Avé [2011]

Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833647/

Avé (directed and cowritten by Konstantin Bojanov along with Arnold Barkus) is a sad if compelling young adult "road movie" from Bulgaria that I recently saw at the 15th Annual European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Sickel Film Center in Chicago, IL.

The film is about two young hitch-hikers, a late-teen early 20-something young woman named Avé (played by Angela Nedialkova) and young university student, male, named Kamen (played by Ovanes Torosian).

Avé appears to have been from a fairly rich family.  Her father had been a diplomat and she and her brother had spent part of their childhood in India while her father had been stationed at the Bulgarian embassy in Dehli.  As a result, Avé knows some English.  Kamen appears to have lived all his life in Bulgaria though he did have some education as well being an art student in Bulgaria's capital city of Sofia.

They both find themselves hitchhiking for their own tragic reasons.  Avé is searching for her drug addicted brother, figuring that she'd be more likely to find him by chatting up people she meets at road-side cafes, diners, truck-stops and so forth.  It's clear that she's done this before.  Kamen, on the other hand, is trying to get to the village of his best friend in time for his best friend's funeral.  What happened to his best friend?  He committed suicide.  Why?  Because he had caught Kamen sleeping with his best friend's girlfriend.  So he's going back to his best friend's village in part to atone and in part to say, if he finds the courage, that he's sorry.

Bulgaria is a rather poor country.  As filmed in this movie, I could not help but find it to look something like the "New Jersey of Europe," not particularly picturesque.  A good part of the two's journey involved both crossing and traveling along the rather industrialized Danube River.  It becomes also clear in the film that Bulgaria is dominated by two major cities at opposite ends of the country -- Sofia its capital at the far western interior side of the country and Varna its principal port on the Black Sea.  (New Jersey is also dominated by two major metropolitan areas at opposite ends of the state -- New York City just to the north and east of the state and Philadelphia, PA just to south and west of the state).  Then just like New Jersey, with its Jersey Shore, Bulgaria has been famous over the years and in different times for its beaches on the Black Sea.  Indeed, during the Cold War when citizens of the various countries of the Soviet-aligned Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc could not travel outside of the Warsaw Pact, Bulgaria's Black Sea Coast was one of the Eastern Bloc's most popular tourist destinations.  Pretty much all of my Czech relatives spent one or two summer vacations on the Black Sea, in both Romania and Bulgaria.

Most of the film appears to be filmed in the countryside and small towns between Sofia and Varna.  It's winter or fall.  So it's rather cold, dank and grey.  When the two arrive at the village of Kamen's best friend it is simply raining and it doesn't really stop until they leave.  And of course the mother, religious (Bulgarian Orthodox), is devastated and dressed from head to toe in black.  The rest of the relatives only join her in her weeping, and worry about their Viki's (Viktor's) soul.  "It's a great sin to kill oneself," they keep muttering in their tears, trying to comprehend why.  Eventually Kamen, perhaps from the city and remember he came in part in hopes of somehow apologizing, perhaps because he can't stand listening to them anymore or perhaps trying to help them understand asks: "But what's so heroic about living if all life's about just going from 'point a' to 'point b'?

Remember this is a film about two hitchhikers more or less randomly traveling a grey desolate countryside seeking in part to atone for losing one soul, and searching for another.

No, Avé, this is not exactly a cheerful movie (though the character Avé does give it charm because as she talks up people for information about the possible whereabouts of her brother, she also enjoys embellishing her story in ways that makes her randomly going "from point a to point b" interesting).  But above all, the movie comes across as very sincere.   Bulgaria in the winter must be very grey.

Still all the major people associated with this film -- the writer, director, cinematographer and both main actors -- deserve recognition and praise for this film.  They told a very sad story, but told it very, very well, in a manner that all viewers could understand.


<< 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! :-) >>

Friends with Kids [2012]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1720616/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120307/REVIEWS/120309981

Friends with Kids (written, directed and costarring Jennifer Westfeldt) is a romcom that's going to rattle and at least initially outright offend a fair number of people.  Two still-single attractive young professionals, Jason Fryman (played by Adam Scott) and Julie Keller (played by Jennifer Westfeldt), "living the dream" in Manhattan, New York, watch aghast as their married best friends Leslie and Alex (played by Maya Rudolph and Chris O'Dowd) and Ben and Missy (played by Jon Hamm and Kristen Wigg) "change" (become more stressed, arguably meaner) as they begin having families.  They also note (whether true or not) that people often remarry better after their first marriage falls apart (according to them, largely on account of those kids necessarily changing the relationship existing in the first marriage).

