Arts & Entertainment
The predictable predictability of the Oscars
Favoring middle-of-the-road prestige over edgier fare
It’s hard to write a reaction piece about the Oscars when you recognize that the Oscars, by their very nature, are essentially a poll – or perhaps, more aptly, a popularity contest – which reflects an aggregate of personal opinions, and therefore have as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as with rewarding artistic excellence.
I’m not saying that the movies and people being celebrated on the stage at the Dolby Theater in Hollywood Sunday night – all of them, winners and nominees alike – didn’t deserve to be there; on the contrary, 2023 was an outstanding year for cinema, and every one of the contenders could be considered worthy of taking the prize. If that’s the case, however, how can any of these outcomes be determined without the influence of personal taste? Making movies is not like playing sports, where a win results from the highest number of points scored and goals blocked; there is no such handily objective criteria to rely on in picking an actor, a screenwriter, or an entire film to proclaim as the “best” in its respective category, and it’s inevitable that Academy voters will be influenced by personal bias when they make their choices on that final ballot.
While Sunday’s 96th annual Oscar ceremony, which offered the usual snubs and oversights and no real surprises, might have disappointed me or even occasionally sparked a glimmer of outrage, I cannot fairly say that any of the final results were “mistakes.” And though it may be oversimplifying things to say that being offended by the Academy’s final choices is akin to being angry that someone else’s favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate when yours is salted caramel praline, it’s still enough to convince me that my “reaction” piece to the Academy Awards can really only ever be an “opinion” piece,
With that in mind, here we go.
The presentation itself was the usual blend of witty repartee (mostly provided with success by veteran Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel, though attempts at it from the various presenters ran the gamut from delightful to disastrous), musical performances (Billie Eilish and brother Finneas O’Connell’s rendition of “What Was I Made For?”, which went on to win the evening’s only award for “Barbie”, was a particular highlight, alongside the more lavish and deliciously amusing dance production number headed by Supporting Actor nominee Ryan Gosling for “I’m Just Ken” from the same film), uplifting moments (a regal Rita Moreno’s benedictory introduction of “Barbie” Supporting Actress nominee America Ferrera brought tears to my eyes, and I suspect I wasn’t alone), and show-stopping surprises (John Cena’s teasingly faux nudity presenting the Best Costume Design award was a memorable stunt, to put it mildly, as was the combination of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito to do the honors in the Visual Effects and Film Editing categories) – yet it also had more than its fair share of embarrassing gaffes, such as upstaging the “In Memoriam” segment with an overblown production number accompanied by father-and-son operatic crooners Andrea and Matteo Bocelli’s duet of “Con tu partirò”, a move that has fueled perhaps more post-Oscars outrage than anything else from this year’s ceremony.
As for the politics, there were the expected barbs making fun of easy conservative targets, but most of the speeches avoided invoking too much progressive fury. The one overtly political moment came with the win of UK director Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest” for Best International Feature, when he read, in prayerlike monotone, a pre-prepared statement warning against the dehumanizing hate depicted in his slice-of-Nazi-life historical drama and calling for empathy for the targets of such hate on both sides of the current crisis in Gaza. It was met with backlash, of course, especially after a partial quote in Variety omitted key elements of the speech and led many to believe the Jewish filmmaker was refuting his own religion.
As for the winners of the awards themselves (you can find the full list on the Oscar website) the evening’s choices fell more or less in line with my predictions – though not necessarily my preferences.
The domination of “Oppenheimer” in most of the major categories in which it competed was, for anyone following the pre-ceremony buzz, a foregone conclusion. Few doubted that Cillian Murphy would handily claim the Best Actor prize – thwarting nominee Colman Domingo (“Rustin”) from becoming the first queer actor to win for playing a queer character in the process – or that Christopher Nolan would take the Best Director category, and from there the win for Best Picture felt as inevitable as anything can be at the Oscars.
