Two Days, One Night (orig. Deux Jours, Une Nuit) [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChiTrib (3.5 Stars)  RE.com (2.5 Stars)  AVClub (A)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allociné.fr listing*

AV Club (A.A. Dowd) review
Avoir-alire.fr (T. Gauthier) review*
CervenyKoberec.cz (J. Kábrt) review*
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
Critic.de (N. Klinger) review*
EyeForFilm.co.uk (R. Mowe) review
LaCroix.fr (A. Schwartz) review*
LaLiberation.fr (G.L. / O.S.) review* 
L'Express (E. Libiot) review* 
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
Slant Magazine (E. Gonzalez) review
Variety (S. Foundas) review

Two Days, One Night (orig. Deux Jours, Une Nuit) [2014] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by the Dardenne brothers [en.wikip] Jean-Pierre [IMDb] [AC.fr]* and Luc [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a remarkable / critically acclaimed "thriller of the mundane / day-to-day" and is certainly one of the most compellingly constructed stories put on film in 2014.

I say that the current film had to be _one_ of the year's most compellingly constructed stories put on film because 2014 included Boyhood [2014] which having been filmed with the same ensemble-cast over the span of 10 years had to be the year's _most compellingly constructed story_ .

And then during the past several years there have been some other stunning to remarkable "minimalist" tales put on the screen.  One thinks of the British "drive home one night" Locke [2013], the remarkable Paraguayan film 7 Boxes (orig. 7 Cajas) [2012] about the drama that meets a Paraguayan teenager tasked with simply transporting seven boxes from one end of capital Asuncion's central market to the other and Cosmopolis [2012] about a young New York businessman's afternoon limo-drive through traffic "to get a haircut."  And then there's even a recent, simple, yet also award-winning, Iranian film, The Bright of Day (orig. Rooz-e Roshan) [2013] about a school teacher who has a single day to try to find one witness to testify to the innocence of the father of one of her students.  All of these films, including the current one, would make both James Joyce (Ulysses / Finnegan's Wake) and Vittorio de Sica [IMDb] (Ladri di Biciclette [1948] [IMDb]) proud.

So what's _this_ film about?

Late-20 / early-30-something Sandra (played by Marion Cotillard [IMDb] [AC.fr]* in a performance worthy of her Oscar nomination) after having been on sick leave for several months (for depression) finds when she seeks to return to work at a small Belgian solar panel assembly plant that her job has been eliminated.  Her boss has found that the assembly plant can work with just fine with 16 workers rather than 17.  But she needs the job.  So ... he offers her and the other workers a deal: He can rehire her ... or he can pay-out the other sixteen workers their end-of-year bonuses (about $1200 USD each) but not both.  And he gives Sandra the weekend to persuade the other employees to forgo their bonuses so as to take her back.

Wow.  A heartbreaking to impossible task (and remember why she's been on sick leave to begin with -- for depression...).  The other workers, obviously none of them wealthy, count on that end-of-year bonus, some more than others, but forgoing $1200 would be a significant sacrifice for all of them.  Further, the boss has turned Sandra's future employment at the firm into "a charity case."  It's obvious that he believes that her place at the firm would be superfluous.

But what then to do?  Fascinatingly, Sandra's husband Manu (played also magnificently by Fabrizio Rongione [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) urges Sandra to go out during that weekend and talk to each of the 16 co-workers, ONE-BY-ONE, ANYWAY.  Why?  He also must have known that it was a near impossible task to persuade enough of them to go her way.  But he wants her to try.  Again, WHY?

This is where the film becomes interesting and IMHO becomes MUCH MORE than simply a anti-capitalistic setup.  What was Sandra suffering from?  DEPRESSION.  What's the best antidote to DEPRESSION -- GETTING-UP AND GOING OUT INTO THE WORLD EVEN IF ONE THINKS IT'S HOPELESS.

