded the group members are.

A present-day Miranda looks back on that time with a lot of fondness in the documentary. He says that even though all of the members of Freestyle Love Supreme were financially broke at the time, and their futures were uncertain, it was one of the happiest times of his life. “Everything was happening, but nothing was happening,” Miranda quips.

Some other great archival footage is of Miranda and Kail walking through New York City’s Times Square, not long before “In the Heights” was scheduled to begin previews on Broadway. Kail and Miranda look up in awe and excitement at the Richard Rodgers Theatre, which had the “In the Heights” billboard and marquee already prepared.

In this archival footage, Kail and Miranda joke about how people in Times Square might or might not recognize them. Kail, who resembles former “American Idol” finalist Justin Guarini, says that people probably think he’s “that guy from ‘American Idol.'” Kail also jokes that people will probably think that Miranda looks like a “Mexican Bud Bundy,” referring to Miranda’s slight resemblance to actor David Faustino, who had the role of bratty son Bud Bundy in the sitcom “Married With Children.” (Miranda’s heritage is actually Puerto Rican, not Mexican.)

All joking aside, a group of people working together this long can’t be immune to jealousies, rivalries and conflicts. Although the documentary acknowledges that Miranda is the most famous member of Freestyle Love Supreme (after his Broadway success, he became a star and a producer in movies and television), the other group members who talk about it for the documentary only express happiness for Miranda. If they have any envy that Miranda’s career has skyrocketed, compared to the careers of other group members, it’s not shown in this movie.

However, there is some acknowledgement that Freestyle Love Supreme did go through a less-than-smooth adjustment period when it became obvious that in order for the group to keep going, certain group members (namely Miranda, Jackson and Kail) would not be as available as they once were, due to their busy Broadway careers. Another big shift in the group’s dynamics occurred when Veneziale moved to San Francisco (because of his wife’s graduate studies) and started a family there.

As a result of that relocation to the other side of the United States, Veneziale and Kail, who used to be best friends, say they became estranged from each other, and their relationship hasn’t really been the same since. Veneziale describes Kail in the early days of Freestyle Love Supreme: “He was my co-conspirator in making things.” Kail says that Veneziale is the “guts and blood” and the “engine” of Freestyle Love Supreme. However, it’s obvious that there’s still tension between Kail and Veneziale, because they choose their words very carefully when talking about each other, while expressing regret that they aren’t close friends anymore.

The documentary doesn’t bring up personal problems in Freestyle Love Supreme until the last third of the movie. Ambudkar opens up about his alcoholism and how it affected him and his role in the group. Ambudkar says that the success of “Hamilton,” which made Miranda even less available to Freestyle Love Supreme than ever before, forced Ambudkar to take a hard look at where his life was headed, and it motivated Ambudkar to get clean and sober.

The clips of Freestyle Love Supreme performing on stage, especially on Broadway, are absolutely electric and elevate this documentary, which plays it very safe overall. “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” gives the impression that it doesn’t want to divulge a lot of the realistic behind-the-scenes ego clashes in the group, for fear that it would mess up the “lovefest” vibe that the documentary is trying to convey. It’s why viewers of this movie get a lot of effusively upbeat soundbites that are a lot like this one from Ambudkar when he describes Freestyle Love Supreme: “It’s truly about embracing and celebrating the human experience.”

Hulu premiered “We Are Freestyle Love Supreme” on July 17, 2020.

Review: ‘Fatal Affair’ (2020), starring Nia Long and Omar Epps

July 17, 2020

by Carla Hay

Nia Long and Omar Epps in “Fatal Affair” (Photo by Beth Dubber/Netflix)

“Fatal Affair” (2020)

Directed by Peter Sullivan

Culture Representation: Taking place in San Francisco Bay Area, the dramatic film “A Fatal Affair” has a predominantly African American cast of characters (with some white people) representing the middle-class.

Culture Clash: A married attorney is stalked by a former college classmate because he wants to have a romantic relationship with her.

Culture Audience: “Fatal Affair” is for people who love Lifetime movies.

Stephen Bishop and Nia Long in “Fatal Affair” (Photo by Beth Dubber/Netflix)

“Fatal Affair” looks like it could have been made for Lifetime, but the movie ended up on Netflix because Netflix pays more money than Lifetime does. Netflix has more money to throw around than Lifetime does, but that doesn’t guarantee that the quality of this type of “woman in peril” movie is going to be any better.

