MPAA (R) ChicagoSunTimes (4 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review
The Place Beyond the Pines [2013] (directed and cowritten by Derek Cienfrance along with Ben Coccio) is a well if heavily structured story in three parts about consequences, consequences of actions and situations that are perhaps beyond the characters in the story's control, but consequences nonetheless. The obvious structure of the story may initially bother some viewers even if the parts do ultimately add-up to produce a final rather poignant/powerful result. Yes, folks this is an "indie film" even if it has a star-studded cast, the result being that culminates in an ending that's very different (and on several levels) from what one generally expects from "Hollywood" fare.
The story is set in (upstate) Schenectady, New York. Part I of the story centers on a bleached blond small-time motorcycle stuntman named Luke (played by Ryan Gosling). As part of a carnival troupe, he's been on a circuit and has arrived in Schenectady after a one year absence. After performing an intricate if utterly meaningless stunt -- he and two other motorcyclist stunt-drivers ride their bikes in a necessarily synchronized yet also quite random manner inside a small 15-20 foot (5-7 m) diameter perforated steel globe to the amazement of onlookers -- he runs into a young local woman named Romina (played by Eva Mendes) who he had met when the carnival had been in town a year before. He also finds to his surprise that she's had a boy, his, since their last meeting that one gets the sense had probably been a one night stand.
Romina actually doesn't expect anything from Luke. Indeed, she's already assembled a life (support system) without him. She has a job as a waitress, a boyfriend named Kofi (played by Mahershala Ali) who appears more than willing to raise "baby Jason" as his own, and she also has her mother (played by Olga Merediz).
Luke, however, feels guilty and responsible. He tells Romina that his own father had never stuck around when he young. So he summarily quits his carnie job and decides to stay in Schenectady to try to provide for the kid (and, dare he hope ... perhaps even for Romina).
But where can someone like Luke find a means to support himself, let alone a possible wife and child, in a town in which he knows next to nobody (and the one person he knows, Romina, would, truth be told, prefer that just leave and continue his past life as a carnie stunt-rider)? So it's pretty much inevitable that he gets involved in crime...
Enter Part II of the story, centering on a rather strange young cop named Avery (played by Bradley Cooper). Avery was from an upper middle-class background, his father being a judge. Yet after finishing law school and passing the bar, Avery had decided to leave the more or less obvious direction that his life had been heading-in to become a beat cop in his hometown of Schenectady. He too had a young son named AJ, and a wife named Jennifer (played by Rose Byrne). Jennifer didn't really understand why her husband had made the radical change in direction that he did, but was willing to accept it (for a while) perhaps hoping that his joining the police force rather than pursuing a career as a lawyer was "just a phase."
Well the small time criminal Luke and the small town beat-cop Avery eventually run into each other ... and the result of their encounter changes both of their lives (often in not immediately obvious ways) and of everyone around them.
The final repercussions of their encounter extend into the late high school years of their two sons Jason (now played Dane DeHaan) and AJ (now played by Emory Cohen). This forms Part III of the story. After all, the two high schoolers were both "from Schenectady" even if from "very different parts of town." And since those late high school years are rather formative years in the lives of people, the effects of Luke's and Avery's presumably extend even beyond...
Indeed, by the end of the movie the viewer is tempted to reflect back to the initial scene in the film which featured those three carnival stunt drivers riding their motorcycles around in that seemingly random yet also supremely synchronized fashion inside that small steel globe (cage). Now what if one of those three drivers crashed...?
Again, this classically "indie film" is definitely not typical "Hollywood" fare ...
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If
you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6
_non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To
donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
On the Legacy of Roger Ebert - April 4, 2013 R.I.P.
All of Chicago (two thumbs up ;-)
Chicago SunTimes tribute
Chicago's WTTW's tribute
NPR's Fresh Air tribute
AVClub tribute
www.rogerebert.com
Those of us who grew-up in Chicago in the 1970-80s, grew-up in good part watching a weekly TV Show "Siskel and Ebert At the Movies," which featured rival film critics Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times giving their opinions of films "coming to a theater near you." ;-)
Their program, which began on Chicago's local PBS station WTTW Channel 11, eventually went commercial and became syndicated nationwide. Indeed it was remarkable that these two film critics from Chicago (rather than New York and Los Angeles) became probably the best known / most trusted film critics in the United States. My family just loved them and we probably watched the two talk about the movies more than we actually went to them ;-)
Gene Siskel died in 1999, Roger Ebert's career continued even as he himself began a battle with cancer in 2003, a battle that cost him his jaw (and ability to speak and even eat normally) in 2008. Since his voice had been taped so often during his years in broadcasting, team of computer specialists came with a way allow Roger be able to talk once more in his own (previously recorded) voice using a computer keyboard, a remarkable feat and something that by news accounts at the time deeply impressed his wife Chaz of twenty years. However, since those surgeries he focused more on his writing and an immensely successful blog.
Readers of my blog will note the obvious (and nearly life-long) respect that I've had for the two. I've been a fan of the Gene Siskel Film Center which is associated with the School of the Art Institute of Chicago attending (and writing about) many of the film programs organized there. And since the beginning of my blog, where possible, I've always made it a point to provide a link to Roger Ebert's review of whatever film I was reviewing. I've also found it kinda nice that Roger Ebert was born and raised Catholic and that he would make regular mention of his Catholic roots in his reviews.
We all eventually have to pass-on from this world. We all hope to leave a positive legacy behind. I do believe that both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert have done so admirably well by helping millions of American moviegoers appreciate the story telling ability of films. Ebert in particular noted one time that "Films can be 'empathy machines' allowing us to appreciate for a moment what it's like to be of another gender, of another race, of another time and place."
I absolutely agree with that ;-) Films CAN help us to appreciate that we are all brothers and sisters to year other.
So both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert belong to eternity now. As things go, 50 years from now, even most Chicagoans won't know who exactly the two were except for buildings (or film awards or festivals) named after them. But their legacies will be present in their lingering impact on millions of viewers and readers of their reviews which have helped keep American cinema in particular fundamentally positive and an instrument that brings us together rather than one that would tend toward simply banality, the quick buck or simply bringing us down. The two spent their lives quite well!
Chicago SunTimes tribute
Chicago's WTTW's tribute
NPR's Fresh Air tribute
AVClub tribute
www.rogerebert.com
Those of us who grew-up in Chicago in the 1970-80s, grew-up in good part watching a weekly TV Show "Siskel and Ebert At the Movies," which featured rival film critics Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times giving their opinions of films "coming to a theater near you." ;-)
Their program, which began on Chicago's local PBS station WTTW Channel 11, eventually went commercial and became syndicated nationwide. Indeed it was remarkable that these two film critics from Chicago (rather than New York and Los Angeles) became probably the best known / most trusted film critics in the United States. My family just loved them and we probably watched the two talk about the movies more than we actually went to them ;-)
Gene Siskel died in 1999, Roger Ebert's career continued even as he himself began a battle with cancer in 2003, a battle that cost him his jaw (and ability to speak and even eat normally) in 2008. Since his voice had been taped so often during his years in broadcasting, team of computer specialists came with a way allow Roger be able to talk once more in his own (previously recorded) voice using a computer keyboard, a remarkable feat and something that by news accounts at the time deeply impressed his wife Chaz of twenty years. However, since those surgeries he focused more on his writing and an immensely successful blog.
Readers of my blog will note the obvious (and nearly life-long) respect that I've had for the two. I've been a fan of the Gene Siskel Film Center which is associated with the School of the Art Institute of Chicago attending (and writing about) many of the film programs organized there. And since the beginning of my blog, where possible, I've always made it a point to provide a link to Roger Ebert's review of whatever film I was reviewing. I've also found it kinda nice that Roger Ebert was born and raised Catholic and that he would make regular mention of his Catholic roots in his reviews.
We all eventually have to pass-on from this world. We all hope to leave a positive legacy behind. I do believe that both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert have done so admirably well by helping millions of American moviegoers appreciate the story telling ability of films. Ebert in particular noted one time that "Films can be 'empathy machines' allowing us to appreciate for a moment what it's like to be of another gender, of another race, of another time and place."
I absolutely agree with that ;-) Films CAN help us to appreciate that we are all brothers and sisters to year other.
So both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert belong to eternity now. As things go, 50 years from now, even most Chicagoans won't know who exactly the two were except for buildings (or film awards or festivals) named after them. But their legacies will be present in their lingering impact on millions of viewers and readers of their reviews which have helped keep American cinema in particular fundamentally positive and an instrument that brings us together rather than one that would tend toward simply banality, the quick buck or simply bringing us down. The two spent their lives quite well!
The Host [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Roger Ebert's review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review
The Host [2013] (screenplay and directed by Andrew Nichol based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer [IMDb]) is a teen-oriented "alien invasion" story in which a race of advanced intergalactic largely spiritual if parasitic beings calling themselves "Souls" invades earth by taking over the bodies of people displacing their minds/souls.
Given the promised metaphysics [2] of this story (after all, how many stories would so unabashedly explore the potentialities of "souls" [2] these days?) I actually looked forward to this film :-).
Though I was somewhat disappointed in that the film IMHO didn't go far enough (even these intergalactic Souls did, alas, have a material component to them that had to be attached to a human brain so that the alien "Soul" could then possess it ... a truly "universal interface" I suppose ;-) ;-), I still enjoyed the film and found it to be a both teen and family friendly diversion that most parents would not find much trouble with.
