American Factory Analysis

American Factory (2019)

Directed and Produced by: Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert

Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature 2020

Available on Netflix.

American Factory is a documentary about a Chinese billionaire who opens a factory near Ohio and employs two thousand Americans and the film is about the setbacks the workforce face and essentially it is about the concerns raised for employment due to automation. It is the first film produced by Barack and Michelle Obama's production company, Higher Ground Productions. This documentary adapts a 'fly-on-the-wall' style of film making where they just shoot and observe like how a fly would about what's going on there and we don't see interviews of anyone. The editing of the film doesn't cut quick for the audience to be hooked because of the change in setting and imagery, for instance they hold static shots of the locations before slowly entering in. The pacing almost felt similar to the last year's Academy Award winning documentary Free Solo, although that was an edge of the seat experience because of the subject matter.

The film deals with themes like work life balance, cultural differences and about how people will find it difficult to find work because of automation in a decade. The best part about the documentary is that the film makers don't express their political view in the documentary but it is clear by the events they choose to show and the voices they choose to capture. This is a more subtle way of doing things by respecting the audience and is way better than doing a simple propaganda video. Ram Ke Naam by Anand Patwardhan was also a good example of this, the filmmaker's view and opinion is never explicitly spoken but it is clearly visible throughout. 

The main cultural conflict they face is the work-life balance, the Chinese people work for twelve hours a shift and take 2-3 days off a month whereas the Americans work for eight hours a day and take the weekends off. They say that in China they want people to work hard enough that they should feel that they deserve the salary and whereas in America there is minimum basic wages for everyone. The chairman motivates the Chinese people by saying things like we're born in China and we've Chinese blood and we're born from Chinese mother's, everything of what he said come from the ideas of nationalism, honor, pride and to an extent even masculinity. When the workers want to opt for a union, the chairman says that he'll shutdown if a union starts because of course they he can't rule them. The documentary also raises concerns on automation which will lead to the loss of many jobs, although it didn't explore much of it and it just briefly showed what possible consequences that can bring. 

Pain and Glory Analysis

Pain and Glory

Written & Directed by: Pedro Almodovar

Starring: Antonio Banderas

Nominated for Palme d'Or at Cannes 2019, Won Best Actor and Best Soundtrack at Cannes, Nominated for Best International Feature at Oscars 2020.

This film is about a film maker who introspects his past and the choices he made, the log line reminded me of Woody Allen's Stardust Memories. It was clear that it comes from a very personal space. Films like these, which are semi auto-biographical can be intimate and interesting. The film makers can either write how they'd have wanted their life to be, or they can write some alternate realities of their life if they'd have made different choices or they can write about their regrets and the deep pain to just let it out. It felt like Pain and Glory was all of the above. You can take films like Pelli Choopulu and Arjun Reddy, they also feel like they come from a personal space. With these films, I'm not sure if self indulgence can help to enhance authenticity as the film maker has already felt what he/she is writing or if it makes the film maker turn a blind eye to the relevance of the film to the audience.

The film has a non-linear narrative, he uses it to create emotional coherence. In the main plot, we see a film maker who is in pain, both mental and physical. His physical pain is demonstrated through digital graphics and voice over, explaining his ailments and his mental pain is explored throughout the film. The core conflict of the film is, Salvador played by an intense Antonio Banderas, not finding a purpose in life if he isn't able to make films. He doesn't want to write, if he can't film. I was reminded of the Iranian film maker Jafar Panahi who was banned by the Iranian government to write screenplays, direct films or to travel anywhere else in the world. It is practically death to a film maker. There are a lot of subplots, themes and characters explored in this film, through the reminiscence of Salvador's life. We can gauge how normal drug usage is in this world when we see that the characters know the difference between cocaine and heroin. Salvador tries heroin and whenever he snorts they cut to a scene from his past. The cut points feel so natural that it doesn't feel like a complex narrative, where you have to establish through text saying Salvador's childhood. This is also done well in both, Pelli Choopulu and Arjun Reddy.

