Sunday, February 24, 2013

Academy Awards Picks – Who Will Win and Who Should Win

Article first published as Academy Awards Picks – Who Will Win and Who Should Win on Blogcritics.

This year I made a concerted effort to see as many nominated films as possible; therefore, for the first time in many years I am going to make my picks. This is based on my own personal opinion, and obviously I am choosing films I enjoyed very much. I am also skipping categories in which I did not see every movie only to be fair.

I think this was a pretty exciting year in the movies. We had films with historic elements or based on real events like Django Unchained, Lincoln, The Impossible, and Zero Dark Thirty. This caused somewhat of an uproar from purists who questioned the accuracy of the history or events portrayed; however, since none of these films are documentaries, I had no problem with any of them.

We also saw the return of great actors and actresses in top form: Alan Arkin (Argo), Sally Field (Lincoln), Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Helen Hunt (The Sessions), Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln), and Robert De Niro (Silver Linings Playbook).

Above all I think there were some really great stories told. When I go to the movies, I think the stars and the directors are ancillary and the story is the thing. If I cannot commit to the tale and it does not reel me in, I do not care whose face is on the screen or who is behind the camera. Thankfully, there were a lot of fine stories at the movies this year.

So here is my completely subjective list of who will win and who should win tonight at the Oscars. Please use the comments section to tell me how wrong (or right?) I am. Oh, and enjoy the show!

BEST PICTURE
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Life of Pi

BEST DIRECTOR
Will Win: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)
Should Win: Ang Lee (Life of Pi)

BEST ACTOR
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Should Win: Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables)

BEST ACTRESS
Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Should Win: Naomi Watts (The Impossible)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln)
Should Win: Alan Arkin (Argo)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will Win: Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)
Should Win: Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will Win: Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained)
Should Win: Mark Boal (Zero Dark Thirty)

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will Win: Tony Kushner (Lincoln)
Should Win: Chris Terrio (Argo)

ANIMATED FEATURE
Will Win: Brave
Should Win: Wreck-It Ralph

PRODUCTION DESIGN
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Life of Pi

CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will Win: Life of Pi
Should Win: Life of Pi

COSTUME DESIGN
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Les Miserables

FILM EDITING
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Life of Pi

ORIGINAL SONG
Will Win: Skyfall
Should Win: Skyfall

ORIGINAL SCORE
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Life of Pi

VISUAL EFFECTS
Will Win: Life of Pi
Should Win: Life of Pi

SOUND MIXING
Will Win: Lincoln
Should Win: Life of Pi

Photo Credit: hollywoodreporter.com

PS> Thanks, Cathy!




Thursday, February 21, 2013

Pathetic Fallacy: Why Are We Still Blaming God for Natural Events?

Article first published as Pathetic Fallacy: Why Are We Still Blaming God for Natural Events? on Blogcritics.

A meteor from outer space explodes near Chelyabinsk, Russia, right after Pope Benedict XVI announces he will resign from the papacy. Immediately people start saying, “God is angry.” The same was said about Hurricane Sandy devastating the New York tri-state area. We deserved it, of course, our city being the modern equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah. And when a huge blizzard hits New York, a similar sentiment is echoed. We are being punished; we are being reminded who is in charge.

As (what I believe I am) a modern day Catholic, I am amazed at people still thinking this way. In literature it is known as “pathetic fallacy” when characters attribute natural events to the gods reactying to human affairs. It is rife throughout fiction and drama and poetry for characters to claim “the gods must be angry.” Consider in the great Shakespearean play Julius Caesar how the night before the conspirators are to assassinate Caesar in the Senate, a powerful thunderstorm rocks Rome. Immediately some of them think twice about their mission; maybe the gods are trying to tell them something.

More than 2,000 years later it is incongruous that people keep saying the same thing. To listen to some callers on talk radio shows here in New York City, you would think they have never taken a science class in their lives. They are convinced that the meteor was a sign sent from God. He is angry about Benedict leaving. There were predictions that this would happen, and that would signal the “end of days.”

Only a few months ago people were citing the Mayan calendar and were predicting the end of the world. These theorists make all kinds of arguments that their viewpoint is correct. We keep passing their “deadlines” (as we did with the millenium), and then they are left to recalibrate and find a new date that the world will end. The Russian meteorite has really stoked the fires of this fanaticism to the point of lunacy. Unfortunately, as the world awaited the flyby of Asteroid 2012 DA14 on February 15, 2013, there were tensions that this rock (the diameter of which was about the length of an American football field) could hit us, even though scientists said it would not. Then along comes the meteor in Russia, and people start thinking the events are connected. This must mean the end is nigh.

This is all part of pathetic fallacy. The “gods” are not any angrier with us than they were 2,000 years ago. Each one of these events is a natural occurrence, one fully and completely explainable by science as part of the solar system, galaxy, and universe in which we live. One need only look at the turbulence in space, the violence of exploding stars, and know this kind of thing is happening everywhere. So the universe, for all its beauty, can indeed be a dangerous place. Welcome to reality.

Here on earth we have seen all sorts of natural disasters: hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, blizzards, and floods. People who read the Bible and take everything on its pages literally want to connect what is happening today to things that happened long ago. Since God brought plagues upon Egypt, can we not imagine it could happen again?