Indeed, Stephenie Meyer's novel, which was written during the Bush-Cheney era run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, may have (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not) offered her readers a very interesting presentation of the central moral problem of any imperialist project: Even if the invading party in an imperialist conflict were to be morally superior to those being invaded (and the Alien "souls" of this story were, generally speaking, morally superior to the human souls that they were displacing: they were, after the invasion, kinder to other souls, treated the environment with greater respect and quickly put an end to all human wars...) those being invaded would still generally prefer to remain in charge of their own destinies even if it meant putting-up with their own (personal/society's) flaws.
In this story, the displaced human souls/wills/minds (whatever one would wish to call them... I'm going to go with souls for the remainder of this essay) still present in their bodies, but no longer in charge of them, were, needless to say, resentful of the "enlightened" Alien souls that had displaced them.
This then becomes the central conflict of the story: Teenage Melanie (voiced/played by Saoirse Ronan) a member of the last free human resistance to the Alien invasion gets captured and an Alien Soul named Wander (also voiced by Saoirse Ronan) is implanted in her. But (1) teenager Melanie isn't about to give up. "Nobody's just gonna take over my body ;-)" and (2) Wanderer soon nicknamed Wanda is actually kinda a "good soul" ;-) who likes Melanie and feels increasingly uncomfortable with having displaced her (Melanie's) own soul in order to control her body. But where's Wanda supposed to go if she ceases to inhabit Melanie's body?
Then Melanie's soul (still in Melanie's body but no longer in charge of it) convinces Wanderer/Wanda to skip town and find the band of other free humans that Melanie had been part of. Why? Well, Melanie, of course, had a boyfriend ;-) named Jared (played by Max Irons) I believe. And here it all gets REALLY COMPLICATED in a typically teenage sort of way (and in a way that Stephanie Meyer, who is most famous for writing the Twilight Saga, is IMHO absolutely brilliant in presenting ;-):
Melanie likes Jared. But Wanda, controlling Melanie's body, but wanting to be a "good friend" to Melanie decides to prefer someone else. But if she kisses the other guy is it Wanda who's kissing him or Melanie? And would/could Jared possibly understand the difference? ;-) ;-) -- From my distance of 30-35 years away from this kind of thinking I JUST LOVED THIS ;-) ;-).
Of course it all gets resolved AND in a manner characteristic of Stephenie Meyer's novels: the seemingly irreconcilable are able to find a way to reconcile. In this case, the space invader and the invaded do find a way to become true and equal friends. How this resolution is able to take place, I'm not going to tell you. (Read the book or see the movie ;-).
Now I know that much of this story is really, really schlocky. But in its own way, I find it brilliant as well. And it honestly reminds me of my own younger years when EVERYTHING seemed far more dramatic than it becomes as one grows older. Good job again Ms. Meyer! Very good job!
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Roger Ebert's review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review
The Host [2013] (screenplay and directed by Andrew Nichol based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer [IMDb]) is a teen-oriented "alien invasion" story in which a race of advanced intergalactic largely spiritual if parasitic beings calling themselves "Souls" invades earth by taking over the bodies of people displacing their minds/souls.
Given the promised metaphysics [2] of this story (after all, how many stories would so unabashedly explore the potentialities of "souls" [2] these days?) I actually looked forward to this film :-).
Though I was somewhat disappointed in that the film IMHO didn't go far enough (even these intergalactic Souls did, alas, have a material component to them that had to be attached to a human brain so that the alien "Soul" could then possess it ... a truly "universal interface" I suppose ;-) ;-), I still enjoyed the film and found it to be a both teen and family friendly diversion that most parents would not find much trouble with.
Indeed, Stephenie Meyer's novel, which was written during the Bush-Cheney era run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, may have (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not) offered her readers a very interesting presentation of the central moral problem of any imperialist project: Even if the invading party in an imperialist conflict were to be morally superior to those being invaded (and the Alien "souls" of this story were, generally speaking, morally superior to the human souls that they were displacing: they were, after the invasion, kinder to other souls, treated the environment with greater respect and quickly put an end to all human wars...) those being invaded would still generally prefer to remain in charge of their own destinies even if it meant putting-up with their own (personal/society's) flaws.
In this story, the displaced human souls/wills/minds (whatever one would wish to call them... I'm going to go with souls for the remainder of this essay) still present in their bodies, but no longer in charge of them, were, needless to say, resentful of the "enlightened" Alien souls that had displaced them.
This then becomes the central conflict of the story: Teenage Melanie (voiced/played by Saoirse Ronan) a member of the last free human resistance to the Alien invasion gets captured and an Alien Soul named Wander (also voiced by Saoirse Ronan) is implanted in her. But (1) teenager Melanie isn't about to give up. "Nobody's just gonna take over my body ;-)" and (2) Wanderer soon nicknamed Wanda is actually kinda a "good soul" ;-) who likes Melanie and feels increasingly uncomfortable with having displaced her (Melanie's) own soul in order to control her body. But where's Wanda supposed to go if she ceases to inhabit Melanie's body?
Then Melanie's soul (still in Melanie's body but no longer in charge of it) convinces Wanderer/Wanda to skip town and find the band of other free humans that Melanie had been part of. Why? Well, Melanie, of course, had a boyfriend ;-) named Jared (played by Max Irons) I believe. And here it all gets REALLY COMPLICATED in a typically teenage sort of way (and in a way that Stephanie Meyer, who is most famous for writing the Twilight Saga, is IMHO absolutely brilliant in presenting ;-):
Melanie likes Jared. But Wanda, controlling Melanie's body, but wanting to be a "good friend" to Melanie decides to prefer someone else. But if she kisses the other guy is it Wanda who's kissing him or Melanie? And would/could Jared possibly understand the difference? ;-) ;-) -- From my distance of 30-35 years away from this kind of thinking I JUST LOVED THIS ;-) ;-).
Of course it all gets resolved AND in a manner characteristic of Stephenie Meyer's novels: the seemingly irreconcilable are able to find a way to reconcile. In this case, the space invader and the invaded do find a way to become true and equal friends. How this resolution is able to take place, I'm not going to tell you. (Read the book or see the movie ;-).
Now I know that much of this story is really, really schlocky. But in its own way, I find it brilliant as well. And it honestly reminds me of my own younger years when EVERYTHING seemed far more dramatic than it becomes as one grows older. Good job again Ms. Meyer! Very good job!
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Chicago SunTimes (1 Star) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Chicago SunTimes (P. Sobczynski) review
Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor [2013] (written and directed by Tyler Perry) is a well-made African-American oriented film (and Tyler Perry is, of course, an African-American film maker) with a strong moral message -- DON'T CHEAT. The film is slick, modern, and runs very much like the famous morality films Fatal Attraction [1987] and War of the Roses [1989] only that the central character (the one being tempted) is not played by Michael Douglas but is rather an African American character named Judith (played by Jurnee Smolett-Bell).
The film begins at a run down, government run, probably "pro-bono" counseling service presumably in Washington D.C., where a rather poor young white couple has come for "marriage counseling." The young husband doesn't know what's going on, but certainly wants to save his marriage. The wife just feels that "it's over." Upset and dispondent, the husband gets up and leaves. The woman taking more time is stopped by the counselor who asks, "What's really going on?" The young woman confesses to her, "He really deserves someone better than me." Not buying it, the counselor a serious looking African American woman in her forties asks the young woman a la Danny DeVito's role in War of the Roses [1989], "Can I tell you a story?" The young woman says yes. And thus the counselor begins telling the story of Judith...
Judith was an African American woman born somewhere down South raised by her very Christian devoted mother (played by Ella Joyce). Ma' was strict but kept her basically on the right path. Judith's grades were good. Though ma' never much liked Judith's childhood sweetheart Brice, she kept Judith and Brice honest (and probably scared ... ;-) throughout their teenage years, and finally when Judith (and Brice) were truly old enough, she consented to them getting married, which they did either during or shortly after college.
The story resumes with the two, Judith (played by Jurnee Smolett-Bell) and Brice (played by Lance Gross) living as a young wide-eyed-happy recently married couple living in a nice small apartment in Washington D.C. Each had "starter jobs" in their degree fields. Brice found himself working in a small independent pharmacy, Judith with an MS in Counseling (and having dreams of opening up her own Marriage Counseling practice) working for now as an "in house" psychologist/advisor for a somewhat pretentious Washington D.C. "Match Making Service" run by a 40-something woman named Janice (played by Vanessa Williams).
Indeed, Judith initially looked down on the place where she worked, suspecting it to be, at the end of the day, a higher-end Escort Service for older men even it pretended perhaps even hoped to be better than that. Still it was a job ... and eventually Judith hoped to make enough money to be able to open up her own _honest_ marriage counseling practice.
Enter the Snake..., Harley (played by Robbie Jones), a rich African American entrepreneur, who according to Judith's more up-on-the-gossip/worldly coworker Ava (played by Kim Kardashian) made it big by inventing a somewhat slicker, more hip-hoppier version Facebook. He comes to Janice's Service as a potential investor / social media partner. Janice having liked Judith's previous work with improving her Service's questionaires asks Judith to work with Harley to see how the Service could further benefit from partnering with Harley's social media outlet. Of course Harley, who's used to getting what he wants, decides that he wants the very married but previously rather sheltered (and also rather ambitious) Judith. Much ensues ...
