Movie Review: Star Wars - The Force Awakens

Star Wars VII – The Force Awakens (2015)

PG-13

5 Stars out of 5

Director                                J.J. Abrams
Writer                                   Lawrence Kasdan, J.J.Abrams, and Michael Arndt
Cinematography                 Daniel Mindel
Music                                    John Williams

Harrison Ford                     Han Solo
Mark Hamill                        Luke Skywalker
Carrie Fisher                       General (nee Princess) Leia Organa
Adam Driver                       Kylo Ren
Daisy Ridley                        Rey
John Boyega                       Finn
Oscar Isaac                         Poe Dameron
Lupita Nyong’o                  Maz Kanata
Andy Serkis                        Supreme Leader Snoke
Domnhall Gleeson            General Hux
Max von Sydow                 Lor San Tekka
Simon Pegg                        Unkar Plutt

 

Imagine the social and financial pressures on J.J. Abrams as he labored to bring to life part VII of the Star Wars saga. After Disney purchased Lucas Film (which included the saga) in 2010 for $4 billion, one knew the drive to successfully re-boot the series would soon begin. George Lucas had ideas for parts VII through IX and a recommendation for the director of VII; only his director recommendation was adhered to, and thus Abrams got the job. Based on the financial success of VII (fastest movie ever to reach $1 billion) or the endless discussion of the movie’s fans on the internet, one could easily believe that Abrams has done what the studio and the fans wanted: created an exciting addition to the Star Wars saga, one that has left the fans desperate for the next entry. However, Abrams has accomplished more than just excited the fans, he has more than pleased the critics as well. “The Force Awakens” may well use a script that is to some extent derivative to part IV – A New Hope (1977), but he and fellow writer Lawrence Kasdan (writer for parts V and VI) have infused this new edition with humor without destroying tone such as in part I and the lamentable Jar Jar Binks; has brought back beloved characters from IV – VI; has utilized FX to wonderful effect, has created a series of mysteries that will keep the fans sitting on pins and needles until part VIII comes out; and has directed his cast of returning stars and stars-to-be with easily the best acting in the series to date. “The Force Awakens” is a treasure and a fine reminder of the wonder that the movies can bring to the public.

“The Force Awakens” reprises many themes from “A New Hope”, beginning with a secret message entrusted to the care of a “droid”. Max von Sydow as the experienced and world-weary version of Obi wan Kenobi has come into control of a map that promises to lead to the missing Luke Skywalker. Von Sydow’s character, Lor San Tekka gives the chip containing the map to a Resistance fighter pilot, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) on this movie’s desert planet, Jakku. Poe must quickly give the chip to this movie’s version of R2D2, BB-8, as the encampment where the transfer of the chip has taken place is quickly over-run by a platoon of vicious storm troopers; storm troopers now working for the Empire’s replacement, The New Order. BB-8 flees into the desert, while amongst the storm troopers a clearly troubled trooper pauses during the ensuing slaughter. This trooper soon to be known as Finn (John Boyega) catches the eye of this movie’s version of Darth Vader, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). BB-8 will soon be saved as he runs into the wasteland by Rey (Daisy Ridley), a feminine version of Luke in part VII. Finn and Rey will join forces to get the chip to the Resistance. Along the way, they will encounter each of the three principles from parts IV through VI (Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as General Leia Organa, and Mark Hamill as Luke). They will also meet several new characters; one of the most significant being Maz Kanata (Lupita Nyong’o) for the good guys, while the emperor has been succeeded by Snoke (Andy Serkis). To avoid too many spoilers, I will go no further in describing the plot; sufficient to say, there are lots of light sabers, TIE fighters and action for all lovers of this series of movies.

That Abrams and Kasdan have chosen to bring in so many elements from “A New Hope” has created some level of criticism, but since they have done it so artfully, I actually applaud their efforts. By using part IV as a kind of framework to build on, Abrams and Kasdan have a kind of launch pad from which to introduce a series of new characters and many new mysteries: who are Rey’s parents and why was she left on Jakku, how was Snoke able to lure Kylo Ren to the dark side, and the central adult component to the theme of the series - in a universe of competing dualistic forces, can one force ever achieve a final victory over the other. The mythic elements that Lucas used in the parts IV through VI were the thoughtful parts of movie series that otherwise was merely another exercise of moving the Western genre into the Space Opera genre. When Lucas was able to bring in the elements of a fallen father figure, his savior-like son, the fight of good and bad, and a variety of similar themes again using the dualism concept, he was able to elevate the Star Wars saga to a higher level of art than mere Space Opera. Sadly, he lost this thread when he used parts I through III as little more than an introduction to part IV. Having re-launched the series with such expertly controlled use of humor, action plotting, acting, and reference to father/son relations during the struggle between good and evil, it will be very interesting to see if part VIII can continue the momentum.

“The Force Awakens” is an excellent addition to 2015’s string of science fiction-based movies. Like “Mad Max: Fury Road” or “Ex Machina”, “The Force Awakens” has shown that intelligent story telling can fully utilize the science fiction genre to tell a story in a novel manner; and in the case of “The Force Awakens” can tell the story with good use of humor, great music (John Williams comes back for part VII), excellent special effects and some very competent acting to tell the story in a fashion that can be both commercially and artistically satisfying. 2015 may be the year when the leading contenders for best picture at the Oscars will all come from the science fiction genre. “The Force Awakens” is a movie just about anyone will not only enjoy, but may well love.

Movie Review: "Jurassic World"

Jurassic World (2015)

PG-13

3 Stars out of 5

Director                                Colin Trevorrow
Writers                                 Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connolly, (and Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver)
Cinematography                 John Schwartzman
Visual Effects                       Phil Tippet (ILM), Tim Alexander
Music                                    Michael Giacchino

Chris Pratt                           Owen Grady
Bryce Dallas Howard         Claire Dearing
Irrfan Khan                          Simon Masrani
Vincent D’Onofrio              Vic Hoskins
Ty Simkins                           Gray Mitchell
Nick Robinson                     Zach Mitchell
B.D. Wong                           Dr. Henry Wu

 

Once upon a time in America, a time when circuses roamed the land, one could make a good argument that there was a public demand, if not a clamor for more exotic, bigger, and louder entertainment. How many tigers could one man control with a whip and a chair, or what wild new, death defying stunt would Harry Houdini pull? But today in late 2015 is this still the norm? Sure the David Copperfields and David Blaines of the world continue to play one up-manship with their stunts, and one could certainly make a good argument that Hollywood continues this trend with one comic-book inspired/ city wrecking movie after another. I wonder how bored the public might have become with the concept. If there were an amusement park like the one portrayed in “Jurassic World”, would the public really be so bored with mere dinosaurs such as T Rex and Apatosaurus that attendance would drop off; drop off to the point that the park’s scientists would be compelled to gene splice together something bigger and more ferocious, in order to pull in the public?

