Showing posts with label Ruth Negga. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ruth Negga. Show all posts

Saturday, January 1, 2022

2021 #8 Film of the Year Passing
















Writer/director Rebecca Hall


Hall with Tessa Thompson (left) and Ruth Negga

Hall on the set with André Holland

Cinematographer Eduard Grau with the director

(Left to right), Thompson, Negga, and Hall

Thompson, Hall, and Negga

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PASSING                   B+                                                                                                                 USA  Great Britain  Canada  (98 mi)  2021  d:  Rebecca Hall

We’re all passing for something or other, aren’t we?                                                            —Irene Redfield (Tessa Thompson)

Rebecca Hall’s screenwriting and directorial debut adapts Nella Larsen’s 1929 novella of the same name, the first black woman to be awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship and a cornerstone work of Harlem Renaissance literature, also a central figure in American modernism, set during Prohibition just before the Depression, offering a despairing depiction in the lives of middle class black women.  Hall’s first draft took ten days, but she spent the next ten years mulling over the screenplay, eventually settling upon an intense character study of two light-skinned biracial women, Tessa Thompson as Irene Redfield and Ruth Negga as Clare Kendry, filled with meaningful and subtle glances, where the authenticity of the exceptional performances is the highlight of the film, as their lives couldn’t have taken more differing paths, yet they converge in what appears to be an exploration of transgressions.  Irene has married a prominent black doctor, Brian (André Holland), with two sons, living a successful middle class life in a Harlem townhouse, while Clare has decided to “pass” as white in order to elevate her social standing, marrying a white husband, John Bellew (Alexander Skarsgård), whose pet name for her is “nig,” as her skin tone appears to be darker than it initially appeared to be.  Meeting by chance at the Drayton Hotel, an upscale white establishment serving cool refreshing drinks such as iced tea, which is like gaining access to another world, one of white luxuries and indulgence, that she visits in a desperate search for relief from the insufferable heat of New York City (that is actually the Drake Hotel in Chicago), two childhood friends reconcile over their differing paths, with Irene meeting her husband John, a virulent racist who mistakenly believes both women are white, voicing his intense hatred for the black race, leaving Irene a bit disgusted at Clare’s self-inflicted predicament.  For the more carefully guarded Irene, whose life of “idealized domesticity” revolves around Harlem parties and a proper social circle, passing is an occasional indulgence, something she does on occasion for the sake of convenience, gaining entrance to restaurants, or theater tickets, allowing her to expand her social realms, while for Clare, passing is a means of survival, orphaned early on, coming from a home with white relatives who disdained her race, she wanted something more, something others had and she didn’t, so she grabbed the opportunity, making a permanent break, resorting to being reckless, flirtatious, and bold, living in a loveless marriage with a banker to gain access to a more affluent lifestyle.  This story has been told before, introduced earlier in films like PINKY (1949), LOST BOUNDARIES (1949), and IMITATION OF LIFE (1934, 1959), where the majority of blacks cannot pass for white.  Since passing was a crime in most states, secrecy was paramount to its success, so Hollywood typically toned down the sexual and political content in order to placate white audiences.  The moral of these Hollywood films seems to be to stay in your place, as passing narratives worked to maintain the status quo, playing into a Hollywood system that continued to cast whites in black roles from the silent era until well into the 60’s, allowing them to perpetuate the same racial stereotypes until a newly developed social consciousness raised questions not only about blacks, but Indians and Hispanics as well.  This project has personal ramifications for Hall, who discovered her own African-American roots in a 2018 Deadline interview, Rebecca Hall Tessa Thompson Ruth Negga - Deadline, “I came across the novel at a time when I was trying to reckon creatively with some of my personal family history, and the mystery surrounding my biracial grandfather on my American mother’s side.  In part, making this film is an exploration of that history, to which I’ve never really had access.”  Hall’s mother is opera star Maria Ewing, and her father, who died at an early age, was a light-skinned black man passing for white, with both identifying as white during their lifetimes.  Nella Larsen’s literature allowed Hall to explore deceptive avenues that light-skinned blacks utilized to gain entrance into white society, something rarely, if ever, mentioned in family histories, often discovered years afterwards, purely by accident.  Thompson appeared in a recent 50’s old-fashioned Hollywood romance movie set in Harlem, Sylvie's Love (2020), while Ruth Negga appeared in Loving (2016), a true-life historical drama that set the legal precedent liberating interracial marriage, which remained illegal in all the former states of the Confederacy 100 years after slavery was abolished.  What’s immediately apparent is the lyrical and often sensuous black and white cinematography from Eduard Grau, relying upon close-ups for intimacy and poetic introspection, with gorgeous jazz piano interludes heard between scenes, The Homeless Wanderer by Emahoy Tsegué-Maryam Guèbrou, The Homeless Wanderer YouTube (7:07), heard earlier in Gabe Klinger’s Porto (2016), an impressionistic piano piece that composer Devonté Hynes incorporates into the score, becoming familiar with Irene’s tree-lined neighborhood, with much of the film taking place in her multi-storied brownstone home, where rain out the window overlooking a collection of trees is among the more uniquely gorgeous images captured, like an impressionistic still painting, with tears of rain running down the window pane, creating a washed-out reflective image that remains permanently out-of-focus.

