The Importance of Memory - Woman in Gold

An elegant and highly emotional film graced theatres last week: Woman in Gold. Starring Helen Mirren (Miriam), Ryan Reynolds, and Daniel Gruhl, Simon Curtis takes us on a sweeping journey of a holocaust victim's life after WWII. It is based off of the true story of Maria Altman's quest to retrieve her aunt's portrait, Adele Bloch-Bauer, from Austria. The film champions justice, for once, and Maria is able to safely bring her family heirlooms back to America and in the hands of what has grown to be her home.

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt Woman in Gold Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Ryan Reynolds, Helen Mirren Movie HD Academy Award winner Helen Mirren stars in the incredible story of Maria Altmann, a Jewish refugee who is forced to flee Vienna during World War II.

1. Where did this film take me? The film appears to be a melodrama on the surface, plunging us full tilt into a family history shared by two very different people. Yet they share more and more in common as the film progresses. The film opens with two critical scenes. There is a vibrant flashback to the painter, Kimft, creating the portrait of Adele in Austria. with a funeral scene on a bright-blue-sky day in L.A.. We are immediately introduced to Maria Altman, a small business owner in her 80s and the sister to the deceased. Maria tells her friend that there is some unfinished family business she needs to attend to. The consoling friend puts Maria in contact with her grandson, Randol (lawyer). He is a not-so successful lawyer, a bit of a clutz, but an excellent and compassionate communicator. After Randol and Maria meet, we begin to see flashbacks of a past that Maria is trying to come to terms with. There is an elegant beauty in the flashback images. They are rich in both colour and culture. Maria's family in the past shares the same values as Randol's young family: determination, hard work, and sacrifice for the children. The melodrama expands outwards though, and America takes on a paternal role. America is the safe haven for refugees during WWII escaping their motherland. The motherland is represented as a complex and problematic sphere, atypical of the usual patriotic and comforting images of home, Woman in Gold challenges the notion of "home", "native" and "country" ideals. Images of the past seep into the present tense as Maria struggles to come to terms with her painful memories. Randol's own Jewish family history strongly increases his desire to win the case when he remembers the death of his grandparents at a concentration camp. 
2. How did I feel? This film was a flurry of emotions. The rollercoaster ride was smooth, though, calling attention to some seriously awesome editing skills. The pacing was flawless and had me feeling all the right emotions at the right times. Important information was slowly revealed throughout the film, keeping my attention constantly focused on the events. Telling the story like a melodrama also had me passionately rooting for the main characters. I felt the frustrations, the challenges, and, for once, felt like cheering at the end of the film. There were never any tasteless moments. The unique perspective allowed me to engage with the protagonist, even if I do not share that same history. Maria was a wronged citizen of Austria. Neither her religion nor origin mattered in the narrative. She was positioned in such a way that shook up the Austrian government, who would have rather singled her out as a wronged Jewish woman than a wronged citizen of Austria.  Therefore, the fight for justice extended beyond Maria and beyond Randol. She had the gumption to fight a bureaucratic art restoration movement and take her motherland to court.
3. What issues were addressed? I think there are several key issues that this movie highlights very eloquently. The first and foremost being the importance of memory. As Maria pointed out to Randol, "Young people are likely to forget. That is why I remember." Like Randol, we the audience (or the younger persons watching the film) are not from that generation that experienced WWII. Therefore, our journey and responsibility is to learn and remember and pass down the history to the next generation. Maria is ready to give up when she realizes how long the trial might take. She finds peace in letting the events slip away out of her control. Randol sweeps in with his young and excited blood to stir the pot and fight the good fight. A generation that was wronged comes together with a generation that has the capacity to pave a brighter future for the next generations. In this, our emotional journey is Randols. Another important issue is that of ownership, and the rights to owning property / things. The art restoration movement in Austria sought to return art that was misplaced / stolen during WWII to its rightful owners. Yet it went against this by championing the wants of the country over the rights of its people. The painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer is a symbol for Austria and an important memento for the gallery. By removing it, Maria is thus affecting the "whole" population. She justifies her cause wisely, stating that "while the world sees this as a beautiful painting made of gold sheets, she sees a picture of her aunt." Further to this, while she is able to refer to the portrait as Adele, Austria calls it The Woman in Gold; continuing the Nazi practice of attempting to erase the history of Jewish ancestry in Europe. The art restoration project becomes a pseudo-natzi-ism for Maria, denying her of her family's rights as Austrians, and the law-binding agreement of her Uncle's will. While I can argue that here is yet again another story about "America" coming to the rescue, there is nothing wrong with the sweet victory she receives at the end of her long awaited trial with the help of the American Justice system. 
4. The biggest surprise for me was seeing Ryan Reynolds play a serious character. He was, of course, allowed his funny moments, but they heightened the film instead of making the drama cheesy. His awkward encounters with Maria and his blunders in the courtroom really added to his character. I felt emotionally on board with his plight. Helen Mirren was as delightful as always. Slightly snobbish but with the right amount of maternal affection. She was a great representation of a lost generation finding its voice again. The ending titles were also a favourite part. They disclosed the information about the real Maria Altman and how that opened up opportunities for other art cases like hers. 
5. Is there a transformative experience? Yes. More so for Randol than Maria. Maria is able to find peace in her heart knowing that justice was served. She brought her ancestry and history back to the forefront of society by forcing the world to remember and admit the wrong. Randol, having not fully understood the importance of his past, is given the chance to avenge his grandparent's horrifying deaths by helping Maria succeed. He squeezes the lemons that life has given him (sort of speak) and drinks the rewording juice. 

