The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Directed by: Julian Schnabel

Written by: Ronald Harwood (screenplay); Jean-Dominique Bauby (book)
















I can't recall ever seeing a movie as stunning and striking and beautiful.  Perhaps other movies have had one of two of those features, but never before have they all come together in such a powerful way.

Jean-Dominique Bauby (Amalric) wakes to find himself in a hospital, unable to move his body except to blink.  He is trapped in his own mind, a victim of a massive stroke and "locked-in syndrome."  Gradually, he learns to communicate through blinking as other recite letters.  He attempts to come to terms with his permanent condition and the life he left behind - his job as an editor, the book he was writing, his children and their mother, his mistress, and his aging father (von Sydow).

To be honest, I am rarely at a loss for words.  But in this case, I may have met my match.  (Even my summary above seems pithy and unworthy of the film's plot.)

I highly recommend you see this movie.  Just be prepared to encounter something incredible.

The story is heroic and tragic.  The film is beautifully shot and edited.  The acting is strong and heart-wrenching.

See it.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Written by: J. K. Rowling



















Being the second book of the series, it naturally tells the story of Harry Potter's second year at Hogwarts, picking up a few months after the previous book left off.

After being warned not to return to Hogwarts by a mysterious visitor named Dobby, Harry goes back to school.  But someone is running around turning people into stone, including Ginny Weasley and Hermione Granger, and Harry is the number one suspect.  A magic journal by the former Hogwarts student Tom Riddle provides Harry with several clues which help him discover the hidden Chamber of Secrets.

While I have no major complaints about this book, I must say that I did not enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the first book.  Mainly, I felt that this book mirrored the first book too closely without exploring any new territory in the Harry Potter universe.  Most of the key plot points and features are almost exactly the same was they were before.  For example, the use of the invisibility blanket, an ill-timed game of quidditch, and even the villain was revealed to be (spoiler here) Voldemort yet again.  Essentially, it's a re-hash.

I was really hoping to expand the HP world a lot more, but I didn't get what I wanted.  The book isn't terrible.  In fact, it's rather enjoyable.  It just isn't wasn't what I was hoping for when I started reading.  Maybe next book?  We'll see.

Art & Copy

Directed by: Doug Pray

Written by: Gregory Beauchamp, Kirk Souder (original concept); Timothy J. Sexton (narrative consultant)

Doug Pray's documentary "Art & Copy" analyzes the art and copy departments of several major advertising firms and tells the history of several classic advertising campaigns.

In the shadow of the success of "Mad Men," it's interesting to see how real-life advertising is developed in the modern world. The film traces the development and structure of several different advertising firms - all of them with their unique philosophies built into their individual corporate culture.

Beyond looking at the business mechanisms of advertising, it was also neat to find out how several now-unforgettable advertising campaigns developed.

Despite how interesting it was, "Art & Copy" had no real message or purpose. At the end, I was not quite sure what I was supposed to take away from the film.

If you like "Mad Men" or PBS-style documentaries, then "Art & Copy" is right up your alley and you'll love it. If not, this is probably one that you can skip.

A Better Life

Directed by: Chris Weitz

Written by: Eric Eason (screenplay); Roger L. Simon (story)

There is an interesting history of immigration and social commentary in American cinema. Unfortunately, I neither have the time, nor the expertise to really get into it here. But, if you're interested, you can start by seeing 1983's "El Norte," or this film - "A Better Life."

In this movie, Carlos (Bichir) is an gardener living illegally in the US. In the attempt to gain upward mobility, in the hopes of keeping his son Luis (Julián) out of trouble, Carlos buys his own gardening truck. But it's a dog-eat-dog world, and his truck - along with all the hopes of his family - is stolen. Carlos and his son travel the streets of Los Angeles trying to find the truck without getting the attention of the LAPD.

This is a movie with a very serious message, and it tells it very seriously. Unfortunately, the film is occasionally very heavy-handed in the way it the issues are presented.

Overall, it's a good movie. The acting - especially from Bichir - is very good. The story has a good pace, reflective at times without becoming too slow. The drama is tense and multi-faceted. It all adds up to a good, meaningful flick.

The movie's biggest flaw (moral heaviness aside) is carried by the main character. Despite every obstacle put in his path, he's a near perfect character. He always manages to do the right thing, always has the right answer, never gets frustrated or angry. He's simply too perfect to be human, and it's frustrating as a viewer to watch a character with such impervious idealism. (I refer to this as the "Ned Flanders Effect.)

