Category: Movies Page 49 of 59

Connie has been reviewing film uninterruptedly since 1970 (47 years) and routinely covers the Chicago International Film Festival (14 years), SXSW, the Austin Film Festival, and others, sharing detailed looks in advance at upcoming entertainment. She has taught a class on film and is the author of the book “Training the Teacher As A Champion; From The Godfather to Apocalypse Now, published by the Merry Blacksmith Press of Rhode Island.

Rahm Emanuel, locked in an unexpectedly close race for Mayor of Chicago, might want to take in a showing of Neill Blomkamp’s new film “Chappie,” which suggests that robots could effectively police a crime-riddled city. Chicago—indeed, all of Illinois—is broke. We have “smash and grab” gangs pulling robberies on Michigan Avenue’s Miracle Mile. The South Loop is not safe after 7 p.m.— ( a woman waiting for the red line at 1:15 p.m. got mugged a couple days ago.) Despite Emanuel’s front-page “Time” spread some months ago (“Chicago Bull”), there seems to be no way to get the gangs—or, for that matter, the recalcitrant teachers—under control. So check out the idea of robot cops, Rahm!

We are told in the first few moments of the film that the robotic police officers (known as “Scouts”) have prevented 300 murders or violent incidents in Johannesburg (South Africa) on a daily basis. Given the fact that thugs have been stealing women’s pocketbooks in broad daylight just one street over from Michigan Avenue, as the ladies wait for their morning bus ride to work, a robotic policeman doesn’t sound like such a bad idea. And say what you will about the fact that robots as cops aren’t exactly a revolutionary concept, the robots in “Chappie” are truly amazing, special effects-wise.

Back in 2004, Blomkamp made a 1.5 minute film called “Tetra Vaal” that posited a robotic police force for 3^rd world countries. In his second film, “Elysium,” such a robotic police force existed. The thuggish police robots in “Elysium” were trying to keep all the Worker Bees on Earth while the wealthy folk, led by Jodie Foster, lived on a completely different plane above them. It was, if you will, a story about the “haves” and the “have nots” The dwellers on Earth were like Occupiers, and the rich folk were up above swimming in their pools and curing all their diseases with superior medical technology.

Reviewers were not kind to Matt Damon’s star turn in “Elysium,” but almost everyone loved Blomkamp’s first film, “District 9,” in which Sharlto Copley (the voice of Chappie) slowly turned into a horrible creature and we all cringed as it occurred. Me? I liked both movies, and I liked this one, too. Blomkamp’s films show me a part of the planet I will probably never get to visit, and he grapples with real-life Big Issues without being preachy. He has a keen eye for the sets and special effects, and the music by Hans Zimmer was also good. Add it all up, complete with some tear-jerker moments rooting for the childlike robot being bullied by the bad guys, and he had me at “I am Chappie.”

I found the special effects of this film to be amazing, with Image Engine of Canada and New Zealand’s Oscar-winning Wetta Workshop collaborating. The motion capture performance is much superior to normal CG work; Blomkamp spent 6 months working with F/X technicians to create 3-D models that could mimic human mobility down to our real-life double-jointed knees.

The echoes of bigger themes, [much like “Elysium’s” attempt to deal with class warfare], in this case is voiced by the child-like robot who says, to Dev Patel playing the programmer (Deon Wilson) who built him [and has identified himself as the robot’s Maker], “My Maker wouldn’t make me just to die. Why did you just make me so I could die? I don’t want to die.” I could certainly relate to that, and so could Logan in “Logan’s Run,” now celebrating close to its 40^th year on film.

Chappie was damaged while on line as Robot 22 and was scheduled to be scrapped, since his battery cannot be replaced, because it is now fused within his metal frame. Deon takes him out of the factory to work on creating a superior robot that can actually think and feel—a robot with human consciousness.

Of course, there is always a “bad guy” who views anything new and different as a threat and wants to destroy it without any effort to get to understand it. In this case, that individual is Hugh Jackman as Vincent Moore. Jackman’s character is not only jealous of the success of Dev Patel’s (Deon Wilson) scouts, he a bullying jerk. Half the time, his Aussie accent and expressions were as foreign as the thick accents of the South African thugs. Who has heard the expression, “You made me as cross as a frog in a sock?” Another Jackman line: “The whole thing is going tits up” I had heard—but not recently. I think you can see that, between the South African accents and setting and Jackman’s odd expressions, explanations are needed for a mere Midwesterner. And who “shadows” someone while driving a bright red truck?

It was easy to understand why Jackman is jealous that his large, ungainly, awkward prototype “Moose” (think Transformers) is not as big a success with the publicly traded weapons industry. When police administrators come for a demonstration, they actually say, “We don’t want this. It’s expensive, big and ugly.” Plus, Vincent’s funding keeps getting cut by Corporate CEO Sigourney Weaver as Michelle Bradley (who has a bit part about as wasted as her other sci fi venture as the Director in “The Cabin in the Woods.”)But Moose is Vincent Moore’s baby, so of course he is going to do everything in his power to undermine Deon Wilson’s (Dev Patel’s) work, even if it means bring total chaos to the city and destroying most of the fleet of hundreds of robot policemen.

The sub-plot and actors were fine by me, Boss, but some reviewers are crying crocodile tears about the casting of non-actors Yolandi Vi$$er and Ninja (real names: Anri du Tort and Watkin Tudor Jones) as “Mommy” and “Daddy” to Chappie. They are career criminals who badly need Chappie to help them earn $20 million in just one week, which has to do with a drug deal gone wrong and their need to repay the Boss Man, Hippo

.In real life, Yolandi and Ninja are vocalists in Die Antwood, a South African rap-rave group singing Zef, and appeared at Coachella.

The 30-year-old blonde Yolandi raps about working class white South Africans, (especially those in Cape Town), and has a child with her former partner, Ninja. In the film, the usually idle Yolandi has the Big Bright Idea of kidnapping Dev Patel, Chappie’s programmer, and getting him to work with them in turning Chappie into “the illest gangster on the block” but the criminals initially think “You gave me a retarded robot.” In fact, “Daddy” takes poor Chappie out into the world before he has become acclimated to it. Nor does Chappie have the worldly experience to understand what is happening or to protect himself. It Is a bit like throwing your small child into ten feet of water and urging him to “sink or swim.” Bad things happen.

In those heart-tugging scenes, I was reminded of Frankenstein’s Monster, who was mercilessly hunted by the townsfolk, or any other film about intelligent life visiting earth (“The Day the Earth Stood Still”) where there is always someone who wants to destroy what they cannot initially understand. Chappie survives and manages to find his way back to “Mommy” and the dilapidated abandoned factory where Yolandi apparently sits around all day smoking (she is seldom shown doing anything but waiting there, alone, for the others to return.)

Another philosophical discussion is about “being different.” It is raised by Chappie’s love of a book about a black sheep. There is also the discussion of life after death, which is discussed as “going to the next place.” You just know that some of Johnny Depp’s “Transcendence” mumbo-jumbo is going to work its way into the plot sooner or later—which is too bad, given how bad that film turned out to be.

In the meantime, however, you have a lot of shoot-‘em-out scenes and some interesting moralizing about whether it is right to engage in criminal behavior. (Chappie only does so when he is tricked into it by “Daddy.” I did begin to wonder if Daddy was right when he said that he had been given a retarded robot, because Chappie doesn’t seem to catch on very quickly to the basic dishonesty of the lead criminal). This group convinced me they could easily be underworld figures dealing drugs, among other crimes, and Yolandi has an interesting blonde, futuristic look, aided by a really unusual haircut.

I often wondered how Deon Wilson ( Dev Patel) could drop out of work so quickly, jump into company-owned vans, and rush off to work on his robot creation. It never worked that way for me in my jobs. Or how he could enter restricted areas after hours at the factory whenever he wished with little or no trouble. I finally decided that this weapons facility had the worst security in the world.

I almost needed sub-titles to be able to understand what Brandon Auret as ‘Hippo,” the rival head of another gang, was saying. It also seemed that the Moose, when that machine is finally pressed into service to keep the peace, was the chief weapon of “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.” Old Hippo the mob boss had way more lives than the 9 lives of most cats, and the heroic self-sacrificing of “Daddy” at a crucial moment late in the film seemed out of character for him, given what a sleazeball he was before that.

