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?