Christian Critics: The Struggle for Self-Definition Continues

•March 8, 2008 • 1 Comment

Those of us who happen to be both avid moviegoers and avid Christians are well aware of the two very different lenses with which Christians approach the movie world. (I take the liberty here of summarizing those viewpoints in a very brief and general way, simply because I have written and linked to a great deal more on the subject right over there at the top of the sidebar.)

One group approaches things from the Flannery O’Connor perspective on art and faith: Movies only have value to the extent that they illuminate truth (any and all truth), and are responsible first and foremost to whatever constitutes excellence within film as an art form. The other group approaches things from the Cardinal Spellman perspective on art and morality: Movies cannot truly glorify God unless they are wholesome enough to pass muster with any childrens’ Sunday school class, and even the most artistically-excellent endeavour lacks value as such if it is prurient or obscene. On the first side their are organizations like “Christianity Today” and “Hollywood Jesus” and on the other the likes of “Movieguide” and Focus on the Family’s “Plugged In.”

For the most part, these two are content to avoid each other. Their audiences are just as different as they are (although their readers occasionally spill over and snipe at the other side’s writers). However, every so often, one crosses into the other’s path enough to provoke a brief flare-up of intense debate, which I always watch with great interest (and have a few times been caught up in, at least once against my will). One such exchange took place this last week between “Christ and Pop Culture” and Ted Baehr’s “Movieguide” when the former (rightly, in my opinion) expressed a critical outlook on the latter’s annual “Faith and Value Awards.” The result was a week-long series of posts, culminating in allowing someone from the “Movieguide” side to have the last word (for now). Check it out:

Whatever is Pure: Movieguide’s Faith and Value Awards

Movieguide: “Alan, You’re Wrong!” and CAPC Responds

Reviewing the Critics: Can We Trust Secular Film Critics?

What Does Philippians 4:8 Really Mean?

What Makes a Film “Good”?

Movieguide gets the Last Word

And stay tuned next week, when “Christ and Pop Culture” promises an e-mail interview with a “Movieguide” representative. In the meantime, I find the closing remarks by Tom Snyder to be of great interest:

We support a return to the Moral Code of Decency and the vetting of all scripts for movies going to public theater and DVD retail within 20 years, if not in 3-5 years. That would probably include the elimination of all R-rated and NC-17 content as well as most PG-13 content. We also look forward to Christian/biblical hegemony within the industry. If this ministry had much more support, our progress would be that much quicker.

This statement is not frightening because it represents an even remotely realistic goal (happily, it does not), but simply that a major Christian organization exists and is seriously and openly advocating that sort of lunacy. However, I also feel that such thinking has long since lost the majority share of thinking Christians who are dedicated to writing about film, at least on the internet.

In that vein, have a look at a new entry to the sidebar: Film – Think, a new blog by FFCC member Michael Leary. Have a look at two of his entries in particular: What On Earth is Christian Film Criticism? and How Should We Then Review?. Good stuff. Very good stuff.

Film Roundup VII

•March 7, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Feeling rather financially pinched this week, I decided to give the sad-sack mid-March releases a miss and dig around a bit in the archives to see what turned up. Have a go at these:

The Hunt for Red October – 84%

Based on the hit Tom Clancy novel, a legendary Soviet submarine captain, Marko Ramius (Sean Connery) takes his country’s new silent sub out on its maiden voyage, then goes rogue and angles for the American coast. As both the US and USSR scramble to prevent a holocaust, CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) has a different theory: Ramius is trying to defect, with a brand new nuclear sub as the ultimate peace offering. Connery isn’t remotely Russian, but his accent is cool in any context. He also heads up a stellar, Grade-A cast including the likes of Sam Neill, Scott Glenn and James Earl Jones. It’s a solid military and political thriller (if less topical than might have been hoped . . . releasing within a few months of the end of the Cold War), and a tense, watchable adaptation of its overly-technical source.

Out of Time – 86%

Matt Whitlock (Denzel Washington) is a small-town police chief in rural Florida whose minor dabbling in corruption comes back to bite him when the clues surrounding a double homicide point in his direction. His priveleged position can only buy him so many hours to conduct his own investigation before everything comes crashing down and the crimes get pinned on him. Cheap thrills combine well with a clever and intricate plot, well-worth checking out. I enjoyed it more than once, in fact (although the first time was on a plane). Properly spaced out, details are hard to keep straight and it’s like seeing it for the first time.

