‘Is This Thing On’ Bradley Cooper’s Third film @63rd NYFF
Comedy and tragedy masks couple side by side for a reason. Bradley Cooper’s third (A Star is Born, Maestro) directorial outing, Is This Thing On?, adds meaning to the notion that misery loves comedy. Will Arnett and Laura Dern play a couple whose separation leads to catharsis and regeneration when Alex turns to comedy to lighten his soul’s unhappiness. Is This Thing On? a World Premiere in the Main Slate section of the 63rd New York Film Festival, screened as the festival closing night film.
Cooper incisively shepherds the intimate and naturalistic performances of Will Arnett (Alex) and Laura Dern (Tessa). The actors portray a long-time married couple. In the opening film scene both agree without fireworks and fanfare (while Tessa brushes her teeth) to call “it” (their marriage thing) off.
Throwing the typical divorce sequences out the window, Cooper skips to the aftermath of the separation and Alex and Tessa’s amicability. First, they split custody of their two 10-year-old sons, played with sharp comedic timing by Blake Kane and Calvin Knegten. Secondly, after the opening shot of agreeing about “it,” we note by the next time they get together with their couple friends (Andra Day & Cooper, Sean Hayes & Scott Icenogle) Alex moved into an apartment in New York City. Meanwhile, Tessa remains in their house with their playful Labradoodles and sorrowful sons who comment that their parents argued a lot.
One evening instead of going home to his empty, lonely apartment after seeing Tessa and friends, Alex saves a few bucks cover charge by adding his name to the open mic list of a basement comedy club (The Comedy Cellar). As a possible joke on himself, Alex sheepishly takes the mic. However, when he spontaneously, unabashedly, surprisingly vomits out personal information about his marriage, a lot of it morose, some of it funny, the last thing the self-loathing Alex imagines, then happens. He gets a few laughs and lots of encouragement from the crowd of wannabe comedians.
In a fantastic twist, Cooper cast many of these real-life comics as audience members. Their authentic jumble of responses picked up by sound designers works to create the naturalistic environment where Alex slowly recharges his deadened mojo.
A guy can get used to this shot of adrenaline to stave off his soul’s sickness. Maybe if he returns a few times, he can reveal to himself what the hell happened emotionally and psychically that caused him to end up alone, without his wife and kids on the doomed path to divorce. If expiation indeed softens a crusty-edged, hardened, sad sack, perhaps more spilling of his guts will be the medicine he needs to ameliorate the hell within.
Thus, the initial few laughs and non judgmental camaraderie of fellow comic wannabes trigger Alex to return for another open mic night. And once more, Alex’s self-abasing confessions to himself and the crowd magically lift his spirits. Alex’s serendipitous impulse not to take his inner angst to heart blossoms. As he evolves his comedic timing and content, he resolves he can become a better person through confessional stand-up comedy. There’s nothing like getting in touch with one’s inner hell via artful performance, where self-reflection brings about self-correction.
Alternating scenes, Alex’s new revelatory jokes at the comedy club, with Tessa and friends meet-ups, we note the gradual change in Alex’ emotions and moods. Even his friend Balls (Cooper in a funny, facially hirsute turn), tells him that maybe he will divorce his wife (the beautiful Andra Day) following Alex’s route, because he seems happier unmarried.
This revolutionary way to deal with divorce among a community of comics really happened to British stand up comedian John Bishop. The true events inspired the script by Cooper, Arnett and Mark Chappell with some of the uneven dialogue prompted by extemporaneous ad libs by the cast.
Interestingly, Alex’s wayward jokes that don’t land had to be worked on by Will Arnett and Cooper. In a Q and A after the screening Cooper grinned when he said that Arnett’s humor out-shined Alex’s and had to be tamped down. Thus, the jokes never flow seamlessly like a professional’s patter since Alex must find his way through trial and error. Likewise, Alex and Tessa’s relationship which took a hairpin turn with their break up, takes another when Tessa goes on a friend/date (with Peyton Manning) in a cute set-up for the possibility of her first sexual encounter after the split.
Where do they show up? At the comedy club where Alex hits a new high/low discussing his first sexual encounter after his break-up. What did he learn from the sex? He tells the audience in a heartfelt moment he missed his wife. Pleasantly surprised and turned on to hear that Alex missed her, Tessa confronts Alex about his “letting it all hang out” riff at the club. Though Tessa’s appearance at the club with her date smacks of contrivance, the coincidence is delicious for the next plot twist. This hearkens back to the film’s title. Finding their attraction to each other rekindled, do they or don’t they get back together? When and where the answer arrives adds hilarity to their tenuous situation.
Importantly, their dead-ended relationship moved off its axis opening up new possibilities. Finally, they communicate their feelings beyond arguing. And just as Alex has found a new trajectory and hope with his comedy club appearances, Tessa returns to her love of volleyball as a former Olympic player, sharing her skills and expertise as a professional coach.
Meanwhile, Alex’s parents (Christine Ebersole and Ciarán Hinds) weigh in with their opinions, though they refuse to choose sides to keep the peace. In targeting the complexity of human relationships, Cooper shows the difficulties in letting go of an old, tired relationship stuck in destructive grooves. Also, he mines the ground of rebuilding a relationship and setting it in another positive direction. With that reconstruction also comes the rebuilding of identity and self-worth if they couple uses the opportunity of a break to begin a renewal.
Dern and Arnett are terrific surrounded by a great supporting cast. These include the actors mentioned above and additionally Amy Sedaris and New York stand up standbys for example Reggie Conquest, Jordan Jensen, Chlore Radcliffe. These comedians help to make the film a love letter to New York and its downtown scene.
For the description of Is This Thing On? at the 63rd NYFF go to their website. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/is-this-thing-on/ The film will be released December 19th.
Keanu Reeves, Alex Winter carry Ted and Bill into the adventure of ‘Waiting for Godot’
Referencing the past with Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure movie series, something has happened. Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves), who long dropped their younger selves and reached maturity in Bill and Ted Face the Music (2020), have accomplished the extraordinary. They’ve fast forwarded to a place they’ve never been before in any of their adventures. An existential oblivion of uncertainty, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.
There, they cavort and wallow in a hollowed out, megaphone-shaped, wind-tunnel (Soutra Gilmore’s clever set design). The gaping maw is starkly, thematically lighted by Jon Clark. Ben & Max Ringham’s sound design resonates the emptiness of the hollow which Winter’s Valdimir and Reeves Estragon fill up to the brim with their presence. And, among other things, Estragon loudly snacks on invisible turnips and carrots, and some chicken bones.
Oh, and a few others careen into their empty hellscape. One is a pompous, bullish, land-owning oligarch with a sometime southern accent, whose name, Pozzo, means oil well in Italian (a superb Brandon J. Dirden in a sardonic casting choice). And then there is his slave, for all oligarchs must have slaves to lord over, mustn’t they? Pozzo’s DEI slave in a wheelchair, seems misnamed Lucky (the fine Michael Patrick Thornton).
However, before these former likenesses of their former selves show up and startle the down-on-their luck Vladimir and Estragon, the two stars of oblivion wait for something, anything to happen. Maybe the dude Godot, who they have an arrangement with, will show up on stage at the Hudson Theatre. Maybe not. At the end of Act I he sends an angelic looking Boy to tell them he will be there tomorrow. A silent echo perhaps rings in the stillness of the oblivion where the hapless tramps abide.
