Spectre [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Univision.com coverage*
Telemundo.com coverage *
TV Azteca coverage*

Corriere della Serra coverage*
LaRepubblica.it coverage*

Spectre [2015] (directed by Sam Mendes, story by John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, screenplay by the same three along with Jez Butterworth, based on the characters from Ian Fleming's [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] James Bond novels [wikip] [GR] [Amzn]) is a good if not great / somewhat uneven Bond Film [wikip] [IMDb] that will probably please if not entrance most fans.  And it offers some tantalizing possibilities for the future at its end ...)

The film does begin strong with an extended introductory segment set in the context of an "amped-up" celebration Day of the Dead (All Souls Day - Nov. 2nd) held in Mexico City.  [Actual celeb. 2010] [2013]. 

The actual commemorations of the Day of the Dead  / All Souls Day held throughout Mexico is both more tranquil (involving visiting the cemetery / the graves of one's loved ones) and arguably more complex (involving not merely "costuming" / "performance arts" but also the making special altars at home in memory one's loved ones, baking / eating specific foods, etc).  Nevertheless there is a definite celebratory "laughing in the face of death" aspect to the day that inspires thoughts of parades (desfiles in Spanish).  Here in Chicago, the Day has inspired 5K "Carrera de los Muertos / Run of the Dead" held annually in Chicago's heavily Mexican Pilsen Neighborhood. 

So certainly, the makers of Spectre [2015] were onto something, and if the presentation of the celebration in Mexico City was a bit "over the top" (obviously evoking Rio / Carnival, my sense would be that both "the D.F.'s" tourism officials and even most Mexican viewers would probably be proud of the film's presentation of the festivity.  The center of Mexico City certainly seemed like "the place to be" on that day. 

Well ... in the midst of the raucous outdoor celebration on and around Mexico City's Zócalo, James Bond [wikip] [IMDb] (played here ever quite well by Daniel Craig - I'd put him in 2nd or 3rd place among the actors who've played the role, behind, of course, the legendary Sean Connery and possibly behind Pierce Brosnan), nominally "on holiday," catches a lead about a shadowy conspiracy involving an Italian assassin named Schiarra (played by Alessandro Cremona) who had been sent there to Mexico City to cause havoc (blow up a stadium full of people) precisely on this Day (of the Dead).  Of course, James Bond "saves th(at) day" and in trademark SPECTACULAR FASHION but ...

... When he comes home, he's dressed-down by the current "M" (played by Ralph Fiennes since the previous "M" played by Judy Dench was blown-up in a bombing attack on MI-6 in the previous Bond-film Skyfall [2012]). 

Why is Bond dressed-down?  Because "spy-craft" is supposed to be subtle "under-the-radar" and here, Bond, admittedly having saved thousands upon thousands of people in Mexico City, nevertheless did so in anything but "subtle" fashion.  Besides, since the "blowing-up" of MI-6's headquarters in Skyfall [2012] the British intelligence community was being restructured into a "joint intelligence task force" that was going to include NOT just "all the British intelligence branches" but ALSO the intelligence services of eight other countries world wide. 

Indeed, the new London HQ of joint British intelligence was being built as a "public-PRIVATE" PARTNERSHIP (HMMM.... partners WITH WHOM?????) with a NEW DIRECTOR who the MI-6 folks quickly code name "C" (played by Andrew Scott) but who DOESN'T particularly like MI-6s "quaint code names" and who seems to look forward to simply firing the lot of them (including "M").  To "C" human intelligence officers are antiquated and the future of ALL INTELLIGENCE WORK -- surveillance, analysis, even "targeted assassinations" -- is to be found in machines (spyware programs, surveillance cams, computers, drones).  People just get in the way.

So "M" is afraid that the ever rogue James Bond, 007, is going to get them _all_ fired.  But, James Bond, just broke-up this massive terrorist plot in Mexico City and isn't just going to "stand down" (even when ORDERED TO ... ;-) whether by the kindly if rather spineless "M" or the far more bureaucratic / spreadsheet oriented "C").  Besides he had a lead, a name "Schiarra," who then he was going to follow-up on, in Rome.