And it turns out that it isn't ENTIRELY HOPELESS anyway.  THERE ARE STILL AND ALWAYS WILL BE (SOME) PEOPLE willing to sacrifice for others (All / most of those co-workers knew what it's like to be unemployed and dreaded being so as well).

BUT FASCINATINGLY BY THE END OF THE WEEKEND, IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER TO SANDRA IF SHE'D "WIN THE VOTE" ANYMORE ... she was WALKING again.

HONESTLY, ONE HECK OF A FILM !


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through Google's Chrome browser. 

<< 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 Babadook [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Babadook [2014] (written and directed by Jennifer Kent) is by all accounts one of the best made horror movies since the turn of the 21st century.  Further, though presently unrated -- it comes from Australia -- there is NOTHING about the film (no sex/nudity, no bad language, no gore or otherwise graphic violence) that would would require an R-rating.  So this is a film that pretty much _the whole family_ can watch together ... and have the daylights scared out of them ;-).

So what's the film about?  Well part of its genius is that it's centered on a rather odd but certainly very scary _cut-out children's book_ named ... "Babadook" (pronounced ... Buh-buh-duk) after a shadowy monster who comes to children's houses, knocks on the door Buh-buh-DUK-DUK-DUK.  And if one opens the door, the monster (again shadowy / hard to see) comes in ... and ... NEVER EVER LEAVES ;-).

So ... there's this little family, really only composed of a 7-year old child Samuel (played by Noah Wiseman) and his mother Amelia (played by Essie Davis) a nurse, who (because she's a nurse) works odd hours.  The father (played by Daniel Henshell), Amelia's husband and great love of her life, who appears in the film occasionally in flashbacks and (we hope) dreams, died in a car accident 7 years before while driving Amelia to the hospital to give birth to Sam.  So traumatized was Amelia by her husband's death that she's never let Sam celebrate his birthday on the day of his birth because all that she can do on that day is grieve for her lost husband (Sam's father).

Well, one would suspect that this "unresolved psychological trauma" would also impact the child and ... it's clear that it does. Sam's turning out to be one troubled / annoying kid: hyperactive, always looking for attention, constantly interrupting people, both children and adults, saying strange generally disconcerting things.

As a result, NO ONE seems to like him: In one of the early scenes in the film, Amelia's called-over to Samuel's school and told by the Principal, "Your child needs help, help that our school can not provide. We recommend that he be put in a 'special school' equipped for your child's special needs."  Even Amelia's sister (Samuel's aunt) is weary of him, telling Amelia that her daughter (Samuel's cousin) just doesn't want to play with him anymore.  Amelia, of course, sees that Sam's growing-up to be a problem child.  But she's also his mother.  What can she do...?

THINGS RISE TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL thanks to that strange children's book named "Mister Babadook" that Samuel finds in the house one day.   Soon, Samuel, already with a hyper-active imagination born certainly in part of his increasing isolation (strange restrictions put on the celebration of his birthday, less and less friends to celebrate the birthday with anyway ...), becomes ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that "The Babadook" is in their house.

Soon, he's NOT sleeping.  Then Amelia STOPS SLEEPING (How can she when her son's making all kinds of noise ALL NIGHT, EVERY NIGHT, trying to keep awake convinced that otherwise "the Babadook" will get him?).   Then remember, Amelia's A NURSE for goodness sake.  Do you want a nurse working on you if she hasn't slept for days? ;-)  OMG ... are they all just going insane?

Much, much ensues ;-)

Honestly, this is a FANTASTIC FILM proving that one can make a _great_ "scary movie" with just a creaky house with random, quite normal stuff that one would find in any somewhat older house (remember they're living on one income) and lots and lots of shadows with _minimal_ other "special effects." It's BRILLIANT, JUST BRILLIANT ;-)
 
And remember, be careful if someone comes to your door at night, knocking: "Duk, Duk, Duk" ;-)


ADDENDUM:

1/21/2015 - The film's already available on Amazon Instant Video for streaming for a nominal fee.


