One of the things I have trouble admitting to people is how much I like "All I Want for Christmas Is You", by Mariah Carey. When I think about it, there is very little about the song I should like. It is drivel. It is cotton candy. It is completely devoid of depth. But I like the song very much. I rock out to it ever friggin' time I hear it. Maybe "Love Actually" has something to do with why I like it. This movie depends on evocation of a lot of nostalgia, and music taps into our sense of nostalgia. Steph and I first saw this movie 8 years ago. We attended a screening of it at a theater that had special screenings for parents with children. We enjoyed it then (adult content and all), and we watch it every year in December. It is a patchwork of many stories all designed to give the viewer a spectrum of what love is and how different people experience it as Christmas approaches. But it is also a comedy, and there are some riotous moments.
There are so many stories in the film that the viewer inevitably ends up clinging to one over others. For Steph and I, our favorite story line is one of the sad ones. Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson play a married couple who have a very comfortable, familiar and loving relationship. Rickman's character begins receiving explicit advances from a young lady at work. He does not run the other way, and what comes of his crisis makes up the story of the two of them. It is fair to say that these two outstanding actors could breathe life into the phone book, but their work here is extraordinary because of its truth.
The movie is not perfect. There is at least one story line that I find a waste of time (ask me if you are interested). Another storyline involves two adult film doubles who make small talk while performing scenes naked. In spite of the ribald nature of their scenes, the ultimate effect is actually quaint, as later they are shy about even kissing on a date, even though they have been doing much more exotic things while "working". The funniest story line is the one that opens the film. Rock icon Billy Mac is recording a horrible Christmas song, and his plot line follows his attempt to make this single a hit. Anyone who knows anything about rock history will find a lot to laugh at in this portrayal of an oversexed, strung out aging rock star. The most poignant story is the one involving Laura Linney. Laura Linney brings amazing talent to any work she does, and here she portrays a woman in love whose desire to pursue her wishes keeps being interrupted by a complication. Another plot line involves Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister, who must come to terms with the attraction he feels for a young woman who works for him at 10 Downey Street. All of these stories are played out over a London at Christmas which seems more like a small town than one of the largest cities in the world. That is part of the movie's charm. It feels intimate and close, and it truly makes the viewer feel warm, even though some of the story lines seemingly only exist for the purpose of getting laughs or dabbling in comical sex.
The truth that shines though in the movie is what brings Steph and I back, as well as the laughs. Love is a complicated thing, and sometimes pursuing what we think is love hurts those we love the most. It is always important to remember that the greatest love is self sacrificial-something which is lost on some of these characters, though not on all of them.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Elf
What a lovable piece of fluff this is! I was prompted to revisit it by my cousin, and it came up in some other conversation as well with a good friend on Facebook. After watching it, I instantly began incorporating a favorite line ("You sit on a throne of lies") into my daily conversation. This is, after all, what I do. I take amusing lines from pop culture and try to make myself look cool through random quotations throughout my day. It's a good life.
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones
Casting, casting, casting.
It turns out this is important. I watched this movie for the first time with my kids, and just like with "Phantom Menace", this entry in the Star Wars series looked better through their eyes. I liked it the first time I saw it back in 2002, but felt that the love story between Anakin and Padme was lacking. Having watched the movie again, it holds its own in the mythology of Star Wars. The overall arc of the six episode story is so strong that it can survive a few bumps in the road. Watching this movie again, I was struck by several good things, and two blaring shortcomings.
First, let's cover the good stuff :). The movie, as I mentioned, continues to add wonderful texture to the greater story. It follows the adventures of Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme as the Galactic Republic becomes more corrupt and travels further down the road to being the Empire. Little things are seen here that add so much depth to the world of Star Wars. We are introduced here to the Lars moisture farm on Tatooine which figures prominently in Episodes 3 and 4. We are introduced to the clones for the first time, which are referenced in the original trilogy. We see the back story for Boba Fett here as well, a character who would end up being one of the most popular of the series (for reasons which still escape me). We see the beginnings of what will become of the Empire. We get to see Yoda training young Jedis (as a side note, I think Yoda really is the star of this movie-the insight we get into his character is the movie's strongest point). We also get to see the complicated relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin, and why Obi Wan can look back with regret that he tried to train Anakin. The movie also has a dynamite light saber sequence at the end, which gave many of us one of the most satisfying moments of all 6 movies.
