Entertainment
Feedback: It wasn’t just the slap. All the ways readers were unhappy with Oscars 2022
![Feedback: It wasn’t just the slap. All the ways readers were unhappy with Oscars 2022 Feedback: It wasn’t just the slap. All the ways readers were unhappy with Oscars 2022](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1388128472.jpeg)
Concerning “Chaos in Hollywood” by Josh Rottenberg, March 28: I hope the movie academy does invoke penalties for Will Smith’s assault.
If an usher within the viewers or somebody like me did such a factor at work, there would definitely be penalties. My suggestion is that the academy bans Smith at subsequent 12 months’s awards present, which might not permit him the glory (and custom) of the earlier 12 months’s winner of the lead actor Oscar presenting it to the present 12 months’s winner.
There must be penalties for this sort of conduct whether or not it’s at an awards present or at work.
Steve Shaevel
Woodland Hills
::
When will we hear Chris Rock’s honest apology to Jada Pinkett Smith for having advised an appalling joke on the expense of a lady who’s bald resulting from a illness
Jackie Dooley
San Clemente
::
Concerning “The Oscars Promised the Most Entertaining Present. But it surely was not. In any respect,” by Lorraine Ali, March 28: Ugh. I’ve loved watching the annual Academy Awards for many years. Some exhibits have been higher than others, however none have been simply plain dangerous — till this 12 months’s manufacturing.
From the lemon-colored extra of the opening musical quantity, to the lame writing for the trio of comedian hostesses, to the embarrassing low factors of the night: Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock, adopted by Smith’s shouted profanities after which his weird, blubbering and bloviating acceptance speech. It was not a very good night of tv.
That stated, a honest “thanks” to Jessica Chastain for the best second of the evening. I haven’t but seen her efficiency as Tammy Faye, however she was gracious, considerate and eloquent.
Marcia Goodman
Lengthy Seaside
::
I feel Will Smith single-handedly (no pun supposed) gave the 2023 Oscars an early rankings increase.
Joe Kevany
Mount Washington
Lacking inspiring Oscar moments
I’m fully on board with all of the criticism leveled on the Academy for segregating these “below-the-line” class winners [“All Eyes on the Oscars? If Only …,” March 27] , however to me that’s no extra egregious than the follow that’s been occurring for years now of constructing the Governors Awards a separate — and invisible — occasion.
When Charlie Chaplin, Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, Groucho Marx, Alex North, Robert Boyle and others acquired particular profession achievement awards, these have been among the many most entertaining and provoking occasions in each Oscar present. Now, that’s been eradicated.
Who wouldn’t have needed to see a clip montage of the career-best performances of Liv Ullman and Samuel L. Jackson, or hear what altruistic Danny Glover needed to say about real-world activism, or what witty Elaine Might needed to say about something she had a thoughts to?
Within the wake of this 12 months’s broadcast, the Academy’s powers-that-be are most likely going to rethink their controversial determination to downsize these technical awards — I want they’d rethink the self-inflicted injury they’ve accomplished by maintaining the honorary profession Oscars in the dead of night.
Preston Neal Jones
Hollywood
Oscars: It’s what’s for dinner
Justin Chang and his pun/fun-loving spouse served up a slap-up menu in your Sunday version [“Caviar Bardem and Jane Champignons: Your Oscar Viewing Party Menu,” March 27].
Pleasant, sassy, flavored with wit and humor, the itemizing was riotous and worthy of an award.
Every one is a gem, really impressed by movie lovers Justin and his spouse for film-crazy people like me.
The particular version is a keeper.
Prem Kishore
Reseda
Racist themes in nominated movie
Thanks to Jen Yamato for stating the racist points in “Licorice Pizza” [“Awards Favorite Faces Racism Fallout,” March 24]. That was correct and well timed.
