Responding to Mercy

I'm not a fan of musicals. For the few I have been able to sit through, I have heard good music or seen a good story, and some have both, but I've never been able able to suspend enough disbelief to enjoy the genre as a whole. I have seen the fairly good Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush (non-musical) version of Les Miserables, but have not seen the musical on the stage. And the prospect of seeing the famous "Les Mis" after reading the book last year did scare me. Why would I want to experience such a rich and powerful story hampered by people belting out songs designed more to show off the voice than to advance the narrative?

But I found this movie -- all two and a half hours of it -- riveting. Sure, a few of the subplots are left out or minimized, but most of the story is left, and director Tom Hooper does a great job holding it all together. The music is moving, and the acting marvelous, and on and on so forth. You can read better analysis of those elements of the film elsewhere, so I'd rather focus on what intrigues me about this production.

I was awestruck with the stark look of some of the songs where the character is singing in front of a bare background with a single object to balance the frame in a visual sense while tilting the picture in a metaphorical sense. For example, Javert (Russell Crowe) sings with a statue of an eagle in the scene, which is appropriate because he represent the obsessive devotion to the law and the presumed -- and oppressive -- order it provides. Anne Hathaway, as Fantine, bares her soul and most of her hair and ragged clothes in singing the beloved "I Dreamed a Dream," focusing not only on the unfairness of her plight, but the emotional poverty she has been driven to. Perhaps Mr. Hooper is a bit heavy-handed. I don't care.

This story is about much more than good triumphing over evil. When I first read the book and at the beginning of the film, I had the sense that the story was about the how good can transform even people we might think have valid reasons to see the world through bitter eyes, such as Jean Valjean and Fantine. But the film and the book are about mercy, not only the showing of mercy, but the varied response to it. Valjean is forever changed by the bishop's decision, and responds by trying, humbly, to be that "better man." On the other hand Javert is twice shown mercy by Valjean and his inability or unwillingness to accept that mercy proves to be his real downfall.

I'm sure there are flaws in this movie that people who know much more about the art of film-making and musical theater can point out. However, this is the first time I have actually felt a musical should win the Oscar. Les Miserables is not merely an enjoyable movie; it can be a compelling experience.

Movie Notes -- Courageous

In general, I do not like "message" movies. In fact, to say I do not like them is an understatement. I LOATHE them. Most moviegoers don't seem to understand that a good or important message alone cannot make a movie worth the trouble and expense of watching (let alone the trouble and expense of making). That Courageous is brought to us by the same group who gave us the horrendous Facing the Giants did give me room to pause.But I found myself really enjoying this interesting little film.

There are five main characters in Courageous: four policemen and an honest, hard working day laborer. The main character of the story is Adam Mitchell, played by director and co-writer Alex Kendrick. He seems to be the mentor and unofficial leader of the group, someone who wears his faith on his sleeve, but is likable even in his crusty mannerism (or because of them perhaps). When his daughter is killed, he doesn't so much question his faith (as the promo material says), as much as whether he has been and is the father he should have been, saying that "good enough" is not good enough. He eventually decides to make a resolution that he asks his friends to help him stay accountable to, and his friends decide to sign it as well. 

There is more, much more, to the story than this, but that is the gist of the message and the plot, which I'm sure will put off some. But this isn't just about being a good father or a better father or even a biblical father, but about the importance of fatherhood. That also may put off some, but because this story is written  and acted pretty well, and isn't so preachy, I think most people will enjoy the movie, even if they don't buy its basic premise.

I haven't decided if there is too much story or not. On one hand, there is a lot to follow, as each of the other male characters have their own issues to deal with. I loved (and related best with) the character of Javier, and felt that, David,  the one unmarried man in the group (played by Ben Davies) could have had a whole movie about his story. On the other hand, these stories ask a lot of an audience in terms of emotional investment. I can say that the film, for the most part, pulls off all these narratives without leaving gaping holes or confusing the audience. And it is much more honest and gritty a movie than most in its rather narrow genre.

Yes, the movie is hokey in places. Yes, it is heavy-handed with its message in places. But overall, the experience of watching Courageous is quite satisfying and well worth your time.

