Tag: Tribeca Festival

Review: ‘Hacking Hate,’ starring My Vingren

June 19, 2024

by Carla Hay

My Vingren in “Hacking Hate” (Photo courtesy of Nonami/Elk Film/Fuglene AS)

“Hacking Hate”

Directed by Simon Klose

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Hacking Hate” features a predominantly white group of people (with one African American and one person of South Asian heritage) who are involved in some way with investigating online speech or activities by hate groups.

Culture Clash: Swedish investigative journalist My Vingren created fake online personas posing as white supremacist family members, in order for Vingren to find out more about an elusive leader of an online hate group.

Culture Audience: “Hacking Hate” will appeal primarily to people who want to know more about how online freedoms are abused by hate groups and how social media companies directly or indirectly enable and profit from this hate.

My Vingren in “Hacking Hate” (Photo courtesy of Nonami/Elk Film/Fuglene AS)

Considering the vast number of media reports and documentaries about how hate groups can entice people online, “Hacking Hate” offers nothing new or surprising. However, it’s an interesting but slow-paced chronicle of one investigative journalist’s work. Swedish investigative journalist My Vingren is at the center of this documentary and is presented as someone who did a lot of work by herself to find out more and track down a mysterious leader of an online white supremacist group.

Directed by Simon Klose, “Hacking Hate” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival, where it won the award for Best Documentary Feature. Vingren is the narrator of the documentary, “Hacking Hate” is not only about Vingren’s hunt for this elusive white supremacist but it’s also an unofficial indictment of the corporate-owned social media platforms that profit from this hate.

Vingren is also shown interviewing a small number of people in the documentary, which doesn’t really show a lot of the “grunt work” of the investigation. The documentary is more about Vingren telling what she found after the fact. Vingren is not a particularly charismatic person—she comes across as quiet, shy and a little nerdy—so making her the focus of this documentary also makes the film occasionally boring from a narrator perspective.

“Hacking Hate” could have benefited from more cohesive film editing. The movie starts off in a somewhat jumbled way. First, Vingren is heard commenting on creating fake online personas as part of her investigation: “There are ethical dilemmas with infiltration when you pretend to be someone else. It’s always a last resort.”

The documentary then shows a montage of video clips from white supremacists, including a certain blonde and muscular male influencer who goes by a screen name that won’t be mentioned in this review. This influencer’s YouTube videos are shown quite a bit in this documentary, but he appears to be too well-known for Vingren, who is looking for insidious influencers who are more underground. Vingren is then shown meeting with an unidentified female editor at Expo magazine and telling the editor that she wants to do an article on how far-right extremist groups influence people on social media.

But instead of Vingren creating fake personas as a “last resort,” the documentary makes it look like creating fake personas is one of the first things that Vingren does in her investigation. Vingren is shown going “undercover” online by creating several fake online personas. She doesn’t take photos of other people for these elaborate schemes. Instead, she uses disguises and computer technology to alter photos of herself and create different profile photos for these fabricated people.

Four of these fake personas are different members of a white supremacist family. Vingren created individual social media and email accounts for each of these fabricated family members. The Swedish white supremacist clan that she creates consists of a man in his late 30s or early 40s named Andreas, his wife Johanna, their teenage daughter Svea, and Johanna’s sister Ellie.

There’s not much that’s compelling or edgy about the fake family personas, mainly because Vingren doesn’t put much personality into these online profiles. Vingren says she made sure not to contribute to any hate speech with the fake family’s online activity. She says that she used hashtags such as #Sweden and #nationalism in social media posts. Vingren claims it didn’t take long for the fake family members to be invited to join private online groups for white supremacists.

“Hacking Hate” then shows a montage of news reports of well-known white supremacist hate crimes that have happened in the 2010s and 2020s. Almost all of these crimes were committed with some type of social media component involved. Vingren then says something that’s very obvious and isn’t exactly surprising news: White supremacist influencers online who want to incite others to commit violent hate crimes like to recruit “young white men who feel frustrated they haven’t fulfilled their dreams.”

“Hacking Hate” then switches gears to Vingren talking about how in 2017, she was hired by Radio Sweden (Sveriges Radio) to investigate the right-wing extremist group the Nordic Foundation. She revisits the Nordic Foundation again for Expo magazine. That revisit becomes the focus of her investigation shown in “Hacking Hate,” which should’ve gotten to this point much earlier in the film.

Vingren comes across an online Nordic Foundation leader with the screen name Strength38. Vingren later found out his true identity and various details about his life, as shown in “Hacking Hate.” Vingren exposes him as a vile criminal who has received possible funding from Russian officials invested in online hate-speech trolling. The full name of this perpetrator is not in the documentary, but his real first name (Vincent) is mentioned many times.

“Hacking Hate” zig zags between the hunt for this white supremacist and interviewing people involved with online activism aimed at exposing and preventing hate speech that could lead to violence. Anika Collier Navaroli, a former content moderator for Twitter and Twitch, is the interviewee who gets the most screen time in the documentary. She repeats much of the same whistleblower testimony that she’s publicly given in other places.

For example, Collier Navaroli says that based on problematic Twitter messages that she and her team were monitoring, she warned Twitter executives that there would be violence from Donald Trump supporters in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, when Trump held a rally in the city that day to protest what Trump described as a presidential election that was “stolen” from him. Collier Navaroli says her warnings were ignored by Twitter executives, who decided not to suspend the Twitter accounts of people committing hate speech that could incite violence. Twitter later suspended Trump after the violence happened at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021.

Collier Navaroli also says she flagged trouble in advance to Twitch executives to warn that white supremacists on Twitch were planning violence against people protesting against police brutality at a scheduled rally in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020. Collier Navaroli says her warnings were also ignored at Twitch. That protest event resulted in Kyle Rittenhouse (who was 17 years old at the time) shooting and killing two of the protesters.

In “Hacking Hate,” Collier Navaroli says she felt sick when she heard about these killings. Rittenhouse claimed self-defense. In 2021, he was found not guilty of all the charges against him: two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide and two counts of reckless endangerment.

Collier Navaroli (who is African American) also talks about how race probably factored into how everything happened when she tried to warn people at Twitter and Twitch, and her concerns were dismissed. She says at Twitter and at Twitch, she was one of the few black employees or only black employee in her department, and the executive decision makers were all white. Vingren and Collier Navaroli also talk about being the targets of cyberbullying, including gender-based threats of violence against them.

There’s the age-old debate over allowing freedom of speech versus restricting hateful/offensive speech. Most U.S.-based major social media platforms have policies against hate content that targets certain groups and identities that are protected by federal civil rights laws. However, Vingren is one of many people who have already pointed out over the years that these policies often go unenforced. And in many cases, a company is making money from ads that are placed on hate content that’s available on the companies’ social media platforms.

Vingren says in the documentary that it’s very difficult to get social media executives at big corporations to talk on the record to journalists about how they monitor and enforce their user content policies. However, she is shown interviewing a very uncomfortable-looking Sara Overby, a Google public policy and government relations executive in Sweden. Google is the parent company of YouTube, which is frequently named as one of the top social media platforms where hate content is allowed to thrive.

Overby says in the interview: “It’s very important to clarify that we don’t make money from extreme content.” When Vingren asks, “How is it possible not to make money from it?” Overby responds that advertisers don’t want to be associated with extreme content. (It’s not the same thing as social media companies placing ads on this extreme content anyway.)

The interview gets even more uneasy for Overby when Vingren asks: “What role do you think YouTube has played for far-right extremists?” Overby (who has a “deer in the headlights” expression on her face) takes a noticeable pause before she answers: “That’s a difficult question to answer because I don’t know the details.”

Imran Ahmed, founder/CEO of Center for Countering Digital Hate (an online watchdog group) states emphatically in the documentary that the biggest social media companies can and do knowingly profit from hate by putting ads on extreme hate content. These ads usually get removed if someone inside or outside the company “flags” or reports the offensive content. But by then, the company has already made money from these ads.

As for Vingren’s investigation of the evasive Vincent, she goes through a journey, some of which she leaves purposely vague. She interviews Geir Loe Winsrygg, a former neighbor of Vincent’s, who describes Vincent as an unfriendly loner who was generally dishonest, creepy and disgusting, based on things that Winsrygg says he knows Vincent did. (The graphic details won’t be described in this review.)

Vingren also interviews journalist Roberto Lovato, who was investigating Vincent for different reasons. It’s mentioned in the documentary that Vincent had various identities and juggled multiple contrasting lifestyles, some of which were in direct contradiction to the homophobic and racist rants that he had as the leader of the Nordic Federation. For example, Vingren found out that Vincent did masturbation porn for gay sex websites. Vincent also has children with multiple black women. Some of these women have accused him of domestic violence.

“Hacking Hate” shows Vingren’s work as solitary, which could be true in many ways. However, it doesn’t ring true that Vingren got all this information in her investigation without a lot of help. Whether it was her decision or not, “Hacking Hate” does not acknowledge or give credit to anyone else for helping in Vingren’s investigation. And for such a wide-sweeping investigation that spans multiple continents, she is shown interviewing very few people.

The documentary never shows Vingren checking in with her editor to give updates or get feedback or any of the other realistic steps in a long-term investigation assignment for a magazine. “Hacking Hate” pushes too hard on the narrative of a “lone crusading journalist,” to the point that this narrative looks kind of phony, just for the sake of making the documentary look more dramatic. “Hacking Hate” is also a bit dull in places where it shouldn’t be. Ultimately, “Hacking Hate” is only worth watching if viewers want further confirmation of how corrupt and nasty the Internet can be, which isn’t exactly shocking news.

Review: ‘Following Harry,’ starring Harry Belafonte

June 19, 2024

by Carla Hay

Harry Belafonte in “Following Harry” (Photo courtesy of Sparkice Limited)

“Following Harry”

Directed by Susanne Rostock

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Following Harry” (which was filmed from 2011 to 2023) features a racially diverse group of people (African American, Latin, white) who are connected in some way to award-winning entertainer/activist Harry Belafonte, who participated in this documentary before he died in 2023, at the age of 96.

Culture Clash: Belafonte, who was part of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s, mentored new generations of activists, who continue to battle social injustices such as racism and sexism.

Culture Audience: “Following Harry” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of Belafonte and documentaries about politically progressive activists.

