Whiplash

We have all seen movies that were really good.  We have all seen movies that were really bad.  Every so often, we come across a movie that everyone says is really good, but ends up being bad.  This is one of those movies.  It hides its badness really well.  It thinks it has a compelling story.  It has great performances.  It has great pacing.  The excitement never lets up.  However, the first thing I said to my wife when the credits started rolling was, “That was hollow.”  I could not make that pronouncement until the last moment, because the movie was compelling enough to keep me watching, but the story did not measure up to the excitement of the experience.

Andrew Neiman is a 19 year old who is obsessed with the drums.  He ends up being selected by Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons, who deserves his Oscar for this, even though the movie doesn’t deserve his performance) to play in his studio band.  Most of the hour and forty five minutes of this movie is constituted by Fletcher berating all the members of his band with disgusting profanity and epithets.  He does tend to focus in on Neiman, and Neiman’s entire life becomes wrapped up in either pleasing or simply appeasing Fletcher.  To this main story line is added two subtexts.  First, there is an almost throw away love interest who Andrew does indeed throw away so he can devote himself to the drums.  This subplot is a dead end.  It tries to serve as a way to see Andrew’s desire to focus on his music, but instead succeeds in making Andrew less likable and less human.  Second, Neiman’s father (Paul Reiser) roots for his son but he seems to really only function as a motivating factor for his son.  Andrew seems to see his father as an artistic failure, and Andrew seems to use his father's story as a catalyst to be the next jazz drumming legend.  Neither of these characters serve the story that well, because the story is more interested in the conflict between Fletcher and Neiman.  This would be fine, but since neither of them are sympathetic, the father and love interest seemed to be slapped in to make us slightly more sympathetic to Andrew.  The characters of Neiman’s father and love interest are (I think) supposed to show is Neiman’s devotion to music, but instead they shine a light on his narcissism.  Whether or not I am supposed to root for Neiman is unclear.  I am certain I am not supposed to root for Fletcher.  Then again, this is art: maybe I am not supposed to root for anyone-but the movie does not have the conviction to take a stand.

The movie is hollow because it has no point.  Any point that it tries to make is blocked off by some competing view some where along the way.  Some movies don’t have a point or any gravitas, and that indeed is the point (a movie like “Airplane” comes to mind).  But to have such a compelling drama in front of us with so much potential and so little to say is a colossal disappointment.  After all, sometimes movies that are done well in so many ways are the biggest disappointments.  They give us something, then take it away because they don’t have a cohesive story or point of view.  The movie hopes to give us the dark side of “Mr. Holland’s Opus”, but instead ends up being about almost nothing.  

Boyhood

Since I write a movie blog, the question does come up from time to time what my favorite movie is.  When one loves movies the way I do, that can be a difficult question to answer.  To make things simpler, I have a pat answer: "American Graffiti."  Perhaps one of the reasons I liked "Boyhood" so much is that it has many of the same sensibilities as "American Graffiti."  What makes "Boyhood" special is that while "American Graffiti" covers one night in the lives of a group of young people, "Boyhood" covers 12 years in the life of a Texas family.  The film maker actually took 12 years to make this film, so we see the young actor who plays the main character grow up in the almost 3 hour film. One wonders how much time must have been spent in the editing room poring over hundreds of hours of film, trying to select the best shots to tell the story that was trying to be told.  Director Richard Linklater might have had a simple story to tell, but he must have had to have a lot of patience and vision to bring it about.  What links "American Graffiti" and "Boyhood" in my mind is how real they both seem.  They both seem to be documentaries, but instead are very effective pieces of fiction.

It makes no sense to call the ordinary extraordinary.  But this movie about ordinary people doing ordinary things is an extraordinary piece of work.  The movie follows young Mason Evans Jr., who we watch from the age of about 6 until he goes away to college.  At the beginning of the film, we quickly discover that Mason's' parents (Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke) are divorced and that his mother has begun a relationship with another man.  Mason's father sees his children rarely at the beginning, but becomes more a part of his kids' lives when his mother moves closer to him.  At first, the father seems like he will fail them.  As the movie goes on, we begin to see that the parents' inability to work things out in their marriage has had serious consequences.  The other men that the mother brings around or marries are all troubled (one of them is an abusive alcoholic), while the father cannot begin to be the same influence because he is not present as much.  As the years go on, it becomes clear that the father had a luxury the mother didn't have:  time to mature.  The film doesn't show why the parents' relationship didn't work out, but it is clear that the mother ends up with the vast majority of the responsibility.  This unfairly allows Mason Sr. to grow up more, marry again and become more stable.  What is interesting to observe is that even though the father is always more immature than the mother, his children (particularly his son) are much more open with him about the struggles they face.  All the while, their mother seems to be able to connect with other people very well (she is successful teacher), but is unable to build a stable home life.  Her children keep their distance, and she keeps ending up in unstable relationships.

One could go on for hours about the complexity of relationships that are depicted in this movie.  The mother and father only have two conversations during the movie that I can remember, and one can find in those two conversations the character development of the parents.  It is also interesting to watch how much Mason's sister seems to thrive at school while Mason struggles.  Mason seems to be more affected by his father's absence, and the more involved his father becomes as the years go by, the more he seems to find a person with whom he can identify.  As the movie ends, he reminds me of many young people: full of promise, unsure of their future, and a little bit shell shocked by their own upbringing.  As I alluded to earlier, the power of this movie is showing ordinary life, the consequences of parents' actions, the possibilities that await us, and the missed opportunities of life that naturally emerge from the choices we make.  It could be that I am so mesmerized by this movie's concept that I am missing its shallowness of story (I did read a film critic who wrote just that), but I think not.  Too often what draws us to film or television is the extraordinary.  We watch things because people have unusual adventures, and that is what draws us to a story.  Here, we have an anti-story.  It is a somewhat normal story, and in a world where all the films around us are bells and whistles, an ordinary story hit home for me.  I could not help but look in the proverbial mirror after this movie.  What choices am I making as a parent that will affect my kids negatively or positively?  How can I do best by my kids?  Any movie that makes one think these kind of thoughts, in my mind, is doing its job.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

It's not often that one walks in and out of a movie a feels like they have seen something they haven't seen before.  While this movie has themes that have been explored before, the way it explores them sets it apart.  As Roger Ebert used to say, "It doesn't matter what  movie is about, but how it's about it."  Every moment of this movie crackles with wit and demands to be watched.

