Neruda [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmAffinity.com/es listing*
CineChile.cl listing*

Official website

El Agente de Cine (A. García) review*
ElMostrador.cl (V. Minué Maggiolo) review*
LaNacion.cl review*
LaTercera.com (J. García) review*

Neruda [2014] [IMDb] [FAes]* [CCh.cl]* (screenplay and directed by Manuel Basoalto [IMDb] [FAes]* [CCh.cl]*) is an beautifully shot (the outdoor vistas are often spectacularly beautiful) CHILEAN film / period piece about the 1948-49 flight into exile -- 13 months from house-to-house, town-to-town, eventually on horseback over the Andes Mountains from Chile to Argentina -- of Chilean Poet / ever Leftist-then-Communist Politician later Nobel Prize for Literature winning Pablo Neruda [es.wikip]*[en.wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb-Char] (played in the film by José Secall [IMDb] [FAes]* [CCh.cl]*).  The film played recently at the 2015 - 31st Chicago Latino Film Festival.

The director, Basoalto [IMDb] [FAes]* [CCh.cl]* had already completed a documentary series a number of years previous about Neruda's famous escape, but believed, rightly IMHO, that the subject matter deserved treatment as a biopic as well.

The reason for Neruda's need to flee Chile was of course political.  Some background:

Born Neftali Ricardo Reyes Basoalto "in the provinces" (in Parral, Chile) he began using the pseudonym Pablo Neruda after he left at sixteen for Santiago the Capital to study (French was his major) at the University of Chile.  His father was apparently opposed to "his wasting his time with writing poetry." So publishing poems under a pseudonym allowed him to publish without his father's knowledge.  And a poet he became!  By eighteen he published his famous Twenty Poems of Love and A Song of Despair (orig. Veinte poemas de amor y una canción desesperada) [1923] [GR-eng] [GR-esp] [WCat-eng] [WCat-esp] [Amzn-eng] [Amzn-esp].  By 20 he was arguably world-renowned -- as a poet!  Yet, he was also penniless.

So Neruda took a job in the Chilean diplomatic corps, serving first in then British India (in Burma and Ceylon) and eventually "moved up" to serve IN SPAIN just as the Spanish Civil War was about to begin.  That's where he got radicalized and became a lifelong Communist / Communist apologist.

After serving also in Mexico and then Paris, he eventually came back to Chile and in 1945 was elected to serve as Senator.  (It is at this point, Neruda's return to Chile and election to the Chilean Senate, that the film begins).

In 1946, Neruda was asked to serve as the CAMPAIGN MANAGER for Gabriel González Videla [en.wikip] [es.wikip]* who was running for Chilean President as part of a coalition of left-wing political parties (which the Communists were a part). 

HOWEVER soon after getting elected, Videla, expelled the Communist Party from the ruling Coalition and then pushed through the Chilean Congress a McCarthy-like law called the Law for the Permanent Defense of Democracy [en.wikip] [es.wikip]*, which among other things banned the Communist Party in Chile.  Why would Videla do this, after having Neruda, a Communist after all, ACTUALLY LEAD HIS CAMPAIGN is still fodder for dispute.  However it's assumed that pressure probably came from the United States to do so (as the Cold War was just beginning). 

In any case, in the tradition of the famous J'Accuse letter written by French writer Emile Zola in defense of Alfred Dreyfus in the 1898 French Dreyfus Affair, on January 6, 1948 Pablo Neruda -- AND THIS WAS SHOWN VERY DRAMATICALLY IN THE FILM -- rose to give his own "I Accuse" (orig. "Yo Acuso") speech in the Chilean Senate, where quoting Franklin Roosevelt's 1941 Four Freedoms speech -- where FDR postulated the Universality of the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Worship, the Freedom from Want, and the Freedom from Fear --  Neruda accused Videla's law of violating Chileans' rights to both the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom from Fear.

After giving the speech, since the Communist Party was already banned, Neruda had to go into hiding and the rest of the film followed...

The rest of the film includes then the process of Neruda's escape, again involving moving from safe-house to safe-house and eventually going by horseback over the Andes and into Argentina.  The film also includes reminiscences from Neruda's childhood (again he was born "in the mountains / provinces") and reminders of Neruda's continued writing during this time of escape.  During the Q&A with the director of the film, present at its screening here at the 2015 Chicago Latino Film Festival, the director noted that Neruda wrote his Canto General (1950) [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] "while on the run" at this time.

