Media Matters @ Third Way Cafe (Third Way Media)

The Company You Keep - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:00:00 EST

Robert Redford’s The Company You Keep, just released in Winnipeg, has been flying well below the radar despite the fact that it features a star-studded ensemble cast, including Redford, Shia LaBeouf, Susan Sarandon, Julie Christie, Chris Cooper, Sam Elliott, Brendan Gleeson, Stanley Tucci, Terrence Howard, Brit Marling, Richard Jenkins and Nick Nolte.

I would like to know why film critics don’t recognize the value of thought-provoking films more highly instead of complaining that The Company You Keep is boring because it’s old-fashioned and doesn’t provide the thrills to which today’s audiences are accustomed.

The critics are lukewarm and no one’s watching. After all, why watch an intelligent and provocative political thriller (i.e. a film that’s actually about something) when you can waste your time with mindless action films like Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6?

It is clear from a look at box office receipts that most people don’t go to the movies to exercise their grey cells. They are looking for escapist entertainment. While I have nothing against escapist entertainment per se, I do hope someone is asking why more and more people are looking for it. For my part, I would like to know why film critics don’t recognize the value of thought-provoking films more highly instead of complaining that The Company You Keep is boring because it’s old-fashioned and doesn’t provide the thrills to which today’s audiences are accustomed.

It is well-known that Robert Redford has a passionate social conscience and so one expects him to make a film that looks at the political and social issues of our time. In The Company You Keep, he does so by reminding us about the passion of the young idealists who protested the Vietnam War (like Sidney Lumet did in his 1988 film Running on Empty).

The film concerns former members of a group called the Weather Underground (aka the Weathermen) who eventually grow tired of nonviolent antiwar protests and begin bombing buildings. When a guard is killed during a bank robbery, those responsible, along with anyone associated with them, go into hiding. Thirty years later, one of those involved (Sharon Solarz, played by Sarandon) decides to turn herself in. Before she can do so, she is recognized and arrested.

A young investigative journalist (Ben Shepard, played by LaBeouf) takes notice and uses an inside connection to get an exclusive interview with Solarz. This prison interview is one of the best scenes in the film and Sarandon, like most of the actors in the film, performs brilliantly as she explains, with regret, why she did what she did back in the 70’s. Shepard, himself a young idealist, listens raptly. What he doesn’t understand is why James Grant (Redford), a lawyer with connections to Solarz, refuses to defend her. Shepard does some digging and discovers that Grant has a big secret. The FBI are close behind and soon Grant is on the run, looking for a way to prove his innocence.

The Company You Keep is a quiet, understated and engrossing political thriller with a gripping insightful screenplay by Lem Dobbs (based on a novel by Neil Gordon), an excellent score and beautiful cinematography. It’s not perfect. Some of the dialogue is clunky, the ending feels flat and I thought the story could have been told more effectively. Nevertheless, for me, The Company You Keep stands head and shoulders above almost everything coming out of Hollywood these days. It is one of my favourite films, so far, of films I've seen in 2013.

The Company You Keep left me (intentionally, I assume) asking two big questions: 1) In a world full of outrageous corporatism, consumerism, nationalism and militarism (among other isms), not to mention the critical state of the environment, why are young people today not protesting the way they did during the Vietnam War? The Occupy Movement shows signs of hope in this regard, but where’s the passion among the young to turn the world around before it’s too late? Are they being seduced by distractions like escapist entertainment, iPads and smartphones?

2) Whatever happened to the kind of investigative journalism represented by Shepard, people like Bob Woodward, played by Redford in All the President’s Men? With all the advantages of modern technology, especially the Internet, why aren’t we hearing daily exposes of government cover-ups (we all know the cover-ups are out there)? Sometimes I wonder whether, if Jesus was walking our streets today, he would have become an investigative journalist.

The Company You Keep is rated R for language.

Vic Thiessen
victhiessen17@googlemail.com?subject=Third Way Cafe: http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethirdway%2Ecomhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethirdway%2Ecom%2Fmm%2F%3Ftopic%3D7%5FMedia%2BMatters " target="_blank">Mennonite Church Canada
Other posts by Vic Thiessen

Vic Thiessen has been hosting weekly film nights for 12 years, speaks regularly on film and theology, and shares a film review blog with his brother. He is also film writer for the Canadian Mennonite. In his spare time, he works as the Chief Operating Officer for Mennonite Church Canada in Winnipeg.

