Thursday, March 30, 2017

“Ghost In The Shell”– Movie Review



This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new science fiction drama, “Ghost In The Shell”, starring Scarlett Johansson. 


When criminals try to destroy the creations of a major robotics firm, can a half-human/half-robot special agent stop them before they go too far?


Hanka Robotics is a successful technology company which has pioneered advancements in the design and manufacture of robots.  In this future day and age, it is common for robots to live among humans – in fact, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the humans from the robots.  One day, they discover an opportunity that suddenly presents itself:  a young woman who has suffered serious bodily injury in an accident has her brain transplanted into a new “shell” – a superior robot that can easily be mistaken for human due to new technology. 

This new form of human robot is oriented to her new world and trained in law enforcement skills; she becomes known simply as Major (Johansson), leader of Section 9, a special task force charged with the responsibility of defending society from the most dangerous of criminals.  About a year into her new life, Major must investigate a case where some of Hanka’s best robots and most senior employees are being destroyed (killed) by some unknown group of extremists.  Who would do this and why?  That’s part of what Major needs to determine quickly.

It turns out this group of high-tech terrorists have found a way to hack into minds and spread viruses.  These criminals are robots who themselves were created by Hanka, but have turned against the company when it was learned that they were lied to about their past life.  This new information forces Major to call into question her own existence:  was she also lied to by Hanka about her past?  Can she somehow fill in the blank spots in her memory regarding her personal history?  But when Major starts fighting back against Hanka herself, can she bring down the company before they murder her?


Many of the visual effects from “Ghost In The Shell” are reminiscent of “The Matrix”.  If you’re so madly in love with the effects from “The Matrix” and wanted to see them in a different movie, then maybe that’s a good thing.  On the other hand, if you were looking for something more innovative, then perhaps it’s a bad thing.  In either case, this remake (both motion pictures being based on a Japanese Manga comic) is a little muddied at times making it hard to follow.  If you are a fan of the comic (or at least saw the original Anime from 20 years ago), you might be better equipped to follow the story. 

What’s distracting is how some of the characters interact with each other.  In many scenes, the Japanese characters speak their native language (with English subtitles) and the non-Japanese characters will reply in English.  If there was an explanation for this (are they internally translating?), it wasn’t terribly clear.  This also brings up the issue that there are, in fact, many non-Japanese characters in what appears to be a major Japanese city (Tokyo?).  Perhaps this is simply a carry-over from the Manga or Anime, but if it was, again, those unfamiliar with either of these might be a little lost. 

Is it acceptable if a movie (even a remake) based on a comic can only be appreciated by those familiar with the source material?  From a creative standpoint, there may be a case for this.  However, from a business perspective, it’s a lousy idea.  The objective, of course, is to make the most money possible; if you are narrowing your audience to people familiar with the Manga, then you’ve already decided that you likely will not achieve blockbuster status.  Not that having a blockbuster should be the main (or only) goal when making a movie, but if you decide you’re not going for the widest audience possible, then you have to lower your expectations – and budget – accordingly. 

Ghost in the Shell (2017) on IMDb

Monday, March 27, 2017

“Person To Person”– Movie Review



On the closing night of the New Directors/New Films series, I saw “Person To Person”, with Michael Cera and Abbi Jacobson.


A day in the life of  some quirky denizens of New York City.


Claire (Jacobson) is a librarian who feels she’s wasting her life there, so she pursues journalism.  Getting an opportunity at The New York News, she is interviewed by Phil (Cera), one of the editors, who decides to give her an assignment as something of an audition:  recently, there was a case where a man turned up dead, but it’s unclear if it was a suicide or if he was murdered by his wife.  Claire’s job is to serve as an investigative reporter, trying to get a scoop by interviewing the wife.  Phil, however, has ulterior motives; besides merely beating his competitors, he also wishes to hook up with Claire. 

