Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

[Ribs]

From A24's newsletter:

Opens next Friday in Atlanta, Chicago, D.C., Miami, and San Francisco and in theaters nationwide November 4.

[ianthemovie]

Just came back from an advanced screening of this. It's extraordinary: bold, vibrant filmmaking in the service of a deeply moving story.

EDIT: As for comparisons to In the Mood for Love, there is some resemblance in the cinematography and lighting. A lot of Moonlight takes place at night (as the title would suggest) and there is heavy use of fluorescent and neon lighting of the kind that one tends to associate with Christopher Doyle's work in the Wong Kar Wai films. But otherwise the two films seem to me quite different.

Clarification question for those who have seen the film:

SpoilerShow

In the early scene around the dinner table where young Chiron is talking to Juan and Teresa about the word "faggot," Juan tells Chiron, "You may be gay but that doesn't mean you're a faggot." Then he adds something else very briefly and casts a glance at Teresa, who raises her eyebrows. This got a huge laugh from the audience but I missed it; can anyone say what the rest of Juan's line was?

[Rayon Vert]

Jenkins and the film's stars interviewed on Charlie Rose.

[mfunk9786]

2016 is shaping up to be as top heavy a year for great films as 2007 was, and this is yet another masterpiece to fawn over. The most fascinating tidbit I've come across since seeing it is that none of the three actors playing the lead had met each other or seen their interpretations (same goes for the three actors playing Kevin), and it's really astonishing that they all feel as beautifully cohesive as they do. In particular, Trevante Rhodes is channeling Chiron in both of his younger phases of life - we feel as if we're watching that young boy with muscles and gold stapled to him, suffocating under the weight of his chosen (and almost destined) path. Jenkins deserves Best Director for his work here, and Mahershala Ali should walk away with Supporting Actor with ease - and you can thankfully ignore any eye-rolling accusations of forced diversity in both cases. This is one of the decade's highest highlights.

SpoilerShow

In the early scene around the dinner table where young Chiron is talking to Juan and Teresa about the word "faggot," Juan tells Chiron, "You may be gay but that doesn't mean you're a faggot." Then he adds something else very briefly and casts a glance at Teresa, who raises her eyebrows. This got a huge laugh from the audience but I missed it; can anyone say what the rest of Juan's line was?

He says "unless" - as in "unless you act like one" - seemed while he was able to answer the question compassionately, there was definitely a degree of built-in discomfort with encouraging a kid to embrace some kind of flamboyance.

EDIT: I'd be remiss not to mention how appropriate it is that this film starts the same way as Kendrick Lamar's great work of humanizing inner city angst, To Pimp a Butterfly. Sure, it feels like a bit too much artistic borrowing, but the words are too perfect for either of these works of genius not to do this.

[ianthemovie]

He says "unless" - as in "unless you act like one" - seemed while he was able to answer the question compassionately, there was definitely a degree of built-in discomfort with encouraging a kid to embrace some kind of flamboyance.

Thanks for clarifying. But I'm not sure how I feel about that detail! If I see the film again I'll make sure to pay closer attention to how it feels/plays in context. Otherwise I thought that entire scene was masterfully written and acted, and was one of the high points of the entire film for me. Juan's response to Chiron's previous question ("what is a faggot?") was so unexpected--and so wise--that I was moved to tears.

Perhaps my issue is that Juan's compassion and love for Chiron seem so deep in that moment, so unconditional, that the conditional "unless..." a moment later seems slightly out of character.

[mfunk9786]

I certainly could be wrong/have misheard, and I still think it's sweet that he knows why Monae's character is sort of waving him off. He let the way two adult men might speak to each other (in this time period, mind you) get the best of him for a split second. Agreed that it is one of the best scenes in the film, if not the best. Can't wait to see it again.

SpoilerShow

I know murder is the most logical assumption, but how do you suppose that Juan passed away? Does it matter?

[ianthemovie]

SpoilerShow

I know murder is the most logical assumption, but how do you suppose that Juan passed away? Does it matter?

I didn't give it much thought, honestly. I just remember being really surprised that his character was no longer in the film. I think his function is really to be a father to Chiron in that first part of the film and to empower him with a sense of self. After that point Chiron is left to continue growing up on his own. Since Chiron struggles so much in Parts 2 and 3 to come to terms with his sexual identity, one wonders whether things would have turned out differently had Juan still been around for Chiron to turn to for help. I suppose it's representative of the ways in which as we get older we lose our parents or grow less dependent on them, and we ultimately have to make decisions for ourselves.

Juan almost feels symbolic, a masculine figure who Chiron looks up to and who, in good ways and bad, structures his later ideas about himself as a black man (as well as the men he's attracted to, like Kevin, who is associated with Cuban culture like Juan was).

[Black Hat]

I've been very surprised by how much praise Moonlight raised from friends, critics and here. I've seen it twice and to be honest wasn't particularly enamored with it.

I think part of why this didn't strike a chord with me was because I wanted a different movie as the film's structure left me colder than I felt it should. Every time I thought it was about to go into interesting, unchartered territory it cut to an older Chiron. As a result everything felt surface level, I didn't feel I was in any way inside Chiron's head with a connection to his feelings. Yes I felt, but it was because of what I observed Chiron going thru and to me a film like this can be far more effective, devastating if your audience is less of a spectator to your protagonist.

High school Chiron was the best section of the film, but young man Chiron didn't work for me. Similar to Carol I didn't buy into the connection between the two lovers. Combine this with his shift in persona and I don't think any of the choices he made here had enough agency.

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I think Moonlight is a film that for obvious reasons people want to lavish praise on instead of perhaps really thinking about the film's actual narrative. In other words the subject matter in combination with Jenkins' nice & shiny style throws it in the category labeled 'important', a word used so often these days to where it's lost all value, and thus people are projecting on to the film what they want it to be instead of what it actually is.

SpoilerShow

I know murder is the most logical assumption, but how do you suppose that Juan passed away? Does it matter?

SpoilerShow

See I would argue that this does matter or at least having scenes where someone is dealing with Juan's loss. This kind of thing to me is why I'm saying the film left me cold and yeah you' have to assume he was killed in the drug game.

[Drucker]

Black Hat, I'm mostly in agreement with you (though I absolutely adored Carol last year). It isn't that this isn't a great film, but I have to also agree that I was sort of looking for a different film. While it is certainly beautiful and at times great (especially the second section's finale), there is a lot I felt unanswered/unexplored that was frustrating.

SpoilerShow

For one thing, there was a social undertone to the film's personal story that wasn't explored in a way I wanted. Chiron clearly follows in Juan's footsteps, as evidenced by the start of the third section and him driving the same type of car. He's adopted his adopted father's identity. It calls back to the earlier scene where Juan remarks that he also hated his mother, but now missed her. He's following the same vicious path as his one-time mentor, but then the comparison ends. It's surface level alone. Perhaps because Chiron only knew how to change the surface level of his identity I suppose, but there felt a need for more connective tissue there.

Another part of that last third that felt shoehorned in was the Barbara Lewis song. It's a nice thought, but seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't fit in with anything else that happens in the film. Most of the film is strongly grounded in harsh reality. Are we to accept two friends re-connecting over a magical moment like this?

The last third just felt like it was missing something to me. We essentially got 20 minutes of conversation re-iterating what we already know: Chiron hasn't changed. It really felt like it took a while to get to that point, with little payoff for what it meant.

As I'm writing this, I'm becoming slightly more comfortable with the ambiguity and open-endedness of the ending. We'll see how it sits in my head over the next few days.

[Satori]

This probably doesn't all need to be spoiler tagged, but I'll err on the side of caution:

SpoilerShow

For one thing, there was a social undertone to the film's personal story that wasn't explored in a way I wanted. Chiron clearly follows in Juan's footsteps, as evidenced by the start of the third section and him driving the same type of car. He's adopted his adopted father's identity. It calls back to the earlier scene where Juan remarks that he also hated his mother, but now missed her. He's following the same vicious path as his one-time mentor, but then the comparison ends. It's surface level alone. Perhaps because Chiron only knew how to change the surface level of his identity I suppose, but there felt a need for more connective tissue there.

While the film might not have worked for you, I think this is a great reading that speaks to why I found it so moving and powerful. Chiron's adoption of Juan's persona is absolutely surface level: after the violent conclusion to the second part, he takes on this performance of masculinity as a mode of survival. There is a parallel with Kevin: after their moving emotional and sexual encounter on the beach, Kevin must still perform a violent masculinity at school in order to "fit in" and presumably to be physically safe from violence himself. Chiron observes the split in Kevin between his inner sensitivity on the beach and his outward aggression at school and internalizes this split when he remakes himself as "Black" for the third part. I think Chiron also observes this lesson from Juan, who must project a fierce masculinity to the outside world but displays his sensitive side to the young Chiron and in his home life with Teresa. Chiron's "vicious path" is indeed a surface level performance of violent masculinity that represses his inner sensitivity--but this is precisely the lesson that both Juan and Kevin taught him through their own facades. I think the film is just as much about concepts of masculinity as it is about sexuality. All of this is fundamentally connected to race, of course: because white supremacy strips black men of their masculinity in relation to white men, one response is to perform a violent hyper-masculinity as a form of resistance. As black feminist and queer of color theorists have pointed out, this violent masculinity is a construction for men of color that leaves whose who cannot perform it (including queer men, women, and non-binary people) in a double bind. Moonlight represents this process through Chiron's transformations. He can't live as the sensitive Chiron without being subjected to violence by those who are threatened by non-normative black masculinities. So he remakes himself in the way that Juan and Kevin did.

I think the concluding segment in the cafe is unspeakably beautiful because of how Chiron and Kevin are able to slowly shed these performances and enact alternative constructions of masculinity. By cooking a special meal for Chiron, Kevin performs an action traditionally coded as feminine. I love the slow pacing: the song, the food, and the conversation are all ways in which Chiron can shed his constructed persona. If the entire film is about how Chiron takes on different identities (hence the tripartite structure), then the conclusion at Kevin's house gestures toward a hopeful, new identity that the film leaves us to contemplate.

On another note: while I love them both, I am slightly confused about the comparisons to Carol. They are both relatively high profile queer films but don't really share much else in common. They each look gorgeous, but Jenkins' aesthetic style is very different than Haynes'. I suppose they are also fairly unique in that

SpoilerShow

they are both movies about queer people that end on a note of hope and possibility rather than the dreary and miserable existence queer protagonists have traditionally had to endure in the final reel of mainstream movies.

Still, I look forward to when there are enough great mainstream queer movies that we can start making more substantive comparisons.

[Brian C]

I feel like this film asks a lot of us, and not necessarily in a good way; it struck me as a tad overdetermined. For example, I'm all for busting stereotypes about drug dealers, but the character of Juan is just too precious - a tough-guy crack dealer who also has a sensitive side who's just looking out for the kids of the neighborhood. Are we really supposed to believe that the first time he's ever given any thought to his actions is when Paula angrily calls him out? Isn't it much more likely that he had long since rationalized the way he makes a living and the collateral damage he's responsible for and would have a ready answer for her extremely obvious accusations? What's the deal with Teresa anyway - she's downright saintly in every scene she appears in, but thinks nothing of being the crack dealer's girlfriend?

These don't really seem like characters to me. They're more like writerly fantasies. Mahershala Ali is fine in the part of Juan, as far as it goes, but wouldn't any actor do? This seems like the kind of part that's going to get a reaction from certain segments of its audience - we'll call them "critics" and "Academy voters" - regardless of who the actual actor is. But can't anyone play "dumbstruck with guilt" with just about the same degree of effectiveness?

Or, for another example - what's the deal with that swimming scene? It's so obviously filmed to resemble a baptism - by "Juan" the Baptist, even, get it!?! - but why? A baptism into what? Does this idea pay off in any way? Does it provoke any kind of thought in the audience or carry any thematic import? Is it simply an artfully blocked scene that is ultimately pretty superficial?

All that said, the middle section actually played pretty well for me. I thought there were some nice observations about being a high schooler and not fitting in, and it actually built to a climax that had real emotional logic to it. It shows a characters doing some kind of awful things, while both portraying them as awful and still allowing for sympathy. But even still, for a movie that goes out of its way to bust stereotypes of crack dealers, it seems odd that the school bully is presented so unsympathetically. It makes Juan and Black seem even more schematic.

[mfunk9786]

I can't believe I'm saying something so new age-y, but it sounds like you were seeing the skeleton of the film instead of the texture of it. I'm not sure any of the plot holds up to very shrewd scrutiny, but the artistry and acting beyond makes up for that.

SpoilerShow

For what it's worth: I don't think inner city drug dealers have as many moral quandaries as someone on the outside looking in would on a regular basis. Sometimes it is a near-inevitable choice that there's no escape from. And I also think the "baptism" was the first moment of unconditional love and trust that Chiron has experienced to that point. Welcome to the world, kid.

[Brian C]

I can't believe I'm saying something so new age-y, but it sounds like you were seeing the skeleton of the film instead of the texture of it.

Haha, OK, whatever. I think I'm capable of viewing films' "texture" with at least as much sophistication as you, buddy.

SpoilerShow

For what it's worth: I don't think inner city drug dealers have as many moral quandaries as someone on the outside looking in would on a regular basis. Sometimes it is a near-inevitable choice that there's no escape from. And I also think the "baptism" was the first moment of unconditional love and trust that Chiron has experienced to that point. Welcome to the world, kid.

SpoilerShow

Well sure, but doesn't that kinda back up my point about Juan? Your first reaction to my criticism seems to be to instinctively rationalize Juan's profession on his behalf. That's pretty much what I'm saying - that he would have developed his own rationalizations long before Paula lays into him.

I don't think your explanation for the baptism works very well, either. That's not a "welcome to the world" moment, it's an escape from the world moment. That's what Juan and Teresa provide for him - an escape. A place where he doesn't have to worry about the everyday real world shit that he's used to. That's why later on he models his life after Juan's, down to the earrings he wears and the tchotchke on his dashboard - to escape who he is and the pain that he feels. Kevin more or less explicitly calls him out on this in the last act, and the film in general delivers this point with all the subtlety of a chair to the back.

But none of that has anything to do with a baptism, unless the movie is making the downright transgressive point that indulgence in a fantasy life to escape the pain of reality is akin to a religious awakening. And since I heavily doubt that either one of us or anyone else thinks the movie is making this point, I'm left to conclude that it's just pretty but empty imagery.

[Shrew]

I don't read the swimming scene as a baptism. It evokes religious imagery of baptism, but it aims to elevate the moment to a spiritual level in the same way the music does. Its resonance is from Juan and Chiron relationship, with Chiron gaining a father figure he can finally trust (swimming lessons up there with trust falls for easy metaphors). The image of Juan cradling the boy is also one of the movies many examples of masculinity, and probably the sweetest of the lot. Overall I think it's a lovely, certainly not empty, sequence, but is not meant to literally or figuratively portray a baptism.

As for Juan himself, "dealer with a heart of gold" is a construct, though one drawn from the playwright's own life. As to his moral quandary, I think he's long ago rationalized his work, but he's also no longer a street dealer. He doesn't deal with crack addicts directly anymore. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have a moment of guilt when suddenly confronted with the personal, generational impact of dealing.

[Brian C]

Quoting DarkImbecile from the Awards thread:

[Director Barry Jenkins deserves] recognition for the fact that none of the three actors portraying Chiron ever met each other during or prior to filming or watched each other's work on the film, yet their shared portrayal of that character feels seamless. Directing the three actors (to say nothing of the supporting cast) to performances like those on such a tight schedule and weaving their work together into a character portrait that humane and compelling was masterful.

I think this is almost entirely wrong - I didn't think that the three actors even resembled the same person in any way, much less made that character "seamless".