All in all, this is a very well done Chilean film about probably the most renowned Chilean who ever lived.


* 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! :-) >> 

Breaking the Wave (orig. Rompiendo la Ola) [2014]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmAffinity.com/es listing*
SensaCine.com listing*

Breaking the Wave (orig. Rompiendo la Ola) [2014] [IMDb] (directed and cowritten by Annie Canavaggio [IMDb] along with Vicente Ferraz [IMDb]) is a fun PANAMANIAN "SURFING DOCUMENTARY" that played recently at e 2015 - 31st Chicago Latino Film Festival about the surfing community at Playa Santa Catalina in Veraguas Province, Panama.

The film clearly plays-off of the common perception that surfing (though actually having its origins among the browner-skinned Polynesians of Hawaii and the South Pacific) is today largely a "white sport."  Yet presented here is a still largely quiet surfer's paradise where most of the confident yet laid-back and smiling surfers are black, mulatto and even indigenous Panamanian locals who've actually done increasingly well international surfing competitions.  (And at the end of the film, one these local surfers became the first black surfer - at least from Panama - to ever win a sponsorship contract from one of the world's major surfboard manufacturers).

So how does the life of this Panamanian surfing community compare and contrast with the perceived life-style of surfers worldwide?  Well, that's a good part of the movie ;-)

Differences noted would include that the Panamanian locals would probably be poorer than most of their counterparts from more industrially advanced countries.  As such, while certainly loving to surf, more than a few of them interviewed were also shown working hard in construction and harvesting jobs as they noted (if at times sadly): "you can't eat by surfing."

Then, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, drugs weren't portrayed as being a big part of the local surfing subculture.  Yes, having a beer with friends, especially among the older / mentor now 40-something coaches was deemed okay.  AND packages of cocaine were shown in the documentary as actually occasionally washing onshore (after presumably having fallen off of various drug boats).  BUT the father of one of the main surfers in the film spent four years in prison after being caught trying to sell one of these kilo packages of cocaine that he found washed-up on shore one day.  As such, most of the younger local Panamanian surfers interviewed in the film appeared to equate drugs with inviting problems that none of them (or their families) really needed.

It was also quite clear that religion, both popular Catholicism and charismatic Protestantism, played a significant role in the local surfing community as well.  Almost all of the younger surfers were one or the other -- Protestant or Catholic -- and certainly their families were.

Finally, it was clear that family -- parents and brothers / sisters / cousins -- probably played the most important role in all of their lives.  Perhaps that's why they worked first and surfed when they had time.  That's why appeared to stay away from drugs -- they didn't want to give their families needless problems.  And perhaps that's why they all seemed to be either Protestant or Catholic (again that's what their families were).  FINALLY, THEY ALSO CLEARLY ENJOYED TEACHING THEIR YOUNGER BROTHERS, SISTERS, COUSINS how to surf -- even if they didn't have a board for them to use (they just drew the outline of a "board" in the sand, and had the kids "pretend" ;-)

All in all, I found this film to be A DELIGHT to watch.  It makes total sense to me that people, the world over, watching waves come in from the sea would find the prospect of surfing those waves tantalizing.  I'm just happy as pie to see that people across the world are now increasingly doing so.  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! :-) >>

The Liberator (orig. Libertador) [2013]

MPAA (UR would be R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
FilmAffinity.com/es listing*
SensaCine.com listing*

El Espectador [Bogota, Columbia] review*
VenezuelaySuHistoria.blogspot.com (Profeballa) review*

TheHollywoodReporter.com (T. McCarthy) review
Slant Magazine (O. Moralde) review


The Liberator (orig. Libertador) [2013] [IMDb] [FAes]* [SC]* (directed by Alberto Arvelo Mendoza [IMDb] [FAes]* [SC]*, screenplay by Timothy J. Sexton [IMDb] [FAes]* [SC]*) is a largely VENEZUELAN funded VENEZUELAN / SPANISH joint-venture biopic about Simón Bolivar [es.wikip]* [en.wikip] the "George Washington of Latin America."  The film recently opened the 2015 - 31st Chicago Latino Film Festival.  The film can also be streamed online for a nominal fee using the Amazon Instant Video service.

