Last Night In Soho: The dangers of sexism, ingenuity... and expectation.
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Screenplay Krysty Wilson-Cairns, Edgar Wright
Cast: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith (XI)
Original title Last Night in Soho
Edgar Wright is one of the most celebrated directors today. Why celebrated, and not consecrated, respected? Because his films, in my view, are very well-made, cause an expectation of good fun (except for Scott Pilgrim against the world, which even repulses me), but they have not yet reached a level that, like this that he announces a new project, I already have respect and expect a production that "feeds" me with culture beyond fun. Which actually, quite frankly, isn't very important to me. I'm much more in favour of naughty entertainment, which you can watch ten times a year and always give you a relief from daily stress, than something more "substantial", "aggregating", so to speak. However, this film does not manage, in my opinion, neither to amuse nor add what it wants with its message of social criticism.
What went wrong?
This is precisely what I believe to have been the problem with Wright's current work.
Last Night In Soho wants very much to pass the barrier of pure entertainment and ends up falling into the hypocritical and imbecile edifier-critical-social-woke that social justice warriors hold so dear.
I don't have a lot of expectations with any film or series. I even avoid seeing trailers, or knowing anything that might give me ideas that later become frustrated and end up undermining my experience with the work in question. However, in this case, given the synopsis of the film, the photos that were stamped absolutely everywhere on the internet (for over a year, by the way) and the cast involved, I ended up letting myself have a small, but persistent, pre notion. -conceived and already taking it for granted that, at least, I would like the feature film very much. Big mistake.
How can you not have expectations with a photo like this stamped three times a week in your face for over a year?
Promising synopsis, poor execution
Last Night in Soho follows Eloise (Thomasin Mckenzie), a young fashion-design lover who mysteriously manages to return to the 1960s. There, she meets Sandy (Anya Taylor-Joy), a dazzling aspiring singer with whom she is fascinated . What she didn't count on is that 1960s London may not be what it seems, and time keeps falling apart, leading to dire consequences.
Well, what made me uncomfortable right away was that for a year (or more, I'm not even sure how long the movie was waiting for release) stuck in my mind, because the synopsis says that, that Eloise was fascinated not only for the 60s, but also for Sandy, meaning Sandy would be not an aspiring, but a famous singer, right? How else would someone young today be a fan of someone from so far away? In the film it is clear that Sandy did not reach stardom and that Eloise only meets her when she "goes back in time", which actually happens and doesn't happen. (If you want a version with spoilers, let me know in the comments and I'll explain what happens, from my point of view, of course)
This misunderstanding that you have in the synopsis would not be a big deal if the development of the feature film were satisfactory, at least. It seems that the screenwriters (the director being one of them) were too lazy to develop a coherent story and were happy with a good premise, the fantastic element and the social criticism. "Sense for what? Cohesion, what's it for? Real depth? No need, it just looks deep, okay." I swear, I think about this style of conversation between screenwriters and direction.
"So just stay there and be pretty. Right, sweetie?"
Beardless Performances
Thomasin Mckenzie, normally so intuitive and with a graceful but not childlike sweetness, here looks like a lost child, scared (increasingly scared) and even with limited reasoning ability. Is your reticent and shy behavior at first understandable? Yes it is. But as things progress, it seems that she loses simple power to think! Now if she is suffering from any psychiatric disorder then she should seek professional help. If she knows that this is not the case, and the people she sees are not really people (at least, not incarnated), it is useless, for example, to close a door, as spirits are not stopped by them. Simple, right?! For Eloise, this is like asking her to calculate how many lies all brazilian and American politicians have told since the proclamation of the republic in both countries.
