In The Valley of Elah

Paul Haggis (Crash, writer of Flags/Letters and Million Dollar Baby) writes and directs this controversial drama about a father's search for the truth. Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank Deerfield, a man who has just been informed that his son has returned from Iraq, but gone AWOL. Soon Deerfield and his wife (played by Susan Sarandon) find out their son has been cut into pieces and burned in a field. The murder mystery ensues. Detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) is hounded by Deerfield, he wants the truth no matter what it is. Sanders, after much juristiction jostling, eventually finds some good leads, and it takes off from there.

Lets start with Hank Deerfield. He was in the military, and both of his sons follow in his footsteps. There are some major dad issues here. Not to say Deerfield is a bad father though. He is a great man, patient, strong, courageous, honorable. Yet, he seems to have sent a subconscious message to his sons that they have to be military men in order to become "real" men. What is the definition of manhood? That's a darn good question, one whose answer could solve many of our society's ills. We find out later that Deerfield's first son died service to his country ten years ago. Also, Mike, the murdered man, has wanted to come home from Iraq. He called his dad and told him he couldn't handle it anymore. Was his father diappointed in him? Mike ends up staying, and when Deerfield finds out the truth, he is devestated because he did not support his son. Jones does a masterful job as a man's man dealing with the demons from his own past as well as the guilt and remourse of losing his sons. Above all, I believe Deerfield's greatest attribute is courage. The tagline to the film is: "Sometimes finding the truth is easier than facing it." Deerfield wants to find the truth, and then look it straight in the eye, no matter what it is. He is fearless when faced with incredible pain and heartache.

Haggis has been called "a hamhanded moralist" because he tends to beat the audience over the head with his point. He has no subtlety. This can be good and/or bad, just know that there is a strong point Haggis is trying to get across to his audience: What does war do to people? What is this war doing to our young men and women? War is hell, everyone knows that, (or at least the abstract concept). If we train our soldiers to be machines, because that is essential for survival on the battlefield, how are they supposed to turn that off when they get home? Is the gain of war worth the cost? (Isn't that an age-old question?)

The film gets its title from the Bible. David fought Goliath in the valley of Elah. In one of the films more tender moments, Deerfield tells this story to David's namesake, the son of Det. Sanders. David was a young man who had great courage, and overcame great odds. He defeated the giant. So why does Haggis choose this title? The war is the giant, and the young soldiers we send over are all Davids. All war is a giant, and we as humanity are huge underdogs, it seems as if we will never be able to stop it. This murder, especially the truth behind it, is a giant, and Deerfield must be courageous in fighting it. Yet, as my lovely wife pointed out, this world does not seem so cut and dry, as it did in the time of Scripture (at least on the surface). It is hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. We all have good and evil inside of us. But we have to remember David wasn't all good either (and I'm sure Goliath actually had some positive qualities). As a side note, I love seeing films with my wife, because she helps me see so much more than I would have seen on my own. Thanks Tiff.

Haggis is as provoking a filmmaker as there is in Hollywood today. He succeeds again in making us think and feel. This film has layers upon layers, and I feel that I have only scratched the surface (plus the thing I really want to write about would give the story away, and I try not to do that too much).

This film, if it ends up being successful, will cause much controversy. Bush is famous for using us/them and good/evil language, reminding us of Biblical stories like David v. Goliath. Is it worth it that we are there? Everyone has a strong opinion on that topic already, and I don't think this film will change any minds. But we shouldn't limit it to Iraq. We must translate Elah to all of war, and to the human condition in general.

This film could be taken as anti-war propaganda, but I don't see it that way. I have many friends who have fought or are fighting in Iraq right now, and I have tremendous respect for them. But Haggis separates the soldiers from the idea of war in general. Maybe it is propaganda though, I could be wrong.

Near the beginning of the film, a janitor at a local school accidentally hangs the flag upside down. Deerfield drives up and helps the man, telling him that an upside-down flag means that whoever is flying it is in severe trouble, they need major help. The film ends at that same flagpole, with Deerfield raising the flag upside-down himself.

Eastern Promises

Brutal. Disturbing. Painful. Apalling. David Cronenberg does not sugar coat anything. Instead, he coats it with broken glass. Do not watch this film unless you have a strong stomach.

