Killing them Softly [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Ebert (2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

My sense is that one's reaction to the quite violent, certainly appropriately R-rated film (parents take note...) film Killing them Softly (directed and screenplay by Andrew Dominik based on the novel by George V. Higgins), certainly aiming for Oscar consideration, will depend on one's politics.

This is because the film set in the New Orleans underworld in the fall of 2008 as the current Financial Crisis was unfolding juxtaposes speeches made at the time by the outgoing President G.W. Bush, his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the incoming President Barrack Obama, with a terribly ill-conceived and consequently botched attempt by a small group of "lower level wiseguys" to "knock-over" a mob run (hence already illegal) poker game.

Thus to buy-into the film one has to ask oneself if one accepts the film's premise that the U.S. economy is _also_ being run by a clique of perhaps far richer but still not altogether bright / "out of their depth" "white-collar wiseguys."  America's right-wing not withstanding, my sense is that probably the vast majority of American adult viewers and probably most viewers world wide will probably giddily relish indulging in the film's cynical / "hard boiled" premise even as they suspect the view to be over-simplified.  (To this date NO ONE has been charged much less gone to jail for the 2008 Wall Street financial meltdown...).

To the story... The film begins with lower level "wiseguy" Johnny Amato (played by Vincent Curatola) who runs a New Orleans dry-cleaning business talking two 20-something drifter-lowlifes, Frankie (played by Schoot McNairy) and Russell (played by Ben Mendelsohn), into knocking-over an illegal card game run for the mob by 40-something Markie Trattman (played by Ray Liotta).  The game had already been "knocked-over" _once_, a number of years before, and some months afterwards in a drunken stupor, Markie had _stupidly_ confessed to having staged it himself.  After being subsequently roughed-up/making appropriate amends, Markie had been given back responsibility for the card game (presumably because the mob bosses felt that Markie would ensure that the game would now be "the safest" in town ... from their perspective).

But that's how Johnny Amato got his "bright idea."  IF ANYBODY "knocked-over" Markie's card game, guess who the Mob's gonna blame? -- Markie.  So good-ole Johnny explains to Frankie: "We have to do this because if we don't SOMEBODY ELSE WILL, and _we'll_ then be kicking ourselves for being so stupid for having had the idea and not doing it first..." (Sounds kinda like the logic behind the "mortgage backed derivatives" frenzy of the mid-2000s)  "You're a genius boss!" exclaims Frankie ... and a few days later there's Frankie and Aussie-accented Russell with pantyhose over their heads knocking over Markie's card game ...

But of course, the Mob's a little more intelligent in sifting through the pieces after Frankie and Russell knocked-over the card game than Johnny expected.  A few days later there's a mob "driver" (played by Richard Jenkins) talking to the cool, straight talking "go to fixer"/assassin Jackie (played by Brad Pitt).  The "driver" explains that the Mob still has a "soft spot" for Markie, screw-up that he's been ... Jackie tells him that "guilty or not" Markie's gotta go down "in order to _restore confidence_" (again, sound familiar? ...).

And then there are the other three "clowns."  What of them?  Well Jackie suggests "outsourcing" some of the work to a friend named Mickey (played by James Gandolfini) from Maryland because Jackie himself knew one of the guys involved and it's "it's kinda hard to kill someone you've had a working relationship with ..."

The rest of the film _methodically_ ensues ...

Again, almost every adult in America and probably across the world will understand this film.  The question is whether one buys its fundamental premise. And my sense is probably most viewers, at least on a gut level will...  I would add, that I suspect that both Brad Pitt (for Best Actor in a Leading Role) and Richard Jenkins (for Best Actor in a Supporting Role) will get consideration for Oscar nominations for their performances...

ADDENDUM - A great documentary on the 2008 Financial Crisis, reviewed here, and the winner for Best Documentary at the Oscars last year, was Inside Job [2010].


<< 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! :-) >>

Silver Linings Playbook [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

I am honestly baffled at the praise being given to Silver Linings Playbook (directed and screenplay by David O. Russell based on the novel by Matthew Quick) to say nothing of the "Oscar Buzz" that appears to surround it. Perhaps the buzz is the result of the book's/film's stab at presenting bi-polar / obsessive-compulsive disorder on screen.  Certainly, there have been plenty of dramas built around alcoholism/various kinds of addictions and even a few films about autism over the years.  But this film, honestly felt like a rather average romcom (though it perhaps intended to be more than this, but _didn't_ have the courage to be that then) only to be picked up and be inexplicably "graced" by (as is generally the case of Grace after all ...) more or less undeserved critical praise.

