Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)

[Magic Hate Ball]

Is In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue available to purchase anywhere? Hopefully it gets published following the critical acclaim of the film.

[willoneill]

If you haven't seen Moonlight, it's because you don't care about poor people.

[domino harvey]

Of course, who could forget the argument seven years ago from Huff Post shaming us for no one seeing the Hurt Locker since it proved we don't care about the military? Oh wait

[Brian C]

Oh sweet, I saw it so now I know I did my part to help poor black kids.

[dustybooks]

It sucks so much to see such a beautiful film -- the strength of which is that it does make an specialized, individual experience universal, despite the article's objections -- reduced to a Social Problem Picture that people should feel obligated to go out and see. It's also not a great way to make people of any race or class want to see a movie; believe it or not, poor black audiences like escapism too. Disgusting piece.

[Peter-H]

There's definitely been an increasing number of articles that are cynically-calculated outrage bait disguised as "thinkpieces" about movies. Ignore them and they'll go away, they only keep writing them because people keep reading them.

[mfunk9786]

It sucks so much to see such a beautiful film -- the strength of which is that it does make an specialized, individual experience universal, despite the article's objections -- reduced to a Social Problem Picture that people should feel obligated to go out and see. It's also not a great way to make people of any race or class want to see a movie; believe it or not, poor black audiences like escapism too. Disgusting piece.

Yes, I could not applaud the above more. This is not a Medicine film no matter how badly thinkpiece writers (from both sides of the Hot Take aisle) want to make it one.

[jbeall]

I thought this film was remarkable, and incredibly well-acted. I don't have a ton to add that hasn't already been said here, but I did wonder about

SpoilerShow

whether or not Teresa is Juan's beard, i.e. whether or not Juan himself is gay. Of course, the film is about Chiron, but Juan and Teresa's relationship is curiously asexual, and Juan has clearly taught himself to be constantly guarded, such as when he tells Chiron never to sit with his back to the front door. His answer to Chiron's questions about the word "faggot" indicate that he sees nothing wrong with said sexuality, provided one knows how to act publicly in a sufficiently hetero-masculo-normative way. At the same time, Juan's apparent asexuality, and the film's refusal to "out" Juan one way or another can be read as an indicator of his success in putting on whatever front is necessary for him to succeed in his chosen line of work.

Then, Juan's lesson about not turning one's back to the front door and/or window contrasts with Chiron doing just that when he visits the diner where Kevin cooks. On one hand, he can let his guard down slightly because he's been gone for years, and presumably anyone who has a beef with him is in Atlanta. But it also foreshadows the later moment of emotional vulnerability. He then moves to a booth where he can watch the front door, so his guard's back up, his expression impassive. This sets up what was for me one of the most moving moments in any recent film, when the last customers leave. As the door opens, you hear a car driving past on the wet road, and the sound almost seamlessly turns into the sound of ocean waves, the only indication as to what Chiron's thinking and feeling. It was such a powerful moment that tied together so many of the film's themes.

[Brian C]

I have to be honest, I didn't see any indication that Juan and Teresa's relationship was "curiously asexual". The only time we see them is in non-sexual contexts, when Chiron is in the room, and it's not like they're going to start fucking then.

I also am not so sure that Juan is so accepting of homosexuality - when Chiron asks him about it, Juan says offhandedly something like "aw, there's nothing wrong with that, unless..." and then Teresa gives him a look to shut him up. I don't know what Juan was going to say there, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that it was derogatory in some way, and at least it seems hard to assume that it was as benign as telling Chiron that he has to be careful about how he presents himself.

Still, I think the question of who exactly Teresa *is* is worth asking. The complete lack of background makes her character a real weakness of the film, IMO - she's only there to provide a sympathetic, nurturing presence for Chiron and seems to have no story of her own. Even in the second segment, when Juan's no longer around, she's going on with life as normal, providing Chiron a happy surrogate home. But who is she? How did she and Juan get together? Is she a dealer too? Is that her house, and she's letting Juan hide out? Monae plays her very sympathetically - almost impossibly so, given the circumstances - but really, what's her deal?

