Hamnet (2025)

 

My immediate reaction to this film was to put it in the context of the award competing films for the year. It is of course a simple hyperbole to say that if "One Battle After Another" wins the Best picture award over this movie, I will burn Hollywood to the ground. This movie is so much more thoughtful, artful and well performed that it should be in it's own category, to which the Paul Thomas Anderson movie is never given admission. I already said I did not care for that other movie in my review back in September, this film gives me another chance to diss that movie by making the unfavorable comparison.

Enough though of the movie I did not care for, let me sing the praises of this movie which I admire immensely. "Hamnet" tells us a two love stories and does so through a tragedy. Much like a Shakespearean work, the touching personal story of love is filtered through an event of tragic proportions. The screenplay divides the progress of the story into distinct acts, but they are not labeled that way in the film. Director Chloé Zhao, uses a simple black screen to transition from one segment to another, a technique that may seem alien to hyperkinetic films of this era, but one that keeps the focus on the characters and the story and not on the visual style of the director. There are plenty of other opportunities for Zhao to leave an impression elsewhere.

The first third of the film slowly introduces us to the two characters that form the center of the story. Paul Mescal plays William Shakespeare, who will one day be recognized as one of the most influential geniuses in history. The other is Agnes Hathaway, historically referred to as Anne and pronounced in the film as Annis. In a performance that defies the concept of  mere acting, Jesse Buckley inhabits this fierce woman, a healer from a woodsman background, who oozes supernatural maternal abilities and a romantic essence that far exceeds mere physical beauty.  I have been a fan of this actress since I saw her in "Wild Rose", and although I have not cared much for some of the subsequent films she has appeared in, my qualms were never about her work. Here, she elevates the brilliant screenplay with a earthy personality and a strength of character that will live in you memory for a long time. That's right, the spouse of the greatest playwright in history, is the character you will care the most about. That is not to diminish the performance of Mescal, who is also excellent, but to recognize that the character and the actress in this film are the core of the story. 

The love story between these two characters takes up the opening segments of the film. The second love story is the adoration that they have for their children and the love that the children have for them and one another. In spite of Will's need to be in London for his profession, he maintains a strong relationship with the family he has left at home. That regular separation however becomes a keystone moment i the story when personal tragedy strikes. Will and Agnes are estranged by the bitterness that follows and the recrimination she bestows on him for his inability to be with them always. It is the hurtful expression of that failing that motivates the most well known and prolific plays, the tragedy of "Hamlet". 

As usual, I don't want to give too much away, but the two main characters have different coping mechanisms when facing death. Agnes has a naturalistic view of the afterlife that is not based in religion per say but in the folklore that she subscribes to.  There is a beautiful scene where the family commemorates the passing of her beloved hawk, a pet she has cared for over many years. That approach fails her when faced with an even larger loss. It is Shakespeare who finds a way for the two of them to remember their cherished loved one, in a way that keeps the promise that Agnes made to him. 

The story plays out slowly, with character details taking up more time than plot incidents. This is a film that is the antithesis of  action films these days, but also comedies and dramas. We have to understand the people in the story for the events to have their full weight. The methodical buildup of family relations, the measured pace of the life they lead, and the lingering moments of beauty in the film are not things that you will encounter very often in contemporary movies. Much to the detriment of the movie going experience. 

For more about this film, watch for this weeks episode of the LAMBcast.

Eternals

 

So this is the third film in Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and so far, they are batting .333. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings was terrific, Black Widow was so-so, and this is warmed over leftovers from a meal that I don't remember ordering. It's not that it's a bad film, it just feels like the DC Universe has rubbed off on the MCU, and that the goal of creating interconnected stories has become more important than telling a compelling story. There are ten new characters that are being put on the plate in front of us and we are supposed to care immediately? I don't think so. This is a distinct group of superheroes, true, but unlike the X-Men, where we got a similar character dump, there is not as much popular history to ease us in, and the characters start fighting amongst themselves before we have much of an idea of how they fit into the whole picture of MCU films. 

The Eternals seem to fit into the same category of human development as the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Their appearance seems to arrive to  prompt civilization in ways that will make the planet and its inhabitants more useful to the universe. Early on however, there is an indicator of a hidden agenda, and after an hour or so of trying to get us familiar with these characters, we are let in on their true purpose and one can legitimately wonder where this idea came from. Part of the plot focuses on the creation of Celestials, who are certainly different creatures as illustrated by "Ego" from "Guardians of the Galaxy V.2" . The brief history we are given here is designed to hide some of the surprises that are instore for the film, but they end up becoming confusing and seem inconsistent with prior knowledge and even things brought up for the first time in this story. 

The Ten new characters are supposed to fight Deviants, who are depicted as mindless animals early on but for some reason develop an ethos later in the film that legitimately, provokes some philosophical  conversation. That conundrum though is quickly overtaken by a sudden change of heart by the leader of  the Earthbound Eternals, Salma Hayek's Ajak. I say it is a sudden turn despite the fact it takes place over a 7000 year period, because in the context of what we learn about the Eternals origins, that is a blink of an eye. For a group of heroes, who supposedly think of themselves as a family, I would say they are a dysfunctional family. There are resentments, jealousy, and apparent psychological trauma in this group. The only time they seem to cooperate is when a Deviant is in the immediate vicinity. The big threat of the story therefore ends up coming primarily from the group itself, rather than an outside force. We seem to have jumped right into "Civil War" without the preceding dozen films that it took for The Avengers to get to. Richard Madden and Gemma Chan as Ikaris and Sersi, are a couple who end up on opposite sides of the dilemma, and it seems completely real that they have broken up as a couple, although there is no hint that this was the reason. 

