… but what about the rest? aka, the award for the show most in need of revamping goes to…
I didn’t expect much from the Oscar show. I missed the live telecast, and by the time I sat down for the rerun, I already knew who’d won the big awards. So I was surprised when I sat up five minutes into Chris Rock’s opening monologue. As if signalling his intent to not let the race controversy die, he wore a white tuxedo over black pants, and rapped about why blacks did not protest during the earlier Oscars. “Because we had real things to protest at the time, you know? Too busy being raped and lynched to care about who won Best Cinematographer, you know? When your grandmother’s swinging from a tree, it’s really hard to care about Best Documentary Foreign Short.” I gasped. The occasional shots of the audience showed an uneasy bunch – they wanted to be hip enough to laugh, and yet, they didn’t know if they should. Rock was merciless. “This year, in the In Memoriam package, it’s just going to be black people that were shot on their way to the movies.”
He did not spare blacks either. “It’s not fair that Will [Smith] was this good [in Concussion] and doesn’t get nominated. But it is also not fair that Will was paid $20 million for Wild Wild West.” This was the acidulous theme of the evening. There was a sketch in which black actors pretended to play parts made famous by white actors – I am still chuckling over the sight of Tracy Morgan in (and as) The Danish Girl. Another bit involved Rock outside a theatre in a predominantly black neighbourhood, where moviegoers registered utter incomprehension when asked about “white” films. (Spotlight? What the hell is that? Bridge of Spies? Where are you getting these movies from?) For the first time in maybe forever, it felt like the host wasn’t there to just dish out a few jokes. He had hijacked the Oscar stage for intensely personal agenda, to show an audience of ridiculously privileged whites what they looked like when seen through a black man’s eyes. Introducing the first presenters of the evening, Rock cracked, “You want diversity, we got diversity! Please welcome Emily Blunt and somebody whiter, Charlize Theron.” Ouch!
The other message Rock sent out was this: Enough with the lame routines. Let’s do this show like pros. Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe’s shtick, to pick just one, was the very definition of a lame routine. Crowe began, “Good evening, folks. We’re here to present the award for Best Adapted Screenplay.” Gosling cut in, “Not to get too technical, that’s the screenplay that was the very best at adapting to whatever harsh conditions and obstacles were thrown in its way.” And on and on it went. Gosling and Crowe came off like amateurs in front of comedy pros like Sacha Baron Cohen and Louis CK, who feasted on the comic opportunities provided by the Best Documentary Short category. His brilliant bit landed at the sweet spot between “no one really cares about this award” and “what these people do is still so valuable.” Given that the Oscar host is essentially doing what a stand-up comedian does, why not get… actual comedians?
And why not get actual writers to script what the presenters read off those damn Teleprompters? Here’s how The Martian was announced: “A sci-fi epic with heart, a classic adventure saga that’s as big as an entire planet and yet occurs at the smallest possible human scale – that of one man alone.” This isn’t an art-house darling. It’s a huge global blockbuster. Why waste time telling the audience what they already know? Here’s how Cate Blanchett introduced the Best Costume Design segment: “Costumes are much more than just the clothes actors wear on screen. They’ve been called the skin of the character…” She could have said the same thing in four letters: Y-A-W-N. Another gem: “The five extraordinary artists nominated for Best Actress delivered performances with complexity and depth.” As opposed to all those other years where five merely ordinary artists found themselves nominated for phoning in their lines? How baffling to find such banality in the celebration of an industry whose currency is dialogue.
Why not scrap all this pre-award-presentation chit chat and give the winners more time to speak? I loved what Pete Docter said to schoolkids: “There are days you are going to feel sad, angry, going to be scared… Make films, draw, write, it will make a world of difference.” I loved the happiness Brie Larson radiated, the genuineness of her thank-yous. I was touched by Mark Rylance’s acknowledgement of his fellow nominees: “I don’t know how they separate my acting from your glorious acting in these wonderful films that you are in. I don’t know how they separated the five of us from all the other supporting actors who are making films at the moment.” I loved how heartfelt Leonardo DiCaprio sounded when making his points about climate change. There might have been many more such speeches if only the winners weren’t nervous about being shooed off by the eye-on-the-second-hand orchestra.