An image from “Following Harry” (Photo courtesy of Sparkice Limited)

“Following Harry” is a compelling chronicle of the last decade of the life of Harry Belafonte and his dedication to mentoring younger generations of activists. This documentary is occasionally unfocused, but Belafonte’s goals and legacy remain very clear. Belafonte died in 2023, at the age of 96. “Following Harry” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

Directed by Susanne Rostock, “Following Harry” could be considered a sequel to Rostock’s 2011 documentary “Sing Your Song,” which was about Belafonte retiring from performing and putting most of his energy into social activism. “Sing Your Song” also screened at the 2011 Tribeca Film Festival after having its world premiere at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. Filmed from 2011 to 2023, “Following Harry” is an apt title, because it’s essentially a compilation of footage that follows Belafonte, in order to chronicle the activist causes he was involved with the most in the last decade of his life. The title could also refer to the activists who are following in Belafonte’s footsteps.

The documentary is a mix of exclusive behind-the-scenes footage, archival footage from other sources, and sit-down interviews with several people, including Belafonte. After one of the screenings of “Following Harry” at the Tribeca Festival, director Rostock said that Belafonte was blind in the last year of his life. Most of “Following Harry’s” sit-down interview footage of Belafonte was filmed in 2015, Rostock said.

“Following Harry” begins with a voiceover of Belafonte saying, “I’m wrestling right now with how to look back on my life. The question is: ‘Was it all wasted?’ All my life, the issue of race has been a part of my thinking … The truth of the matter is the enemy doesn’t sleep.”

Some of the documentary has a rambling and meandering tone where events are not shown in chronological order. However, “Following Harry” essentially gives focus to how Belafonte was affected by and reacted to four major events that sparked shifts in progressive social activism: The 2012 killing of unarmed Trayvon Martin by a self-apponted neghborhood watchdog in Sanford, Florida; the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C.; the 2018 March for Our Lives event, a worldwide protest against gun violence; and the 2020 police murder of unarmed George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Martin’s death inspired the formation of the Black Lives Matter movement, which gained even more support in subsequent years as more tragic cases of unarmed black people being unjustly killed in the U.S. and other countries began to get high-profile, worldwide attention. As seen in the documentary, Belafonte (who believed in the Martin Luther King Jr. policy of non-violent activism) was frequently called on by people to advise and/or help plan many of the protests that resulted from these social causes.

Belafonte was also heavily involved in prison reform programs. A segment in “Following Harry” shows how Belafonte was a frequent visitor at Sing Sing prison (in Ossining, New York), which has a program for inmates to have a singing group. Belafonte was also involved in the Freedom Writer’s Song Lab, a songwriting workshop for young people who have shown an interest in social change.

Carmen Perez, one of the co-founders of the original Women’s March, is shown in the documentary as someone who worked closely with Belafonte for several years. The 2017 Women’s March was largely motivated as a protest against the election of Donald Trump to president of the United States. In behind-the-scenes footage, Perez told Belafonte in a Women’s March organizer meeting that many women involved in the Women’s March said they didn’t want the event to turn into a protest against Trump. However, Belafonte said that the anti-Trump protests should not only be addressed during the Women’s March but this anti-Trump message was also necessary because Belafonte said that Trump stood for the dismantling of women’s rights.

Some of the other people featured in the documentary include various activists, including Rosario Dawson, Jamie Foxx, Chuck D, Kerry Kennedy, Talib Kweli, Jesse Williams, Rodrigo Venegas, Aloe Blacc, Gina Belafonte (one of Harry’s daughters), Sean Pica, Steven Padgett, Phillip Agnew, Purvi Shah and Aja Monet. Harry Belafonte says in the documentary: “The absence of a career in the performing arts has been a huge adjustment for me.” However, viewers of “Following Harry” can see footage of him singing “Stir It Up” after he retired from performing. Harry Belafonte will always be remembered for his groundbreaking contributions to entertainment, but “Following Harry” is a testament to his important and powerful legacy in making societal changes for the better.

Review: ‘All That We Love,’ starring Margaret Cho, Kenneth Choi, Alice Lee, Atsuko Okatsuka, Devon Bostick, Missi Pyle and Jesse Tyler Ferguson

June 17, 2024

by Carla Hay

Margaret Cho in “All That We Love” (Photo courtesy of Ley Line Entertainment and Ten Acre Films)

“All That We Love”

Directed by Yen Tan

Culture Representation: Taking place in Austin, Texas, the comedy/drama film “All That We Love” features a racially diverse cast of characters (Asian, white and a few Latin people) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A middle-aged divorcée copes with the death of her beloved dog and other changes in her personal life, such as her ex-husband moving back to the same city, and their adult daughter moving to Australia. 

Culture Audience: “All That We Love” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and realistic stories about divorced parents of adult children.

“All That We Love” is a smart and mature comedy/drama about the changes that adults go through in personal relationships, from the perspective of a neurotic, divorced mother. Margaret Cho gives a credible and impressive performance. People who are familiar with Cho as only being a comedian will be pleasantly surprised at how good her dramatic talent is too, as demonstrated in this low-key but emotionally honest movie. “All That We Love” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

Directed by Yen Tan (who co-wrote the movie’s screenplay with Clay Liford), “All That We Love” takes place in a city that is not named, but the movie was filmed in Austin, Texas, and includes some familiar Austin landmarks. In the beginning of the movie, divorcée Emma (played by Cho) is feeling down because her beloved dog Tanner (a brown Collie) has died from cancer. Emma chose to have Tanner cremated. She plans to spread his ashes but hasn’t yet decided where.

Tanner was more than just a dog to Emma, who lives alone. She says multiple times in the movie that Tanner was her main source of comfort and “the love of my life.” There will be more upheavals in Emma’s life during the course of the story. These changes get different reactions from Emma and the people who are close to her. A great deal of the movie is how people deal with unexpected turns in their lives and how much of the past should influence their decisions about relationships.

The two most important people in Emma’s life are her impulsive daughter Maggie (played by Alice Lee), who’s in her early 20s, and Emma’s gay best friend Stan (played by Jesse Tyler Ferguson), who is getting back into the dating scene after a long period of mourning over the death of his longtime boyfriend Craig. Craig’s cause of death is not mentioned in the movie, but it’s mentioned that Stan and Craig were a couple for more than 15 years. Stan is a somewhat stereotypical gay best friend who makes sassy and sarcastic comments. Emma resists Stan’s efforts to play matchmaker for her.

Emma and Maggie are very close, almost like sisters. It’s revealed later in the movie that Emma and Maggie have bonded over their shared trauma of bad times with Emma’s ex-husband Andy (played by Kenneth Choi), who is Maggie’s father. Andy, who is an actor, is described as an alcoholic and a selfish deadbeat dad, who abandoned Emma and Maggie to be with another woman, whom he eventually married after Andy and Emma got divorced. Andy moved to Singapore and hasn’t been in contact with Emma and Maggie for an untold number of years.

Lately, Emma has started to feel like Maggie’s life is going in a direction that’s different from what Emma wants or expects. Maggie is in a serious relationship with her boyfriend Nate (played by Devon Bostick), who is originally from Melbourne, Australia, where his parents and other family members live. Emma doesn’t dislike Nate (who is easygoing and a little goofy), but she doesn’t entirely approve of the relationship either. Emma hasn’t taken the time to get to know Nate, so she’s somewhat suspicious of him.

Emma works at an unnamed company that publishes catalogues. The company has recently been been acquired by a large corporate firm. This merger resulted in layoffs and a more formal work culture that is causing many longtime employees to feel uncomfortable and insecure about their jobs. They don’t think this company is as fun and relaxed as it used to be before the merger. If Emma is feeling afraid she might be laid off, she’s not showing it, and there are no indications that she’s looking for another job.

Emma supervises a team of people whose job is to come up with the designs and words for the catalogues. Even though Emma can be very insecure in her personal life, she’s a demanding and assertive boss at work. For example, she’s shown in a staff meeting getting annoyed and fixated on how an unseen employee named Brian, who is fairly inexperienced, has made a lot of errors in a draft of a catalogue. Later, Emma is stung by a comment from a subordinate, who says that Emma seems to have a more rigid attitude ever since the merger, and Emma is not as friendly and approachable on the job as she used to be.

Stan is a real-estate agent who is contemplating entering into a “throuple” relationship with a gay couple named Julio (played by Joe Souza) and Bob (played by Marcus DeAnda), who recently bought a house from one of Stan’s clients. Julio and Bob have been heavily flirting with Stan, who doesn’t really know how to handle this attention from the couple. Stan also hints that he’s never dated a couple before. Stan is also exploring his options through online dating and asks for Emma’s help in taking a profile photo that Stan hopes will make him look sexy and attractive.

Meanwhile, Emma’s personal life gets turned upside down with news that happens within a day or two of each other. First, Maggie tells Emma that Maggie plans to spend more than just a few weeks with Nate when they visit his family in Australia for an upcoming trip. Maggie has decided that she will be spending five months in Australia and is quitting her job instead of taking a leave of absence. (The movie doesn’t say what kind of job Maggie has.) Emma thinks that Maggie is making the wrong decision about leaving a job for a temporary visit to another country. What really bothers Emma more (but she doesn’t say it out loud) is that she’s afraid that Maggie is starting to see Nate as more important to Maggie than Emma.

Not long afterward, Emma gets even more surprising news: Her ex-husband Andy has moved back to town. Andy surprises Emma with a visit and tells her that his career in Singapore (where he was the star of a successful TV series) got ruined because he was arrested for drunk driving, which was a big scandal. His most recent marriage also fell apart, and he’s now divorced again. He’s also financially broke. Andy is sheepish about these recent failures in his life, but he’s not looking for Emma’s pity or help.

Andy tells Emma that he has now permanently moved to the United States, where he hopes to revive his acting career. In the meantime, he’s working as a barista in a cafe, because he can’t find any jobs as an actor, although he’s hoping an offer that he got to be in a frequently delayed movie will work out for him. Andy is so broke, he can’t afford his own place. Andy has to live with his younger bachelorette sister Raven (played by Atsuko Okatsuka), a YouTuber whose channel is about doing food-related stunts for comedy. Raven has more than 1 million subscribers and makes a full-time income from what she does on YouTube.

