Pacific Rim [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III) RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J.P. McCarthy) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Pacific Rim [2013] (director by Guillermo del Toro [IMDb] screenplay by Travis Beacham and Guillermo del Toro, story by Travis Beacham) must have been an irresistable project for an auteur like Guillermo del Toro [IMDb].  Envisioned for the biggest of screens, at it's core, the film is basically a "mash-up" of 1950s era Japanese Godzilla [IMDb] movies and more recent Japanese inspired Transformers [IMDb] movies.  Central to both story-lines are ENORMOUS Monsters (one class mutant/biological, the other robotic) capable of raining down ENORMOUS amounts of destruction on puny/bug-like human beings in comparison.

Now that kind of a storyline OUGHT to be at least partly unsettling.  And IMHO, J.P. McCarthy, the CNS/USCCB's reviewer of the film laudably if then only partially makes reference to the genre's "blind spot" of never really giving proper due to the presumed level of human suffering caused by the city shattering destruction depicted in these films (at the hands of the films' "Monsters") prior to "someone or something saving the day."  It's a laudable point and we can ask ourselves how many times will we see the White House blown-up (Olympus Has Fallen [2013], White House Down [2013]) or 9/11 cinematically re-enacted (Sucker Punch [2011], Star Trek: Into Darkness [2013] among others) before we'll be able to let these cataclysmic images/anxieties go?  Yet, it has been also said that the Godzilla story actually originated as a post-WW II Japanese cultural expression of its experience of the enormously destructive Allied bombing raids in the final stages of the War, raids that even before the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had leveled and incinerated entire Japanese cities.  The atomic bombs added mutation producing radiation to the cultural anxiety mix.  And the 2011 post-tsunami meltdowns of 4 nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the banks of the Pacific Ocean will probably continue to fuel a fair amount of anxiety into the future. 

Yet even as we can fairly wonder why seem to enjoy/flock to movies depicting "Monsters" crushing people like us like "bugs," the challenge of the "auteur" like Guillermo del Toro [IMDb] (or Ridley Scott [IMDb]/ James Cameron [IMDb]) is to turn a sci-fi-ish "Monsters/Aliens attack" story (Alien [1979], The Terminator [1984]) into "something more." 

It is obvious that part of Guillermo del Toro / Travis Beacham's vision in this film is that the humanity threatening Godzilla-sized monsters called "Kieji" (or "monster" in Japanese) materializing in the depths of the Pacific Ocean after passing through some sort of an "interdimensional portal" located there (presumably at or near the fissure of the Mariana Trench) are best defeated through cooperation:  (1) All the nations of the world / Pacific Rim join together to fight these horrendous city destroying aliens, and (2) even the "weapons of choice" to fight these aliens -- Giant, human driven Transformer-like robots called Jaegers (or "hunters" in German) -- require two people, neurally connected to the robot and to each other (serving as the robot's right and left "brains"),  to successfully operate them.  The Monsters and even the "weapons systems" (Jaegers) designed to combat them are simply too big for a _single person_ to defeat them.  Coordinated / collaborative action is required.

The film then explores various types of "two person teams" employed to drive the "Jaeger robots" in order to fight the monsters.  There are two identical twin brothers Raleigh and Yancy Becket (played by Charlie Hunnam and Diego Klattenhoff respectively), there's a father and son team of Herc and Chuck Hensen (played by Max Martini and Robert Kazinsky respectively).  Late in the film, after one or another of the "team members" has been killed or incapacitated, there's a "male/female" (spousal/Jungian? ;-) team assembled featuring Raleigh Becket and an Asian woman named Mako Mori (played who Rinko Kikuchi) who had lost her parents to the monsters as a child and a team of "old timers/veterans" comprising of Herc Hensen and the by the book commander of the whole Jaeger operation Stacker Pentecost (played by Idris Elba).

Each of these two person combinations offered possible advantages and disadvantages with the "neural connection" between each other and the robot they were required to drive).  Additionally there was also a two person team of scientists/advisors, Dr. Newton Geiszler and Gottlieb (played by Charlie Day and Burn Gorman respectively) who offered the Jaeger commanders/operators differing perspectives on how to combat the Kieji.  At one point, Dr. Geiszler also found himself having to enlist the help of an utterly non-scientific Hong-Kong area mobster named Hannibal Chao (played by Ron Perlman) for critical (and somewhat surprising) assistance as well.

All this cooperation was required to defeat the monstrous Keiji, who despite being "monsters" Dr. Geiszler and Gottlieb discovered were also working together and learning from each other in how to attack and defeat us.

