The observation about characters remaining unchanged really gets at why this feels like a lesser PTA film. When Penn's character ends exactly where he started, you realize the entire runtime was just treading water with better cinematography. The Brazil comparison is devastating because it highlights what's missing. Gilliam understood that absurdist political cinema needs emotional anchoring, not just stylistic flourish. Your son's point about people wanting their politics reflected back is interesting, but I think the problem is deeper than that. PTA seems to be engaging with a caricature of our political moment rather than the actualy messy reality. The dorks in frog costumes line is perfect becaus that's what resistance actually looks like now, not the Foxy Brown fantasy. When DiCaprio shouts "Viva la revolucion!" it sounds like someone who learned about revolution from movies rather than lived experence. The fact that Chase Infiniti's character has the only arc and it still feels undercooked suggests PTA might have been more interested in the aesthetics of political cinema than the substance. That Brazil escape hatch into human interior versus PTA's fluorescent hallways to nowhere is the difernce between making art about politics and just making political theater.
BRAZIL!!!! Yes, thank you for reminding me; it is so on point for today. Masterpiece.
And Busfield, always one of my all-time favorite character actors (I will watch anything with his name attached), evolved into an equally excellent director, kudos on your choice of friends.
I apologize in advance for being that Pynchon guy, but I can't help myself.
I loved the film (and get sometimes exhausted by PTA's heavy-handedness, a la Magnolia). However, I admit to first being a Pynchon reader, and this movie is very careful to tell a Pynchon story, even if he changes the setting and era. Sean Penn's character is a very Pynchon-esque villain, for example, always sort of absurd, grotesque, and funny. I don't think that Pynchon believes that humans actually "develop" or really change all that much over time, so in his novels, whatever they learn about themselves or the world is always contingent and fleeting. However, while Pynchon's general point of view takes a long view of history (which he's more interested in than an individual human's life), he still takes sides, hence the film's desire to portray good and evil (and the cross-currents of desire that disrupt that split).
But I’m a longtime fan of Timothy Busfield (of thirtysomething and The West Wing fame) who’s almost exactly a year younger than I am, and I feel like I might really like this film too.
But I hear you about PTA’s lack of character arcs here. We’ll see. 👍🙏💙
I think you’re right about the lack of character development, but ultimately that didn’t detract for me. Maybe in part because I genuinely didn’t know it was a PTA film going in (a friend invited me and I hadn’t yet heard anything about it, which is my favorite way to watch a movie) so I didn’t expect anything and was really just along for the ride. And you can’t say it isn’t a ride.
Regarding the politics, one thing I kept thinking about was that the movie was written and shot at least almost entirely before the last election. Considering this it is almost prescient in its depiction of immigration enforcement as (not merely the cruel and often racist institution it has long been, but) the core policing arm of a new American authoritarianism. This works both for and against it as a film, raising its political salience and plausibility while also making its fairly comedic tone kind of jarring. Ultimately, though, I think it should be given credit for its evident insight, and leeway for not anticipating that reality would have grown much closer to its grim setting by the time it was released.
I think this mismatch means that we should interpret other depictions more abstractly than might be our instinct. It is not just alternate history (I believe the setting diverges from reality some time in the early 2000s) but a little bit of fantasy.
I would argue that the Christmas Adventurer’s Club is a reasonable fantasy depiction of white nationalism. They are avowedly Christian, but their Christianity is that of children, centering not Jesus but Santa Claus. This is ridiculous if taken entirely literally, but points at something real about Christian Nationalism as it actually exists in America today, and I think it’s a pretty funny jab. Their nature is not deeply explored because the film is not meant to be that deep in its depiction of American fascism, and I think we only expect it to be because other aspects of the depiction of have become so real.
The French 75 are not the heroes of the film, and certainly not of the first act. Their “revolution” is ineffective. What the first act tells us is that the first people to turn to violence in the name of liberty are not the people most committed to liberty, but the people on the side of liberty who are most inclined to violence. Perfidia and Pat are both sexually aroused by their escapades, and Perfidia by the power play between herself and Lockjaw. And Perfidia is ultimately a coward, willing to use violence but not to sacrifice herself for her comrades or even her family.
In the second act the political situation is different, and many of the heroes are prepared to use violence to protect themselves and others—but they are not the instigators. Sergio owns a gun, but he has invested much more in a system of hiding and escape for the persecuted than in attacking the government. Pat is a father whose first loyalty is to his daughter. The adventure we see them on is not about taking down the government, or seeking revenge, but about remaining loyal to friends and family and helping each other survive.
And in the final scene Willa departs not for a bank robbery, but for a protest.
