ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Mark Sommer

21 Things You Forgot About Being a Kid: Learning from the Next Generation

by Leave a Comment

What can we learn from the generations coming up after us? Dr. Rick Stevenson shares what he has learned after nearly twenty years of interviewing children and adolescents.

21 Things book cover

I was introduced to Rick Stevenson through Greg Wright, a long-time internet friend and mentor. Greg was my boss for most of the time I was writing for Hollywood Jesus – somewhere back in the Dark Ages. (It’s hard to believe I left HJ nearly four and a half years ago.) Greg had introduced me to the Millennials documentary series which was shown on the Ovation network in 2016. Screenfish was kind enough to let us share my interview with Greg and my subsequent review of the documentary.

In 2001, Rick created the 5000 Days Project, which the website tells us

is a global organization dedicated to developing emotional intelligence (EQ). We apply the StoryQ method of deep inquiry combined with video journaling technology to bring a low-cost and easy-to-implement tool into schools and communities allowing all kids to self-reflect and process in a safe environment.

As of the book’s release as an ebook in July, Rick has “conducted over 5500 in-depth interviews” with school-age children up to high school. The Project stresses the importance of Social and Emotional Intelligence, and was developed in consultation with experts in the fields, including Stevenson’s friend Dr. John Medina, author of the Brain Rules series.

Coming from a conservative Christian environment, I have long been aware of the need to get a handle on my emotions so they do not rule me. Unfortunately, I think too many in conservative circles have misunderstood the role of emotions in our lives. Too often a stoic approach is taken, ignoring one’s emotions rather than dealing with them. What often seems to happen is that the hidden emotions are still controlling the person, largely because they refuse to acknowledge the effect emotions play in shaping our lives. For example, if you are making choices based on fear, and you refuse to acknowledge you have those fears, you end up making excuses for your beliefs and actions instead of honestly examining the role this emotion has played in shaping your beliefs and actions. Xenophobia can often be excused in this way. How often have we witnessed someone who has obvious prejudices insist they are not prejudiced?

Rick’s book helps us remember what it was like to be a kid, and that remembrance can be the start of understanding who we are. It can also help us better understand those around us. According to Jesus, our mission here on earth can be summed up in two commands: Love God, and Love one another. The agape love the Bible speaks about is not emotionless. It is more than an emotion, as it seeks the best for the one loved, but the concept does include emotion. Jesus’ mission on earth was to show us what God is like. The Gospels continuously tell us that Jesus was filled with compassion for for those around Him. His actions on behalf of others was not some kind of calculated stoic response based on some mathematical calculation of what is best for the person. His actions were precipitated by an emotional response to the need He witnessed.

We have gotten emotions exactly backwards. Some of us were even taught to make the brain the engine and the heart the caboose. That is not how it works. (See the animation video near the bottom of the page on The 5000 Days Project’s home page.) Putting the emotions in a “caboose” role causes us to ignore what our emotions are trying to tell us. Only by knowing what our heart is telling us can we examine who we really are. Certainly our emotions can be lying to us, but we cannot know that unless we are listening to them and examining them. As I asserted earlier, our emotions will still lead us whether we acknowledge them or not.

If any of the above has sparked an interest in Emotional Intelligence, or causes you to want to try to understand yourself and others better, Rick’s book would be a good place to start. Broken down into 21 quickly-read and easily-digested chapters, 21 Things You Forgot About Being a Kid is a delight to read. Be sure also to read the Foreword and Introduction, as these provide background and insight into what is to follow. 21 Things is available as an ebook on Amazon.com. (If you don’t have Kindle, you can download the PC or Android versions for free.)

Lord of the Rings Amazon Prime Update: New ‘Trailer’ Intrigues!

by Leave a Comment

Just over a week ago, Amazon Prime posted a very unusual “teaser.” On Saturday, July 27, a video appeared with the title “Meet our Fellowship.” Amazon was introducing us to the team which has been assembled for the new Lord of the Rings series which is supposed to hit Prime Video sometime in 2021. Both those who loved the books and those who loved Peter Jackson’s sensations should well be excited.

Lord of the Rings Amazon Prime
Amazon Prime Lord of the Rings

We first learned about Amazon’s intentions to create a Lord of the Rings series in an article in Variety early in November of 2017. All we knew at that point was the series would be set in Middle-earth, and be set sometime before The Fellowship of the Ring. (See my article from December 2017: “Amazon’s Lord of Rings Series: How Did That Happen? What Does It Mean?“) We do know a bit more now, but still very little. The new “trailer” does seem to confirm the time will be in the Second Age. Speculation among Tolkien geeks is the story will center on Sauron’s earlier days. This does make sense, and would explain how the series can carry the name of books about the end of the Third Age. The Second Age includes the time when Sauron forges the Rings.

Screen capture from the “Meet Our Fellowship” video

The new trailer, as I mentioned above, lists names of the team assigned to the project—about 40 names in all! It reads like a Who’s Who in Movies Today. (Watch the trailer below to see the impressive list.) Tolkien aficionados should be excited to see John Howe, one of the official illustrators for Middle-earth, included. His illustrations grace some paperback editions of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the History of Middle-earth series. Even more intriguing is that Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey, who penned J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, has been recruited.

“Meet our Fellowship” video

Shortly after the trailer came out, Shippey did an interview for a Tolkien fan website in Germany. Tolkien “purists” should be relieved Amazon, according to Shippey, has certain limitations placed upon them by the Tolkien Estate. He explains:

Amazon has a relatively free hand when it comes to adding something, since, as I said, very few details are known about this time span. The Tolkien Estate will insist that the main shape of the Second Age is not altered. Sauron invades Eriador, is forced back by a Númenorean expedition, is returns to Númenor. There he corrupts the Númenoreans and seduces them to break the ban of the Valar. All this, the course of history, must remain the same. But you can add new characters and ask a lot of questions, like: What has Sauron done in the meantime? Where was he after Morgoth was defeated? Theoretically, Amazon can answer these questions by inventing the answers, since Tolkien did not describe it. But it must not contradict anything which Tolkien did say. That’s what Amazon has to watch out for. It must be canonical, it is impossible to change the boundaries which Tolkien has created, it is necessary to remain “tolkienian”. [Emphasis added.]