Bookmarks--In God We Trust

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash by Jean Shepherd
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A Christmas Story is probably my favorite holiday movie, so it is with some trepidation that I finally got myself to start Jean Shepherd's book, on which much of the film is based. I try to keep away from comparisons of books and movies. They are different art forms, and so should be judged separately. And since only about three and a half chapters from this book are actually in the movie, that distinction seems even more important.

But I cannot help but make a couple of notes. For me, the movie is a funnier experience. Part of the movie's charm is Shepherd's narration, deadpan and filled with hysterical description and hyperbole. For those sections of In God We Trust that are dramatized, however, Shepherd sometimes tells more than shows. Oddly, the book as a whole is not like this. Many of the stories here are told with rich and delightful details, much like what we see and hear in the film.

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash is a collection of remembrances held together by the narrator (Ralph) as a grown man visiting his old hometown and spending the day sitting in the bar talking to the proprietor, his old friend, Flick. Ralph has escaped the industrial crumbling town to live and work in New York. As the day keeps going (and many beers have been drunk), Ralph goes over a variety of incidents, including his quest for the Red Ryder BB Gun, his father's "special award," his first fishing trip with the Old Man, a funny marching band story. Along the way we see Ralph's triumphs and embarrassments as well as a mostly warm picture of life during the Depression. (The images of angry women throwing gravy boats and Ralph trying to explain The Decameron of Boccaccio still make me laugh out loud.)

Shepherd's semi-autobiographical book is a satisfying read. Don't expect the movie. However, like the film, the book reminds us of our own stories and friendships. Expect to be entertained and to remember a few things.

View all my reviews

Movie Notes – Heartbreak Ridge

This is a fine piece of Clint Eastwood entertainment. It is not a great work of art. There are almost too many Eastwood one-liners and some of the situations are a bit over the top for my tastes. Further, there are a few too many stories in a movie that might be a little too long.
That said, I did find the movie enjoyable most of the time and even the over wild Mario Van Peebles made me laugh. Eastwood's Tom Highway is as tough as they come and there is something about this hard driving man that makes you want to watch, even if at times the character seems a bit of a caricature.

Movie Notes – Crime and Punishment

I have start this little rant by mentioning that Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is one of my favorite novels. If I had a top five, it would be there. But I also believe that a movie doesn’t have to be exactly like the book that serves as its source. I won’t go into that too much except that it is often not practical and to do so would deny the artistic vision of many people. Deviations don’t bother me all that much, unless of course they make for a bad movie and that is the case here.
Some of the story is intact. Raskolnikov kills an old pawnbroker and then her sister, is haunted by guilt he won’t acknowledge and hunted by the detective Porfiry Petrovich, opposes his sister’s engagement to the slimy Luzhin, is moved at the same time he argues with the religious prostitute Sonia, and eventually confesses his crime and is sent to Siberia for punishment.
But truly unnecessary plot changes merely make the story more confusing instead of help to make clear what is going on. For example, Luzhin pays for Sonia’s services and though he is supposed to marry Raskolnikov’s sister, has no problem with the future brother-in-law knowing. Razhumikin’s friendship, which is invaluable not only to Raskolnikov but to holding together important plot points, is barely acknowledged. The romantic relationship between Sonia and Raskolnikov appears out of the blue, though it really developed (and made more sense because of it) over a great deal of time. Perhaps most egregious of all is Porfiry’s voice over at the end of Raskolnikov’s trial and incarceration. Lines are added to show Raskolnikov was given a lighter sentence due to “temporary insanity.”
Religion should be considered a main character of the novel because it informs the actions of many of the other characters and of the world in which Raskolnikov wrestles with what he has done. He refuses to accept, for most of the novel, the humanity of the people he has killed. Sonia, though a prostitute, has a deep faith that not only sustains her, but affects those she comes in contact with. But religion is thrown into the movie like an afterthought and Dostoevsky's story of hard redemption is lost. In the novel, Raskolnikov takes Sonia’s cross and confesses in public before going to the police. In the movie, there is no such public confession.
All that might not be a big deal to some if Menahem Golan had make a good movie despite the significant differences. He did not.
The setting is just, well, stupid and confusing. The color and the autos make me think this is set in the 1970s Moscow instead of 19th century St. Petersburg. Yet in one scene, Raskolnikov finds Sophia in a club and a band is playing something between grunge and heavy metal. The film appears to have the coloring of a 70s print. There is a bright sun throughout the movie despite the dark themes and the dank atmosphere of the story. Rooms where people in abject poverty seem fairly well, if sometimes modestly furnished and very well lit.
The acting is quite terrible. Even the great John Hurt can’t save this, though he does a credible Porfiry. It is no small wonder he is listed in front of the other actors though he does not play the main character: he is the only actor is isn’t downright rotten. Vanessa Redgrave and Margot Kidder are two other knows actresses and they over act wildly. To their defense, their lines are often so bad, I’m not sure who could have made them work. Crispin Glover, as Raskolnikov, does about as poor a job as I’ve ever seen on film. When Raskolnikov has a monologue, Glover looks like an excited high school kid doing a play. Throughout the movie, and at some of the most inopportune moments (as when expressing rage) Glover has this creepy grin that never seems to go away, as if he’s stuck that way.
The music is insufferable. Strings seem to whine and wheeze and often the music is dramatic at the wrong time looping strains like a dentist’s drill. Sometimes the score seems to overpower the dialogue, as if trying to add importance to banal scenes. But it is mostly distracting throughout.
This is the kind of movie that lazy students find to watch instead of reading the classic book. If that becomes the case, they’ll fail not only because they have the wrong content, but because they may not be able sit through the whole thing.

