Film Forum: The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Premonition, I Think I Love My Wife
Looking Closer's Film Forum!
When the envelopes are torn open and the winners are breathlessly announced on Oscar night, most American moviegoers have already had plenty of opportunities to see the nominated features. But when the Cannes Film Festival crowns the winner of the Palme d’Or each year, only the fortunate festival attendees get to feel the excitement. It often takes months for the rest of the world, America included, to learn what all of the fuss was about. (And most moviegoers are never even curious, because Hollywood does such a good job of convincing us that America is the only place where significant movies are made and distributed.)
I've come to anticipate the Cannes award announcements as eagerly as the Oscars, because as I have tracked down the films that win acclaim there, I've discovered many of my favorites. Wings of Desire, Barton Fink, The Double Life of Veronique, The Son... so many lasting, rewarding treasures. So I'm eager to see this year's parade of films that have already won cheers at Cannes.
The winner of last year’s grand prize, Ken Loach’s The Wind That Shakes the Barley, dramatizes the clash between the Irish and the British in the early 1920s. It focuses on two brothers Teddy and Damien (Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney) who get caught up in the Republican fighting forces resisting British oppressors.
Critics in the mainstream and religious press are both powerfully impressed.
John P. McCarthy (CNS) says, "Loach vividly exposes the pitfalls of violence by showing how cycles of reprisal tear apart both the country and the siblings. ... The narrative, beautifully realized from a production standpoint, has been pared down to its essentials and has the universal, inexorable qualities of a tragic fable."
Salon's Andrew O'Heihr writes that Loach "blends colorful scenery -- in this case, the damp, green lushness of County Cork, on Ireland's southwestern coast -- with meticulously rendered sociology, straightforward family drama and tendentious political debate."
Andrew Sarris of The New York Observer writes, "There is no happy ending in Barley—only a symmetry of suffering in the killing that brings no solutions to the problems. At the very least, Barley doesn’t partake of the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed anti-war pictures that provide enough violence to satisfy the most bloodthirsty spectators. But though Mr. Loach has escaped that trap, in the process he doesn’t provide any compensatory redemption. Ultimately, Barley is the antithesis of a feel-good entertainment—but it is to be commended for its unflinching seriousness."
And The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan says, "The Wind That Shakes the Barley turns out to be a more complicated, more dramatically potent story than it appears at first. It's concerned at its core not with how bad the British were but with what the cost of dealing with them was for the Irish."
Some interesting opinions are popping up at Arts and Faith too, where I found this review by Steve Sailer:
Why did the UK, which sent 20,000 Tommies to their deaths on the first day of the Battle of the Somme a half decade earlier, not stay the course in Ireland? Ken Loach's film ... graphically conveys why the English, a civilized people, went home. Defeating a guerilla uprising broadly supported by the local populace requires a level of frightfulness that does not bear close inspection. . . .
Loach is neither the most fluid of filmmakers nor the most historically trustworthy, but Barley is consistently informative about the Anglo-Irish War, if spectacularly wrong-headed about the subsequent Irish Civil War among the victors . . .
And Tony Watkins at Damaris has a thoughtful look from the film's earlier showings on the other side of the pond.
The Wind that Shakes the Barley is not an easy film to watch. It is, as one expects from director Ken Loach, superbly made... ... It is more than a little uncomfortable to have the brutality of British rule portrayed so starkly, and it is both moving and distressing to see the desperation of the Irish and the poverty to which they were subject. Loach is always a very political director, and his realist approach to film-making (historical accuracy as far as possible in sets, costumes and dialogue as well as in the historical context itself; natural lighting; shooting the story in sequence; and long takes) helps to bring out the seriousness and the complexities of the situation. This is a film which makes clear the ugliness of occupation by foreign powers and of armed conflict. But while it is frank and graphic in its portrayal of the violence, there is no lingering over it or celebration of it. Loach says:
There is often a hypocrisy going on in war films, where they claim to be anti-war, but then a large part of the entertainment involves all the explosions and the blood. That doesn’t seem very anti-war to me, if you’re saying we hate killing but let’s enjoy it while it’s on screen.
Instead The Wind that Shakes the Barley shows how violence breeds more violence in an escalation of tit-for-tat cruelty. It shows the pain and tragic consequences of betrayal, and the agonies of a nation which becomes so divided that former comrades, friends and even brothers end up struggling with conflicts of loyalty and fighting each other because of passionately held principles. And perhaps most distressing of all, it shows the traumatic experience of ordinary men who end up becoming killers because of what is at stake.
