Search
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Barnyard Roundup in Tabletop Games
Apr 12, 2021
I live in Illinois. I can see cornfields from my house. I do not live on a farm, but have visited farms in the past. There is more to Illinois than Chicago and corn. That all said, farming games tickle me so much and I just enjoy playing them. So imagine my interest level when you combine a publisher known for excellent productions, the designer from said publisher, a member of an art studio in my top three favorite board game artists (Kwanchai and The Mico for the others), and a theme that I already enjoy. This is going to be great! Right?
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
Barnyard Roundup is a silly game of bluffing and hand management set on a farm. In it players are farmhands trying to help Farmer Brown sell the most animals at market. They do this by bluffing their hands in trade deals with other farmhands, thus making no friends in the process. The player with the most points at the end of the game, when all cards from the draw deck have been drawn, will be the winner!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup place the five Animal Bonus cards in a line with the Set Bonus cards nearby. Shuffle the large deck of animal cards and deal out cards according to the rulebook per the number of players in the game. The Burglar and Excuse Me tokens are sorted and dealt out with the remainders face-down near the other cards. Remove eight cards from the draw deck and decide who will be the start player. The game may now begin!
Barnyard Roundup turns are quite simple: take two or three actions and end the turn. The first action is mandatory and it is Passing Cards to another player. Choose anywhere from one to six cards, place them face-down on the table in front of the player with whom to be traded, and announce the number and type of cards to be traded. For example, a player may say, “This is four chickens.” The targeted player now must decide whether that group actually IS a group of four chickens or if they believe the trader (not traitor) is bluffing. If so the targeted player may say, “That is NOT four chickens.” Once the agree/disagree statement has been made the cards are flipped over to see which player will be adding the cards to their pens. If the targeted player guessed correctly then they will received all the animal cards that were passed to them. That is, unless the cards were actually CROWS. Crows are worth -5 VP at the end of the game (see the photo below) and will be taken into the pen of the defeated player in the trade. In addition to crows (bad) the game includes Copy Cats (good) which can be wild cards to be placed with other animals and they copy the animal in their group. When the trade is resolved the active player may choose to perform the next step, but it is not mandatory.
Players must note that any time a player gains crows that would extend their collection of crows to any multiple of 3 that player must then draw another Action Token (Burglar, Excuse Me, Scarecrow) from the supply. If a Scarecrow is drawn it is immediately revealed and three crows are discarded from that player’s collection. The Excuse Me token may be used during a trade, but before cards are revealed, by a player not involved in the trade. When they announce, “Excuse Me,” they immediately take the place of the targeted player and will decide whether the trade is correct as announced or is a bluff.
Should they wish, the active player may now Play a Burglar Token from their collection in order to target another player and ask for all of their animals of a specific type – “I wish to procure all of your cows” That player must then immediately hand over all their cows, or else may tell the active player to Go Fish. Okay, that last part isn’t in the rules, but I started doing it and it stuck for me.
The third and final step of a turn is simply to Draw Cards and End Your Turn. Draw cards back up to the hand limit of 5 or 6 and end the turn. Play then passes to the next player.
Play continues in this fashion until the last card has been drawn. The game ends immediately and players tally their points per the rulebook to arrive at an ultimate winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards and some tokens in a double-wide+ tuckbox. I love the art, and that makes sense as it is illustrated by Lina Cossette, half of Mr. Cuddington. If you don’t know about Mr. Cuddington, please check out their website. The cards are good quality, as are the tokens. But that box. Now, it LOOKS great, and is a fine size. But a tuckbox? I would have preferred a lidded box, or even one of those with the magnetic fold-out lids. But it’s a tuckbox and the opening flap dented upon its first opening. Oy. I could give a chef’s kiss to everything else though.
