Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!
The lead-up to the Chicago International Film Festival’s 53rd year is underway. Critics are getting the chance to screen films from over 95 countries, including 1,044 feature films, 3,500 shorts and 646 documentaries. Twenty-five of the films will enjoy their North American Premiere here and 29 others will have their U.S. Premiere in Chicago when the festival begins on October 12th.
Many films are embargoed, meaning that a complete review cannot be written until the film is actually released. Let me give you a peek at onr of these new films.
The black-and-white French film “L’Amant d’un Jour” (“A Lover for a Day”) directed by French director Philippe Garrel (“Regular Lovers”) was quite charming and a Cannes favorite. This one had much food for thought. Here are a few lines of dialogue and a brief synopsis:
“A Lover for a Day” is the provocative tale of modern love and family ties. When Jeanne’s (Esther Garrel) boyfriend Mateo breaks up with her, she is forced to move back home with her father, charismatic college professor Gilles (Eric Caravace) and discovers that he is now living with a girl her age, Ariane (Louise Chevillotte), his philosophy student.
Let me first disagree that Gilles is “charismatic” He’s dumpy looking and he is not young, but, in a classic case of transference, Ariane (Louise Chevillotte) has decided Gilles is the one for her. She pursues him until he catches her. Maybe she has a thing for older men (father fixation) or maybe it is the fact that Gilles was her Professor of Philosophy. Who knows? His appeal is not immediately apparent, but “the heart wants what it wants.”
When Jeanne comes calling at her father’s flat, Ariane is in residence; the two young women become friends.
Jeanne is extremely distraught over her break-up with fiancé Mateo, but Ariane, who is roughly Jeanne’s age, reassures her that, “You’ll get over it. We always do.”
Jeanne: “He kept telling me he loved me. I held off, at first. He came chasing after me. Now, there’s nothing there. I was totally played by love…and it all ends like this.”
The relationship between Gilles and his young lover continues, but there is a discussion of them having an “open” relationship where Arianne can take younger lovers, as long as Gilles doesn’t know. (“Not only do I not want to know, I’d rather have no idea.”)
Ariane counsels the heartbroken Jeanne with lines like, ”Sure, he (Mateo) was selfish. It happens to us all. I know it hurts, but it’ll pass.” She tells her new friend Jeanne that her father has been married and divorced three times and that she “thinks he enjoys divorcing.” This should give Gilles pause, if nothing else about Ariane does.
There’s a discussion of the Algerian War, in which one million Frenchmen were drafted to fight against Algeria. During the dinner-table discussions, the beautiful Arianne is ogled by another cute young Frenchman and Gilles seems upset. Ariane says, “It’s what you want. For me to flirt with others but sleep with you.” She also says, “You know me so well. I can’t hide a thing. It’s crazy to even try.”
Gilles responds, “I know you because I love you, perhaps.”
Voice-over: “Eternity never stopped. Happiness reigned over their home.”
However, problems arise, which, indirectly, are Jeanne’s fault. The denouement was interesting, to me, as I wondered, “How is this going to end?”
More thoughts that the movie gives us about love, in general: “When you’re so young and fragile, it can mark you for life.” (A reference to Jeanne’s heartsick behavior).
Ariane tells Jeanne: “You must know how to choose lovers. When you fall in love, you fall in love with everything; you become stupid.”
Jeanne responds, “But it’s sad to never fall in love, isn’t it?”
Of being in love: “I love it and, at the same time, it pisses me off. It’s great, but, then again, it’s super crazy. You just feel great, like you’re wrapped in a great coat/”
Gilles’ goal is this: “I want to age in a loving relationship.” He also admits this about himself: “I hurt women who did nothing to deserve it.” (*Note: the script was written by Philippe Garrel, Jean-Claude Carriere, Caroline Derues-Garrel, and Arlette Langmann).
Will Gilles and Arianne go the distance? Is Jeanne’s engagement to her fiancé, Mateo, really over? You’ll have to see the movie to find out when the it is released in the United States. (It played Cannes and also was featured October 10th at the New York Film Festival before it shows on October 13th in Chicago.)
[contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”true” /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Message” type=”textarea” /][/contact-form]“Blueprint”, directed by Daryl Wein, and co-written by Daryl Wein and the film’s star, Jerod Haynes, is a close look at the issue of gun violence in Chicago—specifically, Chicago’s South Side. The film includes a citing of the May total of 486 shooting that resulted in 52 deaths. (*Note: WGN news of 10/1/2017 did report a recent decrease in such mayhem.)