Because let’s face it, the majority of the awards are like the one for… Best Documentary Short. They’re important only to those who win. So if you want people to sit down for a three-hour show, you have to give them something too. No wonder the ratings for this year’s show are dismal. Who but the most ardent Oscar watchers would be interested in the grave address by the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences about the vital changes the industry needs in order to accurately reflect the world today? I’ve come to feel our awards ceremonies are sometimes better. They don’t think they’re saving the world. They deign to entertain viewers. I loved watching Priyanka Chopra at the Oscars – presenting a major award, no less, for Best Editing – but wasn’t she much more fun doing that tribute to Rekha at one of the IIFA shows?
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
MANK
March 5, 2016
I’ve come to feel our awards ceremonies are sometimes better. They don’t think they’re saving the world. They deign to entertain viewers. I loved watching Priyanka Chopra at the Oscars – presenting a major award, no less, for Best Editing – but wasn’t she much more fun doing that tribute to Rekha at one of the IIFA shows?
Brangan, bingo. our awards shows are worthless but unpretentious. they know what it is , it is a show and people want to see the stars and see them give filmi performances – so there are dances , comedy , banter between the hosts and stars – nothing more. so give awards to everybody attending and everybody performing.everybody goes home happy including the audience .
Yes i liked Chris Rock’s monologue and the fact that he spoke about both sides of the black issue – as you pointed out about will smith remark- and sexism – regarding #askmore – made it even more enjoyable. About the awards, well i felt sorry that both George miller and Stallone got robbed.
LikeLike
olemisstarana
March 5, 2016
One quick word before allll hell breaks loose. (I remember I got super shouty in the race thread, so trust me this time I’m watching it…)
“…he wore a white tuxedo over black pants, and rapped about why blacks did not protest during the earlier Oscars.”
“He did not spare blacks either. ”
Blacks? Really? Can we please say black people? You know just how fond I am of you, but seriously the cringe factor caught me off guard. (Are you quoting someone?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
olemisstarana
March 5, 2016
For that matter…. whites too is kinda awkward. (Sorry…)
LikeLike
olemisstarana
March 5, 2016
Did you catch the Stacey Dash moment? I was watching the telecast with a passel of genteel intellectuals (the kind that actually paired their wine with cheese…) and I gasped SO loud when she came on to the stage, and the awkwardness in the faces of the white audience was like writing on a wall…
Here’s why – http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/10/20/8-reasons-stacy-dash-rubs-the-black-community-the-wrong-way/
I found the monologue very unsettling. And that’s why I think it landed. He made me think, and offended me in parts, which is good, because jeez louise this entire Oscar blinding white fest deserves to be upended. I remember when they announced Chris Rock was going to be the host two quick thoughts ran through my mind. 1. Good. I hope he’s brutal. 2. This reminds me uncomfortably of the white communities that would hire black minstrels to entertain them before getting really down to business at hand… sometimes dispensing with black people and just hiring white men in black face.
LikeLike
Vanya
March 5, 2016
There was plenty to like about Chris Rock’s turn as host, but he drew some flak too. In a year where the emphasis was on the rejection of white overrepresentation in movies, it was unfortunate that he (and Baron Cohen) chose to include tired old Asian American stereotypes in their material. Also, not sure why he said “real problems” — bigger maybe, but not any more real than the problems black people face today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vanya
March 5, 2016
Btw, it’s encouraging to see that the #oscarssowhite movement may actually have some long-term impact: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/movies/jj-abrams-takes-steps-to-lift-diversity-in-filmmaking.html?referer=https://www.google.com/.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
March 5, 2016
@ olemisstarana: Yup, you’re damn right it was brutal. Quite political in places and very hard hitting…unlike your typical Oscars monologue. I should check out the Jon Stewart monologue because I can’t think of any other Oscar host who could have come up with something like this. Nice contrast between the awkward smiles on the faces of the white attendees and the admiring looks on those of the black ones. Once way back I used to watch Oscar ceremonies but stopped because of the stuff, frozen-in-time feel of it. It’s utterly formulaic and predictable, which is oddly apt given that we are in the golden age of sequels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
March 5, 2016
I had a problem with Because we had real things to protest at the time, you know? Too busy being raped and lynched to care about who won Best Cinematographer, you know? too.