Clearly the intent of the film makers was to create a team of heroes that is as inclusive as possible. There is a great degree of diversity among the Eternals, but some of it is a little confusing given what we ultimately learn about their origins. There are some interesting ideas in the story that will not get the attention they deserve because there are so many characters. The character of Sprite is eternally pre pubescent, but 7,000 years of life have given her feelings that are not resolvable given her physical development. The emotional choice that she makes seems to be natural, but like everyone else in the story it doesn't last long. Kumail Nanjiani is a hoot as Kingo, but when the climax comes, he is no where to be found. I enjoyed Ma Dong-seok as Gilgamesh, the keeper of the nearly mad Thena played by Angelina Jolie. Their relationship is more touching and believable than any of the others in the film, and that is another problem, Jolie is under utilized and the character of Gilgamesh is not on screen for most of the second half of the film. Brian Tyree Henry as Phastos is supposed to have the sarcastic wit in the film, but it feels way more labored than his work in Godzilla v. Kong, and that is saying something. The Ikea joke falls flat and that was supposed to be the big punchline that they used in the trailer.  

There is a mid-credit scene and a scene after the credits, so the MCU fans will have plenty to speculate on, but they have nothing to do with what we saw and they raise some questions about the relationships we have seen in earlier MCU films. Maybe this will be an extension of themes covered in the comic books, but it is an example of overload in the film. I'm writing this a couple of days after seeing the movie and my memory of the events is already fading. This is a movie intended to launch the new characters in the MCU but it does not do it in a way that is very inspiring. I love the series of films and I want them to grow, but somewhere along the way, the spectacle overwhelmed the characters and stories and that is a problem. Maybe it's just me, my favorite MCU films have been Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and Ant-Man, which were all stand alone stories, so the team up concept takes some time getting used to. James Gunn managed to pull it off with Guardians but director Chloé Zhao, seems like she may have bitten off too big a chunk to have the same result. 

As I said, I did not dislike the movie, I just didn't like it very much. Like all things, maybe it will grow on me, but for now that's where I stand. 

Nomadland

 

So this review is late in coming because I did not see this until after we did our Oscar Preview show on the Lambcast. The others who were on the show recommended it and everyone seems to agree it is the likely Best Picture winner. In our current times, with the limited releases we had this last year, and the way the Academy has consistently trended for several years toward honoring smaller movies, I can 100% understand why this will be the case. It may be limited in scope, and plot and technical innovation, but it is beautiful and it contains another marvelous performance by Francis McDormand.

I am sure that someone, somewhere will find themes in here that will offer a social criticism. In the long run, I don't think that those ideas are what the movie is about or how it should be processed. This is a character study of a woman, who stands in for a number of like minded people, who can't quite adjust to living a rooted life. It seems apparent that she did so for a number of years to be with her beloved husband, but the fact that her whole town vanishes seems to suit her. She is happy to be an itinerant worker, moving from job to job and place to place, in order to satisfy a need for independence that seems to define her and the others she crosses paths with.

As a travelogue, the film shows us some truly beautiful parts of our country, without simply becoming a travelogue. The vistas, sunsets, and roadside stops are all photographed in a way that draws us in but without being showy or self reverential. It is a crisp and efficient way of seeing things and the only time it seems to be drawing attention to itself is when it lingers on an image.  Otherwise, we are seeing the world the way Fern, our main character, would see it. 

While there is a sense of melancholy that hangs over Fern and the other "Nomads", none of them seem to be bitter or unhappy. They are functioning in the moment and who thinks that every moment has to be uplifting for life to be worth? Sure Fern is a displaced person, but she never sees herself as a victim. She has multiple opportunities to settle into a more comfortable lifestyle but rejects those repeatedly because of her wanderlust and desire to be unfettered. As someone who treasures way too many things, quilts, pictures, dishes and even furniture, I know I would have a hard time with her life. McDormand shows Fern to be resourceful, and capable of managing herself. She is friendly but does not want to be encumbered by her friendships. In a number of ways, including the wandering lifestyle, she reminds me of my late sister-in-law Darla. They want to have friendships but they want them on their own terms. Comfort is less important to them than control. The ability to choose for yourself is more important than the consequences of some of those choices. 

The director Chloé Zhao, has a good eye for those things that make the character personal. I don't think the film is a technical marvel or innovative in any way, it is just put together in a manner that works for the kind of movie it is and I think restraint in choices may have much to do with the acclaim that her work on this has achieved. McDormand is a natural for a role like this, she is less fiery than she has been in other pictures where she is the central character, but I think that shows her range pretty well. This is a graceful movie that has a lot going for it. It is contemplative without telling you what to contemplate. It can be read in a number of ways which will probably inspire a thousand think pieces in magazines and cinema schools. The best thing about it is that it seems genuine and true to the person at it's center.