Equally inevitable was the evening’s most easily predicted “Oppenheimer” win, as veteran Hollywood player Robert Downey, Jr. ebulliently swaggered onstage amid the enthusiastic familial cheers of his peers to claim the Best Supporting Actor prize; his acceptance speech, in which he self-deprecatingly recalled the legal and professional obstacles arising from the substance abuse that nearly derailed his early career, became a testament to overcoming personal setbacks to achieve an even higher success, something that resonated in the words of several other of the evening’s winners.
In the categories where “Oppenheimer” didn’t win, the odds were already in favor of the eventual victors, such as first-time filmmaker Cord Jefferson, whose “American Fiction” earned him the Best Adapted Screenplay Award over fellow front runners like “Barbie” and “Poor Things,” and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, whose winning Supporting Actress turn in “The Holdovers” had been a juggernaut throughout the award season.
Many Oscar fans, though most accepted the predestination of “Oppenheimer” as the year’s big winner, might rather have seen a different candidate come out on top (my own choice, for what it’s worth, would have been “Barbie,” with “Poor Things” and “Zone of Interest” coming up close behind); but even if Nolan’s weighty and technically dazzling biopic was unquestionably a fine film, exploring a deeply disturbing slice of not-too-distant history that still casts a long existential shadow over our world today, it’s impossible for me not to see in its multiple wins an all-too-familiar pattern of “safe” choices.
While “Oppenheimer” might pique ethical discussions over its title character’s choice to build the atomic bomb, few would find controversy in the idea that the destruction unleashed on the world by that choice is a reason for concern. Its most viable competitors, “Barbie” and “Poor Things” – both of which touched on many of the same existential themes, albeit from a markedly different direction and in a more absurdist style – each stirred divisive opinions around (among other things) a perceived feminist agenda; other highly-acclaimed titles in the running, like the non-English language entries “Zone”, “Past Lives”, and “Anatomy of a Fall”, fell outside the comfortable domestic audience mainstream where Oscar’s favorite picks are usually a little too deeply-rooted to allow much opportunity for a dark horse upset. While not many expected Bradley Cooper’s ambitious Bernstein biopic “Maestro” to take home any awards, it was considerably more noteworthy that Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” nominated for 10 Awards and widely lauded as one of the year’s most essential films, failed to score a single one of them – though I can’t help also noting that it deals with one of most shameful threads in our American past, inevitably making it a controversial movie for an era marked by deeply divided ideologies around that subject.
It’s perhaps for that reason that “Flower Moon” was not considered a front runner in most of its categories, but there was one in which it was seen as a heavy favorite. With Lily Gladstone poised to become the first Indigenous performer to win the Best Actress trophy, the odds leading up to Sunday’s presentation seemed to position them as the front runner; in the end, however, it was Emma Stone’s tour-de-force in “Poor Things” – in which she appeared in virtually every scene, in contrast to Gladstone’s relatively limited screen – that took it instead. Though it wasn’t quite a surprise, given the number of wins Stone has garnered already for the film, which also took home the prizes for Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Production Design, it nevertheless felt – to me, at least – like another example of Oscar’s predictable reluctance to court controversy with its choices.
Ironically, but not surprisingly, this conservative approach often just ends up causing a controversy of its own, and this case is no exception. Though I had championed Stone’s brilliant performance as the obvious winner, when her name was announced I found myself feeling disappointment over Goldstone’s loss, even as I was thrilled for Stone’s well-earned victory. After all, in a contest where the outcome is entirely subjective, Academy voters could have chosen to amplify the excellence of someone from within a marginalized community. Stone, who seemed as surprised at her win as anyone else, did remarkable work, but so did Gladstone; though it truly is “an honor just to be nominated,” it was an opportunity for Oscar to take a step toward correcting a long-ignored injustice at a time when doing so could make a demonstrably constructive impact on our culture and our society at a time when doing so would have a tremendous cultural impact, and it didn’t happen. It was a moment that struck me with an odd sense of disappointment even as I cheered for Stone; a bit of the sour within the sweet.
