300: Rise of an Empire [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (D)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Let's begin by stating that 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] (directed by Noam Murro, screenplay by Zach Snyder and Kurt Johnstad, based on the graphic novel  Xerxes by Frank Miller, based ultimately on The Histories of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus) is a hard-R film.  It's definitely not intended for kids and while most teens would probably "get it" (and even probably get something about "ancient Middle Eastern/Greek history" out of it), this is definitely not a film that most parents would want to take their 14 or 15 year olds to.

There's just way, way, way too much blood splaying, hacked-off limbs and decapitated heads flying (all in glorious 3D ...) violence with some rather graphically depicted sex in this film to boot -- whether Persian or Greek, the people depicted weren't derisively dismissed as "pagans" later by our "turned away from old ways" baptized/believing Christian ancestors for nothing ... -- for the average shell-shocked parent, who just wanted to take their kids out to see a nice movie one Saturday or Sunday afternoon to have to contend with.  On the other hand, as a testosterone driven 17-18 or even 20 year old, I'd probably think this was the coolest film I'd seen in a long time even if I'd definitely NOT want to live in a world that was _really that savage_. 

And this then is the dilemma of a Christian/Catholic viewer (and reviewer): How to write about a film that one honestly should probably go to Confession for going to see (and at least partly enjoying) in the first place?  (Honestly, the smiling Jesus of the recently released Son of God [2014] telling the future St. Peter that "we're going to change the world" portrays such a more positive vision ...),  But we do live in the world, and we are called to slowly lift it out of its morass.

So what is 300: Rise of an Empire [2014] about?  It's intended to be "a companion piece" (neither a prequel nor a sequel but kinda both ...) to Zach Snyder's 300 [2006].  That film was about the ancient Spartans' stand at Thermopylae against the Persians (read ancestors to today's pesky Iranians) invading Ancient Greece (read "true ancestors" to "our Western Civilization") in 480 BC.  The current Rise of an Empire is about "the other battles" of that conflict, most famously the one at Marathon (featured at the beginning of this film) which had taken place 10 years BEFORE Thermopylae and then the naval battle at Salamis (which took place SOMEWHAT AFTER Thermopylae) which (MILD SPOILER ALERT...) proved to be the decisive engagement that sent the Persians home packing for good.

Now a word about THE STYLE of the "storytelling" here.  The direct inspiration of both 300 and the current Rise of an Empire is the work of Frank Miller a "graphic novelist," that is to say, one who uses the "comic book" art form to tell stories that even adults would be interested in.  And given the way "history" was told or written, both in the Bible and by Herodotus, this is not necessarily a bad choice of art form.  These are ancient texts, based on previous oral tradition, often remembered in "episodic" form often with words "that packed the most punch."  A graphic novelist would transform these texts' rather evocative words into imagery, and the more evocative/explosive the words, the more bracing the potential for that imagery.  The films in turn, while still using live actors, are highly stylized (using a lot of high contrast imagery and CGI), giving the film a "legendary" / "mythic" / "storybook" feel.  In line with the "(an)nother worldly" feel of the imagery of the films, their makers clearly made the choice to explore (push for) the far evocative limits of the descriptions of events given by Herodotus to make the story as bracing, as "hyper-real" as possible.  And they certainly succeed.  Both films are quite unforgetable.

But then, what does one remember?  Certainly a lot of blood, a lot of heads and limbs flying about, the result of depictions of some very desperate up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat, as well as, in the current film a perhaps unforgettable (yet, I'm guessing here, probably apocryphal...) sexual encounter between the current story's two central (and historical) characters: the Athenian patriot and naval commander Themistocles [IMDb] (played by Sullivan Stapleton) and a really pissed-off (for good reason) and sexually intimidating Artemisia [IMDb] (played by Eva Green) who though born Greek was actually a naval commander for the Persians and whose counsel (even by Herodotus) even the Persian "God King" Xerxes [IMDb] (played by Rodrigo Santoro) leading the invasion of Greece respected.  

Yet, beyond the blood (and, honestly, actress Eva Green's rather impressive ... physique) what else does one remember?  WELL, PROBABLY that ARTEMISIA WAS ONE TOUGH WOMAN (and again, even Greek historian Herodotus was apparently impressed by her).

And this then becomes very interesting, because even though in both films, 300 and now Rise of an Empire, the Greeks were portrayed as fighting for Freedom (led by the Spartans in the first film) and Democracy (led by the Athenians in the second), the Persians were portrayed as far more Cosmopolitan and tolerant than either.  

Again, Artemisia was A GREEK WOMAN WHOSE OPINION MATTERED.  BUT TO WHOM DID HER OPINION MATTER? TO THE PERSIANS.

The Greeks, in contrast, fought very bravely and very skillfully (and heck, they even won...).  BUT FOR WHAT?   For the right to remain Xenophobes (fearful and disrespectful of all that which they deemed "foreign") and to keep their women (and even their cripples) down.