So in the underneath of this Titanic battle between Humanity and "Monsters" bent on destroying us is this story about cooperation with the message that our biggest threats can only be "defeated" if we work together.  We may be individuals with individual gifts but as humanity, we are also to be a team.

That's a message not altogether far afield from that of the Catholic Church that sees all of us as children of the same God who loves us all.  Ultimately, we too understand that "we're all in this project of Life together."  Still, one has to question the story's over-the-top glass smashing, indeed skyscraper/skyline smashing violence ...


<< 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 Way, Way Back [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

The Way, Way Back [2013] (written and directed by Nat Faxon and Jim Rush) is a well acted if often horribly painful "indie piece" with some relatively well known actors about a 14 year old boy named Duncan (played by Liam James) a child of a recent divorce going through (one certainly hopes...) the worst summer of his life. 

The film begins with quiet, overwhelmed, sad Duncan with ultra-hunched shoulders sitting in the very back of a station wagon being driven by Trent (played by Steve Carell), his mother Pam (played by Toni Collette)'s new boyfriend, to his summer beach-front cottage presumably somewhere in the American North East.  Also in the car is Trent's later-teenage daughter Steph (played by Zoe Levin), a few significant years older than Duncan.

The scene feels like a drive to a sunny if utterly-fake-smiley Hell.  Keep in mind the scene's geography:  Who's "in the driver's seat?" (Trent).  Who's sitting next to him? (Duncan's still clearly shell-shocked from her recent divorce but making her first if still horribly wrong steps to "move on" mother).  Who's in next seat behind them?  (Trent's daughter Steph, who may not be particularly happy that her father's taking his new stressed-out if apparently grateful girlfriend along her dweebish, boneless and presently utterly unrelatable son Duncan with them to their annual summer vacation spot, BUT AT LEAST SHE KNOWS THE PLACE AND HAS HER FRIENDS THERE).  Finally, who's sitting way in the very back almost among the luggage?  (Sad, sullen Duncan, who at the beginning of the film could have been a candidate for a total break-down).  As they drive to Trent and his daughter's vacation spot, Trent tries to make conversation, but everything he says inevitably turns into a put-down.  Even he doesn't seem to have a clue of what he's getting everybody into.

So why is "Vacation in Hell" this happening?  My sense is because Trent is an "A-personality" and though he may not be utterly evil, he simply did not realize that Pam (who he apparently met when she was catering some random business function - a "regional company salesrep meeting" - that he was part of) and her son are simply NOT READY FOR THIS YET.

Pam's husband had abandoned her and Duncan about a year before for a much younger woman and was setting-up his new life way across the country in San Diego.  Yes, Pam resisted Trent's overtures for about 4-6 months after said "random business meeting" (where she served as a caterer) where they met.  However, Trent was apparently THE FIRST GUY that she had consented to go-out with following her traumatic divorce and now, a only few months after that first date, they were all going to HIS COTTAGE at HIS YEARLY VACATION SPOT with HIS DAUGHTER to be surrounded by HIS FRIENDS / ACQUAINTANCES and there'd be NO EASY ESCAPE for either HER or HER SON if ANYTHING "went wrong."

They arrive ...

The next act is exactly as one would expect given the setup above.  Trent and his daughter are welcomed by chatty long-time friends/acquaintances who don't treat Pam and Duncan badly, per se, they just don't know them, while they have years and years of history with Trent and Steff.  Steff runs off to the beach to be with her summer-time friends, Pam's inundated by nosy and randy moms, the most important of which are Betty (played by Alison Janney) and Joan (played by Amanda Peet), some divorced others married, pretty much all of whom regard Trent as something of a catch and wonder if Pam's really "in his league."  Duncan, poor Duncan, just wants to sink into the ground...

But Duncan soon finds a couple of saving graces.  First, he finds a bicycle.  Okay, it's little pink girls' bike, a bike for a 10 year old girl ... BUT IT'S A BIKE / A WAY OUT ... He can get "away" from the beach house row where he was previously trapped in a situation utterly outside his control to explore whatever else would be "in town."  And then there's Suzanna (played by AnnaSophia Robb) daughter of divorced neighbor ever-chatty Betty who's maybe a year older than Duncan and has already gone through her parents' divorce.  With time, she inevitably begins to be a friend.  But initially there is the awful but at least AVAILABLE bike that gives Duncan a way to "get away" from an otherwise overwhelming, bordering on unbearable, situation.

