Category Archives: Movies

Parallel Mothers

Movies, Truth and Beauty, Truth Seeking

 

 

This is a Spanish film that Canadians in particular should find resonating.  The background to the story is the discovery of long hidden graves that suggest Spain’s fascist past has not disappeared. It is not even past, as William Faulkner might say. And as Canada is learning, perhaps against its will, a horrific past cannot be ignored, it must be faced. Canada and Spain find themselves in similar circumstances for uncomfortably similar reasons.

 

The background of the film is the the ugly fact of hidden graves, but the foreground is deeply sensual and beautiful. The director Pedro Almodóvar uses that background to deliver a film about 2 similar (or parallel if you prefer) mothers. As the Guardian’s film critic  Peter Bradshaw put it, “Here we have convergent mothers; intersecting mothers whose lives come together with a spark that ignites this moving melodrama, which audaciously draws a line between love, sex, the passionate courage of single mothers, the meaning of Lorca’s Doña Rositat the Spinster and the unhealed wound of Spain’s fascist past.”

In this film two single mothers—one young and the other about twice as old— meet and clash with electric results. Their two stories illuminate each other as they also hide the truth. Ultimately, that is what the film is about. It is important to uncover the truth disaster can follow a hidden truth that will not stay hidden and the redemption that is possible if it is revealed with honesty.

Penélope Cruz plays the part of Janis the older mother a glamorous photographer. The younger mother, Ana is played by Milena Smit a teenager with a troubled family past. Arturo ((Israel Elejalde), is anthropologist who works with a historical unit that was formed under Spain’s memory law that traces people killed by supporter of the fascist leader Fanco during the civil war. Janis believes her grandfather was one of the victims and beseeches Arturo to help her discover the truth. While they search for truth, they are less than honest with each other. And that makes all the difference.

The scenes are saturated with beauty. The interior scenes and clothes the women wear are transfused with spectacular colour, the food looks just as sensational, the art on the walls is transfixing.  I got the feeling that the colors and foods were characters in the film. Every colour feels as choreographed as classical ballet. The sensual reality behind the abstract search for truth. The colours tell their own parallel story.

In the end the townspeople, carrying photos of their ancestors, to honour their dead, lie in the graves as the dead must have done.  Like our indigenous Canadians they want to honour the dead.

The film is summed up, in a quotation from Eduardo Galeano at the end:

“However much they crush it,

However much they falsify it,

Human history refuses to stay silent.”

 

We would do well to acknowledge that and give up trying to deny it or hide it.

 

Dune

Movies

 

 

If you want to know the truth, I like nearly every movie I see.  But this was not one of them.

 

Dune: Part One is an American epic science fiction film.  Let me say at the outset that neither of these genres of film are my favourites. The original Dune based on a 1965 novel by Frank Herbert has a large cult following. Frankly, the film left me cold. No more accurately it left me with feeling of dry and infertile sand. A dune in other words.

It was directed by famous Canadian director Denis Villeneuve and has a stellar cast including Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Josh Brolin, Zendaya (briefly in Part 1) Jason Momoa and Javier Bardem.

I know that this genre of films is extremely popular. Often it seems like the only type of film that  studios continue to make. I also know that at different times in my life I have been addicted to movie genres no more believable than this one, including cowboy films, detective films, or the modern action film in which some rebellious male knights relentlessly challenges some bad dudes and kills them. All of those genres now bore me even though they earn mountains of money at the box office. This one was no exception. I apologize if you like them. That does no make me smarter, or more astute. It just means I have had enough. I need something different. Dune was not it. I could not wait for it to end.

Coda

Movies

 

 

 

 

This is an important film. And a joyful film.  Everyone should see it. We can learn a lot from watching it. In particular it helps us to stand in the shoes of someone different and see life from a new vantage point.  What can be more important than that?

The story revolves around a loving and fighting family where 3 people are deaf and 1 is hearing. Each character is forced to confront the point of view of at least one other person. Isn’t that films are all about? That is what I loved about this film. That and it made me feel good.

In the film, Ruby, (Emilia Jones)  the only hearing person in a close knit family of 4 decides to join a school choir mainly to meet a good looking young guy. Her mother Jackie (Marlee Matlin) is confused. Why would she do that? She asks her daughter, “If I was blind, would you like to paint?” It is a joke, but it raises a crucial point.  The mother can’t understand why her hearing daughter doesn’t want to be just like them. Jackie also said that when her daughter was born she hoped she would be deaf so she would be just like her mom. I was shocked by that comment. Yet, film made  it  clear that deaf people don’t see themselves as defective or handicapped. They think they are lucky. There are many things hearing people can’t do that they can do. She wants the best for her daughter, and to her, that is being deaf.

