ESPN's 30 for 30

A couple of months ago, I noticed a great deal on Groupon.  If I spent $30, I could get the entire 30 film collection of the original ESPN 30 for 30.  For those who don't know, ESPN decided (on the occasion of their 30th anniversary) to make 30 films about various sports stories that have taken place over the last 30 years.  So far, I have watched 18 of the original films, and I have been very impressed by their quality.  ESPN has gone on to make other films in this vein, but these 30 are the originals.  There are a lot of things about which to comment on, but one thing is certain.  Sports are incredibly important not only to Americans, but to all people.  Sometimes, as some of these films show, they are far too important, but that is part of what makes sports so captivating.  They can be a reflection of the triumph of the human spirit.  They can speak of the longing we have as a race for something deeper that connects us to others.  They can also show how deeply sick and depraved we are as a race.  All of these things come together in the different films, which are expertly directed and realized by some renowned film makers.  The films also cover many different sports, so there is much to learn and also much that can be familiar to a casual sports fan.

As a baseball fan, I am drawn, of course, to the films which focus on my favorite sport.  One film that proved very close to my heart was "Fernando Nation", an hour long film tracing the rise of Fernando Valenzuela in Los Angeles.  I saw Fernando pitch at Dodger Stadium for the first time in 1980, with my dad, at the age of 5.  The film does a great job of showing how important to it was to the Mexican-American community in Los Angeles to have a wonderful ball player to cheer.  The sad history of the Chavez Ravine property (the sight upon which Dodger Stadium was built) is brought to light, complete with footage of poor families being forcibly evicted for their shanties in order to make way for the new ballpark.  With this bitter past, the Hispanic community in LA was not too keen on the Dodgers.  When a Mexican who spoke no English shut out the Houston Astros on Opening Day in 1981, the Hispanic community in LA had a new hero.  This film does an outstanding job of tracing that deep history, but also of showing the triumphs of Fernando's early career, as he led to Dodgers to a World Series victory in 1981.

Another baseball film that is great is a film entitled "Four Days in October".  This film recounts the dramatic rebound made by the Boston Red Sox in the 2004 American League Championship Series.  The Boston Red Sox found themselves down to the three games to none to the New York Yankees, their hated rivals.  As it was a best of seven game series, the Red Sox found themselves in a situation where they had to win four games in a row against the Yankees, or their season would be over.  Through footage of the games and interviews with players and Red Sox fans, the dramatic reversal of fortune is recounted, and it makes for an enthralling story.  As someone who watched these games and was caught up in the drama at the time, living through it again in this movie was a great experience.

Some of the stories I have seen involve sports about which I know very little.  For instance, in "The Birth of Big Air", filmmakers take a look at the life and career of Mat Hoffman.  Hoffman is a BMX daredevil who brought his sport to prominence.  His influence is seen in the ascendancy of the X Games and BMX riding in general.  I had never heard this man's name before I watched this film, but I found his story to be very engaging.  Through interviews with other riders, his wife, and Evel Knievel, his bravery (some would say insanity) is chronicled.  Also chronicled is his claim to have been the first BMX rider to achieve 20 feet of air off a jump.  This is a great story, with all of what makes sports stories great, but in a different sport than I am used to watching.

Finally, one film truly show the hold the sports have on humanity.  In "The Two Escobars", the tragic story of Andres Escobar is told.  Andres Escobar was a member of the 1994 Columbian World Cup team.  This team had been funded in large part through drug money, especially from the wealth of drug kingpin Pablo Escobar.  The film, though about soccer in many ways, spends just as much time showing the political situation in Columbia in the 80's and 90's.  Pablo Escobar offered help to the poor, and through the soccer team that Columbia put together, a sort of national unity.  The team went into the '94 World Cup in the USA as heavily favored.  However, when they lost their first game, everything rode on the next game that they had against the host American team.  The Columbians lost that game the the USA, in part due to a goal that Andres Escobar accidentally kicked into his own goal.  My late father and I happened to be spectators in the crowd that scorching day in Pasadena at the Rose Bowl, and all I knew to do was go nuts that my home country had pulled off such an upset.  Only days after this loss did the tragic news come that Andres Escobar had been murdered back in Columbia due to his mistake.  All people tend to get judgmental after something like that.  Truly this was a case of fanaticism.  But, don't many of us take sports too seriously?

