"Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children"

A brilliant possibility dissolves because of poor choices on the part of the producers.  You have Asa Butterfield in the lead role, a young man who has been intriguing me since I saw his debut as a seriously creepy-ass young Mordred in "Merlin".  And you have director Tim Burton, whose unique and fantastical world view matches the subject matter wonderfully.  Unfortunately, however, the producers chose not to simply do the first book as the first film, but to start the film from the first book (exact lines and events are pulled directly from the book) and then veer off, squeezing in elements from later books in the series, presumably to get to a nice big battle at the end of the movie.  It doesn't really work.  The transitions seem abrupt, important information is missed and character development goes by the wayside.  The book, which I greatly enjoyed, is a very complicated story.  One where the world-building is done slowly and specifically.  You have to understand the nature of the "peculiar children", the time travel aspects, the threats against them.  Without that this is an entertaining and beautiful to watch movie, but it lacks the substance of the source material, and that is just a loss.

"Rent" vs. "Rent"

"Break a Leg" is going to have new meaning for Brennin Hunt, the unfortunate actor who brought the old adage back in stunning form for the live performance of "Rent" on FOX.  While the show may go on it mostly didn't, with the bulk of Saturday night's final dress rehearsal used for the Sunday broadcast.  I didn't mind the fact that it wasn't "live" per se.  I don't like commercials interrupting the narrative and always record these things anyway.  The company rallied, as they do, and the show did indeed go on, with the final scene being presented live, Mr. Hunt left sitting throughout.  What is sad is that his broken foot was the least of the problems in this production.  Not that there weren't gallant tries.  Vanessa Hudgens' tremendous vocals matched those of Idina Menzel, with flexibility in her dancing which would make a Cirque du Soleil performer jealous.  Tinashe's throaty belts gave a gravitas to Mimi and James Leyva's Angel almost made you forget Wilson Jermaine Heredia.  But therein lies the problem.  Remaking "Rent" is almost like trying to remake "The Sound of Music".  The original cast was iconic.  They didn't just create the roles, they embodied them.  The live "Jesus Christ Superstar" made me forget all previous productions.  This version of "Rent" made me think, a lot, about the original cast.  Brandon Victor Dixon blew me away as Judas in Superstar.  He was great here as Tom Collins.  But he wasn't Jesse L. Martin, who has a smoothness like sherry which simply cannot be replicated.  To his credit, Mr. Dixon didn't try, and made the role his own.  They all did, but it wasn't good enough.  Yes, I had my tears, often, but the whole thing was burdened by production issues.  Okay, it was a dress rehearsal, but actors were left in the dark (lights, please?).  The weird set left too many narrow spaces so blocking was tight and unnatural.  It was a show not for the live audience, who couldn't see many scenes, or for the TV audience, who were still blocked by backs on several occasions.  A bizarre habit of using overhead cameras gave TV viewers some shots the live audience couldn't see and were jarring -- they broke the fourth wall and took the "performance" element away.  I can't help but think that FOX was trying to replicate the huge success NBC had with Superstar and they got it all wrong.  The live audience can work, making TV viewers feel like they are the audience of a live stage production, but the overhead shots, and shots of the audience, remind you that you aren't really there.  The whole "screaming audience" thing was also a fail.  In Superstar it worked because Jesus was a hot commodity, that isn't the case with "Rent" as most of the characters are alone, even when around others.  There is also an argument to be made about adopting successful film changes.  The Superstar film added a song "Can We Start Again, Please?"  It was a hit, and added to the stage play.  "Rent" the movie changed a number of things (including the controversial decision to recast Rosario Dawson as Mimi, over the original cast member Daphne Rubin-Vega) but some of the film changes were for the good.  Jesse Martin singing the reprise of "I'll cover you" with Angel in his arms, dying, was way more powerful than the theatrical "Contact".  Angel's death was typical of this production as a whole -- no clear audience, no unified creative guidance on what it was supposed to be.  Thankfully, performers and Jonathan Larson's incredible score made it palatable, but I'll take the film any day.  FOX must have agreed, as the entire original cast was brought on at the end.  You know what you don't want when you do a faint copy of a terrific original?  The original cast showing up to remind folks of how good they were.  Nice try Fox, but you get a C- on this one.

