	Gene Siskel	Roger Ebert
1997
1	The Ice Storm	Eve’s Bayou
2	L.A. Confidential	The Sweet Hereafter
3	Wag the Dog	Boogie Nights
4	In the Company of Men	Maborosi
5	The End of Violence	Jackie Brown
6	The Full Monty	Fast, Cheap & Out of Control
7	The Sweet Hereafter	L.A. Confidential
8	Good Will Hunting	In the Company of Men
9	Mrs. Brown	Titanic
10	As Good As It Gets	Wag the Dog
1996
1	Fargo	Fargo
2	Secrets and Lies	Breaking the Waves
3	Breaking the Waves	Secrets and Lies
4	The English Patient	Lone Star
5	Lone Star	Welcome to the Dollhouse
6	Looking For Richard	Bound
7	Paradise Lost	Hamlet
8	Welcome to the Dollhouse	Everyone Says I Love You
9	Kingpin	Heidi Fleiss
10	Bound	Big Night
1995
1	Crumb	Leaving Las Vegas
2	Toy Story	Crumb
3	Nixon	Dead Man Walking
4	Babe	Nixon
5	Dead Man Walking	Casino
6	Leaving Las Vegas	Apollo 13
7	The American President	Exotica
8	Exotica	My Family
9	Apollo 13	Carrington
10	Les Miserables	A Walk in the Clouds
1994
1	Hoop Dreams	Hoop Dreams
2	Pulp Fiction	Three Colors: Blue, White, Red
3	Ed Wood	Pulp Fiction
4	32 Short Films About Glenn Gould	Forrest Gump
5	Quiz Show	The Last Seduction
6	Forrest Gump	Fresh
7	Vanya on 42nd Street	The Blue Kite
8	The Shawshank Redemption	Natural Born Killers
9	Red Rock West	The New Age
10	Little Women	Quiz Show
1993
1	Schindler’s List	Schindler’s List
2	Short Cuts	The Age of Innocence
3	The Piano	The Piano
4	Farewell My Concubine	The Fugitive
5	Menace II Society	The Joy Luck Club
6	The Fugitive	Kalifornia
7	The Age of Innocence	Like Water for Chocolate
8	The Joy Luck Club	Menace II Society
9	King of the Hill	What’s Love Got to Do With It
10	Map of the Human Heart	Ruby in Paradise
1992
1	One False Move	Malcolm X
2	The Player	One False Move
3	Howards End	Howards End
4	The Crying Game	Flirting
5	Malcolm X	The Crying Game
6	The Hairdresser’s Husband	Damage
7	Damage	The Hairdresser’s Husband
8	Wayne’s World	The Player
9	Mississippi Masala	Unforgiven
10	Under Seige	Bad Lieutenant
1991
1	Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse	JFK
2	An Angel at My Table	Boyz N the Hood
3	Boyz N the Hood	Beauty and the Beast
4	La Belle Noiseuse	Grand Canyon
5	Beauty and the Beast	My Father’s Glory/My Mother’s Castle
6	Grand Canyon	A Woman’s Tale
7	JFK	Life Is Sweet
8	Ju Dou	The Man in the Moon
9	Daddy Nostalgia	Thelma & Louise
10	Once Around	The Rapture
1990
1	Goodfellas	Goodfellas
2	After Dark, My Sweet	Monsieur Hire
3	Avalon	Dances With Wolves
4	The Plot Against Harry	The Grifters
5	Too Beautiful for You	Reversal of Fortune
6	Die Hard 2	Santa Sangre
7	Dances With Wolves	Last Exit to Brooklyn
8	Reversal of Fortune	Awakenings
9	The Freshman	The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
10	The Godfather Part III	Mountains of the Moon
1989
1	Do the Right Thing	Do the Right Thing
2	Roger & Me	Drugstore Cowboy
3	Drugstore Cowboy	My Left Foot
4	Enemies: A Love Story	Born on the Fourth of July
5	Born on the Fourth of July	Roger & Me
6	The Little Mermaid	The Mighty Quinn
7	Crimes and Misdemeanors	Field of Dreams
8	The Fabulous Baker Boys	Crimes and Misdemeanors
9	Say Anything	Driving Miss Daisy
10	The War of the Roses	Say Anything
1988
1	The Last Temptation of Christ	Mississippi Burning
2	Who Framed Roger Rabbit	The Accidental Tourist
3	Bull Durham	The Unbearable Lightness of Being
4	Little Dorritt	Shy People
5	Midnight Run	Salaam Bombay!
6	The Thin Blue Line	A Fish Called Wanda
7	Hotel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie	Wings of Desire
8	The Unbearable Lightness of Being	Who Framed Roger Rabbit
9	Working Girl	Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam
10	Funny Farm	Running on Empty
1987
1	The Last Emperor	House of Games
2	Full Metal Jacket	The Big Easy
3	House of Games	Barfly
4	Jean de Florette/Manon of the Spring	The Last Emperor
5	Broadcast News	Moonstruck
6	Radio Days	Prick Up Your Ears
7	River’s Edge	Radio Days
8	Prick Up Your Ears	Broadcast News
9	Roxanne	Lethal Weapon
10	The Big Easy	Housekeeping
1986
1	Shoah	Platoon
2	Hannah and Her Sisters	Round Midnight
3	Vagabond	Hannah and Her Sisters
4	A Room With a View	Sid & Nancy
5	Mona Lisa	Lucas
6	Peggy Sue Got Married	Vagabond
7	Blue Velvet	Trouble in Mind
8	Children of a Lesser God	Down and Out in Beverly Hills
9	Round Midnight	Peggy Sue Got Married
10	The Fly	Hard Choices
1985
1	Ran	The Color Purple
2	The Color Purple	After Hours
3	Streetwise	The Falcon and the Snowman
4	Prizzi’s Honor	Prizzi’s Honor
5	The Official Story	Ran
6	Mishima	Witness
7	The Falcon and the Snowman	Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
8	Back to the Future	Lost in America
9	The Purple Rose of Cairo	Streetwise
10	Wetherby	Blood Simple
1984
1	Once Upon a Time in America	Amadeus
2	Amadeus	Paris, Texas
3	The Cotton Club	Love Streams
4	Entre Nous	This Is Spinal Tap
5	Purple Rain	The Cotton Club
6	The Killing Fields	Secret Honor
7	Secret Honor	The Killing Fields
8	A Passge to India	Stranger Than Paradise
9	Micki & Maude	Choose Me
10	The Natural	Purple Rain
1983
1	The Right Stuff	The Right Stuff
2	Terms of Endearment	Terms of Endearment
3	Betrayal	The Year of Living Dangerously
4	Fanny and Alexander	Fanny and Alexander
5	Star 80	Gandhi
6	The Year of Living Dangerously	El Norte
7	Silkwood	Testament
8	Pauline at the Beach	Silkwood
9	Risky Business	Say Amen, Somebody
10	The Big Chill	Risky Business
1982
1	Moonlighting	Sophie’s Choice
2	Tootsie	Diva
3	E.T.	E.T.
4	Diva	Fitzcarraldo/The Burden of Dreams
5	Mephisto	Personal Best
6	Lola	Das Boot
7	Personal Best	Mephisto
8	Das Boot	Moonlighting
9	Three Brothers	The Verdict
10	An Officer and a Gentleman	Wasn’t That a Time
1981
1	Ragtime	My Dinner With Andre
2	My Dinner With Andre	Chariots of Fire
3	Raiders of the Lost Ark	Gates of Heaven
4	Mon Oncle d’Amerique	Raiders of the Lost Ark
5	Gates of Heaven	Heartland
6	Bye Bye Brazil	Atlantic City
7	Prince of the City	Thief
8	Melvin and Howard	Body Heat
9	Body Heat	Tess
10	The French Lieutenant’s Woman	Reds
1980
1	Raging Bull	The Black Stallion
2	Ordinary People	Raging Bull
3	Coal Miner’s Daughter	Kagemusha
4	The Tree of Wooden Clogs	Being There
5	Kagemusha	Ordinary People
6	Being There	The Great Santini
7	The Black Stallion	The Empire Strikes Back
8	The Blues Brothers	Coal Miner’s Daughter
9	The Great Santini	American Gigolo
10	The Stunt Man	Best Boy
1979
1	Hair	Apocalypse Now
2	Kramer vs. Kramer	Breaking Away
3	The Deer Hunter	The Deer Hunter
4	Breaking Away	The Marriage of Maria Braun
5	Manhattan	Hair
6	The Marriage of Maria Braun	Saint Jack
7	Nosferatu, the Vampyre	Kramer vs. Kramer
8	The Onion Field	The China Syndrome
9	Time After Time	Nosferatu, the Vampyre
10	The China Syndrome	10
1978
1	Straight Time	An Unmarried Woman
2	Pretty Baby	Days of Heaven
3	Days of Heaven	Heart of Glass
4	Blue Collar	Stroszek
5	Autumn Sonata	Autumn Sonata
6	The Buddy Holly Story	Interiors
7	Coming Home	Halloween
8	Halloween	National Lampoon’s Animal House
9	Magic	Kings of the Road
10	Stoszek	Superman
1977
1	Annie Hall	3 Women
2	The Late Show	Providence
3	In the Realm of the Senses	The Late Show
4	Close Encounters of the Third Kind	A Woman’s Decision
5	Saturday Night Fever	Jail Bait
6	Harlan County, U.S.A.	Close Encounters of the Third Kind
7	Star Wars	Aguirre: Wrath of God
8	Oh, God!	Annie Hall
9	Pumping Iron	Sorcerer
10	Rolling Thunder	Star Wars
1976
1	All the President’s Men	Small Change
2	Network	Taxi Driver
3	Brothel No. 8	The Magic Flute
4	Small Change	The Clockmaker
5	Stay Hungry	Network
6	Cousin, Cousine	Swept Away...by an unusual destiny in the blue sea of August
7	Taxi Driver	Rocky
8	Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson	All the President’s Men
9	The Seven-Per-Cent Solution	Silent Movie
10	The Man Who Would Be King	The Shootist
1975
1	Nashville	Nashville
2	The Passenger	Night Moves
3	Love and Death	Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
4	Dog Day Afternoon	Farewell, My Lovely
5	Barry Lyndon	The Phantom of Liberty
6	And Now My Love	A Brief Vacation
7	Dodes’ka-den	And Now My Love
8	The Homecoming	A Woman Under the Influence
9	Antonia: Portrait of a Women	In Celebration
10	Hustle	Dog Day Afternoon
1974
1	Day for Night	Scenes from a Marriage
2	The Last Detail	Chinatown
3	Amarcord	The Mother and the Whore
4	The Conversation	Amarcord
5	Mean Streets	The Last Detail
6	Scenes from a Marriage	The Mirages
7	Lacombe, Lucien	Day for Night
8	Harry and Tonto	Mean Streets
9	The Mother and the Whore	My Uncle Antoine
10	Wedding in Blood	The Conversation
1973
1	The Emigrants/The New Land	Cries and Whispers
2	Last Tango in Paris	Last Tango in Paris
3	The Exorcist	The Emigrants/The New Land
4	Cries and Whispers	Blume in Love
5	The Day of the Jackal	The Iceman Cometh
6	The Last of Sheila	The Exorcist
7	The Day of the Dolphin	The Day of the Jackal
8	American Graffiti	American Graffiti
9	Sisters	Fellini’s Roma
10	The Long Goodbye	The Friends of Eddie Coyle
1972
1	The Godfather	The Godfather
2	The Sorrow and the Pity	Chole in the Afternoon
3	Le Boucher	Le Boucher
4	Cabaret	Murmur of the Heart
5	Two English Girls	The Green Wall
6	A Clockwork Orange	The Sorrow and the Pity
7	Chloe in the Afternoon	The Garden of Finzi-Continis
8	Frenzy	Minnie and Moskowitz
9	Sounder	Sounder
10	Ulzana’s Raid	The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid
1971
1	Claire’s Knee	The Last Picture Show
2	A New Leaf	McCabe and Mrs. Miller
3	McCabe and Mrs. Miller	Claire’s Knee
4	Little Big Man	The French Connection
5	The Last Picture Show	Sunday, Bloody Sunday
6	Sunday, Bloody Sunday	Taking Off
7	Bed and Board	Carnal Knowledge
8	Dirty Harry	Tristana
9	Husbands	Goin’ Down the Road
10	Taking Off	Bed and Board
1970
1	My Night at Maud’s	Five Easy Pieces
2	MAS*H	MAS*H
3	Women in Love	The Revolutionary
4	Five Easy Pieces	Patton
5	The Passion of Anna	Woodstock
6	Adalen 31	My Night at Maud’s
7	Salesman	Adalen 31
8	Woodstock	The Passion of Anna
9	Triolgy	The Wild Child
10	The Wild Child	Fellini Satyricon
1969
1	Z	Z
2	Midnight Cowboy	Medium Cool
3	Alice’s Restaurant	Weekend
4	Simon of the Desert	if....
5	The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter	Last Summer
6	Oh! What a Lovely War	The Wild Bunch
7	The Wild Bunch	Easy Rider
8	if....	True Grit
9	Pretty Poison	Downhill Racer
10	Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice	War and Peace

==============================

Von Trapps’ happy ending (970715)

ALMOST 60 years after the von Trapps fled the invading Nazi jackboot, the family immortalised by The Sound of Music has been officially honoured by the Austrian Government high on a hill in Vermont with not a lonely goatherd in sight.

It was the first time since they escaped from their homeland that the famous singing children had gained recognition from Vienna for their father’s strident objections to Hitler’s Third Reich.

At the command of the Austrian Defence Minister, the graduating class of Theresianum Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt was flown to the foothills of Stowe for a special tribute to Baron Georg von Trapp, the aristocratic patriarch and former submarine commander who died 50 years ago.

A series of ceremonies culminated in a performance of Schubert’s German Mass and the laying of a wreath by the cadets at the grave of Baron and Baroness von Trapp, the couple portrayed by Christopher Plummer and Julie Andrews in the 1965 film musical. Nearly 50 people, representing three generations of von Trapps and including the baron’s six surviving children, joined a cast of 300 in the green pastures of Vermont for a ritual steeped in symbolism.

Their story is familiar to the millions who have seen The Sound of Music, a film which can claim one of the widest audiences in history. As a captain in the Austrian Navy after the Anschluss in 1938, the baron refused a role in the German forces and told his family that he planned to emigrate in the face of the advancing Nazis.

“If one says no,” he is famously said to have told them, “then we all stay.” The family, by then a famous choral singing troupe, all answered in the affirmative as their governess and later step-mother, Maria Kutschera, plotted their escape.

Despite their father’s status as a national hero and the subsequent fame of the family, the von Trapps have received neither apology nor recognition from the frosty Austrian authorities. The Government in Vienna studiously failed to honour the baron after his death and for years banned the film in Austria.

“This was a statement of political significance,” said Walter Greinert, the Consul-General to the United States, who attended the event in Vermont. “These officers represent a new Austria. We are a new generation now putting behind us some of the troubles of the past.”

And it brought a happy finale to a saga which has plagued the family since the baron died five years after arriving in America. “It is a great honour to our father and our family and a statement on the part of the Austrian officers,” said Johannes von Trapp, 58, the youngest of the singing children who toured Europe and later America. “It brings that whole episode to an end.”

==============================

Left Behind: Christian film bids to convert Hollywood (Ottawa Citizen, 000231)

Kirk Cameron stars in Canadian thriller that stresses Christ as a personal saviour

A Canadian company that makes films with a Christian message is looking to take Hollywood by storm.

It plans to do that with Left Behind, an action thriller based on a series of best-selling novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. In the first book, based on the Book of Revelations, Jesus appears on Earth to take believers to Heaven. Those “left behind” must endure mass confusion, fires and hysteria until they accept Christ as their personal saviour.

Left Behind was filmed last summer in Toronto by Cloud Ten Productions, a St. Catharines-based company that has made four movies stressing Christian values and spiritualism. But it is this newest one, which stars Kirk Cameron (formerly of Growing Pains) as a TV reporter who fights the earthly regime of the new Antichrist, that is primed for the big breakthrough.

“We think this movie presents an extraordinary opportunity for those who want to make the kinds of films we make to really amaze Hollywood with the size of the audience that is out there, and what can be done at the box office,” said Peter Lalonde, 40, who runs Cloud Ten with his brother, Paul.

The company plans a Feb. 2 release of the movie, and its goal is to be the biggest box office movie of that week. As another part of its marketing plan, Cloud Ten is soliciting churches to each raise $3,000 U.S. to book screens. The company has already lined up 400 theatres to show the movie, including the Pine Grove Bible Church in Gloucester, which is sponsoring a screening at a theatre yet to be determined.

Paul Racine, an elder at the church, said Pine Grove decided to sponsor the movie based on a promotional video about the film. He said one person came forward with the money.

Mr. Lalonde says the number of screens should grow to 2,500 by the opening date, which is as large as most “wide openings” of mainstream Hollywood movies.

To help promote the film, however, Cloud Ten is embarking on a controversial marketing scheme that Mr. Lalonde acknowledges is backwards. The company is releasing Left Behind on video today — four months before its theatre release.

He calls it a way to mobilize the core community of “Christians and family-value people and people who are just looking for something new from a Hollywood film.” By giving the audience a preview look at the movie, Cloud Ten hopes to build grassroots support.

“The video release is really about giving people a chance to see what it is they’re going to support, and then to mobilize it for the Feb. 2 release.” Video cassettes will include coupons that give buyers a chance to buy theatre tickets for reduced prices.

So far the plan is working well, Mr. Lalonde says. In the U.S., the company has already presold 1.5 million videocassettes. Most of these are in the U.S., where 90 million people identify themselves as evangelical Christians. (In Canada, he said, it is more difficult to reach the core market —thought to be four or five million —where there isn’t as much Christian radio, television and publications.)

When the movie was being filmed in Toronto, Mr. Cameron told reporters that he loves God with all his heart, but said that you don’t have to be Christian to be thrilled and riveted by the story. He also says that it demonstrates that films can be made without bad language, nudity or violence, aspects of modern cinema that are now under attack in the U.S. by some politicians. The question, he says, is whether they can be commercially viable.

If Left Behind does as well as it is expected to do, it will eclipse the former Christian film champ, last year’s The Omega Code, which brought in $12.5 million U.S. at the box office.

==============================

Revenge of the Comic-Book Nerds (Weekly Standard, 030214)

“Daredevil” delivers the first purely comics-driven movie. Is America ready to join hands with the Comic Book Guy? Plus, more Oscar malaise.

JUST AS THERE ARE Elvis men and Beatles men, there are DC men and Marvel men. Perhaps “men” is too strong a word, but nonetheless, among comic aficionados, there are two distinct camps. It has been a rough decade for DC lovers. The company has fallen on hard times and its properties have met with a string of failures in Hollywood: The Superman franchise petered out and the Batman franchise devolved, after a promising start, into something worse than its ‘60s Adam West incarnation. DC has spent the last few years trying to get new installments of these flagship franchises—and even a Batman vs. Superman movie—made with Warner Bros., to no avail. Several other of DC’s properties, including Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Green Lantern, are currently stuck in development hell.

At the same time, Marvel has made a miraculous comeback. After being pushed into bankruptcy by billionaire-egomaniac Ron Perelman in the late 1980s (he bought Marvel shortly after acquiring Revlon), the company was saved by a pair of businessmen who ran the company Toy Biz (the fascinating corporate struggle is detailed in Dan Raviv’s excellent Comic Wars). Today under the supervision of Avi Arad, Marvel has become the dominant comic-book publisher and its dominance has extended into film. After “X-Men” in 2000, Marvel followed up with “Spider-Man” in 2002; both films were successful enough to spawn sequels and look to be solid franchises for the foreseeable future. This summer “Hulk” is positioned to be one of the top grossers. Other Marvel properties, such as Iron Man, The Avengers, and The Fantastic Four, are currently in development. And then there’s “Daredevil.”

“DAREDEVIL” hits theaters today with little to recommend it. It boasts only middling starpower (Ben Affleck), but more to the point, its titular superhero isn’t part of the national consciousness. Daredevil is well known to comic-book lovers, but not to the broader audience—certainly not the way Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-Men were before their movie successes.

Our hero is Matt Murdock, a legal-aid attorney who was blinded in a freak accident as a child. He lost his sight but had his other senses heightened and developed a kind of sonar-vision, which allows him to “see” sounds.

If the idea of a blind superhero strikes you as silly, well, no argument here. Daredevil was launched in 1964 as Marvel’s answer to DC’s hugely popular Batman. Both lack any remarkable superpowers and are, more than any other heroes, quite mortal. Like Batman, Daredevil is a dark character, obsessed not so much with rescuing innocents as seeking justice. He’s the type of vigilante that led to the creation of Alan Moore’s 1986 “Watchmen” series. Some of the Daredevil books were interesting—Frank Miller’s “Visionaries” and “Born Again” sagas come to mind—but for the most part, Daredevil often felt like a low-rent version of Gotham’s caped crusader.

The movie “Daredevil” takes a lot from Miller’s work in tone, setting, and characters. The film’s story is quite engaging: Matt Murdock meets and falls in love with the beautiful and rich Elektra Natchios (Jennifer Garner). Elektra’s father is murdered by Bullseye (Colin Farrell), an assassin working for the criminal mastermind the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan). Elektra mistakenly believes that Daredevil killed her father and, being something of a martial-arts expert herself, takes after him for revenge.

But while the plot is smart, the writing, in many instances, is stupid. Superhero movies are, by their very nature, fantastical, so it is a writer’s duty to avoid unnecessary leaps. In “Daredevil,” writer (and director) Mark Steven Johnson fails here. Some of his failures are small: Murdock works as a legal-aid attorney, yet in the beginning of the film he is prosecuting a criminal rape case. Some are larger, but merely annoying: At a formal ball, Murdock is standing outside in his tuxedo with Elektra and then, moments later, is running along the rooftops in his Daredevil costume, despite the fact that he has no way of carrying his bulky leather outfit with him. Other flaws are gaping and structural: Murdock, a 30-year-old orphan and lawyer for the indigent, keeps a vast hidden lair in New York City, equipped with secret entrances and all manner of custom-made high-tech gear—how does he pay for it?

