A Real Pain (2024, R)

Although this film had been in the Best Picture conversation, it didn’t wind up getting that nod. But even though it only got a couple nominations, I really loved it and am still thinking about it. A fascinating story about family, grief, and connection.

What’s It About?

After the death of their grandmother, American cousins David and Benji travel to Poland to see where she was born. They join a tour group exploring the country’s history, where anxious, careful David is quick to apologize for the brash, unvarnished Benji. As the two cousins navigate their family’s past, they also reckon with their own loving but tumultuous relationship.

Who’s in It?

Jesse Eisenberg (who also wrote and directed the film) plays David, while Kieran Culkin plays Benji. Both actors are extremely well suited for their roles, but even if their performances bear some similarity with past roles of theirs, they’re both so compelling to watch here. Their interactions with one another and within the tour group are just fascinating—they’re by turns hilarious and heartbreaking, sometimes in the course of a single scene.

What’s It Nominated For? 

A Real Pain was nominated for two Oscars:

·        Best Supporting Actor – Kieran Culkin

·        Best Original Screenplay

What Do I Love About It?

·        “Odd couple” dynamics are very easy to do, and while this might at first seem like a boilerplate odd couple—uptight/responsible David vs. slobby/impulsive Benji—neither character is just one thing. Benji is highly “inappropriate,” with no social filter, and he frequently says offensive or hurtful things, but he’s also deeply emotional, really cares about people, and values the truth over polite bullshit. David wants to do everything right and keep everyone comfortable, but he frequently finds himself on the edge of the group, not sure how to fit in, and he often hurries to apologize for Benji in situations where it’s not actually necessary.

·        Both cousins annoy or anger each other at times, and both of them are very capable of hurting each other. But they love each other too, deeply, even if neither can fully care for the other in the way they need. They’re such different people, and on some level, each understands the other better than they understand themselves. But they both get it wrong in certain critical moments, while coming through in others.

·        I like how mental health and neurodivergence is incorporated into the film. David has OCD, and while we’re never given a diagnosis for Benji, it seems clear that he’s going through something that’s exacerbating all the other difficult stuff in his life—he fell apart after their grandmother died, he’s struggled with self-harming behaviors, and he’s living in his mom’s basement (in contrast to David’s good job, marriage, and young child.) Personally, I read Benji with borderline personality disorder, but like I said, the film never specifically names what’s going on in his head.

·        Even though the two cousins are very much the headline of the story, all the characters in the film are nicely drawn and well-performed. I’ve never been on this sort of tour before, but I’m willing to bet money that everyone in the group is a very specific type commonly seen in tour groups like that, right down to the non-Polish, non-Jewish guide.

Warnings

Strong thematic elements (including discussions of genocide and suicide,) disturbing images (including a tour of a concentration camp,) language, and drinking/drug use.

Other Doctor Lives: Gentleman Jack: Season 1, Episode 4 – “Most women are dull and stupid” (2019)

*Spoilers for the end of episode 3.*

We’ve reached the midpoint of season 1. This is a strong episode, featuring some good drama and compelling performances as things heat up.

At the end of the last episode, Mrs. Priestley walked in on Miss Walker and Anne kissing, and Miss Walker’s entire family is whispering about the incident in no time at all. Anne insists that the best course of action is simply to carry on as normal, but everything is thrown for a loop when Miss Walker receives some shocking news from a family friend.

The biggest narrative driving point here is the letter, which causes a major setback for Miss Walker’s nervous condition and her overall health. Anne was proud that Miss Walker had been improving since they were together, but now she’s in a tailspin and Anne doesn’t know what to do. The contents of the letter are upsetting enough for Miss Walker on the face of it, but there are deeper implications going on that have to be dealt with. This puts their entire relationship into question, and Anne, who’s been longing so much for a permanent companion, gets defensive and stubborn as the life she’d hoped for is threatened for reasons she doesn’t understand.

Some other interesting stuff going on here too. I particularly like Anne taking Miss Walker to York to see a different doctor, once with a less provincial perspective. Yes, he does say that most of Miss Walker’s health issues stem from “nervous hysteria,” but he also acknowledges that mental health is just as crucial as physical health, despite the medicine of the day having fewer effective treatments in that arena. He and Anne discuss ways to help Miss Walker improve her health by way of her spirits.