"The Americans"

As part of my screenings for the SAG Awards I often get previews of series well into their later seasons.  So it was with "The Americans" which I had heard was good but never had the time for.  The screening of episode one of season six peaked my interest so I got the first season from the Public Library.  I watched the entire thing in a day and a half, unable to turn it off as it went from episode to episode.  It's bleak, and I don't always like bleak, but it is so incredibly well-done.  Big credit here goes to Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys as the KGB spies living in Falls Church, VA during the Reagan administration.  Ms. Russell's character, "Elizabeth" is a true believer in her nation and her cause and she does what she needs to despite the cost.  But there the pain is there and it shows in the cracks and slivers which peak through an incredibly hard and determined facade.  Matthew Rhys betrays not a single inch of his British heritage and manages to transform completely from one false identity to the next.  It is almost as fascinating to watch as seeing his character Philip struggle with the faux marriage he has helped maintain for over 20 years.  This is Spy vs. Spy at its best.  As one character says (we) "Americans like to see everything in black and white.  All we know is gray."  This is a show which almost loses itself in the gray and it left me wondering about true patriotism and the price for defending one's nation.  Well-written, sad and powerful, I look forward to watching seasons two and three (also at the library) but am bereft to learn that seasons four through six are only available on streaming.  What will I do?

"8 Plus 1: Stories by Robert Cormier"

Robert Cormier was a true wordsmith, the kind we rarely see anymore and certainly not in most YA fiction.  This collection of short stories is not his best.  But, like most of his work, it is leaps and bounds beyond much of what I have read of late.  Check out this line:  "The party coincided with one of those leaf-toasted afternoons when late summer conspires with early autumn to produce an in-between period of grace and loveliness."  It's not an important detail.  The story is a quick tale of his daughter moving on from a Senior year boyfriend.  It is an example of the richness of Cormier's writing, however, showing how he used minor details like an artist's paintbrush.  He described things in a way which draws you in, not only to setting, but to the emotion of the piece.  By his own admission these nine stories were not heavily edited and he drew liberally from his own family and his family's history to create them.  What is intriguing is that he provides a forward to each tale.  Each forward gives an insight into the writing process, the creative spark which help to form a narrative.  I liked them but read the book backwards, reading the forward after reading the story.  In that way I could take each tale in with no preconceptions.  It's a tiny, unknown little gem from a master who brought us so much more than "The Chocolate War" and "I Am the Cheese".  By all means, dig in.

"Star Trek Discovery"

Awesome.  Okay, seriously not the Star Trek I grew up with but that's really okay.  If J.J. Abrams can create a new timeline then CBS can (and does) make a Star Trek which is more post-9/11, more 21st century, than anything which came before.  It's darker and grittier, people die.  The idealism of the Federation is balanced by ugly realities.  Characters aren't black and white but messy, complicated greys.  The most important thing is that this is the first Star Trek which doesn't focus on the Captain of a given ship but on an officer who excels, falls, and digs herself out.  It's a slow process and she acknowledges that it takes time.  Perhaps a lifetime.  Elements of the other series, particularly the original series (TOS), are prevalent, as are nods to Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars.  The societal commentary which made TOS so perfect for the 1960s is present in season one with not-so-subtle references to a xenophobic human society which is dictatorial and bears a hatred for anyone who is "other."  Acting, writing, direction and look of the show, including special effects, is top-notch.  Season one has a tremendous number of twists and turns.  I saw one coming but not others.  At least two moments had me gasping "Whaaatttt?", followed by "my head hurts."  Unlike TOS this isn't episodic.  You really must watch it in order.  There is an amazingly well thought-thru storyline and I have to give kudos to the creative staff for how they crafted the many threads of this tale over 15 episodes.  I got it on disc (sorry CBS, not paying for yet another streaming service) and it comes with a plethora of extras which highlight all elements of the production.  Great new series for the current age.  So glad to have something of quality as the next step in this 50 year franchise.  Live long and prosper.

And the Award Goes to ...

Well it's that time again.  I've watched 14 films and part or all of 17 TV series over the past three weeks to select my top picks in the annual Screen Actor Guild Awards.  I share them below with my reasons for the selection in each category.  That being said, I rarely hit 50% with the actual winners but know that nearly everyone who was nominated was deserving.