And furthermore, I thought that was kind of the point of the movie's severe narrative fragmenting, the idea being something along the lines that we're seeing three wholly discrete versions of this person. I don't know if we're supposed to think of him as the same person in any other way than name. Rather, Chiron changes (as people do) over time and isn't the same person in his 20s as he was in his teens or as a small child.

I've seen out in the critical world that there's a temptation and tendency to link this movie to Boyhood, which accomplished a "seamless" effect, obviously, by using the same actor throughout the years of filming. But this I thought was different - this character isn't meant to be seamless. The changes in his appearance and personality are supposed to be jarring. We're meant to take note of how he's developed as a person in the intervening years that aren't shown.

[mfunk9786]

I felt the through-line between all three of those actors very deeply while watching the film, and it seems to be a big sticking point for those who didn't necessarily care for it - one of its big appeals in my view is how well that was executed and how much careful characterization of Chiron we experience in each era of his life, which is a mark of excellent direction. But this is a subjective thing that can't be bargained or negotiated verbally, I think it either lands for a viewer or it doesn't.

I think you're totally right re: the fallacy of linking this to Boyhood, though

[DarkImbecile]

Barry Jenkins did a really good job, but the movie's three parts aren't as connected as they could have been.

Came to this thread to gripe about this complaint from an anonymous Academy voter, and realized I was late to the party on a somewhat related discussion I inadvertently kicked off in the thread where I found the anonymous ballot article in the first place!

I think mfunk's response basically covers anything I would say in response to Brian C above, except to note that I think there are plenty of more traditional elements of Jenkins' direction that also make his work on Moonlight worthy of recognition (along with the cinematography and score).

I agree that the Boyhood comparisons are pretty superficial, but I will say that (again, entirely subjectively) the time transitions in Boyhood actually felt less smooth and more abrupt - even jarring - than those in Moonlight, one of the reasons I liked Linklater's film less than most and definitely significantly less than Jenkins'.

[TMDaines]

Couple of things worth mentioning from a Q&A with Jenkins at HOME, Manchester last week:

• There was no rehearsal time/days due to limited funding and labour laws.
• The three actors who were each playing the two central characters never met each other nor were on set together. Other than the on screen pairings, no other combination of actors playing the two central characters ever met even.
• When it comes to directing actors, Jenkins emphaised favouring a light touch approach where he wants actors to come to their own conclusion about the backstory and frame of mind of the characters and does not wish to heavily direct the actors' performances.

[swo17]

SpoilerShow

I know murder is the most logical assumption, but how do you suppose that Juan passed away? Does it matter?

SpoilerShow

Is it ever stated that he died? His last lines are a confession that he is a drug dealer that has been supplying Chiron's mother. I simply took it that their relationship never recovered from that revelation, which is I think a fittingly heartbreaking end to his character arc.

[ng4996]

SpoilerShow

I know murder is the most logical assumption, but how do you suppose that Juan passed away? Does it matter?

SpoilerShow

Is it ever stated that he died? His last lines are a confession that he is a drug dealer that has been supplying Chiron's mother. I simply took it that their relationship never recovered from that revelation, which is I think a fittingly heartbreaking end to his character arc.

SpoilerShow

I believe it's the mother who says something about Juan's funeral after he comes back from Teresa's house

[Roger Ryan]

SpoilerShow

There is only a reference to a funeral (whose funeral is not specified) which has occurred between the first and second acts. Given that Teresa is still part of Chiron's life, but Juan is no longer around, the viewer can surmise that Juan has died during the time ellipsis.

[mfunk9786]

SpoilerShow

Also, one of the bullies says "Juan been dead for a minute though," when talking about how attractive Teresa is

[mfunk9786]

FYI, this is playing on 1500+ screens beginning tomorrow. I would recommend seeing it on the big screen if you get the opportunity, it's a pretty one to look at.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Having learned today that its DP also shot Myth of the American Sleepover this is totally a priority now.

[domino harvey]

Having learned today that its DP also shot Myth of the American Sleepover this is totally a priority now.

Same producer too, by the way-- pretty great to see someone from that film get an Oscar!