Half Nelson

What would you do, as a 13 year-old student, if you found your teacher smoking crack in the bathroom? What if you were the teacher? This is Half Nelson, a new film from first-time director Ryan Fleck starring the best young actor in the movie business, Ryan Gosling.
Gosling plays Dan Dunne, a junior high history teacher and basketball coach by day and an addict by night. Dunne is a good teacher and really cares for his students. Being a teacher myself, I can understand the pressures and struggles of the job. He grows close to one student, Drey (played by Shareeka Epps), and tries to be a good influence in her life. Drey's brother is in jail. Frank, her brother's partner in crime/drug dealing, takes an interest in Drey's life too. Drey needs a good male role model (her father is absent as well), and the crack-smoking teacher battles it out with the crack-dealing friend. Irony. Who should be in Drey's life? What kind of influence does a 13 year-old girl need?
Dunne's favorite subject to discuss in change. He has a theory that two opposites always exist, and that those forces push against each other. Yet, the opposing forces actually unite in a way. Example: the kids hate school, yet they still go. Also, Dunne says, history is a circle, not a timeline. (Movie watching tip: Theories discussed by characters in a film are usually about the themes of the film itself, though they may seem unrelated). Thus, opposites exist in the film (a crack smoking teacher who wants to be a good influence on a student and get her away from bad influences, like drugs and drug-dealers). "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it," yet in this film it seems as if history will be repeated regarless of prior knowledge. Dunne is a walking contradiction. He is a bold idealist, yet doesn't live up to his own standards. He sincerely wants the best for his students, particularly Drey, yet cannot change his own life. Half Nelson is nothing if not honest. In a normal hollywood film the student and the teacher would come together and everyone would be changed for the better. Happy endings. But Fleck treats his subject with authenticity, not trying to inspire so much as trying to acknowledge the way people really work. You could see Dunne as a hypocrite (aren't we all). Or you could see him as a person representative of the opposing forces inside us all. We are all contradictions, aren't we? *spoiler warning* In the end, Drey does not bring about a change in Dunne's life, and there is no tidy resolution. Instead, she just sits with him in his brokenness. Drey actually goes further dow the road of destruction herself, becoming an errand girl for Frank and delivering drugs to customers (including Dunne). I did not like the ending because it seems like a shrugging off of responsibility, yet that is what happens more often than not. We tend to write ourselves off as failures and learn to live with it.
Half Nelson is filled with irony and paradox. Should we fight for change even though we know (or at least think) it is futile? Even for ourselves? It is a cop-out to say "this is who I am" if there is something in our lives that need to change. Shouldn't Dunne man up and take responsibility for his habit? Yet, to be honest, the change is very difficult and many people give up. So often the change does not happen. Without God, can change happen at all? I like to call the change redemption. Dunne does not have God, and maybe that is why he fails to find redemption. Yet did he find a shadow of redemption in the friendship of Drey? Will they help each other further down the road, or will they enable each other to slip further? Fleck's film is not sentimental. It does not give us pat answers or make us feel good about ourselves. Half Nelson does what all great films do, gives us more questions than answers.
Gosling should win Best Actor this year, but he won't. The performance is masterful and beautiful. And I hope Ryan Fleck makes more movies in the future; what a unique and gutsy first feature. It seethes with subtelty and depth.

The Oscars

Well, it's that time again; the night when the movie business pats itself on the back: the Oscars. Sunday night we will have a whole new set of awards to argue about. So without further ado, here's my input. I will briefly cover the "main categories" and then focus in on best picture.

Director: Who showed their mastery in filmmaking this year? Best Director is all about execution, and no one executed better than Martin Scorsese. Not only does he deserve an Oscar more than anyone breathing, but this year he made a film that deserves an Oscar too. Eastwood did a fantastic job as well, but he already has two directing statues. I know you can't look at it that way though, so let me say that if he was nominated for both Letters and Flags, he should win, but since it's just one film, he is just a little behind Marty. Frears' The Queen was a great film. He did a great job directing. Greengrass was original and creative with his handling of 9/11 in United 93. Inarritu's Babel ... well I'll get to that later.