What number of occasions have we seen motion pictures painting individuals with British accent as refined, French accent as elite, Italian accent as passionate? Sadly, individuals with East European accents are normally portrayed as evil whereas these with Asian accents are too usually the butt of the joke.
Racist points apart, there are such a lot of different issues with this film: A 25-year-old lady seemingly stringing alongside a 15-year-old boy in what seems to be a romantic journey, are we speculated to take pleasure in that? And why does the director should parade Alana Haim round in a bikini when everybody else is totally clothed in a furnishings retailer?
Jack Lee
Camarillo
![](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/np-logo.png)
Movie Reviews
‘Martha’ Review: R.J. Cutler Tries to Get Martha Stewart to Let Down Her Guard in Mixed-Bag Netflix Doc
![‘Martha’ Review: R.J. Cutler Tries to Get Martha Stewart to Let Down Her Guard in Mixed-Bag Netflix Doc ‘Martha’ Review: R.J. Cutler Tries to Get Martha Stewart to Let Down Her Guard in Mixed-Bag Netflix Doc](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Martha_00044009_01191620.jpg?w=1440&h=810&crop=1)
From teenage model to upper-crust caterer to domestic doyenne to media-spanning billionaire to scapegoated convict to octogenarian thirst trap enthusiast and Snoop Dogg chum, Martha Stewart has had a life that defies belief, or at least congruity.
It’s an unlikely journey that has been carried out largely in the public eye, which gives R.J. Cutler a particular challenge with his new Netflix documentary, Martha. Maybe there are young viewers who don’t know what Martha Stewart‘s life was before she hosted dinner parties with Snoop. Perhaps there are older audiences who thought that after spending time at the prison misleadingly known as Camp Cupcake, Martha Stewart slunk off into embarrassed obscurity.
Martha
The Bottom Line Makes for an entertaining but evasive star subject.
Venue: Telluride Film Festival
Distributor: Netflix
Director: R.J. Cutler
1 hour 55 minutes
Those are probably the 115-minute documentary’s target audiences — people impressed enough to be interested in Martha Stewart, but not curious enough to have traced her course actively. It’s a very, very straightforward and linear documentary in which the actual revelations are limited more by your awareness than anything else.
In lieu of revelations, though, what keeps Martha engaging is watching Cutler thrust and parry with his subject. The prolific documentarian has done films on the likes of Anna Wintour and Dick Cheney, so he knows from prickly stars, and in Martha Stewart he has a heroine with enough power and well-earned don’t-give-a-f**k that she’ll only say exactly what she wants to say in the context that she wants to say it. Icy when she wants to be, selectively candid when it suits her purposes, Stewart makes Martha into almost a collaboration: half the story she wants to tell and half the degree to which Cutler buys that story. And the latter, much more than the completely bland biographical trappings and rote formal approach, is entertaining.
Cutler has pushed the spotlight exclusively onto Stewart. Although he’s conducted many new interviews for the documentary, with friends and co-workers and family and even a few adversaries, only Stewart gets the on-screen talking head treatment. Everybody else gets to give their feedback in audio-only conversations that have to take their place behind footage of Martha through the years, as well as the current access Stewart gave production to what seems to have been mostly her lavish Turkey Hill farmhouse.
Those “access” scenes, in which Stewart goes about her business without acknowledging the camera, illustrate her general approach to the documentary, which I could sum up as “I’m prepared to give you my time, but mostly as it’s convenient to me.”
At 83 and still busier than almost any human on the globe, Stewart needs this documentary less than the documentary needs her, and she absolutely knows it. Cutler tries to draw her out and includes himself pushing Stewart on certain points, like the difference between her husband’s affair, which still angers her, and her own contemporaneous infidelity. Whenever possible, Stewart tries to absent herself from being an active part of the stickier conversations by handing off correspondences and her diary from prison, letting Cutler do what he wants with those semi-revealing documents.
“Take it out of the letters,” she instructs him after the dead-ended chat about the end of her marriage, adding that she simply doesn’t revel in self-pity.