Bene (Bene Coopersmith) is devotee of vinyl; when he hears someone is looking to sell a rare Charlie Parker album, he’s excited and willing to spend the money to add this to his already vast record collection.  But is the seller legitimate and is the record authentic?  Meanwhile, Ray (George Sample III), his best friend, is currently crashing at Bene’s apartment after breaking up with his girlfriend.  Angrily, Ray responded with revenge porn:  he posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend on the Internet.  When Ray learns his ex knows about it, what happens when she sends her brother and his friends after him?

Wendy (Tavi Gavinson) is a teenager confused about her sexual identity; even her best friend thinks Wendy is a lesbian.  Also, Wendy is very critical of her friend’s boyfriend – not to mention generally critical (and cynical) about relationships.  Although Wendy admits to experimenting with girls, she denies ever trying to be with a boy, adding to the speculation about her true sexuality.  The friend arranges for her boyfriend to visit while Wendy is there – and he brings a buddy.  Will Wendy be interested in hooking up with him or will she steadfastly hold to her views?  


“Person To Person” has a few humorous, entertaining scenes, but overall, the movie does not hold up because the individual stories aren’t all that cohesive.  The resolutions to the various tales lack a significant payoff, causing you to wonder what the point was.  The fact that these incidents take place in New York City seems more of a coincidence than anything else; there appears to be little making any of these unique to this city.  How this enhances the film all-around is a bit of a quandary; many situations could occur in any city.  The choice to place them in New York seems fairly arbitrary.

While the movie may have some good performances, many characters come off as unsympathetic.  Not that they’re evil, but you wouldn’t want to go on a cross-country drive with them.  Phil is creepy, Claire is desperate, Ray is vindictive and Wendy is obnoxious.  Also, Bene’s romantic subplot seems completely orthogonal to the main thrust of that vignette.  The most interesting characters are the simplest – Jimmy (Philip Baker Hall) and the friends who hang out at his shop.  It seems a funnier (and more interesting) story would have revolved around Jimmy and his customers.       

Following the screening, there was a brief question and answer session with the movie’s writer/director Dustin Guy Defa and most of the cast.  Defa said that since most of his background is in shorts, he decided to make a feature-length film by putting together several of his older short films where a central theme ran through – namely, the intermingling of various New Yorkers on a day in the city.  He mentioned casting the parts was done through various means – some actors he already knew, some were through a casting director, and others came onto the project via mutual acquaintances.  

Person to Person (2017) on IMDb

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

“Wilson”– Movie Review



This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new comedy “Wilson”, starring Woody Harrelson, Laura Dern and Judy Greer.


When a man tries to reconnect with his ex-wife, how will he deal with the ramifications of his actions?


Following the death of his elderly father, Wilson (Harrelson) is forced to confront his new reality:  he is now completely alone in life.  He has virtually no friends and the only current “relationship” he has is with his dog, Pepper.  Wilson has only himself to blame for this; he is distinctly unpleasant to be around because of his aggressively in-your-face behavior, which no one seems to appreciate – although some may be more capable of tolerating it than others.    One such person is Shelly (Greer), a neighbor whom he occasionally hires to dog-sit Pepper when he’s not around. 

One of Wilson’s great regrets in life is the failure of his marriage to Pippi (Dern), who abandoned him 17 years ago and moved to Los Angeles; pregnant at the time, she allegedly had an abortion.  In an effort to remedy his interminable sense of isolation, Wilson actively seeks out his ex-wife, whom he believes may now be a drug addict working as a prostitute.  Wilson finally locates Pippi, who is actually a waitress, and is quite reluctant to establish any kind of friendship with her ex-husband; however, as they catch-up, Pippi makes a remarkable revelation:  she never had that abortion.  Instead, Pippi gave birth – a daughter, whom she immediately put up for adoption. 

