Category: Film

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two — This movie was definitely the highlight of my film-viewing experience this summer. Bailey and I went to see it at 12:07 a.m. on opening day. The energy in the theater was amazing despite the fact that we weren’t in costume. The film itself, however, was amazing. Rare is the adaptation which only adds to your appreciate for the book, but I walked out with one phrase resounding in my head “J.K. Rowling is a freakin’ genius!” The filmmakers did a wonderful job changing things enough as to keep it interesting without losing the heart of the story. Brilliant!

The Dilemma — I went into this one a bit skeptical but on the recommendation of a fellow church member and a love for Vince Vaughn’s hometown humor, I gave it a shot. It wasn’t great but it wasn’t bad either. Casting is huge for me and I thought Kevin James, while a funny guy, was a bit off. Winona Ryder was way off as James’ wife. I love that Vaughn attempts to mix humor with bigger issues in a way that doesn’t detract from or trivialize the issues at hand. This was a poor man’s Couples Retreat but definitely worth the Redbox rental.

Charlie St. Cloud — I have never watched High School Musical all the way through so I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Zac Efron. He seems to be the rare exception among young actors in that he can actually act. Despite knowing much of the premise going in, this movie touched me and even had the kids tearing up as I retold the G-rated version on a long car ride to the pool. I wanted to give Efron’s love interest a sandwich, as she appeared so emaciated and kept wondering where Kim Basinger (who plays his mother) had wandered off to after the opening scene of the film. Otherwise, a really good flick.

Pacific — We are back it with our seemingly unquenchable thirst for WWII films. I have only watched the first episode of this companion to Band of Brothers, but so far it reminds me a bit of the Baldwin brothers:  Sure Billy is ugly but you can’t stop yourself from comparing him to Alec (the young Alec who wasn’t overweight and in need of anger management counseling). While Band of Brothers was patient and meticulous in its character development, this feels more rushed and heavy handed. Not bad enough to keep me from watching the next episode, but I am not willing to make it through the entire series, especially with Masterpiece Theater starting up again soon.

Honorable Mentions — “What Would You Do?”:  Can’t stop watching it! Completely addicted and without any desire to kick the habit. “Masterpiece Theater Mystery: Zen”: It’s set in Italy and everyone speaks in English accents. What’s not to love? Could do without the adultery, but it is Italy after all.

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

Winter Light — I will do this one first in an attempt to appear artsy and informed. I don’t know why I love Bergman since he and I are definitely not riding on the same worldview train. He is so good in his wrongness, though. And this one is no exception. Bleak, dreary and cold, I am glad I waited until the weather turned here before watching it. Otherwise, I might have just laid down on the tracks and gotten it over with.

Black Swan — Someday I am going to invent a mental eraser and this film will be one of the first to go. Of course, I have no one to blame but myself. Unless you have been living under a rock, you knew this one is not the feel good movie of the year. This is an interesting counter-point to Winter Light. Both see life as meaningless and yet Bergman seems more truthful in his depiction of life without hope, while Darren Aronofsky seems to exploit the darkness in a cheap and inauthentic way. Jim was shocked when I said I still think Natalie Portman can’t act but maybe that is just because my boys have subjected me to one too many viewing of Phantom Menace.

Rabbit Hole — I really expected not to like this film, but try as I might, I actually did. I am seeing an interesting pattern of Nihilism in my recent viewings but this was definitely the most hopeful of the three. My only major beef is with the casting. Apparently, Hollywood has decided not to cast aging actresses in age appropriate roles in order to keep young actresses playing sex pots. So the aging one play mommy roles for which they are a decade past ripe. I don’t think Nicole Kidman did a bad job (or Aaron Eckhart for that matter). I just kept staring at her face, trying to figure out why she had ruined it.  

BBC Smorgasbord — While winter was refusing to loose its grip on my corner of the world, I curled up in my comfy bed and watched more Masterpiece Mystery than can possibly be good for one’s brain. I highly recommend Masterpiece Sherlock Holmes which is set in the modern day and combines witty discourse with a good thriller. I was very disappointed with South Riding, which was just released by Masterpiece Classics and starred Anna Maxwell Martin (Bleak House). It ends abruptly which I could have stood for had it not also ended badly. Doesn’t the BBC realize I am depending on them to counterbalance all this Nihilism? All I ask for is some pretty costumes and a tidy love story. Collision is a bit of a mixed bag, as if South Riding and Sherlock Holmes were in, well, a collision. A good mystery with some misguided romance.

