200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, 2011, France/UK/Germany

The best part of this movie were the performances.  Gary Oldman received his first Academy Award nomination for his role, and he deserves it.  While I would have preferred to see him get a nomination for some of his earlier work, I’m just glad to see him finally get recognized by the Academy.

George Smiley (Oldman) was forced into retirement following an incident in Hungary involving Jim Predeaux (Mark Strong).  He is asked to return to British Intelligence (“The Circus”) to investigate a mole.  He is assisted in his investigation by Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch).  The suspects are narrowed down to five top members of British Intelligences, “Tinker” (Toby Jones), “Tailor” (Colin Firth), “Soldier” (Ciarán Hinds), “Poorman” (David Dencik), and “Beggarman” (Oldman).

Admittedly, the movie was a bit slow.  I also had some difficulty keeping all of the characters straight.  Each character referred to other characters by their last name or by their code name, so it was always a bit confusing.  It made the plot quite hard to follow, but I did manage to figure everything out by the end.  The second half of the movie was superior to the first half.  From what I’ve heard, it’s easier to keep track of the plot if you’ve read the book.  I didn’t read the book prior to seeing the movie, so I may have to buy a copy of the book. Has anyone read the book?

Oldman was excellent, but I have to give credit to all of the actors in the movie.  There was a huge amount of talent in this movie.  I really love watching an ensemble cast full of talented actors, because it’s such a joy to see gifted actors working together. Firth was very good, as well. I’ve seen Cumberbatch in a number of supporting roles in the last few years, and he’s always been very memorable to me. He’s a great actor and he always does a lot with limited screen time. I’m sure he will be a household name in a year or two.

I did enjoy the tone of the movie.  There was tension and intrigue surrounding the main mystery of the film.  I had no idea how it would end before it ended, and, despite the slow pace, I remained interested until the very end.  The Cold War era is a very interesting time period, and I do enjoy seeing films that cover the political issues of that era.

The Last Days, 1998, USA

I signed up for Netflix solely to watch this film, which is pretty significant. I’ve long wanted to watch this documentary about the Holocaust, because Steven Spielberg produced it.

The documentary looks at the experiences of several Hungarian Holocaust survivors. Hungarian Jews weren’t taken to the concentration camps until the last year of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war. Instead of focusing their resources on fighting the war, the Nazis attacked the Hungarian Jews and murdered them or sent them to the concentration camps.

The interviews with the survivors were so interesting. They spoke candidly about their lives before the Holocaust, and about how they survived in the concentration camps. Many of the subjects journeyed back to Europe in order to find some sort of closure. One visited the town she grew up in and discovered her childhood home. These journeys added another layer to the film. The horrific atrocities of the Holocaust are fairly well known, but we often forget about what the survivors experienced after they were liberated. Many never returned home, and many lost their entire families.

It was not an easy documentary to watch. There are photos and video from the concentration camps, and it was just awful to watch. But this footage was necessary, because it shows what the Holocaust was. Humanity needs to see this footage. As I was watching it, I thought about the fact that these people were someone’s son or daughter. These people were loved, and they were treated as if they were vermin. It was very difficult to think about. We must never forget that this happened, and we can never let this happen again.

I did have one minor beef: the film was in a letterbox format. I’m assuming it was in letterbox format because it’s an older film and it isn’t one that necessarily needs to be converted back to a widescreen format. Or, it’s possible that it was filmed in that format. It was just a bit odd to watch a letterbox film on my widescreen TV.

Watch this documentary. Hearing the stories of these survivors was such a privilege. It saddens me to think that, in a few years, there won’t be any more Holocaust survivors left. It’s important to hear these stories; to get them on film or paper, before it’s too late.

The Last Hour of Flight 11, 2004, UK/Canada

Yesterday morning I was watching the History Television specials on 9/11. The second one I watched was Zero Hour’s documentary on the hijacking of Flight 11; the first flight hijacked.

