Quinoa1984

Abraham's Boys is a really clever concept for any medium, and it is little wonder it began as a short story by Joe Hill (if it wasn't by him his dad would have taken a crack at something like this at some point); on the surface, it appears to be a "Sequel" to Dracula following Professor Van Helsing living in quiet **very sunny** California but, alas, the undead wont leave him and his young boys and wife Mina Harker alone. What stands out is the perspective and how this is closer to Bill Paxton's Frailty as far as twisted and grisly Father Knows Best pressure cooker where the two boys - one older (looking a lot like a stand-in for Zac Efron 20 years ago) and one younger - have to learn their dad's methods for destroying the cursed vampires... but are they that? Were they ever?

I think the movie means to make it clear that even if at some point there was just *one* blood-sucking Bad Guy Abe Van Helsing has killed innocent people (and the big guy Dracula is only mentioned in a cursory way, like it you say his name he will Beetlejuice into the story, maybe a slight misgiving but got to mention it), and that is what makes this so compelling and terrifying, even as this is not exactly a very scary "horror" so much as a domestic drama with the genre clothing. The film is also shot with a lot of harsh bright light during the day scenes (California and all) and there is this slow burn panic that sets in when we realize this story is not going the way we expected.

The Van Helsing of this story is so severe in fact, and giving TV's Bosch himself Titus Welliver a hell of a strong showcase, that he wouldn't be out of place in a brutal Ingmar Bergman existential tragedy. Once you know the tone that director Natasha Kermani has set and the stakes (hehe) for the kid characters to have in their way, not to mention their poor sick mom, you want to see where this goes next. If there is a downside in terms of execution of the material it's that the actors playing the sons are a little stiff, with Hepner keeping the same look of confusion and consternation while Mackey is just hanging on to get through some of the period-set dialog.

The more I think on the film though the more I respect it as it is a good formal swing, and not just because of the affected aspect ratio (though the black and white for the dream scenes is old hat). It gives a more genuine "what if" kind of twist on a world we all know than like Last Voyage of the Demeter, and if it is less than great it is more thoughtful as a rigorous tale of how some critical thinking skills need to take hold when it comes to parents sometimes (especially but not limited to when they are keeping helpless women locked in the cellar!) 6.5/10.

Senna keeps your attention from start to end simply by this man at the center, Ayrton Senna, and a certain enigmatic quality. I think that is by design, though it is more in perspective of other racers in the story, chiefly Alain Prost who was a multi-year champion who found in Senna a formidable competitor not in any political sense since he knew how to maneuver in the behind the scenes world, but just in the sense of "ok, I need to make a split second decision how I use THAT space or I am toast." That is probably the main relationship, if one can call it that, director Asif Kapadia gives the most breathing room to see unfold, and a lot of it is down to looks and expressions that maybe say more (at least to me) than words can.

I think I hooked into that because the documentary around that story is certainly interesting and full of gripping and engrossing footage - not one modern-day talking head is to be seen here, which is wonderful and keeps everything about what Senna was and meant and especially in his native Brazil where he seemed to be a Rock and Roll star - though it does keep things at a little bit of a distance when it comes to more personal matters. To be sure, not everything was captured on video or film and so what Senna had with his parents or siblings (who we see sparsely through home video footage) has to be surmised, and if the bits with the women around him is any indication he had no lack of that.

I don't know what Kapadia could have done to add or change that, so the director has to keep it because of his aesthetic demands to the racing and the footage taken in news coverage and BTS meetings like with the other drivers and the F1 board members. That seems to be more of a critique for me than it may be for you, yet the sole focus on "here was this race and then six months suspension goes by and here is the next race and YES HE WON AGAIN and then time goes and" details is what keeps it as "very good" if not "great" for me. The film certainly raises some questions not just about Senna but about competitors in sports and activies who are so Top of Their League that it not so much isolates but calcifices their status and creates this semi-mystery about them.

Did Senna know his time was up (ie other accidents were going on and another driver lost his life not long before he did)? Could he or would he have given it up to go fishing as that one man in his team gently suggested they go off to do, or was it that thing of "This is My LIFE/JOB" and that was that? It is a story that celebrates his accomplishments, but strangely I was left seeing it as a tragic tale not even so much for how Senna lost his life (though that seemed to be very suss mechanical malfeasance there) but for what life he gave up for everything to do with his profession. And maybe he was perfectly happy in his personal life, but especially in those last months Senna (the movie) makes success to be a kind of trap that can crush you if you are not careful or can't get out.

Whether Kapadia meant for it or not, it makes for something more thoughtful and somber, and that makes this valuable as more than a Here Are the Facts Wikipedia style run down.

The Wedding Banquet is a good example of how a film is so execution dependent on so many fronts. You could take the idea behind this in a much more watered down or conventional form (critic Chris Feil even called it a Sitcom kind of plot, which is not wrong), and I can see a version of this story that emphasizes the contrivances for maximum effect. Hell, there even is a sort of version of this story, but with in-laws instead of parents, a mere three years later with The Birdcage and that takes things into a decidedly more broad but still winning kind of formula. But with this film, maybe Ang Lee's first major work, he has such empathy for everyone here and with one major exception what unfolds here comes out of character first and that leads the story ahead.

Lee spent years writing the script, and I think the effort and time spent figuring out the family dynamic of Wai-Tung Gao (Chao), his partner Simon (Lichtenstein) and the Gao parents and Wei-Wei the Bride in-name, who is set up with Wai-Tung so his parents are appeared and she can get a green card, pays off because we can feel so much affection and warmth and charm going on - and, for sure, awkwardness and eventually in the second half bad vibes that develop because of the deception - even as this lie for this sham marriage unfolds.

Some of the funniest parts (really any time one is laughing) is from what we know and what the reaction says, like when Wei-Wei starts to cry during part of the wedding ceremony (this is after the city hall scene but before the banquet) and how immediate the mother reacts to stop her tears from ruining her make-up and how so many in the room converge to stop it. It is just one of those moments we are drawn even more to the mom and Wei-Wei. Other times, the humor is a little more mild, but still pleasant like how the mother and father react to Simon in those early scenes when it should be clear to anyone with two eyes and ears that there is some sort of closeness between him and their son (though, without saying too much, the dad knows a little more than he lets on, one kinda-contrivance I could have done without even as it leads to a moving scene between Simon and Mr Gao).

I do see that Wei Wei does force herself on Wai-Tung, though I am less bothered by the action (she is so drunk and tired by then, as is he, there is a kind of sexual immaturity that almost forgives it) than that this leads to a pregnancy storyline which is the thing I meant earlier about a story beat coming in to lead the way. I think there is a version of this story where it is just about the lie crumbling and how the parents find out (a scene at a hospital where the mother is told is one of the best scenes in the movie, for acting and how Lee keeps the camera going and when he chooses to move it, brilliant and precisely emotional work there), but I get that there should be some stakes for what is to come after the parents leave.

Thankfully what works about the film even in the second half is congruous with ehat came before then, that Lee and Schamus and the filmmakers and actors care deeply about these people, Wai-Tung in particular, as flawed, intuitive, Into Traditional Ways but wholly emotional beings, and the idea of how a Closet puts someone into a box is one that is explored with humor and sensitivity. It is not even truly a film about being gay or what it means to come out, it is most successful about how to relate to one's parents and what it means to be really happy with someone in a relationship. And Lee shows the culture, at the Banquet in particular but throughout, with an affection even as it is so big it almost flows off the lines of the screen.