Avalanche (orig. Bahman) [2015]

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

IMDb listing
Cinando.com listing
SourehCinema.com listing*

Fars News Agency article*
TasmimNews.com article*

MehrNews.com interview w. director*
TahlilPress.ir interview w. director*

Film-Magazine.com (M. Jfryrad) review*
SalamCinema.ir (R. Farokhi) review*
SalamCinema.ir (S. Mostafaei) review*

SalamCinema.ir listing / viewer comments*

Keeping It Reel (D.J. Fowlie) review


Avalanche (orig. Bahman) [2015] [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]* (written and directed by Morteza Farshbaf [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]*) is a fairly simple yet as always, poignant, at least partly allegorical and for the Westerner, informative, Iranian film that opened the recent 26th Annual Chicago Festival of Films from Iran being held at the Gene Siskel Film Center here in Chicago over the course of February.

The film is about Homa (played in the film by Fatemah Motamed-Aria [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]), a nurse in her mid-50s, who lives in a fairly nice duplex with her husband Ahmad (played by Ahmad Hamed [IMDb] [SC]) in an upper-middle class section / suburb of Tehran.

It's winter.  When Ahmad picks her up at the end of her shift, or perhaps she was shopping, it has already been snowing for some time, AND IT DOES NOT STOP, SNOWING, THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM.

Ahmad is all smiles at Homa enters the car.  A writer, who hasn't been writing for some time (why, is unclear...), recently he's started writing again.  Further, he's succeeded in unloading (finally selling) a ton of olive oil, which the two had apparently bought as part of some sort of a speculation scheme and had been stuck with, without a buyer (who could pay), for some time.  Readers remember here that Iran's been under fairly severe economic sanctions for some time.  These kind of schemes of buying / stocking-up / selling commodities as hedges against the relative worthlessness / unreliability of currency become reasonable, even common, in such situations.  Stocking-up on olive oil in a culture like Iran's -- people use it for cooking, AND CAN EVEN USE IT FOR LIGHTING (if it came down to it ...) -- would have seemed like "a good bet." 'Cept you still need buyers able ... to pay.

Homa, in contrast, is not ... "all smiles."  She's been asked by her boss, to take take the night shift for the next ten days at a hospital, now really at the outer edges of Tehran, to look after his ill / dying mother (played by Shirri Yazdanbakhsh [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]) who's a patient there while _he_ is out-of-town to deal with another family emergency -- his daughter had apparently been in a severe accident somewhere, "outside," presumably (outside of Iran...) in the West.

Working the night shift is never fun, but now it's snowing.  So each night she has to drive to-and-from work at this hospital "at the edge of town", in awful traffic, slowed-up even more due to the terrible / unrelenting snow.

Now Readers note here that despite Western perceptions, Iran has actually always (even under the current Islamic regime ...) been a relatively "moderate Islamic country."  So women in Iran _can_ drive, get university degrees and hold professional jobs.  Homa does / has all three.  That she was picked-up by her husband at the beginning of the story was _not_ because she wasn't allowed to drive, but rather because SHE had a steady job while HER HUSBAND (until recently) did not, and instead spent much of his time running errands while SHE worked.

Then, besides the awful hours / bad snow, she's dealing with several other irritations at home:

(1) Thanks be to God / Allah, Homa's husband's finally working (writing) again (and sold that "stupid olive oil") ... And remember, this was Iran, an Islamic country, where its relative "moderation" notwithstanding (see immediately above), MEN are supposed to be doing MOST THINGS and women are "oppressed" NOT ALLOWED TO DO MUCH.  Yet SHE'S actually been the one holding down a steady / meaningful job, keeping the family afloat, while her ever smiling, gregarious husband did ... what exactly did he do all those years? Apparently, he pretended that was some sort of a "Sinbad the Sailor" "Merchant" from "Silk Road" days ... "buying and selling" ... "olive oil" ... A TON OF WHICH apparently sat, FOR A LONG TIME, in a barrel in some storage space somewhere ;-/.

