lakeith stanfield

Ernest Cole: Lost and Found (2025)

/ swampflix / 4 Comments

Nearly ten years ago, a trove of presumed lost photographic prints and negatives belonging to the late exiled South African photographer Ernest Cole was discovered in several Swiss bank deposit boxes. Cole, born in 1940, was a critical component in the eventual overturning of the policies of apartheid in South Africa, as the 1967 release of his photobook House of Bondage was one of the first pieces of media to expose the inhuman cruelties occurring in South Africa under the hand of Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd (the “architect of apartheid”). Exiled as a result of this act of activism, Cole ended up in the United States, where he ultimately died—essentially homeless—in 1990. At the time, much of his work, which he had stored in a boarding house storeroom and had been unable to regain access to, was assumed to have been tossed out and lost forever, until the 2017 Swiss bank discovery. One of Cole’s last living relatives, a nephew, was flown into the country to collect these items, and found himself unable to get any information about why his uncle’s work had ended up in the safe at this bank, who had deposited it, or how they had paid for it. 

Ernest Cole: Lost and Found spends some time on this Swiss mystery, and I want to get that out of the way first since it is, to me, the least important aspect of this documentary. When it was first mentioned that Cole’s assumed-lost work had been found intact and preserved in the SEB vault, I considered this a cause for joy, and it didn’t occur to me to presume malice on the part of whoever put it there. Surely, it would have to be someone who wanted to keep that material safe and preserved. If someone wanted to get rid of his documentation of social injustice, they would just destroy it, right? Once we learn later in the documentary that Cole’s mental (and physical) health had degraded to the point that he was unable to regain possession of his work before his death, one could almost imagine some Good Samaritan rescuing the work from being hauled away in the back of a sanitation truck, although this doesn’t explain how it ended up on the other side of the Atlantic. When the doc revealed that there were a remaining 504 photographs that the Swiss government was still fighting for possession of with Cole’s estate, I was a bit more convinced of the possibility of malintent on the part of whomever had spirited away Cole’s work. It was only after I started to write this paragraph that it struck me that I might be failing to inspect the colonialism of the idea altogether since any preservationist instinct that removed art from Africa to “protect” it by storing it in Europe is, well … colonialist by default. We may never know how a collection of Cole’s work ended up there, but its return to Cole’s family prompted filmmaker Raoul Peck to create Lost and Found, and it’s an unequivocal good that this film exists. 

Nearly all of the footage within the film is Cole’s own, as are the words; LaKeith Stanfield provides voiceover that is taken from Cole’s correspondence and other writings, weaving together the narrative of a life. Cole talks about where he grew up, how a racist campaign of term-redefinition and expansionist neologisms led to the destruction of homes, communities, and families of native Africans under European rule. He escaped with his negatives and published House of Bondage, and as a result of his political exile, found himself adrift in a world that he had no hand in making and in which he could find little purchase. An attempt to expose the racism of the American South as he had the racism of South Africa was mounted, with Cole being sponsored by publishers to travel, but contemporary critics were less receptive to this work. Whether this is purely a matter of Western tendencies to find depictions of injustice abroad moving and empathy-inspiring while bristling when we see it in the mirror, or if there is some validity to the idea that his artistic eye was less capable of capturing the emotion of his subjects because of the cultural differences between the kind of racism that they experienced, I shall leave to your discretion. Despite the horrors of what he saw at home, his exile had a profoundly depressive effect on Cole, leaving him constantly in search of work and making it nearly impossible for him to keep a residence for long. Changes in leadership at publishing houses would mean that he was only half paid for a job and thus never finished it, and the discrepancies between how Cole would describe himself in his journals (not depressed) versus how his friends remember him to have been at the time (severely affected by depression) reveal a man who was lost, alone, and who never fully recovered from what he witnessed in his youth. Ultimately, he never did return home, although his aged mother was able to be at his bedside in New York when he died on February 19, 1990, just eight days after Nelson Mandela was released from prison in one of the defining moments in the collapse of the apartheid regime within the next few years. 

