MY TOP TEN MOVIES - EMBRACE VARIETY/REVIEW OF LA LA LAND

Movie critics often post top-ten lists which either comprise films they believe worthy of award-season consideration or needing recognition to increase box office revenues. I concur that smaller films that deserve mentioning should be included. Often, however, some critics avoid including blockbusters for the same reason. Whether a movie is mainstream or independent, I believe if deserved they warrant inclusion.

Smaller indie films are rarer on the Cape, and, other films I chose not to see for various reasons including budget. I missed LOVING and SULLY which I'll see when released on Blu-Ray/DVD.

(All posters above from Google Images)

1. LA LA LAND
2. MOONLIGHT
3. HELL OR HIGH WATER
4. CAPTAIN FANTASTIC
5. ARRIVAL
6. LION
7. JACKIE
8. LOVE & FRIENDSHIP
9. DR. STRANGE
10. DEADPOOL

Honorable mention: CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, DEEPWATER HORIZON, FANTASTIC BEASTS (3-D), FREE STATE OF JONES, HAIL, CAESAR!, THE JUNGLE BOOK, MANCHESTER BY THE SEA, MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN, & X-MEN APOCALYPSE. (Note: listed in alphabetical order and not weighted.)

What separates La La Land (2016) from the others in my list is the marked re-invention of the movie musical. The director, Damien Chazelle, elicits dynamic performances from his actors (Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone) whom you wouldn't normally see dancing or singing. The score, which pays homage to jazz but includes ear-worm-inducing songs like "City of Stars" that continues to happily pound my eardrum, carries us along without producing a sour note.

Some have compared La La Land to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964). Yes, the director does pay homage to other musicals, such as this French classic starring Catherine Deneuve. [SPOILER ALERT] I ask that reviewers avoid this comparison especially when alluding to La, La Land's ending (spoiled it for me). Seeing La La Land with two other friends, I didn't show surprise when they shared their emotions. I had been prepared but as the end approached, I felt assured Chazelle, who also wrote the screenplay, had chosen wisely. You will have to see why.

Every choice the director makes dazzles. He walks a tightrope where each step could be disastrous. Instead, Chazelle balances anger, disappointment, hope, joy, love, nostalgia and wonderment without resorting to grandstanding, obvious melodrama or sappiness.

More so, the techniques he blends like the perfect milkshake. One example, a palette of primary colors for the women and earth tones for the men never smudges or loses its luster. Chazelle's team of artisans--Mary Zophres (Costume Desiginer), Austin Gorg (Art Direction), David Wasco (Production Design) and Sandy Reynolds-Wasco (Set Decoration) avoid clashes and errant contrasts.

The performances, including J. K. Simmons in a devilish moment as a nightclub owner, never become subsumed by the visual display. Gosling and Stone, like their director, command attention without shouting, "See me!" They're the sum of the whole and to isolate their performances from the film would be to suggest otherwise. For one to receive an award and not the other, as I see it, would be wrong. Making the argument for La La Land to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards because all its pieces fit together as a completed jigsaw puzzle.

Those who avoid musicals should overcome your pre-conceived notions because La La Land will surprise you with its occasional bawdiness, a fresh take on a story that all can relate to, i.e. aspiring to fulfill your dreams vs. making a living, and startling realism when you least expect it. Very few films teach without preaching. If you leave this movie without having learned something new--whether you're a critic, filmmaker or movie-goer--then you will have not opened your mind or your heart.

We live in uncertain times when many people have little to buoy their spirits. La La Land provides a refuge from the fray without disconnecting the audience from the world outside. In that way, Damien Chazelle has created a masterpiece. The film deserves all the accolades it has received plus mega-box office success. 

MOONLIGHT: THE HEAVINESS OF BEING

(Google Images)

The brilliant movie poster for Moonlight (2016) trisects the film's hero-- adolescent, teenager and man--in one photograph. Three skilled actors play Little/Chiron/Black, each embodying the states of metamorphosis--director, Barry Jenkins's description--a fitting analogy. Watching the child's misery you wonder what changes must he endure to become a man, let alone [SPOILER ALERT] a beautiful, free Lepidoptera.

The weight that the young boy carries on his shoulders--no father, a drug-addicted mother, having to care for himself--would daunt any child. But when others' have an inkling that Little is not like other boys, that he may be gay, the cultural taboo silences Little's voice. He becomes a victim before he understands why. Adolescence for the diminutive kid rarely involves child's play. When it does, Little usually gets tagged as the one to chase.

As his mother spirals out of control (the powerful Naomie Harris), Little appears doomed until an unlikely rescuer steps in, a father-figure for the nine-year-old who happens to deal drugs. The Oscar-worthy, Mahershala Ali inhabits this part. Mr. Ali said, when interviewed on CBS This Morning, that he took the often stereotypical role because it had been written to break viewers' perceptions of a black drug dealer. Indeed, his character, Juan, shows compassion toward Little without patronizing or dominating the boy. In fact, he shares the child's demons, also having been raised raised by a single, addicted mother.

(Google images)

Juan and his devoted, self-sufficient girlfriend, Teresa, (Janelle Monae), provide the love and home Little desperately needs. Each help the young boy navigate his way through troubled waters--literally and figuratively. In time Little summons the courage, the self-confidence to assert himself, such as his demand from Juan that Little be called by his given name "Chiron." This act becomes Chiron's rite-of-passage into the next phase of his life.