The truth is relative for each person, and everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs. It just doesn’t seem rational to link a human event like the pope’s resignation as something that needs a corresponding reaction in nature to show us God is watching. While, as a Catholic, I do believe God is watching, I also believe that it is not in any malevolent manner. On the contrary, I believe God loves us so much that he would never send any disaster to hurt us; however, I don’t think God will put down a hand to stop a flood or put out a forest fire.

These are events in the mortal world that are our responsibility to deal with accordingly. I think most rational people will know that God didn’t put a hole in the ozone layer, pollute rivers and oceans, build nuclear weapons that could obliterate human life, or invent diseases like AIDS or cancer to teach us lessons. These are all things that come from within us or that we have created. The great minds of science attempt to find cures and clean our waters; politicians must find common ground to make peace a reality, and human beings everywhere must do their part to make the world a better place.

While I firmly believe God is there, I also think that his benevolence is constant and all encompassing. He wouldn’t harm us, but because we have free will we are able to murder or create; we can build or tear down, and we can heal or hurt, and that is all part of our gift of life. It is what we choose to do with it that is essential. All these disasters are just part of the natural way of things.

The first and last thing God was directly responsible for was no doubt the event known as “the big bang.” After that I believe that God stepped back and, as the Bible tells us, saw that it was good. As the universe evolved, somehow or other this third rock from a star floating in the magnificent galaxy known as the Milky Way had all the right components for the elixir of life (as we know it). Here we are now living on a beautiful blue marble spinning in the black dark of space, the twinkling distant stars silent partners in a vast universe we may never fully comprehend.

The next time you hear thunder crash overhead and see the flash of lighting in your windows, remember it is nothing more than a dark and stormy night. Yes, it is the thing of gothic novels and scary movies, but nothing more than that. Of course, one day the world will end, and it probably will be as natural as any of the other occurrences we witness is space, our blue marble eventually being devoured by our dying star. That is, of course, if we don’t speed the process with weapons of our own creation. That is not a pathetic fallacy, of course, but simply pathetic.

Photo credits: Russian meteor - discovery.com; pope - nytimes.com; hurricane sandy - yahoo.com; Milky Way - NASA.gov

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Movie Review: Flight Never Really Takes Off

Article first published as Movie Review: Flight Never Really Takes Off on Blogcritics.

When you have a team that includes Robert Zemeckis (director of notable films such as Forrest Gump and Castaway) and always reliable actor Denzel Washington in the lead, you would think the film would have to be a smashing success; however, Flight is a film with a less than great story and is more about the main character. Just as with Daniel Day Lewis in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, here we have a vehicle that has almost been crafted to bring Mr. Washington another Oscar, with almost complete disregard for the audience in terms of the entertainment or credibility factors.


Washington plays Captain William “Whip” Whitaker (with the heroic alliteration completely intended) who is an ace pilot of the skies. We first see him lying in bed with flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Velazquez), and it quickly becomes obvious that they have had a night of passion fueled by drugs and alcohol. It’s an interesting set-up in that we know from the very beginning that Whitaker has an Achilles’ heel: he is a full-blown alcoholic.

Of course, the conflict is ramped up a notch when bad weather comes in, and he is ready to take the helm of a plane as captain. Sort of like the Shakespearean character behind the curtain whom the audience knows is there but the characters do not, we understand from the start that Whip is probably not fit to perform his duties. After take-off the plane encounters difficulties, but Whip is able to right the ship and all seems well. To add insult to the audience’s injury, Whip takes small vodka bottles, mixes them with orange juice, and continues his apparently downward spiral, which is foreshadowing of things to come.


Things go from bad to worse when the plane starts a steep descent and co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) tries to assist Whip as best as he can. Since there apparently has been a catastrophic loss of systems, Whip has a quick solution to try to right the situation: he flies the plane upside down. This amazingly rights the plane and then he turns it back to correct position before slamming into a church steeple and then crashing the plane in a field.

When Whip regains consciousness, he is informed that Katerina and five other people died, but he is seen as a hero for saving 96 other passengers and crew and for steering the plane away from populated areas. Of course, we know what’s behind the curtain and that Whip was drunk when flying that plane; therefore, is it only a matter of time before tests prove this and that he will be criminally charged?

This is the set-up, and I just wish there was more to admire here. The first act involving the plane crash is the best part of the film, so that should tell you something. It is obvious that Zemeckis knows how to film a plane going down (remember that horrific scene in Castaway), but then he lets things come undone. As does Spielberg with Lewis in Lincoln, Zemeckis allows the camera to linger a long time on Washington’s face, giving us close-ups of bloody eyes and his contorted visage. Making this kind of image dominate the big screen sets us up for the premise that Whip is a tortured soul, and we want to feel for him, but then the script keeps getting in the way.

John Gatins is nominated for Best Original Screenplay, but I would think this has more to do with creating the role for Washington, crafting lines and action that push him into nominee status. It’s not like this is the first time this has happened, but it’s obvious this is a role that is made for the guy with the right acting chops. As usual, Washington is that guy (for the most part), but even he has to play along with his direction and say the lines that are written for him.