Delighted at the thought he’s a father, Wilson decides he must now look-up his daughter Claire (Isabella Amara).  Wilson and Pippi locate Claire, who is living in an expansive house with a well-to-do family.  Despite her privileged life, Claire is deeply unhappy –  in part because her parents ignore her but also because she has no friends due to being overweight.  The three set off on a road trip in an effort to form a relationship based on their biological connection – however, when Claire turns up missing, her parents have Wilson arrested.  Convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to three years in prison, can Wilson survive the experience and have a normal, happy life?  


“Wilson” is a comedy that strains to be funny – and speaking of straining, it is certainly a strain to find much positive to say about this movie.  In a too-small role, Judy Greer is the one warm redemptive ray of sunlight that possesses the humanity that the remaining characters lack.  But that’s about it.  The rest of the time it is rather bleak and Wilson himself is the kind of protagonist you just want to punch in the face (which is what makes his scenes in prison so deeply satisfying); it doesn’t help that Harrelson overacts the part on top of that. 

It would seem that “Wilson” is trying to get by simply by being weird.  Epic fail.  We are supposed to like this character because of his affinity with his dog, who appears to be the only real and truly loyal friend he has (all of his other so-called “friends” really don’t seem to like him all that much – and sincerely, who can blame them?).  Once Wilson finds himself in prison, are we supposed to feel sorry for him or is the audience expected to find this funny?  If Wilson was a more likeable character, we’d root for him; if he was at all funny in his antics, this situation might be amusing.  Instead, we are left with a turn in the story that is simply unnerving, not to mention baffling.   

The movie is based on a graphic novel that apparently has a sufficient-enough following that folks decided it would be worth turning into a film.  This wound up being a terrible idea.  It is too bad because “Wilson” can boast of a terrific cast, but all of them seem to be trying way too hard to put lipstick on this pig and the screenplay (written by the creator of the comic) is undeserving of such an effort.  While a curmudgeon can be funny (Walter Matthau was at his best as such characters), Wilson comes across as more obnoxious than humorous.  It is only March, but this may be a candidate for Worst Films Of 2017. 

Wilson (2017) on IMDb

Monday, March 20, 2017

“Quest”– Movie Review



This week, I attended another screening of the New Directors/New Films Series by The Film Society Of Lincoln Center and The Museum Of Modern Art:  the new documentary “Quest” by director Jonathan Olshefski


From 2008 until 2016, an African American family is forced to overcome extraordinary adversity. 


In 2008, Christopher “Quest” Rainey of North Philadelphia experienced two major life-changing events:  one was that he finally married Christine’a, his girlfriend of 15 years; the otehr being Barack Obama was elected as America’s first African-American president.  While both Christopher and Christine’a brought children from a previous marriage into their union, they also produced a daughter of their own, PJ, who is 12 years old at this time.  Christine’a is the main breadwinner for the family, working at a homeless shelter, while Christopher does what he can to contribute to their children – but afterwards, he operates a recording studio in the basement of their home.

While they struggle to make ends meet, Christine’a also has another concern:  William, her 21 year old son, has been diagnosed with a brain tumor.  Forced to live at home due to his illness, he has to endure countless debilitating chemotherapy sessions, which of course make him sick.  He yearns to someday hold down a job in order to support his own young son, for whom Christine’a must care during his recovery.  In the meantime, Christopher is trying to find the next big rapper who will rocket him to success and help him be a better provider for his family.

At this point, they are caught in the midst of an unexpected tragedy:  PJ, who by now is in her mid-teens, is caught in the crossfire of warring neighborhood gangs and is shot in the face just a few blocks from her home, causing her to lose her left eye.  This makes the family unite behind her and once she is home from the hospital, they plan a block party to celebrate her return, where many of the community are glad to attend to show their love.  But as PJ learns how to deal with her new life, she is also now turning into a young woman – one who has discovered she is a lesbian and eventually comes out to her family.  Will this unexpected turn result in the family rejecting her or serve as yet another reason to band together?


