Connect with us

Entertainment

Column: ‘Sinners’ is the story of our moment, from a past chapter of ‘divide and conquer’

Published

on

Column: ‘Sinners’ is the story of our moment, from a past chapter of ‘divide and conquer’

Oscar nominations are officially out, meaning for the next couple of months social media feeds will be saturated with debates over who and what is worthy of a statue. Leading that discussion is another Ryan Coogler masterpiece, this time “Sinners,” which is up for a record-breaking 16 awards, including best picture.

Set in the Mississippi Delta during the Jim Crow era, the film is often characterized as a horror movie, which is understandable given the villain is a vampire. However, what elevates “Sinners” beyond the gore — what makes it a delicious piece of historical fiction — are the details woven into the story’s fabric. From the presence of the Indigenous Choctaw people to the segregated sides of the same street, Coogler paints a picture of 1930s America with a documentarian’s brush. In traditional horror movies, fright is centered and dialogue is a backdrop. “Sinners” prioritizes the moment in time in which the fright occurs — both visually and sonically — making it as much a period piece as it is a movie with vampires in it.

How many Oscars “Sinners” will win is good fodder for all that social media debate. However, what is not debatable — in fact, what is painfully clear — is that Coogler made the best picture for our times. That’s because at its core “Sinners” is a story about belonging — both who does and who does not. There are no grand speeches about diversity undergirded by uplifting music. Instead, Coogler methodically reminds the audience that this country has always been a multiracial kaleidoscope by meticulously portraying life in America just a century ago.

The vampire Remmick is more than just an antagonist with fangs.

He is the immigrant son of an Irish man whose homeland was stolen and faith stripped away during the centuries of English rule. We don’t know how old the vampire is. But we do know that by 1690 roughly 80% of Ireland’s best farmland had been confiscated and turned into large estates for wealthy colonizers, displacing millions of people in the process. We know in 1845, potato fields — the primary source of food for the poor — became infested with a devastating fungus that destroyed 40% of the crop. The following year, nearly all of the potato fields had been infected, leading to years of famine.

Advertisement

Between 1846 and 1851, more than a million Irish people died from starvation or disease. And we know the vast majority of them did not have to die.

For while the Irish people fell from hunger, the healthy crops that were grown on their land were shipped to England, to feed their oppressors. Mass evictions — punctuated by women and children being dragged out of their homes in the dead of winter by British soldiers — compounded the devastation they endured. Countless fled to America and elsewhere in the hope of a better life.

By today’s standards, some immigrated to this country legally.

Most did not.

Almost all were greeted with racist hostility, sometimes by Irish Americans who thought distancing themselves from their desperate countrymen would grant them favor from the very people who despised them. Some pseudoscience in the late 1800s portrayed Irish Americans as members of a different race from other Northern European immigrants; they were not viewed socially as fully white until World War I. That was made clear from the “Irish need not apply” signs displayed in windows. It was evident by the anti-immigrant platform the Know Nothing Party adopted.

Advertisement

Who are they, you ask?

Well, you remember the way then-candidate Donald Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about Project 2025 or the way MAGA Republicans such as House Speaker Mike Johnson greet awkward questions with claims of “don’t know” or “don’t recall”? That is a strategy ripped from the pages from some of the ugliest moments in American history, some spearheaded by the Know Nothing Party. Ours is a history in which New York robber barons used the promise of belonging to splinter the poor into factions and manipulate them into fighting among themselves during the Gilded Age.

Perhaps this is why Jake O’Kane, a comedian and columnist based in Northern Ireland, recently said this about Irish American immigration agents: “You have betrayed your great-grandfathers and mothers who traveled on ships as immigrants to the country where you now hunt down immigrants. There is no Irish in you. You are house slaves.… Field slaves, they don’t want to take care of the massa. They don’t want to take care of the house. They want to burn the house down. And that is where you originated from. That’s the people you came from and now you are nothing but … house slaves.”

The history of the Irish in America is also why the “Sinners” vampire Remmick — in an attempt to convince Black people living under Jim Crow to join him — said: “I am your way out. This world already left you for dead. Won’t let you build. Won’t let you fellowship. We will do just that. Together. Forever.”

His argument was based in a truth that is apparent today, which is why “Sinners” touched those of us who know what it’s like to be othered in society. For those of us watching some of the worst moments in this country’s history be repeated at the behest of modern-day robber barons making billions, while children are snatched out of schools and the poor fight among themselves.