Despite the strangeness of it all, one thing is certain. Bill and Ted are together again for another adventure that promises to be like no other. First, they’ve landed on Broadway, dressed as hobos in bowler hats playing clowns for us, who happily watch and wait for Godot with them. And it doesn’t matter whether they tear it up or tear it down. The excellent novelty of these two appearing live as Didi (Vladimir) and Gogo (Estragon), another dimension of Bill and Ted, illuminates Beckett.
Keanu Reeves’ idea to have another version of their beloved characters confront Samuel Beckett’s tragicomical questions in Waiting for Godot seems an anointed choice. It is the next step for these bros to “party on,” albeit with unsure results. However, they do well fumfering around in this hollowed out world, a setting with no material objects. The director has removed the tree, the whip, or any props. Thus, we concentrate on their words. Between their riffs of despair, melancholy, hopelessness and trauma, they have playful fun, considering the existential value of life. Like all of us, if they knew what circumstances meant in the overall arc of their lives, they wouldn’t be so lost.
Director Jamie Lloyd, unlike previous outings (A Doll’s House, Sunset Boulevard), keeps Beckett’s script without alteration. Why not? Rhythmic, poetic, terse, seemingly repetitive and excessively opaque, in their own right, the spoken words ring out, regardless of who speaks them. That the characters of Bill and Ted are subsumed by Beckett’s Didi and Gogo makes complete sense.
What would they or anyone do if there was no intervention or salvation as occurs fancifully in the Bill and Ted adventure series? They’d be waiting for salvation, foiled and hopeless about the emptiness and uselessness of existence without definition. Indeed, politically isn’t that what some in a nation of unwitting, passively oppressed do? Hope for salvation by a greater “someone,” when the only possibility is self-defined, self-salvation? How long does it take to realize no one is coming to help? Maybe if they help themselves, Godot will join in the work of helping them find their own way out of oblivion. But just like the politically passive who do nothing, the same situation occurs here. Godot is delayed. Didi and Gogo do nothing but play a waiting game.
From another perspective eventually unlike political passives they compel themselves to act. And these acts they accomplish with excellent abandon. They have fun.
And so do we watching, listening, wondering and waiting with them. Their feelings within a humorous dynamic unfold in no particular direction with a wide breadth of expression. Sometimes they want to hang themselves to end the frustration. Sometimes, bored, they engage in swordplay with words. Sometimes they rage. Through it all they have each other. And despite wanting to separate and go their own ways, they do find each other comforting. After all, that’s what friends are for in Jamie Lloyd’s anything is probable Waiting for Godot.
In Act I they are tentative, searching their memories for where they are and if they are. Continually, they circle the truth, considering where the one is who said they were coming. However, the situation differs in Act II because the Boy gave them the message about Godot.
In Act II they cut loose: chest bump, run up and down their circular environs like gyrating skateboarders seamlessly navigating curvilinear walls. By then, the oblivion becomes familiar ground. They relax because they can relax, accustomed to the territory. And we spirits out there in the dark, who watch them, become their familiar counterparts, too. Maybe it’s good that Godot isn’t coming, yet. They may as well while away the time. Air guitar anyone? Yes, please. Reality is what we make it. Above all, we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. In the second act they don’t. After all, they could turn out like Pozzo and Lucky. So they do have fun while the sun shines, until they don’t and return right back to square one: they wait.
As for Pozzo and Lucky a further decline happens. In Act I Lucky gave a long, unintelligible speech that sounded full of meaning. In Act II Lucky is mute. Pozzo, becomes blind and halt, dependent upon Lucky to move. He reveals his spiritual and physical misery and haplessness by crying out for help. On the one hand, the oppressor caves in on himself via the oppression of his own flesh. On the other hand, he still exploits Lucky whom he leads, however awkwardly. The last shreds of his bellicosity and enslavement of Lucky hang by a thread.
Pozzo has become only a bit less debilitated than Lucky, whereas before, his identity commanded. Fortunately for Pozzo Lucky doesn’t revolt and leave him or stop obeying him. Instead, he takes the role of the passive one, while Pozzo still acts the aggressor, as enfeebled as he is. The condition happened in the twinkling of an eye with no explanation. Ironically, his circumstances have blown most of the bully out of him and reduced him to a pitiable wretch.
Nevertheless, Didi and Gogo acknowledge Pozzo and Lucky’s changes with little more than offhanded comments. What them worry? Their life-giving miracle happened. They have each other. It’s a congenial, permanent arrangement. After that, when the Boy shows up to tell them the “bad” news, that Godot has been delayed, yet again, and maybe will be there tomorrow, it’s OK. There’s no “sound and fury” as there is in Macbeth’s speech about “tomorrows.” We and they know that they will persist and deliver themselves and each other into their next clown show, tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
If one rejects the comparison of this version of Waiting for Godot with others they may have seen, that wisdom will yield results. To my thinking comparing versions takes the delight out of the work. The genius of Beckett is that his words/dialogue and characters stand on their own, made alive by the personalities of the actors and their choices. I’ve enjoyed actors take up this great work and turn themselves upside down into clown princes. Reeves and Winter have an affinity and humility for this uptake. And Lloyd lets them play, as he damn well should.
In the enjoyment and appreciation of their antics, the themes arrive. I’ve seen greater and lesser lights in these roles. Unfortunately, I allowed their personalities and their gravitas to distract me and take up too much space, crowding out my delight. In allowing Waiting for Godot to settle into fantastic farce, Lloyd and the exceptional cast tease out greater truths. These include the indomitably of friendship; the importance of fun; the tediousness of not being able to get out of one’s own way; the uselessness of self-victimizing complaint; the vitality and empowerment of self-deliverance, and the frustration of certain uncertainty.
Waiting for Godot runs approximately two hours five minutes with one intermission, through Jan. 4 at the Hudson Theatre. godotbroadway.com.
‘Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost’ Ben Stiller Honors his Parents’ Legacy @NYFF
In the Q and A after the screening of his documentary about his parents, Ben Stiller quipped “…my parents who couldn’t be here, I hope they’re OK with it. There’s no way to really check on that. I hope the projector doesn’t break.” Well, the projector didn’t break and no rumbling of thunder, falling lights or crashing symbols happened. So, they must be “OK” with the film. Certainly, the audience showed their pleasure with long applause and cheers. In one section near me they gave a standing ovation for Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost.
Ben and Amy Stiller’s film collaboration about their parents, directed by Ben Stiller, screened in its World Premiere in the Spotlight section of the 63rd NYFF. Employing their experience in the entertainment industry, Ben Stiller (comedian, actor, writer, director, producer) and sister Amy Stiller (comedian, actress) explore their parents’ impact on each others’ lives and careers to then influence their children’s lives. In the latter part of the film we note this multigenerational family project also includes Stiller’s wife, Christine Taylor Stiller; and his children Ella and Quinlin Stiller.
However, in order to begin to tell the story of three generations of Stillers, the siblings reach back before their parents’ marriage and their births. From that vantage point they first examine how Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara met. Then they explore how Jerry and Anne shared their interests and talents. Recognizing that they could work together, they created the successful comedy duo that Ed Sullivan first invited on his show in April of 1963.