If the movie were written today, maybe we’d see her packing a frog suit?
Bad continuity: handy working phone booth in some current day small town; 2026 style cell phones taking selfies in what’s supposed to be 2010 or so; a 70’s style urban Guerilla movement in the twenty-oughts? There’s more of that but I don’t want to give anything away. I thought the ending had strong Hallmark vibes. Some of the non-white and non-cishet characters were borderline offensively stereotyped. The music was often times ridiculous and overblown. Overall it couldn’t seem to make up its mind whether it was a comedy or a thriller. I was entertained but walked away wondering why people think PTA is a great director. I don’t get it.
To be fair, I do think that eureka, where the pay phone scene was shot, likely has some pay phones still since it’s so wayyyy the hell out of the way. My big gripe was how quickly they drive from the rainiest redwood forests of Humboldt to the desert areas of south central-coastal california, but that was a lil nit picky of me since it was supposed to be in towns that don’t really exist
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I believe the chase scene was shot here in Sacramento. I do know of one remaining working payphone in the entire city. So, maybe they found it!!!
You didn't notice the much larger population of quiet revolutionaries? The nurses, the suburban karate teacher, the group of skate boarders, even one of the bad guys towards the end who decides to go with his conscience instead of his job description?
The character transformation trope is truly over rated, and rarely plausible. I guess that's why we see it shoe horned into so much bad fiction.
Yeah, I mean they say it IN the film: "from here on out, it's one battle after another." But the "battles" they're fighting feel nebulous (at least to me). What are they fighting? And why? The whole thing felt unfocused to me because I never understood the stakes.
The observation about characters remaining unchanged really gets at why this feels like a lesser PTA film. When Penn's character ends exactly where he started, you realize the entire runtime was just treading water with better cinematography. The Brazil comparison is devastating because it highlights what's missing. Gilliam understood that absurdist political cinema needs emotional anchoring, not just stylistic flourish. Your son's point about people wanting their politics reflected back is interesting, but I think the problem is deeper than that. PTA seems to be engaging with a caricature of our political moment rather than the actualy messy reality. The dorks in frog costumes line is perfect becaus that's what resistance actually looks like now, not the Foxy Brown fantasy. When DiCaprio shouts "Viva la revolucion!" it sounds like someone who learned about revolution from movies rather than lived experence. The fact that Chase Infiniti's character has the only arc and it still feels undercooked suggests PTA might have been more interested in the aesthetics of political cinema than the substance. That Brazil escape hatch into human interior versus PTA's fluorescent hallways to nowhere is the difernce between making art about politics and just making political theater.
BRAZIL!!!! Yes, thank you for reminding me; it is so on point for today. Masterpiece.
And Busfield, always one of my all-time favorite character actors (I will watch anything with his name attached), evolved into an equally excellent director, kudos on your choice of friends.
I love you but I loved it. I can carry two loves.
I apologize in advance for being that Pynchon guy, but I can't help myself.
I loved the film (and get sometimes exhausted by PTA's heavy-handedness, a la Magnolia). However, I admit to first being a Pynchon reader, and this movie is very careful to tell a Pynchon story, even if he changes the setting and era. Sean Penn's character is a very Pynchon-esque villain, for example, always sort of absurd, grotesque, and funny. I don't think that Pynchon believes that humans actually "develop" or really change all that much over time, so in his novels, whatever they learn about themselves or the world is always contingent and fleeting. However, while Pynchon's general point of view takes a long view of history (which he's more interested in than an individual human's life), he still takes sides, hence the film's desire to portray good and evil (and the cross-currents of desire that disrupt that split).
Haven't read it yet because I have to say this first:
24? TWENTY-FOUR?!
I refuse to accept that.
I just want to say, Brazil is one of my favorite movies and I could not agree more about its relevance!
Thanks for the review Michael.
But I’m a longtime fan of Timothy Busfield (of thirtysomething and The West Wing fame) who’s almost exactly a year younger than I am, and I feel like I might really like this film too.
But I hear you about PTA’s lack of character arcs here. We’ll see. 👍🙏💙
Thank you for letting me know that this film I have never heard of sucks.
It doesn't suck! It's a good film that could've been a great film.
I think you’re right about the lack of character development, but ultimately that didn’t detract for me. Maybe in part because I genuinely didn’t know it was a PTA film going in (a friend invited me and I hadn’t yet heard anything about it, which is my favorite way to watch a movie) so I didn’t expect anything and was really just along for the ride. And you can’t say it isn’t a ride.
