The Cabin in the Woods [2011]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

By most accounts, The Cabin in the Woods (directed and cowritten by Drew Goddard along with Joss Whedon) is more than your average mad-slasher film released on a Friday the 13th a date, which along with Halloween offers Hollywood producers ready-made opportunity to release a new "scary movie" (or a spoof of one) each time it comes around.  Indeed, all three -- Friday the 13th [IMDb], Halloween [IMDb] and Scary Movie [IMDb] -- have spawned entire series of films built around their names.

So what could possibly make The Cabin in the Woods different?  Well, quite literally (and quite honestly IMHO rather disturbingly) it "digs deeper."

On the surface, The Cabin in the Woods is yet another film about a group of obnoxious and quite stereotypically cast college students going out into the woods for a weekend (the original Friday the 13th [1980] arguably established that formula).  In this case, the requisite ensemble is composed of:

Jules (played by Anna Hutchinson) plays "the popular girl" usually because she's both good looking and portrayed as being sexually promiscuous, hence often identified as "The Slut" by followers of these films and is one who generally "gets what is coming to her" by getting killed usually quite early in the film and in a particularly awful way;

Curt (played by Chris Hemsworth), plays the "popular guy," usually the boyfriend of the "popular girl," generally identified as "The Jock," in these films.  He doesn't do much better than the "popular girl," again usually getting killed quite early in the film though generally after the popular girl.

Dana (played by Kristen Connolly), plays the quieter "good girl" in the film.  Sometimes as in this film, she's simply a quieter friend of the of the "popular girl," sometimes she's even presented as something of an "outcast" from the "popular group."  In any case, she's usually quite quickly identified by viewers as the film's "Virgin."

Around "The Virgin," there's usually a sensitive guy, in this case named Holden (played by Jesse Williams) who's something of an "angelic figure," but often (in these films) does not prove completely capable of protecting "The Virgin," from whatever evil menace is at hand.  In the end, it's generally left to "The Virgin," yes, sometimes even using her foot as in Genesis 3:15, to fend off the "Monster" who killed the rest of the ensemble.  (Think of the original Terminator [1984] where Sarah (Biblical name) mother of the future Savior of the World, in the film named John Conner (initials J.C.) defeats the Terminator (a product of human arrogance, that is, sin, every bit as scary as the Dragon of the 12th Chapter of the Book of Revelation) by kick-starting a hydraulic press that crushes his head.  Alternatively, in the more recent Shark Night [2011], Sara (again a variant on the Biblical name) initially fends off her first boyfriend/turned archfiend (though IMHO tragically named "Dennis" ;-) by pushing his head into a propeller blade of a motor boat even as he tries to drown her (apparently because she was going to leave him to go to college). 

More recently, a fifth character has started to take a more important role in the ensemble (in the past simply relegated to the second tier).  This character in this movie named Marty (and played by Fran Kranz) is "the Fool."  Previously, he played "comic relief" in these pictures.  Yet, typical of Court Jesters appearing in countless comedies over the centuries, though utterly marginalized (and in these slasher flicks, generally portrayed as perpetually drunk or stoned) he's the one "who's figured it out."  Emblematically, the perpetually stoned "Shorty Meeks" (played by Marlon Wayans) in the first Scary Movie [2000] is so stoned that at one point he declares to the others "I see dead people!" (no doubt in reference to the famous mystery/horror film The Sixth Sense [1999] released a year earlier, but being "so stoned" all the time "who knows? ;-).   Marty, though perpetually stoned and hence largely discounted by even the other characters in the film (and certainly a source of some irritation to people in my "line of work" and the good folks who write CNS/USCCB's reviews) comes to play a rather significant role in this film.

And Marty comes to play a rather significant role in this film because though the stock characters are all present, "things are not what they seem."  Indeed, we learn from very early on that though those 5 characters are going to that Cabin in the Woods for the weekend ... actually everything's being manipulated by a GIGANTIC laboratory underground; that is, the "5 kids" are being setup.

Why are those "kids" being setup and by whom?  Well that's the rest of the movie ... ;-) and open to multiple, indeed multiple levels of interpretations, and Marty the marginalized "stoner" is really the only one of the characters in the film who at least partially figures it out.

The CNS/USCCB (and myself honestly) don't particularly like that the "stoner" is being shown here as something of a wisdom figure.  And I would emphatically say here that drugs definitely don't give anyone "added wisdom" (So young people,. please don't go that way.  A brother of a friend of mine from the seminary completely fried his brains on drugs, destroying his life and making him a ward of his parents until they eventually die.  Do you want to end up like that...?).

Yet all this being true, however, if one takes the symbol of "stoner" to represent someone "marginalized," then I'd certainly be willing to buy that kind of interpretation, as often those on the edges see more clearly than those in the "center of things" / "in charge."  That's why both the Church and, indeed, humanity truly need everybody, and not just those near the center / "at the top."  The Prophets in the Bible, for instance, almost always came from the edges of God's people.

Very good, analyzing the movie further would require revealing various important plot twists, so I'm issuing a SPOILER ALERT with regards to EVERYTHING ELSE that follows below:

Another aspect that I find irritating in this movie is that the film-makers call the "Ancient Beings" that need to be appeased by the sacrifice of young people (like those going to "The Cabin in the Woods" in this film), "Gods" even if they're portrayed as living underground and presumably below the already subterranean laboratory, still staffed still by human beings, notably by scientists Sitterson (played by Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (played by Bradley Whitford).  Indeed, during the course of the film, the two muse "how much easier it would have been," when one could "just push a Virgin into a Volcano" to appease "the Gods."  Now, in the United States anyway, the "Bloodlust of the Gods" could only be satisfied by elaborate scenarios being played out like that of the 5 college kids going to that cabin only to find themselves being almost ritually murdered.

