Southpaw [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McCarthy) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Southpaw [2015] (directed by Antoine Fuqua, screenplay by Kurt Sutter) is a boxing movie that went into wide release to mixed reviews (above) some weeks ago.  Due to said mixed reviews, I did not see it then, somewhat to my regret now.

This is because boxing movies are generally about "more than boxing" (they are about struggle in general) and often the "critical class" (reviewers) is/are not the one(s) to which these films are primarily directed or the one(s) who best understand(s) them.  To make the point, I wish to note here that I was asked several times during the past several weeks by parishioners if I've seen this movie, and with increasing embarrassment, I've had to respond "not yet."

Boxing movies are generally genre movies.  As such they are often enough (unsurprisingly) heavily cliched.  And yet that they are cliched, does not necessarily render them unsatisfying much less without value.  Perhaps the best way to understand Southpaw [2015] is to appreciate that despite being largely about "anger management" (controlling rage despite hard knocks / tragedy) its purpose (redemptive) and approach (fictional) are far closer to Silvester Stalone's Rocky [1976] than to Martin Scorsese's / Robert DeNiro's Raging Bull [1980]:  The goal of the film is not to watch Jake Gyllanhaal's boxer named "Billy Hope" (!) self destruct, but rather to watch him, despite having experienced some very very hard knocks, (re)build himself (back) into "being somebody."  The vast majority of viewers could probably count the number of times they've picked-up a set of boxing gloves on one hand (or perhaps even less...) but would nevertheless _completely understand_ the story being told.

In Billy Hope's Job-like "Descent into Hell" from previous boxing super-stardom, he tragically loses his wife (played by Rachel McAdams) (and, of course, _partly_ because of his own previous arrogance/stupidity).  Then / as a result he "loses his focus" (hence his next Fight), then his house and even for a time his 8-10 year-old daughter Leila (wonderfully played in the film by Oona Lawrence).

Perhaps the most redeeming / instructive part of the film is watching Billy Hope, who the audience knows has ALL KINDS OF REASONS TO BE ANGRY AT THE WORLD, having to deal with a NO-NONSENSE "by the book" social worker (played wonderfully by played by Naomi Harris) who _repeatedly_ reminds him that his (perhaps even legitimate) "issues" aside, _she's_ present at the supervised meetings between him and his daughter NOT for _his sake_ but for _his daughter's_ SAFETY.  Those scenes involving Billy Hope, his daughter (who after all has lost her mother too) and the social worker MAKE THE MOVIE FOR ME and can serve as an INSTRUCTIVE and even POSITIVE example for all kinds of adults ANGRY AT LIFE (often even partly legitimately) in situations similar to his.  (And in "my day job" I do come across plenty):

Yes, one may have legitimate right to be angry, disappointed, etc.  But it's never "all about us" and "The System" is there, above all, to protect the innocent -- "Hope's" _daughter_.  Wow ;-)

Anyway, this is a Hollywood film (and even a classic "Descent into Hell" Western Civ. story), so it has to end well.  And ... (mild spoiler alert) it does.

So, even if we've seen variations of this story in the past, it still makes a very good film that even "moves the ball" (with regard to those court supervised "parent-child" meetings).  So good job folks!  Very 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! :-) >>

American Ultra [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


American Ultra [2015] (directed by Nima Nourizadeh, screenplay Max Landis) can perhaps be described as Jason Bourne of The Bourne Identity [2002] meets the Pineapple Express [2008] meets the original Rambo of First Blood [1982]:

The film begins with Mike (played by Jesse Eisenberg) a mild mannered stoner introducing himself to us though an extended voice-over.  We see that he lives in essentially a shack at the edge of a small town in West Virginia with a similarly "stoner" but also clearly "more together" girlfriend named Phoebe (played by Kristen Stewart) to whom he is enormously grateful because she seems to have enormous patience in putting-up with him. 