Where does Duncan go?  He rides his bike clear to the (other) edge of town where there's a "water park."  In generations past, the "water park" would have been a "carnival" ...  There among "the carnies" historically seen as "misfits of life" themselves (the most important of which in this film are played by Sam Rockwell, Maya Rudolf and one of the film's writers/directors Nat Faxon himself) he finds some mentor figures and friends.  And THANKS TO THEM, life becomes bearable again.

Much still ensues ... but honestly, one can not but empathize with Duncan, his also overwhelmed mother Pam, and even perhaps, after some longer reflection (stupid as he was...) ... with Trent.  Portrayed here was really a nightmarish "vacation" ... and yet, hopefully EVERYONE grew a little bit as a result.

Wow.  So who to recommend this film to? ;-).  People with some distance from the situation (recent divorce) at hand.  Even though there are lot of comics in this film, this is _not_ exactly a funny movie.  And even though the film is rated PG-13 and in a strict sense meets the traditional criteria for such a rating, I wouldn't want to inflict this film on any teenager (except perhaps as an apology for past incomprehension of what they were going through during a family crisis).  This film is certainly well acted, but it is at times VERY, VERY, ALMOST UNBEARABLY SAD.


<< 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! :-) >>

A Hijacking (orig. Kapringen) [2012]

MPAA (R)  RE.com (3 1/2 stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (O. Collette) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

A Hijacking (orig. Kapringen) [2012] (written and directed by Tobias Lindholm) is a critically acclaimed /  award winning Danish thoroughly excruciating yet strikingly "actionless" psycho-thriller about a hijacking of a Danish freighter by Somali pirates somewhere in the Northern Indian Ocean presumably somewhere reasonably near Somalia and then the often tense negotiations between "Omar" (played by Abdihakin Asgar) leading or at least negotiating on behalf of the pirates from on-board the hijacked ship and Peter C. Ludvigsen (played by Søren Malling) the C.E.O. of the Danish shipping company stationed back at the company's headquarters in Copenhagen. 

Viewers who like a good story could be fascinated by writer/director Lindholm's storytelling here.  Even the hijacking itself takes place "off camera" ;-).  We're simply introduced at the beginning of the film to (1) some of the ship's crew from the ship, notably the ship's cook Mikkel Hartmann (played by Pilou Asbæk) calling his wife back in Denmark on the ship's phone on what could only have been a very average mid-morning while out at sea (Indeed, the phone call ends in something of "a spat" as Mikkel tells her that he might be delayed a few days, hence having to miss an birthday or anniversary, after the ship arrives in Mumbai prior to returning to Denmark) and (2) to the some of the staff, including the company's CEO back in Denmark going about their day-to-day business of managing an international shipping company. 

Sometime in the afternoon of that very average day, CEO Peter Ludvigsen is given the news that the company has lost contact with one of their ships, Mikkel's, that was traversing at the time the Northern Indian Ocean.  And it appeared from the Captain's (played by Keith Pearson) last transmission (basically a voice mail, nobody at HQ had picked-up the phone) that the ship was being approached by some high speed boats manned by (presumably) Somali pirates.  Subsequent attempts by HQ to make contact with the ship or its captain had failed, though the assumption was that the ship had not been sunk but rather that, probably, it had been hijacked and its crew taken hostage.

What to do?  Well, the Company begins to assemble a crisis/hostage negotiations team, and ... wait until the Pirates themselves make contact.  Now why would the Pirates do that ... make contact?  Well, as Conner Julian (played by Gary Skjoldmose Porter) an English speaking arguably semi-mercenary "security consultant" brought in to help the firm understand what it is dealing with, explains:

On the "plus side" these kind of Pirates would really have little interest in damaging the ship or _going out of their way_ to hurt the crew (though they would certainly not be a particularly "disciplined group" so "accidents" could very well happen...) as both the ship and the crew served as bargaining chips for them.  The Pirates would be primarily interested in money. 

On the "minus side," simply giving in to the Pirates' initial demands would only result in them "upping their ransom demand" to extract even more money.  So one is going to have to recognize that this is going to be a protracted negotiation regardless of what the company does (hence the Company and its negotiating team will have to keep cool heads).  Further, "time is a western concept" and will mean nothing to the Pirates.  "Even when they run out of food on the ship, the Pirates will simply bring goats on-board to slaughter and eat."  The only thing that will bring the hostage situation to an end will be when the Pirates become convinced that they really won't be able to extract any more money from the Company beyond whatever amount it has offered to give them.  So what's being talked about is an extended yet very high stakes financial negotiation.