So a question could be asked: Who are these subterranean "Gods?"  In Christian theology, we'd call them Demons rather than "Gods."  But are "the Gods" us?  Or "shadowy demons" that inhabit our subconscious?  Do we go to movies like The Cabin in the Woods to placate our blood lust?

The film therefore becomes very interesting, if increasingly chaotic/bloody.  It's like Friday the 13th [1980] meets The Matrix [1999], From Dusk till Dawn [1996], and even Don't Be Afraid of the Dark [2011] and most recently The Hunger Games [2012].

And it does ask the disturbing question of whether films like these placate the shadowy desires within us or actually exacerbate them.  Do films like this encourage the production of a "downward spiral" of increasingly violent (or hedonistic) films?  Or do they actually help placate these desires and help keep people from acting out.

I do remember that one of my reactions to the film Mamma Mia! [2008] (which came out before I started writing this blog) was that even though its morality was quite awful -- after all it's about a young woman seeking to finally to find out which of three possible fathers was her own -- this very "European" film based music of the group ABBA (YouTube) which came from Sweden traditionally notorious for its (both climatictic and relational) iciness was actually "so much better than Hitler!" ;-) 

I also remember that during my seminary years, most of which I spent in Italy, I could not help but experience the Italians as basically a happy people that ate, drank, and well, often, played "at the edges of proper sexual morality."  In contrast, the English, particularly in the days of Queen Victoria, didn't drink, didn't smoke, and at least outwardly were very restrained sexually.  As such, what was left to them?  Conquer the world.  Now apply this to the Germans, who were even more strict on each other and the "goosestepping Nazis" (and, more positively, the modern psychology which was born in the German speaking world) become virtually inevitable.

So The Cabin in the Woods is a disturbing film on a number of levels.

PARENTS, the film's R-rating is certainly deserved for its blood and mayhem (and initial sexual promiscuity).

On the other hand, college-aged young adults -- I do think there's a whole bunch of things to ponder and reflect on.  And I do think that this would be valuable because The Cabin in the Woods is far more like The Matrix [1999] than the simple (and mindless) Friday the 13th [1980].

The Three Stooges [2012]

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

IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383010/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv044.htm
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120411/REVIEWS/120419999

Okay, I honestly didn't expect The Three Stooges [2012] (screenplay by Mike Cerrone along with Bobby and Peter Farrelly who directed the film) a contemporary reboot of the beloved and wildly popular (to this day!) Three Stooges of Hollywood's b&w silver-screen era to work. I did not.  I wondered why makers of the would want to risk making it.  After all, I would have bet it would have ended-up as a disaster.  And who knows, it still may end-up being a financial disaster.  HOWEVER, about 10-15 minutes into the film, shaking my head with surprise, I, a lifelong Three Stooges fan became convinced that Mike Cerrone and the Farrelly brothers were actually going to pull this thing off.

This probably shouldn't be all that surprising given that both Mike Cerrone and the Farrelly brothers had written films for comedic actors of our time like Jim Carrey and Jack Black.  And whatever else one may think of those two actors, those of us who grew-up watching reruns of The Three Stooges (YouTube) / Abbott and Costello (YouTube) / Marx Brothers (YouTube) on daytime local TV and would have seen a Jim Carrey / Jack Black movie or two would probably imagine that these writers would have been Three Stooges (YouTube) fans when they were young as well and therefore could probably do The Three Stooges some justice today.  What continues to surprise me is the amount of justice that the writers and also honestly the three actors playing Larry (Sean Hayes), Curly (Will Sasso) and Moe (Chris Diamantopoulos) were able to give the originals.  My hat off to them all.

So what's the film about?  Well among other things, the film seeks to explain the origins of the three characters.  Taking a page from The Blues Brothers [1980] (which used the same device to explain the origins of Jake and Elwood Blues), the Three Stooges are presented as having grown-up in an orphanage. The three are shown being tossed to the doorstep of the orphanage as infants, all three packed in a single duffle-bag, from a speeding car.  From the beginning, they prove to be a "problem" to the nuns, yet loveable enough that the nuns can never bring themselves to just give-up on them completely. Mother Superior is played by Jane Lynch.  Other nuns in the story include Sister Rosemary (played by Jennifer Hudson), Sister Bernice (played by Kate Upton) and the would be sadistic but in face of the Stooges, hapless, Sister Mary-Mangele is played by Larry David ;-).

Much of course happens.  The main situation that both the nuns and the Stooges find themselves facing is that the Orphanage finds itself in dire financial straits: the nuns have to raise $830,000 in a month's time or the Orphanage will have to close and the Orphans would have to be farmed out "foster families," something that at least one of the orphans declares would be "unbearable" as she didn't want to be sent to a family "that would be paid to love [her]."  (An interesting take on the current foster care system...).

The Three Stooges, adults now, offer to "save the day" by going "out into the world" to find/earn the $830,000 in a month's time.  The nuns are "conflicted" in letting them do this.  After all, this would be the first time that the three actually left the Orphanage on their own.  On the other hand, the nuns were desperate, and truth be told if there was a third hand, they'd also finally be able to get rid of them.  So all in all, while "conflicted," the nuns are actually kinda happy to let them go.

Well, how does one make $830,000 in a month's time if one has no discernible skills?  Well, holding-up a sign saying "Will wirk for $830,000" doesn't exactly attract a lot of takers ;-) ... except if you're a gold-digging wife (played by Sofia Vergara, I'm starting to "get her" and like her choices in roles ;-) trying to hire someone to knock-off her husband ... So again much ensues ...

Finally, Snooki from MTV's reality television series The Jersey Shore [IMDb] has already been featured in the trailer to the film.  So it's not really giving much away to say that, she/her character has a significant role in how the film turns out.

It all, of course, "ends well," and like these Hollywood Vaudeville acts of the 1920s-50s in the midst of the jokes, slapstick (and in anything associated with The Three Stooges, there's certainly going to be a lot of slapstick ;-) and general goofiness of the film, there's actually a fair amount of social commentary.

