This week we continue our three-part series where I review all 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. We will cover 3 films this week – “The Banshees of Iniserin”, “All Quiet on the Western Front”, and “Triangle of Sadness”. Apologies for butchering the pronunciation of names and places in this episode. Next week we will wrap up with the final three films. NOTE: Next week’s public episode will come out Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar presentations that night.

Hello, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 9 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue our look at the Oscar-nominated films for this year. Last week we looked at big-budget blockbusters and genre films that in times past had been overlooked until the Best Picture category was extended from 5 to 10 films.

Last week’s episode was pretty long because it covered 4 of the 10 nominated films–the last of which I didn’t care for even though I tried to. This week we will look at three more films that I found problematic. Next week we will talk about the remaining three films all of which I found to be absolutely amazing. So I apologize that this week will be a bit of a downer but we are going to finish strong next week I promise.

Minor spoilers are included in these reviews. I just can’t tell you what I didn’t like about the films without giving away some details.

There is an old Hollywood adage sometimes attributed to Samuel Goldwyn and also attributed to him many others that goes, “If you have a message, call Western Union.” It reflects the attitude of studio executives that they are there to make movies that entertain and not promote an agenda. That attitude however is old-school Hollywood. Today many films tackle important social justice issues and promote particular political and social agendas. For better or worse, Oscar seems to prefer films that have something to say even if the films are not popular.

This week we will discuss a character-driven film that attempts to be an allegory for a political conflict that tore apart a country that had just gained its independence, a brutal look at the pointless inhumanity of war, and a reflection on the arrogance of the ultrarich as they look down upon those serving them.

There are times when you see an advertisement for a film in October or November and you say to yourself, “It must be Oscar season.” When you see top-notch British or Irish actors, picturesque scenery, and dramatic cinematography, your expectations are automatically raised. Before it is even released, the trailer implies “For your consideration”. Such was the case with “The Banshees of Iniserin”.

This film reunites writer/director Martin McDonagh with Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleason who previously had success with their 2008 film “In Bruges”. Their new collaboration is a very dark dramedy set on the fictitious island of Iniserin off the west coast of Ireland in 1923 near the end of the Irish Civil War.

Farrell portrays Pádraic Súilleabháin who along with his sister Siobhán, played by Kerry Condon, runs a small dairy farm. When not attending to his animals, especially a beloved miniature donkey Jenny, he spends his time at the local pub hanging out with his longtime friend Colm Doherty played by Gleason. Colm, a folk musician who dreams of writing music that will be remembered after he is gone, inexplicably decides to push Pádraic out of his life. His only explanation is that he finds his former friend to be a boring, pointless, waste of his time.

He concludes that life is short and he needs to focus on composing music. Later in the film, he finishes his masterwork which he titles “The Banshees of Iniserin”. A banshee is a mythical female spirit in Irish folklore that heralds the death of a family member. Colm notes that there are no banshees on the island but he called it that anyway. There is an old woman on the island who predicts death is coming for one or more of the island’s inhabitants.

Pádraic spends the entire film trying to understand why his friend has turned against him and trying to reconcile their disagreement. Colm is so adamant that he be left alone that he threatens to cut off one of his own fingers if Pádraic doesn’t comply. He eventually makes good on the threat even though it severely restricts his ability to play his fiddle.

Both Pádraic and the audience speculate endlessly about why he would take such drastic action. One wonders perhaps if he is dying of some disease and wants to soften the loss of his friend.

I found mildly interesting Pádraic’s futile attempts to understand the feud and to deal with the blow to his self-esteem over being dubbed for boring. Also somewhat entertaining is his relationship with his sister with whom he constantly bickers over his need to have his pet donkey in the house as a comfort animal. She is in a never-ending struggle to keep him out of trouble especially when he goes on a drunken binge.

My favorite character is Dominic, played by Barry Keoghan. He is the somewhat dimwitted son of the local constable. Dominic attempts to befriend and comfort Pádraic while unsuccessfully trying to form a relationship with Siobhan who is much older than him.

