Palo Alto [2013]

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

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Olsen) review
RE.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) revie

Palo Alto [2013] (screenplay and directed by Gia Coppola (yes she's the granddaughter of Francis Ford Coppola and Sofia Coppola's niece) based on a collection of short stories by James Franco [IMDb]) doesn't paint a pretty picture of upper-middle class suburban life in Silicon Valley's Palo Alto.

Palo Alto may be the site of Stanford University, the birthplace of Apple, Inc, the current headquarters to Hewlett Packard and apparently Skype, and such legendary high tech firms as Sun Microsystems, Logitech, Google, Paypal and Facebook, all have called it "home" at some point.  Yet, believe it or not (and on reflection ... and transporting myself back to a mindset of a middle/upper-middle class American teenager ... I _do_ believe it) this is all "grown-up history."  To the "eyes rolling" teenage children of, perhaps, Silicon Valley geniuses (or at least of those who keep Silicon Valley humming with one new gadget or "app" after another) Palo Alto is apparently just another "pretty boring" and perhaps even _soulless_ place.

And really, again, _on reflection_ why should one be surprised?  The "genius parents" are either at work or otherwise "not present" (as they try to come-up with and then bring-into being that "new indispensable gadget or app" that none of us, or even the parents' competitors, had ever even thought up yet) while their kids deal with the anxieties and day-to-day "mundanities" of teenage high school life, even as they face, at least on some level, the Über-Anxiety that they will probably never, ever, ever be as gifted, successful (or even as lucky) as their parents.  Indeed, gets the sense that director Gia Coppola, a third generation Copolla in the movie-making business, as well as any number of the other "pedigreed" members of the cast -- Emma Roberts, the niece of Julia Roberts, as well as Jack Kilmer, the son of Val Kilmer, play lead / key roles -- would know EXACTLY what the characters in the film were going through.

So this is perhaps the brilliant if rather depressing insight of the film and James Franco's short stories that inspired: While to the outside world Palo Alto may be "the cutting edge" (the avant garde of the world) and that perhaps the parents of the kids in this film / these stories live at this "cutting edge" and are the avant garde of the world, THEIR OWN KIDS are floundering in soulless, "petty bourgeoisie" existences that the avant garde Left has always ridiculed.  That is to say, to be Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg would probably be really really cool, but to be their teenage kids (and as far as I know, NONE OF THEM HAVE HAD ANY KIDS ... that they have admitted to ...) would still probably really, really suck.

And so the teenage kids of the Palo Alto of these tales flounder about, in one striking, gut-wrenching scene after another, mostly stoned, engaging in rather empty sexual activity and occasional acts of blind stupid vandalism and nihilism. 

In one scene at a party, a random high school girl/classmate takes Teddy (the character played by Jack Kilmer) upstairs to a bedroom to service him (not shown).  Mind you, neither of the two particularly like (or dislike) each other (He's definitely stoned, and she's rather drunk and apparently kinda known for giving the occasional < > when she "finds herself that way").  Teddy, in as much as he's reflective at all, seemed to like April (the character played by Emma Roberts).  But no matter, the random girl was present, and ... in the next scene, the random girl is shown gulping down some mouthwash she found in the bathroom next door, presumably to "wash away the taste from her mouth..."  Mission accomplished (for both) and in the meantime Teddy finds himself down the stairs to rejoin the party where, somewhat surprised, finds April somewhat irritated with him for having gone upstairs with the random girl in the first place.  Why?  What was the problem?  Even April can not seem to explain ...

But April has her own problems.  Her perpetually stoned but presumably genius "working from home" step-father "Stewart" (played by Val Kilmer) keeps "correcting" her homework to such a degree that she (and her teachers...) find it incomprehensible (and she gets accused of plagiarism later in the film...).  Meanwhile, her creepy / loser (proving perhaps more clearly in high tech Palo Alto, city of geniuses, than perhaps elsewhere the adage that "those who can't , teach") soccer coach "Mr. B" (played by James Franco), divorced, with a 8-10 year old son, starts "grooming her" in order to eventually sleep with her.  "I'd really prefer to go out with people my own age," she tries telling him as he becomes more and more obvious. "Why?  You're so much better than that," he answers.  Yuck.  But her own step-father's a different kind of a-hole / creep.  And her ma' "just wants to be her friend" ... sigh.

So folks, this is no Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet [1952-1966] or The Brady Bunch [1969-74].  I can't see myself recommending this film to teens, but rather TO PARENTS OF TEENS.  We adults HAVE BEEN TEENS.  We know (or can be reminded by a film like this) what it was like to be a teen.  PERHAPS by watching a film like this we can be challenged to be BETTER ADULTS / ROLE MODELS / PARENTS to the teens around us.  Because otherwise, this is one very, very depressing and hopeless 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! :-) >>

Godzilla [2014] / Million Dollar Arm [2014]

As part of my contribution in our parish's participation in the Archdiocese of Chicago's Campaign "To Teach Who Christ Is," I've decided to forgo seeing (and therefore reviewing here) one or two movies a weekend and instead contribute the money I would have spent to the campaign.

