Skip to main content

Look Both Ways Draws Languid Parallels


There is obviously no shortage of Netflix original movies that I will just skip. I mean Netflix’s algorithm is terrible about promoting them, but they’re also just so rarely worth the time given how little engagement they get, and even less critical appraisal. They are what gives Netflix its’ reputation as a lukewarm content machine. For every Roma, Okja, The Other Side of the Wind, Marriage Story, Uncut Gems, The Irishman, Da 5 Bloods or The Power of the Dog, there are a dozen or so middling projects that do little more than keep the lights on. A lot of these seem to be cheap coming-of-age dramedies, and while there can be a few unexpected gems there like The Half of It or All Together Now, it’s not near enough to garner any sort of confidence (I have not and probably will not see a single Kissing Booth movie).
So why am I reviewing Look Both Ways, a recent Netflix teen movie starring Lili Reinhart that dropped this weekend to a customary lack of buzz? Well, because it happens to be the U.S.-directing debut of Wanuri Kahiu, the innovative Kenyan director behind the wonderful and gorgeous queer drama Rafiki from a few years ago. She’s been on the verge of breaking out in the American industry for a while now (she’s got several projects in development), so I felt this was significant enough then to give it a chance. Turns out it’s not.
That’s not to say the movie is particularly bad, but it’s not particularly good either. It has measured ambitions and it mostly hits them, but it is completely unremarkable -which does kind of suck given what I’d hoped for from its’ director and even its’ provocative premise. If nothing else it fits right in in 2022 as it is technically another multiverse movie.
The movie is about an ambitious impending college grad Natalie (Reinhart), who in the wake of finals week has sex with her until then platonic friend Gabe (Danny Ramirez). A couple weeks later at a sorority party she takes a pregnancy test and the story splits into parallel realities based on the result. Testing negative, she follows her dreams out to L.A. to work in the animation industry. Testing positive, she decides to have the baby and stay in Austin with Gabe and her parents. The movie explores the highs and lows of each of these life paths over the course of several years and how Natalie is changed by them.
On paper this has the potential to be a captivating character study, a meditation on how mere chance can have large, lasting consequences. Like the Gwyneth Paltrow movie Sliding Doors, or perhaps more popularly the “Remedial Chaos Theory” episode of Community. And I really like movies that apply a magical or speculative spin to simple romantic-comedy or drama narratives, making them in the process more profound -I loved About Time for that. But there are issues with the way this movie goes about its’ conceit, starting with centring the root of these divergent paths on a potential pregnancy. It’s a very rote notion to start, I can imagine the writer just hearing one of the dozens of variations on the “having a child will change your life” mantra and extrapolating a very literal premise out of it. Secondly, the movie seems to bend over backwards to make the result of the test more definitive than it is. The things she feels compelled to give up learning of her pregnancy are somewhat arbitrary -at least it comes off that way. The dissonance doesn’t need to be so drastic. There is also the fact of course that going through with the pregnancy is a choice in and of itself. Abortion is brought up and she decides against it, but given the inconvenience, her unpreparedness, and how much of her aspirations she stands to lose, the unanswered question of why she doesn’t choose to terminate the pregnancy becomes a more glaring omission. Especially because for as much as having a baby is the key point of difference in the parallel lives, the child ultimately doesn’t feel all that crucial. The storyline following Natalie the mother is as much occupied with her relationship with Gabe and her career prospects as it is with little Rosie (her dual romances are the schmaltzy driving force of both her lives). Obviously her life doesn’t need to revolve around the kid, but there are significant scenes in this reality where Rosie is applied as a plot device -a mere embodiment of Natalie’s sacrifices bordering on a burden.
Initially the life where she has the baby is fairly bleak, Natalie sadly watching as her best friend goes off to California, she forced to stay at home -a dim overcast texturing everything. Where the world is fresh with opportunity in the other timeline, the one where she has the baby is plagued by struggle, anxiety, and mediocrity. She settles and the picture is dry. Alternatively, her animation career is soon beset by roadblocks and a not terribly considerate boss played by Nia Long. But she has the emotional support of best friend Cara (Aisha Dee) and her boyfriend Jake (David Corenswet), who is a more charismatic match than Gabe. In fact, the source of any strife in this reality is career prospects that don’t live up to her ideal. Both trajectories are inherently shallow, just for different reasons. Baby-life never sells Natalie’s love for Rosie as something that makes the banality worthwhile (you’re just supposed to assume it does) while California-life comes with a couple rude awakenings but is dependent on sympathy with her unreasonable expectations. Either way it’s not a terribly original or engaging narrative.
Although with some script polishing they could be. The dominant idea is still interesting, and the movie often comes close to taking advantage of it’s premise in exciting or emotionally resonant ways. But it comes short of ever achieving the profundities it evokes, which is a real shame. The way it implies a kind of inevitable circular fate for both Natalies is curious in a depressing sort of way –but the movie just shrugs that matter off as it resolves each story with fitting triteness. April Prosser’s screenplay is also often a mess of cliché character development, uninspired dialogue, and dull structure. There is no organic way the film transitions between its’ two realities, rarely is there connective or thematic tissue between what’s happening to one Natalie and the other. And I’m disappointed Kahiu didn’t find some creative modes of contrast: lighting cues, match cuts, anything to make it more visually interesting. The only touch of style is a sketch motif that pops up just a couple times (and so spread out that you forget about it), and is itself by now also a cliché of teen-oriented media. The best thing I can say for the cast is that they are making a worthy attempt, Reinhart especially, who is a credited executive producer. Her parents are played by Andrea Savage and Luke Wilson, and sadly you can tell that a movie’s not worth much these days if its’ got Luke Wilson in it.
Wanuri Kahiu is a director-for-hire on this film and doesn’t seem terribly engaged with the material. It’s a shame she doesn’t manage to elevate it and her work simply fades into the background as though it were a Marvel movie. Particularly after the lush vibrancy of Rafiki, it’s disappointing to see her name attached to something so visually tepid. Occasionally the movie shows its’ ponderous side and in those moments a fuller sense is hinted at of what Look Both Ways could have been capable of. Like Natalie it has a vision; and like Natalie it isn’t prepared to make anything of it.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more