Cinema has always been described as an art form based on magical realism. But the magic you see on screen is never the same on a film set. It’s total chaos. For some, cinema has been a very technical art form. The reason I brought up the technical aspect of films is because most people believe that to be a good filmmaker, you need to be a good technician who understands how gadgets and gizmos work. It has been the same with screenwriting, which has never been termed a “pure form of writing” but more of a “blueprint” for a film. Now, blueprint is a technical term that I believe shouldn’t be used by an artist, but here we are. 

The art form itself has been around for more than 100 years now, and throughout these years we have seen it go through numerous stages of evolution, be it the introduction of sound, color, or hand-sized digital camcorders. Every time a new technology is introduced, there is quite a chatter among the artists. With the introduction of sound, many silent-era superstars lost their limelight and whatnot. But here in 2023, we have another revolution heading our way with speed. The technical pundits call it an AI chatbot, and the most popular software of the tech was released under the name Chat GPT. However, the question I want to raise here today is about the effect it’s going to have on a filmmaker’s life, especially that of a screenwriter or people who write about films. 

As per the reports, in 2023, almost all big studios will employ chatbots to write screenplays. The finished product will probably be lame, but still, their intention here is quite horrifying. As much as I understand the use of these chatbots which through their hi-tech processing speed, can easily mug up an entire book (or books), which take days for an average human reader. With the information that’s gathered, they can mix two or three plot lines and write a screenplay that is “extremely” original or unique—a story that we may not have heard or seen before. However, the new books have a copyright issue, so the studio gurus will try the same procedure with the books in the public domain, but we already know what they’ve gotten from this entire facade. So, you may want to ask a question: why can’t an AI tell or write a good story?

As a screenwriter, the first thing I learned about writing was to put my own emotions and experiences on paper. Many writers have a traumatic childhood and may have felt neglected throughout their teenage years; some were even bullied. These are just some instances I am mentioning, but trust me, even if two events sound similar, they never have the same impact on two different people. The effect varies with our varying perception of things that depend on a lot of different factors, and that is too big of a topic based on psychology to discuss right now. However, in the case of AI chat, the language model is the same, so even if they can bring multiple outcomes to a certain story, it will always lack the human factor, i.e., the emotions. Can we train a chatbot to go into the wilderness, face existential crises, or maybe grow up with strict parents or absent parenting? There are so many conflicts that we experience throughout our lifetime, and these are experiences we bring to paper. 

So, the question here is, will an AI chatbot that has eaten up all the data on the internet in just 4-5 months ever be able to have those human experiences? I doubt it. A chatbot can surely construct a well-written sentence with correct grammar and punctuation, but what about the emotions and the magic? One can write the best lyrics in the world but singing them without feeling will make them sound vapid. And yes, personally, I find art in the rawness that life has to offer instead of a neat frame that never tells a good story.

The second profession that is in question here is that of the content writer. Honestly, I don’t know much about creating content, but yes, I do write about films, so that’s where I’d focus. As per my knowledge, a chatbot can gather aggregated data from the internet and present an answer that is most suitable to the needs of the user. For example, if a user wants to know the plot and ending of a film, then an AI can curate the perfect answer in a matter of seconds, and one doesn’t have to open a website to read the same. In this instance, there are no clicks on the website, and it is a win-win situation for the chatbot owners. However, there are two things worth mentioning. The first thing is that a chatbot only knows about things that are available on the internet, so a plot summary or a recap of a new film or episode will be impossible to gather until and unless a human user has already written it. But if a chatbot has already kicked millions of writers out of their profession, who is going to write the content? Plus, even if they wrote it, they wouldn’t be earning anything, so why bother?

Secondly, there is the artistic part. If we entertain the same query, then sometimes it can be the case that you like to read a narrative that is written by a human because they bring their own emotions and experiences to the narration of the story. “Narration” is the word I would like to highlight again because most chatbots follow the same language models, which will be updated frequently throughout the years, but even a teenager would be able to spot the structuring of those sentences as the tech evolves. Another concern is that most readers will fall victim to the monotony and may need a way out.

The artistic side of things is extremely important in this scenario because a critic or someone who writes about films often tries to bring their own perspective to the narration of a story. These perspectives or opinions are what most users like to read, but with AI chatbots, there will be plain and simple facts to a certain query. Also, if the chatbot has already revealed the big surprise to you, you might not want to look further, and in the process, you may overlook the gems that had been waiting for you. In short, AI is going to make us more lazy and stupid with time, taking away our autonomy to “choose.” In addition to that, there are many hidden layers in the film that a filmmaker tries to incorporate, and these themes are always up for discussion in well-made films. However, with the AI takeover, the human voices are certainly going to disappear, as writers need revenue to survive, and for most of us, it comes from digital advertising. But with the introduction of chatbots and AI-integrated search, we are not sure how many people would still prefer to open a website ever again.

Some people might prefer to open a reputable website to read what the experts in the business have to say about a certain work of art, but what about the independent voices? Will they be able to survive? Or will it all be back to zero, where a writer, a journalist, or an artist will have to look up to a big corporation with a huge subscriber base so that people may get to know their work? The world is heading towards another chaotic scenario, and this time, it’s all “online.” We hope people love the answers that an AI has in store for them, yet some of us would still be looking for people to arrive at our door so we can entertain them and meet them like the good old days. If not, then it’s goodbye for good.

Rian Johnson is one of the most prolific directors working in the industry right now, with films like “Brick,” “The Brothers Bloom,” “Looper,” “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” and three of the best episodes of “Breaking Bad” under his belt. Now, he has started a franchise from scratch (or loosely inspired by the works of Agatha Christie) with the last of the gentleman sleuths, Benoit Blanc, at the helm, who is played impeccably well by Daniel Craig. But Blanc is only the audience surrogate in “Knives Out” and “Glass Onion,” while the franchise’s heart beats for the women of color in those films, i.e., Marta Cabrera, Helen and Andi Brand, and Peg. Because of their perspective, Johnson gets to paint a very accurate depiction of the situation in the United States of America at the time of the movie’s release.

Major Spoilers Ahead

Marta Cabrera From ‘Knives Out’ And Life In Trump’s America

Marta was Harlan’s nurse, and she spent the entirety of the movie thinking that she had given Harlan Thrombey the wrong dosage of medicine, thereby sending him to his death. Things got even more complicated when Harlan’s will stated that he had assigned all his assets to Marta. But the real killer turned out to be Ransom Thrombey, i.e., Harlan’s grandson, and Marta got to keep Harlan’s property as her own. That said, during this whole process, we got to see what the Thrombeys actually werel. Richard Drysdale, Donna Thrombey, and Jacob Thrombey all openly stated that they hated immigrants. Richard and Donna even defended the refugee camps, which were keeping immigrant children in literal cages. Walt Thrombey, Ransom, and Meg Thrombey actively threatened to leak the information about Marta’s mother’s illegal immigrant status so that Marta and her family could be arrested. Linda accused Marta of sexually coercing Harlan, and Joni brought up the topic of the slayer rule to accuse Marta of killing Harlan and reversing her claim over the Thrombey property. And they did all this after telling Marta to her face how much she meant to them and how they all wanted her to come to Harlan’s funeral. However, we know that wasn’t the truth, and only Harlan cared about Marta; hence, he decided to frame his death as a suicide because he knew that if Marta was accused of murder, she and her family would be thrown out of America.