Now how can they both be "stoners" and yet one be "clearly more together" than the other?  Well, it becomes pretty clear rather quickly that Mike is keeping himself "baked" on marijuana because of some serious phobia issues.  In contrast, Phoebe, while "partaking" as well, isn't doing so for the same reasons or nearly in the same quantities: She's smoking-up with Mike to continue to be with him and, yes, to help keep him at ease.  Oh dear, "an enabler" ... YES (!), perhaps, but she does seem to know that he has issues.  And again, Mike is enormously grateful for her kindness.  Odd, but possible ...

Things would continue indefinitely in this rather mess-ed up stasis if not for a petty bureaucratic fight taking place several hundred miles away -- at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA (!)  What the ...?

There, a young / rising mid-level CIA official named Adrian Yates (played by Topher Grace), who's directed a rather "successful" covert program that turns criminally insane inmates into special ops-assassins has decided to "terminate" a previous, less successful, rival program headed by another (since demoted) middle-aged mid-level CIA official named Victoria Lassater (played by Connie Britton) which simply sought to convert "volunteers" from among petty criminals in U.S. prisons into special ops-assassins -- "terminate" meaning KILLING the remaining "volunteers" from Lassater's previously less successful (largely failed) project.  Why would Yates bother?  Well, because he feels he "can" and because he's a bureaucratic a-ahole.

Mike, turns out to be one of those "volunteers" from Agent Lassater's previous, less successful program.  To "decommission him" at the end of the (failed) program, the she had his memories largely erased, leaving him a basket case with all kinds of phobias (the origins of he didn't understand) and unable to function in the world without some help (Phoebe).   Lassater is aghast, however, to find-out that her young rival at the Agency was now going to send his (previously criminally insane) "assets" to KILL her one surviving "asset" who she had been at least able to so "decommission," albeit with horrible side-effects, back to somewhat "normal" civilian life.

What to do?  Lassater decides to "go rogue" to try to save Mike.  She shows-up at the "Cash and Carry" dollar store where Mike works, telling him a very specific obviously coded message.  That coded message activates repressed memories inside Mike, allowing him to "defend himself" against the coming onslaught previously criminally insane now highly trained CIA super-assasins sent to "off" him.

Much of course ensues, and for a good part of the movie, Mike has no idea why ...

The film becomes a fairly interesting paranoid thriller.  My biggest problem with it is the film's often senseless brutality.  The same story could have been told without resorting to the level violence portrayed in the film.  As such, the R-rating is certainly deserved.  Still the story itself is rather compelling.  As such, the 20-something crowd could leave the film with a fair amount to talk about.

Still I thought the graphic violence was way, way too much than necessary to tell the story.


<< 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! :-) >>

In the Morning [2014]

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

IMDb listing

Shadow & Act (N. Mumin) review

 
In the Morning [2014] (written and directed by Nefertite Nguvu) is a thoughtful African American romantic drama about nine educated late-20-something through 30-something African American New Yorkers, most living in Brooklyn, coming together "one morning" (or at least during that day) to bid farewell to a friend about to leave New York to begin a new chapter in her life in Brazil (presumably in Rio de Janeiro, Salvador or São Paulo).   The conversation leads to relationships, goals and expectations in life.

The film played recently at the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center. 

Though all the characters / actors in the film were African American, virtually all urban, educated Americans / Westerners would understand the characters' interests / concerns:

Harper (played by Kim Hill) the one leaving for Brazil is willing to go to the ends of the earth to find fulfillment / happiness (On the flip side, she's unwilling to "just sit there" and wait for life to unfold around her).  She's had a nice but ultimately disappointing relationship with Ravi (played by Hoji Fortuna) who's actually there at the brunch (so they parted on more-or-less good terms).

Among the others at the brunch is Amara (played by JoNell Kennedy) at whose home the "Harper's farewell" will come to an end later in the evening.  Amara plays the other book-end in the spectrum of attitudes expressed with regards to personal fulfillment / relationships: She's married.  Yes, she knows that her husband Malik (played by Jacky Ido) has been cheating on her.  She even knows with whom, Cadence (played by Emayatzy Corinealdi), not present at the brunch, but who is even shown meeting (unrelated to this gathering) with Malik, Amara's husband, to break-up with him.  But despite Malik's infidelity and indeed rather hard-core unrepentant infidelity (if Cadence wasn't breaking-up with him, he appeared to be quite happy to continue with his two relationships, and one gets the sense that he'll probably find another girlfriend-on-the-side soon to replace Cadence), Amara's decided to stay in her marriage, something that Harper (and many in the audience), of course, does not / would not understand at all.