That, aside from a sense of missed opportunity over the evening’s consistent pattern of favoring the middle-of-the-road prestige represented by “Oppenheimer” over the edgier, more confrontational material presented by some of the other titles on the slate, was my biggest takeaway from the Academy Awards. Though I can’t say that any of the winners were unworthy, I can’t help thinking that their victories were somewhat tainted by the virtual shutout of “Barbie”, (which still feels to me like a message for female filmmakers to “stay in their lane”) and relatively low showing for “Poor Things” (which took only 3 of the 11 awards for which it was nominated), and that their underappreciation for such films was for me proof that many of the professionals working within the industry are afraid of material that pushes the medium too far outside its traditional boundaries, that dares to imagine stories and ideas which give voice to “outsider” concerns beyond the level of lip service, or that stretches the accepted limits of narrative entertainment.
More concerning, perhaps, is the minimal change that has come in the wake of the Academy’s much-publicized retooling to promote greater diversity and inclusion among the nominees. While it’s heartening to see people of color and queer people being brought into the mix more consistently than ever before, it’s also all the more painful when we see them passed over or relegated to the status of “also ran” most of the time. As a queer writer working for a queer publication, it’s impossible for me not to be impatient when films with strong LGBTQ content are lauded alongside mainstream titles only to consistently be passed over when it comes to the final victory. While queer subject matter, in varying degrees, was part of movies like “Rustin”, “Nyad”, and even “Barbie,” only two wins in the “major” categories went to films that included significant queer themes – “American Fiction” and “Anatomy of a Fall”, both of which won for their screenplays.
And while it’s now old news, the Academy’s complete omission of Andrew Haigh’s melancholy gay ghost story “All of Us Strangers,” a queer UK film overwhelmingly embraced by other major awards bodies across the world and in America itself and considered a major contender before failing to earn a single Oscar nomination, and female filmmaker Emerald Fennell’s “Saltburn,” which hinged – at least ostensibly – on a queer attraction between stars Barry Keoghan and Jacob Elordi, speaks volumes about the comfort level surrounding queer content within mainstream Hollywood. Even “May December,” a high-profile film directed by queer indie pioneer Todd Haynes but featuring only presumably heterosexual characters, received only a single nod (for Best Original Screenplay) for “May December,” despite being widely considered a front-runner for several acting awards. While inclusivity doesn’t mean considering every queer-relevant movie a shoo-in for the competition, it’s telling when the Academy all but ignores queer titles that have been contenders and even winners at all the other major film award ceremonies, and frankly, it’s extremely annoying. While I can’t speak for women, those in the Black community, or other groups with a history of being dismissed by Oscar, I can only assume that their sentiments must resemble my own.
Yet as I reach the end of my observations about the latest installment of the Academy Awards, I find myself falling short of blaming the Academy itself, at least as an organization. While it has had a problematic history of dragging its feet when it comes to evolving toward a more all-embracing approach to bestowing honors, undeniable progress has been made. That this progress is infuriatingly slow is less a reflection on the awards than it is on Hollywood as a whole; after all, despite Academy efforts to ensure greater diversity among its nominees, it’s the individual choices of its voters that determines the final results – and if those results fail to accomplish more than the occasional token victory for the non-white-heterosexual contenders, it’s a symptom of the fact that those voices are underrepresented within the industry at large.
If we want to see an Academy Awards ceremony that truly accomplishes the kind of all-inclusive spirit for which it has so palpable a potential, we must continue to pressure the Hollywood industry at large to build a more diverse and inclusive creative environment. Otherwise, no matter how much they promise to do better, they will always fall short.
a&e features
Summer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
America 250 celebrations continue
From late-night museum visits and outdoor jazz concerts to free movie screenings and America250 exhibitions, Washington’s summer calendar is packed with events that don’t charge admission. Here’s a look at some of the free activities happening across the District through September and beyond.
Museum exhibitions
The Renwick Gallery is presenting State Fairs: Growing American Craft, an exhibition that looks at unique and unconventional crafts from the 19th century to the present. It will run until Sept. 7, and admission is free.
