MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Chicago Tribune (2 Stars) RE.com (2 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune/Variety (J. Chang) review
RE.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review
The Hundred Foot Journey [2014] (directed by Lasse Hallström, screenplay by Steven Knight, based on the novel by Richard C. Morais [IMDb]) is a lovely, feel-good movie about the blessings that come with ethnic / cultural diversity. It is a film that cheerfully proclaims to all who would listen that we do "complete each other" (the writers of Jerry Maguire [1996] didn't invent that line. That sentiment is expressed in pretty much all the universal religions and philosophies including Judeo-Christianity c.f. Gen 1:26-31, 1 Cor 12:12-26, Rom 5:3-8, Col 1:24, Rev 7:9-14, Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Non-Christian Religions "Nostra Aetate" [1965]).
Alas, the story begins, sadly enough, in the still largely sectarian/divided/fallen world of today (Yes, the world's religions and philosophies many proclaim a "Brotherhood of Man" but often enough THEIR (or our...) particular "Brotherhood..."): A good humored/innocuous Muslim family from Mumbai, India finds itself driven out of their home/business after these are burned down in a sectarian riot.
Where do they go? Widowed as a result of the anti-Muslim pogrom, Papa (played with magnificent comic timing by Om Puri) takes the family to England first. But "the karma's" just not right ;-). Explaining as they're at the border crossing at the famous Chunnel between England and France why they are leaving England for France, eldest son and culinary prodigy Hassan (played by Mashan Dayan) explains to a bemused (presumably) English border official that the vegetables in England "just don't have life." His headscarf-wearing late-teenage sister Mahira (played again magnificently by Farzana Dua Elahe) explains to another (presumably) French border official that, no, she's not being taken across the border "against her will" for an "arranged marriage" explaining "Believe me, nothing in our family is particularly well arranged" ;-)
And so it is, this moderately sized Muslim family -- widowed Papa and his 5 children ranging in age from early 20s to 8-10 (with Mother guiding them from above) -- originally from Mumbai now all packed into a rickety European minivan, cross into France from England in search of a place to set down roots. And they literally crash into a small provincial French town in the foothills of the Alps.
There they find a place at the edge of town start a restaurant. But alas, it's across the street from ANOTHER, and very well respected French restaurant run by (also a widow) Madame Mallory (played by Helen Mirren) with stately precision in honor of her late husband.
Is a lovely / picturesque provincial French town with much history/beauty ready for "an invasion" of an, again, lovely Indian Muslim family, coming from a culture also with much history and color, as well as its own music, dress and spices? That's, of course, the question of the film. And if the story of the film sounds a lot like Chocolat [2000], it's probably not an accident as both films were made by the same director. However, I would note that this current film is much, much, much gentler.
Now some of the critical opinion above laments some of the schmaltziness of the current film. The film's set-up for multiple _family friendly_ romantic trajectories. Besides the inevitable one involving the widowed Papa of the family and Madame Mallory, there's also a cheerful if also serious "sous chef" named Margerite (played masterfully by Charlotte Le Bon) working for Madame Mallory, who also happens to be Hassan's age.
But I honestly loved this film through and through, and readers of my blog would know that I have really big soft spot for "schmaltizness" ;-). The film's producers included both Steven Spielberg [IMDb] and Oprah Winfrey [IMDb]. I understand why they wanted to get involved and I simply have to applaud the result. This film shows us _what is possible_ if we open ourselves to the possibility of learning from others.
Again, all the great saints, mystics and philosophers across the ages have understood the message here. I come from a Catholic / Christian tradition, so I wish to simply add here that in our best days we (Catholics) definitely agree.
"No one is so rich as to have nothing to learn from others, and no one is so poor as to have nothing to offer to others" -- St. Pope John Paul II
<< 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! :-) >>
Reviews of current films written by Fr. Dennis Zdenek Kriz, OSM of St. Philip Benizi Parish, Fullerton, CA
Monday, August 11, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
Magic in the Moonlight [2014]
MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars) RE.com (2 1/2 Stars) AVClub (C+) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
Fans or at least followers of Woody Allen films will find in Magic in the Moonlight [2014] (written and directed by Allen) a typically well-crafted, well-acted film, musing about and perhaps cumulatively building upon typical concerns of his -- Is there a God? Is there a Here-After? And how to make-do in life if one finds oneself having great difficulty in believing in them. A believer could choose to be OFFENDED (How dare W.A. and his moneyed/richer than God, swinging from the chandeliers, hedonistic Hollywood backers ask these questions?), DISMISSIVE (most of us know more about W.A.'s personal baggage than that of our friends and neighbors' ...) or perhaps INDULGE HIM, perhaps sigh/roll one's eyes, but let him tell his story and perhaps honestly take some notes, because we _all_ have amiable friends and relatives with similar problems / concerns when it comes to faith.
So W.A. begins his tale set in the 1920s Europe with Stanley (played by Colin Firth) a very British "The Sun Never Sets on Our Empire" magician (illusionist) who prefers to perform his "good fun" performances in "Asian face" (painted slanty eyes, pig-tail, pasted Confucius style goatee beard...) as "Wei Ling Soo" Why? Perhaps in his very certain mind, no self-respecting post-Enlightenment Britisher would indulge in such things except, of course, "in jest"... (Honestly, Colin Firth plays Stanley, this film's Woody Allen-stand-in, to a magnificently pompous extreme .. I'd like to imagine Stanley as having a portrait of Bertrand Russell hanging over his bed ;-)
But even all-knowing / utterly-ever-certain Stanley appears to understand the sad awfulness of his situation: Having eliminated the possibility of any truth (let alone God or a Here-After) existing outside of the bounds of a (his...) strictly rationalist system, he's consigned himself to a prison of meaninglessness and a rather fleeting one at that. (A GREAT visual reflection on the central Buddhist concept of "impermanence" of all things is the recent film Samsara [2012])
But no matter, at least one's smarter (while one's faculties hold-up) than others ... So as a "side interest" though indulged by him in his true, very "English face" and in his true name, STANLEY (one really can't get much more "British Colonial" than embracing the moniker of (Lord) Stanley...), he devotes his life to "debunking frauds" in his own words "from the Vatican to spiritualists." ;-)
Enter then an old friend, fellow Enlightened/sporting/bored illusionist Howard Burkan (played by Simon McBurney) who comes to Stanley with a problem/challenge: There appeared to be a young Kalamazoo, Michigan ("nowhere's-ville") born spiritualist named "Sophie" (played with wide-eyed, small town huckster magnificence by Emma Stone) who's been making the rounds among moneyed English Expats summering on the French Riviera and though "she had to be a fraud," good ole Howard found himself "stumped." So good ole Howard arrived at Stanley's London brownstone doorstep with the request to go down to Southern France with him to debunk her once and for all.
So Stanley does ... go down to Southern France to do just that, and ... it all "gets complicated" ;-). And it's not necessarily that Stanley comes to a conclusion that he could be wrong about his very rationalist conception of the world / reality. It just becomes patently obvious, even to him, that there's a cruelness to insisting on being Right all the time. Stanley's Aunt Vanessa (played by Eileen Atkins) who knew Stanley in his childhood BEFORE he became "such a tired bore..," helps him out in this regard.