The movie covers a variety of human themes from triumph to suicide, from the need to feel accepted by many to the need to only be accepted intimately by one person.  Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thompson, a one time famous movie actor who is trying to mount a career revival by producing and starring in a Broadway play.  This is vital to him because he feels that he is only known for playing his most famous character, the superhero Birdman.  After one of his initial choices for the cast falls apart, he hires a volatile young actor (Edward Norton), who unleashes his own havoc on the production.  He does this all while trying to maintain a serious relationship with one of his costars, trying to keep the relationship with his daughter (Emma Stone) from destruction, and hoping to win the favor of a theatre critic whose one goal seems to be to submarine his play.  This would come off as pure comedy, but the darkness of the movie lies in the fact that Riggan is tormented by the voice of his alter ego the Birdman, and he sees this play as a deeper attempt to prove to the world and to himself that he is more than just the Birdman.

The plot, interesting as it is, also serves as a launching point for a brilliant exercise in style.  Three things stand out immediately about this movie's style:

1)  I have never heard a soundtrack quite like this movie's.  Much of the movie plays over the rhythms of jazz drummer Antonio Sanchez.  For someone like myself for whom melody and harmony are often times more accessible than rhythm, the sounds of the drums in this movie prove a revelation.  They are every bit as effective and evocative as any strain of melody that John Williams create.  Furthermore, the drums simply fit the plot and content of the movie.  Jazz drumming is often a improvisational art that still must be deeply rooted in patterns and timing.  In the same way, this movie feels very much like an improvisational work, but clearly the execution of the film took a great deal of planning and work.

2)  The setting is every bit as much of a character in the film as any person.  As the film is set in NewYork in a theater, every detail we see on screen gives texture to the world that is both otherworldly and deeply set in our world.  The paint is chipping in Riggan Thompson's dressing room.  The passageways backstage are narrow and claustrophobic.  One door could lead to a coffee break room or out into the bustling chaos of Manhattan's Mid Town.  The theater is a place of work, and the lack of glamor with which they shot the backstage scenes lends itself to the idea that while what these actors are doing is show business, they are in a workplace which shows the stresses and triumphs of a place of toil.

3)  The way that director Alejandro Inarritu weaves his story together is with an active camera that tells a story in an extraordinarily linear fashion.  The movie plays as if it is one continuous camera shot.  There are several visual tricks that maintain the illusion, and they are executed with craft and wit.  This style allows the movie to be paced by the events of what is going on on the screen.  There are times of conflict on the screen, but all of these conflicts take place in the workplace for these actors.  So, when Edward Norton's character is arguing with his girlfriend (Naomi Watts), it is happening while they are undergoing costume changes, makeup work, or even negotiating the crumpled quarters backstage.

In the end, the movie has a lot to say about the nature of art, and the nature of celebrity.  This is a movie which seems to be very much of our time, as cable television and social media make it more and more possible for us to spy on famous people and call it entertainment.  This satirical material would be a great movie on its own.  However, when we couple that satire with the great human interest story that is to be found in Riggan Thompson's story, it is clear that we are seeing a unique work of cinema.  It is hard to not notice the similarities between Riggan and Michael Keaton himself (Keaton played a superhero and only made two films as Batman).  I have no idea what Michael Keaton's status as a fulfilled human being is, but he does seem to fit into this role very well.  A couple of years ago, I remember asking myself, "What happened to Michael Keaton?"  I know he has not totally disappeared, but he has such great talent, and I have felt for awhile that we were missing that.  This movie shows him roaring back to the forefront, and it is a welcome reunion with us, his audience.

Family Films: Paddington

I told my wife on my way out of this movie that it seems like all of the romantic comedies and children's movies that I have liked best in the recent past seem to be British films.  This movie stays faithful to that trend.  I love this movie for the same reason that I find almost every Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks movie aimed at children lacking.  All of those movies often find it necessary to supplement their story by using hip, timely inside jokes that adults can appreciate.  This movie tells a simple story very well.  We recently showed our children a movie that was and is a family film, but the themes and the action of the movie deeply upset them.  This movie was a welcome change of tone for them.  It is fanciful, gentle, funny, beautifully shot, well acted and adorable.  

In the rain forests of Dark Peru, a British explorer comes upon a family of talking bears.  He becomes friends with them, and tells them that if they are ever in London, they can expect a warm welcome.  Many years later, after the Uncle Bear has been tragically killed in an earthquake, the Aunt bear sends her nephew bear to London, as she has decided to take up residence in a retirement home for old bears.  She remembers the kind offer of the explorer, and decides to send her nephew to London.  The as yet unnamed bear makes it to London on a cargo ship and finds his way to Paddington station.  There, the Mr. Brown (Hugh Bonneville) and family discover the poor bear, and while Mr. Brown is initially reluctant, they take the bear in and see what they can do to find out who the explorer was who invited him to London.  The Brown family name the bear Paddington after the station where they found him, and the name suits him wonderfully.  Unbeknownst to the Brown family, a local taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) has spotted the unusual bear, and wants very much to incorporate the little bear into her display at the Natural History Museum.

Three things stuck out to me about this movie.  First, the power of keeping the story simple is hard to overstate.  Paddington is a talking bear, but that is simply accepted without reservation by everyone in the story.  This movie (or the stories they are based upon for that matter) could have dissolved into some sort of Mr. Ed territory, but it doesn't.  It accepts the characters as they are in the story.  Second, I was struck by the movie's profound sense of color.  The colors in the film are all very bright.  They seem to be a living children's book.  Also, anyone who has been to the sections of London wherein this film is set can attest to the vivid colors of many of the houses and buildings in this section of the city.  And third, the performances by all the actors allowed this movie to rise above being a simple fairy tale to being genuinely funny and touching.  This movie reminded me in style and color of "Hugo".  Though the movies are very different, the driving force of initial tragedy followed by heartfelt hope and belonging worked very well.  It is remarkable how much tragedy informs so many classic stories, and this story is no exception.  This movie should be a classic, because it will be able to be watched by families for years to come.  It isn't often that we can say that.