Different times have different problems. Does not make them any less real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
March 5, 2016
Olemisstarana : Perhaps its because I live in India and have not needed to use the term myself, I had not known until your post that calling people “Blacks” is thought cringe worthy. So to learn more, I googled “Is it racist to call someone Black?” and the one of the top comments on Yahoo answers was :
The term African American is now considered as racist as black. The new proper term is “Americans Whose African Ancestors were Forcibly Displaced but now are Contributing to a Better Society in Spite of on going Oppression and Lack of Reparations”.
Sure it takes a lot longer to say, but we will know who among us are racist when and if they complain about the new accepted term.
I suspect that was a joke.
Or was it😨
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
March 5, 2016
tonks: Me too. I keep reading articles that routinely use the word “blacks”.
olemisstarana, what do you make of this 2016 New York Times piece?
It has these lines:
“and the distrust between impoverished communities and the police continues to spiral (helped in no small part by the fact that blacks make up more than a third of the prison population, compared to only 13 percent of the overall population).”
and
“Do black lives matter?”
I point to this source because I usually look up to NYT as a style guide.
LikeLiked by 4 people
DocByBirth
March 5, 2016
And now, for every Oscar henceforth, we will have Oscars being awarded to black people simply for the sake of awarding black people.
I’d love it if black people won, but now as a knee jerk response to the Oscarssowhite controversy, deserving actors and actresses may be passed up to satisfy a “black awards” quota.
But then again, the Oscar ceremony is essentially the film industry pleasuring itself and we watch them do that with an open mouth, voyeurs that we are. So in the end I doubt it matters.
LikeLike
Iswarya
March 5, 2016
Olemisstarana: I’m mildly apprehensive about contradicting you 🙂 but still I thought I could weigh in with a small nuance. I think the use of ‘Black’ with a capital ‘B’ is considered acceptable, while the non-capitalised form is not, at least in scholarly usage – Of course, that’s the only area I can speak about, with any authority.
See this from the American Psychological Association’s latest Style Manual (APA 6):
Preferences for terms referring to racial and ethnic groups change often. One reason for
this is simply personal preference; preferred designations are as varied as the people they
name. Another reason is that over time, designations can become dated and sometimes
negative. Authors are reminded of the two basic guidelines of specificity and sensitivity.
In keeping with Guideline 2, use commonly accepted designations (e.g., Census categories)
while being sensitive to participants’ preferred designation. For example, some
North American people of African ancestry prefer Black and others prefer African
American; both terms currently are acceptable. On the other hand, Negro and Afro-American have become dated; therefore, usage of these terms generally is inappropriate.
Language that essentializes or reifies race is strongly discouraged and is generally considered
inappropriate. For example, phrases such as the Black race and the White race are essentialist in nature, portray human groups monolithically, and often serve to perpetuate
stereotypes. Authors sometimes use the word minority as a proxy for non-White racial
and ethnic groups. This usage may be viewed pejoratively because minority is usually
equated with being less than, oppressed, and deficient in comparison with the majority
(i.e., Whites). Use a modifier (such as ethnic or racial) when using the word minority.
When possible, use the actual name of the group or groups to which you are referring.
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized.
Therefore, use Black and White instead of black and white (the use of colors to refer to other human groups currently is considered pejorative and should not be used).
Unparallel designations (e.g., African Americans and Whites; Asian Americans and Black
Americans) should be avoided because one group is described by color while the other
group is described by cultural heritage. For modifiers, do not use hyphens in multiword
names, even if the names act as unit modifiers (e.g., Asian American participants)
LikeLike
Iswarya
March 5, 2016
Ah, finally! The voting buttons are gone, and now this is going to take some time getting used to. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nee
March 6, 2016
olay miss…puhlease come off your high horses. You sound like aggrieved employee who has been recently fired from their job. Everything-everyone is wrong. Blacks. Whites. African Americans. grammer. Blah-blah-blah or should I say neigh, nee, nay.
