La ballena (The Whale)

There's a part of this movie that even before going in I was apprehensive about. Is it exploitative? More than probably, yes. Is it phobic in a certain way? It isn't impossible to think that. But being far removed from certain aspects of what the movie shows and yet being so close and feeling related to a lot of other things the movie portrays, I can only speak from what I got and felt about this movie.

Performances by Brendon Fraser, Sadie Sink and Hong Chau were absolutely fantastic. But that's something almost everyone knew even before going in. What really touched me was the detailing through which they showed why each character behaves in certain ways and how everything ended up this way. The absolute helplessness of humans under a system and subsystems across various levels of power that are meant to make life better creates more obstacles for everyone involved are arguably the root of the evils here. But the way each person deals with the evils they face is entirely different even when those reactions have so much in common. That is really reflected in each of the performances. Each of them shows a variety of emotions that are so humane and makes your heart break even more with the contrast between their philosophies on life and how life treats them.

For me, the film wanted to tell us that everyone is flawed, but it's the authenticity that should matter more than anything else which should be the road to happiness in life.

See The Whale just to watch consummate actors, Branden Fraser and Sadie Sink, playing father and daughter, furiously catch up with each other after years of separation. Set in Charlie's apartment, just big enough for his morbidly huge body, The Whale is not only about the reconciliation of this odd couple and the survival of obese Charlie but rather about how obsession can consume faster than a greasy piece of pizza.

Besides his abuse of food, Charlie refuses to let the Zoomed-in students see him in his rolling flesh. Yet, he is not self-centered or food-obsessed enough not to care about others, especially his flinty daughter, Ellie (Sadie Sink, so much like a young Ellen Page), for whom he writes college essays (he teaches writing) and saves for her over $100K. His heart is as big, well, as his body.

Writer Samuel D. Hunter (also author of the play) and director Darren Aronofsky move Charlie toward either reclamation or death; they remind us he did abandon normal life for a gay love, who eventually committed suicide, and over whom Charlie has not recovered. Good enough for Charlie to despair and abandon himself to food.

Ellie's finishing high school is Charlie's other obsession, and whether or not they all can survive their confrontation is the abiding suspense. Pervading the drama is a sense of regret in almost every character except maybe the pizza delivery boy, Dan (Sathya Sridharan). Even Charlie's ex, Mary (excellent Samantha Morton), suffers the sorrows of their split family.

Hong Chau, who has had a great year, if only for her role in Triangle of Sadness, plays the gritty Liz, a caretaker for Charlie and true friend, regretting Charlie's descent that allows no trips to the hospital and hides his money for his unstable daughter.

The itinerant Jesus fan, Thomas (Ty Simpkins), is food for another essay but for now an effective emblem of the intricate characters supporting Charlie's journey. Herman Melville lends figurative richness to the proceedings. If I haven't convinced you of the gold in this small film about a big man, go see it to witness my prediction that Fraser will win Globes and Oscar.

TLDR: I liked The Whale, all things considered. This is a touching, sometimes difficult-to-watch, but frequently interesting and engaging movie, anchored by a stellar performance from Brendan Fraser. He really shines here. But, the movie is a bit too melodramatic and unsubtle for its own good, and can be a bit one-note, especially given it's runtime.

The Good:

1. Brendan Fraser. If a Best Actor win wasn't enough, let this lowly IMDB critic confirm it: Fraser is amazing in this movie. His performance isn't just "sad" and it isn't just him crying. He transforms into this character and expresses a pantheon of emotions; it's a truly remarkable and powerful performance that is worth the watch alone. Fraser's Charlie is a broken man, but a smart, kind, and fundamentally optimistic one. He's a complex and interesting character, and one I found myself really rooting for. Fiction is the ultimate empathy machine and while you don't have to love Charlie, I think it's fair to ask you understand him and where he's coming from.

2. The rest of the cast (mostly). Hong Chau is great in this movie as Charlie, I also (mostly) liked Sadie Sink as Ellie. Sink's raw talent shines through, yet again, even if her character can be unbearable at times. Ty Simpkins rounds out the cast as Thomas, a missionary from an Evangelical church, and gives a pretty good, and likeable performance.

3. The "stage play aesthetic." This film feels very much like a stage play, and I wasn't surprised to learn it was based on one. While some might decry its lacking cinematic quality, I actually really liked the confined setting, repeating stage play cues (i.e. The knock), and general pace of the movie. At points, I sort of felt I was watching a play, and I liked that quality of it.

