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

Reflections - My 2016 Oscar Predictions

Well, it is almost that time.  Time for everyone to find the most glamourous gown, the most stunning tuxedo, don their pearls and head on over to the theatre to see who gets what (and not before checking out who is wearing what!!)

I promised my thoughts on who might take home the Golden Dude, and here they are, for whatever this is worth.  Fun for me!!

Best Picture

The Big Short

Bridge of Spies

Brooklyn

Mad Max: Fury Road

The Martian

The Revenant

Room

Spotlight

I felt these were all excellent films, each exemplary in their own way. My gut says that The Revenent is going to take Best Picture this year, but I can’t say that it was my ‘favourite’ film. As I wrote on previously, the detail to the story in this film is amazing, the film as a whole is a testament to all the artists and actors involved in bringing this story to the screen. Having said that, if there is an upset, I think it will go to either Spotlight or The Big Short, probably the former before the latter. Spotlight is so well done and is on a topic that I think Hollywood supports and since The Big Short is in part about greed and ignorance, voters likely will side more with the message/themes of Spotlight over those in The Big Short.

Best Director

Alejandro Inarritu, The Revenant

Tom McCarthy, Spotlight

Adam McKay, The Big Short

George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road

Lenny Abrahamson, Room

I think Inarritu is going to pull off back-to-back wins, both with his film and with his directing - last year and this year, first time in history. To be honest, I don’t like that, and really do wish that George Miller would get the Oscar for his amazing work on Mad Max. From a directing standpoint, in my opinion, these two are the top, and only because it is my personal opinion that I feel that Inarritu is getting a bit too ‘big for his britches’ do I say that I prefer Miller over him. But those are my thoughts.

Best Actor

Bryan Cranston, Trumbo

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs

Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

Matt Damon, The Martian

Yeah, I think this is Leo’s year (finally!), and I really don’t think he has much competition, other than perhaps Fassbender. When I look at an actor’s presentation, I look for an arc, a change of character from start to finish, and that the viewer is privy to this, demonstrated through all means of visual and auditory possible, and getting the viewer to empathize along with him, I did not see Fassbender’s presentation of Steve Jobs, but heard he was excellent. The only other one I saw was Matt Damon’s portrayal, and though he was good, it was not near as strong nor as powerful as DiCaprio’s. Ego aside, he really is an excellent actor and definitely deserves it.

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett, Carol

Brie Larson, Room

Jennifer Lawrence, Joy

Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years

Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn

I have only seen two of these performances, and though personally I disagree, I know many will be glad – I think Brie Larson will get this award. I go back to what I said about acting earlier – about the arc and feeling and believing the journey of the actor. I, personally, did not feel this with Larson. I somewhat saw it, but it was through her son’s eyes, not through hers, and his ignorance to reality because of his age, shaded my connection with her. Don't get me wrong, I loved his performance and almost empathized more with him than with her! (I wish someone could help me see what was so incredible about her performance!) Personally, I was impressed most with Ronan’s performance in Brooklyn better – her eyes told a million stories and empathy with her journey into the new was easy. I wish she would get it, but I don't think she will. (I wonder if my appreciation for one over the other has anything to do with being without a child, myself, yet having journeyed into the new is something I have done? Maybe because I have walked Ronan’s steps and not Larson’s as a parent, I gravitated to one over the other?)

Best Supporting Actor

Christian Bale, The Big Short

Tom Hardy, The Revenant

Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies

Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight

This is an interesting guess – I have seen all the performances, except for one, and have been very impressed with what I have seen. And, I’m going to guess the actor I have not seen, Sly Stallone, will get his Golden Boy this year. From what I have heard, his portrayal was as if you were watching Rocky, not Stallone – all his thoughts, regrets, losses, everything that goes through your head when you get to the end of your life. Granted, Sly is Rocky, his creation, his portrayal, his alter-ego. He has come full circle, and I think the Academy will honour Stallone’s gift to film history. (I do want to say, if he does get upset, I hope it’s by Mark Rylance – he was awesome, in so many ways!)

Best Supporting Actress

Rooney Mara, Carol

Rachel McAdams, Spotlight

Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl

Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight

This is the most difficult guess for me, as I have only seen one of the nominees. From what I heard, the Oscar will likely go to Alicia Vikander, with maybe an upset by Kate Winslet. I loved Rachel McAdams in Spotlight, but from the clips I’ve seen, even Rooney Mara seems a stronger contender. I put my guess with Vikander, long shot for me though it is.

So, there it is. My guesses for this year on the top awards. Let’s see how close to the truth I end up being! 

Again, The Academy Awards air Sunday, February 28 at 6:30pm on CTV. If you’re interested: Canada’s etalk at the Oscars starts at 4:00 and Live from the Red Carpet at 5:00.

