MPAA (UR would be R) Fr. Dennis (3 1/4 Stars)
IMDb listing
CSFD listing
FDB.cz listing
Signál [2012] [IMDB][CSFD]*[FDB]* (directed by Tomáš Řehořek [IMDb][CSFD]*[FDB]*, screenplay by Marek Epstein [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) which played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago as part of the 2013 Czech That Film Tour (cosponsored by the Czech Rep.'s Diplomatic Mission in the United States and Prague's Staropramen Beer) fills a perhaps inevitable but ever pleasant/entertaining and often insightful spot in any Slavic film festival or tour -- the film about "village life."
On this blog, I've previously reviewed Russian Reserve (orig. Русский заповедник) [2010] (Russia, 2012 Chicago Peace on Earth Film Festival), The House (orig. Dom/Dům) [2011] (Slovakia/C.R. 2012 Chicago European Union Film Festival), The Matchmaking Mayor (orig. Nesvatbov) [2010] (Slovakia/C.R. 2012 Czech Film Tour), Father, Son and Holy Cow (orig. Święta Krowa) [2011] (Poland/Germany, 2012 Chicago Polish Film Festival in America) and if time would have worked out, I would have seen one or two other such films at the 2011 Chicago Polish Film Festival as well...).
Why such a film is perhaps inevitable in any Slavic Film Festival or Tour is because even if most Slavic peoples are primarily urban now, village life remains part and parcel of the Slavic psyche/imagination. "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a peasant." Poland literally means "Land of Fields" Polák literally means "Man/One from the Fields." And across the Slavic world, even if one normally lives in the city, "going to the country" is what one does in the summer, especially on weekends.
But, of course, most people in Slavic lands now live in the city. So those who actually live in the villages year round are often looked-down upon. Both in Poland and in the Czech Republic a country-dweller is often called a "Buran" which means "Hick" with the same pejorative connotations.
So this then forms the background of this comedy called Signál [2012]. Two college students, Filoš (played by Vojtěch Dyk [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) a music/voice major and Kája (played by Kryštof Hádek [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) a physics major who at the end of the summer is scheduled to begin graduate studies at the CERN laboratories in Switzerland (Note that I have a distant Czech cousin who's a physicist who finds himself regularly visiting CERN as well) spend their summer traveling around the Czech countryside putting-on a prank: They find villages which still don't have cell-phone service for lack of a signal and then enter said villages impersonating representatives of a cell-phone company looking for sites to put-up cell-phone towers, promising the owners of the land on which the cell phone tower would be built a non-inconsequential annual payment for the use of their land. The villagers eager for some extra income would then house / feed them and perhaps offer them a modest bribe for special consideration.
So the two had spent most of their summer this way, amiably B.S.ing similarly amiable "country folk" happily eating their food, crashing on couches in theirs attics and, yes (since they are young after all...) flirting and occasionally sleeping with their daughters / other womenfolk. Then after spending a week or two walking around (with appropriate "seriousness" ...) the countryside surrounding the village with an electronic gadget that would harken back to the divining rods of dowsers, who in ages past would similarly traverse the countryside identifying auspicious places to dig wells or perhaps even look for mineral deposits (Even as late as the late-1950s my paternal grandfather invited a dowser over to help him find a good place to dig a well), the two would solemnly declare to a town meeting of the village in question that they had taken their measurements, that they would now report their back to their headquarters where the final decision as to the location of the new cell tower would be made , and then they ... skip town ;-)
Now why would the two have the time or desire to put on such a scam? Well higher-education in the C.R. as across most of Europe remains generally merit based. That is, so long a student is accepted into a university program and maintains a requisite grade-point average, the education given is paid-for by the state. ON THE OTHER HAND, like across much of Europe, there aren't a lot of jobs for young people both while they are studying and afterwards. Then consider that if one accepts the premise of a few paragraphs above that most city-dwellers in Slavic lands tend to gravitate toward the country during summer time, this further depletes the need for any "seasonal work" in the cities during the summer. Indeed, since Communist times, one of the few sources of extra income that college-aged Czechs would have during the summer would be to take on a "brigada" (lit. join a brigade) to help with farm work and especially with the harvest. Indeed, near the beginning of the film, one of the two adventuring/scamming university students, Kája, is heard calling his somewhat incredulous mother from a village where he is staying (using a payphone because, said village still doesn't have cell-phone access...) to tell her that he is "still" on one of those brigadas.
Anyway, the film takes place near the end of the summer as the two enter the last village that they are going to scam in this way. They drive-up in their van (with a magnetic temporary decal identifying it as belonging to some official sounding alphabet soup acronym-ed cell-phone company), change into their still very much student looking suits (but hey, they're wearing at least suit-coat and tie) and with a projector, they enter village's local pub to give their spiel (pitch). They go through the usual, saying that they represent this very serious sounding alphabet soup acronym-ed telecom company, that they are here to survey sites to extend their company's coverage to their picturesque little village and ... that the owner of the property on which the new cell tower would be built would get 5,000 annually from the telecom company for their troubles. PERHAPS because the villagers didn't seem particularly impressed by the pitch or the sum offered, or PERHAPS because it was simply the end of the summer (the last time that they would try to pull this scam off for the summer...), Filoš adds "I naturally mean 5,000 Euros" (not 5,000 Czech crowns, the Czech Rep. perhaps with aspirations of becoming of a new Switzerland (some would say "with delusions of becoming another Switzerland ;-), is one of the few states in the E.U. which has never chosen to get on the Euro. Though still largely pegged-to but independent of the Euro, the exchange rate as about 20 Kč / Euro).
Well the prospect of getting an extra income of 5,000 Euro a year, catches the attention of the villagers and for the first time the two start getting showered by some similarly serious bribes. Mr. Pilka (played by Karel Roden [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) probably already the richest man in the village saw the potential extra income from the cell tower as a means to finally give him the capital to restart the saw mill/lumber business that his family once had (his last name actually means "little saw."). The late-teenage daughter Verunka (played by Eva Josefíková [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) of the pub owner Staněk (played by Bolek Polivka [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) saw the potential revenue as helping her widowed father get out of debt (and possibly helping her get on with her life as she hoped to go onto nursing school). The mayor, Medek (played by Norbert Lichý [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*), sees the potential new income as a means to finally allow the village pay for some of the amenities that their "sister village" in Austria has long had (new sidewalks, a library, a nice fountain in the center of town). He confesses to the two young scam-artists that he's tired of being embarrassed by "those Tyrolese" whose village is always a few steps ahead of them. Even the town's gypsy bus-driver Mato (played by Viliam Čonka [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) gets into the action perhaps hoping that he could also use the money quit his job or get out of town.
Only the village hermit Prokeš (played by Jiří Menzel [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) who lives in a house at the edge of town and refuses to have even electricity is unimpressed. But as is often case (my paternal grandmother's village had a very similar figure with a very similar story ;-), village hermit though he is, Prokeš is no dummy. A former physicist, he returned back to his village in the 1950s after being refused by the Communist authorities of the time the go-ahead on the construction of a particle accelerator that he tells faux cell-tower salesman/actual physics student Kája the Canadians built soon afterwards. Throughout the two college students' stay, he repeatedly engages the two in technical conversations about the cell tower to the increasing worry of Kája who feels he's onto them. Kája soon proves both scared of him and intrigued by him (as Kája's going to be going to CERN at the end of the summer, the site of the famous Hadron particle accelerator). Kája tells Filoš that there's no way that they're going to be able to pull this prank, which has turned into a potentially punishable scam off.
For his part Filoš is initially too distracted chasing after first the inn-keeper's daughter Verunka and then Pilka's rather neglected and (as we find later, abused) wife (played by Kateřina Winterová [IMDB] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) even as the various bribes start coming in.