If this seems like picking nits, it is, but that’s because the audience is spending its allowance of disbelief-suspension on the idea of the superhero. A good script lets us run freely down the rails once we buy into the central conceit and doesn’t ask us to continually make excuses for movie logic.

Similarly, Johnson’s direction is unsteady. Nearly every action sequence in “Daredevil” suffers from too many cuts and jumps. In The Conversations, master film editor Walter Murch observes that most sustained action pieces have 14 cuts per minute. The fights in “Daredevil” surely double that pace.

As Murch observes, “After each cut it takes a few milliseconds for the audience to discover where they should be looking. If you don’t carry their focus of interest across the cut points, if you make them search at every cut, they become disoriented and annoyed, without knowing why.” The problems with the action sequences in “Daredevil” go beyond annoyance. It’s difficult to follow what is happening to whom and how characters get from one place to another. If Johnson is trying to give the overall impression of chaotic violence, he has succeeded, but as a story-telling mechanism these scenes are incoherent.

On the plus side, the acting in “Daredevil” is more than adequate. Ben Affleck is blessedly innocuous. Colin Farrell does fine work with the 20 or so lines allotted to him. However the movie’s real glue is Garner’s Elektra. At once vulnerable and playful, Garner doesn’t overdo the tough-chick schtick. She gives the movie sweetness and heart and while it’s not clear why Elektra would fall for a guy like Murdock, she sells the hell out of it.

In a sense there’s something in “Daredevil” for both Marvel and DC fans to cheer. If the movie finds broader acceptance in the general audience this weekend—and I suspect it will—then it will signal that the comic-book sensibility, not just the big-name franchises, is ready to be embraced by mainstream America.

A successful weekend for “Daredevil” will mean that we’re all comic-book geeks now. Worse things have happened.

A FEW NOTES on the Oscar nominations: Some weeks ago I wrote about the coming Oscar snub of “The Two Towers” and on Tuesday the first act of this slow-motion travesty came to pass: The Academy Award nominations were released and “The Two Towers” was nominated for just six awards and, although it got a Best Picture nomination, it won’t win.

The nominations themselves are a good barometer of where the voters are on a movie. “The Two Towers” was overlooked in some expected places (Best Director) but the Academy also ignored it in areas where it should have been a lock—Costume, Cinematography, and, most shockingly, Best Adapted Screenplay. If a movie that compresses a 400-page classic into a brisk, compelling 3 hours isn’t a stunning achievement in adaptation, I don’t know what is.

But to fixate on “The Two Towers” is to miss another minor injustice. In Hollywood the year 2002 will be remembered for many things, not least of which is Steven Spielberg’s annus mirabilis.

The ‘90s were an uneven period for Spielberg and his productivity was lacking: He made only six films in ten years. But in 2002 he made two very, very good movies. The double of Minority Report and “Catch Me If You Can” is as good as any in recent memory—certainly more impressive than Steven Soderbergh’s ballyhooed 2000 pair, “Erin Brockovich” and “Traffic.” It has been a long time since a director accomplished what Spielberg did in 2002, yet he has been ignored by the Academy again, garnering a paltry three nominations for his work.

By contrast, two Miramax movies, “Chicago” and “The Hours,” received a combined 22 nominations.

No one is going to cry for Steven Spielberg, of course. If he feels blue about the Oscars, he can always buy Rob Marshall and force him to dance naked in the Spielberg mansion money room.

Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.

==============================

The Matrix Revolutions / *** (R)

November 5, 2003

Neo: Keanu Reeves

Morpheus: Laurence Fishburne

Niobe: Jada Pinkett Smith

Trinity: Carrie-Anne Moss

The Architect: Helmut Bakaitis

Agent Smith: Hugo Weaving

The Oracle: Mary Alice

Persephone: Monica Bellucci

Lock Harry J. Lennix

Bane Ian Bliss

Mifune Nathaniel Lees

Warner Bros. presents a film written and directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Running time: 130 minutes. Rated R (for sci-fi violence and brief sexual content).

BY ROGER EBERT

My admiration for “The Matrix Revolutions” is limited only by the awkward fact that I don’t much give a damn what happens to any of the characters. If I cared more about Neo, Morpheus, Niobe and the others, there’d be more fire in my heart. But my regard is more for the technical triumph of the movie, less for the emotions it evokes. Neo is no more intended to have deep psychological realism than Indiana Jones, but the thing is, I liked Indy and hoped he got out in one piece — while my concern about Neo has been jerked around by so many layers of whether he’s real or not, and whether he’s really doing what he seems to be doing, that finally I measure my concern for him not in affection but more like the score in a video game.

Consider too the apocalyptic battle scene of the movie, as the vast, mechanical, all too symbolic screw of the Machines penetrates the dome of Zion and unleashes the Sentinels, nasty whiplashing octopi. The humans fight back by climbing into fearsome robotic fighting machines, so their muscles control more powerful muscles made of steel and cybernetics. Each of their surrogate arms ends in a mighty machinegun that sprays limitless streams of ammo at the enemy.

It’s all well done in a technical way (the computer-generated special effects are awesome), but I’m thinking: (a) The Machines use machines, so shouldn’t the humans be fighting back in a more human manner? and then (b) But it’s silly of me to think in this way, because neither the humans or Machines are really there, and what we’re seeing are avatars in a computer program. Who wins the battle wins the world, but the world is not what we see; what we see is a projection of the cyber-reality of the Matrix.

Or is it? See, that’s where I get confused. Do humans have a separate physical reality and did they really construct Zion, that city buried deep within the earth, and is it really there, made of molecules and elements? Because if they do and if they did, then why don’t the Machines just nuke them?

Why all the slithering mechanical octopi? And why, in a society that is unimaginably advanced over our own, are machineguns still used, anyway? So it would seem that the battle is a virtual battle, not a real one, and that impression is reinforced by the way the laws of physics seem to be on hold; as Niobe and Morpheus race to the rescue in their speeding ship, for example, it bounces off the walls and sheds so many vital parts that if it were a real ship, it would have crashed.

I am sure my information is flawed. No doubt I will get countless e-mails explaining or demonstrating my ignorance in tiresome detail. But the thing is: A movie should not depend on the answers to questions like this for its effect. The first “Matrix” was the best because it really did toy with the conflict between illusion and reality — between the world we think we inhabit, and its underlying nature. The problem of “Matrix Reloaded” and “Matrix Revolutions” is that they are action pictures that are forced to exist in a world that undercuts the reality of the action.

There is, to be sure, the movie’s underlying philosophy, but this grows more underwhelming as the series continues. When Neo finally sits down with the Oracle (Mary Alice) and demands the 411, what he gets is about what you’d pay 50 bucks for from a storefront Tarot reader. When the dust has settled and we all look back on the trilogy from a hype-free zone, we’ll realize that the first movie inspired its fans to imagine that astonishing philosophical revelations would be made, and the series hasn’t been able to live up to those anticipations. Maybe that would have been impossible. No matter how luridly the barker describes the wonders inside his tent, it’s always just another sideshow.

Still, in a basic and undeniable sense, this is a good movie, and fans who have earned their credit hours with the first two will want to see this one and graduate. To the degree that I was able to put aside my questions, forget logic, disregard continuity problems and immerse myself in the moment, “The Matrix Revolutions” is a terrific action achievement. Andy and Larry Wachowski have concluded their trilogy with all barrels blazing. Their final apocalypse in the bowels of the Earth plays like “Metropolis” on steroids. There are sights here to stir the sense of wonder, and a marriage between live action and special effects that is about as good as these things get in the movies.

It’s a rich irony that the story is about humans occupying a world generated by computers, and the movie consists of actors occupying a world also created by computers. Neo may or may not exist in a universe created by computers, but Keanu Reeves certainly does.

Note: “The Matrix Reloaded” was notable for the number of key characters who are black; this time, what we notice is how many strong women there are. Two women operate a bazooka team, Niobe flies the ship, the women have muscles, they kick ass, and this isn’t your grandmother’s Second Sex anymore.

==============================

Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World / **** (PG-13)

November 14, 2003

Capt. Jack Aubrey: Russell Crowe

Dr. Stephen Maturin: Paul Bettany

Lord Blakeney: Max Pirkis

Barrett Bonden: Billy Boyd

Lt. Thomas Pullings: James D’Arcy

Mr. Hogg: Mark Lewis Jones

Marine Capt. Howard: Chris Larkin

Mr. Higgins: Richard McCabe

Mr. Allen Robert Pugh

Twentieth Century Fox/Universal/Miramax presents a film directed by Peter Weir. Written by Weir and John Collee. Based on the novels by Patrick O’Brian. Running time: 139 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for intense battle sequences, related images and brief language).

BY ROGER EBERT

Peter Weir’s “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World” is an exuberant sea adventure told with uncommon intelligence; we’re reminded of well-crafted classics before the soulless age of computerized action. Based on the beloved novels of Patrick O’Brian, it re-creates the world of the British navy circa 1805 with such detail and intensity that the sea battles become stages for personality and character. They’re not simply swashbuckling — although they’re that, too, with brutal and intimate violence.

The film centers on the spirits of two men, Capt. Jack Aubrey and ship’s surgeon Stephen Maturin. Readers of O’Brian’s 20 novels know them as friends and opposites — Aubrey, the realist, the man of action; Maturin, more intellectual and pensive. Each shares some of the other’s qualities, and their lifelong debate represents two sides of human nature. There’s a moment in “Master and Commander” when Maturin’s hopes of collecting rare biological specimens are dashed by Aubrey’s determination to chase a French warship, and the tension between them at that moment defines their differences.

Aubrey, captain of HMS Surprise, is played by Russell Crowe as a strong but fair leader of men, a brilliant strategist who is also a student, but not a coddler, of his men. He doesn’t go by the books; his ability to think outside the envelope saves the Surprise at one crucial moment and wins a battle at another. Maturin is played by Paul Bettany, who you may recall as Crowe’s imaginary roommate in “A Beautiful Mind.” He’s so cool under pressure that he performs open-skull surgery on the deck of the Surprise (plugging the cranial hole with a coin), and directs the removal of a bullet from his own chest by looking in a mirror. But his passion is biology, and he is onboard primarily because the navy will take him to places where there are beetles and birds unknown to science.

The story takes place almost entirely onboard the Surprise, a smaller vessel outgunned by its quarry, the French warship Acheron. Using an actual ship at sea and sets in the vast tank in Baja California where scenes from “Titanic” were shot, Weir creates a place so palpable we think we could find our own way around. It is a very small ship for such a large ocean, living conditions are grim, some of the men have been shanghaied on board, and one of the junior officers is 13 years old. For risking their lives, the men are rewarded with an extra tot of grog, and feel well-paid. There are scenes at sea, including the rounding of Cape Horn, which are as good or better as any sea journey ever filmed, and the battle scenes are harrowing in their closeness and ferocity; the object is to get close enough in the face of withering cannon fire to board the enemy vessel and hack its crew to death.

There are only two major battle scenes in the movie (unless you count the storms of the cape as a battle with nature). This is not a movie that depends on body counts for its impact, but on the nature of life on board such a ship. Maturin and Aubrey sometimes relax by playing classical duets, the captain on violin, the doctor on cello, and this is not an affectation but a reflection of their well-rounded backgrounds; their arguments are as likely to involve philosophy as strategy.

The reason that O’Brian’s readers are so faithful (I am one) is because this friendship provides him with a way to voice and consider the unnatural life of a man at sea: By talking with each other, the two men talk to us about the contest between man’s need to dominate, and his desire to reflect.

There is time to get to know several members of the crew. Chief among them is young Lord Blakeney (Max Pirkis), the teenager who is actually put in command of the deck during one battle. Boys this young were often at sea, learning in action (Aubrey was not much older when he served under Nelson), and both older men try to shape him in their images. With Maturin he shares a passion for biology, and begins a journal filled with sketches of birds and beetles they encounter. Under Aubrey he learns to lead men, to think clearly in battle. Both men reveal their characters in teaching the boy, and that is how we best grow to know them.

There is a sense here of the long months at sea between the dangers, of loneliness and privation on “this little wooden world.” One subplot involves an officer who comes to be considered bad luck — a Jonah — by the men. Another involves the accidental shooting of the surgeon.

There is a visit to the far Galapagos, where Darwin would glimpse the underlying engines of life on earth. These passages are punctuation between the battles, which depend more on strategy than firepower — as they must, if the Surprise is to stand against the dangerous French ship. Aubrey’s charge is to prevent the French from controlling the waters off Brazil, and although the two-ship contest in “Master and Commander” is much scaled down from the fleets at battle in O’Brian’s original novel, The Far Side of the World, that simply brings the skills of individual men more into focus.

“Master and Commander” is grand and glorious, and touching in its attention to its characters. Like the work of David Lean, it achieves the epic without losing sight of the human, and to see it is to be reminded of the way great action movies can rouse and exhilarate us, can affirm life instead of simply dramatizing its destruction.

==============================

The Haunted Mansion / **1/2 (PG)

November 26, 2003

Jim Evers: Eddie Murphy

Sara Evers: Marsha Thomason

Master Gracey: Nathaniel Parker

Madame Leota: Jennifer Tilly

Ramsley: Terence Stamp

Ezer: Wallace Shawn

Walt Disney presents a film directed by Rob Minkoff. Written by David Berenbaum. Running time: 99 minutes. Rated PG (for frightening images, thematic elements and language).

BY ROGER EBERT

The surprising thing about “The Haunted Mansion” isn’t that it’s based on a Disney theme park ride, but that it has ambition. It wants to be more than a movie version of the ride. I expected an inane series of nonstop action sequences, but what I got was a fairly intriguing story and an actual plot that is actually resolved. That doesn’t make the movie good enough to recommend, but it makes it better than the ads suggest.

The movie stars Eddie Murphy as Jim Evers, workaholic Realtor(TM), who is headed for a weekend vacation with his family when they get sidetracked by the chance to put a vast old mansion on the market. His wife, Sara (Marsha Thomason), is his business partner, but complains, as all movie wives always complain, that her husband is spending too much time at work. Their kids are Michael and Megan (Marc John Jefferies and Aree Davis).

Evers (or more accurately his wife, whose photo appears on their flyers) is invited to visit the Gracey Mansion, isolated behind a forbidding iron gate and surrounded by a jungle of sinister vegetation.

It’s a triumph of art direction, inspired by the Disney World attraction and by every haunted house ever crept through by Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Abbott, Costello, et al. Doors bulge, curtains sway, and there’s a scenic graveyard behind the house, complete with four marble busts that perform as a barbershop quartet.

The visitors are greeted by the butler Ramsley (Terence Stamp), gaunt, cadaverous, with a voice that coils up from unimaginable inner caverns. Also on staff are servants Ezer (Wallace Shawn, looking his most homuncular) and Emma (Dina Waters, simpering over). On the premises but not exactly in residence is Madame Leota (Jennifer Tilly), whose disembodied head floats in a crystal ball and offers timely if disturbing advice.

The lord of the manor is Master Gracey (Nathaniel Parker), who seems obsessed with Sara Evers. Flashbacks explain why. In antebellum New Orleans, Gracey was in love with a young woman who looked exactly like Sara, and when they could not marry, they both killed themselves. Which means Gracey is a ghost, of course, but leaves unanswered the question of why he could not marry the ghost of his original lover and stop haunting respectable married Realtors(TM).

The movie’s most intriguing element is the way it does and doesn’t deal with the buried racial theme. We learn that the sinister Ramsley sabotaged his master’s romance because if he married, the family would be destroyed. Presumably that would be because an interracial romance was dangerous in old New Orleans, but the movie never says so and indeed never refers to the races of any of its characters. That is either (a) refreshing and admirable, or (b) puzzling, since the whole plot is motivated by race.

The story, in any event, gives the characters a lot to deal with, which means we are not relegated to a movie full of banging doors, swinging chandeliers and other ghostly effects. There are a lot of those, of course, especially as the kids make their own way around the gloomy pile, but there is a certain poignancy about the central dilemma, and the Gracey character reflects it well, eventually answering one of the questions posed above, although I will not say which one.

The movie doesn’t quite work, maybe because the underlying theme is an uneasy fit with the silly surface. Murphy is not given much to do; he’s the straight man, in a story involving his wife and ghosts. If anyone steals the movie, it’s Stamp, who must have been studying Hammer horror films for years, and puts the ham back into Hammer. “The Haunted Mansion” won’t much entertain older family members, but it might be fun for kids and seems headed for a long run on home video.

==============================

Great Movies: The first 100

May 28, 2000

BY ROGER EBERT

Every other week I visit a film classic from the past and write about it. My “Great Movies” series began in the autumn of 1996 and now reaches a landmark of 100 titles with today’s review of Federico Fellini’s “8 1/2,” which is, appropriately, a film about a film director. I love my job, and this is the part I love the most.

We have completed the first century of film. Too many moviegoers are stuck in the present and recent past. When people tell me that “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” or “Total Recall” are their favorite films, I wonder: Have they tasted the joys of Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa? If they like Ferris Bueller, what would they think of Jacques Tati’s “Mr. Hulot’s Holiday,” also about a strange day of misadventures? If they like “Total Recall,” have they seen Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis,” also about an artificial city ruled by fear?

I ask not because I am a film snob. I like to sit in the dark and enjoy movies. I think of old films as a resource of treasures. Movies have been made for 100 years, in color and black and white, in sound and silence, in wide-screen and the classic frame, in English and every other language. To limit yourself to popular hits and recent years is like being Ferris Bueller but staying home all day.

I believe we are born with our minds open to wonderful experiences, and only slowly learn to limit ourselves to narrow tastes. We are taught to lose our curiosity by the bludgeon-blows of mass marketing, which brainwash us to see “hits,” and discourage exploration.

I know that many people dislike subtitled films, and that few people reading this article will have ever seen a film from Iran, for example. And yet a few weeks ago at my Overlooked Film Festival at the University of Illinois, the free kiddie matinee was “Children of Heaven,” from Iran. It was a story about a boy who loses his sister’s sneakers through no fault of his own, and is afraid to tell his parents. So he and his sister secretly share the same pair of shoes. Then he learns of a footrace where third prize is . . . a pair of sneakers.

“Anyone who can read at the third-grade level can read these subtitles,” I told the audience of 1,000 kids and some parents. “If you can’t, it’s OK for your parents or older kids to read them aloud—just not too loudly.”

The lights went down and the movie began. I expected a lot of reading aloud. There was none. Not all of the kids were old enough to read, but apparently they were picking up the story just by watching and using their intelligence. The audience was spellbound. No noise, restlessness, punching, kicking, running down the aisles. Just eyes lifted up to a fascinating story. Afterward, we asked kids up on the stage to ask questions or talk about the film. What they said indicated how involved they had become.

Kids. And yet most adults will not go to a movie from Iran, Japan, France or Brazil. They will, however, go to any movie that has been plugged with a $30 million ad campaign and sanctified as a “box-office winner.” Yes, some of these big hits are good, and a few of them are great. But what happens between the time we are 8 and the time we are 20 that robs us of our curiosity? What turns movie lovers into consumers? What does it say about you if you only want to see what everybody else is seeing?

I don’t know. What I do know is that if you love horror movies, your life as a filmgoer is not complete until you see “Nosferatu.” I know that once you see Orson Welles appear in the doorway in “The Third Man,” you will never forget his curious little smile. And that the life and death of the old man in “Ikiru” will be an inspiration every time you remember it.

I have not written any of the 100 Great Movies reviews from memory. Every film has been seen fresh, right before writing. When I’m at home, I often watch them on Sunday mornings. It’s a form of prayer: The greatest films are meditations on why we are here. When I’m on the road, there’s no telling where I’ll see them. I saw “Written on the Wind” on a cold January night at the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead, north of London. I saw “Last Year at Marienbad” on a DVD on my PowerBook while at the Cannes Film Festival. I saw “2001: A Space Odyssey” in 70mm at Cyberfest, the celebration of HAL 9000’s birthday, at the University of Illinois. I saw “Battleship Potemkin” projected on a sheet on the outside wall of the Vickers Theater in Three Oaks, Mich., while three young musicians played the score they had written for it. And Ozu’s “Floating Weeds” at the Hawaii Film Festival, as part of a shot-by-shot seminar that took four days.

When people asked me where they should begin in looking at classic films, I never knew what to say. Now I can say, “Plunge into these Great Movies, and go where they lead you.”

There’s a next step. If you’re really serious about the movies, get together with two or three friends who care as much as you do. Watch the film all the way through on video. Then start again at the top. Whenever anyone sees anything they want to comment on, freeze the frame. Talk about what you’re looking at. The story, the performances, the sets, the locations. The camera movement, the lighting, the composition, the special effects. The color, the shadows, the sound, the music. The themes, the tone, the mood, the style.

There are no right answers. The questions are the point. They make you an active movie watcher, not a passive one. You should not be a witness at a movie, but a collaborator. Directors cannot make the film without you. Together, you can accomplish amazing things. The more you learn, the quicker you’ll know when the director is not doing his share of the job. That’s the whole key to being a great moviegoer. There’s nothing else to it.

All 100 Great Movies are at www.suntimes.com/ebert, and on CompuServe.