Don't get me wrong, I _like_ the actors.  I believe that Bradley Cooper's performance in The Words [2012] was far better than he (or that film) was given credit for (and arguably better than his performance here).  I _also_ like Jennifer Lawrence.  I was just beginning this blog when Winter's Bone [2010] came and and very quickly went, so I missed her there.  But she was _outstanding_ as Raven/Mystique in X-Men: First Generation [2011], basically "okay" (probably her biggest role but mostly "action") in The Hunger Games [2012] and even honestly quite good in the still "young" role in the recent horror picture House at the End of the Street [2012].  Then Robert De Niro is, of course, a legend.  But over all, this film feels far more like Meet the Parents [2000]/Fockers [2004] than Rain Man [1988], Clean and Sober [1988] or Shame [2011].  Consider simply last year's film, Take Shelter [2011] a film _also_ about borderline mental illness and how much more _gravitas_ it carried than this one.  I refuse to accept that Silver Linings Playbook is "as good as it gets" to take the title of another Hollywood film [1997] made about OCD.  SLP is not a terrible movie but IMHO it's not a particularly great one...

So what then is this rather average film about?  The film begins with Pat (played by Bradley Cooper) a former smalltime college professor who having been recently released from a State mental institution is now staying with his parents Pat, Sr (played by Robert De Niro) and Dolores (played by Jacki Weaver), his wife Veronica (played by Julia Stiles) who he is separated from having put a restraining order on him.

What did Pat do to warrant being placed in a State operated mental institution and even following release having a restraining order held against him by his estranged wife?  Well, coming home from work one day, he found his Department Head having sex with his wife in the shower and ... enraged (or perhaps ENRAGED) he nearly beat his now former Department Head to death.  Early in the film, we hear Pat telling the Counselor, Dr. Patel (played by Anupam Kher) who he's still required to see "I just had one bad incident in my life ..." and Dr. Patel, telling him in a calm but straight-forward voice "one bad incident can be enough..."  While incarcerated, Pat was diagnosed with having Bi-Polar disorder.

Back home now, trying to really hard to rebuild his life his shattered life on account of that "one bad incident" and still under all kinds of medication ... he _does_ exhibit _some_ classic characteristics of Manic behavior.  (1) Despite what has happened to him he remains almost "wildly optimistic."  Indeed, he calls his journal "The Silver Lining Playbook" from which the story gets its name.  And he honestly keeps believing that _somehow_ his estranged wife will take him back.  (2) Besides this almost insane and (one suspects) forced optimism, he stays up late at night, arguing with the books that he's reading (he used to teach literature...) and he tries really hard to put himself into great physical shape (again to try to win his estranged wife back).

We know, of course, that she's _not_ coming back.  And I think that more than a few of us looking at the film would wonder if he's really mentally ill.  BUT then he did nearly kill a man. BUT WHY DID HE DO THAT?  Because he caught him having sex with his wife in the shower?  BUT then why was his wife cheating on him to begin with...?

But none of this matters.  For the foreseeable future, Pat is going to be consigned to a whole lot of supervision while being prescribed a whole lot of psychiatric drugs (all with varying side-effects) with the goal of stabilizing him (rather than further destabilizing him).  AND YET he really should be happy that he's not in jail or still in a mental institution...

Into this story of a wounded, arguably shattered man, who's future is (one hopes) in the hands of competent experts at least as much as it is in his own hands, enters another wounded person.  She's a young widow named Tiffany (played by Jennifer Lawrence) who was actually a mutual friend of Pat and his estranged wife.  Tiffany _also_ took _her loss_ badly and began to act out in all sorts of (apparently sexually) inappropriate ways to the point that her parents finally had her institutionalized (for depression).  And she too, now out of the mental institution has also become a veteran of a rather robust regimen of psychiatric medicines.  (When the two sets of parents set these to broken 30-something year-olds together, Pat and Tiffany share stories of what it felt like to be on Lithium and so forth ...).

So there is the story.  It's awful.  It's confused.  Honestly more than a few viewers will wonder if either of these two people were really as "mentally ill" as diagnosed.  And yet _both_ had acted out (he once, she apparently for a sufficiently long amount of time to warrant serious concern by her parents/loved ones) in _dangerous ways_.  The coup de grace of course is that Pat's father is more or less obviously obsessive compulsive but beyond being asked by the Philadelphia Eagles to stop attending their games (because he would apparently get into fights in the stadium during their games), he's never been treated for anything...

But that then is life ... and again whatever secret doubts the viewer may have about the judgements/diagnoses that society has made about all three of these characters -- Pat, Tiffany and his father -- hopefully one understands _why_ society made those judgements.