Even though the name Donald J. Trump wasn’t brought up anywhere, the mention of refugee camps, red caps, and the rise of alt-right Nazis, coupled with the fact that “Knives Out” came out in 2019, made the commentary very obvious. Throughout his presidential campaign and his presidency, Trump went after immigrants to gain the votes of White Americans. He used the most disgusting words to refer to them in order to fuel the anti-immigrant sentiments that the racists strewn all over America were harboring. He blamed immigrants for taking jobs that White Americans apparently deserved as if companies were rejecting White Americans despite their infinite skills. And all this for what? Immigrants, especially immigrant women, are the backbone of the United States of America. Approximately 12.3 million immigrant women, which includes 2.4 million undocumented women, are a part of the workforce. They are largely in health care, social assistance, accommodation and food services, educational services, retail trade, and manufacturing. They ensure that America stays functional while seeing to it that their own families are well-fed and in good shape. So, to receive racism and alienation after all that must be disheartening as hell. But, through Marta, we are reminded that hatred cannot be fought with hatred. Instead, it should be fought with confidence and kindness because racism is no match for that, as proven by the ousting of the Thrombeys from the Thrombey estate (which Harlan bought in the 1980s from a Pakistani real estate billionaire) and Trump from the White House.

Andi And Helen From ‘Glass Onion’, And The Sidelining Of Black Women

Andi conceptualized the multifunctional company called Alpha, which was centered around this free app that would involve crypto management, worldwide accessibility, dark web efficacy, and crypto scalability. It (figuratively) exploded in the market, and Andi was generous enough to bring her friends, Claire, Lionel, Birdie, Duke, and her then-boyfriend, Miles, along for the ride. But when Miles wanted to expand by greenlighting a dubious hydrogen-based fuel recommended to him by a Norwegian scientist, Andi put her foot down and refused to move forward with that idea. So, Miles turned Andi’s friends against Andi, pushed Andi out of her position as the owner of Alpha, and when Andi threatened to expose Miles for lying about coming up with Alpha, he straight up killed her and framed it as a suicide. Helen, Andi’s twin sister, was blindsided by this turn of events and couldn’t fathom the fact that things in the city could’ve gone so wrong that Andi had to kill herself. So, she took matters into her own hands and not only got to the bottom of the crime but also destroyed everything that Andi had purchased with the money that rightfully belonged to Andi.

Miles closely resembles Elon Musk’s antics. Musk’s Tesla has been accused of racial discrimination. His takeover of Twitter has led to a spike in anti-Black hate speech. Even though Musk claimed that hate speech was down, he openly mocked company T-shirts with the #StayWoke hashtag (which was created by Twitter’s Black employee resource group to support the Black Lives Matter movement) printed on them. And although these are recent developments, Miles sidelining Andi is emblematic of White men taking credit for the hard work done by Black women for generations. It also refers to the mistreatment and downright dehumanizing of Black women that takes in various sectors of U.S. culture and society, which has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is when “Glass Onion” is set in. Reports have stated that although the U.S. economy has bounced back, it has left Black women behind because the situation is way worse for them than anyone else, especially in corporate spheres. There are hiring discrimination and policy issues when it comes to childcare, and they’re more prone to being fired. Helen seems to be the antidote, albeit susceptible to being shot at, as her down-to-earth profession and proximity to her hometown give her the kind of grit that’s necessary to take on White men like Miles. It’s not a long-lasting or fair solution because life shouldn’t be this hard for Black women. However, this is a sad reality.

Peg From ‘Glass Onion’ And The Issue With “Assisting” The Privileged

Peg was the almost-obsolete fashionista Birdie Jay’s assistant. Her job profile included putting out fires created by Birdie in her living room and on social media. She had to pull her weight while also carrying Birdie’s luggage. And most importantly, she had to discourage Miles from having Birdie issue a statement to the press about Bangladesh, which would potentially destroy Birdie’s career and Peg’s as well. Why was the statement so damning? Well, because it’d mean that Birdie was admitting that she approved the use of sweatshops in Bangladesh to make sweatpants for her designer-yet-comfortable clothing brand, Sweetie Pants. Now, while Birdie would get a $30 million cut from Miles for doing this (because he was already bankrolling her company), Peg’s career would be ruined because she’d be associated with someone who was not only known for racism and antisemitism but also supporting illegal factories. Thankfully, it didn’t come down to that in the film, as Miles’s reputation went up in flames, and Birdie came to the realization that she didn’t need to abide by Miles’s rules. However, the reality isn’t that sympathetic when it comes to celebrity assistants.

The “dumb Blonde” has been a stereotype in American cinema for ages. But they’ve usually been portrayed as innocent, airheaded, and promiscuous for no reason at all. Rian Johnson kind of revives the trope to address the popularity of dumb Blondes on mainstream and social media and associates it with their privilege and the assistants they hire. Because it’s people like Peg who make them look presentable, and without them, they’ll come off as the concoction of tone-deafness, racism, antisemitism, and classism that they are. Recent studies show that Asian American workers face the longest periods of joblessness, in addition to other challenges, despite having the lowest employment rate amongst every racial or ethnic group in the U.S. Even if they are 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants, they aren’t able to switch jobs whenever they feel like it because getting rehired is an issue. Peg points out that Birdie was the only employer who hired her back after she left for her brief stint in retail because no one else would hire her, and no one wanted to manage Birdie. And this very real dilemma is presented perfectly as she’s turned into a laughing-stock for being smarter and more educated than the rest while also dealing with the crippling fear and constant anxiety of being unemployed in this economy.

Benoit Blanc Teaches Us About Allyship In ‘Knives Out’ And ‘Glass Onion’

The world is patriarchal, and every nook and cranny is male dominated. So, the onus is always on men to change the status quo. Since men are too lazy to do that, they shift the blame to whatever or whoever they can to avoid taking responsibility for being the oppressor, historically speaking. The very existence of Benoit Blanc is an education in what a man’s role in society should be. Blanc is on the side of facts and figures, yes. But he is also aware of the subjective experiences of women. In both films, the one who has been wronged is a woman. And we’ve seen on social media and in real life that when there are White people and the affluent on one side and a woman on the other, the court of public opinion usually sides with the former and rarely with the latter. However, Blanc never judges Marta or Helen (because he technically never meets Andi) based on their appearance, their background, or what they claim has happened to them. He empathizes with their plight and does his best to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of giving his undivided attention to those who are more likely to be criminals.

Now, Blanc’s approach to life can be attributed to a number of things, ranging from his education to his upbringing to the fact that he might’ve faced a certain level of discrimination for being a gay man from the southern region of the USA. But one doesn’t necessarily need all that to be an ally to women, especially women of color. You do need to be conscious of your place in society as a man and wield it responsibly instead of channeling the years of toxic masculinity and heteronormativity that gender has been synonymous with. You have to listen to the women around you and realize that you probably don’t have a firm grasp of what a woman faces on a daily basis. It’s great if you can use your privilege to delve into gender studies, but if you don’t have the time for that, at least read the news. That’ll definitely make you empathize with women in general. And when the time comes, pass on the mic to the women around you so that they can tell their stories. Yes, this requires a lot of unlearning and education. However, it’s the least men can do to make this world a better place for women.