Now, there’s a reason why I rated this game a 4 and my wife a 6: she beats me every single time we play and I just cannot find the strategy to take her down. Am I just horrible at bluffing games? Does she just dominate me at ALL games? I’m not sure, but this one certainly highlights the fact that she’s just better than me. I can still hear her haunting and taunting me with, “OH MY GOSH I LOVE THIS GAME! I’M SOOOOO GOOD AT IT!” Meanwhile I am sitting pretty with a whole flock of crows laughing at me like I am the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz. Perhaps I am truly brainless as well.
That said, the game is enjoyable. I do like to play bluffing games, but I’m the poor soul who would rather play straight than do ANY sort of bluffing at all. Except when I have lulled my prey into trusting my every declaration. Then pull out the big guns and laugh my way to the bank. Well, I tried that several times and no dice. But I do enjoy playing, and I do keep coming back for more torture. And if that isn’t a sign of a good game, then what is?
All in all the game is quick, light on rules, and features wonderful art style. This is the game I will probably use to introduce my children (or new gamers) to bluffing games as the theme is easily digestible and when you get stuck with the negative points you don’t feel super bad about it. It is easy to pronounce that Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a squawkin’-good 10 / 12. If you are looking for a light introductory game to teach bluffing or to hit that sweet-spot, then I recommend you check out Barnyard Roundup from Druid City Games. I ain’t a-bluffin’ ya.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Robot in the Garden in Books
May 25, 2017
So Sweet
This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
A Robot in the Garden is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film Short Circuit (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of A Robot in the Garden in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; A Robot in the Garden is no War of the Worlds or Doctor Who type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
A Robot in the Garden is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film Short Circuit (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of A Robot in the Garden in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; A Robot in the Garden is no War of the Worlds or Doctor Who type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Robot in the Garden in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ebook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
<i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film <i>Short Circuit</i> (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is no <i>War of the Worlds</i> or <i>Doctor Who</i> type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
What would you do if you found a robot in your garden? That is exactly what, as the title suggests, 34-year-old Ben has to answer on making this discovery early one September morning. Set in the near future where many people have androids in their houses to do the chores they do not wish to do, finding a robot is not a completely unsettling event. What is unusual, however, is that this particular robot is the opposite of the modern, shiny models: he appears to be a mishmash of Japanese fine art and something you would find on a scrap heap.
As Ben discovers, the robot, named Tang is broken and is in need of urgent care and repair. Ben becomes obsessed with trying to pry information out of the robot as to where he came from and to whom he belongs to. Bringing Tang into the house is the last straw for his wife, Amy, who after letting him know all his faults – unemployment, never achieved anything – walks out on him. Now alone, with no one else to worry about, Ben is determined to locate Tang’s creator and save the robot’s life.
What continues is a wild goose chase across America and over to Asia as the strange pairing – human and robot – follows hints and clues that could help them reach their destination. Along the way Ben gets to know Tang and learns to love him in the same way a father loves a child. No matter what mischief Tang gets himself into, Ben is always there to fix the situation. The only thing he cannot fix is Tang’s internal parts, and time is running out.
Initially the story was about a man who wanted to prove he could achieve something to show his sister and his, now, ex-wife that they were wrong about him. However later on in the novel Ben realizes he is changing for himself, not for anyone else, and the person – or robot – that has helped him to achieve this is Tang. On the other hand it is also a humorous tale that explores a character that is unable to connect to the world around him. Tang is like a human toddler who needs constant care and attention, and is fascinated by everything around him. With Ben’s love and attention he proves to the world that he is much more than a rusty metal box.
<i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is a gem of a novel that is guaranteed to make the reader laugh. It is also touching and emotionally engaging, with both heartwarming and heart wrenching moments. Deborah Install has created an accurate representation of a character that has no understanding of the happenings in the world around it, basing many hilarious instances on those of her young son.
Whilst reading this book I could not help but compare it to the film <i>Short Circuit</i> (1986) in which a robot is electrocuted and gains human intelligence. I kept picturing the storyline of <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> in my head and thinking up ways it could be portrayed on screen. Whether there are plans to make it into a film I have no idea, but I am sure it would make prize-winning picture.