It must be said from the onset, however, that there are "things to note" about this film ;-).

While Simón Bolivar [es.wikip]* [en.wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film, IMHO quite excellently throughout, by Édgar Ramírez [IMDb] [FAes]* [SC]*), was without doubt _revered_ across Latin America especially in the parts of Latin America that he did, in fact, liberate (Venezuela, Colombia (then New Grenada) and Panama, Ecuador and Peru) and then perhaps even more-so in Venezuela where he was from, his legacy has been appropriated in recent years by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez [en.wikip] [es.wikip]* as a "model" / symbol of his own contemporary efforts to bring a far greater level of social justice to common Venezuelans than was the case until, well, his (Chávez') arrival on the scene.

This contemporary "battle" about the legacy of Simón Bolivar [es.wikip]* [en.wikip] [IMDb] needs to be kept in mind as one watches this film (which after all largely funded by the "Chavista" Venezuelan government), the central question being: When Bolivar called for a "liberation for all people" who did "all" include?

This may _seem_ like a silly question, but Readers here should remember when the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote in the Declaration of Independence that: "All men are created equal" it was more or less clear that the vast majority of them assumed that "all men" meant "WHITE MEN" (meaning NOT non-white men, and NOT women) and then many of the Founders would further stipulate conditions on the "equality" of the "white men" -- Originally only _landed_ white men (those who actually owned property) had the right to vote in the United States.

So, it's certainly plausible that to Bolivar, who grew-up as a son of very wealthy Venezuelan "landed gentry" (Washington, Jefferson and later Robert E. Lee all would have certainly been considered as members of a similar well-educated / landed gentry class  ... ), "all" could have meant something similar.

It's Chávez and other (more) left-leaning Latin American writers like Gabriel García Márquez [es.wikip]* [en.wikip], who began to explore the ramifications of taking Bolivar at his word, that is that "all" would really have meant ALL, and opponents now to Chávez's legacy are left defending a rather embarrassing diminishment of Bolivar's: "Yup, the father of our nation, set out to liberate ... only _some_ of us." ;-)

It is more-or-less clear that the current film takes the view that ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING Bolivar clearly preferred the more inclusive even utopian understanding of "all," that is, that "ALL really meant ALL." 

And the film expresses this, in part, in its treatment of Bolivar's relationship with his wife Maria Theresa Bolivar (played by María Valverde [IMDb] [FAes]* [SC]*), portraying her, a Spanish born daughter of Spanish nobility, as very much sitting in on AND PARTICIPATING in the "great political / philosophical discussions" that Bolivar's circle of friends would have "over dinner" and during the years prior to his taking-up the ideals and cause of the American and French Revolutions in his part of the world.

In reality, Maria died (of yellow fever) very early (only 8 months) after her arrival with Bolivar to Venezuela from Spain.  So it'd be very hard to know if the film's portrayal of the relationship between Bolivar and his wife, both then still quite young, was accurate or would have continued to have been accurate if she had lived longer.

Similarly, when Bolivar is portrayed taking-up the cause of armed insurrection against Spain, he's shown setting up a stronghold, while still accessible to the sea, nevertheless "at the edge of the jungle wilds."  This allows the film to portray Bolivar's subsequent army to be composed of not merely of other like-minded Venezuelan colonists (as well as Irish / English mercenaries, er "volunteers") but also to be composed  _above all_ of INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and POORER, BOTH WHITE AND BLACK PEASANTS / "FOREST DWELLERS." 

This is possible, perhaps even PROBABLE (after all one can't really build a serious army out of MERELY "landed gentlemen" -- there'd never be NEARLY ENOUGH OF THEM ;-).  But it's CERTAINLY A "STICK IN THE EYE" to various elites today to remind them that PRETTY MUCH _ANY_ MILITARY ADVENTURE REQUIRES A LOT OF POOR(ER) PEOPLE to do the fighting.

LOL ;-) even the American Confederate Civil War "Hero," Robert E. Lee would have been simply sitting on his white horse, leading NOBODY, if he didn't have an army of poorer Southern white people WHO NEVER HAD THE MONEY TO OWN ANOTHER (DARKER) PERSON at his disposal to then command ;-).