The solution that the two talkative and iconoclastic single friends come-up with is to have the kid outside of wedlock with someone that they kinda care about but not enough to marry (hence start "already divorced") and then just look for the "post-first marriage soul mate" who (according to their theory) seems to materialize out of the ashes of the first marriage (destroyed by having kids).  And the two decide, of course, that their current relationship (best friends but not attracted to each other) fits the bill.  What could go wrong?  Right?

Here we can thank Jennifer Westfeld for making the movie, definitely NOT to serve as an "example" of how things ought to be done in the world today.  Rather we should thank her because the film serves as a thought experiment and a discussion piece for all of us watching it.  Indeed, the other characters in the story, including the parents of the two adventurous, again iconoclastic young adults, are given opportunity to voice various objections to the scheme, objections that Westfield does not disparage in her piece. Indeed, if anything, I do think that she encourages the characters in her story (and the audience) to respond to the unorthodox, even shocking undertaking of the two lead characters of the story.

And as the film plays out, she does present some of the flaws in the scheme -- how does one come to explain this unorthodox arrangement to the kid (at 2 at 5 at 8 at 12 at 15 at 17 at 19 at 22 at 28 at really age)?  And then what is the true nature of romance?  Is it only to be found simply in beauty / roses / fine things and sexual acrobatics?  Or can it be found even in the changing of a diaper of a kid experiencing "projectile diarrhea?"

So as has often happened to me in the past by the time I get to the end of my review of the film, I find myself liking the film far more than when I started.

Folks, please don't take the scheme of the two lead characters in this film to be "the way things ought to be."  Rather understand the film to be intended to be a "discussion piece."  I've written here many times in this blog that ultimately Hollywood is far more traditional / conservative than one may initially believe.  Hollywood may flirt with radical ideas but often to return to and validate that which we understand as "tried and true" by the time the closing credits role. 

I do believe this film to fit in this mold.  It's a heck of a ride.  The two characters of this film bravely step out of the mold to try something new (and remember there's safety in this being "only a film", a "thought experiment," a "day dream").  Yet by the end, after ample "free discussion" by "the peanut gallery" (composed of the other characters in the story, and even we, the viewers) of the couple's avant guard choice, I do believe that the vast majority of us will leave appreciating "the wisdom of the old way."

Great film!

One last note to parents.  It should be obvious from the discussion above that even a teen won't "get' this film.  There is some bad language but no nudity.  Yet this film definitely deserves the R rating.  It's simply meant for adults, college aged or even post-college-aged and above.


<< 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! :-) >>

Silent House [2011]

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1767382/
CNS/USCCB Review - 
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv031.htm
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120307/REVIEWS/120309982

Silent House (directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau who also wrote the screenplay for this film as a remake of Gustavo Hernandez' Uruguayan film La Casa Muda [2010]) is a film has several things going for it that in other circumstances I could find myself seeing.  The things going for it include: (1) that it is based on a relatively obscure foreign film that Hollywood deemed good / intriguing enough to remake, (2) it stars Elizabeth Olsen with whom I was very impressed in Martha Marcy May Marlene last year and (3) claims to have been shot "in a single take" (88 minutes in all) which would be "one heck of a take."

However, there's been a glut of "haunted house" movies of late -- Don't be Afraid of the Dark, Dream House, The Woman in Black, to say nothing of Paranormal Activity 1, 2 and 3.  Consider then the young woman driven psycho thrillers like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (starring Noomy Repace in the 2009 Swedish version and Rooney Mara in the 2011 American version), the recently released Gone (starring Amanda Seyfried) perhaps even Martha Marcy May Marlene (already mentioned above that Elizabeth Olsen herself starred in) and perhaps the reader could understand my exhaustion:

I would imagine that Silent House is probably pretty good.  Further, reading the CNS/USCCB's review of the film, I'm pretty much certain that there isn't any gratuitous attack on the Church or Christianity or even gratuitous display of nudity in it.  Parents, I'd take the CNS/USCCB's rating that it is A-III (for Adults) as being almost certainly appropriate.  Yet since there have been so many movies similar to it that have been made in recent years, I simply can't justify going even to a bargain matinee to actually see it.

Perhaps if I were an older teen or college student in a group that liked these kinds of movies (and didn't already see many of the other movies similar to it) I'd think about seeing this one.  But the film seems too similar to so many others that have already been made.  So for me, the well here is dry.  Though I imagine the film itself is probably pretty good (if one likes this sort of thing), I can't justify spending the money (even with a matinee discount) to go see 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! :-) >>

Cousinhood (orig. Primos) [2011]

MPAA (unrated but probably would be rated R)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1592521/

Cousinhood (orig. Primos), written and directed by Daniel Sánchez Arévalo is a happy-go-lucky if certainly irreverent and definitely morally questionable (by both U.S. and U.S. Catholic standards) comedy from Spain that played recently at the 15th Annual European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Sickel Film Center in Chicago, IL.

Still even if irreverent/crude at times, the film is not without value to a American viewer (obviously the version I saw was subtitled) and many, especially the young who speak Spanish would find themselves rolling over laughing.  The film reminds me of a fair number of Italian similarly light romcoms that I saw when I was studying in Rome in the seminary in the 1990s.  Finally  Cousinhood's (orig. Primos) very _light_ humor appears to me typical of the Spanish young adult humor that I've encountered over the years both through relatives and the various Servites that I'm met from Spain.

For an American viewer to get an idea of the irreverent / morally questionable humor present in the film, I'd suggest thinking of Animal House [1978] which while also obviously morally questionable in its humor, I'd _also_ recommend to non-American young adults as a prime example of, indeed, emblematic of _white_ American youth culture humor.  Yes, it's irreverent, yes it's morally questionable, yes it's often stupid, but ... a film like this still can be really, really funny (especially if it's understood to be intended to be that way).

So what's Cousinhood (orig. Primos) about?  It's about three male cousins in their late-20s.  The movie begins with one of them, Diego (played by Quim Gutiérrez), teary eyed, in a tux clearly dressed for a wedding addressing apparently an assembled group of guests first thanking them for coming-out and then continuing to explain:  About a month ago, in preparation for the wedding, though having lived together for some time, he and his fiance decided that they abstain from sexual activity until the wedding night -- in mentioning this, his voice clearly increases in intensity even as he continues crying -- in hopes of having a "really _great_ wedding night."

Anyway, three weeks into this period of waiting, he just couldn't stand it.  But reaching out to caress her cheek, she turned away and started to cry.  Getting a hold of himself, retracting his hand and quickly apologizing: "I know, I know, I'll hold out too, I'll hold out too," he didn't realize initially that (of course) that was _not_ the reason why she was crying.  Instead, she told him that she's not sure that she loved him anymore and thought that they should just cancel the wedding.  "What could I do?  She was crying more than I was," he explains.  So both crying, they decided to cancel the wedding and that "she'd tell her guests and he tell mine."  He finishes his words adding: "Obviously, it didn't turn out the way I thought."  The camera draws back and we see that he's speaking inside a church, half of which is filled (the half with his guests) and half of which (his bride's half) is empty ... "Now please thank you for coming but you can go home now.  I need some time alone ..." and sits himself down, hands over his face, on the floor beside the altar.

The film resumes with the Church empty except for two others, his cousins (his "primos").  There's Julián (played by Raul Arévalo) who's kind of the leader of three, and José Miguel (played by Adrián Lastra) who had also been a strong formidable sort of a guy (with "balls of Spartacus..."). But he came back from "serving in Afghanistan" with a glass eye and nerves so shot that he's been reduced to a pill-popping basket case.

Trying to cheer up Diego, Julián asks Diego to think of any girl that he may a shot with to get him quite literally off of the floor and (as we would say in the United States) "back into the saddle" again...  The first woman that comes to Diego's mind is Martina with whom he had his first sexual experience ... way back when he was 17 back in the sea-side town that the three primos and their families used to go to in the summertime when they were growing up.

Okay, it was a real long shot.  But at least the very idea of Martina of "way long ago..." gets Diego on his feet again.  So the three jump into a car and head off to the town that they used to spend their summers growing up in hopes that they might still run into this young woman there.  Much ensues...

Among that which ensues is that, of course, they run into Martina (played by Irma Cuesta).  She's now a drop dead gorgeous single mom with an .. (is it 8 or 9 year old?) son named Dani (played by Marcos Ruiz).  He seems kinda big for 8...  When they run into her, she's amiable, feels kinda sorry for Diego and his breakup, but makes it clear that she's quite happy being single raising her 8-9 year old son in peace.

One of the funniest (if very very stupid) scenes that I've probably ever seen on film follows as the three "primos" discuss their recollections of what Diego had told them "back then" about his first sexual experience with Martina 10 years ago.  Diego insists that he used a condom, "You know, the one that I had carried around that whole year in my wallet."  As they recall how he had gotten that condom, they remember that it had been made in a country that (fairly or unfairly...) immediately makes one wonder about its quality assurance practices...  "But you told me that there was a hole in it" says José Miguel." "No there wasn't."  "Or was it a tear? Yes, there was a tear because that's why you said that it fell off at one point."  "No it was fine, or yes, I 'fixed it'"  Finally, since he really had only that one condom ... he remembered that "used it a second time" (ick, even if  "creative" as only a clueless and horny 17 year-old would be "quick-thinking"/"creative" in a moment like that ...

All this becomes an absolutely hilarious exposition of all the things that could possibly go wrong when using a condom and becomes an entry way for someone like me to remind young folks why the Church (as a good mom...) tries to teach her children that one really shouldn't get involved with a person "in such a way" unless the two are both willing and able to accept the consequences of getting involved "in such a way." 

Anyway, Martina has this amiable if somewhat hypochondriac kid who's of a suspicious age ...

Various other things happen as well.  Diego's ex-fiance finds out where he is and comes, teary-eyed looking for him.

Julián in the meantime runs into an older man nicknamed Bacci (played by Antonio de la Torre) who used to run a video store in the town when the primos and their families used to come there.  The video business had since gone down hill and he became the village drunk.  On the other hand, his once precocious little daughter had grown-up (and is disappointed with her dad).  Some fixing needs to take place there as well...

All in all, the movie is very light, often rather crude and more or less obviously morally problematic but always with a twinkle in one's eye.  In the end of course everything gets resolved, and (of course) more or less satisfactorily.

Parents note that there is definite nudity in the film.  Remember that if nothing else, the film takes place in a Spanish (hence European ...) seaside resort during the summer.  So we see a lot more of Martina than the average American would initially expect (though Martina as I noted above, looks really, really fine...).  And it's all done then in a typically European or even typically post-Franco Spanish sort of way, with a mix of matter-of-factness and humor: "Hey, what ya lookin' at?   Haven't ya seen plenty of these before...?"

So I would probably tell folks to keep the young ones and even young teens away.  The film is more for young adults / 20-somethings anyway.  But then I do think that this film would be good for American adults and especially young adults to see because Primos (Cousinhood) would give an American adult a lighthearted if sometimes somewhat morally questionable window into a very different way of life and would definitely help an American appreciate why a European would be happy as pie to be European (and here specifically a Spaniard would be happy to be a Spaniard). There is a lightheartedness that pervades this film that is endearing.

ADDENDA:

I've found it often good in reviewing films like this to look-up what's being said of the film in the home country where it was produced.  So I would recommend to readers here to take a look at some of the external reviews of this film listed in the IMDb database noting that one can always run Spanish language webpages through translate.google.com to get at least a sense translation.

I also found an very good Spanish language movie review site Pantala90 operated by the media office of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Spain.  Alas, I could not find a review of this film Primos (Cousinhood) there.  However, a lot of the popular American films that I've reviewed on the blog are reviewed there as well and the reviews that I read were quite impressive.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Secret World of Arrietty (orig. Kari-gurashi no Arietti) [2010]

MPAA (G) CNS/USCCB (A-I) Michael Phillips (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568921/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv021.htm
Michael Phillip's review -
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-16/entertainment/sc-mov-0214-secret-world-of-arrietty-20120216_1_studio-ghibli-animation-borrowing

The Secret World of Arrietty (orig. Kari-gurashi no Arietti) directed by Hiromasa Yonesbayahshi, screenplay by Hayao Miyazaki and Keiko Niwa) is a lovely children's animated film voiced here in English, made by the famed Japanese Studio Ghibly and distributed in the United States by Disney based on the first of the children's book series The Borrowers (Amazon [1] [2]) by Mary Norton. 

It's about a family of tiny people called "borrowers" -- 14 year old Arrietty (voiced by Brigit Medler [US version] and Saoirie Ronan [UK version]) and her parents Pod (voiced by Will Arnett [US version] and Mark Strong [UK verison]) and Homily (voiced by Amy Poehler [US version] and Olivia Colman [UK version]) -- who live under the floorboards of houses and are responsible for taking (err... "borrrowing") little items that we find/discover that we've "lost" or "misplaced" in our homes.

Ideally the items that these really tiny little people take are things that we wouldn't particularly miss anyway. So on one of the early adventures in the story, Pod and Arriety set out on an expedition to "bring home a sugar cube."  On the way, Arrietty finds a clothes pin, which becomes her "sword."  It's all really, really cute.

The life of these little borrowers is, however, fraught with danger.  Relatively small animals like cats, crows and even mice that we find around our domestic confines appear really big to them, and these animals have been known to eat the borrowers that they catch.  Further, people don't seem to differentiate much between "borrowers" and other "household pests."  So when they spot a borrower, more often than not, they call an exterminator to deal with their pest problem.

That then sets the stage for the story here.  A little Japanese boy named Sho (in the US version named Shawn, voiced by David Henrie [US version] and Tom Holland [UK version]) awaiting a major surgery is sent to rest in the countryside by his great-aunt (voiced by Gracie Poletti [US Version], Phyllida Law [UK version].  (In the original books, the Boy was English sent by his great-aunt into the English countryside to recuperate from Rheumatic Fever that he contracted while in India).  The house is where his mother had grown-up.  And when he arrives, he spots one of the "borrowers."

He's all excited because his mother had told him about them.  The borrowers are terrified, however, in particular mother Hillary, because being spotted by the humans generally means "bad things will happen to them," and actually "children are often worse than the adults." (Presumably human children would treat them as they would bugs and other small creatures, that is, bring out the spy/magnifying glasses, put them in jars, while forgetting to feed them, etc...).

Actually, Sho's quite nice.  But the caretaker of the house Karin in the Japanese/UK versions, Hara in the US version (voiced by Carol Burnett [US version] and Geraldine McEvan [UK version]) wants to call the exterminator.  So much ensues ... but Sho, himself lonely and facing suffering turns out to be a good protector/friend to the frightened little borrowers.

The drawing in this film is just beautiful.  The garden scenes in particular are beautifully captured as are the (seemingly) huge dew/rain drops that adorn the blades of grass and the flowers every morning.  It makes one want to cry.

And the story reminded me a lot of a Czech children's classic Broučci (Fireflies) about a family of fireflies that came out in England, in English translation during the war years, 1942, some years before Mary Norton's The Borrowers (1952) was first published.  There are clear differences in the story but there are also similarities (the greatest of which being the portrayal of the world from the perspective of a really, really small anthropomorphic being -- similar to the "sugar-cube" episode described above in Arrietti, the fireflies in Broučci would drink wine out of a grape ... ;-).

Anyway, it wouldn't bother me at all if Mary Norton could was influenced or partly inspired by that Czech children's story.  I just want to note that the other story was also very, very cute and that probably stories like this (about "little people") are going to tend to be very, very nice.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The House (orig Dom / Dům) [2011]

Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821406/

CSFD listing [CZ] [Eng-(Google)Trans]
CSFD reviews [CZ/SK][Eng-(Google)Trans]

The House (orig Dom [sk]/ Dům [cz]) written and directed by Zuzana Liová (CSFD listing Eng. translation unavailable), a young Slovak born director, is a joint Czech and Slovak production that recently played at the 15th Annual European Union Film Festival at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

Set in a small Slovakian town in the mountains, it is a lovely current film about a clash of generational aspirations and expectations:

Inrich (played by Miroslav Krobot [IMDB] [CSFD]) is trying to be a good father by building a house for his daughter Eva (played by Judit Bardos [IMDB] [CSFD]) about to graduate from high school, the house of course being right next door to her parents' home ... ;-).

Eva, of course, has completely different plans.  She wants to go to London to work as an au pair (nanny) to see something of the world in this way, and, yes, implicit in this, perhaps score an English husband ...  A rather smart/talented teen, she's successfully put-up an online profile on an au-pair website and she's been saving-up money for the cost of getting to England by writing term-papers for her less ambitious classmates.

Part of the tragedy implicit in the story is that Eva is clearly a very smart young woman.  And what does she want to do with her life?  Go to College?  Clearly she's bright enough, and indeed, that's Inrich's Plan-B.  He's even saved up money to help her go to college, but will give her the money that he's saved up for her only if she does that.  Instead, Eva wants to go to England to work as a nanny for a couple of years and hopefully get married there.

So the two are at loggerheads.  What does ma', Viera (played by Tatjana Medvedská [IMDB] [CSFD] ) think of all this?  Well, clearly she's unhappy, sees a coming train wreck between her husband and her daughter and seems powerless to stop it.

Worst of all, she's seen all this before.  After Inrich had forbidden their older daughter Jana (played by Lucia Jašková [IMDB][CSFD]) from "going to Norway" after her graduation (Why Norway? Well, like the younger sis' Eva's dreams of England, Norway would be an attainable goal not all that far from Slovakia. And well, Norway's somewhere "other than Slovakia..." ;-), Jana got back at her father by marrying the amiable but rather loser of a son of a former "two bit" Communist party official that her dad hated.  By the film's start, Jana has three kids with said amiable "loser" and Inrich has no clue of how to reconcile with Jana, her husband (who he hates) and thus with his three grand-kids that he has through through them.

Being forced by her father to stay in town (or at least in/near Czecho-Slovakia), Eva starts "acting out" as well by entering into an illicit relationship with a man in his 30s, Jakub (played by Marián Mitaš [IMDB] [CSFD]), who turns out to be her English teacher her final semester at school. (Jakub had just returned from England to Slovakia because his Slovak wife "wanted a house..." when Eva first meets him.  What kind of a job can someone returning to rural Czecho-Slovakia get after having spent many years in England?  He becomes an English teacher at the local high school...).

A relationship such as this between a high school student and teacher is, of course, illegal / immoral in most parts of the world today.  So it ends badly.  As soon as the two are found out, Jakub is summarily fired by the school's Principal and Eva is barely allowed to graduate.

But what are Inrich and Viera going to do now?  Having already horribly botched their relationship with their older daughter Jana, now Eva's acting out and they're at the precipice again.  That's what the rest of the movie is about...

A few notes coming from someone like me, who is of Czech descent ;-), that may help the non-Czech or non-Slovak to appreciate the movie better:

(1) This is really a remarkable post Czechoslovakia, Czech and Slovak production.  It's clearly set in Slovakia.  The family in the film lives in a non-descript town in the Slovakian mountains. The currency used throughout the film is the Euro.  (Slovakia decided to go with the Euro a number of years ago, the Czechs perhaps with pretensions of "being like England" or even "becoming like Switzerland" have chosen to stay with the "Czech Crown."  This all makes for interesting conversation in both Czech and Slovak households in light of the current Euro crisis).   Still, while the movie was filmed in Slovakia, many of the actors are Czech and the film was apparently produced in both Czech and Slovak languages.  The version that I saw in Chicago was Czech.

(2) Since this movie was set in Slovakia, the Catholic Church does have a fairly significant presence in the film.  (Slovaks are some 90% Catholic, while the Czechs are about 60% Catholic and by reputation, especially in the cities, far less fervent...).  Eva is an organist at the local Catholic Church and when Eva's parents find out that she's had an affair with one of her teachers, they drag her to the priest where the irritated father (speaking perhaps for all irritated fathers everywhere) orders his daughter: "Tak spust se!" ('Okay now spill it ...!") to the dismay of the priest ... So much for the niceties of "private confession" apparently when one's teenage daughter is found acting badly ... Yet, we actually don't know what happens after Inrich orders his daughter to confess to the priest, and whatever would have been said, probably would have ended in private Confession.  Still we see an irate dad, demanding justice here from the Church against his daughter who's been misbehaving.

Would a scene like this play out in the (by reputation) "far more worldly" Czech Republic?  My guess is probably not in the cities.  But it is possible that in the countryside and in particular (at least by reputation) in rural Moravia (in the Eastern part of the Czech Republic, closest to, in fact, the border with Slovakia) the scene could well play out as well.

In any case, parents, whether practicing Catholics or secularists could probably relate to the scene and in the case of secular families, THEY MAY EVEN WISH THERE WAS A PRIEST OR PASTOR IN THEIR LIVES TO GO TO IN TIMES LIKE THESE.

(3) Americans may find the anger expressed between parents and children in the film (and even between the spouses) quite jarring.  I certainly found it jarring and I grew-up in a Czech home (if in the United States).  Perhaps to try to explain the rawness expressed (and not merely in the dialogue but also in the facial expressions) one could appeal to the basis of the conflict in the film:  Two sets of expectations, those of the father and of his two daughters, were utterly at odds.  The father was trying to be a good dad.  Yet he was utterly off-base with regard to what his daughters actually wanted.

As is typical perhaps of films in general (and actually of Czechs and Slovaks in particular), everything does get resolved in the end because no one really wanted to be so "right" as to irreversibly cause pain to the others (being Czech and having known and worked with Slovaks all my life, I do believe this to be a fundamental characteristic of both peoples -- these are two _small_ and fundamentally amiable peoples who don't want to be angry with another forever).  So it becomes inevitable that there would be a happy ending to this story.

Just how it all works out, I'm not going to say ... ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Dr. Seuss': The Lorax [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-I)  Ted Zwecker (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Ted Zwecker's review

After decrying on this blog a year of surprisingly stupid, often arguably hate-filled and flagrantly politicized children's films on one side teaching kids that Hispanics (Hop), all people of color (Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2), all people with "foreign", that is, non-American/English accents (Hoodwinked 2) are bad to Evil and on the other side encouraging kids to mock a former American Vice-President (Dick Cheney er oil baron "Tex Richman" in The Muppets Movie) and a former President (G.W. Bush in the person of a "bumbling, out of touch Santa" in Arthur Christmas who in the story did, in fact, "leave one child behind...") one comes to  Dr. Seuss': The Lorax (directed by Chris Renaud and Kyle Bala, screenplay by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul based on the children's book by the same name by Dr. Seuss).

Even in its original children's book form, The Lorax, is a somber (not-particularly funny) and rather direct parable about the consequences greed and environmental destruction.  The Once-ler (voiced in the film by Ed Helms) sets-up shop outside of town among the "Truffula trees." He chops one of the trees down to harvest its "tuft" which was "softer than silk and had the sweet smell of fresh butterfly milk."  The tuft he processed into a product called a Thneed.  What's a Thneed?  Well it was something that people didn't even know that they "needed" but once created it became "a fine something that all people need."

Soon the Once-ler has a good business going.  He builds a factory, hiring all his cousins, uncles and aunts to work there. And though initially he tells the Lorax (voiced in the film by Danny DeVito), a short mustached creature that comes out of the stump of the first tree that he chopped down that he "just chopped down but one tree, I'm doing no harm," the Once-ler is soon chopping down Truffula trees on an industrial scale ... until there's nothing left of the forest, all its whimsical creatures are gone (even the Lorax), and even his former customers have gone-on to buying other things discovering that they didn't "need" those Thneeds after all.  

Obviously "there's a message" in this story.  But the next question ought to follow: Is it a bad one?  I don't think so, because what the story of The Lorax describes has happened already many times before:

(1) It is said that when the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth Rock on the Atlantic Coast in Massachusetts in 1620, "a squirrel could hop from tree to tree from the Atlantic Coast (Plymouth Rock) all the way to the Mississippi River without ever touching the ground."  That obviously is no longer true and the plundering and burning of often fantastically "old growth forests" for no good reason (other than that it can be done or even that "the trees are in the way") both in the United States and more recently around the world has certainly been well documented.

(2) Mountain-men and fur trappers did, in fact, decimate the beaver population in North America because the underside of the beaver pelt came to be used to make felt for "felt hats" (most famously the "top hats" that men wore in the nineteenth century).  But once there were no longer enough beavers to go around to make those stupid felt hats, fashion went on to "other things..."). 

(3) The wading birds of the Florida Everglades were also all but wiped out by the 19th century fashion of using the feathers from exotic birds to adorn, this time, women's hats.  Again, women who had happily lived without having feathers adorning their hats before this fad, have come to live without them again since the birds from which the feathers were extracted were all but wiped out...

(4) Thanks to such "environmental extremists" like John Muir, John James Audubon and perhaps most importantly U.S. President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, much of the remaining forests and wildlife regions of the United States were saved from imminent destruction by swift/decisive government fiat (often involving  summary Federal takeover) that would stun most Americans of a more right-wing persuasion today.  Yet, that the pristine stone face of Yosemite's El Capitan is not obscured today by waterslides, pawn shops, wax museums and wedding chapels like those cluttering the Wisconsin Dells, Lake George, NY, and the Niagara Falls or that there are any wading birds at all remaining in Florida and the other bayou regions of the South Eastern United States is the direct result of these men's convictions to preserve the remaining natural beauty of our nation for future generations.

(5) In the 1990s over-fishing by fishing fleets of various nations resulted in a crisis and even collapse of cod fisheries across the North Atlantic.  Demand had increased, the size and number of fishing vessels had increased but there were only so many fish to catch.  The collapse of a number of the fisheries in the North Atlantic has had a devastating impact on the fishing industry across the region even as, past consumers of those fish have moved-on to eat other things and other fish from other places ... 

So, yes, both the book and now the film "talk" of such stupid, unthinking environmental destruction driven by unconcern/negligence and an "it's okay simply because we can do it" mentality for the sake of products that we never really needed (and won't need after the resources required for their production are gone) in a manner that even a 3-5 year old could understand.  But honestly, as one from a religious tradition that tells us to live modestly and with concern for others, I don't see that as bad ...

Finally, there are a number of plot differences between the book and the film that those who knew the book would quickly recognize.  First of all, there are many other characters added to the film that weren't present in the original children's book.  But these changes allow the book to be translated better into a film:

In the original book, there really were only three major characters.  There was Once-ler, The Lorax and finally a boy who comes to the Once-Ler to ask what happened to all the trees.

In the film, the Once-ler and the Lorax obviously continue as characters.  The boy's given a name, Ted (voiced by Zac Efron).  Growing up in a spick-and-span if utterly artificial suburban-looking paradise called Sneedville, he starts to ask about what happened to "real trees" only after Audrey (voiced by Taylor Swift) a girl he's trying to impress tells him that she'd really, really like to see a "real tree" one day.  Ted gets help from his Grandma Norma (voiced by Betty White) who still remembers trees and tells him how to find the Once-ler who lives someways "outside of town."

To get "outside of town" proves not altogether easy, because the cozy, suburban paradise turns out to be ringed and isolated from the larger (and far less idyllic world) by something of a wall a la The Truman Show [1998].  Indeed, Ted, gets himself into trouble with the "powers that be," notably "bottled air" magnate Mr. O'Hare (voiced by Rob Riggle) when he tries to get outside the cozy confines of Sneedville.

After recounting his sad story and that of the Lorax to Ted, Once-Ler gives him the last seed of the last Truffula tree which Ted brings back for Audrey.  Much then ensues ...

The message however of both the book and the movie remain the same: "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, it's not."  That is, unless we come to care for the trees and all the whimsical animals living among them, they're all going to go away.  And while we may live in a "plastic paradise" for a while, we'll end up paying for even "bottled air."

Yes, this makes for a "political message" in the United States in our time.  But this message is one that I don't mind hearing said.  We do have to care ... And yes, I do think that this is the best animated children's movie to come out since its creators' previous film Despicable Me [2010].

ADDENDA:

Since at least the time of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church has been reflecting on the Environmental questions of our day and has offered a characteristically balanced approach to the issue.  While certainly not divinizing Nature, it has argued that respect for Nature (Creation) ought to be seen as a necessary expression of our respect for our/its Creator. (John Paul II, Peace with God our Creator, Peace with All Creation, message for the World Day of Peace, Jan 1, 1990). 

In this line, the Servite Order to which I belong has recently produced a lovely reflection on a Servite expression of this ethic called Cultivating Environmental Concerns with Our Lady.


<< 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! :-) >>