Fascinating.  But again, this is a film that's DEFINITELY NOT "for the little ones..."


<< 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! :-) >>

A Cinema of Discontent [2013]

MPAA (Unrated would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
Boston Globe (L. King) review
CinemaWithoutBorders (B. Tehrani) interview with director

A Cinema of Discontent [2013] (written and directed by Iranian-American filmmaker Jamsheed Akrami) is a documentary about the "Hollywood Production Code (Shiite)-Islamic Style" censorship existent in the contemporary Islamic Republic of Iran played recently at the 24th Annual Festival of Films from Iran hosted by the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago. 

I do believe that it is an important film for those who, like myself, have wished to see (and comment on) films coming out of contemporary Iran, because it helps tell the story of some of the restrictions that Iranian film-makers face when they seek to make their films.

Indeed, I've approached the films that I've seen from Iran with both my Czech and Catholic background.  Czech-and-Slovak cinema endured decades of political censorship during the Communist Era even as Czech-and-Slovak film-makers, especially during the Czech-and-Slovak "new wave" of the 1960s, relished in pushing the envelope of what was deemed acceptable expression by the Communist authorities of the time (until of course the Soviet tanks rolled-in in late-1968 to crush the "Prague Spring"). 

On the other side of the coin, as a Catholic (and a Catholic priest to boot), I do believe that Religion (Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc) does have a RIGHT and even a DUTY TO COMMENT on the Arts (film-making included).  (And similarly in a free society, the Arts have a RIGHT to comment on Religion, even when the Authorities, religious or otherwise, don't particularly like what they say). 

Here in the United States, the Hollywood Production Code that existed from 1930 to 1968 was largely the Catholic Church's "baby," having been created in response to pressure by the largely and by the 1960s almost exclusively Catholic National Legion of Decency.  When the Code was abandoned, many Catholics in the United States took this rather personally and I know Catholics both lay and clerical/religious who haven't gone to the movies SINCE the abandonment of the Code in 1968 (To some extent, one has to admire such principled stubbornness/stamina ;-).  Further, the rating system used by National Legion of Decency in its day continues to be the basis of the one used by the USCCB/Catholic News Service whose reviews, as available, I make a point of citing on this blog.

I do have to say that I do prefer the post-Production Code approach to cinema to the censorship that existed beforehand.  As long as the Church retains the right (it does) or critics (people) in general have the right (we do) to call a film morally offensive or otherwise stupid (and explain why), even the Catechism of the Catholic Church defends the freedom of adult human beings to make mistakes as both sin and virtue are impossible without freedom (CCC 1730ff).

So then, recognizing then that the United States and indeed THE ENTIRE WESTERN (CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN) WORLD went through a previous period of movie censorship (an excellent and beautiful film about the evolution of cinema through this period of previous censorship in Italy was the Oscar winning film Nuovo Cinema Paradiso [1988]) what then does this film have to say about the travails of Iranian film-makers in contemporary Shiite-Islam dominated Iran? 

Well there are some very cumbersome restrictions that Iranian film-makers face.  These include that women have to wear headscarfs (hijab) _at all times_ in Iranian films and _no physical contact_ between men and women is allowed in Iranian films.  (Actually, there's an interesting/telling exception to the latter restriction, which both the film and I'll get to later).

Regarding the headscarfs (hijab).  As the film notes, even in Islam there is no restriction requiring women to wear headscarfs (hijab) at home.  So why do Iran's religious authorities _require_ that women in Iranian films wear headscarfs (hijab) _at all times_ in films?  Well, Iran's religious authorities make that point that women don't have to wear headscarfs (hijab) at home because they are around family.  YET IN A FILM (OR ON STAGE) even though actors/actresses _could be playing_ the roles of husband and wife (and kids) at home, THEY ARE GENERALLY NOT ACTUALLY HUSBAND/WIFE/THEIR KIDS.  Further, there's an crew filming them (and later an innumerable audience watching them) that are DEFINITELY NOT FAMILY, ergo ... women in films (and presumably on stage) must dress as if they were in public.

Now, westerners can laugh at this (and perhaps on multiple levels).  However, let one consider the following.  A hundred and fifty years ago, women across the whole of the Catholic/Christian world had their heads covered as per St. Paul's admonition to women in 1 Corinthians 11:6: "If a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil," and until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (in mid-1960s) Catholic women coming to Mass were expected to have their heads covered.  As in the case of the hijab, this was NOT seen by CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE TIME to be UNDULY RESTRICTIVE.  Indeed, as in the case of the hijab, hat/veil wearing BY CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE TIME was seen as both simply "the way things are" and "given that this was simply the way things are" an opportunity to make a fashion statement.  (Think of Jackie Kennedy, think of the hats worn by prominent women of the Victorian Era, including Queen Victoria herself).  And to this day in the African American community, hat wearing to Church/Mass remains a popular, colorful and fashionable thing to do.