The cinematographer Jose Luis Alcaine, is 81 and he was the first to use fluorescent tube as a source of key lighting. He's also been a long time collaborator with Pedro Almodovar. This film is visually aesthetic, they use strong colors in scenes either in the sets or props or costumes. The white in his childhood in the background, there was red in a lot of scenes and the visuals have a dream like quality to them. It is done in a recognizable way, it has the signature. I can recall of All About My Mother (1999) which also had these sensibilities in the visuals. The visuals are so strong that, the editor has a lot of freedom. The editor need not find a proper way to cut a close to a mid or a wide, the editor can cut a close on a close because the visuals are so vibrant and strong, the audience can easily subconsciously decipher the change in location and setting. Scenes with conversations are mostly shot on close ups/wide angle shots of each actor edited in a shot, reverse shot style; a technique used frequently by the Coen Brothers. They use it to create a sense of pacing and to make the characters look funny, even if they are in trouble or if they are bad people. They use it as a tool of creating black comedy. Here, they use it to enhance drama in the conversations and it can only be done if the actors are brilliant because even a slight movement gets captured.

I was curious about Antonio Banderas' performance after the Cannes Best Actor Award and the Academy Award nomination. The performance in solidarity didn't as much strike me, I think performances can be more appreciated if you watch the other works of an actor to see how they can play different people. I've seen some films where an actor was excellent in a film but in other films, the actor struggled to fit in. Some actors desperately try to show contrast by either over performing some parts or by doing films in entirely different settings. One actor whose performance struck me in two films was Shadab Hosseini's in A Separation and The Salesman; because he brought that contrast in characters through subtle nuances in his performance.

My take on Oscars 2020

Disclaimer: I haven't watched all films nominated in all categories, but I have watched all the films nominated for Best Picture. So my view might be limited to only these films.

I'm so happy that Parasite won the 4 prestigious awards of the night, I so badly wanted Parasite to win but I wasn't expecting the Academy would vote for it. The Academy is usually considered to give brownie points for films made on themes like war, racism and especially issues concerning America. I would've been utterly disappointed if 1917 won these awards. Now, I have respect for the Academy for supporting cinematic brilliance. I'll discuss some categories;

Best Original Screenplay: Bong Joon Ho and Han Jin Won for Parasite.
For me, a strong contender behind Parasite was Quentin Tarantino for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Quentin is known for writing unique dialogue and he writes movie screenplays like novels. His descriptions are solid, his screenplays are so interesting to read by themselves. But, screenplays aren't meant to be judged by how you feel reading them because the audience won't read screenplays, they'll just watch the film. The cast and crew of the film will read the screenplay and work on the movie. Screenplays can be judged on story and the structure of events and what they bring on the table in solidarity, which is where Once Upon a Time in Hollywood goes a step behind Parasite. In Parasite, most of the things you are in awe of about the movie can be found in the screenplay; the subtexts, the suspense, etc.

Best Director: Bong Joon Ho for Parasite.
The films nominated in this category other than 1917 and Joker, I think have strong directorial voices. You can't imagine someone else making these films; Bong Joon Ho, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino have their signature etched over in every frame of these films. They are auteurs. But, a director is not only about having his/her signature all over the film. Todd Phillips, what he did with Joker was path breaking, he brought together two different worlds, the world of Martin Scorsese and the world of comic book characters and created a masterpiece. But, the reason why Bong Joon Ho is my choice for this is he used every craft extensively to push storytelling; writing, editing, blocking and camera movements, production design, music, sound design. You can watch the film just to study one of these crafts individually and how it has been used in this film and you'll get to learn a lot from it. Parasite should be analysed and studied by film aspirants.

Best Actor in a leading role: Joaquin Phoenix for Joker.
This was obvious, although I haven't watched Pain and Glory yet. Some predictions had that performance over Joker, so that must have been something. It is not those scenes where there is a lot of physical energy involved, that is great acting but it is those scenes where you don't have much to do and all you have to do is absorb and react. Joaquin nailed both parts in Joker, he was passive in those scenes where he was bullied and he was brilliant in those scenes that when he is active and reacts it is so explosive. His character is dark, dangerous and yet feels empathetic which is why this film got such polarized views and carrying such performances, is not easy.

