Enter your keyword

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

A Serious Man (2009) and the Meaning of Life

By On 12:33 PM
"Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you."
Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed
Written By: Joel & Ethan Coen
Directed By: Joel & Ethan Coen
Release Date: October 2, 2009

At the beginning of the film, we meet Vebel, who was helped by a man on his way home. He invites this man over and his wife tells him that the man he speaks of died a while back. Vebel and his wife are confronted by the man moments later and she proposes that the man is a demon and eventually stabs him. The man laughs when he's questioned by Vebel's wife and when she stabs him, but before he leaves he asks Vebel who he believes is possesssed. Is it the man or is it his wife who has just stabbed him? Once the man leaves, Vebel states that they are ruined and this is because he's now been confronted with two different ideas that disrupt everything he knows to be true. Was the man a demon? Should he trust his wife? What should he do? While the answers to these are not important and go unanswered because of it, Vebel's story is an allegory that sets up the entire film. 
Larry Gopnik, played by Michael Stuhlbarg, is a physics teacher struggling to find some serious clarity for his messed up life. His wife, Judith (Sari Lennick) wants a gett, the Jewish equivalent to a divorce, so that she can marry Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), who lost his wife just three years prior. His brother (Richard Kind) is unemployed and stays with him while works on a map of the universe. On top of that, one of Larry's students is trying to blackmail his way into a better grade.
When his misfortune begins, Larry continuously asks himself the one question any rational person in his situation would. Why me? I haven't done anything. He asks this question so many times in film, it almost becomes down-right annoying. However, the film begins to take an interesting turn when he takes it upon himself to ask other people these same questions. He visits a Rabbi first and the basis behind what the Rabbi says to him is that God made it happen simply because he did. He tells Larry that all of the things happening to him, good or bad, are expressions of God's will and that the only thing he can do is change his perspective and accept them for what they are. However, it is because of the way the film is set up, the advice is played off as some absurdest spiel and like Larry, we ignore it. Larry simply refuses to accept that God would let this happen to him without giving some sort of explanation and continues his search for the truth without doing much to actually put his problems to rest, which is why the continue to escalate throughout the course of the film.
It is not until he meets with the second Rabbi that the real meaning behind the film begins to show itself. When he meets with the second Rabbi after not finding what he was looking for with the first, that interaction really sheds light on not only exactly what kind of person Larry is, but how it's inhibiting him from finding peace with his life as well. He tells Larry the story of a dentist that found words carved into his patient's mouth. The story depicts the dentist's search for the meanings behind the words and why they were in the man's mouth in the first place. When the Rabbi finishes the story, Larry asks him what the point of the story was and leaves, like the man, empty handed in his search. The Rabbi points out that Larry and the dentist aren't too different from one another, but the biggest difference between the two men is that the dentist is satisfied in not finding out the answers to his questions while Larry is not.The Rabbi is trying to tell Larry that he is trying to find solutions to questions that don't need to be, much like our interest in whether or not the man was a demon at the beginning of the film. 