I'll leave you to discover what happens next, too many spoilers, and move on to Moonlight's themes. Not being an African-American or a gay man, I could never truly feel what it's like to be in Chiron's shoes, but Jenkins wisely finds a universality that many people can comprehend. Watching Little, then Chiron, this writer relived the painful memories of childhood: having been bullied for being awkward and too sensitive. Plus, I appreciated how the boy looks to escape his miseries through the power of nature if only for a moment. The night becomes Little's friend: standing on the beach with a full moon overhead, Little looks toward the stars and the bright light streaming through the darkness, to find comfort. Where daydreaming isn't an option for him, fantasizing at night is.

The director returns to the "moonlight" theme again during pivotal scenes in the movie (set and filmed in Miami). One night Chiron, the teenager, realizes his friend Kevin, shares a poetic appreciation for nature--the ocean lapping the shore; the sand beneath their fingers. The darkness in daylight is replaced by a brief lightness under the moon. The lovingly shot scene of awakening makes what follows even more painful.

There's a beauty in the dialogue, too--much of it street talk--nuances which may be missed by some who are unfamiliar with black dialect. The director, Jenkins, accentuates that poetry isn't lost on children who see its potential. Rap and Hip-hop music demonstrate how the impact of words, with their underlying musical intricacies, can express deep-seeded anger, fear, distrust and violence these children live with everyday. What surprised me is that Jenkins' screenplay (based on Tarell Alvin McCraney's story) emphasizes words over music. Not drowned out by a soundtrack, I could hear the rhythms in the dialogue which may have been lost in another director's hands.

In contrast, violence is a rite-of-passage in Moonlight, but Barry Jenkins skillfully tempers the expected bloodshed until one, life-changing moment. The intimacy, moreover, is implied, not explicit: impressions reveal more than forced romantic dialogue or nude scenes ever could.

(Google Images)

When I left the theater, like other reviewers I felt equally drained and uplifted. It's difficult to fathom how living under an unending, increasing heaviness, [SPOILER ALERT] Chiron finds his way clear; he finds his destiny. I later thought, "How long will it last?" Since then, I've realized that's the wrong question. No, better to ask: how does a little boy with no hope of surviving, discover solace; in other words, how did he retain his ability to love?

Langston Hughes wrote: Hold fast to dreams/For if dreams die/Life is a broken winged-bird/That cannot fly. Moonlight asserts that we all should have a right to be ourselves and to dream.

(Google Images)

For more information about my Shadowwater series and how to contact me directly, access: www.shadowwater.net

FILM: FANTASTIC BEASTS & WHERE TO FIND THEM

Spread your wings and fly!

Swooping evil (a devilish name for a metamorphic wonder), Thunderbird (of flying creatures, my personal favorite) and Billywig (tiny wasp-like insect) will take you on a dazzling trips. These aviators hold their own among other magical creations via J. K. Rowling's imaginative screenplay. Since Avatar's release in 2009, many 3-D films have disappointed with limited effects but not Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016). At last, I felt as if I were in the story not a casual observer of sparse 3-D tidbits and welcomed Billywig's buzzing near my face.

(Google Images)

J. K. Rowling's writing more assured; her setting ripe for political intrigue, the height of the Roaring Twenties in New York, Rowling and director David Yates entertain but also evoke pathos. A sunlight skyline morphs into a dark metropolis of corruption, child abuse (Dickensian nod) and unrelenting evil emanating from the righteous who choose not to spare the rod to politicians that instill fear without substance and undermine the disenfranchised. Careful not to inundate audiences with too much dreariness, Rowling inserts playful, unexpected moments, e.g. a jazz club with a swarmy owner, Gnarlack, (versatile actor Ron Perlman delivers the voice cameo) that attempts to outsmart our hero.

(Google Images)

And, anticipating longing for a character-driven fantasy, Rowling's story delivers. The movie opens with Newt (Eddie Redmayne) passing through Ellis Island with a briefcase filled with beasts, including one ready to spring at any moment, but Newt has the upper hand when he encounters a customs' inspector. A hurdle conquered, Newt tentatively resolves to find his way amidst the dizzying crowds, skyscrapers and din of early 1920s' New York. His intent becomes clear as he encounters Kowalski, a No-Maji (Rowling's American parlance for Muggle) and would-be-baker whose ended his dreary factory shift, and unwittingly helps Newt and the wizard's "fantastic creatures." Completing the foursome of reluctant heroes are two witches: Tina (Katherine Waterston), a disgraced, former Auror, who enforces the law for the Wand Permits Office and her alluring sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol), who works in the same office doing menial tasks yet cloaks an enchanting talent.

(Carmen Ejogo as Seraphina Picquery -
Google Images)

Other notable performances and characters include a restrained Colin Farrell as Graves dancing on the edge of dark forces as a high-ranking Auror; a regal Carmen Ejogo as Seraphina Picquery, President of the Magical Congress of the United States; Samantha Morton as Mary Lou Barebone (perfect surname for this cold-hearted mother), and a "break-out" appearance by Ezra Miller as Credence Barebone, soon to join the DC franchise as The Flash in Justice League (2017).

