Movies Watched, October 2017

Movies Watched, October 2017

The only movie I saw in theaters in October was Denis Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049.” Apparently, a lot of people did not like this weirdly brainy blockbuster, as its poor performance at the box office may result in as much as an US$80 million loss to producers. Ouch.

“2049” is certainly not without its problems, I’ll admit. And yet I still found it almost entirely satisfying, a worthy sequel to Ridley Scott’s original which of course was also a tepidly received financial disaster. That one just happened to go on to become one of the most beloved and influential science fiction films of all time. In fact, I re-watched the so-called “Final Cut” of the 1982 original in preparation for the sequel and was astounded by how much more I liked it than the last time I watched it—I’ve probably seen it five times by now. And, if I’m honest, I enjoyed it substantially more than the very first time I saw “Blade Runner” in the 1980s, on home video. It has never been hard to appreciate the beauty of the original but the totality of Scott’s aesthetic vision, while undeniably impressive, was so well executed that it invited suspicion. A film that gorgeous couldn’t also be good, could it? Turns out, the answer is yes.

Villeneuve’s sequel is also an almost indescribably gorgeous piece of filmmaking, thanks in no small part to the contributions of its cinematographer, living legend Roger Deakins. (It should be noted that Deakins is one of the very best visual artists working today, in any medium.) Beyond that though, I was as impressed as ever with Villeneuve’s idiosyncratic staging and pacing, and the unique way he is able to coax candidly off-kilter performances from his cast. He could make a short film about something as mundane as a mailman on his daily route and it would be something nobody has ever seen before, if not an artistic revelation. There is so much good stuff in “Blade Runner 2049” that I can’t imagine it hasn’t been doomed to the same fate as the original: initial failure followed later by widespread acclaim. Then again predicting the future is a great way to be wrong, which is how most sci-fi films end up.

I also saw a twelve other movies in October. Here they are:

If you’re interested, here is what I watched in September, in August, in July, in June, in May, in April, in March, in February and in January, as well as my full list of everything I watched in 2016. You can also follow along with my film diary over at letterboxd.com.

+

Share

On Adobe, Diversity, Design and More

Creativity’s Diversity Dilemma

When people ask me why I joined Adobe, my answer is simple: there are things that I get to work on here that I would never get to work on elsewhere. Here’s one of them: Adobe is putting a major new emphasis on positively impacting diversity and inclusion in the creative industry, starting with a significant report that we released just last week. I’m very proud of having worked on this effort from its inception earlier this year. You can read the report below and learn more at this site, and also read an article about it over at AdWeek.

Why are we doing this? Adobe is a tech company but we are in the creativity business, and that means we take as our primary concerns certain things that other companies can’t afford to foreground. There are many businesses for whom creativity in its many forms is important, maybe even critical, but Adobe is the only multibillion dollar company out there who is expressly interested in the core problems that creative professionals like me—designers, illustrators, photographers, filmmakers, artists of all kinds—encounter every day in making our work.

More than just our historical focus on tools though, we think a lot about what makes creative professionals successful. Our company’s unique dichotomy of tech and creativity gives us a different perspective on the issue of who gets to do creative work professionally. To be sure, there are many companies undertaking meaningful initiatives to create more diverse and inclusive workforces, but these efforts almost always tend to be seen through a tech lens.

While there is of course a significant overlap between tech and design, not all designers or design teams can be said to be part of the tech industry. This is even more true for illustrators, photographers, filmmakers and artists. You don’t have to Google very extensively to find research and discussion on diversity in tech (which is a good thing), but there’s not much out there that looks penetratingly at diversity and inclusion in creative fields.

Creative orgs have unique challenges when it comes to diversity. It’s not always the same as tech.Twitter

Adobe is aiming to change that. Creative organizations have unique challenges when it comes to these issues, and as an industry it’s important that we understand the nature of these challenges as part of our own experience, something that we ourselves can impact, and not as something that gets rolled up alongside other disciplines like engineering, product management, sales, etc.

Maybe one of the biggest misconceptions about how the creative industry works is that, because our crafts are in many ways premised on unconventional thinking, we are already a diverse industry. In tech companies, the design team is often the most diverse group in the org. Our study does in fact show that a vast majority of us believe in the benefits of diversity and inclusion, believe that it makes our work and our industry better. I’ve been in this field for a long time and I’d wager that almost everyone I’ve ever met professionally would agree with this. That’s the good news.

