Creation

For as long as Darwin has been controversial I'm surprised it took so long to make a film about him, other than documentaries.

Charles Darwin has hit a wall while writing, "Origin of the Species" He is being pushed onward by friends and supporters, and as they push on him, his marriage continues to fall apart as does his fragile psyche. As he tries to write he is haunted by the memories of his daughter who had recently died.

Its hard to explain all that happens in the story because it is simply his descent into a form of madness. He is distraught over the death of his daughter Annie who out of his children is the most like him, and understands the natural world much like he had come to. As he remembers how things went wrong with his daughter his grasp of reality is slipping though his fingers. There are several scenes where he is hallucinating, as well as some very interesting dream sequences.

What I was really impressed by is when Darwin starts to focus on something and it shows how things really work, example: He watches a rat running through a field, it goes into some long grass where there is what is left of a cows skull, we go inside it in a very David Fincher style and see the maggots growing, as time goes by quickly they eat and then are eaten by a bird. The bird accidentally knocks its chick out of the nest and it dies on the ground, alone. It is then eaten.

The classic view of the natural order is the Biblical one where a lion is lying down with a lamb, not only a representation of the natural order but also the religious implications that arise in the New Testament. Jesus is referred to as both a lion and a lamb in the Bible and in other scriptures. As well as he is God, but yet the son of God, etc. So how could he be both the lion and the lamb? This misguided view of nature is deeply ingrained through religion, and is wrong. The world is brutal and unforgiving, and everything is a struggle merely to survive the next day and pass on the genes.

In this we find the conflict going on in Darwin's brain. He wants to believe in God, but he is also a man of science. As he sees truths and facts and reports on them he is essentially refuting the accepted way that things came to be that is described in the Bible. He cant ignore them, they are facts, but he also cant openly believe in them because it goes against so much of what he wants to believe in.

If his daughter died, and there is no God, then where did she go? His wife Emma takes comfort that she will see Annie again, while Darwin is struggling to believe that and has to see her in his waking dreams. Much of his troubles arise from the fact that he married his first cousin, there were things that were wrong with some of his kids that might have been genetic, caused by breeding to close in the family. So it is ironic that he is coming up with the idea that shows how mistaken he was by marrying his cousin, in essence he is removing his genes from the pool by having kids that wont survive. Hes committing his own natural selection.

The cinematography was carefully planned and it showed. Bettany and real life wife as well as movie wife Connelly were terrific in their roles. I wish that Connelly had a bigger part and that we got to know her better. So much of it seemed like they were at odds simply because she wouldn't listen to him, and it was more complex than that. I wish we could have gotten a better handle on her like we do in the end of the film so we could appreciate her more.

I'm disappointed that this wasn't shown in the states, it is British made and went all over but didn't show here. Simply because ignorant people worked hard to get them to not release it here because of the implications of Darwin's ideas. The thing is though is that it is about a mans redemption and acceptance of the way life is, it is in no way at odds with religion. Considering all the stuff that they make here this should have been able to play.

Overall I really enjoyed it, it is not a controversial film by any stretch, and if Ray Charles can get a bio-pic then why not Charles Darwin who was a million times more important than Ray Charles ever will be, no offense Ray, but so is life. It was very well made, and had some really inventive moments. 7/10 stars.

Starring: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Martha West, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jeremy Northam

Director: Jon Amiel

A Serious Man

I have to give it to the Coen brothers, they always bring something new to the table, while still keeping it familiar.

Larry Gopnik has problems, a lot of them. His wife wants a divorce, his job is on the line, he's got South Korean people wanting to sue, or bribe him...and on and on it goes. As he tries to look for answers he keeps coming up empty handed without anyone able to give him a straight or acceptable answer. When it comes to the plot there isn't to much more I can say, it really is just a series of bad things happening to Larry over and over again, with seemingly no end in sight.

In that way this is a very Jewish film, there are many references to that within the film, besides it having almost all its characters as Jews there is also the obvious correlation between Larry and Job of the Bible. Larry is essentially a good man, so why is he punished so? The same goes for Job, he does nothing to anger God, he just happened to be favored, and when Lucifer called that to God's attention, that perhaps he wouldn't be so loving of God if he took it all away. The difference comes about towards the end, Job breaks down and curses God, Larry on the other hand never actually turns to God, I don't think he even believes in God.

Larry is a professor at a near by University, and he teaches math, the kind of stuff that goes right over my head, he thinks the world can all be explained with math. So when these things happen to him with no answer to "why?" he is dumbstruck. When counseled by the Rabbis at his temple he gets the Jewish answer from years of wisdom, "there is no answer to your questions, you just have to go with it" This film asks the questions that Jews must ask themselves always and have been since they were first persecuted which was, well pretty much right away, and has been non stop through today.

