Anora (2024)

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Sean Baker

Anora is the title and no one will be able to really remember the name until they see the movie. After seeing it, it’ll be impossible for them to forget it.

It's my biggest production to date, although that's not to say it's too big. It cost a little more than The Florida Project and in terms of theme, it follows the line of my previous films. It's a story about a sex worker, but the tone is closer to comedy.

[Foggy]

I think Sean Baker has been moving from strength to strength so consider this peak of my anticipation.

[Cremildo]

Acquired by NEON.

[Cremildo]

[DanTheMan]

[DanTheMan]

[Cremildo]

Easily the best-reviewed competition title so far

[eightslicesofpie]

yessssssssssss let's go

[HipsterTrash]

Sean Baker, keep doing your thing and I'll keep watchin'.

[Cremildo]

[Foggy]

Neon collecting Palm D’Or winners like Infinity Stones.

Happy for Baker though, this really feels like his moment.

[prkchopexpress]

neon should get more love. theyre like A24 without all the pretentious fanboys and girls.

really put out a lot of great stuff every year.

[OnlyJapantown]

I have yet to understand what people see in Baker's films, other than being shot very well for their budgets and it being clear that he has good rapport with actors. Self-destructive people being self-destructive... with nothing discovered, nothing illuminating happening, and seemingly no point to any of it. Where Mike Leigh movies show this kind of thing with a sense of tragedy and real ramification to characters' misdeeds, Baker's movies just put people's sordid lives on screen and make no comment. He's fascinated with lowlives but too insulated from their behaviour to provide any real perspective on them. Similar problem with the Safdies.

Baker clearly has ample talent as a director, but nothing more than an anthropological perspective to bring to material that is a million miles away from his comfortable life. Maybe he'll make a good movie one day, but the more he fixates on pimps and prostitutes, the less likely that is.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

I have yet to understand what people see in Baker's films, other than being shot very well for their budgets and it being clear that he has good rapport with actors. Self-destructive people being self-destructive... with nothing discovered, nothing illuminating happening, and seemingly no point to any of it. Where Mike Leigh movies show this kind of thing with a sense of tragedy and real ramification to characters' misdeeds, Baker's movies just put people's sordid lives on screen and make no comment. He's fascinated with lowlives but too insulated from their behaviour to provide any real perspective on them. Similar problem with the Safdies.

Baker clearly has ample talent as a director, but nothing more than an anthropological perspective to bring to material that is a million miles away from his comfortable life. Maybe he'll make a good movie one day, but the more he fixates on pimps and prostitutes, the less likely that is.

You'll love his next film too - it is also about hookers.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

I have yet to understand what people see in Baker's films, other than being shot very well for their budgets and it being clear that he has good rapport with actors. Self-destructive people being self-destructive... with nothing discovered, nothing illuminating happening, and seemingly no point to any of it. Where Mike Leigh movies show this kind of thing with a sense of tragedy and real ramification to characters' misdeeds, Baker's movies just put people's sordid lives on screen and make no comment. He's fascinated with lowlives but too insulated from their behaviour to provide any real perspective on them. Similar problem with the Safdies.

Baker clearly has ample talent as a director, but nothing more than an anthropological perspective to bring to material that is a million miles away from his comfortable life. Maybe he'll make a good movie one day, but the more he fixates on pimps and prostitutes, the less likely that is.

I've only seen Tangerine and The Florida Project, but for me, it's the realism that appealed to me about both films. There "may not be anything happening," but it's precisely that that makes it so incredibly realistic. How often do people see the error in their ways and actually work to improve their lives for their own sake or the sake of their loved ones? Or if they do have that "a-ha" moment, how often do they stick to it?

[OnlyJapantown]

Originally Posted by Scottie

I've only seen Tangerine and The Florida Project, but for me, it's the realism that appealed to me about both films. There "may not be anything happening," but it's precisely that that makes it so incredibly realistic. How often do people see the error in their ways and actually work to improve their lives for their own sake or the sake of their loved ones? Or if they do have that "a-ha" moment, how often do they stick to it?

Appreciate your perspective, and I can certainly see that his characters sticking to their negative behaviours is more true to life than them fixing all their problems. The realism is there - but I don't find any deeper meaning from it the way I do from other directors who are equally realistic, like Leigh or Cassavetes. This is all the more frustrating due to, as I mentioned, Baker's clear talent... I wish he took more of a stance on the content of his films. Some might enjoy the lack of stance, and I guess that's down to taste.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

I have yet to understand what people see in Baker's films...