I'm hoping to be strategic about this, picking movies that would "hurt somewhat" to miss, but movies that are neither "so bad" that I wouldn't see them anyway nor movies that I really should see/review or else my reviewing effort would cease to be worthwhile.

I will still try to provide links to usual line-up of reviewers that I also consider.  I just won't provide my own.  With all that in mind, this week the two movies that I'm foregoing seeing are:

Godzilla [2014] -- MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 stars)  AVClub (B+)

Million Dollar Arm [2014] -- MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)


Those who follow my blog will recognize some pain in my selections as if not for the start of this campaign I would have CERTAINLY seen and reviewed Godzilla [2014] as I try to make it a point of seeing / reviewing films that I know a lot of the young people in my parish are going to see (in addition to reviewing more obscure movies that a lot of people would probably _not_ see but would seem in some way interesting).  Previously, I've reviewed and generally liked Transformers 3 [2011] and Pacific Rim [2013].  But I "wanted to make a splash" ;-) with this ... So Godzilla [2014] it is.  And by forgoing Godzilla [2014] this week, I'll be happily seeing Marvel's X-Men: Days of Future Past [2014] which comes out next weekend ;-)

As for Million Dollar Arm [2014], while as one who takes seriously the Catholic Church as a universal church and therefore I make it a point of trying to review both from and about people and places from  all over the world and I actually don't have that many films reviewed in my blog which are from/about India, after deciding not to see Godzilla [2014] this week, I couldn't bring myself to see Million Dollar Arm [2014] either ;-/.

So I'm going to try to forgo seeing one or two movies of some quality (but not 4 star quality) a week as my visible contribution to our parish campaign.  Hopefully this will both directly support it and help inspire others to make similar sacrifices that will "hurt" somewhat as well.

Ashes and Diamonds (orig. Popioł i Diament) [1958]

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

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*
Culture.pl listing

Official Website of Polish director Andrzej Wajda
Culture.pl article on the directing career of Andrzej Wajda
Martin Scorsese Presents: Masterpieces of Polish Cinema: [MSP Website] [Culture.pl]

Ashes and Diamonds (orig. Popioł i Diament) [1958] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [Culture.pl] (directed and screenplay by Andrzej Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [Culture.pl] [en.wikip]] [pl.wikip]* based on the novel (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) by Jerzi Andrzejewski [IMDb] [FW.pl]*[en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*) opened recently a remarkable film series entitled "Martin Scorsese Presents: Masterpieces of Polish Cinema" currently touring the United States and organized the famed American director Martin Scorsese [IMDb].  (In Chicago, the series is playing at the Gene Siskel Film Center of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in downtown).

The film definitely deserves its billing as certainly one of the greatest films of Polish Cinema and as Martin Scorsese [IMDb] himself claims "one of the greatest films of all time."

Why would it deserve such praise?  American viewers would recognize the film as "A Polish Casablanca [1942]" (much of the film takes place at a hotel in a random provincial town somewhere in Poland in the closing days of World War II with much, much intrigue, indeed the fate of post-war Poland -- the West-leaning Polish Home Army (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) vs Soviet backed Polish Communist forces (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) -- playing out) with the young lead character Maciej played by an ever smiling, ever sun-glass wearing Zbigniew Cybulski [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* who (thanks to performances like his in this film) came to known as "The Polish James Dean [IMDb] [en.wikip]" ;-).

This characterization of the film -- A Polish Casablanca starring a Polish James Dean -- itself would have made the film remarkable.  BUT THEN ADD TO THIS THE TIME / PLACE IT PORTRAYS (Poland at exactly the end of World War II) AT THE TIME / PLACE IN WHICH IT WAS FILMED (Communist Poland in 1957 - one year after the unrest in Poland had finally put a somewhat more moderate Communist (by the standards of the time) Gomułka (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) in power in Poland, and one year after the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary).  This, like director Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]*[en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*'s film of the year before Kanal [1957] [IMDb] [FW.pl]*[en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* about the 1944 Polish Home Army-led Warsaw Uprising (en.wikip / pl.wikip*), the first Polish film of its kind following the War, MADE MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER THAT WAR, was a film that needed to be made BUT COULD ONLY BE MADE AFTER 1956 AND THEN STILL WITH MORE OR LESS OBVIOUS (OUT OF HAND) CONCESSIONS TO THE DEMANDS COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY (AND CENSORS...) OF THE TIME (otherwise neither film would have been made). 

