A Cube of Sugar (orig. Ye Habe Grand) [2011]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)   Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing

IMVBox.com listing
Cinando.com listing
Sourehcinema.com listing*

TakeOneCFF (M. O'Brien) review
Variety (R. Scheib) review

A Cube of Sugar (orig. Ye Habe Grand) [2011] [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]* (directed and co-written by Reza Mirkarimi [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]* along with Mohammad Reza Gohari [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]*), set in a random provincial town in contemporary Iran, is a lovely / gentle film about preparations for a wedding for a BELOVED (if perhaps previously somewhat taken for granted) daughter/niece/sister/aunt of a fairly large Iranian family who had "grown up" (without anybody particularly noticing...) and was now _finally_ getting married.

Director Reza Mirkarimi's [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]* most recent film Today (orig. Emrouz) [2014] IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]* played recently at the 25th Annual Festival of Films from Iran at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.  Since neither of that film's two screenings at the Festival proved particularly convenient for me, I decided to view / review one (or two) of his previous films instead.

These previous films can be found both LEGITIMATELY and, even better, FOR FREE on the IMVBox website which is something of a database for contemporary Iranian films. One does need to create an free account but it is truly free with no creepy/crooked requests for credit card, bank or other identity / financial information.  All one has to put up with is the film pausing every 20-30 minutes-or-so for "15-30 second commercial breaks" ;-).

So in lieu of the film that played at the festival (and perhaps will become available online later) I've decided to view / review this one instead.

Why bother at all?  As I've written elsewhere before, I do so honestly for the sake of "better comprehension among peoples," yes, quite seriously "for the cause of world peace."

I do believe that famed film critic Roger Ebert [en.wikip] (a lifelong Midwesterner/Chicagoan) was absolutely right when he called cinema "an empathy machine," noting that whenever we go to the movies we are invited to enter into the world of a different person, time, place, class, gender or race.  I also believe that while travel (and then in a meaningful way -- learning the language, spending some time there to truly learn / experience the culture) is prohibitively expensive / time consuming for the vast majority of people, for the price of a movie, we can, if the film is done well, enter into the world of the film-maker for 2-3 hours and learn a few things about that person's culture / manner of being that we probably never be able to do otherwise.

And honestly for all the foreign policy / political problems we in the West have had with Iran over the past decades (and both sides have their sides of the story), IT WAS A JOY TO VIEW / REVIEW THIS FILM ;-)

As introduced, the film's about the preparations for a wedding.  The bride, named Pasandide (played wonderfully by Negar Javaherian [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]*), while Iranian from a small/random provincial town there, is one that almost all of us would probably know.

The youngest daughter of a fairly large family, she appears to have been "a good girl" who the family both clearly loved and had also at least partly taken for granted.  As she "grew up" (without anybody particularly noticing...) she became the principal caregiver for the older folks in the family, that is, for her mother (played by Soheyla Razavi [IMDb] [IMV] [SC]*) as well as her uncle (played by Saeed Poursamimi [IMDb] [IMV] [SC]*) and aunt (played by Shamsi Fazlollahi [IMDb] [IMV] [SC]*).  She herself had clearly become a _beloved aunt_ to her various nieces and nephews.  But what then about her own happiness?

Well, she was (perhaps finally) getting married.  To whom?  Apparently to someone who both she and the family had known when she was growing up but who along with his family had "emigrated to the West" when he was just a child.  So one gets the sense that this was at least partly "an arranged marriage."  Further since she was getting married to someone who had emigrated, hers was going to be something of a controversial marriage.  People were going "to talk" a bit.  And yet this was Pasandide, the youngest, BELOVED, sister / daughter / niece of her generation in her family, and she was _finally_ getting married!  SO THE WHOLE FAMILY, the religious, the not particularly religious (one of the cousins comes with a TV which he sets up in the shed to "not miss the game" ;-), the stern, the clowns, the cute as a button nieces, the nephews, EVERYBODY, was coming to the wedding.  HONESTLY, HOW NICE!

And yes, some of her sisters and cousins, even kinda envied her.  Her sister tells her: "Hey, you're gonna be lucky.  When your husband acts up, you're gonna be able to call the police, and they're gonna listen to you ..."

And yet, in the midst of the celebrations and preparations a tragedy strikes.  What to do now?  Does one go on with the wedding (and more to the point, with one's own aspirations / plans) or does one accept things as "meant to be?"

