Movie Review: "Concussion"

Concussion (2015)

PG-13

3.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Peter Landesman
Writer                                   Peter Landesman (screenplay), Jeanne Marie Laskas (GQ Article)
Cinematography                 Salvatore Totino
Editing                                  William Goldenberg

Will Smith                            Dr. Bennet Omalu
Alec Baldwin                       Dr. Julian Bailes
Albert Brooks                      Dr. Cyril Wecht
Gugu Mbatha-Raw             Prema Mutiso

David Morse                       “Iron” Mike Webster
Luke Wilson                        Roger Goodell
Matthew Willig                  Justin Strzelczyk

 

“Finishing the game is the same as winning the game.”

Mike Webster

“You think you’re being a good American. The NFL owns a day the week, the same one once owned by the Church.”

Dr. Wecht to Dr. Omalu

There was an excellent movie in 1999, “The Insider” (from the always brilliant writer/director Michael Mann). It is in fact one my Top Ten Movies from the past 25 years. The critics loved it, the public, not so much. What it did so well and what “Concussion” largely fails to do, is to build real tension within its story of a major American industry’s efforts to kill the science being used to discredit the products sold by that industry. The product in question in “The Insider” was tobacco; pretty clearly a villain to most Americans in 2016. This was most definitely not the case throughout most of the 20^th century. Mann did not leave his kid gloves on with his film as he excoriates “Big Tobacco”. The product in question in “Concussion” is NFL football. And if tobacco products were easily seen as a villain by many Americans, even before they were proven to be so, this is definitely not the case with America’s most popular professional sporting event. Writer/director Peter Landesman knows the popularity of football and the financial reach of the NFL, and as such his movie (likely with some nudging from corporate parent Sony Pictures – according to leaked internal memos) does leave his kid gloves on as he tries to take a somewhat evenhanded approach to the now proven link between concussions sustained while playing football and high rates of dementia amongst their retired player veterans.

“Concussion” was inspired by a September 14 2009 GQ article by Jeanne Marie Laskas, “Bennet Omalu, Concussions and the NFL”. It is a hard hitting article that pulls no punches. Landesman’s movie discusses much of what is wrong with how the NFL reacted to Omalu’s report on the effects of concussions as detailed in the article, but struggles to find a dramatic arc to the story. The story begins with a moving portrayal by David Morse of retired Pittsburg Steeler’s center, “Iron” Mike Webster. Webster is giving a speech following an award ceremony in his honor. Webster reels slightly, he seems to speak with some difficulty and to stand up straight. There is a sense that something is amiss, but it is not clear what that something is.

The film then turns to an unrelated trial where we meet Dr. Bennet Omalu (Will Smith). He is a forensic pathologist in the Allegheny County Coroner’s office and is at the trial on behalf of the accused. He is faced with some skepticism from the district attorney about Omalu’s credentials. Omalu quickly disabuses the DA’s concern over Omalu’s medical credibility via a long list of medical degrees and fellowships. Was Omalu’s competency questioned due to his race or thick Nigerian accent? It is not clear, but it is a theme that will be repeated throughout the movie: people will automatically discount him from Dr. Omalu to Mr. Omalu, and amongst his medical colleagues, his scientific acumen will often be discounted from scientist to merely “someone working in the county coroner’s office”. The movie will take pains to make this point of barely suppressed racism.

The movie will also in this first scene with Omalu make a mistake that will carry on throughout the movie with many examples. In this case, the viewer is teased with the knowledge that Omalu may have brought forth via his training and genius facts that would reverse the verdict against the accused, but the viewer will never know. The story is introduced, but dropped without resolution. The film has many examples of errors that I will loosely categorize as continuity mistakes. Two more big ones include a loss of a sense of the passage of time to the viewer, and a very sloppy introduction of minor actors. That is to say, how much time has passed during the film’s progression, is it months or years; it is far from clear. And who are the various members in the NFL cast of characters? We see them grimace and say rude things about Omalu, but are they minor actors within the NFL or major ones? Again, the viewer will be very hard pressed to puzzle most of them out.