It remains to be seen how “canonical” the series will be. After all, Peter Jackson went a bit far and afield from what Tolkien wrote, especially in the Hobbit trilogy of movies. And he had to work with an Estate headed by Christopher Tolkien, who was apparently not as adventurous as his successors.

What do you think? Are you excited about the prospects of the new series? Or are you afraid of what they will do to your beloved Middle-earth? Leave a comment below to put in your two cents.

Tolkien: Should You Watch … or Not?

by 2 Comments

Tolkien movie poster

The filmmakers have admitted the new Tolkien movie uses some poetic license to capture a glimpse of the now-famous author of The Lord of the Rings. But did they use too much license and make him into something other than what he was? This a difficult question—one which I will attempt to answer as I give an account of the movie and my changing impressions of it as I have mused over it the past week.

When I first began to see the trailers for the movie, Tolkien, I was encouraged. I have been a fan of JRR Tolkien since I was a teen and have read many of his biographies, including the original “authorized” version by Humphrey Carpenter, and the more recent Tolkien and the Great War by John Garth. And I have done a significant amount of writing about him and his works on the internet. I am no Tolkien scholar, by any means, but I do love hanging around true scholars on the internet, and occasionally at events where they are present. So, I dare to say I do know a thing or two about the man.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

This past week, I was given the opportunity to view the film before the general public was able to see it in the United States. My first reaction was an overwhelming disappointment. What had they done to my Tolkien?

In “The Monsters and the Critics,” his essay about Beowulf, the old Anglo-Saxon poem which students of Old English are usually required to read (alas, I have not studied early forms of English myself), Tolkien criticizes many of the scholars of his day for the way they had treated the poem. He says they have used it to dissect the the language, but did not appreciate the poem itself.

“Beowulf has been used as a quarry of fact and fancy far more assiduously than it has been studied as a work of art,” he wrote.

Tolkien describes a tower which has been torn down to study the stones, which were of ancient origin. After pushing over the tower, they criticize “what a muddle” it is, not able to understand why the builder would have made such “a nonsensical tower.” They did not understand “from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea.”

This illustration from Tolkien provides a bit of a glimpse of how I felt about the movie when I first viewed it. I felt they had torn down the tower of his life to examine some noteworthy anecdotes, but had missed the whole purpose of the tower itself. They had missed the complete picture of who Tolkien was.

Or was it I who was missing something?

In an interview with IndieWire published last week, director Dome Karukoski made a statement which, after seeing the movie, I took as rather arrogant:

“We did very, very thorough research, we understand these characters, and the emotional truth of them is very true. To dig out the emotional truth of the characters, you have to try to not hide certain evidence and when you work with an estate what happens is that that kind of gets suffocated. You’re not allowed to do certain things so that the audience can feel an emotion from it.”

Having covered all things Tolkien for many years, I am well aware how stifling the Tolkien Estate can be. However, I was rather perturbed at the notion that Karukoski believed he understood “the evidence” better than Tolkien’s family.

In the meantime, reviews of the movie were appearing on the internet from sources I trust and admire. Most of them (with a couple exceptions) were saying very positive things about the movie. Had I missed something? At that point I didn’t think I had. But, as I often do when I have the chance, I queued up the movie twice more. I was convinced I wouldn’t change my mind. I just couldn’t see my way clear to like the movie. A second viewing didn’t persuade me.

But as they say, the third time is often the charm.

As I watched the film this last time, I began to fall in love with the characters. Were they the characters I had learned about in my reading about Tolkien’s life? Maybe not exactly. There are still some things that bother me in what they did. But I think I’ll keep this review pretty much spoiler-free and maybe examine some of the specifics at a later date. Like when the DVD comes out.

I will say that part of my bewilderment with the film was due to the fact that my vision of who he is is based on a whole life. This biopic depicts the very early part of his life. His writings then were much darker; his later writings were much less so. Even as he wrote The Lord of the Rings as a civilian during World War II, there were glimpses of hope. The filmmakers do only give his Christianity a passing glance. They do not deal with it in a personal way. But, perhaps this is fitting, as his faith probably hadn’t yet become very robust at that point.

A week ago I wouldn’t have recommended this movie. Today I do. It it well worth your time whether you know Tolkien’s background or not. And they do give enough (correct) information to be helpful. Just remember, biopics almost never stick to the facts – most documentaries don’t even do that anymore… if they ever did.

Narnia Goes the Way of Middle-earth: The Netflix Connection

by Leave a Comment

Near the beginning of this month, it was officially announced that a deal has been struck with Netflix to “develop new series and film projects based on C.S. Lewis’ beloved The Chronicles of Narnia series.” It’s been a long time coming. Interestingly, this comes less than a year after Amazon’s announcement about securing a deal to produce a “Lord of the Rings” series about Middle-earth.

Back in October of 2013—five years ago—it was announced that the Mark Gordon Company had secured the rights to produce The Silver Chair. News ever since has been very sparse, but fans of the Chronicles had hoped we would have at least seen a movie in the production stages by now.  Two years ago, we were told Tri-Star had provided financial backing, but still we waited for any news about production going forward. Shortly after the Tri-Star announcement, I posted the news in an article here on Screenfish. I included a timeline of events going back to the announcement of the deal with Walden Media in 2001, which led to the Disney release of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in December of 2005.  Here are a couple other tidbits from the timeline I shared. (For more details, see Planned Narnia Movie ‘The Silver Chair’ Gets Backing from Sony’s Tri-Star and Others.)