But Larry still doesn't get it and this is because of the kind of person he is. Larry, again, is a physics teacher. Everyday, he works with equations and math problems that seemingly have clear-cut solutions which is why he is looking for the same sorts of solutions to his real-world problems. Physics makes up everything in the universe and it's easy for Larry to comprehend because it proposes the idea there's an explanation for everything. However, life doesn't work that way and one can't use math to solve real-world problems, so  Larry attempts to use other "serious" frameworks like religion to do it instead. Unlike physics which includes mathematical explanations to problems, religion induces theoretical explanations to problems. While the first Rabbi tells Larry that his problems are the result of God's will, the many stories in the Bible are the result of some sort of action. There's a cause-and-effect notion in many Biblical stories. Something is typically the result of something else. For example, Adam and Eve betrayed God and that's the reason why they were banished. Larry seemingly hasn't done anything, so he's quite confused about why God would punish in him like this, but sometimes things just happen and it is not in your control.
 But Larry is looking for clear-cut answers as I pointed out previously, and because he isn't getting any, he does nothing to solve his problems. Before all these problems arose, he never had anything to deal with. He believed that simply doing good things like putting his children into Hebrew school and doing whatever anyone asks him would be enough, but evidently it is not because he's still suffering, which scares him into not doing anything because he doesn't want to do the wrong thing.When he has the dream of him giving the bribe money to his brother, it slowly turns into a nightmare and he is scared into inaction even though it is just a dream. However, it's important to note that while actions may have consequences, so does inaction. Complacency, in itself, is just as wrong as doing the wrong thing because you're not actively accepting the situation for what it is and moving on with your life which is why things begin to get worse. Even when he begins to "seriously" look at his life, he, like the many people around him, are asking the wrong  questions and looking in the wrong places for those answers instead of simply living, thinking, doing something about the situation and eventually moving on.
Though the story is primarily about Larry, through cuts at the beginning of the film, we're physically shown the similarities between Larry and his son. Both he and Larry are running away from their problems and continue to live their lives, seemingly ignoring them. His son is being threatened by a bully for some money for weed and it's a seemingly realistic threat, much like Larry's, so we sympathize with his fear to take action. This is also because, like Larry, his son also worries about the consequences for his actions. When he gets the money back, should he repay his sister? Should he give the money to the bully or buy more weed with it? And if he repays the bully, will he still beat him up for taking too long with it? All of his son's problems are embodied in the form of this bully, but like Larry, he's also not doing anything about it and he's not seeing the bigger picture.
He doesn't see that the ultimate problem in life is death, which is something you can't run away from. Everyone eventually will die, but we tend to overlook that and focus on other, more minuscule problems in our lives. It is not until the end of the film when Larry's son chooses to act that the bully turns to face him that he takes a look at the real problem, death at the hand of a tornado. And it's not until Larry changes the grade that he finds out he's been sick all this time and hasn't known it. While neither of them did anything to cause any of these events, Larry will most likely blame himself for them because he did something seemingly wrong. But no matter how many questions you have or how you feel about a situation and it's outcome, what matters is your action. The only thing you can do is what the last Rabbi tells Larry's son. "Be a good boy." We can strive for greatness and do everything right, but bad things will still happen. It's inevitable because we cannot dictate what happens to us, but that doesn't mean we cannot attempt to make things better. Trying to impose a clear-cut framework, like religion or physics, into the craziness of the real world can only undermine all your good work because when you are rewarded, you're still seemingly stuck because of something else. When Larry's wife apologizes and he gets tenure and his son gets his money back, it's all overshadowed by the news of his illness and his son's impending death. The belief that we have control over the things that happen to us can only provide a comfortability that's quite false. All we can do is be a good boy, find somebody to love and sit back and live our lives and hope for the best. None of the answers to the film's issues are easy by any means, but are there really any easy answers in the first place?