The Arts and Industries Building, located next to the Smithsonian Castle, is presenting the exhibition Voices and Votes: Exploring Democracy Across America. The exhibition features the development of American independence and what that has meant over time, beginning with the Revolutionary War. Admission to the museum is free, and the exhibition runs until Sept. 7.
The National Gallery of Art presents Dear America, an exhibit featuring more than 100 pieces of work, including letters, photographs, and drawings that depict American landscapes and depictions of freedom. The exhibition will run until Sept. 20.
The National Museum of Women in the Arts is exhibiting Burnished: Pueblo Pottery until Sept. 27. The exhibit features pottery from the Southwest, and while most of the pottery belongs to women artists, a few also reflect those who have advocated for women.
Extending past this summer, the exhibition ¡Puro Ritmo! The Musical Journey of Salsa will be at the National Museum of the American Latino until July 2028. The exhibition shows how Afro-Cuban music has become a staple in the U.S. Admission is free.
The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library will feature the exhibition District Vibes / American Pride: How DC Changed American Culture, which will highlight all of the ways D.C. has impacted American life. The exhibit will run until Sept. 27.
At the Folger Shakespeare Library, the exhibit Imagining Shakespeare: Mythmaking and Storytelling in the Regency Era will be on view through Aug. 2. All the portraits on display come from the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery in London.
The United States Botanic Garden will be open until 8 p.m. on Aug. 20 and Sept. 17, as part of America’s State Flowers: An America250 Celebration. The evenings will include live music, mocktails, ice cream, and snacks.
The National Gallery of Art Sculpture Garden will have extended hours, staying open until 8 p.m. Wednesday to Saturday until Sept. 3.
Live performances
On Aug. 7, the postgame Nationals concert series will continue with Jordan Davis performing. To see the concert, guests just need to buy tickets to the Nationals game.
Jazz in the Garden will run each Friday until Aug. 14. The event has free admission, but those interested have to enter a lottery due to the high demand for the event.
From May to October, Capital Harvest Market occurs every Wednesday from 10 a.m.-2 p.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. The market features fresh foods, crafts, and recipes for unique dishes. A full list of vendors is available on Capital Harvest’s website.
Live! Concert Series on the Plaza will feature live performances at Woodrow Wilson Plaza until Sept. 25. The performances run Monday to Friday from 12-1 p.m. Admission is free to the performances.
DowntownDC Live! at Anthem Row is running until July 30, with free performances every Thursday from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The final performance will feature HUE and a vintage flea market hosted by Get Flee Marketplace.
Located in Adams Morgan, AdMo Vibe will present live performances every Thursday at 6 p.m. in Kalorama Park. Guests are encouraged to check out Adams Morgan before and after shows, and it is an event for all ages.
Other events
Union Market is hosting drive-in movies on Aug. 8, featuring “Monsters, Inc.”, and Sept. 12, featuring “Wicked.” On Aug. 8, the parking lot will open at 7:30 p.m., with the movie starting at 8:25 p.m. On Sept. 12, the parking lot will open at 6:35 p.m., and the movie will start at 7:30 p.m.
Sunset Cinema at the Wharf will also be available one day a month. On Aug. 12, “10 Things I Hate About You” will premiere, and on Aug. 26, “Project Hail Mary.” No tickets are necessary.
The Library of Congress will also show movies. On Aug. 6, guests are invited to watch “Apollo 13.” The movie will be shown at 8 p.m., with additional live performances beginning at 7 p.m.
For fans of Asian media, the Okaton convention will be at Walter E. Washington Convention Center from July 31-Aug. 2. Festivities will include cosplay contests, skits, live music, and panel discussions.
Washington Spirit’s season also begins in August. The Spirit is Washington’s National Women’s League, with matchups occurring between the San Diego Wave, the North Carolina Courage, the Orlando Pride, and the Bay FC.