  • October 2011 – Douglas Gresham confirmed Walden had pulled out of the Narnia franchise.
  • December 2013 –  The official Narnia.com website published a Press Release that stated David Magee was hired to write the screenplay.

In April of last year, it was announced Joe Johnston would be directing the movie. Johnston has said the plan is to begin filming late in 2019. (See the video at the end of this article.) Whether the Netflix deal means things have changed is not known. Does a multi-movie deal mean they will reboot the franchise and start from the beginning again? That is unknown. The official announcement does mention Mark Gordon is still involved through his Entertainment One company. Sony and Tri-Star are not mentioned, so I assume they have dropped out of the project – although I have no confirmation of this.

Since the Press Release says the deal is for “series and films for its members,” I gather there is going to be nothing produced for the big screen. Will there be seven movies based on the seven Chronicles, with supplemental, non-canonical material created for the “series”? Exactly how this will all pan out remains to be seen. Fans of Narnia wait with with bated breath, hoping Alsan’s breath will bring new life into a dead franchise.

Here’s hoping Netflix gets it right.

 

Ocean’s 8: Win or Washout for Women?

by 1 Comment

In my review of Ocean’s Thirteen, I opined, “The role of women in the Ocean’s movies is, at best, problematic.” I wondered if Ocean’s 8 would “redeem the legacy from its sexist past.” After watching, I’m not sure I know the answer to that.

Unlike the recent remake of Ghostbusters, the all-female-star-cast movie which 8 will always be compared to, this new Ocean’s movie opened June 8 with generally positive reviews and a Want-to-See rating of 80% on Rottentomatoes.com. I have yet to see the 2016 version of Ghostbusters, so I cannot give an opinion on which is better. I am glad we are not seeing the vitriol on the internet the way we did back then.

In the short time the move has been out, ratings are beginning to slip slightly, and the box office numbers seem to be tumbling. There is stiff competition this summer, and none of the heavy hitters are growing legs. It does not help that the audience score has stayed around 50%, about the same as the current score for Ghostbusters 2016.

Even if it’s true Ocean’s 8 is a mediocre movie, is it still a positive milestone for women?  Put another way, is Ocean’s 8 a few small steps in high heels for a small group of women, and a giant leap for womankind? That all depends on who you ask.

Just before the heist, Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) is standing in front of a mirror, either practicing a pep talk for her cohorts, or trying to give one to herself. She rambles on about how prison isn’t so bad, and then gives what is probably the most memorable line in the movie: “Somewhere out there is an eight-year-old girl lying in bed, dreaming of being a criminal. Let’s do this for her.”

Both times I watched the film, the audience (including me) broke out laughing. Is this really the type of thing we want to encourage for young women? Then again, by thinking such a thing, are we accusing Ocean’s 8 while excusing the “boyish pranks” of its predecessors? Pause and think about that a moment.

Anne Hathaway, who plays celebrity Daphne Kluger, must have had the “eight-year-old girl” quote in mind when she responded at a New York Press Conference:

To an 8-year-old girl maybe we’re not saying go have a life a crime, but to go do what you want and there’s space for you. There’s space for you to go do it with your friends, there’s room for all of you. I think that films that have an “everybody in” mentality and message for people who have historically been excluded is a good message for people.

In the same press conference, Bullock added her view that the movie stresses friendships between women.

Also just women taking care of each other. Women being good to each other. Women stepping back and letting the more gifted step forward in the heist and recognizing talent and saying go out and shine, I got your back. I think to me the most important thing was to show I didn’t care about the heist as much as I cared about how they treated each other and how they lifted each other up.

Certainly this is a positive message that can be taken from the movie, but not all critics see it this way. In Britain’s The Spectator, Deborah Ross’ snarky headline makes her opinion obvious: “Women can now make dull formulaic franchise films too! Hurrah!”

Ross simply despises the movie, asserting it has nothing original: “The film is a straight-up-and-down remake, where the gender swap may, in fact, be the best idea, possibly because it’s the only idea… It does not subvert the heist-caper genre in any way but instead follows the formula slavishly.”

While I would agree Ocean’s 8 is not the most brilliant movie ever, I certainly would not go so far as to say it was merely a gender-swap remake with no ideas. One of the best ideas, I thought, was that they made this caper much less complicated than those in the Steven Soderbergh trilogy. There is a reason this is Ocean’s 8 instead of Ocean’s 14. (Debbie’s scratchpad, with the 14 steps of her plan, is a clever bit of trivia in itself.) It doesn’t take 20 women to pull this off, as Lou (Debbie’s partner in crime, played by Cate Blanchett) was thinking it would. They only need 7. Half as many as it would have taken for the men to make Ocean’s 14. (I won’t give away where #8 comes in. You should be able to figure that out pretty quickly.)

At least one reviewer thought the heist was too easy. In a piece for Vanity Fair, Richard Lawson indicated he likes the movie, but that it made things too simple, “paring down the mechanics of its heist and fixing problems quickly and easily.” Some, like 361’s Joe Fiar, added they felt the movie lacked a sense of danger needed in a heist film.

However, in William Bibbiani’s piece for IGN, he argues all the “Ocean’s movies aren’t so much about the heists as they are about making the impossible look easy.” Bibbiani argues that while the Steven Soderbergh films were merely “light escapism,” Gary Ross uses the same easy confidence to transform his movie “into something inspirational.”

Taking the franchise away from the original proprietors who treated it like a lark, and giving it, instead, to female actors who don’t typically get these types of roles has undeniable significance that the characters themselves acknowledge.

Perhaps the fact this movie is so significant to us – whether in a positive or negative way – is an indication we still have far to go in how women are seen in our society. You can’t just say this was a good movie, or a bad movie, without bringing up its significance for women’s causes. Maybe it’s important to do so.

Hopefully someday it won’t be.

