Life Must Go On (orig. Żyć nie umierać) [2015]

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

IMDb listing
FilmWeb.pl listing*

Film.com.pl (G. Raubo) review*
NaEkranie.pl (O. Rogalski) review*
Onet.pl (M. Steciak) review*
Wyborska.pl (J. Szczerba) review*


Life Must Go On (orig. Żyć nie umierać) [2015] [IMDb] [FW.pl]* (directed by Maciej Migas [IMDb] [FW.pl]*, screenplay by Cezary Harasimowicz [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) is a dramedy inspired (loosely) by the humor, life and death to cancer of Polish actor Tadeusz Szymków (1958-2009) [pl.wikip]*[FW.pl]*) that played recently at the 2015 (27th annual) Polish Film Festival in America here in Chicago.

The film's about a Polish "b-actor" named Bartosz Kolano (played by Tomasz Kot [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) who's spent most of the last 20+ years of his life drinking himself into oblivion destroying virtually every relationship he's ever had, and now, confessing to his AA group meeting there by the Vistula River each day (and to us Viewers) after drinking "a half liter of vodka, day after day, every day, 365 days a year for (said) 20+ years," thanks to AA, he's been sober for 6 months.  Wonderful. 'Cept ... after the AA meeting that day, he goes to the doctor and is told he has cancer (cancer of what? guess ...) and has 3-4 months to live.

What now?  What now indeed?

His best friend, and perhaps sponsor, nicknamed Żuk (meaning "Bug", played wonderfully by Janusz Chabior [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) tells him that he has three options: He could live those 3-4 months in denial, or despair, or use those 3-4 months to make peace / amends with those that he's hurt.  Of course, he opts for "option #3" BUT WHAT MAKES THE MOVIE IS THAT THIS PROVES _NOT_ EASY.

First, he's given the "added surprise" / potential "punch in the gut" when his current girl-friend Ewka (played by Marta Malikowska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) tells him that she's leaving him for her girlfriend.  He tries to negotiate with her "Well you'd cheat on your lesbian-lover with a heterosexual, then it wouldn't really be cheating would it."  She, young enough to be his daughter anyway, just tells him basically "I'm done." And he does understand.  Besides there are other people he needs to repair things with.

So he goes to see his ex-wife Szarlota (played by Iwona Wszołkówna [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) who, living with her husband of more than 15 years, does not know what to say: "I haven't seen you in twenty years, and here you come to say ... goodbye?"  And even when she recovers her thoughts / bearings and proceeds to be basically a nice host to a former spouse who hasn't seen in twenty years, she calmly and even kindly tells him: "Look [Bartosz], I really don't really hold any ill feelings toward you anymore.  If not in part because of you, I would not have found my (second) husband, had my wonderful kids with them.  I am sorry about your current condition, but ... [all that I can basically say is that I'm happy]."  And Bartosz again isn't even mad.  He knows who he's been and he knows that he had hurt her.

And there's a 20-something daughter, Monica (played by Paulina Gałązka [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) living way out in Budapest with a Hungarian boyfriend named Isztvan (played by Dawid Szomlo [IMDb] [FW.pl]*).  Probably the Reader would imagine (correctly) how Monica reacts to see "dad" suddenly at her doorstep after many years.  The Hungarian boyfriend is of course amusing because he speaks no Polish and Bartosz speaks no Hungarian and between the two of them them say know maybe ten words of English, both being able to say "I love ... [and point to Monika]" to which especially when "dad" does this, she just rolls her eyes ...

SOO ... wow for "comedy" / "dramedy" this is pretty dark ... Well there are "lighter moments" and things seem to go better after Bartusz goes to a Vietnamese acupuncturist named Mr. Lu (played by Nam Trinh Hoaj [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) and seems to get better.  (Why a Vietnamese acupuncturist rather than a Chinese one?  Well there's actually a former Cold War reason for this ...).  But then Reality has to return ...

So what's the point?  Did Bartusz actually get to "fix" anything?  That's probably for the Viewer to decide.  And yet the answer seems pretty clear.

A great / wonderful film for those who have "screwed up" / "accumulated regrets" in life ... and let's face it, that's probably (certainly ... if we're Christian believers) most of us ;-) 


* 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 Peanuts Movie [2015]

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

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
ChicagoTribune (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemier) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review  


The Peanuts Movie [2015] (directed by Steve Martino, screenplay by Bryan Schultz, Craig Schultz and Cornelius Uliano based on the comic strip by Charles M. Schultz [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) a lovely and gentle kids movie built around the characters and the story lines that we, America's adults (and possibly/probably beyond), ourselves grew-up with.  In the current film (made to suit 3D viewing), the characters look "rounder" and "cleaner" even in the 2D version than in the C.B. animations of the previous generation (which is, of course, somewhat amusing when one thinks of the character "Pig Pen" ;-).  One also smiles with (mild) insight / recognition when one realizes that the lovable-if-goofy gibberish-speaking "yellow colored minions" of this generation's children's movies were at least in part inspired by ... Woodstock [wikip] [IMDb] and his friends ;-).