That being said, Eastern Promises offers us a privileged and engrossing look into the Russian Mob of London. Naomi Watts plays Anna Khitrovna, a midwife at a local hospital who treats a young woman who dies while giving birth. The baby is left at the hospital with no known family. The only piece of the puzzle Anna has is a diary left by the girl, but it is in Russian. After some investigation, Anna gets caught up with a Russian crime family. She meets Nikolai, the family's driver and aspiring gangster. Anna pesters Nikolai with questions about why he is doing this, why is he acting like such a horrible person. She must see something more than those around her, more than we see maybe.

We are quickly drowned in the disgusting actions of the mob, and want to go take a shower. Cronenberg is disgustingly honest in how he portrays his gangsters. We come to understand a world completely different than the one most of us live in. Human sin sometimes runs wild in this world.

One aspect of the film that fascinates me is the tattoos. Every Russian convict writes his history on his body with ink. Each design, as well as each placement, has a unique meaning. For example, the place above the heart is reserved for the family to which the man pledges his loyalty. A man's personal narrative is written for all to see, yet so closely guarded.

So why is Nikolai like this? The answer to that question is the point of the film, and what makes it interesting and possibly worth it.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others is set in East Berlin, 1984. This German film, which won the Oscar for best Foreign Film last year, tells the story of one man's surveillance of another. East Germany's government at the time was a socialist totalitarian state. No one was allowed to disagree with the Party or the State. Thus, the government sent the Stasi to investigate certain people they deemed "suspicious." One such man was Georg Dreyman, a playwright. So the Stasi sent Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler to set up shop one floor above Dreyman's apartment (audio, video, phone surveillance, etc.). By the way, its so mindboggling to see this technology and remember that we used to have to have wires connecting everything. Dreyman seems to be a devout follower of the Socialist Party, but one government official deems it necessary to spy on him, why? It turns out, its because this official has the hots for Dreyman's girlfriend, and thus wants him out of the way. Ah, governmental corruption. So will Wiesler find any dirt on Dreyman? Will there be any need to imprison him?
Let's focus on Wiesler for a moment. Near the beginning we come to the understanding that the man is a spying machine. He has no feelings, does his job perfectly, and has unswerving loyalty to his ideals. Yet he is human, we see him at home, lonely, wanting any human contact he can get (thus, a prostitute). But when he finds out that officials are using his "noble" job for personal gain, his heart begins to change. How much will it change though? Will he end up trying to help Dreyman? And if so, why? Is that redemption?
We as the viewer are appalled at the level of intrusion the government has upon these people's lives. We believe, as Americans, that we have our own right to privacy and freedom. This, I believe, is one of the highest ideals in American society. And this is a good thing, but sometimes our entitlement attitude about privacy can cause harm. We can become isolated from the rest of the world, from people outside our own small circles. We can claim that we have the right to do anything, and that our choices are ours alone; they obviously don't affect anyone else. Too much of a good thing?
The Lives of Others carries a very intriguing romance with it. Dreyman's girlfriend has to make some difficult decisions. Can they trust each other? In a society of suspicion and control (a la Big Brother) can anyone trust anyone? How can people have real relationships this way? The film also brings up the age old question "is it ever okay to lie?" Deception plays a key role in the characters' attempts to bring about justice. Is God pleased with that?
This German film puts us uncomfortably close to these people. We feel as though we are intruding all the time, and that is the point. Others ends up being a very good film, well worth the time (though I would have chosen Pan's Labyrinth as Best Foreign Film).
Let us be thankful the Iron Curtain fell, let us be greatful of our rights and freedoms here in American, but let us also remember that privacy and freedom can be abused by all of us. Let us take our rights as responsibilities and privileges, not as things we are automatically entitled to.

