vivbrown

This is a forgettable film that won't age well. Too often, the dialogue feels stilted and written, failing to translate from the page to the screen. By itself, that doesn't need to be a criticism. It could be a style choice except that Americana's style feels like it's trying so hard to imitate the writer-director's own favorite films. The result is a kind of heartless mess or pastiche.

The biggest problem is that the writing stinks of someone who is trolling for kisses, wanting so badly to be liked that he aims for poignant or clever moments but never come close to them (except maybe for friends and multitasking viewers). The greatest filmmakers are able to bring just about anyone into their voice, their cinematography, their world without you feeling that you're being beaten over the head with those elements. Sadly, there's a self satisfaction to this film that feels like it's coming from insecurity about a lack of talent, not real imagination or art or even the kind of thoughtful entertainment that doesn't try to be art but can't help but reach masterpiece status.

Though the cast is interesting (I give the film a star precisely for the fun casting right down to the talented Zahn McClarnon). Even that doesn't work though. The cast doesn't do their best work here. I'm a Sydney Sweeney fan but she isn't well directed in Americana. The performance feels half-hearted and wooden at turns. Too often, I see Sweeney acting like Penny Jo, and not giving us a real glimpse of Penny Jo. Paul Walter Hauser, who has also had some excellent roles lately, isn't at his best here either. Halsey is fine but it's hard to see her having a notable acting career.

In sum, the film feels like a copy of a copy of a copy of a.... It fails as a sincere piece but also as a satire. It wants it both ways, which is possible, but it can't pull it off. The narrative development is more chaotic than clever, say in the way you'd see narrative threads intersecting in Coen Bros. Films or even Noah Hawley's serial anthology tribute to Fargo. It's clear to me this one crashed and burned (and it bombed unusually hard) at the box office not because of some silly controversy but because there's no there there. I wouldn't even recommend this as in-flight viewing for your next transcontinental flight. There are piles of independent-ish films out there that will give you a better version of the neo-noir thrills this one is trying so desperately but unsuccessfully to achieve.

This is a weak documentary and an even worse experimental film. The focus on 1960s sociological cases of transgender people had lots of potential and could have potentially served as a powerful response to terrible representations of trans people in media. The problem is that the documentary mostly engages in ponderous, clumsy, and self-congratulatory naval gazing without yielding real insights or lessons that couldn't be gained from other, more engaging viewing. Sadly, this film doesn't work well either as an educational or experimental film. It takes a fairly familiar critical approach to archives and documentary through reflexive reenactments. But those reenactments are mostly awkward, especially in the writing and also because of some flat performances -- with the exception of successful acting from Angelica Ross and Zackary Drucker. The editing throughout the movie is also confusing and doesn't even give us stylistically meaningful confusion. This is a movie that works much better in the description than it does in its execution. I went to the opening weekend of the movie and had high hopes, but came away more bored than I expected given the topic.

This 1991 independent film was the first feature film that a Black woman (Julie Dash) directed that had theatrical distribution in the US. As other reviews have highlighted, "Daughters of the Dust" is a difficult film to watch and at times to understand. I'm happy to call out independent or art films that are obvious or heavy handed in their formal experimentation But this film is challenging for good reasons and it yields layers worth reflecting on.

The film focuses on a Black family in Georgia in 1902 and reckons with the legacy of slavery in the US. Instead of focusing the tragedy of this aspect of American history, as many other films do, it celebrates the unique culture and language of this family.

The principal photography and cinematography were done by the talented Arthur Jafa. This is one of the most memorable and successful aspects of the film.

I don't think this film will be for everyone. But if you're interested in the history of film (especially Black US film) this is a must see. Making a film like this in the 2020s might not work as well but it came at the end of cinema's most meaningful experimental period.