deerstalker
During a time of intense concern over the impact and integrity of the Supreme Court, director Dawn Porter brings us Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court. The four-part documentary series examines the modern era of the Supreme Court, including the people, decisions, and major confirmation battles that have shaped the court into what it is today.
Dawn Porter is an attorney turned award-winning filmmaker and founder of the production company Trilogy Films. Her work has appeared on ESPN, Netflix, HBO, PBS, and Discovery.
BGN had the pleasure of speaking with Porter via Zoom to discuss the goal of the docuseries, the role racism and white supremacy have played, and what she’s hoping people learn from the series.
The docuseries is eye-opening and I considered it to be a history lesson. Mentioned in the series, Barack Obama says that the goal of the Supreme Court is “to protect those that are most vulnerable.” However, many Americans don’t feel that way or even trust the court. Is the goal of this series to help build people’s understanding and trust?
It’s a really great place to start. One of the things I was so happy about was that Showtime agreed to do four hours, so that we have the time to go back through this history. My background is I’m a lawyer; I went to Georgetown Law School. So, I lived six blocks away from the court. I am a Black Girl Nerd! I would walk by the court, look up and think, “This is the court that gave us Brown vs. Board of Education; this is the court that gave us the right to an attorney.” So, I wanted to start the series with the opportunity to examine Thurgood Marshall’s legacy — how he won 29 out of 32 cases before he even came to the court.
I wanted to start there in episode 1 so that we remember how valuable this Court has been in shaping our lives. Then move forward to ask, “How did we get here?” and take people through that. I think where we are right now is in a very serious place where there’s a lot of public opinion that is negative. The court has been both a leader and a follower. It’s up to us to pay attention and ask for reasonable and basic things like a code of ethics. I hope that this series crystallizes around what we should be paying attention to.
Racism and white supremacy have been at the root of everything in this country. From your perspective as a lawyer, how do we productively continue to dismantle the bad and rebuild the good?
We started working on this about three years ago. It was because the executive running Showtime literally called me up and said, “Do you want to do something on the Supreme Court?” I said, “Yes, I do!”
With that opportunity, I had to figure out what to focus on. There are 200 minutes of archive that is in this series, and that is intentional. We are living in a time when people don’t really trust what people say. This literally could have been just Supreme Court and race because it shows up over and over. Even when race is not the central question, it is influencing either the decision makers or the decisions.
We hear Richard Nixon in the series saying that he’s “for abortion, sometimes, when there’s a Black and a white.” He’s not even trying to keep the quiet part secret. He knew he was being recorded. Race is indelibly intertwined with the history of our country. I did want to point out that even when we’re not supposed to be talking about race, we’re talking about race.
Last year, when the Dobbs decision was leaked, it was probably the worst breach I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. How does something like this happen and what impact will it continue to have?
There are leaks that happen all the time. The one place that usually did not happen was the Supreme Court. There’s a lot of reasons for that. One is because it’s smaller. The other reason is that the clerks take an oath. The clerks are privy to the decisions made, and historically it’s been a pretty tight seal.
One thing I focused on about the leak is, as you said, that it even happened. We are in a different era where you can’t trust things are going to be held close to the vest. We are at the place where the inside people who have sworn an oath to protect the sanctity of the court process are violating that oath. I think that signals we are in a different time. Different times call for different approaches.
One of the things we really need to impose is restraint from the court. Restraint is like a code of ethics. You can’t just count on people to do the right thing, apparently.
In Episode 2, we see the discussion of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. I was a freshman in college at the time, and I became invested in that case because it was something I connected with and was interested in the outcome. Do you find that this is generally how people operate?
I really do. That is also a goal of this series to say there are many more of those decisions that affect you than you may be focused on. My grandmother used to say, “Before the Supreme Court decision…” as if there was only one. But for her, it was. So, she marked time as either pre-Brown and post-Brown. It’s because it affected her daily life.
Like you, I was in law school when the Thomas hearings were happening. I used to walk past the Supreme Court, and I remember seeing, written in chalk, “Believe Anita Hill.” Those hearings captivated the country. We watched with horror this group of all white men. Many women, universally, felt they weren’t going to believe her. I felt very personally involved in that decision.
Anita Hill was really telling us something important at that hearing. She was saying if this is what a person believes in private, then you have to be concerned about this person’s character. That is why she came forward and subjected herself to decades of threats, humiliation, and stress.
I wanted to hear from the justices themselves. Was that ever a plan to have them participate in this?
They can do it, if they choose. We wrote to all of the justices for interviews, and we were politely declined. I think it was a really missed opportunity.
What are you hoping people will take away from this series?
I hope that people respect what this court has done in the past; I hope they recognize we are not powerless and we can certainly make our opinions known. I would hope people continue to pressure their elected leaders and ask questions. I hope people focus on the importance of the court so that it doesn’t seem so mysterious. We can strengthen it and keep it for another 200 years.
Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court premieres on Showtime September 22, 2023.
During a time of intense concern over the impact and integrity of the Supreme Court, director Dawn Porter brings us Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court. The four-part documentary series examines the modern era of the Supreme Court, including the people, decisions, and major confirmation battles that have shaped the court into what it is today.
Dawn Porter is an attorney turned award-winning filmmaker and founder of the production company Trilogy Films. Her work has appeared on ESPN, Netflix, HBO, PBS, and Discovery.
BGN had the pleasure of speaking with Porter via Zoom to discuss the goal of the docuseries, the role racism and white supremacy have played, and what she’s hoping people learn from the series.
The docuseries is eye-opening and I considered it to be a history lesson. Mentioned in the series, Barack Obama says that the goal of the Supreme Court is “to protect those that are most vulnerable.” However, many Americans don’t feel that way or even trust the court. Is the goal of this series to help build people’s understanding and trust?
It’s a really great place to start. One of the things I was so happy about was that Showtime agreed to do four hours, so that we have the time to go back through this history. My background is I’m a lawyer; I went to Georgetown Law School. So, I lived six blocks away from the court. I am a Black Girl Nerd! I would walk by the court, look up and think, “This is the court that gave us Brown vs. Board of Education; this is the court that gave us the right to an attorney.” So, I wanted to start the series with the opportunity to examine Thurgood Marshall’s legacy — how he won 29 out of 32 cases before he even came to the court.
I wanted to start there in episode 1 so that we remember how valuable this Court has been in shaping our lives. Then move forward to ask, “How did we get here?” and take people through that. I think where we are right now is in a very serious place where there’s a lot of public opinion that is negative. The court has been both a leader and a follower. It’s up to us to pay attention and ask for reasonable and basic things like a code of ethics. I hope that this series crystallizes around what we should be paying attention to.
Racism and white supremacy have been at the root of everything in this country. From your perspective as a lawyer, how do we productively continue to dismantle the bad and rebuild the good?
We started working on this about three years ago. It was because the executive running Showtime literally called me up and said, “Do you want to do something on the Supreme Court?” I said, “Yes, I do!”
With that opportunity, I had to figure out what to focus on. There are 200 minutes of archive that is in this series, and that is intentional. We are living in a time when people don’t really trust what people say. This literally could have been just Supreme Court and race because it shows up over and over. Even when race is not the central question, it is influencing either the decision makers or the decisions.
We hear Richard Nixon in the series saying that he’s “for abortion, sometimes, when there’s a Black and a white.” He’s not even trying to keep the quiet part secret. He knew he was being recorded. Race is indelibly intertwined with the history of our country. I did want to point out that even when we’re not supposed to be talking about race, we’re talking about race.
Last year, when the Dobbs decision was leaked, it was probably the worst breach I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. How does something like this happen and what impact will it continue to have?
There are leaks that happen all the time. The one place that usually did not happen was the Supreme Court. There’s a lot of reasons for that. One is because it’s smaller. The other reason is that the clerks take an oath. The clerks are privy to the decisions made, and historically it’s been a pretty tight seal.
One thing I focused on about the leak is, as you said, that it even happened. We are in a different era where you can’t trust things are going to be held close to the vest. We are at the place where the inside people who have sworn an oath to protect the sanctity of the court process are violating that oath. I think that signals we are in a different time. Different times call for different approaches.
One of the things we really need to impose is restraint from the court. Restraint is like a code of ethics. You can’t just count on people to do the right thing, apparently.
In Episode 2, we see the discussion of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. I was a freshman in college at the time, and I became invested in that case because it was something I connected with and was interested in the outcome. Do you find that this is generally how people operate?
I really do. That is also a goal of this series to say there are many more of those decisions that affect you than you may be focused on. My grandmother used to say, “Before the Supreme Court decision…” as if there was only one. But for her, it was. So, she marked time as either pre-Brown and post-Brown. It’s because it affected her daily life.
Like you, I was in law school when the Thomas hearings were happening. I used to walk past the Supreme Court, and I remember seeing, written in chalk, “Believe Anita Hill.” Those hearings captivated the country. We watched with horror this group of all white men. Many women, universally, felt they weren’t going to believe her. I felt very personally involved in that decision.
Anita Hill was really telling us something important at that hearing. She was saying if this is what a person believes in private, then you have to be concerned about this person’s character. That is why she came forward and subjected herself to decades of threats, humiliation, and stress.
I wanted to hear from the justices themselves. Was that ever a plan to have them participate in this?
They can do it, if they choose. We wrote to all of the justices for interviews, and we were politely declined. I think it was a really missed opportunity.
What are you hoping people will take away from this series?
