It’s been about a week since Emma Stone stunned many people watching the Oscars to see her win a second award in under 10 years, beating out Lily Gladstone, who seemed almost a shoo-in for Killers of the Flower Moon. But the $64,000 question is could Stone have done a better job?
Let me answer that in both Spanish and English – No.
As a matter of fact, Stone has been one of those actresses who has never been fully able to play serious roles as other actresses who started out when they were kids. I liked her in Easy A because she really understood the dynamics of the role. I really didn’t like Zombieland nor its sequel. I liked her in Cruella and Birdman. But I really don’t understand how she won for La La Land. After her horrible performance in Aloha, anything I guess seems award-worthy. She recently appeared in The Curse, which I could only watch two episodes of, so it’s possibly could’ve helped her chances.
I was speaking to someone the other day who is also a movie and TV buff. We were both in agreement that Stone just doesn’t do it. She’s like the Millennial version of Renee Zellweger. I’m sure she’s a great person and all, but there’s always something that is just missing. Even her death as Gwen Stacy in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 didn’t have the emotional shock it should’ve because she had never played the role the best she could. Hailee Steinfeld has done a better job in those animated movies but it’s mostly because Shameik Moore turned Miles Morales into a whiny drip. On the flip side, Kirsten Dunst, who played Mary Jane, in the Spider-Man movies, has been able to shackle off the child actor stigmata better.
Stone has taken more risks as an actress, which is why she is in a movie like Poor Things, which is possibly one of the worst movies of recent years to be gushed over by Oscar voters. And I think this is because so many critics are biased to praise filmmakers born from other countries why they so openly despise any filmmakers from America who have become popular following the collapse of New Hollywood and the Independent Film Era of the latter 20th Century.
Yorgos Lantimos, the director of Poor Things, is from Greece. However, he seems to be a student of Ken Russell, the British filmmaker who had Alan Bates and Oliver Reed wrestle as naked in Women in Love decades before Sacha Baron Cohen did it in Borat, another movie that was heavily praised by critics but despised by the public. Cohen, himself, is from England as well.
His style reminds me so much of Russell with the mixture of sleaze and period piece porn. I’m also reminded of Edge of Sanity, a slasher-like retelling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with Anthony Perkins. This movie is based on a novel by author Alasdair Gray, of Scotland. Some things that might work good on paper don’t transfer well to the big screen. Willem Dafoe, with some hilarious and hideous facial make-up, plays Dr. Godwin Baxter, a cross between Victor Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau and Sid Phillips from Toy Story. He basically makes strange animal hybrids. Stone plays Bella Baxter, who committed suicide while pregnant by jumping off a bridge. Baxter was able to take the brain out of her baby and put in her head.
A child in a grown woman’s body, she quickly grows up mentally, learning how to pleasure herself and then get pleasure from other people, mostly men. This is another thing Oscar voters love with big name actors do outrageous sex scenes in artistic movies. Halle Berry bared some skin and got done on all fours by Billy Bob Thornton in Monster’s Ball and won an Oscar. Natalie Portman had a fantasy she was being eaten out by Mila Kunis in Black Swan and won an Oscar. Holly Hunter got nude and had sex with Harvey Keitel in The Piano and won an Oscar. OIivia Colman got freaky in The Favourite, also by Lanthimos, and won an Oscar. If only had Glenn Close gone down on Jonathan Pryce in The Wife, she might have won that Oscar finally.
Basically the plot of Poor Things is Bella running off with lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) and having sex with him and others. Yes, the sets looks amazing and the costumes are wonderful. But it’s all period piece posh to make us think that it must be a good movie. Lanthimos directs in such a style that critics would hate it if he wasn’t Greek. Let’s face it, Denis Villeneuve has gotten away with so much just because he’s French Canadian. Would anyone have sat through Blade Runner 2049 with wonder if it was done by an American as it’s basically fan fiction. And Jake Gyllenhaal’s wife turning into a giant spider at the end of Enemy would’ve been laughed at if it was made by anyone else.
I know this might seem to be a criticism of foreign-born filmmakers. But it’s not. I like Christopher Nolan. And I like Ridley Scott…to a degree. My main beef is critics and Oscar voters who aren’t willing to say the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. I was watching Back to School earlier and laughed at the scene where Rodney Dangerfield’s character gets Kurt Vonnegut Jr. to write his term paper about the author’s life and works. Yet he is failed because the professor played by Sally Kellerman is so used to saying what other professors and literary critics say that she doesn’t see it for what it is.
We’ve heard humorous stories of people who have mistaken an empty water bottle or a pile of trash at art galleries for actual art. It’s really about people afraid of looking bad amongst their peers. Well, I’m not. At this point, I think Lanthimos is trolling us. As long as critics and Oscar voters keep praising him, he’ll continue to make this rubbish.
It’s too bad Uwe Boll exploited a German film tax loophole. He could’ve made an artistic movie. Even if it was awful, he could’ve had everyone fawn over him. Then, when he made junk like Afraid of the Dark and The House of the Dead, the reviews would’ve still been favorable.
What do you think? Please comment.
Zane Says 