At its heart, what this documentary is about can be summed up in one word:  resilience.  This is a family that keeps bouncing back no matter what challenges life presents – and despite all of it, they remain solid, admirable people, worthy of the respect and support of any audience.  It is unimaginable what these folks have been forced to suffer through and the fact that they have emerged intact is nothing short of triumphant.  “Quest” is a celebration of the dignity of the American family and The Raineys are the paradigm upon whom we should all model ourselves. 

All of that said, there are some issues with the movie, likely due to the fact that this is a director who never made a documentary before.  The structure definitely appears sound:  each act is centered on a presidential election – in 2008, then again in 2012 and finally 2016 at the conclusion.  Where the problem comes is in the passage of time; clearly, we know that it occurs, but it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of exactly at what point in time you are viewing the family.  What probably would have been helpful are graphics that showed (at the very least) the month and year when each scene occurred. 

Following the screening, there was an interview with director Jonathan Olshefski and The Rainey Family.  He said he shot about 400 hours worth of footage over an eight year period, boiling it down to just under two hours – although much of it wasn’t usable because, as he admitted, there were long gaps of time when nothing worth keeping in the film occurred.  With a background in photography, he started out doing a visual essay on a man who had a recording studio in his basement, but soon realized that he had to switch to a different medium since the still pictures didn’t do it justice.  PJ was also there; she is 17 years old now and said she plans to attend college in the autumn.   

Quest (2017) on IMDb

Thursday, March 16, 2017

“Patti Cake$”– Movie Review



This week, I attended the opening night of The New Directors/New Films series by The Film Society of Lincoln Center and The Museum Of Modern Art, screening the drama, “Patti Cake$”, with Bridget Everett and Cathy Moriarty. 


When an unlikely young woman tries to break into the music business as a rapper, can she overcome overwhelming personal and professional obstacles to realize her dream?


At the age of 24, Patti Dombrowski (Danielle Macdonald) – AKA, Patti Cake$, AKA Killa P, AKA Dumbo – is desperately trying to claw her way out of her depressing New Jersey surroundings.  She has to single-handedly take care of her grandmother (Cathy Moriarty) while her mother Barb (Bridget Everett) drinks away what little money her daughter makes as a bartender.  Although Patti yearns to increase her earnings because the family has fallen behind in its bills, the bar owner is unwilling to give her a raise and unable to give her an expanded work schedule. 

Despite all of this, Patti has her own dreams:  to perform her own poems as a rap singer.  In order to do this, however, she’s got quite a few sizable mountains to climb.  For one thing, she’s a woman.  Also, she’s white.  Due to her weight problem, the fact that she’s not traditionally physically attractive might hold her back as well.  Since this is her passion – and believes to be her destiny, since Barb had her own brief singing career – nothing will stop Patti.  Fortunately, she’s got a support system in her friend Hareesh (Siddharth Dhananjay), who works at a local pharmacy by day but harbors similar fantasies of a rapping career by night. 

Attending an open-mic night at a neighborhood club, Hareesh and Patti are mesmerized by Basterd (Mamoudou Athie), one of the musicians who has something of a harsh performance art style to his game.  Eventually, they are able to convince him to join their new group, PBNJ, and they record a CD of original tunes.  After facing constant rejection when trying to get influential people to give their disc a listen, Patti becomes discouraged and puts her artistic aspirations aside.  But once she learns that PBNJ has been invited to perform in a talent competition, can she get the group back together again for one last shot at stardom?   


Clearly, the strongest parts of “Patti Cake$” are the performances by Bridget Everett taking on a more dramatic role, a virtually unrecognizable (except for the voice) Cathy Moriarty as the grandmother and especially its star Danielle Macdonald, who has been getting increasing notoriety as this movie wends its way through the festival circuit.  Where it loses some steam is in the story; while the idea is unique, its execution does not always follow suit and this results in some trite, predictable moments.  Again, since this is by a filmmaker who is relatively new to telling a story in a long form such as a feature film, one cannot consider writer/director Geremy Jasper to have refined his techniques. 