Best Cinematography: Roger Deakins for 1917.
This was obvious this year, but I have mixed feelings about this. The fact that the movie is conceived in a single take for a more fluid experience for the audience and for us to have a subjective view of the world around. When this is done for the first time in a mainstream film like Alejandro G. Innaritu did in Birdman, it can be appreciable but after that, only the fact that it is conceived in a single shot isn't enough for us to laud about the film or the cinematography. Apart from that, I haven't seen The Lighthouse and I found Joker to be visually strong in terms of the color palettes, lighting and the blocking.

Best Production Design: Barbara Ling and Nancy Haigh for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
My first choice was this for production design, although a strong contender was Parasite. Parasite used props, sets as storytelling devices; they visually establish the class divide that the whole films talks about. Production design was a crucial part in depicting the worlds of both the families. But, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the winner for this category because the whole film is about Hollywood back then and they recreate the life of LA back then, movie sets, movie theatres, scenes of TV shows and movies recreated and the whole vibe of the movie is carried by the production design and it is impossible for me to imagine the movie in a different setting.

Best Film Editing: Michael McCusker and Andrew Buckland for Ford vs Ferrari
My first choice was Thelma Schoonmaker for The Irishman; her ability to establish a world and play around in it by cutting back and forth seamlessly is so fascinating. I didn't even observe that she does this until I watched Goodfellas more than once. The impact of her editing in Martin Scorsese's films is immense especially because of the techniques she uses like freeze frames, voice over, breaking the fourth wall; they can make or break a film because these techniques can be played around so much in the edit table. I recently watched a video essay on YouTube by Thomas Flight, they explained how editing in Ford vs Ferrari shapes our viewing of racing and after watching that I was okay with Ford vs Ferrari winning the Oscar for Best Editing because the whole film depends on how you feel while watching the race sequences.

Best Sound Editing: Donald Sylvester for Ford vs Ferrari
This was my first pick as well, I watched this film in 7.1 surround sound and I felt the races throughout. The sound design in this film, is such a crucial element of the storytelling. It was such an immersive experience, since the film is about the racing spirit it is important for us to feel and see like them. 1917 was also a strong contender in this; it won for Best Sound Mixing.

I don't know much about some crafts like VFX, costumes, hair and makeup other than just if they are looking good or not. I'm not sure how they judge these crafts, I'm thinking they must be judging based on how these crafts have been used in these films to push storytelling.

Little Women Analysis

Little Women

Written for the screen & Directed by: Greta Gerwig

Nominated for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay and more.

Little Women is a period drama, it tells the story of four sisters who have different goals and dreams in life. The film has a similar setting in terms of characters to Our Little Sister by Hirokazu Kore-eda, but there the dynamics between the sisters is different than what we see here. There it is a mix of mother and sister, especially with the elder sister whereas here everyone are like sisters or friends. The most impressive thing about Little Women, is the intimacy between the sisters. The way they celebrate things, the way they fight about things, the way they lend shoulders for each other to cry and the way they care about each other. The proximity that they have is visually evident. The women in this film feel like real women, they don't feel like someone's idea of women. The conflicts raised in the film are societal pressure to marriage, about how women aren't encouraged to have big dreams. These conflicts, I hope not and I don't think are relevant in first world countries but are totally relevant today in other parts of the world.

The argument that is presented by Jo March that, women are not just about love and heart, they are also about mind, talent and a lot other things, and yet she feels lonely; I think is the core argument of the film. The counter argument by Meg March that, she wants to do all that she wanted to but along with her husband and how she wants to marry and have kids. This is not exactly a counter argument, it just speaks about how different the lives of women can be, by the choices they make or get to make. The problem faced by Jo is that, she doesn't want to be pulled back by marriage but she also feels lonely and she craves love. The answer to that is, well-raised, non-patriarchal men. 