The action never lets up, and the visuals are indeed stunning. I thought that the most stunning visual comes when Obi Wan goes to Jango Fett's home planet. Rarely has a setting so clearly evoked the moral ambiguity of a place. The planet which houses the future clone army is shrouded in mystery-it does not appear in the Jedi archives, and it is a stormy, murky place which seems soaked with corruption. The other great visual setting is the capital planet of Courscant, which reminds the viewer of any metropolis of our world, be it Tokyo, London or New York. The imagination captured in the visuals is wonderful, as George Lucas gives us vistas and visions.
As for the shortcomings, I noticed 2 main ones. First, the strength of the story is compromised to me by how out of touch the Jedi council seems to be. It is one thing for them to be deceived by the Sith Lord, for to err is human. But it is outside believability that the characters of the Jedi Council would trust Anakin to carry out the vital missions he has been given. I had trouble believing that the wise Jedi council would actually trust this unstable young Padowan the way that they do. The Jedi end up coming off as incompetent. In the end, Star Wars fans know their fate, but I think the story could have been more believable. That transitions nicely into the other shortcoming. The love story between Anakin and Padme is lacking, partly due to the character of Anakin. Dialogue has never been a strong suit for these films, but the other films seem to have actors who can pull off the campy dialogue and make it work. Here, the actor who plays Anakin never seems to be in sync with the tone of the dialogue. I have never seen Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but I am sure he is a fine actor to be able to even be in competition for this role (just like any baseball player is exceptional if they make it to the major leagues). It just seems like his rhythm is off, while Natalie Portman is able to pull off the wooden dialogue. While the movie overall is a strong piece of storytelling, these two shortcomings take away some authenticity, and leave the story less satisfying then some of the other entries in the series.
But that is neither here nor there. I am not the only one to suggest what I have suggested. My admiration for these films remains. In fact, my admiration has grown as I have watched these movies with my kids. My kids simply love the story. As such, these movies can be seen in that light. All 6 movies contribute to the overall story. This is a story that can be lived and relived. The last question that I have to grapple with is this: when should I let my kids watch Episode 3? The scene involving the younglings' demise alone would be enough to depress my daughter for months.
It turns out this is important. I watched this movie for the first time with my kids, and just like with "Phantom Menace", this entry in the Star Wars series looked better through their eyes. I liked it the first time I saw it back in 2002, but felt that the love story between Anakin and Padme was lacking. Having watched the movie again, it holds its own in the mythology of Star Wars. The overall arc of the six episode story is so strong that it can survive a few bumps in the road. Watching this movie again, I was struck by several good things, and two blaring shortcomings.
First, let's cover the good stuff :). The movie, as I mentioned, continues to add wonderful texture to the greater story. It follows the adventures of Obi Wan, Anakin and Padme as the Galactic Republic becomes more corrupt and travels further down the road to being the Empire. Little things are seen here that add so much depth to the world of Star Wars. We are introduced here to the Lars moisture farm on Tatooine which figures prominently in Episodes 3 and 4. We are introduced to the clones for the first time, which are referenced in the original trilogy. We see the back story for Boba Fett here as well, a character who would end up being one of the most popular of the series (for reasons which still escape me). We see the beginnings of what will become of the Empire. We get to see Yoda training young Jedis (as a side note, I think Yoda really is the star of this movie-the insight we get into his character is the movie's strongest point). We also get to see the complicated relationship between Obi Wan and Anakin, and why Obi Wan can look back with regret that he tried to train Anakin. The movie also has a dynamite light saber sequence at the end, which gave many of us one of the most satisfying moments of all 6 movies.
The action never lets up, and the visuals are indeed stunning. I thought that the most stunning visual comes when Obi Wan goes to Jango Fett's home planet. Rarely has a setting so clearly evoked the moral ambiguity of a place. The planet which houses the future clone army is shrouded in mystery-it does not appear in the Jedi archives, and it is a stormy, murky place which seems soaked with corruption. The other great visual setting is the capital planet of Courscant, which reminds the viewer of any metropolis of our world, be it Tokyo, London or New York. The imagination captured in the visuals is wonderful, as George Lucas gives us vistas and visions.