When Whip meets fellow tortured soul Nicole (an outstanding Kelly Reilly), it seems he may have found his soul mate in her equally damaged heroin addict. Although they become romantic, Nicole wants to get her life together and be sober; unfortunately, Whip does not recognize that she could be his salvation and continues to sink deeper and deeper into alcoholic oblivion. We wonder why such a smart and talented guy like Whip would let this happen to himself, but perhaps that is the whole point.


Whip is also alienated from his wife (Garcelle Beauvais) and son (Justin Martin), who know what’s behind the curtain and want no part of him. His old friend Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) and attorney Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) try to keep him clean, but Whip continues getting himself into jams and reporters start stalking him. Even after Nicole leaves him, Whip is unable to get himself straightened out, and it is imperative that he do so before an impending NTSB hearing.

While all of this seems like it has infinite dramatic possibilities, the payoff is less than satisfying. Perhaps my biggest gripe with this film is that Washington’s character is at times so despicable that I found no reason to want him to succeed; furthermore, for him to triumph means that I would want him to successfully lie about being drunk and get away with it. At least in Castaway we have no conflicted feelings about wanting Tom Hanks to get off that island, but here it is a ping pong effect of wanting Whip to get caught but then not wanting it.

It is difficult to move forward without giving anything away, so let it suffice to say that Washington’s fine acting takes us into the final act taking deep breaths. We are unsure what will happen, but the continuing problem I had was knowing too much. In a film like Doubt we have a different problem: is the priest guilty or not? Here we already know Whip is guilty, so the issues are not as pressing. In the end it is more a question of do we care enough about Whip and the story, and I just didn’t feel as if I got to the place I needed to be as a viewer.

It bothers me that what could have been an amazing premise gets squandered here. Washington does the job and then some, but he is like a guy in full scuba gear being dropped into a baby pool. Yes, he is ready for anything, but his surroundings do not warrant his capability or preparedness. Washington makes the effort here, but the results are less than satisfying and left me feeling like something was missing.

By the time we get to the denouement, there is a pretty much standard kind of ending that left me wanting more. It’s as if Zemeckis has forgotten all about why life is like a box of chocolates, but sadly here we know what we’re getting and it’s just not enough.

Photo credits: Paramount Pictures

Monday, February 18, 2013

Movie Review: The Impossible Is Haunting and Unforgettable

Article first published as Movie Review: The Impossible Is Haunting and Unforgettable on Blogcritics.

Sometimes we hear of films being based on a true story or actual events, but it is difficult to not view The Impossible and not remember the real tsunami that struck Southeast Asia on December 26, 2004. Those of us who recall that and the images we saw on TV know this was a real disaster, and Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona has brought to the screen a powerful, devastating, and truly life altering story of Maria Belon, a survivor of the disaster that struck her hotel in Khao Lak, Thailand.

In the film a luminous Naomi Watts plays Maria Bennett, a doctor from the U.K. who is on winter vacation with her husband Henry (an excellent Ewan McGregor) and sons Lucas (Tom Holland), Thomas (Samuel Joslin), and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast). At first it seems like the most ideal vacation imaginable. They enjoy the tranquil waves, the lovely resort, and each other’s company. They open Christmas presents and then release illuminated balloons into the starry night sky, everything seemingly perfect as can be.

The next day they are all sitting around the pool. Maria is reading a book, and suddenly she notices birds flying away quickly as the wind picks up. A page is ripped from her book, and she gets up to get it. Her son Lucas runs to fetch an errant ball, while Henry and the other boys are in the pool. Palm trees start falling and then out of nowhere a huge wave changes life as they know it forever.

Maria and her eldest son Lucas are swept away in the water. Bayona focuses on this one story instead of trying to encompass the widespread destruction and devastation of so many people and families. In doing so Maria and Lucas’s story is a microcosm of the loss of so many. The adapted screenplay by Sergio G. Sanchez captures the despair of a wounded Maria and her son as they struggle to survive as another wave hits and all seems lost.

Watts (nominated for Best Actress) gives her best performance to date as a mother who clings to life in order to make certain her child survives. Her work here deserves the recognition because each moment of pain and agony is utterly believable and is the heart of the movie. I cannot say enough about young Holland, who plays Lucas. His bravery and determination to save his mother is the soul of the film. Together they make a pair of survivors we want to see overcome the overwhelming odds against them.

As the story progresses we do move away from Maria and Lucas and get to see other survivors, many of whom are orphaned children. We also witness the small local hospital and its staff trying to cope with hundreds of victims, some of whom are beyond help. Bayona captures their frustration but also their dogged efforts to do their best under horrific circumstances.

For those of us here in the New York area, viewing this film is unsettling because we can relate to having survived our own tsunami (Hurricane Sandy brought this kind of devastation here). I think many people will cry when they see this film because of Bayona’s fine direction and the impressive acting, but New Yorkers in particular because it strikes close to home.

The chaos, the hopelessness, and destruction are all chronicled here, yet the uniquely determined human spirit and will to survive is what makes the story unforgettable. You will be haunted by the way a family can be ripped apart, but you will also remember a mother and son’s bond and love that bring them together in order to survive.

How the simply amazing cinematography of Oscar Faura and Fernando Velazquez’s exquisite and haunting original score are not nominated for Oscars boggles my mind. I also do not understand how The Impossible was also not nominated for best film. I mean, I enjoyed Django Unchained but it is in no way in the same category as others nominated this year, but The Impossible certainly deserves to stand among them.