[knives]

I thought it was clear he as referring to being the bottom, probably trying to transplant prison gay culture to this conversation. Otherwise I completely agree. The degree of acceptance particularly as it closes out the first section seems unrealistic and a bit like an afterschool special on how it is okay to be gay. Ali's performance almost makes the scene work, but it is just written in this bizarre way.

[Brian C]

I thought it was clear he as referring to being the bottom, probably trying to transplant prison gay culture to this conversation.

That actually hadn't occurred to me, but yes, that makes sense.

[jbeall]

I have to be honest, I didn't see any indication that Juan and Teresa's relationship was "curiously asexual". The only time we see them is in non-sexual contexts, when Chiron is in the room, and it's not like they're going to start fucking then.

I also am not so sure that Juan is so accepting of homosexuality - when Chiron asks him about it, Juan says offhandedly something like "aw, there's nothing wrong with that, unless..." and then Teresa gives him a look to shut him up. I don't know what Juan was going to say there, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that it was derogatory in some way, and at least it seems hard to assume that it was as benign as telling Chiron that he has to be careful about how he presents himself.

Ha! Well, I wasn't suggesting the scene would have been improved if the film suddenly turned into a porno. I just mean that there's a lack of physical affection in scenes where Juan and Teresa are onscreen together.

Also, Teresa's look to tell Juan to shut up might also be interpreted as "don't say anything too revealing about yourself." Again, consider how Kevin, and then later Chiron, have to learn to perform certain kinds of masculinity. Even if Kevin is bisexual, it means having a publicly heterosexual relationship, while Chiron appears to eschew sexuality altogether.

[knives]

That seems a bit of a stretch particularly as that pretty radically changed Monae's purpose in the scene as the truly empathetic ear.

[Brian C]

Plus, why would Teresa be overly concerned about Juan "revealing too much of himself" to this kid that clearly could use the role model? Chiron posed no imaginable threat to Juan's self-image.

At any rate, I think way too much of the commentary of this film is filtered through Chiron's sexuality. What reason do we really have to think that Chiron is gay? By the end of the film, we've learned (if he's to be believed) that he's had exactly one sexual encounter, when he was still in his early teens. He goes out of his way to visit Kevin, but we're also given no reason to think that he has - or for that matter, has ever had - any other real friends, so I don't think his reasons for visiting Kevin are necessarily romantic or sexual in motivation, but rather him reaching out for any kind of personal intimacy.

Put another way, except for the one beach encounter, we would have no reason to think that Chiron isn't completely asexual. And in other contexts, would we say that one episode - and an essentially passive one at that - when someone is 13 or so defines a person's sexuality? I don't think so; in fact, I think we'd say that it's a huge assumption to make.

I didn't love the film like a lot of others here and in the world, but to the extent it was effective, it was in the way it showed a person who's been broken down by his circumstances. Chiron seems like basically a good kid, but by the end, he's been shown so little love and so little attention and had so few breaks in life that he's barely capable of feeling anything at all. Frankly, it angers me when I see the film being described as triumphant in some way because of his sexuality. I think that's the opposite of what the film shows us, and I think to reach that conclusion a viewer needs to ignore the vast human misery that Chiron embodies throughout. It's more appropriate to be heartbroken for Chiron at the end than it is to be happy for him. Because you know what happens the next day, after the movie ends? Kevin awkwardly thanks Chiron for the visit and they both go on with their lives.

But then again, that's a big failing of the film for me. Jenkins makes his story - narratively and thematically - so vague and the film is so unformed and superficial that it seems tailor-made to let white liberal audiences project their own biases onto it. It's a movie made to make critics and a certain demographic of viewers pat themselves on the back for their wokeness.

[Timec]

I really don’t get these claims that the characters or the story are vague or “unformed.” Yes, the structure of the film leaves some details unexplained—but, if anything, I was struck by how concrete and “alive” the characters seemed. The emotions in the last act, in particular, were palpable and resonant.

