Stranger by the Lake (orig. L'inconnu du Lac) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be NC-17)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
AC.fr listing*

ChicagoTribune (B. Sharkey) review
RE.com (M. Oleszczyk ) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review

There will be plenty of people who will not be able to get past the (male) nudity and (gay) sex in this nominally unrated but NC-17 deserving French language, English subtitled film Stranger by the Lake (orig. L'inconnu du Lac) [2013] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* (written and directed by Alain Guiraudie [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) that (IMHO, if one can take a few steps back, deservingly) made a splash last year at the Cannes Film Festival and is currently making its rounds in the "art theater circuit" in the United States.  (I saw it recently at Chicago's Music Box Theater).

So why write about it here?  Well, first the film is nominally unrated and it actually would behoove parents to know that the film would definitely deserve an R and probably an NC-17 rating. Second, what if you did have a son, cousin, nephew, brother, coworker, etc ... who was gay?  You could probably do much worse than this film to get a much better sense of what their worlds were like.  And this is because, third, if one can get past all that male nudity and less but definitely present gay sex it's actually a rather good film.  And though there will be folks that will chuckle here, honestly, there is _nothing_ that forbids you from closing your eyes if a particular scene (and not just in this movie, but ANY movie) is too much for you.  And I will flatly admit that I did just close my eyes through the main 2-3-4 minute (gay) love scene in the film.  And in years past, I've closed my eyes in the closing years of my roller-coaster days, when even though I was in my 40s, as the youngest priest around I was still the one responsible for going with the youth group to the "Great America" Amusement Park here in Chicago.  One can get through a lot of things, if one occasionally just closes one's eyes.

Okay, but why do that now (close one's eyes)?  Why do that at a film?  If it's that problematic, why go see it at all?  Well it's hard to be in pastoral ministry (and honestly to be alive at all) and not know gay people.  Yes, the percentages are low, but I honestly don't believe that one could live in the United States or even across the world anymore without knowing at least one or two gay people, maybe not presently, maybe in the past.  But to know NO ONE who was gay?  And then if one has known, worked with, went to school with, been at family reunions with someone who was gay ... wouldn't one (certainly as an adult) want to know a little bit about how they lived?  And then isn't it better to have the story told by someone "in that community" rather than "outside of it"? 

Readers my blog will know that I make it a point of seeing foreign films.  They will also know that I make it a point of seeing films from (our American perspective) "problematic" countries like Iran (they have a _great cinema_ actually) and Russia (less so, because it seems that it _seems_ "less free" than Iran's) or from a lot of countries that a lot of (Americans) would not much think of like Bulgaria or Denmark or LUXEMBURG.  Last year at the Chicago's Gene Siskel Film Center's "16th Annual Film Festival" I saw two _great_ romantic comedies one each from Bulgaria and Denmark and a very good crime thriller from LUXEMBURG (honestly before going, I never would have guessed).  And over the years, I've seen a great horror movie from the Dominican Republic and a Chilean/Bolivian sci-fi movie and another one from Argentina that honestly made me think about my previous (North) American presuppositions.

The recently deceased Roger Ebert who I grew-up watching spar with the above mentioned Gene Siskel (both now legendary movie critics) once called the movies an "empathy machine" that allows one to enter if for a few hours into the world of another person from another country, race or time and to see the world, if for that brief period of time, from his/her perspective.  That's one of the main reasons why I created this blog, to allow people to experience even for a short time what its like to be someone else from another place, another time, and thus to perhaps better appreciate that we're actually far more similar than we have previously thought we are and yet ... can learn from one another.

I am, after all, A CATHOLIC (member of a Church that does see itself as Universal and that ALL OF US are ultimately brothers and sisters to each other and children of the same God).  So I do see films as giving viewers the opportunity to discover a bit about "brothers and sisters" far away.

To the film ...

The entire film takes place over the course of about 10 sunny days in the summer by a rather isolated beach along a rather beautiful if, again, rather isolated lake somewhere in (I'm guessing) the southern part of France.  The beach is rather isolated because to get there one has to take a dirt road and even when one arrives, the parking lot is rather improvised.  Finally, one has to still walk a little ways through the woods to get to said beach.