A film on the recovery of the Bloch-Bauer Klimt paintings by Maria Altmann in 2006. Electric Sky, Nigel Janes Director/Producer.

Overall, I believe that this film is an extremely beautiful portrayal of intelligence out-weighing money and political power. The right things in this film are emphasized - memory, symbolism and art, ownership and rights, war justice, and self-identity - and justice is served. 

- Jenn

Cinderella: Characters or Caricatures

I was enchanted last night at Cineplex with the new 2015 Cinderella. Let's not for a moment take this film too seriously. But Disney had a few tricks up its sleeve that I think are important to take down.

Directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring Lily James (plays Cinderella, known for role in Downton Abbey), Richard Madden (plays the prince, known as Rob Stark on GoT), Cate Blanchett (plays the stepmother), and Helena-Bonam Carter (plays fairy godmother).

Disney takes us on a journey through Cinderella and her mice companions with a few modern twists.

1. Where does this film take us? To a mystical enchanted world where mice understand little girls, Princes fall in love with chambermaids, and fairy godmothers turn lizards into chauffeurs. A world with depth and reasoning. We finally get to hear the side of the evil step mother and the side of the Prince. The aesthetic is enchanting, almost Tim Burton meets British romance. Perhaps too over the top for Jane Austen, but perfectly acceptable for this film.

2. How did this film make us feel? First, I left feeling happy. I literally hummed and waltzed out of the theatre. But then I realized something else as I was discussing it with a friend. Now, I'd like to talk about two key emotions: neutrality and frustration. There are three important mourning scenes for the three deaths in the film. A Disney film actually shows three characters dying. BUT, this film being of course and instrument of instruction as well as entertainment, teaches young children to have courage through the bad times and enjoy the good times as they come. Cinderella has her dad as comfort during her mother's early death and the mice for comfort while she mourns for her father alone. This is an important and strange emotion for young children and it is important to show strength and courage. Both the men and women in the movie are encouraged to cry and say "I love you." Therefore, Disney does away with its usual hyper-masculine figures like the Prince and introduces a more realistic and personable character. The Prince is even named Kit, not just "prince." While I felt a strong pull to comfort both Ella and Kit, I also knew they would overcome the death and move forward in life, carrying their important familiar education forward: have courage and be kind. My only slight let down is the way Cinderella confronts her Stepmother. I was hoping for more confrontation, not just a pardon at the end. It is as bad to over react in these situations as it is to under react, to say nothing and let the abuse continue. Not everyone can hold out and wait for prince charming to come cantering through the forest one day. Something to work on Disney?

Have courage and be kind. Watch the brand new trailer for Disney's Cinderella, starring Cate Blanchett, Lily James, Richard Madden, and Helena Bonham Carter. See the film in theatres March 13, 2015. A new Frozen short, Frozen Fever, featuring all of your favorite characters and a brand new song, will play in theatres with Cinderella beginning March 13!

3. There are two characters that were expanded upon which lead me to understand their worlds a lot better: Kit (Prince) and the Stepmother. Kit is a young apprentice with humour and a propensity to be a good ruling monarch. He is loyal to his father but stubborn in his ideals. He doesn't let class or position in life rule his feelings. All are equal, regardless of birth. This we can see in the final marriage proposal scene when Ella says, "If the shoe fits will you take me as I am? As a young country girl?" To which the Prince replies, "Will you take me as I am? An apprentice Monarch named Kit?" When Kit's father is dying in bed, Disney does not instruct the Prince to be strong and to save his tears. He let's them go freely, and lies on his dads chest like a child. I did not see this as emasculating or even childish. It was simply a display of strong love and emotions. This is important for Disney to break away from its usual male portrayals. And what did we learn about the stepmother? Well, she was once a young innocent beauty and in love. She was unlucky in the marriage with the birth of her half-wit daughters and the death of her husband. Her debt was insurmountable and she needed to re-marry again to save her family. In some ways, she has much courage. She risked her happiness to marry another man to keep the family afloat. Cinderella's presence was an all too shocking reminder of her earlier life and her inability to return to happiness. While we may still dislike her, we understand her actions and therefore understand Cinderella's easy pardon at the end. We are left to question, if this was Cinderella and her mother, would the mother not have done the same for Cinderella? Fought for her to win the heart of the prince to give CInderella a better life?