==============================

• 8 1/2

• THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD

• AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD

• ALI: FEAR EATS THE SOUL

• ALL ABOUT EVE

• ALIEN

• AMADEUS

• ANNIE HALL

• THE APARTMENT

• APOCALYPSE NOW

• THE APU TRILOGY

• THE BANK DICK

• THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN

• BEAT THE DEVIL

• BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

• BEING THERE

• BELLE DE JOUR

• THE BICYCLE THIEF

• THE BIG SLEEP

• BIRTH OF A NATION (PART I)

• BIRTH OF A NATION (PART II)

• BLOWUP

• THE BLUE KITE

• BODY HEAT

• BOB LE FLAMBEUR

• BONNIE AND CLYDE

• BREATHLESS

• THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

• THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI

• BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA

• BROKEN BLOSSOMS

• CASABLANCA

• CHILDREN OF PARADISE

• CHINATOWN

• A CHRISTMAS STORY

• CITIZEN KANE

• CITY LIGHTS

• THE CONVERSATION

• CRIES AND WHISPERS

• DAY FOR NIGHT

• DAYS OF HEAVEN

• THE DECALOGUE

• DETOUR

• THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE

• DON’T LOOK NOW

• DO THE RIGHT THING

• DR. STRANGELOVE

• DOUBLE INDEMNITY

• DRACULA

• DUCK SOUP

• THE EARRINGS OF MADAME de ....

• E.T — THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL

• THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL

• FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER

• FARGO

• FILMS OF BUSTER KEATON

• THE FIREMEN’S BALL

• FIVE EASY PIECES

• FLOATING WEEDS

• THE 400 BLOWS

• GATES OF HEAVEN

• THE GENERAL

• THE GODFATHER

• GOLDFINGER

• GONE WITH THE WIND

• THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

• GOODFELLAS

• GRAND ILLUSION

• THE GRAPES OF WRATH

• GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES

• GREAT EXPECTATIONS

• GREED

• A HARD DAY’S NIGHT

• HOOP DREAMS

• HOUSE OF GAMES

• THE HUSTLER

• IKIRU

• IN COLD BLOOD

• IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE

• JAWS

• JFK

• JULIET OF THE SPIRITS

• KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS

• KING KONG

• L’ATALANTE

• L’AVVENTURA

• LA DOLCE VITA

• THE LADY EVE

• THE LAST LAUGH

• LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD

• LAURA

• LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

• LE BOUCHER

• LE SAMOURAI

• THE LEOPARD

• THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP

• M

• THE MALTESE FALCON

• MANHATTAN

• McCABE & MRS. MILLER

• MEAN STREETS

• METROPOLIS

• MON ONCLE

• MOONSTRUCK

• MR. HULOT’S HOLIDAY

• THE MUSIC ROOM

• MY DARLING CLEMENTINE

• MY DINNER WITH ANDRE

• MY LIFE TO LIVE

• MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO

• NASHVILLE

• NETWORK

• NIGHT OF THE HUNTER

• NIGHTS OF CABIRIA

• NOSFERATU

• NOTORIOUS

• ON THE WATERFRONT

• ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST

• ORPHEUS

• PANDORA’S BOX

• PARIS, TEXAS

• THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC

• PATTON

• PEEPING TOM

• PERSONA

• PICKPOCKET

• PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK

• PINOCCHIO

• PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES

• THE PRODUCERS

• PSYCHO

• PULP FICTION

• RAGING BULL

• RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

• RAISE THE RED LANTERN

• RAN

• RASHOMON

• REAR WINDOW

• RED RIVER

• RIFIFI

• THE RIGHT STUFF

• ROMEO AND JULIET

• SANTA SANGRE

• SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER

• SAY ANYTHING

• SCARFACE

• SCHINDLER’S LIST

• THE SEARCHERS

• THE SEVEN SAMURAI

• THE SEVENTH SEAL

• SHANE

• THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION

• THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

• SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN

• SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS

• SOLARIS

• SOME LIKE IT HOT

• STAR WARS

• STROSZEK

• SUNDAY IN THE COUNTRY

• SUNSET BOULEVARD

• SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS

• SWING TIME

• A TALE OF WINTER

• TAXI DRIVER

• THE THIN MAN

• THE THIRD MAN

• THIS IS SPINAL TAP

• ‘THREE COLORS’ TRILOGY

• TOKYO STORY

• TOUCH OF EVIL

• THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE

• TROUBLE IN PARADISE

• 12 ANGRY MEN

• 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

• UMBERTO D

• UN CHIEN ANDALOU

• UNFORGIVEN

• THE ‘UP’ DOCUMENTARIES

• VERTIGO

• WALKABOUT

• THE WILD BUNCH

• WINGS OF DESIRE

• THE WIZARD OF OZ

• WOMAN IN THE DUNES

• A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE

• WRITTEN ON THE WIND

• YANKEE DOODLE DANDY

• A YEAR OF THE QUIET SUN

• YELLOW SUBMARINE

==============================

Kieslowski’s Fundamentals: Values in ten acts (NRO, 031223)

“An attempt to return to elementary values destroyed by communism.” That’s how famed Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski describes his effort in Decalogue, a series of ten-hour films produced for and broadcast on Polish television in 1998-1999. Kieslowski, who died in 1996, was best known for The Double Life of Veronique (1991) and his Three Colors Trilogy (1993-1994), films that exhibit artistic prowess but whose stories are often obscure to the point of inaccessibility. With Decalogue, the scripts are leaner, the stories more approachable, and the issues — regarding meaning, fidelity, and providence — more inviting. On the big issues, including religious truth, Kieslowski himself was unsettled, and he embarked on a self-described quest: “what is the true meaning of life? Why get up in the morning? Politics doesn’t answer that.” Decalogue — now available on VHS and DVD, in Polish with English subtitles — is a crowning artistic achievement, an example of what film can teach us about who we are as human beings destined for, but habitually lapsing from, transcendence.

Kieslowski sets the quest for meaning in the context of powerful forces of erosion in modern society, especially the obsession with comprehensive scientific explanation and the reduction of human purpose and love to mere biology. The opening film, a reflection on the prohibition against false gods, puts a boy’s questions about death and the meaning of life between his father’s scientific materialism and his aunt’s faith in God. To his son’s question, “What is death?,” the father responds, “the heart stops beating.” Dissatisfied, the son persists and urges his father that he has left out the soul. In Kieslowski’s films, the debates are more than idle discussions; they figure prominently in the action of the drama. In this case, the father’s naïve trust in mathematical reasoning leads directly to tragedy.

The elimination of meaning and purpose from human life occurs not just when science overreaches its explanatory grasp, but also in our reduction of love to sex and sex to the mechanical satisfaction of appetite. “Decalogue VI,” on adultery, is a profound meditation on the vice of lust and on the difference between voyeuristic pleasure and human communion. A young man uses binoculars to spy on a sexually active woman in an apartment across from his own. When the woman finally learns of his observations, she toys with his affection, mocking his claim that his interest in her has moved beyond lust to something more. She seduces him, leaves him sexually spent with the admonition, “love, there is no such thing.” When the crestfallen young man disappears amid rumors that he has done himself bodily harm, she experiences remorse, and finds herself in his former position — looking for signs of the presence of someone with whom she now desires to communicate in a human and compassionate, rather than perfunctory and cruel, manner.

Kieslowski depicts lust as inordinate desire, not just for pleasure, but for the possession of what is not rightly one’s own. It is interconnected with a set of vices: jealousy, wrath, and pride. A married woman who has been sleeping with another man explains that she believes it is possible to love two persons. As she begins to describe what each man provides her, she pauses, reflects, and then shifts from self-justification to self-accusation: It is not right “to wish for everything; that’s pride.”

In another episode, “Decalogue IX” on coveting, a husband learns he has become impotent and, in his shame, urges his wife to take a lover. Reluctant at first, she begins an affair. Unwilling to accept what he initiated, the jealous husband becomes a humiliated and angry voyeur of his wife’s only adulterous meeting. But the wife is incapable of remaining unfaithful. Without knowing that her husband knows, she cuts off the affair. A series of miscommunications, of partial and misleading glimpses, ensues; the husband becomes despondent and sets himself on a grim, despairing course of action. The film moves toward a horrifying finale, but one that, even in the midst of great misery, contains a note of hope, gratitude that all is not lost. It is as if the characters have begun to learn the lesson the wife preaches to her husband early on: “The things we have are more important than the things we don’t have.”

The themes of gratitude and fidelity pervade the films and are often explicitly connected to the welcoming of children. The couple featured in “Decalogue IX,” realizing that they will no longer have the option of conceiving children, wonder whether their lives, their marriage, would have been different, better, if they had had children. Another man, overjoyed at the surprise of the conception of a child, asks his doctor, “Do you know what it means...to have a child?” The old man’s eyes cloud and he nods knowingly. We know what the expectant father does not: namely, that his doctor has suffered a family tragedy.

The stories can be appreciated independently of one another, but their cumulative emotional impact is palpable. In part, this is because the stories have the same setting, an economically depressed apartment complex in Warsaw. Kieslowski joked, “It’s the most beautiful housing estate in Warsaw, which is why I chose it. It looks pretty awful, so you can imagine what the others are like.” Contemporary films are rarely about ordinary folks or about the poor, whose lives reflect in immediate and dramatic fashion the vulnerability of the human condition. The very ordinariness of the lives in this particular setting lends a universal dimension to the stories in Decalogue. The multiple stories provide glimpses of the richness and depth that lie just beneath the surface of every human life. Kieslowski once said: “I believe the life of every person is worthy of scrutiny, containing its own secrets and dramas.”

Since at least the time of The Double Life of Veronique, Kieslowski has been preoccupied with doubleness, expressed artistically in the frequent use of reflections, in mirrors or windows, and images of individuals, blurred and refracted through glass. He also shows individuals looking through windows, through slits in closets, and through rain-soaked windows. Doubling symbolizes the divisions and conflicts within a character, the choice between two paths. It also represents the difficulty each of us encounters in trying to gain an adequate vision or knowledge of persons — the opaqueness of human motives and intentions. It also signifies the partial reflection of one life in another, the chance intersections, and parallel routes of different human stories. Here Kieslowski is at his most self-conscious, reflecting both on the art of filmmaking and on the experience of the viewer of films. He invites the audience to reflect upon its own experience of the lives presented in the Decalogue. Like the characters in the films — who watch one another with various degrees of insight and with emotional responses that range from malign indifference to sympathy — viewers themselves are capable of degrees of insight and sympathy. Kieslowski’s films offer a kind of pedagogy in the proper viewing of films.

Critics have noted that Kieslowski does not tie each episode tightly to an explicit commandment; some critics go so far as to describe the films as “sardonic riffs” on the Commandments. It’s hard to know whether that reveals a greater misunderstanding of the Commandments or of Kieslowski’s films. Kieslowski’s own comments about this topic are considerably more interesting: “The relationship between the films and the individual commandments is a tentative one. The films should be influenced by the individual commandments to the same degree that the Commandments influence our daily lives.” This suggests that there are layers to these films, and that deeper understanding will come not just from careful viewing but from living a certain way of life. Characters in these films are caught in what the current (Polish) Pope has described as a struggle between the cultures of death and of life. It is striking that pictures of the Pope figure prominently, and he is the only person identified as knowing what the meaning of human life is.

Critics also see the films in terms of complex moral dilemmas. This is true, but superficial. Choices are crucial, but they are not the sole determinants of the contours of the drama. The shape of things involves a mysterious confluence of what’s within our control and what lies beyond it. The orchestration of events in a benevolent, if still obscure, direction suggests a providential structure to human life. At their best, these films are about the mediation of the divine in and through sensible realities, and about the sacramental bonds of human community, especially in marriage and the rearing of children. These themes crystallize in the remarkable ending of the first film, in which familial loss drives a man to rage, despair, and church. There he vents his anger at God and then collapses in sobs before an icon of the Virgin Mary, an icon that weeps tears of sorrow and mercy.

— Thomas Hibbs is author of Shows About Nothing.

==============================

Finding Nemo, Losing Fear (NRO, 031230)

2003’s best movie vs. the precautionary principle.

Many thousands of children and their parents were entranced this year by Pixar’s excellent movie Finding Nemo, whose combination of inventiveness, comedy, and emotion made it an early candidate for the Best Picture Oscar (though given last year’s precedent, Best Documentary should not be beyond its grasp). Yet it contributed something to the world besides making so many people happy. It is one of the most powerful statements in a long time against a pernicious and retrograde idea that has enthused regulators and nanny statists all over the world.

That idea is the so-called “precautionary principle,” which, broadly speaking, says that no new technology should come into use unless we are certain that it will do no harm to life or the environment. The European Union is so enthusiastic about this idea that it is not only looking to enshrine the principle in its proposed constitution, but is even thinking of applying it retroactively, by testing chemicals that have been in everyday use for centuries to see whether they are safe enough by today’s standards. A moment’s thought reveals the precautionary principle to be an insidious idea: If applied throughout history, it would have left us trapped in caves, without tools or fire. It is a worldview that sees any risk as unacceptable, even if this condemnation costs us the chance to progress.

It was therefore delightful to see this view challenged constantly throughout Finding Nemo. The story is about a clownfish, Marlin, and his son, Nemo, the only survivor of a barracuda attack that killed Nemo’s mother and siblings. As a result of the tragedy, Marlin has become overprotective of his son. But when Nemo is captured by an Australian diver on his first day at school, Marlin must leave the safety of his anemone and brave the vastness of the ocean — with its sharks, currents, and fearsome anglerfish — to rescue his son. In the course of his adventures, he meets Dory, a kindly blue tang with short-term memory loss, whose boundless optimism ultimately gives him the strength to get to Sydney and be reunited with his son.

Dory’s optimism provides many of the film’s funniest and most poignant moments. In a pivotal scene, she and Marlin are taken into a whale’s mouth, and when the whale prepares to blow them out, the water level decreases. Marlin exclaims in fear, “It’s already half-empty,” to which Dory replies, “Really? It looks half-full to me.” These conflicting viewpoints are clearly reflected in many real-world debates, including the one over global warming. The Marlins of the world are terrified that carbon dioxide will cause an apocalyptic temperature rise that will create droughts, floods, and deserts. The world’s Dories, however, see the rewards that modest temperature increases could bring, such as warmer winters in colder climes, and the already-demonstrated benefits of increased vegetation and reduced desert areas.

Later on, as the whale raises its tongue out of the water, Marlin clings on for dear life while Dory urges him to let go so the whale can blow them out. Marlin fears the whale intends to eat them and asks Dory, “How do you know something bad won’t happen?” “I don’t,” she replies, letting go. Marlin realizes the wisdom in her words, and lets go too.

When presented with an opportunity that entails risks, we don’t know whether something bad might happen. The precautionary, Marlinesque approach, however, presumes that something bad will happen, so nothing ever gets done. During the same whale scene, Marlin tells Dory that he promised Nemo that he would never let anything bad happen to him. Dory comments, “What a funny thing to promise. Then, nothing will ever happen to him.” Once again, Dory’s wisdom illuminates many current issues in science, technology, and the environment. If we do not take risks, we cannot advance. Sometimes we need to leap into the dark. The fact that it is dark does not mean the leap may not be worth it.

In the DVD edition, the film’s director, Andrew Stanton, comments that “the movie is about the battle of hope versus fear, optimism over pessimism; it’s half-full versus half-empty.... You can either hide in life or you can enter it, take your chances and engage.” The philosophies of Finding Nemo and the precautionary principle stand in stark opposition to each other — which makes the movie’s popularity very good news.

Iain Murray is a senior fellow in the International Policy Group at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

==============================

The Good “Dr.”: The liberal who wrote a great conservative book (NRO, 031121)

EDITOR’S NOTE: March 2, 2004, marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the man who would become known as “Dr. Seuss.” John J. Miller originally wrote about The Cat in the Hat for NRO on November 21, 2003.

Hey moms and dads: Bet you don’t know what Dr. Seuss really thought about his most famous book, The Cat in the Hat — the basis for this weekend’s big movie opening. “I’m subversive as hell,” Seuss once said. “The Cat in the Hat is a revolt against authority. ... It’s revolutionary in that it goes as far as Kerensky, and then stops. It doesn’t go quite as far as Lenin.”

Russian-history refresher: Alexander Kerensky was an ineffective revolutionary dictator who preceded Lenin. He wasn’t a Commie, but he was a man of the far Left — and not exactly a champion of freedom.

Happily, America’s most celebrated children’s author was exaggerating. The only thing that’s even arguably “subversive” about The Cat in the Hat appears on its final two pages, following the raucous performance of the book’s title character, who has just cleaned up an extravagant mess and taken his leave.

Then our mother came in And she said to us two, “Did you have any fun? Tell me. What did you do?”

And Sally and I did not know

What to say.

Should we tell her

The things that went on there that day?

Perhaps keeping parents in the dark really is “a revolt against authority,” as Seuss claims. It probably depends on what children are hiding. I’ve always chosen to read those lines — dozens of times to my own kids, by the way — as suggesting a child doesn’t need to share every detail of his imagination with grown-ups. I’m perfectly comfortable with that, and any reasonable parent would be.

Yet Dr. Seuss — the pen name of Theodore Seuss Geisel, a non-doctor who died in 1991 — had politics in his bones. He came from a family of Republicans, but turned into an FDR Democrat in the 1930s and never looked back. He infused his books with liberal messages on everything from environmentalism to arms control, especially during the last quarter century of his life — though one of his lesser-known books is also deeply conservative and deserving of a revival.

Seuss’s first public foray into politics came as a cartoonist for PM, a left-wing daily newspaper in New York, during the Second World War. He savaged all the right people: Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. His caricatures of Hirohito — slit-eyed and buck-toothed — probably would be called racist today by the grievance industry; they are certainly forceful. More than 200 of his cartoons from this era were published several years ago in a collection called Dr. Seuss Goes to War. All of them are recognizably Seussian — the “art” in his children’s books are really just zany cartoons — and many of them have a kind of relevance today. My favorite ran a few months before Pearl Harbor. A bright-eyed nincompoop labeled “The Appeaser” stands on a rock holding four lollypops. Sea monsters wearing swastika tattoos surround him. “Remember,” says the man with a dumb smile, “One More Lollypop, and Then You All Go Home!” The picture is rooted in its time, but remains pertinent today because the problem of appeasement is ever with us.

Seuss held a special animus for the America First crowd of antiwar isolationists, and especially for Charles Lindbergh. He once drew a “Lindbergh Quarter” — it’s an ostrich jabbing its head in the sand. He also wrote a bit of verse, which was not published but appears in a 1995 biography, Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel, by Judith and Neil Morgan:

The Lone Eagle had flown The Atlantic alone With fortitude and a ham sandwich. Great courage that took. But he shivered and shook At the sound of the gruff German landgwich.

If this is liberalism, it’s a liberalism many of us modern-day conservatives can embrace. The same goes for a few of Seuss’s better-known children’s books. Yertle the Turtle (1958) is an anti-authoritarian parable. Its final lines apply as much to Saddam Hussein as they once did to the European fascists:

And today the great Yertle, that Marvelous he, Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see. And the turtles, of course ... all turtles are free As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be.

Another book, The Sneetches and Other Stories (1961), contains four tales. Each one is a plea for racial tolerance, continuing a theme Seuss explored during the war with cartoons urging full use of “colored labor” and railing against anti-Semitism. The stories are also amusing, with their meaning embedded inside a delightfully breezy anapestic tetrameter verse (two unstressed syllables followed by a stressed one, with four beats to the line) that Seuss employed to such wonderful effect throughout his career.

But that is not all. Oh no, that is not all (as the Cat in the Hat might say).

Over time, Seuss’s stories became more strident. One of his most famous books, The Lorax (1971), remains a favorite of liberal environmentalists. In the tale, the Lorax, who “speaks for the trees,” delivers a stern lecture to the Once-ler, a greedy industrialist:

Your machinery chugs on, day and night without stop making Gluppity-Glupp. Also Schloppity-Schlopp. And what do you do with this leftover goo? I’ll show you. You dirty old Once-ler man you! You’re glumping the pond where the Humming-fish hummed! No more can they hum, for their gills are all gummed.

And so on. Now, I happen to love these lines — “Schloppity-Schlopp” is a bit of doggerel genius. At bottom, however, the book is a not-so-subtle attack on capitalism. (Go here to learn from Seuss’s publisher how you can “Celebrate Earth Day with the Lorax.”)

The next year, Seuss published Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now! Like The Cat in the Hat, it’s an early-reader book meant for kids who are just getting started:

The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! I don’t care how. ... Marvin K. Mooney, I don’t care how. Marvin K. Mooney, will you please GO NOW!

Here’s how the Morgans describe the book’s political legacy in their biography: “In the spring of 1974, as the Watergate scandal neared its climax, Ted met the satirist Art Buchwald at the San Diego Zoo, and they became mutually admiring friends.” Soon after, Buchwald dared Seuss to write a political book. Eager to comply, Seuss “grabbed a copy of Marvin K. Mooney and, with a few strokes of a pen, deleted each mention of that name and substituted the name of the president.” On July 30, Buchwald’s syndicated column was based on Seuss’s revisions: “Richard M. Nixon, will you please go now!” Nine days later, Nixon really did go — he resigned — and Seuss was delighted. “We should have collaborated sooner,” he wrote to Buchwald.

His most political book of all, however, was yet to come. Again, let’s let the Morgans set the scene: “[Seuss] was brooding over the mounting cold war with the Soviet Union and believed that under Ronald Reagan the nuclear arms race was beyond control. Over dinner at La Valencia, he wondered out loud how a democratic government could impose ‘such deadly stupidity’ on people like him who were so opposed to nuclear proliferation.” Then he wrote The Butter Battle Book (1984), which his publicists earnestly declared to be “probably the most important book Dr. Seuss has ever created.” Seuss himself called it “the best book I’ve ever written.”

The story describes a conflict between the blue-suited Yooks, who prefer to eat their bread with the “butter side up,” and orange-suited Zooks, who eat their bread with the “butter side down.” The Yooks and Zooks then embark on a perilous arms race. They build ever more menacing weapons, from the Triple-Sling Jigger to the Eight-Nozzled, Elephant-Toted Boom-Blitz, and finally the Bitsy Big-Boy Boomeroo, which is basically a pea-sized weapon of mass destruction. At the ambiguous conclusion, which recalls “The Lady or the Tiger,” both the Yooks and Zooks have the boomeroo and look ready to use it.

