"Silver Linings Playbook"

My lovely wife's birthday was this past Sunday. When I asked what it was she wanted, she told me that  she just wanted a date night. So as the wonderful husband I am I let her decide the food choice and the film choice.

So with Beppe's and Giavoni's (Which was very good by the way) for dinner the next hurdle was which film to pick. I knew I wasn't going to see Die Hard. This was date night on or around her Birthday. I was in for a Romantic Comedy and I knew it.

Silver Linings Playbook it was. I had no expectations, and was simply going for a date. For me this was more about being with my wife. I was somewhat surprised that the theatre was packed. This film had been playing for quite a while really. We got good seats, even so, which also surprised me. I was with my wife, I had popcorn, and I had root beer. So all was good with the world it seemed.

As we settled into the film, and I started to realize that I was kind of enjoying it. I instantly fell in love with Bradly Coopers' character Pat. He was weird, and 'tick' filled. No not the bugs. He is depressed yet wildly energetic. I saw a 180 degree change from his usual 'party frat boy good looking and he knows it guy role'. Pat was a broken man. He had serious mental health issues. He was still good looking, but it was not central in the role. Although I have to say I found myself staring at his piercing blue eyes.

Pat is released into the custody of his parents ( Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver), after spending 8 months in a mental hospital. This is of course against Doctors recommendation.

Pat ended up in the hospital after finding his wife in the shower with another man. Pat snaps and beats the man. Obviously this is the readers digest version.

After his release Pat thinks he can 'get better' and re-unite with his estranged wife. He spends most of the film with this goal in mind. Then Pat meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence). Tiffany just lost her husband, and is equally challenged as least with mental health issues, albeit vastly different, She is in turmoil trying to over come her issues. She plays, beautifully, the smoldering angst, and emotionally hurt while remaining mysterious and strangely attractive even with the aspects of her brokenness. I suppose her natural beauty goes a long way with that. The same could be said about Pat. I suppose this would be my only negative. This film might not work if the actors were not visions of beauty. That and Nikki's (Pat's wife) reaction or lack there of when she sees Pat for the first time after his release.

Both Tiffany and Pat find a common bond and an instant attraction to each other (even if Pat is desperately trying to hold on to the goal of repairing his marriage). They both have issues they are trying to resolve, and that draws them to each other. What I liked is they (the film) didn't dwell on the stakes too highly. Yes, if Pat messes up, he supposedly was going to have to go back to the hospital. Of course Pat messes up, although his mistakes are not end of the world mistakes; I like how the film gave the issue of mental illness a wide berth. It was dealt with in love. In humor. In terms that made the issues that Pat and Tiffany had to deal with in a light at the end of tunnel way. It wasn't depressing, and I found that I loved the film.

So long story short, I was pleasantly surprised in how much I enjoyed this film. Plus I now read that it is also Oscar worthy. So Jennifer Lawrence is that good. Plus she is a joy to watch on screen. As was Bradley Cooper, blue eyes and all...

Django Unchained

This season has actually been a pretty good one for movie watching.  After a dry spell, I found mainstream movies released around these holidays that I actually wanted to pay to see.  Still waiting to see Les Miz, I just want to mention in passing that I liked the Hobbit.  Is it overstuffed?  Yes, but that's like complaining about too much of a good thing.  We saw Django Unchained on Christmas day, and it was a lot of fun.

Leave it to Tarantino to create controversy, much has been written about this movie, there's not a lot I could say that would be new.  I have always wanted to see a film version of the Confessions of Nat Turner, which I consider a nearly perfect novel.  Maybe Spike Lee could direct it.  This film isn't that, but it approaches themes that most movies do not touch, so for that alone it has my admiration.

There are things I just like about Tarantino.  One has always been the dialogue.  I wouldn't consider it nonstop action.  Mostly it's just people hanging out an talking, and this is a remarkable thing since they say interesting things.  They fully inhabit their world, anachronisms and all, it is a world.    Some find the dialogue overly pat, but I find it liberating.