Andy seems to be remorseful for how badly he treated Emma and Maggie in the past. He claims that he is now clean and sober and plans to stay that way. Emma is very skeptical at first, but the more time she spends with Andy, the more she is surprised by how different he seems from when they were married. He’s kind, polite and he makes her laugh. Some of their romantic sparks come back. Can this lead to a rekindled romance?

However, things are complicated because Andy wants to make peace with Maggie, who is still deeply hurt and resentful of the neglectful father she used to know. Emma doesn’t quite know when or how to tell Maggie about Andy moving back to same area. And then there’s Stan, who really disapproves of Emma giving Andy another chance because Stan thinks Andy will hurt Emma again.

“All That We Love” has obvious themes of when or if to let go of emotional baggage and whether or not to forgive someone who has been hurtful in the past. There are also some parallels about altered dynamics in close relationships. At various points in the story, Maggie and Emma want to be free to make certain life decisions without the harsh judgments of loved ones who are close to them.

The movie has a somewhat cutesy subplot involving one of Emma’s subordinates named Kayla (played by Missi Pyle), a devout Christian. In one of the movie’s early scenes, Kayla tells Emma that she wants to take an early buyout from the company instead of waiting to be laid off because Kayla wants to spend time doing her “true calling” of church work. Kayla also volunteers as a foster caregiver for dogs. You can easily predict where this subplot will go as soon as Emma visits Kayla at Kayla’s home.

All of the cast members give very good performances, but the movie’s authenticity rests largely on Cho’s nuanced performance as someone who’s feeling the discomfort of unpredictable life events while going through a grieving process. “All That We Love” excels in depicting complicated emotions and situations that arise when formerly feuding divorced parents reach a tentative reconciliation after years of anger and resentment. What does this do to the rest of the affected family members, who might not be ready to forgive and let go of the past?

A few moments in “All That We Love” veer into sitcom territory, particularly in a scene where Emma is asked to leave a house party, and she urinates in the lawn bushes because she doesn’t want to ask the party host to let her back in the house to use the bathroom. However, this well-written and capably directed film shows an overall wisdom of life’s messiness and how people can arrive at different conclusions based on how they deal with the past and the present. In its own observational way, “All That We Love” is a poignant testament of how letting go of previous experiences and facing an uncertain future can be much harder than holding on to the past.

Review: ‘Satisfied’ (2024), starring Renée Elise Goldsberry

June 16, 2024

by Carla Hay

Renée Elise Goldsberry in “Satisfied” (Photo courtesy of Amblin Documentaries and Stick Figures Productions)

“Satisfied”

Directed by Chris Bolan and Melissa Haizlip

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Satisfied” features a racially diverse group of people (African American, Latin, white) who are connected in some way to Tony Award-winning actress/singer Renée Elise Goldsberry and who discuss her personal life and her career.

Culture Clash: Goldsberry, one of the stars of the original “Hamilton” Broadway cast, get candid about the conflicts and heartaches she’s experienced (including several pregnancy miscarriages) in trying to juggle her two biggest life dreams: being a mother and having a successful career as an entertainer.

Culture Audience: “Satisfied” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of Goldsberry, the musical “Hamilton” and documentaries about mothers striving for a healthy work/life balance.

A mid-2010s photo of Brielle Johnson, Renée Elise Goldsberry, Alexis Johnson and Benjamin Johnson in “Satisfied” (Photo courtesy of Amblin Documentaries and Stick Figures Productions)

“Satisfied” is a beautiful and inspirational documentary about how family love can be found in many places with various people. Renée Elise Goldsberry generously opens up about how her pregnancy issues affected her life. Most of the documentary consists of personal videos that actress/singer Goldsberry filmed herself from 2005 to 2023. There are also exclusive interviews in the documentary with some of her family members and colleagues. “Satisfied” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

Directed by Chris Bolan and Melissa Haizlip, “Satisfied” offers an intimate look at what it’s been like for Goldsberry to handle a high-profile and busy career in entertainment while privately going through heart-wrenching personal struggles. She says in a voiceover near the beginning of the movie: “I had two dreams when I was little: to be a mother and to have a career as a singer and actress.” In some circumstances, she felt she had to choose between one of these two dreams or “lose everything.” She adds, “Here are some of my battles, lost and won.”

Goldsberry was born on January 2, 1971, in San Jose, California, and was raised in Houston and Detroit. Her father Ronald Goldsberry (a former automotive executive) and her mother Betty Sanders (who was an industrial psychologist) are seen in various parts of the documentary, but they don’t give formal sit-down interviews for the movie. The documentary has a cinéma vérité approach, rather than a traditional biography format. Although there’s a brief scene of a family reunion in Houston, Renée’s three brothers are not shown speaking in the documentary.

“Satisfied” jumps around a bit in the timeline, but what emerges is a portrait of Renée as a very driven and talented performer who has always strived to achieve a healthy balance between her work life and her personal life. She found success as a fairly well-known supporting actress on television (with roles in “Ally McBeal,” “One Life to Live” and “The Good Wife”) and on Broadway (including “Rent” and “The Color Purple”), but her biggest breakthrough came as an original cast member of the Broadway smash musical “Hamilton.”

In “Hamilton” (which is based on the life of historical figure Alexander Hamilton and Ron Chernow’s 2004 non-fiction book “Hamilton”), Renée had the role of Angelica Schuyler, the eldest of three wealthy socialite sisters. Angelica’s sister Eliza (played by Phillipa Soo) was married to ambitious politician Alexander Hamilton (played by “Hamilton” musical creator Lin-Manuel Miranda), but Angelica was in love with him too. Youngest sister Peggy Schuyler (played by Jasmine Cephas Jones) is also affected by this love triangle. For her role in “Hamilton,” Renée won a Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Musical, as well as many other prizes, including a Grammy Award for Best Musical Theater Album.

A great deal of “Satisfied” (which is named after Angelica Schuyler’s signature song in “Hamilton”) shows Renée’s “Hamilton” journey. Her post-“Hamilton” career is barely mentioned at the end of the documentary. “Satisfied” is the first feature-length documentary to have this treasure trove of behind-the-scenes “Hamilton” footage from a member of the show’s original cast.

As many “Hamilton” fans already know, Renée originally turned down many invitations to be part of the “Hamilton” workshop in 2014, but she was convinced to do the workshop after hearing “Satisfied,” which was her audition song for the show. The documentary includes videojournal footage and other behind-the-scenes footage of her entire “Hamilton” journey, including how she only had about two hours to learn the lyrics to “Satisfied” before her audition. There was no guarantee that doing the workshop would get her the role of Angelica Schuyler, but she did get the role, and the rest is history.

“Hamilton’s” off-Broadway stint was from January to May 2015. “Hamilton” then had an award-winning Broadway run that broke box-office records with the original Broadway cast, beginning when the musical opened on Broadway August 2015. Several of “Hamilton’s” original Broadway cast members voluntarily left the show in July 2016, to work on other projects. Renée’s voluntary exit from “Hamilton” was in September 2016.

Renée takes viewers though all the nerve-wracking stress and the emotion-swelling triumphs of “Hamilton,” from her perspective of being a part of this groundbreaking musical. The camaraderie in “Hamilton’s” original Broadway cast was real, and they all became like other family members to her, she says. “Hamilton” musical creator Miranda and “Hamilton” co-star Ariana DeBose are interviewed for the documentary and say the expected complimentary things too.

What many people might not know is that in the years that Renée’s career was on the rise, she had several pregnancy miscarriages. By the time Goldsberry was cast in “Hamilton,” she had six miscarriages. When she was in rehearsals for the Broadway opening of “Hamilton,” she had become pregnant again but also lost that pregnancy.

Through it all, her loving and supportive husband Alexis Johnson (an attorney) was by her side. In the documentary, Renée says of their courtship that she met him in church (he didn’t know she was an entertainer at the time) “and within a week, I wanted to elope.” She explains it’s not easy to find an understanding spouse who’s willing to not only be married to someone with a lot of job insecurity but also be willing to be in the background while a famous partner is in the spotlight.

The couple, who got married in 2002, were fortunately able to fulfill their dream of being parents. Their biological son Benjamin Johnson was born in 2009. In 2014, the couple adopted their daughter Brielle Johnson from Ethiopia, when she was a 1-year-old. Benjamin and Brielle are in the documentary’s home video footage and are absolutely adorable—not in a contrived way, where you can tell adults are coaching them on how to be “cute.” The charm of this documentary is that everything looks natural and unrehearsed. This family has genuine love for each other—and it shows in this personal footage.

Renée gives a lot of credit to Alexis for being able to take care of their children during the times that she has to work. There are several scenes in the documentary (especially in the footage during her “Hamilton” responsibilities) where Renée expresses guilt for not being there for her children when she wanted to be, such as in the evenings before the children went to sleep for the night. But at the same time, Renée says she doesn’t regret being in “Hamilton” because of the many ways it benefited her and her family.

Alexis comes across as the ideal husband, but they do not pretend to have a perfect marriage. He briefly admits that the couple has arguments, but he doesn’t go into details in the documentary. Alexis comments on what it’s like for him to be being a famous entertainer’s spouse who often has the responsibility of being the primary child caregiver: “There’s no resentment. We’re trying to have a household where everyone thrives.” Renée acknlowledges that she is privileged to have the support of a loving family.

One of the documentary’s more poignant sections is when Renée goes to Houston while she’s on vacation. In addition to being part a family reunion, Renée takes time to visit her drama teacher from high school: Dr. Charles Geroux, who is shown in his home with wife Brigid Geroux. Long before “Hamilton” broke racial barriers in casting, Charles Geroux cast Renée as in the lead role of Nellie Forbush in their school’s production of “South Pacific.”

There’s a brief archival clip of Renée performing in this production, and she appears to be the only person of color on the stage. Charles Geroux says wasn’t thinking of color when he cast Renée in the role. He says cast her because she had “everything” and was the best person for the role. Everyone in the room gets teary-eyed when he tells Renée: “Keep going. And I love you.” (Charles Geroux passed away in 2023. The documentary’s end credits include a tribute to him.)

Many people only see the glitz and glamour of celebrity lives. “Satisfied” is undoubtedly carefully curated, but it’s also a poignant document of the personal challenges that celebrities can go through behind the scenes. People who are looking for scandals and misdeeds won’t find that type of tabloid fodder in this documentary. “Satisfied” is simply one person’s story that affirms a basic truth that positive family love is much more important than being rich and famous.

