Jane Campion’s gorgeous film, Bright Star, as noted here on Scarriet  [click here and here for our 2 articles], was hardly discussed on the Poetry Foundation’s Blog:Harriet  despite the well-written and timely article by Abigail Deutsch [click here] — yet another example of the failure of Harriet  to discuss anything to do with poetry after the blood-letting of September 1st.

We at Scarriet  had a feeling this sobering, sad, but breathtakingly beautiful effort on behalf of the poet John Keats and his friend Fanny Brawne, by one of the best directors in the business, would be ignored by the entertainment industry’s honoring system as well.

Avoiding every pitfall of the Hollywood bio-pic, Bright Star  features an intelligent script, extremely moving performances by Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish, Kerry Fox, Paul Schneider, and Edie Martin, (as Fanny’s little sister) and  is a feast for the eyes and ears.

The old days, when films such as Amadeus and Room With A View earned major nominations and awards, seem to be gone.

Let’s skip the rant on the increase of cultural ignorance—for such a thesis could only be a rant.

We’ll just recommend you get the CD soundtrack, or see Bright Star, with its moving depiction of Keats,  Charles Armitage Brown, Fanny Brawne and her family.

And switch from Harriet to Scarriet, of course, to stay abreast of what’s really happening in poetry!

Džeinas Kempiones romantiskā drāma.
Kinoteātros jau no 18.12.2009. Pirmie skatītāji Latvijā jau paspējuši novērtēt.

Ne tikai dāmas sarosās, bet arī džentelmeņi ņem zem rokas savas izredzētās un aicina noskatīties jaunāko Džeinas Kempiones drāmu. Londona, 19. gadsimta sākums, kad 23 gadus vecais dzejnieks Džons uzzina par kaimiņu meitenes Fannijas rūpēm par viņa slimo brāli, viņš piekrīt jauno dāmu apmācīt dzejas smalkumos. Aizraušanās ar dzeju ātri vien pāraug romantiskā piedzīvojumā, kas ir pamats kaislīgai mīlas dēkai. Jo lielākas grūtības jāsastop, jo spēcīgāka tā kļūst. Dzeja, aizraušanās, kaisle, mīla, sāpes – viss, kas nepieciešams romantiskajam kino.

Ja iet runa par Džeinu Kempioni, tad viennozīmīgi jāpiemin lieliskā drāma The Piano („Klavieres”), trīs Oskari, režisorei Džeinai Kempionei, galvenās lomas atveidotājai Hollijai Hanterai un Oskars par otrā plāna lomu aktrisei Annai Pakvinai- jaunākā aktrise, kas jelkad ieguvusi Oskaru, tikai vienpadsmit gadu vecumā. Kopumā filma The Piano ieguvusi 57 balvas visā pasaulē. Jāpiemin, ka Anna Pakvina ir viesojusies arī Latvijā, pagājušo gadu, kad tepat Rīgas ielās tika filmēta biogrāfiskā drāma The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler (”Irēnas Sandleres drosmīgā sirds”), kur aktrise atveido galveno lomu.

Bright Star pasaulē jau pirms kāda laika piedzīvojusi pirmizrādi, pabijusi daudzu kinofestivāli oficiālajās programmās, Kannās startējusi konkursā un nominēta Zelta Palmai.

Dzejnieka lomā daudzsološais angļu aktieris Bens Višavs, redzams kopā ar Dastinu Hoffmanu filmā Perfume: The Story of a Murderer („Parfīms: Stāsts par kādu slepkavu”), kā arī līdzās Keitai Blanšetai un Kristianam Beilam biogrāfiskajā Toda Heinsa drāmā I’m Not There. („Manis tur nav.”). Fannijas lomā Abija Korniša, arī viņai ir bijis tas gods 2007. gadā filmēties kopā ar Oskara laureāti Keitu Blanštu filmā Elizabeth: The Golden Age („Elizabete: Zelta laikmets”).

Režisors, scenārists: Jane Campion,
Producenti: Jan Chapman, Caroline Hewitt, François Ivernel u.c.,
Lomās: Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish, KerryFox, Paul Schneider.

From WAR AND GRACE – Short biographies from the World Wars, by Don Stephens, published by Evangelical Press, Faverdale North, Darlington, DL3 0PH, England

Reproduced by permission of the publishers http://www.epbooks.org/
Available in South Africa from http://www.christianbooks.co.za/.

Throughout 1915 the First World War raged in both western and eastern Europe. In the German onslaught in the east against Russia, Paul Robert Schneider, an eighteen-year-old German soldier, received a serious wound in the stomach. For his bravery he was awarded the Iron Cross.

After surgery and recovery from it, Paul Schneider fought in the artillery against Britain and France. His courage did not go unrecognized. By the end of the war he had risen to the rank of lieutenant. At about the same time another German soldier ended the war as a corporal. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Adolf Hitler is now regarded as one of the most evil men who has ever lived. For twelve years, from 1933 to 1945, his political party, the National Socialists, or Nazis, dominated the life of Germany. For many years after 1933 his following among the German people was almost complete. Cheering crowds greeted him with rapturous enthusiasm whenever he appeared in public. He was idolized like a god. His power was so great that he led his people into an aggressive war in which millions died. His legacy to the country he ruled as a dictator was ruin and shame.

During those fateful years, the opposition to Hitler within Germany was so small that it was crushed with ease. Those who openly protested against Nazi ideology or policies paid a heavy price. The great scientist Einstein pointed out the origins of the most effective resistance. ‘Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign to suppress truth…it had the courage to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.’

When Germany was defeated in 1918, Paul Schneider decided to give up his original plan to be a physician. His father, Gustav-Adolph, was a pastor in the German Evangelische Reformierte Kirche, a church that is Presbyterian in organization and belief. Paul’s decision to study theology at this time probably had a great deal to do with the influence of his family background.

It is not surprising the years immediately after the war were a time of mental turmoil for him. Since schooldays he had been taught the critical view of the Bible. This held that it was full of mistakes and could not be trusted. He was also troubled by the appeal of Communism and Socialism. As a German, he did not like the parts of the Treaty of Versailles that allegedly humiliated his country. He struggled spiritually, yet it was clear to him that, unless people’s hearts were changed, a new tyranny would merely replace an old one like that of the Kaiser.

Just before Christmas in 1921, as his theological studies began, his spiritual struggles came to an end. He rejected his positive view of human nature, which he realized was derived form nineteenth-century optimism. The Reformers Luther and Calvin were right: man is a sinner in need of redemption. The Bible is not just religious folklore; it is the Word of God. Gretel, the young lady who was to become his wife, recorded: Eternal life entered his soul and he was filled with great joy.

From his diaries and letters we know that he experienced a definite personal conversion to Christ. Now he had a message to preach: the biblical gospel that salvation is by repentance and faith in the crucified and risen Christ. He could see the Reformation confessions of his church not just as historical documents, but also as statements of his faith. Later on, when in prison, he asked his wife to let him have the Belgic confession and the Heidelberg Catechism to study alongside his Bible. Paul Schneider had become a Reformed evangelical Christian.

During the demanding preparation to be a pastor, he felt the need to experience the life of an ordinary workingman. An uncle heard of his plan to work in a factory for a while, and offered him a comfortable, well-paid job. But he did not want a ‘soft’ job. So throughout most of 1922 Paul Schneider became part of a gang of workers at a blast furnace near Dortmund. He said that he needed to understand the demands of the daily grind such men face. They showed him their respect and on the day he left said, ‘You are one of us. Try to stay like that.’ He did.

The years before his ordination were filled with study at university and theological college. For nine months up to July 1924 he worked for the Berlin City Mission, becoming acquainted with poor and wretched men and women, some of them addicted to alcohol and drugs.

Ordination followed in 1925. For a time he was an assistant pastor in Essen. In 1926 his father suffered a stroke while preaching and died three days later. His father’s church at Hochelheim unanimously called Paul to succeed him as pastor. He had been married less than a month when he was installed as pastor in September 1926. His first sermon was based on 2 Timothy 3:14-17, the heart of which declares that all Scripture is God-breathed, which means that it is without error – that is, infallible. The choice of this passage indicates his belief in the authority of the Bible alone. He was Reformed in his faith and his ministry was Bible-based. All surviving accounts indicate that he was a bold and powerful preacher.

He also had a real loving concern for the people. There are descriptions in existence of the sick listening for the distinctive whine of his motorcycle on his way to visit them. Gretel, his wife, records that in their dying moments some testified that Paul Schneider was the one used by God to bring peace through leading them to faith in Christ.