Two others, invited to the gathering, late 20 / early 30-something Zuri (played by De'Adre Aziza) and her adjunct professor at some local college also 30-something boyfriend Leal (played by C.J. Lindsey), are not attending because they have a situation at home: Zuri's found that she's pregnant and yet she also knows that Leal has not been faithful to her.  What to do?

So these are the various stories that play-out in the course of this "day in the life" of these characters in the film.  And it certainly would make for some good young adult discussion.

As I wrote above, despite Amara's husband's cheating, Amara's made the decision that she wasn't going to leave her marriage, and it appears that she's doing so not merely "for the sake of her marriage" but "for the sake of Marriage [TM], period."  Perhaps by naming her character "Amara" (which suggests "bitter" or "bitterness") the filmmaker herself is underlining her inability to understand completely why Amara would be doing so (except perhaps out of a spirit of martyrdom).  But Amara's in the story, there, along with Harper who at the other side of the relationship-fulfillment spectrum is willing to sacrifice all, including her friends / relationships, for personal happiness / fulfillment.

So it makes for quite an interesting reflection / discussion piece.

Here I would add, from my perspective, as a Catholic priest after all ... ;-) ... that the Bible is full of people who "meet God" at almost laughably late / odd stages in life:  Abraham was 75 when "God called him" [Gen 12:1-4], Moses (by tradition 80!) when he saw the burning bush [Ex 3:1ff].  It seems to be a very odd question to ask: Were either of these two men, or Abraham's wife Sarah (or Moses' wife Ziporrah [Ex 2:21]), "fulfilled" when they were in their twenties! ;-)

And yet, it is an interesting question! ;-)

Fulfillment is certainly important in life (and if we don't feel at least part "fulfilled" then arguably we're not following what God would hope for us [Matt 19:29]) but _just_ looking for "self-fulfillment" does seem, to me, to be rather selfish and against the Spirit of the Christian life.

That said, what an interesting / thought-provoking film!  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! :-) >>

Best of Enemies [2015]

MPAA (R)  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Cheshire) review
AVClub (N. Murray) review  


Best of Enemies [2015] (cowritten and codirected by Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville) is a documentary about the commentary / debating segments that ABC News had contracted from Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr to spruce-up / liven-up its otherwise certain destined to be 3rd place (among then three competing television networks) and forgotten television coverage of the 1968 Republican and Democratic Party Conventions.   The network chose well ...

Though both Patrician, both were articulate and often quite witty spokesmen for (and indeed epitomized the intellectual foundations of) their respective opposite ends of the American political spectrum at that time:

Gore Vidal knew both Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy personally.  The former actually campaigned for him when he, briefly, took a stab at running for the U.S. Congress (for a seat in upstate New York) in 1960.  The latter, he knew as Jacqueline Bouvoir BEFORE she became J.F.K.'s fiancée / wife.  Vidal who was gay, became famous in the 1950s-60s in the Eastern American intellectual establishment for his increasingly provocative novels [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]  about sexuality, homosexuality, transsexuality (culminating perhaps with his 1968 novel Myra Breckinridge [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]).  And yet that's NOT ALL that he wrote.  He called himself "America's biographer" and certainly he would have had a right to at least "throw his name in that ring," as he wrote a series of quite weighty tomes (lightened by his characteristic irreverent tone) on Lincoln [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], America's Founding Fathers [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], as well as America's increasingly imperialist tendencies in the modern era [GR] [WCat] [Amzn].  Much of "Liberal" / "Blue State" America today could trace its roots back to him.