Movie Notes--The Wrestler

Last week, I watched The Wrestler, and I saw why so many feel that Mickey Rourke has begun a comeback as an actor. I can’t remember a better performance from him.

Rourke plays once great wrestler Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Years have passes since his heyday, but The Ram keeps plugging away at the only thing he’s ever been good at. He has lost some of his hearing and his body has nearly been crushed by the pounding it has taken. He is forced to augment what little he makes in the ring with a nothing job at WalMart like establishment, dealing with a boss that belittles his other career. Drugs and alcohol have become routine, and Randy spends most of his spare time in a strip club looking at Marisa Tomei. But it is hard not to cheer for this guy.

Much of the story centers on Randy trying to reconnect with his daughter, played ably by Evan Rachel Wood. While there are moments that get sweet and may look to be cliché, the whole tale is painful, raw and honest. The sadness here is real.

While the “sport” of pro wrestling here an act, it is one that demands greatly physicality and athleticism on the part of the participants. I was really impressed by not only the fight scenes themselves, but the conversations and planning sessions between wrestlers. Much of the film was shot in a documentary style, which provided the viewer a chance to feel emotions honestly, not in some cheap, contrived way. The movie may move a little slowly for some, but the payoff is great.

I suspect some wrestling fans will not like this film, and that those who do not like wrestling will shy away from it. But wrestling here is not merely a metaphor for how one deals with life, but also for how one accepts and shapes reality. The Wrestler is a good, rich movie, period.

Movie Notes -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall

When this flick was first advertised, I thought that it looked interesting. Then in the chaos of life, I forgot about it. Now I wish I could get it out of my head. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is as terrible as a movie can get. As one is a long list of romantic comedies, it is neither romantic nor funny.

The absurd plot involves Peter Bretter (played by Jason Segal) who takes a vacation in Hawaii after his girlfriend, Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell), breaks up with him. Unfortunately, Sarah and her (sort of) new boyfriend, rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) is not only in Hawaii, but also in pretty much every place Peter goes. Hotel clerk Rachel Jansen (Mila Kunis) helps Peter have a good time (even putting him in an expensive suite he cannot afford in a move that does nothing but advance the story) and the two become attracted to each other. Yip-freakin-ee.

In the first five minutes, viewers are treated to Jason Segal’s penis three times. First time was chuckle worthy. After that, it was just stupid. We get one more shot before the movie is over. Before one accuses me of being a prude, I could help but think that we don’t get to see any female parts (unless you count the picture of Mila Kunis topless, which I don’t because it is not real).