I have sometimes heard a film can be life altering, and I must say that is true of The Impossible. Go see it and realize the fragility of life and how in one second your whole world can be changed forever. I guarantee you will feel changed too as you walk out of the theater and want to run home and hug those who are dear to you. I know I did.

Photo Credits: Summit Entertainment

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Old White Popes Can’t Jump

Article first published as Old White Popes Can’t Jump on Blogcritics.

Many people all over the world seem amazingly shocked (and some truly saddened) to hear that Pope Benedict XVI will resign from the papacy on February 28, 2013. As the leader of the world’s one billion Catholics, Benedict clearly felt that he could no longer do the job effectively because of his advanced age (85) and health problems (it was later revealed that he has a pacemaker). It is fitting that even in the modern (increasingly secular) world that a pope’s resignation can cause such a stir among Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This tells us something about the influence of his office, even if many people do not recognize him as having any authority in their lives.

Why is this moment so important to Catholics (and seemingly to everyone else in the world too)? The answer is that the Catholic Church now finds itself at a Robert Frost moment, with two roads diverging in the woods. Does its leadership (the Sacred College of Cardinals) have the wisdom and fortitude to go down a different path, or will political and regional considerations shove the Cardinals once again down the all too trodden thoroughfare as many expect?

Right now the Church is at a monumental time and place in history. There is a convergence of history, technology, and tradition occurring as it never has before. Most modern day Catholics are people of the real world and, although we still look to our religious leaders for guidance, there is the starkly salient truth that the world has changed and our Church has not. There must be an understanding that the new pope needs to deal with reality and face difficult questions with a keen, modern sensibility, not one that is drenched in the malaise of past centuries.

That is why I note that old white popes can’t jump. I state it somewhat with tongue in cheek, but please look at Benedict XVI, and there will be no debate. The poor man can hardly walk. There is great humility in his decision to resign, and one has to give him enormous credit. He could have just sat there as a figurehead, withering away but clinging onto leadership. Benedict’s decision is actually a great leap of faith, and in that there is a metaphorical “jump” for which we all must be thankful.
By resigning Benedict has said that major change is needed. He may not come out and say this – perhaps he cannot do it – but the point has been made. Now we know that the next pope has to be able to jump, to do cartwheels, to run the mile without breaking a sweat, to pole vault over all the minutiae to start bringing the Church into the 21st century.

You may ask: “Why should any pope expend all that effort? Is he not the ‘prince’ of the church?” Yes, but you can bet that the poor carpenter from Nazareth never imagined Peter (or any of his successors) sitting on a gilded throne. Jesus came into the world to serve, not to be served. His humble origins notwithstanding, Jesus embraced all those whom the rest of the world seems to shun: prostitutes, the ill, the hungry, the lame, the blind, and even the Romans and tax collectors. Jesus welcomed those people that everyone else ignored or turned away. So when I say that the new pope must metaphorically jump, just think how Jesus ultimately jumped for us all – he died on the cross.

If we took a basketball court and lowered the nets by two feet, Pope Benedict could still not slam-dunk one. The problem is that the world is never going to make sinking baskets any easier; in fact, if anything the height of the pole will only increase as the world’s problems magnify. Since the task is getting more difficult, we need a pope to come along who can do a layup. We need one who can hit a three-pointer when the game is on the line.

Have you ever seen Mr. Barack Obama play basketball? He’s not only the President of the United States, but he has some serious on the court skills. We need a pope to step up and be like that, and the College of Cardinals must select a vibrant and much younger person. Seriously, the time for frail old men is over.

We also need a pope who represents the majority of Catholic people, and this time he should come from where most Catholic people live. A glance at the world map to view Catholic population (circa 2000) reveals a startling truth: 54% of the world’s Catholics live in Latin America and Africa (and surely that number has grown in 13 years). The old standard bastion of Europe, (the traditional source for elected pontiffs) represents only 27% of the world’s Catholic population (and that number must be smaller now).

Change is needed now. Just as we should eliminate the sadly antiquated Electoral College in the election of American presidents, that College of Cardinals should also be subsumed by a new kind of voting system: the people! If we allowed every registered Catholic in the world to vote for who will fill the void in the papacy, think of the wonderful interest and investment that would foster. There could even be a campaign, with candidates giving speeches. I for one would love to hear potential popes telling of their ideology and opinions on things that matter most. And just think how a country like Brazil (with its 33 million Catholics) could be the tipping point in an election (the papal candidates would no doubt make many campaign trips there to woo voters).

One of the first things the new pope must do is deal with abusive priests. There should be no statute of limitations for the Church; it should aggressively and proactively handle these grave matters with clarity and openness. The time for sweeping things under the rug has long passed (tell that to the diocese in LA), and the new pope must be the leader to firmly put his foot down and say “No more!”

Catholics need a pope who will look at the world as it is and not as he thinks it should be. The pope must be open to all constituencies that come under his auspices, even if some of them do not practice what he preaches. He has to find a way to elucidate to the masses why the Catholic Church is their church, not his church. The new pope must understand gays, lesbians, illegal immigrants, the uneducated, the poor, the illiterate, the infirmed, and the destitute, and the pope must ensure that the Church must do everything to be their Church.