The Burmese Harp - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:00:00 EST

We tend to focus our reviews on recent films, but it’s good to recognize that many good films have been made over the years that offer much to enrich our perspectives. Netflix is one source for viewing older films, and I regularly venture into these past treasures to explore what they offer.

PQ In fact, this group of soldiers is led by a captain who is trained in choral singing and has his soldiers sing to raise their morale.

This week I watched a Japanese film from 1956, The Burmese Harp, directed by Kon Ichikawa. It won several prizes and was nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign language film. While any film from another country and another period of history offers particular insights into other worlds and other lives, The Burmese Harp is especially moving in its antiwar themes.

One way the film startles U.S. viewers is that it is told from the perspective of Japanese soldiers stationed in Burma at the end of World War II. These soldiers are not the inhuman monsters U.S. propaganda portrayed them as. In fact, this group of soldiers is led by a captain who is trained in choral singing and has his soldiers sing to raise their morale. One soldier, Mizushima, is designated to play the harp for the group.

The war ends, but one group of soldiers continues to fight. Mizushima volunteers to go to them to deliver news that the war is over and Japan has surrendered. A British captain gives Mizushima 30 minutes to convince these soldiers to surrender before he orders them shelled. The soldiers refuse to surrender, and all of them are killed in the ensuing shelling. Mizushima, however, survives and is nursed back to health by a Buddhist monk.

He dresses in a monk’s robes and wanders the countryside, begging for food. He returns to where the soldiers were killed and goes about burying them.

His own company, meanwhile, believe he is dead, until one day they see a monk on a bridge who looks like Mizushima. But the monk says nothing to them. The film portrays these men’s care for one another and strong desire for Mizushima to rejoin them when they eventually receive permission to return to Japan.

However, he stays in Burma to live as a monk, but he sends them a letter that includes this beautiful sentence: “Our work is simply to ease the great suffering of the world, to have the courage to face suffering, senselessness and irrationality without fear, to find the strength to create peace by one’s own example.”

The film is shot in black and white and includes some stunning shots. It shows the horrors of war without overdoing it, as in today’s films. But it also shows the humanity of the Japanese soldiers. Clint Eastwood’s film Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) does this as well.

There are many excellent antiwar films, such as Grand Illusion (1937) and Paths of Glory (1957) that are worth watching. The Burmese Harp is one more to add to that esteemed list.

Gordon Houser
The Mennonite
Other posts by Gordon Houser

Gordon Houser is associate editor of The Mennonite and writes a blog, Present Tense. He is also the author of a book Present Tense: A Mennonite Spirituality (Cascadia, 2011).

Mud - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 31 May 2013 07:00:00 EST

Mud, rated PG-13, opens with a scene of a boy overhearing his mother pleading with his father to listen to her concerns, but the father walks away without responding. My first impression had me thinking this was a wife trying to confront her abusive husband but failing. Later we see the father interact gruffly with his son as they deliver fish he has caught on the river where they live in a houseboat.

While McConaughey gives a stunning performance, the two teenagers, Sheridan and Lofland, captured my attention even more.

But soon we discover the father’s tenderness toward his son, Ellis. And we learn that the mother actually owns the houseboat, inherited from her family, and is threatening to sell it. She is the one with power.

Mud is a coming-of-age film about two Arkansas teenagers, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), who become friends with Mud (Matthew McConaughey), a fugitive who wants to reunite with his old girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), and then skip town. The boys agree to help him and keep his presence there secret from the police, who are searching for him because he killed Juniper’s abusive husband.

The film includes many arresting characters, including the small town where it’s set. It takes us into the lives of people who make their living off the river and again moves beyond the usual stereotypes of southern small towns. Director Jeff Nichols, who also made the excellent film Take Shelter, presents the details of life in the town and the struggle to make a living.

While McConaughey gives a stunning performance, the two teenagers, Sheridan and Lofland, captured my attention even more. Their characters are so well-written and finely portrayed that we accept their struggles and their courage. Ellis (Sheridan also appeared in The Tree of Life) becomes the focus of the film, as he learns harsh lessons about love and betrayal, not only in his relationship with Mud but with an older girl he likes and with his parents as they head toward divorce.

While the film surprises us in several ways, it is not devoid of cliché. The father of the man Mud killed is portrayed as especially evil, though we do see his grief. And Neckbone’s uncle (and guardian) is a bit over-the-top. But throughout the film runs a tender concern for each character, rare in most films.

