Blended [2014]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (1 1/2 Stars)  RE.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C-) 

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 trying to be strategic about this, picking movies that would "hurt somewhat" to miss, that is, films that are not "so bad" that I wouldn't see them anyway nor movies that I really would need to see/review or else my blogging effort would cease to be worthwhile.

As per my custom, I will try to provide links to usual line-up of reviews that I also consider as I write my own.

This week, the film I chose not to see / review here is the Adam Sandler vehicle Blended [2014].  Readers of my blog will know that I've actually been kinder to Adam Sandler's films (That's My Boy [2011]) than many / most reviewers.  IMHO his films often have a rather positive message even if that message is often lost in a swamp of rather juvenile jokes and crudity.  It would seem that this film is somewhat different as even reviewer for the CNS/USCCB (the U.S. Catholic Bishops media office) give the film an A-II (appropriate for adults and adolescents) rating that the "L" (limited adult audience) or "O" (offensive) ratings that have graced recent Sandler films.  More mainstream critics still give the film somewhat predictably low marks.  Casablanca [1942] or African Queen [1951] this film apparently is not ... ;-)

X-Men: Days of Future Past [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune (C. Borrelli) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

X-Men: Days of Future Past [2014] (directed by Brian Singer, screenplay by Simon Kinberg, story also by Simon Kinberg along with Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaugn inspired by Marvel Comics X-men [MCU] [wikip]) is a rather complex superhero movie will probably require at least some background reading and/or background viewing for newbies to understand (followers/fans of the x-men film series will certainly have no trouble understanding this one, though knowledge of the original comics underlying the X-men [MCU] [wikip] story-line certainly will help / enrich one's appreciation of the film as well).

At minimum, readers here should understand that the current film, X-Men: Days of Future Past [2014], is actually the seventh X-men inspired Hollywood major motion picture to be made since 2000 (five devoted to the X-men in general, two devoted to the character Wolverine in particular, the last two films X-Men: First Class [2011] and Wolverine [2013] having been reviewed on my blog, which I began in the Fall of 2010).  Newbies would be served to have seen at least X-Men [2000] [IMDb], X-Men 3: Last Stand [2006] [IMDb], X-Men: First Class [2011] [IMDb] [FrDatM] as well as X-men Origins: Wolverine [2009] [IMDb] prior to having seen this one.

At its heart, the entire X-men [MCU] [wikip] story-line (the first X-Men Comic being published in 1963) is about responding to one's own "Otherness" (or more positively one's own "Uniqueness") in relation to the larger Society.  Readers and viewers are invited to identify with a cluster of radically unique / exceptional people (indeed, one of the ways to understand the "X" in the X-Men title would be that the "X" is short for "exceptional").  The reason given for their radical uniqueness / exceptionality is "genetic mutation."   So while positively these characters were considered (at times) "exceptional," negatively they are also derided by various "regular people" as "mutants."

Some words about setting:  While many of the key original X-men characters were already portrayed as living at the time of World War II -- notably (1) Eric Lehnsherr / the future Magneto who was born Jewish in Europe and discovered his super-power to bend anything metal (in anger) when he was forcibly separated from his parents in a Nazi Concentration Camp; (2) Logan / Wolverine, who was born on the Canadian frontier in the late 1800s, whose mutation allowed his body to repair itself from almost any kind of damage thus making him all but immortal (e's shown in Wolverine [2013] as a Canadian POW serving in a camp at the outskirts of Nagasaki easily recovering from even the nuclear blast there); (3) Charles Xavier who was an American boy growing up in a Franklin D. Roosevelt style "Hyde Park" / "Old Money" mansion outside of New York (another meaning for "X-Men" becomes those characters allied to him) whose mutation allowed him to "read minds," and (4) Raven / Mystique whose mutation allowed her to shape-shift into appearing like any person / character that she desired -- the series plays on developments that came out of the post-World War II era.  These developments included (1) Fear of Radiation (resulting in all kinds of often dangerous/disfiguring mutations), and (2) the Red Scare and the rise and increasing success of the African American Civil Rights Movement.  The early 1950s Red Scare and the mid-late-1950s increasing success of the African American Civil Rights Movement stoked a fear of "Otherness" in the larger American Society even as all kinds of previously marginalized groups -- people of color, women, gays, even Catholics and Jews -- were awakening to the realization that their "Otherness" from "the Norm" (white, heterosexual, male, preferably of Anglo-Saxon and Protestant background) had been keeping them down (and more to the point, that this marginalization need not remain a permanent condition).

So while the characters in the X-Men series were generally wildly drawn "mutants," with all sorts of crazy super-powers, A LOT OF READERS and MORE RECENTLY A LOT OF VIEWERS could relate to them: They're "different from the Norm" (just like we are).  

Okay, in this story line about this community of "highly exceptional people" / "mutants" of the X-men series there has always existed a fundamental conflict with regards to how best to relate to the non-mutant "regular" people (people of the Norm).

Heading one camp has been (Professor) Charles Xavier [IMDb] (played in the films as an older man by Patrick Stewart and as a younger man by James McAvoy) who though also a "mutant" (again, he can "read minds") coming out of a privileged upbringing of Rooseveltian wealth, he has maintained that the mutants' best chance would be to seek to live in peace with the non-mutant majority.

Heading the other camp has been the traumatized, Jewish-born, Holocaust surviving Eric Lehnsherr / Magneto [IMDb] (played as an older man by Ian McKellen and when he was younger by Michael Fassbender) who SIMPLY DOES NOT BELIEVE that the "regular" non-mutant majority WILL EVER ACCEPT PEOPLE WHO DON'T "FIT THE NORM."  Hence, his loyalty has been exclusively "other mutants."  He remembered the "regular" non-mutant majority seeking to exterminate him and his family (for being Jewish) during the Holocaust and being experimented upon (by Nazi scientists) when they discovered that he had "special properties" that they found useful.  HE FOUND NO USE FOR SUCH "REGULAR" (AND FEARFUL / EVIL) PEOPLE AND THOUGHT THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THEM WOULD BE TO FIGHT (and DEFEAT) THEM.

All five of the X-men movies involve a conflict between these two "exceptional men", Professor X [IMDb] on one side and Magneto [IMDb] on the other.

In the current film, the mutants (and the rest of "regular" humanity) find themselves in 2023 in a hellish world, largely destroyed on account of a vicious, apocalyptic war between humanity and the mutants with humanity actually on the verge of "winning." (But "winning" what?  The world was largely destroyed in any case ...).

The reason why humanity was on the verge of winning was NOT because they were physically or intellectually "exceptional" like the mutants.  Instead, interestingly/tellingly, humanity "adapted" in a different way -- it created robotic weapons called "Sentinels."  These weapons had become all but indestructible even when facing the genetically superior mutants.  Why?  Again tellingly, after the shape-shifting Raven/Mystique [IMDb] (played in the film by Jennifer Lawrence) managed to assassinate the Sentinels' initial designer Dr. Bolivar Trask [IMDb] (played by Peter Dinklage), she herself was killed and HUMAN SCIENTISTS THEN ADDED HER "SHAPESHIFTING" ABILITY TO THE DESIGN OF THE "SENTINELS" making them all but indestructible.   Thus human thinking/defenses proved to be able to "evolve" without needing "genetic mutation."

Thus fighting a war between humanity and the "genetically superior mutants" was proving pointless.  As such, in a desperate gambit, Professor X and Magneto of 2023 decide to utilize the super-power of one of the remaining mutants among them Kitty Pride / Shadowcat [IMDb] (played by Ellen Page), who can send the consciousness someone back in time, to send the consciousness of Logan / Wolverine (the most indestructible of the mutants among them) back to 1973 to stop Raven/Mystique from assassinating Dr. Bolivar Trask and instead work to make a peace between the mutants and humanity.

To do so (to find Raven/Mystique she was a shape-shifter afterall), Logan's told to find Professor X and Magneto of 1973 first.  But neither was in a particularly good state in 1973:

Professor X, depressed after loosing his control of his legs at the end of X-Men: First Class [2011] provef willing to take a medicine that gave him back the use of his legs (at the expense of losing his "mind reading" superpower ... and yet they needed that superpower to find Raven/Mystique).

Magneto, on the other hand, found himself locked-up in an ALL CONCRETE PRISON (no metal... ;-) 100 stories below the Pentagon "for his role in the 1963 Kennedy Assassination."  But what could possibly have been Magneto's role in the Kennedy Assassination?  Well ... JFK was killed by a "magic" (metal) bullet that appeared to have "changed direction" mid-flight ;-).  (When Magneto inevitably was freed from this seemingly impregnable prison, again 100 stories below the Pentagon, he protested his innocence in the Kennedy Assassination to his fellow mutants saying that he was there in Dallas on the day of the Assassination but to protect JFK"  Why?  Because Kennedy was "one of us" (if not a mutant, then one who had been previously marginalized).  How?  Well with the exception of current President Barack Obama (1/2 African-American), JFK (Catholic) remains the only American President who was not a WASP -- "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" ;-).

