Cesar Chavez [2014]

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

IMDb listing

CatholicWorker.org - Archive Articles about Cesar Chavez' Life / Work at the Time of his Work
NatlCatholicReporter (M.T. Garcia) background article

LaOpinion (Los Angeles) coverage of film*
     (J. Perera) review*
     (A. Martínez-Ortega) interview w. relatives*
     (A. Martínez-Ortega) director / film in Chavez' Delano, CA*
Telemundo.com coverage of film*
Univision coverage of film*
ViveloHoy coverage of film*

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review

HollywoodReporter (D. Rooney) review 
ChicagoTribune/LA Times (B. Sharkey) review
RE.com (G. Chelshire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Cesar Chavez [2014] (directed by Diego Luna, screenplay by Keir Pearson with collaboration with Timothy J. Sexton) is a biopic that's going to feel "flat" to a lot of people.

I believe that this is in part because non-violence is never particularly easy to put compellingly onscreen (though there have been compelling onscreen portrayals of champions of non-violence.  One simply thinks of the unforgettable Oscar winning Gandhi [1992] and even the recent Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom [2013] reviewed here).

I believe it's also in part because the Solidarity of the Union Movement in the United States and elsewhere that so inspired Cesar Chavez' organizing efforts has been decades-long retreat -- indeed since Ronald Reagan who was elected Governor in California at exactly the same time as Cesar Chavez was organizing those migrant farm-workers of its hot arid Central Valley, went out of his way to crush the Air Traffic Controllers' strike soon after being elected President a decade and a half later.

So to most young viewers there must be an almost "Gone With the Wind" quality to the current film.  Plenty of reviewers (above) have noted that while there are streets, schools and plazas all over the United States named after Cesar Chavez, many Americans and especially the young would wonder: "Who's Cesar Chavez?"  I'd honestly go further: Many young people in the U.S. may sincerely ask "What's a Union?" With the ascendant American right-wing (and its Australian Billionaire funded FoxNews mouthpiece) answering dogmatically: "Communists" (even as the Right would choose to forget that the U.S. under Reagan actually supported Lech Walesa's Solidarity trade union in Poland as a tactic to help _bring down_ Communism ... and then "Solidarity" the joining together to oppose injustice is actually a Catholic Value, enshrined in Catholic Social Teaching, that reminds us simply that "we are our brothers' keepers" and above all ALL CHILDREN OF THE SAME GOD.

Very good, the film would probably feel to many viewers as "flat" and to many viewers (especially non-Hispanics) even "irrelevant."  If Cesar Chavez wasn't exciting in a conventional Hollywood sense, why bother make a movie about him?

I THINK THAT THIS IS WHERE THINGS COULD BEGIN TO GET INTERESTING.  For I would suggest that this movie WAS INTENDED to be this way.  Why??  To present Cesar Chavez (played IMHO excellently in the film by Chicago born actor Michael Peña) and his wife Helen (played even better by America Ferrera) and even Chavez' co-organizer Dolores Huerta (played by Rosario Dawson) as credible, family oriented, Catholic believing Hispanics.

To put it bluntly: CESAR CHAVEZ WASN'T SUPERMAN (Indeed, he may be most comparable to the other Catholic "union man" of his time Poland's Lech Walesa, about whom the Poles recently made a very good and similarly styled film Walesa: Man of Hope [2013]) 

Cesar Chavez was committed to his cause to bring justice to his brothers and sisters (at the time both Mexican and Filipino) in the fields.  He had principles (most notably non-violence which he did understand as coming from his Catholic faith).  But after that, he was NOT A LAWYER.  He enjoyed being out there in the field (and in the hot sun) with a bull-horn or perhaps marching "on pilgrimage" through the same said fields under the same said "hot sun" with a banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe and/or the Native American stylized Eagle emblazoned banner of the United Farm Workers union "to Sacramento" only to periodically "stop for Mass" (often held outdoors, in the same said fields, under the same said sun.  And yes, his was a campaign -- as Catholic as can be -- of gently but unremittingly "GUILTING" his opposition into submission ;-).