Some critics have balked at the character, Newt, and Eddie Redmayne's portrayal, as if a meek and socially awkward man shouldn't take center stage. My response? Tolerance, people, as fans of shows such as The Big Bang Theory or Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter series will applaud Newt. Within the span of the film (2 hrs, 13 m), David Yates cautiously reveals Newt's transformation so that the character grows as the film unfolds. Sympathetic movie-lovers will appreciate Newt's eccentric ways. Besides, given pieces of Newt's background (Newt's heart has been broken by a mysterious woman in his past) the man retains his child-like qualities, endearing him to anyone who wants to believe.

Discover a fanciful adventure that will entertain your weary mind and touch your open heart.

Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them may be disturbing and sometimes frightening for young children (I recommend tweens and older).

WHAT MAKES A GREAT DISASTER, MOVIE?

Inserted the comma above on purpose. Foremost, the disaster should catch our attention. Why should we care unless the depiction shows a "true" event? Second, any actor, take B movies from the 50s e.g. This Island Earth, can react but to make the audience care about their character and their imminent peril requires talent.

(Google Images)

                   

Having sat through or watched at home many films in that action sub-genre, I have compartmentalized the hits and misses. Writers and directors rarely portray real-life catastrophes with historical accuracy, having to insert enhanced or fictionalized scenes that heighten the suspense. Case in point, Deepwater Horizon (2016), where the filmmakers chose to put in the opening titles, "Based on true events." Smart decision as that statement gave the director liberty to add more explosions, imperiled characters and daring rescues which may or may not have actually occurred.

(Google Images)

Still, Deepwater Horizon succeeded where many disaster flicks have failed--it grabbed me from the beginning and didn't let go until the final rescues. The actors, including Mark Wahlberg as the site engineer, Mike Williams, has come a long way as a performer and for this film at least perfectly cast, keep the momentum building. Even those less-emphasized rough-necks, whom we only glimpse intermittently, pulled me in and made me care.

(Google Images)

Other outstanding performances included Kurt Russell as Mr. H., Kate Hudson, whose been underused for years, as Mike William's wife, John Malkovich's calculating BP well-site leader, and Gina Rodriguez, the rig's only woman who steered the "helm" of the platform which could be maneuvered when needed. Each of these actors found an arc in their characters, surprising us at unexpected moments.

Blending the action and the portrayals seamlessly takes an experienced hand, and although delighted the actor Peter Berg helmed this story (an actor's director) I believe the realism went amok at the story's climax. Confession: I have some familiarity with oil rigs, what I learned from living in Singapore and briefly dating an engineer, and, my boyfriend, a retired 30-year fireman who later provided his viewpoint, sat next to me. Therefore, I had higher expectations of the movie's realism than others may have. You will need to see the movie to judge for your yourself how realistic the action-sequences were toward the movie's end.

Despite this, Deepwater Horizon moved me. Very difficult these days, as I've become more inured and cynical. No matter the rationalizations and attempts at objectivity, however, and, having followed the aftermath on the news and read about the real disaster's unfoldment, the loss of any crew working on that rig could've been prevented had the workers' lives been paramount in the BP camp.

Some have objected to the movie not citing the historical, environmental aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Within the movie, the director, Berg, did show overt examples--gushing oil out of control spewing into the stratosphere, a seabed plunged into darkness; a seabird in agony--trickles yet harrowing nevertheless.

The devastating ecological consequences of BP's negligence, as I see it, should be told on the big screen as a separate drama, so that audiences can process and absorb the gravity of what they have seen without cutting the tether to the initial man-made cataclysm.

Pull in your gut and go see the film, Deepwater Horizon. The somber images will linger in your mind, the tragedy will burn your senses, but the heroism of the rig's crew will give you hope.

PROFESSIONALS, FRIENDS & ACQUAINTANCES, please support my weekly blog with a one-time or weekly contribution. I hope to parlay this blog into a paying gig. Please click on link and send what you can. Thank you! paypal.me/WShreve71 Funds will go toward marketing, publicity of blog and soon-to-be published third book.

For more information about the Shadowwater series and how to contact me directly, access: www.shadowwater.net

I SALUTE YOU, AVA DUVERNAY!

Grabbing an opportunity to combine two passions, film and social justice, as I write today about Ava DuVernay. If unfamiliar with her name, she directed the Academy Award nominated bio-pic Selma (2014). In her film, DuVernay unveils the riveting story of Martin Luther King's crusade to end voter-discrimination against blacks in Alabama. 

(EW-Google Images)

Gayle King, CBS This Morning, highlighted in a recent interview with DuVernay, that the director became the first woman-of-color to have her film nominated for Best Picture. During their discussion, Ava DuVernay articulated her opinions about women's and, in particular, African-American women's struggles to be accepted in the male-dominated industry. Notably, DuVernay voiced her dislike of the word, "diversity," "too medicinal," and preferred "inclusion," more emotional, thus more effective. "No one wants to be excluded," DuVernay added when speaking about society and the film industry. When I heard her declaration I clapped my hands and said to myself, "Bravo!"

(Google Images)

More overt is how African-Americans exclusion from fair treatment in criminal justice compelled DuVernay to direct a timely documentary, the soon-to-be-released The 13th (2016), about racial disparity an equality, especially in prison sentences. Nowhere could you find a more topical commentary about the hidden injustices toward people of color. Ask a black man if he's ever been pulled over by a police officer for a "trumped" up reason, or, if he'd been sent to jail overnight or longer when a white male wouldn't have been. One clearer example, is the recent trend excluding young, white privileged males from having to serve little or no time for rape convictions when young, black, impoverished males, under similar circumstances, are incarcerated. DuVernay has boldly gone where few women, let alone African-American women, have ventured to expose the inequities of imprisonment.