To this end, the "security consultant" suggests that the Company hire an experienced outside negotiator to represent the firm in its negotiations with the pirates.  At this suggestion, CEO who sees himself as an expert negotiator (after all he's running a company) balks.  Perhaps he's even worried that if he ceded the negotiations to an outsider, that his Company's Board would fire _him_ as, honestly, what good would he be to them...?  The "security consultant" concedes the point.  After all, he's been brought in to give advice, but the final say has to be that of the Company's CEO (after all, that's his job).  However the "security consultant" tell him that he's in for a negotiation unlike any that he's ever been in and that _any_ mistake could cost lives.  (Yes, when cool heads are prevailing, it's to the best interests of the Pirates themselves to treat the hostage crew well, BUT "cool heads" don't always prevail in tense negotiations...)

So this then is the set-up to the story.  Sure enough, after a sufficiently long period of time to make their "power" felt, "Omar" (clearly the best educated and apparently the only English speaking person from among the otherwise only Somali-speaking but all AK-47 toting Pirates) calls the Danish shipping company's HQ on the ship's phone to re-establish contact ... and the negotiating begins.  What follows is one heck of a 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! :-) >>

Spirited Away (orig. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi) [2001]

MPAA (PG)   Roger Ebert (4 Stars)   Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert review

Spirited Away (orig. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi) [2001] (written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki [IMDb]) a classic animated film from Japan's famed Studio Ghibli played recently (in both dubbed and subtitled format) in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center as part of its 2013 Studio Ghibli Returns retrospective.  This film along with many of the others being presented in the series can be found / streamed (in dubbed English format) for FREE on watchcartoononline.com.   For readers here interested in East Asian history/comparative mythology, the film's worth the viewing.

The film takes place in the recent past in the context of the Japan's slow economic recovery following its 1990 crash and subsequent "lost decade."  For a number of decades prior to 1990, Japan's economy was one of the best performing/fastest growing in the world.  However as is often the case, this period of growth was followed by a crash.  Apparently (and again as often happens) the growth that Japan experienced in the latter years of this economic expansion had been an unsustainable "bubble" that needed to collapse so that the economy could return to reality.

Very well, the film begins with 10 year old Chihiro (voiced in the English version by Daveigh Chase) sitting in the back of her parents' car as they (voiced in the English version by Michael Chiklis and Lauren Holly respectively) as they drive to their new home.  The economic crisis had forced them to relocate and it it's clear that Chihiro was not particularly happy with it, holding on to a goodbye-card from a friend who she was no longer going to be able to see.  In the card, her friend wrote "I'm going to miss you" and it's clear that she's miss her too.  Knowing that this was not an ideal situation for her, Chihiro's parents nevertheless tell her that moving/change/saying good-bye is "part of life" and assure her that soon enough she's going to make new friends at her new school...

As they approach their new house, still kinda nice in a hilly outlying/suburban subdivision, Chihiro's father "makes a wrong turn."  They find themselves on a dirt rather than paved road, below their new house that they can still see up higher across a meadowed slope.  The father insists that the dirt road must lead-up to it somehow since they are "so close."  So they keep on it.  But the dirt road ends in a somewhat overgrown parking lot and an imposing gate-house that both "looks old" and yet the father quickly recognizes to be "made of plaster" (recent/"fake" yet made to look old).

Though not where they want to be, nevertheless the father finds himself intrigued.  Initially, the mother's somewhat worried that the movers might arrive at their new house before they do, but the father tells her that the movers have a key anyway and could start unloading without them.  The only one who really doesn't want to enter is Chihiro herself who tells her parents, "this place gives me the creeps."   Still dad wants to go in, ma's not opposed and so their kid must follow ...

They enter the gate house, the entrance leading to a tunnel which empties out into a field (though facing in a different direction than that of their house because they no longer see it after they leave the tunnel).  At the other end of the field appears to be what the father identifies as "one of those amusement parks that they were building all over the place in the '90s but were never completed."  So it appears to be a "ghost" amusement park ;-).

Dad still wants to investigate.  So they trudge to the "amusement parky" buildings and then to their surprise ... mom and dad smell food.  Chihiro by now really wants to go home but ma and dad, look for the place where the food's being made and find a stand with all kinds of freshly made food but no one around.  So ma and dad decide to help themselves... 