Even before watching any of “Fatal Affair” (directed by Peter Sullivan, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rasheeda Garner), people already know the checklist of what will be in the movie and how it will end. Is a woman being stalked or is in some other kind of danger? Check. Are there fairly tame sex scenes? Check. Is there a big showdown at the end of the movie? Check.

It seems redundant at this point to have a summary of this formulaic plot, but here it is: Successful civil attorney Ellie Warren (played by Nia Long, who is one of the producers of “Fatal Affair”) has been married to her college sweetheart for about 20 years. She works at a corporate law firm in San Francisco, but she’s announced her resignation because she’s starting her own law practice.

Ellie and her architect husband Marcus Warren (played by Stephen Bishop) have recently moved into their ideal beachfront home. Their only child Brittany (played by Aubrey Cleland) has just started her first year at an unnamed college in Berkeley. Life seems perfect. But since this is a movie called “Fatal Affair,” it’s only a matter of time before Ellie’s life is turned upside down.

Ellie is working on her last case (a trademark lawsuit) at her employer’s law firm before she launches her own law practice. One day, during a conference-room staff meeting about the case, a tech consultant is introduced to the team as someone who was recently hired to help with the case. The tech consultant’s name is David Hammond (played by Omar Epps), and Ellie is pleasantly surprised to see him because she and David attended the same college.

David and Ellie haven’t seen each other in about 20 years. During the meeting, it becomes apparent that David was hired to snoop into the opposing side’s email/Internet activities in order to help the firm build its case against the opponent. David doesn’t seem to have a problem doing this questionably ethical/probably illegal activity, so you can bet he’s going to use his computer-hacking skills when he inevitably begins to stalk Ellie.

After the meeting, David and Ellie make small talk about what’s been going on in their lives since they last saw each other. Ellie tells him that she’s happily married to Marcus, and they have a daughter who just started her first year in college. David is divorced with no kids.

David gives Ellie effusive compliments about how great she looks, and he makes it clear that he wants to see Ellie again. He asks if she’d like to meet up for drinks so they can catch up with each other. She politely declines. But by the way that David looks at Ellie, it’s obvious that he’s going to keep asking until she says yes.

Ellie has an attorney friend named Courtney (played by Maya Storm), who works for another law firm in the same building. Courtney has been pushing Ellie to go out and have some fun with her for a “girls’ night out” of dinner and drinking. They make plans to meet up, and when David sees Ellie again, he also asks again to meet up with her for dinner and drinks.

Ellie invites David to join her and Courtney for their night out, but Courtney cancels at the last minute because she has to work late that night. However, Ellie and David still decide to hang out anyway at the nightclub/bar where they were going to meet up with Courtney.

Before that happens, David tells Ellie that it wasn’t a coincidence that he started working for the law firm. He took the job because he knew she was working there. Ellie takes it as a compliment. Big mistake.

Over dinner and drinks, David immediately starts fishing for details about how Ellie’s marriage is going. Ellie tells David that there’s no trouble in paradise. She says that she has a perfect life, a perfect husband and a perfect daughter.

But then, Ellie contradicts herself by confessing to David that she and her husband have become emotionally distant from each other. She says, “One day, you wake up and it feels like the person you’ve been sleeping next to for 20 years is a complete stranger.” (This line is repeated again later in the movie in the cheesiest way possible.)

Ellie’s somewhat drunken revelation to David that there are cracks in her marriage is all he needs to hear to further turn up his sexual flirtation with her. They drink some more, then head to a nightclub, where they start dancing intimately.

Patrice Rushen’s 1982 hit “Forget Me Nots” is one of the songs that they dance to at the nightclub. That song shows up later in another scene that will make viewers howl with laughter at how the song is used in such a tacky way in this later scene. Rushen probably did not envision that her song would end up being literally warped as a backdrop in a moronic made-for-TV movie.

Back at the the nightclub, Ellie and David are grinding on each other on the dance floor. The next thing you know, David and Ellie are having a hot’n’heavy makeout session in the ladies’ room on the sink counter. Her underwear comes off, he unzips his pants, and it looks like they’re about to go at it, right there on the counter. (Apparently, they don’t seem to care if anyone could walk in at that moment.)