So how does this movie flow from here?  Well, it's a Hollywood movie so it has to end reasonably well.  Much does ensue.  A narrative is sort of pieced together.  But the story isn't particularly pretty and it certainly is not neat.  It ends with perhaps as much ambiguity / confusion as it began:

Is Pat really that sick and can he "get better?"  Honestly, who knows?  BUT he really did have that _one really bad incident_ and honestly, would you/could you trust him?  Sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Jab Tak Hai Jaan [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Los Angeles Times [Mark Olsen]
Times of India [Gaurav Malani] [Meena Iyer]
Hindustan Times [Anupama Chopra]

I came across Jab Tak Hai Jaan (directed by famed and recently deceased Bollywood director Yash Chopra [IMDb], screenplay by Aditya Chopra [IMDb] along with Devika Bhagat [IMDb]) largely by accident here in Chicago.  I had been at our city's current "flagship" movie theater, the AMC River East 21 on Illinois Street, to see a different film and saw this film advertised.  Sticking to my earlier plans, I proceeded to see the film that I had come to see, but afterwards looked the current film on the IMDb database and made subsequent plans to see it as well.

And I'm certainly glad that I did.  Most moviegoers in the United States will now be familiar with the phrase "Bollywood," and even the grand sketches of its success "back in India."  The success of English language films like Monsoon Wedding [2001], Bride and Prejudice [2004], as well as actors/actresses like Irrfan Khan (appearing recently in Life of Pi [2012] as well as The Amazing Spider Man [2012]) Freida Pinto (Miral [2010], Rise of the Planet of the Apes [2011], The Immortals [2011] and Trishna [2012]) and Dev Patel (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel [2012]) all having been introduced to American audiences in the Slumdog Millionaire [2008], have gradually increased American (and especially Hollywood) appreciation for the movie-making talent that exists on the Subcontinent.

Indeed, it would seem that American artistic/film-making community existing in Hollywood has tried very hard in recently years to embrace both the talent, and no doubt profit-making potential existing in the so-called "BRIC" countries -- BRAZIL (recent Hollywood productions The Incredible Hulk [2008] and Rio [2011] as well as the Brazilian films like Central Station (orig. Central do Brasil [1998], City of God (orig. Cidade de Deus) [2002] and The Craft (orig. Riscado) [2010], Day of Black (orig. Dia de Preto) [2011], Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012] reviewed here), RUSSIA (recent Hollywood productions like Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol [2011], The Darkest Hour [2012] (the Chernobyl Diaries [2012] take place in neighboring Ukraine ;-) as well as Russian films like Elena (orig. Елена) [2011] reviewed here), INDIA (English language films listed above as well as more "artsy" film-festival caliber Indian films like Patang [2012] and Valley of Saints [2012] reviewed here), CHINA (like the fantastic/"Indiana Jones" quality H.K. originating film Detective Dee and the Phantom Flame (orig. Di Renjie) [2010] as well as the more artsy but again of the highest quality Snow Flower and the Secret Fan [2011] reviewed here).

So it would seem both inevitable and IMHO supremely positive that well produced Indian language (and _excellently subtitled_) authentically Bollywood films would start showing regularly in American cinemas (and from the previews shown in conjunction with the showing of the current film, it would seem that a steady stream of Indian Bollywood films is going to start playing at the AMC River East theater hiere in Chicago).

So then, after such a rather long introduction to this film, what is it about? ;-).  Well not surprisingly (for Bollywood films) it's a grand and great love-story.

The film begins by introducing us viewers to Major Samar Anand (played by famed Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan [IMDb]).  He's presented as a legendary "sapper" (one who defuses bombs), who defuses the most intricate of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) set by Kashmiri (generally Muslim) terrorists/freedom fighters (depending on one's point of view) all across Kashmir.  And he does so WITHOUT EVER WEARING ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR.  He goes where only robots and other otherwise _very well protected sappers_ go and generally makes short work of diffusing seemingly incredibly complicated bombs.

Samar's character/job no doubt pays homage to both the recent Oscar-winning American film The Hurt Locker [2008] but above all to the Indian Sikh character named Kip in Michael Ondaatje's famed novel The English Patient (Amazon) made subsequently into an Academy Award winning film (Amazon).  In Ondaatje's story, Kip was portrayed as being "sapper" (and largely under-appreciated) during World War II.

In the current movie, Samar is certainly respected by his fellow soldiers in the Indian Army who consider him almost a legend.  It also becomes rather quickly clear that he's gained the admiration of some of India's young women as well.  In fact, in one of the first scenes of the movie, we see a beautiful young woman, who we soon learn is a young broadcast journalism apprentice "for the Discovery Channel" named Akira Rai (played by Anushka Sharma) come up with a scheme to try to draw his attention.  He decides to jump right in front of him into a huge, deep and cold reservior by whose banks he's gone to rest after disarming a particularly complicated IED, forcing him now to (eventually) jump in and rescue her as well.

Save Akira he does.  But after leaving her with his jacket to warm her (remember Kashmir is at the "roof of the world" so the water in its lakes would be _really cold_) he coldly drives off with his motorcycle back to the base, leaving her alone there to contemplate what just happened.

Now _why_ would someone become both such a risk-taker when it comes to disarming bombs and then so cold around women?  (One recalls famous question asked of another man named "Sam" in another this time Hollywood film (Casablanca [1942]) asking him why he treats such good-looking women women so badly, noting "Remember, they might grow scare one day...").  But both Sam in Casablanca and Samar in this film had their stories ... And with a somewhat hokey plot-twist (but look this film _is_ a romance) Akira soon finds out Samar's: For inside Samar's coat pocket, which he had left her to warm with, was his journal ... and the rest of the story unspools from there ...

For 10 years back, when Samar was in his 20s, Akira reads, Samar was a carefree Indian expat living in London, working odd jobs and happily playing Punjabi songs on the street on his guitar.  And it was there that he had fallen in love ... to a far wealthier Indian young woman, named Meera (played by Katrina Kaif) his age, who was destined to take-over her father's (played by Anupam Kher) highly successful London-based business.

How would these two meet?  Well, Samar first spotted Meera while working as a street sweeper in front of a presumably Catholic Church in a fashionable residential district of London.  (Meera would go to the Church to pray at night and ask "Sir Jesus" for various favors.  But being a good girl, would always make some sort of a sacrifice as well. "Sir Jesus if you grant me this, I'll give-up that..."  It's kind of a naive kind of prayer but it suits her still optimistic 20-something character).  Samar spotted her coming out of the Church but she didn't really notice him.

However, she does notice him some days later happily playing his Punjabi songs in some London park somewhere and she later comes to him with a request: She wanted him to teach her how to play a nice Punjabi song for her father's upcoming 50th birthday which would also actually signal the beginning of his retirement.  (There's an ancient Indian tradition that the first stage of one's life is to be devoted to the basic physical aspects of life, above all caring for and creating one's family.  Then in the second stage of one's life, beginning around 50 years of age, with the parents having been taken care or and the kids grown and _getting married_ to begin to _withdraw_ from the physical world and begin to focus more on one's Spiritual life.  Approaching 50 myself now, I do have to say that I do think that I appreciate now some of the wisdom present in this tradition).

So Meera's _not_ infatuated with Samar at this point.  She just wants to hire him to teach her how to play her guitar better.  But Samar, who is perhaps more taken with her already, tells her that he doesn't want her money.  Instead, he tells her that he'll teach her for free, BUT that she's going to have to trust him, because, he's going to teach her to play more than just the notes.  And he does ... and in the course of those lessons that involve far more than just guitar playing (but emphatically _not_ "simply hopping into bed together" that _again_ would be way too "easy") she does both begin to find herself, and yes, fall for him.

But, of course, the two are not of the same _class_ (not necessarily caste but class is the issue here).  And Meera's dad (remember, he's getting himself ready for a traditional Indian style retirement and so has to get all his loose ends together) has de facto _arranged_ a nice marriage for his daughter to a nice, good-looking. responsible and almost certainly to be successful English-boy Meera's age named Roger (played by Jay Conroy).  What to do?  Pick the almost certainly to be successful English "hunk" named Roger, or the smiling, hardworking and charming Samar who's dirt poor and actually lives with a similarly dirt-poor Pakistani room-mate (played by Sharib Hashmi)?

Asking Sir Jesus to help her to "do the right thing" and follow her father's wishes, she promises to not get further involved with Samar.  BUT, of course, she _can't_ keep that promise. ;-)

Then when she definitively realizes that she can't be without Samar (and tells him that) Samar kisses her and drives off on his motorcycle ONLY TO GET INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF HER.  She drops to her knees ... and promises Sir Jesus if he spares Samar his life that she'll _never see him again_.  Samar lives ...  4 days later, Meera comes over to the hospital to tell Samar (who's very happy to see her ...) to tell him that she prayed for his life ... and ... since he has it back, she now must never see him again AND SO LONG AS SHE NEVER SEES HIM AGAIN, HE'LL BE "OKAY."  Readers, do you now understand _why_ Samar could take a job like a "bomb diffusing expert" and NEVER wear any protective gear?  (So long as he never saw Meera, he would live, but without her he just wanted to die...)

Now that's ONE HECK OF A MESSED-UP / "IMPOSSIBLE" ROMANCE.  And certainly, the _young_ currently 20-something Akira, reading this Samar's sad story is REALLY, REALLY IMPRESSED.  So she asks her boss to allow her to make a story about "The Man Who Can Not Die" ... and much, much still ensues.

It's a Bollywood movie so all has to end well.  Even (and thankfully) Meera's somewhat messed-up theology gets fixed (why would "Sir Jesus" keep Samar alive only to keep him apart from her???) But much still happens and even the more or less inevitable evolving love triangle -- involving Samar, Meera and Akira -- gets resolved, in interestingly enough, a definitely an "Eastern" sort of way ;-).

It does make for a great and grand love story and yes I'm _not_ at all surprised that Meera and later Akira would find Samar (and his life) so fascinating.  For life is, indeed, more than just "hitting the right notes."

All in all a Great story and great job! ;-)


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

Hitchcock [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Hitchcock (directed by Sasha Gervasi, screenplay by John J. McLaughlin, based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho [1990] by Stephen Rebello) definitely has its moments.

The beginning sequence where the character Alfred Hitchcock [IMDb] (played marvelously here by Anthony Hopkins) introduces himself to the audience is just great -- both shocking and funny -- exactly what one imagines the famous director to have been like.  And Hopkins does not let up, giving a great performance and probably one of the funniest/most enjoyable to watch (and probably to have played) of his entire career.

Similarly, Helen Mirren does an outstanding job playing Hitchcock's wife Alma who both had a life/career of her own and (as the viewer sees....) had to put-up with quite a bit of annoyances, some frankly a bit creepy (Parents take note ... I would have preferred honestly an "R" rating to "PG-13" for the film), being married to in her own words (with appropriate half-playful/half-serious inflection to be imagined here by the reader) "the great Alfred Hitchcock."

Even Scarlet Johansson gives a stellar performance as Janet Leigh [IMDb] who played the key role of Marion Crane the "wayward secretary" murdered by the "psycho" Norman Bates in Alfred Hitchcock's famous film.  In Hitchcock's Psycho [1960], Marion Crane was simply a "striking" (and to Hitchcock and much of late-1950s Hollywood, "striking" meant "young, voluptuous and blonde") but "bad" woman who the script leads to a very, very _bad end_.  Yet Johansson's Janet Leigh reminds the viewer that Leigh (in contrast to Marion Crane) was far more than a "fattened calf led to slaughter." Leigh who played the "bad" Marion Crane who was murdered in the shower by Norman Bates was _actually_ a wife and mother concerned actually about how her role would look _not merely_ to "movie audiences" but to her family and especially to her kids.  It all kinda makes the famous shower/murder scene in Psycho feel a bit different.  Yet, Janet Leigh was _not merely_ a wife/mother.  She was _also_ a professional actress.  As I write this, I find myself actually _in awe_ of Scarlet Johanssen's performance, even if it was supporting to Mirren's and Hopkins'.

Yet, despite these three outstanding performances -- and one could add James D'Arcy's admittedly rather small role in this film (but again IMHO _flawlessly_ executed) of playing Anthony Perkins [IMDb] (who played Norman Bates in Hitchcock's Psycho) -- this film about Hitchcock making his famous film still feels strikingly _flat_.

How could it be that _so many_ individual performances in this film would be _so good_ and yet the final product be soooo ... mediocre?  Blame it on the direction, blame it on the editing or on the script.  But it's honestly a shame.  Both the idea for the film and the individual performances were just great.  Yet this would seem to be one film that just did not come together.  And that deserves one big sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Life of Pi [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Life of Pi (directed by Ang Lee, screenplay by David Magee based on the best selling novel by the same name by Yann Martel [IMDb]) is certain to garner various nominations come Awards season at the end of the year including nominations for best picture, best director, best cinematography and best adapted screenplay.

The film is about Pi Patel (played by Irrfan Khan) recalling to a Canadian writer (played by Rafe Spall) the story of arrival in Canada from his native India via shipwreck at sea a story that the Canadian writer has been told will "make him believe in God."

Here readers of this blog ought to understand that the faith in God being offered is of a distinctly modern Indian / East Asian variety, one that Western Christians/Catholics of a more traditional bent would initially have difficulty in understanding.  Why?  Well India is a civilization with roots as old those of ancient Mesopotamia / Egypt (out of which the Abrahamic religions, including our own, came) and certainly older than those of Greece and Rome.  So anyone who's ever been friends with folks from India would know any discussion that does not give due respect to India's cultural (and therefore, in good part, religious) heritage is largely pointless.  Many/most Indians that the Westerner would meet in the West will simply dismiss the Westerner unless such respect is given.

So how does one talk to an Indian (or more generally East Asian) about religion?  (1) Honestly, ask an Indian (and even Indian Christian/Catholic, there are tens of millions of them, probably 1-2 families in your own parish, even if also spread over a land/cultural landscape of over a 1 billion people), and (2) Very much along the lines of the presentation in this film/book.  That is, one which cedes a relative equivalence of religious traditions that many Westerners would be (at least initially) surprised/uncomfortable with.  Welcome to a world of 8 billion people and even to the world that even Pope John Paul II knew quite well and _encouraged_ Catholics to engage in (JP II made _many_ references during his pontificate to St. Paul's preaching at the Aeropagus in Athens, Greece in the time of the Early Church and _encouraged us_ to do the same).  

So then Pi first tells the Canadian writer of his encounters with God in India as a child, saying that he first encountered God in the Hindu conception adding: "Well there are 30 million of them in the Hindu religion, so you're bound to run into a few of them eventually." :-) And he added, "They were the Superheroes of my youth." He then talks of his encounter with the Christian God _in the Catholic conception_ with a kind Indian Catholic priest explaining to him the central mystery of the Christian conception: "That God [TM] so loved the world that he _chose_ to give his Son for our salvation" (so that we could return to be in communion with him) (cf. John 3:16).  Like so many others of us who've ever reflected on the question, Pi wonders "Why would God do that? Give his only and _innocent_ son for us (the guilty)?"  And the Catholic priest answers in the most Orthodox of answers (across all times and ages) "out of love for us."  And Pi was impressed.  Finally, Pi also told the Canadian writer that he was also impressed with the Muslim tradition of _submission to God_ saying that he when he was kneeling down on his prayer rug saying his prayers (in the direction of Mecca no doubt) he felt that the ground below him was for that instant made holy (that in his submission to God, he was being sanctified).  All these are lovely and edifying insights for us all.  And let us remember that in the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, the Council did declare that the Church "rejects nothing which is true and holy in these [other] religions." (NA#2)

Pi's family ran a zoo in his home town in India.  At some point, when Pi was a teenager, Pi's father for reasons that are not entirely clear (but probably to give his sons a better life) receives permission to emigrate with his family to Canada, and decides to take the zoo's animals with him (to Canada) where they could sell the animals (presumably at a higher price).   During the course of the ocean voyage, the ship sinks in a storm, and after the storm clears, all who survived the storm is the (vegetarian) teenage Pi and ... a (flesh eating) bengali tiger ... in a lifeboat in the middle of a trackless ocean.   Much ensues ...

Remember that the promise of the story is that at the end of it, one's invited to believe in God.  Does it work?  I'll leave it to the viewers of the film to decide, but I will say that I have previously used a similar appeal in my preaching, at house blessing and in the course of marriage prep as well:  Today people are, in fact, able to _choose to believe_ (or to _not believe_) and lead their lives accordingly.  (Hopefully)  it should be clear that I do _choose to believe_ (and I do actually in fair part for the same reason that this story offers... ;-).  But I won't say more here other than say ... if you wish, go see the 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! :-) >>

This Must Be The Place [2012]

MPAA (R)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

The first thing that I would ask viewers, both American and non, of This Must be the Place (directed and cowritten by Italian director Paolo Sorrentino along with Umberto Contarello) is whether they buy the film's premise.  The film, the director's first written and performed in English, which was released in Europe 6 months ago (in time for this year's Cannes Film Festival) and has received wide critical acclaim over there, will probably initially surprise many American viewers.

The film is about a 40-50 something year-old 70s-80s era American rock-star named Cheyenne (played by Sean Penn) who made a career of writing/performing really soul-searching/depressing songs (others have noted that the character appears to be principally inspired by Robert Smith of The Cure) now living in retirement (arguably in suspended animation) in a palatial estate at the outskirts of Dublin, Ireland.   Cheyenne's wildly rich, but it's clear as day that the money didn't exactly bring him happiness in any conventional sense.  His circle of friends include simply his wife of 35 years Jane (played by Frances McDormand) who he clearly loves and loves him (and was perhaps "the one groupie who actually understood him"), a 20 something neighbor named Mary (played by Eve Hewson) and a nameless coffee shop waiter that Cheyenne keeps trying to set Mary up with (who she, of course, finds boring...).

Now a question could be asked here: Should one really be surprised at Cheyenne's style of life?  In the United States we often imagine the lifestyles of the "rich and famous" to be necessarily exotic.  It's perhaps difficult for us to imagine the lifestyle of a "rich and famous" artist to be ... poor.   Yet, if we are able to scratch below the surface it should become clear that this need not be case.

Perhaps when we Americans see a big-haired male musician with makeup we see a "rich man who's made it" and "can do whatever he wants to."  A European, like this film's director Sorrentino, coming from a culture that has had centuries of experience with gifted (and troubled...) writers, artists and musicians may look on the same person and see someone very different instead: Someone like Milos Forman's Amadeus [1984] (Mozart), Franz Kafka, Vincent Van Gogh or even Michelangelo.  And Cheyenne's big hair, loud dress and makeup need not be understood as a sign of "Godlike independence / sovereignty" but rather as a "cover," as an attempt "to hide."

Hide from what?   Well that's the rest of the movie ... And I do believe that Sorentino is on to something and it makes sense.  Without giving much away here, I simply remember that two of the musicians that I most admired when I was in my late teens / twenties were Pete Townsend of The Who and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd.  BOTH lost fathers as children during World War II and both devoted entire albums, Tommy and The Wall, to the experience.  It turns out that Cheyenne's childhood is linked to that experience, if also differently, as well.

It all makes for a fascinating movie and touches on two insights that I've had in my pastoral work over the years, and that I've written about here before:

(1) When someone looks or acts "strange" there's generally a story behind it.  It's an easy temptation to simply dismiss someone or insult someone as being "stupid," "crazy" etc.  But after lazily putting down the person, then what?  Even if one's right, the far more challenging part is discerning why, and when reaches the end of the process, one almost always feels really, really sorry for having initially put that person down.  A great film that I've previously reviewed here that hits on exactly this theme is Rid of Me [2011] about a young woman who goes through a really really dark period after having been abandoned by her husband.  To onlookers, she would have looked "really, really dark/strange," but if they knew the story, and ...

(2) One of the true horrors of "macro tragedies" like wars is that these tragedies just add another layer of hardship/difficulty to already difficult lives.  One would have imagined that Cheyenne would have had a tough time of it with life even if he didn't have to at least partially carry the burdens added by his father's tragedies.  An excellent film that touched on this theme of how "macro difficulties" just add more layers to already individually difficult lives was the Spanish film Biutiful [2010] in which the principal protagonist was not merely living in the shadows of society as an undocumented alien in Spain but also found himself dying of cancer and worrying about how his troubled wife was going to be able to take care of their kids after he dies ... The having terminal cancer and wondering how his young family was going to deal with his departure would have seemed difficult enough.  To have to worry about all this while living at the shadows of society to begin with made the situation all the worse.

So one looks at someone like Cheyenne with his aging sad face, big hair and make-up and perhaps ... after seeing a film like this ... begins to understand.  So a great job there on the part of the (Italian) director and (largely American) cast.

However, having written what I have above about the film (and largely positively) I go back to my initial question: Do you (do I) completely buy it?  Is the best way to understand the stories/excesses of the "Rock Gods" of the 60s-90s through the lens of a character like Cheyenne (or real rockers Townsend or Waters mentioned above or even Kurt Cobain of Nirvana)? Or were the vast majority of these "Rock Gods" still basically whiny, arrogant, narcissistic and ultimately hedonistic jerks ...?  And to be honest, I'm _not_ sure.  In any case, it makes for a great discussion piece for those of the "Rock Genenation(s)."


<< 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! :-) >>

Anna Karenina [2012]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Anna Karenina [2012] (directed by Joe Wright, screenplay by Tom Stoppard, based on the novel [wikipd] by Leo Tolstoy [IMDb]) will probably irritate _some_ purists.  But as has been the case of the wildly extravagant recent adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes [2009][2011] stories and especially the Three Musketeers [2011] (complete with added "Da Vinci style airships" and "in 3D" no less ... ;-) it's more or less obvious that "purists" are not the intended audience here.  Instead the goal appears to be to re-capture _the original intended audiences_ of these once beloved stories, if not with fidelity to the "letter" of the originals then certainly to their spirit.  So just like The Three Musketeers was originally intended to be a teen-oriented adventure story and so the 2011 film sought _really, really hard_ to re-capture that spirit of _over the top_ adventure, so too, Anna Karenina was originally a novel about young adulthood (both early and late...) set in a milieu every bit as vicious/dangerous as that existing perhaps in today's Gossip Girl [IMDb] ;-). 

In the spirit then of the recent adaptations of Sherlock Holmes and The Three Musketeers [2011], the presentation of Anna Karenina here is _highly stylized_.  Indeed, about half of the current film takes place "on stage."  IMHO the metaphor is _appropriate_ because even as the still quite attractive, late 20-something/early 30-something, though already married with a 8-10 year-old son Anna Karenina [IMDb] (played IMHO superbly by Keira Knightley) (in today's parlance, Anna could have easily been one of the neighbors on Desperate Housewives [IMDb] or, even more to the point, be considered to be a 19th century equivalent of a "MILF" but we get ahead of ourselves...) and her eventual lover, the younger but supremely confident, mid 20s-something, "dashing" Russian cavalry officer Count Vronsky [IMDb] (played again superbly by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) go about their lives and later ... their affair, _it is_ as if parts of their lives become played out "on stage" before their circle of family/friends.  So the stylization, that may irritate some older viewers actually _underlines_ the core of the story taking place.  (So honestly, I thought it was _great_).

How then does the story unfold.  The story begins as the novel with Anna traveling from the "more modern" St. Petersburg to the more traditional Moscow on something of a "rescue mission."  Her brother Prince Stepan "Stiva" Oblonsky [IMDb] (played by a mustached Matthew MacFedyen) had been "caught with the governess" of his children and, needless to say, his wife, the sweet if still from an aristocratic family (though presumable of a somewhat lower rank) Dolly [IMDb] (played by Kelly MacDonald) was upset.  (Apparently the Oblonskys did have something of a predisposition to ... "stray").  Anna came over to reprimand, in as much as she could, her largely incouragable brother and to try to smooth over things with Dolly.  "You have to forgive him." "But how?" "I know it won't be easy, but what else can you do...?"

While Anna is there in Moscow, Anna _also_ has the opportunity to attend the "coming out party" "debutante ball" of Dolly's 18-year old sister Kitty [IMDb] (played by Alicia Vikander and _again_ superbly cast).  When we meet her, Kitty's bubbling with excitement.  This is going to be her big night.  Yet as the night plays out, two things go wrong.  First, a bumbling if certainly utterly sincere (and also significantly older) admirer of Kitty named Levin [IMDb] (played by Domhnall Gleeson) comes over to her and _just before_ the ball is about to start _proposes to her_.  "Oh why, why him and why now...?" ;-)  Flustered and still trying to focus on what she believed was going to be _the beginning of her adult life_ she has to tell him "no" (crushing him of course) and then _refocus_ on the evening to come.

But the rest of the evening doesn't go well.  Kitty has had a crush on the previously mentioned "dashing" young mid-20 something Count Vronsky [IMDb], who _is_ dutifully attending "the ball."  Why?  Because it's a "big social occasion."  HOWEVER (and perhaps inevitably), for someone like Vronsky, Kitty's "too easy."  Yes, maybe she's "entering into society" that evening and all ... But to him, she's still "just a kid."  WHO he finds _far more attractive_ and _far more challenging_ is ... Anna, who's married, 30-something and really at the ball more or less _by accident_.  But yes, in a somewhat younger "Mrs Robinson" [IMDb] like (if _accidental_) way she _is_ really, really attractive.  So he comes over and asks her to dance ...  and they dance ... and dance ... and pretty soon _everybody else_ (including Kitty ...) _stop dancing_ and just watch them (with increasing scandal...) ... dance.  And all this then comes to be transported to the above mentioned _stage_.

Now Anna's husband, Karenin [IMDb] (played surprisingly but again perfectly for the role by Jude Law) is a _good_ if rigid/proper-to-a-fault man.  (One woman tells Anna of him: "You're married to a Saint.  And we all must cherish him ... for Russia's sake."  What 30 year-old woman would want to hear her husband described (only) in such terms .... ;-).  Throughout the whole of the tale, Karenin is _able_ to _forgive_ (why? because that's what good, proper men do in good society....).   But his rigid propriety renders him increasingly lifeless.  Anna, who didn't exactly search out Vronsky (or anyone else really) to have an affair with, once "involved" becomes increasingly so and comes to simply _hate_ the good if, yes, let's admit it, boring Karenin, her husband.

Those who know something about Sigmund Freud could perhaps appreciate the pre-Freud but now more or less _obvious_ split occurring between the Karenins.  Karenin, the husband, has basically given his lot to the "superego" doing _everything_ that Society wishes him to do.  Anna, instead chooses to follow her "id" choosing the pleasure of being with Vronsky over society's indeed _God's_ demand that, once married, she be with her husband Karenin.  In Freud's model, there's the adult "ego" which seeks (if often not particularly successfully...) to balance the demands of what one _wants to do_ (follow one's "id") with the demands of society/authority demands that one do (follow the "superego")  Here neither is willing to be a true adult here, and ...  

So soon enough, "the lot" of the various characters is cast.  Foregoing whatever else he might be thinking/feeling about all this, Karenin is willing to keep even his unfaithful wife under his wing while Anna increasingly just wants freedom.  The rest of the story plays out from there...
 
What, indeed, a story!  And for those who'd have any doubts about how it ends, remember that this story was written originally by Tolstoy, not a Hollywood hack.  Tolstoy was an Orthodox Christian mystic at the end of his life.  So God's will / judgement does _definitely_ play out here, if perhaps not in the knee-jerk hammer-over-the-head manner that sometimes we (believer or non) expect or even demand that God's will be expressed ...