Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
Travelr - Sugar Daddy Travel
Travel and Social Networking
App
Welcome to Travelr - One of the best Tinder way sugar daddy travel dating app for singles which gave...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
May 24, 2017
Small is an Understatement
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, Small Great Things is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are intentionally oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate Small Great Things. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. Small Great Things provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, Small Great Things has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
Small Great Things will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However Small Great Things makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Small Great Things in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Jodi Picoult has been my favourite author since I first came across her novels in 2008. With twenty-three novels under her belt, she continues to delight readers with her page-turning stories. Most of Picoult’s books contain a moral issue, often, but not always, in the form of medical ethics, as well as a hefty court case. Although following along similar lines, <i>Small Great Thing</i>s is a radical, revolutionary book, which, with great courage, Picoult has written with the intent to expose the reader to truths that most of us, as a society, are <s>intentionally</s> oblivious to.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
The gist of the storyline is that a baby dies whilst under the care of a nurse, prompting the grieving parents to take her to court with the accusation of murder. Although that sounds like an interesting story, it barely begins to describe what the book is about. The character on trial, Ruth, is an African American labour and delivery nurse – something that in this day and age need not by an issue. On the other hand, the parents of the baby are White Supremacists: seriously racist with the belief that white people are the master race. The father, Turk, refuses to let his wife and child be treated by Ruth, however circumstances result in her being the only nurse available to watch Davis, when, unfortunately, he so happens to go into cardiac arrest. Although the reader knows that Ruth is not at fault, Turk insists she murdered his child – but is he accusing her of medical negligence, or punishing her for being black?
Three characters, all with different views and experience when it comes to racism, alternately narrate<i> Small Great Things</i>. Ruth and Turk represent the extremes at either side of the scale. Ruth experiences first hand the negative impact of prejudice in the American system and society, not only through this court case, but in everyday life as well. She also reveals the difficulties growing up in a predominately white environment, never feeling like she fitted in with her peers. Alternatively, Turk spent his teenage years attending KKK rallies, participating in a white power movement, and beating up anyone who was different: black, foreign, gay, Jewish and so forth.
The third character represents the majority of white people living in America. Kennedy is a public defender and the lawyer assigned to Ruth’s case. Like most of the population, she believes that she is not racist, and persuades Ruth to leave the colour of her skin out of the argument. However, as she gets to know her client, she begins to realize that it is nigh on impossible to ignore racial prejudice.
Picoult shocks the reader on two accounts: one, the way that people of colour have been, and still are, treated; and two, the revelation that an invisible empire of White Supremacists are living amongst us. Yet there is a third way in which Picoult provokes outrage – she indirectly accuses the reader of being racist, too.
There is always something to learn in a Jodi Picoult novel, for instance medical terminology, or the way in which a court trial is conducted. <i>Small Great Things</i> provides a lot more eye opening information than any of her previous books, unveiling facts about such a controversial subject.
Through Kennedy, the reader’s eyes are opened to the racial discrimination that we all turn a blind eye to. Ignored are the difficulties African Americans suffer when going shopping, applying for jobs, attending school, walking down the street, sitting on a bus, and so forth. Picoult asks me as a reader to think about how my life has been affected by racial discrimination: being served politely in shops because I am white, not having my ethnicity questioned when applying for college etc. Living in Britain I have not experienced openly hateful comments or behaviours towards people with a different skin tone – I used to believe this was primarily an American problem. Yet, <i>Small Great Things</i> has really made me think about the hierarchy of power within society, particularly in regards to the ethnicity of those at the top, compared with those at the bottom.
Jodi Picoult sat on the idea of writing a book about racism for well over a decade, yet it is particularly apt that it is published now, with the current predicaments America is facing. Although we have come a long way in attempts to achieve equality for all – compare the trial in <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> to Picoult’s version – recent events have revealed that we are no where near.
<i>Small Great Things</i> will shock everyone who reads it regardless of their ethnicity and so forth. Many may find it uncomfortable to read, become upset or outraged, and even feel like they are being directly targeted. If this is the case, then good – it should do that. Everyone needs to read this book. On the one hand it is a brilliant, well told story with a beautiful, almost poetic narrative, and on the other, it causes us to face up to the issues we are forever making light of or overlooking entirely. We have grown up believing that racism is a form of hatred when, actually, it is about power. However <i>Small Great Things </i>makes you feel, it is definitely worth reading, especially for the satisfying ending – one that you do not see coming.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Passion of the Christ (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Perhaps the most controversial film of our time “The Passion of the Christ” has arrived amidst much speculation and controversy. Not since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has a film garnered so much controversy and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.
The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film opens with Jesus (Jim Caviezel), and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is Gods will. Jesus is visibly afraid and is unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him.
Jesus is soon arrested and is beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the locale doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings.
Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish not execute Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion.
While I am not one to give away vital parts to a films story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.
Much has been made of the films intense and graphic violence and I am not going to sugar coat this. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional and it is hard to watch a person suffer especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us regardless of faith. I have always been one that believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that there way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them.
In many ways, the film drives this point home as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.
Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love and as such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the films content. This is a bold and passionate film that attempts to tell the story in the way that it happened as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This is not a film that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors as when we do not, atrocities can happen. As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today that encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of the traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and develop a large following what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? This troubled me as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.
The film makes you think and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.