IO

Not the bright future we were hoping for.

(2018) Science Fiction (Netflix) Margaret Qualley, Anthony Mackie, Danny Huston, Tom Payne (voice), Justin Andrew Jamieson, Teagan Johnson, Emma Fitzgerald (voice). Directed by Jonathan Helpert

 

In times such as these it isn’t hard to imagine the world as we know it coming to an end. In this Netflix sci-fi ecological apocalypse flick, something has turned the Earth’s atmosphere toxic; millions are dying and there doesn’t appear to be a way to reverse the process. The human race is leaving in droves, for a space station circling the Jovian moon of Io.

One of the few people remaining on earth is Sam Walden (Qualley), daughter of scientist Henry Walden (Huston). She lives on a high plateau which still has a breathable atmosphere, although it doesn’t seem likely that it will stay that way for long. She tends to a colony of bees that she hopes – as her dad did before her – will pollinate plants and kickstart the eco-system. She relays the results of her work to Elon (Payne), her boyfriend on the orbiting Io station.

Then out of the sky drops Micah (Mackie), out of a makeshift dirigible. He’s there to see Henry – except Henry’s not available. And that’s just the beginning. Both Micah and Sam are keeping secrets from each other, secrets that can have major ramifications. Meanwhile, time is ticking down before the last shuttle leaves Earth, stranding whoever is left behind there forever.

This is what’s called a “high-concept” science fiction film. It’s not that an ecological apocalypse has never been done on film before – Roland Emmerich made a living at those sorts of films in the last decade – but this one seems to be taking a more sober, science-based approach. At least, so it seems on the surface. The closer you look, the more the science doesn’t really bear scrutiny.

But the production design is nice, which I’ve been saying a lot more often about films lately, but we’ve seen some impressive leaps in that arena of film over the past half-decade. Sadly, though, there is zero chemistry between Qualley and Mackey, and quite frankly, Qualley emotes here like she’s making a YouTube film rather than a fairly major production.

There are some worthwhile moments here, but the movie is its own worst enemy, with stupefying dialogue and bizarre character choices. I found my attention wandering during the last half of the film, never a good sign. Fortunately, as this is only available on Netflix, you can always pause it to take a nap. It’s up to you, however, if you want to continue watching after you wake up.

REASONS TO SEE: A fascinating concept.
REASONS TO AVOID: A less-than-scintillating execution.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Elle Fanning and Diego Luna were originally cast in the lead roles.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Netflix
CRITICAL MASS: As of 6/1/20: Rotten Tomatoes: 31% positive reviews; Metacritic: 40/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Interstellar
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT: The Standoff at Sparrow Creek

Advertisement

Paris Can Wait (Bonjour Anne)

Diane Lane by the river.

(2016) Dramedy (Sony Classics) Diane Lane, Arnaud Viard, Alec Baldwin, Élodie Navarre, Elise Tielrooy, Linda Gegusch (voice), Cédric Monnet. Directed by Eleanor Coppola

Sometimes when one is feeling like life isn’t working out, a road trip is just what’s needed to clear out the doldrums. Of course when that road trip takes you through the south of France so much the better.

Anne (Lane) is the wife of Michael (Baldwin), a high-powered Hollywood producer. They are in Cannes for the film festival and she has developed a nagging earache. Fresh off of plugging his last project to distributors and, well, whatever it is that producers do in Cannes, Michael is headed for Budapest and bringing Anne along in the private jet. The pilot however recommends that Anne not fly given that the earache would make it excruciatingly painful. Michael’s French partner Jacques (Viard) offers to drive Anne to Paris rather than having her take the train by herself. She cheerfully agrees.

Jacques is not one to take the direct route; he must stop hourly for smoke breaks and to fill the radiator in his classic Peugeot Cabriolet. He also must stop to show her the Best Roman aqueduct, the best little bistro in Provence, the best inn in Burgundy, the best Museum of Cinema in Lyon (which, to be fair, was where the Lumiére brothers were based) and so on and so forth.