Of course, eventually Judith falls (otherwise there wouldn't be a story...). What's perhaps interesting is the point at which she falls and how Harley finally gets to her. Then once Judith falls, the film follows a trajectory similar to Michael Douglas' Fatal Attraction [1987]. Basically, the worst possible scenario plays out...
Now I don't quite understand the "hate" that many critics have given this film. It's obvious that the film is intended to be a morality tale. And I honestly don't see ANY DIFFERENCE in the story's setup or its playing-out from its white cousins -- Fatal Attraction [1987] and War of the Roses [1989] -- that I've already mentioned above. If anything, the Tyler Perry's story is slicker and more updated to our time.
Now Parents, I would say that the film is not intended for kids or even for young teens even if its nudity (none at all) and violence (some but clearly more implied than shown) quotients are sufficiently low for the film to qualify for its PG-13 rating. However, I just don't think that most kids or even teens would find the film particularly interesting, though young adults and younger married couples would probably enjoy AND UNDERSTAND it far more. For the film's message is both very simple and yet very professionally delivered: DON'T CHEAT. And IMHO that's a message worth hearing.
<< 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 (K. Jensen) review
Chicago SunTimes (P. Sobczynski) review
Tyler Perry's Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor [2013] (written and directed by Tyler Perry) is a well-made African-American oriented film (and Tyler Perry is, of course, an African-American film maker) with a strong moral message -- DON'T CHEAT. The film is slick, modern, and runs very much like the famous morality films Fatal Attraction [1987] and War of the Roses [1989] only that the central character (the one being tempted) is not played by Michael Douglas but is rather an African American character named Judith (played by Jurnee Smolett-Bell).
The film begins at a run down, government run, probably "pro-bono" counseling service presumably in Washington D.C., where a rather poor young white couple has come for "marriage counseling." The young husband doesn't know what's going on, but certainly wants to save his marriage. The wife just feels that "it's over." Upset and dispondent, the husband gets up and leaves. The woman taking more time is stopped by the counselor who asks, "What's really going on?" The young woman confesses to her, "He really deserves someone better than me." Not buying it, the counselor a serious looking African American woman in her forties asks the young woman a la Danny DeVito's role in War of the Roses [1989], "Can I tell you a story?" The young woman says yes. And thus the counselor begins telling the story of Judith...
Judith was an African American woman born somewhere down South raised by her very Christian devoted mother (played by Ella Joyce). Ma' was strict but kept her basically on the right path. Judith's grades were good. Though ma' never much liked Judith's childhood sweetheart Brice, she kept Judith and Brice honest (and probably scared ... ;-) throughout their teenage years, and finally when Judith (and Brice) were truly old enough, she consented to them getting married, which they did either during or shortly after college.
The story resumes with the two, Judith (played by Jurnee Smolett-Bell) and Brice (played by Lance Gross) living as a young wide-eyed-happy recently married couple living in a nice small apartment in Washington D.C. Each had "starter jobs" in their degree fields. Brice found himself working in a small independent pharmacy, Judith with an MS in Counseling (and having dreams of opening up her own Marriage Counseling practice) working for now as an "in house" psychologist/advisor for a somewhat pretentious Washington D.C. "Match Making Service" run by a 40-something woman named Janice (played by Vanessa Williams).
Indeed, Judith initially looked down on the place where she worked, suspecting it to be, at the end of the day, a higher-end Escort Service for older men even it pretended perhaps even hoped to be better than that. Still it was a job ... and eventually Judith hoped to make enough money to be able to open up her own _honest_ marriage counseling practice.
Enter the Snake..., Harley (played by Robbie Jones), a rich African American entrepreneur, who according to Judith's more up-on-the-gossip/worldly coworker Ava (played by Kim Kardashian) made it big by inventing a somewhat slicker, more hip-hoppier version Facebook. He comes to Janice's Service as a potential investor / social media partner. Janice having liked Judith's previous work with improving her Service's questionaires asks Judith to work with Harley to see how the Service could further benefit from partnering with Harley's social media outlet. Of course Harley, who's used to getting what he wants, decides that he wants the very married but previously rather sheltered (and also rather ambitious) Judith. Much ensues ...
Of course, eventually Judith falls (otherwise there wouldn't be a story...). What's perhaps interesting is the point at which she falls and how Harley finally gets to her. Then once Judith falls, the film follows a trajectory similar to Michael Douglas' Fatal Attraction [1987]. Basically, the worst possible scenario plays out...
Now I don't quite understand the "hate" that many critics have given this film. It's obvious that the film is intended to be a morality tale. And I honestly don't see ANY DIFFERENCE in the story's setup or its playing-out from its white cousins -- Fatal Attraction [1987] and War of the Roses [1989] -- that I've already mentioned above. If anything, the Tyler Perry's story is slicker and more updated to our time.
Now Parents, I would say that the film is not intended for kids or even for young teens even if its nudity (none at all) and violence (some but clearly more implied than shown) quotients are sufficiently low for the film to qualify for its PG-13 rating. However, I just don't think that most kids or even teens would find the film particularly interesting, though young adults and younger married couples would probably enjoy AND UNDERSTAND it far more. For the film's message is both very simple and yet very professionally delivered: DON'T CHEAT. And IMHO that's a message worth hearing.
<< 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 Bible (History Channel TV Series) [2013]
Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
The Bible [2013]. Those who've followed my blog will know that I generally prefer reviewing films to television series. Films are shorter thus require a smaller time commitment than television series. I've also found that television series carry with them the anxiety of "what's coming next?" Even a good episode or two could be completely undermined by episodes that follow ... However, there are always exceptions and every so often a series comes along that it make sense to review here. And certainly, the History Channel's recent five-part miniseries The Bible [2013] is worthy of mention, indeed praise here. For one, the series is over, so there's no more potential for "surprises." Second, IMHO it's honestly excellent.
Any relatively non-exhaustive video series on the Bible will require editorial decisions to be made as to which Biblical stories/episodes to include and which to "pass-over" ;-). Further, since the advent of modernity (over the last 150 years or so), there's been the additional challenge of how best to understand the Biblical texts with regards to today's far more scientific conceptions of historical accuracy.
Biblical Israel was, after all, a small people and place. Its people's understanding of the events going on around them was necessarily limited by their "smallness" as well as limits of their education. At the same time, anyone who's ever lived in a small town, village or neighborhood would know that events that certainly happened in the small town, village or neighborhood would pass-by without notice in "more important" centers of power/importance. Our parish's annual "Annunciata Fest" is a big deal in our South East Side neighborhood in Chicago. Neighboring Whiting, Indiana's annual "Pierogi Fest" is an even bigger deal. But it is doubtful that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel or his staff know of (or care much about) either. It may be useful to think of the Biblical King David as being basically "the mayor of (suburban) Lansing" or "the Alderman of Chicago's 10th Ward" (or someone equivalent in one's own locality) because it may help one to understand why it should not be surprising at all that even though King David was REALLY IMPORTANT to the Israelites (and hence to the whole Biblical tradition), the Egyptians and Assyrians (the regional superpowers of the time) would scantly know (or honestly not know) of him at all.
For their part the series' producers admirably make clear at the outset that they have sought to be faithful to the Biblical stories/accounts presented even as they often hint (sometimes rather obviously) that one or another Bilbical account ought to be taken on a more symbolic level.
A classic example of the challenge of interpreting the Biblical texts even as the series presents them is given right at the beginning: The opening shot of the series is that of Noah's ark (with Noah's family and all those animals) rocking in the midst of a tempestuous and seemingly unending sea. Then, inside the boat, we see/hear Noah recalling to his children the words of what becomes Genesis 1: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the eartha— and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters— Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' Evening came, and morning followed—the first day." (Genesis 1:1-5). Noah then continues, telling his children of the rest of the Order of creation, of humanity's origins in the Garden (Genesis 2), it's Fall (Genesis 3) and then ultimately even the necessity for God to destroy the world with the Flood (Genesis 6-8) "because there was too much Evil in the world ..." in order to start anew.
The more scientifically minded viewer of today would initially find that beginning to be almost utterly "unreal." Yet IMHO that beginning is excellent because it recalls the fundamental symbolism of all of those stories, which seek to explain: Why are we here? Are we here as a result of a "cosmic accident" (is the world/universe just a tumultuous storm of unending chaos?) or were we created (was the universe created) through the purposeful action of (a) God? Why is there Evil in the world? How did it get here? And the rest of the Biblical Scriptures that follow the first seemingly unreal eleven chapters of Genesis become the Biblical story of God slowly bringing the world back to his Original plan that had been frustrated after the Fall...
The series then that follows, beginning with Abraham (Genesis, Chapter 12 ...) and continuing then through the whole arc of the Christian scriptures to Jesus' Resurrection/Ascension and the Acts of the first Apostles and even portraying John's writing of the Book of Revelation (which ends the Christian Biblical Scriptures) will probably be a joy for all for whom The Bible has been source of day-to-day reflection throughout the greater part of their lives.
And there is often some humor in this Series' presentation ;-). For instance, Lot's wife (Episode 1, Genesis 19) is portrayed as something of a "high maintenance" figure ;-) . Though she married into a shepherd's family (that of Abraham and his nephew Lot) she's presented in this tv series as something of a "Mesopotamian city girl" not wanting to leave her (more urban) Mesopotamia for "the hills of Canaan." And even when she and Lot had arrived there in the hill country of Canaan (joy ... ;-), she's portrayed as steering Lot to, at least, move their family to Sodom, which would have been the largest town/city in the area ;-).