This question occurs to me as I think back to “Jurassic World” and its theme of corporate rapaciousness coupled with public demand for thrills; thrill that must be made bigger with the passage of time. I do applaud the effort by the writers to blend in some contemporary themes from modern life, but this theme of public boredom rings hollow to me. There is no argument in my mind as to whether greed and the profit incentive drives and will continue to drive much of human behavior, most certainly corporate behavior.  But this theme and the various two-dimensional characters in "Jurassic World" are symptomatic of my biggest complaint with the movie, and that is the writing. As odd as it might seem for a movie about dinosaurs, the writing just does not seem believable. Nevertheless, kudos to writers Trevorrow and Connolly for writing a story that tries to meld such an idea into a movie whose only real purpose is to answer the question: what would happen if T Rex got into a fight with a dinosaur spliced together with the DNA from T Rex, velociraptors, tree frogs, chameleons and who knows what all else. However to return to my complaint about the writing for one last moment, this latter concept of fighting reptilian carnivores conflicts with another theme shown in the movie, the treatment of animals in confinement. It seems counterintuitive to me to create a film that rests on a pedestal of massive dinosaurs fighting in order to make the movie exciting and appealing to the modern audience, while at the same time including the theme of animal mistreatment in zoos, etc. This seems like a cinematic version of “having your cake and eating it, too”. Ah well, it’s a movie about dinosaurs, why bother worrying about writing, acting, or logic; let’s get to what’s really real in this movie: special effects.

In this re-boot of Steven Spielberg’s 1993 “Jurassic Park”, director Colin Trevorrow has tried to bring back the story line from the first movie in this series. There are various nods to the original story in terms of props and evil-doers (e.g. Dr. Henry Wu played by B.D. Wong as the chief scientist is in both movies), and even in some small nods such as the restaurant on the park’s main street named after the lead special effects make-up director in the first three Jurassic movies, Stan Winston. (Winston died in 2008 and the restaurant’s name is a nice acknowledgement of his contributions.) However, Trevorrow’s chief accomplishment in his directing is the manner in which he suggests the violence the dinosaurs are capable of doing without graphically displaying it. There is a scene where T Rex approaches a bound sheep but concludes with only a spray of blood – this scene is also amusing from the point of the older of the two boys featured in this movie, Zach (Nick Robinson) as he ignores the T Rex in order to focus on his iPhone. Another scene of note is one in which a monstrously large (if that description has any meaning in this movie) dinosaur jumps from the water to swallow whole a Great White Shark. Trevorrow’s best accomplishment though in staging the various violent dinosaur encounters is his ability to make use of suggestion via flashing velociraptors in front of the screen with various actor extras (aka dinosaur chow) in the background. By doing many of the human/dinosaur interactions in this manner, Trevorrow is able to create both tension and fear and to do so without excessive amounts of gore; which would probably have drained away the anxiety, anyway. One thing this movie most definitely is, is exciting.

The human component of the movie focuses on Navy veteran Owen (Chris Pratt) as the trainer of a group of four velociraptors and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) as the park’s Ops manager. Owen knows everything (how to train and treat dinosaurs, when they’ve been mistreated, when they go bad, etc.), while Claire knows nothing (how to care for her two nephews, apparently even how to manage her personal life, or choosing to run in high heels from T Rex after she intentionally went to lure the monster). This odd fifties style of male/female behavior patterns is yet one more theme in this movie but unlike the others defies comprehension. Is there some point to dumbing down the woman, while exalting the man? Other members of the cast not intended to become some dinosaur’s meal is the park’s corporate CEO, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), and Claire’s two nephews, Zach and his younger brother, Gray (Ty Simkins). The acting by Pratt and Howard is fine, but in my opinion, young Simkins actually had the only chance to play a character that was realistic throughout the movie, and his acting really helped make this character believable. Vincent D’Onofrio made his appearance as the stock bad guy, Vic Hoskins; a representative of the gene splicing firm working with the park. It struck me that the Hoskins and Dr. Wu characters were in the movie primarily to set up a sequel, and from what I have read just such a sequel is planned for 2018. For the third highest grossing picture in the US and the world history, this comes as little surprise. And it certainly underlines the hypocrisy I allude to above with respect to rapacious corporations – how is Universal’s production of the Jurassic Park movies any less avaricious than the fictional park’s parent corporation referred to in this movie?

“Jurassic Park” was a fun summer blockbuster. If you want to see dinosaurs fighting, or would like to see superb CGI and animatronic versions of said dinosaurs, this is quite definitely your movie. If you are looking for something more, well you know full well any movie about dinosaurs is not likely to feature strong writing and acting, and “Jurassic World” will not fail you in any such expectations. You know it’s a popcorn movie and nothing more; a well-made and well-directed one, I admit. So, get yourself a bag of popcorn and enjoy this movie for what it is.

Movie Review: "Jupiter Ascending"

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

PG-13

2.5 Stars out of 5

Writer/Directors                Andy and Lana Wachowski
Cinematography                John Toll
Music                                   Michael Giacchino
Art Direction                       Charlie Revai (Supervising Art Director)

Jupiter Jones                       Mila Kunis
Channing Tatum                 Caine Wise
Sean Bean                            StingerApini
Eddie Redmayne                Balem Abrasax
Tuppence Middleton        Kalique Abrasax
Douglas Booth                   Titus Abrasax
Maria Doyle Kennedy       Aleksa

 

In 1984 David Lynch tried to bring to the screen Frank Herbert’s masterpiece, Dune. The movie was visionary in many ways with remarkable artwork and a sense of just how alien a human civilization far into the future could be. That being said, the movie was something of a mess; perhaps a cinematic example of one’s grasp not equaling one’s reach. In the book, Dune was a fully realized world of customs, cultures, characters and yes, the basics of science fiction, technology and action sequences. But can such a wide ranging world vision be also fully realized in a single two or three hour movie? David Lynch failed to do so in “Dune”, and now the Wachowski siblings have failed as well with their 2015, “Jupiter Ascending”. Somewhat like “Dune”, the Wachowski’s have tried to grasp just how alien a human civilization could be (while telling a young woman-centric tale), but like Lynch their reach has just as surely failed to create a story that both incorporates a vision of that alien universe and a coherent story line that has any kind of connection to the viewing audience.