Mud played in competition at Cannes in 2012, then again at Sundance in January, so it’s considered an art house film. But it’s proven to be popular with audiences, having played more than a month in Wichita, Kansas, for example. One reason for this is its authentic portrayal of people. Its characters surprise us and draw us into their world.

Gordon Houser
The Mennonite
Other posts by Gordon Houser

Gordon Houser is associate editor of The Mennonite and writes a blog, Present Tense. He is also the author of a book Present Tense: A Mennonite Spirituality (Cascadia, 2011).

Star Trek Into Darkness - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 24 May 2013 07:00:00 EST

I am no Trekkie. In high school, I gave into peer pressure and pretended to be excited about renting a Star Trek movie and watching it in my friend’s basement. The TV show intrigued me, but the movies were never my first choice to rent at the video store. I’d sit quietly and eat my popcorn, but by the time the bugs began screaming in our heroes’ ears, or Captain Kirk started petting whales, I was wondering why we didn’t rent Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for the 10th time.

Splashy action is fine and dandy, but make no mistake, Into Darkness is a character-driven operation, and the non-action scenes prove to be more interesting than the action ones.

With all the Trek incarnations over the years, I can’t remember which Star Trek movies I’ve seen. The exceptions? I do know that I’ve seen the last two installments, the J. J. Abrams-directed prequels. I am finally on the Trek bandwagon with the newest entry, Star Trek Into Darkness.

2009’s version focused on the early Starfleet careers of the Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), among others. Into Darkness’s main strength is the continued development of the characters, especially the relationship between Kirk and Spock.

After Kirk ignores the orders of a mission in favor of saving Spock’s life, Spock reports Kirk’s technical error, which establishes a conflict between the two. Throughout the movie, Kirk’s brash, spontaneous, and pathos-driven personality clashes brilliantly with Spock’s calculated, intelligent, and unemotional take on life.

This tension fuels the movie as the two characters lead a mission to take out Khan, a well-established villain with roots in the original TV series as well as 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In the new version, Khan (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) is a tweener: a potentially trustworthy bad guy who has Kirk doubting his own allegiances. The U.S.S. Enterprise crew wrestles with issues of loyalty and morality, and a potential intergalactic war. The story plays out beautifully as Kirk, fueled by revenge, spars with Spock, who views the situation logically.

The movie marks a huge step up for the Spock character, who essentially becomes the coprotagonist with Kirk. No longer a sidekick, Spock is every bit as crucial to the film’s resolution as Kirk, if not more so.

One thing to improve upon in the next installment is the development of the Uhura character and stronger female roles in general. Uhura plays a key role in the film and adds intrigue as Spock’s love interest but she lacks enough screen time to make a true impact.

Even though Uhura is undervalued, she nonetheless adds spark to an already solid cast of characters aboard the enterprise, including Bones (Karl Urban), Sulu (John Cho), and Scotty (Simon Pegg). Between Bones’s overuse of metaphor and melodramatic diagnosis, Sulu’s cool-under-fire demeanor and Scotty’s goofy stubbornness, each crewmember adds a different emotional dynamic to the movie. This has always been a Star Trek hallmark, and even an update of computer-generated special effects doesn’t dwarf the characters. Splashy action is fine and dandy, but make no mistake, Into Darkness is a character-driven operation, and the non-action scenes prove to be more interesting than the action ones.

All of this bodes well for the future of the franchise, as well as the future of another beloved iconic series. Abrams is set to direct Star Wars Episode VII, and if he can reenergize Star Wars like he has Star Trek , then I may become a full-fledged science fiction fan yet.

3.5/4 stars. Rated PG-13 for action and violence.

Matthew Kauffman Smith
Independent
Other posts by Matthew Kauffman Smith

Matthew Kauffman Smith was formerly a part-time stay-at-home dad of two daughters in Portland, Ore. He is now working "more than full time" in middle management.

Iron Man 3 - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 17 May 2013 07:00:00 EST

In the midst of the Golden Age of Superhero Movies (i.e. now), it’s easy to feel men-in-capes fatigue. The success of The Avengers last summer only gave Marvel Studios more energy to sprout the rest of the tentacles they’ve had in mind all along—finish the Iron Man trilogy, give Captain America and Thor their sequels and even revisit the “gang’s all here” Avenger concept for another film.