Just as important, DuVernay reveals how black women have received unequal treatment. Sadly, I suspect few theaters will show this documentary. Fear and discomfort will avert movie-goers from seeing the film. Let neither of these reasons prevent you from attempting to watch it.

Ava DuVernay does have a future in the business. By having a "diverse" portfolio of directing/producing/writing credits in film and television (including directing Wrinkle in Time (pre-production and an episode of Scandal, for example) and a background as a publicist and promoter, I expect DuVernay will continue to break barriers.

Cracking the film industry, takes perseverance and resolve; challenging the criminal justice system requires audacity and conviction. Ava DuVernay has the cajones to do it all.

If you haven't seen the movie, Glory, it's available on Blu-Ray/DVD and the song of the same name, which won the Academy Award (for Common and John Legend) is available via all music formats. Follow the link for the music video: GLORY


PROFESSIONALS, FRIENDS & ACQUAINTANCES, please support my weekly blog with a one-time or weekly contribution. I hope to parlay this blog into a paying gig. Please click on link and send what you can. Thank you! paypal.me/WShreve71 Funds will go toward marketing, publicity of blog and soon-to-be published third book.

FILM REVIEW: HELL OR HIGH WATER

(Google Images)

The bank robbers: brains and beauty embodied by Chris Pine as Toby Howard and the devil-may-care, ex-con characterized by Ben Foster, Tanner Howard, make up the outlaws. Two brothers who have reasons to be driven, but only one who has everything to lose. Each actor captures the nuances beneath the obvious, taking a winding road to very different destinations.

(Google Images)

On the hunt is Marcus Hamilton, the irascible, laconic enforcer (the excellent Jeff Bridges) whose body is overdue for retirement along with his racists views. He's partnered with a younger, more polished compatriot, Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham in a stand-out performance), a Mexican/Native-American deputy, with a resentful conscience. Although Parker respects Hamilton's keen, methodical brain, Parker verbally wrestles with him about the older man's on-going barbs, a match the deputy knows he cannot win or can he?

And we can't ignore the women! Screenwriter Taylor Sheridan's (Sicario) female characters often work against expected stereotypes and boldly assert themselves, especially Margaret Bowman (No Country for Old Men), the T-Bone Restaurant's waitress. When she enters the scene, fasten your seat-belts!

To boot, the actors' mannerisms, physical quirks delineate the characters: we can read their faces without being given the store. Although the director, David McKenzie (Perfect Sense), maintains heightened suspense, who these men are weighs as heavily as what they do. What's more Sheridan's sharp dialogue moves the plot along without detracting from the momentum. The characters drive this story.

Set in West Texas and Oklahoma but filmed in real time, in New Mexico, the backdrop doesn't disappoint. A classic Lincoln whips around curves faster than a tumbleweed as iconic shots grab our attention. Smartly, the director, McKenzie, and his cinematographer, Giles Nuttgens (Perfect Sense), juggle the imagery from the expected--arid, lifeless, dusty plains--to the unexpected--verdant green mesas and jewel-like deserts--which pops in and out with every twist and turn. McKenzie and Nuttgens capture the highs and lows of the landscape while keeping the focus on the action-at-hand. I suspect and hope we'll see this pairing again.

(Google Images)

Hell or High Water's production team does what many writers strive to do: they show more than tell. Jeff Bridges' determined Marcus Hamilton provides necessary details: he loves to tell stories to his deputy and to predict the bank robbers' every move, So in a sense he is a surrogate, albeit minimalist, narrator. In spite of that, his partner and the audience are kept on a need-to-know basis.

Go see this film. What makes this movie remarkable is how the director, McKenzie, keeps the audience guessing as to who to the villains are and who to admonish. And even in the end, a loose string left untied, I welcomed the ambiguity.

Rated R.


PROFESSIONALS, FRIENDS & ACQUAINTANCES, please support my weekly blog with a one-time or weekly contribution. I hope to parlay this blog into a paying gig. Please click on link and send what you can. Thank you! paypal.me/WShreve71


Oh, by the way, I'm "auditioning" to be hired as a paid, on-line film critic. I've an encyclopedic memory of movies, casts, story-lines, etc. and have much experience as a copywriter and blogger. Also, I took film criticism with the incomparable, Thelma Adams. Any takers? Clips available upon request. Contact: author@shadowwater.net

FILM: REMAKES UNKNOWN

Nostalgia for the fantastical of childhood reaches into my heart this weekend with Gene Wilder's death. He returned us to that place where a parent, friend or teacher read bedtime stories or fairytales and took us on adventures, magical journeys that sparked our "Pure Imagination," as in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971).

(Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory)

Wilder's innocence and devil-may-care persona imbued film viewers with wonder, and sometimes fear that what we dreamed would not come true. Sadly, the great comedian's passing reminds me of how Hollywood producers have been misguided in their remake choices. Another more literal adaptation based on Roald Dahl's book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, illustrates my assertion. If a studio wants to redo a classic film, it must be either improved or produced with a fresh vision that allows the movie to stand alone, like buying new tires instead of retreads. 