The Rabbis are willing to accept that there is a way of life of the Jew, and that part of that involves being tormented and torn down, its something that makes us what we are. Even when given a sign by presumably God, there might not be a reason for it that we can ever understand.

Roger Deakins shot this, like he has done with the Coen brothers for many of their films and it reads as such. There is a certain simplicity to the way he shoots things, and by that I mean he makes it look simple and easy, but it is anything but. He is one of the current masters and shows it in his work always. Something I loved about this film was the parallels they make aside from the Biblical ones. Such as when two characters are driving their cars, at the same time, across town and we continue to cut between the two, one we see gets into an accident, but everyone is fine, while the other car seems to get to its destination without a problem, we only find out later that they didn't get there, they were also in a crash and died. Funny way to show things happening and to essentially trick the audience over and over again.

There are also several dreams that take place in the film that trick you for a moment. All I could do after finding out it was a dream was smile and laugh a little, that's what the Coen's do best, make me chuckle uncomfortably a little while deep down I'm laughing hard. Lots of people wont see this as a comedy, much like "Fargo" is a comedy, even if that evades most people.

The way this ends was one of the best I've seen in a while, or should I say non-ending. You can basically figure out the rest for yourself, even if you'd prefer the filmmakers to finish it for you. The film like the story of it leaves you with no answers just like it began, merely questions. They purposely don't give you answers because like the question of "Why?" for the Jews, there is no answer that will ever suffice. Why does this have to happen to us? It just does, the story never ends, it just keeps going, there is no happy ending. Dark, yes, a comedy...yes, and a funny one at that. Its hard for me to recommend it though, its not for most people, it will feel like you wasted an hour and forty minutes if you are the kind of person who doesn't like the Coen brothers.

For someone who gets them and likes them this is a good addition to their film repertoire. 7/10 stars. It could have gotten more stars if I had been given an answer, sorry, but I wanted one.

Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Aaron Wolff

Directors: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

A Single Man

This film is a very valiant attempt to take a novel and make it work on screen. They do a lot in terms of color and sounds to fully bring about a very novel feeling.

George is a professor at a college in Los Angeles, a few months earlier his long time lover of 16 years died in a car accident. As the time the film takes place in is the early sixties homosexuality was frowned upon. George wasn't invited to the funeral (family only) He goes about his day in the film, and as we watch we start to realize he plans on this being his last. he's getting all his ducks in a row and he plans on killing himself.

Much of what we experience on screen is simply trying to turn what we would have read in the novel into something tangible: The smell of a dog, the sounds of an empty house. These things are easy to imagine while you read, but to watch them is very different. In that sense they were truly successful, they worked hard on picking just the right color, the right angle and timing of everything in the film. In that way it is a novel, along the lines of "The Hours" it goes slow, chooses its words carefully.

George is a man who loves life, and its accentuated by explosions of color on screen when we see something he lusts for or is interested in. All else seems to literally pale in comparison. But even for all that he loves life he is in pain every day without his partner. The music fits perfectly with every scene, in fact it felt like most of the narrative is pushed along by the music, it seems that the music is the driving force behind everything that happens. The cinematography in that same sense is perfectly planned and works its way though the story and pushes it along. They described this as a stream on consciousness narrative, and I don't exactly disagree with that, but its a lot more than that. It is truly how a mind works, it's the little things in George's life that sets him off on a look at the past.

Little things like him telling his close friend Charley (a woman) that he is going to forget the past, totally and forever, is interpreted by her as one thing when he is in fact talking about his own death that he plans on very soon. I imagine this story being a loaf of bread soaked in scotch and sadness, there is a reality to this film that hits me in a very real place.

Colin Firth is always a pleasure to watch, and it's no wonder that he was up for an Oscar for this role. Julianne Moore was also very good, although not in it nearly enough to fully appreciate her. Tom Ford, the director, seems to be a force to be trifled with, this is his FIRST movie, ever, very impressive.

I very much liked this movie, I loved it. The trailer gave me an impression of what this film was about, and it was sort of a lie, but then again the trailer was just images and music, no actual words, which by the way is a great way to make a trailer. Even though this film isn't quite as out there as some other "gay or lesbian" interest movies I think it fits the way life is more than those others do, for gay or straight people. 8/10 stars.

Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode

Director: Tom Ford

The Matador

Two fighters enter, and only one can leave. That is the basic idea behind bullfighting, both are in the fight for their lives, and the winner is almost always man.

David Fandila is a bull fighter in Spain, and is the next up and comer. With only 6 or 7 good years of bull fighting, he is in the pressure cooker of getting his life long dream accomplished. The dream being that he wants to fight, and kill 100 or more bulls within one bull fighting season. He would be only the 13th to do so in the centuries old tradition.