Watch Cate Blanchett talk about what it was like to play Lady Tremaine. See Cinderella in theatres Friday! http://di.sn/6001Lmfb The story of "Cinderella" follows the fortunes of young Ella (Lily James) whose merchant father remarries following the death of her mother.

4. This film is full of fun and fewer surprises. The humour is a nice break from the cheesy romance tale and keeps us grounded in this mystical land. Helena-Bonam Carter plays an imperfect fairy godmother who seems to be a bit out of practice but lucks out anyways. This scene was entirely a wonderful surprise. The costuming and set design for the golden coach and lizard and duck drivers was very humorous. The one serious moment that actually was another delightful surprise was when Cinderella and the Prince meet for the first time in the woods. This was a greatly added piece of narrative that shapes the rest of the story. The Prince playfully declares she has interrupted his hunt, and she declares back, "What has that stag ever done to you." The Prince asks, "Are you friends with the stag?" She replies, "No, just an acquaintance. We met momentarily before. He looked me in my eyes and I saw him." The Prince ponders this with a smile, "It is the royal hunt, we always hunt a stag." Cinderella closes the conversation with a helpful tidbit of advice that pushes the Prince's narrative forward, "Just because you have always done so, does not mean you should be doing it at all." In this way, it is as if the once very limited caricatures in Disney have finally broken free and become full bodied characters. Disney is attempting to remodel its mode of communications to younger audiences by providing role models with depth and feeling and who embody non-gendered emotions.

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt Cinderella Interview - Richard Madden (2015) - Lily James Movie HD A live-action retelling of the classic fairy tale about a servant step-daughter who wins the heart of a prince.

5. A transformative experience? Don't make me giggle. Of course Cinderella transforms herself visually to attend the ball. But she does not change WHO she is inside. Her clothing and hair are mere accessory. We see this theme applied to the two step sisters, who look rather dashing, but remain immature little girls without any thought or wit. Therefore it is not the appearance of success that marks a person, but their actions and words. This is an important lesson for younger audiences growing up in a world riddled with consumerist fantasies. Unfortunately Cinderella still reaffirms that marriage is the only way OUT for Ella, which we know today is not the case. But we can take that with a grain of salt (okay maybe 100 grains of salt). In some ways we can think of this story at its baseline to be very modern: A country wench without name or fortune is destined to do housework her whole life. She is the embodied stay-at-home mother or even the butler. The Prince allows her to escape her toils. We cannot assume Ella forgets herself and becomes lazy being with the Prince. Her good habits and kind character transcend wealth and class. Her good behaviour landed her a prize, an escape from a life is horrible and meaningless to one with meaning and love. I feel like this plotline is riddled with cyclical issues that are trying to justify themselves through Cinderella's good character. BUT in many ways, Disney is trying to break free of its usual notions and to that I give it much credit.

Never mind what they call her, she asks us to love her for who she is. To be the best version of ourselves at all times. This is a great message for a rather cheesy romantic film. Bibbidy bobbidy BOO!

- Jenn

X Company - Canadian TV and Historical Dramas

I have been just bursting to write this blog since last Monday. I was invited to the premiere screening of X Company at TIFF. It was hosted by the Writers Guild of Canada and they asked us to hold off any media release until the show had featured on CBC February 18th, 2015 at 9:00pm (Toronto time).

Well now I can tell you about the two amazing people who are the brains behind this Canadian operation: Stephanie Morgenstern and Mark Ellis. Both were the creators of Flashpoint, the hit FBI series that ran for four successful seasons. Stephanie and Mark have figured out a way and continue to create top Canadian content without losing the quality of their vision due to budget restraints: a co-production with the US.

Stephanie told us at the premiere that it wasn't as if they presented an idea at its earliest formation - undeveloped and in need of a lot of work. They walked into CBS network with a finished script and Canadian support and said look at what we have, you should be a part of it!