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT, SIMPLY EXCELLENT MOVIE ... and one in which pretty much ALL OF US will know the characters ...


* 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 Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review


The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them [2014] (written and directed by Ned Benson) is a gleefully convoluted tragedy / romance that could perhaps put some weary smiles on faces who don't necessarily have a lot to do this Valentine's Day. 

This is because the film was initially conceived as a pair of films each telling the film's story from the perspective of one of the two lead characters -- Eleanor Rigby (played by Jessica Chastain) and her partner/husband Coner Ludlow (played by James McAvoy). 

To quickly answer the obvious question, yes, Eleanor's parents in the film -- the Bohemian, formally Parisian, and still French accented Marie (played by Isabelle Huppert) and the Professorial (he is indeed is a Psych professor) Julian Rigby (played by William Hurt) -- did name her after the famous (and rather sad) Beatles song [YoutTube].  On the other side of the coin, the song doesn't necessarily inform much with regards to the film's story (other than that the film's story is also often rather sad).  Perhaps it's just a reminder to us that sometimes people do rather stupid or random things like name their kids after characters in stories or songs that _may_ then at least partly condemn them to live-out the story of the character depicted in the story / song.

Anyway, the original conception of this film project was to produce two parallel films that would would depict the same story (a rather sad one actually) from the perspective of two different characters.  There were originally His / Hers versions of the film.  When film was bought after the Toronto Film Festival in 2013, the production company that bought it decided that since the films repeated many of the same events in the story, that it would prefer that a single tale, a "Them" version, be released instead.  That's the version that's available on Amazon Instant Video (and reviewed here ;-).  I would suspect that the DVD would offer all three versions ;-).

Alright so what's the story about? 

Well, we meet the two lead characters, Eleanor and Conor, both in their early 3os, both clearly in love, in some New York restaurant.  And in the next scene, we see Eleanor riding her bike on the Brooklyn Bridge on one sunny day, stopping, leaning her bike against the fence, walking about 30 feet further from the bike and (apparently) climbing over the fence and jumping (we hear the splash).  The next shot we see is her being recovered (she did survive) by NYPD and taken to a hospital. 

What the heck happened?  Well, I'm not going to tell you ;-).  What I am going to tell you is that the story, progressively revealed does reveal a tragedy that could lead a thirty something woman to try to commit suicide and, to the film's credit, the story does involve more than just the two lead characters.  For instance, both sets of parents, hers already mentioned above and his, or at least his dad, a restauranteur named Spencer Ludlow (played by Ciarán Hinds) are quite important in the story and developed characters as are also other friends, family and coworkers.  

So this is an intelligently told story and one that from its very structure (again there are THREE versions) invites viewers to enter into it.

Anyway if yourselves so disposed on weekend, it's not a bad interpersonal story / romance / and at least partly tragedy to look-up ;-).  And again at least the "Them" version is available for a reasonable price on Amazon Instant Video.


<< 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! :-) >>

Kingsman: The Secret Service [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
ChicagoSuntimes (R. Roeper) review
RE.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Kingsman: The Secret Service [2014] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Matthew Vaughn along with Jane Goldman based on the graphic novel [GR] [Amzn] by Mark Millar [GR] [Amzn] [wikip] [IMDb] and Dave Gibbons [GR] [Amzn] [wikip] [IMDb]) is a film I did not expect to see.  I had found the trailer to be entirely too, "old time WASPish" even aggressively PRO-"old time WASPish" and then "on Steroids."  After all, the story promised to be about AN ORGANIZATION of OLD MONEYED / ARISTOCRATIC BRITS ACTING AS SUPERHEROES -- Jeez/Louise: imagine the "Downton Abbey" folks "IN MASKS / CAPES" :-).

Now don't get me wrong, I've liked, indeed even grown-up on James Bond (which the current film _repeatedly_ reminded viewers was a "gentleman spy" ... I had always considered him to be simply cool ;-).  I've also been able to accept (grudgingly) the American WASPish Bruce Wayne / Batman (who's always been my _least favorite_ of the popular American superheroes), and then the more redeemable Roosevelt-ine Xavier from the X-men.