Enamored of them as performers and people because their ethnic and religious backgrounds mirrored Sullivan and his wife’s, Stiller and Meara returned to the show again and again. Because they were funny and made their comedy relationship/marriage sparkle, they were a hit. In reflecting on this, Stiller shows a number of clips from the archives and even meets with Steven Colbert at the theater named for Ed Sullivan (the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City). The two of them discuss what it must have been like to audition live as unknowns and hit the ground running on a nationally aired program that millions watched every week.
Using clips from that show, and other TV shows, films, theater and more, Stiller cobbles together a delightful, honest, intimate and funny chronicle of his parent’s marriage on and off camera. The director delves into their unique styles and talents which gave them their comedy act. Stiller insists that his dad struggled to be funny and constantly had to work at it. On the other hand his mom found humor naturally and could “ad lib” humorous riffs effortlessly. His dad so admired this about her talent.
Importantly, Stiller captures the history of that time which contributes to our understanding of the nation’s social fabric. Their work historically reflected 60s humor that appealed then but still has an appeal today. Though they worked together and refined their act for years, eventually, they worked separately. Stiller discusses how and why this happened. Essentially because they wanted different things and were their own people, they tried their own TV shows. Then other opportunities came their way.
Humorously, his documentary reflects his parents’ relationship so it became difficult to know when the comedy act ended and where their real marriage began. Perhaps it was a combination of all and/or both. Since his Dad saved tons of memorabilia (photos, programs, reviews, clips, tapes, videos, home movies) from their lives, Ben makes good use of these artifacts.
Additionally, Stiller reveals the more personal and intimate aspects of himself and Amy growing up with his parents. Principally, he uses this perspective to show the parallels with his parents’ relationship as he briefly looks at his marriage with his wife and relationship with his children. One segment has interviews with Christine, Ella and Quin. Importantly, he relates their perceptions with his attitude toward his parents growing up.
This project that began after Jerry Stiller died in 2020 and took five years to complete saw Stiller and his wife Christine through a separation and getting back together again. Stiller looked at how his parents kept their marriage together through the pressures of performing together. That reflection influenced him in his relationship with Christine.
As Stiller worked on selecting how to approach the film with the material left to him and his sister, a concept came to him about legacy. Indeed, the documentary forms a portrait of a family whose legacy of humor, creativity and prodigious hard work has passed down from generation to generation.
In short the film reveals that Stiller and his sister Amy are humorous acorns that don’t fall far from their ironic and funny parental oaks. Amy and Ben’s sharp wit from his mom and dogged perfectionism from his Dad, come into play in the creation of this film. Mindful that all of his family’s lives are in his hands, with poetic consideration Stiller’s profile of those most dear to him is heartfelt, balanced and emblematic of a gentler, loving, kinder time. We need to see examples of this more than ever. To read up on the film description and to see additional photos, go to the NYFF website. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/stiller-meara/
An Apple Original Films release, look for Stiller & Meara: Nothing is Lost in select theaters on October 17, 2025. It receives wide release on October 24th.
Jodie Foster? C’est Magnifique in ‘A Private Life’ @NYFF
In its New York City premiere in the Spotlight section of the New York Film Festival, Jodie Foster speaks French in her starring role in A Private Life. Having spoken French as a child, Foster planned to act an entire role in French for years. She finally found the right vehicle in director Rebecca Zlotowski’s capricious, ironically funny murder mystery, which also is a character study.
Foster portrays Dr. Lilian Steiner, a neurotic American psychoanalyst in Paris, whose compartmentalized, controlled life takes a weird turn. This occurs after she discovers her patient Paula (Virginie Efira), who gives no signs of severe depression or psychosis, commits suicide. Indeed, Foster’s character believes she couldn’t have misdiagnosed her, so she questions what happened.
Events cascade into chaos when Foster’s Steiner refuses to accept the suicide determination of Paula’s death and believes someone, possibly Paula’s husband or daughter, killed her. When she attends Paula’s memorial service, invited by daughter Valerie (Luàna Bajrami), Paula’s husband Simon (Mathieu Amalric), angrily evicts her from Paula’s funeral. Simon blames her for over-medicating Paula and pushing her over the edge.
His furious response to her as a terrible therapist liable for his wife’s depression and suicide dovetails with another patient’s angry response to her. The other patient claims that her expensive treatment to help him stop smoking over the years didn’t work. Instead, he engages holistic therapy, a hypnotist, Jessica Grangé (Sophie Guillemin). She helps him stop smoking in record time. Not only does he fire Dr. Steiner, eventually, he files a lawsuit against her to recoup his thousands of dollars that he spent in useless therapy sessions.
To add insult to injury that her professional career has seen better days, we discover her personal life’s problems in a reversal: physician heal thyself before you practice therapy. Divorced (she couldn’t hold her marriage together with ex-husband Gabriel [Daniel Auteuil]), Lilian visits her grown son to bond with her recently born grandson. First, Julian (Vincent Lacoste), who doesn’t seem pleased to see her, warns her not to wake the baby. Then, when he does wake, she claims she has a cold. After all, she doesn’t want to hold him and make him sick. So a potentially warm visit turns “cold” and blows up in their faces, annoying Julian.
We note Lilian’s aloofness even spills out onto her ex husband Gabriel, an ophthalmologist she drops in on because her eyes tear uncontrollably. When he pronounces that the examination shows no issues with her eyesight, we understand his care and concern for her. They remain friends probably because of Julian. However, he can’t help her unmistakable tearing up and crying.
Thus, perhaps out of initial curiosity, she seeks out her former patient’s hypnotist to get relief for her “crying.” That she seeks out the unscientific approach of a regression therapist to stop her teary eyes makes little sense. Have upsetting events (Paula’s suicide, Simon’s rage and her other patient’s fury), triggered Lilian? Rather than to reconsider her own shortcomings as a therapist and human being and examine how she contributed to the stressful circumstances, she distracts herself.
The humor comes out in the scene with the hypnotist who regresses Lilian. A hallucinatory sequence unfolds in the past taking her back to WW II and the Nazi occupation. This rational, reserved doctor accepts the hypnotist’s suggestions, after they discuss what she “saw” that relates to Paula. Suggesting Lilian had a romance with Paula in their past lives, she says this causes the crying. Apparently, she mourns Paula whom she loved during WWII as musicians in the same orchestra whose conductor was Simon.
Because Foster’s consummate acting skills elevate the scene to the edge of credulity, we follow Lilian’s acceptance of the hypnotist’s analysis, despite its ridiculousness.
As one fantastic notion leads to another, Lilian believes either Valerie or Simon murdered Paula. Since Lilian refuses to look at the prescription she wrote for Paula’s medication which Valerie hands to her as proof of negligence, we understand why she may choose to cling to the hypnotist’s analysis. Lilian would rather believe in a fantasy than examine her own actions as Valerie suggests she do. As a result she becomes obsessed with investigating foul play which involves Paula’s murder by the usual suspects, those closest to her.
Additional events occur which prompt Lilian to believe her suspicions are correct. In her adventures, she elicits Gabriel’s help after she shares her ideas with the police. Gabriel hops onboard the investigation out of love and attraction to his former wife. Together, their search for the truth becomes a caper they enjoy. As they uncover clues, this rational physician continues with the irrational in search of Paula’s murderer. Happily excited, she discovers a motive for their prime suspect. During these segments, which involve skullduggery on a rainy night, witnessing a sexual act, and searching where they shouldn’t, the director employs Foster and Auteuil’s prodigious acting talents. The humor, suspense, thrilling adventure, and resurgent romance they create between the characters engage and delight us.