The film starts off in a mildly promising manner as it describes how Jupiter Jones’ (Mila Kunis) parents meet and fall in love in St. Petersburg, Russia. After losing her husband during a robbery, Aleksa (Maria Doyle Kennedy) flees to America with her soon to be born daughter, Jupiter. Jupiter grows to be a young woman that works as a maid to the wealthy. The audience is led to believe Jupiter has dreams beyond cleaning toilets. Meanwhile, the film shifts to the Abrasax siblings: Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton), and Titus (Douglas Booth). These three scions of a powerful family seem to come straight out of a play by Shakespeare (King Lear?). They war amongst themselves even as their wealth comes from “harvesting” planets such as Earth. The harvest consists of sacrificing the populations of the galaxy’s various Earth-like planets in order to create a type of youth serum. These early parts of the story are reasonably straightforward, but the story then gets intentionally byzantine as it tries to detail how the three Abrasax siblings vie with one another to capture Jupiter. You might reasonably wonder why a toilet-cleaning Russian émigré to America would be such a hot target. Evidently, Jupiter is an exact genetic match for the deceased matriarch to the Abrasax family, and thus a threat or a target of one sort or the other to Balem & Co. Sent in to “rescue” Jupiter is Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a gene splice from human and wolf genomes. Fortunately for Jupiter, her future beau looks more human than canine. In any event, a series of CGI and live action stunts quickly ensues as everyone jockeys to control Jupiter.

According to statements made by Lana Wachowski, she was inspired by Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz” when she co-wrote this movie with her brother. Her intent was to show that strong female characters could find a way to solve their problems without resorting to the tactics employed by males. That may have been her intent, but what she and her brother have produced is a series of meetings between Jupiter, her companion/protector Caine (i.e. Toto) and the three Abrasax offspring; each meeting linked by standard sci-fi CGI pyrotechnics. Admittedly, the stunts and CGI are impressive, most notably an extended fight above Chicago. But the meetings are repetitive and inane: Jupiter is asked in two of the three meetings to sign away her genetic rights, the audience knows this is a big mistake, and at the last moment, Toto/Caine rushes in to save her. This script, poorly defined as it is, is still clear enough for the average viewer to look at it, yawn, and mumble to themselves, been there, done that. Was this script really written by the same authors that wrote “Cloud Atlas” (2012) – a truly thoughtful and coherent film with something to say about the endurance of love, the abuse of the weak by bullies, and the ravages being wreaked upon the Earth?

I am fully willing to grant the Wachoskis’ and their Art Director, Charlie Revai high marks for an intriguing vision brought to the many alien set pieces. Much of the wardrobe and clever notions as to what gene splicing might do, or what a far future robot might look like were quite entertaining. And there were multiple sequences where humor was well done; most notable was a longish segment wherein Jupiter had to run a bureaucratic gauntlet to gain her genetic rights. This latter part of the movie had a scene between robots of identical appearance but opposite agenda contesting one another, and yet one more segment played by Terry Gilliam of “Brazil” (1985) replaying a scene from “Brazil” as he finally grants Jupiter her rights. The other technical aspect of the movie worth commenting on is the score by Michael Giacchino. I may be in the minority based on other reviews I have read (reviews that commented favorably on the score), but I found the score to be bombastic; though it was fully in sync with the whole notion of a movie played as yet one more comic-book inspired film.

If one wants to see a movie propelled by special effects, “Jupiter Ascending” may be the movie to see. But I found it seriously disappointing. The art work, the costumes, and the hints of ideas as to just how exotic a human civilization could become suggest to me a movie with much more depth than just one more action-packed space opera. This movie could have been like “Cloud Atlas” a movie that used science fiction to explore ideas and themes that could not be explored in any other genre. Instead, it settled for one more example of the comic book movie genre, never really getting into any ideas worth thinking about. Frankly, if a fun, mindless space opera is what you want, go see “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014); it’s better made, more logically written and much more entertaining.

Movie Review: Chappie

Chappie (2015)

R

2 Stars out of 5

Writer/Director                 Neill Blomkamp
Writer                                 Terri Tatchell
Cinematography               Trent Opaloch
Music                                   Hans Zimmer

Sharlto Copley                   Chappie
Dev Patel                             Deon Wilson
Ninja                                     Ninja
Yo-Landi Visser                  Yo-Landi Visser
Jose Pablo Cantillo            Amerika
Hugh Jackman                   Vincent Moore
Sigourney Weaver            Michelle Bradley
Brandon Auret                   Hippo
 

Neill Blomkamp wrote and directed his first film, “District 9” in 2009. This was Blomkamp’s first full length feature film. Co-written with this wife, Terri Tatchell and produced by Peter Jackson (“Hobbit” trilogy, and many others), "District 9" made use of Blomkamp’s background as an animator and his South African youth. He was able to create a visual treat that proved his technical competency with CGI but also allowed him to use Apartheid as a political subtext to what otherwise was an entertaining science fiction yarn. “District 9” was a seamless blend of the escapism style of movie-making with a story that had a level of social importance worth watching. Following “District 9”, Blomkamp and Tatchel created “Elysium” in 2013. “Elysium” was yet another science fiction film with a message: access to health care. “Elysium” was far less a commercial and critical success as the Oscar nominated (Best Picture) “District 9”. In 2014, Blomkamp/Tatchell have evidently decided to drop their previous efforts at sub-text and focus on escapism alone with their latest movie, “Chappie”. Unfortunately, they have also failed to deliver even this with the derivative, largely inane and illogical “Chappie”.

As with “District 9”, Blomkamp/Tatchell have created a full length film based on a short they did in the mid-2000’s. “Chappie” is based in a near future Johannesburg, South Africa that has recently switched from a human police force to a robot force. These robot police are referred to as scouts and were designed by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) for a corporation run by Michelle Bradley (Sigourney Weaver). Deon has a corporate rival, Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman) whose larger robot appears to be a cross between the warbots of the Empire of Star Wars and Robocop. The scout robot police force have reduced crime by such an extent that the local crime boss, Hippo (Brandon Auret) is failing to steal as much money as his ego demands. He therefore decides to threaten a minor criminal, Ninja (Ninja) to give him $20M. Ninja and his team/family of Yo-Landi (Yo-Landi, like Ninja from the South African rock group Die Antword) and Amerika (Jose Pablo Cantillo) decide to kidnap Deon and force him to help them overcome the robo-police; this would allow them to steal again, evidently. Deon in the meanwhile has been working on creating an Artificial Intelligence. At first he’s frustrated, but after staying up all night and drinking a Red Bull, he does it! Not only has he invented an AI, it all fits on a PC's hard drive – cool. (This will be super-ceded later in the movie when one of the characters figures out how to transfer a complete human consciousness and place it on a thumb drive - you really have to admire the characters' software skills in this movie. I guess its because they can type so fast?) Ninja and company eventually kidnap Deon and his makings of a scout with an AI. By daylight they have coerced him to finishing such a robot. Yo-Landi, soon to be known as Mommy, names the robot Chappie (Sharlto Copley). Let the excitement ensue.