A Note Of Appreciation For Ana de Armas, Janelle Monáe, And Jessica Henwick’s Performances In ‘Knives Out’ And ‘Glass Onion’

I absolutely love Ana de Armas, Janelle Monáe, and Jessica Henwick and the performances they’ve delivered in these films. Ana has received her fair share of appreciation for her turn as Marta. But she truly deserves more because, upon every rewatch, you get to see her range as an actress. She portrays Marta as a ball of constant anxiety and despair. However, when the time comes, she switches it up so beautifully to show the underlying resilience. Kindness and goodness seem like easy traits to portray on screen, but they can easily seem fake and disingenuous. From the first frame to the last, Ana ensures that that’s not the case with Marta, thereby making the villains of the film (the Thrombeys) seem all the more heinous and vile. In addition to all that, she gets to be the face of one of the greatest final shots in a movie.

Janelle Monáe is so good as the real Andi and the fake Andi that when she shows up as Helen, she gives you whiplash. The accent and the makeup play a huge role. But it’s also what Monáe brings physically that separates Andi from Helen. Even at her angriest, Andi remains seated and expresses her anger. Helen, while being high on kombucha, is much more animated and borderline theatrical. When the rush of adrenaline dies down, she aptly expresses the mix of fear and determination she’s feeling during this twisted revenge quest. Monáe’s comic timing is excellent as well. Every single time she exclaimed in shock or anger, or because she accidentally snorted hot sauce, she had me cackling. And then there are the climactic moments of the film, where she gets to trash Miles’ art gallery, i.e., the most intricate set built for the film (I guess) and turns into a full-blown action hero. A tad bit unrealistic? Yes. However, Monáe’s Mona Lisa pose more than makes up for it.

Last but not least, we have Jessica Henwick. The way she walks the line between completely giving up on Birdie and remembering that this is her only avenue for employment is darkly hilarious. Her reaction to the revelation that Birdie thought sweatshops made sweatpants made my stomach drop because she accurately channeled the disappointment I feel when I see rich, White folks getting so much money and so much attention despite saying and doing the stupidest things imaginable. Her mini reactions to Birdie asking about Philip Glass, Miles handing her a red cup with some kind of alcohol instead of a custom drink like the others have received, or when she hears Benoit say “consensual cuckolding for cable news assignments” are truly priceless. But the one scene that truly stuck with me is when she gleefully looks at Helen while gladly holding onto her bottle of kombucha, as she hears her say everything that she wants to say to that group of rich degenerates. So, in conclusion, Jessica Henwick, Janelle Monáe, and Ana de Armas are awesome, and they deserve all the applause and all the roles in the world.

See More: ‘Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery’ Ending, Explained: How Did Benoit Blanc Figure Out Who The Killer Was?

Every year, there is a film that seems overhyped. Not in the sense that the masses have watched it and are claiming that it is the best thing ever. But in the sense that the film is aimed at a very niche section of the audience. And those who have watched it desperately want everyone else to join in as well so that they can get more films like that. Sadly, the outcome of overhyping is usually disappointment because nothing can measure up to the movie you have imagined in your head. I was under the impression that “The Banshees of Inisherin” was going to fall into that category this year. The trailer was pretty simple, as it showed two friends going their separate ways for no rational reason. Everything from the setting to the performances looked very low-key. However, as soon as people started to see it, they praised it immensely. It has gotten quite the awards buzz. So, I was really scared that the film was going to deflate my sky-high expectations. Well, folks, now that I have watched it, I can confidently say that it is as good as everyone has been saying. In fact, I will say that Martin McDonagh has made one of the best movies of all time.

Major Spoilers Ahead

Colm Doherty And Late-Stage Peacocking Amongst Men

When Pádraic understands that Colm doesn’t want to associate with him anymore, the first thing that crosses his mind is whether he has said something offensive. He even says that if he has said anything bad, he will apologize for it. Colm initially states that he doesn’t want to talk to Pádraic because he doesn’t “like” him anymore. But he doesn’t explain what the reason is for this sudden feeling of dislike towards him. When Pádraic pursues him a little more, Colm reveals that he thinks he hasn’t utilized his life properly. According to him, he has spent way too many days in dull, pointless conversations with Pádraic, and he doesn’t want to do that anymore. After all this time, he wants to correct this grave mistake by living peacefully and composing music. There’s more to it, though. He wants to compose music not just for himself but also because he thinks that it will somehow immortalize him. That reeks of pride, and he even admits it to the priest without realizing how pompous he sounds. However, when Pádraic doesn’t understand the gravity of his commitment, he starts to cut off his fingers until he has none on his right hand. And that’s when you wonder: Is all this worth the pain and hate?

Colm represents a midlife crisis (I am assuming he’s in his 60s because that’s Brendan Gleeson’s age) with an unhealthy dollop of late-stage peacocking. It’s quite okay to begin a new chapter of your life, but it shouldn’t come at the cost of basic decency. But, sadly, most times, that is the case. Because the person going through said crisis knows he’s angry at himself for wasting all these years. However, instead of holding themselves accountable, they put the blame on everyone else and hurt them. Accusing Pádraic of “holding him back” is Colm’s way of shifting blame from himself to a person who has probably looked after him all this time very sincerely. In fact, Pádraic seems so concerned that I’m sure he would’ve agreed to give Colm some space if he had started his music-making process by explicitly stating that. Instead, he gives him the silent treatment and acts rudely, thereby preventing Pádraic from understanding why he needs to be shunned like this. Colm’s new approach to his life and those that populate it is wrong. He can’t see that because he is blinded by his arrogance. Or maybe he does, and instead of restarting the process properly, he doubles down on it by harming himself, which increases Pádraic’s guilt for trying to reach out to him. The only upside of Colm’s egotism is that he hits back at the policeman and the priest, who represent professions filled with pompous individuals (mostly men).

See More: Why Did Colm Want His Friendship With Padraic To End In ‘The Banshees Of Inisherin’?

Pádraic Súilleabháin And The Death Of The ‘Nice Man’

The one thing that Pádraic tries to ensure throughout the runtime of “The Banshees of Inisherin,” is that he’s a nice guy. Yes, he unironically thinks that if Colm is going through a bout of depression, he should suppress it like the rest of them do. But apart from that, yes, Pádraic comes off as a nice guy. He is charitable toward Dominic. He cares about his sister, Siobhán. He looks after his animals. However, as his patience starts to dwindle because of Colm’s actions, he starts to partake in snitching, first with the priest and then with the policeman. The result of the former is Colm’s ultimatum with the fingers, and the result of the latter is a punch to his face. During his outburst, he says the word “nice” hundreds of times because he thinks that’s the most important thing in life. And he is not wrong about that. Does he follow that principle, though, through and through? No, he doesn’t. He straight-up lies about death to one of Colm’s new friends to get him out of Inisherin so that he can have Colm all to himself again. When Dominic calls that out, he realizes that his exterior image does not match what he has become on the inside, i.e., not nice.

