2023 Predictions on the Top Six

Well, it's that day! My 'Christmas'! and this year, I was able to see all 9 of the Best Pic nominations as well as The Whale. I'm ready for tonight! (I have yet to write my reviews for the films, but that doesn't stop me from making my predictions.) 

So, without anything further, here are my thoughts and predictions. I do have to say that there is great fun in this for me, because it gives me a chance to see how accurately I can get into the mind and psyche of those who vote for the best of, not to mention my own analysis and thoughts on who I'd pick and why. I've been finding a lot of people pick their choices, not on something to do with the art form, but on personal responses (I cried more in this one, I liked that one better ... but with no other support than that.)

So ... my thoughts and predictions are as follows:

For Best Supporting Actress: *Angela Bassett for Black Panther: Wakanda Forever * Kerry Condon for The Banshees of Inisherin * Jamie Lee Curtis for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once * Stephanie Hsu for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once * Hong Chau for The Whale *

Strangely, this was probably the hardest for me. I think Angela Bassett will win for Black Panther, but I think Kerry Condon should win for Banshees. I don't think Condon will win, and it was only Bassett that I actually didn't see. Of the other three, I did think Condon was the best supporting actress. She was so grounded and I loved her character arc! I think Bassett will win because she's black, because this is the only chance to give a prominent black actress an award. Not because she's the best, but because she's black.

For Best Supporting Actor - * Brendon Gleeson for The Banshees of Inisherin * Brian Tyree Henry for Causeway * Judd Hursch for The Fabelmans * Barry Keoghan for The Banshees of Inisherin * Ke Huy Qauan for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once *

This is a relative no-brainer. Ke Huy Quan will win for his work in Everything and he should win. I did not see Brian Tyree Henry in Causeway, but of the others, Quan was the best, I thought.

For Best Actress - * Ana de Armas for Blonde * Cate Blanchett for Tar * Andrea Riseborough for To Leslie * Michelle Williams for The Fablemans * Michelle Yeoh for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once *

Such a struggle between two! I'm going to go with who I think will win it and I also think this person did an exceptional job of acting in her role. Cate Blanchett for the win in Tar. Michelle Yeoh was good, but I don't think her acting was as good as Blanchett's, but I don't think she hit the subtleties and nuances in the character arc like Blanchett did. I couldn't take my eyes off Blanchett's hands!! They were a story unto themselves!

For Best Actor: * Austin Butler for Elvis * Colin Farrell for The Banshees of Inisherin * Brendan Fraser for The Whale * Paul Mescal for Aftersun * Bill Nighy for Living *

Another struggle! I'm going to go with, again, who I think will win and also who I think should win. Austin Butler. Mindblowing acting. yes, I have had such a personal joy in examining his work in this film, listening to endless interviews and explanations of the work he did for this role, and the phenomenal dedication that young man gave to the role ... he completely carried that movie, in perfect execution of the real man, over the 25+ years. I believe you truly saw Presley and not Butler. This wasn't a mimic presentation, this was becoming the person, this was acting as if you were him. Brendan Fraser was good, without a doubt, and beautifully done, but I don't think as good as Butler. Fraser has incredible prostethics to assist him, Butler had only himself. He didn't 'become Elvis' when he put the suit on, he was Elvis throughout the two years of filming. Fraser also had an excellent supporting cast for the character's week of depiction and just didn't have the depth and breadth that Butler had, in my opinion. I will say that if Fraser wins, I won't be upset and I will cheer for him. Quite the come-back story! (I'd love to write a comparison essay on this!)

For Best Director: * Todd Field for Tar * Daniel Kwan & Daniel Sheinert for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once * Martin McDonagh for The Banshees of Inisherin * Stephen Spielberg for The Fabelmans *

I think the Daniels are going to take it for Everything Everywhere. I will say I'm not as taken as it seems everyone else is with this movie. I have my reasons, all based on the film and not how much I liked it or how it moved me. As I have thought, it would make an excellent final exam for any Psych or Philosophy 101 course! I could talk ad nauseam on all the bits and bobs that were thrown into that film! However, I think, from the list, Spielberg did a beautiful job with The Fabelmans, but I don't think he'll win. (Why isn't the director for All Quiet on this list??)

And for Best Picture - * All Quiet on the Western Front * Avatar: The Way of Water * The Banshees of Inisherin * Elvis * Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, The Fabelmans * Tar* Top Gun: Maverick * Triangle of Sadness * Women Talking *

I do think Everything Everywhere All At Once will take it but I do not think, out of the list it was the best movie. It is enjoyable, the story is quirky and unique, there are points where you laugh, where your heartstrings are tugged, where you're even a bit disgusted, but I don't think it was the best movie. So many people will be happy with its win; I, however, think the cinematography was better with another, I think the juxtapositioning and the attention to detail throughout this other film, the script, the power in message far surpassed Everything and how that was communicated visually, auditorily, symbolically, script, the acting, it was the closest to perfection in the list created. I was profoundly affected, hands down, and I wept for uncommon reasons - I think All Quiet on the Western Front is the best movie of the year. (I really need to write a comparison essay on these two, also!)

***********************

Note: I will say that I'm almost certain All Quiet will take best cinematography. It truly is beyond anything I've ever seen. A German move in German about the German loss in WW1. For those who have not seen it, it is frighteningly accurate for what they went through: it's viceral, it slices through you you. You can almost feel the mud oozing into your boots, the unending rain down your neck, the grit in your mouth, the brain spatter of your friend who just lost his life beside you. Your stomach will lurch. To think young men LIVED that ... and lost the war. With what we complain about today, we have nothing compare to them. There is a quote in the film - about how forced peace is not peace, and when one is forced to something, the outcome is not what we want. To think Germany was forced into the signing of the armistice on Nov 11th, and to know that it was soon followed by Hitler's relatiation, that was not true peace. That was humiliated defeat, and no one likes to be humiliated into defeat. "Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." (Einstein)

I will update this after the ceremony is done.

Curious to see if my radar was on or off today!

That Time of the Year!

 

Well, the nominee list has been released and the date set! Now, I get to gorge myself on movies galore! It really is my favourite time of the year! 

Before I list the nominees, I will lay out my guide. As always, I will do my best to write an analysis on the films up for best pic. (I might add two extra if I can this year - The Whale with Brendan Fraser, as he is a big contender for Best Actor and Tar with Cate Blanchette, as she is a big contender for Best Actress. So, let's see if I can squeeze 12 movies in over the next few weeks! 

My criteria will be on the following: 

• On Theme, Message, DC (Director's Concept) 
• On Directing, to the above
• On Acting - individually and ensemble, character arcs, development, believability
• On the Story - plot, complexity, arc, development, climax
• On the Technicality and how it develops all of the above
• set, costumes, details, etc. 
• score, music, etc.
• filming: angles, editing, sound, effects, cinematography, etc.
• On the Power of the Film, how I felt while I watched it, how did I feel when I left the theatre, did I see it again and how did that change my experience
• On Comparison to other films in the genre as well as to others in this category
• On the Real World Relevance and Connection to our time
• What else is it up for, what else has it won, accolades, and others' comments.