Then the Shiite Islamic censors in Iran noting that actors/actresses _playing_ husband and wife are usually _not_ actually husband and wife (and in any case performing before innumerable strangers) -- forming the basis of both requiring women in Iranian films to wear the hijab even "at home" and not allowing physical contact between male and female actors in Iranian films -- is actually quite interesting.  Consider simply how many marriages in Hollywood have failed over the decades after one or the other of the spouses found themselves playing a rather intimate role in a film with someone other than one's spouse.  In our time, the marriage between Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt famously collapsed after Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie played together in a film.  And there had been many other cases (think of the various marriages of Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor during the course of their careers). 

So while most Westerners would find the Shiite Islamic censorship in film in Iran almost incomprehensibly prudish, these censors themselves are approaching the matter with their own logic and they are not without a point: the actors/actresses in a play or film _playing_ husband and wife aren't necessarily (and usually _aren't_) _actually_ husband and wife and THIS _can_ get confusing both to audiences and to the actors/actresses themselves  

Then consider that through the Production Code era in the United States, husband and wife were also portrayed in rather unrealistic ways.  It has been famously noted that on American television in the 1950s though to the mid-1960s the ONLY married couple ever portrayed in bed together were The Munsters [1964-66], while the most modern, most popular married couple on American TV at the time, Rob and Laura Petrie of the Dick Van Dyke Show [1961-66]), were _consistently shown_ in the show as sleeping in separate beds.  Again this is a reminder that the challenges faced by Iranian film-makers today are not altogether foreign to previous (and even relatively recent) Western Experience.

Finally, the documentary notes that _quite strangely_ one kind of contact between men and women in Iranian film that _is_ allowed (even when the actors/actresses play husband and wife):  They are allowed to hit each other in the film.  And the point is made that actors/actresses are not allowed to hold hands or to kiss BUT they are allowed to hit each other in moments of anger.  And the Westerner would certainly ask WHY??

Well Sigmund Freud would certainly give an answer -- violence is often repressed sexuality.  If people are not allowed to express themselves with kindness, they will eventually lash-out at each other with anger.  But here I would note that even in the West, and I follow most closely the ratings systems of both the MPAA and then of the Catholic News Service (the latter still using an adapted rating system from the Legion of Decency / Production Code days), SEXUALITY IN OUR FILMS IS STILL GENERALLY JUDGED MORE HARSHLY THAN VIOLENCE.  

In any case, this documentary is very interesting ... and without a doubt it would not be easy to be an Iranian film maker these days (with censors looking over their shoulders).  Yet, let us be clear that their experience is not altogether foreign to even fairly recent Western experience, and also (perhaps surprisingly to Westerners) the Iranian morality censors are _not_ completely without their point. 


<< 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! :-) >>

86th Academy Awards [2014] - A Year of Greater Openness to the (Previously) Marginalized

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years


The 86th Academy Awards [2014], came and went yesterday, and for the first time since beginning my blog in the Fall of 2010, I was pleasantly surprised with the way the Awards came out.  For I had been surprised, but not exactly pleasantly, by the results of the first Academy Awards show that I reviewed here (the 83rd Academy Awards [2011]).

The run-up to that year's Academy Awards proved most similar to this year's: There were some very modern, forward looking films in contention that year (Inception [2010] and The Social Network [2010]) as there were this year (Gravity [2013] and Her [2013]).  There were films nominated that were about re-working past masterpieces and re-evaluating past history (Black Swan [2010] and True Grit [2010]) as there were this year (Blue Jasmine [2013] and 12 Years a Slave [2013]) where often the films' heroes/heroines came for the ranks of the previously marginalized (The Kids are All Right [2010], True Grit [2010] and Blue Valentine [2010] vs The Dallas Buyers' Club [2013] and 12 Years a Slave [2013]).  Finally even the hosts themselves (Anne Hatheway and James Franco in 2011 vs Ellen DeGeneres this year) signaled a "toward the future" orientation of the Academy.

YET as I wrote after the 2011 Oscars, "as the curtain fell ..., the big winner was a movie about a stuttering, long-dead, white, war-time King (where even Churchill, if not John Wayne, was a character in the story), and the two young starry-eyed hosts of the show were widely panned."  Indeed, the high point of the 2011 Oscars ceremony was when previous (and far older) Oscars host Billy Crystal (who was invited back to host the 2012 Oscars the following year) came on stage to introduce an award and even talked to a hologram of a revered (but long deceased) even earlier Oscars host, Bob Hope.