Nella Larsen, along with Jessie Forset, Jean Toomer, Langston Hughes, and a host of others were writers that examined the different and sometimes complex relationship of passing to black identity, which underwent a refashioning during the Harlem Renaissance.  At least initially, Irene ignores Clare’s repeated requests to meet, where the experience with her husband really left her cold, not really wanting to have anything to do with that, but when Clare arrives at her door unexpectedly, things change, as her friendship is welcomed, but she’s worried that she’s putting herself in danger with such a volatile husband, who might kill her if he found out, raising other perplexing questions such as the cost of personal isolation, paranoia, guilt, self-hate, and the fear of being outed, but Clare puts her mind at ease, thinking she will never be discovered, and that her deceptive practices aren’t on her husband’s radar, as she only intends to visit when he’s out of town on business.  Very quickly, however, she goes from being out of sight to part of the mix, with a “wild desire” to rediscover her real self, chipping away at her carefully-constructed façade, where even her accent grows more relaxed, making more frequent trips to Harlem, showing up for social events where she flirts her way into popularity, but the relationship remains a bit suspect, as Irene’s worries are justified, but Clare never seems worried, instead throwing herself into the next event, becoming more than a little comfortable to be back in the swing of things around black people, something she dreadfully missed in the white world, where there is a loss of self, loss of family, and loss of community, rediscovering who she really is, holding nothing back, regaining a natural feeling among her own, no longer having to pretend.  In contrast to that uninhibited display, Irene has a growing sense of dread, with thoughts that one wrong move might unravel her carefully planned life forever.  The intersection of the two extremes, an extrovert and an introvert, combine to create a single black identity, which appears to be filled with multiple, overlapping identities, some truer or more authentic than others, but continually evolving, seemingly in its antagonistic historical relationship with a modern America that is entrenched in racism, where passing is a strong indictment of American life, an example of the desperate measures people are driven to take in order to survive.  Irene has a black maid, Zulena (Ashley Ware-Jenkins), allowing her more free time to pursue her social interests, yet there’s an air of tension between them that goes unspoken, with Brian often coming to her defense, realizing the maid has her own independent life as well.  But Clare gets caught up in organizing social events, which often includes inviting prominent white people, where party sequences are frequent, drawing the illustrious presence of famed novelist Hugh Wentworth (Bill Camp), as one joyful aspect of the Harlem Renaissance was that it drew whites as well into a mixed throng of jazz music and bootleg liquor, where everyone seemed to overlook their differences for the sake of a good time.  Nella Larsen dedicated her book to Carl Van Vechten, represented by the Wentworth character, who despite having married two women was known for having sexual relations with men.  Many of the central figures of the Harlem Renaissance were gay, though usually closeted, as Harlem had a flourishing gay club scene with drag balls and drag kings, as evidenced by cross-dressing blues performer Gladys Bentley (The Great Blues Singer Gladys Bentley Broke All the Rules), where there is a discussion about female stars Josephine Baker and Ethel Waters, both of whom dabbled on the gay side, hinting this might be a glacially paced and overly restrained black lesbian period piece.  This closeted sexuality leads Irene to tell Hugh, “We’re all passing for something or other, aren’t we?”  The film mirrors the book and seems particularly interested in the interiority of the characters, often shown in lingering close-ups, as Clare grows increasingly comfortable returning to the richness of the Harlem social setting, which Irene can’t help noticing, yet also realizes that Brian, who initially detested her, has grown unusually fond of her as well, creating a ménage à trois of repressed desires, where his mood of irritability only seems to surface during her absence.  This note of jealousy couldn’t be more understated, yet feels alarming, especially coming from Irene, who feels comfortable in her skin, remaining true to herself, sticking up for her beliefs that Brian is introducing adult subject matter to their children too early, scolding him for emphasizing newspaper stories on recent lynchings, as she wants her children to be happy, not looking over their shoulder at a real world suddenly creeping into their lives.  Her position is typically sneered at by her male husband, who believes children need to be prepared for the world they live in, the sooner the better, as they’ll pick up on these things at school anyway, so why not hear it from their own parents in the safety of their home.  Regardless of who’s right or wrong, the manner in which her position is dismissed is typical male dominance, no matter the era, where the sting of the rebuff is never comfortable, but only festers over time, especially with the underlying fears of jealousy that magnify her growing unease.  