Another thing I like is the seventies.  There's a rawness to that era, slick and gritty.   Newer movies are more slick in terms of sleekness.  ADHD riddled.  Frenetic.  No appreciation for the finer things.  Django Unchained tells a good story, with good performances playing good characters.  It's a simple combination for success.  I find it old-fashioned, somehow.

I previously wrote praise for Black Dynamite, but noted it didn't really contain the anger of those older films.  Machete bashed you on the head with that kind of anger.  I think Django does, but it's a slow awakening, in a way that seems authentic. Yes, we're reveling in a somewhat juvenile state of enlightenment, but there's something more going on.  It isn't about degradation as much as retribution, and the power of film to create and alter our iconography.  Here's to the movies. 

"Zero Dark Thirty"

http://www.zerodarkthirty-movie.com/



I wasn't, for some reason, able to post a picture to go with this review. For that I am sorry. Instead here is a hyperlink to the Official Website.

Now, I had heard a few things about this movie prior to making the choice to go see it. I noticed that a few of the so-called reviews and/or negative press was also coming from those who had not even seen the film. I also have not put a whole lot of stock in, what those who have formed an, opinion(s) and yet haven't seen the movie. This goes both ways. I have heard it from those on the left and those on the right.

 "Zero Dark Thirty" is a film that takes us through the CIA intel gathering process of the hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorist and murderer Osama Bin Ladin.

This film is directed by Kathryn Bigelow who also directed "The Hurtlocker" which I loved. Its stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, and my favorite Chris Pratt. Pratt is a cast member on Parks And Recreation. Anyway, I digress.

The film opens with black screen, and we hear audio from various actual 911 calls from that fateful day 09/11/01.

The sound of these calls and the panic in some of the voices are heart wrenching, sad, and I think a little manipulative as, I , became instantly pissed off.

I think this is a fabulous way for the director to exploit this emotion and to somewhat put viewers in a place to say, 'Yeah, torture the bastards'. I think this was the prevailing winds after 9/11 and which whisked in 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. I have to say I too had a visceral response to the sound of anguish in the callers voices, knowing that they were terrified and alone. That a group of evil human beings could hijack planes and then fly them into buildings senselessly murdering 3,000 plus people. After a while I became upset with myself for being duped. Again, I digress.

Say what you want about the success or failure of torture as an information gathering tool. Say what you want about the rightness or wrongness (if that is even a word). What I liked about the film was it showed it. It showed it in all of it's brutality. It also showed the toll and emotional cost that torturing people takes. The price tag is shown.

This film also explores the fact that some information was gained. Some of the information that was gained was useful and productive.  On the flip side, the film also shows the errors of these techniques. It shows that not all the information gained is correct.

Now does this make it (torture) okay? I would say the film is silent to this. It leaves it to the viewer to make that call for themselves. This is what I thought interesting about it. The film lays out the risks vs the rewards (if any). After that, it is up to the viewer to make their own choices as to what or how they feel about it (torture).

After watching this film I intend to read the book in which this is loosely based. There is also a well received documentary "Manhunt" in which I intend to catch up with.

Whew, now that we have the torture stuff behind us, lets get to the rest of the film. I always enjoy films where I know what happens, and yet the film makers are able to tell the story in a way that makes me look forward to how they will "do it".

The beginning is mostly about the 'Enhanced Interrogation" techniques and the information or misinformation gotten. We meet Maya (Jessica Chastain), who later comes to think that a key to the puzzle is a simple Currier. She becomes obsessed with finding this Currier as she believes it is the way to Bin Ladin.

Most of the rest of the film is a cat and mouse style chase of anyone and everyone who has ever had anything to do with Bin Ladin.

The film explores the tense feelings of failure within the CIA, and the intel community. The sense of helplessness, and utter dread for not being able to find a break, or a clue, while hunting Bin Ladin; all while Al Qaeda continues to pulls off attacks in Saudi Arabia, Britain, and Pakistan. 