Needless to say an hour long series of illogical decisions and actions by all involved take place. And who could have predicted it, there are lots of guns, explosions and people getting shot by both flying robots and robot's with Ninja skills at the movie’s climax. I won’t reveal the exact ending; oh, that’s right, it’s irrelevant. To Blomkamp’s credit, the CGI that depicts Chappie is remarkable. I grant him full credit on the technological achievement of bringing him to the screen. But the writing and acting by all surrounding this character is astonishingly bad: from Dev Patel who was charming in “Slum Dog Millionaire” (2008) but whose character Deon is utterly unbelievable in terms of acting and writing in this movie to Sigourney Weaver who must surely be the most stupid CEO character in the history of cinema. Perhaps Sigourney was just warming up for Blomkamp’s pending revival of the “Alien” series. And then there is Hugh Jackman (“Les Miserables”, 2012, one of my favorite musicals of all time) playing an ex-black ops kind of character (Vincent), one that wears a pistol on his belt to evidently remind us of his tough guy persona. There is little that is logical about Vincent as he ultimately decides to place the city and its inhabitants in peril of their lives in order that he might demo his competing robot. Really; is there some hidden universe out there in science fiction land where decisions like these (and plenty of others I am sparing you from) make sense to somebody? Is it really necessary to abandon all logic in order just to reach another pointless climax where a flying robot can shoot cluster bombs, etc., etc.?

Sadly, Blomkamp is failing to live up to his start with “District 9”. I fear he is falling into the category of one hit wonder from the music world. “Chappie” might well be renamed “Crappie” as my daughter mistyped when she first told me of this movie. It is really not worth watching for anything beyond the CGI of the robots, and that will only take 2-3 minutes of your time, not two hours. Two hours of my life, I want back.

Movie Review: "Transcendence"

Transcendence (2014)

PG-13

2.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                Wally Pfister
Writer                                   Jack Paglen
Cinematography                Jess Hall
Music                                    Mychael Danna

Johnny Depp                      Will Caster
Rebecca Hall                       Evelyn Caster
Paul Bettany                       Max Waters
Cillian Murphy                   Agent Buchanan
Kate Mara                           Bree
Morgan Freeman             Joseph Tagger

 

Science Fiction can be such a wonderful canvas on which to paint visual forms of ideas that conventional drama can touch only lightly, or maybe not at all. Consider what “Under the Skin" worked so successfully to demonstrate: that our modern definition of human is truly skin deep; or consider what the failed 2014 version of Robocop tried to illustrate: a person’s basic humanity can triumph over evil and soulless technology; and now consider the almost equally failed “Transcendence”: when does helping someone (no matter your intentions) cross the line between helping and enslaving. “Transcendence” tries to cover other territory, too: the border between human and machine, or the border between Man and God. These are lofty questions and topics, and when done right, can be entertaining and thought provoking, but when done poorly, the viewer’s reaction might range from dismay to something far less than transcendence.

“Transcendence” is a story that is rooted in the concept of Artificial Intelligence and how that AI will interact with mankind. The film begins with an introduction to an AI researcher played by Johnny Depp, Will Caster and his equally brilliant wife, Evelyn Caster (Rebecca Hall). Will is assaulted by a team of neo-Luddites (the movie’s term, though for Luddites they seem awfully comfortable with technology). As his condition worsens, his wife Evelyn decides to make a copy of Will’s mind and transfer it into a computer. She enlists the help of Will’s co-worker Max Waters (Paul Bettany). As leader of the neo-Luddites, Bree (Kate Mara) strives to prevent Evelyn from allowing virtual Will to reach the internet; but to no avail. Once there, virtual Will begins to amass power and abilities that ultimately alienates all of his former colleagues, even Evelyn. There is (small surprise) a concluding battle between Will and a remarkably small sample of the US Army, Bree and Will’s college crowd. The final scenes show a somewhat remorseful Max musing over whether or not Will has found a way to overcome his adversities and unite in some manner with Evelyn.

The problems with this movie are symptomatic of bad science fiction films: over-reach in terms of the protagonist’s abilities and ironically, a ridiculous always present Achilles Heel (think the nonsense of the vent on the Death Star that Luke uses to destroy it). Virtual Will is confronted with multiple examples of people indirectly verbally classing him with God; mostly in the context of his virtual existence, but indirectly foreshadowing his God-like abilities to come. And his abilities do come: he masters the Stock Market in minutes, he invents nano-robots that can repair and improve Humans in months, he defies gravity, and yet, and yet – darn those pesky viruses. He can wreak havoc with logic and science but just like those omnipotent aliens in “Independence Day”, and unlike the Aliens, he knows the attack is coming and the nature of the attack, and yet he too is powerless to defend against the virus.

Bad science, bad logic, and a pointless focus on a modern equivalent of the villagers in “Frankenstein” storming Victor’s castle is the approach taken by first-time Director, Wally Pfister. Was it because it was Cinematographer Pfister’s first time out as a Director that led to such a flaccid story? With the truly brilliant writer/director Christopher Nolan acting in the role of executive Producer on the team, one really has to wonder, did no one see the weak and uninspired film that came out of this effort. Imagine a story that took the movie’s opening premise of downloading a mind, and perhaps even include the second premise of how that mind might expand when allowed to function at internet speeds and in connection with internet-sized mountains of data. Could there not have been a Stanley Kubrick visionary view of this concept similar to “2001”? Is there no other storyline but the one used by Mary Shelly over a century ago in the original Frankenstein?

Arthur C Clarke wrote in the mid-twentieth century about how any science sufficiently advanced would appear indistinguishable from magic; or to paraphrase him, from God. Clarke explored this idea in the book form of "2001", and Kubrick led the viewer right up to that point where a God-like Dave floated, poised above the Earth, pondering. Would Clarke or Kubrick have turned the next scene into a raging battle with tanks and jets, and I’m sure, a car chase or two (yes, I know a fleet of rockets were sent skyward, but what then happened, any explosions?). Or is there some more subtle next step that might have occurred; something that might demonstrate or at least define what being Human and what being God-like might be? Is there a better way to explore the subjects noted above in the first paragraph that doesn’t involve explosions? The answer is yes; go back and watch “Under the Skin” a second time, and you will see some hope for intelligent and nuanced explorations of these subjects.

