Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Film Review: THE SEARCHERS (1956)

The Searchers (1956)

Director: John Ford
Producer: Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney
Story/Screenplay: Frank S. Nugent; based on The Searchers by Alan Le May
Music: Max Steiner; Stan Jones (title song, "The Searchers")
Cinematography: Winton C. Hoch
Editing; Jack Murray
Starring: John Wayne, Jeffrey Hunter, Vera Miles, Ward Bond, Natalie Wood, Hank Worden

MPAA Rating: NR

Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

***** (5/5)

"That'll be the day." — Ethan Edwards, The Searchers

The Searchers is a truly popular film, even as it is 58 years old to date (in 2016 it will be its 60th anniversary). The American Film Institute named it the greatest Western of all time in 2008, one of the top 100 greatest American movies ever made in 2007 and 1998, and held by critics, fans of Western movies, cinephiles and almost everyone as not only one of the greatest Westerns of all time (and maybe THE greatest Western) but also one of the all-time great movies. Despite it not receiving major Oscar nominations upon its release, it was a commercial success and ultimately a popular and critical success, not only then but also now. This is especially important, as Westerns are often written off by most serious folks as being mindless exercises in violence and racism and nationalistic jingoism. Often that is true, especially among some of the older B-westerns and even in some acclaimed Westerns. However, even many who normally don't think very highly of Westerns per se are very fond of The Searchers, mainly in part due to the cinematic qualities that Ford and all involved placed in the film, and also how it manages to not succumb to the typical problems that plagued most Western films before this film came out. 

For example, whereas racism was often viewed lightly and even condoned in previous Western films, The Searchers departed from this route, even as it was still a classical American Western movie. Yes, it did not take a politically correct view of the Native Americans or the Comanche, but neither did it subscribe to the gung-ho Manifest Destiny doctrine that many a Western would subscribe to before.

And I was very impressed by the film, considering that this was the first Western I have watched. I was impressed not only by the depth and filmmaking quality of this movie but also its many other merits. But I will get to that later on.

The Searchers centers around the story of former Confederate war hero Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), who returns back to Texas three years after the Civil War ended. He returns to his brother Aaron Edwards's (Walter Coy) home, as well as to his wife Martha (Dorothy Jordan) (whom many consider to have had a previous relation with John Wayne's character). And his character is established as a racist who doesn't like Indians—this is established when he mocks his young relative Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter)—and who is a wanderer that has no stable place to settle. Later on, it turns out that the Comanche Indians raided the cattle of Lars Jorgensen (John Qualen), and eventually it is found that the whole thing was a decoy for the parties involved to leave their homes undefended and prone to Indian attacks.

And it turns out that Indians do attack the homes (led by war chief Scar (Henry Brandon)), and especially Aaron's house. His wife Martha is dead (even raped, which is definitely not depicted on-screen but surely implied). However, Debbie (Lana Wood) and Lucy (Pippa Scott), Ethan's two nieces, come with him, as well as Mose Harper (Hank Worden), Captain Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond), Martin, and Lars's son Brad Jorgensen (Harry Carey, Jr.) (who had some romantic relations with Lucy). But due to certain events, the rest of them leave the journey, with Ethan, Martin and Brad alone to continue the journey. However, it turns out that Lucy, one of the girls, was raped and killed by the Comanche kidnappers and left out there. Brad, grieved by this, runs out and is killed as a result by the Indians.

This leaves Ethan and Martin now to find Debbie; however, through the span of five years, many interesting events happen, including one with Laurie Jorgensen (Vera Miles), who desperately wants to fall in love and has her eye set on Martin. However, Martin's adventures hinder him from responding to Laurie's claims, which anger her even more (a very strong running point in the film).

Another subplot comes in with regard to Ethan's racism toward Indians, particularly Comanche (who killed his mother a long time ago). It is revealed that his racism is so strong that it spills over into cultural bias; he even harbors a hatred for former white victims of Comanche raids that were brainwashed—he even wants to consider murdering Debbie (Natalie Wood) due to her having assimilated into the Indian ways and Indian culture. This leaves for another layer of development that set The Searchers apart from not only previous Westerns but also previous John Wayne performances. 

While this film definitely is celebrated and a hallowed piece of Americana in American cinema, it still does have a fair share of detractors, who argue that the film takes a hypocritical stance on racism; they argue that while The Searchers does have anti-racist themes, it does wallow in racism throughout the film, as Indian-related stuff is often related to either evil things or awkward John Ford humor. I would respond that the treatment toward Indians is not flawless and it does have tinges of racism; even so, the anti-racist theme remains powerful, especially in the second half.