Chihiro bored, decides to walk-off a bit while ma and dad take food that doesn't really belong to them.  When she returns, apparently she walked around for some time, it's already starting to get dark and she finds that her parents, still at the stand with the food had turned into pigs!  (Apparently, they spent a bit too much time "stuffing themselves at the troth..." ;-).

What to do now?  It's getting dark, they're kinda far from where they've left their car, and besides ma' and dad have "turned into swine" ;-).  Now with it getting dark, the amusement park is starting to lively with all kinds of not particularly nice looking "spirits" arriving/materializing from all over.  Needless to say Chihiro's getting scared....

One of those Spirits, that of a boy, maybe a year or two older then Chihiro comes over to talk to her.  He identifies himself as Haku (voiced in the English version by ) and tells her that she's going to have to hide from the Spirits as they generally don't like human beings and that she's going to have to go down to the amusement park's boiler room and beg for a job because unless she quickly gets a job, it will not go well with her and the Spirits who tend to "consume" those who don't work for them.  Her parents are already converted into pigs and will be eventually eaten.  A similar fate will await her ... unless she gets a job.

So Chihiro then sneaks her way down various steps and corridors until she gets down to the boiler room where she meets a spiderlike boiler operator (with 8 arms all busy pulling levers and such) named Kamajii (voiced in the English version by David Ogden Stiers).  He introduces her to another servant spirit named Lin (voiced in the English version Susan Egan) and instructs her to go see a Woman spirit "on top" named Yubaba (voiced in the English version by Susanne Plechette) who runs the whole amusement park operation.

Chihiro goes up to talk to Yubaba and gets a job, the lousiest possible one -- cleaning up after some really dirty Spirits in the (Japanese) bathhouse of the amusement park.  She also gets the job at the expense of signing away her own name. Yubaba renames her "Sen," but at least little Chihiro has a job, hence "has a purpose" in the ghostly, arguably Hellish "amusement park" and can slowly work on plotting her escape and even on saving her parents who've by then been relocated to the pig pen where the other porkers are fattened up prior to inevitable slaughter to feed the hungry and generally consuming spirits.

She also gets occasional help by a masked yet generally sympathetic spirit, that, since he does not talk and never takes off his mask she comes to call "No Face."

Having setup the story, much now ensues ...

The film has been characterized as a late-20th century Alice in Wonderland.  I'd compare it also to the Wizard of Oz [1939] [IMDb] yet expressed in traditional Japanese folklore/imagery.  It's clearly a story of a little girl being forced to "grow-up" more quickly, taking more responsibility for her life (and even for her parents' lives) than perhaps she should.

I found the film fascinating and along with other films presented in the Studio Ghibli retrospective presented at the Gene Siskel Film Center a window into a culture that I otherwise would not have known much about.

I WOULDN'T necessarily recommend the film to young kids.  However, older teens and adults interested in East Asian history/folklore/mythology would probably found the film as fascinating as I did.  And again, the film along with others in the GSFC's retrospective can be found watchcartoononline.com.


<< 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! :-) >>

Men in Hope (orig. Muži v Naději) [2011]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD* listing
FDb.cz* listing
Lidovky.cz* (A. Prokopová) review

Men in Hope (orig. Muži v Naději) [2011] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*(written and directed by Jiří Vejdělek [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*) a smart/current if certainly morally provocative/challenging adult 30-40 something oriented "romantic" comedy (of the vein of the Marilyn Monroe classic The Seven Year Itch [1955] [IMDb] [TCM] that was also provocative/controversial in its time) finished off a remarkable and remarkably well rounded 2013 Czech That Film Tour cosponsored by the Czech Diplomatic Mission in the United States and Staropramen Beer that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.  In the course of the past year, the Gene Siskel Film Center has also hosted similar surveys of largely current films from Turkey, Hong Kong and Spain as well as similarly outstanding extended homages to the animated works of Studio Ghibli of Japan [2012] [2013]. 

I have to admit that for thematic reasons, I thought that this film was going to be the most difficult of the film tour to write about here on my blog.  Yet I wished to do so because (1) the film is indeed current, representative of the moral challenges present not only in the C.R. but across a good part of Europe today (and in my time in the seminary in Italy in the 1990s I came across similarly themed and similarly light-hearted Italian films) and (2) after the initial shock: "This film is trying to explore WHAT?" (the film was trying to explore the question: "Can one actually choose to be unfaithful to one's spouse for the sake of one's spouse/marriage?") AS IS ALMOST ALWAYS THE CASE, the comedy inevitably retreats back to safer pastures.  (The film's answer to its question becomes, unsurprisingly and resoundingly "No."  And one thinks of recent American films like the Ashton Kutcher/Natalie Portman vehicle No Strings Attached [2011] and the Justin Timberlake/Mila Kunis vehicle Friends With Benefits [2011] that while intended for younger audiences played a similar day-dreamy / coquettish dance with social convention / the moral order of things before returning by the end back to reality).