X Company is a historical drama based loosely off of Camp X during WWII. Camp X is North America's first secret services base and is located in Whitby / Oshawa (my ole' stomping ground). Figures such as Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming, and Hamish Pelham Burn entered through these training grounds. Even women served as lethal spies! Most perished at the hands of the Gestapo, but not before they did some serious damage to the Nazi moral.

View fullsize

I say based loosely because Mark Ellis made it quite clear that no real historical people are going to show up in the show. Only events as they happened historically are going to be retold through a group of 5 fictional characters: Aurora (Quebecois and fluent in German), Alfred (someone with perfect memory due to an intense case of synesthesia), Neil (whole family died in the Blitz in England), Harry (Engineer student who likes explosives), and Tom (Ad man, good at propaganda and deception). All with unique gifts and none formerly a part of any army / secret service. 

I think my favourite comment that Stephanie and Mark made that evening was that they were proud to be Canadian. Canada is not a "stepping stone to L.A. There is a pool of world class talent that exists at [our] fingertips" - said a passionate Stephanie. This made me so proud to be Canadian at that moment and witness a new CBC show that is sure to be a success.

The pilot is packed with action, adventure, heart pumping thriller moments, romance, and a unique look at different personalities who have to work together. There are twists at every corner and at times when we want to hate the antagonists (Nazis - DUH) Mark and Stephanie humanize them with little comments here and there, "I wanted to go to Med-school but I had to serve in the army first." 

Mark and Stephanie closed the evening off with some inspiring words. They said write what interests you. Don't follow market fads because by the time your show comes to fruition, that trend has long since passed. Their idea was an ongoing interest for ten years before it became a reality. This really put my own goals and aspirations into perspective.

To Mark and Stephanie and all the production / post production / distribution / broadcasters involved in X Company, I am "happy to learn to know you" over the next few months.

- Jenn

NEXT WEEK'S BLOG: Other Canadian Co-Productions

"... The hit Canada show, Vikings, is also a co-production: Canada - Take 5 Productions - and Ireland ... This also happened a few years back with another CBC show, Titanic: Blood and Steel. Take 5 Productions and Temple Street are leading the production world in Canadian ..."

Selma in Review before the Oscars

I am really excited to share this blog with everyone. I was fortunate to have guest blogger, Alessia Iani (Ba, and MA graduate), contribute this week right before the oscars. She watched Selma in theatres and has written a very in depth analysis below. It sent chills up my spine. 

Selma is an historical drama that recounts the events that occurred in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in particular those events surrounding Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign to secure voting rights for Black Americans, and the march from Selma to Montgomery (both cities in the state of Alabama) in March of 1965.

Directed by Ava DuVernay and co-written by DuVernay and Paul Webb, Selma, which was released in theatres in December of 2014, is currently nominated for two 2015 Oscars: best picture and best original song (for "Glory" written by John Stephens and Lonnie Lynn, performed by John Legend and Common).

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt Selma Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding Jr.