Solo: A Star Wars Fan War Continues

by Leave a Comment

Has the Star Wars franchise peaked? Is it running out of steam? If you listen to some of the voices in the fan base, or certain critics, you begin to get that impression.

I don’t think so.

On FilmRejects.com, Max Covill states the film “didn’t connect with audiences.” I’ll address that assertion in a moment. Covill goes on to say why he thinks the movie didn’t live up to box office projections (a bit different assertion):

A few explanations come to mind for what might’ve happened to this latest entry in the Star Wars canon. The biggest of which might be box-office fatigue. The Last Jedi launched in theaters around Christmas time and that meant only five months between the release of Star Wars features. Never in the history of the franchise have movies released that close to one another. Star Wars has always been positioned as an event film. When you make it a common occurrence, it becomes less exciting. Disney might have thought they could get away with it, given how their Marvel movies have been released, but it doesn’t work for Star Wars. The series’ next entry, Episode IX, won’t launch until Christmas 2019. By then, the fever for a new Star Wars feature will be higher than right now for sure.

Covill doesn’t believe the franchise is over, by any means, but that this particular film just doesn’t live up to Star Wars standards. I’ll let you decide for yourself if this is true. Just, please, watch the movie for yourself before you decide if you like it, and then consider what I have to say below.

Before I get into the movie itself, I want to clarify some things about the box office numbers, and the connection with the audience.

  • If you look at the box office records for every Star Wars film which opened on a Memorial Day weekend, Solo is number one. The only other Disney film which did a better box office on that holiday weekend is Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.
  • Solo was the number one domestic movie from the day that it officially came out until Friday, June 8, when Ocean’s 8 (deservedly) took the top spot. Solo was number three, behind the newcomer Hereditary, and still ahead of Deadpool 2 and Avengers: Infinity War. May and June have been very competitive months, and the matchups certainly have hurt the numbers for Solo.
  • Solo is the number 5 box office movie of 2018, hitting that mark in only its second week in theaters.
  • The audience has connected with the movie. As of this writing, Rotten Tomatoes gives it 71% critics score, and a 65% audience score. These are not nearly as high as the scores for Rogue One, but the audience score for Solo is higher than for The Last Jedi. The audience seems to be more critical when it comes to Star Wars films that resurrect main characters, which is understandable. But, while The Last Jedi was much preferred by the critics, Solo is preferred over Last Jedi by the general audience.

So much has been said already about Solo that I have decided to go a little rogue with my review of the film. There will be spoilers ahead, so if you have yet to see the film, I would recommend you view it before continuing. I contend there are some great things in the movie, and I’d hate to spoil the fun. My concentration will be not so much on the plot, but how Solo fits into the Star Wars universe, and whether the harsh criticisms made about it are justified.

When we first meet Han Solo in the 1977 movie which started it all, we meet a jaded man who is all about himself. Leia tells him, “If money is all that you love, then that’s what you’ll receive.” Han has lived the greater portion of his life serving the underworld. He is about survival, and has learned to fear gangsters more than the Empire.

But, as we find out at the end of that movie, there is a “good guy” side to him, too. Han doubts along the way, but he always comes back, becoming an important part of the Rebellion. However, when the New Republic fails, it is no wonder that in The Force Awakens we find back to his old pirate ways. Even then, when he meets up with Rey and Finn, he tell them the stories about The Force are “all true.” There is still a small hope alive in him after all he’s been through.

Ironically, the Han we meet in Solo is hopeful in an era when hope had been lost. He dreams of leaving his taskmasters, with Qi’ra at his side. He is not the jaded man we saw in the original trilogy. He is only interested in money as a means to escape and give himself a chance. Even his experience of war doesn’t completely destroy the altruism which lies beneath the surface. He is happy to let Enfys Nest have the coaxium, even if he is unwilling to join her group, which apparently is a germ of the Rebellion.

Qi’ra, however, has her own agenda. She certainly still has feelings for Han, but not an unconditional, sacrificial love. Nor does she believe Han would love her back if he knew what she had done. She only knows how to use him for her own advantage. At first it looks like Qi’ra betrays Dryden Vos simply because of her love for Han, but she has a more insidious purpose. She wants power.

Qi’ra now takes Dryden Vos’ mantle, and the movie sets itself up for a sequel, or at least a potential television series. It is also revealed Crimson Dawn is under the control of Maul (formerly Darth Maul). Some have complained about Maul’s appearance in the film, but many who have watched the animated series and read the comics know how he fits. If you are interested, here is a good place to start: Star Wars Solo movie: How did Darth Maul survive? What is Crimson Dawn?

The movie ends with Han being betrayed by both Qi’ra and Beckett, whom he shoots first—an obvious reference to the controversy over who shot first in the bar scene in A New Hope. With all he has been through, Han still has a positive attitude. He goes back to beat Lando at his own game, and wins the Millennium Falcon. He then talks about going to Tatooine to work for the Hutts.

Some of you who have made it this far into my piece are asking, “Who cares?” And you have a right to ask. Some of you don’t care about the minutiae of Han Solo’s life; you’d like to just leave him as you knew him in the original trilogy. And that’s fine.

But some of us want to know. We want to know how Han got his last name and what making the Kessel run in 12 parsecs means. (I was delighted to know I was right in saying, all these years, that Han had to be talking about distance, not speed.) We want to know how Han met Chewbacca. We want to know the story about how Han got the Millennium Falcon.

I am one of those guys who actually plodded through The Silmarillion because he wanted to know the backstory. Admittedly, it was not as pleasurable as reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but I’m glad I did it. I’m glad I watched the Star Wars prequels, too. Not because they were top-notch movies; they weren’t. But they satisfied an itch that could not be satisfied any other way. I wanted to know. And there is a certain satisfaction in knowing.

And apparently millions of others wanted to know, too.