Guys and Dolls – 91%

In this swinging musical, Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) is a gambler who can’t resist a bet made by Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) that he can’t get prim missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go to Havana with him. But none of the three expected love to be in the cards (although you did . . . it is a musical). Brando is kind of an odd choice for a musical, even one about tough guys, but I’ve heard worse (ever seen Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon?). The songs are catchy (Luck Be a Lady is my favorite), but the dialogue is catchier. This one’s a real classic.

Mansfield Park – 78%

Based on one of the less-adapted Jane Austen novels, Mansfield Park stars Frances O’Connor as the poor but witty heroine who must cannily navigate the mores of her time to marry for love and (as a happy side-effect) upward social mobility. Quite tolerable in its way, and certainly recommended if Austen is your cup of tea, but overall rather forgettable.

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) – 90%

Technically not a movie per se, more of a filmed stage performance, but this act is far too brilliant to escape mention. The Reduced Shakespeare Company (Adam Long, Reed Martin and Austin Tichenor) take us on a manic, smart and side-splittingly hilarious 90-minute sprint through all 38 Shakespeare plays (plus a brief biography and the sonnets). Act I consists of 37 of the plays (including The Histories done as a football game), while Act II reinvents the Shakespeare play (Hamlet) for our amusement. Whether you can’t get enough of the Bard or you hate his lousy Elizabethan guts, this production is not to be missed.

Saul Bass does Star Wars

•March 6, 2008 • Leave a Comment

An amusing look at how the opening credits of Star Wars might have turned out if they had been created by legendary title designer Saul Bass:

Of course, one of the things I love about Star Wars is the timelessness of its music and style. A few elements aside, the movies don’t feel dated to a particular era, which is what has allowed them to last so long. This is a concept most moviemakers still haven’t wrapped their heads around, and so we get all of these flash-in-the-pan creations that will be laughably anchored to the year in which they were made in a very short time.

Soapbox aside, here’s a rather funny follow-up to the above credit sequence, The George Lucas Special Edition version:

Week 10: Juno and the Paycock (1930)

•March 5, 2008 • Leave a Comment

juno-paycock-poster.jpg“Fellow countrymen, continuously and courageously we have fought and struggled for the national salvation of Ireland!”
“‘Twas a darlin’ scramble, cap’n. A darlin’ scramble.”
“It’s miraculous. Whenever he senses a job in front of him, his legs begin to fail him.”
“Well, isn’t all religions curious? If they weren’t, how would you get anyone to believe in them?”
“He that goes a borrowin’, goes a sorrowin'”
“Here, get out o’ this! Ye’re nothin’ but a prognosticator and procrastinator!”
“What can God do agin’ the stupidity o’ man?”

Juno and the Paycock

Alfred Hitchcock’s next project after Blackmail was an “all talkie” version of Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s heavy social drama, Juno and the Paycock. As a sign of his growing fame and popularity, the director’s picture appears on promotional material alongside the rest of the cast. Hitch adapted the play himself, once again, and Alma (taking her first official screen credit since The Lodger) was responsible for the scenario. All talkie is certainly no exaggeration in this case. It contains few of the stylistic touches Hitchcock was best known for, and could have been the work of virtually any semi-competent director. As stage-to-film adaptations go, this one is exceptionally dry, perhaps one step above placing a static camera in front of a live production of the play. Hitchcock as director almost completely declines to breathe any cinematic life into the proceedings.

saraallgood.jpgIn fact, the production might be most notable for one of its least notable characters: the Orator that appears at the beginning, played by Barry Fitzgerald in his screen debut. Fitzgerald, best known for his lovable character work in such films as The Quiet Man, would go on to win an Oscar for his performance in 1944’s Going My Way. Another future Oscar nominee, Sara Allgood (How Green Was My Valley, 1941), plays Juno Boyle (of the title). She had previously appeared in Blackmail as Alice White’s mother. John Longden, also from Blackmail, appears here as Charles Bentham, a lawyer. Other actors include Edward Chapman as Captain Boyle, the strutting “paycock”(peacock) of the title, Sidney Morgan as Boyle’s no-good friend Joxer, and John Laurie and Kathleen O’Regan as Johnny and Mary Boyle, respectively.