1. Where does the film take the viewer? The acting in Selma is absolutely on-point; the all-star cast, featuring David Oyelowo [Lee Daniel's The Butler (2013), and A Most Violent Year (2015)], Carmen Ejogo [The Purge: Anarchy (2014), and Zero Hour (2015)], Tom Wilkinson (The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)], Lorraine Toussaint [Orange is the New Black (TV, 2014)], Giovanni Ribisi, Oprah Winfrey, and Common, to name a few, share great chemistry, effectively transporting us into the tumultuous times their characters inhabited. Because the acting is so very flawless, as a viewer, I felt unable to look away, unable to not connect with this film. We are taken right into the tense atmosphere of the mid 1960s: we glimpse political tensions between President Lyndon B. Johnson (Wilkinson), Martin Luther King Jr. (Oyelowo), and the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace (Roth), the individual obstacles faced by black Americans like Annie Lee Cooper (Winfrey), the involvement in the civil rights movement of organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the work of key individuals like Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch), Diane Nash (Thompson), and James Orange (Dorsey), and the ongoing racial tensions / prejudice / violence between white and black Americans. The set design and costuming are the ribbons that tie together this historical drama, and despite some reviewers' criticism regarding the historical accuracy of certain character depictions, the characters / environments / circumstances shown work together cohesively to weave a story that pulls you deep into its beautiful and perturbing heart.
2. What feelings does the film conjure? When I ventured out on a blustery Saturday evening to watch Selma, I did not expect to go home feeling simultaneously angered and hopeful. I was definitely not ready to find myself involuntarily weeping throughout the film. I did not notice I have been crying until the film ended. I was not alone: two young women seated next to me were trying very hard to contain their sobs, to no avail, and a group of middle aged men sitting at the front fumbled around for tissues only 20 minutes into the film. For all intents and purposes, this film was an emotional rollercoaster. I wavered between being uplifted and angered. I experienced feelings of intense frustration when faced with all the actions of racist white Americans. I felt joy and sorrow. The most powerful and unexpected response to the film was a feeling of familiarity. I felt this sense of familiarity during each of the riot scenes, in particular the first scene wherein police prevent peaceful protesters (sans King) from crossing the Edmund Pettus bridge out of Selma, onward to Montgomery, showering them with tear gas and brutally beating them down. This familiarity I can clearly trace to the countless times in the last six months when I have viewed media images in print / online of Ferguson riots, and peaceful protests across America in solidarity with Mike Brown and the #BlackLivesMatter movement.
3. Issues discussed? From the outset of the film we are shown the complex manifestation of various kinds of violence: systemic, physical, etc. We see prejudice and restrictions imposed on Black Americans. The first violent act we witness comes directly after the opening scene, which takes place in 1964, and shows King receiving his nobel peace prize: four black American girls walking down the stairs of a church are killed in a sudden explosion. Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr. is as careful and nuanced as the depictions of violence and prejudice: Most importantly, King is human - this is not a caricature. We do not only glimpse the vigour and passion with which King fought for the civil rights of black Americans, but the powerful emotional and psychological struggles he went through to bring his dream to fruition. He was deeply aware of the hurt he sometimes caused to those around him. The issues of race, human rights, and what constitutes political and social progress are approached carefully, though the film does play on our emotions to sway us to believe in the central characters - both the antagonists' and protagonists' values. It is a film that asks us to witness the past, and in doing so, consider what we are witnessing in our present moment. How far have we come from 1960? How much work is left to do?
4. Are there surprises? Having studied the civil rights movement, we know what to expect: violence, reconciliation, and disappointment. However, the film gives us these situations and evokes emotion at unexpected times. This is done through careful cinematic direction: close-ups on faces and hands, on bodies rising and falling. The film captured moments of domestic joy and sorrow, a mix of anguish and terror during the riots, pure hatred in the faces of white folks, King's emotional struggle, Coretta King's difficulties in continuing to support a cause that greatly affected the man she loves, and fiery looks between President and King, activists Hosea Williams and John Lewis. When we revel in feelings a film conjures during its fleeting moments, it forces us to think again about a particular interaction or relationship or setting. That is the best surprise: one that requires attentiveness and careful interpretation.
5. Transformative experience? For me, the centrepiece of the film, by which I mean not only the climax and turning point, but the most powerful moment, is the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson, and King's speech at Jackson's funeral. "Who murdered Jimmie Lee Jackson?" proclaims King in a resolute and heartbroken tone. His answer is grim: we are all responsible. Brutally beaten by police, Jackson's death pushes the activists to complete the march to Montgomery. This transformation for the characters left alive is necessary for the action to continue. But how do we react? With anger and sadness, to be sure, I personally found myself unable to shake feelings of familiarity. And this is the heart of the film: Mike Brown, shot and killed in Ferguson by Officer Darren Wilson on August 9th, 2014 IS Jimmie Jackson. HOW many black women and black men have been our Jimmie Lee Jacksons? Too many. If this film transforms us, it is because it brings us further into awareness of our current moment. A time when the vestiges of racial inequality and prejudiced ideologies and the attendant violence that comes along with these is being exposed and criticized. What we choose to do with this realization is up to us.

One dream can change the world. SELMA stars David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King, Jr. Special engagements in select theaters Christmas Day, everywhere January 9th. http://www.selmamovie.com/

- Alessia

Widescreen Thriller: A Most Violent Year

Let us continue the tradition of using Ted Hope's five criteria when it comes to cinema: what five things do we want from cinema? This past week, I had the privilege to watch A Most Violent Year (2015), starring Oscar Isaac, Jessica Chastain, David Oyelowo, and many others. Written and Directed by J. C. Chandor.

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt A Most Violent Year Teaser Trailer #1 (2014) - Jessica Chastain Movie HD A thriller set in New York City during the winter of 1981, statistically one of the most violent years in the city's history, and centered on a the lives of an immigrant and his family trying to expand their business and capitalize on opportunities as the rampant violence, decay, and corruption of the day drag them in and threaten to destroy all they have built.

1. Where did this film take me? To 1980s New York New York. This year is actually recorded to be the most violent year the state has yet to see. From the rich suburbs of the wealthy, to the dockside industrial slums of those battling the American dream. We are delivered the film through the CEO's vision. He is an immigrant chasing after the prolific American dream. His wife, from a rough NY neighbourhood with a notorious father, equally an outcast. Together, though, they are a powerful couple. Perhaps I can expand on this point and explain HOW J.C. Chandor took me back to this historical moment. Let us first talk about the first five minutes of the film as the credits are rolling. Perhaps one of the most interesting film introductions I have seen in a while. Delivered in a widescreen format, the footage feels stretched and condensed at the same time. However, you never miss a moment. The film begins with what we can assume is the protagonist. We see him running through a quiet suburban neighbourhood. The music is not inviting but it is also not unpleasant. It says, "WAIT, don't get caught up by the beautiful imagery. All is NOT well." The steadycam replicates the point-of-view of the runner, immediately pointing us to see what he sees, therefore indicating that the main perspective will be filtered through Abel. It is Abel Morales' (Oscar Isaac) story. The next character is introduced in a two shot sequence, first a medium wide shot and then a medium close up. This camera work tells us, "OKAY, don't forget this secondary character. He is indeed important." Back to the runner, he is now in an industrial landscape, headed towards a dockside. An oil barge offloads its product into a truck. Cut back to the runner. We understand he is somehow related to this action. His attire - sweatpants and a hoodie - do not disclose his position in the oil company just yet. He is still running. We as the audience ask if he is training for a marathon? Why run so long? Only after do we realize he is training himself to keep up with whatever is thrown across his path. All these actions takes place within the first five to ten minutes. We learn so much about the film because of the camera work and how it compliments the action. We get a sense of who is important and what the story is going to be about. It is brilliant.
2. How did I feel during the film and after the film? There is an immediate quietness about the film that I am unable to explain. It was an uncomfortable quiet. The kind that has you waiting tensely for something to happen. The film never felt slow though, mostly because we understand the time frame of the story: thirty days. Thirty days to close the agreement on the land he purchased. Forty percent upfront and the remainder at the end of the thirty days. Each day is thus accounted for and keeps us and the characters on the same level. Therefore the stillness and unsureness are a combination of things. This film, in many ways, replicates that feeling in Steven Spielberg's Duel (TV special). Throughout the entire car and truck chase, viewers have the need and desire to see who the truck driver is. Not because we particularly care for him, but because we are purposely prevented from seeing him by the camera / director - thus creating desire. The death of the truck driver heightens the disavowal and leaves a burning disappointment - desire unfulfilled. Similarly, Abel spends thirty intense days trying to find out who is robbing his trucks and who tried to enter his house with a gun. He eventually chases one thief down. Abel asks him twice, "WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR?" This is a major thrilling moment and we the audience are sitting at the edge of our seats waiting to hear a name spoken. Then the disavowal takes place. The man replies, "I don't work for anyone." Abel is no closer to the truth and we feel his disappointment most profoundly. The evil lurking in the background is undetectable. It only exists through the radio broadcast system as an effect. The cause - le raison d'etre - lies out in the filmic world in a secret untouchable form. We are unsure what the purposes are, although we can surmise that it is most likely financially driven. The ending received a lot of negative attention apparently after the first few screenings. The composer was worried that people would disapprove of Abel's actions and write him off as a cold money hungry CEO. Yet, I felt the complete opposite. I felt proud to have been on his side. I will expand further down. 
3. What issues were discussed and how? Issues of immigration, generation, family, and business blended together and rose up in contrast to the american dream. In this dystopia the action unfolds and the characters have to carve their name in stone with their fingernails. There are four stories playing simultaneously: Abel's quest for dominance in the oil industry, Anna's fierce and loyal passion to see her husband succeed by any means necessary, Julian's hungry desire to one day be Abel, and Lawrence's tired and never ending bureaucratic desk job. Abel has to secure his deal with a Jewish family that owns a prime piece of property on the waterfront. Old money sells their family owned site to new money - to a self made man. Two generations of immigrants are immediately introduced.  The third generation comes in the form of Abel's antagonist: Julian. While Abel adopts American culture, Julian fights in limbo - Abel asks him several times to speak in English. Julian is in many ways a younger version of Abel. The difference lies in the paths each choose. Abel's philosophy about taking the path that is MOST right stands in stark contrast to that of Julian's fearful, cowardly approach. Guns are seen as cowards' weapons. Abel refuses to let his workers arm themselves for fear it will intensify the problem even further. Julian's fear backfires when he is unable to own up to his actions. His American dream is unsustainable. We can even draw quick similarities with the characters in Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing (1989). Abel is like Mookie. Julian is like Pino. Sometimes the path that is most right seems at first morally tainted. Yet Mookie saved Sal's life by distracting the angry crowd with destroying his pizza joint instead. Abel is unable to save Julian, but promises to care for his family. His success, and we are never given any reason to doubt the sincerity of Abel's character, is attributed to his choice of taking "the path that is most right."
4. Surprises? DUH. Jessica Chastain's character, Anna. She is a very complicated character. How many complicated female characters have we seen recently at the box office? She is the gangster her husband refuses to be. She is the hard shell that is able to kill the deer her husband cannot. She steals from him and then returns the money in order to save the family. She is the book keeper. Yet, she is never given credit for her work. It is clear Abel loves his wife and family. It is clear he has strict moral beliefs and follows them as much as possible. Yet, when does he ever truly acknowledge his wife's help? He forgives her time and time again for her erratic behaviour. He coaches her to take the right course and to dispel her gangster tendencies. She works for him and takes care of the family. We see a nanny only once acting as a babysitter, indicating her true devotion to her children. She attends all the social functions with her husband as a strong supporter. She risks threatening a cop who has interrupted her 10-year old birthday party, "my husband is not who you think he is. He is an honest man. If you disrespect him, he will make it his mission to ruin your life. And this was very disrespectful." She is the chilling - fiery ego Abel refuses to be. They compliment each other perfectly. She says what he is thinking and she does what he wishes he could do. Together they are an unstoppable force.
5. The transformative experience: who is transformed in the end? As an audience member, I believe I felt the most affected by the experiences on screen. I felt the elation of Abel's victory, the fiery passion behind Anna's success in managing her husband's affairs, and the silence of Julian's death and world. During the post production phase, the composer was worried that people would walk away thinking that Abel is a cold hearted money hungry CEO. He cared little for Julian's death, saving the hole in his oil barrel first. The song at the end is supposed to guide the audience emotionally to steer clear from these complicated feelings. I did not think of Abel as anything other than an honest and hard working man. Abel's ability to pay off the remainder of the property value is in large due to how his company behaves for thirty days and how they conduct themselves during all the robberies and violence. The stress of losing everything he had worked hard for was apparent every day. How can you argue with that level of simplicity? Yet, as a CEO with many employees, he makes time to visit Julian in hospital and pay for his expenses. He makes time to visit the new trainees. He takes time to make sure anyone who got hurt on his clock was taken care of. The most shocking scene is when his youngest daughter discovers the gun and cocks it playfully. Anna has to slowly approach and take it out of her hand. Abel takes in the seriousness of the situation: it is one thing to hurt his employees and another to threaten his family. He faces his competitors fiercely but fairly, he asks for what is his and no more, "you owe me $213,000." Abel presupposes Mookie's charisma and courage, and always does the right thing.