LikeLiked by 2 people
praneshp
March 6, 2016
olemisstarana: Is that a general piece of advice (blacks vs black people), or just political correctness/personal opinion? We should start calling a collection of people with dwarfism “dwarf people” if it’s the latter. Same with idiots/idiot people.
African-American is nonsense; I have black friends that take offense to that term because they are just American.
LikeLike
VJ
March 6, 2016
I thought Priyanka Chopra was laughing a little too hard at all the jokes , just to show she got it and she belonged ! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
Hey BR… interesting. Out of the 36 instances that the word black appears in the article, that is literally the only instance where the word “black” is used plainly as “the blacks.” I guess I am coming to it from the perspective of physical medicine and rehabilitation, where later papers have really started frowning upon referring to people with disabilities as the disabled. The rationale being that these are people first, and happen to have disabilities, but that does not define them, no matter what the context.
Saying “people with black” or “people of black” is just nudging it towards absurdity, but the most accepted phrase in a lot of left wing media frowns on saying “the blacks” and leaving it at that. Every other instance in the article you mention also has “black income” or “black middle class” or “black America” etc. etc., signaling to the reader that the subject of the sentence is income, middle class, or America that happens to be black. It’s a subtle thing, and imho, using “blacks” as subject and qualifier is on its way out (unless we are following outlets like Breitbart or Fox News, and then we can’t be friends any more), just like using the word “negro” and “the coloreds” and even “colored people” is so out. “People of color” seems to work okay, so put that in your pipe and smoke it, I’m just as tentative myself.
In the instance you quote, it honestly feels like an oversight more than intention, given the consistency of other use elsewhere, but again, I may be wrong.
LikeLike
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
DocByBirth: Wanna take a bet? I’ll bet you my Bentley (I swear I have one) and you can put up the first beater car you find abandoned by the highway. I’ll have a notary public ratify it.
I do agree with the second half of your comment though. The Oscars are a largely self-congratulatory event.
LikeLike
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
Tonks: It stood out to me as well. It’s like saying to the feminist movement in the US fighting for equal pay for equal work, “count your lucky stars, feminazi, in Saudi you can’t drive a car.” We can handle more than one problem at a time, and the Oscars are definitely symbolic of a more systemic problem where black actors, writers, directors never rise to positions where they can be considered worthy of an Oscar. But the delivery and timing of the joke felt almost as though he was making fun of the contention itself…
And I really wasn’t flaggint eh use of the term black when it is used as a descriptor – of black people, the black person, black students etc. It’s saying “the blacks” and leaving it at that that I believe is waning. As such I wouldn’t point it out in the comments, because I have only 24 hours in a day, but in the body of the main article it makes more of an impact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
March 6, 2016
I have found “blacks” used everywhere (in New York Times, New Yorker, Guardian, which are usually the sources I refer to when I am in doubt about usage):
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/14/body-count-a-critic-at-large-kelefa-sanneh
But interestingly, this Guardian piece uses “black people:”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/11/oath-keepers-ferguson-automatic-rifles
Maybe there isn’t a consensus?
LikeLiked by 2 people
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
BR: Quite possibly… it’s also possible that I read far too much Jezebel and Gawker, where a certain section of the commentariat will absolutely eviscerate you if you use it. Though I have to say, it’s really fascinating to read the examples you have outlined…! I’ll cling like a drowning moppet to my original point, though… even instinctively it seems a little off (to me.)
(this might be a repost, my computer messed up a little, so please approve this version if possible)
LikeLike
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
Speaking of evisceration… hi there, Nee! I almost missed you! You really look like someone who cannot take a joke to save her life, but if you are going to stick this close to my ass, you are going to have to learn quickly. So I decided to start a game of bingo in all the threads you show up in. I know it’s cheating to actually let you know what the variables will be, but what the heck, maybe others want to play along with me too.
Ready?