Noah

This movie was made for someone like me.  An indie type director takes on an Old Testament story, complete with special effects and theological undertones.  I'm in.  Truth be told, I have not seen any of Darren Aronofsky's movies since his remarkable debut work, "Pi."  Since then, his work as certainly piqued my interest, but I have never ended up actually seeing any of his films.  When "Noah" came out last year, I really did want to see it, and like so many other things in life, I never got around to it.  However, I did enough reading about the movie that sounded fascinating, so I knew my time would come.

My time came on my flight from LA to Minneapolis last week.  This movie is a tough one to write about for me, because I had several reactions to it at once.  There are several narratives and nuances that are pulled from outside the Biblical narrative that try to give more texture to the narrative.  And while many of the additions and subtractions were disappointing, the core of the movie gets so much right that it is tough to look away.  By the way, when I say "gets so much right", I mean that I feel that in the movie, I see a genuine faithfulness to major parts of the Biblical Narrative, in spite of the extra biblical content.  One example of extra-Biblical content was the characters of the watchers.  From what I was able to understand, the watchers were fallen angels who end up being rock-beings.  They are on earth to help protect it from fallen humans.  As Noah begins his project of ark building, the watchers come to his aid and help protect him from fallen humanity.  There is also some conjecture in the film regarding meat eating and animal killing which is not consistent with the Biblical narrative of Genesis.  As the evil in the earth (characterized by violence) reaches its boiling point, the killing of animals for food and other purposes is seen as an act of wickedness.  This is not consistent with the Biblical narrative unless one sees the killing of animals in the film as excessive.  God Himself killed animals to clothe Adam and Eve after the fall, and God is pleased with Abel's animal sacrifice.  So the movie goes a astray here, it still is able to to maintain an important piece of faithfulness to the Biblical narrative.

The movie does not depict God as immature and capricious in his dealing with the sins of humanity.  As the church and the post-Enlightenment Western World have struggled to be honest with humanity's brokenness, it is quite surprising to see how openly Aronofsky depicts how desperately corrupt humans are.  One other extra biblical riff is depicting Noah as believing God has appointed him to reduce the animals but then to kill himself and his children so humanity itself is destroyed.  This is not faithful to the narrative, but it does create a character in Noah who is wrestling with the task that God (or, "the Creator" as he is called in the movie) has given him.  Noah looks around him and sees the wickedness not only of those around him, but also the wickedness in his own heart.  This conviction leads him to the belief (not mentioned in the book of Genesis) that his mission is to help the Creator destroy humanity.  The one common theme here is that humans are corrupt.  As an Old Testament student, I was also fascinated by the character of Tubal Cain in the film.  Tubal Cain is a descendant of Cain who is mentioned in Genesis 4 as the first person to work with metal after Cain's murder of his brother Abel.  Noah is instead a descendant of Cain's brother Seth.  Tubal Cain is appropriately shown as a child of fallen humanity.  But what made him even more interesting is that he doesn't deny the existence of the Creator, but he instead asserts that the Creator has abandoned humanity.  Noah counters with his own interpretation of the Creator, and in this way, the conflicts of the early chapters of Genesis are captured very well.  The entire arc of the story of Genesis 1-11 is how God preserves for Himself one line (the line of Seth) and extinguishes another (the line of Cain).  This movie does a fantastic job of depicting that part of the narrative, while it doesn't quite hit the mark on some other fronts.

While the movie's faithfulness to the text can be lacking, the amount of faithfulness to the text's spirit is actually quite good.  In my readings on this movie, I have come to understand how Aronofsky drew some of the nuances of his tale from other ancient Jewish traditions.  As he may not be making this from the same point of view as I would make it as a Christian, I think it is only appropriate to be patient with how he chooses to tell the story.  But still, it would be nice to see a filmmaker stay closer to the text itself and allow the extra biblical material flow directly from the narrative.  All the same, the performances of all the actors and actresses were great, the visuals were stunning, and the overall theme of judgment and redemption were very effective.

Family Movie Night: Fly Away Home (1996)

This is a great pick for a family movie night, which it was for us last night.  It has an unlikely premise (though apparently something close to it actually happened), but it is executed so well and with so much veracity that it ends up being very engaging.

The movie stars Anna Paquin as Amy, a 14 year old girl who has just lost her mother and has had to move from New Zealand to Ontario, Canada.  The beginning of this transition proves to be very difficult for Amy, as would be expected.  Her father (played very well by Jeff Daniels), is a kooky inventor who at first seems completely unable to relate to his daughter at all.  This is made more difficult by his involvement with another woman (Dana Delany), and an overall lack of ability to relate to Amy in her time of loss.  As Amy moves into the house, her father is trying to ward off a developer who is seeking to use part of his land for a new real estate venture.  One morning, a person with ties to the developer begins to tear up the land, and Amy's dad shows his true colors by bolting from his bed nearly naked to go into his yard to scream at the man driving the tractor.  In the wake of this destruction, Amy finds the nest of a mother goose who had been killed by the developer. She saves the eggs, watches them hatch, and becomes the mother goose to the goslings.  Her connection to the brood is so intense that she violently lashes out at a gaming official who attempts to curb Amy's efforts in taking care of the geese.  When the reality strikes the whole family that the geese must migrate south to North Carolina to survive, the broken little family concocts a way to show the geese a way home.  This project provides a needed connection between father and daughter, and it serves as a way for Amy to move forward in her grief, all the while deeply missing her mother.

As is the case with so many profound fables, death is the motivating force behind this whole story.  So many wonderful stories and fables are only profound due to deep grief.  Whether it's Harry Potter to Star Wars to Cinderella, death is at the heart of deeply human and true stories.  The depth of grief in Amy is the engine which makes this story go forward.  Anna Paquin realizes this grief in the character of Amy very well, and every moment she is on screen we know the depth of the experience of the character she is playing.  As we live this experience with her, we are forced to walk in her shoes.  We are made to imagine how we would feel if we lost our parent at a young age, and then we are made to move our life and school at the vulnerable age of 14.  It is with this back drop that the devotion she shows to the geese makes any sense at all.  Her father also is able to find a bridge to a daughter who was already distant, but is dealing with the added resentment of changing her whole life in the middle of such a trauma.  Ironically, the quirkiness which at the beginning causes a rift between the father and daughter serves to end up rebuilding their relationship, as his talent with air crafts and inventing finds them a way to show the geese a way home.