On the flip side, William F. Buckley, Jr was a heavy weight himself.  He knew and was friends of both Barry Goldwater and especially Ronald Reagan.  His weekly National Review became sort of the "Federalist Papers" of the modern American Conservative movement.  Neither was he a "mindless Conservative" / "Reactionary."  Catholic, he took on Pope John XXIII's 1961 social encyclical Mater et Magistra, with a famous essay "Mater Si, Magistra No" which was both serious (putting the silliness of the current gas-bag Limbaugh-dine conservatives' complaints about current Pope Francis' environmental encyclical Laudato Si to shame) and also laced with his own brand of wit. 

Not that Buckley was right, IMHO. I do think that he and many of his head-shorter contemporaries today fundamentally misunderstood / misunderstand the Popes' role / teaching.  The Popes DON'T advocate for "Communism" (!?) BUT THEY DO remind the world of fundamental moral principles: We have responsibility for our brothers' / sisters' welfare (we are "our brothers'/sisters' keepers" [Gn 4:9]) as well as for "our common home" (which was given to us by God [Gn 1:28] originally AS A PARADISE [Gn 2:8]).  

What was clear to anyone, however, was that Buckley like Vidal HAD A BRAIN, and arguably much if not all of what is reasonable in contemporary Conservative "Red State" American thought could be traced back to him and The National Review that he founded.

So ABC chose its two commentators well.  How'd it go?

Here, contrary to most critics (and reviewers of the current film) I would suggest that the "Debates" between Buckley like Vidal, in as much as they were "debates" at all, ended _badly_.  Basically, what is most remembered of them (and certainly underlined _over and over_ in the current documentary about them) was that in the last "debate" Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto Nazi" and Buckley in turn called Vidal a "queer" and that SOMEHOW Gore Vidal "won the debate" as a result.  Why?  Presumably because it's okay to call someone "a  crypto Nazi" BUT NOT "a queer."

And there we have it.   I would suggest that BOTH MEN FAILED.  And I would agree that their childish if certainly mesmerizing presence on the television screen back in 1968 (but the alternative would have been watching even more of police officers hitting protesters with clubs ...) INFLUENCED (though in my mind BADLY) political "debate" on television ever since.  Basically, these two "Giants" gave us the first "CNN Crossfire" show, when, sigh ..., they could have done so much better.

So in the end, I left the theater disappointed, though perhaps understanding a little better why we are in the country we are today: Nearly 50 years ago, two of the truly best and most articulate minds of the time were invited to debate the great questions of their time, and instead ... they chose to call each other names.  Sigh ...


<< 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! :-) >>

White Water [2015]

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

IMDb listing 

EUR (L. Buford) review
Broadcastingcable.com (J. Walsten) review
The Art of the Monteque (V. Nickerson) review

Deadline.com (A. D'Alessandro) interview w. the child actors


White Water [2015] (directed by Rusty Cundieff, screenplay by Michael S. Bandy and Eric Stein) is a family drama set in 1963 rural Alabama near the end of the Jim Crow Era.   The film played recently at the 2015 (21st annual) Black Harvest Film Festival held here in Chicago at the Gene Siskel Film Center.

The film tells the very human story of a 7 y/o African American boy named Michael (played by brothers Amir and Amiri O'Neill) who becomes fascinated / obsessed with the _probable_ taste of the water coming-out of the "white's only" water fountain in town.  Since he saw a white boy his age, Tommy (played by Brody Rose), drink and drink and drink from that fountain, Michael is convinced that it must be _much better_ than the water coming out of the "colored folks" water fountain.  Michael knows the taste of the water from that one and he's never been impressed.  Indeed since the water was rusty in taste, he rarely drank from it, only when he was really, really thirsty.

So there it is.  A seven year old African American boy wants to taste "the water of the white folks," and, well ... it's ILLEGAL.  And his ma', Annie (played spectacularly by Sharon Leal) and grandpa (played by Leon Lamar) become convinced that Michael's inevitably going to do something really stupid (like drink from the "white folks' water fountain") that's going to get him into _a lot of trouble_ just like his no-good saxophone playing father (played by Larenz Tate) would get into.