I found the "Burning Bush" (Exodus 3) to be MUCH LARGER than I've ever imagined it. Indeed, Moses couldn't have missed THAT "burning bush" because it was burning RIGHT OUTSIDE OF HIS TENT ;-).
Samson (and his mother) (Judges 13ff) were portrayed as "black," Samson with big long dreadlocks ;-), while Delilah and the Philistines were portrayed as white. This makes for a fascinating interpretation of the story of Samson / Delilah as it would be true that the Israelites, Semites after all, would have been "darker skinned" than the Philistines who today would be associated with the "whiter/more Caucasian" Greek speaking "Sea Peoples" of the time, ... and the story of Samson/Delilah was fundamentally an early Biblical story about race...
David (Episode 2) is shown saying to himself the verses of what became the 23rd Psalm as he marches off to take on Goliath. I found that very, very insightful because even the Bible credits most of the Psalms to David (remembered in the Bible as having been something of a musician, playing the harp (1 Sam 16:23), in addition to being a shepherd's son prior to becoming King).
And St. Paul is presented using the words of what became his famous passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13, to explain himself / mend fences with the Christians who he had been persecuting in the past: "Love is patient, love is kind, LOVE DOES NOT KEEP RECORD OF WRONG-DOING..." ;-) ;-). One could imagine one of the early Christian believers hearing the future St. Paul trying to reconcile himself to them saying to himself: "Hey, that may be all well and nice, but you killed my cousin Steve..." (Acts 7:54-8:1) ;-)
In any case, I have to say that this series was a joy to watch and will certainly serve its purpose of "Bringing the Bible home" and into the hearts of millions viewers, both now, and I suspect for many years to come! HONESTLY GOOD JOB AND GOD BLESS ALL WHO WORKED ON THIS PROJECT!
<< 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
The Bible [2013]. Those who've followed my blog will know that I generally prefer reviewing films to television series. Films are shorter thus require a smaller time commitment than television series. I've also found that television series carry with them the anxiety of "what's coming next?" Even a good episode or two could be completely undermined by episodes that follow ... However, there are always exceptions and every so often a series comes along that it make sense to review here. And certainly, the History Channel's recent five-part miniseries The Bible [2013] is worthy of mention, indeed praise here. For one, the series is over, so there's no more potential for "surprises." Second, IMHO it's honestly excellent.
Any relatively non-exhaustive video series on the Bible will require editorial decisions to be made as to which Biblical stories/episodes to include and which to "pass-over" ;-). Further, since the advent of modernity (over the last 150 years or so), there's been the additional challenge of how best to understand the Biblical texts with regards to today's far more scientific conceptions of historical accuracy.
Biblical Israel was, after all, a small people and place. Its people's understanding of the events going on around them was necessarily limited by their "smallness" as well as limits of their education. At the same time, anyone who's ever lived in a small town, village or neighborhood would know that events that certainly happened in the small town, village or neighborhood would pass-by without notice in "more important" centers of power/importance. Our parish's annual "Annunciata Fest" is a big deal in our South East Side neighborhood in Chicago. Neighboring Whiting, Indiana's annual "Pierogi Fest" is an even bigger deal. But it is doubtful that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel or his staff know of (or care much about) either. It may be useful to think of the Biblical King David as being basically "the mayor of (suburban) Lansing" or "the Alderman of Chicago's 10th Ward" (or someone equivalent in one's own locality) because it may help one to understand why it should not be surprising at all that even though King David was REALLY IMPORTANT to the Israelites (and hence to the whole Biblical tradition), the Egyptians and Assyrians (the regional superpowers of the time) would scantly know (or honestly not know) of him at all.
For their part the series' producers admirably make clear at the outset that they have sought to be faithful to the Biblical stories/accounts presented even as they often hint (sometimes rather obviously) that one or another Bilbical account ought to be taken on a more symbolic level.
A classic example of the challenge of interpreting the Biblical texts even as the series presents them is given right at the beginning: The opening shot of the series is that of Noah's ark (with Noah's family and all those animals) rocking in the midst of a tempestuous and seemingly unending sea. Then, inside the boat, we see/hear Noah recalling to his children the words of what becomes Genesis 1: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the eartha— and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters— Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' Evening came, and morning followed—the first day." (Genesis 1:1-5). Noah then continues, telling his children of the rest of the Order of creation, of humanity's origins in the Garden (Genesis 2), it's Fall (Genesis 3) and then ultimately even the necessity for God to destroy the world with the Flood (Genesis 6-8) "because there was too much Evil in the world ..." in order to start anew.
The more scientifically minded viewer of today would initially find that beginning to be almost utterly "unreal." Yet IMHO that beginning is excellent because it recalls the fundamental symbolism of all of those stories, which seek to explain: Why are we here? Are we here as a result of a "cosmic accident" (is the world/universe just a tumultuous storm of unending chaos?) or were we created (was the universe created) through the purposeful action of (a) God? Why is there Evil in the world? How did it get here? And the rest of the Biblical Scriptures that follow the first seemingly unreal eleven chapters of Genesis become the Biblical story of God slowly bringing the world back to his Original plan that had been frustrated after the Fall...
The series then that follows, beginning with Abraham (Genesis, Chapter 12 ...) and continuing then through the whole arc of the Christian scriptures to Jesus' Resurrection/Ascension and the Acts of the first Apostles and even portraying John's writing of the Book of Revelation (which ends the Christian Biblical Scriptures) will probably be a joy for all for whom The Bible has been source of day-to-day reflection throughout the greater part of their lives.
And there is often some humor in this Series' presentation ;-). For instance, Lot's wife (Episode 1, Genesis 19) is portrayed as something of a "high maintenance" figure ;-) . Though she married into a shepherd's family (that of Abraham and his nephew Lot) she's presented in this tv series as something of a "Mesopotamian city girl" not wanting to leave her (more urban) Mesopotamia for "the hills of Canaan." And even when she and Lot had arrived there in the hill country of Canaan (joy ... ;-), she's portrayed as steering Lot to, at least, move their family to Sodom, which would have been the largest town/city in the area ;-).
I found the "Burning Bush" (Exodus 3) to be MUCH LARGER than I've ever imagined it. Indeed, Moses couldn't have missed THAT "burning bush" because it was burning RIGHT OUTSIDE OF HIS TENT ;-).
Samson (and his mother) (Judges 13ff) were portrayed as "black," Samson with big long dreadlocks ;-), while Delilah and the Philistines were portrayed as white. This makes for a fascinating interpretation of the story of Samson / Delilah as it would be true that the Israelites, Semites after all, would have been "darker skinned" than the Philistines who today would be associated with the "whiter/more Caucasian" Greek speaking "Sea Peoples" of the time, ... and the story of Samson/Delilah was fundamentally an early Biblical story about race...
David (Episode 2) is shown saying to himself the verses of what became the 23rd Psalm as he marches off to take on Goliath. I found that very, very insightful because even the Bible credits most of the Psalms to David (remembered in the Bible as having been something of a musician, playing the harp (1 Sam 16:23), in addition to being a shepherd's son prior to becoming King).
And St. Paul is presented using the words of what became his famous passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13, to explain himself / mend fences with the Christians who he had been persecuting in the past: "Love is patient, love is kind, LOVE DOES NOT KEEP RECORD OF WRONG-DOING..." ;-) ;-). One could imagine one of the early Christian believers hearing the future St. Paul trying to reconcile himself to them saying to himself: "Hey, that may be all well and nice, but you killed my cousin Steve..." (Acts 7:54-8:1) ;-)
In any case, I have to say that this series was a joy to watch and will certainly serve its purpose of "Bringing the Bible home" and into the hearts of millions viewers, both now, and I suspect for many years to come! HONESTLY GOOD JOB AND GOD BLESS ALL WHO WORKED ON THIS PROJECT!
<< 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! :-) >>
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
On the Road [2012]
MPAA (R) Roger Ebert (2 Stars) AVClub (C) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
AV Club's (N. Murray) review
On the Road [2012] is based on "The Original Scroll" of Jack Kerouac's seminal post-WW II American "Beat Generation" semi-autobiographic novel On the Road [1951-1957]. The film is directed by Brazilian born director Walter Salles, screenplay by Puertorican born Jose Rivera, the two previously having collaborated in the making of The Motorcycle Diaries [2004] about the "epic" formative road trip of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in the early 1950s from Buenos Aires, Argentina across the Andes Mountains to Chile and Peru, a "road trip" that took place at roughly the same time as Kerouac was making and writing about his. The film also stars a veritable who's who of young Hollywood actors and actresses (Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund, KRISTEN STEWART, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams) and its executive producer was Francis Ford Coppola [IMDb].
Why such an effort / such hoopla to (finally) put this book on the screen and why now? One reason may be that its "time has come." Kerouac wrote his book in the years immediately following World War II. It's obvious that the both his book (and his life, it's semi-autobiographical after all) which became a post-World War II, 1950s "Beat Generation" classic was heavily influenced by the post World War I, 1920s "Lost Generation" writers like Ernest Hemingway and then by Depression Era writer John Steinbeck. We're currently coming out of a decade of post 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps finally turning the bend following the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. All these eras, WW I, WW II and the Great Depression were marked by necessary national "pulling together" / regimentation. The eras following, the "roaring 20s" and then the 1960s were marked by a "national letting-go / catharsis." After a decade of war followed by economic pressure/uncertainty, we may be due for a "national catharsis" once again.