On the other hand, over the course of my career I’ve worked with only a small handful of creative directors who were women, and with vanishingly few designers of any level who were of African American, Hispanic, or Native American backgrounds. In my experience at design conferences and events all over the world, the audiences are overwhelmingly white and the speaker roll calls only marginally less so.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that design is already a diverse industry.Twitter

These experiences are reflected in the report that we did. It’s based on a survey of a sample group of seven hundred and fifty creative pros as well as a series of qualitative, in-depth interviews with people like Ian Spalter, head of design at Instagram, Gina Grillo, CEO of the Ad Club, and Jacinda Walker, chair of AIGA’s diversity task force.

What you’ll see is that there are stark numbers among women who feel that the leadership in their design organizations are diverse, and who feel that their gender will hamper their career growth. Creative professionals of color are significantly less likely than their white peers to feel that their contributions are valued, and many fewer minorities than whites graduate from university programs in creative fields. Maybe most tellingly, only half of those surveyed, regardless of gender or ethnicity believe that the industry as a whole has made sufficient progress in becoming more diverse and inclusive over the past half decade.

For my part, this has been a passion project on which I’ve been very fortunate to be able to spend a significant portion of my past nine months at Adobe. Like many of us in the design field, I have in the past been guilty of underestimating our industry’s diversity and inclusion challenges. When I was starting out in design, to some extent this issue felt like it was a solved problem, or one that was just on the edge of resolving itself.

We’ve fought for a seat at the table for ANY designer—without thinking about who gets a chance at that seat.Twitter

As an industry, we’ve spent most of the past two decades arguing for a seat at the table for any designer, without thinking deeply enough about who among us, gender- and ethnicity-wise, gets a chance at that seat. And of course my personal experience is made more complicated by the fact that I’m an immigrant and an Asian American—in the broader sense of American culture I’m a minority but within the design industry there are any number of Asian Americans on teams everywhere. Diversity is a richly complex subject and there are no easy answers.

That’s why I feel so fortunate to be a part of this team at Adobe who are similarly motivated to move the needle on this issue, regardless of its scale and complexity. This report is just the first step—a baby step. Its intent is to raise the volume on this conversation, to put some facts and figures and quotes out there on the specific intersection of professional creativity and diversity and inclusion. Going into 2018, you’ll see Adobe build on this further with commitments both internally, within our company and products, and externally, to the design and creativity communities at large—we’ll be both recalibrating current initiatives for even more emphasis on these issues as well as rolling out new ones. We hope to do some good, and that’s why I work here.

+

Share

You’ll Probably Never Read the iPhone X Review That Would Be Most Useful to You

iPhone X

Apple’s new iPhone X was released just this past Friday and you can read any number of reviews of it right now—my favorite are from The Verge, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Six Colors. I was lucky enough to get an iPhone X too and you can read some of my thoughts on the device a little further down.

However I’ve come to believe that there’s at least one thing wrong with this whole notion of product reviews—and with smartphone reviews in particular—and that’s that by and large they’re only ever interested in these phones when they’re brand new.

When an iPhone debuts it’s literally at the very peak of its powers. All the software that it runs has been optimized for that particular model, and as a result everything seems to run incredibly smoothly.

As time goes on though, as newer versions of the operating system roll out, as there are more and more demands put on the phone, it inevitably gets slower and less performant. A case in point: I’m upgrading to this iPhone X from a three-year old iPhone 6 Plus and for at least the last year, and especially over the last three months, it has struggled mightily to perform simple tasks like launching the camera, fetching email, even basic typing. People who have recently had the misfortune of having to use my phone tell me almost instantly, “Your phone sucks.”

You could argue that three years is an unrealistically long time to expect a smartphone to be able to keep up with the rapidly changing—and almost exponentially increasing—demands that we as users put on these devices. Personally, I would argue the opposite, that these things should be built to last at least three years, if for no other reason than as a society we shouldn’t be throwing these devices away so quickly.

But even if you disagree with me, even if you’re the kind of person who upgrades to a new phone every year, I think you’d still agree that it would be useful to know how well these devices hold up after one or even two years.