(2) She's been left taking care of "the stuff" left by her equally "happy-go-lucky" but _stupid_ / certainly immature, 20-30 something son, notably HIS (once) "beloved" dog named "Bobby."  Where's the son?  Apparently, after years of living in some apartment somewhere "closer to downtown Tehran" with "a friend" (played by Amir Nasiriunique [IMDb] [Cin] [SC]) WHO WAS ARGUABLY _A GAY LOVER_ ;-), he had recently "picked-up sticks" and left Iran for the West.  We see, briefly, Homa's son calling home by means of a skype-call.  And after "talking to mom," he wanted to "talk to his dog ..." ;-/.   Later mom, had to deal with her son's former "friend", who came by (while poor Homa just wanted to sleep ...) to go through / take back some of his "stuff" that her son / his former "friend" had left behind...

Finally (3) as "(bad) luck would have it," a new set of neighbors moved next door, and the wife was "a piano teacher."  So pretty much ALL DAY, EVERYDAY the sounds coming "from next door" were the awful sounds of very average, often quite _lousy_ students taking "piano lessons."

So each morning Homa comes home after working the night shift at a hospital "at the far edge of town" taking care of the quite irritable / ungrateful, elderly / unwell mother of her boss (who's "away"). And after driving through terrible traffic in a snowstorm that _does not seem to end_, she comes home to a house with a barking dog (left there by her son ... who's again "away").  And then ALL DAY she hears ALL the MISSED KEYS of her neighbor's WILL-NEVER-BE-MOZART "piano students." ;-)

It all "kinda feels like an avalanche" waiting to happen ...

When will it end? ;-)

And can one relate?  ... SURE ;-)


This was another quite excellent, if _small_ film coming from Iran, which reminds us in the West of Iran's artistic community's OBVIOUS talents / capabilities.  And one honestly wishes _the best_ for that OBVIOUSLY talented community and it's, again obviously, QUITE CULTURED PEOPLE.

Iran / Persia has at least a 3,000 year cultural history.  And despite everything else that may be happening in the world, films / film festivals like this one held here annually at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago do remind us of this.   Excellent 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! :-) >>

The Choice [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
ChicagoTribune () review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  


The Choice [2016] (directed by Ross Katz, screenplay by Bryan Sipe based on the novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Nicholas Sparks [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a _nice_, very well made, at times even _somewhat_ "thought provoking" (yet in an ever "safe" sort of way) contemporary romantic drama, that _plenty_ of 20-something American couples (looking for something to do / somewhere to go) will definitely appreciate come Valentine's Day.   After all, this is certainly _not_ writer / producer Nicholas Sparks' "first rodeo" [IMDb].  He knows what he's doing, and he does it very, very well.

As such, cinephiles looking for something "new" will probably leave disappointed.  But couples on a first or second date, just looking for something _safe_ to do will probably leave relieved ;-) -- (I was once "there" too ;-).

The story, set in a sea-side town somewhere in North Carolina -- I do like Sparks' setting of many of his romances "in the South" as in a polarized country like the United States is today, he reminds us that we could "get along" (quite nicely, in fact) if we chose to -- is a grand romance between two very attractive if at least initially quite different people:

Travis (played by Benjamin Walker) is a popular (late 20s-something) hometown boy.  Gabrielle "Gabby" (played by Teresa Palmer) is a recently arriving (from a fairly wealthy family in Charleston, SC), again, later-20-something, "Resident" at a local hospital.  She moves in (presumably rents) the sea-side house next to Travis'.  Yet, if at first sight, Travis may seemed like a rather loud local "good ole boy," Gabby (as well as Viewers) soon learn that Travis is no Neanderthal.  It turns out that he's a vet(erinarian) and so ... "a doctor" if perhaps "of another kind."

With this "filling-in" of  Travis' "CV" it's "game on" ... and much, often quite lovely / beautiful ensues.

My ONLY COMPLAINT with the film is that BOTH of the principal protagonists are _so absurdly attractive_ (physically, socially, economically, professionally) that the vast majority of Viewers would realize, if they thought about it at all, that the two protagonists don't really "belong to this world."  And while it could be said that "Travis" and "Gabby" are fictional characters and hence, _by definition_ are "not real" (not "of this world"); there are fictional characters created by other authors in other works that are drawn in ways that more correspond to Readers' / Viewers' realities.  Instead, the two protagonists here are clearly "Ideals" (belonging to some extent to the universe of Archetypes or perhaps even better belonging to the universe of "Platonic Forms").  

Yet, perhaps because they _are_ Ideals / Platonic Forms largely expressing  the _essences_ of "the young, attractive Male and Female" of our time, WE CAN STILL RELATE TO THEM (in our minds / imaginations) and then relate to their various trials / tribulations in the story.