I have to make it clear that niceness is an undervalued attribute in this modern, cynical world. We have finite lives and being nice is the least we can do. Since that’s not the case and the bar for basic human ethics is practically underground, there are people (men, to be specific) who think they are owed something for doing the bare minimum. If they aren’t misogynistic or abusive or are moderately educated, they think they should be applauded. Because they see the men around them not doing all that and still getting rewarded in this patriarchal society. So, instead of being nice of their own volition, they start to put on an act to get brownie points or favors from people. Pádraic does start out as a nice guy. But Colm’s erratic actions force him to see that there’s a limit to his niceness. And beyond that limit, Pádraic is only wearing the shell of a nice guy while acting out his basic urges. He is selfish and vengeful, both attributes that are not synonymous with niceness. Yes, Colm should not have acted rudely. However, that was on him. By reacting to it, Pádraic becomes something worse than Colm. Therefore, folks, men, be nice for yourself and not because you want to get some pats on your back for nothing.

Siobhán Súilleabháin, Mrs. McCormick, And The Consequences Of Patriarchy

Siobhán acts as the voice of reason between Colm and Pádraic while harboring aspirations of her own. She tries to understand her brother and her brother’s ex-best friend. She applies for jobs on the mainland. She ensures that the house is neat and clean. She isn’t married, which is clearly not the custom on that island. And although people think she’s a loser for staying unmarried, she takes it in her stride. She calls Dominic’s behavior creepy and rejects his romantic proposal in a polite manner. Talking about calling men out, she explicitly states that Colm is being arrogant just because he’s trying to do something different on an island full of boring men. She highlights Pádraic’s selfishness for thinking about himself right after hearing that she is going to the mainland for a job instead of, you know, being happy and supportive about her endeavor. On the flip side, Mrs. O’Riordan and Mrs. McCormick spend their time listening to gossip and passing it around. Mrs. McCormick technically becomes the titular banshee of Inisherin by predicting deaths and becoming an unpleasant person to be around, which is exemplified by the place she stays, i.e., a lonesome house near the cold lake.

Through Siobhán, O’Riordan, and McCormick, “The Banshees of Inisherin” holds up a mirror to the patriarchal society. McDonagh shows that when a community is made of dull, boring, and misogynistic men, the first thing that they do is demean the women around them. Siobhán, O’Riordan, and McCormick are turned into stereotypes. But, maybe because of her age and her ability to see a life ahead of her, only Siobhán manages to break this cycle of oppression. Meanwhile, O’Riordan and McCormick continue to perpetuate misogynistic practices on behalf of the men (it’s called internalized misogyny; look it up). However, what exactly lies in Siobhán’s future after leaving Inisherin? The mainland is plagued with a civil war that’s being waged by men who are pettier than those in Inisherin. Hence, there’s no saying when the aftermath of that nonsense will reach her. In addition to the threat of physical trauma, she is going to be mentally traumatized for life after reading Pádraic’s letter and learning that Dominic died by suicide because she rejected him. If she understands that it’s not her fault and that Dominic (and maybe his father) is to blame for his immaturity, then that’s good. If she finds it too overwhelming to handle, then the ghosts of Inisherin will continue to haunt her even though she has physically distanced herself from that dreary island.

There are a lot of movies about making movies or falling in love with the art of making movies. You have probably heard of “Singin’ in the Rain,” “The Artist,” “Sunset Blvd.,” “Barton Fink,” “Hellzapoppin’,” “The Aviator,” “Cinema Paradiso,” “Sherlock Jr.,” “Chaplin,” “Mank,” “Me & Earl & The Dying Girl,” “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,” “Adaptation,” and “Hail, Caesar!” There are definitely more, but they are slipping my mind right now. But I can assure you one thing: “The Fabelmans” is going to be one film that is never going to leave me until the day I die. Because in this semi-autobiographical movie, Steven Spielberg doesn’t just talk about how he fell in love with cinema; while tackling all the professional and personal issues in his life. Spielberg also reminds us how we, the audience, fell in love with the medium, be it through his work or someone else’s.

Major Spoilers Ahead

The Survival Of Cinema In The Tug Of War Between Art, Family, And Science

The first hour or so of “The Fabelmans” is very chaotic and kinetic, as Spielberg and co-writer Tony Kushner cover a lot of ground. They pinpoint the moment Sammy falls in love with movies and start to hint at why exactly he loves them. It boils down to the fact that Sammy likes to have a sense of control over the things that are happening around him. Cinema allows that kind of control. Every living thing, every inanimate object, and even the duration of every moment can be manipulated until it is the way he wants it to be. But that brings up the question: where does this need for control come from? Maybe it’s partly genetic and partly circumstantial. I say that it’s genetic because Sammy’s mother, Mitzi, has always reacted to situations instead of having a firm grasp on her life. She had to choose family over being a professional pianist. She had to choose Burt over Bennie for some inexplicable reason. And she copes with it by reminding herself that everything that happens happens for a reason and also by equipping Sam with everything he needs to pursue his passion.

That’s where Burt comes in. He isn’t necessarily the villain of the film. But he’s certainly the antagonist. He doesn’t actively stop Sammy from making his movies. However, he keeps mentioning that Sam should only see it as a hobby. That’s because he doesn’t see it as a viable career option. He is a man of science. He thinks that something that exists in a tangible fashion is important. Whereas something that is made of imaginary stories and fictional characters shouldn’t be taken seriously. Yet, when Burt doesn’t know how to cheer Mitzi up, what does he turn to? That’s right! Sammy’s ability to manipulate emotions via cinema. In complete contrast to that, Uncle Boris gives Sam the lowdown by saying that his love for his family, the norm that scientific stuff is a viable career option, and his love for movies is always going to be at odds with each other. However, he has to commit to one of those choices before life makes him do it and stick with it until the very end. Or else, what’s even the point of going down this path? This explanation of why an artist decides to become an artist can seem pretty rigid. That said, it does highlight the importance of not just standing behind your kid’s passion with words but giving them the tools, they can use to pursue their dreams.

Steven Spielberg Screams That Everything Is Subjective In Cinema

From the first frame to the last, Steven Spielberg repeatedly underscores the fact that nothing about cinema is objective. Cinema is purely subjective in nature and should be treated as such. Propaganda movies are objectively bad, though (which is something that even Guillermo del Toro has highlighted with “Pinocchio”). But, yes, apart from that, every single piece of entertainment is driven by emotions, the storyteller’s personal experiences, and the films that have personally influenced them. If you think that documentaries are factual in nature, through Sammy, Spielberg disproves that notion. He records everything that happens on the camping vacation that the Fabelmans go on, along with Benny. However, when he starts to edit it, he realizes that those hours of footage contain two stories. One is that of Mitzi entertaining her family, and the other is that of Mitzi’s affair with Benny. He chooses to show one narrative publicly and the other narrative privately, and they attract polar opposite reactions from their target audiences, even though the two short films share the same origin. The only two people who know about what Sammy has presented and left on the editing room floor are Sammy and Mitzi. Because, as the filmmaker, Sammy makes that choice.

