I thought of a line from Shakespeare* while watching Yorgos Lanthimos’s “Bugonia:”

“…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The line from “Macbeth” sprang to mind because “Bugonia” is indeed full of sound and fury, including dynamic visuals, dramatic music, strong performances, and lower-case “s” shocking moments. But at the end, you’re left with a shrug.

It’s not that there’s no message at all; it’s that the message is empty and trite, almost a cop-out. It’s kind of a twist, but not really, and it isn’t satisfying. And given what came before, it’s definitely a disappointment.

“Bugonia” is the story of a powerful CEO who gets kidnapped by a pair of conspiracy-obsessed knuckleheads who are convinced she is an alien from outer space. Emma Stone’s Michelle is the celebrated and decorated leader of a biomedical company. She is the embodiment of a modern cultural ideal: beautiful, powerful, intelligent, feminine, adept at inspiring corporate branding-speak and mixed-martial arts. She drives a Mercedes G-Wagon.

Her captors are a pair of backwoods cousins named Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and Don (Aidan Delbis). Teddy is both lithe and disheveled, smart but lacking common sense, and about 10,000 feet into a deep dive into the online world of extreme conspiracy theory. Don is the loyal follower, easily manipulated and tragic. They ride around town on bicycles.

Teddy and Don kidnap Michelle on her way home from the office, and quickly relocate her to their grimy basement. Here they reveal their intentions: they believe she is an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy, part of a conspiracy to wipe out humanity, and they want her to give them an audience with her leader.

As the story proceeds, “Bugonia” flirts with all the hot-button issues of our day. You have the conflict between the wealthy elites and the poor underclass, the issue of corporate nihilism and capitalism without accountability, and as we find out a little more about the connection between Teddy and his victim, even the subject of modern healthcare comes to the surface. And all of this plays out under the shadow of Internet conspiracy theories, and the lack of trust in traditional media.

But all these things are merely tools to play with as Michelle tries to find a way out of her predicament, and the core of “Bugonia” boils down to the question of whether she will be rescued, or if she might use her sharp wits to rescue herself.

It’s a solid premise, with some real tension, and driven by some excellent cinematography and performances from Stone and Plemons, “Bugonia” boasts some real strengths. It also has some obligatory weaknesses, such as some blind spots in the plot. For example, given that Michelle is successful enough to grace the cover of TIME Magazine, and that her captor has a pretty obvious motive, you’d think the manhunt would bring more to Teddy’s door than a local officer who seems more motivated by his own personal connection to the suspect than any genuine suspicion. 

The big problem, as indicated previously, is the payoff.

“Bugonia” reminded of more than Shakespeare. It also reminded me of “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,” and Jim Jarmusch’s “The Dead Don’t Die.” They’re all films that set you up for something bigger, something more meaningful, but settle for nihilism and cynicism. “Bugonia” was my first Lanthimos film, so based on reputation I was prepared for the cinematic visual craft, the bizarro premises, and the shocking, often comic violence. But I wasn’t prepared to be left with an ending that felt somewhere between a cop-out and a cute joke.

*Full disclosure: I had to Google the line to locate its origin; my personal catalogue of Shakespearean quotes is pretty small.

—

“Bugonia” is rated R for episodes of graphic violence, torture, profanity, and some sexual content.

The post A weak ending undermines ‘Bugonia’s’ many strengths appeared first on Utah.Film.

2020 was a crazy year that brought out the worst in a lot of people, and showcased some troubling issues we’re still grappling with today. To many, this idea is self-evident, and for that audience, Ari Aster’s “Eddington” won’t offer any insights you didn’t already understand.

Set in the spring of 2020, “Eddington” tries to capture the chaos of the COVID-19 Pandemic within the scope of a small New Mexico town. Aster follows a kaleidoscope of characters and parties, which makes the film feel more like a portrait than a traditional narrative, but its plot mostly focuses on town sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix). Joe has a strained relationship with his wife Louise (Emma Stone), which is exacerbated by the presence of his live-in conspiracy theorist mother-in-law Dawn (Deirdre O’Connell). His relationship with Eddington mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal) is even more strained, partially because he supports masking policies that Joe sees creating contention among residents, but also because Ted has a past with Louise.

As one thing leads to another, Joe decides to run against Ted to de-seat him. This all happens as COVID policies and Black Lives Matter protests stir up increasing tensions in town. We meet local tribal officers, whose jurisdiction presents an uneasy neighbor to Eddington, and a group of young adults trying to reconcile their passions for social activism with their more down-to-earth romantic relationships. And when Dawn introduces Louise to a very online 21^st century Charles Manson-wannabe (Austin Butler), those escalating tensions start to finally boil over.

“Eddington” tries to cover a little of everything: small town politics, right-wing conspiracists, Gen Z social justice warriors, corporate corruption, even privately funded leftist terrorism. And to Aster’s credit, he points the finger at all these parties with equal condemnation. The whole lot is a mess by intention, mixing social issues with personal biases and ulterior motives, reflecting the confusion of the time as various parties default to more and more hysteric reactions. As a critical portrait of contemporary American culture, it has merit, even if it overlooks the more grounded part of the population who didn’t run headlong down the various paths of extremism. But once atmosphere gives way to action, “Eddington’s” story becomes more and more preposterous, leaving audiences with no option but to see Aster’s film as more of a symbol than a believable narrative.

The trouble is that while it’s busy pointing fingers at everyone involved, it isn’t really saying anything that shouldn’t be readily obvious. It’s hard to think anyone will come out of “Eddington” knowing or understanding anything they didn’t already know or understand going in. It may be a bit of a surprise for Aster fans, given that the director has been primarily known for more traditional horror films like “Hereditary” and “Midsommar.”

On a more technical level, “Eddington” builds a strong atmosphere and some passages of dramatic tension, and its performances are pretty strong overall. But all its good parts add up to a film that may have arrived too soon. Not because it’s insensitive or inappropriate, but more because its subject feels like an open, unresolved wound that needs more time to put in perspective. And without that perspective, the film is unable to move past the self-evident to achieve the poignancy and meaning it seeks.

The explicit references to real-life issues both help and hinder the movie’s impact. On the one hand, they drive home the reality of the situation, and make it relatable. But because it is relatable, it will also be difficult for anyone with highly polarized political perspectives to view the film beyond their own biases. In that sense, “Eddington” feels designed for a centrist audience that finds fault on all sides. Unless Aster is more interested in trolling the true believers, which just feels like a lot of effort for a minimal return.

“Eddington” is rated R for scattered profanity, some graphic violence, and a brief scene of non-sexual graphic nudity.

The post Aster’s ‘Eddington’ feels like it’s stating the obvious appeared first on Utah.Film.