 

Movie Review: Under the Skin

Under the Skin (2014 – US release)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director/Writer                 Jonathan Glazer

Writer                                 Walter Campbell

    Michel Faber (novel’s author)

Cinematography              Daniel Landin

Music                                  Mica Levi

Scarlett Johansson          Woman

Jeremy McWilliams         Motorcyclist
Joe Szula                            First Victim
Kryštof Hádek                   Swimmer
Paul Brannigan                 Second Victim
Adam Pearson                  Disfigured Man
Michael Moreland           Highlands Man

 Under the Skin is not an easy movie to watch, and the reason is because it is so clever and so capably told that it is really two stories being told simultaneously. But it also is less a motion picture than a series of images told with motion. This “movie” can be thought of a series of images, each helping to tell the overall tale, but also able to stand alone to tell a single tale; a movie that could be thought of as iconic for its potential importance in film history that uses icons to tell its story.

The superficial story begins by borrowing from Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” with a long view of a circle of light. The camera holds this image for an uncomfortable length of time. The viewer is essentially warned right at the beginning, this is not a standard science fiction story. The white light expands in time, gains color and perspective, and a “sense” of space or other-worldliness is created. We move to Earth where we see an individual (Jeremy McWilliams, a professional motorcyclist in real life) is riding his motorcycle at high speed towards a van. With never a word in the entire movie, we quickly learn of the motorcyclist’s energy and purposefulness. In this scene, he carries a seemingly unconscious woman from the roadside to the van. Within the van, we see only a nude woman (Scarlett Johansson) strip the clothing from the “unconscious” woman and don her clothing. There is a moment when the now stripped woman sheds a tear and her face looks remarkably like that of Johansson’s. The scene is done against a complete background of white; no other images but the two (one?) women exchanging clothing can be seen.

Thus, begins a series of events involving Johansson as she (now dressed in human clothing and as we will learn later, human skin) begins a series of abductions of human males. She starts to troll Glasgow Scotland for young, unattached men. Each of her victims acknowledges Johansson’s beauty and each is clearly interested in Johansson as a woman. In an early foreshadowing of other events to come, we see Johansson’s character respond as a young flattered woman might respond to compliments. But keep in mind, all the compliments are to her physical beauty. As she captures her victims with her allure, she takes them to a run-down building, where all the physical signs are there to warn the suitors off. They are not warned though, their passions and hopes run too high, and they follow Johansson into the building and to their doom. Their final moments are like the scene wherein Johansson took her doppelganger’s clothing; though in these scenes, rather than framed in white, each of the young men’s final moments are framed in black. We watch Johansson walk across a pitch black floor as she slowly disrobes; her victims do the same as far as the disrobing goes. But unlike Johansson, each male slowly and seemingly in complete ignorance of their situation, slowly sinks into the floor. Beneath the floor we learn their fate as they finally become aware of their danger, and in time pass into little more than their skin – costumes perhaps for future alien visitors.

The science fiction angle of this movie is far and away the lesser part. Just as this movie’s science fiction tale of alien invasion of Earth is superficial, so the deeper aspects of this story are focused on the superficial aspects of human life. Johansson is simply to her human male counterparts a thing, one draped in a lovely costume of skin. She might as well be alien wearing a Scarlett Johansson suit; they aren’t looking past the surface. Her “humanness” is not an issue to them in their pursuit of her. Or so the first part of the movie would lead a viewer to believe. As Johansson’s character carries out her duties of abduction, it becomes slowly clear that she is beginning to find fault in her situation. When she first begins her abductions, we see her casually kill a swimmer that had vainly tried to save a husband and wife from drowning, we see her take him as lightly as a hunter would his elk, and we watch her uncaringly leave that lost couple’s toddler alone by the sea. She is an alien, and these creatures mean nothing to her. She reacts with the same indifference to the child as to the mother or the father – just bags of skin waiting to be harvested. And yet, in time, and the movie takes pains to illustrate the time, she starts to sense a something in her prey that affects her. At one point, she is helped to her feet by passing strangers and at multiple points in the movie, there are humans inquiring as to her state – is she okay? She starts to wonder herself: is she okay? After abducting one last victim, a poor disfigured soul, she stops to stare at a mirror. In my opinion, this moment in front of the mirror is the highlight of the film. Who is she; what is she doing, what lies beneath her surface – that the mirror is dirty and difficult to view a reflection in, is precisely the point.

That moment in front of the mirror is a turning point in the science fiction story and in the deeper story. Johansson’s character now leaves her life of abduction, flees into the Highlands of north Scotland, and indeed flees whatever she once was beneath her surface. That she was not repulsed by the disfigured man was an early mark of her “alikeness”, her “otherness is starting fade; and what an ironic mark it is. She reacts with more human compassion to the disfigured man by not reacting to his disfigurement than likely almost anyone in that man’s history. It wasn’t her freeing him that was noteworthy; it was her acknowledgement of his humanness, not his otherness in how she spoke to him when they first met. This happens again in the Highlands. She meets a man at a bus stop who is apparently only concerned about her needs, and not his. As they grow closer (from his point of view) they attempt to make love but must stop as she realizes, she cannot physically do this act. She has “gone native” in the science fiction narrative of this movie, but she cannot go so far as to truly become and function as a human. She runs again, this time from her new situation. She runs into the forest where she meets an all too common human – one that takes. Now we see an all too common emotion human emotion on her face, fear.

We learn what her physical nature is; an inky black form within the human form. Her body is a figure that is stripped bare of clothing, of hair, of almost all human facial expression. And in yet in an iconic scene where the camera catches her looking down at the Johansson face, now removed from her own face, there are things that are there to see. There is a kind of compassion as she stares down at the suit she has been wearing, the former human Johansson person now reduced to a bag of skin. This skin still seems human, still seems to emote, to feel something as it stares back at the alien that once wore her. The film ends with a camera pan from a smoky black fire to a pure white snow fall. Fade to white. Thus ends the science fiction tale.

This movie has haunted me to the point where I will now read the book to see if I can get another perspective on the story. The movie though is a profound one of surfaces, of seeing past surfaces, of what is human and what is alien. It could be criticized as being too artsy: there is a near constant stream of music that is intended presumably to give the listener a sense of the alien; there is a frequent use of editing that forces the viewer to make quick, then slow leaps through time and movie sequence, and there is an opening and closing sequence that employ extended times for the scene in question – all of these techniques disrupt the viewer from their normal viewing mode, that disrupts their complacency as viewers. This movie speaks eloquently of superficiality, of humanness, of otherness. How do we as humans view members of the other gender, how do we view disfigurement, do we treat one another as more than a bag of skin in our interactions? The first part of the movie would say no, but the second part of the movie would say there is room for hope. That some people would give up their life to save a dog, their wife, or would offer help to a stranger in need, even an alien. Yes, this movie is artsy in tone, but it is very human in content. The tone may be too much for most people (it failed at the box office), but its content, if you take the time and have the interest, is a message of hope.