So the portrayal of Bolivar's army in this film is both "kinda realistic" AND amusing / argumentative and even propagandistic -- giving due honor to the multitudes of "little foot soldiers" who would have done most of the actual fighting as Bolivar fought to Liberate his part of Latin America from the Spanish yoke.  Perhaps the ONLY potentially surprising aspect to this take on the Bolivar's campaign was that Bolivar is portrayed in this film as actually caring for the freedom / destiny of these "little people" under his command.

Finally, many of the Venezuelan (anti-Chavist?) critics of the film have chafed at its assertion that Bolivar was assassinated rather than having died (officially) of tuberculosis.   Yet even conceding that medical diagnoses in the early part of the 19th century would not have been what they are today, "tuberculosis" seems like a rather ODD cause of death for a presumably previously VITAL LEADER.  Tuberculosis TODAY would be understood as a progressive debilitating lung disease not something that one comes down with and then _rapidly_ "just dies of."  Yet perhaps there could have been all kinds of similar (and more rapidly mortal) diseases that he could have died of that AT THE TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED to be (like) "tuberculosis."

So all in all, this film _is_ more-or-less a "Chavista propaganda tract" about the life of Simón Bolivar [es.wikip]* [en.wikip] [IMDb] who recent Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez [en.wikip] [es.wikip]* considered something of a model and certainly a hero.

Still it remains a PLAUSIBLE and at times even PROBABLE take on Bolivar's life that puts Chavez' opponents in a difficult position:  Does one really want to argue that one's nation's FOUNDER and REVERED HERO really didn't want to free (or even respect) everybody?

As such, I smile and have to say that I enjoyed the film ;-)


* 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! :-) >>

The Longest Ride [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  ChicagoTribune (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  

The Longest Ride [2015] (directed by George Tillman, Jr, screenplay by Craig Bolotin based on the novel (2013) [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Nicholas Sparks [wikip] [GR] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is largely what it is -- a "weapy (largely white oriented) romance / chick flick."  BUT I would add (1) it's actually A PRETTY GOOD "weepy (largely white oriented) chick flick" and (2) IT CHOOSES, TIME AND AGAIN, TO BE POSITIVE.  I want to say here that I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THIS SECOND POINT.

I write this because this film about "an impossible romance" between a hunky/ever smiling North Carolina born-and-bred, 4th generation rancher's son / BULL RIDER named Luke (played by Scott Eastwood) and previously bookish/destined to be a NPR-listener, Wake Forest U. (on scholarship) attending art history student, New Jersey (city) raised daughter of more recent Polish (perhaps Solidarity-era) immigrants Sophia (played by Britt Robertson) -- the two first meet late in Sophia's senior year in college at quite literally HER "first rodeo" ;-) -- could have EASILY gone "more negative" and in all kinds of ways.  INSTEAD, Sparks / Tillman CHOSE to make this contemporary Red-State / Blue-State potentially "Romeo and Juliet"-like romance into a celebration of both and arguably ALL backgrounds / worlds.  IMHO this is quite a feat and it deserves to be celebrated here.

Indeed, the entire state of North Carolina is presented in far different terms than most viewers / readers would be used to.  Yes, North Carolina is part of America's "Deeper South."   However, it was _always_ actually more moderate than the states that neighbor it.  When North Carolina's legislature voted to join the Confederacy during the Civil War Era, its vote for Secession from the Union succeeded by only a few votes.  In more recent times, Charlotte its capital has become something of a banking center / transportation hub and the state has become as "purple" of a state as one gets in the South.

The current film focuses _a lot_ actually on the University / intellectual side of the State.  Again, Sophia was an art history major at Wake Forest U. and though "on scholarship" she went there because she was interested in the legacy of the Black Mountain Art Movement.  "Black Mountain" what? ;-) BUT THAT'S EXACTLY IT ... For DECADES many intellectuals across the South have been screaming "We have much more here than cotton fields and racists."  To some extent, Rick Linklater's film Boyhood [2014] sought to make the same point with regards to Texas.