As I watched it, I felt very mixed about what I was viewing. On one hand, it was gripping and very interesting, but on the other hand, I felt that it was a bit exploitive. Almost all of the documentary consisted of reenactments of Flight 11 – including the hijacking itself. It made me think of the families of the victims and how they would feel to watch this. The last thing I’d want would be to watch some actor playing my loved one get stabbed or sprayed with mace.

I also thought about the film, United 93. I’ve never seen it, but I imagine some of the same issues would be presented. The story is slightly different, because instead of crashing into a building, they crashed into a field. The passengers were able to fight back against the hijackers. Watching The Last Hour of Flight 11 was difficult because of the sense of impending doom. I thought about what it would be like to be on a plane and knowing that you were about to be killed and how terrifying that would be.

Reenactments and films based on historical tragedies are very common. But when does a tragedy leave the present and become history? Is 9/11 now a part of history? It’s hard for me to say it is because of the impact that day still has on our day-to-day life (most notably in air travel). Movies featuring 9/11 as a plot point have been made, and two movies specifically about 9/11 have been made (United 93 and World Trade Center).

It’s a difficult issue. United 93 was made with the cooperation of most of the victims’ families. I have no idea if The Last Hour of Flight 11 was made with the support of their family. As a society, we like to know the details of major events; especially tragic events. It’s impossible to know everything that happened on those doomed flights, but it was possible to piece together many of the things that happened through conversations with family, and transcripts of conversations between ground crew and flight attendants. I suppose a reenactment can be the best way to present that gathered information into a concise television program.

I’m still torn on how I felt about the program. I’m also torn about United 93. On one hand, I would like to see it, but I also fear that I’ll experience the same feelings I felt as I watched The Last Hour of Flight 11. It does make me feel better to know that it was made with the support of many of the family members, though.

How do you feel about reenactments of the events of 9/11?

The other night, I finished The Gargoyle by Andrew Davidson. Davidson is a Winnipegger, and The Gargoyle is his first novel.

The novel is about a burn patient who meets a mentally ill artist who is convinced that she’s known the patient for over 700 years. She claims she has been searching for him all of this time, and she’s thrilled she’s finally found him. The man, who was a porn star in his life before the accident, develops a friendship with this woman. They begin to rely on one another physically and emotionally.

It was a lovely novel. Davidson put years of research into it, and it was obvious he worked hard to make things accurate. The details of the man’s burn injuries was often horrific. But it was fascinating to read, because I’d never spent much time thinking about how awful burn injuries are, and what it would be like to go through such a life changing accident.

In the beginning of the novel, I was far more interested in the details of his recovery than I was in the “flashback” portion of the novel. This quickly changed – as my friend Dawn told me it would. The flashback portion of the novel becomes far more engrossing and beautiful by the middle of the book. I found myself longing to skip a “present day” chapter so that I could discover what happens next in the past. I never did, of course, but I was always tempted! I don’t know a whole lot about medieval history, but I really enjoy stories that take place in that time period. It was a very brutal, violent and often unsympathetic time period. It makes for a great literary setting.

For years, I’ve found beauty in stories about two souls who meet continuously throughout history. Long ago, I read a story about two souls who meet many times in different lives, only to be separated by tragedy every time. The Gargoyle reminded me of that story. I also really enjoy stories that feature two or more time periods.

The book is fairly long, but it’s also a very quick read. I was into it from the beginning, thanks to a shocking and graphic opening chapter. The story is amazing, but the characters aren’t always overly interesting. They’re always consistent, and they do have well-developed personalities, but they didn’t always feel very interesting to me. But that didn’t matter much to me because it felt like story was the priority in the novel.

The story felt very cinematic. I was surprised that rights to a film adaptation have not been purchased. I think it could make an excellent film, if the right director and cast were found.

Have you read anything good lately?

