Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Avedon’ Review: Ron Howard’s Admiring Profile of Groundbreaking Photographer Richard Avedon Embraces His Genius, Flair and Mystery

Published

on

‘Avedon’ Review: Ron Howard’s Admiring Profile of Groundbreaking Photographer Richard Avedon Embraces His Genius, Flair and Mystery

For Richard Avedon, as with most significant artists, work and life were inseparable. When the photographer died in 2004, at 81, he was on the road, mid-project — “with his boots on,” in the words of Lauren Hutton, one of the many beautiful people he helped to immortalize over a 60-year career. Hutton and the two dozen or so other interviewees in Ron Howard’s admiring documentary make it clear how much affection the New York native inspired while reinventing fashion photography and putting his iconoclastic stamp on fine-art portraiture.

The profile Avedon paints is that of a relentless seeker and high-flying achiever, and a deliciously unapologetic contrarian. How can you not adore an image-maker who says, “Beautiful lighting I always find offensive,” and, regarding little kids as potential photographic subjects: “I find them intensely boring.” Avedon’s interest in the grown-up human face, in what it conceals and reveals, was his lifelong project, one that he pursued within circles of rarefied fame, on the backroads of the American West, and in a poignant late-in-life connection with his father.

Avedon

The Bottom Line

A solid mix of glitz and angst.

Advertisement

Venue: Cannes Film Festival (Special Screenings)
Director: Ron Howard

1 hour 44 minutes

As confrontational as his images could be, the camera was Avedon’s way of experiencing the world, a way of seeking truth through invention. Howard, whose previous doc subjects include Jim Henson and Luciano Pavarotti, and whose fiction movies are designed more to engage rather than to confront, seems particularly inspired here by Avedon’s auteur approach to still photography — it was a narrative impulse, not a documentary one, that shaped his vision, a drive to create moments and mise-en-scènes for the camera.

Avedon built his career at magazines in an era when magazines mattered. He was only 21 when he joined Harper’s Bazaar, where he stayed for 20 years, leaving to follow fashion editor Diana Vreeland to Vogue, where he stayed even longer. And when Tina Brown took the helm at The New Yorker and overturned its age-old no-photos policy, she hired Avedon as its first staff photographer.

Advertisement

When Harper’s sent him to Paris in 1947 with an edict to summon some of the battered capital’s prewar glamour, he turned to movies for inspiration and conjured visions of romantic fantasy amid the ruins. It was his first significant assignment, and a turning point for fashion photography. The doc emphasizes how, at a Dior show, the images he captured of the designer’s voluminous skirts mid-twirl expressed an ecstatic moment after years of wartime rationing. “People were weeping,” recalls Avedon, a vivid presence in the doc thanks to a strong selection of archival material.

The kinetic energy of those shots would become a defining element of his approach. Injecting movement and a theatrical edge into fashion photography, he lifted it out of the era of posed mannequins. To get models into the spirit of his concepts, he often leapt and danced alongside them. It’s no wonder that in Funny Face, the romantic musical loosely inspired by his career and first marriage, Fred Astaire played the photographer. Eventually Avedon shifted to a large-format camera, an 8×10, that allowed him to interact with his subjects directly, rather than through a viewfinder. There would be more scripted and carefully choreographed moments in his TV spots for Calvin Klein jeans and Obsession, collaborations with the writer Doon Arbus (daughter of Diane and Allan Arbus) that took chances (and which, for some viewers, are inseparable from memorable spoofs on SNL).

Fashion and advertising were mainstays, but he also became a notable portraitist. Positioning his subjects against a plain white background, he removed flattery from the equation. It was an artist-subject relationship in which he held all the power, and he didn’t pretend otherwise; on that point, Brown offers a trenchant anecdote. Remarkably, even though his refusal to sugarcoat was well established — not least by his notorious photo of the Daughters of the American Revolution — an Avedon portrait carried such cachet that establishment figures including the Reagans, Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush all submitted themselves to his crosshairs.

