Beyond the Hills (orig. Dupa Dealuri) [2012]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Chicago SunTimes (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (S. Boone) review
Chicato Tribune (M. Phillips) review
AVClub (S. Tobias) review

Beyond the Hills (orig. Dupa Dealuri) [2012] is an award winning Romanian language (English subtitled) film directed and screenplay by Cristian Mungiu based on the non-fiction novels of Tatiana Niculescu Bran that could serve as a much needed corrective to the plethora of increasingly problematic Hollywood "exorcism" movies that IMHO honestly don't serve the Church much good except to marginalize us further into a ghetto of superstition and needlessly stupid backwardness.

The story that plays out is based on a true incident in which a young female Novice to an Orthodox Christian Monastery in rural Moldova (today an independent country but linguistically/culturally related to Romania) died as a result of an exorcism performed on her that "went awry" (and it would appear that ALL concerned were in agreement that in better circumstances the exorcism probably would not have been performed at all ...).  Please don't get me wrong.  I do believe in the existence of Evil and I do certainly believe in the existence of the Devil.  BUT ANY HONEST CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN would understand, and the Catholic hierarchy in this matter is CERTAINLY HONEST, the need for Exorcisms is _rare_. 

So what happened here?  Well the fictionalized case (set in the film in rural Romania) is as follows: Two young women, Voichita (played by Cosmina Stratan) and Alina (played by Cristina Flutur) had grown-up together in a Romanian orphanage.  After reaching maturity, Alina went to Germany and found work there while Voichita stayed in Romania.  The film begins at a Romanian train station with Alina having come back to fetch Voichita to take her back with her to Germany.  Voichita, however, had found another calling in the meantime.  She had become a Novice at a Orthodox Christian Monastery in the hills outside of town (hence the name of the film...).  So when Alina arrives, she takes her with her to her new home.

Now here something needs to be said that I do believe was excellently portrayed in the film but none of the American movie-critics that I cite above were able to catch or appreciate it: Life at the Monastery, while austere and certainly regimented was also freely chosen.  Absolutely no one had a gun to their heads to come or to stay.  There were simply rules and the price of staying at the Monastery was respecting the rules. (One thing that I've long respected about the Orthodox Christians is that they are quite serene in their faith: Whether or not one chooses to accept their faith/way of life is up to the individual.  They simply march on, whether or not any particular individual buys into it or not.  At the end of an excellent documentary called Russian Reserve [2010] about a Russian Orthodox priest and his little church in a small village somewhere in the middle of the Russian Steppe, the priest simply declares to the documentary's viewers: "There is no need to 'Save the World,' because it will outlast us.  There's no need to 'Save the Church' because it will save us.  There's no need to 'Save Russia,' one simply needs to love it.  There's no need to 'Save the Village,' one simply needs to live in it."  Again, there's IMHO a remarkable serenity in Orthodox Christianity ;-): "You're free to join us but whether you do or not, we'll go on without you." ;-).  How's that as a serene reply to ever  "exquisite" contemporary American narcissism? ;-)

So this then forms the backdrop to the story.  The "problem" isn't "the Church," here, the problem is the conflict existing in Voichita: Alina desperately loves Voichita (yes, in the carnal, lesbian sort of way).  But Voichita would prefer to put that past behind her and spend the rest of her life in the Monastery.  Since Voichita won't budge, Alina who doesn't even believe in God, in increasing desperation CHOOSES TO TRY to join the Monastery as well.  OF COURSE SHE "DOESN'T FIT IN," which is obvious to everyone, to Alina, to Voichita, to Father superior ("Papa" played by Valeriu Andriuta) who presides at the Monastery's church and to Mother superior ("Mama" played by Dana Tapalaga) who presides over the nuns consecrated, of course, to perpetual celibate chastity.  And with every rejection of every advance that Alina makes toward Voichita, she gets increasingly desperate to the point that after an incident where she wanted to throw herself down the Monastery's well, the nuns call the paramedics/ambulance.  They take her to the local hospital.  There after a few days in a straight-jacket, they release her "home."

BUT THERE IS NO HOME.  Alina (like Voichita) is an orphan.  She has nobody.  The foster family in town that took care of her in her later teenage years has another girl in their charge.  Now, if the Monastery could be faulted in anything, it should be faulted for not simply EXPELLING Alina for her own good saying in effect: "You're in your 20s.  Yes, you have no job and no family, but YOU CAN'T STAY HERE, you don't believe in God for goodness sake..." ;-).  Instead, with truly tragic Christian concern, THEY KEEP HER (and Voichita, who I honestly would have expelled as well...) even as ALINA gets more eratic/crazier by the day.

That's when Mother Superior tells "Papa" why don't you "do those prayers over her (perform an exorcism). It MAY give her peace." "Do you know what you are asking?  I can't do this without permission of her family and in the presence of OTHER PRIESTS."  But there is no real family (okay there is actually a simple brother of hers, who actually does menial work at the Monastery, and told that it could do her some good, agrees to it) and THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE in the ROLLING HILLS OF RURAL ROMANIA.  So there aren't exactly a ton of priests with nothing to do but come over from miles away to (ROLLING THEIR EYES) help perform an Exorcism on a troubled woman who ALL KNEW WAS TROUBLED but also ALL BASICALLY KNEW WASN'T POSSESSED TO BEGIN WITH.  But after Alina sets her Cell (room) on fire, "Papa" decides to give it a shot.

Now, POSSESSED OR NOT, NO ONE is going to be willingly exorcised.  So Alina has to be tackled, tied to a makeshift stretcher and then taken into the Chapel to be "prayed over" (Again, I honestly would have expelled her...again FOR HER OWN GOOD, but I do actually buy the sincerity of this group that decided to try to "pray over her" to try to give her Peace).

Well after A FEW DAYS OF THIS Alina PASSES-OUT and after the Monastery calls in the paramedics, in the presence of the paramedics SHE DIES.  How to explain all this to the authorities?  WELL "Papa" and the nuns DON'T TRY TO HIDE ANYTHING and appear completely willing to serenely accept "come what may."

What a tragedy and HONESTLY what a great if excruciatingly sad film.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Spring Breakers [2012]

MPAA (R)  Chicago SunTimes (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars with Explanation)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review
AV Club (S. Tobias) review

Note to all.  Due to the nature of this movie, this review itself is not really intended for younger readers.  It's intended more for parents and older teens/young adults.  Yet, as you will read, the film is certainly worthy of review.  This is because for all the (generally female) nudity, drugs (both pot and coke), and stylized gangsta violence (much of the film runs like a truly uncut "Girls Gone Wild" video drawing the line at out-and-out sex), it's difficult for me to understand Spring Breakers [2012] (screenplay and directed by Harmony Korine) as anything but a surprisingly total - root and branch - condemnation of the whole MTV-style College Spring Break phenomenon.

For this reason, while the film is certainly a hard-R, bordering on / crossing into NC-17 territory, this may not be a bad film for parents with college-age children to see and not to, as the youth oriented AVClub's reviewer feared, to "keep their daughters locked-up" but above all to promote honesty in communication with their college aged / young adult children.  For no one goes to "find themselves" on the beaches of Cancun, or Mazatlan (Mexico), or Daytona, Pensacola or Fort Lauderdale (Florida) or South Padre Island (Texas) during Spring Break.  They go there to Party.  And with that come the risks of drug overdose, drunken accidents (of a truly phenomenal variety - I knew a guy in college who lost a friend trying to jump between balconies 10 stories up in Fort Lauderdale), rape and yes even drug violence (all those drugs being consumed there have to come from somewhere...).  And this then, the underside of the "MTV style" Spring Break phenomenon, is what this film is about.