Regarding the politics, one thing I kept thinking about was that the movie was written and shot at least almost entirely before the last election. Considering this it is almost prescient in its depiction of immigration enforcement as (not merely the cruel and often racist institution it has long been, but) the core policing arm of a new American authoritarianism. This works both for and against it as a film, raising its political salience and plausibility while also making its fairly comedic tone kind of jarring. Ultimately, though, I think it should be given credit for its evident insight, and leeway for not anticipating that reality would have grown much closer to its grim setting by the time it was released.
I think this mismatch means that we should interpret other depictions more abstractly than might be our instinct. It is not just alternate history (I believe the setting diverges from reality some time in the early 2000s) but a little bit of fantasy.
I would argue that the Christmas Adventurer’s Club is a reasonable fantasy depiction of white nationalism. They are avowedly Christian, but their Christianity is that of children, centering not Jesus but Santa Claus. This is ridiculous if taken entirely literally, but points at something real about Christian Nationalism as it actually exists in America today, and I think it’s a pretty funny jab. Their nature is not deeply explored because the film is not meant to be that deep in its depiction of American fascism, and I think we only expect it to be because other aspects of the depiction of have become so real.
The French 75 are not the heroes of the film, and certainly not of the first act. Their “revolution” is ineffective. What the first act tells us is that the first people to turn to violence in the name of liberty are not the people most committed to liberty, but the people on the side of liberty who are most inclined to violence. Perfidia and Pat are both sexually aroused by their escapades, and Perfidia by the power play between herself and Lockjaw. And Perfidia is ultimately a coward, willing to use violence but not to sacrifice herself for her comrades or even her family.
In the second act the political situation is different, and many of the heroes are prepared to use violence to protect themselves and others—but they are not the instigators. Sergio owns a gun, but he has invested much more in a system of hiding and escape for the persecuted than in attacking the government. Pat is a father whose first loyalty is to his daughter. The adventure we see them on is not about taking down the government, or seeking revenge, but about remaining loyal to friends and family and helping each other survive.
And in the final scene Willa departs not for a bank robbery, but for a protest.
If the movie were written today, maybe we’d see her packing a frog suit?
I know disappointment from my days as Sophia Coppola fan and this has it splashed all over the place.
Did "Boogie Nights" blow me away because it was about Porn and was really funny? Yeah, I am that shallow. Otherwise I don't give a fuck.
Mild tangent:
The AMC 6plex on West 84th Street…
I used the go there a lot but now it feels creepy and unsafe. Am I alone about that? The big one on W68th also annoys me these days.
My first time there - I thought it was nice.
This was pretty sharp analysis, but it doesn't mean the movie's not an enjoyable ride.
Bad continuity: handy working phone booth in some current day small town; 2026 style cell phones taking selfies in what’s supposed to be 2010 or so; a 70’s style urban Guerilla movement in the twenty-oughts? There’s more of that but I don’t want to give anything away. I thought the ending had strong Hallmark vibes. Some of the non-white and non-cishet characters were borderline offensively stereotyped. The music was often times ridiculous and overblown. Overall it couldn’t seem to make up its mind whether it was a comedy or a thriller. I was entertained but walked away wondering why people think PTA is a great director. I don’t get it.
To be fair, I do think that eureka, where the pay phone scene was shot, likely has some pay phones still since it’s so wayyyy the hell out of the way. My big gripe was how quickly they drive from the rainiest redwood forests of Humboldt to the desert areas of south central-coastal california, but that was a lil nit picky of me since it was supposed to be in towns that don’t really exist
Good point. The chase scene didn’t look like the northwest.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I believe the chase scene was shot here in Sacramento. I do know of one remaining working payphone in the entire city. So, maybe they found it!!!
First of all, Timothy Busfield is of Little Big League fame
Second of all,
Actually that’s it.
I'm going with Field of Dreams. It's a smaller role, but it's memorable.
I always think of him as his character on thirtysomething.
Umm. The message is in the title.
You didn't notice the much larger population of quiet revolutionaries? The nurses, the suburban karate teacher, the group of skate boarders, even one of the bad guys towards the end who decides to go with his conscience instead of his job description?
The character transformation trope is truly over rated, and rarely plausible. I guess that's why we see it shoe horned into so much bad fiction.
Yeah, I mean they say it IN the film: "from here on out, it's one battle after another." But the "battles" they're fighting feel nebulous (at least to me). What are they fighting? And why? The whole thing felt unfocused to me because I never understood the stakes.
How's the water today?
Michael, you're an American, you're swimming in it. You write cogently about it every single week, with intelligence, understanding, and wit.
It's about you, and every single American like you, turned up a few notches for dramatic effect.
😁
Excellent synopsis of the film. I felt like it lacked development of not only characters, but overall plot.