As the movie progresses, we see Webster’s condition deteriorate. It is heartbreaking. If the viewer thinks about Webster at 25 or any of his colleagues, they were among America’s most fit, most athletic citizens. Then they retire in their 30’s, and by the time they are in their 50’s, they are decrepit or mad or both. To watch how Webster and the others (the movie will show in minor detail several more) as their mental and physical conditions worsen, is truly shocking. Has the movie exaggerated these situations? Google San Diego Charger Junior Seau’s death in 2012 to review a case that is not in the movie, but is very compelling on the effects of multiple concussions. You will be persuaded of the danger that awaits many retired NFL players.

At Webster’s death, Omalu will find a problem he cannot readily explain. He sees it as his duty to the deceased and their families to find an explanation. How did someone at 50 go mad when there were no physiological, anatomical or historical evidence for it? Omalu will with the support of the coroner, Dr. Cyril Wecht (a somewhat serious Albert Brooks) begin an investigation that he will pay for with his own money. Wecht will support him politically, as will a couple more, but for the most part, Omalu will be running alone a gauntlet to get the investigation done, published, and most significantly understood by the NFL and American public.

Omalu will find microscopic tears in the neuronal cells of the Webster’s brain. He will name them Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE; they cannot be found via medical imaging such CT scans. Omalu will theorize their origin is related to how the human brain is untethered in the skull, and as such can move with great force into the interior wall of the skull during a collision. He will eventually write a peer-reviewed paper with Dr. Wecht and local Neurologist Guru, Dr. Steve Dekosky. As with others within the medical world, it was a struggle for Omalu to get Dekosky attention, let alone his respect. But the data was irrefutable, and the paper written. Part of Omalu’s argument used to persuade DeKosky was a comparison of various animal species that can withstand repeated head collisions (e.g. woodpecker or male rams). Omalu noted that a concussion can occur at 60G’s and that a typical head to head football collision is roughly 100G’s. He concluded with his calculations that Webster had suffered some 70,000 such collisions from the time he started as a child player to his last day as a Pro player.

These arguments are persuasive to anyone willing to listen. They should have been more than sufficient to at least get meetings with the NFL to discuss them. Poor Dr. Omalu did not understand the priorities of the NFL. Little did he know that player safety was a very distant second to profits. Omalu’s paper will begin a program of denial and professional disgrace that the NFL will direct towards Omalu and Wecht. Had one more player in this drama not entered the story, Omalu’s research may well have been buried and forgotten until the next scientist with the right about of curiosity, ability and integrity chose to investigate it. In this case, a new medical doctor comes onto the scene, Dr. Julian Bailes (well played by Alec Baldwin).

Bailes is the former team-doctor to the Steelers and someone who consider Mike Webster a friend as much as a patient. Bailes had opportunity to personally watch Webster’s descent into madness. He also carried a burden of guilt. This guilt stemmed from his days as the team’s doctor where he would do everything he could to get a player back into the game as quickly as possible, no matter the consequences. Bailes will lend his credibility and NFL connections to Omalu’s efforts. This will result in a summit called by the NFL’s commissioner, Roger Goodell (Luke Wilson). Omalu will not be allowed to speak, but Bailes will. Omalu is frustrated and humiliated. But in the end, the result is the same as if he had spoken, the NFL will publically conclude that there is no connection between football and concussions, let alone the madness and the CTE Omalu’s research had identified.

What will cause a sea change within the NFL or at least within the players and their union is the growing number of suicides and insane behavior in their retired players. It will raise eyebrows when Justin Strzelczyk (Matthew Willig) drives his car into oncoming traffic, but it is the suicide death by a gunshot to the head by NFL insider Dave Duerson that gets the most attention. Duerson was not only a retired player but had in fact begun to mount a campaign for mayor. Like other NFL insiders, he chose to ignore the evidence and instead focused his ire at Omalu over the losses he imagined would come if the NFL were constrained in some manner. He like others assumed there was only one path forward, no change to current NFL policies; any other path would lead to corporate death. When his own life became threatened by CTE, when he could no longer assuredly control his anger, when he recognized he was a threat to his family, he finally decided the wealth he personally gained from his association with the NFL was too high a price to pay. Just like so many other examples in life, one more man whose decisions in life had been guided by his pocketbook, will too late realize that his life and that of his family faced greater dangers by decisions made solely on the basis of greed than by making decision on the evidence brought forth by science.