One of the best things about the Iron Man movies is that anytime a scene seems too grandiose or heroic for its own good, humor arrives to cut the legs out from under all that top-heavy melodrama.

I had no expectations for Iron Man 3, and thus enjoyed watching it, which is probably the ideal way to experience this last full-strength dose of Tony Stark.

The self-described “man in a can” (played by Robert Downey Jr.) has been experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, brought on by events at the end of The Avengers. He works like a maniac to keep the attacks at bay, putting a strain on his relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and going without sleep for days on end. When a terrorist (Ben Kingsley) and the slick scientist in his pocket (Guy Pearce) take credit for a series of mysterious bombings, sleep-deprived Tony threatens revenge in his trademark blunt, mouthing-off fashion. This time, the retaliation is more than he can chew.

Remarkably, Tony spends most of the movie outside of his Iron Man suit, with nothing but his endlessly inventive brain to save him. This is what sets Iron Man 3 apart from other sequels with too many villains and too many special effects to leave room for heart and character. As Tony re-learns resourcefulness, he has to face the hard truth that villains aren’t always born; sometimes they’re created by the callous treatment of others—people like the man he used to be.

The supporting cast is solid, though they do nothing spectacular with their roles: as Pepper, Paltrow counters Downey Jr’s bantering lines like a seasoned verbal tennis pro, and Pearce mixes handsome and creepy with his trademark finesse. The exception is Ben Kingsley who takes his role as the villainous Mandarin and runs with it—sometimes in surprising directions. As for newcomers, Tony picks up an eight-year-old latchkey kid (Ty Simpkins) who mocks the “vulnerable kid sidekick” trope the same way Tony mocks his own role as anti-father figure. The combination is a delight.

If you enjoy action scenes with a healthy dose of humor laced throughout, Iron Man 3 doesn’t disappoint. Many of the stunts are spectacular, and inventive enough that it doesn’t matter that most of them are drawn with computers. One of the best things about the Iron Man movies is that anytime a scene seems too grandiose or heroic for its own good, humor arrives to cut the legs out from under all that top-heavy melodrama.

Ultimately, Iron Man 3 is a worthy, even mildly family-friendly send-off to a character who started the series as a calculating weapons manufacturer. All the jagged, hard-drinking playboy edges have been worn down—not smooth, but comfortable, and no longer sharp enough to cut. I know there’s mutterings of yet another Iron Man film after the aforementioned Avengers sequel, but it’s time to bid Iron Man goodbye. Even a shtick as funny as Tony’s gets thin after a while. Let’s let the “man in the can” rocket blast into the sunset with his girl at his side and a joke on his lips.

And don’t forget to stay through the credits for the extra scene. It’s a Marvel movie, remember?

Iron Man 3 is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content.

Michelle D. Sinclair
Independent
Other posts by Michelle D. Sinclair

Michelle D. Sinclair is an account executive in the advertising division of the Washington Post and attends Northern Virginia Mennonite Church.

Oblivion - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Thu, 9 May 2013 07:00:00 EST

The latest Tom Cruise effort (he’s in almost every scene) is a science fiction film written and directed by Joseph Kosinski (based on his graphic novel). Oblivion has received mixed but mediocre reviews from the critics, providing the kind of low expectations which almost always increase my appreciation for the film in question. Thus I was not disappointed. Indeed, for personal reasons (which shall be revealed below), Oblivion was one of the few films of 2013 (so far) which succeeded in captivating me.

I am inspired by Jack to look beyond the superficial truths in the world outside my own office window and wonder what is really going on in the world around me.

Oblivion relies heavily on twists and turns and the surprise factor, so I will reveal as little of the story as possible (less than the trailer, at any rate; how they could have given so much away for a film like this is a constant mystery to me). I will start with the setting for the film: In the near future, aliens attack the earth (by destroying the moon; why are the aliens in recent sci-fi films always hostile?). Humans win the war but what’s left of the earth is uninhabitable, so all surviving humans are evacuated to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons. Titan needs energy, which is supplied by humungous fusion reactors (called hydro-rigs) sucking up the earth’s oceans.

