Playwright Matt Crowley responded to critics of “The Boys in the Band” who said his award-winning play unfairly depicted gay men as miserable and self-loathing by saying that there were plenty of happy gay people; they just weren’t at this party. “The Boys in the Band” was ground-breaking in 1968 for its frank depiction of a range of gay characters, gathered for a birthday party that devolves into angry confrontations and confessions. The 1970 movie was a part of a new generation of films at the end of the claustrophobic Hayes Code era, when even the duration of (heterosexual) kisses was strictly monitored.
This new version, with the cast that brought the play to Broadway for the first time, is a look back, before Pride, before AIDS, and it looks like a sobering reminder of the pain of not being allowed to be who you are.
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic issues, language, some sexuality and violence
Profanity:
Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Some drinking, references to psychotropic medication
Violence/ Scariness:
Some violence, character injured, references to sad deaths
Diversity Issues:
None
Date Released to Theaters:
April 13, 2018
Copyright 2018 Great Point Media
“Aardvark” has three thoughtful performances and a couple of intriguing interactions, but is ultimately undermined by an underwritten script. The parts are greater than the whole.
Zachary Quinto, who also produced, plays Josh, and we meet him on his first visit to a new therapist, which conveniently gives us a chance to learn very quickly that (1) he is underemployed in a coffee shop but sees it as progress so he must have been pretty badly off, (2) he has plenty of money, but keeps it crumpled up in his pocket so does not seem too on top of things, and (3) he has a brother who — he says — is a successful and very talented actor named Craig, and who is back in their home town for the first time in many years.
Josh is clearly fragile, but is he an unreliable narrator? Should we believe him? The new therapist, Emily (Jenny Slate) is not sure, and neither are well. Josh emphasizes that his brother is such a gifted actor that he can appear as anyone. In a couple of exceptional scenes, Josh speaks to an older homeless white woman and a black cop, who — are we seeing into his mind? — turn out to be Craig.
Is there a Craig? Is he anything like Josh’s description? We probably have concluded it is unlikely as perhaps Emily has, too, until he does, in fact, show up at Emily’s door, played by Jon Hamm. And this is where the movie starts to run out of ideas.
Slate gives an underwritten character as much depth as possible, and two intriguing encounters suggest that perhaps there were other versions of the story that provided more background (or should have). It is disappointing that writer/director Brian Shoaf could not come up with a less well-worn set of conflicts for her. Hamm continues to be one of today’s most thoughtful and adept performers. Especially in his early scenes, Hamm is able to show us the personality distortion of Craig’s years of semi-stardom (as the lead in a popular television series) and distance from his home and his brother. And Quinto is perceptive as he portrays Josh in different stages of his illness, with and without medication.
It is very good to see a movie about someone with mental illness who is not portrayed as cute or a savant, and especially good to see one that grapples with the survivor guilt and exhaustion of family members. Shoaf shows some promise as a writer and director and we look forward to what he comes next.
Parents should know that this movie’s themes include severe mental illness and psychotropic medications, references to sad loss of family members, some violence, strong language, sexual references and situation
Family discussion: Why didn’t Craig want to see Josh? What did Josh miss when he was taking his medication?
If you like this, try; “Entanglement,” “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”
New from Audible: Zachary Quinto Reads a New Original Story from John Scalzi
Posted on October 4, 2016 at 7:00 am
Free October 6, 2016 from Audible through the end of October: an audio-original novella by bestselling author and master storyteller John Scalzi called “The Dispatcher.” This thrilling tale is performed by Zachary Quinto (“Star Trek,” “Snowden”). This story has never appeared in print. It is available exclusively on Audible, returning readers to the origins of storytelling with a talented performer telling an engaging tale directly to a rapt audience.
Copyright Endgame Entertainment 2016Who better to take on the story of Edward Snowden than cinema-of-paranoia director Oliver Stone? Well, Laura Poitras, who directed the documentary about Snowden, “Citizenfour,” and who is portrayed in this film by Melissa Leo. As is usually the case, the documentary is the better film. But Stone’s narrative version, “Snowden,” is an absorbing version of the story, presenting vitally important issues in an arresting, provocative manner, with some superb moments. It is flawed, as Stone’s “historical” films tend to be, by unnecessary stacking of the deck that detracts from the credibility of the film. Stone does not trust the government, which is fine, but he doesn’t trust his audience, which is distracting. If you are going to make your hero a seeker of Truth, then Hollywood-izing the story is counter-productive.
The movie takes on three big questions, answers one, partially answers another, and turns the third over to us. The first question is: what happened? How did a 29-year-old computer guy get access to what appears to be the entire scope of US intelligence, copy it, and turn it over to reporters? Second, why did he do it? And third, is he a hero or a traitor?
Snowden was an enormously gifted, deeply patriotic young man who was in training for military special forces when an injury forced his return to civilian life. “There are other ways to serve your country,” the doctor crisply advises him. Naming Ayn Rand as one of his influences does not raise any concerns in his battery of entry tests and interviews, including lie detector tests. And so he goes to work for the CIA, NSA, and private contractors for both agencies, gaining access to the information and intrusions into personal data that are being constantly combed and mined for possible terrorist activity. Think of it as the government having Google that searches not just all public material but everything we think of as private: every email, every phone call, every bank account and credit card transaction, even invading your non-digital, analog world, including your home. According to this film, the government can spy on you Big Brother style via your webcam, even if the indicator light is off. I will wait here while you go get a Band-Aid to cover it up right now.