3:10 To Yuma

It looks like the western is making a comeback this year. The first of two high-profile westerns (the second being next week's Assassination of Jesse James .... ) comes to us from James Mangold, who helmed Walk the Line. 3:10 To Yuma stars Russell Crowe as the outlaw Ben Wade. After robbing twenty-two stagecoaches, Wade is finally caught in a small town in northern Arizona. But Wade's gang will not let him be held for long. The lawmakers know this, so they hire as many hands to help out as they can. This group of gunslingers must escort Wade to the trainstation a few towns over, so that they can get him on the 3:10 to Yuma prison. This is where Dan Evans (Christian Bale) comes in. Evans and his boys come upon a coach that Wade has robbed. He lets them go, but Evans follows him into town. He then assists in the catching of Wade, and volunteers to help escort him. Why is he willing to do this? Money, maybe, but mostly to prove himself to his boys.
Films and novels are filled with stories of sons trying to gain the approval of their fathers, but Yuma flips that on its head. Evans' eldest son, William, thinks his father lacks courage. In fact, William idolizes outlaws like Wade. He believes that his father won't stand up to the bad guys. William buys into the myth of redemptive violence wholeheartedly. So Evans embarks upon this epic journey to gain the respect of his son, and to prove to himself he is a courageous man (his Civil War service plays into this theme as well). Is this a foolish thing Evans is jumping into, or is his son pushing him to be a better man? Who will his sons grow up to be? You will have to see the film to find out whether William ends up proud of his father.
Wade is a very likable theif/murderer. He is funny, charismatic, and rather charming. One scene in particular sticks out to me, when Wade is being hidden at the Evans household, and they share a meal as a pseudo-family. One of the Evans boys asks why they haven't said grace yet, and they proceed to say grace because, as the mother reminds them, "grace is for everyone," even killers.
So why are so many man willing to put their lives at risk to see this one man go to jail. Why didn't they just "accidentally" kill him on the way there. Granted, the gang would have exacted their revenge mightily, but they will still be angry if he goes to jail. It all seems rather pointless. Yet, sometimes we have to go to extreme ends to do what is right. True justice takes hard work, whereas vigilante justice is quick and easy. But that is what made the west so wild in the first place.
*spoiler alert* In the end, Evans inspires even Wade. His courage and strength cause Wade to look up to Evans and admire him. In a rather unbelievable turn of events (that actually works out in the end) Wade is willing to go with Evans on the last march to the train. True courage can inspire anyone.
3:10 To Yuma asks the question "What makes a man?" It also asks "To what length will you go to see that justice is served?" Mangold succeeds on every level, and makes a western truly deserving of the name.

Preparation for Oscar Season 2007

It has been suggested that I write a post on what films I am most excited about this year. So here we go:
There are many, many films I am stoked about coming out in the next few months (as 95% of the good stuff is released during the last three months of the year). The two that I am most excited about are from two of my favorite directors: Francis Ford Coppola and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Coppola's film is called Youth Without Youth, and it is about an old man who becomes young again because of a lightning strike. In the 70's Coppola had the greatest decade in the history of film (Godfather 1 and 2, and Apocalypse Now) but sadly, he has not returned to form since. Let's hope this is a step in the right direction (pun intended). It could be great, it could be mediocre.
PTA's film is called There Will Be Blood, starring Daniel Day Lewis. Since Anderson did the greatest film of all-time, Magnolia, I have high expectations of everything he does. It is about an oil tycoon in America during the 20's/30's. And the trailer is finally out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37BwmU1Am1I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eawardsdaily%2Ecom%2F. I am tentatively suggesing this will be my number 1 at the end of the year, maybe with some Oscar nods as well.
Here are a few others I am very excited about:
Into the Wild (9/21), directed by Sean Penn, is about a guy who ventures into the wilds of Alaska by himself and is found dead two years later. Eddie Vedder does the soundtrack. Based on the book by Jon Krakauer, good stuff.
The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (9/21), starring Brad Pitt, is another western that looks really interesting. I'm pretty sure the title tells you all you need to know about the plot.