There is also the matter of women and their role in the Church. The new pope must blaze new trails to empower them, even contemplating their ability to become priests, and he must consider changing the mandate of celibacy for all religious. The new pope should be an advocate for women’s rights in all countries, realizing how much Jesus loved and valued the women in his life.

So, does the new pope have to be a minority? Not necessarily, but just as Mr. Obama’s election (twice) has shown the world that Americans will elect a black man to be President, Catholics need the world to see that the pope doesn’t have to come from Italy, Poland, or Germany. The Cardinals must be willing to relinquish tradition in order to gain authority and respect again. If they elect a pope from a Third World country, they are not only saying that this man should be their leader but that the people in this part of the world matter to them as Catholics and as human beings.

Now, I am not saying that the pope actually needs to step on a basketball court and shoot hoops, but it wouldn’t hurt if he knew how to do something more connected to the real world. The next pope needs to have his fingertips on the pulse of the people, and not just those in Europe because he will be the leader of one billion Catholics worldwide. He has to be able to be a good defender, but offense is important too. The new pope has to know when to try to make the shot and when to pass to his teammates. Above all he not only has to jump, but he has to be humble enough to ask, “How high?”


Photo Credits: map - conswede@blogspot.com, pope – abcnews.com, Obama – sportsillustrated.com

Monday, February 11, 2013

Movie Review: Life of Pi - A Journey of Faith

Article first published as Movie Review: Life of Pi - A Journey of Faith on Blogcritics.

Sometimes a film comes along that is not only entertaining but illuminating beyond the expectations of the viewer; such is the case with Ang Lee’s Life of Pi, which takes us on a fantastical journey but also leaves us with profound and lasting impressions about our place in the universe. The ending may also leave you with more questions than answers, but sometimes that is infinitely more satisfying than the majority of predictable movies out there.

The story is told in flashback by the adult Pi (Irraf Khan) who relates the tale to a Canadian writer (Rafe Spall) who wants to use Pi’s tale for a book. Pi is very philosophical about his experience, and he tells the writer that if he listens to the story he will “believe in God.”

The first thing one has to get past is the fact that the second most important character in the film – an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker (so named by a confused ticket clerk in a train station) – is a CGI wonder that is amazingly conceived. If you dismiss this truth as part of the fictional world Lee creates in the film, and you accept the tiger as a reality on that boat, then you are in for a rare and precious cinematic treat.

Pi (played by Suraj Sharma for the most extended flashback part of the film) is a 16 year old boy who is on a passage to Canada from India aboard a Japanese owned vessel. He is with his parents and brother and they are on their way to a new life. With them are some of their remaining zoo animals. Pi’s father was forced to sell his zoo because of problems with the government, and Pi is at first unhappy about leaving India and all that he has ever known.

We learn that Pi was named Piscine Molitor Patel after a swimming pool his father liked in Paris. The name causes the young Pi (Ayush Tandon) trouble in school, with his classmates calling him “Pissing Patel,” until he earns their respect by explaining his name is “Pi” like the numerical term (which goes on infinitely). After this he is known as simply Pi, but the fact that his name connects to water is apropos considering his destiny.

When he is small he tries to feed the tiger in the cage, but his father admonishes him and then brings in a goat for the tiger to slaughter. He forces his young son to see this in order that he has no illusions about the nature of the beast. Pi insists that he saw a soul in the tiger’s eyes, but his father contends that it is just a reflection back of him and nothing more.

The young Pi learns about Christianity and Islam and wishes to practice them along with his Hindu faith. This sets up the premise that God is not defined by one thing or name, but rather accessible to all people on their own terms. Pi’s seeking God, Vishnu, or Allah is more a journey of wanting to connect to the universe, and he will use whatever means he can to attain his goal.

Once out to sea on the freighter, a fierce storm hits the ship and causes it to go down. Pi survives on a life boat with an injured zebra and an orangutan. He soon learns that a fierce hyena is hiding under the tarpaulin and the hyena is kept at bay with an oar. The hyena eventually kills the zebra and the orangutan, but is then killed and eaten by Richard Parker (the tiger was also hiding under the tarp). Thus begins what will be a relationship that is filled with adversity. The tiger’s ferocity is at first kept in check by Pi as he retreats to a raft that he fashions out of flotation devices. He goes back and forth between this makeshift raft and the boat, feeding and watering the tiger, and slowly creating some kind of bond with it.

They get through terrible storms, circling sharks, and near starvation until they come upon a fantastical island filled with meerkats. Here Pi drinks water and eats fruits of the land, while the tiger feasts on the teaming population. At night as Pi sleeps in a tree he becomes aware of the phosphorescent quality of the island, with its glowing flora and fauna and realizes that the whole island is carnivorous, thus he has no choice but to once again head back to sea.

Obviously, since the adult Pi is telling the tale, we know he survives, but this is the same trope used in many films including Titanic, where the elderly Rose Dawson tells what happened to the doomed ship. Sometimes knowing the ending does nothing to diminish the power of a film because getting there is what it’s all about.