Before I begin, a summary of my experiences for this round:

• In films based on past events just because they say that "this really happened" doesn't actually mean it really happened anything like what you are seeing on the screen.
• This year had a good number of instances of good acting in so-so films.
• Whispering and mumbling of lines is prevalent and makes it really hard to follow the dialogue.
• Kids are ignored.  Elisha Henig, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe and Pixie Davies were all outstanding in their various roles ("The Sinner," "A Quiet Place," and "Mary Poppins Returns") but typically snubbed in nominations.
• Serial killers are very big this year.
• Long, wordless focus on an actor "emoting" is also very big.  It doesn't always work.
• Internet only series are still invisible in the awards field.  Elizabeth Olsen's luminous performance in "Sorry for Your Loss" was wholly ignored.  The supporting cast is pretty awesome, too.
• Hollywood must be a small place.  Not only are some actors nominated for multiple roles (Emily Blunt, John Krasinski and Amy Adams) but a number of other actors popped up in at least two, and sometimes three, of the nominated titles (Steve Carrell, Timothy Hutton, Kirby Howell-Baptiste and D'Arcy Carden).
• The major difference between a network TV show and a cable TV show is the F-word and full-frontal shots (finally including men as well as women).  Unfortunately, after enough of the R rated content it simply stops being interesting.
• Diversity in genres is increasing in the award categories.  This is a good thing.  But I'm not sure all dark comedy is really funny.
• While I appreciate the well-made drama my personal favorites will always be the well-made lighter fare.  "Crazy Rich Asians," "Mary Poppins Returns," "Black Panther," "Kominsky Method" and "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" were the ones I liked the most.  In the drama category television had a good year.  "Escape at Dannemora," "Handmaid's Tale," and "The Assassination of Gianni Versace" were all outstanding.  For films I feel "A Star is Born" was the best of the bunch.

For the Screen Actor Guild Awards, however, I don't vote for best film or TV show, just for actors, so here are my picks:

Male Actor in a Leading Role -- Bradley Cooper.  Perfect example of an actor transforming himself completely into what the role required.  And he directed himself.  Check out his final scene in the film if you don't agree.
Female Actor in a Leading Role -- This one was really, really hard.  Wanted so badly to vote for Glenn Close, who I love and who should just get the award for body of work.  I was also leaning towards Olivia Colman who was terrific as the troubled, lost Queen Anne.  But in the end I voted for Melissa McCarthy.  Not only for "most improved" but absolutely no equivocation while playing a completely unlikeable character.
Male Actor in a Supporting Role -- Not a lot of meat here.  Good actors but few made a major impression.  I love Mahershala Ali and have watched his work from the beginning, so that was my pick.
Female Actor in a Supporting Role -- Again, some competition but I was struck by Rachel Weisz, and the power she brought to her complex character in "The Favourite".  She wasn't over-the-top but somehow was the focus of every scene she was in.
Cast in a Motion Picture -- "Crazy Rich Asians".  Absolutely every actor brought something valuable to this tale.
Male Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries -- Anthony Hopkins and Bill Pullman were very strong contenders but I had to go with Darren Criss.  He got into the mind of a murderer so fully that it totally creeped me out.
Female Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries -- Patricia Arquette.  Again, she went all in playing a complex and fairly rotten person, holding nothing back.  She didn't just transform physically (gaining 40 pounds and wearing prosthetics) she transformed her being.  You couldn't look away.
Male Actor in a Drama Series -- John Krasinsky did a great job making me feel the myriad of emotions being experienced by a CIA agent torn apart on the inside.  He also pulled off young and wide-eyed after doing the opposite in "A Quiet Place."  Here's to stretching those acting muscles.
Female Actor in a Drama Series -- Elisabeth Moss.  The camera lingers over her face, in close-up, time and time again, including during rape segments.  The play of feelings across her face is beyond compelling.
Male Actor in a Comedy Series -- Alan Arkin.  He and Michael Douglas are both great in this show but Alan Arkin has a subtle brilliance in how he can turn a phrase.  He always has.
Female Actor in a Comedy Series -- Because of how SAG does their awards Rachel Brosnahan is in the same category as Alex Borstein.  Rachel will get it but Alex deserves some credit.  Her character is indelible, unique and a critical foil for Mrs. Maisel's super-sweet adrenaline.  I voted for Alex.
Ensemble in a Drama Series -- "Handmaid's Tale."  There simply isn't a better series out there today to reflect this bizarre political time through a necessary mirror.  And the women here go all out in a hugely difficult narrative.
Ensemble in a Comedy Series -- "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel."  The lightning fast pace of this screwball comedy only works if everyone is on their game.  It's a 100% participation trophy here for a cast of delightful, rich characters who return every serve.
Stunt Ensemble for a Comedy or Drama Series -- "Glow."  a) They gave me a preview, some of the other nominated shows didn't.  b) As far as I know, nothing is digital.  c)  Gotta give it up for the ladies.
Stunt Ensemble for a Motion Picture -- "Black Panther."  It was the only one of the nominated films which bothered to send me a preview and the ladies kicked some ***.