For someone like myself, sports are a wonderful past time, but they also are something deeper.  For me, as my dad has been gone a couple of years, sports are a connection that I had with him, and that I have now with my kids.  He was with me at Dodger Stadium when I was 5 years old and I saw Fernando confound the Astro hitters.  He was going nuts in the crowd with me at the 1994 USA/Columbia match.  These stories (and, as the title suggests, there are many others), are a great way to study our devotion to sports and what they mean.  They do mean too much to us at times.  We all need to monitor how much time, energy and money we devote to them.  At the same time, just like other forms of entertainment (art, music, film), they offer a human connection.  They give us camaraderie.  They give us a drama that whose ending is a surprise not only to those who watch them, but also to those who participate.  This is a great series of films.

Philomena

This is a simple movie about a person dealing with complex emotions and crises.  The two principle characters are very different people, and their journey together is both unlikely and moving.  This is a moving piece of work that concerns itself with faith, doubt, maternal love and friendship.  It features two wonderful performances by Steve Coogan and Judi Dench, and I think it was only right for it to be included in the running for Best Picture last month.

Judi Dench stars in the title role as a woman with a daughter and a secret.  She has held on to this secret for some 50 years.  One day, as Philomena's daughter comes upon her in an emotional state, she finally lets the secret out to her daughter.  When Philomena was a young woman, she had a baby boy out of wedlock.  Philomena's daughter has found her in this emotional state holding a wallet sized picture of the boy, who would be 50 years old now.  As a young, unmarried woman, Philomena had sought shelter at a convent, where she was taken in by a group of nuns.  There, she gives birth to the boy, and begins working for penance.  The nuns end up exploiting her and the other moms, and it turns out that they are "adopting" out the babies that the young unwed mothers are bringing to them.  This story comes to the notice of writer Martin Sixsmith(Steve Coogan) whose career is in a lull.  He had worked for the British government, but his career has hit a dead end, and he sees this human interest story as a fascinating little  anecdote that will make for a good story.  Together, Philomena and Martin begin a quest to find Philomena's long lost son, and see what has become of him.

The movie works on two different levels.  First, the search the Philomena is on is itself quite captivating.  Her son was taken from her when he was no more than 2 or 3 years old, and she has wondered ever since what has become of him.  Because she was emotionally abused by members of a church order, it would be very easy for this movie to fall into knee jerk anti religious sentiments.  Instead, it confronts the evils head on, but still gives us a character in Philomena who hangs on to her faith, in spite of the difficult experiences she has had.  For Philomena, the representatives of the church have deeply disappointed her, but that does not take away her faith in something higher.  The second way that this movie works so well is how it depicts the relationship between Philomena and Martin.  Martin is a confirmed, worldly skeptic who doesn't buy into Philomena's faith.  He is also much younger than Philomena, and at times he seems to think that he is humoring the poor old woman.  In the end, Philomena, while no spring chicken, is sharper than he first thinks, and her depth of feeling and faith somehow captivates him.  While he seethes at the moral failings of the church, Philomena is forced to take a tough look inside and find out what she thinks about forgiveness and grace.  While Martin doesn't seem to come around to Philomena's way of thinking, he does seem to be a bit wiser by the end of the film, and he might be forced to think about the nature of forgiveness, and what we do when people (especially those in the church) turn out to be moral failures.

The performances are great.  The actors are given material that is highly complicated and emotional, and both of the lead actors are believable in their roles.  Judi Dench has become a highly respected actress in America, an honor she has had in her homeland for decades.  Here, she plays her role with great care, as she depicts an older woman who has her quirks, but is sharp as a tack.  Steve Coogan is with her every step of the way.  He plays a role where is isn't quite sure "with it" Philomena is, but ends up being constantly surprised by her insight and her intelligence.  This is a movie about real people, and it comes across as a very true and genuine work.  I still haven't seen the Best Picture winner yet (12 Years A Slave), but this is another film that was very good, and I look forward to seeing the film that beat it out.

Cool Star Wars Pic

The cast for the 7th Star Wars movie was announced today-here's a link with a cool picture of the cast and crew all seated together...excited to see what comes of this...

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-7-cast-announced.html

Gravity

I did myself a great disservice when I sat down in my living room to watch this movie.  Namely, I sat down in my living room and watched this film, and did not see it in a movie theater.  With that in mind, this is still a startling piece of work.  What makes it stand out to me is its simplicity.  This is a work of cinematic minimalism (if that is a category that actually exists).  Alfonso Cuaron brings us a movie with a singular title and a singular purpose.  Few times have I watched a movie that is so well summed up by its title.  The only other title I can think of for this movie would be "survival".  It is a simple story, told remarkably well.