The character of Patti is one for whom an audience can easily empathize.  She has been beaten up badly by life, both at home and at work; nothing seems to be going right for her and instead of helping, people just pile on.  In many respects, she’s facing an uphill battle trying to carve out a niche for herself in a rather competitive business.  On the other hand, while viewers may be rooting for her, Patti’s pursuits beg certain questions, such as whether or not she’s even being realistic or if she even has the talent she thinks she does.  Ultimately, even if it may be something of a challenge to root for her professionally, there still remains plenty to get behind Patti when it comes to repairing what’s left of her family.

Regarding Geremy Jasper as a director, he does have a notable visual style in the sense that many of his shots tend to set a mood (Patti’s dream sequences in particular).  Jasper’s background includes having done music videos (after attempting a music career of his own), so that would certainly account for some of his more stylistic choices.  He probably could’ve used some help with the screenplay, either in the form of a collaborator or an additional draft.  It is a decent enough start for Jasper.  Whether or not this will be the springboard to a promising career, only time will tell.

Patti Cake$ (2017) on IMDb  

Thursday, March 09, 2017

“Struggle For Life”– Movie Review



This week, I attended another screening at The Film Society Of Lincoln Center’s French Film series, seeing the new comedy, “Struggle For Life” (AKA “La Loi de la jungle”).  


When a pair of French Government workers get lost in a Guyanese jungle, will the jungle do them in before they can return to civilization?


When Châtaigne (Vincent Macaigne) is late for an appointment with the director of the Ministry of the Standard, he finds that in order to get a job, he is forced to accept the only assignment available:  travel to French Guyana in order to supervise the construction of an indoor skiing slope intended to increase tourism.  Châtaigne is charged with ensuring that the structure meets ISO-9001 specifications, as per French regulations.  Despite the fact that this isn’t exactly a plum assignment, Châtaigne heads immediately to Guyana – in part because he’s desperate for the job and in part because he’s being hotly pursued by a tax assessor who wants him jailed for money he owes the government.  

Upon reaching the government offices in Guyana, Châtaigne is assigned a driver who will shuttle him to the construction site – Tarzan (Vimala Pons), a beautiful, sexy young woman working for The National Forestry Office on a different project.  Since she was initially stationed there as an engineer, she resents being forced to serve as Châtaigne’s chauffeur.  Realizing that her assignment will end soon, she performs her driving duties with plenty of attitude.  Since Châtaigne is focused on completing his job in a timely fashion, he seems determined to try to ignore Tarzan’s lack of cooperation.  

One day while driving out of the jungle, their vehicle gets into an accident and they are forced to travel the rest of the way on foot.  Armed with a GPS on his trusty smartphone, Châtaigne insists they go through the jungle rather than take the road (which itself is fraught with its own set of dangers).  Their bad luck continues when they lose the phone and find themselves resuming their trek using only their instinct.  Having to sidestep the various innate hazards of the jungle – poisonous flora, dangerous creatures and bands of marauders – can they manage to make their way out before meeting their demise?


These two characters aren’t the only ones lost – the audience will feel a bit lost also as this tangled story unfolds.  The difference between story and plot is that story is an account of what’s being told and plot is how you tell that story.  In this movie, both seem a bit muddled.  Absurdity and nonsense can be valuable assets in a comedy (see anything by Monty Python), but this one has absurdity that doesn’t even make sense in the crazy universe these characters inhabit.   This film tries to be a slapstick comedy that’s a mash-up of Woody Allen, Jerry Lewis and perhaps others (someone at the screening likened it to “That Man from Rio” starring Jean-Paul Belmondo).  Unfortunately, although the jokes come at a fast and furious pace, they are haphazard at best.