Ocean’s Thirteen: Shaking Sinatra’s Hand

by Leave a Comment

Near the beginning of Ocean’s Thirteen, Willie Banks (Al Pacino) muscles Reuben Tishkoff out of his share of a casino, offering Reuben a pittance for his half. Reuben responds:

Everybody said that you would try to screw me. That you done it to every one of your partners. But I defended you. I said, “No! Me and Willy Bank been around long enough… that we both shook Sinatra’s hand. And there’s a code among guys that shook Sinatra’s hand.”

Thirteen is about loyalty. It is about the rest of the “eleven” being loyal to Reuben, and a general “honor among thieves.” Sinatra was known as a celebrity who did not look down on people and genuinely cared about them. He wasn’t like Terry Benedict or Willie Bank, merely using people to get ahead. A couple of quotes on Wikipedia, from an interview in 1963 he did with Playboy, stand out:

I’m for decency — period. I’m for anything and everything that bodes love and consideration for my fellow man.

If you don’t know the guy on the other side of the world, love him anyway because he’s just like you. He has the same dreams, the same hopes and fears. It’s one world, pal. We’re all neighbors.

Sinatra was jaded toward organized religion, but he seems to have a good grasp on how Jesus taught us to treat our fellow human beings. The rumors about his relationship with organized crime persist, by I have the impression if he was your friend, he would be the most loyal friend you could have. People like Bank and Benedict never understand that type of loyalty; they’re, well… Benedict Arnolds.

The phrase “shaking Sinatra’s hand” could also be applied to the movie as a whole. It is the only one of the trilogy which even mentions Frank Sinatra, even though he was the preeminent star of the movie which inspired it. And it is the only movie of the three which includes one of his songs.

Most of the songs Sinatra is famous for are fluff. “This Town” is no exception. As I researched it for this review, I came across the lyrics for a song, also titled “This Town,” by Niall Horan, from the band One Direction. I was amazed how the first verse fit in with the movie.

Waking up to kiss you and nobody’s there
The smell of your perfume still stuck in the air
It’s hard
Yesterday I thought I saw your shadow running round
It’s funny how things never change in this old town
So far from the stars

The first two lines of the song remind us the leading ladies from the last two films are not around. We are told, “It’s not their fight.” Tess and Isabel aren’t really part of the eleven, and are not close enough to Reuben that loyalty would demand they take part. They understand, but neither have liked their partners being involved in criminal activity.

The end of the first verse, however, is just the opposite of the movie. The movie is filled with stars, and a recurring theme is how Vegas has changed—since Sinatra passed on, anyway. Change can either be good or bad.

The first time we run into the word “change” in the movie is when Rusty and Danny get off a private plane. Linus, who is picking them up, asks, “Any change?” He is asking about Rueben’s condition. Reuben has had a heart attack after being cheated by Bank. He has given up hope.

In a flashback, Bank tells Reuben, “The arrangement is changing. Was changed. As a matter of fact, there is no arrangement.” When he is given a casino chip with the words “The Bank Casino” on it, Reuben laments, “You changed the name.”

Bank wanted to effect a change that would devastate Reuben. His friends wanted to affect him in a way that would bring a positive change. Their constant encouragement—especially from their letters—brings him back. Reuben’s health and attitude following adversity changes for the better. His financial situation will also change for the better at the end of the movie.

In a sequence with reminiscences about how kind Reuben was to them, Rusty and Danny remember what Vegas used to be like. Not all change is good. Bigger is not always better.

Rusty: The Sands was there, Desert Inn.
Danny: They built them a lot smaller back then.
Rusty: They seemed pretty big.
Danny: Town’s changed.

At the end of the movie, as Danny talks to Bank about what a rough night the casino owner had (“half a billion running out the door”), Bank retorts that he will quickly bounce back; Danny hasn’t really hurt him. “This town might’ve changed, but not me.”

Bank thinks his unchanging ruthlessness will save him. What he doesn’t realize is the way he treats people has earned him enemies, and Danny’s loyalty has earned him friends. As Danny tells him, “…you shook Sinatra’s hand. You should know better, Willie.”

In the other two movies, after the “bad guy” is taken down, the guy gets the girl. In this movie, the bad guy is left with the girl, and her fate is probably not good. The role of women in the Ocean’s movies is, at best, problematic. Tess and Isabel end up partners with criminals, although Danny and Rusty are at least loyal criminals. Not the worst choice the ladies could have made, but not exactly a wise choice, either.

Abigail Sponder (Ellen Barkin) not only works for the worst of the bad, but she allows herself to be manipulated into unknowingly betraying him. She is a specimen of two of the worst stenotypes of women: both the heartless bitch and the oversexed slut. As the only major female character in the film, this is a travesty.

This weekend, Ocean’s 8 opens with the title roles all being portrayed by women. Will this movie redeem the legacy from its sexist past? We shall see.

A Wrinkle in Time: To What Planet Has Disney Taken Us?

by Leave a Comment

In March, I wrote a piece on Madeleine L’Engle’s book A Wrinkle in Time. The movie had already been out for several weeks when my book review was published. Due to my busy schedule around that time, I was unable to see the film until it came out on digital last Tuesday (it is now out on DVD and Blu-ray). I had hopeful, yet tempered expectations as I sat down to watch the film, even though the movie has been lambasted on the internet by film critics and the general public. There were some exceptions, including a positive review here on ScreenFish, but even these had reservations about the film.

I am surprised how well I enjoyed Wrinkle–at least the majority of it before the mention of Camazotz. I was pretty much confused and perturbed by how that planet was handled (more on that later).

Recently there has been an emphasis on pro-woman movies–some of them more successful than others. This Friday, Ocean’s Eight comes out in theaters, featuring an all-female cast portraying the “eight.” How well women are portrayed in that Ocean’s film remains to be seen. (Women were not portrayed very well in the Ocean’s trilogy. Hopefully I’ll have more to say about that later this week in my upcoming review of Thirteen.)