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, 2008,UK/USA

This is a super “feel bad” movie. You better have something super happy lined up afterwards, ’cause you’re going to need it.

Bruno (Asa Butterfield) is the young son of a German soldier (David Thewlis). When his father is promoted, he has to move to the country against his will. His sister, Gretel (Amber Beattie) enjoys it, but Bruno is miserable. He goes exploring and manages to find a “farm” where all of the “farmers” wear pajamas. He meets a young boy named Shmuel (Jack Scanlon) and slowly they become friends. During this time, Bruno’s mother (Vera Farmiga) turns against her husband when she realizes he’s working at an extermination camp.

This movie interested me because it showed the Holocaust through the eyes of a child. He’s very naive and doesn’t understand why his friend is in the camp. While he does get a tutor who feeds him propaganda, he questions it because he’s friends with Shmuel who doesn’t embody the supposed “evils” of the Jewish population. He begins to question his dad’s work. Shmuel was very interesting as well. Scanlon did such a good job portraying him. He gave him such a sadness, but he was also very stoic and strong.

As I mentioned in my last entry, historical accuracy is pretty important to me. I’ve done a lot of research about the Holocaust over the last number of years. I’m fascinated by examples of the very worst of humanity, and the Holocaust is probably the lowest humanity has ever gone. But throughout all of that sadness, there were some truly inspiring moments. There are countless examples of selfless people risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones in order to save people.

This movie isn’t “historically accurate” and I knew it going in. But it didn’t bother me the way it did the other day. Yes, the movie was about the Holocaust, but it was also about the innocence of children. Bruno didn’t care about Shmuel’s religious affiliation: instead he cared about him as a human being, and sought to feed him and help him.

The movie is also suitable for children. Due to the absolute horror of the Holocaust, it’s understandably quite difficult to make a movie about it that children can watch. I saw Schindler’s List when I was 14, but my high school sent out permission forms beforehand. And my teacher fast forwarded through the nudity because, apparently, some of my classmates had not developed the sufficient maturity required to view full frontal nudity without laughing. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is PG-13. This means that younger people can see it. It’d be a great way to introduce this awful historical event to children.

I was introduced to the Holocaust when I was 12 years old. We did a unit on human rights and we were required to read a book about a past historical event. I read one about the Holocaust and I was so horrified that something like that was allowed to happen. I couldn’t grasp the fact that humans were persecuted because of their religion. It made me so sad. I read every single book about the Holocaust that we had in the classroom. We watched Life is Beautiful (another one of the few movies about the Holocaust that is suitable for younger people) and it made me cry so hard. It was also my first subtitled movie. At first I thought it was weird to read while I was watching the movie but I got used to it very quickly. I loved the movie.

If you have preteens, go out and rent this movie and talk to them about the Holocaust. We need to learn about the past so we don’t let the horrible events of yesterday happen again today.

Pope Joan, 2009, Germany/Italy/UK/Spain

I’m a fan of the novel the movie is based on by Donna Woolfolk Cross, which is why I made a point of seeking out this movie. The story spans over 40 years, making a film adaptation complex. A lot of the story had to be cut down or condensed.

Johanna (Lotte Flack, Tigerlily Hutchinson and Johana Wokalek) is born in the 800s and has a thirst for knowledge. At that time, women were not educated because it was believed that it would make them less fertile. Her brother, Matthew (Sandro Lohman), secretly teaches her how to read and she eventually ends up at a scola. At the scola she is educated and lives with Gerold (David Wenham) and his family. Johanna falls in love with Gerold but they are separated and Johanna disguises herself as a man in order to become a monk.

The problem with adapting a story that takes place over 40 years is that you have some awkward casting. Wokalek plays Johanna from age 19 to 40. She doesn’t look 19 so as she is playing Johanna as a young woman, I found myself feeling distracted. It just doesn’t work. The love story between Gerold and Johanna is introduced so abruptly that it is completely unbelievable. I just didn’t feel the passion. In the novel, Johanna is in love with Gerold as a young teenager so her love is there for much of the novel. Of course, a 13-year-old loving a grown man is completely inappropriate in modern context so Johanna had to be aged quite a bit for the film adaptation.

