I am not certain about the engagement with "Anora" based on fidelity to the nature of sex work. But I did find it hard not to watch the movie within the framework of Sean Baker's other movies. They all seem to focus on people who have been used and abused by their participation in contemporary capitalist structures, and who are trying to solve this problem by creating their own, near-identical capitalist structures. Baker indulges in two ideas: 1) Capitalism will always hurt someone, and 2) The characters in his films are too dumb enough to not be that one person, which is where the comedy lies.
That's thorny in and of itself, because, by depicting the boot crushing the less fortunate (particularly unprotected sex workers), are we Implicitly honoring said boot? Because the boot doesn't do "morals". The boot sees depiction as endorsement, and too many people (at least in America) are inclined to blindly support the boot under the assumption the boot is never wrong (and/or is literally guided by God).
I kind of wish Brady Corbet and Sean Baker could have traded movies this Oscar season. Would love to see Baker's "The Brutalist" and Corbet's "Anora".
That's interesting. Of Baker's filmography, I've only seen Anora, The Florida Project, and Tangerine, but so far I wouldn't say he's consciously interested in capitalism so much as the social microcosms of America, which are of course affected by and even stem from capitalism, but in the same way that most everything in America is. In the case of Anora, you might even say that Ani isn't shown as part of a microcosm, but is treated as though she herself is the microcosm.
Baker's subjects play by rules that are ostensibly unique to them, and I believe his primary interest is examining those rules beyond their hustle, so to speak, and challenging us to respond to them (and the people playing by them) with curiosity rather than skepticism. Best case scenario, the audience's blind support of the boot is disrupted.
While we're at it, can we give Wicked to Denis Villeneuve?
I get what the filmmakers were going for but for me and my wife who are well versed in different types of film I just couldn't get through this one. To be clear I'm not trolling here I'm just being honest just wasn't for me.
I can't believe 5gus movie even got nominated, let alone win 4 Oscar's. I found it to be a highly unimaginative, poorly shot and predictable film from beginning to end, with an unnecessary amount of gratuitous sex scenes. The characters were card board cutouts. The eastern Europeans were stereotypical cartoon caricatures, Amira just screams throughout the film and her character has zero character arc. I felt the two leads had zero emotional connection, and Anora was simply a loser from beginning to end. Cinematography was first years film school level. I've done better shooting by myself without a crew. Clearly this film won because of WHO made it, with the help of an $18 million Oscar campaign. This is truly a below mid level film. And the reason. Why Oscar's have become a joke. This can win 4 Oscar's and Sing Sing is barely mentioned. A movie far superior to this mindless drivel.
Giving multiple Oscars to a film with such a mixed critical reception reflects the continual disconnect between what the Academy considers "good" filmmaking and what the audience does.
I mean, the critical reception for Anora remained overwhelmingly positive despite this influx of dissent post-Oscars. That anecdote was more to highlight how futile film criticism is when we don't quantify it beyond opinion and broad, subjective adjectives. Can't say I disagree that there's a disconnect there, of course.
Well, you introduced a barbed question here: what does the audience think is "good filmmaking"? Do we then go by box office grosses? Letterboxd rankings? Do we dock sequels since many go to those out of obligation? How does that work?
I think, implicit in the discourse about "Anora", is the idea that these same general audiences would not like "Anora", because they inherently do not like or approve of sex workers. So is this a case of the Academy being out of touch? The general public being a little crappy? Or both? Or neither?
Thought you might get a kick out of the Anora perspective in this: https://open.substack.com/pub/youllfeeldifferentinthemorning/p/march?r=atwct&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
also loved your piece on Nosferatu <3
I am not certain about the engagement with "Anora" based on fidelity to the nature of sex work. But I did find it hard not to watch the movie within the framework of Sean Baker's other movies. They all seem to focus on people who have been used and abused by their participation in contemporary capitalist structures, and who are trying to solve this problem by creating their own, near-identical capitalist structures. Baker indulges in two ideas: 1) Capitalism will always hurt someone, and 2) The characters in his films are too dumb enough to not be that one person, which is where the comedy lies.
That's thorny in and of itself, because, by depicting the boot crushing the less fortunate (particularly unprotected sex workers), are we Implicitly honoring said boot? Because the boot doesn't do "morals". The boot sees depiction as endorsement, and too many people (at least in America) are inclined to blindly support the boot under the assumption the boot is never wrong (and/or is literally guided by God).
I kind of wish Brady Corbet and Sean Baker could have traded movies this Oscar season. Would love to see Baker's "The Brutalist" and Corbet's "Anora".
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
That's interesting. Of Baker's filmography, I've only seen Anora, The Florida Project, and Tangerine, but so far I wouldn't say he's consciously interested in capitalism so much as the social microcosms of America, which are of course affected by and even stem from capitalism, but in the same way that most everything in America is. In the case of Anora, you might even say that Ani isn't shown as part of a microcosm, but is treated as though she herself is the microcosm.
Baker's subjects play by rules that are ostensibly unique to them, and I believe his primary interest is examining those rules beyond their hustle, so to speak, and challenging us to respond to them (and the people playing by them) with curiosity rather than skepticism. Best case scenario, the audience's blind support of the boot is disrupted.
While we're at it, can we give Wicked to Denis Villeneuve?
I get what the filmmakers were going for but for me and my wife who are well versed in different types of film I just couldn't get through this one. To be clear I'm not trolling here I'm just being honest just wasn't for me.
I will have to complete it disagree.
I can't believe 5gus movie even got nominated, let alone win 4 Oscar's. I found it to be a highly unimaginative, poorly shot and predictable film from beginning to end, with an unnecessary amount of gratuitous sex scenes. The characters were card board cutouts. The eastern Europeans were stereotypical cartoon caricatures, Amira just screams throughout the film and her character has zero character arc. I felt the two leads had zero emotional connection, and Anora was simply a loser from beginning to end. Cinematography was first years film school level. I've done better shooting by myself without a crew. Clearly this film won because of WHO made it, with the help of an $18 million Oscar campaign. This is truly a below mid level film. And the reason. Why Oscar's have become a joke. This can win 4 Oscar's and Sing Sing is barely mentioned. A movie far superior to this mindless drivel.
Giving multiple Oscars to a film with such a mixed critical reception reflects the continual disconnect between what the Academy considers "good" filmmaking and what the audience does.
I mean, the critical reception for Anora remained overwhelmingly positive despite this influx of dissent post-Oscars. That anecdote was more to highlight how futile film criticism is when we don't quantify it beyond opinion and broad, subjective adjectives. Can't say I disagree that there's a disconnect there, of course.
Context is everything. I can’t critique a film if I haven’t seen it, but some people still do that.
Well, you introduced a barbed question here: what does the audience think is "good filmmaking"? Do we then go by box office grosses? Letterboxd rankings? Do we dock sequels since many go to those out of obligation? How does that work?
I think, implicit in the discourse about "Anora", is the idea that these same general audiences would not like "Anora", because they inherently do not like or approve of sex workers. So is this a case of the Academy being out of touch? The general public being a little crappy? Or both? Or neither?
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com