I suppose the intent here might be to make fun of the sex as love idea in movies, but what we get in the sex scenes is really some sort of comic porn. Well, maybe not so much because it isn’t really funny and nothing to get aroused by (unless the viewer is an adolescent). What we get is at best a silly story with lots of uncomfortable jokes about sex and Segal’s member on screen four times. The subplots involving the brother in law and the newlywed couple were more interesting, though they distracted from the overall story.

One of the bits of hype for this film is that it came from the producers of The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. I haven’t yet seen the latter movie, but The 40 Year Old Virgin was hilarious and clever. Forgetting Sarah Marshall was just goofy. But now I can see why it garnered nominations for Teen Choice awards. In its few good moments, it is juvenile.

Movie Notes--Gran Torino

Watched the Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino the other night and enjoyed it quite a bit. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalksi, an angry and racist vet of the Korean War who has just buried his wife. A Hmong family moves in next door and when the teenage boy tries to steal his beloved car, events are set in motion that transform Walt and the young boy Thao (played superbly by Bee Vang).


While I am not sure this movie is as strong overall as films like Unforgiven, Mystic River or his moving World War II pictures, it is really good. Eastwood’s performance is so fine, I don’t think anyone could imagine another actor in the role after seeing this. In addition, Ahney Her, as Thao’s sister is magnificent, nearly stealing the show from Eastwood. Eastwood’s attention to detail, particularly the elements of Hmong culture, make the movie all that more interesting without detracting from the narrative.


What makes the movie most interesting, I think, are Walt’s conflicts. He is, at first, a man who just wants people (including his grown children) to leave him alone. But we find that despite his racism, he can care about neighbors. Though Walt has no desire for the church or the priest that tries to harangue him into confession, he does find its value when the priest can think past his easy answers. Walt is proud of his service in the war, but admits that killing is a messy, terrible business.


The climax of Gran Torino surprised me a little, but in a very good way. I felt the last few minutes were a little slow, and perhaps a little cliché, but not so much they mar this otherwise really fine film. At 78, Eastwood is still a great actor and fantastic director who always produces top-notch work.

Movie notes-Gumby Dharma

Last night I watched a documentary called Gumby Dharma about Art Clokey, the man who created Gumby and Davey and Goliath. The film has received an Emmy award and has played on the Sundance Channel.

Among the more interesting features of the movie are the “interviews” with Gumby, Pokey, and other characters created by Clokey. We certainly see a lot about the creation and evolution of Gumby and Clokey’s development of stop motion animation, but it is Timothy Hittle’s own animation of these characters recounting stories of their association with Clokey is most arresting. Some viewers might be put off by Gumby’s discussion of the depression Clokey endured after his daughter’s suicide, and others may not feel comfortable with Clokey himself discussing the way he left his family or his anger when he found out that he was not properly credited for Davey and Goliath. One might get the impression that Clokey could not tell the difference between childlike and childish. However, the movie shouldn’t be comfortable for everyone just because memories of these shows make us feel good.

The movie does mention other projects in Clokey’s oeuvre. We see how he made Gumbasia, the short that got him his big break. Probably the most interesting material might be about the making of Mandala. He made this film with the help of his family, and seems to incorporate much of Clokey’s spiritual vision at that time.

I would have liked more in this movie about Davey and Goliath, but that is probably because I have the strongest emotional connection to this series. I watched these episodes as often as I could as a child, and they made a huge impact on me. I did notice that the timeline on the “official” website for this program barely mentions Clokey. Sad. Apparently there is a documentary about the series, however, that includes interviews with him.

Gumby Dharma was directed by the late Robina Marchesi. This film was, according to the website, her first full length documentary. At the time of this writing, I could find very little information about her, but I am sad that her life was over before she could make more movies.

Gumby Dharma isn’t always pretty, even if Clokey seems to want at times to quickly pass over some of the events of his life. And I suppose that the movie doesn’t quite end as I would have wanted. But the film is not so much about the characters Clokey created, but the character he has made of himself. It is the story of a spiritual journey, one that does not gloss over the suffering and folly that is a significant part of such a trip.

Bookmarks/Film Notes--No Country For Old Men

I had purchased the movie No Country For Old Men on pay per view, and recorded it on my DVR, but waited to watch it until I had read the book. I managed to finish Cormac McCarthy’s novel and watch the film in the same day. Like a number of people I am confused by the material near the end of the book (and the movie didn’t clear it up for me). But I did find the story riveting.

No Country For Old Men is about promises. Not just keeping one’s promises, but the promises one is forced to make in life that cannot be kept and the codes of life that conflict with society and with the codes of other men. McCarthy’s delivery of dialogue takes some getting used to, but is well worth the investment. I found myself intrigued by all the characters. Ed Tom Bell is the wise sheriff trying to save Llewelyn Moss, an ex-sniper turned welder who has stumbled upon two million dollars and who believes he’s smart enough to find a way to keep it. Anton Chigurh is a man whose cold inventiveness would be admirable if he wasn’t a psychopath with an odd code that requires him to not only destroy those who are in his path, but also people who are only tangentially related to his purpose. (And that purpose is not merely, it seems, to recover the money.)

Violence seems to be part and parcel in McCarthy’s world, but not egregiously so, and while the film is bloody in spots, one should notice that the Coen Brothers’ direction is, as usual, spot on, not always showing the gore of violence, but never diminishing its impact. Readers will find that the movie does not deviate from the book too much (though doing so is rarely a problem for me). Tommy Lee Jones (Bell), Javier Bardem (Chigurh), and Josh Brolin (Moss) provide excellent performances. Bardem is particularly chilling as a killer on a mission.

As noted above, the endings of both the novel and the film are a bit confusing, but I am still recommending both. Read McCarthy’s book first, then see the movie. Knowing what happens certainly won’t keep you from watching intently.

This year's adventure in movies

Each year, my wife and I try to see as many of the five movies nominated for Best Picture before the Academy Awards. Often this means seeing as many of them as we can in a very short time period. In 1993, we saw three movies, including Schindler's List, in a single day/night. It can be exhausting, but usually is quite rewarding.

This year, partially due to the generosity of gift cards for movie and dinner from my daughter, we were able to see four of the five movies in a single weekend. We saw the fifth the evening before the Oscars. What follows are some brief thoughts on each film, all of which I enjoyed to some degree. Because I don't like ranking works of art, I'll remark about the movies in the order we watched them.

The first film we saw on Friday evening was Sideways. Of the four, I think this is my favorite movie. Perhaps this is an emotional reaction since I was quite surprised to like it. The commercials make the movie look, well, stupid. It is far from that. The performances are good and the writing sharp. After the "Why I Like Wine" scene, I thought that I'd just seen a very good example of how something becomes valuable to the point of near obsession even when one is not "doing it for a living." I don't know if that makes sense to someone who hasn't seen the movie. If not, then go see it and find out what I mean.

We left the comfortable seats of the Legacy in Plano and rushed over to the "dollar" movie in the same city to see Ray. (Can't tell you how disappointed I was to see the same five commercials I saw before the previous movie and only have one preview -- I do love those trailers!) Anyway, I thought this was a fine movie, very interesting, and certainly better than most bioflicks. Ray Charles does not come across as superman or as a twisted soul, but it seems we get an honest look at his struggle with addiction and his real genius as a musician and songwriter. The music, as one might expect, was great. That in itself might be worth the price of admission.

The following morning we returned the Legacy to see The Aviator. I am drawn to stories about tortured geniuses, and this film certainly fits. The movie was a bit long, but it covered a lot of ground. Hughes' famous phobia of germs was well documented, but I think my favorite scene in the movie was after Hughes spends considerable time locked away and is testifying before Congress. Alan Alda is nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role for this movie, and though he is marvelous, I don't think he was in enough of the movie to warrant the award.

Then we rushed to the movie theater in McKinney to see Million Dollar Baby. This is Clint Eastwood's opus. I did enjoy the movie quite a bit. The performances by Eastwood, Freeman, and Swank are all good. I guess I was surprised by the reaction. I was probably the only person who didn't cry rivers at the end. I don't agree with what Eastwood's character did, but I will say that the storytelling certainly earns that ending no matter what I think. (My philosophical objection, in other words, did not damage my view of the film as a piece of art.) When I most wanted to cry was when Swank's character is getting chewed out for buying her mother a house. Good movie. Not my favorite (or even my favorite Eastwood flicks), but a fine experience.

We did not see Finding Neverland until the day before the Academy Awards. I wish I had more to say about it. We took the kids thinking they would enjoy it because of the connection to Peter Pan, which my children love. They seemed to like it okay, but didn't get so excited. I enjoyed what I saw. I had to get up five different times during the movie to take kids to the bathroom or get some sort of snack. The movie is good, and I look forward to watching it again on video. I am glad, though I'm sure the kids didn't understand it, that the film does not shy away from the material about Barrie's marriage and his relationship with the children that inspired his play. I will add that my wife told me this was her favorite.

Well that's about it movie fans. Five good movies and I'm back in my cell. Maybe I'll get out during Spring Break and a couple times in the summer, but this is probably the highlight of my movie going time during the year. Ironically, I don't care for award shows, so I avoided watching them (that's more my wife's sort of thing). After Easter, I'll probably get back to my dish and see what's worth watching on video. Until then, happy viewing!

Brief reviews: Mehldau, McDonald, Eternal Sunshine

Haven't written here in a while perhaps because I've been busy with a Wintermester class and little things like Christmas and birthdays. Seems I have lots to write about, but all I have for you at the moment are fragments.

Listening to: Brad Mehldau's Live in Tokyo. Very enjoyable disc. At the moment I'm hearing "Someone to Watch Over Me," a song I think I've never heard a bad version of. This has a nice "Intro" and then Mehldau has this beautiful bumping improvisation in the middle that never loses sight of the tender melody. Further into the song one hears q section that certainly shows me why some compare Mehldau to Keith Jarrett. Another cover of Radiohead's "Paranoid Android" (his studio version of the song is on Largo) is a particular favorite. Nineteen and a half great minutes, with not a single note wasted.

Most recently read: Walt McDonald's All Occasions. This volume was published in 2000 and while I had read some of the poems before, those poems were well worth re-reading. I allowed myself the luxury of taking my time with this, as one should do when reading good poetry. I never used a bookmark but trusted my failing memory to help me recall where I had last put down the book. Often times I came back to a poem I'd read the previous occasion and re-read it before moving the those new to me. I must say doing this was a very good experience for me.

Walt's poems have brought be great joy since I first encountered his work, even when he is digging in unfamiliar or unpleasant territory. I'm pretty much a city boy, but his description of life in rural areas seems common with my own in the most significant ways. In "Chocolate," the speaker recalls hiding from his father after eating candy that had been meant for his sister. Any adult who does not recognize the fear and thrill and guilt here isn't reading his or her own life well. As a sports fan, I'm particularly fond of pieces that reference baseball and football: "Batting Practice at Sixty," "Instant Replay," and "When Baseball Was A Game." The latter poem includes these marvelous lines: "Before Vietnam and the death of friends/I could chase down a ball off the wall/and turn and hurl a strike three hundred feet//to a teammate blocking home plate,/the capless runner diving but hopelessly out,/the home crowd going wild." The strength of this poem (and of the whole collection) is that one does not need to have been an athlete not only to get the surface level picture, but the larger vision of time's passage and power of memory on the present.

Many of the poems recall Walt's experience as pilot, particularly during the Vietnam War. These, for me, are further evidence of the fact that poetry is stronger than rhetoric. I do not know his political leanings or how he feels about war (either the one he served in or the present one). However, I don't know how to explain why or how I can support soldiers without supporting the war except to point to these poems. They provide the images and the events and the impact of those events on the life of those who lived what I never have. No reader should assume that Mr. McDonald's ideas mirror my own. However, they should likely rank these pieces right up there with another poet who has written powerfully about the Vietnam War, Yusef Komunyakaa.

Movie I recently watched: Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind. I just watched this tonight, and I did think it very interesting, but I'm not sure what to say about it. It's story is not told in linear fashion, and that does not bother me. The narrative certainly works here. In fact the story must be told this way for the viewer to really get the experience being dealt with. One thing I liked was that the main characters, after saying and hearing the worst things the other thinks/says, decide to accept these flaws (foibles?) about themselves and each other and enjoy the relationship for what it is. I'm not sure if what I just wrote is very clear, but I'll leave it for now. I do recommend the movie, but don't blink. Definitely don't fall asleep.

There is much more to say, but my hands are tired.