Normally in an old Western, the white man would be depicted as the undisputed hero and the Indian as the undisputed villain. Yes, The Searchers retains some of that classical trapping in its structure, with the Indian characters being the villains and the white people being depicted as the protagonists/heroes. However, added to this film is a thought-provoking and excellent layer of moral ambiguity and unsettling power that distinguishes this movie. Ethan Edwards is at once depicted both as a courageous war hero looking out for his only living niece and a culturalist/racist who hates Comanches and whites brainwashed by Comanches. The film skillfully juxtaposes this and uses the other protagonist, Martin Pawley, as a foil to Ethan's virulent racism, which offends even his closest friends.

What made The Searchers a towering masterpiece is not just all the great technical achievements (directing, acting, mise-en-scene, cinematography, writing, creative uses of flashbacks, beautiful shots and memorable sequences, etc.), all of which deserve the honors they receive, but the moral ambiguity that is prevalent in the film. 

Roger Ebert's interesting essay on this film sums up quite nicely:

Ethan Edwards, fierce, alone, a defeated soldier with no role in peacetime, is one of the most compelling characters Ford and Wayne ever created (they worked together on 14 films). Did they know how vile Ethan's attitudes were? I would argue that they did, because Wayne was in his personal life notably free of racial prejudice, and because Ford made films with more sympathetic views of Indians. This is not the instinctive, oblivious racism of Griffith's “Birth of a Nation.” Countless Westerns have had racism as the unspoken premise; this one consciously focuses on it. I think it took a certain amount of courage to cast Wayne as a character whose heroism was tainted. Ethan's redemption is intended to be shown in that dramatic shot of reunion with Debbie, where he takes her in his broad hands, lifts her up to the sky, drops her down into his arms, and says, “Let's go home, Debbie.” The shot is famous and beloved, but small counterbalance to his views throughout the film--and indeed, there is no indication be thinks any differently about Indians.
Steven D. Greydanus also rightly notes: "The film’s complexity and ambiguity extends even to the famous climax, in which two central characters make choices that could be viewed as changes of heart, but could also be viewed as differing responses to changing circumstances. Do the characters change and develop, or is the truth about them simply more clearly revealed? The Searchers offers no clear-cut answers, not even to the question in the theme song."

While such a film can easily become preachy and heavy-handed, The Searchers brilliantly avoided this trap and gave us not only a great masterpiece of cinema but a film that can be appreciated by almost anybody, even one who likes Westerns as a shoot-em-up genre. Everything has a purpose and is used skillfully by Ford, even the often awkward comic humor and romantic subplots, which show the contrast between humanity and Ethan's wandering nature.

John Wayne gives one of his greatest performances, which also happens to be one of the greatest roles in film. His Ethan Edwards is one of the greatest anti-heroic protagnoists in film, contrasting his most admirable bravery with his despicable and twisted racism and hatred of the Commanches which is infused by a statist and quasi-totalitarian desire to not only kill Commanches but also those who were integrated into this culture. Jeffrey Hunter is also brilliant as Ethan's foil, Martin Pawley, and Hunter's performance infuses humanity into the darkness of this film. And the rest of the performances are also superb, including that of Hank Worden's Mose Harper, Ford's comic-relief character that actually helps the film a lot in many ways more than one. For example, Jason Fraley's in-depth essay notes: "Thus there’s almost a humorous significance to Mose’s constant cries of, “My rocking chair! I want my rocking chair!” The rocking chair is a symbol of domestic moral stability, swaying back and forth, but in the end, holding its ground. It’s a visual idea that was perhaps growing in Ford since Henry Fonda memorably rocked in that chair in My Darling Clementine (1946). How fitting that Mose sit in such a chair at the end of The Searchers donning a top hat, yet another symbol of the civilized world." The rest of the cast is great, including Natalie Wood as the grown-up Debbie (however brief her role is) and Vera Miles as Laurie, who is madly in love with Martin. Even though Miles's performance does annoy me in many ways, I don't deny that it is a good character portrayal and very understandable considering the circumstances of the film. After all, Martin goes off with Ethan on this long quest and often ignores Laurie, leading her to go with another guy (which serves as another point of comic humor near the climatic moments of the movie). 