One thing I liked about A Wrinkle in Time, both the film and the book, is the emphasis on women. I wonder if part of the blowback L’Engle received regarding her book was because it has such strong female characters. And I am not just talking about the W’s. In both venues, Mrs. Murry is a brilliant scientist in her own right, not just her husband. We forget how radical an idea that was in the 1960’s when the book was written, not to mention that many still harbor the stereotype of what a woman “should be” today. Furthermore, Meg certainly is the main protagonist. In your list of modern pro-women movies, don’t forget to list Wrinkle.

Another aspect of the film I enjoyed was the development of the characters. Through both the chronological storytelling and flashbacks, we are shown who the characters are and what makes them tick. We are shown Meg being bullied, not just told she was. We are shown Charles Wallace sticking up for his sister, not just told he loves her. We are shown Mr. Murry being ridiculed by his peers, which helps us understand his motivation for experimenting with tessering and leaving his family. Calvin’s relationship with his father is shown in a palpable way by giving us a glimpse of one of their confrontations. Put this movie on your list of films which do a good job of character development.

I also appreciated the beauty and cinematography of the film. I loved the picturesque nature of Planet Uriel. When Mrs. Whatsit changes form, I was not too disappointed her anatomy was not that of a Centaur. Whatever she was, it was graceful and beautiful.

It is on Uriel, both in the book and in the movie, that we first hear of the blackness invading the universe. However, when asked what it was, Mrs. Which says it is Camazotz, the IT. However, in the book, she calls it The Black Thing. The movie conflates The Black Thing, Camazotz, and the IT. Perhaps the moviemakers thought this would be easier to grasp for a younger audience, but I think it only confuses things and makes the story weaker.

Instead of a world which is brainwashed into everyone being the same, Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin are told Camazotz is a place where nothing is as it seems. In the book, Camazotz is not about being fooled by physical illusions, but the presumption that making everyone the same in order to bring peace and safety is the only worthy ultimate goal. In a movie which emphasizes the importance of diversity by the way it was cast, I am surprised they really missed that point at the end of the movie.

Unless I am missing something.

In the Bonus Content released with the digital version of the film, producer Catherine Hand, who worked for years to bring this film to production, comments on the theme of diversity:

In all the years I spent with Madeleine L’Engle, talking about A Wrinkle in Time, she told me that the most important line to her in the book was, “Like and equal are not the same thing at all!” And when [director] Ava [DuVernay] said she wanted a cast that was diverse, it was the embodiment of why she wrote this book.

Whether the casting choices were enough to convey L’Engle’s “most important line” while taking out that line and changing the focus of the ending, I’ll leave for you to decide.

Ocean’s Twelve: The Greatest Don’t Always Win

by Leave a Comment

In Ocean’s Eleven, Danny Ocean gets back the wife who had left him. (For a list of actors playing “the eleven,” see my previous review, Ocean’s Eleven: Danny’s Perfect Hand.) In Ocean’s Twelve, it’s Rusty Ryan’s turn to get back the girl.

At the beginning of the movie, Rusty is seen with Isabel Lahiri, who we find out later is the Senior Agent for Europol’s Organized Crime Unit. She is telling him about the evidence they have been collecting related to the Bulgari Heist—evidence which he knows would implicate him. In a preemptive move, he pretends to take a shower and escapes out the window.

Back in America, Danny and Jess are living under the aliases of Mr. and Mrs. Miguel Diaz. They are about to celebrate their “second third anniversary,” so we know they are remarried and it’s been over three years since he got out of jail.

Danny is in the city casing a bank and a jewelry store. He had talked to his wife about “easing back into society,” but he can’t keep from coming up with new schemes. Back home, Tess is having the house redecorated. Her banter with the housepainter about color (“That’s too oxblood…”) is a reference to her role in the 2003 movie, Mona Lisa Smile—one of the many inside jokes in the film. While she is talking to Danny on the phone, Terry Benedict and his two goons show up, and she warns him, trying to remember the line they have obviously rehearsed: “There is water in the basement, and the pilot light is out.”

Fortunately, Terry and his thugs are not there to harm her, but (unfortunately) to convey an ultimatum: Danny and his crew have two weeks to pay back all the money they stole from him, with interest, or they would be dead. Tess tells him he will never find the eleven.

But Benedict already knows where they are.

Terry catches up with Turk and his brother at an engagement dinner for Virgil. The bride will have to wait. Casey Affleck was just engaged to his long-time girlfriend, Summer Phoenix, a couple months before shooting began for the film.

The next scene shows Yen in a luxury apartment with his supermodel girlfriend. They are arguing over her photographer and money. Mixed in with scenes about the Eleven getting found by Terry Benedict, this scene seems out of place since there is no mention of the ultimatum. It does explain what Yen has been spending his money on, though.

Benedict intrudes upon Frank in a beauty salon. This is a reference to Bernie Mac’s obsession with looking flawless. In a 2003 interview with Time magazine, when asked if he were a “metrosexual,” Bernie told Rebecca Winters, “I get facials. I get a manicure and pedicure every week. I get my hair cut, and I oil myself down from head to toe.”

Basher is in the midst of a recording session when he is confronted by Benedict. The scene has Basher talking to an engineer about having to re-record songs in order play them on the radio. A noise in the studio bleeps out the foul language they are using. This scene could be a response to the M rating the Australian Classification Board gave Ocean’s Eleven.  (The M rating is advisory only, indicating the movie is appropriate for teens 15 and over. The U.S. MPAA rating was PG-13.)

Linus Caldwell is shown in a car with Benedict. He asks Terry not to mention this incident to his father. This adds another tidbit to who Bobby Caldwell might be.

Saul Bloom finds out he has been made when his credit card is rejected, and the waiter tells him Saul’s “business manager,” Terry Benedict, says he would understand.