This documentary is deeply felt, wonderfully composed, and unfortunately timely. The portrait of Cole that is created is a warm but not overly sentimental one. The narrative choice to use only Cole’s words is one that means that the voiceover informs but does not contextualize and, thus, requires you to build the story yourself from the juxtaposition and editing rather than having your hand held about what you should be thinking or how you should feel. One feature that stood out to me particularly was the frequent appearance of filmed political speeches and U.N. forums that, for decades, repeated the same tired canards justifying a lack of embargoes or sanctions against South Africa. “It would only harm those we are trying to help” says the U.N. president in grainy black and white footage from the 1960s, and which is said again by his successor in the 1970s, before being repeated almost word-for-word in vibrant color video of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I have to be honest with you; it’s bleak, and the portrait it paints of what’s in store for us in the coming years is even bleaker. When House of Bondage was released, it created a sense of moral outrage in the populace that, even at full force, was completely incapable of causing national and international leadership to take any action to end apartheid. We’ve spent the last 15 months with constant, new images of harrowing, monstrous, evil violence enacted by an apartheid state that currently exists, and the modern American is so inured to this kind of wickedness that the coalition of those who are rightly horrified is mocked, belittled, shouted down, fired, and legally silenced by conmen, grifters, and empowered bigots. If it took two and a half decades for apartheid to fall despite international (citizen-level) support for its abolition, then it does not bode well for the end of any current campaign of government terror, when people are unmoved by the plight of their fellow man. The past is never dead. It is not even the past. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

The Book of Clarence (2024)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

Usually, movie distributors save uncategorizable headscratchers for late in the year, when they can compete for coveted positions on obscurity-pilled critics’ Best-of-the-Year lists for easy promotion.  In contrast, January dumping season is usually reserved for movies with gimmicky, single-idea premises originally scribbled on bar napkins.  After a couple grueling months of picking apart challenging, thorny Awards Contenders like The Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, and Killers of the Flower Moon, it’s nice to kick back and unwind to inane novelties that can be neatly categorized and easily understood.  We should spend January watching Wyatt Russell swim laps in a haunted swimming pool. We should be watching Jason Statham shoot guns at nameless goons while dressed in a beekeeper costume. We should not be questioning the mysterious meaning behind a movie, and we definitely shouldn’t be questioning the mysterious meaning behind life.  That’s why Jeymes Samuel’s semi-ironic, semi-evangelical The Book of Clarence is such a strangely timed release for the first few weeks of the year.  A backpack rap modernization of the sword & sandal Biblical epic, it would be a tricky movie to market in any context, but TriStar Pictures’ impatience in not saving it at least until Easter feels like an admission of defeat.  The movie’s own distributor doesn’t really know what to do with Samuel’s low-key religious epiphany, and I’m not entirely sure what to do with it either.

That tonal & thematic ambiguity does work in its favor, though.  The Book of Clarence is not especially great, but it is Interesting and difficult to parse, which is more than you can say in favor of most contemporary “faith-based media.”  You can tell this isn’t the hip-hop equivalent of God’s Not Dead PureFlix propaganda as soon as LaKeith Stanfield appears as a crucified Christ figure in the opening seconds, just before the clock is dialed back to his Ben Hur-style chariot race with a badass Mary Magdalene (Teyana Taylor).  The Book of Clarence casually flirts with blasphemy throughout its runtime, even though it’s ultimately a loving message to the Believers in the crowd.  Stanfield stars as Clarence, an atheist contemporary of Jesus who believes the proclaimed messiah to be a conman magician, since he has never experienced one of His miracles first-hand.  Out of an act of financial desperation (and a pointed fuck-you to his twin brother, Doubting Thomas), Clarence is determined to cash in on the local phenomenon of Jesus’s popularity any way he can.  He starts by attempting to angle his way into Christ’s inner circle as “The 13th Apostle,” then eventually shifts gears to repeating His conman playbook by declaring himself “The New Messiah.”  The scheme blows up in his face, attracting both the attention of the white Roman officers who brutally police his community and the attention of Jesus Christ, who gradually wins over Doubting Clarence as a reluctant follower.

If there’s any overt, recognizable mission in Samuel’s screenplay, it might just be in making the world and characters of the Gospels relatable to a modern audience.  Clarence and his friends are just normal everyday guys from “the cobblestones” (i.e., “the streets”), getting by selling ditch weed to the nightclub and opium den patrons of ancient Jerusalem.  They’re depicted as laidback stoners who chain-smoke blunts to high-minded funk & hip-hop sound cues, but a lot of that hipster posturing is undercut by dialogue that refers to them as “highfalutin nincompoops,” among other old-timey turns of phrase.  There’s a distinctly Black take on the narrative of Jesus and the Apostles’ outlaw status under the oppressive eye of Roman soldiers, culminating in a police-brutality execution of an innocent man outside a nightclub, recalling far too many real-life news stories from recent years.  What’s less distinct is what the movie is trying to say about Clarence’s relationship with Faith.  He eventually emerges from his Biblical trials as a follower of Christ, but in a confused way that makes a distinction between “knowledge” vs “belief” in his path away from atheism – the kind of bullshit intellectualism that inspires people to say “overstand” instead of “understand”.  I appreciate that Clarence’s personal salvation is mostly found in his rejection of his once selfish ways, at one point sacrificing his personal freedom to free an army of slaves he has no personal connection to.  I just can’t quite figure out the reason why his story has to mirror the exact Stations of the Cross that marked Jesus’s ascent, except maybe that the script was originally written with Jesus as the main character and was considered a little too playfully blasphemous in its initial rough draft.