Reflections on Spotlight and The Revenant

THE POWER OF FOCUS

     Like last week, in viewing movies back-to-back, it is inevitable to seek a common theme, and when that common theme is a driving force in each film, reflection is easy. This last week, viewing perhaps the two top contenders for the coveted Best Picture Oscar, I was definitely affected by the theme of Focus when I watched Spotlight and The Revenant. In one, the focus was pushing through the obstacles to expose the corruption in the institution of the diocese of the Catholic church; in the other, the focus was on pushing through the obstacles of nature and horrific physical injuries to seek revenge for the death of a son.

      Spotlight is a powerful and tightly written, acted, and directed film based on the true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese. The ensemble performances are such that to pull out one over the other is very difficult; you really feel like you are a fly on the wall as these journalists from this team begin to peel back the layers to this incredible horror. I think they did an exceptional job of focusing on the institution and the factors at play in the cover-up and not washing the entire Catholic church with the same brush, though at the end you are left with a sick feeling as you wonder how deep this goes into the history of this institution.

     In a pivotal scene for me, I was left affected on many levels as I watched the team take a phone call from a therapist who made this his specialty. The camera begins tight on the team; they fill the screen. As the conversation becomes more ‘weighty’, more exposing, and the number of priests rise from 12 to 6% and the realization of what that means sinks in, the camera slowly pulls back … the screen is no longer tight on the team, but they are small parts on the right side of the picture, dwarfed by the rest of the room. The weight of their realization became reflected in the weight of the room on their backs and a nauseating feeling in the stomach of the viewer.

     If I were to isolate a ‘Director’s Concept’ from this film (a line on which every aspect of the entire film is hinged which is something I do in every film I see), I would point to the line: “It takes a village to raise a child. It takes a village to abuse one.” Not only does this point to the depth of deception and collective participation uncovered, but also it alludes to the good that the Catholic church did do in many cases. A beautiful Christmas scene is given, the only one actually from inside a church (though you see many old imposing cathedrals in various street scenes); a choir of children singing carols, so tender and holy … and on the side, part of the choir, 2 boys around the age of 12. The age for abuse, and you wonder. 

     I have to share one sobering reflection that has been weighing on me since viewing this film. This is not something you will likely read in any other review, for it is something that came to me as I pondered the gravity of this film. One of the strong themes is about the ‘old boys club’, the historical significance of a small town and how everyone is part of that culture and you don’t question or challenge. As the journalists started to uncover this horror, as much as they were up against the cover-up from the Catholic diocese, they also faced the pressure from the Boston culture to not rock the boat. It’s not that bad. Look at all the good they’ve done. … and I later chewed on watching an element of the same thinking play out on our political playground today, in Alberta and Canada. I can’t help but wonder what is going on when journalists, albeit of some legitimacy in some eyes, are pressured into silence, when certain political voices are shut down, because those in power “are not that bad, and look at the good they’ve done”, how we are turning our backs on red flags because of an ‘old boys club’, or perhaps ‘political mindset club’ would be more politically correct. 

     I’ve used up most of this reflection on Spotlight, because there is so much already in the media on The Revenant. The one-line summary of this film states that it’s about Hugh Glass, played by Leo Dicaprio, a frontiersman on a fur trading expedition in the 1820s as he fights for survival after being mauled by a bear and left for dead by members of his own hunting team. I will say that this is not a movie for everyone, and that the viewer needs to have a measure of appreciation for a director like Inerratu. To say that this is ‘his’ film is an understatement. The control he has over every element you see in the screen (except for chinooks!), is quite amazing at times, even if you find yourself groaning over another shot of trees. This is his film, his baby, not ours; and he graces us in sharing his vision with us. If we miss it or do not approve of it in some way, that is our problem, not his. And, on some level, his dedication to this truth of his is to be commended.

 

     I said in the beginning that both of these movies are about focus and this is almost ‘in-your-face’ in The Revenant. Focus on the environment and scenery, some would say a third main character in the film, beautiful and unforgiving at the same time; focus of John Fitzgerald on his greed and self-survival, regardless of who is in his way; focus of Hugh Glass, to overcome the bear mauling and being buried alive to get revenge on the man who left him to die and killed his son (I cannot resist the urge to adapt a quote from The Princess Bride – “Hello, I am Hugh Glass. You killed my son; prepare to die!”), and all he went through on this quest. Humour aside, for it is not a funny film in any way, for as much fiction as was inserted into the film in comparison to the Glass’s real story, apparently the fact that there was a Hugh Glass, he was mauled horribly by a bear, buried alive and left to die by Fitzgerald and managed somehow to travel over 200 miles back to civilization in the 1820s frontier in this condition is truth. The power of the human spirit is sometimes beyond comprehension!

