La Ballena

Imagine that there was complete silence in the hall for 2 minutes after the end of the movie (The Whale). You don't come across something like that very often. Brendan Frazer, directed by Darren Aronofsky, gave an incredible, amazing performance. When you watching this movie, you felt certain feelings at once. Such films don't happen often, but when they do, they change the cinema for the better. This psychological drama about guilt, loss, and trauma is one of the best films of this year. I hope it wins all the awards it will be nominated for, most importantly in the best actor category ( Brendan Frazer). He will probably win.

Darren Aronofsky surprised me with this film as he kept the characters and their reactions to circumstances as the center of what's happening on screen.

What was further surprising to me was the thorough nuance with which the film's sensitive themes are explored. Aronofsky is not a subtle filmmaker, but each of these characters is given such satisfying depth and is portrayed with their flawed perspectives and endearing desires on full display.

The film has no hero or villain. Everyone is made out to be both to an extent and it's heart-wrenching to come to know these people throughout the film and watch them seek redemption.

Some have criticised the screenplay as melodramatic-I didn't find this to be the case. I found it largely authentic, tragic, and full of intrigue that compounds as more information is revealed.

My only glaring issue with the film is that one of the characters starts out as complex and with a singular nature, only to have that completely altered, oversimplified, and abandoned in his final scene. It seemed to me that this was done for the sake of the desired themes but at the expense of the character.

But Brendan Fraser's performance alone marks this film as a colossal triumph, and there is much excellence to be seen throughout its entirety.

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.

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.