Part of the understated context is Irene’s relationship with Clare, initially viewed as a cautionary red flag, a danger zone fraught with ghastly outcomes that could at any minute go haywire, so she was to be avoided at all costs.  But as she re-entered the Harlem lifestyle, their friendship grew closer, with Clare attributing her newfound freedom exclusively to Claire, routinely deferring to her, realizing what a good thing she has by knowing her.  Irene wants to feel the same way, but treads more carefully, realizing Claire has an exhibitionist flair for being the center of attention and grabbing the limelight, for being that popular girl everyone talks about, who brazenly drinks and dances and seemingly doesn’t have a care in the world, valuing freedom and happiness over safety (like Icarus flying too closely to the sun), with Irene reduced to a more passive role of watching and observing.  As she curiously eyes that backless dress Claire’s wearing, she seethes with a smoldering interiority, mesmerized by her blatantly open sexuality on display, a fascination that borders on obsession, becoming a bundle of nerves, remaining on solid footing by being well respected and dignified, known for her impeccable manners and social grace, dedicated to family and home, yet underneath that good breeding lie fleeting feelings of jealousy that make her question her own marriage and this controversial friendship as well.  But it also raises the age-old question about skin color, where at least to whites, lighter skin shades are viewed as safely acceptable, yet darker skin tones produce more hostile feelings of angry denouncement.  Even within the black community, these same arguments raise contentious viewpoints, with darker-skinned blacks remaining skeptical about lighter skin tones gaining access and success within the white establishments, access they are routinely denied simply by the darker color of their skin.  Little progress has been made over the years, as whites continually promote lighter shades as the standard for beauty, which subconsciously makes its way through the black community as well, creating a social rift of jealousy and also fierce independence, as those who defy this social standard are defiantly on their own, setting their own trends, yet only few are successful, while the large population overall continues to believe lighter is better, as evidenced by the huge commercial success of artists like Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, or Beyoncé, for instance, while Nina Simone fumes in her indignant black fury at being excluded.  One thing that’s clear is that darker women have never been able to pass as white, and may sneer at those who do.  On the other hand, Irene views her darker-skinned maid Zulena quite differently, yet her home is a picture of cleanliness and décor, where Zulena is obviously quite good at what she does, and is quite successful, taking care of a beautiful home filled with beautiful things.  This color angle is a major subtext to the film, as is an unspoken homoerotic element, more hinted at than revealed, though Irene often speaks of Clare’s beauty, which elevates her fear that Clare may steal her husband, yet her efforts to repress this underlying attraction ultimately drives the story, where Claire may actually become a projection of Irene’s repressed desires.  The unexamined question is what view the darker-skinned Brian holds of the lighter-skinned Clare.  Is he really enamored?  Or is it all in Irene’s head?  These questions are never really answered, but instead swirl around in the nuanced, atmospheric social settings where the two continually interact, yet the film does focus primarily on Irene’s experiences, with Clare presenting a distinctive moral challenge.  One astonishing voice of blackness is felt by a continuing sound of a neighboring saxophone player, played by an uncredited Shaun Hudson, where jazz notes linger in the air like afternoon heat, offering relief and solace to those fortunate enough to hear, yet some can be heard telling the player to pipe down as the evening lingers, yet the sound couldn’t be more sensually affirmative.  Devonté Hynes wrote the music for Gia Coppola’s Palo Alto (2013), yet it also sizzles here, offering a more electrifying presence throughout the film.  Certainly a foreshadowing moment has Irene walking down the street with her friend Felisse (Antoinette Crowe-Legacy), who is clearly darker-skinned, yet they run into Clare’s husband John, who immediately recognizes Irene, and calls her name, but she astutely avoids him without acknowledging his presence and keeps walking.  This singularly charged moment lingers in an otherwise subtle and carefully calculated film, the very picture of restraint, with malicious overtones that remain out of sight, only to resurface in what appears to be a New Year’s party, with a layer of snow already on the ground, when John angrily crashes the party, yelling and screaming as he pushes his way inside looking for his wife, creating instant turmoil as havoc ensues, remaining ambiguous as to what exactly happens, yet a tragedy occurs, a particularly harrowing moment that has been the subject of discussion for years, leaving unanswered questions that linger in the background, haunting viewers long afterwards, a metaphor for the price that can be paid for passing.  The novel was originally published with two different endings in two separate printings, with the original ending including a white policeman’s decree of “death by misadventure,” which by itself is an extraordinary choice of words, while another ends on the phrase, “Then everything was dark.”  There is no indication which version Nella Larsen preferred, having written both, adding to the critical debate of what constitutes the truth.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Loving