The film starts off at a random rural State College apparently somewhere in Tennessee.  Two classmates, Candy (played by Vanessa Hudgens) and Brit (played by Ashley Benson) are taking an evening class on the Civil Rights Movement, but Candy and Brit could care less.  Amid the sea of glowing laptop screens of other students ostensibly taking notes, the two instead exchange pornographic messages confessing to each other that they crave a man (or at least a part of his anatomy) and promising each other that they'll surely find one or even a bunch of them during the upcoming Spring Break.  After class, they come back to their dorm apartment, strike up the bong, do a line or two of coke, and then check with roommate Cotty (played by Rachel Korine) as to how much money they have "saved-up" for the trip...

Their other roommate, Faith (played by Selena Gomez) is at a campus prayer meeting.  She doesn't look all that excited to be there at the prayer meeting but she is there.  The bearded student leader of the prayer group is authentic enough.  And he leads the group in a sharing on the theme of "Resisting Temptation," his final message being: "If you're tempted remember that God will always offer you another door to get out" adding with kind, youthful sincerity: "How cool is that?"  And the rest of the group, dutifully and generally with similar sincerity respond: "Amen."  Faith doesn't necessarily roll her eyes, but doesn't necessarily seem convinced either.

After the meeting, Faith's walking with a couple of the other girls who participated back toward the dorm and the girls warn her about her roommates.  Faith defends them saying "Listen, I've known them since forever.  We grew-up together in the same town.  Yes, they may be a bit crazy sometimes, but they're basically good people."  She then tells them that she's probably going to go on Spring break with them.  Bewildered and with the lovely sincerity of youth (folks remember that I am a Catholic priest after all) the two advise her to at least: "Pray hard, yeah, pray 'hard core'" ;-) that she come out okay.

Faith comes home and between her three randy/by now quite stoned roommates and herself, they add up that they have $325 "saved up" for Spring Break (all those drugs back at the dorm, must have cut into their savings...).  One of the girls declares with, again, all the certainly of youth: "That ain't enough to pay for a single night's hotel over there.  They jack up the prices you know..."  Faith herself really wanted to go, "to finally see something of this world besides the same old, same old..."  Telling Faith not to worry, the three others leave her in the dorm room telling her that they "have a plan."

The plan was to steal one of their professor's cars and then knock-off a local Chicken joint.  So Candy and Brit wearing black ski masks and armed with a plastic gun (it's actually a cigarette lighter) and a very large hammer, storm the Chicken joint and proceed with all the gangsta chutzpah that they've learned watching MTV to terrorize the cash register clerk as well as the patrons into giving them their money, while Cody watches "the show" through the restaurant's windows as she drives to the back to pick them up after they're done.  After getting away, they torch the car in a nearby forest (using the cigarette lighter ...) and come home with oodles of cash.  Faith isn't particularly concerned where the money came from when they return.  And the next day they're off on the bus to Florida.

Spring break becomes all the debauchery that they expected it to be.  And all of them, including Faith are mesmerized.  Only Faith is actually calling home at the time, but she's talking nonsense, telling among others her own grandmother how wonderful it all is, how she and all these other people are "finding themselves" and how "next year" she'd like to TAKE HER (her GRANDMA) DOWN THERE TO SPRING BREAK WITH HER ;-).  Again, she's babbling.  And it's clear that she's babbling because the film shows that they had spent the day on the beach doing everything that the other revelers were doing: beer bongs, topless chicken fights, flipping-off / trash-talking random passer-bys and so forth.

The babbling stops and the movie descends to a new level when police inevitably raid a party where the four girls were attending, and soon the four find themselves in just their bikinis cuffed outside the hotel with a whole bunch of similarly clad and similarly cuffed revelers.  And it's actually kinda lucky that they're cuffed in at least their bikinis because before the cops storm in, Faith (the character if probably not the actress) is shown lying on a coffee table topless with others snorting coke off of her stomach).  And to underscore the point while they're outside, cuffed, waiting to be taken away by the police, the only one whose bikini top and bottom don't match is good ole Faith ... (Yes, folks the film's a hard R ...)  What the heck happened?

The four are brought in before the judge who gives them each of them a $150+ fine or two more days in the County jail for public intoxication and drug use.  Since the four tell the judge that they don't have the money, he sends them back to serve the two days in the clink.

The film then descends to the next level when the four are surprised to find themselves bailed-out a few hours later by a local drug-dealing, platinum teeth wearing rapper nicknamed "Alien" (played stunningly if utterly terrifying by James Franco), who after bailing them out takes them in his custom detailed Camaro convertible to party with some of "his homeys."  This is where Faith's had enough and asks to leave.  After a very tense and creepy conversation with "Alien" who kinda liked her (no doubt because all things considered, she was still more of a challenge than the other three) he decides to let her go and even "graciously" helps her get on the bus and go home.  (That door that the prayer leader had talked about near the beginning of the film did appear to open for her ... and she definitely took it).  For his part, "Alien" probably figured that spending too much time trying to corrupt "Faith" wasn't worth the effort.  He had three other young, scantily-clad beauties in tow, who were far more enthusiastic about indulging in his "lifestyle."

Indeed, the three that remained are just mesmerized by Alien's "sh#t" -- A cool beach house, drugs of all kinds (along with one other guy, who's turning out to be a rival..., "Alien" has been basically supplying the Spring Breakers in that part of Florida with their drugs), all kinds of really cool gangsta weapons (glocks, uzis, numchucks), a big bed (of course) covered with his drug money, even a big white grand piano by his pool (he was "a musician" after all...).

Soon donning now pink ski masks (and looking kinda like "aliens" as a result of the masks' "big wide eyes"), while still in those bikinis, but now brandishing "Alien's" uzis, the three join "Alien" by his grand piano to sing a corny rendition of a Britney Spears number before setting off on a crime spree with him, going out and shaking down/terrorizing the same "Spring Breakers" that "Alien" had previously sold his drugs to for their remaining cash. (That little experience knocking off the Chicken joint "back home" came in handy, though this time they were definitely "going pro").

This of course gets the "other guy" who's been selling drugs on the strip rather upset.  So there are some loose ends still still to resolve ...

And oh yes, Candy and Brit do eventually "call home," telling their folks that they're not coming back north to school, that perhaps they'd find some other school down in Florida to attend. But in the meantime, "not to worry" because they've "found some really incredible people," and have "found themselves" ... Yup... there it is. 

Now who could possibly read this film as anything but an absolutely scathing condemnation of the in-your-face crass "gangsta bling" materialism / hedonism that the "MTV-style Spring Break," indeed MTV itself, has stood for?

Certainly a fair question could be asked: Did the film need to be so graphic?  Sigh ... chances are the audience (young adults) would probably not watch a Dateline or 20/20 segment on "Spring Break."  As graphic as it it, its unmistakable point (this is NOT the way to live) will probably stick in the minds of those who watch it. 