Darjeeling Limited (9/28), written and directed by Wes Anderson, stars Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson (no comments about his personal life) and Jason Schwartzman. Anderson is always quirky, interesting, and funny. I have no idea what it's about, but hey.
Ridley Scott. The mob. Denzel and Russell Crowe. Enough said. American Gangster (11/2).
No Country For Old Men (11/9), by the impeccable Coen brothers, will definately get a Best Pic nod, and it looks really, really disturbing. Which means it will be really good, along the lines of Fargo.
Atonement (12/7), based on the novel by Ian McEwan (who rocks), is getting a lot of early Oscar buzz. It stars Kiera Knightley and James McAvoy. This one will be very good.
Charlie Wilson's War (Xmas), directed by Mike Nichols, stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Talk about star power.
Clooney's Michael Clayton looks good too., as does Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and Reservation Road (from the director of Hotel Rwanda).
There are also quite a few movies about the middle-east/Afganistan/Iraq/the war, etc. that look interesting: The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah, The Kite Runner, and Lions For Lambs.
Others that I am not sure about yet but will be getting a lot of attention: Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Ang Lee's Lust, Caution, Cronenberg's Eastern Promises and (cringe) Beowulf. And apparently, Rendition sucks, but we'll see.
Ok, so there are a few hundren movies you all need to go out and see. Man, I can't wait. It's the most wonderful time of the year.

2005 Top Ten List

2005 was, for all intents and purposes, a very good year in film (especially when compared with 2006). There were many films which I thought were deserving of a slot on my top 10 list (ie. Good Night and Good Luck, The Upside of Anger, Syriana, Match Point, March of the Penguins, and Millions). But I managed to whittle it down. So nearly two years late, here are the films you must go back and invest in if you missed them the first time around:

10. Grizzly Man

An incredible documentary portrait of a man who fails to recognize the God-made line between humans and animals. Grizzlies are not fuzzy, cuddly animals. This film, more than any I have ever seen, displays how awe-inspiring and dangerous God's creation is (and I take comfort in knowing that we are not the only creatures with power and strength).


9. Weather Man

I am not the biggest Nic Cage fan in the world, but this film was an intimate investigation into the life of a man dealing with modernity. It is hard to explain why this film floored me, but it just felt real and different.


8. Capote

A beautiful and highly lauded bio-pic, this film is more than just an Oscar-winning performance by the best actor in Hollywood right now. It is an analysis of obsession. Can we be close to evil without being influenced by it? Is it permissible for people to manipulate others for a greater good? What drives people to murder? The questions pile up.


7. Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut

Ridley Scott's original film was good, but the DC adds an hour and a half of character development, which is what the film lacks. Though it isn't the most historically accurate film, KoH is beautiful and epic without being overdone. Balian, the main characer, exemplifies what a Christian's response to war should be (at least in my mind). Scott investigates philosophies and ideologies that are extremely prevalent today (religious war, "in the name of God," etc.). Very timely.


6. The New World

Although the plot is good, this film doesn't even need a plot. Terrence Malick has created quite possibly the most beautiful piece of cinematography I have seen on film. [See full review]


5. The Constant Gardener

A gut-wrenching story of love and social justice set in Kenya, Fernando Mereilles' film succeeds on nearly every level. [See full review]

4. Junebug

Junebug is an intimate story of how a family welcomes someone completely foreign to them. A man brings a woman from NYC "down home" to the South. The interactions that ensue are fascinating. This film is subtle, honest, and thought-provoking. It is all about family and marriage.

3. Brokeback Mountain

Hello controversy. This beautiful and heartbreaking story is much more than gay cowboys. It tells the story of these two men in a non-judgmental way. Anyone could see this as a pro-gay film, but Ang Lee doesn't editorialize. He is merely telling a story. One thing is for sure, Brokeback shows that homosexuality is not a private issue, it affects everyone in the film. Though graphic at times, I hope Christians will give this movie a shot with a Christ-like mind of love and truth.

2. Crash

This film epitomizes redemption. The plot interweaves many story-arcs during one day in L.A. Every character has their preconceptions about others. But Crash is not limited to a "racism is bad" movie. This film goes deep inside the human heart and tries to explain why we tend to hate each other for any reason. Crash is brutally honest, which is what we need to see. Everyone can choose or reject redemption, but redemption can come.

1. Munich

Spielberg's grossly underrated masterpiece. How could he make such a great film and a crappy one (War of the Worlds) in the same year? Well, there are many different Spielbergs, apparently. Munich deals with the complex politics of the Middle Ease with gritty honesty and even-handedness. The film delves into the ideas of revenge, family, nationality, religion, and violence in general. Munich is a beautiful memorial.

.....

I would love to hear feedback. What were your favorites? What movies should have been on here, in your opinion, and of course, what sucks?