The film is told through the point-of-view of Jerod Haynes’ character (also named Jerod). He is struggling to find a job to support a young daughter and the child’s mother (it’s never very clear if they are officially married or simply parents to the child together). Haynes is a talented, young African American Chicago actor who had roles in “Southside with You” (2016) and television’s “Empire” (2015) and he does a fine job playing this role. The film focuses on the death of Jerod’s best friend Reggie, who was a star basketball player and one of “the good guys that represented peace.” It opens with the two old buddies shooting hoops, but we soon learn that the unarmed Reggie was shot in the back by a policeman, while running away. Reggie’s death is yet another shock to the black community. (One dedication at film’s end to 33-year-old Curtis Posey, who acted in the film in a small role and was killed by violence on 6/27/1.7 was but one of 3 similar incidents that affected cast members since the beginning of the film.)
After that dismal news, Jerod begins to drink heavily and his relationship with the mother of his young daughter suffers. They were already on the outs; Jerod was living in his mother’s house. Reggie’s friends and relatives on the South Side are both angry and anguished at his senseless killing. They aren’t buying any accounts that try to say Reggie was packing heat and the best line describing how they feel is uttered by Reggie’s mother, who says, “Reggie got shot because they didn’t see him as a human being. We can’t have that luxury of thinking it won’t happen to us, because, every other day, it’s somebody else.”
With the recent Trump Twitter storm about NFL athletes who take a knee during the National Anthem, it is easy to see that this is a timely and topical film, and with the shooting deaths tonight of 58 concert-goers in Las Vegas attending a Jason Aldean concert, it’s easy to also say that it’s about time we had a serious discussion about gun violence in America that doesn’t cave to NRA lobbyists. Tai, the mother of Shanesia, wants Jerod to step up and be a man, act like a man, be responsible. In a Black Lives Matter gathering following Reggie’s death, Jerod says, “We don’t have fathers. We don’t have the blueprint. The women are holding us together.” This, of course, is a true allusion to the fact that black families are often matriarchies where the women do hold the family together.
In the aftermath of Reggie’s slaying, various factions meet to discuss what can be done to stop this violence. The pastor in the film quotes the Bible, saying, “The Bible says, ‘Be angry, but sin not.” An opposing point of view is voiced by a young black man who says, “It’s not what we can’t do. It’s gonna’ be what we will do. We can’t allow them to do us like this.” He hands Jerod a gun, saying, “This is life and death right here,” and urging Jerod to defend himself, if necessary. Nevertheless, the feeling articulated in the film is: “It’s a cycle. It’s a continuum.” And, notes Jerod, “Everybody I get close to I lose.” Later in the film, we will see Jerod throw the gun in a trash bin (symbolic screenwriting 101). I am sure I am not the only audience member who was thinking, “He should wipe that thing clean of his fingerprints before he rejects violence and discards it. Otherwise, he risks being framed for another murder!” Nor am I the only one who noticed that the hero and “good guy” was driving drunk after the funeral of his best friend. Another plot point that three critics near me argued about after the film finished was whether or not Jerod qualifies as a hero when he is drinking heavily, is still unemployed, and is still living at home and, according to girlfriend/wife/soulmate Tai (Tai Davis) has been sneaking around with another woman.
Regardless of Jerod’s heroic goodness (or lack thereof), the actor playing him, as well as the supporting players, do a fine job. The issue of gun violence is certainly relevant. The young girl playing Jerod’s daughter (Shanesia Davis-Williams) is very natural and delivers her lines like a true pro, especially this one: “Do our lives matter, or is it that white people’s lives matter more?” The racism issue is complex and the answer is lost in the eternal ongoing dispute over gun rights versus gun control. Nevermind that other countries like Australia found a way to curb senseless gun deaths. We don’t seem to have a handle on the problem, even after Sandy Hook and the tragic murder of entire classrooms of elementary school children. (Some of the more radical GOP talking radio hosts even insist that the poor children of Sandy Hook never died; it was all a hoax, just like the moon landing in 1969.)
One somewhat lame line was: “One day—I don’t know when—it’ll get better.” (To which I muttered, under my breath, not while Donald Trump is allowed to run roughshod over the Constitution and sully the Presidency.)
The movie is well-acted and it is also well-photographed by cinematographer Toshihiko Kizu, who makes the South Side and settings like the Shedd Aquarium, plus the many bridges in the city, come to life as near-characters in their own right(s). There is also original music by Jukebox and one with the refrain “Fall in love with the magic girl.” (That, apparently, will solve all the problems the film presents.)
I did not like the upbeat happy ending. It begs the question of, “What ARE we going to do about these senseless killings? One character says, “What can we do? I dunno. That’s the problem. We’ve got to figure out what to do.” Isn’t that generally the issue with ANY problem? And do any of these issues seem to be getting better (or, indeed, any attention) under the current federal administration?
There is even a line that says, “We’re seeing social injustice all around the world.” NEWS FLASH: we all know that. What does this film propose be done about it? I did not see it come down on the side of violence (Malcolm X, the Black Panthers) or the side of peaceful nonviolence (Martin Luther King). It just sort of straddles the fence in presenting the modern-day horror of life in the ‘hood.