 

Movie Review: Lucy

Lucy (2014)

Two and half Stars out of Five

R

Lucy: Scarlett Johansson

Professor Norman: Morgan Freeman

Mr. Chang: Min-Sik Choi

Pierre Del Rio: Amr Waked

Director/Writer: Luc Besson

Lucy is a disappointing amalgam of film genre: science fiction, comedy, kung-fu, mobster, revenge, and even philosophical/science. It will come as little surprise that trying to achieve so much, the movie largely fails to deliver on any of the various channels. The movie does not even really provide much in the way of eye candy with respect to the various special effects either. This movie can easily be skipped, but if you really want to know what it is about, read on.

The film begins with a scene from early in the history of the hominids, presumably Lucy herself. She sits in a stream and while looking fearfully about drinks from it. Moving forward in time, we meet a modern Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) being accosted by her disreputable boyfriend outside a swanky Taipei hotel. Against her better wishes, at the behest of her boyfriend she enters the hotel to deliver a package to a Mr. Chang (Mik-Sik Choi). He turns out to be a gangster and drug king pin. Lucy quickly finds herself a drug-mule for Mr. Chang. However, the drug bag sewn into abdomen ruptures, and like every B sci-fi movie from the 50’s, rather than dying from the effects of the drug, she becomes enhanced. Wielding her new, God-like powers she begins a campaign of revenge aimed at Mr. Chang. Along the way, she hooks up with Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman). While she was enjoying Taiwan, he had been lecturing an adoring audience of how little humans used their minds, and if only they could use more, life would be so sweet. Lucy having now proven his thesis wants to explain to him all she now knows. Meanwhile, having disrupted his drug empire, Mr. Chang wants to pay her back. And it is just so hard to predict what will happen in Paris when they all get there: guns, explosions, cars driving the wrong way, and creepy visual effects for the new Miss Lucy.

To its credit, the movie has two fine scenes with Ms. Johansson showing her skills as an actor, and also indicating what this movie might have been had M. Besson stuck to a single movie genre. In the first, as Lucy realizes the danger she is in with Mr. Chang, she acts out just how pitiful a situation she quickly realizes she has fallen into. Johansson displays a believable role as a helpless young woman, one that seems likely to die very soon. Later after having escaped and as she perceives her changing status from that as a young woman into something far different, she makes a tearful call to her mother. Using the opportunity that science fiction offers her in this situation she tells her mom she remembers everything: from being held and nursed by her mother to a lifetime’s thousands of kisses from her mom. It was moving and compassionate, and could only happen in the otherwise unbelievable situation the fantasy elements of this story permit her character to experience.

Luc Besson has made a number of movies that span a variety of genre. He has been perhaps the most commercially successful with his Taken and Transporter franchises: kinetic, fight scene/car chase drivel that make large amounts of money and have little to say beyond the idea of righteous revenge. Due to his earlier movies such as Subway, The Big Blue, or even Nikita, he has been classed as a member of the “Cinema du Look”, a film school that favors style over substance. One could easily perceive such influences within Lucy.  During the opening scenes of Lucy being cornered by her boyfriend and then by Mr. Chang, wildlife scenes of a gazelle being hunted by a cheetah are intercut with the human scenes of her deteriorating situation with Mr. Chang. Is this a stylistic touch or an attempt at humor; it seems more the latter to me than the former. And that is the fundamental problem with the movie. Besson’s intent with the movie is so watered down by the various genre shifts and/or stylistic flourishes; the movie just degenerates to the level of the pointless car chase that occurs near the end of the movie. What does the car chase mean; oh yeah, just like the movie: nothing.

Had Besson really wanted to explore what it is that makes Man the creature he is; to explore the limits and opportunities of the mind, he had the framework of a movie that could have made a film worth experiencing. The concept of how much of the human mind is actually used and what might happen to the human that had her mind expanded, what happens to her humanness is a subject worth exploring. But explore it sans gangsters with machine guns, TOW anti-tank weapons and pseudo-science lectures. Lucy is not that movie and should be skipped by anyone not solely interested in car chases that end with police cars flying through the air.

Book Review: "The Bone Clocks" by David Mitchell

The Bone Clocks (2014)

Three and half Stars out of Five

David Mitchell

624 pages

David Mitchell is the author of six books, the most acclaimed of which is “Cloud Atlas”.  “The Bone Clocks” like Cloud Atlas was well received critically and was on the nomination list for the Man Booker prize. The two books share a number of similarities: construction, characters, themes, stylistic writing to name a few. And one other concept they have in common is a blurring of the lines between literary genres. This book could be classed as drama, epic, fantasy/science fiction, or even religious.

Like “Cloud Atlas” the story is told in six parts: 1984 England, 1991 Switzerland, 2004 Iraq and England, 2015-20 New York and England, 2025 New York, and 2043 Ireland. In 1984 we are introduced to fifteen year old Holly Sykes and her precocious six year old brother Jacko. Holly lives a working class life with her family in Gravesend where she is in perpetual adolescent/parent conflict with her mother. Following a divisive fight with her “Mam”, Holly runs away and in so doing starts the novel on its way into regions of fantasy and the mundane. Holly lives in a world where an unseen war is taking place, and she is about to become a minor pawn in that war.

Holly like her soon to be missing brother Jacko has some peculiar characteristics. In Holly’s case, she hears voices (the Radio People) and sometimes sees people that go unseen and unheard by others; a Miss Constantine has an unnerving tendency to show up at the foot of Holly’s bed late at night, for example. The novel tells the story of the aforementioned unseen war between the Anchorites and the Horologists. Like Cloud Atlas there are few greys in this war. Miss Constantine and her fellow Anchorites are "vampires" of a sort, while the Horologists (the Good Guys) are represented by one of Mitchell’s recurring characters, Marius. The Anchorites feed in peculiar way off mortals like Holly who have some psychic powers (remember, she hears voices) in order to maintain their youth. The Horologists on the other hand have a different mechanism for living forever; a mechanism that appears to be based on luck rather than merit or vampirism. In any event, they take umbrage at the Anchorites’ method and thus ensues the war.

Mitchell employs very sophisticated stylistic touches in describing his characters. In the case of the fifteen year old Holly for example, she of the working class English countryside, Mitchell has Holly speaking a British vernacular that had me using my Kindle-embedded dictionary on a quite frequent basis. In a later, overly long section of the book, he has Crispin Hershey as an English member of the Literati deliver a couple lectures on how to write creative fiction. Or in the section on Holly’s childhood friend, now war correspondent and husband, Ed Brubek, the narrative goes into some detail on the life of a war correspondent in Iraq. Each of the sections is carefully written with a lot of attention given to the style of the speaker – all are told in the first person narrative form. But here there is a bit of a problem: even though, each person speaks the patois of their character and time, they all speak with a too-informed cleverness that makes each speaker sound essentially like the other.

