DownStream – Global Survival

The deadline for submissions for the Oscar for International Feature was a month ago. Various outlets and sources have been compiling the list since the first entries were announced back in August, and the official release of eligible candidates from the Academy is due out quite soon, followed by the shortlist of 15 semifinalists in three weeks. As of right now, it appears that there have been 92 countries and territories that put a film forward, of which 89 were accepted. Hong Kong, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan appear to have been disqualified for one reason or another, but I’ll wait for official word on their inclusion, or lack thereof.

I’ve been on the hunt for some time, both in hopes of seeing everything possible and of clearing the category well in advance of nominations in January. Thanks to film festivals and some special screenings I’ve been able to attend, I have seen 27 of the contenders as of this writing, with more to come. Some are getting domestic theatrical releases, and I’ve been reviewing those as they’ve come out. Others have no release on the schedule, and I have to figure out how I’m going to cover those, as I’ve already done mini-reviews for my friends at “No Rest for the Weekend” and I don’t want to just repeat myself, so stay tuned on that front.

The third way to see a selection of hopefuls is via streaming services. I honestly wish more foreign films would do this, and that the Academy would facilitate it in some way once they’ve accepted the entry. It’s increasingly frustrating, because there are completists like myself out there who would watch all 92 submissions if given the chance, and as I’ve said many a time, this is one of the few categories that doesn’t require a stateside release in order to qualify. Strictly speaking, while festivals and releases certainly help an international candidate gain recognition and buzz, as long as it got released in its home country, there is no obligation on the film’s part, or the country’s, that anyone in America get to see it.

So in the interest of saving time, because I’ll be playing catch-up for pretty much all of December and January, I’m going to offer three condensed reviews in this space for those few that have ended up on an American streaming service (other films, like Hungary’s Four Souls of Coyote, are available on Netflix in every territory BUT the U.S., which is infuriating). I pretty much don’t break out the “DownStream” header these days now that the theatrical model has fully returned, but as we get deeper into Awards Season, it does become something of a necessity.

All three of the films I’m discussing here have a natural recurring theme, that of survival. It always helps if there’s a way to tie everything together. For one film, it’s the real horrors of an ongoing situation where lives are lost daily. Another takes an almost spiritual look back at a past tragedy that made headlines, and has been given the Hollywood treatment. The other is fantastical science fiction, but plays upon familiar themes of its genre to tell an intriguing story.

The Wandering Earth II – China – Amazon Prime

You’d figure given the size of the country and its rich cinema history that China would be a regular contender in this category, but you’d be mistaken. The country has never won the award, and they’ve only been nominated twice (1990’s Ju Dou and 2002’s Hero). Part of this is because Academy voters are not eager to do anything that might be seen as endorsing China’s horrible human rights record. The other major factor is that Hong Kong and Taiwan, as independent bodies for this purpose, submit their own films, which the Academy does often celebrate.

Still, China is basically the #2 market for cinema in the world, and American studios have bent over backwards for the last two decades to appease government censors in order to get their films released there and rake in that massive secondary box office. So it’s only fitting that the entity responsible for all that profit would submit one of their highest-grossing films of the year, itself a continuation of one of their highest-grossing of all time.

Four years ago, The Wandering Earth, a science fiction disaster film, became the fifth-largest moneymaker in Chinese history, naturally spawning a follow-up, which has brought in over $600 million worldwide, currently placing it in the top 10 globally for 2023. Despite the ordinal title, this is actually a prequel to the first film, one which helps to inform one of the original’s main characters while also setting up a potentially climactic sequel set for 2027.

Director Frant Gwo takes a lot of cues from the likes of Roland Emmerich when it comes to massive sci-fi destruction, and if you’re into that sort of thing, you’ll love this. But even for folks like me who aren’t really into the style (apart from Independence Day, of course), this film still has something to offer in its overall hopeful message and the dangers of populism and artificial intelligence.

