MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  Episode 2 of the trilogy.  If you did not see the opening movie or read the Suzanne Collins novels, you will probably not appreciate this film despite some excellent acting performances, particularly Jennifer Lawrence’s continuing role as Katniss Everdeen.  The games are an annual survivalist test sponsored by a suppressive government called Panem.  The opening episode introduced us to the Game and the surviving couple, Katniss and Peeta.  This episode opens with Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) embarking on a tour of the government districts.  Panem is a society comprised of a very rich elite living in the capitol city while the rest of the population, who reside in twelve different districts, are required to support the elite while working for minimal wages and with no political freedom.  Panem’s leader, President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, is aware that Katniss has become a symbol of freedom to the population and would prefer her dead.  As she travels, Katniss observes revolutionary graffiti.  The individual in charge of the games, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, suggests to President Snow that there be a rule change as part of the 75^th anniversary celebration of Panem surviving a catastrophic war.  The new rules are that prior winners must again play the survivor game.  There are a number of good actors in this film, including repeat performances by Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks as well as the addition of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer.  The majority of the 146 minute movie  is spent laying the ground work for the revised version of the Hunger Games and episode 3.  Frequently the middle film in a trilogy is a transitional link and Catching Fire is more so than most.  If you come into the film without knowing anything about Panem or the Games, it will only be the acting that holds your attention.  Lawrence proves once again that she is the best among the young film actresses.  While the storyline kept me involved, the movie itself felt longer than its almost 2 and half hours - not a good sign when I catch myself looking at my watch.  My hunch is that episode 3 will be superb and may even require Sutherland to do more than just read his lines.  Unfortunately, as in “Harry Potter”, it appears the final episode will be split into two parts.  Bottom line on this film is that if you enjoyed episode one or have read the trilogy, there are enough good things about the movie that you should see it.  However, the opposite is equally as true.

 

MOVIE: All is Lost

All is Lost: Robert Redford battles for survival in the Indian Ocean.  Redford is on screen for virtually the entire 107 minutes of this movie and, when he is not on the screen, there are primarily ocean scenes.  There is no appearance by any other actor.  To say the dialogue is minimal is to exaggerate.  The movie opens with Redford’s voice describing his situation then the words “8 days earlier” appear on the screen.  Thereafter, words are spoken only twice: a mayday sequence when Redford gets his radio to work briefly; and a one word yell when a particular negative event occurs.  The movie action consists of a survivor’s tale.  We never learn the name of Redford’s character.  We surmise that he is on a solo around the world journey and somewhere between Indonesia and Madagascar.  The sail boat is well stocked with both food and emergency items.  Clearly, Our Man (closest we come to a character name and appears in the movie credits) is a skilled, experienced and organized sailor.  As the film unfolds, we learn things about him.  He has, for example, a wedding ring.  The boat is named “Virginia Jean”.  Connected? Probably, but if so, it is our conclusion.  His problem starts - shown at the beginning of the film right after the “8 days earlier” screen shot - with ocean trash.  While Redford is in the cabin asleep, an ocean container that had fallen off a cargo ship punches a hole in the boat’s hull.  Our Man is able to patch the breach but water had entered his cabin and damaged his navigational and  electrical systems.  More bad things happen including a world class storm.  Through all the problems, Our Man addresses as best he can what he is forced to deal with, including navigating with the use of only a traditional mariner’s sextant.  Despite all the technology on the boat, the elements push him towards a fundamental fight for his survival.  As with Gravity, it is not obvious how the story will end.  Redford is 77 years old.  To give this type of performance, which is remarkable regardless of his age, is awesome and it may be his best performance ever.  Based upon his movie history, I had to think about whether such praise is warranted.  It is.  The writer and director of this impressive film is J. C. Chandor.  The cinematographers are Frank G. DeMarco and Peter Zuccarini, the latter being in charge of the underwater scenes which are truly beautiful.  These individuals along with Redford should receive Oscar nominations.  The movie takes Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea to a whole new level.  This is a movie you should see.  Due to the level of Redford’s performance and Chandor’s skills, this is much more than just a boat adrift at sea movie. 