On the issue of character evolution, we have the opportunity to really test Mitchell’s abilities with the case of Holly. We see her age from a rebellious fifteen year old to a twenty-two year old bar maid to a young mother/novelist to a middle aged mother (where she is finally told the details of the war) to finally as aged grandmother who must make a tough decision. Sure, there are verbal changes that take place over this spectrum of her life stages. But she seems at seventy-six quite nearly the same person she was at twenty-two. All the scars and experiences of her life seem to have left little impression on her character, her morals, or her values.

The book is constructed cleverly in many ways. The central nature of the war between the Anchorites and the Horologists is not clearly laid out until about two thirds of the way into the book. I enjoy watching characters and stories being unpeeled by authors in this manner, and Mitchell is expert at doing this in “The Bone Clocks”. But what of the underlying message in this book? Is Holly’s path through life and her commitment to her progeny the point of the book, is the examination of the various characters, good and bad the message, or is the background story of the warring immortals the lesson? In the case of Holly or that of the secondary characters, there is strength in this book. Mitchell is great at telling the little stories within his books, the stories that help propel the bigger story arc. His characters are witty and often fun to read about, but not I think his big point. If it is the war between the two sets of immortals, the science fiction-like cosmology of these two sides makes little sense from a scientific point of view; one is forced into a religiously inspired fantasy view instead.

The re-incarnation aspects of “The Bone Clocks” appeared in “Cloud Atlas” as allusions; in “The Bone Clocks”, they appear as outright facts. It makes me wonder if Mitchell sees an importance in the concept of re-cycled lives ala the Hindus. His books frequently have conflicts driven by bullies versus the innocent; the entire last section of The Bone Clocks emphasizes this point in a post-apocalyptic vision of Ireland. Thus, Man’s initial and maybe most basic temperament is that of the bully. Some people evolve as they live their lives and become someone higher, someone good. It’s a good concept: evolution towards a higher moral plane. It would be nice if true. In any event, “The Bone Clocks” is a good read, but not, I think David Mitchell’s best – certainly “Cloud Atlas” is better with its grander vision of the world.

Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy

The Hunger Games Trilogy: The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay (2008, 2009, 2010)

Four Stars out of Five

Suzanne Collins

The Young Adult (YA) fiction genre has a long history, stretching from the 19^th Century (e.g. Swiss Family Robinson, Oliver Twist, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer) through the mid-20^th century (e.g. The Outsiders) to the influential and occasionally profound 70’s (The Bell Jar, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and up to the present day (e.g. The Harry Potter Series). YA fiction has through the years been primarily written by adults aimed for readers somewhere between the ages of thirteen and twenty-five. Their themes range over a wide variety of topics, but are generally thought to be topics of concern to this age group: romance, identity, family, and depression to name but a few. One of the key elements is that these stories are generally told from the first person point of view of the protagonist about whom the story is concerned. They are told in (usually) a spare textual style that helps propel the plot without much character definition or evolution. The Hunger Games trilogy written by Suzanne Collins and published in 2008 through 2010 captures many of these elements, but explores some of Man’s darkest traits in a largely believable and highly relatable manner.

The first novel, The Hunger Games introduces Katniss Everdeen. She lives in a post-apocalyptic North American country, Panem. Panem is comprised of twelve districts living and working in thrall to the Rocky Mountain-based “Capitol”. The districts had rebelled against the Capitol roughly seventy-four years in the past and had lost. As part of the armistice, the districts paid a heavy price: The Hunger Games. These games are held annually and require each district to send two adolescent tributes, one male and one female to the Capitol to compete in a contest that will result in one victor and twenty-three dead losers. The games clearly hearken to the Roman Empire and their gladiatorial contests, but they also allude in a sense to Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery. The theme of sacrificed children for the safety of society is one I had not expected to see in YA fiction.

Katniss’ story follows a predictable path but includes some features that might catch some readers by surprise and might also reveal some room for growth for author, Collins. Katniss hunts with her bow and arrow and a quasi-boyfriend, Gale in the nearby woods. As expected, her hunting trips help prepare Katniss for her inevitable entry into the games; she is, of course a superb archer capable of living on her own in the forest. By telling of her experiences in the forest, Collins informs the reader of Katniss’ family and of their influences (especially the father) on her character’s strengths and weaknesses. Here though is where I found fault with the textual style of these books. Katniss and the other characters are revealed solely through their actions. As noted, the writing is a very spare style, plot is everything. It is to my mind a style well suited to the young reader but frustrating in gaining a more intuitive understanding of the various characters. I found myself in the end disappointed that my understanding of the characters was as superficial as their “definition” in the book. Additionally, Collins utilizes another textual style that drives me to distraction: fragmentary sentences (e.g. Katniss is very good with bow and arrow. Very good.). Collins employs these techniques to keep the text simple and the plot moving; perhaps perfect for the adolescent YA reader, but maybe too simple for mature readers.

Move, the plot does. These three books capture the reader’s attention as the plot moves briskly along. Katniss does go into the arena several times and due to her successes finds herself the symbol for a nascent insurrection against the capitol. By the time of the third book, Collins has very cleverly introduced the reader to the cruelties of the Capitol, the entrenched cynicism of both the Capitol and the rebels via their use of propaganda, and most critically the willingness of both sides to use any means to attain their ends, no matter how depraved those means are.  In 1971, “The Who” released a song, Won’t Get Fooled Again, whose lyrics included the following lines: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. As I read the book or watched the movie, I kept hearing these words in my head. At first blush, this is not a new topic, but Collins uses it well. The tragedy of the massacre near the end of third book had me in tears, but also amazed.

Collins uses her trilogy to indeed discuss and examine many of the YA themes mentioned above, such as family and love. She uses science fiction as the sub-genre to convey her message. What I find amazing is her use of an over-arching theme I did not expect in a YA novel:  the corrupting influence of power. The desire to gain it and hold it, and the amorality of too many of those that seek such power are powerful story lines. They are easily understood and felt by those that have studied history, or even watch the evening news. That adolescents can read and learn from those lessons as depicted in this book is a good thing. I just hope they do learn from it, and somehow despite the centuries of failure before them, someday a new generation will come along that makes the changes needed for mankind to finally leave the violent and self-centered moral caves we still live in.

Movie Review: Interstellar

Interstellar (2014)

Four and half Stars out of Five

Cooper: Matthew McConaughey

Brand: Anne Hathaway

Murph: Jessica Chastain

Director/Writer: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Jonathan Nolan

Cinematography Director:  Hoyte Van Hoytema

Music: Hans Zimmer

Christopher Nolan has consistently shown himself willing to take on difficult-to-tell stories (the reverse time flow of Memento is a good example). As the director and co-writer with his younger brother, Jonathan, Nolan has found with Interstellar an incredibly challenging story to tell. If one focuses on the science and time sequence issues, the story might be as confusing as 2001: A Space Odyssey. On the other hand, if one instead focuses on the father/daughter tale, it is a wonderfully emotional story than anyone can follow and appreciate.