LOVING           B                 
USA  Great Britain  (122 mi)  2016  ‘Scope  d:  Jeff Nichols

An understated, restrained, and achingly sorrowful depiction of the real-life story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple that got married in Washington D.C. in 1958 only to be arrested after they returned home to Central Point, Virginia for violating the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia that had outlawed interracial marriage since slavery days.  Actually, the first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691.  Though slavery was abolished in 1865, interracial marriage remained illegal in all the former states of the Confederacy 100 years later and was not amended until a Supreme Court decision on behalf of the Loving’s in 1967, though two states, South Carolina and Alabama refused to amend their state Constitutions until majority voter referendums passed in 1998 and 2000 respectively.  Much like 2015 Top Ten List #6 Carol from last year, this film underplays a significant shift in social consciousness by eliminating any hint of dramatic excess or melodrama, instead accentuating how connected they are to the rural soil and to one another, where whatever drama exists is the ordinary fabric of their everyday lives.   Unlike the director’s previous work Midnight Special (2016) that featured the supernatural, this film thrives on a universal human characteristic that we all share in common, the capacity to love.   Easily the least controversial and most conventional of all his films, the low key nature of the drama is surprising, especially considering the radical significance of the subject, where unfortunately films about social change have to be presented with kid gloves so as not to offend anyone.  That excessive degree of restraint may be the film’s undoing.  By focusing on establishing a rhythm of life that becomes ordinary and routine, where this couple could just as easily have been anyone, yet their nobility and inherent goodness rise above the prejudices of the time, while so much about them feels overly generic.   

To say the least, it is highly unusual for a white man in the 1950’s to so completely embrace black culture with so few questions being asked.  Yes, it does happen in the music business, especially with a lone white among jazz artists who are primarily black, and who’s to say it doesn’t happen elsewhere?  Except for a single scene, where Richard is confronted by an inebriated black friend that reminds him whites always have an escape route from being black, an avenue blacks will never have, there is otherwise no discussion on the matter.  It’s hard to believe there wouldn’t have been plenty more altercations among both races where they would be forced to defend their actions, where some among them would be disenchanted.  Richard’s mother at one point says he never should have married “that” woman, but that’s the end of it.  The film doesn’t delve into any of those kinds of all-too human frustrations, so it feels like the couple exists in a vacuum.  As it turns out, when one examines the history of mixed-race descendants from Virginia (Loving v. Virginia and the Secret History of Race - The New York Times  Brent Staples, May 14, 2008), it was common practice for Virginia slave owners, including Thomas Jefferson, to father biracial children with their slaves, where “many of the mixed-race men and women of Caroline County settled in and around Central Point…it was a visibly mixed-race community since the 19th century, (and) was home to a secret but paradoxically open interracialism.” Leading up to the 1950’s, often indistinguishable from whites, many biracials passed as whites in schools, movie theaters, restaurants, and even the armed forces in order to avoid segregation laws.  Some moved away and married into white families, while others had their birth certificates corrected to list them as white.  So what the film doesn’t point out is by the time Richard Loving, who was white, met Mildred Jeter, who was black and Cherokee, at a rural farmhouse juke joint playing bluegrass music, violating Jim Crow laws in that county was already an established practice.     