Now how to just get out of town? Well initially, they try to do what they've done in the other villages that they've pulled this prank on over the summer: After dutifully walking about the village and its surrounding fields and countryside with their very serious looking instrument, they announce to the villagers that they've taken their measurements and are going to send the results to HQ. "And?" ask the villagers. "Well, HQ will decide." But this time, each of the villagers has put some serious money down on the result going their way. They don't appear to be willing to accept the line. Filoš then grasps at a second straw: "Truth be told, we've found that EVERYONE ONE OF YOU would have a suitable site for the tower." "And?" respond the villagers. "Well, you've been so nice to us, all of you, that we feel that we really can't decide." ;-)
What now? Two scammers throw the question back to the villagers. They decide to "race for it" the next day riding motor-scooters up to a hilltop ruin of a castle nearby. "PERFECT," the two tell them and then request that they could stay with the village hermit (who lives at the edge of town) that night (hoping to get away). Well the next day, the villagers get on their motor scooters to race to the ruin of the nearby castle, while the two hope to run out of town in the opposite direction. But the two find that the villagers had removed the tires from their truck 'for safe keeping' and the motorbike that they find has little gas... in the meantime, the villagers race up the nearby hilltop castle ... and what do they find already being built there? ;-) ;-)
Pissed off, they race back down to catch the two scoundrels. Much still ensues as the two had been forced to try to flee without their truck (which the villagers had put on blocks) and then, surprise ... even the bribe money that they had received is ... gone. Who had it? If the two scoundrels didn't have it? Then who? And how much did everybody give these two clowns anyway? ;-)
So everybody finds that they have mud on their faces ;-) And much still has to be resolved. And it is, and as a good story, it all ends well ;-).
It's a goofy story, touching on some fairly important issues in the contemporary C.R., including, of course, corruption. But it ends also with a smile. And pretty much everybody wins.
The film ends with a cheerful big-bandy number called "Čekám na Signál" ("Waiting for a Signal") sung by Vojtěch Dyk [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* who played the music major in the film ;-). It all makes for a very, very fun ride. Good job! Dobre jste to odehrály ;-)
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If
you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6
_non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To
donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Friday, July 5, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
The Lone Ranger [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (L) ChicagoTribune (1 Star) ChicagoSunTimes (1 1/2 Stars) RE.com (3 1/2 Stars) AVClub (B-) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Chicago Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
Chicago Tribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
In our often rather ideologically polarized times, one's opinion of the certainly "reimagined" and perhaps at times "reinvented" The Lone Ranger [2013] (directed by Gore Verbinski, screenplay/story by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio based on the beloved American icon The Lone Ranger of radio / golden era of television days) will probably depend one's answers to a few questions: (1) Do you know what Tonto means in Spanish? ;-), (2) Do you believe that rich, powerful white men are always good?
If one knows what "tonto" means in Spanish then, John Read/Lone Ranger's (played by Armie Hammer's) companion Tonto (played IMHO surprisingly well by Johnny Depp in his characteristic deadpan style) is hilarious. (In this film, we get to find out what even the people of his own tribe thought of him ;-). If one doesn't know what "tonto" means, well ... one would have missed a good part of the film ;-). Now why would a Comanche Indian carry a Spanish nickname? Well, why would an actual/historical Apache chief carry the Spanish name Geronimo (Spanish for Jerome)?
Then while this film wouldn't do particularly well at any Rush Limbaugh sponsored film festival, railroad barons like the film's chief villain Cole (played by Tom Wilkinson) were not particularly liked in their own time. They didn't earn the title "Robber Barons" from both their Irish immigrant railroad workers (generally nobody even bothered to ask, or even knew how to ask..., the Chinese immigrant railroad workers of what they thought of them ...) and white plains settlers for nothing. The railroad workers found that they were paid miserably for backbreaking/dangerous work and even the settlers found that it really didn't matter how much grain they planted/harvested, because the money that they made was going to be sucked-up by the railroads anyway. (And again, nobody even cared what the Native Americans thought of the railroads that they built over what used to be their land and pretty much brought an end to their way of life). So, yes, this film is largely about what many on the Right today would decry as "Class warfare..." resulting in rather predictable differences in opinion today.
Now the Left has added its own tendacious/ideological goofiness to the film. In this film, we first meet John Read, the future Lone Ranger, sitting on a train heading West in the midst of a group of psalm/hymn-singing Presbyterians (Christians). One of the ladies asks him if he'd like to join them. He lifts up his black-bound volume of John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" and responds "this is my Bible." Yeah, right ... Perhaps that'd be possible in Boston, Thomas Jefferson's Monticello or Philadelphia of the 1780s, but on the American Wild West frontier of the 1870s, I would find that response very, very doubtful. To put it another way, John Read even before becoming "the Lone Ranger" would have been really, really "unique."
What then to say about the film? Well, a lot of the background, I've already set above. The story takes place in the late 1860s / early 1870s in the context of the construction of the first Transcontinental Railroad. So one has the Railroad / Railroad Workers, the Indians, the Settlers, Bandits, the (U.S.) Cavalry out there to provide the first/most basic presence of "civilizing" (or "colonizing" ...) Order and the embrionic presence of a future more regular policing force in the form of the (Texas) Rangers. (Texas? Yup, the geography of the film is rather fluid, though the boundaries of the time were somewhat fluid as well. The Republic of Texas entered the United States in the 1840s larger than the state of Texas is today).
In the film, John Read's brother Dan (played by James Badge Dale) is a Texas Ranger, who upon John's arrival out West "deputizes" him. (Hence we learn how John Read becomes a "Ranger" to begin with ... What's left is to find out how/why he becomes "The Lone Ranger..." and that of course becomes the rest of the story...)
Is the story realistic? Well, were a lot of the stories from "The Old West" realistic? The ingredients to making a good, captivating story are present. And as in any Legend, bits of the story are based on historical truth, tweaked, often tweaked _a lot_, to make a good story. In this regard, the film compares quite well to The Mask of Zorro [1998] (which starred Antonio Banderas, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones) which uses many of the same Old-Westish elements to put together a wonderfully entertaining "alternative" history to the origins of California.
Will you like it? Well, even a survey of reviewers indicates that older/more established reviewers didn't like it. Younger, less established ones did. Go figure ... ;-)
<< 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 Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
Chicago Tribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
In our often rather ideologically polarized times, one's opinion of the certainly "reimagined" and perhaps at times "reinvented" The Lone Ranger [2013] (directed by Gore Verbinski, screenplay/story by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio based on the beloved American icon The Lone Ranger of radio / golden era of television days) will probably depend one's answers to a few questions: (1) Do you know what Tonto means in Spanish? ;-), (2) Do you believe that rich, powerful white men are always good?
If one knows what "tonto" means in Spanish then, John Read/Lone Ranger's (played by Armie Hammer's) companion Tonto (played IMHO surprisingly well by Johnny Depp in his characteristic deadpan style) is hilarious. (In this film, we get to find out what even the people of his own tribe thought of him ;-). If one doesn't know what "tonto" means, well ... one would have missed a good part of the film ;-). Now why would a Comanche Indian carry a Spanish nickname? Well, why would an actual/historical Apache chief carry the Spanish name Geronimo (Spanish for Jerome)?
Then while this film wouldn't do particularly well at any Rush Limbaugh sponsored film festival, railroad barons like the film's chief villain Cole (played by Tom Wilkinson) were not particularly liked in their own time. They didn't earn the title "Robber Barons" from both their Irish immigrant railroad workers (generally nobody even bothered to ask, or even knew how to ask..., the Chinese immigrant railroad workers of what they thought of them ...) and white plains settlers for nothing. The railroad workers found that they were paid miserably for backbreaking/dangerous work and even the settlers found that it really didn't matter how much grain they planted/harvested, because the money that they made was going to be sucked-up by the railroads anyway. (And again, nobody even cared what the Native Americans thought of the railroads that they built over what used to be their land and pretty much brought an end to their way of life). So, yes, this film is largely about what many on the Right today would decry as "Class warfare..." resulting in rather predictable differences in opinion today.