As I write above, there is much to admire about “Concussion” and unfortunately a number of things to decry. The acting by Smith and Baldwin is first rate; it is a major pity, Smith was not nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor (his curious Nigerian accent notwithstanding). The best scene in the movie is one by a river where Omalu is re-assured by his wife Prema (Gugu Mbatha-Raw); her role is generally understated, but she provides reassurance to Omalu throughout the movie; most especially in this scene. The editing is also quite good. There are several storylines that must be melded seamlessly in order to create a unified whole, and film editor William Goldenberg does a very good job of it. The direction by Peter Landesman coupled with the cinematography by Salvatore Totino capture in slow motion a kind of grace in the various plays of football. It is the writing and the possible political motivations behind it to tone down the accusations against the NFL where this movie disappoints. With respect to the science, there is virtually none shown or explained. We briefly see a microscopic view of a torn neuron, but no explanation to speak of; even the pitch made by Omalu to Dekosky focuses on the animal parallels of head butts. Given so little real science as presented in this movie, it is no wonder, that the NFL was unconvinced.

The final scenes of this movie are where it is both successful and a disappointment. On the one hand, the closing graphics tell us that 28% of all NFL players will have CTEs and that the NFL settled some 5000 player originated lawsuits over concussions with the stipulation that no admission of a connection between concussion and player injury be made. Sounds pretty conclusive, right? And yet when the writer/director and studio had a good opportunity to show a picture of what was at stake, they pulled back. This final image is of two twelve year olds playing football. They launch themselves at one another; their heads are aimed for a horrific, but all too common collision. The film ends without the collision. There may well be reasons not to have staged this hit with actual actors, I understand the need for safety (and wish the NFL did so too). But it feels like a kind of cinematic cop out. It reminds me of the half steps this movie takes in truly taking on the NFL. I came away partly shocked by this movie’s revelations, but mostly with the conviction that either the NFL got to Sony, or Sony was too afraid to go after them and their constituency.

Bottom-line: this movie is watchable, but far from a great expose of a problem that in all probability affects every child in America playing football. A nice aspect of the movie is watching an immigrant with such a love for America that he will state at one point, “America is where God sent his favorite people”; it is a thought provoking moment that stands in contrast to the NFL’s greed. But if you want to see a truly great expose of Big Business burying the science that exposes their unscrupulous malfeasance, go see “The Insider”.

Movie Review: "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation"

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

PG-13

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director/Writer                 Christopher McQuarrie
Cinematography               Robert Elswit
Music                                  Joe Kraemer

Tom Cruise                         Ethan Hunt
Jeremy Renner                  William Brandt
Simon Pegg                        Benji Dunn
Rebecca Ferguson             Ilsa Faust
Ving Rhames                      Luther Stickell
Alec Baldwin                      Alan Hunley
Sean Harris                         Lane

 

“Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is the fifth in the Mission: Impossible series using the movie format, all starring Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt. It is possible that this entry is the best to date. But how does one separate out one movie in such a series; a series that features missions labeled as impossible and has a hero/superman that specializes in just such missions? One cannot look to great acting (unless one considers stunts as a sub-category of acting) or thoughtful writing featuring deep underlying themes that illustrate human needs. Moral quandaries that drive the human condition are not going to be part of the discussion. And yet Christopher McQuarrie as both writer and director has created a film that manages the pace of the thrills and intervening set up scenes in such a manner that the excitement and tone are so superior to its contemporaries, that Rogue Nation definitely stands above most movies in the action/spy genre.

Like the preceding entries in the Mission Impossible series, Cruise as Ethan Hunt leads a team that consists of two colleagues, Benji (Simon Pegg) and Luther (Ving Rhames); both seem to be hackers or electronics experts of some sort; the nerds that support their heroic and athletic leader, Hunt. In each entry, Hunt and pals must confront some arch-villain intent on destroying the existing world order. They must penetrate some impenetrable fortress employing a rich variety of awe-inspiring stunts (often done by Cruise himself), use all sorts of advanced electronic gear and at some point, they must wear masks that allow someone to impersonate someone else (ala Scoobie Doo). All of these elements will be used in Rogue Nation; so why does it stand out? For movies of this sort in general and in the case of Rogue Nation in particular, the movies that stand out will also introduce some amazing stunts/chase scenes that appear almost as a highly choreographed dance that maintain the tone and intensity of the movie, they will have unusual co-heroes (extra points for female heroes), and most particularly for Rogue Nation, such movies will introduce some embedded tropes that help illustrate some aspect of the story. Rogue Nation nicely does this latter point by using Puccini’s 1924 opera, Turandot; an opera describing a princess and a suitor that must past three riddles in order to marry her or face death if he fails.