It was an interesting film, but it doesn’t quite work. I read the book so I could see the “magic” in the story that wasn’t quite there in the film. I don’t think it’d be enjoyable for people who haven’t read the book. I’d recommend people pick up the wonderful novel and skip the film. It’s simply not good enough to warrant seeing. As so much happens in the book over a long period of time, a decade or more is often skipped in the movie. As Wenham and Wokalek don’t appear to age, it looks awkward. It works well in the novel, but in the movie it fails. The style of the story is not one that is well-suited to cinema.

While this movie is a foreign film, it was shot in English. However, the film trailers are dubbed in German.

One of the things I loved about the novel was the fact that it delved into a time period that I know next to nothing about. I love history, but I tend to study more modern European history. It’s hard for me to imagine life in the 800s and I found it to be quite fascinating. How much written text is preserved from that time? How much clothing?

I also found the fictionalized account of Pope Joan’s life to be very interesting. There are serious doubts about her existence and I don’t know how I feel about the issue. I just think it’s neat to think of a woman pretending to be a man becoming pope. What do you think, history buffs? Did she exist? Or is she simply a legend?

This post contains information about the classic myth of Perseus, and as a result, contains spoilers for both films.

Perseus Confronting Phineus with the Head of Medusa by Sebastiano Ricci

My friend, Leanna suggested that I take a look at the myth of Perseus, and compare the original Clash of the Titans with the remake, in terms of accuracy. While I was watching both movies, I was actually very interested in knowing which one was more accurate. The only problem is that I know next to nothing about Greek mythology. My only knowledge came from a brief mythology unit I did in 6th grade. I did a research project on Bellerophon - while everyone else studied Zeus or Poseidon. I liked being different and doing things my own way…in fact, I still do. But since I last learned about mythology almost ten years ago, I decided it was time to do a bit of reading.

I started doing a bit of research last night on Medusa, Pegasus and Perseus. It turns out, Perseus is best known for slaying Medusa, and marrying Andromeda. Perseus rescued Andromeda after she’s chained to a rock by her mother, as a sacrifice to a sea monster (not the Kraken; which is a figure from Norse mythology). Perseus and his mother were sent out to sea in a wooden box by Acrisius; which occurred in both movies. However, his mother only lived in the original; in the remake, she didn’t survive the ordeal. In the remake, he is adopted by a fisherman and his family.

The remake adds Io into the mix. Io was Zeus’ lover, and was turned into a cow in order to hide his misdeeds from Hera, his wife. When I read about this last night, I was shocked by the differences in the film. The Io portrayed in the film had absolutely no similarity to the actual myth. In the film, Io was cursed with agelessness after refusing Poseidon’s advances.

Hades also plays a prominent role in the remake, and takes the role of the antagonist. From what I’ve read, Hades was not seen as evil in Greek mythology. Instead, he’s seen as creating balance between life and death. He was often feared, as people have always feared death, but he wasn’t evil. I think our continued fear of death has translated into antagonism towards Hades in popular culture. He actually had little to do with Perseus, except for loaning his helmet of invisibility to him. This happens in the original, but obviously doesn’t occur in the remake, where he’s loathed by Perseus.

Both films take liberties with the myth.  In the film, Perseus had to answer a riddle in order to win Andromeda’s hand, which didn’t seem to happen in the myth. In both films, he defeated Medusa in order to use her head to kill the Kraken. Calibos, who is featured heavily in the original, seems to be a cinematic invention, as Thetis did not have a son named Calibos. She also does not seem to have anything to do with Perseus in the original myth.

Ultimately, the original is quite a bit closer to the myth. I’d say that the original is better viewing if you are interested in accuracy.