Ruby on the other hand learns that she loves music and is pretty good at it. Her music teacher challenges her to overcome her fears of performing. He asks her how music makes her feel. She can’t find the words.  That is exactly what deaf people do; they can’t find the words either. Eventually, Ruby signs her reply that for her American sign language is the language of feelings and expressions. That is one thing hearing people don’t get. I also think she means that this is also true for music.

The deaf members of the family don’t catch on that Ruby likes being their interpreter, but she wants more than that. She also wants a relationship with a young boy and does not want to give up everything for her family. Her family must learn that. Only her brother understands. In fact, he resents the fact that Ruby is turned to whenever family members need to communicate with the outside world. He wants to do that, even though is he is deaf.

I read that the producers of Coda wanted to use hearing people for the role of deaf people. Matlin was upset at that. She insisted that deaf characters must be played by deaf actors. As Matlin said,

“Enough is enough. Deaf is not a costume. It’s not authentic and insults the community that you’re portraying. Because we exist, we deaf actors. We do a much better job of portraying characters, telling stories that involve deaf characters, because we lived it. We know it.”

 

When she won an academy award for her first role in the film Children of a Lesser God a movie critic said  she won the award out of pity. He asked how was it acting for her to play a role of a deaf girl?  To this Matlin  responded, how then was it acting for a hearing girl to play a hearing girl? Sometimes hearing people just are not able to stand in the shoes of a deaf person. That is a failure of imagination. And it works both ways.

The beauty of Coda is that we do experience what it means to be deaf. I loved the scene in which the family went to a concert where Ruby was playing. At first the deaf people did not get it either. They too had a failure of imagination. But they watched the faces of the audience and they knew what their hearing child/sibling was doing just by watching. They could see she was special. Just like they were special.

Deaf is not a costume; neither is hearing. Neither the deaf nor the hearing are children of a lesser God.

 

No time to Die

Movies

It’s time to make a confession.  I have been a  James Bond fan forever.  Ever since I was a young lad ordering books from the University of Manitoba Extension Library and one day received a novel by Ian Fleming called Dr. No as a substitute for a book I had ordered,  I was hooked. The Library sent books for free from the University to us poor urchins in the cultural hinterland in places like Steinbach without a library.  If the book one ordered was not available they sent something they thought the reader might like instead. I had never heard of James Bond or Ian Fleming. He was not yet a world wide phenomenon. But the library sent me Dr. No.

I have no idea what book I ordered but I received Dr. No and I was transported into young boys Fantasy land. I found a spy who was licenced to kill. I still remember the opening scene.  3 blind black men in Jamaica walking in line and opening fire on an unsuspecting hapless victim. They were not blind at all. They were assassins. It seems absurd now.  It was absurd, but it was unlike anything I had ever read before. This was exciting stuff!

Amazingly, perhaps, I have been a fan ever since.  When they started making movies out of the Bond books, I loved them too. Guns, girls, and mayhem. What’s not to like.

Of course, the films make no sense. They aren’t meant to make sense. The books didn’t either. Except to young boys and girls living a fantastic dream. Of course, even some heavy intellectuals like Bond.  Peter Bradshaw the long-time Guardian film critic, said movie was “ridiculously watchable.” No matter how absurd it is, my love of Bond endures. Forget about logic.

As a result, it comes as no surprised that I liked the latest Bond film, “No Time to Die.”  They are no longer based on books. They ran out of books decades ago. No matter. I have been a fan of those too. I have come to appreciate the films ever more since Danial Craig took over the role of Bond. Apparently, this is Danial Criag’s  last film as Bond. What a pity.

What happens next? Who knows?

Kimmapiiyipitssini: The Meaning of Empathy

Movies, Substance Abuse

 

The film Kimmapiiyipitssini: The Meaning of Empathy is film currently showing at Cinematheque and it should be widely viewed. It was produced by filmmaker Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers. It tells an important story. It is a story about life on an Indian Reserve in southern Alberta. I  drove by a couple of years ago on my way to Waterton Lakes National Park. (That also should be widely viewed).