Life of Pi is sort of the fiercely independent child of Castaway and Slumdog Millionaire, but that does not do justice to the phenomenal story. As Pi and Richard Parker form a relationship, there is a sense that the universe Pi has been looking to for answers has been minimized and sent to him inside that small boat. The connection between man and beast becomes not just one necessary for survival but is a deeper connection, one of their souls. You don’t have to be religious to like this film, and it does not pound home a pious message of any kind, but rather leaves it to our own hearts and minds to determine.

Lee is nominated for Best Director and the film for Best Picture, but I am doubtful for a victory in either category. David Magee is nominated for adapted screenplay (from the novel by Yann Martel), as is Claudio Miranda for cinematography Mychael Danna for the original score, both of whom should win if there is any justice. The visual tapestry of this film is greatly complimented by the haunting score that sets the tone for this fantastical adventure.

Life of Pi should be seen on the movie screen to fully appreciate its majesty in 3-D, but in the end it is the story that matters most. When you get to the twist ending, it is up to you to make a decision as to what to believe. If you are like me you will find the choice not hard at all, as long as you’re willing to take a leap of faith. As the adult Pi told the writer about believing in God, it’s all a choice. Either way Life of Pi should be savored as one fine film that will leave you thinking long after you have left the theater.

Photo Credits: 20th Century Fox

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Movie Review: Argo - Best Picture Any Other Year But This One

Article first published as Movie Review: Argo - Best Picture Any Other Year But This One on Blogcritics.

On the old TV series The A-Team, Mr. T’s character BA used to say, “I pity the fool…”, and you can kind of complete that sentence in regards to this year’s Academy Award nominees by adding, “who goes up against Lincoln.” Such is the case for director Ben Affleck’s amazing film Argo. It has the misfortune of going up against Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, which is destined for almost certain victory in probably most of the twelve categories in which it was nominated.


Argo is a vastly superior film coming from a director who has honed his craft, but he is a foundling compared to Spielberg whose resume goes back to before Affleck was born. Affleck proved with The Town that he had directing chops, but in Argo he has risen to new heights. The story is based on true events that happened during the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), after workers at the American Embassy were taken hostage by Iranian revolutionaries on November 4, 1979.

The adapted screenplay by Chris Terrio is rightly nominated. It covers the vast and complex ruse that is at the heart of the film: Affleck’s CIA operative Tony Mendez comes up with a unique ploy to rescue six Americans who escaped the embassy and are hiding in the Canadian Embassy. He creates a fake movie, entitled Argo, about space explorers on a strange planet (as sort of a new Star Wars). His ruse is to want to make this film in Iran, and he believes he will be able to extract the six Americans as Canadians working on the film.

There is such conflict and tension, and Affleck does a fine job chronicling the escalating frenzy of officials behind the scenes working to get the job done. He also captures the essence of what was then a fading old time Hollywood. In film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin’s nominated for best supporting actor) we see the last vestiges of the archaic studio system, but Siegel manages to use his contacts to get the “film” into publicity and creates a semblance of a real production in the making.
This is the cover Mendez needs for his plot to be truly effective.

The sequences with Arkin in Hollywood are a form of comic relief, similar to Shakespeare’s gravediggers who would alleviate the heft of the proceedings and offer the audience a chuckle or two. Back in Iran the six escapees get increasingly nervous as they feel the Iranians are closing in on them, and the fact is that they are because the captors have discovered that they do not have all the Americans as hostages in the American Embassy. They are piecing together shredded documents in hopes of seeing the faces of those who escaped.


Affleck keeps it all moving along and the conflict is real and palpable as Mendez goes to Iran and tries to accomplish his task. The rescue at times seems threatened by circumstance and bad luck, but Mendez convinces the six Americans that he is their best chance of ever getting out of Iran, and so they go along with the plan.

Credit has to go to a fine cast that includes John Goodman, Kyle Chandler, Bryan Cranston, Victor Garber, and Tate Donovan. But the film rests on Affleck as actor and director. Just as Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen have done time and again, Affleck seems to be able to wear the two hats and do an excellent job wearing both. Mendez’s tenacious efforts, with great assistance from the Canadians, are in the end what propel this film.


Argo is the best of the bunch in the Best Picture category but will not go home with the Oscar, which most certainly will be handed to Spielberg, and that is unfortunate. It is a compelling, sometimes terrifying, and extremely maddening film that keeps you guessing and hoping right up until the final moments. It is a great story told by a master storyteller, and Affleck must now be considered as one of Hollywood’s premier directors. After you see Argo I am sure you will most certainly agree with me.

Photo credits: Warner Bros.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Movie Review: Silver Linings Playbook - Romeo and Juliet On Meds

Article first published as Movie Review: Silver Linings Playbook - Romeo and Juliet On Meds on Blogcritics.

For those of you who are too jaded to enjoy a good romantic comedy, stop reading now. If you like a by the numbers romance, go elsewhere for your entertainment, and if you are expecting happy endings in life, maybe this isn’t the film for you (or maybe, just maybe, it is).

Director David O. Russell’s follow up to The Fighter is the exquisitely funny and uniquely conceived romantic comedy Silver Linings Playbook. It tells the story of former teacher Pat Solitano (a smashing Bradley Cooper) and his relationship with Tiffany (always outstanding Jennifer Lawrence), as they find a way to connect in the hopelessness of loss and despair.