     An interesting piece to the understanding of this movie lies in the title: The Revenant. It comes from the French verb ‘revenir’; and means “a person who has returned, especially supposedly from the dead” and nowhere else in the movie is this evident in amazing detail and power than when Glass walks out of the ghostly trees in the middle of the night, backlit by fire torches, camouflaged by snow and trees, an unbelievable apparition that survived unimaginable obstacles.

     I found The Revenant breath-taking and commanding on many cinematic levels, but it was a difficult movie to watch. Leo DiCaprio spends a great deal of the movie in silence, so the communication is left to his eyes. As you become accustomed to watching his eyes, you also start to watch the other eyes, and the stark contrast of raw emotion in Glass’s eyes, with the dead, black eyes of Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hardy) often left chills down my spine.

     It is my thought that best picture will go to one of these two films. I drove home pondering: of these eight movies, which is the best of this year? Which gave us, the viewer, the best film possible? And I had a feeling that it will be one of these two. Regardless of what the viewer thinks of the work of Inerratu, of his obsession with trees and quirky artsy elements, of long shots that almost leave you gasping for air, he is an obsessive visionary but is not without strong competition. From a film point of view, others, I think, were tighter, more direct, and maybe more powerful in their own way … of which Spotlight possibly leads the pack. 

     I will reflect now on my thoughts for the main winners on Sunday night and share them here this coming Saturday, Feb 27th. Please take a moment later to check back for my thoughts on this! 

     The Academy Awards air Sunday, February 28 at 6:30 on CTV. If you’re interested: Canada’s etalk at the Oscars starts at 4:00 and Live from the Red Carpet at 5:00, and who doesn’t like being an armchair critic to see what is being worn by whom? 

Spotlight Nominated For:

• Best Motion Picture of the Year
• Best Achievement in Directing: Tom McCarthy
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Mark Ruffalo
• Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Rachel McAdams
• Best Writing, Original Screenplay
• Best Achievement in Film Editing

The Revenant Nominated For:

• Best Motion Picture of the Year
• Best Achievement in Directing: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role: Leonardo DiCaprio
• Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Tom Hardy
• Best Achievement in Cinematography
• Best Achievement in Film Editing
• Best Achievement in Costume Design
• Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling
• Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
• Best Achievement in Sound Editing
• Best Achievement in Visual Effects
• Best Achievement in Production Design

Reflections on Room and The Martian

FILM FROM BOOKS

       Movies come from two sources – they either start as a visual story, created for the screen through what you see and what the characters say, or they start as a print-source first, a book or a comic. The two movies that I will reflect on today started as novels, Room by London, Ontario, writer, Emma Donoghue, and The Martian by Andy Weir. Viewing both back-to-back was an interesting experience, as both had to do with isolation, resiliency and survival, different in ways and similar in some. I will add the caveat that, in both cases, I did not read the precursor novel that came before each movie, so both, for me, were visual stories with no background information or prior expectations. 

       Too often, I hear people compare the book to the film, and almost every time, the book is better. Personally, they are two different genres where both tell a story; one tells a story through words, and thus can tell the reader what they want and what characters are thinking; the other tells a story through visuals, and thus has to communicate the story through what you see, and sometimes with words in first-person of what s/he is thinking and saying. Personally, to say one is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other ignores that they are different genres. That is like saying an orange makes a really bad steak, when the orange was never created to be a steak and neither a steak to be an orange. However, it is possible to comment on how well the original story is brought to the visual/auditory medium, that plot-points are maintained, that the climax is a visual/auditory depiction of the literary novel one, that themes are maintained, perhaps communicated in different ways, and the same message is communicated, with equal impact, and those can be commented on. As mentioned, I have not read the novels to either, so will only reflect on what I thought of them as the visual/auditory story that I witnessed. 

       Room has excellent reviews, but my confession is that I found other nominated films better in both quality and personal appreciation. Brie Larson, nominated for best actress, comes across as very natural, normal, and believable, in an abnormal situation; and in a lot of ways, female viewers with children will easily be able to identify with her and her emotional journey. Huge kudos to Vancouverite, Jacob Tremblay, the boy who plays her son, Jack. For as much as I found Larson’s performance low-key, I found Tremblay’s performance exceptional and powerful for one so young. Maybe, that is where value in this film can be found – there is power in survival, in the step-by-step struggle from one moment to the next, and the balance between mother and son, the grounding of the mother to enable the growth of the son, that clearly comes through to the viewer. 