The visual shots themselves are magnificent and truly cinematic, and they really shine on the Blu-ray Disc for this film. Ford really had an eye for the West and his skill shows in how masterfully and meaningfully he crafts the shots, from the opening mise-en-scene sequences with Ethan and Marth to the wide VistaVision shots of the setting to the other various iconic shots that many films after paid homage to. Also, Ford manages to capture brutality without showing us in-your-face gore and violence, another great skill courtesy of the best classics of olden times (though graphic violence isn't necessarily a bad thing, from my personal point of view; just don't use it in excess and where it is not needed). This thing impressed me throughout the film, and not only that, Max Steiner's epic music score is perfect for the film, ranging from the thoughtful opening song to the wonderful melody to the haunting tunes and finally to the famous "Searchers" song that plays at the iconic ending scene.

Many others have delved further into the brilliance of this movie, so the best I can conclude with is: The Searchers deserves and rewards repeat viewings, and I probably will want to delve into this film again. 5/5

Monday, April 14, 2014

Film Review: THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug theatrical poster


***1/2/***** (3.5/5)

Director: Peter Jackson
Producer: Zane Weiner, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
Story/Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro; based on The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien
Music: Howard Shore
Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie
Editing: Jabez Olssen
Starring: Martin Freeman, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitrage, Orlando Bloom, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Ken Stott, James Nesbitt

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images

Run Time: 161 minutes

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, while definitely flawed and not up to the skill that The Lord of the Rings trilogy displayed, still served as a decent film adaptation of Tolkien's book (though three movies are a bit too stretched; two movies probably would have been enough; however, if the third movie delivers, then I won't complain too much). It did have some overuse of CGi and forced epic-ness, but it wasn't the abomination that some detractors claimed it was (and neither was it the masterpiece that its most ardent fans said it was). 

However, I was unable to catch this on the big screen, so I pre-ordered the Blu-ray when it was announced that it was going to be released soon. And sure enough, I got this film in the mailbox and decided to see this film with my siblings and a good friend of ours.

Now let me get to the plot summary: After the events of the previous film, the movie gives us a brief flashback to the events that happened before the journey, where Thorin (Richard Armitrage) is at an inn and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) meets him up there. It is here that Thorin is encouraged to go upon the quest and reclaim Erebor from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Later on, the film cuts to 12 months later, where Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf, Thorin and everyone else is on their journey and they come upon the house of Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), in whose house they dwell while escaping from Azog and his forces. On the journey they encounter spiders, elves, and men, until they eventually come to the Lonely Mountain, to the Desolation of Smaug, and to their homeland in Erebor. 

However, dark forces are awakening that were only hinted at before, and they will arise to cause great disaster that will threaten not only our characters but also the entire realm of Middle Earth.

Now that i got the plot summary out of the way, let me get to the actual review of the film.

Is it the superb and masterful sequel that some claim that it is? Is it the bloated abomination of epic proportions that the detractors claim? Or are these two options only two of many different views of this film.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug fails in many ways as an adaptation and rendition of the original source. While the main journey is there, much subplot has been added into the film (Thranduil, Legolas, and that female character Tauriel (Evangeline Lily)), and there is more CGi and more action than ever was in An Unexpected Journey. However, if one is considering this as a film, then for the most part this movie succeeds as a nice, exciting action flick that has some pretty good filmmaking and serves as a good blockbuster entertainment that doesn't transcend heights and genre limitations like Lord of the Rings did.

The acting is really good, with Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman doing really good jobs as Gandalf the Grey and Bilbo Baggins. Freeman really captures the development of Bilbo and how he has changed from the previous film. And McKellen captures the character of Gandalf as he learns of the evil that is awakening. Richard Armitrage as Thorin is well-acted, showing how the quest impacts Thorin's heart, changing him from a person concerned for Bilbo to a person almost mad for the Arkenstone and consumed by his desire for Erebor and the wealth it contains. Evangeline Lily is pretty decent as Tauriel, though I find her to still be filler that was added just to make the story more "female-friendly" (not to mention that I personally didn't connect with the implied love triangle with her, Legolas, and Kili, one of the thirteen dwarves) and Orlando Bloom is also pretty good in his role as Legolas (though his face looks a bit unnatural in contrast to the Lord of the Rings movies).


All the other actors do well in their roles, including Lee Pace as the dwarf-hating Woodland king Thranduil, but especially interesting in Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of the fierce dragon Smaug. While he isn't the master that some of the fans claim he is, he actually is very good for his role, and the terror he inspires is fitting for his intimidating role. Cumberbatch was perfect for this role as Smaug.