That said, while this film is _utterly_ safe and could certainly serve as a wonderful "first film" for the youngest of child viewers, adults might find it, well ... "a little bit boring" and even anachronistic:

Though certainly still relateable to children today, the TELEPHONES STILL HAVE CORDS, Linus (voiced by Alexander Garfin) still types ON A TYPEWRITER, Schroeder's (voiced by Noah Johnson) "idol" STILL IS BEETHOVEN and he STILL BANGS ON A TOY (non-electric) PIANO, Lucy (voiced by Hadley Belle Miller) STILL CHARGES "5 CENTS" FOR HER "PSYCHIATRIC ADVICE,"  Charlie Brown (voiced by Bill Melendez) STILL TRIES TO FLY A KITE (rather than perhaps a drone...), the kids "SHARE NOTES" (rather than text ...) and still SPEND THEIR "OFF" (non-school) HOURS OUTSIDE in a LOVELY ALMOST _PASTORAL_ SETTING SKATING / PLAYING ICE HOCKEY (rather than perhaps "zip-lining", taking martial arts classes or playing any number of dungeons-n-dragons / world-of-warcraft / clash-of-clans or even 'candy crush' / 'angry birds' video games), and perhaps most disappointingly (to parents of young girls today) Charlie Brown's "crush interest" is still largely known to us in quite objectified fashion as "The Little Red-Haired Girl" (voiced by Francesca Capaldi).  Honestly, compare this film to this year's Inside Out [2015] (which even utilizes many of the same situations portrayed here in this film and yet in far more updated fashion).

Perhaps the most interesting "new(er) development" in the current film is some development in the relationship between Charlie Brown and his younger sister Sally (voiced by Mariel Sheets) who does seem to struggle with trying to love / be proud of her older brother even as she recognizes that he's, often, well, "kind of a loser ..." ;-). 

It all makes for a NICE (if certainly SAFE...) story, BUT ... unfortunately, we're going to have to wait for an ENTIRELY NEW REBOOT to bring the characters / story up-to-date.  And that is a shame ...

That said, still honestly a nice, if above-all nostalgic 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! :-) >>

Karski [2014]

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

IMDb listing
Filmweb.pl listing*

Telewizja Polska article*


Karski [2014] [IMDb] (directed and cowritten by Magdalena Łazarkiewicz [IMDb] [FW.pl]* along with Dominik W. Rettinger [IMDb] [FW.pl]*, dramatic concept by Marek Warnitzki [IMDb] with prof. Szymon Rudnicki [IMDb] serving as historical consultant) is a studio theater production made by Polish Television* as part of that country's commemoration of 2014 as The Year of Jan Karski.  The film closed the first evening of screenings at the 2015 (27th annual) Polish Film Festival in America in Chicago.

Jan Karski [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* [IMDb-nm] (played in the film by Łukasz Simlat [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) was the famous courier for the Polish Underground Government [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* during Nazi occupation who first brought news to the Allies of the Holocaust.

The current film, which is structured as "a film about making a film about Karski" allows use of a great deal of actual archival interviews with Karski, who after the War lived and taught at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.  Much of that archival material is available on YouTube.

The structure of the film as "a film about the making of the film" also allowed dramatizations of key episodes in Karski's story, notably his meetings with several key members of the Jewish underground resistance in Poland, notably Leon Feiner [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]* (played in the film by Marek Kalita [IMDb] [FW.pl]*), Menachem Kirszenbaum [google] (played in the film by Marcin Bosak [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) and Szmul Zygielbojm [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*[he.wikip]* (played in the film by Bartłomiej Topa [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) one of two Jewish representatives in the London based Polish Government in Exile.

Key here was the specification of Feiner and Kirszenbaum's messages to the outside world relayed by Karski:

(1) to the Western Allied leaders Churchill and Roosevelt: "YOU must do something to stop the annihilation of the Jews of Europe, WE (the Jewish Resistance) CAN NOT DO IT OURSELVES;"

(2) to the Holy See: "Please issue A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION of AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION of ANYONE who murders Jews;" and

(3) to the Polish Underground State: "WE (JEWS) ARE LOYAL POLISH CITIZENS, THEREFORE WE ASK YOU TO FIND AND THEN EXECUTE ANY COLLABORATORS WHO TURN OUR (Jewish) PEOPLE OVER TO THE NAZIS and PUBLISH THE NAMES OF THESE EXECUTED NAZI COLLABORATORS IN THE UNDERGROUND PRESS."

The tragedy of this was, of course, that only SOME of this was done BY THOSE WHO COULD (For further discussion of this matter please read and as appropriate add Readers comments below).  (Szmul Zygielbojm [en.wikip] [pl.wikip]*[he.wikip]* FAMOUSLY COMMITTED SUICIDE in 1943 in PROTEST to the Western Allies inaction) hence one of the very poignant debates in the film among the film's "fictionalized film makers" Olga (played by Julia Kijowska [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) and Łuk (played by Piotr Głowacki [IMDb] [FW.pl]*) asking the question: "WHY make a film about someone who, BRAVE as he was, _tragically_ SAVED NO ONE?"

The other similarly heartbreaking question asked by Olga: "Doesn't the Holocaust essentially continue today?  Every three minutes someone dies of hunger somewhere in the world.  WE HAVE THE FOOD, MONEY AND RESOURCES TO STOP THIS but ... WE DON'T."

All in all it makes for a very interesting film and a story that does deserve to be told.  I would add that young film-makers the world over would find the film-makers' approach here VERY INTERESTING.  A compelling historical story is told here using very simple sets / resources: There are a couple of rooms designed to resemble simple indoor spaces in Poland of the 1940s, another set is basically a "control" or "editing room" set in the current day, and then archival footage is played on essentially on a laptop as the film's "film-makers" discuss its importance to the story being expressed.   A LOT OF COMPELLING TALES COULD BE TOLD IN QUITE SIMILAR AND _SIMPLE_ FASHION.  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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>