I truly love finding movies like this.  They are special fantasies that give parents a way to relate to our children by sharing a meaningful story.  All three of my kids were engaged for the nearly two hours of this movie (with four years difference between my oldest and youngest, this is no ordinary feat).  The longer I live, the more I see that broken lives truly do lead to wonderful stories.  As we who are broken pick up the pieces of our lives, sometimes the reformed pieces can make something beautiful.

Elf

I wrote about this movie after I saw it for the first time in 2011.  Three years (and a lot of personal drama) later, I have grown even more attached to this completely inane story of Buddy the Elf.  The older I have gotten, the more I have realized that there are two completely different holidays being celebrated on and around December 25th.  What is the true meaning of Christmas?  It depends on who you ask and what they are celebrating.  It has been more helpful for me to enjoy the meaningless frivolity that comes with this time of year, and wait until December 25 to truly welcome the Christ child.  In the church, December is a time of waiting, not celebration.  In the US, and in many other parts of the world, December is one long Christmas month.  As it turns out, the Christ in this Christmas happens to mean almost nothing...but there is a lot of warmth and common grace that shines through nevertheless.

With that tangent, back to the movie.  "Elf" makes no bones that Christmas is all about Santa and getting presents (with maple sugar and elves as nice side portions).  Not only that, it is a movie that is fanatically devoted to its premise.  Here goes: Buddy (Will Ferrell) is an orphan who finds his way into Santa's toy bag on Christmas Eve when he is a baby.  When he ends up at the north pole, a bachelor elf (Bob Newhart) decides to adopt him and he raises him as an elf.  As Buddy matures, it becomes clear that he is not an elf, but he still thinks he is, and spiritually, he is an elf.  He loves Christmas, and his utter devotion to Christmas spirit outshines that of the real elves.  When he is finally told of his true origins, he goes on a journey to find his biological father, who Santa informs him, is on the "naughty list."  All this happens during a North Pole energy crisis.  The lack of Christmas spirit (which powers the sleigh) down south has led to the sad circumstance of Santa's sleigh being inoperative.  When Buddy goes to New York to find his father, madness ensues.

I was talking to a friend about this movie the other day and we were trying to think of any other actor who could play this role.  What makes Will Ferrell so great in this role is his total commitment to it.  A lot of actors might play this role with a wink to the camera or with a hint of irony.  Ferrell totally is the character, and his ability to "be Buddy" makes the "fish out of water" scenario work well.  James Caan (who plays Buddy's biological father) also does a good job of showing a man whose world is rocked by this person (who must be insane) who says he is his son.

The movie has enough laughs for adults (I love the paranoid supervisor at the department store), is innocent enough that kids can watch, and it has just enough warmth to make it a sentimental holiday treat.  There are also so any well written small moments that even though it's a silly movie, there is a certain artistry even to that.  Enjoy!

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

I had to make sure that I included the year of release in my post title, because I grew up with the film version starring Danny Kaye that was released in the late 1940's.  Neither that movie nor this movie (which stars Ben Stiller in the title role) stay totally faithful the James Thurber's original short story.  Furthermore, these two films are in themselves very different.  However, having seen both of them, they are both fine films, for very different reasons.

In this present day version, Walter Mitty works at Life magazine in the photography department.  He is in charge of the processing and use of negatives.  In the film, Life magazine has decided to release one final print edition before switching over to all online.  Walter Mitty has worked for Life magazine for 16 years, and he loves the company.  All the while, he has slipped into his share of daydreams, as he seeks to augment his humdrum life with adventure.  He has become working friends with a great photographer named Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn), whose photographs have been used by the magazine regularly.  Strangely, though the two have worked on photos together, they have never met in person.  O'Connell seems to live the life of discovery and adventure for which Mitty yearns.  When Sean sends him one roll of negatives and claims that negative #25 captures "the quintessence of life", Mitty is horrified to realize that he has misplaced the negative.  When a new corporate hatchet man (Adam Scott) is brought in by Life to lay off all its unnecessary employees, he finds out about this "quintessential" picture and demands that Mitty provide it so it can be considered for the final cover.  When Mitty is unable to find the negative, Mitty sets off on a journey to find the negative.  Thus far, his life has been somewhat mundane.  But this new quest gives his life a new purpose.  This is helped along by the presence of a new attractive worker in the office named Cheryl (Kristen Wiig).

This movie kind of snuck up on me.  The first half of the movie incorporates Walter's fantasy life very well, but is a bit slow.  Only after the movie's end did I come to see that the movie has a deliberately slow pace at times.  Its pace lends itself to the movie's being a sort of meditation on life.  Ben Stiller's vision works very well.  The fantasy world of Mitty is contrasted very well by the new places Mitty actually sees.  His passport is finally put to use, and the vistas and people from such faraway places as Greenland, Iceland and Afghanistan show a great wonder to the real world.  As Walter begins to explore the real world and relate to, his fantasy world begins to subside.  The new experience of faraway places as well as relating to Cheryl give him not only new reasons to be excited, but also a new sense of courage, especially as his new boss proves to be a difficult person.

There is a slight sadness to this movie that breathes life into it.  Perhaps its the initial dullness of Walter's life.  Perhaps its his father's absence (Walter brings up a couple of times in the movie that his father died when he was 17) that gives the film an air of melancholy.  Whatever it is, the melancholy is augmented by Walter's impending job loss, and his sadness over what he sees as the new management's failure to live up to Life magazine's values.  In many ways, this movie reminded me of one of my favorite movies of the past ten years, "Stranger Than Fiction".  Both films star actors primarily known for comic work, but do fine dramatic work in their respective roles.  Both films involve shaking the protagonist out of a sort of permanent day dream to live their lives more fully.  And both films have a secret that keeps the viewer guessing until the very last shot.  The ability of both of these films to make us laugh and think while also tapping into our emotions sets both of them apart.  But what makes them both exciting and dramatic show both films have a great plot twist that is only revealed in the closing shots.  This is a movie about celebrating real life.  Whatever trials we face in this life, there is a lot to celebrate.

St. Vincent

It's always good to see Bill Murray on screen, even when the character he is playing is unattractive.  In the character Vincent in this movie, we have a man who is a drunk, a gambler, and a man who hires a pregnant prostitute because he likes her belly.  There would be no movie to speak of here if something didn't come into Vincent's world to change things.  Vincent's new neighbor Maggie (Melissa McCarthy, in a refreshingly non-crazy role) has found herself unable to care for her son Oliver after school.  In desperation, she agrees to begin paying Vincent to watch Oliver so she can continue to earn an income and support her son.  As a single mother, Maggie is in a bind, but the person she picks seems to defy her own better judgement.