The script also is pretty good, but the film did drag a bit near the middle, especially with the overload of action sequences in this film, all of which are pretty good but which are not great. Many of the scenes border on over-the-top and popcorn-style scenes, with dwarves suddenly having skills that rival the finest Olympic athletes, elves doing acrobatics while fighting evil orcs, Tauriel using cool ninja-esque moves while killing monsters, and more. For the heavy action fan and an admirer of today's action-packed blockbuster entertainment, this movie is heaven. But for those who preferred Lord of the Rings and don't like overloaded action, this film will drag (even though I admit that I didn't hate most of the action scenes in the film). And may I note that this film has an excess of computer-generated images in contrast to the happy marriage of practical and digital effects that has existed in so many great films, masterpieces and classic movies of modern times (Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and many other films come to mind). While the CGi does manage to be good in the long run, there are instances where it looks fake, particularly in the ending where Thorin and all the dwarves unleash a golden statue of a dwarf warrior and that statue melts and covers Smaug (the gold looked so laughably fake). 

Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, while a bit too overloaded with action and CGi as well as other pop-blockbuster elements of today, still serves as a nice action movie that both expands upon the merits of An Unexpected Journey and at the same time expands upon the demerits of the film. It works on the overall level as an action film set in Middle Earth, and depsite its many flaws, there is just so much good work and effort put into this movie that it is near-impossible to compare this to other big-budget failures and fanboy punching-bags like the Star Wars prequel trilogy or Battlefield Earth

It is not a perfect film, and neither is it a great film, but it is a good film. 3.5/5

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The NOAH Movie Resource Page


The movie Noah, directed by Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan, The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) and starring famous movie star Russell Crowe in the titular role, has stirred up much controversy. The critics seem to like it a lot, and the film is getting plenty of glowing to good reviews, praising the creativity and what they see as good filmmaking.

However, in the Christian and religious community, there is much division. Many Christians consider it to be a good/great movie that succeeds both as a film and is compatible with the orthodox Christian faith despite the extrabiblical liberties and controversial changes. And others despise the film to the very core.

As for me, I personally I haven't seen the film, but I am finding validity on both sides of the issues. The haters seem to be right on with their complaints about certain bad changes that the movie makes, while the lovers of the film seem to make pretty decent arguments in favor of the film. And I don't exactly hold in favor some of the changes (from what I heard, the reason for the Flood was overpopulation, according to this film), but at the same time I will withhold judgment as to whether the film itself is bibilcal, not only because I haven't seen the film, but because much has already been said of the film elsewhere.

Also, I think both sides are in the wrong when bringing in personal attacks. Conservative Christians who hate the movie are wrong when they are accusing Noah fans of being immoral, godless hedonists and/or self-loathing Christians (in fact, I am pretty tired of this vitriol directed by them to Noah fans and defenders), and Noah defenders are wrong when they accuse all Noah skeptics of being bigots who can't appreciate good cinema (in fact, many people also hate Noah because they feel it is a bad film).

So here is my resource page on the movie, compiling lists that praise the movie, hate the movie (or don't want to support it due to the extrabiblical material) and are on the fence about it.

Note: This page won't be left uninterrupted and will be updated. When I see the film, I will publish my review of the film and maybe even more stuff on the film.