IMHO this is a very fun, well-filmed period piece. The cars, the houses, the clothes, and the views of the sea (the French don't call the Riviera the Côte d'Azur - "the Coast of Blue" for nothing ;-) are all very beautiful. And the film does have a very nice point: There is a deflating and dehumanizing cost to killing the Life / Hope of others and insisting on being Right all the time (indeed, insisting on being "one's own God").
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (B. Kenigsberg) review
Fans or at least followers of Woody Allen films will find in Magic in the Moonlight [2014] (written and directed by Allen) a typically well-crafted, well-acted film, musing about and perhaps cumulatively building upon typical concerns of his -- Is there a God? Is there a Here-After? And how to make-do in life if one finds oneself having great difficulty in believing in them. A believer could choose to be OFFENDED (How dare W.A. and his moneyed/richer than God, swinging from the chandeliers, hedonistic Hollywood backers ask these questions?), DISMISSIVE (most of us know more about W.A.'s personal baggage than that of our friends and neighbors' ...) or perhaps INDULGE HIM, perhaps sigh/roll one's eyes, but let him tell his story and perhaps honestly take some notes, because we _all_ have amiable friends and relatives with similar problems / concerns when it comes to faith.
So W.A. begins his tale set in the 1920s Europe with Stanley (played by Colin Firth) a very British "The Sun Never Sets on Our Empire" magician (illusionist) who prefers to perform his "good fun" performances in "Asian face" (painted slanty eyes, pig-tail, pasted Confucius style goatee beard...) as "Wei Ling Soo" Why? Perhaps in his very certain mind, no self-respecting post-Enlightenment Britisher would indulge in such things except, of course, "in jest"... (Honestly, Colin Firth plays Stanley, this film's Woody Allen-stand-in, to a magnificently pompous extreme .. I'd like to imagine Stanley as having a portrait of Bertrand Russell hanging over his bed ;-)
But even all-knowing / utterly-ever-certain Stanley appears to understand the sad awfulness of his situation: Having eliminated the possibility of any truth (let alone God or a Here-After) existing outside of the bounds of a (his...) strictly rationalist system, he's consigned himself to a prison of meaninglessness and a rather fleeting one at that. (A GREAT visual reflection on the central Buddhist concept of "impermanence" of all things is the recent film Samsara [2012])
But no matter, at least one's smarter (while one's faculties hold-up) than others ... So as a "side interest" though indulged by him in his true, very "English face" and in his true name, STANLEY (one really can't get much more "British Colonial" than embracing the moniker of (Lord) Stanley...), he devotes his life to "debunking frauds" in his own words "from the Vatican to spiritualists." ;-)
Enter then an old friend, fellow Enlightened/sporting/bored illusionist Howard Burkan (played by Simon McBurney) who comes to Stanley with a problem/challenge: There appeared to be a young Kalamazoo, Michigan ("nowhere's-ville") born spiritualist named "Sophie" (played with wide-eyed, small town huckster magnificence by Emma Stone) who's been making the rounds among moneyed English Expats summering on the French Riviera and though "she had to be a fraud," good ole Howard found himself "stumped." So good ole Howard arrived at Stanley's London brownstone doorstep with the request to go down to Southern France with him to debunk her once and for all.
So Stanley does ... go down to Southern France to do just that, and ... it all "gets complicated" ;-). And it's not necessarily that Stanley comes to a conclusion that he could be wrong about his very rationalist conception of the world / reality. It just becomes patently obvious, even to him, that there's a cruelness to insisting on being Right all the time. Stanley's Aunt Vanessa (played by Eileen Atkins) who knew Stanley in his childhood BEFORE he became "such a tired bore..," helps him out in this regard.
IMHO this is a very fun, well-filmed period piece. The cars, the houses, the clothes, and the views of the sea (the French don't call the Riviera the Côte d'Azur - "the Coast of Blue" for nothing ;-) are all very beautiful. And the film does have a very nice point: There is a deflating and dehumanizing cost to killing the Life / Hope of others and insisting on being Right all the time (indeed, insisting on being "one's own God").
<< 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! :-) >>
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] / And So it Goes [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 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 I chose to not see ...
Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] - MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (3 stars) AVClub (B)
And So it Goes [2014] - MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars) RE.com (2 Stars) AVClub (C)
Both films have had modestly good reviews. And So it Goes [2014], starring Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton aims to be something of a romantic comedy for "viewers of a certain age," while Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] starring Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana has proven to be a surprising delight for many/most reviewers as it's both something of a send-up of the "Space Opera" / Superhero genre and yet as a Marvel Comics product offering the possibility that some of the Guardians may end up appearing in other (can one say "more serious"? ;-) projects in the future.
But I have to draw the line somewhere and so I chose to sacrifice these two films, figuring that if they proved important later on (as in taking some of the characters/performances into account in my end-of-year Denny Awards) I can check them out on video.
<< 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! :-) >>
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 I chose to not see ...
Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] - MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (3 Stars) RE.com (3 stars) AVClub (B)
And So it Goes [2014] - MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars) RE.com (2 Stars) AVClub (C)
Both films have had modestly good reviews. And So it Goes [2014], starring Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton aims to be something of a romantic comedy for "viewers of a certain age," while Guardians of the Galaxy [2014] starring Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana has proven to be a surprising delight for many/most reviewers as it's both something of a send-up of the "Space Opera" / Superhero genre and yet as a Marvel Comics product offering the possibility that some of the Guardians may end up appearing in other (can one say "more serious"? ;-) projects in the future.
But I have to draw the line somewhere and so I chose to sacrifice these two films, figuring that if they proved important later on (as in taking some of the characters/performances into account in my end-of-year Denny Awards) I can check them out on video.
<< 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! :-) >>
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Get On Up [2014]
MPAA (PG-13) ChicagoTribune (3 1/2 Stars) RE.com (2 Stars) AVClub (D+) Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
Ebony (M. Allen) review
RollingStone (P. Travers) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
Crosswalk.com (S. Ellingburg) review
BET coverage
Ebony articles
Essence.com articles
TheSource articles
Get On Up [2014] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Jez / John Henry Butterworth story by Steven Baigelman and Jez / John Henry Butterworth), which seeks to tell the story of Legendary, One-of-a-Kind, Trail-Blazing, Seemingly Ever-Smiling (even if EVERYONE knew that he had a temper) Mad,Mad,Mad GENIUS African American singer/entertainer/businessman James Brown, who by acclamation carried the moniker "The Hardest Working Man in Show-Business" for an entire generation (and honestly, who could challenge that?), is a certainly a tall order.
Does the film measure up? I do believe that the two communities that would have the most credible say in the matter would be the African American community and the Pop Music community and the reviewers for both Ebony and Rolling Stone magazines try hard to not be scathing... both recognizing the challenge to ANY director / team of screenwriters to do justice to such a complex man, but ...
How does one tell the story of someone who was a perfectionist and a wife-beater, who spent time in jail for stupid drug and weapons charges, even as he was a truly PULLED-HIMSELF-UP-BY-THE-BOOTSTRAPS SELF-MADE MULTIMILLIONAIRE (with a 6th grade education) PATRIOT who HELPED KEPT THE PEACE IN BOSTON (while MUCH OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY _BURNED_) AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR by KEEPING TO HIS SCHEDULE and HOLDING HIS SCHEDULED CONCERT IN BOSTON GARDEN THE NIGHT AFTER MLK's ASSASSINATION and having THE ENTIRE CROWD SING TOGETHER "Say it LOUD, I'm BLACK AND I'M PROUD." (This is a REMARKABLE STORY and is immortalized in several documentaries including The Night James Brown Saved Boston [2008] [IMDb] [Amazon Instant Video] and the concert itself James Brown Live at Boston Garden [1968] IMDb] [DVD-Amazon.com]).