Jacques is also a bit of an epicure, and every meal becomes an event. For Anne who has been somewhat sheltered in her enjoyment of life, this is a bit of a revelation. She wouldn’t characterize her marriage as bad exactly, but she is at a critical time in her life. Her daughter is off at college and has elected to spend Christmas break with her friends. Her husband essentially ignores her and her career as a dress shop owner has been given up. She is lost in her own life.

Jacques is also a bit of a lost soul. Single at an age when most men are enjoying their grandchildren, he seems to know everyone but how well they know him is another story. He is flirtatious and there is maybe a bit of a spark between the two of them – Jacques knows the way to her heart is through chocolate – but where that spark might take them before they arrive at Paris days after they were supposed to arrive there is uncertain.

Coppola, the wife of director Francis Ford Coppola, has a keen understanding of the rhythms of life in the south of France. The movie unfolds at an unhurried pace which some critics found infuriating oddly enough, since most European films are similarly paced. With picnics set at the side of bucolic rivers and amazing meals in quaint bistros and fine dining establishments, one shouldn’t watch this movie while hungry.

Lane is an actress who has always spoken to me. Even in her mid-50s, she remains as sexy as she has ever been, albeit in a less obvious manner than what many starlets exude. Lately she seems to be cast most often as the forgotten wife and it seems difficult to understand why any husband would ignore her; she’s smart, funny and did I mention she’s sexy as all get out? In any case, she excels at playing women in the process of rediscovering themselves and that is what this particular movie is all about.

Viard, a well-known actor/director in France, underplays this maybe a bit too much. He’s charming sure but the role needed someone a bit more rogue-ish. The romantic sparks between Jacques and Anne are tepid at best and even though the ending, which has Lane winking at the camera, promises something more, it’s hard to believe that Anne would send Michael packing that way. One gets the sense that Anne is the type of woman who would end her marriage before she’d consider taking on a romantic partner. Of course, we could be talking road trip buddies here; that aspect is left for the viewer to decide.

I will say that the movie does meander quite a bit particularly in the middle. Coppola, who also wrote the film, doesn’t seem to have a firm destination in mind or at least if she does no clear way to get there. We end up with a lot of conversation that tries to be revelatory but doesn’t really tell us anything about the characters. If you’ve ever tried to have a deep, meaningful personal conversation with a person who doesn’t want to tell you anything about themselves, you’ll understand how frustrating the movie can be.

Overall, I was left with a warm pleasant feeling leaving the theater after the movie. It isn’t laugh-out-loud funny although there are some moments that brought a smile to my face. It’s not really high drama, although it is about a woman who is unsatisfied with where she is in life beginning to reassess what she wants out of it. Watching Lane’s Anne start to reignite her love for life is the best part about the movie – that and the food porn that pervades it. One has to love French gastronomy.

REASONS TO GO: Who wouldn’t want to take a trip like this one? Diane Lane is still as sexy as hell.
REASONS TO STAY: The film drags a bit in places.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some adult themes, Jacques smokes like a chimney and some mild profanity in certain places.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Coppola was 80 years old when she made this, her narrative feature debut (she released a documentary feature more than 25 years ago). She is not the oldest person to direct their first narrative feature – Takeo Kimura directed his first narrative feature Dreaming Awake at age 90 in 2008.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 6/5/17: Rotten Tomatoes: 57% positive reviews. Metacritic: 48/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Trip to Italy
FINAL RATING: 7/10
NEXT: Deidra and Laney Rob a Train

The Son of the Olive Merchant (Le fils du marchand d’olives)

A cross-eyed sheep in wolf’s clothing.

(2011) Documentary (Choices Video) Anna Zeitindjioglou, Mathieu Zeitindjioglou, Jean-Claude Dreyfus (narrator). Directed by Mathieu Zeitindjioglou

It is said that history is written by the victorious. It is certainly not written by the victims. In 1915-16 during the height of the First World War, Turkey embarked on a relocation program of its Armenian minority program. According to Turkish history, many Armenians died during this relocation although the Turkish government hadn’t intended them to do so. Some of the Armenians had allied themselves with Russia and carried out terrorist attacks which necessitated getting rid of the snake at their bosom so to speak.