Yet the conventions of "romantic comedy" generally require that "all end well," the result here being that "all" needed to "end" at least "kinda well" for the protagonists of the film even after crossing the line of this rather provocative social experiment.  And so it does, to the perhaps rightful consternation of many viewers / social commentators (see the Czech language links - if through Chrome or Google Translate - given above).

One could note here the very different and far more morally decisive conclusion to African American film-maker Tyler Perry's recent movie Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor [2013].  Yet one needs to note here that Tyler Perry's Temptation was a very different kind of film - a drama rather than the adult oriented (intended for 30-40 somethings) romantic comedy (again of the vein of Marylin Monroe's Seven Year Itch [1955] [IMDb]) that we have here.

Still it is doubtful that anyone leaves the current film feeling that any of the film's protagonists came-out particularly vindicated.  The film ended "kinda okay" but (1) the traditional order of things (that adultery is definitely not a good idea...) is vindicated and (2) while none of the film's adulterers were ruined or publicly humiliated, all were certainly chastened, and resolved to very quietly "sin no more."  (Indeed, one thinks here of Jesus' resolution of the crisis involving "The woman caught in the very act of adultery" [John 8:1-11]).

Okay, so how does the film actually go? ;-)

The film begins with content, recently retired, now driving a taxi cab about town as a second job, "man of the world" and serial filanderer Rudolf (played by Bolek Polívka [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*) concerned that his seemingly all-thumbed, increasingly put-upon, increasingly "hen pecked" son-in-law Ondřej (played by Jiří Macháček [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*) is unhappy, and more to the point, that Ondřej's making his (Rudolf's) daughter Alice (played by Petra Hřebíčková [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*) unhappy.

So, concerned for the sake of his daughter/son-in-law's marriage, Rudolf takes Ondřej to a pool hall one night and over a couple of drinks offers Ondřej some rather surprising and unsolicited advice to resolve his "problem":
      "You have to cheat my son(-in-law).  No woman likes a door-mat (even less a daughter of mine).  Women like a challenge.  So for the sake of your marriage you're going to have to cheat on your wife." ;-)
      "Well thanks very much there dear (father-in-law).  And by the way you know that you're asking me to cheat on your own daughter."
      "Yes.  How do you think I've kept things fresh with Alice's mother (your mother-in-law) Marta (played by Simona Stašová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDb]*) all these years ... by cheating on her."
      "And does she know?"
      "Whether she does or not, it does not matter.  It's not who one's with but who one comes back to.  And Alice's mom knows that I always come back to her, that I make her happy, that I keep things interesting with her both in and out of the sack, that I always keep her guessing and always, always leave her with a smile on her face."
      "And you know that can not possibly work for me."
      "Well something must..."
      "You know I can't lie ..."
      "Well, we're going to have to work on that ..."

And so then, the premise of the film is set-up.  It turns out that Rudolf wasn't just inviting Ondřej over for a few drinks and give him some odd, uterly unsolicited marital advice.  He's (of course) awaiting a lady, Šarlota (played by Vica Kerekes) a young voluptuous dancer/aerobics instructor transplant to Prague from Slovakia.  "She could be your grand-daughter."  "Yup, but women like that keep me fresh."  After introducing Ondřej (pronounced basically Ondray) to smiling 20-something Šarlota (pronounced Sharlota), Rudolf sort of chases him away asking him to "think about it." Ondřej now knowing more about his father-in-law than he ever really wanted to, kinda winces ... and goes home, arriving home, adding insult to injury, drenched by rain.

But Ondřej's life really was pretty unhappy both in the bedroom with his wife and outside of it.  So a few days later when he, surprise surprise runs into Šarlota on the street and gets past the question: "What would someone like you possibly see in an old dědek (grandpa) like him?" "He's funny, he makes me laugh," he finds it actually pleasant to talk to someone new.  And perhaps some of Rudolf's charm wears-off on him.  So they start talking and find that they hit it off ...

Much, of course, follows.  Yes, Ondřej's confidence does increase from being around someone who hasn't come to dismiss him (yet?) as a loser.  And that new confidence carries itself over to his other relationships, notably with his wife and even with their employees at the restaurant that the two had started sometime back and had been failing.