Now, I know it sounds kind of counter-intuitive to read a review of a product a year or more after everyone who would consider buying it has already bought it. But imagine if the sites and publications that review these products did make it a habit to revisit them down the road. Imagine if twelve months from now you could read about how well today’s iPhone X holds up with iOS 12, and also with whatever slate of third-party apps that can reasonably be understood as essential—the 2018 versions of Instagram, Spotify, Twitter or whatever. Imagine that at regular intervals we could see benchmarks on a freshly restored iPhone X running the latest software and getting a quantified and qualified idea of how well that piece of hardware has aged over time.

If reviewers revisited these products in this way, it would give us a whole new dimension of understanding. It would tell us how well-designed these phones really are, whether the manufacturers really understand how technology—and the world—changes within a two or three year time frame. And it would help us judge for ourselves how much effort the companies are investing into ensuring the quality of their products over the lifetime in which they’re used. Basically, it would give us, as customers, a richer track record for these companies, so that we can hold them accountable in a way that tends to go unnoticed today. These devices are maybe the most important pieces of technology that we own and every time we’re enticed to buy new ones we are promised world-changing features and performance. It strikes me that it’s reasonable to examine how well those claims hold up over time.

All that said, here are my thoughts on this new iPhone.

  • It’s a triumph, and I don’t think that I’m saying that just because the three-year old state of my iPhone 6 Plus has been so painful to bear lately. Overall, the iPhone X feels better conceived, designed, and executed than any previous model since the iPhone 5.
  • The standout feature is of course Face ID which I’ve found to be very slick and very well done. Unlike some other Apple innovations Touch ID, which had its problems early on, and Siri, which continues to be problematic, Face ID feels mature and fully baked. It’s not one of those new technologies that mostly works but sometimes struggles; it works virtually all the time, and it’s super fast (though check back in a year or two). On the rare occasions Face ID doesn’t work, it’s understandable, e.g., it doesn’t seem to recognize me when I’m in bed, with all the other lights out and with my glasses off. Anyway, I’m very, very impressed with Face ID.
  • Being able to set up the iPhone X by merely placing it near my old phone was pretty cool. I’d done it before with my Android devices, but I really appreciated the way Apple uses this to help me set up my Apple ID on my new device.
  • However, I did hit a roadbump in replacing my previous device with this new one: my iPhone 6 Plus was already updated to a iOS 11.0.3, so the backup was too new for the iPhone X, which was only on iOS 11.0.1. That resulted in a misleadingly alarming error message that suggested my backup might be corrupt. To get around this, I had to set up the X as a new device then upgrade to iOS 11.1. Not too difficult but time consuming and higher friction than I think Apple should be okay with. After consulting Twitter, I found that lots of people had that same problem.
  • Apple’s design team did a very nice job making tweaks to the UI to make iOS 11 more consonant with the unique details of the X’s hardware. One example is that on the iPhone X, iOS 11’s “cards” are rounder to be more harmonious with the rounded corners of the X’s screen. Lots of nice touches like this throughout.
  • I think I miss the Home button a little, but I do like the new Home affordance which shows up at the bottom of the screen as a little bar to encourage you to pull on it. However, it tends to look like a progress bar that’s just not showing any progress. I think this needs to be redesigned.
  • The notch is a nuisance for sure. It’s not elegant. It also forces some downstream usability problems. An example: when I connect to my office’s VPN, the indicator that I’m on the VPN is hidden in the top right area “behind” the wireless, Wi-Fi and battery indicators. After using the VPN for a while, I forgot that I was still connected because the indicator was not visible. That’s not good.
  • The physical size of this model is a major improvement over the Plus size of Apple’s previous models. I had really come to dislike how large and unwieldy my iPhone 6 Plus was, and I’m incredibly happy that this new model gives me basically the same screen real estate in a much more easily held physical frame.
+

Share

How to Demo Software for 11,000 People

Mainstage at Adobe MAX 2017, Las Vegas

I’ve done a reasonable amount of public speaking in my career but until this year’s Adobe MAX conference, where I appeared onstage during the keynote to present the official release of Adobe XD 1.0, I had never given a public software demo before. It’s true that a demo is not entirely dissimilar from giving a talk or lecture—many of the same presentation skills apply to both—but I discovered that in many ways demos are an entirely different kind of beast. So I thought I would write up some of my personal observations on the whole experience for those who are curious or who might one day have an opportunity to do something similar.

Like many folks working in tech I’ve demoed software countless times in the past but almost always in private settings—for colleagues, customers, investors, or to small groups of users. What makes an occasion like the Adobe MAX keynote unlike those prior experiences is its scale. There were 11,000 attendees in the Las Vegas auditorium where it was held, plus an overflow room and untold more viewers of the live stream.