I grew up in the 60’s. I remember Tommy Smith and Juan Carlos’ Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics and the Symbionese Liberation Army and Bobby Seales and Huey P. Newton founding the Black Panther movement and all the rest of it (Watts, etc.). I was in France when the French newspapers trumpeted: “America At the Edge of the Abyss.”
We’re there again, folks. Happy endings are looking pretty scarce, and we DO need to figure out what to do about it.
Publisher: Quad Cities’ Press (Aug, 2017) Category: YA, Psychological Paranormal Thriller Tour Dates: Oct/Nov, 2017 Available in: E-book, 725 Pages
THE COLOR OF EVIL series presents you with characters who live, breathe and die in small town Cedar Falls, Iowa. Tad McGreevy, the focus of the series, has a paranormal power, Tetrachromatic Super Vision, that allows him to see auras that tell him whether a person is good or evil. At night, in horrifying nightmares, Tad relives the crimes of the evil-doers. Eventually, becomes the target of a particularly lethal antagonist, Michael Clay (aka Pogo the Clown) who wants to eliminate the teen-aged boy. In three books, we witness the power of evil faced off against a good-hearted young boy who just wants to protect those he loves.
Beginning with the first manifestations of this supernatural power at the age of 8, the book quickly takes us forward to the high school years of Tad and the band of friends we come to know well. We follow their progress from their junior year of high school through graduation with danger always lurking in the background. As others have said, it’s quite a ride.
Begin the journey today with this specially-priced trilogy: THE COLOR OF EVIL; RED IS FOR RAGE; and KHAKI=KILLER..
“THE COLOR OF EVIL series is old-school psychological horror, artfully blended with new-school shocks and twists. Bravo!” —Jonathan Maberry, New York Times best-selling author, multiple Bram Stoker winner.
MY THOUGHTS COLOR OF EVIL SERIES BOXED SET BY CONNIE CORCORAN WILSON
by Teddy Rose
I rarely read books like these but have heard so much about them and have enjoyed Ms. Wilson’s writing in the past with her diverse topics. Thus I decided to give this series a try. It has just been made into a boxed set on Kindle.
In this multi award-winning series, Tad McGreevy as a boy discovers that he can see auras. At night he dreams of evil people doing evil deeds and he knows that these aren’t just dreams. He doesn’t know if the evil doing has already occurred or will occur in the future. His parents tell him to keep his power a secret. When he turns 8 years old his third grade classmates are invited to his birthday party. His parents hire Pogo the Clown to entertain the children. However, Tad knows right away that Pogo (real name Michael Clay) is really a serial killer. Of course, his parents don’t believe him and even send him to a psychiatrist who does not believe him either. That is until Pogo is arrested.
Fast forward to Tad as a young adult, In the second book ‘Red Is For Rage’, Tad tries to control his power more. He doesn’t want to end up back in a hospital under a psychiatrist’s care. His best friend Stevie Scranton goes missing. To top that off, Pogo (aka Michael Clay), the serial killer clown, escapes from prison. Tad teams up with a retired policeman and others to try to find out what happened to Stevie. Will they be too late?
Then there is the teenage aghast of Tad and his friend, not to mention that of Stevie’s poor parents during the 9 month ordeal while their son is missing.
The third book, ‘Khaki=Killer’ picks up where the second book leaves off. Melody Harris Carpenter was rushed to the hospital due to an accident when cheerleading at her college. We find out what happened to her. There are budding romances, more people disappearing, and Michael Clay is on the hunt for Tad.
Okay, so even from what I just described, it is clear it isn’t the type of book I would normally read. In fact I would usually stay far away from. However, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this series.
Connie Corcoran Wilson really amazes me with her pen.She can write both non-fiction and fiction effortlessly, or at least it seems the case to me. Will I go out of my way to read more paranormal thrillers? Probably not, but I am glad I read this. I also know that she is working on a fourth, (perhaps final?) book for the series and I will certainly read that.
I recommend you pick up a copy of The Color of Evil series and experience it as well!
PRAISE for THE COLOR OF EVIL SERIES
By Connie Corcoran Wilson
‘The book has all the elements of a compelling mystery and an inventive paranormal twist. One must credit Wilson for treating her teenage protagonists with respect, as they face adult dilemmas and resolve them with maturity and grace.”- Kirkus
“Connie Corcoran Wilson weaves a deftly fine scalpel in an age where a crude blade is more the norm. Her work is a smooth, subtle hybrid mix of science fiction, thriller, and horror that realizes a unique and pointed vision in the great tradition of Phillip K. Dick and Ray Bradbury. Her voice is a wonder to behold, at once dark and somber while maintaining a glimmer of hope that shines in the hearts of her heroes, who cling to the light. Like Stephen King, nothing escapes her discerning eye, the result of which is tale after tale that bleed life onto the page, both literally and figuratively.”–Jon Land, bestselling author of the Caitlin Strong Series
“Wilson’s characters come alive on the page. Comparisons to Stephen King, Dean Koontz and Philip K. Dick aside, Wilson has spent 35 years teaching students in this age range. She knows what she is talking about.”–Gary Braver, author of “Flashback” and 8 other thrillers.