Jack (Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are the earth’s mop-up crew, assigned to maintaining the drones protecting the hydro-rigs from scavengers (the last surviving aliens). They report to Sally (Melissa Leo), who is located on a space station orbiting the earth and whose primary task seems to be to verify the effectiveness of the team on a daily basis. With only two weeks of their five-year assignment remaining, Jack and Victoria are enjoying their last days on earth. Jack is not sure he wants to leave the planet, barren though it may be. He is haunted by dreams of another woman and another time. Perhaps they are memories (Jack and Victoria had their memories wiped to ensure they could not reveal any information if captured).

It’s a very deliberate slow-paced start. While it reminded me a little too much of Wall-E, I think it’s the perfect way to begin this intelligent well-crafted story. The real action (and despite some mindless shootouts, this is thankfully not an action film) starts the day Jack spots a small ship crashing to earth and goes to investigate (despite protestations from Sally and Victoria). What he finds in that ship will change everything, and I will say no more about that.

While I wouldn’t call his performance outstanding, I have no complaints about Tom Cruise in the lead role. The two women who play Jack’s love interests (Riseborough and Olga Kurylenko) are well-cast and also perform commendably. The cinematography is outstanding and the score, while helping to give the film a distinct 80’s feel, is also very good.

So if Oblivion is an intelligent, well-made and well-acted film, what are the critics on about? Well, the truth is that Oblivion has its fair share of flaws. It may be intelligent, but it’s not original, stealing ideas from many better sci-fi films and in the process guaranteeing some inevitable predictability in the story (tempered by the fact that there are so MANY ideas involved, it’s impossible to predict all of them). Add to this what appears to me to be an implausible, if not entirely unsatisfactory, ending. But my biggest complaint is that Oblivion could have been so much better. It touches on many thought-provoking ideas but develops almost none of them, becoming the kind of shallow sci-fi film we have seen too much of in this century.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed Oblivion very much, primarily because of the one idea it did explore more fully. From the opening scene (Jack’s dream of another woman), we see a man who feels something is missing in his life. Like Neo in The Matrix, Jack also suspects that there are important truths about the world around him which have been hidden from him. His way of dealing with these mysteries is to have a huge secret of his own, which he hides even from Victoria. What motivates him to do this? And what motivates him to defy orders and put himself in danger by investigating the crashed ship? In my opinion, Jack is motivated by a deep need, or calling, to be part of a greater reality/truth than what he sees from his office window each day. Indeed, I believe Jack would willingly sacrifice his life to expose the truth and bring that greater reality into the light of day.

Without turning Jack into a Christ-figure (though I think the argument could be made), I am inspired by Jack to look beyond the superficial truths in the world outside my own office window and wonder what is really going on in the world around me. There is much which is hidden from us, much that is not what it appears to be. It was Jesus’ mission to open the eyes of the blind, to show people what was really going on in the world and who God really is. Those who follow Jesus are called to continue his mission. Like Jack, I wake up every morning with the need to expose reality to the light of truth, but am I willing to take the risks Jack took to accomplish that task?

Oblivion is lightweight sci-fi and by no means a great film, but I’ve seen a lot worse. If you’re a Cruise fan or a sci-fi fan, you’ll want to give it a look, with your expectations held in check.

Oblivion is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and brief strong language.

No - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 3 May 2013 07:00:00 EST

In September 1973, the Chilean military overthrew the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed Augusto Pinochet as dictator. During Pinochet’s seventeen years in power, thousands of dissidents were tortured and killed and poverty skyrocketed.

My biggest complaint, however, is the way the film depressed me by focusing on the power of marketing as an election tool.

Bowing to international pressure, Pinochet organized a plebiscite in 1988 to ask the people of Chile whether he should continue in power for another eight years, even granting the “NO” campaign fifteen minutes of TV airtime a day (followed by fifteen minutes for the “YES” campaign) for 27 days leading up to the plebiscite. But most people, regardless of their opinion on the matter, assumed the result was a foregone conclusion and that this was all being done for show.

Chilean filmmaker Pablo Larrain’s film No, which was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars this year, dramatizes the efforts of the “NO” campaign during those 27 days. It reveals how an advertising man (Rene Saavedra, played very well by Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal) was hired to oversee the TV spots, turning them from dire accounts of Pinochet’s misdeeds to a joyful celebration (“Happiness is coming!”). The film focuses on Saavedra, interspersing his work on the campaign with scenes of his personal life (involving his ex-wife and their young son). Saavedra’s boss, afraid of the consequences of openly working against Pinochet’s rule, puts pressure on Saavedra to stop working with the “NO” campaign and efforts are made to intimidate Saavedra, but Saavedra is strongly opposed to the Pinochet government and perseveres to the end, even leading huge rallies just before the vote is taken. The result, which is a matter of history so not technically a spoiler, is that the “NO” side wins, 56 percent to 44 percent.