Who can honestly forget his showmanship (and by all accounts _sincerity_) in singing the rambunctious "Living in America" in the Silvester Stallone film Rocky IV [1985]. (Yes, I know that there are 10,000 other examples I could give but I choose this one because James Brown born dirt poor in the heart of the Jim Crow South and abandoned as a child by both his parents could have been a veritable poster-child for Revolution (in Malcolm X's famous words "by any means necessary") but instead Brown chose to be a Patriot, flying out to Vietnam to play for the troops in the summer of 1968 and he supported both Nixon and Reagan in his time). A very, very complex man.
So how the heck to you put that complexity on screen? The film-makers _chose_ to make the film's chronology disjointed. The film flies backwards and forwards in time. At times, the film-makers have James Brown (played in the film by Chadwick Boseman) pull himself out of the scene and "break the fourth wall" to talk directly to viewers about one point or another.
The use of these devices can make for a jarring experience for viewers, but I think they were chosen intentionally to express the complexity and even contradiction in the man. To tell his story, one would perhaps have to go backwards and forwards in time and perhaps need him to explain himself directly to the audience to make sense of it all.
There's also a suggestion in the use of these techniques that the film-makers thought James Brown to be, at least in part, crazy. Yet, well ... the line between genius and madness can be thin. Still it's doubtful if he couldn't have achieved all that he achieved (he wasn't _just_ a singer / entertainer, he was also a businessman) if he was "simply nuts." And yet precisely his manic activity in so many directions caused him troubles (those stupid drug and weapons convictions and though he was never actually charged with tax evasion, he did have the IRS's attention...). But then he grew-up dirt poor in a situation where virtually absolutely nothing in his life was stable (again, both his parents abandoned him, and in the film he was largely raised by an aunt "Honey" who ran a brothel) so "he learned to survive..." (In the film mom is played by Viola Davis, dad by Lennie James, and auntie by Octavia Spencer).
But then, HOW does one survive growing out of such an environment and even become famous / thrive?
Well, the film clearly shows that James Brown did have the fortune of coming to have some very good friends including life-long band mate Bobby Byrd (played by Nelsan Ellis), manager Ben Bart (played magnificently if also certainly with some comic flair by Dan Aykroyd) and his (second) wife DeeDee Brown (played by Jill Scott). But the film also suggested these friendships were often one-sided -- These people (and others) did care for James Brown. But did / could James Brown really care for them? This question then becomes the heart of the movie. Yes, Brown became a success, but would the wounds from his childhood (above all THE TRUST ISSUES) eventually conspire to bring him down? Well, what would you think?
This is not a perfect movie, but it does try (in as much as one can in two hours) to present the life of a very complex, gifted and challenged man. Does it succeed? In my opinion, if you like music, and do have a heart, it's worth the price of admission.
Finally, though the film is rated PG-13, I find that rating absurd. Granted, the film is not necessarily a hard R. The language is generally clean, and the drug use / sexual situations are kept more or less off screen. But we do see him, from the back, having very, very _consensual_ sex as a young man "with a preacher's daughter...") AND THE GUY GREW UP IN "AUNTIE'S BROTHEL..." So I honestly don't understand the PG-13 rating. From a personal life standpoint, he certainly was no role model.
But he was (like most of us) more than just the sum of his failings and sins. When he sang, NO ONE could deny that he sounded "good, so good" and he "got us all" to feel good as well. ;-)
Despite his various (and perhaps multitude) of sins and failings, I always liked James Brown.
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
Ebony (M. Allen) review
RollingStone (P. Travers) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RE.com (O. Henderson) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review
Crosswalk.com (S. Ellingburg) review
BET coverage
Ebony articles
Essence.com articles
TheSource articles
Get On Up [2014] (directed by Tate Taylor, screenplay by Jez / John Henry Butterworth story by Steven Baigelman and Jez / John Henry Butterworth), which seeks to tell the story of Legendary, One-of-a-Kind, Trail-Blazing, Seemingly Ever-Smiling (even if EVERYONE knew that he had a temper) Mad,Mad,Mad GENIUS African American singer/entertainer/businessman James Brown, who by acclamation carried the moniker "The Hardest Working Man in Show-Business" for an entire generation (and honestly, who could challenge that?), is a certainly a tall order.
Does the film measure up? I do believe that the two communities that would have the most credible say in the matter would be the African American community and the Pop Music community and the reviewers for both Ebony and Rolling Stone magazines try hard to not be scathing... both recognizing the challenge to ANY director / team of screenwriters to do justice to such a complex man, but ...
How does one tell the story of someone who was a perfectionist and a wife-beater, who spent time in jail for stupid drug and weapons charges, even as he was a truly PULLED-HIMSELF-UP-BY-THE-BOOTSTRAPS SELF-MADE MULTIMILLIONAIRE (with a 6th grade education) PATRIOT who HELPED KEPT THE PEACE IN BOSTON (while MUCH OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY _BURNED_) AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR by KEEPING TO HIS SCHEDULE and HOLDING HIS SCHEDULED CONCERT IN BOSTON GARDEN THE NIGHT AFTER MLK's ASSASSINATION and having THE ENTIRE CROWD SING TOGETHER "Say it LOUD, I'm BLACK AND I'M PROUD." (This is a REMARKABLE STORY and is immortalized in several documentaries including The Night James Brown Saved Boston [2008] [IMDb] [Amazon Instant Video] and the concert itself James Brown Live at Boston Garden [1968] IMDb] [DVD-Amazon.com]).
Who can honestly forget his showmanship (and by all accounts _sincerity_) in singing the rambunctious "Living in America" in the Silvester Stallone film Rocky IV [1985]. (Yes, I know that there are 10,000 other examples I could give but I choose this one because James Brown born dirt poor in the heart of the Jim Crow South and abandoned as a child by both his parents could have been a veritable poster-child for Revolution (in Malcolm X's famous words "by any means necessary") but instead Brown chose to be a Patriot, flying out to Vietnam to play for the troops in the summer of 1968 and he supported both Nixon and Reagan in his time). A very, very complex man.
So how the heck to you put that complexity on screen? The film-makers _chose_ to make the film's chronology disjointed. The film flies backwards and forwards in time. At times, the film-makers have James Brown (played in the film by Chadwick Boseman) pull himself out of the scene and "break the fourth wall" to talk directly to viewers about one point or another.
The use of these devices can make for a jarring experience for viewers, but I think they were chosen intentionally to express the complexity and even contradiction in the man. To tell his story, one would perhaps have to go backwards and forwards in time and perhaps need him to explain himself directly to the audience to make sense of it all.
There's also a suggestion in the use of these techniques that the film-makers thought James Brown to be, at least in part, crazy. Yet, well ... the line between genius and madness can be thin. Still it's doubtful if he couldn't have achieved all that he achieved (he wasn't _just_ a singer / entertainer, he was also a businessman) if he was "simply nuts." And yet precisely his manic activity in so many directions caused him troubles (those stupid drug and weapons convictions and though he was never actually charged with tax evasion, he did have the IRS's attention...). But then he grew-up dirt poor in a situation where virtually absolutely nothing in his life was stable (again, both his parents abandoned him, and in the film he was largely raised by an aunt "Honey" who ran a brothel) so "he learned to survive..." (In the film mom is played by Viola Davis, dad by Lennie James, and auntie by Octavia Spencer).