Livingston Dell is working as a stand-up comic when he finds out he has been discovered. (And not by a talent scout.)

Reuben is getting his palm read when Benedict’s goons drop in. This, of course, leads to his line, “This? You couldn’t see this?” Elliott Gould was a known client of the famous fortune teller, Marie Castello.

In the next scene Rusty meets up with Topher Grace, one of the stars he was teaching to play poker in the previous movie. Topher says a girl is driving him crazy, and he left the show—an obvious reference to the relationship of Eric and Donna in That 70’s Show. There is also a reference to his appearance in the Dennis Quaid movie, In Good Company.  While with Topher, Rusty gets a call from Benedict, who tells him, “I’ve been asked to show restraint. Otherwise, you would’ve gone out to your favorite car of all that you own, and as soon as you turned on the ignition…” At this point, his 1963 Thunderbird blows up.

So, why doesn’t he just off them then and there? It seems Terry Benedict is not the only one who has been looking for Ocean’s Eleven.

Benedict has been looking to find the Eleven in order to exact revenge. But these is another looking for them out of arrogance and envy. The Night Fox, who we find out is Baron François Toulour, is the protégé of Gaspar LeMarc, famous for stealing the Fabergé Coronation Egg. After the Benedict Heist, LeMarc admires Ocean’s Eleven, which insults Toulour’s pride. LeMarc tells him it is impossible to know if either Danny or the Night Fox is the “greatest thief in the world,” so they devise a plan to force Danny’s attention, and get him to agree to a contest to find out who is the greatest.

Cons are best executed on the arrogant. That is why the Ocean’s Eleven plan worked so well against the prideful Terry Benedict. And that is why Danny will win this “game.” As with Ocean’s Eleven, the audience is also being conned. As with any good mystery story, the viewer is being misdirected. A couple years ago, a blogger named Andrew from New Zealand wrote about why he thought Ocean’s Twelve was “genius.” He showed how the movie was all about being conned.

  • The Night Fox is conning Ocean’s Eleven (so he thinks) with an un-winnable challenge.
  • Ocean’s Eleven are conning the Night Fox so he will pay off Benedict, having already won his challenge.
  • Le Marc is conning the Night Fox (we find out later).
  • Le Marc is (openly) conning Ocean’s Eleven to get the egg and his daughter from them all for nothing.
  • Ocean’s Eleven are conning Isabel to make their con of the Night Fox more believable.
  • Isabel is conning the Italian police out of their resources, like father like daughter.
  • Isabel is conning Nagel into betraying Rusty.
  • The Night Fox is conning Benedict into shepherding Ocean’s Eleven right to his doorstep.
  • Le Marc is conning Isabel by playing dead and hiding the fact that he is her father.
  • Linus’ Mom is conning Isabel out of her prisoners.
  • Danny is conning Tess into experiencing the world of the con artist, so she can see why he doesn’t want to retire.
  • Rusty is conning Isabel to win her back.
  • Rusty is conning Ocean’s Eleven by hiding Isabel from them.
  • The Night Fox is conning Matsui into hiring Ocean’s Eleven for a job that puts them right where he wants them.
  • Either the Night Fox or Le Marc or both are conning van de Woude out of his stock certificate.

and perhaps the most entertaining running joke of all,

  • Ocean’s gang are all conning the amateur Linus about feeling important!!

Andrew goes on to analyze the film’s intricate details, showing this is not just a “popcorn movie.” What is amazing to me, however, is despite the intricacies of the movie, it also can be enjoyed as a “popcorn movie.” It may have the traits of a great detective novel, but it is also just plain fun to watch. Pulling off both puts it a notch higher for me.

There are, however, a couple holes which the details don’t seem to explain: Why did Saul go to Amsterdam? He had bowed out of the plan, and he wasn’t needed to get Tess there. And there is also the question of why Benedict doesn’t just go after them after he gets his money. Is it the whole “honor among thieves” thing? Benedict doesn’t seem to be the type of guy who has any scruples at all—even the scruples of thieves.

When you live the life of a con, you never know when someone is going to turn on you. You may get the girl back, as Rusty does, but you are never truly free. Even if the government authorities don’t get you, your associates just might turn on you.

The world is trying to con us. People everywhere are trying to manipulate us into playing their game so they can prove they’re the greatest. The truth isn’t easy to find.

How can we know when we’re being conned? Sometimes we will just be wrong. But when it comes to the things that really matter, Jesus had some words of encouragement – if we will be honest with ourselves, and put away our arrogance.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” [John 8:31-32]

Jesus was not a con man. If you want to know the truth about the things that really matter, follow Jesus and His teachings. In the context of John 8, there were those who could not understand because they were arrogant. We must set aside out preconceived ideas and listen with open minds. That’s when the truth will set us free. Free indeed.

Ocean’s Eleven: Danny’s Perfect Hand

by Leave a Comment

George Clooney is ubiquitous. Last week we all saw him at Prince Harry and Megan’s wedding. He looked as much a part of a fairy tale as the wedding itself – suave and handsome, with his young wife on his arm. The Daily Express ran a story that same day with the opening line: “GEORGE Clooney and his stunning wife Amal stole the show at the Royal Wedding in Windsor today.” George seems to have it all. But at the beginning of Ocean’s Eleven, his character, Danny Ocean, has lost it all. His wife had left him before he was sent to prison. And he describes how the distraction of that loss led to him being caught in his latest illegal caper.

The parole board gives him his freedom, but freedom isn’t enough. He wants to get his wife back, and he has devised a plan to do that – and make a bit of cash in the process. Danny finds out his old partner in crime, Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) is teaching movie stars* how to play poker. He decides to sit in on a game, and takes them for a bundle when Rusty thinks he is bluffing. Afterward Danny tells Rusty about the proposed heist, and Rusty asks why he wants to do it. Ocean responds:

Because the house always wins. You play long enough and never change the stakes, the house takes ya. Unless, when that perfect hand comes along, you bet big. And then you take the house.