It's a movie worth seeing, for sure. In fact, it's very good. Just be ready for the moral heaviness that comes with it.

Meek's Cutoff

Directed by: Kelly Reichardt

Written by: Jonathan Raymond

This movie came with a lot of critical acclaim, and so I had very high expectations. Luckily, it delivered.

Essentially, it's about a group of people who get lost on their way to the Oregon Territory. They begin to lose faith in the man they've hired to guide them. Tensions rise as water and supplies begin to dwindle and as it becomes clear that a stranger is stalking them.

"Meek's Cutoff" had just about everything that, I feel, makes a movie good. Simultaneously, some of these features can be rather off-putting for viewers who are unprepared for the daunting journey they are about to take.

For example: the film does not rely on dialogue to tell the story. In fact, there is basically no dialogue for the first ten minutes. There's an old writing class tip: "Show, don't tell." This film masterfully shows what is going on, without directly telling the audience. (At some points, that "show" borders on "tell" though - such as when in an early scene when one of the travelers carves "LOST" onto a dead tree branch.)

I appreciate some of the stylistic choices that were used in the film as well. Whispers are actually hard to hear - as whispers should be. When a conversation is being held far away, the audience can only hear it muted over the distance. We can hear the tone of the discussion, but not all the words. But, going back to the "show, don't tell" bit, we don't actually need to hear everything. We can extrapolate what is going on through what is given to us.

The plot itself is pretty basic, and only has one or two significant twists. What makes the story interesting, then, is the way the situation changes and how those changes affect the power dynamics between the characters. When faced with different challenges, each character's true nature is revealed. "Meek's Cutoff" shows that well-defined characters can super-charge a simple plot. Each actor did a great job, but special credit should be given to Bruce Greenwood who, as Stephen Meek, was not recognizable as anyone but Stephen Meek. The limited size of the cast, and their constant proximity to one another, gives the film an astounding feeling of claustrophobia despite the wide-open setting.

(There are sneaky spoilers hidden in this paragraph: so beware.) Lastly, the ending is absolutely ambiguous (and I've written previously how much I love that kind of ending). The travelers are no longer in control of their own destiny, but where the captured Indian is leading them - to safety, or to certain death - is uncertain. There's enough evidence provided to suggest either is a realistic possibility. The tree suggests that water is nearby, but it is still nowhere in sight. Salvation could be over the next hill, but that's been the feeling for the last several hills. As the film ends, there's an irony in the three families who set out West to forge their own futures not being in control of their own fates.

The weakness of the film is the slow, deliberate pace of the story, mainly because at one point it borders on tedium. Minimal action is fine, but there needs to be some forward movement occasionally or the energy dies out, which it almost does in this film.

I highly recommend this film. Be prepared, though, that it is not a typical movie. Go in with an open mind and you will be amazed.

The Sunset Limited

Directed by: Tommy Lee Jones

Written by: Cormac McCarthy

There are very few writers who, by mere drop of their name, can make me sit up and pay attention. Cormac McCarthy is one of those writers. He adapted his own "novel in dramatic form" into a screenplay, which was then produced as an HBO special.

The plot is very simple: two men - known only as Black and White (Jackson and Jones, respectively) - sit in a room and debate the meaning of life. Prior to the opening scene, White tried to kill himself by jumping in front of a train but Black intervened and saved his life. Throughout their discussions, White (who reveals himself as a professor) points to the bleak sadness of life and the brutality of humanity. Black ( regularly counterpoints by pointing to humanity's redeeming qualities and the importance of faith. The power dynamic shifts back and forth repeatedly until, almost arbitrarily, it ends. The two part ways, neither side convinced by the other's arguments.

Going into it, one should know that McCarthy's writings are always incredibly dark and heavy, and "The Sunset Limited" is no exception. White beats the audience over the head with his depression and pessimism, and it can be emotionally draining to hear it, even in a performance. (And, to give credit, Tommy Lee Jones is pretty convincing in his role.)

I always enjoy movies with relatively ambiguous endings. (That isn't to say a film doesn't need resolution, but that it should always leave a few things for the audience to think about.) "The Sunset Limited" ends in a way that leaves things up for discussion. When White finally leaves, it is clear that Black's faith has been shaken but unbroken. Even though we never see him again, it's easy to conjecture (possibly incorrectly) that a similar change has happened to White. But what does it all mean? Who was right? Did either side "win"? Or is it even about winning at all?