Advertisement

It will be weeks before we find out whether “Sinners” is named 2025’s best picture. But we already know that it offers the clearest picture of the evil we see around us.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Movie Reviews

FILM REVIEW: ROSE OF NEVADA – Joyzine

Published

on

FILM REVIEW: ROSE OF NEVADA – Joyzine

‘4’, the opening track on Richard D James’ (Aphex Twin) self titled 1996 album is a piece of music that beautifully balances the chaotic with the serene, the oppressive and the freeing. It’s a trick that James has pulled off multiple times throughout his career and it is a huge part of what makes him such an iconic and influential artist. Many people have laid the “next Aphex Twin” label on musicians who do things slightly different and when you actually hear their music you realise that, once again, the label is flawed and applied with a lazy attitude. Why mention this? Well, it turns out we’ve been looking for James’ heir apparent in the wrong artform. We’ve so zoned in on music that we’ve not noticed that another Celtic son of Cornwall is rewriting an art form with that highwire balancing act between chaos and beauty. That artist is writer, director and composer Mark Jenkin who over his last two feature films has announced himself as an idiosyncratic voice who is creating his very own language within the world of cinema. Jenkin’s films are often centred around coastal towns or islands and whilst they are experimental or even unsettling, there is always a big heart at the centre of the narrative. A heart that cares about family, tradition, culture, and the pull of ‘home’. Even during the horror of 2022’s brilliant Enys Men you were anchored by the vulnerability and determination of its main protagonist. 

This month sees the release of Jenkin’s latest feature film, Rose of Nevada, which is set in a fractured and diminished Cornish coastal town. One day the fishing boat of the film’s title arrives back in harbour after being missing for thirty years. The boat is unoccupied. And frankly that is all the information you are going to get because to discuss any more plot would be unfair on you and disrespectful to Jenkin and the team behind the film.  You the viewer should be the one who decides what it is about because thematically there are so many wonderful threads to pull on. This writer’s opinions on what it is about have ranged from a theme of sacrifice for the good of a community to the conflict within when part of you wants to run away from your roots whilst the other half longs to stay and be a lifelong part of its tapestry. Is it about Brexit? Could be. Is it about our own relationships with time and our curation of memory? Could be. Is it about both the positives and negatives of nostalgia? Could be. As a side note, anyone in their mid-40s, like me, who came of age in the 1990s will certainly find moments of warm recognition. Is the film about ghosts and how they haunt families? Could be…I think you get the point. 

The elements that make the film so well balanced between chaos and calm are many. It is there in the differing performances between the brilliant two lead actors George MacKay and Callum Turner. It is there in the sound design which fluctuates from being unbearably harsh and metallic, to lulling and warm. It is there in the editing where short, sharp close ups on seemingly unimportant factors are counterbalanced with shots that are held for just that little bit too long. For a film set around the sea, it is apt that it can make you feel like you’re rolling on a stomach churning storm one minute, or a calming low tide the next. Dialogue can be front and centre or blurred and buried under static. One shot is bathed in harsh sunlight whilst the next can be drowned in interior shadows. 

Rose of Nevada is Mark Jenkin’s most ambitious film to date yet he has not lost a single iota of innovation, singularity of vision or his gift for telling the most human of stories. It is a film that will tell you different things each time you see it and whilst there are moments that can confuse or beguile, there is so much empathy and love that it can leave you crying tears of emotional understanding. It is chaotic. It is beautiful. It is life……

Advertisement

Rose of Nevada is released on the 24th April. 

Mark Jenkin Instagram | Threads 

Released through the BFI – Instagram | Facebook

Review by Simon Tucker

Keep up to date with all new content on Joyzine via our 
Facebook| Bluesky | Instagram|Threads |Mailing List 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Larry David discusses ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm,’ ‘Seinfeld’ legacies and new HBO series

Published

on

Larry David discusses ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm,’ ‘Seinfeld’ legacies and new HBO series

Inside the ornate Bovard Auditorium, Larry David kept a full audience in stitches as he discussed the creation and legacy of his improv hit, “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which concluded in 2024 after 12 seasons.

In a conversation with Lorraine Ali — who wrote “No Lessons Learned: The Making of Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which retraces the show’s 24-year run with cast interviews, episode guides and behind-the-scenes material — David reflected on the separation between himself and the abrasive on-screen persona he adopted for more than two decades.

“I wish I was that Larry David,” he said.

David spoke about the outrageous audition process for “Curb,” wherein actors tried to navigate a brief written scenario without any dialogue to guide them as David lambasted them in character. Out of this process came iconic one-liners and beloved characters, such as Leon, played by J.B. Smoove.

“People bring out certain things, and when I would act with them, some of them would make me seem funny,” David said. “I go, ‘Oh, that’s good — let’s give him a part.’”

Advertisement

David cited “Palestinian Chicken” as one of his favorite episodes of the show. In the episode, David is caught between a delicious new Palestinian chicken restaurant, a Palestinian girlfriend and an outraged inner circle of Jewish friends.

He also spoke briefly about his upcoming episodic HBO series, “Life, Larry and the Pursuit of Happiness,” a historical spoof that will retrace United States history for the country’s 250th founding anniversary. The series will premiere on Aug. 7.