At this year's Oscars, things were different.  In contrast to 2011's hosts Anne Hatheway and James Franco (both young), pretty much by all accounts this year's host Ellen DeGeneres (middle-aged but openly also gay) did a great job.  And the big winners this year were:

12 Years a Slave (the true "Count of Monte Cristo"-like story of African-American citizen Solomon Northrup who was born and had lived all his life in pre-American Civil War free-state New York but when he went down to the Washington D.C., our nation's capital, was drugged, abducted, trafficked South and Sold where he remained as a slave for 12 years);

Gravity (every bit as visually spectacular as Inception was in 2010.  Inception won also various technical awards in its year, but certainly not for directorship, which went this year to Gravity's Mexican born Alfonso Cuarón Orozco).

The Dallas Buyers' Club (about the early, most desperate years of the AIDS crisis).

Even the internet/computer dramedy/romance Her got a screenplay award (as did The Social Network in 2011).

Given that in recent years the Academy has gone for the "middle of the road," and often "feel good" dramas, even when it was _not_ necessarily easy to find something to "feel good" about a particular story (Argo [2012] was the big winner at the Oscars last year), I was more or certain that the middle-of-the-roadish American Hustle was going to win best picture (along with a number of the other big awards) at the Oscars this year.  Instead, despite being nominated for 10 Academy Awards, it was shut-out this year as 12 Years a Slave, Gravity and even The Dallas Buyers' Club "sucked up most of the oxygen" this year.

So actually, I'm both surprised and kinda impressed that the Oscars this year proved to be more than an excerise of handing out of "life time achievement awards" to (previously) deserving performers and film-makers for their work in (current) "okay" but not necessarily spectacular films.

Indeed, there still could have been a little bit of this "let's award the middle of the road" phenomenon in this year's awards: While "near-SciFi" Gravity did win a lot of  "technical awards," the "historical drama" 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture.  And while by all accounts, 2013 was a great year for African American cinema (both popular and more artistic) 12 Years a Slave was the "safer" (by distance) choice to the far more current Fruitvale Sation (which wasn't nominated for any Oscar at all, despite a spectacular performance, among others, by previous Oscar Winner Octavia Spencer).   And, while Matthew McConaughey has certainly given some very edgy and even spectacular performances in recent years (one could think of Bernie [2012], Killer Joe [2012], Magic Mike [2012], The Paper Boy [2012] and Mud [2013]) one could argue that he received his Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role in the current The Dallas Buyers' Club for simply losing the weight to play credibly his role as a mid-1980s HIV-AIDS patient, while Leonardo DiCaprio was robbed again (!), this despite also having a years-long pedigree of often spectacular performances (Romeo + Juliet [1996], Titanic [1997], The Beach [2000], The Aviator [2004], Blood Diamond [2006], Revolutionary Road [2008], Inception [2010]) including two utterly Oscar-worthy performances this year (one for which he was nominated in The Wolf of Wall Street [2013] and the other, IMHO even better in The Great Gatsby [2013] for which he was not).  And where was James Franco's nomination (either this year or perhaps last) for his spectacular performance as "Alien" in Spring Breakers [2012]?  Perhaps Spring Breakers was simply too searing, too damning for the Academy. 

So despite this year being certainly one of an increased circle of awardable experience, in the end, the Oscars were still largely handed out for _safe_  more "middle of the road" films / performances as opposed to the truly spectacular, the truly Best ones of the year.


<< 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! :-) >>

Son of God [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

Son of God [2014] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Christopher Spencer along with Richard Bedser, Colin Swash and Nic Young) is IMHO a truly welcome theatrical release as Lent begins next week.  Made by the same people who made the_excellent_ five episode (10 hour) series The Bible [2013] which aired last year on the History Channel during Holy Week (just before Easter) last year, Son of God [2013] is basically the episode on Jesus (Episode 4) of that series, somewhat reworked, so that it could serve as a stand alone film.

As a stand alone film, it's perhaps a little "weaker" than the 10 hour series taken together, perhaps because so many of us are so "familiar with the story."  NEVERTHELESS, I'M STILL EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT THE FILM WAS RELEASED IN THIS FORM.  Why?

(1) Because it's timely/appropriate.  Lent is coming up and honestly for millions upon millions of Catholic/Christian believing families in the United States (and then across the world) Son of God [2014] does offer a _very nice_ alternative to the standard movie-release fare of this time of year -- still far from the Summer Blockbuster season and eons away from the "awardable movie season" that generally only begins in the Fall.  So I am _very happy_ that there appear to be actually a fair number of Christian/Biblically themed movies scheduled to come out over the next couple of months and APPLAUD Hollywood's apparent "experiment" this year to see if offering (at least some) films that would appeal to the sensibilities of Catholic/Christian believing families during this time of year would bring more people to the theaters than offering films that generally do not. 