<< 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! :-) >>

Still Alice [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune/LA Times (K. Turan) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Still Alice [2014] (directed and screenplay written by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Lisa Genova [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is certainly one of the most gentle yet almost crushingly sad / poignant American films of 2014.

The story's about Alice Howland (played by Julianne Moore who may win and certainly deserves an Oscar for her performance in this film).  At the story's beginning she's at the top of her world.  Approaching 50, she's a professor of linguistics at Columbia University in New York, married to John Howland (played wonderfully in his supporting role by Alec Baldwin) a neurologist.

Together they have three grown children who are in various stages of "spreading their wings."  The eldest is Anna Howland-Jones (played by Kate Bosworth) already married, to a lawyer, named Charlie Howland-Jones (played by Shane McRae).  Together they are already working on having their first child.  There's son Tom (played by Hunter Parrish) who's in college, pre-Med.  And there's the youngest child, daughter, Lydia (played by Kristen Stewart) who's perhaps the only one isn't "following plan" or "meeting expectations."  Instead of going to college, she's moved to L.A. hoping to become an actress there.  And it's clear by way of a visit by Alice, after having given a talk at U.C.L.A., that "mom's not particularly happy." "Concerned" would probably be the word, with Lydia's recent set of choices.

Honestly, many, many Americans today would love to have a life like that of Dr. Alice Howland, PhD at the beginning of the story, but ...

... and this is a very important but ... just because up until this point, Alice has truly had "a wonderful life," doesn't mean that things will continue to go that way in the chapters that follow.

Life's difficulties come to all and in a way that teaches us as we mature and grow in wisdom that envy is pointless and often even cruel: the seemingly "easy years" of another's "fortunate life" are perhaps only God's merciful gifts to that person to help soften far, far harder years that can (and often do) follow.  And no one leaves this world without experiencing suffering, disappointment, eventual failure and death.  No one.

And so for Alice those _hard years_ arrive, initially almost imperceptively: During that speech at UCLA, she finds that she's suddenly and completely "lost her place."  And it takes her an embarrassingly long moment to find her place again, after having suddenly/surprisingly drifted away from her talk.  Then a few weeks later, back in New York, while jogging, an activity that she loved and kept her in the shape that she was in, she finds herself suddenly _lost_ ON CAMPUS, AT HER SCHOOL, COLUMBIA.  A number of weeks later, at Christmas dinner, the family notices that she reintroduces herself at table to her son Tom's girlfriend, after she had hugged her and welcomed her to the house when her son had introduced her to her perhaps only an hour before.

Enough of these small but sudden lapses makes her make an appointment with another neurologist (again her husband's one as well) to check if perhaps she may have a brain tumor.  Instead, after several visits to the doctor and some tests, she and by this time with husband John at her side are told that she's finding herself in the first stages of early onset Alzheimer's Disease AND that it's probably hereditary.

Of course John argues.  But yes, Alice's father "died early" nominally of cirrhosis of the liver (and had been previously dismissed as simply a drunk).  Suddenly it becomes possible that he _may have actually been compensating_ for early onset of  Alzheimer's (and nobody back then knew any better...).

Beyond the awfulness of the diagnosis comes of course the implication -- they two have three kids.  Two get tested, one does not.  One who's tested, tests positive and thus now knows what's coming 20-30, perhaps if one's lucky, 40 years hence ...

But then, this is still Alice's story ... What to do?  And remember this is a family that has a fair amount of money and the husband's EVEN ARGUABLY "IN THE FIELD."

Well there's NOT MUCH to do:  There's "research being done" that PERHAPS a generation from now may have a real impact.  There are "word games." And ... there are various somewhat ingenious "compensation strategies" (Thank God for "smart phones ...").  But in the end, there's the awful / heartbreaking / progressive decline ... of someone who "used to be able to do so much" and yet, now ...

This is a really powerful film, and ... perhaps as a small spoiler alert ... I do wish to say that the family really was, by and large, very, very good.