The film tells the story of how that community has been ravaged by substance abuse and addictions and attempts to deal with that ugly fact by a new approach.  Instead of abstinence they are tying a new approach labeled as ‘Harm reduction.’ That just means they  abandon techniques that have failed over and over again and are  trying something new. It may be uncomfortable but can it possibly be worse than the robust failures of the old approach?

 

The significance of this film is not limited to Indian reserves; this issue is relevant around Canada. It affects poor people, the middle class and the rich. It is not the approach of Nancy Regan. Not Just ‘say No’. It would be nice if serous social problems could be solved by reciting a simple formula.

 

The substances include fentanyl, meth, Carfentanil or carfentanyl, heroin, and solvents. Interestingly carfentanyl has a quantitative potency approximately 10,000 times that of morphine and 100 times that of fentanyl. It seems like every couple of years something is invented that is worse than the drug of existing drug choice. No wonder we have such problems.

 

I know some of my friends were very depressed by what they saw. Who wouldn’t be?  Yet I would say things were not entirely hopeless. Grim but not hopeless. There was a hero in this story, physician Esther Tailfeathers, mother of the filmmaker, heroically I would say, without judgment is tackling the problems one person at a time. She tolerates the fact that her patients continue taking their drugs of choice. She has no magic. But she has quite diligence, energy, and most of all, empathy. She works daily on the front lines and offers help to addicts to kick their habits and prescribes suboxone as a substitute. Some criticize this approach by saying it merely substitutes one drug for another. Perhaps, but we have seen current techniques fail. I say, can this new approach be worse?

 

The harm reduction approach includes in some cases safe injection sites. Manitoba’s Department of Health when it was led by Steinbach’s own Kelvin Goertzen considered this new approach and rejected it. Alberta under the leadership of NDP premier Rachel Notely tried the new approach but it was rejected by the current United Conservative government led by Jason Kenney.

What I liked about the film was that by closely interviewing actual participants caught up in the epidemic of drug addictions on that reserve, I felt like I was there listening to the people. It was not an easy watch. How could it be?  But I felt like perhaps I could tell how they felt. Isn’t that what empathy is all about? Isn’t that important? Should we not consider their point of view?

 

Bombshell

Human rights, Movies, Sexual harassment/Assault

 

 

This was a film released in 2019. It stars 3 outstanding female actresses in 3 outstanding roles. In this film the men are the sidebars. The women are the film. Charlize Theron plays Megyn Kelly, Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson, and Margot Robbie as Kayla Pospisil. The women were all women television personalities at Fox News involved in the claims of sexual harassment against the CEO of Fox Roger Ailes. I actually don’t know the true story of the events so can’t complain about the truth or accuracy of the film’s version of events. That is good, because then I am free to say, the story is true. It is true in the same sense that Macbeth is true. That is what counts.

I was particularly engrossed by the role of Kayla Pospisil. She wanted to be a star on Fox like Megyn and Gretchen She is a true child of Fox. For her and her family is Fox is their religion.  Kayla, played by Margot Robbie,  boldly said, “I don’t want to be on TV, I want to be on Fox. My family, everyday, especially holidays is Fox News. Fox News is how we go to Church.” This nicely captured the theological devotion to Fox. That is what Fox is all about.

Trying to get a spot on Fox News, preferably a show like Kelly or Carlson you see how she would do anything to get on the show no matter how degrading and she gets the opportunity to do exactly that. She gets solid advice from her friend a secret lesbian, and horrors, someone who doesn’t automatically hate liberals. Fox is not the place for her to be. But the friend gives her this advice:

“You have to adopt the attitude of an Irish street cop. The world is a bad place. People are lazy morons. Minorities are criminals. Sex is sick, but interesting. Ask yourself what will scare my grand mother, or piss off my grand father, and that’s a Fox story. Frighten. Titillate. Frighten. Titillate. Frighten. Titillate. When you start a story you need to start with a clear villain: Liberal judge, Vermont, Hollywood. Conservatives want to conserve. You are the last defence against Jesus hating, trans loving, Clinton controlled Armageddon.”

That is Fox News! Particularly the commentators like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.  Again from my experience, even though I admit I have not watched Fox often, except for excerpts on Comedy News,  that must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This felt true. Of course, that is a poor way to judge truth.

The men on the show are largely rogues. Again this just has to be true. As is said of Bill O’Reilly: “He cannot scale his anger. He is a perpetual anger machine. That’s why the crazies love him.” When he appears on television, and I think this was a “real” clip he said,

“In this country every famous or wealthy man is a target. You’re a target. I’m a target. Any time someone could come out and sue us, attack us, or get the press, and that’s a deplorable situation.”