After all, what the nuns have to do to save the Orphanage ... So it's funny, nyuk, nyuk and all that ... but the film has more to say than just that.  

Would I recommend the film?  Sure.  There is exactly one shot showing the young Sr. Bernice in a tight black designer bathing suit (and a veil) serving "as a life guard" for the orphans after the nuns "come into some money' at the end.  Yes, that may offend some Catholics at first glance.  But, perhaps with caution (I do understand) please let it go.  She's serving as a lifeguard in the scene and it is a generally goofy movie.  I do believe that MPAA got this movie right.  It is appropriately rated PG (Parental Guidance Suggested).  Now go to the movie, buy some popcorn and enjoy it with the kids ;-)


ADDENDUM -

A "reboot" film like this, gives viewers an opportunity to come home and look-up all kinds of comedic acts from that bygone era which are truly worthy of "looking-up" from Charlie Chaplin (YouTube), to Laurel and Hardy (YouTube) to the Marx Brothers (YouTube) to Abbott and Costello (YouTube).

All these acts are fun and many of them are available not merely in clips on YouTube but also are rentable through NetFlix.

Neither was this kind of humor simply an "American affair."  All three of the countries that I know most about, produced their home grown acts as well.  The Italians produced Toto and Peppino de Filippo (YouTube).  In Mexico, the "little guy" Cantinflas (YouTube) found himself perpetually in trouble "with the law," even as he often outsmarted it.  And even Vlasta Burian (YouTube) enchanted Czech audiences with the same/similar style humor of the era.

Still, when it came to slapstick comedy The Three Stooges (YouTube) remained probably in a league all their own (YouTube) ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>

Footnote (orig. Hearat Shulayim) [2011]

MPAA (PG)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Let me begin my review of Footnote (orig. Hearat Shulayim), an Israeli film presented largely in Hebrew with English subtitles written and directed by Joseph Cedar, by admitting that at first glance this film will appear to most people to be for a very limited audience.

After all, it's about Uriel (played by Shlomo Bar-Aba) and Eliezer Shkolnik (played by Lior Ashkenazi), father and son, who are both Talmudic (Scripture) scholars.  Yet as the movie progresses, the rather complicated father-son relationship increasingly dominates to the point that by the end of the film pretty much everybody who's reached middle age could relate to it.

Since this is film that I don't think a huge number of people are going to see, I am going to tell more of the story than I otherwise would.  So I'm giving movie purists here a SPOILER ALERT:  Please don't read further if you plan to see the movie and don't want to know more about it than what I've already described.

So how does the film play out?  From the beginning, the movie makes it clear that Eliezer, the son, has been far more successful in their shared field than his father.

Why would that be?  Well according to the story, Uriel, now in his 70s had devoted 30 years of his life to proving the hypothesis that there was a particular copy, since lost, of the Jerusalem Talmud passing through the Jewish communities of Medieval Europe, whose unique characteristics could be found surviving copies of the Talmud found throughout Europe and indeed in the Jewish world today.

How does one go about proving a thesis like this?  Well, very meticulously ;-).  Indeed, one uses the same text critical techniques developed by Biblical and other Ancient Text scholars over the past century and a half to arrive at critical editions of the Bible and other Ancient Texts based on the surviving sources available to us today.  Readers are to remember that prior to the 1500s there were no printing presses in Europe.  So texts were copied by hand and therefore subject to errors and embellishments entering into the texts as a result of the qualities of the individual scribes responsible for making the copies.  Since many Ancient Texts were venerated by their audiences as sacred, there were certainly attempts at quality control.  However, mistakes and embellishments entered into texts with each generation of copying.   Text scholars would analyze the surviving copies of ancient texts, searching to construct a "geneology" or "family tree" of the text seeking eventually to arrive at a postulated "original text" (generally to be lost).

This then was what Uriel had dedicated himself to -- meticulously analyzing surviving Medieval European texts of the Jerusalem Talmud in search of arriving at an original version (since lost) of the text on which those surviving texts were based.  According to the story Uriel had spent 30 years on this project.

Well, just as he was going to publish the results of his 30 years of work, an academic rival published the text of a manuscript that (according to the story) "just happened to be found hidden in the inside sleeve of a Medieval text in some monastery somewhere in Italy."  The text turned out to be the long lost text of the Jerusalem Talmud that Uriel had spent those 30 years trying to arrive at through text analysis.

In other words with the discovery of the actual text (according to the story) Uriel's 30 years of work proved to be a complete waste of time.  (I've since talked to one of my (Servite) Religious Order's historians about this story and we both agreed that Uriel should have been able to salvage a good deal of his life's work anyway -- if only to prove that the newly found text was the text that he had spent 30 years arriving at through text analysis -- but then this is a movie and for the sake of story, we're simply asked to accept that a good part of Uriel's life's work proved to be a waste of time).

So Uriel became bitter and getting-on in years, he decided to just keep submitting his life's work (according to the movie for 18 years in a row) to the Israeli Ministry of Culture for recognition, perhaps even to just annoy the people there.  And, of course, since his life's work proved largely superseded by the discovery of the actual text, he's always passed-over.

In the meantime, his son, following in his father's footsteps but not burdened by those 30 years of largely wasted work became enormously successful in exploring entirely new avenues for Talmudic Scripture study.

Well, one afternoon, as Uriel is walking as he did every day to the National Library in Jerusalem to continue on in his largely irrelevant, superseded work, receives a phone call from said Israeli Ministry of Culture.  The call from a secretary from the ministry informs him that, yes, this year, the Ministry of Culture was going to award him the Israel Award for his life's work in Talmudic Study!