Review: ‘Vulcanizadora,’ starring Joshua Burge and Joel Potrykus

June 15, 2024

by Carla Hay

Joshua Burge in “Vulcanizadora” (Photo courtesy of Dweck Productions/Factory 25 Productions/Sob Noisse Movies)

“Vulcanizadora”

Directed by Joel Potrykus

Culture Representation: Taking place in Michigan, the dramatic film “Vulcanizadora” (a sequel to 2015’s “Buzzard”) features an all-white cast of characters representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Two friends go on a camping trip in the woods and plan to commit a sinister act.

Culture Audience: “Vulcanizadora” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of filmmaker Joel Potrykus and provocative movies about the dark side of human nature.

Joshua Burge in “Vulcanizadora” (Photo courtesy of Dweck Productions/Factory 25 Productions/Sob Noisse Movies)

“Vulcanizadora” is a mind-bending drama that sneaks up on viewers and goes to unpredictable places. This sequel to “Buzzard” requires patience during the meandering first third of “Vulcanizadora.” The rest of the film will keep viewers on edge.

Written and directed by Joel Potrykus, “Vulcanizadora” takes place in Michigan, and was filmed on location in the Michigan cities of Manistee and Grand Rapids. “Vulcanizadora” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival. Most of the film takes place in an isolated wooded area near a beach.

“Vulcanizadora” has a relatively small number of people in the cast. Two main characters get the most screen time. Marty Jackitansky (played by Joshua Burge) is the protagonist from “Buzzard,” a movie about Marty committing crimes, such as financial fraud, by stealing and forging checks. The other main character in “Vulcanizadora” is Derek Skiba (played by Potrykus), who was a supporting character in “Buzzard.”

“Buzzard” had its world premiere at the 2014 SXSW Film Festival and was released in 2015. In “Buzzard,” Derek was Marty’s co-worker at a company called First File Mortgage, where Marty was a temp worker who stole checks and committed other fraud. Fearing that he would get caught, Marty hid at Derek’s place, while Derek lied to their boss and said that Marty was sick and unable to go to work. The rest of “Buzzard” shows what happened to Marty.

Viewers of “Vulcanizadora” don’t need to see “Buzzard” to understand what happens in “Vulcanizadora.” However, seeing “Buzzard” before seeing “Vulcanizadora” will give viewers a better understanding of who Marty and Derek are and their background stories. For the first third of “Vulcanizadora,” the movie just looks like two male friends wandering around a wooded area during a camping trip.

Derek (who is late 40s) is the more talkative of the duo. His motormouth rambling becomes very irritating after a while. Marty (who is in his late 20s) is brooding and doesn’t seem like he enjoys spending time with Derek. Even though Derek is older than Marty, Marty seems more emotionally immature than Derek.

Derek is the type of person who pretends to know more than he really does. For example, Derek doesn’t know some basic camping skills, and Marty often has to show him how to do things correctly. Derek is a music fan who often plays music loudly or sings songs. Based on his musical taste, Derek likes hard rock from the 1990s. Snippets of Godsmack’s “Voodoo” and Temple of the Dog’s “Hunger Strike” can be heard in the movie.

Why are Derek and Marty camping in the woods? Things become interesting in the middle of the film, when more information is revealed. Derek has brought small explosive devices. He and Marty are seen testing one of these explosive devices. Marty and Derek eventually go to a beach area, where their intentions become evident.

Conversations throughout the film also reveal that Marty is still involved in criminal activity. He has an upcoming court date where he has to enter a plea to charges of arson. He’s accused of burning down a tire store. During an argument between Marty and Derek, it’s mentioned that Derek paid $700 to bail Marty out of jail.

Derek has his own personal problems: He is angry about not being able to see his son Jeremy (played by Solo Potrykus), who is about 5 or 6 years old. Derek complains to Marty that Derek’s ex-wife Lynn (played by Melissa Blanchard) has turned Jeremy against Derek. Derek also believes that Jeremy cares more about Lynn’s current husband, who buys gifts for Jeremy that Derek wouldn’t be able to afford. “Everybody just fucking ripped me off,” Derek says bitterly.

Nothing can really prepare viewers for where “Vulcanizadora” ends up going in the story. What starts out looking like a harmless camping trip turns out to be something very different. The acting performances in “Vulcanizadora” are adequate, although Burge stands out for how he depicts Marty’s complexity. Burge received a Tribeca Festival special jury mention for his “Vulcanizadora” performance. Where “Vulcanizadora” excels the most is in the writing and direction, which build layers of suspense until the movie’s final knockout scenes.

Review: ‘Sacramento’ (2024), starring Michael Angarano, Michael Cera, Kristen Stewart and Maya Erskine

June 13, 2024

by Carla Hay

Maya Erskine, Michael Angarano, Michael Cera and Kristen Stewart in “Sacramento” (Photo courtesy of Vertical)

“Sacramento” (2024)

Directed by Michael Angarano

Culture Representation: Taking place in California, the comedy/drama film “Sacramento” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few Asians and Latin people) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Two estranged best friends have a tension-filled and sometimes wacky reunion when they go on a road trip together from Los Angeles to Sacramento. 

Culture Audience: “Sacramento” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and road trip “buddy” movies with good acting.

The comedy/drama “Sacramento” has an over-used formula of two people with opposite personalities who go on a trip together. However, the cast members’ believable performances capably balance the movie’s shifting tones of whimsical and weighty. “Sacramento” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

Directed by Michael Angarano, “Sacramento” (which was filmed on location in California, mostly in the cities of Los Angeles and Sacramento) is about life’s growing pains and the crossroads of decisions about maturity and lifestyles that are often experienced by people in their 30s. Christopher Nicholas Smith and Angarano co-wrote the screenplay for “Sacramento,” which begins by showing protagonist Rickey (played by Angarano) by himself in a wooded area near a creek. Standing on the opposite side of the creek is a stranger named Tallie (played by Maya Erskine), who shouts out this sexual flirtation to Rickey: “Nice dick!”

Rickey (a never-married bachelor with no children) is intrigued by this stranger and is immediately attracted to Tallie. He suggests that they spontaneously get in the creek and swim to each other. She agrees. He strips down to his underwear, but Tallie suddenly changes her mind and doesn’t go in the water.

It sets the tone of what types of personalities they have: Rickey is very impulsive, and many people in his life think he’s irresponsible. Tallie is less likely to be a risk taker and is more of a realist. Rickey decides to swim to Tallie. Over the rest of the trip, they flirt with each other and eventually hook up sexually. What happens to their relationship is eventually revealed in the movie.

One year later, in Los Angeles, Rickey’s on-again/off-again best friend Glenn Mullen (played by Michael Cera) is assembling a crib for his soon-to-be-born first child. Glenn gets frustrated because he can’t put together the crib in the way he thinks it’s supposed to be. Glenn becomes so angry, he shakes off one side of the crib in frustration. It soon becomes obvious in other scenes that Glenn is a neurotic control freak with an obsessive-compulsive attitude about cleanliness and sticking to routines.

Glenn’s supportive wife Rosie (played by Kristen Stewart) is laid-back and very understanding about Glenn’s quirks. Adding to Glenn’s overall frustration, he has recently been laid off from an unnamed job. Rosie, who works from home in an unnamed job, has offered to be the household breadwinner until Glenn finds another job. She suggests that Glenn can be a stay-at-home father for a year while she financially supports the family. Glenn somewhat reluctantly agrees.

Based on conversations in the movie, Rickey and Glenn have known each other since they were children. But as adults, Rickey has been in and out of Glenn’s life. Even though they both live in the Los Angeles area, it’s not unusual for Rickey to cut off contact with Glenn for several months and then make contact and expect them to resume ther friendship right where it left off. This flakiness has made Glenn feel very estranged from Rickey.

But there would be no “Sacramento” movie if Rickey and Glenn didn’t have a reunion. Rickey, who is chronically unemployed, is seen trying to lead a grief support group that used to be led by his deceased father. Rickey’s style of counseling is considered too aggressively judgmental, so he’s asked to leave the group.

Feeling lonely, Rickey suddenly shows up unannounced at the home of Glenn and Rosie. Glenn isn’t happy to see Rickey, but he’s polite enough to make time to talk to Rickey. Through a series of events, Rickey convinces Glenn to go on a road trip to Sacramento (which is about 386 miles northeast of Los Angeles) because Rickey says his father recently died, and his father’s dying wish was to have his ashes spread in Sacramento. This “dying wish” is a lie. Early on in the trip, when Glenn isn’t looking, Rickey spontaneously fills a tennis ball container with dirt and pretends that the container has the ashes of his dead father.

The rest of “Sacramento” has some clichés from many other road trip movies of this ilk: The two travelers frequently bicker with each other. They meet unusual characters along the way. Something goes wrong with the vehicle being used for the trip, such as running out of gas, a mechanical malfunction, or the vehicle gets stolen or towed. And as defenses come down, the two quarrelling people on the road trip show vulnerability to each other and reveal personal secrets.

What saves “Sacramento” from watered-down mediocrity is the fact that the main characters are written in such a specific way, they can’t be described as shallow or generic. Angarano and Cera have genuine chemistry with each other that makes it easy for viewers to believe and feel invested in this volatile friendship, which is at the heart of the film. “Sacramento” doesn’t do anything that’s really inventive (and some of the scenarios are a bit too much like a sitcom), but it’s a solid option for people who want to see an entertaining film that will make viewers laugh, cringe and possibly feel some sentimentality.

Vertical will release “Sacramento” in select U.S. cinemas on a date to be announced.

Review: ‘Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme,’ starring Joslyn Jensen, Craig Cole, Robert Henry, John Verrastro, Michael Finnegan, Nancy Dillon and Doug Thompson

June 12, 2024

by Carla Hay

A blended photo of convicted fraudster Zachary Horwitz, also known as actor Zach Avery, in “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” (Photo courtesy of Neon)

“Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme”

Directed by David Darg

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” features a predominantly white group of people (with one person of South Asian heritage) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Zach Horwitz, an actor using the stage name Zach Avery, conned people out of an estimated $690 million in a Ponzi scheme where he sought investors for his fraudulent movie licensing company.  

Culture Audience: “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries about con artists.