No has received almost unanimous critical acclaim, praised for its innovative style, its period detail, its brilliant writing, its great acting and its authentic portrayal of a pivotal moment in history. While I agree that No is an important well-made film, and that it works brilliantly as a media satire, my own response to the film was one of depressed disappointment.

Some of that disappointment relates to the filmmaking itself. The entire film was shot to look like 1980’s Chilean TV, featuring a grainy fuzzy look with muted colours. In other words, it looks ugly. I understand Larrain’s reasons for doing this and No does feel more real (almost like a documentary) as a result. I don’t particularly appreciate this kind of innovative cinematography, but found it only mildly distracting. The problem with this camera work is that the film contains about a half hour of TV footage (“YES” and “NO” ads) that look exactly like the rest of the film. A number of times, I was unsure where the TV spots ended and where the story continued. This adds to the confusion of what is in many ways a confusing film. I found the debates within the NO team, the strategies of the NO team, the assessment of the success of those strategies and the background of the voting day and process all to be unclear and confusing. When added to what I thought was a rather dull domestic story and poorly constructed “work” story, I certainly have to question the brilliance of the writing.

A film about this pivotal moment in history should be inspiring and full of dramatic tension. It should make me want to scream and/or shout and/or cry. But I was never really engaged in the lives of the characters or in the process of the NO campaign.

My biggest complaint, however, is the way the film depressed me by focusing on the power of marketing as an election tool. By shifting the “NO” ads away from issues and principles to a simple advertising jingle, this great advertising genius (Saavedra) supposedly changed the course of history, not only in Chile but in elections around the world. Yes, there was an appropriate satirical element to this emphasis on marketing, but the message still seemed to be that marketing works, that without this marketing, the “YES” campaign would have won the day. I challenge this assumption.

The film’s biggest flaw was its failure to approach this pivotal day from the perspective of the average person in Chile. I failed to see the evidence which linked the “NO” ads to the unexpected voter turnout or to the opinions of those voters. There was a major grassroots movement to bring out the voters. How do we know this movement would not have succeeded in ousting Pinochet even if the “NO” TV campaign had featured issues instead of songs? It is this failure to connect to the people of Chile which, for me, robbed No of its power to inspire.

The success of the “NO” campaign in Chile in 1988 was a great victory for democracy and human rights. But insofar as it was primarily a victory for the power of the advertising industry in politics, it could also be viewed as a sad defeat. Do we really want to promote the idea that elections boil down to which party has the best marketing analysts and tools? I hope not.

No is rated R for language (undeservedly so).

Searching for Sugar Man - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:00:00 EST

I first heard Rodriguez’s song “Sugar Man” in 2009 on a podcast. (Rodriquez goes by Rodriguez name although born Sixto Diaz Rodriquez.)

The movie’s simple formula of following the narrative and mixing it with a soundtrack of Rodriguez’s music is part of the movie’s charm; there is no need for hyperbole when the story stands strong on its own.

Though I had never heard “Sugar Man” before, it sounded like an iconic song, a classic that I thought I should already know. I immediately purchased his album Cold Fact, and quickly learned that I wasn’t the only one who hadn’t heard of him. In fact, the Detroit singer/songwriter released two albums in the early 70s that exhibited provocative songwriting but failed to inspire anyone to buy his records.

What I didn’t know was that Rodriguez was a cult figure in South Africa, selling half a million copies of Cold Fact. Again, I wasn’t alone. Rodriguez himself had no idea that thousands of miles away he was an icon, a symbol of anti-establishment for white South Africans growing up in the midst of apartheid. Meanwhile, back in Detroit, Rodriguez transitioned from music to working construction and never earned royalties from his superstardom in South Africa.

Rodriguez’s legend grew in South Africa despite the fact that there was no information about him in the pre-Internet age. Because his career fizzled Stateside, Rodriguez never embarked on a world tour. That added to the legend for South African fans, who believed rumors that Rodriguez killed himself on stage either by gunshot or by setting himself on fire. Finally, when the Internet age hit, a music journalist made a list of big questions he wanted to answer. The last one on his list was: how did Rodriguez die?