Haggle toothed Witch Baddydaddy
Victim blaming Rape apology Race baiting without context
gratuitous mis-spelling of my name Hag Cleaning lady
Ugly Big whiskers Louse/Lice woman
Help me out… am I missing anything here? I can add and subtract from the rows and I’ll give myself a shot when I do a row or a column.
Alright then I got my watermelon scented highlighter cocked, let’s play!
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
March 6, 2016
BR is right on this one. “Blacks” is just fine. Still used by all major newspapers across the U.S.
LikeLiked by 1 person
olemisstarana
March 6, 2016
Ishwarya… yikes! Please disagree with me all you want! I guess I have a “reputation” around these parts… But yes — Thank you SO much for the context. Let me see if I have this right – black is preferred over Afro-Am, which is something I do not disagree with. I may not have typed this clearly enough – the word I was smelling my salts over is not black, but the use of black without a descriptor word after it.
Re: the APA style manual, correct me if I am wrong, the scholarly use may not be completely appropriate here, because none of these are scholarly papers…? I mean, the NYT seems to disagree with me (how dare they??? j/k) so I may very well be entirely out of my depth here.
I’ll come at it from the non-academic pov, Code Switch is a pretty interesting little podcast and they explain the falling out of parlance of the coloreds etc. –
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/30/295931070/the-journey-from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color
More on point – do put “blacks” into Ctrl+F for an interesting conversation. (Sorry, I did not know how to extract the relevant section without messing up the formatting)
Particularly —
“Black person, black people, but never ‘the blacks’, black community perhaps but again never ‘the blacks’. I’m a black American, I didn’t immigrate from African nor do I have any legitimate proof that my family did other than my skin and I don’t feel like I should be called African-American. Heritage only goes so far; I still define my own future. My dad’s birth certificate says “colored”, wouldn’t be surprised if he let it slip from time to time either. Also, if the context and setting is appropriate, just say nigger. Saying ‘the n-word’ just makes other people think nigger anyways so might as well just it out loud.”
Insert all the obvious caveats here, please!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
March 6, 2016
Different times have different problems. Does not make them any less real.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
March 6, 2016
Atlast the meaningless votes are dead and gone here. If somebody wants to express dislike, they should take the trouble of explaining. Sometimes it is done just to harass. If these things dont make any difference to some, then even its absence should also make any difference. I have a thin skin and I cant help it. I take it better if someone dislikes me in some 3 or 4 sentences. Very few use it properly and the rest use it either to discourage that person coming to the blog or out of some sadistic pleasure. Now the mischief mongers must have become jobless!
As for calling them blacks, I think it is an abbreviation for black people. A sort of sms language. Just imagine calling some people yellows or browns!
Our award functions cater to us and Oscars caters to them and also to us. Comparing apples with oranges. I am waiting for the day when some hot hollywood star proudly attending our filmfare award function and get splashed allover LAtimes and NYtimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
March 6, 2016
Olemisstarana: I guess I am coming to it from the perspective of physical medicine and rehabilitation, where later papers have really started frowning upon referring to people with disabilities as the disabled. The rationale being that these are people first, and happen to have disabilities, but that does not define them, no matter what the context.
Since you say “later papers” here, am I assuming correctly that you’re referring to scholarly papers on the subject? The APA has a clear distinction between the “people first” language used for disability categories and the indicators of ethnic descent. This is, I believe, due to the fact that disability is a condition, while race is inevitably a part of one’s identity.
It makes sense that people should not be identified just by the use of colours as common nouns, for as early as the beginning of 20th C. even people like EM Forster pointed out that Whites were actually “pinko-grey”! Maybe the capitalisation helps.
I’ve worked with a co-editor who self-identifies alternatively as ‘African American’ or ‘Black’ but never ‘black’ without the capitals. And with good reason, I think. Because then we, Indians (mostly), would have to go in search of our own lexicons for Fifty (or more) Shades of Brown! 😉
(Notice also the use of “Whites” in parenthesis in my quote from the APA. I’m sure that can’t be oversight.)
LikeLike
P
March 6, 2016
“I’ve come to feel our awards ceremonies are sometimes better. They don’t think they’re saving the world. They deign to entertain viewers.”