(2) When Son of God [2014] comes out on DVD later in the year, it will give viewers the choice of either renting _the whole_ five episode (10 hour) The Bible [2013] series OR simply renting the two hour episode that focuses on Jesus reworked here into this film.  I COMPLETELY "GET IT" and I APPLAUD THE PRODUCERS HERE.  And yes, if the film makes 25-30-50 million dollars through a theatrical release from grateful Catholic/Christian families happy to have something to take their kids to the movies to during this time of year EVEN BEFORE THE FILM MAKES IT TO DVD so much the better for them.

To the movie ... As in the case of the entire The Bible [2013] series, I do marvel at some of the creativity on the part of the screenwriters in structuring the film.  So ... who we see FIRST in this film is JOHN (played by Sebastian Knapp), NOT John the Baptist [IMDb] who does show up briefly later on and is played by a "wildman/dreadlock" wearing Daniel Percival) BUT RATHER AN ELDERLY JOHN THE APOSTLE [IMDb], near the end of his life living by tradition in exile in a cave on the Island of Patmos.  And he's recounting the story of Jesus to a group of assembled disciples.

How does John start his story of Jesus to his disciples: "In the beginning ... there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be" Where do those words come from?  FROM THE FAMOUS PROLOGUE OF JOHN'S GOSPEL (John 1:1ff)  And as he recounts this to his disciples, little flashbacks from the first pages of Genesis to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David and beyond are presented.... "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we saw his glory" (John 1:14).  What viewers see at this point is the playing out of the story of the Magi following "the Star" to Bethlehem to bring gives and pay homage to the infant Jesus before his amazed parents Mary and Joseph (Mt 2:1-12). ...

The story then jumps to the beginning of Jesus' ministry with Jesus [IMDb] (played by Diogo Morgado) calling St. Peter [IMDb] (played by Darwin Shaw) by the shores of Galilee.  The story does jump a lot from Gospel to Gospel (as all conflated presentations of Jesus' life do) and it puts various events recalled of Jesus' life in the Gospels in different order, generally for illuminative/dramatic effect.  TO ME, IT GENERALLY WORKS.

For instance, the film has Jesus confronted by a random Galilean Pharisee (played by Paul Marc Davis).  The Pharisee's irritated above all that Jesus seemed to be a more successful preacher/teacher than he was ("stealing" a "few of his sheep" along the way ... NO ONE LIKES THAT VERY MUCH  ;-).  So the somewhat jealous Pharisee tries to point out to Jesus that Jesus was in a sense "cheating" by filling the ranks of his ranks with various previous sinners and even tax collectors.  Jesus' grateful desciples understand Jesus' ministry as precisely "giving people another chance." (What a lovely way of understanding what both Jesus was and the Church/Christianity are all about).

So the film has Jesus responding to the Pharisee with his famous Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) right then and there (rather than in Temple in Jerusalem where the Gospels place the story) telling the story of a Pharisee praying to God at the Temple saying: "'I thank you God for being not like other men -- greedy, dishonest, adulterous -- or even like this tax collector over there ...' while the tax collector stood off at a distance, would not raise up his eyes toward heaven, but instead beat his breast and said..." AND HERE THE FILM HAS MATTHEW THE TAX COLLECTOR (TURNED LATER APOSTLE and EVANGELIST) [IMDb] (played here by Said Bey) HEARING JESUS TELLING THIS PARABLE FROM HIS TAX COLLECTOR'S TABLE and COMPLETING IT by saying WITH TEARS RUNNING DOWN HIS EYES: "Have mercy on me God, a sinner."  For those of us who've prayed and "chewed" on passages such as these FOR THE BETTER PART OF OUR LIVES this is GREAT STUFF.

I do love the film's portrayal of St. Thomas [IMDb] (played here by Matthew Gravel) who's portrayed as ever worried/skeptical and always asking a lot of questions (he's been remembered as "Doubting Thomas" after all ;-)

I do believe that Mary Magdalene [IMDb] (played in the film by Amber Rose Rivah) was PORTRAYED VERY WELL (and indeed _right down the middle_) AS A BOTH KEY MEMBER OF JESUS' DISCIPLES BUT ALSO NEITHER A "RECOVERING PROSTITUTE" NOR "JESUS' WIFE OR LOVER." Basically she's portrayed as a mature, "can hold her own" independent woman.

With regard to Mary, the Mother of Jesus [IMDb] (played in the film first by Leila Mimmack and later by Roma Downey, one of the film's/series' producers) was again portrayed quite well.  Much ink among various film critics has been spent comparing this film's portrayal of Jesus' Passion to the quite brutal portrayal in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ [2004] (Gibson had his reasons for portraying it in that way and his portrayal of Jesus' Passion did serve as perhaps a useful correction to its portrayals in recent decades past which seemed to "sanitize" / "make light" of the suffering involved.  In any case, the portrayal of Jesus' Passion here was somewhat less bloody than Gibson's.  However, viewers would still have no doubt that Jesus _did indeed suffer_ here ... for us).  HOWEVER, what I appreciate in the current film is its "nicer homage" to Gibson's film BY PORTRAYING ONCE AGAIN MARY AT THE CROSS AND THEN HOLDING THE DEAD BODY OF HER SON IN HER ARMS AFTER HE WAS TAKEN DOWN FROM IT (This was the subject of Michelangelo's famous Pieta' and s also my Servite religious Order's "6th Sorrow of Mary").