But then again, I am part of that liberal white audience.

[Jakamarak]

I really don’t get these claims that the characters or the story are vague or “unformed.” Yes, the structure of the film leaves some details unexplained—but, if anything, I was struck by how concrete and “alive” the characters seemed. The emotions in the last act, in particular, were palpable and resonant.

I agree completely. While the film's minimalist approach arguably gives us little information about the characters, their relationships and the world of the story, the specificity of the information that is there, some of which is only presented visually or through behavior, made the world and its characters feel more detailed and nuanced than most other films. Even a surprising moment like Juan's definition of the word faggot felt real and specific to that character, so much so, I had no trouble accepting it.

But I happen to think most movies are at fault for overexplaining their stories and their characters.

[knives]

I'll just cosign with Brian and add that the vagueness isn't bad in itself so much in how the script uses this vagueness to manipulate the story toward the author's end rather than anything organic. The beach scene is a great moment of intimacy that is cheapened by the subsequent events that don't seem to work with the characters as established so far. It almost leaves the sense that the beach scene was made only so that the subsequent tragedy could awkwardly play out.

[DarkImbecile]

I'll just cosign with Brian and add that the vagueness isn't bad in itself so much in how the script uses this vagueness to manipulate the story toward the author's end rather than anything organic. The beach scene is a great moment of intimacy that is cheapened by the subsequent events that don't seem to work with the characters as established so far. It almost leaves the sense that the beach scene was made only so that the subsequent tragedy could awkwardly play out.

Strongly disagree with this. Chiron's beating and his reaction to it is thoroughly set up by the film beforehand: most notably, Kevin playfights with him to try to show him how to demonstrate that he isn't a "punk", foreshadowing how Kevin will later be forced to demonstrate the same to protect himself. The inevitability of violence against Chiron for being different is established from the opening scene and reinforced throughout - and consistently contrasted with scenes depicting the kind of life and relationships he could have flourished in without that threat and his mother's instability - until he reaches a point of decision.

Chiron's transformation from the vulnerable child of the first act to the guarded, bulked up drug dealer of the third act hinges entirely on his ability/willingness to take on a form of masculinity that doesn't come naturally to him. The contrast between the beach scene and the violence that follows represents the choice he makes: being true to himself vs. protecting himself.

[knives]

Being setup, I agree though I think the set up is poorly done, doesn't mean that it is not inorganic and works against previous characterization.

[Brian C]

Strongly disagree with this. Chiron's beating and his reaction to it is thoroughly set up by the film beforehand: most notably, Kevin playfights with him to try to show him how to demonstrate that he isn't a "punk", foreshadowing how Kevin will later be forced to demonstrate the same to protect himself. The inevitability of violence against Chiron for being different is established from the opening scene and reinforced throughout - and consistently contrasted with scenes depicting the kind of life and relationships he could have flourished in without that threat and his mother's instability - until he reaches a point of decision.

Chiron's transformation from the vulnerable child of the first act to the guarded, bulked up drug dealer of the third act hinges entirely on his ability/willingness to take on a form of masculinity that doesn't come naturally to him. The contrast between the beach scene and the violence that follows represents the choice he makes: being true to himself vs. protecting himself.

I don't understand this. Even vulnerable children can lash out violently when provoked enough, how is that a contradiction? Why can't he be "true to himself" both when he's chilling quietly at the beach and lashing out violently at his abusive classmates?

[DarkImbecile]

I don't understand this. Even vulnerable children can lash out violently when provoked enough, how is that a contradiction? Why can't he be "true to himself" both when he's chilling quietly at the beach and lashing out violently at his abusive classmates?