Anyone who's known anyone who's been diagnosed and suffered through the stages of a slow yet steady degenerative disease will definitely "understand" theis film.

And yet the film's not entirely a downer ... at least it's clear that Alice was loved.


<< 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! :-) >>

American Sniper [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

American Sniper [2014] (directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Jason Hall, based on the autobiography [GR] [Amzn] [WCat] by Chris Kyle [wikip] [IMDb] coauthored by Scott McEwen and James Defelice) is a film that will be disconcerting to most viewers and I do believe that like many of Clint Eastwood's films it's intended to be disconcerting.

After all, this is a film about, without a doubt, an American patriot -- Chris Kyle [wikip] [IMDb-w] [IMDb-ch] (played magnificently in the film by Bradley Cooper) -- born and raised in Texas, athletic, good looking, honest / God fearing, with an early discovered gift of shooting very straight with a gun. 

After spending a number of years of soul searching after high school-- initially he just wanted to "live the dream" of being a ranch hand / cowboy -- he decided to join the military.

Though apparently thinking initially of joining the Marines, taking one look at his impressive physical stature and seemingly instinctively confident demeanor, his Navy recruiter immediately steered him to consider the elite Navy SEALS.  Never one to shirk away from a challenge, Chris Kyle took him up on it.  And so it was, though he was significantly older than most of the 18-19 year-olds with whom he entered SEAL training, he breezed through it like a natural.  Again a natural with a gun, he graduated as a Navy SEAL sniper.

A few weeks after 9/11 he married his girlfriend Taya (played again magnificently by Sienna Miller) and soon afterwards went-off to war.

With war came both fame (at least within both American military and Iraqi insurgent circles ...) and ... obvious points of discomfort / concern:

Chris Kyle became by far the most successful sniper in American military history.  Over FOUR tours, the U.S. Navy attributed to him 160 _confirmed kills_ (and those would be kills where the body was recovered and counted, and there were many others that could not be recovered and counted in this way).  He became both a Legend and A GODSEND to the Marines tasked to clear cities like Fallujah, who he helped protect from his (sniper's) position "above."  (On the other side of the coin, he became so feared by Iraqi insurgents that they put a price on his head).

My concern (as a Catholic priest after all) as well as many, many viewers would be: What becomes of someone who's killed (blown the heads off / splattered the brains of ...) at least 160 people, even if every single one of them was a legitimate threat to the U.S. troops clearing streets / performing operations below?   AND HONESTLY RAISING THIS CONCERN I do believe was a good part of intent of this film.

It's clear throughout the story that Kyle was conflicted in his job, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CAME TO SHOOTING (SHOOTING THE BRAINS OUT OF...) KIDS.  And yet, what to do when that kid's holding an RPG and aiming said RPG at a group of Marines that don't necessarily see the kid coming?  So Kyle did know that his job did save American Marines' lives (and again BOY WERE THEY APPRECIATIVE ...).  Still, the film showed plenty of instances where Kyle had to decide to take shots (AND KILL PEOPLE even KIDS ...) that were _very painful_ to take.

So ... this is a very serious movie.  And I do believe that it is more than just a glorification of what he was doing.  It was clear that his job did cause him significant distress in his mind (and the minds of others who found themselves fighting this war).

The film becomes a very serious invitation to reflect on war.  If one assumes that one's nation needs an army (and most Americans and really most nations would assume this to be simply necessary) then that army needs to have people trained _to kill_ as efficiently as Chris Kyle.  I don't think that anyone would doubt that he saved many, many American soldiers' lives out there in Iraq.  But then, at what cost ... even to himself?

It becomes very, very important that conflicts be managed intelligently so that the sacrifices (of mind, life and limb) of the soldiers that _may be_ deployed would not _be wasted_ or in vain.