Set aside some time -- you have some films/TV to watch!

"The Sinner"

Looking for escape these days I chose not to watch this show despite good reviews for the simple reason that I didn't want to be depressed.  With awards season coming around however, I was given the chance to watch season two.  It is dark, but not as dark as I had thought.  And it is very well done.  Very very well done.  Great acting (Bill Pullman is justifiably nominated for a best actor award), great writing and a directing style which brings a kind of Twin Peaks film noir to what is essentially a mystery.  I like mysteries and enjoyed watching it unfold.  There were enough surprises to keep me going but none of them came out of nowhere.  The characters who gave me the creeps early on turned out to have a secret or two and most things seemed to "fit" when it all came together.  The series has a forward momentum and I ended up watching almost all of it in one day as I simply had to see "what happens next."  One minor complaint ... at eight episodes it was dragged out a bit more than was necessary.  I could have seen it wrap up in six, and thought it would.  To get it to eight they had to add in a few more twists and a number of threads which weren't followed through on.  A major discovery in episode six or seven turned out to be a nothing and characters were introduced late in the game with little sense of what happened to them afterward.  That being said it was top notch and once again, we have a great performance turned in by a young actor, Elisha Henig.  Unfortunately, there was not a sliver of joy in the whole thing so I'm unlikely to watch season three unless I'm in a really, really good mood. 

"The Kominsky Method"

Michael Douglas and Alan Arkin make for the best buddy couple I've seen since Tony Randall and Jack Klugman shared a screen.  A Chuck Lorre creation this isn't laugh-out-loud funny like some of his other work (okay, there is an occasional guffaw) but it touches you with a lovely blend of humor and "something else".  Not sure what, just a rush of complex emotions.  Much like "Mom" it is a grown-up comedy with some kind of bittersweet recognition of our own lives and circumstances.  As usual I had minor quibbles with actresses 15-20 years younger than their male counterparts playing wives and lovers but that is nothing new to television.  Netflix hits it out of the ballpark again with a nicely produced show.  Eight half-hour episodes make up the first season with an eagerly anticipated second season coming ... at some point. 

"Can You Ever Forgive Me?"

Melissa McCarthy deserves a real nod for committing to this character 100%.  She subverts herself and fully realizes a difficult, unlikeable woman.  It is an award-worthy performance in a fairly dull movie.  Paired with her is Richard E. Grant, playing Jack Hock, her partner in crime.  His lightness and mirth brightens the dreary film.  Based on a book which is based on supposed real events there isn't a lot of story here.  An author falls on hard times and does some sketchy things to make money.  End of story.  But this is a two hour film so attempts are made to make it a "mood" piece and beef up relationships and events.  Intrusive music overlays the beginning and end of the film, shot mostly on dark wet streets in NYC.  Even daylight scenes seem to take place under grey skies.  Jack Hock's character, along with that of a female bookseller, are beefed up to create dialog, but none of it works.  The issue is the main character.  Ms. McCarthy does a great job but you just end up hating her.  And it is hard to spend two hours watching a character with virtually no redeeming values.  SPOILER ALERT.  And the cat dies.  Of course it does.  Probably my least favorite of the award nominated films I have screened thus far.  Here's hoping Melissa McCarthy, who truly does have the chops, can find another vehicle to work her craft.  In answer to the eponymous title?  The answer is "no."