Will Win: Scorsese

Should Win (at the top of my lungs): Scorsese

Actress: I am lagging in this category. I have only seen The Queen, but I do have Prada at home to watch this week. I know it's not fair to say someone should win if you haven't seen all the performances, so I can't go that far. But let me say that Mirren did such a wonderful job of restrained elegance that she deserves the Oscar. I have not seen such a great performance by an actress in many years, in fact I can't think of any performance this century that was as in-tune with her character. She is the front-runner for good reason.

Will Win: Helen Mirren

Should Win (I know it's not fair): Helen Mirren

Best Actor: Again facing deficiencies, I admit I have not seen Happyness or Venus, but I'm sure they are great performances. Out of the three that I have seen I would have to go with Gosling. His eyes communicate more feeling than many actors' entire beings. Powerful, subtle, and vulnerable performance. Whitaker was great as Idi Amin, but it felt more like a Supporting Actor role. Leo was much better in The Departed than Blood Diamond, I just couldn't get over that accent.

Will Win: Forest Whitaker

Should Win: Ryan Gosling

A few other hopes, some being longshots: Djimon Hounsou for Best Supporting Actor, fantastic job. Children of Men for Cinematography, because not only is it beautifully shot but the best movie of the year needs to be recognized for something. Abigail Breslin for Best Supporting Actress. And the most important category at the Oscars, Best Original Screenplay, The Queen or Pan's Labyrinth.

.

Ok, on to the big one. Best Picture: Babel is a picture that weaves together three narratives from seemingly unrelated locales: Morocco, Japan, and America/Mexico. It is a story of pain, loss, and consequence. I will catch a lot of flack for this one, but Babel was melodramatic, contrived, and lacked depth. I understood what Inarritu was trying to do, but it just didn't hit me like it did others. I loved the Moroccon storyline, and the Japanese one was pretty good, but the Mexican thread was ridiculous. In some circles it is the favorite, but this film does not deserve to win. It is "high-minded" and addresses globalization, which is an important issue, but something was missing. Little Miss Sunshine was cute, fun, and made some great points. Yet, it's not quite Best Pic quality. Letters From Iwo Jima is a fascinating picture, well-deserving of the nomination. It should be coupled with Flags of our Fathers, though. Together, they make an incredible feat of filmmaking, but Letters on it's own is not quite as powerful. The Queen had depth coming out its ears, there are layers upon layers here. It is critical of the monarchy, yet critcal of the people as well. It is even-handed, fair and balanced. I will not be disappointed if either of the last two films mentioned win, although that is highly unlikely. But, the Best Picture award should go to The Departed. This is filmmaking perfection. Yes, it isn't wholesome, it does not "send a message" per se, and it is not what people would call "important." It is raw, honest, and perfectly executed.

Will Win: Babel or The Departed or Little Miss Sunshine

Should Win: The Departed

And there you have it. Let the debates begin. That is what makes awards to great, you can argue even after the award has been given. Everyone can have an opinion. This year's BP race is especially close, it could go to any of three movies. It will go down to the wire.

Jesus Camp

The Oscar-nominated documentary Jesus Camp follows Becky Fisher, a Pentecostal children's minister. She runs a camp in North Dakota every summer (although not anymore, after the release of the film, but that's another story). Fisher and others preach a "conservative fundamentalist" brand of Christianity to children somewhere between the ages of 8 and 13. Interspersed throughout the narrative are thoughts from the opposite end of the spectrum, "liberal" radio talk-show host Mike Papantonio. The directors (Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady) focus on the lives of a few of the children being indoctrinated (Fisher's words). The result is awkward, funny, disturbing, and embarassing.

I don't really know what to say about this film. The form of Christianity preached by most in Jesus Camp is not what I believe Jesus wants. Yet there are many things I agree with wholeheartedly and do not wish to throw out just because "fundamentalists" said them. Many have claimed this documentary is even-handed, but that is not the case. The film is very critical of Fisher, her camp, and her particular brand of Evangelical Christianity? The question is "Is this warranted?" I hate it when people are turned off to Jesus because others (or myself) misrepresent Him. Thus, the criticism is deserved. Yet, the Bible calls us to love all, especially our brothers and sisters. As the children's song states "They will know we are Christians by our love." And this love should be no more apparent than in the way we treat each other, even if we disagree. We as Christ-followers should not be divided, but unified, as Jesus himself prayed. As Papantonio states, the us/them mentality has gotten out of hand and is tearing this country apart. How can we reconcile? I believe our unity is more important than whether we agree on doctrinal issues ("non-salvific" issues, that is).