Obviously, to over-interpret the use of Turandot in a spy movie is a move that should be avoided by the amateur critic, and yet, I still think it is a nice touch. In this theme, Rogue Nation brings in a female character/spy/superhuman in the form of the amusingly named Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson). It goes without saying she is very attractive, showing off her leggy beauty at almost every turn. One clever aspect of her character is to whom does she owe her true loyalty: Hunt’s IMF team, the British spy agency MI6, or to this movie’s arch villain, Lane (Sean Harris)? What Lane wants as the villain is of no note in this movie, though quite frankly I did puzzle over it as the movie progressed, and I never came to a conclusion. He’s just a bad guy, and Ilsa either works for him or pretends to – it really doesn’t matter very much. Adding to the pseudo-complexity of the movie is the sub-plot that CIA Chief Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) has convinced the US government to shut down the IMF group, their leader William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) and Hunt/Cruise.

As the movie rolls through the Hunt stunts and the complicated machinations of Lane and Hunt as they oppose one another, the female Ethan Hunt character, Ilsa Faust proves to be in every way Hunt’s equal in skill and intelligence. She saves him, compromises him, helps him, and proves to be at least superficially of unknown loyalty; but we know, don’t we? And of course Ethan Hunt knows her true self, no matter that she periodically appears to be at cross purposes with him. I do like the apposition of Faust to Hunt. It’s not mind bending in a particular way, but it helps set Hunt and Faust up as the supermen they are and to hint at some impossible love in the making. Being godlike in their abilities, there relationship must remain pure, platonic and unrequited, or so I imagine.

In any event, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is a very entertaining movie for a movie in this genre. From the amazing opening stunt on the side of an airplane to the one in the depths of some kind of memory storage unit underwater (requiring Hunt to hold his breath for three minutes – surely no one but Hunt, Faust and other supermen could do that?), to the best chase scene (this one on motorcycles) I have seen in years, this movie delivers its quotient of amazing stunts. There is cleverness in the presentation of the gun fight within the Vienna opera house and in the allusion of Turandot’s story to the competing spy-craft of Hunt and Faust. But best of all, is the way the excitement introduced by the stunts, chase scene and fights are presented to the audience in such a way that the tension brought about by these elements are paced so skillfully throughout the movie. For aficionados of this genre, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” is a great example of the action movie.

Movie Review: Still Alice

Still Alice (2014)

PG-13

3.5 Stars out of 5

Writer/Directors               Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland

Writing                               Lisa Genova (novel’s author)

Cinematography              Denis Lenoir

Julianne Moore                Alice Howland

Alec Baldwin                      John Howland

Kate Bosworth                  Anna Howland-Jones

Hunter Parrish                   Tom Howland

Kristen Stewart                 Lydia Howland

 

With the Baby Boomer generation well into their sixties by 2015, the issue of three million cases in the US of Alzheimer’s Disease each year will be increasingly a topic of conversation for Hollywood and the average Baby Boomer. Writer/Directors Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland have chosen to take Lisa Genova’s book and turn it into a heartfelt but somewhat disappointing movie. Perhaps, Richard Glatzer’s diagnosis with ALS four years ago has influenced some of his writing and directing decisions, but the movie very clearly belongs to Julianne Moore’s exceptional performance of someone whose very essence is slipping away day by day.

Moore plays Columbia linguistics professor Alice Howland. We join her in the opening sequences of the movie as she celebrates her fiftieth birthday with husband John (Alex Baldwin), eldest daughter Anna (Kate Bosworth), middle child Tom (Hunter Parrish), and late to the party and movie cliché difficult child Lydia (Kristen Stewart). All the Howlands are clearly very intelligent and with the exception of misfit Lydia well accomplished in their respective fields. We quickly learn the family dynamics as lawyer and married Anna asserts her evident disapproval of her younger, unmarried and aspiring actress sister Lydia. Both men and largely Alice too check out of the ongoing feud between the two sisters, though throughout the movie, Alice makes her disapproval of Lydia’s career choice abundantly clear.