edwardchapman.jpgMost of the actors are competent, at least as far as can be judged through the thick brogue and sketchy early sound quality that heavily obscures the dialogue. Chapman, however, overacts unforgivably, perhaps a consequence of having only appeared on the stage previously (a handicap shared by most of the cast). His Captain Boyle is never much more than a shallow caricature, although he becomes far more subdued in the final scenes. Morgan, better known as a writer and director of silent pictures, does a far better job with Joxer, making the stereotype he plays seem far more natural, and even endearing. Best of all, though, is Laurie as the brooding, slightly-unhinged Johnny Boyle. His performance is subtle and affecting when it could have been merely broad and melodramatic.

johnlaurie.jpgJuno and the Paycock is about the impoverished Boyle family living in Dublin during the Irish Civil War of the early 1920s. There’s the shiftless father who claims to have been a sea captain and gets awful pains in his legs when anyone offers him a chance at work and the hard-working, sharp-tongued mother (Juno). Then there’s son Johnny, who has lost his arm and acquired a permanent limp in some minor revolutionary skirmish on behalf of his country, and daughter Mary, a pretty girl who pulls her own weight and juggles a steady stream of beaus. The family experiences a windfall when a distant relative dies and leaves them a small fortune, and they waste no time in borrowing against the forthcoming inheritance to improve their quality of life.

kathleenoregan.jpgTragedy strikes in droves, however, when the will proves to have been clumsily written, leaving them with next to nothing. Meanwhile, the lawyer who penned it knocks up poor Mary and absconds to England (leaving her unwed and in shame). Finally, the IRA discover that Johnny has ratted on a friend and haul him away to be executed as the local businessmen repossess everything the family owns. It’s pretty grim stuff, but then, I already said it was an Irish social drama.

orator.jpgThe film begins with the most (and perhaps only) imaginatively-filmed scene. The voice of Fitzgerald’s orator is heard just before he appears on the screen, delivering a rousing speech about the need for Irishmen to work together. As he speaks, the camera zooms back to reveal that he is standing in theoratorstreet.jpg middle of a small crowd on a Dublin street. As he talks, he holds a pipe in one hand and strikes a match in the other, but never lights up. Instead the match moves hypnotically back and forth as he talks, often threatening to ignite the pipe, but never quite making it (or going out). The camera shifts among some frighteningly-authentic looking close-ups of people in the crowd.

gatling.jpgSuddenly, with the speech in full swing, two men mount some sort of Gatling gun in an upper-story window and open fire indiscriminately on the crowd. Only the speaker seems to be hit, and the crowd scatters wildly, stampeding up the narrow street and ducking into doorways. One of these doorwaysdogpile.jpg leads into a pub, where someone trips and the whole group ends up piled on the floor. Two men pick themselves up and dust themselves off with a surly dignity before stepping up to the bar to talk. These men are Captain Boyle and his friend Joxer, who are soon joined by Mrs. Madigan as they discuss the local goings-on. Chief among these is that the Republicans suspect the presence of an informer in the neighborhood.

static.jpgAfter an opening that included a crane shot, various quick cuts to distances ranging from medium to extreme close-up, and a chaotic stampede down the street, the film now settles into a much less fluid style. This scene, for instance, continues for some minutes without a single cut or camera movement. A few characters move in and out of the frame, but Boyle and Joxer remain centered and talking precisely where they are. Most of the film is shot in precisely this way, completely abandoning Hitchcock’s more familiar style of communicating visually by drawing our attention through carefully-selected camera movements and odd shooting angles.

job.jpgAfter Mrs. Madigan buys a round of drinks, Boyle and Joxer make their excuses and quickly duck out to avoid returning the favor. After Boyle assures Joxer that his wife is sure to be out, they head over to the Boyle lodgings: a ratty pair of rooms in a run-down tenement building. Juno is not out, as it happens, and Joxer leaves in a hurry while Juno lectures and nags her husband. Mary’s boyfriend shows up looking for her, and drops Boyle a tip on where he can pick up some work (much to his displeasure). He grumpily gets into his work clothes as Juno leaves for work.

windfall.jpgA few minutes later, however, she’s back, this time with Mary and a young lawyer named Charles Bentham in tow. Bentham relates the exciting news and the family rejoices at their new opportunities. The original play is done in three acts, a fact which becomes quite obvious here. Hitch only fades between acts, clearly delineating the passage of time and denoting the stage production’s need to drop the curtain and rearrange the set at those specific points. Except for the opening scene in and around the pub (the oration having been written specifically for the film), virtually everything happens inside the Boyles’ room. The staged nature of the whole production is emphasized by the fact that Hitchcock only films this room from one side, making it quite clear that this is merely a three-wall set.