I do wish I could write on the analysis for other best sections, but I might include various in each film as it fits. 

Nominees in the Six Big Categories for this year, 2023 

(I will make my prediction before the Oscars start on March 12th!

1.    Best Picture

• All Quiet on the Western Front
• Avatar: The Way of Water
• The Banshees of Inisherin
• Elvis
• Everything Everywhere All At Once
• The Fabelmans
• Tar
• Top Gun: Maverick
• Triangle of Sadness
• Women Talking

Best Director

• Martin McDonagh (Banshees)
• Danial Kwan & Daniel Scheinert (Everything Everywhere)
• Stephen Spielberg (The Fabelmans)
• Todd Field (Tar)
• Ruben Ostlund (Triangle of Sadness)

Best Lead Actor

• Austin Butler (Elvis)
• Colin Farrell (Banshees)
• Brendan Fraser (The Whale)
• Paul Mescal (Aftersun)
• Bill Nighy (Living)

Best Lead Actress

• Cate Blanchett (Tar)
• Ana de Armas (Blonde)
• Andrea Riseborough (To Leslie)
• Michelle Williams (The Fabelmans)
• Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere)

Best Supporting Actor

• Brendan Gleeson (Banshees)
• Brian Tyree Henry (Causeway)
• Judd Hirsch (The Fabelmans)
• Barry Keoghan (Banshees)
• Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere)

Best Supporting Actress

• Angela Bassett (Black Panther: Wakanda Forever)
• Hong Chau (The Whale)
• Kerry Condon (Banshees)
• Jamie Lee Curtis (Everything Everywhere)
• Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere)

A quick comment - I am grateful that there are still the Actor and Actress categories. 

Reflections on The Power of the Dog (Spoiler alert!)

 

I went into this movie knowing little about it - I knew it was a 'western', I knew Benedict Cumberbatch was the lead, I knew it was set in the 1920s. And that's about it. I admit, for a good part in the beginning, I was attentive but confused. Where was this movie going? If 'Phil' (Cumberbatch) was the main character, why was he so nasty? Was this going to become a love story or just a battle between brothers? And as I watched, each guess I had seemed to be not the direction the film took. Which made me watch it closer. 

If it was about 'Phil', who else took up a lot of the screen time? Peter. The son of the woman (Rose) who married his brother (George). 

I cannot discuss the brilliance of this film without examining the story itself. So, be warned ... details from the story, the visuals, the end are coming. I've seen the film twice and likely will see it again. There is just so much to peel back from this film! 

On the surface, it's a very slow-moving story. Simple in many ways - two brothers get their parents ranch, and on a cattle drive, one brother takes a fancy to a woman they meet at a location where they lodge. He marries her and takes her and her son back to the ranch, where the other brother thinks she wants his money, and there is conflict between the brothers. The son is slender and effeminate, easy fodder for these burly cowboys, and the second brother loses no time in becoming cruel to him. In the end, the second brother dies from anthrax, leaving the mother, son and first brother on their own. Simple, right? Ahhh ... not so fast. 

Underneath the surface of the above story lies a layer of toxic masculinity and the conflict between this and latent, secret homosexual urges. And under that ... a psychotic, twisted, Oedipus-complex-type sickness. And beneath that - a story of being queer in an age of cowboy masculinity, and the damage that can come through this. To be clear, Peter does not want sex with his mother ... Peter is rather asexual in many ways. You're not sure what he is, as there is no indication in any direction. But boy, does Peter love his mother! Not unlike Norman Bates in many ways. In fact, very interesting similarities in Peter and Freddie Highmore's Norman in the TV show Bates Motel. Phil is the main character, in many ways, for he both starts and ends the film; the plot weaves around him and how this hidden part of him, this homophobia and secret relationship with his mentor has formed him into the man he became is the central part to the film. 

When I went back to watch it a second time, the clues were all there. In fact, in many ways I enjoyed the movie more the second time. I could watch it closer as I knew the end, and the path the narrative took was even more fascinating. There is no doubt that Jane Campion (the director) was incredibly meticulous about every detail. Every angle, every glance, every movement. It all meant something. How she built tension between characters - between Rose and Peter, between Rose and George, between Rose and Phil, between Phil and George, between Phil and Peter, and between Phil and Bronco Henry (a character never seen but who formed Phil in many ways). Each relationship was meticulously formed and developed, with massive props to the actors behind the characters! 

I could go into a variety of things - the quick visual moments (the frozen shock in Peter's eyes when Phil lights his cigarette with the exquisite flower that Peter made and snuffs it out in the glass of water, the careful gloved hand as Peter cuts the hide of the found dead cow, the white shoes he wears to be replaced with cowboy boots and later the return of the white shoes, the light and dark colouring of the characters, and on and on. Other have dissected the film better than I have and the details are mesmerizing. But the moment that made my stomach freeze was the smile Peter had when he took the cigarette from Phil, the angle of filming upward (who has the power now?), and after, when Peter turns from the window, my stomach turned over. 

The movie began with Phil obviously in power - he was the power-dog in the beginning. But, as we/the viewer were mesmerized by his 'power', we missed what was happening to Peter, and his insane obsession with protecting his mother. We thought he was a weak, effeminate, powerless victim. But oh, no ... he slyly and quietly waited and watched and we ignored ... much like the fox that the actor used as a metaphor for his character. And when the moment presented itself, he leapt in for the kill. And no one knew it was him. In fact, I bet many viewers didn't realize it was him, either. Phil was not the power-dog in the end ... a reversal had happened, all without our realizing it, carefully laid out and meticulously planted. But it's all there. 

A word about visual and literary arts. This movie comes from a book with the same name by Thomas Savage. There are apparently truth-ties between his story and his life. Many people expect movies from books to be a re-telling of the book and get upset when that is not the case. I, on the other hand, refuse to compare one to the other. I know movies can use books as their inspiration, but they are not bound to be faithful to every detail of that book; in fact, they can pick and choose what they wish to transfer from the source into their artistic creation. Books are omnipotent - you get to see inside character's minds, you get to create the visuals yourself, you are lured in with words and every sensory experience can be communicated. Movies are not like that - they are purely visual. The words come in the form of either voice-overs or dialogue and the director communicates in very different ways. 

I bring this up here because apparently (I have not read the originating novel) Phil has a hand in the suicide of Peter's father. This is omitted from the movie, and many are unhappy about that. Personally, I liked it - it made me wonder if Peter had a hand in his father's death for there are subtle hints that he was abusive when he got to drinking. And if his father "committed suicide" and Phil "contracted anthrax" ... Peter just became even more interesting as neither death would ever point to him. And, with that last smile as he turns from the window overlooking (power?) his mother and her new husband, I got the feeling that George better be careful and make sure Rose is always happy, or he might "accidentally" meet his end as well. 