But, on the way to the finale of this 2-hour movie, I was thoroughly entertained by the multi-dimensional machine star, the fights, the office politics, and the moralizing about God and life and life after death and being different and child-rearing practices, among other sundry sub-topics. The film was very entertaining and I look forward to Blomkamp taking over the reboot of the “Alien” franchise as has been rumored is to occur.

“Chappie,” the Movie, from “District 9” Director, Entertains

By Connie Wilson

On March 8, 2015

In Movies, Reviews

How Was the Movie Different From the Book? [10 from 2014].

By Connie Wilson

On March 6, 2015

In Books, Movies, Pop Culture

The Oscar season is (finally) over for another year and, for all of you who had neither the time nor the inclination to (a) read the book on which a film was based or (b) watch the movie when it came out, I am going to fill you in on the “differences” from written word to visual image for some of the Big Ones This Year. In some cases, I’ll be primarily mentioning some of the controversies that erupted and probably killed the film’s chances for a coveted gold statue, prior to the awarding of the Best Film of the Year honors to “Birdman.” “Birdman” will not appear anywhere on this list because it was original material developed for the screen and not adapted from a novel.

There is at least one notable exception this year that I thought should have appeared as a Best Picture nominee and should have earned Chicago’s own Gillian Flynn a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, and that was “Gone Girl.” I’m including that film and “Unbroken” and “Inherent Vice,” all films which did have some play at Oscar-time, but were not up for Best Picture (they were nominated in some smaller categories). I’m also bummed that “The Drop” didn’t get anything, and I admit that I liked the soapy “The Fault In Our Stars,” which will probably win some MTV awards coming up soon.

Here are the films, in alphabetical order: “American Sniper;” “Foxcatcher;” “Gone Girl;” “Inherent Vice;” “Selma;” “Still Alice;” “The Imitation Game;” “The Theory of Everything;” “Unbroken” and “Wild.”

1) “American Sniper:” The 2012 memoir that Chris Kyle wrote with Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice was a nonfiction hit about a Navy SEAL who was lauded as the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history during his 4 tours of duty in Iraq.
Movie: Adapted by Jason Hall and directed by Clint Eastwood, it starred Bradley Cooper, who gained 30 or 40 pounds to more closely resemble Chris Kyle, and Sienna Miller as his wife. It was nominated for Best Picture honors and Cooper also got a nod.
Differences/Similarities: As in the book, the film opens in 2003. It details Kyle’s first kill as a sniper, but the decision to shoot is his, not an order from a higher-up. The intitial target is a woman, not a small boy. After Kyle was killed at a shooting range in 2013 in Texas, conversations with Kyle’s widow, Taya (Miller) led screenwritr Hall to add more emotional content based on her collaboration. The film implies that Hall was 30 upon becoming a SEAL; he was actually not quite 25 in 1999. Initially, the Navy rejected him because of a pin in hs arm, which is not mentioned.

2) “Foxcatcher:” The movie is based on the story of the wrestling Schulz brothers, one of whom is murdered by the wealthy DuPont heir portrayed by Steve Carrell in a very different turn from such films as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Carrell’s make-up and dental prosthesis were even Oscar-nominated, losing to “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Mark Ruffalo also scored a nomination as the murdered Schulz brother, but lost to Eddie Redmayne. Director Bennett Miller crafted a lengthy film that could have used some judicious editing, but the Big Buzz come Oscar time was the Twitter outburst of the surviving Schulz brother (played by Channing Tatum in a real tour de force performance), who objected to the homo-erotic subtext he felt Miller had included in the film and denounced him for “promises made,but broken.” This definitely was not good timing during a run-up to the Oscars.

3) “Gone Girl:” I’m reading this one right now, but I am aware that the 2012 novel by Gillian Flynn about a young woman who mysteriously disappears, putting her husband (Ben Affleck) under scrutiny as the prime suspect, had differences because my husband read it first and clued me in. David Fincher (of Gwynneth Paltrow’s head in a box in “7”) kept the rapid pace of the book and most of the book’s twists and turns were retained, probably because the author, herself, was writing the adaptation.
So, what was added or eliminated?
There is less detail in the film about Amy’s bizarre upbringing as “Amazing Amy.” A trip to Hannibal, Missouri, is eliminated. There is no ugly break-up scene between Nick and his mistress. Nick’s father is given a much smaller role in the film than in the book and Amy’s parents are background figures. Some characters didn’t make the cut at all, like an alleged stalker of Amy’s, the mother of boyfriend Desi (Neil Patrick Harris) and Rebecca, the blogger. Nick’s violent and obsessive tendencies are downplayed in the film version and the couple do not pen dueling memoirs, as they did in the book. Another critic mentioned that the family cat seemed to get more play on film. I adapted my science fiction novel “Out of Time” for the screen and won an award from “Writer’s Digest” for it, and, therefore, was duly impressed with Flynn’s screenwriter’s adaptation.

4) “Inherent Vice:” This 2009 novel by Thomas Pynchon is set in 1970 Los Angeles and Doc Sportello is searching for ex-flame Shasta’s married boyfriend, who is a billionaire real estate mogul. The book was adapted and directed by Paul Thomas Anderon and stars Joaquin Phoenix in another of his bizarre roles (“Remember ‘The Master’?)
The psychedelic stylings of Sportello (Phoenix) remain. Plot is not really Anderson’s biggest concern, apparently, but remaining faithful to the tone and characters of the book is. Tariq Khalil is a character who loses in the adaptation, while Fabian Fazzo, Fritz Drybeam and Doc’s parents are cut from the film entirely. In fact, Anderson created an entirely new ending for the movie, which I will not reveal, in case you haven’t seen it.

5) “Selma:” This bio-pic remained faithful to most of the key points of the MLK march, but certain characters were combined and, according to key workers in LBJ’s administration, the entire conflict set up between King and Johnson over the timing of the march was bogus. While there is an allusion to Martin Luther King’s alleged trysts with other women, that particular character point was glossed over in one brief scene with wife Coretta where MLK more-or-less admits to extramarital dalliances, but says they meant nothing. It was fairly common knowledge at the time that J. Edgar Hoover had bugged King and had evidence of some of these shenanigans, but the film wants to rise above such seamy topics, just as, during JFK’s time in the White House, little was said or written about the president’s own character failings in that area. (Ah, the times, how they have changed!) There is no question that British actor David Oyelowo evokes King passionately and Carmen Ejogo as his wife was also very good. Ava DuVernay was supposed to become the first African-American female director to be nominated for an Oscar for the Paul Webb-written film, but that didn’t happen and many offended parties were boycotting the Oscar ceremony because of it—although the memory of “Twelve Years A Slave” winning as Best Picture the prior year surely faded fast.

6) “Still Alice,” which I saw in Des Moines the night before the Oscar ceremony, was as big a downer as one would anticipate from the important subject matter of early Alzheimer’s onset in a highly intelligent woman who is a college professor. Julianne Moore played the lead in the 2007 novel by Lisa Genova that was adapted and directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland.
Similarities/differences: The film is set in New York City, rather than in Boston. Professor Alice Howland (Moore) teaches at Columbia in the film. Her husband John’s (Alec Baldwin) new job opportunity is presented as being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. In the book it was in New York. I remember thinking, as we watched the film, “Moving to be near the Mayo Clinic would be the best thing to do in her situation.” In the book, Alice writes her future self a letter on her computer, but in the movie it’s a video. The key relationships remain the same, with Lydia (Kristen Stewart), her rebellious actress daughter, given the most screen time. A patient support group bit the dust and so did the graduation ceremony of one of Alice’s students in the book.