Much then ensues as he discovers that this "public-PRIVATE INTELLIGENCE PARTNERSHIP" seemed ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY MADE FOR ... well come on folks, if you remember ANYTHING of the first James Bond stories (written by Ian Fleming [wikip] in the 1950s and made into movies beginning in the early 1960s) ... the nefarious organization of EVIL "industrialists" going by the name of ... COME ON ... GUESS (if you DON'T already know it).

In this regard, Ian Fleming [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] must be smiling ... in whatever chalet or casino of the afterlife he'd be inhabiting.  He predicted the possibilities here 50-60 years ago.

The rest of the film unspools from there, with Christoff Waltz playing the story's chief villain,  Oberhauser, who comes to be revealed to be (and on multiple levels) much more than simply a random "Bond villain" by with a surprisingly "bland" name.

To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with Waltz's performance here.  It seemed quite flat.  BUT my hunch / hope is that we're not done with seeing him.

Anyway, to some extent this film feels like "an end" of a particular era of James Bond films: "Is there a place for a super-agent like OO7 James Bond, in a world of super computers, surveillance cams and drones?  But honestly, it could also become the spring-board to whole new one.  A key to watch would be what (if anything) will be done with Waltz's character in the future.

So all in all, this is not a bad Bond film (not great but not bad) but one that could send the story to a whole new level.  And if nothing else, it does leave one wondering: What's next for Bond, James Bond?


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

Suffragette [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. O'Malley) review
AVClub (J. Hessenger) review

British Film Institute (B. Dixon) Suffragettes in Film
The Guardian (A. Von Tunzelmann) article on the historicity of the film
Times of London (D. Finkelstein) article on the historicity of the film
The Independent (C. Criado-Perez) review / reflections on status of women in politics today 
Sunday Times (J. Dean) reflections on today
Avvenire.it (R. Michelucci) article about point of history in the film (Emily Davison)*

EyeForFilm.co.uk (A.W. Murray) review
The Guardian (C. Shoard) review
The Guardian (P. Bradshaw) review
The Independent (C. Criado-Perez) review
The Observer (M. Kermode) review

Irish Times [D. Clarke] review


Suffragette [2015] (directed by Sarah Gavron, screenplay by Abi Morgan) is a film that could (and probably should) make a lot of Viewers, the world over, uncomfortable. The film is about the Women's Suffrage Movement in Britain in the early part of the 20th Century (1908-1913 ... just before WW I).

Today it may seem incredible that with very few exceptions -- New Zealand (then still a far-flung "self governing" colony of the British Empire 1893), South Australia (ditto 1894), The Grand Duchy of Finland (then still a part of the Russian Empire 1907), in PARTS of the U.S. (Washington state (1910), California (1911), Oregon, Arizona and Kansas (1912), Illinois (1913) --  it took until the beginning of the 1920s (after WW I) for women to begin to get the right to vote in significant number of nations  around the world.

Indeed, THE DEFEATED NATIONS OF WORLD WAR I and THEIR SUCCESSOR STATES _almost without exception_ gave women the right to vote BEFORE that War's Victors.  (Defeated: Russia (1917), Germany (1919), Austria (1919), Turkey (the exception 1930, but it was in chaos for much of the time between 1918-1930), Successor States: Finland (above 1907), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (1918), Poland (1919), Czechoslovakia (1920), Ireland (1922); victors U.S.A. (1920), Britain (1928), France (1944 !), Italy (1945).

Today, we in the West certainly consider ourselves superior in this regard to the Muslim world (and Protestants certainly feel themselves superior to Catholics...).  But it should strike Viewers of this film with discomfort that the _same arguments_ that are used to keep women down / "in their place" in the Muslim world (AND IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ...) were being employed at the beginning of the 20th Century to keep women down EVERYWHERE (including, gasp, that bastion of reason and fairness, Britain): If a woman had a good father, a good brother and/or good husband, why would she need guaranteed rights by the State (or by the Institution)?  Would not her concerns already be taken into consideration by "the good men" in her life?  And would not the "added" expression of her opinions (yes, in her own words, but ...) be "redundant"?

And yes, Catholic viewers ought to be very uncomfortable viewing this film as well, hearing the same arguments that we have heard against women's Ordination in recent decades (to the ministerial Priesthood, but even more importantly to the Episcopate) being used in the early 20th century to deny women the right to vote: Again, why should women need a vote, need power, if the men who already have this power are already basically good people?  [Or is an advocate for women's enfranchisement suggesting then that "the good men in charge" may not be all that good (competent, honest, committed, sincere...)?   Why don't you like your priest, bishop, gasp the Holy Father?  What did they ever do to you?]