Indeed John Mulderig, the reviewer for the USCCB/CNS, noted in his review of the film that there are many aspects of this film that the Catholic viewer would happily appreciate. These include (1) the film's portrayal of St. Peter as the unambiguous leader of Jesus' Apostles, (2) its portrayal of Mary at the foot of the cross even (3) its portrayal of the Apostles using the ritual taught them by Jesus at his Last Supper to remember him (and indeed TO MAKE HIM PRESENT TO THEM) after his Resurrection.

I would also add that as I noted already in my review of the full The Bible [2013] series, I appreciated the film's inclusivity, in this film above all expressed with SIMON THE CYRENE (LIBYAN, FROM AFRICA) who HELPED CARRY JESUS' CROSS portrayed in this film AS BLACK (played in the film by Idrissa Sisco).  I honestly liked that detail.

So I do have to say that Catholic/Christian parents "could do much worse" in the coming weeks (of LENT) than going to see this lovely film about Jesus, who we proclaim to the world as the Son of God.  And even those who are not religious ought to be thankful to Hollywood for deciding to "throw us a bone" this year.  Thanks to this film (and several other Biblically themed films to be released in the coming weeks) "business will be up" in theaters this year.  Good job!


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

My 2014 Oscar Picks

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years


Since beginning my Blog some 3 1/2 years ago, I've come to the conclusion that all the Oscars are basically "lifetime achievement awards," and that a lot of great performances, especially in smaller films, are ignored.  As such, each year I also offer my own "Denny" Awards.   But the Oscars are, of course, the "Biggest Show in Town."  So here is my annual survey of who IMHO will win, should win and deserved consideration for the major categories at the 2014 Oscars: 


BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE 
     WILL WIN - Jared Leto as Rayon in Dallas Buyers' Club
     SHOULD WIN - James Franco as "Alien" in Spring Breakers
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - James Franco as "Alien" in Spring Breakers and Garrett Hedlund as Neal Cassady in On the Road


BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
     WILL WIN - Lupita Nyongo'o as Patsey in 12 Years a Slave
     SHOULD WIN - Lupita Nyongo'o Patsey in 12 Years a Slave, June Squibb as the Matriarch Kate in Nebraska or Jennifer Lawrence as Roselyn Rosenfeld in American Hustle
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION -
 Octavia Spencer as Wanda in Fruitvale Station, Kirsten Dunst as Carolyn Cassady in On the Road, Kate Bosworth as Billie in Big Sur and even Jessica Chastain as Anabel in Mama


BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
     WILL WIN - Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordon Belfort in The Wolf of Wall Street
     SHOULD WIN - Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby, Christian Bale as Irvning Rosenfeld in American Hustle or Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof in  Dallas Buyers' Club
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby (2013),  Oscar Isaac as Llewyn Davis in Inside Llewyn Davis, Ernie Hudson as Marcus Wells in The Man in the Silo
 and Robert Redford in All is Lost.
  

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
     WILL WIN - Cate Blanchett as Jasmine in Blue Jasmine
     SHOULD WIN - Cate Blanchett as Jasmine in Blue Jasmine or Judy Dench as Philomena Lee in Philomena
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Mavis Fan as Lan Feng in Will you still love me tomorrow? (orig. Ming tian ji de ai shang wo), Paulina Garcia as Gloria in Gloria, Greta Gerwig as Frances in Frances Ha


BEST ORIGINAL SCREEN PLAY
     WILL WIN - American Hustle
     SHOULD WIN - Blue Jasmine, The Man in the Silo, Spring Breakers, Her
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Frances Ha, The Man in the Silo, Spring Breakers and Inside Llewyn Davis


BEST ADAPTED SCREEN PLAY
     WILL WIN - 12 Years a Slave
     SHOULD WIN - Before Midnight, 12 Years a Slave, The Wolf of Wall Street
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - On the Road, The Bling Ring, The Great Gatsby (2013)


BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
     WILL WIN - Gravity
     SHOULD WIN - Gravity
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - The Great Gatsby (2013), Big Sur, Spring Breakers, The Place Beyond the Pines, Will you still love me tomorrow? (orig. Ming tian ji de ai shang wo),  Much Ado About Nothing (2013), The Great Beauty (orig. La Grande Bellezza)


