ASuiGeneris

Very education and enlightening, this is the rare documentary that is as edifying as it is entertaining. Fun animations to keep it interesting when the real scene was not possible. Real star power was lassoed in to present their genuine compliments to an underappreciated legend. Original artifacts such as actor "report cards", newspaper clippings, awards ceremony speech recordings, typewritten letters- both personal and professional missives are shared aplenty. All resulting in more than enough insight into this underappreciated role in the film industry.

"Casting By" is as much an inspiring homage to the powerhouse pioneer of Casting as an art form, Marion Dougherty, as it is a historical lesson on the transformation from the practice of choosing stock actors from a laundry list to fit a film- to the far more powerful practice of matching the films that most harmoniously showcase an actor's talents.

The last segment was as tear-inducing as any cornball romantic comedy, hearing, seeing- actually feeling- all the heartfelt letters from the greats in old Hollywood writing to the Academy in support, imploring then to give Marion Dougherty her much deserved honorary Award. And then seeing the words, "Marion Dougherty did not receive the award." She passed away in 2001, without any official recognition by the Academy, and never having received a single title card credit @ 100% font. Because, yes, that is how petty they get. Truly devastating.

Well, 2024 update?

Praise be. Taylor Hackford be damned with your comments about how you are always in charge and casting directors will never be labeled as directors. You are not that great. And the Academy has finally realized the error in its ways, in the first new category established since 2001 over twenty years ago. As clearly shown in this exemplary documentary, it is about time!

2026, Best Achievement in Casting, here we come!

This isn't exactly bad. It is not a spoiler to reveal that the ending is not a good one, as it is written in many synopses already and openly criticized for its dark depiction of France collaboration with the enemy, it's "realism", and the prioritization of realism over feel-good.

The Criterion Collection writes, "A dreamily beautiful vision of a wintry, nocturnal Paris shortly after the city's postwar liberation. It's there that a former member of the French underground Resistance has an encounter with destiny as he meets a long-lost comrade, villains of the war, a prophetic tramp, and a beautiful woman who will draw him into an inexorable tragedy."

It sounds dreamily beautiful, sure. And it does have its charm- a hazy, film-noir intrigue, with a masterfully created ambience that easily lures in the audience. All the more disappointing then, to leave the theater having been initially captivated by what turns out to be a lackluster story with an unfulfilling conclusion!

Allegorical, or maybe better labeled as an anti-fairy tale, there are several different side stories. Fortunately, these are done quite well, with the characters- including family members and old friends thought to be dead, a gypsy, a homeless man identifying as "Destiny", a neighbor with more than a dozen children, a subway vendor with a daughter that sells croissants out of a briefcase, the friend's son that befriends our protagonist and even takes him to his secret hideout where he looks over a cat- being sketched out with such aptitude from Carné that audiences are quickly enamored. Unfortunately, the anecdotal nature means they can go as quickly as they come- like several couples and strangers on the streets that make their entrance in a single scene or shot, never to be heard from again.

So this ends in tragedy. Great, realism should be appreciated as much as fairy tales. But does almost every character need to be drunk, mopey, or visually mentally disturbed? It is almost as if the entire film has been immersed in a "woe-is-me" fog. Then it ends with the fog not exactly lifting, but sorta evaporating because it has done its duty.

Alas, kudos are still due for an atmospherically delicious film noir, and who can dislike the soundtrack, including an introduction to the popular song "Autumn Leaves" (French: Les feuilles mortes)?

Alright, please take your seats. This is my turn, on my soapbox, for this highly polarizing Turkish film.

All the backlash and criticism for "Mustang" is based on the accuracy of depicting Turkish society and feminist portrayal. Nobody really denies that the acting- notably, four out of the five young sisters have never acted before- is impressive. Nobody disagrees with the lush cinematography or the serene soundtrack. The story is admirable, despite a repetitious theme and maybe some feel like "this could have been told in 20 minutes". The characters might be interchangeable at first and scenes redundant, but as a whole, first time feature films director Deniz Gamze Ergüven has created something compelling enough to carry audiences through the relatively short 90 minutes runtime. It seems clear that even the harshest critics would agree with this, "if only the contemporary Turkish society depicted was actual true".

Fine. Bear with me a moment here. Yes, then it would be an entirely different film. That's stupid, Vonia. But imagine for a moment that this were an American film, sure like "The Virgin Suicides", as had already been done, or even something even more wildly inaccurate. Arguably, the more inaccurate the better. Because this is when audiences have been accustomed to saying things like, "Have some poetic faith!" and "This is cinema, Hollywood, make believe; get over it!". There are many domestic films that try to present as a realistic drama and fail miserably, yet audiences are generally relatively forgiving.

So why the militant admonishment instead? Because Americans are not familiar and therefore are being tricked? A fair argument. Also not really fair when you think about it, though, and borderline hypocritical. Detractors are telling us that because the target audiences are not cultured or educated enough to know that the story being told is not realistic, the filmmakers should be held to a higher standard and punished more severely than filmmakers that are from the same country as their target audiences and therefore the inaccuracies are more easily detected and thus more forgiveable? From this perspective, Ergüven is- what- more cunning and manipulative?

TLDR? Gorgeously conveyed story about 5 loving sisters, fighting to be their own persons despite an imprisoning patriarchal society. Drawn out a little longer than necessary; would have benefitted from some more distinct characterization and perhaps some back or side stories for the less relatable characters like the father or the MVP Yasin. Yes, it doesn't portray Turkish society accurately. Same as countless other American films that get nowhere near as much, if any, backlash.