I hope that people respect what this court has done in the past; I hope they recognize we are not powerless and we can certainly make our opinions known. I would hope people continue to pressure their elected leaders and ask questions. I hope people focus on the importance of the court so that it doesn’t seem so mysterious. We can strengthen it and keep it for another 200 years.
Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court premieres on Showtime September 22, 2023.
Writer-director-producer Daniel Brown (Color TV, No Vacancy) makes his feature film debut with Your Lucky Day, an indie action-thriller based on his popular short of the same name released in 2010. The film marks one of the last performances of late actor Angus Cloud, who tragically died in July of this year.
From the beginning, we’re with Sterling (Angus Cloud), a young man considered a low-life doing less than legal things to make a living. It’s Christmas Eve in Miami and he’s out trying to make a buck. But after a bad night, he ends up heading to Sip N Go convenience store. Sterling arrives at the same time as an older man Mr. Laird (Spencer Garrett), a wealthy white man who thinks his off-color jokes are hilarious and anyone who doesn’t laugh needs to lighten up.
After seeing Laird’s arrogance and smugness interacting with store owner Amir (Mousa Hussien Kraish), we’re not exactly happy for him when he realizes he has the winning 156 million-dollar lottery ticket. In his excitement and disbelief, Laird very stupidly announces his massive winnings to everyone in the store, and to the surprise of no one, finds himself at gunpoint by Sterling. Cody (Sterling Beaumon), a beat cop no one realized was in the bathroom, tries to be a hero but makes a fatal mistake and takes a bullet in the process.
Sterling’s impulsive decision to steal the man’s lottery ticket has altered everyone’s life, including Abraham (Elliot Knight) and Ana-Marlene (Jessica Garza), a young couple with a baby on the way. Amidst the chaos, Amir informs Sterling that he can’t just collect the millions of dollars, no questions asked, especially now that two people have been shot. This is where a lot of the film’s dark humor comes into play, because he obviously didn’t spend more than a few seconds thinking about this robbery, how he was going to get out of it and how he would become $156 million richer without any consequences.
The film sticks closely to the original short but naturally makes some changes to the narrative and characters. We learn more about the lives and backstories of Sterling, Amir, and the couple, giving context behind their decision making when they’re faced with the choice to be good people or rich people, hostages or accomplices.
Everyone delivers stellar performances. Some audiences will inevitably draw comparisons between Sterling and Euphoria’s Fezco but Cloud’s nuanced performance helps differentiate the two socioeconomically similar characters. While both have difficult lives, they don’t make the same choices, and it’s fair to say that Sterling lacks Fezco’s morality. However, he isn’t completely unlikable. He’s pretty chatty with his newly acquired hostages. When he’s not waving a gun in their faces, he’s kind of charismatic, which makes his previous behavior all the more baffling (and pretty comical).
Elliot Knight and Jessica Garza have good chemistry as Abraham and Ana-Marlene, making it easy to like them immediately. The characters are in an impossible situation that they know won’t have a happy ending, and they have very little time to decide on their next move. It’s hard to really get into Garza’s incredible acting without spoilers, but just know that her character will surprise you.
Your Lucky Day is thrilling, entertaining, and at times, darkly funny, but it also shows what it looks like when marginalized people desperately try to have the American Dream. That desperation changes them into people who value money more than someone else’s life. Mousa Hussien Kraish’s Amir has a store to run and a family to take care of, so when he has the chance to get a cut of $156 million, he doesn’t instantly refuse. There’s also something poignant about how quickly life can change (or end). One minute you’re picking out ice cream, the next you’re a hostage or suddenly a millionaire.
With Daniel Brown’s work in advertising and music videos, both the short and the feature film have an artsy, avante-garde quality. It’s not a trippy Lynchian experience like Color TV, No Vacancy, but there’s still a slightly heightened and gritty realism a la The Florida Project. Winning the lottery, especially in a small corner store, is something that seems so out of reach. Brown and cinematographer Justin Henning (Braking for Whales) give the film a look that nicely conveys the surreality of the moment when it happens.
The editing style of the short is quick and effective, a bit disorienting like a horror film with seemingly random vintage-looking images popping up. The feature is smoother, and the lighting inside the store isn’t as fluorescent but maintains the same unique energy. Both use bizarrely upbeat music during some of the most violent scenes, a jarring juxtaposition that might not appeal to everyone but adds to the situation’s wildness.
Your Lucky Day is an intense crime thriller about morality and greed that immediately grabs your attention and doesn’t let go until the credits roll. In expanding his 16-minute short into an 89-minute feature, Daniel Brown created morally complex characters that find commonality in the struggle and lie of the elusive American Dream. You may think you know what happens next but the film surprises you with where it goes.
Your Lucky Day premiered September 23, 2023, at Fantastic Fest. The film hits theaters November 10 and digital November 14.