7) “The Imitation Game,” based on the book “Alan Turing: The Enigma” is a 1983 biography by Andrew Hodges. Hodges revised the book in 2000, adding more than 200 pages after classified information was released in the 1990’s and my niece, Emma, a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology in computer science, told me they had to study Turing in her classes. The movie was adapted by Graham Moore and directed by Morton Tyldum into a script that actually works in the same way that “The King’s Speech” worked. Benedict Cumberbatch gave one of the very best performances of the year and of his career and Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke, the only woman to work with the puzzle-solvers at Bletchley Park, supported nicely.
Similarities/differenes: The movie leaves out Turing’s main collaborator in breaking the Nazi code, Enigma: Gordon Welchman. Joan Clarke (Knightley) did not secure her place by figuring out a crossword puzzle, but it is true that she and Turing were briefly engaged. Turing did fall in love with a boyhood schoolmate named Christopher Morcom, but it is not true that he then named the fledgling computer Christopher. Two pivotal figures in the film—Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong) and John Cairncross (Allen Leech) are not mentioned in the book at all. Detective Nock who arrests Turing on charges of homosexual behavior in the film is invented and does not appear in the book.

8) “The Theory of Everything:” The book was “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,” a 2008 memoir by Jane Hawking, which followed on the heels of a harsher 1999 book by Wife Number One entitled “Music to Move the Stars: A Life with Stephen.”
Adapted by Anthony McCarten and directed by James Marsh, the film scored an Oscar for Eddie Redmayne, and deservedly so, but Felicity Jones , who was also nominated, gave one of the strongest female performances of the year. If she weren’t so young, I think she would have (and possibly should have) won. There were so many in the list(s) above who were shortchanged, including Channing Tatum for his role in “Foxcatcher” (also playing against type) and, in “Whiplash,” Miles Teller, whose role as the young drummer was every bit as good as Oscar-winning J.K. Simmons’ Mr. Fletcher.
Similarities/Differences: The courtship of Stephen and Jane is streamlined in the film. The two began dating after his diagnosis, but in the movie they are engaged. His personality is portrayed as less abrasive in the film as opposed to the book. The couple’s views on religion are played out as banter. The role of the 2nd Mrs. Hawkings—who was his nurse—is reduced, but the dramatic tracheotomy scene is given more screentime and the circumstances of it are changed from the book.

9) “Unbroken:”: Angelina Jolie’s directorial adaptation of “Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption” is from a 2010 biography by Laura Hillenbrand that was a best-seller for over 3 years. It chronicles the real-life adventures of Italian immigrant Louie Zamperini, who had a troubled childhood but went on to become an Olympian, survived more days at sea than nearly anyone (47) and was a prisoner of war after being shot down (he was a bombadier in WWII). Joel and Ethan Coen adapted the screenplay with help from Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson and newcomer Jack O’Connell played Louie.
Similarities/Differences: The movie focused on the 47 days adrift at sea and the nearly 2 years in a Japanese prison camp with a sadistic guard nicknamed “the Bird.” The book went on to outline how Zamperini failed to qualify for the 1948 Olympics, battled to overcome both PTSD and alcoholism, and became a born-again Christian.
Most of that after-the-war stuff did not make the cut.

For me, watching the film, I thoroughly enjoyed the aerial scenes (Oscar nominations for those) and the drifting at sea part, but the “let’s beat Louie up again” part in the Japanese POW camp became a bit too repetitively sadistic for me. It’s why I quit watching “The Walking Dead,” so call me an emotional softie, but I did think that Angelina showed us something with this one, whereas her directing of the story of the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, (where she both directed and played his wife, Marianne,) was notable only for one fine scene where she breaks down in tears when alone.
I read that Angelina was heavily influenced by the storytelling technique of Clint Eastwood, who believes in getting it done. (“The real baby is sick? Grab the doll, Bradley!”) If this film is any indication, Jolie has improved markedly since her first film.
Then again, with collaborators like the Coen Brothers and Richard LaGravenese (who appeared at the Chicago Film Festival with his all-musical movie “The Last Five Years” which, like the “Cop Rock” TV show that Steven Bochco tried years ago, had NO spoken dialogue and all the dialogue was sung (Emma Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan did the honors), who can go wrong? LaGravenese, who has worked as actor, director, producer, writer and all-purpose go-to guy with 20 credits for writing, 7 for directing, 5 for producing and 2 as an actor, announced to all of us in the crowd at the AMC Theater in Chicago that it was projects like his all-singing-no-dialogue musical that kept him going, creatively. However, it is probably writing for films like “Unbroken” that keeps him solvent.

10) “Wild:” This trek across the Pacific Crest Trail, adapted from the 2012 Cheryl Strayed memoir “Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail” was about as interesting as you would expect a movie about a woman out hiking to be. Ms. Strayed hiked 1,100 miles after her mother’s death when grief, drugs and sex derailed her life. She trudged along through California and Oregon. The book was adapted by Nick Hornby and the film was directed by Jean-Marc Vallee with Reese Witherspoon providing the star power, for which she won an Oscar nomination.
Similarities/differences: The opening and closing scenes are the same as the book’s. Mostly, the movie sticks to the book, while consolidating a few characters. Strayed spends more time hiking with others in the book. Only Bobbie, Cheryl’s mother (well played by Laura Dern, who also played Shailene Woodley’s mother in “The Fault In Our Stars” earlier this year) is really highlighted, with some mention of her younger brother, Leif (Keene McRae). Her stepfather Eddie and her older sister Karen were cut entirely from the film BUT, the filmmakers—perhaps realizing they had a real snoozer on their hands here (I kept checking my watch to see how much longer before this thing was over)—added a scene in an alley where Strayed has sex with two men. (!)
The long-suffering ex-husband of the film should get a medal and you would have to beat me with a stick to make me watch this movie again, while I DID just go see “Whiplash,” “The Imitation Game,” “The Theory of Everything” and “American Sniper” over.
My spouse does not get to see things in September and October at film festival gatherings as a member of the press, and I go to see them when they are in general release, if merited.

If you like hiking and movies where they tease you that “Ooooh. Something might happen in this movie NOW—and then it doesn’t !”, then you’ll enjoy “Wild.” If you are planning to hike across a desert some time soon and want to know the correct way to blow up a tent or other technical matters of that sort, by all means, go and take notes.
If you were hoping for excitement and/or something actually happening other than a self-indulgent narcissistic film about “finding one’s self” (I’ve lost 2 parents, too; it didn’t drive me to drugs, excessive sex or hiking through a desert, but maybe I should consider it; I did consider the drinking part after sitting through this) then this is the film for you.

Post Oscar Withdrawal on February 26th, 2015

By Connie Wilson

On February 26, 2015

In Movies, News, Pop Culture, Reviews

Another Oscar year over.

The traveling trophy this year came home to East Moline, with my 17 (should have been 18) correct picks out of 24 possibilities. It was fairly impressive that all 4 contestants (Craig Wilson, Pam & John Rhodes and me) scored in double digits, as a similar competition sponsored by my son in Chicago netted some abyssmal scores from a few (Ahem). However, son Scott picked 19 correct of the 24, which, considering none of us had seen some of the more esoteric categories, is pretty impressive.
Now, some comments on the show itself.

The predominant colors on the Red Carpet seemed to be (logically enough), red…and white. There were a few other colors, including the lovely Anna Kendrick’s dress in coral (one of the best) and the impressive number that Scarlett Johanssen sported.

But what was up with the hair? Patricia Arquette (who was the front-runner all along) showed up with a “do” that made her look like she had just stepped out of the shower. Likewise, the long pony tail, reminiscent of Ariana Grande, that Jennifer Lopez wore was ho hum and the lower-on-the-neck ponytail that Dakota Johnson sported just looked way too casual for the event and the dresses. And then there was Scarlett Johnssen’s shaved side of head look, after she decked out in a green dress that was to die for. There has also been a huge flap over the dreadlocks sported by one actress, which Fashion Police star Juliana Rancic dissed.

Neil Patrick Harris:

I’m revising my opinion of Neil Patrick Harris….downward. No, it’s not just because this year’s viewership was the worst in years and the entire night seemed lackluster (with the exception of the truly wonderful “Sound of Music” medley from Lady Gaga and Jennifer Hudson’s song). It’s also because I saw NPH in “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” on Broadway and was underwhelmed. He won the Tony for it, so I was perhaps expecting too much. I really didn’t think the play or Neil Patrick Harris in it was that great; my opinion was confirmed when the woman sitting next to me got up and left early.