The power of choices when it comes to filmmaking is further emphasized through the movies that Sammy makes for a larger audience. While making his war film, Sam chooses to put a piece of how he feels about the inevitable and irreparable conclusion to Burt and Mitzi’s marriage into his lead actor’s performance. The actor thinks he is simply playing a role. The audience believes it as well. But only Sam and we, the viewers, know that he’s lamenting about the eventual demise of the Fabelman household through this film. Before making his “Ditch Day” film, he faces loads of antisemitism, bullying, and straight-up abuse. He also finds love and sees how this person, whom he thinks is the love of his life, views Jesus Christ. Burt and Mitzi finally call it quits. And all of this governs his filmmaking decisions. He sees Chad as a loser and chooses to show his loner moments in his film. He shows that Logan has a chance to be something more if he distances himself from Chad, and Logan realizes that. Even when he fails to save his relationship or that of his parents, he manages to reunite Logan and Claudia. Why? Because he makes a series of intentional and instinctive decisions that resonate with him. Since it resonates with him, it does so with the public as well.

For the most part, it does seem that Spielberg loves to deal with this aspect of subjectivity, where he gets to fine-tune the emotional quotient of his movies to the T. But there’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment where he showcases how he probably hates the moral side of it. It happens during the scene where Mitzi and Burt reveal that they are getting a divorce, and Reggie, Natalie, and Lisa have a full-blown breakdown in front of them. And Sammy imagines himself documenting that moment for a potential movie, which is essentially what “The Fabelmans” is all about. It shows that maybe not just Spielberg but any filmmaker who is trying to talk about real-life events through a fictional lens is mining those emotions for the sake of entertainment. This is a very icky gray area when it comes to biopics or semi-autobiographical films. However, if the filmmaker doesn’t address it, they come off as the type of person who is oblivious to the tools, they are using to tell a story. Hence, it is better to show that you are aware that you are recreating real-life events for a film (or a show) and that it is what it is.

My Love Letter to Steven Spielberg for Existing

After spending nearly 2 hours and 17 minutes pontificating about his own life, his family, his friends, his love life, and his short films, Spielberg ends “The Fabelmans” on a very nerdy note. Sammy meets John Ford, i.e., the man who has directed “The Informer,” “Stagecoach,” “The Grapes of Wrath,” “They Were Expendable,” “My Darling Clementine,” “Fort Apache,” “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” “The Quiet Man,” “The Searchers,” and “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.” and Ford talks to him about the horizon. He tells Sammy that, in a frame, if the horizon is on the lower half, it’s interesting. If it’s at the top, it’s interesting. But if it’s in the middle, it’s boring. When Sammy exits the building, in yet another super meta moment, the camera readjusts itself to make sure that the horizon is not in the middle. Now, if you go back and watch any movie that Spielberg has made, you’ll see that in most of them, the horizon is never at the center of the frame. What does this mean? Well, it means that Ford fundamentally changed the way Spielberg viewed the world. No matter where he went or what he saw, if he wanted to picture it literally or metaphorically, he probably always ensured that the horizon was at the top or at the bottom.

Similarly, Steven Spielberg has shaped the way I (and many others like me) view the world. “Jurassic Park” is the first Hollywood film of my life and the second film in general that I laid my eyes upon. I fell in love with cinema and the medium’s capabilities because of him. I also started to view everything around me in a completely new light. It might have happened on a subconscious level. But I think I’ve always yearned for that sense of wonder, intrigue, awe, adventure, humor, romance, emotion, and action that Spielberg and only Spielberg can bring to the big screen. Every year, I watch thousands of films, seek out new experiences, and learn more about the known universe to satiate my soul. However, the year that Spielberg put out yet another piece of his heart and mind on celluloid, I became that kid from the summer of 1993 again as I got to watch those picture-perfect frames and feel every sentiment on the proverbial spectrum. Nothing else comes close to emulating that sensation. And I’ll always be thankful to Steven Spielberg for that. So, in conclusion, go and watch all the movies that this legend has made. Watch them with your family, your friends, or on your own, and keep looking at the horizon because Spielberg still has more to offer this world.

Cannibalism has seen a weird uptick in the year 2022 (yes, three movies dealing with the topic in one year count as an “uptick” in my books). None of us, or at least I, saw Steve from “Fresh” abducting unsuspecting women like Noa to cut them up and then sell them piece by piece to the highest bidders. The same can be said about “Resurrection,” where it seemed like David was a sickly, abusive husband. But the insinuation that he had eaten Margaret’s baby because he couldn’t tolerate seeing her give it more attention than him truly came out of nowhere. And then there’s Luca Guadagnino’s “Bones and All,” which certainly didn’t hide the fact that the director has made a movie about cannibalism. Because it wasn’t treated as a twist in the movie and instead was used to underscore every bit of the plot’s progression and the emotional development of its characters. So, let’s talk about it.

Major Spoilers Ahead

Coping with Abandonment

If you take the cannibalism in “Bones and All” at face value, you can see it as this strange culinary preference that the characters have that somehow also allows them to seek out others like them. But director Luca Guadagnino, writer David Kajganich, and author Camille DeAngelis have obviously imbued this characteristic with loads of subtext. A surface-level reading of the film makes cannibalism seem like a means to cope with abandonment. Not only Maren’s mother but her father walked out on her because of her “disorder.” Maren’s mother, Janelle, was abandoned by her biological parents. She caught a glimpse of normal life while living with the Kerns and by marrying Maren’s father. However, the feeling of not belonging anywhere probably caused her to relapse. Lee came from an abusive household, which eventually caused him to abandon his family. Jake’s and Sully’s (is this an “Avatar” joke?) backgrounds were pretty ambiguous. But the fact that they were vagabonds hints at their estranged relationship with their respective families.

The description of the high after consuming a person is very similar to that of drug consumption. And if we can be specific, it’s clear that the 1980s period setting of the film is likening this coping mechanism to the cocaine epidemic that occurred during that era in real life. Nationwide surveys showed that over 22 million Americans had tried the drug at least once in their lifetime, and around 2 million or more were severely dependent on it. The reasons could’ve been genetic, social, environmental, physical, and mental reasons. There was no sure way to say so. So, the film also doesn’t specify why they resort to cannibalism specifically and not anything else to deal with their sense of loneliness and lack of family ties. But it does draw a direct line between a dearth of human connections and an understanding of one’s roots to it. In a melancholic way, “Bones and All” shows that there’s no way out of it. Except for Jake, whose fate is unclear, everyone’s arcs come to a tragic end because of their need for human flesh. You can say that Maren brought this cycle and transfer of trauma by saving Lee’s life by eating him. However, given the ambiguity of the ending, I can’t say for sure if she’ll permanently relapse into her old ways or not.

Dealing with Emotional Attachment Issues

The cannibalism in “Bones and All” can also be an indicator of the characters’ need for emotional attachment, which is a direct result of the sense of abandonment they feel. It’s mentioned twice in the film that the first person that Maren bit into was her babysitter, who was essentially a substitute for her parents. Lee said that he also bit her babysitter first and then eventually went on to consume his father. Sully is practically a serial killer and going by the long string of braids in his bag, he has eaten only women. The two people that we do see him eating up are an elderly lady and Lee’s sister Kayla (off-screen). Again, Jake and his friend Bradley are in the dark (both quite literally in terms of the cinematography and in terms of the plot). We can only assume that they are suffering from the need for love. But the reality can be quite different, and maybe they’ve surpassed such humane desires and are purely animalistic in nature. No disrespect to animals, though, because they also crave love.