I'm not advocating here for women's ordination, just noting that the arguments against it are actually quite similar to those used to previously keep denying women the right to vote.  And I'd argue that the Church that has existed over its two millennia through epochs of slavery and feudalism has always noted that such systems _need not be Evil_.  They only become Evil when the people in charge become corrupt (by sin).  A "good slave master" or feudal lord could run his farm / lands with remarkable justice and compassion.  Problems "only arise" when the slave master / feudal lord prove to be "not altogether good" or "come to have a blind spot or two ..." However, given that we also teach that world is scarred by the effect of Original Sin, it would seem that most / all rulers would also be "not necessarily altogether good..." hence ... "perhaps a problem."

Anyway, we have chosen as a Church, on basis of the best opinions / teachings of our Church leaders who we put with a fair amount of training and, we hope, God's blessing, in charge of such matters, to say that there is no need to Ordain women to the Priesthood let alone to the Episcopate.  And part of the consequences of our decision to follow this teaching is to squirm when we're confronted by films like this.   Fair is fair.  We do believe, after all, that we have free will, and that all freely chosen actions, from good to bad, have consequences.

To the film ...

The story is told through the point of view of Maud Watts (played wonderfully by Carey Mulligan) a working class laundress in a London sweat-shop at the turn of the 20th century.  Initially, she honestly has no political opinions.  She's too busy simply working in the sweat-shop along with her similarly working class husband Sonny (played by Ben Whishaw) to keep a roof over their heads and over the head of their 8-or-so year old son George (played by Adam Michael Dodd).  She comes to the Women's Suffrage Movement somewhat by accident: a bubbly if already radicalized co-worker on her floor named Violet Miller (played by Anne Marie-Duff) introduces her to it.

Maud would have preferred to remain an anonymous face in the crowd simply lending support to the cause.  However, when Violet, who was asked to give testimony to a Parliamentary Commission on the matter (in the context of her working in said laundry), couldn't really do so (as she was beaten up by, presumably, her husband) Maud stepped in, to tell her piece, quite sincerely, to the Parliamentary Commission, and ... her action ... had consequences: 

First, NO, Maud's testimony CHANGED NO LAW (the Parliament was not anywhere near ready to do anything even remotely substantial yet).  BUT, Maud did "come onto the radar" of the authorities.

So, in the coming weeks or months, Maud did find herself (along with others) arrested at some protest.  Now, arrest at a protest can be traumatizing.  She's given a week in jail for her involvement, not altogether stiff BUT ... if one's working from day-to-day, week-to-week at a laundry with little-to-no labor rights let alone women's rights, the consequences just "ripple through."  Her husband becomes afraid that she's gonna lose her job.  The boss, a true a-hole (and holding all the cards) is certainly happy to encourage him to feel that way.  The utterly apolitical but "law and order" police inspector Arthur Steed (played hoenstly quite magnificently by Brendan Gleeson) in charge of "keeping a lid" on "these kind of protests" in London at the time, warns Maud that she's "just being used" by higher class women to risk what they themselves won't risk.  But as the story progresses, Maud finds _herself_ ever more committed to the cause of women's rights (and one of the most basic of these is simply having a right to vote) even as she certainly suffers for this at pretty much every single step of the way.

The rest of the film, based on actual historical incidents / events unspools from there.

It's an excellent and IMHO _quite realistic_ film.  Again, ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES ... but unless people do ACT (and accept SUFFERING FOR THEIR CHOICES) change does not happen.

Excellent film.


ADDENDUM:

An excellent film from the current day which touches many of the similarly _institutionalized_ paternalistic obstacles that the women of London in the current film faced is the 2015 Cannes film festival award winning Iranian film Nahid [2015] (making the "festival" / "art house rounds" in the West these days).  In that film, a 30-something divorcing Iranian woman named Nahid is being allowed to divorce her somewhat loutish similarly 30-something husband, BUT ... current Iranian (Shiite based / Islamic) law presupposes that she'd go back to her older brother, or find someone else to marry ... AND ... she, like the Mary Tyler Moore character of the famous 1970s American sitcom, would REALLY just like to "make it on her own ..."   Again, an excellent film that touches many of the same paternalistic / horizons-limiting issues that the women of the current film (though admittedly 100 years ago) faced as well.


 * Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

As We Were Dreaming (orig. Als wir träumten) [2015]

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

IMDb listing
Film-Zeit.de listing*
CinEuropa.org listing

Leipziger Volkszeitung (N. Wehrstedt) review*
Critic.de (C. Reinhard) review*
Der Spiegel (H. Pilarczyk) review*
FAZ.net (A. Platthaus) review* 
 
APUM.com (G. Hernandez) review*
EyeForFilm.co.uk (A. Wilkenson) review
Hollywood Reporter (B. van Hoeij) review
Variety (J. Weissenberg) review

FAZ.net (J. Schaaf) article about author Clemens Meyer*

As We Were Dreaming (orig. Als wir träumten) [2015] [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu] (directed by Andreas Dresen [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu], screenplay by Wolfgang Kohlhaase [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu], based on the novel [GR]*[WCat]*[Amzn]* by Clemens Meyer [en.wikip] [dt.wikip]*[GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a remarkable, insightful, even at times "Happy Days [1974-84]-like" (though also often darker) reminiscence of someone who grew-up in Leipzig, in East(ern) Germany in the pivotal years around the fall of the Berlin Wall and with it Germany's reunification. The film played recently at the 2015 (51st Annual) Chicago International Film Festival.

The story is told through a fictionalized character named Dani (played as a 13-y.o. by Chiron Elias Krase [IMDb] and then four years later (how much difference the passage of four years can make...) as an 17/18-y.o. by Merlin Rose [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu]).  Living with his mother (played by Melanie Straub [IMDb]) and growing-up in Leipzig along with his BFFs Rico, Mark, Pitbull and Paul (played as 13 y.o.s respectfully by Julius Nitschkoff [IMDb], Nico Ramon Kleemann [IMDb], Kilian Enzweiler [IMDb] and Henning Tadäus Beeck [IMDb]; and as 17-18 y.o. by Tom von Heymann [IMDb], Joel Basman [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu], Frederic Haselon [IMDb] and Marcel Heuperman [IMDb]) when the world, his / their world, had changed so dramatically, the story is about how it was to cope with such changes.

And then, let's remember, that this was ALSO the time of their ADOLESCENCE / GROWING TO MATURITY.  So at 13, Dani had a close friend (who perhaps in other circumstances "could have become more") named Katja (played by Luna Rösner [IMDb]) and at 17-18 there was another girl named Sternchen (played by Ruby O. Fee [IMDb] [FZ.de]*[CEu]), who he was interested in, but always seemed "just out of his reach."

So Communism / post-Communism and hormones.  That's what the story seeks to present.  Does it?  That's for the viewer to ultimately decide.

The story begins, of course, with Dani, et al, growing up in what was still the GDR (East Germany).  Interestingly, the whole Regime is presented in a heavily paternalistic (but not necessarily Evil) sort of a way.

The various outside authority figures School Principal Singer (played by Ronald Kukulies [IMDb]), teacher Regine Siedler [IMDb] and "Pioneer leader", the 'Pioneers' being the compulsory Communist equivalent of the Scouts (played by Roman Weltzein [IMDb]) were all kind, arguably sincere but certainly _present_ in their lives in a way that would make a lot of Americans / Westerners uncomfortable:

(1) After Rico, whose "GDR military officer" father had left his mother for "some hussy in Berlin", set-afire his red pioneer sash in the bathroom "in protest" (because he was angry at his dad ...), it was DANI (Rico's best friend), who had in present to "the incident", who was brought before a very paternalistic school disciplinary board made-up of said Principal, Teacher, adult "Pioneer Leader" and Katja (star-student and probably "teacher's pet") as "pioneer / student representative", and (1) asked for his thoughts and (2) was arguably "recruited" to "look-after" Rico "for Rico's own welfare."  The incident was presented in a very hokey, paternalistic way ... but the implication was that DANI was being recruited "by the Regime" at its most "grass-roots level" to spy on his friend. 

(2) At a Civil Defense drill, a GDR Colonel (played by Andreas Keller [IMDb]) present, tells the students the importance of "mitdenken" ("thinking along" / "thinking as a team" basically "thinking the same ...")