The movie proceeds at a stately pace in the beginning showing several obvious and a few less obvious examples of Alice’s progressing disease: she forgets dates and names, even that she was introduced to Tom’s new girlfriend, gets lost running on the Columbia campus, and on at least one occasion flies into a rage when John fails to properly respond to Alice’s expression of her fears as regards her condition. That something is wrong is evident to Alice and she begins to be tested by a neurologist. His preliminary diagnosis of Alzheimer ’s disease is rejected by medical researcher John, and we begin to see in Alice’s fury both the early signs of Alzheimer’s effect on the patient’s emotional control, but also of Moore’s exquisite ability to convey both the subtle signs of Alzheimer’s and also the more flagrant ones as well. As Alice’s condition begins to accelerate and the signs and symptoms become more and more obvious to Alice and those around her, the sense of desperation that Moore is able to convey with her eyes alone is breathtaking. While it is all to true that the Best Actor/Actress Oscars award often goes to actors portraying someone suffering from something, in this case, Moore’s win for Best Actress in 2015 is one of those cases where it really was an earned award. The movie also does a reasonably good job of showing how each of the family members around Alice react to her disease; that the misfit is the one to take the most care of Alice should come as no surprise. Though, I will admit that I found Kristen Stewart’s portrayal of the misfit child to be surprisingly effective. (The Twilight movies apparently did not have a permanent effect on her.)

Alice and John learn from her doctor that her type of Alzheimer’s disease is a familial version, one likely inherited from her father and most likely passed to one or more of her children. An ensuing telephone discussion with the child that has indeed inherited the gene that gives the disease is one of the most painful scenes in the movie. The look that passes over Alice’s face as she is forced to confront not only her own desperate situation, but that she also now believes that she is “responsible” for giving it to her offspring is a heartbreaking moment.  The movie then engages in something that I struggle to believe could have occurred: Alice is asked to give a speech to an Alzheimer’s meeting. Is this a meeting for the lay or the researchers working on the problem? It is far from clear. Alice’s speech is incredibly moving and erudite; it is hard to believe someone who must underline each line of the speech as she gives it to help her remember that she has already spoken that line, could have written the speech that Alice gives. It is a beautiful speech, and in many ways, the highlight for me in the movie. I am bothered by what feels too much like Hollywood writing in the construction and delivery of the speech.

Indeed, the writing in this movie is often a problem for me. Consider the intended but far from subtle irony of a linguistics professor getting Alzheimer’s disease. Someone, whose complete academic career has been spent using and understanding words, but now must watch those words (watch to some degree) slip irretrievably away, never to be regained. Another irony in the writing and one I actually found far more intriguing is the concept that the more intelligent the Alzheimer’s patient is, the more rapid the decline the effects of Alzheimer’s can seem to be to the patient. The movie offers up a fascinating idea and develops it nicely with the Alice character: intelligent sufferers of this disease start to create clever behaviors to compensate for the disease’s effects. They fool themselves and those around them into believing there is no problem. Alice for example creates clues for herself with her iPhone and gives herself memory tests as she cooks. She knows there is a problem but suffers as many do with serious problems with both the disease and a case of denial; or maybe its hope, hope that they will be the one to outsmart whatever the disease that afflicts them. Thus, the intelligent may be able to ignore the disease longer than the less gifted, and as a result once it hits, it seems to hit faster; when in truth it is just further along than might be otherwise thought.

The directing and cinematography were often used to great effect. In a movie where the protagonist is slowly losing their identity as they lose their memories, and in a movie where those effects are so well portrayed in the face of Julianne Moore, the director’s decision to provide a series of framing shots where Alice’s face takes up 2/3’s of the screen while the background often fades out of focus was I thought a brilliant technique. They use it as well when Alice gets lost after jogging on campus. She comes to a stop and looks around herself. The sounds of those around her continue on, almost as a distraction, but in the meanwhile the buildings and quads that she has walked for years are now out of focus to the viewer and presumably in some sense to her as well. It is a clever technique to show the disorientation and confusion likely felt by the early stage Alzheimer’s patient.