And guilting "opposition" into submission didn't involve simply guilting powerful "Evil" farm-growers often Catholic, often immigrants or children of immigrants themselves (John Malkovich playing one such, fictionalized, immigrant Croatian grower plays him perfectly ... "But, but ... I worked for all of this, why should I now pay my workers more than I absolutely have to?" "Because it's the right to do?"  "Oh mannn...!"), but also "GUILTING" _his own kids_ into submission ;-).  

There's a great scene near the beginning of the film when Cesar Chavez makes the decision to move his family (wife and count them 8 kids) FROM LOS ANGELES to "the boonies" (Daleno, CA).  Needless to say, especially the older kids, especially the oldest son, already a teenager, were/was not excited.  So dutiful and loving wife Helen calls a "family meeting" to explain their father's seemingly crazy decision to move them ALL out (lets face it) "to the middle of nowhere" and ends saying with all sincerity: "Okay, lets now put it to a vote. All in favor ... of moving ... raise your hands ..." NONE of the kids raise their hands. POOR HELEN'S HEART VISIBLY SINKS BEFORE THEM  But even as it does THE KIDS' FACES ALSO CHANGE.  HOW CAN ONE POSSIBLY "VOTE AGAINST MOM" :-) ;-)

In my continued work in Hispanic ministry going-on now 15 years, I've witnessed DOZENS of similar scenes of gentle persuasion: the Hispanic mom crushing all opposition with her tears ... Our Lady of Sorrows, par excellance ;-).

Yes, the film is slow but it is IMHO credible.  And perhaps in reading this review and looking-up some of the links I provide above, the reader here will appreciate both its intention (to appeal to a Hispanic audience) and also why Catholic priests, religious, dedicated lay leaders (including Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-NY portrayed in the film) FLOCKED TO CESAR CHAVEZ laboring OUT IN THE FIELDS, OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, OUT IN THAT HOT BEATING SUN, back in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.  Along with one of my Province's old timers Fr. Dave Brown, OSM we counted 5-6 of our Servite priests from the United States -- Fr. Marty Jenco, OSM, Fr. Mark Franceschini, OSM,  Fr. Damian Charboneau, OSM,  Fr. Albert and Fr. David Gallegos, OSM -- who along with similarly interested Servite Sisters made the pilgrimage over the years AND EVEN SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME with Cesar Chavez out in those fields, out in that sun, in Solidarity with the farm workers he was trying to support and organize.

So for many, this film is a nostalgia piece.  But it may inspire others today to see QUE "se puede" when in fact we choose to work together.


ADDENDUM:

I've mentioned above that to many Americans, Cesar Chavez could best be compared to "fellow union man" of his time Lech Walesa.  There's also another man, Latino as well, that he could be compared to, and one who the Sisters and Friars of my Servite Religious Order also supported: Chico Mendes of Brazil's Amazon region, who set about (and was ultimately assassinated) organizing the seringueros (rubber tappers) of the Amazonian Rain Forests of Acre.  In recent years, the Servite Order commissioned a book by Brazilian writer Milton Claro about the The Amazonia That We Do Not Know.  There's a chapter there on the Chico Mendes's Last Day prior to his assassination.


* 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! :-) >> 

Those Happy Years (orig. Anni Felici) [2013]

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

IMDb listing
FilmTv.it listing*

TheHollywoodReporter (D. Young) review

Panorama.it (S. Santoni) background article*
CineBlog.it (A.M. Abate) review*
OggiAlCinema.net (C. Catali) review* 

Those Happy Years (orig. Anni Felici) [2013] [IMDb] [FT.it]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Daniele Luchetti [IMDb] [FT.it]* along with Sandro Petraglia [IMDb], Stefano Rulli [IMDb] and Caterina Venturini [IMDb] story again by Daniele Luchetti [IMDb] [FT.it]*) is an excellently crafted and acted Italian film that played recently at the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