The director gives a nod to classic films in the murder mystery genre from Hitchcock to Woody Allen. However, the final clue to the true circumstances are suggested by Lilian’s psychiatrist Dr. Goldstein (Frederick Wiseman). Perhaps the events she construes redirect her from the truth of the circumstances about the medication she prescribed for Paula. So what events happened and what didn’t? And what of the hallucinations and during regression and flashback visions afterward when Paula speaks to her? Which ring true?
With three or four twists, humorously sidelined by the director, eventually Lilian finds her way back to rationality. There, she meets herself coming. Also, she reconciles with family and understands how to be a better psychoanalyst in a humorous conclusion.
Foster steers the film with grace, likability and frenetic energy as the character attempts to discover a truth she has made for herself without realizing it. Eventually, she does. Thanks to great supporting performances by Auteuil and others, A Private Life delivers. The film resonates, more of a gem to revisit and appreciate than an eye-catching knockout to forget. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/a-private-life/
‘Father Mother Sister Brother’ With Adam Driver, Cate Blanchett, Tom Waits @NYFF
Father Mother Sister Brother
Jim Jarmusch’s Golden Lion award winner at the Venice Film Festival is a quiet, seemingly unadventurous film that nevertheless packs a punch. Instead of car chases and bombs exploding, Jarmusch employs subtext, nuance and quietude to convey family alienation.. His dangerous IUDs include slight gestures, a raised eyebrow here, a smile there and stilted, abrupt silences throughout.
Jarmusch quipped in the Q and A during the 63rd NYFF screening about such captured details of human behavior. To focus on nuances and what they reveal becomes much more difficult to film and edit rather than “12 zombies coming out of the ground.” Certainly the laconic characters portrayed by superb award winning actors (Charlotte Rampling, Adam Driver, Cate Blanchette, Tom Waits, Vicky Krieps, the beautiful Indya Moore and Luka Sabbat), hold one’s attention as masters of understatement. Indeed, Jarmusch forces us to carefully observe them because of what they don’t say, as they ride the pauses between what they do express.
Jarmusch’s triptych of meet-ups among family members rings with authenticity. Principally because Jarmusch wrote the parts for the actors he selected, the dialogue and situations unfold seamlessly. Of course the stilted silences fill in the gaps between parents and children when both are fronting about what is true and real. To what extent do we cut off 80% of what we would like to say to “keep the peace,” “mask our true emotions” or “get over?”
The film divides familial separation into three scenarios in three locales. In the last sequence, the separation has no hope of reconciliation. In the first scenario a slick, quirky father (Tom Waits) hosts his children (Adam Driver, Mayim Bialik). In their ride to his house in a wooded area by a lake, the brother and sister discuss how their father has difficulty making ends meet and may have dementia. Ironically, when they share that he hits them up for money, they haltingly discuss that they give it to him. Sister Mayim Bialik humorously comments that the frequency and amount may have contributed to her brother’s divorce. Then she ruefully realizes her insulting remark and apologizes. Their conversation reveals, they too, display an awkwardness with each other.
Of course this ramps up when they sit down with their father who offers them only water to drink, instead of something more. However, his wife, their mother passed, so assumptions abound. For example, they assume his shabby, messy living room signifies he struggles with her loss. And perhaps his lack of funds and sloppiness reveal a purposelessness in his own life without her. However, when Jarmusch has the children leave, we note the reality behind the assumptions. Waits’ Dad transforms into someone else. Not only have the grown children underestimated their father, they’ve completely misread his personality, character and intentions.
The scene is heavy with humor. Indeed, it reminds us that the Italian proverb “You have to eat 100 pounds of salt with someone to understand them,” isn’t an exaggeration. And this thematic thrust Jarmusch has fun with in the next scenario as well.
The second interlude takes place in Ireland, where a wealthy novelist mother (Charlotte Rampling) hosts a formal tea for her grown daughters who live in Dublin (Vicky Krieps and Cate Blanchett). The lush setting and table filled with all the proper treats for an afternoon tea impress. However, the sophistication of the setting adds to the cold atmosphere among the daughters and mother who play act at niceties. The daughters appear at opposite ends of their lives. Kreps with pink hair contrasts with Blanchett outfitted with glasses, short cropped hair and regressed to dour blandness. Rampling’s remote, regal mom presides over all austerely.
Before the daughters arrive, the mother reveals her attitude about the tea. Krieps alludes to a relationship with another woman. However, none of the interesting frequencies in their real lives come to the table. Instead, they drink tea politely accomplishing a duty to their blood. Truly, folks may be related by DNA, but their likenesses, interests, values and personalities may have little alignment with their blood kinship. We do choose our friends and are stuck with family relations.
Interestingly, the third segment returns to the theme of children not understanding their parents, who grow up in a different time warp. In Paris, two lovely-looking fraternal twins (Indya Moore and Luka Sabbat) make a return visit to their late parents’ spacious apartment. Their parents, who died in a plane crash, have separated from them for the rest of their mortal lives. As they walk through the empty apartment then go to their parent’s storage unit, they confront the impact of their parent’s deaths. Additionally, they marvel at their parents’ things. These had little significance to them but had meaning to their parents who kept them and paid for the storage.
Of the three scenarios, in the last one Jarmusch reveals the love between the siblings. Additionally, he reveals a potential closeness to their parents. As they go through a few old photos, they show their admiration and they mourn. However, what remains but memories and the stuff in the storage unit whose meaning is lost to them? The heartfelt poignance of the last scenario contrasts with the other family scenarios and lightly holds a greater message that Jarmusch doesn’t shove down our throats.
Jarmusch’ Father Mother Sister Brother reveals profound concepts about family, human complication and mystery of every human being, who may not even be knowable to themselves.
Father Mother Sister Brother releases in US theaters at a perfect time for family gatherings, December 24, 2025 via MUBI, where it will stream at a later date. For the write up and information at the 63rd NYFF, go to this link. https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/father-mother-sister-brother/
‘Anemone’ @NYFF Brings Daniel Day-Lewis’ Sensational Return
Supporting his son Ronan Day-Lewis’ direction in a collaborative writing effort, Daniel Day-Lewis comes out of his 8-year retirement to present a bravura performance in Anemone. The film, his son’s directing debut, screened as a World Premier in the Spotlight section of the 63rd NYFF.
Ronan Day-Lewis’ feature resonates with power. First, the eye-popping natural landscapes captured by Ben Fordesman’s cinematography stun with their heightened visual imagery. Secondly, the striking, archetypal symbols illuminate redemptive themes. Day-Lewis uses them to suggest sacrifice, faith and love conquer the nihilistic evils visited upon Ray (Daniel Day-Lewis) and ultimately his entire family.
Finally, the emotionally powerful, acute performances, especially by Daniel Day-Lewis’ Ray and Sean Bean’s Jem, help to create riveting and memorable cinema.
The title of the film derives from the anemone flower’s symbolic, varied meanings. For example, one iteration relates to Greek mythology in the story of Aphrodite, whose mourning tears, shed after her lover Adonis’ death and loss, fell on the ground and blossomed into anemones. Also referenced as “windflowers,” anemone petals open in spring and are scattered on the wind. Possibly representing purity, innocence, honesty and new beginnings, the film’s white anemones grow abundantly in the woodland setting where reclusive Ray makes his home in a Northern England forest.