To those who do not know / have not read Kerouac's book (and I have to admit that prior to seeing the movie I was one of them too) the film initially may be disorienting. The characters though dressed in late 1940s-early 1950s period garb and speaking in cadences of the time, nevertheless seem surprisingly contemporary, so much so that initially I honestly thought I smelled a rat. "You jerks," I thought, "You dressed these characters in period clothes and then made them act like the most trendy artistic young people of today." Then I looked-up articles about Jack Kerouac on the internet, bought the book (by then knowing even to buy the "original scroll" version, as the book as stunning as it was at the time that it was published, had gone through several re-drafts before it was finally published in 1957) and I found myself having experienced something of a "revelation."
All things considered, it's a relatively "small" revelation but one nonetheless, and this forms the basis of why I'd definitely recommend this film (and book) to American young adults (and their parents) today. Why? The reason is this: While it is possible (though with a fair amount of difficulty) to draw a path explaining how American culture passed from the legacy of such writers as Ernest Hemingway / John Steinbeck to American culture of today, if Jack Kerouac's book "On the Road" is in one's cultural universe THEN THIS PATH BECOMES A STRAIGHT LINE. There are parts of Jack Kerouac's novel that seem to take place just "Down the Road" from Steinbeck's world of Of Mice and Men (1936), Grapes of Wrath (1937) and Cannery Row (1945) and there are other parts that could be taking place at any college town party or in any otherwise "trendy" or "semi-intellectual district" in the United States today.
I find this honestly remarkable ;-). And it actually might not be bad for young people today (or of any age) who find themselves frequenting trendy clubs and cafes to work sometime "on the railroad" or "spend a summer picking tomatoes in California's central valley" and reconnect thus with the legacies of some of America's cultural giants like writers Steinbeck and Hemingway, who I've already mentioned, but also others like Woody Guthrie (musician), Ansel Adams (photographer), and Georgia O'Keeffe (painter), all of whom could look at American young people today (and really since the 1960s) and see a bunch of espresso drinking, video-game playing wimps.
So On the Road [2012] is a "finding oneself" journey (a story of self-discovery) with the attendant sex, drugs and alcohol, but IMHO (I could be wrong...) so much more purposeful than the simply the sex, drugs and alcohol of the "spring break" experience so utterly (and IMHO justifiably) lampooned and trashed in the contemporary film Spring Breakers [2013]. (The two films have actually followed almost identical release trajectories, both being screened at the international film festivals in Cannes and Toronto in 2012 and then being released on the same weekend in the United States in March (spring break season) in 2013. To be sure, Spring Breakers [2013] has generally received a "better response" both by critics and audiences than On the Road [2012]. Yet I do believe that On the Road [2012] is the more positive piece. There are aspects of On the Road [2012] worth emulating, while Spring Breakers [2013] is simply a critique.
So what is On the Road about? It's a semi-autobiographic story set in the late 1940s about the years when Sal Paradise (based on Jack Kerouac himself and played by Sam Riley in the film), a young French-Canadian-born writer who had subsequently grown-up with his family in New York City where he was living at the story's beginning, found himself inspired/under the spell of a friend named Dean Moriarty (based on Jack Keroauc's friend Neal Cassady and played by Garrett Hedlund in the film) who had come-up from Denver to New York City with his young randy wife named MaryLou (based on Neal Cassady's first wife LuAnne Henderson and played by Kristen Stewart in the film) on invitation of a mutual friend Carlo Marx (based on Jack Keroauc's friend and "Beat Generation" icon/poet Allen Ginsberg played by Tom Sturridge in the film).
Sal (Jack Kerouac) was a writer. Dean (Neal Cassady) was not but was impressed by writers and lived at that time of his life with a confidence that could be overwhelmingly inspiring to a young writer like Sal. Then both Sal and Dean (Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady) lost/grew-up without fathers. They didn't lose them in any dramatic way. Neither "died in the war." Sal/Jack's dad had died, presumably of cancer, at the beginning story. Dean/Neal's dad was a bum who apparently spent a good part of his adult life (and may have died) in jail.
The funeral of Sal/Jack's father with which the film begins also serves the purpose of reminding the audience that both Sal and Jack Kerouac who Sal represents in the film were Catholic. This is made reference to several times throughout the story though (in the film) generally not in a particularly positive way. However, Kerouac's Catholicism was part of his identity that he did claim throughout his life even if due to his largely closeted homosexuality he also struggled with it. At least one biographical essay that I read about him referred to Kerouac as a largely closeted homosexual and tormented Catholic. While I honestly don't wish anyone much "torment," as a Catholic, in fact, I don't necessarily see some "torment" in one's life a bad thing. It keeps one grounded, appreciating that that one is not a god. The above characterization of Kerouac also makes his life and his work much more interesting than it would have been otherwise, both during his life and now. And I would note here that one of the "papabili" before the recent papal election, Italian Cardinal Scola of Milan, apparently had made reference to Kerouac's book when speaking recently to Italy's youth. Life is indeed a journey, and there is absolutely no doubt that there is a wide-eyed sincerity, even if apparently partly benzedrine enhanced, in Kerouac's book that over the decades has made it interesting far beyond American shores, even to a Brazilian born director and an Italian Cardinal...
Sal and Dean meet in the film at Dean's short-leased apartment after mutual friend Carlo Marx takes Sal there. Dean answers the door completely naked. In the backroom is Dean's young wife MaryLou, lying on a bed. Presumably the two, married after all, were having sex. Dean's matter-of-fact answering the door (filmed with some discretion from the back) is actually taken directly from the book, though in Kerouac's book it takes place later in the story. Writing of the incident, Kerouac wrote that Moriarty answered the door "completely naked" and yet with confidence that "it wouldn't have mattered if (President) Harry Truman was at the door." ;-) If nothing else Dean (and Kerouac wrote his book before James Dean) was really, really cool ;-).
Dean lets the two in, gets dressed and joins Sal and Carlo in hitting the Harlem jazz scene of the time. During Dean's time in New York, the three talk life, talk books, talk music, talk writing books, talk beer, yes talk (and take) some drugs and talk some more.
At some point, Dean has to pick-up and go back to Denver. It wasn't particularly clear why Dean / MaryLou picked-up and went back. Perhaps MaryLou was getting bored in New York (After all, Dean seemed to have spent more time with Sal and Carlo than her...). Perhaps Dean himself (from the West after all and even if interested in good books was certainly less educated than either Sal or Carlo) was getting bored as well. In any case, Dean and Mary Lou are quite suddenly ... gone.
What to do? Well, of course, some time later Sal and Carlo pick themselves up and go off to Denver as well and Sal/Jack writes: "So began period of my life that I would call 'On the Road'..."
When they arrive Sal (and the audience) aren't probably altogether surprised that MaryLou is kinda "out of the picture" (asking for a divorce). However, what perhaps does surprise is that Dean's now shacked-up with another, somewhat older, mid-thirty-something year old woman named Camille (based on Neal Cassady's future second wife Carolyn Cassady played by Kirsten Dunst). Then when Sal and Carlo arrive, Dean also has another surprise for Sal: he sets him up with a (partying) "friend named Jane" (based on again a real person named Joan Vollmer and played by Amy Adams in the film).
Dean's life is getting complicated. MaryLou's dumping him. Camille doesn't believe it though. So after a fight, Camille picks herself up and heads back to San Francisco where she's originally from and Dean picks himself up and goes after her...
With Dean gone again, Sal goes back to New York, then back to Denver, then to California. During this time, he runs variously into friends: MaryLou (okay she was the ex-wife or soon to be ex-wife of his friend Dean, but she still kinda liked Sal and besides she was kinda a friend), Jane (Sal didn't particularly like her in any particularly romantic way, but Dean was right ... she was kinda cool), and Sal even takes a detour out there in California, spending some time with a nice Mexican-American woman, Terry (named in reality Bea Franco and played in the film by Alice Braga) who he met on the bus heading to San Francisco to find Dean. With Terry, he works for a season out there with her in the vegetable fields of California.
At different times, Sal runs into Carlo as well. Eventually, he does run into Dean too. And in the pages / time that follow(s) various random combinations of the characters mentioned above make the trip back and forth across the country (mind you, this is in the late 1940s!) any number of times.
What does Sal's mom think of all of this? Yes, Kerouac includes his mom (played by Marie-Ginette Guay) and apparently more sensible sister (played by Imogen Haworth) in the story ;-). Well, mom spends much of her time on screen rolling her eyes disapprovingly and muttering things in Quebecois French that one guesses were along the lines of "What now?" or "Oh, grow up" :-). But she remains in his life and occasionally, sighing, helps him out. And her presence in the story is not portrayed negatively. If anything, my sense is that Kerouac, "good tormented soul" that he was, knew that this was a time in his life when he probably "looked like an idiot" to his mom and more sensible sister. After all, mom was a widow and besides Sal's "better" sister, Sal was all she had. Yet Sal was spending much of his time traveling back and forth across the country at a time when almost nobody did so (and most would not have imagined that it would have even been possible to do so) for no particular reason, even if it must have seemed really, really cool to be doing so ... ;-)
So how does the story end? Well of course, I'm not going to tell you ;-). But I honestly think that it ends pretty well. For all the drugs, all the drinking and yes all the sex (most of all of which was implied, though at times "implied" so thinly that one would have to be an idiot to miss what's going on) the story (both book and movie) arguably ends with a moral tone: the more virtuous end up in better shape than the less.