"Black Panther"

An action film which truly fulfills the hype and excels beyond the limits of the genre.  Before the obligatory fisticuffs and explosions there is real depth and storytelling.  Superb world-building in terms of combining high tech with the African diaspora.  Engaging and entertaining, every character here has dimension.  This may reflect a patriarchal hierarchy but the women of the tale have strength and contribute to the film's arc in substantial ways.  Societal messages are interwoven in a clear but subtle way and backstory is done through flashbacks to limit exposition.  Stan Lee, of course, makes a final and bittersweet cameo.  I could wax on for a good bit but there is little more to say.  It's amazing.  See it.

"Bohemian Rhapsody"

I cried, a lot, when Freddie Mercury died.  I wasn't alone.  This film, which has been pretty ravaged by critics but adored by fans, has a lot of the music which made Queen a star.  And it's a good film.  It's just not great.  It's a rock star biopic.  We know the history, we know what happens in every rock star story.  From nothing to the big break to fame to drugs to relationships which implode to band breaking up to reconciliation (maybe) and reflection back on their golden years.  Yadda yadda yadda.  That being said, I sat through this because it was Queen and it was Freddie Mercury and there is that voice, that sound, that "imagining" he had for great music.  The tale clarifies a few things, like his family background and his relationship with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton should have gotten more nods for her sensitive portrayal here) but leaves much of Freddie's real story, his inner life, his passions, alone.  It is the story of Queen with a broad watercolor brush, leaving darkness mostly to the side.  Rami Malek, whose work I like (I voted for him as Best Actor in "I, Robot") has gotten acclaim from his efforts here although I couldn't help but feel the actor was challenged by both the prosthetic teeth and being asked to do a British accent.  And no, it's not him singing.  A computerized blend of actual Queen and a Canadian singer named Marc Martel was used to replicate the amazingness of Freddie's gift.  The movie could have used editing.  Coming in at a weighty 134 minutes it could have been shorter given the lack of depth.  They do show the entire Live Aid performance, which lasted 20 minutes, so that is a part of it, but all it did was leave me craving the real show.  Somehow I don't think that's what the producers intended.  It's an "entertaining" film.  See it for the music.  See it and remember how truly great this group was, a brief moment of modern musical brilliance, before it all came crashing down.

"The Favourite"

Another film which is supposed to be a comedy that I didn't find very funny.  It's a very good film, and worth watching, but mostly I found it to just be sad.  There is Lady Sarah, a complicated woman navigating a difficult time period for women.  There is Queen Anne, a sad, sick woman who only wants to be loved.  And there is Abigail, a woman who has lost much and is determined to get it back.  The whole thing is very "Liaison Dangereuse," which, if you remember, had a certain number of peccadilloes but ended badly for pretty much everyone.  Dialogue is fast and furious and the jibes contained within is where you find the humor, but don't blink.  The setting is lush and the filming adds to the narrative in an interesting way.  Fish-eye lenses are used in several instances either to show how the world is closing in on a character or how a given character lives in their own little bubble.  It's a bit direct but it works.  Without giving away any of the plot I found this film to be quite satisfying although, in the end, it speaks to loss rather than laughs.  I was impressed by Rachel Weisz and found her to be a powerful presence.  Her key line, which resonated for me, was "We are playing entirely different games, you and I".  It was typical of the character, who evidenced power even when that power was usurped.  Olivia Colman was equally compelling as a woman who craves everything and yet still feels empty.  I look forward to seeing her work in "The Crown" later this year, as she has become the older version of Queen Elizabeth II after Claire Foy.  My only minor issue was with costuming, which appeared interesting at first only to resort to a kind of similarity from one outfit to the next.  The biggest change was when one character's dress went from the blue everyone was wearing to black, presumably to show her turn to the dark side.  Maybe they blew their budget on hair and wigs?  BTW, of all the "historical" films this year, this one appears to be the most accurate.  Yes, much of this (although not all of it) really did happen.  That's something.  Enjoy.  The Queen commands it.  (PS worst movie poster ever ...)