Then finally, even after taking into account the political dance that Wajda, et al, had to go through to make a movie like this in Poland at the time (the Polish Home Army had to portrayed as "bad" while the Communists supported by the Soviet Army as "heroic / good"...), PUTTING ASIDE THIS HEAVY HANDED POLITICAL BURDEN IMPOSED "FROM ABOVE" (AND THEN "FROM THE EAST"), the very HUMAN STORY and ITS VERY HUMAN MESSAGE is ALL THE MORE REMARKABLE:

Young (late teen / early 20s) sunglassed / smiling Maciej (though he lost all his family in the war) comes to town (along with two others) with the "dark/nefarious" mission assigned to them by the (in Communist eyes of the time) "evil" Polish Home Army to assassinate a newly arrived "brave/heroic" Polish Communist official (played by Wacław Zastrzeżyński [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), finds when he arrives at the hotel in the random Polish town where all this intrigue was about to play out, that he'd really just like to chat-up the bar-maid Krystyna (played magnificently in the film by Ewa Krzyżewska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) ;-).  AND WHY NOT?  POOR MACIEJ, perhaps he was a true Polish A Rebel Without a Cause [1955] but both OBJECTIVELY AND MORE HUMANLY he was a "Rebel without a Family" WHO _NEVER HAD A CHILDHOOD_ and up to that point PROBABLY HADN'T HAD MUCH OF A YOUNG ADULTHOOD (much less one that would inspire much confidence IN A FUTURE).  Why shouldn't he WISH FOR SOMETHING MORE than "just another mission?"

So there they were Maciej and Krystyna, WHO DO (mild spoiler alert HOOK UP) and then walk down the street at night -- as SOVIET T-34 TANKS roll down the street in one direction or another, as do troops in formation, generally wearing Soviet styled uniforms (though some of the soldiers are Polish and others are Russian) with an occasional "white and red" ribbon-wearing presumably former (Home Army?) partisan seen as well -- ENDING UP IN A BOMBED-OUT CHURCH with Christ still hanging on the Cross, but, with arms blown off, head and torso now truly hanging, drooped, LIFELESSLY upside-down (YES, IT'S A SPECTACULAR SHOT) where THERE'S NO ONE LEFT TO CONFESS TO (except perhaps to each other) OR TO MARRY THEM, BUT AT LEAST THEY CAN TELL EACH OTHER THE TRUTH.    And the question is asked: CAN THESE "ASHES" (ALL AROUND THEM) be turned one day INTO "DIAMONDS"?   And one just wants to cry ...

Do they end up together?  What do you think?  He's "Home Army" in the eyes of the Regime (coming into being at the time of the story being played-out, and IN POWER / WATCHING WHEN THE FILM WAS MADE TWELVE YEARS LATER) an "assassin" (terrorist), objectively with "blood on his hands."  BUT ... at least we (the viewers) are allowed "to understand."  And yes, if circumstances were different (at minimum, NO PREVIOUS WAR ... and, though necessarily left unspoken,  _no new intrigue_ of "Communist" and "non") THEY COULD HAVE "LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER."

But I do believe that the message, certainly for young Poles of that time (and perhaps for young people in ANY TIME / CIRCUMSTANCE), was MORE THAN JUST THAT: Maciej, was perhaps a tragic figure, doomed perhaps by fate for being born in the wrong place and at the wrong time.  Yet Wajda's film IMHO seemed to be giving the young people of Poland of 1957 PERMISSION TO LIVE ... to forget (in as much as possible) about either "Home Army" or "Communist" AND TO JUST GO FOR THE GIRL.

Yes, ideally one does _not_ have to "forget about history" ... but one has a right to have a childhood, to have a young adulthood and, yes, to be happy.  Maciej and Krystyna lost much of that in the War.  But the possibility seemed to be offered to the young people of 1957 that PERHAPS one could find happiness IN THEIR PRESENT.


This concern (about finding some happiness) EVEN IN NON-IDEAL (OPPRESSIVE) TIMES was _not_ an idle question TO MY OWN FAMILY that comes mostly from the Czech Republic and had to find answers to similar questions regarding during its experience of Communism as well.  About 1/2 my family stayed in Czechoslovakia during the Communist Era, about 1/2 left. Those who stayed, stayed for various reasons.  And those who left, left for various reasons. 

Among those who stayed were one or two early Communist members (who became Communists during the War or even before it).  Others found that they could adapt, found some things in the imposed system that were positive (universal access to higher education that was arguably more merit based than perhaps before - though Party members could famously "cut in line...") and found the rest (the intrusive and arguably paranoid ideology) at least bearable.  There were still others who were "born into the system" and chose to be(come) proud of it - Americans also choose to be proud of a system that also has its flaws (Ask simply someone of color ... or someone who's had a family member with a "pre-existing condition" or even a birth defect about what it was like getting health insurance, or fearing its loss, before Obama Care...).  Finally, there were others like my uncle after whom I am named (my name in Czech is Zdeněk) who even after he being jailed as a student in the 1950s by the Communists for a number of years refused to leave, despite having good prospects in the West if he did (he was talented, educated and multilingual).  I remember in the 1980s, a number of us, nephews of his (who were largely born and grew up in the West) asking him: "Why don't you just leave?"  And he answered: "Why should I abandon my country to THEM? (the Communists).  Someone has to stay or else they'll truly win."