In a rustic, simplistic hermit-like retreat Ray lives in self-isolation, alienated from his family. Then one day, his brother Jem, prompted by his wife Nessa (Samantha Morton), mysteriously arrives. The director focuses on the action of his arrival withholding identities. Gradually through the dialogue and the rough interactions, heavy with paced, long silences, we discover answers to the mysteries of the estranged family. Furthermore, we learn the characters’ tragic underpinnings caused by searing events from the past. Finally we understand their motivations and close bonds despite the estrangement. By the conclusion family restoration and reconciliation begins.
Unspooling the backstory slowly, the director requires the audience’s patience. Selectively, he releases Ray’s emotional outbursts. These reveal his decades long internal conflict with himself, for not standing up to the perpetrators of his victimization. Neither Jem nor Nessa (Samantha Morton), Ray’s former girlfriend who Jem married after Ray abandoned her and their son, know his secrets. However, the slow revelations of abuse spill out of Ray, as Jem lives with him and endures his ill treatment and rage.
Each brief teasing out of pain-laced information that Jay spews impacts Jem. Because Jem receives strength and understanding from his faith, he puts up with Ray. Indeed, the various segments of Jay’s story seem structured as turning points. Each moves us deeper into Jay’s soul and Jem’s acceptance. Cleverly, by listening to his brother and encouraging him to speak, Jem breaks down Ray’s resistance.
Ray and Jem’s emotional releases trigger and manipulate each other. Once set off, the revelations full of anguish and subtext fall in slow motion like dominoes. Then, climactic sequences augment to an explosive series of events. One, a treacherous wind and hail storm, represents the subterranean rage and turmoil which all of the characters must expurgate before they can heal and come together.
Jay particularly suffered and needs healing. Throughout his life the patriarchal institutions he trusted betrayed and abused him. From his home life (his father), to the church (a cleric), and the military (his immediate superiors), emotional blows attack his soul and psyche. Also, the military makes an example of him. Not only was the abuse unjustified and misunderstood, the perpetrators covered it up and forced his silence. The cruel, forced complicity makes his life a misery in a perpetuating cycle of guilt and shame.
As a result, because Jay’s self-loathing pushes him deeper within his pain, he can’t discuss what happened with his family or anyone else. Of course, he refuses to get help in therapy. Instead, he escapes into nature for solace and peace. The society’s corruptions and his family’s still embracing the institutions that abused him stoke his anger and enmity.
Neglecting his brother Jem, Nessa and his son Brian, who is grown and needs him, Jay perpetrates a psychological violence on them. None of them understand Jay’s abandonment. Sadly, Ray’s absence and rejection shape Brian’s life. Embittered and violent, he endangers himself and others.
How Day-Lewis achieves Ray’s epiphany through Jem’s love occurs in an indirect line of storytelling, through Ray’s monologues and the edgy dialogue between Jem and Ray. By alternating scenes of Nessa and Brian in the city with the brothers in the forest, we realize that time is of the essence. Jem must convince Ray to return to their home to make amends with his son Brian as soon as possible because of a looming threat.
Ultimately, the slow movement in the beginning dialogue could have been speeded up with a trimming of the silences. However, Day-Lewis purposes the quiet between the brothers for a reason whether critics or audience members “get it” or not. The silences reveal an other-worldly, telepathic bond between the brothers. Likewise, on another level Ray’s son Brian connects with his father spiritually, though they are miles away. The director underscores this through Nessa who understands both father and son need each other. Nessa encourages Jem to bring Ray home to Brian. Day-Lewis also uses symbolic visual imagery to suggest the spiritual bond between father and son.
In Anemone, the themes run deep, as the filmmakers explore how love covers a multitude of hurts and wrongdoings. Anemone releases in wider expansion on October 10th in select theaters. For its 63rd New York Film Festival announcement go to https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/anemone/
‘Punch’ Makes its Vital Impact on Broadway
In 2025 when US citizens witness violence by those who profess patriotism, conservatism and religious fervor, one must look past the cognitive dissonance for clarity and understanding. Though the setting of Punch is Nottingham, England between 2011-2025, it is representative. The initial events might have happened in the US or any other country where punches are thrown as a right of passage for strapping young men. For these reasons Punch at Manhattan Theatre Club arrives at a crucial time.
Importantly, the heartfelt drama explores trending social concepts and themes that impact our cultural well being. The play presses hot button issues with vitality and energy. It examines the ethos of violence as the evidence of weakness. It explores how accountability for wrongdoing must be a part of rehabilitation or the likelihood of rehabilitation decreases. Finally, through the arc of the protagonist’s transformation, the play reveals that restorative justice can promote self-forgiveness and healing.
Based on Jacob Dunne’s book Right from Wrong, playwright James Graham with crystal clarity squares off against the confusion associated with brawling as thrilling, fun and justifiable. The play identifies the societal constructs that in the last decade have been infused with political nuance to exploit division and violence. Such constructs lift up physical assault as an emblem of masculinity. Likewise, they demean and dismiss kindness, compassion and empathy as true measures of strength and power.
Through Graham’s well-articulated characterizations of Jacob (the sensational Will Harrison), whose one punch kills James, and James’ mom Joan (the equally sensational Victoria Clark), we learn that redemption, forgiveness and hope are not empty words bandied about after violent acts that kill. Made alive by spiritual goodness, the process of redemption and forgiveness can manifest positive results. And with hope and persistence, nihilistic behavior can be turned around.
The two act structure of Punch stylized by minimal sets and props put to suggestive use seems front-loaded with exposition in the first act. In the prologue Graham carefully creates the circumstances moving from the present to Jacob’s past during the fateful night that changed his life. In the present Jacob barely is able to articulate what happened to a facilitator and “circle group” in an initial therapy session. To them he describes the night of Raf’s birthday celebration and the reasons how and why the confrontation with a stranger upends his life.
Principally through his precise descriptions, the choreographed action via Leanne Pinder’s movement direction, and director Adam Penford’s staging of Jacob and his mates, we understand how and why the killing happened. After they celebrate with drugs and pub crawls, his friends scatter in various directions planning to meet up later. Jacob runs into a girl, Claire (Camila Canó-Flaviá) and has a brief flirtation. Then, Raf phones him for some “action” going down at Yates’ Bar in Market Square. For Jacob, “You always step in, your mate, my mates, your people.”
Sadly, Jacob allows himself to be Raf’s and his friends’ tool. Jacob describes that he arrives at Market Square where they wait for him but they take no responsibility for their own provocation. Helping his “mates” Jacob slams a man with his fist during what he assumes to be a brawl. With one blow, he knocks down the guy he doesn’t know whose name he discovers later is James. It is a punch that lasts forever, symbolized effectively in a freeze frame tableau and directed lighting.
In the first act the events move to James’ parents David (Sam Robards) and Joan (Victoria Clark), who deal with James’s condition and eventual diagnosis that he can’t just sleep off being drunk in the ER. Through a series of acute, brief questions, Joan queries David why James needs hospitalization. We divine he received a severe concussion. Subsequently, a diagnosis comes. A brain bleed requires James to have surgery. However, he never regains consciousness. After a decision to pull him off life support, his parents review how and why their giving, gentle, twenty-eight year old son died.