All of Seuss’s other books, including The Lorax, end on a hopeful note. The Butter Battle Book, alone, does not. It is also a perfect emblem of the moral equivalence that neutered so many liberals during the Cold War: It assumes that the half-century conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was based on nothing more meaningful than a dispute over how people prefer to butter their bread — as if Communism weren’t a threat to liberty, but an eating preference.

(Seuss did meet Reagan once, when he and his wife were guests at a state dinner. The story, as related by the Morgans, is wonderful because it is vintage Reagan: “[Seuss] was recalling with the president and television anchorman Tom Brokaw how he had rejected Lieutenant Ronald Reagan forty years earlier as narrator for the wartime film Your Job in Germany. Reagan had not forgotten. ‘But you were right,’ the president said with an engaging smile. ‘John Beal did have a better voice.’”)

So what are conservatives to do with Seuss? I say read him, because most of his books are incredible fun — but also choose wisely. My favorite Seuss book is one that many people don’t know about: I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew (1965). Seuss may not have realized it, but the theme of Solla Sollew is powerfully conservative.

Unfortunately, it was not Seuss’s most commercially successful book — sales were disappointing, even though it was written and issued during his heyday. The Morgan’s describe the book this way: “a somber morality tale, a Seussian Pilgrim’s Progress with the message that one can’t run away from trouble.” Yet it’s far deeper than that. In truth, Solla Sollew is a warning against what Eric Voegelin called immanentizing the eschaton. Put in plain English: Don’t seek heaven on earth.

The unnamed narrator — one of Seuss’s typical cat-like creatures — joins an odd fellow on his way to the City of Solla Sollew, which is

On the banks of the beautiful River Wah-Hoo, Where they never have troubles! At least, very few.

It is, in short, Utopia. Trying to reach this impossible place, the narrator embarks on a series of misadventures, including an encounter with a loony knight who bellows, “I’m General Genghis Kahn Schmitz.” (“The finest line I have ever written,” Seuss once said.) Ultimately, he arrives at the outskirts of Solla Sollew — but he can’t get inside. It seems that a key has been lost. Everybody’s locked out. Frustrated, the city’s gatekeeper declares that he’s had enough:

And I’m off to the city of Boola Boo Ball On the banks of the beautiful River Woo-Wall, Where they never have troubles! No troubles at all!

Ah, yes: a place that’s even better than Utopia. By this time, of course, the narrator has caught on. He goes back home to confront his troubles rather than avoid them.

It’s a wonderful book with a beautiful message — and in Seuss’s liberal universe, perhaps even a subversive one.

==============================

Dr. Seuss, Sadist: Oh, the torture we’ll know! (NRO, 040302)

While many of you will spend Tuesday eating green eggs and ham and wearing tall, striped hats — this being the 100th birthday of the legendary Dr. Seuss — I will not be joining in the merriment. The reason: I hate Dr. Seuss.

I realize this puts me in limited company. I can hold my Mothers Against Seuss annual meeting in Colin Farrell’s bullet-riddled phone booth, along with another membership-challenged group, Republicans for Kucinich.

It’s just not a popular stance. But really, you should join us, if you love the English language, read a thesaurus for fun, and believe the King James Version is beautiful as is and shouldn’t be dumbed down in special editions for children.

My problem with Seuss (rest his soul) can be summed up in this sentence:

That mind of yours, I heard him say, Is frightfully ga-fluppted. Your mind is murky-mooshy!

Now, I have a pretty good dictionary by Webster, but ga-fluppted isn’t in there. And I can’t recommend that my 11-year-old son, upon hearing me read this story to his younger siblings, incorporate the term into his next essay on self-governance in Iraq. (Although frightfully ga-fluppted does seem to be an accurate description at this point in time.)

I always thought the point of reading to children was to teach them about language. How does Dr. Seuss help? Heck, he knew so few words that he had to make most of his up.

And so I sit on the couch, surrounded by trusting children whose brains (I fervently pray) are still developing, and try to be cheerful about the latest Seuss book that came home from the library. My audience of four — only three of whom can speak — has a question about every page.

“Mommy, what’s a wocket?”

“What’s a ziff?” “What’s a zuff?” “What’s a nerkle?”

I maintain a pleasant demeanor for a few pages, but when someone asks if we have a truffula tree, I lose it.

“I DON’T KNOW WHAT A TRUFFULA TREE IS!” I shriek. “I don’t know what any of this stuff is! Just let me finish the stinkin’ book!”

A few years into motherhood, I became increasingly suspicious about this Seuss fellow. A quick search of the Internet proved my dark hunch to be true: This exalted man, this icon of American childhood, had no children of his own!

So, of course, he could write phrases like “In my yellow socks, I box my Gox, I box in yellow, Gox box socks” and expect us to read it to our kids each night while he lounged about at the corner café. He didn’t have to do it himself!

Oh, how he must have laughed at us.

I think I know why he did it. Seuss — Theodor Geisel in reality — was a failed novelist, and we failed novelists are a bitter lot. Geisel’s first book, To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street, was rejected 43 times (by some pretty smart editors, I would say) before a friend took pity on him and published it.

In high school, Geisel drew cartoons under the pen name “Pete the Pessimist.”

Furthermore, Dr. Seuss was no doctor. To make a living during the Depression, he wrote jokes and drew cartoons. Once, he wrote a spoof on scientific developments, and as part of the joke, gave himself a doctorate using his middle name.

Oh, the deceit.

To be truthful (unlike Geisel), I must confess: I don’t hate all of his work. I like the Grinch. I can pronounce Grinch.

And Green Eggs and Ham has some literary merit.

Unfortunately, he didn’t stop there, inflicting 44 other books on us. And he wasn’t particularly nice about it, either. Here is a quote: “Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.”

See? He hated us!

Dr. Seuss’s real value, I believe, is in the realm of parody. Pick a topic, any topic, and you can find a Seuss-like parody of it on the web. (These courtesy of Seuss.org.)

If Dr. Seuss wrote computer training manuals:

If the address of the memory Makes your floppy disk abort, Then the socket packet pocket Has an error to abort!

If Dr. Seuss wrote E.R.:

Shep: This little boy has just been shot! His pulse is faint, his breath is weak, We did all we could to stop the leak! Riley: And this woman here, she has a broken hip.. Carol: How did she fall? How did she trip? Shep: This kid’s mom was getting in my hair So I shoved her — lightly — down some stairs!

If Dr. Seuss knew Al Gore:

Can we change these numbers here? Can we change them, calm my fears? What do you mean, George Dubya won? This is not fair, this is not fun! Let’s count them upside down this time! Let’s count them until the state is mine! I will not let this vote count stand! I do not like it! Gore I am!

There is Dr. Seuss on weddings. Dr. Seuss on Star Trek. Dr. Seuss on spam. There’s even Dr. Seuss on the Crucifixion (the Passion narrative voted most unlikely to be made into a movie.)

It inspires me to write my own:

Hey, maybe, I can put up with this nonsensical trash, Maybe Dr. Seuss I should not bash! I’ll stop the whining, I have avowed, Just please don’t make me read aloud!

— Jennifer Graham is a writer in Virginia. Complaints are welcome via Jennifergraham.com.

==============================

Saved! (Christianity Today, 040528)

review by Todd Hertz | posted 05/28/04

For over a year, evangelicals have feared Saved! would harshly attack them all as hypocritical, judgmental, and intolerant. The truth is, the movie is ultimately pro-faith and does make some perceptive criticisms of evangelicals. But not all is well.

The problem is a lack of balance between hypocritical, judgmental Christians and loving, accepting Christians. In fact, the movie almost exclusively shows two kinds of people—hypocritical, judgmental Christians who cause problems, and loving, accepting non-Christians who make things right.

The film is set at a Midwestern Baptist high school and centers on Mary (Jena Malone), a devoted Christian who says Jesus is the center of her life. When her boyfriend, Dean (Chad Faust), reveals he’s gay, Mary is so shocked she bumps her head. In a daze, she has a vision of Jesus telling her, “Dean needs you now. Do everything you can to help him.” Mary chooses to do this by sleeping with him.

Before Mary finds out whether her therapy worked, Dean’s parents learn of his sexual preference and sends him to Mercy House, a Christian rehab center specializing in “de-gayification.” Soon after, Mary discovers she’s pregnant and goes into a crisis of faith. How could God do this?

When other students find out her secret, they pour on the judgment and spite—especially the hypocritical holy-roller Hilary Faye (Mandy Moore). Mary finds support and compassion from the school’s only non-Christians: the Jewish Cassandra (Eva Amurri) and Hilary Faye’s wheelchair-bound brother Roland (Macaulay Culkin), who points out early on that he is not a Christian. The only Christian—although we don’t hear much about his faith—who shows any acceptance to the lost and disgruntled Mary is her cardboard love interest, Patrick (Patrick Fugit), the principal’s son.

For the most part, the basic idea behind Saved! is not all that offensive to Christians. It tries to document the journey of believers as they question faith, figure out its real meaning, and make it their own. The movie tries hard not to go after all Christians but instead points out that immature believers can easily miss Christ’s message entirely.

In doing this, the movie explores—and satires—the sometimes hateful and hypocritical ways some Christians treat homosexuals and anyone with apparent sin. In addition, Saved! pokes fun at the Christian bubble evangelicals can live in—presenting their own awards like “Best Christian Interior Decorator.” These criticisms are valid and could make some of us think about our behaviors—and that “bubble.”

In fact, a few of the film’s arguments will make Christians nod in agreement. When Dean is confronted by prejudice for being gay, he says, “I know in my heart Jesus still loves me.” Similarly, when Hilary Faye realizes she’s been hypocritical, she asks, “Do you think Jesus still loves me?” She’s told, yeah, he does.

The movie even ends on a faith-affirming note when Mary, surrounded by loved ones, admits she may have misunderstood what God wanted when it came to helping Dean. But she asks: “So what would Jesus do? I don’t know. But in the meantime, we’ll figure it out together.” Very well said.

The problem, though, is in the satire’s messiness, mostly resulting from poor filmmaking. It is pro-faith, but three miscues confuse things and undermine its messages.

First of all, it’s the non-Christians who exclusively provide all the lessons. For example, Cassandra’s the only person to lovingly embrace Mary when discovering her pregnancy; Hilary Faye just abducts her and performs a forced exorcism. And when Hilary Faye eventually learns her lesson, it is Roland—a non-Christian—who tells her Jesus still loves her.

Second, Hilary Faye is so exaggerated—without an equal foil—that the unintended message is, “All evangelicals are like this.” The point of the character is to show someone who doesn’t get true Christianity, but when she comically throws the Bible at someone and yells, “I’m full of Christ’s love,” it doesn’t say, “See, she doesn’t get it.” Instead, because there’s no alternative, it communicates that Christians are crazy. Saved! needs a strongly positive, level-headed, loving Christian—firm in his or her faith—in order to counteract Hilary Faye’s damage.

The third problem is that while spoofing Christians for not being tolerant enough, the movie’s alternative is simply this: If God let it happen or if you are happy, then how can it be wrong? This doesn’t translate well to a world that, as Saved! even tries to argue, isn’t black and white. It’s also dangerously confusing for believers in the Bible, a book that does specifically draw lines regarding moral behavior.

All this messiness is caused not only by poor filmmaking but also a general resentment. Several easy jokes and absurd stereotypes seem to stem purely from bitterness. Hilary Faye and Mary—inexplicably—fire guns at a shooting range. Scenes in the Christian school’s sex ed class are groan-worthy. And the movie’s Christians are almost universally naïve and cheesy. These jokes suggest someone behind Saved! was burned by the church, and this is their revenge—not purely an attempt to explore.

Any legitimate satire and social commentary in Saved! is blunted by this bitter malice and the messy connotations. But that’s fitting for a poorly made movie. It is rarely genuinely funny, the characters are wooden, and the isn’t clever or unique. The bright spot is the acting of Jena Malone who, in films like this and Life as a House, has shown real talent.

It is unfortunate the rest of the movie isn’t handled with as much talent or care, because Saved! could have been a gently-challenging but affirming movie about the evangelical subculture—if handled with the same love, acceptance and tolerance it preaches.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. How do the Christians in this film resemble or differ from Christians you know? How does the model of Christianity you see in your family, church and school stack up against how the Bible instructs Christians to live? How about the model of faith depicted in Saved!?

2. What direct criticisms or arguments about Christians in this movie made you angry? Which challenged you or made you think?

3. According to the movie, what does it mean to be saved? What does it mean to you? What does the Bible say?

4. The movie contends Christians need to be more accepting and tolerant of others. One character says, “If God meant us to be the same, why did he make us different?” Can you balance love and acceptance while standing against sin? How?

5. Mary has a crisis of faith. Is it understandable? What good comes of it? Should we raise questions about God? Why or why not?

The film’s distributor also has released its own Bible Study for youth groups based on the movie.

Related Elsewhere:

A ready-to-download, Bible-based discussion guide is available for this movie at ChristianBibleStudies.com. Use this guide after the movie to help you and your small group better connect your faith to pop culture.

The Family Corner For parents to consider

The movie is harsh on Christian teens. There’s a lot of swearing and discussions and jokes about sex. Sexual content includes Dean fondling Mary’s breasts (covered by a swimsuit). When they have sex, the camera focuses on the rocking bedside table. There’s also a weird Passion play scene where the boy playing Jesus is barely clothed and is overtly made to look sexy on the cross.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 09/19/02

Speaking of films that will potentially provoke strong reactions from Christian moviegoers, there’s a film in the works called Saved mentioned in the September 14 issue of The Vancouver Sun. It begins filming in Vancouver soon, with a cast that includes A Walk to Remember’s Mandy Moore, Home Alone’s Macaulay Culkin, Almost Famous’s Patrick Fugit, Jena Malone, Heather Matarazzo, Mary-Louise Parker, and other familiar faces. It’s being described as a “dark teen comedy” about a pregnant teenager suffering peer pressure from fellow Christian students at a Baptist high school. The film is produced by Michael Stipe of R.E.M., who described it as a sort of “monster vampire high school” movie, in which the monsters are “Jesus-freak teenagers.”

from Film Forum, 12/05/02

In other movie news, Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity), reports that a few Christian rock bands have turned down the invitation to have their work appear in a new movie called Saved. Their reason? The film seems designed to ridicule Christians as evangelical zombies hunting down saveable prey. The movie, produced by rock star Michael Stipe, stars Jena Malone (The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys) and Mandy Moore (A Walk to Remember.) Chattaway offers a plot summary and comments from the cast.

from Film Forum, 01/08/04

The film most likely to cause an outcry in the Christian press is called Saved. A satire about religious legalism, Saved takes place in the corridors of a Christian high school. The students are portrayed as something akin to zombies as they surround and try to redeem one of their fellow students who has become pregnant out of wedlock. Their condemnation and judgmentalism become the stuff of horror films. Mandy Moore (A Walk to Remember) plays the persecuted youth.

from Film Forum, 02/05/04

Mary (Jena Malone of Donnie Darko and Cold Mountain) is a senior at American Eagle Christian High School who finds herself stuck in a difficult circumstance. She believes passionately in Jesus. But now it seems her savior might have betrayed her.

Mary believes that she had a visitation from Jesus himself, and that he told her to “convert” her homosexual friend Dean (Chad Faust) into a heterosexual. The way she decides to do this is to seduce him and give up her virginity. Shockingly, this ploy fails. Mary gets pregnant, and Dean is shipped off to a camp where they will try to force the homosexuality out of him. Back in the corridors of the Christian high school, Mary now must face the persecution of her “righteous” classmates—a cruel, judgmental, and gay-hating crowd.

The worst of her persecutors, the prima donna of the school’s popular crowd, is Hilary Faye, a ruthlessly manipulative senior played by A Walk to Remember’s Mandy Moore. Hilary Faye is the lead singer of the school’s popular pop group—the Christian Jewels—and now she has turned against Mary, who is one of her backup singers. Meanwhile, the pop-singing egomaniac’s brother Roland (Macaulay Culkin of Home Alone and Party Monster), a cynic confined to a wheelchair, is taking a different path, pairing up with a disliked Jewish girl named Cassandra (Eva Amurri) and looking to rebel against his Christian community.

The situation is made worse by the fact that Mary’s mother (Mary-Louise Parker of TV’s The West Wing), reportedly the number one Christian interior decorator, has a crush on one of the teachers, Pastor Skip (Martin Donovan of Amateur). But Pastor Skip’s son Patrick (Patrick Fugit of Almost Famous) has designs on winning Mary’s heart.

Directed by Brian Dannelly from a script he wrote with Michael Urban, Saved! is certain to raise eyebrows and stoke the fires of moviegoer debate. The film reportedly ends up affirming the existence of a benevolent deity, but ends up suggesting that God wants Christians to give up any divisive convictions about sexual orientation and just become a more tolerant community that embraces everybody’s differences.

The film itself was embraced by audiences at the Sundance Film Festival. There is no word yet on when it will be distributed to a larger audience.

Mainstream film critics are already giving the film some applause. David Rooney (Variety) says the film “appears bound to ruffle the feathers of religious conservatives—and may have exhausted its Utah audience at Sundance. However, the spirited comedy ultimately kneels before an all-embracing deity, which could appease the God squad provided they get through all the wickedly funny zealot-bashing that comes first.”

Duane Byrge (Hollywood Reporter) calls it “an irreverent, punchy jab at the more hideous transgressions of fundamentalist Christianity. Its larkish style, combined with its anti-authoritarian bent should win some enthusiastic teen followers, as well as the Babble-onians of the Upper West Side and Hollywoodland. [But] this comedic jape delivers some sharp jabs at obvious targets, namely the boosterish excesses of American religiosity. Like the best of teen-set comedies, it lashes out at the ruling authority figures conspiring against the kids in this case, the most dominant influence at the Christian high school are the religious leaders. In Saved! … the adults are all idiots.”

Don R. Lewis (Film Threat) shows an appetite for religion-bashing satire in his review. He describes Saved as “a sweet and funny movie that starts off with bite but settles into an honest feeling of happiness and acceptance for all types of people and their choices.”

He explains that the film offers “a gentle exploration of why the judgments of the Catholic Church are so screwed up. Mary’s journey and decisions … make great food for thought … especially for those who feel the need to adhere to many antiquated Christian philosophies. I mean, wasn’t Jesus all about loving one another and not judging?”

But Mr. Lewis, haven’t you just gone and judged the Catholic Church? If you’re going to preach the embrace of everything and everybody, you’d better start practicing it.

He concludes, “[The movie] could change the attitudes of families who feel the need to be good Christians in this world that has drastically changed from when the guidebook was written.” (Perhaps Lewis believes that Scripture’s instruction— “Speak the truth in love.”—has become outdated. Perhaps he would prefer it be revised to say, “Conceal the truth so as not to offend anyone or to imply that some paths might be wiser than others.”)

Surely Christian communities have earned some of the jokes made at their expense. Clearly, the church is not entirely innocent on charges of judgmentalism and hypocrisy. But is the world really ready for the consequences of telling the church to surrender God’s wisdom—which Christ affirmed—about right and wrong?

Religious press critics have yet to see and review Saved! You can expect a volatile and heated discussion when the film eventually finds a larger audience either on the big screen or on DVD.

from Film Forum, 06/03/04

Almost exactly a year ago, Film Forum featured a survey of critics and readers regarding portrayals of Christians in film. Which were the most profound examples of Christians onscreen? Which were the most lamentable?

It is likely that Brian Dannelly’s satire Saved! could end up on both lists, depending on which viewer you ask.

Saved! portrays the Christian students of a strictly evangelical Christian high school. These Jesus-praising students have embraced a superficial, judgmental, legalistic form of Christianity that leads them to treat unbelievers and troubled peers with condescension, arrogance, and “intolerance.” When Mary (Jena Malone), one of the popular, outwardly pious Christian girls, finds herself pregnant after making a big mistake, she becomes a social outcast. Thus, she learns to sympathize with the other spiritual exiles in the corridors of the school—the wheelchair-bound cynic (Macaulay Culkin) and the Jewish girl (Eva Ammuri), who rejects this peer-pressure form of faith.

Most Christian film critics are appalled by the film, offended by the portrayal of Christians as judgmental, aggressively propagandistic, and condescending. Granted, Dannelly does tend to paint all Christians this way, betraying an unfortunate prejudice. But then again, the film does accurately reflect the un-Christlike behavior of certain sections of the church. Some Christians are speaking up that the film does reflect parts of Christian culture that they have personally experienced.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Todd Hertz (Christianity Today Movies) writes, “The truth is, the movie is ultimately pro-faith and does make some perceptive criticisms of evangelicals. But not all is well. The problem is a lack of balance between hypocritical, judgmental Christians and loving, accepting Christians. In fact, the movie almost exclusively shows two kinds of people—hypocritical, judgmental Christians who cause problems, and loving, accepting non-Christians who make things right.”

“While the film’s mocking tone and unflattering wall-to-wall stereotyping of fundamentalists will leave evangelicals feeling anything but enraptured, much of what passes as humor should leave an equally bad taste in the mouths of mainline Protestants and Catholics as well,” says David DiCerto (Catholic News Service). “But turning the critical cheek, Saved! does seem sincere in trying to remind viewers that religion can be twisted into something divisive rather than unifying, and can be used as an excuse for intolerance. The film also deserves credit for showing a young, unwed mother taking responsibility for her actions, rather than opting for the easy abortion route.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “The script has an obvious axe to grind regarding institutional Christianity and the actors are hamstrung into stereotypical behavior as a result.” He also looks at Mandy Moore’s character of Hilary Faye, concluding, “With a holier-than-thou attitude and a mind narrowed by pride and smugness, she represents what happens when love is removed from religion.” In conclusion, he admits, “I would be hypocritical myself to say that hypocrisy does not exist in the church. It does and it is fair game for satire and sarcasm. But Dannelly paints such a one-sided picture that his points, even if valid, lose their emphasis.”