(3) And at a school assembly held in response to the growing _silent protests_ that were famously taking place in Leipzig in the fall of 1989, the ever kind, again probably TOTALLY SINCERE Principal, flanked by the School Teacher and the adult Pioneer Leader (the latter far more visibly upset at the happenings in the city than the kindly / concerned Principal), explained to the kids that the "irresponsible marchers'" _increasing numbers_ "might cause one of the town's bridges to collapse causing many injuries" explaining why the authorities had to BLOCK OFF the bridges to the protesters, again "for their own good" ;-).  Sigh ... how much the regime of the old Communist GDR "cared ..." 

The experience though of the years that followed Communism's collapse, however, appeared to be exactly the opposite.

Yes with freedom came the possibility of acting on one's own initiative.  And so the five friends from Leipzig (being 17-18 year-olds) created a "really cool underground disco" in an abandoned factory at the edge of town near where they all lived.  Almost certainly, they didn't have the paperwork to create it to begin with.  But that wasn't really the problem.  What was the problem was that they proved "too successful" ... and so they come onto the radar of "the local mob" which _uses_ the gang led by a local loser turned now into a "freshly shaved" skinheaded / neo-Nazi thug named Kehlmann (played by Gerdy Zint [IMDb]) to try to muscle-in on the action.  The above mentioned love-interest Sternchen seems to "flutter-about" this rather primal testosterone-(and not much else)-driven milieu.  Hence Dani and his group seem to her to be rather cool, until the others come around and seem to be even cooler, even if "coolness" comes to become defined by simple / brute street strength.



Then there are also the temptations to just drink / drug oneself "into a peace" (of sorts).  And certainly a number of the Dani's friends start to peel away in that direction.

But what then to do?  All people in normal circumstances face / have to manage similar choices / temptations as they "leave the (parental) nest."  But there is a point to be made: Maturity in the 21st century ought not to be defined by being able to simply defend oneself (and one's loved ones) in a 21st century jungle of concrete and steel against crooks / mobsters and newly arisen neo-Nazi skinheaded bottom-feeders.  There ought to be more.

In any case, the film / story makes for a quite thought / discussion provoking tale.  Good job!


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse [2015]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  ChicagoTribune (1 Star)  RogerEbert.com (1 Star)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (P. Sobczynski) review
AVClub (K. Rife) review  

Perhaps the most important thing that parents should know about Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse [2015] (directed by screenplay cowritten by Christopher Landon along with Emi Mochizuki, Carrie Evans and Lona Williams) is that the film deserves its R-rating: If you ever wanted to reflect on what a "zombie penis" could look like or "zombie breasts," well, this film does offer its rather _extended_ even (with the penis) _exhaustive_ "thoughts" on such matters ;-).

Yes, this is a dumb film.  But let's face it, most Zombie films are "not exactly" Citizen Kane [1941] (though amusingly Pride, Prejudice and Zombies [2016], based on the wildly popular, er, "adaptation";-) [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] of the celebrated Jane Austen novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] is coming out sometime in the coming year ;-).

Then there's the Hollywood message "to all the young people / families out there" that "Scouting is for nerds" while "Strippers are cool."  So "10, 12, 14 y.o. Jenny get into your stripper costume ... that's where your money will be..."

That said, let the Reader here simply understand this to be simply a dumb (and certainly appropriately R-rated) film, in which three high school nerds (played by Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan) team-up with a few years older, former h.s. drop-out (though having since earned her G.E.D.), now stripper (played by Sarah Dumont) to save their small California Central Valley town "on the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas" from a "zombie outbreak."   Yes, featured in the film are "zombie penises" and "zombie breasts" but also "zombie deer running in the woods" and "a zombie angry old lady with a house full of zombie cats." ;-)

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb ... but, folks, the film-makers here certainly never, ever had any intention of "shooting for" anything else.  And thus they created a really, really dumb (and often very crude...) film.  Is it "the Apocalypse"?  No ;-)  But it is ... (coming back to the word) ... dumb ;-)


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

Road to La Paz (orig. Camino a La Paz) [2015]

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

IMDb listing
FilmAffinity/es listing*
CineNational listing*

The Hollywood Reporter (J. Holland) review


Road to La Paz (orig. Camino a La Paz) [2015] [IMDb] [FAes]*[CN]* (written and directed by Francisco Varone [IMDb] [FAes]*[CN]*) is an Argentinian "odd couple" / "road movie" that played recently at the 2015 (51st Annual) Chicago International Film Festival.

