TRUE GRIT: rough draft review

Last year, when we went to the theater to see the Dawn Treader movie, I walked past a large poster that caught my eye because of the phrase, “Presbyterian Steel” in large print, right around eye level.  It was the promo poster for True Grit, the 2010 remake of the ’69 John Wayne film version of Charles Portis’s ’68 novel.  

There is a fine line between revenge and justice.  True Grit walks that line.  The main character, a 14-ry-old girl has hired the services of a US Marshall to help her track down and apprehend her father’s killer, so that he might be brought back to her county to face judgment and justice.      

Like every service in our old Reformed Church, the movie began with a time of silence [we thought one of the kids had hit the mute button] … then the screen went black and the words of Proverbs 28.1a appeared: The wicked flee when no man pursueth…

This was the story of that process taking place, only in a somewhat different fashion [it was no man, indeed, it was a 14 yr old girl drowning in a man’s duster and hat].

As soon as it started, the film transported me back 2 decades to my childhood watching Shane in my buddy’s basement before he slugged me and I had to wrestle him down to make him stop.

Another such moment occurred at the scene where Maddie rolled up newspaper to make her father’s oversized hat fit … I had an instant flashback at finding an ancient newspaper rolled up inside the brim of my grandfather’s olive-colored Stetson hat in our farmhouse attic.  I never knew why he did that until now – it was a way to make a slightly larger hat fit well.

In standard Coen Bro fashion, this film is over the top … but only slightly … and delightfully.  It is rough-edged and strangely, hauntingly beautiful … there were several scenes [also typical for the Coen bros] that seem to flow and float in ways too fantastic to be real, one gets the sense that they are watching, or even sometimes inside of the movie, as if in a dream [the scene w/ the bearskinned traveller and the ending where she is literally leaning on/upheld by the arms of her savior]. 

It strikes one as purely authentic in the details.  From the foamy spit we see flying out from between tobacco-stained teeth and untrimmed whiskers on the dry mouth of Lucky Ned Pepper to the large chunks of tubers that look as if they were cut with a dull blade and dropped into the thick bean stew boiling in a kettle over an open hearth. 

The men use their guns as tools, Rooster regularly fires his gun into the air to call for help, to signal his presence or in acknowledgment of a message, to scare a vulture, or any number of other ways.  This is a man who uses his piece as a tool and is well acquainted w/ it as such.  They are convincing outdoorsmen – quite familiar with the realities of fire, smoke, knives and arterial wounds.

A thread of gray runs through the entire film and we are never taken far from the pall of death.  It stays in the frame from the first to last minute, though not dominantly.  It is not the hero nor the victor.  In the end, it is only able to bruise the heal [of her hand], while, because of the sacrifice of a hero [who, himself also portrays a redemptive trajectory], our heroine overcomes.

Bridges’ gravelly mumblings are a bit forced.  I was never able to really get used to them even by the end.  But after a few minutes, their quasi-victorian overly-articulate and involved-Western dialogues quickly grew on me, and I came to really enjoy their way of speaking.  Because of the scripting, this was the funniest movie I have seen in years – it was literally hilarious at several points.  I can’t wait to watch it again. It was a hoot. 

Maddie is not the model of feminine beauty, but she is never once purported to be.  She is the narrator’s retrospective voice that both reassures and corrects ones posture as the film progresses.  At the end, we see her, a somewhat deformed, and sour-as-ever old maid … again, not something our daughters would be tempted to emulate, I don’t think.

As w/ all their movies, the plot unfolds like a tractor beam drawing the characters inexorably forward.  It is fate, predestination, the unresistable end in which they are destined to find themselves – but what a ride.

The last ten minutes contain more twists and turns than you would imagine possible, but they are all straightforward in a way simple and direct [and exciting] enough for my five year old to keep straight.

Another Coen bros trademark is the use of weather as a instrument of storytelling or as a supporting member of the cast –the falling snow in the night sky, dull gray sky over dead trees, or cracked desert earth - it often serves as a Shakespearean omen or an empathetic element almost linked by some invisible environmental thermostat to the mood of a scene.

The musical score was very fine w/ regular refrains and variations throughout of the hymn that accompanied the opening scene, culminating in Iris Dement’s entrancing rendition of Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.

I have to admit that I am writing this review less than a day after the only time I watched this film, and that w/ my three sons crawling all over me, in fact, I should say that I didn’t so much watch the film as I saw most of its parts [and heard some of them too] between their interruptions about food, bathroom breaks, pillow fighting, etc.  But the film made such an impression, visually and with the dialogue that slipped through, that I just can’t shake it, and can’t wait to watch it again.  That’s the mark of a good film, and so I give four of five stars.