Neither did the film condemn in anyway "Spring Break" in general.  It did not condemn a "Disney Spring Break" (I was stationed in Kissimmee, Florida for 3 1/2 years.  ALL KINDS OF NICE KIDS OF THE SAME AGE GROUP AS THIS FILM WOULD GO DOWN TO DISNEY FOR SPRING BREAK) or a "Mission Experience Spring Break" (For older teens / young adults of my Order's apostolates in North America, my Order's Mexican Province offers an annual Holy Week Experience among the Tlapaneco people that they serve at their Mission in the mountains of Guerrero, Mexico) or even a "Visit France / China / Machu Pichu Spring Break" (I've known teens and young adults who've had wonderful experiences visiting all those places as part of Chicago Public School / College sponsored trips over Spring/Easter Break.  And indeed, Selena Gomez along with "Gossip Girl" Leighton Meester even starred in a very nice "Visit France" film called Monte Carlo [2011] a few years back).  What Spring Breakers [2012] does condemn is a "Drink till you don't remember (and all that follows...) Spring Break."

So yes, this is a graphic movie. But it is certainly not a mindlessly graphic film. Pretty much every scene in this movie has a purpose and the result is, IMHO, an absolutely clear condemnation of the lifestyle it so excruciatingly portrays.

ADDENDUM:

While still agreeing with the basic point of the film (and of my review of it), I did find myself subsequently asking myself some rather uncomfortable questions about the film's elitism (and consequently the elitism of my review):

How sexist, racist and classist is the film?

Sexist: The film clearly chooses to focus on, indeed "go to town," lampoon, make fun of the bad choices of four young college women who go on Spring Break. What about the bad choices of the college men who were there with the four women as well?

Racist: Faith becomes uncomfortable with her Spring Break experience only when she finds herself bailed out by the hip-hopping local "Alien" (still white) AND HIS BLACK FRIENDS.

Classist: In my review of this film, I listed a series of much more positive alternatives to the "MTV style Spring Break" - "A Disney Spring Break," a "Mission / Volunteer Experience Spring Break," a "Visit to France / China / Machu Pichu, (or perhaps even Quebec/Toronto/Vancouver) Spring Break."  BUT all these alternatives COST MONEY.  Spring Break at Daytona or Pensacola would probably be cheaper than many/most of these alternatives (and of course Canada would be far colder than most of the U.S. during the Spring Break time of year...).

Continuing with the "classist" angle: "Alien" and his posse in the film were simply the "local townies" whose communities get invaded each year for a couple of weeks by randy college students (arguably better educated and with more options than the locals).  Who were the real "Aliens" in this story?

Anyway, this all makes for interesting fodder for reflection as well.  After conceding (even wholeheartedly agreeing with) the basic point of the film, was the film too hard on its principal characters? 


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Croods [2013]

MPAA (G)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  Chicago SunTimes (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Chicago SunTimes (N. Minow) review

The Croods[2013] (story, screenplay and directed by Kirk de Micco and Chris Sanders) is a generally lovely and certainly action packed children's animated story about "a family of Neanderthals" that's been trying really, really hard just to survive. 

It hasn't been easy.  Late teenager Eep (voiced by Emma Stone) explains in a voice-over at the beginning of the film that pretty much all their Neanderthal friends and neighbors had been progressively wiped-out or eaten by an assortment of saber toothed animals and even "the common cold."  They've survived because they've learned to function as a super-well disciplined team (honestly, the sequence at the beginning of the film when the family "goes out for breakfast," entailing going-out to steal a giant Pterodactyl egg and then running with it back home, keeping the egg away from not only the now very angry Pterodactyl parent as well as a whole host of similarly hungry/angry/desperate all saber-toothed animals (all drawn in a whimsical if also vicious "Dr. Seuss" style) would make any professional football team proud) and have been led by a truly self-less and brave patriarch (dad) named Grug (voiced by Nicholas Cage).

Grug clearly was not be the brightest of people, but NO ONE could doubt his bravery/concern for the well being of his family composed of himself, his wife Ugga (voiced by Catherine Keener), his mother-in-law Gran (voiced by Cloris Leachman), oldest daughter Eep (voiced by Emma Stone), son Thunk (voiced by Clark Duke) who just worships his father, and the youngest addition to the family, a rather feral baby named Sandy (voiced by Randy Thum) who often serves as the family's "ace in the whole" on their hunting/gathering expeditions (When surprized with otherwise impending doom, one or another of the family members would call out the dreaded words: "Release the Baby" with all the drama of Zeus calling out "Release the Kraken" in the Clash of the Titans [2010] ;-) and baby Sandy proves sufficiently and utterly unpredictably vicious to scare even the largest saber-toothed nasty away from them / their prize to save the day ;-).

But even Grug and his family apparently had qualms about the morality of "Releasing the Baby" on unprepared sabertoothed tigers, etc, too often ;-).  Instead, Grug generally took the lead in protecting the family:  Each morning, he'd roll away the HUGE rock he'd roll in front of their cave as night fell the evening before.  After rolling away the rock, Grug would make a mad and loud dash in front of their cave, FULLY EXPECTING THAT ANY NUMBER OF SABER-TOOTHED ANIMALS COULD BE JUST WAITING TO POUNCE ON HIM.  Then, if "all was clear" he'd signal the rest of the family that it'd be safe to leave the cave as well to begin the day.

Whereas ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WERE EITHER EATEN or otherwise DIED, Grug's kept his family SAFE and alive by following a very simple code: "Never be not afraid.  Fear keeps us alive. Curiosity, doing things differently kills."

It's not overly surprizing that while this way of life has kept the Croods alive in a truly vicious and merciless world, as daughter Eep grows up, she begins to yearn for more.  Is "living in truly constant fear, truly living?"

Enter a guy, named ... Guy (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) ;-).  He too has had a rough life, losing his entire family as a child.  But having lost "his team" when he was small and facing the same vicious world all alone, he's had to survive differently ... by his wits.

So inevitably, big, strong Grug, living by his code (of always living in fear, mistrusting anything new) doesn't particularly like Guy when suddenly Eep finds him and brings him home ;-).  But Eep just loves him, precisely because Guy does things differently:  He gives her a "shell phone" which she can blow into to "call for help" ;-).  He helps the family "make shoes" when they have to cross a plain of very sharp stones. (Eep just loves the shoes ;-).  Most miraculously of all, Guy seems to be able to make "little suns" (Fire ;-), something that for the first time allows the Croods to not have to simply cower in their cave (and in total darkness) every night ... hoping actually that the sun will come out again the next morning (something that they're still never really sure would really happen again).

Then even as the entrance of Guy into Grog's world "rocks" it enough, Grog and his family find that the ground is literally "shifting beneath them" (a continental shift, is apparently taking place).  So Grog and the rest of the Croods have to change whether they like it or not.

This is where Guy becomes something of a Savior figure, leading this good if super-rigid family out of "Fear and Darkness" into "Hope and (with his magical Fire-making ability) "into the Light."

This is a really cute movie.  Clearly there is much for older kids and adults to find in this film.  But the little kids who were sitting in back of me as I watched the movie seemed to like the goofily drawn yet surprisingly vicious animals and the antics of the Croods defending themselves from them.

It's one of those films that pretty much everybody "gets" and enjoys.  Maybe there were a few too many "mother in law" jokes in the film, and Grog may be made a bit stupider than he needed to be (I liked the portrayal of the mother-daughter relationship in Brave [2012] better than the father-daughter relationship in this film), but honestly it's an enjoyable movie about a family that has really learned to work together in order to survive, and then with the arrival of  "Guy" proved flexible enough to accept some new things in order to thrive.  Wonderful film ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Upside Down [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Chicago SunTimes (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (D-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
AVClub (T. Robinson) review
Chicago SunTimes (P. Sobczynski) review

Upside Down [2012] (written and directed by Argentine-born, French-educated director Juan Solanas [IMDb]) is a film that clearly exasperates young (North) American viewers (see the review links above):

On one hand the stunning CGI visuals can not be denied.  This is a fantastic story of two sister planets existing somewhere in the universe that are so close to each other that the mountain peaks of one world practically scrape the mountain peaks of the other and skyscrapers from one world could be built to extend from the base of one world to base of the other thus becoming bridges between the two worlds, albeit actually crossing from one world to the other proves "difficult" as each world is made up of matter "inverse" to the other resulting in each other's matter igniting after a relatively short period of time.