Introductory Material
  1. Brian Godawa. "Darren Aronofsky's Noah: Environmentalist wacko"
  2. Trevin Wax. "How Christians are responding to the Noah movie."
Pro/Mixed
  1. Peter T. Chattaway's review of the film; his second impressions
  2. Steven D. Greydanus's coverage of the film
  3. Steve Greydanus. "The Noah Movie: Questions and Answers"
  4. Jeffrey Overstreet talks a bit on coverage about the film.
  5. The Christianity Today review by Alissa Wilkison
  6. Rebecca Cusey. "Noah: A good flick for everyone"
  7. Rebecca Florence Miller. "10 reasons this Christian loves Noah"
  8. Joe Carter's review
  9. Greg Thornbury's review
  10. Diana Chandler. "Scriptural error abounds, but Christians promote, blast Noah."
  11. MOVIEGUIDE review
  12. Kat Butler's MOVIEGUIDE article: "What's wrong with NOAH?"
  13. Jerry Johnson lists five things he likes about the film.
  14. Peter T. Chattaway responds to Brian Mattson's anti-Noah article.
  15. Chris Goins. "NOAH: A Few Thoughts from a Pretty Simple Pastor and Dad"
  16. Steven D. Greydanus. "Fr. Barron on 'Noah'! Catholic Culture! More!"
  17. Plugged In. "Noah"
  18. Jeffrey Overstreet's commentary on Noah (Part One and Part Two)
  19. Kevin Ott's review of NOAH
  20. Russell Hemati - "Noah - a Christian Philosopher Review"
  21. An IGN.com review of the film by a Christian
  22. Ian Huyyet. "There's at least one conservative Christian who liked NOAH"
Con
  1. Barbara Nicolosi's review
  2. Answers in Genesis's page on Noah
  3. Kenneth Morefield's review
  4. Brian Godawa. "Deconstructing Noah's arc: Godawful storytelling" and "The subversion of God in Noah".
  5. Dr. Brian Mattson. "Sympathy for the devil"
  6. Dr. Albert Mohler. "Drowning in Distortion—Darren Aronofsky's Noah"
  7. Matt Walsh. "I'm a Christian and I think 'Noah' deserves four stars."
  8. Ben Shapiro. "9 Problems With Aronofsky's Noah"
  9. John Nolte. "'Noah' Review: Brilliantly Sinister Anti-Christian Filmmaking"
  10. Don Johnson. "How the NOAH Movie Dangerously Distorts The Truth About God"
  11. Denny Burk. "The midrashiest midrash that ever was midrashed ... A spoiler-free review of NOAH"
  12. Mennoknight's review of NOAH
  13. "A balanced Christian review of NOAH"
Discussion thread on Arts & Faith: "Noah"


Friday, March 14, 2014

SON OF GOD (2014) - Review

Son of God (2014)



***/5

Director: Christopher Spencer
Producer: Roma Downey, Mark Burnett
Music: Lorne Balfe
Story/Screenplay: Richard Bedser, Christopher Spencer, Colin Swash, Nick Young; based on the New Testament
Starring: Diogo Morgado (as Jesus), Darwin Shaw, Roma Downey, Amber Rose Revah, Sebastian Knapp, Gregg Hicks, and more
Cinematography: Rob Goldie

Studio: 20th Century Fox (distributor), Lightworks Media (production company)

MPAA Rating: PG-13

REVIEW

So last night, me and my family went to see Son of God in the theaters with a good friend of ours, and we sat through a two-hour film going over the life of Jesus Christ (while I was munching on my popcorn), starting from His birth to His miracles to His death and resurrection.

So what did my family think? Overall, they all enjoyed it. And what did I think? I didn't love the film, but I did think it was a decent film. It wasn't the abomination on film that some critics of the film make it out to be, but at the same time, despite the film's merits, ultimately it feels like a pretty decent, but average, re-edit of the original The Bible miniseries, with some filler added to it and one scene removed (the temptation scene, simply because of the over-hyped Obama/Satan comparison).

I feel no need to summarize the plot, since I believe that most people will be familiar with the story and that most critics already have done the job. But I will review the film.

First, I will focus on the merits. Diogo Morgado is very fitting for his role as Jesus Christ, giving us a relatable character who one could empathize with, and even if this Jesus does look like your generic white Jesus, Morgado did a really good job with his performance. The other actors are good in their roles, including Gregg Hicks as the cruel Pontius Pilate, Darwin Shaw as Simon Peter (the "big fisherman"), and the other apostles. Adrian Schiller is also fitting for his portrayal as Caiphas, combining both the self-righteous hypocrite who hates Jesus and the nationalist who is concerned for his nation.

Also, the direction is actually pretty decent, considering that this was originally not intended for a theatrical release (the original footage was from the miniseries). The pacing is passable, though the events do feel out of place and out of order for those who have seen the original miniseries (the order of certain events in the film are switched around). And the cinematography is very well-done, with some excellent choices made throughout the film. Overall, there was not much to complain about in the film.

Now, having given my thoughts on the respective merits on the film, what did I not like about the film?

First, having seen The Bible miniseries, the film felt like a rehash in an attempt to cash in on the quasi-craze of Hollywood-distributed Christian movies (Noah is about to come out, and I am interested in the film myself). Not much was new in the film, except for a few scenes being extended, some extended footage of John on Patmos, a scene where Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (which is just handled in a kind of back-handed way). And for those who haven't seen The Bible, the film will feel familiar as this story was filmed multiple times. They may or may not enjoy it, but I feel that most will have the view that it seems a bit too familiar, considering that Jesus movies had been made since the inception of film.