The first 15 minutes or so of this movie show us one anecdote after another to establish Vincent as a cretin.  This is a set up to see the fireworks once the crisis that we know is coming does indeed come. While Oliver is at school, two chief things are happening.  First, as an outsider at a new school, he is faced with bullying and teasing.  Second, he is given an assignment to do a project about a Catholic Saint of the past, and to augment that through writing about a saint in his own life.  As Oliver spends more time with Vincent, the layers of Vincent's life are peeled back, and we begin to see through the hard shell the man has built for himself (or has been put upon him through suffering).  We begin to see him in his totality.  He doesn't suddenly become, well, a saint.  But the complicated realities of his life come to bare, and his predicament could help but bring sympathy and emotion from me as I watch the story unfold.

I don't think there is anything terribly unique about this movie.  The chief hole in the ploy is so great that the film itself ends up having to address it.  Once the viewer can get past the absurdity of Maggie paying Vincent to watch her son, the film begins to work really well.  I cannot help but have admiration for the fine performances in this movie.  Bill Murray is great as always.  The first and last images of him in the movie are both unique, and they serve as remarkable bookends for his character.  Furthermore, I think movie directors should take this movie's example and use the closing credits to keep the audience in the seats (Pixar has also done this well).  Melissa McCarthy is a fine actress. and it is wonderful to see her outside of her slapstick comic persona (as much as that persona is great).  She creates a character here who is world weary and backed into a corner.  She is out of options, so she makes Vincent her son's caregiver, even though she knows he is less than savory.  The young actor who plays Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher) is also very convincing.  He brings this outsider to life and makes us sympathize with him.  Oliver's character is the backbone of the film.  When the emotional payoff takes place at the end of the movie, it is made possible largely because of how believable Lieberher has made him.

The theme of the film really comes down to the question of what makes a saint.  As a Christian, I found the theme to be so applicable.  We live in a world corrupted by sin and human folly, and the notion that any human is a saint can be laughable.  This movie brings to the forefront the idea that ugly people can do saintly things.  How that happens is a matter of debate.  I think it shows us that any human can, by grace, be called a saint.

Good Will Hunting

Why is it that there are certain movies that one can watch again and again and they never grow old?  The chemistry has always proved to be perfect for my wife and I, so we have returned to this movie several times over the years.  Now, since Robin Williams has died, the time seems to have come to watch this movie again, which I am sure we will do int he near future.  What is it about this movie that makes it so watchable for us?  Why can we go back to it repeatedly and it doesn't get old?  There are several reasons.

First, to watch this movie is to capture a moment of time of two young performers who have ended up being significant players in the movies.  Ben Affleck and Matt Damon have gone on to be be two of the most accomplished performers in Hollywood, and this movie is really where they got their start.  To watch this movie again is to have a glimpse into why they have been so successful, each of them in their own way.  They create characters in this movie (both by acting and writing, since they wrote this movie) that are funny, vulnerable and real.  As two young men from South Boston, they are rough around the edges but share a core of loyalty and honesty that is refreshing.  Two scenes come to mind.  The classic scene wherein Will (Damon) blows away a pompous Harvard student with his intellect is a classic.  Part of the reason for that is not only Matt Damon's scene wherein he recites the history books, but also Affleck's clear role as a wingman/set up man.  As a side note, the gang of four friends that Damon and Affleck wrote is a classic case of using a group of friends to create a world where the viewer feels a certain belonging to a group.  As a viewer of this movie, you care about this group of young men.  The viewer laughs with them, hurts with them, and even shakes their head at them when they stray off the path and get in trouble.  The creation of this group of hoodlums is one of the pillars of tho movie.

Second, the movie gives as a tremendous amount of depth to every significant character.  For examples, as Will's mathematic genius begins to reveal itself, Jerry (Stellan Skarsgaard), an accomplished mathematician at MIT, takes an interest in him.  Jerry keeps Will out of jail, but them wishes to take him under his wing.  Jerry promises the judge that he will get Will therapy, and that brings Sean (Robin Williams) into the mix.  Sean is a professor of psychology at a community college.  Jerry insightfully believes that Sean will understand Will, and after some rough early sessions, it becomes clear that Sean can indeed help Will.  The depth of character to which I refer comes to light not only with Sean and Will's interactions, but also in the interactions of Sean and Jerry.  As the story moves along, it becomes clear that Sean and Jerry have a past as well, being friends and rivals at MIT during their college days.  This tension between them is handled masterfully in the screenplay.  The subtext of their relationship os assumed by the characters, but it is never awkwardly belabored.  Sean and Jerry talk to each other in a real way, not in a way that artificially reveals their past.  I have always thought that the relationship between Sean and Jerry could make for a great movie of its own, and that is part of what makes this film so rich.

Finally, the joys and losses of the characters prove to be relatable to the audience.  It is easy Will to put his girlfriend Skylar (Minnie Driver) in a privileged box because she goes to Harvard.  It is only when he begins to become vulnerable to her that she reveals her pain to him.  The only reason she can go to Harvard is because her father died and left her the money to do so.  The emotions that come from these confrontations cause Will to be scared and flee from intimacy.  This sets up the wonderful interactions Will has with Sean.  Robin Williams' character in this film proves to be a challenge to Will's world.  He pushes Will to become vulnerable, even though Will has been abused or abandoned by nearly everyone who has been close to him, except his circle of friends.  At the same time, Will challenges Sean as well, since Sean has had his own share of deep pain.  Sean's wife has died of cancer, and he is also reticent to be vulnerable again.  The scenes between Matt Damon and Robin Williams are the heart of the movie.  Williams' comic persona is almost absent here, though it does show itself a few times.  It is in a performance such as this that Williams showed, to me, the extent of his talent.  Of course his comedy was in its own world, but his ability to create a character here and interact with the other actors in the cast is noteworthy.  The subtext of his relationship with Jerry is rich, and the challenge both that he gives to will and receives from him is wonderfully executed in his performance.  Sean's life is in shambles, and this young man seems to give him a purpose as well as a challenge.