"Vice"

At any other time I would have found this film hysterical.  Shot in a similar way as "The Big Short" this is an in-your-face romp which explores the path, and power, of Dick Cheney.  It has enough facts to bolster the narrative and enough good performances to drive the story although at times it does seem a bit choppy.  In a bit of a twist, I'm betting most viewers will not guess the identity of the narrator until it is revealed.  The problem isn't with the film.  The problem is with the era we are living in.  When I can scan headlines and see ten times more obnoxious behavior by our current baby-in-chief I find it hard to get motivated by the sins shown in this story.  I should be outraged. The movie shows a complete and total corruption of the American institution.  The fact that President Ding Dong has normalized unacceptable behavior is perhaps the saddest thing of all.  Which made laughing at this film difficult.  Added to that is the performance of Christian Bale, nominated for numerous awards as part of his work here.  Yes, he's good.  He's also an unqualified bastard who has temper tantrums on set and is estranged from many after threatening violence against family members during arguments.  What does it say that Hollywood is as guilty of promoting this guy as the government forces were of promoting a man like Dick Cheney?  I'm just saying.  Maybe the producers didn't fully get the point.  In any case, good film, wrong time to see it, won't vote for Bale as Best Actor.  I'm past the point where I can look at the work and not the person behind it.

"BlackKkKlansman"

Much like "Green Book" this is a so-called comedy is set in a historical past depicting America's struggle with racism.  While I still took issue with a few things (like calling this a comedy) it was better than "Green Book".  Unlike "Green Book" the film is directed by black virtuoso director Spike Lee and focuses on the black experience through black eyes.  This is the presentational version of Spike Lee, who has a wide range of styles.  This particular film makes points through visuals and messaging rather than through characters.  During a Kwame Ture rally the scene melds into faces of the crowd, a kind of living tableau of beautiful blacks, echoing words of the speech, encouraging the audience to love themselves.  Recounting the story of Ron Stallworth, the first black police officer in Colorado Springs, this is supposedly a "true" tale.  Mr. Stallworth suffered through pretty overt racism in his department but eventually came across a case he could sink his teeth into -- monitoring the actions of the local Klan.  He did this by creating a phone relationship with the leaders of the group and sent a white officer in his place for face-to-face meetings (Adam Driver as Flip Zimmerman).  The laughs are meant to come from the behavior of the ridiculous, stupid Klansmen.  Again, like "Green Book" I found it hard to laugh.  After viewing the film, I wondered if Spike Lee was doing the same as Jordan Peele did last year with "Get Out" and using a non-dramatic format to make a point.  Getting folks to laugh at racism then showing the ugliness of racism may create in the viewer a paradoxical reflection, an inner dialogue.  Is this ever funny?  Right when you might be tempted to think these idiots can't get their act together on anything there is Harry Belafonte playing Jerome Turner, telling an achingly sad story of Jesse Washington, a man who was castrated, tortured and burned over the death of a white woman.  The movie is not subtle. It begins with a faux Alex Jones character and ends with actual footage of Charlottesville, right down to showing different angles of the assault that killed Heather Heyer, all of which is a way of yelling, rather than saying "GET IT?"  I don't disagree with the points but I struggled with the insistence that this is a TRUE story when, in fact, almost every major part of the narrative has been manipulated to make a point.  When books do that I really jump all over them.  I can't help but think there is so much overt racism in the U.S. that you really don't have to manipulate reality to see it, but then I look at President Ding Dong's response to Charlottesville (also in the film) and think, okay, yeah, people don't get it.  SPOILER ALERTS!!!!  Bottom line:  Truth.  Ron Stallworth was the first black police officer in Colorado Springs, he did face incredible racism, he did infiltrate the Klan and he did talk with David Duke on the phone.  Nearly everything else in the film (the time period, Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, Patrice, Felix and Connie Hendrickson, Flip Zimmerman being Jewish, the Klan guys blowing anything up, calling David Duke to say "ha-ha you bastard") is all fiction.  What isn't fiction is that the investigation was shut down and covered up and that high-ranking military and government types were a part of the local Klan and didn't face repercussions for that until years later.  One of the final shots in the film, that of maybe (???) Adam Driver's character joining the Klan has become a big debate, leading to further examination of the film's meaning and racism.  Are we all racists, even those who are targeted by the Klan?  The movie made me think and in that sense it succeeded but this year's crop of socially relevant films shot wide, in my humble opinion, rather than directly at an easily defined target.