Then among those in my family who left, there were some who everyone in the family agreed, simply could not find happiness unless they felt free.  I'd count my dad (who left in the 1950s, through Berlin before the Wall) as well as a cousin of mine (who left in the early-1980s, after staying-on in the West, ditching her tour group after a state-sponsored trip to some where in Western Europe) in this group.  It's simply true that some people simply cannot feel happy unless they also feel free.  Finally there were cases like that of my mom's family and specifically my mom's father (my grandfather) who was ethnic Russian and had already fled Soviet Russia once.  Like other ethnic Russians who had already fled the Soviet Union once, as the Soviet Army approached Prague at the end of the War, he realized that he faced three possibilities when they did: (1) a bullet in the head, (2) "expedited suicide" at the hands of accomodating Soviet NKVD agents who'd happily come to kick down the door and throw him out the window one early morning, and (3) and this would have been "the best option," a one way ticket to Siberia for an extended "re-education."  So my mother's family _had to_ flee.  I had other relatives on my dad's side, who also faced similar prospects after the Communists took-over Czechoslovakia in 1948 and brooked no further opposition or independent organizations.  (I remember meeting a Czech immigrant when I was a kid who had spent some 15 years of hard labor in a uranium mine -- Jáchymov (en.wikip / cz.wikip*) for having been a junior officer in the pre-Communist Czechslovakian Boy Scout movement). 


Now Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]* himself (as did plenty of Czech and Slovak film-makers of the time as well) made a journey in his films over the decades: Most who see this film, will quite quickly recognize the ideological constraints in which he was operating: The Communists were to be portrayed as "Good," the pro-Western Polish Home Army as "Bad," but individual Home Army members could be portrayed as "tragic figures," misguided and naive (and that was actually a "better" / "more open" climate than that which existed prior to 1956...).  But Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]* filmography shows that as opportunities arose, he seemed always at the edge of what was permissible.  So in 1980, he found himself this time in the right place and the right time to make the film Man of Iron [1981] [IMDb] [FW.pl]*(also to be shown in Scorsese's Film Series: Masterpieces of Polish Cinema) that ended up documenting the birth of the Solidarity Movement (en.wikip / pl.wikip*).  And since the Iron Curtain collapsed, Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]*'s been able to make films like the Oscar nominated Katyń [2007] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* about the Katyń massacre (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) where the Soviet NKVD murdered thousands of Polish army officers captured after the Soviet Union had invaded Poland ON THE SIDE OF NAZI GERMANY and took more than 1/2 the country (Wayda's own father was murdered in the massacre at Katyń).  And last year, Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]* made a film about Solidarity founder Lech Wałesa (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) entitled Walesa: Man of Hope (orig. Wałęsa. Człowiek z nadziei) [2013] a film that portrayed Wałesa (en.wikip / pl.wikip*) as having a very similarly hewn skill-set of knowing more-or-less exactly how far he could push the limits of what was possible under the Communist regime. 

Asked why he made films like this one (or Kanal [1957] [IMDb] [FW.pl]*[en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*) in the 1950s, which on one hand were very brave (especially Kanal [1957] [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) and on the other hand clearly had to toe an ideological line, Wajda [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [Culture.pl] [en.wikip]] [pl.wikip]* has answered quite forcefully: "Would it have been better to have spent my life doing nothing at all?  And indeed, these people, who did nothing, have a ready excuse.  But what did we want? We only wanted to expand a little the limits of freedom, the limits of censorship, so that films such as "Popiol i diament" could be made. We never hoped to live to see the fall of the Soviet Union, to see Poland as a free country. We thought that all we could do was to expand this limit, so that the party wouldn't rule by itself but would have to admit the voice of the society it was ruling. If you want to participate in a reality created by an alien power, enforced by a historical situation, then you always risk taking part in some ambiguous game..." 

So this film is really a masterwork and leaves one with much, much, much to think about and discuss.

One final question, no doubt on the minds of many readers: How to get this film?  In the United States many of the films being shown as part of Martin Scorsese Presents: Masterpieces of Polish Cinema can be rented through the mail-rental service offered by Facets Multimedia in Chicago.  (There are perhaps other services, but that's the one that I know). I've also found this film, Ashes and Diamonds (orig. Popioł i Diament) [1958], available on DVD IN NORTH-AMERICAN FORMAT through Amazon.com.


* Reasonably good (sense) translations of non-English webpages can be found by viewing them through 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! :-) >>

Belle [2013]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB () ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  AARP (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
AARP.org (M. Grant) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

Belle [2013] (directed by Amma Asante, screenplay by Misan Sagay), inspired by a truly intriguing painting (c. 1778) of Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761-1804) and her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray (1760-1825) commissioned by William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, their great-uncle, in whose household the two had been raised, gives a Jane Austen / Downton Abbeyesque [2010+] [IMDb] telling of the early / young adult years of the two women's lives, with special focus given, of course, on Belle.