Tradition: They like to throw this word around, as if that makes what they are doing okay. David explains that turkeys are raised to be slaughtered and eaten for Christmas, so why not fight bulls? They at least have the opportunity to defend themselves, and the thing is, is that he has a point. But they don't tell you the full story. The Matador takes on the bull only after it as been antagonized to the point of foaming at the mouth, and then he further injures it by sticking sword like weapons into its spine to weaken it. The animals are bleeding profusely. If something goes wrong for the Matador then 10 other people run out to protect him from being gored. I don't see anyone helping the bull. Once the bull is weakened and injured, only then will the Matador try and kill it with a sword into the heart. They try for the clean kill and to end the suffering of the animal and for that I am happy, but its only after they cause the suffering.

David sees the bulls as most do in the bullfighting community, he is dancing with the brutal and pure nature of the natural world, and in that way it is beautiful. He truly does dance with the bulls, but in that same note, the bull is not dancing, it is desperate to stay alive, which it almost certainly will not. At any point David can turn around and walk away, the bull doesn't have that option.

David is an admirable young man, at 21 he is already chasing and nearly succeeding at his dream. He works hard and has given up much of what makes being 21 a fun age. Although I feel even more sorry for his brother, who gave up being on the national ski team of Spain to be David's "assistant"

The soundtrack is incredible and really makes the fights a spectacle to behold. It's well shot and well edited, its slick enough that you can merely pay attention to the story and not be bothered by poor production values while not being so flashy that it takes away from the film as a whole.

No matter what way you slice it, this is a brutal and savage "sport" When you see blood pouring out of the mouth of one of these animals as they just try and stay on their feet, the ballet, and the art of it all melts away and you see it for what it truly is: People wanting to see blood. As a documentary it is very interesting, and I would highly recommend it, but it is difficult to watch as an animal lover. 8/10 stars.

Starring: David Fandila

Directors: Stephen Higgins, Nina Gilden Seavey

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The charming children's movie still exists. Pixar of course fits into that grouping, and as much as I love what Pixar does with the animation none of it is physically tangible. Unlike this film which is all stop motion, and far from perfect in its animating type.

Mr. Fox is a chicken thief, and not a particularly great one, he spends more time talking and plotting than he does actually being good at what he does. When him and his pregnant wife get caught by some farmers and have to escape quickly he vows to her he will stop. And he does, for many years, but that old creeping feeling is coming back, he's tired of being poor, he wants the adventure back. He schemes up a plot to steal from the three scariest farmers around, and so ignites a war between the animals and the people with each new move upping the stakes.

The stop motion is great, the fur moves from frame to frame since they had to physically handles the models a few pieces of the fur would move and thus you get this very organic effect. The color palette like so many of Wes Anderson's films is vibrant and dense but some how feels artificial. But then again that is what he does, that's his style, and we take it for what it is. For people in film that are part of the Art Dept. this is a real treat, everything is built, it is all planned to a T.

The voice talent spans Anderson's usual cohorts to new and interesting people, Clooney and Streep do a great job, as do smaller characters like Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman. The list keeps going. The characters are cute and mature, yes unrefined at the same time.

A problem with this film is that it is made by someone who understands Generation X, and Y, but not the children of today. I am almost 25, and am part of Y, so I see this and find is familiar and likable, where as I feel most children will not like it, or not get it. It isn't as wild and colorful as Shreck, or some of these other icons that are so steeped in pop culture its hard to see where one begins and the other ends. As well as I don't know if kids know these characters, or get Roald Dahl's writing, perhaps those books are outdated and have been replaced.

This is a film for people who like Wes Anderson and what he does. I like it, but I feel his work as of late has become repetitive and increasingly underwritten character wise. This on the other hand was different, it had room to breathe and places for the characters to grow. I feel this was possible because Anderson directed this film by E-mail, he was almost never there for when they were shooting it, so the crew was able to take some chances and let things happen like they should have without him planning every single second of the film.

This was fun, I had heard it was good, it fits his style perfectly, it is silly and strange, and adult. Even though they are sure not to swear (all the characters say "cuss" in the place of actual swears) it still isn't kid friendly. Not in content, but in the fact that I think most kids wouldn't like this, or get it for a few more years. Those kids who do will like it. Worth renting, 8/10 stars.

Director: Wes Anderson

Starring: George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Eric Chase Anderson, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson

I Have Never Forgotten You

I watch way to many documentaries, and I watch way to many docs about the Holocaust.