At times I wanted to yell at the people on screen, and at other times I found myself praying along with them. I felt pity for them, I felt angry at them, and I felt criticized along with them. The world is all too eager to point a finger at the "religious right." I want to point a finger too, but should I? Will we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater?

The film tends to focus on the political aspects of right-wing Christianity. We have to realize that mixing politics with religion usually ends up washing the power from the latter and placing the emphasis on the former. Jefferson wanted separation of church and state to protect the church from the state, and not the other way around. We must not let politicians manipulate our beliefs. Yet, God does not want us to sit on our hands either. So what should we do? That's a much longer discussion.

I cringed my way through Jesus Camp in much the same way as I did through Saved!, but with less laughing. Although it's not a fun ride for a Christ-follower to see someone put a sub-group of Christianity under a microscope, it is worthwhile. I just don't know what to make of this film. It is a great conversation starter, and I would encourage discussion on the topics raised. One thing that struck me as vital, though, is that we must love our own (fellow believers), no matter how messed up or off they (or we) seem.

The Departed

Martin Scorsese is a national treasure. Hopefully a week from now he will no longer be known as "the greatest director without an Oscar." He's the greatest American Director alive, regarless of the fact that the Academy makes horrible decisions sometimes. But enough about Marty's greatness, and on with his latest masterpiece: The Departed.

The phenomenal cast includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin. The script is perfect, the story intriguing, the cinematography striking, and the direction perfect. This movie is just flat-out enjoyable. It is brutally violent and profane, but fun (is that bad?). It's like a chocolate covered punch in the mouth.

The story, a remake of a Chinese film, is a classic story of deception and double-dealing. Billy Costigan (Leo) plays an undercover cop infiltrating the mob world of Frank Costello (Jack). At the same time Costello has one of his guys, pretty boy Colin Sullivan (Damon) placed in the police department. Who will be found out first?

Can someone "good" be in a "bad" environment non-stop and not be changed? How much are we influenced by our environment? And how much can we be set apart, holy? Costigan is an undercover cop pretending to be a brutal mobster. Will he become what he is trying to destroy? Paul says "I have become all things to all people" to preach the gospel, but does that apply here? We must be careful always, that we are not changed into what we are trying to help save others from. The metaphor of an undercover cop is such a great picture for becoming "in the world but not of it." We are called to do right, to help all, to be righteous. We are also called to be holy, which means set apart/different/other than. There is a delicate balance. We must always strive to do good, but be humble enough to know that we are weak and can be easily changed by our environment. The film also puts a Utilitarian twist to the idea. Costigan is willing to do some evil things in order to bring about a greater good. Is that consistent with the Bible? At first glance it appears that sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes no. I think this question bears further study. But back to the film.

Another aspect that fascinates me about The Departed is the background of its director. Scorsese grew up in Little Italy around mobsters. He also grew up in the Catholic Church. It was a constant struggle for him to live amongst this violence and deception but not be changed by it. You can see this struggle in the characters of the film, some trying their best to resist evil and others being totally consumed by it.

The violence in the film is brutally honest for a reason. We see a whole lot of death/killing, etc. on tv or in movies, but a lot of it is unrealistic. I would go as far as to say that the vast majority of entertainment makes killing look fun, cool, and overall not that big of a deal. The Departed isn't trying to make us aware of a social issue, Scorsese just wants us to know that this is really what "cops and robbers" looks like: it's not a game. Although it's hard to take, I believe this is vital to see because it (hopefully) makes us appalled at violence. Marty pulls no punches. There are no drawn-out death scenes with sad music in the background. This is what it looks like. He calls it honesty.