Darron Aronofsky’s new film “Mother!” looks to be a re-imagining, perhaps, of “Rosemary’s Baby” from its trailers. After Aronofsky films like “Black Swan,” “The Wrestler” and “Noah,” you come out of this one feeling slightly bilious—partially from Matthew Libatique’s hand-held close-up camera work—and partially because the film, (allegorical though it may be), just leaves you saying, “What the hell just happened here?”
For the first one-half to two-thirds of the film we have a normal story of a couple living in a remote house in the woods (Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence). He is a poet who has writers’ block and she is his loving, much younger and very supportive wife. [They don’t have names in the film, so I’ll simply refer to them by the actor’s names.]
As a would-be writer myself (30 books, to date),the depiction of how the publishing industry works was ludicrous, but it gives us a chance to see how Lawrence feels that she is not the Most Important Person in Bardem’s life, as he shows her his (finally, belatedly) completed manuscript, she cries and calls it beautiful. Immediately the phone rings and we learn that Bardem’s agent in New York (weirdly enough, played by SNL’s Kristen Wiiig) has already seen the manuscript. [Uh—-okay, folks. Not the way REAL publishing works, but let’s move on. And good luck on living on a poet’s income; better he should write horror novels or screenplays, like this film appeared to be from the trailers.]
I want to warn anyone reading this that there will be potential spoilers in my remarks, so look elsewhere if you don’t want to know some specific details about the film. However, to quote the critic in “Time” magazine, “It tries so desperately to be crazy and disturbing that all we can see is the effort made and the money spent.” That observation is not mine and seems a bit harsh, but my remark to a fellow critic as I left the theater was, “This one will not do well at the boxoffice once word gets out.” So, a few details are here, but, no, I won’t give you the entire plot, blow-by-blow, (one of my biggest beefs about those who review my short story collections.) So, what “word” am I suggesting will get out?
The word that the film makes minimal sensewhile trying to comment on a host of current topics as varied as the chaos in the world where refugees from any of a myriad list of countries are fleeing for their lives (Syria, almost anywhere in Africa, Afghanistan, et. al.), how we are destroying the Earth (Mother Earth—get it?), how artists both need fans, but also resent the rabid ones who won’t leave them alone, and egoism as demonstrated by those artists, etc.
True film buffs will see “Mother!” and be glad to have seen Aronofsky’s latest film. Word out of TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) was that people came out of the viewing either loving it or hating it, but definitely talking about it. I heard that, at one film festival screening (Cannes, I think) it was both booed and received a 5-minute standing ovation, so opinions come down on both sides of the issue.
IMHO, I don’t think the average couple who want a night out on the town without the kids will like it. They’d prefer a story that made sense. This one does not. It reminded me of Terrance Malick’s “Tree of Life” in that there was a story present that could have been told on a “normal” plane, but things quickly spiraled out of control on that front. “Tree of Life” went wild with great cinematic images, but the story suffered a quick death.
Don’t look for too much of that Malick touch here. The hand-held, close-up camerawork is all zoom-y and jerky. I found it really annoying on the big screen. I feel I have seen every pore on Jennifer Lawrence’s face. I think that is probably the movie’s strength: Jennifer Lawrence in her prime.
The sound is also quite good, and some of the early spooky shots in the old basement made me think of the film “They Come At Night” earlier this year in 2 respects: the shadowy spooky lighting and the fact that nobody ever really came at night and patrons were quite upset at being suckered in by the title and the trailer that seemed to portray a standard horror story. [I hope this isn’t the second instance of misleading advertising in film trailers this season, in the fans’ opinion(s).]
As for the secret room in the basement that is never properly explained or the bloody hole in the floor that I was sure was going to give way when someone walked over it, or the constant influx of strangers whom husband Bardem will not get rid of: not as enchanting or as well-explained.
Bardem ultimately becomes a religious figure (Satan? The Devil?) and Worst Husband & Father Ever.
The story makes sense for a while, but ultimately: “things fall apart, the center cannot hold.”
At first, we have the couple in the woods ( I was reminded of the house used one season on “American Horror Story”) with the wife trying to (literally) re-build the house to please her husband, because, (we learn in an aside), it was his childhood home. We are also told that a fire destroyed it and killed his mother. All Javier has left from the wreckage is a precious piece of glass that he keeps on display on a pedestal. It gets broken, of course, but nevermind about that right now.
After we woozily (those close-up shots and hand-held photography) watch Jennifer run to the bathroom to periodically bolt glasses of a yellow liquid that she mixes on multiple occasions, I wanted to know what it was she was drinking. The film never said. I read (elsewhere) that it was some kind of migraine medication. It would have been nice to have known that, somehow, from the dialogue. I don’t have migraines, have never heard of a yellow powder that people take for it, and was trying to figure out if Lawrence was a closet drug addict or trying to abort an unwanted pregnancy, since there is a conversation in the film where random guest Michelle Pfeiffer tells Jennifer that she (Michelle) can tell that Jennifer doesn’t want kids.