For those unfamiliar with the story (the original film is available on Netflix if you want to see it before flipping over to Prime for the current one), the premise is that about 20 years from now, our Sun becomes unstable, beginning an incredibly premature expansion of heat and mass that will swallow the Earth within a century, thus wiping out the human race. In light of the threat, the various governments and leaders of the planet put aside their political differences and form the U.E.G. (United Earth Government), operating mostly out of the United Nations building in New York, but with satellite offices on every continent. Over the course of several decades, the U.E.G. undertakes a massive infrastructure endeavor eventually called the “Wandering Earth Project,” where 10,000 engines are built on the surface to literally push Earth out of its orbit and eventually out of the solar system, transporting the entire planet to the Alpha Centauri system and resettling there to restart surface living some 2,500 years in the future. The crux of both films is the human element where people from every walk of life are willing to come together to do what’s right, knowing they’ll never see the end result, but at least give humanity hope 100 generations down the road.

The original film deals with the first major obstacle during the journey, a slingshot maneuver around Jupiter. This prequel focuses on the task of getting the project off the ground, or rather, off the vacuum. In light of the news of the Sun’s expansion and tests of the Earth Engines, there are various factions who embrace violence for the sake of an alternative where humans have their consciousness uploaded to computers and to have those sent to space or a new hospitable planet, where accompanying DNA samples could be used to restart the species with our collective minds eventually inhabiting new bodies. This philosophy, dubbed the “Digital Life Project,” is initially endorsed by Dr. Tu Hengyu (Andy Lau), who was able to upload part of his daughter’s mind after she and his wife were killed in a car accident. However, after years of attempting to give Yaya (Wang Ruoxi) a “full life,” he can still only interact with her for the same two minutes before she self-destructs. This leads to him switching sides and joining the “Moving Mountain Project,” which becomes “Wandering Earth,” on the condition that he be allowed to continue his AI research.

Meanwhile, we see the career trajectory of Liu Peiqiang (Wu Jing), the hero from the first movie. He begins as a U.E.G. pilot trainee, working on prototype missions both on Earth and the Moon. It is there that he meets his wife, Han Duoduo (Wang Zhi), the namesake of another main character in the original film. Their courtship, combined with their skills in a crisis, give this movie a bit of heft, knowing as we already do the result of this story and the fate of those two characters. It also doesn’t hurt that Wu and Wang give excellent performances, fully committed to the high-octane material.

Much of the excitement is driven by the visual effects, which are at times quite impressive, even on a TV screen. Some other effects pale in comparison. It really depends on the scene as to how believable what you’re seeing is really going to be, and that’s if you can get on board with the underlying concept. It’s also a bit cheeky that while the film (really the entire series) emphasizes the need for international cooperation, pretty much every major surviving character is Chinese, and the actor they hired to be the American commander of the operation is way too over-the-top as a blowhard quasi-antagonist. I’m guessing there was a “suggestion” from the regime to make an American look bad for the sake of backdoor patriotism in a film where all world governments abandon their politics for the greater good, but even if it wasn’t, it’s still comically bad, like if George C. Scott’s version of General Patton met Raul Julia’s version of M. Bison.

Still, for as long and meandering as the movie is, I never lost track, which I did a few times in the original. This definitely helped fill in some gaps, and I’m genuinely excited to see where the series goes next. It’s a fun bit of sci-fi escapism (literally), and by making this a 2,500-year journey, Gwo has endless opportunities for story to turn this into a genuine space opera saga if he so chooses. Will it get the Academy’s attention? Probably not, but it’s still surprisingly engaging.

Grade: B

20 Days in Mariupol – Ukraine – PBS (and YouTube)

This got a theatrical release back in July, but I wasn’t able to fit it in with everything else I was doing at the time, and I’m grateful that it’s now available to stream. Produced by Frontline on PBS, and available through its associated YouTube channel for free, 20 Days in Mariupol is quite possibly the most essential film of 2023.