Farrell is nominated as Lead Actor and has already won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical for this performance. Gleason, Condon, and Keoghan have all received Supporting Actor Oscar and Golden Globe nominations and individual SAG nominations as well as a SAG nomination for Ensemble Cast. Again it’s sad to see actors competing for the same award from the same film because fans of the film will split their votes. In my opinion, Keoghan gives a more memorable performance but Gleason probably has a better chance because he is a bigger name. We look forward to seeing Keoghan who is unofficially speculated to portray Joker opposite Robert Pattinson in the next Batman film. Also, Farrell is likely to reprise his role as Penguin in that film currently slated for October 2025.

“Banshees” won the Golden Globe for Best Comedy or Musical. Martin McDonagh is nominated as director and for his original screenplay. The screenplay earned him a Golden Globe win. It is also nominated for film editing but I’m no judge for a category like that.

With an estimated budget of $20 million and a worldwide gross of nearly $38 million, the film did okay for its type. It is currently showing on HBO and HBOMax.

Overall I thought the performances were all worthy of their nominations but the film itself fell flat for me. It takes place against the background of the Irish Civil War which was a war between various factions that had just won Irish independence from the UK. One supposes that the point of the film was that the pointless and self-destructive feud between the former friends is a metaphor for the Civil War which was being fought between people who had recently bonded together against a common enemy. Yet that metaphor does little or nothing to enlighten us about the real conflict it is supposed to represent except to highlight the futility of war and the ridiculousness of war between people who should have something in common to begin with. Not being very well versed in 1923 Irish history, I wouldn’t have understood the backdrop had I not done some research.

If you want an example of the pointlessness of war, a much more graphic example is “All Quiet on the Western Front”. In addition to its Best Picture Oscar nomination, this German film is also nominated for Best Foreign Film. It is a remake of the Oscar-winning Best Picture from 1930. There was also a made-for-TV Hallmark Hall of Fame version in 1979. Although I have not seen either of the earlier versions, I’m certain that the brutality of World War I is more graphically portrayed than either of the other two versions. I watched the current version on Netflix dubbed in English. All three versions are based on the 1929 novel of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque. One reviewer said that the current version deviated significantly and negatively from the original novel (especially the ending) however having not read it, I can’t comment on that.

It follows the story of a group of 17-year-old German kids who enthusiastically signed up to fight for the Fatherland in World War I. They expect to be marching into Paris triumphantly in a matter of months. Those fantasies are destroyed when they face the brutality of trench warfare. Throughout much of the war, both sides suffered horrendous losses taking and then losing the same pieces of ground over and over again with the battle lines never advancing very far in either direction.

At one point, the film skips forward in time two years to the point where Germany has effectively lost the war. They are trying to sue for peace and stop the carnage. The Kaiser has abdicated and a provisional government is attempting to end the war. The allies, led by France, will accept nothing less than total surrender. We see them refuse to agree to a cease-fire while the final negotiations are underway.

Throughout much of the film, my impression was that it was showing me nothing I hadn’t already seen in the Oscar-nominated 2019 film “1917”. I felt that “All Quiet” didn’t give me much opportunity to get to know the characters well. Then again, perhaps part of the point was that they were meaningless cogs in a heartless war machine.

Only as the war is drawing to a close and the prospect of peace is imminent did I begin to feel anything for the characters as they reunite and begin to reflect on what life will be like when they return home. I preferred 1917 and the difference between the films is this film is completely devoid of hope. Although 1917 was a brutal depiction of a terrible war, it depicts two heroes who are on a mission to deliver a message that will save 1600 lives from walking into an ambush. In this film, there is no sense of purpose. There is no heroism except the quest to keep you and the man next to you alive and to collect dog tags from the dead to bring some closure to their families. It is a totally heartless, meaningless quest for honor and glory that can never be achieved. The ending provides a brutal exclamation point to the entire story that leaves you drained. Your only relief is that the film is over, the real war was over a century ago, and you are left with the sad knowledge that the so-called “war to end all wars” did no such thing.

It has received 9 Oscar nominations including cinematography, makeup and hair, production design, visual effects, adapted screenplay, score, and sound as well as a Golden Globe nomination for foreign film. The special effects, stunts, and production values are amazing given its budget of about $1.2 million. Its estimated worldwide gross was just over $3 million. I think it would highlight the irony of the words “all quiet” in the title if it were to receive the Oscar for sound.

While it is probably worthy of all of those nominations, I cannot recommend the film on any basis. Go watch “1917” instead.