Patterned at least in part on writer/director Luchetti's [IMDb] [FT.it]* own childhood experience, the story is told through the perspective of an adult named Dario looking back on the summer of 1974 when as a 10 year old (played in the film by Samuel Garofalo [IMDb] [FT.it]*) and was growing-up in Rome in the household of a grasping, initially self-absorbed wannabe avant-garde artist, his father Guido (played by Kim Rossi Stuart [IMDb] [FT.it]*), he observed the awakening of his mother Serena (played by Micaela Ramazzotti [IMDb] [FT.it]*).  To be sure Serena must have always been quite formidable.  Beautiful and yet also a good wife and mother, and one who already and always knew that about herself.  Yet, in that summer of '74 with the winds of Feminism penetrating even into Italy and encouraged by an art-dealer and mutual friend of hers and husband's, named Helke (played by Martina Gedeck [IMDb] [FT.it]*), she begins to assert herself in ways that changes the whole family. 

Were those changes without cost?  Certainly not.  (Since there is a chance that this film might actually play art-house circuit in the United States, I don't want to get into Spoilers).  But did these changes result in everyone in the family becoming more honest and arguably better people?  Certainly yes.  (Okay, I will add this minor spoiler -- her awakening and challenge to her husband improves his own art).

But what Dario seems to remember most is that though these were painful times in the life of his family, _looking back_ they were also "good" or "happy" ones.

Parents, this film is definitely not intended for children.  There is a good deal of female nudity in it (Again, Dario's father was trying to "live the dream" of a 1970s "avant-garde" artist... and Serena's own journey is not without its own infidelities).

But I do believe that it is a very honest, and then a very very well crafted film:  There are no stupid or careless use of "handheld" shots except and honestly ONLY when they do serve the plot (and that is RARELY).  Instead, this film bella figura all the way.

And some of the cinematography is truly worth an envious look by camera-folk even by those who would otherwise not be interested in the film's content: There's an extended shot in the film, for instance, in which several of the story's characters are heading back to Rome on a train in the late-evening.  The chaotic interplay of the lighting both inside the compartment and (through the glass windows of the train) outside is both remarkable and powefully _reflective_ of the confusion being experienced by the film's characters at the time. (And regardless of how any of the story's characters felt about things at the time, they were sitting in that train which was inexorably careening forward, beyond of the control of them sitting in their compartment, to its preset destination).  It's a stunningly, well-executed visual metaphor to what was going on at that point in the story and alone is WORTH THE TIME TO LOOK-UP THE FILM.

Then Micaela Ramazzotti [IMDb] [FT.it]* playing Dario's mother Serena gives perhaps a CAREER DEFINING PERFORMANCE here as early 30-something _mother_ who's beautiful, elegant and strong -- a credible awakening feminist (and by the film's end, a fully awoken feminist) who can still pull-off (and enjoys pulling off) dressing-up (and looking really, really good) in a light summer dress and heels.  Why does she continue to dress-up so "nicely"?  For her husband (or men in general)?  No.  It's clear that she dresses nicely _for herself_ and perhaps also because she comes from a country with a LONG TRADITION of cutting some of the best-looking clothes in the world.   Italy is the land of Armani, Gucci and Versace, et al, after all, and with a fashion sense that goes back to Michelangelo, Da Vinci and the rest of the Italian Renaissance.

So this is a very very well crafted film, both elegant and yet real / nostalgic, done in the best Italian bella figura tradition: a visual feast with also some great acting performances.  Good job!


* 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! :-) >>

Noah [2014]

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

IMDb listing

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review

Nat'l Cath.Register (S.D. Graydanus) review
         Q/A regarding controversies
         Interview w. Aronofsky/Ari Handel
         Vat. Radio Interview w S.D.Graydanus

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

First of all, I would like to complement the National Catholic Register's Steven D. Graydanus for his excellent reporting (above) regarding the hoopla / controversies surrounding the release of Noah [2014] (directed and cowritten by Darren Aronofsky along with Ari Handel, based on the story of Noah in the Book of Genesis).