MEMORABLE QUOTES:

"How long you boys been mounted on sheep down there?"

“There is nothing free except the grace of God."

"I always go backwards when I'm backing up."

"I’m struck … La Boeuf has been shot, brambled, and nearly severed his tongue, not only does he not cease to talk, but he spills the banks of English."

“It'll be the biggest mistake you ever made, you Texas brush-popper.”

“You give out very little sugar with your pronouncements. While I sat there watchin' I had some thought to stealin' a kiss... though you are very young, and sick... and unattractive to boot. But now I have a mind to give you five or six good licks with my belt.”

“I thought you were going to
say the sun was in your eyes — that is to say, your eye.”

“[He is] down by the creek performing his necessaries.”

“I mean to kill you in one minute, Ned. Or see you hanged in Fort Smith at Judge Parker's convenience. Which will you have?”

Read more...

Bicycle Thief Review: ROUGH DRAFT

Neorealism …

The point is not a point – it’s a perspective.  Walk a mile vicariously in his shoes.  Join him for a week as he buckles lower and lower under the crush of poverty with his hopeful son never far from his side. 

There are 2 separate scenes in which the main character is attacked by a mob … we, the viewers, are his only advocates, because we are the only ones who know what he’s been through.  We’re the only ones who know how he FEELS – we empathize, and that is the goal.  The main point [according to the director] is empathy – overcoming the detachment of discussion revolving around poverty [or reconstruction] and putting you inside the life of those involved so that you FEEL his plight – the disappointment, pressure, outrage, terror, despair and finally the compromise.  The film does not allow you to judge without sympathy.

Fatalistic Hedonism leading to …

Finally Ricci gives up: "You live and suffer," he tells Bruno. "To hell with it! You want a pizza?"  

Biblically: Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

And then, in the famous closing sequence of the movie, Ricci is tempted to steal a bicycle himself, continuing the cycle of theft and poverty.

At the time it was released, it was seen as a Marxist fable (Zavattini was a member of the Italian communist party).

True, Ricci is a character entirely driven by class and economic need.

Neorealism, as a term, means many things, but it often refers to films of working class life, set in the culture of poverty, and with the implicit message that in a better society wealth would be more evenly distributed. – very honest – but beautiful in simplicity – well suited for black and white.

 Morality … Why?

How are we to face life’s hardships, dissapointments, and even terror’s? Are these Divinely orchestrated or chaotically meaningless?  If the first, we can wait on God and endure with supernatural peace and hope; if the latter, then despair and compromise are the only options – anything rosier is absurd.  Morality is a word, an empty word, and nothing more.  So there is no reason not to steal someone else’s bike or work within the framework of God’s laws – take matters into your own hands and survive as long as you can, while staying as comfortable as you can, whatever way you decide you want to do so at the time.  These are the options.  Karma changes nothing.  It’s as impersonal and irrelevant as the nothingness it masks. 

The universe is not an impersonal place where the providence of God has little or nothing to do with the blessings we receive. –DW  That is the essence of a Christian view of life and suffering. 

Themes: Urbanization ‘city life’ and its limitations, Victimization, Corruption, Lack of community [the thief of the bike is protected and supported by his community, the main character has only a few friends who are in the end impotent to help him], Government intervention and over-regulation [even movie poster hangers are gov’tlly employed – men are unable to find work because they’re limited to certain {few} openings because of paperwork, etc], Grinding poverty reducing/ trapping people into a life of crime [the original title of the film was ‘The Bicycle Thieves’ – plural, focusing on the original perpetrators … not the ‘hero’, contrast of the wealthy and poor side by side [scene in restaurant w/ little snobby girl and spaghetti plate/ also his job, pasting up movie posters from the decadence of Hollywood as a starving man]; Morality – gray areas?  Strong convictions and moral principleness vs bending to circumstances and compromising to survive, pressures of a provider, Reconstruction problems – germany/italy after ww1/ww2?; the way myths and supersticians trap and manipulate us [fortune teller and the money she hoarded without giving any real help or hope – draining the most desparate of the people]

Read more...

Dawn Treader: REVIEW

I have to admit that this is the first time I can remember having seen a movie made from a book I really like.  My poor wife had to endure about a thousand whispered objections like, "What! ... that's not in the book!" or "This is not how it happened at all!"  But overall, my grade for the movie would be something like a C or ... on a good day, maybe even a bit better.

I fully admit that this score is somewhat lower than it might have been if I'd never read the book, or if I had but didn't really care for it all that much.  As it is though, I love this book and there were a few parts of the film that really annoyed me ... hence, the C.  I tried [in vain] not to be "that guy" who insists on fidelity in every detail.  I refrained from reactions like, "That didn't happen on this island" or "It did but not in that order" or "The bracelet was on Eustace's left arm, not his right [duh!]" ... well, okay, I did mention that one one [or a dozen] times. 