The story is of a future Earth (with oddly contemporary trucks and cars) where a “blight” is systematically destroying the Earth’s food crops and converting the atmosphere to an oxygen-free version of today’s air. We are introduced to Cooper played by Matthew McConaughey and his immediate family, which includes a pre-adolescent daughter, Murph (Mackenzie Foy). These early scenes are often oddly comic in dialog but deeply sinister in foreshadowing. Borrowing sequences from Ken Burns’ documentary on the American dust-bowl, the viewer is shown that the Earth and her inhabitants have no future in this second dust-bowl.

Through a largely unbelievable story line Cooper is engaged by NASA to pilot a vessel to Saturn, enter a worm hole and venture out to three prospective new worlds where Humankind might begin again. There are logical inconsistencies in setting this stage, and the physics (despite being advised by Cal Tech’s Kip Thorne) require on several occasions much from the viewer, but then this is fiction, science fiction, and one must make allowances for this kind of tale.

The stage is a fantastic one, but like television’s The Walking Dead, the viewer is allowed to take in situations and people on this stage that are completely believable in this context and to take part in several scenes of overwhelming emotional intensity. This has always been for me the hallmark, even the raison d’etre for good speculative fiction, whether of a scientific or fantasy nature. That is to say create a stage where the story-teller can give the audience a tale that will involve them emotionally and inform them intellectually; and ideally tell such emotions and ideas that simply cannot be told without that fantastic stage.

The Nolan’s in Interstellar have created a story that makes intimate and completely requisite use of time dilation, of Einstein/Hawking attempts at a theory of everything (and of course, they get one – hey, it’s Hollywood), and to involve the audience in the effects of the former, and the necessity of the latter to save Mankind. Such a fantastic stage this is. And yet, because of the time dilation effects of immense gravity near a black hole, we are treated to a story of life-long love between a father and a daughter that simply cannot be told in any other way.

The acting by McConaughey and Chastain as the adult Murph are as in last year’s Texas Buyer’s Club for McConaughey and 2012’s Zero Dark Thirty for Chastain are easily Oscar-worthy performances. Indeed, this movie is filled with superb acting: John Lithgow as Coop’s father-in-law, Michael Caine as Brand’s father, Matt Damon and Anne Hathaway as fellow astronauts. But for me the highlight scene involved McConaughey reacting to a message from home – it was almost too painful to watch for its intensity.

Another great aspect of using the science fiction stage was the incredible special effects depicting the worm hole and black hole (though I must say, some of the space ship exterior scenes seemed oddly of a lower caliber). The editing near the end of the movie and the music score by Hans Zimmer throughout were of very high quality. The use in particular of an absence of sound for various space scenes to help give a feel for space versus the soaring music for other scenes of great emotional intensity were often spectacular.

I loved this movie and wanted so badly to give it five stars, but alas the science and logical inconsistencies won’t let me. But I did love this film and want everyone to see it. I’ll write elsewhere of the problematic parts that keep occurring to me after walking out of the theater.

Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas

2012

Drama/Science Fiction

5 Stars out of 5

I watched this movie, read the book, viewed the movie a second time (with close captioning this time) and still have several points that remain unclear to me. To say that either the book or the movie is complicated is quite an understatement. Yet, I find both to be as compelling and artistic an endeavor as I have experienced in the past decade.

The book (2004, David Mitchell) and movie are both structured in six parts just like the symphony that plays a central role in the second part of the six part story. However, the book tells the first half of each of the six parts moving forward in time from the Chatham Islands in the mid-19^th century to the early part of the 20^th century in England and Belgium for part two, to the Bay Area during the 1970’s, on to the early 21^st century England for part four, to mid-22nd century neo-Seoul, and finally to the mid-23rd century Hawaiian Islands. The book then turns around and finishes the second half of each story working back in time to mid-19^th century San Francisco.

The movie in stark contrast takes each of the six parts and very cleverly uses editing to correlate the various key points in each story arc with the other six arcs. This is a brilliant editing decision by writer/directors Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski, but it certainly requires the viewer to pay close attention to each story. The Wachowskis and Tykwer have two central themes to their version of the Mitchell story: the oppression by the strong of the weak, and the multi-century, enduring linkage of love between two souls. The writer/directors amplify this last point by using a comet-like (i.e. a shooting star) tattoo on the lovers even as they change race, sexual orientation and gender over the centuries in their various incarnations. In short, the movie really boils down to a love story between two star-crossed souls. It is beautifully told and acted.

The manner in which it is acted is another tool the writers/directors use to reinforce the multi-generational link between the two principle characters: Tom Hanks sometimes as the villain, but by the 70’s only as one of the two lovers; Halle Berry in minor roles in the first two stories, but again by the 70’s, only in the role of hero; Hugo Weaving is always a villain, but most effectively as Ole Georgie on the Big Island. There are very notable appearances by Doona Bae as Sonmi-451 in neo-Seoul, as well as Jim Sturgess as her lover Hae-Joo Chang. Several other actors play various forms of good, bad (Hugh Grant is notable), or minor. In general, you witness Hanks, Berry, Sturgess and Bae as one of the two lovers, and in these roles, always fighting the good fight for the weak and oppressed. Conversely, you see Weaving and Grant only in the role of the oppressor.

Thus, the editing, the use of the comet and star metaphors (consider also a Cloud Atlas is a map of the stars - once thought to be unchanging), and the casting meld brilliantly to evoke the image of constants through human history: the good and often weak vs. the always strong, bullying type of bad character. Others have tried to find some character growth across the story lines (e.g. Hanks’ evil Dr. Henry Goose next appearing as the noble Isaac Sachs), but I think this an artificial outcome of the casting decision, and not only not the point, actually contrary to the point. I think rather, the authors believe good is good, and most definitely, bad is bad.

A final note with respect to the book vs. movie: not only are the two structured differently, but also their main themes are quite different. The movie goes for the everlasting love theme coupled with the bully problem, but the book delves far more deeply and with a much more pessimistic view into the destruction of the Earth by Man. The movie has Meronym (Berry) refer to the fact that her group of people known as the Prescients are doomed if they do not receive rescue from the Stars (that is to say off-world colonies), but it is hardly more than a plot point in the movie. In the book, there are no off-world colonies, no rescue for Meronym, no salvation for Man or the Earth. It is a far more dark view of the consequences of climate change and “bully”- originated war and corporate rapacity.

This movie stands with very few others for me as 5 Star movie. It is indeed complicated and requires very careful attention (and cc), but it is one of very few worth the effort.