Friday, March 24, 2017

Movie Review: Lion (2017), Identity and The Reluctant Fundamentalist

By On 11:57 AM
Starring: Dev Patel, Sunny Pawar, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara
Directed By: Garth Davis
Written By: Luke Davies, Adapted from "A Long Way Home" by Saroo Brierley
Release Date: January 6, 2017
Rating: B-

Who we are and where we come from are fundamental concepts when it comes to creating an identity for yourself. The feeling of belonging is also key when it comes to solidifying. Garth Davis' Lion is a film that examines how the people around us truly affect the way we see ourselves in a world that has us constantly questioning who we truly want to be. 

This is the true story of a young boy named Saroo who finds himself lost after he falls asleep on a freight train while waiting for his older brother, Guddo. The tale is broken up into two parts. The first part involves Saroo's struggle to survive after he finds himself on the opposite end of the country hungry and alone, without much knowledge of where he's come from. It's heartbreaking and this is mainly because this part of the film so tightly constructed. In many films about missing children, we typically see the perspective of th family and we feel for them because we can fully understand what they're going through. Here it's the other way around. Saroo has no idea where he is, why he's there or how he can get back. In one scene, Saroo falls with other homeless children, but he's woken up by some strange men. They all flee and Saroo escapes, but the situation is never mentioned again. Both Saroo and the audience members know something is wrong, but he doesn't know exactly what's happened, so neither do we. The world is a big and scary place for a boy that hasn't even hit puberty yet. Leaving out all this information makes it just as scary for us as it is for him.  

The second part of the film involves an all grown-up Saroo played by Dev Patel as he searches for his real family. Saroo was adopted by an Austalian family halfway throughout the film. Seeing a treat from his old life at a party brings him right back to the moment he laid eyes on them when he was child. Many years have gone by and these years are omitted from film probably because it would have made the film far too long, but the film's lack of a cohesive narrative structure doesn't deter us from fully understanding Saroo's situation. Who he was during that huge time gap isn't of importance because he was assimilating; he was becoming a new person and adapting to a new culture and we're entertained and hopeful for Saroo. He mispronounces words and is mesmerized by the concept of a television and like his new parents, we're happy him and it's pretty much all we need to see. When we encounter Saroo as an adult a few scenes later, some momentum is lost because it is such a huge time jump, but we're slowly drawn back in once the film speeds back up and we see the toll his assimilation has taken on him.  

Saroo was once solid in his relationship with his mother (Nicole Kidman) and girlfriend, (Rooney Mara), as well as his future in the field of hospitality, but soon that all crumbles once he's reminded of the life he once had. Who is he now? Who would he have become had he not gotten lost all those years ago? What's happened to his real family? And more importantly, are they still looking for him? Saroo is on both sides of the fence because while he enjoys the life he's lived; he hypothesizes about the life he could've lived had he not gotten lost. The movie's tagline is: "The Search Begins," While the movie depicts Saroo's search for his family, it's really about the search for his own identity. However, he wants to do so without seeming ungrateful towards his adoptive family. He sees looking for his real family is an act of as as act of betryal, but he doesn't relaly know what he wants anymore. 

In the 2012 film adaptation, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, our protagonist, Changez, has a similar dilemma. He assimilates just as Saroo does and he's confident about the person he's seemingly become until he sees something that throws him for a loop. Saroo's childhood snack sends him searching for himself. Changez' life-changing event was 9/11. However, unlike how Saroo fears betraying his adoptive family and his newfound culture, it's Changez' culture that betrays him. The home he's found in America ends up turning on him. While he can simply just go visit his family in Pakistan, he chooses not to because his family is now America. However, after the events on 9/11, the America loves not longer exists. It changed, so he changes, too. He attempts to go back to the life he once lived, but he feels as if it no longer fits. 

So, who are these men? Where do they belong? Where do their loyalties lie? Saroo ends up finding his way back home and reunites with his real mother, not without a heart-breaking conversation between he and Nicole Kidman. The Reluctant Fundamentalist ends with Changez moving back to Pakistan to become a professor and with a voiceover of him saying, "Looks can be deceiving...I'm a lover of America", even though America betrayed him. We do not know what's going to happen to these men, but that's not the point. What matters is that the film understands these men because the more it does, the more we can accept their actions and grow to understand them.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Movie Reveiw: Kong: Skull Island (2017), Terrorism, War and The Genre Film

By On 3:50 AM

Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John C. Reilly
Written By: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein & Derek Connolly
Directed By: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Release Date: March 10, 2017
Rating: C

Today's most riveting film about race is a satirical horror flick inspired by The Stepford Wives. Last year, it was an allegorical, animated film about talking animals. Back in 2005, it was King Kong, but that's a story for another day. While this year's reboot of the same film is not about race, it just goes to show that there is more to these genre films than most people think. 