In his circle group, Jacob discusses his childhood, parents divorce, change of living arrangements and choice of friends in school. Jacob makes the point that his early decisions to choose one group of friends over another directly influenced his life negatively. Additionally, trouble in his school work because of autism adds to his alienation from school, his feelings of inferiority and need to fit in with “his mates.” For them engaging in violence bonds them together in a show of masculinity and power.
These scenes and Jacob’s discussing his jail time and encouragement by convicts to seek revenge on Raf for tipping off the police alternate with scenes between David and Joan. The couple discuss wonderful memories of James, the trial, appeals for a tougher sentence for their son’s killer and the underestimation of the “one punch” that frequently causes death. In another turning point, Joan discusses the uselessness of the situation where she feels no relief. In seeking relief, she ends up in a program called “restorative justice.” During the program she communicates with Jacob who is encouraged by his social worker (Camila Canó-Flaviá) and parole officer (Lucy Taylor).
Segments of the first act might have been streamlined and tightened as the repetition of scenes with Jacob and his mates become tiresome. The second act moves more quickly. It profoundly deals with Jacob’s self-realizations and transformation prompted by communication with David and Joan. The three, who agree to participate in the British restorative justice system communicate through letters. At this point Jacob is out on parole after 14 months. David and Joan question him about the circumstances of the fateful night. In the last scenes, they meet face to face and Jacob asks for forgiveness.
Harrison and Clark with the assistance of a fine ensemble (who take on many roles) breathe life into the characters and make them identifiable. The power of the play lies in the performances. Harrison’s move deeper into the emotions of Jacob as he seeks relief, redemption and forgiveness astounds. Clark’s Joan makes one admire James’ mother’s spiritual strength. She recognizes that she cannot live with hate and resentment toward her son’s killer. By seeking to understand and have hope for Jacob’s future, she gives birth to the possibility that Jacob can make something of himself. That satisfies her so that her own son’s sacrifice gains meaning in Jacob’s redemption.
The adaptation from narrative to drama requires theatricality. At times, the dialogue doesn’t deliver and must be activated. In the shuffling into action some scenes are awkward and need tweaking. Some might have been removed altogether. Overall Punch rides the zeitgeist of the moment. Its performances elevate its timeless themes and strike us with their vitality and power.
Punch runs approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes with one intermission at the Samuel J. Friedman Theatre until November 2nd. https://www.manhattantheatreclub.com/shows/2025-26-season/punch/
‘After the Hunt’ Featuring Julia Roberts, Andrew Garfield @63rd NYFF
After the Hunt
Directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by Nora Garrett, After the Hunt is a complex, psychological, mystery drama with comedic/ironic flourishes that turn culture wars on their heads. Pointedly, its entangling themes never resolve into a satisfying resolution. Reflective about current social issues involving sexual abuse, gender identity, race, power dynamics, ethics and women’s career ascendance against the backdrop of Yale University in New Haven Connecticut, Guadagnino and Garrett tackle some of the themes credibly. Others they leave swinging in the winds of uncertainty.
Thanks to the incisive performances of principals Julia Roberts, Michael Stuhlbarg, Andrew Garfield and Ayo Edebiri, the film’s central mystery whether sexual abuse did or didn’t occur and why it occurred holds our interest.
However, the subtle nuances and motivations each character reveals become convoluted and incoherent at times. Is this in the service of the notion that human beings are layered, self-destructive, self-betrayers driven by their own nihilistic impulses? In a further irony, the philosophy professors Alma (Roberts) and Hank (Garfield), and their Ph.D. student Maggie (Ayo) are adept at weaponizing philosophy as a defense they use to promote their personal agendas. As a perfect foil, the most well-drawn character of rationality, Alma’s husband psychiatrist Frederick (Stuhlbarg), receives the prize for being the authentic adult in the room. Stuhlbarg’s Frederick is a perfect delight to watch and a welcome relief from the others’ Sturm and Drang.
Main Slate Section of the NYFF
Having its world premiere at the 2025 Venice International Film Festival, After the Hunt in its North American premiere opened the New York Film Festival in the Main Slate section. Interestingly, though the film takes place at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, Guadagnino filmed it in England. The superb set design provides the ambience for the 2020 setting and final epilogue in 2025.
In the opening scene, Guadagnino shares his first clue with a title message stating that the event happened at Yale. However, many events occur at the party Alma holds at her home for her students, colleagues and friends. First, we learn about Hank, Alma and Maggie, those closest to Alma, who briefly discuss Maggie’s dissertation on why she selected her topic, “the resurgence of virtue ethics.” Additionally, we learn that Alma and Hank compete for a tenured line professorship. Frederick asks both how they would respond if the other wins it? Do we take them at their word or do they lie?
Finally, Maggie goes to the bathroom. In searching for toilet paper, she finds a “hidden” envelope taped to the interior top of a cabinet. When Maggie opens the envelope she sees it contains an article and pictures. Maggie takes the article which we don’t see in close-up. So much for Maggie’s ethics and respect for her beloved professor’s privacy. Immediately, we note an immoral aspect of her character. We also have an indication of Alma’s character in placing an envelope with secret information where it can be found.
Initial incidents we see, a hidden incident occurs we don’t see
These initial incidents that we see, eyes wide open, take place in Alma and Frederick’s house. However, another incident that happens after the party, we don’t see. We hear about it from the victim, Maggie, who returns the next day to Alma’s. Dripping wet, bedraggled and forlorn, a waif to sorrow over, Maggie tells Alma that Hank sexually attacked her. Maggie admits she shouldn’t have allowed Hank to come over after the party where they had been drinking. Of course, he didn’t stop after she kissed him, though she said, “No.”
Somewhere in the emotional grist of this event that Alma doesn’t initially respond to with care and concern, we consider Maggie’s highly leveraging position at Yale, the antithesis of a conservative, “Red State” university. She is a Black, gay student whose wealthy parents donate heavily to Yale. Close to her professors Hank and Alma, who taught Hank, she goes to Alma for support. Maggie suggests Alma’s background will help her understand what Maggie feels. This comment short circuits Alma. Manipulatively, Maggie brings Alma into the situation and makes it personal to her. In other words, whatever Maggie read in the article she uses as leverage to manipulate Alma to help her. Confused, Alma wonders what Maggie knows about her.
Questioning Maggie’s motives
Thus, we question the wisdom of Maggie’s manipulation and wonder what information the hidden article about Alma held. Also, we question the extent to which the article influenced Maggie to invite Hank to her apartment where she kissed him and then tried to back off his advances. Did this event even occur? What underlying motives does Maggie have if It didn’t? By this point we have forgotten the ironic import of Maggie’s dissertation topic (the resurgence of virtue ethics). If virtue ethics gives weight to practical wisdom and the pursuit of a flourishing life through moral excellence, Maggie appears a hypocrite to even deal with such a topic. Taking the article about Alma doesn’t exemplify moral excellence. Neither does manipulating her with it.
Nevertheless, Maggie’s potentially heart-wrenching emotional experience of sexual assault by a close professor becomes occluded by many factors. Perhaps because of Alma’s cool response, we don’t feel sorry for Maggie or believe her. Her moral ambiguity taking the secret article also makes us question her veracity. Indeed, in the discussion of the “rape” by Alma, Hank and others, then in subsequent compelling scenes more information about the three philosophers unfolds. Against Alma’s suggestions, Maggie presses charges against Hank a surefire way to end his career at Yale.