Genius film; brilliantly acted, brilliantly directed. 

And, did you see the howling dog in the hills? I did. I read somewhere an apropos summary: "this movie is a mesmerizing tale that asks the viewer to see the hidden shape in it, much like Phil and Peter see the shadow of a barking dog in the mountains." And that it does, in more ways than one. 

It's My Christmas!!

 

It's that time of year again!! A bit later than normal, but no less exciting for me!  I know I've fallen out of step with this, and this year is a good time to pick it up again. My annual Academy Award Ritual - more Christmas than Christmas for me! 

To recap the tradition: Every year, I wait with bated breath to see what films are going to be nominated for the top 5 Oscar awards: Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Film. And all the other ones, too. Then, I (and my friend Kate) have the length of time from the announcement to the day of the awards to see all the pictures for Best Film. And others, if there is time. And, occasionally, we'll get a jump-start if there's a movie we're pretty certain will make it into those top 10 nominees. 

Then, on the big night, we watch the awards together and make our guesses - who we think should win (because we've seen them all and our opinions are legitimate!) and who we think the Academy will honour, and what our thoughts are on that. And of course, the lovely fun of ooohing and ahhhing over the dresses (along with the "what the hell was she thinking????" complete with baffled head-shakes are always in there, too!) 

So, as of February 8th, the race is on! 

Here are the nominees: 

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Jessie Buckley, The Lost Daughter
Ariana DeBose, West Side Story
Judi Dench, Belfast
Kirsten Dunst, The Power of the Dog
Aunjanue Ellis, King Richard

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Ciaran Hinds, Belfast
Troy Kotsur, CODA
Jesse Plemons, The Power of the Dog
J.K. Simmons, Being the Ricardos
Kodi Smit-McPhee, The Power of the Dog

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEAD ROLE

Jessica Chastain, The Eyes of Tammy Faye
Olivia Colman, The Lost Daughter
Penelope Cruz, Parallel Mothers
Nicole Kidman, Being the Ricardos
Kristen Stewart, Spencer

BEST ACTOR IN A LEAD ROLE

Javier Bardem, Being the Ricardos
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Power of the Dog
Andrew Garfield, Tick Tick Boom!
Will Smith, King Richard
Denzel Washington, The Tragedy of MacBeth

BEST DIRECTOR

Kenneth Branagh, Belfast
Ryusuke Hamaguchi, Drive My Car
Paul Thomas Anderson, Licorice Pizza
Jane Campion, The Power of the Dog
Steven Spielberg, West Side Story

BEST FILM FOR 2022 (drum roll please) 

Belfast
CODA
Don’t Look Up
Drive My Car
Dune
King Richard
Licorice Pizza
Nightmare Alley
The Power of the Dog
West Side Story

Now, let's see how many of those top 10 I can see by March 27th. I will post the ones I see and my thoughts and reflections on each film after this. There are two I have already seen - Westside Story and Macbeth, so I will write reviews of those after this one. Stay tuned! 

Then, come March 26th, I will make my predictions as to who I think should win and who I think the Academy will honour ... and let's see how close I am! My fun and games! 

Reflections on I, Tonya

DOOMED FROM BIRTH

I saw I, Tonya the same night I saw Lady Bird. Both are about young women who have dreams, both have a mother that wants the 'best' for them, and that's about where the similarities end. This film made me cringe, it made me gasp, it made me a little sick. This girl, (she reached her pinnacle and crashed by the age of 23), for all her gifts and abilities, for all her determination and perseverance, would never make it. People say, "If you want it bad enough, and you don't give up, you can achieve anything you want." I'm not so sure I agree anymore - this movie, this story, is one where that flies in the face of that belief.

My thoughts on this movie - very difficult to watch. And that, in itself, is a sign of a well-made movie, where the viewer is able to empathize with the character, to see nuances to what brings her to each point in her life. I vaguely remember when this covered the media - I remember feeling sorry for her, but that was not the way to 'win'. Hiring a 'hit'man to take down your American competition (after all, there was still Oksana Baiul, who beat them both), that still wouldn't get you the Gold nor the respect. But this movie brought out a lot more, her backstory, her struggles, those who surrounded her. And maybe, in a very small way, she reminded me of myself.

Thankfully my mother, though difficult, was not like Tonya's. LaVona (played in mesmerizing cruelty by Alison Janney) never loses an opportunity to 'create character' in her daughter. She knows life is tough, and that the world will be hard on her daughter. Her solution? Make her fight for what she wants. Make her strong by creating a place to struggle. And what ensues from there borders on being sickening. Today? she'd be up on child abuse. Then? No one probably knew anything, or they kept their mouth closed.  After all, it seems that the Hardings were from the other side of the tracks and some of 'those people'. Maybe the worst part was that, according to the way Janney played her role and it was written, LaVona never recognized the error of her ways and the horrible damage she did to her daughter. Not unlike Fletcher (J.K. Simmons) in Whiplash, LaVona's actions do bring forth a 'genius' in her protege, but at what cost? Maybe there is hope for Andrew in a way that there is none for Tonya - Andrew had someone in his life who loved him; Tonya does not.

This movie could have reduced Tonya to a joke, much like she was in the media at that time. The girl with home-made costumes, so not what the figure skating community puts forth as 'her' image, the rough-around-the-edges and foul-speaking woman who was so gifted on the ice, but would never get the recognition or accolades she worked so hard for and really did deserve. "I was loved for a minute, then I was hated. Then I was just a punchline," she says in the film. The film is full of lines that hit you in the gut - this is a woman, and to be treated thusly, by her family, her husband ... the media. She never had a chance. From the moment she was born, and her mother begin to 'train' her for success.

Perhaps what amazed me even more about the film is how the film portrayed an Olympic athlete. How they took an actress who could skate and turn her into the skater would pulled off the very first triple axel, and to do it on the screen. It was not an easy feat! but they did it very well. The thing is that all her routines and performances are available for everyone to see, so it's not like it can be bluffed. Yes, from a filming perspective, it was impressive.

There are times when the movie is painful to watch, there are times when you can't help but laugh (and feel sick that you just did). The actors are excellent in portraying their characters, each sharing their 'truth' with the audience. All you are certain of in the end - the actual facts of the incident are long forgotten and altered so no one knows what they are, and the one to pay the heaviest price was the one that was beaten down, a victim, lost before she even began. I wish her perseverance would have paid off, I wish she would have won and shown them all ... but she didn't. Sadly, she will be remembered for not for overcoming, but for being beaten ... down by those who knew her, mocked by the media, lost by the history books. I'm glad the movie was made but I don't want to see it again.

Nominated for Oscars:
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (Margo Robbie)
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role (Allison Janney)
Best Achievement in Film Editing

Reflections on Lady Bird

BECOMING 'ME'

Right off, I have to say that I loved this movie. Not because of any grand reason, but because it was so real. A young girl, last year of school, trying to figure out who she is, where she wants to go and what she wants to make of life ... but not all at once. What I would have given to have watched this movie when I was in Grade 12!