But I realize that liberties have to be taken.  And don't get me wrong, some of the changes/additions were quite fine. 

The added scene of Lucy reading the snow spell in the Magician's mansion was simply delightful.  Others were, well ... was it just me or did the boat look like some sort of cartoonish water ride at Disneyland?

For starters, the CONS:

Firstly, and this is probably my chief quarrel with the entire Narnia film series, Lucy draws a sword and/or bow to fight side by side with her brothers and the other warriors.  Though she was not as prissy as Susan, Lewis's Lucy was no Xena warrior princess, which is exactly how she [and her sister] is portrayed in the Narnia films [despite the fact that Lewis told us through Father Christmas that, "battles are ugly when women fight".].

Secondly, was the scene in which Lucy pockets the page from The Book of Incantations, despite having heard Aslan's terrible roar of reproach.  That is exactly the opposite of what took place in the book and is entirely contrary to the point of its entire plot, namely that the fear of Aslan is the beginning of wisdom.  Though Lewis would have objected to such a blanket summary, I see the entire book as an illustration of sanctification.  The fear of the Lord is departing from evil.  That fear, pastel-colored Christian Living books notwithstanding, is - in large part - being terror-laden [see Ps 55.5 for an illustrative usage of the Hebrew word in question].  Bottom line: in Aslan's presence, Lucy would never have dared to do such a thing, and the last thing Christians today need is their understanding of the fear of the Lord softened even further.

Thirdly, I was somewhat disappointed by the portrayal of Eustaces transformation/conversion/baptism back to humanity from dragonhood.  This is a crucial part of the story.  In the book, the "mortification of the flesh" is vividly portrayed as Aslan savagely tearing the dragon flesh from Eustace's back and then excruciatingly baptizing him.  The film version was something closer to an 'exfoliation treatment of the flesh' than what I think Lewis [and certainly Scripture] had in mind.  Again, today's church needs a full dose of the concentrated formula - Aslan was not One to be trifled with; not a tame Lion; not safe at all. . . though good.

My final gripe simply involves some key ommissions.  The beauty and poignancy of Aslan first appearing as a Lamb at the world's end was not included [maybe in an extended edition of the DVD?], in fact, most of the beauty of the sea of delicious sweet water and floating lillies and brightness and bliss and rejuvination were rushed through and it's really a shame.  Equally disappointing was the lack of a reunion and marriage of Caspian and Ramandu's daughter.  If Peter Jackson could find a way to add the courtship and marriage of Samwise and Rosie Cotton to his already massive epic Return of the King, Michael Apted could've given us ten seconds of closure here [again, maybe in the DVD?]. 

At the root, I think my overall frustration stems from the way the focus of the plot was lost or diverted by ommisions and additions.  Throughout the movie, I found myself reflecting on the gospel and the feeling I have so often in Evangelyland after hearing different articulations of the 'gospel'.  "Yes ... but no, not like that ... or not just that... more ... and kinda' different."

Now for the Pros:

IMHO they completely nailed both Rheepicheep and Eustace.  Really.  They nailed them.  Enough said.
Secondly, the sea serpent was nothing short of terrifying. [Though technically, compared w/ the ink invested in the book, it was more than a little overblown.]
Third, the dialogue of the last scene was not omitted or watered down.  Aslan clearly said that in our world, he goes by another [singular] name.  Lesser renditions would have goign by several equally-valid names with each child being invited to discover one of his countless manifestations in his or her own unique faith journey.  But they stuck to the original, exclusivism and all.
Fourthly, they were right to key in on the theme of temptation.  Despite the silliness of the 'mist' and the addition of the quest for seven swords, and the recovery of the missing wife/mother, the real message of the story is about temptation.  They did a good job of conveying this and of setting up Lucy's temptation in particular, even from the first minute or two of the film.
Lastly, actor Ben Barnes returned as Prince/King Caspian but without the ridiculous Spanish accent.  Good call!

I was able to spot and identify Douglas Gresham [Lewis's son, who allegedly makes a short cameo in each of the films, though I didn't catch him in the first two] after a split-second appearance as one of the Lost Island slave traders.  He was also one of the executive producers, so the story can't have been too far off track.  And I guess that's where I'll leave the grade: not too far off track. 

The bottom line is that if I'd never read the book, I'd almost certainly have given this movie a solid B, if not an A- ... then, and this is the most important part, I would have gone out and found the book for a prompt reading, as I hope many of our generation will do.  And that's really the lasting value of this film.  If it can make readers of viewers, it will have been a good thing afterall.

Read more...