The Fighter — Really liked this one though Jim says the fighting was unrealistic and I could have done without seeing quite so much of Amy Adams’ rear end. I don’t know what it is about based-on-true-story films involving sports, but I love them and this represented the genre well.

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

The Social Network — Just when you think Hollywood has breathed its last, it coughs up something as well done as Social Network. The sexual content seems thrown in for “fun” but otherwise I can’t think of anything bad to say about this movie. Perfectly cast, well acted, and the editing is brilliant. I am not usually a fan of flashing between the past and present, but this style added energy and the filmmakers refrained from winking at the audience in anticipation of future events. While I felt entirely confirmed in my aversion to Facebook, I am definitely this film’s friend.

The Double Lives of Veronique — Over the years I have learned to decode certain phrases that adorn film covers. Erotic means “more boobs than the French Riviera in summer.” Enigmatic means “nearly incomprehensible.” I can take an erotic film if it is boobs with meaning and therefore light on the incomprehensible bits or vice versa, but I don’t care for a film that is both at once. I had high hopes for this film from the director of the Red, White and Blue series as well as Decalogue. Maybe I lack the intelligence to understand it, or maybe I am a prude, or maybe I am an unintelligent prude. But this one had me scratching my head and blushing at the same time. This movie’s arrival at our home was a result of my resolution to watch more high quality films this year. Guess I’ll have go back to films in my native tongue.

A Room With a View (2007 TV Version) — I have so little to say about this poorly directed, ugly stepsister of the original Merchant and Ivory production, I have already said too much. Not only is this movie unworthy of even a Redbox rental (the one star, thumb tilting down rating at the Spiegel household), I wouldn’t bother checking it out of my local library if the librarian pulled it off the shelf for me and forcibly placed it in my bag. If this is the best view they have, call the bellboy cuz I’m checking out.

Downton Abbey — High art it may not be, but it has many other qualities I admire: a) it is being released in January and I live in Indiana where other forms of entertainment include “Spot the Longest Icicle” and “Whose Nose Hair Froze the Fastest”; b) the actors are British, wear period clothing and stroll through picturesque backdrops that scream of Darcy and Miss Bennett; and c) did I mention it is winter in Indiana? True, one is forced to sit through the obnoxiously condescending introductory mini-lectures by actors who, if lucky, have only a high school diploma and impeccable cheekbones as proof of their superior intellect. I suppose it makes me a political hypocrite to love Masterpiece Theater in all its overly subsidized glory. But despite its being a slap in the face of the free market, when given the choice of watching well-produced, well-acted masterpieces with slightly disguised political overtones or watching poorly-produced, poorly-acted duds with overt political overtones, I’m going with the socialists on this one.

Honorable Mentions: Lost: Season Six—Finally finished it. I don’t think it was a good thing that I had to turn to Google in order to understand the ending. Too many unanswered questions for me but overall worth the ride.  Undercover Boss—I’m a big fan of this show; cry every single time. Night Train to Munich—A great classic WWII thriller.

Posted on

What’s Your Angle on Tangled?

By Amy Spiegel

In the Spiegel household, the highest honor a film can receive is being deemed “Theater Visit Worthy.” Over Christmas break, we actually found two such worthy films, each appealing to different age groups within our clan. Jim took the older kids to see Voyage of the Dawn Treader while I, fearing I had drawn the short straw, took the younger ones to see Tangled. Our daughter especially wanted to see the latest Disney feature and since she doesn’t often express interest in movies, I looked forward to taking her and her younger brother with a mixture of excitement and fear. I was excited to experience one of my favorite art forms with her and yet fearful that it would be a disappointment. I have a long-standing prejudice against Disney, which too often skimps on creativity in favor of politically correct drivel. In this case, however, my fear was entirely unfounded.