But of course, there are inevitable repercussions resulting from that kind of "lifestyle."  First, Rudolf himself, after perhaps a long streak of getting away with this, comes to be busted more or less in flagrante.  Then perhaps just as he and his wife are getting over that debacle, other, more or less inevitable things happen in their lives.  Then Ondřej, nice if rather simple guy that he is (or that he was at the beginning of the story) is really not cut out of this kind of complicated life.  So there are some inevitable bombs that await him as well as the story continues ...

So in the end, while the conventions of romantic comedy require that "all end well," the conventions of REALITY also require justice.  And while the film ends with a smile, it'd be hard for ANYBODY to see it as truly a happy ending or that Rudolf's advice to Ondřej at the beginning of the film was particularly good for him.

Yes, it may be nice to day dream sometimes ... but REALITY is REALITY and there really is no free lunch.  And after all is said and done, the film brings us back to earth and reminds us of this quite well.

ADDENDUM:

As is the case of most of the films in the 2013 Czech That Film series, at the time of the writing of this review, this film is available for viewing outside of the Czech Republic for free (quite possibly with the Czech Film Institute's blessing) on YouTube even with English subtitles (click the CC button on the viewer for the subtitles to appear).


  << 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! :-) >>

As Cool as I am [2013]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

As Cool as I am [2013] (directed by Max Mayer, screenplay by Virginia Korus Spragg, based on the novel by Pete Fromm) is an appropriately R-rated "coming of age" film (but Parents note that for BOTH better and worse, it is IMHO about much more than about just that).  The film is about a teenage girl named Lucy (played by Sarah Bolger) growing up in a small nondescript town "somewhere out West" in the United States.  It played recently at Facets Multimedia theater here in Chicago.

A key to understanding a good part of the story is its tag-line: "How do you grow up when your parents haven't."  Indeed, Lucy's parents Lainee (played by Claire Danes) and Chuck (played by James Marsden) had her when they themselves were 16-17 and as the story begins Lucy is approaching that age.  So Lucy's initial voice-over sets the stage, suggesting that some long-put off arguments are about to play themselves out.

When Lucy's parents had her, both obviously very young, both with their own back-stories involving still unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) difficulty and pain -- there's hint Lainee came from a somewhat abusive household and in any case was awash teenage hormones at the time, Chuck had been raised at a (presumably Catholic) orphanage -- they set-about to do (and largely did) the right thing: They got married, Chuck got a job (as a lumberjack, a job that also somewhat conveniently required him to be away from home for extended periods of time) and Lainee stayed home to raise Lucy.

But now Lucy was 15 approaching 16.  Chuck/dad's extended times away from his wife Lainee and daughter Lucy begin to really wear on Lainee, who's now in her early thirties and is probably tired of staring at the walls of their nice if smallish house somewhere near the edge of the nondescript town where they live.  So with Lucy "growing up" or approaching "having grown-up" (though all of us who are adults in the U.S. today would know that at least in our society a 15-16 year old is not anywhere near having grown up...) and perhaps even a little jealous of the opportunities (Life) opening up for Lucy and perhaps having unresolved issues regarding those "teenage hormones" that she had to surpress when she had to _quickly_ "become an adult" after becoming pregnant with Lucy, Lainee decides to get a job.    Said job opens up an entirely new world of opportunity (and temptation...) for Lainee who had been largely "away" from the world since Lucy's birth.

So this sets up a really uncomfortable dynamic in which both Ma' and daughter are acting like teenagers, when daughter Lucy could have really used a Mom.

What about Dad?  He's not portrayed as evil either.  There's no suggestion that he's been unfaithful to Lainee when he's away doing his lumberjack thing.  It's just that "being away" enabled him to not have to deal with the reality that he has to be a father/husband for more than a week or two at a time between extended forest cutting "gigs up North" (presumably in the Pacific Northwest, Canada or even Alaska).

So Lucy finds herself navigating her mid-teenage years (15-16) largely on her own.  Her support system?  Her childhood best-friend Kenny (played by Thomas Mann), yes two rather clinical improvised visits to Planned Parenthood though in neither case for an abortion (Parents again take note...), and the apparently soothing/ordering Presence of a cooking show host on the cable Food Channel.  (Lucy takes up the basically/certainly salutory hobby of "gourmet cooking.")  Much remains to ensue and begin to be resolved ...