As such, it is truly is "a mind game" that we're asked to play as we watch this film ;-).  It's not necessarily a bad one, indeed, a quite enjoyable one.  And it's not necessarily even a bad one for a couple to play together on a date.  It's just that it isn't real, 'cept in that universe of "Platonic Ideals" as almost NO ONE is that attractive, that socially capable, that happily economically "unworried" as the characters of this story are.

And yet, "Wouldn't it be nice?" ;-)

Again, it's not an altogether bad "date movie" for (fast approaching) Valentine's Day ;-)  Just do realize that "it's not real" ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>

Hail, Caesar! [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L)  ChicagoTribune (2 1/2 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Hail, Caesar! [2016] (written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen [wikip]) is a generally gentle modern-day "screwball comedy" about / send-up of early 1950s era Hollywood:

Good-guy (and Confession-going / rosary-carrying and perhaps rosary-praying Catholic) MGM-like studio exec Eddie Mannix (played quite wonderfully by Josh Brolin) is being tempted to take a much simpler / better paying job for Lockheed, a growing nearby defense contractor.   Shown by Lockheed's recruiter / "headhunter" (played by Ian Blackman) a photograph of one of the ENORMOUS hydrogen bomb explosions conducted at the Bikini Atoll at the time, he's told that he could put aside "circuses" ("childish things" cf. 1 Cor 13:11) and concern himself with "building the future" -- presumably weapons of truly Awesome destruction.

And it was true, Eddie Mannix' current job was managing a "circus" full of odd/difficult people from actors to directors to gossip columnists to clergy.

The latter, the clergy, were actually portrayed quite well.  Sure they were portrayed as being somewhat "provincial" about faith, convinced of course of the fundamental superiority of their faith over others' BUT THEY WEREN'T "MEAN" ABOUT IT.  They were simply who they were, and shrugged, perhaps with some disappointment, that others were not necessarily like them ... America ;-) ... But their lives / presumably their faith(s) went on.  CERTAINLY MANNIX' DID and in the Confessional, which he did frequent quite often, he did come to ask some fairly profound questions about the choices before him.

Further, Mannix received honestly some very good counsel from his sometimes mildly irritated Confessor (played by Robert Pike Daniel).  Among his wise words to Mannix was the reminder that as tempting as "the easy path" could be, it is not necessarily "the best path" (cf. Mt 7:13-14).  The reason for the Confessor's advice is perhaps more Coen Brothers' inspired but nevertheless a very good one: The Confessor reminds both Mannix (and the Audience) that Mannix was a fundamentally GOOD GUY / a DECENT MAN (in all its dimensions) in a business _that needed_ GOOD / DECENT PEOPLE to both _set an example_ and _to help others_ out of the messes perhaps that they found themselves in.  And honestly, MY HAT OFF TO THE COEN BROTHERS HERE !  THIS WAS A _WONDERFUL_ AND _KIND_ INSIGHT.

And there were PLENTY OF OTHERS (insights), BIG and small, OFTEN VERY, VERY FUNNY ;-) throughout the film:

Among the funniest honestly was that regarding "THE MALIBU COMMUNISTS" ;-) ... a "cell" of quite comfortably "Red" Hollywood screen-writers who were ALSO convinced that THEY were "The Future."  They were led by a "very intellectual looking" Econ, History and/or PolySci professor (played by John Bluthal) who'd "drive down from Stanford" to advise them ;-).  They'd meet at an "out of the way" PALATIAL CLIFF-SIDE BEACH HOUSE that honestly could have served as a lair for a Bond and/or Marvel Comics villain ;-) where they'd study, well, Communism, and then support each other in airing their grievances.

What were their grievances?  Well, mostly that they weren't being given enough credit (and money ;-) for their work.  They'd also complain that they were being "manipulated" by "the owners of the means of production" ("Evil" bankers/financiers "back in New York").

And then, as a clique of "the smart kids in the class" they'd "plot" various insidious ways to put _random bits_ of "social awareness arousing material" into their screenplays that would SOMEHOW "undermine the Man."   Yes, sipping cognac, seated in comfortable, "strong lined" / minimalist Scandinavian designed couches / chairs that were becoming "the-rage" at the time, in the "huge-yet-homey" OCEAN-facing / glass-exterior-walled meeting room of this PALATIAL Frank Lloyd Wright styled beach-side MANSION where they met, they waxed WITH PRIDE about the "bits of Communism" that they were able to "sneak into their screenplays" and how ANGRY the red-faced, veins-popping-all-over-their-heads, McCarthyists back in Washington were as they struggled to "expose" them ;-).