Genre films are films categorized by their similarities, both visually and thematically, to other films and a popular genre that people tend to overlook is the monster movie genre. Kong: Skull Island is a monster movie and that's something no one can deny, but it's much smarter than most people give it credit for. While a giant monkey is this film's main selling point and it sells this in a beautiful, stylistic way, the ideology behind what Kong, his island and the different ways these people interact with him are what make the movie worth watching. Kong is a huge gorilla that lives on the newly discovered, Skull Island. The story begins when an expedition team lands on the island and starts dropping bombs on it; something Kong doesn't really appreciate. Therefore, in return, he massacres a bunch of their crew and destroys their airplanes. Terrible, right? However, John C. Reilly explains that they were trespassing on Kong's land when they came onto the island. He also explains that Kong also protects the island's inhabitants from the many predators that roam the island, which causes some to the crew to rethink some of the things they've been doing. The film could have gone further with the characters' epiphanies to deepen the anti-war metaphor, but it strays away from it the minute it happens in order to keep up with the film's quick pacing. 

After the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the US declared a so-called "War on Terrorism". It alleviated the fears that many Americans had when it came to their understanding of terrorism and how exactly we, as a country, planned on stopping it. What exactly is terrorism and who exactly are we stopping, though? Unbeknownst to many, there are many different forms of terrorist acts that occur today, like the profuse amount of mass shootings that constantly keep happening within our own country. However, after the "War on Terrorism" was conducted, we relaxed and thrust all our worries aside because we believed the military and the government would have our backs. While that seemingly brought us together as a country, it also divided us in a way because the government wasn't giving us much information about who the enemy was. We had an enemy identified and that enemy was the people who committed those heinous acts and the people who put them up to it, but there was no real overall enemy. Instead, we painted our own enemy to relive our consciouses about terrorism because we now believed we knew who we were fighting. However, it just caused more problems within our own country. Islamophobia and racism ran rampant then and still does now all in the name of national security. We created an image for terrorism that was neither accurate or beneficial for defeating terrorism, which is sort of what happens in the film.

The expedition crew painted Kong out to be the enemy when he wasn't. He was protecting his people from an even greater threat when he massacred their people and planes because the bombs would have attracted it to them. Lots of people died at his hand and that's a terrible thing, but technically they were trespassing on his land. The ironic part is that people in America are killed for trespassing on someone else's property, so Kong technically wasn't doing anything wrong. He was living his life the only way he knew how and they that interfered with that simply because he looked and acted differently from what they were used to, so he was instantly painted as the enemy; an enemy that needed to die even though, at the end of day, he was the hero and they the villains. Even when Samuel L. Jackson is told that Kong wasn't doing anything wrong, his ego still wouldn't falter. He continued to try and avenge his fallen soldiers by killing Kong and it's the very thing that gets him killed. 

Going further with this idea of a blood-thirsty, war-mongering military obsessed with placing blame on a specific group of people and creating a war out of nowhere, please note that the film is set in 1973, during the Vietnam War. While "The War on Terrorism" is a hypothetical war and it's more a term used as a scapegoat for our nation's fears about terrorism, the Vietnam War was an actual war and one that was completely unnecessary. And like "The War on Terrorism", we went into the Vietnam War without a clear idea of what exactly we were fighting for. Another huge reason behind Samuel L. Jackson's character wanting to defeat Kong is because of the fact he feels this need to rectify the mistakes make because of the Vietnam War. We lost the war and Jackson was attempting to try and create another one to win because as American's we feel the need to win because we supposedly know best even though that's not always (or usually ever) the case. Though Kong: Skull Island has all this to say, it doesn't say so via its characters. The story, Kong, the location and the way the film is shot says it which leaves little for the cast to do besides fulfilling their archetypical role for the film's lackluster metaphor.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Movie Review: The Bye Bye (2017), Fear and The Concept of the Adaptation

By On 12:50 AM
Starring: Douglas Smith, Lucien Laviscount, Cressida Bonas, Doug Jones
Directed By: Stacey Title
Written By: Johnathan Penner
Release Date: January 13, 2017
Rating: F

My Thoughts:
If you're like me, when you walked out of The Bye Bye Man, you were
 probably thinking something along the lines of: 'What the hell did I just 
pay 12 dollars to see?' And this is just based off of the nonsensical 
plot of the film. However, one thing that caught my attention 
in the credits was the fact that this movie is an adaptation of a short 
story called, The Bridge to Body Island by Robert Damon Schneck. 