The film suggests that a moral imperative was as essential to Avedon’s work as his unconventional aesthetic vocabulary. He threatened to sever his contract with Harper’s when the magazine didn’t want to publish his photos of China Machado, and he prevailed: In 1959, she became the first model of color to appear in the editorial pages of a major American fashion magazine. Howard looks beyond the catwalks and salons to Avedon’s portraits of wartime Saigon, Civil Rights leaders and patients at Bellevue, many of those images collected in Nothing Personal, the book he did with James Baldwin, a friend from high school. A superb clip from a D.A. Pennebaker short of the book launch encapsulates the painfully awkward disconnect between the artist and the corporate media contingent. Most surprising, though, is how hard Avedon took it when the book was lambasted by critics. A later book, In the American West, would also meet harsh criticism; Avedon was, in the eyes of some, a condescending elitist.

Howard’s film is a celebration of a complicated man. It acknowledges Avedon’s naysayers, as well as his struggles and doubts, but this is very much an official story, made in association with the Richard Avedon Foundation, and steering clear of the disputed 2017 biography by Avedon’s business partner. The commentary, whether from models (Hutton, Isabella Rossellini, Twiggy Lawson, Penelope Tree, Beverly Johnson) or writers (Adam Gopnik, John Lahr, Hilton Als) or Avedon’s son, John, can be gushing, but it’s always perceptive.

Advertisement

The connection he sought with his subjects wasn’t about star worship but the instant when the ego lets down its guard, yet at the same time he was more interested in what he called “the marriage of the imagination and the reality” than straight documentation. Without putting too fine a point on it, Avedon links those twinned yet seemingly contradictory impulses to certain formative experiences. There was the devastation of extreme mental illness for Avedon’s sister and his second wife. There was the pretense of happiness in his childhood home in Depression-era New York (the city is captured in terrifically evocative clips). He recalls, discerning and exasperated, the staged domestic harmony — “the borrowed dogs!” — in family photos.

Avedon doesn’t aim to unsettle, like Avedon himself did, but neither does it tie things up neatly. There’s nothing simple or reductive about the emotional throughlines the documentary traces. It embraces the complexities of a man who turned artifice into a kind of superpower, whether he was dreaming up scenarios for fashion spreads or confronting an America as far removed from haute couture Manhattan as you could get.

Movie Reviews

‘Hokum’ movie review: Damian McCarthy’s nasty little ghost story is undone by its own explanations 

Published

on

‘Hokum’ movie review: Damian McCarthy’s nasty little ghost story is undone by its own explanations 

A stil from ‘Hokum’
| Photo Credit: NEON

For those of you already familiar with Damian McCarthy’s work, the Irish filmmaker has spent the past few years turning cramped Irish spaces into elaborate, nerve-racking machines for dread. His 2020 debut, Caveat, trapped us inside a decaying rural house with a chained protagonist and a grotesque toy rabbit, while 2024’s Oddity transformed an isolated farmhouse into a relay system for jump scares built from negative space and the sound of somebody knocking at the wrong moment. His latest, Hokum, pushes that approach into a larger setting without sacrificing the intimate unpleasantness that makes his work so effective. 

The film takes place almost entirely inside the Bilberry Woods Hotel, a fading property buried in the Irish countryside where the final few guests arrive for a Halloween celebration. At the same time, staff members quietly prepare to shut the building down for winter. Into this atmosphere walks Ohm Bauman, played by Adam Scott, an American novelist carrying two urns containing his parents’ ashes and a personality abrasive enough to make even the resident ghouls feel hospitable.

Hokum (English)

Director: Damian McCarthy

Cast: Adam Scott, Peter Coonan, David Wilmot, Florence Ordesh, Michael Patric, Will O’Connell, Brendan Conroy, Austin Amelio

Runtime: 107 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: When novelist Ohm Bauman retreats to a remote inn to scatter his parents’ ashes, he’s consumed by tales of a witch that haunts the honeymoon suite

McCarthy introduces Ohm through his work. The opening sequence shows him writing the conclusion to a historical adventure novel about a conquistador stranded in the desert with a dying child, and the scene initially appears disconnected from the main story until the camera pulls back to reveal that the entire episode exists inside Ohm’s manuscript.