Sebastián (played by Rodrigo De la Serna [IMDb] [FAes]* [CN]*) is introduced to us as a un(der)employed 20-something, approaching 30-something resident of Buenos Aires residing with a lovely/kind/already live-in "struggling actress" girlfriend Jazmín (played by Elisa Carricajo [IMDb] [FAes]* [CN]*) who'd really like to start a family and (gasp) get married.

Yes, the couple's "order of things" does drive many of us in my profession - a Catholic priest - to some distraction.  But as the recent Synod of Bishops (convoked by Argentine born Pope Francis I) noted, many young people all across the world see marriage today as essentially _confirming_ a stable life together that often enough they struggle for many years to achieve (2015 Synod of Bishops, Working Document, para. 80-85).  Now the Synod of Bishops has just met (Oct 2015), and its recommendations have not yet been published, let alone the Pope's final document (by-and-large but not necessarily taking their recommendations into account) on the matter.  However, it is noteworthy that the Bishops' working document recognized the problem.

Unable _to find_ a serious / dignified full-time job that could send him and his girlfriend in the direction that she was hoping for,  Sebastián decides to do what many young people all over the world have been doing in recent years in similar circumstances: He decides to _to create_ employment for himself out of his skills / resources he has at hand.  Basically, he had a cell phone and a small car that he inherited from his dad.  So he created a one-man "Über-like" service in Buenos Aires that he called "Magellan" (after the Spanish explorer who first circum-navigated the globe -- a rather "impressive vision"  indeed, born no doubt out of his (still) "youthful optimism" / humor.

Well, he does this for a couple of weeks, and it actually seems to bring in some decent money.  THEN, however, he gets "a special Call" ...

... from an elderly gentleman named Khalil (played by Ernesto Suárez [IMDb] [FAes]* [CN]*) who had hired him to take him on a random errand a few days previous.  Khalil now wanted to hire Sebastián to drive him to La Paz (in Bolivia !!).

Kahkil explains to him that his health is such that he could neither fly nor take the bus to make the journey and hence he needed someone like him, who he did understand to be something of a freelancer, to take him there.

Sebastián is, of course, taken aback.  Beyond the time / distance involved, he knew La Paz, Bolivia's capital city, though with a population of roughly a million people, was situated high up in the Andes Mountains (the city's elevation averaging at about 12,000 ft, making it the highest altitude capital in the world) and the roads getting there were probably going to be punishing for his very little (and ONLY) car (around which _he created_ his little but finally income producing job).  So he asks for a few days to think about it.

Of course, Sebastián decides to take the gig.  Both circumstances (bills to pay and Khalil was, in fact, offering significant and frankly appropriate monetary compensation) and, again, "youthful optimism" collude to inspire him to say "yes" to this "once in a life time" request.  And much ensues ...

I'm not going to write more about what all ensues, because I do hope that the film will find at least limited "in art theaters" / "on DVD/BlueRay" release.

As his name suggests, Khalil is, of course, an elderly Muslim.  What Khalil asks of Sebastián is to help him take "the first leg of his journey to Mecca" (Khalil, who is nearing his end, is setting-off on his Hajj, the "once in a lifetime" pilgrimage that all Muslims are to make to Mecca.  He tells Sebastián that he has a similarly elderly brother in La Paz and together then, they are going to go from La Paz Bolivia, down to Lima, Peru (by some kind of truck, his brother has all that arranged) and then BY SHIP to Mecca.  Khalil simply needs Sebastián to take him as far as La Paz.  But even that "first leg" to "La Paz" (which OF COURSE in Spanish means "PEACE" (!!)) is one heck of a journey.  And so ... the film ...

Now one remarkable thing about this film is, of course, that it is an ARGENTINIAN film about an elderly Muslim teaching a young (presumably Catholic) Argentinian a little about the Muslim faith.  So the presentation in the film is _quite different_ and certainly more "baggage free" than it would be if the film was made in the United States.  As such, viewers get to appreciate why someone would want to be a Muslim, and indeed, why Khalil, again an elderly person who lived his whole life as a Muslim, WOULD BE PROUD TO BE SO.