Needless to say, Uriel is happy as can be: Finally, after decades of being considered a relic and ever increasingly a laughingstock in the Talmudic study community in Jerusalem, he's going to get recognized.  So he tells everybody -- his friends, an aging and ever diminishing cadre of colleagues, his family including, of course his son -- that he's finally won an award for his work.

Yet ... ;-), a few days later, his son Eliezer on the road heading out of Jerusalem to Tel Aviv / Haifa to give yet another talk that he is scheduled to give somewhere, receives a frantic call on his cell phone to come quickly to the Ministry of Culture because "there is a problem."  He tells them that he can't come immediately because he has a rather full schedule for the day.  But the caller is insistent, telling him that "it's important."  Finally Eliezer acceeds, telling the caller that he'll return back to Jerusalem following his luncheon talk that he's supposed to give somewhere.  This seems to relieve the caller.

When Eliezer arrives at the Ministry of Culture that afternoon, he is escorted to the meeting already in progress being held in what appears to be some sort of a utility closet -- a mop keeps falling on the head of the commission who had called the meeting ;-).  It's clear that there's a problem and that the committee is so embarrassed about the problem that it's actually meeting in a closet.

What's the problem?  Well, the reader here can guess -- Uriel (the father) wasn't supposed to get the award.  Instead, Eliezer (the far more successful son) was.  The head of the commission explained with some embarrassment that the two's last name is (obviously) the same and that even their first names begin in a similar way (remember that written Hebrew doesn't normally make use of vowels ... ;-).  Hence, his secretary made the terrible mistake of calling "the wrong Dr. Shkolnik." ;-)

What now?  Well, Eliezer tells the committee that taking away this award from his father now would crush his father.  Yet, the head of the nominating committee, Dr. Grossman (played by Micah Lowensohn), who may have even been Uriel's academic rival who found/published that long lost yet recently discovered copy of the Jerusalem Talmud, is insistent that Eliezer rather than Uriel get the award.  Afterall, he tells Eliezer that he voted (and the rest of the committee) had voted for Eliezer and NOT for his father.  What's Eliezer supposed to do?  He asks to think about it.

After the meeting, Eliezer goes over to the National Library to the book stacks where his father is almost always to be found, and he finds Uriel there sharing a bottle of wine with his 3-4 loyal bookwormy friends, saying "Mazal Tov" ... ;-).  How can he take this away from his dad?

So the next day he meets with Dr. Grossman in Grossman's office and tells him that he just can't take the award from his father.  "Very well," says Grossman, "but I have two conditions."  They are (1) that Eliezer himself write the formal letter explaining why Uriel deserves the award.  Grossman tells him that he'll "sign any letter that Eliezer writes" in this regard but he insists that Eliezer himself write the letter, and (2) that Eliezer, forever, withdraw his name from consideration for winning this award again.  "I voted for you.  The committee voted for you.  You've chosen to give the award to your father instead.  So you do not deserve to be considered for this award ever again."  Understanding what Dr. Grossman was saying, Eliezer with slumped head and shoulders, agrees.

Eliezer returns to his office and begins to type the award letter.  And he begins to see that it's more difficult to write than he had imagined.  Since the bulk of his father's life's work proved to be unnecessary, his previous claim to fame was simply a footnote in another scholar's work and in that footnote simply the other scholar had simply thanked Uriel for "a number of (unpublished!) conversations" that the two had shared about the author's subject at hand.  What to do?  Well, Eliezer was a renowned scholar and speaker.  So he "spruces-up" the letter of award to sound half-way respectable.  Yet it is clear to him (and to the audience watching the film) that the letter is "heavy on the b..."  But what can he do?  He finishes the letter and takes it over to Grossman to sign it.  Grossman's office then puts it on Ministry of Culture stationary and mails to Uriel.

In the meantime, a young / enthusiastic journalist named Noa (played by Yuval Scharf) from the Haretz comes over to Uriel to interview him about the award.  And as she interviews him, she can't resist asking him: "How has it been to have, until now, been so overshadowed by your son?  It must have been difficult, right?"

Well, Uriel (remember he's in his 70s, and has been carrying a huge chip on his shoulder for a very long time), let's go: "You know, WE OF MY GENERATION were the real scholars.  We meticulously cataloged and studied everything that we found in our field.  TODAY, a young scholar comes to an archeological site and finds two pottery sherds next to each other, they could be of different pots, different cultures, even from different epochs, and he just takes them and pastes them together.  We would have meticulously analyzed the whole site, we would have cataloged every [crumb] that we found.  But today, all the younger scholars want is a pot pasted together to make for a nice photograph."  And the implication was that Uriel felt that his son was emblematic that kind of a lazy new generation scholar.

Well the bright, young journalist leaves that interview just smiling from ear to ear ;-).  And the next day, there's the interview printed in the Haretz with the older (and finally recognized) Uriel Shkolnik essentially calling his son (and his generation of scholars) a fraud and a lazy one at that ;-).  Needless to say, mom (Uriel's wife) and, of course, Eliezer are upset.  Yet, if Uriel (remember, he's in his 70s) is somewhat embarrassed, he's also feeling vindicated at last having been finally given the opportunity to "tell it how it is..." and put those "young whipper-snappers" in their place ;-)

The letter from the Ministry of Culture arrives a day or two later.  Uriel reads it, reads it again, gets a frame for it, and puts it on his wall at home.  He's smiling from ear to ear even if his wife and son are now very irritated with him.  Yet as he looks at it a third or fourth time, as it's hanging on the wall there ... he notices something. After all, he's a text scholar.  He goes to a book shelf, picks up one of his son's books, flips through the pages and finds a rather obscure term that his son used in that book that also appears in the letter from the Ministry of Culture.  He notices another phrase.  He goes back to his files, files that contain copies of a fair amount of his son's work as well, and notices that his son had used the exact same phrase in three or four articles that he had published.  He starts to realize that  HIS OWN SON had written the award letter that was now hanging on his wall.