BUT THE THOUGHT OF A WHOLE "GENTLEMEN'S CLUB" OF THESE PEOPLE????  Oh just what would we "little people" _ever_ be able to do without them? ;-)

Richard Roeper's review (link also given above) got me to see the film.  Paraphrasing, he called it an Austin Powers [2002] style send-up of the early James Bond films done in the style of Quentin Tarrantino's Kill Bill [2003].  I was intrigued ;-).

Having seen the film.  I can admit that the current film has its moments:

Samuel L. Jackson plays an inspired and appropriately crazy Bond-villain, a tech-mogul amusingly named Valentine (the film was released on Valentine's Day weekend ;-).

The film also _tries_ to soften the often insufferable Aristrocratic "Crust" of its "Kingsmen" premise by pitting an irredeemably "old school" / "snobbish" Arthur (played by Michael Caine) WHO HEADS the "Kingsmen" organization, against a more human, more open, more optimistic, indeed "more pure" Kingsmen AGENT named Harry Hart (played by Colin Firth) signaled also by his codename Galahad.  Hart / Galahad repeatedly appears to recruit "young people with potential" to the Kingsmen group, including the film's main / budding protagonist Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin (played by Taron Egerton), while Arthur seems to always look for reasons for belittling and rejecting them.

But the film has its problems:

Consider simply that the film's "Bond Villain" is both BLACK and a "TECH MOGUL" (by definition NEW MONEYED).   And the Grand Plot that he's concocted is that he's gonna "solve Global Warming" by killing off a vast number of (generally poor) people.  It's basically the saw that "Liberals are more concerned about 'the Planet' than about PEOPLE."

But then the actual means that Valentine conceives for liquidating all those people is actually quite frightening and MAY keep fair a number of "Bilderberg Group" conspiracy theorists up at night afterwards ;-)

So what then to ultimately say about the film?  It is a largely inspired send-up of the old James Bond films.  All the main characters are quite well drawn, even if there are aspects of the story that I find unsettling, in particular that the film does seem to portray the Old as being basically Good and the New as being basically Bad.

That said, I do believe that this is a story that's "one heck of a ride." ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Fish & Cat (orig. Mahi va Gorbeh) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  E4Film (3.5 Stars)  Slant (2 Stars)   Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

IMV.com listing
Cinando.com listing
Sourehcinema.com listing*

EyeForFilm.co.uk (A. Robertson) review
Slant (S. McFarland) review

Fish & Cat (orig. Mahi va Gorbeh) [2013] [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]* (written and directed by Shahram Mokri [IMDb] [CIN] [IMV] [SC]*) is a rather strange / surrealistic (and intentionally so ;-) Iranian film that played recently at the 25th Annual Festival of Films from Iran at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

Based on a true incident that occurred around a restaurant in the hinterlands of Western Iran in the late 1990s, an incident that would evoke a mix of anticipation / revulsion in the viewer reminiscent of the bloodletting / imagery of the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre [1974], after baiting the audience with such rather sordid expectations at the current story's very beginning, the film proceeds to _meander_ -- for 2 1/2 hours (!!) ;-) --  in its telling of the said and promised-to-be sordid story in a manner that amuses and frustrates audience and invites, repeatedly, the audience to reflect, in various ways, on the NATURE OF TIME ;-) -- Is it slow? Or is it, if perhaps after a time, in fact quite  quick and DECISIVE? Is it linear or cyclical?  And, as one awaits some kind of resolution (!), does one just give-up or care? ;-)

Adding to the amusement of the story-telling, the film was shot -- all 2 1/2 hours of it -- IN ONE CONTINUOUS TAKE ;-) -- on an overcast (largely featureless) day, along the shore of a random lake / reservoir, among a group of random, mostly young people, preparing for a random if perhaps beautiful (but also fleeting) activity -- a local / somewhat regional "kite festival."

Among those random and generally cheerful young people walk two rather strange middle-aged men, who own a random yet appropriately creepy "roadside restaurant" relatively "nearby."  Everyone in the audience, of course, knows what one or the other of these two, random, if rather strange-looking middle aged men are (eventually...) gonna do.  BUT WHEN?

And the director, perhaps in his 30s, smartly dressed, in black slacks and a black sports coat, with a nice smartly trim beard, BEAMED after the screening here at the Siskel Center, looking like a young Oliver Stone / Spielberg-like director who's gotten one over on the audience ;-), noting that a knocked-over box of pop-corn in one of the aisles suggested that at least one or two of the audience members had gotten-up and left in frustration / disgust ;-).   Mission accomplished ;-)  

What then was the point of the film?  Well, he said it was inspired by Aescher Prints where people seemed destined to walk around in circles and that yes, he saw the film as a fun, meandering, both linear and cyclical, exploration of time.

