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