Melania (2026)

 

I have no doubt that this will trigger some of my friends and readers. If there is a more toxic subject on line these days than Trump, I don't know what it is. Implicitly, this movie is likely to be seen as Trump Propaganda, and there is certainly reason to believe that based on some of the content. I think however, that someone capable of critical thinking should be able to separate the political boosterism, from the informational context that is being presented. Those of you who can only see evil in anything related to Trump should probably skip this just out of habit. If you stick with it, I hope you will find an accounting of the film as I saw it.

There are three aspects of the First Lady's movie that I think I would like to talk about, her fashion sense and design background, her goals and role as first lady, and the process of the Inauguration itself, including all the social accoutrements that go along with it. There is some political talk in the film, but it is relatively minor and not the subject that brought me to the film in the first place. One cannot deny that the reason any of this matters is because of her marriage, but that side of the political discussion is out of bounds on this site.

Melania Trump may be the most enigmatic First Lady of my lifetime. Her background seems alien to most of us to begin with. She is not from the political class and she is not from humble beginnings as a girl growing up in an American neighborhood, she is an immigrant who comes from a family steeped in the fashion and design ecosystem.  She has been a model and a fashionista from the earliest moments of her life, but her exposure to Americans as that person has been superficial. This film attempts to show her in a more engaged light. I don't pretend to have any sense of fashion or class elegance, but I can appreciate that there is a reason that state functions are not held on picnic tables with paper plates and Solo cups. I am reminded by that moment in "The Untouchables" when in the depths of despair after the murder of his colleague, Elliot Ness gets off the phone with his wife, he shakes his head in wonderment that somewhere in the world, someone cares about the color of the walls in the kitchen. Melania Trump clearly does.

The opening section of the film follows FLOTUS as she inspects, and approves of various elegant touches related to the Inauguration process. Plates and dinnerware need to be judged. The invitations have to be elegantly presented, the flower arrangements must reflect the dignity of an event. Most of us don't care much about those things, but brides at their own weddings do, diplomats at state functions do, and political powerbrokers care about them as well. So Melania turns her fashion forward eyes to these little things, including her own wardrobe for the Inaugural balls and the ceremony itself. The width of a hat brim and the accompanying band, must be just right. Her confidence in this realm of her position seems unassailable if pretentions. 

In regard to her position as FLOTUS, we learn of her charities and the way she has reached out to the world, in a manner that is sometimes invisible. A Facetime chat with the First Lady of France shows us some of the social functions that go along with politics. These behind the scene moments are the reasons that anyone interested might want to overcome their revulsion of Trump and get some inside skinny. The segment with Aviva Siegel, a Gaza War hostage, talking about the trauma of being held and the fear for her husband who was still in captivity at the time of filming, would certainly be seen by jaded political observers as propaganda, but I saw it as a reflection of true human concern, and a story that was not fleshed out by the media, but gets some sympathetic ears from Melania. 

The time frame for the film is from the first of the year to Inauguration Day on January 20th. There are meetings and public events that all lead up to the start of the new term. We are given an insiders view of some of those moments. The security measures that are required are outlined without revealing anything top secret, and the planned outdoor event got scrapped by the inclement weather in D.C. in January 2025. I was fascinated by the process of moving out the Biden's and moving in the Trumps at the White House.  It was interesting to see up close some of the posturing that went on from each side as the tension in the moment is being assiduously avoided. 

I'm sure MAGA fans will find more to love about this film, and those who hate Trump will find plenty of fuel for their fire as well. As a documentary on the subject it claims to be about, it was generally satisfying. There is not a hard nosed point of view or axe to grind, this was the kind of film one might have seen on Biography or the Discovery channel once upon a time. Because the political factions are so hot right now, it gets turned into a litmus test for idealogues on both sides. I found it to be as innocuous as any other portrait of a First Family might be. Jackie Kennedy giving a tour of the White House, Ladybird Johnson advocating to Keep America Beautiful, Laura Bush promoting reading, Michelle Obama suggesting health exercise, they are all part of the same tradition. The most difficult thing most people these days seem to be incapable of, is digesting an normal tradition as simply being normal. This movie is not a sign of the Apocalypse, and it will end up in a documentary queue on Amazon, with all the other vanilla flavored First Lady documentaries, so relax.