party.jpgWe now return to the more richly-furnished version of the Boyle lodging set-piece, where Bentham has become a regular visitor. Joxer and Mrs. Madigan appear as well, and the group throws a small party in celebration of the family’s good fortune. The eat, drink, laugh and sing along with the Boyles’ new phonograph. The proceedings are interrupted twice: First, by Johnny’s sudden panic in the next room when he believes he has seen a vision of his dead friend. Second, by the funeral for that friend, who lived upstairs from the Boyles with his mother. Juno and Mrs. Madigan attempt to comfort the old woman, but Boylemourning.jpg quickly pulls them back into the celebration. Throughout this scene in particular, the shots often seem very poorly framed, cutting off the heads of the taller cast members in a most distracting fashion when there is no reason for the camera to be aimed so low. This could be the result of a poor DVD transfer, but if so it seems to be common to most of the existing versions of the film.

phonograph.jpgNot long after this, Boyle learns that the money won’t be coming, but doesn’t say anything right away. Rumors begin to filter amongst the locals, and a tailor shows up to reclaim a new suit that Boyle has not yet paid for. Mrs. Madigan takes away the phonograph in payment for some cash that Boyle owes her. Soon after this, Juno returns with news of Mary’s pregnancy (a topic which the script completely avoids referring to directly, just as The Manxman sidestepped the same issue). Boyle rages, then tells her and Johnny the bad news about the money before leaving for the pub. Johnny is angry over Boyle’s desire to disown his daughter, but Juno restrains him.

Meanwhile, downstairs, Mary’s old boyfriend shows up and declares that he loves her and wants to marry her despite her indiscretions with Bentham. However, he was unaware that she is carrying the other man’s child, and quickly leaves after he finds out. As two men show up to remove all of the family’s possessions, Juno and Mary leave to see if Mary can stay with her aunt during “her trouble.” Two men in trench coats invade the room and escort a snivelling Johnny out at gunpoint.

pregnant.jpgrepossessed.jpginformer.jpg

madonna.jpgA few hours later, Juno and Mary return and find their rooms almost completely cleaned out. News arrives through Mrs. Madigan that Johnny has been killed, and Juno sends Mary back to her aunt’s. She will join her there later, presumably without Boyle. Left alone in the empty room, Juno pours out her heart to the Virgin Mary statue mounted on the wall, wondering why they have deserved such tragedy and repenting of her earlier callousness towards her neighbor’s loss. She lifts her hands to heaven in supplication, then lets them fall dejectedly at her sides as the camera fades out for the last time.

In a 1963 interview, Hitchcock said of his involvment with the film, “[I]t was one of my favorite plays, so I thought I had to do it. It was just a photograph of a stage play.” This is, of course, correct, and the film suffers immeasureably as a result. However, it is worth noting that this is at least partially due to the constraints imposed on all early sound pictures, which Hitch had been able to work around a bit in Blackmail thanks to its being shot partially silent. The cameras in use at the time when talkies began were extremely loud and the noise they made was picked up by the microphones, so they had to be encased in suffocating sound-proof boxes which were not terribly mobile.

Furthermore, there was no process for mixing sound after, and all sound had to be recorded on the spot. Hitch noted in particular that the party scene, in addition to the actors, involved having a small orchestra, a prop-man to sing the song from the phonograph, a twenty-person choir for the funeral, and a sound-effect man all crowded uncomfortably into the studio. Even if the camera had been mobile (which it wasn’t) there was simply nowhere for it to go.

Like other heavy, socially-conscious fare of the 1930s and ’40s (i.e. How Green Was My Valley), Juno and the Paycock was well-liked when first released. The novelty of the talking picture was still fresh and the play and its message were popular and topical. Hitchcock himself felt keenly the failure to impart anything of his own to the work, believing any acclaim he received for the film to be largely misplaced. Over time, most have come to agree: this is a very minor piece of early Hitchcock. His talent was far better suited to entirely different sorts of endeavors.

Next Week: Hitchcock investigates a murder

An Ignoble Death?