I would also agree with the USCCB/CNS reviewer J. Mulderig's assessment that the film is NOT INTENDED FOR SMALL KIDS (Honestly, DON'T DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR INNOCENCE.  Let them happily continue to imagine or even draw the animals -- giraffes, elephants, lions, racoons, ostriches, aligators, etc -- entering the ark "2 by 2" as most of us have done for generations ... There's absolutely nothing that this film adds that would help an 8 to 10 year old "better understand the story").

Teens and above?  That's a different ball game.  And here I would definitely recommend the reporting of Steven Graydanus, especially his Q/A article about the film.  Teens would certainly understand his explanations of some of the film's "surprises" (most notably the presence of those strange Tolkeinesque stone giants the film called "Watchers" (which are Aronofsky's depiction of the Biblical Nephelim (Gen 6:4).

Regarding the film's telling of Story of Noah, I personally didn't mind, and truth be told ENJOYED, the flourishes of the Stone Giant Nephelim and even the "magic ignitable stones" called sohars explained in Graydanus' interview with Aronofsky and Handel (there's also a footnote about the meaning of sohar in the the Catholic New American Bible at the appropriate verse Gen 6:16).  I LEARNED about God's apparent "pre-flood" instruction to both humans and animals to live as vegetarians (Gen 1:28-29) vs the  "post-flood" permission to begin eating meat (Gen 9:1-3).

I don't even necessarily mind Aronofsky/Handel's "environmentalist" theme -- that among humanity's (or specifically "The Sons of Cain's") post-Fall sins was the devastation of the Environment.  I just find the charge somewhat tendentious with regard to contemporary concerns as (if one insisted on taking the first chapters of Genesis literally) I'd find it hard to imagine that there'd be enough people around then to really devastate the world's environment.

My biggest qualm with Aronofsky/Handel's portrayal of Noah (played in the film by Russell Crowe) is with their Noah not wanting his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth (played by Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman and Leo McHugh Carroll respectively) to have wives and hence to have children.  Gen 7:7 reads "Together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, Noah went into the ark because of the waters of the flood." 

While in a sense, film makers (as all artists) can "do whatever they want," I nevertheless take issue with the contention that God would have wanted to destroy humanity COMPLETELY (even the obedient Noah and his sons and especially after they had completed their task of saving all the animals).

Fallen as we are, we're nevertheless told in the Bible's first creation story Gen 1:26-27 that we were made "in the image of God" and then in the second creation story (about the creation of Adam and Eve) that God created essentially everything else that there is, the trees/plants (Gen 2:8-9) and all the animals (Gen 2:18ff) to make us happy.

So to eliminate humanity COMPLETELY (and leave the animals / rest of Creation behind) just doesn't make sense to me.

Further it certainly goes against the Catholic Church's conception of both God's Creation and our place within it.  And note here that the Catholic Church in no way advocates a "disrespect" MUCH LESS "PLUNDER" of Creation: For the World Day of Peace in 1990, Pope John Paul II issued a mini-encyclical entitled "Peace With God The Creator, Peace With All of Creation." And the current Pope even took the name Francis after a Saint WHO LOVED ANIMALS and EVEN PREACHED TO THEM.

So I do have a real issue with the contention that God would want Noah and his sons to simply "die off" after effectively saved the rest of Creation for Him.

With regard to the rest of the film, clearly it's very interesting.  If nothing else it will keep both teens and adults awake and interested throughout. 

I'd also like to note that both Jennifer Connelly (who played Noah's wife, portrayed as something of the family's "herbalist" - she would have supervised most of the family's food prep - and who comes up with a incense concoction that puts the animals in the ark to a restful sleep for the duration of the ark's journey) and Emma Watson (who played Shem's future wife, the character around whom most of the above-mentioned controversy swirled) did excellent jobs in their roles as did the aging Anthony Hopkins who played Noah's ancient grandfather Methoselah.