The romance that develops between Châtaigne and Tarzan is difficult to believe because she is incredibly hot while he is incredibly not.  One of the funnier scenes occurs when they  are over-served a powerful aphrodisiac and wind up out-of-control horny, culminating in a rather frantic tryst.  This, however, manages to move the story forward because their previously antagonistic relationship changes at this point and they suddenly find themselves friendlier.  However, there are other plot points that don’t make quite so much sense, not the least of which being how they the search party will actually find them in the vastness of the jungle (which never gets clearly explained).  Speaking of things that make little sense, let’s also consider the English version of the title, “Struggle For Life”; the French title translates into “The Law Of The Jungle”, which sounds like it could be a comedy.   On the other hand, “Struggle For Life” sounds more like a made-for-TV movie on the Lifetime network about someone with a terminal illness. 

Following the screening, there was a brief interview with director Antonin Peretjatko.  He said that part of the inspiration for this movie came from an actual trip he made to French Guyana.  During that time, he was introduced to a bridge that had been built by the French government during the Chirac administration; the bridge was designed as a connection between Guyana and Brazil.  Although the bridge had been built to meet French engineering standards, it goes unused because of government bureaucracy:  according to French regulations, all vehicles must have insurance, but in Brazil, insurance is not required.  As a result, guards are stationed on the Guyana side to ensure no cars drive across it in either direction – however, since it is so famous in both countries, no one ever attempts to use the bridge, so the guards wind up having a very boring job.  

La loi de la jungle (2016) on IMDb

Sunday, March 05, 2017

“(In Bed With) Victoria”– Movie Review



This weekend, I attended another screening from The Film Society Of Lincoln Center’s French Film series, seeing a new comedy “(In Bed With) Victoria”. 


When a lawyer represents a friend accused of attempted murder, can the case revitalize both her personal and professional life?


Once her babysitter/boyfriend quits, Victoria (Virginie Efira) finds herself in a bit of a bind.  A busy lawyer, she’s desperately trying to juggle her professional life with her personal life after her divorce.  Attending a wedding, she coincidentally runs into Sam (Vincent Lacoste), a former client; getting his life back together after nearly going to jail for drug dealing, he’s looking for work.  Seizing the opportunity, Victoria offers Sam the job of live-in babysitter; he agrees to move in and care for her two little girls while she’s at work.

Sam is not the only old acquaintance with whom Victoria reconnects at the wedding; Vincent (Melvil Poupaud) is also a guest and he’s brought his girlfriend.  Afterwards, Vincent confides in Victoria that his girlfriend is accusing him of attempted murder for trying to stab her with a butter knife.  Although Victoria is aware of the potential ethical problems representing someone whom she knows personally, she agrees to take the case regardless.  Unfortunately, when the bar association learns of this, she is suspended for six months. 

Forced to lay off Sam because she can no longer afford him, Victoria is now taking care of the children by herself.  Panicking, she reaches out to Sam, whom she learns is now studying law.  Soon, a romance blossoms between them.  Once the suspension concludes, Victoria finds the lawyer Vincent hired in the interim has dropped him; reluctantly, she takes his case again, with Sam helping her throughout.  After self-medicating on various prescription drugs due to stress, Victoria is barely in shape to appear in court.  Despite this, can she win the case for Vincent and resume her relationship with Sam?  


As a farcical dark comedy, “Victoria” succeeds in many respects.  The performances are quite good (not the least of which being Virginie Efira in the title role) and many of its ideas are clever, sophisticated and witty in a way we have come to expect from French filmmakers.  Where it lets down the audience is when it is uneven in its humor and occasionally seems to be veering into drama (or even melodrama, in some cases).  Despite this, it attempts to have somewhat of a conventional Hollywood style ending (the director was clearly influenced by these types of films).   

Victoria is also not exactly the most sympathetic protagonist, either.  We see how this woman behaves irresponsibly while having to raise two children and it doesn’t particularly endear the character to the audience.  Divorced and raising two daughters as a single mom, she invites strange men back to her apartment for sex while her children are present.  Add to this the fact that she appears to be hopelessly hooked on Xanax and you’ll be forgiven for wondering exactly why you should be rooting for her.  Given the fact that her ex-husband seems to be something of a wastrel, it seems that neither can be a suitable parent for these girls. 