Anya Taylor-Joy is unanimous. I usually agree with Nelson Rodrigues - a brazilian playwright (which I rarely do) - when he said "all unanimity is stupid". However, in Anya's case, I have never seen anything that could indicate anything other than absolute competence in the girl's work. Here, however, it is not her fault (as well as the apparent stupidity of Mckenzie's character has nothing to do with the actress' talent), but of the incipient script, Sandy is more of an ornament and mannequin of costumes, makeup and perfect hairstyles from the that a character who moves the plot. And when she does, she does it clumsily and confusedly. Not that confusion that is perceived to be intentional and that causes turns to explain a point, no, they are turns of those who have nothing to tell and need to roll up enough for the movie to "render". Anya Taylor-Joy is the water in the bean that is Last Night In Soho. Beans without iron, without seasoning, without taste, and in danger of spoiling.
Waste of their talents and my time and patience
The damn woke thing [I am sorry, I have to make a little detour here]
It became practically an obligation to talk about some minority, some cause, make allegories, use a metaphor to talk about a chronic problem in society. And, yes, young social vigilante, I know that cinema has always been a tool to talk about what's wrong with the world, if not to make frank political and ideological propaganda. But this does not mean that such uses are advisable, and above all, that real results are achieved. Seldom does a film, series, play, animation, book change the parameters of society in force at the time and shape a better future. Not that this is the intention of all filmmakers who make this type of work, but it would certainly be a factor to consider when thinking about creating this argument. "Can I really talk about it without just sounding pretentious and condescending? What am I really aiming for with this script?" I guarantee that if most directors asked themselves that question, a lot of mess would be avoided.
We all know that the 60s were a milestone for feminism. That much has been done, and that, even so, since changes do not happen overnight, it was still a decade marked by many abuses and cowardice against women. And, another thing, that, if not everybody, a great part of the people, also know, that London was, in that decade, the centre of revolution, disobedience and transgression of the world. It was a moment of self-discovery, and London was a healthy teenager leaving the convent for the first time.
Well, if even Disney, the sanctimonious good girl of the film industry (at this moment I'm literally putting my hand on my head and laughing, so I don't cry with what I'm going to be forced to conclude next) managed, in Cruella (review here - please, use the translator function in your browser to read it) to pass with dignity and knowledge that fervor of the time, because Edgar Wright, a British, intelligent and young director, no? Because, again, this is a feministo. (A feministo is when a man decides to talk about feminism or sexism, but fails miserably.
The real why so many movies with "social" purpose don't work
Most directors have no idea what they're talking about. Don't live the message itself. However, that is not exactly the problem. Many films made in ignorance of the cause are good and generate genuine reflections. The reason behind the failure is a little more complex and subjective, abstract, even:
Sensitivity. What does that mean? It means that it's no use for a man, who, as much as he is really an ally of feminism, wanting to do a work with messages that he has no way of understanding how to reach the public in a way that, in addition to understanding, he really feels how women are often underestimated, objectified, discarded and, because they are seen as objects, murdered.
But you yourself said that many movies made in ignorance work. Yes, I said, young grasshopper. However, this happens because, perhaps even by divine inspiration (who knows?), the directors of these works remain in their place, while those who cannot cross the limit of "I'm-showing-the-social-cause- applaud me" are those who think they are knowledgeable and are part of that group we are talking about.
A quick example: Some actresses who made the film The Help now say they feel ashamed for having done so, as the film portrays the point of view of a white woman. Actresses are entitled to feel as they please, but from my perspective, the work turned out great, and it raised real debates that changed some of the relationship dynamics between employers and employees in some homes. That is, even being "wrong", it worked! Because by making the work center on the point of view of the Caucasian woman who had real empathy for others, the disrespect and humiliation of the maids becomes evident and realistic. It is sensitive and impossible not to get emotional and realize how common and deeply wrong this is still. Ironically, what is judged and "cancelled" in the film, for me, is what makes it right. In Promising Young Woman—criticism here—we see a story that could be based on real facts, so common is the crime the protagonist seeks revenge for. The naturalness of how things happen is absurd, in the sense of oppression and the feeling of tiredness and frustration that Carey Mulligan knew how to pass on so well, even more, the dexterity of the intrinsic knowledge of the subject that the director Emerald Fennell has as a woman, even though she doesn't have gone through no traumatic situation like the one in your film. This naturalness is far from Wright's feature.