Now the Left has added its own tendacious/ideological goofiness to the film. In this film, we first meet John Read, the future Lone Ranger, sitting on a train heading West in the midst of a group of psalm/hymn-singing Presbyterians (Christians). One of the ladies asks him if he'd like to join them. He lifts up his black-bound volume of John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" and responds "this is my Bible." Yeah, right ... Perhaps that'd be possible in Boston, Thomas Jefferson's Monticello or Philadelphia of the 1780s, but on the American Wild West frontier of the 1870s, I would find that response very, very doubtful. To put it another way, John Read even before becoming "the Lone Ranger" would have been really, really "unique."
What then to say about the film? Well, a lot of the background, I've already set above. The story takes place in the late 1860s / early 1870s in the context of the construction of the first Transcontinental Railroad. So one has the Railroad / Railroad Workers, the Indians, the Settlers, Bandits, the (U.S.) Cavalry out there to provide the first/most basic presence of "civilizing" (or "colonizing" ...) Order and the embrionic presence of a future more regular policing force in the form of the (Texas) Rangers. (Texas? Yup, the geography of the film is rather fluid, though the boundaries of the time were somewhat fluid as well. The Republic of Texas entered the United States in the 1840s larger than the state of Texas is today).
In the film, John Read's brother Dan (played by James Badge Dale) is a Texas Ranger, who upon John's arrival out West "deputizes" him. (Hence we learn how John Read becomes a "Ranger" to begin with ... What's left is to find out how/why he becomes "The Lone Ranger..." and that of course becomes the rest of the story...)
Is the story realistic? Well, were a lot of the stories from "The Old West" realistic? The ingredients to making a good, captivating story are present. And as in any Legend, bits of the story are based on historical truth, tweaked, often tweaked _a lot_, to make a good story. In this regard, the film compares quite well to The Mask of Zorro [1998] (which starred Antonio Banderas, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones) which uses many of the same Old-Westish elements to put together a wonderfully entertaining "alternative" history to the origins of California.
Will you like it? Well, even a survey of reviewers indicates that older/more established reviewers didn't like it. Younger, less established ones did. Go figure ... ;-)
<< 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, July 3, 2013
Despicable Me 2 [2013]
MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-I) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (C) Fr. Dennis (1 Star)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
I'd like to begin here by paying tribute to (arguably eulogize) the first Despicable Me [2010] movie. I loved that film. I saw it as part of a series of outstanding childrens' films including Finding Nemo [2003], The Incredibles [2004], Wall-E [2008], Up [2009], How to Train Your Dragon [2010] even Happy Feet [2006] (which I didn't particularly like but our teenage/Hispanic evening receptionist at the time just loved it along with her entire family).
Indeed, part of the reason why I started this blog in the fall of 2010 (in the months following the summer-time releases of the first Despicable Me [2010] and How to Train Your Dragon [2010]) was that I was expecting to be writing some very positive reviews about the children's movies that are coming out. Let's face it, Catholics/religious folks are generally skeptical of Hollywood and so I was expecting to be writing: "Don't put Hollywood unnecessarily down, there's some very nice stuff and especially for kids being produced these days by our movie people."
Instead, I've found myself having created my blog AFTER THE END of that lovely and perhaps innocent era of recent children's animated films. For today it's more or less obviously become another battleground of our "culture wars." AND FOLKS, IT'S NOT PRETTY. There has been an obvious, hammer-over-the-head NATIVISM / RACISM pervading MANY / MOST "children's films" made since 2010:
(1) "The Diary of a Wimpy Kid" series might as well be called "Diary of a WASPY Kid" because THE ONLY NON-WHITE kid in the entire series is a RICH INDIAN KID who all the other (WHITE) kids make fun of. (No Blacks, no Hispanics, no East Asians, just one Indian kid who it's "okay" to pick on ... I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...)
(2) The film Hop [2011], screenplay by "Cinco" Paul (though there is absolutely NOTHING Hispanic about him) has a Anglo-American "slacker" teenager from L.A. joining forces with English-accented "Easter Bunnies" to keep "uppity" HISPANIC accented "peeps"/"Easter chicks" led by HECTOR the "ringleader/foreman" of the "Easter chick proletariat" in their place. Seriously again, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...
(3) Hoodwinked Too [2011] - has an ALL Anglo/English Accented "Happy Ending Agency" (a fairy tale C.I.A. ...) keeping the fairy-tale world safe from A VERITABLE MOB of VARIOUSLY ACCENTED VILLANS (a Russian accented witch named Verushka, three Hispanic accented pigs bent on wreaking vengeance against an English accented "Big Bad Wolf" (since turned "good guy") for having "blown their house down." Each time the three stage guerrilla style attacks on said "former-Big Bad Wolf" they cry out "Viva los Puercos!" (AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...) and even German accented "Hansel and Grettel" who turn out to be the true super-villains of the story ...
(4) In Cars 2 [2011], Larry the Cable Guy's pickup and Owen Wilson's American sports car (Lighting McQueen) join forces with Michael Caine's BRITISH SPORTS CAR (Finn McMissile) to fight a CRIME SINDICATE of ugly "loser" non-Anglo-American cars (Italian Fiats, Former East German Trabants and Former Yugoslav Yugos) that want to somehow undermine the proper status of things (AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...)
And now this film Despicable Me 2 [2013] (directed by Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud, screenplay by Ken Daurio and NON-HISPANIC with a Hispanic sounding name Cinco Paul) sequel to the beloved first movie only here in the NEW MOVIE the formerly-evil and still RUSSIAN ACCENTED Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) fights the STILL EVIL, STILL HISPANIC ACCENTED "El Macho" with "personal hygeine issues" (voiced by Benjamin Bratt. Apparently Al Pacino who was originally slated to play Eduardo/El Macho's role walked away from the role ... Good for you Al Pacino!).
And who are the "good folks" in the current story? YOU GUESSED IT, an ALL Anglo/American "Anti Villain League" with Anglo-American accented agent Lucy (voiced by Kristen Wiig) and its Kings-English accented head, Sir Ramsbottom (voiced by ). To be fair, both the Minions and even Gru have fun with Sir Ramsbottom's name ... but the point is that ONCE AGAIN the all "Good Folks" are Anglo and all the "non-Good Folks" (even Russian Accented Gru himself) are non-Anglo ...
Then add that "El Macho's" very suave/debonair son Antonio (voiced by Moises Arias) first "woos" and then DUMPS Margo (voiced by Miranda Cosgrove) oldest of the cute-as-a-button three little girls that Gru's taken care of since the first movie. But then aren't ALL HISPANIC BOYS love 'em and leave 'em "Latin Lovers..."???
So how can I, who in my "day job" have worked since my Ordination in largely/predominantly HISPANIC parishes, possibly LET THIS KIND OF EVIL MESSAGING GO?
In my current parish, 75% of the kids attending our school are _cute as a button_ Hispanic kids. In the CCD program, this rises to nearly 90% (AGAIN ALL GOOD KIDS!). The Anglo kids are _also_ cute/good. But look at the numbers. How can I recommend a film like this that makes fun of the families of 75-90% of the kids in my parish? How?
Then consider Hollywood's stupidity in all of this: The majority of Americans under 17 years of age AREN'T EVEN WHITE ANYMORE. By its OWN STUPID RACISM it's disqualifying itself from its own future audience! And is a message of Anglo-American supremacy exactly helping it in markets outside of the U.S.? It's all really, really dumb.
And it's sad, because OTHERWISE the film would be very, very cute. The Minions are absolutely adorable and the addition of the Kristen Wiig character was great as well.
But why then throw all that CUTENESS away to deliver a STUPIDLY NATIVIST/RACIST MESSAGE. Why?
