Limitless

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (O) Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/l/limitless2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110316/REVIEWS/110319983

Let me begin by saying that Limitless (screenplay by Leslie Dixon, directed by Neil Burger and based on the book by Alan Glynn) deserves an R-rating rather than a PG-13. It’s not because of various fairly graphic depictions of violence as well as various sexual situations that while not involving nudity certainly suggested much. It is simply the subject matter that arguably makes this a very dangerous movie.

So why would I label this a "dangerous" movie and yet proceed to post a review of it here anyway?

I think that the movie is "dangerous" because I find it so easy to imagine all kinds of people, who for all kinds of reasons, will try to come up with and/or score a mind performance enhancing drug like the fictional one of this movie. At the same time, the movie does _thankfully_ take the audience through all kinds of really frightening scenarios that would probably dissuade the vast majority of people from the endeavor. 

Then the topic of "limits" -- overcoming them through hard work (as in Rocky, et al) or through technological achievement (Wright Brothers, et al) or, yes, transgressing them as in Genesis 3 or Frankenstein, Jurrasic Park, etc -- is fundamentally interesting. So while I simply can not understand why _this movie_ got a PG-13 rating, I do think that a movie named Limitless invites adult reflection.  And then, this stuff _is coming_ folks and we have to be ready for it.

Ok, let's digress and see how the story is set up: A stuck-in-the-mud, struggling writer named Eddie Morra (played by Bradley Cooper) living in New York, hasn’t been put a single sentence on paper for months despite having received an advance on his book. As a result, his girlfriend Lindy (played by Abbie Cornish) leaves him. She was just made an editor at the publishing house where she’s working and he’s obviously going nowhere. Eddie knows the drill, he’s been divorced once already.

By coincidence, on the way home from the restaurant (check paid by his former girlfriend) where he had been dumped, he runs into his former brother-in-law, Vernon (played by Johnny Whitworth), someone described to us by Eddie as a former lowlife drug dealer who he hadn’t seen in 9 years, since the breakup of his first marriage. Said Vernon, lowlife former brother-in-law but in a suit now rather than the jeans and lumberjack shirt that Eddie’s in, asks Eddie’s about writing career.  And after getting past the excuses, Vernon gets Eddie to admit that he continues to be the same fogged-out struggling writer that Vernon remembered his sister had married (and dumped).

Well, Vernon offers Eddie a "solution."  It's a new drug that’s "going through clinical trials and soon will be legal." Eddie’s skeptical, Vernon claims that he’s legit even gives him a business card. They part ways with Eddie holding a one pill sample in his hand as well as Vernon's business card.

Not wanting to mess-up his life even further, Eddie’s more or less convinces himself that he’s not going take the pill even though he doesn’t let it go. As he enters his apartment building, however, he’s confronted by his landlord’s wife (apparently, he’s been late on his rent, big surprise...). In the course of the argument, he pops the pill. Some 10-20-30 seconds later suddenly everything around him starts coming into a surprising focus, and more importantly _his mind_ becomes super, super clear, even as it makes connections that he never would have thought of before.

Twenty minutes later, Eddie’s thoroughly turned the conversation around, helped his landlord’s wife on a _legal thesis_ that she had been struggling with using seemingly random strands from his memory, and even had pounding/triumphant sex with her in return (obscured by her laptop on her kitchen table). He goes home, discovers that this apartment is a dismal mess, quickly cleans it up and proceeds to type 90 brilliant pages for his book which he presents to his dumbfounded publisher the next morning.

Does a drug like this exist?  Speed comes to mind, but it makes people far more "edgy" than focused and has obvious and well known side-effects.  There are also prosac-class A.D.D. drugs out there that help people to focus better. But it is possible, even probable (given the potential) that more far potent drugs will exist in the future.
 
The rest of the movie, however, is actually (and _thankfully_) a _cautionary tale_ about the various unexpected consequences of starting to use such a drug: Since the drug (called NZT in the movie) was uncertified, it was by definition "underground." Its various inevitable side effects and addictive properties were unknown to Eddie. And Eddie was clearly not the only one who Vernon (and others) had offered the drug. So there were all kinds of unsavory underworld types, big and small, obvious and not so obvious, looking to get a hold of this drug and control its production and sale.

So Eddie gets his book and does manage to navigate the many hazards that present themselves, but there are _so many_ open-ended hazards presented in the movie that hopefully most people will set aside dreams of getting a hold of such a Faustian pill of forbidden knowledge.

Robert De Niro, playing a Wall Street mogul named Carl Van Loon, figures heavily in the second half of this movie. I mention De Niro here simply because in my opinion, Limitless is the second movie of arguably prophetic dimensions ("this is how the world works, or may work soon...") that I’ve seen him in, the first being his movie Wag the Dog.

Exaggerated as Wag the Dog was, it made the point that modern political campaigns involve far more than fund-raising, organizing armies of campaign workers to "get the vote out" or even running pointed/sleazy campaign ads.  Rather it involves manipulating the entire political terrain itself (to the point of creating an artificial crisis) for one’s candidate’s advantage. I put Limitless with its investigation of the future potential (and dangers) of various psychiatric drugs into such a prophetic category.

So, in summation Limitless is _definitely_ NOT "for the kiddies." Again, the violence as well as graphic if implied sex is bad enough, but it's mostly the subject matter. Why _this movie_ got a PG-13 rating, I can’t figure out. But it is for the parents. And if your kid, who’s never been able to put 2+2 together suddenly starts getting A+s, beware ...

ADDENDUM:

A book touching a related subject to "limits", that of the nature of "self," is that of Walter Truett Anderson, The Future of the Self (1997). In the book, Anderson explores the increasing fuzziness of the concept of "self" when people increasingly carry implanted, transplanted or completely bionic body parts, feel "more themselves" while on prosac than off of it, radically change career direction at least once or twice in their life, divorce and remarry and maintain multiple identities on the internet.

On the last point, that of maintaining multiple identities on the internet, Benedict XVI cautioned in his 2011 Message for World Communications Day that this can, in fact, become a new type of sin.


<< 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! :-) >>

Of Gods and Men (orig. Des Hommes et des Dieux) [2010]

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert’s review

Of Gods and Men (directed by Xavier Beauvois and cowritten by Xavier Beauvois along with Etienne Comar) is a French movie (with English subtitles) about the true story of the Cistercian monks of the Abbey of Notre Dame d’Atlas in Algeria who were abducted and killed by Muslim extremists during Algeria’s civil war in the 1990s.

This is a fairly complex story and the film-makers do a magnificent job in presenting it.