As part of a new even more radical "direct action" campaign, these "Malibu Communists" decided to kidnap for ransom one of Mannix' biggest stars -- Baird Whitlock (played magnificently by George Clooney) an impressive-looking if not altogether bright Charlton Heston [IMDb]-like actor who was playing a Roman centurion in a Ben Hur [1959] / Quo Vadis [1951] like production at the time.  

Having received a ransom note from this self-styled / quite comfortable "Communist clique", signed ominously "The Future", Mannix asks, somewhat rhetorically, a happy-go-lucky "singing cowboy" actor named Hobie Doyle (played wonderfully by Alden Ehrenreich), "Who could have done such a thing?"

... Hobie was in his office for another problem: The Studio had wanted to change / deepen his "image" and hence wanted him to move from "b-westerns," where he had been _a natural_ to somehow star in a very elegant Rock Hudson [IMDb] / Tony Curtis [IMDb]-like New York set romantic comedy directed by a very prim-and-proper Laurence Olivier [IMDb]-like auteur named, well, Laurence Laurentz (played again magnificently by Ralph Fiennes ;-).  Readers please understand that Hobie's been born-and-raised "in the sticks" and has been SITTING ON A HORSE pretty much since birth ;-).  So it proves next to IMPOSSIBLE for him to, dressed-to-the-nines, "mosey-on-in" ELEGANTLY, "champagne glass in-hand," into a 1950s-era New York black-tie dinner party ;-) ...

Hobey answers Mannix (quite correctly) off the top of his head: "Look into the extras" (who like the nefarious screenwriters, were also poorly paid, and almost entirely anonymous ;-).

With that insight, Mannix begins to understand what kind of "problem" he's dealing with and the best way to "fix" it.  So he asks the studio's accountant on-hand for $100,000 "from petty cash" ;-), puts it in his brief case and then enlists another not particularly bright but generally reliable actor, here a singing, frolicking, tap-dancing looker, presently playing in a South Pacific [1958]-like "sailor picture" ;-) named Burt Gurney (played by Channing Tatum), to serve as "bagman" to bring the ransom money to the kidnappers.

In the meantime, Mannix has another problem to resolve quietly: His swimming Esther Williams [IMDb]-like actress DeeAnna Moran (played once again to the tee by an ever smiling Scarlett Johansson) finds herself knocked-up and becoming increasingly uncomfortable in her mermaid costume ;-), and yet marriage with the father would prove ... "complicated."  The solution that Mannix (and the Studio's "legal department") first come up with, and how this subplot resolves itself, is 1950s-appropriate and actually _quite kinder_ than today.

In the midst of all of this, snoop twin sisters / rival gossip columnists Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both played by Tilda Swinton) whose "success" seems to depend on digging-up / reporting-on the failures / failings of others.  Hence, like the "head-hunter" from Lockhead or the cognac sipping "oppressed" Communists of Malibu, they are _not_ portrayed well in this film.

Instead, the good-guys are Mannix and then actors / other folks working in the studio, trying to give their Audiences something inspirational (YES OFTEN HOKEY) to aspire to.

Hence, when Baird Whitlock comes back, somewhat "Patty Hearst-like" (after having been "kidnapped" for less than 24 hours ;-), and is actually already spouting some of the Communist rhetoric he heard (again AFTER LESS THAN 24 HOURS OF "CAPTIVITY" -- IN A MALIBU BEACH HOUSE :-), Mannix feels compelled to JUST SLAP HIM out of it, giving him a pep-talk: "Now just SHUT-UP and GO OUT THERE (on Stage) AND BE THE STAR THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE" (Reminding HIM and VIEWERS/READERS HERE that simply being "a Star" necessarily involves acting as well ;-)

So Whitlock, goes out there on the studio stage for his big scene.  Remember, he's playing a Centurion, THE Centurion in the story of Jesus.  So there, with Jesus nailed to the Cross, he has a speech.  In the Bible he just says: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mk 15:39, Mt 27:54) or "Truly this was an innocent man" (Lk 23:47).