A fascinating recent discussion on the PBS Newshour (Thu 1/15/2015) centered on the question of why the U.S. Military, second to none since World War II, has almost never been able to bring the country victory since World War II (and honestly, even World War II morphed rather quickly into the subsequent Cold War).  The suggestion was made that the U.S. Military has been tasked with trying to "win" "wars" for the country that are fundamentally political and unwinnable in simply a military sense.  Yes, armies could be routed even obliterated by ours, but ultimately to no lasting effect.  A larger toolbox is needed, where the military may be a tool in that box but certainly not the only one.

In the Catholic sense, this is an invitation (once again...) to reflect on the Just War theory where the decision to go to war is envisioned as being CONSIDERED SOBERLY and as a "LAST RESORT."  Now one understands that CONTINGENCY PLANNING may be necessary in any case (so that a nation / people don't get surprised by a malintentioned party or neighbor).

However even after the "war plans" are done, the Catholic Church has insisted that they not be put into action unless the criteria of the Just War Theory are met:  That war be declared / entered into (1) for a Just Cause, (2) by Competent Authority, (3) for the Right Intention (and not for ulterior motives), (4) as a Proportional Response, (5) with a reasonably high Probability of Success and (6) as a Last Resort (after less severe methods of rectifying the injustice have been considered, tried and have failed). 

Otherwise we're left with heroic but also tragic stories like the one in this film: Memorializing a soldier who _did save_ an awful lot of people (American Marines) ... by killing an awful lot of other people (Iraqi insurgents among them at times even women and children) which did not just kill them but also damaged his own well-being/spirit ... in a conflict that has since morphed beyond recognition anyway: The same places where Chris Kyle spent most of the active portions of his deployment -- Fallujah and Ramadi are now under control of a crazy Jihadist faction, ISIS, that didn't even exist at the time when U.S. troops were deployed there.  (Yes, _perhaps_ ISIS never would have formed "if we stayed there," but then how many of our people would have died there in the meantime and where would the money come from to keep our soldiers there ... for ... forever?)

In any case, a _very well done_ and _thought-provoking_ film.


ADDENDUM:

The U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1983 Pastoral Letter "The Challenge of Peace" (articles 80-110) provides a very good presentation of the Catholic Church's Just War Doctrine.


<< 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 Wedding Ringer [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Alas The Wedding Ringer [2015] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Jeremy Garelick along with Jay Lavender) is the kind of film that tends to get released in January after frenzied last weeks of December when most of the year's "Oscar contenders" get released to meet the end of year deadline for "award consideration."  The Wedding Ringer is a comedy, often a very low-brow comedy, that nevertheless does give viewers a grinning alternative to the often far more serious (and yes, often far more boring ...) "Oscar contenders."

And comedies often have their often subversive point.  So it is, exasperatingly, if often somewhat truthfully, with this movie which is about ... a big wedding. 

Doug Harris (played by Josh Gad) a soft-spoken, fundamentally decent if almost certainly previously quite boring, late 20-something to mid 30-something "tax attorney" finds himself engaged to Gretchen (played by Kaley Couco-Sweeting) a smiling, mid-to-late 20-something daughter of one of his clients (played by Ken Howard). 

Wonderful.  Isn't nice that the two would have found happiness with each other?  However, past (and mostly contemporary cultural) expectations get in the way: 

Gretchen, the daughter of a rich guy, grew-up with expectations of a nice even gloriously big wedding.  But look at who she's marrying: a decent enough guy, someone who's honest, probably won't cheat on her, and as a successful tax attorney (with even her father as one of his clients) almost certainly one who's going to be "a good provider" allowing her to live out the rest of her life "according to the standard that she's been accustomed to."  However, he's also kind of a shlep, one who's again a decent enough guy, but for various reasons (which become explained in the movie) never really was (or even had time to be) "the life of the party."  

So why's she (or why are they) getting married?  For the Wedding or for the Marriage that follows?  Actually this is a very good question ...