Second, Son of God has its share of technical flaws. For example, the pacing seemed to drag at times, and compared to the miniseries, certain events felt out of order. For example, the death of Lazarus and his resurrection was switched around from the original miniseries and placed at a different time in the movie. And while the extended footage added in does have merit, overall it feels like filler for the most part. Also, there are obvious examples of less-than-stellar CGI work here and there throughout the film. Also, as others have noted in their reviews, the film did feel preachy at times. Even Diogo Morgado's otherwise good portrayal of Jesus has some cheap dialogue to say ("Just give me an hour and I'll give you a whole new life" and "change the world" talk near the opening of the film)

Peter T. Chattaway's helpful review of the film gives some insights into its certain flaws that I will take the time to quote:
The film is a mixed bag in other ways, too. At times, the script, credited to director Christopher Spencer and three other writers, displays a welcome sensitivity to the issues at play. But at other times, it misreads them so badly it gets downright goofy.
On the sensitive side, the film avoids some of the controversy that plagued The Passion of the Christ by offering a much more balanced view of Jewish-Roman politics. 
For one thing, it clearly depicts Pontius Pilate (Greg Hicks) as the brutal governor that he was (Luke 13:1), even going so far as to show him violently putting down a protest over his misuse of the Temple’s funds (an episode taken from the secular historian Josephus). 
It also underscores the fact that the high priest, Caiaphas (Adrian Schiller), was motivated not just by religious concerns, but by a realpolitik desire to keep Israel safe from the Romans, even if it meant sacrificing individual Jews (John 11:47-50). 
But on the goofy side, the film utterly botches the scene in which Jesus declares that not one of the Temple’s stones will be left standing. In the Gospels, this statement has dark, apocalyptic overtones, but in the film, Jesus says it for no particular reason, and he smiles and pokes the belly of some random child while doing so. Would the real Jesus have grinned so happily when predicting the destruction of Jerusalem? Doubtful, to say the least.

But still, keeping this in mind, Son of God is a pretty decent and watchable, but ultimately average, cinematic depiction about the life of Jesus Christ. See the film and decide if the film is good, bad, or just average. But to the readers who are looking for better films about Jesus, look to Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927) (or the 1971 film with the same title), Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964), The Jesus Movie (1979), Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1979), The Miracle Maker (2000), the 1999 telefilm Jesus (starring Jeremy Sisto as Jesus), or Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2004). Or check out Catherine Hardwicke's (Thirteen, Twilight, Lords of Dogtown, Red Riding HoodThe Nativity Story (2006), if one is looking for a film about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Complexity, Grandeur and Adventure: My Thoughts on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

The original 1962 poster.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

*****/5

Director: David Lean
Producer: Sam Spiegel
Story/Screenplay: Robert Bolt, Michael Wilson
Music: Maurice Jarre
Cinematography: Freddie A. Young
Cast: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle, Jose Ferrer, Claude Rains, Arthur Kennedy

MPAA Rating: PG (1988 re-release); original rating: Approved

Run Time: 227 minutes (restored roadshow version); 222 minutes (original premiere); 210 minutes (original); 228 minutes (director's cut); 187 minutes (1970 re-release)

Studio: Columbia Pictures

REVIEW

“Nothing is written.”

"Complex grandeur," in my opinion, is the best phrase to describe the rich epic masterpiece of cinema that is David Lean's 1962 award-winning film Lawrence of Arabia, which has since been recognized as a classic of the cinematic art by not only moviegoers all over the world but also by top critics and prestigious film groups and organizations. Filmmakers were inspired by this movie, including the famous Steven Spielberg himself. It even inspired the Spaghetti Westerns to one degree or another.

And when I got to see this film for the first time (not on an authentic and pristine 70mm print, the intended format, but on the Blu-ray restoration, which was superb), I was engrossed by this impeccably rich and deep epic, which not only involved me in the vast expanse of the film but also the complexity and layers of the writing and the characters, which is ultimately what made the film endure and what made the visuals all that more special.

The plot centers around the life of the historical figure T. E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) and his conflicted loyalties during his WWI service in the Middle East, where he helps the Arabs in their revolt against the Turks, winning victory in Aqaba and Damascus. However, the narrative unfolds, showing how he is both engrossed by the expanse of the desert and torn apart between his two loyalties.

There is a reason why Lawrence of Arabia is hailed as a classic, and it is not because of misguided nostalgia for the past cinema. While nostalgia may or may not have anything to do with the love this film receives, the reason it deserves the love it has is that it is ultimately a great film and that it is a masterpiece of the film genre, using the full power of the cinematic medium and the power of 65mm cinematography (filmed on celluloid 65mm, which is held to be the best celluloid film any filmmaker can dream of working with) to give us rich cinematic visuals and engrossing narratives and characters, all of which mix the realistic and the poetic nature of filmmaking.