Theater
D.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
From family fare to ‘Brontë Sister House Party’
Staycation doesn’t preclude time travel.
For instance, Happenstance Theater’s production of “Adrift: A Medieval Wayward Folly” now playing at Round House Theatre in Bethesda invites audiences to go somewhere familiar but far from home.
A timely piece of theater, “Adrift” takes place shortly after an apocalypse, prompting a group of seafaring fools to ask “What do we do now?”
What ensues is a gorgeously lit glimpse into the dark ages bursting with slapstick comedy and high art. Characters and mise-en-scène are inspired by the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, and archetypes from the Tarot. Bosch’s surreal heaven and hellscapes are brought to life with music, devised and existing text, puppetry, and movement.
Sabrina Mandell, Happenstance’s charming co-artistic director and bona fide “visionary tornado” describes Happenstance, now marking its twentieth anniversary season, as small and agile, more interested in sustainability than growth. “It’s served us well. Our goal has never been to own a building,” she adds.
Over the years, the company has fostered an ensemble (Mandell, co-artistic director Mark Jaster, Gwen Grastorf, Sarah Olmsted Thomas, and Alex Vernon), an immensely creative team. In addition to performing, each member contributes in various ways: puppet making, social media, props, etc.
They play off each other endlessly. (“Sort of like the Carol Burnett Show only different?” I ask. “Exactly.” she agrees. They’ve been through a lot and have formed common vocabulary. Nostalgia buffs, they enjoy old films, art movements, and historical eras. The vibe is eccentric and there’s a bit of queer sensibility.
The two-time Helen Hayes Award winner for costume design, does it all — props and costumes and marketing. In “Adrift,” she plays both the oracle and a crone.
Mandell was born on the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada, the daughter of artists, and later lived in Montreal. As a young woman, she worked on schooners. For Mandell, it’s been a magical life filled with visuals marvels, she says.
When Happenstance begins rehearsal, there’s no fixed script: “We choose a territory and everyone does a deep dive. I’m interested in alchemy, the Tarot, mortality, and the Shaministic roots of theater. All of which are well represented in this production.”
The experience is also immersive. Audiences are encouraged to pose questions to the oracle. Much is whimsical, and in true Medieval fashion the 85-minute show is not without a hellmouth (the jaws of hell) and plenty of demons. Happenstancetheater.org
For staycationing kids, there’s “Pete the Cat: A Live Rock Musical” (through Aug. 2) at Imagination Stage in Bethesda. Follow Pete (played by Michael Perrie Jr.) and the Biddle family as they rock out in a fast-paced, globe-trotting musical based on the massively popular children’s book series. Imaginationstage.org.
There’s more family theater at Glen Echo Park in Maryland. Adventure Theatre MTC puts a spin on beloved fairytale with “Sleeping Beauty: The Time Traveler” (through Aug. 9). A humdrum summer changes when a young Rolly (Carl L. Williams) is whisked back in time to the Age of Charlemagne where he meets Aurora (Chelsea Majors), a bold 12-year-old princess with dreams of knighthood and adventure beyond her castle walls. (Chelsea Majors). Adventuretheatre-mtc.org.
Also at Glen Echo Park, The Puppet Co. presents “The Three Billy Goats Gruff” (through Aug. 23), ideal for kids 4+ and puppet aficionados of all ages. Thepuppetco.org
Broadway at the National on Pennsylvania Avenue presents “The Notebook” (through Aug. 30). Based on Nicholas Sparks’s best-selling novel that inspired the successful film, this romantic musical tells the story of unlikely couple Allie and Noah, who against all odds (hardship, separation, and Alzheimer’s disease) share a lifetime of love. Broadwayatthenational.com
In Vienna, Va., Wolf Trap takes you to Rome circa 1800 with Puccini’s “Tosca” (Aug. 4) presented by Wolf Trap Opera, in collaboration with the Washington National Opera Orchestra.
Following Puccini it’s a magical summer night with Diana Ross (Aug. 19). Expect to hear the superstar and two-time Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winner perform many of her iconic hits including “I’m Coming Out,” “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” “Stop in the Name of Love” and more. Wolftrap.org
Nu Sass, a company that promotes marginalized genders in all aspects of theater, presents Courtney Bailey’s “Brontë Sister House Party” (Aug. 14-Sept. 12) at Van Ness on Main Street (4340 Connecticut Ave., NW). In life, the Brontë Sisters, Emily, Charlotte, and Anne, wrote their 19th century English lit classics in the virtual isolation of their father’s remote York parsonage. Now, stuck in purgatory, they’re suffering through party after party in an endless time loop. For them, hosting is truly hell, until they finally find a way to make it tolerable. Nusass.com
At Olney Theatre Center it’s “A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder” (through Aug. 23), a Tony Award–winning musical farce about murder, manners, and money starring out actor Tom Story as all seven members of the rich, ill-fated D’Ysquith family. This fast-paced comedy promises to be a good time.
The Olney Outdoors summer series (Aug. 9-Sept. 12) also at the Olney Theatre Center features tribute bands, cabaret-style performances, comedy, drag, and family sing-alongs on the open-air Root Family Stage. Among the transportive tribute bands are “Space Oddity – The Ultimate David Brighton Bowie Experience” (Aug. 28) and for Labor Day weekend, it’s “Almost Queen” (Sept. 5) with Joseph Russo playing the band’s front man and queer icon Freddie Mercury. Olneytheatre.org
Signature Theatre in Arlington presents “Respect: Aretha Franklin” (Aug. 11-30), a musical tribute celebrating the Queen of Soul starring powerhouse performer Nova Y. Payton. Not to be missed. Sigtheatre.org
Movies
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
Did studio sabotage film’s release because of queer plot?
What if they released the LGBTQ-themed action movie we’ve all been waiting for and they didn’t bother to tell us?
It’s a rhetorical question, really, because we already know the answer, and it can be found between the lines in the distribution-and-release history of “In the Grey,” a typically slick and cynical “caper thriller” from veteran filmmaker (and former Madonna husband) Guy Ritchie, which is now available on VOD platforms after a perfunctory theatrical opening in May.
Like almost all of Ritchie’s films, it’s fast-paced, clever, and full of surprises, some of which have to do with the plot, but most of all involve its characters – who, also in the tradition of Ritchie’s former work, inhabit a rarified world in which confidence, bravado, and stoic humor define the moral environment while something else (call it “fate” or “karma” or simply “the consequence of choices”) works behind the scenes to deliver a conclusion that satisfies our jaded sense of justice even as it fairly drips with irony. Also like most of Ritchie’s films, it succeeds in sucking us into its plotting while drawing a clear line between the “good guys” (i.e. the ones who are ostensibly working toward an equitable outcome, if not a moral high ground) and the out-of-balance despotism of a weighted power hierarchy that defines the shadowy status quo of human endeavor.
The caper in question is being run by Rachel Wild (Eiza Gonzalez), an elite lawyer who specializes in retrieving funds owed to high-finance “asset management” firms by wealthy clients, whose latest case puts her into a showdown with ruthless crime boss Manny Salazar (Carlos Bardem) over a billion-dollar debt. She’s elite for a reason, though; she’s backed up by her own small militia of “fixers” headed by trusted “extralegal” operatives Bronco and Sid (Jake Gyllenhaal and Henry Cavill, respectively), who are more than capable of carrying out her plans and have no intention of allowing Salazar to gain the upper hand. The plan involves blocking and handicapping his operations until he is forced to return the money; but when their powerful quarry decides to make things personal by going after Rachel in retaliation, it’s up to her loyal protectors (and their highly skilled team) to keep her safe.
Crafted by Ritchie with his usual blend of intricate plotting, jocular amorality, and shocking violence, it’s also a movie that fairly oozes testosterone; yes, there’s a smart and powerful woman at the center of it all, but she’s got as much (or more) macho swagger as anybody else so the effect is just the same. In fact, there’s a lot of hyper-masculine posturing, attitude, and tough talk that goes on all around, most of it delivered with that jocularity we mentioned. Action, naturally, is key to the formula, and “In the Grey” ramps it up to near orgiastic levels with an escalating collection of high-octane set pieces – chases, gunfights, explosions, zip-lining – all carefully spelled out ahead of time for us, point for point, in expository detail so that we can keep up with them as they unfold. It’s a movie about planning and strategy as much as anything else, and it wants to make sure we’re all prepped and ready for “go time.”
As for feelings, in a film like this, you might just think they don’t matter and leave it at that – but that’s not entirely true. Almost hidden in the middle of all this morally murky bluster and bravado is an unexpected angle, and it lends a touch of tenderness to the whole thing that somehow ends up being essential.
The movie takes pains to create a slow reveal, so it feels like a spoiler (consider this your warning) to say it, but underneath all the non-stop action there’s a love story going on, and it’s between the two leading men. We’re not sure at first, though the jovial banter between Cavill and Gyllenhaal has a distinct “romcom” vibe from the beginning, but as the movie goes on it gradually becomes clear that they are, in fact, a couple.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there was no mention of the nature of their relationship in any of the film’s publicity; the studio (Lionsgate) delayed release for months and eventually gave up distribution rights to Black Bear International. When it hit theaters, it finished ninth at the box office; even the popularity of its two stars was not enough to make up for the lack of push that accompanied its release. Does all of this suggest that the studio scuttled their own movie just because of the “gay angle” and the reaction it might get in today’s environment? It’s hard not to speculate on that possibility, but either way, those two characters are gay.
Does it matter to the plot? Not really; there’s no lovestruck romance here – these guys have obviously been together a long time, and they carry the comfortable familiarity to prove it – nor is there even a kiss. It’s just a layer to their characters, a nuance that offers a glimpse of relatable, everyday humanity in a plot where almost everything else is bombast. Importantly, it also raises the stakes for the audience; knowing they are together gives us a reason to root for them beyond simple “good guy/bad guy” dynamic (which is complicated in a movie where both sides are trying to gun each other down mercilessly), and while we might not be so invested in the film’s overarching plot – do we really care if a venture capital corporation gets its money back from the murderous gangster they lent it to in the first place? – we can at least hope that these two handsome mercenaries will be able to go home to their cats together at the end.
As for the acting, this is not a film that demands anything more subtle than broad strokes from its players, but Cavill and Gyllenhaal, given such rich possibilities for subtext in their otherwise formulaic dialogue, clearly play it up with enthusiasm; they also convey that all-important tenderness – especially Gyllenhaal, who stirs an occasional echo of his “Brokeback Mountain” performance from two decades back. The rest of the cast – with the exception of Fisher Stevens as Salazar’s long-suffering lawyer, and Rosamund Pike as Rachel’s treacherous client – mostly play stock characters, familiar, predictable, and not too deep, but they do it well enough.
All that said, and with or without the gay couple in the middle of it, “In the Grey” is not a very remarkable movie. It’s more clever than smart, and while it benefits from Ritchie’s signature fast-paced, edgy style it sometimes feels repetitive – it’s nothing we haven’t seen before, and even if the setting within the corrupt world of the financial elite might strike a note for some viewers today, it never gets political enough to stir up any kind of fervor.
Cavill and Gyllenhaal, however, are good enough together to make it worth a watch – so why not? After all, brains (and eyes) like candy once in a while, too.
With gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
Summer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
D.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
Is the Metro safe for riders?
Craig Thier says experience, civility are key to Rehoboth’s future
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
D.C. Council approves increased funding for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
Summer in D.C. brings sports, Restaurant Week, festivals, and more
-
District of Columbia5 days agoIs the Metro safe for riders?
-
Rehoboth Beach5 days ago
Craig Thier says experience, civility are key to Rehoboth’s future
-
Congress4 days ago
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. Council approves increased funding for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