A live audience of that size demands that even a short, ten-minute demo like the one I gave needs to become something that barely resembles the “real life” version of itself that it’s meant to represent. Most people use software alone in an almost improvised manner—whatever it takes to get the job done—and almost never talk about their actions aloud. A keynote demo upends that solitary activity and transforms it into a public performance that’s heavily rehearsed and narrated live, in real time.

“A keynote demo turns a solitary activity into a public performance.”Twitter

In fact the central thing I learned about these kinds of demos is that they require exhaustive practice. In the two months leading up to the MAX conference, I flew out to San Francisco every single week, leaving New York on Monday and returning on Thursday or Friday, all to rehearse my ten minute demo again and again and again. In San Francisco, I’d spend nearly all day, every day practicing with the keynote’s production team and with the other keynote presenters. When I wasn’t officially in rehearsals, I was often running through my part on my own, usually in my hotel room but occasionally muttering it aloud walking around the Adobe offices. It was an all-consuming process.

You might be thinking to yourself, “That’s excessive,” which is an understandable reaction. But what I also learned is how absolutely necessary all that time was in developing the story of what I was going to be demoing. Even though there was relatively little debate about the aspects of Adobe XD that I would be presenting onstage, the actual narrative of those features really had to be developed through iterative, organic evolution. The version of the demo that I first began rehearsing back in late August was very different from the version that ended up onstage in mid-October, and it changed countless times in between.

Each of those many run-throughs was more than just a matter of learning or memorizing the content. The real value in doing it over and over, a dozen or two times a day, is that it allows you to make an endless number of incremental tweaks along the way—adding or subtracting a word or phrase here or there, trying out different sequences and emphases, learning how to communicate the message a tiny bit more clearly or succinctly.

There’s also the added complexity of the assets, or the sample design file, that forms the heart of the demo. Having a great looking project with which to show off an app’s capabilities makes all the difference. For various reasons, the sample file we started with had to be discarded, and so I spent a lot of time with one of our designers creating something entirely new, from scratch. He’s based in Germany which is five hours ahead of New York and eight hours ahead of San Francisco, which of course exacerbated the interminable jet lag that I was aready experiencing from all my back-and-forth travel. It was a very strange period of my life.

“Having a great looking project to demo makes all the difference.”Twitter

Choreography too is a part of this preparation. Not as in footwork (though I did have to practice the actual route I took as I walked up to the podium) but rather the choreography of what happens on screen. It was much trickier than I had anticipated to synchronize the words that I spoke with the motions of the cursor so that neither came too early nor too late. It got to the point where, by the end of the process, I was moving my mouse and clicking on buttons almost precisely along the same path and with the nearly exactly the same timing on each run through.

All that said, a lot of all that preparatory time was frankly devoted to just getting me used to the concept of demoing. How one figures out the tricky balance between telling the audience and showing the audience is kind of a personal journey. Demoing is neither clearly the former nor the latter, and getting comfortable with that ambiguity just takes time, practice and some measure of self reflection, too. You need to get right with whatever personal ambitions you have for how you want to come across on stage, and to reconcile that with whatever the goals of the demo are and with the feedback that comes from the rehearsal process. It was only through lots of trial and error and many periods of wondering whether I was even tempermentally suited for it at all that I was finally able to figure out “how to demo.” I’m sure there are people for whom this comes naturally but for me, I had to learn it the hard way.

“Don’t disregard the outside possibility of totally random chaos too.”Twitter

Finally, don’t disregard the outside possibility of totally random chaos, too. You can prepare all you want, but there’s always the chance that something completely unexpected could entirely derail the actual demo once you go on stage. And, of course, that happened to me.

After all that rehearsal and practice, after internalizing every movement and detail of the setup of my screen, I walked on stage ready to do my thing and what happens? My trackpad died. It just wouldn’t work, stopping my demo cold in its tracks while a member of the stage crew had to rush another one out for me. You can see it in the video I posted above—not more than a minute into it, everything breaks down. People tell me that I managed to hold it together, but sometimes panic manages to disguise itself as composure.

It’s worth repeating that the inherent tension of a keynote demo is that it takes something you normally do alone—use software—and turns it into a highly public performance. You’re looking down at your keyboard and device most of the time but you’re also trying to augment every click and every word you utter to draw the live audience into it.