Gareth Higgins, author of How Movies Helped Save My Soul, first introduced me to the "myth of redemptive violence." This idea is perpetuated in hollywood over and over again. The myth believes that violence can bring about redemption, violence solves problems and makes everything right again, and makes us want to take up arms against the bad guys (think Braveheart, Gladiator, Die Hard, Rambo, Man on Fire, etc. etc.). Does The Departed promote this lie? It is important for us to ask this question whenever we see violence. I think it could go either way/both ways. But one thing the film does is prove Jesus' words when he says "Those who live by the sword die by the sword." Violence begets violence. I welcome comments/debate on this topic especially. It is always important to discuss.

And now back to the acting. Mark Wahlberg gets an Oscar nod for his role as Dingham, the foul-mouthed cop who ignites the film every time he appears on-screen. Jack is Jack, fantastic and maniacal. Damon was great, he got us to hate him. And Leo was fantastic, he is really becoming a great actor.

There are so many other aspects of the film worth talking about, but many of them involve spoilers, so I will refrain. But Martin Scorsese continues to make great films, gangster and non-gangster alike. This film is all about reality, what "cops and robbers" really looks like, what it really sounds like, what it really is: brutal.

The Last King of Scotland

This film has received the vast majority of its attention because of the powerhouse performance by Forest Whitaker. Not to diminish Whitaker, but that is a shame, because The Last King of Scotland is a fascinating film. It follows the story of a young Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan, who wants to go anywhere, as long as it is away from his bland upbringing. He spins the globe and eventually decides on Uganda (after rejecting Canada). Garrigan, played by James McAvoy, finds himself in a humanitarian aid station deep in the heart of Uganda. One day, by chance, he is called upon to tend to the new president, Idi Amin (Whitaker). Amin takes a liking to Dr. Garrigan, and thus begins their friendship. Garrigan eventually becomes not only the personal physician of Amin, but his closest advisor. We enter into the world of the Ugandan dictator as Garrigan did, slowly. The man is revealed bit by bit intentionally. At what point do we truly know what kind of a man Amin is? When has Garrigan gone "in too deep" with Amin? Would we have done otherwise?
Amin is charismatic, charming, and just fun to be around. We enjoy spending time with him on screen. How sick is that? By the end of the film we find out what sort of a man Amin is, and wonder how Garrigan could have been duped (and we are duped as well). Point of view is essential to the experience of this film. Edmond Burke's famous quote was running through my head the whole film: "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." But the line is gray in this film. When do we really know that Amin is "evil"? It is very difficult to tell. We want to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially if they are as charismatic as Amin. But by the end of Scotland we know that Garrigan sat on the sidelines a little too much. It's not like he did nothing, but he did not do enough. Would I have? Garrigan had fallen "in love" with Amin (in a non-sexual way) and we as the audience do as well. Then we realize what we have done, and the shock sets in. Kevin Macdonald, the director, did a masterful job with this element of the film. Even the tone of the film adds to this. One minute the creepy music is playing and you know something bad is happening, then the camera cuts to a party and the music is happy. This must have been Garrigan's experience, knowing that something is wrong, but continually being "wined and dined" into thinking its all good. It is easier to lie to ourselves if the lie is more appealing than the truth (I guess its always that way, isn't it?).
It's not like Garrigan is a great person either though. You see him sleep with some random girl in the first few minutes of the film, which foreshadows his downfall: lust. Without giving it away, let's just say his inability to resist temptation catches up with him in the end.
As I said before, the vast majority of the attention The Last King of Scotland gets is because of Whitaker's performance, which will most likely be recognized with an Oscar for Best Actor. The performance is stunning, but it is more of a supporting than a lead role. But the film as a whole excels on so many levels. As a warning :it's sexuality and brutality are hard to watch, very hard to watch. Yet the film is an intricate portrait of a charismatic, complicated madman. The film ends with the details (how many people his regime was guilty of slaughtering, and other facts), and a shot of the real Amin, who died in 2003. It is a video taken of him which I would assume was during his exile in Saudi Arabia. He stares into the camera, then off into the distance, his eyes dancing back and forth, but slowly. Look into his eyes, stare into his stare. Does he look different than we "normal" people do? Is there any clue as to how someone could commit such atrocities? The shot is haunting and absolutely terrifying on so many levels.