Agree that the following quote captures the general appeal of Baker's work:

Originally Posted by Scottie

I've only seen Tangerine and The Florida Project, but for me, it's the realism that appealed to me about both films.

Realism, yes, but also the honesty of his approach. Let me suggest that you watch Red Rocket, pronto.

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

Appreciate your perspective, and I can certainly see that his characters sticking to their negative behaviours is more true to life than them fixing all their problems. The realism is there - but I don't find any deeper meaning from it the way I do from other directors who are equally realistic, like Leigh or Cassavetes. This is all the more frustrating due to, as I mentioned, Baker's clear talent... I wish he took more of a stance on the content of his films. Some might enjoy the lack of stance, and I guess that's down to taste.

The problem with taking a stance is very often the stance and related behaviors which are portrayed in film are contrived and dishonest.

Baker is about truth, true to his characters and to himself as a filmmaker, however imperfect. Baker doesn't give the impression that he seeks to attain anything more than simply be who he is, and that extends to his films and the characters who inhabit them.

[OnlyJapantown]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The problem with taking a stance is very often the stance and related behaviors which are portrayed in film are contrived and dishonest.

Often contrived and dishonest, but not always - and I think that's where the best filmmakers are, infusing the material with their own perspective without it coming across artificial or overbearing. Every Scorsese movie expresses his stance on the material, but I've never once thought a movie of his to be contrived. Obviously he's an extreme example being one of the greats, but the other directors I named in this thread would also fit.

Baker is about truth, true to his characters and to himself as a filmmaker, however imperfect. Baker doesn't give the impression that he seeks to attain anything more than simply be who he is, and that extends to his films and the characters who inhabit them.

Maybe that's my problem with Baker, even if it's what makes some people like him. I don't think he's trying for much more than to put the characters up on the screen.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

Often contrived and dishonest, but not always - and I think that's where the best filmmakers are, infusing the material with their own perspective without it coming across artificial or overbearing. Every Scorsese movie expresses his stance on the material, but I've never once thought a movie of his to be contrived. Obviously he's an extreme example being one of the greats, but the other directors I named in this thread would also fit.

Agree about what makes a great director, but I believe Baker is speaking to a different audience/generation, who by and large are seeking a different experience and who have rejected auteur worship.

On the last note, yes, Scorsese is a great director, but for many of the modern audience, his work has become contrived, paying homage to the past and his cinematic influences.

Baker, on the other hand, gives the impression that he is anti-cinema.

Which, if we're being honest, is perfectly aligned with his characters, who would never use that word in the context of his films.

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

Maybe that's my problem with Baker, even if it's what makes some people like him. I don't think he's trying for much more than to put the characters up on the screen.

Perfectly understood. Perhaps Baker will alter his approach in the future, challenge himself to reach a bit higher, perhaps not.

I'm not sure if I believe Baker is a great director, likewise I'm not sure if Baker believes he's capable of becoming a great director. But I do believe he has an appealing approach to filmmaking, and by extension, I have enjoyed his work to date and eagerly look forward to what's next.

Perhaps that's enough, for Baker and for his audience.

[OnlyJapantown]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Agree about what makes a great director, but I believe Baker is speaking to a different audience/generation, who by and large are seeking a different experience and who have rejected auteur worship.

On the last note, yes, Scorsese is a great director, but for many of the modern audience, his work has become contrived, paying homage to the past and his cinematic influences.

Baker, on the other hand, gives the impression that he is anti-cinema.

Which, if we're being honest, is perfectly aligned with his characters, who would never use that word in the context of his films.

Perfectly understood. Perhaps Baker will alter his approach in the future, challenge himself to reach a bit higher, perhaps not.

I'm not sure if I believe Baker is a great director, likewise I'm not sure if Baker believes he's capable of becoming a great director. But I do believe he has an appealing approach to filmmaking, and by extension, I have enjoyed his work to date and eagerly look forward to what's next.

Perhaps that's enough, for Baker and for his audience.

Appreciate the thoughtful response, the highlighted bits in particular have left me with something to think about. I'll certainly be watching Baker's next movie in the hopes that something comes across to me.