As I note above, the speech by Alice is both a high point and low point in the movie for me. If I just drop the unlikelihood of the speech and just focus on the speech, there is so much to marvel at in that speech. What it boils down to for me is the question, who are we but our memories? Each of us can recall to some degree many life events in our lives, both good and bad. If we think about ourselves and ponder how we came to be whoever each of us has come to be, what would be left as our memories are slowly seeping away? We would forget events in our lives, how to drive or write, the names, the faces of our loved ones; maybe any sense of who we are, including perhaps our own name. Think about what defines a human from the other animals on our planet. Think about how we frame almost all of our thoughts about anything based on what we’ve learned earlier in our life; our politics, our abilities, our passions. Strip those away and what is left? The move suggests love at the very ending of the film, and that’s fine from an artistic point of view, but is it really left, once our memories have fled? Is there any more painful disease afflicting humankind than any of the various forms of senility? Alice herself wishes for cancer rather than Alzheimer’s; it is hard to argue the point.

This is a good movie about Alzheimer’s. I recommend it primarily for Julianne Moore’s performance and for the speech scene. However, I much more strongly urge you to see Amour (2012). It is a similar topic, but a much better movie; the acting is superb, the directing and writing unsurpassed. And it’s kind of nice to see such veterans of the screen as Jean-Louis Trentignant and Emmanuelle Riva acting so remarkably well in their mid-eighties. Despite the subject material, it gives one hope for the one’s own future.

Movie Review: Blue Jasmine

Blue Jasmine

2013

Drama

3.5 Stars out of 5

Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine was both a disappointment and a pleasure. The story line lacks any sense of subtlety or depth, but the bravura performance by Cate Blanchett in the title role of Jasmine is more than reason enough to watch this movie. Writer/director Allen has created a story to mirror “A Streetcar Named Desire” by exploring the aftereffects of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. He creates a parallel to Blanche DuBois’ mental problems by imagining the fiscal and mental disintegration of a Madoff-like wife in the form of Jasmine. Additionally he contrasts the glamorous rise and disastrous fall of Jasmine to her far more pedestrian, adopted sister, Ginger. As noted, there are strong parallels to the 1947 play by Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire”, though Blue Jasmine stands on its own.

The movie is essentially a character study, with little story arc to propel it. Jasmine channels the high society Blanche DuBois from “Streetcar” as Sally Hawkins plays her blue collar sister Ginger/Stella to great effect. Ginger’s boyfriend Chili/Stanley (well sort of a Stanley) is played by Bobby Cannavale. As in “Streetcar”, the two sisters come from very different worlds: high society for Jasmine, blue collar for Ginger. In a similar manner Jasmine and Chili are immediately at odds with one another, though the Chili character lacks much of the animal-like sexual magnetism of Stanley. In both cases, the Jasmine/Blanche character is devolving into a state of serious mental disarray. And in a similar fashion, the Ginger/Stella character does her best (and despite the endless criticism from Jasmine) to defend and support her big sister.

The key similarity though is the mental disintegration going on with Jasmine/Blanche. Blanchett plays her flawlessly as she moves from talking to herself in public, to haranguing her younger sister for her lack of self-respect, to trying to destroy Ginger’s one vague hope that exists in the form of Chili, to finding a new husband for herself, and back to talking to herself in public. Jasmine appears to be living constantly on the edge of a complete and perhaps irreversible mental breakdown. The final camera shots of her on a park bench gives the impression she has finally moved past that edge; Jasmine is now doomed to a life on the streets as one more homeless, crazed and hopeless street person.

The story is based on various contrasts: the fabulously rich Jasmine married to the schemer Hal (Alec Baldwin) vs. the delusional homeless person; the carefully dressed (at least at the movie’s beginning, much less so by the end) Jasmine vs. her plain Jane sister, Ginger; the crafty scheming Jasmine as she closes in a new beau, Dwight (Peter Sarsgaard) vs. the shortly thereafter scene of her in a state of complete disassociation on the park bench. So many moods and motivations make for a rich playing field by Blanchett, and she makes great work of it; a well-earned Oscar award for best actress.

There is great acting by Blanchett,  good acting by Hawkins, even fairly good acting by Andrew Dice Clay as Gingers ex-husband, Augie and some unusual casting with Louis CK as Ginger’s back-up boyfriend. But the story itself lacks the emotional crescendo and impact of “Streetcar” even as it seems to take so much of its early storyline. This is a fairly good story with great acting, worth seeing for Blanchett’s acting alone.