So, going by that logic, when the eaters (that’s what the cannibals refer to themselves as) eat someone, they are essentially reaching the highest level of emotional and physical proximity to a living, breathing person. They are filling up the void that’s left by a parent, a child, a friend, a lover, or anyone who used to be a pivotal figure in their life by eating people who resemble them, figuratively or literally. The reason why eaters don’t eat other eaters isn’t because they can’t. It is because they are restraining themselves from doing so since only an eater can relate to an eater. They can be themselves around one another without fear of judgment or deception. Lee states that the rules aren’t written in stone or anything, and Janelle technically tries to eat Maren, thereby proving that their kind isn’t incapable of eating each other. Then what does Maren’s consumption of Lee mean? Well, as explained by Lee himself, the act of eating him out of love gives it a positive spin. Because, in this case, Maren isn’t eating another human being out of compulsion. She’s freeing him and governing her needs instead of letting those needs govern her.

Understanding Sexuality in a Broken America

In addition to all this, cannibalism in “Bones and All” can be seen as an extension of the characters’ sexuality or their attempt to explore their sexuality. Not every consumption is non-sexual in nature. The characters do express a sense of thirst before consuming some of their meals. The first time we see Maren consuming a girl, Taylor Russell gives Maren’s gaze and her physicality an erotic undertone. When Lee goes after the Booth Man, it technically feels like a sequel to “Call Me By Your Name” (also directed by Guadagnino and featuring Timothée Chalamet) until he slits his throat. The lights, the camera angles, the pacing, and the score are purposefully “romantic” so that the murder feels as shocking as it is. Jake and Bradley’s relationship clearly has a gay undercurrent, or they are homoromantic and asexual. Because Jake says that Bradley didn’t partake in the act of eating and instead just “watched.” I want to say that Sully is too far gone to even understand the nuanced aspects of life and is too driven by his need to find a daughter figure in his life.

The 1980s saw a major shift in society all over the world in terms of perceiving gay culture. Due to the HIV and AIDS epidemic, things became very binary in nature. Homophobia was rampant. And that definitely stemmed the process of understanding what one’s sexuality was. This binary nature is present in the eaters versus food dynamic in “Bones and All.” It’s the cannibals’ way of surviving in a world that doesn’t want to understand them and wants to demonize them. When they come of age (evident from Maren mentioning that she’s 18), they seek out a fellow eater and eat together. Maren and Lee’s assimilation into society is their attempt to not accept their status quo. Sully’s violent actions are his way of stating that he’ll never be able to do what Maren and Lee have done. However, as per Sully, if he can’t have a “normal life,” nobody else can have one as well. And that underscores the tragedy of people like Lee and Maren, who are okay with the notion that no one else will see them like they see each other, yet they can’t move forward because everyone else can’t put a stop to their binary thinking.

“Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio” is probably one of the best adaptations that you would get to see in recent times. Amongst a lot of other things, it shows metaphorically how fascists operate and the kind of methods they resort to in order to accomplish their goals. Though it is based on a children’s fantasy story, there is a sense of deep-rooted melancholy that the film expresses about the state of things through its characters. At times, it is heart-wrenching, and at other times, it is extremely endearing. Pinocchio appeals to your rational side and simply urges you to assess a situation based on facts and logic. It is hilarious yet profound; it is curious yet decisive; and most of all, it makes a 120-minute runtime seem extremely short. After watching the film, you resonate with Frank Kafka’s theory even more, and you would start believing in the absurdity of our existence.

As Benito Mussolini said, in order to let fascism thrive, one needs to bury the rancid corpse of liberties and rights. A dictator often paints this larger-than-life picture in front of his subjects and, through some devious methods, makes them believe that they have an important role to play in the scheme of things that will determine the future of the nation. All a dictator needs is the complete allegiance of the subjects towards him, but for that, he needs to put on a show. He needs to create this fake narrative that is soaked in patriotism with a false sense of pride attached to it. This narrative is created so that it becomes a yardstick to judge a person’s courage. People like Benito Mussolini, I believe, more than anything, knew a lot about human behavior. They made people believe that the display of violence and aggression was necessary to prove one’s manliness. There was fear amongst the people, mostly men, of being called cowards or maybe unpatriotic if they didn’t resort to violence. Being empathetic was considered a weakness, and the role of a soldier and that of a citizen was considered to be inseparable.

When Count Volpe tells Pinocchio that everyone loves a puppet, we know that it is a metaphor that tells us how a citizen is expected to be in a fascist regime. Though the strings of the puppets are in the hands of a puppeteer, the audience thinks that the puppets are acting out of their own free will. There are some in the audience who understand that it is all a sham, but the puppeteer makes sure that he hypnotizes and brainwashes the majority to such an extent that even if they are told otherwise, they are more inclined to believe that the puppets are real. I don’t know if it was intentionally done, but one specific scene in “Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio” reminded me of the deplorable state of the fourth estate in a fascist regime and how exactly they sell a person’s misery to their advantage. When Geppetto came to know that Pinocchio had not gone to school, he got very angry and went to fetch him from Count Volpe’s puppet show arena. Pinocchio got scared seeing his father, and he started to lie about why he had not attended school. As his nose started growing, the children around him started applauding and hooting as if they were watching a spectacle. Geppetto felt infuriated by the fact that people were meddling in his private affair, and for them, it was a source of entertainment. The scene reminded us how the media tries to impact the opinions and ideologies of citizens through the dramatic presentation of news. Drama sells well, and the media houses make good use of it, even if it means morphing the facts. An uninformed citizen (which I believe constitutes a majority) enjoys and cheers just like the children did after seeing Pinocchio’s nose, unaware of the nature of conflict and how it impacts them adversely in the long run.

Pinocchio couldn’t understand that if something is bad, then how can it be a law? It makes you realize that law and policy making should be that simple, yet it all becomes a tireless effort to make sense of something that is absolutely absurd and ethically wrong to an extent. The fascist leaders act in their own interests and then seek validation, which they can only get if they cover up their intentions. The role of the narrative that they create is to put a lid on the real issues and brainwash the citizens into thinking that everything is being done for the greater good of the nation. The idea of amicably finding a solution gives a nightmare to a fascist, as their breed thrives in a state of unrest. When Pinocchio and Candlewick hoisted their flags together in the army drill, they were made to be a part of; Podesta got infuriated. The citizens were made to believe that in order to win, they needed to defeat somebody. When Pinocchio and Candlewick showed the other children that there could be a scenario where everybody could win, the foundation of fascism started shaking. Independent thinkers were considered a threat in a totalitarian regime, which is why Candlewick was asked by his own father to kill his friend Pinocchio. Children are like molten iron who can be molded into any shape and form, and that is why you would often notice that in a fascist regime, special attention is paid to the school curriculum, and often the state tries to achieve a sort of uniformity where everybody is taught a few basic things. Going to war and attaining glory are phrases that are like two peas in a pod for any dictator. How else would you convince a person to sign his own death warrant if you didn’t glorify violence and war? A comforting illusion is created for the masses, in which there is no scope for humanity.

Though “Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio” is set in the era of the Great War, it is more than relevant in contemporary times. The film tries to tell us how fascism aims at exalting a particular race, caste, or creed above the citizens, and yet we sit there like mooks, believing that whatever they are doing is in favor of development and progress. Even a bigot can differentiate wrong from right, but he chooses to close his eyes because he presumes that the sandstorm will never hit him. But a regime that purports treachery as a moral virtue isn’t loyal to anybody. 