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) says, “Dannelly claims that Saved! presents ‘authentic Christian teens who make poor choices, have a crisis of faith, seek answers, and ultimately emerge with a genuine faith made strong through the fire of life.’ But what Dannelly considers ‘genuine faith’ is expressed onscreen as nothing more than feel-good, wishy-washy pluralism.”

Jeremy Landes (Christian Spotlight) strictly criticizes the film in his review. In answer, Greg Wright (Hollywood Jesus) answered him point for point:

Landes: “Christians are depicted as notorious gossips.”

Wright: “As a former church elder, I can vouch for the veracity of this charge.”

Landes: “Pastor Skip begins an affair with Mary’s mother, who also professes to be a believer.”

Wright: “I can provide first-hand accounts of plenty of church-wrecking affairs by pastors. I mean, really, this is no secret, is it?”

Landes: “Christians, especially leaders, are depicted as liars, adulterers, and hypocrites.”

Wright: “We’re certainly not exempt from those failings.”

Landes: “Based on this movie, one could easily get the idea that calling yourself an evangelical Christian puts you in the categories of judgmental, rude, violent, and stupid.”

Wright concludes: “Why should we be surprised when satires like this—based, yes, on very justified stereotypes—come along? And why get worked up about it? The world will know we are Christ’s disciples by our love, not by nice, clean little movies that depict Christian High Schoolers and teachers like the plastic little saints that we know they’re not. In my book, the church has got a lot more to account for than films like Saved! Can’t we save our harshest judgment for ourselves? God knows we deserve it.”

Chris Utley (Hollywood Jesus) says the movie is making fun of hypocrisy, not mocking Christianity. “There are people who have walked away from the Lord because of girls (and boys and even men and women) who behave like Hilary Faye.”Addressing” holier-than-thou evangelicals” (and he includes himself among them), he says, “Close your Bibles, get off your knees, and get out to the theatre. See this movie when it hits your town. When and if you feel ashamed and disgusted by the film, go to the nearest mirror and let that shame and disgust fall upon yourselves. May we repent as we drive home in our cars.”

Peter T. Chattaway (Canadian Christianity) says, “Those who have gone to Christian schools or grown up in the evangelical youth culture may find that the film hits a few bullseyes along the way. Full disclosure: I attended Christian schools myself, and I recognize much of the absurdity on display in this film, from the pastor who uses juvenile buzzwords and catchphrases … in an earnest attempt to sound relevant to teens, to the parallel universe we Christians have formed for ourselves, with its own skateboarding associations and interior-decorator awards.”

Chattaway adds that some aspects of the movie “do not ring so true. Most significantly, the film tends to divide the characters into two camps: those who are overly pious and judgmental … and those who shrug off moral concerns with a sort of I’m-okay-you’re-okay indifference. The film ends on a preachy note of its own, rejecting just about any belief or moral standard that might get in the way of letting people do their thing.”

Just as Christianity Today Movies’ Stefan & Jeanne Ulstein interviewed Brian Dannelly here a few weeks ago, Chattaway questioned Dannelly about the research he did for the film. The writer/director responded, “I would … go so far as to say that everything in the film is something I experienced or researched. I didn’t try to make up stuff.” The filmmaker does admit, however, that he could have done a better job representing “the middle-road Christian. [The Patrick character is] very kind and he never denounces his faith.”

While I agree with Greg Wright, that the film’s critique of Christians is well-deserved, I also agree that the kind of Christianity Brian Dannelly ends up recommending is a variety that all-too-easily excuses notions of right and wrong. While we are all loved by the God that made us, we are also encouraged to show love to each other, and that includes having the conviction to help others understand the difference between behavior that glorifies God and behavior that offends him. God makes it clear that he loves sinners, but he also tells us that he hates sin. Thus, Saved! is right about the problem, but wrong about the answer.

Many mainstream critics have also made the distinction that the film is reprimanding Christian hypocrites, not attacking the Christian faith.

MaryAnn Johanson (The Flick Filosopher) says, “The Automatons for Jesus who really, really need to see this movie will avoid it because they’ll have been told it’s anti-Christian, and Automatons for Jesus do what they’re told. Saved! isn’t anti anything, except perhaps intolerance. And self-righteousness. And the idea that slapping a ‘Christian’ label on anything makes it holy.”

Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) also praises Saved! He says the movie is “arguing not against fundamentalism but against intolerance; it argues that Jesus would have embraced the cast-outs and the misfits, and might have leaned toward situational ethics instead of rigid morality. Saved! is an important film as well as an entertaining one. Jesus counseled more acceptance and tolerance than some of his followers think. By the end of the movie, mainstream Christian values have not been overthrown, but demonstrated and embraced. Those who think Christianity is just a matter of enforcing their rulebook have been, well, enlightened. And that all of this takes place in a sassy and smart teenage comedy is, well, a miracle.”

from Film Forum, 06/10/04

Reviewing Brian Dannelly’s satire of life in a Christian high school, J. Robert Parks (Phantom Tollbooth) says, “The problem with Saved! is that it thinks it’s making a realistic film, one that has something to say about contemporary teen culture and specifically evangelical culture. But with everyone but Mary a simple two-dimensional character, it’s hard to take any of this seriously. It’s just rehashing old clichés. And in the end, the only evangelicals we root for are the ones who largely abandon any pretense of being evangelical. If those sort of movies were made about other religious groups, people would howl in protest.”

==============================

Troy (Christianity Today, 040514)

review by Peter T. Chattaway | posted 05/14/04

Gladiator gave us a nasty, brutish vision of the world, but it compensated somewhat with a soothing and vaguely pagan belief in the afterlife. The Passion of The Christ gave us the suffering and execution of the Jewish Messiah, but it concluded with a brief glimpse of the resurrection by which he conquered death. Now comes Troy, the biggest Greco-Roman epic of them all—so far—and its theology is of a more agnostic sort.

Ironically enough, the warriors of this film spend a lot of time killing each other partly because they see no hope for a meaningful life beyond this world; for them, the gods and goddesses are mostly rumors at best, their wills impossible to discern, and the afterlife is a vague, shadowy realm that provides no comfort. For these men, the best kind of immortality they can hope for is to have their names live on the lips of their fellow men for ages to come—and the surest way to ensure their fame seems to be to kill as many people in battle as possible.

Troy, then, is about the quest for personal glory in a heartless and indifferent world, and the unfortunate thing about Wolfgang Petersen’s mega-budgeted, star-studded film is that it, too, lacks heart and comes across like a hollow quest for Hollywood glory. Early on in the film, Agamemnon (Brian Cox), king of all Greece, reluctantly concedes that if he is going to embark on the most ambitious military invasion of all time, he will need Achilles (Brad Pitt), the greatest but also one of the most uncontrollable warriors who has ever lived, on his side. So he sends the smooth-talking Odysseus (Sean Bean) to lure Achilles with the promise that this war will be his greatest opportunity to boost his own fame—and it is not too hard to imagine similar deal-making discussions taking place behind the scenes between moguls, agents, and actors. But while warriors might get away with a blunt display of force, resources, and technical skill, filmmakers must stir the heart and soul. While Troy boasts a stalwart cast and is fairly impressive on a technical level, it falters on nearly every level that might be called artistic or creative.

Let’s start with the screenplay and give writer David Benioff (25th Hour) his due for trying to be relatively faithful to Homer’s epic poem The Iliad, which, despite being essentially the first great work of Western literature, has never fared all that well on the big or small screen. Earlier movies about the Trojan War have borrowed a few elements from Homer, but have tended to focus more on the doomed romance between the Trojan prince Paris (Orlando Bloom) and the Spartan queen Helen (Diane Kruger), whose politically disastrous affair gives Helen’s brother-in-law Agamemnon the excuse he needs to launch his war. Troy, however, puts the emphasis back where it belongs—on the pouting, sulking, hot-tempered and seemingly indestructible warrior Achilles. His seething rage at the start of the poem, and his tearful recognition of his own mortality at the end of it, provide the arc that holds The Iliad together.

Still, despite Benioff’s fidelity to the material—fans of ancient myth may especially enjoy the brief cameo appearances by characters like Aeneas and Anchises—he also heavily demythologizes the story and makes some major changes to its basic narrative contours. (Suffice to say that at least one major character who is still alive in Homer’s sequel, The Odyssey, bites the dust here.) The gods, who wade into the thick of battle in The Iliad, are virtually absent from this film. A scene of Achilles’s mother Thetis (Julie Christie) predicting his death if he goes to Troy is the closest we get to any hint that the gods may be active in this world, and even this scene is open to interpretation. Achilles himself has been softened into a more romantic and sympathetic character; the Trojan slave girl he claimed as his property in the myth, he now treats more or less like a genuine lover. (The fact that she was committed to celibacy in the service of Apollo before Achilles’s men captured her—in effect, Achilles is sleeping with a nun—is quickly glossed over.)

All these changes would not be so bad if the film had breathed some life into its characters, but the actors do little more than fill the gaps between battle scenes with rote dialogue about glory, honor, seeking the will of the gods, the fact that there is nothing glorious about seeing men die, and so on. Pitt famously worked out for the role, but he still somehow lacks the presence that a formidable character like Achilles requires. Eric Bana (Hulk) is more successful as Hector, the tragic Trojan prince who wants nothing more than to protect his family, but goes to war because that is his duty and his talent. Peter O’Toole, as the Trojan king Priam, is restrained to some degree by his regal bearing, but he, too, expresses a love for his family that turns especially poignant in one of the film’s final scenes.

Hanging over everything is the film’s deeply ambivalent inquiry into the nature of religious faith. The nobler characters often talk about honoring the gods, but how does one do that when the gods themselves, according to Greek myth, don’t even honor one another? Achilles, the one person who actually claims to have seen the gods, also commits some of the most sacrilegious acts in the film. Neither honoring nor dishonoring the gods makes any difference to his fate, in the end, because in his world, all mortal humans will end up in Hades.

It is difficult to tell whether Troy feels like a hollow exercise in epic filmmaking because its characters lack any sense of their own purpose, or because Petersen’s direction is so pedestrian and derivative of earlier films. Indeed, Troy fails to offer anything that might compare to the operatic heights of Peter Jackson’s recent Lord of the Rings trilogy. This comparison might seem unfair, but is inevitable when the film features so many digitally generated aerial clashing-army shots, and when two of the film’s co-stars are former members of the Fellowship. These impressions are deepened by James Horner’s unimaginative score, which shamelessly apes the exotic vocalizations of Gladiator whenever it strives to sound mournful and sounds like the perfunctory rush job that it was. Homer’s poem begins with a call for the Muse to sing of Achilles’s rage, but Troy, the film, does not sing the way a movie should.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Is glory a good thing? Can anyone apart from God ever receive it? If so, how? How should we regard “heroes” of the faith, from biblical times to the early church to today?

2. Is immortality something to be grasped, or pursued? How do we perceive immortality, as Christians? What does it mean that Christ has conquered death? If death were not conquered, then how should we regard this life?

3. How do we discern the will of God? What role should “signs” or “omens” play? How do we distinguish between those decisions we are free to make for ourselves, on our own instincts, and those decisions for which we might need a little more divine input?

Related Elsewhere:

The Family Corner For parents to consider

Troy is full of stabbings, impalings, and other battlefield wounds, though it does not linger on them so much as acknowledge what happens in warfare. The film also features several scenes of Achilles in the nude, sometimes with his various lovers—the first time we see him, he is in bed with two women—plus it depicts the adulterous affair between Paris and Helen, though not in a graphic way.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 05/20/04

In Troy, thousands of soldiers put their lives on the line so an angry king can bring his brother’s adulterous wife Helen (Diane Kruger) back home from the city of Troy where she’s hiding with Paris (Orlando Bloom), her lover.

But wait … no, that’s just a front. The Mycenean king Agamemnon (X2’s Bryan Cox) is only using Helen (Diane Kruger) as an excuse. In truth, he’s marching so he can claim Troy and expand his empire. The city of Troy, ruled by King Priam (Peter O’Toole), is defended by Prince Hector (Hulk’s Eric Bana). He and a host of warriors are forced to defend their home because of local boy Paris’s affection for his lover, the cheating Queen of Sparta. Troy is a citadel that has proven impervious to attack. But one soldier, Achilles (Brad Pitt), who cares only about his own glory, sees an opportunity for fame and fortune. And so he joins the attack, ready to run his spear through anyone who will meet his challenge.

While the film boasts an impressive cast and epic animated battles a la The Return of the King, the studio has promoted the film’s other selling point. Apparently Pitt’s exposed, muscular torso is the real attraction for many people, just as his long flowing hair seemed the focus of Legends of the Fall. The emphasis on brawny smackdown demands so much screentime that the Greek gods, the major players in Homer’s famous literary epic The Iliad, are only mentioned in passing references. Those hoping for a detailed translation of the book will have to complain to director Wolfgang Petersen (The Perfect Storm, Das Boot) and writer David Benioff (The 25th Hour).

Critics agree that the film delivers some dazzling duels, but many also agree that the film’s as meaningless and superficial as Pitt’s well-oiled exhibitionism.

Troy “is about the quest for personal glory in a heartless and indifferent world, and the unfortunate thing about Wolfgang Petersen’s mega-budgeted, star-studded film is that it, too, lacks heart and comes across like a hollow quest for Hollywood glory,” says Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies). “It is difficult to tell whether Troy feels like a hollow exercise in epic filmmaking because its characters lack any sense of their own purpose, or because Petersen’s direction is so pedestrian and derivative of earlier films.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “Petersen has crafted a bold portrait of war, which is both epic in scope and intimate in its emotional poignancy. While the pre-Christian world of Troy is fueled by a toxic stew of tribal nationalism, revenge and rabid chauvinism, it also celebrates virtues such as honor, courage and loyalty.”

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) says the film “skews basically negative on religion,” but concludes, “As a retelling of a classic war tale Troy does a more than respectable job. Many of the battle scenes are riveting, especially a dramatic early scene involving a spectacular stunt and the bravura showdown between Achilles and Hector, one of the best duels I’ve ever seen. The drama is engaging; unlike Gladiator, which expected us to root for the hero, Troy asks us only to appreciate the characters’ conflicts and situations. And Peter O’Toole as the Trojan king Priam steals the entire film with one single scene.”

Nevertheless, Brad Pitt’s performance bothers Greydanus. “[He’s] poetry in motion on the battlefield … but is unconvincing in quiet moments and does nothing to make the gratuitous bedroom scenes less laughable.”

Marvin Olasky (World) says, “Parents should keep in mind bloody fighting scenes and two bed scenes in which private parts are barely kept private and illicit sex is made to look good: Troy is rated R. But the language is clean, and those who like summer epics and can tolerate Hollywood’s typical spices will probably enjoy this one.”

Phil Boatwright (Movie Reporter) compares Troy to another famous war film—Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, which he says “magically gave personality to its legions of soldiers. The depiction of death on the battlefield in that remarkable film honors those who gave their lives for their country. [In Troy] Petersen does not accomplish this reverence for the sanctity of life. His dying warriors are merely pawns to liven up the lopsided script. The battle sequences serve only to entertain us, much like the goings-on in the Coliseum did for the citizens of Rome. You may get an adrenalin rush from the epic grandness that a $150-million budget can bring to a special effects department, but I don’t think you’ll feel much emotion.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) agrees. “We never become emotionally connected to the events being enacted for us. We are always aware of the actors behind the characters and the CGI effects behind the action.”

Films like this usually draw men more than women. What will women think? Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) says, “Troy is a beautiful film full of special effects, dramatic war scenes … and enough testosterone to power Sparta’s ships. Women will be drawn by the history, the costumes and the romance—if not Pitt’s buff body, which is seen naked from above the groin and the side in several scenes.” She says, “The film fails to convey the drama and excitement of Gladiator and feels more like the dated Ben Hur. Not all the details match the original work, so students of the book will be disappointed. The biggest flaw is the characterization, which remains underdeveloped.”

Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight) writes, “For a viewer desiring a pure hero to root for, there’s a scarcity of choices here.” He adds, “I was amazed that the script was carefully written to avoid any explicit teaching that the Greek gods were ‘real.’”

To explore the authenticity of Petersen’s Troy, check out Archaeology.org’s examination of the film’s décor and battlefield “re-enactments.” To read the ho-hum responses of mainstream critics to the year’s first major blockbuster, click here.

from Film Forum, 05/20/04

Having seen Troy, Hal Conklin and Denny Wayman (Cinema in Focus) call the movie “a Hollywood spectacular that succeeds in entertainment value. When it comes to the heart, it only shows what destruction comes from selfish desire.”

==============================

Shrek 2 (Christianity Today, 040519)

review by Jeffrey Overstreet | posted 05/19/04

When we bade farewell to the happily honeymooning ogres Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz), it seemed like a “happily ever after” ending. True love had saved Fiona from the curse that bound her in the guise of a human being during the daylight. At last she was free to be her ogre-ly self, 24-7. She had learned to accept who she was, and she had discovered someone who loved her that way. Shrek had overcome his antisocial attitude and become a local hero. Donkey (Eddie Murphy) seemed happy to have found friends who would tolerate his nonstop talk.

Viewers cheered for Shrek’s triumph, but it was Donkey who stole the show. So, sure enough, we get an extra helping of donkey’s braying nonsense in Shrek 2. We also get more of everything we liked about the first film, and less of the things that didn’t work.

In Shrek 2, Shrek begrudgingly accepts an invitation to travel with Fiona to the land of Far Far Away. Fiona’s parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews) are expecting to meet a charming new son-in-law … literally. They think Fiona’s rescuer was Prince Charming himself.

But Charming (Rupert Everett), who was indeed dispatched to rescue Fiona from captivity in a dragon cave, got there too late. Shrek had already done the job. Apparently, Shrek never played theatres in the land of Far Far Away-the king and queen know nothing of Fiona’s marriage to the jolly green giant from the swamp. Thus, it’s not just Shrek that will surprise them. They’ll be shocked to see their daughter looking ogre-ish in the daylight.

When Charming learns that Fiona’s already made her marital vows, he returns home to plot Plan B with his mother, the infamous Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders). While Far Far Away is governed by royalty, Godmother’s the one who really runs the show, ruling the kingdom with a dangerous magic wand and a pantry full o’ potions.

Shrek and Fiona are welcomed to the castle by a crowd of astonished and appalled locals. The people of Far Far Away, like their reigning monarchs, judge others by their appearance—and Shrek’s not their idea of admirable. For a while, it looks like a storybook retelling of Meet the Parents—when Shrek and the king trade insults over dinner, he looks likely to “Hulk out.” While Fiona consoles her fuming husband behind closed doors, the king becomes an easy subject for the manipulative Godmother. He determines to take Shrek out of the picture—first, by the hiring of a notorious assassin, and then by the influence of enchanted beverages that promise more than your daily dose of antioxidants.

The first threat, a feisty feline in famous footwear, is played by Antonio Banderas with panache and personality—Puss-in-Boots nearly steals the show. If there’s a Shrek 3, there will be at least as much expectation of more Puss as there is of more Donkey. And the way things look, we may as well speculate about Shrek 4, 5 and 6. Banderas’ exuberant contributions and some animation brilliance make this one of the all-time great cartoon cats. He deserves his own franchise.

Director Andrew Adamson and his team of co-writers keep the story moving at a quick clip, packing the screen with cleverness that will reward repeated viewings. He also guides the characters with more confidence; Shrek, Fiona, and Donkey interact as comfortably as if they’d starred in a sitcom together for decades. The DreamWorks animation team serves up another dazzling show of animation that raises the bar yet again for Pixar and Disney studios, but there’s no “showoff” factor this time. The look of the film supports the story instead of drawing attention to itself.

Although Harry Gregson-Williams’s pitch-perfect soundtrack is again punctuated by somewhat intrusive pop songs (I still wince when I remember the appalling abuse of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” in the first film), this time the selections are better suited to the material. Even such superlative artists such as Tom Waits and Nick Cave fit right in. While I prefer the pure storytelling style of Finding Nemo and The Iron Giant, Shrek 2’s relentless parodies of other movies work better here than they did last time. Spoofs of Mission: Impossible and TV’s “COPs” earn big laughs while buoying the characters along toward an adrenalin-rush conclusion, one of the fastest and most frenzied action climaxes ever.

Shrek 2 ends up not so much an extension of Shrek’s story as an improved retelling. The theme remains the same—we should not judge a book by its cover, even if that cover is lime green and covered in warts. The first Shrek declared open season on Disney clichés, throwing not-so-subtle jabs at the way Mickey Mouse’s house has become preoccupied with stories of characters who long to be something they’re not.

In defense of those “transformation stories,” such fairy tales as Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella speak to our deep suspicion that we are not what we were meant to be. It’s no accident that such stories recur throughout history and cultures. They strike chords that resonate within us because we are, indeed, flawed, “asleep,” incomplete. On some level, we’re waiting for the day that our Creator will redeem us from our “cursed” state, purge us of our sins, save us from a wicked world, and raise us up to the ideal existence he intended.

Nevertheless, Disney deserved a critique. It’s not Disney’s focus on fairy tales that is the problem; it’s the way their versions of fairy tales eliminate the complexity of the source material, and the way they have inclined generations toward the idea that a true happy ending involves the blessing of Barbie-like good looks.

This time around, it’s not Disney that’s the butt of the joke (although there are few more unmistakable potshots taken at the studio giant along the way). Shrek 2 has the “beauties” of Beverly Hills in its sights. With a red carpet welcome party hosted by a Joan Rivers look-alike, the filmmakers make a mockery of Oscar glitz and glamour. Through the Fairy Godmother’s exultation in the power of her potions, we see a media-wise perspective on the culture of cosmetic surgery.