What to do?  The movie ends just as Uriel is about to receive his award at a formal awards ceremony.  What was he going to say in his acceptance remarks after receiving the award?  We're left to guess ;-)

What a great movie!


<< 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! :-) >>

Wrath of the Titans [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
 
Wrath of the Titans (directed by Jonathan Liebesman, story and screenplay by Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson, assisting with the story Greg Berlanti based on the 1981 screenplay Clash of the Titans by Beverley Cross) turned out to be better than I thought.  I say this because I did see the Clash of the Titans [1981] as a young adult and found it pretentious (didn't like it).  Since I didn't like the 1981 movie, I didn't bother to see the 2010 remake (indeed, I wondered why they bothered to make it).  Then reading Roger Ebert's review of the current film only reinforced my skepticism.  But I figured that seeing it on a Monday (my day off) at pre-noon matinee in 2D would probably be worth it, if for no other reason than it would give me a chance to explain what annoyed me about the 1981 movie and therefore the whole series.

Having seen the film, I remained annoyed with the fundamental concept "Gods die when people stop praying to them," but at least from a technical point of view Wrath of the Titans was better than the 1981 Clash of the Titans.  But again, I do wonder what the 3D version would have added besides risking that the effects would look corny again (and of course give the movie business an excuse of charging viewers an extra $4 a head).

Very good, I find the "Gods die when people stop praying to them" concept annoying because they don't really die.  The Greeks venerated as Gods a number of phenomena that seem/seemed largely outside of or only marginally within our control.  These phenomena occur to this day and most of them continue to be largely outside or only with difficulty within our control.   These include natural phenomena such as Storms (Zeus), Storms at Sea (Poseidon) and Earthquakes-Volcanic Activity (Hades) and psychological phenomena such as the Desire for an Orderly and Happy Home-Hearth (Hera), Lust (Aphrodite), Desire for Knowledge-Wisdom (Apollo-Athena), Desire to just 'let go'-'Party' (Dionysus), Arrogance (Hubris) and the Desire to Avenge Injustice (the Furies).

Now it is true that in the past the ancients would sacrifice animals to their various storm Gods (again, the Storm God of Ancient Greece was Zeus) while today we would wonder how that could possibly work.  Yet, Native American tribes as well as others traditionally perform "Rain Dances" and there we begin to be "unsure" whether these "work" or not.  But we generally don't believe anymore that "sacrificing virgins" to a "volcano God" would do much good...

Then when it comes to psychological phenomena, while Christianity would insist that we can master/control our passions, it certainly underscores that this is often a challenge. 

So I find the whole idea of "we can kill Gods by simply not praying to them" as rather arrogant. The various phenomena that the ancients used to respect as manifestations of Gods continue to exist to this day.  To me the more interesting question for me has been "Can our prayers/supplications/sacrifices to God/the Gods be answered?"  And this then enters into the realm of faith.  Go to any Catholic Marian shrine across the world and one would find hundreds upon hundreds of "ex voto" gifts that certainly testify to the giver's belief that Mary or Jesus or another saint interceded in some way to heal somebody, grant a request of some sort or avert some sort of calamity.  And there are Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist shrines across the world that attest to similar miracles being performed in the context of these faiths as well.  My general view has been to preserve a fundamental attitude of humility with regards to all these things.  We simply do not know everything.   Even as we generally don't believe in a three story cosmology any more (The Gods / Elect living in the Sky, we living on Earth, and the Dead / Condemned living below the Earth), we also now talk of alternate dimensions that we generally do not perceive and of both "collective consciousness" and a "collective unconscious."

The Biblical Prophets for instance would often voice the concerns of the "collective unconscious" often to the consternation of both the people and the "powers that be."  When things were going well for the Israelites, the Prophets would caution and preach impending doom.  When things were going badly for the Israelites, the Prophets generally promised eventual restoration and hope.  In both cases, they were preaching a corrective to the immediate experience of the people, in effect giving voice to a collective "shadow" of the society at the time.  Is God or the spiritual realm to be found in our Jungian "shadow" / "collective shadow?" 

All this is to say that one can't just kill Gods so easily ...

Okay, to the film.  Perseus [IMDb] (played by Sam Worthington) half-God/half-man is visited by his father Zeus [IMDb] (played by Liam Neeson) at the beginning of the film with a problem: With people no longer praying to the Olympian Gods as they did in the past, they are weakening.  More to the point, the good that the Gods had done in the past (overthrowing and incarcerating the chaotic Titans of the past) was getting undone.  Further with the general weakening of the Olympian Gods, there was starting to be conflict/insurrection among them.  Specifically, Hades [IMDb](played by Ralph Fiennes) always resentful of his brothers Zeus and Poseidon [IMDb](played by Danny Houston) feeling that he got the worst end of the deal (being consigned to ruling over the underworld and of the dead, while the other two ruled above the earth the seas and skies) was joining together with the ever ambitious Ares [IMDb](played by Edgar Ramirez), like Perseus a son of Zeus (but in contrast to Perseus, fully divine), to use the situation to try to broker a better position for themselves among the other Gods.  They were doing so by threatening to allow the release of the incarcerated Cronus (father of Zeus, Poseidon and Hades) from his underground prison unless their demands for greater esteem were met.  Already the incarcerated Titans were restless and by doing little, occasional demonic Titans were spewing out to the surface through an erupting volcano.

The widowed and still mourning his human wife Io, Perseus, initially just wants to leave his divinity behind, to raise his son Helius [IMDb] (played by John Bell) and support him by the honest trade of fishing, eventually comes to appreciate the direness of the situation (and worried that the Titans were going harm his still part divine son), decides to take the task of defeating the Titan threat once and for all.  Much ensues... Among that which ensues is that Perseus meets and teams-up with Andromeda [IMDb](played by Rosamund Pike) his future wife to (without really "ruining the ending"...) eventually defeat Cronus and the other Titans.