More reviews are piling up at Rotten Tomatoes.
Sure, Sandra Bullock had a significant role in the Best-Picture-winning Crash. But does that mean she’s going to become a regular headliner of dramas and thrillers? If you ask me, I think Bullock’s comic instincts are her strengths, and my favorite Bullock performances are still her supporting roles in Speed and (especially) The Thing Called Love.
Bullock stars in Premonition, a thriller with a premise that will remind many of the classic comedy Groundhog Day. But this is a thriller with a deeply furrowed brow. And it’s furrowing the brows of critics as well.
Harry Forbes (CNS) says, “Serious suspension of disbelief is required on the viewer's part. Why does Linda coolly seek out an extremely creepy doctor … when she has already experienced him (in the future) fiendishly strapping her down and administering an injection? Why does she look so panicked when a page in a phone book is ripped out when all she has to do is dial ‘411’ instead?”
For some reason, I think those questions make the movie sound like a barrel of laughs. Could it be that Premonition is the year’s best inadvertent comedy?
Maybe not. Forbes says that “Mennan Yapo directs with great skill,” and he calls Bullock’s performance “riveting.”
Peter T. Chattaway at CT Movies says, “…the filmmakers work themselves into a bit of a corner, and the world depicted in this story owes more to the cruel, ironic fatalism of ancient Greek myths than it does to the liberating hope of the Christian gospel. And it doesn't help that the positive elements that are there require us to overlook huge gaps in the narrative, both in terms of how Linda experiences the world around her, and in terms of the objective chronology in which everyone else lives.
Crosswalk’s Christa Banister says, “The script doesn’t make even a twitch of sense.”
Taking a different view, Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) thinks that the conclusion has “real emotional resonance. Ultimately, the point of the film is not about dark premonitions, but about what it means to keep faith with our families.” But he would prefer that the film was specific, pointing out that what they really need is Jesus. “Instead, the film implicitly endorses faith in faith itself.”
You'll find plenty more at Rotten Tomatoes.
When fans of the great French director Eric Rohmer heard that one of his classics, Chloe in the Afternoon , was being adapted by Chris Rock, it was a little hard for them to imagine. Could the popular stand-up comedian translate the subtlety and nuance of Rohmer’s work?
In a word, the answer is “Nope.” Critics are responding to I Think I Love My Wife, saying, "I think I dislike this movie."
John P. McCarthy (CNS) writes, “Rock falls short both behind and in front of the camera…. His film skimps not only on any special insights into marital fidelity but also on pure entertainment value.”
Marcus Yoars (Plugged In) says, “The movie preaches strongly that the final act of adultery will likely destroy your marriage, and you should think long and hard before doing it. But it largely gives a pass to the process, thoughts and compromises that lead up to that act.”
He’s also not happy with the film’s perspective of women. “[Rock’s] movie views marriage as joyless—unless wives can hang on to that ‘ho’ quality that supposedly attracted their men in the first place. It views women in general as, in the words of Newsday's Jan Stuart, ‘either pouting spoilsports, nagging, frigid soccer moms or man-eating vixens.’”
GreenCine Daily chronicles some lenient reviews and a lot of disappointment. And Rotten Tomatoes offers a few positive reviews among the rejections.
300:
James S. Robbins (The National Review) says, “One is attracted to the human drama of the story. A small band of fighters willingly sacrifice themselves against vastly superior forces to buy time so armies could assemble to defeat the enemy later. It is no mystery why the defense of the Alamo was soon dubbed ‘America’s Thermopylae.’ … But the analogy is inexact, because of what the respective groups were defending. The heroes of 1836 were fighting for freedom. The Spartans fought to maintain their autocratic state. A better analogy is not the Alamo but Iwo Jima, from the Japanese point of view (also recently dramatized in Letters from Iwo Jima). Both groups of defenders, Spartan and Imperial Japanese, were prepared to die fighting the enemy — but not for things we value.”
Relevant’s Michael Kneff asks, “So, what is so compelling about 300? It is, in essence, a gore fest. What causes us to cheer when limbs get hacked off? … I, for one, couldn’t wait to see this movie. And I enjoyed it. But why?”
His answer doesn't do much to help me understand that question. “I think that movies like 300 create isolated bubbles where we can watch virtues acted out without real consequences," he explains. "This is also known as escapism. Frank Miller’s characters exist in a world where words like passion, honor, courage and strength are lived out in pure form. Miller’s world is black and white with no trace of gray. King Leonidas charges his men to act as free men and live with honor. There is a real sense that these men are fighting for something greater than themselves.”
