MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1402488/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv141.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111116/REVIEWS/111119984
Happy Feet Two (Warner Brothers, directed by George Miller, cowritten by George Miller, Warren Coleman, Gary Eck and Paul Livingstone) will once again be denounced by the mouthpieces of the carbon burning industries. BP, Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil, the coal industry and most recently the natural gas frackers all make or stand to make obscene amounts of money pulling carbon out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels and selling it to be burned and dumped into the atmosphere.
So it's absolutely naive to expect the carbon industries to ever be "on board" when it comes to combating global warming (or pollution for that matter). A historian on a History Channel program on the roots of the American Civil War once put it this way: "Southern slave owners owned some $10 billion (in today's dollars) worth of slaves before the Civil War. There is no way that stake holders invested in a holding to that extent could be expected to relinquish it without a fight." Yes, a whole lot of poor white soldiers in the South died so that rich white plantation owners could own black people. Lots of "honor" in that...
... But if the Civil War was fought to protect the right of a relatively small amount of rich white people to own black people, why should we be surprised therefore that there is a powerful, well-funded pro-carbon, pro-pollution lobby in this country when the carbon barons of today have far more money invested in the status quo than the white plantation owners had in their slaves? Indeed, given the nation's experience with "Southern nostalgia" even 150 years after the Civil War was fought and lost by the South, it could well be that there will be a powerful, well-funded pro-carbon, pro-pollution lobby in this country even after Wall Street and most of Manhattan will be submerged under dozens of feet of water due to sea level rise after the polar icecaps melt. Who would deny that God's judgement could come with a little sense of humor in this case? ;-)
But be all this as it may... as well as my obvious agreement with George Miller's pro-ecological sympathies, I still wonder whether George Miller appreciates how traumatic some of the scenes in both this and the previous Happy Feet movies could be for little kids. In the current film there are several scenes in which a parent or close friend faces imminent death in front of loved ones (in two cases, the parent's children). At minimum, I do believe that the MPAA's "PG" rating _should be taken seriously_ by parents _in this case_, and I would have preferred that the movie be given a "PG-13" rating to underscore the point.
Miller does acknowledge in interviews [1][2] that he designed his Happy Feet films with both parents (adults) and children in mind, and certainly there is much to for adults to contemplate in this picture: If the first Happy Feet was about recognizing the value of the individual to the collective (Even if the individual may not seem to "fit in" initially, it may be precisely the individual's somewhat unique gifts that can come to benefit or even save the whole), Happy Feet Two is an exploration of the value of the collective to the individual (There are times when individual or small group action is simply not enough, and the collective can in fact be or become the "community" / "home" to return to even in the case of the most wayward/ambitious of individuals, as the krills "Bill and Will" (voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon) learn during the course of this story).
Then many of the characters/cast from the first Happy Feet are back, even as new one's (like the above mentioned krills) were added. Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood), the dancing penguin from a society of Emperor penguins that previously only sang, is back. Now, however, he's a parent himself together with his wife Gloria (voiced now by Pink, to replace Brittany Murphy who died since the making of the first Happy Feet). They have a son, Erik (voiced by Ava Acres), who is shy and neither sings nor dances. Ramon as well as preacher Lovelace (both voiced by Robin Williams) are also back. A new character, The Mighty Sven (voiced by Hank Azaria) is introduced. Sven is a puffin survivor of the melting northern icecaps, who resembles a penguin but isn't really one. However, he has the special ability of being able to fly, which surprises/confound the penguins. And Carmen (voiced by Sofia Vergara) is introduced as the love interest for the passionate Ramon.
Happy Feet Two also continues using accents very well. All the penguins and animals native to the southern hemisphere are given accents characteristic of the southern hemisphere. The Emperor penguins are given in African or African American sounding accents. The smaller Adele penguins are given Latin-American accents. And the various sea mammals are given Australian / Afrikaner accents. Sven, being a puffin from the North is given a Swedish accent. Bill and Will the Krill, perhaps because krill exist in both Northern and the Southern waters, speak with American if somewhat higher pitched voices. Additionally Russians (people) are portrayed several times operating fishing trawlers and the like. And at one point, they do come to help the penguins.
All in all, Happy Feet Two is an okay animated film. But I would think twice about before bringing someone under 7-8 to see it. There are some rather traumatic scenes present (and to be honest, I don't think that they were necessary to the telling of the story). As such, parents, should take this into consideration.
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If
you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6
_non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To
donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 1
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
NOTE: My review of the subsequent The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 2 can be found here.
I came to see The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 1 (directed by Bill Condon, screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the 4th novel in The Twilight Saga (Breaking Dawn) by Stephanie Meyer) with a fair amount of trepidation.
Readers here will know that I had never been a fan of the Harry Potter series and to be honest, I thought the concept of The Twilight Saga ("re-imagining vampires") to be even worse.
However, I've long known that legions of young girls (and their mothers/aunts) have absolutely loved these books, so I've long been saying to myself that they have to be better than I thought. So in anticipation of the coming of this movie, just as I did in preparation to the last installments of the Harry Potter series, I rented one of the earlier Twilight movies (Eclipse) to try to get a better understanding of why the series was so popular. And in contrast to the Harry Potter series, I was honestly surprised and impressed with Stephanie Meyer's creation.
Why? Because Stephanie Meyer created entire cultures behind her vampires and werewolves. Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson) who the saga's teenage heroine Bella Swan (played by Kristen Stewart) falls in love with was not merely a "misunderstood bad boy" (a tired character/archetype that has been on the scene in American pop-culture since the 1950s with James Dean). Edward belonged to a family that loved him, composed notably by (adoptive) father Dr. Carlisle Cullen (played by Peter Facinelli) and Dr. Carlisle's wife Esme (played by Elizabeth Reaser) as well as other adoptive brothers and sisters. And behind this family was an entire culture of "vampires" with a history and an ordered (if, in the saga, generally unknown to humans) way of life. That culture extended across the planet. Cullen is an Irish name. But Edward had relatives in Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Alaska (Russians?/Slavs?).
One gets the sense therefore Stephanie Meyer has not applied symbol of "vampire" not as "bad boy" but as "Radical Other," something that one of my parish's young adult evening receptionists was trying to explain to me in the lead-up to the release of this film. Indeed, the even other "love interest" in the story, Jacob Black (played by Taylor Lautner) belongs to yet another ethnic community (a Native American tribe of shape-shifting werewolves).
To see the point being made, consider then Bella's background. She is as white as can be. Her divorced parents, a sort of hippyish mother, Renee' Dwyer (played by Sarah Clarke) who moved out to sunny Florida after her divorce, and father Charlie Swan (played by Billy Burke) who's a cop in the damp and rainy town and its environs where this story plays out, are also lily white (though mom likes to tan) and by their last names, Swan and Dwyer, are super WASPish as well.
Why would this be important? Well to a traditional White/WASPish American family named Swan, an Irishman named Cullen to say nothing of an East European or Hispanic could _perhaps_ seem as "Other" as a vampire. Yes, it's (hopefully...) an obvious exaggeration. However making Edward Cullen a vampire rather than a Catholic frankly could actually make the series a "safer" read. A similar exaggeration is made with regards to the shape-shifting Native American "Black" family. While Cop Charlie Swan has a long-standing relationship with the "Black" family living out in the woods, he has _no idea_ that they're a family of shape-shifting werewolves (again complete with a code and way of life). He just sees them as upstanding citizens living _at the edge_ of the town that he's protecting who don't cause him much trouble. And since they don't seem to cause much trouble, he basically likes them, even though he knows next to nothing about them (and doesn't seem to care to know much more about them either...).
Who does learn far more about both the Cullens and the Blacks is the daughter Bella who gets to know both families through her interactions with Edward and Jacob "in school."
And the experience of the Swan family actually mirrors quite well white-American families (and its younger as well as older members) today, where America's young people live in a far more demographically diverse environment than their parents and grandparents. A CNN report on the 2010 Census in the USA and demographics and age notes that over 80% of America's seniors (65 and above) are white, while this figure drops to 70% for the middle aged (aged 35-64), to only 60% for young adults (aged 18-34) and into the low 50%s for Americans aged 17 and below). So America's young people are living in a far more diverse environment than their parents and especially grandparents had ever lived. Initially, that could be scary. But if even "vampires" and "werewolves" are portrayed as good people coming out of well-structured societies with rules and morals, perhaps it can become less so.
Indeed Bella's experience of entering into a "new" culture (one previously unknown to her parents) is certainly mirrored by countless other young people who meet and mix across cultural lines. As a priest who's worked in several multi-ethnic parishes it's been my joy to be accepted across all kinds of ethnic boundaries and then to inevitably learn from the various people and families that I've met. By taking a chance, Bella enters into the worlds of both Edward and Jacob in ways that her parents and even many of her friends certainly did not. And she found that both of their families / cultures were good, well structured and built on solid moral principals. Indeed, she found that both Edward and Jacob's families were more structured (and certainly more traditional) hers. This is again the experience of most white Americans who've crossed the cultural divide.
So while, I, as one of Slavic (and definitely of non-WASPish heritage) don't necessarily like the suggestion of being considered a "vampire," (and would expect that Hispanics, Brazilians or even Irishmen, wouldn't particularly like that characterization as well), I certainly appreciate Meyer's attempt to portray multiculturalism symbolically in a way that's compelling and affirmative to young people's experience. Because the "scary Others" ("vampires"/"werewolves") turn out to come from loving families and strong cultural heritages, worthy of pride, as well.
To the movie ... Yes, the obvious subtext to the whole Twilight series appears to me to be the challenge of multiculturalism. However, Meyer does also play with the peculiarities of "vampires" and "werewolves."
In this installment of the series, Edward (a vampire) and Bella (a human) after long-last get married. But how would it work? Would she necessarily have to turn into a vampire? Both try really hard that this would not happen. Edward's a good guy. He loves Bella the way she is (human). So consummating their marriage did not mean that Edward just would just bite her and they'd live happily ever after "undead" forever. Instead they consummate it the old fashioned (human) way.
