What am I to make of Everything Everywhere All at Once’s huge victory at the Oscars on Sunday? As expected, the film was the night’s big winner. Seven awards, including Oscars for best picture, best director, best actress, best supporting actress and best supporting actor. Congratulations to the winners. My only problem is that I watched part of the movie and walked out. I deemed it trash.
If you have not seen the film, don’t. It is described as a “gonzo adventure of a Chinese-American laundromat owner grappling with an IRS audit and interdimensional attackers.” The film is technically science-fiction but also could be described as a light-duty martial arts movie with gratuitous gun violence as a bonus. I describe it as a tedious two- hour long Saturday Night Live skit gone wrong.
My views, I suppose, reflect the fact that I am not a teenager and, until last night, naively assumed the purpose of the Oscars is to recognize excellence. Everything Everywhere now will take its place next to Citizen Kane, The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Schindler’s List, Moonlight, Casablanca, and It Happened One Night. Somehow these and other more serious firms have been degraded. Their Oscar wins seem less impressive.
What happened? For one thing, Everything Everywhere generated interest as a film with a largely Asian cast. (Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian.) A story in the Sunday New York Times reported “Asian actors have been nearly invisible at the Oscars.” That’s a true statement, a failing that demands correction. But was giving Everything Everywhere seven Oscars the way to address the problem? With apologies to the film’s winners, I would have preferred the Oscar academy to wait for a better film.
If you haven’t seen Everything Everywhere, prepare for what might be charitably described as “a challenging experience.” What the film is about is not immediately clear. Whether the movie is a comedy, science fiction, a martial arts film, or some sort of avant-garde art film is not clear. The acting is good, but, given the chaotic storytelling, it is difficult to judge whether it is great. And the special effects, apparently necessary for the “battle to save the multiverse” part of the film, are second class.
One part of the film, the initial confrontation between the IRS agent played by Jamie Lee Curtis and Michelle Yeoh, is particularly Saturday Night Live-like. Curtis, barely recognizable, portrays the IRS agent as a mentally ill bureaucrat. I wonder whether the union representing IRS agents (and other federal employees) will complain.
I like Jamie Lee Curtis and am happy she won an Oscar, but giving her the award was a slap in the face to other actresses in the category of supporting actress. Angela Basset, who clearly expected to win, did not rise when Curtis’ win was announced. I do not blame her. I don’t know whether Bassett deserved to win, but it is hard to imagine that she didn’t deserve the award more than Curtis.
I also watched Steven Spielberg as he sat through the awards ceremony. He knew his autobiographical film, The Fabelmans, wasn’t going to win. His image was flashed when Everything Everywhere’s win was announced. You could imagine him wondering what he has to do to ever win another Oscar. The academy owes Spielberg, and a lot of other people, apologies.
The Fabelmans is a great film. I recommend it. I also recommend Tár, the Kate Blanchett film about a troubled classical music conductor. Blanchett deserved to win the best actress award. Tár was serious filmmaking. Apparently that no longer is enough to win an Oscar.
One other award, one not given to Everything Everywhere, is worth mentioning. Brendan Fraser won the award for best actor. I can’t say he earned it because I haven’t seen the performances of all the other nominees. I noted, however, that The Whale won for the best make-up. Brendan Fraser plays a morbidly obese man. When the make-up award was announced, we learned that much of Fraser’s makeup was “digital.” Does that mean that we were watching some sort of special effect as opposed to Fraser? That is a question worth asking, even while recognizing Fraser’s performance as a great one.
It is too early to say I will not tune into next year’s Oscar ceremony, but chances are that I will not.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.
Rebecca Strootman says
You have some nerve commenting on the quality of a movie you didn’t even respect enough to sit through. You assume that the only way a movie with a predominantly Asian cast could win 7 Oscars is through pandering. In actuality, it won so many because it is an excellent movie with excellent performances.
It’s a beautiful movie about love, acceptance, and kindness. Mistakes can be fixed. Relationships can be repaired. Every character seems at first glance to be a stereotype, but every one is given respect and depth. It’s message is positive and powerful and well expressed.