I'm not persuaded. I personally don’t cheer when limbs get hacked off. I've been bored with big battle scenes since Braveheart, except in rare films that make me care about the characters, and in which each moment of the battle is essential to enrich the storytelling. When filmmakers exploit the violence of war for mere entertainment... that's not healthy for audiences. And I’m not sure I’m capable of looking, as Kneff does, “past the pile of dead Persians." I'm not sure I can cheer for either side of this struggle. And personally, I think that "escapism" that urges us to see the world as “black and white with no trace of gray” is very, very dangerous.
I'll admit, I haven't seen the film. But Kneff's defense only serves to increase my worries and apprehension, and I think I'd do well not to waste my time with this film.
Wasn’t Osama bin Laden “standing up for his way of life” and “fighting for something greater than himself”? We need to cheer for something more than that. We need to recognize what "way of life" is being defended, and what "greater" cause is being celebrated.
There are some interesting reactions to the film in the comments posted to last week’s Film Forum.
One commenter to my initial coverage of the film replied,
... [T]he message was straight out of mein kampf. it was hyper macho, derogatory to the handicapped, the homosexual and minorities. the struggle of a few for the survival of the west from the forces of the darkness from the east is just creepy. all of this pro-western imagery is really intense; it paints the spartans as saints, when in reality (the reality presented by the movie) they were oppressive and brutish.
And I'm especially interested in the comments (and the full review) by Opus:
... All of the talk about honor and sacrifice just rang false, because I knew this was merely padding out the time until the next Persian assault came down the road and the next wave of dismemberings took place.
At the risk of sounding too nitpicky, the talk about honor and sacrifice also rang a bit false because, after all, the Spartans' culture (or at least their military) is based on infanticide and what could only be construed as child abuse and brainwashing -- something that the film's narrator explains early on, and even with a touch of pride. As such, all of this talk about honor felt somewhat deluded, deformed, and even jingoistic to me.
If the film had dealt more squarely with that discrepancy between the Spartans' noble ideals and the barbarism on which their culture is founded, that might have given the film a bit more substance and ambiguity. I suppose you could argue that the film did just that with the subplot involving Ephialtes. But again, that particular subplot felt a little rushed to me, pushed aside to make room for the next wave of Persian cannon fodder.
The Namesake:
Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn) says, “[E]very cultural detail seems pitch-perfect, every shock and conflict based on keen observance of reality, every generational gap simultaneously universal and specific. … Long ago, such tales used to be about emotional awakening; since the 1960’s, they have largely centered on the discovery of sexual organs and girlfriends’ mothers. Now, in an era when young adults are not truly achieving independence until deep into their twenties, The Namesake offers a new vision for the genre—tales which take emotional and sexual awareness for granted, and instead focus on a different kind of awakening: of identity and purpose, of cultural, societal, and familial reconciliation.”
At CT Movies, Steven D. Greydanus says, “The Namesake is knowing and observant regarding the vagaries of cultural collisions that are a perennial part of the immigrant experience. Yet the basic issues are not cultural, but universal and human.”
He concludes that the film is “a rare adaptation that works better the more familiar one is with the source material. Most adaptations compete with their source material, so that the stronger one feels about the original work, the more conflicted one feels about the adaptation. The Namesake may be best enjoyed by viewers most able to connect the dots and fill in the gaps wherever Lahiri's creation hasn't quite made it to the screen.”
Christian Hamaker at Crosswalk says, “Nair’s attempt to condense Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel misses a few other beats. Leaps in time seem arbitrary, and attempts to draw distinctions between the first- and second-generation immigrants are too obvious…. But the film’s color palette compensates mightily for any script deficiencies.”
Beyond the Gates:
Peter T. Chattaway at CT Movies writes, “Beyond the Gates has been criticized in some quarters for telling what ought to be an African story through the eyes of noble Europeans, but there are many stories that could and should be told about the Rwandan genocide—and one of those stories does, indeed, concern the fact that the western world failed to intervene. the film is blessed with excellent performances, and it is clearly motivated by a desire to make this tragedy known. If you see it, stay for the credits, which reveal that a number of the film's crew are survivors.
Chattaway’s interview with David Belton, producer and co-writer of Beyond the Gates, is also up at CT Movies.