A few weeks later, a friend and I were discussing Tangled when she expressed her disappointment at having discovered a highly critical online review of the film. Curious regarding the reviewer’s criticisms, I went home to Google her cleverly titled review, “Mangled.” As I read, it was strange to see s someone who espouses many of the same basic principles I hold applying them in ways I couldn’t disagree with more. (Here is Andrea Reins’ review.) Were we to sit down over a cuppa, I am quite certain I would find I have more common ground with her than I do with the creators of Tangled. I desire to follow, and pray that my daughter follows as well, a biblical model of womanhood. I believe that maintaining a home for your family is one of the most important and rewarding vocations a woman can undertake. And so on. However, when it comes to Tangled and, I would suspect how the principles of biblical womanhood are played out in our lives as wives and mothers, Ms. Reins and I part company. Here are three basic points of disagreement I have with her analysis:

1) Ms. Reins proposes that the film encourages the false idea that rebellion brings happiness and that just as her kidnapper sins in stealing her from her family, Rapunzel sins by disobeying the woman she believes to be her mother. Rapunzel is a prisoner, trapped by the lies and vanity of one of the movie’s villains, Mother Gothel. Gothel steals Rapunzel away from her real family in order to maintain a youthful appearance. Rapunzel’s real parents are portrayed as loving and steadfast. Rather than remaining a slave to vanity and selfish manipulation, Rapunzel is given the chance of experiencing a healthy family life. What’s not to love about that? Ms. Reins asserts that the film communicates that duty equals bondage. I say the film communicates that duty to the wrong people (or ideas) equals bondage. Perhaps the filmmakers and I would disagree as to what the wrong people and ideas are, but they show restraint in that regard and I appreciate it.

2) Ms. Reins hates that the thief, Flynn, gets the girl in the end. I say “What about redemption?” Flynn proves himself trustworthy and selfless. The movie even implies that their marriage isn’t immediate which is one of my fairy tale pet peeves. “How can they live happily ever after when they have seen each other like three times and maybe sung a song or two?”

3) Finally, Ms. Reins criticizes the film’s portrayal of Rapunzel as an emancipated woman who can take care of herself. I would be curious to know Ms. Reins’ views on other Disney princesses who are more passive than most coma victims. Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are, in fact, comatose. Rapunzel has been raised by Gothel to fear the world outside of her tower, however once she leaves she discovers the world has many joys and wonders to experience, along with sorrows and disappointments. Jim and I have no intention of throwing our children to the wolves of the world but neither do we wish to see them fearful of engaging it. I love the fact that Rapunzel kicks some serious b-u-t-t with a frying pan. I pray that my daughter will one day be as fearless, confident in the truth we have instilled in her heart.

My approach has always been to evaluate movies first as art and then as moral statements. It saves time in that often movies are so bad aesthetically (Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, The Notebook) that we need not bother with their theology. In my opinion, Tangled is a great film, creative and well written. Morally and theologically, do I agree with everything it puts forth? No, but that’s what critical thinking skills and time around the dinner table are for. It is through discussing these ideas with our children that we arm our children with the shield of faith, perhaps in the shape of a frying pan.

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2010

By Jim Spiegel

It’s been another exciting year, and we want to thank you all for reading and, if applicable, posting comments on our blog.  Once again, we would like to close out the year with some summary remarks about good and bad stuff related to film, music, books, politics, and family.

Best Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  Shutter Island and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  Though these are films in different genres, they are both superbly directed, well-acted, and have compelling stories.  And both films successfully transport the viewer into an alternate reality (or two).  But while Shutter Island leaves you questioning your perception of the world, Dawn Treader inspires you with the hope of transcending it.  Oh, and Toy Story 3 was brilliant, too—transporting the viewer in still another way.
  • Amy:  No Man of Her Own, Emma, and Tangled. In reviewing my viewing choices this year, I must acknowledge that my standards have lowered a bit this year.  These films are a bit more movie than film but great nonetheless.  No Man is a fab film noir starring Barbara Stanwyck.  While there are enough adaptations of Jane Austen’s Emma to sink the Titanic, this one is excellently done and it’s two discs long!  I just took our two youngsters to Tangled a few days ago as an act of love and ended up laughing (and crying) along with them.