Sandra Bullock stars as Ryan Stone, a scientist in space for the first time.  She is accompanied by two other astronauts.  One of them is Matt Kowalski, played by George Clooney.  Kowalski is a seasoned astronaut, and his experience is vital to Ryan Stone.  Within minutes of the film's beginning, the principal characters are told of a shower of debris that is headed straight for their space shuttle.  The debris completely destroys their spacecraft, and Kowalski and Stone are forced into survival mode.  This is the set up for the movie, and the rest of the movie really is about what happens next.

The movie is very short.  In this case, that actually helps it to be a cohesive work of art.  This is a simple movie, brilliantly realized.  In some ways it reminds me of a student film with a big budget.  We only see two living faces in this whole movie, and we hear only a couple more voices.  Part of the theme of this movie is survival in the face of being alone as well as being in danger, and the presence of so few actors assists us in seeing that theme.  Any discussion of this movie would also be incomplete without a thorough regard for its visual imagination.  Though I know that I am seeing unreal images, the images in this movie made me believe I was watching something quite real.  At the same time, paradoxically, the movie's images were just fanciful enough that I still was able to see great visual imagination rather than simple documentary style film making.

This movie received great accolades upon its release, and it actually went on to win more Oscars (7) than any other movie in 2014.  I have not yet seen "12 Years A Slave", so I will have to withhold judgement as to which of these movies "deserve" the award more.  It certainly becomes an interesting thing to debate when two movies with such different content are up for awards.  This movie certainly has a universal theme.  While it is set in space, the universal will of humans to survive (and the despair that can come when hope for survival seems lost) is a theme in many great works of art.  It also is worth noting that so many great works of suspense never fully receive their due (Alfred Hitchcock, after all, never won a best director Oscar).  This movie is a cinematic wonder, but I failed to be as wrapped up in it as I am with a Hitchcock film or other works of suspense.  As I mentioned above, I do think I lost something significant by seeing this at home (though I do have a sporty flat screen TV).  As my children continue to mature, I am sure I will begin to be able to be less selective of which movies I can get out to see.  However, there is a fine line between something which is artistically minimal and something which is predictable.  I knew before it was mentioned in the movie that the mission in question was probably Kowalski's last, because that seemed to fit with the genre I was watching.  Fortunately, the movie more than makes up for some of the predictability by many surprises, and by a basic humanity.  It gives every viewer a way to identify with its principle character.  I have not seen such effective uses of silence in a movie in quite some time (possibly since "2001: A Space Odyssey).  The silence serves a dual purpose.  It's awkwardness creates more tension, but it also reminds us of where the movie is set.  Space is silent, and the use of the lack of noise helps us feel Stone's danger all the more.  It may be that the Oscars got it right this year by giving the technical award to Cuaron and the grand prize to Steve McQueen (the director and producer of "12 Years A Slave).  When I see McQueen's work, it will let you all know what I think.

Ben Hur Revisited

I wrote an entry on "Ben Hur" 3 years ago.  I still have not watched it again, though the time may well be prime to watch it with my kids.  Two years ago, we celebrated Easter in Southern California with my family, and we did not know then how significant it would be.  My father died two months later, leaving me with an emotional resonance during this holiday that has begun to supersede other holidays.  Dad loved this movie, so I think I will always associate this movie with Easter and with him.  I rejoice in the hope we have in the resurrection of Christ.  This movie can remind us of how great an impact Christ's life had on one family.  This is the type of impact He has on all those who follow Him.  Here's my entry:

I remember watching this movie every year growing up, and I always loved it.  Whether you are religious or not, the epic scope of the film and the wonderful story certainly carry the day.  The film tells the story of two young men: Judah Ben-Hur, a young Jew from Jerusalem, and his boyhood friend Masala, a loyal Roman soldier who attempts to recruit his old friend in an attempt to bring the Jewish people into allegiance with the Roman Empire.  When Judah refuses to turn his back on his faith and his people, Masala casts off any loyalty to his old friend, and allows his to suffer in an almost Job-like manner.  Most of the film is Judah's story of how he survives imprisonment to come back and seek his revenge on Masala.  All of this takes place at the same time that a young teacher from Nazereth is beginning to gain a following.

The Christ of this film is seen as a powerful moral example.  The filmmakers make a  decision of never showing his face, only shooting him from the back or from a distance.  This is a very effective portrayal of Christ.  One of the most powerful scenes in the film is a foreshadowing piece.  As Judah is being led off to imprisonment through the desert, he staggers and falls in weakness.  There, he is met by Christ, who gives him a miraculously endless supply of water.  Judah never forgets this act of kindness, and when he sees this same man who gave him water fall under the weight of a heavy cross near a well in Jerusalem, there is only one thing he can do.