So the beach is kinda "in the middle of nowhere" (at the edge of the world/civilization/etc) but once one gets there, it's (1) quite nice, (2) isolated from other beaches.  There's apparently another beach somewhere on the other side of the lake that's more accessible than this one and also frequented by more conventional types -- families, tourists, etc, but it's so far away that the clientele on either beach don't bother those of the other.  And yet (3) it's frequented.  There's never a huge crowd at this "out of the way" GAY beach.  But every day there are about 10-15 cars there parked in that improvised dirt parking lot.

So what do people do at this "out of the way, gay beach?"  Well, a lot of them tan, taking in the sun, in the nude, of course, taking an occasional swim out into the lake some ways, perhaps in part to cool off, in part perhaps to try to impress the others also nonchalantly "taking in the sun" hoping perhaps to "hook up" with one or another of them, "back in the woods" later.

As I watched the film, the quite relaxed, generally happy (perhaps not having to worry about being anyone but oneself) behavior of the (all male) beach goers at this beach both reminded me (1) of legends of pagan times.  Apparently the Greek island of Lesbos was where, gay women (lesbians...), would come to similarly "hang out" in pagan times.  Arguably the various legends of the Sirens or Lorelei or water nymphs gathering around any watering hole anywhere derived from a similar experience -- plopping down by a nice beach or meadow somewhere by a body of water, among other beautiful people (or people their same age), basking in the sun, and waiting for something to happen.  And (2) neither is this experience pleasurable to humans alone.  One thinks of all the animals from crocodiles to hippos to water-buffalo who seem to also enjoy just sitting there in the sun, by on in the water, watching the day go by, and also waiting for something opportune to happen as well.

And so it was, this little isolated beach at the farther, more inaccessible, shore of some random lake in southern France offered a lovely place for this in this loose community of men to come out, plop themselves down on their towel, take in some sun, do some swimming, perhaps pick-up some other guy, have some sex with him, come back to the beach, clean themselves off, plop down again on their towel, take in some more sun, take one last swim, dry oneself off, pick-up one's stuff, trudge back to the car and call it a day.

Okay by Catholic Church teaching, the sex these men would engage in would be definitely considered "objectively disordered" as it would habe been entered into with no particular interest in fostering any kind of lasting relationship to say nothing intrinsically not being able to create new (physical) life.   Further, as the conversations of these men themselves prior to engaging in said sexual activity would indicate, they were aware of and calculating the relative risks of said sexual activity that they were proposing to each other, these risks including the rick of infection (in the worst case with AIDS but also any number of other ailments, large and small).

Still, honestly, it was clear that no one was pressuring anyone to do what the other would not want to do ...  Just about everyone seemed to implicitly respect each other's "mellow," appreciating that they were all out there "at the edge of the world" to relax, arguably "be at one/Peace with _themselves_ and with Nature," _enjoy it_ (while it lasted) and then, as the sun set, pack up and go home.  Honestly, isn't that fascinating?  A more or less happy community of the marginalized.

Well, as one would expect, trouble eventually comes to Paradise.  While there may be a natural Beauty to life at the margins, at the edge of Civilization (Natural wonders protected by National Parks are usually not found in the cities), there are Dangers as well.    The denizens of this beach were all folks who've chosen to live at least in part at the edges of society.  And while the experience of being marginalized (because they were generally all gay) perhaps made them more open to others who were "perhaps are a bit strange," among the "Strange" would also lurk the Dangerous.

So it happened that at the end of one of those idyllic days at the Beach at the edge of the world, the film's central protagonist, a rather good looking, well mannered, relaxed, generally confident 20-something Franck (played by Pierre Delandonchamps [IMDb] [AC.fr]) spied on two of the day's beach-goers having what appeared to be a fight.  Except they were having their fight not on land, but some ways out swimming in the lake.  And after some time, it became clear that one of them had decided for -- from Franck's distance of 50-100-200 meter away, up already quite close to the parking lot -- some utterly unknowable reason to try to drown the other ... And since that one was stronger than the other ... he succeeded.

