Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey [2013]

MPAA (NR would be PG-13)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey [2013] (directed by Romona S. Diaz) is a documentary that recently played here in Chicago and is available for rent/purchase on Amazon Instant Video about how one of the world's most recognizable American rock bands, Journey, came to acquire Filipino born / Manila residing rocker/vocalist Arnel Pineda as its second (and it would seem permanent) replacement to its legendary lead singer Steve Perry.  (The group's original replacement for Perry, Steve Augeri, had blown his vocal chords after eight years of singing with the band).

Looking for a new replacement, the group had gone through the "usual suspects," auditioning various stateside vocalists and Journey-tribute band singers when one evening lead guitarist Neal Schon came across various YouTube videos of Pineda then singing for a Manila cover band named Zoo singing their material.  Blown away by Pineda's ability of seemingly effortlessly hitting all of Perry notes, Schon informed the rest of the band the next day that he's found somebody.  Just one problem: he's way out in Manila. 

The first problem was simply getting a hold of him.  Those YouTube videos were put up not by Pineda's band but by its "biggest fan" ;-).  Then imagine getting a phone call from half-way around the world and the voice on the other end saying: "Hi, I'm Neal Schon, the lead guitarist for Journey ... no I'm REALLY Neal Schon from Journey and I'd like to speak to ..." ;-).  Well eventually they got a hold of Pineda and as another member of the band put it "we got the lawyers working on it so that 3 weeks later Pineda was able to arrive in the U.S. for an audition."

Missing from the documentary but part of the attendant press materials (referred to in Roger Ebert's review of the film) was Pineda's account of how the incredulous U.S. Consular official interviewing Pineda for his visa asked him to sing, right there and then in front of him Journey's song "Wheel in the Sky" to prove that he was really applying to go to the U.S. to audition for the band.  Apparently the U.S. Consular official was impressed as well ;-).

I make reference to Ebert's account of this incident because we Servites went through a similar experience with an incredulous U.S. Consular official a number of years ago when we had requested a Visa for a smiling young English speaking Brazilian woman who we had met at the Servite parish in São Paulo who we wished to accompany a non-English speaking Brazilian Servite sister coming to the States on a speaking tour that we were organizing.  "Who do you work for Miss?"  "I work for my parents."  Bam! "Visa rejected" was the first reply.  It took a call from one of our American Servite sisters to her Congressional Representatives, who called down to the U.S. Consulate in São Paulo to get the Consular official to re-interview the young woman to get her visa (for 1 trip and expiring 6 weeks upon entry) approved.  But our young/ever smiling translator was able to come here, see the States and honestly help us and the Brazilian Servite sister out.  (And remember folks, for someone of a young woman's age that would be a trip of a lifetime...).

Back to the story at hand ... ;-)  Pineda arrived in California to audition for the band.  The first day, still jet-lagged, he didn't sound all that good (Oh dear ... ;-).  But the second, he was better and by the third, the other members of the band's jaws were dropping again.  They found their guy!

Now how to break Pineda in?  Well, Journey began its 2008 World Tour in ... Chile ;-).  That was the first place where Pineda got to sing with the band in a stadium filled with 10,000+ fans.  Various band members had expressed concern whether Pineda would have a good stage presence.  After all, this was not going to be a "small club" but a STADIUM full of people with a huge stage.  Was he going to "just stand there?"

Well "just stand there" he did not do ;-).  Instead, in what to me was one of the more amusing moments in the documentary, he may have inadvertently reminded some of the band members (and certainly their manager) of their age ;-)  After all, the others had been at this, playing in / managing the band, for over 30 years.  Now here was the new (and younger) Pineda bouncing/running around the stage (perhaps trying to be like Van Halen's legendary David Lee Roth in his younger days).  So after the show, Pineda was told in no uncertain terms by the Manager (interestingly not by the band ;-) that he would have to "tone it down" in the future.  But the group didn't have to worry that Pineda was "just gonna stand there" ;-)

How has Pineda been accepted since?  Well, it seemed pretty clear that the band members like him and lead guitarist Neal Schon made clear to the filmmakers (and their viewers) that "after expenses 1/5 of profits from their touring go to Pineda (as a full member of the band)" adding with a smile that "I'm not gonna tell you how much that is but yes, its substantial." ;-)

As for the fans, it would seem from the documentary that they've come around as well.  I suspect, as a Journey fan myself in my younger days, that part of this is because not only can Pineda hit the notes like Perry did but also that he even kinda looks like Perry.

THEN OF COURSE has been the Filipino reaction to Arnel Pineda's becoming part of Journey.  As one fan put it: "Journey didn't just gain Arnel (as its lead singer), it gained an entire nation (as its fans)!"  Near the end of the film, we're shown Pineda having an audience with then the Filipino President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at the Malacañang Presidential Palace in Manila.