Since Williams is a supporting character in this movie, it can be lost how good Matt Damon is in the central role.  He is in most every shot, and he carries the title character with verity.  Robin Williams adds a great deal to this movie, and his ability to do this kind of work will be missed by all of us.  His best scene is a wonderful scene wherein he challenges young Will to open up to him.  If I could have bookends that would encapsulate this man's career, I would show this clip, and the clip I shared in my last blog entry about Williams.  This is a wonderfully written and performed scene, and I think it shows how good Williams could be (word to the wise...some ROUGH LANGUAGE AHEAD).  We will miss his performances...

12 Years a Slave

"Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph."-Exodus 1:8

"I don't want to survive, I want to live."-Solomon Northup, "12 Years a Slave"

The human race is puzzling in many ways.  Sometimes I think that what truly is shocking is not the horrible things we do to each other, but how sometimes we see how horrible they are.  Human history is filled with so much cruelty that when we recognize the suffering and injustice of a particular person or group, it is almost miraculous.  This has begun to happen in the United States and Britain with our heritage of slavery, and this movie is another sign of that.  What is shocking is not so much the graphic portrayal of what must have gone on in the slave trade, but how commonplace it was to the people of the time.  This is the movie's strongest point.  It depicts a culture where slavery is a reality that all of its citizens simply are made to accept.  Within that acceptance there is great variety.  Some slave owners were kind to their slaves, while others were terribly cruel.  However, even the kind slave owners accept the fact that the slaves of African descent were inferior beings.  My view of humanity leads be to be impressed whenever we can see that there is something wrong, and being able to look at a subject from a new angle gives the story and the experience of our heritage more texture.

The different angle here (though the film is based on a book that was written in 1853) is that of an African American who is a free man, but who is kidnapped away from his wife and children and sold into slavery.  Perhaps the most effective and affecting scene in the whole movie depicts the first moments when Solomon discovers he is in bondage.  The men who sold him into slavery had made him drunk, and Solomon awakens in a prison in shackles, and is immediately given a painful and shocking beating.  Solomon is not only in pain, but is completely confused by his circumstances.  The more he insists upon declaring his true identity, the more trouble he gets into, so he begins to be compliant and relatively obedient, hoping that an opportunity will arise for him to gain back his freedom and his dignity.

On his journey, Solomon meets many other slaves who have never known freedom.  When he comes into the hands of Epps, a brutal owner that reminded me of Simon Legree from Uncle Tom's Cabin.  He is greedy and ruthless, and uses the Bible to justify his methods, as so many people over the years have done.  Epps cannot even love up to his own crooked standards (the Bible commands masters and owners to treat their servants and employees well-a fact that those who used the Bible to justify their lifestyle tended to overlook), and he lusts after his slave woman Patsey (Lupita N'yongo), whom he greedily treasures in an almost Gollum like fashion.  Epps is a sadistic man, and it is this man who provides the greatest challenge to Solomon.  Solomon's struggle to find freedom is made more real by the powerful performance of Chiwetel Eijofar.  Other wonderful actors add great texture to the film as well (Brad Pitt, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti, and others).

Though the movie never goes into much theological idealism, I couldn't help but reflect upon my own faith and how it deals with injustice and suffering.  The book of Exodus is about the deliverance of the Israelites from the house of slavery in Egypt.  But the story begins with the forgotten fact of the vital role that Israel played in the survival of Egypt.  Humanity always finds ways to deliver others of its kind into deep and excruciating pain.  In that light, it is both common and shocking what humans can do to each other.  Also, human history is littered with stories of new ways that humanity learns to do evil.  Almost as soon as Europe began to colonize other parts of the world, the evil of the African slave trade was introduced.  Slavery is as old as humanity, but is timeless and an ever changing story.  We must learn from the story of Exodus, and it is vital that we understand our own history.  How we correct the breach and how we reconcile and heal is beyond the scope here, but one thing is certain-stories like this must be told if we are to understand that humanity does not progress on its own.  We are broken.  Specifically, the story of Christianity is humans finding a way to brutally murder God Himself.  The human story is replete with this kind of cruelty.  But the central strength of Christianity also is grace, and the suffering Christ undergoes has meaning.  It was horrible, yet it atones for sin. Why some people or races struggle or are abused is a mystery.  Hiding from the struggle helps no one.  Acknowledging the pain and understanding that is vital.  Here, Solomon never sees any meaning behind his suffering.  He has simply loses 12 years of his life.  Like Job in the Bible, the people in humanity often never know why they suffer so.  But the redemptive truth is that somehow Christ came not to save only the well to do or those who"deserve" it.  He came to save the poor and the oppressed.  He came to save those who can recognize their own total need for him.  The art of the spiritual that the slaves sung speaks to the truth that the slaves believed that even though man had forsaken them, God was with them.

While the theological theories here may be off topic, they are what occurred to me as I watched this movie and reflected upon it.  It is a movie of unflinching power.  I can see why it won Best Picture.  It is the kind of movie that wins-it is not only well done, but it also reminds us of the role that cinema can have in informing us and moving us.

Her

This is a movie about intimacy.  I cannot think of too many movies wherein that is the theme.  Because of that, I found this movie to be both brilliant and uncomfortable.  When a movie is depicting the most raw of human emotions, I think that movie wants the viewer to be uncomfortable.  This movie plumbs the depth of human emotion, and finds all of the messiness and hope that is to be found in opening oneself up to other people.

The movies of Spike Jonze have a tendency toward the unusual.  This is only the fourth movie he has directed, and all four movies are striking in their originality.  For instance, his first film follows a puppeteer who stumbles into a portal which takes the entrant into the mind of actor John Malkovich.  With that film as his debut, a viewer knows that any Spike Jonze movie is going to have its own perspective.  The movie here begins with a bizarre (but perhaps too close to reality) premise, but plays out the premise so skillfully that I found myself feeling that I was almost watching real life.  Joaquin Phoenix plays Theo, a man whose marriage is just coming to an end.  He works for a company which composes authentic, emotional notes for people.  Theo is hired by people who want to send a special thought to someone they love, he composes the note for them (in their handwriting, using modern computer technology to reproduce a genuine handwritten note).  Theo spends his days in other peoples' thoughts.  Their thoughts are deeply personal and heart wrenching, but it is just every day business for him.  Theo makes the rounds on social networks.  Since this movie is set somewhere in the future, the technology of social networks has advanced significantly, and Theo is able to hook up with people in ways that are still a ways a way for us today.  However, when a social network sexual encounter goes awry, Theo looks for another alternative.