An added wrinkle to the setup of the story, no doubt born of the writer/director's Argentine (Southern hemispheric) origins, is that one world, colloquially called "UpTop" has become far richer than the other, colloquially called "DownBelow," so much so that people from the world "DownBelow" have taken to stealing pieces of the world "UpTop" to use as fuel to warm their hovels below (Remember, the matter from the one world ignites after some time after contacting the inverse matter of the other).  As such migration between the two worlds already very difficult/dangerous because of the physics (presumably no one would really want to ignite in flames after spending an extended time in the other world) but is being actively discouraged by the richer world "UpTop" afraid that the people of the world "DownBelow" would come to "steal" pieces of their world to help heat their own.

Only "bees" apparently flying where they will (and beyond the reach of armed border guards) have been able to fly back and forth between the two world producing a pink pollen with magical (gravity cancelling) properties in both worlds ;-)

Such then is the "magic" of this concept that immediately evokes cinematic wonders like that of the silent film era SciFi classic Metropolis [1927] and the more recent CGI big-budget wonder Inception [2010].  Smaller, more "indie" style films touching on similar themes include the outstanding Another Earth [2011] as well as a small Chilean film that played here at Chicago's Latino Film Festival in 2012 called Third World [2009] (A film that suggested that to the poorer residents of Earth's "third world" countries, visitors from the richer "first world" could just as well be "space aliens.")

The radical dividedness of the the world "rich" and "poor" / "north and south" even "indigenous" / "modern" appears to be clearly appreciated by residents of the Global South.  The current film comes from an Argentinian director.  I've mentioned the Chilean Sci-fi film touching on the same subject.  And I myself was involved in another project, this one a book by Brazilian author Milton Claro and supported by my religious order called The Amazonia that We Do Not Know [2006], which was about the largely unknown and certainly under-appreciated residents of the Amazon, that often dealt with the same theme.  Indeed, that book's chapter, The Story of Judith, describing a Brazilian parliamentary investigation regarding the unequal/abusive relationships that had developed between Brazilian soldiers staffing military outposts in the Amazonian jungle and Yanunami tribespeople they had been sent to protect, sounded to me from the beginning to a story worthy of a science fiction novel in its own right: As I read first read it, I thought to myself: "On my, TO BOTH OF THESE SETS OF PEOPLE, the Yanunamis and the young Brazilian soldiers, the "Others" must have seemed like 'People from another world.'").

Alright, the Concept of this story is simply AWESOME (other AWESOME films from simply a "conceptual" point of view would include the Tron and Transformers franchises).  How about the execution? 

This is "the other hand" of the story where most of the young North American reviewers (see again above) get exasperated.  Too many inconsistencies.  Why don't the star-crossed lovebirds Eden from the world "UpTop" (played by Kirsten Dunst) and Adam from the world "DownBelow" (played by Jim Sturgess) eventually explode or something as a result of all their interaction (first in the mountains of each others worlds as children, then working in the same "Transworld" office building as young adults)?  Heck, they even create a baby (off screen) at the end! (And one thought Bella and Edward of the Twilight Saga [2012] were doing something dangerous/radical ;-).  Then if the worlds are meshed so close together, how does their sun ever rise or set in their worlds?  The questions could be endless... Indeed, both of the young reviewers I refer to above "give up" and one suggesting "just turn on your ipod and watch the graphics" and the other suggesting that the film's true future will be in the home-made "fan videos" that will inevitably appear on YouTube after the film becomes available on DVD (and hence available to be "spliced up" ;-).

But I would suggest to the people (young and no longer so young) who watch the film to do what one's supposed to do when one goes to the movies and just "suspend disbelief" (as if the recent movie Oz: The Great and Powerful [2103] is realistic ...) and enjoy the show.  This film does come from Latin America and there's a whole literary tradition of Magical Realism that comes from there.

Catholics in particular should give the story a chance.  Half the Catholics in the United States now come from "DownBelow" Latin America.  And indeed, we have a new Pope Francis I, who's made it clear that he's going to be interested in dealing with addressing the universal (though in the South patently obvious) problem of poverty.  This film addresses that issue as well and does so in a way that is quite honestly VISUALLY SPECTACULAR.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

No [2012]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoSunTimes (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (O.M. Mozaffar) review
AV Club (M. D'Angelo) review

No [2012] (directed by Pablo Larraín, screenplay by Pedro Peirano based on the play by Antonio Skármeta) is the 2013 Academy Award nominated film (for Best Foreign Language Film from Chile) about how a previously terrorized and initially woefully disorganized opposition was able to win defeat Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1988 Referendum on his rule that he himself had called, set the rules for, and had fully expected to win.

The proposition was this:  By Chile's 1980 Constitution, every 8 years Chile's voters were to be given a simple "Yes" or "No" vote on continued military rule in Chile.  In 1980, Pinochet's military government "won" handily.  But 1988 had come and "hope springs eternal."  For a month before the election, both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns regarding continued Pinochet rule were to be given access to 15 minutes of otherwise state-operated television.  (So in effect, even during the referendum campaign, the "Yes" camp had 23 hours and 45 minutes daily to promote its point of view, while after 15 years of being kept off the air completely, the "No" camp had 15 minutes a day for 1 month to promote its position).

The challenges were many:

(1) Needless to say, the Opposition contained many points of view, including that of surviving Communists/Socialists whose ascendency in 1973 under Socialist president Salvador Allende had served as the pretext for the (U.S. sponsored) military coup.  Allende's rule and the years immediately preceding it had been marked by increasing social/economic tensions and chaos.  The "Yes" camp was certainly going to emphatically argue that "A vote 'No' is a vote for Chaos, Economic Decline and Communism," a characterization that even the surviving Communists/Socialists would have emphatically denied believing (probably rightly) that they had never ever been given a chance.  But more to the point, the Opposition didn't include just the Communists.  It included pretty much everybody who wanted a return to Civil Society (ALL parties had been banned under the military dictatorship).  How can an opposition of very divergent views come together to promote a unified vision?

(2) How does one get people to vote for a Negative?  The "Yes" camp, in as much as it felt it had to bother run on anything, was going to run on a record of "Yes to what you know: Stability, Economic Progress," while at the same time threatening the specter of renewed instability, indeed a "Red Apocalypse" if the "No" camp won.  And just as post-9/11, G.W. Bush Administration taunted the Democrats to campaign on something other than "Anger" to its policies, so too, the Opposition to Pinochet had to promote something positive even as they were actually CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTRICTED to advocating a position of "No" to the Regime.

(3) Many in the populace were convinced that the whole exercise was a sham anyway.  Why stick one's neck out when all it invited was getting oneself in trouble AFTER the election whose results were a foregone conclusion?

How then to proceed?

The opposition decided, however reluctantly, to go with a commercial style "ad campaign" selling Freedom with basically the same tools and imagery as if they were selling a soft-drink.  Key to the campaign was the decision to go with a Chilean "ad man" named René Saavedra (played by Gael García Bernal) who had impressed some of the more creative "outside of the box"-thinking Opposition leaders with his silly but effective campaigns on behalf of consumer products.  Could actual FREEDOM be as "free-ing" as buying a microwave oven? ;-).