Finally this week, we come to the film “Triangle of Sadness”. It’s another film with a big statement to make. This is an exploration of the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Our main characters are Carl, a young attractive male model played by Harris Dickinson, and his girlfriend Yaya, a model and Instagram influencer played by Charlbi Dean. Tragically, in real life, Dean died of a lung infection shortly after filming. Her condition was reported to be complicated by the loss of her spleen in a previous auto accident.

During an early scene, Carl is at a modeling audition and the casting director tells him, “relax your triangle of sadness – the area above your nose and between your eyebrows.” We have to conclude, however, that there is a double meaning to the title. The film is divided into three distinct parts each of which could be described as constituting a triangle of sadness.

Part 1 is titled “Carl and Yaya” which focuses entirely on their relationship. They could be described as a “friends with benefits” situation although Carl tries to convince her that there is something more between them. At dinner, they engage in a ridiculous debate over who should pay for the meal. He ends up paying even though female models make three times as much as their male counterparts. While we get some wider insights into the fashion and Instagram influencer business, and we know that we are getting to know the major characters in a way that is presumably going to pay off down the road, in my opinion, the first third of the movie is completely pointless. Everything that we gain from this exercise could be learned in a five-minute scene. We get the impression that this is going to be all about the fashion industry. Yet by the end of their segment, that theme pretty much disappears. All we have done is establish that this is a couple of self-absorbed young people riding the benefits of their fame.

In discussing the film online with someone who liked it, I asked what they thought of this first third which I found pointless. They said I should view the film as three short stories loosely connected rather than a continuous piece. I suppose as a standalone vignette it isn’t that bad but it seems seriously disconnected from the rest of the film even though the characters appear in the other two segments.

Part 2 is titled “The Cruise”. We find the young couple on a small cruise ship with what appears to be perhaps 50 passengers at most. They were given free tickets as part of their role as influencers. Yaya is constantly posting photos on Instagram using Carl almost as a prop to promote her brand.

Along the way, we meet a cast of strange characters. There is a Russian businessman who made a fortune selling animal manure as fertilizer. He is accompanied by his wife. Another rich businessman and his wife made their fortune selling hand grenades. There is a lone businessman whose partner did not accompany him on the cruise and he tries to pick up various women who seem to give him attention only to make fun of him. There is a woman in a wheelchair who is unable to speak because of a stroke but who is fully aware of everything around her. She is accompanied by her husband.

The cruise director Ms. Paula is seen prepping the staff for the guests by admonishing them that no matter what the guests want, the answer is always yes. Throughout the cruise, there are several instances where we see that the staff is totally at the mercy of the whims of the rich passengers. A minor complaint by Carl costs one crew member his job. Another passenger has to be placated because she believes the sails are dirty even though this is not a sailboat.

Ms. Paula also has to contend with the captain played by Woody Harrelson who is content to remain in his cabin inebriated rather than fulfill any of his duties.

At one point, the Russian’s wife insists that the staff be given an hour off to go swimming even though it will disrupt everything aboard the ship. Her rich husband threatens to purchase the boat if his wife’s demands are not met.

That night, they manage to get the captain presentable in his uniform for the captain’s dinner with the most important guests. The ship encounters rough weather and is tossed violently. Combined with the delays in food preparation because of the mandatory swimming party, nearly all of the guests get violently seasick. The extremely graphic scene depicting seasickness looks like something out of a Monty Python sketch. The situation deteriorates further when toilets begin overflowing around the ship.

Meanwhile, the socialist captain who is embarrassed by his own wealth engages in a political debate with the Russian capitalist. They get drunk, lock themselves in the captain’s office, and begin spouting political propaganda and joke announcements that the ship is sinking causing panic among the frightened passengers and overwhelmed crew. In an attempt to shut down the PA system, Ms. Paula accidentally causes a shipwide blackout only further complicating the situation.

One reviewer said that this grotesque scene resulted in more people leaving the theater in the middle of a movie than they had ever seen before. Although I found the debates between the drunken Captain and a Russian businessman entertaining and I couldn’t help laughing at all of the grotesque projectile vomiting and people slipping and sliding in sewage from overflowed toilets, I found particularly disturbing the scene of the husband frantically trying to lift his disabled wife into a wheelchair and get her life vest onto her believing that the ship really was sinking. The genuine looks of panic and despair on them and the other passengers were in no way funny.