Celebrity culture has polluted popular imaginations with poor definitions of beauty. On “reality” TV, women and men give up their natural appearances for artificial beauty in order to gain acceptance and temporary happiness. One such show is called The Swan, a reference to the famous fairy tale of the ugly duckling. These shows only reinforce the insecurities of viewers who have been sold a lie. They tell us that we have to change our exterior in order to be truly satisfied. The Shrek movies remind us that it is not our appearance that needs changing, but our hearts. Further, it affirms that no matter what we look like, we all have value, gifts, and the potential to truly make a difference.

But the implications go as far as viewers care to take them. Shrek 2’s critique applies to any culture that has its codes of behavior and appearance. The land of Far Far Away might be reflecting playground ethics or high school culture. But it might also be your political party. It might be your health club. It could be your neighborhood, or your nation. It might sometimes even be the church.

Yes, even Christian “culture” has its prejudices, tending to jump to unflattering conclusions about unusual visitors. They may not be green-skinned or smelly. But they might have colorful language, an audacious sense of jewelry, or some ideas about love, politics, sexuality, or even diet that is dissonant with our own. How often do we wish we could change a stranger’s vocabulary, appearance, or manners so that we can feel more comfortable with them? Certainly we have room to be concerned about inappropriate behavior, because choices can lead to serious consequences. But if we approach others with an aim to change them rather than an aim to know them, to love them, and to exemplify a better life for them, we make ourselves ugly with arrogance in the process.

Will Shrek give in to the pressure, and conform to the Far Far Away idea of beautiful? Will he and Donkey succumb to Fairy Godmother’s tempting offer of an extreme makeover? Moviegoers can rest easy. A saint is known by his response to temptations, and in the land of fairy tales, Shrek and Fiona are holy fools.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. The people of Far Far Away think ogres are ugly and assume the worst. Have you ever known or seen people—perhaps even yourself or your church—pre-judge those who don’t “fit in”? Have you ever had your first impressions of someone changed for the better?

2. What is popular culture’s idea of beauty? Why is cosmetic surgery so popular? What do people assume will happen if they change their outward appearance?

3. What do TV commercials say about our “needs”? What cultural shortcuts promise us satisfaction and happiness? What is the real outcome of taking those shortcuts? Have you ever taken a shortcut to satisfaction and suffered for it? What are the better routes to satisfaction and fulfillment? Why aren’t those things advertised?

4. Not everyone in Hollywood buys into the culture of superficiality and exterior beauty. Can you think of any current celebrities who might feel this way?

5. What does Scripture say about God’s measure of beauty and integrity?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

Shrek 2 has a few flatulence jokes and other off-color punchlines, a few winks at the grownups regarding sexual flirtations, and some comical violence that is more likely to make kids laugh than wince. If you’re unsure whether to take your kids or not, rent Shrek 1 and preview it for yourself. They’re similar in that sense.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 05/20/04

Shrek stands as one of the most successful family films of all time. When it was released, it boasted standard-setting animation. It wove fairy tales together with a wicked wit, turning the genre on its head and mercilessly spoofing the often-superficial, saccharine storytelling of Disney animation studios. But it also damaged its own credibility by relying far too heavily on cheap punch lines, flatulence jokes, and pop culture references, as if the filmmakers did not trust their own story to hold the attention of both children and grownups.

Shrek 2 serves up a lot more of the good stuff and finds a better balance. While it tells basically the same story in a new context, it’s funnier, digs deeper, and provides a fast and frenzied finale. The relentless references to other films, television shows, and pop culture personalities are brilliantly employed so that they do not detract from the storytelling, which remains simple but strong. In fact, by turning Hollywood—and the cosmetic surgery culture it has spawned—into the target of its sharpened comedy arrows, Shrek 2 is a much more resonant tale of integrity and authenticity versus the forces of conformity and superficiality.

My full review is at Christianity Today Movies.

“Shrek 2, in many ways, is an improvement over the original film,” says Michael Elliott (Movie Parables). “The satire on popular culture seems sharper; the crude humor has been softened; the characters are both familiar and fresh; and the computer generated artwork seems more technologically advanced. Bottom line: the film is a winner for all concerned.”

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) enthuses, “Really good films are oh-so-rare these days, so when one combines top-notch writing, excellent acting, a positive message and brilliant satire about pop culture, I can’t help but rave. I’ve also never been a fan of animation, but I am now.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “Shrek 2 echoes both the wit and charm, if not the freshness, of the original—a rare achievement in the world of sequels. The wall-to-wall humor will keep young viewers laughing, with the bawdier zingers ricocheting off their funny bones and above their heads. Adults will also have fun spotting the parodies of both current and classic Hollywood fare. And while the follow-up’s message of self-acceptance is somewhat recycled from the earlier installment, it is one well worth repeating, especially in our superficial society which puts such a premium on surface appearance at the exclusion of inner worth.”

from Film Forum, 06/03/04

A few reviews for previously released films appeared in the religious press these past two weeks.

Reviewing Shrek 2, Andrew Coffin (World) says, “The sequel to the phenomenally successful 2001 hit features even more impressive computer animation, some great gags, and an engaging storyline. And it’s not quite as offensive as the first film. Despite a balance shift for the better, though, Shrek 2 still contains enough inappropriate material to be disturbing to parents.”

Mike Parnell (Ethics Daily) writes, “Shrek 2 lacks much of the charm of the first movie. It has too much intrigue and not enough whimsy.” But he calls it “a good movie. Shrek 2 will entertain you, but it lacks the warmth and the grossness of the original. That may not be your cup of tea, but the child in your life will be the one who misses it most.”

Josh Hurst (Reveal), on the other hand, says it’s “one of those rare sequels that outshines its predecessor in every way, and, in the process, gets in a few good jabs at the excesses of Hollywood. … While not a flawless film, Shrek 2 finds the franchise growing up a bit, gaining more mature storytelling and finding a stronger moral compass.”

==============================

Raising Helen (Christianity Today, 040528)

review by Agnieszka Tennant | posted 05/28/04

As far as heartwarming comedies go, this one has all the parts necessary: the heart, the warmth, and the comedy. At the outset, the storytellers get the heart commiserating with three grieving children—Audrey (Hayden Panettiere), Henry (Spencer Breslin), and Sarah (Abigail Breslin)—when their parents are killed in a car accident. The heart warms as the kids’ supercool young aunt gives up her exciting career, and the perks that come with it, to take on the uncool role of the orphaned kids’ guardian. The chuckles come easily, even in the predictable moments, as you watch dazzling Helen Harris (Kate Hudson) grow into her new skin.

Helen’s choice to take the journey from self-centeredness to selflessness is what distinguishes this film’s heroine from those in director Gary Marshall’s other romantic comedies, Pretty Woman and The Princess Diaries, where the focus is on the leading lady’s needs and wants.

Two God-sent cheerleaders come to Helen’s aid as she undergoes her drastic makeover. Those raising Helen are her oldest sister and supermom Jenny (Joan Cusack), who has no problem raising anyone, even her unborn child, and a hunky Lutheran pastor played by John Corbett in the same way he played the hunky fiancé in My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Although predictable in places, the romantic dramedy represents Hollywood’s refreshingly realistic correction of the 20th century feminism: It is possible for unexpected, ill-timed motherhood, with all its emotional and financial hassles, to gratify a woman in a way unsurpassed even by a successful career in the fashion industry, a Manhattan zip code, and lenient sex life. Helen soon learns—as all people raising children do—that she can’t have it all. Manhattan gives way to Queens; sleeping with men to sleeping with three children (sometimes literally, in the same bed); nightclub hopping to teaching Sarah how to tie her shoes and shooing teenage boys away from Audrey. The party girl persona must decrease, the Mom persona must increase—and that not without growing pains.

Soon after she gets custody of the children, Helen scrambles to remain the go-getter at her job as assistant to Dominique (Helen Mirren), a high-maintenance head of a modeling agency. Sure enough, she fails. Often delayed or otherwise distracted by her nieces and nephew, she cannot fulfill the caprices of Dominique, in whose brief appearances Mirren is an evil delight. “Fashion and family don’t mix,” the fashion maven dryly declares. So the kids win. Helen flashes her easy, winsome smile, and gets a much less demanding, but also much less paying, job at a car dealership.

But not all mothering decisions are so easy for Helen. When it comes to disciplining teenager Audrey, Helen just can’t bring herself to act or look like a party-pooping parent. That’s when she calls her oldest sister Jenny, an obsessively in-charge stay-at-home mother, in which role Cusack showcases her comedic flair. Jenny is openly perplexed, and secretly jealous, at the deceased sister’s designation of Helen—the freewheeling anti-Mom who doesn’t tell on teenage Audrey after she gets a fake ID—instead of her, as the children’s caretaker.

As sisterly rivalry surfaces in the sometimes-charged interactions between Helen and Jenny, the movie gains a convincing emotional texture. But when the mystery of their sister’s choice is revealed in letters she had written to the sisters, Jenny, too, will grow as a result.

Pastor Dan seems to be another God-sent helper for Helen in an answer to a prayer she sighs as she’s driving in Queens in search for a decent school. But no, scratch it. God would have sent her a pastor who’s a little less desperate to prove that not all pastors are pontificators with stained-window voices. Played insipidly by Corbett, the minister is principal of the private school that ends up enrolling the children. Unlike the actor—who told Christianity Today Movies that he’s a born-again Christian—Pastor Dan is not forthcoming about his faith. Just the opposite.

The director and script writers (Patrick Clifton, Beth Rigazio, Jack Amiel, and Michael Begler) have done ministers everywhere a favor by daring to portray a pastor as a potential object of female desire, and not the butt of jokes.

“I’m a sexy man of God, and I know it,” announces Pastor Dan at one cute point, and the moment is instantly ripe for a passionate kiss. It’s only too bad that the script is so intent on making the man of God so with-it that whatever it is that drove him to become a pastor in the first place gets crowded out by his played-up hunkiness and hipness. He even watches—or just jokes about watching—dirty movies, and then tries to use this asset in trying to get Helen to go out with him. True, he is there for her in times of trouble, as is the pastoral thing to do. But the man’s soul is nowhere to be found. We never really glimpse the Spirit—any spirit, really—inside this minister. Nor do we learn if there’s anything besides Helen’s looks that attracts him to the woman who is not a churchgoer.

But when the two evoke laughs, you forgive such character-development omissions. When Helen lies to Pastor Dan that she and the children are Lutherans, thinking that it’s a requirement for the students at the Lutheran school, he deadpans. “We’ll have to take a blood test to make sure.” “All three of them are hemophiliacs,” she’s quick to fib.

In this scene, and in others, she’ll do anything for the kids. When a woman’s right to choose is guided by her concern for the well being of a child—however inconvenient the consequences—it yields freedom and peace of conscience. This is Helen’s lib. A call for altruism conveyed not in a truism, but in a heartwarming comedy—now, that’s Hollywood at its stealthiest.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Helen gave up her career ambitions in order to become a guardian of three children. What biblical examples of people giving up their dreams or making sacrifices for the sake of others inspire you? Why? (Examples: Mary, Jacob, Hosea.)

2. Has a needy person—a child, an ill or bedridden person, or an elderly relative—ever depended on you? What sacrifices did you make in order to be there for them?

3. How does it feel to deny your own wants or dreams in order to put others first? Does such altruism always come with rewards?

4. What’s the popular culture’s message to young women and men just starting promising careers? Do they tend to see the unexpected appearance of children in their lives—via pregnancy, custody, or some other way—as a blessing or an inconvenience?

5. How would you react if someone gave you custody of their children?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

This fairly clean movie has just a few lines that are below par. At one point, we see teenagers smoking at a party. In another scene, it’s implied that two of them are about to have sex; they are broken up by the supermom, though. The parents’ death in a car crash is not shown.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 06/03/04

In Raising Helen, a career girl played by Kate Hudson (Almost Famous) suddenly finds herself responsible for her sister’s three children. The responsibilities and challenges cause a serious disturbance in her professional life, but they also open a romantic opportunity with a Lutheran minister (John Corbett of My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

Religious press critics are divided as to whether the film treats religion in an admirable manner. They’re also split over whether the movie is any good.

Agnieszka Tennant (Christianity Today Movies) writes, “Although predictable in places, the romantic dramedy represents Hollywood’s refreshingly realistic correction of the 20th century feminism: It is possible for unexpected, ill-timed motherhood, with all its emotional and financial hassles, to gratify a woman in a way unsurpassed even by a successful career in the fashion industry, a Manhattan zip code, and lenient sex life.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “What humor exists in this film plays flat and the drama is of the maudlin variety. The tone is off, the pacing is slow, and the characters are uninteresting. Kate Hudson is certainly cute enough but isn’t able to establish a sympathetic connection with the audience. The wonderful Joan Cusack gamely gives her best effort in playing a one dimensional character and John Corbett has trouble reaching even that one dimension.”

Chris Monroe (Christian Spotlight) says, “This film is very playful, yet coherent, and tells a sweet kind of uplifting story. It upholds good morals and even carries with it some touching moments. Seeing this movie is an easy-going way to raise your spirits.”

Rhonda Handlon (Plugged In) points out some “imperfections,” and then concludes, “This is an enduring story of lives changed by selfless choices and the intangible return of investing in others. It’s also the story of one cool mom!”

Gene Edward Veith (World) says, “The best part of the movie is how it portrays a pastor. Pastor Dan is strong and wise, ministering both to Helen, the rookie mom, and to the still-grieving children, including rescuing the teenage girl from some bad company. This so-called ‘sexy man of God’ is in refreshing contrast to Hollywood’s usual portrayal of ministers, who are usually presented as either evil hypocrites or ineffectual wimps. Pastor Dan is clearly a man of faith, though not a lot of the content of that faith is articulated in the movie. Critics are saying that the movie is cloying and has various other faults. Though they may have a point, the movie is enjoyable and positive (though not for children), representing a post-Passion Hollywood.”

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) has a very different opinion of Pastor Dan. She’s troubled by the idea that a good pastor would date an unbeliever. She also criticizes the portrayal of a Lutheran pastor who claims to believe in purgatory.

Finally, Robertson observes, “On the surface, the message of Raising Helen is that mothering is more important than anything else we could pursue in life, including career. Dig a little deeper, however, and a second message about motherhood emerges—one that contradicts the first. Ultimately, according to the film, the best mom is the one who can somehow manage career and home. The film clearly implies that single mothers are far better than couples (even happily married, loving, experienced parents).”

Mainstream critics are less than enthusiastic about the film.

==============================

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (Christianity Today, 040416)

review by Russ Breimeier | posted 04/16/04

When we last left The Bride (Uma Thurman) in Kill Bill Vol. 1 (now on video and DVD), she had exacted bloody vengeance on two of her former assassin partners (not to mention a seemingly endless horde of Yakuza gang members) on her quest to take out her ex-boss/ex-lover, Bill (David Carradine). Think of this as Sergio Leone (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly) directing a film with kung fu action about Charlie’s Angels—except that they’re not really the good guys, there are five of them, one of them is a man, and the protagonist wants to kill Charlie for destroying her life. Leave it to Quentin Tarantino to combine the exploitation B-movies of the ‘70s with spaghetti westerns, kung fu, and pop-culture ridden dialogue that plays like modern day Shakespeare.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 picks up where Vol. 1 left off, beginning with that campy movie trailer of The Bride in a convertible, telling the audience that she will have her revenge. From there, the film delivers the final chapters of the story, beginning with a recount of The Bride’s wedding day massacre—well, wedding rehearsal massacre anyway. We also see a flashback of her intense training in martial arts under the “cruel tutelage” of Kung Fu master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu). And oh yes, we see her confront the two remaining assassins (Michael Madsen and Daryl Hannah) before getting the chance to kill Bill.

How exactly does one go about reviewing a film like this for a Christian website? Some Christians will watch anything Hollywood has to offer, while others avoid movies and theaters like the plague. And there are plenty between those extremes. Suffice to say that if you’re offended by bad language, by less-than-scrupulous characters, and/or by scenes of strong violence—regardless of whether it’s hyper-realistic like The Passion or comic book-styled like The Matrix—this film is definitely not for you.

Actually, the biggest surprise about Kill Bill Vol. 2 is that it’s not the bloody orgy of violence that marked Vol. 1. Sure, it has its moments—one fight sequence ends in an especially grotesque manner, and you’re not likely to find a more horrifying snake attack in film any time soon. But for the most part, the action is stylized kung fu, no worse than your average superhero movie or Lord of the Rings battle sequence. The aforementioned wedding rehearsal massacre isn’t even shown on screen.

Stranger yet, Vol. 2 is a love story at heart, albeit love gone wrong. This is an unexpectedly talky film, and therein lies its charm. Director, writer, and producer Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs) is a master storyteller, and I wholeheartedly agree with critics who have noted that Tarantino absolutely loves his characters. Complex in motivation, vividly imagined, and richly versed, every one of them gives a worthy monologue to help flesh them out and remain unforgettable. The exchanges between Bill and The Bride are terrific, speaking volumes of a twisted romance that has since run its course with equal doses of sweetness, melancholy, and menace. There’s an additional level of sweetness to the story as The Bride gradually uncovers the truth about her mysterious motherhood.

These monologues give the characters a level of depth rarely seen in films today. The extended sequences of dialogue demonstrate that even villains like Bill and Budd (Madsden) have their charm, making their evils all the more shocking and giving the film’s action and deaths more resonance. I found myself hanging on Bill’s every word as he retold the legend of Pai Mei to a younger Bride before sending her off to study with him; it wouldn’t be at all surprising if David Carradine earns a Best Supporting Actor nomination. And the beard-twirling Pai Mei is likely to endure as one of the most beloved characters in recent cinematic history—chauvinistic, cranky, yet charming, he makes Master Yoda look like a sissy.

Every character is given a chance to shine, no matter how small the role—from the minister and his wife at the wedding chapel to Bill’s suave surrogate father Esteban (played by Michael Parks like a Hispanic Jack Nicholson). And that’s why Vol. 2 shines that much more than Vol. 1. It relies on the strength of its storytelling instead of extreme shock value, as the first largely did. Both movies do succeed (in different ways), adding up to a satisfying three-and-a-half hour experience. Those wishing to avoid the extreme violence and nastiness of the first film can still enjoy the second by itself, though you’ll lose some character development in the process.

Tarantino uses more than writing to tell his tale effectively. There are visual shots that are framed like film noir or graphic novels, often allowing the images to communicate at least as much as words. He often switches between black & white, color, and faded color to place scenes in chronological context. There’s also a brilliant scene in which The Bride is buried alive, filmed in darkness from her perspective with nothing but sound to envelope the audience—it’s a chilling and suspenseful experience.

Of course there’s also the action as choreographed by the great Gordon Liu, far more satisfying than that found in the last two Matrix movies. Some of the stunts will blow your mind because they’re so fast and unexpected. On top of all that, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is consistently funny. With past films, Tarantino had a tendency to make audiences laugh at sick and uncomfortable things. Here the humor is rather dark, but generally more appropriate—akin to Monty Python in some cases. Again, Pai Mei steals the show in his crazed-but-wise belittlements. There’s also Budd’s conversation with his boss at the roadhouse bar, in which we can relate to both sides of the argument. Tarantino is also increasingly comfortable working with kids, and there’s a scene between parent and child that is absolutely precious in the way it captures both shyness and playfulness.

Still, it is typical Tarantino in many ways, and Christians must decide for themselves if the violence, language, and overall subject matter are tolerable or offensive. Much like the classic spaghetti Westerns and kung fu flicks, Tarantino paradoxically manages to glorify and condemn the violence of his characters. It’s entertaining, but not edifying. Does a movie have to be both? If so, I’d recommend skipping it—although Kill Bill Vol. 2 is undeniably enjoyable filmmaking, unpredictable in its storytelling and wholly original in its characterizations.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. What does the Bible have to say about vengeance and justice? What’s the difference between the two? Is The Bride justified in her quest for vengeance? How else might she have sought justice?

2. There’s a scene where a child shows an understanding of the difference between pretend and “for real” violence. Can we make such a distinction in the real world? Does pretend violence (movies, video games) beget real violence?

3. In both films, The Bride is portrayed as the model of focus and perseverance, taking seemingly infinitesimal steps towards her goal. What drives those qualities? What are our goals and how do we similarly persevere?

4. There’s a brilliant monologue about comic book superheroes and their alter egos. Do we live similar lives of duality, in our faith, our work life, our home life? If so, which is the real you? Which are you more inclined to?

5. What causes The Bride to retire from her life as an assassin? Metaphorically speaking (not spiritually), do you think she’s on the way to redeeming her past at the end of the film?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

Kill Bill Vol. 2 is unquestionably an R film and definitely not suitable for children. But in contrast with the first film, the violence is pretty sparse. Most of it is comic-book kung fu action, though it does get pretty extreme with one of the most vicious snake attacks ever staged on film and an especially gross ending to one of the key fights. There’s more than a fair share of offensive language. Regarding the “sexual content,” I suppose the MPAA is referring to a discussion about prostitution in one scene; I’d be more concerned with the brief drug use shown earlier in the film.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 04/22/04

The Bride (Uma Thurman) is back in Kill Bill Vol. 2, this week’s box office champ. In this episode, we learn her name and a whole lot more. We learn why her fiancé and her wedding party were slaughtered by a killer named Bill (David Carradine). We learn what happened to the Bride’s daughter, who was revealed to be alive at the end of Vol. 1. We also meet her trainer, an indignant, impish martial arts master named Pai Mei (Gordon Liu), and we learn the extent to which she has mastered murderous maneuvers. These deadly talents then assist her in her desperate quest to find and destroy her malevolent nemesis.