Indeed, one of the funniest scenes in the movie was when Saavedra presented his ideas for this kind of a campaign (smiles, rainbows, mimes, dancing children and butterflies...) to the "leadership council" of opposition politicians including Communists (who were willing to "repackage themselves" by calling themselves "Socialists" but, honestly before this meeting weren't even considering repackaging themselves as anything else ...):

Was such a "stupid" campaign an insult to tens of thousands of tortured/disappeared martyrs and their widows and orphans?  Yet what was the alternative?  Bring up torture and the government would trot out a campaign stoking fears of renewed instability and economic paralysis.

So the Opposition reluctantly gave its approval to a campaign that decided pointedly to talk neither of the Past or the Present but of a Bright Future of "NO more (torture, oppression, division)" a future where EVERY CHILEAN was respected and allowed to pursue his/her "Alegria" (happiness) in peace.  (And a "united" Opposition of 17 some-odd banned political parties ALREADY SHOWED that it's possible to RESPECT one another's views and DIFFERENCES).

The government found itself surprised and flatfooted.  It expected to compete with accusatory images of beatings and torture.  Instead it was faced above all with images smiling children holding hands and (necessarily) multicolored rainbows.

Honestly, this is a lovely, often humorous film that a lot of people should see:

Even in face of crime and injustice, one needs to smile.  Indeed, EVEN JESUS SAID AS MUCH on the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7): "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (5:48) noting that God makes "the sun rise and the rain fall on both the just and the unjust" (5:45).

It's not to discount crime and injustice, for "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" (5:6) it's just that even "the Evil doers" are God's children as well.

Running a campaign of calling Pinochet and his supporters Evil doers would have just brought-out the riot police and the water cannon (again...).  Focusing on smiling children and the Future ("Do we want to live like this forever...?") proved a better and certainly far more disarming way.  A great film and a great message!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

To the Wonder [2012]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

To the Wonder [2012], written and directed by Terrence Malick, continues in the theologically reflective path of his previous film Tree of Life [2011].

If in Tree of Life [2011], Malick's point of departure was the Biblical Book of Job, where that film begins with various human characters crying out to God: "Where are you O Lord?" and a twenty minute sequence that follows chronicling the whole history of the world from the creation of the universe to the present (including a 5-6 minute segment featuring dinosaurs only to have them destroyed by a meteorite) cinematically presents God's awesome response to Job beginning with "Where were you when I founded the Earth? (Job 38:4) and ending with "Will the one who argues with the Almighty be corrected, let him who would instruct God give answer" (Job 40:2), in To the Wonder [2012], Malick continues his reflection on our relationship with God, leaning perhaps on two other Wisdom books in the Bible, that of the Song of Songs, "Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine ... draw me after you, let us run" (Songs 1:1, 4) expressing God's promise of intimacy, and Ecclesiastes, "Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity," (Eccl 1:2) and "There is an appointed time for everything..." (Eccl 3:1) expressing God's distance / unknowability. 

This grand question of whether or not we could truly become intimate with God is explored then through the experience of people, a young couple in their late 20s-30s, Marina and Neil, she French, he American (played by Olga Kurylenko and Ben Affleck respectively) as well as a Hispanic Catholic priest in his 40s, Fr. Quintana (played by Javier Bardem).  Could Marina and Neil really understand each other?  And could Fr. Quintana, whose primary relationship is necessarily with Christ, really understand Him?

It's clear at the beginning of the film that Marina is "in love with love," not unlike the sentiments expressed in the Song of Songs.  The two had met in Paris. And after sometime, go to the grand, seemingly eternal monastery of Mont Saint Michel on the Atlantic coast of France where in her own words, they "climb the steps into The Wonder."

But while through most of the film, Marina's skipping about, "in love with love," Neil, a good, solid, honest guy though he is, is far less talkative.  He's an environmental engineer, originally from a small town from the plains of Oklahoma.  Throughout the film he quietly goes about his job monitoring various locations for environmental pollution, responding to the basic needs of people, seeking to try to keep them safe.

Marina noticing that Neil doesn't talk much, does most of the talking for him.  And when he does invite her and her 10 year old girl named Tatiana (played by Tatiana Cheline) from a previous relationship to return with him to Oklahoma, they both respond enthusiastically by saying "yes."

Yet living in a subdivision at the edge of the prairie in Oklahoma is not exactly like living in Paris.  Always of  few words/needs (and also "back home"), Neil is of course content.  Marina also seems happy enough.  But 10 year old Tatiana, who has to learn English while trying build-up a whole new set of friends, rapidly get's bored.  While initially happy to consider Neil her step-father, she soon realizes "you're NOT my father" and soon wants to go home to her real father back in France.

And while things start hitting a rough patch with Marina, we're reminded that she's not necessarily Neil's first and only rodeo.  He's lived most of his life there in Oklahoma and had an old flame named Jane (played by Rachel McAdams), who was, of course, also perfectly content with life on the plains.  (Why they broke-up is left largely clear, though one guesses that it had something to do with Neil's "quiet distance" from her as well...). 

Then out there in this quiet, suburban looking town at the edge of Oklahoma's vast prairie is Fr. Quintana, quietly going about his work of tending for the spiritual needs of his Parish.  But in his prayers he tells the Lord that he feels seco (dry).  He yearns for a closer relationship with the God who called him into this way of life/vocation.  Yet, he feels that he hears nothing.  At a wedding, in fact, an older parishioner tells him quite pointedly "I'm going to pray for you."  "Why?"  "So that you receive the Gift of Joy."  It's that clear that Fr. Quintana is unhappy.

Now folks, this is not a cheap film.  No, Fr. Quintana does not jump into bed with a distraught Marina.  By the looks of the film, it does not even cross his mind (or hers for that matter).

But there it is, both Marina and Fr. Quintana are in "spousal relationships" with rather distant, not particularly talkative but basically honest, salt-of-the-earth "providers."

Is it enough?  Both arguably find answers.

Now folks, this is an "artsy" often subtitled film with French (Marina and Tatiana), Spanish (Fr. Quintana in his personal reflective moments) and even some Italian (when Marina's vivacious Italian best-friend Anna played by Romina Mandello briefly comes to visit her in Oklahoma) and a few words of Russian (as Marina, a Russian name, was conceivably Russian in ancestry) spoken thoughout many parts of the film.  So I know that this film will not be for everyone.  BUT this is a very intelligent, theologically reflective film.

It's not necessarily the film that I would have made, but one certainly can not criticize it for its lack of intelligence or its attempt to ask some very profound questions about what one can expect from one's relationship with God, and it's CERTAINLY an invitation for discussion / faith sharing on the matter ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Call [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O) SunTimes (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
SunTimes (I. Vishnevetsky) review
AV Club (S. Tobias) review

Even before the opening credits finished rolling for the thriller, The Call [2013] (directed by Brad Anderson, screenplay by Richard D'Ovidio, story by Richard D'Ovidio, Nicole D'Ovidio and Jon Bokenkamp), I was certain that I'd been presented with a job (that of serving as a 911 dispatcher) that while ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the smooth operation of our society today is one that I could never, ever be able to do.  Much of the job is repetitious ("You've reached 911, what's your emergency ...?") and yet every so often, one would get a call where ANY mistake could leave someone dead.