Joslyn Jensen in “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” (Photo courtesy of Neon)

“Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” is a true crime documentary with details that are so outrageous, they sound like they could be in a scripted Hollywood movie. This compelling documentary doesn’t reveal any new information about the case of convicted fraudster Zachary Horwitz, also known as actor Zach Avery. The film’s surprise ending is gimmicky but proves a point about false perception versus factual reality.

Directed by David Darg, “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” is one of those true documentaries that takes most of its information from what was already reported in the news media and then turns it into a non-fiction film. The movie has a twist that is clearly intended to make “Bad Actor” stand out from other documentaries. However, the twist will probably be divisive to some viewers. “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

Horwitz was arrested in 2021 on federal fraud charges that he swindled about $690 million from people through his company 1inMM Productions (pronounced “One in a Million Productions”) through phony licensing deals for movies. He was a Los Angeles-area actor and producer (mostly in obscure independent films that were dramas or action flicks) but lived a lavish lifestyle that ended up leading to his downfall. He was convicted in 2021, after pleading guilty to one count of securities fraud totaling $227 million. In 2022, Horwitz was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $230 million in restitution.

The case of Horwitz has gotten a lot of media coverage, so the documentary doesn’t waste time with a “whodunit” format. “Bad Actor” is a retrospective look at how Horwitz was able to fool and defraud so many people. He forged a lot of convincing-looking documents and had meticulous records to keep track of his lies. Horwitz, who frequently dropped the name of on-again/off-again Starbucks CEO Schultz as someone who endorsed him, also faked email and text messages from executives at major media companies such as HBO and Netflix.

Joslyn Jensen appears on camera as the interviewer, she does the voiceover narration, and she talks about her choices regarding what will be put in the movie. Viewers will draw their own conclusions about her role in the making of this documentary. “Bad Actor” also features footage of the audition process for people being cast for the documentary’s re-enactment scenes. Robert Jumper has the role of Horwitz in these re-enactments. The auditioning actors are also asked for their thoughts on this case, and some of those comments are in the movie.

Born in Berkeley, California, on December 5, 1986, Horwitz was raised in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he was a popular football player at Carroll High School. Steve Clark, a former Carroll High School classmate of Horwitz, says in the documentary that Horwitz never pursued acting in high school and was known mostly for being an athlete. Even though Horwitz didn’t show a public interest in acting when he was in high school, Clark and fellow Carroll High School alum Robbie McKerr remember that Horwitz was known for exaggerating or outright lying about himself. For example, McKerr says Horwitz lied about playing football for Indiana University Bloomington.

After graduating from Indiana University Bloomington in 2010, Horwitz moved to Chicago with his live-in-girlfriend Mallory Hagedorn, an aspiring wedding planner. Horwitz’s mother inherited “millions” from her deceased second husband Robert Kozlowski, who was Horwitz’s stepfather. It’s widely presumed that some of this inheritance was used as the seed money for the juice bar that Horwitz opened in Chicago.

By all accounts, the juice bar was a legitimate business, even though Horwitz would lie to some people by saying that Starbucks billionaire Schultz was an investor in the juice bar. Horwitz would later use Schultz’s name for his criminal fraud schemes. Horwitz would falsely claim to various people that Schultz was an investor and mentor.

The juice bar ultimately failed, so Horwitz and Hagedorn moved to Los Angeles, where he began a career as an actor named Zach Avery. Horwitz and Hagedorn were married from 2014 to 2021, and they have two children together. It was in Los Angeles that Horwitz began his fraud of being the leader of the start-up company 1inMM Productions, which claimed to license movies overseas for major movie studies and companies such as HBO and Netflix. It’s mentioned in the documentary that Horwitz purposely chose real titles of obscure movies to make everything look legitimate.

The Chicago-based investment firm JJMT was listed as an “advisory firm” for 1inMM Productions. Over time, as widely reported, Horwitz would use the millions of dollars that he stole to fund a lavish lifestyle and “pay for play” schemes, where he would pay money to filmmakers to cast him in their movies and sometimes be listed as an executive producer of these movies. “Bad Actor” doesn’t name any specific movie where Horwitz bought his way into an acting role. However, the documentary pokes fun at all the bad acting he has in these movies with cleverly edited film clips from movies such as 2018’s “Farming,” 2018’s “The White Crow,” 2020’s “Last Moment of Clarity,” 2021’s “The Devil Below” and 2021’s “The Gateway.”

“Bad Actor” has the expected interviews with other people who knew Horwitz as friends or acquaintances who describe him as being very convincing and charming, which was a personality mask for the cold-blooded way he committed his crimes. Horwitz and his family members are not interviewed. However, the documentary includes some archival interview clips that Horwitz did with independent media outlets, as well as some personal videos that were recorded when he was amongst friends and family members.

Some of his fraud victims are also interviewed. Craig Cole (an aspiring actor who said he was Horwitz’s best friend for years) and screenwriter Robert Henry are the two victims in the documentary who get the most screen time with their heart-wrenching stories about losing their life savings to Horwitz. Cole says that Horwitz went as far as targeting Cole’s parents, who also lost their life savings in Horwitz’s elaborate con scheme.

Also interviewed are law enforcement officials (FBI agents Doug Thompson and John Verrastro) and journalists (Michael Finnegan of The Los Angeles Times and Nancy Dillon of Rolling Stone) who were involved with or very familiar with the case. “Bad Actor” interviewees also include Bill Witte (a retired Indiana University Bloomington professor of economics, who explains how Ponzi schemes work) and Doug Lynam, Ph. D., who describes the psychology of a narcissistic, possibly sociopathic con artist.

“Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” at times has a very dark comedic tone aimed at Horwitz, but the movie never glorifies him or exploits his victims. It’s yet another story about how easy it is for some people to be fooled by fake images and false hope if all of it is presented in a way that they think is credible. The ending of “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” is meant to place doubt in the minds of viewers who think they could never be fooled by a scam.

Neon will release “Bad Actor: A Hollywood Ponzi Scheme” in select U.S. cinemas on June 14, 2024.

Review: ‘The A-Frame,’ starring Johnny Whitworth, Dana Namerode, Laketa Caston and Nik Dodani

June 11, 2024

by Carla Hay

Johnny Whitworth and Dana Namerode in “The A-Frame” (Photo courtesy of Traverse Media)

“The A-Frame”

Directed by Calvin Lee Reeder

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed U.S. city, the horror film “The A-Frame” features a racially diverse cast of characters (white, African American and Asian) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A mysterious astrophysicist claims that he has the cure for cancer because of his A-Frame invention, which sends cancer cells into another dimension, but the machine has hidden dangers.  

Culture Audience: “The A-Frame” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in sci-fi horror movies and don’t mind plot holes.

Johnny Whitworth in “The A-Frame” (Photo courtesy of Traverse Media)

“The A-Frame” is a sci-fi horror film about a “mad scientist” who claims he has an invention that can cure cancer. This sluggish movie has flimsy world-building and too many unanswered questions. A few blood-soaked, gory scenes don’t make the movie scary. The ending of “The A-Frame” is entirely predictable and leaves a lot of loose storylines hanging.

Written and directed by Calvin Lee Reeder, “The A-Frame” (which had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival) is a fairly drab movie that might have been better as a short film. There’s a lot of repetitive padding in the movie, which has characters who are quite boring and hollow. The movie really goes off the rails into eye-rolling stupidity when there’s a police “investigation” that doesn’t look believable at all.

In “The A-Frame” (which takes place in an unnamed U.S. city but was actually filmed in Kentucky), Donna Walker (played by Dana Namerode) is a mopey young musician who has recently found out the devastating news that she has bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in one of her hands. This hand will have to be amputated. Donna plays piano in an unnamed instrumental trio where the other two members are guitarists named Walter (played by Phillip Andre Botello) and Sonia (played by Larissa White). This musical trio is mostly shown practicing and barely speaking to each other.

Very little is revealed about Donna except her medical condition. Donna attends a support group meeting for people living with cancer. The first time that Donna attends this meeting, the group leader Linda Dixon (played by Laketa Caston) is hostile to Donna because Donna is eight minutes late. Linda is very moody. She can be rude and condescending to someone and then friendly and compassionate to the same person, within a matter of minutes. That’s Linda’s attitude toward Donna, whom Linda eventually welcomes into the group.

During a visit to her doctor, Donna makes the acquaintance of another cancer patient named Rishi (played by Nik Dodani), who is talkative and an aspiring stand-up comedian. In the waiting room, Rishi tries out some jokes on whoever is there. Most of these jokes are silly and terrible. Donna tolerates Rishi because he seems nerdy and harmless.

One day, while in the waiting room, Donna meets a stranger named Samuel Dunn (played by Johnny Whitworth), who introduces himself as Sam. He’s in a wheelchair and tells Donna that he’s a scientist who can help her with her cancer because he’s developed an “experimental” treatment. Sam tells Donna that he wants to give her an option for treating her cancer.

Donna is very skeptical when she first meets Sam, but Sam insists on giving her his business card in case she changes her mind and wants to contact him. Before he leaves, Sam gets up out of the wheelchair and walks away. It’s the first red flag at Sam is a liar who can’t be trusted. However, the movie shows time and again how Donna falls for his lies.

How did Sam know that Donna has cancer? When Donna inevitably calls Sam, she asks him that question, and he tells her something that is actually the truth: He has the ability to hack into computer systems and virtually stalk people to get a lot of their personal information, such as medical records. Sam tells Donna that her medical records were easy to access. And later in the movie, it’s revealed that Sam has Donna under constant surveillance through various methods, such as phone tracking.

Donna can’t accept that her hand will be amputated, so she visits Sam in his very creepy and dark lab. He explains to her that he’s found the cure for cancer by testing “rats” (which are really white mice) that he has in the lab. Sam shows her a machine he invented called the A-Frame (because the opening portal is in the shape of the letter A), which he says can transport molecules and other body particles into other dimensions.

Sam shows her a video of a mouse with cancerous open sores that he put in the A-Frame. When the mouse came back through the portal, tests showed that it was free of cancer and perfectly healthy. Sam says he’s sure that this can happen to humans too, but he needs a human volunteer who’s willing to keep this illegal and unethical experiment a secret.