Theo ends up buying an OS with artificial intelligence.  He begins to develop a relationship with the OS (whose name is Samantha, and is voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and he is surprised at how well Samantha relates to him, and how responsive she is to his feelings.  The only other significant relationship Theo seems to have is with his friends Amy and Charles (Amy Adams and Charles Letscher), and when their marriage falls apart, Amy also begins a relationship with an OS.  Amy and Theo have different relationships with their OS friends.  While Amy sees the OS as almost a girlfriend with whom she can gossip and joke, Theo begins to have what he sees as a deep and intimate relationship with Samantha.  This is seen in many different ways which I will not here relate, but the deep longing Theo has for intimacy is mirrored only by his complete inability to actually have such intimacy.  This sets the stage for unpredictable developments which have a lot to say about what we yearn for as humans.

As the OS hits the market and more and more people begin to buy them, the movie depicts nearly everyone interacting with their OS as they walk down the street.  Therefore, we see an entire city of people (the movie is set mainly in a future but very familiar downtown Los Angeles) talking to their hand held devices rather than to each other.  As someone who owns an iphone, I know how captivating these little devices can be.  This movie does a good job of making a point through taking the technology to an extreme.  What would happen if each of us had a companion that not only was tailored to us, but who we could continue to tailor to our needs?  Would we be happier?  Is part of what makes relationships so captivating is the fact that other people are never in our control?  This movie asks these questions are many others.  But, I think what makes it so timely and powerful is how normal the lives depicted in the movie are.  While the movie is set in the future and the technology is so exotic, the lives in the movie itself could not be more ordinary, and that is part of what is kind of terrifying about the movie.  This is by no means one for the kids.  It deals with intimacy and sexuality in a raw and uncomfortable way.  Having said that, since relationships are the one thing which we never master as humans, how fascinating it is to see a movie which shows humans attempting to master that, and what happens in that case.  It takes me back to Spike Jonze's last movie, "Where the Wild Things Are," wherein Max seeks to make a world where people don't hurt and things aren't broken.  The harder he tries, the worse things get for Max.  We cannot control others, and both of these movies show that heartbreaking but important truth very well.

Belle

One of the things my wife Stephanie and I love to do when we get away is go to see a movie.  Last week, we had the opportunity to spend most of a week in Montréal, and we ended up seeing this movie.  This is one of those movies that sneaks up on the viewer.  The first half of the movie, while good, was not terribly engrossing to me.  However, as I got to know the characters better and story began to evolve, I found myself quite moved by both the story and the struggle of the title character.

Belle refers to the main character in this story.  She is a mixed race girl who comes into the care of a prominent justice in the English court, Lord William Murray (Tom Wilkenson).  She is brought to Lord Murray by his nephew, an officer in the Navy who cannot care for her.  Her full name is Dido Elizabeth Belle, and Lord Murray and his wife and family (they have a daughter as well) end up raising her as their own child.  As she grows older, many things happen at once which end up causing great intrigue.

First, Lord Murray has a case set before him which is very much about the nature of slavery and its place in England at that time.  It concerns the Zong Massacre, about which I have cited a wikipedia article here.  Briefly, the case involved a slave ship which had been forced (according to the ship owners) to throw a cargo of slaves into the water, and now they sought insurance compensation for the slaves.  Murray is given this case, and he has to weigh the merits of it, all the while having a slave's descendant as an adopted daughter.

Second, Belle herself is becoming more and more aware of the injustice of her situation.  She is unable to sit with the rest of her family in society, and she feels awkward when she is in the company of slaves.  She feels completely without a home.  She is not a slave, but a free woman.  She is not totally a free woman, because she is still subject to certain indignities due to her skin color.  Finally, she is also a woman, and that by itself takes away from her many of the rights that women have come to gain in our modern society.  All of this, coupled with Dido's awareness of the case that is before her adopted father, cause quite a mental crisis for Dido.

Third, Dido unexpectedly becomes a target for young men.  While beautiful, she is still not an equal, and her prospects for marriage are not good.  However, as she finds herself with a generous dowry, she suddenly merits the attention of young men seeking financial security.  Oliver Ashford becomes "interested" in Dido, and things look as though Dido may find a husband after all.  Ironically, Dido's adopted sister Elizabeth has no such prowess in the dowry department, and she is left to watch while Dido entertains suitors.  Into this mix comes John Davinier, a vicar's son who is a passionate opponent of the slave trade.  His idealism is a breath of fresh air for Dido, but her father thinks the match beneath her.

These three elements combine for a story with many layers.  The story has a lot to say about racism, but it also reminds one of a Jane Austen tale, as women (and men) are forced to marry for reasons other than their wishes.  Oliver Ashford, who becomes engaged to Dido in the movie, is an interesting character.  While his scheming mother and lecherous brother barely tolerate Dido, Oliver seems to be caught in the crossfire.  He might care for Dido, but is influenced by his family, who sees the match as profitable, despite the fact that his match is a black woman.  As the film works toward its climax, all of the different layers of the movie come together skillfully, and the movie delivers a satisfying conclusion.  This movie is a very satisfying piece of drama.  As we continue to struggle with race and all its implications, the ideals of this movie give us something to strive toward, even though it takes place in a world where slavery is still legal in the US and Britain.

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.

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.

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.

20 Feet From Stardom

I have always been entertained and fascinated by anything about the history of Rock and Roll.  This documentary (which just won the Oscar for Best Documentary a few weeks ago) not only is about Rock and Roll, but it tells a great story as well.  It examines the lives and careers of several people (mostly women) who have served as background singers to major stars.  Some of the people we hear from are people whose voices we have heard for years, but we have not had a name and a face to match the voice.

The principle character in this film ends up being Darlene Love, who ended up becoming a star in her own right, after years of being not only a background singer, but also being used by Phil Spector for her voice, all the while pushing other a "artists" who lip synced using her vocals.  Darlene Love has gone on to be a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and has become a legend as a solo artist.  The other singers about whom this film focuses all have had varying levels of success with solo artistry, and the movie does a good job of showing their different stories.