But then, HOW does one survive growing out of such an environment and even become famous / thrive?
Well, the film clearly shows that James Brown did have the fortune of coming to have some very good friends including life-long band mate Bobby Byrd (played by Nelsan Ellis), manager Ben Bart (played magnificently if also certainly with some comic flair by Dan Aykroyd) and his (second) wife DeeDee Brown (played by Jill Scott). But the film also suggested these friendships were often one-sided -- These people (and others) did care for James Brown. But did / could James Brown really care for them? This question then becomes the heart of the movie. Yes, Brown became a success, but would the wounds from his childhood (above all THE TRUST ISSUES) eventually conspire to bring him down? Well, what would you think?
This is not a perfect movie, but it does try (in as much as one can in two hours) to present the life of a very complex, gifted and challenged man. Does it succeed? In my opinion, if you like music, and do have a heart, it's worth the price of admission.
Finally, though the film is rated PG-13, I find that rating absurd. Granted, the film is not necessarily a hard R. The language is generally clean, and the drug use / sexual situations are kept more or less off screen. But we do see him, from the back, having very, very _consensual_ sex as a young man "with a preacher's daughter...") AND THE GUY GREW UP IN "AUNTIE'S BROTHEL..." So I honestly don't understand the PG-13 rating. From a personal life standpoint, he certainly was no role model.
But he was (like most of us) more than just the sum of his failings and sins. When he sang, NO ONE could deny that he sounded "good, so good" and he "got us all" to feel good as well. ;-)
Despite his various (and perhaps multitude) of sins and failings, I always liked James Brown.
<< 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! :-) >>
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Like Never Before (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013]
MPAA (UR would be R) IndieFilm.cz (3 1/2 Stars) Novinky.cz (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing*
Lidovky.cz (M. Kabát) review*
IndieFilm.cz (J. Jiřiště) review*
Novinky.cz (S. Dvořák) review*
Czech that Film [official site] [2014 line-up at GSFC in Chicago]
Like Never Before (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (directed by Zdeněk Tyc [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*, screenplay by Markéta Bidlasová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) is a two Czech Lion (the Czech equivalent of the Oscars) winning and six Czech Lion nominated film that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago as part of 2014 Czech That Film Tour cosponsored by the Czech Diplomatic Mission to the United States.
The title of the film itself is interesting and open to several manners of interpretation / translation from Czech into English. "Jako Nikdy" literally translates to "As If" "Never." Since due to Slavic use of declensions, Czech word order is more flexible than English word order, the title could be translated as as something of a condemnation "Like Never Before" of the current (moral) state of things, or if understood as simply the beginning of a sentence "Jako Nikdy... " could be understood as "As if [he] never..." giving a possible understanding of the title as "Jako Nikdy [Neexistoval]" / "As if [he] Never [Existed]" (suggesting a theme of "Oblivion").
I do believe that both interpretations of the title are interesting/valid because the film tells the story of the dying days of a (invented for the sake of the story) Czech painter named Vladimír (played by Jiří Schmitzer [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) an atheist, and in past better days, a hedonist. And he was NOT dying a tranquil, "happy death."
Why? Well, his personal life was a complete mess. Caring for him were two women:
The first is Karla (played by Petra Špalková [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) also an artist, about 25 years his junior has lived with him for the last 20 or so years, but who's now realizing that (1) Vladimír's old and dying while she's still in her early 40s tops (with a LOT of Life left in her), and (2) since VLADIMIR NEVER MARRIED HER and had NO INTENTION of doing so now when he does she stands to inherit NOTHING of his (arguably THEIRS) and it's quite possible that after he's gone, she could end up on the street.
The second woman, Jaruna (played by Taťjana Medvecká [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) in her late 50s/60s and though MARRIED to someone else, is more "age appropriate" for Vladimír. Her claim to Vladimír's attentions now was simply that earlier on in life they had a very, very brief fling together while they were both teaching at the same secondary school, BUT NOW that Vladimir was dying and Karla was so self-evidently UNINTERESTED in taking care of him, she, AGAIN DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, now hovers around Vladimír to take care of him in his dying days, perhaps because ONCE MORE, DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, good ole Vladimir _had been_ the most exciting thing that had happened in her life.
For her part, Karla is AS HAPPY AS PIE when Jaruna comes around, because she can ditch the house and go "drinking" / "play darts" and "whatever..." with GUYS her own age (again married or not) by the local pub.
What does Vladimir think of all this? HE DOESN'T CARE. He's on morphine most of the time and when not in pain from the terminal cancer spreading all through his otherwise shrinking body, he's ANGRY. Why? BECAUSE HE'S DYING. In one scene, he's shown tearing up the pictures that he's painted before. Why? BECAUSE HE'S DYING. On one hand, he doesn't believe them good enough for his ideal. On the other hand, HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO BE SHARED (PROFITED WITH) AFTER HE'S GONE. If HE can't go with them, then he doesn't want ANYONE to have them.
And so it is...
Does he have ANY FAMILY / RELATIVES? Well, there's a son Tomáš (played by Marek Němec [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) ... who hates him. Why? Well, Vladimir dumped Tomáš' mother and him when Tomáš was a boy (long before Vladimir eventually shacked-up with Karla... Indeed, Tomáš' and Karla appear to be close to the same age...). Tomáš had been out of Vladimir's life (by mutual consent) FOR DECADES. Vlad had no particular interest in his offspring, PARTICULARLY if he felt them "untalented" ... and Tomáš apparently couldn't hold a paint-brush particularly well (when? when he was SIX???) And Tomáš had long dismissed his father as an a-hole.
But Tomáš becomes necessary to Karla / Jaruna (and above all his dad) at one point because though Karla had lived with Vladimir for 20 odd years, SINCE SHE WAS NOT MARRIED TO HIM, she had no status. One time when Jaruna was at Vladimir's home changing his diapers (while Karla was out drinking beers and playing darts "with the guys" ...) Vladimir got so sick that she had to call the ambulance. "But Vladimir wants to die AT HOME," the still sobering-up Karla yells at Jaruna when she eventually staggers home after a night of partying. But Karla, let alone Jaruna, HAD NO STATUS, to petition the hospital to allow Vladimir to go home (against the wishes of the doctor). So they HAD TO FIND Tomáš to ask him to help them bring Vladimir home ...
Tomáš would just assume let him rot his last few days "v ustavu" (in an institution...) BUT he has a girl-friend who'd actually like to meet the father of her fiance' ... so ...
Wonderful, Vladimir comes home, and proceeds to be as "pleasant" to Tomáš fiancee' Šárka (played by Jana Pidrmanová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) as he's been to everybody else around him, making Tomáš fiancee' leave before he even has a chance to tell her "See ... I told you so."
So there's Vladimir, dying of cancer with his 25 years his junior lover Karla of 20 years who realizes that as soon as he dies she's screwed. There's Jaruna who's hovering around for no particularly clear reason except that Vlad was probably (once) the best ever-so-brief fling that she ever had, and Tomáš his son, who hates his dad, but realizes that "Wait, actually when my dad croaks, this house and its contents could actually come to me." Besides he comes look at the soon to be financially desperate Karla as perhaps even being "part of the package."
Yuck.