See More: ‘Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio’ Ending, Explained: Did The Wood Sprite Grant Sebastian J. Cricket’s Wish?

Open up your Instagram account, and you will see accounts filled with people traveling to exotic locations, wearing designer clothes and eating at expensive restaurants every second day. And then there are those who pose with all the celebrities in town and are seen in their company quite often. Yet, there remains a certain mystery around them. How are these people able to afford foreign trips and designer wear if all they do is be online 24/7 and pose for their cameras?

The most talked-about duo on the planet right now, Anna Delvey and Simon Leviev, appeared to have capitalized on the internet frenzy of people obsessed with Instagram influencers and their lifestyles. Both Anna and Simon swindled people out of their money owing to the fact that they were able to spin a yarn about their rich families and their affluent upbringing. I mean, if you have a private jet and a credit card with no spending limits, who would ever suspect you of being a con?

The influencer culture that has taken the internet and everyone by storm is exactly what Anna and Simon stand for. You are presented with a rosy picture full of faces plastered with smiles, posing with VIPs and jet-setting to a new country every other week. A lot of people, however, have now started questioning the standards set by these influencers. Most of these influencers, who are clearly paid by brands and PR agencies to hype their brands, do not talk about whether the brand or service has any flipside to it. A lot of women have complained about how skincare YouTubers and influencers have promoted substandard brands that are not worth the hype or the money or have simply not worked for them. But this is not just the case with a brand or service. Most influencers would have you believe that it is worth quitting your job and traveling without telling you how their travel is heavily funded by someone else. In both the cases of Anna and Simon, they wanted a luxurious life without having to pay for it. While Simon swindled money out of women by promising them marriage, Anna had plans to form a Soho House, a kind of a club for patrons of art, but people now say she just wanted to take money from the banks to support her extravagant lifestyle.

It is quite ironic how we saw the crossover of Billy McFarland and Anna Delvey at the same dinner table. For those who don’t know, Billy McFarland ran a scam by the name of Fyre Festival, a supposed music festival that never happened. The event was supported and promoted by several social media influencers, such as Bella Hadid, Hailey Baldwin, Kendall Jenner, and Emily Ratajkowski, to name a few. Ultimately, the festival never happened, and the organizers were arrested on charges of fraud. We don’t know if the influencers were also in on the con or if they genuinely didn’t have any idea about the way the organizers were running things.

In the era of true crime documentaries, we see how easy it has become for con men and women to rob people out of their savings through the use of technology. Simon and Anna both knew people’s obsession with the rich and famous, and hence they both cooked up stories of royal parentage and were able to fool people. Both had a penchant for an expensive lifestyle, and, clearly, both of them had no skills or intelligence to earn a living and hence ensured that somehow they got their lunches for free. It has been the case with a lot of influencers, who have on occasion threatened small businesses by offering them free services in exchange for social media postings. Anna and Simon both represent a rot in our culture that values only the rich and popular. Everyone now judges someone’s worth on the basis of their social media follower count. What worked for both Anna and Simon was having willing sycophants who would believe every word they said and be convinced that they, in their individual ways, were trying to build something big.

Anna Delvey and Simon Leviev should be case studies in colleges and universities as to how two influencers could fool even official authorities, violate visa rules and convince people to loan them money.

It was surprising that these two could fool people living in first-world countries, where they have more privileges and access to security measures than the rest of us. As of today, Anna served her time for fraud, but was arrested again on charges of overstaying her visa in the United States. She has managed to become a social media sensation despite her fraudulent ways. Simon Leviev, aka Simon Hayut, was arrested on charges of traveling and using a fake passport, but was released from jail during the pandemic. He still has a social media account. He has been banned from dating apps, but he continues to live that same jet-setting life. If rumors are to be believed, he has signed a manager and is in talks for a reality show.

See More: ‘The Tinder Swindler’ Explained: Did They Catch Shimon Yahuda Hayut, a.k.a. Shimon Leviev?

It appears that a specific niche has widened out in the world of cinema. The allure and the appeal of nostalgia seems to have taken center stage, being consumed eagerly by the zeitgeists. Whether it be the effect of the pandemic, the general horrors that seem to surround us, or the irresistible nature of nostalgia itself, cinema seems to be holding on hard to the good ol’ times, and the audience is saying yes.

The Spiderman Of It All 

It is not a mild case of the hiccups the box office is currently enduring, but rather a consistent state of COVID positive. The pandemic has left the film industry hurting, with shoots canceled, stories left unfilmed, and actors resorting to Zoom interviews for promotions. There have been several films being hailed as the potential saviors of the box office. The saviors have come and gone, shaking things up momentarily. And so the moment called not for one, but three superheroes.

“Spiderman No Way Home” certainly had a wave of hype surrounding it, courtesy of the MCU’s assured audience. However, the unconfirmed leaks and the overwhelming online discourse spoke of a film that could be the first of its kind: an experiment in celebrating nostalgia. The film delivered on its unfulfilled promises, and the audience responded. The sheer cinematic shock and joy of seeing Andrew Garfield, Tobey Maguire, and Tom Holland don the suit and form a brotherhood is a celebration of a beloved superhero and a nod to the audience.

The film seems to say, in every frame, defying all expectations of what we could see in a movie: We see you. And it can be done.

The Reboots And Reunions 

It is hard to look at the screen and not have a reboot, remake, or reunion jump out at us. From the “Harry Potter” and “Friends” cast reunion to the “Ghostbusters” remake and the “James Bond finale” to Daniel Craig, filmmakers and creators everywhere appear to be responding to the warmth that nostalgia is bound to elicit in an audience.

It demonstrates the power of a familiar face, the allure of a beloved catchphrase, and the depth of memory. Filmmakers, too, are allowed to retreat into their own beloved stories, creating and recreating what could come next. With great success, like the new adaptation of West Side Story by Steven Spielberg, and with great anticipation, like the upcoming Batman film starring Robert Pattinson, the charm of nostalgia is well and alive amongst creators and audience alike.

Other than the evident monetary success of such ventures, there is also great emotional fulfillment for fans everywhere. It is the big screen inviting us in, when all around us there is despair to be found.

The Threat Of Nostalgia 

While the endeavor remains vibrant for now, it must certainly be questioned: how long will it last? There is a point when luck turns, and good fortune changes face. It is the moment when we crave the new and the original. When we don’t want to watch the new James Bond, we want a new spy instead. We don’t think Grey’s Anatomy needs a Season 18 or 19, and we are fine with the 17 we have.

Not every remake tastes like glory, nor does every reunion still find a dedicated audience. The demand for originality is still ever-present, as we require art not only to distract us, but also to paint a portrait of our times. The classics had their days, and we must be intent on creating new classics that come as a product of our current time. It is for this shift that the preparations must already be underway.

We have never been an easy audience, content at lapping up any offering from our screen. And while nostalgia is a welcome distraction now, the moment will certainly come where we tire of it. 

There is no shortage of trilogies in our world of film. Spanning genre, scale, impact, and even necessity, there is an abundance to choose from. But it is rare, and certainly difficult, to create a perfect trilogy. One that does not lose pace or identity halfway, one that does not alienate the audience after a point or cause them to lose interest.