But before they can actually go through with it, Ellie suddenly comes to her senses and stops David. She tells him that she made a mistake and that nothing else can happen between them. David looks disappointed, and they go their separate ways.

He texts her an apology later that night, but she ignores it. But do you think David will go away quietly? Of course not. There would be no “Fatal Affair” movie if he did.

David then begins to bombard Ellie with texts and phone calls, asking her to meet up with him again. At first, she ignores him. And then she blocks his number. But he gets around that by calling from unknown numbers.

And then, David confronts Ellie while she’s about to get into her car outside of her office. It’s a somewhat hilarious scene because a driver who had been patiently waiting to get Ellie’s parking spot becomes increasingly frustrated when he sees that Ellie and David’s angry conversation is delaying Ellie getting into her car so she can leave the parking spot.

Ellies tells David that she doesn’t want to see him again and orders him to stop contacting her. But, of course, that makes David become crazier and more obsessed. He’s been stalking her in person. And unbeknownst to Ellie and Marcus, David has been spying on them at their house and even watches Marcus and Ellie’s bedroom activities.

And to Ellie’s horror, David starts dating Courtney. Ellie finds out when Courtney comes over for dinner at Ellie and Marcus’ new house, and Ellie is shocked to see that David is Courtney’s date. Ellie is so surprised that she pretends that she’s never met David before, which makes no sense, considering that David and Ellie were working together on a case for the same law firm shortly before she left the company. Based on the way that Courtney looks at David, and all the public displays of affection they show each other,  it’s a serious relationship and Courtney has fallen in love with David.

This is one of many plot holes in the movie. Courtney and Ellie are close friends, so how could Ellie not know that David was Courtney’s new boyfriend? Did Courtney assume that her new boyfriend David is not the same person who went to the same college as Ellie, worked at the same law firm, and was supposed to join Ellie and Courtney for drinks that night?

And why would Ellie be deceptive by pretending to not know David in front of her husband Marcus and Courtney, considering that Marcus, Ellie and David all went to the same college? Ellie wanted to keep the stalking a secret, but she didn’t have to lie about not knowing David. These are all unanswered questions in this movie’s messy plot.

At the dinner party, Ellie confronts David in a private conversation in her kitchen. She angrily tells him that he needs to leave her home immediately and stay out of her life. But does he stay out of her life? Of course not.

You can predict some of the other things he does to make life hell for Ellie. One of them is that he turns Courtney against Ellie and convinces Courtney that Ellie has been obsessively stalking him. Courtney doesn’t believe Ellie when Ellie tells her that David is the one who’s the obsessive stalker. Courtney also doesn’t heed Ellie’s warning to stay away from David.

During all this turmoil, Ellie foolishly doesn’t tell Marcus what’s going on until it’s almost too late. As a lawyer who should know better, she also doesn’t do anything to legally protect herself, such as report David’s harassment to the necessary people. However, this is an aspect of the film that’s fairly realistic, because many stalking victims keep silent about the stalking because they’re afraid or embarrassed.

And so, Ellie is probably the only person who’s shocked one day when she sees Marcus having a friendly game with David at a golf course. She’s still in “silence mode” about the stalking (probably because she doesn’t want her husband to find out that she almost had sex with David), so Ellie doesn’t do anything to interrupt the game, since Marcus and David are too far away.

During this golf game, Marcus opens up to David about recovering from a car accident that left him in a body cast for six months. It’s an obvious hint to viewers that Marcus’ car accident and difficult recovery put a strain on his marriage to Ellie. In a conversation seen at the beginning of the film, Ellie mentions that Marcus was still recovering from something, and now it’s revealed what that recovery is.

When Ellie finally does a background check on David (who has no criminal record), she discovers some important information about his marriage and divorce through public records. The information about David’s ex-wife Deborah is not surprising to viewers, because what happened to Deborah (played by KJ Smith) and her new boyfriend Travis (played by Jason-Shane Scott) was shown at the beginning of the movie.

There are also scenes of David in court-ordered anger management sessions with a therapist named Dr. Leigh Beverly (played by Fredella Calloway), who grows concerned when David tells her that he’s started seeing a new woman who’s technically married but the marriage is over. We can assume the court-ordered anger management was because of David’s divorce from Deborah, because Ellie’s background check showed that David has no criminal record.