The journey to answer this question, along with its surprising results, fuels the documentary Searching for Sugar Man. Though the movie came out last year, it is new to DVD and has gained momentum thanks to winning the Academy Award for best documentary feature. The movie’s simple formula of following the narrative and mixing it with a soundtrack of Rodriguez’s music is part of the movie’s charm; there is no need for hyperbole when the story stands strong on its own.

While simply following the chronology of the story, the movie lets the real-life mystery and unexpected plot twists unfold for the viewer. We hear from the producers of the first two albums, we hear from the people he influenced, we see the journalist start to uncover information. We see Rodriguez fade away only to re-emerge decades later. The result is an organic, feel-good Hollywood story without the Hollywood glitz. The movie mirrors Rodriguez himself: it is unassuming, genuine, and without fanfare. Rodriguez generally lets his music and lyrics speak for themselves, and the movie lets the story speak for itself. Rodriguez isn’t naturally charismatic, so the filmmakers wisely focus on the story and not the man. By the time we actually meet Rodriguez, we are already invested in his story.

Since Rodriguez made the interview rounds when the movie came out and during Academy Awards season, I’m not giving anything away when I reveal that Rodriguez has finally found the success that eluded him four decades ago. In fact, just three days after watching the movie, I won tickets to see him play this weekend at a sold-out show at a 2,000-seat venue in Portland. He will be playing A man in front of more people in at one show in 2013 than bought his records in the whole country in 1970. That’s a good story, one that a well-made documentary captures as well as any piece of fiction.

3.5/4 stars. Rated PG-13 for some language and drug references.

Matthew Kauffman Smith
Independent
Other posts by Matthew Kauffman Smith

Matthew Kauffman Smith was formerly a part-time stay-at-home dad of two daughters in Portland, Ore. He is now working "more than full time" in middle management.

42 - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:00:00 EST

Jackie Robinson’s push through baseball’s color barrier is a gripping story all on its own, so it stands to reason that any feature film on the subject could play it straight and still have a good story on its hands.

These are the things that brought crowds to the ballpark, the images that capture our imagination and draw us to the theater with our childhoods in hand.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers of 42 also played it a little too safe, with the result that an otherwise enjoyable movie leaves an overwrought aftertaste alongside the triumph.

World War II has ended, and African-American soldiers are returning from fighting oppression abroad to find that little has changed for them on the home front. Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey (an excellent Harrison Ford) has an idea to revolutionize baseball by integrating it, and he knows exactly the kind of black ballplayer he needs: a man of character, someone supremely talented and tough enough to fight segregation by not fighting back. He lands on Jack Robinson (Chadwick Boseman) a young WWII vet tearing up baseball’s Negro Leagues.

Jackie’s part of the story shares a great deal of screen time with his relationship with his wife, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), which is an affecting portrayal of marriage as a partnership, but also begins to feel as glossy as a Hallmark card. By contrast, the Robinson couple’s experiences with Jim Crow laws in the pre-Civil Rights South strike deeper chords, lending context to the harsh, conflicted attitudes of Jackie’s white teammates.

Much of the movie focuses on how attitudes change—or refuse to—as Jackie carves a place for himself and future athletes in mainstream professional sports. It illustrates how new generations learn racism at their parents’ knees, and how even the most “hopeless” cases can learn to see the person instead of the differences. The film also doesn’t flinch from showing that for some people, racism is a lifelong condition.

Fortunately, the verbal abuse and hate letters Jack received in real life get some much-needed screen time. Racist vitriol is difficult to watch, but this is our history as Americans, and it lends grit to a film that otherwise lacks the veracity of the Robinson chapter in Ken Burns’ landmark Baseball documentary. The film also could have delved deeper into Jackie Robinson as a person. It says nothing of the lifelong effect the abuse and stress of not fighting back had on Robinson’s health, and how—in a sense—he gave his life for this cause. He died of a heart attack at the age of 53, much earlier than many of his contemporaries.

The actual hate crimes that were a fact of life for black Americans in those days only appear as threats, but to be fair, there’s only so much room in a two hour film when Robinson himself would undoubtedly prefer the focus to be on baseball.

And as a baseball movie, 42 delivers the goods. The crack of the bat, the rust at Spring Training, the glorious tension of watching Jackie ease from first base on the tips of his toes—his fingers flexing, his eyes glued to the pitcher he’s about to outduel. These are the things that brought crowds to the ballpark, the images that capture our imagination and draw us to the theater with our childhoods in hand.