Worst Film Experiences:

  • Jim:  This is an easy call: Greenberg.  What a colossal waste of time.  Yet, this reviewer at A.V. Club recommended it, while admitting that this film, like all of director Noah Baumbach’s comedies, is “plotless, self-consciously literary, and populated by characters who flat-out suck from the time they roll out of the bed until they angrily switch out the lights at night.”  He’s right about that much.  But he also finds the film to be “hilarious” and “a pleasure to look at.”  I wonder if we watched the same film.
  • Amy:  Inception.  Maybe this film doesn’t deserve to be called the worst I watched, but it was such a disappointment that I am placing it in the worst experience category.  I anticipated a smart and mind-bending experience.  What I got was an action movie with a side-serving of love story.  I actually fast-forwarded several sections of shoot-me-up.  A close second is The Last Air Bender.  I only make it second because I couldn’t actually make myself watch this much anticipated live action version of our most beloved Nickelodeon show.  I had heard it was awful and made the kids watch it.  Even they hated it.  M. Knight Shyamalan, you’re killing me!

Best and Worst Musical Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  Josh Ritter’s So Runs the World Away and Arcade Fire’s The Suburbs.  I actually purchased both of these CDs on the same day, so I spent the next month in musical bliss, bathing in the musical beauty.  For the most part, I avoided stinkers, due mainly to my careful research before purchasing new music.  But what I could not avoid was hearing the Black Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling” everywhere I went.  Blecch!
  • Amy:  I am starting to sense a pattern of shallowness in my aesthetic sense this year.  I am sensing a New Year’s resolution coming on. Anyhoo, my musical selections were mostly limited to good workout music (“Stuck to You” by Nikka Costa, “Strip Me” by Natasha Bedingfield and “The Way I Are” by Timbaland).  I have just purchased albums by Rosanne Cash and Emmylou Harris, which I hope to enjoy in the New Year.

Jim’s Favorite Sports Moment of the Year: Two of my three favorite NFL teams playing in the Super Bowl.  Well, the run-up to the Super Bowl was actually more satisfying than the game itself, which at times felt like watching my kids fight.  I was sad for my Colts but thrilled for my Saints, with whom I have suffered as a fan since the early 1980s.  Who Dat!!!

Jim’s Most Disappointing Sports Moment of the Year: All of the LeBron James summer free agency hype, culminating in an hour-long ESPN James announcement TV special.  LeTacky and LeShameless.  My interest in the NBA and respect for ESPN have declined faster than the U.S. economy.

Amy’s Best Eating Experience of the Year: While attending a conference with Jim in Atlanta, we “attempted” to visit the Atlanta Art Museum.  We sighed with regret as we took an afternoon siesta and mumbled something about going to the Art Museum.  We didn’t make it to the museum, but we did make it to the restaurant adjacent to the Museum.  I had rabbit with pumpkin ravioli.  That’s right—rabbit and let me tell you, Bugs Bunny was tasty!

Amy’s Worst Eating Experience of the Year: If we are talking overall experience, it would have to be an ill-fated family trip to Cracker Barrel.  The bad side was the service, which was horrible and slow; also, the food was cold and the manager snapped at me when I pointed this out.  The up side was that, in the end, our dinner was on the house.  I also hosted a dinner party at which I unfortunately served grey soup; not a shining moment in my culinary career.

Satisfying Reads of the Year:

  • Jim:  Howard Storm’s My Descent into Death was the most engrossing and inspiring book I’ve read in years (see my May 30 post).  Keaton, the classic Buster Keaton biography by Rudi Blesh, was also excellent (see my August 8 post).  I also enjoyed numerous short stories by Flannery O’Connor.
  • Amy:  The Help by Kathryn Stockett and The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie by Alan Bradley were both great book club selections this year.  I spent a good part of the year reading books with Bailey and Maggie so for tween boys I recommend the Gregor the Overlander series or Mr. Popper’s Penguins and The Moffats.

Political High Point of the Year: Kicking (a lot of) the bums out of Congress in November.  We’ll see how many of these newly elected folks turn out to be bums as well.

Political Low Points of the Year: Amy’s low point was the day after the November elections when she had the sinking feeling that all the newly elected Senators and Representatives would prove to be just as disappointing as the bums that we threw out.  Jim’s low point was the passing of Obamacare in March.  Already two U.S. District Court judges have struck down part of the health care law as unconstitutional (portending much bigger legal wrangling to come).  What a mess.