NOTE TO PARENTS: The portrayal of Bella and Edward's wedding night is done very well (and even in a fan/comical way). However, it may not be appropriate to children and younger teens. Again to author Stephanie Meyer's credit, the two did wait till their wedding, something that this series has been exemplary portraying from the beginning. Edward didn't "bite" Bella or otherwise turn her into a vampire. But as a vampire (and vampiers are supposed to be passionate if nothing else ... :-) the poor guy just utterly destroyed their bed in the course of their wedding night love-making. The lovemaking itself is not shown, but the "morning after" showing the bed and all around it destroyed is ;-). This may cause parents to both chuckle as they see this and blush as they watch their children see it as well. So again, parents be warned. (The CNS/USCCB review notes this concern as well)
That love making results in Bella becoming pregnant to the surprise and great worry of all. How would a pregnancy of a child conceived of a human and (blood-sucking) vampire work out? Well that's what the rest of the movie is about ...
And once again, the movie/series surprises. Respectful throughout the whole of the series of "The Radical Other" it continues to be so becoming unambiguously Pro-Life.
Who would have guessed that I would have come to like a series about "re-imagined vampires?" But then one ought to be capable of learning something new every day ;-)
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
NOTE: My review of the subsequent The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 2 can be found here.
I came to see The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn Part 1 (directed by Bill Condon, screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the 4th novel in The Twilight Saga (Breaking Dawn) by Stephanie Meyer) with a fair amount of trepidation.
Readers here will know that I had never been a fan of the Harry Potter series and to be honest, I thought the concept of The Twilight Saga ("re-imagining vampires") to be even worse.
However, I've long known that legions of young girls (and their mothers/aunts) have absolutely loved these books, so I've long been saying to myself that they have to be better than I thought. So in anticipation of the coming of this movie, just as I did in preparation to the last installments of the Harry Potter series, I rented one of the earlier Twilight movies (Eclipse) to try to get a better understanding of why the series was so popular. And in contrast to the Harry Potter series, I was honestly surprised and impressed with Stephanie Meyer's creation.
Why? Because Stephanie Meyer created entire cultures behind her vampires and werewolves. Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson) who the saga's teenage heroine Bella Swan (played by Kristen Stewart) falls in love with was not merely a "misunderstood bad boy" (a tired character/archetype that has been on the scene in American pop-culture since the 1950s with James Dean). Edward belonged to a family that loved him, composed notably by (adoptive) father Dr. Carlisle Cullen (played by Peter Facinelli) and Dr. Carlisle's wife Esme (played by Elizabeth Reaser) as well as other adoptive brothers and sisters. And behind this family was an entire culture of "vampires" with a history and an ordered (if, in the saga, generally unknown to humans) way of life. That culture extended across the planet. Cullen is an Irish name. But Edward had relatives in Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Alaska (Russians?/Slavs?).
One gets the sense therefore Stephanie Meyer has not applied symbol of "vampire" not as "bad boy" but as "Radical Other," something that one of my parish's young adult evening receptionists was trying to explain to me in the lead-up to the release of this film. Indeed, the even other "love interest" in the story, Jacob Black (played by Taylor Lautner) belongs to yet another ethnic community (a Native American tribe of shape-shifting werewolves).
To see the point being made, consider then Bella's background. She is as white as can be. Her divorced parents, a sort of hippyish mother, Renee' Dwyer (played by Sarah Clarke) who moved out to sunny Florida after her divorce, and father Charlie Swan (played by Billy Burke) who's a cop in the damp and rainy town and its environs where this story plays out, are also lily white (though mom likes to tan) and by their last names, Swan and Dwyer, are super WASPish as well.
Why would this be important? Well to a traditional White/WASPish American family named Swan, an Irishman named Cullen to say nothing of an East European or Hispanic could _perhaps_ seem as "Other" as a vampire. Yes, it's (hopefully...) an obvious exaggeration. However making Edward Cullen a vampire rather than a Catholic frankly could actually make the series a "safer" read. A similar exaggeration is made with regards to the shape-shifting Native American "Black" family. While Cop Charlie Swan has a long-standing relationship with the "Black" family living out in the woods, he has _no idea_ that they're a family of shape-shifting werewolves (again complete with a code and way of life). He just sees them as upstanding citizens living _at the edge_ of the town that he's protecting who don't cause him much trouble. And since they don't seem to cause much trouble, he basically likes them, even though he knows next to nothing about them (and doesn't seem to care to know much more about them either...).
Who does learn far more about both the Cullens and the Blacks is the daughter Bella who gets to know both families through her interactions with Edward and Jacob "in school."
And the experience of the Swan family actually mirrors quite well white-American families (and its younger as well as older members) today, where America's young people live in a far more demographically diverse environment than their parents and grandparents. A CNN report on the 2010 Census in the USA and demographics and age notes that over 80% of America's seniors (65 and above) are white, while this figure drops to 70% for the middle aged (aged 35-64), to only 60% for young adults (aged 18-34) and into the low 50%s for Americans aged 17 and below). So America's young people are living in a far more diverse environment than their parents and especially grandparents had ever lived. Initially, that could be scary. But if even "vampires" and "werewolves" are portrayed as good people coming out of well-structured societies with rules and morals, perhaps it can become less so.
Indeed Bella's experience of entering into a "new" culture (one previously unknown to her parents) is certainly mirrored by countless other young people who meet and mix across cultural lines. As a priest who's worked in several multi-ethnic parishes it's been my joy to be accepted across all kinds of ethnic boundaries and then to inevitably learn from the various people and families that I've met. By taking a chance, Bella enters into the worlds of both Edward and Jacob in ways that her parents and even many of her friends certainly did not. And she found that both of their families / cultures were good, well structured and built on solid moral principals. Indeed, she found that both Edward and Jacob's families were more structured (and certainly more traditional) hers. This is again the experience of most white Americans who've crossed the cultural divide.
So while, I, as one of Slavic (and definitely of non-WASPish heritage) don't necessarily like the suggestion of being considered a "vampire," (and would expect that Hispanics, Brazilians or even Irishmen, wouldn't particularly like that characterization as well), I certainly appreciate Meyer's attempt to portray multiculturalism symbolically in a way that's compelling and affirmative to young people's experience. Because the "scary Others" ("vampires"/"werewolves") turn out to come from loving families and strong cultural heritages, worthy of pride, as well.
To the movie ... Yes, the obvious subtext to the whole Twilight series appears to me to be the challenge of multiculturalism. However, Meyer does also play with the peculiarities of "vampires" and "werewolves."
In this installment of the series, Edward (a vampire) and Bella (a human) after long-last get married. But how would it work? Would she necessarily have to turn into a vampire? Both try really hard that this would not happen. Edward's a good guy. He loves Bella the way she is (human). So consummating their marriage did not mean that Edward just would just bite her and they'd live happily ever after "undead" forever. Instead they consummate it the old fashioned (human) way.
NOTE TO PARENTS: The portrayal of Bella and Edward's wedding night is done very well (and even in a fan/comical way). However, it may not be appropriate to children and younger teens. Again to author Stephanie Meyer's credit, the two did wait till their wedding, something that this series has been exemplary portraying from the beginning. Edward didn't "bite" Bella or otherwise turn her into a vampire. But as a vampire (and vampiers are supposed to be passionate if nothing else ... :-) the poor guy just utterly destroyed their bed in the course of their wedding night love-making. The lovemaking itself is not shown, but the "morning after" showing the bed and all around it destroyed is ;-). This may cause parents to both chuckle as they see this and blush as they watch their children see it as well. So again, parents be warned. (The CNS/USCCB review notes this concern as well)
That love making results in Bella becoming pregnant to the surprise and great worry of all. How would a pregnancy of a child conceived of a human and (blood-sucking) vampire work out? Well that's what the rest of the movie is about ...
And once again, the movie/series surprises. Respectful throughout the whole of the series of "The Radical Other" it continues to be so becoming unambiguously Pro-Life.
Who would have guessed that I would have come to like a series about "re-imagined vampires?" But then one ought to be capable of learning something new every day ;-)
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Monday, November 14, 2011
Melancholia [2011]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
Melancholia [2011] (written and directed by Lars Von Trier) is easily one of the year’s best films and if not for Von Trier’s stupidly controversial comments this summer would deserve a host of Oscar nominations for (1) Best Picture, (2) Best Director, (3) Best Cinematography, (4) Best Original Screenplay, and certainly (5) Best Actress in a leading role (Kirsten Dunst). Additionally, Melancholia contains interesting stylistic and thematic similarities to two other recent films, Tree of Life [2011] (written and directed by Terrence Malick), and the award winning independent film Another Earth [2011] (directed and co-written by Mike Cahill along with Brit Marhling). On a purely stylistic/technical level, I do believe Von Trier's Melancholia is probably the best, though the other two movies are certainly more optimistic.
So what did Von Trier say that made him so controversial this summer? Well, late in a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival about his film (at 34:30 of the conference's 38:51) with the film's stars Kirsten Dunst and Charlette Gainsburg seated increasingly aghast around him, Kate Muir of the Times of London referring to previous comments by Von Trier (Danish) to the Danish press about his appreciation of "the Nazi aesthetic" asked him about this in relation to this film.
Muir's was a serious question near the end of an otherwise jovial and even "soft ball" press conference. It was clear that Von Trier tried to respond in the same "light" tone that characterized the previous 34:30 of the press conference. However, his "joking" fell horribly flat. He first called himself someone who "first thought [he] was a Jew" (?) who turned out to be "a Nazi" (of German heritage) and continued to say that as a consequence he felt that he "understood Hitler" (??). It was obvious that Von Trier himself knew that this was not what he wanted to say and at one point stopped and asked "How do I get out of this sentence?" "With another question..." the moderator interjected trying to help him out. It didn't help because Trier continued... saying among other things that "while [he] liked most Jews, Israel is a pain in the ass." At the end of the conference, an exasperated Kirsten Dunst is heard saying out loud, "Well that was intense..."
Did Von Trier mean what he said? And what exactly did he mean to say anyway? We'll probably never know, though he's both tried to apologize and explain himself since except that (1) by his tone, he was clearly meaning to be funny and (2) he did/does seem to conflate/equate his German heritage with Naziism.