Slowly the puzzle comes into view and  Maya is able to convince the CIA Station Chief, or rather brow beats him into just letting her follow her gut.

Without spoilers, or going into the nuts and bolts of how it was done; Maya is able to track down the Currier, which leads her to the compound that she believes Bin Ladin is holed up in.

The last third of the film is then an exercise in politics and the stupidity of it. The frustration that Maya feels in the uppers within CIA, and the Administrations' dragging of their feet, and the unwillingness to pull the trigger so to speak. James Gandolfini as the CIA Director Penetta is dead on. He seems to really push the idea that Bin Ladin is there and goes out on a limb as he seems to like Maya. This is speculation, but it seems Penetta is the force that gets President Obama to act on the intel.

At the final act of this film we turn to the Navy Seals. The intel is gathered and now Maya must sit back and watch. We see her painfully turn over control, and the Seals take it from here.

Chris Pratt plays Justin, the goofy Seal who is our comedy relief. At this point in the film there has been very little to laugh at and I enjoyed the casting choice. We needed a laugh, and we got that in the form of Justin.

We all know how the raid ends, so I will not go into this. Suffice to say it is suspenseful and good macho fun.

The film also, again, shows the toll and emotional cost of killing. Yes we got Bin Ladin, but we also leave in the wake of this a group of women and children traumatized. 

What I found very interesting and valuable is the very last scene. If you don't like spoilers STOP READING. If you don't mind then scroll down:

We see Maya aboard a military cargo plane. She is the only cargo, and she is informed as such. She thanks the airman and he leaves. The film ends with a long closeup of Maya beginning to let out ten years of emotions. Ten years of frustration. Ten years of death and destruction. We see Maya with tears streaming down her cheeks. A very true statement as to the cost of killing Bin Ladin. Was it a win? Did it matter? Are we safer? Was it worth it?

I liked this film very much. I liked that it wasn't a pro or against anything. It simply showed the realities of a ten year manhunt for the most wanted terrorist in the world. It let the viewer at each point decide for themselves the morality, and the worthiness of the entire event(s).  

Life of Pi

Here's a movie I'm not really sure what to make of.  It makes me want to read the book, and at the same time, not.  Ang Lee has said that it's a philosophical film, disguised as an adventure story, but to me it's a harrowing survival film dressed up as a religious polemic.  It's not a particularly satisfying polemic, it's not exactly  the Old Man and the Sea by Deepak Chopra.  Those who are religious may take offense at the suggestion that their beliefs are delusional, those who are not may be offended by the notion being presented that those delusions are preferable to reasoned and abject reality.  The message seems directed at people who value reason, but still find it to not be enough.  People like me I suppose. I find myself looking at this movie like the boy looking at the tiger, enjoying gazing into beautiful eyes, but hoping there is something more there than my reflection.   

The introduction is quite charming.  When reality hits it is intense.  The film is exceptionally well made, and a visual masterpiece.  I found it strange that such a bleak situation could be so colorful and lovely.  The film doesn't shy away from the themes of cruelty, loss, and death.  Its Synechdoche NY for kids.  I was moved by it, I'm just not sure where I was moved to.  I'm more than happy to accompany a persons search for God, but I get annoyed when my ability to reason is challenged, or reason itself is frowned upon.  The conclusion surprised me, I don't understand it's thesis, and the parts I do understand I reject.  And yet, I can't stop thinking about it.  I find I cannot deny a liking for a belief in the existence of a God.  If God must be represented as a good story, then I'm for it.  Ultimately, I'm happy I saw it, and a good story is good no matter what it may represent. 