I wondered about some of the ad libs (“treason” and “She had to have balls to wear that dress” in particular) that Harris threw out there, and I thought his much-vaunted song-and-dance ability was wasted. He did a very credible job hosting the Tonys, so someone erred in just giving him the lame joke about his predictions in a glass case. Plus, as none other than David Morrell noted, some in the audience and/or at home perhaps found Harris showing up in nothing but his tighty whiteys crass for such an upscale crowd, (even if it was referencing a scene from the night’s Best Picture winner, “Birdman.”)

I was not a huge fan of “Birdman,” except for the acting. Nor of “Boyhood.” If you are interested in some of the truly ENJOYABLE and entertaining movies of the year, see my previous post on same.

The night AFTER the Oscars we watched the Oscar-winning documentary “CITIZENFOUR,” which was the story of Edward Snowden’s release of classified documents. I had read the story in its entirety in “Rolling Stone” and it was presented there better. I saw 3 (of 5) documentaries, and this one was definitely my least favorite, although I recognize the fact that its World Headline Topic was Big News and “Finding vivian Maier,” the documentary about the Chicago nanny who took many black-and-white photographs, stored them in a storage locker and then died, broke and alone, so that others discovered her talent (and developed the photos, which she did not have the money to do) hen they purchased the contents of that storage locker, was just the longest-running show at the Chicago History Museum.

There was a very poignant follow-up to this interesting documentary, which is that the city of Chicago or Cook County now wants in on the Vivian Maier action ($) since she supposedly died intestate and had no living heirs. In an article entitled “Claiming Vivian Maier” (Chicago Tribune, Jan. 25, 2015) the entire sordid tale unfolds, with the comment that the City Fathers are intent upon tying up ownership of Vivian Maier’s photographs for years. This would seem to fly in the face of capitalizing on the fact that the documentary on Vivian was just nominated for an Oscar. (Talk about striking while the iron is cold!)

The article by Jason Jeisner reveals that Rogers Park artist Jeffrey Goldstein abruptly sold 17,500 prints of Maier’s work to a Canadian gallery owner. Stephen Bulger of Toronto, who bought the prints, has been forced to put them on ice in storage until the dispute clears the Illinois courts.

Anne Zakaras and Chicago silver gelatin printers Ron Gordon and Sandra Steinbrecher (Gordon came out of retirement to help restore the hundreds of images) say they feel tremendous sadness to have it all end this way. “Everybody loses,” said Gordon. “Vivian loses too. She goes back in the box.”

Oscar Predictions for Sunday, February 22, 2015

By Connie Wilson

On February 20, 2015

In Movies, Pop Culture, Television

I’ve put off predicting the winners of this past year’s (2014) Academy Awards till the last moment, so that I could take in as many of the nominated films as possible, and I’m happy to report that I’ve seen ALL the Best Picture nominees: “American Sniper,” “Birdman,” “Boyhood,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “The Theory of Everything” and “Whiplash.”

The race is between “Boyhood” and “Birdman.” I’m taking “Boyhood.”

Does that mean that I think “Boyhood” was the Best Picture of the Year 2014. No. Of the list above, I prefer wither “The Imitation Game” or “American Sniper,” and I’m disappointed that fine films like “Gone Girl” didn’t make the list. I’m just predicting now, not recommending. For that, see an earlier post about the most ENJOYABLE films of the year.

Best Director: Richard Linklater (He directed “Boyhood”).

Other nominees for Best Director are Wes Anderson (“The Grand Budapest Hotel”); Alejandro G. Inarritu (“Birdman”); Bennett Miller (“Foxcatcher”); and Morten Tyldum(“The Imitation Game”).

Best Actor: Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything”). The race is between Redmayne and sentimental favorite Michael Keaton, but momentum seems to be in Redmayne’s corner for his spot-on turn as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything.” This one could go either way. I picked Redmayne because I legitimately feel his task was much more difficult than Keaton’s, sentiment aside. Other nominees were Steve Carell (“Foxcatcher”); Bradley Cooper (“American Sniper”); Benedict Cumberbatch (“The Imitation Game”).

Best Actress: Julianne Moore (“Still Alice”). She has been around a long time, and it seems it is her turn this year. I haven’t seen “Still Alice,” so I’m taking the word of other critics that she is as good in it as everyone says. She has been good in many films for many years. Let’s face it, Marion Cotillard in the French language film “Two Days, One Night” doesn’t have a prayer and Reese Witherspoon, who has already won once, walks across the desert in “Wild,” which is about as interesting as that sounds like it would be—which is not interesting. Rosamund Pike and Felicity Jones were both great, but haven’t paid their dues, while Moore has.

Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette (“Boyhood”).

There seems to be little doubt that Arquette will take home Oscar for her supporting performance as the mother in “Boyhood.” She, too, has earned her stripes. Other nominees are Laura Dern (“Wild”), Keira Knightley (“The Imitation Game”), Emma Stone (“Birdman”) and Meryl Streep (“Into the Woods.”) Meryl has won enough, already. Keira and Emma were good, but haven’t been at it as long (or as well) as Arquette. [Remember her turn opposite James Gandolfini in “True Romance”?]

Best Supporting Actor: J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash”).

Other nominees are Mark Ruffalo (“Foxcatcher”), Ethan Hawke (“Boyhood”), Edward Norton (“Birdman”), and 84-year-old Robert Duvall (“The Judge”). Nobody picks Duvall, but I loved his performance in that critically panned film. Ruffalo has had a great year, too, since he also starred in television’s AIDS drama “The Normal Heart.” I would not be upset to have Edward Norton (“Birdman”) upset the overwhelming odds-on favorite, J.K. Simmons, but I’ve seen all of these performances and, aside from the meandering role Hawke drew in the meandering movie “Boyhood,” all turned in great performances in difficult roles. I look for the actor categories to provide the surprises—if there are any.

OTHER AWARDS: I sat through beaucoup foreign films that were supposed to be nominated. None were. I’m glad, since I didn’t like the 2 I saw that were touted as “sure things” at the Chicago Film Festival.” They were okay, but not my idea(s) of “Best Films.” The nominees for Best Foreign Language Film are “Ida” (Poland); “Leviathon” (Russia); “Tangerines” (Estonia); “Timbuktu” (Mauritania) and “Wild Tales” from Argentina. Did not see a single one, although I HAVE seen “Force Majeure” and “The Gett” and a bunch of other foreign films (“Black Ice” was particularly bad, from China) that took up a lot of my viewing day. I’m going with “Ida” from Poland, because there were a lot of good films from that part of the world, and I’m not sure that Estonia and Mauritania can compete on equal footing.

I’m listing the rest of the categories with the nominees and boldfacing my picks::
Original Screenplay:
“Birdman;” “Boyhood;” “Foxcatcher;” “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “Nightcrawler.” (I’d love to see “Nightcrawler” win and, yes, I’ve seen them all.)

Adapted Screenplay: “American Sniper;” “The Imitation Game;” “Inherent Vice;” “The Theory of Everything;” “Whiplash.”

Film Editing: “American Sniper;” “Boyhood;” “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “The Imitation Game;” and “Whiplash.”

Cinematography: “Birdman;” “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “Ida;” “Mr. Turner;” and “Unbroken.”

Production Design: “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “The Imitation Game;” “Interstellar;” “Into the Woods;” “Mr. Turner.”

Animated Feature: “Big Hero 6;” “The Boxtrolls;” “How to Train Your Dragon 2;” “Song of the Sea;” “The Tale of the Princess Kaguya.”

Animated Short Film: “The Bigger Picture;” “The Dam Keeper;” “Feast;” “Me and My Moulton;” “A Single Life.”

Documentary Feature: “Citizenfour;” “Finding Vivian Maier;” “Last Days in Vietnam;” “The Salt of the Earth;” “Virunga.” (I’ve actually seen the first 2 of these and know that RFK’s youngest daughter is responsible for “Last Days in Vietnam.”)