Both Jones and Jackson give well-executed performances, although the nature of the story - taking place in a single sparse room on a single night - leaves little room for them in terms of action. Instead, they use their voices and the words they carry as their instruments. It was not a lot to work with, but they made it work.

Typically, McCarthy's works are filled with physical violence. "The Sunset Limited" is filled with emotional and philosophical violence. The two characters bludgeon each other with their points of view, hitting each other with point and counterpoint, ad nauseum.

"The Sunset Limited" is excellent, but I would not categorize it as a must-see film. Be prepared for an emotional roller-coaster if you do decide to watch it, but one that is well worth the experience.

Batman

Directed by: Tim Burton

Written by: Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren

Long before he became a Johnny-Depp obsessed caricature of himself, Tim Burton established a modernized vision of Batman which broke from the classic but cartoonish Batman of the Adam West era.

In the beginning of the film, Batman (Keaton) is a mysterious vigilante who is feared despite the fact that most people think he is merely an urban legend. The caped crusader's rise to fame coincides with the Joker's (Nicholson) rise to power in Gotham City's criminal element. The two tussle it out for a while, and the good guy wins. (There's also a sub-plot in there about Bruce Wayne falling in love with Vicky Vale [Basinger], a photo-journalist on Batman's trail, which eventually overlaps with the main plot.)

It's hard, in the shadow of Heath Ledger's later acclaimed performance, to put some perspective on Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker. But Nicholson's performance in this film was totally earth-shaking. He managed to tie his work to the Jokers of the Adam West era (especially with his terrifying cackle) while also forging new ground with the character's deadly charisma. It's unfortunate that he never had an opportunity to reprise the role and develop his Joker any further.

Beyond Jack Nicholson, the entire cast should be credited for filling out their roles well, regardless of the number of lines and scenes they had. Jack Palance dazzles, as always. Michael Gough establishes the gold standard for Alfred, Bruce Wayne's butler (sorry Michael Caine). It's too bad that Billy Dee Williams didn't get enough of a chance to flesh out his part as up-and-coming DA Harvey Dent, but his handful of scenes revealed a lot of potential that never was harnessed.

To be honest, the special effects and sets did not hold up since the film's original release. (This problem was magnified because I saw it on the big screen as part of a local theater's classic film series.) There's a low-budget sense to the movie, despite the fact that it was a big-budget movie at the time. For example, the different settings are relatively blank and ill-defined. There is no sense of scope or scale for Gotham City - locales seemed to be created as mere background spaces for the characters to interact, with nothing to differentiate one street corner from another. Considering that Gotham is supposed to be an extremely large city, most of the scenes are noticeably devoid of people, or any feeling of hustle-and-bustle.

Earlier, I mentioned Tim Burton's deterioration as a filmmaker. "Batman" stands as a testament to the potential he had as a director. It's a dark and weird film (and the series got darker and weirder with his sequel, "Batman Returns"), and stands out as a classic of the superhero genre. He took the Batman concept and gave it his own flavor, re-envisioning the archetype and leaving this film as a touchstone by which other superhero films were measured for a long time. I hope Tim Burton can eventually come back to the creative muse that inspired him to make "Batman," rather than resting on his laurels and his name and pumping out lame unimaginative rehashes of previously brilliant films which are mostly popular because they have the name Johnny Depp attached to them, as he has of late.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Written by: J.K. Rowling

I realize that I am very late to the Harry Potter train. But, better late than never, right?

The first book in the series - "Sorcerer's Stone" (aka "Philosopher's Stone" for our friends across the pond) - tells of the boy Harry Potter, neglected and abused by his aunt and uncle, who finds out that he is actually a wizard. As he runs off to wizard school at Hogwarts, he becomes involved in a mystery which will reveal exactly what is being hidden at the school, what happened to Harry's parents, and why everyone seems to treat him with such high regard. Turns out - not so surprisingly - that the villain Voldemort, an evil wizard, is the one holding the puppet strings, and that he's after the Sorcerer's Stone which is the key to eternal life.

(And yes, I just wrote all that down without a hint of sarcasm, somehow.)

I've always felt that the whole "Harry Potter" phenomena to be a sort of dubious second-cousin to more intellectual fantasy series (e.g. "Lord of the Rings"). But as more and more friends and acquaintances gave it such acclaim, I was eventually dragged into reading it.