I suppose a redeeming feature in this film was its implication that the "death of the Gods" could result in the undoing of the good that the Gods had done for humanity, specifically the re-release demons (the Titans) that had been successfully tamed/incarcerated by the God in the past.  Various attempts to destroy Religion during the last century most spectacularly by the Communists (and in a different way by the Nazis, who did, indeed try to reinstate a "blood and honor" morality of Germany's barbaric pre-Christian past) did, in fact, make matters worse for humanity, producing the deaths of innocents at previously unheard of levels (think of the Stalin's Terror Famine of the 1930s, the Nazi Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward / Cultural Revolution, and finally the Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields).  So the film does have a more respectful view of religion than perhaps the Clash of the Titans [1981] [2010] did.

Would I recommend the movie? Yea sure, probably to Teens.  Again, I find the "we can kill the Gods" theme somewhat arrogant.  But the film does suggest that "the death the Gods" can have previously unforeseen and negative effects as well.


<< 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! :-) >>

Mirror Mirror [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1667353/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv038.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120328/REVIEWS/120329977

Mirror Mirror (directed by Tarsem Singh, screenplay by Melissa Wallack and Jason Keller) is a retelling of the Brothers Grimm [IMDb] fairytale Snow White and the Seven Dwarves [IMDb] (Grimm's-text/Eng trans).

The film follows the longstanding tradition of putting traditional fairy tales on the screen and then revisiting them as times and culture/tastes change.  Over the past several years, there have been several such re-tellings/re-imaginings of popular Grimm fairy tales.  These have included Disney's Tangled [2011], the Twilight-feeling Red Riding Hood [2011] (and for good reason as it was directed by Catherine Hardwicke who also directed the original Twilight [2008] film) and even Hanna [2011] which does not recall any particular Grimm Fairy Tale but makes use of a number of such fairy tales' conventions.  Of these fairy tale re-tellings, Mirror Mirror's lightness and nod to the broad cultural shift toward female empowerment makes it closest in spirit to Tangled [2011] or perhaps Enchanted [2007].

Regarding this cultural shift, I've found it almost universal.  Even the otherwise most conservative/traditionalist of parents want their daughters to be happy and to succeed.  IMHO, a beautiful 3 1/2 minute encapsulation of what has happened in the United States over the last generation and what really has happened all around the world can be found in pop/country singer Carrie Underwood's song/video All American Girl [2008]).

This spirit then can be found in this re-telling of the Snow White fairy tale.  First and foremost, Snow (played by Lily Collins) no longer particularly needs Prince Charming (the very regally named "Prince Alcott" in the film and played by Armie Hammer) to "save her."  She does just fine on her own and arguably saves the hunky if not particularly bright prince a few times.

Indeed, the Prince's "hunkiness" makes-up part of the story's retelling.  He is "Prince charming" after all ;-).  And even the Evil Queen/Step-Mother (played WONDERFULLY throughout by Julia Roberts) asks at Prince Alcott at one point (who she's also scheming to marry) to "put a shirt on ... it's just so ... distracting" ;-).  Why didn't the Prince have a shirt on?  Well, he keeps getting attacked and bested by the Dwarfs (quite literally "the little people" ... ;-) whenever he enters the woods, and they keep "taking his clothes" :-).  So he keeps coming back to the castle with just his "long johns" on ;-).

Then, why are the Dwarfs in the woods anyway?  Well they, again literally "the little people," had been literally "marginalized," that is kicked out of the village by the Evil Queen / Step-mother as "undesirable."  So besides being short, the Dwarfs are also multiracial, more blue-collarish ("Half-Pint" played by Mark Povinelli who is otherwise easily as hunky as Prince Alcott if only 3 feet tall...), and at least one of them, "Napoleon" (played by Jordon Prentice), is "gay-ish."  Why would the Dwarves go by names like "Half Pint" and "Napoleon?" Well it was Disney that invented the Dwarfs' names like Happy, Sleepy, Grumpy and so forth in the 1937 classic.  And so there it is ...

I am positive that some people will not like some of the re-imagining done in this film.  But there is a fascinating and indeed FUN logic to it.  (I also liked the insight in the recent Red Riding Hood movie about the grandmother in that story.  Why would "grandma live in the woods, far from the village" in that story?  Well, according to that movie, she was kind of an "out there" new agey, half-witchy, wierdo ;-).

So I get the "dwarf" Napoleon.  Remember that some 5% of any population (except apparently in Iran ... ;-) is gay.  Pretty much every adult knows, works with, or otherwise is friends with someone or even a bunch of folks who are gay.  Again, times have changed and the gays not only in the United States but throughout the whole world are rightfully refusing to remain "in the closet" or (in the metaphor of this film) "marginalized, out in the woods" anymore.

Further, the marginalized often end up being the most creative in society.  So one could complain "Why are these previously marginalized, indeed, often invisible people appearing now in so many of our films?"  Well, welcome to our actual world/society.

And this then meshes quite well with the scene that I personally found most irritating in the film: At the end of the film, Snow's father, the King (played by Sean Bean), comes back after "many years away" and marries-off Snow and the Prince.  In doing so, he says "By the power vested in me, by ... me <laughs> ... I pronounce you ..."  Thirty years ago, the King's character would have said "By the power vested in me by God ..."  Now one could get upset about this (and initially I was ;-) but then one needs to consider that the director, Tarsem Singh, is of Indian descent.  It'd be a lot to force someone of Indian descent to apply "traditional Western/Christian terminology" to the film that he's making when he himself is not of Western/Christian extraction.

So we live in a pluralistic society and in a pluralistic world.  And with that we do have to accept language will often be different from what we'd prefer.  But we also gain much by accepting the gifts of others.  In the case of this film, Tarsem Singh gives viewers a true "Bollywood ending" with an extravagant happy dance number involving pretty much the whole cast at the end.