But the "immediate crisis" becomes how to _survive_ the upcoming wedding.  Yes, rather stereotypically gay wedding planner Edmundo (played by Ignacio Serricchio) sees a train-wreck coming.  So discretely suggests to Doug to seek-out a friend of his, Jimmy Callahan (played by Kevin Hart), who, for a price..., is able to provide "best man" and even "wedding party services" for those who'd otherwise, well, "not meet expectations."   This then sets up the film ... where much, of course, ensues.

But again, where does it say _anywhere_ that a wedding _must_ be large?  That a wedding _must_ include the "toasts" of _perfectly "cast"_ "best men" and "maid of honors"?  That a wedding _must_ include a rather large rehearsal dinner where both sides of the wedding party _produce_ (almost in a Hollywood or even BOLLYWOOD sense) including _well made_ and "appropriately embarrassing" roasts of the bride and groom?   And yes, that a wedding _must_ include the bachelor / bachelorette parties that have now become staples of Hollywood's films on weddings?

OMG ... THE PRESSURE!  I've come to think that main the reason why "bachelor / bachelorette parties" have become what they've become is to simply blow off the inevitable steam resulting from all the pressure accumulating with preparation of the "big wedding."  To some extent, they may be modern day expressions of the same phenomenon that in the Middle Ages produced the annual celebrations of Mardi Gras / Carneval before the arrival of Lent.  

But do weddings have to be so big?  NO.  Even a Church wedding need not be big (all that's needed, is proof that the two future spouses (one male, one female) are free to marry (not married to someone else somewher else), a church minister and two witnesses.  The "exchange of vows" could be done in 2-3 MINUTES).  Yes, there is MARRIAGE PREP. in the Catholic Church.  But it actually focuses FAR MORE ON THE MARRIAGE THAT FOLLOWS THAN ON THE WEDDING THAT INITIATES IT.


Is Marriage then "worth it" if PULLING OFF "THE PERFECT WEDDING" IS SO HARD?   This is the question that many more conservative "people of faith" may worry about, when hearing of a film like this.  However, I do believe that we're talking two different things here.  Marriage is generally good FOR BOTH SPOUSES (as well as the children produced in marriage) as it sets down IN LAW that rightful expectations of said spouses and their children.  These rightful expectations become confused outside of marriage.

Anyway, this film if (almost inevitably) often quite crude (the R-rating is deserved) is also often honestly quite funny and is fundamentally about managing the often _crushing expectations_ of the proverbial "big wedding."

But again, if you want to get married ... the wedding need not be big and what matters most are the years "till death do you part" that follow.  In the mean time, 20-somethings, enjoy the ride here (at another thankfully fictional couple's expense ...)


<< 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 Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (B. Sharkey) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night [2014] (written and directed by Ana Lily Amirpour), an IRANIAN (exile) VAMPIRE MOVIE (filmed in Bakersfield, California) is probably the COOLEST "genre movie" released this year.  In Chicago, it's had a 2 week run at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

Filmed entirely in high contrast B&W in said Bakersfield, CA substituting for a random, troubled Iranian oil town named simply "Bad City" somewhere in the Desert, the cast of characters is quite small, but unforgettable:

There's the central protagonist Arash (played by Arash Marandi) a young Iranian potential James Dean type if only he didn't have to take care of his heroin addicted father Hossein (played by Marshall Manesh).

There's Saeed (played by Dominic Rains) a drug dealing pimp with the word SEX tattooed on his throat.  He's kept Arash's dad supplied with drugs even as he takes Arash's _really cool_ "50s era-car with tail fins" as collateral for Arash's dad's accumulating debts.   When not shaking down Arash's family for money, he's keeping his local aging street-walker (mom?) named Atti (played by Mozhan Marnò) "unbalanced" / "in line" (it's probably time for her to start looking for another kind of work, but how when she seems to always owe Saeed money?).

There's a little kid with a skateboard (played by Milad Eghbali) who, since his parents never seem to be around, seems to be always outside, even at night, watching everything play out.