BEST DIRECTOR
     WILL WIN -  David O. Russell for American Hustle
     SHOULD WIN - David O. Russell for American Hustle or Martin Scorsese for The Wolf of Wall Street
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Richard Linklater for Before Midnight,  Harmony Korine for Spring Breakers, Sofia Coppola for The Bling Ring, Phil Donlon for The Man in the Silo and Woody Allen for Blue Jasmine


BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

     WILL WIN - Frozen [2013]
     SHOULD WIN - Frozen [2013]

               
BEST PICTURE

     WILL WIN - American Hustle
     SHOULD WIN - American Hustle or 12 Years a Slave
     DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Spring Breakers, Frances Ha, The Man in the Silo, All is Lost, Inside Llewyn Davis

 

<< 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! :-) >>

In Secret [2013]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

In Secret [2013] (directed and screenplay by Charlie Stratton, based on the novel Thérèse Raquin (1867) [wikip] [IMDb] by Émile Zola [IMDb] and its stage adaptation by Neal Bell [IMDb]) plays-out like a sexed-up version of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment (1866) [wikip] [IMDb].  The thematics are similar and, interestingly enough, the original novels came out within a year of each other.

Thérèse Raquin (played briefly in film as a girl by Lily Laight and for the rest of story as a young adult by Elizabeth Olsen) is handed-over as child by her father to his sister/her aunt Madame Raquin (played by Jessica Lange) because Thérèse's mother had died and as her father confesses, "[he] didn't know what to do with her."  So Thérèse grows up "in the (French) Provinces" in the home of her aunt and her first sickly and (when he grows up) socially inept son Camille (played in the film by Tom Felton). 

Madame and Camille, however, had a plan.  After Camille was able to land an accounting job of sorts in Paris, they decided to pick-up sticks and move there.  What of Thérèse?  Well, what of her?  They decide to marry her to ... Camille (!).  Now remember that Thérèse and Camille are first cousins, but ... let's face it Camille's a loser and where'd Thérèse get a dowry?  From her father?  Where the heck was he?  From Madame and Camille?  Yeah, right.   Madame's been paying for Thérèse's keep since her brother dropped her off at her doorstep as a child.  So ... "That's just the way it's gonna be honey..."

The three find probably the most depressing flat in Paris.  Madame and Thérèse would run some kind of a small seamstress shop on the ground floor while Camille would be off at work and they would (all) live upstairs.  Camille was generally "off in his own little world," apparently often "stopping at the zoo" after work "to look at the bears."  When deathly bored Thérèse offers one night (in bed) that she "could also be a bear," he looks at her and responds "don't be silly," adjusts his pillow, rolls over and goes to sleep.  Sigh ... something's got to give ...

Well, things turn (in a sense ...) "for the better" for our French "Jane Eyre" [IMDb], when Camille comes home excitedly one day with a long-lost childhood friend named Laurant (played in the film by Oscar Isaac) who he ran into in Paris one day.   Well Laurant is everything that Camille is not.  He's good-looking, quite confident in his demeanor, exuding a "knowledge of things of the world."  But also as an artist (remember Camille is an accountant) Laurant was also broke. So soon enough the desperately lonely (today we'd add sexually frustrated) Thérèse and the broke bohemian Laurant jump headlong into a torrid (and admittedly, at times amusing) affair. 

The circumstances of the affair were (again, for lack of a better word) "amusing" because it turned out that the dingy, awfully depressing flat where Thérèse, Camille and Madame all lived had at least one "redeeming" (of sorts ...) "virtue" ... It apparently had a side door/staircase that led to the second floor.  SOO... good ole Thérèse started to feint headaches around noon time to go upstairs "to rest" while Laurant would skip-off on his lunch-breaks from his odd jobs to visit her using that side-door / staircase with Madame (apparently getting old) and "out of it" Camille "none the wiser."

This worked for a while ... until ... Camille became tired of his rather boring accounting job and sensing (finally) that he's _probably_ failed his wife, tells Thérèse that "Paris was not for them (him)" and that he wanted to take her and Madame back to the family homestead back in the Provinces where they grew up. 

Of course Thérèse didn't not want to go, but Camille decides to "put his foot down" on the matter (after all, "he's the husband...").  So Thérèse and Laurant come up with a desperate plan to "get rid of" (kill) Camille, and ... they do.

It's here that the story (or at least Part II of the story) _really begins_.  Okay, the two killed him.  Now how continue to see each other while NOT arousing suspicion that they did so ...?   There's Madame who's heartbroken over the loss of her admittedly socially inept son.  There turned out to be all kinds of mutual friends/acquaintances.  Then as much of "a loser" that Camille was, he had been a human being.  So it proves _really hard_ to live with this secret ... and much ensues as the two try ...