But this was 1950s Hollywood ;-).  SO the script EXPANDS the Centurion's speech....

The expansion is NOT ALTOGETHER BAD (theologically or otherwise) and the sincere if not altogether bright Charlton Heston-like Baird Whitlock (played in the film by the ever impressive/imposing George Clooney) hits the notes very, very well ... until ... <sigh>.

... his flubbing-of-the-climax will be, no doubt, "fixed" in a "second take." ;-)

HOW LUCKY WE ARE that we're ALL allowed "SECOND TAKES" in our own lives by our loved ones (and then, certainly / we hope by God).

And HONESTLY, how this world NEEDS GOOD / DECENT PEOPLE like the Eddie Mannix of this film: who seek advice, seek to not to offend, try to keep people on track, and SEARCH FOR THEM / HELP THEM when they fall. 

This is honestly _one heck of a film_, and certainly _a praise of common decency_.  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! :-) >>

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies [2016]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Pride and Prejudice and Zombies [2016] (directed and screenplay by Burr Steers based the "Quirk Classics" novel [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Jane Austen [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and Seth Grahame-Smith [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]] [IMDb]) will certainly have its fans and it does have its moments.

For many, the story's premise alone -- which mixes the principal preoccupation of the Bennett sisters of Jane Austen's celebrated "regency era" novel Pride and Prejudice [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] of "finding good husbands" for themselves with a _zombie plague_ -- will be compelling enough to search-out the zombies-added book / see the movie ;-).

Indeed, a good amount of the already quite imaginative / often famously funny "verbal sparring" that takes place between the characters in Jane Austen's original novel is re-imagined here to play-out in the context of _actual sparring_ and/or _combat_ ;-).  For Mr Bennett [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Charles Dance), being the wise / good father that he was, had all five of his daughters trained in the martial arts so that they could defend themselves should they be attacked by zombies ;-).  There's even a particularly biting exchange between the quick witted, never-to-be-taken-for-granted Elizabeth Bennett [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this film by Lily James) and the ever seemingly standoffish Mr Darcy [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this film by Sam Riley) who seemed always to be more focused on his work -- here killing zombies ;-) -- than on people.  The said exchange, of course, takes place in the midst of each hacking-to-pieces a bunch of attacking zombies even as they make the point to each other that they ... well ... don't much like each other ;-).  And so it goes ...

My sadness with this story / film is that it didn't go far enough. The zombies in this story / film always remained outsiders.  I think that the story would have become far more interesting if a number of the major characters turned into zombies themselves.

The story comes close several times:  Elizabeth's ever sweet older sister Jane Bennett [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this film by Bella Heathcote) does have an altercation with zombies in the woods as she heads over to see her beau Mr. Bingley [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Douglas Booth)  When she arrives, she's been wounded / feverish.  BUT ... the story's creators didn't have the courage to make her explicitly into a zombie.   Similarly Mr. Bingley, had an altercation which _could suggest_ that he too _could have been bitten by a zombie_ BUT ... again the story's creators didn't seem to have the courage to make it so.  Finally, there's even a hint that Mrs Bennett [wikip] [IMDb] (played by Sally Phillips) could be turning into a zombie (and those who know something of Jane Austen's original novel, would certainly find it amusing if she did ;-).  BUT again, the creators here didn't have the courage to do so. ;-/

Compare this with the zombie in Warm Bodies [2013] named (all he remembers is) R ... who falls in love with a still human girl named Julie (that film even features a "balcony scene" ;-), or Maggie [2015] the Arnold Schwarzenegger starring tear-jerky father-daughter zombie-Apocalypse drama in which Schwarzenegger's character's beloved "junior in high school aged" daughter, Maggie, was slowly, inexorably turning into a zombie, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it (one reviewer even called that film "The Fault in our Scars" ;-).

Talk about the statement about PRIDE and PREJUDICE that the current story could have made if the beautiful / kind Jane Bennett and perhaps even her really nice guy of a beau Mr. Bingley had become zombies ...