Lesson in Learning to Let Things Go #32 - The Faith and Film Critics Circle
On March 6, I stepped down from my role as the chairman of the Faith and Film Critics Circle.
It was not a difficult decision: With all of the increasing demands on my time from the Through a Screen Darkly and Auralia's Colors projects, it became obvious to me that I didn't have the time or resources to be an effective leader for that particular endeavor anymore. I probably should have stepped down six months ago.
As I look back at the annual list of films we've celebrated, I'm still impressed at the group's discernment and the interest in excellence and vision. I respect the work of each member of that group, and I'm sorry to have to dial down my involvement with them.
At this point, I still remain a member of the FFCC, and I'll be interested to see what the current administrators, Ron Reed and Steven Greydanus decide is best for the Circle in the future. I'm grateful for their support and friendship, and for the faithful web support from Zach Kincaid at The Matthews House Project.
Film Forum: 300, The Ultimate Gift, The Namesake, Beyond the Gates, The Host
The soundtrack for this week's Film Forum is provided by The Arcade Fire's new abum Neon Bible. How do you get the soundtrack to play while you read the column? Easy. Buy Neon Bible from iTunes and start playing it. The column will be much more exciting to read if you do. Trust me.
DO MOVIE CRITICS MATTER?
Do movie critics matter?
Absolutely not, says Brian Robbins, director of the hit comedy Norbit.
Standing on top of the mountains of cash that Norbit has made at the box office, Robbins expresses his amazement that only 9% of the critics at Rotten Tomates recommend his film to moviegoers. He declares, "The only films that get good reviews are the ones that nobody sees. I just don't think you can make movies for critics."
Robbins' profound statement has huge implications. If quality can be determined by box office success, imagine what this means for the food industry. McDonalds serves billions of customers ... so, by Robbins' philosophy, McDonalds must be the best food in the world. Restaurants that get good reviews don't draw nearly as many customers as McDonalds, so clearly, nobody should bother preparing fine cuisine.
TIME TO REVISE MY NETFLIX QUEUE
Speaking of movies that nobody sees....
One of my favorite cinephiles, Darren Hughes of Long Pauses, has revised his all-time favorite films list. Whenever I spend time reading Hughes' perspectives on film, I end up revisingmy list of "must-see" movies.
300
At church on Sunday, I had six different people ask me, "What did you think of 300?"
And on top of that, some parents asked me if the movie would be safe for their kids. "I have some teenage boys who are very excited about it," one woman said. "And they tell me that it's worth seeing because it's about history."
Well, first of all, parents, note the obvious: 300 is rated R because it contains elaborate displays of graphic bloodshed and sex. So that would give me pause before taking a bunch of teenagers right there. If I was a parent, I'd probably test the movie myself first before allowing my kids to go.
Now, we all know that trailers can be misleading. It may be that 300 is a subtle, nuanced work of art, rich with complex characters, revealing and thoughtful depictions of evil, and inspiring portrayals of virtue. It may be that 300 brings history to life with compelling insight.
All I can do here is pass along what I'm reading in the reviews and hearing from trusted friends who have seen the film and shared their impressions with me. And if they are correct, 300 has as much to do with studying history as Looney Toons has to do with studying wildlife.
But they could be wrong. I'm not going to judge a film I haven't seen.
While reviewers are divided over whether the film is worth seeing, they almost unanimously agree that the storytelling is shallow and insignificant, and that the film exists primarily to show off dazzling digital effects and thrill audiences with a spectacle of gratuitous violence.
Again, that's what most trustworthy critics are saying. Those aren't my words... they're theirs.
I don't plan to see the movie. To say it's "not my cup of tea" would be an understatement. The previews for 300 insulted my intelligence enough ... I don't want to pay ten bucks to be insulted for two full hours. I didn't like Braveheart -- I thought that its many drawn-out scenes dazzling us with violence overpowered any thoughtful consideration of virtue. I staggered out of the theater disspirited and exhausted. Gladiator served up more of the same (although there were moments when the film teased me with some interesting ideas). So I just don't think that 300 is going to be my cup of... my bucket of blood.
Claiming to give us a movie about "freedom," filmmakers are oh so glad to serve up hours and hours of gory imagery. Thus, audiences are immersed in entertainment that celebrates the tragic cost of freedom, while they come away with little or no appreciation for what freedom is, or the good that is purchased with such sacrifice. Is 300 one of those films? I can't say. I can only refer you to some of the responses that have seemed fairly persuasive.