Such then was the life of Jordan Turner (played by Halle Berry) working as a 911 dispatcher in "The Hive," the command center for Los Angeles' Emergency Services.  During an evening of relatively "normal emergencies" and even dealing with an inevitable "regular caller" who calls 911 every so often because, well, he doesn't have many people to talk to ... Jordan gets a call from a young woman in hysterics because someone's in the process of breaking into her home.  Jordan, rapidly alerts LAPD but they are 8-10 minutes away.  In the meantime, the intruder is in the process of bashing down the door.

What to do?  Jordan asks the young woman to find a room to lock herself in.  She runs upstairs, but to her horror finds that SHE CAN'T SEEM TO LOCK THE DOOR.  "Okay, is there a window?"  Jordan helps her to set it up (QUICKLY) to look like she jumped out the window and ran for help while hiding (somewhere) instead.

In the meantime, the intruder has broken into the house and has begun looking for her.  When he gets to the young woman's bed room, he does see the window open.  Coming to it, it even seems like she dropped something outside after jumping out to run away.  He takes the bait and with a somewhat angry/frustrated "huff,"starts heading out of the house.

When he's outside her room, the woman, hiding under her bed, whispers to Jordon on the phone that he's leaving and even THANKS HER.  Then, suddenly, SHE ACCIDENTLY BRUSHES HER PHONE TOO CLOSE TO HER CHEEK AND THE PHONE HANGS UP.  (Anyone with a wireless phone these days would know how this could happen).  Jordon, REFLEXIVELY PUSHES HER OWN REDIAL BUTTON at the 911 Center TO CALL HER BACK.  The PHONE RINGS ... JUST ONCE ... but the intruder who was leaving HEARS THE RING. He goes back ... finds the girl ... and Jordon realizes to her horror that HER ONE REFLEXIVE SLIP-UP may cost that young woman her life.  Her worst fears are confirmed when a few days later, when police find the young woman's mutilated body buried in a shallow grave in a canyon outside of L.A.  Wow ... needless to say Jordan had to take "some time off..."

When story resumes six months later, is Jordan now working as someone TRAINING people for the job she used to have.  She needed of course the work, but quite understandably didn't want/feel capable of handling the pressure of working as a 911 dispatcher again.

Well as fate would have it while leading a group of trainees through "the Hive," a relatively young 911 dispatcher gets ANOTHER PHONE CALL from ANOTHER YOUNG WOMAN, this time a sweet, young teenager named Casey Welson (played by Abigail Breslin) who's calling frantically from the trunk of a car having been abducted while walking (alone) to her car in the garage of a shopping mall.  The young 911 dispatcher falls to pieces and doesn't know what to do.  Jordan steps up and takes the call.  The rest of the film ensues ...

The rest of the film, of course, is certainly "quite a ride" emotionally and otherwise.  And as a Hollywood movie rest assured that it ends well... that said, see the movie ... 

I would, however, add one more thing: Catholics and other Christians reading here, take note of the ending as once again it plays a variation of the "Virgin/Good Girl defeats the Snake/Monster" motiff (Gen 3:15) that I've written about previously with regards to these kind of movies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Pay attention simply to WHERE the abductor ends-up at the end of the movie and HOW / BY WHOM he is sent there.  Fascinating stuff and Mary would be proud ;-). 


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Piazza Fontana: The Italian Conspiracy (orig. Romanzo di una Strage) [2012]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
TrovaCinema.it* listing

Piazza Fontana: The Italian Conspiracy (orig. Romanzo di una Strage)[2012] [IMDb] [TrCin.it]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Marco Tullio Giordana [IMDb] [TrCin]* along with Sandro Petraglia [IMDb] [TrCin]*and Stefano Rulli [IMDb] [TrCin.it]* based on the book by Paulo Cucchiarelli is a critically acclaimed and award winning Italian historical drama (earning among other awards 3 Italian David di Donatello awards in 2012 and 14 additional nominations) about the December 12, 1969 bombing of the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana in Milan [Eng] [Ital].*  It played recently as an Italian contribution to the 16th Annual European Film Festival at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago, IL.

During the Cold War (1947-1991), both Superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, jockeyed for advantage wherever they could, seeking to destabilize allies of the other side, while seeking often brutally to keep their allied nations in line.  The opening credits of this film make known that the events presented in the film are to be understood in the context of the 1967 U.S. supported Military Coup in Greece and the 1968 Soviet Invasion of Communist Czechoslovakia.  Italy, though a NATO ally throughout the whole of the Cold War also sported the largest Communist Party in the NATO bloc.  Hence it was always considered at least potentially "in play."  

The film begins presenting Italy in 1969 as a nation perhaps not in chaos (yet) but near the brink with Anarchists and militant Communists on the Left, and neo-Fascists on the Right (Remember World War II was still less than 25 years past, and Italy had entered that War on the Axis side with Fascist leader Mussolini having been in power for some 20 years previous.  Hence there would have been still plenty of people from that fallen regime still around who would have remembered it "fondly").  The Soviet Union was presumably backing the militant Communists (and perhaps the Anarchists) while the United States was certainly backing the ruling Italian Christian Democratic Party and presumably the more law-and-order hardliners in the Italian Military propping it up (and perhaps even the neo-Fascists lurking in the shadows). 

In the midst of this chaotic stew, a wave of anarchist bombings was taking place in Italy in 1969.  The bombs, while "small" (thus not producing significant casualties) were nevertheless serving their purpose -- sowing fear among the populace.  And on the other side there was Junio Valerio Borghese (Eng) (Ital)* (played in the film by Marco Zannoni [IMDb] [TrCin]*) from an old Noble / Fascist era family calling for a "Restoration of Order."  (Borghese did actually plot a coup, that became known as the Golpe Borgese (Eng) (Ital) for Dec. 8, 1970.  However, it never materialized and after being discovered, he was forced to flee the country).

Then suddenly, on Dec 12, 1969, a BIG bomb explodes in the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana in Milan (Eng) (Ital),* killing 18 and wounding over 70.  Was this the beginning of an escalation?  That's what the fear was as Milanese police brought in noted local anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli [Eng] [Ital]* (played in the film by Pierfrancesco Favino [IMDb] [TrCin]*) for questioning.  Pinelli had been even seens a few days before the bombing near the Bank.  Had he been casing the location? 

However, after several days of questioning, Pinelli is suddenly dead, having "fallen" out a four story window.  Did he commit suicide?  Was he pushed (or dropped) by Italian investigators?  The story that the police present is that he simply "fell" (went over to the window to smoke a cigarette and simply/tragically fainted, falling to his death).  Few, of course, would believe a story like that. 

Suspicion regarding Pinelli's death fell on Luigi Calebresi [Eng] [Ital]* (played in the film by Valerio Mostandrea [IMDb] [TrCin]*) the detective responsible for Pinelli during the questioning.  Yet, Calabresi always maintained his innocence, insisting that he wasn't present when Pinelli died.  Also, despite rabidly inflammatory denunciations made against him by the Radical Left, he was actually investigating the trafficking of bomb making material by Right-wing extremist groups when he was assassinated in front of his home on May 17, 1972. 

Left-wing extremists were blamed (and convicted) for his assassination.  However, as time when on, suspicion regarding the perpetrators of the bombing of the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana (Eng) (Ital) did actually move to from the Far Left to the Far Right and with it to hard-right elements within the Italian security services and even to the CIA.  Why?  It's partly conjecture (remember the beginning credits to the film making note the recent interventions by the Superpowers in nearby Greece and Czechoslovakia) and partly because apparently right-wing groups in Italy were, in fact, being found with explosives as well.  And ominously THOSE explosives that the Right had its hands on, apparently originated from NATO stockpiles.  Were they stolen?  Were they sold?  Were they handed to right-wing extremist groups to further a cause?  What cause?  The thesis of the film would argue: to create an environment justifying a military coup.