In Gretel’s memoir of Paul there is another story from that period. A young epileptic had a very severe attack, which went on for three days and nights. In spite of strong narcotics, nobody could give him rest. Then Paul Schneider arrived. He prayed for the helpless boy and spoke quietly to him. Peace came and the boy fell asleep. Later Schneider returned once more at just the right moment. ‘I knew I was needed here,’ he said as he arrived. Just as the boy died peacefully in Paul’s arms he said clearly, ‘I thank you all for everything, but that I can die at peace with my God and with no fear of the grave, I thank our pastor.’ The pastor knew where the power came from. His diary says, ‘I am utterly dependent on the grace of God alone.’

Paul Schneider was an example of a minister who was rarely off duty. His work was his life. We see him trying to win young people to Christ by playing sports or going on rambles with them. Older folk working in the fields would find him joining the work of harvesting or haymaking. He built up his relationships with the local people. Yet within his congregation he believed in applying Biblical church discipline to a few who had scandalous lifestyles and came to the Lord’s Table as though they were doing nothing wrong.

On 30 January 1933 Hitler came to power, and life in Germany began to change. Of the one thousand people in Schneider’s rural Rhineland parish of Hochelheim, half freely voted for the Nazis. Nevertheless, from an early stage of Nazi rule, Paul Schneider spoke out against wrong policies and actions. He would never use the greeting, ‘Heil Hitler’, quite reasonably considering it a form of idolatry.

So-called ‘Christians’ who accepted Nazism were known as ‘German Christians.’ Schneider would have nothing to do with them because they accepted Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies. Eventually Paul Schneider put some criticisms of Nazism on his church bulletin board and was forced to account for what he said to a ‘German Christian’ leader. This man was dressed in Nazi uniform and had a huge cross dangling on his chest. Paul could see that these people were trying to force the church to adopt Nazi ideas. Sadly, the leaders of the Hochelheim Church would not support him in his stand. As a result, he was forced to take a new pastorate with two churches, one in Dickenschied and the other nearby in Womrath.

Paul Schneider was installed as minister in May 1934, at the age of thirty-six. He had been in his new pastorate for only a few weeks when faithful men who thought as he did issued the Barmen Declaration. Part of the wording of this declaration defiantly asserted: ‘Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.’

Just over a month after he began his new ministry a completely unexpected incident occurred. Tuesday, 12 June, dawned as just another beautiful early summer day in rural Rhineland. As Schneider travelled to nearby Gemünden to stand in for another pastor at a funeral service, he had no idea of the trouble that lay ahead.

Wearing his simple black clerical robe, Paul Schneider walked in front of the bearers of the coffin towards the open grave. Ahead of him could be seen a parade of the Hitler Youth organization with bands and flags. He recalled that the dead seventeen-year-old youth had told him that he was the first young man in Gemünden to join the Hitler Youth. Paul conducted the graveside service, but before the committal and without asking permission, the local Nazi leader, Heinrich Nadig, spoke at some length and then asserted, ‘Comrade Karl Moog, you have now been enlisted in Horst Wessel’s battalion in heaven.’

As Paul stepped forward to pronounce the benediction, he knew that something must be said to make it clear to the hundreds of youthful Nazis that Horst Wessel was not part of a Christian burial. As reasonably as he could he explained the truth of the gospel and rejected the idea that there is a Horst Wessel group in heaven.

The local Nazi leader then approached the coffin and half addressing the crowd and half addressing the dead youth, he insisted, ‘Comrade, whatever they say, you are now enlisted in Horst Wessel’s battalion.’ Paul Schneider protested and reminded the Nazi leader that he was at a church service. The Nazi stormed away and the parade broke up.

The day after the funeral Schneider was arrested and imprisoned for a week. On his release he was given a strong warning to stop opposing the wishes of the state.

What was the Nazi thinking in all this? They had revived old pagan legends, one being the Viking myth that at death the individual joins other departed warriors. They idolized various folk heroes. Horst Wessel was a Nazi who had been shot in a street fight with political enemies in 1930. He became a Nazi folk hero, and was glorified as a martyr. The Horst Wessel song, full of pagan sentiments, was often sung at rallies when Hitler was present.

When the pastor made his graveside protest against Nazi ideology, he was holding to the right of the church to defend the purity of Christian truth. While in prison he informed the Nazi officials that he did not intend to be antagonistic to the state, but if there was to be harmony between church and state, the Nazis should respect the rights of the church to maintain the truth of the gospel. He had embarked, single-handed for all he knew, on a collision course with an increasingly dominant police state.

During the winter of 1935-36 the Nazis rebuked Paul Schneider on twelve occasions. They resented the fact that faithful Christians had organized themselves into the ‘Confessing Church’. This body issued a statement that was intended to be read openly in faithful gospel churches. The Gestapo, the State Secret Police, visited Paul and put pressure on him to sign a document agreeing not to read it publicly. True to his principles, he refused. For that, he was imprisoned for four days.

Paul Schneider also resisted the pressure that was put on Christian youth movements to integrate into the Hitler Youth. Somebody reported him for not using the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute at his confirmation classes. He considered the salute as idolatry and would not use it on principle. Schneider particularly loathed the hate propaganda against the Jews. His church had an organization that was a mission to German Jews. When he went ahead with his usual collection for the mission to the Jews, Nazi feelings were inflamed against him. Later this Nazi anti-Semitism would lead to the Holocaust, an undisguised attempt at total genocide.

In the early hours of 7 March 1936 Hitler ordered German troops to occupy the Rhineland. One of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles was that part of the Rhineland was to be demilitarized. By sending German soldiers to seize it back, Hitler was openly defying the peace treaty. The world held its breath. Rather than cause another war, Hitler was allowed to win. He was jubilant at his success. Most Germans agreed with him. Many historians now think that if the Allies had resisted Hitler over the Rhineland incident, he might have acted differently when it came to seizing lands that were not German territory.

The Nazis organized a ballot supposedly to indicate whether citizens approved of Hitler’s illegal action. The ballot paper had no place to say ‘No’, so the inevitable result was ninety-nine percent in favour of Hitler. On the day of the vote, Nazi police visited Paul and Gretel to try to persuade them to vote. Their decision not to vote was one more major accusation that was levelled against the rebel pastor.

To be a Nazi and to be a German patriot had become the same thing for most people in the land. Paul Schneider was a patriotic German. His hard-won war medal proved that he would fight for his country, but now he was opposing a military-backed dictatorship. Trade unions had been abolished. The media were in the grip of the Nazi party. Textbooks were rewritten. Human biology was dominated by the Nazi belief that some races were ‘higher’ and that they would eliminate ‘lower’ races by force. By the time of the vote, Hitler had supreme power. He was Fuehrer (Leader) of the whole nation and all the armed forces. There was a lot of evidence to support what Paul Schneider said at the time. ‘National Socialism becomes more obviously opposed to biblical Christianity every day.’

The sermons he preached were powerful. Often they included passages like this: ‘Do not deceive yourselves, you cannot participate in Jesus’ glory and victory unless you, for his sake, take up the holy cross and go with him along the path of suffering and death.’

By the summer of 1936 the Schneiders had a family of four boys and a girl – and their education intensified his troubles. Both his churches had single-class church schools attached to them. The two teachers had joined the Nazi party and used their positions to indoctrinate the children. Paul Schneider tried to intervene. After all, they were church-based schools, and he was the father of five of the pupils.

As a result, Nazi police searched his house. Papers and sermon notes were taken away and not returned. Doubtless this was because some of his sermons contained references to ways in which Nazism and the Bible were in disagreement. The Gestapo dossier of his opposition to Nazi beliefs and policies grew ever bigger.

On most days he was out and about using his motorcycle for pastoral visits. One evening in March 1937, he was returning home after taking a confirmation class at Womrath. He did not arrive at the expected time. Gretel received the news that in the dense fog he had collided with an unlit farm trailer carelessly parked on the road. His left leg was broken in three places and had to be put in a plaster cast. He was kept in hospital.

A little while later his sixth child was born. Paul wrote a poem, as he often did to celebrate important events. Interestingly, they named the child Ernst Wilhelm, the names of two of Gretel’s brothers killed while fighting the British at the Battle of Somme in 1916.

On 3 May 1937 two Gestapo agents burst into his study and arrested him. His general health was not good because his leg had only been out of plaster for a few days. They gave him no time to pack any belongings. Gretel was informed that he would be taken to nearby Koblenz for questioning.