Wow ... so what would a "representative of the Catholic Church" have to say about that? ;-)

Well, a good part of why I like going to Facets Multimedia Theater in Chicago and why I chose to review this film, as perhaps provocative as the story is, is that like so many of the films shown at Facets, THE STORY IS INTELLIGENT.  And at its best the Catholic Church (it's been around for 2000 years after all ;-), it doesn't seek to run away from difficult reality.  Instead it tries to proclaim the Good News of God's Solidarity (God being "with us" [Matt 1:23, Matt 28:20]) in the midst of often difficult and painful reality (in the midst of a "valley of tears").

The Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World [1965] began with the words: The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the [people] of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of  [people]. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for [everyone]. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with [humanity] and its history by the deepest of bonds (GS #1).

From my years serving as a Catholic Priest (and even before that when I was discerning whether or not to enter into the Servite formation program) I have known for certain that life is often very hard and the circumstances of all three of the central characters in this story are familiar to me.  And while I understand the somewhat snickering "subversive joy" present in comparing God [TM] to the soothing/ordering "presence" of a random "cooking show host on the Food Channel," I would simply respond that it honestly isn't the same.

For I can definitely say that life is often difficult whether one believes in God or not.  But IMHO it is so much easier to bear if one does come to believe that there is a Loving God who bears it _with us_ and promises, if not in this world then in the next, to set things right.  Without God, the pain remains in any case.  With God, there's always hope... (1 Cor 13:13)


  << 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! :-) >>

An Oversimplification of Her Beauty [2012]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

An Oversimplification of Her Beauty [2012] (written and directed by African American director Terrence Nance) is an experimental film about relationships that played recently at Facets multimedia in Chicago.  The concept is actually very simple and funny and is built around a short film that he had made earlier called How Would You Feel? [2010].

The concept goes as follows.  During the opening credits, we observe a young African American man lugging onto the subway a couple of constituent parts of what we soon find would become a bed.  Since he lives in New York and seems to be living something of a bohemian/artistic lifestyle and has no car, this is how he has to bring things to his rather small, again rather bohemian style flat -- by himself and in parts.  No problem, like Figaro, he's putting together a bed.  Why?  Well, we're told by the narrator (who proves to be very important in this film) that earlier in the day, he had gotten a message from a young woman who he's enjoyed company with that she'd be available to come over see him later that evening.  From the looks of it, it would seem that whatever his hopes may have been for the evening, that he'd probably not bed together in time anyway.  Nevertheless, when he comes home with those two rather larger constituent parts of what would soon (or at least one day...) become bed, he receives a message from this young woman of interest that she too had just arrived home after a long day of work and has decided not to come over to enjoy his company that evening after all.  At that point, the narrator asks the audience: "How would you feel?"

At that point, we see someone hitting the stop button on a VCR and then the rewind button.  And the story starts over again.  And we're given some more information, notably that said young African American man, artistic type had gotten up rather late to go to work, that having taken some shorts with his daily morning routine, and running the last part of his way to work, he did manage to make it to work on time.  We're then informed that he received the happy message from his young woman of interest informing him that after work she'd like to come over to his place to enjoy his company (hence his desire to leave work to quickly try to put together a bed) only to find out that when he did come home that he received another message from said woman of interest that she too had come home after a long day of work and had decided to not come over that evening after all.  And we're asked once more: "Given all that you now know would you feel?"

Once again, we're shown the stop button on the VCR being hit, the rewind button being hit.  And the story starting over once more.  This time we're told the same sequence as before, his getting up relatively late to get to work, his rush to get out of his flat and to work that morning.  Only now we're shown what he actually does for work: He actually simply plays a musical instrument of sorts, alone, by a fountain in some park somewhere in New York.  (Perhaps there still was a need to rush to get there by a certain time, but it doesn't feel anymore like a "real job" ... yet this is, actually, how he makes his money).  The rest of the narrative sequence continues (the young woman of interest first calls him that she'd like to come over after work, then calls him after work that she's had a long day and has decided not to come over after all.  And we're asked once more: "Given all that you know, how would you feel?"

The story repeats itself about three of four more times, each time adding some new aspect to the story, each time arguably changing how one feels about the story and its two central characters.

I just thought that it was a blast ;-).  This is clearly not a film "for everyone" ;-), but I just loved its humor and found it similarly amusing that good ole Facets Multimedia theater, small as it is, was actually quite packed mostly with young African American women who similarly smiled, giggled and laughed throughout most of the film.

Anyway, the film is a reminder to us of how simple yet effective a story, even a screen story can be ;-).


 << 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! :-) >>