YES. YES. YES. (Like Sridevi says in Rang Bhare Badal Se) 🙂
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
March 6, 2016
Adding a bit more perspective to the usage issue. As most of us already know, the meaning of words evolves. For e.g, MLK used “Negro” multiple times in his “I have a dream” speech when the word was not considered offensive. However, over the years, this word assumed invidious connotations and had to be shunned. “Blacks” is not used to demean a people. It is not a slur. Hence, its continued usage for now.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
March 6, 2016
I thought Priyanka Chopra was laughing a little too hard at all the jokes , just to show she got it and she belonged ! 🙂
@ VJ, vijay: You guys rock. 🙂
LikeLike
shaviswa
March 7, 2016
High time we stop this meaningless search for politically correct terms. Words that are no longer in use – negro, afro-american, etc – or those in current use black, black people – they mean the same. The connotation cannot change just with the change of the word(s). It is the human attitude that needs to change.
This is very similar to the usage of words like untouchables, harijan (introduced by Gandhi), dalits, etc. I do not know which term is current in today’s context.
There can be no end to this debate. Please use the words that make sense to you and help you to communicate what you intended to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KayKay
March 13, 2016
Late to the party, but my own thoughts:
And so, the Oscars:
Leo for Best Actor: Predictably the sympathy vote
Brie Larsson for Best Actress: OK, am really not keen on watching Room, given it’s depressing content (I did my duty sitting through 12 Years A Slave 2 years ago) but she was amazing in The Spectacular Now and Short Term 12, so good for you, girl!
Alejandro Gonzales Inarrittu for Best Director: Ok. Every frame of The Revenant made sweet, gentle love to my eyeballs which pretty much excuses the generic revenge plot.
Best Cinematography: The Revenant: See above.
Best Supporting Actor: Not Sly??????? Damn!
Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander. I want to celebrate her win, not by watching The Danish Girl, but by finally getting around to seeing Ex-Machina!
Best Song: Hahahahahaha!!! You’re kidding right? One of the dullest, most forgettable Bond song in recent times wins??? Bring back Adele for the next one!!
Best Score: Awesome! The great Morricone delivered a pulsing, menacing soundtrack, which heightened the suspense as effectively as Tarantino’s screenplay for his sadly under-performing Murder Mystery/Western did.
Best animated movie: Inside Out. Damn right it is. Pixar’s depiction of the inside of a conflicted young girl’s mind was amazing, exhilarating and heart-wrenching. This was a true emotional experience, unlike the blatant manipulations of the far inferior The Good Dinosaur
Best Picture and Best Screenplay: Spotlight. Woo Hoo! Proof that when you have a stellar cast, tight screenplay, topical subject matter and great writing, you can put Batman, Sabretooth and The Hulk in a film with ZERO action, CGI or pyrotechnics, and still have it be an exciting and riveting watch!
Best Screenplay (Adapted): Proof that when you have a stellar cast, tight screenplay, topical subject matter and great writing, you can put Batman, the hunky Ryan who’s NOT Deadpool, The Moron from Anchorman and Achilles in a film with ZERO action, CGI or pyrotechnics, and still have it be an exciting and riveting watch!
Best Costume, Editing, Sound Effects, Sound Editing, Make Up,Production Design: And there is justice in the world after all! 2015’s Most Awesome Action Movie takes home all the honours!
Best Visual Effects: Ex-Machina: Damn! Now I have to watch this!
LikeLike
brangan
March 13, 2016
KayKay: I didn’t find the VFX in Ex Machina all that revolutionary (though they were certainly very well done) — but the film is quite a nice change from the noisy sci-fi we usually get. More like the brooding sci-fi of the 70s. Imagine Stepford Wives crossed with Logan’s Run…
LikeLike
KayKay
March 14, 2016
It’ll be nice to watch a movie where the VX isn’t obtrusive. It’s the “Se how cool this effect shot is” phenomena that’s muting much of the Science in the Sci-Fi genre.
On that note, may I recommend the hell out of “Predestination” if you haven’t seen it yet?
LikeLike