Stupified, Franck continued to look out at the beach and lake from his distance until he was able to recognize who of the day's beach goers had done this terrible deed.  It turned out to be a buff "Mark Spitz"-like relative newcomer to the lake named Michel (played by Christophe Paou [IMDb] [AC.fr]*) 

What to do?  The rest of the film plays itself out -- over the course of the next 8-9 still gentle, still breezy, still lazy, still nominally "idyllic" days -- from there.

Honestly, while certainly not for kids, and many will simply not be able to get past the nudity and the gay sex, it makes for an interesting and manifold thought provoking 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! :-) >> 

Run & Jump [2013]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (K. Ryan) review

Run & Jump [2013] (directed and cowrtten by Steph Green as well as Aibhe Keogan) is a lovely little film that comes from Ireland that played recently at the 17th European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago.

A young Irish Co. Kerry family is adjusting to a terribly random life-altering tragedy.  The film begins with
with still young, lovely, full-of-life mid-late 30-something Vanetia (played by Maxine Peake) driving over to a local rehab center in a small sea-side town to bring her similarly mid-late 30-something husband Conor (played by Edward MacLiam) home.  Conor had suffered a stroke (I told you it was a terribly random life-altering tragedy), spent a month in a coma hovering between life and death, and since waking-up the last four months in rehab.   Now still not completely "there" (and he may never be) he's going home.

When the two arrive home, their two kids as well as Conor's parents (visiting from nearby) are there.  Thirteen-fourteen year-old  Lenny (played by Brendan Morris) is clearly still shell shocked.  Younger, eight maybe nine year old Noni (played by Ciara Gallagher) is just happy to see her dad home again. 

Conor's parents are there to give support to their son and his family.  And they are not excited to hear that Vanetia, in part to help compensate for loss of income has decided to accept a rather disconcerting offer to have an American neurologist named Ted (played by William Forte) board with them for a number of months in order to study the extent of Conor's recovery. 

Conor's parents are not particularly excited because, money aside, Ted would be another man in the house, and they do know (as all know) that Conor's not doing well.  But if they had any fears (and perhaps Vanetia had any subconscious hopes), Ted, when he arrives is supremely polite and professional (as one would perhaps expect a well-adjusted American academic well-trained in the ethics of his trade).  But he finds himself in a small town at the very far edge of the Old World in the midst of a family that's been traumatized, a young wife who also still loves her husband but also is also is struggling with "what now" and it's raining all the time.  And though everybody is being very, very nice ... American Ted in his utterly non-judgemental, professional way, and the Irish traumatized family, "We just want to cry but we're going to be really, really nice about it" ... it's clear that this family didn't need a second guy lumbering around half in a coma.

And so it is.  What is mid-to-late 30-something Vanetia still honestly with so much of her life ahead of her but with 2 kids and a tragically half-zombie-like husband living at the edge of the world gonna do?   Well, rent the film it's already on Amazon Instant Video and probably elsewhere.

It is actually a very lovely and very, very human tale ... again told in the midst of rain (but then also in the midst of a lot of verdant green) and coming from a place where "the next parish west ... is in the United States" ;-)


<< 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 Wind Rises (orig. Kazetachinu) [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
AsianWiki listing

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review

The Wind Rises (orig. Kazetachinu) [2013] [IMDb] [AW] (written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki [IMDb] [AW]) is one of several World War II themed films from former (U.S.) adversaries that have made it to U.S. shores recently.  Others include the German miniseries converted into a two-part film Generation War (orig. Unsere Mütter, Unsere Väter) [2013] and the Russian 3D epic Stalingrad [2013] (yes, I know that the Russian dominated Soviet Union was technically an "ally" of the U.S. / Britain during WW II, but it was subsequently an adversary during the 45 year Cold War that followed and may be becoming an adversary again).  To be honest, I've found every one of these films both challenging (often in different ways) and instructive to view.