He was held in an underground cell. There was no charge, no questioning and no trial. The reason given for his arrest was that he was a danger to public order. In the world of the Gestapo he became ‘Prisoner Schneider’, not ‘Pastor Schneider’. In an attempt to intimidate him, he was treated like a common criminal by having his photograph taken from every angle and his fingerprints recorded. Eventually he was allowed to write to Gretel. She was urged not to worry about him because ‘All is in God’s hands and he will use the matter…’ Although he would be present only in spirit, he urged Gretel to go ahead with the baptism of the sixth child. Another long poem celebrated the birth of the child and the baptism.

After eight weeks he was released. However, there was a condition. He must accept an expulsion order from the Rhineland. Paul made it absolutely clear that he could not accept the legality of such an order that would separate him from his home and his churches. After all, there had been no trial, just the so-called ‘law’ of the Gestapo. To make their point, the Nazis bundled him into a car, drove him fifty miles to Wiesbaden, just over the Rhineland border, and left him there. To make his point Paul put the illegal banishment papers in a rubbish bin and caught the first train home. He was taking a big risk.

When he arrived home he looked ill; he was exhausted and his leg needed medical attention. Friends persuaded him to go for treatment and convalescence at Baden Baden, which lay outside the Rhineland. Here he was safe. Outwardly it appeared that he accepted the banishment order.

After a week Gretel joined him. Her hope was that he would give in to the Gestapo and find a church outside the Rhineland. Paul, however, had made a firm decision while in the Gestapo prison at Koblenz. He would resist unjustified bullying. With questioning in her mind, Gretel reminded him that if he went back to his Dickenschied pulpit, he would be rearrested. Paul quoted some words from a Bible verse to her. They came from Judges 5:18 and said, translated literally, ‘Zebulun…and Naphtali…risked their lives to the point of death.’ Hearing him quote this, Gretel hung her head in despair. Her voice quivered as she asked, ‘Paul, don’t you think about the children and me? Paul, don’t you love us?’

Paul’s eyes filled with tears. With powerful arms he hugged Gretel to his chest. ‘My darling’, he sobbed, ‘I have never loved you or the children more than on that night of decision. I wept for you.’ With those words, spoken with such deep emotion, pathos and conviction, Gretel knew that her only choice was to indentify herself with her husband.

It was 5 October 1937, Harvest Festival Sunday. Paul Schneider returned to Dickenschied. His family and friends were overjoyed to see him. However, the well-informed people knew he was taking a risk. He preached at Dickenschied in the morning on Psalm 145:15-21. Did he have any idea that it would be his last pulpit message – that the very act of preaching in his own church would lead to the loss of all he held dear? He went by car to Womrath to take the evening service. Police cars with flashing lights blocked the road. As he was arrested, he called out to Gretel: ‘Tell the church that I am and shall remain the pastor of Dickenschied and Womrath.’ Gretel just had time to push a Bible into his pocket.

He was held for some time in Koblenz prison, constantly being urged to sign a document agreeing to banishment. ‘What do you do all day?’ asked Gretel in one letter. His answer was: ‘I am a pupil in the school of God’s Word.’

Behind the scenes the faithful church, the ‘Confessing Church’, was facing enforced closure of all its work. It did not have the power to help Paul Schneider, one of its most distinguished members. Its best known leader, Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who had once captained a First World War U-boat, was himself in prison. Schneider and Niemöller shared the dubious distinction of being Hitler’s ‘personal prisoners’, meaning that he had personally signed the order to silence them. The official reason given by the Nazis for suspending anyone’s liberty was always ‘to defend the state’. Effectively, the Gestapo had absolute power about who could be arrested, and what to do with protestors. Those in prison paid for their own captivity by the confiscation of all assets. It was a good thing Paul lived in a house he did not own. Even the garden had been purchased in Gretel’s name only.

On 25 November 1937 Paul Schneider was taken to Buchenwald Concentration Camp near Weimar, about 200 miles from his home in Dickenschied. Gretel and the children said a final farewell. The image of her husband smiling and waving as he was driven away stayed forever in Gretel’s mind.

Karl Koch, the Nazi in charge of the camp, had total power over the inmates. The guards constantly taunted Schneider. As one man said, ‘The walls of his prison were made of paper.’ In other words, if he would agree to sign a document relinquishing care of his churches and accept banishment, he could go free. Just consider the immense pressure on him to sign and go back to his family!

From the beginning he had no privileges. Like the others, he worked sixteen-hour shifts. Constantly he maintained his Christian witness. He fasted every Friday and gave his meagre food ration to others.

20 April 1938 was Hitler’s forty-ninth birthday. To honour him, the prisoners were lined up and ordered to remove their berets and venerate the Nazi swastika flag. As one man the parade whipped off its headgear. The guards noticed the solitary figure who would not bow to the swastika – Paul Schneider. For this he was viciously struck twenty-five times with an oxhide whip. His bleeding body was left in solitary confinement. Here he stayed for the next fifteen months. The cell was four feet wide and ten feet long (1.2 metres by 3 metres). There was no furniture, no electric light, and all he ever had to eat was bread and water. Before long he became a broken skeleton. His clothes became rags and his body crawled with vermin. Nor was he allowed a Bible.

On the morning of Sunday, 28 August 1938, Paul Schneider preached through the bars of his cell to men lined up for the 06.30 roll call. Survivors recorded what he said: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save us from our sins. If we have faith in him, we are put right with God. We need not fear what man may do to us because we, through Christ, belong to the kingdom of God…Our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us has promised that we, by faith in him, may participate in his resurrection. He said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in me shall never die.” Accept the Lord Jesus as your Saviour, and God will receive you as his child…”

After two minutes guards rushed into his cell and pulled him away from the bars of the window. For this message he was once again tied to a rack and suffered another twenty-five strokes of the whip. Schneider’s response to a friend was: ‘Somebody has to preach God’s word in this hell.’

In January 1939 two prisoners who tried to escape were hanged in front of the assembled inmates. Paul Schneider called out through his cell window: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, I witness against the murder of these prisoners…’ The response was another twenty-five lashes.

A guard said to him, ‘If we released you, what would you do?’ Seeing in his mind’s eye the image of two men hanging on the gallows, Paul replied, ‘I would go to Weimar [the nearest town] and the first kerbstone would become a pulpit from which I would denounce the brutal crimes committed here.’ For saying that, he was suspended by his wrists from the window bars, with his feet off the floor, for hours.

He continued his brief messages through the cell window. One prisoner recalled Paul Schneider preaching the message of new life in Christ on Easter day 1939. Another who survived later commented: ‘In my estimation he was the only man in Germany who, overcoming all human fear, so consciously took on himself the cross of Christ even to death.’ Every time he preached from his bunker, his tortures increased, but his faith in the Lord grew stronger.

Finally, on 18 July 1939, the starved, beaten, bleeding Paul Schneider died when the camp doctor injected a massive overdose of strophanthin. Paul was forty-one years old. Gretel became a widow at the age of thirty-five.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a definite opponent of the Nazis, received the news of Schneider’s death in 1939. At the time he was staying in London with his sister Sabine. The Christian writer and theologian said to his nieces and nephews, ‘Listen children. You must never forget the name of Pastor Paul Schneider. He is our first martyr.’ (Bonhoeffer himself later returned to Germany and was hanged by the Nazis in 1945.)

The telegram to Gretel from the Buchenwald commandant said, ‘Paul Schneider, born 29 August 1897, died today at 10.40 a.m. If transport of the body at the family’s expense is required, a request must be made within twenty-four hours … otherwise the body will be cremated.

Gretel arranged for the body to be brought home. Three days after his murder, Paul’s remains were buried in the churchyard at Dickenschied. In less than two months Hitler’s plan to begin the nightmare of the Second World War would take effect.

Gretel and the six children survived the horror of that war. She lived as a widow until her death on 27 December 2002, twelve days before her ninety-ninth birthday. She lived to see all her children grow up, and her husband become respected as a martyr by the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland. There is even a Pastor Paul Schneider Association, founded at Weimar in 1997, dedicated to keeping his memory alive. Visitors to his cell in the bunker at Buchenwald can now see his photograph, a plaque in honour of his sacrifice and the words of a biblical text selected by his widow: ‘We are … Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God’ (2 Corinthians 5:20).

More information on Paul Schneider

Once the Second World War was over, Schneider’s widow published his story in German (1953). E.H. Robertson translated it into English. The book was published by SCM in 1956 as The Pastor of Buchenwald.

Occasional articles appeared in the years that followed. Pastor Victor Budgen wrote for Evangelical Times and Reformation Today (issue 54 March/April 1980).