As for the shortcomings, I noticed 2 main ones. First, the strength of the story is compromised to me by how out of touch the Jedi council seems to be. It is one thing for them to be deceived by the Sith Lord, for to err is human. But it is outside believability that the characters of the Jedi Council would trust Anakin to carry out the vital missions he has been given. I had trouble believing that the wise Jedi council would actually trust this unstable young Padowan the way that they do. The Jedi end up coming off as incompetent. In the end, Star Wars fans know their fate, but I think the story could have been more believable. That transitions nicely into the other shortcoming. The love story between Anakin and Padme is lacking, partly due to the character of Anakin. Dialogue has never been a strong suit for these films, but the other films seem to have actors who can pull off the campy dialogue and make it work. Here, the actor who plays Anakin never seems to be in sync with the tone of the dialogue. I have never seen Hayden Christiansen in anything else, but I am sure he is a fine actor to be able to even be in competition for this role (just like any baseball player is exceptional if they make it to the major leagues). It just seems like his rhythm is off, while Natalie Portman is able to pull off the wooden dialogue. While the movie overall is a strong piece of storytelling, these two shortcomings take away some authenticity, and leave the story less satisfying then some of the other entries in the series.
But that is neither here nor there. I am not the only one to suggest what I have suggested. My admiration for these films remains. In fact, my admiration has grown as I have watched these movies with my kids. My kids simply love the story. As such, these movies can be seen in that light. All 6 movies contribute to the overall story. This is a story that can be lived and relived. The last question that I have to grapple with is this: when should I let my kids watch Episode 3? The scene involving the younglings' demise alone would be enough to depress my daughter for months.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Quote answers
Thanks to everyone who participated in my movie quote contest. I will notify the winner myself, but she got 4 of them right!
Here are the anwers:
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle. "Almost Famous"
2. What are you, a lawyer? "Rushmore"
3. Pop quiz hotshot. "Speed"
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle. "The Music Man"
5. Son...kick their butt. "Hoosiers"
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"
7. I don't want a cookie! "All The President's Men"
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments! "Airplane"
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant. "A Shot in the Dark"
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill.... "North By Northwest"
11. "I now declare this bridge open" "Hard Day's Night"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me. "Steel Magnolias"
13. Mordecai! "Royal Tennenbaums"
Here are the anwers:
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle. "Almost Famous"
2. What are you, a lawyer? "Rushmore"
3. Pop quiz hotshot. "Speed"
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle. "The Music Man"
5. Son...kick their butt. "Hoosiers"
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"
7. I don't want a cookie! "All The President's Men"
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments! "Airplane"
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant. "A Shot in the Dark"
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill.... "North By Northwest"
11. "I now declare this bridge open" "Hard Day's Night"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me. "Steel Magnolias"
13. Mordecai! "Royal Tennenbaums"
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Thanksgiving Movie Quote Contest
Hello all, and Happy Thanksgiving! Here are 13 movie quotes from some movies that I like. To enter the contest, please e-mail me your answers. This will keep your answers confidential, so that others won't see them. The winner will receive a valuable prize ($10 gift card). The winner will be the FIRST person to give me all of the answers, or the earliest entry with the most correct. I will take entries until Tuesday, 11/29 at noon. Please do not consult the internet---let's see how many you can get on your own.
To enter, email me at losbascoms@mac.com...
Have fun. I will contact the winner to coordinate the prize.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle.
2. What are you, a lawyer?
3. Pop quiz hotshot.
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle.
5. Son...kick their butt.
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing.
7. I don't want a cookie!
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments!
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant.
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill....
11. "I now declare this bridge open"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.
13. Mordecai!
To enter, email me at losbascoms@mac.com...
Have fun. I will contact the winner to coordinate the prize.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
1. You'll meet them all again on their long journey to the middle.
2. What are you, a lawyer?
3. Pop quiz hotshot.
4. First medicinal wine from a teaspoon, then beer from a bottle.
5. Son...kick their butt.
6. A laugh can be a very powerful thing.
7. I don't want a cookie!
8. That's impossible, they're on instruments!
9. It's all part of life's rich pageant.
10. Come along Mrs. Thornhill....
11. "I now declare this bridge open"
12. If you don't have something nice to say, come sit by me.
13. Mordecai!
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Princess Bride
Stephanie and I watched this movie for the first time with our kids a little bit ago, and two things struck me. First (and this was not totally unexpected) was how much they laughed. Sometimes when you have watched and loved a movie for so long due to its adult wit, you can forget how many moments of simpler comedy are in a movie. Second, it really surprised me how much the story kept their interest. Herein lies, to me, the same genius in this movie that lies in many great movies.
The genius we find here is the ability of the film maker(s) to create something that is at once sophisticated and simple. The story of this movie is basic enough that any child can follow it. However, the dialogue and the humor are complex enough that we can all find ourselves returning to the film and gaining new laughs and appreciating the wittiness of the dialogue. I first saw this movie when it came out in the theater when I was 12, but I mainly got to know it through countless viewings on video. The fact that my High School church youth group nearly always watched this movie at camp gatherings further shows this movie's appeal. In my youth group (which was hundreds of students strong), it was always tricky to find a movie that is edgy and innocent. This movie fit the bill, and I have very clear memories of watching it at Camp Surf in San Diego on the beach near the US/Mexican border.