Saoirse Ronan is amazing - granted, she is close to the age of the character herself, but the 'realness' she brings to Christine makes the viewer see only this teenager struggling to find herself as the story unfolds. What do these classes have to do with life? how do I get people to like me? I want to be one of the popular kids! Why does my mom have to be so ... uhhh! ... school, friends, dreams, boys ... all this is part of the movie. All brilliantly shared with Ronan's amazing ability to become her character. She was brilliant in Brooklyn and again here. Every nuance from a look in her eye, to the way she walks or moves her hands, her acting is incredible.

I could ponder the details of Christine, but she would not be as brilliant if it was just her - she is surrounded by a cast that supports her and through their contributions, help to shine the light even more on her brilliance. Her mother, Marion McPherson (played by Laurie Metcalfe), is typical in many ways - working during the day to keep the family going, wanting the best for her daughter, sometimes imposing her desires upon her daughter, hoping to get her to avoid the pain of poor choices, wanting what she wants for her daughter and finally coming to the conclusion that it is best to let her daughter be who she wants and love her in spite of, because of, regardless of, and as she is. Her best friend, Julie (played by Beanie Feldstein), doesn't quite fit in with the 'cool kids' but she's faithful and she, too, is struggling with who she is in this thing called life. She struggles with identity and self-esteem and all things 'teen', and her role in Christine's life brings her even more to 'life' - sometimes Julie brings out Christine's strengths and sometimes she shows her difficult and negative traits. And then there's 'the boyfriend' - Kyle (played by Timothee Chalamet, also up for Best Actor in his movie Call Me By Your Name) and Danny (played by Lucas Hedges, up for an Academy Award last year for his work in Manchester By The Sea). Not a bad supporting cast! Each character is meticulously placed and created to bring out more nuances of the whole that we see as 'Lady Bird'.

I really think that when someone can talk about a character in a movie as that character, examine the motivations, the inspirations, the desires and struggles ... as the character, and everything is there, then it truly is a brilliant movie. Not only is the main character fleshed out, but so have all the minor characters, and this all contributes to the masterpiece of the whole. And still, in film, there is more - the cinematography, the editing, the music and costume and such. Each, almost tenderly used, to again, bring nuance to the whole. No wonder this film has received the accolades it has!

I have nothing negative to say about this movie - it's too simple? No, sometimes the biggest moments in life come as a small whisper. There are no 'big' moments, but it's not about 'big' moments. One pet peeve I have is wanting movies to be something they were not created to be. This director (and writer), Greta Gerwig, seems to have written her story as a homage to that point in a girl's life when she goes for 'girl' to 'woman', when she takes on the cloak of responsibility and begins to make her way into life as her own person. And how she does this in a movie, a medium that is about the external, what we see, which brings challenges to reveal the internal, Gerwig brings every detail into play in such a way that we know the internal. It's not supposed to be about 'big' moments, it's not an action-adventure, it's not so-many-things .. because what it IS, is brilliant.

I wish this movie was there when I was a teen girl in Grade 12. I might have turned out differently if it was. Or maybe my mother would have.

2018 Academy Award Nominations for:
Best Picture of the Year
Best Actress in a Leading Role (Saoirse Ronan)
Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Laurie Metcalfe)
Best Director (Greta Gerwig)
Best Original Screenplay (Greta Gerwig)

Reflections on mother! (w/spoilers)

FAITH - MAN-MADE OR GOD-GIVEN?

I think that Darren Aronofsky's most recent film mother! is going to go down in history as his most controversial, most uncomfortable and maybe most misunderstood. It is not a movie I would recommend for most people, if for no other reason than it requires a thinking mind to view it and to engage with it. And, frankly, most people don't go to movies for those reasons and some are even opposed to having to think as they view. 

I did some research before I went to see mother! so I was somewhat ready. Still, I realized that the minute the film started, everything was going to be something else. They said it was an allegory ... and maybe one within another, depending on how you view parts of the Bible. They said it was going to be about religion ... and it was, but you have to be familiar with context and branches of various religious constructs throughout time. And then, there's a possibility that other philosophies and beliefs are part of the movie's narrative/message as well.

See, this is a movie with a message. Everything is designed to promote that message. Or maybe messages. Aronofsky has gone on record saying that the movie is about our earth and how we care for her. I see that as the foundation on which he creates his morality play. Maybe, in a sense, Aronofsky is being used to pass on a message - does he know he's being used thusly? Who knows - the 'yes' or 'no' doesn't really matter, I don't think. The point is - there is a message in here for all of us - those who claim the name 'Christian', those who claim to be naturalists, those who are part of our world today.

What I saw when I viewed the entire film is a presentation on how something starts pure and beautiful and whole but the minute it gets into 'human' hands, and gets passed along, the closer it comes to complete destruction and obliteration, all oblivious to and justified in the mind of the 'human hands'. The adulation and obsessive clawing at anything of 'Him' (aka God) is much like that Christians today who believe they have all the answers, and have missed the message. There's a scene where one of the fans is charging through the house, grabbing, stealing, destroying wherever he can. The mother is shocked and he says something like, "He said what I have is yours." This was like a cold cloth in my face - yes, God has given us this world and all the things in int ... and what have we done? We've 'charged' through the 'house', destroying, killing, turning nature upside down. Whether global change is real or not, nature has a balance and we are throwing that balance off with our destructive, self-centred raping and annihilating of everything we should be loving, nurturing and caring for.

And this goes beyond the environment - in the movie and in our world. At the end, before the complete destruction of the home and everything/everyone in it, the camera starts this circular motion and doesn't let up until the end. It's like a whirlwind, a cyclone and you can't stop it ... it's like the film is shouting - 'This is YOU!  This is what YOU'VE done! YOU have led us here! YOU have created this and done this and claim it is in my name!" And scenes flash by - guns and violent death, people in the house killing each other, all morality is gone, everything is relative and no one is wrong - raping of the mother, killing of the child (yes, a reference to Christ's death and communion, and the concept of transubstantiation is huge at this point), rampant war on life and all things good.  Transubstantiation is a legitimate theological tenet, but maybe Aronofsky is pointing out how truly frightening faith really can be if we take it literally. It is my personal belief that too much of the time we force religion to say things that it was never meant to say when we are adamant on taking things literally.  Any intelligent Christian will share how the Bible is not a science book and each genre of writing needs to be viewed through those lenses, and yet those of faith have turned it into something of their creation, God in their image. That's the difference in taking something literal, forcing something to say something that it was never meant to say to begin with ... and examining the same thing through the genre, context and cultural understanding to truly understand the moment and the message intended.