Why would the story of Dido Elizabeth Belle (played as a child by Lauren Julian Box and later as a young adult by Gugu Mbatha-Raw) be so intriguing?  Well, while Dido's father was a British naval officer, the Admiral Sir John Lindsey (played in the film by Matthew Goode), her mother had been an African slave.  At the beginning of the film, the then Captain Sir John Lindsey brings his daughter to his uncle, William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (played in the film by Tom Wilkinson), asking that he raise her "as our own flesh and blood, for indeed she is." Her mother had died and he, out at sea most of the time, would not be able to raise her on his own. 

The "surprise" / "challenge" in Sir Lindsey's request was, of course, that Elizabeth Belle's mother had been an African slave and that she was, therefore, bi-racial.  

Yet Sir Lindsey did seem to know whom to ask as Lord Mansfield along with his wife Lady Mansfield (played in the film by Emily Watson) while themselves childless where already charged with raising another grand-niece of theirs, Elizabeth Murray (played as a child by Cara Jenkins and later as a young adult by Sarah Gadon), who was almost exactly Dido's age and later famously pictured in the painting along with her.  Further, Lord Mansfield, was certainly considered an honest, upright man _of his time_ as he was serving as the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.  Indeed, a good part of the film's intrigue regarded the possible influence that the experience of raising Dido Elizabeth Belle at his home (the "Kenwood House" in Hampstead then just outside of London) had on his decisions regarding the slavery and the slave trade during his time serving as Lord Chief Justice. 

Here though, as elsewhere, one has to admit that the film did conflate/simplify facts and events even if IMHO the film's spirit remains largely true. 

For instance, it is absolutely true that in 1772, therefore when Dido would have been 11, in his verdict on the Somerset v Stewart Case, Lord Mansfield did declare slavery to be "so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law [statute passed by Parliament or other competent authority]."  Since no such statute in England and Wales existed, slavery was thus rendered illegal in England and Wales.  HOWEVER, the film conflated his verdict in that case with his handing of a subsequent (and truly odious) "insurance claims" case today referred to as the case of the Zong Massacre. 

In the Zong case, the Liverpool based owners of the slave ship Zong had sued a similarly Liverpool based insurance consortium for compensation of losses after the crew of the Zong "out of necessity" had thrown overboard (drowned/murdered) 42 male slaves being transported for fear that they did not have enough provisions of water for its "entire cargo."  In the Zong Case, Mansfield wrote that "though it shocks one very much" (to the Jury in the original trial) "the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses were thrown over board... The Question was, whether there was not an Absolute Necessity of for throwing them over board to save the rest..." and he preferred to look for evidence (which he found) that there wasn't an Absolute Necessity to throw the Slaves (cargo) overboard.  (The Zong case subsequently did serve to energize the Abolishionist movement in England, though it was still a decades long slog before the Slave Trade was Abolished (1833) and slaves were emancipated in the British Empire (1834)).

Similarly, IMHO for reasons of plot interest (and subsequent discussion), the film makers chose to make the bi-racial Dido an heiress (in the film she inherits her father's wealth following his death) while her white cousin Elizabeth is left in a lurch by her unthoughtful father.  In reality it was exactly the reverse.  Elizabeth had been well provided for by her father, while Dido received nothing from hers after his death.  In fact, it was Lord Mansfield himself who stepped-in and provided a dowry and income for Dido. 

Finally, the film presents Dido's love interest John Davinier (played in the film by Sam Reid) as the law student son of a Anglican clergyman, when in reality he was an immigrant from France (perhaps a refugee of the French Revolution).

Yet these historical corrections to the film's plot IMHO actually serve to support the impact that the presence of Dido Elizabeth Belle in Lord Mansfield's life (she is self-evidently "the star" and amusingly so in the painting of his two grandnieces that he had commissioned) and how world history may have been changed as a result of it (his court decision did make slavery illegal in England and even when "positive law" did still retain British participation in the slave trade overseas, he did make it clear that he found the institution both "shocking" and "odious" and helped set-up the Parliamentary environment which eventually made it illegal as well). 

It's honestly fascinating to me what interest (and reflection) a single painting can inspire!  So good job folks, good job!  And the film is certainly worth the viewing by young women everywhere, as it makes for a fascinating point of discussion regarding all three of the classifications that have often divided us: race, gender and class.  Again, overall an excellent and thought provoking 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! :-) >>

Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return [2013]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (K. MacFarland) review

Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return [2013] (directed by Will Finn and Dan St. Pierre, screenplay by Adam Balsam and Randi Barnes, based on the Oz inspired children's book "Dorothy of Oz" (2010) by Roger S. Baum [IMDb] the great-grandson of L. Frank Baum [IMDb], the original author of the "Oz" children's book series) will probably disappoint a lot of parents and on a number of levels.

First of all let's face it, the "bar" for a film seeking to ride on the magic of The Wizard of Oz [1939], one of the most beloved American children's films of all times is necessary HIGH.