It's a lovely, lovely film about a journey "toward peace" that would certainly be unforgettable for anyone who took it.  As a minor spoiler alert, and only because a fair amount of WESTERN viewers would probably refuse to watch it otherwise,  NO, Sebastián DOES NOT become a Muslim by the end of the film.  But he certainly learns a lot more about Muslims as a result of his journey with Khalil and will certainly TREAT MUSLIMS (and their faith) with far greater kindness / knowledge afterwards.

An excellent film!


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

Sparrows [2015]

MPAA (UR would be R)   Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CinEuropa.org listing

APUM.com (E. Luna) review*
CinEuropa.org (A. Rivera) review
Kino-Zeit.de (L. Barwenczik) review*
The Hollywood Reporter (J. Mintzer) review
Variety (G. Lodge) review

Sparrows [2015] [IMDb] [CEu] (written and directed by Rúnar Rúnarsson [IMDb] [CEu]) is a coming of age drama from Iceland / Denmark which played recently at the 2015 (51st Annual) Chicago International Film Festival.

Ari (played by Atli Oskar Fjalarsson [IMDb] [CEu]) is a 15-year old, introduced to us literally as "a choir boy" singing with a choir in a church in Reykjavik, was born to Icelandic parents from a small fishing village somewhere in northwestern Iceland.  Since his parents' divorce, he had been living with his mother in Reykjavik.  But now mom was recently remarried (apparently to "some exciting / worldly city slicker" Dane ;-) and she with her new Danish hubby were flying-out "for some time" (how long? months certainly, but one gets the sense "longer"...) as "part of some NGO" to "Africa."  So, perhaps with some regrets, mom was putting Ari on a plane and sending him "back to his dad" in said "small fishing village" in northwestern Iceland.

Ari _does not want to go_, but at 15, LIVING ON A ROCK in the middle of the freakin' North Atlantic where, once one gets out of Reykjavik there really do seem to be as many "seals and birds" as there are _people_ around, he really does not have much of a choice.  Besides mom reminds him: "Grandma's really looking forward to seeing you again."

And it's true Grandma (played wonderfully by Kristbjörg Kjeld [IMDb]) is, well, grandma, who _is_ happy as pie to see him, as he is honestly quite happy to see her.  It's dad, Gunner (played again wonderfully, with all his complexity / failings in "good ole boy" fashion by Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson [IMDb] [CEu]) that he'd prefer not to see.

It's not that Gunner's been violent or otherwise inappropriate with him (though he _is_ a drunk).  It's simply that to Ari, Gunner's been basically "a loser," "stuck in the mud" back in the fishing village where he was born, while mom, first dumped him, and now was remarried with this far more exciting guy (did I mention that he was "Danish, from the Continent ...") literally "high flying with him" somewhere "in Africa."

But there Ari is, "stuck" now with dad ... and grandma with her heart of gold who's trying SO HARD to make things work ... and ... then ... Grandma dies.

What now?

What a great (if certainly R-rated, "redneck" / "country folk") story.  And yes, while this would be a mild spoiler alert, Ari finds a way to come to understand, love and forgive his dad.

Honestly, a great story even if the film-makers certainly don't spare "choir boy" Ari (or us, the viewers) some very difficult and certainly morally challenging situations.  Life is not exactly "a Rose Garden."  But it is certainly _not_ boring.


* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>

You Can't Save Yourself Alone (orig. Nessuno si salva da solo) [2015]

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

IMDb listing
FilmTV.it listing*

Corriere de la Sera (M. Porro) review*
La Repubblica (C. De Gregorio) review*


You Can't Save Yourself Alone (orig. Nessuno si salva da solo) [2015] [IMDb] [FT.it]* (directed by Sergio Castellitto [IMDb] [FT.it]*, screenplay by Margaret Mazzantini [en.wikip] [it.wikip]*[GR]*[WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] , based her the novel by the same name [GR]*[WCat]*[Amzn]*) is a well acted / well crafted Italian divorce drama that played recently at the 2015 (51st Annual) Chicago International Film Festival.