"Green Book"

This has to be the most white movie about black struggles I have ever seen.  Written and directed by white men the lead character is ... a white man.  This is not to say that white people can't create material covering the black plight but this film ain't it.  Called a comedy, the premise is pretty simple.  Black music prodigy Dr. Don Shirley has chosen to do a tour in the deep south in the early 1960s.  He needs a driver and selects the loutish Tony "Lip", who is conveniently a club bouncer, as well.  Tony is not a fan of black people and his opinion of them stands only one step to the left of stereotype images of fried-chicken eating black-face entertainers.  In a kind of twisted Pygmalion the well-educated Shirley attempts to refine the borderline gangster.  We are supposed to laugh.  Dr. Shirley experiences some gross kind of racism, Tony observes it and feels badly, then does something loutish.  Cue the laughter.  But I couldn't.  I'm thinking the reality of this film is just too close.  It would be one thing if it was truly history, but less than a month ago I watched a video of a man kicked out of his hotel for ... wait for it ... daring to call his mother from the lobby.  Security was called.  The video shows a man devastated by what occurred.  He is shocked, angry, sad.  The tears are clearly there under the surface.  It's hard to watch and, I imagine, impossible to experience.  Before that I watched a video of a woman waiting with a friend for a car repairman.  They were verbally assaulted by a drunken white woman who insisted, in every racist way possible, that she was better than these two black women.  It made me embarrassed for my entire race.  So no, I wasn't able to laugh at the dumb white guy in this film.  It was just too real.  And it makes me sick.

"All in the Timing" by David Ives

I read a book!  Finally.  Of course, it is theatre related.  Fourteen short plays.  As previously mentioned, I like reading short plays as a way of finding monologues.  Unlike the Humana Festival collection these plays started out light and humorous, a delightful change.  I failed in my quest to find a funny monologue but enjoyed the works, which included laugh-out-loud humorous pieces, profane pieces (the Mamet piece is both profane and hysterical) and thoughtful pieces.  Many of the plays revolve around the challenges of relationships and the book ends with a particularly short piece written in an almost absurdist form which evokes a poetic form, echoing the death of a relationship.  Worth the read, or performance.  Well-done.

"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"

Thank God for this show.  Really.  During awards season I often slog through one really dark, depressing film after another.  This show has been an incredibly delightful palate-cleanser each night as I work to pull out of the grey fog which descends after watching all the "meaningful" art films.  Which is not to say this isn't meaningful, it is hugely so.  Set in the late 1950s New York there are tremendous ripples about women's roles and a changing society but it is explored through the lens of a cheerful, super-smart, upbeat woman known as Midge Maisel.  No, her life doesn't go as she planned.  That seems to be a theme for all of the characters.  But she has a can-do attitude and time and time again, makes lemonade out of life's lemons.  This is one of those cases where the entire cast, the entire production, is magnificently brilliant.  Every character adds something unique to the narrative and no expense seems to be spared in presenting the world of upper west side New York life.  It creates a colorful shell within which the story feels very real, has significant depth, but is not depressing.  Another huge part of the success of this series has to be the writing.  It is not only funny but delivered at a mad clip.  I dare you to try and do anything while watching this show ... you would miss a dozen plot-points.  Rachel Brosnahan has received due credit for her portrayal of this feisty, feminine woman but my vote will be going to Alex Borstein whose "Susie Myerson" is unforgettable.  They say that a supporting actor award should go to someone who fills a role so completely you can't imagine anyone else doing the role.  Such is the case with Ms. Borstein, whose facial expressions alone have sent me into laughing fits.  Well-imagined, perfectly executed, definitely one of the smartest new series to come along in a good long while.  This is a show I look forward to watching, time and time again.