Good 2010 Memories of Our Kids:

  • Bailey learning to play guitar and his ability to imitate us with frightening accuracy.
  • Watching Sam finish first in the Fairmount James Dean race for his age group
  • Maggie having her first spend-the-night at a friend’s house.  Coincidentally, this was also the quietest night of the year at the Spiegels.
  • Andrew declaring himself the “King of Potato Wedges,” among other things.  He also is now fully potty trained—a major family milestone, to be sure.

Favorite Backyard Adventures of the Year:

  • Jim:  Installing a zip-line and watching the kids’ creative uses of it (not including Sam’s inadvertent back flip and landing on his shoulders)
  • Amy:  The raised bed in which we planted cucumbers, carrots, and onions.  The cucumbers dominated impressively.

Most Satisfying Shared Experiences of the Year:

  • Jim:  Eating at the 1280 Restaurant in Atlanta—the $18 scallops were worth every bite (which is saying a lot, as they averaged out to over $3.00 per bite).
  • Amy:  Any of our several family bike rides—the back of my bike is finally toddler free!  A close second was the camping trip the kids and I took to Indiana Dunes State Park.  I was so proud of myself for going, proud of the kids for being such troupers and amazed at the beauty of Lake Michigan.

New Year’s Resolutions:

  • Jim:  To read ten books in New Testament and historical Jesus studies; also to stop biting my nails (without having to forego following sports).
  • Amy:  To run a 10K race and read at least six books by C.S. Lewis (and not just his fiction).

Happy 2011 everyone!

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

No Man of Her Own (1950) — I am happy to start of this month’s Snaphots with something positive to say. No qualifiers, no exceptions, no “I liked this movie aside from the writing, directing and acting.” Of course, in order to achieve this state of cinematic bliss, I had to watch a movie that was over fifty years old. No Man of Her Own had me literally on the edge of my seat, breathless to know how it was going to end. If you haven’t seen much Barbara Stanwyck, who stars as Helen the hopeless unwed mother, you are missing out. If you need more inducement, this film is based on the novel by Cornell Woolrich who also authored Rear Window. No Man of Her Own is not especially deep, but its a great illustration of something that author Marilynn Robinson has said: “…one lapse of judgment can quickly create a situation in which only foolish choices are possible.” (Related recommendation: The Lady Eve for a more comic side of Stanwyck)

Robin Hood (2010) — You knew it was too good to be true with that first review, so this one brings us back to reality. I can’t say that I expected this movie to be good but I at least wanted it to be good. I feel an unexplainable desire to see Russell Crowe do well, kind of like the corner deli that isn’t very good but you still go there out of principle because you really like the owners. Two things in particular bother me about this film: First, why does Hollywood consistently cast actors in roles that they are just too old for? Are the pickings so slim we need to have twenty-five year olds playing high schoolers and fortyish “Maid” Marions? Second, here’s a thought: if you want to tell a modern story of liberated women and unconventional heroes, don’t set your film in the Middle Ages. Just a suggestion. All in all, this one was hardly worth the Redbox rental; I had to repeatedly stop folding laundry in order to fast forward the boring bits.

Babies — If you haven’t heard of this one, here is the basic premise: film crews capture the first year of four babies from four countries. No narration and very little dialogue. Just babies. I know it sounds boring and the last twenty minutes or so do drag a bit, but it is amazing how entertaining human beings can be even when they incapable of speech, or even of holding themselves upright. What is most intriguing about this film is that one naturally compares the varying parenting styles. The filmmakers allow you to see the beauty of each one without really judging. A truly well-done documentary, even if it is a little boring toward the end.

Mentions: I Love Lucy: one of the boys recently discovered the show. I had forgotten how funny it is. The Endurance: fascinating documentary of Antarctic explorers trapped in an ice flow and their struggle to return home.