The film, intended naturally for primarily an Italian audience, nevertheless offers American audiences a glimpse into what the experience of the Cold War was like in Western Europe:  Lot's of "ins" and "outs," most of the "players" with agendas and with it often being very difficult to understand who to trust. 

And in the midst of this "big game of shadows," little people like Milanese Inspector Calabresi, with a wife, two children and a third on the way, could find themselves dead, not necessarily knowing by whom or why. 

Incidently already Pope Paul VI began the process of beatifying Luigi Calabresi as a "Martyr for Justice" by the Catholic Church [Eng] [Ital].*


* Machine translations into English of the Italian links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Paris-Manhattan [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
AlloCine.fr listing*

Paris-Manhattan [2012] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by Sophie Lellouche [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a French romantic comedy that played recently at the 16th Annual European Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago and has been advertised as a French thank you to American director Woody Allen for his film Midnight in Paris [2011].

Indeed from my 3 years in Italy during the seminary, I do know that Woody Allen and his films have been enormously popular in Europe.  He's been a regular and welcome guest at the annual Venice International Film Festival and his films have been anticipated and well received from London/Paris all the way to Moscow and, my sense is, everywhere in between.  Why?  Well, his humor (and yes, at times, his life ...) have been, well, "very European" ... ;-) or :-[.

So then, this film, about a young Parisian woman named Alice (played by Alice Taglioni [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), always happy-go-lucky and stunningly beautiful though she may be, but somehow "unlucky in love" -- Pierre (played by Louis-Do de Lencquesaing [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), the guy she falls for when she's still in college, falls instead for and marries her younger sister Hélène (played by Marine Delterme [IMDb] [AC.fr]*).  So Alice spends the rest of her young adult years (and as the film enters in the present, the beginning of her "soon to be beyond her young adult years...") being setup by a very guilty (if themselves very happy) Hélène / Pierre with just about every friend that Pierre's ever had ... ;-) to no avail, even if the last one, a Vincent (played by Yannick Soulier [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), appears to strike her fancy at least somewhat.  His presence in her life allows her to go to social occasions with (and, well, to occasionally sleep with...).  But both Alice/Vincent know that the Other lacks that je ne sais quoi... and hence both know that the Other isn't "the One."  What Alice does "have" in her life is a love for Cole Porter / jazz and a big poster of Woody Allen on her wall with whom she converses about her troubles, and who always makes her laugh. 

Enter Victor (played by Patrick Bruel [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who comes into her life as a security system installer (hence somewhat more "blue collar" than she, a college educated pharmacist).  Alice's father (played by Michel Aumont [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who ran the "family business, a "corner pharmacy" somewhere in Paris wanted to hand over the business to Alice.  But as a typically "good parent," he was concerned about Alice's "safety."  So he brings in Victor's firm to install a security system that would keep his (very much adult, mid-late 30-something) daughter "safe."  And Victor, a small business owner himself, comes with some very original ideas ;-).  My favorite was the "chloroform system" that would "knock out everyone" in the shop (including presumably Alice) within 10 seconds after she presses the security button under the counter ;-). 

Much, often classically "Woody Allen" / neurotic ensues ... but as is typical of Woody Allen's humor, it's always very gentle and, often enough, its message is "things are not really as they seem" (they're better, kinder, nicer than they seem).

Anyway, I do believe that most Woody Allen fans (including myself, as I've been one since my own college days) would approve.  And I do agree that the film is a fitting tribute to a film-maker who, yes, has at times lived "an artist's life" but has also tried very hard to always keep his fans / audiences smiling.  Good job!


* Machine translations into English of the French links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Perfect Days - I ženy mají své dny [2011]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 stars with explanation)

IMDb listing
CSFD* listing

Lidovky (M. Kabat)* review

Perfect days - I ženy mají své dny [2011] (directed and screenplay by Czech filmmaker Alice Nellis, based on the play Perfect Days [1999] by Scottish playwright Liz Lochhead [IMDb]) is a comedy that played recently at the 16th Annual European Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago. 

In many respects, the film reminded me of the Polish romantic comedy Letters to Santa (Listy do M) [2011] (directed by the Slovenian director Mitja Okorn) that played last November at the Polish Film Festival in Chicago.  While Polish and Czech/Slovak cinemas are different animals, it is interesting to note that both Nellis and Okorn took advantage of talent/materials existing "outside" and applied them to their projects at home.  In the case of Nellis' Perfect Days, she took a translated play by Liz Lockhead (which Nellis apparently already directed onstage* in Prague) and then set-about putting it on-screen.  In the case of Okorn's Letters to Santa, he took the Polish script for the comedy that he was given by the film's producers, had it translated into English, sent it to Hollywood to have it reworked, and then had it re-translated back into Polish, producing, in fact, a product that became the most successful Polish romantic comedy as yet ever made.  (Interestingly enough, the "commercialism" of Nellis' work here irritated a number of Czech/Slovak film critics,* a critical community that rightfully considers itself (and then even Czech/Slovak cinema) on par with anybody).

I chose to see this film, even though I've already seen a couple of Czech and Slovak films (one each) at the the EU Festival because being of Czech descent and reading the Gene Siskel Center's capsule description for the film I knew that for better or for worse the film's thematics would be perhaps all-too "contemporary."  This is because while Prague is certainly a beautiful city and every rock or street corner has a history to it, for many foreign tourists, it is known above all for being a rather libertine place.

As such, this film is about a good-looking, fashionable and otherwise successful 40-something woman named Erika (played by Ivana Chýlková [IMDb] [CSFD]*) who decides that what's been missing in her life is not a husband.  She's had one, Viktor (played by Bohumil Klepl [IMDb] [CSFD]* and has been on amicable terms if separated from him for years.  She's not looking even a relationship with anyone (again, she's "made it" on her own).  All she finds that she wants is simply a kid.  So at 44, Erika sets about looking for a sperm donor.

Now she's still interested in knowing and liking the person from whom she would get the requisite sperm.  But she's clear that she does not want to be otherwise involved with him and, while not completely opposed, she'd be profoundly ambivalent about the presence/absence of father in the future child's life.  She just wants a kid.

Hers makes for a fascinating (and challenging) counter-position to today's rather radicalized Catholic theology (as sometimes happens when the Church finds itself in controversy/under attack) that insists that a child is created by God (with the secondary collaboration of the parents) even in the case of rape where the woman emphatically would not have collaborated in the child's creation but would have had it imposed on her, first by the male and then arguably by God.  Indeed, to get out of this theological coule-de-sac, I honestly would like to see today's moral theologians revisit the medieval theory of "postponed ensoulment" as a means of allowing for dialogue between the man, woman AND GOD prior to ensoulment to so as to protect God from inadvertently becoming a secondary rapist as a result of  inadvertently over-radicalized theology.

In this film, all that Erika asks her friend Richard (played by Ondřej Sokol [IMDb] [CSFD]*) for is his sperm and then sets about creating the child without ANY particular thought of requesting GOD's approbation.  It's a reminder to all of whose collaboration is absolutely necessary to create a child and bring that child to term.  The male can't do this on his own, and God would have to resort to extraordinary means (a miracle).  The ordinarily indispensable party in the creation of the child and bringing him/her to term is, in fact, the woman.