But what I liked most about the story (both the book and the film) is the authenticity of its presentation. Once I realized that the film was really portraying what Kerouac wrote (back in the 1950s!) I honestly was in awe.
Now parents, CLEARLY this is not a book or movie for high schoolers. But I do believe that it is a great book/movie for young adults. And having studied for three years in the seminary in Italy it doesn't surprise me at all that a serious and respected Italian Cardinal would find Kerouac's story worthy of positive reference as well. Good job!
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review
AV Club's (N. Murray) review
On the Road [2012] is based on "The Original Scroll" of Jack Kerouac's seminal post-WW II American "Beat Generation" semi-autobiographic novel On the Road [1951-1957]. The film is directed by Brazilian born director Walter Salles, screenplay by Puertorican born Jose Rivera, the two previously having collaborated in the making of The Motorcycle Diaries [2004] about the "epic" formative road trip of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in the early 1950s from Buenos Aires, Argentina across the Andes Mountains to Chile and Peru, a "road trip" that took place at roughly the same time as Kerouac was making and writing about his. The film also stars a veritable who's who of young Hollywood actors and actresses (Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund, KRISTEN STEWART, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams) and its executive producer was Francis Ford Coppola [IMDb].
Why such an effort / such hoopla to (finally) put this book on the screen and why now? One reason may be that its "time has come." Kerouac wrote his book in the years immediately following World War II. It's obvious that the both his book (and his life, it's semi-autobiographical after all) which became a post-World War II, 1950s "Beat Generation" classic was heavily influenced by the post World War I, 1920s "Lost Generation" writers like Ernest Hemingway and then by Depression Era writer John Steinbeck. We're currently coming out of a decade of post 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps finally turning the bend following the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. All these eras, WW I, WW II and the Great Depression were marked by necessary national "pulling together" / regimentation. The eras following, the "roaring 20s" and then the 1960s were marked by a "national letting-go / catharsis." After a decade of war followed by economic pressure/uncertainty, we may be due for a "national catharsis" once again.
To those who do not know / have not read Kerouac's book (and I have to admit that prior to seeing the movie I was one of them too) the film initially may be disorienting. The characters though dressed in late 1940s-early 1950s period garb and speaking in cadences of the time, nevertheless seem surprisingly contemporary, so much so that initially I honestly thought I smelled a rat. "You jerks," I thought, "You dressed these characters in period clothes and then made them act like the most trendy artistic young people of today." Then I looked-up articles about Jack Kerouac on the internet, bought the book (by then knowing even to buy the "original scroll" version, as the book as stunning as it was at the time that it was published, had gone through several re-drafts before it was finally published in 1957) and I found myself having experienced something of a "revelation."
All things considered, it's a relatively "small" revelation but one nonetheless, and this forms the basis of why I'd definitely recommend this film (and book) to American young adults (and their parents) today. Why? The reason is this: While it is possible (though with a fair amount of difficulty) to draw a path explaining how American culture passed from the legacy of such writers as Ernest Hemingway / John Steinbeck to American culture of today, if Jack Kerouac's book "On the Road" is in one's cultural universe THEN THIS PATH BECOMES A STRAIGHT LINE. There are parts of Jack Kerouac's novel that seem to take place just "Down the Road" from Steinbeck's world of Of Mice and Men (1936), Grapes of Wrath (1937) and Cannery Row (1945) and there are other parts that could be taking place at any college town party or in any otherwise "trendy" or "semi-intellectual district" in the United States today.
I find this honestly remarkable ;-). And it actually might not be bad for young people today (or of any age) who find themselves frequenting trendy clubs and cafes to work sometime "on the railroad" or "spend a summer picking tomatoes in California's central valley" and reconnect thus with the legacies of some of America's cultural giants like writers Steinbeck and Hemingway, who I've already mentioned, but also others like Woody Guthrie (musician), Ansel Adams (photographer), and Georgia O'Keeffe (painter), all of whom could look at American young people today (and really since the 1960s) and see a bunch of espresso drinking, video-game playing wimps.
So On the Road [2012] is a "finding oneself" journey (a story of self-discovery) with the attendant sex, drugs and alcohol, but IMHO (I could be wrong...) so much more purposeful than the simply the sex, drugs and alcohol of the "spring break" experience so utterly (and IMHO justifiably) lampooned and trashed in the contemporary film Spring Breakers [2013]. (The two films have actually followed almost identical release trajectories, both being screened at the international film festivals in Cannes and Toronto in 2012 and then being released on the same weekend in the United States in March (spring break season) in 2013. To be sure, Spring Breakers [2013] has generally received a "better response" both by critics and audiences than On the Road [2012]. Yet I do believe that On the Road [2012] is the more positive piece. There are aspects of On the Road [2012] worth emulating, while Spring Breakers [2013] is simply a critique.
So what is On the Road about? It's a semi-autobiographic story set in the late 1940s about the years when Sal Paradise (based on Jack Kerouac himself and played by Sam Riley in the film), a young French-Canadian-born writer who had subsequently grown-up with his family in New York City where he was living at the story's beginning, found himself inspired/under the spell of a friend named Dean Moriarty (based on Jack Keroauc's friend Neal Cassady and played by Garrett Hedlund in the film) who had come-up from Denver to New York City with his young randy wife named MaryLou (based on Neal Cassady's first wife LuAnne Henderson and played by Kristen Stewart in the film) on invitation of a mutual friend Carlo Marx (based on Jack Keroauc's friend and "Beat Generation" icon/poet Allen Ginsberg played by Tom Sturridge in the film).
Sal (Jack Kerouac) was a writer. Dean (Neal Cassady) was not but was impressed by writers and lived at that time of his life with a confidence that could be overwhelmingly inspiring to a young writer like Sal. Then both Sal and Dean (Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady) lost/grew-up without fathers. They didn't lose them in any dramatic way. Neither "died in the war." Sal/Jack's dad had died, presumably of cancer, at the beginning story. Dean/Neal's dad was a bum who apparently spent a good part of his adult life (and may have died) in jail.
The funeral of Sal/Jack's father with which the film begins also serves the purpose of reminding the audience that both Sal and Jack Kerouac who Sal represents in the film were Catholic. This is made reference to several times throughout the story though (in the film) generally not in a particularly positive way. However, Kerouac's Catholicism was part of his identity that he did claim throughout his life even if due to his largely closeted homosexuality he also struggled with it. At least one biographical essay that I read about him referred to Kerouac as a largely closeted homosexual and tormented Catholic. While I honestly don't wish anyone much "torment," as a Catholic, in fact, I don't necessarily see some "torment" in one's life a bad thing. It keeps one grounded, appreciating that that one is not a god. The above characterization of Kerouac also makes his life and his work much more interesting than it would have been otherwise, both during his life and now. And I would note here that one of the "papabili" before the recent papal election, Italian Cardinal Scola of Milan, apparently had made reference to Kerouac's book when speaking recently to Italy's youth. Life is indeed a journey, and there is absolutely no doubt that there is a wide-eyed sincerity, even if apparently partly benzedrine enhanced, in Kerouac's book that over the decades has made it interesting far beyond American shores, even to a Brazilian born director and an Italian Cardinal...
Sal and Dean meet in the film at Dean's short-leased apartment after mutual friend Carlo Marx takes Sal there. Dean answers the door completely naked. In the backroom is Dean's young wife MaryLou, lying on a bed. Presumably the two, married after all, were having sex. Dean's matter-of-fact answering the door (filmed with some discretion from the back) is actually taken directly from the book, though in Kerouac's book it takes place later in the story. Writing of the incident, Kerouac wrote that Moriarty answered the door "completely naked" and yet with confidence that "it wouldn't have mattered if (President) Harry Truman was at the door." ;-) If nothing else Dean (and Kerouac wrote his book before James Dean) was really, really cool ;-).
Dean lets the two in, gets dressed and joins Sal and Carlo in hitting the Harlem jazz scene of the time. During Dean's time in New York, the three talk life, talk books, talk music, talk writing books, talk beer, yes talk (and take) some drugs and talk some more.
At some point, Dean has to pick-up and go back to Denver. It wasn't particularly clear why Dean / MaryLou picked-up and went back. Perhaps MaryLou was getting bored in New York (After all, Dean seemed to have spent more time with Sal and Carlo than her...). Perhaps Dean himself (from the West after all and even if interested in good books was certainly less educated than either Sal or Carlo) was getting bored as well. In any case, Dean and Mary Lou are quite suddenly ... gone.
What to do? Well, of course, some time later Sal and Carlo pick themselves up and go off to Denver as well and Sal/Jack writes: "So began period of my life that I would call 'On the Road'..."
When they arrive Sal (and the audience) aren't probably altogether surprised that MaryLou is kinda "out of the picture" (asking for a divorce). However, what perhaps does surprise is that Dean's now shacked-up with another, somewhat older, mid-thirty-something year old woman named Camille (based on Neal Cassady's future second wife Carolyn Cassady played by Kirsten Dunst). Then when Sal and Carlo arrive, Dean also has another surprise for Sal: he sets him up with a (partying) "friend named Jane" (based on again a real person named Joan Vollmer and played by Amy Adams in the film).