Documentary Short: “Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1;” “Joanna;” “Our Curse;” “The Reaper (La Parka)”; “White Earth”

Live Action Short Film: “Aya;” “Boogaloo and Graham;” “Butter Lamp (La Lampe au Beurre de Yak)”; “Parvaneh;” “The Phone Call.”

Costume Design: “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “Inherent Vice;” “Into the Woods;” “Maleficent;” “Mr. Turner.”

Makeup and Hairstyling: “Foxcatcher;” “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

Visual Effects: “Captain America: The Winter Soldier;” “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes;” “Guardians of the Galaxy;” “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”

Sound Mixing: “American Sniper;” “Birdman;” “Interstellar;” “Unbroken;” “Whiplash.”

Sound Editing: “American Sniper;” “Birdman;” “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies;” “Interstellar;” “Unbroken.” (If “Birdman” starts a sweep, it could take this and both of the final 2 nominees listed are also strong contenders.)

Original Score: “The Grand Budapest Hotel;” “The Imitation Game;” “Interstellar;” “Mr. Turner;” “The Theory of Everything.” (I loved the Alexandre Desplat score for “The Imitation Game,” so I’d not complain if it were to win.)

Original Song: “Everything is Awesome;” “Glory;” “Grateful;” “I’m Not Gonna Miss You;” “Lost Stars.” (Everybody knows the Best Song of the Year 2014 from a movie should be “Let It Go” from “Frozen,” so any of these are not the best songs of the year. “Glory” was from “Selma” and I’d like to see it win something.)

Musings on Academy Award Nominees One Day Before They Are Announced

By Connie Wilson

On January 14, 2015

In Movies, Pop Culture, Reviews

AMC Theater, Chicago, 50th Annual Chicago Film Festival.

It’s one day before the Academy Awards nominations are officially announced, and I’d like to put my 2 cents’ worth in, before the experts weigh in.

It seems a foregone conclusion that we are going to see “Boyhood” nominated for many things, including “Best Picture.” I was driving along when a radio disc jockey who had just viewed the Golden Globes asked his listeners to let him know if he should rent “Boyhood” or stream “The Affair” that night, not having seen either. I wanted to call in and tell him to view the latter, because “Boyhood,” while a great achievement in following the real people for so many years, was meandering, overlong (2 hours and 45 minutes) and not that riveting. That said, Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke did well with the material and it would not surprise me to see them be nominated, either.

Four other films that we can expect to see mentioned and nominated in various categories are “The Theory of Everything,” the bio-pic about Stephen Hawkings that makes him come off as a bit of a cad, I thought; “The Imitation Game,” with Benedict Cumberbatch; “The Grand Budapest Hotel” with Ralph Fiennes; and Michael Keaton and/in the film “Birdman.” I expect that “The Theory of Everything” with Eddie Redmayne, who portrayed Hawkings, or Cumberbatch, who portrayed the computer genius at the heart of cracking the “Enigma” code, will win the Oscar, and deservedly so, but I was wrong about a lot of categories at the Golden Globes just past, and now we have Clint Eastwood eking out a Director’s Guild nomination (DGA) for “The Sniper,” which does not start playing till tomorrow.

Another category that seems to be wide open is Best Foreign Film. At the October Chicago Film Festival, all the buzz was about France’s entry “Force Majeure” and Israel’s “The Gett” and neither won the Golden Globe. Go figure.(Of the two, “Force Majeure” was far more entertaining.)

There are so many great performances from actors this year, especially the men. Good luck in picking those to round out the nominees other than Redmayne and Cumberbatch. You might see Bill Murray (who wandered onstage during the acceptance for “The Grand Budapest Hotel” even though he wasn’t in it) for “St. Vincent” and I was and am a fan of Robert Duvall from “The Judge” (who was nominated in the Best Supporting category and did not win the Golden Globe.) Steve Carrell from “Foxcatcher” was mentioned prominently earlier in the season and was nominated for a Golden Globe, also. And what about Ralph Fiennes from “The Grand Budapest Hotel” or Michael Keaton in “Birdman,” who DID win the Golden Globe?

As for women, my personal favorite is Felicity Jones as the long-suffering wife in “The Theory of Everything,” but Kiera Knightley’s scientist helping crack the German code has a shot, and some say Meryl Streep as a witch in “Into the Woods” is deserving, although I think she has had earlier stronger performances and probably will not prevail, if nominated. (*Personal disclosure: the only one mentioned above that I have not yet seen.) Two others mentioned frequently are Jennifer Anniston for “Cake” (a woman suffering from intractable pain) and Julianne Moore for her portrayal of a professor suffering from early onset Alzheimer’s. Reese Witherspoon is a good bet to be nominated for “Wild,” a film that I found incredibly boring, but one in which Ms. Witherspoon did a credible job of hiking through the desert and teasing us that something might actually happen (which, sadly, it did not.)

I finally did rent “Boyhood” and got exactly what I expected. I can sum up the message as, “Is that all there is?” It will probably win, and my predicting (or preference?) career will take yet another hit.

Tonight, we are going to wade through a Liam Neeson night, with 2 of his older films. He is a seasoned veteran experiencing fame as an action hero late in life, and I couldn’t be happier for him.

If you want to know what the most ENJOYABLE films of the year were, for me, go back a few entries. These were NOT the ones that we’ll see competing for Oscars, necessarily, but I enjoyed them the most. And I’m sure I forgot a few.

We’ll find out tomorrow who gets the nod from the Academy, but the historical brouhaha over LBJ’s actual relationship with MLK seems to have torpedoed whatever momentum that film had, going in, and it seems that “Foxcatcher’s” miffed Mark Schulz (Steve Carell is frequently mentioned as a Best Actor nominee for that fine film—which needed some editing but was very good) may have done that film a disservice by taking to Twitter to condemn its director (Bennett Miller) and the entire project, supposedly because he didn’t like the homo-erotic vibes that the film did contain. I was very impressed with Channing Tatum’s and Mark Ruffalo’s acting in the film—more so than Carrell’s, which was more a case of heavy-duty make-up and underplaying than actually excelling in the part. It’s still a good rental and including it in one or more categories wouldn’t surprise me, but the only 2 sure things seem to be “Boyhood” and “The Theory of Everything,” with “The Imitation Game” right up there, as well.

After that, it’s anybody’s guess whether Wes Anderson’s “The Grand Budapest Hotel” or “Foxcatcher” or “Into the Woods” or “The Sniper” or any of a number of fine films (“Night Crawler” with Jake Gyllenhaal; Joaquin Phoenix”s most recent foray into weird portraits, or yet another underdog in the competition) will triumph.

Looking forward to hearing the nominees tomorrow.

Most Enjoyable Movies of 2014

By Connie Wilson

On December 24, 2014

In Movies, Pop Culture, Reviews

Let me begin this rant by admitting that I did not go see “Boyhood,” on purpose. I spoke with a close friend who said it was boring, pretty much unscripted and rambling, although an interesting concept. I decided that the perfect way to see it would be when I had the ability to fast forward through the boring parts—which, to hear this extremely well-versed movie fan tell it—was most of the film.

The other film I missed that many like was the “Lego” movie.

Unfortunately, I did not miss “Guardians of the Galaxy.” I insisted we rent it, despite my instinct that it was going to be really uninteresting in that overly CG way. I became very bored very fast. So did my spouse.

I’ve been reading the “Best Movies” lists printed in magazines like “People,” “Entertainment Weekly” and “Time.”

Wow. These lists are absolute crap, for the most part, especially “Time’s. Here are the films “Time” listed as “Best” of 2014:

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” – mildly amusing. Definitely not THAT great!

“Boyhood” – See comments above.

“The Lego Movie” – ” ”

“Lucy” – Been there. Done that. An interesting premise, but not a “best” of this or any other year.

“Goodbye to Language” – WHAT?

“Jodorowsky’s Dune” – Say What, again?

“Nightcrawler” – the first film on this list I can get behind.

“CitizenFour” – This doesn’t really seem like it belongs on a movie list, being about Edward Snowden and more accurately a documentary.

“Wild Tales” – Uh—–no.