Everything Everywhere All At Once is a refutation of cynical nihilism. It’s silly and bizarre and that’s the point. It says that everyone and everything matters. Even the universe where people have hotdog fingers. Even the universe where a chef is puppeteered by a raccoon. Even the universe where humans don’t exist and there’s only rocks. Even the universe where all you do is live a “boring” life running a failing laundromat with your silly husband.
I’m not saying you have to like it. It’s not meant to appeal to everyone. It’s meant to be bold and mold-breaking, and that’s expected to ruffle some feathers.
However, it’s incredibly rude and disingenuous to write an opinion piece insulting and bashing a highly acclaimed movie because you personally don’t like and don’t understand it. A normal person would hear a movie they didn’t like won seven Oscar’s and consider that perhaps they missed something about it (especially if said person didn’t even watch the whole thing). But you see a movie you don’t like win 7 Oscar’s and assume that the academy wants brownie points for giving out trophies to Asian people. Give me a break.
John Dean says
Thanks for reading the piece and commenting. Let me disagree with your accusation that I “assumed the academy wants brownie points for giving out trophies to Asian people.” That, in my view, reflects a misunderstanding of my points.
I’m glad you liked the movie, but I suspect you know many other people also did not like it.
Also, I disagree with your assumption that to judge a movie, you need to sit through it in its entirety. As I discussed the film with several friends who watched the entire film, a couple of them commented that they wished they had walked out and not wasted the full two hours.
I appreciate that many people liked Everything Everywhere, including you, but you should respect that many people who saw it disliked it and are not idiots or bigots.
Monika Mraz says
Brava Rebecca!
Vic Pfeiffer says
A good long term friend and I decided to watch “Everything Everywhere All At Once” last December. After about 30 minutes we both agreed to turn it off. It didn’t draw us in and for us it had a convoluted story line and disjointed character development. After seeing all of the Oscar nominations that it received, I decided to give it another try with my wife earlier this month. I gave it up again this time forcing myself through an hour just to be sure I gave it enough time.
I basically agree with Mr. Dean’s description of the movie although am not so sure about his proposition about why it received so many Oscars.
I make no pretense to be a sophisticated movie analyst. I usually just like a good story, strong believable characters and a story line that provokes thought, emotions, learnings, etc. I found none in Everything….
Debra Davis says
I would never trust a movie review by someone who misspells Cate Blanchett’s name as “Kate.” Yikes!
John Dean says
I agree–yikes! Sorry for the error on Ms. Blanchett’s name.
James Nick says
There are some major milestones every man goes through in life. For example, when your parents put you down and never pick you up again marks the transition from being a baby to being a child.
Another one is your first “mister”. That’s when some kid addresses you as “Mister” and you’re suddenly aware that there is a newer, younger generation that sees you as apart from them… as an adult.
Then, as time passes and other milestones are reached, you come to believe you are fully plugged-in to the contemporary culture all around you. Until one day you are suddenly confronted with the fact that, no, actually, you aren’t really plugged-in at all.
For me personally, in terms of performance art, the Broadway revival of “42nd Street” in 2001 is representative of the highwater mark of western civilization. It’s been pretty much all downhill from there. Surely, the godawful excuse for a movie that is “Everything Everywhere All At Once” is irrefutable proof that we have hit rock bottom. Yes???
Or, if that’s not the case, I can only conclude then that I, and apparently Mr Dean, must have truly reached another one of those inevitable milestones of life. The salvo from Ms Strootman provides evidence that the world has apparently moved on. To paraphrase a famous introduction…”We now seem to be traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone!”
If that’s the case, then stop the world, I think I’ll get off here. In fact, it looks like I might have already missed my station a couple of stops back.
Bob Moores says
On the negative responses could we put emotions aside and inject a modicum of logic?
It seems to me that a movie review is an expression of personal preference. It is not an argument against, say, Newton’s law of gravity. The review is akin to giving an opinion on the taste of asparagus, the color mauve, or Hemingway’s writing style – I like it or don’t like it because…
I believe the best response to a movie review with which you disagree is not to attack the philosophy, motives, or judgment of the reviewer, but to present your reason’s why your view differs.
And may I ask how a trivial spelling error negates or relates to trust? That’s like saying “I don’t trust your dislike of broccoli because you misspelled it.”