Skyfall

 I viewed this film in Eugene at 2115 hours. I had originally planned on the 2030 showing but it was sold out. I knew at this point that this newest installment of the Bond franchise was if nothing else going to be popular. It was also no surprise that when we sat down the theatre around us filled quickly. To my left was a younger fellow who was flying solo. To my right my lovely wife. To her left was an older fellow with a young son chomping on his popcorn. I bring this up only to illustrate that there was a wide range of ages and types of people. I think this lends to the fact that for 50 years now Bond is still a popular and well-known brand.




Now the next question is was it any good. The short answer (for me anyway) is yes. I did have small issues with the film, but I think because it is Bond I forgave them pretty easy.



This is Daniel Craig's third Bond film. I must admit that I was highly skeptical about Craig playing Bond. I was and am a huge Sean Connery fan, while I grew up with mainly Pierce Brosnan as my Bond. After my viewing of "Casino Royale" I am a fan, and I may be pre-mature but he is shaping up (pun intended) to be my favorite. Now I know those are very large shoes to fill (again pun intended).



This film, for me, starts off at a blistering pace. We first see Bond entering a hotel room with several dead agents, and we find that a hard drive was stolen. Bond quickly has to make a choice that sets up the rest of film as to choices and calling into question loyalty. Loyalty of Country, fellow agents, and M.



We are then whisked away to a car chase scene, which quickly switches to a motorcycle chase scene, which then turns to a chase scene of sorts on the top and inside a freight train. At one point we see Bond make a leap of faith of sorts only to land and then adjust his cuff links and suit. I found myself smiling, and literally at the edge of my seat. I didn't even realize I was until the scene is over and Adele's Skyfall song accompanies the opening credits... I then had a chance to sit back and wait for the action to begin again. I think this feeling at least for me sums up what Bond is. He is a constant in a sea of change and turmoil. Bond is always Bond. He is unflappable, resilient, and will never give up. Without ruining the ending or the premise too much; we also see the vulnerability of Bond this time. I thought that an interesting touch.



Another interesting touch is the villain. I loved Javier Bardem as Mr. Silver. He was, as in true Bond villain fashion, one note. He was however layered and complex at the same time. Bardem brought a 'on purpose' humor that usually is lacking in Bond villains. I would also add that Mr. Silver is overtly homosexual. I liked that Bardem and Craig seemed to play off each other with this. Bond is the straightest of straightest, (Bond girls galore) while he seemed unfazed at Silver's (Bardem) advances, or thinly veiled ones. This is brought up, we as an audience and Bond as a character accept this and we move on. I liked this touch. We never get bogged down in this nor is it ignored.



I also liked the playing off the 'new' and the 'old' meeting head on. The 'new' trying to paint the 'old' as archaic, and out of touch. The 'old' trying to warn the 'new' that there are shadows and we still need people to fight those shadows. It was strangely relevant to today’s Progressive vs. establishment struggle. I also liked how the 'new' was slapped down and forced to admit that the 'old' is still relevant and still needed to do the jobs the 'new' will not or cannot stomach...



Okay my negatives... I can't stand the way Bond runs through this film. I know minor, but I had never noticed it before, in the first two Craig Bond's. He runs ALOT, and he runs very awkwardly. It stood out for me, and bugged me quite a bit.



I also found that this film was very predictable. I was never really questing what happens next. It didn't really ruin the film for me, but again I did notice it. Finally, some of the action scenes smacked of Michael Bay type editing and short cuts that render the action un-followable. Visually though absent a few of these scenes; it was brilliant.



So my usual film test is would I want to see it again. Would I buy it and watch it. The answer for me is yes. Action, visually stunning, geo-political themes relevant for today, and Bond, James Bond... What's not to love?

Cloud Atlas

After re-watching 2001 recently, my stepson complained it didn't make sense.  My husband decreed, if you read the book it makes more sense.  He went on to insist one must read the book in order to fully understand it.  I disagree, profoundly.  A logical explanation for the end would be meaningless to me, what matters is how the film made me feel.  Thoughts of Zarathustra's supermen, or an alien zoo are fascinating and a lot of fun, but they don't add much to journey I had just taken into space and aging, and rebirth.  There is a fun Ebert essay about non-realism in films, that I think only hits the surface.  http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/10/what_was_that_all_about.html  There is a quote I like from David Lynch somewhere in the comments, about how all interpretations are more or less correct. 