Purists will argue the later adaptation, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), honored Dahl's darker intentions. Still, watching Tim Burton's interpretation only reminded me how much better the earlier musical is. For the director, Mel Stuart, of Willy Wonka understood how to tap children's wonder. Conversely, Burton tried to touch on adults' lost child and devilish behavior to mixed success.

The word "remake," does make me cringe. I'd say it's a rare day in filmmaking when a movie surpasses the original. However, when critics omit that the movie has been remade, I want to retrieve my light saber and exact my revenge, metaphorically of course.

Case in point, Steven Spielberg's excellent Munich (2005). Starring Eric Bana, in a role which launched his now-stalled career, the movie depicts the task force sent by Golda Meir to avenge the Munich Olympic Games' attack which killed eleven Israelis. Politics aside, critics generally praised the film--if you want stats or percentages of how many reviewers liked Munich this was before Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic emerged. When released, I read several reviews about Munich because I sought an article that mentioned the 1986 television movie based on the book, The Sword of Gideon. Not one writer I researched noted either precursor, albeit from other media. And worse, a national newspaper critic actually wrote how if anyone should make a movie about the true events for the first time, it's Steven Spielberg.

Today, reviewers rarely reference earlier film versions of movies. With some exceptions, e.g. Jeffrey Lyons, few professional critics have an in-depth knowledge of movie history. Editors may argue that their writers don't need to be as well-informed because their reviewers write subjective, opinion pieces and don't do actual reporting. For newspapers at least, those who get the plumb assignment to review movies often have earned their stripes by reporting on news stories or writing more substantive editorial content. The New York Times used to revolve its critics and/or reporters on a regular basis, for example Janet Maslin, up-to-task by the way, reviewed films for twenty years. Then, during a controversial move by The New York Times, the editors moved her to the Book section.

(DOWN WITH LOVE, Google Images)

Another illustration of critic (and editorial) sloppiness involves the 2003 film, Down with Love (2003), starring Renée Zelleger and Ewan McGregor. Many writers, including one I hold in high regard, chose to ignore that Down with Love took much of its plot line from the 1964 production, Sex and the Single Girl (also based on a book by Helen Gurley Brown) starring Natalie Wood, Tony Curtis, Lauren Bacall and Henry Fonda. Yes, some chose to acknowledge references to Doris Day movies, and yet they ignored the obvious parallels to the earlier version.

Other blatant omissions: The Island (2005) a fun, but obvious rip-off of the better 1976 movie, Logan's Run (Soon to be "remade" again). Okay, I did find a scant number of critics who referenced that sci-fi classic in their commentary. Burnt (2015), an obvious reboot of Mostly Martha (2001), remade as No Reservations (2007). And, The Imitation Game (2014), the much more historically accurate version of an earlier film about the "Enigma" codes, called Enigma, starring Kate Winslet and Dougray Scott.

Yes, word counts have forced critics to write shorter reviews in record time, and omitting allusions to earlier movie versions, as with The Imitation Game and Enigma, has some rationale. But for those directors, actors, producers, and most importantly, screenwriters--who either wrote the original story or adapted the book for the screen--that invested their heart's blood into making their films, dismissing earlier attempts is tantamount to movie blasphemy. Besides which, some filmmakers may be unaware that they've borrowed the same plot, often lines, from previous movies and are infringing on copyright laws. 

Naysayers may argue that hampering the creative process by micromanaging how movie remakes/reboots would lead to fewer films being produced or at least stalling the productions indefinitely. And of course, studios have fact-checkers, researchers, lawyers, etc. to avoid outright plagiarism, copying. What's essential from this critic's viewpoint is that film reviewers acknowledge precedents. For to ignore the past repeats the future, and audiences pay the price. In fact, I can't count the number of times I've heard others say or I've said to myself: "Where have I seen this movie before?", or more aggravating, "Why didn't the critic mention the first version?"

Movie critics also have a responsibility to their readers to acknowledge earlier productions of biographical or historical dramas (not documentaries, there is a difference, pedants). Sometimes previous Hollywood filmmakers got it right such as, The Miracle Worker (1962) which is far better than the later television remake. Or terribly wrong: Hollywood chose to reboot the brilliant Anglo-French production of Day of the Jackal (1973) as The Jackal (1997), with a new, modern plot. The movie contained the original structure's underpinnings, though it got "lost in translation" and became a wasted effort.
With the upcoming release, 2017, of Dunkirk, I will be bold and share the following: my message to local, regional and national critics is don't forget to at least mention, if not see and give a nod to, the terrific 1958 movie of the same name starring John Mills and Richard Attenborough. All right, the black-and-white production lacks the CGI we're accustomed to now. Still, I dare the updated version's director, Christopher Nolan (whom I greatly admire) to capture the taut, thought-provoking atmosphere that his earlier counterpart, Leslie Norman, so aptly portrayed. And, I throw down a challenge to critics viewing other remakes/reboots this year or Dunkirk next year to remember what came before and to avoid history repeating itself.

(Google Images)

THE MAN WHO KNEW INFINITY & FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM

Srinivasa Ramanujan was elected Fellow of the Royal Society [Cambridge] at the age of just thirty-one. Despite having received very little formal education in his home village of Kumbakonam in South India, Ramanujan was able to create theorems and solutions that had evaded mathematicians in the West. (Simon Singh, Fermat's Enigma, 1997)

How is it that S. Ramanujan could accomplish such a feat? If you see the character-driven film, The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016), with the superb Dev Patel (Srinivasa Ramanujan), Jeremy Irons (G. H. Hardy), Toby Jones (J.E. Littlewood) and Jeremy Northam (Bertrand Russell), you will see the hero, Ramanujan, endures hardship and racism in 1915 England, resulting in a bright star imploding before your eyes.

Since the similarly ground-breaking Andrew Wiles is the focus of Simon Singh's book, the author mentions Ramanujan briefly. But Singh does reveal a truism lost on many in the Western world but a central theme in the film:

"Although this theorem will be forever associated with Pythogoras,...

a² + b² = c² 

...it was actually used by the Chinese and the Babylonians one thousand years before." (Singh, p. 19)

Singh adds that though these civilizations used the theorem they didn't prove the equation applies to all "right-angled triangles." (Singh, p. 20) He insists mathematicians need unwavering proof to demonstrate if theorems are correct.

Fermat's Last Theorem took Pythagoras' equation above one step farther by substituting n for 2, where no integers for n>2 can be used. However, no one had found "proof," that larger integers couldn't be used (and positive integers could not be substituted for a, b, and c). (Singh, p. 31) Centuries later, Oxford's Andrew Wiles would prove this theorem (published, 1995) while a professor at Princeton University. (Nature.com, 3/15/16)

The movie, The Man Who Knew Infinity, implies most mathematicians are atheists. Ramanujan (Dev Patel) is not. In fact when asked by G. H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) about the genesis of his formulas, Ramanujan says: "An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God." Being a staunch cynic and atheist himself, Hardy cannot be swayed that any god has inspired his under-educated protégé. Hardy's colleague, J. E. Littleton (Toby Jones), impels Hardy to think differently about Ramanujan's faith and lack of education, "Don't be intimidated. Great knowledge comes from the humblest of origins."  (The Man Who Knew Infinity)

Further, Ramanujan, in the film, avers that he can see math all around him: in the earth, the sky, the water, even the stars. Later we learn his work has been used toward discovering black holes. Therefore, if we were to accept, as mathematicians and scientists have shown, that math is all around us and formulas predict what we cannot see, then how can we deny the existence of a life force? Physicists Albert Einstein and Michio Kaku, more recently, asserted their own suppositions regarding the existence of a spiritual deity.

Take the discovery of gravitational waves, stemming from Einstein's prediction in his Theory of Relativity (nytimes.com, 2/12/2016). According to M.I.T. Professor of Physics, Rainer Weiss, during his lecture on gravitational astronomy at the Maritime Museum, Cape Cod, (Hyannis, MA, 6/15/2016), physicists and other scientists at LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) first detected gravitational waves between two colliding black holes as a "chirping" sound wave.

Note the term "black holes," and refer back to Ramanujan's mathematical contributions with G. H. Hardy from 1915 to 1918. Also note Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity including gravitational waves, between 1907 and 1915. Neither Einstein nor Ramanujan could individually prove the entirety of their theories when alive. However, they posited, had the courage to assert their revelations despite the lack of proof.

S. Ramanujan's theorems also provided the basis for the movie title, The Man Who Knew Infinity (based on the book by Robert Kanigel) showing how his models based on infinity shook the mathematical world. Later in the 20th century, his work called "The Ramanujan Conjecture" when combined with Hans Petersson's metric, helped Andrew Wiles prove Fermat's Last Theorem.

Thus if a man gifted with intuition, zealously believed in his gods, Einstein believed in a "pantheistic" God, and Kaku said he "believes in a God that created the universe," (quora.com, 4/5/2015), as a self-professed agnostic, how could I debate the non-existence of an intelligent being? Faith can be practiced in many forms, but how beautiful is this convergence, how breath-taking these brilliant men's convictions. Thank you, Srinivasa Ramanujan, for believing in the impossible.

To end, I'd like to share a poem published on http://www.capewomenonline.net/beatus-lacrimis-by-wendy-shreve/ The poem refers to the monumental hypothesis where a pi formula connects quantum mechanics (e.g. atoms, particles) and quantum physics (Einstein's theories). Interesting how Ramanujan developed revolutionary pi formulas still used today.

IDRIS ELBA, WHY HE SHOULD BE NEXT JAMES BOND

Aha! Some out there in the blog-o-sphere have already been dissuaded by this point: why should an Anglo-African actor play the iconic James Bond? I won't speculate your reasons; suffice it to say forget what Idris Elba looks like, follow the link to the video, close your eyes and listen:

Idris Elba as Shere Khan

Menacing, deep baritone with shades of dark and light; strong, invincible, arrogant do these qualities sound familiar? In the best Bond portrayals--I argue Sean Connery and Daniel Craig--the actors maintain a threatening undercurrent, including lighter moments, leaving the viewer puzzled about Bond's intentions.

When Ian Fleming launched his James Bond novels in 1952 (Casino Royale), Fleming characterized Bond as having "dark, rather cruel good looks." Interpret that quote as you may, but Idris Elba's portrayal of warlord, Abraham Attah, in The Beasts of No Nation, garnered rave reviews and was considered by many as an Oscar-worthy performance, though overlooked by Academy voters.

For those who argue that Mr. Elba doesn't have the risk-taking mentality, or athleticism, read about his grueling work in the same film, particularly David Fear's article about The Beasts of No Nation in Rolling Stone (October 10, 2015). Fear, an apt name for a critic of this movie, explains:

...Elba [sic] strides up to the young boy at the center of this crowd and asks "Who brought this thing here?" in a booming voice. It's a proper movie entrance, bold and brash, immediately establishing the man known only as "Commandant" as a charismatic...He oozes danger and power. You fear this person immediately.

( http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/idris-elba-on-beasts-of-no-nation-and-making-grown-men-cry-20151010#ixzz4C1Ji9yzd )

Mr. Elba in an earlier, smaller but career-launching role as Heimdall (the guardian of Asgard's Biofrost in Thor) commands and demands your attention, though you can barely discern his countenance. Mr. Elba's voice dictates his nuanced performance. He demonstrates intimidation, compassion and reluctant cooperation without having to see his facial expressions.

Then, there's the age-factor. Have Bond fans forgotten that Roger Moore played James Bond as late as fifty-seven-years old? Daniel Craig surpasses Idris Elba by five years, 48 and 43 respectively. The producers and Mr. Craig have discussed making another film together, though not confirmed as of today. Regardless if Mr. Elba decides and/or the producers decide not to cast him as Bond, in three years Idris Elba would still be eligible.

Another essential ingredient in a visual interpretation of James Bond includes the "sex" quotient. Could audiences accept Idris Elba playing a suave playboy? I've seen Mr. Elba wiping blood from his nose in the movie Pacific Rim as a cat would wipe its paw with its tongue. Smooth, elegant, smoky eyes that pull you into his character and never relent. I could go on, but I'm swooning at the moment.

And then, we have machismo. If Beasts of No Nation doesn't suffice for male readers, how about Krall in the new Star Trek movie, to open soon, or Stephen King's gunslinger in The Dark Tower (in production). Idris Elba can do it all, epitomizing the maverick, James Bond.

REVERIE: THE FILM, LOVE & FRIENDSHIP

My friend asked me if I'd read Lady Susan and I replied I'd read all of Jane Austen's books, but when asked to give a brief synopsis of the novella, I couldn't. A decade may have passed, but I vividly remember every Austen plot except for Northanger Abbey and Lady Susan. I'd checked out the latter novella, its cover faded, years ago from a local library, and I finished the book that night. The story had left one impression: "Lady Susan," and her ability to get into and out of sticky wickets. I'd admired the lady, then, but had stopped short at describing her as a heroine.

Present day: I couldn't wait to see the film adaptation of the novella, Love & Friendship. Walking into the Cape Cinema has always had an Old World feel-- with its proscenium arch and Rockwell Kent murals adorning the ceiling--The theater invites the audience to suspend our daily challenges and be transported. In this film, I felt as if I stepped into a concerto with accomplished soloists and supporting players.

Writer Whit Stillman's staccato dialogue (from his adapted screenplay), performed by what only could be described as a cast of character actors who used their brilliant instruments to elicit laughter and surprise from the viewer, is music to the ears. The maestro or director, again Whit Stillman, skillfully elicits dynamic performances from Kate Beckinsale, Chloe Sevigny, Tom Bennett and Xavier Samuel, along with a wonderful supporting cast. What's more, shading, light; color comprise the mesmerizing underscore.

 The pianoforte takes front and center in Beckinsale's hands. Heroine? Some film-goers may see Lady Susan as a survivor who uses her quick brain and tongue to manipulate others, to guarantee an income for herself and her daughter. Other viewers may see the character as selfish, vain, and without compassion. Kate Beckinsale craftily keeps us guessing.

The dialogue often moves at a scherzando pace as Lady Susan Vernon uses her wit, sharpened by years of discreet indiscretions, to play everyone, including her own daughter, Frederica Vernon. Frederica, the passive ingenue speaks like a muted harpsichord, often used in period movies to show ennui. Frederica's crescendo would come, nonetheless, toward the end of Love & Friendship at a most unexpected moment.

Frederica's, wealthy intended, Sir James Martin, hilariously portrayed by Tom Bennett enters the scene, messa di voce or holding the same note while modulating the tone.* Sir James honks like a horn and flutters as a woodwind during opportune moments. We cannot help but be entertained by the buffoon.

In contrast, Lady Susan's American confidante, Alicia Johnson (Chloë Sevigny), lives in London with her flummoxed husband, Mr. Johnson (Stephen Fry), who regularly threatens to send his wife back to Connecticut because he disapproves of Alicia's friendship with the infamous Lady Susan. Alicia plays her husband as she does everyone else, quietly plucking strings and hitting her crescendo without fanfare at the film's climax. Interesting that Sevigny and Beckinsale first starred together in Whit Stillman's The Last Days of Disco (1998). It's delightful to see the two a play off one another, their characters finding harmony amidst others' discord.

Lady Susan and Alicia conspire to serve Lady Susan's purposes with happy amorality, with little regard to the fate of characters in their circle, including the dashing Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel). Each woman holds a cymbal and Reginald unwittingly gets caught in the crash. The eligible, albeit reluctant hero has to overcome his youthful arrogance before he can transcend Lady Susan's seductive melody.