Honestly, this was one fun, if at times quite exasperating, film ;-) and it reminds the American / Western viewer of both the humor and sophistication of Iran's people and culture.  After all, as Iranians (whether they like the current regime or not ... and one would assume that many/most of those involved in this festival, curated and paid for by Iranian Exiles, do not) almost universally like to remind Westerners ... theirs is a culture that's "been around for 3000 years."


* 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! :-) >>

Girlhood (orig. Bande de Filles) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)   Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allociné.fr listing*

AVoir-ALire.fr (F. Mignard) review*
Elle.fr (K. Moussou) review*
LaCroix (C. Renou-Nativel) review*

RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
Slant Magazine (J. Latimer) review
Sound on Sight (J.R. Kinnard) review

Girlhood (orig. Bande de Filles) [2014] [IMDB] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by Céline Sciamma [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) which played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago, can make for a fascinating "opposite book end" to American director recent Richard Linklater's Boyhood [2014]:

Linklater, white, male / American, made a remarkable film focused on a boy, 8-18 y/o, American, white, growing-up middle/lower-middle class in "at the edge of the prairie" Texas.

In contrast, Sciama, still white but female / French, made a remarkable film that focuses on a girl, about 15-16 y/o, French, of West African descent, hence black, growing-up "in a project" (poor) "at the edge of the city" Paris.

Again, fascinating! ;-).

Both films were darlings of the 2014 Festival Circuit and both have received critical acclaim in their respective "home countries."  Linklater's film has been nominated for 6 Oscars including Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Director and Best Supporting Actor and Actress, Sciamma's for 3 Lumiere Awards (France's equivalent of the Oscars) including Best Film, Best Director and Most Promising Young Actress.


In both cases, though perhaps for different reasons, the directors wished to primarily present their stories through vignettes.  Since Linklater's story was filmed (remarkably) over the span of 10 years the director didn't have much of a choice but tell the story through evocative vignettes (or else his would be a very long movie ;-).  In contrast, in Sciama's film, lead character Marieme's  horizons seemed so limited that what life / freedom / "victory" could be found could _only_ be found in sometimes quite _stolen_ "moments" / vignettes. 

With regard to this last point noting Marieme's limited socio-economic horizons, it would be worthwhile to recommend to American viewers another evocative American film that treads similar ground, though again through a mostly young male (if African American) perspective, the American gang classic Boyz n the Hood [1991], this in particular since the French title to Sciamma's current film is Bande de Filles or Gang of Girls.

So then, to the film ;-)

The film centered on Marieme (played remarkably by Karidja Touré [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) 15-16 y/o, of West African descent, living in the projects at the outskirts of Paris.  There was no father in the picture, and her mother (played by Binda Diop [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) mostly working, as a cleaning lady, was largely out of the picture as well.   Who "ruled the roost" at home was her older brother Djibril (played by Cyril Mendy [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who dominated her and her 11-or-so y/o younger sister with violence and the threat of violence.  Indeed, "the grounds of the projects" seemed to be dominated by listless, generally unemployed, young men.  Outside there were "strangers." Inside there was the "abusive older brother" who perhaps afforded the girls _some_ "comfort" of being at least "the Devil that one knew" and being ... "Family."

So life, if it was to be found, was to be found outside _beyond the projects_.  But here horizons appeared to be shrinking for Marieme as well.  Her grades not being good, early in the film, she's counseled by her school's administrators to put herself "on a vocational track" because College was NOT going to be in the cards, NOT with her grades (or perhaps having at least partially compensatory monetary fortunes).

Well, one door closes and ... another (perhaps not the greatest) ... opens.   Perhaps shaken by what she was told at school, Marieme, decides (for the first time?) to give "the time of day" to three slightly older and certainly tougher-looking girls, led by "Lady" (played wonderfully by Assa Silla [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) standing by a vending machine _outside_ of school.