Maybe all of this not-quite-blasphemous modernization of the Jesus narrative would make more sense to me if I were successfully raised Christian.  Maybe I’m too much of a first-act Doubting Clarence to fully understand where the third-act Knowing Clarence fits in the grander theological debate outside this movie’s permitters.  Either way, I do think the film’s odd sincerity and thematic confusion are ultimately beneficial to its overall memorability & entertainment value.  It easily stands out as one of the most interesting wide-release novelties that hit multiplexes this month, which is impressive considering that it’s retelling the most often repeated & reprinted story of all time while competing with a horror movie about a killer swimming pool.

-Brandon Ledet

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

Naively, I hoped last year’s bizarro movie distribution vortex might make for some exciting, unconventional Oscar nominations. Instead, it seems most of this season’s frontrunners are typically-awarded Prestige Dramas that weren’t available to the wide public two months into the next calendar year. It’s impressively stubborn. Since The Academy is unlikely to ever change the type of movies it tends to award, the best we can apparently hope for are changes in subject & cultural representation. Enter Judas and the Black Messiah, an Awards Season historical drama about a charismatic, radical Black Panther Party leader who was assassinated by the FBI when he was only 21 years old. If the Oscars nomination machine is only going to recognize sobering dramas & grim actors’ showcases, then at least we can celebrate that one of this year’s chosen few is a Trojan Horse for leftist, Revolutionary politics.

Daniel Kaluuya stars as Fred Hampton, the aforementioned Black Panther organizer who was murdered in his sleep by the FBI (a real-life biographical detail that recalls the recent police-state execution of Breonna Taylor). Hampton’s internal life is kept at a careful distance here, as the movie is more interested in his Political Importance, especially in his ability to captivate & motivate large, diverse crowds with passionate speeches about wealth distribution & racist police-state violence. Our POV character is the undercover FBI informant who sold Hampton out to the pigs, Bill O’Neal, played by LaKeith Stanfield. At its most enthralling, the movie focuses on Stanfield’s self-conflicted & self-loathing inability to stop the momentum of Hampton’s assassination once he’s already pushed those events in motion. He gradually realizes how insidious of a lie it is that the FBI frames the Black Panther Party to be just as hateful & anti-American as the Ku Klux Klan (a lie that I remember being taught as a kid myself), but by then his betrayal has already snowballed out of his control, which accounts for most of the film’s dramatic tension.

Judas and the Black Messiah is caught between two extremes; it achieves neither the thrilling undercover-cop genre subversion of a BlacKkKlansman nor the exquisite art-film portraiture of a If Beale Street Could Talk. In most ways it’s a firmly middle-of-the-road actors’ showcase meant to earn Awards Season buzz for its two central performers, something the movie even directly jokes about when an FBI agent muses that Stanfield’s informant “deserve(s) an Academy Award” for his deception. Kaluuya & Stanfield both deserve awards; they’re among the best working actors we’ve got. It’s just that they most often traffic in the kinds of high-concept genre films that don’t typically get recognized by the Academy (titles like Get Out, Widows, Sorry to Bother You, and Uncut Gems). This is the kind of work they have to put in to earn mainstream accolades, so the best we can do is celebrate that they’re not being used to voice mainstream rhetoric.

Judas and the Black Messiah is at least not a birth-to-death biopic of Fred Hampton; it’s a snapshot of him at the height of his power, arguing for the effectiveness of Revolution over the empty promise of Gradual Reform. Using the Awards Season movie machine to get people re-incensed over Hampton’s execution is a genuine, real-world good. The format might be a little dusty & traditional, but the politics are as relevant & vital as ever.

-Brandon Ledet

Knives Out (2019)

/ swampflix / 14 Comments

“Physical evidence can tell a clear story with a forked tongue,” Daniel Craig’s Knives Out character Benoit Blanc, “last of the gentleman sleuths,” says to Lieutenant Elliott (Lakeith Stanfield) upon being told that all the physical evidence surrounding the death of publishing magnate Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) points to suicide. This is not the first or last of a series of surprisingly well delivered bon mots from Blanc as he doggedly pursues the truth of what happened the night of Thrombey’s 85th birthday.