The next morning, the ship is attacked by pirates and although we don’t see the details, there is a long shot of an explosion on the ship. We then cut to Part 3 “The Island”.

Only seven passengers and crew wash up on the beach of an island in inflatable life rafts. They are Carl, Yaya, the Russian, the lonely businessman, the paralyzed woman, the cruise director, and a man who claims to be part of the engine room crew but is likely one of the pirate hijackers. The next morning a large enclosed lifeboat washes up on shore containing a fortysomething-year-old Asian woman named Abigail whose job aboard the yacht was to clean toilets.

She is now in charge of the enclosed lifeboat containing a cache of supplies. She is able to catch an octopus, clean it, start a fire, and prepare a meal. In the most memorable scene of the film, she divides food giving herself half of it and forcing the other seven castaways to split the other half. Ms. Paula tries to remind her they are both employees of a shipping company and responsible for the safety of the survivors. “You work for me. You clean toilets,” she tells Abigail. Abigail responds in broken English, “Where is yacht? We not on yacht. On yacht, I clean toilets. Here I am captain.” She then insists each of the survivors acknowledge her as captain and when they do, she tosses them a morsel of food in the way you would give a treat to an obedient dog.

From this point forward, we get a serious reflection on the way arrogant rich people treat underlings as their roles are now brutally reversed. Abigail establishes a dictatorial matriarchy in which she bends all of the survivors to her will.

Dolly De Leon who plays Abigail did not receive any Oscar nomination however she has received numerous other supporting actress nominations for the role including BAFTA and Golden Globe nominations. She is the first Filipino actor to be nominated for a Golden Globe and I believe it is much deserved. I would’ve rather seen her get a Supporting Actress Oscar nomination than Jamie Lee Curtis this year.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, Ruben Östlund was also nominated for directing and his original screenplay. It was nominated for Golden Globe Best Comedy or Musical and was honored with the prestigious Palme d’Or at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival. I found it ironic that a film that mocks and ridicules the elite rich would win the top prize at Cannes which is attended by the upper crust of high society.

With an estimated budget of just over $10 million and a worldwide gross of over $23 million, it is a good success. It is still available in theaters or for purchase or rent as a digital download from Amazon.

With a run time of over 2 hours and 20 minutes, it is way too long. As previously stated, the first section seemed pointless and superfluous to me. The in-depth look at Caarl and Yaya seems to be a big waste of time and could cause one to lose interest completely before we get to the meat of the story. I liked it a little better than “Everything Everywhere All at Once” that I reviewed last week, but like that film, it seemed to me that we had to wait a long time for a payoff at the end of the movie. And speaking of the ending, it is decidedly ambiguous and I found it as unsatisfying as the end of “Banshees”.

I’m all in favor of there being a point to a film. Having an agenda or a message does not mean you cannot have an entertaining film. Unfortunately, like the metaphor of “Banshees” and the antiwar sentiments of “All Quiet” this film’s commentary on the social and economic divides between the filthy rich and ordinary people doesn’t offer much beyond its poorly executed message.

Despite memorable moments, overall I didn’t care for it. I recommend that you wait for streaming or cable and skip the first section completely and fast-forward through anything else that bores you. Meanwhile, if you want a film that is a commentary about the arrogant rich and has shocking surprises, I recommend “The Menu” currently available on HBO and HBOMax. Although it did not receive any Oscar nominations, it has earned many other nominations including Golden Globe nominations for lead actors Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy.

That’s just my opinion… I could be wrong.

In our next episode, we will conclude our look at Oscar-nominated films with three amazing films that I believe are perhaps the most Oscar-worthy of the bunch this year. Note that new episodes of this podcast usually premier at midnight Monday mornings, however, the Oscars will be presented Sunday night before that. So the public release of this next episode will be moved up to Sunday morning March 12 prior to the Oscar ceremony.

If you want to get episodes early or if you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. In addition to early access to the podcast, you will be eligible for any other benefits I might come up with down the road. It’s not that I’m desperate for money, but a little extra income sure could help.

Many thanks to my Patreon supporters. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.