Honeymoon (orig. Líbánky) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  iDnes (3 of 5 Stars)  Fr. Dennis-Zdenek (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing*

HollywoodReporter (B. van Hoeij) review

iDnes.cz (M. M. Spáčilová) review*
actualne.cz (J. Gregor) review*

Honeymoon (orig. Líbánky) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (directed by Jan Hřebejk [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*, screenplay by Petr Jarchovský [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) is an award-winning/critically acclaimed Czech film that closed the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival held recently here at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago.

The film takes place in the context of a lovely wedding and reception of a quite well-to-do mid-thirty-something couple, Radim (played by Stanislav Majer [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) and Teresa (played by Aňa Geislerová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*).  Since they're both in their thirties, we can expect that both would have their stories.  We learn early that Radim has a thirteen year-old son (played by Matěj Zikán [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) from a previous relationship.  We find out also that Teresa had been married before as well.  And as the lovely Church wedding ends -- viewers get to hear the famous passage from 1 Corinthians about love "Love is patient, love is kind, ... love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things ... love never fails.  In the end these three remain: Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is Love." (1 Cor 13:1-13) proclaimed in Czech (w. English subtitles) -- we see that Teresa is sporting a small baby bump... so the couple already has had its share of "stories" big and small.

However, none of this compares to what follows at the reception: An odd late-twenties, early-thirty-something man, who eventually introduces himself as "Benda" (played by Jiří Černý [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) who the wedding party had already encountered hovering about the church at the time of the wedding, shows-up at the wedding reception and inserts, asserts himself quite confidently as if he naturally belongs there.  Who is he?  Well, when the bride tired of his presence (and seeing that no one was doing anything to get rid of him) asks him "Who are you?" he answers "Ask the groom."

Okay, the banal scenario of today would be that Benda would have had some sort of a (necessarily gay) relationship with Radim.  But that's not (really) the case here.  The story is far, far more complicated than that.  And by the end of the story, it makes sense that Aleš ("Benda's" real name) was there.

I'm not going to say more about this film because I do believe that this film is good enough to be picked up and shown in the "art house" circuit here in the U.S.  In her introductory remarks, the Czech Counsel General present at the screening of this film -- again the film closed the 17th Annual European Union Film Festival here in Chicago -- compared the works of the director Jan Hřebejk [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* to Woody Allen both in terms of content and in terms of productivity (both produce thought provoking films on a year-in, year-out basis).  I think the comparison is very good.  No this is NOT a "funny film" BUT it is A LOT like Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors [1989] and especially Match Point [2005].   And I would also compare it to the excellent African-American film Repentance [2014] presently in the cinemas as well, as both films are about the need to come to terms with things, painful things that happened in the past.


* 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! :-) >>

Captain America: The Winter Soldier [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Captain America: The Winter Soldier [2014] (directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, screenplay by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, story and concept by Ed Brubaker, based on the comic book by Joe Simon [IMDb] and  Jack Kirby [IMDb]) continues a fascinating reflection on "America Now and Then" through the character of Marvel Comics' Steve Rogers / "Captain America" (played by Chris Evans).

The story of Steve Rogers / "Captain America" was that he was a sickly American teenager desperate to be able to enroll in the Army to do his part to fight for the United States against the Nazis.  Like MANY younger American teens of that time, he LIED ABOUT HIS AGE (he was actually too young to serve).  Then even as he was really physically unfit to serve in the military, he tried SO HARD that it was difficult for those responsible for basic training to cut him.  His simultaneous enthusiasm and physical inability to deliver caught the eye of the Army brass and he recruited for a WW II-era American "secret weapons" program aimed at creating "super soldiers."  He entered the program, was injected with a "super soldier serum" and became (physically) a totally different man than he was before.

Steve Rogers / "Captain America" was then deployed to Europe to participate in all kinds of "secret missions" including a battle between United States aligned forces, which after the war comes to be called S.H.I.E.L.D. (Strategic Homeland, Intervention, Enforcement and Logistic Division), basically a "Marvel CIA" and a Nazi aligned enemy force called HYDRA (why?  "cut off one head and two grows in its place") bent on world domination in one way or another and by any means necessary.

The battle between S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA is perfect for a comic book universe because it takes place almost entirely "in the shadows" and involves all kinds of super-heroes and super-villains all with super-powers.  This legendary battle in the shadows gains currency in the public imagination (in the collective subconscious...) BECAUSE both the United States and Nazi Germany REALLY DID HAVE "SECRET WEAPONS PROGRAMS." The United States had the Manhattan Project and Nazi Germany had rocketry, aeronautics, bio-weapons and really all kinds of borderline unbelievable "out of the box" projects (an excellent book on the matter of Germany's Wunderwaffen programs was British Aerospace journalist Nick Cook's book The Hunt For Zero Point about Nazi Germany's "anti-gravity," that is, I'm NOT kidding, flying saucer program).  Then after WW II the United States REALLY DID SECRETLY RECRUIT all kinds of former Nazi scientists and engineers to work for the U.S. under "Project Paperclip" (The Soviets were actually far less subtle.  Those Nazi scientists that they captured were simply deported back to the Soviet Union and compelled to work for the Communists).