For instance, the current film, done in Miyazaki's / Studio Ghibli's signature animated style is about Jirô Horikoshi (voiced in the English version by Joseph Gordon-Lewitt) the principal designer of the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero fighter plane (the one used by the Japanese to devastating effect to bomb Pearl Harbor, among other places ...).

It's a "lovely" film.  It does much to "humanize" Horikoshi along with German bomber designer Hugo Junkers and pioneering Italian aircraft designer Giovanni Battista Caproni (voiced in the English version by Stanley Tucci) -- yes ALL the WW II era Axis powers were represented.  Horikoshi, for instance, was in love with a lovely if tuberculosis afflicted young woman named Nahoko Satomi (voiced in the English version by Emily Blunt).  Junkers was presented as an "all-purpose" German engineer who had started his engineering works making household appliances including radiators (and it was suggested that some of the rather "clunky" aethetics of the Junkers aircraft derived from their creators' more humble/practical origins).  Finally, Caproni with whom Horikoshi talked to only in his dreams was portrayed as a Leonardo Da Vinci-like "dreamer."

It's all well and nice, but at the end of the day, THESE PEOPLE MADE KILLING MACHINES.  Now, obviously aircraft designers on the other side (the makers of the elegant British Spitfire, the super-practical (100 days from initial request to production) U.S. P-51 Mustang or the Soviet Il-2 Sturmovik "Flying Tank"  (also designed / made "in a hurry...") TO SAY NOTHING OF the designers of the British Lancaster or American B-17 (Flying Fortress), B-24 (Liberator) and finally B-29 (Super Fortress) bombers ALSO MADE KILLING MACHINES.  But I'm pretty sure that I don't particularly care that one or another of these weapons designers "had a child with autism," because all these folks built weapons that rained death upon innocents who were ALSO "taking care of their sick mothers and grandmothers," "liked books" or even "ran a puppy shelter or two."

But director Miyazaki may have a point.  Certainly the West has long forgiven CARD-CARRYING NAZI rocket designer Werner Von Braun, whose V-2s rained terror, death and destruction down on London and Antwerp during the closing year of WW II, because he _later_ took the U.S. (and indeed the world) "to the moon" with his Saturn-5.  But then a Japanese film-maker would not necessarily care much for the POST-HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI "pacifist views" of U.S. atomic bomb designer J. Robert Oppenheimer.

But then this may be the film's point.  ALL these aircraft designers -- Caproni, Junkers, and  Horikoshi -- would have preferred to make MORE POSITIVE USES of their talents.  "But they lived in the world and time that they did."  Indeed, Caproni even tells Horikoshi in a dream: "All artists have but 10 years of greatness to create.  Engineers are no different.  Use your 10 years well."

Did he?  That's one question that the film maker asks viewers to consider.  Are you? Is perhaps the more pertinent and _challenging_ question that the film maker asks his audiences as well.

A good (and aesthetically _lovely_) film , if honestly, a rather disturbing one as well ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Mr. Peabody & Sherman [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (K. McFarland) review

Mr. Peabody & Sherman [2014] (directed by Rob Minkoff, screenplay by Craig Wright, based on the children's animated cartoon series by the same name [IMDb] by Jay Ward that used to appear during the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show [IMDb] in the United States in the early 1960s. is about the super intelligent beagle Mr. Peabody [IMDb] (voiced by Ty Burrell) and _his_ "pet"/"owner," the little boy Sherman [IMDb] (voiced by Mac Charles).

The joke even in the original series was that the dog was far more intelligent than his nominal owner.  In the current version of the story, it's Mr. Peabody [IMDb], who after realizing that _no one_ was going to adopt him from the "puppy shelter" (because he was simply _way too smart_ for any human "owner") had "buried himself in books" eventually becoming "the first dog to get a PhD at Harvard" ;-), who actually _adopts Sherman_ who he finds one day "coming home from the lab" abandoned in a box (becoming, of course, "first dog to ever adopt a human..." ;-).