4. The philosophy (mostly). I think this film has a nice outlook and explores some big questions in an interesting, if sometimes melodramatic way. It's actually quite astonishing how much the film really ends up being about given its setting and subject matter, and while I don't think all the positions are satisfying, A for effort.

5. The make up and set design. I feel like I could smell Charlie's house whilst watching this movie. Yes, the set is simple but it really feels like a place someone is living, as opposed to a set. Charlie...looks fantastic. The make-up and prosthetics truly transform Fraser.

The Bad:

• The philosophy. At the same time, I think this movie frequently veers into melodrama. Fraser's whole speech about um...college not mattering because what matters is (*checks papers*) that you can write a short sentence about yourself is what REALLY matters...was cringey, to say the least. The movie is extremely on the nose at times and sometimes feels like it's hand holding the audience. Aronofsky typically makes quite challenging movies, and I have to wonder if the studio insist he make this clearer and more straightforward.

• One note. Another thing, and consider this a minor negative, but aside from a few moments of levity, this is an otherwise pretty miserable movie. I don't know, felt like given the run time, we could've used a bit more variety.

• Sadie Sink and her Mom. I understand why Sink's Ellie acts the way she does, and I feel she is redeemed in the end, but OH MAN, is she one of the most irritating teens I've seen on screen in a while. Samantha Morton's Mary on the other hand...gave one of the most "play like" performances in the film, with even her voice sounding weirdly clearer and louder than others in the film. It's as if she's...on stage or something, and maybe it was intentional, but her scene just felt off to me for that reason.

I think there are some good reasons to criticize this film. It's a fairly stage bound adaptation of a play. That's not always a bad thing. In many cases, staging a film very similarly to the way the play was staged accentuates what works about the play. I don't think it really does here, and the film's repetitive structures leads to some dead patches. There's also a powerfully melodramatic tone to this film that I'm frankly just a bit unsure of.

I also think there are extremely bad reasons to criticize the film, and these reasons are starting to emerge as the consensus among critics in the mainstream media. This isn't a film about a very fat man. It's a film about someone with an extremely destructive eating addiction caused by grief and regret and the complete lack of self-worth that accompanies those feelings sometimes. There have been films that deal with drugs, alcohol, gambling and sex, but apparently when it comes to food, the only thing that this film can be doing is inviting you to gawk at the big fat guy. It's a very strange conclusion to reach that I speculate is generated by coming into the film dead set on the idea that this is all it can be doing.

I did not come away from this film with any notion that I was supposed to see Frasier as anything less than a human being deserving of our deepest empathy. The film parades in some shocking imagery, especially up front, but I found that once I confronted it, my initial reaction subsided and I was seeing Frasier for who he was. I think it's an extraordinary double-standard that people can watch Nicolas Cage indulge in ridiculous and cartoonish bouts of binge drinking in "Leaving Las Vegas" and declare brilliance, but balk at Frasier's fits of VERY CLEARLY self-annihilating eating in this film and think we are only supposed to be processing it as some kind of freak show.

I don't think this is an incredible film, and I wouldn't place it among Aronofsky's best. I do think Frasier's performance is brilliant, and the film is a flawed, but often marvelous character piece about a kind of addiction we seldom confront.

Let me start by saying I've been a fan of Fraser since seeing Encino Man as a kid and this guy will always be one of my favorites. To see him somehow thrown out of Hollywood/not casted for the most part for the past decade was very frustrating for me. It was about time someone gave him another chance which Aronofsky and A24 did and it proved successful mainly because of Brendan's dedicated and emotional performance.

The film itself is quite less pretentious and more honest than most of A24 films to date . It also has more of a down to earth straight forward delivery than most of Aronofsky's perplexing work. Honestly with the subject matter it needed to be and relies mostly on pure emotion and struggle which is shown masterfully by Fraser.

There have been a lot of preconceived outraged overreactions and ridiculous assumptions based on the fact that Fraser is wearing a fat suit/getting prosthetics to appear as a morbidly obese person. I don't see why this is a problem mainly due to the fact this is a film made to entertain and to do so sometimes you wear things or makeup to alter looks. It would be difficult to cast a real life person off the street and have them pour their real emotions out on screen. I don't see that being easy.

Also this is so much deeper than the looks of Fraser in the film and that's the true intention and power of this piece. People must see this raw and moving performance from Brendan and it's sure to cause a stir. This is the due Renaissance and comeback for Mr. Fraser. Oscar should be coming his way.