•March 4, 2008 • 2 Comments

passion-of-the-christ.jpgI get a kick out of top ten lists of various stripes, so I generally take a look when I see one linked somewhere. Today, there was a link from IMDb to a list of “Ten Beloved Characters, Ten Ignoble Deaths” from NYMag.com, so I checked it out. (Yes, there are spoilers, but as far as I can tell, all of them are at least a year old, and most are closer to a decade. I include a few below, as well, and some are a bit more recent.)

As I scrolled down through the list, some of the entries were rather obvious, a few were funny, one or two were odd . . . Then I got to the bottom, and did a double-take. Their #1 pick for Most Ignoble Screen Death was Jesus in The Passion of the Christ. And then there was the explanation:

Has there ever, in TV or film history, been less honorable death than Jesus’s in The Passion of the Christ? Sure, that’s how he met his end in the Bible, but doesn’t our Lord and savior deserve better than being whipped, spat on, scourged, mocked, and flayed in a semi-offensive, possibly anti-Semitic piece of religious torture porn? Mel Gibson financed Passion with his own $50 million — for that sort of money, he could’ve had Jesus die in a light-saber battle with Pontius Pilate, or be eaten by a Transformer or velociraptor. Now that would’ve been a death for our sins.

Huh? I cocked an eyebrow, shook my head and moved on. There obviously wasn’t anything of depth here, just a feeble, kind of lame attempt to get a rise out of some and a chuckle out of others. But the statement stuck with me, and the more I thought about it, the more it struck me as an oddly appropriate selection for such a list. Sure the author’s comments disingenuously miss the point, but in doing so they sort of illuminate it as well.

That bit about anti-Semitic torture porn aside (perhaps), what they say is perfectly true. One would be hard-pressed to imagine a less auspicious end than the cross for someone like Jesus. There is almost nothing more dishonorable or ignoble than death by crucifixion. Josephus called it “the most wretched of deaths,” and Cicero described it as “the most cruel and disgusting penalty.” Paul emphasizes this more than once: “. . . he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!” Philippians 2:8, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles . . .” 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 (emphasis mine, of course).

The article is quite right when it points out that this makes very little sense from a big-budget blockbuster perspective, and perhaps even from a storytelling perspective. Larger-than-life sacrificial heroes tend to go out fighting in a blaze of glory. They mentioned Boromir playing the pincushion in The Fellowship of the Ring. They could also have mentioned Gandalf, locked in mortal combat with the giant, flaming Balrog as they plunge into the abyss. Then there’s Bruce Willis in Armageddon, who gets nuked on an asteroid to save the world. Similarly, in I Am Legend, Will Smith rushes a group of infected zombies with a live hand grenade so that the surviving humans can get their hands on the cure. That’s movie heroism.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as much into the fatal heroic gesture as anyone (Boromir’s death scene makes me cry every time), but Jesus’s death defies the conventions of special-effects-fueled CG mayhem just as his life defied the expectations of those who wanted a messianic conquering king. What’s so heroic about passively allowing yourself to be tortured to death? Apparently plenty. It may not be glamorous, but it was the only way to save the world.

The Last Emperor: Best Picture, 1987

•March 4, 2008 • Leave a Comment

last_emperor_poster.jpgThe 60th Annual Academy Awards were hosted by Chevy Chase. The year unquestionably belonged to The Last Emperor, with 9 nominations: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costumes, Best Sound and Best Original Score. Interestingly, despite the obvious critical acclaim and bravura performances by John Lone as the adult Pu Yi and Peter O’Toole as Reginald Johnston, the emperor’s British tutor, The Last Emperor received no acting nominations. Major competition included Broadcast News (7 nominations), Fatal Attraction, Moonstruck, Empire of the Sun (6 nominations each) and Hope and Glory (5 nominations). The Last Emperor took it all, tying with 1958’s Gigi for the largest clean sweep in Oscar history (until Return of the King won all 11 of its Oscars in 2003), and represented the most wins since 1961’s West Side Story over a quarter of a century earlier.

The Last Emperor tells the very personal story of the life of Pu Yi, last emperor of China, in the sweeping, epic context of the decades of Chinese history he lived through. Crowned emperor of China in 1908 at the age of three, he was forced to abdicate four years later, but continued to live in the Forbidden City as a sort of figurehead (and a virtual prisoner) until 1924 when he was forced to leave and eventually returned to his birthplace in Manchuria. Seven years later, Manchuria was invaded by the Japanese, and in 1934 the Japanese set Pu Yi up as the puppet emperor of Manchuria. Captured by the Russians at the end of World War II, he was returned to the Chinese in 1950. He would spend the next 10 years in prison, where he was “re-educated” by the Communists to live as an “ordinary citizen.”