While the film certainly serves up the graphic violence you’d expect from a Quentin Tarantino film, it also delivers far more character development, dialogue, and storytelling than Vol. 1. This is catching many critics by surprise, impressing some of them, discouraging others. It is worth noting that the Bride is fighting in order to break free from “the life” of a criminal, just as Samuel L. Jackson’s character did in Pulp Fiction. But her methods for doing so are not as level-headed. She’s on “a roaring rampage of revenge.”

Mainstream critics, who condemned The Passion for its onscreen violence, suddenly seem to have decided that there’s nothing wrong with R-rated brutality whatsoever. Most of them give KB2 high praise. Those who object primarily complain about Tarantino’s preoccupation with referencing other movies.

The majority of religious press critics, on the other hand, continue to reject Tarantino’s work due to the excessive violence.

In doing so, some of them fall short of giving Tarantino credit for his remarkable achievements—the stellar performances he draws from his actors, the surprising moral conflict that is revealed at the heart of the story in this episode, and the technical achievement of his filmmaking. These movies are indulgent and flawed, but they should be recognized as a mix of strengths and weaknesses. (My full review is at Looking Closer.)

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) says, “If you’re offended by bad language, by less-than-scrupulous characters, and/or by scenes of strong violence—regardless of whether it’s hyper-realistic like The Passion or comic book-styled like The Matrix—this film is definitely not for you.” But he adds, “Kill Bill Vol. 2 is undeniably enjoyable filmmaking, unpredictable in its storytelling and wholly original in its characterizations.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “I have to admit, I liked Vol. 2 much more than its predecessor simply because of the focus on the characters instead of on the ways they killed each other.” He does confirm that “vengeance remains the central theme of the film.”

He finds a spiritual message in the film, however: “Believing is the most important key there is to achieving success. Rarely do we see success if we don’t believe that it is possible. God continues to exhort us to believe in Him and in the Word that He has given us because He knows that as we do, we will see the signs, miracles, and wonders that He is ready and willing to send our way.”

(At one point in the movie, the Bride looks skyward and says, “Thank you!” repeatedly. Viewers might wonder who she’s addressing.)

Maurice Broaddus (Hollywood Jesus) praises the “great action, wonderfully acted characters, and brilliant direction.” He describes it as “a revenge movie with a heart. The movie becomes about … a killer trying to leave her old life behind to start anew … for the sake of her child. But to do that, she has to put to death the ‘old man’ and by proxy, her old nature. The Bride finds her true calling, her self-salvation scheme, in the love she has for her child.”

Chris Monroe (Christian Spotlight) writes, “Though the story never veers away from its motive for revenge, it was a little affecting to see this Terminatoresque female lead tap into sensitive facets of her feminine nature. I was taken aback to find myself moved by these qualities that she expresses.”

Others focus on the film’s failings. J. Robert Parks (Phantom Tollbooth) is frustrated by inconsistencies. “The first movie sets us up for one kind of film: highly stylized action pastiche. For Vol. 2 to give us a completely different movie—one that focuses on the deficiencies of Vol. 1—is both misguided and frustrating. We’re offered two movies that have nothing in common with each other besides the actors and characters’ names.”

“Sparer in tone and much more dialogue-heavy than its predecessor, it’s no less eager to glory in gore,” says Steven Isaac (Plugged In). He acknowledges that the Bride makes a decision to leave her job as an assassin in order to settle down, get married, and raise her child. But he adds that her “passionate love for her daughter is used as leverage to excuse her recent acts of revenge.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says the movie is “as morally vacuous as its more overtly gory predecessor. Tarantino is obviously a filmmaker in love with cinema, a passion that translates onto the screen. Kill Bill is laced with flashes of visual brilliance and juicy dialogue, but it is also weighed down by a propensity for self-indulgent, showoffy camera work. The film’s underlying theme of revenge is incompatible with the Christian understanding of justice and forgiveness.”

from Film Forum, 05/13/04

Andrew Coffin (World) saw Kill Bill, Volume Two and says, “I like director Quentin Tarantino’s cinematic inventiveness, but ever since Pulp Fiction I’ve respected his brain yet questioned his heart. Kill Bill 2 adds to those concerns. Does Tarantino showing off his cleverness make for a great movie? Not without heart.”

Mark T. Conrad (Metaphilm) also explores the film, offering a remarkable new interpretation. It’s therapy for Quentin Tarantino’s broken childhood! It’s all about his mom taking revenge on the dad who left them! And Conrad digs much deeper than that:

Remember: When Nietzsche said that God is dead, he didn’t mean that an actual being, the Almighty, the First Cause, an omniscient, omnipotent creator had actually been killed. Rather, he meant that the idea, the institution of God ceased to have any meaning or relevance because we now view God as fictional and can no longer believe. Similarly, killing the father means killing the father’s power over us, and that means that we have to stop viewing him as God, we have to reject that fiction, that misinterpretation.

This is exactly what Tarantino does to the father in Volume 2. Bill, the father, God, is completely humanized. In the first film we barely saw him, and never saw his face; he existed merely as an omnipresent threat …. Now … he’s locally and physically present as a man, a mere mortal. This is that transforming moment when, as an adult, you recognize your old man’s frailties and his shortcomings.

==============================

Godsend (Christianity Today, 040430)

review by Stefan Ulstein | posted 04/30/04

Godsend suffers from bad editing. In one pivotal scene, the action changes place and time so dramatically, it seems that an entire chapter was accidentally left at a bus stop. Nonetheless, the basic story, and the issues it raises, make Godsend a thoughtful, if not fully realized, example of bio-future science fiction. It also works pretty well as a gothic thriller.

Paul and Jessie Duncan share a rich life with their young son, Adam. Paul is a dedicated teacher, Jessie a respected photographer. They dote on Adam, who loves them and basks in their care. In a freak accident, Adam is killed and his parents are plunged into unendurable despair. Seemingly out of nowhere, Dr. Richard Wells, a research physician who was once Jessie’s professor, approaches them with a Faustian bargain. What he proposes is illegal, unethical and perhaps immoral. He will bring their son back to them via human cloning. He has never actually done the procedure on a human but he is positive that it will work. Against all odds, he convinces Paul and Jessie to take a chance with their dead son’s legacy.

A science-fiction thriller only works if it has one foot planted firmly in the real and the possible. If it can be reasonably imagined, it is science-fiction in the best sense: a film that helps explore the technical, ethical and spiritual frontiers of the future. If not, it becomes fluff and nonsense. A treatment of human cloning, and the ethical questions it raises, is certainly timely. Recently a company called Genetic Savings and Clone (Gene Banking and Cloning of Exceptional Pets) publicly offered to clone a favorite cat or dog for a mere $50 thousand. Can children be far behind? Today Lassie, tomorrow a real lassie.

Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of President Bush’s newly created Council on Bioethics, articulates the dilemma of technology that moves faster than morality. Kass told the Council, “[I]n the realm of bioethics, the evils we face, if indeed they are evils, are intertwined with the goods we so keenly seek: cures for disease, relief of suffering, preservation of life. Distinguishing good and bad thus intermixed is often extremely difficult.”

It is this intertwining of good and evil that provides the central themes of Godsend. The ethical catalyst is the time factor. While Adam’s DNA can be preserved almost indefinitely, his cells will remain viable for only seventy-two hours. Paul and Jessie must make a moral decision with no time for reflection. Dr. Wells insists that the entire procedure be kept secret, so they are unable to solicit any advice from friends or clergy. They must act while they are incapacitated with grief.

What keeps the plot viable is the fact that most recent medical advances have been debated on moral grounds. Cardiovascular surgeons were denounced for playing God when they began to transplant whole hearts. Likewise, in vitro fertilization was widely derided at first and is now commonly accepted. Those who cry foul over stem cell research and human cloning may one day be dismissed as anachronistic relics. But maybe not. We only discover the moral implications of new science when we try it out. One is reminded of the 1960s when “enlightened” thinkers encouraged us to experiment with mind-altering drugs. Don’t worry, they assured us. Chemistry is the next frontier for human progress. Those of us who took their advice found out that our old-fashioned parents and their quaint morals were right after all. Oops! The “experts” were incompetent at best and devilish at worst.

Thus, bioethics must also imagine the possibility of human treachery. Several years ago women who had contracted with a sperm bank received a shocking surprise. They had listed the physical characteristics they wanted in their offspring: height, coloring, etc. as well as intellect, and artistic and musical ability. Anonymity was protected by a double-blind security protocol. They were then impregnated with sperm guaranteed to closely match their genetic shopping list. Later they found out that a director of the sperm bank had fathered their children, along with scores of others. Was it a sneaky semi-ethical trick, was it polygamy or was it rape?

The possibilities for human treachery in something as morally delicate as human cloning make one shudder. What if some researcher wants to play an egotistical trick, or use his subject for covert research? Such are the issues addressed in Godsend.

To his credit, director Nick Hamm forgoes the usual computer generated tricks, and the lightning fast editing that now pass for cinematography. Instead he relies on atmosphere and craftsmanship. Godsend provides plenty of made-you-jump moments, but Hamm has deliberately steered clear of the splatter genre.

Despite its laudable intentions, Godsend is less than equal to its challenges. Greg Kinnear is believable as the father, and Cameron Bright makes a frightening clone-gone-wrong son. But former model Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is unable to evoke the range of emotions called for in this horrifying scenario. Robert DiNiro sadly lacks his usual range. As soon as he appears on screen, one’s heart cries, BAD GUY ON DECK! The script is long on the Big Issues, but comes up short in compelling dialogue. It needed a couple more drafts.

While it is not in the same league artistically, Godsend joins the canon of bio-future films like Gattica and Alien Resurrection. It accepts that the human race will continue to reach for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We will build our Tower of Babel—and deal with the outcome later.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Why do we develop technology faster than our ability to use it ethically?

2. What are some other examples of technology that was developed for good but has been used for evil purposes?

3. Is human cloning simply an extension of fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization or is it something altogether different?

4. As with many modern ethical dilemmas, the Bible does not specifically address human cloning—or insect cloning for that matter. How do we learn from Scripture when it’s not explicit on a question?

5. What would you have done in Paul and Jessie Duncan shoes, given that choice? Why?

Related Elsewhere:

The Family Corner For parents to consider

Godsend is psychologically frightening. Because it deals with the death of a young boy, and imagines his cloned rebirth fraught with horror, it is inappropriate for younger children. A lovemaking scene between the parents is sensual though not explicit.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 05/06/04

What would you do if you were given an opportunity to bring back a loved one from the dead? In Godsend, Paul and Jessie (Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), a couple traumatized by the loss of their eight-year-old son, are given an opportunity to restore their child to life. Their hope lies in the hands of a secretive doctor (Robert DeNiro) who meddles in the technology of cloning. Entangled in troubling questions of morality, legality, and spirituality, Paul and Jessie make a choice that leads to devastating consequences.

The consequences are also devastating for the audience, according to mainstream critics. Religious press critics agree.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, “While the questions raised are thought-provoking, the only thing the movie itself provokes in viewers is the urge to check their watches. Unfortunately, after an intelligent setup, the story’s philosophical pretensions quickly give way to spooky atmospherics and standard ghost-story devices which detract from the central moral dilemma posed.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “It is hard to pinpoint exactly where this film begins to fall apart, but fall apart it does. By the end of the film, the story has gotten so ludicrous it is hard to muster any interest over what the outcome might be. And even then, we’re still disappointed.”

Stefan Ulstein (Christianity Today Movies) says, “Despite its laudable intentions, Godsend is less than equal to its challenges. The script is long on the Big Issues, but comes up short in compelling dialogue. It needed a couple more drafts.”

Tom Neven (Plugged In) agrees, calling it “a tense, if slightly derivative, thriller. Unfortunately, it bears all the earmarks of having been focus-grouped into inferiority. About 10 minutes from the end it swerves in a direction not warranted by what has preceded, and it feels as if an entire chapter has been ripped from a book.” He adds, “Godsend cheats when it comes to answering the overarching moral question. Based on previews, I originally feared that it might trivialize the morality of human cloning by having the result be a monster, thus relieving the filmmakers of having to address whether human cloning is evil in and of itself. But they did worse: such moral questions are made irrelevant.”

Michael Karounos (Christian Spotlight) says, “If you are interested in idea-movies, then Godsend is worth seeing. With a line here and a supernatural deletion everywhere else, it could easily have been made into an interesting Christian movie highlighting the moral and spiritual questions that cloning raises. With the recent success of The Passion, you wonder how long it will take Hollywood to catch on that Christians will go in droves to see genuinely Christian films.”

from Film Forum, 05/13/04

The paranormal thriller Godsend deals with the strange behavior of a cloned child. Andrew Coffin (World) writes, “The first part of the film, showing the family and how they react to the tragedy, is promising, raising important questions about the ethics and the possibilities of cloning. But after the movie’s second birthday party, it becomes just another horror movie. And an inept one at that, with two major cop-outs in the story line, including one that erases the movie’s very premise.”

Kevin Miller (Relevant) says, “If Godsend had been made 50 years ago in black and white, it would be exactly the kind of thing I enjoy watching late on Saturday nights when there’s nothing else on TV. However, viewers today are a lot more sophisticated than they were in the 1950s. They’re not as apt to buy in to the faulty premises and dubious science that make those old films so laughable today.”

==============================

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Christianity Today, 040319)

If you could, what memories would you delete?

Recently, I set up shop in a new office on the campus of the university I attended several years ago. I don’t believe in ghosts, but the ol’ alma mater is haunted with memories. Over there—the classrooms in which I tried to comprehend Donne, Dostoyevsky, and Derrida. And there—the cafeteria where I consumed mass quantities of grilled peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. And there—a sprawling lawn where my first rock band survived a disastrous performance. It’s a joy to have this mini-tour of the past every day.

But the place is also crowded with painful memories of a failed friendship, broken trust, and humiliation. The prospect of revisiting those memories again made me pause before relocating to this place. I did not want to be reminded. But what a blessing awaited me! Several places of personal significance had been demolished and replaced with strange new structures that mean nothing to me at all! This has had an interesting effect—I never dwell on those memories anymore. It is as if those memories have been deleted. I have to work hard to recover them.

In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the characters have that option—they can have their unwanted memories erased. Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) supplies this service through Lacuna, an obscure company promising to improve your life by sifting out signs of things you wish you had not experienced. Mierzwiak and his irresponsible, pot-smoking staff (Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, and trainee Elijah Wood) schedule consultations with customers to target bad memories. They box up all tangible evidence of the memories (photos, gifts, mementos, diary entries), file them away, and then get into the customer’s brain for “memory surgery.” Cards are sent out to any related individuals, informing them that they have been deleted from the customer’s memory: Would they please, out of courtesy, refrain from contacting that person again?

That is exactly what Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to do with memories of his ex-girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet). He’s upset about the breakup, which occurred when Clementine decided to axe Joel from her own memory.

Most films about technological breakthroughs tend to dwell on what would happen if something went wrong. So, of course, as Joel undergoes Clementine-erasure, something goes terribly wrong. While technicians fuss over 3-D brain schematics, he is stranded, unconscious, wandering in a dream-state of confused memories. As he staggers through overlapping episodes of his past, he encounters Clementine for the first time … again. He remembers his infatuation and all of the things that first caught his attention. It makes him reconsider his decision. But what can he do?

As he falls into panic, details of this memory world begin to disappear. Memories are being sent to the Trash Bin Folder of the doctor’s computer. Frantic, Joel grabs Clementine—or at least the memory of her—and starts heading for the dark alleys and bomb shelters of his mind. The chase is one of the most exhilarating and original scenes in the history of chase scenes.

Anybody who saw Being John Malkovich or the Academy-award-winning Adaptation will quickly recognize the signature surrealism of writer Charlie Kaufman. Kaufman seems obsessed with exploring his characters’ psychological makeup, and Sunshine feels like the fruition of ideas that were beginning to grow in his previous scripts.

While Kaufman’s previous scripts seemed tailor-made for the quirky talents of director Spike Jonze, this story seems a perfect fit for Michel Gondry, who makes Eternal Sunshine a memorably zany rollercoaster ride through a wonderland of bizarre landscapes and shifting reality. Gondry’s first feature collaboration with Kaufman, Human Nature, received discouraging reviews and vanished from theatres. But Eternal Sunshine plays to his strengths. Gondry’s most memorable works have been his brilliantly designed music videos for artists like Bjork, and Radiohead. This great feature-length work is sure to earn him even grander projects.

Gondry maps out Joel’s past with breathtaking imagination and sleight-of-hand, creating a visual collage from Joel’s memories that is a masterpiece of editing and aligning entirely different times and places. It’s not a new idea; the great Andrei Tarkovsky’s masterpiece The Mirror is a surreal and profound poem sewn from the threads of his memory. But Gondry’s a more playful, puckish storyteller. He cannot resist the wild possibilities presented by Kaufman’s script. Sometimes it’s as if Joel’s past has been disassembled like a LEGO project and haphazardly pieced together into something frightening and new. I’ve never seen something so true to the experience of dreaming, from the way people’s faces morph from one thing to another to the way events take place against incongruous backdrops. These imaginative tangents are enough to show up most Hollywood productions as creatively bankrupt. Gondry joins a short list of directors—alongside Jonze, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Richard Kelly, Sofia Coppola and David O. Russell—who will inspire a new generation of inventive artists.

Gondry gets great work from his lead actors. For the first time, Jim Carrey seems less like a maniac and more like the kind of guy you’d like to talk with over coffee. It’s his most mature performance, something we caught glimpses of in The Truman Show. On the other hand, Kate Winslet has spent far too long in stuffy, stifling roles, and here she lets her explosive energy break through. She makes Clementine an irresistibly attractive flibbertigibbet whose whims are as surprising as the changing color of her hair (which shifts from “Tangerine” to a color stolen from a Tom Waits lyric—”Blue Ruin.”) She’s the highlight of the film, and the first appealing female character Kaufman has devised.

The supporting cast is also surprising. Wilkinson is properly preoccupied with his technology, so that we sense he is driven by something he himself would rather forget. His assistants are a baffling bunch—amusing, entertaining, but hardly compelling. Ruffalo seems to squint at life through a thick fog in spite of his thick glasses. Elijah Wood, in his first significant post-Frodo role, plays a likeable trainee until we see what a fiend he is at heart. Kirsten Dunst turns her role as a foolish secretary into something complicated and broken. But their part of the story feels too frivolous to pull off the emotional and dramatic turn that takes place in the final act.

Eternal Sunshine is unique in the Kaufman canon for other significant reasons. Being John Malkovich portrayed human beings as irredeemably depraved and selfishly opportunistic. Adaptation’s characters, in their desire for personal satisfaction, descended into base behavior as well. Eternal Sunshine’s characters may have damaged their lives beyond repair, but they are fumbling toward wisdom that should be clearer to the viewer than it is to them.

Most importantly, the film offers powerful insights about relationships. Joel and Clementine have a chance of enduring if they refuse to forget the things they love about each other in the midst of trial and tribulation. Memory erasure, like most break-ups and divorces, is just a flight from the fact that love is hard. Even though Joel and Clementine are not married, viewers may come away with a deeper understanding of marriage, about submitting to each other at great personal cost for a higher reward.

Kaufman also emphasizes our neediness as human beings. Most Hollywood films tell us we have everything we need within ourselves. Eternal Sunshine indicates that we need each other, even in those times when togetherness disrupts happiness. Happiness is based on temporal, unstable things, but joy comes from transcending the temporal and holding on through all the waves of infatuation and falling out, lust and letdown, delight and disappointment.

Great art reflects the truth in a way we could not have seen by any other means. Kaufman’s chronologically confused comedy makes me glad that I cannot delete bad memories in moments of weakness. Those unpleasant echoes of failure and betrayal inform my decisions every day. They keep my ego in check and help me steer clear of similar pitfalls. They also remind me that God’s grace has lifted me up out of that pit and set me in a higher, better place.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Do you have memories you wish you could delete? What purpose do you think those memories serve? What trials and traumas in your life have been important in your development as a person?

2. In friendships, relationships and marriages, how do you respond to betrayal and disappointment? How would you hope a friend or a family member would respond to mistakes you make? How does God respond to those who fail him?

3. We may not be able to erase memories (yet), but what sorts of things does our culture offer us to help us avoid coping with the hard things in our lives?

4. Read Philippians 4:13 and Isaiah 43:18-19. What do these verses teach us about what we should do with our memories? Is it really possible to “forget the former things”? What’s that really mean?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

This film is about a boyfriend and girlfriend who behave recklessly, selfishly, hastily, and irresponsibly in their relationship. While the movie offers good lessons from their mistakes, it does reflect elements of their behavior that make the film inappropriate for younger or less discerning viewers. There is harsh language, drug use, profanity and frank talk about sexual behavior.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 03/25/04

Writer Charlie Kaufman and director Michel Gondry brought their formidable imaginations together for this year’s most challenging and original comedy, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The film stars Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet in excellent performances, and features an impressive supporting cast that includes Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom, The Patriot), Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man), Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me), and Elijah Wood in his first post-Frodo performance.

Carrey plays Joel, the ex-boyfriend of a flirtatious flibbertigibbet. Broken-hearted, Joel seeks help from a doctor who promises to delete all painful memories of the failed relationship from his mind. But during the process, Joel has second thoughts, and ends up fleeing through his own memories in an attempt to salvage what he can of his precious past before the deletion is complete.

Eternal Sunshine has more heart than Kaufman’s previous works, and while its characters are reckless, misguided, and lost, they seem to be finding their way toward a healthy understanding of unconditional love by the conclusion. My full review of the film is at Christianity Today Movies.

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) finds this film far more satisfying than Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, both written by Kaufman. “In this film, Kaufman’s characters finally lift their heads out of the fog and dare to hope—to move beyond narcissism and solipsism and actually try to make contact with one another. It’s not a film that everyone will care to see, but I think it’s ultimately humanistic and hopeful rather than nihilistic and misanthropic, and that’s something.”

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says it’s “one of the most original, cleverly crafted, and emotionally resonant movies to come down the pike in a long time. The screenplay by Charlie Kaufman echoes the self-conscious quirkiness of Adaptation and Being John Malkovich … but is by far the most developed in terms of character and human drama. Despite some unnecessary crassness, the film makes some poignant reflections about the centrality of memories in defining our personalities.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “This may be [Carrey’s] finest dramatic performance to date.”

J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) describes it as “a confusing but exhilarating ride. The film’s playful and disorienting attitude toward time is both a marvelous commentary on the transitory nature of memory and a spectacular narrative trick. Gondry’s use of focus (or lack of) and disjointed sound perfectly captures the disorienting nature of moving between reality and memories. His special effects … provoke tremendous emotion.”

“I’d like to nominate this film for the Lost in Translation Award,” says Josh Hurst (Rebel Base), “as it gives us a relationship story that is more complex and memorable than any we’re likely to see all year. The film’s ending … brings up all kinds of interesting questions that should make for highly rewarding post-viewing discussion. … Ironically, this film about erasing your memories is one movie that will prove difficult to forget.”

A few religious press critics, uncomfortable with the characters’ reckless behavior, give the film mixed reviews.

Sheri McMurray (Christian Spotlight) says, “The outcome is basically positive, although getting to that point is a grueling yet thought provoking experience for the audience. It is the type of movie one must stay focused on or else something will be missed.” (Art that asks us to focus on it? What’s the world coming to?) McMurray concludes, “I must admit, I was greatly moved at the ending.”

Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) says, “It could’ve been the set-up for a great lesson about romantic pitfalls and how to build a healthy, lasting marriage. But no, the existential worldview driving the film is more fatalistic and amoral than that. In the closing moments, Joel and Clem seem resigned to the fact that their union is doomed. They’re considered noble for their willingness to pursue whatever fun they can (including sex) before the whole thing goes down the toilet.”

Frederica Mathewes-Green (Our Sunday Visitor) praises Winslet’s performance and the “extraordinary effects.” But she concludes, “The movie ends … without much having happened. Joel has not changed, and neither has Clementine, and there is still no reason for them to be together.”

I must respectfully disagree with both Smithouser and Matthewes-Green. First, to Matthewes-Green: The characters did not go unchanged. By the film’s conclusion, they were beginning to learn hard lessons about weathering the trials of relationships, forgiving each other’s flaws, and valuing their memories—good and bad.

Smithouser is mistaken to write off Joel and Clementine as mere hedonists indulging while they can. They lack maturity and the patience to build a relationship wisely, yes, but they are learning. They may have lost most of their past, but they seem to be developing a healthier perspective of longsuffering and forgiveness. Thus, while the film reflects that our rash decisions can carry crippling consequences, it also suggests that there is hope for these misguided lovers.

Mainstream critics are generally celebrating the film as a brilliant achievement.

from Film Forum, 04/01/04

Catching up with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Hal Conklin and Denny Wayman (Cinema in Focus) call the film “enlightening. Love is something deeper than the memories of our times together with someone. The only true path toward ‘eternal sunshine’ is a path that cherishes the memory of the sorrows and the joys, the loves and the disappointments of life.”

Brent McCracken (Relevant) says, “It would take numerous viewings (as with any Kaufman film) to truly appreciate it all. The film seems to decry the supermarket mentality of convenient, self-serving love in favor of a more hands-in-the-dirt/make-it-work philosophy. Though hard times will come and memories made will not always be fondly remembered, true love will find a way to endure.”

David Bruce (Hollywood Jesus) says, “The book of Revelation mentions that every deed is recorded in ‘the books,’ and that on the Day of Judgment each person would give an account of all their deeds done in this life. In the film these books are confidential tape recordings that are discovered and played back after the memories were erased. Ultimately the characters have to deal with their own agendas and past relationships with others. This is what true mind-altering repentance is all about. A fresh start, renewal, always begins with dealing with the past. After that, healing and rebirth can take place.”

Darrell Manson (Hollywood Jesus) says, “Faith, like love, depends on remembering. As with Joel and Clementine’s love, to lose those memories is to lose something too dear to lose, even if it seems not to be working. Like other relationships, our relationship with God has times in which it may not seem to be working. If our memories of what God has meant to us and of what God has done fade away, we are truly left alone. Sometimes our memories are all that we have to keep us together.”

from Film Forum, 04/22/04

Charlie Kaufman’s latest script, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, directed with vigor and cleverness by Michel Gondry, drew mixed reviews from religious press critics when it first opened.

This week, Michael Leary (The Matthew’s House Project) joins the ranks of those who find profound insight in this bewildering love story. He says, “Of all of his scripts to date, Eternal Sunshine is Kaufman’s most direct. It is difficult to miss the series of moments in the script that point outside of themselves, beyond the screen, and right into the heart of the audience. Joel and Clementine channel the unspeakable mix of hope and regret that few directors have been able to lay their finger on. Don’t watch this film if you have a few memories you can only revisit with a heartsick smile, it will only reacquaint you with their potency. But all of this radical sentimentality is put into play to service a vision of love and relationships that we rarely see in film. This is brave stuff for Hollywood.”

==============================

The Day After Tomorrow (Christianity Today, 040528)

review by Peter T. Chattaway | posted 05/28/04

For a German expatriate, Roland Emmerich sure has a knack for making politically charged—and very cheesy—movies that coincide with American election campaigns. In 1996, as alleged draft dodger Bill Clinton ran for a second term against war veteran Bob Dole, Emmerich released Independence Day, in which aliens blow up the White House and the instinctively peace-minded President hops aboard a fighter plane to kick some serious butt. In 2000, when Al Gore and George W. Bush vied for the soul of the nation, Emmerich put out The Patriot, a B-grade revenge movie masquerading as a Revolutionary War epic. And now, as Bush defends his presidency against charges of short-sighted unilateralism, here comes The Day After Tomorrow—yet another disaster movie, but this time one that emphasizes international cooperation, rather than American triumphalism.

The film also has something to do with the environment, of course. The story, written by Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff, concerns a sudden, instant ice age that sweeps over the Northern Hemisphere as a result of global warming, and this freezing of the planet is preceded by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and sundry other catastrophes. The one man who sees it coming, though not quite so soon, is workaholic climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), who theorizes the Ice Age of 10,000 years ago began very abruptly, and therefore the planet could be in for another flash freeze in the near future. But of course, the government will not heed his warnings. Vice President Becker (Kenneth Welsh) is especially skeptical, and says new environmental measures would be bad for the economy.

But never mind. The debate is cut short when the world’s weather turns apocalyptic—snow falls in New Delhi, giant hailstones crush pedestrians and traffic in Asia, multiple tornadoes destroy downtown Los Angeles, helicopters freeze in mid-air over the British isles, and a rising ocean floods Manhattan, coming up to the Statue of Liberty’s waist and sending tankers drifting between half-submerged skyscrapers. Among the many victims stranded by these storms is Hall’s son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), who is in New York with a couple of high school classmates for an academic competition; fittingly, they hide with other New Yorkers inside the public library. There, they cope with wounds, a lack of food, flashes of cold temperature so sudden and extreme the frost seems to chase them down the halls, and even a pack of wolves that have escaped from the city zoo.

However successfully these survivors may flee the special effects, they cannot dodge the lame writing or direction. Hall, who has been so busy with work his whole life he has never had all that much time for his son, braves the cold and heads north to find Sam. His credentials as a movie hero are established in his very first scene, when he leaps across a fresh new rift in an Antarctic ice shelf to retrieve his team’s ice core samples. The film builds up to this moment with a breathtaking aerial shot, no doubt digitally enhanced, that suggests a spectacular sense of scale; Hall’s base seems even smaller than you expect, against the incredibly vast frozen landscape. But after the crack in the ice shelf appears, and after Hall rescues his samples, and after the camera pulls back up for one last aerial shot, you cannot help but be struck by how ridiculously coincidental it is that this one fault line, which runs for miles, should happen to pass right through the middle of Hall’s base.

The triteness of that scene surfaces in other moments where Emmerich tries to juxtapose the earth-shattering events of his film with its smaller, more personal dramatic moments. In one scene, Hall tells a colleague he hopes the nations of the earth will learn from their mistakes, to which he then adds, “I’d sure as hell like a chance to learn from mine.” It takes Hall’s colleague a moment to realize he is no longer talking politics or science, but has abruptly changed the subject to his own family, and his own track record as a mostly absentee dad. Emmerich might have thought this was a clever segue, but it just comes off as stiff and contrived, instead. The cast, which also includes Ian Holm as a British professor and Jay O. Sanders as Hall’s partner in science, is certainly capable of better things, but they are never given much more to do than kill time between the money shots.

The movie’s most amusing moments come from seeing conventional wisdom turned on its head. Americans fleeing the invasion of frost from the north are stopped at the Mexican border, and so begin illegally crossing the Rio Grande into Mexico; finally the American President earns the support of Latin American countries by cancelling their debt. And much to the shock of the resident librarian, Sam tells those hiding in the library to keep warm by burning books; his friend suggests starting with the massive tax volumes.

Alas, the film does not exploit as many opportunities for irony as it could have. One of the library survivors, an atheist, professes a love of Nietzsche, but is never compelled to re-think that philosopher’s nihilism; the only retort anyone can muster is to mock Nietzsche’s sexual preferences. This same atheist later clings to a copy of the Gutenberg Bible and refuses to allow anyone to burn it, not out of any respect for sacred scripture, but because, as the first book to be printed on a printing press, it represents the dawn of the Age of Reason; he goes on to say the written word is mankind’s greatest achievement.

This marks an interesting departure from earlier disaster movies, such as Daylight, Deep Impact and Armageddon, which went out of their way to include religious symbols, however superficial, that signified salvation in the midst of suffering. But the disaster movies released since September 11—and yes, the studios do hope audiences will pay to see even more national landmarks destroyed at the multiplex, even though these monuments might very well be terrorist targets in real life—are of a more skeptical, humanistic breed. Last year’s The Core also included a single reference to God, mainly to emphasize that no one should bring him up; now The Day After Tomorrow follows a similar path. Between this, the dull writing, and the hypocritical message—it waves an anti-consumerist flag, yet the disaster genre is itself all about the spectacle of consumption—this is one film viewers might want to put off until some time long, long after the day after tomorrow.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Do you think God would allow—or even cause—a disaster of this magnitude? Why or why not? If disasters like this happen, are they just accidents? Or do they sometimes mean something more? (See Isaiah 45:7, Luke 13:1-5, and the biblical accounts of the Flood, etc.)

2. If you knew your world would come to an end tomorrow, what would you do differently? What would you do the same? How attached are you to this world? How attached should you be?

3. What do you think is mankind’s greatest achievement? What significance should the Age of Reason have? Is mankind’s trust in its own reason perhaps responsible for the sorts of problems on display in this film? What role does reason have in our faith? How does faith inform our reason?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

The violence in the film is pretty much all of the accidental or natural variety—wolves chasing people, people falling through holes in the ground, people and so on. In one scene, a teenaged girl huddles close to a boy to share her body heat with him, but nothing sexual transpires. There is also a four-letter word or two, but remarkably few for a film of this genre and rating.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffery Overstreet

from Film Forum, 06/03/04

The environmentalists were right. The President and his administration were wrong. That is the premise of The Day After Tomorrow. But Roland Emmerich’s blockbuster action movie is much more a special-effects extravaganza than it is a scientific argument. And in spite of the participation of such fine actors as Dennis Quaid (The Rookie), Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko), and Ian Holm (The Lord of the Rings films), most critics say the movie is just a frail echo of Independence Day, with bad weather taking the place of the aliens in the role of wreaking devastation upon historical landmarks.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, “Last year’s The Core also included a single reference to God, mainly to emphasize that no one should bring him up; now The Day After Tomorrow follows a similar path. Between this, the dull writing, and the hypocritical message—it waves an anti-consumerist flag, yet the disaster genre is itself all about the spectacle of consumption—this is one film viewers might want to put off until some time long, long after the day after tomorrow.”

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, “While the actors gamely give it their all … [they are] eventually swept aside by the overwhelming sensory overload that Emmerich dumps upon us. The film’s major flaw is in its overt politicizing of the environmental issues that supposedly lie at the heart of this film. The movie’s depiction of the political administration is a blatant condemnation of the Bush presidency and its arguments devolve into an overly simplistic ‘I told you so’ rationalization unsupported by scientific fact.”

“In more than one way, this is the ultimate comeuppance movie for big bad Republicans,” reports Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk). “There’s also a strong nihilistic message about the end of the world, with nothing to do but listen to environmentalists for our salvation.” But is the movie worth seeing? “I didn’t expect more than a few visual thrills—and I wasn’t disappointed. We need to respect the environment, but this movie will only make people hang onto their SUVs. After all, four-wheel drives can be very handy in the snow.”

Mike Furches (Hollywood Jesus) says it “may be the summer’s biggest letdown. The one thing this movie forgets is that we as an audience want to care more about people than we do special effects. We see so many characters in this movie that we would like to know more about, but, unfortunately, only get brief glimpses of them.”

Bob Smithouser (Plugged In) catalogs the film’s illogical events. “Men trekking into the teeth of a subzero blizzard walk from Philadelphia to New York City in just a day or two. There are a few other plot holes large enough to drive a snowplow through.” And yet, he concludes, “Implausibility aside, The Day After Tomorrow is an exciting, morally grounded summer thrill ride full of noble characters that knows how to balance spectacle with virtue and restraint.”

But Brett Willis (Christian Spotlight) implies that the film is meant to influence the political convictions of the viewers. “In addition to the lasting effects of the scariness, impressionable teens and preteens will of course carry away the implied belief system, and those issues should be discussed. Even some ‘post-teens’ will be swayed by the message, and could be influenced at the ballot box in November. I wonder if this film’s budget needs to be counted in the campaign spending limits set by the Federal Election Commission?”

Mainstream critics are classifying it as yet another empty and forgettable summer movie.

==============================

Garfield: The Movie (Christianity Today, 040611)

review by Stefan Ulstein | posted 06/11/04

Parents and kids will find a lot to like in this charming film adaptation of Jim Davis’s cross-generational comic strip. The cinema version of Garfield remains true to his lazy, fat-cat persona, lounging around the house, eating lasagna and generally slacking off. The physical comedy of the lethargic feline is faithfully transferred to the screen, with the overweight Garfield squeezing through openings and taking long breaks when he has to walk more than fifty feet. Jon’s house is Garfield’s domain. The cul de sac is the ragged edge of his universe

Garfield: The Movie is something of a prequel in that we meet Odie for the first time. Garfield’s owner, Jon (Breckin Meyer), has a huge crush on the veterinarian, Liz Wilson (Jennifer Love Hewett). When she asks him to adopt the slow-on-the-draw pup, he gladly agrees, much to Garfield’s dismay. Garfield is aghast when, on the way home from the vet, he finds a dog in his car seat. This must be a mistake! When they arrive home, Garfield uses poor Odie as a straight man for endless put-downs and jokes. While Garfield reclines on the chair, musing about this new pretender to the throne, we see the intellectually challenged Odie chasing his tail.

Writers Jim Davis, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow have captured the essence of the Garfield comic strip and distilled it into a movie. While some adaptations of comic characters end up scaring the children or offending the parents, Davis, Cohen and Sokolow have chosen to retain the charm and gentle wit of the strip. There is nothing in Garfield: The Movie to cause parents to shudder. Like the best comics, Garfield reaches across generations, and the film version does too. Those old enough to remember Rocky and Bullwinkle will recall laughing at the physical humor while Dad chuckled over puns and allusions that the kids didn’t get. Garfield: The Movie is not terribly sophisticated, but there is enough to keep parents from squirming in their seats with boredom.

The central theme is an appropriate one for young families: sibling rivalry when the new baby comes home from the hospital. In this case it’s the pet hospital. Garfield, like a pampered first son, has carved out a comfortable niche with Jon, who feeds him and provides for his every need. Enter Odie, and the whole family dynamic changes forever. Where Garfield is smug and satisfied, Odie, like a new baby, is oblivious to everything, including Garfield’s resentful teasing. Those of us who were firstborns will recall conducting various behavioral experiments on our new rivals: “Will he eat this?” But like the jealous poutings of human older siblings, Garfield’s tormenting of Odie is done out of vulnerability rather than cruelty.

Because this is a movie and not a comic strip, a narrative with a resolvable conflict was needed. A sleazy television host kidnaps poor Odie to be a prop in his new TV show. Odie is hauled from his comfortable Midwestern home to the big scary city of New York. Garfield finds that he misses Odie and sets out to save him. Traffic, flights of stairs and rats stand in his way, and while Garfield would prefer the lazy way out, he perseveres for Odie’s sake.

Just as we eventually learn to enjoy and cherish our siblings, Garfield eventually comes to love and accept Odie into the family. Their adventures bond them just as our backyard adventures bonded us. But as with human families, a certain level of jealousy and hazing still remain.

Technically, Garfield: The Movie is a treat. Garfield’s cat pals Nermal and Arlene show up as live cats with computer generated mouths. Some of the talking cat commercials on television are so weird and over-emphasized that they look downright creepy; they’ve been known to frighten little children. Nermal and Arlene speak softly, as real cats might if they had voices. Luca, the big dog on the chain is a scary looking Doberman, but he never snarls or looks like he’s about to rip anyone apart. Kids will see him as the Big Dog, but in a humorous, not a terrifying way.

The filmmakers use the computer imagery sparingly. Garfield is the only animatron in the movie, which accentuates his stardom. He’s also the only orange object in the movie. The filmmakers considered using a real cat to play Garfield, but to find one who was orange, fat and a great actor was difficult. Cats are notoriously difficult to film. Dogs like to please people and will do tricks for Kibbles. Cats, on the other hand, like to remain completely aloof. The world must come to them. The wranglers (trainers) were able to use the real cats that play Nermal and Arlene in the stunts, but they had trouble getting them to sit still and stare. They just got bored and wandered off. Anyone who has tried to get a cat to do anything, including eat, knows about this.

Tyler, the dog who plays Odie, did not need special effects. His repertoire of tricks includes being able to hop on his hind legs and twirl like a mad polka king. He can look confused, happy or sad. By relying on flesh-and-blood animals wherever possible, the filmmakers have made the movie comfortably familiar to lovers of the simply-drawn comic strip. It doesn’t come across as an overproduced computer game, but as a movie about characters we love.

Finding a voice for Garfield was tricky. He had to be lively and engaging, jaded and world-wise, a bit nave and fundamentally vulnerable. Bill Murray is a natural. Murray’s character in the recent Lost in Translation is a lot like Garfield: He’s a pampered star taken out of his comfortable existence and dropped into an unfamiliar world. Murray is reserved and nuanced as the voice of Garfield. He’s not Bill Murray the big-time movie star; he’s a big fat cat.

Garfield: The Movie is geared toward kids, but lovers of the comic strip will find it familiar and charming. People who love cats will see their own felines in Garfield. Parents who love neither Garfield nor cats will have a good time nonetheless.

Talk About It Discussion starters

1. Why do older siblings get jealous when a new baby comes home from the hospital?

2. What kinds of things make siblings bond to one another and learn to enjoy one another?

3. Why do some people enjoy dogs, who like to please people, while others like cats, who are so independent as to be downright snobs?

The Family Corner For parents to consider

Garfield: The Movie is rated PG, although it might easily have been rated G. There’s nothing to offend sensitive parents and nothing to scare most children.

==============================

The Stepford Wives (Christianity Today, 040611)

review by Peter T. Chattaway | posted 06/11/04

There has always been something a tad absurd about The Stepford Wives, even once you accept its science-fiction premise, but the new film pushes the concept way, way over the top. The original novella by thriller writer Ira Levin (Rosemary’s Baby, The Boys from Brazil) tapped into feminist fears that men would gladly exchange their flesh-and-blood wives for domesticated, hyper-sexual robots if they could, and the 1975 film directed by Bryan Forbes went on to emphasize the even deeper horror that takes place within the men themselves: it is one thing to be killed and replaced by a machine, but it is quite another to allow your own soul to be twisted against your conscience. These days, however, it seems the battle of the sexes is either so complicated or so pass—take your pick—that the only thing a mainstream film can do with the subject is to make fun of it all. So, in the hands of Frank Oz—the Muppeteer who gave life to Fozzie Bear, Miss Piggy and Yoda, and the director of the campy musical version of Little Shop of Horrors—The Stepford Wives has become an out-and-out comedy.

And as comedies go these days, it’s actually fairly funny, albeit in a light, superficial way which either hides or exposes the fact that the plot is a thick tangle of mutual contradictions and the social commentary is pretty much all over the place. No doubt the incoherence on display can be blamed on the reshoots that reportedly plagued this production, but one does have to wonder how much of the credit, if that’s the word, should go to screenwriter Paul Rudnick (In & Out), whose work in the past has shown a similar preference for zingers over narrative logic.

The first sign that the new film has pretty much nothing to do with the real world comes in the opening scene, in which Joanna Eberhart (Nicole Kidman), now no longer a freelance photographer but the ultra-successful president of a top-rated television network, promotes a new batch of reality-TV shows that all hinge on female empowerment. (In real life, of course, shows that explicitly pursue the gender angle—like Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? and The Swan—have taken the exact opposite tack and perpetuated the very stereotypes that feminists fought thirty years ago.) Joanna’s plans are brought to a crashing halt when a man who appeared on one of her shows turns up, brandishing a gun and crying, “Let’s kill all the women!” Fearing lawsuits, the network cancels all of Joanna’s shows and lets her go—much to her shock.

Looking for a change of pace, Joanna and her doting husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) move with their family to Connecticut, and to the gated community of Stepford. At first, Joanna is weirded out by the buxom, blissed-out women in the floral-print dresses, but then she tries to fit in, baking cupcakes and knitting and performing various other tasks while Walter spends his time at the Men’s Association, a club whose leader, Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken), offers Walte