The therapist warns David not to rush into a new relationship, considering how “broken” he was over Deborah. Dr. Beverly adds, “After what you’ve been through, I don’t think anyone would blame you if you were still having problems.” No one is going to be fooled by this scene that’s supposed to make David look like a sympathetic victim.

When the inevitable showdown happens at the end of the movie, there’s some more ridiculousness in these scenes, because people get injuries that magically seem to have no impact on them. One person falls from a window onto a concrete area in a way that would split someone’s head open or possibly break some bones, but this person gets up without any injuries or bleeding. Another person gets a large knife deeply plunged into the abdomen but is later able to run around as if the stab wound was from a small pocket knife.

It all leads to an ending that is beyond predictable; it’s a foregone conclusion. There’s obviously an audience for this type of formulaic “woman in peril” movie (or else Lifetime wouldn’t be in business), so people should know what they’re getting into when they decide to watch “Fatal Affair.”

And if people still have no idea what the movie will be about before they see it, and they’re turned off by the tawdriness of it all, at least they can take comfort in knowing that there won’t be a sequel to “Fatal Affair.” However, there will always be plenty of other movies that tell the same story but with different names.

Netflix premiered “Fatal Affair” on July 16, 2020.

Review: ‘A Girl From Mogadishu,’ starring Aja Naomi King

July 16, 2020

by Carla Hay

Aja Naomi King in “A Girl From Mogadishu” (Photo by Seamus Murphy/Pembridge Pictures)

“A Girl From Mogadishu” 

Directed by Mary McGuckian

English and Somalian with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Somalia and Ireland, the drama “A Girl From Mogadishu” (based on a true story) has a racially diverse cast (white and black) representing Somalian natives and refugees and Irish politicians and social workers.

Culture Clash:  Ifrah Ahmed escapes war-torn Somalia for a life in Ireland, where she becomes a social activist campaigning to outlaw female genital mutilation.

Culture Audience: “A Girl From Mogadishu” will appeal primarily to people who like stories about social justice issues and immigrants who overcome difficult challenges.

Barkhad Abdi and Aja Naomi King in “A Girl From Mogadishu” (Photo by Seamus Murphy/Pembridge Pictures)

The dramatic film “A Girl From Mogadishu” (written and directed by Mary McGuckian) takes on two very difficult subjects—war-torn Somalia and the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation (FGM)—and tells the story from the perspective of someone who’s experienced both in real life. The movie is a biography of Ifrah Ahmed, who fled Somalia when she was 15. She ended up in Ireland, and became a leading activist in a campaign to outlaw FGM, which has been a forced ritual (mostly inflicted on underage girls) in African cultures for centuries.

Aja Naomi King (who is American) gives a compelling performance as Ifrah, from the ages of 15 to her 20s. The entire movie has her voiceover narration, which works well in some scenes, but doesn’t work in others. The movie begins on December 28, 2006, with Ifrah running for her life on the day that’s known as the Fall of Mogadishu, when the militaries of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and Ethiopian troops invaded the Somali capital.

Ifrah becomes separated from her family (her grandmother, her father and her brother) after the military raided the family home. She ends up in an empty house, where three military soldiers rape her. Ifrah has an aunt who lives in Minnesota, so Ifrah thinks her best chance for a life outside of Somalia is to go to the United States to live with her aunt.

Ifrah boards a bus to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. From there, she plans to go to the United States. But she has a close call in Addis Ababa when she finds out that she boarded the wrong bus, which is controlled by a sex trafficker.

She runs away from the wrong bus and boards another bus, which leads her to a family with a son named Hassan (played by Barkhad Abdi), who tells Ifrah that he can take her to the United States. The movie doesn’t make it clear how Ifrah was able to pay for this service, since it’s obvious that Hassan isn’t going to all this trouble out of the goodness of his own heart. This missing detail is an example of one of the flaws in this movie’s screenplay.

Hassan provides Ifrah with a passport and specific instructions to follow him and imitate what he does when they’re at the airport. It’s the first time that Ifrah ever gets on an escalator and goes on an airplane, so she’s understandably terrified. But when Ifrah and Hassan leave Ethiopia, they don’t arrive in the United States. They arrive in Ireland’s capital city of Dublin instead.

