Having just returned from a screening of the recent Oscars big winner Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, I wanted to get some thoughts down. I fully expect my opinion to change over the coming days, below is not a review/analysis, but my spoiler free 24 hour reaction.
The film follows Evelyn, a hard working Chinese immigrant who juggles family life with the running of her laundrette. Early on, the existence of seemingly infinite parallel universes, and a method for jumping between parallel versions of yourself is revealed. This isn't particularly a plot driven film, but more experiential cinema, and I found the overall experience a mixed bag of some impressive craft but often a lack of effect. Alot of the early section exploring the countless kaleidoscopic incarnations appears entirely random and out of control but, admirably, it still manages to build to emotional climaxes, even if they themselves have elements of randomness. In other words the randomness is always anchored in the character's experience which is crucial to achieving a payoff for the audience.
I was fully expecting a mind bender but I don't think that is really the point. It's more a crazy ride which takes you meandering all over the universe systems, but arrives at a worthwhile destination (which mostly makes the journey worthwhile)- Imagine a mental breakdown that halfway through morphs into an epiphany, which in this case revolves around the character's family, which gives the film some crucial relatabilty. The emergence of the multi verse and body swaps etc. all allow, indeed force, our main character to reevaluate the three most important relationships in her life.. her husband whom she pities, her daughter whom she resents, and her financual auditor whom she fears. All of the characters have an ark, as do the relationships between them all. I found it interesting that the flights of extremely imaginative, creative fantasy make the film seem colossal in scale, but in reality (pardon the pun) it is a personal story. This is quite an achievement and for me, the main triumph of the storytelling.
Almost the entire runtime is spent hopping from one universe to another - one incarnation of the character to another, which flows well most (but not all) of the time and can be fun but I found a lot of the film quite unsatisfying unfortunately. There are long sequences, in the first half especially, which feel like an unstructured list of ideas the screenwriters jotted down in a pre-production brainstorm meeting which were all thrown in for the hell of it. I did like how It gives itself alot of artistic freedom and allows some of the universes to be entirely berserk and illogical. There are some that were utterly charming; at one point, the mother and daughter inhabit a universe where life never flourished, so they become two rocks sat in an arid landscape, and silently share dialogue, a scene I really loved.
This is a film about ideas and themes that have been done before in films, and in truth, done better, (The Matrix and the great underrated Lynchian masterpiece Inland Empire, among others, were brought to mind) but it is presented like nothing else I have ever seen. What did it all mean? I'm not sure that is strictly a relevant question. It defies conventional categorization, and may structurally be nothing more than an evocation of the scientific concept and it's complexity which is framed within a family dynamic, there would be nothing wrong with that. It did cross my mind that the multiverse idea is perhaps a metaphor for the constant stress, expectations and shifting quality of life of fighting to survive in a strange land - the film would have played quite differently if the family were typical heterosexual, affluent, white Americans. I'm not above considering the possibility that I missed the point however, so maybe other interpretations will occur to me.
It is hard to predict whether this will have gained classic status in a decades time. It's originality, ambition and (let's be frank) awards domination all stand it in good stead but equally, some sequences may not age so well and ultimately I think there may not be enough meat on the bone to keep it from slipping away into the 'once the big thing' category. I still find it a slightly odd choice for the biggest prize in cinema awards season, the Best Picture Oscar. The award winning performances are all very good (Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan, Stephanie Hsu and Jamie Lee Curtis all show high quality, differing acting approaches) and I wouldn't have been atall surprised if it took home the statues enscribed Cinematography, Editing, Costume design, Sound Design and Screenplay, and probably Director, but interestingly I don't think it fits in with the usual Best Picture Oscar bait. That may be a good thing, signifying a shift in the antiquated values of the Academy, but overall I was just slightly underwhelmed by EEAAO.
I think it will prove to be a classic re-watch film. I myself will wait a few months to do it again and undoubtedly pick up countless details and make more connections that I have missed, and it's these aspects that can often make a film great after a second viewing. As I have said too many times, if a film sticks in your head and makes you think, then it was atleast worth while. And if it does so for the right reasons, it has done a good job.
Comments