In the book, the story is about a some college students who decide
to play a Ouija board which brings them in contact with spirit of
 The Bye Bye Man, who was once deranged serial killer. The board 
also informs them that the more they think or talk about The Bye Bye Man,
the quicker he gets to you. The Bye Bye Man in the film looks just how he's 
described in the novel with the hood and the pale skin, but apparently 
The Bye Bye Man was an albino orphan that got sick of being teased and
 turned to murder. He ran away from his group home and began train hopping,
 murdering tons of people along the way. Trains are a huge motif in the film
and though their constant presence is never explained in the film, it's
important to note that trains typically symbolize adventure and new
beginnings, but 
here they given a completely different representation since The
Bye Bye Man is literally murdering people as they board the train, so they 
never even get to begin their journey. The same things goes for the film
 because hearing a train whistle symbolizes that The Bye Bye Man 
is near. And the closer he is, the closer you are to having your journey 
cut short.

The most interesting factor about the film is the idea that The Bye Bye
 Man can manifest himself and find you the more you think about him. It's 
also quite interesting that he can also manipulate the people who know about 
him into doing unspeakable things. If you don't know his name, he cannot 
affect you. The ideology behind that can be applied to myths and fear in general.
Fear is mental construct. We only begin to fear things in general because 
our brain makes up believe whatever we're thinking about will cause us
harm. If we've never seen or heard about this frightening concept, it's as 
if it doesn't exist. The Bye Bye Man doesn't exist if you don't know about
him, but as soon as you hear his name, regardless if you attempt to forget 
about him, his name is still embedded in your subconscious no matter how far 
back you attempt to push it. It can come back into the forefront of your
brain at any time. This is why The Bye Bye Man does these mind tricks on 
his victims while they attempt to not think about him. Even if you block it 
from the conscious part of your brain, the name is still there. The only way to 
protect yourself is to be completely ignorant of the fact it exists. You need to 
not even find out about the myth. If you never find out about The Bye Bye Ma, 
you're safe 

 A lot of information like The Bye Bye Man's background is
 cut from the film even though most of this information 
probably would've saved this movie from being the mess it was. If 
The Bye Bye Man had followed Schneck's story a bit closer, it may have
been a better film than it was, but a lot of people have problems with
adaptations. When it comes to adaptations, most people are upset that the
film and the novel aren't completely the same. However, you've got to think
 about the differences between a book and a film. A book is told through 
words, so what you'rereading is visualized in your head as if your thoughts
 were a film which is why people tend to get so upset when some movie 
adaptations change things because now the vision they've had for 
the book is now completely skewed. Books are inhibitors for expanding our
imaginations by reading into someone else's world and exploring the way they 
live in our heads. These imaginings are far more personal than the ones we see 
on a movie screen simply because they're coming from our perspective
as if it is us going through these situations ourselves. "Your mind makes it real,"

 On the opposite
side of the spectrum, when it comes to film, you've got to look at how a
 script/novel is read and adapted to the screen. When you
reading something, you're getting a direct link to the character's thoughts
and emotions. You're getting information pulled from the very brain of the
 character, which is something that is harder to do in film simply
because these things have to be told visually. A lot of people feel that 
because of this, film adaptations ruin the film form because when you're 
limited to creating only what's on a sheet of paper, you're stunting  a
 director's creative abilities. This is why director's tend to stray from 
their source material. They want to keep the author's vision alive, as well as
their own. In order to craft this vision, everything is conformed to visualization.
Themes, motifs and certain literary aspects are much harder to put 
to screen as visuals than just having them listed on a page. 