Dean's life is getting complicated. MaryLou's dumping him. Camille doesn't believe it though. So after a fight, Camille picks herself up and heads back to San Francisco where she's originally from and Dean picks himself up and goes after her...
With Dean gone again, Sal goes back to New York, then back to Denver, then to California. During this time, he runs variously into friends: MaryLou (okay she was the ex-wife or soon to be ex-wife of his friend Dean, but she still kinda liked Sal and besides she was kinda a friend), Jane (Sal didn't particularly like her in any particularly romantic way, but Dean was right ... she was kinda cool), and Sal even takes a detour out there in California, spending some time with a nice Mexican-American woman, Terry (named in reality Bea Franco and played in the film by Alice Braga) who he met on the bus heading to San Francisco to find Dean. With Terry, he works for a season out there with her in the vegetable fields of California.
At different times, Sal runs into Carlo as well. Eventually, he does run into Dean too. And in the pages / time that follow(s) various random combinations of the characters mentioned above make the trip back and forth across the country (mind you, this is in the late 1940s!) any number of times.
What does Sal's mom think of all of this? Yes, Kerouac includes his mom (played by Marie-Ginette Guay) and apparently more sensible sister (played by Imogen Haworth) in the story ;-). Well, mom spends much of her time on screen rolling her eyes disapprovingly and muttering things in Quebecois French that one guesses were along the lines of "What now?" or "Oh, grow up" :-). But she remains in his life and occasionally, sighing, helps him out. And her presence in the story is not portrayed negatively. If anything, my sense is that Kerouac, "good tormented soul" that he was, knew that this was a time in his life when he probably "looked like an idiot" to his mom and more sensible sister. After all, mom was a widow and besides Sal's "better" sister, Sal was all she had. Yet Sal was spending much of his time traveling back and forth across the country at a time when almost nobody did so (and most would not have imagined that it would have even been possible to do so) for no particular reason, even if it must have seemed really, really cool to be doing so ... ;-)
So how does the story end? Well of course, I'm not going to tell you ;-). But I honestly think that it ends pretty well. For all the drugs, all the drinking and yes all the sex (most of all of which was implied, though at times "implied" so thinly that one would have to be an idiot to miss what's going on) the story (both book and movie) arguably ends with a moral tone: the more virtuous end up in better shape than the less.
But what I liked most about the story (both the book and the film) is the authenticity of its presentation. Once I realized that the film was really portraying what Kerouac wrote (back in the 1950s!) I honestly was in awe.
Now parents, CLEARLY this is not a book or movie for high schoolers. But I do believe that it is a great book/movie for young adults. And having studied for three years in the seminary in Italy it doesn't surprise me at all that a serious and respected Italian Cardinal would find Kerouac's story worthy of positive reference as well. Good job!
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Olympus Has Fallen [2013]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (L) ChicagoSunTimes (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Chicago SunTimes (B. Zwecker) review
While certainly improbable and Parents take note at times needlessly violent, Olympus Has Fallen [2013] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Creighton Rothenburger and Katrin Benedikt) is an action thriller about a fictional North Korean surprise strike on the White House as a prelude to a renewed war on the Korean Peninsula. It appears to evoke the shock and surprise of the Tet Offensive in 1968 during the Vietnam War when suddenly even the U.S. Embassy in downtown Saigon was attacked by North Vietnamese commandos (that attack quickly proved to be a suicide mission...).
The film also appears to me to be a psychic vestige of the shock of the actual 9/11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon across the Potomac River from Washington D.C., attacks that were experienced by our nation to have come out of nowhere, indeed, "out of the clear blue sky." Finally, stories like this may even serve a reminder that in the Biblical Prophetic tradition and more recently in the Jungian School of Psychology (Carl Jung came from the German speaking world after all...) peace/security doesn't really come from strength.
In the Bible, mountains and buildings of all kinds are expected to come down eventually: "All that is high will be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12) and "As Jesus left the temple area and was going away, his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings. He said to them in reply, 'You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.'" (Matt 24:1-2). And in the Jungian school of thought, greater reliance on one's strength and other gifts just makes one ever more paranoid as one's "Shadow" rises even as one's own conscious/acknowledged abilities increase.
The Biblical psalmist summarizes the situation in this way: "Some rely on chariots, others on horses, but we on the name of the LORD our God" (Psalms 20:8). This is not to say that the Lord will save "Olympus" (the Greek home of the Gods) from "falling." After all Jesus himself was crucified. It's just that one learns to continue on without "the Temple"/"Jerusalem," or "Olympus"/"the White House." God/Jesus continues to be with us, even when all kinds of things, big and small, come crashing down around us throughout our lives.
But we're not there yet. So we have this films like this one about a surprise, indeed dastardly strike against our White House and then our battle back to regain it.
The film begins 18 months before the attack. Trusted Secret Service agent Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) is boxing with President Benjamin Ascher (played by Aaron Eckhart). They are at Camp David. It's around Christmas time and it's snowing. The First Family has to make an appearance at a Fund Raiser back in Washington. During their trip from Camp David back to the fund raiser, an accident takes place and Mike Banning, who's first priority was always for the safety of the President, finds himself to blame for the death of the First Lady Margaret Ascher (played by Ashley Judd). So despite having previously been President Ascher's favorite Secret Service agent and also the favorite of the Aschers' 10 year old son Conner (played by Finley Jacobsen) after the death of his wife, the President doesn't want to see Banning around and so Banning is demoted to a desk job at the Secret Service's main office at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Such it is until July 5 (the day after the 4th of July) some 18 months later... when with tensions rising on the Korean Peninsula (what else is new...?), President Ascher has invited the President of South Korea Lee Tae-Woo (played by Keong Sim) over to the White House as a show of continued U.S. support for South Korea.
While the President of South Korea is over at the White House, North Korean agents and commandos take the opportunity, often using American weapons including a Korean piloted AC-130 arial gunship, to launch a lightning and coordinated assault on the White House succeeding it overrunning it in 13 chaotic minutes. (North Korean intelligence had previously discovered, from hacked or otherwise stolen documents that American military contingency plans anticipated a 15 minute response time to get "boots on the ground" to the White House in an emergency, hence their planning and need to over-run and secure it in less time than that).
How could a raid like this possibly succeed? Well North and South Koreans speak the same language and were the same people. There's always been a concern about how much of South Korea's intelligence and military establishment has been compromised/infiltrated by North Korean agents. (I would think that the concern has been diminishing as it has become patently obvious over the years that South Korea's political and economic system has been far more successful in meeting the needs/aspirations of its people than North Korea's regime. Hence even if there were a fair amount of North Korean agents operating in South Korea in the past, one would suspect that a fair number of those agents would have "turned" or simply decided to stop working for North Korea). However, the film assumes that there would be enough highly motivated North Korean agents burrowed into South Koreas intelligence and military institutions to pull this thing off. (As I mention above, a similar assault was actually conducted by North Vietnamese sponsored commandos on the U.S. Embassy in Saigan during the infamous Tet Offensive in 1968. However, the South Vietnamese regime in 1968 was far weaker (and far more infilitrated) than the South Korean government today).
In any case, the film envisions that lightning well-coordinated strike on the White House was possible perhaps precisely because we would not expect it. (Consider again that before 9/11 almost no one would have envisioned the kind of coordinated attack involving hijacked aircraft that occurred on that day).
Led by a super-deep cover North Korean intelligence commander named Kang (played by Rick Yune) whose name had apparently shown-up in U.S./South Korean on occasional intelligence intercepts but had previously never been positively identified, the raid succeeds in not only overrunning the White House but also in capturing U.S. President Ascher, U.S. Vice-President Charlie Rodriguez (played by Phil Austin) and U.S. Secretary of Defense Ruth McMillan (played by Melissa Leo) as well as the South Korean President even as they head down to the White House's previously assumed to be utterly secure command bunker. (I'm not going to mention here how the North Koreans manage to pull that feat off as it's somewhat key to the story). Kang makes quick work of the captured South Korean President who he summarily executes after communicating his demands to outside U.S. officials assembling at the Pentagon's command bunker using the secure closed-circuit television connection between the two bunkers.
His demands involve the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the DMZ in Korea and the standing-down the U.S. 7th fleet in the area. Soon it also becomes clear that he wishes to beat the self-destruct codes for U.S. nuclear missiles out of the key U.S. officials he has captured in the White House command bunker. Again, Parents take note that this is an R-rated movie and some of the violence/beatings in the film is/are quite and IMHO needlessly brutal.
It would seem, Kang has actually "pulled this thing off..." But ... good ole Secret Service agent Mike Banning upon witnessing the beginning of the shocking assault on the White House from his window at the U.S. Treasury Building next door to the White House, instinctively runs out to the Mall and then into the White House during the chaos of the attack seeking to do what he can to help defend it. At the end of the initial raid, he actually finds himself inside the White House and since he used to work there, he knows where the weapons and the communications gear are ...