All the family gathered that night: Thrombey’s eldest daughter Linda (Jamie Lee Curtis), who describes her real estate business as “self-made,” in spite of actually starting out with a million dollar loan from the family patriarch; widowed daughter-in-law Joni (Toni Colette), a self-described lifestyle guru/entrepreneur and would-be influencer whose knowledge of current events comes from reading tweets about New Yorker articles; and, finally, son Walt (Michael Shannon), who runs Blood Like Wine Publishing, his father’s business. Each has their own family and hangers-on, as well; Linda is married to the largely useless and unfaithful Richard (Don Johnson), and their son Ransom (Chris Evans) is likewise a rootless gadabout and playboy of the Tom Buchanan mold; the delightful Riki Lindhome is given little to do other than spout Trump-era rhetoric about “good immigrants” and “bad immigrants” in her role as Walt’s wife Donna, and their son Jacob (Jaeden Lieberher) is a smartphone-addicted teen described as a “literal Nazi” who allegedly masturbates to images of dead deer; Joni is accompanied by daughter Meg (Katherine Langford), who is attending a prestigious liberal arts college and serves as the closest thing to a good person this family has, although she is not without her flaws. There’s also Greatnana, Thrombey’s elderly mother of unknown age, played by onetime Martha Kent K Callan, who I was surprised to learn was still alive. Also in the house that night are Thrombey’s nurse, Marta (Ana de Armas), and pothead housekeeper Fran (Edi Patterson, taking a break from killing it on The Righteous Gemstones). When Ransom storms out early after a heated discussion, suspicion initially falls on him, but every member of the family has a motive, as Thrombey had announced to each of them that very night that he was cutting off their individual paths of access to his wealth. And then, 33 minutes into the film’s 130 minute runtime, writer-director Rian Johnson tells you who did it. And then things get interesting.

I’ve long been a fan of comedy pastiches and homages of genres that function perfectly as examples of those genres despite humorous overtones; my go-to example is Hot Fuzz, which I always tout as having a more sophisticated murder mystery plot than most films than most straightforward criminal investigation media (our lead comes to a logical conclusion that fits all of the clues, but still turns out to be wrong). Knives Out is another rare gem of this type, a whodunnit comedy in the mold of Clue that has a sophisticated and winding plot. Despite the big names in that cast list above, Marta is our real hero here, although to say more than that would be to give away too much of the plot–both the film’s and Harlan’s. I’m not generally a fan of Daniel Craig, but in this opportunity to play against type, his turn as a kind of Southern Hercule Poirot here is surprisingly charming, first appearing to be somewhat bumbling and ignorant in his pursuit of the truth but ultimately proving to have a sharp deductive mind. His affected drawl also helps take many of Blanc’s lines, some of the best one-liners ever committed to a movie script, and elevates them into true comedic art. From the quote at the top of the review to his description of a will reading (“You think it’ll be like a game show. No. Imagine a community theater performance of a tax return.”) to his reference to Jacob in his Sherlockian summation of the evidence near the film’s end (“What were the overheard words by the Nazi child masturbating in the bathroom?”), all are rendered hilarious in their Southern gentility. It’s a sight to behold.

The film is surprisingly political, as well, and not just in a “Communism was a red herring” way. Like Get Out before it, Knives Out mocks the occasional ignorance of the political left vis-a-vis latent and uninspected racism on the part of Joni and Meg, who profess progressive values while being, respectively, a largely uninformed buffoon and an easily corrupted intellectual. On the other side of the aisle, the fact that all of the Thrombey children and grandchildren consider themselves to be “self-made” despite succeeding only due to the generosity of their wealthy patriarch calls to mind certain statements about a “small loan” of a million dollars that a certain political figure has made. Likewise, Rian Johnson has claimed that Jacob’s character is based on blowback he received from some of the darker corners of the internet following (what some would consider to be) the mismanagement of the Star Wars franchise while helming The Last Jedi. In particular, the entirety of the wealthy white family seems completely ignorant of Marta’s country of origin, with each of them calling her a different nationality; after a few glasses of champagne, they devolve into an ugly debate about the current supposed immigration “crisis,” citing well-worn neocon talking points about “America [being] for Americans” and “millions of Mexicans” undermining American culture, as well as the purported illegality of seeking asylum. All of this is done in front of Marta, who is specifically called out as an model member of a minority group and then asked to speak to this experience, exotifying her and speaking over her (that the most useless member of this crew, Richard, does so while absentmindedly handing her his dessert plate—like one would with a server or a domestic servant—is a particularly nice detail). It comes across as rather toothless in the moment, especially given that Jacob is largely held unaccountable for his political ideology (other than Richard’s accusation that the boy spent Harlan’s party in the bathroom “Joylessly masturbating to pictures of dead deer”), but the white New England family’s desperation to hold onto property that they consider rightfully theirs despite having had no hand in building the family’s financial success is ultimately revealed to be a core part of the film’s thesis, as evinced in the film’s final frame. That having been said, there are moments when I wish that the family was a little less charming and a little more clearly depicted as being in the wrong; at one point at the screening I attended, there was a rather loud laugh when Jacob called Marta an “anchor baby,” and the effusive reaction to that line in particular chilled my blood a bit.