And ... then there's ... a teenage to early-20 something girl who turns out to be a demure "Vampire in a really-cool striped shirt and a chador" (played magnificently by Shiela Vand), who ALSO seems to live alone -- honestly, where are ANY OF THESE PEOPLE'S PARENTS except on drugs or walking the streets as hookers...? -- who LIKE THE LITTLE KID is always outside at night obvserving everything, EXCEPT UNLIKE THE LITTLE KID she finally decides to do something about the way things are in the town: Basically deal-out blood-sucking vengeance "on the guilty."

Oh yes, and there's A REALLY CUTE CAT who seems to be somehow aligned with the Vampire ;-)

Much, often in very dead pan if quite predictable yet VERY, VERY COOL FASHION, plays-out ;-)

Honestly, this is probably the coolest SUBTITLED FILM (yes, the film plays-out ENTIRELY IN FARSI ;-) that an AMERICAN TEENAGER (or really, ANY TEENAGER) really ought to see!

It's basically "A Rebel Without A Cause [1955]" only IN HIGH CONTRAST BLACK AND WHITE, IN FARSI and WITH VAMPIRES.  Honestly, how cool is that? ;-) ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Selma [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence.com coverage
TheSource.com (D. Green) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Philiips) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Rolling Stone (G. Edwards) interview w. director Ava DuVernay
TheSource.com (S. Moscovitz) interview w. director Ava DuVernay


Selma [2014] (directed by Ava DuVernay, screenplay by Paul Webb) arriving in time for the 50th anniversary of the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the second of the two most important pieces of Federal legislation that were passed as a result of the African-American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s-60s (and, yes, perhaps coincidentally / perhaps not ... during the early part of the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration ...) reminds the United States (and the world) what life was like for African Americans in the Deep South of the United States prior to the passage of such legislation that finally allowed African Americans unhindered access, more-or-less, to the ballot box.

I say "more-or-less" because there has been steady if mostly thankfully "rear guard" battling over "voter registration legislation" ever since.  And I do believe that the continued shenanigans are real: As I noted in my review of the recent film Kill the Messenger [2014], the 1980s "crack cocaine crisis" gave white racists in this country an excuse to once again disenfanchise MILLIONS of African American voters by making possession of ANY AMOUNT of "crack cocaine" (but significantly NOT powdered cocaine generally prefered by white people...) to be a "felony" giving States permission to take away their Civil Rights, INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS, essentially FOREVER.  More than a million African American male "crack convicts" in Florida (not / no longer in jail, but with their voting rights denied them FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES on account of their "felony conviction") or ONE THIRD of the voting age African American male population in the State was not allowed to vote in the 2000 Presidential election, an election that was "decided" by a margin of less than a 1000 votes in Florida...

However, even this apparent "crack" (felon) loophole in the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 pales in comparison to unblushing systematic denial of African Americans the right to vote that existed in the Jim Crow South prior to the marches / protests in Selma that made such practices no longer tenable and resulted in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 quite shortly afterwards. 


To the film ...

Much controversy has been made with regards to this film's treatment of Lyndon B. Johnson (played in the film by Tom Wilkinson).  I would suggest to readers here to please read the two interviews of the director Ava DuVernay that I list above.  Apparently, the original screenplay (and probably historically more correctly) portrayed Johnson in far more positive light.  However, the director says in those interviews that she really didn't want to make a movie about a "White Savior" (Johnson...), that in fact, the biggest changes that she made to the script was _to add_ BLACK LOCAL WOMEN to the story like lowly, honest / church-going Selma resident Annie Lee Cooper (eventually played in the film by Oprah Winfrey).  