This is why I was so interested about the fact that The Bye Bye Man was
based on a book. The concept of this as a story is interesting, but why they 
chose to leave out so much perplexes me. Adaptations sell. That's a simple fact 
and it's the reason why people keep making them, but no one would realize this
film was an adaptation if they hadn't caught that line in the credits like I did and
I'm glad I did because the story was way more information and chilling than
the movie. Like I stated before, while you already get more information 
from a book simply because it's a book and you can infer more from
words on a page rather than a moving pictures, but if you have something to
work off of, it should make things a bit easier, right? 

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Movie Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016), the Artist, their Work and Revenge

By On 12:05 PM

Starring: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon
Written By: Tom Ford
Directed By: Tom Ford
Release Date: December 9, 2016
Rating: B

Nocturnal Animals is a meticulously beautiful film for many reasons. This includes Tom Ford's attention to detail, which is not only apparent by the mere look of the film, but in the way he sets the story up as well. The film is broken up into three different parts that simultaneously weave in and out of one another, touching on both the past and present lives both of our main characters' lives as well as a fictional world we're introduced that fills in a bit of the blanks.
The first portion of the film is set in the present and it revolves around an insomniac, art dealer named Susan (Amy Adams). Susan seemingly has everything anyone could ever want. However, all of these things do not make Susan happy which you can see from her perpetually frowning face, but her melancholy existence gets a bit more interesting when she receives a mysterious book in the mail from her ex-husband, Edward(Jake Gyllenhaal). As she reads the book, Susan begins taking a walk down memory lane and unfolds just what went wrong in not only her and Edward's relationship but in her current married state as well.
The second portion of the film is dedicated to exploring Susan and Edward's relationship before everything went to shit. Both her and Edward were struggling artists when they were together. However, Susan leaned more on the art of other's when she began working in a gallery rather. She calls herself a "realist" in the aspect that she believes working on the art of established artists is more important than making your own. The spectacle of the sparkling, overweight women dancing in Susan's art installation towards the beginning of the film is just a reminder of the talent she gave up because of this supposed "realist" perspective. Those women can shake off whatever insecurities they have about themselves to be art, but Susan can't shake her own in order to simply create it. Edward, however, is completely the opposite. He is completely himself in his craft and he doesn't care whether or not he becomes successful simply because he enjoys doing what he does. He has is own insecurities about his work, but he doesn't let them deter him from creating like Susan's done. Though instead of supporting him, like most significant others' would do, Susan criticizes his work and they fight constantly because of her critiques. She's so harsh on Edward because she believes he puts too much of himself into his work, but she only says this because this is something she can't do. She's too afraid of rejection to put any of herself into her work, which results in her being quite jealous of Edward, which is why Susan is typically dressed in green throughout the film, especially towards the film's end when she goes to meet him. He's successful and she is, too, but she's unhappy because she gave up her dreams and he's living his.
The third and film part of the film is Susan's internalized vision of what's going on in the book. The book is about a man's journey to get revenge on the men who raped and murdered his wife and daughter. Jake Gyllenhaal also plays the husband in the novel, Tony, however, the man's wife is played by an eerily similar looking, Ilsa Fisher. Why Susan does not play the wife in the tale is simply because we're viewing things from her perspective. Not only has Edward written the book, but we know from witnessing the heated conversations between Susan and Edward that she believes he puts too much of himself into his work, so it's obvious why she would choose to depict Edward as the husband in the novel. Not only is Susan no longer involved with Edward, but she's also quite jealous of him for being successful. This is why she chooses to cast someone else as the wife. However, the book ties to her life more than she believes. The book isn't just some fanatical story that Edward has made up in his head. It is a fictionalized, metaphorical recollection of their relationship and Susan is represented as multiple characters within the novel which is why the book is called Nocturnal Animal(s) in the plural context.
The book revolves around Tony's revenge on the rednecks that raped and murdered his wife and daughter. Ilsa Fisher, his wife in the novel, represents the side of Susan that Edward thought he knew when they were together. However, as we see during the flashbacks, Susan became jealous of Edward, which changed her and drove them apart. The most dangerous of the rednecks, played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson, is also another representation of Susan; the real Susan. This is not only confirmed when he starts to call Tony weak just as Susan did when she and Edward were together, but it is also confirmed when Johnson kills Tony and Fisher's child. In that act, he's doing exactly what Susan did years ago when she got an abortion behind Edward's back, killing their unborn child.
In the end, Tony gets his revenge by successfully murdering Johnson, but ends up blinding and shooting himself in the process. Tony doesn't represent Susan. That fact is obvious because Tony is Edward. Edward sat back and simply watched the deconstruction of his relationship, just as Tony watched the rednecks drive away with his family. While there was nothing either of them could do in both cases, they simply sat back and watched everything fall apart. Tony shooting himself represents Edward's blindness when it came to seeing Susan for who she really was and his death represents the end of their relationship, but Tom Ford isn't just spelling out the wicked end of a relationship to us. There's another important aspect of the film and it is about artists, how they create and the power play that goes behind it. Susan was the catalyst that inspired Edward to write the book. However, the question that remains is: had she not gotten jealous and gotten an abortion, would he have written the book? If Susan was the key to Edward tapping into his true potential, then she was the one in power at the time, right? However, as we see at the end of the film, Susan isn't the one in power now. She shows up the restaurant to meet Edward in her bright, emerald green dress. She's just as jealous as she was when they were together, but possibly even more so now that he's become famous, but she's the one who got him there in the first place. However, in the end, Edward was the one who had the last laugh. Though Tom Ford seems to be asking us whether it's the artist that's the one in power or if it's their inspiration that holds the key to everything, he doesn't quite give us an answer to this question and I believe that's, what makes Nocturnal Animals a true work of art itself.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Movie Review: Jackie (2016) and Identity