All previous work was superseded in 1997 when Claude R. Foster, Jr., a history professor, wrote Paul Schneider: The Buchenwald Apostle. This definitive sourcebook runs to 901 pages and contains a great deal of new information, much of it derived from Gretel Schneider. West Chester University Press publishes it. Requests for copies of Dr Foster’s large book should be sent to S.S.I. Bookstore, West Chester University, West Chester, PA 19383, USA. A German translation is available.

A video lasting twenty minutes called, ‘You mass murderers – I accuse you’ has been produced by the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland. It is available in both PAL and VHS formats. It can be ordered via the Pastor Paul Schneider Association, whose website is: www.angelfire.com/pa5/paulschneider
This contains details of membership and other relevant information.

The goals of the association are:

To preserve the knowledge of Paul Schneider’s faithful witness
in a day of moral ambiguity.
To encourage other Christians to take a stand,
when necessary, for faith and conscience.
To influence our daily thought as to how a Christian life can be lived.

Stark Sands and Laura Osnes as Bonnie and Clyde
__________________________________________________________
By Carol Davis

LA JOLLA, California —We can deny it all we want but most of us are intrigued with the glamour and glitz that goes along with most Hollywood types. In some cases it doesn’t even have to belong to Hollywood at all. I love reading about legendary figures; what they do, how they did it, how they arrived at becoming so big and how the press and public treat and/or react toward them. (Oy, poor Tiger)

There is something both mysterious and romantic about the idea of saying, “to hell with convention, I’m going to do it my way” (Frank did) because that’s usually the case when someone we read about seems larger than life.

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were two such characters, and I use the word characters not in a demeaning sort of way, but to illustrate that they were truly characters of their own making; their very own creations who lived up to and in some ways beyond their own expectations for whatever that’s worth.

Many who saw the 1967 movie version of their escapades will remember the beautiful Faye Dunaway as the sculptured and lean Bonnie Parker and the handsome, virile and sinewy Warren Beatty on the run, bathtub lovers whose claim to fame followed them wherever they went, whatever they did even in the afterlife.

So it goes with the new Ivan Menchell (book), Frank Wildhorn (music) and Don Black (lyrics) depression era musical drama Bonnie and Clyde now in a world premiere at The La Jolla Playhouse through Dec. 20^th. What you might ask, do Bonnie and Clyde and musical theatre have to do with each other? Before I saw the show someone asked me, “Who wants to see a shoot em up musical about two pesky, self-absorbed outlaws who randomly killed innocent bystanders or anyone else who got in their way”?  Based on the opening night’s audience response, a lot, I guess!

The three creators Menchell, Wildhorn and Black come to the table with serious credits to their names. Menchell worked on the book to the musicals The Prince and the Pauper, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and now Bonnie and Clyde. He also wrote the bittersweet 1990 comedy The Cemetery Club about three Jewish widows whose husbands died and the widows are now in different stages of healing. They meet once a month at the cemetery, where the three deceased spouses lay buried, to pay their respects. It later became a movie starring Ellen Burstyn and Olympia Dukakis. Wildhorn’s Scarlet Pimpernel and Jekyll & Hyde with Black’s Sunset Boulevard complete the troika.

If anyone had any doubts that the story of the star crossed lovers, Bonnie and Clyde would be different or had somehow changed from the two outlaws that they eventually became or that the ending might be more glamorous because it is a musical, doubt no longer. Menchell relied on several sources to write the book for the show; Go Down Together: The True Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde by Jeff Guinn, Bonnie and Clyde The Lives Behind the Legend by Paul Schneider and ‘from first hand accounts taken from the book Ambushed by Ted Hinton’.

While some practice at changing history, these collaborators, according to interviews with the creators about the making of the show, were more interested in focusing on the “tragic love triangle between Bonnie, Clyde and Ted Hinton (the Dallas County, Texas Deputy Sheriff who was the youngest of the posse that ambushed the couple and killed them outside Louisiana in 1934. He tried to court her with the approval of her mother before she met up with Clyde) and how Bonnie and Clyde were and what it must have been like for the parents to have children like this?”

To sum it up Menchell added… “We want all of it-the tragic love story, the passion, the commitment to family, everything that endears us to them-and yet still keep them homicidal”. Tongue in cheek or not, I think we got it all under the fine direction and musical staging of Jeff Calhoun and his talented pool of actors and technical staff.

It’s almost hard to believe that the couple was barely out of their teens when they met, robbed more than a dozen banks, killed 13 innocent people and were gunned down by a volley of bullets in their car and all before they were out of their twenties. What a waste of human life! Funny thing is (and the musical capsules this) they both came from decent hard working families.

Ironically, Clyde’s brother Buck (Claybourne Elder) was also drawn into the mix while his zealously religious wife Blanche (Melissa van der Schyff You’re Not Going Back to Jail) tried to keep him on the straight and narrow but he couldn’t resist the money and the excitement. On the other hand Bonnie’s devoted, both religiously and maternally, mother Emma (Beautifully and poignantly portrayed by Mare Winningham) tried to reason with and counsel her daughter to no avail as well.

The story plays out against the depression era backdrop on Tobin Ost’s multi level set of sliding bleached plank boards that frame the backdrop (used successfully for Aaron Rhyne’s projections of the real life characters which brought the story back to reality) of the different locations giving the impression and the look of a drought-ridden locale. Ost also designed the 30’s looking costumes; Bonnie’s being the most eye catching while the others are depression- era perfect.

For a new musical, Wildhorn’s score is catching, with a combination of blues, gospel, folk and ballads that reveal the moods, times and characters it depicts. The tone of The Long Arm of the Law sung by the Sheriff (Wayne Duvall) in Act I and then at the end of Act I in a reprieve are powerful reminders of who the two are and that they will get their comeuppance.

Compared to Emma’s lament, The Devil sung with passion and grief for her daughter to You Love Who You Love, (Bonnie and Blanche) You’re Going Back to Jail, (Blanche and Salon women) The World Will Remember Me (Clyde and Bonnie) and finally Dyin’ Ain’t So Bad (Bonnie and Clyde) the music’s trajectory with its differing styles moves the story but never really reveals any more about the players, their motives or drives than what we hear in their conversations or see in their actions. Some of the reprieves could be eliminated to shorten the length without taking anything away from the overall production.

Clyde was a conceited self professed bad boy who never looked back on what he did or thought, “Other people got dreams, I got plans”. For him there was no option; no plan ‘B’. And in a brief exchange when Bonnie commends his shooting skills she says, “You’re good”. “I’m not good, I’m the best” he retorts.

His biggest complaint was that Bonnie never put his name first in her poems about them. She hoped to get them published some day. (You’ve read the story of Jessie James of how he lived and how they died. If you’re still in need of something to read, here’s the story of Bonnie and Clyde… Some day they’ll go down together they’ll bury then side-by-side. To few it will be grief, to the law a relief, but it’s death for Bonnie and Clyde. The Trails End by Bonnie Parker). And they were.

Stark Sands has the perfect look and mannerism as the self-confident and arrogant bad boy, Clyde Barrow who entices Bonnie to travel with him convincing her that they would be good together. He’s also in fine voice especially since this is his first musical. He shows no remorse for anything he has done, he’s that vain. Stark is convincing in his mannerisms and ways and a perfect match with Laura Osnes’ Bonnie.

Laura Osnes is a beautiful, bored and captivating Bonnie Parker whose need to escape from the humdrum world of her mother, working as a waitress in the depressed and repressive Texas and tired of her would-be suitor is a recurring theme. Between her lust for adventure and a willingness to follow Clyde into any situation and his need to be recognized at any cost, the formula for disaster is set.

Calhoun’s eye for the perfect cast is evident in the fact that there isn’t a weak link anywhere. Wayne Duvall is excellent as the out to get the pair at any cost Sheriff. Mike Sears (fresh from Man From Nebraska recently seen at the Cygnet Theatre) shows another side in multiple roles.  Chris Peluso’s Ted is strong and well meaning as well as the strong arm of the law and Michael Lanning stirred the audience with his (God’s Arms Are Always Open) number as the preacher.

Music supervisor John McDaniel who is in charge of orchestrations, incidental music and vocal arrangements conducted his six-piece band flawlessly. Michael Gilliam and Brian Ronan are right on with the mood lighting and sound design.

The trio of creators makes a perfect case for the two young lovers to wreak havoc on those around them while still having some sympathy for those left to fend off the residual effects of their actions. Mare Winningham whose role of Emma, Bonnie’s mother, has been expanded from the movie version is very much a part of the backdrop as is Clyde’s brother Buck whose loyalties lay on the side of Clyde rather than the pleas of his wife and his mother.