From my own pastoral experience of various Filipino gatherings, where a Kareoke machine was almost always present as part of the entertainment ;-), I can not but believe that Pineda's entry into the band had to be a big deal and even a culturally appropriate one as Journey's always had a reputation of being a  "kinda _nice_ band." And my experience with Filipino parishioners singing away Elvis and Neil Diamond songs at those gatherings (with said kareoke machine seemingly always somewhere around...) would make Journey seem like a really good fit for "national adoption." ;-)

Finally, returning back to the other band members, it seemed clear in the documentary that the band was fundamentally happy with their selection and that as a result of it they now have an entire nation that loves them as well.  So good job folks and good choice ;-)  And Ms Diaz, thanks for putting this remarkable story on film/video as well because it really is lovely/amazing (and true)!


<< 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! :-) >>

Graceland [2012]

MPAA (R)  Michael Phillips (3 1/2 Stars) AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review

Graceland [2012] (written and directed by Filipino-American veteran Hollywood camera man/key grip turned director Ron Morales) is an award winning Tagalog language / English subtitled indie film that played the festival circuit last year and is currently enjoying a limited release in the United States (including at Facets Multimedia here in Chicago and is available for viewing on Amazon-Instant Video).

The film has served as a reminder to me of a number of things: (1) the substantial number of Filipino-Americans in the United States the vast majority of whom would have come here as Catholics, (2) that within the film industry in Hollywood there would be Filipino-Americans like Ron Morales who would have been working for many years in Hollywood in the more technical aspects of the field (in Morales' case as a  cameraman/key grip) before striking out to produce an "indie project" or two of their own, (3) the Philippines itself has long had a substantial television/film industry of its own (in part a product/consequence of the 50 years when the United States controlled the Philippines as a protectorate/colony).  I have visited Filipino-American households that have appeared to subscribe to  Tagalog language satellite/cable services in much the same way as I've seen Indian-American households subscribing to Hindi/Tamil/Bengali etc services as well.  

All this is to say that I'm both happy to have come across this film during the last several weeks and realize that I currently can't put it in the context of other Filipino films being produced today.  As an indie film, my sense is that it's probably "on the edge" though I honestly like American indie films precisely because they are freer to discuss topics that more conservative/profit-oriented films could not.  In any case, the film offers me an opportunity to take a greater interest in the future with regards to what's happening in Filipino cinema these days.  I made it a point to attend Chicago's Polish Film Festival last year because there are so many Catholics of Polish decent who live in the United States (and especially then in Chicago).  I've already found that there's a (smaller) annual Chicago Filipino American Film Festival as well (I would presume that the bigger ones would be held in California where the Filipino community is larger).  So I'll see what I can attend in the coming year ;-)

But let's get to the film ... which is, in fact, one heck of a story and perhaps a brave one (if certainly a troubling one) at that:

Graceland is about an "everyman" of sorts named Marlon Villar (played by Arnold Reyes).  He's been serving as "a driver" for a corrupt petty Filipino congressman named Mr Manuel Mangho (played by Menggie Cobarrubias) living presumably in Manila.  Among other vices, Rep. Mangho has developed a penchant for child prostitutes (yes folks, this is a rather blunt/unflinching film...).  As a result, among other jobs that Marlon's had, has been that he's had to get these child prostitutes taken home after Rep. Mangho's finished with them. (The film is unclear as to whether it was also Marlon's job to "pick-up" and perhaps even "pick-out" the child-prostitutes to begin with...)   In any case near the beginning of the film, we see Marlon being asked by Mangho to stay with a drugged child-prostitute until she woke-up, getting her dressed and then taking her home.  He's also given an envelope by Mangho to give to the family as presumably payment for both "services rendered" and above all to "keep their mouths shut..."

One assumes that Marlon's done this "task" for Mangho before. Well this time, things don't go as planned.  When Marlon drops-off the still groggy/traumatized girl, he's confronted by her grandmother who  hits him over the head several times with a broom, chasing him from their front door to his car.  When he tries to pull out the envelope with the hush money, she just hits him again.  She's not interested ... and ... he's not particularly interested in arguing with her.

Job done, sort of, he goes home and puts his own daughter (about the same age as the child-prostitute) to bed ...

Why does Marlon take/stay in a job like that?  Well for financial and social coercive reasons.  First, he's been working as Mangho's driver for 8 years. It is possible that Mangho wasn't nearly (or certainly not as overtly corrupt when Marlon began working for him).  Further during those eight years, Marlon's and Mangho's family have gotten to know each other.  Indeed, Marlon's daughter Elvie (played by Ella Guevara) and Mangho's daughter (played by Angeli Bayani) go to the same school (a school that Marlon's family otherwise probably could not afford) and the two girls (again about 12-13 years old) are best friends.  Marlon doesn't merely drive Mangho around/run his errands.  He also drives Mangho's daughter and his own daughter to and from said school.  Further, Mangho's English-interspersed-with-her-Tagalog speaking (even higher-class/trophy?) wife Marcy (played by Marife Necesito) has definitely come to trust Marlon in a "good and faithful servant" (she's definitely above him and can tell him what to do) sort of way.   Finally, we find that Marlon's wife (Ellie's mom) is gravely ill, lying in a substandard hospital and it's obvious that Marlon needs the money, indeed, honestly maybe more money than he makes even with this job.