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

Date Night—I suppose it’s corny, but I love that this movie was about a married couple’s date night, all be it a nightmarish one. And Jim and I, along with untold thousands of other married couples watched it for a date night. I l-o-v-e Steve Carell, but you know only in that he’s a movie star and I am a happily married woman kind of way. As a fan, I was delighted not to be disappointed. Date Night captures all of the absurdities of married life yet affirms the joys of commitment and trust. Like the friend who will tell you when you have spinach in your teeth or when those pants really do make you look fat, it’s the truth but spoken in love, Date Night is an honest portrayal without any cynicism or mockery. Oh, and it’s also a great action-adventure flick. Loved it, loved it, loved it.

World At War—Jim and I have been slowly making our way through the series and so far there has been only one installment I didn’t find riveting. I have watched my share of documentaries on the subject but this series has brought me greater insight to the scope and magnitude of the hostilities. One of the things I love most about this series is the editing; organizationally, it is brilliantly laid out. Rather than telling the entire story chronologically, each aspect of the war is covered individually, giving you time to connect with those who experienced, say, the home front or island warfare in the South Pacific. This method helped to bring home to me the fact that for all these people involved in World War II, each experience was unique. Being 26-hours long, it is not for the faint of heart. But its well-worth the watching.

Greenberg—Ugh. I am willing to wade through a great deal of crap for the sake of art, but sometimes as the credits roll, you find only crap. While I appreciate the performances of Ben Stiller and Greta Gerwig, I just didn’t buy this film which spent about ninety minutes of my life that I will never get back trying to convince me that Stiller’s character is a selfish and unpleasant person, only to transform him in the final three (okay, I didn’t time it exactly, but the scene is brief). I dislike the manipulation of characters to fit the story and this is precisely what director Noah Baumbach did.

The Last Song—This movie left me asking two questions. First, when is someone going to figure out that Miley Cyrus cannot act, no matter how great her abs are or how tight her other assets. Her performance reminds me of when, as a teenager, I practiced various facial expressions in the mirror; in other words, it is self-conscious and awkward. My second question is when is someone going to figure out that Nicholas Sparks is a bad writer. I hate to pick on fans of The Notebook and Message In A Bottle, but just because someone always dies in the end, it doesn’t make it good art. It just makes it depressing and bad.

Mentions, both honorable and dishonorable: Killers—Worthy of a Redbox rental but glad I didn’t give it a slot on the ole Netflix queue. The Backup Plan—ideologically, I completely disagree with the whole single mom making babies via artificial insemination thing, but this was the quintessential guilty pleasure flick. Finally, let me give a shout to my new folding laundry (and washing dishes with 40 minutes to kill) TV show, Bones.  More rotting corpses than you can shake a stick at. But if you can stomach the death and decay, its an entertaining watch.

Posted on

Buster Keaton: Film’s Greatest Genius

By Jim Spiegel

I’m a long-time fan of Buster Keaton—the “great stone face” of the silent movie era, who churned out classic after classic film throughout the 1920s.  Because of his multifaceted brilliance as a screenwriter, director, actor, comedian, engineer, and even acrobat, I consider him to be not only the greatest talent of his time (yes, even exceeding Charlie Chaplain) but the greatest overall talent in film history.  Think that’s an overstatement?  Check out some of his films, and I expect you’ll become a fan and, if you see enough of them, perhaps even agree with my assessment.

As I have been building my personal collection of Keaton films, I’ve become increasingly interested in Keaton the man.  So this summer I read a Keaton biography:  Keaton (Macmillan, 1966) by Rudi Blesh.  This was the first Keaton bio, written by a man who knew Keaton personally and closely consulted him while writing the book.  Unlike most celebrity bios of our time, which tend to be gossipy and voyeuristic, Blesh’s account focuses on Keaton as an artist.  Another refreshing contrast is Blesh’s prose, full of human insight and sometimes deliciously poetic.  Here’s a representative excerpt describing Keaton’s unique moment in Hollywood history:

“It was a time of unabashed hero (and heroine) worship.  Babe Ruth, in fact—and even Lindbergh—got only the edges of it.  The full treatment went to the movies and to movie stars, the actors and—most particularly—the actresses.  Not merely distance but silence compounded by magic.  Hollywood was Valhalla or an Olympus, a silver-screen abode with goddesses living apart behind a wall of silence.  Their beautiful bodies were ethereal yet real, their lips framed soundless words on a wavelength we could not hear, their gestures stirred a different air, their noble remoteness called us to worship” (p. 104).