Peter Suderman (ALARM!) says, "The movie is basically Gladiator’s brain-damaged, steroidal, coked-up younger sibling -- and not in a good way either. Yes, the digitally painted sets and heavily processed photography look fantastic, but that doesn’t save the movie from ending up as little more than a blunt, witless exercise in dumb-as-rocks juvenile wish-fulfillment. This might have been fun, at least, except for the fact that its biggest sin is that it’s boring. Honestly, how could such glorious depravity be so utterly yawn inducing?"
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says, "Most of the film is shot in sepia tones, striking at first, but soon becoming tiresome. Leonidas and his impossibly buffed soldiers facing off against digitalized weapons, strange creatures, and seemingly thousands of enemy troops, though the pervasive battlefield violence is somewhat tempered by the often genuinely artful cinematography."
Via GreenCine Daily, I found these two perspectives: Matt Singer (IFC News): "[E]ven though 300's visual style moves beyond simply looking good into a stylishness and pictorial beauty rarely equaled in genre pictures, its dumbness overwhelms its prettiness. If battle footage can be beautiful, some of it in 300 certainly is, but, oh how stupid everything surrounding it is." And Nathan Lee (The Village Voice): "Long ago there reigned a clan of Speedo-wearing militaristic psychopaths called the Spartans. ... At once homophobic and homoerotic, 300 is finally, and hilariously, just hysterical."
Kenneth Turan (LA Times) says, "At least in the short run, 300 is something to see, but unless you love violence as much as a Spartan, Quentin Tarantino or a video-game-playing teenage boy, you will not be endlessly fascinated."
Jeff Walls (Past the Popcorn) finds all of this big screen dismemberment and sex "exhilarating." "Filmed using the same technique as Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and the previously released adaptation of Miller’s Sin City, the film’s visuals are hyper-real. It’s a technique that works wonderfully for the film. Had the battle scenes been filmed more realistically, like those in Gladiator or Braveheart, the action itself would have had to be based more in reality, and it would not have been nearly as exhilarating."
Lawrence Toppman (Charlotte Observer) is similarly impressed. "300 is a huge step forward in visually sophisticated storytelling." Okay, so it's visually sophisticated. But shouldn't we care about what purpose all of this sophistication serves?
Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) does not share Toppman's enthusiasm. "300 spends most of its running time showing is not the origins of freedom, nor the bravery of fighting men, but a 'grotesque spectacle' demonstrating how we pursue our basic instincts: survival, sex and a thirst for brutal, bloody entertainment. ... Visually compelling but saddled with a flat script, [the movie] is a loud, furious view of early warfare – a shell of a great tale that, for a brief time, covers its weaknesses with striking images. But the bottom falls out early, leading to a punishing sit for those who aren’t interested primarily in seeing the myriad methods of death for ancient warriors."
Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) testifies: "I watched as scores of moviegoers (mostly men) walked to their cars laughing and pounding each other on the back. You'd have thought we'd all just seen Top Gun for the first time. Such is the influence of the latest big-screen Frank Miller adaptation, a hyper-violent, hyper-masculine ode to honor and duty by way of blood, blood and more blood. Did I mention the blood?"
Some are finding political commentary in the film, such as "David Kahane" of The New Republic.
Meanwhile, there's already some buzz about what Zack Snyder might do to "sucker punch" audiences next time.
The Ultimate Gift
The Ultimate Gift is the latest Christian movie to win a wide release. Once again, mainstream critics and Christian film critics are challenged to give the film a fair review without coming across as propagandists or belief-bashers.
Last time Christianity Today's film critics made some critical remarks about the flaws in a certain Christian movie, they got in all kinds of trouble. But they're sticking to their commitment to excellence. And so, here's Carolyn Arends (CT Movies), with her thoughts on The Ultimate Gift:
"The Ultimate Gift ... aims to be just the sort of movie Christians pine for. Lovingly crafted to engage the viewer in an exploration of what truly matters in life, to gently invite a contemplation of faith as a source of meaning, and to inspire hope in even the most tragic circumstances, this film has its heart absolutely in the right place. If only it were a bit more entertaining. Like sensible woolen socks in a ribbon-wrapped package, The Ultimate Gift may be good for you, but it's a little hard to get excited about."
She has a lot more to say about where it falls short, and where it works.