<< 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
RogerEbert.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
I'd like to begin here by paying tribute to (arguably eulogize) the first Despicable Me [2010] movie. I loved that film. I saw it as part of a series of outstanding childrens' films including Finding Nemo [2003], The Incredibles [2004], Wall-E [2008], Up [2009], How to Train Your Dragon [2010] even Happy Feet [2006] (which I didn't particularly like but our teenage/Hispanic evening receptionist at the time just loved it along with her entire family).
Indeed, part of the reason why I started this blog in the fall of 2010 (in the months following the summer-time releases of the first Despicable Me [2010] and How to Train Your Dragon [2010]) was that I was expecting to be writing some very positive reviews about the children's movies that are coming out. Let's face it, Catholics/religious folks are generally skeptical of Hollywood and so I was expecting to be writing: "Don't put Hollywood unnecessarily down, there's some very nice stuff and especially for kids being produced these days by our movie people."
Instead, I've found myself having created my blog AFTER THE END of that lovely and perhaps innocent era of recent children's animated films. For today it's more or less obviously become another battleground of our "culture wars." AND FOLKS, IT'S NOT PRETTY. There has been an obvious, hammer-over-the-head NATIVISM / RACISM pervading MANY / MOST "children's films" made since 2010:
(1) "The Diary of a Wimpy Kid" series might as well be called "Diary of a WASPY Kid" because THE ONLY NON-WHITE kid in the entire series is a RICH INDIAN KID who all the other (WHITE) kids make fun of. (No Blacks, no Hispanics, no East Asians, just one Indian kid who it's "okay" to pick on ... I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...)
(2) The film Hop [2011], screenplay by "Cinco" Paul (though there is absolutely NOTHING Hispanic about him) has a Anglo-American "slacker" teenager from L.A. joining forces with English-accented "Easter Bunnies" to keep "uppity" HISPANIC accented "peeps"/"Easter chicks" led by HECTOR the "ringleader/foreman" of the "Easter chick proletariat" in their place. Seriously again, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...
(3) Hoodwinked Too [2011] - has an ALL Anglo/English Accented "Happy Ending Agency" (a fairy tale C.I.A. ...) keeping the fairy-tale world safe from A VERITABLE MOB of VARIOUSLY ACCENTED VILLANS (a Russian accented witch named Verushka, three Hispanic accented pigs bent on wreaking vengeance against an English accented "Big Bad Wolf" (since turned "good guy") for having "blown their house down." Each time the three stage guerrilla style attacks on said "former-Big Bad Wolf" they cry out "Viva los Puercos!" (AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...) and even German accented "Hansel and Grettel" who turn out to be the true super-villains of the story ...
(4) In Cars 2 [2011], Larry the Cable Guy's pickup and Owen Wilson's American sports car (Lighting McQueen) join forces with Michael Caine's BRITISH SPORTS CAR (Finn McMissile) to fight a CRIME SINDICATE of ugly "loser" non-Anglo-American cars (Italian Fiats, Former East German Trabants and Former Yugoslav Yugos) that want to somehow undermine the proper status of things (AGAIN, I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP ...)
And now this film Despicable Me 2 [2013] (directed by Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud, screenplay by Ken Daurio and NON-HISPANIC with a Hispanic sounding name Cinco Paul) sequel to the beloved first movie only here in the NEW MOVIE the formerly-evil and still RUSSIAN ACCENTED Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) fights the STILL EVIL, STILL HISPANIC ACCENTED "El Macho" with "personal hygeine issues" (voiced by Benjamin Bratt. Apparently Al Pacino who was originally slated to play Eduardo/El Macho's role walked away from the role ... Good for you Al Pacino!).
And who are the "good folks" in the current story? YOU GUESSED IT, an ALL Anglo/American "Anti Villain League" with Anglo-American accented agent Lucy (voiced by Kristen Wiig) and its Kings-English accented head, Sir Ramsbottom (voiced by ). To be fair, both the Minions and even Gru have fun with Sir Ramsbottom's name ... but the point is that ONCE AGAIN the all "Good Folks" are Anglo and all the "non-Good Folks" (even Russian Accented Gru himself) are non-Anglo ...
Then add that "El Macho's" very suave/debonair son Antonio (voiced by Moises Arias) first "woos" and then DUMPS Margo (voiced by Miranda Cosgrove) oldest of the cute-as-a-button three little girls that Gru's taken care of since the first movie. But then aren't ALL HISPANIC BOYS love 'em and leave 'em "Latin Lovers..."???
So how can I, who in my "day job" have worked since my Ordination in largely/predominantly HISPANIC parishes, possibly LET THIS KIND OF EVIL MESSAGING GO?
In my current parish, 75% of the kids attending our school are _cute as a button_ Hispanic kids. In the CCD program, this rises to nearly 90% (AGAIN ALL GOOD KIDS!). The Anglo kids are _also_ cute/good. But look at the numbers. How can I recommend a film like this that makes fun of the families of 75-90% of the kids in my parish? How?
Then consider Hollywood's stupidity in all of this: The majority of Americans under 17 years of age AREN'T EVEN WHITE ANYMORE. By its OWN STUPID RACISM it's disqualifying itself from its own future audience! And is a message of Anglo-American supremacy exactly helping it in markets outside of the U.S.? It's all really, really dumb.
And it's sad, because OTHERWISE the film would be very, very cute. The Minions are absolutely adorable and the addition of the Kristen Wiig character was great as well.
But why then throw all that CUTENESS away to deliver a STUPIDLY NATIVIST/RACIST MESSAGE. Why?
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Saturday, June 29, 2013
White House Down [2013]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Chi SunTimes (0 Stars) Chi Tribune (2 Stars) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review
Chicago Tribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (M. McCreadle) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
We have got to stop blowing-up the White House in our films... honestly, we have to.
I had not planned to see White House Down [2013] (directed by Roland Emmerich, screenplay by James Vanderbilt) as I'm tired of these films and thought I had written about as much as one can write about them reviewing the quite recent Olympus Has Fallen [2013]. I found myself talked into it, having read some of the surprising and at times surprisingly positive reviews of the film (see above) and then listening to Facet Multimedia's Milos Stihlik's talking about the film on WBEZ (Chicago Public Radio's) WorldView program as I was coming home from a Communion call.
Having seen the film, I still think it is generally a waste of time though I do agree that part of what makes the film interesting is that the dasterdly Enemy this time DOESN'T come from the Outside: space aliens as in Emmerich's signature movie Independence Day [1995], weird euro-terrorists as in Die Hard [1988], more conventional but no less uncompromisingly Evil left-wing Cuban/PLO-style terrorists as in Under Siege [1992], or even North Koreans (arriving disguised as South Koreans, "how could one tell...?") as in Olympus Has Fallen [2013]. Instead, the Enemy in White House Down [2013] is essentially a "right wing conspiracy" (a la "militia" man Timothy McVeigh but more organized) a conspiracy more resembling the one postulated in Oliver Stone's film JFK [1991] involving the "military industrial complex" opposing a JFK-like, now Obama-like President (played in this film by Jamie Foxx).
That we would be just as capable (or even more capable) of "blowing things up" by ourselves as having them blown-up by outside bad guys has actually been a long-held view by my own dad, born no doubt of 81 years of life-experience and watching some really stupid/self-destructive things done by people (and peoples) themselves.
One of my dad's favorite examples of this self-destructive phenomenon (remember my family is of Czech descent, thus Slavic and originating in Centeral Europe) was what the Serbs and Croats did to the lovely Serbo-Croatian coastal city of Dubrovnik (before the 1990s listed as a UNESCO world heritage site): "Even the Nazis didn't touch that town because it was so beautiful and it would have been a crime to destroy it. Yet, two weeks into the Serbo-Croatian wars of the 1990s, the town was reduced to rubble looking like Stalingrad." Then remember former Russian President Boris Yeltsin (the first democratically elected leader of Russia ever) ended-up bombing his own Russian Parliament Building (and arguably legitimately to thwart a back-sliding neo-Communist coup).