Then "the second story" presented in the current film, that somewhat parallels the contemporary challenges faced by Sophia and Luke as they try to make their romance / budding relationship work, again playing out in North Carolina (and then North Carolina of the 1940s (!)) involved a lifelong romance / relationship between two people who were JEWISH -- Ira (played as a younger man by Jack Huston and as an older man by Alan Alda) who was already born/raised in North Carolina whose family ran furniture shop there, and Ruth (played wonderfully by Oona Chaplin) who along with her family fled Nazi occupied Vienna just before WW II -- "Jews in North Carolina?  How'd they ever get here?" ;-)  But why should that be surprising, given again Universities like North Carolina, Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest, as well as an entire art colony built around Black Mountain College? ...  Again, there's MORE to North Carolina (and to the whole of the South) than cotton, tobacco and racism.  

Then Luke's character is portrayed throughout quite honorably.  He BEGINS the story as ALREADY A GOOD GUY and he ENDS as A BETTER GUY.  And I can personally attest (and many times over) to the reality of Southern good manners, that again have to be taken into account when one thinks of the South.  Yes, there are many problems in the South (as there are anywhere).  But there is a charm / elegance in the South that extends across the various social (and racial...) strata that needs to be recognized as well.  And so Sophia is also charmed / changed (POSITIVELY) in this regard as well.  It _is_ a good thing to be nice ...

So, yes, while the film is "schmalzy" at times (as these kind of films often are), I have to give it a definite "thumbs up" because it does portray "the better angels" OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE and that inspires hope. 

And I do wish that a lasting romance between a Luke and Sophia would indeed be possible.


<< 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! :-) >>

Kumu Hina [2014]

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

IMDb listing
Official website

Kumu Hina [2014] (directed by Dean Hamer and Joe Wilson) is a documentary about Hina Wong-Kalu a contemporary native-Hawaiian māhū (transgender person) who as māhūs often did in traditional Hawaiian/Polynesian society serves as a Kumu (or master) at a hālau hula (traditional hula school) in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The film played recently as part of Chicago's Gene Siskel Film Center's 20th Annual Asian American Showcase and will air in May, 2015 on PBS's Independent Lens program.

I found the film's subject matter interesting because as questions surrounding gender -- gender roles, gender identification, gender relationships -- become more and more prevalent in our time (and across the globe...) there have been some fairly interesting films made about various traditional, non-Western approaches to these questions. 

I think here of an excellent recent film set in China called Snow Flower and the Secret Fan [2011] that was about a laotong (or "sworn sister") kind of relationship that apparently existed in traditional Chinese society. 

The current film is about a person who began life as a Hawaiian man and in his twenties/thirties did undergo a sex change operation to become physically a woman but who did certainly claim that all his life he identified with being a woman.  While certainly most people would not go to the point of undergoing a sex-change operation, most of us do know people from our childhoods who ALSO more-or-less clearly identified more with the opposite sex/gender than than with the one which they physically were -- the "harder-core tomboys" and the "boys who dressed-up / played with dolls."

Well, the point of this film, which I do find interesting (and humane), was that in traditional Hawaiian / Polynesian society THERE WAS A RESPECTED _MIDDLE_ PLACE FOR THESE FOLKS.  And they often became the TEACHERS, to some extent even PRIEST-LIKE TEACHERS (mediating between "the old traditions" and "the people"), of the society.

This film is without question "not for all", BUT also it is also (without question) an INTERESTING one and IMHO on a whole bunch of levels.

One of the most interesting levels for me is simply: Is Christianity / Catholicism (which is about a Universal Church big enough FOR EVERYBODY who sincerely belongs there) capable of learning from other cultures / traditions?

I obviously think that it is.  And in our generation, we are asking if there is there a place for the "tom boys" and the "girly boys."  We have them in our midst and even in our families.  We invite them to our family Christmas and Mother's Day dinners.  Is there a place for them in Church?

It would seem that Pope Francis with his now famous "who am _I_ (!) to judge?" comment has opened-up the door IN THE CHURCH for this discussion.

If we can be kind to our "more butch," "effeminate," and even more generally to our "generally (!) harmless but strange" (Addams Family-like ;-) relatives in our families, why can't the Church?

Again, I think _we can_ be so kind and, honestly, if we believe in a Church "big enough FOR EVERYBODY who belongs there," I believe we must.

Yes, this is not necessarily a film for everybody, but one certainly for adults to see, consider and then talk-about.


<< 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! :-) >>

While We're Young [2014]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  


While We're Young [2014] (written and directed by Noah Baumbach) is a dramedy about growing-up / growing middle-aged that many who become entranced by the film may want to see again or perhaps even a couple more times.  Why?  IMHO because the film sneaks up on you.  It initially feels like a rather straight forward nostalgic celebration of "what it is/was like to be young," and then ... it changes into something else, perhaps darker, but (again IMHO) worthy of a second and even third look.