And even though every mouse movement is projected at huge scale for the audience to see, you still need to use carefully chosen commentary, expressive body language and judicious pacing to form a narrative, to give it all shape and purpose. The whole thing is both highly staged and strangely improvisational; it’s exacting and methodical yet it’s meant to come across as breezy and casual. It’s a monologue in that only the presenter is talking during those ten minutes, but it’s also a conversation with the audience in that anyone watching is going to be silently asking questions that should be answered in short order by what’s demonstrated on stage. It’s one of the weirdest things I’ve ever been through but it was also a lot of fun.

+

Share

Never Use Futura

“Never Use Futura” by Douglas Thomas

Helvetica, much as I adore it, has had more than its fair share of attention. That’s why I’m so happy to see this new book by designer, writer, and historian Douglas Thomas all about the typeface Futura which, it’s worth noting, predated Helvetica by three full decades—and it looks as beautiful and timely as ever.

Sporting the playfully provocative title “Never Use Futura,” Thomas’s book is a cultural biography of a typeface, starting with how Futura began life as a byproduct of Bauhaus ideals, tracing its evolution over many years and countless uses into a nearly invisible “go-to choice for corporate work, logos, motion pictures, and advertisements,” and touching on the current vogue of newer, Futura-derived geometric typefaces. You might expect this book, like most books about design, to be largely illustrative and light on the prose, but a look at the handsomely designed pages promises worthwhile reading.

Spread from “Never Use Futura”
Spread from “Never Use Futura”
Spread from “Never Use Futura”
Spread from “Never Use Futura”
Spread from “Never Use Futura”

Learn more about the book at neverusefutura.com or order it today from amazon.com.

+

Share

Me at Adobe MAX 2017

Adobe MAX 2017

Before I started working for Adobe, I never understood the scale of the company’s annual Adobe MAX user conference. This year’s installment, starting tomorrow and running through Friday in Las Vegas, will welcome 12,000 attendees, up twenty percent over last year—that’s a huge chunk of the creative community. Tomorrow morning I’ll be part of the day one keynote address, where we’ll be talking about lots of new stuff we’ve been working on—including new tools and features for designers. You can stream it live at max.adobe.com.

+

Share

Disaster Is Relentless

I’m in San Francisco this week where you can actually smell the ash in the air from the wildfires in the north. The damage looks horrifying, and The San Francisco Chronicle captured that feeling perfectly on the front page of yesterday’s edition.

San Francisco Chronicle Page One

I’m not sure I’ve seen edge-to-edge printing on a newspaper’s front page before but the effect is stunning here—and sadly appropriate. The borderless presentation underscores the totality of the fires’ destruction, how the damage stretches as far as the eye can see. My heart goes out to the victims.

+

Share

Obit. Brings Death to Life

Still from “Obit” directed by Vanessa Gould

This movie still from Vanessa Gould’s masterful documentary “Obit.” is a snapshot of one of the most exquisitely crafted talking-head film compositions I can remember seeing. First, it gives full, unfussy attention to New York Times obituary writer Margalit Fox, allowing the full range of her mesmerizing articulation of the nuances of the obit trade to flourish on the screen. But she’s placed off-center in an extremely clever way; we get the context of the Times newsroom behind her, or at least a charming corner of it with shelves teeming with books and covered with sticky notes, and even a manual typewriter just behind her (not just anachronistic set dressing; the typewriter actually serves a narrative purpose elsewhere in the film). The space that the frame leaves to Fox’s right allows her arm and hand to gesture about balletically as she underscores her words. And, to her far right, the camera just manages to fit in her nameplate mounted on the edge of her cubicle (in the actual film you see the full nameplate, but in this capture I found online it’s cropped slightly for some reason). So much information and expressiveness conveyed in one deceptively simple shot.

There’s much more to like in “Obit.” too. The film is a wonderful examination of the counter-intuitively life-affirming profession of obituary writer. It follows the atypically large staff of these specialized journalists at The New York Times as they scramble to write respectfully cogent and compelling stories about the lives of people who have just passed away. Like its subject matter, director Vanessa Gould has produced a careful, thoughtful film full of unexpected joy. It also continues the surprisingly strong batting average of that cinematic sub-genre known as “the newspaper movie.” “Obit.” holds its own next to more dramatic or hallowed fare like “Spotlight,” “All the President’s Men” and “His Girl Friday” by diving deep into the process of reporting. The results are fascinating not just from the perspective of understanding the process of how obituaries are created, but also understanding how we think about and memorialize notable lives.