Initially it's a rather "awkward" encounter.  The three slightly older, certainly somewhat tougher girls are probably "of the type" that Marieme had been previously "warned about" by her older (abusive) brother and (absent) mother / family.  On the other side of the coin, "Lady," et al, certainly know that previously Marieme would not have given them, "fallen" / "dangerous" girls that they were, much consideration.  So ... some "negotiation" or even "reconciliation" has to take place.   But "Lady," et al probably knew that they too were "once like Marieme," and perhaps Marieme came to appreciate, perhaps more than before, that "Lady," et al probably came-to-be who-they-were as a result of a "once upon a time" conversation like she just had with her school's administrators.

So ... Marieme basically joins their "gang."  And for a good part of the movie, one naturally fears for her and even for some of the others in this "gang of four."

And there are moments that are quite scary and there are moments that are simply _heart-rending_, because these four girls are not "simply evil" or had somehow become "simply evil."  To a good extent they are still "young girls" who "if things were different ..." would also certainly be different:

The show stopping scene in the movie is when the four, dress-up in cheap hotel room somewhere (again "the projects" themselves were apparently considered unsafe by all of them) in clothes that they had obviously "lifted" (stolen) from some department store (the bulky "security clips" still hanging on them) and DANCE / LIPSINC-ING to the Rihanna song named "Diamonds."  Again, "if things were different ..." ... but of course they are not.  And it does make one want to cry ...

It all makes for a very, very interesting movie.  And there are more things going on. Miriam now going by the name "Vic" (for "Victoire / Victory") has, of course, her "Gang of Four."  But she ALSO has her (abusive) older brother and her younger sister (who looks up to her).  Further out, she does have her mother who does care for her but is just too far away too often to make a difference.  And then there is also a young guy in her project named Ismaël (played by Idrissa Diabaté [IMDb] [AC.fr]*)  who likes her (and she kinda likes as well) but ... and she asks him the question ... "what kind of a life would we have together?"  (He'd be unemployed and she'd be his housekeeper / wife?)

Again this is really, really good, thought provoking stuff ... and certainly worthy of the accolades that the film has received.


* 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! :-) >>

Gagarin: First in Space (orig. Гагарин. Первый в космосе) [2013]

MPAA (UR would PG-13)   Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing

KinoNews.ru listing*   KinoPoisk.ru listing*
Kino-teatr.ru listing*    Kritikanstvo.ru listing*
Megacritic.ru listing*

ArgumentyiFakty.ru (A. Rogova) review*
ArgumentyiFakty.ru (A. Sidorchik) review*
KinoNews.ru (R. Volohov) review*
KinoTeatr.ru (P. Konyashov) review*
Lumiere-Mag.ru review*
ProfiCinema.ru (M. Vasilyeva) review*
RusKino.ru (S. Stepnova) review*
VarietyRussia.com (S.F. Rostockiy) review*

Kino.kz viewer reviews*

Gagarin: First in Space (orig. Гагарин. Первый в космосе) [2013] [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*(directed by Pavel Parkhomenko [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* screenplay by Andrey Dmitriev [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* and Oleg Kapanets [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]*) is another 2013 Russian "patriotic" film that I came across as I was reviewing the Russian "biopic" / "Rocky-like" hockey movie Legend no. 17 (orig. Легенда №17) [2013] the latter having played at the 2013 Russian Film Week in New York.   I immediately thought to look the current film up and then to also review it here.

Why do so?  I do honestly ask myself this question.  After all, it seems that with each passing day the situation in Ukraine gets worse [BBC] [CNN] [FoxNews].  Why should an American of Czech parents (In 1968 the Soviet Union / Warsaw Pact invaded then Communist but reforming Czechoslovakia on my mother's birthday when I was 4 ...) even bother to review a film that like Legend no. 17 (orig. Легенда №17) [2013] and the "3D extravaganza" Stalingrad (orig. Сталинград) [2013] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* (I saw that film about a year ago and never bothered to review it) ALL FEEL to someone like me to be "neo-Soviet" / propagandistic in intent?

Well honestly, I've viewed and reviewed these films for the sake of better understanding among people.  For while an American (or for that matter a Czech) may not like that the Russian, Yuri Gagarin [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]*, was the first man in space (and to this day there various western conspiracy theories that he was not ... theories that if one investigates, and believe me I have..., while AT TIMES _tantalizing_, ultimately DON'T add up [en.wikip] [EA]) or that due to a combination of the peculiarities of the Soviet system and the esoterics of Olympic Games' rules at the time, the Soviet Union had a hockey team perhaps like no other, both before or since, the reality is that these were RUSSIAN, Soviet Era ACHIEVEMENTS of which if I were a Moscovite, of ANY STRIPE, I'd probably be proud.

FURTHER, the RUSSIAN DISCUSSION around this film (and others) is IMHO both fascinating and AFFIRMING that Russians are, in fact, JUST LIKE US.

First the nationalistic nature of this film was noted by pretty much everyone of the RUSSIAN REVIEWERS that I cite above.  Almost EVERYONE of the reviewers asked the question if it's "okay" for a film to be SO NATIONALISTIC.  Most answered, ultimately, "Sure, why not?  We're Russians.  Why not be proud of being Russians?"  Yet, the discussion was remarkably similar to that in the United States regarding American Sniper [2014] with a fair number of American critics being uncomfortable with a film that was so unabashedly patriotic.  Indeed, one of the Russian critics listed above suggested HER FAVORITE recent Russian film about the Soviet Era space program, the far more somber / introspective Paper Soldier (orig. Бумажный солдат) [2008] [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* which I've since looked-up / seen and I'd call "The Hurt Locker [2008]" of recent Russian movies about the Soviet era space program ;-).

Then there was A FASCINATING DISCUSSION on KinoNews.ru* which noted that despite Gagarin's [2013] [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* outstanding technical quality  -- I'd certainly characterize _its technical quality_ as easily on par with the American classic The Right Stuff [1983] about the origins of the space program in the United States -- and despite being the top-drawing RUSSIAN MADE FILM in Russia during the summer of its release (2013), IT RANKED #27 (!) in the RUSSIAN BOX OFFICE during the same summer period.  It was beaten (CLOBBERED really) by 26 OTHER FILMS, mostly American made Hollywood films including Despicable Me 2 [2013], World War Z [2013] and The Wolverine [2013].  The question was, why?  A fair number of readers blamed "marketing" but A LOT OF THE READERS' COMMENTS SUGGESTED THAT THE HOLLYWOOD FILMS SIMPLY REMAINED "MORE COMPELLING."

And there it is.  From a technical point of view the current film about Gagarin's [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* space flight (and via flashbacks about his early life) is outstanding.  And IT WOULD BE WORTH IT FOR AMERICANS / WESTERNERS TO SEE.  However as opposed to the American/Hollywood made The Right Stuff [1983], the Russian made Gagarin [2013] [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KP.ru]*[KT.ru]* REMAINS "a hagiography."  And that is a shame because IMHO a _far more_ interesting / relatable "Right Stuff-like" portrayal of Gagarin's life can be found in Jamie Doran's [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] and Piers Bizony's [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] recent book Starman: The Truth Behind the Legend of Yuri Gagarin (2011) [Amzn] [GR] [WCat]. 

Those who would read Doran / Bizony's Starman (2011) would certainly see why Gagarin [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* was such a compelling Russian Soviet-Era hero.  Among other things, he was the quintessential SMILING RUSSIAN HERO that I set-out to look-for when, FRUSTRATED AND ON MY OWN, I decided to look-up the films shown at the 2013 New York Russian Film Week (I wrote then that IMHO it was CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT, indeed, continued (relative) World Peace could well depend on it, for Westerners to see _smiling Russians_ rather than ONLY "the dour ones" portrayed in the _very few_ Russian films that make it to our western movie theaters).   But readers of Doran/Bizony's book would also encounter a very human, Russian Soviet-Era hero:

(1) Part of the reason why he never made it to space again was because he had a _very human accident_, born of several levels of stupidity ;-).  Five or six months after his famous space flight, on vacation in Crimea, he broke his leg jumping out of a 2nd story hotel window to avoid his wife catching him with another woman :-) (Doran and Bizony, Starman, Chpt 9, "The Foros Incident," pg 155ff of 234, dutifully recorded in then head of Cosmonaut Training General Nikolai P. Kamanin's [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* Published Diary "Скрытый космос" (1995) Entry for Oct 4, 1961* [WCat] [GR]) -- A SITUATION THAT MANY OF AMERICA'S "MERCURY SEVEN" ASTRONAUTS could CERTAINLY HAVE RELATED TO ;-) ;-).

And (2) precisely because of his popularity -- Gagarin was very much Khrushchev's [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* (also known for his smile) "golden boy" -- the aparachiks of the succeeding (largely smile-less) Brezhnev Era [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* HATED HIM, to the point that, while (again) Doran / Bizony's book ultimately does not question the fundamental narrative that Gagarin died in a plane crash, apparently even GAGARIN'S OWN MOTHER ASKED ONE OF HIS FELLOW COSMONAUTS: "Was Yura killed?" (Doran and Bizony, Starman, Epilogue, pg 233 of 234)

Instead, the current film whitewashes anything that could put color on his story, and even adjusts it to current ideological times: One of my very-much-believing 82-year-old Czech born / through-Berlin-before-the-Wall-escaping dad's persistent complaints about Gagarin [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* has always been that Gagarin, a Communist after all, was _a very public_ and _enthusiastic_ proponent of atheism.  Asked the question if he believed in God, Gagarin (in)famously responded then: "Well, when I was there, orbiting the earth, I saw no god floating beside me ..."

But times have changed.  Faced with his (then) quite outspoken atheistic record, the current film-makers did their best to "fix things" to more Russian Orthodox Church friendly times.  SO while Gagarin [IMDb] (played in the film by all accounts admirably Yaroslav Zhalnin [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) himself remained "a skeptic", (1) HIS WIFE Valya (played in the film by Olga Ivanova [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*), (2) HIS MOTHER (played in the film by Nadezhda Markina [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) and (3) EVEN THE FATHER-OF-THE-SOVIET-SPACE-PROGRAM S.P. Korolev [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* (played in the film by Mikhail Filippov [IMDb] [KN.ru]*[KT.ru]*) were ALL portrayed as believers.

And even Gagarin himself is portrayed in this film as a "softer" non-believer (and with a context / story):  (1) He tells his wife that it's okay if she prays for him "if it would make her feel better...", and (2) IN A TRULY INTERESTING SCENE ACTUALLY, when as a child (he and his family lived under Nazi occupation in a small village in the Smolensk [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* region) he asked his mother about "the beauty of the stars at night" and film has her respond: "They are God's tears," to which HE responds: "So are you telling me that God did not march with the Germans?"  (Note here that the Germans during the Nazi era infamously rampaged across Europe wearing belt-buckles with the curt message: "Gott mit Uns" meaning "God's with us...").

In any case, a new Putin-esque ideology which seeks to co-opt the Russian Orthodox Church to its side, apparently requires a "re-imagined" Gagarin with regards to matters of faith...  (Indeed, Putin may be seeking to deal with the Russian Orthodox Church in a similar way as Franco sought to coopt / keep-in-line the Catholic Church during his reign in Spain...).

So what then to say ultimately about this movie?  I would honestly encourage Americans / Westerners to find it and see it.  The Soviets were in space first.  That is simply a fact.  They also had and have their heroes AND HAVE REASON TO BE PROUD OF THEM.

Still, the Russians do have a lot to learn also from the West.  Among them here, honestly, if Gagarin [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* had been portrayed more humanly in this film, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER MOVIE and ALSO ALMOST CERTAINLY A MORE SUCCESSFUL ONE.  That DESPITE ITS TECHNICAL QUALITY the film still came in at 27th (!) IN ITS OWN COUNTRY is perhaps the single best indication that IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY makes for disappointing cinema.  And even Russia's far-and-away most famous film-maker, the STALIN ERA Sergei Eisenstein [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* famously agreed with that assessment.


FURTHER READING:

Jamie Doran's [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] and Piers Bizony's [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] book Starman: The Truth Behind the Legend of Yuri Gagarin (2011) [Amzn] [GR] [WCat]. 

General Nikolai P. Kamanin [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]*, head of Cosmonaut Training 1960-1971, Published diary "Скрытый космос" ("Hidden Cosmos") (1995) [WCat] [GR] (downloadable in Russian here,* and after downloading can be run, chapter by chapter / month by month, through translate.google.com)

Boris Chertok [en.wikip] [ru.wikip]* memoir Ракеты и люди (Rockets and People) (published 1994-1999) translated into English by Asif Siddiqi [en.wikip] and is available in English translation online for free via NASA's website.  The memoir gives a history of the Soviet Rocketry program from its beginnings in the 1930s through the 1970s.

Mark Wade, editor, Encyclopedia Astronautica [en.wikip]


* 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! :-) >>

Paddington [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Paddington [2014] (screenplay and directed by Paul King, screen story by Harnish McColl and Paul King, based on the Paddington books [en.wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Michael Bond [en.wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is another honestly delightful to come to the States this time of year (surprisingly after Christmas). 

To be honest, I didn't see the film until now, in good part because I "didn't get it." A talking bear adjusting to life in London.  Wonderful, why? ;-)  Well ... 2 minutes into the film, I understood why and boy was I embarrassed to have dismissed this _lovely_ children's movie before then.

Paddington [en.wikip] [IMDb] (voiced by Ben Whishaw) is posited to have come from "a group of highly intelligent, indeed talking, bears living in the deepest and darkest jungles of Peru."  A British explorer happened upon these surprising, highly intelligent bears, some 40 years back, making lasting impression on them.   After spending a couple of years with them, the explorer set-off to return to his country, but left them an invitation: "If you so desire, find a way to come to England.  You'll always be welcome there."

Well, for forty-or-so years there was no particular reason for the bears to go to England.  However, after a devastating earthquake, Paddington's aunt Lucy (voiced by Imelda Staunton) sends him on his way, with only a pack full of marmalade (something that the bears learned to love as a result of the British explorer's visit) and a tag which simply said: "Kindly take care of this bear."  She wrote the tag with those words because she remembered that the British explorer had told the bears that during World War II, when England's children were being evacuated from the cities, often with no clear place to go, children often wore similar tags like this and were taken-in by families in the countryside and cared for as if they were their own.  After an earthquake seemingly as devastating as the Blitz, aunt Lucy figured that Londoners would take care of her bear in the same way ...

Well ... when Paddington, who stows-away on a ship to England arrives in London, initially NOBODY seems to notice him.  Now mind you, it wasn't if they found him FRIGHTENING (he was A BEAR after all ;-).  Nor did they find him ODD (he was A BEAR who SPOKE PERFECT if somewhat antiquated ENGLISH ... Paddington's uncle (voiced by Michael Gambon) would listen to an English "Learn a Language" record left him by the kindly "British explorer").  Apparently, TOO BUSY with their own concerns, THEY JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO SEE THIS REMARKABLE TALKING BEAR (in, again, a somewhat dated "explorer's red hat") AT ALL ;-)

Well somebody eventually does see him -- Mary Brown (played by Sally Hawkins) -- standing there, at Paddington Station (from hence the bear comes to get his name), wet, and "in the rain" (note that Paddington's uncle's English language record noted that "Londoners have 107 distinct ways to describe rain." ;-).  She comes over to him (even though he is a bear) and asks him if he needs help He responds that, yes, he did need some help (This, of course, despite being ... A BEAR).  And in the name of her family she invites him to her home ;-).

Now, the rest of the family was not necessarily all that excited about HAVING A (STRANGE) BEAR coming to their home ;-). 

Mary's sensible husband, Henry, actually even a "risk analyst" for an insurance company, immediately counseled against the idea calculating, on a napkin actually, that THE STRANGE TALKING BEAR'S PRESENCE in their house "increases the risk of danger" to them "by at least 4000%" ;-).  Approaching teenage-hood daughter Judy (played by Madeleine Harris) declared with all the solemnity of someone approaching teenage-hood that having A STRANGE TALKING BEAR in the house would be "STUPID."  After all, how many of her classmates and friends HAD STRANGE TALKING BEARS IN _THEIR_ HOUSES?  (And it's REALLY IMPORTANT to be "just like EVERYBODY ELSE" ;-). Their neighbor comes to question what having A STRANGE TALKING BEAR "AROUND" would do to "the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood" ;-).  Only 10 year old son, Jonathan (played by Samuel Joslin) seemed to "be cool" with having THE STRANGE TALKING BEAR, PADDINGTON, around (besides, of course, his mother).  But that seemed to be in good part because since PADDINGTON WAS ALSO "JUST LEARNING TO GET AROUND" HE WAS ACTING KINDA LIKE A 10-Y/O AS WELL (helping Jonathan to get his "apparently never been young" / "über-sensible dad" off his back ;-)

So there it is:  COULD a STRANGE (IF KINDLY) TALKING BEAR SURVIVE in a NOT NECESSARILY OUTRIGHT HOSTILE ('cause that "would be bad" ;-) but CERTAINLY "RISK AVERSE" SOCIETY LIKE _OURS_ TODAY?

Much ensues ;-)

It all makes for a lovely parable about "entertaining strangers" [Heb 13:2].


<< 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! :-) >>