MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv074.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120627/REVIEWS/120629973
Ted (directed and cowritten by Seth MacFarlane along with Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild) is one of those films that reminds one of the reality that in a free society, "the arts" (and I do use the term very, very loosely here ;-) and religion/morality are going to find themselves at times in independent spheres / "different worlds." Yes, religion certainly has every right to comment on the arts as the CNS/USCCB does on its website, and I am doing here). But there will be times when the "artist" will tell the religionist "to just go to Hell." There will be times that the religionist will have a point in his/her criticism of the artist's work, most notably if the artist's work advocates some sort of violence against someone or some other group or advocates some sort of fundamental selfishness or crime. But _in a free society_, there will also be times when the artist (and the general society) will tell the religionist to "lighten up" or simply gleefully ignore him/her.
Such then is the case here with Ted Yes, the film is crude and often in truly imaginative ways: One of the opening scenes of the movie has Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) the film's miraculously "living" teddy bear talkin' trash (in a Bostonian err Bah-stone-ian accent) and "doing a bong" with his life-long but now "grown-up" 35-year-old human best friend John (played by Mark Wahlberg). With this scene, the film both intentionally and effortlessly "swan dives" into a CNS/USCCB "O" (morally offensive) rating ... only 2-3 minutes into the film. But it's clear as day that the cast and crew of the film would wear that "O" rating as a badge of honor.
What then is someone like me to say or do with a film like this? Well, in good part, one could note the rating (R -- and yes, Parents, the film definitely deserves it) and then concede "that's life." The film is NOT intended for kids. It is crude, it is stupid, it is certainly "not for everybody." But after noting all this, the film does "have a point" that's actually a good one, and is actually expressed in language that one who may need to hear the point being made would understand.
I say this because the film is about a "man-boy" John Bennett (as noted above played by Mark Wahlberg), who _may_ have had some difficulties as a kid (don't most ... if one searches for them) but is now 35, hence "grown-up." Indeed, he has a lovely girl friend, Lori Collins (played by Mila Kunis) of four years. But actually he _can't_ seem to "grow up." Ted, that walking-trash talking "teddy bear" from his childhood is THE SYMBOL of his inability to actually step-up and become a man.
And one thing that this film does a great job with (something that perhaps _a lot_ of John Bennetts in this world don't necessarily realize) is that it shows what LORI is dealing with. SHE has friends/coworkers (and even a lecherous boss at work) and SHE finds herself having to defend JOHN to them (who all think that John's a "going nowhere" loser). One could say that "it's none of their business, who Lori dates." And that's partially true, but isn't it a lot easier to be dating someone who one _can_ present to friends/co-workers and actually be proud of? ... John's happy but perpetuately stoned face, going no-where job, and "teddy bear" don't give Lori much to be proud of ...
So that's then the central conflict of the movie in a nutshell. And honestly, the situation described (yes, in exaggerated terms ... NO ONE has a "talking" or even "trash talking" teddybear) is real. There are a lot of people who "don't want to grow-up..."
So if one puts aside the "trash talk" (and more ... but all still, basically "atmospherics" ...) the film is actually pretty serious, even as it is funny. And may actually "speak the language" of folks who need to hear 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! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World [2012]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1307068/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv070.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120620/REVIEWS/120629993
In truth, I had not expected to like Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (written and directed by Lorene Scafaria) as much as I did. Indeed, I only saw it on the Monday after the weekend of its release. However, already our brother in our community had told me that he had seen it over the weekend and that he had liked it. So I came to the film at least open to be surprised. And I was ;-)
The film is fundamentally about a middle-aged insurance saleman named "Dodge" (played by Steve Carrell). As the movie opens, Dodge and his wife are sitting in their car on a lazy summer's evening somewhere in New York City across from a park. They are listening to the announcer on the radio give the grim news that "Space shuttle Deliverance, sent aloft on a mission to deflect the 30-mile in diameter asteroid that was heading for earth, was destroyed by a debris field as it approached the asteroid, and with it ended humanity's last hope of saving itself from annihilation which is expected to impact the earth in three weeks." Having finished giving the grim news, the announcer tries to cheer-up his listeners saying: "But don't worry, we'll be playing all your favorite classic rock hits here on ... until the astroid does." Upon hearing the devastating news, Dodge's wife opens car door on her side and runs off into the darkness of the park, never to be seen (by either Dodge or the audience) again. And so it goes ...
The next portion of the film chronicles the various more or less expected reactions of civilization/humanity to the catastrophic news. A lot of people stop going to work, many basic services therefore collapse. For many, basic morality collapses as well. There's a lot of looting, a lot of promiscuity. An aquantaince of Dodge tells him, "Ever since the news, I've been sleeping with a different woman every night, sometimes with several woman at the same time. This 'end of the world sex' with no consequences, no fear of commitment or disease is the best thing that's ever happened to me." Indeed, a mutual friend of Dodge and his wife tries to seduce Dodge as well: "What does it matter now?" And indeed, that becomes the central question of the film: If you knew that the world was going to end, how would you act? What would become your priorities?
Indeed, the film proceeds rather predictably until a pivotal scene 2/3 into the movie occurs: Dodge and the other principal character in the movie, his neighbor named "Penny" (played by Keira Knightly) encounter a large group of people silently assembling by a beach to be presumably baptized by a priest-like man dressed in an alb and a stole. No words were said in the entire scene, but not the message was, IMHO, unmistakable.
From that point onward, the tone of the movie changes and indeed "Dodge" changes. Previous to that scene, "Dodge" had first felt sorry for himself because his wife had left him, all the other women in his life had left him, indeed his father had arguably left him and his mother when he was young. Indeed, up until this point, he decided to spend his remaining days on earth in an end of life "quest" to see if he could meet-up with a former high school girl friend of his, who (after his wife having left him) he now remembered as having been "the love of [his] life."
After the baptismal scene, however, his focus changes. Instead of continuing his search for the long-lost girlfriend, he decides to search out his long estranged father, Frank (played by Martin Sheen). Finding him, (and it proved _not_ particularly hard to find him, arguably he knew _exactly_ where he was all the time) both he and his father are revealed to have legitimate complaints: "Why did you leave us?" "Why didn't you ever, even when you turned an adult, search me out?" Both realize that they both had reasons to ask the other for forgiveness. AND EVEN WITH THE CLOCK "TICKING" THEY FOUND THAT THERE WAS "STILL TIME" TO DO SO. Indeed, _after the reconciliation_ in a scene that puts tears in my eyes now as I recall it, at _dinner_ Dodge's father (again named "Frank") lifts up a glass and in face of a world crashing to its end in less than 2 weeks time, makes a toast "To the beginning of the world."
How does the film end? Well, I'm not going to tell you, except that I do believe that it fits the direction of the movie and completes its point. WHAT A GREAT MOVIE and WHAT A GREAT DEFENSE of CHOOSING TO DO GOOD even in the face of no perceivable advantage in doing so.
Over the years, I've come to like Steve Carrell's movies. He has repeatedly chosen to play "small" decent people who chose to be good rather than seek "greater-ness." Then I've had _enormous respect_ for Martin Sheen (Though I never met him, I've come to think of him "St. Martin of Los Angeles." It has a nice ring to it ;-) since my days of living and studying in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s-early 1990s. It's good to see even Keira Knightly of "Pirates of the Caribbean" fame "choosing well" as well. GOOD JOB FOLKS, and good job Lorene Scafaria too! God bless you all!
<< 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/tt1307068/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv070.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120620/REVIEWS/120629993
In truth, I had not expected to like Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (written and directed by Lorene Scafaria) as much as I did. Indeed, I only saw it on the Monday after the weekend of its release. However, already our brother in our community had told me that he had seen it over the weekend and that he had liked it. So I came to the film at least open to be surprised. And I was ;-)
The film is fundamentally about a middle-aged insurance saleman named "Dodge" (played by Steve Carrell). As the movie opens, Dodge and his wife are sitting in their car on a lazy summer's evening somewhere in New York City across from a park. They are listening to the announcer on the radio give the grim news that "Space shuttle Deliverance, sent aloft on a mission to deflect the 30-mile in diameter asteroid that was heading for earth, was destroyed by a debris field as it approached the asteroid, and with it ended humanity's last hope of saving itself from annihilation which is expected to impact the earth in three weeks." Having finished giving the grim news, the announcer tries to cheer-up his listeners saying: "But don't worry, we'll be playing all your favorite classic rock hits here on ... until the astroid does." Upon hearing the devastating news, Dodge's wife opens car door on her side and runs off into the darkness of the park, never to be seen (by either Dodge or the audience) again. And so it goes ...
The next portion of the film chronicles the various more or less expected reactions of civilization/humanity to the catastrophic news. A lot of people stop going to work, many basic services therefore collapse. For many, basic morality collapses as well. There's a lot of looting, a lot of promiscuity. An aquantaince of Dodge tells him, "Ever since the news, I've been sleeping with a different woman every night, sometimes with several woman at the same time. This 'end of the world sex' with no consequences, no fear of commitment or disease is the best thing that's ever happened to me." Indeed, a mutual friend of Dodge and his wife tries to seduce Dodge as well: "What does it matter now?" And indeed, that becomes the central question of the film: If you knew that the world was going to end, how would you act? What would become your priorities?
Indeed, the film proceeds rather predictably until a pivotal scene 2/3 into the movie occurs: Dodge and the other principal character in the movie, his neighbor named "Penny" (played by Keira Knightly) encounter a large group of people silently assembling by a beach to be presumably baptized by a priest-like man dressed in an alb and a stole. No words were said in the entire scene, but not the message was, IMHO, unmistakable.
From that point onward, the tone of the movie changes and indeed "Dodge" changes. Previous to that scene, "Dodge" had first felt sorry for himself because his wife had left him, all the other women in his life had left him, indeed his father had arguably left him and his mother when he was young. Indeed, up until this point, he decided to spend his remaining days on earth in an end of life "quest" to see if he could meet-up with a former high school girl friend of his, who (after his wife having left him) he now remembered as having been "the love of [his] life."
After the baptismal scene, however, his focus changes. Instead of continuing his search for the long-lost girlfriend, he decides to search out his long estranged father, Frank (played by Martin Sheen). Finding him, (and it proved _not_ particularly hard to find him, arguably he knew _exactly_ where he was all the time) both he and his father are revealed to have legitimate complaints: "Why did you leave us?" "Why didn't you ever, even when you turned an adult, search me out?" Both realize that they both had reasons to ask the other for forgiveness. AND EVEN WITH THE CLOCK "TICKING" THEY FOUND THAT THERE WAS "STILL TIME" TO DO SO. Indeed, _after the reconciliation_ in a scene that puts tears in my eyes now as I recall it, at _dinner_ Dodge's father (again named "Frank") lifts up a glass and in face of a world crashing to its end in less than 2 weeks time, makes a toast "To the beginning of the world."
How does the film end? Well, I'm not going to tell you, except that I do believe that it fits the direction of the movie and completes its point. WHAT A GREAT MOVIE and WHAT A GREAT DEFENSE of CHOOSING TO DO GOOD even in the face of no perceivable advantage in doing so.
Over the years, I've come to like Steve Carrell's movies. He has repeatedly chosen to play "small" decent people who chose to be good rather than seek "greater-ness." Then I've had _enormous respect_ for Martin Sheen (Though I never met him, I've come to think of him "St. Martin of Los Angeles." It has a nice ring to it ;-) since my days of living and studying in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s-early 1990s. It's good to see even Keira Knightly of "Pirates of the Caribbean" fame "choosing well" as well. GOOD JOB FOLKS, and good job Lorene Scafaria too! God bless you all!
<< 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, June 24, 2012
Abdias do Nascimento [2011]
Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing -
Abdias do Nascimento [Eng Trans] (written and directed by Aida Marques) is a documentary (in Portuguese w. English subtitles) about the life of Abdias do Nascimento [PT, Eng Trans] (official website, Eng Trans) which played recently at the 10th Annual Chicago African Diaspora Film Festival held at Chicago's Facets Multimedia Theater between June 15-21, 2012.
Abdias do Nascimento who died in 2011 at the age of 97 was a unflagging and imaginative leader of the Afro-Brazilian community in Brazil.
Tired of watching even black roles being played in Brazilian theaters by white actors (in black face), in 1944 he led the creation of the Teatro Experimental do Negro (Black Experimental Theater) [PT-Orig, Eng Trans] in Rio de Janeiro. Similarly tired of watching the works of black artists largely ignored by Brazilian society, in 1950 he led the creation of the Museu de Arte Negra (Museum of Black Art) [PT-Orig 1, 2, Eng-Trans 1, 2]. He pushed the point further (and ruffled some feathers) when in 1955 he helped organize an artistic competition sponsored by the newly formed museum around the theme of "The Black Christ." (I'd love to find some images from that competition...).
Needless to say, that kind of activism can eventually get one into trouble. So in 1968, with the consolidation of the military dictatorship in Brazil [PT, Eng Trans] he had to flee the country. After Brazil returned to civilian rule Abdias was eventually able to return to his country and was elected twice to serve as a deputy (representative) in the Brazilian Federal Legislature and served even as a Senator.
All in all, I found the documentary about Abdias do Nascimento fascinating and I do think that much can be learned from his example of utilizing the arts to promote justice and human dignity.
<< 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 -
Abdias do Nascimento [Eng Trans] (written and directed by Aida Marques) is a documentary (in Portuguese w. English subtitles) about the life of Abdias do Nascimento [PT, Eng Trans] (official website, Eng Trans) which played recently at the 10th Annual Chicago African Diaspora Film Festival held at Chicago's Facets Multimedia Theater between June 15-21, 2012.
Abdias do Nascimento who died in 2011 at the age of 97 was a unflagging and imaginative leader of the Afro-Brazilian community in Brazil.
Tired of watching even black roles being played in Brazilian theaters by white actors (in black face), in 1944 he led the creation of the Teatro Experimental do Negro (Black Experimental Theater) [PT-Orig, Eng Trans] in Rio de Janeiro. Similarly tired of watching the works of black artists largely ignored by Brazilian society, in 1950 he led the creation of the Museu de Arte Negra (Museum of Black Art) [PT-Orig 1, 2, Eng-Trans 1, 2]. He pushed the point further (and ruffled some feathers) when in 1955 he helped organize an artistic competition sponsored by the newly formed museum around the theme of "The Black Christ." (I'd love to find some images from that competition...).
Needless to say, that kind of activism can eventually get one into trouble. So in 1968, with the consolidation of the military dictatorship in Brazil [PT, Eng Trans] he had to flee the country. After Brazil returned to civilian rule Abdias was eventually able to return to his country and was elected twice to serve as a deputy (representative) in the Brazilian Federal Legislature and served even as a Senator.
All in all, I found the documentary about Abdias do Nascimento fascinating and I do think that much can be learned from his example of utilizing the arts to promote justice and human dignity.
<< 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, June 23, 2012
Safety Not Guaranteed [2012]
MPAA (R) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619990
Safety Not Guaranteed (directed by Colin Trevorrow, screenplay by Derek Connolly) is a well-written, well-acted, well-crafted low-budget young adult oriented "indie" film that I do hope the Academy takes note of come Oscar time at least for consideration as best original screenplay.
Bored writers working for "Seattle Magazine" bouncing around ideas at a "beginning of the week" staff meeting come across a classified ad in a local paper stating:
WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED.
Ok, the ad was probably placed by a kook. But there may be an interesting "human interest story" there. So "tenured" but particularly bored/jaded 30-something writer Jeff (played by Jake M. Johnson), who actually presented the ad to the rest of the writing staff at the magazine, volunteers to pursue it asking for two of the staff's interns -- geekish Arnou (played by Karan Soni) who he calls "The Indian" and quiet, indeed almost sullen Darius (played by Aubrey Plaza) who he calls "the Lesbian") -- to come along to help him out. He gets permission to take those two interns with him and to pursue the story.
Now the ad was placed by someone leaving only a Post Office box as an address and the Post Office box was to be found in a small town on the Pacific Coast some distance (100-200 miles) away from Seattle (welcome to America's Pacific Northwest ;-). I mention the distance because it becomes apparent that researching this story is _not_ going to be a "commuting job." Instead, the three are going have to go out to that town and stay there for some time.
Staking out the Post Office, they eventually find the person who placed the ad. His name is Kenneth (played by Mark Duplass). He has a job bagging groceries and lives apparently alone in a house just at the edge of town. So he does seem to be a kook. However, he had apparently been an engineering major some time back, and when Darius establishes contact with him as someone who'd be interested in possibly possibly going back in time with him, it becomes clear that Kenneth was rather bright. So was he merely a kook perhaps even a dangerous kook, or was he someone like the Matt Damon character in Good Will Hunting [1997]?
That question is of course important. However, it becomes less so as the movie progresses because the film becomes a meditation on the more basic questions: Why one would want to time travel to begin with? Does one even need a "time machine" to time travel? or perhaps even more to the point to Can one become "stuck in time?"
It becomes clear that to the writers of the film, one of the primary motivations for yearning to travel back in time is _regret_. Both Kenneth and, it turns out Darius, have reasons for wanting to go back in time.
But it turns out that Jeff himself in pursuing this project is actually doing some "time traveling" himself: His family used to go to that coastal town on vacation when Jeff was young. And so he's going back to that town to see if he could recapture some of that past (with or without Kenneth's time machine).
Finally, Jeff does some coaching for Arnou, reminding him: "You're 21. But remember, dear friend, you're not going to be 21 forever."
So I found the movie fascinating because though it has a "science fiction" theme to it (and it actually flirts very nicely with that theme throughout the film -- _never_ really "blowing it"), the science fiction aspect to the film becomes "beside the point."
We are all time travelers. We can live in today. We can live for the future. We can live in the past. We can get stuck in the past. And regardless, in life, safety is never guaranteed.
What a great story!
<< 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/tt1862079/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619990
Safety Not Guaranteed (directed by Colin Trevorrow, screenplay by Derek Connolly) is a well-written, well-acted, well-crafted low-budget young adult oriented "indie" film that I do hope the Academy takes note of come Oscar time at least for consideration as best original screenplay.
Bored writers working for "Seattle Magazine" bouncing around ideas at a "beginning of the week" staff meeting come across a classified ad in a local paper stating:
WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED.
Ok, the ad was probably placed by a kook. But there may be an interesting "human interest story" there. So "tenured" but particularly bored/jaded 30-something writer Jeff (played by Jake M. Johnson), who actually presented the ad to the rest of the writing staff at the magazine, volunteers to pursue it asking for two of the staff's interns -- geekish Arnou (played by Karan Soni) who he calls "The Indian" and quiet, indeed almost sullen Darius (played by Aubrey Plaza) who he calls "the Lesbian") -- to come along to help him out. He gets permission to take those two interns with him and to pursue the story.
Now the ad was placed by someone leaving only a Post Office box as an address and the Post Office box was to be found in a small town on the Pacific Coast some distance (100-200 miles) away from Seattle (welcome to America's Pacific Northwest ;-). I mention the distance because it becomes apparent that researching this story is _not_ going to be a "commuting job." Instead, the three are going have to go out to that town and stay there for some time.
Staking out the Post Office, they eventually find the person who placed the ad. His name is Kenneth (played by Mark Duplass). He has a job bagging groceries and lives apparently alone in a house just at the edge of town. So he does seem to be a kook. However, he had apparently been an engineering major some time back, and when Darius establishes contact with him as someone who'd be interested in possibly possibly going back in time with him, it becomes clear that Kenneth was rather bright. So was he merely a kook perhaps even a dangerous kook, or was he someone like the Matt Damon character in Good Will Hunting [1997]?
That question is of course important. However, it becomes less so as the movie progresses because the film becomes a meditation on the more basic questions: Why one would want to time travel to begin with? Does one even need a "time machine" to time travel? or perhaps even more to the point to Can one become "stuck in time?"
It becomes clear that to the writers of the film, one of the primary motivations for yearning to travel back in time is _regret_. Both Kenneth and, it turns out Darius, have reasons for wanting to go back in time.
But it turns out that Jeff himself in pursuing this project is actually doing some "time traveling" himself: His family used to go to that coastal town on vacation when Jeff was young. And so he's going back to that town to see if he could recapture some of that past (with or without Kenneth's time machine).
Finally, Jeff does some coaching for Arnou, reminding him: "You're 21. But remember, dear friend, you're not going to be 21 forever."
So I found the movie fascinating because though it has a "science fiction" theme to it (and it actually flirts very nicely with that theme throughout the film -- _never_ really "blowing it"), the science fiction aspect to the film becomes "beside the point."
We are all time travelers. We can live in today. We can live for the future. We can live in the past. We can get stuck in the past. And regardless, in life, safety is never guaranteed.
What a great story!
<< 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! :-) >>
Patang [2011]
MPAA (Unrated) Roger Ebert (4 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1153700/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619991
India Times -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Patang-brings-healing-touch-to-Gujarat/articleshow/13990844.cms
Patang (directed and cowritten by Chicago-born and raised Indian director Prashant Bhargava along with James Townsend) is a lovely Indian movie (subtitled into English) set around the annual kite festival in the Indian city of Ahmendadad. The film is a reminder to me of one of the main reasons why I like movies so much: India may almost exactly be "a half a world away" from the United States. But for the price of $10 (or even for $6 for a pre-noon matinee) one can "go there" for 2 hours by means of a movie. Then if the movie's made by someone from that country then all the better. One gets to see the country through the eyes of someone from there or with an attachment to there.
Such it is with this film. We get have Prashant Bhargava tell us a story about his family's India. And indeed, the story's structured in a way that it could have well been his:
Jayesh (played by Mukund Shukla), who's "made good" in India's capital Dehli, comes back after many years to more "provincial" Ahmendadad, the town of his birth, taking his oldest daughter Priya (played by Sugandha Garg) already of young adult age along. The nominal occasion of the visit was Ahmendadad's annual Kite Festival but he's really there to reconnect after many years with his relatives.
And yes, there is some resentment as he returns. A brother asks "Where have you been for all these years?" Yet he _is_ back after "all these years." And the resentment melts away as Jayesh and his daughter join their relatives in the timeless rhythms of life in Jayesh's family's hometown, a rhythm that is at relative high point as its residents, both the young and the old, the poor and the rich across the whole city go up to their roof tops to fly their kites, eat good food, no doubt drink some good beer/ale, and gossip and reminisce with family and friends as they fly their kites.
Now mind you, sometimes those kites crash. Sometimes neighbors both near and far _help_ make those kites crash in what is called Patang (from which the movie gets its name) meaning "kiting fighting." No matter. Ahmendadad is a largely treeless city with very narrow streets. Folks freely hop from rooftop from rooftop, saluting their neighbors families, eating and celebrating there, as they pass until they reach downed kite. Then with a few bits of tape, some new string, they're ready to fly their kites again.
Indeed, some can use the strategic downing of a kite as an occasion to flirt :-). Having your kite crash down the street a few houses from a particularly attractive girl gives one a nice excuse to hop rooftop-to-rooftop to pass by her place to retrieve your kite, to say hi to her family, show-off your kite, and so forth ;-).
At then night, those kites offer the opportunity send aloft whole strings of paper and candle lanterns, again a lyrical sight to behold
It all makes for a lovely, lovely film ... and for the cost of $10 and two hours ... one gets to be part of this lovely contemporary Indian family, with its all too contemporary problems (a lot of us have family members who "disappear" from the family radar for some time only to eventually decide that "it's time to come back") and join its joys as well.
What a joy of a film ;-)
<< 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/tt1153700/
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120613/REVIEWS/120619991
India Times -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Patang-brings-healing-touch-to-Gujarat/articleshow/13990844.cms
Patang (directed and cowritten by Chicago-born and raised Indian director Prashant Bhargava along with James Townsend) is a lovely Indian movie (subtitled into English) set around the annual kite festival in the Indian city of Ahmendadad. The film is a reminder to me of one of the main reasons why I like movies so much: India may almost exactly be "a half a world away" from the United States. But for the price of $10 (or even for $6 for a pre-noon matinee) one can "go there" for 2 hours by means of a movie. Then if the movie's made by someone from that country then all the better. One gets to see the country through the eyes of someone from there or with an attachment to there.
Such it is with this film. We get have Prashant Bhargava tell us a story about his family's India. And indeed, the story's structured in a way that it could have well been his:
Jayesh (played by Mukund Shukla), who's "made good" in India's capital Dehli, comes back after many years to more "provincial" Ahmendadad, the town of his birth, taking his oldest daughter Priya (played by Sugandha Garg) already of young adult age along. The nominal occasion of the visit was Ahmendadad's annual Kite Festival but he's really there to reconnect after many years with his relatives.
And yes, there is some resentment as he returns. A brother asks "Where have you been for all these years?" Yet he _is_ back after "all these years." And the resentment melts away as Jayesh and his daughter join their relatives in the timeless rhythms of life in Jayesh's family's hometown, a rhythm that is at relative high point as its residents, both the young and the old, the poor and the rich across the whole city go up to their roof tops to fly their kites, eat good food, no doubt drink some good beer/ale, and gossip and reminisce with family and friends as they fly their kites.
Now mind you, sometimes those kites crash. Sometimes neighbors both near and far _help_ make those kites crash in what is called Patang (from which the movie gets its name) meaning "kiting fighting." No matter. Ahmendadad is a largely treeless city with very narrow streets. Folks freely hop from rooftop from rooftop, saluting their neighbors families, eating and celebrating there, as they pass until they reach downed kite. Then with a few bits of tape, some new string, they're ready to fly their kites again.
Indeed, some can use the strategic downing of a kite as an occasion to flirt :-). Having your kite crash down the street a few houses from a particularly attractive girl gives one a nice excuse to hop rooftop-to-rooftop to pass by her place to retrieve your kite, to say hi to her family, show-off your kite, and so forth ;-).
At then night, those kites offer the opportunity send aloft whole strings of paper and candle lanterns, again a lyrical sight to behold
It all makes for a lovely, lovely film ... and for the cost of $10 and two hours ... one gets to be part of this lovely contemporary Indian family, with its all too contemporary problems (a lot of us have family members who "disappear" from the family radar for some time only to eventually decide that "it's time to come back") and join its joys as well.
What a joy of a film ;-)
<< 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! :-) >>
Brave [2012]
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv069.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120620/REVIEWS/120629997
Brave (directed by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman along with Steve Purcell, all of whom were also involved in the writing of the screenplay along with Irene Mecchi) is a PIXAR production that continues the company's celebrated run of simply outstanding young family oriented animated films.
The story is about Merida (voiced by Kelly MacDonald) a young princess growing up in Scotland at the dawn of time. Her mother Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson) is trying to raise in a manner to prepare her for her destiny of becoming "a lady" and, one day, queen of the realm. Merida, however, prefers much more to be like her dad, King Fergus (voiced by Bill Connolly), being loud and carefree, riding-off on her trusted horse Angus into the forest and glens seeking adventure, becoming _really good_ at shooting her bow and arrow, etc. Elinor, shaking her head tries repeatedly to bring her daughter down to earth. All this running around may be wonderful, but not particularly useful for what Merida's gonna do when she grows older. Perhaps just as frustrating to Elinor was the apparent lack of support on the part of Fergus, her husband after all, who's frankly enjoying hearing Merida talking of her exploits at the dinner table. Yes, Fergus and Elinor have sons -- triplets -- but they are still way to young to do anything other than cause "terrible two" like mischief around the house/castle. So Fergus is enjoying listening to Merida talking about her exploits while Elinor's increasingly reduced to shaking her head.
Things come to a head when Queen Elinor announces at the dinner table one night that she had written to all the heads of the major clans of the realm to come over to present their eldest sons so that Merida could become betrothed to one of them and that they had all accepted. Yes, since Merida's parents were the King/Queen of the realm, it would be Merida's choice as to which of these eldest sons she'd become engaged to. But it's clear that Merida's _not_ ready to choose anybody at this time (besides, to us viewers, it'd all seem really, really early to be doing this as Merida appeared to be no more than about 10-12 years old at the time). And the whole affair becomes even more a disaster when it becomes obvious that NONE of the three "eldest sons" (of the three major clans coming over to present them) was particularly impressive. They're all ... basically "losers." What now?
Well, Merida upset over all this being imposed on her, jumps on her horse and rides off into the forest. There, by an ancient stone henge somewhere in a clearing in the forest, she comes across these little floating/glowing "willow wisps" that in Gaelic folklore lead one "to one's destiny." So she follows them and they lead her to a little house where an old woman seems to live. She seems to be a very crafty lady, having all sorts of little hand-made trinkets on display. Merida, intrigued by her and her house (or shop?) ... out there in the middle of nowhere ... comes closer. Talking to the old lady, she realizes who this lady is ... "You're a witch!" she declares. The old lady, initially responds, "No ... I'm not a witch, I'm a ... woodcarver, see look at all my nice little trinkets and wood carvings, all _very reasonably priced_ ;-)" However, after Merida keeps pushing the matter, she admits "Yes, I'm a witch..."
But actually Merida's _not_ upset that she's encountered this witch. Having been led to this house by those willow wisps, she asks the witch: "Can you make me a spell?" The witch does not want to. Merida insists: "I need a spell that will change my destiny." Again, the witch tries to change the subject: "Don't you want to buy any of my lovely wood carvings...?" Merida (apparently Princess that she is ...) and not wanting to be distracted from what she really wants tells the witch/crafty wood carver: "Yes, I'LL BUY ALL OF THEM ..." But she makes clear that she _really wanted_ was that spell to change her destiny.
The witch tries to dissuade her. She tells her that she's had that kind of request once before, and that it didn't particularly turn-out particularly well. But after further insistence on the part of Merida she relents and conjures up a little cake that after being consumed would change her destiny.
So Merida takes the cake home with her. Interestingly, she gives it _to her mother_ Elinor, believing that upon having a piece of that cake, her mother would change. And she does ... the rest of the story follows... ;-)
My hat off to PIXAR Studios. Once again, the animation studio has produced a wonderful, wonderful story of surprising depth. I think of Finding Nemo [2003], Up [2009] and Toy Story 3 [2010]. As in the case of those stories ... you may want to bring some Kleenex. Honestly, it's a lovely, lovely story worthy of being watched together by pretty much the whole family.
<< 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/tt1217209/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv069.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120620/REVIEWS/120629997
Brave (directed by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman along with Steve Purcell, all of whom were also involved in the writing of the screenplay along with Irene Mecchi) is a PIXAR production that continues the company's celebrated run of simply outstanding young family oriented animated films.
The story is about Merida (voiced by Kelly MacDonald) a young princess growing up in Scotland at the dawn of time. Her mother Queen Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson) is trying to raise in a manner to prepare her for her destiny of becoming "a lady" and, one day, queen of the realm. Merida, however, prefers much more to be like her dad, King Fergus (voiced by Bill Connolly), being loud and carefree, riding-off on her trusted horse Angus into the forest and glens seeking adventure, becoming _really good_ at shooting her bow and arrow, etc. Elinor, shaking her head tries repeatedly to bring her daughter down to earth. All this running around may be wonderful, but not particularly useful for what Merida's gonna do when she grows older. Perhaps just as frustrating to Elinor was the apparent lack of support on the part of Fergus, her husband after all, who's frankly enjoying hearing Merida talking of her exploits at the dinner table. Yes, Fergus and Elinor have sons -- triplets -- but they are still way to young to do anything other than cause "terrible two" like mischief around the house/castle. So Fergus is enjoying listening to Merida talking about her exploits while Elinor's increasingly reduced to shaking her head.
Things come to a head when Queen Elinor announces at the dinner table one night that she had written to all the heads of the major clans of the realm to come over to present their eldest sons so that Merida could become betrothed to one of them and that they had all accepted. Yes, since Merida's parents were the King/Queen of the realm, it would be Merida's choice as to which of these eldest sons she'd become engaged to. But it's clear that Merida's _not_ ready to choose anybody at this time (besides, to us viewers, it'd all seem really, really early to be doing this as Merida appeared to be no more than about 10-12 years old at the time). And the whole affair becomes even more a disaster when it becomes obvious that NONE of the three "eldest sons" (of the three major clans coming over to present them) was particularly impressive. They're all ... basically "losers." What now?
Well, Merida upset over all this being imposed on her, jumps on her horse and rides off into the forest. There, by an ancient stone henge somewhere in a clearing in the forest, she comes across these little floating/glowing "willow wisps" that in Gaelic folklore lead one "to one's destiny." So she follows them and they lead her to a little house where an old woman seems to live. She seems to be a very crafty lady, having all sorts of little hand-made trinkets on display. Merida, intrigued by her and her house (or shop?) ... out there in the middle of nowhere ... comes closer. Talking to the old lady, she realizes who this lady is ... "You're a witch!" she declares. The old lady, initially responds, "No ... I'm not a witch, I'm a ... woodcarver, see look at all my nice little trinkets and wood carvings, all _very reasonably priced_ ;-)" However, after Merida keeps pushing the matter, she admits "Yes, I'm a witch..."
But actually Merida's _not_ upset that she's encountered this witch. Having been led to this house by those willow wisps, she asks the witch: "Can you make me a spell?" The witch does not want to. Merida insists: "I need a spell that will change my destiny." Again, the witch tries to change the subject: "Don't you want to buy any of my lovely wood carvings...?" Merida (apparently Princess that she is ...) and not wanting to be distracted from what she really wants tells the witch/crafty wood carver: "Yes, I'LL BUY ALL OF THEM ..." But she makes clear that she _really wanted_ was that spell to change her destiny.
The witch tries to dissuade her. She tells her that she's had that kind of request once before, and that it didn't particularly turn-out particularly well. But after further insistence on the part of Merida she relents and conjures up a little cake that after being consumed would change her destiny.
So Merida takes the cake home with her. Interestingly, she gives it _to her mother_ Elinor, believing that upon having a piece of that cake, her mother would change. And she does ... the rest of the story follows... ;-)
My hat off to PIXAR Studios. Once again, the animation studio has produced a wonderful, wonderful story of surprising depth. I think of Finding Nemo [2003], Up [2009] and Toy Story 3 [2010]. As in the case of those stories ... you may want to bring some Kleenex. Honestly, it's a lovely, lovely story worthy of being watched together by pretty much the whole family.
<< 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, June 22, 2012
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter [2012]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter screenplay written by Seth Grahame-Smith [IMDb] based on his novel by the same name as the film and directed by the Russian-Kazakh-American film director Timur Bekmambetov (Sasha Baron Cohen who randomly, viciously and gratuitously made fun of "Kazakhs" in Borat [2006] eat your heart out ;-) is ... well ... "an experience." I'm certain that the film is going to be enjoyed by many, generally, younger viewers even as it will probably disturb a great many older ones.
Indeed, I would discourage anyone who has an aversion to seeing gore (blood, decapitations, rotting flesh, etc ...) on the screen from seeing this film. It will simply not be for you. I would also note that this film isn't exactly "The Apocalypse" either. Though certainly gory, there's nothing in this film that one would not see at any of number of "haunted houses" that spring-up each year across the United States each year around Halloween-time. And I do know something of this as I've been responsible for my parish's youth group over the years and have therefore been to a fair number of such "haunted exhibits" during that time ... ;-)
Now how does one even come-up with the idea of "re-imagining" the revered American President Abraham Lincoln [IMDb] as a "vampire hunter?" ;-) Well, Seth Grahame-Smith caused something of stir a number of years back by publishing a novel called Pride, Prejudice and Zombies, where 90% of the text was Jane Austen's [IMDb] celebrated novel Pride and Prejudice with Seth Grahame-Smith adding the other 10% (including, of course, the zombies). Overall, the critical reaction to his works has been that of bemusement and grudging admiration. And the claim has been, and one that I am somewhat willing to believe ... that the addition of "zombies" to Jane Austen's work (and "vampires" to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln) has worked to revitalize interest in both Jane Austen [IMDb] and now Abraham Lincoln [IMDb].
And while I can certainly imagine Seth Grahame-Smith "having beers" with Franz Kafka and Salvador Dalí I do have to admit that on Carl Jung's "deep psychological" / "archetypical level" I kinda get him.
Pride and Prejudice was, after all, in part about class distinctions and, well "pride and prejudices." So re-casting the novel in a manner that brings to fore a "fear" on the part of "polite society" of late 18th-early 19th century England that it was going to be overwhelmed by terrifying and perhaps not particularly educated/intelligent "new comers" ("zombies"...) actually makes some sense ;-). Remember that was the time of the American and French Revolutions as well as the Napoleonic Wars.
Similarly the re-casting here of the whole American Civil War as basically a war between human beings from the North fighting blood-sucking vampires from the South (yes, folks, that's the basic premise of the current film...), while certainly loud and arguably _over-the-top_ propagandistic, does make some sense as well. After all, while a fair number of American Southerners today would not necessarily like the imagery here, the whole American Civil War was largely about a whole lot of poor-white people being convinced to fight and die to protect the right of a far smaller group of rich-white people to own (and do utterly what they willed with) black-people. So arguably, those "rich white people" were "akin to vampires" feeding on (and sucking the blood out) of _both_ black people and poor white people.
Again, folks like Franz Kafka and Salvador Dalí would understand the analogy completely ... to the consternation/anger of the great dictators and proponents of the totalitarian ideologies of their time. (Hitler apparently absolutely hated the "degenerate Jew writer" Kafka. And Salvador Dalí was actually thrown out of the Surrealist movement that he was instrumental in founding by left-wing French intellectuals after he painted picture of "Lenin with a fat butt playing a piano."). One would imagine that a fair number of Southern whites wouldn't necessarily like the sweeping (and ridiculing) imagery of this film. Nevertheless, slavery and really the racist assumptions underlying it as well as underlying the post-Civil War "Jim Crow" laws and the racist bickering that continues to this day (as well as the once more _race-driven_ obliteration of the Native American populations indigenous to what eventually became the United States by European (white) settlers in both the North and the South) has been the United States' "original sin." So we may cringe when we see rich Southern "patriots" portrayed as seemingly "hard to kill" yet blood-sucking "vampires." BUT it's _not_ an image or analogy that "comes out of nowhere."
Okay, to the story... Seth Grahame-Smith uses a heck of a lot of "imagination" to string together a number of historical facts (and personages) surrounding Abraham Lincoln [IMDb] to recast his story as that of a "vampire hunter."
Abe Lincoln's aversion to slavery is explained as the result of a childhood incident when a he (played by Lux Haney-Jardine) witnesses the capture and deportation from his hometown in Illinois back to the South of a black childhood playmate named Will (played as a child by Curtis Harris). Lincoln's aversion/hatred for "vampires" is explained by the death of his mother Nancy (played by Robin McLeavy). She had come forward to try to defend Lincoln's childhood friend. In retribution, little Abe Lincoln watched a strange man, come to their home a few nights later and _bite_ Nancy in the arm. She died shortly thereafter of disease (in reality, Lincoln's mother Nancy died when Abe was 8-9 years old of "milk sickness").
In the story, Abe Lincoln grows-up determined to eventually find and kill the man who had bitten his mother (who, in the story, he believed was responsible for her death). In seeking who he believed to be her mother's killer, Abe Lincoln meets a strange figure named Henry Sturgess (played by Dominic Cooper). He tells Abe that killing the man who killed his mother would prove much harder than he thought. Abe does not believe him. But after shooting his mother's killer, Jack Barts (played by Marton Csokas), in the eye (with a normal lead bullet from his revolver) and finding to his horror that this didn't kill him but just got him angrier, the good old, and still quite naive Abe was willing to listen to Henry.
Henry tells him that Abe's mother's killer was a vampire, that there were many vampires both in the North and at the South, and that the only way to kill a vampire was with silver. So from now on, Abraham Lincoln would carry silver coated bullets, and (certainly for dramatic effect in the movie...) an _axe_ with a silver coated blade (Abe Lincoln's first job was famously that of an "axeman" or "rail splitter.") Henry tells him that the life of a "Vampire Slayer" was fraught with danger and that it'd be best if he lived quietly and never married.
However, the young Lincoln as naive and quiet/to himself as he was, nevertheless seemed to have bigger ambitions. So he eventually comes to Springfield, Illinois' capital to study to become a lawyer. There he is shown meeting the _then_ young and vivacious Mary Todd [IMDb] his future wife, as well a young Illinois congressman named Stephen Douglas [IMDb] (played by Alan Tudyk) who became Abraham Lincoln's [IMDb] primary pre-Civil War political rival. (In the story, Lincoln and Douglas don't merely spar in a series of now famous pre-Civil War debates. In the first place, they are shown here as competing for Mary Todd's affections. I doubt that there's any historical basis to this but certainly adds drama/romance to the story. Mary, of course, chooses the quieter and more honest Abe in the end).
As Lincoln is getting himself established in Springfield, his childhood friend Will (played by Anthony Mackie) returns to Illinois as a "Fugitive Slave." Lincoln resolves to defend him despite the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision and the Fugitive Slave Act. This sets Lincoln on a course for getting involved in public political action to the consternation of Henry who would have preferred that he just remain in the shadows quietly "killing vampires."
All comes to a head, when Lincoln, the candidate of the anti-slavery Republican Party is elected President. The Southern States, of course, secede and the American Civil War begins. To Lincoln's horror, the vampires take the side of the South and the North's fortunes in the War only change when Lincoln remembers that vampires can be killed with silver. So according to the story, the North's bullets and cannon balls come to be coated in silver, and from that point on, the North starts winning the war... ;-)
Obviously this is a highly imaginative tale. But as one realizes what the story describes, I think one can start to understand the connections that writer and film-director are making.
Finally, while I'm not sure that a lot of folks from the Southern United States would particularly appreciate the way the "vampiric South" was being portrayed, I am personally exhausted with people like Southern General Robert E. Lee being portrayed in "heroic terms" in American history. He went to war to defend an Evil cause (the right of human beings to _own_ other human beings) and I do think that Lincoln was absolutely correct in taking Lee's Plantation (on the other side of the Potomac River from Washington D.C.) and converting it into the gigantic Arlington National Cemetery.
A lot of people in the United States needlessly died in the Civil War before all its people could finally be free:
The Battle Hymn of the Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah! ...
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah! ...
<< 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
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter screenplay written by Seth Grahame-Smith [IMDb] based on his novel by the same name as the film and directed by the Russian-Kazakh-American film director Timur Bekmambetov (Sasha Baron Cohen who randomly, viciously and gratuitously made fun of "Kazakhs" in Borat [2006] eat your heart out ;-) is ... well ... "an experience." I'm certain that the film is going to be enjoyed by many, generally, younger viewers even as it will probably disturb a great many older ones.
Indeed, I would discourage anyone who has an aversion to seeing gore (blood, decapitations, rotting flesh, etc ...) on the screen from seeing this film. It will simply not be for you. I would also note that this film isn't exactly "The Apocalypse" either. Though certainly gory, there's nothing in this film that one would not see at any of number of "haunted houses" that spring-up each year across the United States each year around Halloween-time. And I do know something of this as I've been responsible for my parish's youth group over the years and have therefore been to a fair number of such "haunted exhibits" during that time ... ;-)
Now how does one even come-up with the idea of "re-imagining" the revered American President Abraham Lincoln [IMDb] as a "vampire hunter?" ;-) Well, Seth Grahame-Smith caused something of stir a number of years back by publishing a novel called Pride, Prejudice and Zombies, where 90% of the text was Jane Austen's [IMDb] celebrated novel Pride and Prejudice with Seth Grahame-Smith adding the other 10% (including, of course, the zombies). Overall, the critical reaction to his works has been that of bemusement and grudging admiration. And the claim has been, and one that I am somewhat willing to believe ... that the addition of "zombies" to Jane Austen's work (and "vampires" to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln) has worked to revitalize interest in both Jane Austen [IMDb] and now Abraham Lincoln [IMDb].
And while I can certainly imagine Seth Grahame-Smith "having beers" with Franz Kafka and Salvador Dalí I do have to admit that on Carl Jung's "deep psychological" / "archetypical level" I kinda get him.
Pride and Prejudice was, after all, in part about class distinctions and, well "pride and prejudices." So re-casting the novel in a manner that brings to fore a "fear" on the part of "polite society" of late 18th-early 19th century England that it was going to be overwhelmed by terrifying and perhaps not particularly educated/intelligent "new comers" ("zombies"...) actually makes some sense ;-). Remember that was the time of the American and French Revolutions as well as the Napoleonic Wars.
Similarly the re-casting here of the whole American Civil War as basically a war between human beings from the North fighting blood-sucking vampires from the South (yes, folks, that's the basic premise of the current film...), while certainly loud and arguably _over-the-top_ propagandistic, does make some sense as well. After all, while a fair number of American Southerners today would not necessarily like the imagery here, the whole American Civil War was largely about a whole lot of poor-white people being convinced to fight and die to protect the right of a far smaller group of rich-white people to own (and do utterly what they willed with) black-people. So arguably, those "rich white people" were "akin to vampires" feeding on (and sucking the blood out) of _both_ black people and poor white people.
Again, folks like Franz Kafka and Salvador Dalí would understand the analogy completely ... to the consternation/anger of the great dictators and proponents of the totalitarian ideologies of their time. (Hitler apparently absolutely hated the "degenerate Jew writer" Kafka. And Salvador Dalí was actually thrown out of the Surrealist movement that he was instrumental in founding by left-wing French intellectuals after he painted picture of "Lenin with a fat butt playing a piano."). One would imagine that a fair number of Southern whites wouldn't necessarily like the sweeping (and ridiculing) imagery of this film. Nevertheless, slavery and really the racist assumptions underlying it as well as underlying the post-Civil War "Jim Crow" laws and the racist bickering that continues to this day (as well as the once more _race-driven_ obliteration of the Native American populations indigenous to what eventually became the United States by European (white) settlers in both the North and the South) has been the United States' "original sin." So we may cringe when we see rich Southern "patriots" portrayed as seemingly "hard to kill" yet blood-sucking "vampires." BUT it's _not_ an image or analogy that "comes out of nowhere."
Okay, to the story... Seth Grahame-Smith uses a heck of a lot of "imagination" to string together a number of historical facts (and personages) surrounding Abraham Lincoln [IMDb] to recast his story as that of a "vampire hunter."
Abe Lincoln's aversion to slavery is explained as the result of a childhood incident when a he (played by Lux Haney-Jardine) witnesses the capture and deportation from his hometown in Illinois back to the South of a black childhood playmate named Will (played as a child by Curtis Harris). Lincoln's aversion/hatred for "vampires" is explained by the death of his mother Nancy (played by Robin McLeavy). She had come forward to try to defend Lincoln's childhood friend. In retribution, little Abe Lincoln watched a strange man, come to their home a few nights later and _bite_ Nancy in the arm. She died shortly thereafter of disease (in reality, Lincoln's mother Nancy died when Abe was 8-9 years old of "milk sickness").
In the story, Abe Lincoln grows-up determined to eventually find and kill the man who had bitten his mother (who, in the story, he believed was responsible for her death). In seeking who he believed to be her mother's killer, Abe Lincoln meets a strange figure named Henry Sturgess (played by Dominic Cooper). He tells Abe that killing the man who killed his mother would prove much harder than he thought. Abe does not believe him. But after shooting his mother's killer, Jack Barts (played by Marton Csokas), in the eye (with a normal lead bullet from his revolver) and finding to his horror that this didn't kill him but just got him angrier, the good old, and still quite naive Abe was willing to listen to Henry.
Henry tells him that Abe's mother's killer was a vampire, that there were many vampires both in the North and at the South, and that the only way to kill a vampire was with silver. So from now on, Abraham Lincoln would carry silver coated bullets, and (certainly for dramatic effect in the movie...) an _axe_ with a silver coated blade (Abe Lincoln's first job was famously that of an "axeman" or "rail splitter.") Henry tells him that the life of a "Vampire Slayer" was fraught with danger and that it'd be best if he lived quietly and never married.
However, the young Lincoln as naive and quiet/to himself as he was, nevertheless seemed to have bigger ambitions. So he eventually comes to Springfield, Illinois' capital to study to become a lawyer. There he is shown meeting the _then_ young and vivacious Mary Todd [IMDb] his future wife, as well a young Illinois congressman named Stephen Douglas [IMDb] (played by Alan Tudyk) who became Abraham Lincoln's [IMDb] primary pre-Civil War political rival. (In the story, Lincoln and Douglas don't merely spar in a series of now famous pre-Civil War debates. In the first place, they are shown here as competing for Mary Todd's affections. I doubt that there's any historical basis to this but certainly adds drama/romance to the story. Mary, of course, chooses the quieter and more honest Abe in the end).
As Lincoln is getting himself established in Springfield, his childhood friend Will (played by Anthony Mackie) returns to Illinois as a "Fugitive Slave." Lincoln resolves to defend him despite the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision and the Fugitive Slave Act. This sets Lincoln on a course for getting involved in public political action to the consternation of Henry who would have preferred that he just remain in the shadows quietly "killing vampires."
All comes to a head, when Lincoln, the candidate of the anti-slavery Republican Party is elected President. The Southern States, of course, secede and the American Civil War begins. To Lincoln's horror, the vampires take the side of the South and the North's fortunes in the War only change when Lincoln remembers that vampires can be killed with silver. So according to the story, the North's bullets and cannon balls come to be coated in silver, and from that point on, the North starts winning the war... ;-)
Obviously this is a highly imaginative tale. But as one realizes what the story describes, I think one can start to understand the connections that writer and film-director are making.
Finally, while I'm not sure that a lot of folks from the Southern United States would particularly appreciate the way the "vampiric South" was being portrayed, I am personally exhausted with people like Southern General Robert E. Lee being portrayed in "heroic terms" in American history. He went to war to defend an Evil cause (the right of human beings to _own_ other human beings) and I do think that Lincoln was absolutely correct in taking Lee's Plantation (on the other side of the Potomac River from Washington D.C.) and converting it into the gigantic Arlington National Cemetery.
A lot of people in the United States needlessly died in the Civil War before all its people could finally be free:
The Battle Hymn of the Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah! ...
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah! ...
<< 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)