The movie is a story within a story. A young boy (Fred Savage) is sick, and his grandfather (the recently departed Peter Falk) comes to his house to read him a story while he is laid up. The story he reads to his grandson ends up being the principal plot of the movie, as we follow the adventures of Westley (Cary Elwes) and Buttercup (Robin Wright) as they attempt to find a way to live happily ever after. They encounter various obstacles as well as several funny characters along their way. They are pursued by Prince Humperdink (Chris Sarandon), a trite, smarmy royal who makes it his business to start unnecessary wars and make Buttercup miserable.
The story itself is nothing extraordinary. What makes the movie special is the characters and the dialogue between them. The best example I can think of is the sword fight between Westley and Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin, who also happens to have the most famous piece of dialogue from the movie). This is a standard, swashbuckling kind of scene that is made special by countless winks in the dialogue. Example: "Montoya: Why do you wear that mask-were you burned with acid or something? Westley: "No, they're just terribly comfortable...I think someday everyone will wear them." There are many other memorable lines, many of which can make one feel as though they are in an exclusive club if others recognize the dialogue in social interaction. But, in spite of all the sassy dialogue, the movie still works because of its heart. It is able to find a giant with a great heart (Andre the Giant), and a story that really is sentimental. It seems that this movie has achieved a sort of classic status. It deserves it. It is something special, and I think the reason for that is how universal its appeal really is.
The genius we find here is the ability of the film maker(s) to create something that is at once sophisticated and simple. The story of this movie is basic enough that any child can follow it. However, the dialogue and the humor are complex enough that we can all find ourselves returning to the film and gaining new laughs and appreciating the wittiness of the dialogue. I first saw this movie when it came out in the theater when I was 12, but I mainly got to know it through countless viewings on video. The fact that my High School church youth group nearly always watched this movie at camp gatherings further shows this movie's appeal. In my youth group (which was hundreds of students strong), it was always tricky to find a movie that is edgy and innocent. This movie fit the bill, and I have very clear memories of watching it at Camp Surf in San Diego on the beach near the US/Mexican border.
The movie is a story within a story. A young boy (Fred Savage) is sick, and his grandfather (the recently departed Peter Falk) comes to his house to read him a story while he is laid up. The story he reads to his grandson ends up being the principal plot of the movie, as we follow the adventures of Westley (Cary Elwes) and Buttercup (Robin Wright) as they attempt to find a way to live happily ever after. They encounter various obstacles as well as several funny characters along their way. They are pursued by Prince Humperdink (Chris Sarandon), a trite, smarmy royal who makes it his business to start unnecessary wars and make Buttercup miserable.
The story itself is nothing extraordinary. What makes the movie special is the characters and the dialogue between them. The best example I can think of is the sword fight between Westley and Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin, who also happens to have the most famous piece of dialogue from the movie). This is a standard, swashbuckling kind of scene that is made special by countless winks in the dialogue. Example: "Montoya: Why do you wear that mask-were you burned with acid or something? Westley: "No, they're just terribly comfortable...I think someday everyone will wear them." There are many other memorable lines, many of which can make one feel as though they are in an exclusive club if others recognize the dialogue in social interaction. But, in spite of all the sassy dialogue, the movie still works because of its heart. It is able to find a giant with a great heart (Andre the Giant), and a story that really is sentimental. It seems that this movie has achieved a sort of classic status. It deserves it. It is something special, and I think the reason for that is how universal its appeal really is.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Into Great Silence
"Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper."
---1 Kings 19:11-12
The film maker Philip Groning uses this quote from the history of Israel as bookends to his extraordinary documentary. This is the 52nd entry on this blog. I have covered films from many different genres, and in several different languages. The more I watch movies, the more I become convinced that there are certain artistic statements that can only be made with film. While some feel the written word is the ultimate form of expression (and it is amazing), we must not forget that it is only a medium...it is not art itself. With each type of art (be it painting, music, film etc), there are certain things that can be captured that simply could not be caught any other way.