The irony is that Keaton had no interest in worship, nor even celebrity and its trappings.  In the end, he was interested in just one thing:  his art.  And his output demonstrates this.  Keaton’s film work included 34 shorts from 1917 to 1923 and 15 full-length features from 1923 to 1929.  This was the golden age of Keaton, during which he produced such classics as Our Hospitality (1923), Sherlock Jr. (1924), The Navigator (1924), and The General (1927), the latter commonly regarded as one of the finest films ever made.  Keaton rightly became an international phenomenon, and he was destined to be a lasting influence in film history, on comedic stars from Jerry Lewis to Jim Carrey.

Blesh puts it as follows:  “His technical and artistic innovations have enriched the cinema.  His native genius for physical action no one else, not even Fairbanks, has ever approached.  His pantomime places him with Chaplin alone.  The depth, irony, and mordant vision of his comedy are all but unique.  It bids fair to be timeless.  Even Chaplin had a dozen imitators, but Keaton’s characterization was so wholly his own that no one ever tried to copy it.  His was the only unsmiling mask.  The term ‘genius’ fits Buster Keaton as it fits Charles Chaplin, with no seams to take in” (p. 363).

To see a Keaton film is to immediately understand why the man had no imitators.  In short, it was too dangerous to imitate him.  Keaton routinely took physical risks in his films, even endangering his life on a few occasions, such as in the famous scene in Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928) in which the two-ton façade of a building falls upon him, or rather around him, as Keaton is narrowly missed, thanks to the second story window through which he emerges in the rubble, amazingly unscathed.  Like so many scenes in Keaton films, it is breathtaking.  And, as I like to remind my kids—and now they remind me—it was all done without CGI, using only the most rudimentary special effects.

Even if you are not a film buff, you owe it to yourself to check out Keaton’s movies.  If you are a film buff and take a serious interest in film history, well, then its mandatory.  Be warned.  Keaton films are addictive, and you might find yourself, as I have, sparing no expense to build your collection (and I am not one to purchase DVDs).  But be assured—great viewing pleasure awaits you, and your thoughts about the art of film and its history will be permanently changed.

Posted on

Snapshots

By Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

I really hate writing negative reviews… Okay, let me modify that a bit. I write negative reviews with relish but then feel really bad about it later. I would much rather tell you about the amazing movie I can’t wait for you to see. Sadly, my film watching this month movie was lacking in “amazing.” Hopefully, I can at least spare you the experience of watching these less than recommendable films.

Nine: I will be honest here and say that I am not a big fan of musicals. If I were, perhaps I would have only moderately disliked this movie instead of hating it. I resorted to fast- forwarding long chunks of it. With so many Hollywood favorites and even a few real actors thrown in, you would think they could have come up with something that would have at least kept my finger off the remote control. Ironically, this film seems to mirror its own plot of a filmmaker who can’t recreate the quality of work that is expected of him. As my kids would say, “whatever.”

End of the Spear: How does one take one of the most powerful modern stories of Christian forgiveness and make it boring? Well start with bad writing, remove any references to Christianity (or Jesus for that matter) and then assume that the audience already knows the story anyway. Actually, I did know the story going in and was still confused. It was as if they started a third of the way into the film. I would say this is just another example of bad “Christian” art, but since they refuse to talk about Jesus throughout the film, I guess this is one that doesn’t warrant that description.

The Last Station: This film was well-directed, well-written, and well-acted. If only the whole premise of the movie wasn’t absolute bull-shine. Supposedly a depiction of the last days of Leo Tolstoy, this movie is one giant kiss-up to a really bad guy. I wanted to see it because of my love for his classic War and Peace but did some research after viewing the film and was sorely disappointed in the filmmakers’ refusal to face Tolstoy’s “issues” head on. I am surprised the movie didn’t end with Tolstoy dancing arm in arm with Alfred Kinsey.

Lost: Okay, here is where I get off the train to Negativity Central and hop on the Mega-fan Express. I don’t care what Jim says—I love this show. I could no longer refuse to watch it when so many people whom I respect kept recommending it. I have completed Season Two and at one point was up to a four-episodes-per-day habit. Since Jim staged his intervention, I have actually decided to read up on seasons 3, 4 and 5 and watch the last season at a more reasonable pace. I know the women are boobs with legs and the men are too good looking, but I love it despite its glamorous warts. The issues discussed (e.g., faith vs. science, the group vs. the individual) are interesting, and I love learning the background of certain characters and how this changes your perspective. And I must find out what is in the jungle!