If the movie had ended after Chiron lashes out in high school, this could be a reasonable interpretation, but what we see in the film's third act communicates pretty clearly that his beating at the hands of Kevin and his outburst is a turning point for him after which he puts on the "Black" persona, one that both he and Kevin directly and indirectly indicate is a facade in that final segment. I personally interpret the shot of Chiron lifting his bloody and swollen face from the ice water and staring in the mirror just before he returns to school and retaliates as the moment in which the adoption of this persona occurs, and that the power of the final scenes comes from the slow, incomplete slipping of that mask.

Being setup, I agree though I think the set up is poorly done, doesn't mean that it is not inorganic and works against previous characterization.

You can think it's poorly done, but I've cited some examples of characterization through dialogue and action that flow directly into the later developments of the film. What examples of the characterization of Chiron, Kevin, etc. do you think conflict with the climactic scenes in the second act?

[knives]

Most of the tough guy put ons you mentioned were from the first act which is disconnected in time and method. Within the context of the second story there's nothing to suggest this Kevin is dumb. If anything his main point of characterization here is his mouth and how to use it further emphasized by the final act and his prison story. It is only in this one incident of some character who exists only to produce conflict does he shut up and just act. Then the film plays Saint Francis for the actual beating just to cutely play out that long shot. The sequence of events while not impossible for these characters does seem rather forced in its current form.

My main problem is how the targeting of Chiron through Kevin is forced. You have to infer a lot of things for the choice of Kevin to organically make sense and even then why now and why to such a degree? The only logical thing to draw on is that Kevin was chosen because he is Chiron's only friend. If that's the case though this has had to have happened before so why does Kevin not put up a better defense? Certainly he's not an uncaring individual as shown throughout the rest of the film and even in the context of the scene it is clear he realizes how much this would hurt Chiron. His character specifically is the one that seems out for the scene as the script tries to get Chiron to the end point it wants for him.

[NoVaNY]

How the Kevin character is integrated in the bullying scene was, in my opinion, a flaw in an otherwise piercing and vibrant film. This integration just felt too contrived and melodramatic, considering the moment shared by Chiron and Kevin in the beach (the chance encounter also felt contrived, but the details of the beach scene -- especially Chiron's awkward but endearing responses to Kevin's inquiries -- were very well done). A possibly more realistic approach to the bully scene would have been to have Kevin witness the scene and does nothing to help Chiron. With all that said, it's interesting that Chiron's retaliation is directed at the mastermind. In other words, Chiron understands that Kevin is just a puppet, a victim of sorts.

I disagree with an earlier post indicating that Chiron's future is unresolved. The entire point of the last 15 minutes of the film -- certainly the wondrous final image -- is that Chiron has started and will continue to follow a more honest and emotionally fulfilling path. In other words, Chiron will be perfectly fine if Kevin tells him good-luck; what's more important is that Chiron allowed himself to visit Kevin. Empowerment -- with head held up high and eyes boldly open -- requires baby steps.

[Drucker]

I disagree with an earlier post indicating that Chiron's future is unresolved. The entire point of the last 15 minutes of the film -- certainly the wondrous final image -- is that Chiron has started and will continue to follow a more honest and emotionally fulfilling path. In other words, Chiron will be perfectly fine if Kevin tells him good-luck; what's more important is that Chiron allowed himself to visit Kevin. Empowerment -- with head held up high and eyes boldly open -- requires baby steps.

Wow, I disagree with this entirely. I don't think Chiron has been "honest" with himself at all. He's taken on his mentor's/father-figure's identity because he was so unhappy with who he truly was: a small, weak, gay kid. He's never been fine with who he is, even when he had people in his life telling him he was. Chiron has opened up emotionally to all of three people in his life, and one of them is Kevin. If he were to be turned away by Kevin again, that would only harden his instinct not to live honestly, and remain closeted (sexually and emotionally). The ending of the movie could be the beginning of living that honesty, but we don't know.

[mfunk9786]

We don't know, but I don't think NoVaNY was saying that he's changed overnight - I believe "baby steps" were mentioned. We don't know what the future holds for him, but to see the final act of the film as a lateral move for Chiron's emotional development from the point that we're introduced to him as an adult is mighty pessimistic.