Peter O'Toole's flamboyant and larger-than-life portrayal of Lawrence is one of the best and most complex film protagnoists in history. On the one hand, we see Lawrence being the champion of liberty for the Arabs and on the other hand we see a sadist who delights in killing (this is a running point in several moments in the film, particularly in the Arab attack on Damascus, the famous "No prisoners" sequence). Peter O'Toole and the screenwriters (Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson) bring this out beautifully.

The other actors are also lifelike in their portrayals, including Omar Sharif as Sherif Ali, Anthony Quinn as Auda abu Tayi, Jack Hawkins as General Allenby, Claude Rains as Mr. Dryden, and Jose Ferrer as the Turk general, who captures Lawrence and tortures him (it is implied that Lawrence is raped, but it is not depicted explicitly).

Everyone of them feels lifelike and real, and at the same time, they feel larger-than-life, like great historical figures and great men. That is part of what makes the film so great, because even with the pomp and epicness, the film manages to be lifelike and engrossing, rather than feeling artificial or corny (though the opposite is true; films can be too lifeless, as is evident in certain blockbusters of our time).

Also, the writing by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson is phenomenal; it is so rich and layered, and at the same time not too complex to keep the viewer from understanding the main plot points of the film. And even when one doesn't always remember the specifics, the writing does help, along with the evocative images of Freddie Young's masterful cinematography, which was shot in the beautiful medium of 65mm (and restored meticulously from the original 65mm camera negative at a super-high resolution to bring out the pristine picture of the original source). And David Lean's direction is also superb, and even while I am not too acquainted with David Lean's other work, I am pleased to say that David Lean kept me hooked into the film, even through the super-long (not over-long, just super-long) time length of the film. Films like this are a treat, and I am glad to say that I saw this film.

Finally, I would like to note that Lawrence of Arabia is a very complex and rich film, because even as it gives us awe-inspiring imagery of the desert, it shows the harshness of it and how it changes Lawrence. Also, like I noted before, Peter O'Toole perfectly portrays the character of Lawrence, contrasting both a man of mercy and a man of killing. And even when one is shown that the Arabs are fighting against the Turks for their freedom, one also senses a hatred for war emanating throughout the film, similar to some of David Lean's other films (especially Bridge on the River Kwai). And many more complexities are part of why I appreciate this grand and majestic masterpiece.

A+ (10/10)


Thursday, February 27, 2014

Revisiting THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) - Mel Gibson's Cinematic Masterpiece





This Friday, Mark and Roma Downey, creators of the popular miniseries The Bible, decided to release a new movie entitled Son of God this Friday. It combines clips from the original miniseries with deleted footage to make for a suitable two-hours plus of movie to sit through.

So I decided to revisit Mel Gibson's controversial 2004 smash hit The Passion of the Christ (which I rewatched recently), that controversial movie dividing people and critics, leaving those who loved it (e.g. Roger Ebert, James Berardinelli, Steven Greydanus) and those who hated it (e.g. Jami Bernard, David Edelstein). Defenders compared it to Carl Dreyer's 1920s classic The Passion of Joan of Arc, while critics of the movie had an opinion that was aptly summed up in this one phrase: "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" (in loving reference to the infamous horror franchise Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Defenders praised the power of the film conveyed through the graphic violence and technical mastery while the critics attacked it for alleged anti-Semitism and graphic violence reminiscent of exploitation cinema.

As for me, I consider this to be one of the all-time best movies ever, albeit a very underappreciated film. While it does have many moments of brilliance, it is very powerful ultimately due to its exaltation of Christ as Savior and powerful evisceration of anti-Christian doctrine. If one is not a Christian, then one can appreciate the technical elements of the film, down from Caleb Deschandel's superb cinematography to Jim Caviezel's impassioned performance as the tortured Jesus Christ (not in the sense of the dark and moody movie superheroes of today, but rather physically tortured for about two hours) to Mel Gibson's raw direction.

So I will break down several reasons as to why I think that The Passion of the Christ still holds up after its much-hyped debut in 2004.

The Filmmaking

The Passion of the Christ ultimately works not only because it is a great Christian-themed display but because it is a great film.