With regards to Johnson, the director sensed (again IMHO almost certainly correctly) that ultimately the Civil Rights movement was NOT his top priority.  Instead, Johnson's TOP PRIORITY was his hoped-for War on Poverty (which would seek to improve the lives of ALL POOR PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS).  Hence EVEN IF HE WAS SYMPATHETIC (and _I_ certainly believe he was ... Johnson did in a year / two in office what Kennedy seemed incapable of doing in pretty much his entire term ...) the Civil Rights Movement was something of a distraction:  SO ... "let's just get the Civil Rights legislation passed as fast as possible (and be done with it)."

AND LET'S FACE IT ... THAT IS THE HISTORICAL RECORD: The Civil Rights Act (which _didn't_ pass under Kennedy) passed RAPIDLY under Johnson in 1964 and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT again passed RAPIDLY after that in 1965.

So ... after 1965, Johnson had three years to focus on what he really believed was important: The War on Poverty.  (Of course, good will there got eaten-up by the concession(s) that he made to the American Right in ALSO allowing American involvement in the War in Vietnam to proceed...)

Was this "War on Poverty" worth it?  Did it even succeed...? Well, it's almost impossible to imagine TODAY what life would be like for American Seniors if not for Johnson's War on Poverty program Medicare (a health insurance "entitlement program" for Seniors that has honestly helped JUST ABOUT EVERYONE).

And truth be told, even Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr (played in the film by David Oyelowo) in his final years was coming around to the understanding that many / most of America's problems were not simply racial but economic -- for progress for African Americans to go forward, progress for poor whites had to go forward as well.

But be all this as it may, progress for African Americans COULD NOT GO FORWARD without more-or-less unhindered access to the ballot box.  And that then set the stage for the Civil Rights actions in Selma.  And this film ...

And yes, a lot of whites watching this film will certainly wince at seeing white police officers (of then still an ALL WHITE Selma police force) wrapping their batons with barbed wire and beating blacks seeking to peacefully march over a bridge ...

Now the film is also a lot about tactics -- Why put so much focus on what seems to be an insignificant (if county seat) like Selma?  Why simply a march?  Why not retaliation for violence inflicted on the marchers? -- and the result is an appreciation of the mind/thinking of Martin Luther King, Jr and the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference (my emphasis on Christian) the banner group with which he lead the Civil Rights Movement.  After all, there were alternatives -- the more militant Black Muslim Malcolm X (played briefly in the film by Nigel Thatch), and arguably more purely-legal approaches like that of the NAACP perhaps represented in the film by young "Obama-like" "community organizer" Andrew Young (played by André Holland).

The film's director, Ava DuVernay, noted in one of the interviews (given above) that since she was NOT "from the (rural) South" but rather "from Compton (the inner city), California," her own sympathies growing up were more with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers (an excellent if, all around challenging film about the Black Panther Party called For the Cause [2013] played at the 2013 Chicago Black Harvest Film Festival).

The director wished to underline in her film that the tactics chosen by and Martin Luther King, Jr and the SCLC were NOT merely "pie in the sky" but rooted in practicality and potential for success: "One can't fight tanks with beebee guns," a "violent struggle" could not succeed.  However a morally based struggle appealing to the "better (and in this country CHRISTIAN) angels" of the white majority COULD (and did) SUCCEED.  To the director's credit, she did _underline_ the presence of white clergy / religious in the Selma marches:  I PERSONALLY KNOW MEMBERS OF MY RELIGIOUS ORDER WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THOSE MARCHES OF THE 1960s AND I'M IN GOOD PART A CATHOLIC PRIEST TODAY AS A RESULT OF THEIR EXAMPLE.

So what then to say in a final analysis about the movie.  Did it "diss" Johnson too much?  I honestly don't think so, because I do believe that the director _was right_.  This film needed to be ABOVE ALL ABOUT THE PEOPLE like Annie Lee Cooper (played in the film by Oprah Winfrey) NOT "the big shots..."

So good job Ms DuVernay!  Good job!  And if any want to read-up more about the Selma marches, Rev/Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, the Civil Rights Movement, or President Lyndon B. Johnson just do a search on Amazon.  There are plenty of books to read on all of them ;-)



<< 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! :-) >>