Infinity Pool: The Excremental Tourist

Alexander Skarsgård in Infinity Pool

If Brandon Cronenberg is anxious about being compared to his father, he’s doing a good job hiding it. His prior feature, the art-house hit Possessor, leveraged the metamorphic gifts of Andrea Riseborough (newly minted Oscar nominee!) for a sordid story of corporeal invasion and existential agony. Now he returns with Infinity Pool, a wild and grimy phantasmagoria full of damaged bodies and deranged images. It may lack the deceptive polish of his pop’s best work, but it rivals him for sheer nastiness.

This is a matter of theme as well as form. In broad terms, Infinity Pool is a crude satire of white privilege and colonialist prerogatives. It’s set in the fictional country of Li Tolqa—filming took place in Croatia and Hungary, but the looming specter of “rainy season” suggests Southeast Asia—which attracts tourists with its opulent resorts and sandy beaches, but which someone ominously describes as “uncivilized.” The movie’s premise, which stirs echoes of last year’s Dual (and also The Prestige), revolves around a particularly perverse kind of black market: When interlopers break the law and find themselves subject to the third-world nation’s draconian justice system, they can evade punishment by paying the authorities (embodied by a louche Thomas Kretschmann) a hefty fee to manufacture a double—a perfect recreation endowed with their memories as well as their appearance—who will then suffer the death sentence in their stead. The only catch (OK fine, there are lots of catches) is that they must bear witness to their doppelganger’s execution. Read More

Women Talking: Hide and Speak

Ben Whishaw, Rooney Mara, and Claire Foy in Women Talking

If you think the title of Women Talking is bluntly descriptive, wait until you hear the perspective of Neitje (Liv McNeil). Fifteen years old and perpetually frustrated, she takes stock of the surrounding proceedings—a nonstop parade of feminine discourse and verbiage—and groans, “This is so boring!” It’s a wry meta moment that also (ahem) speaks to the unenviable difficulties facing Sarah Polley, the gifted and empathetic director who has chosen, for her first feature in a decade, to adapt the popular novel by Miriam Toews. That title is no lie; this is a dialogue-driven movie with limited action (the catalyzing incidents occur offscreen) and minimal plot. The challenge for Polley, who also wrote the screenplay with Toews, is to invest what’s primarily a verbal exercise with cinematic verve and dramatic urgency.

If she doesn’t exactly succeed, she has at least answered Neitje’s complaint with guile and skill. Women Talking is hardly kinetic, but it’s paced briskly enough to stave off accusations of sluggishness. If anything, some of Polley’s editing techniques—rather than deploying typical flashbacks, she frequently inserts random, lightning-quick cuts to prior brutalities (blood smeared on walls, bruises dotting legs)—are too abrasive to be boring. These moments tend to be more distracting than disquieting, and they don’t so much jolt the story to life as disrupt its fluid rhythms. Still, Polley evades point-and-shoot banality, and some of the film’s artistic choices—the desaturated color scheme that looks like the camera is fighting through a scrim, the rippling guitar-plucked score from Hildur Guðnadóttir, the ominous overhead shot of wagons pushing past onlookers in white straw hats—lend double meaning to an early title card that reads, “What follows is an act of female imagination.” Read More

Oscars 2022: Nomination Prediction Results

Charlbi Dean and Harris Dickinson in Triangle of Sadness

Hey, the Oscars just announced their nominations for the 95th Academy Awards! They were pretty good, except for the ones that were terrible. If you’re a member of the unfortunate class of cinephile who ritualistically follows such matters, you have by now performed the standard series of compulsory reactions: celebrating the precious few overlaps between your own ballot and the Academy’s, bemoaning the collective’s egregious failings of judgment (have I gotten over The LEGO Movie missing in Best Animated Feature in 2014? Reader, I have not), and frantically updating your mental list of favorites to win Best Picture.

In other words, this year was business as usual: a few welcome inclusions, several more head-scratching omissions, and the typical plethora of “Ah well that was inevitable” selections. But for those of you with social lives who are less enmeshed in Academy arcana, let’s quickly run the various categories and how they matched (or didn’t) with my own predictions: Read More

Oscars 2022: Nomination Predictions

Felix Kammerer in All Quiet on the Western Front

The nominations for this year’s Academy Awards are set to be announced on Tuesday morning, an annual tradition that’s invariably met with a combination of fanatical nitpicking and performative indifference. It is fashionable, almost mandatory, for critics to express their disdain toward Hollywood’s annual self-congratulatory gala, and for good reason: The Oscars don’t matter. Or at least, they can’t change your attitudes about the specific movies you loved, hated, and argued about. They’re a collective approximation of individual tastes, which inherently makes them a fool’s errand.

And yet, the only thing worse than caring about the Oscars is ignoring them. This isn’t because the Academy somehow confers prestige upon their chosen selections—quite the opposite, as winning an Oscar often carries with it a vaguely negative connotation of middlebrow safeness—or even because its picks can influence the types of movies that awards-hungry studios are more (or less) likely to green-light in the future. It’s because they preserve in amber the industry’s extant preferences and expectations. It is always illuminating to look back and remember the Academy’s choices, whether you do so with fondness (“Hey, remember when The Departed won Best Picture?!”) or exasperation (“Ugh, remember when Green Book won Best Picture?”). Read More

M3gan: Hell Comes to the Dollhouse

Amie Donald as M3gan

They say the eyes are windows to the soul, which is why the most expressive anthropomorphic characters in cinema—E.T., Gollum, Wall-E—all sport wide, soulful peepers. But windows work both ways. In M3gan, the sly and spry new horror-comedy directed by Gerard Johnstone, the titular android gazes out into the world through a pair of delicate grey-blue irises, less concerned with comprehending her internal essence than with mapping her external environment. Her vision is rendered like that of an eerily empathetic cyborg—when she sees a person, she instantly analyzes their “Emotional State” and assigns quantitative ratings to various feelings (trust, joy, fear), like a talent scout grading an athlete—but she’s doing more than just gauging behavioral patterns. She is constantly downloading new data and feeding it into her processor, which means she’s learning, judging, evolving.

How, you might wonder, will such a creature ultimately regard our society? Then again, you might not wonder that, because if you’ve seen any previous entry in the child-doll subgenre of horror, you already know. Yet while M3gan’s predictable plotting rarely deviates from its predecessors’ silly and shrieky playbook, it is nevertheless a thoroughly enjoyable diversion—smart, funny, and even a mite provocative. Read More