Would I recommend the film to others?  Sure. It's cute, it's nice and it is of our times.

The presence of the "gayish" dwarf Napoleon may irritate some.  But my sense is that virtually all families in the United States are dealing with (and yes accepting) homosexual siblings, cousins, nephews, coworkers, friends etc already.  And Napoleon is merely among the other previously marginalized "little people" in the film who were "chased out of the village and into the woods by the Evil Queen" because he/they were "different."  So yes, it may be irritating to some.  But then, imagine if you were one of the "marginalized" in the past (gay or "merely" of the wrong skin color/ethnicity ...).

Inclusion is a "Sign of the Times."  At times it may seem like a real challenge.  On the other hand it also protects us.  If we truly believe that we all come from the same Creator and hence are brothers and sisters to each other, then it becomes harder to exclude/marginalize _us_ as well.  For there are always plenty of folks who would like to "push us aside"/marginalize _us_ and for any number of reasons: too big, too short, too skinny, too fat, too this way, too that way ... But (if we believe) God remains the Father of us 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! :-) >>

October Baby [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1720182/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv034.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120321/REVIEWS/120329992


October Baby (directed by Andrew and Jon Erwin, story by Andrew and Jon Erwin as well as Cecil Stokes, screenplay by Jon Erwin and Theresa Preston) is an excellent and remarkably sensitive movie about the extremely divisive issue of abortion.

Given the subject matter and that the film takes a proLife if hand outstretched for eventual reconciliation stance, it may not be easy for many viewers to find the movie playing in many metropolitan areas.  Though living in Chicago, the 3rd largest city in the United States, I had to go to the suburbs of NW Indiana to see it ... Rottentomatoes.com reports that the film opened in 390 theaters nationwide, grossed $1.9 million in its first weekend making it #8 box office with a respectable $4.4k/screen average, all quite good for a film that many certainly would have preferred have deep-sixed.

What's the film about?  College freshman, 19-year-old Hannah (played by Rachel Hendrix) collapses on stage during a school play.  Her fainting like this had not happened to her in some years but apparently the pressure of the play as well as college had exacerbated previous health issues which had been numerous since she had been born very prematurely.  At a meeting with her doctor (played by Lance Nichols) a longtime family friend, Hannah's parents Jacob (played by John Schneider) and Grace (played by Jennifer Price) reveal to her why, in fact, she was born so prematurely and had suffered so many earlier health problems -- she had been born prematurely as a result of an interrupted abortion procedure.

How could that be?  Later in the film, Hannah, talking to Mary (played by Jasmine Guy), the nurse who had signed her birth certificate finds from Mary what had happened.  Hannah's mother had come to the abortion clinic where Mary had worked to get an abortion.  But just as the procedure began, she had second thoughts, asked that the procedure be stopped and then ran out of the clinic.  The next day, she came back saying that she's ready now.  Yet, Mary noticed that she was now in the first stages of labor.  So she ran her to the hospital, where she gave birth to twins -- a boy, who was already missing an arm and then Hannah who was intact.  Both, however were very, very premature.  The mother, we find out her name was Cindy (played by Shari Rigby) who did not want them, abandoned them in the hospital and continued on then with her life.

Hannah's parents, Baptist, who had just suffered a miscarriage of twins, saw a posting on a Catholic church bulletin board about the 10 day-old twins born in another if nearby state and immediately decided to adopt them.  The boy, who they named Jonathan, died shortly thereafter.  However, Hannah did make it even if she did need a number of hip surgeries as a child, suffered with occasional epileptic seizures throughout childhood and continued to need an inhaler due to problems with her lungs.  Was the world better for her being present in the world?  The viewer would obviously say yes.  However, Hannah herself had her doubts.

So the film, that does come to involve a "road trip" from her home city to Mobile, Alabama and later to nearby New Orleans, where she finds that her birth-mother Cindy now works as a fairly successful lawyer, becomes a film about self-discovery, discerning values [TM] and ultimately about feeling "wanted."

As such, while about an extreme case -- abortion -- like other films about extreme cases (the films Beginners and more recently Being Flynn come to mind) October Baby is thematically about much more than that.  And the film does offer a hand of reconciliation to "the other side" though, yes, with a pointed "catch."

The film, with some beautiful scenery in it, is a plea to reflect on all of society's values: "What profits a man (or woman) to become 'successful' (in this case a lawyer), if it comes at the cost of sacrificing one's own children?"  Yes, there's forgiveness at the end of the road, yes it was/is all complicated. But at the end of the day, it is a question about values that enter into the equation long before arriving at the abortion clinic -- Is "success" really worth killing for?

And, yes, I do absolutely agree -- EVERY LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL.


<< 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! :-) >>

Jeff, Who Lives at Home [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588334/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120314/REVIEWS/120319991

Jeff, Who Lives at Home (written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass) is a generally light, often funny and often very human comedy about two grown brothers, Jeff (played by Jason Segal) and Pat (played by Ed Helms) and their mom, Sharon (played by Susan Sarandon), none of whom ever really recovered from the death of their father/husband many years/decades earlier.

Jeff never really grew up.  As the title declares, Jeff, approaching or even passing age 30, still "lives at home," in the basement.  Pat, though married, to Linda (played by Judy Greer), also hasn't really grown-up and as we quickly observe has more or less obvious problems in his marriage.  Finally, even though there's reference to Sharon having had a number of relationships in earlier years following the death of her husband's, at 50+ she's finding herself increasingly worried that time for that has passed.  Further, she's not blind to and is clearly unhappy with the emotional stuntedness of both of her sons.  She confesses to Carol, a coworker (played by Rae Dawn Chong) that she finds herself "hating" her sons.  "When did that happen?" she asks, "They used to be so cute..."