The film preaches the power of Christ's teaching of forgiveness.  Judah has to learn what he should do to Masala in the face of horrible injustice.  The injustice that has been done to Judah is enormous, and Masala does deserve recompense.  The question Judah has to come to grips with as his bitterness increases is what is he to do with the teachings of this young man from Nazereth?  Should he hold onto his anger, or should he let it go before it consumes him?

As a Christian myself, it is always wonderful to see elements of my faith brought to the screen well.  It seems that many times, elements of the faith are brought to the screen that are far too didactic.  In other words, why make a movie when the filmmaker would rather just deliver a lecture?  It has been years since I have seen this film, and I noticed that a new Blu-Ray is on its way this fall...maybe it's time to take another look.  Happy Easter.

1000 Greatest Movies

I found this fun list while surfing the web the other night.  It was published 10 years ago, so I'm sure there are lots of movies over the past few years that would be on it.  I have seen about 1/4 of them (257, to be exact).  It makes me realize just how much I haven't seen!

https://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/1000best.html#G

Life of Pi

I really enjoyed the book upon which this film was based, so I have looked forward a to seeing this movie since the day it was released.  I was not only intrigued by the story, but also by the presence of Ang Lee as the director intrigued me greatly.  If ever a director works like a painter, it is Ang Lee.  I have not seen all of his films, but the ones I have seen are exquisite visual works.  Not only that, they also depict human emotion and struggle very well.  Here, we are given a story that is laced with tragedy and survival, pain and hope.  Furthermore, it is an adventure, and the multifaceted spirit of the book is depicted in the film very well.

Piscine Patel is a young boy growing up in a part of India called Ponticherry, an area which was colonized by France.  He is named after a swimming pool in Paris, but because his name sounds like a crude word describing a bodily function, he shortens his name to Pi.  He grows up as a Hindu, but along the way comes to fall in love with elements both in Christianity and Islam.  While his rationalist father mocks his faith, Pi attempts to maintain his Hindu-Chrisitan-Islam-ness.  Pi's Father owns and runs a zoo, so Pi grows up with animals around him, and learns to both appreciate them and have a healthy respect for them.  When his family begins to encounter financial trouble, they decide to move to Canada.  They board an ocean liner with the animals (which they have sold), and head to North America.  Tragically, the ocean liner sinks, and Pi alone survives the wreck, along with several of the animals on the ship.  The story then becomes one of survival, as Pi is force do coexist on a life boat with 4 animals-a zebra, orangutan, hyena and a fearsome tiger named Richard Parker.  This whole story is told in flashback by a middle aged Pi, who is recounting his story to a man suffering from writer's bloc.

The story that originally comes from the book is one that is tough to visualize outside of the imagination.  That is what makes the film rendering of it so special.  Ang Lee uses brilliant colors in this movie almost as if they themselves are characters.  There is also such extraordinary imagination in his use of the camera and the shots he uses to communicate the story.  There is a stunning shot early on in the movie which surrounds adult Pi's recounting of the pool in Paris which was his namesake.  The pool is described as containing crystal clear water, but the shot that Lee uses to communicate that is so wonderful that we hardly needed the spoken description of Pi.  The visual imagination of the movie pairs well with the story it tells.  This is not merely a special effects piece.  The movie gives us living, breathing characters who have struggles, doubts and triumphs.  Their story is every bit as captivating as the visuals themselves.  It also deals in ways with faith and doubt that few films approach.  Its depiction of religion is somewhat positive, as Pi finds his own faith, even as it is criticized and mocked by his father.  Whether the viewer is a person of faith or not, the film deals with people's faith, which is a major part of the human experience which is not dealt with in film as much as I would like.  To be able to balance such extraordinary visuals with a great story and the deep pondering of the big questions is a noteworthy achievement.

There are always healthy debates about movies made from books.  I cannot think of too many movies that realize books better than this.  Perhaps "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Lord of the Rings", and the "Harry Potter" series are in this category.  This movie does what the best movies made from books do.  It honors the story told in the book, and brings a visual imagination to the words in the book that in no way diminish the book.  This movie is one person's recounting of a novel.  It shows Ang Lee's (and his collaborators) mental picture of the words found in Yann Martel's novel.  I still can have my own mental images of the novel, but being able to see a fine film maker like Lee's vision is equally captivating.  Ang Lee won the best director Oscar for this film while his film lost to "Argo" for Best Picture.  While "Argo" was an enjoyable caper, this movie is in a different category.  What a profound work of vision and imagination it is.