So there may be value in seeing a film where one domestic faction or another tries to seize power in this country by a de facto coup d'etat. And that is what this film is about. Apparently upset that Obama-like African-American President Sawyer (played by Jamie Foxx) had made a deal with Iran to pull all U.S. troops out of the Middle East in exchange for peace (and a pledge by the sitting Iranian president to make public decades-long documentation showing how U.S. military contractors had manipulated Middle Eastern governments and exacerbated tensions between them to justify a large open-ended U.S. military presence in the region and arms sales to everybody), those allied with said U.S. military contractors try to stage a coup in the U.S. to prevent this. Much ensues ...
Yet what ensues on screen, I'm not sure is helpful ... to anybody.
Even as these Titanic forces are stomping in Godzilla-like fashion over the centers of power in Washington, the real "heroes" of the story are simply a divorced dad named Cale (played by Channing Tatum) who had served three tours in Afghanistan (in good part because "being at war" seemed easier than "being at home" with his family) and his somewhat estranged 6th-7th grade daughter Emily (played by Joey King). At the beginning of the film Cale's trying to re-connect with his daughter who living in the D.C. area seems very civically minded. So Afghan war vet that he is, he pulls a few strings and is able to get them a White House tour. It's during this tour that the coup attempt takes place. Now remember Cale is a 3-time Afghan War vet ... and 12 year old, ever on her smart-phone, Emily has her own talents: She runs a little 'current affairs blog' ("No dad", eyes-rolling "a YouTube channel") on the internet using said smart-phone as a computer/camera. Well ... do those Titanic forces of Evil stand a chance against this little father - daughter team? ;-)
There's certainly a cuteness to the movie ... even as revered national symbols get blown-up all around.
But I can honestly say to folks that even though "it all ends well," I FELT SORRY FOR THE 12-YEAR OLD EMILY. And it's not just because she was a hostage by the bad guys holding the White House for a while, and that near the end of the film she does what amounts to a heart-rending flag-waving tribute to the similarly little flag-waving kid on the barricades in Les Miserables [2012], but because I do think we've failed young people like her.
Honestly, let's stop blowing up the White House, or Big Ben, or the Eiffel Tower or the Kremlin, or what have you (even simply "on screen"). Why can't we just give our young people a world (or at least a youth) where they can live and grow-up in peace?
<< 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. McAleer) review
Chicago SunTimes (R. Roeper) review
Chicago Tribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (M. McCreadle) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
We have got to stop blowing-up the White House in our films... honestly, we have to.
I had not planned to see White House Down [2013] (directed by Roland Emmerich, screenplay by James Vanderbilt) as I'm tired of these films and thought I had written about as much as one can write about them reviewing the quite recent Olympus Has Fallen [2013]. I found myself talked into it, having read some of the surprising and at times surprisingly positive reviews of the film (see above) and then listening to Facet Multimedia's Milos Stihlik's talking about the film on WBEZ (Chicago Public Radio's) WorldView program as I was coming home from a Communion call.
Having seen the film, I still think it is generally a waste of time though I do agree that part of what makes the film interesting is that the dasterdly Enemy this time DOESN'T come from the Outside: space aliens as in Emmerich's signature movie Independence Day [1995], weird euro-terrorists as in Die Hard [1988], more conventional but no less uncompromisingly Evil left-wing Cuban/PLO-style terrorists as in Under Siege [1992], or even North Koreans (arriving disguised as South Koreans, "how could one tell...?") as in Olympus Has Fallen [2013]. Instead, the Enemy in White House Down [2013] is essentially a "right wing conspiracy" (a la "militia" man Timothy McVeigh but more organized) a conspiracy more resembling the one postulated in Oliver Stone's film JFK [1991] involving the "military industrial complex" opposing a JFK-like, now Obama-like President (played in this film by Jamie Foxx).
That we would be just as capable (or even more capable) of "blowing things up" by ourselves as having them blown-up by outside bad guys has actually been a long-held view by my own dad, born no doubt of 81 years of life-experience and watching some really stupid/self-destructive things done by people (and peoples) themselves.
One of my dad's favorite examples of this self-destructive phenomenon (remember my family is of Czech descent, thus Slavic and originating in Centeral Europe) was what the Serbs and Croats did to the lovely Serbo-Croatian coastal city of Dubrovnik (before the 1990s listed as a UNESCO world heritage site): "Even the Nazis didn't touch that town because it was so beautiful and it would have been a crime to destroy it. Yet, two weeks into the Serbo-Croatian wars of the 1990s, the town was reduced to rubble looking like Stalingrad." Then remember former Russian President Boris Yeltsin (the first democratically elected leader of Russia ever) ended-up bombing his own Russian Parliament Building (and arguably legitimately to thwart a back-sliding neo-Communist coup).
So there may be value in seeing a film where one domestic faction or another tries to seize power in this country by a de facto coup d'etat. And that is what this film is about. Apparently upset that Obama-like African-American President Sawyer (played by Jamie Foxx) had made a deal with Iran to pull all U.S. troops out of the Middle East in exchange for peace (and a pledge by the sitting Iranian president to make public decades-long documentation showing how U.S. military contractors had manipulated Middle Eastern governments and exacerbated tensions between them to justify a large open-ended U.S. military presence in the region and arms sales to everybody), those allied with said U.S. military contractors try to stage a coup in the U.S. to prevent this. Much ensues ...
Yet what ensues on screen, I'm not sure is helpful ... to anybody.
Even as these Titanic forces are stomping in Godzilla-like fashion over the centers of power in Washington, the real "heroes" of the story are simply a divorced dad named Cale (played by Channing Tatum) who had served three tours in Afghanistan (in good part because "being at war" seemed easier than "being at home" with his family) and his somewhat estranged 6th-7th grade daughter Emily (played by Joey King). At the beginning of the film Cale's trying to re-connect with his daughter who living in the D.C. area seems very civically minded. So Afghan war vet that he is, he pulls a few strings and is able to get them a White House tour. It's during this tour that the coup attempt takes place. Now remember Cale is a 3-time Afghan War vet ... and 12 year old, ever on her smart-phone, Emily has her own talents: She runs a little 'current affairs blog' ("No dad", eyes-rolling "a YouTube channel") on the internet using said smart-phone as a computer/camera. Well ... do those Titanic forces of Evil stand a chance against this little father - daughter team? ;-)
There's certainly a cuteness to the movie ... even as revered national symbols get blown-up all around.
But I can honestly say to folks that even though "it all ends well," I FELT SORRY FOR THE 12-YEAR OLD EMILY. And it's not just because she was a hostage by the bad guys holding the White House for a while, and that near the end of the film she does what amounts to a heart-rending flag-waving tribute to the similarly little flag-waving kid on the barricades in Les Miserables [2012], but because I do think we've failed young people like her.
Honestly, let's stop blowing up the White House, or Big Ben, or the Eiffel Tower or the Kremlin, or what have you (even simply "on screen"). Why can't we just give our young people a world (or at least a youth) where they can live and grow-up in peace?
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
Friday, June 28, 2013
The Heat [2013]
MPAA (R) CNS/USCCB (O) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
The Heat [2013] (directed by Paul Feig, screenplay by Katie Dippold) is the Bridesmaids [2011] of "odd couple" / "cop buddy" movies: Think here of the Eddie Murphy / Judge Reinhold Beverly Hills Cop [1984+] series or the Dan Aykroyd / Tom Hanks vehicle Dragnet [1987] only here both the "stuffy, by the books" character, FBI Agent Ashburn (played by Sandra Bullock), and the "gritty, streetwise" character, Boston P.D. Det, Mullins (played by Melissa McCarthy), are women.
Ever by-the-books (indeed, she probably knows them from Yale by heart...), the moderately successful but not particularly liked by most of her coworkers (and thus never promoted...) New York based FBI agent Ashburn is sent by her boss (played by Damian Bichir) to Boston (perhaps in part to just get rid of her ...) to investigate / take-down a new and particularly vicious if still somewhat shadowy drug lord who had recently arrived there. Soon after arriving, she crosses paths with a local force of nature in the form of BPD Det. Mullins, also super-competent, also disliked by her coworkers but at least also feared by them.