Add then Michael's maybe one-year-older cousin Red (played by Zhane Hall) who eggs Michael on, telling him he's "drunk from white folks' drinking fountains many-a-times" and then Rev. Stokes (again wonderfully played by Barry Shabaka Henley) who's JUST TRYING to keep his little, often quite oppressed / humiliated flock from doing any of a wide number of very stupid things (both politically and personally) that would "lead them on the certain Road to Perdition" ... and one gets ONE HECK OF A (somewhat tempered by years) SEGREGATION ERA STORY that TRULY EVERYONE, BLACK OR WHITE, COULD UNDERSTAND.

Honestly school teachers, if you're looking for a GREAT CHILD FRIENDLY FILM THAT EXPLAINS _ALL THAT ONE REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW_ about THE HUMILIATING (and at times DEADLY SERIOUS) EVIL that was SEGREGATION in the SOUTH during the Jim Crow Era this is A GREAT ONE TO CHOOSE.

Great job folks, great, great 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 Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


The Diary of a Teenage Girl [2015] (directed and screenplay by Marielle Heller based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Phoebe Gloeckner [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a definitely _appropriately_ R-rated film about a 15 year old whose first sexual experience (and second, third, ...) was with her mid-late 30-something mother's boyfriend (also 30-something though perhaps a couple of years younger than said mother).  Say what??

Obviously, this is _not_ a "light" film.  And let's be clear, there are adults, both men and women (among them, of course, some past Catholic priests), WHO ARE IN PRISON / AND ON LIFELONG SEX OFFENDER LISTS for having had sex / entered into sexual relationships with minors.  So what possible value could there be to making such a film?

To be honest, this is a film IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR PARENTS / OTHERWISE ADULTS and then perhaps for SOME TEENS (with HOPEFULLY some parental involvement).

Why Parents?  Well this film is as good a reminder as any to divorced / unmarried / recently married parents with kids that their new "one" could have dangerous issues with regards to the kids (from hitting them to hitting-on / SLEEPING with them...).  Yes, can be pretty awful and/or lonely to be divorced / unmarried with kids at home, but one simply has to be very careful about who one's bringing (new) into the house because one's not just putting oneself at risk, but also one's kids.  Honestly, it's just the reality.

Then why adults in general?   If a fifteen year old (a minor) starts thinking that you want to have sex with them, it's time to run.  There's NO WAY that such a relationship could play-out well and in the U.S. today (and, indeed, in most of the western world) 9-out-of-10, 95-out-of-a-100, the adult's gonna end-up in jail / on a sex offender list, etc.  So the film presents an opportunity to internalize how stupid / creepy the guy was in the film and then to redouble one's efforts manage one's life in a manner that would avoid getting sucked into a situation like the one portrayed in the film.

So then what the heck happened in the film to produce such an intro to a review of it?

The very first line of the film (set in San Francisco in 1976) has the film's 15-year-old protagonist Minnie (played by 20-something actress Bel Powley) proclaim in a voice-over to viewers: "Today, I had sex for the very first time."

The next fifteen-or-so minutes involves her progressively revealing to viewers the exact circumstances of the loss of her virginity, and it becomes clear that the circumstances were quite fumbled and yucky and let's face it, the guy (played by Alexander Skarsgård), was her twice divorced 30-something mother (played by Kristen Wiig)'s 30-something boyfriend.

How did it come to that?  Well, Minnie explained:  Some days (or a couple of weeks) before, she and her younger half-sister Gretel (played by Abby Wait) along with their mom and mom's largely-live-in boyfriend were all watching TV.  Eventually Gretel and mom pealed off to go to bed, leaving Minnie and her mom's boyfriend alone.  Having all been snuggling together (as "family") before, Minnie and mom's boyfriend were left in that position after the other two left.  Then whether by accident -- he _could have been_ tired, he _could have been_ drunk -- or intentionally, said mom's boyfriend plopped his hand on Minnie's breast and _appeared to fall asleep_.   Was it a come-on?