Spiders spinning webs
As Garrett and Guadagnino spool out clues to interconnecting spider webs spun by three clever spiders with conflicting agendas and motivations, we remember Frederick’s unction about Maggie. He implies that Maggie is a mediocre student. This gives credence to Hank’s assertions that Maggie plagiarized parts of her dissertation. Apparently, her abilities falter, she can’t do the research and resorts to plagiarism. In fact Maggie’s plagiarism will disqualify her Ph.D., and possibly get her evicted from Yale, if either Hank or Alma hold her to account. How should Hank handle Maggie’s plagiarism? Does Alma, an expert in her field qualifying for tenure know Maggie plagiarized? Why don’t Alma and Hank report or correct Maggie?
To what extent do repercussions from Maggie’s wealthy donating family shut Hank and Alma’s mouths about the plagiarism? Shouldn’t they take the moral high ground and have her change her dissertation instead of ignoring it? To what extent does Maggie use the race card to her advantage? Doesn’t she understand that her behaviors play into the stereotypes about wealth, class and race? Does she even care?
Clearly, everyone’s careers are at stake, especially after Maggie accuses Hank of sexual assault. By this point morality, ethics and philosophy don’t help these philosophy professors and would-be philosophy professor. Governed by their own impulses of fight, flight, desire, need beyond intellectual thought, they founder in their own moral morass. Indeed, the irony becomes who is preying on whom? And “after the hunt,” who will be left standing and what will the carcasses look like?
Extreme complications
During the course of the film the complications become extreme when we learn that Alma and Hank had an affair which ends, perhaps prompted by Maggie’s accusation. Additionally, we learn that Maggie emulates Alma obsessively and loves her beyond a teacher student relationship. Also, we learn that Frederick knows about Hank and Alma, and understands the affair’s necessity and impermanence. Finally, we learn that Alma has some disease or pain that requires her to take pain killers or medicine that Frederick leaves on her table stand each morning. However, doctor and colleague Dr. Kim Sayers (Chloë Sevigny) also helps her out with medication.
How many more webs can Garrett and Guadagnino have their spiders spin? Well, Alma’s secrets have yet to be exposed. To what extent should truths be uncovered sooner rather than later to free individuals from wounds that govern their lives? Guadagnino and Garrett do have much to suggest about this through Alma’s revelations and Frederick’s wise love and counseling. Truly, as she says, “she doesn’t deserve him” and is fortunate that he loves her.
As an important point, this film could never take place in a part of the country that is governed by “red state” politics. Ironically, Connecticut, a blue state prides itself on listening to anyone coming forth with accusations. Safe to say that such events occur most probably in universities and colleges around the country. That the screenwriter and director set it in an Ivy League School that takes such issues seriously adds to the gravitas of the film.
In the Q and A after the film, Guadagnino admitted he is a provocateur, but more for entertainment purposes in a positive way. Perhaps, as an iconoclastic clown, he attempts to nudge his audiences to think after unsettling them and providing no easy answers. Indeed, the main tenor of After the Hunt appears to be his wish to provoke discussion more than to present a dialectic and conclusion. Considering his cavalier voice over “cut,” then blackout to end the over two hour film, Guadagnino suggests that the characters he set in motion will continue their duplicity and self-betrayal long after it’s “lights out.”
After the Hunt will open October 10th at select theaters. For screening information for the 63rd NYFF, go to https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff/films/after-the-hunt/
‘Saturday Church’: The Vibrant, Hot Musical Extends Until October 24th
With music and songs by Grammy-nominated pop star Sia and additional music by Grammy-winning DJ and producer, Honey Dijon, Saturday Church soars in its ambitions to be Broadway bound. The excitement and joy are bountiful. The music and songs, a combination of house, pop, gospel spun into electrifying arrangements by Jason Michael Webb and Luke Solomon, also responsible for music supervision, orchestrations and arrangements, become the glory of this musical. Finally, the emotional poignance and heartfelt questions about acceptance, identity and self-love run to every human being, regardless of their orientation and select gender identity (65-68 descriptors that one might choose from).
Currently running at New York Theatre Workshop Saturday Church extends once more until October 24th. If you like rocking with Sia’s music, like Darrell Grand and Moultrie’s choreography and Qween Jean’s vibrant, glittering costumes, you’ll have a blast. The spectacle is ballroom fabulous. As J. Harrison Ghee’s Black Jesus master of ceremonies says at the conclusion, “It’s a Queen thing.”
However, some of the narrative revisits old ground and is tired. Additionally, the music doesn’t spring organically from the characters’ emotions. Sometimes it feels imposed upon their stories. Perhaps a few songs might have been trimmed. The musical, as enjoyable as it is, runs long.
Because of the acute direction by Whitney White (Jaja’s African Hair Braiding), the actors’ performances are captivating and on target. Easily, one becomes caught up in the pageantry, choreography and humor which help to mitigate the predictable story-line and irregularly integrated songs in the narrative.
Conceived for the stage and based on the Spring Pictures movie written and directed by Damon Cardasis, with book and additional lyrics by Damon Cardasis and James Ijames, Saturday Church focuses on Ulysses’ journey toward self-love. Ulysses (the golden Bryson Battle), lost his father recently. This forces his mother to work overtime. Unfortunately, her work schedule as a nurse doesn’t allow Amara (Kristolyn Lloyd) to see her son regularly.
Though the prickly Aunt Rose (the exceptional Joaquina Kalukango), stands in the gap as a parental figure, the grieving teenager can’t confide in her. Even though he lives in New York City, one of the most nonjudgmental cities on the planet, with its myriad types of people from different races, creeds and gender identities, Ulysses’ feels isolated and unconnected.
His problem arises from Aunt Rose and Pastor Lewis (J. Harrison Ghee). Ghee also does double duty as the master of ceremonies, the fantastic Black Jesus. Though Ulysses loves expressing himself in song with his exceptional vocal instrument, Aunt Rose and Pastor Lewis prevent him from joining the choir until he “calms down.” In effect, they negate his person hood.
Negotiating their criticisms, Ulysses tries to develop his faith at St. Matthew’s Church. However, Pastor Lewis and Aunt Rose steal his peace. As pillars of the church both dislike his flamboyance. They find his effeminacy and what it suggests offensive. At this juncture with no guidance, Ulysses doesn’t understand, nor can he admit that he is gay. Besides, why would he? For the pastor, his aunt and mother, the tenets of their religion prohibit L.G.B.T.Q Christianity, leaving him out in the cold.
During a subway ride home, Ulysses meets Raymond (the excellent Jackson Kanawha Perry). Raymond invites Ulysses to Saturday Church and discusses how the sanctuary runs an L.G.B.T.Q. program. With trepidation Ulysses says, “I’m not like that.” Raymond’s humorous reply brings audience laughter, “Oh, you still figuring things out.” Encouraging Ulysses, Raymond suggests that whatever his persuasion is, Saturday Church is a place where different gender identities find acceptance.
Inspired by the real-life St. Luke in the Fields Church in Manhattan’s West Village, Saturday Church provides a safe environment where Christianity flourishes for all. When Ulysses visits to scout out Raymond, with whom he feels an attachment, the motherly program leader Ebony (B Noel Thomas), and her riotous and talented assistants Dijon (Caleb Quezon) and Heaven (Anania), adopt Ulysses into their family. In a side plot Ebony’s loss of a partner, overwork with running activities for the church with little help, and life stresses bring her to a crisis point which dissolves conveniently by the conclusion.