That being said, the film does contain the meticulous detail found in the director’s other films, including powerful performances by the lead characters Richard (Joel Edgerton) and Mildred (Ruth Negga), where these two are right at home in the rural farmlands and fields where they grew up, where neither one talks much, expressing themselves with as few words as possible, yet both are direct and sincere, where their feelings for one another are never in doubt.  Richard is a bricklayer by trade, but a genius at fixing car engines, where his weekend hobby is hanging out with a group of blacks who fleece whites out of their money in local drag races.  Some of the underlying white resentment is hinted at, both in losing their money and in watching a white guy so nonchalantly kissing a black woman in public, where someone holding a grudge against the couple likely complained to the sheriff, but nothing more becomes of it.  The couple is quickly married after learning Mildred is pregnant, with Richard buying a plot of land not half-a-mile from where Mildred grew up where he intends to build her a house, but they are arrested by a local sheriff (Marton Csokas) and his men in the middle of the night for violating anti-miscegenation laws that forbid blacks and whites from living together in marriage.  Accentuating the racial disparity of the law, Richard is released after a single night, while history records show Mildred spent five nights in a rat-infested cell before they allowed her release.  On the advice of local attorney (Bill Camp), they can avoid jail time only by pleading guilty, but they will be banned from living in the state of Virginia for the next 25 years.  With heads bowed, they agree to the court’s draconian rules, moving to Washington, D.C. into the home of one of Mildred’s cousins, Laura (Andrene Ward-Hammond), a row house in an all-black part of the city, where both are keenly aware that they’re living in substandard housing in a neglected neighborhood.  As the Civil Rights movement is growing, including the infamous 1963 march on Washington, the site of Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Had a Dream” speech, it’s Laura who tells Mildred, “You need to write Bobby Kennedy and get you some civil rights.”

Uncomfortable in the city, where she misses her family, especially how close she is with her sister (Terri Abney), eventually having three kids, Mildred feels they’re cramped and cooped up all the time, as they have no room to run around and play, so she does write a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who refers the case to the Washington branch of the ACLU, where she’s contacted by Bernard Cohen (Nick Kroll) and constitutional law expert Phil Hirschkop (Jon Bass), who agree to represent them free of charge.  What’s difficult for them to understand is how they have to lose all the lower court rulings in order for the case to be heard before the Supreme Court, a process that takes nearly a decade, where they grow weary and disheartened along the way, where Richard often has to drive up to another state to find work, often returning home long after the kids have gone to bed.  Richard is openly suspicious of the lawyers, not really understanding the process, while Mildred develops an appreciation for the fact that you have to lose the smaller battles in order to win the war.  As the case draws nearer the federal courts, the lawyers try to gain exposure for the case by sending a Life magazine photographer to visit them in 1965, with Michael Shannon playing the photographer Grey Villet, known for using natural light and for refusing to stage his subjects, and while only three photographs were published in the magazine, he took more than 70 photographs.  Much of the film’s narrative mirrors those historic photographs which were shown in Nancy Buirski’s documentary film THE LOVING STORY (2011).  Photography played a large part of the Civil Rights struggle, communicating a sense of urgency to people all around the world, much of it displaying a hostile reception by police and local bystanders greeting the peaceful protest demonstrations, depicting violence and hate, while the images of the Loving family show precisely the opposite.  As low key and unobtrusive as this soft-spoken family chose to be, it’s hard to understand how the State of Virginia could actually claim they threatened “the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.”  Never seeing themselves as champions of civil rights, instead coming from humble origins, they don’t even attend the Supreme Court hearing when invited, where the muted style of the film does allow viewers to share moments of intimacy with this family, as if we are part of their world, allowing us to observe history as it happens.