The first time I saw the trailer for this film was before The Farewell, and the friend with whom I saw that flick had no interest in Knives Out, asking only that I text him after I left the theater and tell him who the killer was. I initially assented, but after my screening, I texted him and told him that the movie was too clever to be spoiled that way, and I meant it. This is a movie that should be seen without as little foreknowledge as possible, and as soon as you can.

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

/ swampflix / 28 Comments

The first book I read in 2018 was Margaret Atwood’s most recent novel, The Heart Goes Last. The protagonist and her husband, who lost their home and their professional jobs and now live in their car while trying to avoid sexually- and economically-motivated violence, agree to participate in a project called “Consilience.” Consilience is a kind of planned, gated community in which participants spend alternating months in a nice home and working professional jobs and in a “prison,” doing more menial tasks. Over the course of the book, the main characters become aware that the promises of Consilience are hollow, and that the corporate overseers of the community have many nefarious goals, as the work narratively explores themes of identity, oppression, corporate irresponsibility, and sexual predation in multiple forms. Despite being a huge Atwood fan going back over a decade since the first time I read The Handmaid’s Tale in 2005 (it’s a book that retains its relevance regardless of the particular authoritarian ugliness one is currently living under, be it the War on Terror or the current War on Decency), this is, other than the awful Surfacing, my least favorite of her books. The Heart Goes Last is simply too tonally inconsistent, rapidly flipping back and forth from the kind of insightful commentary that makes up her other works to a kind of absurdist humor that the astute reader can see is intended to make the darkness darker, but doesn’t work.

Sorry to Bother You has a similar plot point, and a similar problem. From the first few minutes, the audience is made aware of the existence of WorryFree, a corporate entity to which citizens can essentially sign over their freedom in exchange for the relative security of guaranteed employment and wages. This has become a more common feature of dystopian fiction of late, especially as broad trends point toward a governmental and social system that is more pro-corporatism and anti-consumer, as various writers and artists highlight the way that economically disadvantaged people can be pressured and herded into debt slavery and company towns from which there is no escape. (Aside: there’s a lengthy description of one such company town in Octavia Butler’s phenomenal 1993 novel Parable of the Sower, which should be considered required reading for every American citizen, in my opinion.) The issue in Sorry is the same of that in The Heart Goes Last: the abject horror of the concept of WorryFree and Consilience alike is undercut by the comedy of the absurd that permeates both works. Imagine that The Handmaid’s Tale and Idiocracy were involved in a teleporter accident and you’ve got a pretty good idea of why this shouldn’t work, and you’re picturing both THGL and STBY, although through different lenses (notably, the comparison to Idiocracy is almost too obvious, given the presence of Idiocracy alum Terry Crews in STBY as the protagonists’s uncle, who is considering signing himself up for the WorryFree program). But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

Sorry to Bother You presents the story of Cassius “Cash” Green (Lakeith Stanfield), a resident of an alternate contemporary Oakland. Cash lives in the garage of his uncle Sergio (Crews) and, as the film opens, finds a job as a telemarketer for RegalView that will hopefully pave a way for himself and his artist girlfriend Detroit (Tessa Thompson) to have a more stable lifestyle. On his first day, he is encouraged by more seasoned co-worker Langston (Danny Glover) to use his “white voice” (David Cross) when making his sales calls as a way of making (predominantly white) customers feel more at ease and trusting. Although this tack leads him to success in his career, Cash also feels drawn to the ideals of Squeeze (Steven Yeun), a fellow RegalView employee who is actively working with his peers to form a union.  Cash finds himself torn between two worlds and various factions as his star continues to rise; promotion at work leads him to learn that upper tiers of RegalView’s services includes selling the human labor of WorryFree. He finds himself the subject of special interest of WorryFree CEO Steve Lift (Armie Hammer), who invites him to a bourgeois party where Cash’s “otherness” is put on full display as he is forced to, in the cultural theory lexicon of our times, “perform his blackness” for an audience of rapt white people. In a private meeting, Lift reveals his ultimate goals for WorryFree, much to Cash’s horror.