The Superhero

Christopher Nolan’s work has taken us far away from our real world, and deep into the realms of fantastic possibilities. Time and again, his films have tried to showcase time technology, about worlds far away, and worlds within our own minds. Somehow, a superhero film seems to be an odd one out within his filmography. But on close examination, it is clear that ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ fits into the same avatar as his other films. A trilogy that asks questions relentlessly, to the characters, to us, and to our perception of who is a hero and what is his responsibility. 

Played by Christian Bale, we see Bruce Wayne facing his internal conflicts in the trilogy. We see his transformation spanning from the first installment to the third. It could be said perhaps that the first film is a becoming, the second, a reckoning, and the third, an undoing. We witness Batman fight and Bruce Wayne pretend, but the reason this trilogy stands out is because of how deeply it takes us into the turmoil of choosing to be Batman. We realize that no ordinary man could have chosen to be Batman, and it is perhaps this choice, and not his suit, that makes him a superhero. 

The concept of a hero, and the devastation it can bring to the man who dons the suit, is demonstrated over and over to us. We are not dazzled or swept away by Batman, we watch in awe and fear as we see him endure to an extent that is usually not possible. 

Gotham City 

It is a device that when used in film, has the potential to be used with staggering effect. With ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy,’ the city becomes a character of its own. We see Gotham, we hear about its troubles, and eventually we understand why Gotham is worth this much sacrifice. 

While most superheroes have set out on their missions to protect their respective cities, Batman seems to do it with a dream and hope of what Gotham can be. He believes that Gotham can be saved, and more importantly, that it deserves to be. We see the corruption, the squalor, the divides that have descended upon the city. We recognize that this is a city full of the apathetic and the driven. It is a city that has enough darkness around its edges to accommodate and appreciate a vigilante who has taken on the mantle of protector. 

We are also reminded, time and again, that it is the people and the city that Batman and Bruce Wayne are fighting for. It does not matter what they do to him, how they see him, or what they expect from him. ‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ show us that a hero’s duty is to go on, no matter how he is treated, even by the very people he is trying to protect. 

The Craft

An immersive superhero experience demands a scale and visual landscape that is certainly within Christopher Nolan’s area of expertise. We see the suit, the visual effects and the stunts go up in scale with each film, mirroring both the progress of our time and the hero’s own growth. It is aided superbly by the score composed by Hans Zimmer, a score that serves its purpose and lifts the scenes to a visceral level. 

Perhaps one of the greatest triumphs of the trilogy is the deep characterization that fills up all 3 films. From Alfred, the butler who guides and guards Bruce Wayne, to Rachel, the woman who can see through Bruce Wayne and Batman, there are powerful and engaging characters in every single one of the films, familiar and first-timers. It gives the audience a chance to feel what Bruce Wayne feels, as we encounter each character and try to place them as friend or foe. 

‘The Dark Knight Trilogy’ particularly elevates itself past the routine superhero genre with its treatment of villains. Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard are some of the acting giants who step into the role of villain, bringing us face to face with terrifying consequences, unhinged madness, and the knowledge that any hero can be turned into a villain. 

The world of the Dark Knight trilogy extends beyond the landscape of Gotham or Batman. These aren’t adventures, and we aren’t here just to have fun. This is a trilogy that breaks its characters down and discards our preconceptions. It is a commentary of the depths a superhero must take himself down to, and how he must split himself into two, to ensure he does not become the hero that lives long enough to turn villain.

The art of film successfully manages to be a creative endeavor dependent on artistic merit, collaboration, and teamwork. It is the coupling of individual perspectives, techniques, and instruments of craft with a wider circle of collaborators. When a player occupies more than one space or shifts from one space to another, it is a curious effect that appears, one whose effect is felt on the screen. With “The Lost Daughter” and “Tick, Tick… Boom!,” Maggie Gyllenhaal and Lin Manuel Miranda have demonstrated the impact of this very shift.

Maggie Gyllenhaal – The Artist Mother

While it is reductive to attach a woman’s motherhood to the space she holds in her career, it seems relevant in the case of Maggie Gyllenhaal. Perhaps, Elena Ferrante’s novel about motherhood, ‘The Lost Daughter,’ would not have resonated with the same impact without the incorporation of Maggie’s own experiences of being a mother. And perhaps, only a mother could have translated the story on screen the way she has. 

The Lost Daughter’s treatment is masterful, a story told by a woman who knows what she wants to say. This is clearly a film made with conviction, with characters placed in an environment the way we are required to see them. It is an expression filled with vulnerability, honesty, intrigue, and perhaps a quiet defiance. Even the minor characters are actors who have proven their craft before, actors who are there not just to serve the plot, but to enliven a world. The freedom and simultaneous creative control the director has employed with her actors is clearly defined from the get-go.

The film can be admired for its many technical victories, but at centerstage, is its immersive nature, pulling people in to hear a story that Maggie Gyllenhaal wants to tell (or retell, as it is an adaptation). It speaks of a creative leader whose experience of being in front of the camera has already created a fearless and truth-seeking storyteller, thus positioning her in a fairly unique space in terms of cinematic understanding. 

Lin Manuel Miranda – The Theatre Kid

The star of the legendary production of Hamilton and the master of musical theatre, Lin Manuel Miranda, steps into a film director’s arena with Tick, Tick… Boom! The film is an homage and a tribute to many things: to Jonathan Larson, the famed creator of the Broadway play, Rent, as he serves as the subject of the film, to music, freedom, and magic of the medium., and to the creative process as a whole, with all its joys and heartbreak. It is also a tribute to New York, where it all happens, and to the world that continues to inspire and create artists like Lin himself.

The film stands proudly and resolutely in its space of a musical, demonstrating the infectious joy it is capable of. It seems infused with the truth of experience, from the actors, the singers, and, clearly, the director himself. The performance of Andrew Garfield certainly demands attention from the audience, as he plays every nuance and sings every note with earnest effort. However, it is also the very medium that Jonathan Larson so protected that seems to invite us in. Even in the moments of cynicism, the rooted reality of the artist who creates his magical world, and the demands of the real world for what an artist creates, we are still made to feel that the endeavor is worth it.

If Lin Manuel Miranda had not sung his heart out on stages like Jonathan Larson, and if he hadn’t written and rewritten his songs like Jonathan Larson, perhaps we would have only had a biopic rather than a celebration. The film demonstrates how the director’s baton is easy to pass to a performer who knows his way around the screen.

The Result

Both films have been well-received by critics and audiences, marking their space in a pantheon of successful directorial debuts. It is telling of what the actor turned director space can be, when it is the case of an actor who is longing to tell a story of their own now. 

With Maggie Gyllenhaal, it is the female gaze she wishes to unlock, an experiment perhaps of exploring a space that begins from her own unique experiences. That of a woman, that of a woman performer, and clearly in the case of this film, that of an artist mother. 

Lin Manuel Miranda, on the other hand, is carving his way with the roots of his musical theatre background. It is not the stage duplicated on the screen, it is the reimagining of the story of the stage, told in the world of the screen. 

What both directors and both films seem to demonstrate is the power of authenticity, the rich honesty of it, and why it continues to be a necessary presence in a great film.