Do not be put off by its science fiction classification; <i>A Robot in the Garden</i> is no <i>War of the Worlds</i> or <i>Doctor Who</i> type of story. Instead it is a brilliant piece if fiction suitable for all adults. Those with children will laugh at the similarities between Tang and their offspring, whereas those without will sympathise with Ben’s struggles to keep the robot under control. All in all a great novel.
Fuel Hedging and Risk Management: Strategies for Airlines, Shippers and Other Consumers
S. Mohamed Dafir and Vishnu Nandan Gajjala
Book
A hands-on guide to navigating the new fuel markets Fuel Hedging and Risk Management: Strategies for...
DJ Player Professional :: Music Mixing for Pro DJs
Music and Productivity
App
Get creative with the state of the art professional DJ technology. DJ Player Pro goes beyond the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Drive My Car (2021) in Movies
Mar 19, 2022
Raw, Pure and Honest
If I’m being honest, I purposely pushed my Oscar “homework assignment” of viewing DRIVE MY CAR to the end of the list for I saw that it was a 3 Hour Japanese Film that is a meditation on loss, grief, anger and regret set against the backdrop of a production of Chekov’s Uncle Vanya. I was ready to buckle-in for an arty “Art House” film that is not as good as the “artists” recommending it would have you believe.
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I would be wrong with that assumption as DRIVE MY CAR is the BEST FILM of 2021 with raw, pure and honest performances that draws you in and touches your heart.
Directed by Ryusuke Hamaguchi (who was Oscar Nominated for his work), DRIVE MY CAR follows a renowned Actor/Director who heads to Hiroshima to Direct a production of Uncle Vanya while grappling with the consequences of the unexpected death of his wife - and the unresolved issues of their marriage. While in Hiroshima, he is forced to accept a chauffeur for his duration there and the relationship between the two begins to unlock long dormant emotions.
Sounds like it could end up being a modern version of DRIVING MISS DAISY, right? Wrong. In the hands of Hamaguchi, from an Oscar Nominated screenplay that Hamaguchi wrote with Takamasa Oe (based on the short story by Haruki Murakami), Drive My Car becomes a character-driven drama that peels the layers of the onion back at a deliberate pace (in this case, that’s a compliment) to reveal what is at the core of the main characters.
What drew me into this film (a movie who’s 3 hour run-time seemed short to me), was the performances that Hamaguchi was able to draw out of his talented cast, they are - top to bottom - raw, honest and real. Starting with Hidetoshi Nishijima as Actor/Director Yusuke Kafuku. He plays this character with a stoic pragmatism, but it is played in such a way that you understand that there are emotions broiling underneath this façade and they, eventually, will need to find their way out. But the brilliance of this film is that when this character finally opens up, it is not a showy, “yelly” performance, it is subtle, small - and effective.
Matching Nishijima’s stoicism (at least early on) is Toko Miura as the chauffer. She is enigmatic in the early goings of the film, listening much more than talking but as Kafuku opens up, she does as well, and it is this part of the film that really drew me in.
Also, surprisingly to me, was the rehearsal/performance scenes of Uncle Vanya that are sprinkled throughout this film. I am NOT a scholar (or fan) of Chekov’s works (I find them to be too introspective) but the scenes that are shown are a mirror to what is happening to these characters outside of the theater and were affecting (particularly a scene that the company does in the park between two female characters). I’m sure a Chekov scholar could comment on the parallel themes at work here - but I am not that scholar and that did not diminish my love of this film. It does do one surprising thing - it makes me (almost) want to see a full production of Vanya…almost.
And therein lies another layer to this film - the eclectic group of performers that populate the company of actors that perform Vanya - they perform in Japanese, Mandarin, English and (in one case) sign language. I was reading the subtitles anyway (yes, please view this film in it’s original language with subtitles - you’ll feel the emotions of the actors’ performances) and this disparity between the performers enhanced what was already an intriguing film.
Not for everyone, the pace and themes of this film will turn many off early on, but if you click into the feel of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)