Anyway,  Logan / Wolverine and Professor X along with the help of two other mutants Hank / Beast [IMDb] (played by Nicholas Hoult) and especially lightning fast Quicksilver [IMDb] (played by Evan Peters) help break Magneto out of his prison.  They do then find Raven/Mystique and do try to stop her from assassinating Dr. Bolivar Trask.  During the course of all this, the younger 1973 Magneto increasingly realizes that his whole confrontational approach toward humanity was being challenged and it's never really clear if he's on board, even if he's being told by Logan / Wolverine that he's come back from the future to try to change it for the better and that even the older 2023 Magneto was in favor of it.

Anyway, much of course plays out ... while I'm not going to tell you how, Logan / Wolverine does succeed in altering events in 1973 and thus alter the reality of 2023.

So where do then Professor X and Magneto find themselves (as well as the other mutants) in 2023?  I'm not going to say.  But the film does invite viewers to reflect perhaps even more deeply on the philosophies of these two main characters in the X-men story line and which of the two approaches would probably produce the better outcome for those/all involved.

All in all, like many other Marvel Comics based movies of late, it makes for a very interesting and thought provoking film, if also a rather destructive one.  The violence is kept at a PG-13 "glass shattering but not blood" level ... but like a lot of films of this type, there's a lot of it.  

Still, in the end, the film certainly gives viewers a lot to think about with regard to finding a way in which we could all "live in peace together."  Good job.


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

Ida [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*
Stopklatka.pl listing*

CJG.gazeta.pl (P.T. Felis) review*
Onet.pl review*
Film.org.pl (E. Świeca) review*
Wnas.pl (L. Adamski) review*

CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
HollywoodReporter (T. McCarthy) review
SlantMagazine (C. Cabin) review
Variety (P. DeBruge) review

Ida [2013] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [SK.pl]* (directed and screenplay cowritten by Paweł Pawlikowski [en.wikip] [Culture.pl] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [SK.pl]* along with Rebecca Lenkiewicz [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) is a Polish language / English subtitled film critically well received in both Poland and Outside (see links above) about a young late-teens/early-20s woman named Anna (played very well by Agata Trzebuchowska [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [SK.pl]*) who after growing-up in a Catholic orphanage/convent in Communist Era Poland (the film's set in Poland of the early 1960s) and had decided to become a nun in the Community of Sisters who had taken care of her, is told by her Mother Superior prior to accepting her vows, that she actually has a living relative, an aunt, who hasn't necessarily been easy to contact, but who the Sisters felt she should meet prior to making her vows. 

Very well, Anna is given her aunt's address and dispensation to leave the Convent to meet her.  When she does, she discovers that her aunt, Wanda (played magnificently by Agata Kulesza [IMDb] [FW.pl]* [SK.pl]*) is a rather hardened by life (for reasons soon become obvious / heart breaking) and consequently rather hard-drinking COMMUNIST JUDGE (she was known in the region as "Red Wanda" for having put all kinds of "Enemies of the People" behind bars and often to death).

So then, why was Wanda so "hardened" and consequently so hard-drinking/etc?  Well SHE (AND ANNA, whose birth name prior to being left at the Convent as a baby was IDA) WERE JEWISH.  Anna/Ida had never known this ...

The rest of the story un-spools from there.  There are, of course, a lot of questions that the audience (and Anna/Ida) would have:

Why did Wanda and Anna/Ida survive the Nazi occupation while the rest of their family did not?  Why did Wanda become a Communist while Anna/Ida ended-up at a Convent's doorstep and grew-up as a Catholic?   Why didn't the Sisters tell Anna/Ida earlier?  Why didn't Wanda pick-up her niece earlier?  And of course ... what now?  The rest of the film unspools from here...

This is a painful and at times ugly story.  In writing this review, I struggled with the question of how fairly Anna/Ida's character was drawn.  Was she just a device or caricature?  I do wish that SOMEDAY a film could portray the community life of nuns as well as the community life of male religious was portrayed in the French film Of Gods and Men (orig. Des Hommes et des Dieux) [2010].  (AND ACTUALLY FILM MAKERS -- I COULD DIRECT YOU TO PEOPLE / CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS SISTERS OF ALL KINDS, BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD, WHO COULD HELP YOU TO DO THIS WELL / BETTER).  However, I came to the conclusion that I'd be asking for a different kind of movie here than the one that the film makers were trying to make.

I would note again to readers here the overwhelmingly positive critical reaction IN POLAND to this film and also would note that I'm not surprised.  This is a very well done film, ever somber, ever in black-white-and-grey, often in rain and snow, about a time and an aftermath of a time that was also cold, painful, and broke many, many, indeed, millions of people, both Pole and Jew.  And what is clear as day to me today -- Poles, at least in Poland, at least the young -- DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT and are able to do so with somberness and respect (unsurprisingly, for a nation with as sad/somber a history as Poland has had and consequently with composers like Chopin ... to express this well)  Honestly folks, a very good if sad/somber job!


* 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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>