"A Quiet Place"

NOT a fan of horror but as a SAG voter I will watch whatever is sent to me, particularly if I have to vote on it.  If I choose to watch it at 10am on a sunny day, however, that is entirely my choice.  With real diversity of genres finally invading the award world horror has begun to make it into the annual film-binging.  Last year was "Get Out" which was scary as hell but quite brilliant.  This year it is "A Quiet Place" which is equally scary as hell and perhaps even more brilliant.  The premise and execution of this idea, that humans have to remain completely silent or get eaten by the big bad aliens, is just inspired.  Produced, directed and starring John Krasinski and his wife, Emily Blunt, the film had me on the edge of my seat for every single one of the 90 minutes, much of it covering my mouth.  You know the premise is well-done when you buy in so completely that you don't dare scream in places where, quite frankly, you need to scream.  I did jump a good deal but very very quietly.  Even after the film was over I felt I had to be quiet, tip-toeing down the stairs for a snack.  The kids, of course, are left out of actor nominations but should be given huge credit for their work.  Millicent Simmonds does a truly amazing job of communicating her conflicting emotions after an unimaginable loss and Noah Jupe's sense of horror ripples across his face time and time again, looking like an Edvard Munch still-life.  The film is exquisitely made and allows the silence to swallow you whole, only occasionally using underscoring.  It is this focus on the actors and action which makes the film truly good and not just one of a given genre.  Krasinski, like his wife, is having a good year, being honored for his work in Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan".  How he managed to make and star in this film as well as that series is beyond me.  In any case, this story is outstanding and really made an impression, "sticking with me".  Just don't watch it alone.  Or at night. 

"King Lear"

Amazon's new "King Lear" is a direct hit at current politics, portraying a King with a desperate need to have fawning sycophants surround him at every turn, bolstering up his bottomless pit of ego and feeding a brain clearly on the decline.  The film is set in modern day, sort-of, with a nod to its Renaissance roots.  Anthony Hopkins, nominated for an award in this film, does an excellent job of veering from one mood swing to another while backed up by a host of outstanding performances by a cadre of well-known and lesser-known British actors.  There is Jim Carter, who gives one of the most touching depictions of the Earl of Kent I have ever seen.  It helps that his transformation from banished Earl to wandering old man is done with a haircut rather than a bulky costume.  Karl Johnson and Andrew Scott also turn in touching performances, with Scott making some really remarkable turns from science nerd to madman to hero.  Emma Thompson and Emily Watson are given the chance to make Goneril and Regan human before they become monsters and the young John Macmillan makes for a fine villain as Edmund, the bastard son of Gloucester.  Beware the eye-gouging scene and the final showdown between Edmund and Edgar as both have gut-turning moments.  My one big complaint is that the producers felt the need to take this play, one of the longest in the Shakespearean canon, and bring it in under two hours.  To do that huge parts of the play were excised and the scene changes sometimes jump in ways that would make someone unfamiliar with the plot extremely confused.  It breaks the flow of the narrative and there were a few times that even I had to spend some time catching up mentally.  Other than that it is well directed and well played and a worthy addition to the world of Shakespeare films.

"The Wife"

Based on a book by Meg Wolitzer, this should have been better.  Clearly, Ms. Wolitzer didn't write the screenplay, which was flat.  That, coupled with some bizarre directorial choices (one important scene was overshadowed by a background extra) made this movie pretty ho-hum.  It shouldn't have been.  Glenn Close turns in another star performance, marked by her trademark subtlety, of a woman with a calm surface and inner turmoil.  She is paired with Jonathan Pryce who does a nice job balancing sweetness, aging addle-mindedness, a leering womanizer and a self-involved egoist.  Christian Slater also adds a good note in his somewhat slimy role as an avaricious biographer.  The rest of the cast is sadly forgettable but given the filming and the script choices were perhaps not given a chance to shine.  There is an odd timeline issue which bugged me.  The story is set mostly in 1992 with the characters at a college in 1958.  Assuming Joan is in her early 20s at the time and Joe is perhaps 30, that would make the characters 50s to 60s at the time portrayed in the film.  Both Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce are 71.  It was a small thing but it bugged me.  This kind of "casting who we want" regardless of the age of the character is the kind of Hollywood stunt which always irritates.  Bottom line:  this is a simple tale which could have been rich with underpinnings but the blatant way the tale unfolds left me guessing not at all.  Worth it for the lead performances, that's about it.