The rest of the world sees things quite differently. Not so much a relocation as a genocide, in fact, the first of the 20th century (and sadly not the last). Somewhere between a million and a million and a half Armenians died during an 18 month period. Eyewitness accounts have all manner of atrocities being committed – sexual assaults, children being burned alive, boatloads of refugees sailed into the Mediterranean and then the boats capsized or sunk. The town of Ani, once a beautiful capital of the region, was literally razed to the ground as were many other villages and towns.

French filmmaker Mathieu Zeitindjioglou now living in Paris has his roots here. His name was changed from the original Zeitounjian to Zeitindjioglou – they have the same meaning in Armenian as in Turkish. His ancestor managed to escape to France because authorities thought he was a Turk.

After marrying Anna, a vivacious Pole, he is convinced to visit Turkey for their honeymoon and get a sense of his homeland today. One gets the sense Mathieu was a bit reluctant to do so; throughout the film he is behind the camera and rarely a participant directly in the proceedings. Frankly, I think the movie would have benefitted from his insights; how he felt about seeing these places where his ancestors once called home.. We are left with Anna’s descriptions of his eyes as the only clues.

Anna drives the film; she relentlessly questions Turks about the genocide, which in Turkey is not recognized as such. Museums contain sections that are revisionist, blaming the whole thing on the Armenians themselves. Questions to ordinary Turks on the street gets either ignorance that the event took place at all, or a kind of “well they did far worse to us” attitude. Anna is also present at conferences in which Turkish diplomats make their case to join the European Union; not everyone in Europe was in favor of this because of the country’s revisionist stance and refusal to at least acknowledge that the policy was of deliberate obliteration of all Armenian presence in their country. Although that happened nearly a century ago, I can kind of see their point. Imagine if Germany today made it official state policy that the Holocaust never occurred.

The interviews in Turkey are for the most part shot guerrilla style on a small camera, so at times the camera remains far too static and the interviews themselves can be repetitive. The film is fairly short so I suppose that reinforcing the main point with five or six different subjects saying the same things is useful. It also should be noted that it is illegal in Turkey to go on record saying that the Armenian genocide took place so some of the interview subjects may well have not wanted to go on the record saying that it did and risk arrest, which of course the filmmakers also did so one must give them both appropriate marks for their courage.

Interspersed in the interviews are animated sequences using a wolf-boy allegory to depict Mathieu’s journey. The animations are uniformly well done and seem to be the closest thing we get into Mathieu’s mindset. These are narrated by Dreyfus in a fine stentorian voice and had some of my favorite moments in the film.

At times I got the sense that the filmmaker was floundering a bit in trying to make his point but that can be overlooked because of the quality of the animation as well as the archival photographs and film that Zeitindjioglou utilizes throughout. If the images look a bit too uncomfortably close to those from Auschwitz and Rwanda one shouldn’t be surprised. After all, atrocities transcend time and place and inhumanity and brutality is no different in Ankara in 1915 as they do in Warsaw in 1938 and Kigali in 1994.

The movie is available on Amazon and on VOD. While it isn’t playing the festival circuit any longer, it is worth seeking out. Most Americans are ignorant that the genocide took place at all (unless you happen to be of Armenian descent) and this is a good opportunity to learn something while accompanying the Zeitindjioglous on their journey.

REASONS TO GO: Interesting and well-done animations. Informative about a genocide few Americans know much about.

REASONS TO STAY: Lacks direct personal insight. Wanders aimlessly at times. Interviews are occasionally repetitive.

FAMILY VALUES:  There are some disturbing images, some bad language and mature themes.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The movie gets its name from the filmmaker’s last name which is translated from Turkish as “Son of the Olive Seller.”

CRITICAL MASS: As of 12/19/13 the film has yet to be receive scores on either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.

COMPARISON SHOPPING: Sarah’s Key

FINAL RATING: 7/10

NEXT: The Godfather Part II