But here's the thing - this western world we live in is convinced that it's right, regardless of consequence of our actions. We have done away with any form of common truth; everything is relative and no one is wrong. The arrogance of the common man is frightening, the lack of concern, presence of disrespect and near hatred evident in social media, coming from the mouths of leaders, and people I know. There is no problem if we agree; but if we disagree ... what follows is evident that (generally speaking) we can no longer get along if we hold differing opinions. And, taking this into a realm that is supposed to be known by its love, is being known by anything but.

And as the movie spirals out of control, as complete annihilation and destruction becomes imminent, it is almost as if Aronofsky, through his film, is saying - it doesn't matter what you believe, YOU have done this ... and we're all fucked. And ... in the midst of it , as everything is crazy, He comes close to his Creation and, in a way that's loving and tender, whispers, "We need to forgive." We are called ... we are commissioned ... if we are to survive, we need to forgive. From the inside out, not just in word only.

There is so much more the film holds, as each scene and sequence holds food to contemplate on man levels.  This is just the way I reflected on it after seeing it once. If I see it again, I maybe reflect again. It truly holds a library's worth of contemplation! I remember hearing that if you want to prepare for this movie, read Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree. And yes, that is good in preparation ... were it that a children's book could heal the people!

Again, this film is not for everyone ... in fact, it is probably not for many. It is confusing, it is a whirlwind that leaves you more with a feeling than with any cohesive thoughts. Aronofsky said he wanted most for people to react, and they are. Few are positive ... and even fewer understand it as I do. I might not be right, but it did bring me to tears, as it sinks in that I am part of why we are heading in the direction we are. I am in part, to blame, for the death and the hatred around me. Regardless of what others thought or felt, this is a movie that will stay with me a long time. And, ultimately change me in some way. Few movies do that.

Reflections on: Gone With the Wind (w/spoilers)

A CLASSIC REPEATING

There is no doubt that Gone With The Wind is a classic - first colour film to win Best Film in 1939, first black actor to win best supporting actress, winning 10 of the 13 nominated Academy Awards, filmed when racial segregation was alive and well, about a point in history where transition went from one world, gentile and proper and elegant to a world of change and growth, of equality and poverty and loss, where in a matter of days, the world of refinement was gone with the wind.

I had a chance to see this classic on the big screen a bit ago and am very glad I did.  It is a classic, in every sense of the word, but what I found intriguing were the characters and how much they are like people I know today.

As I work my way into the thoughts I had while watching this film, don't ever get me wrong - there is something about this movie that is magnificent. Whether the sets or the costumes, the visuals and cinematography (characters in black relief against the fires of Atlanta), the opulent wealth pushed up against the abject poverty once the Union Army plundered the land they won. From a filming/technical point of view, I could look at stills of this film forever.  I thought I'd have trouble staying awake but no - just over 4 hrs on the edge of my seat. And, yes - it needs to be seen on the big screen. I am captivated by every moment of that film - curious to the historical context, wanting to learn more about the novel it came from and the challenges it took bringing it to the big screen in that day.

But what stood out for me is something that may or may not be intentional, because it was like someone was shining a light on an aspect in the movie that is almost being repeated today. I'm wondering if this is how people where then, or perhaps more apt: what motivated Margaret Mitchell to create her 4 main characters thusly - how 'real' were they at that time because there seems to be something very 'real' about them today.

Let's see if I can explain ...

There are two couples: Scarlett O'Hara (played by Vivian Leigh) and Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gable) and their 'reflection', Ashley Wilkes (played by Leslie Howard) and Melanie Hamilton (played by Olivia de Havilland). You can find ample discussion of various themes online - themes of survival in a time of change, overcoming adversity, gender strength and growth, transformation of the Southern culture, importance of land, female intelligence, even perseverance, among a multitude of others. But what I want to reflect briefly on are the two couples, the characters they have individually as well as together as couples, and reflect on similarities I am seeing in our world today. A link? by chance? who knows ... but I do see a similarity.

This is a story about a woman who wants to live in a lovely world where she is the centre of everyone's attention. Problems looming on the horizon, she refuses to acknowledge and can't be bothered with preparing for them. In her world, she loves the idea of love and is so caught up in her fantasy that when the man of her dreams (Ashley) announces his engagement to another, she can't believe it ... and spends the rest of the movie convinced that he will return to her. In her world, it is all about her; even when things go bad ... it's still all about her. Ironically, the one most suited for her, Rhett Butler, is the same ... it's all about him.  From the first time he sees her, he knows he will have her, he knows what she needs, she is his equal because their priorities are the same - themselves. Even their last famous iconic lines reflect this self obsession on each of their parts: "Oh, Rhett, what will I do?" ... "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." She doesn't care about anyone but herself and what she will do now ... and he doesn't care about her at all because he is done. What could have been an amazing relationship if they had given to each other becomes a catastrophe when it's all about me.

In the reflection, we see what some say is a older way of life, but I think there is something in there about human character that illuminates a beauty that is possible when the character is not so self-absorbed and puts themselves forth for others in a genuine, selfless, giving way. Yes, both Melanie and Leslie are examples of the past - He bravely goes off to fight the battle for his home land, she stays and cares for all around her; beautiful shots of their love for each other as they part; his soldiers speak so highly of him, people speak so highly of her. All these things are never shown for either Rhett or Scarlett - as the battle rages on, Rhett spends time with prostitutes and Scarlett doing what she needs to do to keep a roof (Tara) over her head. These are our 'heroes' and 'heroines' in this movie - people who are so self-absorbed that you can almost hear the familiar mantra: "Make me happy or leave my life because I have no need of you!"

There is so much in the story, but if you look at ever instance, it boils down to this view on life- this hedonistic, self-centred view that my needs need to be met first. Even when she walks through (incredible scene!) the soldier 'graveyard' of dead and almost dead soldiers, going on for miles, she is almost not affected because she is going there for her needs. There is no way she can deliver Melanie's baby and the doctor must leave here to do that. How she even had the audacity to ask is beyond me, but she did. And yes, she went back and delivered the baby ... but I don't think the scene she saw barely affected her, where as to us, it was meant for a powerful gut punch at the cost of this battle and its losses.

Here's the thing, and I'm not quite sure how to say it: we still live in that world. We still live in a world where there are wars and battles (maybe not on our land ... yet) and our lives show not one iota of wanting to help them but rather why am I not happy. We still live in a world where we like the idea of love but those who hunker down and work through their problems with each other are few and far between. Relationships should be about giving, not about what you should be getting ... and sadly, the 'getting' is most important to many. What can I get? What can s/he give me? where is my happiness? Neither Ashley nor Melanie are perfect, but there is a sense that they are meant for each other and that the feelings they have for each other, right to the end, are the 'real deal'.  Ashley will be forever a broken man when Melanie dies because she is gone. When Rhett leaves, will Scarlett forever be a broken woman because he is gone? I don't get that same feeling. I get a feeling of anger, of revenge, of "I'll get you back!" ... as if you are an object taken from me and all I have to do is capture you again.