Okay, given that Rep. Mangho is a corrupt pol, he's in a sense "playing tag" (more like "political Russian Roulette") with the Press and the kin of those whose daughters/granddaughters/nieces he's been abusing.  So a few days after Marlon had that rather ugly encounter with the grandmother of the 12 or 13 year old girl that he dropped-off at her house after Mangho had drugged and raped her, the story (surprise, surprise...) makes the front pages of the Manila Press.

Angry, Mangho gives Marlon another envelope with 3 months salary and fires him for (as he would consider it) leaking or, better, not "plugging" the story (Didn't he give Marlon an envelope to give to the relatives of the girl to keep their mouths shut?  Yes, but that irate grandmother didn't want the money... And for whatever reason -- disgust, shame, or ... his own need for the money -- Marlon chose not to press the issue).

Well, summarily fired though he may have been, Marlon still had the task of picking-up his and the Mangho's daughters from school.  Yet this afternoon after he does so as he's on the expressway, he's pulled over by what appears to be angry cop.  Okay, he did something wrong or perhaps he's just being further shaken down...  However, it soon becomes clear that this time it's more than that.  The "cop" (whether he's an actual police officer or not) appears to be part of a gang of thugs who've come to kidnap Mangho's daughter.  But there are two girls in the car.  So after a van comes screaching by and stops next to Marlon's car, the "police officer's" motorcycle parked behind, the abductors take ... both girls.

What a mess.  Marlon's just been fired.  Now he has to explain to his former and still very powerful boss (and actually his boss' wife first) that he's lost their daughter (and indeed his own).  How exactly does one do that?  And yes Mangho, of course, assumes first that Marlon himself kidnapped his (Margho's) daughter and brings out his own thug, the (Police) Detective Ramos (played by Dido de la Paz), to extract and beat if necessary the truth out of him.  All the while, Marlon's wondering how he's going to get his own daughter back when he has no money to pay ransom and a sick wife, gravely ill, convalescing in an obviously lower-end hospital and one who lives only to see him (Marlon) and their daughter (Elvie) at the end each day.  How many excuses can he string together to explain to her why Elvie's with him when he visits her?

It soon becomes clear that the chief abductor, while interested in money (and a whole lot of it) is above all interested in revenge -- and not merely against Mangho but also against Marlon (for having been his driver/underling and hence at least in someway complicit in Mangho's crimes).

How does this get resolved?  Well, I'm not going to tell you ;-) except to say that the resolution is far more interesting than any Hollywood shootout and yet, also, frankly open-ended.  Who honestly was Marlon?   How guilty/complicit was he and ... honestly of what/what all?  This is a really sad/messy/troubled tale.  And it is available, English subtitled, online for rent/purchase for those who'd want to ponder it.


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

The Reluctant Fundamentalist [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III) RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Mozaffar) review
AV Club (S. Adams) review

The Reluctant Fundamentalist [2012] (directed by Mira Nair [IMDb], screenplay William Wheeler, screen story by Ami Boghani and Mohsin Hamid [IMDb] based on Hamid's critically acclaimed / internationally best-selling 2007 novel by the same name) is an excellent, articulate if at times (especially to an American audience) unnerving story that nonetheless deserves renown.

The story deserves renown because both the Indian-born/American college educated, since London/New York residing Nair [IMDb] (her previous films include the acclaimed Monsoon Wedding [2001], The Name Sake [2006] and Mississippi Masala [1991]), as well as the Pakistani-born/American college educated, since U.S./U.K. residing novelist Hamid [IMDb] come from exactly the same milieu as the central character of the story named Changez (played by Riz Ahmed), an upper-middle class Pakistani born/Princeton educated "hungry"/driven/rising "born to win" Wall Street consultant ... who came to a crisis of conscience regarding the "carnivorous"/"dog-eat-dog"/hyper-competitive life that he was leading.  Yes, 9/11 or at least the aftermath and the way he (darker skinned with a beard) suddenly found himself being treated played a part in his dissatisfaction (as no amount of money/prestige could really erase his Pakistani/Muslim "suspicious" looking roots in post-9/11 New York).  But the crisis clearly cut deeper than that.  Yet when he returned home to Pakistan after quitting his "to kill for" Wall Street consulting job and took a job teaching at a University in Lahore, he only became MORE SUSPICIOUS in the jittery eyes of American-intelligence. 

The question of "is he or isn't he?" (a Muslim fundamentalist or at least some kind of a Radical) is then the central question of the film.  To some extent, the answer to the question is telegraphed to the observant.  However, the jitteriness of the American intelligence people in Pakistan (and their need to be sure) is also quite well expressed in the film.  Indeed, to give urgency to the matter, the film plays out in the context of the abduction of an American professor in Lahore, one who was teaching at the university where Changez was teaching.  (The novel presents a less urgent scenario but more-or-less revolves around the same questions of who exactly is Changez and why is he being scrutinized as a possible threat?) 