Danny believes the plan he has devised is the perfect hand. The scheme is a complicated one, and will require some help. Of course. How else could you have a heist movie called “Ocean’s Eleven”? Besides Danny and Rusty, here are the other nine, and their roles in the caper.

  1. Frank Catten (Bernie Mac) – Frank is a blackjack dealer in New Jersey at the beginning of the movie. Ocean’s old associate, he tells him how to find Rusty. He has been using an alias (Ramón) so he can work in casinos. In order to participate in the heist as an insider, he requests a transfer to a “warmer, drier climate” due to “allergies.”
  2. Saul Bloom (Carl Reiner) – Saul has been out of prison for a year, and says he is now a “changed man,” wanting no part of the deal. However, when he finds out the amount of money involved, he’s in. Saul poses as Lyman Zerga, an arms dealer from Europe. He asks casino owner Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) to secure his briefcase in the vault. The briefcase contains large fake jewels which have been filled with explosives. The purpose is not only to get the explosives into the vault, but to provide an opportunity to get into the security room. Saul will fake his death† in order to distract the security team so the team can change the video feed without the guards detecting it.
  3. Reuben Tishoff (Elliot Gould) – He tells Danny no one has ever successfully robbed a Las Vegas Casino.‡ He wants no part in it until he learns the casinos belong to Terry Benedict, who had muscled Reuben out of a share in a casino that Benedict is now tearing down. (Danny can be seen reading an article about this near the beginning of the movie.)
  4. Livingston Dell (Eddie Jemison) – With a name like Dell, Livingston has to be the electronics guy. He is rather a klutz, which makes for some melodramatic moments. His responsibilities include tapping into the security system. He has to draw a map of the secure area of the casino on his hand to find his way, and almost gets lost when the map becomes smeared from wiping the sweat off his brow.
  5. Yen (Qin Shaobo) – This short Chinese acrobat is recruited as the “Grease man.” He will hide inside a cash cart in order to get inside the vault.

8. & 9. Virgil and Turk Malloy (Casey Affleck and Scott Caan) – These brothers are the getaway drivers, and also deliver the cart – where Yen is hidden – to the security doors, pretending to have forgotten their access card. Security takes the cart the rest of the way so they won’t make a scene or alert Benedict that there is a problem.

  1. Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle) – Basher is the munitions expert. His job is to take out the electrical power to the town. After wading through the sewers he finds out what he had planned had already been thwarted by changes being made to the grid. Covered in sewage, he tells his comrades (of course) “We’re in deep s**t!” However, he is able to come up with an alternate plan using a “pinch”—a device which delivers an electronic pulse which will put out the power for about thirty seconds.
  2. Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon) – Linus is recruited by Danny in Chicago, where Linus makes a “living” pick-pocketing. His father is a legendary con artist, Bobby Caldwell, a friend of Danny. When part of the crew goes to steal the “pinch,” he is left in the van with the brothers, who are acting like… brothers. Linus is annoyed with their banter, so he leaves the vehicle and is nearly caught. This results in Yen’s hand being slammed in the rear door, further jeopardizing the plan. Linus also poses as a Nevada Gaming Commission officer, exposing “Ramón” as an ex-con. This is a distraction while the heist is going down.

All the pieces of an intricate puzzle are now in place. Everyone must play their part, and, if all goes as planned, the eleven will walk away with equal shares of $160 million. But money is not the prime motivator for Danny. He is willing to be exposed in order to get the girl. There is no other way. But in exposing himself, he also plans to expose Terry Benedict for who he is, and, at the very least, show Tess (Julia Roberts) she needs to leave Terry.

It works. Tess finds out money is more important to Terry than she is. In the end, all Danny gives up is a few bruises from a staged fight and “three to six months” in jail for violating his parole. It could have been worse. The house could have been holding cards which could beat his two pair and an Ace, but Danny played the hand anyway, putting everything on the line. And he won big. Or will Benedict catch up to him? At the end of the movie we see Terry’s thugs tailing Danny, Rusty and Tess… but we have to wait for Ocean’s 12 to find out what happens.

Stephen Solderberg, who directed this picture, is known for films of a more serious nature, including the Julia Roberts movie, Erin Brockovich. I like the way Roger Ebert described the switch in his review.

Serious pianists sometimes pound out a little honky-tonk, just for fun. That’s like what Steven Soderbergh is doing in “Ocean’s Eleven.” This is a standard genre picture, a remake of the 1960 Frank Sinatra caper, and Soderbergh, who usually aims higher, does it as a sort of lark. It’s slick, all right: directors this good don’t usually handle material this routine. It has yearnings above its natural level, as if hoping to redeem itself and metamorphose into a really good movie.

Sometimes bit of “honky-tonk” is what you need. Sometimes we need to leave our seriousness and just have a bit of fun. In that spirit, I will leave off trying to end this review with some quasi-preachy ending. Take from the movie what you will. Just don’t forget to have fun. (Is that too preachy?)

______________________________________________________

 

*The “movie stars” are well known television personalities from the 1990s: Holly Marie Combs (Piper from Charmed), Topher Grace (Eric from That ‘70s Show), Joshua Jackson (Pacey from Dawson’s Creek), Barry Watson (Matt from 7th Heaven), and Shane West (Eli from Once and Again).

†Saul’s “death” is reminiscent of Tony’s death in the 1960 version of Ocean’s 11. In earlier scenes, he is shown to be suffering from stomach ulcers, and almost faints in the hotel just before he leaves to meet Benedict the last time. This makes the “death” scene all the more poignant for the audience, since it has not been let in on the details.

‡Actually, Vegas casinos have been robbed numerous times. For some of the most notorious, see The ten most daring casino heists in history.