First guest to disrupt the couple’s solitude is Ed Harris, who tells Javier that he is an orthopedic surgeon at the hospital in town and suggests that he was told this was a bed and breakfast where he could stay. Once he finds out that Bardem is the famous poet Harris admires, Harris is invited to stay at their house by Javier as long as he likes. This disturbs Jennifer as she was not consulted.
Then, Ed’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up. Later, his two warring sons (real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Donheel Gleeson) arrive and a violent fight breaks out about their father’s imminent demise and the money he will leave. [We have learned that old Ed is coughing up a lung because he is terminally ill.]
MOTHER NATURE
Let’s examine some of the themes/allegories that Aronofsky has laid out for us, or why I feel they are there. What is my support for my interpretation, in other words? When it comes to the Mother Nature reading, in addition to the film’s title, we need only pay attention when Jennifer says she wants to make the house “a Paradise” for her husband. And there is this line: “I gave you everything. You gave it all away.” Then, of course, there are the lines of the song that plays over the credits: “It’s The End of the World As We Know It, it ended when your love left me.”
RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM
Believe me, you won’t miss this. Gifts brought to the child born under chaotic circumstances. Preacher-like figures and small votive candles. Adoring worshippers. Small photos of the object of their adoration everywhere. And we all know what happened to the first son of God in The Good Book, so don’t look for a happy ending here.
EGOISM
“Vanity Fair”cited “the fevered insecurity of an artist who fears the attention of his public as much as he does their abandonment.” It is undeniably true that a writer or artist of any sort is dependent on an adoring public for both ego gratification and sales. Still, it’s taken to the limit here. Jennifer’s constant desire to have her husband make the unwanted guests go away made me think of a story she told tonight on Seth Meyer’s Late Show. She described being asked to pose for a selfie in a bar after a hard day on a shoot (and a few too many beers) and turning the young man down, whereupon he used the “f” word and went away mad. Not as mad as Jennifer, however, who describes dousing him and his luggage with beer because he wouldn’t leave her alone.
You get the feeling that the character Jennifer Lawrence portrays in “Mother!” would dearly love to give every character in the film except Bardem the old heave-ho, but nobody listens to her polite requests that they not sit on the still unmoored kitchen sink counter or simply get the hell out of her house. She is telling them what to do both politely and, ultimately, ragefully, just as Mother Nature has been warning us about weather crises to come for decades, but we just don’t listen. And, just like the 2 recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida within 4 days of one another while vast parts of the west are going up in flames, things are getting wildly out of hand now, because milder warnings given early on were completely ignored.
The film is crazy and disturbing and, in Lawrence’s words on television tonight, “horrifying” but it’s not your normal horror film with an ending that wraps things up for you, with or without a twist ending, so if you hated “They Come At Night” because you thought there was actually going to be something coming at night, you will probably think this film has done a bit of false advertising with its trailers, too.
Doesn’t mean you can’t watch it to try to decode the layers of meaning and enjoy Aronofsky’s skill as a writer/director, but I liked “The Wrestler.” It made sense from beginning to end.
When I showed up at our local Cineplex at 5:10 p.m. last Saturday to see “It,” I didn’t expect to find that particular showing sold out—but it was. So was the 6:20 p.m. showing, after I bought the last ticket.
“It”—based on a novel by Stephen King written over 30 years ago—is breaking records for a horror movie opening and easily became the largest September oepning of all time. It more than doubled the earnings of the previous record holders, which were “Paranormal Activity 3” with $52.6 million in 2011 and September’s “Hotel Transylvania 2” with $48.5 million back in 2015.
One might ask why now? Why “It”?
As one critic (Chris Nashawaty in “Entertainment Weekly”) said: “It” doesn’t shy away from nastiness and definitely earns its R rating. There’s implied incest, bullying in the extreme, and children are violently attacked. But that raises the question: Who exactly is it for? Its heroes, like its audience, are kids. What responsible parent will buy their tickets?”
Chris just doesn’t get “It.” The people I saw in the theater on Saturday were not predominantly teen-agers, although there were plenty of them, too. The man sitting next to me was probably a forty-something father who had read the book (which he told me). I definitely read the book, all those years ago, and, to refresh my memory, I strolled down memory lane with the television version of the book that ran in 1990, four years after the book came out.
The original film-for-television version had John Boy of the Waltons attired in a ponytail, to show that he was a creative sort, as Bill. I never did quite get used to that ponytail and Richard Masur as one of the boys turns up a suicide when the team gets the call to return to Derry. In the interests of not ruining the new film, I won’t tell you which of the team Masur was, but killing him off in what will be Chapter Two for this particular treatment may or may not happen.
What I did was primarily take a close look at the differences between the 1990 film and the current 2017 version, and I’ll add some theories about why “It” burst out of the doldrums of September with blockbuster numbers at the box office.
1) The original film covers both the young people and the 40-somethings who are called to return to Derry when the evil clown, Pennywise (originally played by Tim Curry of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”) returns in 27 years. This film stops when the protagonists are young and have just rescued their only female member, Beverly Marsh (well played by Sophia Lillis). We also have, as the lead (Bill), Jaeden Lieberher of “Midnight Special” and the young lead actor of “Stranger Things, Finn Wolfhard. Also present in the remake are Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) and a cast of reprehensible parent figures.
2) David Morrell has suggested that our current national situation: being led by a clown who seems bent on making bad things happen may be partially to blame for the film’s September popularity, but if you look at the anemic offerings out there, it is easy to see why “It” would carry the day. It is true that the adults in the film seem either indifferent, incompetent, or just plain evil, from Beverly’s father right on down to Eddie’s mother and the local pharmacist.
3) Pennywise was played by Tim Curry in the original film and is played by Bill Skarsgard in this one. I am not as quick to laud Curry and put Skarsgard down. I thought they were both fine in their roles.
4) The original film used a lot of blood scenes where it bubbles up from the green sink in Beverly’s bathroom. In this newer version, it isn’t just blood that bubbles p. There are also menacing black cobweb like tentacles that threaten to drag Beverly down to the sewer(s).
5) I noticed that the language was very “R”-rated in this movie. That seems natural, since the original in 1990 played on network TV. Every other line has either the “F” word in it or that four-letter word that means excrement.
6) When Beverly’s sink goes haywire with the bubbling blood, only she is able to see it and she enlists the help of the Losers gang, who are also able to see it, but her father is not.
7) When chubby Ben is menaced, he is actually cut with a knife by the bully Bowers, who, himself, has been mistreated by his policeman father. In the original, he was bullied but not quite so extremely.
8) The rock-throwing scene (Losers against local bullies) remains in the film.
9) The weapon of choice for use against Pennywise in the sewers has changed from a slingshot that only Beverly seemed able to aim well to the sort of gun that is used to kill animals at a slaughter house.
10) There is a long sequence in a haunted house that reminded me of Miss Faversham’s digs in “Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens.
11) Every trope in the horror movie book is thrown at the audience over and over again: the quick jump forward, the “don’t go in there” places, the “cover-your-face-terrifying” moments. The two teen-aged girls sitting to my left actually applauded after the film ended, so it obviously works and works quite well if you have not seen it done one million times before in many other films.
12) The lighting was appropriately spooky. Not as spooky as “It Comes At Night” earlier this summer, but very dark and moody. Sewers are also plenty scary and this time, instead of just a look at the scary house, the leads are taken inside it more than once.
13) Director Andy Muschieti (“Mama”) has delivered the script by Chase Palmer, Cary Fukomaga and Gary Dauberman, based on King’s novel, in a straightforward murder mystery manner, coupled with horror movie tropes that cause one to scream and jump out of their seat(s). (Think “Psycho”).
14) Critic Rick Bentley (Tribune News Service), who gave the film only 2 and 1/2 stars (putting him at odds with most of the theater-going public) made the very accurate statement that “Pennywise is terrifying, but he’s not the biggest monster
Rock musician Bob Seger & the Silver Bullet Band took the stage at the Civic Center in Moline, Illinois on Saturday night, August 26th, 2017, for the second show on his just-launched tour (Tulsa was first).
The clip above shows off more of the band, in general, but the entire show was jam-packed with hits, from “Against the Wind,” “Rock & Roll Music,” “Like A Rock,” “Why Don’t You Stay?” to “Hollywood Nights.”
It was a predominantly middle-aged crowd that turned out to see and hear the rocker from Detroit and the place was as crowded as I’ve ever seen it. The downtown parking ramps were all full and we had to walk about a mile to even find a place to park.
It was a great show and very poignant when Seger sang the lyrics, “I’m older now, but still running against the wind.”
“Wind River” opens with a young Indian girl running barefoot across snow with a mountainous landscape in the background. We soon learn that the mountains are (supposedly) in Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation, a reservation established for the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes in western Wyoming. The entrance to the Wind River Reservation is the small town of Lander. We do see a town sign for Lander early on, but all the mountains used in the beautiful cinematography are really in Utah.
Ultimately, the young Indian girl running for her life dies of pulmonary hemorrhage from the sub-zero cold. Her body is discovered by Corey Lambert, a Fish and Wildlife employee whose job, as he tells FBI agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) called in to consult is, “I hunt predators.” Corey was stalking mountain lions when he came upon the young victim’s body, Natalie Hanson (Kelsey Asbille).
The pretty blonde FBI agent (Elizabeth Olson) responds, “So why don’t you come and hunt one for me, then.” The Florida-born, Las Vegas-based agent is out of her league and she knows it. She doesn’t even seem to own boots or mittens, so the locals have to help her out
Corey not only knows the territory well, he also has a backstory (doesn’t the hero always have a backstory?) about losing his own teen-aged daughter three years prior. His young teen-aged daughter Emily also happened to be the best friend of the just-discovered dead girl, Natalie Hanson.
The best male actor comparison for Jeremy Renner’s portrayal of the anguished bounty hunter is that his role is a throwback to the roles played by strong silent types, like Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda and young Clint Eastwood. Renner has been justifiably praised for his performance here with critics saying it’s his best work since “The Hurt Locker.”
The cinematography is gorgeous, if brutal, and one of the leads seems well cast. The barren wintery landscape is the biggest cast member. Sheridan also gets in some digs about injustices done Native Americans, including the factoid at film’s end that no statistics are compiled for missing Indian women. Here’s an example of the sentiments Sheridan has scripted, spoken by the Indian girl’s brother to the cops, who say they only want to help: “Why is it that it starts with you white people trying to help.” He implies that it always goes bad after that and, judging from history, he’s not wrong.
Sheridan initially had his heart set on Renner for the part, but Renner’s role in “Awakening” caused him to be unavailable at first, so Chris Pine was set to play the role, but “Wonder Woman” duties forced him out. Then, Renner’s schedule opened up and allowed Sheridan to continue with this frontier film, after scripting—but not directing— both “Hell and High Water” and “Sicario”—casting his first choice as the main character. The credits throw in the fact that it is “from the producer of “Lone Survivor.”
This, however, is Sheridan’s first time directing one of his own scripts. He and his cast perform competently, although the current trend of leaving numerous unanswered questions means we are still wondering what-the-hell happened to Renner’s own daughter 3 years back. We are equally mystified by the question of relationships by film’s end (Is Renner still in love with his divorced Indian wife, Julia Jones as Wilma? Is Renner attracted to Olsen’s FBI agent? What? Open-ended themes are all the rage these days, so those are a couple of unresolved issues you’ll have to mull on your own after the film ends.) Ben Richardson’s beautiful cinematography is enhanced by the score composed by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. Filmgoers at Cannes gave the film an 8 minute standing ovation, while the Sun Dance people also liked it a lot. (Sheridan didn’t tell the studio he was entering the film at Sun Dance, but it turned out well.)
The denouement where we find out how the beautiful Indian girl (Natalie is played by Kelsey Asbille) ended up dead features Jon Bernthal (“The Walking Dead”) as her boyfriend. He is only in the film for about twenty minutes. The “let’s have everybody shoot everybody else” finale has been done-to-death in this year’s “Free Fire” and various Tarantino films. I had hoped for more—maybe even a well-scripted plot twist.
Elizabeth Olson, playing the FBI agent, seems way too pretty and fragile—which supports her insecurities in her job but makes you long for a Frances McDormand of “Fargo,” the movie, or an Allison Tolman of “Fargo,” the TV show (Season #1) to really make the part believable. Renner, for me, fit the bill, especially when surrounded by excellent Native American actors, like Graham Greene’s Ben (*NOT the long-dead British novelist, but the actor who appeared in “The Green Mile” and “Dances with Wolves.”)
The movie plays like “Jeremiah Johnson” meets Melissa Leo’s 2008 drug-smuggling-in-Canada film “Frozen River” amidst the modernized-to-the-present-day landscape of DeCaprio’s “The Revenant.” The acting by Renner and the plot, itself, are throwbacks to the seventies, something I couldn’t be happier about. I’ll enjoy watching for Taylor Sheridan’s next film. This one opens wide on August 4th.
Genre: Western murder mystery thriller
Length: 111 minutes
Director: Taylor Sheridan
Stars: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olson, Graham Greene, Jon Bernthal
You’ll seldom find me agreeing with arch Republican columnist Charles Krauthammer, but his editorial entitled “Bungled Collusion Is Still Collusion” of Sunday, July 16th (Quad City Times) contains some sentiments that I want to share with you. And then I’ll include some remarks from “the other side.”
Quoting Krauthammer re the burgeoning Donald Trump, Jr. Russian meeting and Russian collusion, in general: “My view was, Collusion? I just don’t see it. But I’m open to empirical evidence. Show me. The evidence is now shown. This is not hearsay, not fake news, not unsourced leaks. This is an e-mail chain released by Donald Trump Jr. himself.” Krauthammer continues: “Once you’ve said, ‘I’m in,’ it makes no difference that the meeting was a bust, that the intermediary brought no such goods. What matters is what Donald Jr. thought going into the meeting, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who were copied on the correspondence, invited to the meeting, and attended.” (8 people, in all, were present).
Krauthammer goes on to say: “It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we American are always intervening in other people’s elections and they in ours.” He goes on to say this is RUSSIA, our sworn adversary, and says, “This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for 6 months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say, ‘Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.’ He concluded that, no, not everyone does it (Gergen offered oral testimony that both the JFK campaigns and the Al Gore campaign said no to such foreign assistance offered to their campaigns) and said, “But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor.”
Just before typing this excerpt from a columnist with whom I seldom agree, I listened to David Gergen explain on television that the presidency requires someone in that office who sets a moral tone for the entire administration and the entire country. This seems self-evident and easy to understand, but that standard is not being met by the White House’s current occupant, whose ethics officer, Walter Schoud, just resigned, saying that the White House, unlike the 2 previous administrations, is doing nothing to cooperate with them on ethics violations and continues to violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which forbids a president or his family from profiting from the office while holding it. The fact that Donald Trump is constantly promoting his businesses is a given. Schaud said he told Donald Sr. numerous times that he must withdraw from his private holdings and shouldn’t be seen at his numerous golf courses (all but 4 weekends in office he has been playing golf at one of them or at Mar A Lago), thereby promoting that business. It was widely reported that the dues at Mar A Lago, Trump’s private Florida club, doubled from $100,000 to $200,000 after his election.
The Donald
Leonard Pitts Jr. won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004. His editorial is entitled “What Is Wrong with Trump?” Pitt does not mince words. In his Monday, July 17th essay, African-American writer Pitt said: “This has been said a million times: Donald Trump is a lying, narcissistic, manifestly incompetent child man who is as dumb as a sackof mackerel. But he is the president of the United States because 63 million people preferred that to facing inevitable cultural change. So I am done asking—or caring—what’s wrong with him. Six months in, it’s time we grappled with a far more important question. What in the world is wrong with us?” (Quad City Times, p. A4)
In conclusion, I would refer you to my own Letter to the Editor, which appeared in the Sunday paper (Moline “Dispatch”). (It was on one of those annoying fold-over ad portions that you want to immediately rip off and throw away, so I doubt if many saw it on p. A11, which I almost could not find.)
I put my original letter on my blog in its entirety (scroll back) because generally my letters to the editor are round-filed without comment. I’ve sent 3 letters to the “Dispatch” editor and never once have they used one or contacted me to say it needed to be changed in some fashion. One letter was sent by snail mail on letterhead.
While I am glad that one (of 3) letters I took the time to write finally did see the light of day, I wrote today to ask why the credentials of all other writers are generally placed after their names. My credentials for writing a letter about our current political situation were placed at the end of my letter when I submitted it, but there was no mention of my having been named Content Producer of the Year (’08) for Politics by Yahoo (in 2009) or my 2 wins from the Illinois Women’s Press Association as the Best Writer of the Year in a contest judged by experts from the Chicago area, not by its members. (I won the Silver Feather Award, as it is known, in both 2012 and 2014.)
And I didn’t even mention the 2 books that came from my coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, or the fact that I (also) covered 2004 and 2012. As per usual, no response to my e-mail asking why my credentials were completely absent. Read my entire letter on here, but know that it concluded this way: “Trump’s arrogance at home and abroad has isolated us on the world stage and his inability to know how to behave as our representative is a national embarrassment.”
On Sunday morning’s talk shows, including Fahreed Zakaria’s, there was talk about the magnitsky Act (although it was mispronounced by several speakers.)
It becomes clear from this explanation by the Washington Post that the meeting that Donald Trump, Jr., took part in was probably an attempt to influence the Trump adminisration to revoke this act, which has particularly irked Vladimir Putin. It became law under Obama and it keeps the world’s richest man (Putin is worth something like $26 billion) from using ill-gotten gains not only in this country, but in countries in Europe, etc. In other words, it would be tantamount to bank robbers having no way to launder their take.
The Ruissian oligarchs have been very adamant about getting this act reversed, so that they can spend their money abroad. (“Follow the money,” as the old saying goes).
Here is wht the act did:
The law
The Magnitsky Act was signed by President Barack Obama in December 2012 as a retaliation against the human rights abuses suffered by Magnitsky. The law at first blocked 18 Russian government officials and businessmen from entering the United States, froze any assets held by U.S. banks and banned their future use of U.S. banking systems. The act was expanded in 2016, and now sanctions apply to 44 suspected human rights abusers worldwide.
Its official title is a mouthful — the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. In most news stories and accounts, the shorthand is simply — the Magnitsky Act.
Bill Browder, an American hedge fund manager who hired Magnitsky for the corruption investigation that eventually led to his death, was a central figure in the bill’s passage. ******* Bill Browder was a guest on Fahreed Zakaria’s Sunday morning 350 program and spoke eloquently about the act and the fact that his life is currently in danger from the Russians who have openly expressed the wish that he be dead.
This meeting of the Trump team was, in all likelihood, a tit-for-tat promise: you help us get rid of the Maginsky Act and we’ll help your candidate get elected.
And they did. [contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