In the chaos/confusion following the abduction of the American professor (one imagines that American intelligence is screaming/pressuring Pakistani officials for answers while Pakistani law enforcement is going about the business, however half-heartedly/conflictedly, of tracing down the whereabouts of the abducted American professor and his abductors knowing full well that many/most of the local residents probably sympathize more with the abductors than with the abducted American) a renowned currently Pakistan-based American print journalist named Bobby Lincoln (played by Liev Schriber) asks to interview Professor Changez on the matter of this recent abduction (after all, the American Prof taught at Changez' school) and  Professor Changez agrees.  The two meet at a local tea house (a public place ...) to conduct it.

It soon becomes clear that Prof. Changez is quite popular at that tea house (and outside ...)  It also becomes clear that it is precisely the professor's popularity among the locals that makes even the American journalist a bit jittery.  "What do you teach?"  "Political science."  "I've heard that some of your lectures are rather inflamatory."  "Look, I know that the 'Politics of Revolution' is taught as a course in your own country's institutions like Duke University, so don't immediately prejudice our interview like that."  "Well can I tape our interview?" "Only if you tape it in its entirety and that you listen to my whole story." (The journalist agrees).  "Okay, let me tell you from the outset, that contrary to what you may have heard, I am a lover of America.  I received my college education at Princeton ..."

The rest of the story ensues ... one that involves a very good/credible mentor, Jim Cross (played by Kiefer Sutherland) who was Changez' boss at the Wall Street firm and an American girlfriend named Erica (played in the film by Kate Hudson) who I thought was DEAD ON in her role (I write this because in my Grad School days at U.S.C. in Los Angeles when I was in my 20s about a 1/3 of my department was from India/Pakistan and I knew at least 5-6 "Ericas" who were at various times girlfriends of theirs). 

I think that the film and the book, which I read subsequently to seeing the movie but before writing this review were excellent.  (Those who read the book as well as see the movie will know that the two differ significantly in style if ultimately not in substance).  They provide a nuanced view of a complex person who lived many years in two worlds and was able to appreciate the positives of both of them.

I do think that the film may be "educated/elite class heavy."  I suspect that for many Americans the most accessible character in the film would be Changez' kind but often bewildered and in her own way complex American girlfriend Erica (again IMHO Kate Hudson was excellent).

However, I do hope that this nation's elite both in Government and in the Press (that is both Democrat and Republican and both CNN and Fox) see the movie/read the book as both the film/book offer a well-articulated view into the realities of those who lead/influence the groups that currently we most fear.  Even if a Fox-News commentator would hate the book/movie, it would not a waste of time for him/her to read/see it.

As such I admire both the skill and at times the courage of all those associated with this well-articulated and yet also nuanced story.



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

Iron Man 3 [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  M. Zoller Seitz (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review

Iron Man 3 [2013] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Shane Black along with Drew Pearce based on the Marvel Comics characters and story lines created by Stan Lee [IMDb], Larry Lieber [IMDb], Don Heck [IMDb] and Jack Kirby [IMDb]) continues an IMHO remarkable string of excellent and often honestly thought-provoking and even EDIFYING blockbuster films based on those comics.  Indeed, I find myself at times in awe of the capacity of the films based on the Marvel Comics brand (Spider Man [2], The Hulk, Thor [2], Iron Man, Captain America [2] and together as the Avengers [2] as well as the X-Men [2]) to both entertain and offer adults (both parents and religious ministers working with young people) platforms to discuss with young people the basic moral dilemmas presented in the films/stories.

I do believe that a good part of Marvel Comics' success in this regard has been Stan Lee, et al's decision to make their characters -- comic book characters that they are -- multidimensional or "conflicted." The Hulk (Robert Bruce Banner) has to deal with "anger issues" perhaps even more so than the average person because when he gets angry he turns into a gigantic green ball of fury.   Spider-Man (Peter Parker), nerdy high school kid, suddenly given a super-power as a result of an experiment gone awry struggles to see how he could use that special power now for good.  Thor Odinson may have been the son of a (Norse) God (Odin) but he was forced to learn humility (in the comic, Odin banishes Thor to earth in a wheelchair.  The movie is kinder to him, but still he must learn to be humble).  In the present case, Iron Man (Tony Stark) the (in his youth) playboy son of a Howard Hughes-like weapons contractor/patriot/genius of a father has to learn how to use his talents, money and power again for good -- that is, for GOOD (for "America"/"the world") but also for the good (small g) of the people/friends who've been around him and cared for him as he was "growing up" even as "growing up" for him (like many others of his/my generation) really extended into his 30s and 40s.   I can't help but find the message in all these Marvel Comics stories (in the words of Peter Parker's uncle: "With great power comes great responsibility...") as being OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE / EDIFYING and expressed in a language that truly a 10-12 year old could understand and internalize (while even giving adults much to think about ...).