And so, we turn to this extraordinary work by Philiip Groning. It is so simple, yet so profound. The film maker lived in the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps for 6 months, and captured the lives of its residents on film. The film has no score, no written dialogue, and no special effects. It simply records the lives of the monks: the sights, sounds, and rituals. As such, the viewer can approach this work from a number of different angles. For the secular viewer, one could watch as the quiet lives of these men are recorded, and marvel at the simplicity of their lives, and the beauty of their surroundings. Groning's camera shows us a vast spectrum of nature. It shows us the majesty of the French alps, the quiet of a brook, the lines in an old man's face, and the meditative world that is the monastery. For the believer, this film can be one of two things. One, it could be a simple act of challenging our devotion to God and how much do we meditate on his work. One of the devices that Groning uses to to intersperse different prayers over a black screen during the film. This dovetails nicely into the second thing this film can be for the believer. The film itself can be an act of mediation on God and on his creation. The viewer can see men, young and old, eating together, worshiping together, living together. We can also see them conversing, walking in the mountains, and even enjoying some sledding on a nearby slope. The film takes a certain discipline to watch, and I think that is why this film can be a meditation in and of itself. As we see the discipline these men have over their lives, we are challenged to sit through it for a mere 2 and a half hours.
Silence and meditation is something which is lacking in my life. This film made me think of ways that I could taste this gift. I once read the great abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko explain his paintings as webs of meditation. This film acts this way. It not only documents its subjects, but it allows us to come close to actually living along side them and practice along with them. The patience and commitment that it took to make this film is noteworthy. The hours and days it must have took in order to simply catch a second of magnificent beauty is noteworthy. If possible, it seems that the way to best experience this film would be in a movie theater. Only there would the viewer truly be able to be immersed in this world with all its sights, sounds and experiences. I was able to get a copy from my local library, and I watched most of it while jogging on my treadmill. It was a good way to experience the film since it takes a certain discipline for me to get on the treadmill.
This is a profound work. I love what it says about its subjects. It gives us a very honorable picture of these men who have devoted their lives to prayer and meditation. But this film also says a lot about film. It shows us another angle about what movies are, and the possibilities that lie within the art of cinema.
---1 Kings 19:11-12
The film maker Philip Groning uses this quote from the history of Israel as bookends to his extraordinary documentary. This is the 52nd entry on this blog. I have covered films from many different genres, and in several different languages. The more I watch movies, the more I become convinced that there are certain artistic statements that can only be made with film. While some feel the written word is the ultimate form of expression (and it is amazing), we must not forget that it is only a medium...it is not art itself. With each type of art (be it painting, music, film etc), there are certain things that can be captured that simply could not be caught any other way.
And so, we turn to this extraordinary work by Philiip Groning. It is so simple, yet so profound. The film maker lived in the Grande Chartreuse monastery in the French Alps for 6 months, and captured the lives of its residents on film. The film has no score, no written dialogue, and no special effects. It simply records the lives of the monks: the sights, sounds, and rituals. As such, the viewer can approach this work from a number of different angles. For the secular viewer, one could watch as the quiet lives of these men are recorded, and marvel at the simplicity of their lives, and the beauty of their surroundings. Groning's camera shows us a vast spectrum of nature. It shows us the majesty of the French alps, the quiet of a brook, the lines in an old man's face, and the meditative world that is the monastery. For the believer, this film can be one of two things. One, it could be a simple act of challenging our devotion to God and how much do we meditate on his work. One of the devices that Groning uses to to intersperse different prayers over a black screen during the film. This dovetails nicely into the second thing this film can be for the believer. The film itself can be an act of mediation on God and on his creation. The viewer can see men, young and old, eating together, worshiping together, living together. We can also see them conversing, walking in the mountains, and even enjoying some sledding on a nearby slope. The film takes a certain discipline to watch, and I think that is why this film can be a meditation in and of itself. As we see the discipline these men have over their lives, we are challenged to sit through it for a mere 2 and a half hours.
Silence and meditation is something which is lacking in my life. This film made me think of ways that I could taste this gift. I once read the great abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko explain his paintings as webs of meditation. This film acts this way. It not only documents its subjects, but it allows us to come close to actually living along side them and practice along with them. The patience and commitment that it took to make this film is noteworthy. The hours and days it must have took in order to simply catch a second of magnificent beauty is noteworthy. If possible, it seems that the way to best experience this film would be in a movie theater. Only there would the viewer truly be able to be immersed in this world with all its sights, sounds and experiences. I was able to get a copy from my local library, and I watched most of it while jogging on my treadmill. It was a good way to experience the film since it takes a certain discipline for me to get on the treadmill.
This is a profound work. I love what it says about its subjects. It gives us a very honorable picture of these men who have devoted their lives to prayer and meditation. But this film also says a lot about film. It shows us another angle about what movies are, and the possibilities that lie within the art of cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)