What were these monks led by Fr. Christian (played by Lambert Wilson) doing in Algeria to begin with? Well their Cistercian brothers came to Algeria during 1800s during the French colonial era to setup a monastery. Like Benedictines of old, they simply prayed, worked the land, provided basic services to the people of the area and a village eventually grew-up below the monastery. This is exactly the same missionary approach that the Benedictines used throughout Europe over a millenium ago and the same basic approach that the French Jesuits (the Black Robes) used to evangelize in Canada. (I’ve often thought that the best missionaries were, in fact, the French).

What was the life of the Cistercian monks at their Abbey in the countryside of now independent Algeria with a still secular government but an overwhelmingly muslim population? Again, the movie beautifully presents the rhythm of life of the monks in their community.

Note to Hollywood: This movie ought to be required viewing for anyone wishing to write a credible screenplay about a Catholic rectory, religious community, or convent. The many scenes of the rhythm of the monks’ religious life are outstanding. And I myself have lived that rhythm at various communities as a religious priest. The various community meetings (meetings of the monks) were gentle and sober. Again, they were outstandingly portrayed. I’ve participated in such serious, sober deliberations with friars from my Order from across the world.

A further note to both "conservative" and "liberal" Catholics: Every last syllable chanted by the monks in this movie was in modern French rather than in Latin. There are certainly many reasons why the Second Vatican Council has played out in the way that it has in the United States and throughout much of the English speaking world – and for that matter, why a Catholic (Servite) priest like myself would have taken on a project like this of reviewing / dialoguing with Hollywood’s films -- but once one gets out of the United States (and much of the English speaking world) one finds that the Second Vatican Council has been applied in all kinds of ways and yes, we can learn from others as to how to better apply the Faith at home. Chanting may not be for everyone, but obviously neither are guitar Masses (and I actually like the Guitar Masses more than Chant but can live with both for the sake of the whole). We’re Catholic (that is, belonging to a Church which is big enough to be universal, that is, for all), why not "mix things up" occasionally for the benefit of all?

Is the movie a propaganda piece? If it is, I’d be hard pressed to see on behalf of whom. The French don’t look good and are universally blamed for starting the whole mess in Algeria as a result of their handling of the colonial era. The current secular Algerian regime is portrayed as being fundamentally and perhaps irredeemably corrupt. The Muslim extremists are portrayed as violent but also as having been victimized. Only the monks and the villagers below are portrayed in a reasonably positive way but only after a thorough examination by the movie of why the heck they were there in the first place. After all, Algeria was a Moslem country before the French arrived.

Still a case can certainly be made for a group of people who buy some land, build a community, live in peace, take care of their needs and even some of the needs of their neighbors. Why not just leave them in peace? Be it in Algeria, France, the United States or Tibet or Saudi Arabia.

Of Gods and Men offers a great message, well presented and well acted, leaving one with much to think about.


<< 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! :-) >>

Mars Needs Moms

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-I) Michael Phillips (1 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305591/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/m/marsneedsmoms2011.shtml
Michael Philips' review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0309-mars-needs-moms-20110310,0,2272948.column

Continuing in the emerging tradition in the genre of feature-length modern animated films, Mars Needs Moms, is a surprising picture geared at least as much (or more) to adults as to young children. Indeed leaving the theater, I asked a mom with two small kids if her children even understood the movie. She answered that, yes, they appeared to enjoy the goofy antics of some of the characters. But she agreed that this movie was directed more to adults than to kids. Other recent animated pictures that I’d put this in this category include Up, Wall-E and Toy Story 3, not surprisingly all three of which were alluded to in the current movie.

All well and good, but what does Mars Needs Moms try to say? Here it gets interesting. It comes across as a surprising anti-feminist parable that would compare actually quite well to George Orwell’s  famous anti-Communist barnyard fable Animal Farm only arguably smoother / less stilted in its presentation than even Orwell was.

Mars Needs Moms is inspired by a picture book by the same name by Berkeley Breathed (creator of the famed Bloom County cartoon comic strip). The movie was produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed/co-written by Simon Wells (grandson of H.G. Wells), co-written also by Simon Wells’ wife Wendy Wells. Both Robert Zemeckis and Simon Wells have been involved in critical and box office hits as well as relative flops. Among their successes have been Back to the Future (directed by Zemeckis), Back to the Future II/III (directed by Zemeckis, contributed to by Simon Wells), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (directed by Zemeckis, animation supervised by Simon Wells), Forrest Gump (directed by Zemeckis for which he won an Oscar), Polar Express (directed by Zemeckis, digital visual work contributed to by Simon Wells), An American Tail: Fievel Goes West (directed by Simon Wells) and Kung Fu Panda (sequence supervision by Simon Wells). I list all these credits because it is difficult to discern from them an ideological bent at all for any of the three of these men (Breathed, Zemeckis or Simon Wells) much less a clearly right-wing one. So I do believe that their parable here was sincere, made without an axe to grind. And besides, Joan Cusack, a well-respected and dare one say, beloved, comic actress played the mom in this story and plays her role in a clearly sympathetic way.

Then there have been animated films such as Happy Feet that had some "heavy handed messaging" oriented "toward the left" regarding diversity and the environment that did not produce great public outcry. I find _nothing wrong_ with Happy Feet's messaging, especially since I agree with it.  But if anything, the messaging is smoother (and frankly funnier ;-) in Mars Needs Moms than in Happy Feet, et al. Yet, one gets the sense that Mars Needs Moms is getting somewhat black-balled. Why?

Well, let’s then get into the plot. Milo (Seth Green) a kid gets annoyed by his mom’s (Joan Cusack) nagging about taking out the garbage, eating his broccoli, not going to bed when he’s supposed to and finally tells her "My life would be better without you." She tears up and he goes to sleep. Milo wakes up a few hours later to see a spaceship in the back yard and his mother being abducted by aliens (Martians it turns out). Boy does he feel guilty! He tries to catch-up to his mom, but it is too late. He grabs onto the landing gear just as the rocket takes off. The landing-gear retracts bringing him inside (into the landing-gear bay).

The rocket flies through a worm hole and a few seconds later, there he is, on Mars. The Martians, dressed in stainless steel but looking a lot like Star Wars’ storm troopers take mom way to presumably to some lab and arrest Milo throwing him into jail. Milo manages to get himself out his cell. Suddenly there’s a voice of someone telling him to escape by jumping through a chute (a la Star Wars IV again) and he finds himself on top of a vast pile of garbage (like in Wall-E). He encounters strange hairy beings there but the voice again directs him elsewhere. He finally comes to a cabin where a "lost" late 20-30 something "boy" named Gribble (Dan Fogler) lives. He too had watched his mother abducted 20 some years back and managed to get himself on the ship only to see what the Martians did to his mother. And since then he’s been living in the garbage dump along with the strange hairy beings playing video games and ‘making do.’).

What happened to Gribble’s mom and threatens to happen to Milo's? Well Mars had been taken over by the female Martians who proved much more responsible and industrious than their male counterparts. So male and female martians would be separated at birth (they actually hatch). The boys would be thrown away into the garbage dump (who grew up to be those strange hairy but also strangely happy "tribal" creatures that Milo met in the garbage dump, while the girls would be raised by "nanny-bots." The adult female Martians were too busy being "responsible" (keeping everything spotless, clean and perfect) to bother with either child birth or child care. Indeed, the inside of the female Martian compound looked a lot like the inside of the Star Wars IV "Death Star" – vast, largely empty and seemingly made entirely of shiny stainless steel.  The task of raising the female children was left to the "nanny-bots."

Now how were the "nanny-bots" programmed? Well, the female Martians would periodically send spaceships to Earth to abduct Earth moms who the female Martians noted were particularly good at disciplining their kids. After bringing the Earth moms to mars, their disciplinary skills would then "downloaded" from the their minds to the nanny-bots so that the nanny-bots would keep the martian girls disciplined and in order. And most were.

But there was apparently a "tagger" who Milo and Gribble meet as they try to rescue Milo’s mom. The "tagger’s" name is Ki (Elizabeth Harnios) a relatively young female Martian who had worked in the Mars’ information control (censorship) bureau, who had gotten hold of a captured transmission of a 1960s "Laugh-in" like show from Earth and was fascinated by the color of the "flower children" there. So ever since, she had been spray painting "color" all over the walls of the female "deathstar" compound to the consternation of the older/stern "queen bees." Ki becomes a kindred spirit to Milo and Gribble and helps save Milo’s mother. In the process, Ki finds a _cave painting_ showing a grown Martian male and female holding a Martian child. She realizes that Martians too used to be raised in families and that Mars used to have much more color.

The story ends with Milo and Gribble saving Milo’s mother. Ki in the mean time brings the cave/garbage dump dwelling Martian males up to the surface and along with the younger female Martians stages a coup. The "supervisor" (Mindy Sterling) even looking like a "queen bee" in this animated picture gets upset saying to the ungrateful younger females "I did all this for you!" But to no avail. The males, as dumpy and impractical as they are add color to the females' lives and all "live happily ever after."

Wow. No wonder many people would be appalled and one gets a sense that this movie’s getting chloroformed, even though the stunningly expensive $150 million production price-tag (the movie was using the "performance capture" technique that Zemeckis had made famous with Polar Express and Beowulf) doesn’t help.  The performance capture technique is actually quite cool to watch and during the closing credits, the film-makers show how they made some of the key scenes in the picture.  It is quite amazing, though clearly expensive!
　
But like a Court Jester in Medieval European courts of old (or at least in _storybook_ Medieval European courts of old) the movie raises an uncomfortable question concerning gender relations today: While it is acknowledged almost everywhere that women are probably more efficient and more responsible than men (in Bangladesh, women tend to get "microloans" while men do not, and _all of us_ see this in the Catholic Church where the girl altar servers are almost always so much more responsible than the boys), maybe that male "goofiness" as opposed to female "hyper-responsibility" is _not_ such a bad thing. It can add color and humor to a world that could otherwise end-up being cold, efficient and steel.

I know that a good number of women could throw-up their hands and respond: "The _reason_ why we tend to be ‘hyper-responsible’ is because we have be _perfect_ to be considered _reasonably good_ in a male dominated world."

I get that. But I also know that women often compare themselves to a relatively small set of "alpha-males" as opposed to a much larger set of "less-than alpha males" who are a lot like those "hairy males in the trash" who actually have made a life of it not needing to be "number one" but enjoying "drinking beer," "going fishing," and "playing video games." They may have more to offer, be more human, and be more fun than the "iron fisted men" who still dominate ALL OF US from their perches at "Goldman Sachs," etc. Did that point need to be made for $150 million? I don’t know, but I’m kinda glad that the point was raised.

Finally, I'd find it interesting to find out what John Grey, PhD (author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) and famed Franciscan male spirituality guru Fr.Richard Rohr, OFM would think of this surprising, highly provocative 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! :-) >>

Red Riding Hood [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (1 star) Fr Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486185/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/r/redridinghood2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110310/REVIEWS/110319996

If you like your fairytales to be simple and straightforward then David Johnson’s (writer) and Catherine Hardwicke’s (director) Red Riding Hood re-imagining of this classic would _not_ be for you. Since this is Hollywood production after all, there is some fairly crass borrowing, mixing and matching from previously commercially successful films. About midway into the picture, I imagined it being pitched to studio executives as "the Twilight series meets The Name of the Rose with a werewolf substituting for Twilight’s vampires." And since Amanda Seyfried (young, blonde, sympathetic with trademark big blue eyes) was signed to play the role of Vanessa (Little Red Riding Hood in this movie), I’d probably be opening my checkbook as well if I were being tapped to invest in the film.

Still, as I often do, I do believe that there is more to this picture than simply an attempt to cash-in one more time on the bonanza that the Twilight series seemed to have wrought. And I do believe that it is the sheer convolutedness of the Johnson’s/Hardwicke’s retelling of this story that redeems the film.

Set deep in the cgi-forests of Medieval Europe (seriously, the sets and scenery in this movie are really good, something that any Neverwinter Nights gamer would certainly appreciate), a village named Daggerhorn finds itself terrorized by a wolf. For about a generation, the townspeople have paid the wolf off: Each full moon, they leave a young pig tethered to a sacrificial stone in the middle of the village for the wolf to devour. In return, the wolf leaves the villagers alone.

Well, one full moon and for reasons unclear, the wolf breaks the arrangement and kills one of the young maidens of the village, Vanessa’s older sister. This sends the villagers into a panic and into a rage. A more pious villager sends for help of a priest, Father Solomon (played by Gary Oldman. Note that in the world of the movie, priests marry and combat Evil with both prayers and swords). Other villagers just want to take matter into their own hands. Organizing a posse, they venture to the cave where the wolf is said to have its lair and finding a wolf there, kill it.

A few days later Father Solomon arrives. Some of the villagers suspicious of the motives and actual abilities of the priest, tell him proudly that they’ve killed the wolf themselves ("See the wolf’s head here on a pike") and that they don’t need him. Fr. Solomon assures them that all they have is an innocent wolf’s head on that pike, and that the village is up against a werewolf, which is much more insidious. He explains that a werewolf spends most of its time in human form, changing into the shape of a wolf only at the time of the full moon, and since the werewolf is not really a wolf but a cursed human being, the werewolf was probably a villager or someone living near the village. Initially, most of the villagers dismiss Fr. Solomon as inflating his importance. But when he proves to be correct (the werewolf strikes again, indeed, killing some of the most arrogant of the villagers), panic sets in.

Fr. Solomon then sets about organizing the village to combat this terrifying threat that could be both internal and external and above all supernatural and deceitful. Yes, his methods are draconian and often arbitrary. And yes, Fr. Solomon generally comes across as being creepy. But this movie has been made in post 9/11 America and after the sex scandals that rattled the Catholic Church here in the U.S. some years ago. So while Fr. Solomon is portrayed as being somewhat creepy, he is also portrayed as being actually quite sincere and still at least "in the ball park knowledgeable" about what the village is trying combat. The others really don’t have a clue at all. And when it comes to "creepy," even "grandma" (played by Julie Christie) is portrayed as rather creepy as well as Vanessa's love interest in the movie Peter (played by Shiloh Fernandez). Indeed, Peter looks like a Twilight character who didn’t get around to leaving the set after the rest of the cast and crew had packed up and went home after finishing that movie. Finally it turns out that _everybody_ in the village, including most importantly to Red Riding Hood all the adults in her life -- ma, pa and grandma -- had their secrets. So figuring out who actually is the werewolf terrorizing the village becomes a surprisingly good "who-done-it" guessing game for the audience.  About 2/3 into the picture, I was smiling (in recognition of the success of the writer/director in this regard) saying to myself, "It really could be anybody."

So what’s going on here? I think that the reworking of the story works because it is a remarkably good a "fairy tale" reflection of our time. Since 9/11, the United States has felt terrorized by a threat that could "come from anywhere." Fr. Solomon representing in the movie both church and state plays a deeply flawed "Dick Cheney figure in a cassock and a beard" in the story -- Yes, he's rather creepy, yes the audience will generally not like him. Yes, he’s even stabbing in the dark. But _no one else_ seems to have come-up with a better alternative. And so, yes, we are "running scared." Then, with each week, month, and year each with each "turning of the page in the newspaper" it is turning out that pretty much everybody in our society seems to "have a secret," and that anybody could actually be complicit, aiding and abetting (and in various ways) in the terrors facing us today. So the "big bad wolf" is seemingly everywhere.

As with other thrillers that I've reviewed here, I’ll leave it to the viewers to follow the movie’s hunt for the werewolf to allow them to see if they can figure out who it is before the mystery gets revealed and then to render their own judgement as to whether it all makes sense. Again, I found the "who-done-it" aspect of the film to be remarkably well done.

I would not recommend the movie to little kids, but to teens I would say okay. Yes, some Catholic/Christian parents may object to the way Fr. Solomon is portrayed in the movie. But actually, while portrayed as flawed, he is also portrayed in a multi-dimensional way. He is portrayed as being _not merely flawed_. And that parents sometimes have secrets is something that teens often discover about their parents anyway and is _part_ of the reason why a movie like this works today. For better or sadly worse in this case, the movie strikes a chord.


<< 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! :-) >>

Scheherazade Tell Me a Story (aka Women of Cairo) [2009]

MPAA (not rated) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1473149/

I had actually planned to see another movie this evening but the time had not worked out. And while scanning through the movie listings, I came across the 2009 Egyptian movie Scheherazade Tell Me a Story (aka Women of Cairo), written by Wahid Hamid and directed by Yousry Nasrallah, playing at a more convenient time at Facet’s Multimedia on Fullerton St here in Chicago.

This January-February, Egypt captured the imagination of the world with its bringing down of the much despised regime of Hosni Mubarak. Further, the reference to Scheherazade in the movie’s title (Scheherazade was the woman character around whose storytelling abilities The 1001 Arabian Nights were built) even as the movie summary promised a modern reworking of the story immediately caught my attention. Finally, during this winter’s Egyptian Revolution both the role of women in Egypt's revolution as well as their particular struggle against endemic sexual harrassment was covered by the press. As such, I came to Facet’s Multimedia wondering what I would see. And the film did not disappoint. I found it to be a compelling and often surprising film.

Indeed, Scheherazade Tell me a Story immediately reminded me of the Czech movies (esp. Loves of Blonde and Fireman’s Ball) of the mid-1960s made in the period immediately preceeding the Prague Spring in a political climate not altogether different from that of the closing years of Egypt Mubarak regime. A corrupt and widely discredited regime was collapsing and people, especially artists, were dreaming.

Scheherazade Tell Me a Story also reminded me of the 2001 Indian film Monsoon Wedding which presented India to the world as a vibrant modern society, capable of not only addressing but contributing to the discussion of the major social issues facing the world of our time. Scheherazade Tell Me a Story also presents a thoroughly modern face of Egypt (without denying the other parts of Egypt as well) that _honestly surprised me_ and probably would surprise most Americans.

The conflict between modernity and traditionalism as well as the sclerosis of a regime that had outlived any usefulness formed the backdrop to the story.

The film’s principal characters, Hemma and Karim, played by Egyptian actors Mona Zaki and Hassan El Raddad respectively, are young successful Egyptian yuppie journalists living in a swanky apartment in Cairo. Karim finds out early in the movie that he could be made editor in chief of one of Cairo’s (government run) newspapers if only he could encourage his wife, Hemma, to steer her television talk show away from "political" topics like corruption or even poverty. Young, spritely, optimistic 30-something Hemma who’s in her second marriage (did you know that could be possible in Egypt? I did not) reminds Karim that when they got married they had promised each other not to interfere in each other’s careers. Nevertheless, to not cause her husband needless problems, she decides to take her show in a direction that appeared to both her and Karim to be safe: She decides to simply do a series of shows on women’s lives. Both she and her husband quickly discover that truly _everything_ is political.

The movie proceeds with three Egyptian women from widely varied sections of Egyptian society (veiled and unveiled, from among the rich, poor and middle class) telling their stories on Hemma’s television program, each story becoming more compelling and more dangerous than the previous. The stories are not pleasant, and burrow into male-female relational issues that make the incompetence and corruption of Mubarak’s regime beside the point. (Perhaps this is why the movie was even allowed to be made, because it appears to have been filmed in Egypt).

It is here that director Nasrallah’s invocation of Scheherazade becomes truly fascinating and pointed. In the 1001 Arabian Nights, Scheherazade was a woman who was able to survive solely by her wits through her ability to tell stories to her husband/king that would entertain and distract him enough to want to keep her alive. On one level, all the journalists in the film were similarly dancing and spinning tales that kept them both honest with themselves and out of trouble with the authorities. But in particular, it was the women who lived in situations where the society’s rules were just horribly stacked against them.

One hopes that with the fall of the Mubarak regime and brave film-making/story-telling such as this, today’s Sheherazades will not merely spin tales to stay alive but be able to continue to now tell things as they are so that the conditions of women in the Middle East will improve.

A final note, while Scheherazade Tell Us a Story presents difficult/painful themes and in a few instances the movie shows more blood than an American would be comfortable with, one of the remarkable features of this movie is actually _how gently funny_ it often is.  It touches some very big problems, but does so in a surprisingly light/gentle if still pointed way.

So while the movie does focus on the difficulties of women in Egypt's society, I would recommend this movie to anyone (especially a younger college aged/young adult audience) who'd be interested about learning more about Egypt today and its recent history/problems.


<< 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! :-) >>

Beastly

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) The Onion/AV Club (D-) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152398/
CNS/USCCB review - http://www.usccb.org/movies/b/beastly2011.shtml
The Onion/AV Club - http://www.avclub.com/articles/beastly,52675/

The movie Beastly (screenplay written and directed by Daniel Barnz and based on the novel by Alex Flynn) came to me recommended by one of our parish’s young adults who had seen it the previous weekend and liked it.

The movie is a modernistic “goth” retelling of the traditional fairytale of The Beauty and the Beast, calling to mind the Leonardo di Caprio, Claire Danes version of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The dialogue in Beastly, which does come across as “stiff” at times, has a formality to it which suggests that this “stiffness” is at least partly intentional to give the movie a theatrical, “other worldly,” “story-telling,” feel. Further the play itself appears simple enough that if I were a director of a high school drama department, I could see myself trying to see if there was a stage version of the Barnz’ screenplay available, which could be put-on by one’s high school drama troupe in the years to come.

The story in this retelling of the fairy-tale is set in New York City. Kyle (played by Alex Pettyfer) a rich and good looking son of an equally rich and good looking network anchorman begins the story begins the story convinced that only looks and money matter. As such he treats pretty much all the other students at his elite prep school with condescension and contempt. He is only barely aware of a classmate named Lindy (played by Vanessa Hudgens) who has a crush on him. More importantly to the set-up of the rest of the story, he goes out of his way to be nasty to a classmate named Kendra (played by Mary-Kate Olsen) who dresses like a “goth” and so appears to be his polar opposite. At one point, Kendra, who it turns out to be dabbling in magic, gets so tired of Kyle’s over-the-top bullying that she places a curse on him. The curse makes him hideously ugly. Yet unlike the curse of the old gypsy woman against a much better looking, and more fortunate progonist in Drag Me to Hell (a movie of a few years ago with some similar motiffs) Kendra’s curse can be revoked within a year, if Kyle can find someone who despite his now hideously ugly state says the words “I love you.” If he can not find someone who says those words within that year’s time, then the curse becomes permanent.

The story then plays out along the broad lines of the original fairy tale.

I found it particularly interesting / creative how the writers of the current version (Alex Flinn of the novel and Daniel Barnz of the screenplay) were able to find a plausible reason for Lindy, who becomes the “Beauty” in the story to be surrendered by her father and put into the care of the “Beastly” Kyle. But the modern version adds a number of other characters to help Kyle to learn to see beyond appearances. They include Zola (played by Lisa Gay Hamilton) his Caribbean housekeeper who has many problems in her life but to whom until his deformity he paid no mind and Will (played by Neil Patrick Harris) a blind tutor who both can’t be repulsed by Kyle’s ugliness and can help him comprehend what’s actually important in life without being distracted by sight.

Kyle grows and it, of course, ends well. The story is simple, at times stilted, but I do believe would be enjoyable to most teenagers. I honestly am _not_ a particular fan of movies that appear to glorify witchcraft and I do suspect that some parents may have an initial problem with Kendra’s character as well. However, on further reflection, I do believe that Kendra merely plays the role of a witch in the story (and, the original story _did_ have a witch, since otherwise there would have been no curse). So I would suggest to parents who otherwise may have a problem with Kendra’s character to perhaps let it go, and accept the movie for what it is, a creative, teen oriented, contemporary retelling of a compelling fairytale that asks us to get past appearances.


<< 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! :-) >>

Rango

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (4 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/
CNS/USCCB Review - http://www.usccb.org/movies/r/rango2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110302/REVIEWS/110309997

Rango is an animated movie written by John Logan, et al and directed by Gore Verbinski that has something for all ages. I saw the movie in a theatre where easily half the viewers were little kids, who clearly enjoyed of the antics of the animated characters. And for the parents and grandparents the movie’s allusions to all kinds of previous movies make the film entertaining for them as well. Indeed, there is one chase scene alone involving a family of moles riding bats that evokes Star Wars I, Apocalypse Now, Avatar and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Yet a good part of the story runs more like Chinatown and its already ½ animated goofy successor Who Framed Roger Rabbit because underlying the story is a "conspiracy" that as in any good "noir" flick is not fully revealed until the end.

The story is this, Rango (voice by Johnny Depp), a pet lizard, who has aspirations of making a name for himself finds his horizons limitted and the "theatrical productions" that he puts on (for himself, really) very dry. Why? Because he realizes that he really hasn’t done anything in life. He’s been simply a pet kept in a clear glass box with some inanimate objects serving as "friends."

Fortunately, at this point, Luck / Fate sets him free. Unbeknownst to him, he and his terrarium were traveling in a car with his family somewhere through the Desert Southwest (apparently the family was moving) and the car has to swerve. Rango’s terrarium falls off the luggage rack and crashes onto the pavement in the middle of desert, setting him free from his previously sheltered/limited existence.

Can Rango survive? Well the leader of a group of Mariachi dressed owls is convinced that "The lizard’s gonna die." But wait, Rango’s a quick-learner, a lizard with gumption, one who only needed freedom to reach for and attain his destiny. And freedom he now had.

Rango soon finds himself among a community of  "good, hardworking desert folk" (mostly reptiles and rodents), okay some of the varmints were always "hardly workin.'" But they added color to the place.  In anycase, whether on the ranch or in the saloon, all these creatures find themselves increasingly in a crunch. In a world where water had always served as their "currency" (and water was _always_ scarce), things had gotten progressively worse in recent years.  And the reptiles and rodents that Rango encounters don’t understand why.

Only the mayor, a tortoise (voice played by Ned Beatty), arguably a pawn in the scheme himself, has used the "wisdom of his years" to "follow the water" and his "appreciation of the arc of history" to protect himself and a few bootlicking cronies. The rest are SOL.

Particularly distressed is Rango’s love interest in the story, Beans (voice by Isla Fisher). A lizard herself who lost her daddy a while back, she is desperately trying to find water so that she could "keep her land." (Beans has a psychological "tick" that is both funny and an obvious borrowing to the "tick" of the dogs in the animated picture Up of some years back. Beans is the only one "in the whole valley" who hasn’t abandoned her land to the scheming mayor, reminding one of a whole host of movies, including the movie There Will be Blood. It’s left to Rango to figure out what is mysteriously happening to the water.

Again, I found Rango to be entertaining and the allusions to all kinds of past movies creative. I particularly loved the Mariachi playing owls reminding me of countless Vicente Fernandez and Antonio Aguilar movies from Mexico that I have loved over the years and dearly wish had been subtitled or dubbed into English long ago.

Rango’s story, of course, ends well and the mystery of the "missing water" is solved, the answer reminding one of the animated movie of some years back Antz.

Families can’t go wrong with this movie. The kids will love it and the movie buff will probably love it for its innumerable allusions to previous films all the more.


<< 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 Adjustment Bureau

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385826/
CNS/USCCB Review - http://www.usccb.org/movies/a/adjustmentbureau2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s Review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110302/REVIEWS/110309994

The Adjustment Bureau (official website: http://www.theadjustmentbureau.com/) written and directed by George Nolfi and based on a 1950s era short story by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick is a speculative movie oriented above all to a college aged / young adult audience. It touches questions that enter into the theological realm and that, while having an importance to people of all ages, have particular urgency to people at that age: Is there a Plan (ordained by God / Fate) for our lives and indeed for the world? Is there someone who we are supposed to meet/be with (marry)? Is there a particular career path or vocation that I’m supposed to undertake? What happens when we would deviate from that Plan? Are we free to do so? Or will a “higher power” seek to nudge us back toward the Plan?

In the world of the movie, it is the task of a discreet group of “higher beings” working for a “boss” to keep people "on Plan." David Norris (played by Matt Damen) a young, capable, charismatic and _fundamentally good_ New York Senate candidate encounters members of this group of beings, discreetly dressed for “Manhattan today” (err, more like for Manhattan of the 1950s ;-) in gray trench coats and fedora hats and presented to him as “The Adjustment Bureau” working for a “Chairman,” after he accidently encounters a particular woman, Elise Sellas (played by Emily Blunt), for a second time. His encounter with her for first time, it turns out, was no accident. However, his encounter with her a second time was an accident with potentially devastating implications for the futures of both the characters and for the world.

So the Team assigned to David Norris (played by Anthony Mackie, John Slattery and eventually Terence Stamp as Thomson) from the "Adjustment Bureau" which normally guided things from the shadows, had to step out into the life of David Norris to warn him _for everybody’s good_ to “stay on Plan.” Shaken, Norris didn’t understand, why would someone who felt so immediately so “right” could be so “wrong” for him, for her and for the world? The rest of the movie is about resolving this question both for the two characters involved in the story and for the audience.

The movie therefore becomes a great entré into a discussion of Fate/Predestination vs Free Will. I would encourage anyone who sees this movie to browse this topic on the pages of wikipedia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the online (old) Catholic Encyclopedia to reflect on this fundamental question and to discuss it over beers or coffee with friends (and dare one hope, clergy :-) as to how our answers to this fundamental question (fate vs free will) can impact key decisions we make in our lives. This is good stuff!


ADDENDUM (added 2 days after my initial review):

I’ve spent the better part of the weekend reflecting on this movie, and I do believe that I do have problem with the movie’s premise. The movie assumes that "God’s Plan" for senate candidate David Norris is much more burdensome than "God’s plan" generally is.

To make the point, I quote the simple beginning lines of the Baltimore Catechism:

THE PURPOSE OF MAN’S EXISTENCE
Lesson 1 from the Baltimore Cathechism

1. Who made us?
God made us.
In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

2. Who is God?
God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.
In him we live and move and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

3. Why did God make us?
God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.
Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him. (I Corinthians 2:9)

4. What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?
To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.
Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth; where the rust and moth consume and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Now, EXPERIENTIALLY, in my 12 years of being a Catholic priest, I’ve buried over 250 people, about 20 a year. Not one of them was important or famous. Some were probably schmucks (you can kinda tell that from what the friends/family say... ;-). However, a good number of those who I buried seemed to me to be authentically good people even though _no one_ outside of their families, friends, and GOD would have known that. And certainly no worldly monuments (streets named after them, statues of them placed in parks, etc) would be built in their honor.

So while the conflict between "public sacrifice/greatness and private happiness" may make for an interesting story/movie – and I _continue_ to recommend this movie to college-aged 20-somethings and young adults who really are in a stage in their lives when "the world is their oyster" and they are making big decisions about their lives – I do think that the movie actually misrepresents God and even Christian religion in general.

I say this because at both extremes, the Calvinists (who famously believed in Predestination) and the Catholics who defended Free Will, BOTH were talking about FUNDAMENTAL CHOICES (or STATES), that is of being at peace or not at peace with God. To both camps one’s other actions ultimately didn’t matter _that much_.

To the Calvinists one’s other (worldly) actions did not matter _at all_ (even though worldly success was seen as probable evidence of one being in grace with God). And the Catholic Church has _always_ maintained that up until one’s death one was ALWAYS able to reconcile with God (through a good Confession) no matter how much one may have run away from God throughout the course of one’s life. St. Dismas the Good Thief crucified with Jesus was always an important figure in Catholic imagination (and is even invoked in the Prayers of the Faithful in the current Catholic Funeral Rite).  And Jesus’ saying that "There will be more rejoicing in heaven over the one sinner who repents than over the ninety nine righteous people with no need of repentance" (Luke 15:7) has been a stock appeal in Lenten Mission Sermons since at least the Middle Ages when Lenten Mission Sermons began to be recorded.

So it is doubtful that by EITHER belief system (Calvinist or Catholic) God would have put such a heavy burden on Senate candidate David Norris as in the movie. Instead, in the simple words of the Baltimore Catechism, our purpose (God’s plan for us) is simply to come to "know, love, and serve God in this world" and then "to share everlasting happiness" with him "in heaven." And that would be why Jesus could say "Come to me all who are burdened and I will give you rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden light" (Mt 11:30).


<< 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! :-) >>

Poetry (original title "Shi")

MPAA (Not rated) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb Listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1287878/
CNS/USCCB Review -
Roger Ebert's Review- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110224/REVIEWS/110229993/1023

Poetry (original title, Shi) a South Korean movie written and directed by Chang-dong Lee first caught my eye when it was mentioned by several people on the IMDb’s Oscars' discussion board as one of the Best unnominated films/performances of 2010. Then it happened to be playing at Chicago’s Music Box Theatre this week.

One of the joys of the movies is that one can use them to enter, however briefly, into other places, cultures and times. One of the frustrations of international films is, however, that no matter well these movies are subtitled or dubbed, the films are at least initially disorienting, that is, until one gets a grasp of the film-makers’ intentions as well as their films’ conventions and forms. Hollywood’s films, even the good/great ones, are famously formulaic. Films produced in other countries for their domestic consumption are also generally formulaic. Most complex however, are movies clearly intended for international audiences. It’s as if producers of such films fall into the trap of believing that they must pack in as much of the problematics of their country or culture as possible in the 2-3 hours that they have alotted in their film.

Poetry appears to me to be a very good, though very typical example of such an international film: there are at least three stories, each compelling in its own right, taking place simultaneously. Together, the three stories do add up to more than the sum of their parts, however at the cost of some clarity. I’m more or less positive that Hollywood would have counseled that the stories be taken separately and used as fodder for 2-3 separate and unrelated films.