I would also add that "not all comics are equal."  I've had more issues with some of the DC Comics based films because in those comics the emphasis on their superhero/supervillain characters seems to be on the prefix "super."  So DC Comics' "superheroes" are super good (or at least can do no wrong even if they, like Batman, often go above/beyond the law) while their "supervillains" are generally "super Evil," with the only character development there being that a small-time evil character (a small-time thug) gradually becomes a big-time SUPER villain/thug (that's basically the trajectory of the Joker).  Despite this, I actually liked the DC Comics based Dark Night [2008] (above all, for the performances, after all Heath Ledger's Joker was simply incredible ... if incredibly Evil).  But I did not particularly like the rather "popular nietschean" (bordering on "triumph of the will") Green Lantern [2011] and I really disliked Dark Knight Rises [2012] which seemed to me to me either wildly propagandistic or akin to a high schooler's attempt to conflate the Batman comic with Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities in either case a real disappointment but one perhaps becomes more or less inevitable if one makes one's characters either "super good" (or at least super powerful) or "super bad."  In any case, I've found Marvel Comics' more "conflicted" characters far more interesting.

Okay, to the story here.  The film begins with us being told that the story about to play out in the present / recent future actually began with an incident that took place 14 years back, in 1999, when then still irresponsible but definitely super-rich, late 20-something/early 30-something bon vivant Tony Stark (played in the whole film series by Robert Downey, Jr) was partying-up New Years at a Davos-like conference in Switzerland, except he wasn't there to help plan "world monetary policy," or work to "bring an end to malaria," (or even to "fix oil prices...").  He was there really just to party.  And so we see him taking to his hotel room a rather good-looking botanist grad-student named Maya Hansen (played by Rebecca Hall).  She's trying to show him some data and he's more interested in her.  Following closely behind Tony and Maya is another somewhat needy looking but above all, male gradstudent, who also wants to catch the ear of Tony Stark with regards to his project, but Tony isn't interested in him at all.  Tony dismisses the male grad student with a promise that he'll talk to him (on the roof-top of the hotel) sometime the next morning.  Of course, Tony never bothers to show-up on said roof-top the next morning.  Whether Stark purposefully sent that male grad student up to that roof top "to meet with him" that following morning just to make a fool of him (because Stark never showed up) or whether Stark just forgot, it was clear that Tony Stark didn't particularly care ...

Okay, fast forward now to the present (or recent future), a strange vaguely Osama bin Laden looking character calling himself The Manderin (played by Ben Kingsley) starts hijacking television signals/appearing on TV following various explosions presenting himself as "an educator" and making it clear that he wishes "to teach America a lesson."  Okay, except, The Manderin doesn't look at all like the male grad student that Tony Stark blew-off at that conference in Switzerland in 1999.  Who looks kinda like a much better groomed, more mature version of that grad student is a European techno-industrialist named Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce) who comes visiting Stark Enterprises' CEO (and Tony Stark's now girl-friend and since he's realized that he has to start maturing, rock of stability) Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow).  Aldrich tells Pepper that Tony Stark's "never given him the time of day" but that he has been working on a project (regarding brain mapping/chemistry) that could interest Stark Enterprises and since she's the CEO maybe she "could take a look at it ..."  

Well, one of Stark Enterprises' security guards, nick-named "Happy Hogan" (played by Jon Favreau) sees Aldrich and Pepper talking.  He's already somewhat irritated that Aldrich wasn't wearing the security badge that he was supposed to (but just had it in his pocket) but when he sees the two talking he gets even more irritated because he sees the conversation as basically Aldrich hitting on her.  So he calls Tony Stark...

Tony's not particularly concerned (he has other toys/projects on his mind ... that's part of the reason why he made Pepper the CEO so that she would worry about the "big stuff" while he got to play with his gadgets, above all with his Iron Man suit / machines).  So Happy Hogan decides to follow the all-too-well-groomed Aldrich after he leaves Stark Enterprises' facilities.

Hogan follows them to Hollywood in front of Mann's Chinese Theater.  While he's there, there's an explosion and Hogan is wounded.  Soon after the explosion, the Manderin, again looking like a slightly Chinese-accented Osama bin Laden figure (dressed perhaps like a bearded traditional Chinese monk of sorts) again hijacks the world's television signals.  He proceeds to give the world "a lesson" about "Chinese cookies," saying that they are actually an American invention.  So he tells the world that he had decided to destroy another faux Chinese but in reality American creation (Mann's Chinese Theater) to set the record straight.  It seems clear to viewers now that whoever this Manderin is (1) he really, really hates America, and (2) he's crazy...

The next day after visiting his good-natured underling Hogan lying in a coma in the hospital when asked by reporters what he'd do, Tony Stark issues a challenge to "The Manderin, whoever he is," that he'd meet him anywhere he wishes, that he'd beat him and probably kill him "not for patriotism, not for some other high minded motive, but simply for good old fashioned revenge ("you hurt a buddy, now you'll get yours...")  Stark then also (somewhat stupidly) publicly announces to The Manderin (and to the rest of the world) his Malibu address.  And so the Manderin soon pays a visit... the rest of the movie proceeds from there ...

Like the marvel of many of the Marvel Comics stories, this is both a simple story and actually a relatively complex one.  And throughout, we watch Tony struggle with his demons:  He's smart, he's wealthy and as a result at times very powerful.  But he's also at other times quite stupid and has to constantly work on keeping his priorities in order.