Simon Wiesenthal walked away from the death camps at the end of WWII little more than a skeleton. Just a few days after his release he saw U.S. soldiers talking in an office about hunting down the Nazis responsible, he immediately volunteered to help them. He had lost every single person in his family, he was the only one left and demanded justice. He worked with them for years, and after the Nuremberg trials the English and the Americans left, the sad truth of the matter is that the Nuremberg trials only convicted some of the guilty, some were let go, and some went to prison. Once the trials were over the rest of the Nazis, some being high officials were just forgotten about, but not by Wiesenthal, he set up his own group to hunt down these criminals who were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Throughout his life he tracked down the worst of the worst. Was painted as a villain by some (shame on those who did) while he was celebrated and honored by others. He was called a hero, which he always fervently denied, to try and understand why he wouldn't want that you have to put yourself in his position. All of your loved ones are dead, and you live, the guilt must have been so heavy. Yes, he sought justice, and tracked down real monsters, but he didn't want to be the hero.

To those who painted him as a villain, for trying to ruin peoples lives by exposing them all I can think is how anti-semitism is the same, year after year it keeps coming back. Him being a Jew wanting justice is somehow wrong, and the actual wrong doers are now mearly innocents, just following orders, or deserving of a second chance? I don't think so. Are there crimes in war?

How could someone not say yes to that. I think that the German people as a whole now are a good people, but still there is an under belly of anti-semitism, and its sad. It must be a hard legacy to live down and a terrible past to overcome, but to fix that would be to have expelled the guilty after WWII, instead of hiding them and defending them.

I want to call Wiesenthal a hero, or at least a great man, but I know he would have disagreed with me, so for that I respectfully say he was one out of many who sought to right wrongs, and for that he should not be forgotten. 8/10 stars.

Director: Richard Trank

Narration: Nicole Kidman

Starring: Simon Wiesenthal

Surviving Crooked Lake

There have been a lot of films like this. "Deliverance" "Mean Creek" even to a certain extent "Lord of the Flies" That by no means makes this film any less enjoyable, or in its way new, or fresh.

Four girls go out on a canoe trip (Alysha, Candice, Morgan and Steph) along with Steph's older brother Jonah who is a counselor at the summer camp they all attend. Everything is going well for a while, Jonah tries to get Steph over her fear of water since she had witnessed her father die in a water accident. Alysha has her eye on Jonah, after disappearing together for a little while the other girls start to suspect something. Later that night Alysha and Jonah nearly kiss, when they are discovered Alysha runs into the woods, and Jonah follows. There is an accident and Jonah dies. The rest of the film is the girls struggling to survive, to find a way out of the wilderness and what to do with Jonah's body.

Something that stuck out to me, is that since it was a true accident there was no turning on one another going on, which you tend to see in this kind of film. Instead the conflict is brought upon with the problem that Steph doesn't want to leave his body behind, and all these girls are pencil thin(not going to be easy to carry him). As well as Steph has just lost her brother, and had lost her father, so she isn't doing well. There are many films that depict realistically the way we as a species have forgotten how to survive in these sorts of situations. They don't have food, there are animals out there and they are getting weaker and weaker.

There is surprisingly little dialogue in certain parts of the film, and I was very happy with this. The conflict boiled under the surface and only reared its ugly head once in a while, but the tension was always there. For the girls being so young in this the acting was very good, there were of course moments that were over the top, or the inflection in someones voice wasn't quite right, but easily over looked. I saw a movie a while ago called "Paranoid Park" it did well at festivals and was directed by Gus Van Sant, so I thought it might be good, it wasn't, no one should ever watch this movie. Anyway, the cast in that is about the same age as the girls in this, and the acting was so God awful. So to compare the two is like comparing apples and a rotted orange.

The direction as well was spot on, it played out slowly, and wasn't trying to shove to much in, but let it be realistic. The Cinematography at times was gorgeous, but since they were working outside the use of lights was minimized and so didn't have the dramatic flair you might want to see. Although during night scenes, specifically when Alysha is running away and Jonah is following the lighting was great. They used flash lights so you'd only see her for a moment at a time and then gone, very cool. As well as a scene with Steph and something in the woods, all she has is a small flashlight, that's a pretty narrow scope when something is stalking you.

Overall I liked it. Since the story wasn't all that original, and they didn't bring much to the table in terms of new material I cant give it to high a rating. But that's not to say it wasn't good. If there was anything in it I would say would push someone to see it would be the narration by Steph, especially the last monologue, it wasn't over written, it just was the thoughts of a 14 year old girl, raw and sad. 7/10 stars.

Directors: Sascha Drews, Ezra Krybus, Matthew Miller

Starring: Stephannie Richardson, Guy Yarkoni, Alysha Aubin, Candice Mausner, Morgan McCunn