I hope that in reading this review, that readers would appreciate the (at times surprising) insights offered in the film (even if one disagreed with them) and also would understand that while not necessarily for kids (they just wouldn't understand the film), the film could actually be quite interesting for teens, especially if they were encouraged to do "some homework" reading up on the film afterwards.

Finally, my hat off, once again, to National Catholic Register's Steven D. Graydanus.  You honestly did a great job in covering launch of this film, and made the work of the rest of us (including myself) trying to review this film, much, much easier.  You did all of us and then the ENTIRE CHURCH a great service! (And that's honestly SAYING A LOT ;-)  Thanks!


<< 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! :-) >>

Our Women (orig. Nejem, nőm, csajom) [2012]

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

IMDb listing

HMDb listing*
Port.hu listing*

Magyarfilm.hu (Z. Aprily) review*
Revizoronline.hu (Z. Poor) review*
FilmTekercs (S. Esther) review*

Our Women (orig. Nejem, nőm, csajom) [2012] [IMDb] [HMDb]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Péter Szajki [IMDb] [HMDb]* along with Adél Vörös [IMDb] [HMDb]*, story by Iván Angelusz [IMDb]  and Péter Reich [IMDb]) is a Hungarian romantic comedy/dramedy about the stories of four women living in contemporary Budapest.  Indeed, though they don't know each other (their stories are being recounted by two ladies working in a hair salon) the story plays-out like a contemporary Hungarian Sex and the City [IMDb].  The film played recently at the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

The lives of all four of the women (and their husbands / significant others) are totally relatable to an American /Western audience.  Yet they also have a distinctly Hungarian twist:   For instance, after the devastation of World War II and then 50 years of Communism, morals are on the one hand looser than in most of the U.S. On the other hand, Christianity -- Catholicism being the dominant form, but as this film shows Protestantism, most likely in the form of Lutheranism, is present as well -- still who holds some sway if for many in perhaps often limited to a nostalgic sort of way.

So what are the stories/trials of the four women?

In the first case there's Vera (played by Ági Gubik [IMDb] [HMDb]*) who's married to Attilla (played by András Stohl [IMDb] [HMDb]*) a medical doctor, but together they've had a great deal of trouble having children.  Well, 6 years ago, Vera got pregnant.  How after all those years of trying?  She tells him then that perhaps it was a miracle.  Not necessarily believing in "miracles" (Attilla's a medical doctor after all) he shrugged it off back then.  Now, seeing that their five year old son is not taking after _anybody_ in his family -- Attilla's family was one of athletes, soldiers and otherwise "macho achievers" and the son obviously going to be an artist -- he has renewed questions.  What happened back then?  And why?

In the second case, there's Szilvi (played by Rozi Lovas [IMDb] [HMDb]*) who's living with Bálint (played by Béla Mészáros [IMDb] [HMDb]*) who she'd love to marry and start a family with, but he's "not ready" and would first like to "swing" (!) "for a year or two."  At first she tries to go along, and they even find (in eminently "sophisticated fashion" ... over the internet) another (again "very sophisticated"...) couple to do so with.  But when it comes to the point of actually doing this, she can't bring herself to do so.  What now?

The third case involves Helga (played by Judit Schell [IMDb] [HMDb]*) a very successful now 40-something Hungarian TV personality, but one who's never been able to land a guy who's neither intimidated by her nor a jerk.  Well, she is now seeing someone, József  (played by Péter Rudolf [IMDb] [HMDb]*), somewhat older than her, certainly less successful than her, but at least "bag over the head" ugly or with some other more or less obvious problem.  But after two months, why is _he_ not interested in taking their relationship to the next level?  (No he's not gay, and yes he's had mutually satisfying relationships with women before... so what's the problem _now_?)