Sigh ... but at least we get to watch _a lot_ of zombies being splattered here ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Son of Saul (orig Saul Fia) [2015]

MPAA (R)  Chicago Tribune (4 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (A-)  Fr. Dennis (4+ Stars)

IMDb listing
CinEuropa.org listing
Port.hu listing*

FilmHu (R. Győr-Nádai) review*
Jewish Journal (N. Pfefferman) review
NY Jewish Week (G. Robinson ) review
CinEuropa.org (D. LaPorta) review

APUM.com (A. Sáez) review*
aVoir-aLire.fr (G. Lauradour) review*

CNS/USCCB () review
Chicago Tribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review

Eye For Film (A. Wilkenson) review
Sight & Sound (N. James) review

Jewish Journal (N. Pfefferman) conversation w. film's makers / Auschwitz survivor


Son of Saul [2015] (orig. Saul Fia) [IMDb] [CEu] [Pt.hu]*(directed and cowritten written by László Nemes [IMDb] [CEu] [Pt.hu]* along with Clara Royer [IMDb] [CEu] [Pt.hu]*) is a Hungarian Holocaust-themed film that's been nominated for and certainly would deserve to win the award for the Best Foreign Language Picture at the Oscars this year.

Evoking the focused / closed even claustrophobic aesthetics of Soviet GULAG survivor Alexander Solzhenitzin's [wikip] A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], the current story focuses on "a day in the life of" a single Hungarian Jewish prisoner, Saul Ausländer (played magnificently by Géza Röhrig [IMDb] [CEu] [Pt.hu]*) at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp in late-1944.

Saul is _both_ UTTERLY RANDOM _and_ "RANDOMLY SPECIAL": A big blood red "X" on the back of his black-and-grey prisoner's uniform, marks that he's been "passed over" [cf. Ex 12:7] at least temporarily from immediate death.  Instead along with a squad of other _randomly_ "chosen" Jewish prisoners, he's been given the Mephistophelian "job" of rapidly "processing" (removing) the bodies / belongings of the far-less "lucky" recently arrived / gassed Jewish prisoners, prisoners who were arriving, day-and-night, 24/7, by the train-load, in the last months of the Camp's operation ... OFTEN FROM HUNGARY. 

Now on this random day, "a day like any other day" ... in AUSCHWITZ ..., something happens that's somewhat remarkable.  As Saul and his fellow "X-marked" Sonderncommandos (special unit of prisoners) enter the chamber of recently gassed Jewish arrivals to remove the bodies and hose-down / scrub the walls / floors of the blood / excrement left by the said utterly desperate / terrified arrivals in the last moments of their lives, to their amazement they find among the bodies (who the Nazi overseers simply called "stücke" or "pieces") a boy, perhaps 12-13, still weakly gasping / breathing.

Briefly "lucky", the Nazis quickly dispatch the boy ANYWAY (by suffocating him) BUT order that he be "autopsied" AND Saul gets it in his head that this boy, 12-13 when he died, COULD HAVE BEEN HIS SON.  He runs around trying to grab at the id-papers left among the rapidly being processed / removed / disposed-of belongings of those who had died in the chamber with the boy trying to rapidly ascertain if they had arrived from Hungary.  AND he asks the doctor, also a Jewish prisoner, assigned to do the Nazi autopsy, if he could "hide" the body of the boy, if for a while, because he would like to bury it.

The doctor, perhaps even slightly sympathetic but (like the others) mostly in a depressive / zombie-like "zone", tells Saul that he'd have to replace the boy's body with another boy's body and that it'd almost certainly be "found-out" in some way.  After all, that 12-13 year-old boy had again been "slightly special" in some way ... he survived _at least A LITTLE BIT LONGER_ the effects of the Zyclon-B gas that KILLED the rest, while ANOTHER 12-13 year-old boy who simply died of the gas would NO LONGER be (ever so slightly) "special."

Nevertheless, Saul spends much of the remaining day IN THE MIDST of his "regular work" (helping to remove the bodies / belongings of OTHER recently arrived / gassed Jewish prisoners) to (1) find a Rabbi to perform the Kaddish (the Jewish burial rite) for the boy, THIS BOY and (2) if he got the Rabbi and took him to the boy, presumably to quickly find the body of _some other dead boy_ to replace _this one_ so that he could bury him.

In the midst of Saul's little self-initiated mission (in the midst of the HELL of Auschwitz...), amidst rumors that the Nazis were soon going to "cull" / kill a good number of the current Sonderncommandoes (to replace them with new ones), the current ones were planning a desperate uprising / escape.  Among them, about 70, they were able, in one way other other, to get a hold of seven (!) guns.  But who could shoot them?  Apparently SAUL was one of the better prospects.  But now he's "distracted" by his "little mission" to bury this little 12-13 year-old boy.