I have to admit, I very much enjoyed this story of "Jane Eyre" [IMDb] meets "Raskolnikov" [IMDb].  I enjoyed all the performances and yes as the two struggled with their guilt, it becomes ever more clear that the Moral Order has to come to be vindicated ... With themes of adultery and murder and some passionate (if covered) love scenes (Parents take note...) the film deserves its R-rating. 

Yet, for young adults and above, I do believe it makes for a good, thought provoking story and a very good film.  Good job!


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

The Wedlock (orig. Zendegi Moshtarak-e Aghaye Mahmoodi va Banoo) [2013]

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

IMDb listing
Cinando.com listing
Sourehcinema.com listing*

The Wedlock (orig. Zendegi Moshtarak-e Aghaye Mahmoodi va Banoo) [2013] [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]* (directed by Rouhullah Hejazi [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*, screenplay by Ali Telebabadi [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*) is (as far as I could see...) a very well-written, well acted and certainly quite thought-provoking (for _everyone_) contemporary Iranian urbanite/upper middle class "family drama" piece that played recently at the 24th Annual Festival of Films from Iran held recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

The entire film takes place in the very nice, upper middle class home of a middle-aged urbanite (I'm guessing Tehran) couple -- of a traditional (and liking it...) had-some-college (majored in Persian poetry) yet stay-at-home wife/mother Mohaddeseh (played by Hengameh Ghaziani [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*), her more amiable, salt-and-pepper haired/mustached, some kind of professional, bread-winning husband Mansour (played by Hamid Farrokhnejad [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*) and their ipod-listening, at times eyes-rolling, talk-backing (hence quite normal...) yet still largely wide-eyed, innocent 14 year old daughter Negin (played by Tarlan Parvaneh [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*).

For not particularly clear reasons, they decide that their home could use some renovations.  The couple may be seeing their daughter getting older (and thus realizing that they are getting older), they may feel that their lives are a somewhat stagnant, or just feel "a yen to do something."  Why do upper middle class families in the United States decide "to redo the house" or "the kitchen" or whatever?  Whatever the reason, they've decided to do this, to renovate the house a bit.  And they decide to do it in a manner that a lot of nice families all across the world often decide: "Why not let [a random relative] 'who's in that business' do it?"  So they invite a niece, Mohaddeseh's sister's mid 20-something daughter Sameh (played by Taraneh Alidoosti [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*), who's apparently some sort of an interior designer, over to begin the job.

Well, it's been a while since they've seen their quite independent, university educated, "somewhat of an artist type" niece who now has an interior decorating business.  So after the initial smiles (she was apparently quite well remembered from when she was, well ... perhaps 14-year-old Negin's age... ;-), Sameh kinda stuns everybody by bringing over a guy named Ramtin (played by Peyman Ghassemkhani [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*) to help her with doing the initial measurements for the job.

Now who the heck is Ramtin? ;-)

Well, he's something of a partner.  It becomes clear that he's definitely _more_.  Now 14-year-old Negin just loves this as she figures out that whatever the situation actually is between Sameh and Rantin it's bound to embarrass her mother, while in fact 40-something Mohaddeseh does kinda crumple into herself in despair.

How long has it been since they've seen Sameh?  Mohaddeseh remembers now that Sameh (her niece) and Sameh's mother (her sister) hadn't gotten along much in those years (about 5-10 years back) before Sameh's mother had died.  Now Mohaddeseh understood a bit of why the two didn't get along.  It's not that Ramtin was around when Sameh's mother / Mohadesseh's sister had died.  He wasn't.  But now Mohaddeseh remembered what kind of a "free spirit" Sameh had been in her early and mid-twenties.  And her daughter's just getting into that "teenage rebellious age" ;-).

Finally, the ever smiling, amiable Mansour (after all, he's supposed to be "the man of the house" ;-), and also one who appears to have always kinda liked Sameh when she was growing-up, decides to break the tension by asking: "So ... are you two married?"

They answer "No, not really" ;-).  Apparently, in contemporary Islamic Iran (as it also appeared to be in Biblical Israel/Palestine at the time of Jesus) marriage is two step process: Sameh and Rantin had taken their "Engagement vows" but not their full "Marriage vows." BUT they lied to their landlady and were essentially living together unmarried.  ("Where there's a will, there's a way..." apparently even in contemporary Iran ;-)

So Mansour (like amiable, regular/traditional folk all over) asks, "Why don't you two just get married?" to which Ramtin answers, "I'd get married to Sameh in a minute." It turns out that it's Sameh who really doesn't want to get married ;-)

Why?  The same conversation -- where EVERYBODY is at least PARTLY RIGHT (but then also where EVERYBODY is at least PARTLY WRONG) -- that we hear in this film taking place among the members of this very nice Shiite Muslim family in Tehran could be _easily_ be imagined taking place among many very nice parish (Catholic) families here in Chicago ;-)

GREAT FILM.


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using Google's Chrome Browser. 

<< 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! :-) >>