Finally, there's Flóra (played by Kátya Tompos [IMDb] [HMDb]*) a good dutiful wife of a seemingly good dutiful/humble Lutheran/Protestant (or otherwise some kind of lay Catholic) minister named Péter (played by Tamás Keresztes [IMDb] [HMDb]*).  Together they have several children and they are certainly of a more humble social class than the three other couples presented in the story.  Yet Flóra becomes convinced that Péter is cheating on her.  Well is he?  And if so why?  And if he is, what now?

All of these stories are IMHO surprisingly good.  I myself have had to deal with the "swinging" issue in Confession a couple of times over the years (nothing is new under the sun ...) with the partner confessing telling me exactly what Szilvi was trying to tell her boyfriend (who she wished would become her husband): "I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS" with the partner apparently having difficulty hearing (and more to the point respecting) that.  Then the episode with the self-evidently Christian couple is _surprisingly_ nuanced.

This is a very good story, and it'd be interesting if Hollywood or _perhaps_ the African American community (Tyler Perry, are you listening? ;-) would pick this one up.

In any case, very good job!


* 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! :-) >>

Exhibition [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  IndieWire (A-)  TheTelegraph (3 1/2 Stars)  TheGuardian (3 1/2 Stars)   Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

Cine-Vue (P. Gamble) review
The Telegraph (R. Collin) review 
The Guardian (R. Gibley) review

Exhibition [2013] (written and directed by Joanna Hogg) is a minimalist, visually elegant, experimental film from the United Kingdom that should interest visual artists, photographers and cinematographers alike, as well as those who enjoy "getting beyond the visuals, beyond the surface" and try to figure-out the riddle of "what's going on" (what's being told) here.  The film played recently at the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival held at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.  And it does make for an amusing and insightful tale ...

The film is about a childless (by all appearances by choice though, both in life as in the film, the outsider could never know), early middle-aged couple, my guess in their 40s, H (played by Liam Gillick) and D (played by Viv Albertine), he an architect, she a fashion designer.  Both work (in their-made "offices") on separate floors... of their stylish modernist home (lots and lots of glass, the staircase between the floors, really, really elegant/cool, is arguably a third character in the tale).

During the day, H and D communicate with each other mostly by house-line/intercom.  And since both find themselves mostly "in their own little worlds" of their creative professions.  Inevitably when one calls it's "a bad time" for the other.  Since their home, modern as it is, looks/functions like an office building, it's visually amusing presentation of the "downside" of "working at home" or "bringing your work home with you."

But home it is, and particularly fashion designer D, who seems to enjoy the range/play of light available to her by this house full of glass with roll-up-able, roll-down-able curtains and blinds of every kind, finds herself rather anxious at the prospect that the two have "decided" to sell the house and move on.

Or did they "decide" at all?  I could imagine that husband H, an architect after all, had become bored with the house and would like (to build?) something new.  Besides, it's clear that he's frustrated that he rarely sees his wife in the current arrangement.  On the other hand it's clear that D "loves her space."

So this is honestly a fascinating film about "modern life" ... and about a modern couple that arguably "has it all" ... and yet ... doesn't.  Wow ;-)


<< 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 Dog Killer (orig. Môj pes Killer) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  CK.cz (3,5/10)  Idnes.cz (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis-Zdeněk (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing* 

Hollywood Reporter (N. Young) review
Idnes.cz (M. Spáčilová) review*
Aktualne.cz (J. Gregor) review*
ČervenyKoberec.cz (J. Kábrt) review*
 
My Dog Killer (orig. Môj pes Killer) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*(screenplay and directed by Mira Fornayová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) is a Slovak and Czech co-production, starring actors/actresses from both countries and even playing-out in rolling borderlands between the to countries.  It played recently at the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival held at Chicago's Gene Siskel Film Center and the film served as Slovakia's entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Award at the Oscars.

The film, definitely not for kids, is about a troubled Slovak teen named Marek (played by Adam Mihál [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) approaching adulthood living on the Slovakian side of the border with the Czech Republic with his uncle (played by [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) in a small house on a field that the two have been converting into a vineyard, the house and field owned by Marek's estranged parents.  Marek's father (played by Marián Kuruc [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) lives someways "down the hill" and "in town" (still in Slovakia), Marek's mother (played by Irena Bendová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) living in another, still reasonably nearby town across the border in the Czech Republic.