Directed by Associated Press journalist Mstyslav Chernov, this absolutely harrowing documentary chronicles the first three weeks of Russia’s invasion into Ukraine, particularly the port city of Mariupol. Many of the images you were able to see on the news came from Chernov and his crew, as after the first few days of the war, they were one of the only teams that stayed behind to record the unfolding carnage.

And believe me, it is a lot to take in. Streets are reduced to rubble, airstrikes level entire neighborhoods, power is cut off, and tanks slowly encroach on the city. The only shelters are in local hospitals, where most of Chernov’s group has to seek refuge. The real human cost of Vladimir Putin’s madness is laid bare before us in stark, unforgiving terms. You watch as children literally die on the operating table, their parents utterly lost in grief. Mere minutes before these kids were playing football in the street, and now their bodies lie bleeding and dismembered. It’s a horror show, except it’s all real, and it’s crucial that we watch it.

This is the consequence of an unchecked dictator, and sadly, his murderous narrative still has traction. Part of it is because Putin literally bans any dissent within his own borders, evidenced by Russian TV clips that show people dismissing Chernov’s footage as a hoax and denouncing him as disturber of peace. But even worse is the fact that Russia basically has free operatives working in the western world. The propagandist lies about what’s unfolding have even corrupted members of our own Congress, who openly toe Putin’s line and protest humanitarian and military aid to our actual ally. There are even hardliners who are willing to shut down our own government rather than give Ukraine any further support.

The battle against misinformation continues, and more and more it becomes downright Orwellian, as those under Putin’s thumb and his enablers within our own government (plus the former President) literally tell us to ignore the evidence of our eyes and ears. People like Chernov are to be lauded and celebrated for their bravery and commitment to the truth, as heartbreaking and terrifying as it may be. When you watch 20 Days in Mariupol – and you need to watch it – the most gut-wrenching realization is that this footage is almost two years old. The war is still going on, with Ukraine’s tenacity basically playing to a stalemate. We can’t be certain if a single person we’re witnessing on the screen is even still alive, because Chernov and company had to get out for their own safety and survival. The one advantage we have over past atrocities is that we can show what’s happening basically in real time. However, if we don’t properly act on this information, if we ignore, denigrate, or bafflingly stand against it, we only invite an even worse repetition of history.

Grade: A

Society of the Snow – Spain – Netflix

Okay, this is something of a cheat, I’ll admit. I saw this at a special screening, and it won’t be available on Netflix until January 4. However, much like last year’s German remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, you can tell that this is going to have the same marketing push behind it to win this award. The question is, does it deserve it? As of right now, it probably wouldn’t get my vote if I had one for the final round, but I would advance it to the shortlist to see what else it’s competing against. Depending on who the other semifinalists or finalists are, I could be persuaded.

If you’ve been reading my work since the beginning, you know I have something of a default rule when it comes to remakes. Essentially, I try to avoid them unless I’m given a compelling reason to watch, be it from a production or creative standpoint. And yes, strictly speaking, this can be called a remake, though not as directly as other properties. It deals with the 1972 Andes plane crash that left 29 people dead, though 16 survived in the mountains for over two months before rescue. This story has been given cinematic treatment before, most famously in the 1993 film, Alive, starring Ethan Hawke. However, that film was adapted from a book written two years after the crash, whereas this one is pulled from a 2009 chronicle of the same name by Uruguayan journalist Pablo Vierci. Society of the Snow also takes a more philosophical and existential approach to the story rather than the straightforward survival thriller angle in Alive, so I can easily see someone argue that this isn’t truly a remake.

Directed by J.A. Bayona, who helmed the underrated The Impossible but also the worst entry in the Jurassic franchise, the movie takes a few risks with the material, emphasizing the human and spiritual elements of the plot more than a simple retelling of the struggle, and for the most part, it works really well. He also opts for a more immersive experience, using lots of tight angles and first-person perspective to bring the viewer as close to the situation as possible without it being traumatic.