And Cutler tries, getting a voiceover actor to read those letters and diary entries and filling in visual gaps with unremarkable still illustrations.
Just as Stewart makes Cutler fill in certain gaps, the director makes viewers read between the lines frequently. In the back-and-forth about their affairs, he mentions speaking with Andy, her ex, but Andy is never heard in the documentary. Take it as you will. And take it as you will that she blames prducer Mark Burnett for not understanding her brand in her post-prison daytime show — which may or may not explain Burnett’s absence, as well as the decision to treat The Martha Stewart Show as a fleeting disaster (it actually ran 1,162 episodes over seven seasons) and to pretend that The Apprentice: Martha Stewart never existed. The gaps and exclusions are particularly visible in the post-prison part of her life, which can be summed up as, “Everything was bad and then she roasted Justin Bieber and everything was good.”
Occasionally, Stewart gives the impression that she’s let her protective veneer slip, like when she says of the New York Post reporter covering her trial: “She’s dead now, thank goodness. Nobody has to put up with that crap that she was writing.” But that’s not letting anything slip. It’s pure and calculated and utterly cutthroat. More frequently when Stewart wants to show contempt, she rolls her eyes or stares in Cutler’s direction waiting for him to move on. That’s evisceration enough.
Stewart isn’t a producer on Martha, and I’m sure there are things here she probably would have preferred not to bother with again at all. But at the same time, you can sense that either she’s steering the theme of the documentary or she’s giving Cutler what he needs for his own clear theme. Throughout the first half, her desire for perfection is mentioned over and over again and, by the end, she pauses and summarizes her life’s course with, “I think imperfection is something that you can deal with.”
Seeing her interact with Cutler and with her staff, there’s no indication that she has set aside her exacting standards. Instead, she’s found a calculatedly imperfect version of herself that people like, and she’s perfected that. It is, as she might put it, a good thing.
Entertainment
Review: In 'Close Your Eyes,' a Spanish master returns, still obsessed with the power of movies
![Review: In 'Close Your Eyes,' a Spanish master returns, still obsessed with the power of movies Review: In 'Close Your Eyes,' a Spanish master returns, still obsessed with the power of movies](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2e74152/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x4536+0+0/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F0d%2Ff2%2Fc31e52094e27b9ca82a891b4cbc1%2Fclose-your-eyes-jos-coronado-as-julio-arenas-dsc2754-copy.jpg)
The first feature that Victor Erice directed, 1973’s “The Spirit of the Beehive,” begins in the 1940s, when a traveling cinema arrives in a small rural town in Spain to project “Frankenstein.” In the crowd of moviegoers, a child with eager eyes stands out, Ana (Ana Torrent), whose sister will later reassure her that in cinema nobody dies and everything is but a trick. Still, what Ana sees on screen will slowly seep into her reality, blurring the division between the fate of the misunderstood monster of make-believe, and the actions of those near to her.
In 1983’s “El Sur,” a project never finished to Erice’s liking but released nonetheless, another young girl finds in the movies a crucial piece of information to decipher her father’s unspoken anguish. To opens one’s eyes, Erice suggests, is to come to terms with how little we understand about the pain of others, even those we deeply love. For Erice, a master, cinema works as a revelatory force that can illuminate our truest feelings and yearnings, despite the efforts of some of his characters to escape their torturous pasts.
One gets the sense that Erice, who counts famed directors such as Pedro Almdóvar and Guillermo del Toro among his admirers, has been eulogizing cinema ever since he started making his sporadic but delicately profound movies.
Against all prognostications, Erice has returned three decades after his last effort (a 1992 documentary called “Dream of Light”), as if to have a final say about his own artistic legacy. The themes that have recurrently consumed the 84-year-old — the specter of the Spanish Civil War, daughters estranged from fathers with peculiar histories, the merciless march of time — coalesce into the unhurried, poetically rewarding “Close Your Eyes,” his fourth film in 50 years and likely his last.