I could imagine a lot of people who see that movie debating that point.  However, it's beside the point:  that accidental and/or very creepy gesture left Minnie, a not particularly confident in her own skin 15 year old, wondering: "What did he mean?"  But she kinda liked it (it was the first time anyone had touched her like that).  And so sometime later (a few days later or a few weeks later) SHE TELLS HIM that SHE wants to have sex with him.

Said boyfriend of Minnie's mom had exactly one opportunity to end this well.  HE COULD HAVE SAID: "But Minnie I love your mom."  BUT HE DIDN'T (SAY THAT) BECAUSE HE DIDN'T (REALLY LOVE MINNIE'S MOM).  He was JUST SLEEPING WITH MINNIE'S MOM because she was available and HE (PROBABLY) HAD "NOTHING BETTER GOING ON."  Not exactly a romance that would "launch a 1000 ships ..."

He could have also said: "Minnie you're 15 years old and I don't want to go to jail" and since he didn't particularly love Minnie's mom anyway, could have made a relatively easy exit over the next several days.

Instead because he probably was something of a creep, he had sex with her.

The rest of the movie follows.  Again, this is not a pretty picture.  In fact, IMHO it is quite an ugly one.  Is it "realistic"?  I think that most viewers would probably hope not.  But it can give parents, adults and possibly some older teens some things to think 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! :-) >>

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (R. Moore) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub () review  

Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet [2014] (directed by Roger Allers, et al, screenplay by Roger Allers along with Hanna Weg and Douglas Wood based on the acclaimed spiritual book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by turn of the 20th century Lebanese author Kahlil Gibran [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) offers a gentle introduction to the immensely popular text.

As in the book, so too in the current animated film (Al)Mustafa (voiced in the film by Liam Neeson), a spiritual leader, who has spent 12 years on an island outside of a fictionalized town called Orphalese, is about to go home.  A ship has come to take him to his homeland (or "homeland").

Now why was (Al)Mustafa on "the island" to begin with?  The book is (deliberately) unclear.  The film is much more specific (but certainly offers a credible explanation for both that time-in-history, and perhaps even ours.  After all, the story plays out near the Eastern Mediterranean / Western Middle East, hence in "the land of I.S.I.S." and all kinds of extremist militias).

As in the book, so in the movie, BEFORE (Al)Mustafa departs (or "departs" ... in both the book and the film the actual and certainly ultimate manner of his "departure" also remains vague) HE'S ASKED A NUMBER OF SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS by the people coming together to bid him farewell, which provides him opportunity to give sage advice about love, work, marriage, time, etc.

His answers, generally given in in the book 1-2 page poetic vignettes, make up the bulk of the small 60-or-so-page text.  The film expounds in generally lovely / gentle / colorful animated fashion on four or five of his answers.

Since the bulk of the 60-or-so-page book is in effect (Al)Mustafa preaching to the people, before "departing", the film does take _some_ imaginative liberties with the book to tell the story.

Notably, it dramatizes (Al)Mustafa's leaving of his "little house outside of town" and his walk to the town and its harbor.  (Al) Mustafa is portrayed as having a (widowed) house keeper, named Kamila (voiced by Salma Hayek) who, in turn, has a little 6-7 year-old daughter Almitra (voiced by Quvenzhané Wallis).  Note that that Almitra is imagined/portrayed quite differently in the original book than she in the film.  Together with a guard named Halim (voiced by John Krasinski), Kamila and Almitra help (Al) Mustafa travel down from his "little house outside of town" into town.

It all makes for a lovely story and for a nice, but certainly not only, perhaps even _intentionally_ limiting (concretizing) interpretation of the book.

So while not necessary to understand the story presented in the film, getting-hold-of and reading the 60-or-so page book both beforehand and perhaps especially _afterwards_ will help one appreciate the specific artistry and choices made in the film.

IMHO the book [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] is far more general in scope than the film.  However, as I've already suggested, the choices made by the film-makers make for an interesting, even compelling (and perhaps unfortunately still all too timely) interpretation of the book.

Good job folks!  Very 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! :-) >>