Josh and Cornelia (played by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts respectively) are an intellectual 40-something New York couple, Josh a documentary filmmaker, Cornelia a producer of such films, first for her dad (played wonderfully / intentionally somewhat distantly by Charles Grodin), then with her husband, then for her dad again.  Cornelia's bouncing between her father and her husband actually says a lot ... about Cornelia and ... even Josh:

Though 40-something neither really seems to have grown-up (and out from the shadow of their parents'/inlaws' generation).

Josh (with Cornelia) made exactly one, if excellent, documentary feature ... some twelve years ago.  He's been struggling (and Cornelia's long since given-up on working with him) for the past TEN YEARS to make a second one.  But though he has the footage, again TEN YEARS OF IT, interviewing some New York intellectual about "the important political/cultural forces of our time," SINCE HE HAS TEN YEARS OF INTERVIEWS, BOTH HE AND THE INTELLECTUAL HE'S BEEN INTERVIEWING VISIBLY AGE (!!) IN THE FOOTAGE.  At best, he's gonna have to REDO a good deal of the interviews if he's ever going to get the project finished ... BUT apparently EVERYTIME HE DOES THAT, SOMETHING "NEW" COMES OUT OF THE DISCUSSION SENDING HIM IN A NEW DIRECTION ... ;-).

In the meantime, Cornelia's (and if one's honest, Josh's) "biological clock" has first sputtered and then run-out.  They TRIED a number of years back (apparently in their mid/late 30s) to finally have a kid and well, after many fertility treatments and several miscarriages, Cornelia at least has arrived at the reality that "that ship has sailed."

So ... recapping ... at 40-something, Josh finds himself lecturing at (presumably) CUNY "about documentary film-making", Cornelia works for her dad and they've come to the realization that they are probably not going to have children ... EVEN AS ONE OF THE LAST CHILDLESS COUPLES THAT WERE AMONG THEIR GENERATION / FRIENDS ... JUST HAD A BABY.

So where the heck is the comedy in this? ;-)  It's that kind of comedy / dramedy ... Even clowns can both smile and have a tear running down their cheek ...

Enter a hipster 20-something couple, Jamie (played by Adam Driver) and his wife (!) Darby (played by Amanda Seyfried), who just show-up one day at one of Josh's classes.  Not recognizing them, Josh asks who they are.  Jamie answers that they're "just auditing the class."  Josh tells them that his is a continuing education class, one that one can't "just audit" (listen in on / take for free).  The two twenty somethings just smile and shrug their shoulders, apparently either not understanding (or nor caring).   Cornelia arrives to pick-up Josh after his class ... and ... so Josh / Cornelia meet Jamie / Darby ... and Act II of the story proceeds from there.

Josh and Cornelia find Jamie and Darby to be almost from another planet, A NICE PLANET, A NICE RESPECTFUL PLANET that _they_ almost wished they belonged to BUT A DIFFERENT ONE NONETHELESS.  So for a good part of the film that follows, 40-something Josh and Cornelia are simply ENCHANTED by the little retro-Bohemian world that 20-something Jamie and Darby live in: (1) Jamie and Darby GOT MARRIED.  Even in Josh / Cornelia's 20-something days "NOBODY" (at least of their intellectual class) got married "that young," (2) they were somewhat dirt poor but didn't care, (3) they seemed to make EVERYTHING themselves, (4) they LIKED "old things" (Jamie's vinyl 33 record collection was bigger than Josh's ever was, and all that Josh owned today was a bunch of CDs).  Who were these "Amish city-dwelling Bohemians"??  BUT THEY LIKED THEM.

And so at one point, Josh and Cornelia REALLY CONSIDER _dropping_ THE "FRIENDS WITH CHILDREN" OF THEIR GENERATION to simply hang-out with these younger 20 year olds, WHO WERE SO NICE, SO SIMPLE, SO INNOCENT, SO RESPECTFUL OF THEM ... AS "ELDERS" ... even if THEY THEMSELVES NEVER THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES AS SUCH BEFORE.