MOVIE: 12 Years a Slave

12 Years a Slave: a brutally honest portrayal of slavery.  This film is neither a Gone with the Wind whitewash nor like any other Hollywood production you have seen regarding the pre-Civil War South.  The film tells the true story of Solomon Northup, one of the few free Black individuals who successfully regained his freedom after being kidnapped and sold into slavery.  Solomon wrote of his experience 8 years prior to the Civil War (1853 publication date).  I will be shocked if John Ridley is not nominated for an Oscar for his screen play adaption.  The director is Steve McQueen, a British citizen, and I’m confident that he, too, will receive a nomination for Best Director, as should the film.  The movie opens with a brief slave quarter scene that is reshown in part later in the film.  You are then presented with the life Solomon had been living in upstate New York with his wife and two children prior to being tricked, chained and sold into slavery.  Solomon, played brilliantly by Chiwetel Ejiofor, made his living as a violinist.  Solomon is introduced to two men who ask him to accompany them to Washington D.C. for a 2- week job playing with a circus.  In D. C., they buy him an expensive dinner and drug his wine.  Solomon awakes chained and his 12 years as a slave commences.  The year is 1841.  The cast is excellent with appearances by well-known actors in brief but critical roles.  Paul Giamatti plays the heartless seller of humans.  Alfre Woodard has a short scene as the well cared for mistress of a slave holder.  In a more extended role, Benedict Cumberbatch, one of my favorite actors, plays the so-called good slave master while Michael Fassbender, another excellent actor, is the abusive plantation owner, Edwin Epps, who buys Solomon’s contract from the Cumberbatch character.  Both the good and evil slave owners conduct Sunday church services and quote bible passages to justify their behavior.  The savagery of the system is shown, including the common use of whippings, the prevalent rapings of Black women, the ease with which people were killed, and the physical and psychological violations committed.  The film also depicts the twisted mind-set of the slave owners’ wives.  The character played by Brad Pitt, a Canadian who is hired by Epps to work on a construction project, is a bit odd but perhaps it was just the accent Pitt chose to use.  Pitt was a co-producer.  The second half of the 134 minute film takes place on the Epps’ Louisiana cotton farm and these scenes will stay with you.   There are many strong performances.  Of particular note is Lupita Nyong’o’s portrayal of Patsey, Epps brutalized favorite.  Both Fassbender and Nyong’o will probably receive nominations for best supporting actor and actress.  The fact that a significant percentage of the U.S. population once supported the slavery system is deplorable.  So, too, is the fact that it has taken until now, 150 years after Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, to finally and accurately dramatize the absolute evil and horror of America’s slavery system.  This movie is not entertainment but rather a realitistic depiction, the consequences of which continue to impact us today.  This is a must see film.    

 

MOVIE: Anita

Anita: an excellent documentary that focuses on what Anita Hill has done with her life since the Clarence Thomas hearing.  The first half of this 85 minute film places Hill’s testimony in the context of being heard by an all-male, White judicial panel addressing a subject that most of them probably never spent any time thinking about:  sexual harassment.  If the same testimony was given today, I’m quite sure the final confirmation vote, if it even got to that point, would be different.  As it was, the vote was the narrowest favorable confirmation ever for a Supreme Court justice, 52 to 48.  I had forgotten just how close the vote was.  The film clips used by the director, Frieda Lee Mock, included a scene of female members of the House of Representatives, including Patsy Mink, walking up the Capitol steps with the intention of addressing the senators on the issue of sexual harassment.  They were not given the opportunity to testify.  The movie notes that there were other women prepared to give testimony consistent with Hill’s but the committee chose not to call them.  The 1991 Senate clips are not lengthy.  There are segments of interviews with individuals in whom Hill had confided in the previous 7 years regarding the exact events in which Senator Spector tried so hard to create disbelief.  The film also shows the brilliance of having Thomas use the phrase “high tech lynching” in his defense and ignore the substance of Hill’s testimony.  The lack of either a female or a non-White on the judicial panel had historic impact.  But this film is not just a retelling of an historic event.  The movie explores Hill’s positive life and actions during the 20+ years since the hearing.  She has been active with community groups addressing the all too present issue of sexual harassment.  Hill left her tenured position at the University of Oklahoma law school  for a professorship at Brandeis University.  Frieda Mock previously won a documentary Oscar and this film could result in a further nomination.  The movie immediately gets your attention as it opens with a phone message recording Hill received in 2010 from a person identifying herself as Ginni Thomas, Clarence’s wife, asking if Anita was finally ready to apologize for her testimony.  The recording is real but no one knows if the speaker was actually Ginni Thomas and, if so, why it was made on a Saturday morning to Hill’s office number.  The film leaves no doubt that Hill has no reason to apologize and also how one does not let a single event control one’s life.

MOVIE: Mandela

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom:  the man overwhelmed both the screenwriter and the director.  The movie, especially the first half, is a series of sketches of Nelson Mandela’s life history, almost a Cliff Notes presentation.  I think most people viewing this film already know some of Mandela’s history and many of you reading this review know a great deal.  However, if your knowledge of South Africa’s history is limited, this highlight reel will not be very educational.  Mr. Mandela’s life is extraordinary and this film attempts to tell the entire story.  Although it runs for 152 minutes, it is not enough time to go from Mandela’s tribal childhood to the presidency of his country.  Further, by trying to tell the whole story, the film feels even longer than its almost 2-1/2 hour running time.  The contrast with a film such as Invictus, which told just part of Mandela’s story, is striking.  The movie style is reminiscent of Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi.  Nevertheless, there are some positive things to say about the film, especially with respect to Idris Elba’s performance as Nelson Mandela and the even stronger performance by Naomie Harris as Winnie.   One subject this film does quite well is to explain why Winnie became so bitter in contrast to Mandela’s ability to forgive while never forgetting.  Both Elba and Harris may receive Oscar nominations for their strong performances - the actors did their part.  Another interesting element to the film and part of its problem was the decision by its director, Justin Chadwick, to open the film with tribal childhood scenes and to include adult tribal vignettes.  Based upon Mandela’s actions, the tribal presentation may say more about the two Englishmen,  Director Chadwick and Screenwriter William Nicholson, than the man they are presenting.  This opening five minute sequence is beautiful to see but it sends the wrong message.  The source material for the movie is Mandela’s memoir and based on my limited knowledge of him, I think the film is factually accurate.  But a little lightness would have helped as would have a greater emphasis on the person rather than the events. 