Pat is a bipolar fellow who has just been released from a mental institution where he was sent after severely beating the man whom he caught having sex in the shower with his wife Nikki (Brea Bee), while their wedding song ("My Cherie Amour” by Stevie Wonder) was playing on the stereo. Nikki has a restraining order but that doesn’t stop Pat from wanting to see her and get back with her, but she has moved away and there is seemingly no way to connect with her again.

Enter Tiffany, a young widow who lost her police officer husband in a traffic accident. Tiffany handled her grief by becoming a nymphomaniac, and half of the town seems to be texting her for an encounter. She is trying to stop this behavior when she meets Pat at her sister’s house, and they start to form a stilted kind of friendship based on a love of jogging around the neighborhood.

Pat has moved back home to the suburbs of Philadelphia to live with his parents Pat and Dolores (Robert DeNiro and Jackie Weaver). These people are dealing with their own issues because the senior Pat has lost his job and is working as a bookmaker, with a goal to raise enough money to open a restaurant. Pat sleeps in his old room and reads A Farewell to Arms voraciously to the last page, and then reacts so violently to the ending that he throws the book through the bedroom window (Hemingway sometimes has a way of doing that to you).

Pat’s problem with the book is a microcosm for his issues with life: he wants a happy ending. He cannot process the fact that the lovers don’t make it in the end. This is not his view of life, and touches a nerve because of his situation with Nikki. The rest of the movie is basically about Pat trying to construct a new narrative for himself, one with a resoundingly happy ending; however, real life and his mental condition keep getting in his way.

Convinced that he can only find happiness with his ex-wife, Pat asks Tiffany to get a letter to her. Tiffany agrees if he helps her “with this thing.” Pat agrees and discovers that Tiffany is preparing for a dancing competition and needs a partner. He reluctantly starts to practice with her in order to get his letter delivered. As they get to know each other more closely, it is obvious that Tiffany has feelings for him, but Pat is still focused on Nikki as the prize and cannot see the sparks sizzling all over his dance partner.

There are so many hilarious moments here, among them when his friend Danny from the mental hospital (reliably funny Chris Tucker) comes to watch them dance (in a weird twist on what usually happens on Dancing with the Stars). Danny gets them to jazz things up a bit, and as Pat watches Danny dancing with Tiffany, some twinges of jealousy register on his face.

DeNiro’s Pat Senior is his best role in years. He imbues the father with his own pathology (he’s obsessive compulsive) and also has anger management issues like his son, so that apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree. The relationship between father and son becomes something connected to football (dad is a huge Philadelphia Eagles fan), but this also has something to do with the bookmaking and a possibility of a big payday. Pat and Tiffany become entwined in a bet that will either bring dad huge winnings or sink him into debt forever.

Russell’s screenplay (based on Matthew Quick’s novel) is a layered and textured thing of beauty. There are so many nuances, connections made after it seems a thread has been left dangling, and every character has a moment that is authentic and clarifies not only his or her actions but adds to the overall story. As the relationship between Pat and Tiffany develops, we see them not so much as star-crossed lovers but passing ships in the night. The question remains throughout whether Pat will wake up and appreciate Tiffany for what she is before it is too late and their ships go off into different directions forever.

This film is a perfect tale for the fractured world in which we live. It doesn’t present us with perfect male and female leads but true to life people with real disabilities. Though the film is about two people with faults, they also have strengths that make them rise above their conflicts with each other and the world. They slowly find in one another a reason to go on, and thus they are not only good for each other emotionally but also spiritually. It is so refreshing to see a film that does not take the cookie cutter route to the denouement. We cannot be sure until the very last minutes how things will turn out, and you have to give Russell credit for making what is basically the anti-rom-com.

Since I don’t believe in spoilers, all I can say is that once you have seen the film you have to make the call as to how you handle the ending. Will you throw the book out the window or will you embrace it for what it is: simply the best romantic comedy of the year with lots of drama thrown in for effect.

Oh, and I guarantee you will never hear “My Cherie Amour” again and not think of Cooper’s Pat and his tortured face as he keeps hearing the song in his head. He certainly should win the Oscar for best actor, but being up against Daniel Day Lewis for his portrayal of Lincoln is like David going up against Goliath, but perhaps Cooper can master the slingshot. Maybe happy endings can happen after all.

Photo credits: IMDb

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Little Orphan Me

Article first published as Little Orphan Me on Blogcritics.

Okay, I’m not going to walk down the city streets singing, “Tomorrow” or anything remotely as maudlin as that, and I doubt I will befriend a stray dog and bring it home, but I am understanding the character Little Orphan Annie more these days since my father passed away. Now, with both my parents gone, I must face the indisputable fact that I am an orphan.

Of course, we usually associate “orphan” with a child. Like the little red-haired girl from the comic strip, these are kids who become wards of the state and live in group homes. Hopefully, none of them have to deal with someone like Miss Hannigan, but the fact is that we usually associate being an orphan as something negative and mostly associated with childhood.

There are the famous orphans to be considered like Dave Thomas, who started the Wendy’s restaurant chain. Others include John Lennon, Babe Ruth, Ingrid Bergman, Marilyn Monroe, and Nelson Mandela. Writers Edgar Allan Poe, John Keats, James Michener, and Leo Tolstoy were all orphans, as were former presidents of the United States Andrew Jackson and Herbert Hoover. Moses, one of the most important figures in the Bible, was an orphan, and in literature there is David Copperfield, Huckleberry Finn, Jane Eyre, and Tarzan to name a few.