“Birdman” – This one has everyone buzzing about its Oscar potential, and there is no question that the acting is uniformly great and should be rewarded. Otherwise, the long tracking shot? Meh. The drummer instead of a real soundtrack? Annoying. It did raise some important topics, such as critics and their biases, and discussed them well, so it does have that going for it, but it was definitely not one of my most enjoyable films of this year.

Here are 10 or so that were:

“The Imitation Game” – This British film is far and away the most superlative production I saw this year, with a performance by Benedict Cumberbatch that deserves the Oscar for Best Actor.

“Gone Girl” – Well done all the way around. Absorbing. Haven’t read the book, but loved this movie.

“Night Crawler” – the only movie on “Time’s” list that deserves to be there. Jake Gyllenhaal does himself (and us) proud as the skeevy sort who profits from taking pictures of accidents and murders and other seamy things in a dingily-lit Los Angeles. .

“The Fault in Our Stars” – Yes, it’s weepy , but it is wonderfully weepy and I saw it 3 times.

“The Judge” – I am still trying to figure out why other critics felt it necessary to rain on Robert Duvall’s (and Robert Downey, Jr.’s) parade by belittling the female roles and not thoroughly enjoying this tour de force acting class for its wonderful plot.

“The Theory of Everything” – The movie, itself, moved slowly at times, true, but Eddie Redmayne’s acting was terrific, as was Felicity Jones’ as his wife. Nominations, for sure.

“Foxcatcher” – This one needed some editing, but Steve Carrell’s performance is a revelation, as is Tatum Channing’s.

“The Drop” – Our last chance to see Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) in a wonderful film.

“Get On Up” – Chadwick Boseman playing James Brown not only acted, but danced his heart out, but I think it was released too early. I also would mention “Selma,” which I have not yet seen.

For the last couple of films of 10 , I’d run in “The Well,” due out in May, a film by new-comer Tom Hammock about a post-apocalyptic world where water is the most precious commodity. Also, since documentaries seem to have made “Time’s” really bad list, we might add “The Look of Silence,” about the massacre of over a million Filipino men and women suspected of being Communists in the 60s, killed by their own neighbors. [For more about this riveting documentary, check the archives of Weekly Wilson.]

Others I enjoyed: “Whiplash,” “November Man,” “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Force Majeure” (foreign film). I’ve heard great things about Julianne Moore’s performance as Alice, who is suffering from early-onset dementia and about “Cake” (Jennifer Anniston) and “Into the Woods” (Meryl Streep) but these I have not yet viewed.

Highly over-rated was the actual film of Reese Witherspoon walking across the desert (“Wild”). Yes, Reese, herself is good and deserves a nomination but the film was not interesting; I found myself checking my watch at intervals, which is never a good sign. Plus, nothing ever really happens, despite many teasing situations. I did not enjoy “Life Itself” which follows us through the final, agonizing days of Roger Ebert’s tortured battle with cancer. I cringe thinking of it even now. “Interstellar” was going along well until the confusing and unsatisfying end, and Israel’s “The Gett” (foreign film) about a woman seeking a divorce was boring, boring, boring. “Snowpiercer” had a few moments, as did “A Walk Among the Tombstones” (Liam Neeson) but just avoid all the movies “Time” singled out, unless you are a real masochist and want to be terminally bored by 80% of them, with the exceptions noted above.

“Force Majeure” is Front-runner for Best Foreign Film Oscar

By Connie Wilson

On October 27, 2014

In Movies, Reviews

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjjzVbTBF8o
”Force Majeure,” a joint Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and French foreign film, is one of the front-runners for an Oscar nod in the Best Foreign Film category this year. Directed by Ruben Ostlund (“Play”), the movie is the story of a family of four that goes on holiday to a ritzy ski resort (Les Arcs in the French Alps, but augmented cinematically), only to find that, just as skiing itself can be a dangerous sport, relationships within a family unit can be unpredictable and risky.

The film covers five days with Tomas (Johanne Kunke), his wife Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongslo) and their two children, a small boy Harry (Vincent Wettergren) and his older sister Vera (Clara Wettergren).

There are also a few minor characters who enter the drama, including an old buddy of Tomas’, Matts (Kristofer Hivju), a divorced man in his forties vacationing with his twenty-year-old girlfriend, and a free-spirited married woman who expresses little concern for traditional convention(s).

The turning point of the film occurs when the family is seated at an outside restaurant and a “controlled avalanche” becomes not-so-controlled. All those who had been dining suddenly flee for their lives. Tomas, in particular, grabs his cell phone and his gloves and hot-foots it away from the table, leaving Ebba, his wife, to grab both children and pray.

As it turns out, the avalanche does not reach the chalet and Tomas returns to the table to rejoin a not-very-happy wife who comments later in the film that Tomas is “always running away from” his wife and children. The white fog from the near avalanche is as eerie as in movies like “The Fog” and, later, during a ski excursion on their final day (Sisla Dagen/Final Day), it also appears to hold all sorts of dangers for the family of four, but their patriarch insists that he will lead the way and all will be well as they ski down a slope where they can barely see their hand in front of their face.

Tomas—not unlike other men in real life—won’t admit what has occurred.

Ebba says, “It’s so weird that you won’t admit what happened.”

Tomas responds, “I want us to share the same view.” He also expresses the opinion that he wants to “put it all behind us,” which seems quite convenient, since he has come off as a bit of a cad. This “let’s sweep it under the rug and forgetaboutit” attitude is prevalent in many marriages, whether short-term or long-term, and the attitude never fails to breed resentment when it surfaces. In fact, when a situation cannot be discussed, openly and candidly, [but must simply be “forgotten about”,] for many personalities (like Ebba’s), the effect is to create a situation that cannot help but erode the relationship, whether that relationship is a marriage or simply a friendship. Some of us need to get things out in the open and talk about them. Others—especially if the situation might reflect poorly on them—-refuse to talk about it. That is part of the foundation on which this film’s issues rest.

The title “Force Majeure” comes from a legal term where an unforeseen event prevents a contract from being fulfilled.

Ebba cannot seem to put the frightening ordeal out of her mind. In fact, she seems to be experiencing a bit of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), reliving the event for Matts and his young girlfriend Fanny (Fanni Metelius) and the woman traveling alone who discussed her more “open marriage” philosophy and tells Ebba that she purposely left her kids home with their father as a welcome vacation from them.

“They need therapy,” says Matts to Fanny after Ebba shows a video of the event that puts the lie to Tomas’ tendency to minimize the event and dismiss it as a “force majeure.” This former buddy of Tomas’ even offers an extremely lame excuse for why Tomas might have run away, saying, “The enemy is this image we have of heroes” and suggesting an alibi along the lines of: “You were going to save yourself to dig them out…right?”

When Ebba trots out the story of Tomas defection under stress, Tomas says, “I don’t share that interpretation of events,” and adds, to his upset wife, “You’re entitled to your own interpretation.”

This inability to admit the truth nearly drives Ebba to distraction When Tomas finally does break down and admit that he is “a bloody victim of my own instincts,” telling Ebba that he hates his weaknesses, he has a near-breakdown. That wakes the children and becomes a scene requiring the wife (Ebba) to act as the steadying hub of the group, calming everyone down. She seems “the strong one.”

In a later skiing scene, Tomas has his chance at redemption when Ebba must be carried to safety. Matts also gets an opportunity to act responsibly and maturely in a scene on a bus being driven rather recklessly, when he instructs the panicked riders to exit in an orderly manner.

It was interesting to me that the only person who stayed on the bus was the risk-taking married wife and mother involved in a dalliance with another single tourist. She refused to consider herself a “bad” mother or wife because she was vacationing without her children and not adhering to society’s marital norms. She was the only one of those on the bus who toughed out the driver’s incompetence and took the risk (and, as a result, didn’t end up having to walk halfway down a mountainside when Ebba panicked and insisted that the bus driver let them all out).

It seemed that Ebba was being depicted, at this point, as being a bit of a ninny who over-reacted to things. I wondered how the film-maker could have it both ways: either she is the strong center of the family hierarchy or she is a personality who panics at the merest hint of danger.

Which is it, for Ebba?

The avalanche is considered a metaphor for small situations that snowball out of control. There have been comparisons to Ingmar Bergman’s 1973 “Scenes from a Marriage.” Ostlund won a Jury Prize at Cannes. “Entertainment Weekly” in its October 31st issue has termed it “a quietly devastating tinderbox psychodrama.”
The film is a comment on marriage, in general, since Ebba is heard talking to a girlfriend on the phone. Her comment is: “You’ve been in a relationship for five years and you want to fool around. I understand.”

So, to sum up, the film confirms the view that women, almost in a matriarchal fashion, hold a family together, but hope for more support from the men in their lives (who often behave like overgrown children). These scenes were both psychologically revealing and humorous, as a resort employee has occasion to watch Tomas losing it.

It also gave us a sad glimpse into the psyches of small children who think their parents might be going to split. Both children are shown listening to their parents arguing and crying. Little Harry admits aloud that he is afraid his parents are going to get divorced.

The movie also made a good point about how, in a crisis, we sometimes do not behave as admirably as heroes do in the movies. The boredom of marriage, with its repetitiveness and the humdrum chores that accompany it, is aptly portrayed, both in scenes where the youngest child, Harry, is acting “owly” and in scenes involving preparation for bedtime. The bloom is off the rose. This is a family that must share space (in one case, they are all shown in the same bed) and, while there are rewards to having a family unit, those rewards do not come without sacrifice. The randy behavior of Matts and Fanny is in stark contrast to the ho-hum nature of Tomas and Ebba.

The movie, which has beautiful photography by Fredrik Wenzel and Fred Arne Wergeland using an ARRI Alexa, had a great message for all partners, whether male or female, who are in a long-term (or short-term) relationship: “Admit what you did when you’re wrong.” It is thought-provoking and both humorous and serious. Only the ending proved anti-climactic and was a bit of a let-down, but this solid, provocative film with solid performances from all, will give movie-goers much to ponder.

“The Look of Silence” Documentary Is Powerful Testimony to Man’s Inhumanity to Man

By Connie Wilson

On October 22, 2014

In Movies, Politics, Reviews

The heinous massacre of anyone who had been affiliated with the Communist party in Indonesia is the subject of “The Look of Silence,” a documentary directed by Joshua Oppeheimer that was produced by such important documentary and filmmaker names as Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”), Werner Herzog and Andre Singer. It is a joint production from Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom that tells a harrowing story every bit as horrible, in its details, as the Holocaust.
Indonesia’s transition to the “New Order” in the mid-1960s, ousted the country’s first president, Sukarno, after he had spent 22 years in power. One of the most tumultuous periods in the country’s modern history, it was the beginning of 31 years of Suharto’s presidency.
Described as the great puppet master, Sukarno drew power from balancing the opposing and increasingly antagonistic forces of the army and the Indonesian Communist Party, or PKI. By 1965, the PKI extensively penetrated all levels of government. The army lost power as the PKI gained it and this led to a coup.
On September 30, 1965, six of the military’s most senior officers were killed by the 30 September Movement, a group from within the army, and the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Within just a few hours, Major General Suharto mobilized forces under his command and took control of Jakarta.
Subsequently, over one million citizens who were on lists as being Communists were rounded up, hands bound behind their backs, and either killed immediately or imprisoned until they could be systematically exterminated, much like Auschwitz but in a much bloodier and more primitive fashion. It was a method no less systematic and inhumane testifying once again to man’s inhumanity to man. The PKI, which was officially blamed for the crisis, was destroyed.
The film follows a local optometrist, Adi, age 44, whose brother Ramli was murdered in the anti-Communist purge. His mother and father’s lives were totally shattered by the brutal slaying of their oldest child. As Adi’s mother says, it was only Adi’s birth two years later that saved her sanity.
One interview subject says, “We did this because America taught us to hate Communists.”
The politically weakened Sukarno was forced to transfer key political and military powers to General Suharto, who became head of the armed forces. In March 1967, the Indonesian parliament (MPRS) named General Suharto acting president. He was formally appointed president one year later.
Suharto’s pro-Western “New Order” stabilized the economy.
However, those whose mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children were brutally murdered for no offense other than affiliation with the Communist party, the memories do not fade. They must live next door to those who murdered their beloved family members. We learn, as the film progresses, that Ramli, was gathered up, bound, and initially imprisoned. Trucks would take loads of 30 prisoners per truck each night and either hack them to death, throwing their remains into the Snake River, or, in some cases, the victims would be buried alive.
One survivor, Kemat, describes how he jumped from a truck with his hands bound behind his back and escaped through a warehouse. He reminisces, “Ramli was screaming for help saying, ‘They’re going to kill us.’”
“Were there any spectators watching the trucks taking people to be murdered?” asks Adi.
“No. Everyone was too frightened to watch,” says Kemat. “I thought, ‘I’m about to die. I’d better accept it. I’m going to be beheaded, my body and head thrown into the river. And then I ran.”
Adi, the protagonist, decided to search out each of those responsible for ordering the murders or implementing the murders of his brother and others (simply for being members of the Communist party). He used his vocation as a traveing optometrist as entrée.
As we learn, “In many cases, entire families were eradicated, and it happens to this day. Some Communists were starved to death in prison or released periodically to be killed by the local citizens.” The group responsible for the executions was Komando Aksi. Adi searches and finds Amir Hasang and Imang, leaders of the Death Squad in one city.
Not only are these perpetrators not ashamed of their actions, Inong, aged 72, who was the leader of the village Death Squad, appears onscreen as a bit of a loon, repeating that he would take two cups to the executions in order to drink human blood from the severed jugular veins.
“If we didn’t drink human blood,” says Imang, “we’d go crazy. Many went crazy. Drink your victims’ blood or go crazy.” He adds, “Human blood is salty and sweet.”
Imang also claims that he “only cut once.” pantomiming the use of a machete to cut a victim’s throat, but then adds, “Once I cut off a woman’s breast. It was just like a coconut inside.” He pantomimes how he would use a machete on a woman, and his wife giggles while he does so.
“But I thought you said you only cut once?” reminds Adi.
Imang becomes hostile. He says, “I don’t like deep questions. It’s over. Everything is safe now. The past is the past.” He also shows a book with sketches depicting how they killed their neighbors. There is absolutely no remorse or regret shown by anyone who, firsthand, either ordered the murders or committed them. The exception is one murderer’s daughter near the end of the film, who murmurs, “Sadistic” and semi-apologizes, saying, “Adi, we apologize. We feel the same way you do. We knew nothing about this.”
Aside from this one lone young woman, who appears to be about Adi’s age, nobody else—especially those who actually committed the crimes—shows any remorse or expresses regret. In fact, the head honcho at the time, Secretary General of Komando Aksi, expresses the opinion that he should be thanked for his actions and perhaps receive a free trip to the United States—perhaps to Disneyland—maybe a cruise.

It’s nearly impossible to believe how callous the killers are.

We also learn that children in school are indoctrinated with propaganda that teaches them things such as, “The Communists had to be killed because they were sleeping with each others’ wives.” The entire schoolteacher snippet is ludicrous in justifying the mass murder of 1,000,000 people.
Adi tells his small daughter and son that what they are being taught is all lies. One teacher actually says, “Some of the Communists want to be killed.” The teacher adds, “The Communists were cruel, so the government had to repress them. Their children could not work for the government or be in the Army.” [Actually, after the actions of Komando Aksi, there weren’t that many Communists left alive.]
There are extensive film clips of the Death Squad leaders explaining in great detail (and often with laughter) how they would systematically murder men, women and children. Their excuse, “I was only following orders.”
We learn that Adi’s brother, Ramil, who was then a young Communist male, was initially stabbed repeatedly in the shoulder and stomach (The Death Squad members laugh at the memory of his intestines spilling from his stomach.) He managed to crawl through the rice paddies back to his parents’ house, where he asked his mother to help him and make him a cup of tea. While she attempted to attend to his grievous wounds, the Death Squad Komando Aksi members—who received the names of their victims from the Army—returned to her house and promised to take her son to the hospital. She begged to go with him and offered two cows to barter for Ramli’s life; they refused.
Rather than taking Ramil to the hospital, he was taken back to the Snake River where he was stabbed repeatedly and then flung into the river, where he clung to foliage and begged for help. They fished Ramli out and cut off his penis. (The men demonstrated how this maneuver could be done from behind, with a push of the boot to the victim’s butt to push the corpse to the ground where the body would bleed out.) The victims’ bodies were then thrown into the Snake River. (Villagers would not eat any fish from the Snake River for two years, knowing that the fish had been feeding on human remains.)
Those in power made it appear that the people were rising up spontaneously to exterminate the Communists, in order to protect the image of the Army nationally and internationally. This was not true. The Komander Aksi members got lists of 500 to 600 victims’ names nightly from the Army and acted on that information.

When the Secretary General of Komander Aksi is seen onscreen, he seems completely unconcerned about his role in ordering the purge, saying, “That’s politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals.” This man continues to be head of the Legislature, since 1971 and says, to Adi, in a threatening manner, “Do the victims’ families want the killings to happen again? Sooner or later, it will happen again.” The message to Adi (who refuses to divulge his last name or city of origin): “Drop it!”
Throughout the film, the insistent messages are these:
1) The past is past. Forget about it. Don’t speak of it
2) I was only following orders.
3) Revenge for these murders will be taken by God after death.
One of the most revealing moments comes when Adi visits his Uncle (his distraught mother’s brother). He learns that his uncle was a guard and, in fact, in charge of guarding Ramil the night he was killed. Adi’s uncle is now 82 years old. The uncle protests, “I was just a guard. They came and took truckloads of 30 at a time. I was just told to guard the prisoners. I did not help! I did not take a machete and murder people!”
But, objects Adi, couldn’t his uncle have tried to defend his own nephew, Ramil?
“I did it to defend the state. Better just to follow orders,” says the elderly uncle.
When Adi later tells his mother that her own brother was complicit in the savage death of her son, Ramil, she is shocked at the sadistic news, saying, “I never knew this before.”
Some notable quotes from the film that illustrate Point One (above):
#1) “Because Joshua makes this film all the wounds are open. Forget the past. You want us to be open, but how can we be? I don’t want to remember. It’s covered up. Why open it up again? What are you trying to do? Just leave it? Let it go. Leave it to God.” (From various speakers)
The revenge motif (Point #3 above) is voiced this way, “It’s up to God to punish those who hurt our friends and family. It’s not up to us.”
This mini-Holocaust makes you instantly think of Auschwitz and the Nazi Death Camps, and those who made it obviously do not feel safe in Indonesia even now.
Nearly all the end credits (other than Joshua Oppenheimer) are listed as “Anonymous” because those who contributed video and reminiscences to this film still fear retribution. “The Look of Silence” is a joint production of Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom and it’s an eye-opening film.

“The Well” Is A Post-Apocalyptic World Movie with a Message for Our Time

By Connie Wilson

On October 21, 2014

In Movies, Pop Culture, Reviews

Writer/Director Tom Hammock has been the production designer on 25 films, including “You’re Next” and “The Guest.” His directorial debut with “The Well” put all that experience to good use, as he selected the perfect location, costumes, music and cast for this post-apocalyptic drama about survivors trying to stay alive in a dust-bowl-like world where water is the most precious commodity.
The movie is horror. It is thriller. It is social commentary. It is a reversal of all the normal stereotypes. And it is good—very, very good!
The film was shot in an area 2 hours outside of Los Angeles between December 1st and December 18th as quickly as possible, using 45 grueling set-ups in an 8-hour day. At the heart of the movie is a 17-year-old leading lady, Haley Lu Richardson as Kendall. When hired, Richardson had only one previous screen credit: an Arizona matches ad. (Richardson also appeared recently in an indie comedy, “The Young Kieslowski.”)
Had there not already been a movie entitled “Kick Ass,” this part would qualify. Richardson’s background in dance helped her to perform strenuous fight sequences. She is a real find. She appears in every scene of the film and the entire story is told from her point-of-view.
Hammock has created a dry desert world of Mad Max-like appearance, but without the larger-than-life characters of that franchise. These characters are real people who are desperately struggling to survive while a greedy water baron named Carson sets out to systematically exterminate all of them. He calls them hangers-on, saying, “If they’re alive, they’re consuming my water, and they can’t consume my water without my consent.” Carson is central to the story and is well-played by veteran character actor John Gries (“Taken,” Napoleon Dynamite”), whom Hammock met at a genre film meet-up in the L.A. area that Hammock hosted.
As we are told, “If the company drains all the water away from the aquifer, they control the whole valley.” Kendall, the 17-year-old survivor and her boyfriend Dean (played by Booboo Stewart, depicted as dying from kidney failure), is told by her boyfriend, “There was a time when a man owned the land, he controlled the water, but things are different. He who controls the land controls the water.”
This is a modern-day parable regarding wealth (in this case, water) and its unequal distribution. It is timely, making the film rise above generic film genre categories and become commentary on the world around us today. Ironically, oil is essentially worth little in Hammock’s world, while water is the most precious substance after a 10-year drought devastates the area. With a real drought ongoing in California, the theme is even more current.
And that Australia-like desert which is one of the biggest “characters” in the entire production? It’s near where Tom Hammock grew up, 2 hours north out of Los Angeles. All the farms are actual houses that were abandoned by their owners when the land, planted in alfalfa, turned to dust. (The script’s reference to years prior when rice paddies flourished had me initially wondering if the film location was somewhere in Asia.)
Carson and his red-haired daughter Brooke (well played by “America’s Top Model” contestant Nicole Fox) and crew view their task of killing all the settlers in the valley in these stark terms: “Think of it as the extinction of a species…You have to kill them. The vagrants only suffer. If it weren’t me, it’d be someone else.” They even take a minister along with them (Michael McCartney) who pronounces, “Pray for each of these desperate thirsty souls. Ten years of no rain.”
Since Kendall (Richardson) spends much of the film either hiding from Carson and his men or actively overcoming them in hand-to-hand combat, rifle or samurai sword in hand, the cinematographer, Seamus Tierny, did a great job properly lighting her as she crouches in a dark attic shrouded in a foil wrap to fool the heat-seeking machines the searchers use, or fighting men twice her size in stark sunlight in the next. (When asked about the lighting, Hammock said, “The majority was lit by a white sheet and a pizza box.”)
All of the normal power structures in the film are turned upside-down: it is Kendall, the female character, who is doing all the fighting (not completely new, since “The Hunger Games” and “Divergent”). It is her boyfriend, Dean, who is weak. Plus, ironically, it is water, not oil, which is the source of all conflict.
Kendall and Dean, her boyfriend, have an old Cessna airplane hidden away that they hope to use to escape to a more favorable climate, but they first must find a distributor cap that fits. Much of the story concerns Kendall’s efforts to find this distributor cap, an homage to the original Road Warrior film.
The rest of the story is Kendall foraging or checking on or rescuing a small boy at a nearby farm, Albie (Max Charles). Kendall struggles not only with the exterminators who wear truly horrifying outfits (and, at times, gas masks) but also with her own compassionate impulses. As the cliché says, “No good deed goes unpunished,” which proves true more often than not in the plot, co-written by Hammock and Jacob Foreman.
The costume design by Emma Potter is terrific, as is the spare musical score by Craig Deleon, who often scores for Michael Bay or Apple commercials. There is also an ongoing, menacing wind sound. Director Hammock, when asked what was most daunting about the filming, cited the windy dust storms in the area, as well as achieving the defining image of the leading lady coated in oil. They put Haley in a flesh-colored wet suit and made the oil out of black children’s paint, but the temperature was still in the thirties—cold and uncomfortable for their determined actress, shown submerged in the slimy stuff in the movie’s most famous still.
This is an excellent, entertaining psychological study on a par with “The Babadook” in that neither is straight horror. Each is a well-drawn psychological thriller—but the Uma Thurman-like “Kill Bill” action vote goes to “The Well.”

Don’t miss it. This enterprising young director should be going big places in his film future.
“The Well” premiered at the L.A. Film Festival. It played at the Chicago Film Festival on October 19th; a production deal is nearing completion.