David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) is more impressed than Arends. "Though it has a made-for-TV movie feel to it, [Gift] avoids excessive sentimentality as it imparts positive messages about gratitude, forgiveness, family and altruism that overcome its uneven script and some average performances.... The film is one of the better titles to be released under the admirable Fox Faith banner, delivering reasonably well on its promise to provide 'quality, inspirational and spiritual entertainment.'"
Jeff Shannon (The Seattle Times), who was one of the few mainstream critics to applaud The Last Sin Eater, qualifies that rave in his review of The Ultimate Gift: "A month ago, I wrote a lenient review of ... The Last Sin Eater, if only because spiritually substantial movies strike me as a welcomed alternative to worthless garbage like Norbit. ... The Ultimate Gift is equally praiseworthy for resolving a spiritual crisis with honorable values."
But then Shannon admits that this Gift is "blandly appealing and timidly reluctant to offend ... an average Hallmark Hall of Fame TV movie, just 'Jesus's enough to make it palatable to non-Christians ... comforting, predictable and safe, and impossible to watch without being constantly aware of how it could be improved."
Shannon says that if the film wanted to offer a powerful Christian message, it should have made the main character's ordeal "truly threatening and genuinely transformative, but that doesn't happen in a movie that can't convincingly challenge the faith it supports."
Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) sums it up: "The Ultimate Gift has a great message which might well be used as an evangelism tool. Those who enjoy Hallmark-style fare will certainly appreciate it. It’s also appropriate for anyone looking to instigate talk about the deeper issues of life."
Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) says, "Movies that deliberately try to deliver a narrowly focused message or moral often fail. Their stories sometimes feel clunky and self-serving. The acting can be sketchy. And they can choose to wield a 10-pound sledge, when they really only need a 2-pound hammer. The Ultimate Gift doesn't always avoid these pitfalls, but it does manage to choose the right mallet."
Jeff Walls (Past the Popcorn) writes, "The Ultimate Gift, with it’s in-your-face life lessons and relatively modest production values—not to mention a child dying of leukemia—felt more like an after school special than a theatrical feature film. Nevertheless, I enjoyed every bit of it."
Jeannette Catsoulis (The New York Times) did not enjoy every bit of it. "Reeking of self-righteousness and moral reprimand, The Ultimate Gift is a hairball of good-for-you filmmaking."
But Mark Olsen (Los Angeles Times) shows more mercy. "The film's values are fairly well encoded into the story, such that it feels less like a sermon and more like a film with a good, if somewhat sappy, heart."
You'll find more mainstream responses to the film here.
The Namesake
Mira Nair made a fantastic, memorable, inspiring film called Monsoon Wedding.
Then she made a visually sumptuous but ultimately disappointing adaptation of Vanity Fair (during which I was engaged only by the supporting performance of Romola Garai).
Now, she's directed The Namesake, and critics are celebrating her again.
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says it "holds your interest right up to its emotionally devastating two-hankie conclusion. ... Nair's uplifting and beautiful film encapsulates all the important elements of our humanity so deftly that watching it almost offers the palpable essence of life itself."
Mainstream critics are moved by Nair's "delicate" adaptation. GreenCine Daily has collected links to several thoughtful reviews. In The New Republic, Louis Wittig writes, "The Namesake is an exquisite novel of a movie — uncluttered and emotionally comprehensive, lush with behavioral detail...."
Beyond the Gates
Beyond the Gates revisits the horrors of the Rwandan genocide, an event that many moviegoers did not notice until they saw Terry George's powerful Hotel Rwanda a few years ago. Michael Caton-Jones's movie, which was released outside of America last year under the title Shooting Dogs, stars John Hurt as a Catholic priest. Through this character's eyes, the nightmare is cast in a light that reveals the spiritual conflict in the midst of the bloodshed.
Stephen Holden (New York Times) writes that the film addresses "the question of religious and spiritual faith in the face of genocide. What is true faith, and how much horror does it take to erode it? Can a reasonable person still believe in God amid the slaughter of 800,000 people? Does reason have anything to do with it?"
Nick Schager (Slant) begins his review like this: "Not a definitive cinematic statement on the Rwandan genocide but certainly a far preferable dramatic treatment of the atrocity than Hotel Rwanda, Beyond the Gates tackles its true story ... with the type of blunt realism absent from Terry George's celebrated 2004 Don Cheadle vehicle. Director Michael Caton-Jones shoots with a rough-around-the-edges griminess that brings urgency to his tale...."
Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) compares it to Hotel Rwanda and says Beyond the Gates is "a rawer, more pitiless film offering less reassurance and more outrage at the diffidence of the Western world in the face of the Rwandan genocide." He concludes that it is "most worth seeing for its uncompromising portrait of an episode more representative of the Rwandan genocide than the events depicted in Hotel Rwanda. At the same time, Beyond the Gates offers little insight into the Hutu or Tutsi experience, little depth to match the courage of its convictions."
Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) says it "towers above most current films, with even the more worthy ones seeming like fluff in comparison. It's a gripping film about one of recent history's most regrettable episodes: the international community's failure to come to the aid of the thousands of men, women and children who lost their lives during the Rwandan genocide. ... Hurt -- in real life, a clergyman's son and monk's brother -- gives a wonderfully committed and believable performance, and Dancy ... convincingly conveys the growing horror and disillusionment of his character."
Denny Wayman (Cinema in Focus) offers a post-viewing discussion guide for the film.
Mainstream critics are offering a wide variety of responses.
Here's a piece that ran in The Guardian about co-writer and producer David Belton, and his experience in making the film. And here's another about some of the trouble that the filmmakers stirred up during production.
The Host
Park Hee-bong (played by Byun Hee-bong) is too old for this @#$%.
He has just enough energy to run a snack bar and take care of his two sons, his daughter, and his granddaughter.
But when a mutant creature, the most dangerous piece of sushi you've ever seen, rises from the Han River to wreak Godzilla-scale havoc, Hee-bong must lead his family in a dangerous rescue mission to rescue his daughter.
Sounds like a formulaic monster movie... but it isn't.
Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) says, "Like all good science fiction The Host is about more than meets the eye: Government smoke-screens. Confronting demons of our own making. What being a family really means. Despite dragging a bit before the final, bittersweet act, The Host's ebb and flow of intense chases, lighter moments and pathos is effective ... and moving."
I could share a few of the most memorable mainstream reviews with you, but my word... GreenCine Daily has already done a better job than I could. (Although Anthony Lane's relentless sense of humor makes his review worthy of special mention.)
Days of Glory
I'll let Greg Wright tell you about this Days of Glory, since he's singing the movie's praises from the rooftops.
"What veteran French director Rachid Bouchareb offers straight up is high-quality visual, aural, and narrative believability," raves Greg Wright (Past the Popcorn). "It’s arresting.... Where Days of Glory sets itself apart, though—and, my gosh! with what power!—is in its performances. You may never have heard of any of these actors before, but you’ll wish you’d been watching them for years. Each of them has a résumé as long as your arm, and each has the chops, charisma, and screen presence to hold you spellbound."
He doesn't stop there. Get this! "If you only drag yourself out to see one foreign-language film every decade, make it this one."
I think that qualifies as a 'thumbs way, way, way up.'
Mainstream reviews are available here.
The Tailenders
Doug Cummings (Filmjourney.org), who has become one of the most adventurous explorers in the moviegoing world, has discovered The Tailenders. He writes:
Adele Horne's examination of Global Recordings Network (GRN), an evangelical Christian organization devoted to spreading the gospel to the "tailenders" of world evangelism -- people in the remotest regions of the world -- is a provocative and beautifully constructed examination of how messages are carried, translated, and received. It is not a critical exposé of GRN, but a thoughtful montage of cultural, sociological, and economic questions raised by their activities.
Here's a summary description of the film.
This sounds fascinating. It's not often that we see a fair and thoughtful consideration of missionary work on film. I'd love to see this shown on a Christian university campus to provoke discussion about what it means to "spread the Gospel." Or perhaps... to discuss what not to do.
More reviews of recent releases
The Lives of Others: John Podheretz raves and raves about The Lives of Others.
And America quickly decides to remake it. Hmmm. I wonder if it'll qualify for Best Picture at an upcoming Oscar ceremony, now that Americans are making it.
The Departed: Cineaste has an essay on Gangs of New York and The Departed, and how Scorsese is dealing with race issues in those films.
Amazing Grace: Here's a site I haven't linked before: The World Socialist Web Site. Why? Well, it's all part of my attempt to share all kinds of perspectives on Michael Apted's Amazing Grace. Here's what the WSWS says: "The creators of Amazing Grace have performed a service in calling attention to a significant historical period and one of its most worthy representatives. With clean, tight images and deep commitment, the film brings to life a figure who was a friend of US President James Madison and hailed as an inspiration by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln."
And Mark Steyn is writing about Wilberforce this week... the man, not the movie.
Taste of Cherry: David Lowery on Abbas Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry. (Caution: He gets a bit spoilerish about the film's last big surprise.)
Zodiac: Brett McCracken (Relevant) examines his own response to David Fincher's film, wondering why it troubled him so much, and why crime thrillers are so entertaining. "All of that creepy stuff aside, the thing that most disturbed me in this film was not the Zodiac himself, but what his persona represented as a cultural artifact—for the media, for the investigators, for the everyday citizen."
Matt Soller Zeitz offers a lengthy, thorough examination at The House Next Door. The discussion and debate that follows is also interesting.
Black Snake Moan: Louis Wittig (National Review) says, "Of course pulp is bad. It turns everything it touches — sex and violence usually — into a tawdry cartoon, colored with sensation and high emotion, devoid of thought or respect. That debasing power works both ways though. It lowers things we ought to elevate. And, in its own campy way, it can also cut things we respect too much back down to size."
Into Great Silence: Michael Potemra (National Review) says, "I am thrilled to report that it is even better than the advance buzz led me to expect. ... It’s hard to capture even mundane truths in images; that’s why the typical nonfiction movie tends to get mired in talkiness. In Gröning’s film, however, the images manage to communicate powerful truths about God, man, and the life of prayer. ... See this film. The next time you are having a crisis of purpose, or just feeling beaten down by circumstances, call it to mind: This — or something very much like it—is true."
ALSO WORTH READING
Doug Cummings (FilmJourney) is delighted by a DVD extra on The Criterion Collection's new edition of Robert Bresson's Mouchette:
One of the best DVD extras I've seen recently is ... Theodor Kotulla's 30-minute Au hasard Bresson, but maybe that's because it's a real documentary (that won a German Lola) and not a "featurette." It offers a rare glimpse into the production of Mouchette, and the working methods of then-65-years-old Robert Bresson, once one of cinema's greatest but most reclusive filmmakers, who was often prone (like Hitchcock) to rely on favorite, enigmatic phrases in interviews and insist that his work speak for itself. ... Kotulla's film captures Bresson in creative mid-stride and allows his words and actions to speak for themselves.
Fantastic. As Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar keeps working its way up my list of all-time favorite films, I've got to see this.
"Personally Speaking" with Jim Lisante, Karen Peris, and... Me?!
As a huge fan of The Innocence Mission, I must say I am freaking out a little bit.
A few weeks ago I was interviewed by Monsignor Jim Lisante for a program called "Personally Speaking."Read more
The Dove Foundation's Phone Spam
The Dove Foundation, with its symbol representing the peace of God, is spreading that peace by sending sinister phone spam to your home phone....
On My Way to Biola
My heart belongs to Seattle Pacific University,
... but Biola University is stirring up a lot of passionate discussion about filmmaking. And they've invited me to come down and speak at their 2007 Biola Media Conference, so how can I refuse?Read more
David Poland on "The New World"
In a post about how to decide whether or not a movie is too long, David Poland brings up -- surprise, surprise -- The New World:
There are very few directors who still get “final cut” from studios. And even fewer who deserve it. I love Terrence Malick’s work and I quite liked both versions of The New World that I saw and even look forward to someday seeing the 3 hour version that Malick told some people he would be delivering. But he killed New Line’s ability to market the film by changing it so dramatically after delivering it so late after such a long editing period with absolute final cut. New Line took it on the chin for a true artist’s freedom. And in the two versions that did get released, it was a dramatic example of how length is never the primary issue and how content is everything. Both versions had too much nature for some people, but the first version was mostly image with a dusting of story that spoke to big issues while the second version was much more about Pocahontas’ journey and the connection she chased in her romantic choices. They weren’t two different films, since at least 70% of the footage was the same, but man, were these two different movies!
Jeff Berryman on "Facing the Giants"
Actor, novelist, playwright, and director Jeff Berryman knows a lot about great art, great storytelling, and great drama. So when he goes to a movie, I want to know what he thinks.
Looks like he finally sat down to watch Facing the Giants.Read more
The new book by Scott Cairns: "Short Trip to the Edge"
My favorite poet, Scott Cairns, has just released a thoughtful account of his pilgrimage to Mount Athos.Read more
Philip Yancey Recovering After a Roll-Over Car Accident
Some of you may already know this, but I learned a few days ago that Philip Yancey, an author whose work has had a great influence in my life and in the lives of countless Christians around the world, was injured in a roll-over car accident.Read more