A very dear friend saw STBY about a week before I did and warned me off of it: “I hated it,” he said. A fellow writer and friend with whom I went to see the movie the following weekend walked out and immediately declared: “Well, that was a piece of shit” (she missed about 15 minutes of the film for personal reasons and re-evaluated that stance once we filled her in on what she missed, but her overall impression was still largely negative). I feel that my concerns with the negative elements of the film may give the impression that I feel the same way, but that’s not really true. This is a movie that is undoubtedly flawed and certainly has all the hallmarks of a first feature from a director who has too many ideas, even if all those ideas are interesting (or even brilliant) in isolation. Another friend advised that her co-worker broke down STBY thusly: Scott Pilgrim + Black Panther + Black Mirror + Office Space. At the time, a mere day or two after my screening, I responded that my breakdown was more 15% Get Out, 30% Naked Lunch, 10% Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 5% Rent (mostly that Detroit’s stunningly bad performance art piece is a lot like the horrible Maureen’s horrible “Moo With Me!” bullshit, presumably [hopefully] as a parody of the same), 10% Idiocracy, and 30% Being John Malkovich. After a couple of weeks to marinate on it, I’d probably change those percentages up a little bit and add that there’s also a few healthy pinches of that one episode of Degrassi TNG in which Liberty realizes that the only reason the Smithdale sorority wants her is to serve as their token black friend.

Make no mistake: this is a good film and a great work of art, even when the meaning of certain symbology is hard to parse. It’s worth noting that the negative reviews I got from friends were from white friends, which isn’t meant to impugn them, but demonstrates how a story about blackness, perceived whiteness, the navigation of predominately white economic spaces, code switching, and the magical realism of taking concepts like “talking white” and “workhorse” to a literal extreme can discomfit white audiences without them understanding why (bear in mind, I am a white person, so I’m trying to use my privilege to highlight this while staying in my lane, so please forgive me if there’s something I’ve overlooked).

This is good: making your audience aware of inequities and how they affect the psychology of every participant, those who are empowered and those who seek empowerment but can be corrupted by it, is important. And faulting a work of art for not providing a clear explanation of how to navigate this minefield is as foolish as expecting every disadvantaged or disenfranchised person to assume personal responsibility for your education about social issues and race relations. This film raises awareness without trying to make the audience feel better at the end by saying “oh, there is a path to a better world, just follow this light.” It just says “this is a bad time, guys” and means it, and leaves each member of the audience to sort out what that means individually. If there’s any truly glaring fault, it’s that the film occasionally makes the mistake that Crash (shudder) did, which was painting racism as solely an independent, personal flaw of character rather than as both an individual fault and as uncritical or insufficiently critical participation in hegemonic social constructs and systems of power that are the legacy of colonialism.

There’s a line in Sorry to Bother You that I really love, even if I can’t remember the exact wording and can only paraphrase: “When people don’t know how to fix a problem, they get used to it.” In a recent interview, writer/director Boots Riley noted that the undesirable—and yes, deplorable—elements of American society have made themselves more visible in the past few years, to the point that his original satirical screenplay, written in 2014, had to be rewritten to avoid being “too on the nose.” Notably, this meant the excision of the line “WorryFree is making America great again,” which was composed at least two years before that same rhetorical phraseology took on the connotation that it has now. (Another aside: Kim Stanley Robinson’s 1984 publication The Wild Shore is another dystopian novel concerning a post-disaster U.S., like Parable. In Wild Shore, we see that “Make America Great Again” was the rallying cry of another dangerous leader who draws people to his banner in the name of nationalistic pride. It’s quite good, although it also shares some of the first time novelist/director issues that STBY has, as it was originally written as Robinson’s MFA thesis.) These continue to be dark days, and though we may not know how to fix them, we must not get used to them. And if you like your social commentary candy-colored but lacking in neat, pat answers, go see Sorry to Bother You. Hell, go see it even if that’s not your bag; your comfort zone could become your noose if you don’t push your boundaries.

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond