Shame

MPAA (NC-17) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (4 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1723811/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111130/REVIEWS/111139997

Shame (Fox Searchlight, directed and cowritten by Steve McQueen along with Abi Morgan) is a movie that I went to see with some trepidation, not for its rating (NC-17, entirely appropriate, more on that below) since a good number of reviewers (e.g. Roger Ebert above) had made it clear that Shame was a serious movie, but rather because I feared that its subject, sex addiction, would make it susceptible to banality in another way -- a banality of film-maker imposed guilt, yes, shame that could come across as forced.  Having seen the film, I do believe that for the most part, Shame avoided this second potential pitfall very, very well.

First let's deal with the rating, NC-17.  I do believe that the rating was appropriate but not because it showed more nudity than R-rated pictures.  IMHO the film did not show any more skin than a fair number of R-rated movies like The Reader [2008] starring Kate Winslet and David Kross/Ralph Fiennes, or that the film was any more intense / adult themed than say Black Swan [2010] starring Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis, films that gained Kate Winslet an academy award nomination and Natalie Portman a win.  The nudity presented in Shame was certainly de-glamourized, in line certainly with the basic theme of the film which was, afterall, about addiction to sex rather than any kind of romance.  But is making use of glamourized nudity to make a romantic point in a film somehow better/more wholesome than making use of de-glamorized nudity to make another equally intended point in a story?  If nudity has a place at all in film, its deglamorized use here seemed appropriate to the movie's plot/theme. 

Additionally, there is a fairly graphic (bloody) attempted suicide scene near the end of Shame that would disturb a good number of viewers.  But there was a very graphic / bloody scene in the recent film Limitless [2011] staring Bradley Cooper (obscenely rated PG-13 !!) in which the drug-addicted protagonist of that story was shown as stooping to drinking the blood of a villain he had just killed in hopes of sucking in a "hit" of the drug that he craved.

In my mind, ALL these movies should have been rated NC-17 or to give parents leeway at least be given a "hard-R" rating with said parents being warned that the images/themes presented would not be suitable for (or even comprehensible by) most teens.  I struggle to understand any of these films The Reader [2008], Black Swan [2010] and Limitless [2011] would remain suitable to at least some teens under 17 while Shame would not.  So I am a definite proponent of honesty in ratings and, in particular, a defender of the serious application of the "R-rating."  I found it ridiculous that the Oscar Winning The King's Speech [2010] was rated R (for language) while Limitless [2011] with it's graphic violence and drug addiction thematics was rated PG-13.  And as I write here, I'm not even sure why Shame was rated NC-17 while the above mentioned films were rated either R or below.  But such it is ... and to close the point here, I would simply insist that parents note that the thematics of Shame (as in the case of the other above mentioned films) would be beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of teens.

To the film ... Shame is about a 30 something single man, Brandon Sullivan (played by Michael Fassbender), living and working in Manhattan who's addicted to sex.  He has one night stands, he hires prostitutes, both his computer at work and his laptop at home are filled with porn, he can't even sit in a subway car on his way to work without fantasizing about (and coming onto) a random, reasonably attractive woman sitting across from him in the car.  And all this brings him repeated doses of nearly unbearable shame:  His computer gets pulled by the IT technicians at work on suspicion that _it_ could be the source of viruses plaguing the firm's computer system.  His adult sister Sissy (played by Carey Mulligan) is a mess, but he doesn't really see it and in any case is unable to do anything about it.  He pursues a coworker, Marianne (played by Nicole Beharie), but perhaps because he starts to actually care for her, he finds himself unable (or unwilling) to perform (or otherwise actually express that he cares).  As with any addiction, any joy in the act is lost in the craving for the next "hit" and the happenings of the rest of the world get lost in the struggle to find it and then in the haze when he at last gets it. 

I found the presentation of the addiction quite convincing.  There are only a few lines in the dialogue that I found forced.  One dialogue exchange in particular I would note here: During his first date with Marianne, Brandon says very matter of factly (and quite to her horror) that he simply doesn't believe that marriage or lasting fidelity were "realistic."  The exchange came across to me as the screenwriters ticking off "probable symptoms or attitudes of a sex addict."  I'm not sure that a character like Brandon would be so brazen about holding such a view or even that he would necessarily hold it at all.  I would imagine that a sex addict would be far more conflicted than that, as indeed, Brandon was (see above).

But aside from a few forced lines of dialogue, I found the film quite well done and certainly one presenting the case for the existence of this kind of addiction: Who would be willing to risk the various doses of overwhelming shame associated with such sexual behavior if not an addict?


<< 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! :-) >>

Hugo

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (4 Stars) Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970179/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv145.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111121/REVIEWS/111119982/0/REV%20IEWS

Hugo (directed by Martin Scorsese, screenplay by John Logan, based on the award winning children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick) seems on first impression likes an odd choice of a project for the legendary director.  But there are two characteristics present in Scorsese's extensive CV that make the 3D children's film Hugo less of a surprise: (1) Martin Scorsese has lived for challenges.  How else to explain taking on (and nailing) films like Taxi Driver [1976], Raging Bull [1980], Last Temptation of Christ [1988], Cape Fear [1991], Gangs of New York [2002] and Shutter Island [2010]? and (2) Scorcese loves biography/history.  How else to explain documentary projects on The Blues [2003], Michael Jackson [2003], Bob Dylan [2005] and George Harrison [2011], bio pics like The Aviator [2004] and Sinatra [announced for 2013] and historical/history inspired pictures like Casino [1995, Gangs of New York [2002] and the like?

Like or not, Hollywood or perhaps its technology masters like Sony have decided to force the film industry and eventually all American (and probably the world's) TVs to go "3D."  So present in Hugo is certainly a master like Martin Scorsese playing with the cinematic possibilities of this technology.  To this date the recent 3D technology has been most often used in films directed to children.  So why not try making a really good even ground breaking children's film especially if the children's film has strong element of history and even cinematic history behind it?   I'm positive, if nothing else, that Hugo will be up for Academy Awards this year for cinematography, direction and art direction.  So from a technical and even artistic point of view Hugo will certainly be regarded as a masterpiece.  But what about the story?

Well the story isn't bad either.  It's based on an award winning children's book that seems a good part Dickens (David Copperfield, Oliver Twist) with a dash of Victor Hugo (Les Miserables).  The main character is a 10-12 year old orphan named Hugo Cabret (played by Asa Butterfield) who lives hidden among the clock-works of Paris' central railroad station in the early 1930s.  Hugo's orphan status and the location of the film even evokes thoughts of the renowned Brazilian film and tearjerker Central Station [1998].  Orphan-Hugo is persecuted by a Javert-like Station-inspector (played by Sasha Baron Cohen) and a crotchety old owner of the "toy booth" at said station.  The toy booth owner, Georges Melies (played by Ben Kingsley) is upset that Hugo keeps stealing his toys.  But Hugo isn't stealing the toys maliciously or even to play with them.  He's stealing them for parts.  Why?  Well that's a good part of the story.

When store owner Melies finally catches Hugo, he seems needlessly harsh to him.  But his harshness toward Hugo catches the eye his grand-daughter Isabelle (played by Chloe Grace Moretz).  She's the same age as Hugo but (as is often the case at that age) somewhat taller and perhaps more mature than him.  She befriends Hugo who up unto that point had lost just about everybody in his life.  The two, largely on the impulse of book reading Isabelle, set-off on an "adventure" that only two twelve-year-olds could go on.  In the midst of this adventure, they slowly realize that Isabelle's grandfather was not always the broken and bitter old man running that tiny toy shop in the train station.  Instead when he was younger, he was a magician and later a film-maker a maker of wonderful/fantastic films.  What happened?  Why did he retire to such a small hovel in a train station making his living selling mechanical toys?  Well go to the movie ...

Therefore even though it is largely presented through kids' eyes, the movie is not really a kids' movie.  At minimum it is a serious kids' movie of a Charles Dickens vein.  So parents take note: I don't think anyone under10-12 years of age will really understand this film.  And some kids it may find it very depressing because it is about various kinds of brokenness and a need to gently/compassionately fix people who were broken.

Now the idea that "broken people" should be "fixed" may surprise a fair amount of adults in the United States today because our prevailing orthodoxy seems to be that people "shouldn't be in the business of fixing others."  But when one experiences the truly heart-wrenching stories of the various characters in this story (including that of the Jarvert-like Inspector) compassionate/gentle "fixing" is in order.  Otherwise, we consign the broken people of this world to irrelevance, not only terribly hurting them by our actively chosen passivity but diminishing the whole world which would never benefit from their (lost) gifts.

So this technically exemplary but commercial 3D monstrosity ends up telling a very good and even poignant story.  But the questions to Industry then ought to be: Was the 3D technology really necessary to tell this story?  How much was the telling of the story "improved" by the 3D technology?  And if not by much, why is the world (from its artists/directors to its consumers) being forced to buy-into expensive technology that doesn't really improve film's story-telling capacity?


<< 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 Week With Marilyn

MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655420/
CNS/USCCB review - 
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv147.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111121/REVIEWS/111129994

My Week With Marilyn (Weinstein Co, directed by Simon Curtis, screenplay by Adrian Hodges based on the books by Colin Clark) was probably intended to be better than it turned out to be and will probably still get Michelle Williams a Best Actress in a Leading Role nomination and _possible win_ at the Oscars this year and perhaps earn a few other nominations (for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay).  It's worth seeing, even in the movie theaters.  The movie is more than "just another Marilyn movie."  It's just, eh ..., I do believe that it could have been better.  On the other hand, even the surprisingly mediocre vibe that the movie evokes, may have been _intended_.  Because it's fundamental theme appeared to be about "limtations."

The movie was built around Colin Clark's (played by Eddie Redmayne) experience in the late 1950s of working as a relatively minor production assistant to legendary stage actor (Sir) Lawrence Olivier (played by Kenneth Branah) who was not only seeking to make his permanent his mark as a screen actor but also trying to make an inroad into directing.  In order to make a splash as a director, Lawrence Olivier had hired the already by then world-renowned American screen goddess, Marilyn Monroe (played in the current movie by Michelle Williams) to co-star with him in a movie called The Prince and the Showgirl [1957].  Of course things wouldn't turn out as Sir Lawrence Olivier had hoped.  And this then makes the stuff of the movie.

What didn't turn out?  Well Sir Lawrence Olivier was a _great_ stage actor who turned out to be a really good/great screen actor.  But a director?  Then Marilyn Monroe was above all a _really good looking_ actress who also did have some innate ability of presenting herself really, really well to an audience.  But was she a _great_ actress?  Then there were others around the two.  Lawrence Olivier's wife Vivian Leigh (played by Julie Ormand) the legendary star of Gone With The Wind [1938] and Streetcar Named Desire [1951] becomes something of a jealous basket-case around the younger and if nothing else uber-sexy Marilyn who Vivian's husband Olivier had cast for _his_ movie.  And Marilyn's husband (#3), the legendary playwright Arthur Miller (played by Dougray Scott) was learning what it's like to be married a very sexy but also tremendously insecure Marilyn Monroe.

So if the recent film J. Edgar (about the life of U.S. FBI founding director J. Edgar Hoover) appeared ultimately to be a character study about power and the kind of pressures/circumstances/upbringing that could drive a person to crave it, My Week With Marilyn appears to be a character study about insecurity and dealing with/accepting limitations.

Lawrence Olivier in particular was shocked to find that Marilyn Monroe really did travel with an entourage, including personal acting coach Paula Stasberg (played by Zoe Wanamaker) and personal agent/handler Milton Greene (played by Dominic Cooper).  Olivier great naturally gifted stage actor that he was (and insecure about his attempt to be a director), simply didn't understand why Monroe would need a personal acting coach.  Why can't Marilyn just read (and _make her own_) the lines off the page?  Well, Marilyn _could not_.  And besides, Marilyn was finding success (and perhaps the _only_ way she could find success as an actress) using the then _new_ Method Acting approach becoming popular in the United States.

And so it goes.  Marilyn, popular sex bomb and reasonably good actress that she was, was a basket case.  Sir Lawrence Olivier was finding his own limitations.  All the younger to middle-aged women around the set didn't know what to make of Marilyn and felt threatened by her.  These included, above mentioned Vivian Leigh, but also young seamstress Lucy (played by Emma Watson) from the wardrobe department, who in other circumstances would have made a natural friend/girl friend to Colin Clarke telling the story.   And the older/wiser men in Marilyn's life, notably husband Arthur Miller and boss Olivier, didn't really know how to manage things either.  On set, the only ones who seem to do well with her are some of the older women including her above mentioned acting coach and older actress Sybil Thorndike (played admirably by Judy Dench) And yet, off-set, the people just loved her.  Fascinating.

I found the movie fascinating because in my surprisingly not altogether different line of work (being a public figure, and most notably preaching) some of the pressures that Marilyn and the other "famous" people in the film faced felt surprisingly familiar.  All of us preachers/priests too have our "fans."  All of us definitely have our limitations.  How does one navigate them _even in the small arena_ of a parish (or perhaps a blog)? ;-).  I felt a lot of pity for Marilyn (or my generation's equivalent who also met a tragic end, Michael Jackson).  The pressures, shown actually quite well in this film, _must have been awful_.

Parents, the movie is appropriately rated R.  It is, after all, about Marilyn Monroe.  There is some fleeting back-side nudity and there are occasional references to off-screen sexual activity (both adulterous and non).  But above all, I don't think that a child or teenager would really understand the movie anyway.  So parents keep the kids at home and see the movie on a "date night."  It really is quite good, even though I do feel that it could have been better.


<< 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 Muppets

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-1) Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

The Muppets (Disney, directed by James Bobin, characters by Jim Henson, screenplay by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller) is probably one of the least "ideological" of a depressingly large number of ideological "kids" movies made this year.

On the Right there was Diary of a Wimpy Kid II: Rodrick's Rules, the gawd-awful Hop, and Hoodwinked Too (all of which cast/accented the "good" people as Anglos/Americans and the bad/problematic people as foreigners) and possibly Mars Needs Moms (which became almost an Orwellian "Animal Farm" style parable against radical feminism).

On the Left would be the recent Happy Feet II that IMHO continued to be needlessly heavy-handed about global warming. 

Still arguably left of center but at least gentler were Rio and Rango, which both had environmental themes.  But in the case of Rio made by Brazilian-born Carlos Saldanha there was a reminder that the people of Brazil (like the little street kid Fernando) are important too and not just its birds and trees.  And Rango ultimately seemed like a clever cartoon remake of the "hardboiled L.A./conspiracy" classic Chinatown [1974].  Then there was Cars II whose consumerist message "cars are people too" I honestly just don't like.  (NO "cars" are _not_ people.  They are definitely _things_.  I have a similar criticism though less adamant of Pixar's Toy Story series).

The Muppets would certainly fall on the left of center scale by making the story's chief villain an "oil baron" named Tex Richman (voice by Chris Cooper) who wanted to buy the Muppets' Theater in Hollywood to tear it down and _drill for oil_ under it.  But at least The Muppets were goofy enough (a la the Disney classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit [1988]) to make it obvious that they weren't all that serious.  Here I'd add that those reading my blog would certainly suspect/expect that I'd not be a huge fan of "oil barons." On the other hand, I would definitely understand and defend to the end that THEY, "oil barons," are "people too."  So I just wish that The Muppets' makers would have chosen to go the route of Mike Myers/Austin Powers' "Dr. Evil" or Steven Carrell's "Gru" of Despicable Me [2010] where the villains didn't carry any heavy-handed ideological baggage and there were attempts actually to explain _why_ the villains became the way they were. 

So while I fully expected to be writing glowing recommendations for truly great animated children's films like The Incredibles [2004], Up [2009], How to Train Your Dragon [2009], Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs [2009], and, yes, Despicable Me [2010], this year has been a real disappointment to me when it comes to children's movies.

Still I do believe that The Muppets in their goofiness and inspired play of the human boy friend/girl friend couple Gary (played by the film's co-writer Jason Segal) and Mary (played by Amy Adams of Disney's Enchanted/Giselle fame) were better than most of the children's movies of this year.

To the plot ... Gary, grows-up with best friend Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) in Small Town somewhere in the American Midwest.  When they were kids, they were peas in a pod.  But as they grow-up their differences begin to show.  Gary after-all is human and Walter, well, is a Muppet.  Still Walter could not have a better friend than Gary, who sticks by him through thick and thin, and even makes a decision to take Walter along with him on his and Mary's trip to Los Angeles.  Gary is going on the trip with Mary because he wants to propose to her, while Walter thinks that they're going on the trip so that they could (finally) see the Muppet Theater, Museum and so forth.  So problems inevitably ensue between Walter (Gary's BFF) and Mary (Gary's girlfriend and soon, as both Gary and Mary hope ... if all goes well, wife ...).

Things get even more complicated when to Walter's terrible disappointment, the three arrive at Hollywood's Muppet Museum/Theater and find it dilapidated and about to be sold to above mentioned villain "oil man" Tex Richman.  This sets off an adventure as the three first seek to find Kermit the Frog (voiced by Steve Whitmore) and then the rest of the Muppet gang to try to save the Muppet Theater/Museum.

Much of course ensues, often very, very funny ;-).  But in the midst of this an exasperated Mary also decides to put her foot down: "Gary, are you a man or a muppet?"  And Gary has to decide.

This becomes a very nice movie about both respecting friends _and_ understanding that in the end, one's spouse (if one wants to ever find a spouse) has to come-out ahead of them.

So it turns out to be a great and zany story.  I just wish they didn't have to _needlessly_ bring "Big Oil" into the tale at all ...


<< 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 Descendants

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review

Roger Ebert's review

The Descendants (Fox Searchlight, directed and screenplay co-written by Alexander Payne along with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmins), is a film that will probably irritate some who may not be able to get past it being a (fictional) story about a Hawaiian lawyer and leading member of a very old Hawaiian family, Matt King (played by George Clooney) who finds himself (as well as his two daughters) in a sudden and unexpected crisis -- the critical injury of his wife Elizabeth (played by Patricia Hastie) in a jet-ski/speed boating accident -- at the beginning of the film.

Yes, Matt King and his family were rather wealthy.  Yes, they lived in Hawaii, paradise.  But perhaps most viewers will give him and his family the benefit of the doubt, when in the beginning voice-over setting-up the story, George Clooney/Matt King declares that given the circumstances that he and his family now found themselves in: "F-Paradise."  Yes, the family's money did give them a few more options that would not be available to most others.  But move around the chess pieces a little, tweak the situation a bit and these could be circumstances that many/most families in the United States or even across the globe could find themselves in..

As such, this family drama is certainly one of the best American films of the year and will almost certainly find itself nominated for a host of nominations for the annual Oscar Academy Awards.  These would include (in a field of 10) an almost certain nomination for Best Picture, an almost certain nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role (George Clooney), an almost certain nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay (Alexander Payne, et al) and possible nominations for Best Director (Alexander Payne) and even Best Supporting Actress (Shailene Woodley) for her role as Matt/Elizabeth King's teenage daughter Alex.

Other performances to note were that of Amara Miller who played Matt and Elizabeth's other (7 year old) daughter as well as that of Nick Krause who played Alex's both "out there, but ..." teenage boyfriend Sid.   Miller is probably too young to get serious consideration for a nomination and Krause, while outstanding, had a role probably too peripheral to get a nod for a Best Supporting Actor nomination.  Robert Forster and Barbara L. Southern playing Elizabeth's parents Scott and Alice "Tutu" Thorson were excellent as well, if again, their characters play more at the edges of the story. And still others at the story's edges step-up and nail their roles as well.  Yes, this film had a great, well directed ensemble cast.

I'd like to say more about the film, but I think I'd truly "spoil" it if I said much more.  There is a key wrinkle that the trailer to the movie already adds: It's Matt/Elizabeth's daughter Alex who tells Matt (her father) that Elizabeth (his wife/her mother) that Elizabeth was cheating on him before the accident.  With this revelation, the crisis that the family faces has been fully set up.  I will say that the characters, all of them, were well portrayed and all of the main participants in the story, including possibly _the audience_ do grow.

Parents should note that the language often used by all three of the minors is often quite bad (hence the MPAA's R-rating).  A lot of "f-bombs" are dropped.  But given the circumstances and the way the story plays out, the bad language feels both real and appropriate.  I just found it to be a very well written, well directed and well acted story fully deserving some recognition at Oscar time.


<< 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! :-) >>

Happy Feet Two [2011]

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1402488/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv141.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111116/REVIEWS/111119984

Happy Feet Two (Warner Brothers, directed by George Miller, cowritten by George Miller, Warren Coleman, Gary Eck and Paul Livingstone) will once again be denounced by the mouthpieces of the carbon burning industries.  BP, Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil, the coal industry and most recently the natural gas frackers all make or stand to make obscene amounts of money pulling carbon out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels and selling it to be burned and dumped into the atmosphere.

So it's absolutely naive to expect the carbon industries to ever be "on board" when it comes to combating global warming (or pollution for that matter).  A historian on a History Channel program on the roots of the American Civil War once put it this way: "Southern slave owners owned some $10 billion (in today's dollars) worth of slaves before the Civil War.  There is no way that stake holders invested in a holding to that extent could be expected to relinquish it without a fight."  Yes, a whole lot of poor white soldiers in the South died so that rich white plantation owners could own black people.  Lots of "honor" in that... 

... But if the Civil War was fought to protect the right of a relatively small amount of rich white people to own black people, why should we be surprised therefore that there is a powerful, well-funded pro-carbon, pro-pollution lobby in this country when the carbon barons of today have far more money invested in the status quo than the white plantation owners had in their slaves?  Indeed, given the nation's experience with "Southern nostalgia" even 150 years after the Civil War was fought and lost by the South, it could well be that there will be a powerful, well-funded pro-carbon, pro-pollution lobby in this country even after Wall Street and most of Manhattan will be submerged under dozens of feet of water due to sea level rise after the polar icecaps melt.  Who would deny that God's judgement could come with a little sense of humor in this case? ;-)

But be all this as it may... as well as my obvious agreement with George Miller's pro-ecological sympathies, I still wonder whether George Miller appreciates how traumatic some of the scenes in both this and the previous Happy Feet movies could be for little kids.  In the current film there are several scenes in which a parent or close friend faces imminent death in front of loved ones (in two cases, the parent's children).  At minimum, I do believe that the MPAA's "PG" rating _should be taken seriously_ by parents _in this case_, and I would have preferred that the movie be given a "PG-13" rating to underscore the point.

Miller does acknowledge in interviews [1][2] that he designed his Happy Feet films with both parents (adults) and children in mind, and certainly there is much to for adults to contemplate in this picture:  If the first Happy Feet was about recognizing the value of the individual to the collective (Even if the individual may not seem to "fit in" initially, it may be precisely the individual's somewhat unique gifts that can come to benefit or even save the whole), Happy Feet Two is an exploration of the value of the collective to the individual (There are times when individual or small group action is simply not enough, and the collective can in fact be or become the "community" / "home" to return to even in the case of the most wayward/ambitious of individuals, as the krills "Bill and Will" (voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon) learn during the course of this story).

Then many of the characters/cast from the first Happy Feet are back, even as new one's (like the above mentioned krills) were added.  Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood), the dancing penguin from a society of Emperor penguins that previously only sang, is back.  Now, however, he's a parent himself together with his wife Gloria (voiced now by Pink, to replace Brittany Murphy who died since the making of the first Happy Feet).  They have a son, Erik (voiced by Ava Acres), who is shy and neither sings nor dances.  Ramon as well as preacher Lovelace (both voiced by Robin Williams) are also back.  A new character, The Mighty Sven (voiced by Hank Azaria) is introduced.  Sven is a puffin survivor of the melting northern icecaps, who resembles a penguin but isn't really one.  However, he has the special ability of being able to fly, which surprises/confound the penguins.  And Carmen (voiced by Sofia Vergara) is introduced as the love interest for the passionate Ramon.