Second, while the original Oz books actually were "political" dealing with some (in our day) rather esoteric arguments about whether or not the nation's money should be backed by a silver standard in addition to the (then current) gold standard (The "yellow brick road" just took Dorothy deeper into magical/unreal world of "Oz" while her "silver ruby slippers" brought her home...), the more or less obvious "Red-state" / "anti-government" message of the current film (though Kansas today would be in the "Red State" camp) will irritate more than a few parents.  Part of what made the 1939 film so successful was that the original politics of the story was already lost on most viewers even in the 1930s to say nothing of the decades since.  In contrast, Dorothy (voiced quite well actually by Lea Michele) is re-imagined in this film as a Dallas Cowboy boot wearing contemporary "country girl" / Miley Cyrus [IMBb] look-alike who saves her town from an unscrupulous huckster (voiced by Martin Short) who arrived as a "government licensed appraiser" (but one who apparently wanted to buy out the whole town on the cheap) after the town got hit by a tornado...

Meanwhile back in Oz, Martin Short also voices that world's analogous villain named "The Jester" (evil brother of the original Wizard of Oz's "Wicked Witch of the West") who wants to take over the whole of Oz and turn all the characters from the first movie -- Glinda the Good Witch (voiced by Bernadette Peters), The Scarecrow (voiced by Dan Aykroyd), The Tin Man (voiced by Kelsey Grammer) and The Lion (voiced by Jim Belushi) -- into his literally his "puppets." 

Before being taken captive by the Jester's flying monkey minions, the Scarecrow (now with a brain) operating a contraption that produces a rainbow wormhole, sends said wormhole to Dorothy to bring her back to Oz.  Mid-flight, the Scarecrow along with his two other friends, the Tin Man and the Lion, are captured by the flying monkeys.  So Dorothy in said rainbow wormhole (along with her trusted dog Toto) crash somewhere in the Land of Oz, but far from the Emerald City.  So she has to walk there ... again ... and along the way pick-up a new set of companions including: a "chatty," rather than particularly wise Owl named Wiser (voiced by Oliver Platt), a "mushy" soldier named Marshall Mellow (voiced by Hugh Dancy), a rather "haughty/rigid/fragile China Princess (voiced by Megan Hilty) and a rather depressed "searching for another purpose" dying/older tree who Dorothy names Tugg (voiced by Patrick Stewart).   All these are also threatened the puppeteer wannabe "Jester" ... and it's up to Dorothy then to save them all as well.

While some of these new characters have disappointed various critics, IMHO in themselves, I did not find them that badly drawn.  It's just the megalomaniacal "Jester" (and remember he's a "government licensed adjuster" back home) who wants to turn everyone else into his "puppet" is just a ridiculous right-wing overreach.  Would it be better if FEMA didn't come in TO MANAGE ASSISTANCE to tornado victims after such local disasters?


<< 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! :-) >>

Neighbors [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

What to say on this blog about Neighbors [2014] (directed by Nicholas Stoller, screenplay by Amdrew J. Cohen and Brendan O'Brien)?  After all at minimum, the film is at least in part a celebration (if largely nostalgically) of young adult / juvenile excess.  And yet (read on ...) there is actually more going on.  The film is actually _mostly_ about "growing up."

Mac and Kelly Radner (played by Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne) a young married couple still adjusting to the entry of their first child Stella (played by Elise and Zoey Vargas) into their lives has been trying really, really hard to make the transition from being "young and carefree" to "being responsible" without "selling out" (forgetting completely about how it was to be "young and carefree").  Mac's got some sort of an accounting job "downtown."  Even though Kelly and Mac met in college and so Kelly presumably has a college degree of her own, she/they've decided to have her be a "stay at home mom" if perhaps only for a while (and it's clear that she doesn't particularly like it ...).  They've bought a house in a relatively nice, still "kinda happening," residential section of town (if the film were in Chicago they'd be living in perhaps "Wrigleyville" or "Bucktown").

They're also dealing with (and again truth be told rather unhappy with) their best (and somewhat more irresponsible) friends presumably "from college days" Jimmy and Paula (played by Ike Barinholtz and Carla Gallo respectively) having decided that marriage was not for them and filing for divorce.  Indeed, Mac and Kelly are discovering how much divorce sucks "for the friends" of the divorcing couple as they've liked both Jimmy and Paula (and Mac even still works with Jimmy).  Yet now Jimmy and Paula don't want to do things together anymore ... forcing Mac and Kelly to constantly "choose between them."  Sigh ...

Well these very human adjustments (the arrival of baby daughter Stella) and frustrations/disappointments (having to deal with the divorce of their best friends) quickly get compounded in a far starker way when to their surprise, then shock, then horror the house next door gets purchased not by a "gay couple" (which presumably would have _helped_ increase the value of their home) but rather _by a College Fraternity_ from a nearby university, college students being notoriously penniless and Frats notoriously loud.  (Indeed, at one point when Mac and Kelly consider just getting-out and selling their home, this after "putting all that they had" into improving it before the Frat moved in, they're told by their real estate agent that the Frat's presence has HALVED the value of their home.  "You mean after all that we've put into our home, we lost HALF ITS VALUE because of that Frat?" they ask.  "Well, that's the bad news," the real estate agent responds. "The good news in, at least you still retain at least half its original value in this crazy time in this business."  Welcome to post 2008 financial crisis realities ...

But the Frat involves a far bigger challenge to Mac and Kelly than "merely money" (though losing HALF the value of one's house because of a Frat moving in next door is losing some serious money).  The Frat becomes a daily (and NIGHTLY) reminder to Mac and Kelly that they're "no longer young anymore."

Not that Frats necessarily represent "the Best of being Young" however.  Drugs, alcohol, utterly irresponsible sex all maim and kill.  The whole lifestyle REQUIRES _literally_ dehumanizing unwanted children produced through utterly-un-thought-through sexual activity labeling these children "fetuses" and thus allowing them to _become_ "abortable" that is _disposable_ ("Out of sight, out of mind ...").

 And yet the film, while not being that blunt about it, certainly points out the shallowness and _temporariness_ of the lifestyle:

At one point still early in the story, Kelly explains to some Sorority girls hanging out at a Frat Party that she and Mac were attending (both they and the Frat brothers were still trying to size each other up) how she and Mac met in college, fell in love, got married, moved to this neighborhood, had first child and so forth.  And the Sorority girls are all impressed: "Oooh, how sweet!" they respond with approval.  When Kelly asks one of the sorority girls how she met her boyfriend, she answered; "Well he came up to me at a party one night, told me that I was Hot ... and we've been Together ever since."  Not exactly the kind of "romance" that inspires Sonnets or Love Songs ...

Then poor, poor, ever tan and well-chiseled Teddy (played perfectly by Zac Efron), the Frat's president.  Utterly, utterly sincere, he's the only one who believes in the ritual (and party) life of the Frat.  And by the end of the film, it's clear-as-day that he's absolutely terrified of what's gonna happen after College is done.  His best friend, Frat V.P. Pete (played again to a tee by Dave Franco) is loyal, indeed as best a friend as one could have in one's young adult years.  BUT he also knows that "all this must end" and has been preparing (notably ... STUDYING) so that he could get a good job afterwards.

So for all the often very funny (if often very, very juvenile/irresponsible) antics that go-on throughout the film, the film is ultimately about Mac and Teddy on opposite sides of the transition to adulthood.  Mac (and at times also his wife Kelly) is looking back "to how it used to be" (and wishing he could still be there).  Teddy's looking toward the future ... with ever increasing fear.

But one way or another ... we all make that transition.  Hopefully, we have some good memories of "how it was."  But also hopefully we haven't "left a lot of wreckage ..."

So there it is.  Like a lot of reviewers, I'm left with the conclusion that "this film is actually better than it should be" ;-).  And I have a feeling that's what those associated with this film were aiming for ;-).

Just please honestly don't "hook-up" with people that you wouldn't have ANY idea of what you'd do with if you produced a child with them.  EVERYONE, including the child ... and God (our and the child's creator) ... deserves better than that.


<< 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! :-) >> 

Locke [2013]

MPAA (Unrated would be R)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RE.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (A.A. Drive) review

Locke [2013] (written and directed by Steven Knight) is a remarkable in some sense truly "bare-bones minimalist" film that would be both a true film enthusiast's and A MORALIST'S delight. 

The film begins with a middle-aged construction engineer, Ivan Locke (played by Tom Hardy) at some kind of a construction site, coming to the end of day's work, coming to his car, a BMW (signalling early that he's no ordinary construction engineer but probably some sort of a project manager).  We see the sun setting to the West, but as this is somewhere in presumably Northern England, it's also starting to rain.

He enters the car, docks his cell phone to whatever "hands-free apparatus" his car would have.  We hear an automated voice referring to some sort of a "Bluetooth" (wireless) handshake/docking commencing as he starts his car.  And soon he's on his way.

Now where is he going?  Neither West (toward the Sunset) nor East (presumably toward a Rainbow as both the sun remains out if setting and it is raining).  Instead, he appears to be heading South.  Where?  Toward London, which we learn is about an hour and a half away.  Why?  Well that's what we begin to learn as we listen-in on the cell phone calls that he begins to make as he gets on some intercity expressway heading South from his place of work toward London.

We soon find out that he's heading to London, and not home to his wife and two teenage boys, because just before work's end, he had received a phone-call from a London woman, about his age, with whom he had a one-night affair some 7 months before, telling him that "her water broke" and asking him, since she was all alone, if he could come down to London to be with her for the birth of _their_ child.

Now it turns out, through hearing-in on subsequent conversations as Ivan drives toward London, that she, a rather lonely and generally depressed old sort, was pregnant with his child a few months earlier and Ivan had wanted to tell his wife about this (with all its attendant ramifications...) ever since then, but that he had "never found the right time" to do so.  And he did actually still think that he had "some time" (after all, she was only in her 7th month ...).  But now, she had called him just before this day's work with this news, and he decided that he's going to have to do this favor (of going down to be with this woman as she gives birth to his and her child) for the sake of both of them.