After expressing a lot of doubt, Donna agrees to be the first human to be part of this experiment. Sam does not charge money, nor does he pay Donna to be part of this research. Along the way, Donna and Sam get sexually involved with each other, although there’s no sex shown in the movie. “The A-Frame” just abruptly shows Donna waking up in Sam’s bed while they are both in their underwear.

“The A-Frame” has adequate production design, but the movie just isn’t convincing when trying to explain many aspects of the story. Sam the astrophysicist can’t even explain where beings or things are transported when they go in the A-Frame and come back physically transformed. Wherever they go is just vaguely speculated as unknown dimensions. It’s really just sloppy and ill-conceived screenwriting.

Once the movie brings a police investigation into the story, it becomes even more far-fetched that Sam is able to keep certain secrets and not be put under police surveillance, when it becomes too obvious that he’s up to no good. The movie also has no explanation for where Sam is getting the money to fund his dubious research, which he does in secret and by himself. And if Sam’s so-called cancer cure is real, but he wants to keep his methods confidential, wouldn’t it be hard for patients with any “miracle recoveries” to keep everything a secret?

There’s too much of the movie’s story that falls apart under scrutiny. The last 15 minutes of “The A-Frame” just devolve into people acting out of character and more cover-ups of illegal activity. The acting performances are mediocre. “The A-Frame” has some creepy images, but nothing about this movie is truly terrifying, and the pacing often drags. Sam is presented as a scientist who wants to change the world. But in order for a movie like “The A-Frame” to be effective, that world has to believable in the first place.

Review: ‘The Knife’ (2024), starring Nnamdi Asomugha, Aja Naomi King, Melissa Leo, Amari Price and Aiden Price

June 10, 2024

by Carla Hay

Nnamdi Asomugha in “The Knife” (Photo courtesy of iAm21 Entertainment)

“The Knife” (2024)

Directed by Nnamdi Asomugha

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed U.S. city, the dramatic film “The Knife” features a racially diverse cast of characters (African American, white and a few Latin people) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A black man, his wife and their two daughters are questioned by a white police detective after a white female intruder is found unconscious in the family’s home.  

Culture Audience: “The Knife” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in provocative dramas that explore racial issues and legal issues in police investigations.

“The Knife” is a cautionary tale of what not to do at a crime scene and during witness interviews. This uneven but well-acted and suspenseful drama raises challenging questions about legal rights and police procedures. If people know about the movie’s synopsis but haven’t seen the movie, then it might be easy for people to immediately assume that it’s a pro-Black Lives Matter film, where black victims do nothing wrong but become crime suspects, while racist people are the only ones to blame.

However, “The Knife” avoids a lot of stereotypes that scripted movies typically have about how race plays a role in how people are policed and investigated in the United States and elsewhere. In “The Knife” (which has an ending that is sure to be divisive or will at least spark conversational debates), the characters on both sides of a police interrogation are not completely innocent. Almost all of the adults in this situation do certain things wrong and make the situation worse.

“The Knife” is the feature-film directorial debut of former NFL player-turned-actor Nnamdi Asomugha, who not only stars in “The Knife” but he is also one of the movie’s producers. Asomugha co-wrote “The Knife” screenplay with Mark Duplass. “The Knife” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival. The movie takes place in an unnamed U.S. city in the 2020s, but the issues brought forth in the film are perennial issues.

“The Knife” takes place during one night in the lives of a middle-class black American family who will be seriously affected by a series of choices. The movie begins with voiceover narration from the family patriarch Christian, nicknamed Chris (played by Asomugha) saying: “When I was a kid, my grandma use to say life is full of choices. And choices lead to consequences.” Chris then goes on to say that his grandmother also told him that people have to live with the consequences of their choices, whether they like it or not.

Chris (who is 38 years old) and his wife Alexandra, nicknamed Alex (played by Aja Naomi King), are examples of pursuing the American Dream. Chris is a construction worker. Alex is a teacher of second-grade students. Chris and Alex are happily married home owners who have recently moved into a house that Chris is in the process of renovating.

Early on in the movie, Alex mentions that she’s not very thrilled that the house is in a crime-ridden neighborhood, but she supports Chris’ goal to make home improvements, presumably so they can “flip” the house later and sell it at a profit. The family has moved into the house so recently, some moving boxes are still seen inside the house.

Chris and Alex have three daughters. Eldest child Kendra (played by Amari Price) is about 11 or 12 years old. Middle child Ryley (played by Aiden Price) is about 8 or 9 years old. Youngest child Ashley (played by Aranaya Frasier) is an infant. Kendra and Ryley are intelligent and obedient children.

Between the recent move and taking care of young children, Chris and Alex are exhausted. An early scene in the film shows Chris and Alex in bed, going back and forth in changing their minds on whether or not they want to have sex that night. Ultimately, they decide they’re just too tired.

At 1:38 a.m., Chris is woken up by the sound of someone inside the house. He gets up cautiously, looks around the house, and sees a disheveled-looking, gray-haired white woman in the kitchen. She is at the sink, and her back is turned toward Chris. Later, when police arrive, it’s revealed that this woman’s name is Mary Duvall Thompson (played by Lucinda Jenney), and she is 53 years old.

Chris is naturally startled by seeing this intruder in his home. Chris sternly tells her that she’s in the wrong house and she needs to leave. The intruder doesn’t say anything and doesn’t turn around. She seems to be in a dazed stupor.

Chris’ anger then turns to concern when he sees that this intruder is either mentally unwell or under the influence of an unknown substance. He asks her if she needs help getting home. She still says nothing, but she turns around to face Chris.

The next scene shows Alex being woken up by the sounds of a scuffle happening in the kitchen. When Alex goes to the kitchen, she’s shocked to see Chris standing over the intruder, who is unconscious on the floor. A small pocket knife is lying next to Mary, who is bleeding.

Chris tells Alex that this female stranger is an intruder. Chris says he confronted this intruder, but he can’t remember all the details of why she’s now bleeding on their kitchen floor. Alex asks if the knife belongs to the woman. Chris says no. Alex does a quick check of the woman’s pulse and sees that she’s still alive.

Chris seems to be in complete shock, but he calls 911 to frantically report that a female intruder has been hurt in his home, and he gives the address. He hangs up before giving more details. Alex still has her wits about her to remind Chris that he will automatically be a suspect, unless they both get their stories straight about what happened.

Meanwhile, Kendra and Ryley have heard the commotion and arrive in the kitchen. Chris and Alex tell Kendra and Ryley that the woman on the floor is a stranger who intruded into their home and who attacked Chris, but he acted in self-defense. Kendra and Ryley are confused and upset, but their parents assure them that Chris won’t get in trouble if the police believe that Chris was defending himself against the intruder.

Alex tells Chris that based on what it looks like, Chris acted in self-defense of an intruder who attacked Chris first, and the intruder got injured during the struggle when she fell down and hit her head on the floor. That’s the story they decide to tell the police. They also decide to tell the truth that Alex, Kendra and Ryley did not witness the break-in and attack and only saw the intruder for the first time when she was unconscious on the floor.

However, two major mistakes are made that have serious repercussions. First, Alex and Chris decide to lie to the police and say that the knife belongs to the intruder, who used the knife to lunge at Chris. Second, just as the police arrive and before the police go in the house, Alex seems to panic and spontaneously picks up the knife with her bare hands and places it under Mary’s right hand, to make it look like Mary had been holding the knife before losing consciousness.

Chris has seen Alex commit this crime of tampering with the evidence, and he’s understandably annoyed and worried about what Alex did. After the police arrive, Chris and Alex speak in hushed tones so they can’t be heard by anyone else. Chris asks Alex why she moved the knife to make it look like the intruder had been holding this weapon. Alex replies defiantly, “You’re a black man in America, Chris. I’m protecting you. That’s what I’m doing.”

Anyone with common sense who watches “The Knife” will be thinking during the entire movie: “Won’t the truth come out when the knife is tested for fingerprints?” In Alex’s rush to protect Chris from being blamed, Alex seems to have forgotten that the knife would be tested for fingerprints. Most of “The Knife” is about the investigation at the crime scene, so any issues about fingerprint proof on the knife cannot realistically be dealt with during the time period shown in the movie.

An ambulance has arrived around the same time as the police. And it’s not looking good for Mary. The medical first responders say that Mary has stopped breathing. What could have been an investigation into only a breaking-and-entering crime could possibly turn into a manslaughter investigation if Mary does not survive.

The lead investigator at the crime scene is a police detective named Frances Carlsen (played by Melissa Leo), who has a very no-nonsense, “by the book” style of working. The stereotyping and police biases are shown as soon as a cop named Officer Padilla (played by Manny Jacinto) tells Detective Carlsen that “something doesn’t feel right about this family” because the family is acting nervous. Detective Carlsen tells Officer Padilla not to jump to conclusions because anyone would be nervous under the circumstances.

Detective Carlsen has a lecturing tone in how she often tells people at the crime scene that she wants to get to the truth. However, there are obvious indications that Detective Carlsen also has a conscious or unconscious racial bias. She repeatedly refers to Mary as the “victim” without any proof that Mary is a victim. Eventually, Alex shows she’s offended when she tells Detective Carlsen that Mary should be described as an intruder, since Mary came into the home uninvited and refused to leave.

Detective Carlsen decides that Chris, Alex, Kendra and Ryley will be immediately be interviewed separately at the house, to see if all four family members tell the same or different versions of what happened. It leads to some serious legal issues regarding police interrogations of children; things that police can or cannot say or do to get witnesses to reveal the truth; and people’s civil rights in the United States when being questioned by police. The movie will make viewers think about what would’ve happened differently if the racial identities of the family and the intruder were switched.

“The Knife” also shows the reality that a lot of people are ignorant of the U.S. law that says people in the United States don’t have to answer questions from police without an attorney being there during the questioning. And if people do know that they have this right to an attorney in the United States, they often don’t exercise this right out of fear, or because they think their words won’t be used against them when questioned by law enforcement. As soon as anyone agrees to be questioned by police without an attorney present, that person can be vulnerable to improper or illegal police procedures by any police officer who doesn’t do things correctly.

Although some viewers of “The Knife” will be frustrated by the things that people do wrong in this investigation, the message that “The Knife” seems to be sending is that mistakes and bad choices can be made by police and witnesses. Too often, movies and TV shows depict investigations in a certain way that never leaves room for the reality that mistakes or bad choices can be made by everyone directly involved in the investigation. People’s emotions and biases can often cloud people’s judgments, which can lead to decisions that result in something that is definitely not justice.