An incredible film ... take any one character and follow them through and you have an amazing story. Take any one character and hold him/her up to the window of our world, and what do you see? or even more of a challenge, though certainly possible, hold them up to a mirror and can you see yourself in them? Who are you most like? Which relationship is most like yours? Here is a story, from 1935 (or so) that begs for a sequel ... and there have been some done. But none by the woman who first wrote Gone With The Wind.  In Margaret Mitchell's mind, "They got what they deserved", and there's no need to continue.  I like that. We don't always need a sequel or a part 2 to show us 'what next' because sometimes wrestling with that last moment of what is can teach us more than any sequel can. I might be late to the show, but Rhett and Scarlett will long stay with me ... and not for positive reasons, but for good ones.

Reflections on Dunkirk

TIME: LIFE’S ULTIMATE ENEMY

This last week has been a bit of a difficult one for me personally. No need to get into the details here, but the overall theme has had to do with “is this all?” And all the little pieces that make up my day that get in-between me and my day and the more that I dream is still possible. I know the personal part of this reflection might not make sense, but I hope some part of it will resonate with you, Dear Reader. 

Last night, I went to see Dunkirk with my movie-compadre. I remember seeing the trailer a long time ago and somehow have not managed to get out to see it. I think last night was a good night to go, because it provided a place fr me t contemplate that concept - time. Especially since it was a major theme of the film, and seemed to be woven throughout the entire story.

There are directors that you know will make a quality film; there are directors that you know will make a film in a certain way or style … and if you like that, then it doesn’t matter the name of the film, you will go see it. Christopher Nolan is that kind of director for me. I like that his movies are filled with thought-provoking themes, with a ‘look’ that can be gritty without being gratuitous, where he brings quality of solid story-telling to the screen that engages the viewer in more than one way. Dunkirk is all of these, and a little different than previous films. 

I refer to Time as a main theme in this film, and so the film starts … with soldiers running away from the bullets - who is faster? Who can stay out of the line of fire? Can they get away ‘in time’? If you take the survivor and follow his story, it covers. 24 hours from the hopelessness of survival to one of hope as the masses of soldiers miraculously survive. The story is there, in the history books. That is not a spoiler. What Nolan brings to the screen are three separate views of the event - one from the men in the sky (over an hour), one from the men on the sea (over 24 hours), and one from the men on land (the ‘mole’, a dock of sorts that juts far out into the ocean; over the prior week). This reflects Winston Churchill’s famous quote: “We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

It is not random that time has been given a significant part - this provides the film with that uncomfortable ‘push’ to the end; as you know that deadline is looming, what’s going to happen? Time is squeezing in on the moment in history. It’s not about a character - don’t complain that there is no character development because that’s not what this film is about. Don’t complain that it is not a a cohesive plot, because it’s not about that either. It is about multiple snapshots into the many lives on that one day - the young boy trying to live, the cocky kid who thinks he’s invincible, the youth who wants his life to mean something, the pilot who will not give in but gives himself up in the end, the old man who knows what war is, the general who is overwhelmed by the hopelessness of the situation for his thousands of men, the subordinates who are sure it’s just a matter of time until they’re all dead … and then, in the nick of time, a swarm of little local boats coming over the channel. Is Time the enemy? Or the saviour? Does it squeeze its characters until they almost break or does it hold off the Enemy for one more minute until they can be rescued? It certainly is a character; perhaps the only one constant throughout the film. (Interestingly, the Germans are not given a name or a face; this means the story is about them but not, like a McGuffin: required to drive the plot forward but not what the story is about.)

If you want to know the value of an hour, ask lovers waiting to meet. If you want to know the value of a minute, ask the person who just missed the bus. If you want to know the value of one second, ask the person who just escaped death in a car accident. Time is the ultimate Enemy, for none of us can truly escape it. We might, for a minute or an hour or a week, but in the end, we all end up in the same place. The difference is … what happens between now and that moment, can make all the difference in the world. Miracles are possible. Just look at Dunkirk.

(Edited to include:)

90th ACADEMY AWARDS NOMINATED FOR:

Best Sound Mixing (Won)

Best Film Editing (Won)

Best Sound Editing (Won)

Best Original Music Score

Best Cinematography

Best Production Design

Best Director

Best Picture

Reflections on 12 Monkeys (TV Show)

FREE WILL OR PRE-DESTINY?

First, I need to say this is being written at the end of Season 3. Season 4 (the final one) has yet to be completed and shown. Second, though I have written mostly on film, this is my first reflection on a TV show. And one that is not complete, to boot! Though there is a bit of a different way I approach a TV show as compared to a movie, the basics are there. So, since I just finished Season 3, and having been definitely awestruck for many reasons, I figured this would be a good visual to reflect on this evening.

Where do I start?  All I keep thinking is that the writers must have known the end when they started writing Season 1, Episode 1. This must have been a complete vision in their mind, as elements you thought were random and included as filler or red herrings now become something of importance. This is the kind of show where a line is given, and that line either explains the purpose of previous events or sets you up for what is yet to come. And sometimes the line does both.

Time travel can be difficult, especially since it is not part of our real world right now and we don't know the 'rules' by which to  'live'. So, there's nothing to bend, to twist, to loop, to break ... and thus, they must have started with something. This sets up opportunities for questions that need answers for the show to be 'logical' ... what happens when the same item/person is in the same moment place in time? Can the 'future' (or an event in time) be changed? In other words, can one go back in time and change something so that, let's say, a world event doesn't happen? (That's sort of the premise the show begins on, but it doesn't stay there.) Can a person affect history to the point where he no longer exists? and what would happen then if he was not there in the future? .... What the show makes clear is that we view 'time' as a very linear concept - past to present to future. But they put forth a different idea - the 'Primaries' (a specially born person) is capable of seeing all of time simultaneously. Reminds me a bit of the movie Arrival. The example they give in 12 Monkeys - there is a line of ants, one following the other. Pick a random ant, and all he knows is the position behind him (past), his position (present), and the position if front of him (future). But if he steps out of the line, he then can see all the ants in all the positions ... all of time simultaneously.

At the end of S3, threads are being pulled together in ways that the viewer could not imagine. Through the first 2 seasons, we are led to believe the Witness is the person who destroys humanity; yet, when we finally meet the Witness (in S3), he is the Witness ... but more than that, he Witnesses. So, one who revered and followed the Witness realizes his weaknesses and takes on the role of the Witness herself ... or maybe she was the Witness all along? Only if we view time in a linear fashion ...
This is why I say the writing is brilliant. They take you on this linear ride, and just when things are starting to make sense, they shift the perspective and it makes sense in a completely different way. But this new understanding, these new piects to the puzzle they give you, also open up doors to new questions, new plots, to new motives, to new developments ... and you wonder if it was in front of you the entire time. This is a series that bears watching more than once. Especially when S4 is done ... binge watching all 4 seasons back to back.