The acting is phenomenal; Jim Caviezel empowers his role as the crucified and tortured Jesus Christ, starting from the very heartbreaking opening shots with Him praying to God down to the very violent scenes where he is tortured and crucified. His role adds a new layer of understanding to the much-quoted passage from Isaiah 53:5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (KJV)

The performance from Caviezel doesn't add to that but rather exemplifies that in a brutal and emotionally cathartic manner; and I would like to note that the intercuts of Jesus' previous moments before His crucifixion work effectively well, not only due to Caviezel's performance but also give us a glimmer of hope and triumph amidst all this justifiably R-rated violence.

Also, Mel Gibson's raw direction fits well for this film, not only working with the massive amounts of graphic violence in the film but also the raw and intense feel one gets when viewing this film. I don't feel it pornographic or exploitative; rather, I feel it fits well for a film of this type, setting it apart from the other Christ-related films in its rawness, seriousness, cathartic feel and graphic depiction of suffering.

The screenwriting is not very traditional in the sense that it adheres to the standard three-act structure and the standard character-development rules of movie-making; in fact, there is no character development that i know of. But the film does not need character development, in my view, for The Passion shows the sufferings of a perfect God at the hands of those He came to save. This is the basis of the film and it works very well, without being preachy like many a Christian-made movie that has come out. And the events in the film are well-integrated into the structure of the film, interchanging with the bloodied Christ and the Christ who preached messages of love.

And the use of dead languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin) fit well into the authentic, down-to-earth aura of the movie, with subtitltes to assist the viewer.

Overall, The Passion works because it is a very good film; otherwise, it would not be able to hold up.

The Graphic Violence

One of the reasons The Passion stands out among the other films related to the crucifixion is precisely due to the graphic violence that Mel Gibson paints into the film. Normally, such graphic violence would fit well into a midnight exploitation flick, but in this film, because of the emotional catharsis established in the beginning scenes, the graphic violence further serves that purpose, to feel sympathy for Christ and to feel disgusted at this level of brutality leveled at Christ (which was probably much more gory than what was displayed in the film).

Some critics of the film would deride the violence as exploitative, and I will confess that this is true to a degree (and I will confess that the violence can get tedious at times). In fact, Gibson exploits the graphic nature of the violence to grab us and display cathartic rawness. But unlike the average exploitation film, I hold that the "exploitation" in this film is for a noble purpose and doesn't get out of hand by displaying distateful scenes. In fact, even during the very first display of graphic blood, there are moments when it cuts away from the action to display emotions on those who watch, especially Mary the Mother of Jesus (played effectively by Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (played by Italian beauty Monica Belluci).

I guess that the emotional catharsis caused by the graphic imagery was also a reason many disliked the movie; they felt that the movie was being too distateful and exploitative in the violence in an attempt to gain an emotional reaction and that thus it made it a bad movie. But I hold that film is "manipulative" in that it uses images and emotions and technology to gain emotional reaction to it. If one could accuse The Passion of the Christ of doing this, then one could accuse some of the greatest movies of all time (Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).

The Themes and Message

The final reason why I think The Passion of the Christ stands out is how forcefully it tells the message without always using words (not to say that words aren't used; in fact, during the many juxtapositions, they are). It displays the themes of salvation, love, forgiveness, and mercy even when we see people mercilessly taunt and torture the God of love, Jesus Christ. And it condemns those who reject the message (which I see is another reaosn why many people dislike this film) by contrasting them to the very goodness of Christ.

To those who condemn the film as anti-Semitic, I would say that the film is not anti-Semitic, not only because it did not cause anti-Semitic riots (as some feared), but because some of the very main characters are essentially Jewish, and the film is proud to display that Jewishness throughout the film, not shying away from it at all. Also, the villains of the film include Gentiles (Romans) along with the Jews, and many of the Jewish villains are not so much average Jews as they are hierarchical leaders that are threatened by Jesus and decide to act to crush Him. This is depicted as villanous, not the Semitism.

Also, the themes of love and forgiveness are effectively displayed, not only through the sufferings of Christ on the Cross but also through those sequences that were juxtaposed with the carrying of the Cross. The scenes with the final Passover, His preaching to crowds, and brief shots of people throwing down palm branches when He enters into Jerusalem, contrast so effectively to the hate that is spewed toward Him by the government and by regular folk who once celebrated Him. It utilizes one of the best methods of spreading a message (contrasting it to its opposite) and uses the power of film to effectively do this very well.

And that is why I hold that The Passion of the Christ is a very great film, especially years after its premiere.

a