What to tell his wife?  What would _you_ tell your wife if you found yourself in this situation?  THIS IS A GOOD PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS FILM SO, SO FASCINATING. 

AS A CATHOLIC PRIEST counseling someone ASKING ME what to do, I'd PROBABLY TELL THAT PERSON to PERHAPS NOT LIE (though a SMALL _TEMPORARY_ LIE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THE SAKE OF, IN GOOD PART, THE WIFE'S OWN PEACE, I'd find completely understandable) but to FIND SOME PLAUSIBLE EXCUSE for not coming home ("Honey, the Project that I'm working on, requires me to remain here late tonight and I may not be able to come home until tomorrow.  BUT I WILL EXPLAIN TOMORROW."

Instead, _perhaps because he no longer trusted himself_ (He's had two months to break this news to his wife and HASN'T) Ivan decides that he's had enough of procrastinating and ON THE PHONE, WHILE DRIVING, WHILE IT'S RAINING, DOWN A RANDOM AND NOW DARK INTERCITY EXPRESSWAY WITH MODERATE TRAFFIC BUT SOME CONSTRUCTION tells his wife in a calm voice THAT HE'S NOT COMING HOME THAT NIGHT AND ... WHY HE ISN'T DO SO ... because he made this one mistake in 15 years of marriage 7 months ago and now he owes it to this woman, who is otherwise alone, and her and indeed his, child to be there when this child enters the world.

It's a remarkable conversation and AGAIN HONESTLY, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE COUNSELED AGAINST IT.  This conversation, as painful as it was, deserved to be done FACE TO FACE at home.

But ... ;-/ ... that's _not the only thing_ that's going on.  HE'S A PROJECT ENGINEER ... INDEED, THE LEAD PROJECT ENGINEER for the construction of a new skyscraper being built somewhere in the northern England.  THE NEXT DAY, EARLY IN THE MORNING, THE SKYSCRAPER'S FOUNDATION WAS GOING TO BE POURED ... a complex concrete pour that we find out the local papers had reported was going to be "the biggest non-military concrete pour in Europe since the end of the Cold War."  AND HE HAS TO CALL HIS BOSS TO TELL HIM THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE FOR IT EITHER (It was scheduled to begin early the next morning, with a tight synchronization of all sorts of cement trucks, local road closures, etc, etc).

What would you tell your boss?  He again tells him in a calm, straight forward voice, WHILE DRIVING IN THE RAIN (windshield wipers rhythmically moving to-and-fro clearing the water from the wind shield so that he could see) AT NIGHT (the glare of headlight beams and various other lights regularly appearing/disappearing on said wet-windshield) IN MODERATE TRAFFIC (the outlines and tail lights of cars as well as various traffic signs and occasional construction barriers appearing in front of him and at his sides), the same story that he told his wife: That he has to go down to London that night to be there for the birth of a child of his by a woman who was not his wife, that he did not even particularly know, but who needed and requested his presence at this very important event for her, for him and their child.

The Boss, incredulous, angry and in something of a panic, responds "Why couldn't you have just told me THAT YOU WERE SICK?" and tells him that he's going to have to report this up the line to the architectural firm "in Chicago" and that they're almost certainly going to "want his head" for this.  Ivan responds, that he knows, but that he preferred to just tell the truth at this point (even if it wasn't necessarily any of his boss' / the firm's business to know other than that he wasn't going to at the construction site that next day).

In the meantime, first the woman and then the hospital call that there are "complications with the delivery."  Again, calmly, while driving at night, in the rain, in moderate traffic down an intercity expressway with moderate construction on it, he deals with issues pertaining to the health and perhaps even future of both a woman he hardly knows and a child that he's found recently that he's having with her all because of his one-time moral failing seven months before.

Further, in the meanting, his wife is needless to say UPSET.  One of his teenage sons calls in the middle of all this happening wondering why he's not home yet 'because the game is on' and tells him how 'the game's going ...' ;-).  Then, even though Ivan's not going to be at the construction site the next day, the day of this GREAT AND VERY IMPORTANT "POUR" he has to instruct at least his SUBORDINATES "what to do" ... all while driving, while it's raining, at night, in moderate traffic on a random intercity expressway between somewhere in Northern England and London, on a road that's also having some moderate construction going on.

WHAT A MOVIE ;-) ;-)

How does it end?  GO, FIND AND WATCH IT ;-)

Honestly, what a remarkable discussion piece.

I would also add that the film makers make it RATHER CLEAR that Ivan is someone of _no faith_.  He's both fallen and has been trying to rectify things IN A MORAL FASHION not because he believes in God but because _he believes that this is the right thing to do_.  HONESTLY, VERY GOOD.  Yet for a believer or non ... I still think that this is A GREAT FILM THAT LEAVES VIEWERS WITH MUCH TO REFLECT ON and TALK ABOUT.

Outstanding, simply outstanding!


<< 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! :-) >>