The film can be slow as baseball, but it’s an enjoyable way to pass a few hours, and if it sweeps the cobwebs off what Jackie Robinson’s feat meant to this country, then it is a success indeed.

42 is rated PG-13 for thematic elements and language.

Michelle D. Sinclair
Independent
Other posts by Michelle D. Sinclair

Michelle D. Sinclair is an account executive in the advertising division of the Washington Post and attends Northern Virginia Mennonite Church.

Quartet and A Late Quartet - Movies from Weekly Reviews

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:00:00 EST

By pure coincidence, 2013 started with the release of two films containing the word quartet in their titles. One takes place in rural England, the other in the heart of New York City; one is a light comedy drama, the other is serious; both feature a marvellous ensemble of actors playing musicians who are struggling with friendship and the impact of aging.

Growing old in a community is better.

Quartet, directed by Dustin Hoffman (his directorial debut) and written by Ronald Harwood, concerns the residents of a gorgeous English manor (surrounded by a gorgeous English countryside) called the Beecham House, a home for retired musicians. Cedric (played by Michael Gambon) has put himself in charge of the annual fundraising gala/concert. When a once-famous opera singer (Jean, played by Maggie Smith) moves into Beecham House, Cedric comes up with the idea of having four former opera singers perform the famous quartet from Verdi’s Rigoletto at the gala.

While this description sums up the simple background plot of Quartet, it does not tell us what the film is really about. This is a good thing, because that background plot is both implausible and predictable, while the real story has many moments of humor and intelligence and even a few moments that are unexpected. That real story is about the relationships between the four musicians in question and it is fuelled by the wonderful performances of veteran British actors still at the top of their game.

The men in the foursome are Reginald and Wilf (Tom Courtenay and Billy Connolly). Reginald was once married to Jean and has never forgiven her, so her arrival is deeply unsettling. Wilf refuses to age and flirts with all the women, but he is a keen observer of life and his words are the truest in the film. The women are Cissy (Pauline Collins) and Jean. Cissy is struggling with mental illness and Jean, while ready to reconcile with Reginald, can’t let go of the past either: “You must understand, I was someone once.” So Jean wants nothing to do with the quartet and Reginald wants nothing to do with Jean. With Cissy forgetting where she is and Wilf being Wilf, is there any hope for the performance of the quartet?

Quartet may be a light, unrealistic, and forgettable film, but it is also a beautiful, funny, and inspiring story about the meaning and importance of friendship and community as people grow old together. Far too many people in our society are growing old alone. Whatever the challenges, growing old in a community is better.

A Late Quartet is a very different kind of film but also deals with the challenges of aging among four musicians who have been friends for a long time. Indeed, they have been playing together for 25 years as a famous string quartet (two violins, a viola and a cello). Peter is the oldest of the musicians and the quartet’s father figure. When he is diagnosed with Parkinson’s, it precipitates one crisis after another and soon the close-knit group (which includes a married couple—Robert and Juliette) begins to unravel.

Peter, a music teacher who is much wiser when speaking to his students than he is in dealing with his own struggles, is played to perfection by Christopher Walken. In spite of his struggles, Peter remains the calm center of the quartet when the other three members begin fighting. Robert and Juliette are played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Catherine Keener, who are also outstanding (as usual). The last member of the quartet is Daniel, played well by Mark Ivanir. The only other character of note is Robert and Juliette’s daughter, Alexandra, played by Imogen Poots.

A Late Quartet is a well-paced drama full of intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue and beautiful scenes that, as in Quartet, highlight the importance of friendship and community in the midst of strained relationships and the anxieties of aging. There’s a lot of pain in these scenes but working through the challenges of relationship are worth the efforts involved.

As one might expect, the score of A Late Quartet is excellent (the actors don’t actually play the score, but they were well-trained to look like they do). The cinematography is also very good. Directed by Yaron Zilberman, A Late Quartet is an independent film which unfortunately flew under the radar (it’s now available on DVD).

A Late Quartet is a better film than Quartet and I recommend it very highly. I also recommend Quartet, especially to those of you who are retired. Quartet has played in the same theater in Winnipeg for months, outlasting even a few blockbusters, because of its strong appeal among older viewers.

Quartet is rated PG-13 for brief strong language. A Late Quartet is rated R for language and some sexuality.