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story (2024)

 

The story of actor Christopher Reeve will forever be tied to the films he is most well known for. He had other accomplishments and struggles, but he was the embodiment of the character of "Superman" in spite of denying any pretentions of heroism. The tragedy that befell him strikes others and leaves them with difficult choices to make and personal challenges to face, but if a hero is someone who can inspire others to face the darkest foes, than Christopher Reeve was at least that kind of hero.

Reeve's rise to film stardom is chronicled along with the accident that made him an icon in a completely different way. This documentary tells his inspiring story through extensive film clips, home videos and media content from the day. Those materials have been woven together with heartfelt interviews of people who loved him, particularly his three children. The complicated backstory of his family is mirrored in his own families origins, but somewhere along the way, he broke the pattern of the stern, unpleasable father figure, and became the kind of man that most fathers would like to be. 

We are given substantial insight into the travails of his life after the accident. Most people who were alive at the time, will remember his dramatic appearance at the Academy Awards and the mostly non-political presentation he gave at the Democratic National Convention. The makers of this film recognize how important it is to remind us of those events, but they spend much more time with the daily struggle, and the emotional toll it puts on his family. Although he was a symbol of hope, there were naysayers in the disabled community who thought his striving for recovery sent the wrong message. That controversy is one of the daily sorts of ideological conundrums that people face from those with different perspectives and ambitions. His staunch embrace of his position on his circumstances makes him another kind of hero as well, one who is heroic for staying true to his beliefs. 

While the story does focus on him, it needs to be said that the film is equally concerned with his wife Dana. She passed just eighteen months after he did, from an unrelated illness, but she was his stalwart defender and inspiration for lasting as long as he did after the riding accident. Dana is also a significant part of the Foundation that they founded to promote progress in helping people with spinal cord injuries. Her fight for those folks was just as strong as his. The three children featured are not kids anymore, they are all adults, carrying on the legacy of Chris and Dana. They may have had different mothers, but it is clear that their father was what helped make the difference in each of their lives.

If you get a chance to see this in a theater, I think you will appreciate the artistry with which it was made. The movie clips of course look great, but the interviews feel warmer on the big screen and when you are speaking of his legacy, that warmth seems to be particularly important. It is probably also best to bring some tissues with you, because the emotional impact of your memory and the courage of couple, will move you. 

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

I am not a big consumer of documentary films, but I do try to see those things that interest me. When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was definitely interested. Most Americans will be familiar with Mr. Rogers even if they were not the audience for the show. Millions of kids have been exposed to his work, and he has been parodied by everyone from Johnny Carson to Eddie Murphy. The trailer evokes a simple and heart-warming approach to the work of a man who for all appearances was genuinely caring about children.

The film has received a lot of hype in the last few weeks. A local entertainment reporter was rapturous in singing it's praise. I do think it is a fine film about a fascinating subject but be cautious of being oversold. My guess is that people offering reviews for this movie are so starved for something worthy and genuine to write about, that they may heap effusive praise on a very good film, and try to pass it off as a great film.

The work that goes into a documentary includes hundreds of hours of research and digging through archives and editing together various film elements. The Academy Award winning director of this film, Morgan Neville, has done a thorough job of finding interesting material to show us, collaborators and friends of Fred Rogers to speak to, and  just a couple of minor controversies to make the story a bit more compelling. The style of the film however is straight forward, there is nothing particularly innovative about the approach here, most of the audience interest in the film is going to stem from the subject matter and personality of the show we are looking at. The winsome charm of Fred Rogers is the draw for this movie.

We will learn a little bit about his early life, he was a seminary student when he became interested in television for children. He was an ordained minister for the Presbyterian Church, and sure to irritate many of those who would like to politicize everything, he was a lifelong Republican. Everything we see in the film suggests that he was a nice man, who believed love was an important part of a child's life and tried to make all children feel loved. Some social critics have tried to tie his open support of children to the Millennial phenomena of entitlement. The link there is so capricious that it hardly needs to be responded to. Mr. Rogers view of a child's need for love stem from biblical concepts not self esteem books. While he was a critic of many children's programs, his criticism was generic to the tone, themes, violence and "bombardment" of kids as opposed to focusing on particular programs.

The need for a movie about this subject at this time seems to be fertilized by all the rancor and hostility in the world. Again, social advocates may try to make hay out of some of the themes and events covered by the documentary, but the true value is that we see a decent man, doing good in the world. He worked hard and was as unassuming in his real life as he seemed to be on television. Everyone should be able to slow down a little and connect with a man who tried to teach children to love one another and set an example for adults as well. That's as much endorsement as a movie like this needs. "A little kindness makes a world of difference."