Hopping back and forth between the “present” of the 1950s and a series of cleverly interwoven flashbacks, what emerges is more than just the story of Pu Yi’s rise and fall. It is the story of a man who has never been able to take control of his own destiny, and must be forced to claim responsibility for both his past and his future; and it is a story of the journey of the Chinese people through the first two-thirds of the 2oth century. This is a near-perfect balance between the large-scale biopic elements, rich in sumptuous historical flavor and detail about its subject and his context, and the strong themes of redemption and personal growth. Neither all-head nor all-heart, the film has much to say on multiple levels.

Devastatingly authentic, The Last Emperor was the first movie to be filmed in the Forbidden City, and it takes full advantage of the location. Extras numbering in the tens of thousands, and are painstakingly dressed in clothing that spans a variety of contexts and periods The atmosphere is, as a result, flawlessly immersive throughout the six decades of Chinese history that we are witness to. The score provides a beautiful and moving complement to the ongoing story.

One of my favorite scenes comes early on, shortly after the young Pu Yi’s is crowned. The little boy, bored with a droning ceremony, starts to squirm. Then he stands and begins to jump up and down on his throne. His horrified “advisors” try to shush him, but he climbs down and runs giggling outside, where he is greeted by the staggering sight of thousands of his subjects bowing before him. He toddles aimlessly among them, and it is obvious that he hasn’t even noticed the spectacle. He is far more interested in the cricket chirping somewhere amidst the mass of people.

In the next scene, his imperial majesty decides that he no longer likes baths, which he proclaims loudly as he stomps like a petulant Godzilla through a model of the Forbidden City. The royal retainers finally entice him into the tub, and as his back is scrubbed he asks, “Is it true I can do anything I want?” “Of course, your majesty, anything you want. You are the Lord of Ten Thousand Years.” In response, he splashes water on everyone and stands up to kick water at them, loudly crying, “I’m the son of heaven! I’m the son of heaven!”

The final scene is one of my favorite endings to any film, a poignant and perfect coda: the freeing of the cricket. Far be it from me, though, to expound further and spoil it. This is a movie that deserves to be seen. I myself have watched it perhaps half a dozen times now, sometimes alone and sometimes with others, despite the nearly 4-hour runtime of the extended version. It is truly a memorable and worthy movie experience, deserving of its acclaim.


Continue reading ‘The Last Emperor: Best Picture, 1987′

Awards Go Ever, Ever On *update*

•March 4, 2008 • Leave a Comment

*update* Voting is complete. Find a list of the voters here, and a snazzy look at the winners here (click on “2007 Best Of” at the top of the page) or just check beneath the fold.

Jeffrey Overstreet and Ron Reed both have this stuff up, so I might as well post the list, too. Voting is still going on, and the final list should be up next month sometime . . . by which I mean next week. Hey, you can’t rush this stuff. I was just talking with a friend about past Oscars over the weekend, and we agreed that there should be some major awards ceremony that waits a good five years before assessing the Best Films of any given year. Maybe that’s just the film historian in me, but it might yield interesting results.

So long as I’m doing this, by the way, I should note here that I’m hard at work on last week’s Hitchcock post. It should be backposted to last Wednesday within 24 hours so I can hurry along to tomorrow’s entry. Yikes. I really need to get ahead on this thing for the next time something comes up.

Anyway, beneath the fold: The Faith & Film Critics Circle 2007 Awards

Continue reading ‘Awards Go Ever, Ever On *update*’

Paprika

•March 3, 2008 • Leave a Comment

A lesson I really need to learn about blogging with WordPress is, if you leave an open post sitting for a long time (i.e. several hours or a day), and then you add more to it before hitting save, it will eat whatever you wrote. I haven’t learned this yet, although it has happened multiple times, so I just lost the entire text of my post on Paprika. Frustrating to say the least.

I got Paprika in from Netflix over the weekend and watched it twice: once on Saturday night, then again on Sunday afternoon. I rarely do that with movies, but I really enjoyed Paprika. And, just as importantly, I didn’t feel I had gotten everything I could have out of the first viewing. Anyway, if I can watch it twice, surely I can also write about it twice (if only in a slightly abbreviated form the second time).