This intro establishes the emotional logic driving the film. Ohm writes stories where people wander toward death because he has spent most of his adult life emotionally entombed inside the loss of his parents, who died shortly after honeymooning at the same Irish hotel he now visits. McCarthy avoids turning this into a tidy psychological diagnosis and attempts to reveal the damage through behaviour — Ohm humiliates a bellhop named Alby by heating a spoon over an open flame and pressing it against the young man’s hand after Alby asks him to read an aspiring manuscript.

That ugliness becomes central to Scott’s performance. Hokum strips away the comic cushioning that often softens his cynicism, especially in his recent Severance escapades. Scott keeps Ohm emotionally rigid even as the character begins to unravel inside the hotel’s sealed honeymoon suite, and the refusal to chase sympathy lends the film a sourness that works in its favour. When Ohm eventually risks himself to search for the hotel bartender Fiona, the motivation grows from guilt and loneliness over his botched suicide attempt. Fiona disappears after warning him about the suite’s resident witch, a local legend the hotel staff accepts with weary practicality, and her absence pushes Ohm deeper into the building’s sinister secrets.

A stil from ‘Hokum’

A stil from ‘Hokum’
| Photo Credit:
NEON

Cinematographer Colm Hogan lights the hotel with weak lamps, muddy greens, and heavy shadows that preserve spatial clarity even when characters crawl through near-total darkness. Production designer Til Frohlich fills the honeymoon suite with damp wallpaper, antique furniture, and cramped architectural dead ends that make it feel physically hostile before anything malicious even appears. McCarthy then uses sound with vicious precision, as ringing bells ring, creaking floorboards, and a mutated, uncanny-valley children’s TV program begin flooding the ominous silence.

The film loses some momentum once McCarthy begins unpacking the mystery behind Fiona’s disappearance and the crimes attached to the hotel’s past. Several supporting characters remain thinly drawn, particularly the hotel management, and the screenplay occasionally mistakes withholding information for complexity. The final stretch also leans too heavily on explanatory reveals and heightened confrontations, with the climactic encounter involving the witch pushing the film toward bluntness when the earlier sections had earned their power through suggestion alone.

Advertisement

Even so, Hokum succeeds because McCarthy understands the mechanical pleasures of horror filmmaking at a level many contemporary prestige directors seem embarrassed by. Though the scares land with diminishing returns this time, McCarthy still stages them with the acute understanding of just how long we will stare into a dark hallway before resenting ourselves for it. His folklore imagery still carries the grubby charm of an R.L. Stine paperback pulled from a damp school library shelf, which gives the film a pulpy nastiness that suits it well. McCarthy never fully organises many of these elements into a clean mythology. What he does create is a horror film with texture and personality, even if it barely holds up against the mastery of its predecessors.

Hokum is currently running in theatres

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Jordan Firstman’s ‘Club Kid’ Sparks Eight-Figure Offers: Cannes

Published

on

Jordan Firstman’s ‘Club Kid’ Sparks Eight-Figure Offers: Cannes

Jordan Firstman‘s buzzy Cannes UCR title Club Kid has been the talk of the festival and market this past 24 hours.

Multiple suitors are in for the movie and what’s interesting is the size of those suitors. Multiple major studios have kicked the tyres on the project. Contrary to reports, the offers are already in the eight-figure range. They were there last night, we heard at the time.

Many have assumed this will be an A24 title come the final reckoning but there is strong competition for a movie one studio buyer just told me at an event is “the most commercial movie at the festival by far: it works on a number of different levels to different age groups”. Another festival regular I spoke to said they see it as an awards movie “for sure”. The domestic credentials are certainly strong. Some international buyers we’ve spoken to were a little cooler but ultimately who doesn’t want a heartfelt good-vibe movie.