This is not to say that what Erika chooses to do in this movie is anything but appalling morally, and I am positive that the intention of the movie was to make movie-goers "wince" and ask themselves "Wait a minute, there's something (deeply) wrong here."  Yet the simple fact is that children can be created the way that Erika seeks. 

Secondary arguments can come into play: Should a woman be forced to endure an abusive relationship to have a child?  How about not an abusive relationship but a deathly stifling one or a even simply really really boring one?   (Erika and her husband apparently didn't want children when they were together and for one reason or another they apparently "drifted apart" over time).  What if one's relationship wasn't particularly bad but just fell apart and now it's "too late" to presumably try to fix again? 

The standard Catholic position is, in fact, that no one has a "right" to a child, that children are, in fact, gifts from God.   And sometimes God for inscrutable reasons chooses not to give a couple a child (just like God does not answer every faithful wannabe the talent and circumstances to become "Michael Jordon" or "Bill Gates.")  We are told, in fact, by the 9th and 10th commandments (Exod 20:17) to be happy with what we have.

So while Erika could choose to do what she chose to do in the film, it would still be considered morally wrong (certainly according the Catholic teaching).  She was attractive, successful, even did have a husband with whom she could have had a child "back in the day" if they had only wanted one.  But both she and her husband didn't want one then.  And now, at 44 and single again, suddenly she wants a child.

This then is the problem presented in "comedic" form in the film:  Erica wants a child, (so long as she can get her hands on some sperm), she's certainly capable of making that child, but should she?   Much ensues ...and it really is a Brave New World, pretty much everywhere.


* Machine translations into English of the Czech and Slovak links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Emperor [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Chicago SunTimes (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review

Emperor [2012] (directed by Peter Webber, screenplay by Vera Blasi and David Klass based on the book His Majesty's Salvation by Shiro Okamoto) is IMHO an excellent historical drama about the early days of America's post-WW II occupation of Japan.

The film begins with the arrival of General Douglas MacArthur (played superbly by Tommy Lee Jones) and his entourage, including his Japan expert, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers (also played excellently by Matthew Fox), in Tokyo a short time after Japan's formal surrender. 

They arrive in a plane, landing on Tokyo's airport -- one plane with 20 some odd American occupation officials.  Yes, Japan had surrendered, but could they trust the Japanese to not just shoot them as they stepped off the plane and then drove from the airport to MacArthur's designated headquarters (a multistory building across the street from the entrance to the Emperor's palace)? 

Fellers tells MacArthur that they can trust the Japanese because their surrender came directly from the word of the Emperor.  Whether MacArthur believes him or not, he knows well that THERE'S NOTHING HE COULD ABOUT IT ANYWAY, if the Japanese decided to just shoot them all.  So before stepping off the plane, he tells the entourage to take-off their side arms and leave them on the plane and simply step off the plane showing some "Good ole American swagger..."

They get off the plane, MacArthur poses for some pictures.  They hop on a jeep and take the drive to HQ.  As they do, both MacArthur (and the audience) can not help but notice that as their jeep passes the assembled Japanese honor guard, the soldiers methodically turn around and face AWAY from the jeep.  Why are they doing that?  Is it a sign of contempt toward the arriving occupiers.  Fellers tells MacArthur, no, this action does not express contempt but rather respect: "They're taught to turn away their gaze from the Emperor as well."   Arriving MacArthur realizes that he's being greeted by the Japanese as a quasi-God and is reminded that the Japanese have considered their Emperor as a God as well.  Wow.  (And remember folks that MacArthur was famous/infamous for having an enormous ego as it is ...)

A few days after arriving at HQ, Fellers is commanded by MacArthur to lead the rapid (as simultaneous as possible) arrest of pretty much the entire leadership, political and military of Japan's previous regime.  Fellers tells the arresting MPs that the arrests must be as rapid and coordinated (simultaneous) as possible to avert the possibility of the figures being arrested committing suicide.  Of the 25 some odd leaders being arrested (including Japan's Wartime Prime Minister, Tojo) only three committ suicide before the American MPs are able to get to them (Tojo tried to commit suicide but when he put his revolver to his chest and shot himself the bullet just barely missed the heart).   By getting all but three of Japan's leaders including Tojo, Fellers once again proves himself to MacArthur.

A few days after that, MacArthur gives Fellers a new task.  He tells Fellers that they've been ordered by Washington to determine IN TEN DAYS whether or not Japan's Emperor himself should be arrested, tried and presumably hanged as a War Criminal.  Fellers tells MacArthur that it'd be impossible to determine the Emperor's war guilt that all of Japan's wartime leadership would go to their deaths rather than implicate a Man they considered a God.  MacArthur tells Fellers that he's been spot-on in everything else since they've arrived in Tokyo and that he had complete confidence that FELLERS would be able to give him (and MacArthur's superiors in Washington) the necessary information to make this call IN THE TEN DAYS they were given.  Wow.  Fellers and MacArthur exchange salutes, Fellers returns to his staff and tells them that they have 10 days to answer this most crucial question.  The rest of the film unspools from there ...

A good part of the film that unspools deals with Brig. General Fellers' competence for arriving at an answer to MacArthur's/Washington's question.  And it turns out that he really was someone who knew Japan about as well as anyone from the United States at the time:

Yes, while studying Japanese culture/language in the United States, he did fall in love with a young Japanese woman who was studying in the United States.  Her name was Aya Shamida (played in the film by Eriko Hatsume).  What was a Japanese woman doing in the United States in the 1920s/30s studying English?  She tells him, "I haven't necessarily behaved as a good Japanese young woman..." (She was "sent away" by her family, in part, because she apparently caused them some trouble back home).  However, she does return back to Japan (quite suddenly, in fact).  Fellers, given a post-graduate task by the U.S. army to write a report on the values driving the Japanese military, goes to Japan some years later (from his post, then in the Philippines) and while there looks her up.  He lucks out.  The U.S. and Japan were still not at War at the time and Aya's uncle was a General in the Japanese army.  Through his friendship with her, he gets to know her uncle and the uncle then helps him understand the values and honor driven mentality of Japan's military and its soldiers.  Eventually Fellers finishes his paper and has to leave.  Then the war comes.  When Fellers arrives with MacArthur following the war he tries to find and reconnect with Aya and her family...

The film is a reminder of the value of friendships and being able to talk to one's potential adversaries.  Thanks to Fellers' knowledge of Japan through his friendship with Aya and her family, he helped MacArthur and the United States not merely "win the war" but above all win the subsequent peace.

I also believe that the film offers a much needed reevaluation of Gen. MacArthur's character as well.  During WW II and much of the Korean conflict, he was lionized in the United States as a hero.  Then after Korea and during much of my life time, MacArthur has been portrayed primarily negatively, as an ego maniac, who nearly plunged the world into a third World War during the Korean conflict. 

This film is reminder that MacArthur's greatest legacy was not actually his generalship during war, but his ability (thanks to his willingness to take the advice of his advisers like Kellers) to listen and turn Japan from a country mistrusted by much of the world into a stable bastion of peace in the Far East.  And yes, the whole world is better for for MacArthur's achievement in this regard.

Finally, as a Catholic I could not help but note with some pride that the film made quietly but "for those with eyes to see" absolutely clear that Aya was a Catholic, recalling the 500 year long (since the arrival of the Jesuit missionary St. Francis Xavier in Nagasaki in the 1500s) often tortured history of Catholicism in Japan. 

All in all, I found this to be an excellent historical drama about a critical time in history that easily could have turned-out far worse than it did.  MacArthur, for all his faults and monumental ego, turned out to be a good man in Japan.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>