Regarding the latter and lest others make this mistake, I would like to note here that the famously dark, introspective/broodish, and arguably nihilistic Germanic artistic / literary tradition that Von Trier's movie Melancholia so obviously leans on grew out of a milieu dominated and developed by celebrated anti-Nazis including the likes of Franz Kafka (the Jewish, German-language author who lived all his life in Prague who was so obviously anti-authoritarian that Hitler apparently hated him by name); Thomas Mann, the Nobel Prize for Literature winning giant who wrote against the Nazis in Germany even before they took power, stayed in Switzerland after they did, continued on then to the United States as war was about to begin, and even served as a broadcaster of German language anti-Nazi programming for the Allies during the war); and Herman Hesse, another German Nobel Prize for Literature winning writer who also spent the Nazi era suspect / opposing the regime. Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who was a teenager in the 1930s, did visit Nazi Germany during that time and confessed in his memoirs that as a young man he did have an admiration for Hitler, nevertheless came into his own long after the Nazi era was dead and buried. And when he did come into his own, he was more or less obviously influenced on the brooding (anti-Nazi) German literary giants that I list above.
So for the sake of others who might fall into the same trap of somehow conflating "all things German" (or all things recently German) with "Nazi," I wish to correct Von Trier here. For while Von Trier he would be certainly correct in aligning himself with a long (and legitimately thought provoking) line of “Northern European”/Germanic thinking/art-creation, it is an amateurish’s mistake to mistake this brooding/nihilistic tradition for Naziism and for several obvious reasons: First, this celebrated literary/artistic tradition was famously populated by opponents to Naziism (above). Second, the Nazis themselves criticized much of this literary/artistic tradition as “degenerate” (nihilistic). Finally, the Nazis, after-all, were ultimately “positivists” promoting a pro-German/pro-Aryan world view that these brooding “degenerate nihilists” would have logically dismissed (and in the case of Thomas Mann, did dismiss) as self-evidently illusory.
And I wish to conclude my point evoking the script of Von Trier's own film here. At one point in Melancholia, the increasingly depressed Justine (played by Kirsten Dunst) tells her sister Claire (played by Charlotte Gainsburg) her more traditionalist (and more optimistic) sister: "We will all die, and no one will miss us." How exactly would one set out to build a Thousand Year Reich on such emblematically nihilistic sentiments?
To the film... It can be broken-up into three parts. The first is an overture or preamble in which highlights of what is to come in the film, notably the eventual swallowing (annihilation) of Earth by the arrival of a previously unknown and far larger planet (apparently arriving on the scene due to a very elliptical orbit). And apparently due to its lifeless yet bluish-green color the planet comes to be known as Melancholia.
So after the first 10 minutes of this movie, we all know that the world is going to be annihilated. The rest of the movie is divided into two halves. The first part is called Justine and the second is called Claire.
The first part chronicles the wedding reception of Justine. It's beautiful, it's elaborate and it becomes clear that Justine is just going through the motions. She does try to be happy, but on cue. And it becomes clear that Justine just doesn't believe in the wedding. And neither do her divorced parents, her father Dexter (played by John Hurt) who's taken to hedonism calling every women "Betty," and her angrier, more intellectual/feminist mother Gaby (played by Charlotte Rampling). It seems that the one who most cares about the wedding is Justine's more traditionalist sister Claire who hosts it at her and her significant other's (husband's?) palatial estate that Claire's husband/significant other named John (played by Keifer Sutherland) keeps pointing out "has an 18 hole golf course." Even Justine's nice-guy husband Michael (played by Alexander Skarsgard) is not all that much into it, though he does wish that Justine be happy. But she's not. Why? An artist, who apparently "worked for an ad agency" before her wedding, she seems unable to find ultimate meaning in her (or anything's) existence. So as beautiful, indeed as "perfect" as the wedding is, she just doesn't understand really why she is there. She feels melancholy ...
The second part takes place 18 months later. The new planet, that Justine just happened to spot in the sky on her wedding night, has come far closer and become far bigger to the point of becoming a possible threat to Earth. It is then that Claire, who still instinctively "believed" in the first part of the movie, starts having her existential crisis. What if?
As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, Melancholia treads similar stylistic and thematic ground as the recent movies, The Tree of Life and Another Earth, though Melancholia is certainly far more pessimistic.
The Tree of Life seeks to be a current-day cinematic expression of the Book of Job's response to the cry "Where are you God?" in the face of personal suffering and, like the Book of Job, presents a God who is as awesome as all Creation / the Universe. In contrast, Melancholia asks Justine's question above: [What if we really are nothing] and no one will miss us when we're gone? It's an honest question. The Christian response to that question is a rejection of it (by faith if not by reason): We are important, we count (and here I'd insist, that we all count, or ultimately no one counts), simply and only because God wills it so. (One is reminded here of the first chapter of the Baltimore Catechism: The Purpose of Our Existence). But it is a position that, facing the Abyss (beautifully expressed in Melancholia), comes by the Grace (gift) of Faith. Reason can lead one to a point, but ultimately one has to make the leap. And Lars Von Trier illustrates in his film what many believers and non-believers have long observed: Those who are able to believe are generally happier than those who apparently are unable to believe.
Then a new previously unknown world is a device that appears in both Melancholia and Another Earth but the device is used quite differently in the two movies.
In Another Earth, the appearance of the "other Earth" expresses a relatively new metaphysical idea born out an application of Quantum Statistical Mechanics to all of Reality (the Universe): Just like the exact position of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus can never be determined precisely but a "probability curve" of where it could be found can be mapped and individual electrons (and other quantum particles) behave as if they are located in exactly the same proportion as those probability curves produce, perhaps, all of Reality behaves in the same way. That is, at every decision point, where "history" could go one way or another Reality (the Universe) splits into the two parallel realities/universes each following one or the other trajectory and Reality becomes the "canonical sum" of all the possibilities that can exist.
Applied to the individual, the concept offers an interesting aspect of hope: When one makes the major decision in life by this theory an alternate reality/universe would exist where one "chose the other path." So even if one chose poorly at some point in Life (in this Universe), perhaps there is/are alternate Universe(s) where one chose better. That's ultimately what Another Earth is about. (Note: In recent years, a great television series popularizing such new philosophical/metaphysical possibilities as "parallel universes" based on quantum mechanical insights has been the Science Channel's Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman).
In contrast, in Melancholia, the "new planet" becomes a planet of doom and actually behaves in a way that readers of Zecharia Sitchin would recognize. Zecharia Sitchin a self-professed student of Sumerian and ancient Semitic languages has proposed the theory that Life on Earth was seeded here by aliens from an unknown planet, which orbits the sun in a highly eliptical orbit (much like that of a comet, only it is of planetary size), and that this unknown planet may have been responsible for the destruction of a planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter (the remains of which we observe to this day as the Astroid belt) the destruction of which was expressed in the ancient Babylonian Creation myth where Marduk destroys the Goddess Taimat before creating the Earth. In Melancholia, a previously unknown planet (previously unknown because it apparently followed a highly elliptical orbit) suddenly appears. However, keeping to the "All existence is senseless" this planet appears not to give hope. Rather it appears as an enormous inanimate object that comes and destroys the Earth.
So if nothing else, Melancholia is a very artistic and thought provoking movie. And we are provided with a choice. Do we choose to believe that life, indeed all existence / all reality is meaningless? Or do we make the choice to believe, that life, existance, all that is, has meaning?
And we are invited to realize that believing that life/existence has meaning is, indeed, a leap of faith. That is, meaning comes from who believers call God.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
Melancholia [2011] (written and directed by Lars Von Trier) is easily one of the year’s best films and if not for Von Trier’s stupidly controversial comments this summer would deserve a host of Oscar nominations for (1) Best Picture, (2) Best Director, (3) Best Cinematography, (4) Best Original Screenplay, and certainly (5) Best Actress in a leading role (Kirsten Dunst). Additionally, Melancholia contains interesting stylistic and thematic similarities to two other recent films, Tree of Life [2011] (written and directed by Terrence Malick), and the award winning independent film Another Earth [2011] (directed and co-written by Mike Cahill along with Brit Marhling). On a purely stylistic/technical level, I do believe Von Trier's Melancholia is probably the best, though the other two movies are certainly more optimistic.
So what did Von Trier say that made him so controversial this summer? Well, late in a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival about his film (at 34:30 of the conference's 38:51) with the film's stars Kirsten Dunst and Charlette Gainsburg seated increasingly aghast around him, Kate Muir of the Times of London referring to previous comments by Von Trier (Danish) to the Danish press about his appreciation of "the Nazi aesthetic" asked him about this in relation to this film.
Muir's was a serious question near the end of an otherwise jovial and even "soft ball" press conference. It was clear that Von Trier tried to respond in the same "light" tone that characterized the previous 34:30 of the press conference. However, his "joking" fell horribly flat. He first called himself someone who "first thought [he] was a Jew" (?) who turned out to be "a Nazi" (of German heritage) and continued to say that as a consequence he felt that he "understood Hitler" (??). It was obvious that Von Trier himself knew that this was not what he wanted to say and at one point stopped and asked "How do I get out of this sentence?" "With another question..." the moderator interjected trying to help him out. It didn't help because Trier continued... saying among other things that "while [he] liked most Jews, Israel is a pain in the ass." At the end of the conference, an exasperated Kirsten Dunst is heard saying out loud, "Well that was intense..."
Did Von Trier mean what he said? And what exactly did he mean to say anyway? We'll probably never know, though he's both tried to apologize and explain himself since except that (1) by his tone, he was clearly meaning to be funny and (2) he did/does seem to conflate/equate his German heritage with Naziism.
Regarding the latter and lest others make this mistake, I would like to note here that the famously dark, introspective/broodish, and arguably nihilistic Germanic artistic / literary tradition that Von Trier's movie Melancholia so obviously leans on grew out of a milieu dominated and developed by celebrated anti-Nazis including the likes of Franz Kafka (the Jewish, German-language author who lived all his life in Prague who was so obviously anti-authoritarian that Hitler apparently hated him by name); Thomas Mann, the Nobel Prize for Literature winning giant who wrote against the Nazis in Germany even before they took power, stayed in Switzerland after they did, continued on then to the United States as war was about to begin, and even served as a broadcaster of German language anti-Nazi programming for the Allies during the war); and Herman Hesse, another German Nobel Prize for Literature winning writer who also spent the Nazi era suspect / opposing the regime. Swedish director Ingmar Bergman who was a teenager in the 1930s, did visit Nazi Germany during that time and confessed in his memoirs that as a young man he did have an admiration for Hitler, nevertheless came into his own long after the Nazi era was dead and buried. And when he did come into his own, he was more or less obviously influenced on the brooding (anti-Nazi) German literary giants that I list above.