INTO THIS MESS, Jaruna actually comes to ask Vlad, if perhaps he'd like TO HAVE A PRIEST COME TO TALK TO HIM. Why would she be asking that? Well, she may have a horribly morally problematic "back-story" as well, but she's sincerely trying to be helpful and "nice" to the "best lover she ever had." Vlad's not interested. "Oh I know, the local priest here's an idiot, but there's a priest in a neighboring town that I've seen, besides he also has a PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE and HE helped me. Maybe he can help you too." Well, at least Vlad's not openly hostile now (perhaps the morphine's kicked in again ...). So she calls the priest.
The priest (played by Štefan Capko [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) does come. Here honestly the film does an excellent (if in its own way depressing job). How does the au courrant priest-with-his-psychology-degree arrive? ON BIKE as a cyclist in a nice BLACK spandex cyclist suit with a nice white stripe going down the middle of it. He's a bit overweight, so looks a bit ridiculous. But it's an interesting way of trying to "wear clerics" even if one's not (or perhaps even "trying to wear clerics" "in a different age" (So it may be sincere on his part, but it still looks odd).
So he arrives to talk to Vlad (in Czech it'd actually be Vlád'a). Vlad, of course, has no interest in talking to him. So the priest soon leaves. On his way out, Jaruna meets him at the door. She apologizes for Vlad's wasting the priest's time. The priest responds. "No it's never a waste of time." "But he wouldn't talk to you, so it didn't do him any good." "Yes, but it may have done you some good." (And in any case, the priest got himself a little "workout" having cycled-in and now back home to/from a neighboring town ...).
Eventually, of course, Vlad dies. He didn't want a funeral and no one, 'cept possibly Yaruna would have attended anyway. So they call the hearse. The undertakers arrive to take the body away. Presumably he'd be cremated, and his ashes, if no one picked them up, eventually dumped ... somewhere by somebody, presumably the State.
The last scene has Tomáš hitting-on Karla as they walk by a nearby pond. It's "as if [Vlad] never [existed] ..."
What then to make of a film like this? Well, the Czech Republic, which by various accounts has the highest percentage of professed atheists in Europe, knows a bit about the depressing nature of atheism as a lived reality. I've long found it fascinating that THE ARTISTIC COMMUNITY in the Czech Republic has REPEATEDLY taken-on the role of the "moral voice" in the Czech nation.
As depressing as this film was, IT WAS INTENTIONALLY SO. The obvious point of this movie was to ask viewers: DO YOU REALLY WANT LIFE (YOUR LIFE) TO BE LIKE THIS?
This is a society that MAY NOT BELIEVE, BUT WOULD HONESTLY WANT TO. There are historic reasons for the Czechs' atheism and even more specific problems with the Catholic Church. The more ancient historical crime was the Church's burning of the turn-of-the 15th century (!) Czech theologian John Hus [en.wikip] [cz.wikip]* as a heretic, a betrayal from which the Czech nation has never really recovered (in part because the Catholic Church, in a doctrinal box regarding infallibility, has never been able to truly apologize).
More recent problems have involved passionate arguments over restoration of Catholic Church property that was confiscated (STOLEN) from the Church by the Communists during the Communist era. YES, _that_ was also a crime. But the Communists were also smart. They converted a lot of stolen Convents into various nursing homes and so forth. As a result, the Church arguing for the return (at least of the deeds) to such properties comes across as "wanting to take away the security of old (often also FORMER COMMUNIST) folks." YES IT WAS A CRIME TO STEAL THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE CHURCH, but's ALSO a PUBLIC RELATIONS "NO WIN" SITUATION and IT DISTRACTS from proclaiming a Message of Hope to a people that DOES REALIZE THAT WITHOUT _SOME RELIGION_ (GOD / THE GOSPEL) THERE IS NO HOPE.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:67-68)
So this film makes for an interesting conversation piece back in the CR and _can offer_ the publics outside the Czech Republic an opportunity to reflect on the abyss that awaits them too when a society has largely lost Hope.
* 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
CSFD listing*
FDB.cz listing*
Lidovky.cz (M. Kabát) review*
IndieFilm.cz (J. Jiřiště) review*
Novinky.cz (S. Dvořák) review*
Czech that Film [official site] [2014 line-up at GSFC in Chicago]
Like Never Before (orig. Jako Nikdy) [2013] [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]* (directed by Zdeněk Tyc [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*, screenplay by Markéta Bidlasová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) is a two Czech Lion (the Czech equivalent of the Oscars) winning and six Czech Lion nominated film that played recently at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago as part of 2014 Czech That Film Tour cosponsored by the Czech Diplomatic Mission to the United States.
The title of the film itself is interesting and open to several manners of interpretation / translation from Czech into English. "Jako Nikdy" literally translates to "As If" "Never." Since due to Slavic use of declensions, Czech word order is more flexible than English word order, the title could be translated as as something of a condemnation "Like Never Before" of the current (moral) state of things, or if understood as simply the beginning of a sentence "Jako Nikdy... " could be understood as "As if [he] never..." giving a possible understanding of the title as "Jako Nikdy [Neexistoval]" / "As if [he] Never [Existed]" (suggesting a theme of "Oblivion").
I do believe that both interpretations of the title are interesting/valid because the film tells the story of the dying days of a (invented for the sake of the story) Czech painter named Vladimír (played by Jiří Schmitzer [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) an atheist, and in past better days, a hedonist. And he was NOT dying a tranquil, "happy death."
Why? Well, his personal life was a complete mess. Caring for him were two women:
The first is Karla (played by Petra Špalková [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) also an artist, about 25 years his junior has lived with him for the last 20 or so years, but who's now realizing that (1) Vladimír's old and dying while she's still in her early 40s tops (with a LOT of Life left in her), and (2) since VLADIMIR NEVER MARRIED HER and had NO INTENTION of doing so now when he does she stands to inherit NOTHING of his (arguably THEIRS) and it's quite possible that after he's gone, she could end up on the street.
The second woman, Jaruna (played by Taťjana Medvecká [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) in her late 50s/60s and though MARRIED to someone else, is more "age appropriate" for Vladimír. Her claim to Vladimír's attentions now was simply that earlier on in life they had a very, very brief fling together while they were both teaching at the same secondary school, BUT NOW that Vladimir was dying and Karla was so self-evidently UNINTERESTED in taking care of him, she, AGAIN DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, now hovers around Vladimír to take care of him in his dying days, perhaps because ONCE MORE, DESPITE BEING MARRIED TO SOMEONE ELSE, good ole Vladimir _had been_ the most exciting thing that had happened in her life.
For her part, Karla is AS HAPPY AS PIE when Jaruna comes around, because she can ditch the house and go "drinking" / "play darts" and "whatever..." with GUYS her own age (again married or not) by the local pub.
What does Vladimir think of all this? HE DOESN'T CARE. He's on morphine most of the time and when not in pain from the terminal cancer spreading all through his otherwise shrinking body, he's ANGRY. Why? BECAUSE HE'S DYING. In one scene, he's shown tearing up the pictures that he's painted before. Why? BECAUSE HE'S DYING. On one hand, he doesn't believe them good enough for his ideal. On the other hand, HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO BE SHARED (PROFITED WITH) AFTER HE'S GONE. If HE can't go with them, then he doesn't want ANYONE to have them.
And so it is...