The story takes place over the course of a single day, mom's (Sharon's) birthday.  Jeff's getting up, late as usual.  The phone rings.  On the phone there's a voice demanding to talk to "Kevin."  Somewhat confused, Jeff answers, "There's no Kevin living here..." The caller hangs up.  But then Jeff in his naivete no doubt "helped" by years of smoking marijuana (Parents definitely take note ...) asks himself "What if there are no wrong numbers? What if every phone call that we receive we're supposed to receive."  He pulls out his bong..., does a couple of hits and then starts playing with the letters in the name Kevin, searching for a potential message in the name....

Soon however mom calls, from work..., asking Jeff to just get dressed, take the money that she left for him on the kitchen table, go to a hardware store, buy some glue and finally fix wooden shutter on the venetian blind that's been broken for some time.  And she asks him to do this "as a present to her" for her birthday.  Mildly irritated -- after all he has a "Kevin mystery" to solve :-) -- Jeff gets dressed, takes the $10 left for him on the kitchen table, heads off to the bus stop (of course...) to take the bus to the hardware store to get the glue.  Much ensues ...

What follows is generally a light comedy of errors as well as (as the reader/viewer would surely guess) a reflection on our "interconnectedness." 

HOWEVER, there is an aspect of the film that some more conservative Catholics/Christians will not like, in good part because it comes rather "out of left field" (unexpectedly).  I don't know how to approach the subject without revealing a fairly key event in the trajectory of the story other than having warned readers in this way (that some more conservative readers will not like it), I recommend that those who don't want reviews to reveal too much about the film to stop reading here (with parents just noting the drug use mentioned above).

SPOILER ALERT FROM THIS POINT ONWARD.  As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Sharon (the mother) is very, very lonely.  Yet, this day because it is her birthday, she starts getting rather flirtatious e-mails over the company server and someone throws a paper airplane into her cubicle.  When she opens up the paper airplane, it opens up into a picture of a flower.  So she gets all excited about the possibility of there being a "secret admirer" among her co-workers.  Then to some initial horror, she finds that her "secret admirer" is her best friend at the office / confidante Carol and, further to her initial horror/discomfort it becomes clear that Carol meant her flirtations seriously/sincerely.  So a movie about "interconnectedness" now becomes a movie at least in part about age 50+ lesbianism.

What to do now?  In part, propagandists/extremists on both sides will feel thoroughly "validated" by the film's unexpected turn of events.  More activist gays ("We're here, we're queer, deal with it...") could applaud the film's bravery, while those ardently opposed to any kind of accommodation with what they perceive as a "Gay agenda," could feel that this film _proves_ the validity of their greatest concern: That gays/lesbians will not be content with living out their lifestyle within the community of  those openly gay but seek to "evangelize" everybody, even obviously straight people, coercing them to get involved in relationships (or reject and therefore cause pain to manipulative gay acquaintances) that they would more or less obviously not freely choose.  In the film while initially recoiling at horror to Carol's come-on, Sharon rather quickly becomes "more open to it."  Whether this reflects reality, I'd let the reader/viewer decide, my only adding that Sharon's reaction in the film is, of course, dictated by the demands of the filmmakers/script ...

My own opinion in the matter could be summarized by these two points:  First, I think the situation actually illustrates somewhat well the Catholic Church's fundamental position on homosexuality, that it's a disordered condition.  Over the last few decades plenty of us, myself included, have not particularly liked the pejorative connotation that the word "disordered" carries.  I would suggest difficult condition could be better.  Indeed, Vatican's Declaration on homosexually after labeling it a "disordered condition" continues declaring that most homosexuals experience their condition "as a cross."  Hence difficult could be a far better adjective to use than disordered.  Further, since most studies indicate that only a small percentage of people are actually homosexual, rejection, already difficult for anybody becomes even more common / a burden for gays than for straights.  And yet, if one truly believes and respects freedom of conscience/choice, one has to respect the sincere heterosexual letting down the homosexual with the words, "I'm sorry, but I really am not that way."

My second concern would be this.  I'm finding the trend toward sexualizing friendship in film / culture annoying/dangerous.  How many women have wanted over these past decades to be treated by men as friends rather than sex objects?  The scene played out between Sharon and Carol sexualizes what Sharon had previously treasured as a friendship (and here not even between her and a man, but her and another woman).  Where or when does it stop?  Today, after a serious of profoundly disturbing scandals (that obviously the Catholic Church has been involved in) any kind of sexual relationship between an adult and a minor is considered as perverse by society.  Yet, if we continue the trend of sexualizing human relationships, will sexualized relationships between adults and minors come to be seen as okay, indeed inevitable, in the future?

The Catholic Church, while not denying the power of the sex drive, calling it Lust in times past, nevertheless defends the right of people to consider themselves as more than merely sexual beings.  Yes, "male and female God created them" [Gen 1:28].  But we are more than just this.

In this light, I would invite readers to read John Paul II's two Apostolic Letters On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (Mulieris Dignitatem) [1988] and On the Person and Mission of Saint Joseph in the Life of Christ and the Church (Redemptoris Custos) [1989], as they are reflections on the dignity and vocations of men and women extending beyond the realm of the merely sexual.  Yes, the sexual aspect of our human nature is important but it can not be allowed to be all defining.

 Returning then to the film, I found, Jeff, Who Lives at Home to often be very good, but it does take unsuspecting viewers down a path that they did not necessarily bargain for when they entered the theater.  Thus viewers ought to be warned.  Beyond the film's surprising "philosophical turn" regarding homosexuality, parents ought to be warned (as above) at the film's open portrayal of drug use.

Still despite these rather large "strikes" against it, the "interconnectedness theme" as well as the characters' dealing (even many years/decades later) with the effect of the loss of a parent/spouse makes the film worthy of adult consideration/reflection.  Just come to the film prepared for all that it is 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! :-) >>