Soon he makes contact with the Defense Department's command bunker at the Pentagon where his boss, Secret Service Director Lynn Jacobs (played by Angela Bassett) has gone (After all, it was her people who were defending the White House and she and her people would still know the ins and outs of the White House better than anyone). Also arriving at the Pentagon bunker is the Speaker of the House named Trumbell (played by Morgan Freeman) who, since the President and Vice-President have been captured has become the acting President of the United States. Since it appears that pretty much all of the Secret Service agents at the White House have been killed, that the formerly demoted Secret Service agent Mike Banning actually finds himself INSIDE the White House becomes important...
What follows is a story that resembles a mash-up of the first Die Hard [1988] movie with Kang playing the role of the nefarious villain and Under Siege [1992] with Mike Banning playing "former U.S. Navy SEAL now humble cook" Steven Seagal's role in that movie with, yes, a James Bond like "clock ticking scenario" playing out at the end.
I don't think it'd be that much of a "spoiler" to report that "the Good Guys win," that we recapture the White House and the formerly demoted / "exiled" agent Mike Banning succeeds in redeeming himself in the process ;-)
Again, it would seem to me that films like this are driven by both the psychic scars left-over by the 9/11 attacks (After all, we were surprised before...) and then lingering fear that no matter how strong we are, we'll never be truly safe. So we play out scenarios that both scare us and ... perhaps help us be more prepared.
But I do honestly believe that our security (big and small) is not in "chariots or horses" but:
"Though the mountains may fall
and the hills turn to dust,
the love of the Lord will stand
as a shelter for all who call on his name.
Sing the Praise and the Glory of God."
-- Dan Schulte, S.J. "Though the Mountains May Fall"
<< 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 (J. Mulderig) review
Chicago SunTimes (B. Zwecker) review
While certainly improbable and Parents take note at times needlessly violent, Olympus Has Fallen [2013] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Creighton Rothenburger and Katrin Benedikt) is an action thriller about a fictional North Korean surprise strike on the White House as a prelude to a renewed war on the Korean Peninsula. It appears to evoke the shock and surprise of the Tet Offensive in 1968 during the Vietnam War when suddenly even the U.S. Embassy in downtown Saigon was attacked by North Vietnamese commandos (that attack quickly proved to be a suicide mission...).
The film also appears to me to be a psychic vestige of the shock of the actual 9/11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon across the Potomac River from Washington D.C., attacks that were experienced by our nation to have come out of nowhere, indeed, "out of the clear blue sky." Finally, stories like this may even serve a reminder that in the Biblical Prophetic tradition and more recently in the Jungian School of Psychology (Carl Jung came from the German speaking world after all...) peace/security doesn't really come from strength.
In the Bible, mountains and buildings of all kinds are expected to come down eventually: "All that is high will be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12) and "As Jesus left the temple area and was going away, his disciples approached him to point out the temple buildings. He said to them in reply, 'You see all these things, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.'" (Matt 24:1-2). And in the Jungian school of thought, greater reliance on one's strength and other gifts just makes one ever more paranoid as one's "Shadow" rises even as one's own conscious/acknowledged abilities increase.
The Biblical psalmist summarizes the situation in this way: "Some rely on chariots, others on horses, but we on the name of the LORD our God" (Psalms 20:8). This is not to say that the Lord will save "Olympus" (the Greek home of the Gods) from "falling." After all Jesus himself was crucified. It's just that one learns to continue on without "the Temple"/"Jerusalem," or "Olympus"/"the White House." God/Jesus continues to be with us, even when all kinds of things, big and small, come crashing down around us throughout our lives.
But we're not there yet. So we have this films like this one about a surprise, indeed dastardly strike against our White House and then our battle back to regain it.
The film begins 18 months before the attack. Trusted Secret Service agent Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) is boxing with President Benjamin Ascher (played by Aaron Eckhart). They are at Camp David. It's around Christmas time and it's snowing. The First Family has to make an appearance at a Fund Raiser back in Washington. During their trip from Camp David back to the fund raiser, an accident takes place and Mike Banning, who's first priority was always for the safety of the President, finds himself to blame for the death of the First Lady Margaret Ascher (played by Ashley Judd). So despite having previously been President Ascher's favorite Secret Service agent and also the favorite of the Aschers' 10 year old son Conner (played by Finley Jacobsen) after the death of his wife, the President doesn't want to see Banning around and so Banning is demoted to a desk job at the Secret Service's main office at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Such it is until July 5 (the day after the 4th of July) some 18 months later... when with tensions rising on the Korean Peninsula (what else is new...?), President Ascher has invited the President of South Korea Lee Tae-Woo (played by Keong Sim) over to the White House as a show of continued U.S. support for South Korea.
While the President of South Korea is over at the White House, North Korean agents and commandos take the opportunity, often using American weapons including a Korean piloted AC-130 arial gunship, to launch a lightning and coordinated assault on the White House succeeding it overrunning it in 13 chaotic minutes. (North Korean intelligence had previously discovered, from hacked or otherwise stolen documents that American military contingency plans anticipated a 15 minute response time to get "boots on the ground" to the White House in an emergency, hence their planning and need to over-run and secure it in less time than that).
How could a raid like this possibly succeed? Well North and South Koreans speak the same language and were the same people. There's always been a concern about how much of South Korea's intelligence and military establishment has been compromised/infiltrated by North Korean agents. (I would think that the concern has been diminishing as it has become patently obvious over the years that South Korea's political and economic system has been far more successful in meeting the needs/aspirations of its people than North Korea's regime. Hence even if there were a fair amount of North Korean agents operating in South Korea in the past, one would suspect that a fair number of those agents would have "turned" or simply decided to stop working for North Korea). However, the film assumes that there would be enough highly motivated North Korean agents burrowed into South Koreas intelligence and military institutions to pull this thing off. (As I mention above, a similar assault was actually conducted by North Vietnamese sponsored commandos on the U.S. Embassy in Saigan during the infamous Tet Offensive in 1968. However, the South Vietnamese regime in 1968 was far weaker (and far more infilitrated) than the South Korean government today).
In any case, the film envisions that lightning well-coordinated strike on the White House was possible perhaps precisely because we would not expect it. (Consider again that before 9/11 almost no one would have envisioned the kind of coordinated attack involving hijacked aircraft that occurred on that day).
Led by a super-deep cover North Korean intelligence commander named Kang (played by Rick Yune) whose name had apparently shown-up in U.S./South Korean on occasional intelligence intercepts but had previously never been positively identified, the raid succeeds in not only overrunning the White House but also in capturing U.S. President Ascher, U.S. Vice-President Charlie Rodriguez (played by Phil Austin) and U.S. Secretary of Defense Ruth McMillan (played by Melissa Leo) as well as the South Korean President even as they head down to the White House's previously assumed to be utterly secure command bunker. (I'm not going to mention here how the North Koreans manage to pull that feat off as it's somewhat key to the story). Kang makes quick work of the captured South Korean President who he summarily executes after communicating his demands to outside U.S. officials assembling at the Pentagon's command bunker using the secure closed-circuit television connection between the two bunkers.
His demands involve the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from the DMZ in Korea and the standing-down the U.S. 7th fleet in the area. Soon it also becomes clear that he wishes to beat the self-destruct codes for U.S. nuclear missiles out of the key U.S. officials he has captured in the White House command bunker. Again, Parents take note that this is an R-rated movie and some of the violence/beatings in the film is/are quite and IMHO needlessly brutal.
It would seem, Kang has actually "pulled this thing off..." But ... good ole Secret Service agent Mike Banning upon witnessing the beginning of the shocking assault on the White House from his window at the U.S. Treasury Building next door to the White House, instinctively runs out to the Mall and then into the White House during the chaos of the attack seeking to do what he can to help defend it. At the end of the initial raid, he actually finds himself inside the White House and since he used to work there, he knows where the weapons and the communications gear are ...
Soon he makes contact with the Defense Department's command bunker at the Pentagon where his boss, Secret Service Director Lynn Jacobs (played by Angela Bassett) has gone (After all, it was her people who were defending the White House and she and her people would still know the ins and outs of the White House better than anyone). Also arriving at the Pentagon bunker is the Speaker of the House named Trumbell (played by Morgan Freeman) who, since the President and Vice-President have been captured has become the acting President of the United States. Since it appears that pretty much all of the Secret Service agents at the White House have been killed, that the formerly demoted Secret Service agent Mike Banning actually finds himself INSIDE the White House becomes important...
What follows is a story that resembles a mash-up of the first Die Hard [1988] movie with Kang playing the role of the nefarious villain and Under Siege [1992] with Mike Banning playing "former U.S. Navy SEAL now humble cook" Steven Seagal's role in that movie with, yes, a James Bond like "clock ticking scenario" playing out at the end.
I don't think it'd be that much of a "spoiler" to report that "the Good Guys win," that we recapture the White House and the formerly demoted / "exiled" agent Mike Banning succeeds in redeeming himself in the process ;-)
Again, it would seem to me that films like this are driven by both the psychic scars left-over by the 9/11 attacks (After all, we were surprised before...) and then lingering fear that no matter how strong we are, we'll never be truly safe. So we play out scenarios that both scare us and ... perhaps help us be more prepared.
But I do honestly believe that our security (big and small) is not in "chariots or horses" but:
"Though the mountains may fall
and the hills turn to dust,
the love of the Lord will stand
as a shelter for all who call on his name.
Sing the Praise and the Glory of God."
-- Dan Schulte, S.J. "Though the Mountains May Fall"
<< 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)