Based on a chapter in Stephen King’s 1983 novel, Pet Sematary: Bloodlines acts as a prequel to the 2019 remake and delves into the story Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) tells Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) about “that Baterman boy.” In the film, writer-director Lindsey Anderson Beer (Sierra Burgess Is a Loser) and co-writer Jeff Buhler (Pet Sematary, Jacob’s Ladder) show us the origins of Jud’s iconic wise words of warning, “Sometimes dead is better.”
Warning: Some spoilers ahead for Pet Sematary (both 1989 and 2019 adaptations, and the novel).
It’s 1969, and young Jud Crandall (Jackson White) can’t wait to leave the small town of Ludlow, Maine. Shortly after he and his girlfriend Norma (Natalie Alyn Lind) hit the road to start a life elsewhere, a bird slams into the windshield, forcing them to pull over. Adding to the startling inconvenience, they come across a dog looking worse for wear. From here, it’s all downhill for the lovebirds and their fellow Ludlowites.
If you’re familiar with any version of Pet Sematary, then you know the tale of Timmy Baterman (Jack Mulhern), a casualty of the Vietnam War (WWII in the book) buried by his father Bill (David Duchovny) and resurrected by the “sour” land. Timmy’s story is one that has provoked curiosity for years, and to see it finally fleshed out is exciting. King tweeted his seal of approval, noting the filmmakers made some changes but still delivered a good adaptation: “The screenplay takes a few liberties, but it’s a fine story. David Duchovny is excellent. The secret, as always, is caring about the characters.”
In an interview with IGN (which is pretty spoiler-y, so read at your own risk), Lindsey Anderson Beer revealed some of the changes she made to the Pet Sematary lore, namely the indigenous curse and a Wendigo.
Referring to Jud’s childhood friend Manny (Forrest Goodluck) and his sister Donna (Isabella Star LaBlanc), two newly invented characters, Beer said, “Central to subverting the trope of the ‘mystical Indigenous’ was creating POV characters who were Mi’kmaq…I deeply believe that underrepresented groups need more say in their own stories.”
Diehard King fans (and fandoms in general) notoriously do not like big deviations from their beloved source material. Switching up the established mythology is a risky move but Beer’s reasoning behind it makes sense.
Bloodlines mostly focuses on Jud learning that not only is there something incredibly wrong with his old friend, but there are also evil forces in the woods. The older townspeople of Ludlow, including Jud’s parents Dan (Henry Thomas) and Kathy Crandall (Samantha Mathis), manage to keep dark secrets for a long time, though they fail to be subtle since they like to communicate through uneasy glances.
Finally learning the truth affects Jud’s relationship with his father, but with a zombie-like cannibal on the loose, there’s not much time to dwell on it.
Jackson White is a good choice for a young Jud. He’s a strong lead able to balance the protectiveness and vulnerability of the character, which we also saw in Lithgow. White also works well with King adaptation alumni Thomas (Desperation, Gerald’s Game, Doctor Sleep) and Mathis (Salem’s Lot, Under the Dome).
The legendary Pam Grier plays Majorie, the mailwoman mentioned in King’s novel. She’s a more fleshed-out character than before, being a part of the town secret-keepers. However, Grier was underused and not given enough to do, which is a shame because her casting is likely a big draw for some movie-goers.
The most memorable performance comes from Jack Mulhern as the undead Timmy. The actor gives a subtlety to his madness that’s more chilling than something more feral. His character is at the center of the story, but we don’t get enough time with just him and his grief-stricken father.
Bloodlines owes a lot of its eeriness to the setting, the kind of rural atmosphere that makes you feel like you need a shower. It’s not Texas Chainsaw Massacre level, but characters are almost always sweating. Rarely do the bees and flies stop buzzing, so to say the crystal-clear sound design was effective would be an understatement. Nothing is more unsettling than the sound of Timmy’s bones cracking with every movement. Thankfully, the scares aren’t as obnoxious and Blumhouse-y as the trailer depicts.
I wouldn’t say either adaptation of Pet Sematary is thrilling. We go from a relatively happy family trying to feel at home on their new property (despite creepy cemeteries and a dead pet), to a family suffering immense grief after a child’s shockingly tragic death. Bloodlines brings a different kind of horror, one that lives in the seconds of fear and panic felt right before the horrific accident. They both pack their own uniquely effective punch.
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines tells the Jud Crandall backstory fans of the novel have wanted for years, expanding his character beyond the mysterious old man who makes contradictory decisions and delivers exposition with doom-laden warnings. While I’m not sure it’ll live up to their expectations, it’s still an intriguing horror film worth watching.
Aside from a couple of visual references and callbacks, it’s not necessary to watch the 2019 remake before you check out the prequel. But it’ll make for a good double feature.
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines premiered September 23, 2023, at Fantastic Fest, and begins streaming October 6 on Paramount+.