The central character is Mija (played by Jeong-hie Yun), a South Korean grandmother living in Seoul and raising her teenage grandson Jongwook (played by Da-wit Lee), while his mother works in a factory in Pusan at the other end of the country. (Veterans of the Korean War or those who've studied it, will know these as place names well). Jongwook appears to have no father to speak of. Mija takes care of him out of a sense of obligation and resignation and Jongwook, being early in his teens, is both utterly clueless and hence utterly ungrateful for what Mija is doing for him. Mija is also becoming “forgetful” ... Finally, Mija as seniors often do, signs up for an activity, a Poetry class, at a community center and this class clearly gives her life.

Fairly early in the movie, Jongwook becomes more than a mere ungrateful annoyance when Mija is informed by the a number of fathers of his similarly loutish friends that Jongwook along with these other boys was implicated in the rape of a young teenage girl who subsequently jumped off a bridge committing suicide. The fathers wish to payoff the mother of the deceased girl so that she does not press charges thus “saving" their sons’ "futures.”

Not only does Mija not have ready access to the kind of money needed (though she would have a way), she seems clearly conflicted in participating in such a scheme. Was Mija’s own daughter raped in a similar way when her daughter was young, explaining the absence of a father for Jongwook? Was Mija herself raped/abused in the same way when _she_ was young? In any case, while the other fathers are in agreement as to what to do, Mija is clearly an unenthusiastic participant. Worse, Jongwook acts as if nothing at all had happened and remains simply an bad mannered and largely clueless (immature) child in Mija’s home. Mija’s new found poetry class offers potentially some respite or salvation, but Mija is also getting “forgetful.”

The movie then plays out in a poignant manner that the reader can probably put together from the pieces given above.

In the background of this terrible story of Mija and her family are some truly beautiful and tragic scenes of daily life in contemporary South Korea. The girl who was raped and subsequently committed suicide was Catholic (reminding viewers that at substantial portion of South Korea’s population _is_ Catholic). Then her family lived in the countryside at the outskirts of Seoul. This is beautiful country, but also brings to mind issues of economics and social class, as well as further poignancy of what it must have been for a country family to lose a daughter who up until her sudden rape/death might have been giving hope to the family of "making it" in the city.

The get togethers of the poetry class are both fun and at times conflicting as clearly language, even the language of poetry can be used to express a multitude of thoughts, impressions and intentions. And then there is Mija with so much going on in her life, finding it increasingly difficult to express herself at all...

This is a great and, as often is the case with “international films,” a _sad_ story. There will be American women whose blood will certainly start to boil/curdle as this story plays out. Poetry is _not_ the first story of previously largely untold women’s pain to come out on screen in recent years. I think of the recent Hollywood movie Defiance about the otherwise heroic pursuits of the Bielsky brothers who had led a specifically Jewish partisan movement in the forests of Nazi occupied Byelorussia during World War II. One of the horrors given voice in that movie was that of the Jewish women of that time who did not necessarily feel _safe_ around the Jewish men (who took “forest wives”) even as those men were nominally "protecting" them.

I am positive, however, that these kind of stories of specifically women’s suffering will increasingly common for the foreseeable future as both men and women come to grips with the violence against women, both past and present, that until recently was rarely if ever discussed.

Seniors, especially senior women would probably like / relate to this film as it is about a senior woman with definitely a story to tell.

Note to parents: While there is no nudity in the picture or onscreen violence, the themes presented are clearly intended for an adult audience. I don't think that a lot of teenagers would really understand this movie, even if one of the main characters in the story is an obviously "clueless" and largely ungrateful teen.


<< 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! :-) >>

On the 2011 Oscars - Navigating the Old and the New

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years


It was clear that the organizers of this year’s Oscars had decided to “mix things up” by bringing in two of Hollywood’s younger stars, Anne Hatheway and James Franco, to host the show. And in the months leading up to the awards ceremony, this certainly must have seemed like a very good move:

For 2010 featured a parade of younger actors and actresses in outstanding roles. Among the best movies were some which were either positively revolutionary (Inception) or documenting in big ways and small ways revolutions taking place before our eyes (The Social Network, The Kids are All Right and Blue Valentine). Even the Coen brothers' decision to “rework” the previous John Wayne classic True Grit was brave, revolutionary and indeed, subversive. (The hero of the Coen bros. version was _not_ the “John Wayne” character Cockburn, but the teenage _girl_ who set-out to hire him to hunt-down her father’s murderer. Who had the “true grit?” The _girl_). So 2010 appeared to be a year that screamed: “Out with the Old and in with the New.”

So how is it that as the curtain fell on this year’s Oscars the big winner was a movie about a stuttering, long-dead, white, war-time King (where even Churchill, if not John Wayne, was a character in the story), and the two young starry-eyed hosts of the show were so widely panned?

Well, one of the reasons why I’ve liked movies (or for that matter events like the Oscars) is that these are among the few “mass events” of our times and reflecting on the way that we respond to them can help us to discern the “signs of the times.”

Anybody in the Catholic Church knows that we have experienced a 20 year more or less sustained “correction” (to some) or “counter revolution” (to others) to roll back some of the changes brought about during the time of the Second Vatican Council. Similarly, since the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980, despite an occasional spikes (the Clinton years, _perhaps_ the relative surprise election of Barrack Obama) the U.S. has trended in a generally more conservative direction.

And a few years ago, a generational shift in hosts of the Tonight Show from Jay Leno to Conan O’Brian, was famously rolled back, so that Jay is hosting the show again and Conan has been exiled to the cable network TBS.

All this can serve to invite us to reflect – How do we understand “revolutions” or “revolutionary times?” How permanent are they? Is it really as The Who already sang at the end of the 1960s “[Meet] the New Boss, same as the Old Boss?”

Perhaps sustained change really comes “under the radar” and “incrementally.” The Kids are All Right (underscoring growing acceptance/mainstreaming of homosexuality) and especially Blue Valentine (a narrative that worked because it’s indicative of a truly broad-based rise of feminist consciousness across all levels of society) do present changes that are much more long term than perhaps the needless taking of pot-shots at venerated icons of the past (the Coen bros. True Grit) or glorifying passing fads (or even stages) in _ongoing_ technological progress (The Social Network)..

And while I am and hope always to be a booster of the young, because I honestly believe that God generally has more faith in the young than we do, or the young themselves have in themselves – God would almost always pick the young (Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Mary) over the old (Esau, Joseph’s brothers, David’s brothers, Absalom, etc) to do his work (and all this has worked its way into countless homilies I've given over the years at quinceañeras) - I do believe that there is something to be said about prudence that does come with age.