Whit Stillman's screenplay, a symphony of words which may need a second hearing to appreciate, is performed with full voice by its actors and conducted with a director's eye and ear. Love & Friendship, will keep your mind humming long after the film has ended.


*The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 1986

FILM REVIEW - THE REVENANT: REVENGE IS SOUR (Spoilers Alert)

"You should be a film critic!" That's what friends have implored for years. I'm happy to announce to them, my readers and followers, I've decided to include movie reviews on a regular basis in this blog. Will cover the gamut. 

Urged by my man to attend a movie I'd normally avoid, I saw The Revenant. First reaction, too violent and filled with holes. Confession time: I had a sinus attack which hampered my objectivity and went to the movie ready to dislike it. I also abhor the reverence for violence many film critics and Academy voters often accept, as in The Departed or No Country for Old Men. In contrast, I admire directors who can realistically portray violence without resorting to blood baths and glorification. A good night's sleep produced a rested mind: yes, the film should be seen.

After a successful hunt, The Revenant opens with hunters preparing their pelts for transport. Various stages from skinning to folding the furs in canvas and binding the prized bounty are depicted. Modern viewers, like me, may be repulsed by the process. Director, Alejandro González Iñárritu chooses, however, to allow the hunters momentary revelry before the predators become the prey. The ragged group are attacked by the Arikara Indians and experience heavy losses and injuries. Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) the hunter and scout for the group knows the territory and is the group's only reliable compass to finding their way back to camp. Glass's mixed-race son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), accompanies his father yet remains silent per his father's orders as not to incense the volatile hunter's irrational fears of the "Indian," particularly "half-breeds," Only the Captain truly understands Glass's value.The director introduces his viewers to an initial form of revenge: killing the white men who have taken the Native American's means of survival to sell for profit.

Iñárritu, helmed last year's Oscar winner for Best Picture: Birdman, another movie where I respected his choices more than the story. As a one-time theater goer and behind-the-scenes gopher, I'd have to favor Birdman, wondrous though the shots in The Revenant may be. As an ensemble film Birdman carries us away yet keeps the audience grounded, whereas Iñárritu's follow-up, The Revenant, has fantastic elements sprinkled amidst realistic drudgery.

This lone-wolf story is an intelligent examination of the old West and the killed-or-be-killed mentality to ensure survival. (In my mind, the foundation for our current American obsession with gun-violence.) No, I can't use the verb "loved" to describe my reaction to this film, better to write I respected most of the process, the production: acting, cinematography, directing (as described above) and screenwriting. I had problems with the editing. The movie, as is the norm these days, is too long. And scenes, particularly one involving a conifer left this benefit-of-the-doubt movie fan rolling her eyes and screaming in her head, "Cut!" 

Okay, Leonardo, I'd endorse your getting an Oscar at last. I have watched for growth in this actor since his days in Titanic, and have finally accepted he has the chops. Another performer, Domnhall Gleeson plays the cavalry Captain who has a pivotal role in the movie. Cinephiles will recognize Gleeson from the brilliant film, Ex Machina, and the equally terrific, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. If any performer should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, it's Domnhall Gleeson. 

In The Revenant. cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki captures not only the breathtaking vistas of Alberta, Canada  (where much of the movie was filmed) but the smallest creatures as well like carpenter ants climbing over one another to reach the summit. In a blink this scene ends yet serves as a perfect metaphor for the teamwork expected by the Captain of his remaining men to undertake their arduous journey to reach the fort. 

Story-wise, historical accuracy comes and goes. In truth Glass didn't have a son, which leads to a peevish injection: why do movie marketers/producers insist on posting the words, e.g. "based on true events," on their posters? In the case of The Revenant the contradictions are staggering (for a well-researched history of Hugh Glass, read Rebecca Onion's excellent article on the Glass myth in Slate Magazine: Who was Hugh Glass? ). The screenwriters do provide ethical lessons for audiences to ponder, and work hard to show a balanced perspective, from the in-fighting among various tribes to the cavalry captain and the complex "villain", Fitzgerald. I also admired the main theme, reinforced throughout the movie, of revenge and its consequences (Gladiator references abound, intentional or not, I don't know.).

Moreover, the Native American women may be victims or need rescuing in this story, but their pride and self-empowerment, especially in one brutal scene, rise to the surface in unexpected places.

In the future, I hope to interview some Native Americans who have seen this movie to get their opinions. I know my boyfriend, part Blackfoot, felt emboldened by the screenwriter and director's choices. In my opinion, The Revenant boldly and reverently depicts the tribes as they try to maintain their culture and protect their lands. Forced to take sides, French vs. British/Colonials, these indigenous people have fateful choices. 

Making decisions is the fundamental basis of a director. Iñárritu, and his cinematographer Lubezki, illuminate all that is beautiful and ugly in our natural landscape. Choosing to film in natural light, from a myriad of vantage points, these men show the land, nature as gifts to be savored not squandered. 

In the end, the quest for vengeance left this audience member shaken, unsatisfied, a reaction I'd bet Iñárritu wanted. So, see a master craftsman and his artists at work. You will be affected. In its message, The Revenant shines a new light on the early days when men raped the land and left little except for the very few. An old lesson yet to be learned by mankind.

Links to my books, articles, etc. 
www.shadowwater.net  
https://www.facebook.com/shadowwaterseries/ 
LinkedIn