Merry Clayton rose to fame being the female vocalist on the Rolling Stones "Gimme Shelter".  She tells a funny story about how she sang the vocal with curlers in her hair.  Anyone who has heard the song and the words of her vocal can get a chuckle out of the notion that she sang the words with curlers in her hair.  Merry dreamed of having a solo career, but despite several efforts to make her dream come true, her solo work never sold albums.  She seems to be fairly comfortable in her own skin, but one cannot help but see some of the disappointment she still feels about not having more success with her solo career.

The most interesting person that I learned about in this movie was Lisa Fischer.  As is the case with everyone in this film, her vocals are familiar to me (she has worked with Sting, and now, she tours permanently with the Rolling Stones, and has for years), but I did not know her story.  Fischer was able to make it as a solo artist.  She won a Grammy in the early 90's for her solo work, but she opted instead to work in relative obscurity as a background vocalist.  She explains at one point in the movie that one of the reasons she does what she does is that she wants to be able to go to restaurants and not be recognized.  Fischer comes across as someone who is quite comfortable in her own skin.  She has tasted fame and glory, and is comfortable using her amazing voice in a way that takes the spot light off of her.

Judith Hill (a fellow Biola Eagle) rose to fame by working side by side with Michael Jackson on "This Is It."  She was working closely with him when he died, and the movie uses her in a way that is different from the other artists.  Since she is still young (the age when the other singers were doing their most famous work), she is at the stage where she is figuring out where she wants to go with her career. She wants a solo career, because that has been her dream.  Since she presently is pursuing that, the viewers don't know the end of her story.  Her story ends up reminding us that this dynamic is current as well.  As long as the need for background singers remains, there will be highly skilled people who can fill that role.  Furthermore, as long as the role of background singer remains, there will be singers who dream of being in the lime light.

I have written before on this blog about the fact that the best documentaries are not so different from other kinds of movies.  They tell a story that is every bit as engaging as fiction, and they use real life to tell their story.  The artistry that is brought to this film is effective because it gives us real people whose life has real drama.  Though we might not view these singer's plight as the tragedy that they do, their humanity shines through and we do feel sympathy for them.  The movie allows us to walk a mile in their shoes, and anytime we can do that, it is a credit to the film maker.  I walked away from this film feeling genuine sympathy for the singer's who have been ignored.  There is a great scene wherein Darlene Love talks about hearing one of her most famous songs on the radio while she was cleaning a house.  She had begun cleaning houses to make ends meet, and when she heard "Christmas (Please Come Home)", she realized she wasn't doing what she was supposed to be doing.  To me, it wasn't that cleaning was beneath her dignity.  It was more that she had been given a voice and an opportunity to use it that others would die for.  To see her go back to her craft and pursue it was great, and her story makes up a major part of the heart of this wonderful story.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

As a fan of Wes Anderson's movies, it is always possible that I will become too repetitive in my fawning of his work.  There are certain artists that, for whatever reason, feel special to us.  It may be, in part, that even though he has amassed quite a following over the past 18 years (has it really been that long?), his appeal is still somewhat selective.  His movies do not hit the ground in thousands of theaters, and they never make a whole lot of money.  It could be that therein lies some his appeal.  To those of us who love his work, we feel that we have found something special that has not gained universal popularity.

The movie follows a story in flashback told by Zero (F. Murray Abraham).  He tells the story of how he came to be the owner of the Grand Budapest Hotel, since he came to the country as a poor immigrant refugee.  In the years before "the war", Zero comes under the tutelage of Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge at the hotel.  Gustave is the master of the house, knowing every inch of the hotel, and providing exemplary service to all his customers (for some customers, even a little too exemplary).  One of his elderly customers (an almost unrecognizable Tilda Swinton) dies and leaves a valuable painting to Gustave in her will.  The customer's greedy son Dmitiri (Adrian Brody) wants the painting, and when Gustave takes the painting and replaces it with a painting with a sexually graphic image, a caper of sorts ensues.

The plot actually sounds rather standard, but this is a Wes Anderson film, and the journey and the scenery are every but as much a character in the movie as the people themselves.  The settings in all of Wes Anderson's movies are evocative of a certain geographical place, but they are never specifically set anywhere.  For instance, "The Royal Tennenbaums" is clearly set in New York, but there is almost no familiar New York imagery in the movie.  This gives Anderson's work the advantage of being otherworldly and familiar at the same time.  The story in "Hotel" is set in the 1930s just before World War 2, or at least, the setting and situations in the movie call that period of our history to mind.  The countries' names are changed to fictional names, and a harsh looking image which is not a swastika is hung all over the hotel once the brutal occupying force has arrived.  The name of the hotel gives us a certain permission to think about Eastern Europe, but some of the Alpine imagery makes us think of Austria and Switzerland as well.

If one watches all of Anderson's movies, each one seems to become more elaborate.  The set designs and characters become increasingly complicated and intricate.  What astounds me as I watch his movies is how much is still emotionally invested in his characters as well.  Whether its the lonely high schooler Max Fischer living with his widowed father in "Rushmore", the estranged father Royal in "Royal Tennenbaums, or the lonely lobby boy Zero here in this film, Anderson injects genuine emotion into his characters, and that is what elevates these movies from being merely quirky to being genuinely moving experiences. 

The intricate sets and world in which this film is set live side by side with characters who are equally obsessed with details.  Gustave is highly interested with the details of his hotel.  He walks through its lobby much as a king, and this level of control is important to him, as he seeks to maintain the high reputation of the Grand Budapest.  In the end, Zero has held onto the hotel for very different reasons, and Zero's reasons for that (plus his relationship with Gustave) is the place where this movie truly finds its heart. 

The ability of Anderson to balance wacky and dry comedy, human drama and a mystery caper is what I find special about him.  It is also what seems so true to me about his work.  Even though his films are almost surreal at times, the truth of his work always rises to the top.  The characters in this movie are obsessive and funny, to be sure.  But they are also people with deep pain, regrets, and their own share of faults.  The combination of the fanciful elements of the plot with the humanity of the characters are a huge strength of this movie.  Anderson has also managed to assemble casts in his movies that are second to none.  Bill Murray and Owen Wilson are only on the screen for minutes in this movie, but they contribute so much to the texture of the work.  This holds true for all of the fine actors who have parts in this movie, both big and small.  Add to all that the beautiful and complex composition of each frame of the movie, and I find myself genuinely invigorated about what I am watching.