After giving-up on trying to get Mullins to stand-down and get out of her way, Ashburn (on advice of her far more pragmatic boss back in NY who simply doesn't understand why Ashburn would not want to work with local law enforcement "One would think that you'd want to learn from her...") accepts the inevitable and brings the streetwise Det. Mullins into the case. Many, often extended laugh-out-loud (way into the next scene or two) situations ensue... ;-)
Particularly amusing in the film is Mullins' family -- basically the same family from The Fighter [2010] though taken to comedic extremes. With her hair ever frazzled, chain smokin' Ma (played by Jane Curtin) always greets her hard-boiled (but actually moderately successful...) police detective daughter by flipping her off. Why? Well Det. Mullins had sent her own brother to jail. "What kindah pehson would rat-out her own brahther?" Ma asks. Well we find out why and while none of us would particularly enjoy doing that to our loved ones either, most of us would probably understand ...
The rest of Det. Mullins' family is a similarly sincere if often hopelessly disordered mess. Dad (played by Michael Tucci) had a thing for hopelessly corny "athletic/religious art:" Ever on velvet, Jesus in a Red Sox uniform with a giant bat hitting a baseball outta Fenway Pahk, Jesus in a Bruins uniform bodychecking some other hockey player into the bahds at Bahston Gahden. At one point in the film, the family has to be quickly evacuated from their home to a hotel for their protection -- ma, pa, three or four brothers, plus two rather high-maintenance girl-friends of theirs -- and one wonders: "Oh my, if these people really had to go into a "witness protection program" how could one possibly "hide" them? ;-)
Then as Agent Ashburn / Det. Mullins work on their case, they encounter a veritable parade of villains and potential villains of every conceivable look or ethnicity. It's one really messed up Bahston. But it is all done with a smile.
Parents, this film is very crude. So I'm not sure you'd want to take a pre-teen to the film (though I'm not sure that they'd get many of the jokes anyway). However, like most of Melissa McCarthy's other films, if one can get past the occasional crudity, this is often a very funny movie especially if one's ever been faced with "a glass ceiling."
<< 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
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
The Heat [2013] (directed by Paul Feig, screenplay by Katie Dippold) is the Bridesmaids [2011] of "odd couple" / "cop buddy" movies: Think here of the Eddie Murphy / Judge Reinhold Beverly Hills Cop [1984+] series or the Dan Aykroyd / Tom Hanks vehicle Dragnet [1987] only here both the "stuffy, by the books" character, FBI Agent Ashburn (played by Sandra Bullock), and the "gritty, streetwise" character, Boston P.D. Det, Mullins (played by Melissa McCarthy), are women.
Ever by-the-books (indeed, she probably knows them from Yale by heart...), the moderately successful but not particularly liked by most of her coworkers (and thus never promoted...) New York based FBI agent Ashburn is sent by her boss (played by Damian Bichir) to Boston (perhaps in part to just get rid of her ...) to investigate / take-down a new and particularly vicious if still somewhat shadowy drug lord who had recently arrived there. Soon after arriving, she crosses paths with a local force of nature in the form of BPD Det. Mullins, also super-competent, also disliked by her coworkers but at least also feared by them.
After giving-up on trying to get Mullins to stand-down and get out of her way, Ashburn (on advice of her far more pragmatic boss back in NY who simply doesn't understand why Ashburn would not want to work with local law enforcement "One would think that you'd want to learn from her...") accepts the inevitable and brings the streetwise Det. Mullins into the case. Many, often extended laugh-out-loud (way into the next scene or two) situations ensue... ;-)
Particularly amusing in the film is Mullins' family -- basically the same family from The Fighter [2010] though taken to comedic extremes. With her hair ever frazzled, chain smokin' Ma (played by Jane Curtin) always greets her hard-boiled (but actually moderately successful...) police detective daughter by flipping her off. Why? Well Det. Mullins had sent her own brother to jail. "What kindah pehson would rat-out her own brahther?" Ma asks. Well we find out why and while none of us would particularly enjoy doing that to our loved ones either, most of us would probably understand ...
The rest of Det. Mullins' family is a similarly sincere if often hopelessly disordered mess. Dad (played by Michael Tucci) had a thing for hopelessly corny "athletic/religious art:" Ever on velvet, Jesus in a Red Sox uniform with a giant bat hitting a baseball outta Fenway Pahk, Jesus in a Bruins uniform bodychecking some other hockey player into the bahds at Bahston Gahden. At one point in the film, the family has to be quickly evacuated from their home to a hotel for their protection -- ma, pa, three or four brothers, plus two rather high-maintenance girl-friends of theirs -- and one wonders: "Oh my, if these people really had to go into a "witness protection program" how could one possibly "hide" them? ;-)
Then as Agent Ashburn / Det. Mullins work on their case, they encounter a veritable parade of villains and potential villains of every conceivable look or ethnicity. It's one really messed up Bahston. But it is all done with a smile.
Parents, this film is very crude. So I'm not sure you'd want to take a pre-teen to the film (though I'm not sure that they'd get many of the jokes anyway). However, like most of Melissa McCarthy's other films, if one can get past the occasional crudity, this is often a very funny movie especially if one's ever been faced with "a glass ceiling."
<< 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, June 25, 2013
Dirty Wars [2013]
MPAA (R) RE.com (3 Stars) AVClub (B-) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (S. Boone) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
Dirty Wars [2013] (directed by Rick Rowley, writer David Riker and Jeremy Scahill) is a documentary in which Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondant for The Nation magazine seeks to shed light on the largely secret war that's being fought in our name against Al Queda and other terrorist groups.
Why would one care? Well, when something is secret, not just "the good" and "the necessary" are hidden but also "the problematic," "the corrupt" and "the screw-ups." And if this underside of our secret war is not periodically exposed, then this can eventually cause some real problems.
The documentary follows the story of three problematic screw-ups:
The first occurred in Afghanistan where a journalist Scahill came learned of a previously nondescript Afghan family in the hinterlands screaming for justice after four of their family members were killed for no reason in a night raid that even local NATO commanders did not know about. The family had been celebrating the birth of a son (home video shows the family dancing). Then the father of the newborn went outside (either because he heard something or because, well, he just needed to go outside) and ... got shot dead an American sniper. Before the killing stopped, 3 other members of the family were dead. And for what? Nothing. The family was screaming to the journalist that they had been pro-American and that the father who had been shot had been actually an American trained Afghan police officer. And yes, it would seem that this really was a screw-up because a some days after the incident, an American general showed-up at their family's compound with a ceremonial sheep given to them to sacrifice in compensation. (The Afghan family had photos of the conciliatory visit of the American general as well...) But who was he? Well he was the head of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), the command that later killed Bin Laden.
What else does JSOC do? Well it did kill Bin Laden. It has also been responsible for the majority of the drone and otherwise remote strikes across that part of the world, including apparently a cruise missile strike in Yemen that, rather than wiping out a terrorist training camp, all but wiped-out a harmless Bedouin clan in the hinterlands of said Yemen that has been herding sheep in those mountains since the basically the time of Abraham. And a Yemeni journalist who first exposed this tragic remote massacre is languishing in a Yemeni jail as a result of an expressly requested personal favor asked for by President Obama of the President of Yemen. Basically, a Yememi journalist is languishing in a Yemeni jail so as to not embarrass an American President. (We don't jail journalists. We have others jail journalists for us ...).
Finally, JSOC was apparently responsible for the drone strikes that killed the American Muslim preacher al-Awalki (who had, in fact, radicalized and had joined AlQueda out there in Yemen). Yet some days later in a separate strike JSOC also killed al-Awalki's 16 year old son. What did _he_ do? Nothing ... yet. But Scahill does ask the question of where have we come to when we've started to kill people simply because they _may_ grow-up to want to kill us? (Think of The Godfather Part II [1974], that was basically the plot-trajectory the young Vito "Corleone" growing-up to come back to Sicily to avenge the death of his father). Have we really come to this?