This brings me to Cloud Atlas, a film a viewing partner said was 'pretentious' and 'sappy.'  Of course the flip side might view it as 'ambitious' and 'emotional.'  You can read plot descriptions elsewhere, needless to say, the film contains six different narratives.  The effect is like watching a bunch of different movies.  Watching a regular movie seems like less of an experience after watching a movie like this.  Here is a very good essay about ways to decipher it, http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2012/10/a-taste-in-transcendence.html.  I especially like allusions to Howard Zinn, and agree it plays out much like a musical composition.  But, then, I don't really require an explanation.  The movie either works on you, or it doesn't.  I don't feel the need to solve a puzzle, Inception may very well make sense, but it didn't move me a whole lot.  This film moved me, and that's all that matters. I don't particularly care if it makes sense.  There are two themes running through the film, freedom and love.  Really, that's all I need.  That's all it takes to move me.  With those components, all the stories soar, and I can forgive any other flaw.  It can change this cruel and violent film into an uplifting experience.  The word 'transcendence' comes to mind.  Really, what more can a film do, except tap into a persons need to be connected to something greater than themselves? 

Samsara

Following in the tradition of the Koyanisqaatsi series, Ron Frick brings us Samsara, which balances Baraka out nicely.  The 'guided meditation' has been see as being overly guided, by some, but I found it could simply move through me and any political interpretation was mine to interpret.  Some may see an image of the devastation in the ninth ward, followed by the opulence of the Vatican as a comment about economic inequality, but that would be a connection the mind makes.  Is showing the manufacturing of a gun in itself a statement?  To me an entire film involving the trajectory of the gun's story and the violence it may cause would showcase that, but seeing the gun made was enough to tell us about humanity.  I don't like guns, and seeing families in different countries who feel the need to have them is enough to make me sad. 

This film is all images and sounds.  They are some of the most beautiful images put to film, and seeing them on a large screen is a special treat. We start with children dancing in Indonesia, their eyes simultaneously vacant and full of life.  We see Buddhist monks creating a sand mandala, which will serve as a symbol for the rest of the films as it holistically sets it scope on earth and humanity, as our mind connects it to the sand blowing over sand dunes.  The metaphor is not lost on us. 

I don't want to list all of the images we are greeted with, as the discovery is part of its process, I think.  But after images of nature and religious rituals we see a performance art piece by Olivier de Sagazan that seems out of place.  This film just kind of observes, to see a performance piece seems a little too modus operandi.  But what a sight.  Seeing a man mold clay on his face in such a manner is troubling, and I suppose it goes along with the films motif, and marks a transition where we begin to see images of life tout of balance.  What follows is humanity in all its glory and absurdity, the same brilliant sped up clusters of civilization we see in Baraka, the facial contortions of human robots, men working in sulphur mines, children picking through garbage heaps, the gruesomness of a meat processing plant, followed by consumers in a Costco.  At times the film lulls you into a trance, and at other times it jolts you awake.  Erotic dancers, and the exercises of prisoners are particularly exhilarating, with the music.  And faces, endless, endless faces.  We can stare deep into their eyes.

All of this really adds up to something, and trust me, I have only hinted at every image we see.  We must look inward to find meaning, but all the great questions are brought up by this film.  What is sacred?  What is natural?  What am I?  What are the results of my actions?  What is my place?  What is our place?  What ultimately matters?  Film is a visual medium, and pictures are worth countless words.  This is a film I recommend for everyone.  If there was only one film to encapsulate for future generations, this one would be a serious contender.  A film like this is like traveling to distant lands and discovering new things in our own world. I came out seeing things with new eyes, which is really the greatest achievement for any work of art.