UTA Independent Film Group is in the middle of the deal. Charades handles international.

Advertisement

Club Kid follows a washed-up party promoter who is forced to turn his life around when an unexpected visitor arrives. Reviews have been strong.

During the film’s seven-minute Cannes ovation yesterday, lead actress Cara Delevingne teared up. Firstman, who also wrote and stars, picked up costar Reggie Absolom (who plays the son of Firstman’s character in the film) and started a chant in his honor. It was a continuation of the hijinks the two got up to at the film’s photocall earlier in the day. 

There are multiple projects in the market also drawing good offers. Things should become clearer in next 48 hours.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Karuppu (Veerabhadrudu) Movie Review – Gulte

Published

on

Karuppu (Veerabhadrudu) Movie Review – Gulte

2.5/5


02 Hrs 30 Mins   |   Action Fantasy Comedy   |   15-05-2026


Cast – Suriya, Trisha Krishnan, RJ Balaji, Indrans, Anagha Maaya Ravi, Natty Subramaniam, Swasika, Sshivada, Mansoor Ali Khan, Supreeth Reddy, George Maryan, Deepa Shankar, Namo Narayana and others

Director – RJ Balaji

Advertisement

Producer – S. R. Prabhu & S. R. Prakash Babu

Banner – Dream Warrior Pictures

Music – Sai Abhyankkar

Advertisement

It’s been a very long time since Suriya scored a unanimous theatrical hit. Soorarai Pottru and Jai Bhim were good films and received very good appreciation, but both skipped theatrical release and were released directly on Prime Video. Interestingly, the director, R. J. Balaji’s directorial debut, Mookuthi Amman, was also released directly on OTT. At a time when both of them need a theatrical hit, the hero and the director duo, teamed up for, Karuppu (Veerabhadrudu in Telugu ) a fantasy action drama film. The addition of Trisha, as female lead and Sai Abhyankkar, as music director, helped the film to generate good hype among fans and audience. After resolving the last-minute financial hurdles, the makers released the film today (i.e. a day later than the scheduled date). Did Suriya finally score a hit at the box office? Did R. J. Balaji utilise the opportunity to direct a star hero and deliver an engaging film? Did Sai Abhyankkar come up with chartbuster music yet again after, Dude? Let’s figure it out with a detailed analysis.

What is it about?

Baby Kannan(R. J. Balaji), a cunning and corrupt lawyer, runs a mafia and controls the Metropolitan Magistrate court in Chennai. He and his team intentionally extend the court hearings, to get fees from clients for a long time. They even turn judgments in their favour by bribing the Magistrate. What happens when a father(Indrans) and his daughter(Anagha Maaya Ravi), travel to Chennai from Kerala, with a bag full of gold? Why did the father carry a lot of gold in his bag? How did the deity(Suriya), Karuppuswamy, help the father and daughter, when they lost their gold? What challenges did the deity face while dealing with corrupt public officials? Forms the rest of the story.

Advertisement

Performances:

It’s good to see Suriya in an out-and-out commercial film after a long time. It looked like he thoroughly enjoyed playing the role of Karuppuswamy in the film. His screen presence and performance were top-notch as always. Trisha Krishnan in the role of Preethi, an honest and young lawyer did a good job with her performance. And yes, the age is catching up with her and it was very evident on screen.

Indrans and Anagha Maaya Ravi, in the roles of a helpless father and daughter, did an excellent job with their performance throughout the first half. The scenes on them in the first half are one of the major positives of the film. R. J. Balaji in the role of a corrupt lawyer did a good job with his performance but it would have been better if they had gone for an actor who has enough experience in doing antagonist roles. Interestingly, he had more slow-motion shots in the film than the hero, Suriya.