And in the midst of trying to get the only rabbi that he knows (one of the other Sonderncommandoes) to the body of the boy, while each is being ordered about, quite randomly but forcefully by ever-about SS guards, while others are trying to mount this desperate uprising / escape against said guards, THE AWFUL BANGING / FIRES / MACHINERY of the INDUSTRIAL OPERATION that AUSCHWITZ was RELENTLESSLY BANGING ON ... and ON ... and ON.

Much of this film -- thankfully only about 90 minutes long -- becomes about Saul (and the other prisoners) trying to make at least SOME KIND OF A STAND against the HORROR _BANGING_ all around them: Does one FIGHT?  Or at least try to "bury the kid"?  DO _EITHER_ MAKE ANY SENSE?

One gets the sense that MANY of these prisoners KNEW that their actions MATTERED but also FEARED (perhaps rightly) that their actions / "options" ALSO _DIDN'T MATTER AT ALL_.

They were both _random_ and at least temporarily "randomly special" and the TRAINS KEPT COMING and the OVENS KEPT BURNING and they had but seven guns and even LESS people who could use them.  DID IT MATTER / WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MATTER in the face of this HORROR?

One heck of a 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! :-) >>

Kung Fu Panda 3 [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

China Daily Europe (Xu Fan) article
China Daily USA (Ami He) article
Shanghai Daily (Xinhua) article 

CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review  


Kung Fu Panda 3 [2016] (directed by Alessandro Carloni and Jennifer Yuh, screenplay by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger) continue to develop the already wildly successful (world wide) / family friendly Kung Fu Panda franchise.

The current film, a collaboration of the franchise's creator DreamWorks Animation along with its recently created sister company Oriental DreamWorks and the Shanghai based China Film Co. promises even more to detail than the previous two films.  For instance, the "Shangri-la" like "panda village" to which Po (still voiced by Jack Black) is taken by his long lost father Li (voiced by Bryan Cranston) after they are reunited in the current installment, is modeled after the temples and topography around Mount Qingcheng [zh.wikip]*[ja.wikip]*[en.wikip] (in central Sichuan Province) both a traditional center for Taoist spirituality and a famous sanctuary for giant pandas today.

Indeed, the attention to such detail makes this series both a nice and fun tool for families to learn about traditional Chinese culture and spirituality.  As I wrote in my review of the previous installment Kung Fu Panda 2 [2011], there are quite a few similarities between Eastern and Christian spirituality including the admonition to not judge by appearance [cf. 1 Sam 16:7], and that "many who are first shall be last and the last shall be first" [Mt 19:30].

As a "homework assignment," I'd encourage families / kids to look-up the Chinese cultural symbolism [wikip] [kfp-wiki] of the various animals depicted in the film (and compare it to one's own).  For all of the animals depicted -- from the Panda (voiced primarily by Jack Black), to the Crane (voiced by David Cross), the Goose (voiced by James Hong) the Mantis (voiced by Seth Rogan), the Monkey (voiced by Jackie Chan), the raccoon-like Red Panda (voiced by Dustin Hoffman), the Tig(ress) (voiced by Angelina Jolie), the Turtle (voiced by Randall Duk Kim),  the Viper (voiced by Lucy Liu), to the current film's villain the Yak (voiced by J.K. Simmons) -- have traditional, often amusing, Chinese cultural connotations.

All in all, there's a lot in these films to explore, and for reasons that I already expressed in my review of the previous installment, Kung Fu Panda 2 [2011], I'd encourage viewers / their families to do so.  Happy viewing! ;-)


< 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! :-) >>

Mustang [2015]

MPAA (PG-13)  Beyazperde (1 1/2 Stars)  ChicagoTribune (3 Stars)  RogerEbert.com (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Allocine.fr listing*
Beyazperde listing*

AFK Sinema'da (A.F. Kisakurek) review*
ArtfulLiving.com.tr (S. Aydemi) review*
Beyazperde (A. Ecrivan) review*
BirGün (A, Daldal) review*
Budzan Sinema (F. Songur) review*
Cumhuriyet (Mehmet Basutçu) review*
FilmLoverss (B. Anadolu) review*
Parallel Sinema (G. Tekes) review*

t24.com.tr (Y. Talu) interview w. director*
Hollywood Reporter (R. Richford) interview w. director