The young cast does an exemplary job, particularly Enzo Vogrincic Roldán as Numa Turcatti, who serves as narrator for the proceedings. Seen as something of a leader on the Old Christians Club rugby team, which was traveling from Uruguay to Chile, Numa’s view is one of pragmatism, hope, and introspection, a calming presence in the face of death. It’s through him that Bayona does much of his thematic and subtextual exploration, treating the survivors as people who are already dead and working to return to the land of the living, while others accept their fate and move on from this world. The moments where certain characters openly acknowledge that they won’t make it – rather than panicked ranting – form a zen-like experience I hope I can have when my time comes.

The cinematography absolutely blew me away. What Pedro Luque does here borders on immaculate, not just in the visual, but in the conceptual. Like Italy’s submission, Io Capitano (which I reviewed for “NRFTW” and will expand upon here in due course), the film was mostly shot in chronological order, which is rare for any feature. Only the opening scenes were done out of sequence, as Luque and Bayona decided to keep the actors on a strict diet to show their emaciation over the course of the ordeal, then wrapping for a month to let them regain their weight before filming the scenes pre-crash. Everything from the disaster onward, however, is done in a straight line.

As such, it was necessary to film in the Sierra Nevada mountains of Spain for over 130 consecutive days, basically twice the length of time the actual survivors were stranded in the Andes. The crew was really in the snow, at altitude, for more than four months, and Luque takes full advantage of the environment to show the scale of the crisis and the unlikelihood of their salvation. This is contrasted with highly claustrophobic scenes inside the wrecked fuselage of the plane, where everyone (27 initial survivors, some with grave injuries) is crammed inside the tightest of spaces to create body warmth. When further setbacks occur, like a blizzard and an avalanche, you feel like you’re right there with them, the oppressive sound design bombarding you just as it does everyone else who lived it. This undertaking is then supplemented by several weeks of additional photography in the Andes, at the actual crash site, which are then composited in post with the Spanish footage to basically show the audience just how stacked the situation was against these people. It’s quite a sight, especially one crucial scene where Roberto Canessa (Matias Recalt; the real Roberto was at the screening I attended, and his perspective was beautifully insightful) and Nando Parrado (Augustin Pardella) finally reach the peak of a nearby mountain, thinking that Chilean civilization is just on the other side, only to be met with a devastating reality.

The film definitely has its flaws. There are moments that are highly derivative, and not just of Alive, and as I mentioned, the sound design is intentionally overpowering, but it can be a bit much. Also, I don’t think enough time was spent in the lead-up to the crash, because for the longest time I really couldn’t distinguish between the characters. We just don’t get all that much time to get to know them before they’re thrust into this situation, and while that may have been intentional with this motif of portraying everyone as a walking dead man, it made it just a bit too difficult for me to connect and latch onto these characters.

But that doesn’t fully detract from the things this movie really gets right. Bayona definitely redeems himself for Fallen Kingdom, Luque’s cinematography is some of the best of the year, the cast does phenomenal work under far from ideal conditions, and not for nothing, but Michael Giacchino turns in his best score since Up, one worthy of Oscar consideration. However, the best element for me was a subtle one that definitely separates it from its Hollywood predecessor. Throughout the film, whenever someone dies, their name and age is placed on the screen in text, to let the audience know that this was a real person, not a composite or pastiche. In Alive, the real names of all the survivors were used, but most of the dead were changed, with a few exceptions. This alone shows the commitment Bayona had to doing the story justice. It’s reported that Bayona and his team spent over 100 hours interviewing survivors, their families, and those of the deceased, in order to make sure their loved ones were portrayed as properly as possible, even with the more fantastical and imagined elements worked into the script. I’ve definitely seen better overall films in this year’s competition, but it’s touches like this that could raise the final estimation when the votes start getting tallied.

Grade: B+

Join the conversation in the comments below! Have you seen any of these films? Which is your favorite? How many International Feature entries have you been able to track down? Let me know! Let me know! And remember, you can follow me on Twitter (fuck “X”) and YouTube for even more content!