In a nutshell, the plot of Paprika involves a device called the DC Mini, invented by scientists working at the Institute for Psychiatric Research. The Mini straps onto a subject like a headset and reads their dreams as they sleep, transmitting the sounds and images to a computer for study, and allowing others equipped with the headset to enter the subject’s dreams and interact with them there. However, the device has applications that the scientists are only beginning to understand.

Soon, one of the Minis is stolen and a shadowy figure begins tapping into the minds of everyone that has ever used the device. With the stolen Mini, this person can cause his targets to enter a dreamstate while awake, posing a threat to others and themselves. As Dr. Chiba Atsuko and the powerful, mysterious dream adventurer Paprika investigate these occurrences, something far more sinister emerges. A very creepy dream is beginning to crop up all over the place, and seems to be moving towards dominance of the entire dreamworld. What does this mean, and can it be stopped?

The movie is exciting and suspenseful, but also quite exhilarating. The animation pops with a fluid and imaginative style that really brings the bizarre sights of the dreamworld to life and is just plain fun to watch. The music, sampled in the clips above and below, is fantastic as well. On top of that, the movie questions how much we really understand our world, even something as close to us as our own subconscious minds, and probes the sometimes blurry lines between dreams and reality in a very unique way.

If you were as intrigued by the trailer as I was, have a look at the opening credits sequence below (one of the coolest I’ve ever seen), and then go find yourself a copy of this movie! It’s a great ride.

The Violent Still Bear It Away

•March 2, 2008 • Leave a Comment

poster1.jpg

Flannery O’Connor observed that “Our age not only does not have a very sharp eye for the almost imperceptible intrusions of grace, it no longer has much feeling for the nature of the violences which precede and follow them.” This is perhaps more true now than when she said it in 1963, and her stories of redemption through often grotesquely violent moments of grace have continued to resonate powerfully with readers over 40 years after her untimely death. Her writing career produced a relatively small but formidable body of fiction replete with Christian themes and imagery and a profound group of essays and letters which (among other things) outlines her views on the nature of the relationship between her stories and her Catholic faith.

poster2.jpgIn describing her fiction, O’Connor once said, “All my stories are about the action of grace on a character who is not very willing to support it, but most people think of these stories as hard, hopeless, brutal, etc.” In 2005, actor Tommy Lee Jones (who wrote his Harvard thesis on Flannery O’Connor) directed and starred in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, a film that fits this description perfectly. This paper will examine the film both in terms of its representation of Flannery O’Connor’s ideas and writings and as a meaningful story of a flawed character’s violent journey to redemption.

Three Burials emerged from a discussion which began on a hunting trip Jones took in 2004 with Oscar-nominated Mexican screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga (author of 21 Grams and Babel) and producer Michael Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, the son of the literary executors of O’Connor’s estate, first met Jones in the late ‘70s, when Jones was nearly cast in the lead role of 1979’s Wise Blood, the only film to date based directly on O’Connor’s fiction, which Fitzgerald adapted and produced.

In describing the way his movie is constructed, Jones said, “What you do is you consider some so-called religious thinking without the didacticism of the classical approach. You look for the allegorical intentions of what we’re taught in the Bible, and then find some way to have it revealed or expressed by common experience. You’ll find this happening over and over again in O’Connor, who was a rather classical Catholic thinker who wrote about nothing but backwoods north Georgia rednecks.” As with O’Connor’s stories, Three Burials has strong ties to a specific region. However, instead of rural Georgia, this film is set in the desolate country on and around the border between Mexico and west Texas, which has its own immediately recognizable regional identity.

poster3.jpgIn the story, partially-based on the death of 18-year old Esequiel Hernandez at the hands of US Marines in 1997, rookie border patrolman Mike Norton (played by Barry Pepper) shoots and kills an illegal immigrant named Melquiades Estrada and buries him out in the desert. The body is discovered a few days later, and buried in town by the authorities. Melquiades had worked for and befriended local rancher Pete Perkins (played by Tommy Lee Jones). Pete investigates the murder himself and he discovers what Mike has done, but the sheriff (played by country-western singer Dwight Yoakam) refuses to act. Taking matters into his own hands, Pete kidnaps Mike from his home, forces him to dig up Melquiades’ body, and takes him on a journey that is as much spiritual as it is physical; an epic quest to return the corpse to its proper resting place near Melquiades’ home in Mexico.