That’s the whimpering cry of rich and powerful men. We should feel sorry for them. They are the ones that are oppressed.

The women who want a job must pass the Roger Ailes test. They must give a spin in a circle in front of this powerful  sleazy old man to demonstrate they have the body for the job. This certainly must be true. Ailes tells Pospisil:

“This is the most competitive industry on earth. I could pluck you out of a line and move you to the front. But you have to give me one thing. Do you know what it is? (He pauses for a long time) Loyalty (like his hero Trump and with just as much grace.) You have to prove you are loyal. And you must find a way to prove it. That’s about it and we’ll talk again”.

The message is clear enough. Pospisil knows what she must do. Will she do it? If she does it or not she will pay a price either way. A big price.

The movie is about women standing up (or not) to powerful men. No let me rephrase that. This is the story about people standing up to powerful people. People who can oppress you and make you pay a big price. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. It takes great courage to stand up and those who do, rarely “win”. Even when they “win” they lose. That makes it a universal story. That’s why it’s a true story. No matter what the facts.

I don’t want to give away the truth of the film, but I want to point out 2 facts with which the film closes.

Fox paid $50 million dollars to 2 women who alleged sexual harassment which its 2 male stars denied. And it also paid $65 million to the two male stars it said it had “just cause” to fire The two women who risked their careers to make the claim and were among the first to bring down 2 powerful public male television news stars, but they were not the last. And they were paid less than the male alleged harasser. What kind of “victory” is that? Reminds me of the fact that after the Civil War the United States paid reparations after the slaves were freed because of centuries of enslavement. The reparations were paid to southern plantation owners who lost their property!

At least one of the women had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Darn I hate those and the lawyers who get away with demanding them.

This was an excellent film with a lot of truth. Ugly truth.

 

 

Two Guns: No Country for Good Men

Movies

 

I watched a Netflix film called Two Guns, starring Denzel Washington as Robert “Bobby” Beans and Michael “Stig” Stigman played by Mark Wahlberg. Both are supposedly on the side of the law, but both assume the other is a criminal. Both were undercover agents unaware that the other is a lawman (of sort). Beans is undercover agent for DEA and Stig is an undercover intelligence agent for the Navy Seals. Stigs’ boss tells him to kill Beans so that the Navy can use the money to fund unauthorized undercover operations.

In other words, the line between criminals and cops has been rubbed so thin it is extremely porous.  The two cops/criminals decide to rob the bank where Mexican drug lord Manny “Papi” Greco stashed $3million, presumably to sting the other.  But the two get much more than $3 million. They get an extra $43, 125,00. That extra money, in cash, is obviously ill-gotten gains. In fact they quickly realize that criminals will be pursuing them for the cash and likely won’t ask politely for the return of their money.

The criminals whose money was stolen are actually black-ops CIA operatives led by Earl whose money was stolen and who make even the Mexican cartel look like Sunday School children. Earl says he is “the hidden hand of God.” Sort of like Adam Smiths free market and about as benign. He will do what it takes to get his money back.

In the ensuing action they  encounter a bevy of corrupt cops and corrupt criminals. In fact there are no good guys. None. Even the heroes Bobby and Stig are not that good either. I admit that he irreverent banter between the 2 is amusing, but we soon realize these guys aren’t really up to any good either. No one is.

Here is a conversation between Earl and the hapless bank manager who allowed the money to be stolen:

Earl:   The United States is the greatest country in the world because we accept a man at his call: greedy, selfish, and covetous.

Bank Manger: I had no choice

Earl: In America we line everybody up so you are on your own. Grab all you can grab.

Bank Manager: I’m innocent.

Earl: Nobody’s innocent. There’s just the guilty, ignorant, or unlucky.

Stig tries weakly to convince Beans they should do the right thing with the money.  After all there is a Code. Beans denies there is a Code. Like Earl you just do what it takes. The rest of the movie is designed to prove Beans was right. This is no country for good men.

There is no Code.

 

The Upside.