Following the screening, there was an interview with Director Justine Triet; this was conducted through an interpreter because she does not speak English.  In the movie, animals play a central part of one of the court cases; she said of the old show business proverb, “Never work with animals or children”, the animals were so problematic that she has sworn never to use them in another film.  While working with the children certainly had its challenges, shooting with the animals was much worse.  In one case, the trainer for a Dalmation made claims that the dog would be able to do all sorts of things on the set but when the cameras rolled, it could not do any of them.  The other animal, which by far was the worst of the two, was a chimpanzee which attacked one of the cast members.  The original idea for the movie’s poster was supposed to be a shot of Victoria with the chimp, but it was decided he was too unruly to work with, so they abandoned that idea.   

Victoria (2016) on IMDb

Thursday, March 02, 2017

“Django”– Movie Review



This week, I attended the opening night of The Film Society Of Lincoln Center’s French Film Series, screening the new biopic “Django”. 


When the survival of a jazz player is threatened by the Nazis, can he escape their control in order to resume both his life and career?


In 1943 Paris, guitarist Django Reinhardt (Reda Kateb) is growing in popularity; with American jazz musicians fleeing Europe as the Nazis swarm France, Reinhardt gains recognition for his style of “hot jazz”.  Even the Nazis seem to like it — but only up to a point; they are so concerned with controlling the French citizens, they have begun to censor not only what Reinhardt plays but also how it is played.  Too much swing or the blues will lead to a decadent society, they maintain.  Further complicating matters is the fact that Reinhardt himself is of Romani descent — what some refer to as a Gypsy — an ethnic group which the Nazis are determined to eradicate. 

Seeing that her friend (and occasional lover) may be in potential danger, Louise (Cécile de France) seizes an opportunity to intercede.  An aristocratic fan of Reinhardt’s who possesses some rather convenient connections to the Nazis, Louise advises him to take his family and his band of musicians and journey to Switzerland as soon as possible.  With palpable tension coming from the German military, Reinhardt takes his friend’s advice.  Although he cannot immediately leave France altogether without the Germans’ knowledge, Reinhardt instead takes his crew out of Paris, winding up in a Gypsy settlement in a remote area of the country. 

Eventually, the German army catches on; they not only round up the Gypsies and confine their movement, they also force Reinhardt and his musicians to play for their officers during an elaborate party.  Reluctantly, Reinhardt and his band perform, but he conspires with Louise to sabotage the function by going against Nazi orders and playing any type of music he pleases.  Soon, with partiers drunk and many of them dancing, distractions ensue.  With the officers paying less attention to Reinhardt, can he somehow find a way to slip out of the party and lead his family across the Swiss border?  


“Django” is not what some might refer to as a traditional cradle-to-grave biography; instead, it is a detailed look at a very specific period in the musician’s life.  Where the movie shines is in two aspects:  One is how extraordinary Reinhardt’s music was, despite the fact that he did not have full use of his left hand (as a child, Reinhardt was caught in a fire that rendered both the pinky and ring finger of his left hand useless; this resulted in him being forced to maneuver the fretboard with only his index finger and middle finger, using the thumb to hold the guitar neck in place).  The second is in its historical references; genocide during World War II has typically emphasized the Jewish Holocaust while atrocities performed on other ethnicities by the Nazis can sometimes be lost.      

Unfortunately, where the movie somewhat falters is where it borders on hagiography, even when the guitarist’s actions are less than heroic (e.g., he abandons his elderly mother and pregnant wife in the dead of winter as he heads for the Swiss border), not to mention cheating on his wife with Louise.  Does it humanize him?  Absolutely.  But it also serves to diminish his stature at the same time, raising an extremely valid question:  Should an  audience invest its time and emotions rooting for such a severely flawed, narcissistic and egotistical protagonist?  During such extreme circumstances, perhaps some might find it easier to forgive. 