Also playing out in this film (and really in the whole Iron Man series) is our own society's struggle to settle on what would be the best/optimal relationship between government and wealthy "captains of industry" like Tony Stark (who is part Howard Hughes, part Bill Gates, part Donald Trump).  Stark often does things better than his friend and U.S. military counterpart Colonel James Rhodes (played by Don Cheatle) or for that matter better than the President.  But Stark, perhaps more like Bill Gates than Donald Trump or our country's various oil men here, thankfully never really pushes the line: Yes he can do a lot of things better than the government, but he also doesn't have to take responsibility for the whole nation.  Rich/powerful as he is, Stark has trouble taking responsibility for his own life, his relationship with Pepper, much less his own firm - whose management he actually outsourced to Pepper.  Could someone like him really take responsibility for the whole nation?  It'd be one heck of a ride ;-)

Again, a fascinating movie ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Renoir [2012]

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

IMDb listing
Chicago SunTimes (K. MacMillan) review

Renoir [2012] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Gilles Bourdos along with Jérôme Tonnerre based on work by French cinematographer Jacques Renoir) is a French (English subtitled) biopic / period piece set in 1915 (during World War I) that focuses on the relationship the famed but aging Impressionist painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir (played in the film by Michel Bouquet), his wounded but soon to be returning to the war son Jean Renoir (played in the film by Vincent Rottiers) who later became a famous French and later Hollywood director [IMDb], and the elder Renoir's model and later the younger Renoir's first wife, Andrée Heuschling (played by Christa Theret) who later went by the actress/stage name Catherine Hessling [IMDb].


So much takes place though at a leisurely pace amid the natural beauty of the elder Pierre-August Renoir's farm/retreat outside of the town of Cagnes-Sur-Mer along the coast of Southern France even as the world that they had all known seemed (at least in some sense) to be very much in danger of crumbling due to the War raging to the North. 

Indeed, the War and the attitudes of the two Renoirs toward it seems to be at the center of the film:  Both the elder and the younger Renoirs are resigned to it but approach it in different ways.

The younger, Jean, who entered the war as a cavalry officer and was grievously wounded once, is hurrying to heal so that he could return to fight again (he eventually does, entering the Air Corps which wouldn't require him to have to run much ...).

The older, Pierre-August, who had spent his life painting gentle, rolling, peaceful pictures, even refusing during the whole of his life to use the color black in any of his paintings, accepts the reality of the war and even the possibility of the political destruction of his country.  However, he refused to paint anything other than what he had always painted -- natural beauty ... with an occasional woman, clothed or less so (yes, this is an R-rated film with nudity though no more than what one would expect to see at an Impressionist museum...), occasionally thrown in.  The need for a model then would be the reason for the presence of the young pretty Andrée at Renoir's retreat and really of a whole entourage of other women who Pierre-August often kept on (working in the kitchen or around the house) when they got older so they had a place to stay after their modeling years had come to an end. 

The horror of the War playing out to the North is not at all hidden in the film.  Jean had been grievously wounded in the leg.  We, the viewers, are shown the wound.  We also see Pierre-Auguste's other military aged son, Pierre, come back with a WW I era prosthetic arm, three metal claws and all.  We also see other wounded soldiers, faces burned by flames, gun powder (and worse...), missing limbs, hobbling on crutches along the various roads of the area.  It's all there, in spades really.

What Pierre-Auguste refused to do (what Pablo Picasso would do later) was to paint them.  Instead, he chose to continue to paint fields, flowers and lovely, somewhat rotund (thus cared for, not starving) young and middle aged women, all of which/whom would continue to exist no matter who won the conflict up North.


<< 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! :-) >>

Blancanieves [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars with Expl)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Blancanieves [2012] (screenplay and directed by Pablo Berger) is an internationally critically acclaimed and award winning (including 10 Goya Awards, Spain's equivalent of the Oscars) b&w silent screen adaptation  of the Brothers Grimm fairytale Snow White set in and around turn-of-the-20th century Seville, Spain and in the context of that most Iberian of traditions Bull Fighting.  The film comes on the heels of the previous year's internationally critically acclaimed/award winning French b&w silent screen sensation The Artist [2011] as well as two other recent (indeed 2012) American treatments -- Mirror, Mirror [2012] and Snow White and the Huntsman [2012] -- of this particular story.

One could initially ask: what could this film possibly add?  Well simply from a stylistic point of view, it should be clear that Blancanieves [2012] seeks to put itself in a completely different realm of cinema (classic, in league with such masterpieces as Jean Cocteau's post WW-II The Beauty and the Beast (orig. La Belle et la Bête) [1946]) as compared to the far more "popular fare" treatments of the story by the two other films, which in a few years will almost certainly be largely forgotten.