Movies, Rebel

 

Chris and I went to see this film on a rainy day in Arizona last year. We both liked it a lot. It is a remake of 2012 French film. Dave Driedger, a friend,  told us he saw the original with English subtitles. That makes him a super intellectual. The movie tells the story of Phillip (played by Bryan Cranston) an extremely wealthy paraplegic and Dell (played by Kevin Hart) a black ex-con who applies for the job only because his Parole Officers demand that he get a job or come back with 3 signatures from possible employers saying they turned him down. Nicole Kidman plays Phillips crusty and protective assistant. Phillip hires Dell because he is the least qualified applicant and yet detects some ephemeral bond between him and Dell. The choice reveals for the first time his rebellious streak.

The black parolee ends up restoring life to Phillip beyond listening to opera which until then seems to be Phillips only pleasure and it seems a pretty thin one at that (even to one who enjoys opera like me). There is no doubt that there is some class stereotyping in relation particularly to Dell. Dell is a father to a young man who has about as much use for Dell as does his ex-wife.

The two main characters learn from each other. Dell learns that it is useful to have some money and job. Phillip learns to have some fun. Both exchange musical tips. In the meantime they have fun riding around in Phillip’s fancy car, yanking the legs of cops, eating ice cream, smoking joints, and trading insights. Little insights that are sometimes the best kind. Dell learns that Mozart is not half bad. Dell learns that Aretha Franklin has something to offer. Both learn that a little rebellion goes a long way.

There is some genuine unforced humour in the film that fills it with joy. It is not a bad thing to go to a movie theatre and get filled with joy. Sometimes that is all it takes. Today was one of those days. I liked it.

The joy allowed me to overlook some of the more unlikely aspects of the film such as Dell creating a work of “art” that Phillip persuades his fellow owner in the New York condominium in the ritzy building. I say ‘go and see it for yourself.’ Perfect for a rainy day or, come to think of it now, a self-isolating day.

Dark Water: A Much Bigger Question

Democracy, Environment, Movies, Pollution

 

I heard Mark Ruffalo who played Bilott, and Bilott himself on the PBS television show, Amanpour & Company and the real life Bilott. They made some important points.

Commenting on the legal fight that took almost 20 years of relentless endurance on the part of Bilott, Ruffalo had this to say:

“The system is rigged—against the people. They want us to think that it will protect us, but that is a lie. We protect us. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us We protect us. Nobody else.”

This is the fundamental idea behind the film. The system is rigged. Against us.

Of course, this was just one case. But is in any different in the pharmaceutical sector? Or oil and gas? Or tobacco? Or anywhere else? Not according to Ruffalo.

Ruffalo put it this way in his interview by Amanpour:

“We have a system where the government is not responsive to the needs of the people and where it is slavish to the corporate system. We have a democracy that is in service to an economic capitalist system, instead of that system being in service to our democracy. Yes that system is rigged. It has been rigged because there is so much money in politics. If you wanted to fix the problem, really quickly, you would have the state have a stake in health care. Then this stuff would get cleaned out really fast because right now we’re getting poisoned. We have to pay to get ourselves healthy and the state just keeps taking money from both sides, to keep the vicious circle going.”

In the American legal system the people have to prove the chemical harms them. The corporations can sit back and do nothing other than, of course, block the science of the opponents. This is a fundamental flaw.

According to the film there is still no regulation of PFOSA in America. And PFOA’s are ubiquitous. As Nathanial Rich who wrote the article on which the movie was based, explains,

“But if you are a sentient being reading this article in 2016, you already have PFOA in your blood. It is in your parents’ blood, your children’s blood, your lover’s blood. How did it get there? Through the air, through your diet, through your use of nonstick cookware, through your umbilical cord. Or you might have drunk tainted water…

Where scientists have tested for the presence of PFOA in the world, they have found it. PFOA is in the blood or vital organs of Atlantic salmon, swordfish, striped mullet, gray seals, common cormorants, Alaskan polar bears, brown pelicans, sea turtles, sea eagles, Midwestern bald eagles, California sea lions and Laysan albatrosses on Sand Island, a wildlife refuge on Midway Atoll, in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean, about halfway between North America and Asia.”

As Manohla Dargis said in a New York Times review of the film:

“But at its strongest, the movie makes you see that the poison that is killing Wilbur’s cows and so many other living things isn’t simply a question of toxic chemicals. There is, Haynes suggests, a deeper malignancy that has spread across a country that allows some to kill and others simply to die.”

 This is the bigger issue. The exploration of this issue is what makes this film, and the article on which it is based, so important and so interesting. Ultimately it comes down to these two closely related questions: is our modern political system democratic and is modern capitalism anti-life? Those are two very big questions. Worth thinking about.