SINCE SO MUCH OF THE ACTUAL STORY (Manhattan, Paperclip) was kept secret FOR DECADES, this secrecy offered a perfect setting for these kind of fantastic super-hero, super-villain, super-power, super-weapons stories.  Other recent treatments of this subject, often taking on the style of classic late-1940s film noir (with always "an unspeakable secret" at its heart) have included Steven Soderbergh's The Good German 2006] (about the U.S. recruitment of Nazi V-2 scientists and engineers after the war) and Martin Scorcese's Shutter Island [2010] (a fictionalized story inspired by an actual U.S. bioweapons research facility on Plum Island off the coast of Long Island, NY said to have housed former Nazi bio-weapons scientists brought into the U.S. via Project Paperclip after the war.  Among the conspiracies linked to that facility has been the origin of lyme disease as the first recorded outbreak of this tick-borne disease occurred in Lyme, CT across Long Island Sound from Plum Island, and the Nazis had apparently researched using ticks as "delivery devices" for diseases). 

Alright then, this shadowy world of "super-weapon" research becomes perfect fodder for super-hero / super-villain stories.  The coup-de-grace in the case of Steve Rogers / Captain America's back-story is that "after the War, he goes down in an airplane somewhere over the Arctic.  However, since he had been injected with that "super-soldier serum" he was no longer really human (rather super-human) and so he DOES NOT DIE.  Instead, he is merely _frozen_.  Decades later, the crash site of his plane is found and his body recovered and DEFROSTED whereupon he re-awakes IN OUR TIME.

So Steve Rogers / Captain America is conceived as a 1940s era Superhero who was "Frozen in Time" only to reawaken in OURS.  So much of the humor (and insight) involved in his story involves exploring the differences between "his time" (the 1940s) and ours (today).  We got a taste of this in the truly hilarious (and again, insightful...) dialogues in The Avengers [2012] between the boy-scoutish Steve Rogers / Captain America and the far more flamboyant (and sneakier) Tony Stark / Iron Man (played in the current Marvel adventures by Robert Downey Jr), Steve Rogers / Captain America epitomizing the American hero of the 1940s and Tony Stark / Iron Man epitomizing the American hero of today.

The current film Captain America: The Winter Soldier [2014] explores the well-known lament of our time, vis-a-vis the "simpler times" of The Greatest Generation: that "back in the day" we "KNEW who the enemy was," today "it's so much harder."

So, in this post-9/11 world into which the 1940s-era superhero Steve Rogers / Captain America had been thawed, S.H.I.E.L.D. (again sort of a "Superhero CIA / NSA") comes up with a weapons system involving (1) a computer program called INSIGHT which monitoring EVERY ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION/COMMUNICATION of EVERYONE on the planet (hmm... wonder what Eric Snowden would have to add about this story ... ;-)) comes to be able to determine with some accuracy WHO COULD BECOME an ENEMY OF PEACE / ORDER IN THE WORLD and (2) a fleet of TERRIFYING AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS which could project S.H.I.E.L.D.'s power ANYWHERE, the idea being that between the computer program and this awesome fleet of Stark Industries designed "airborne aircraft carriers" S.H.I.E.L.D. could eliminate ALL THE WORLD'S POTENTIAL ENEMIES (20 million of them) in a single WORLD-WIDE preemptive strike and then pick-off new potential enemies (based on their internet history) as they are flagged / discerned.

Wow!  But who exactly controls S.H.I.E.L.D.? Well that's the rest of the story ... ;-)  In past episodes, we had been introduced to Nick Fury (played ever to the hilt by Samuel L. Jackson) who appeared to be a very hands-on head of S.H.I.E.L.D.  But actually, as in the case of the CIA, there's a "civilian commander" here named Alexander Pierce (played in exquisite Washington "who is he?" / "walks between the rain drops" power-broker fashion by Robert Redford).

Anyway, the boy-scoutish Steve Rogers / Captain America is immediately wary of this scheme to simply "take down" potential enemies of Peace.  Yet 'man of the world' Nick Fury tells him that "After New York" (after 9/11? or after the New York "space invasion" story of The Avengers [2012]) there's no room for error.  We must eliminate our enemies before they have a chance to hurt us."

But of course, things start to go wrong, when suddenly Nick Fury himself becomes the target of a heavy-handed/insistent assassination plot.  Who was behind it?  Steve Rogers / Captain America, the Russian born S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Natasha Romanova / Black Widow (played exquisitely as ever by Scarlett Johansson) and Sam Wilson / Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie) conceived here as a "Special Air Services" / Afghan War Vet, spend the rest of the film trying to figure it out.

Perhaps the first clue to problem is that S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Washington D.C. area headquarters appears to be located RIGHT ACROSS THE RIVER from the infamous Watergate Hotel ... Again how much more "complicated" things are today than they were "back in the days" of WW II when "we knew who our enemies were ..."

My only complaint here is that the level of even "just glass-breaking" (PG-13 level) violence is SO LARGE that it's hard to imagine how ANYBODY living in the Marvel Movies' universe would NOT BE TRAUMATIZED.  These enormous airborne aircraft carriers presumably with crews of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people CRASH AND BURN ALL OVER THE WASHINGTON D.C. AREA ... At minimum, think of the casualties among the pilots/sailors.  Then that the crashing of these enormous craft would not cause "casualties on the ground" would seems preposterous.  So a definite level of "suspension of disbelief" is needed to watch the film.  Of course, the film is about SUPER-HEROES, with SUPER-POWERS to begin with ... so "suspension of disbelief" comes with the territory.  Yet, I really do think that the level of "glass crashing violence" is so great that if this were to really happen, we'd ALL BE BASKET CASES by the end.  Think of the trauma that 9/11 caused and that was "just two buildings ..."

But there it is.  The violence portrayed in the film is certainly gratuitous.  On the other hand, the film is about a fictionalized world inhabited by super-heroes and super-villains, all with super-powers.  So we should probably keep it in stride.  In any case, the film seems to be reflective of the societal concern that "things are not as simple today as they used to be."

Bottom line, this is a very good "Marvel Comics" / "Superhero" film even if there's an awful lot of "glass breaking" and other PG-13 level ("bloodless") destruction. 

Then, after all this who's "the Winter Soldier" from the film's title?  Well ... the answer lies in part with Steve Rogers / Captain America's back-story ... and beyond that, I'm not going to tell you ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Autumn Blood [2013]

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

IMDb listing

Autumn Blood [2013] (directed and cowritten by Markus Blunder along with Stephen T. Barton) an Austrian film that played recently at the 17th European Union Film Festival held here at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago could best be characterized as a Austrian rendition of Deliverance [1972]. 

A family from the city has moved out to a small farm high in the Tyrolian Alps.  It's clear at the onset of the film that they're still rather new at this.  The mother (played by Jacqueline Le Saunier) and teenage daughter (played by Stephie Lowe) still clearly haven't gotten the hang of chopping wood. 

The father (played by Jonas Laux) is clearly out of his element as well: When in the opening scene in the film, he sees his wife walking up the road to their farm house being harassed by one of the villagers from the town below, he grabs his rifle and runs down to show him that he means business... only to be shot dead in the head by the villager's friend trailing behind with a shot gun as well.

What to do?  For reasons unclear -- fear, pride, shock -- the family doesn't report the murder of their father/husband to the authorities (in the village below ...).  Instead, they -- mother/wife, teenage daughter, as well as 8-10 year old son (played by Maximilian Harnisch) apparently bury their husband/father on a nearby meadow by a lovely Alpine lake. 

Well, needless to say, things don't get better ...

Mom soon dies as well (why? it's unclear).  The teenage daughter and her younger brother bury her next to their father and still remain living in their little farm house up in the mountains.  Why?  Again, probably fear, now wondering what would happen to them if they reported that they were truly "on their own."

They do manage for a few weeks.  But the villagers come to notice (as villagers would notice) that the kids are now running all the errands for the family, when in the past the parents would have done so.  So the postal clerk (played by George Lenz) eventually calls the authorities, and a social worker (played by Annica McCrudden) eventually arrives "from civilization below" to check on the children.

In the meantime, there are two kids, including a teenage girl, living-up there all alone in the mountains. Some of the villagers had already been acting in a rather predatory manner even when the parents were still alive.  Well ... if "nothing happened" when the father was shot dead, why should anything happen now when the only ones left are the children ... and especially that rather lovely teenage girl.

So the rest of the movie follows ...

There are differences between the way this (European) version of a rather-common Hollywood story-line plays itself out, this European version being perhaps as graphic (though differently) than the Hollywood versions (certainly making the film BASICALLY R-RATED). 

However, let's put it this way, in the Hollywood versions of this storyline, the teenage girl, probably covered in blood would eventually "restore justice" by avenging the deaths of her loved ones.  In this European version, justice is restored but NOT IN THAT WAY.  I'm not going to say more ;-)

What to think of this movie?  It's not particularly edifying.  The villagers are portrayed largely as hypocrites.  They all go to Mass yet SOME of them then leave the Church to do TERRIBLE THINGS to this family (and OTHERS do nothing about it...).  But there are also SOME villagers who are good and do get involved.  On the other hand, the Justice that does come is almost "Divine."  (Again, I'm not going to say anything more about that ... except that "it's interesting."

So ... while certainly not a "kids film" or even a "family film" ... it would probably interest movie goers who are already well versed in the Hollywood treatment of the "Hicks are dangerous and perhaps even Evil" storyline.

That story-line is in itself rather offensive to folks who live in the country (and I've written various reviews against such films [1] [2] [3]).  I suppose what makes this film somewhat interesting is that storyline is somewhat altered to suit a European sensibility.

Again, this film is basically an "Alpine" Deliverance [1972].


<< 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! :-) >>    

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! :-) >>