I’ve loved Anne Hatheway from the time of her Princess Diaries. And I’m happy that she and a whole host of other young actresses (among them famously being Amy Adams and Amanda Siegried) have learned a thing or two from the experience of Meryl Streep and have decided to take on widely varied roles early in their careers. Indeed, that would seem to be one of the great joys of acting: the taking-on of widely different roles during one’s career and thus entering into their worlds. Further, from what I’ve seen of James Franco, I see nothing but a brilliant future for him as well (he’s both on General Hospital _and_ studying for a PhD in Poetry at Yale!).

However, perhaps the hosting or next year's Academy Awards should fall back to the Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck, Ben Stiller crowd. There’s no crying need to jump over that generation of talent in search of hosts that don’t require resurrecting Bob Hope (or Billy Crystal/ Whoopi Goldberg for that matter) as a hologram.

2010 was a great year for movies. Years from now, Inception could be looked at as the 2001 Space Odyssey or Blade Runner of its time and probably _both_ versions of True Grit will come to be respected for what they were, the first as a vehicle to finally get John Wayne an Oscar and the second as a great retelling of the story closer to its original style and language where all the actors truly had fun with their roles. But lasting change does not come overnight. And _perhaps_ the better model is that of a patiently self-improving "King" (person/individual) who seeks to walk steadily forward in a world of fluctuation, conflict and change.


<< 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! :-) >>

My Oscar Picks

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years

 
I’ve been asked by a number of people to give my Oscar picks. Here I confess my still "amateur" striving for "semi-pro" status ;-)

However, for the “big” categories these are my picks of those who I think will win, those who IMHO _should_ win ;-) and those who least should have been nominated/considered:

BEST ACTOR – COLIN FIRTH (The King’s Speech). Who I’d like to win is JEFF BRIDGES (True Grit). Who should have at least been nominated is GEORGE CLOONEY (The American).

BEST ACTRESS – NATALIE PORTMAN (Black Swan). Who should have at least been nominated HILLARY SWANK (Conviction).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – CHRISTIAN BALE (The Fighter). Who I’d kinda like to win is unnominated MATT DAMON (True Grit).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – MELISSA LEO (The Fighter). But this was a surprisingly tough category this year. HELENA BONHAM CARTER (The King’s Speech) was excellent as was teenager HAILEE STEINFELD (True Grit), though the latter could be a flash in the pan. Who both surprised and I wish was at least nominated was LEIGHTON MEESTER (Country Strong).

BEST DIRECTOR – DARREN ARONOFSKY (Black Swan) or the COEN BROTHERS (True Grit). Who deserved to at least be nominated was SOFIA COPOLLA (Somewhere).

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY – DAVID SEIDLER (The King’s Speech), though both CHRISTOPHER NOLAN (Inception) and SCOTT SILVER, et al (The Fighter) were excellent as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – COEN BROTHERS (True Grit). However, this was a great year for writing. The other four nominees – 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3 and Winter’s Bone all deserved their nominations. Others that deserved consideration were Conviction and The American.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY – INCEPTION or BLACK SWAN though SOMEWHERE ought to have been at least nominated.

BEST FEATURE LENGTH DOCUMENTARY - INSIDE JOB

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM – TOY STORY 3, though I preferred HOW TO TAME YOUR DRAGON. The movie I thought deserved at least a nomination in this category was DESPICABLE ME.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM – I only saw this one of the nominees, but it was _excellent_ BIUTIFUL.

BEST PICTURE – THE KING’S SPEECH though I much preferred TRUE GRIT.


<< 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! :-) >>

Unknown [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 stars) Fr. Dennis (2 ½ stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1401152/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/u/unknown2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110216/REVIEWS/110219990

Things are not as they seem ...

Unknown, starring Liam Neeson, is a kind of Hollywood paranoid suspense thriller that’s been relatively common in recent years. Viewers will find clear thematic similarities to Matt Damon’s Bourne Identity as well as to Liam Neeson’s recent film Taken. Older viewers will also notice obvious homages to Harrison Ford’s thriller Frantic.

In each case an American finds himself lost in an exotic city in Europe and Europe proves to be a bewildering and hence dangerous place. While Unknown, Taken and The Bourne Identity are all clearly presented as fictional stories, bewilderment -- the struggle to figure out who exactly is who, and who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad” – forms a large part of the subtext of recent more historically based movies like Munich and The Good Shepherd (both largely set in Europe during the Cold War era) as well as countless movies set in the post 9/11-Middle-East (Syriana, Green Zone, The Kingdom, Body of Lies, etc). Add to these recent fictional movies about the cold methodical lives of fictional assassins (George Clooney’s The American, Jason Statham’s The Mechanic, Nicolas Cage’s Bangkok Dangerous) and it would seem that portions of Hollywood are making really good money producing films that portray the world as a bewildering place where danger lurks around every corner and pretty much everyone is a potential enemy, all this being especially true when one ventures outside the more familiar confines of the good ole U.S.A.

One could criticize Hollywood for exploiting and even feeding American post-9/11 fears, but I do tend to side with “apologists” here who respond by saying that these movies would not work if they did not touch a nerve. And even if most of these movies are set off American shores, _none of them_ present the “good” and the “bad” along clear ethnic or national lines. Indeed, that makes for a great part of the bewilderment expressed in these films. Almost everyone becomes suspect, both nominally friend and foe, and the protagonists as well as the audience are given the task to sort it all out.

Unknown is exactly this kind of movie. The audience is presented Liam Neeson playing the role of a botanist Dr. Martin Harris traveling with his wife Elizabeth (played by January Jones) to a biotech summit in Berlin. While entering a taxi on leaving the Berlin airport, Neeson’s character's briefcase gets left behind. Arriving at the check-in counter at their hotel, Neeson’s character realizes that his briefcase is missing. Without even telling his wife, he quickly hails a cab to take him back to the airport to retrieve the lost bag. Trying to call his wife on his cell phone to tell her where he’s heading, he can’t get a signal. Before he knows literally what hit him, a refrigerator falls from a truck in front of his cab while the cab is crossing a bridge. The cab driver a Bosnian immigrant named Gina (played by Diane Krueger) swerving to avoid plunges the cab off the bridge and into the river.

Four days later, Neeson’s character wakes-up from a coma in a Berlin hospital and is first surprised and then worried that his wife wasn’t able to find him. He checks himself out of the hospital against the attending doctor’s advice, and finds his way back to the hotel where he and his wife were to be staying. To his astonishment when he encounters his wife, she denies knowing him. Further, he finds she’s being escorted by a man who looks reasonably like him and who also claims to be Dr. Martin Harris. What the heck just happened?

The rest of the movie gradually fills in the story. The viewer is invited to follow along, to sort out the good folks from the bad. More crucially to a story like this, the viewer is also invited to render judgement on whether the story ultimately makes sense at all.

As a thriller (and as a puzzle), I found Unknown to be reasonably engaging. It did keep one's attention. Still the more interesting question for me remains, why movies like this are “working” (successful) in the U.S. and at this particular time in our history?


<< 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! :-) >>