Does he have ANY FAMILY / RELATIVES? Well, there's a son Tomáš (played by Marek Němec [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) ... who hates him. Why? Well, Vladimir dumped Tomáš' mother and him when Tomáš was a boy (long before Vladimir eventually shacked-up with Karla... Indeed, Tomáš' and Karla appear to be close to the same age...). Tomáš had been out of Vladimir's life (by mutual consent) FOR DECADES. Vlad had no particular interest in his offspring, PARTICULARLY if he felt them "untalented" ... and Tomáš apparently couldn't hold a paint-brush particularly well (when? when he was SIX???) And Tomáš had long dismissed his father as an a-hole.
But Tomáš becomes necessary to Karla / Jaruna (and above all his dad) at one point because though Karla had lived with Vladimir for 20 odd years, SINCE SHE WAS NOT MARRIED TO HIM, she had no status. One time when Jaruna was at Vladimir's home changing his diapers (while Karla was out drinking beers and playing darts "with the guys" ...) Vladimir got so sick that she had to call the ambulance. "But Vladimir wants to die AT HOME," the still sobering-up Karla yells at Jaruna when she eventually staggers home after a night of partying. But Karla, let alone Jaruna, HAD NO STATUS, to petition the hospital to allow Vladimir to go home (against the wishes of the doctor). So they HAD TO FIND Tomáš to ask him to help them bring Vladimir home ...
Tomáš would just assume let him rot his last few days "v ustavu" (in an institution...) BUT he has a girl-friend who'd actually like to meet the father of her fiance' ... so ...
Wonderful, Vladimir comes home, and proceeds to be as "pleasant" to Tomáš fiancee' Šárka (played by Jana Pidrmanová [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) as he's been to everybody else around him, making Tomáš fiancee' leave before he even has a chance to tell her "See ... I told you so."
So there's Vladimir, dying of cancer with his 25 years his junior lover Karla of 20 years who realizes that as soon as he dies she's screwed. There's Jaruna who's hovering around for no particularly clear reason except that Vlad was probably (once) the best ever-so-brief fling that she ever had, and Tomáš his son, who hates his dad, but realizes that "Wait, actually when my dad croaks, this house and its contents could actually come to me." Besides he comes look at the soon to be financially desperate Karla as perhaps even being "part of the package."
Yuck.
INTO THIS MESS, Jaruna actually comes to ask Vlad, if perhaps he'd like TO HAVE A PRIEST COME TO TALK TO HIM. Why would she be asking that? Well, she may have a horribly morally problematic "back-story" as well, but she's sincerely trying to be helpful and "nice" to the "best lover she ever had." Vlad's not interested. "Oh I know, the local priest here's an idiot, but there's a priest in a neighboring town that I've seen, besides he also has a PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE and HE helped me. Maybe he can help you too." Well, at least Vlad's not openly hostile now (perhaps the morphine's kicked in again ...). So she calls the priest.
The priest (played by Štefan Capko [IMDb] [CSFD]*[FDB]*) does come. Here honestly the film does an excellent (if in its own way depressing job). How does the au courrant priest-with-his-psychology-degree arrive? ON BIKE as a cyclist in a nice BLACK spandex cyclist suit with a nice white stripe going down the middle of it. He's a bit overweight, so looks a bit ridiculous. But it's an interesting way of trying to "wear clerics" even if one's not (or perhaps even "trying to wear clerics" "in a different age" (So it may be sincere on his part, but it still looks odd).
So he arrives to talk to Vlad (in Czech it'd actually be Vlád'a). Vlad, of course, has no interest in talking to him. So the priest soon leaves. On his way out, Jaruna meets him at the door. She apologizes for Vlad's wasting the priest's time. The priest responds. "No it's never a waste of time." "But he wouldn't talk to you, so it didn't do him any good." "Yes, but it may have done you some good." (And in any case, the priest got himself a little "workout" having cycled-in and now back home to/from a neighboring town ...).
Eventually, of course, Vlad dies. He didn't want a funeral and no one, 'cept possibly Yaruna would have attended anyway. So they call the hearse. The undertakers arrive to take the body away. Presumably he'd be cremated, and his ashes, if no one picked them up, eventually dumped ... somewhere by somebody, presumably the State.
The last scene has Tomáš hitting-on Karla as they walk by a nearby pond. It's "as if [Vlad] never [existed] ..."
What then to make of a film like this? Well, the Czech Republic, which by various accounts has the highest percentage of professed atheists in Europe, knows a bit about the depressing nature of atheism as a lived reality. I've long found it fascinating that THE ARTISTIC COMMUNITY in the Czech Republic has REPEATEDLY taken-on the role of the "moral voice" in the Czech nation.
As depressing as this film was, IT WAS INTENTIONALLY SO. The obvious point of this movie was to ask viewers: DO YOU REALLY WANT LIFE (YOUR LIFE) TO BE LIKE THIS?
This is a society that MAY NOT BELIEVE, BUT WOULD HONESTLY WANT TO. There are historic reasons for the Czechs' atheism and even more specific problems with the Catholic Church. The more ancient historical crime was the Church's burning of the turn-of-the 15th century (!) Czech theologian John Hus [en.wikip] [cz.wikip]* as a heretic, a betrayal from which the Czech nation has never really recovered (in part because the Catholic Church, in a doctrinal box regarding infallibility, has never been able to truly apologize).
More recent problems have involved passionate arguments over restoration of Catholic Church property that was confiscated (STOLEN) from the Church by the Communists during the Communist era. YES, _that_ was also a crime. But the Communists were also smart. They converted a lot of stolen Convents into various nursing homes and so forth. As a result, the Church arguing for the return (at least of the deeds) to such properties comes across as "wanting to take away the security of old (often also FORMER COMMUNIST) folks." YES IT WAS A CRIME TO STEAL THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE CHURCH, but's ALSO a PUBLIC RELATIONS "NO WIN" SITUATION and IT DISTRACTS from proclaiming a Message of Hope to a people that DOES REALIZE THAT WITHOUT _SOME RELIGION_ (GOD / THE GOSPEL) THERE IS NO HOPE.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. (John 6:67-68)
So this film makes for an interesting conversation piece back in the CR and _can offer_ the publics outside the Czech Republic an opportunity to reflect on the abyss that awaits them too when a society has largely lost Hope.
* 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! :-) >>
Stand Clear of the Closing Doors [2013]
IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune / Variety (R. Scheib) review
RE.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (D. Ehrlich) review
Stand Clear of the Closing Doors [2013] (directed by Sam Fleischner, story by and screenplay cowritten by Rose Lichter Marck along with Micah Bloomberg) is a well-crafted, personalist drama about a Hispanic family living in New York City (Rockaway Beach) with a 13-year-old son with autism spectrum disorder. The film played recently in Chicago at Facets Multimedia.
Mom, Mariana (played by Andrea Suarez Paz), works as a housekeeper. Dad, Ricardo, Sr (played by Tenoch Huerta), generally works upstate in construction. It appears that one or both are undocumented. Together, they have a 15 year old daughter Carla (played by Azul Zorrilla) and Ricky, Jr (played by Jesus Sanchez-Velez) who has autism.
Since dad is rarely at home, working somewhere "upstate" (which in New York's conception could mean anywhere from "just north of the City in Westchester County" up the entire Hudson / Mohawk River valleys to the shores of Lakes Eire / Ontario and to the Canadian border), and mom works pretty much from sunrise-to-sunset if closer then still "away," 15-year-old Carla is generally left to look after (keep track of) 13-year-old (why's your brother so weird?) Ricky to inevitable (and understandable) teenage friction. After all, she has friends, dreams of "having a life" and yet she's largely responsible for her 13 year old brother who's just borderline to not require a completely special school, but still causes chronic irritating frustrations at both home and at school.