Although “The Knife” succeeds overall in being an emotional and riveting drama, the movie’s screenplay could have been better, in terms of how certain evidence is handled in this investigation. A criminal defense attorney would absolutely rip apart some of the things that happen in this story. However, Asomugha gives solid direction to the movie, which uses brief flashbacks that will make viewers wonder: “Does Chris’ memory loss make him an unreliable narrator or unbelievable witness?” It’s eventually revealed in the story why Chris doesn’t remember everything that happened between him and Mary.

Asomugha, King and Leo give admirable performances in this tension-filled drama that occasionally stumbles with some cringeworthy decisions made by a few of the adult characters. “The Knife” is not a movie that will satisfy viewers who want definitive conclusions. However, the knife in this movie could be considered a symbol of how people should not make assumptions about innocence or guilt by looking at things only at face value.

Review: ‘Brats’ (2024), starring Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Timothy Hutton and Jon Cryer

June 8, 2024

by Carla Hay

Emilio Estevez and Andrew McCarthy in “Brats” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Neon/Hulu)

“Brats” (2024)

Directed by Andrew McCarthy

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Brats” features a predominantly white group of people (with two people of color) from the entertainment industry and the media discussing the so-called Brat Pack group of actors and actresses who were teen idols and breakout successes in the early-to-mid-1980s.

Culture Clash: The Brat Pack struggled with this nickname that was given to them in a 1985 New York magazine article, as members felt this label damaged the perception that they wanted to be taken seriously as actors.

Culture Audience: “Brats” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners, 1980s nostalgia and pop culture documentaries.

A 1985 photo of Rob Lowe and Andrew McCarthy in “Brats” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Neon/Hulu)

As a documentary, “Brats” offers an appealing blend of 1980s nostalgia, psychotherapy analysis and pop culture commentary in this forthright look at how members of the so-called Brat Pack were affected by this label that they did not want. “Brats” director Andrew McCarthy, who was a reluctant member of the Brat Pack, doesn’t make the movie a “where are they now” pity party of actors and actresses who became famous at a young age in the 1980s. Rather, “Brats” is about coming to terms with one’s past and learning some life lessons from experiences that can be seen with a different perspective that comes with wisdom and age. “Brats” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

As explained in the documentary, the Brat Pack was a description coined by journalist David Blum, who wrote a June 1985 cover story article for New York magazine about young up-and-coming actors and actresses who frequently co-starred in the same movies. The article was originally supposed to be a small feature profile of Emilio Estevez (Martin Sheen’s eldest child), who had co-starred in movies such as 1983’s “The Outsiders” and 1985’s “The Breakfast Club,” which was his breakout hit. Blum hung out with actors Estevez, Rob Lowe and Judd Nelson at various Los Angeles-area restaurants, bars and nightclubs and reported what he saw and heard.

When the article was published, it was a somewhat unflattering exposé about the Brat Pack being spoiled, entitled partiers who were more interested in fame than in the art of acting. In pop culture, almost all of the stars of the 1985 drama movie “St. Elmo’s Fire” were lumped into the Brat Pack group: Estevez, Lowe, Nelson, McCarthy, Ally Sheedy and Demi Moore, although Blum’s “Brat Pack” article actually named only male actors as members of the Brat Pack. “St. Elmo’s Fire” co-star Mare Winningham, who was never considered part of the Brat Pack, was spared from most of the tabloid coverage that the others received.

“St. Elmo’s Fire” (directed and co-written by Joel Schumacher, who died at age 80 in the year 2020) is considered the ultimate Brat Pack movie because it’s the only movie to star the most members of the Brat Pack, and it was the movie that came out around the same time as the notorious New York magazine article. “Brats” has a very telling clip from an archival “Entertainment Tonight” interview that Moore did (while in her character’s wardrobe) on the set of “St. Elmo’s Fire.” In the archival interview, Moore says that the stars of “St. Elmo’s Fire” played characters with personality traits that were very similar to the cast members’ personality traits in real life.

In “St. Elmo’s Fire,” the headlining cast members all portrayed a close group of friends who have recently graduated from Georgetown University and who like to hang out at a bar called St. Elmo’s. Estevez’s law student character Kirby Keager, a St. Elmo’s waiter, is the earnest overachiever and unofficial leader of the group, just as Estevez was described in the New York magazine article as the unofficial leader of the Brat Pack. Moore’s banker character Julianna “Jules” Van Patten is a “wild child” with a drug habit. In real life (and in the “Brats” documentary), Moore says her cocaine addiction was so well-known when she filmed “St. Elmo’s Fire,” she was ordered to have a “sober companion” on the set with her at all times, to prevent Moore from getting out of control with her drug use.

Lowe’s musician character William “Billy” Hicks (who plays saxophone in a rock band) is a heartthrob hooking up with several women, even though Billy is married. Lowe had the same playboy reputation, except Lowe was a bachelor in real life during his Brat Pack years. Winningham’s wealthy do-gooder character Wendy Beamish is in love with Billy and becomes one of his sexual conquests. Winningham also had a “clean” image in real life.

Nelson’s aspiring politician character Alec Newberry is another “bad boy” cheater, although Alec is much more discreet than Billy about committing infidelity. Nelson, just like Lowe, also had a reputation as a ladies’ man who loved to party in real life. Sheedy’s aspiring architect character Leslie Hunter is nice but insecure. Leslie is engaged to Alec and is reluctant to marry him because she suspects that Alec is cheating on her.

McCarthy’s writer/journalist character Kevin Dolenz is Kirby’s intellectual roommate. Kevin is publicly cynical about love but privately is secretly in love with Leslie. In real life, as seen in “Brats,” McCarthy says he had a crush on Sheedy when they filmed “St. Elmo’s Fire.” When McCarthy confesses this crush to Sheedy during the interview that she did for “Brats,” she has a hard time believing him because he seemed so emotionally aloof when they worked together. McCarthy agrees.

After this New York magazine article was published, the so-called Brat Pack members tried to avoid working with each other as much as possible because they thought the Brat Pack name was a stigma for their careers. Moore and Estevez, who were an on-again/off-again couple in the mid-1980s, were the exceptions to Brat Pack members who avoided working together during the Brat Pack heyday. Estevez and Moore were briefly engaged to each other, but their relationship ended around the same time that their 1986 co-starring movie “Wisdom” (which was written and directed by Estevez) was a huge flop. “Wisdom” and the failed romance of Estevez and Moore are not mentioned at all in “Brats.”

Molly Ringwald—who starred in a string of teen-oriented hit movies written by filmmaker John Hughes, such as 1984’s “Sixteen Candles,” 1985’s “The Breakfast Club” and 1986’s “Pretty in Pink”—was also considered to be part of the Brat Pack, even though she was never really a close friend with the other members, who were all in their 20s in the mid-1980s, while she was still a teenager. Ringwald declined to participate in the “Brats” documentary, according to McCarthy, who co-starred with Ringwald in “Pretty in Pink” and 1988’s “Fresh Horses.” Someone who is not mentioned at all in “Brats” but who is often considered part of the Brat Pack is Anthony Michael Hall, who was a teenager when he co-starred in “Sixteen Candles,” “The Breakfast Club” and Hughes’ 1985 comedy “Weird Science.” In 2009, Hughes died of a heart attack at the age of 59.

Nelson was elusive and the former Brat Packer who was the most difficult to contact for the “Brats” documentary, according to McCarthy, although the ending of “Brats” hints that Nelson eventually made contact with McCarthy by phone. Nelson is not interviewed in the movie, so it can be presumed he also declined to participate. Nelson’s absence from the “Brats” documentary isn’t a surprise. For decades, Nelson has generally shunned his association with the Brat Pack, except for when he does the occasional “Breakfast Club” reunion interview.

McCarthy does voiceover narration and interviewing for this documentary (his feature-film directorial debut), where he somewhat pretentiously wants to make to clear that he’s always been a serious actor from New York City. McCarthy drops quotes from playwrights Tennessee Willams and Eugene O’Neill, as if to prove he is well-versed in the work of theater artists. The Brat Pack actors and actresses interviewed for “Brats” are Estevez, Lowe, Moore and Sheedy, with McCarthy usually doing the interviews at the interviewees’ respective homes.

In “Brats,” McCarthy also debunks any false perceptions that the Brat Packers are close friends all these years later. And as if to prove a point about how much distance McCarthy put between himself and the other members of the Brat Pack, McCarthy mentions multiple times in “Brats” that he had not seen Estevez, Moore and Lowe in person for at least 30 years until he met up with them for this documentary. (Most of the interviews for the documentary were conducted in 2022.)

In the case of Estevez, McCarthy says he hadn’t seen Estevez since the “St. Elmo’s Fire” premiere in Los Angeles. McCarthy also says in the documentary (as he has in his 2021 memoir “Brat: An ’80s Story”) that he and Lowe were very competitive with each other at the height of their Brat Pack fame. In the “Brats” documentary, former rivals Lowe and McCarthy joke about how Lowe constantly meets Brat Pack fans who tell him they prefer McCarthy, while McCarthy constanly meets Brat Pack fans who tell him that they prefer Lowe.

Not surprisingly, Lowe and Moore (the two former Brat Packers with the most successful acting careers who are in this documentary) seem to be most at ease with the Brat Pack label. Estevez is still visibly uncomfortable with the Brat Pack label. Sheedy and McCarthy seem to have mixed feelings but have made as much peace as possible with this Brat Pack label.

Lowe expresses the most appreciation for how the Brat Pack movies changed some people’s lives and influenced the industry. Lowe and McCarthy both agree that it’s beautiful when fans express how much the Brat Pack movies changed their lives. Lowe puts a very positive spin on everything by saying that although the New York magazine article was “mean-spirited” and “an attempt to minimize our talents,” the benefits of Brat Pack fame outweighed any down sides.

Moore uses a lot of therapy lingo in discussing how she processed her Brat Pack fame. She says of the Brat pack label: “It didn’t really represent us.” However, Moore says pushing back against the Brat Pack label was “againstness” that just fed into any negativity and backlash that the Brat Packers got.