A combination of consciousness-raising from his left-leaning girlfriend (Shailene Woodley), horrifying discoveries of 4th Amendment violations, disturbing revelations about the military-industrial complex (from Nicolas Cage!), and disappointment in President Obama’s failure to curb these abuses leads Snowden to decide to go public. Briefly touched on are some other possible factors: the abuse of Tom Drake, who tried to raise these questions through official channels, and, possibly, some psychological or cognitive disturbance resulting from the onset of epilepsy and the drug used to treat it, or from the level of work-related stress that may have triggered the seizures. There is one “Beautiful Mind”-style scene where Snowden’s CIA boss (Rhys Ifans) speaks to him via a Skype-ish video conference, with a looming, room-size head along the lines of the Wizard of Oz. It is not clear whether this is Snowden’s subjective viewpoint or intended to be a realistic portrayal, but the conversation is, even within the framework of this film about massive intrusions into private lives of citizens with no suggestion of any inappropriate activity, preposterously paranoic.
All of this would be so much easier to take if Snowden was not heroic and brilliant every single moment. Given 5-8 hours to complete a programming test at the beginning of his tenure at the CIA, he finishes in under 40 minutes (38, he corrects his instructor), and everywhere he goes, he blows everyone away with his mad skills. As he zippily downloads the files he plans to turn over to the press (in real life it took months, not minutes), colleagues knowingly nod their approval, hard to understand given his insistence that he was careful to make it clear that he alone was responsible for the breach. Gordon-Levitt is, as ever, an enormously talented actor, but he is playing something of a cipher, a person with low affect. The endlessly skilled Melissa Leo is playing a tough and savvy journalist but as written she has little to do but gaze adoringly as she points her camera. The standouts in the cast are two of the most versatile and talented young actors working on film today: Ben Schnetzer and Lakeith Lee Stanfield as two of Snowden’s colleagues. In their brief screen time, each of them creates vivid, three-dimensional characters we instantly connect to more than we do to any of the main characters.
No matter where we place the balancing point between national security and individual freedom, we can all agree that the decisions should not be made unilaterally by individuals in their 20’s like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Snowden says he is hoping to start a conversation. I hope that the conversations about this film will be less about its failings and more about what we should do to make sure the next Snowden does not decide to take this step.
Parents should know that this film has very strong language, sexual references and situations and some nudity, tense and perilous situations, and issues of betrayal.
Family discussion: Is Snowden a hero or a traitor? What would you have done if you discovered the level of government surveillance? Who should decide and how much should be disclosed?
If you like this, try: “Zero Days” and “Citizenfour”
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence
Profanity:
A few s-words and a couple of other bad words
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Drinking, bar
Violence/ Scariness:
Extensive sci-fi/action violence including acts of terrorism, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
May 16, 2013
Date Released to DVD:
September 9, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:
B00AZMFJYA
This time, there’s crying in “Star Trek.” And some very significant time on Earth as well. This story is in the most literal sense, close to home.
Writer-director J.J. Abrams, who rebooted Gene Roddenberry’s original “Star Trek” saga with a rousing 2009 origin story prequel now takes us closer to the place where the original series began. There’s just a touch of the famous soaring theme song and some references the old-school Trekkers (don’t call them Trekkies) will love. A tribble plays a key role, and there’s a mention of a certain Ms. Chapel, who is studying to be a nurse. A character from the original series appears to give us some more of his backstory. And we get to hear Uhura speak Klingon.
But the primary focus is on the relationship between the main characters, Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Bones (Karl Urban), and especially the cerebral half-Vulcan Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the impetuous Kirk (Chris Pine). We rejoin the story mid-chase on a remote planet with a massive volcano about to explode and the Prime Directive (the Federation observes and reports but does not interfere with other civilizations or alter their destiny, even by being seen by them) is about to be jettisoned once again.
As in the original series and its sequels, “Star Trek: Into Darkness” takes on moral dilemmas and geopolitical allegories with the same full-on gusto with which the characters engage with the adventures of the universe. The issue of the few weighed against the many and the personal connections weighed against the larger world (or galaxy) comes up several times, in increasingly complex variations. And, of course, there’s a ton of action.
It is impossible to say much more — including some minor quibbles — without some serious spoilers, though I will object to the under-use of the talented Alice Eve, who is playing a brilliant scientist but for no reason whatsoever has to appear in her underwear. As for plot, I will just say that a terrorist-style attack in London leads to an interplanetary chase into Klingon territory. But as so often happens in the allegorical Roddenberry universe that gives all of “Star Trek” its resonance, the real enemy may be ourselves. The performances are all superb, including Benedict Cumberbatch of the PBS series “Sherlock” bringing terrifying power and ferocity to the role of the villain with the English accent. They go where many, many men and women have gone before, but they do it right.
Parents should know that this film includes constant sci-fi/action violence including chases, explosions, fights, guns, terrorist-style attacks, characters injured and killed, brief disturbing images, some non-explicit sexual references and situation, drinking, and some strong language (s-words, etc.).
Family discussion: Several characters have to make choices about who is more important — the people they know or the larger group of strangers. What are some real-life situations where people have to make similar decisions? What factors should they consider? Why does Pike think that Kirk deserves a second chance? How do you know when to break the rules? Is it because there are other rules that are more important?
If you like this, try: the “Star Trek” movies and television series, the comedy “Galaxy Quest,” and the documentary “Trekkies”