Also worth mentioning: “Obit.” sports a gloriously tasteful poster. This thing is gorgeous.

Poster for “Obit.”

“Obit.” is available for streaming now. Learn more at obitdoc.com.

+

Share

Papyrus and How Fonts Get Famous

This sketch from Saturday Night Live making fun of the use of the font Papyrus in the logo for James Cameron’s fantastically boring “Avatar” has already made the rounds. It’s hilarious.

It made me think though: with the possible exception of Helvetica, the only time popular culture acknowledges typography is when something has gone wrong—really wrong. Think of Comic Sans, which has earned a wide reputation for being a severely overused, terrible choice. Or Calibri which figured centrally into a major corruption story in Pakistan earlier this year (that scandal even became known as “fontgate”). Papyrus now joins those ranks as being remarkable for being notorious.

It says something about our craft when the only time the uninitiated have an opinion about it is when it’s gone off the rails somehow. This is not to say we shouldn’t have a sense of humor about what we do. We should—this SNL short had me in stitches. At the same time though, it would be nice to be recognized for the good we do, too. Design needs to do a better of job of explaining the value that we contribute to society, otherwise it’s just going to mean more ridicule.

+

Share

Movies Watched, September 2017

Logan Lucky

Thanks in part to a ridiculous amount of recent business travel I managed to watch seventeen movies in September, though I only got out to the theaters to see one of them, the sublime “Logan Lucky.” Actually, to be more accurate, I watched it in one of the 330 drive-in theaters that still exist in America. That number is down from 4,000 or so when the phenomenon of watching a movie outdoors from the comfort of your own car was at its peak. And visiting the Hyde Park Drive-in Theater in upstate New York almost felt like a time warp back to that era. The concessions stand, a wide, low-profile concrete structure towards the back of the lot, clearly looked like a remnant of post-War architecture’s least exuberant building trends. But everything looked over a half-century old, too: weathered and repainted over dozens of times, as if maintained by ghosts on a budget.

Movies Watched, September 2017

It wasn’t exactly what you’d call a cinephile’s experience, either—the sound was tinny over the FM frequency that you tune your car radio to, and the picture wasn’t particularly crisply projected onto the patchy, billboard-sized screen. But I’ve never been to a drive-in theater before, and I could see the appeal, even in this age when 4K screens and Dolby Atmos audio can be had at home. One, you’re watching a huge movie screen out under the stars; we went on a particularly perfect late summer evening, when the air had a cool snap to it without being cold. And two, you’re not at home, you’re out in the world, with other people. That’s a good thing.

As for “Logan Lucky,” it was kind of implausible and silly but it was good solid fun. Maybe more importantly it brings the talents of Steven Soderbergh back to the big screen; even his most trifling cinematic dalliances are fascinating works. I liked it a lot and can’t wait to watch it again.

Here’s September’s full list of the movies I watched.

  • Logan Lucky
  • Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” Demonstrates that the logical outcome of fan service is a descent into bureaucracy.
  • Colossal” A blithely ridiculous premise that almost works.
  • Silence” Grueling but, as with everything Scorsese does, still worthwhile.
  • Kill Bill: Vol. 1” Still amazing. Not as rich as volume 2, but stunning in its own vibrancy.
  • Hot Fuzz” Okay I get it now. I didn’t before, but I see the appeal.
  • She’s Gotta Have It” A document of pure directorial ambition.
  • Tango & Cash” They really made this movie.
  • Raging Bull” Unbelievably beautiful.
  • Smithereens” A fantasy of rotten New York.
  • Kill Bill: Vol. 2” A masterpiece.
  • Free Fire” Not a masterpiece.
  • Moana” Hey, this movie is really, really good, people.
  • A Face in the Crowd” An amazing, sadly prescient story of a megalomaniacal TV personality who comes to abuse his outsized influence on the American public.
  • Star Wars” Fun.
  • American Graffiti” Actually, this would’ve been the perfect movie to see at a drive-in.
  • Chi-Raq” There’s not a frame that here that’s anything less than riveting—it’s hearbreaking, shocking, hilarious, and ridiculous all at once.

If you’re interested, here is what I watched in in August, in July, in June, in May, in April, in March, in February and in January, as well as my full list of everything I watched in 2016. You can also follow along with my film diary over at letterboxd.com.

+

Share