Perhaps one of the most notable orphans in recent memory is Harry Potter, the boy wizard who became a popular culture phenomenon in books and films. It goes without saying that anyone who reads J.K. Rowling’s books or sees the films knows that the driving force behind Harry’s actions is reconciling what happened to his deceased parents in order to get on with his life. In the story Harry makes quite an impression (and eventually shakes the world), as did everyone mentioned above in one way or another. Perhaps they all went on to some kind of notoriety not in spite of being orphans but because of it.

I suppose the more important part of the story may be those who took in the orphans and raised them as their own. Dave Thomas became a national spokesperson for adoption because of the wonderful experience he had, but someone like Harry Potter could explain all the horrors of living with the wrong surrogate parents. The truth is that even kids living with their biological parents can have horrific situations, and most of us learned long ago that biology has nothing to do with being a good parent.

Still, being an orphan is something that feels connected to childhood. As a culture we tend to put added significance on a child being without parents, but seem to dismiss adults in the same situation. People all over the world lose both their parents as adults. It is the nature of things. I am sure many of them do not walk around all day thinking, “Now I am an orphan” the way I have been doing, but maybe that is because society has trained us not to think that way. It is convenient in the adult world to keep a stiff upper lip, put our shoulders to the wheel, and go on with things. To me that just doesn’t equate with the passing of my parents. I cannot accept that as the way of the world, even though I know it is.

As long as my parents were alive, so was my childhood. I could sit with them and reminisce about times past, share laughter and tears, and know that there was always someone there who loved me unconditionally. There are many intimate moments a child shares with both parents, and those are precious and sacred times that you can recollect together as long as your parents live. With my parents gone now, the memories remain but the opportunity to share them changes precipitously. There is a heft to even happy stories because I once shared those times with the people I loved who are now gone.

After my mother passed away, I still had my father to sit and talk to about everything. We would share stories about Mom and have a laugh (or a cry). When my young son did something wild or inappropriate, I’d ask my Dad if I ever did anything like that. He would nod his head and say, “Yes, but you were worse than he is.” I needed him to remind me of things I couldn’t remember like that. As long as you have even one parent, you have a precious resource that helps you make sense of who you are.

Another thing that I feel is lost is my parents as keepers of the flame. On both sides of the family there were old stories, and my folks were like historians. If I wanted to know who Aunt Jenny was or how I was related to this person, my parents were able to connect the dots. Over the years they did help me understand my rather large extended family, but I miss being able to go to them now for a quick answer. I also just enjoyed hearing them tell the stories, which they did so colorfully.


Now I feel as if I am a fish out of water, a ship without a port in the storm, or a man without a country. It is like being freshly cast out into the world to start on your own, not knowing the way out and no place to which you can go back. It is a startling feeling to know you are alone, cast into a void, from which there is no return. This is how I feel now without my parents there. I don’t care what anyone else says – even if I am not actually lost, it surely does not mean that I am found.

I remember a scene in the great film It’s a Wonderful Life, when George Bailey (James Stewart) finally realizes that he is living in an alternate universe – it is when his mother doesn’t recognize him. Up until that point he has some false notions that things are as they should be, but when his mother sends him off into the night he becomes aware that he is an orphan, that everything he has thought about life or believed to be true is gone. I can relate to the expression on his face right now, the horror of knowing that your origins are no more.

When I had my own children, there was the comforting and reassuring notion that my parents were there as guides. How do I handle this? I merely picked up the phone to ask what to do if my child had a fever, wouldn’t eat, or cried when I woke her from a nap. This seemed to me like a safety net; I was not a parent alone or even just working with my wife, I had the big guns backing me up: my parents!

Now I am not only an orphan, but my children no longer have their grandparents. Thankfully, they still have my wife’s parents, but I feel saddened and almost like I have failed my kids somehow by having parents who died. I know this is crazy, but there is such a vacuum in life for me now. Those weekly visits to see Papa are gone for the kids and me. It had become such a ritual, almost like going to church on Sundays. Seeing my father was woven into the fabric of our lives, and now it is ripped away and there seems to be no way to pick up the thread and begin again.

I know I am going through what everyone must go through at some point in life. I am trying to cope with it, trying to get through to a better time and place, but I am not sure when that will happen. Perhaps as the kids get older, as the memories fade, and the routine becomes something forgotten, we will move on with our lives and things will seem less laden with emptiness.

For now, I walk the streets on a winter’s day and feel the cruel, cold wind on my face, thinking about my parents in the warmth of each other’s company now on the other side. I could be tempted to sing “It’s a Hard Knock Life,” but they gave me too many great years, all of them filled with love and support. Perhaps I am an orphan but are we not a culture of orphans? We all lose our parents, and then we must face the next part of life when we become them. Maybe that’s the most difficult concept for me and one I am not ready to face yet, but I do know the sun will come out tomorrow, and as Little Orphan Annie sings in the play Annie, it’s only a day away!

Photo Credits: Annie - mrkstyle.com; george bailey - entertainmentguidefilm.org