Hollywood Reporter (D. Rooney) review
Slant Magazine (J. Lattimer) review
Variety (J. Weissberg) review

ChicagoTribune (M. Phillips) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review


Mustang [2015] [IMDb] [AC.fr]* [BP.tr]* (directed and co-written by Turkish-born / French-raised director Deniz Gamze Ergüven [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]* along with Alice Winocour [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) is a contemporary "Repunzel-like" [AR] [wikip] (and quite "grim") fairy-tale set at the outskirts of a small Black Sea town in Turkey of today.  The film (in Turkish) was FRANCE'S submission to the 88th (2015-16) Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film and was selected as one of this year's five final nominees.

Narrated by 10-12 year-old Lale (whose name means "Tulip" and played wonderfully throughout by Güneş Nezihe Şensoy [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) the youngest of five sisters -- the others being Sonay (played by İlayda Akdoğan [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*), Selma (played by Tuğba Sunguroğlu [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*), Ece (played by Elit İşcan [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) and Nur (played by Doğa Zeynep Doğuşlu [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) -- growing up orphaned (on account of an auto accident that killed their parents when they were of a young age) and being raised since by their grandmother (played by Nihal Koldaş [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) and uncle Erol (played by Ayberk Pekcan [IMDb] [AC.fr]*[BP.tr]*) all seemed quite good ("despite...") until one fateful day.

That fateful day begins the movie:  School was being let-out for the summer, and the five sisters found themselves walking "by the sea."  One thing leading to another, soon they're splashing in the water.  Then some boys their age come around, and soon the girls on the shoulders of the boys are playing chicken fights (still clothed, a concession perhaps for the eventual Turkish audience, but certainly wet) in said water / Sea.

The scene more or less obviously evokes a similar (if far more "in your face" / problematic) scene in the recent American film Spring Breakers [2012] and it reminds Viewers, as per the lovely and happy Cindy Lauper song, that girls, ALL GIRLS, even in small-town/provincial Turkey (and by extension in the whole Muslim world...) "Just want to have fun" [YouTube].  And honestly, within reasonable (debatable) limits, what should be wrong with that?

Well ...

This WASN'T FORT LAUDERDALE ... this was "small town / Provincial Turkey," and by the time the five girls, still in their school uniforms, still wet, but drying, fast, in the Turkish summer sun, come home Grandma's waiting, freaked-out, because she's been informed by the head-scarf-wearing / incomprehending / perhaps not even super-Conservative but Conservative-enough "nosy-neighbor grapevine" that her grand-daughters had gone "out of their minds" and were "acting like whores" out on the beach.  And when Uncle comes home, it only gets worse.

No wonder that 10-12 y/o Lale BEGINS THE FILM with the voice-over saying: "Funny how life can change.  One moment it can be just fine and then become Hell in the next..."

Blinded by perceived social pressure (and certainly not having any stomach, at all, to stand-up to it), Grandma and Uncle Erol DECIDE TO LOCK-UP the five girls in their house on a hill (kinda like a Repunzel-like tower) henceforth and (apparently sincerely) "for the girls' own good" seek then to try to marry them off, one after another, of increasingly _decreasing age_ so that the girls "could get married and have a happy life" before they "destroyed themselves" by falling into sin.

It's a parable that shocks ... and INTENTIONALLY SO.

One could complain that this film was made by a Turkish born director "in France" (to needlessly embarrass Turks / Turkey) but (1) the film itself was actually filmed in Turkey [IMDb] [wikip] and (2) ALMOST CERTAINLY the film was INTENDED for "middle-of-the-road" / "on the fence" Turks and Turkey (which is has tried very, very hard FOR DECADES, since the end of WW I in fact, TO BE "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" -- Muslim by heritage but Western / secular in orientation) asking its Turkish audience: "Is this what you want?" (as there has been a still moderate but to those living there potentially worrisome "Muslim resurgence" there over the last decade or so).

Anyway, the film may provide fodder for Westerners to simply hate Muslims, but the film is more intelligent than that ... and Westerners tending to go in that direction ought to simply remind themselves that this was a film made by a Turkish-born director using a Turkish cast and filmed in Turkey today.  So the film and its intent is more complicated than would seem to a potential bigot's eye.

 

* 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! :-) >>