Happy Feet Two also continues using accents very well.  All the penguins and animals native to the southern hemisphere are given accents characteristic of the southern hemisphere.  The Emperor penguins are given in African or African American sounding accents.  The smaller Adele penguins are given Latin-American accents.  And the various sea mammals are given Australian / Afrikaner accents.  Sven, being a puffin from the North is given a Swedish accent.  Bill and Will the Krill, perhaps because krill exist in both Northern and the Southern waters, speak with American if somewhat higher pitched voices.  Additionally Russians (people) are portrayed several times operating fishing trawlers and the like.  And at one point, they do come to help the penguins.

All in all, Happy Feet Two is an okay animated film.  But I would think twice about before bringing someone under 7-8 to see it.  There are some rather traumatic scenes present (and to be honest, I don't think that they were necessary to the telling of the story).  As such, parents, should take this into consideration.


<< 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 Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 1

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

NOTE: My review of the subsequent The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 2 can be found here.

I came to see The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 1 (directed by Bill Condon, screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the 4th novel in The Twilight Saga (Breaking Dawn) by Stephanie Meyer) with a fair amount of trepidation.

Readers here will know that I had never been a fan of the Harry Potter series and to be honest, I thought the concept of The Twilight Saga ("re-imagining vampires") to be even worse.

However, I've long known that legions of young girls (and their mothers/aunts) have absolutely loved these books, so I've long been saying to myself that they have to be better than I thought.  So in anticipation of the coming of this movie, just as I did in preparation to the last installments of the Harry Potter series, I rented one of the earlier Twilight movies (Eclipse) to try to get a better understanding of why the series was so popular.  And in contrast to the Harry Potter series, I was honestly surprised and impressed with Stephanie Meyer's creation.

Why?  Because Stephanie Meyer created entire cultures behind her vampires and werewolves.  Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson) who the saga's teenage heroine Bella Swan (played by Kristen Stewart) falls in love with was not merely a "misunderstood bad boy" (a tired character/archetype that has been on the scene in American pop-culture since the 1950s with James Dean).  Edward belonged to a family that loved him, composed notably by (adoptive) father Dr. Carlisle Cullen (played by Peter Facinelli) and Dr. Carlisle's wife Esme (played by Elizabeth Reaser) as well as other adoptive brothers and sisters.  And behind this family was an entire culture of "vampires" with a history and an ordered (if, in the saga, generally unknown to humans) way of life.  That culture extended across the planet.  Cullen is an Irish name.  But Edward had relatives in Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Alaska (Russians?/Slavs?).

One gets the sense therefore Stephanie Meyer has not applied symbol of "vampire" not as "bad boy" but as "Radical Other," something that one of my parish's young adult evening receptionists was trying to explain to me in the lead-up to the release of this film.  Indeed, the even other "love interest" in the story, Jacob Black (played by Taylor Lautner) belongs to yet another ethnic community (a Native American tribe of shape-shifting werewolves).

To see the point being made, consider then Bella's background.  She is as white as can be.  Her divorced parents, a sort of hippyish mother, Renee' Dwyer (played by Sarah Clarke) who moved out to sunny Florida after her divorce, and father Charlie Swan (played by Billy Burke) who's a cop in the damp and rainy town and its environs where this story plays out, are also lily white (though mom likes to tan) and by their last names, Swan and Dwyer, are super WASPish as well.   

Why would this be important?  Well to a traditional White/WASPish American family named Swan, an Irishman named Cullen to say nothing of an East European or Hispanic could _perhaps_ seem as "Other" as a vampire.  Yes, it's (hopefully...) an obvious exaggeration.  However making Edward Cullen a vampire rather than a Catholic frankly could actually make the series a "safer" read.  A similar exaggeration is made with regards to the shape-shifting Native American "Black" family.  While Cop Charlie Swan has a long-standing relationship with the "Black" family living out in the woods, he has _no idea_ that they're a family of shape-shifting werewolves (again complete with a code and way of life).  He just sees them as upstanding citizens living _at the edge_ of the town that he's protecting who don't cause him much trouble.  And since they don't seem to cause much trouble, he basically likes them, even though he knows next to nothing about them (and doesn't seem to care to know much more about them either...).