Ifrah is angry and confused over why Hassan lied to her, but he explains that Ifrah cannot stay with her aunt in Minnesota because her aunt is not a legal immigrant in the United States. Hassan tells Ifrah that she can seek asylum in Ireland. And then he drops her off in the cold winter night at a Dublin Asylum Seekers’ Center with nothing more than a note written in English with her name and why she needs asylum.

Because she is an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum, Ifrah is put into a group home called Ashton House and is placed under the care of social workers. She experiences major culture shock, not only because she can’t speak English but also because she has difficulty adjusting to the type of food that’s eaten in Ireland. In one scene, when a male social worker laughs at how Ifrah eats a bowl of cornflakes with her bare hands, she gets irritated and throws a shoe at him.

Ifrah is reprimanded, but she is able to communicate with the social worker that what she’s really frustrated about is not being able to speak English. With the help of a Somalian translator at Ashton House, Ifrah is able to better communicate with the staff. Ifrah has also become friends with another Somalian refugee at Ashton House. Her new friend is Amala (played by Martha Canga Antonio), and they both help each other learn English.

Ifrah’s life takes an unexpected and dramatic turn when she has her first medical exam in Ireland. The doctors are shocked to find out about her FGM. At first, Ifrah mistakenly thinks that their horrified reaction is because they think she’s HIV-positive. The doctors tell her she’s not HIV-positive and that they’re upset by the mutilation of her genital area. Ifrah replies, “This is my culture.”

However, when Ifrah figures out that FGM is not normal and is a major stigma in cultures outside of Africa, she’s overwhelmed by shame and starts sobbing uncontrollably. The next thing you know, there’s a flash forward to Ifrah as an anti-FGM activist giving a speech to a group of politicians. This sudden flash-forward scene is a little jarring and an example of better editing choices that director McGuckian could have made, since the movie keeps jumping back and forth in time in a way that doesn’t always transition smoothly.

The rest of the movie shows Ifrah’s anti-FGM activism and the increased progress and media attention that she and her allies received for this issue. With the help of Ireland’s Labour Party politicians Emer Costello (played by Orla Brady) and her husband Joe Costello (played by Stanley Townsend), Ifrah was able to get FGM outlawed in Ireland. And, accompanied by a NGO (non-governmental organization) rep (played by Luke Spencer Roberts), Ifrah travels to Africa to further her cause to get FGM banned.

The movie also depicts how Ifrah eventually opened up and went public with all the harrowing details of what happened to her during her FGM torture. She was mutilated at 8 years old with several other girls, and they were tied up for 40 days with a very limited ability to urinate. One of the girls got a urinary tract infection and died.

There’s a scene where Ifrah goes back to Somalia to confront her grandmother for allowing the FGM to happen to Ifrah. Hassan pops up out of nowhere and tells Ifrah, “Good girls keep things private and don’t talk.” Ifrah replies defiantly, “I will not be silenced! Not now, not ever, not even for my family!”

“A Girl From Mogadishu” has an important story to tell, but there are some flaws in how it’s told. The dialogue and narration are often simplistic and predictable. And the movie needed better editing, so that the story didn’t seem so choppy and jumbled during the flashback and flash-forward scenes. However, the acting, especially from King in the lead role, elevates the often-trite screenplay. Her performance is worth watching, even if she has to say a lot of lines that could have been written better.

The production design (by Emma Pucci) and costume design (by Nathalie Leborgne) complement the movie very well. For example, the film does a convincing recreation of Barack Obama’s 2011 visit to Ireland, with Ifrah among the thousands of people who went to see him give an outdoor speech in Dublin. Ifrah is also involved in doing fashion shows to raise money for her cause. Those fashion shows are depicted quite nicely in the film.

There are many scenes in “A Girl From Mogadishu” that look like a made-for-TV movie instead of a truly cinematic experience. Despite its flaws, “A Girl From Mogadishu” has emotional authenticity and respect for the traumatic subject matter (the real Ifrah Ahmed was a consultant for the movie), considering that FGM is rarely acknowledged in narrative feature films. This movie will help make people more aware that trying to stop FGM is not just a “women’s issue.” It’s also about human rights.

Showtime Women premiered “A Girl From Mogadishu” on July 15, 2020, and the movie is available on Showtime’s on-demand platforms. Pembridge Pictures will release the film internationally from November 25, 2020 to December 10, 2020.

Copyright 2017-2024 Culture Mix
CULTURE MIX