The book writers attempt to draw parallels between Ulysses’ family and Ebony which remain undeveloped. As a wonderful character unto herself, the subplot might not be necessary.
As Ulysses enjoys his new found persona and develops his relationship with Raymond, his conflicts increase with his mother and aunt. From Raymond he learns the trauma of turning tricks to survive after family rejection. Also, Ulysses personally experiences physical and sexual assault. Finally, he understands that for some, suicide provides a viable choice to end the misery and torment of a queer lifestyle without the safety net of Saturday Church.
But all’s well that ends well. J. Harrison Ghee’s uplifting and humorous Black Jesus redirects Ulysses and effects a miraculous bringing together of the alienated to a more inclusive family of Christ. And as in a cotillion or debutante ball, Ulysses makes his debut. He appears in Qween Jean’s extraordinary white gown for a shining ballroom scene, partnering with Raymond dressed in a white tux. As the two churches come together, and each of the principal’s struts their stuff in beautiful array, Ghee’s Jesus shows love’s answer.
In these treacherous times the message and themes of Saturday Church affirm more than ever the necessity of unity over division, and flexibility in understanding the other person’s viewpoint. With its humor, great good will, musical freedom and prodigious creative talent, Saturday Church presents the message of Christ’s love and truth against a pulsating backdrop of frolic with a point.
Saturday Church runs with one fifteen minute intermission at New York Theatre Workshop until October 24th. https://www.nytw.org/show/saturday-church/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22911892225
‘Late Fame’ Starring Willem Dafoe, 63rd NYFF
Adapted from the Arthur Schnitzler novella Late Fame, screenwriter Samy Burch (May/December) and director Kent Jones (Diana) shine a light on the West Village and Soho (circa 1970s) and Soho now at the height of its commercialization and development. With the incredible backdrop of factory buildings and West Village apartment buildings turned into fashionista haunts, and cobblestone streets still creating their unique atmosphere, a superb Willem Dafoe portrays the sensitive, once lauded poet Ed Saxburger. The craggy young man who had the world at his feet with the publication of his poetry book Way Past Go eventually gave up his typewriter to earn a modest living with a secure pension as a postal worker.
What happens to the passionate fire required to write poetry that gets published during a time when poetry was the lingua franca of the Village artist milieu, and Soho was the coolest place to be? If old soldiers fade away, does the same happen to promising poets whose work is well regarded but little read, then forgotten?
Late Fame investigates this phenomenon with atmosphere, nuance, irony and heart. It is Jones’ love letter to downtown Manhattan, vastly changed with remnants of its old beauty and undeveloped glory which made a comfortable home to artists of all stripes in the 1970s. Then, Dafoe’s character Ed Saxburger came East, spurred by the thought of fitting in with the artist colonies in Manhattan at that time.
The film which is in the Main Slate section at New York Film Festival is buoyed up by sterling performances from those assisting Dafoe, as he negotiates his empathetic protagonist who is stoic, reserved and charming, and a bit lost as he welcomes yet questions with open eyes his acceptance by a group of well-heeled twenty-somethings, who turn out to be poseur artists. Their mission is to recapture the ethos of Gregory Corso, Allen Ginsberg and others, but they are sorely out of their depth and lack the talent, grist and life wounds to do so.
The film unspools with Saxburger’s rediscovery by this exotic group of young would-be writers and philosophers branding themselves “the Enthusiasm Society.” An effete, wealthy Wilson Meyers (the excellent Edmund Donovan), leads the group of retrograde misogynists and artistes. When Saxburger asks where he found his book, with wide-eyed irony and pride, Meyers tells Saxburger he bought it at “Foyle’s on Charing Cross Road.” Indeed, Meyers uses Saxburger’s book as the equivalent to a museum piece around which Meyer centers his exploitation and cause célèbre.
On further discussion to introduce himself Meyers cavalierly asserts his and the Enthusiasm Society’s purpose to “stand against negativity” and the monetization of everything,” a mission that unravels when Saxburger gets to know him. Key to who they are, is that they distance themselves from lower lights, “the influencer culture, cellphone obsessed and technology maniacs.” These they excoriate, all the while imbibing the same waters because no one is paying attention. However, Saxburger is.
For example Meyers’ stunning, unhip apartment in the village, funded by his parents, is technologically outfitted to the max. The other members are equally flush, supported by their parents, a far cry from the struggling, self-made artists that they emulate. However, their hypocrisy and unawareness of self that Saxburger notes quietly, he puts aside momentarily. He is drawn in by their allurement as they gush over him.
Their earnestness could be worse. At least they aspire to be like legends of the past, so Saxubrger allows himself to be caught up in their artificial world, until the revelations come fast and furious after a poetic recital where various members read at a venue Myers procures. The actors portray these fellows as more of an Oxford-like clique of wannabe creatives who are callow, literary sophisticates. In their aspirations they will never achieve what Saxburger did as he struggled and was celebrated in reviews, even if for a bright moment that he himself extinguished by moving on.
Though these individuals are largely focused on the masculine, they allow the actress and singer Gloria (a fine Greta Lee) to float among them as the girlfriend of one or more of the members. When Ed finally joins the Enthusiasm Society live and they introduce Gloria, her flamboyance and mystery is a treat for Ed. She is more akin to him as an older, wiser, financially strapped actress who, like Ed, knows what it is to struggle for her craft. Unlike Ed, she may hold on longer because she is an opportunist who knows how to play the game. In his authenticity and truth, Saxburger probably said, “It’s enough. I’ve got to eat and support myself.”
Cleverly, Jones features Gloria front and center during a performance of Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht’s “Surabaya Johnny.” A chanteuse, Sally Bowles “divine decadence” type, Gloria lures Ed who finds her attractive, opaque and mysterious, unlike the others. During a brief scene they do drugs together and frolic down the streets, a nostalgic nod to the past.
Greta who is supposed to read poetry during the recital appears to be too overwrought to be able to credibly do it. Part of her act, however, she pulls through at the last minute stunning the audience. Finally, Saxburger reads his own work beautifully, though an audience member references his age, albeit tucked into a compliment. The shout out reminds him of where he was and now is with this ersatz glitterati. It’s a desultory in between.
Though Saxburger has a family back home and a brother dying, he stays in New York and doesn’t return to visit. That ground is never covered by Jones or the screenwriter. However, it substantiates that when Saxburger left his family and made a new life for himself in Manhattan.
In the present that life includes a culturally rich apartment with bookcases filled with books that he’s read, a nice touch by the set designer. Also, his group of working class friends that he plays pool with who don’t know his poetic past or his literary interests, have helped distract him from what was. We do see when he can’t write a new poem for the recital that his artistry has been put on indefinite hold. But it’s OK. Beyond these elements, this is a film about brief moments in time where the light shines and then dims only to shine once more before it goes out.
Jones’ work is noteworthy for the stellar performances. Dafoe who inhabits the role perfectly is sensational, and Lee and the others provide the foundation from which Dafoe easily and seamlessly establishes this intriguing and heartfelt character.
Tickets are still available at https://www.filmlinc.org/nyff2025/films/late-fame/
CAROLE DI TOSTI 