Of course, in the third act, THIS CHANGES.  Jamie and Darby turn out to be MORE than "sweet children of the corn" ;-) ... (no they are not space aliens or zombies or anything like that ... but they BECOME MORE than JUST "innocent hipster Amishlike Bohemians" ...).  And I have to say that I found the transition fascinating, unsettling and perhaps ultimately honest.

And so this is why I do believe that this film deserves several views.  What happens in that third act?  (Yes, the plot sequence is not that hard to figure out but ...) BUT HONESTLY why does Cornelia's ever distant if ever looming FATHER (!!) suddenly / quite literally "come into the picture" and then seem to understand JAMIE (and his generation) BETTER than JOSH (and his)?

Fascinating ;-) -- the Prodigal Son and Job wrapped into one ;-)


<< 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! :-) >>

A Girl Like Her [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  ChicagoTribune (3.5 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3.5 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (C. Darling) review



A Girl Like Her [2015] (written and directed by Amy S. Weber) is a very well done film using a fictionalized documentary format about bullying at a random upper-middle-class high school somewhere in the United States today.

Jessica Burns (played by Lexi Ainsworth) was an utterly random high school sophomore, perhaps kinda bright, perhaps kinda shy, whose social world went into a nose dive after an _utterly random_ incident some 6-9 months back with her former best friend from grade school named Avery Keller (played spot-on perfectly by Hunter King) who, in turn, was turning/blossoming into "the popular girl" in their class: Basically SOMETIME during the middle of their previous (Freshman) year, during a test, Avery KINDA looked over to Jessica's desk PERHAPS looking to copy an answer to one of the questions AND Jessica KINDA turned away and covered-up her work.  And THAT ... was that. 

THAT UTTERLY RANDOM 1-2 SECOND "INCIDENT" SENT THEIR PREVIOUSLY YEARS LONG "BFF" RELATIONSHIP, QUITE LITERALLY INTO A _DEATH SPIRAL_.  AVERY, becoming "the popular girl" in their class decided to _socially destroy_ Jessica, and spent (along with her growing "multitude" of new friends) the NEXT 6-9 MONTHS, RELENTLESSLY PICKING-ON her (perhaps somewhat-less good-looking, perhaps somewhat more socially awkward, perhaps somewhat SMARTER) FORMER BEST FRIEND JESSICA.  

... and Jessica's social world COLLAPSED to a single somewhat adoring, somewhat nerdy friend named Brian (played again wonderfully by Jimmy Bennett).  Seeing what was happening to Jessica at the hands of Avery and her legion of "popular friends," HE came up with the idea of "documenting this."  How?  At some random electronic store, he bought Jessica a little spy cam.  Basically it was a little camera inside a butterfly-like pendant and he asked her to wear it. 

Why?  Why would she wear it?  Well, Brian gave her a plausible story that he was simply interested in computers / video (which he was) and he thought it would be kinda cool that she wear this camera to document her life.  OF COURSE he mentioned that it could be useful to document some of the bullying that's happening to her.  BUT he makes it more positive sounding, telling her that he just wanted to see if together they could eventually make a movie about "a random high school girl's life" (and that random high school girl would be Jessica).  And Jessica, otherwise DOWN AS COULD BE, found this "project" ("for her friend") positive / interesting.

Well, of course the bullying of her does not stop, and eventually, Jessica (something of a SPOILER ALERT, but IT HAPPENS SO EARLY IN THE FILM, that it arguably helps set the film up) tries to commit suicide.

Why (does she do that)?  Well, that "spy footage" of course is going to help explain why ...

But in the meantime, something else was going on at school.  A professional documentary team arrived at the school just before Jessica's suicide attempt to do a piece about the school because it had just been selected as "one of the 10 best high schools in the country."  Then in the midst of their filming to do that piece, word comes out that one of the school's students tried to commit suicide.  SO WITH THE SCHOOL ADMINSTRATION'S PERMISSION, the documentary crew decides to pursue _that new angle_ as well: "Even though this would be one of the best schools in the country, nevertheless it's not free of teenage problems ..."

Anyway, this then sets up the film and to writer / director Weber's credit the film doesn't make the bully, Avery, simply into a monster.  She arguably becomes the central character (star?) of the film and the film leaves both teens and parents WITH MUCH TO REFLECT ON and TALK ABOUT. 


<< 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! :-) >>