The movie is shot on film, the distortions work in favor of setting up the world; be it overexposed backgrounds or grainy footage at places. It is difficult to shoot on digital and deliberately add distortions in post, it doesn't look authentic. Saoirse Ronan was terrific as Jo, her indecisive and complex thought process, could have easily come across as being fickle minded and being as a weak character if not written and performed well. It just felt more human and empathetic. It made it easier for us to root for her. The portions where she writes her book, they were shot in a visually appealing way. The jump cuts of the candle getting shorter, she laying all her papers on the floor, the binding of the book; I couldn't imagine someone writing a book being this cinematic. Greta Gerwig has a strong voice, her debut Lady Bird was a character study and it felt like that film came from a very personal space and Little Women, although is far away in terms of setting, this film also has her voice etched all over.

Jojo Rabbit Analysis

Jojo Rabbit

Screenplay-Direction : Taika Watiti

Nominated for 6 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay

Based on a book by: Christine Leunens

Jojo Rabbit is a light-hearted satire on Nazis and war exploring themes like love and compassion. It's not easy, being able to pull off a comedy set in war and the Holocaust. The comedy is generated by the gap, the characters and the world they are in have. The characters are, a 10-year old Johannes "Jojo" Betzler as the protagonist and his second best friend Yorki. They are like kids next door, who are thrown in Nazi Germany and they try to fit in and want to impress Hitler, which is what generates fun. There is quirk and some Coen-brothers' style of comedy in some scenes, especially the repetitive Heil-Hitler joke and that scene where Yorki accidentally launches a missile.

The core conflict of the film is, Jojo discovering a Jewish girl Elsa in his house who is hid by his mother played by an outstanding Scarlett Johhanson. Her performance has been so fluid this year, in Marriage Story and in this film. It felt so effortless, the way she portrays these characters. The dynamics between Elsa and Jojo is so layered and interesting, at the beginning it is funnily that of a ghost and a victim, Jojo thinks that he is in control of the scene but adorably he isn't because he isn't that cruel. It slowly turns into a zone between an elder sister and a friend but Jojo falls in love with her. His performance in the scene where he tells her that Germany won the war, is brilliant. We see a sense of transformation in him, when he tells Hitler that she doesn't seem like a bad person. This moment is the heart of the film.

The storytelling is entirely from Jojo's perspective. I haven't watched the DOP Mihai Malaimare Jr.'s other films but this film is shot beautifully with vibrant colors in spite of it being set in war because it is from Jojo's perspective, it still has hope. Jojo isn't that Nazi he's trying to become yet. The editing is done in a certain way, where the tone suddenly changes from light to dark. They don't give us time for the transition, we see Jojo is talking to his mother and it has a light tone and they stop and we see some dead bodies hanging by their necks on the road. It punches us in the gut. This film eventually grew in me, I thought it was a good film when I watched it but when some scenes were flashing in my mind later I loved the film more.

1917 Analysis

1917

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Cinematography by: Roger Deakins

This film is set in the backdrop of World War 1, it has a simple premise. Two British soldiers have to travel by passing through enemies territory to deliver a message which can save the lives of about 1600 people, their fellow soldiers. The film is essentially the hurdles they face while doing so and their journey. 

For me, the thing that bugs me the most while watching war films is that the standard is already set so high in terms of tension and drama. The world is not at all grounded, it is war, it's right up there. In this kind of a world, if something much isn't happening then it kind of puts me off. It won't be the case, if it's a slice of life film or a coming of age drama whereas with war films I expect the film to hook me throughout the film. This film is conceived in a single take, they haven't actually shot it in a single take but the shots are stitched in a way that we can't decipher the cuts like Emmanuel Lubezki does in Birdman and The Revenant. This technique works very well for the scenes where there's something else in the frame to look as well, in scenes where it's a mis-en-scene where we find some dead bodies or some other detail in the frame. It doesn't work as much in scenes where they're just walking or running for long distances. Since the entire film is set in that zone, where they're walking and anyone could attack them anytime it didn't hook me as such until anything started happening.

The conflict of the film is that they've to send a message by going there before they start attacking, it is something which isn't a problem anymore, a WhatsApp text would do the job. But it's interesting to watch someone face a problem which isn't a problem anymore for you. Then you don't watch for how the problem would effect you, you'd watch for how they react to a problem which effects them. This was the case while watching Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven as well, the whole film runs around a pair of lost shoes. Do we care about the shoes? No. We care about what it means to them.