“A lot of wigs, costumes, beards — fake beards,” David said. “Nothing worse than fake beards.”

The controversial ending of “Seinfeld,” which David co-wrote with comedian Jerry Seinfeld, was polarizing among fans when it was released, David said. After a recent rewatch, however, David said he thought it was “pretty good,” to a round of applause from the audience.

Near the end of the panel, an audience member asked a question some definitely had on their mind: Will “Seinfeld” ever get a reunion?

Advertisement

“No,” David replied without missing a beat.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Hen’ movie review: György Pálfi pecks at Europe’s migrant crisis through the eyes of a chicken

Published

on

‘Hen’ movie review: György Pálfi pecks at Europe’s migrant crisis through the eyes of a chicken

A rogue chicken observes the world around it—and particularly the plight of immigrants in Greece—in Hen, which premiered at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival and is now playing in Prague cinemas (and with English subtitles at Kino Světozor and Edison Filmhub). This story of man through the eyes of an animal immediately recalls Robert Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar (and Jerzy Skolimowski’s more recent EO), but director and co-writer György Pálfi (Taxidermia) maintains a bitter, unsentimental approach that lands with unexpected force.

Hen opens with striking scenes inside an industrial poultry facility, where eggs are laid, processed, and shuttled along assembly lines of machinery and human hands in an almost mechanized rhythm of production. From this system emerges our protagonist: a black chick that immediately stands apart from the others, its entry into the world defined not by nature, but by an uncaring food industry.

The titular hen matures quickly within this environment before being loaded onto a truck with the others, presumably destined for slaughter. Because of her black plumage, she is singled out by the driver and rejected from the shipment, only to be told she will instead end up as soup in his wife’s kitchen. During a stop at a gas station, however, she escapes.

What follows is a journey through rural Greece by the sea, including an encounter with a fox, before she eventually finds refuge at a decaying roadside restaurant run by an older man (Yannis Kokiasmenos), his daughter (Maria Diakopanayotou), and her child. Discovered by the family’s dog Titan, she is placed in a coop alongside other chickens.

After finding a mate in the local rooster, she lays eggs that are regularly collected by the man; in one quietly unsettling scene, she watches him crack them open and cook them into an omelet. The hen repeatedly attempts to escape, as we slowly observe the true function of the property: it is being used as a transit point for migrants arriving in Greece by boat, facilitated by local criminal figures.

Advertisement

Like Au Hasard Balthazar and EO, Hen largely resists anthropomorphizing its animal protagonist. The hen behaves as a hen, and the humans treat her accordingly, creating a work that feels unusually grounded and almost documentary in texture. At the same time, Pálfi allows space for the audience to project meaning onto her journey, never fully closing the gap between instinct and interpretation.

There are moments, however, where the film deliberately leans into stylization. A playful montage set to Ravel’s Boléro captures her repeated escape attempts from the coop, while a romantic musical cue underscores her brief pairing with the rooster. These sequences do not break the realism so much as refract it, gently encouraging us to read emotion into behavior that remains, on the surface, purely animal.

One of the film’s central narrative threads is the hen’s search for a safe space to lay her eggs without them being taken away by the restaurant owner. This deceptively simple instinct becomes a powerful thematic mirror for the film’s human subplot involving migrant trafficking. Pálfi draws a stark, often uncomfortable parallel between the treatment of animals as commodities and the treatment of displaced people as disposable bodies moving through a similar system of exploitation.

The film takes an increasingly bleak turn toward its climax as the migrant storyline comes fully into focus, sharpening its allegorical intent. The juxtaposition of animal and human vulnerability becomes more explicit, reinforcing the film’s central critique of systemic indifference and violence. While effective, this escalation feels unusually dark, and our protagonist’s unknowing role feels particularly cruel.

The use of animal actors in Hen is remarkable throughout. The hen—played by eight trained chickens—is seamlessly integrated into the film’s world, with seamless editing (by Réka Lemhényi) and staging so precise that at times it feels almost impossible without digital augmentation. While subtle effects work must assist at certain moments, the result is convincing throughout, including standout sequences involving a fox and a dog.

Advertisement

Zoltán Dévényi and Giorgos Karvelas’ cinematography is also impressive, capturing both the intimacy of the hen’s low vantage point and the broader Greek landscape with striking clarity. The camera’s proximity to the animal world gives the film a distinct visual grammar, grounding its allegory in tactile observation rather than abstraction.

Hen is a challenging but often deeply affecting allegory that extends the tradition of animal-centered cinema while pushing it into harsher political territory. Pálfi’s approach—unsentimental, patient, and often confrontational—ensures the film lingers long after its final images. It is not an easy watch, nor a comfortable one, but it is a strikingly original piece of filmmaking that uses its unusual perspective to cast familiar human horrors in a stark, unsettling new light.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending