Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee take the long road to nowhere

Hollywood can be pretty predictable. For Example: once super hero movies hit it big, it seemed like every second movie was based on a comic book or graphic novel hero… they made alotta of money, but they were also alotta crap.

Thankfully, when dealing with great American literature, it’s a little harder to mess it up…. or maybe easier? Not in this case at least, thank God.

Last years big Oscar flick was No Country for Old Men, directed by the Coen Brothers and based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy. This year, I have a strong feeling that the interpretation of McCarthy’s The Road, directed by relative unknown John Hillcoat may tempt the Academy’s appetite for gorgeous cinematography and dystopian plot-lines. I find a general rule with the academy is if you contemplate ending it all by drowning yourself in your bucket sized soda while watching it, you probably will see it on the ballot. But I digress…

The Road stars Viggo Mortensen (Lord of the Rings, Eastern Promises) as ‘Man’ or ’Papa’. He is perhaps one of the most talented actors of our time, despite being a bit of a late bloomer in terms of his star status. It also stars Oscar’s favourite blonde, Charlize Theron (in the smaller supporting role of ‘Woman’). But the hopeful glue holding this otherwise bleak and grey post-apocalyptic flick is newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee as ‘Boy’. At only 13-years-old, his innocence and depth of emotion is far beyond his years, and becomes the only reason you continue watching.

Mortensen (right) may finally taste Oscar Gold for his role as Papa

Interestingly, the boy is the only reason why Papa continues to stay alive in a world decimated by some unknown natural disaster, devoid of living things and running rampant with cannibals and gangs of outlaws. But this is no Mad Max; it’s picture of the fall of humanity is terrifying. In a sense, the film is about the nature of humanity. What would a human do to survive? Who are the ‘Good Guys’ when the concept of conscience, decency and basic order are lost to basic survival?

It’s not for everyone. Silent for long stretches of time, the film is a realist depiction of a common movie trend- the end of the world. NOT for children, the easily bored, or the weak stomached, it is nonetheless one of the greatest novel-to-film adaptations in a long time. At its core, it is about how much one father will sacrifice to see his son survive, and the hope that a child can find in the most hopeless of worlds.

- Kate B.

What a double bill! Tom and Sam dive into the twin pleasures that are A Serious Man and New Moon with intellectual curiosity and torso-viewing expertise. Producer John then joins the fun to violently criticise Sam Worthington and life as a six-inch tall man. John goes on to praise Babylon 5 and Fellini, before everyone joins in to cite The Rock as a great 90s action-fest. The conclusion is a trailer round-up, with Clash of the Titans going up against Kick-Ass.

Download The Movie Overdose Episode 43

Email us, follow us on Twitter and subscribe on iTunes. Serious.

I suppose you’re all wondering what the new COEN BROTHERS film is like? Well I went to see it this evening, and I’m gonna say this: it’s very different from their usual films, it’s more of a deep, philosophical comedy drama. Some (denser) audience members may leave feeling cheated, or fail to be entertained, but upon reflection at the ending, I found the film to be very clever, and begin to make sense upon reflection; when I left the cinema. Just go and see it, if you’re intelligent, and want to be entertained. It’s about as challenging to watch as Charlie Kaufman’s latest, I’d say, but possibly a little less complicated. But c’mon, it’s a Coens film, who’s not gonna go see it?

Yes. Yes you should. I’m serious.

Anyway, back to music. I’ve been listening to a bit of a mix lately; about half electronic, half other music? Well whatever, but I’ve bumped into a few incredible tracks from all different corners. Such as this – Erol Alkan’s latest signing, German dude BORIS DLUGOSCH, who has released possibly one of the biggest bangers of this year, immediately rivalling everyone from Jack Beats to Crookers, and mainly due to its simple formula of chopped up beats, wiping synths and high pitched groans, as well as steady popping bass.

“Bangkok” (Original Mix) – Boris Dlugosch (zshare)

Also from Germany is minimal techno duo AKA AKA, who sample some crazy stuff (including Batman & Robin), but in this track utilise a bit of didgeridoo in place of the usual repetitive electronic percussion, which I thought was pretty raaaaaaaaaad:

“Woody Woodpecker” – Aka Aka (zshare) [hi-qual/large file]

A while ago I found these two Portuguese guys called OCTA PUSH, who are incredible. They’ve pretty much popped out of nowhere, and they mix all kinds of styles together to form some kind of supersound. I can’t really explain it, but it’s very accessible. This is their signature track, I think, and it’s pretty sumptuous when you first hear it smother your ear-holes…

“Kolokani” – Octa Push (zshare)

So THE BLACK KEYS decided to go hip-hop for their newest stuff, and collaborated with a ton of rappers and vocalists, including one of my favourites, Mos Def. But the track I’m gonna show you features RZA of Wu-Tang fame, and Pharoahe Monch of “shut the fuck up” fame. It holds a significant amount of soul, psychedelia, and swagger. Raw:

“Dollaz & Sense” (ft. RZA & Pharoahe Monch) – Blakroc (zshare)

I saw TURBO FRUITS a while back when whiting out at a festival, and I remember them playing pretty well for a Be Your Own Pet spinoff. I actually bought their debut album, despite it not seeming fully thought-out. This new stuff shows a stronger side to them, with a balls-out Black Lips-style tightness. This is how mainstream rock music should sound nowadays, brilliant production too. Apparently they’re soundtracking the new Drew Barrymore film though…ugh…

“International Language of Love” – Turbo Fruits (zshare)

INVASION are insane. I first read them described as “wizard metal”, and straight away got on that shit. First listen sounds like Death From Above 1979 with crazy soulish vocals. And I’m happy to say it all sounds that good! It’s pretty spacey, you should check out their videos actually, I’ll post one now just to keep you entertained – watch their other videos though, they’re really cool 90’s video montage-based! Can you handle:

“Alchemy” – Invasion (zshare)

[BONUS COVERT DUBSTEP SKILLZ: "Dublicker" - Unknown Artist vs Aphex Twin (zshare)]

Unlike Wes Anderson and Film Festivals, the Coen brother’s aren’t Stuff White People like.  (I assumed they would be, so fact checking on that blog saved me some embarrassment.)  They do have their share of fanboys and girls though.  And rightfully so.  They create very engaging stories and very unique characters.  I’ve taken pleasure in most of their major work.

And now I’m gonna get negative.  My gripe with O Brother, Where Art Thou goes too far in spurning the conventional.  Obviously it contains a simple message about racism in depression era America, but it insists on going down like a glass of Sprite.  It favors moral complexity to easy preaching, and yeah, I don’t like that.  I want the screen to send me simple comprehensible messages.  I want the Cohens to be Kazans.  I want them to

First scene. Soak it up.

Look at this first scene.  So little color available that it’s almost black and white.  Before anything else we’re invited to meditate on this classic 1930’s image of an all black chain gang.  The three white guys just escaped.

Not your stereotypical prison, rather a prison in the wide open.  Slaves nominally freed by the civil war and reconstruction, but still enslaved by a racist system.  OK, cool, that might be what O Brother, Where Art Thou is about.

But you don’t really have to interpret it that way.  You can sit back, ignore the boring bits, and enjoy what netflix calls “a rollicking romp in the tradition of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby’s ‘road’ pictures.”  The slapstick, melodrama and magic all make it really easy to sit back and relax, free of worries and white guilt.

Of course the problem with that interpretation is that the film just keeps on reiterating the opening scene.

The chain gang shows up at unlikely moments in the trio’s odyssey.  Above Clooney’s band of wanderers are trying to hitch a ride, and they are uncomfortably reminded of life on the chain gang.

The prisoners show up again, somewhat dramatically, for a moment while the heroes are taking in a picture show.  One of the hero’s crew has been recaptured by the law, and needs to deliver a message to his friends.

One of the heroes is whipped and threatened with lynching.  Which is strange because he doesn’t really fit the lynching demographic.  I’d kind of expect him to be on the other end of things. He’s been stripped of his rights, and made put in the position of a black man.

The Coen’s take it a step further.  The wandering trio accidentally puts on black face, literally becoming black.

Black face, the gang looks on, appalled at the clan, which is about to kill their friend Tommy Johnson.

The image of the KKK prancing about is played for laughs and a bit of drama.  Of course Clooney’s trio saves their friend Tommy Johnson from a brutal death.  And they comically defeat the John Goodman Klan cyclops in the process.

Working the chain gang, and becoming black, the trio goes about their adventures basically blind to race. Which is nice, and makes the film fun and pleasant, but does not exactly preach at me in the way I’m accustomed to being preached at.  The film is able to be so super-fun, that it’s easy to overlook the hatred that’s right out in the open.

Some artists ––– oh, say, Leonardo Da Vinci —— are known for their discipline and concentration. Consider the number of sketches he made for a horse statue that was never completed. Others, however, have taken the tack that to be an artist or an intellectual, you must somehow be undisciplined, clueless, and/or completely self-absorbed. THOSE are the kind Hollywood likes. After you’ve been awed by Leonardo at the High’s Hand of the Genius exhibition at our 12-hour artfest Go All Night, why not visit with some of his lesser brethren?

Eleanor Ringel Cater’s picks:

Barton Fink

Barton Fink (1991)

Leave it to the brothers Coen to come up with something as hilariously berserk and mind-teasingly perverse as this surreal black comedy about (of all things) writer’s block. A High-minded New York playwright, Barton Fink (John Turturro) is lured to 1941 Hollywood to give “that Barton Fink feeling” to a Wallace Beery wrestling movie. On one level, the film is about Fink’s Day-of-the-Locust encounters with moguls, producers and washed-up self-loathing Southern writers who’ve sold out to the flicks. But then there’s also the Earle, the hotel where Barton is holed up to write his masterpiece. A hotel worthy of The Shining, it’s also home to genial traveling salesman, John Goodman, who’s got stories to tell. LOTS of ‘em. The picture is a brainy goof, fleshed out by the brilliant performances, the rich production design and the Coen’s ever-clever camera. It’s as bleakly funny and tantalizingly obtuse as a Beckett on-act. I’ll give you the life of the mind…..

Naked Lunch (1991)

It will eat you alive if you’re not well-versed in the coded cool of Beat junkie icon, William S. Burroughs, or the insect-infected visions of director David Cronenberg (The Fly). And even if you are, this mercilessly exacting black comedy will leave its teeth marks on you.

Part biography, part literary adaptation, the film is less a literal rendering of the writer’s scandalous 1959 novel than a jazz-riff interpretation. Turning down the role of Robocop 3 (!), Peter Weller is the Burroughs surrogate who travels from 1953 New York to the Interzone — a kind of surreal Tangiers of the mind, populated by sweaty addicts, decadent ex-patriots and typewriters that mutate into giant talking bugs. However, those less than enthralled with Burroughs’ masturbatory self-infatuation may find this daring demanding picture something of a Pyrrhic victory. That is, more worthily done, perhaps, than worth doing.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Too much is never enough for fabled gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson and director Terry Gilliam. You could almost say they are a match made in excess heaven (or hell). This is Hollywood’s second attempt to translate Thompson’s 1971 book about his drug-drenched trip to Vegas, the first being the rather abysmal Where the Buffalo Roam, starring a game Bill Murray.

Here, it’s the ever-unpredictable Johnny Depp who takes on the role of Raoul Duke (Thompson’s alter-ego) and a chunked-up pre-Oscar Benicio Del Toro plays Dr. Gonzo, Duke’s lawyer/companion-in-chaos. The assignment — as if it matters — is a dirt-bike race. Their true quest is to ingest every kind of “uppers, downers, screamers, laughers” they can find. Plus several oceans of booze. However, like most drug experiences, the film has a downside, too. Barely making it out of Vegas alive the first time, they’re dragged back in (like Pacino in Godfather III) for another round of the same thing.

Still, Depp is astonishing, Joe Coker by way of John Belushi and pure pandemonium on the prowl. The movie isn’t exactly a success, but it’s the most glorious kind of failure: Imaginative, uncompromising and true to itself. A tip: if hearing Debbie Reynolds tell a Vegas crowd, “Let’s rock and roll!” doesn’t crack you up, you don’t want any part of this movie. Not even the good parts.

Linda Dubler’s picks:

A Bucket of Blood

A Bucket of Blood (1959)

With its lurid title and down at the heels production values, A Bucket of Blood is a sterling example of legendary B-movie producer/director Roger Corman’s talent for entertaining, inspired schlock. The film’s central character, Walter Paisley (Dick Miller), is a bus boy at a beatnik coffee house who is so inept he makes Maynard G. Krebs look like Jackson Pollock.

Poor, talentless Walter longs for the limelight, so when his landlady’s cat dies accidentally, he covers the stiff feline in plaster, a la George Segal, and presents the critter as a work of art. The hipsters are wowed, and soon the would-be-genius is trolling for additional bodies to receive the Paisley treatment. The lively script was written by Charles Griffith, screenwriter for The Little Shop of Horrors. Corman mentored Scorsese, Coppola, and Jonathan Demme among others, so even if you’re not a B-movie fan, consider taking a look.

Sullivan’s Travels (1941)

The grass is always greener – even for those who’ve successfully made it to the other side. Such is the case for Sullivan, a sought-after Hollywood director known for hits like Ants in Your Pants of 1939. Yearning for the gravity and respect that genius endows, this would be Steinbeck declares he’s finished with fluff and ready to undertake his masterpiece, a gritty, relevant opus called Oh Brother Where Art Thou? But before he can write about the common man, it would help to meet a few.

Sullivan and his fetching, hold-the-hooey secretary (Veronica Lake, famous for her peek-a-boo wave) take to the road in a luxuriously appointed Airstream in search of America. Preston Sturges, a treasure of American cinema and the writer/director behind The Palm Beach Story and The Lady Eve, mixes comedy with melodrama in this delicious satire of self-importance and fame.

The Lady Eve (1941) , Ball of Fire (1941) , and Bringing Up Baby (1938)

The movies are full of evil geniuses (Dr. Frankenstein and his many peers), troubled geniuses (viz. any standard issue artist bio pic, from Lust for Life to Basquiat), even idiotic geniuses (e.g. Austin Powers), but my favorite variety are the clueless intellectuals, beloved by the makes of classic screwball comedies. Invariably men, these champions of book learnin’ are short on smarts and easy marks for women who either thing or two about the world, or are so ditzy they defy comprehension.

In The Lady Eve, Henry Fonda is a herpetologist (a snake specialist to be precise) who makes an appetizing victim for slithery card-sharp Barbara Stanwyck. Stanwyck shows up again in Ball of Fire as Sugarpuss O’Shea, a nightclub singer who knows her way around a colloquialism, who ends up hiding out in a house full of lexographers, among them sexy language specialist Prof. Bertram Potts (Gary Cooper). And in what’s probably my favorite American comedy, Katherine Hepburn is as untamed as the titular leopard Baby, driving poor paleontologist Cary Grant around the bend and into her waiting arms. After a lousy day or a lousy week, any one of these gems will help to chase away the blues.

Between Heaven and Hell There’s Always Hollywood!

how do you talk about a movie like Barton Fink?

depends.

if you are familiar with the development of the studio system in Hollywood, 1930’s American writers and playwrights, East Coast v. West Coast, ‘Jewish intellectuals’, the blacklist

you are likely to read it as a (barely) veiled recounting of those times with easily recognized characters

if you are really into Fight Club

you’ll have a different read

could also be a tale of good v. evil, justice and punishment, a vision of Hell, a stay in Purgatory, a glimpse of Heaven.

all of the above can be argued for; none fit exactly.  and there is enough leftover symbolism to fill a few boxes

it is, without a doubt, the finest movie the Coen Brothers have made.  so far.

trailer

Barton Fink – Original Theatrical Trailer

welcome to Hollywood, Barton Fink!

Baton Fink – Welcome to Hollywood

I’ll show you the life of the mind!

Barton Fink – I’ll show you the life of the mind!

confused yet?  excellent.  now go watch (or rewatch).

a nice little thing found out in the ether: teh script

Nablopomo 2009 badge

Last week, I went to see the latest Coen brother’s film, A Serious Man. This movie is a dark comedy loosely based on the Biblical story of Job. In the story of Job, Job inexplicably and suddenly looses everything of any meaning to him. The chain of events causes him to call his faith, life, values, and the very existence of god into question. In the end, God restores his faith and his possessions to him seven-fold. In A Serious Man,   Larry Gopnik, a Jewish professor of physics at a University, experiences a similar chain of events. His wife decides she is divorcing him for their long-time friend Sy Ableman. He gets kicked out of his own house and has to go live with his dysfunctional, gambling addicted brother at the Jolly Roger motel. A student tries to bribe him to change his physics score, and when he will not agree, his father threatens Larry with a lawsuit. Larry’s children are getting into trouble, with his daughter’s main activity being “washing her hair,” and his son smoking weed and getting into trouble at his Jewish school behind his back. Larry is almost up for tenure, only to find out that someone has been writing malicious letter to the board urging against him gaining tenure.

There is never any resolution to the movie. Life throws blow after blow at Larry, and we watch him struggling to deal with them. He visits three rabbis, none of which are helpful. He calls his faith into question and cannot understand why any of these things are happening to him. The only insight we have into what may be the root of Larry’s problems is at the very beginning of the film.

The opening Yiddish scene shows a man and his wife on a dark, cold, snowy day. The wife welcomes her husband home to their tiny wooden cabin only to become appalled by the story he tells her. He met a man on the way home who helped him fix his wagon wheel when it broke. When the husband tells his wife the man’s name, the wife almost faints. She informs her husband that this man died several years ago. The man then knocks on the door, as the husband had invited him in for soup to warm up. The wife is less than hospitable, questioning the man and eventually throwing an ice pick into him. He does not bleed. Everyone looks shocked. As the husband and wife order the man out of their home, blood starts flowing from him. As he leaves, the wife exclaims “We are cursed by God.” After this, Jefferson Airplane’s Somebody to Love starts playing, and the beginning credits roll as the movie switches to Larry and his family in Minnesota in 1957. We can concur that the people in the opening scene were Larry’s ancestors, and, as the movie progresses, we can only deduce that they have passed their “curse from God” onto Larry.

While A Serious Man may be very dark and perhaps to some, even depressing, the Coen brothers really did do a fantastic job of exploring the questions of faith, family, religion, and god within the framework of the movie. All of these are heavy and serious topics, and can often become either boring or overly biased and religious when they are explored on film. However, the Coen brother do not have that problem with this film. Their perspective is not biased, and because Larry’s questions are never answered in the movie, the Coen brothers do not espouse any particular viewpoint. They simply present the questions in an entertaining forum and leave you to think about them and answer them for yourself, which is, really, what good filmmaking is supposed to do.

For anyone interested, the film had a very limited release and may be difficult to find. In Pittsburgh, you can see it at Cinemagic Manor in Squirrel Hill.

Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg)

For 25 years now Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading) have been making stylish and meticulously constructed films that reveal their deep love and knowledge of cinema. Frequently working in the screwball comedy and film noir genres, the Coen brothers have made films that toyed with generic conventions and delightfully undermined audience expectations. Occasionally they make radically non-genre films such as their 1991 masterpiece Barton Fink, which still stands as their most personal and expressive film. Not only does Barton Fink contain the Coen brothers’ dark and absurd sense of humour and existential view of the universe but it also touches on their Jewish identity. Now comes A Serious Man, which is very much one of the Coen brothers’ more left-of-field personal projects and it contains the most thorough examination of their Jewish background to date.

Set in a suburb in the American Mid West in 1967, A Serious Man depicts a world that on the surface appears to be one of complete ordinariness.  In the centre of this world is Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) a college professor whose son is preparing for his upcoming Bar Mitzvah. Despite not having actually done anything to cause any ripples in the universe, Larry’s entire life soon begins to tumble around him. His wife asks for a divorce, his professional integrity is challenged and his troubled brother appears even more troubled than originally suspected. Larry turns to a series of rabbis for moral and spiritual advice on how to get over these calamities and live his life as a good and serious man.

Larry and Judith Gopnik (Sari Lennick)

As you would expect from a Coen brother’s film every single aspect contained within A Serious Man is deliberate and carefully compiled. The shots are composed perfectly and not since Punch-Drunk Love has music been used so effectively to give such incredible tension to what appears on screen to be mundane interactions. A Serious Man is a film that will get under your skin unexpectedly and stay in your mind long after its astonishing final shot abruptly cuts to the end credits. Somewhere in this puzzle of a film is a parable about perception, meaninglessness, moral accountability, faith, coping with what life throws at you and Jefferson Airplane lyrics. It is a film to be intuitively understood on an almost gut level and discussing it at length later to unravel its nuances is part of the pleasure of seeing such a film. A Serious Man is a rich, darkly humorous and spellbinding addition to the incredible contribution that Joel and Ethan Coen have made to contemporary cinema.

© Thomas Caldwell, 2009

Read more reviews at MRQE

A Serious Man, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, 2009

shrink-wrap for the soul

HOOK: Is the cat in the house, dead or alive?

 LINE:  “Even though you can’t ever figure anything out, you will be responsible for it on the midterm.”

 SINKER: How can someone ‘who hasn’t done anything’ be blamed for everything? A Book of Job treat with a razor hidden in it. 

JOHN: As our friend Bob (at Coffeespew) points out the new suburbs of the fifties and sixties are old territory for authors like John Updike. So why do the Coen brothers revisit them (other than the fact that this is where they grew up in one around Minneapolis)? I think there’s a broader question concerned with the difference between comedy and drama—a line they’ve crossed with mixed results in the past. In drama we in the audience want to identify with the protagonist, feel that what is happening to him is happening to us. We are curious and relieved (even if things turn out badly, “It is only a movie.”). Comedy requires more distance. We recognize the situations but want to laugh at the characters, not ourselves. Whether or not the Coens relate to the Larry Gopnik character (superbly played by newcomer Michael Stuhlbarg in a career launching performance), we don’t, even if the fact that this involves his Jewishness makes it a bit of an uncomfortable laugh. The genius of this film is that it doesn’t stay in the mid sixties. The last moments, like impending doom, roll out at us today. I found the movie funny, at times stereotyped and slow, but ultimately a masterpiece that leaves you gasping.

GO GO GO GO (4 GOs out of four) 

SPANKY: The fact that you have to do all this rationalizing, John, seems to me to indicate that the film isn’t making it on its own terms (like Fargo). We can debate great films, like those of Bergman and Fellini, all night, but whether or not we do they stand as great films. This one has some magical moments: the sequence with the young rabbi, the tale of the message on the teeth of the Jewish dentist’s client, Sly Abelman—beautifully played by Fred Melamed—even the dark, sub-titled prologue. And I agree, the shift of vantage point from the father to his son toward the end gives the conclusion knock-out power. But it also seems to me the movie has to work a little harder than it should have to. And we in the audience do too. Plus the two-dimensional, hair-washing daughter, the Jewish lawyers, the Nazi-like neighbors and the desperate housewife next door…com’on. This may be much better than their other recent movies, but the Coen boys are still a long way from home.

BARK, BARK (2 BARKs out of four)

Michael Stuhlbarg, Fred Melamed, Richard Kind, Aaron Wolf, Sari Wagner, Jessica McManus, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen,  Sari Lennick , A Serious Man, Fargo, Comedy, Drama, Coen Brothers, No Country For Old Men, Man Who Wasn’t There, Woody Allen

“Pirate Radio”  Rated R, 1 hour 56 minutes.  Distributed by Focus Features, Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Friday & Saturday @ 2pm, 4:30, 7pm & 9:45

Sunday to Thursday @ 2pm, 4:30, 7pm & 9:30

We had a good trip to Newcastle today. (I always need to explain that I am talking about Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia). It is about 50 minutes drive north of here, call it an hour for comfort.

We had seen a review of the new Coen brothers’ film A Serious Man last night, checked it out, saw it was on at a good time in Newcastle, so off we went.

We have enjoyed previous Coen brothers’ films and their quirkiness, focus on detail, quality of scripting, subject matter … all these fall into place so well that their films are just so enjoyable.

A Serious Man is set in middle America:

A black comedy set in 1967 and centered on Larry Gopnik, a Midwestern professor who watches his life unravel when his wife prepares to leave him because his inept brother won’t move out of the house.

The locale and times are typical of those in which the brothers grew up, so I felt it was pretty accurate and representative. It was a great little film, very funny, with a black, but benevolent look at Jewish beliefs and way of life.

But my point today is not to review the film.

We don’t go to Newcastle much and each time we go we are surprised to remember what an attractive city it is. There are still many of the old colonial-style buildings left, as well as run-down premises, old street shops, and some fine new buildings. It’s a great place to photograph, so I made a note to go back for a photo-shoot as soon as I can.

Here’s a quiet spot in the middle of the city. The cinema is at the back of the shot, across King St.

Watching movies is one of my favorite activities. Today I had the rare pleasure of getting to watch two (usually that only happens when I’m dog-sick and stuck in bed). They provided a bizarre counterpoint for each other.

The first was the upcoming adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Now, the last one out of the gates on this was No Country for Old Men, what I consider to be an almost pitch-perfect movie. Add to that Viggo Mortensen and Robert Duvall, two of my favorite actors, and I was pumped. The kicker: free passes for pastors, followed by a theological discussion of the movie led by a “noted theologian.” Sold!

The movie was bleak – I expected that. And that was hard to watch. But it just wasn’t that good. The Coen Brothers nailed No Country’s pacing with the painfully drawn-out vista shots and the almost wordless dialogue. Here, there was some good cinematography, but it felt like they were trying to get through it too fast. I know it’s unfair to compare relatively new-comer directors to the Coen Brothers, but this really didn’t live up to the challenge at all. For a free movie, though, intriguing.

The noted theologian was Reg Grant, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. It was not that long ago that places like Dallas would have urged faithful Christians to run the other direction from such movies, so I am encouraged to see the evangelical mainstream willing to engage secular culture, not deny it out of hand. But what followed in discussion was frustrating. The film was full of Biblical and philosophical allusions, much like No Country. However, the discussion seemed to be hell-bent (pardon the expression) on shoe-horning the film into a Christian allegory. The relationship of the Father and the Son, the pronouncement that the Son is “the one,” the only man in the film named is “Eli,” sparse conversations about God and angels, all of that adds up to a lot of fodder for conversation. But to somehow assume that McCarthy’s nihilistic worldview could be bent into a crypto-Catholic “hope in Christ” morality tale? Not quite…

I was reminded of the Ralph Wood article comparing the theologies of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, entitled Lewis & Tolkien in Tension. In it, Wood describes how Lewis’ literature has no purpose if the allegorical interpretation is not there. In other words, if you don’t get that Aslan is Jesus, then The Chronicles of Narnia aren’t going to be of much use. Tolkien, on the other hand, seemed to prefer the uniqueness of Christ and therefore refused to have any Christ-figure in his masterworks. The themes of Scripture, however, are there: betrayal, trust, faith, transcendence, temptation, humility, etc. Allegorical, no. Rich, yes.

It was reading Wood’s article that helped me understand the deep flaw I’ve never been able to articulate with dispensational readings of Revelation. A vision of the future? Yes. One in which the Whore of Babylon/seven seals/four horses means a specific person/entity/nation/enemy? Probably not.

And yet, that’s exactly what this audience was trying to do with The Road, find the Christ-figure and how to use this as a preaching tool. One audience member went so far as to say that the end offers the possibility of hope in Christ and the “new heaven and new earth.” First of all, there’s a big difference between hope and optimism; hope is a lot more than “glass half full.” You can have a bleak future and still have eschatological and soteriological hope. And second, folks, if the future looks anything like McCarthy’s vision, then there is no cause for hopetimism.

Enough about the film I didn’t enjoy. The second film was with guys who went on our OPC Men’s Retreat in October. We watched Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless, the Emory student whose misanthropy causes him to abandon all for the solitude of an Alaskan winter only to discover the truth that “Happiness is real only when shared.”

Sean Penn’s directorial eye was exactly what The Road needed. The drawn out shots of mountains, whether bleak or beautiful, were well-executed. And there was enough fodder for theological/philosophical discussion, albeit in non-allegorical terms: loneliness, woundedness, community, limitation, success, dependence, independence, forgiveness, enlightenment, you name it. And if that weren’t enough, there’s far more religious conversation that actually occurs within the movie. From vague discussions about God to prominent quotes from Tolstoy (himself an intriguing Christian writer), McCandless’ own search seems to have these eternal questions in mind. And the way Penn shapes the narrative only highlights these ideas.

And so for now, the balcony is closed. We’ll see you next week at the movies.

(having watched the preview again, did we get a truncated version today? ‘cuz half of the scenes in the preview were not in what we saw)

Walking into a Coen Brother’s film is a bit like going to a therapist for two hours but not knowing what neurosis you will be treated for. The only thing you can be sure of is there will be some messin’ with your head. That is at once the charm and challenge of their filmmaking. A Serious Man is the story of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a mathematics professor who has carefully calculated his life and on the verge of tenure, when his wife, Judith (Sari Lennick) asks for a divorce. There was already a lot of tension in the house, with a stoner son, a self-obsessed daughter and loser Uncle Arthur.

Larry is in shock and tries to reason things back together, but Judith and her new companion, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), keep applying pressure and push him to visit “The Rabbi.” The guy for the job is Rabbi Marshak, but he’s much too busy to see anyone these days. So Larry settles for the junior Rabbi, who essentially tells him life is like a parking lot. Not a great help. He’s shuttled to a second Rabbi who takes more of his time and is of even less help.

In the meantime the story unfolds on a number of side plots involving the son, Danny (Aaron Wolff), who’s radio is confiscated in Hebrew school and contained the money he needed to pay off a drug purchase. Uncle Arthur is working on some landmark writing and attending single mixers, which turn out to be card games. One of Larry’s students realizes he is going to fail so he tries to buy a passing grade by leaving behind an envelope full of money. And if that wasn’t enough, the head of the tenure committee drops by to inform him that someone is writing anonymous letters besmirching Larry’s good name. It seems everyone wants a piece of Larry, even the Columbia Record Club who keep calling trying to collect on the latest selection of the month, Santana Abraxas.

The filmmaking craft is so smart. The Coens are masters of pacing and camera placement that advance the story and define characters in subtle but effective ways. One of Larry’s neighbors is a very scary man who over mows the property line week after week and then claims the extra real estate for his own. He also doesn’t think twice about taking his son out of school to go hunting. Signature Coen all the way. Landscape always plays an important role in Coen films. This picture is set in 1967 in rural midwest and they successfully re-create the time, space and sounds, with the possible exception of the school buses; they look a bit too modern. As with most of their films (No Country for Old Men excluded), music plays a significant role; lots of Jefferson Airplane air time and Carter Burwell’s repeating score.

The Gopnik’s are Jewish (you got that right?) and the Coens leverage, but never disparage their culture or faith. They do however have fun with it. Larry’s son smokes a joint just before his Bar Mitzhav and is stoned out of his mind while trying to recite a portion of the Shabbat. And there is a quick shot of the Rabbi holding up the Torah and exclaiming, “Jesus Christ” over its weight.

Larry gets one big break. While on the roof adjusting the TV antenna he notices Mrs. Samsky sunbathing in the nude next door. He visits her after the separation with Judith, and finds himself on her sofa smoking pot. But even that opportunity is vanquished by the misfit Arthur. One saving grace for the audience. Larry seems so much more entertaining when he’s high. But we are beginning to feel it’s total doom for Larry. At the end of the picture we find out for sure. Probably just as well he didn’t get in to see Marshak. Visit the official A Serious Man web site here.

I found myself thinking more about this film the second or third day after seeing it, but frankly, I’d rather go back and watch No Country for Old Men, Fargo or Miller’s Crossing. I think I’ll do that this weekend.

Photo Credit: Focus Features

Fingertips’ resident film reviewer Aidan Donovan finds little to laugh at in US comedy The Men Who Stare at Goats

Debut director Grant Heslov’s eccentric Coen-esque military comedy brings to mind a before and after shot of a botched breast implant – grimly intriguing, yet utterly horrible.

The movie – based on the non-fiction novel by Welsh broadcaster and journalist Jon Ronson – centres on a group of specialist soldiers trained by the US government in psychic warfare during the 1980s. Known as ‘Jedis’, these men could fell goats merely by staring at them – hence the film’s title.

Ewan McGregor plays journalist Bob Wilton who stumbles upon the story after meeting Special Forces soldier Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) while reporting the war in Iraq.

Despite a stellar cast (which also features Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey), none of the actors conspire to give a decent performance. Each of them has comedic experience in their back catalogue, but what The Men Who Stare at Goats really lacks is a laugh-out-loud funny man to hammer home the absurdity of the narrative.

Clooney is the best of the bunch but fails to live up to his other quirky roles, such as those in Coen brothers classics O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Burn After Reading. McGregor is not only miscast as the straight man, but his faux US accent irratates while his handsome aesthetic is ill-matched with his geeky, introvert character. To add insult, Bridges has merely reprised his role as The Dude from The Big Lebowksi while Spacey is little more than a distraction.

The Men Who Stare At Goats failed to even raise a smile on my blank, emotionless face. It trudged and trudged through its measly 93 minutes running time, while fans of Jon Ronson’s investigative prose will have been left puzzled by such a mainstream adaption. this

Perhaps this is what the movie is lacking; a real purpose and direction in taking a drier and sardonic look at the war in Iraq.

The Men Who Stare at Goats is in cinemas now. For more news and views on all things film check out Fingertips.net