By On 3:29 AM
Starring: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig
Written By: Noah Oppenheim 
Directed By: Pablo Larrain
Release Date: December 2, 2016
Rating: A-

I could probably count the amount of films I’ve seen about any of our former first ladies on my right hand alone. While this is a sad fact, this is also what gives Jackie its sparkle. We all know the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but we don't really know the story of the woman who essentially held the public together as it everyone apart over the death of one of America's most beloved Presidents. 
The film is essentially an episodic re-telling of the week of John F. Kennedy's assassination, exploring the depths of Jackie Kennedy's psyche on top of the events of the shooting and its aftermath. Natalie Portman doesn't just place herself in the role of prim and poised former-First Lady Jackie Kennedy. She doesn't just simply focus on her accent and her perfectly calculated mannerisms. She places herself in the role of a broken woman overcome with grief. What’s important is not the events of the shooting itself, but of how it affects Ms. Kennedy while she's telling this story many years after the fact. Many famous photos and interviews of Jackie Kennedy are portray her as this perfect woman, all dolled up with makeup and fancy dresses, smiling and waving to strangers. It's hard to relate to someone who seemingly has everything they could ever want. While we still love this version of Jackie Kennedy as it’s the one that’s been celebrated throughout history, the best parts of the film occur when she sheds that persona for a more human one. 
When her husband dies, she’s not only lost him, she's lost herself as well. After she’s wiped as much blood off of her as possible, she cleans off the mirror and then suddenly, her reflection is gone. Who is she now that she isn’t the first lady? Even though her husband is gone, she’s still trying to hold together the seemingly perfect personality that she’s put on for so long.  Moments later after she's finished cleaning up, she walks back out of the bathroom composed, demanding to see her husband’s body, as if she's unperturbed by his death. As she continues to go over the events of that day, the camera is completely level between her and the interviewer. Even though she goes from smoking a cigarette in front of him to hysterically crying the next, she's still the same woman we saw previously. Instead of her actions coming off as robotic and calculated as they were when he was alive, they now come off as heartbreaking. 
In order to keep her to keep her husband’s name alive, she skips the grieving process and throws herself into planning a funeral no one would forget. She does not indulge in her own sadness in order to preserve the feelings of those around her including her children and the people of America. Her resilient attitude was what the world needed, but in Jackie we get to see what's behind all of her calculated smiles. It’s exactly the kind of film we needed to fully understand the iconic woman behind the pink Chanel suit. While she was out there fighting for her husband’s name to be remembered, she unknowingly made one for herself and while it's probably not the film anyone was really looking for, it was one that was desperately needed.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Movie Review: Ouija: Origin of Evil and A Bit on Mike Flannagan

By On 12:00 AM
Starring: Elizabeth Reaser, Lulu Wilson, Annalise Basso
Written By: Mike Flanagan
Directed By: Mike Flanagan
Release Date: October 21, 2016
Rating: B+

Who would you be without your family? What do you do when things start to go bump in the night, threatening the ones you closest to you? While any sane person would rise up to the occasion and save their family if they had the chance to. In two of his best films, director Mike Flanagan seemingly explores a horror movie ideology about how your own flesh and blood might be the key in getting you killed.
Ouija: Origin of Evil is set in the 60s; something Flanagan doesn’t let us forget as the film begins with the old Universal logo along with the occasional cigarette burn cue mark. In the film, we’re introduced to Alice, played by Elizabeth Reaser, who is not only a recent widow but the mother of two young girls named Doris and Paulina. Alice and her daughters run a business that involves tricking people into believing they’re speaking to the spirits of their loved ones. All is fine and dandy until Alice brings back an Ouija board home to an actual spirit that ends up possessing young Doris. Though there are obvious signs that something is wrong, Alice blatantly ignores them and by the time she eventually sees the spirit for what it is, it’s too late. In the end, Paulina ends up killing both her mother and Doris during her efforts to exorcise the evil spirit.  
Oculus concerns an evil entity residing in a mirror. Our main character Kaylie (Karen Gillian) is trying to document the mirror’s evil powers before destroying it in order to exonerate her brother for the murder of their parents. However, as the mirror possessed their father into killing himself and their mother, it possesses Kaylie into accidentally killing her fiance along with her brother into accidentally killing her.Typically, family represents strength, love, and vitality. However, in both of these films, the typical representation of what family stands for is completed rejected and it's because of this that both films end in tragedy. The only people left alive are subjected to living the rest of their days in mental institutions because of their families. However, if we can't trust our loved ones, who can we trust to help us stay alive?
In Hush, a film Flanagan released earlier this year on Netflix, our main character, Maddie, is alone and it's the main reason she ends up alive. Flannan flips the switch by making the only interaction between Maddie and her family over FaceTime. Interestingly enough, it’s her sister who notices something is amiss and Maddie who shrugs off the danger, unlike in Flanagan's previous films where his protagonist is trying to get everyone to understand the danger. Both Paulina and Kaylie are fighting for their families as Kaylie is trying to exonerate her brother by exposing the evil entity and Paulina is trying to exorcise the demon in her sister. Though the fight for their families was long and hard it was all in vain. Paulina ends up institutionalized and Kaylie winds up dead, but Maddie, on the other hand, lives. This is because she had no one to fight for, but herself. Self-preservation is an animal instinct we have in us all and pretty much the strongest we have besides the materal instinct that mother tends to have towards their children. Maddie fought for herself and fought harder than Paulina and Kaylie did simply because they forgot to save themselves.
 So, should you run and hide when danger is lurking or do you stand and fight for the ones you love? Does self-preservation come first before family commitment? Maddie didn’t have to worry about anyone else so she put all of her efforts into keeping herself alive and it proved fruitful as she lives at the end of the film. Putting that into perspective after witnessing how Paulina and Kaylie wind up shows that maybe, just maybe, a little selfishness can go a long way.


Follow by Email