Just one more example, to try to make me understand: in award speeches, the platform for A, B, C militancy is already traditional, and so on, feminism, then, is almost mandatory, now. Normally, out of ten speeches, I just don't roll my eyes with two, and I get really emotional with one. Why? Why am I insensitive? No. Because only two are based on real experiences and only one of them is almost a need to express how that person, or who she represents, was painfully oppressed. I'm referring to two speeches that caught me off guard and one made me applaud, the other cry with memories of their own. The first was in 2018.
At the Oscar she won for best actress for her role in Three Ads for a Crime, Frances McDormand said, "I would be honored if all the women nominees would stand with me now. Meryl, if you do, everyone will. Filmmakers, producers, screenwriters , photographers, songwriters, designers, Okay! Now look around you. Ladies and gentlemen. We all have stories to tell and projects we want to fund. Don't talk about it at the party today. Call us tomorrow at your offices or come to ours and let's talk all about our projects. I have two words to share with you tonight: Inclusion. Rider."
The actress and producer knows, lives and suffers machismo and prejudice in the Hollywood industry up close, the speech, for me, doesn't even sound like militancy, but rather like a kind of alert, a revelation to say that applause and party are very good, but how about, after the party, putting the inclusive and feminist discourse (and anti-racist, and about inclusion of other groups, such as fat and disabled) into practice? It was a blunt way of saying "you guys need to stop just flying flags and start living them."
The second speech is that of Glenn Close taking the Golden Globe for The Wife in 2019.
The actress moved the world with a touching personal account that moved me to tears for reminding me of my own mother.
“[...]Playing such an inner character…I'm thinking about my mother, who really prioritized my father all her life. When I was in my 80s she said to me, 'I feel like I've achieved nothing.' And that wasn't right. I feel like what I learned from that experience is that, you know, women are caregivers, that's what is expected of us: we have our kids, we have our husbands or partners or anybody else – if we're lucky. But we have to find our personal fulfillment. We have to follow our dreams. We have to say: 'I can do this, and I must be allowed to do this.'
As a child I felt like Mohammed Ali, who was destined to be a boxer. I felt destined to be an actress. I saw the first Disney and Hayley Mills movies and said, ‘I can do this!’ In September I will turn 45 working as an actress and I can't imagine a more wonderful life.
Thank you Björn Runge, who directed 'The Wife', trusted the close-up, knew where to place the camera and how to light us. Jonathan Pryce, what a great partner. And to my daughter Annie [Starke], who laid the foundation for the character. I love you, my dear. Thank you so much."
Glenn doesn't say his mother was downtrodden or call his father a toxic male. However, if you experience any male toxicity in your life, the speech automatically reminds you of it. It is organic, it flows and reaches the heart in the fullest sense. Because, it.is.real. It is not political, it is not ideological, it is only her life. Glenn did not use the awards as a platform for her activism, she only made a personal, intimate and painful report. If it hurts many of us, it's because we lived and were raised with and by women who were silent and vilified, when not assaulted and abused, and that is why her speech is more significant than an outfit with the names of female directors, or any other act that looks genuine but is even aimed at applause and spotlight.
In short: You preacher-hungry filmmakers can talk about whatever you want, as long as you stick to your own role in the cause you plan to champion.
[End of detour, going back to the review]
I did not talk about the other performances because, there are only great actors and actresses here, but, or they are not so well because the script does not give them anything (poor Matt Smith, playing, once again, a toxic coward - yes, after The Crown), or, no matter how incredible their work is (Diana Rigg, awesome, in her last role), it doesn't turn the awful into good. The story does not go anywhere, and when it does, makes almost no sense if you do not make a huge effort to make sense out of this. Unnecessary say that in a good movie you do not have no make no effort to understand, make sense or like what you are watching.
The editing is good, the soundtrack is perfect, the costume design is powerful, the hair and makeup is soberb, so technically, no flaws. It's such a shame that the excellent technical team isn't enough to make a good movie.
Comentários
Postar um comentário