If asked, 'What is this about?', it would be both easy and difficult to answer. At its heart, it's a love story of a man who goes back in time to kill one man who is to start a pandemic that wipes out humanity. While he is back there, he meets a woman ... and that's what sets it all into motion. The show is about love (brotherly love, familial love, romantic love, self love), it's about family (those we are born into and those we choose), it's about destiny, about having a purpose in life, and it's about change - could we change the course of events, even if we tried? or are certain things always meant to be? All these, and many more, questions are used as the foundation to the show.  Then it becomes difficult - because of the time travel, the looping in on itself, things like The Red Forest, the Witness, the Primaries, the Daughters, the Markham Group, Splinter, the Pallid Man begin to play a role in the plot ... sometimes more than one role, and sometimes what they started out is not what they became.

The characters ... are brilliant. Each one is distinct and the actor brings their person to life in the most brilliant of ways. Without a doubt, the characters of Jennifer Goines and Deacon are the ones that are most 'out there', the most eccentric and likely the most enjoyable to play. Katarina Jones is the Matriarch, the one who drives the plot forward; and Athan, son and Witness, to whom the plot makes the focus. And James Cole and Cassandra Railley - the foundation upon which the entire story rests, the relationship between these two characters. The show is a love story but not ... I'd say it's more about family and community, about purpose woven throughout. It's about - do we truly have free will? If we go back in time, can we change the future outcome? or are all things already predestine to happen?  Regardless of what we do, it will all still roll out as it was meant to be?  What do you think? What do you think the TV show would suggest?

At first, I'll admit, I got a bit confused with all the timelines, the flashing back and returning ... and then the began to incorporate going forward in time. Definitely this series is going to have a binge-watching session when it's all over, but in the meantime, you start to get the grasp. (Certain eras bring definite laughs - the 80s, the 50s, the 30s.) You start to pick up on the changes and the plot lines. And by the time you hit the centre of the last season, it's making sense.  And, what's more, you begin to feel the pressure on the back of your neck, starting to push you forward into what, you don't know. You thought you knew, but you realize now that you don't, And yet, you know the characters, you love them, you invest in them and you want there to be a positive outcome. The thing is that everything you thought you figured out? The brilliance of the writing spun you right around and you're not where you thought you'd be.

But wait - there's still one more season.  They left us on the brink of the final battle. And if this last season is an indicator ... hop on for one long, crazy ride!  I promise you, there are things beyond our imaginations yet to be experienced! Are we heading to the end of world destruction? Will the Witness win? Is she the true Witness or are there things yet to be revealed?  Was the end of the story already predestined or has free will changed it into an ending different than the one we thought would happen when this series first started?  I can hardly wait for 2018 and the final season to come.  All I know right now is ... Jennifer Goines has an alter ego!!

Reflections on Lion

WHO AM I?

The Western World is fond of memes, of pictures and mantras that subscribe to a belief we have. A common one often seen goes something like this: "Family isn't always blood. It's the people in life who want you in theirs; the ones who accept you for who you are. The ones who would do anything to see you smile and love you, no matter what."  Ah ... what a lovely sentiment! And so true, right?

Hmm. The movie Lion, released in November of 2016, would suggest that meme was correct. A little boy from India, Saroo, gets separated from his bio-family, and adopted by a lovely Australian family, who love him dearly. If that was all to the story, then it would would have been perfect and we could back it up with every belief we now have.

The movie is about that, but it's also about something else. Something that is not part of our world, something that we have lost. I believe this movie is about identity - that comes not only from who we choose, but also from our history, our past, our family that is in our essence.

Over the last year, I've had the opportunity to learn about our Indigenous People and the struggle they are going through. This struggle has come in part from their separation to their history, to their ceremony, and people. Canadian history has a dark, black smear through it - the attempted genocide of our First People. How? By 'removing the Indian from them', by separating them from their people and forcing them to stop all 'Indian' things, they believed that they could make them white. Who these First Nations people were needed to be wiped clean so that they could become part of who Canada was becoming. What they didn't realize is what happens when a human being is separated from his culture, his identity, his people.

I think this is a part that is missing from understanding the movie from the meme above. As he becomes an adult, Saroo knows that he has a good life, but also knows something is missing. Something missing in his identity, who he is at his core. And with this missing, he is broken. People ask questions, as people do - where are you from? who are you? ... and Saroo gets to a place where his quick, easy answers no longer hold water. He loves his mother and father, but he is missing his identity. And that becomes the thrust of the film. A search for self.

There are times when I ponder 'who am I?' ... what are my roots? what is my culture? where do I come from? And I don't have an answer. What I know about my history is so small ... what rituals? what ceremonies? what food? what traditions?

I wonder what time will bring - will we connect more to our past or less? And, if less, how will that play out in our people? They say we can pick our own family, it does not have to be genetic. But do we then pick our culture? our history? our rituals? I can practice what I see my Indigenous brothers and sisters practice, but it's not the same ... it's not 'mine'. I can honour them and respect them and value them, but it's not the same. Something broke forth when Saroo learned who he was ... something that only someone who walked a like road would know. Maybe this hole is something more of us have than we realize. Maybe this has more influence in our world than we know.

Do you know who you are? Who are you?

Reflections on La La Land

WHEN IS A MUSICAL NOT A MUSICAL BUT STILL A MUSICAL?

I went to see the highly acclaimed movie La La Land yesterday ... And, I gotta say - it's either a meh musical with a couple of cute numbers, some great cinematography, and average musicality at best, or there's something below the obvious, anchored in the message, that just might be close to genius, which has nothing to do with the musical component of the film (which really is average, at best).  And this is more than just those movie-changing last 15 minutes.

When people read the Bible, they tend to 'cherry-pick' their verses, interpret according to what this verse or that verse says, in its literal form. The thing is that the Bible was not written in verses, nor was it written to be literally interpreted by 21st Century western minds.  It was written as whole books of different genres, pulled together into One form, and to 'understand', it needs to be viewed as a whole, mosaic of integrated genres or parts. And what is the centre of that 'whole'? One word: Love.

So, to, sometimes it's good to look at a film in a similar way, especially if the director is good at his craft. So, if we look at La La Land as a whole, mosaic of integrated parts, what would be that centre? What would be that director's concept on which the entire movie is pulled together? At first, I thought it had to do with the line said by the secondary character: "How are you gonna be a revolutionary if you're such a traditionalist? You hold onto the past, but jazz is about the future," said by the buddy, Keith. This would suggest that the director is presenting a new form of musical to us and if we expect what 'was' musical form, we will not accept what he 'is' presenting to us.  

But, I don't think so. Or, this is a complimentary theme.  I think it has more to do with a small observational comment that Sebastian says, "They worship everything and they value nothing." This, to me, is more of what this movie is about.  Not about musicals, but an almost cautionary warning on what is happening to us as a society. Even the title, "La La Land" - frivolous, superficial, 'la la', a fanciful state or dreamworld. But if that is the meaning of the title, then what's with the story?