So for the sake of others who might fall into the same trap of somehow conflating "all things German" (or all things recently German) with "Nazi," I wish to correct Von Trier here. For while Von Trier he would be certainly correct in aligning himself with a long (and legitimately thought provoking) line of “Northern European”/Germanic thinking/art-creation, it is an amateurish’s mistake to mistake this brooding/nihilistic tradition for Naziism and for several obvious reasons: First, this celebrated literary/artistic tradition was famously populated by opponents to Naziism (above). Second, the Nazis themselves criticized much of this literary/artistic tradition as “degenerate” (nihilistic). Finally, the Nazis, after-all, were ultimately “positivists” promoting a pro-German/pro-Aryan world view that these brooding “degenerate nihilists” would have logically dismissed (and in the case of Thomas Mann, did dismiss) as self-evidently illusory.
And I wish to conclude my point evoking the script of Von Trier's own film here. At one point in Melancholia, the increasingly depressed Justine (played by Kirsten Dunst) tells her sister Claire (played by Charlotte Gainsburg) her more traditionalist (and more optimistic) sister: "We will all die, and no one will miss us." How exactly would one set out to build a Thousand Year Reich on such emblematically nihilistic sentiments?
To the film... It can be broken-up into three parts. The first is an overture or preamble in which highlights of what is to come in the film, notably the eventual swallowing (annihilation) of Earth by the arrival of a previously unknown and far larger planet (apparently arriving on the scene due to a very elliptical orbit). And apparently due to its lifeless yet bluish-green color the planet comes to be known as Melancholia.
So after the first 10 minutes of this movie, we all know that the world is going to be annihilated. The rest of the movie is divided into two halves. The first part is called Justine and the second is called Claire.
The first part chronicles the wedding reception of Justine. It's beautiful, it's elaborate and it becomes clear that Justine is just going through the motions. She does try to be happy, but on cue. And it becomes clear that Justine just doesn't believe in the wedding. And neither do her divorced parents, her father Dexter (played by John Hurt) who's taken to hedonism calling every women "Betty," and her angrier, more intellectual/feminist mother Gaby (played by Charlotte Rampling). It seems that the one who most cares about the wedding is Justine's more traditionalist sister Claire who hosts it at her and her significant other's (husband's?) palatial estate that Claire's husband/significant other named John (played by Keifer Sutherland) keeps pointing out "has an 18 hole golf course." Even Justine's nice-guy husband Michael (played by Alexander Skarsgard) is not all that much into it, though he does wish that Justine be happy. But she's not. Why? An artist, who apparently "worked for an ad agency" before her wedding, she seems unable to find ultimate meaning in her (or anything's) existence. So as beautiful, indeed as "perfect" as the wedding is, she just doesn't understand really why she is there. She feels melancholy ...
The second part takes place 18 months later. The new planet, that Justine just happened to spot in the sky on her wedding night, has come far closer and become far bigger to the point of becoming a possible threat to Earth. It is then that Claire, who still instinctively "believed" in the first part of the movie, starts having her existential crisis. What if?
As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, Melancholia treads similar stylistic and thematic ground as the recent movies, The Tree of Life and Another Earth, though Melancholia is certainly far more pessimistic.
The Tree of Life seeks to be a current-day cinematic expression of the Book of Job's response to the cry "Where are you God?" in the face of personal suffering and, like the Book of Job, presents a God who is as awesome as all Creation / the Universe. In contrast, Melancholia asks Justine's question above: [What if we really are nothing] and no one will miss us when we're gone? It's an honest question. The Christian response to that question is a rejection of it (by faith if not by reason): We are important, we count (and here I'd insist, that we all count, or ultimately no one counts), simply and only because God wills it so. (One is reminded here of the first chapter of the Baltimore Catechism: The Purpose of Our Existence). But it is a position that, facing the Abyss (beautifully expressed in Melancholia), comes by the Grace (gift) of Faith. Reason can lead one to a point, but ultimately one has to make the leap. And Lars Von Trier illustrates in his film what many believers and non-believers have long observed: Those who are able to believe are generally happier than those who apparently are unable to believe.
Then a new previously unknown world is a device that appears in both Melancholia and Another Earth but the device is used quite differently in the two movies.
In Another Earth, the appearance of the "other Earth" expresses a relatively new metaphysical idea born out an application of Quantum Statistical Mechanics to all of Reality (the Universe): Just like the exact position of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus can never be determined precisely but a "probability curve" of where it could be found can be mapped and individual electrons (and other quantum particles) behave as if they are located in exactly the same proportion as those probability curves produce, perhaps, all of Reality behaves in the same way. That is, at every decision point, where "history" could go one way or another Reality (the Universe) splits into the two parallel realities/universes each following one or the other trajectory and Reality becomes the "canonical sum" of all the possibilities that can exist.
Applied to the individual, the concept offers an interesting aspect of hope: When one makes the major decision in life by this theory an alternate reality/universe would exist where one "chose the other path." So even if one chose poorly at some point in Life (in this Universe), perhaps there is/are alternate Universe(s) where one chose better. That's ultimately what Another Earth is about. (Note: In recent years, a great television series popularizing such new philosophical/metaphysical possibilities as "parallel universes" based on quantum mechanical insights has been the Science Channel's Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman).
In contrast, in Melancholia, the "new planet" becomes a planet of doom and actually behaves in a way that readers of Zecharia Sitchin would recognize. Zecharia Sitchin a self-professed student of Sumerian and ancient Semitic languages has proposed the theory that Life on Earth was seeded here by aliens from an unknown planet, which orbits the sun in a highly eliptical orbit (much like that of a comet, only it is of planetary size), and that this unknown planet may have been responsible for the destruction of a planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter (the remains of which we observe to this day as the Astroid belt) the destruction of which was expressed in the ancient Babylonian Creation myth where Marduk destroys the Goddess Taimat before creating the Earth. In Melancholia, a previously unknown planet (previously unknown because it apparently followed a highly elliptical orbit) suddenly appears. However, keeping to the "All existence is senseless" this planet appears not to give hope. Rather it appears as an enormous inanimate object that comes and destroys the Earth.
So if nothing else, Melancholia is a very artistic and thought provoking movie. And we are provided with a choice. Do we choose to believe that life, indeed all existence / all reality is meaningless? Or do we make the choice to believe, that life, existance, all that is, has meaning?
And we are invited to realize that believing that life/existence has meaning is, indeed, a leap of faith. That is, meaning comes from who believers call God.
<< 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! :-) >>
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Immortals
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O) Times of India (2.5/5 Stars) AV Club/Onion (B-) Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253864/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv140.htm
Times of India review -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/english/Immortals/moviereview/10677840.cms
The AV Club/Onion's review -
http://www.avclub.com/articles/immortals,65019/
The Immortals (directed by Tarsem Singh, written by Charley Parlapanides and Vlas Parlapanides) is in many senses a movie of the future. The film continues the Hollywood trend to increasingly make movies in 3D. It also relies heavily on computer generated imagery (CGI). The screenplay borrowing heavily from the mythology of ancient Greece was written by two young Greeks and the director, Singh, as well as one of the stars, Frieda Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire [2008], Miral [2011], Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011]), are up and coming stars from India. Hence the critical reaction is not surprising. Chicago's primary movie critics Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun Times) and Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune) did not even review the film (both have longstanding aversions for CGI) and the CNS/USCCB gave the movie an "O" (morally offensive) rating (for both its violence and nudity/sexual situations). Yet both the American youth oriented AV Club/Onion as well as the Times of India gave the movie "B-" or "above average" ratings.
What's going on? Well, more or less obviously we're seeing a generational split. I do actually agree with the CNS/USCCB's criticism of the excessive violence in the film as well as with its criticism of the film's depiction of choices regarding sexuality. Afterall, Oracles (usually consecrated virgins, who served as priestess-prophetesses in Ancient Greece, predicting the future and serving to give advice even to statesmen and kings) were very important in ancient (pagan) Greece. The Oracle at Delphi was one of ancient Greece's most important (pagan) religious shrines/institutions for nearly 1000 years. However, when the Oracle Phraeda (played by Frieda Pinto) meets the muscular Theseus (Henry Cavill) in the film, it becomes more or less inevitable that her previous consecrated life (and societal function) was going to go by the wayside, thrown to the wind by Theseus' pecks and abs. In Hollywood, sex does "conquer all" afterall... So I do think that the CNS/USCCB has a point in lamenting the easiness by which the Oracle gives up previous station and function in life to throw herself into the arms of the archtypical Greek hero with ripping muscles.
I also did not like the film's violence. Parents should note that this film, The Immortals, is far more violent than this year's Marvel Comics inspired Thor (sanitized from ancient Nordic mythology) and surprisingly even more violent and bloody than the recent remake of Conan the Barbarian [2011] where such blood and gore would have been more expected.
Yet, I bring up the recent films Thor and Conan the Barbarian for another reason. It seems to me that Charley and Vlas Parlapanides approached the patrimony of Greek mythology in a similar way that Marvel Comics approached Norse Mythology in creating their character Thor and has continued to approach its other super-hero creations, and also in way similar to the approached used by Robert E. Howard to create the world for Conan.
So the world that Charley and Vlas Parlapanides created for their Theseus (as opposed to the Theseus of classical Greek Mythology) is something of a stew of various themes and images from the classical Greek Myth and their own adaptations: The Theseus of this movie is a hero-son of Zeus (played by Luke Evans) , instead of being the hero-son of Poseidon as per the classical myth though Poseidon (played by Kellan Lutz) does play a (smaller) role in the film. As in the classical myth Theseus does defeat a Minotaur (a 1/2 man 1/2 bull monster of classical Greek mythology).
However,Theseus's greatest feat in this film is to be found in his defeating Hyperion (played by Mickey Rourke). In classical Greek mythology, Hyperion was a Titan, that is one of a generation of older Gods overthrown by Zeus, Poseidon and the other Olympian Gods. While Hyperion is portrayed as seeking to free the Titans from their imprisonment inside a mountain by Zeus, he is presented in the movie as the king of the Heracleans (a people believing itself to be descended from the Greek hero who we know as Hercules). Now it is true that around the time in which this movie was to have been set, 1200 BC, a people known to us today as the Dorians really did understand themselves as descendants of the Hercules and did descend on Greece to destroy the then existing Mycenaean civilization. Incidently, the Spartans came to be the most famous descendants of the Dorians while Theseus of the classical myth came to be the legendary founder of Sparta's great rival Athens (the goddess Athena too, played by Isabel Lucas, actually did play a somewhat peripheral role in this film as something of a protectress of Theseus).
All this is to say that the story playing out in this film is harkens to the time of the Dorian invasion of Greece as well as to mythological defeat of the Titans by Zeus and his generation of (Olympian Gods). Charley and Vlas Parlapanides, Greeks themselves who probably grew-up on these stories, as well as the Marvel Comics and so forth, shuffled around the characters a bit, added an Oracle (a woman prophetess/priestess) for good measure and produced a fairly compelling if confusing tale. (Students _don't_ use this film as a strict guide to Greek mythology, because you may get its myths and characters all confused)
But my greatest criticism of this film would be its truly gratuitous blood and gore. I don't mind the CGI, and I did like the movie 300 [2006], on which this current movie heavily leans and where CGI was used really, really well. I just don't believe that all the violence and gore, which as I wrote above exceeded even that of the recent remake of Conan the Barbarian [2011], was necessary to tell the story. Indeed, it became needlessly distracting.
So a note of advice to the younger film-makers out there -- Go for it with the CGI. 300 [2006], Avatar [2009], Inception [2010] all point to an almost limitless future in using this technology for telling a story. But do put limits on the blood/gore. There really is no need for this, especially if the story is already compelling without it.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253864/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv140.htm
Times of India review -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/english/Immortals/moviereview/10677840.cms
The AV Club/Onion's review -
http://www.avclub.com/articles/immortals,65019/
The Immortals (directed by Tarsem Singh, written by Charley Parlapanides and Vlas Parlapanides) is in many senses a movie of the future. The film continues the Hollywood trend to increasingly make movies in 3D. It also relies heavily on computer generated imagery (CGI). The screenplay borrowing heavily from the mythology of ancient Greece was written by two young Greeks and the director, Singh, as well as one of the stars, Frieda Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire [2008], Miral [2011], Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011]), are up and coming stars from India. Hence the critical reaction is not surprising. Chicago's primary movie critics Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun Times) and Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune) did not even review the film (both have longstanding aversions for CGI) and the CNS/USCCB gave the movie an "O" (morally offensive) rating (for both its violence and nudity/sexual situations). Yet both the American youth oriented AV Club/Onion as well as the Times of India gave the movie "B-" or "above average" ratings.
What's going on? Well, more or less obviously we're seeing a generational split. I do actually agree with the CNS/USCCB's criticism of the excessive violence in the film as well as with its criticism of the film's depiction of choices regarding sexuality. Afterall, Oracles (usually consecrated virgins, who served as priestess-prophetesses in Ancient Greece, predicting the future and serving to give advice even to statesmen and kings) were very important in ancient (pagan) Greece. The Oracle at Delphi was one of ancient Greece's most important (pagan) religious shrines/institutions for nearly 1000 years. However, when the Oracle Phraeda (played by Frieda Pinto) meets the muscular Theseus (Henry Cavill) in the film, it becomes more or less inevitable that her previous consecrated life (and societal function) was going to go by the wayside, thrown to the wind by Theseus' pecks and abs. In Hollywood, sex does "conquer all" afterall... So I do think that the CNS/USCCB has a point in lamenting the easiness by which the Oracle gives up previous station and function in life to throw herself into the arms of the archtypical Greek hero with ripping muscles.
I also did not like the film's violence. Parents should note that this film, The Immortals, is far more violent than this year's Marvel Comics inspired Thor (sanitized from ancient Nordic mythology) and surprisingly even more violent and bloody than the recent remake of Conan the Barbarian [2011] where such blood and gore would have been more expected.
Yet, I bring up the recent films Thor and Conan the Barbarian for another reason. It seems to me that Charley and Vlas Parlapanides approached the patrimony of Greek mythology in a similar way that Marvel Comics approached Norse Mythology in creating their character Thor and has continued to approach its other super-hero creations, and also in way similar to the approached used by Robert E. Howard to create the world for Conan.
So the world that Charley and Vlas Parlapanides created for their Theseus (as opposed to the Theseus of classical Greek Mythology) is something of a stew of various themes and images from the classical Greek Myth and their own adaptations: The Theseus of this movie is a hero-son of Zeus (played by Luke Evans) , instead of being the hero-son of Poseidon as per the classical myth though Poseidon (played by Kellan Lutz) does play a (smaller) role in the film. As in the classical myth Theseus does defeat a Minotaur (a 1/2 man 1/2 bull monster of classical Greek mythology).
However,Theseus's greatest feat in this film is to be found in his defeating Hyperion (played by Mickey Rourke). In classical Greek mythology, Hyperion was a Titan, that is one of a generation of older Gods overthrown by Zeus, Poseidon and the other Olympian Gods. While Hyperion is portrayed as seeking to free the Titans from their imprisonment inside a mountain by Zeus, he is presented in the movie as the king of the Heracleans (a people believing itself to be descended from the Greek hero who we know as Hercules). Now it is true that around the time in which this movie was to have been set, 1200 BC, a people known to us today as the Dorians really did understand themselves as descendants of the Hercules and did descend on Greece to destroy the then existing Mycenaean civilization. Incidently, the Spartans came to be the most famous descendants of the Dorians while Theseus of the classical myth came to be the legendary founder of Sparta's great rival Athens (the goddess Athena too, played by Isabel Lucas, actually did play a somewhat peripheral role in this film as something of a protectress of Theseus).
All this is to say that the story playing out in this film is harkens to the time of the Dorian invasion of Greece as well as to mythological defeat of the Titans by Zeus and his generation of (Olympian Gods). Charley and Vlas Parlapanides, Greeks themselves who probably grew-up on these stories, as well as the Marvel Comics and so forth, shuffled around the characters a bit, added an Oracle (a woman prophetess/priestess) for good measure and produced a fairly compelling if confusing tale. (Students _don't_ use this film as a strict guide to Greek mythology, because you may get its myths and characters all confused)
But my greatest criticism of this film would be its truly gratuitous blood and gore. I don't mind the CGI, and I did like the movie 300 [2006], on which this current movie heavily leans and where CGI was used really, really well. I just don't believe that all the violence and gore, which as I wrote above exceeded even that of the recent remake of Conan the Barbarian [2011], was necessary to tell the story. Indeed, it became needlessly distracting.
So a note of advice to the younger film-makers out there -- Go for it with the CGI. 300 [2006], Avatar [2009], Inception [2010] all point to an almost limitless future in using this technology for telling a story. But do put limits on the blood/gore. There really is no need for this, especially if the story is already compelling without it.
<< 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! :-) >>
J Edgar
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv138.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111108/REVIEWS/111109973
J Edgar (Warner Bros. USA, directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Dustin Lance Black) a bio pic about legendary (and/or infamous) U.S. FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover is destined to be remembered as one of 2011's best films, and earn a plethora of Oscar Nominations. Let's count them: (1) in a field of 10 a certain nomination for Best Picture, (2) a certain nomination and possible/probable award for Best Director (Clint Eastwood), (3) a possible nomination for Best Original Screen Play (Dustin Lance Black), (4) a certain nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Leonardo diCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover), a (5) certain nomination and probable award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Judy Dench, as J. Edgar Hoover's mother), (6) a possible second nomination for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Naomi Watts as Helen Gandy, J. Edgar Hoover's lifelong secretary), and (7) a possible a nomination for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, J. Edgar Hoover's lifelong confidante and possibly more).
Why would J. Edgar Hoover be simultaneously legendary and controversial (or even infamous)? Well he was a very, very interesting/compelling and arguably dangerous persona in American history. Consider simply that he was the founding director of the FBI in 1935 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and remained director of the FBI until his death in 1972 four years into the Richard M. Nixon Administration. In Washington, D.C. almost no one lasts that long in a job (under 6 presidents -- FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon). How did he do it? In the kindest of language, he was the epitome indeed "poster child" of the entrenched bureaucrat that only blasting powder could remove. In reality, as head of the U.S. federal government's premier police/domestic intelligence agency, it came down to him having files on absolutely everybody of consequence in the United States during his decades-long tenure. No politician would dare to try to expel him without worrying that J. Edgar Hoover would take him down as well. Indeed, the film noted the celebrated battles that J. Edgar Hoover had with Robert Kennedy, the President's brother and Attorney General during the JFK Administration, and during with the equally information craving/paranoid Richard Nixon Administration during the last years of Hoover's life.
So how could such a tenacious indeed ruthless bureaucrat come to be made? Well Eastwood and Black suggest that a good part of the roots of his tenaciousness could be found in his upbringing. His mother Annie Hoover (played in the movie by Judy Dench) had big plans for her son including "recapturing" their (lost in some way) WASPish family's "honor." How the family had "lost" some of its previous honor was not clear, but J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo diCaprio) seemed on a life-long mission to "recapture" it. And most adults would know that such a "mission" would be a fool's errand. How much "honor" had been "lost"? How much needed to be "recaptured?" How much "honor" collected was enough? No matter how many successes Hoover had -- and he had plenty of successes, he was instrumental in defeating (indeed destroying) the Red Scare in the United States after World War I, his new FBI was instrumental in defeating (again, indeed destroying) the unprecedented wave of criminality that existed in the early 1930s, his agency did largely keep the country safe from infiltration of Nazi spies during the 1930s/WWII and Communists afterwards -- it was never, ever enough. So Hoover became a life-long publicity hound: He made cameo appearances in films. He allowed himself to become a character in children's crime fighting comic books. He even convinced himself that _he_ was the one who gunned-down the famed gangster Dillinger when he wasn't even in that part of the country when Dillinger was taken-down by the FBI in Chicago.
Another part of his story, only becoming more fodder for discussion in recent years (after his death) was that J. Edgar Hoover, who never married, was probably gay and for various reasons he surrounded himself with other probably gay/lesbian assistants, including his lifelong spinster personal secretary Helen Gandy (played by Naomi Watts) and FBI agent, life-long confidante and travel companion Clyde Tolson (played by Armie Hammer). About the latter, the film notes at the end of the film that Hoover had made Clyde Tolson the principal heir to his estate, including his house. Additionally, Tolson received the ceremonial American flag at the end of his (state) funeral. Finally, Tolson is buried only a few feet from J. Edgar Hoover's grave at Washington D.C.'s Congressional Cemetery. That J. Edgar Hoover would be gay (and would surround himself with other gay/lesbian assistants) would actually make some sense at that time because there was no way to be openly gay. So one way to "hide" was to bury oneself in one's work. And that's exactly what Hoover and the others around him did.
Finally, if Hoover was, in fact, repressed sexually this would help explain both his ruthlessness (his tendency to not be content with simply besting opponents but seeking to utterly destroy them) and his tendency to focus on the moral (sexual) failings of his perceived opponents even to the detriment of his agency's doing its job (of protecting the nation). I mentioned above that the FBI had managed to keep the USA largely safe from infiltration by Nazi saboteurs during the Nazi era/World War II. But this was largely by luck/accident. In a celebrated incident not mentioned in the film, a number of would-be saboteurs were caught right on the beaches in New York and Florida by local cops by accident (though Hoover would later portray this as part of an FBI sponsored dragnet to keep potential Nazi spies in check). What Hoover seemed to find far more interesting was keeping tabs on the personal lives (and failings) of the Roosevelts, in particular on the possibly lesbianism of FDR's wife Eleanor.
Similarly in certainly the most controversial scene in this film, J. Edgar Hoover is portrayed as being engrossed in listening to an audio surveillance tape of Martin Luther King, Jr having adulterous sex with a woman at the very moment that he received word that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. Was this true? Was J. Edgar Hoover doing exactly this when he got word of the JFK assassination? Probably/almost certainly not, and I've complained about similar dramatic oversteps in the recent cable television series The Borgias (about the escapades of Pope Alexander VI and his family) and the film Anonymous (promoting the thesis that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him). In the case of this film, however, I would argue that the flagrant dramatic license taken is probably the most justified because it does point to a truth: J. Edgar Hoover really was fixated on (once again) destroying a possible adversary of the United States (Martin Luther King, Jr and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which Hoover convinced himself was being infiltrated by Communists) and as a result the FBI (at minimum) completely dropped the ball with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the Soviet Union (who subsequently returned, apparently with few/no questions asked) as a potential threat to the President or the nation.
There are also various themes arising from the film that are certainly topical today. One gets the sense that if Hoover lived today, he would have been a fan of the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which greatly expanded police/surveillance power, because Hoover seemed to be always in favor expanding the law enforcement powers of his FBI. On the other hand, the film did portray quite well J. Edgar Hoover's early experiences in fighting radicalism (the anarchists of the early 20th century) and the almost quaint lack of coordination and lack federal law enforcement powers that most law enforcement officials take for granted today. Finally, I do believe that the movie shows quite well the drawbacks of allowing someone to stay in his/her position for too long: J. Edgar Hoover was portrayed as someone who (perhaps necessarily) saw everything through the lens of his early experiences fighting those anarchists of the early 20th century. So he utterly misunderstood the nature of Martin Luther King Jr's Gandhi inspired peaceful civil rights movement.
All in all, I do consider J. Edgar to be one best films of the year, not simply because of Leonardo DiCaprio and Judy Dench's outstanding performances or Clint Eastwood's (once again) outstanding direction, but above all in its offering of so much fodder for reflection both in this movie's study of this famously driven (repressed/paranoid/megalomaniacal?) man and in its survey of the times in which he lived and worked. Adapting an old Chinese proverb to my purposes here: I do believe that for good or ill, if nothing else, J. Edgar Hoover was a very interesting man who lived in very interesting times.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv138.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111108/REVIEWS/111109973
J Edgar (Warner Bros. USA, directed by Clint Eastwood, screenplay by Dustin Lance Black) a bio pic about legendary (and/or infamous) U.S. FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover is destined to be remembered as one of 2011's best films, and earn a plethora of Oscar Nominations. Let's count them: (1) in a field of 10 a certain nomination for Best Picture, (2) a certain nomination and possible/probable award for Best Director (Clint Eastwood), (3) a possible nomination for Best Original Screen Play (Dustin Lance Black), (4) a certain nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Leonardo diCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover), a (5) certain nomination and probable award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Judy Dench, as J. Edgar Hoover's mother), (6) a possible second nomination for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Naomi Watts as Helen Gandy, J. Edgar Hoover's lifelong secretary), and (7) a possible a nomination for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, J. Edgar Hoover's lifelong confidante and possibly more).
Why would J. Edgar Hoover be simultaneously legendary and controversial (or even infamous)? Well he was a very, very interesting/compelling and arguably dangerous persona in American history. Consider simply that he was the founding director of the FBI in 1935 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and remained director of the FBI until his death in 1972 four years into the Richard M. Nixon Administration. In Washington, D.C. almost no one lasts that long in a job (under 6 presidents -- FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon). How did he do it? In the kindest of language, he was the epitome indeed "poster child" of the entrenched bureaucrat that only blasting powder could remove. In reality, as head of the U.S. federal government's premier police/domestic intelligence agency, it came down to him having files on absolutely everybody of consequence in the United States during his decades-long tenure. No politician would dare to try to expel him without worrying that J. Edgar Hoover would take him down as well. Indeed, the film noted the celebrated battles that J. Edgar Hoover had with Robert Kennedy, the President's brother and Attorney General during the JFK Administration, and during with the equally information craving/paranoid Richard Nixon Administration during the last years of Hoover's life.
So how could such a tenacious indeed ruthless bureaucrat come to be made? Well Eastwood and Black suggest that a good part of the roots of his tenaciousness could be found in his upbringing. His mother Annie Hoover (played in the movie by Judy Dench) had big plans for her son including "recapturing" their (lost in some way) WASPish family's "honor." How the family had "lost" some of its previous honor was not clear, but J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo diCaprio) seemed on a life-long mission to "recapture" it. And most adults would know that such a "mission" would be a fool's errand. How much "honor" had been "lost"? How much needed to be "recaptured?" How much "honor" collected was enough? No matter how many successes Hoover had -- and he had plenty of successes, he was instrumental in defeating (indeed destroying) the Red Scare in the United States after World War I, his new FBI was instrumental in defeating (again, indeed destroying) the unprecedented wave of criminality that existed in the early 1930s, his agency did largely keep the country safe from infiltration of Nazi spies during the 1930s/WWII and Communists afterwards -- it was never, ever enough. So Hoover became a life-long publicity hound: He made cameo appearances in films. He allowed himself to become a character in children's crime fighting comic books. He even convinced himself that _he_ was the one who gunned-down the famed gangster Dillinger when he wasn't even in that part of the country when Dillinger was taken-down by the FBI in Chicago.
Another part of his story, only becoming more fodder for discussion in recent years (after his death) was that J. Edgar Hoover, who never married, was probably gay and for various reasons he surrounded himself with other probably gay/lesbian assistants, including his lifelong spinster personal secretary Helen Gandy (played by Naomi Watts) and FBI agent, life-long confidante and travel companion Clyde Tolson (played by Armie Hammer). About the latter, the film notes at the end of the film that Hoover had made Clyde Tolson the principal heir to his estate, including his house. Additionally, Tolson received the ceremonial American flag at the end of his (state) funeral. Finally, Tolson is buried only a few feet from J. Edgar Hoover's grave at Washington D.C.'s Congressional Cemetery. That J. Edgar Hoover would be gay (and would surround himself with other gay/lesbian assistants) would actually make some sense at that time because there was no way to be openly gay. So one way to "hide" was to bury oneself in one's work. And that's exactly what Hoover and the others around him did.
Finally, if Hoover was, in fact, repressed sexually this would help explain both his ruthlessness (his tendency to not be content with simply besting opponents but seeking to utterly destroy them) and his tendency to focus on the moral (sexual) failings of his perceived opponents even to the detriment of his agency's doing its job (of protecting the nation). I mentioned above that the FBI had managed to keep the USA largely safe from infiltration by Nazi saboteurs during the Nazi era/World War II. But this was largely by luck/accident. In a celebrated incident not mentioned in the film, a number of would-be saboteurs were caught right on the beaches in New York and Florida by local cops by accident (though Hoover would later portray this as part of an FBI sponsored dragnet to keep potential Nazi spies in check). What Hoover seemed to find far more interesting was keeping tabs on the personal lives (and failings) of the Roosevelts, in particular on the possibly lesbianism of FDR's wife Eleanor.
Similarly in certainly the most controversial scene in this film, J. Edgar Hoover is portrayed as being engrossed in listening to an audio surveillance tape of Martin Luther King, Jr having adulterous sex with a woman at the very moment that he received word that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. Was this true? Was J. Edgar Hoover doing exactly this when he got word of the JFK assassination? Probably/almost certainly not, and I've complained about similar dramatic oversteps in the recent cable television series The Borgias (about the escapades of Pope Alexander VI and his family) and the film Anonymous (promoting the thesis that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him). In the case of this film, however, I would argue that the flagrant dramatic license taken is probably the most justified because it does point to a truth: J. Edgar Hoover really was fixated on (once again) destroying a possible adversary of the United States (Martin Luther King, Jr and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which Hoover convinced himself was being infiltrated by Communists) and as a result the FBI (at minimum) completely dropped the ball with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the Soviet Union (who subsequently returned, apparently with few/no questions asked) as a potential threat to the President or the nation.
There are also various themes arising from the film that are certainly topical today. One gets the sense that if Hoover lived today, he would have been a fan of the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which greatly expanded police/surveillance power, because Hoover seemed to be always in favor expanding the law enforcement powers of his FBI. On the other hand, the film did portray quite well J. Edgar Hoover's early experiences in fighting radicalism (the anarchists of the early 20th century) and the almost quaint lack of coordination and lack federal law enforcement powers that most law enforcement officials take for granted today. Finally, I do believe that the movie shows quite well the drawbacks of allowing someone to stay in his/her position for too long: J. Edgar Hoover was portrayed as someone who (perhaps necessarily) saw everything through the lens of his early experiences fighting those anarchists of the early 20th century. So he utterly misunderstood the nature of Martin Luther King Jr's Gandhi inspired peaceful civil rights movement.
All in all, I do consider J. Edgar to be one best films of the year, not simply because of Leonardo DiCaprio and Judy Dench's outstanding performances or Clint Eastwood's (once again) outstanding direction, but above all in its offering of so much fodder for reflection both in this movie's study of this famously driven (repressed/paranoid/megalomaniacal?) man and in its survey of the times in which he lived and worked. Adapting an old Chinese proverb to my purposes here: I do believe that for good or ill, if nothing else, J. Edgar Hoover was a very interesting man who lived in very interesting times.
<< 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! :-) >>
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Tower Heist
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471042/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv136.htm
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111102/REVIEWS/111109996
Tower Heist (Universal, directed by Brett Ratner, written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson story by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage and Ted Griffin) is a topical if not intended to be a particularly profound movie. Indeed, it's basically a screwball comedy. But with an ensemble cast with the likes of Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Judd Hirsch, Alan Alda and Matthew Broderick it largely delivers the laughs.
Set at a towering residential hotel modeled after the Trump Tower and located somewhere in Midtown Manhattan, the staff, led by Josh Kovacs (played by Ben Stiller) prides itself in its professionalism and courtesy toward its upper-class, at times super-upper-class residents. The richest man in the tower, residing in the penthouse suite, is a financier Arthur Shaw (played by Alan Alda). He seems brilliant, and the staff from Kovacs on down treats him with a mixture of awe and deference ... and he turns out to be a crook.
It's a shock to the tower staff, when a security cam is seen showing Shaw apparently entering the back of a laundry truck in the garage alongside two buff men. Indeed, Kovacs initially believes that Shaw is being kidnapped. Instead, Shaw was trying to escape the FBI, who led by Special Agent Claire Denham (played by Téa Leoni) were arriving to arrest him for securities fraud. Shaw doesn't get far before he is arrested.
However, the shock and disorientation continues when it is revealed that Shaw had apparently drained all the accounts he was responsible for in the preceding months, including to the surprise of the staff, their staff pension fund. Josh, in fact, had decided to let Shaw manage the the Tower employees' pension fund a few years earlier because Shaw had promised that he could "easily triple its worth." Now on account of this "sweetheart deal" between Shaw and Josh (and without the staff really knowing about it ... though up until the arrival of the FBI at the doors of the hotel, the staff implicitly trusted all their rich residents as being "good people") the staff was left with nothing.
This, of course, caused enormous trauma to the staff. Lester (played by Stephen Henderson) the doorman for 29 years, "that's an awful lot of doors I've opened over those years ..." was about to retire. But now he had nothing. A few days after he realized that he had nothing left of his retirement savings, he tries walking in front of a subway train ...
The final straw for Josh came when he along with Manuel (played by Juan Carlos Hernandez) the head concierge go up to tell Shaw (out on $10 million bail, but under house arrest) what Lester had nearly done and Shaw appeared unmoved.
It was then, that Josh decides that "justice must be done" and that he and the other staff are going to figure out a way to "steal back" even from Shaw's penthouse the twenty million dollars that the staff lost through Shaw's malfeasance. Much ensues ...
Since Manuel along with recent hire Enrique (played by Michael Peña), and recently evicted architect (due to bankrupcy) Mr. Fitzhugh (played by Matthew Broderick) persuade Josh that they alone would be incapable of pulling this off, Josh brings in a "consultant" named "Slide" (played by Eddie Murphy). Josh and Slide had grown-up together in the same neighborhood, somewhere in Brooklyn and Slide was always a petty criminal. So Josh asks him to help his staff steal back its money.
The heist the follows is convoluted and stupid -- but then it's a screwball comedy, when it's not being so painful. The possy is composed of Josh, Manuel, Enrique, Slide and a hotel maid named Odessa (played by Gabourey Sidibe), the "daughter of the owner of the largest lock-smith business in Kingston Jamaica" as their "safe cracker." Much again happens. And when they inevitably get caught, one of the other maids, Miss Lovenko (played by Nina Arianda) who throughout the movie kept denying to Josh that she was studying for the N.Y. Bar Exam even as he kept assuring her that as long as she did all her work, it didn't matter to him, comes in to rescue them as their attorney (she did pass the Bar exam ... ;-).
The ending of the movie is actually more complex than this and I actually kinda like it. And while this is not intended to be a particularly profound movie, as American comedies often do, the film packs a surprising punch. So even as we smile and laugh as we watch the film, it's talking to us about a lot of pain and frankly about a lot of crime and a lot of betrayals. To the movie's credit, the film repeatedly names the pain, the crimes and the betrayals even as it keeps us laughing ... and then resolves it all quite fairly.
So as "light" as this movie may initially seem, it actually says a lot more than one may initially think. Again, the ending is better than one would expect. Good job!
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471042/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv136.htm
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111102/REVIEWS/111109996
Tower Heist (Universal, directed by Brett Ratner, written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson story by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage and Ted Griffin) is a topical if not intended to be a particularly profound movie. Indeed, it's basically a screwball comedy. But with an ensemble cast with the likes of Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Judd Hirsch, Alan Alda and Matthew Broderick it largely delivers the laughs.
Set at a towering residential hotel modeled after the Trump Tower and located somewhere in Midtown Manhattan, the staff, led by Josh Kovacs (played by Ben Stiller) prides itself in its professionalism and courtesy toward its upper-class, at times super-upper-class residents. The richest man in the tower, residing in the penthouse suite, is a financier Arthur Shaw (played by Alan Alda). He seems brilliant, and the staff from Kovacs on down treats him with a mixture of awe and deference ... and he turns out to be a crook.
It's a shock to the tower staff, when a security cam is seen showing Shaw apparently entering the back of a laundry truck in the garage alongside two buff men. Indeed, Kovacs initially believes that Shaw is being kidnapped. Instead, Shaw was trying to escape the FBI, who led by Special Agent Claire Denham (played by Téa Leoni) were arriving to arrest him for securities fraud. Shaw doesn't get far before he is arrested.
However, the shock and disorientation continues when it is revealed that Shaw had apparently drained all the accounts he was responsible for in the preceding months, including to the surprise of the staff, their staff pension fund. Josh, in fact, had decided to let Shaw manage the the Tower employees' pension fund a few years earlier because Shaw had promised that he could "easily triple its worth." Now on account of this "sweetheart deal" between Shaw and Josh (and without the staff really knowing about it ... though up until the arrival of the FBI at the doors of the hotel, the staff implicitly trusted all their rich residents as being "good people") the staff was left with nothing.
This, of course, caused enormous trauma to the staff. Lester (played by Stephen Henderson) the doorman for 29 years, "that's an awful lot of doors I've opened over those years ..." was about to retire. But now he had nothing. A few days after he realized that he had nothing left of his retirement savings, he tries walking in front of a subway train ...
The final straw for Josh came when he along with Manuel (played by Juan Carlos Hernandez) the head concierge go up to tell Shaw (out on $10 million bail, but under house arrest) what Lester had nearly done and Shaw appeared unmoved.
It was then, that Josh decides that "justice must be done" and that he and the other staff are going to figure out a way to "steal back" even from Shaw's penthouse the twenty million dollars that the staff lost through Shaw's malfeasance. Much ensues ...
Since Manuel along with recent hire Enrique (played by Michael Peña), and recently evicted architect (due to bankrupcy) Mr. Fitzhugh (played by Matthew Broderick) persuade Josh that they alone would be incapable of pulling this off, Josh brings in a "consultant" named "Slide" (played by Eddie Murphy). Josh and Slide had grown-up together in the same neighborhood, somewhere in Brooklyn and Slide was always a petty criminal. So Josh asks him to help his staff steal back its money.
The heist the follows is convoluted and stupid -- but then it's a screwball comedy, when it's not being so painful. The possy is composed of Josh, Manuel, Enrique, Slide and a hotel maid named Odessa (played by Gabourey Sidibe), the "daughter of the owner of the largest lock-smith business in Kingston Jamaica" as their "safe cracker." Much again happens. And when they inevitably get caught, one of the other maids, Miss Lovenko (played by Nina Arianda) who throughout the movie kept denying to Josh that she was studying for the N.Y. Bar Exam even as he kept assuring her that as long as she did all her work, it didn't matter to him, comes in to rescue them as their attorney (she did pass the Bar exam ... ;-).
The ending of the movie is actually more complex than this and I actually kinda like it. And while this is not intended to be a particularly profound movie, as American comedies often do, the film packs a surprising punch. So even as we smile and laugh as we watch the film, it's talking to us about a lot of pain and frankly about a lot of crime and a lot of betrayals. To the movie's credit, the film repeatedly names the pain, the crimes and the betrayals even as it keeps us laughing ... and then resolves it all quite fairly.
So as "light" as this movie may initially seem, it actually says a lot more than one may initially think. Again, the ending is better than one would expect. Good job!
<< 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! :-) >>
Friday, November 4, 2011
Like Crazy
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
Like Crazy (directed and co-written by Drake Doremus along with Ben York Jones) is an outstanding young adult love story that (in a field of ten) certainly deserves to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, along with a whole host of other nominations including possibly best actor and actress in leading roles (I'm not sure they'd necessarily deserve to win but certainly ought to be considered for nominations). Since Like Crazy is also by-far the best film that I certainly can recall where much of the cinematography was done using hand-held cameras, if it were up to me, even a best-cinematography nomination would be in order. And tight as this picture is, with pretty much every shot and every scene had a purpose, a nomination for best-editing could be in order as well. Obviously, I really liked this picture ;-).
Finally there's the movie's theme -- love and borders (and how Big Brother in the form of intrusive, ham-handed immigration law pushed by old, frightened, often racist, crows can brutally complicate and even destroy young lives) -- is something that I empathize with because I KNOW IT IS A LIVED REALITY FOR COUNTLESS YOUNG AMERICANS whose skin color and/or that of their sweethearts may be a few shades darker than the two eminently Anglo protagonists in the story (the non-American is even from England) but whose love and heart-ache is just as sincere.
So then happens in the film? Well, a student from England, Anna (played by Felicity Jones) studying journalism in Los Angeles meets an American student majoring in furniture design named Jacob (played by Anton Yelchin). A hand held camera is perfectly used to express the jitteriness of their first encounters. She makes the first move. But soon they fall deeply in love. As graduation comes, they have things planned out. Her student visa is expiring, so she'll go back to England for the summer and apply for a work visa. But on last the weekend trip that they take (to Catalina Island) before she leaves, she impractically (but in love) decides to stay the summer in the States anyway, return back to England for a family obligation at the end of the summer but come right back again "as a tourist" (because Brits and most Western Europeans don't even need to apply for tourist visas) and life would go on swimmingly or at least everything would "work out."
They spend the summer, as promised "largely in bed" (shown in a very lovely way by means of a rapid-fire montage of still shots showing them always in an embrace on said-bed in variously colored t-shirts and underwear). At the end of the summer, Anna flies back for her family obligation, and flies right back as promised a few weeks later. But ...
At the U.S. Customs at the airport after scanning her passport, the U.S. border official tells her that she violated the terms of her last (student) visa. Anna tries to explain that she's coming now as a tourist and doesn't need a visa. The U.S. border official tells her that it doesn't work that way. Since she violated the terms of her stay the last time, she has to return to her home country (even if it is the U.K.) and "resolve" this problem before being allowed to return to the United States. And indeed, the U.S. border officials put her on a flight back to England and that is that. Jacob, who arrived at the airport with a bunch of roses didn't even get see her, even though she was right there at LAX. All he could do is follow her ordeal via cell phone and text messages as he tried very hard (and in vain) to figure-out what to do.
Much ensues afterward. After all, theirs was not a casual fling. They were truly in love. Jacob flies to see her several times in England. Anna's dad (played by Oliver Muirhead) gets her an immigration lawyer to hack her out of this mess. During one of Jacob's visits, her dad, exasperated, asks out-loud, "Why don't you two just get married? It'd get much easier then." After some give and take over the next months, they do -- in England. But when called to an interview at the U.S. Embassy a few months afterwards, they're told by the immigration official, that their having gotten married still wasn't enough, that the officials working out her previous visa violation still had to resolve that infraction before she could do anything. How long would that take? No one could say. Years, perhaps.
Now Jacob now has a hand-made furniture business in Santa Monica. Anna asks finally couldn't he just close it and go make furniture in London? He answers truthfully (though there are other things going on as well) that it'd be complicated. To close down a business (that he had struggled to build), sell everything and "start over in London" wouldn't be easy. In the mean time, Anna having landed a job at a magazine in London, now gets a serious promotion (mind you, the legal issues have gone now on for several years). Both are young, attractive and running into other attractive people in their different parts of the world.
And just as their love, indeed their marriage, seems hopeless, Anna gets the call from her dad's immigration lawyer that her visa finally came through. What would you do?
Millions of Americans, mostly young, but some middle aged and even with families are involved in cross-border relationships like this. How awful it is for Government EVEN AFTER ESTABLISHING THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS AUTHENTIC to stand in the middle and destroy young people's lives, and not just of the principal protagonists like those in this story but also of others around them.
This was truly a great story. It's perhaps sad that it had to be told in the form of two alabaster skinned lovebirds who usually don't have endure this nightmare. But if it helps express the damage being done by current U.S. immigration law to countless young people of browner complexions in this country, so be it. It was one heck of a movie.
ADDENDUM:
Since the time when the first large wave of Catholic immigrants came to this country during the Irish Potato Famine, the Catholic Church in the United States has been always at least in part a "Church of Immigrants." As such defending the rights and dignity of immigrants has been a perennial concern of the Catholic Church in the United States. Through the USCCB's campaign Justice for Immigrants, the Catholic Church has kept this issue of alive in the United States even in the face of stiff and often very bigoted opposition which chooses to forget that the ancestors of virtually everyone in the United States arrived from somewhere else, penniless, as refugees or even as slaves in chains. We also often choose to forget that the Holy Family itself had to live in Egypt as refugees for seven years (and we do not know if they "had their papers in order"). And we believe in a God who is the God of both the Living and the Dead, so God's love knows no borders.
Finally, the Servite Coalition for Justice to which I belong (I am a Friar Servant of Mary) recently prepared an "Immigration Rosary" offering reflections on the traditional Seven Sorrows of Mary in light of recent Immigrant Experience.
So this movie is a very good one. I just wish the protagonists could have reflected the contemporary reality more fully by, frankly ... being cast a number of shades browner.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
Like Crazy (directed and co-written by Drake Doremus along with Ben York Jones) is an outstanding young adult love story that (in a field of ten) certainly deserves to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, along with a whole host of other nominations including possibly best actor and actress in leading roles (I'm not sure they'd necessarily deserve to win but certainly ought to be considered for nominations). Since Like Crazy is also by-far the best film that I certainly can recall where much of the cinematography was done using hand-held cameras, if it were up to me, even a best-cinematography nomination would be in order. And tight as this picture is, with pretty much every shot and every scene had a purpose, a nomination for best-editing could be in order as well. Obviously, I really liked this picture ;-).
Finally there's the movie's theme -- love and borders (and how Big Brother in the form of intrusive, ham-handed immigration law pushed by old, frightened, often racist, crows can brutally complicate and even destroy young lives) -- is something that I empathize with because I KNOW IT IS A LIVED REALITY FOR COUNTLESS YOUNG AMERICANS whose skin color and/or that of their sweethearts may be a few shades darker than the two eminently Anglo protagonists in the story (the non-American is even from England) but whose love and heart-ache is just as sincere.
So then happens in the film? Well, a student from England, Anna (played by Felicity Jones) studying journalism in Los Angeles meets an American student majoring in furniture design named Jacob (played by Anton Yelchin). A hand held camera is perfectly used to express the jitteriness of their first encounters. She makes the first move. But soon they fall deeply in love. As graduation comes, they have things planned out. Her student visa is expiring, so she'll go back to England for the summer and apply for a work visa. But on last the weekend trip that they take (to Catalina Island) before she leaves, she impractically (but in love) decides to stay the summer in the States anyway, return back to England for a family obligation at the end of the summer but come right back again "as a tourist" (because Brits and most Western Europeans don't even need to apply for tourist visas) and life would go on swimmingly or at least everything would "work out."
They spend the summer, as promised "largely in bed" (shown in a very lovely way by means of a rapid-fire montage of still shots showing them always in an embrace on said-bed in variously colored t-shirts and underwear). At the end of the summer, Anna flies back for her family obligation, and flies right back as promised a few weeks later. But ...
At the U.S. Customs at the airport after scanning her passport, the U.S. border official tells her that she violated the terms of her last (student) visa. Anna tries to explain that she's coming now as a tourist and doesn't need a visa. The U.S. border official tells her that it doesn't work that way. Since she violated the terms of her stay the last time, she has to return to her home country (even if it is the U.K.) and "resolve" this problem before being allowed to return to the United States. And indeed, the U.S. border officials put her on a flight back to England and that is that. Jacob, who arrived at the airport with a bunch of roses didn't even get see her, even though she was right there at LAX. All he could do is follow her ordeal via cell phone and text messages as he tried very hard (and in vain) to figure-out what to do.
Much ensues afterward. After all, theirs was not a casual fling. They were truly in love. Jacob flies to see her several times in England. Anna's dad (played by Oliver Muirhead) gets her an immigration lawyer to hack her out of this mess. During one of Jacob's visits, her dad, exasperated, asks out-loud, "Why don't you two just get married? It'd get much easier then." After some give and take over the next months, they do -- in England. But when called to an interview at the U.S. Embassy a few months afterwards, they're told by the immigration official, that their having gotten married still wasn't enough, that the officials working out her previous visa violation still had to resolve that infraction before she could do anything. How long would that take? No one could say. Years, perhaps.
Now Jacob now has a hand-made furniture business in Santa Monica. Anna asks finally couldn't he just close it and go make furniture in London? He answers truthfully (though there are other things going on as well) that it'd be complicated. To close down a business (that he had struggled to build), sell everything and "start over in London" wouldn't be easy. In the mean time, Anna having landed a job at a magazine in London, now gets a serious promotion (mind you, the legal issues have gone now on for several years). Both are young, attractive and running into other attractive people in their different parts of the world.
And just as their love, indeed their marriage, seems hopeless, Anna gets the call from her dad's immigration lawyer that her visa finally came through. What would you do?
Millions of Americans, mostly young, but some middle aged and even with families are involved in cross-border relationships like this. How awful it is for Government EVEN AFTER ESTABLISHING THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS AUTHENTIC to stand in the middle and destroy young people's lives, and not just of the principal protagonists like those in this story but also of others around them.
This was truly a great story. It's perhaps sad that it had to be told in the form of two alabaster skinned lovebirds who usually don't have endure this nightmare. But if it helps express the damage being done by current U.S. immigration law to countless young people of browner complexions in this country, so be it. It was one heck of a movie.
ADDENDUM:
Since the time when the first large wave of Catholic immigrants came to this country during the Irish Potato Famine, the Catholic Church in the United States has been always at least in part a "Church of Immigrants." As such defending the rights and dignity of immigrants has been a perennial concern of the Catholic Church in the United States. Through the USCCB's campaign Justice for Immigrants, the Catholic Church has kept this issue of alive in the United States even in the face of stiff and often very bigoted opposition which chooses to forget that the ancestors of virtually everyone in the United States arrived from somewhere else, penniless, as refugees or even as slaves in chains. We also often choose to forget that the Holy Family itself had to live in Egypt as refugees for seven years (and we do not know if they "had their papers in order"). And we believe in a God who is the God of both the Living and the Dead, so God's love knows no borders.
Finally, the Servite Coalition for Justice to which I belong (I am a Friar Servant of Mary) recently prepared an "Immigration Rosary" offering reflections on the traditional Seven Sorrows of Mary in light of recent Immigrant Experience.
So this movie is a very good one. I just wish the protagonists could have reflected the contemporary reality more fully by, frankly ... being cast a number of shades browner.
<< 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)