So what's the value of a documentary like this? Well, even if one doesn't particularly like facing its content (nobody likes to be embarrassed, nobody likes to hear bad things about people who we love, trust and hope are doing their best), documentaries like this are informative and therefore help us to make informed decisions. Without said information, it is (by definition) impossible to do that.
So as uncomfortable as this documentary must make the viewer feel, it will help make future mistakes like these less likely (other mistakes though hopefully less of them will still probably occur). And our interest in documentaries like this will also help us to appreciate what others, non-Americans, are going through in the War on Terror, hopefully helping us to empathize with their suffering as well.
So all in all a very good film. It's painful to watch, but necessary if we are to remain the country that we are hoping to be defending.
<< 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
RogerEbert.com (S. Boone) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
Dirty Wars [2013] (directed by Rick Rowley, writer David Riker and Jeremy Scahill) is a documentary in which Jeremy Scahill, national security correspondant for The Nation magazine seeks to shed light on the largely secret war that's being fought in our name against Al Queda and other terrorist groups.
Why would one care? Well, when something is secret, not just "the good" and "the necessary" are hidden but also "the problematic," "the corrupt" and "the screw-ups." And if this underside of our secret war is not periodically exposed, then this can eventually cause some real problems.
The documentary follows the story of three problematic screw-ups:
The first occurred in Afghanistan where a journalist Scahill came learned of a previously nondescript Afghan family in the hinterlands screaming for justice after four of their family members were killed for no reason in a night raid that even local NATO commanders did not know about. The family had been celebrating the birth of a son (home video shows the family dancing). Then the father of the newborn went outside (either because he heard something or because, well, he just needed to go outside) and ... got shot dead an American sniper. Before the killing stopped, 3 other members of the family were dead. And for what? Nothing. The family was screaming to the journalist that they had been pro-American and that the father who had been shot had been actually an American trained Afghan police officer. And yes, it would seem that this really was a screw-up because a some days after the incident, an American general showed-up at their family's compound with a ceremonial sheep given to them to sacrifice in compensation. (The Afghan family had photos of the conciliatory visit of the American general as well...) But who was he? Well he was the head of JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), the command that later killed Bin Laden.
What else does JSOC do? Well it did kill Bin Laden. It has also been responsible for the majority of the drone and otherwise remote strikes across that part of the world, including apparently a cruise missile strike in Yemen that, rather than wiping out a terrorist training camp, all but wiped-out a harmless Bedouin clan in the hinterlands of said Yemen that has been herding sheep in those mountains since the basically the time of Abraham. And a Yemeni journalist who first exposed this tragic remote massacre is languishing in a Yemeni jail as a result of an expressly requested personal favor asked for by President Obama of the President of Yemen. Basically, a Yememi journalist is languishing in a Yemeni jail so as to not embarrass an American President. (We don't jail journalists. We have others jail journalists for us ...).
Finally, JSOC was apparently responsible for the drone strikes that killed the American Muslim preacher al-Awalki (who had, in fact, radicalized and had joined AlQueda out there in Yemen). Yet some days later in a separate strike JSOC also killed al-Awalki's 16 year old son. What did _he_ do? Nothing ... yet. But Scahill does ask the question of where have we come to when we've started to kill people simply because they _may_ grow-up to want to kill us? (Think of The Godfather Part II [1974], that was basically the plot-trajectory the young Vito "Corleone" growing-up to come back to Sicily to avenge the death of his father). Have we really come to this?
So what's the value of a documentary like this? Well, even if one doesn't particularly like facing its content (nobody likes to be embarrassed, nobody likes to hear bad things about people who we love, trust and hope are doing their best), documentaries like this are informative and therefore help us to make informed decisions. Without said information, it is (by definition) impossible to do that.
So as uncomfortable as this documentary must make the viewer feel, it will help make future mistakes like these less likely (other mistakes though hopefully less of them will still probably occur). And our interest in documentaries like this will also help us to appreciate what others, non-Americans, are going through in the War on Terror, hopefully helping us to empathize with their suffering as well.
So all in all a very good film. It's painful to watch, but necessary if we are to remain the country that we are hoping to be defending.
<< 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 Source Family [2013]
MPAA (Unrated, would be R) Roger Moore (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars w. Expl.)
IMDb listing
Chicago Tribune (R. Moore) review
The Source Family [2013] (directed by Maria Demopoulos and Jodi Wille) is a documentary that I recently saw at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago. The film is now available at Amazon Instant Video. I went to see the film after reading the review by Roger Moore in the Chicago Tribune the week that it played here.
I found the film intriguing because it is about a 1960s era Los Angeles based cult, now defunct, originating around a health food restaurant named The Source and its charismatic founder/owner, born James Edward Baker in Cincinnati in the 1920s but who after fighting in WW II settled in L.A., became interested in "healthy food/healthy living," founded said health food restaurant and came to go by the name of Father Yod and later YaHoWha (yes, that's pretty close to the Divine Name of the Biblical Old Testament, and yes he came, for a time, to believe that he was God ...). Most interestingly for me was that the film was made by some of his former followers who, even 40+ years after the experience of living with him at his "commune" first in a Hollywood Hills mansion in L.A. and later on a farm in rural Hawaii (both clearly costing a pretty penny... all ostensibly paid for by said health food restaurant The Source...), did not find the experience to have been a particularly negative one. To be sure, the former followers are pretty honest in the film about "Father Yod's" behavioral oddities and some of the problematic (at times frankly, illegal) doctrines of his teachings. Still I do believe that the film does serve as a window into the world of a charismatic cult FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CULT'S OWN MEMBERS and can provide clues as to why someone would join such a group. (Parents, obviously this film is for adults and not for your kids ...)
It's pretty clear that post-WW II Los Angeles / California became something of a hot bed for the formation of some rather strange (and, often enough, quite dangerous) cults. The list is not a particularly pretty one: Charles Manson and the Manson Family, Jim Jones and his Peoples' Temple (which ended-up committing Mass suicide in Guyana, even L.Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology. Fr. Yod's Source Family would certainly fall within this milieu. Note also that I've reviewed a number of films here -- Martha Marcy May Marlene [2011], Higher Ground [2011], The Master [2012] and even The First Rasta [2010] -- which deal with cults or otherwise "new(er) religions" / communities. Together the films can help one better understand both the origins of "cults" and also the origins/dynamics of their excesses.
And indeed, the current film, The Source Family [2013], follows the trajectory of this group from the arrival of the one who became its founder James Edward Baker to L.A. as a veteran following WW II all the way to his death following an (odd) hang-gliding accident in Hawaii in 1975 as Father Yod / YaHoWha with a cult of followers who thought of him as (a) God. That's one heck of a trip ... So how did he / his group get to that point?
Well it would seem that James Edward Baker returned from WW II (presumably in the Pacific) interested in martial arts, Eastern philosophy and Eastern (largely vegetarian) diet. So he studied those subjects in Los Angeles (on the Pacific coast, with as much contact with East Asia as any in the United States). At some point, he founded said health food restaurant called "The Source" on the Sunset Strip. The restaurant became popular because it was one of the first of its kind and also perhaps (my conjecture) because it served Eastern (largely vegetarian) food but was run by an (American) Westerner. So if any patrons had any questions, he was able to quite easily explain (in language that they could readily understand) the various ins-and-outs of Eastern cooking, Martial arts and, as time went on, of Eastern philosophy. A group started to form around him. And since he did apparently see himself as a "bridge figure," as he read up on Eastern philosophy, he also tried to read up on Western religious traditions/mysticism, the result being that he became a rather interesting "guru"/"go-to guy" in late-50s / early-60s Los Angeles. Then came the mid and late 1960s and "all h.. broke loose. His restaurant became a "go-to place" of ALL THE HIP AND HAPPENING PEOPLE who both LIVED and simply PASSED THROUGH LOS ANGELES.