Natty Subramaniam in the role of Magistrate did well too. Especially, his performance was very good during his sequence in the film. The film had many notable actors and bearing one or two, most of them delivered good performances.

Technicalities:

Advertisement

Sai Abhyankkar’s work as a music director is a huge letdown. He failed to come out with good songs and apart from a couple of BGMs, his background score for the film was very loud, especially in the second half. G. K. Vishnu’s cinematography is good as always. Particularly during the fantasy episodes, the colour palettes and the frames he used, deserve appreciation. R. Kalaivanan’s editing was very tight and engaging in the first half but he should have done a better job in the second half. Production values by, Dream Warrior Pictures, were adequate. Let’s discuss the writer and director, R. J. Balaji’s work in detail in the analysis section.

Positives:

1.⁠ ⁠First Half
2.⁠ ⁠Suriya’s Screen Presence

Negatives:

1.⁠ ⁠Second Half
2.⁠ ⁠Loud Background Score
3.⁠ ⁠Over The Top Action Sequences

Advertisement

Analysis:

The directors, Shankar Shanmugam and Atlee in Tamil and Koratala Siva in Telugu, are a few of the directors in India, who are known for making socially relevant commercial entertainers, engagingly and entertainingly. These three directors along with a few other directors, made many commercially viable social drama films with different backdrops in the past. Just like the aforementioned dire tie, the director, R. J. Balaji, chose a socially relevant storyline and blended it well with socio-fantasy, with ‘God Vs Corrupt Public Official’, as a conflict point. Sounds existing, isn’t it? It indeed is exciting and up until the end of the first half, everything seemed to be working very well.

The emotional drama in the first half is the major highlight of the film. Unfortunately, after finishing the first half on a very good note, the director and his writing team, lost the track completely in the name of fan service and commercial mass moments. Right from the word go in the second half, everything appeared too loud and over the top.

It takes a good thirty to forty minutes for the protagonist to appear on screen but we as the audience never miss the protagonist during this period because of the gripping emotional drama. Right from the very first sequence, the director pulls us into getting connected with the father and daughter duo, their struggle and helplessness.

The director deserves appreciation for making the audience feel the pain of the father and daughter and we eagerly wait for someone to come and help them. And, when the protagonist, finally enters the screen and takes charge of the proceedings to help the father and daughter, every sequence was appreciated with loud cheers by the audience. The emotional drama, the initial conversation between God & the corrupt lawyer, the subsequent courtroom drama and the pre-interval sequence, made the first half end on a good note and raised the expectations further in the second half.

Advertisement

Unfortunately, for some reason, the director decided to take a different route in the second half and relied completely on mass commercial moments. It is where the film completely lost track. After letting God win, although on a sad note, at the end of the first half, the director seemed to have run out of ideas to come up with gripping drama further. Is it really possible for a corrupt human being to win against a powerful God? No way, right? The antagonist character appeared so small and insignificant in front of a ferocious God. It appeared like the director too is aware of it and included the dialogue – ‘Is it really required to use the powers of so many Gods’, just to stop a small-time corrupt lawyer’. That’s exactly what we as the audience feel while watching the second half. Since there’s no story or ideas to drive the film further, the director filled the second half of the film with commercial high moments one after the other. But, most of them appeared over the top, including the forced appearance of Suriya in his crowd favourite, Durai Singham getup. Another drawback of the film is that R. J. Balaji, took the role he played in the film too seriously and ended up giving a lot of screen space to his character with unnecessary slow-motion shots, punch dialogues, etc. It would have been better had he concentrated on writing, particularly in the second half.

Overall, interesting backdrop, socially relevant storyline and engaging emotional drama, in the first half worked out well but the film lost its track in the second half with a not-so-engaging screenplay and over the top action sequences. However, Karuppu, is a much better film among Suriya’s theatrical releases in the recent past. You may give it a try watching but keep your expectations low, particularly in the second half.

Bottomline – ‘God’s Magic’ Worked Partially

Rating – 2.5/5

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending