No [2012]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoSunTimes (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (O.M. Mozaffar) review
AV Club (M. D'Angelo) review

No [2012] (directed by Pablo Larraín, screenplay by Pedro Peirano based on the play by Antonio Skármeta) is the 2013 Academy Award nominated film (for Best Foreign Language Film from Chile) about how a previously terrorized and initially woefully disorganized opposition was able to win defeat Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1988 Referendum on his rule that he himself had called, set the rules for, and had fully expected to win.

The proposition was this:  By Chile's 1980 Constitution, every 8 years Chile's voters were to be given a simple "Yes" or "No" vote on continued military rule in Chile.  In 1980, Pinochet's military government "won" handily.  But 1988 had come and "hope springs eternal."  For a month before the election, both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns regarding continued Pinochet rule were to be given access to 15 minutes of otherwise state-operated television.  (So in effect, even during the referendum campaign, the "Yes" camp had 23 hours and 45 minutes daily to promote its point of view, while after 15 years of being kept off the air completely, the "No" camp had 15 minutes a day for 1 month to promote its position).

The challenges were many:

(1) Needless to say, the Opposition contained many points of view, including that of surviving Communists/Socialists whose ascendency in 1973 under Socialist president Salvador Allende had served as the pretext for the (U.S. sponsored) military coup.  Allende's rule and the years immediately preceding it had been marked by increasing social/economic tensions and chaos.  The "Yes" camp was certainly going to emphatically argue that "A vote 'No' is a vote for Chaos, Economic Decline and Communism," a characterization that even the surviving Communists/Socialists would have emphatically denied believing (probably rightly) that they had never ever been given a chance.  But more to the point, the Opposition didn't include just the Communists.  It included pretty much everybody who wanted a return to Civil Society (ALL parties had been banned under the military dictatorship).  How can an opposition of very divergent views come together to promote a unified vision?

(2) How does one get people to vote for a Negative?  The "Yes" camp, in as much as it felt it had to bother run on anything, was going to run on a record of "Yes to what you know: Stability, Economic Progress," while at the same time threatening the specter of renewed instability, indeed a "Red Apocalypse" if the "No" camp won.  And just as post-9/11, G.W. Bush Administration taunted the Democrats to campaign on something other than "Anger" to its policies, so too, the Opposition to Pinochet had to promote something positive even as they were actually CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTRICTED to advocating a position of "No" to the Regime.

(3) Many in the populace were convinced that the whole exercise was a sham anyway.  Why stick one's neck out when all it invited was getting oneself in trouble AFTER the election whose results were a foregone conclusion?

How then to proceed?

The opposition decided, however reluctantly, to go with a commercial style "ad campaign" selling Freedom with basically the same tools and imagery as if they were selling a soft-drink.  Key to the campaign was the decision to go with a Chilean "ad man" named René Saavedra (played by Gael García Bernal) who had impressed some of the more creative "outside of the box"-thinking Opposition leaders with his silly but effective campaigns on behalf of consumer products.  Could actual FREEDOM be as "free-ing" as buying a microwave oven? ;-).

Indeed, one of the funniest scenes in the movie was when Saavedra presented his ideas for this kind of a campaign (smiles, rainbows, mimes, dancing children and butterflies...) to the "leadership council" of opposition politicians including Communists (who were willing to "repackage themselves" by calling themselves "Socialists" but, honestly before this meeting weren't even considering repackaging themselves as anything else ...):

Was such a "stupid" campaign an insult to tens of thousands of tortured/disappeared martyrs and their widows and orphans?  Yet what was the alternative?  Bring up torture and the government would trot out a campaign stoking fears of renewed instability and economic paralysis.

So the Opposition reluctantly gave its approval to a campaign that decided pointedly to talk neither of the Past or the Present but of a Bright Future of "NO more (torture, oppression, division)" a future where EVERY CHILEAN was respected and allowed to pursue his/her "Alegria" (happiness) in peace.  (And a "united" Opposition of 17 some-odd banned political parties ALREADY SHOWED that it's possible to RESPECT one another's views and DIFFERENCES).

The government found itself surprised and flatfooted.  It expected to compete with accusatory images of beatings and torture.  Instead it was faced above all with images smiling children holding hands and (necessarily) multicolored rainbows.

Honestly, this is a lovely, often humorous film that a lot of people should see:

Even in face of crime and injustice, one needs to smile.  Indeed, EVEN JESUS SAID AS MUCH on the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7): "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (5:48) noting that God makes "the sun rise and the rain fall on both the just and the unjust" (5:45).

It's not to discount crime and injustice, for "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" (5:6) it's just that even "the Evil doers" are God's children as well.

Running a campaign of calling Pinochet and his supporters Evil doers would have just brought-out the riot police and the water cannon (again...).  Focusing on smiling children and the Future ("Do we want to live like this forever...?") proved a better and certainly far more disarming way.  A great film and a great message!


<< 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! :-) >>

To the Wonder [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

To the Wonder [2012], written and directed by Terrence Malick, continues in the theologically reflective path of his previous film Tree of Life [2011].

If in Tree of Life [2011], Malick's point of departure was the Biblical Book of Job, where that film begins with various human characters crying out to God: "Where are you O Lord?" and a twenty minute sequence that follows chronicling the whole history of the world from the creation of the universe to the present (including a 5-6 minute segment featuring dinosaurs only to have them destroyed by a meteorite) cinematically presents God's awesome response to Job beginning with "Where were you when I founded the Earth? (Job 38:4) and ending with "Will the one who argues with the Almighty be corrected, let him who would instruct God give answer" (Job 40:2), in To the Wonder [2012], Malick continues his reflection on our relationship with God, leaning perhaps on two other Wisdom books in the Bible, that of the Song of Songs, "Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine ... draw me after you, let us run" (Songs 1:1, 4) expressing God's promise of intimacy, and Ecclesiastes, "Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity," (Eccl 1:2) and "There is an appointed time for everything..." (Eccl 3:1) expressing God's distance / unknowability. 

This grand question of whether or not we could truly become intimate with God is explored then through the experience of people, a young couple in their late 20s-30s, Marina and Neil, she French, he American (played by Olga Kurylenko and Ben Affleck respectively) as well as a Hispanic Catholic priest in his 40s, Fr. Quintana (played by Javier Bardem).  Could Marina and Neil really understand each other?  And could Fr. Quintana, whose primary relationship is necessarily with Christ, really understand Him?

It's clear at the beginning of the film that Marina is "in love with love," not unlike the sentiments expressed in the Song of Songs.  The two had met in Paris. And after sometime, go to the grand, seemingly eternal monastery of Mont Saint Michel on the Atlantic coast of France where in her own words, they "climb the steps into The Wonder."

But while through most of the film, Marina's skipping about, "in love with love," Neil, a good, solid, honest guy though he is, is far less talkative.  He's an environmental engineer, originally from a small town from the plains of Oklahoma.  Throughout the film he quietly goes about his job monitoring various locations for environmental pollution, responding to the basic needs of people, seeking to try to keep them safe.

Marina noticing that Neil doesn't talk much, does most of the talking for him.  And when he does invite her and her 10 year old girl named Tatiana (played by Tatiana Cheline) from a previous relationship to return with him to Oklahoma, they both respond enthusiastically by saying "yes."

Yet living in a subdivision at the edge of the prairie in Oklahoma is not exactly like living in Paris.  Always of  few words/needs (and also "back home"), Neil is of course content.  Marina also seems happy enough.  But 10 year old Tatiana, who has to learn English while trying build-up a whole new set of friends, rapidly get's bored.  While initially happy to consider Neil her step-father, she soon realizes "you're NOT my father" and soon wants to go home to her real father back in France.

And while things start hitting a rough patch with Marina, we're reminded that she's not necessarily Neil's first and only rodeo.  He's lived most of his life there in Oklahoma and had an old flame named Jane (played by Rachel McAdams), who was, of course, also perfectly content with life on the plains.  (Why they broke-up is left largely clear, though one guesses that it had something to do with Neil's "quiet distance" from her as well...). 

Then out there in this quiet, suburban looking town at the edge of Oklahoma's vast prairie is Fr. Quintana, quietly going about his work of tending for the spiritual needs of his Parish.  But in his prayers he tells the Lord that he feels seco (dry).  He yearns for a closer relationship with the God who called him into this way of life/vocation.  Yet, he feels that he hears nothing.  At a wedding, in fact, an older parishioner tells him quite pointedly "I'm going to pray for you."  "Why?"  "So that you receive the Gift of Joy."  It's that clear that Fr. Quintana is unhappy.

Now folks, this is not a cheap film.  No, Fr. Quintana does not jump into bed with a distraught Marina.  By the looks of the film, it does not even cross his mind (or hers for that matter).

But there it is, both Marina and Fr. Quintana are in "spousal relationships" with rather distant, not particularly talkative but basically honest, salt-of-the-earth "providers."

Is it enough?  Both arguably find answers.

Now folks, this is an "artsy" often subtitled film with French (Marina and Tatiana), Spanish (Fr. Quintana in his personal reflective moments) and even some Italian (when Marina's vivacious Italian best-friend Anna played by Romina Mandello briefly comes to visit her in Oklahoma) and a few words of Russian (as Marina, a Russian name, was conceivably Russian in ancestry) spoken thoughout many parts of the film.  So I know that this film will not be for everyone.  BUT this is a very intelligent, theologically reflective film.

It's not necessarily the film that I would have made, but one certainly can not criticize it for its lack of intelligence or its attempt to ask some very profound questions about what one can expect from one's relationship with God, and it's CERTAINLY an invitation for discussion / faith sharing on the matter ;-)


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

The Call [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O) SunTimes (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
SunTimes (I. Vishnevetsky) review
AV Club (S. Tobias) review

Even before the opening credits finished rolling for the thriller, The Call [2013] (directed by Brad Anderson, screenplay by Richard D'Ovidio, story by Richard D'Ovidio, Nicole D'Ovidio and Jon Bokenkamp), I was certain that I'd been presented with a job (that of serving as a 911 dispatcher) that while ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the smooth operation of our society today is one that I could never, ever be able to do.  Much of the job is repetitious ("You've reached 911, what's your emergency ...?") and yet every so often, one would get a call where ANY mistake could leave someone dead.

Such then was the life of Jordan Turner (played by Halle Berry) working as a 911 dispatcher in "The Hive," the command center for Los Angeles' Emergency Services.  During an evening of relatively "normal emergencies" and even dealing with an inevitable "regular caller" who calls 911 every so often because, well, he doesn't have many people to talk to ... Jordan gets a call from a young woman in hysterics because someone's in the process of breaking into her home.  Jordan, rapidly alerts LAPD but they are 8-10 minutes away.  In the meantime, the intruder is in the process of bashing down the door.

What to do?  Jordan asks the young woman to find a room to lock herself in.  She runs upstairs, but to her horror finds that SHE CAN'T SEEM TO LOCK THE DOOR.  "Okay, is there a window?"  Jordan helps her to set it up (QUICKLY) to look like she jumped out the window and ran for help while hiding (somewhere) instead.

In the meantime, the intruder has broken into the house and has begun looking for her.  When he gets to the young woman's bed room, he does see the window open.  Coming to it, it even seems like she dropped something outside after jumping out to run away.  He takes the bait and with a somewhat angry/frustrated "huff,"starts heading out of the house.

When he's outside her room, the woman, hiding under her bed, whispers to Jordon on the phone that he's leaving and even THANKS HER.  Then, suddenly, SHE ACCIDENTLY BRUSHES HER PHONE TOO CLOSE TO HER CHEEK AND THE PHONE HANGS UP.  (Anyone with a wireless phone these days would know how this could happen).  Jordon, REFLEXIVELY PUSHES HER OWN REDIAL BUTTON at the 911 Center TO CALL HER BACK.  The PHONE RINGS ... JUST ONCE ... but the intruder who was leaving HEARS THE RING. He goes back ... finds the girl ... and Jordon realizes to her horror that HER ONE REFLEXIVE SLIP-UP may cost that young woman her life.  Her worst fears are confirmed when a few days later, when police find the young woman's mutilated body buried in a shallow grave in a canyon outside of L.A.  Wow ... needless to say Jordan had to take "some time off..."

When story resumes six months later, is Jordan now working as someone TRAINING people for the job she used to have.  She needed of course the work, but quite understandably didn't want/feel capable of handling the pressure of working as a 911 dispatcher again.

Well as fate would have it while leading a group of trainees through "the Hive," a relatively young 911 dispatcher gets ANOTHER PHONE CALL from ANOTHER YOUNG WOMAN, this time a sweet, young teenager named Casey Welson (played by Abigail Breslin) who's calling frantically from the trunk of a car having been abducted while walking (alone) to her car in the garage of a shopping mall.  The young 911 dispatcher falls to pieces and doesn't know what to do.  Jordan steps up and takes the call.  The rest of the film ensues ...

The rest of the film, of course, is certainly "quite a ride" emotionally and otherwise.  And as a Hollywood movie rest assured that it ends well... that said, see the movie ... 

I would, however, add one more thing: Catholics and other Christians reading here, take note of the ending as once again it plays a variation of the "Virgin/Good Girl defeats the Snake/Monster" motiff (Gen 3:15) that I've written about previously with regards to these kind of movies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Pay attention simply to WHERE the abductor ends-up at the end of the movie and HOW / BY WHOM he is sent there.  Fascinating stuff and Mary would be proud ;-). 


<< 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! :-) >>

Piazza Fontana: The Italian Conspiracy (orig. Romanzo di una Strage) [2012]

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

IMDb listing
TrovaCinema.it* listing

Piazza Fontana: The Italian Conspiracy (orig. Romanzo di una Strage)[2012] [IMDb] [TrCin.it]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Marco Tullio Giordana [IMDb] [TrCin]* along with Sandro Petraglia [IMDb] [TrCin]*and Stefano Rulli [IMDb] [TrCin.it]* based on the book by Paulo Cucchiarelli is a critically acclaimed and award winning Italian historical drama (earning among other awards 3 Italian David di Donatello awards in 2012 and 14 additional nominations) about the December 12, 1969 bombing of the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana in Milan [Eng] [Ital].*  It played recently as an Italian contribution to the 16th Annual European Film Festival at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago, IL.

During the Cold War (1947-1991), both Superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, jockeyed for advantage wherever they could, seeking to destabilize allies of the other side, while seeking often brutally to keep their allied nations in line.  The opening credits of this film make known that the events presented in the film are to be understood in the context of the 1967 U.S. supported Military Coup in Greece and the 1968 Soviet Invasion of Communist Czechoslovakia.  Italy, though a NATO ally throughout the whole of the Cold War also sported the largest Communist Party in the NATO bloc.  Hence it was always considered at least potentially "in play."  

The film begins presenting Italy in 1969 as a nation perhaps not in chaos (yet) but near the brink with Anarchists and militant Communists on the Left, and neo-Fascists on the Right (Remember World War II was still less than 25 years past, and Italy had entered that War on the Axis side with Fascist leader Mussolini having been in power for some 20 years previous.  Hence there would have been still plenty of people from that fallen regime still around who would have remembered it "fondly").  The Soviet Union was presumably backing the militant Communists (and perhaps the Anarchists) while the United States was certainly backing the ruling Italian Christian Democratic Party and presumably the more law-and-order hardliners in the Italian Military propping it up (and perhaps even the neo-Fascists lurking in the shadows). 

In the midst of this chaotic stew, a wave of anarchist bombings was taking place in Italy in 1969.  The bombs, while "small" (thus not producing significant casualties) were nevertheless serving their purpose -- sowing fear among the populace.  And on the other side there was Junio Valerio Borghese (Eng) (Ital)* (played in the film by Marco Zannoni [IMDb] [TrCin]*) from an old Noble / Fascist era family calling for a "Restoration of Order."  (Borghese did actually plot a coup, that became known as the Golpe Borgese (Eng) (Ital) for Dec. 8, 1970.  However, it never materialized and after being discovered, he was forced to flee the country).

Then suddenly, on Dec 12, 1969, a BIG bomb explodes in the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana in Milan (Eng) (Ital),* killing 18 and wounding over 70.  Was this the beginning of an escalation?  That's what the fear was as Milanese police brought in noted local anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli [Eng] [Ital]* (played in the film by Pierfrancesco Favino [IMDb] [TrCin]*) for questioning.  Pinelli had been even seens a few days before the bombing near the Bank.  Had he been casing the location? 

However, after several days of questioning, Pinelli is suddenly dead, having "fallen" out a four story window.  Did he commit suicide?  Was he pushed (or dropped) by Italian investigators?  The story that the police present is that he simply "fell" (went over to the window to smoke a cigarette and simply/tragically fainted, falling to his death).  Few, of course, would believe a story like that. 

Suspicion regarding Pinelli's death fell on Luigi Calebresi [Eng] [Ital]* (played in the film by Valerio Mostandrea [IMDb] [TrCin]*) the detective responsible for Pinelli during the questioning.  Yet, Calabresi always maintained his innocence, insisting that he wasn't present when Pinelli died.  Also, despite rabidly inflammatory denunciations made against him by the Radical Left, he was actually investigating the trafficking of bomb making material by Right-wing extremist groups when he was assassinated in front of his home on May 17, 1972. 

Left-wing extremists were blamed (and convicted) for his assassination.  However, as time when on, suspicion regarding the perpetrators of the bombing of the Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura at the Piazza Fontana (Eng) (Ital) did actually move to from the Far Left to the Far Right and with it to hard-right elements within the Italian security services and even to the CIA.  Why?  It's partly conjecture (remember the beginning credits to the film making note the recent interventions by the Superpowers in nearby Greece and Czechoslovakia) and partly because apparently right-wing groups in Italy were, in fact, being found with explosives as well.  And ominously THOSE explosives that the Right had its hands on, apparently originated from NATO stockpiles.  Were they stolen?  Were they sold?  Were they handed to right-wing extremist groups to further a cause?  What cause?  The thesis of the film would argue: to create an environment justifying a military coup.

The film, intended naturally for primarily an Italian audience, nevertheless offers American audiences a glimpse into what the experience of the Cold War was like in Western Europe:  Lot's of "ins" and "outs," most of the "players" with agendas and with it often being very difficult to understand who to trust. 

And in the midst of this "big game of shadows," little people like Milanese Inspector Calabresi, with a wife, two children and a third on the way, could find themselves dead, not necessarily knowing by whom or why. 

Incidently already Pope Paul VI began the process of beatifying Luigi Calabresi as a "Martyr for Justice" by the Catholic Church [Eng] [Ital].*


* Machine translations into English of the Italian links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< 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! :-) >>

Paris-Manhattan [2012]

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

IMDb listing
AlloCine.fr listing*

Paris-Manhattan [2012] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by Sophie Lellouche [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) is a French romantic comedy that played recently at the 16th Annual European Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago and has been advertised as a French thank you to American director Woody Allen for his film Midnight in Paris [2011].

Indeed from my 3 years in Italy during the seminary, I do know that Woody Allen and his films have been enormously popular in Europe.  He's been a regular and welcome guest at the annual Venice International Film Festival and his films have been anticipated and well received from London/Paris all the way to Moscow and, my sense is, everywhere in between.  Why?  Well, his humor (and yes, at times, his life ...) have been, well, "very European" ... ;-) or :-[.

So then, this film, about a young Parisian woman named Alice (played by Alice Taglioni [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), always happy-go-lucky and stunningly beautiful though she may be, but somehow "unlucky in love" -- Pierre (played by Louis-Do de Lencquesaing [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), the guy she falls for when she's still in college, falls instead for and marries her younger sister Hélène (played by Marine Delterme [IMDb] [AC.fr]*).  So Alice spends the rest of her young adult years (and as the film enters in the present, the beginning of her "soon to be beyond her young adult years...") being setup by a very guilty (if themselves very happy) Hélène / Pierre with just about every friend that Pierre's ever had ... ;-) to no avail, even if the last one, a Vincent (played by Yannick Soulier [IMDb] [AC.fr]*), appears to strike her fancy at least somewhat.  His presence in her life allows her to go to social occasions with (and, well, to occasionally sleep with...).  But both Alice/Vincent know that the Other lacks that je ne sais quoi... and hence both know that the Other isn't "the One."  What Alice does "have" in her life is a love for Cole Porter / jazz and a big poster of Woody Allen on her wall with whom she converses about her troubles, and who always makes her laugh. 

Enter Victor (played by Patrick Bruel [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who comes into her life as a security system installer (hence somewhat more "blue collar" than she, a college educated pharmacist).  Alice's father (played by Michel Aumont [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) who ran the "family business, a "corner pharmacy" somewhere in Paris wanted to hand over the business to Alice.  But as a typically "good parent," he was concerned about Alice's "safety."  So he brings in Victor's firm to install a security system that would keep his (very much adult, mid-late 30-something) daughter "safe."  And Victor, a small business owner himself, comes with some very original ideas ;-).  My favorite was the "chloroform system" that would "knock out everyone" in the shop (including presumably Alice) within 10 seconds after she presses the security button under the counter ;-). 

Much, often classically "Woody Allen" / neurotic ensues ... but as is typical of Woody Allen's humor, it's always very gentle and, often enough, its message is "things are not really as they seem" (they're better, kinder, nicer than they seem).

Anyway, I do believe that most Woody Allen fans (including myself, as I've been one since my own college days) would approve.  And I do agree that the film is a fitting tribute to a film-maker who, yes, has at times lived "an artist's life" but has also tried very hard to always keep his fans / audiences smiling.  Good job!


* Machine translations into English of the French links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< 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! :-) >>

Perfect Days - I ženy mají své dny [2011]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 stars with explanation)

IMDb listing
CSFD* listing

Lidovky (M. Kabat)* review

Perfect days - I ženy mají své dny [2011] (directed and screenplay by Czech filmmaker Alice Nellis, based on the play Perfect Days [1999] by Scottish playwright Liz Lochhead [IMDb]) is a comedy that played recently at the 16th Annual European Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago. 

In many respects, the film reminded me of the Polish romantic comedy Letters to Santa (Listy do M) [2011] (directed by the Slovenian director Mitja Okorn) that played last November at the Polish Film Festival in Chicago.  While Polish and Czech/Slovak cinemas are different animals, it is interesting to note that both Nellis and Okorn took advantage of talent/materials existing "outside" and applied them to their projects at home.  In the case of Nellis' Perfect Days, she took a translated play by Liz Lockhead (which Nellis apparently already directed onstage* in Prague) and then set-about putting it on-screen.  In the case of Okorn's Letters to Santa, he took the Polish script for the comedy that he was given by the film's producers, had it translated into English, sent it to Hollywood to have it reworked, and then had it re-translated back into Polish, producing, in fact, a product that became the most successful Polish romantic comedy as yet ever made.  (Interestingly enough, the "commercialism" of Nellis' work here irritated a number of Czech/Slovak film critics,* a critical community that rightfully considers itself (and then even Czech/Slovak cinema) on par with anybody).

I chose to see this film, even though I've already seen a couple of Czech and Slovak films (one each) at the the EU Festival because being of Czech descent and reading the Gene Siskel Center's capsule description for the film I knew that for better or for worse the film's thematics would be perhaps all-too "contemporary."  This is because while Prague is certainly a beautiful city and every rock or street corner has a history to it, for many foreign tourists, it is known above all for being a rather libertine place.

As such, this film is about a good-looking, fashionable and otherwise successful 40-something woman named Erika (played by Ivana Chýlková [IMDb] [CSFD]*) who decides that what's been missing in her life is not a husband.  She's had one, Viktor (played by Bohumil Klepl [IMDb] [CSFD]* and has been on amicable terms if separated from him for years.  She's not looking even a relationship with anyone (again, she's "made it" on her own).  All she finds that she wants is simply a kid.  So at 44, Erika sets about looking for a sperm donor.

Now she's still interested in knowing and liking the person from whom she would get the requisite sperm.  But she's clear that she does not want to be otherwise involved with him and, while not completely opposed, she'd be profoundly ambivalent about the presence/absence of father in the future child's life.  She just wants a kid.

Hers makes for a fascinating (and challenging) counter-position to today's rather radicalized Catholic theology (as sometimes happens when the Church finds itself in controversy/under attack) that insists that a child is created by God (with the secondary collaboration of the parents) even in the case of rape where the woman emphatically would not have collaborated in the child's creation but would have had it imposed on her, first by the male and then arguably by God.  Indeed, to get out of this theological coule-de-sac, I honestly would like to see today's moral theologians revisit the medieval theory of "postponed ensoulment" as a means of allowing for dialogue between the man, woman AND GOD prior to ensoulment to so as to protect God from inadvertently becoming a secondary rapist as a result of  inadvertently over-radicalized theology.

In this film, all that Erika asks her friend Richard (played by Ondřej Sokol [IMDb] [CSFD]*) for is his sperm and then sets about creating the child without ANY particular thought of requesting GOD's approbation.  It's a reminder to all of whose collaboration is absolutely necessary to create a child and bring that child to term.  The male can't do this on his own, and God would have to resort to extraordinary means (a miracle).  The ordinarily indispensable party in the creation of the child and bringing him/her to term is, in fact, the woman.

This is not to say that what Erika chooses to do in this movie is anything but appalling morally, and I am positive that the intention of the movie was to make movie-goers "wince" and ask themselves "Wait a minute, there's something (deeply) wrong here."  Yet the simple fact is that children can be created the way that Erika seeks. 

Secondary arguments can come into play: Should a woman be forced to endure an abusive relationship to have a child?  How about not an abusive relationship but a deathly stifling one or a even simply really really boring one?   (Erika and her husband apparently didn't want children when they were together and for one reason or another they apparently "drifted apart" over time).  What if one's relationship wasn't particularly bad but just fell apart and now it's "too late" to presumably try to fix again? 

The standard Catholic position is, in fact, that no one has a "right" to a child, that children are, in fact, gifts from God.   And sometimes God for inscrutable reasons chooses not to give a couple a child (just like God does not answer every faithful wannabe the talent and circumstances to become "Michael Jordon" or "Bill Gates.")  We are told, in fact, by the 9th and 10th commandments (Exod 20:17) to be happy with what we have.

So while Erika could choose to do what she chose to do in the film, it would still be considered morally wrong (certainly according the Catholic teaching).  She was attractive, successful, even did have a husband with whom she could have had a child "back in the day" if they had only wanted one.  But both she and her husband didn't want one then.  And now, at 44 and single again, suddenly she wants a child.

This then is the problem presented in "comedic" form in the film:  Erica wants a child, (so long as she can get her hands on some sperm), she's certainly capable of making that child, but should she?   Much ensues ...and it really is a Brave New World, pretty much everywhere.


* Machine translations into English of the Czech and Slovak links provided are most easily viewed through use of Google's Chrome brower.

<< 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! :-) >>

Emperor [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Chicago SunTimes (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review

Emperor [2012] (directed by Peter Webber, screenplay by Vera Blasi and David Klass based on the book His Majesty's Salvation by Shiro Okamoto) is IMHO an excellent historical drama about the early days of America's post-WW II occupation of Japan.

The film begins with the arrival of General Douglas MacArthur (played superbly by Tommy Lee Jones) and his entourage, including his Japan expert, Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers (also played excellently by Matthew Fox), in Tokyo a short time after Japan's formal surrender. 

They arrive in a plane, landing on Tokyo's airport -- one plane with 20 some odd American occupation officials.  Yes, Japan had surrendered, but could they trust the Japanese to not just shoot them as they stepped off the plane and then drove from the airport to MacArthur's designated headquarters (a multistory building across the street from the entrance to the Emperor's palace)? 

Fellers tells MacArthur that they can trust the Japanese because their surrender came directly from the word of the Emperor.  Whether MacArthur believes him or not, he knows well that THERE'S NOTHING HE COULD ABOUT IT ANYWAY, if the Japanese decided to just shoot them all.  So before stepping off the plane, he tells the entourage to take-off their side arms and leave them on the plane and simply step off the plane showing some "Good ole American swagger..."

They get off the plane, MacArthur poses for some pictures.  They hop on a jeep and take the drive to HQ.  As they do, both MacArthur (and the audience) can not help but notice that as their jeep passes the assembled Japanese honor guard, the soldiers methodically turn around and face AWAY from the jeep.  Why are they doing that?  Is it a sign of contempt toward the arriving occupiers.  Fellers tells MacArthur, no, this action does not express contempt but rather respect: "They're taught to turn away their gaze from the Emperor as well."   Arriving MacArthur realizes that he's being greeted by the Japanese as a quasi-God and is reminded that the Japanese have considered their Emperor as a God as well.  Wow.  (And remember folks that MacArthur was famous/infamous for having an enormous ego as it is ...)

A few days after arriving at HQ, Fellers is commanded by MacArthur to lead the rapid (as simultaneous as possible) arrest of pretty much the entire leadership, political and military of Japan's previous regime.  Fellers tells the arresting MPs that the arrests must be as rapid and coordinated (simultaneous) as possible to avert the possibility of the figures being arrested committing suicide.  Of the 25 some odd leaders being arrested (including Japan's Wartime Prime Minister, Tojo) only three committ suicide before the American MPs are able to get to them (Tojo tried to commit suicide but when he put his revolver to his chest and shot himself the bullet just barely missed the heart).   By getting all but three of Japan's leaders including Tojo, Fellers once again proves himself to MacArthur.

A few days after that, MacArthur gives Fellers a new task.  He tells Fellers that they've been ordered by Washington to determine IN TEN DAYS whether or not Japan's Emperor himself should be arrested, tried and presumably hanged as a War Criminal.  Fellers tells MacArthur that it'd be impossible to determine the Emperor's war guilt that all of Japan's wartime leadership would go to their deaths rather than implicate a Man they considered a God.  MacArthur tells Fellers that he's been spot-on in everything else since they've arrived in Tokyo and that he had complete confidence that FELLERS would be able to give him (and MacArthur's superiors in Washington) the necessary information to make this call IN THE TEN DAYS they were given.  Wow.  Fellers and MacArthur exchange salutes, Fellers returns to his staff and tells them that they have 10 days to answer this most crucial question.  The rest of the film unspools from there ...

A good part of the film that unspools deals with Brig. General Fellers' competence for arriving at an answer to MacArthur's/Washington's question.  And it turns out that he really was someone who knew Japan about as well as anyone from the United States at the time:

Yes, while studying Japanese culture/language in the United States, he did fall in love with a young Japanese woman who was studying in the United States.  Her name was Aya Shamida (played in the film by Eriko Hatsume).  What was a Japanese woman doing in the United States in the 1920s/30s studying English?  She tells him, "I haven't necessarily behaved as a good Japanese young woman..." (She was "sent away" by her family, in part, because she apparently caused them some trouble back home).  However, she does return back to Japan (quite suddenly, in fact).  Fellers, given a post-graduate task by the U.S. army to write a report on the values driving the Japanese military, goes to Japan some years later (from his post, then in the Philippines) and while there looks her up.  He lucks out.  The U.S. and Japan were still not at War at the time and Aya's uncle was a General in the Japanese army.  Through his friendship with her, he gets to know her uncle and the uncle then helps him understand the values and honor driven mentality of Japan's military and its soldiers.  Eventually Fellers finishes his paper and has to leave.  Then the war comes.  When Fellers arrives with MacArthur following the war he tries to find and reconnect with Aya and her family...

The film is a reminder of the value of friendships and being able to talk to one's potential adversaries.  Thanks to Fellers' knowledge of Japan through his friendship with Aya and her family, he helped MacArthur and the United States not merely "win the war" but above all win the subsequent peace.

I also believe that the film offers a much needed reevaluation of Gen. MacArthur's character as well.  During WW II and much of the Korean conflict, he was lionized in the United States as a hero.  Then after Korea and during much of my life time, MacArthur has been portrayed primarily negatively, as an ego maniac, who nearly plunged the world into a third World War during the Korean conflict. 

This film is reminder that MacArthur's greatest legacy was not actually his generalship during war, but his ability (thanks to his willingness to take the advice of his advisers like Kellers) to listen and turn Japan from a country mistrusted by much of the world into a stable bastion of peace in the Far East.  And yes, the whole world is better for for MacArthur's achievement in this regard.

Finally, as a Catholic I could not help but note with some pride that the film made quietly but "for those with eyes to see" absolutely clear that Aya was a Catholic, recalling the 500 year long (since the arrival of the Jesuit missionary St. Francis Xavier in Nagasaki in the 1500s) often tortured history of Catholicism in Japan. 

All in all, I found this to be an excellent historical drama about a critical time in history that easily could have turned-out far worse than it did.  MacArthur, for all his faults and monumental ego, turned out to be a good man in Japan.


<< 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! :-) >>