Well, he was BOTH generous (both the Hollywood Hills Mansion and later the farm in Hawaii where he and his cult followers lived were bought/supported with his money...) and THE ABOVE KIND OF ADULATION (rock stars, movie producers, all kinds of people were _coming to him_ with questions looking for answers) HAD TO GO TO HIS HEAD. Hence he started dressing like a guru, took to going by the name Father Yod (and eventually the even more proglematic YaHoWha) and began to systematize "his previous teachings" into increasingly rigid/strange "doctrines."
It always fascinates me how both FOOD and SEX become such big doctrinal issues in religion. (One would suppose that this is because the two comprise our two most basic instincts -- the drive to eat/survive and the drive to create/reproduce). Almost every religion has rather complicated yet set rules regarding both diet and sexual relations and Father Yod's group certainly came to have both. The group was strictly vegetarian and (at first) experimented quite freely with sex. Later as James Edward Baker / Father Yod became more and more megalomaniacal (in his soon to be YaHoWha stage) HE simply took a fair amount of the women (a fair amount of them MINORS, this when he was in his 50s-60s ... and apparently parents BOTH inside and OUTSIDE the cult LET HIM).
His story is honestly a great testament to why adulation of anybody is NOT GOOD. We need people not to simply "enable us" but to keep us grounded.
Perhaps the saving grace for James Edward Baker / Father Yod (even though he was a STATUTORY RAPIST having by the end of his life several under-aged wives) before he died in his rather strange hang-gliding accident (he had never hang-glided before but decided to jump off an 1100 foot cliff in a hang-glider for the first time anyway...) was that in those weeks before he died, he apparently came to the conclusion (on his own) that he wasn't God and BY LUCK (or perhaps providence) he died soon afterwards ... leaving his followers with good memories of him, RATHER THEN them ending up in Jail (like many of the followers of Charles Manson) or Dead (like the followers of Jim Jones and later David Karesh).
In any case, NO ONE except perhaps GOD (God ABOVE/BEYOND US not "here") deserves unreserved adulation ... but what a fascinating / informative story.
<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Chicago Tribune (R. Moore) review
The Source Family [2013] (directed by Maria Demopoulos and Jodi Wille) is a documentary that I recently saw at the Music Box Theatre in Chicago. The film is now available at Amazon Instant Video. I went to see the film after reading the review by Roger Moore in the Chicago Tribune the week that it played here.
I found the film intriguing because it is about a 1960s era Los Angeles based cult, now defunct, originating around a health food restaurant named The Source and its charismatic founder/owner, born James Edward Baker in Cincinnati in the 1920s but who after fighting in WW II settled in L.A., became interested in "healthy food/healthy living," founded said health food restaurant and came to go by the name of Father Yod and later YaHoWha (yes, that's pretty close to the Divine Name of the Biblical Old Testament, and yes he came, for a time, to believe that he was God ...). Most interestingly for me was that the film was made by some of his former followers who, even 40+ years after the experience of living with him at his "commune" first in a Hollywood Hills mansion in L.A. and later on a farm in rural Hawaii (both clearly costing a pretty penny... all ostensibly paid for by said health food restaurant The Source...), did not find the experience to have been a particularly negative one. To be sure, the former followers are pretty honest in the film about "Father Yod's" behavioral oddities and some of the problematic (at times frankly, illegal) doctrines of his teachings. Still I do believe that the film does serve as a window into the world of a charismatic cult FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CULT'S OWN MEMBERS and can provide clues as to why someone would join such a group. (Parents, obviously this film is for adults and not for your kids ...)
It's pretty clear that post-WW II Los Angeles / California became something of a hot bed for the formation of some rather strange (and, often enough, quite dangerous) cults. The list is not a particularly pretty one: Charles Manson and the Manson Family, Jim Jones and his Peoples' Temple (which ended-up committing Mass suicide in Guyana, even L.Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology. Fr. Yod's Source Family would certainly fall within this milieu. Note also that I've reviewed a number of films here -- Martha Marcy May Marlene [2011], Higher Ground [2011], The Master [2012] and even The First Rasta [2010] -- which deal with cults or otherwise "new(er) religions" / communities. Together the films can help one better understand both the origins of "cults" and also the origins/dynamics of their excesses.
And indeed, the current film, The Source Family [2013], follows the trajectory of this group from the arrival of the one who became its founder James Edward Baker to L.A. as a veteran following WW II all the way to his death following an (odd) hang-gliding accident in Hawaii in 1975 as Father Yod / YaHoWha with a cult of followers who thought of him as (a) God. That's one heck of a trip ... So how did he / his group get to that point?
Well it would seem that James Edward Baker returned from WW II (presumably in the Pacific) interested in martial arts, Eastern philosophy and Eastern (largely vegetarian) diet. So he studied those subjects in Los Angeles (on the Pacific coast, with as much contact with East Asia as any in the United States). At some point, he founded said health food restaurant called "The Source" on the Sunset Strip. The restaurant became popular because it was one of the first of its kind and also perhaps (my conjecture) because it served Eastern (largely vegetarian) food but was run by an (American) Westerner. So if any patrons had any questions, he was able to quite easily explain (in language that they could readily understand) the various ins-and-outs of Eastern cooking, Martial arts and, as time went on, of Eastern philosophy. A group started to form around him. And since he did apparently see himself as a "bridge figure," as he read up on Eastern philosophy, he also tried to read up on Western religious traditions/mysticism, the result being that he became a rather interesting "guru"/"go-to guy" in late-50s / early-60s Los Angeles. Then came the mid and late 1960s and "all h.. broke loose. His restaurant became a "go-to place" of ALL THE HIP AND HAPPENING PEOPLE who both LIVED and simply PASSED THROUGH LOS ANGELES.
Well, he was BOTH generous (both the Hollywood Hills Mansion and later the farm in Hawaii where he and his cult followers lived were bought/supported with his money...) and THE ABOVE KIND OF ADULATION (rock stars, movie producers, all kinds of people were _coming to him_ with questions looking for answers) HAD TO GO TO HIS HEAD. Hence he started dressing like a guru, took to going by the name Father Yod (and eventually the even more proglematic YaHoWha) and began to systematize "his previous teachings" into increasingly rigid/strange "doctrines."
It always fascinates me how both FOOD and SEX become such big doctrinal issues in religion. (One would suppose that this is because the two comprise our two most basic instincts -- the drive to eat/survive and the drive to create/reproduce). Almost every religion has rather complicated yet set rules regarding both diet and sexual relations and Father Yod's group certainly came to have both. The group was strictly vegetarian and (at first) experimented quite freely with sex. Later as James Edward Baker / Father Yod became more and more megalomaniacal (in his soon to be YaHoWha stage) HE simply took a fair amount of the women (a fair amount of them MINORS, this when he was in his 50s-60s ... and apparently parents BOTH inside and OUTSIDE the cult LET HIM).
His story is honestly a great testament to why adulation of anybody is NOT GOOD. We need people not to simply "enable us" but to keep us grounded.
Perhaps the saving grace for James Edward Baker / Father Yod (even though he was a STATUTORY RAPIST having by the end of his life several under-aged wives) before he died in his rather strange hang-gliding accident (he had never hang-glided before but decided to jump off an 1100 foot cliff in a hang-glider for the first time anyway...) was that in those weeks before he died, he apparently came to the conclusion (on his own) that he wasn't God and BY LUCK (or perhaps providence) he died soon afterwards ... leaving his followers with good memories of him, RATHER THEN them ending up in Jail (like many of the followers of Charles Manson) or Dead (like the followers of Jim Jones and later David Karesh).
In any case, NO ONE except perhaps GOD (God ABOVE/BEYOND US not "here") deserves unreserved adulation ... but what a fascinating / informative 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)