Honorable and Dishonorable Mentions: I will make this short and sweet: Valentine’s Day—As disappointing as rain at a picnic, with fire ants and soggy sandwiches. When in Rome—Though the supporting cast is a bit over the top for my taste, I love Kristin Bell and Josh Duhamel. Bounty Hunter—I was on vacation; thought it would be entertaining. It was like the above mentioned picnic with some hail and armed bandits thrown in. Bad, bad, bad.

Posted on

Thoughts on Hitler’s Demise

By Jim Spiegel

I’m a big fan of Quentin Tarantino films, as is probably apparent to regular readers of this blog.  I am especially fond of his most recent effort, Inglourious Basterds (see my October 29, 2009 post for a full review), which excels in nearly all cinematic categories.  Some have been critical of the film because of its deliberate (and extreme) distortion of history.  In case you haven’t seen the film—spoiler alert!—the story concerns two fictional plots to assassinate Hitler and his fellow Third Reich imps.  Unlike the actual Stauffenberg assassination attempt that merely injured the Fuhrer, Tarantino’s film brings Hitler to an extremely violent end.  Part of the incentive to concoct such a story, presumably, would be to give viewers the satisfaction of watching Hitler get what he deserved—indeed, the fate that many of us would like to see all genocidal maniacs meet.  I think Tarantino has indicated as much in some interviews about the film.

While reading excerpts from Ian Kershaw’s recent Hitler biography, I’ve been reflecting a bit on the historical facts and have concluded that Tarantino’s invented story of Hitler’s demise is really less satisfying (in the sense of being pleased by the wicked getting their just deserts) than what actually took place.   On the afternoon of April 30, 1945, Hitler, Eva Braun, and assorted Nazi officers were holed up in a bunker at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, as the Red Army closed in.  The Fuhrer had heard that Mussolini had been captured and killed (though he probably was not aware of the gory details), and he wished to avoid such a fate, as well as the ignominious prospect of his body being permanently displayed by the Soviets as a trophy of their triumph.  So Hitler’s plan was to commit suicide and have his body cremated.  Specifically, he would take a pill of prussic acid.  However, being doubtful about the effectiveness of the poison, he instructed one of his officers to test it on his dog, an Alsatian named Blondi.  The dog died almost immediately upon ingesting the poison—which apparently prompted no emotional response from Hitler, despite the fact that he showed more love to the animal than any human in his life, including his long-time lover Eva Braun.

So when it was clear the Soviet army was only a few hundred meters away and could storm the Chancellery at any minute.  Hitler and Eva Braun executed their plan…and themselves.

Why is this true story more fitting than that envisioned by Tarantino, or, for that matter, any of our own dreams of, say, a live Hitler capture, trial, and execution?  For one thing, there is the powerful symbolism of the self-destructiveness of evil.  The pursuit of absolute power is self-defeating, and those who live by the murderous sword often fall upon it.  Hitler, of course, is only one of the more recent examples of this fundamental truth about the human condition.  History has seen myriad despots destroy themselves, whether directly by their own hand or as an indirect consequence of their wicked actions.

One must also consider the emotional dimension of the story.  What despair must Hitler have experienced in those final days and, especially, his last hours.  Perhaps during that time he came to some sober reflections on the true moral horror of what he had done.  Perhaps not.  But the despair he felt surely gave him at least a taste of what so many millions of innocent Jews and other victims of the Nazi scourge felt as they awaited their fate in concentration camps—a sense of hopelessness and the most sickening sorrow.

Of course, in the end, there really is no completely just recompense for the wicked on this earth.  As Scripture tells us, we must wait for Judgment Day for that (cf. Eccl. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10).  But human history, and particular narratives, may nonetheless be more or less pleasing from the standpoint of justice.  Some point better than others to deep moral, spiritual, and human truths.  And it seems to me that, in these respects, however much we may want to indulge our own fantasies about Hitler’s fate, we can’t improve on the tale as told by God.