More interestingly, arguably Blancanieves [2012] builds on the success of The Artist [2011], and "moves the ball" as it were. The Artist [2011] excellent though it was, was, above all, a nostalgia piece being at least as much about the "b&w silent screen era of cinema" itself as about telling a particular story (in the b&w silent screen idiom).  In contrast, IMHO Blancanieves [2012] actually seeks to tell a story choosing then to do so using the b&w silent screen medium.  Will the b&w silent screen medium prove suited to tell other stories in the future?  The answer obviously lies in the creativity and resourcefulness of cinematic artists.

So what is Blancanieves [2012] about?  The film seeks to follow the story of Grimm's Snow White story (Blancanieves means Snow White in Castilian Spanish) while placing the story in the context of turn of the 20th century Spanish bull-fighting.

The film begins with heroic, widely celebrated bullfighter Don Antonio Villarta (played by Daniel Giménez Cacho) praying before a classically Spanish statue of Our Lady of Sorrows, seven swords in her heart [cf. Luke 2:35 "And you yourself (Mary) a sword will pierce so that the hearts of many will be revealed" reflecting my own (Servite) Order's devotion to the Seven Sorrows of Mary] prior to entering into Seville's famous bull ring to take-up the challenge of taking-down 7 bulls in the course of the afternoon.

Don Antonio's wife, Carmen (played by Inma Cuesta) a former flamenco dancer (another classically Spanish archetype) now expecting their first child is (along with her mother) in the audience.

Don Antonio has no trouble defeating the first five bulls and seems to be about to slay the sixth, nicknamed Lucifer, when something goes wrong.  For a split second he's distracted (for actually a very contemporary reason, but it works for the time in question as well) and instead of slaying the bull (Lucifer), the bull gores him.  Horrified, Carmen, in the crowd faints.

After the stunned attendants on the field chase the bull away, Don Antonio is taken quickly to the hospital named again for Our Lady of Sorrows (which when one thinks about it, is actually a terrible name for a hospital ... ;-) ... the name actually would work better for a counseling center / memorial chapel.  One would probably prefer to go to a hospital called Our Lady of Perpetual Help.  But then this is a Spanish story / tragedy and the Spanish speaking world has also been known historically for its rather graphic depictions of Jesus crucified and very large/thorny crowns of thorns).

Carmen (who goes into in labor after she faints) is taken to the hospital as well.

Don Antonio is saved though paralyzed as a result of his injuries, while Carmen dies after giving birth to their daughter Carmencita.  In shock from his own injuries and the loss of his wife, Don Antonio can not bear to even take a look at the little newborn when she's brought to him.  Carmencita (played as a child by Sofia Oria) is thus raised for the first part of her life by her grandmother (Carmen's mother) while Don Antonio recovers and eventually marries his scheming nurse named Encarna (played by Maribel Verdú).

When Carmencita's grandmother dies suddenly (presumably of a heart attack after doing a flamenco dance) at Carmencita's first communion party, Carmencita is taken to her father, who's holed-up in a country estate named "Monte Olvido" (The Mountain of Forgetting / Abandonment), run now (presumably using Don Antonio's money) by Encarna (now to become Carmencita's wicked step-mother).  Indeed, in this part of the film, Carmencita's existence more resembles Cinderella's than Snow White's as she's forced to live in the basement of the estate, does all the hard chores of the house (even though she's only 7-8 years old) and she's never ever allowed to go to the second floor, where Don Antonio is holed-up, and probably doesn't even know that his daughter is now living below.

Eventually fate lends a hand through Carmencita's wandering pet chicken, who plays a role akin to the dog in The Artist [2011].  So Carmencita finds her way to the second floor (chasing after said wandering amiable chicken) and finds her father (paralyzed in a wheelchair) there.  While Don Antonio initially didn't even realize that his daughter was now living in the same compound as he, he's quickly able to put it together:  Carmencita looks kinda like her mother, already seems to be quite good at flamenco, and when she picks-up the toreador's cape there by Don Antonio's stuff recalling his glory days, she proves to be a natural.  Don Antonio, who's had no one to talk to for a very long time, teaches her a trick or two of the trade, even though, at this point, it's just for fun as Carmencita was both a girl (Toreadors were traditionally men and Spain was traditionally a very Macho country) and still "just a kid" (only about 8-9).

Well, eventually Encarna catches wind of Carmencita's having found her father upstairs (where Carmencita had been forbidden to go) and that the two were enjoying each other's company far more than she enjoyed either of them.  So (as a wicked person after all...) she can't bear the two enjoying each other's company that much.  So she asks a trusted servant (and lover?) to take good-old Carmencita out into the woods some distance off the estate and to kill her.  The servant can't bring himself to do so.  So Carmencita escapes...

This is when Fate lends another hand ... and Carmencita finds herself being picked-up and rescued by a traveling circus act calling itself "The Bullfighting Dwarfs" (dwarfs that would bull-fight, but, of course only calves...).  The rest of the film ensues ...

Obviously, eventually Carmencita grows-up with these dwarfs, and thus their act eventually becomes "The Toreadora and the 7 Bullfighting Dwarfs" and eventually they make it to the famed Plaza de Toros back in Seville.  There, an older but still very much wicked Encarna, who had figured out who this surprising and increasingly famous Toreadora had to be ... comes to visit her ... with an apple ...