Menchell’s book is captivating and enticing and the two lovers create a convincing and tragic love story. Black’s lyrics are both fun and pointed and get the message across but its Wildhorn whose musical variety and mix of different genres that are the most impressive.

Like it or not is what it is and if we don’t learn from our past it will bite us in the end. Walking to my car, I heard someone actually humming a tune from the show. That’s always a good sign. Enjoy! Hats off to the La Jolla Playhouse.

Bonnie and Clyde will continue through Dec. 20^th in the Mandell Weiss Theatre.

See you at the theatre and Happy Chanukah!

*
Davis, a San Diego based theatre reviewer, may be contacted at davisc@sandiegojewishworld.com

I spent much of the long holiday weekend in a sickly, weakened state on my couch, remote in hand, weeping at sappy movies. Honestly, between the two monsters — viral and hormonal — battling for evil dominion inside me, I was a sniffly, sobbing mess for a solid four days. Good flocking times.

And, of course, much of my weeping was prompted by music. It began on Wednesday night, with “Glee.” Much of the episode drove me bonkers, as it centered around the increasingly prominent and deeply irritating Quinn, but then there was a stunning musical piece: a deaf choir performing John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

Oh my goodness. I am probably (definitely) just a sucker, but something about the signing, as well as singing, of that song — already an emotional tune — just killed me. I’m getting teary again just typing about it.

On Thanksgiving morning, one of my local radio stations played “Alice’s Restaurant” around noontime, just as one of my local radio stations growing up had done. This made me grin, remembering countless Thanksgiving treks to my aunt and uncle’s house, with my younger siblings hollering at my parents to change the station so they didn’t have to listen to old Arlo ramble on any longer. And then this made me sad, missing my family on Thanksgiving day.

Then, over the course of the weekend, I watched quite a few holiday movies, in whole or in part, and many of them broke me right down again. I mean, I cried at Elf. Elf! Should one really cry at Will Ferrell movies? (Oh wait, I totally cried at Stranger than Fiction too.) But when Zooey Deschanel starts singing? And the crowd sings with her? And they all are filled with Christmas spirit? Oh my goodness. Waterworks.

Also I saw The Family Stone, which I have to say: possibly one of my favorite movies. I mean, come on: Dermot Mulroney! Diane Keaton! Luke Wilson! Claire Danes! Sarah Jessica Parker! Paul Schneider! Rachel McAdams! Craig T. Nelson! What is not to like? Also it has the lovely Elizabeth Reaser, who at one point watches one of my absolute favorite movies, Meet Me in St. Louis, and weeps when Judy Garland sings “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas.” And who wouldn’t? Oh so sad. So there I am, weeping at a movie within a movie, getting all caught up in the Christmas spirit — or at least its maudlin stepsister — before Thanksgiving was even fully over.

Today I am, alas, back at work, and operating at about 80% of normal health. I heard nothing worth commenting on during my commute this morning — but my head is full of the weekend’s tear-inducing tunes.

Could be worse.

The new Jane Campion film is a period love story where the two lovers are destined to never be together and while it can be a bit slow and overly dramatic at times the three main actors are in top form and are worth the price of admission.
Following the love affair of Fanny Brawne and poet John Keats the two’s tragic tale is different and almost unbelievable in today’s day and age. Fanny comes from a well to do family with Keats coming from a lesser background and carrying on as a poor and unsuccessful poet. The two don’t hit it off from the get go with Fanny not even being a big fan of literature or his work either. The two become acquainted when Keats moves in with the Brawne’s neighbor Mr. Brown as they work together and Brown helps Keats keep a roof over his head. The two houses share a wall and are connected by a door in the foyer, so the two sides spend a lot of time together. With Fanny being the Brawne’s of age daughter, they are looking for her to find a proper suitor, Keats’ lack of wealth is not what they are looking for and she finds herself being constantly advised against falling for him as they grow closer.
The film is interesting to watch as there are a few sub plots that play into the proceedings as well odd actions of the family to keep Fanny free of unwanted men. Fanny is constantly followed by her younger brother and sisters, literally going everywhere she goes, and keeping Keats and Fanny from doing anything even as simple as holding hands. There is also an engaging plot surrounding a competition of sorts among Fanny and Mr. Brown for the attention of Keats that provides a number of laughs from the film while also creating an interesting view of society at the time and the relationships among men and women.
In fact, Paul Schneider as Mr. Brown is the real stand out in the film, though he has been one of the best young actors for years now, turning in great work in everything he does. I hope he gets to break out into more mainstream stuff sooner rather than later. Abbie Cornish is also getting quite a bit of praise for her work as Fanny in the film, and while I think she goes a bit over the top with her pain and sadness at times, she is very likeable and charming throughout and she has a great chemistry with her co-star Ben Whishaw who plays Keats. Whishaw is appropriately conflicted and a bit closed off as Keats, and when we see him break out of his shell with Fanny it is a nice surprise and touching. In fact I wish the story was a bit more centered on Keats rather than Fanny as I think he was far more interesting a character and person in this tale.
The over acting and over emotions in the films aren’t my only concerns as the film is a tad pretentious especially when celebrating the mastery of Keats. You can tell the filmmakers adore the writer, but it is a bit much at times and goes beyond being just a celebration of the man’s words. Though the story remains oddly compelling even if you find yourself rolling your eyes at the long winded Keats readings and again I think this goes to the credit of the performances.
In the end, Bright Star is an actors showcase and tragic story. While Fanny might go a little overboard with sadness the outcome of this story is rather sad. Two people in love kept apart by the times they live in is an unfortunate tale but one we have seen before. If they film would have focused a bit more on the life of Keats I think the film might have been a bit better, but with that said, the film is well made and, outside a couple minor complaints, works. The three main leads are all great in their roles and are worth checking out on their own right. Luckily there is an interesting and mostly engaging story to go along with these acting showcases, though I can’t help but feel that the film couldn’t have found a better film in this intriguing ground work. The film is still worth your time though if a fan of period romance or real life tales.
Bright Star is a B-

The body of Jesse James is photographed for the history books in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford".

(Andrew Dominik, 2007)

November 18, 2009

by Joel Crary

At the end of “The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance”, James Stewart has finished relaying his story of gunning down the infamous outlaw for a reporter, finally coming clean that it was John Wayne whose aim was true. It won’t fly in the press, the reporter famously asserts: “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” In spite of its wonderful cinematography and a great performance by Casey Affleck, I was thoroughly let down by “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”. It makes the mistake of printing the facts, and too many at that.

The film stars Brad Pitt as the outlaw and he’s just fine in the role. Jesse snarls and acts kind of nuts and seems dangerously unpredictable. He’s a hero to the young Ford (Affleck), who desperately wants to join his gang. Indeed, Affleck plays the role with a pitiable brilliance – in one scene, he forks over all of the knowledge he’s gained about Jesse from the pulp paperbacks that he keeps in a shoebox under his bed, drawing comparisons to himself down to the number of letters in their respective older brothers’ names.

Jesse laughs in his face. We kind of want to see him get his due, and this is one of the film’s faults – it can’t commit to supporting either of its protagonists. There is no indication of why Jesse is the way he is. Keeping him a mystery would be fine if Ford were the focus of the narrative, but for the film’s first half, which casts its net too widely in needlessly trying to establish supporting characters, he is not. Finally, Ford jumps into action, dispatching Jesse’s cousin Wood (Jeremy Renner) in a gunfight that he had no part in. The kid might have the guts to fire on Jesse after all.

By the gunfight scene, the film had worn me down with its pacing, which is far too gradual and ultimately causes its structure as a whole to collapse from underneath itself. The last half hour offers a potentially fascinating conclusion, but compared to how the film has told the story to that point, everything ends up feeling rushed and superficial. Andrew Dominik, who based his script on the novel by Ron Hansen, would have been wiser to vary his approach with regard to timelines. All of the moments he chooses to chronicle, such as Wood and Dick Liddil’s (Paul Schneider) romp up to Jesse’s uncle’s house and Jesse’s relation of his execution of Ed Miller (Garret Dillahunt) to Robert’s brother Charley (Sam Rockwell), might have indeed been necessary, but they aren’t placed in a relation to one another that makes them seem particularly relevant to the plot.

Dominik implements a narrator to poetically describe his characters’ lives and internalized feelings to the point of absurdity. In one scene, Ford paces around Jesse’s house from room to room while the narrator details every move he makes, even though they are plainly visible, robbing Affleck of the chance to communicate his mindset physically. This exhibits only a cowardice in technique, not in Robert Ford. The narrator describes Jesse’s home life. A good thing, too, because there would be hardly any indication that he had one otherwise. Poor Mary-Louise Parker is given precious little to do in her role as Mrs. James other than to shriek in horror upon his assassination, the one plot element that holds interest when nothing else of interest really presents itself.

“Assassination” is ultimately a story about how a man like Jesse James, who masterminded nearly 30 holdups, who outsmarted many men to their deaths in the violent environment of the old West, who trusted only two men in 10,000, and then not by much, could be shot by a punk kid with a crush on him. It takes an interesting turn in depicting the aftermath, but the slow buildup to the shooting doesn’t allow the film’s conclusions regarding Ford’s character to carry much dramatic weight. Jesse and Ford’s relationship is key, but the film spends far too much time diverting from it in order to pay attention to every single facet of the historical circumstances. In the telling of a legend, that’s wholly unnecessary. In the relating of fact, it’s tedious.

If you want to watch a big, sweeping, 1800’s English romance, perhaps you should curl up with that pint of ice cream and watch “Sense & Sensibility” in bed again because “Bright Star” doesn’t fit the bill.  Sure, you have gorgeous countryside and fabulous cinematography, but the romance between poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is much more muted than what one would expect.  In fact, writer/director Jane Campion has made a film that portrays more of their heartache than their amorous time together.  But the beauty of the movie comes from just that, the budding passion of their love that cannot bloom fully because of societal constraints and unfortunate illness.  And according to Keats, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”

For Keats, Brawne is literally the girl next door, but Campion makes sure that we do not mistake her for the stereotype that the term now bears.  We usually associate the girl next door with being innocent and straightforward, just the kind of girl to marry.  However, Keats thinks her a “stylish minx” (for those who don’t spreak pre-Victorian English, this he thinks she is quite the flirt).  And Brawne’s mother couldn’t be more happy with his disinterest in her daughter because he doesn’t make enough money writing poems.  Brawne also fears falling in love with Keats, but for a different reason; she doesn’t want him to have to give up what he loves to support her desire to design clothes.  Unlike most movie romances, their relationship doesn’t grow out of loathing, but rather out of amiability and friendship.  It is the disease of Keats’ brother and the sympathy that Brawne shows that brings them closer.  He then begins to see her almost as a muse, inspiring his best work yet.  Despite this, his friend and roommate Brown (Paul Schneider of “Parks & Recreation” in a performance that deserves to be remembered) resents her presence, perhaps as Campion suggest for his own selfish reasons.  The evidence is in the text that all the obstacles they faced only drew them closer to each other; Keats even wrote “I have the feeling as if I were dissolving.”  In an ironic twist, that which brought them together is the only thing that could tear them apart.

Campion wisely focuses her movie on Brawne, the character she seems to understand the most.  Keats proves to be quite an enigma, but Brawne proves to be quite a conundrum herself.  Sometimes her emotional swings, however, were quite nebulous.  Cornish plays them quite well, but I think the flaw comes from Campion’s script.  It wasn’t the dialogue that made them unclear; in fact, I caught witty, nuanced lines that no one in my theater noticed.  I don’t think it was the naivete of being a man that made her motives hazy because even my mother had to deliberate carefully on them.

Surprisingly, “Bright Star” is at its best when it steps away from the doomed romance and delves into the world of poetry.  Brawne asks Keats for poetry lessons, and rather than teach her to write it, he teaches her to appreciate it.  The sequences where he elaborates on why he writes are nothing short of sublime.  Keats tells her (and I quote roughly), “You don’t jump into an ocean to swim right back to shore.  You want to absorb the feeling of the water, feel the waves lapping.”  In a sense, the same could be said for Campion’s movie.  You dive into “Bright Star” not to see a movie but to immerse yourself in its beauty.  If this is your aim in watching the movie, the unhurried pace won’t be a bother, and it might even add to the experience as you find yourself encompassed by its grandeur.  B /

The tragic but intensely passionate love affair between Romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and the radiant Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish) is detailed in this romantic period drama from critically acclaimed writer/director Jane Campion.

The friend I went to see Bright Star with liked the movie, but mentioned she liked The Duchess better. The comparison is interesting: both movies, set less than half a century apart, are about women who express themselves mainly though clothing, and who cannot marry who they wish. It surprised me at the time that I enjoyed the Duchess quite a bit, but in my eyes, Bright Star is a much more interesting – if flawed – film.

Part of this is aesthetic: Campion repeats the marvelous trick she performed in the Piano, which is to make the world of the film both specifically of its time and tangible, real. There are period costumes, and they are beautiful, but you can see the stitches – you can imagine how stiff the cloth would feel against your skin. When Keats climbs a tree and rests on the branches, it’s a wonderful, poetic image, fit to inspire some typical romantic verses, but you can tell he isn’t floating, that the branches would be pricking his back, and that it’s not that pure and simple.

Still, how authentic the world feels is just one thing. More important is the authenticity of the character, and it’s here that this film distinguishes itself most. Keira Knightley in the Duchess is a somewhat anachronistic feminist prototype, at times astonishingly naive and incredibly ahead of the times depending of the needs of plot and allegory. Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate female ass-kicking regardless of verisimilitude. But Fanny Brawne, in comparison, is such a fully realized character. Most importantly, while she is undoubtedly (and refreshingly) the main character in this movie, she’s hardly a hero. She’s stubborn, overly melodramatic, more than a little conceited. She thinks she has all the answers – she thinks she’s the first one to discover what it’s like to be in love. In other words: she’s believably 18, and how often do you see that?

I’m not a big fan of the romantic poets, to be honest. To be more precise, I like the poems well enough, but I have little patience for them. I prefer post-modern experimentation: poems that are not merely beautiful, but which surprise me. But it works in this film, and Campion’s tactic works: she doesn’t seem to mind that the audience will sometimes think Fanny and Keats a little silly, their emotions a bit exaggerated. She doesn’t mind, because she knows that the ending is heartbreaking enough even if we think they are overdoing it – it’s hard not to be touched by Fanny’s breakdown, hysterical as it is. In the meantime, she portrays the thrill of emerging love perfectly. She even gets kisses right! Their first kiss is not a Hollywoodian climax, standing in for the sex to be had later, but tentative, exploratory. She knows how fascinating someone’s face can become, how absorbing even the slightest touches.

She does, unfortunately, keep things pretty chaste. More in keeping, perhaps, with the sentiment of romantic poetry, all unfulfilled longing and sublimated desire. But it disappoints me to see a movie which, yet again, portrays the only “true” love as “pure”, with the boar Charles Brown (by the by, why isn’t Paul Scheider in, like, every movie? He should be) as a sharp contrast. It’s as if a love story cannot be suitable tragic if it is consummated…

Pillow’d upon my fair Love’s ripening breast
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest;

Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever,—or else swoon to death.

The 13th Annual Hollywood Film Festival and Hollywood Awards, presented by Starz, are pleased to announce honorees who will be recognized for their outstanding achievements at the festival’s Hollywood Awards Gala Ceremony.

Academy Award winners Robert Deniro and Hilary Swank will be honored with the “Hollywood Actor Award” and “Hollywood Actress Award” respectivealy. Academy Award-nominated actress Julianne Moore will be honored with the “Hollywood Supporting Actress Award,”  and Christopher Waltz will receive the “Hollywood Supporting Actor Award”. Actor Bradley Cooper will receive the “Hollywood Comedy Award,” producer Ryan Kavanaugh will get the “Hollywood Producer Award,” and actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, actress Melanie Lynskey, actor Paul Schneider, and actor Zachary Quinto will be honored with the Hollywood Spotlight Awards.

The gala ceremony will take place at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills on October 26, 2009.

DeNiro has won two Academy Awards for “The Godfather:Part II” and “Raging Bull”. He has appeared in numerous films, including “Cape Fear”, “Taxi Driver”, “Meet The Parents”, and “Goodfellas.”

Swank has won two Academy Awards for “Boys Don’t Cry” and “Million Dollar Baby.” She can currently be seen in “Amelia.”

Moore is the ninth person in Academy history to receive two acting Oscar(r) nominations in the same year — for her performances in “Far From Heaven” and “The Hours”. She has also appeared in “The End of the Affair” and “Boogie Nights.”

Waltz starred in “Inglourious Basterds” and will be seen in the upcoming “Green Hornet.”

Cooper was recently seen in the summer blockbuster comedy “The Hangover.” He will star in the upcoming “New York, I Love You” and “Valentine’s Day” in 2010.

Kavanaugh heads Relativity. Relativity is a media and entertainment company engaged in creating, financing and distributing first class, studio quality entertainment content and intellectual property across multiple platforms, as well as making strategic partnerships with, and opportunistic investments in, entertainment-related companies and assets. As a producer, Kavanaugh’s films include: “Brothers,” “Dear John,” “The Spy Next Door,” and “Nine.”

Aghdashloo earned an Academy Award nomination for “House of Sand and Fog.” She will be seen in the upcoming “In Northwood.”

Lynskey appeared in “Heavenly Creatures” and can be seen in “The Informant,” and in the upcoming “Up in the Air.”

Quinto appeared in “Star Trek,” and television’s Heroes on NBC.

For more information please go to http://www.HollywoodFestival.com

You can do so many things with a blowup doll, but never touch it, that’s crazy.

Ryan Gosling plays the title character in this oddball comedy about a delusional young man who buys a life-size sex doll over the Internet — and then falls in love with her.

If you told me that one of my favorite movies of the year is from the same dude that brought me Mr. Woodcock, I would’ve thought you were crazy. The whole synopsis sounds so indie and quirky but it doesn’t get that way at all.

The thing I mostly admire from the film is that it never plays for any cheap or raunchy laughs, instead Director Dan Gillepsie handles the screenplay with such care, that I tried to keep myself from crying in the last 50 minutes in this movie when Lars and everyone around him realize what the doll is doing to their lives, even if they don’t say it out loud.

The movie is a very strange fable and sort of has a sort of story like Edward Scissorhands, but what I mostly liked in this film was the handling of the townspeople towards the doll. We see how even though she can’t communicate at all, with anyone except for Lars, we still create this character that we the viewers and everyone else in the movie have that surely makes this a wonderful look at how the strangest things can change your life forever.

Ryan Gosling, one of my favorites, proves once again that he can act and carry a movie through and through. In the beginning of the film we see a character that is very awkward with the people around him even though he has a good heart, but as soon as the doll comes into his life we see Lars the character lighten up and makes him a character to root for. The rest of the cast does very well including the still very good looking Patricia Clarkson who still tries to help Lars and brings the heart to this film.

Only problem I had with this film that Edward Scissorhands had was that there was really no conflict in this movie between some townspeople and Lars himself. I thought if they added this to the film the film would have added in more drama and more realistic being to the film.

Consensus: Do not have the premise fool you one bit, Gosling gives a great performance in this well-handled script, that has some of the most tear-jerking moments in cinema history. Also has a great message that shows that love come within the strangest things.

9.5/10=Full Price!!

Is it just me, or is INXS’s “Never Tear Us Apart” a pretty flocking great song?

When I came upon it this morning, I quickly punched the scan button to stop and listen to it in full. Bluesy, grandiose, sax-solo-y? Is it wrong of me to kind of love it?

I had the “Kick” cassette at some point in high school, and INXS makes me think of the older girls who I thought were so cool, and of my short-lived soccer career (INXS was featured on the get-pumped mix we’d listen to before games), of these other two girls (older, and fellow soccer players) who seemed to have styled their hair after Michael Hutchence’s, and, of course, of poor MH himself.

 After swaying along to the sax solo in my car this morning, I started listening to the lyrics, and entertained myself with the memory of a lame joke that for some reason (um, LAMENESS, perhaps, TGOTS?) I really enjoyed from the flawed but wonderful movie “Elizabethtown.”

Do you know this movie? If you love music, and love people who love music, it is really worth watching. The plot kind of meanders, but there are a few epic scenes, and many lovely little moments. The leads — Kirsten Dunst and Orlando Bloom — are very nearly beside the point. The true gems are Paul Schneider, Judy Greer, Loudon Wainwright III, Paula Deen (yes, that one!), Patty Griffin (love of my life), and Susan Sarandon — who does the saddest tap dance you will ever see. And the “Freebird” scene! Oh!

Okay, I take it back, everyone must see this movie, and put up with its flaws for all the lovely, lovely moments it contains. Cameron Crowe, I love you.

Where was I?

Oh right. I was listening to the lyrics of “Never Tear Us Apart” this morning, and when it got to “two worlds collided / and they could never tear us apart,” I giggled to myself about the mysterious “they,” recalling an exchange in “Elizabethtown” where the Kirsten Dunst character is on the phone with the Orlando Bloom character and they start mocking each other for referencing an unspecified “they” and KD calls this “they” the “inimitable, collective THEM.”

I don’t know, there’s just something about that line that I like. Excessive personal concern with the inimitable, collective THEM, perhaps, TGOTS? Highly possible.

Un film del 2009, regia di Jane Campion, con Ben Whishaw / Abbie Cornish / Thomas Sangster / Paul Schneider. Prodotto da 01 Distribution (120min)

Drammatico / Romantico

Il poeta John Keats vive una tormentata storia d’amore con la bella Fanny Brawne, un rapporto destinato a durare tre anni, fino alla prematura scomparsa di Keats all’età di venticinque anni.

Why don't you whine about it some more?

Period romances have an inherent edge in the quest to be compelling, I think.  Just seems it is a lot easier to find obstacles to love in the class and gender boundaries of the 19th century than today.  Girl has money, guy doesn’t, girl’s family won’t let them marry.  See, just takes five seconds to set up the story.

Of course, that simplicity is a double-edged sword.  While it can take just a scene to set up a plausible and engaging romantic entanglement, that leaves the whole rest of the movie to figure out ways to make that romance interesting.  Bright Star, unfortunately, isn’t up to the task.

Even if you don’t know anything about John Keats’s life, the film isn’t really particularly surprising.  Abbie Cornish plays Fanny Brawne, a somewhat educated young woman of some means who is a bit proud of her sewing career.  As soon as Keats (Ben Whishaw), a young poet of little renown and even less money enters her life, it is clear (by all the usual ways) they’ll be an item.  The problem is that the film never really advances much beyond that stage.

The movie in a nutshell: Fanny is whiny and Keats is wimpy.  Other people claim the film has subtle, delicate layers.  But frankly, I’m didn’t see that at all.  There isn’t really much to their story, or much reason to get invested in the characters.  Their courtship was vague and detached.  I never saw a moment where Fanny falls in love or even a reason why she does.  And Keats seems to mostly ignore her.  There is very little romantic bickering.  And the scene where they do get together feels accidental.  It is kinda sorta a forbidden romance, but only in the sense that Fanny and Keats exert the least possible effort to try to get together.  I half expected any of the secondary character to slap either Keats or Fanny and excoriate them for their inaction.  Basically, in my mind, the story held very little interest as a romance, and there wasn’t really anything else there besides the romance.

Other than the comic relief, which was far and away the best part of the film.  There were several legitimately funny moments in the film, and increasingly they became focal points.  Certainly a large part of that is due to Paul Schneider, but I’d also spread the love around to the rest of the cast and writer/director Jane Campion.  Schneider plays the portly Charles Armitage Brown who has what kids these days call a bromance going with Keats.  A fellow poet, Brown is wholly devoted to his and Keats’ work, well, except for partaking in some sensual pleasures, and is (rightly, in my mind) skeptical of Fanny.  Obnoxious and overbearing, Brown is clearly the highlight of the film.

Bright Star has been bandied about in talks of all the major Oscar categories, save supporting actress.  Frankly, I think it’d be a mistake for the film to receive any nominations.  I’ve covered why I think the film is boring and how I was put off by Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw.  I don’t like to speak about direction, but I will say that I found the cuts between scenes to be highly distracting, so I guess I have to blame Campion for that.  I wouldn’t really be upset if Schneider picked up a supporting actor not.  He did a lot with a relatively slight role; had he been given a more substantial character, I’d be much more confident in handing him a nomination.

Eight Stars out of Ten Stars (********/**********)

Jane Campion is a director I have a hell of a lot of time for. Holy Smoke!, a rather taut and polarising Kate Winslet vehicle totally captivated me as a sullen teenager, and thrust some rather adult and introspective themes into my head that I had hitherto not experienced. And I absolutely adored her for it. I remember shedding a solitary tear as the film came to its climax, so overcome was I by the emotions it had stirred up within me. And let me tell you, it was not a film designed in any way to be weepy.

Now I come, some ten years later, to a Campion film that most certainly is filled with those intentions. Bright Star takes the director back to the literary period fare of her 90s work The Portrait of a Lady and The Piano; both fine films. Here Campion is more restrained, less explicit, and the film throbs with emotional and intellectual intensity, rather than the sexual energy of her earlier work. Abbie Cornish (previously excellent in little-seen Australian film Somersault) and Ben Whishaw play Fanny Brawne and John Keats; a young couple beset by a passionate love and difficult circumstances, united by Keats’ romantic-era poetry.