Of course, the dragging stopped once I started reading it. I did have to put on my "new sincerity" glasses and read it honestly, with an eye for enjoyment rather than criticism. And, I must say, the book did provide much enjoyment. I had a hard time putting it down.

This book, especially, manages to strike an excellent balance between telling a self-contained story while also setting the stage for later books.

The characters are a bit exaggerated - Harry is always good and pure, Voldemort is pure evil - but I've heard that features gets toned down as the series goes on.

Years after the Harry Potter phenomena took off, I'm glad I've taken the opportunity to grab on to the coat tails. I'm looking forward to the rest of the ride.

Margin Call

Written and Directed by: J. C. Chandor

The economic collapse of the early 2000s went largely unnoticed by those who make films. There aren't many movies out there making overt reference to what was (and still is) one of the largest economic disasters of all time. For the most part, films have been depicting middle-class life just moving along like normal, ignoring the larger social context of the past five years. "Margin Call" is one of the few non-documentaries that I've come across to address this situation, using a fictional financial group (clearly based, at least loosely, on Lehmann Brothers and Goldman-Sachs).

Risk analyst Peter Sullivan (Quinto) is told to look at a project exiting manager (Tucci) had been working on, and what he finds is that his company's holdings are headed for disaster. Afraid of what the implications mean for the firm, Sullivan's boss Sam Rogers (Spacey) decides to call an emergency meeting that, ultimately goes all the way to the firm's CEO John Tuld (Irons). To ensure the survival of the company beyond the projected collapse, Tuld decides to order the immediate selling of all of the firm's toxic assets, despite Rogers's warnings that it would cripple the company and sever critical financial ties to other companies. Ultimately, the firm manages to dump their bad assets costing the firm hundreds of jobs as well, and Tuld tells Rogers that the firm took such harsh measures to weather the economic storm that they helped to create.

This movie was good, and one of its strongest aspects was the tension it was able to build by focusing on a limited time-frame and a limited setting. Most of the film's action takes place within a twenty-four hour period within a single building. Important decisions with massive ramifications must be made quickly, and one false move could mean the end of the company.

Another strength of the film was its ensemble cast. Everyone managed to play their part without overstepping anyone else. Irons was outstanding as the ruthless CEO, and Quinto dynamically played the up-and-coming analyst. Spacey managed to add a soft, sympathetic, human touch to his character who is forced to do things that will damage his reputation and his employees livelihoods.

There were a few rough-edges to this film that kept it from moving beyond "very good." Most notably, the presence of Demi Moore. Not only was her acting sub-par in this film (though, to be honest, she wasn't terrible), her character really didn't add much to the movie. I'm not sure what the character's purpose was at all. Her scenes felt like irrelevant fluff. Perhaps the only part that redeemed her role was the scene in which she interacts, brutally and bluntly, with Tucci's character.

It will take a lot longer for history of have a long enough scope to put perspective on this period in America. Still, when we get there, it will be important that we have some kind of cultural document - "Margin Call" - to show what happened when it all went down hill. It's not "The Grapes of Wrath," but it will do. For now.

Made in Dagenham

Directed by: Nigel Cole

Written by: William Ivory

It's hard to believe that as recently as the 1960s (and, in many ways, still today) that there was a major differential in pay between men and women. Although this discrepancy still exists, the formal legal structures that legitimized it have been destroyed. And some of that change began with the women who worked in the Ford factory in Dagenham.

When, as part of a new collective bargaining agreement, the Ford car company attempts to classify women's work as "unskilled labor," Rita O'Grady (Hawkins) and the other women at her factory go on strike. At first it is slow going, and as missed paychecks begin to add up, the solidarity of the union begins to break down. There is pressure from almost every side to give in - from the factory managers to husbands and children. But, when they get the attention of Britain's Employment Secretary, things begin to turn their way.

It's hard for me to separate my personal feelings and my analytical thoughts on this film. Suffice to say that the movie is well-made, but falls short of great.

On the positive side, it exposed a very real problem that still lingers in our society. It also showed the effects of a labor strike on the lives of those involved, not just in terms of work but also in terms of family life. The acting was solid, especially from the leads.

On the negative side, the film struggled to maintain a solid tone. At points there are moments of lightness and humor, at others moments of deadly seriousness. The film also built up too large of a cast to maintain, and so many characters remained static in the background, leading to character-story references that went unexplored.

I enjoyed the film, but I wouldn't say that anyone should go very far out of their way to see it.