Interpreted as the auteur’s confession through surrogate filmmaker character Miguel (Manolo Solo), “Close Your Eyes” acquires a layered, contemplative quality. Can we truly learn about an artist through their work or is creation just another mask? Miguel’s career aspirations died when his best friend and renowned actor Julio Arias (a marvelous José Coronado in a sort of dual role) vanished without a trace while they filmed a period piece titled “The Farewell Gaze,” a movie within the movie about a mysterious idealist entrusted with finding a wealthy man’s long-lost daughter. Only two pivotal scenes from that uncompleted venture were finished, the opening and its poignant ending.
Miguel dives back into that chapter of his life when a television program focused on unresolved cases seeks to unearth whether Julio, a womanizer afraid of getting older, died in an accident or by suicide, or if a mental breakdown allowed him to start over without a single memory of the man he once was. A partial answer does surface halfway through “Close Your Eyes,” but that’s just another door Erice entices us to walk through — not, by any means, a neat resolution.
Using a style of elegant lyricism, which enshrines tiny moments into glisteningly miraculous turning points, Erice lets the exchanges between the people he’s conceived play out without the need to advance the plot. His purpose, if there is one explicitly, is to enrich our minimal comprehension of the lives unfolding in his truthful fictions; a substantial segment in “Close Your Eyes” is dedicated to Miguel’s simple existence by the shore, fishing. We also learn about his own romantic regrets, his enduring friendship with a celluloid-devoted film editor and the unbearable loss of a child.
Ana Torrent in the movie “Close Your Eyes.”
(Film Movement)
Obsessed with his actors’ power and symbolism, Erice appears to cast them based on their eyes, more specifically their incandescent expressiveness. That certainly appears the case with Solo. You will also recognize the inquisitive gaze of the child protagonist from “Beehive” in Torrent, now appearing in “Close Your Eyes” as Julio’s daughter, a woman in her 50s. Torrent is older now than Erice was when they made their first movie, and it serves as a moving reminder both of the years that have passed and how a person’s inherent essence is immutable across time. Cinema holds the frozen memory of Torrent as a kid, but reality has moved on.
That Torrent returned to collaborate with Erice after five decades — again playing a movie lover searching for answers — reads beautifully self-referential. That’s the crux of “Close of Your Eyes,” and of Erice’s concise body of work: Cinema crystallizes something that reality alone can’t, convincing us that perhaps what we need exists somewhere outside of ourselves, somewhere we can only access through the screen. It’s a reflection and an illusion at once.
Though film can trigger a memory-induced epiphany, it’s not the remedy itself, but an invitation to look inward, to close one’s eyes and find what’s inalienable about yourself.
In the monumental final frame of “Close Your Eyes,” the most soul-stirring ending of the year, Erice’s camera shuts its eyelids one last time, a humble sign of acceptance. Even within their limitations, the movies do see us.
‘Close Your Eyes’
Not rated
In Spanish, with English subtitles
Running time: 2 hours, 49 minutes
Playing: Now at Landmark’s Nuart Theatre, West Los Angeles
Movie Reviews
Reagan Is Almost Fun-Bad But It’s Mostly Just Bad-Bad
![Reagan Is Almost Fun-Bad But It’s Mostly Just Bad-Bad Reagan Is Almost Fun-Bad But It’s Mostly Just Bad-Bad](https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/191/afd/c29a986144336e39edf1ea310d979113fd-reagan-review.1x.rsocial.w1200.jpg)
Dennis Quaid in Reagan.