Does the story work?  What do you think?  I honestly think it does, and certainly a good part of the film's charm is that it was made in the b&w silent screen style with generally only vintage (piano) music playing in the background.  Does the bullfighting in the story get old?  IMHO, it could, but there's enough variation to keep it fresh: (1) We see "the pro" at the beginning, (2) we see the little Carmencita playing with here dad, (3) we see the Dwarfs Bull Fighting against Calves and (4) we see the grown Carmencita taking on "a real bull" by the end ...

So this is a surprising movie folks and it reminds us of the storytelling possibilities available these days.  And yes it does make me wonder if between Blancanieves [2012] and The Artist [2011] preceding it, we're actually witnessing the beginning of a revival of this long thought dead (b&w silent screen) art form.  Can more be done with with it?  Who honestly knows?  A year ago, I would have thought The Artist [2011] would have been a one shot deal.  Now I'm no longer sure ;-).

And as a Servite priest, I can not but appreciate the film's repeated allusions to my (Servite) Order's Principal Patroness Our Lady of Sorrows (USA Province).

In any case great job folks, great job!


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

La Playa D.C. [2012]

MPAA (UR would be R)   Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

La Playa D.C. [2012] (written and directed by Juan Andrés Arango Garcia) is a simple yet well crafted Afro-Colombian film playing Apr 26-May 3, 2013 at Facets Multimedia Theater in Chicago.  It's about an Afro-Colombian teenager named Tomás (played by Luis Carlos Guevara) whose family had recently migrated from the countryside to the slums at the outskirts of Bogota.  Why?  There'd be plenty of reasons: poverty/ongoing violence in the countryside, the death of (abandonment by) the father of the family, etc.  In any case, the family felt compelled to move, and as expected the move proved to be difficult.

With the father out of the picture, the mother had entered into a relationship with a Bogota local, a security guard with whom the children, above all, the story's central protagonist, teenage Tomás, had difficulty. Indeed, the conflict had proven so great that the film pretty much begins with the mother's new man giving her an ultimatum: Either Tomás leaves home or he's gonna leave her.  The mother with a new baby (presumably with her new man) and with few options, reluctantly asks Tomás to leave.

Tomás packs up his things (in what would be a single school backpack) and heads out.  He does have an older brother who lives on his own, in a single room (with simple mat for a bed) further in town.  The older brother talks to his landlady, explains to her the situation (above all that Tomás is a relation and not a potential lover), they make an arrangement and Tomás now has a roof over his head.

Much of what follows is about Tomás figuring out a way to make a livelihood.  Fortunately he did have a small talent/skill: he liked/knew how to draw.  Now normally that skill and a few bits of change would get you a cup of coffee... However, Tomás had the sense to turn that small skill into something that could make some money: he decided to try to become a barber offering to shave those those little pictures/designs that he'd draw into peoples hair for a small fee.  Even for this, however, he still needed to make some money -- to buy a few razor blades and then a set of electrical clippers.  Tomás made a deal with a somewhat more established barber and seemed to be on his way to make enough money to buy the electric clippers that the more established barber had lent him.

All would be wonderful (or at least more manageable) if not for Tomás having a younger brother, honestly no more than 10-12 years old, who had become addicted to Colombia's equivalent of crack cocaine.  At first, Tomás along with the rest of his family (including his mother who had thrown him out of her house) had been simply looking for this younger member of the family who had disappeared into the streets of Bogota soon after Tomás thrown out of the house.  Since Tomás had that skill of being able to draw, he even created some simple "missing child" posters that he put-up with moderate success around the neighborhood (some of the shopkeepers weren't too keen these "missing child" posters near their stores (they tended to depress people or make the neighborhood appear more dangerous than they would have liked it to appear).

But when Tomás finds his brother, new problems arise.  After all, Tomás' younger brother is addicted to drugs which cost money, money that really no one in Tomás' family had.  So here's Tomás trying to hustle up enough business with his borrowed clippers and a few razors cutting/shaving designs into people's hair hoping to eventually save enough money to buy those clippers from the good man who had lent them to him.  IN THE MEANTIME there's his younger brother consuming more crack than he could pay for ... with thugs (not particularly big thugs but enough of them) beginning to circle 'round Tomás to try to shake him down for the money that his younger brother owed.  What a nightmare... Eventually something has to give, and it does ...

La Playa D.C. is a sad but obviously poignant glimpse into the struggles of a simple afro-Colombian family living at the edge (margins) of a big city in Colombia today.  It's also a reminder how drug addiction, already a problem when a family has some means, becomes an almost unbearable burden (and certainly life and death struggle) when one's family is poor.  All in all a very good if very sad film.


ADDENDUM - My religious order, the Servants of Mary, has its own experience working in Latin America (Brazil) with families already facing marginalization and difficult circumstances struggling on top of that with drug addiction at the home.  Here's a link to a chapter on the subject from the book produced by the Brazilian Servites on The Amazonia We Do Not Know (2006). 

 
<< 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! :-) >>