What can’t be lost on viewers of “Django” is how much the Romani plight during World War II echoes what is going on today with refugees from primarily Muslim countries.  Perhaps where the movie has its greatest value is in how it appears to resonate recent events in United States politics and policies, particularly with respect to the immigration ban.  One cannot help but recall in this case the famed Santayana quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.  It begs the question of whether or not America is doomed to repeat the past when confronted with the treatment of refugees trying to escape political oppression or religious persecution.   

Django (2017) on IMDb

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

“The Last Word”– Movie Review



This week, I attended a New York Times Film Club screening of the new comedy-drama “The Last Word”, starring Shirley MacLaine and Amanda Seyfried.


When an elderly woman hires a reporter to author her obituary, can a flattering piece be written despite her history of mistreating people?


Harriet (MacLaine) was once a supremely successful advertising executive who decades ago started her own agency; after being forced out by her partners, she has been in retirement ever since.  Still a disagreeable control freak, she finds herself increasingly bored with little for her to do.  Realizing that she is nearing the end of her life, Harriet decides to hire a journalist from a newspaper to compose her obituary; while it may be a bit premature, she figures that if it’s completed before her death, she can see that it gets inscribed to her high standards and that the final record about her will be fawning.

Anne (Seyfried) is an aspiring author with the unfortunate task of penning the obituaries that appear in the local newspaper for which she toils.  Having read Anne’s work in the paper, Harriet heads to the newsroom to meet with her; she offers Anne the job of helping her to draft her yet-to-be-published panegyric.  However, Anne is understandably reluctant to accept the offer for a number of reasons – the least of which being Harriet’s imperious personality.  Ultimately, Anne’s boss convinces her to go for it, reasoning that if she manages to please the wealthy Harriet, the dowager will bequeath a tidy sum to his newspaper upon her demise – thereby saving everyone’s job.

The initial research performed by Anne includes interviewing Harriet’s acquaintances, former co-workers and a variety of people with whom Harriet associated over the years.  Unfortunately for them, none of the interviewees had anything nice to say about Harriet.  Disturbed by the responses she’s gotten, Harriet and Anne embark on a mission wherein Harriet will set out to mend fences with the various people whom she’s somehow managed to offend.  But once Harriet learns that she’s rapidly running out of time, can Anne provide her with the obituary she seeks before it’s too late?


There is much about “The Last Word” that is predictable – the least of which might be the ending, especially based on the title.  But there are many other things in this movie which are trite, which render it unworthy of a recommendation.  A considerable number of items in this screenplay seem most unrealistic and highly contrived, making one wonder if this story was supposed to have occurred in the present day or twenty years ago; references to technology immediately come to mind (e.g., people listening to music on CD’s or watching videos on VHS cassettes). 

As you might expect, MacLaine’s character is supposed to be the “gruff but loveable” type who attempts to seek redemption by performing certain deeds late in life – such as meeting with her ex-husband, estranged daughter (Anne Heche) and mentoring a nine-year old African American girl (Ann'Jewel Lee, who manages to overact up a storm).  Indirectly, viewers are expected to believe Harriet has also had a positive impact on Anne.  Apparently, the lesson we are to learn from this is that bad behavior can be forgiven if you are a woman.  Hardly a feminist message.

Does this character achieve the redemption she seems to so desperately seek?  It would depend on how much of the story you bought up until that point.  The audience is expected to weep towards the end, yet cheer for Anne because of all she “learned” from Harriet in the preceding hour and a half.  Ultimately, it would seem that Harriet did not sufficiently perform the full character arc one would expect in such a story.  Whether that is noble individualism or simply insufficient screenwriting may eventually rely on how you view the character to begin with. 

The Last Word (2017) on IMDb