Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Nicole Holofcener Re-Team for ‘You Hurt My Feelings,’ Which is Not for the Faint of Heart

Leave a comment

Will they hurt YOUR feelings? Let’s find out! (CREDIT: Jeong Park/A24)

Starring: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Tobias Menzies, Michaela Watkins, Arian Moayed, Owen Teague, Jeannie Berlin, David Cross, Amber Tamblyn, Zach Cherry

Director: Nicole Holofcener

Running Time: 93 Minutes

Rating: R for Angry, Hurt, Occasionally Petty Adults Being Annoyed with Each Other

Release Date: May 26, 2023 (Theaters)

What’s It About?: Don (Tobias Menzies) is a therapist with some crotchety patients who make him question his effectiveness. His wife Beth (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) is a novelist and writing professor who’s struggling through her own neurotic insecurities. They’re close with her sister Sarah (Michaela Watkins) and Sarah’s husband Mark (Arian Moayed), who are basically a less prickly version of Don and Beth. There are also check-ins with Beth and Sarah’s kooky mom Georgia (Jeannie Berlin) and Don and Beth’s grown son Elliott (Owen Teague), but it all hinges on the inciting incident of Beth accidentally eavesdropping on Don criticizing her latest book. And then it all unravels from there!

What Made an Impression?: As everyone’s emotions reached a fever pitch in You Hurt My Feelings, I wanted to scream, “Free yourself of the Good/Bad Binary!” Beth is so unrelentingly attached to the idea that she needs her husband to genuinely like her artistic output. He offers her unconditional emotional support instead, but that rings hollow to her, even though Don makes a convincing case for the fact that he might just not be the right audience for her. Quite frankly, this is what so many people need to hear. When it comes to art and creativity, there is no such thing as Objectively Good or Objectively Good. (Or at least, there’s no way to know those platonic ideals with absolute certainty.)

This is all to say, writer-director Nicole Holofcener has crafted quite the anxiety-inducing viewing experience. There are plenty of keenly observed character dynamics at play here that I’m sure will produce laughs in anyone who’s receptive to them in the right way. But instead of chuckling, I discovered that my innards were tied up like a pretzel that threatened to morph into bloating and constipation. I don’t mean that as a criticism, but instead an illustration of one particular emotional response to a deeply personal creative work. I didn’t exactly enjoy watching You Hurt My Feelings, but I appreciate it, and Holofcener has my full support.

You Hurt My Feelings is Recommended If You Like: Reading bad reviews

Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Feelings

This Is a Movie Review: Sorry to Bother You

1 Comment

CREDIT: Annapurna Pictures

I give Sorry to Bother You 5 out of 5 Hybrids: https://uinterview.com/reviews/movies/sorry-to-bother-you-movie-review-boots-rileys-mind-blowingly-original-debut-is-one-of-2018s-best-films/

This Is a Movie Review: The Defense of Journalism Mounted by ‘The Post’ is Admirable and Often Rousing, But Almost Quaint

Leave a comment

CREDIT: Niko Tavernise/Twentieth Century Fox

This review was originally posted on News Cult in December 2017.

Starring: Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, David Cross, Alison Brie, Sarah Paulson, Bradley Whitford, Jesse Plemons, Carrie Coon, Zach Woods

Director: Steven Spielberg

Running Time: 115 Minutes

Rating: PG-13 for Deadline-Related Light Profanity

Release Date: December 22, 2017 (Limited)/Expands Nationwide January 12, 2018

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees some fundamental freedoms, but certain limits on those freedoms are understood. Hate speech is not protected by free speech, for example, and human sacrifice is not protected by freedom of religion. But there is not quite the same shorthand for limits on a free press. Publishing anything demonstrably libelous is certainly unacceptable, but when is it inappropriate to print what is in fact true and has hitherto been hidden? This question is at the heart of so many present-day media matters, so in comes Steven Spielberg’s The Post, which examines a time when this conflict was a momentous occasion and not an everyday one.

In 1971, The Washington Post finds itself in possession of the Pentagon Papers, a trove of documents detailing the United States’ involvement in Vietnam over the past few decades. Executive editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and his team of journalists think the public deserves to know this information. The federal government says it would be a felony to print it. There is no mistaking where The Post (both the paper and the film) comes down on this conflict. This is not new information and thus serves no imminent threat to American troops in Vietnam. The only harm it can cause is embarrassment for former presidents. The actual conflict that The Post grapples is the attempted reconciliation between ethical and business concerns.

The constant struggle of press outlets, even institutions as big as The Washington Post, is figuring out how to make money by delivering the truth. That struggle is writ large when making a public offering, which is what we’ve got here. Do you make a stronger case to your investors by laying low or by making a ruckus in the course of standing up for your principals? As publisher Katharine Graham, Meryl Streep is all contorted faces and knotted anxiety as she takes the lead to make the decision of printing the Papers or not. The drama is wrung in screwball fashion, with Bradlee appealing to her over the phone at the last a minute, as a gaggle of other interested parties hop on the line.

For as grand as The Post’s ambitions are, it is strange to consider that most of it takes place over the course of just one day. It all then feels almost inconsequential, but of course, certain individual moments can change the course of everything. When that is the case, there has probably been months, or even years, of work behind the scenes setting up those moments, as conveyed by an early scene of Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) gathering and absconding with the Papers. Also delivering the dynamic agita is Bob Odenkirk as Ben Bagdikian, an old buddy of Ellsberg’s who tracks down the delivery. Odenkirk’s comedic background is an asset – he moves about with a paranoid shuffle that is somewhere between absolutely necessary and hilariously unnecessary. Also rousing is a typesetting montage following the decision to publish the Papers. This mechanical peek at how things are done is a valuable reminder of underlying structure in much the same way that Michael Mann’s Blackhat spent so much visual space on the wires that undergird the Internet.

Ultimately, while The Post’s advocacy for journalism is timeless, its story feels small-scale, a prelude to the much bigger fallout of Watergate and all the modern-day scandals that use -gate in their nomenclature. The Richard Nixon of The Post is only ever seen from behind and through a window. His fight against the press was fought in the shadows, but today his same tactics are being employed right out in the open. The Post’s lessons are ones I hope everyone takes to heart, but I wonder (despair?) how useful they are when the sorts of secrets exposed by the Pentagon Papers are now nonchalantly tweeted every day.

The Post is Recommended If You Like: All the President’s Men, Spotlight, a Free Press

Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Sealed Documents