Who does learn far more about both the Cullens and the Blacks is the daughter Bella who gets to know both families through her interactions with Edward and Jacob "in school." 

And the experience of the Swan family actually mirrors quite well white-American families (and its younger as well as older members) today, where America's young people live in a far more demographically diverse environment than their parents and grandparents.  A CNN report on the 2010 Census in the USA and demographics and age notes that over 80% of America's seniors (65 and above) are white, while this figure drops to 70% for the middle aged (aged 35-64), to only 60% for young adults (aged 18-34) and into the low 50%s for Americans aged 17 and below).  So America's young people are living in a far more diverse environment than their parents and especially grandparents had ever lived.  Initially, that could be scary.  But if even "vampires" and "werewolves" are portrayed as good people coming out of well-structured societies with rules and morals, perhaps it can become less so.

Indeed Bella's experience of entering into a "new" culture (one previously unknown to her parents) is certainly mirrored by countless other young people who meet and mix across cultural lines.  As a priest who's worked in several multi-ethnic parishes it's been my joy to be accepted across all kinds of ethnic boundaries and then to inevitably learn from the various people and families that I've met.  By taking a chance, Bella enters into the worlds of both Edward and Jacob in ways that her parents and even many of her friends certainly did not.  And she found that both of their families / cultures were good, well structured and built on solid moral principals.  Indeed, she found that both Edward and Jacob's families were more structured (and certainly more traditional) hers.  This is again the experience of most white Americans who've crossed the cultural divide.

So while, I, as one of Slavic (and definitely of non-WASPish heritage) don't necessarily like the suggestion of being considered a "vampire," (and would expect that Hispanics, Brazilians or even Irishmen, wouldn't particularly like that characterization as well), I certainly appreciate Meyer's attempt to portray multiculturalism symbolically in a way that's compelling and affirmative to young people's experience.   Because the "scary Others" ("vampires"/"werewolves") turn out to come from loving families and strong cultural heritages, worthy of pride, as well.

To the movie ... Yes, the obvious subtext to the whole Twilight series appears to me to be the challenge of multiculturalism.  However, Meyer does also play with the peculiarities of "vampires" and "werewolves."

In this installment of the series, Edward (a vampire) and Bella (a human) after long-last get married.  But how would it work?  Would she necessarily have to turn into a vampire?   Both try really hard that this would not happen.  Edward's a good guy.  He loves Bella the way she is (human).  So consummating their marriage did not mean that Edward just would just bite her and they'd live happily ever after "undead" forever.  Instead they consummate it the old fashioned (human) way.

NOTE TO PARENTS: The portrayal of Bella and Edward's wedding night is done very well (and even in a fan/comical way).  However, it may not be appropriate to children and younger teens.  Again to author Stephanie Meyer's credit, the two did wait till their wedding, something that this series has been exemplary portraying from the beginning.  Edward didn't "bite" Bella or otherwise turn her into a vampire.  But as a vampire (and vampiers are supposed to be passionate if nothing else ... :-) the poor guy just utterly destroyed their bed in the course of their wedding night love-making.  The lovemaking itself is not shown, but the "morning after" showing the bed and all around it destroyed is ;-).  This may cause parents to both chuckle as they see this and blush as they watch their children see it as well.  So again, parents be warned.  (The CNS/USCCB review notes this concern as well)

That love making results in Bella becoming pregnant to the surprise and great worry of all.  How would a pregnancy of a child conceived of a human and (blood-sucking) vampire work out?  Well that's what the rest of the movie is about ...

And once again, the movie/series surprises.  Respectful throughout the whole of the series of "The Radical Other" it continues to be so becoming unambiguously Pro-Life.

Who would have guessed that I would have come to like a series about "re-imagined vampires?"  But then one ought to be capable of learning something new every day ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>