For the most part, we are given a story that is exactly like what everyone's dreams are - success, big name, "make-me-happy" mindset. Life is about me and pursuing my goals and doing what I want to do and defining what I believe to be true and right and good. The first part is ego ego ego - all about me. But the ending pulls that rug out from under us - it says we are living in a dream world, we are putting the emphasis on the wrong things ... and 'happiness' is NOT defined by 'me', but by 'us' ... and until we get that, until we shift our thinking, no matter how much we pursue what we think will make us happy, how much we worship the self, it amounts to nothing. We have lost the meaning of life. 

If that is the movie's essence, then the director/writer has done a magnificent job of creating a very cautionary tale, wrapped in exactly what the world believes - this frill and froth - and obviously people who go to it will love it ... because it is exactly what they worship and aspire to. The ending will be puzzling, but secondary to the movie. However, the ending is exactly what puts the movie into perspective, what makes it a 'fairy tale' for today. A 'tale' that is about 'fantastical' characters that pursue their dream, that illustrate traits that hold them back, that gives a message for protection. And La La Land is also a fairy tale - a postmodern one, if you will. We have 'fantastical characters' (people who reflect us and who we have become) that are pursuing their dream, what holds them 'back' is each other and they only achieve their dream when they separate from the other, and the message? Take that and turn it upside down - it's not a happy ending because they got what they wanted, but a very dark and bleak ending because they got what they wanted and sacrificed what they didn't know they had and didn't know they needed - community. The reason, I believe, for which we were created. If we continue to worship the self, we will discover our lives are meaningless and void of value. 

Exactly what Seb said. 

Good stories create an arc of character development. This one does not ... they are the same people they were in the beginning of the movie. Their journey taught them nothing about what has true significance in life. They have not learned from what they went through. 

They worship everything and they value nothing. Exactly what Seb said.

Reflections on Beasts of No Nation

NOT ALL MOVIES ARE ENTERTAINING

The Academy Awards are over for another year, the Golden Statues have all been handed out. Whether you agree with the winners or not, it’s done. However, there was a movie that was not recognized, but many say it should have been - its youngest star handed out an award with the Oscar Night’s other cherub. If you watched the Awards, perhaps you remember the two young boys who gave out the award for Best Live Action Short Film: Jacob Tremblay from Room and Abraham Attah from Beasts of No Nation? I saw Room … what was this Beasts of No Nation? Who is this Abraham Attah? I know it was one of the snubbed films, but what was it about?

This film, running over 2 hours long, is one of the most difficult and heart-wrenching movies I’ve seen in a long time. And, the accolades heaped on its young star are very deserving. This film is about a world most of us are ignorant to but is alive and well in parts of our globe; it’s about war through the Africans’ eyes, about child soldiers, and the men that train them; it’s about a boy’s innocence lost, manipulated, controlled, and destroyed. People get upset when animals are mistreated; how much more should we become enraged when we realize what is being done to our children. This movie shares that story with us.

Beasts of No Nation, the 2015 film, is based on the 2005 novel of the same name by the Nigerian-American author Uzodinma Iweala and follows a young 8-year old boy, Agu (played by Attah) from childhood and his carefree days with his family, through the loss of his family and friends, and into the horrors of a new ‘family’ of child warriors, trained to be killers by The Commandant (played by Idris Elba). It is hard to say that this was a ‘good’ movie, and even harder to recommend it, but it was the kind of film that will stay with the viewer long after it is over. It will make you see the world a little bit different.

This is not a movie for children, and I don’t think it’s even a movie for young adults. Though there are quaint moments, moments when your heart warms as the children play as children do, there are far more scenes where we see this world that destroys childhood and marks them for life. The director, Cary Joji Fukunaga, provided visuals that were powerful in their sweeping expanse with little dots for people to close-ups of facial expressions and moments in time. There are scenes of horror, but the gore is neither gratuitous nor overly excessive in any way, but its proliferation is such that the viewer becomes affected like few other films. Though the movie is not based on a true character or country, the story of the Child Soldier is true, and probably, in many ways much, worse than what we see in this film.

I think what captivated my interest the most was the psychology behind this movie – how this innocent boy is rescued and taken, the Commandant taps into Agu’s desire for love and family, and he is trained to kill; something unimaginable at the start but when you, the viewer, become part of the training, you hear the ‘motivational speeches’, somehow you understand why Agu does what he did. You get why he feels justified to do what he does - To revenge his father’s death? To be one of the boys? To make The Commandant happy? To belong? To have food and safety? It’s all there in some way, and more. And The Commandant – a horrible man, for sure, but not without his merits in a way – he gives these boys a home, a place, food, security; he calls them ‘son’ and he is their ‘father’. In his sick, twisted way, he ‘loves’ the boys. How he can be both despicable and understandable is a fine line, one that Elba dances with absolute perfection. And, from what I know of brainwashing and manipulation, of training and ‘team-building’, of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, there is an accurate foundation in what we see. We just see it carried into a realm that is beyond our Caucasian, middle-class North American thinking, but we know in our heart that it is true.

To quote Matt Zoller Seitz, “Beasts does a solid job of showing how quickly a child's moral compass can be knocked off-axis, how men like The Commandant can bask in the adoration of immature or gullible followers and become despots within the dictatorships they serve, and how easy it is to teach a child to kill and rape when the reward (in addition to food, shelter and protection) is love, or a twisted facsimile.” And to see this whole story, much like the Academy nominated Room, through the eyes of its young star, is unsettling and horrific.

Only one other movie in my memory brought me to the end of it and gave me a physical sickness in my stomach at my inability to change or influence what I witnessed. Rosewood, a film from 1997 about the destruction of a small town in Florida, made me ill – I wanted to ‘wash the white off my skin’, and Beasts is in the same category for me. Instead of changing the colour of my skin, the heated and powerful emotion rising in me was one that wants to fight for our children, to go over there and stand for the, for those who are abused and don’t know better, in worlds that I see far away from me. I know it is not possible, but this film makes me want to do something.

I am grateful I saw it and I have no desire to ever see it again. Beasts of No Nation is not a movie to be enjoyed; it’s a movie to open your awareness to the reality of parts of the world we live in. It’s a movie that will forever make me listen to world events with a different understanding than what I had before. It’s a movie where we, much like Agu, are affected and in some ways, will never be the same again. In the end, Agu says to the viewers: “I saw terrible things ... and I did terrible things. So if I'm talking to you, it will make me sad and it will make you too sad. In this life ... I just want to be happy in this life. If I'm telling this to you ... you will think that ... I am some sort of beast ... or devil. I am all of these things ... but I also having mother ... father ... brother and sister once. They loved me.” And in the end, isn’t that we all want? What we all need? What we long for? To be loved? The scary thing is how much we will sacrifice along the way for what we think is love. What happens when one controls and one surrenders, when humanity is all but removed, when the soul turns black. And we all – those who control, those who surrender, and those who stand by and let it continue – we all become beasts of no nation.

Film: Beasts of No Nation

Starring: Abraham Attah and Idris Elba
Playing: on Netflix