 

BOOK: In Times of Fading Light

In Times of Fading Light: a German novel written by Eugen Ruge and translated by Anthea Bell.  The novel takes place primarily in East Berlin between 1952 and 2001.  Three central characters are Wilhelm and Charlotte, a husband and wife who are believers in Communism, and their grandson, Alexander.  The novel is subtitled “The Story of a Family”.  In a series of short vignettes, we learn about these individuals, their family and friends, and  the intrusion of a belief system that invades everyday life.  While this a story about family, it is neither an American family nor a traditional telling of family life.  The chapter headings are dates and not ordered chronologically.  I’ve commented before as to my dislike of flashbacks, however, in this novel, the author is addressing specific events and retells certain critical occurrences from the perspective of different characters.  The story opens with an introduction to Alexander after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The second chapter occurs in 1952 as Wilhelm and Charlotte are leaving Mexico, where they were employed, and returning to Germany.  We have six tellings about a family event, Wilhelm’s 90^th birthday party on October 1, 1989.   Each telling is presented by a significant character in the novel.  In between, we learn about Alexander during his first days of compulsory military service, see him introducing his girlfriend to his mother and learn of other family events, all told with a Big Brother background.  There is even, through marriage, a  Russian element.  Eugen Ruge is the son of an East German historian who I believe did time in a Siberian labor camp.  This 307 page novel was awarded the German Book Prize in 2011.  The English translation was published this year.  This is Ruge’s first novel and he scores.  The light in the novel is presented with wit as it skips through time.  One chapter occurs in the year 1961 - Charlotte is debating democratization and Stalinism with her son Kurt while his son and his wife are feeding swans at a park with the catalyst for the discussion being the building of the Berlin Wall.  This book is well worth reading. 

MOVIE: Captain Phillips

Captain Phillips: a Paul Greengrass movie.   There are a few directors that if I know they’ve made a movie, I’ll make a point of seeing it.   With this excellent movie about Somali pirates and a ship’s captain played by Tom Hanks, Greengrass stays on that list.  As with United 93, you know how the movie will end because the film is based on true events.  In this case, what took place over 5/6 days is condensed into 134 minutes, including a preamble showing Captain Phillips with his wife before arriving in Oman and heading out to sea.   It is the British filmmaker’s camera work that initially draws you in, however, it is the excellent acting that keeps you involved.  Hanks is superb as Captain Phillips but what also holds you is the fact that the primary Somali characters are presented as real people.  Barkhad Abdi, as Muse, the “captain” of the small pirate boarding party, matches up quite well with Hanks.  Muse is the only member of the boarding party who is still alive; he is serving time in a U S prison.  These four pirates, as were the ones I read about as a youngster, are in it only for the money; they have no knowledge of the cargo they are hijacking.   One of the interesting twists in this storyline is that the cargo on Captain Phillips’ ship included a significant number of food containers from the United Nations’ World Food Program bound for various African countries.   There has also been some controversy over the incident.  A lawsuit was filed by crew members against Captain Phillips and the ship’s owner questioning whether the course navigated by the Captain was too close to shore; the movie has a scene where some of the crew raise this issue.  However, the movie points out that the pirates were operating from a mother ship and that the cargo ship itself was hundreds of miles off the African coast.  I believe the lawsuit is still pending.  A pirate side note: pirates also operate off the coasts of Vietnam and the Philippines; the Strait of Hormuz is not the only area infected with pirates.  Although the movie focuses on Captain Phillips, it also shows that other crew members acted bravely.  Shane Murphy and Mike Perry, played by Michael Chernus and David Warshofsky respectively, are two of the crew who are highlighted.  What I found incredible was the merchant ship’s utter lack of any defensive weapons.  I understand this has now changed but even as of 2009 when the incident occurred, there had been sufficient pirate activity in the Hormuz Strait to render the total lack of any weapons shocking.  The SEAL rescue operation is all business with no light talk.  Greengrass has the reputation for being factually accurate while engrossing the viewer in a storyline we already know.  United 93 was one of the best films of 2006 and more people should have seen it.   With Tom Hanks being at the top of his trade, this film is deservedly receiving a wider viewer audience.