Photo: Showbiz Direct/Everett Collection
Reagan is pure hagiography, but it’s not even one of those convincing hagiographies that pummel you into submission with compelling scenes that reinforce their subject’s greatness. Sean McNamara’s film has slick surfaces, but it’s so shallow and one-note that it actually does Ronald Reagan a disservice. The picture attempts to take in the full arc of the President’s life, following him from childhood right through to his 1994 announcement at the age of 83 that he’d been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. But you’d never guess that this man was at all complex, complicated, conflicted — in other words, human. He might as well be one of those animatronic robots at Disney World, mouthing lines from his famous speeches.
Dennis Quaid, a very good actor who can usually work hints of sadness into his manic machismo, is hamstrung here by the need to impersonate. He gets the voice down well (and he certainly says “Well” a lot) and he tries to do what he can with Reagan’s occasional political or career setbacks, but gone is that unpredictable glint in the actor’s eye. This Reagan doesn’t seem to have much of an interior life. Everything he thinks or feels, he says — which is maybe an admirable trait in a politician, but makes for boring art.
The film’s arc is wide and its focus is narrow. Reagan is mainly about its subject’s lifelong opposition to Communism, carrying him through his battles against labor organizers as president of the Screen Actors Guild and eventually to higher public office. The movie is narrated by a retired Soviet intelligence official (Jon Voight) in the present day, answering a younger counterpart’s questions about how the Russian empire was destroyed. He calls Reagan “the Crusader” and the moniker is meant to be both combative and respectful: He admires Reagan’s single-minded dedication to fighting the Soviets. They, after all, were single-minded in their dedication to fighting the U.S., and the agent has a ton of folders and films proving that the KGB had been watching Reagan for a long, long time.
By the way, you did read that correctly. Jon Voight plays a KGB officer in this picture, complete with a super-thick Russian accent. There’s a lot of dress-up going on — it’s like Basquiat for Republicans, even though the cast is certainly not all Republicans — and there’s some campy fun to be had here. Much has been made of Creed’s Scott Stapp doing a very flamboyant Frank Sinatra, though I regret to announce that he’s only onscreen for a few seconds. Robert Davi gets more screentime as Leonid Brezhnev, as does Kevin Dillon as Jack Warner. Xander Berkeley puts in fine work as George Schultz, and a game Mena Suvari shows up as an intriguingly pissy Jane Wyman, Reagan’s first wife. As Margaret Thatcher, Lesley-Anne Down gets to utter an orgasmic “Well done, cowboy!” when she sees Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech on TV. And my ’80s-kid brain is still processing C. Thomas Howell being cast as Caspar Weinberger.
To be fair, a lot of historians give Reagan credit for helping bring about both the Gorbachev revolution and the eventual downfall of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites, so the film’s focus is not in and of itself a misguided one. There are stories to be told within that scope — interesting ones, controversial ones, the kind that could get audiences talking and arguing, and even ones that could help breathe life into the moribund state of conservative filmmaking. But without any lifelike characters, it’s hard to find oneself caring, and thus, Reagan’s dedication to such narrow themes proves limiting. We get little mention of his family life (aside from his non-stop devotion to Nancy, played by Penelope Ann Miller, and vice versa). Other issues of the day are breezed through with a couple of quick montages. All of this could have given some texture to the story and lent dimensionality to such an enormously consequential figure. But then again, if the only character flaw you could find in Ronald Reagan was that he was too honest, then maybe you weren’t very serious about depicting him as a human being to begin with.
See All
-
Connecticut1 week ago
Oxford church provides sanctuary during Sunday's damaging storm
-
Technology1 week ago
Breakthrough robo-glove gives you superhuman grip
-
Politics1 week ago
2024 showdown: What happens next in the Kamala Harris-Donald Trump face-off
-
News1 week ago
Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taunted over speculated RFK Jr endorsement: 'Weird as hell'
-
Politics1 week ago
Vivek Ramaswamy sounds off on potential RFK Jr. role in a Trump administration
-
World6 days ago
Portugal coast hit by 5.3 magnitude earthquake
-
Politics1 week ago
House GOP demands elite universities counteract 'dangerous' anti-Israel protests in the fall semester