And as I mentioned, the whole Walker/Priestley clan is up in Anne and Miss Walker’s business now. For all of the Priestleys’ approving words toward Anne in the pilot, their turn is almost immediate. As Mrs. Priestley tells her husband what she saw, she rails about how foolish she feels, having defended Anne against gossip for years “because [she] never once thought that it was true.” Miss Walker’s relatives, many of whom have been grasping at her wealth, now cluck over Anne having her “under [her] spell.” As the matriarch of the family solemnly proclaims, “She’ll have her in Paris before we know it.”

As for Mr. Priestley, his first thought is to keep knowledge of this “indiscretion” contained, but since his wife evidently deals with her shock by telling every single person she knows, the cat is already out of the bag before he even hears about it. This leaves Mr. Priestley in a rather feckless position, all but wringing his hands as he vainly tries to pretend the gossip isn’t happening (even though it’s all anyone is talking about.) He’s a bit of a lump here, and Peter Davison plays that effectively—a Victorian stuffed shirt whose niceties are failing him.

Ordinary People (1980, R)

*Premise spoilers, as well as some discussion of important points from Next to Normal.*

Before I ever saw this film for the first time, I still had a major association with it due to an old sketch from the 1981 Cambridge Footlights Revue featuring Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry. It looks like the sketch has since been pulled from YouTube for copyright reasons, but in it, Fry and Laurie play a pair of nauseatingly middle-class husbands who are playing charades during a social get together, and they pick Ordinary People for the other team to act out. Hugh Laurie pressing his mouth against Tony Slattery’s ear and leaning against him as he repeatedly intones, “Ordinary People!” always makes me laugh.

The film itself is a very different story, which follows the Jarrett family: father Calvin, mother Beth, and son Conrad. There’s been a pall cast over the household since their other son Buck was killed in a boating accident. Conrad, who survived the accident, fell into an intense depression after his brother’s death and has only recently returned from a mental health facility. While Conrad struggles to feel “normal,” Beth is determined to move forward, and Calvin is desperate to hold everyone together, every member of the family is weighed down by a shared hurt that each feels they have to face alone.

Watching the film this time around, I was struck by a number of similarities to Next to Normal. Both involve family grief over the death of a child, and in both, the mother and the surviving child find it nearly impossible to relate to each other while the dad tries to put a brave, optimistic face on everything. There are major differences, of course, chiefly that the mom in Next to Normal isn’t living with mental illness, but there are still some pretty loud parallels. I can’t remember whether or not Next to Normal was around the first time I watched Ordinary People, but I know I didn’t pick up on those similarities then.

This is a very human story of a hurting family stuck in the cage of suburbia, where appearing “all right” in front of the neighbors is of far greater importance than actually being all right. At his dad’s pestering, Conrad starts seeing a therapist, but he tells Dr. Berger from the start that he’s only there so the doctor can help him feel more “in control,” because he wants everyone to just stop worrying about him. He’s consumed with how his actions, and his state of mind, affect others, seeking help for their benefit rather than his own. Meanwhile, as Conrad struggles, Beth is more upset to learn about potential red flags secondhand, rather than hearing them from Conrad himself. She’s hyper-focused on how Conrad’s wellbeing reflects on her, fearful that people will think she’s a bad mother if her son isn’t acting right. That leaves Calvin in the middle, fearfully worried about Conrad’s mental health but trying to “buck up” for the sake of everyone around him.

It's a simple film, but a lovely one. Based on a novel by Judith Guest and directed by Robert Redford, the movie follows the honest emotions of the characters, even as they try to repress them. It does a fine job of showing the weighty moments that are hiding behind small talk and dishwashing, dinner parties and choir practice.

All the actors turn in strong, effective work. As someone who came of age in the 21^st century, I’m used to seeing Donald Sutherland in more sinister roles (a la President Snow in The Hunger Games,) so it’s very different to see him as Calvin, a decent guy who’s trying his best in a situation he’s not fully equipped for. Similarly, I’m used to Mary Tyler Moore’s warmth and brightness, as opposed to the buttoned-up, somewhat cold Beth. I’m not a fan of Timothy Hutton these days, but I can’t deny that he’s excellent as Conrad, who’s been hiding from his pain for so long he’s not even sure what it’s about anymore. Hutton remains the youngest Best Supporting Actor winner in Oscar history. Also very good is Judd Hirsch as Dr. Berger. He’s blunt but not callous, sympathetic but not coddling, and throughout the film, he fights to get Conrad to see what he needs.

Warnings

Strong thematic elements (including discussion of suicide,) language (including sexist remarks,) sexual references, drinking/smoking, and involvement of an alleged sexual predator.