Continue reading ‘The Violent Still Bear It Away’

The Other Boleyn Girl

•February 29, 2008 • Leave a Comment

other-boleyn-girl-poster.jpgstarring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson and Eric Bana
written by Peter Morgan & directed by Justin Chadwick
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements, sexual content and some violent images.
81%

The year is 1520. Henry VIII (Bana) is king of England, and his queen’s failure to provide him with a male heir has left him feeling edgy and insecure. In the midst of this volatile and dangerous atmosphere at court, the ambitious Boleyn family makes a play for wealth and influence by shoving their two very different daughters, Anne (Portman) and Mary (Johansson), into the king’s path. Based on the Philippa Gregory novel of the same title.

Now, clearly no one should be going to see this movie in order watch historical events depicted accurately. It is fairly obvious that many elements of both the novel and the film are either highly speculative or purely fabricated. Then again, introducing speculation at points where history is largely silent or unclear keeps things interesting. Everyone knows what actually happened to Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn, so something has to keep our attention in a 2-hour rehash of their story. The various devices work admirably.

Then, too, there is the question of glamour. If centuries-old portraits are to be trusted (and they are, after all, all that we have), these actors look nothing like the people they are portraying. (Eric Bana in particular seems like an odd casting choice from the resemblance perspective.) They are far too attractive, for one thing. But as some of my professors used to say (the ones teaching the literature of the period, not the history professors, of course), these people were the celebrities of their day. Some things never change, and people then were just as fascinated with the intrigues and scandals of the rich and powerful as they are now. Why else would we still have these stories to tell, all these centuries later?

So, The Other Boleyn Girl is not by any means accurate in its depiction of the reality of its setting, but perhaps it is more faithful in its translation of the spirit of those times into terms that modern audiences have no difficulty understanding. I should think we can trust screenwriter Peter Morgan (who previously scripted a multi-part documentary on Henry VIII for British television, and was nominated for an Oscar just last year for The Queen) at least that far. In my book, at least, the film qualifies as good historical fiction simply by virtue of the fact that it is almost certain to inspire its audience to conduct at least some cursory further research into its subject on their own.

I suppose I have said very little about the movie itself at this point. On the one hand, there’s not a great deal of value to be said by way of a review. The story, as I’ve noted, is familiar; an old favorite. The actors, again, are famous and good-looking. If these elements appeal, then by all means go see it. You’ll get your money’s worth. The Other Boleyn Girl delivers exactly what it promises to deliver: a guilty soap-opera pleasure that feels more cerebral than a “Desperate Housewives” episode without sinking to the level of softcore tabloid sleaze employed by Showtime’s ongoing “The Tudors” (which, oddly, has another Natalie–Natalie Dormer–as Anne Boleyn).

But I’ll give you what you came for. Bana, Portman and Johansson are quite good. They even occasionally manage to let us forget, if only for a few seconds, that they are Bana, Portman and Johansson. Plus, it is always enjoyable to take in an opulently-detailed historical scene (particularly when one is too ignorant to catch errors), and this one is particularly gorgeous. Those costumes . . . wow. They’re great. Enough said.

Integrated a bit more seamlessly into the tapestry than the headline stars are a rather strong supporting cast. Ana Torrent as Katherine is simply fantastic (making full use of her few minutes of screentime), and David Morrissey as the Duke of Norfolk (uncle to the Boleyn girls) is quite good. However, there are many others as well. Kristin Scott Thomas, as the girls’ mother, also has some excellent material to work with. Her constant willingness to question her husband and brother’s single-minded commitment to acquiring influence at court over the safety and happiness of their family is one of the film’s worthiest elements. The cost of that commitment, of course, is tragically apparent by the end, and Elizabeth Boleyn makes it difficult to forget that these are the consequences of personal choices. Key line: “When did ambition become a virtue rather than a sin?”

In the end, the life of Henry VIII, and particularly this episode, has been dramatized in countless films already. Here is another one. Some, like the excellent and Oscar-winning adaptation of A Man for All Seasons, have been quite memorable. Most, less so. And if this latest vignette is more likely to fall in the latter category than the former, it does at least provide a more than mildly diverting visit to the 16th century by way of the 20th.