What's Marek doing living with his uncle in a small house with an attendant small field that the two have been converting into a vineyard and NOT with either of his parents?  We never really find out.  But it's clear that Marek's parents had separated a fair number of years back, with Marek's mother eventually packing-up and moving across the border (why? That we do eventually find out, read on).  By the time of the beginning of the story, Marek hasn't been getting along with his father either, hence living with his uncle on this property "outside of town" and yet, strangely enough still owned by his parents, who weren't talking to each other either.  Sigh ... talk about "ties that bind."

Living in such circumstances could produce anger in a teen and ... well, we see signs of that.  Marek's shaved his head, wears a hoodie and has tried to join with a local group of skinheads.

SKINHEADS? one could ask.  There'd be Czech or Slovak "Supremacists"?  Who'd they feel "superior" to?  (When I first saw this phenomenon in Prague, oh about 15 or so years ago, I honestly "didn't understand" ...)  One would think that this would be primarily an "Anglo" / "German" thing.  After all, they're the ones who've had a _whole tradition_ of considering themselves as racially superior to others...  Slavs were not exactly high on _their_ racial totem pole.  But ... as we'll soon find out, "it all makes sense" unfortunately, BECAUSE there is racial group that both Czechs and Slovaks also have a _long_ tradition of feeling superior to ... the Romas (Gypsies).  (And in the U.S., Czechs and Slovaks along with most Slavs are often among the most racist toward people of color, even as we've been looked down-upon for centuries by the "true" white people of the west. To Neville Chamberlain, we were "a people _he_ did not know" and to the Nazis to whom he sold us out to ... we were to be "renationalized" (made German) or to be(come) slaves...).

Back to the story ...;-) ... So how's it been going with joining the local skin-heads?  Not particularly well.  Though Marek himself was "all white" (indeed ghostly pale in this movie filmed in late autumn, with snow / frost already on the ground), his mother (the one living across the border in the CR) had apparently left his father for a Roma (!) and had a second son, 10-y.o. Lukášek/little Luke (played by Libor Filo [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) with him.  This had caused enough scandal in her (and Marek's) hometown that she had to move across the border (not because the CR is any more "enlightened" when it comes to the Roma/Gypsies than Slovakia but because at least she and Lukášek's father would have been "less known" there).  So though Marek's mom had quite literally "fled the country" years ago because of this "scandal," everybody in town "knew" that Marek's mother had "run away with a Roma/Gypsy lover. 

On the other hand, Marek (and his uncle) had this dog, a pit-bull that they had given the English, foreign sounding name "Killer" (but again, the _right kind_ of foreign sounding name), guarding their house/field that they were developing into a vineyard, that, well, did impress those Skinheads, lead by their leader nicknamed Mobidyk (played by Jozef Hrnčirík [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*).  Why a local Skinhead leader nicknamed Mobidyk?  Well, again it's an ENGLISH nickname and Moby-Dick was, of course a "bid white whale." ;-)  (Even white racists can have a sense of humor at times ;-))

Well, this then is the setup of the story.  It's about a confused Slovakian teen who's angry at both of his parents, is trying to join the local skin-heads, but has a 1/2 gypsy little brother that said local skin-heads would never understand BUT he also has pit-bull named "Killer" who his friends seem to really respect.

Everything comes to a head when Marek's uncle finds out that he needs some papers signed by both of Marek's parents -- mind you, they're not talking to him, to Marek or to each other -- to do something on that property on which both he and Marek are living (and de facto squatting). 

So what does Marek's uncle do?  He sends 16-17 year old Marek on a motor scooter to talk to both of his estranged parents (Mind you, they live in different towns and, though the distances are not that far, even in different countries ... and Marek's had difficulty with both of them as well).