      This film is split into two parts, divided by the climax of the plot; of which each ½ reflects on similar themes from different angles. Even the filming reflects this. The first part could become claustrophobic, but doesn’t – I can’t help but wonder how they got so many camera angles in such a small space! The second part enlarges the living space to a house, but because of the consistent and repeated filming angles, the viewer almost feels that this space is smaller than the room from which they came. The emotional struggles in each are different but no less difficult for each person. I would say that this story is given through the perspective of the son, Jack, so a lot of things we, as adults, know to be so (the rape of Ma, for example), are barely touched on because they are not in the realm of understanding for Jack. We are, however, given clues; yet, the emphasis is not on this, but rather how the mother’s strength of character give foundation to the resiliency for her son, thus enabling him to have an exceptionally strong grounding on which to become a ‘normal’, well-adjusted boy after the ugly of his beginning years are behind him.

       This film is about forced isolation and the supportive relationship between mother and son that secures their ‘normal’ development and survival in an abnormal situation. It is tender and detailed and powerful; you get the feeling that the internal resiliency both characters have in their own ways will help them survive outside Room that began their relationship, and that because they have each other, that will be the foundation on which each will find their own success. 

       The Martian is also about survival and isolation, about creativity in a difficult situation, but in very different ways. In ways, not unlike Chuck Noland in Cast Away, marooned for months on a deserted island, this time we have Mark Watney, astronaut, left for dead on Mars with only a base station and an uninhabitable planet for his ‘island’. Whereas imminent Death was not very much a threat within the story of Room, it very much was the hovering vulture during much of The Martian and succeeded in creating some very tense moments for the viewer. Where Room is meticulous in its detail in small ways, The Martian is meticulous in its sweeping ‘man-vs-nature’ conflict that uses a scientifically plausible situation based on what we already have and what we already know about the Red Planet and interplanetary travel to create a tense, engaging story. 

       I liked this film, probably more than Room. The protagonist had a very optimistic and engaging character, which made a movie that could be very heavy with science and ominous in death, an enjoyable and occasionally edge-of-the-seat ride. It was surprisingly comedic in ways and comments, and Matt Damon, up for best actor, certainly commanded the screen and held his own whenever he needed to bear the burden of the film. There was ample range in emotion for the viewer to, not only remain engaged with the character and his struggles, but to ‘buy in’ to emphatically journeying with Watley and his struggles, both internal and external. I felt occasionally that the author created ‘what-if’ scenarios and then played them out, as realistically as possible, to see how he could make his hero survive. The characters are quirky and comical, perhaps a bit exaggerated, but necessary for the story and a great balance for the science elements of the whole.

       There is always a challenge in creating a realistic setting and scientific foundation based on nothing we actually know for fact in a situation like this, and the creation of ‘Mars’, filmed in Jordan, did an excellent job of bringing this to life for the viewer. I found there was a nice balance between the locations with which we could identify (NASA interiors) and what we couldn’t (landscape of Mars), and as a non-scientist, I was quite satisfied with at least ‘feeling’ that there was a sense of ‘reality’ about all the science in the film. From what I read, the novelist is a bit of a science-geek and was quite accurate in his creation of this novel when it came to the ‘science’-fiction end of the story. More than once, I felt myself holding my breath in nervous anticipation of what was to come for Watley; if he was going to lose his ability to breathe, I felt compelled to gasp on his behalf!

       (As an aside, for all the budding novelists out there, Weir’s story on how he brought this story from concept to novel to screen is quite the ‘Cinderella’ story on its own! And to get Ridley Scott, of Alien fame, to direct it and Matt Damon to star in it? Oh, a dream come true for those of us who dream of writing our own novel one day!)

       At this point, I have reflected on the viewing of six of the eight Best Picture nominees for 2016, and have two (perhaps the biggest contenders yet) left to view. At this point, I don’t think either of the films I reflected on here will walk away with either Best Director or Best Film. I’m not as sure on Best Actress (for Brie Larson) or Best Adapted Screenplay (for Donoghue), but I do think Room beats The Martian in this category; and I am pretty sure Matt Damon will not get it for Best Actor. Though both of these films are appreciated, each in their own way, and definitely quality films, I do think most of what they are up for will go to other contenders. The Martian is similar to Mad Max, and I do think Max is superior in their same-nominated areas; Room bears similarities (in regards to realism) to both Spotlight and The Revenant, both of which I have yet to see, and both that research says are very strong contenders, even against each other.

Time will tell. 

Room Nominated for:

• Best Motion Picture of the Year
• Best Achievement in Directing: Lenny Abrahamson
• Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Brie Larson
• Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay based on Previously Published Material: Emma Donoghue (author of the novel, from London, Ontario!)

 The Martian Nominated for:

• Best Motion Picture of the Year
• Best Performance by and Actor In a Leading Role: Matt Damon
• Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay based on Previously Published Material
• Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
• Best Achievement in Sound Editing
• Best Achievement in Visual Effects
• Best Achievement in Production Design