Delia (played by Jasmine Trinca [IMDb] [FT.it]*) and Gaetano (played by Riccardo Scamarcio [IMDb] [FT.it]*) meet in an outdoor Roman bistro.  They're both "dressed to the nines "("bella figura, you know ...;-), 'cept they're not smiling, 'cause this is _not_ a date.  Recently having begun the process of divorcing, they're meeting to arrange how they're going to divide-up time with the kids during the upcoming summer.

Gaetano, clearly the more gregarious and outwardly happier or the two, didn't seem understand what Delia's fuss was about. "Just tell me when you want to send the boys over to me - for two weeks, right? - and we'll make do."  But Delia didn't see things _nearly_ so "simply." She had spent the previous Sunday morning in the sun, when everything all around them was was closed, waiting with their two boys at a prearranged street corner "down the hill" from their apartment for Gaetano to show-up to pick-up the boys, and he never showed.

What happened?  Well, "work" happened - Gaetano was a screenwriter, well paid (perhaps), successful (perhaps), but (apparently for years now) not exactly reliable "at home."  When his director/producer boss from the studio called, even on a Sunday morning, to "bring in everybody" for a "brain storming session" that really could have been done at ANY TIME but HE, "the boss," wanted / "needed" to do it NOW, Gaetano had "to jump" (did I mention that Gaetano was "well paid" ...?)  So after Delia (did I mention that they were divorcing ...?) had to stand there on a random if prearranged street corner FOR TWO HOURS with the sun beating down on them and, inevitably, one the kids having to go to the bathroom (WHERE? EVERYTHING WAS CLOSED ...) waiting for Gaetano to FINALLY "show up" ... Delia wanted to make sure that "the summer was going to go ... well." Sigh.


"%$!S! you know my boss is an A-hole!"  "Yes, I know he's an a-hole.  But I was there standing with your two kids, a street corner for two hours, with one of the kids needing to go to the bathroom.  [And let's face it, this is not the ONLY time when something like this -- okay, always somewhat different, but STILL something similar to this -- happened ...]"

The bulk of the 2/3 of the movie were then flashbacks to help us viewers understand how the two met, fell in love, had a family, mostly a happy one, and then, eventually, came to this point.

Gaetano, unsurprisingly, was always the more gregarious / "happier" one.  In his 20s, he was still "in forma" something of an athlete.  Delia, a child of divorce herself, with a quite attractive / rather gregarious mother (played in the film by Anna Galiena [IMDb] [FT.it]*) was always quieter, more reserved, and yes, tended to expect things to go more "badly" than many / most of the people around her.   The two met "at a gym," where Delia worked as a carb / calorie counting (sports) nutritionist. 

Opposites do attract.  Gaetano who probably "could have found himself happy with anybody" (which actually of course "becomes a problem ..."), actually found Delia's seriousness / reservedness "refreshing" in comparison to the "happy, happy, happy" ever-smiling ethos of most of the people around him, including HIS ever-smiling, life-long, happily married parents (played by Marina Rocco [IMDb] [FT.it]* and Massimo Bonetti [IMDb] [FT.it]*)   And for Delia, Gaetano was actually "kinda a catch" ... an attractive, ever-smiling, screenwriter, who "could have found anybody" but chose her.  What could go wrong?

Well much of course ensues ... It becomes clear that as time when on the "oppositeness" of their approaches to life started to wear thin and both became ever-more entrenched in the rightness of their perspectives.  What's there to hold a commitment together when one becomes increasingly convinced that one doesn't have anything left to learn from an/the Other?

That question, of course, sets one's attention to the title of the film.

The story does take a somewhat mystical turn, when Delia and Gaetano, having finished their dinner (and thankfully NOT having killed each other...) share a few words with an older couple that had been having dinner a few tables down from them.  The older couple had been there celebrating a "big numbed anniversary" (perhaps their 40th).  At the end of their somewhat brief conversation, where the two had already been reminded of a dinner they will never share together, the elderly man asks them: "Pray for me" (He was not well, expecting in the coming days to go to the doctor's, and not expecting particularly "good news.").

And the two were reminded of something else: Not only did they not necessarily have a place for each other in their lives anymore, they NEVER really had a place (NEITHER OF THEM) ... for God.

But ... "life goes on" ... sort of, why? to what end? and for how much longer?

A great, generally smiling, thought provoking film that "gives a punch" at the end :-)   Good job! ;-)
 

* Foreign language webpages are most easily translated using 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! :-) >>