In conclusion, A Most Violent Year was an awe inspiring experience. Coupled with an amazing cast, a superb sound score, and the widescreen aspect ratio, I highly recommend viewing this artwork in cinema before it passes away.

- Jenn

What do WE want from cinema: Inherent Vice

I had a really unique movie going experience last week. At 9:20pm on a Tuesday night, I trekked alone to Cineplex Odeon Varsity Theatres at 55 Bloor Street, Toronto, for a VIP screening of Inherent Vice (2015). Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, adapted by Thomas Pynchon's novel, this is by far one of the most interesting films I have got to see this year.

Before I go into my analysis, though, I came across this intriguing and perfectly applicable article from the website Hope in Film: The Five Crucial Things We Want From Movies. Written by Ted Hope, this article suggests the following list.

1. Take me somewhere I have never been
2. Make me feel
3. Help me understand this issue / world a little better
4. Deliver fun and surprises
5. A transformative experience

With this as our backbone, let us now take a look at Inherent Vice through these five filters / criteria.

1. Inherent Vice takes place in south California during the transition between the 60s and 70s. On the outset, this town seems to have three kinds of people: hippies, gangsters, and law-enforcers. However, by mid movie, the types have become so muddled that by the end each character is neither him nor herself and are a mish-mash of everyone. A bit like The Beatles song I am the Walrus "I am he as you are he and you are me and we are all together." Yet no one in the film is together. Relationships are never whole, and people are as much present off screen as they are on screen, making the loose episodic plot structure more hippie-ish, if you will. 
2. WOW. How did I feel? Where do I begin? First, let's talk about the voiceover narration. Can we even call it ironic? It is a bit Godardian in the best way, calling attention to the story's realities as unrealities. The pumping action of private investigator Doc Sportello is highly undercut by the mellow female voice, taking your heartbeat down four notches into a normal rhythmic speed. She calls attention to the fading past, the psychedelic 60s slowly evaporating. All that California was is embodied in Doc. And he is hated every moment for it. He is the dinosaur of the south. A T-rex hunting for the truth of the golden fang. What feelings can we say the film conveys? There is this uncomfortable sense of unknowingness - a paranoia that slowly seeps into your bones and makes you fidget in your seat. There is repetition, creating a cyclical feeling that adds to the claustrophobic environment. If you were asked to loosely sketch Doc's world, could you do it? Do we know where all the puzzle pieces fit? I felt hazie leaving the theatre, as if a smokey cloud had settled around me head. A sudden second-high. There was also humour - in an unchecked and unbalanced way. We laughed without restraint but not because we were set up to laugh or forced to. It felt more real somehow.
3. I had not read Thomas Pynchon's novel before watching the film in theatre, and believe this might have filled in any loose gaps my brain is still trying to solve. I do not know much about the early 70s to justify the films explanation. Yet, taking it for what it is and disregarding (momentarily) its time in history, what did I take away? What statement is the film making - and even if it is NOT making a statement, that is in itself a statement - and how is it resolved? I think Doc justifies his good character at the end. He is able to reunite a family together and saves a father (Owen Wilson) from being further involved in a network of cocaine dealers. Sure the family is unromantic in the best way - and the parents are the least prototypic of their kind - but there is a sense of charm seeing the two hug at the end. The set, setting, costumes, and soundtrack created a quintessential aura, what I would think would be an accurate 70s mise-en-scene for this film. 
4. The greatest surprise was the dialogue. The dialogue between characters differs greatly: legal and proper jargon from his girlfriend downtown (Reese Witherspoon), the slow drawl of his drug friend pretending to be dead (Owen Wilson), and the strange and often perverted comments from Lieutenant Bigfoot (Josh Brolin). Actions often contradict the characters verbal intent. Bigfoot angrily refers to Doc as the hippie, yet storms his house at the end of the film and eats a lot of weed sitting out on the table. Deputy Penny Kimball, a serious woman of the law, is caught smoking weed with Doc and having a jolly good time. The humour is dry and the banter delivered in a hyper serious manner to the point of being at the cusp of hilarious: "woohoo, look at the greedy little hippie." "Bring a  bar of soap and you can clean my feet tonight." "Ew. I can bring you pizza though." "There is a swastika symbol on that man's face." "No there isn't. That is an ancient Hindu symbol meaning ALL IS WELL." Do these characters know they are funny or do they take themselves seriously? 
5. Transformative: Ted suggests that this can be for either the viewers or the characters on screen. Still unsure as to how Doc is feeling - probably rather groovy for saving the day (?) - I definitely felt transformed. My opinion about romance, life, beach-house living, the 70s, and the radical 60s has definitely been intensified and caught my interest. This film told the story in a whole new way. The experience was unique and something I am sure to never feel again. Even when I go see the film for a second time, I am sure to feel slightly different. I think in an era when originality is rare and films have become almost colloquial communication tools, it is definitely hard to find that new angle. As my favourite dead poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, commented on in his poem "Kubla Khan," the public will scorn this type of artistic creation. They will stomp and spit and refuse entry into their narrow perspective. Bret Easton Ellis shares this perspective in his article Novelist and Screenwriter Bret Easton Ellis Talks Paul Anderson's Inherent Vice.

"Anderson’s epic vision of Southern California in movie after movie is one of modern cinema’s key accomplishments — the scope is a marvel. But the audience for Inherent Vice is not going to be rapturously discussing it this Christmas — the harsh words I heard behind me as I left the screening last week have been echoed all over the place when I ask people who have seen it what they thought, and the pre-release take-down of it around L.A. is surprising to me [...]" - Bret Easton Ellis

Subscribe to TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/sxaw6h Subscribe to COMING SOON: http://bit.ly/H2vZUn Like us on FACEBOOK: http://goo.gl/dHs73 Follow us on TWITTER: http://bit.ly/1ghOWmt Inherent Vice Official 'Paranoia' Trailer (2014) - Paul Thomas Anderson Movie HD When private eye Doc Sportello's ex-old lady suddenly out of nowhere shows up with a story about her current billionaire land developer boyfriend whom she just happens to be in love with, and a plot by his wife and her boyfriend to kidnap that billionaire and throw him in a loony bin...well, easy for her to say.

I understand where this assumption is coming from and find it so sad. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinions - and there are always going to be those films that are landmarks and only become so in a new generation of understanding - and hopefully open-mindedness. I say HOORAH for Anderson and all the performances in the film. A job well done. A film highly original and intriguing. Thank you for making my Tuesday night so groovy!

- Jenn