So perhaps inevitably, one afternoon, Carla just rolls-eyes and says "whatever..." when Ricky (once again ...) doesn't seem to want to follow directions (from his sister ...) and walk home with her and her friends after school ... and the rest of the movie follows ...
Ricky, of course, doesn't come home. Where did he go? Well, he's 13, "in his own world," but it's not a completely unfunctioning world. He gets distracted, or more to the point, fixated on things. Some guy walked by with a random but perhaps somewhat striking emblem on the back of his jacket and Ricky, fixating on the emblem, decides to follow him. The guy goes to the subway station and Ricky follows him there. When the guy enters to pay his fare to get past the turn-styles and head then to the trains, Ricky REACHES INTO A POCKET IN HIS OWN BACKPACK, gets out the required change, pays his own fare and follows him down to the platform.
Then, in the midst of all the people, of course, he loses the guy. BUT now he's in a subway station WITH ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE and ALL KINDS OF RANDOM THINGS TO TURN ONE'S ATTENTION TO. AND so Ricky gets on a random subway train, heading off in a random direction, following something new that attracted him, until he forgot about it again, and found something else to focus on ... AND ALL THE WHILE, TO ANYONE TRAVELING THE SUBWAY BESIDE HIM, he's just another random, perhaps after a while, somewhat tired, 13-year-old traveling _somewhere_ on the train.
So Ricky doesn't come home. What to do? Mom goes searching for him, first in the neighborhood. She goes to the beach. He used to like the beach, the waves, the sounds, the occasional seagull, etc. He wasn't there. She walks down the street, checking various stores in the neighborhood, stores that he'd previously like (there's a corner shoe-store that he had previously liked for all the random colored sneakers ...). He's not there. She spends the night looking for him, can't find him.
The next day, she realizes that she has to call the police. She doesn't particularly want to, presumably because either she or her husband were illegal. It doesn't matter really because the police tell her that they won't do anything for the FIRST SEVENTY TWO HOURS because the kid could just be going to his father or perhaps to some other relative. They usually turn up, after SEVENTY TWO HOURS (three days (!)) they'd truly be missing.
Seventy two hours pass ... then Hurricane Sandy starts to roll in ... What happened?
Excellent story and one that could happen TO ANY FAMILY with a special needs child in a big city.
<< 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! :-) >>
As it is in Heaven [2014]
MPAA (UR would be PG-13 / R) ChicagoSunTimes (3 Stars) RE.com (3 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)
IMDb listing
ChicagoSunTimes (B. Stamets) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review
As it is in Heaven [2014] (directed by Joshua Oberbay screenplay by Virginia Oberbay) is a reasonably well crafted if somewhat tendentious low-budget indie film / cautionary tale about a small Christian-messianic sect/cult/community. It played recently at Chicago's Facets multimedia.
It all begins innocuously at the (sect/cult/community) leader's farm somewhere in rural Kentucky. Though already "a bit off the beaten track," one would imagine that even if one were to happen upon it, one would not necessarily see anything "strange" about it. There's a farm house, there's some pasture, some of which is cultivated into a field or two, some woods, a small stream running by. Only if one spent some time observing could one have discerned that there seemed to be more than one family living in said farm-house. HOWEVER even then, the sect/cult/community was NOT that large -- perhaps 10 maybe 15 people, no more. And the deed to the land, if one were to have the interest to look it up, would have probably list the sect/cult/community leader as its owner as it probably was in his family perhaps for generations.
The locals would probably know the group's leader, Edward was his name (played by John Lina), as a preacher. The group did apparently have something of a church or "mission" at a strip-mall at the outskirts of town. The locals would probably know that "some from the congregation" apparently have taken-up residence on his farm, but they probably would not have made anything of it. He was "preachin' the word," his group was "helpin' the homeless" "baptizin' the previously lost" and doing so in a way that would be UTTERLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from ANY NUMBER OF "LITTLE STORE FRONT CHURCHES" both in the hinterlands (and in the inner cities) across the U.S.A. today.
Let me add one more bit of information, Edward himself was probably NOT EVIL. He had devoted his life to Jesus. He had opened his doors to the poor. He had given a little community that sprang up around him hope and some joy. They WERE living in their little corner of our Earth "As it is in Heaven" (Matt 6:9-15).
So what went wrong?
Well, for whatever reason and _not unlike_ a lot of fundamentalist preachers (at least at some point in their lives) Edward became convinced (and quite suddenly) that the world was, indeed, going to end and ... end quite shortly. We hear him telling his group, at a nice, matter-of-fact "community meeting" or perhaps "Bible study" that "Who would have guessed that Jesus was going to return in just 30 days?"
Now if nothing else happened, 30 days would have passed and ... nothing would have happened ;-) ... and Edward and his little community would have happily gone on, writing off those "30 days of End Times" as a "misjudgement" on the part of their leader. And if he insisted on pushing the matter further, then the group would have probably broken up.
But that didn't happen here. Why? Well, some hours after announcing quite calmly to the group that the world was going to end in 30 days, he himself has heart-attack... BUT ... he does not die right away.
Instead, he lives long enough (hours more) to "anoint" a member of the group, David (played by Chris Nelson), as his successor. More troublingly, he _burdens_ David with the responsibility of "getting the group ready" for Christ's coming in 30 days. Remember, Edward found himself _suddenly_ on his death bed. He didn't have a lot of time to give David instruction. He just tells him, "YOU HAVE TO GET THEM READY. I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME. NOW IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU. ... IF THEY ARE NOT READY, CHRIST WON'T COME FOR THEM." And these turned out to be Edward's last words to ANYBODY. A few moments afterwards, Edward slips into unconsciousness and dies shortly thereafter.
Now David was a relative neophyte. In the opening sequence in the film, we saw him being baptized and entering the group only one year earlier. Now became clear that Edward saw in him qualities that he didn't see in HIS OWN SON named Eamon (played by Luke Beavers) who was also David's (mid/late-twenties) age. Now Edward left David in charge.
But ... there are some rather obvious problems here: (1) How prepared is David, still something of a wide-eyed 20-something neophyte, TO LEAD the group? and (2) Because David is a relative neophyte, will the rest of the group, including Edward's own family (especially Edward's oldest son, but presumably also Edward's widow, the mother of Edward's oldest son) going to accept David as Edward's anointed successor? Remember, this is not a large group, 10-15 people of which Edward's family (his widow, his children, even Eamon's presumed wife or girlfriend, with a baby) still makes up a substantial part. And remember the whole group is even still living on Edward's (family's) presumed farm.
BUT ...Edward's last instructions to them were, first (to the group) that Jesus was coming in 30 days, and second (to David) that David needed to "get them ready." SO ... if the clock weren't "ticking," perhaps some of the groups problems would have naturally resolved themselves. Now, since there were only 30 days left anyway, arguing over actually who "owns the farm" on which the group lived probably seemed rather "beside the point."
SO ... the group seemed to largely give David (as Edward's successor) the benefit of the doubt. What's 30 days, right?
BUT ... How exactly does one PREPARE for Christ's coming in a way that would be substantially different from how the group had already lived? (Remember that Edward told David that the group _wasn't_ ready and that DAVID had to MAKE THEM READY in those 30 days).