Now Sherman [IMDb], of course, being a little boy, DOESN'T KNOW that it's "not exactly the norm" that he'd be the adopted child of a dog (super-intelligent or otherwise).  So it comes to him as a shock when on his first day of school, Penny Peterson (voiced by Ariel Winter) a precocious little girl (ALSO arguably for the first time "outside the home" / "away from her parents" and on _her first day of school_) starts to make fun of him because "his father's a dog."  Some of Sherman's friends try to tell her "well, it's an adoptive relationship" but she insists that "it's not normal to have a 'dog' as a father."  Finally, Sherman [IMDb] gets mad and ... punches her ;-).

Well that lands him in the Principal's office (on his first day of school...) and Principal Purdy (voiced by Stephen Tobolowsky) brings in a social worker named Ms Grunion (vocied by Allison Janney) who tells Mr. Peabody [IMDb] that she's always been skeptical of this "dog adoption" and is going to take the matter to the Courts to revisit the question of whether he'd be a suitable parent for Sherman [IMDb].  (Now readers, what does this situation remind you of?  There's an obvious subtext here regarding the current question of adoption by gay potential parents...).

Now poor Mr. Peabody [IMDb], decides to invite Penny and her parents (voiced by Stephen Colbert and Leslie Mann) to his quite exquisite "condo in the city with a view" so that they could resolve their problems before the matter gets taken to the courts.

Penny's parents are yuppies -- lovely, rich, generally "nice" but ... clueless ;-).  So poor Mr. Peabody [IMDb] spends about 20 minutes in the film trying to persuade them that whatever their likes/dislikes were, that he could hold his own with them and "fit in."

One of the funniest sequences here was when Mr. Peabody [IMDb] discovers that Penny's parents "like music."  So we see him playing "a piano piece" by Chopin.  Then Penny's dad says that he actually prefers "heavy metal" more.  So we then see Mr. Peabody [IMDb] playing essentially "Purple Haze" by Jimmy Hendrix on an electrical guitar.  "No, no maybe flamenco ..." so Mr. Peabody [IMDb] pulls out an acoustic guitar and begins playing a "classical guitar" tune.  "No bongos" ... he's pulls out some bongos, "No Jazz ..." he pulls out a saxophone, and so one and so forth ;-)  Finally, at some point Penny's dad becomes convinced that Mr. Peabody [IMDb] is _one talented dog_ ;-) even though he's been playing with his blackberry/smartphone through most of Peabody's [IMDb] gymnastics ;-)

Mr. Peabody [IMDb] finally seems to "seal the deal" with Penny's parents after inviting them to his bar where he prepares for them "a cocktail concoction of his own design" that he calls "Einstein on the Beach" (which at least one of the reviewers I list at the top of my review noted is funny on a surprisingly impressive number of levels ;-)   Let me offer just one: Einstein besides referring to Albert Einstein who naturally would have been one of  Peabody's [IMDb] heroes, literally means "Ein Stein" or "one stone," where? "on the beach" ... ;-).  A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ORIGINAL ANIMATED CARTOON SERIES WAS THE SHEER NUMBER OF PUNS (often real "groaners...") THAT MR. PEABODY "DROPS" DURING THE COURSE OF CONVERSATION.  Again, he's one _super intelligent_ dog ;-) ...  

But while Mr. Peabody [IMDb]'s busy impressing Penny's parents, Penny and Sherman are _also_ resolving things between themselves.  And during the course of this, Penny convinces Sherman [IMDb] to show her Mr. Peabody [IMDb]'s Time Machine (called the WABAC - pronounced "Way Back" - machine) which then makes up the rest of the story.  The main "schtick" of the original Mr. Peabody and Sherman [IMDb] television series was that Mr. Peabody [IMDb] had invented this time machine and would take Sherman [IMDb] on various trips back into time to help him with his homework, often to very amusing effect.

So the film takes viewers along with Penny, Sherman [IMDb] and eventually Mr. Peabody [IMDb] back to various places in time -- that of the French Revolution, Ancient Egypt and the Renaissance and much hilarity ensues. 

But the film is really about the question: What would an even super-intelligent, super-capable "dog" have to do to convince "regular people" to consider him "an equal," worthy of their time?  And yet, the question is posed in a very, very nice and very amusing way.  Good job folks!  Seriously 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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>