Year 13, Day 52 - 2/21/21 - Movie #3,754
BEFORE: One week left in February after this, and I'm pissed off tonight because I made a plan to watch "Wonder Woman 1984" in late March, that's what I'm working toward here, that's what's keeping me going, and now I just found out it's GONE from HBO Max. What the hell? It's only been on that service since Christmas, and now it's gone? Films stay on Netflix for about two years, generally, and therefore I (more often than not) have enough time to work them in to my schedule. And even if I can't, those films probably then pop-up on Hulu or AmazonPrime - and then even if that happens, there's always iTunes. But just when you think you've got this whole streaming thing down, somebody goes ahead and changes all the rules.
It turns out that the corporate strategy over at HBO/Warner is to release films simultaneously in the theaters and on HBO Max for just 30 days. But how does this help me? Also, who does this benefit? I realize it's an unusual time, what with theaters still closed in L.A. and NYC - so naturally box office for any film will be less if the two biggest cinema markets aren't open. HBO Max seemed like a godsend for me, but now I'm not so sure - rushing to watch films on THEIR schedule and not MINE seems very counter-productive to the whole stream-at-home concept. It feels a bit like the old "Buy now, supplies are limited" con game - "watch this film quickly, it could disappear at any time!" Well, that just doesn't work for me. Sure, I COULD have watched that superhero film at any time during January, then sat on my review until March 23, but I didn't know that the clock was ticking, that this new streaming film had an expiration date. (Really, though, I should have known, the clock is ticking on EVERY movie streaming everywhere. Everything is transient, nothing is permanent, after all. Even DVDs wear out after about 25 years, VHS tapes in even less time.). But digital and streaming was supposed to be innovative and different, but it's the same old trick - "watch it now in theaters, before we take it away!" or "Buy this classic Disney film on Blu-Ray, before we seal it back up in the vault!"
Hollywood, I'm trying to work with you here, promote your movies (OK, just some of them...) - can't you work with me and keep films available for a bit longer so I can get around to watching them? What's your plan here for "Wonder Woman 1984", are you going to put it back in theaters if they open up again in NYC and L.A. in March? I could travel to a theater in New Jersey to catch the film next week, but do I really want to travel across state lines just to see a movie? That would take up the better part of my day, to get there and back again on public transportation! Then again, what else have I got to do on my days off? I don't know, now I feel like the release schedules for recent blockbusters are kind of holding me hostage - and will "Wonder Woman 1984" be available on DVD or cable in time for me to watch it in March when I want to, or am I going to have to pay $7.99 to AmazonPrime or $19.99 to iTunes just to see this on my schedule?
I guess a lot could happen in a month - theatres could re-open, if the pandemic stats keep plummeting the way they are. Or "Wonder Woman" could get a second release, or maybe they'd put it on HBO proper by then. I'll have to wait and see - but HBO seems to have done away with its "Saturday Night Premiere" formula, last Saturday's big 8 pm film was "Argo", which is anything but new. I guess there haven't been enough 2020 releases ready for cable yet, geez, if only there were a popular superhero film from 2020 that could air as a big Saturday night premiere. Just saying...
HBO seems like a pretty good place to catch up on some animated films with Batman and Superman in them (if I program another chain of them), but how do I know those films aren't going to disappear from the service next week? I think I need my streaming services to have a bit more permanence to them.
Mark Duplass carries over again from "Blue Jay".
THE PLOT: A troubled couple are sent by their therapist to a beautiful getaway, but bizarre circumstances further complicate their situation.
AFTER: Well, it seems like a thriller of sorts found its way in to my romance chain - though this is about relationships too, in some ways it's a head-scratcher of a sci-fi/fantasy film - or is it? Better issue a quick SPOILER ALERT here, because it's going to be impossible to discuss this film with tipping off the surprises. You've been warned, turn back NOW if you're planning to watch this someday.
Ethan and Sophie are a married couple who just aren't on the same page, for whatever reason. They bicker constantly, haven't had sex in a long time and at least one of them is probably on the verge of calling it quits. Their counselor suggests a weekend retreat to a secluded estate. Upon arrival, they see a photo book of previous guests, and testimonials about how staying at this resort changed their lives - and at first, this weekend together, focused just on each other, seems to be just what this couple needed to re-connect.
But slowly, something starts to not make sense. They drink a little wine, smoke a little pot, and have sex in the guest house. But Sophie then goes back to the main house, and finds Ethan there, asleep. How did he get from one building to the other so quickly? And why doesn't Ethan remember their encounter in the guest house? Something similar happens when Ethan goes to sleep in the guest house, his wife comes on to him and then cooks him breakfast in the morning, something she NEVER does. Something funny is going on in the guest house, or else that pot they smoked was laced with something...
A little experimentation produces some odd results - when they go into the guest house together, nothing happens, but when one of them goes in alone, he or she meets another version, an idealized "Stepford Wives" version of their spouse, while the real version is somehow also standing outside the house. Huh? What gives? My brain started running through all the possible scenarios to explain this, trying to second-guess the plot and figure it all out. Maybe the guest house is haunted? Mmm, possible, but the ghosts seem really nice - maybe it's a succubus that is trying to seduce both of them in turn. But this film was labeled as a "thriller", not a horror film. Aliens? Same problem - though the aliens could produce replicas of people, as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Perhaps they're both hallucinating, but you can't really have sex with a hallucination. Virtual reality? Same issue. OK, maybe time travel, maybe that's their future selves in the guest house, or versions of them from another reality. Yeah, I don't really see the Duplass Brothers making a time-travel film - though Mark Duplass was in "Safety Not Guaranteed".
Well, I pretty much wasted my time, because the movie sort of never gets around to explaining how this weird situation is possible. OK, it does and it doesn't, because the official explanation doesn't make any sense - really, what explanation would? I think you just have to take this whole set-up as a metaphor - like if you could meet a "better" version of your spouse, would you leave your spouse? If you met someone who looked the same, dressed the same, talked the same, but was more confident or didn't have any of your partner's hang-ups, would you trade up? I'd have to think not, because if you've been with that person for 20 years or whatever, you'd not only have so much shared history, but also so many in-jokes, memories, and (one would hope) things in common. Assuming, that is, that during your time together you'd managed to grow together and not apart.
So, rather than do the sensible thing and immediately pack their bags, Ethan and Sophie decide to stick around the resort and use their time there as a form of therapy. Perhaps this is what their counselor somehow arranged, as an intimacy exercise, or some kind of relationship tester? (I know, it still doesn't make sense, but work with me here...) They take turns going in to the guest house and interacting with the idealized versions of each other, and this only leads to more questions, such as "do the other Ethan and Sophie know that they're not real?" and "how can they look and talk exactly like us?" and then of course there's "Why?" and "WTF?"
I'm not going to post the answers here - you can always look them up on Wiki if you really want to know what's happening here. Then of course, you'll have to decide if that explanation is enough, and if it makes any logical sense to you. To each his own, I guess. But I think there's more value here in the metaphor, in thinking about what this might mean symbolically - only even there, I'm kind of scratching my head also. Damn, I kind of had my money on "time travel", because the director of the film is Charlie McDowell, son of Malcolm McDowell, who played H.G. Wells in the movie "Time After Time" along with Mary Steenburgen, the director's mother, and she also is heard in today's film, as a voice on a phone.
(There could be another idea for a film there - a couple having issues is visited by their future selves, who travel back in time from a future where time travel exists to try and fix their relationship. I'd watch that, but am I the only one?)
EDIT: I forgot to mention that me watching this coincided with Episode 7 of the Disney+ series "WandaVision", and they do seem to share something in common, namely a couple inhabiting a space (either a guest house or a whole town) where the impossible seems to happen, and at first the audience isn't sure what's real or how these things can be happening. OK, so one's a thriller mixed with a relationship film and the other's a superhero story mixed with sitcom spoofs, but I can still see the connection.
Also starring Elisabeth Moss (last seen in "The Kitchen"), Ted Danson (last seen in "Hearts Beat Loud"), and the voices of Mary Steenburgen (last seen in "Life as a House"), Mel Eslyn (last seen in "Duck Butter"), Drew Langer (last heard in "Duck Butter"), Jennifer Spriggs, Charlie McDowell.
RATING: 5 out of 10 strips of bacon
No comments:
Post a Comment