Seems like "drastic actions" were called for ... So wide-eyed, in over-his-head but sincere 20-something David ... calls for a 30 day Fast. That would get the group ready and heck "Fasts" were even Biblical. Right?
Well, but there's also a baby in their midst ..., there _is_ under-the-immediate-surface division in the group and, finally, Edward was venerated by the group as not merely a Prophet but ALSO "a nice guy" ... HE never called a fast ... but then HE told David that David needed to get them ready ...
The rest of the film ensues ...
I found the film fascinating, and yes, it can serve as a cautionary tale about "messianism" and "apocalyptic" thinking.
But I also think that there were a number of circumstances written into the story here that drove its outcome. If Edward had not died in the circumstances that he did, then the rest of the story would have played out very differently. It the group did not have to simultaneously deal with both Edward's somewhat surprising choice of successor AND "prepare for the imminent end of the world," then the story would have played out very differently.
The film's main message becomes "bad things happen when decisions are made in a pressure cooker," which is absolutely true. The way out of making "bad decisions in a pressure cooker" is to look for ways to "slow things down" so as to _deescalate_ the situation. And that would have worked for this little Christian community living in the rolling hinterlands of Kentucky, just as it did work out for the whole world during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis ...
<< 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! :-) >>
IMDb listing
ChicagoSunTimes (B. Stamets) review
RE.com (S. Abrams) review
As it is in Heaven [2014] (directed by Joshua Oberbay screenplay by Virginia Oberbay) is a reasonably well crafted if somewhat tendentious low-budget indie film / cautionary tale about a small Christian-messianic sect/cult/community. It played recently at Chicago's Facets multimedia.
It all begins innocuously at the (sect/cult/community) leader's farm somewhere in rural Kentucky. Though already "a bit off the beaten track," one would imagine that even if one were to happen upon it, one would not necessarily see anything "strange" about it. There's a farm house, there's some pasture, some of which is cultivated into a field or two, some woods, a small stream running by. Only if one spent some time observing could one have discerned that there seemed to be more than one family living in said farm-house. HOWEVER even then, the sect/cult/community was NOT that large -- perhaps 10 maybe 15 people, no more. And the deed to the land, if one were to have the interest to look it up, would have probably list the sect/cult/community leader as its owner as it probably was in his family perhaps for generations.
The locals would probably know the group's leader, Edward was his name (played by John Lina), as a preacher. The group did apparently have something of a church or "mission" at a strip-mall at the outskirts of town. The locals would probably know that "some from the congregation" apparently have taken-up residence on his farm, but they probably would not have made anything of it. He was "preachin' the word," his group was "helpin' the homeless" "baptizin' the previously lost" and doing so in a way that would be UTTERLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from ANY NUMBER OF "LITTLE STORE FRONT CHURCHES" both in the hinterlands (and in the inner cities) across the U.S.A. today.
Let me add one more bit of information, Edward himself was probably NOT EVIL. He had devoted his life to Jesus. He had opened his doors to the poor. He had given a little community that sprang up around him hope and some joy. They WERE living in their little corner of our Earth "As it is in Heaven" (Matt 6:9-15).
So what went wrong?
Well, for whatever reason and _not unlike_ a lot of fundamentalist preachers (at least at some point in their lives) Edward became convinced (and quite suddenly) that the world was, indeed, going to end and ... end quite shortly. We hear him telling his group, at a nice, matter-of-fact "community meeting" or perhaps "Bible study" that "Who would have guessed that Jesus was going to return in just 30 days?"
Now if nothing else happened, 30 days would have passed and ... nothing would have happened ;-) ... and Edward and his little community would have happily gone on, writing off those "30 days of End Times" as a "misjudgement" on the part of their leader. And if he insisted on pushing the matter further, then the group would have probably broken up.
But that didn't happen here. Why? Well, some hours after announcing quite calmly to the group that the world was going to end in 30 days, he himself has heart-attack... BUT ... he does not die right away.
Instead, he lives long enough (hours more) to "anoint" a member of the group, David (played by Chris Nelson), as his successor. More troublingly, he _burdens_ David with the responsibility of "getting the group ready" for Christ's coming in 30 days. Remember, Edward found himself _suddenly_ on his death bed. He didn't have a lot of time to give David instruction. He just tells him, "YOU HAVE TO GET THEM READY. I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME. NOW IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU. ... IF THEY ARE NOT READY, CHRIST WON'T COME FOR THEM." And these turned out to be Edward's last words to ANYBODY. A few moments afterwards, Edward slips into unconsciousness and dies shortly thereafter.
Now David was a relative neophyte. In the opening sequence in the film, we saw him being baptized and entering the group only one year earlier. Now became clear that Edward saw in him qualities that he didn't see in HIS OWN SON named Eamon (played by Luke Beavers) who was also David's (mid/late-twenties) age. Now Edward left David in charge.
But ... there are some rather obvious problems here: (1) How prepared is David, still something of a wide-eyed 20-something neophyte, TO LEAD the group? and (2) Because David is a relative neophyte, will the rest of the group, including Edward's own family (especially Edward's oldest son, but presumably also Edward's widow, the mother of Edward's oldest son) going to accept David as Edward's anointed successor? Remember, this is not a large group, 10-15 people of which Edward's family (his widow, his children, even Eamon's presumed wife or girlfriend, with a baby) still makes up a substantial part. And remember the whole group is even still living on Edward's (family's) presumed farm.
BUT ...Edward's last instructions to them were, first (to the group) that Jesus was coming in 30 days, and second (to David) that David needed to "get them ready." SO ... if the clock weren't "ticking," perhaps some of the groups problems would have naturally resolved themselves. Now, since there were only 30 days left anyway, arguing over actually who "owns the farm" on which the group lived probably seemed rather "beside the point."
SO ... the group seemed to largely give David (as Edward's successor) the benefit of the doubt. What's 30 days, right?
BUT ... How exactly does one PREPARE for Christ's coming in a way that would be substantially different from how the group had already lived? (Remember that Edward told David that the group _wasn't_ ready and that DAVID had to MAKE THEM READY in those 30 days).
Seems like "drastic actions" were called for ... So wide-eyed, in over-his-head but sincere 20-something David ... calls for a 30 day Fast. That would get the group ready and heck "Fasts" were even Biblical. Right?
Well, but there's also a baby in their midst ..., there _is_ under-the-immediate-surface division in the group and, finally, Edward was venerated by the group as not merely a Prophet but ALSO "a nice guy" ... HE never called a fast ... but then HE told David that David needed to get them ready ...
The rest of the film ensues ...
I found the film fascinating, and yes, it can serve as a cautionary tale about "messianism" and "apocalyptic" thinking.
But I also think that there were a number of circumstances written into the story here that drove its outcome. If Edward had not died in the circumstances that he did, then the rest of the story would have played out very differently. It the group did not have to simultaneously deal with both Edward's somewhat surprising choice of successor AND "prepare for the imminent end of the world," then the story would have played out very differently.
The film's main message becomes "bad things happen when decisions are made in a pressure cooker," which is absolutely true. The way out of making "bad decisions in a pressure cooker" is to look for ways to "slow things down" so as to _deescalate_ the situation. And that would have worked for this little Christian community living in the rolling hinterlands of Kentucky, just as it did work out for the whole world during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis ...
<< 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! :-) >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)