Estevez, who says he often turns down invitations to talk about his past at length, tells McCarthy in “Brats” why he agreed to do this documentary interview: “It was time we clear the air on a couple of things.” Estevez agrees with McCarthy’s assessment that the Brat Packers consciously avoided co-starring together in another large ensemble movie like “St. Elmo’s Fire” because of the Brat Pack label. “We would’ve been kryptonite to each other,” Estevez comments.

As for the Brat Pack media frenzy, Estevez states: “Was it something we benefited from? Maybe. But in the long run, we did not.” What’s missing from Estevez’s commentary is any acknowledgement that being the son of a famous actor certainly gave him advantages in the entertainment industry that he benefited from, long before the Brat Pack label existed. It seems a bit tone-deaf for Estevez to blame an unflattering magazine article for perhaps not getting some career opportunities when he already had more advantages and more opportunities than most actors will ever have.

Sheedy, one of the co-stars of “The Breakfast Club” (a comedy/drama about a group of high school students who spend a Saturday in detention), says that “The Breakfast Club” is the “gift that keeps on giving” because it’s the movie that she’s done that seems to have had the biggest impact on people. In “The Breakfast Club,” Sheedy had the role of Allison Reynolds, the “weird” misfit loner of the group. In real life, Sheedy says she related to Allison a lot because Sheedy describes herself as being a quiet misfit when she was in high school.

McCarthy says that he and other people with the Brat Pack label had their careers “branded, without any wiggle room.” McCarthy adds, “It was such a stigma, early on. Nobody wanted to be associated with it.” He later says to Sheedy about being a member of the so-called Brat Pack: “We were members of a club we never asked to join.”

The main “what if” question presented in “Brats” is: “What if the Brat Pack description had never been applied to this group?” On the one hand, McCarthy says that for years, he felt resentment over not getting the types of prestigious movie roles where he would get to work with A-list directors. On the other hand (a point that McCarthy says he has now more appreciation for in hindsight), the Brat Pack fame helped him to continue to work steadily for years as a well-paid actor, which is something that most actors never experience. And, by his own admission, McCarthy says his entree into the movie business was relatively quick and easy, compared to what most other actors experience.

What’s left unsaid but can be discerned from the conversations that McCarthy has with his interviewees is this indisputable truth: Being in a constant state of “career envy” is not a healthy place to be for anyone. Even if the people who were labeled as Brat Packers never had the Brat Pack label thrust upon them, they probably wouldn’t have had the types of careers that they saw some of their actor peers achieving. The reality is that people who call themselves actors rarely get to be a superstar like Tom Cruise or an Oscar winner like Sean Penn. (Cruise and Penn were listed as members of the Brat Pack in Blum’s 1985 article.) And just like in any profession, many people have highs and lows in their careers and can never go back to the highest of highs that they achieved.

Most people who’ve heard of the Brat Pack don’t know that Blum’s 1985 “Brat Pack” article also listed Nicolas Cage as a member of the Brat Pack. Cage, who is a member of the famous Coppola filmmaking family, was described in the article as the “ethnic” Brat Packer because of Cage’s Italian American heritage. Cage would go on win to an Oscar for Best Actor (for the 1995 alcoholism drama “Leaving Las Vegas”) and has had a career with its share of ups and downs. However, Cage’s career was certainly not defined or branded by what Blum wrote in that “Brat Pack” article. The “Brats” documentary does not mention Cage at all because Cage is proof of someone who was able to transcend the Brat Pack label.

Lauren Shuler Donner, a longtime successful film producer whose credits include “St. Elmo’s Fire” and “Pretty and Pink,” is interviewed in “Brats” and has the best attitude of all the “Brats” interviewees about the Brat Pack label. She tells McCarthy what she thought of the Brat Pack label and everyone associated with the Brat Pack: “It distinguished us. I thought it was fabulous. I thought, ‘Aren’t these guys lucky? Aren’t these guys talented?'”

Also interviewed are three “Brat Pack adjacent” actors: Jon Cryer, a co-star of “Pretty in Pink”; Timothy Hutton, who won a best supporting actor Oscar for 1980’s “Ordinary People”; and Lea Thompson, who is best known for her role in 1985’s “Back to the Future.” Hutton, who is interviewed at his farm in New York state, doesn’t have much that’s interesting to say in this documentary. (It should be noted that Hutton was also mentioned as a Brat Packer in Blum’s article, but Hutton’s career had already started to decline by 1985.) In “Brats,” Cryer mostly reminisces with McCarthy about filming “Pretty in Pink,” which famously had its original ending drastically changed after audiences at test screenings expressed extreme dislike for the original ending. Thompson’s comments are mostly about the Brat Pack movies’ influences on young people.

Pop culture journalists (including Blum) and filmmakers also weigh in with their thoughts on the Brat Pack. They include “Pretty in Pink” director Howard Deutch, who is married to Thompson; author Bret Easton Ellis (“Less Than Zero”); film critic Kate Erbland; screenwriter Michael Oates Palmer (“The West Wing”); pop culture critic Ira Madison III; journalist/author Malcolm Gladwell; talent manager Loree Rodkin; casting director Marci Liroff; and journalist Susannah Gora, author of “You Couldn’t Ignore Me If You Tried: The Brat Pack, John Hughes, and Their Impact on a Generation.”

When McCarthy interviews Blum for this documentary, Blum also seems to have mixed feelings about what the term Brat Pack did to people’s careers, including his own. Blum expresses pride and no regrets over creating this Brat Pack description, which was a riff on the Rat Pack clique consisting of Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, Dean Martin and Joey Bishop. (In the “Brats” documentary, McCarthy and Lowe tell a quick and amusing story about how they met Liza Minnelli at the original Spago restaurant sometime in 1985, and she took them to Davis’ house to meet Davis, who served them drinks and complimented McCarthy and Lowe. It was a “Rat Pack meets Brat Pack” moment, says McCarthy.) However, Blum admits that he created the label Brat Pack with the hope that his career would advance too. Based on the results, Blum (ironically, just like McCarthy) doesn’t think it helped his career and might have pigeonholed him as his main claim to fame.

The “Brats” documentary has a brief mention of the Brat Pack’s lack of racial diversity being a sign of the times, when on-screen entertainment was much more racially segregated than it is now. However, Madison (who is African American) and Gladwell (who is a biracial British Canadian) both say that people of color are so accustomed to seeing white-oriented entertainment, the Brat Pack movies just represent this reality. (And the reality is that there are many white people who only have white friends, as seen in Brat Pack movies.) Regardless of race, the Brat Pack movies had character personalities that people of any race could relate to on a human level. The main cultural divides in Brat Pack movies had to do with social class and popularity, not race.

The “Brats” documentary tends to overstate how “pioneering” the Brat Pack was in the 1980s. The Brat Packers certainly were never the biggest teen idols of all time. And none of the Brat Pack movies came close to being 1980s blockbusters such as megahits “E.T: The Extraterrestrial,” “Back to the Future” or “Top Gun.” In fact, many of the Brat Pack movies had middling success at the box office or were outright bombs. The documentary doesn’t mention Brat Pack movie flops such as “Wisdom,” “Fresh Horses,” 1984’s “Oxford Blues” and 1986’s “Blue City.”

Lowe has the biggest ego of the former Brat Packers when he claims that entertainment launched in the 21st century—such as the youth-oriented CW network and teen-oriented TV shows like “Glee”—would not have existed without the Brat Pack. (None of the Brat Packers had anything to do with creating the CW or “Glee,” by the way.) Lowe admits that the Brat Pack wasn’t as big as the Beatles, but he speculates that at the height of the Brat Pack craze, it’s possible the Brat Pack could have sold out Shea Stadium in New York, like the Beatles did.

The “Brats” documentary gives proper context to the 1980s boom of movies centered on teenagers and people in their early 20s. But the documentary ignores that there was also a proliferation of youth-oriented movies in the 1950s and early 1960s. “Back to the Future” co-star Thompson correctly points out the main difference between the youth-oriented movies of the 1980s and those in previous decades was that these 1980s movies were the first to benefit from being released on home video within a year of their theatrical releases. The home video releases extended the influences of these movies and made it easier for Generation X (people who were in their teens and 20s in the 1980s and 1990s) and younger generations to discover these films and watch these movies repeatedly in ways that weren’t possible before the invention of home video.

“Brats” has the expected archival footage of film clips and interviews. The documentary includes a somewhat amusing archival clip from the after-party of the “Pretty in Pink” movie premiere in Los Angeles. In this archival clip, an uncomfortable-looking McCarthy and “Pretty in Pink” co-star James Spader are being interviewed for MTV by Fee Waybill, the lead singer of the Tubes, whose solo song “Saved My Life” was on the “Pretty in Pink” soundtrack.

It’s obvious from this interview that McCarthy’s discomfort with the Brat Pack label was part of a larger issue that McCarthy had with fame. In the “Brats” documentary, McCarthy says of how he felt at the “Pretty in Pink” premiere: “That night encapsulates my career: thrilled but terrified.” McCarthy adds that he also remembers getting very drunk that night.

“Brats” also mentions the importance of soundtrack music from certain Brat Pack movies. Hughes (who directed “Sixteen Candles” and “The Breakfast Club”) put a lot of his favorite artists on his movie soundtracks, which is why these soundtracks often had European artists who had their international breakthroughs and biggest hits because of being on these soundtracks. For example: Simple Minds’ “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” from “The Breakfast Club” soundtrack and OMD’s “If You Leave” from the “Pretty in Pink” soundtrack. The “St. Elmo’s Fire” soundtrack (which had North American and British artists) was notable for hits such as John Parr’s title track and David Foster’s instrumental “Love Theme From St. Elmo’s Fire.”

Although some of the former Brat Pack members (including McCarthy) do a little bit of whining about their fame and success, most of the “Brats” documentary is a thoughtful reflection of how self-images and careers were affected by other people’s perceptions of the Brat Pack. The movie purposefully avoids the former Brat Packers telling wild tales of 1980s excesses, although McCarthy does briefly allude to his alcoholism and recovery, which he went public about years ago. (Some former members of the Brat Pack—such as McCarthy, Lowe and Moore—have memoirs where they’ve shared some of their stories about substance abuse and decadence.) What will resonate most with viewers of “Brats” is the acknowledgement that emotional maturity and self-identity can be difficult journeys for many people, regardless if they are famous or not.

Hulu will premiere “Brats” on June 13, 2024.

Copyright 2017-2024 Culture Mix
CULTURE MIX