Well, Marek, A SEETHING COULDRON OF ANGER ALREADY, BUT STILL _A DUTIFUL KID_ DESPITE IT ALL ... goes out to run the errands.

And ... at one point in the story, he finds himself with both his 10 year old 1/2 Gypsy little brother Lukášek/little Luke WHO ACTUALLY LIKES HIM / LOOKS UP TO HIM BECAUSE DESPITE EVERYTHING MAREK IS HIS "BIG BROTHER" ... and his dog named "KILLER" and MAREK HAS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN little Lukášek and his dog.

And sigh ...

This is one very, very sad film.  And if forces EVERYONE who sees the film to ask Marek: "How could you possibly choose that way?"

And yet, there'd be MILLIONS of Czechs and Slovaks (and there are not many of either, so we're talking about SIZABLE majorities of both populations) who'd, yes, probably would not want to choose at all, BUT if they had to ... would probably choose the way Marek did.

One heck of a 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! :-) >>

Repentance [2014]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

BET coverage
Ebony coverage
Essence coverage
TheSource coverage

TheSource (J. Kaye) review

Repentance [2014] (directed by Philippe Caland, screenplay by Shintaro Shimosawa, based on the film The Guru and the Gypsy [2014] by Philippe Caland) is about, well, ... Repentance.  What does it mean to Repent?

The film begins at night somewhere in the back-country of Louisiana with two young 20-something brothers, African American, Tommy and Ben Carter (played by Anthony Mackie and Mike Epps respectively), intoxicated, driving recklessly, indeed with abandon, down some country road, Tommy at the wheel, Ben riding "shot-gun."  Out of the darkness, an elderly African American woman steps onto the road.  Tommy can't do much other than hit her with their own car crashing then into a tree.  They're both knocked-out.

Older brother Ben wakes up first, attempts to wake Tommy up...  The next scene fast forwards to 4 years later.

Four years later, we're reintroduced to Tommy, who turns out to be (or have become) a successful spiritual writer.  It seems that both he and his wife Maggie (played by Sanaa Lathan) are very much into the power of various meditative and relaxation therapies.  Together they run a Yoga studio in New Orleans with Tommy writing about the spirituality of it all:  with "coming to peace" with who one is and with one's world. 

What happened to Ben?  We don't really know at first but later find out that he had spent some time in jail.  For the auto accident?  We're not sure.  Besides he hadn't been driving.  And what of Tommy?  HE HAD BEEN DRIVING.  What happened to him?  Why was he writing books about RELAXATION THERAPY??

Well, one day at a book signing, he meets an unusual fan, an older African American man named Angel Sanchez (played magnificently by Forest Whitaker).  He's still kinda from the countryside, which in Louisiana means the Bayou (swamps).  He comes across as being not particularly educated, but he's read all of Tommy's books.  And we learn that he's already had his little girl Francesca (played by Ariana Neal) participate in Tommy and Maggie's "children's yoga classes."  Why?  It's kinda strange.  Country bumpkin Angel lives kinda far from the center of New Orleans and doesn't seem like someone one would expect to be interested in Eastern philosophy or yoga.  But he _does_ seem tormented, like someone who has been desperate to find peace.  So ... perhaps for THAT reason, Angel stumbled upon Tommy's books and became an avid fan. 

Okay, Angel Sanchez asks Tommy for some personal counseling sessions.  Tommy tries to explain to him that he doesn't do that much any more, perhaps wondering if Angel would even have the money for that.  But Angel insists that he needs the help and that despite his somewhat rough looks and demeanor, as a former construction contractor, he would have the money to pay for such counseling.  Feeling compassion for the man (and perhaps not wanting to seem prejudicial, if not in terms of race then in terms of class) Tommy takes on Angel as a client.

But why was Angel so tormented?  Well ... that's the rest of the film ;-).

And by the end of it, the film poses some _very good questions_ about what is really required to "find peace with oneself and with one's world."

Excellent film!


<< 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! :-) >>