This film is beautiful. The score, costumes and lensing are exquisite, so much so that sometimes it soars, and sweeps you away. There were moments were I just thought “this is it, this is just absolutely perfect”. However, these moments do not occur throughout. They rely on the performances, pacing and dialogue being just as consistent as the technical achievements; which sadly I didn’t think was always the case. Parts of the film were just that tiny bit flat, where slight imperfections in the performances and tone distract. For me this somewhat dampened the emotional payoff of the tragic conclusion. It’s a shame, because Bright Star really is a stone’s throw from masterpiece territory at some points.

Despite my few reservations, this is well worth anyone’s time. A quiet, unassuming film that I have no doubt I will come to love.

Away We Go is a touching, funny, and nearly perfect comedy about a young couple expecting their first child and trying to sort out their place in the world. Unfortunately, it’s interrupted at frequent intervals by annoying cartoon comedy routines detailing the lives of families in the US and Canada, whom the main characters encounter as tryouts to determine what kind of parents they want to be … Read the rest of my review at Culturazzi.org

It ought to come like leaves to a tree, or it better not come at all.

– John Keats

Bright Star has been getting considerable Oscar buzz. It is to be expected. It’s a gorgeous, beautifully shot piece. Gorgeous costumes. I am familiar with the work of Jane Campion with her Oscar-winning picture, The Piano. I thought that was a marvelous film. This movie on the other hand is an empty vessel put up on screen.

This movie retells the final three years of John Keats’ life. Keats played by Ben Whinshaw is a struggling poet that doesn’t have a cent to his name. He rooms with his best friend, Charles Armitage Brown (Paul Schneider). They share the summer rental with another family, the Brawnes.

The eldest daughter, Fanny (Abbie Cornish) is a free-spirited woman that loves to dress in her own creations. She is not limited to the conventions of 19th century Victorian society. Fanny is taken by the words of Keats even though the rest of the world wouldn’t know until after his death.

John and Fanny in love with each other, but their different status threaten to tear them apart. The only times they could be with each other is frolicking in the meadows, their correspondence when John gets sick or their chaste kissing sessions in private.

As I stated earlier, this is a beatufiul film. I wouldn’t expect less in a Campion film, but something about the romance between these star-crossed lovers rang false. There was no longing for each other, no heartache. Some scenes were supposed to convey that, but it was forced.

It felt empty. I didn’t care about the lovers. Do they cossumate their union? Will they get married?

This was supposed to be a tragic romance. The only tears that were coming out of my eyes were those from boredom. I wondered when is Keats going to die. (It’s not a spoiler. It’s history.) I felt the same way like in Titanic. That says a lot. Also, I believe that Paul Schneider was horribly miscast on the Scot Brown. Every time, he was on screen I wanted to jump into the screen and punch him in his padded gut.

Judgment: A disappointing, hollow romance that should have been forgotten in the course of history.

Rating: **

(Season 2, Episode 5)

Things continue to come together in this wacky episode, featuring Fred Armisen as the leader of the parks department in Pawnee’s sister city from Venezuela. As established in my takes on Saturday Night Life, apparently Armisen is every ethnicity under the sun. And somehow he looks right in all of them.

If I tried to dress up like anything other than white, I’d look like a pointy-nosed weirdo in blackface, and probably get arrested and/or beaten. As such, he was completely convincing as the arrogant Vice Director Raul Alejandro Bastilla Pedro de Veloso de Morana.

I kept expecting it to be revealed at some point that the city of Boraqua, Venezuala was actually a dump compared to Pawnee, but apparently it either is as opulent as Raul over-described, or we’ll just never know. I’m thinking it’s the latter.

The whole concept of sister cities in other countries is bizarre, and I was also wondering how sister cities are even assigned? Apparently, Pawnee is in need of a new one since Leslie offended Raul by refusing to say that Chavez was her new bestest friend in the whole wide world, or something to that effect.

It was an interesting character moment for Tom when he put all the tips he’d been earning (because Raul and his stooges assumed he was a servant) toward Leslie’s pit project. I wanted to know how much he had earned, as it looked like a pretty good wad.

So underneath all the bluster, craziness, and green card marriage, Tom’s actually a nice guy. Who would have known? And who would have known that Parks & Recreation would actually grow into something entertaining in its own right every week. It just wasn’t coming together at all last season, but everything seems to be working now.

Movie couple of the year - maybe the decade.

Let me talk to you about Sam Mendes. I’m by no means a Mendes-authority, and I will be basing this on the three films American Beauty, Revolutionary Road and Away We Go. Yeah, I haven’t seen Road to Perdition. And yeah, I know, for shame. This and Jarhead are clearly in a different category altogether (being about entirely different things) and American Beauty is perhaps still the defining Mendes film, as it’s the one both Revolutionary Road and Away We Go are being compared to. I shall base the route of my train of thought along these tracks.

American Beauty was a fantastic film when it came out in 1999. It was a freakishly timely film and is beyond any doubt the Blue Velvet of the 90s. It won best picture, and it was the film everyone talked about that year. Then it faded into obscurity so fast it was like the entire world was engaging in an absurd cover-up trying to pretend the movie never existed. Was the movie in fact too timely, leading to the fact that after said time the movie was frowned upon, even hated? This post-hype hate has always baffled me. I maintain to this day that American Beauty is one of the best and most memorable films of the late 90s, among such (still adored) films as Se7en, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects etc. It was vast in scope, it spoke clear truths about suburban USA through brilliant use of not only extreme metaphors but regular characters set amidst all the extremist characters, fighting for sanity in the suburban nightmare. The keen eye, or someone who read the start of this paragraph, will see instantly that this is also exactly true about Blue Velvet. The themes up for discussion are enthralling.

Then, in 2008, comes Revolutionary Road, Sam Mendes trying to one-up himself in a bizarre game of “let’s see who has the worst suburban nightmare” where he plays the role of every contestant. Revolutionary Road is camp, it’s trite, it doesn’t say anything about anything, its characters are wholly uninteresting, its storylines predictable and its idea of romance is akin to the 90s pap such as Titanic (which may be a good film today, but if you can watch it and not question the portrayal of romance within you have clearly never witnessed a real relationship) which is now fortunately shunted aside into romantic B-movies for the most part. In the end the question about Revolutionary Road is this: Can a director 10 years after making a film of such poignance, such timeliness and such exploration of facades do the exact same movie, with less interesting characters, nothing new to say and absolutely no suggestion on how to redeem the problem when despite all the ugly things going on in American Beauty and despite all the horrible family lives portrayed it leaves a sense of finality, a sense of resolution, even a sense of hope? No. He cannot. Does it help that he casts the two stars of an old, camp, overhyped romantic feature as basically the same characters only angry about nothing for no reason? It really, really doesn’t. While Revolutionary Road is by no means a terrible film, I hate it for all it represents, possibly proportionally to my love for American Beauty. I mean, really. I hate that film.

What does any of this have to do with Away We Go? Well, Mendes seems to realize that what is needed after American Beauty is not a more boring and depressing American Beauty without a point, but an antitode. Away We Go is the antidote. Away We Go is this: A couple is expecting a somewhat unexpected child. Their parents, in a fit of we’re-doing-this-just-for-the-sake-of-the-plot gallantry, is moving to Belgium arbitrarily just before the baby’s birth. The couple then decide to find a new place to live and start their family, and subsequently travel to among other places Phoenix, Montreal, etc. They meet some old friends and discover that every relationship is blatantly imperfect.

Let me say this right off: The plot setup, and indeed entire half of the film before they get to Montreal feels forced and contrived, only there so the characters have a reason to get to Montreal. All the characters they meet until that point are pretty unconvincing, even Maggie Gyllenhaal and Allison Janney’s, although they are good fun to watch. Fortunately for the film the central couple is brilliantly played, with great chemistry between Rudolph and Krakinski and an incredible charm about them. And once they get to Montreal, every single character and every single scene from there on out is golden, the conversations are rich and deep, speaking truths about the nature of a relationship, of life, of parenthood that will ring true with anyone.

The evolution of the central relationship and the strengthened resolve one sees throughout is extremely heartening, and it’s so pleasant to see a movie relationship which is not just meaningless drama but actual, human, sensible drama and actual resolutions to problems that occur. It is extremely well written, the cast is glorious and the soundtrack is frankly perfect. I came from it feeling more intelligent, more enlightened and more hopeful, and I strongly recommend it. Social commentary, cultural commentary, in an entertaining, charming, heartwarming way. I really, really liked it, and I wish I could ignore the weakness of the first half.

4/5