ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

AppleTV+

Political Gain (and Games): 1on1 with Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine (BOYS STATE)

by Leave a Comment

The political world is filled with men and women who both seek power for the sake of serve and help others or, more negatively, out of a need to self-validate by winning. Pending on the candidate’s goals and intentions, they can prove themselves to be agents for positive change or simply succumb to the immaturity of their youth.

But what does it look like when youth are the ones with the political power?

Directed by Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine, the new documentary Boys State takes the viewer behind the scenes at Boys State, a summer leadership program for teenage men, developed by The American Legion. (The film indicates that there is also a Girls State program but the filmmakers opt to only follow the boys.) With over a thousand teenage boys in attendance, the youth are challenged to build a representative government from the ground up. As the young men nominate and elect candidates, they also must decide what means—and requires—to win. Asked how they discovered Boys State, Moss claims that their interest was piqued back in 2017 when the events of the camp garnered national attention.

“We feel lucky to have stumbled upon Boys State as a prism to look at American politics and democracy today,” Moss begins. “We didn’t have the benefit of participating in the program as young people growing up in California. I just didn’t know about it. It wasn’t until we read about the program the Texas Boys State program, having voted to secede from the union becoming something of a scandal [in 2017] in the national news [that it] caught our eye. That was at a time that we, like a lot of Americans, were struggling to understand the irreconcilable political division in our country and how have we gotten to this point? What’s our way forward? I think [we saw] in Boys State and Texas, potentially a prism to look at these questions and look at how susceptible young men are to sort of the rhetoric of the moment and what they may offer us as a hope forward.” 

When the boys first arrive, they are split between two political parties, the Federalists and the Nationalists. However, despite the division, they are given no other political guidelines or priorities to build upon. Left to decide for themselves what they value, it’s fascinating to see how different the political ideologies can be amongst the youth. In developing their film, political diversity became a high priority for McBaine and Moss as they chose their subjects to follow.

“When we did find out about this program, we loved the idea that there’s this space where kids with politics to the right and to the left, [who] are [invited] and forced to come together and talk politics face to face,” McBaine explains. “There are so few of those spaces left, maybe not even the Thanksgiving table anymore in a family. So, we knew going in that it was going to be fraught and we hoped it would be. We knew it would be uncomfortable. It would be really interesting to see what went down if they voted to secede in 2017, what the heck were they going to do in 2018? But there’s 1,100 kids who were invited to attend every year and that’s a lot of people.” 

“We knew the only way we were going to be able to survive this event as something occurs and as a crew trying to cover it, but also emotionally. The kind of films we make really are character driven. We wanted to immerse ourselves with a small group, and we wanted that small group to have a diversity of not only background in life experience, but also different politics. So, we worked very hard over three months, criss-crossing Texas, and filming with lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of boys, until we found the four that we do end up following through the program, all of whom are very different and surprise us. We’re very lucky we found the four that we did.”

Although Boys State seems to consist of a form of hyperreality of the political world, it does offer a window into the machinations of backroom Washington and the games that are often played behind the scenes. However, given the age of the participants, it begs the question of whether or not the young men took their experience seriously. While the sheer number of youth ensured a range in maturity, Moss claims that he was impressed just how important the experience was to many of the boys.

“I think there was both [mature and immature youth]. Actually, what’s interesting is you see both embodied in Robert himself,” he points out. “[Robert’s] not sure if he should take the process seriously or play to the cheap seats. I love that sort of just to work it out for himself and he realizes that he’s miscalculated and that Steven has actually taken it more seriously than he has. I love that discovery (Robert’s discovery and our discovery) that he’s been trying to figure it out. We were attracted to young men who take politics seriously. No doubt, all of them do. Robert had been a page in the U S Senate. Stephen had worked on political campaigns. Ben, as you know, had a Ronald Reagan doll on his bookshelf and is a political junkie. Renee is already like a grownup and taking activism and politics seriously. So we connected with their serious commitment to the political process and caring about it. No doubt that we saw boys that don’t take it seriously. You see them pass legislation about Prius drivers going to Oklahoma and pineapple pizza. That’s funny, but then actually got serious. I think that tension in Robert, in the group (and maybe our country as a whole) is really sort of reflective, right? It is actually kind of where we’re at. People want to go to Washington and blow up the system, whatever that means. We’re left with a bunch of rubble or they want to kind of come together and figure it out. Those ideologies are in contest at Boys State and exaggerated form.” 

“They’re also 17, right?” reminds McBaine. “We’re also making a coming-of-age film. I think that straddle of boyhood and headed towards manhood thing is a space we also wanted to visit frankly and check in with. So, to some degree, the serious unserious is part of their everyday in everything they do, let alone what happens.”

Similarly, one of the most fascinating explorations within Boys State becomes the drive for power. Although being elected within their system offers no real weight outside of Boys State, the drive to victory becomes a purpose unto itself for many of the youth. Asked what they saw regarding the pressure of obtaining power, Moss feels their experience shows that, while some people are simply willing to do whatever it takes to win, others do understand the importance of serving in political office.

“I think no doubt this kind of lust for power for power sake is something we’re living with and the consequences of that now in a very profound and unsettling way,” says Moss. “I love the moment where Steven has asked, ‘What is the purpose of a politician?’ (He’s campaigning for signatures on his ballot.) He says ‘To serve others and not themselves.’ That simple and yet profound definition is something we all need to remind ourselves about. I think you see it in Ben (and he would recognize it now himself with some perspective) that there’s a kind of corrosive aspect to winning an election at all costs for the sake of winning. He really embodies that in his strategy and his tactics. He’s brilliant at it. He even invokes some military kind of metaphors and talks about politics and winning as combined arms warfare, sort of exaggerated kind of violence to politics. So, confronting that and actually hearing Ben’s direct bluntness about it was shocking. But I think also what gave us hope was to see young men of color like Renee and Steven who have very different politics than the mainstream at Boys State rise to power because they have a positive vision. That sort of power for a purpose, if you will, was very hopeful for us to see not only them offer that vision, but to see their vision return in the support of the electorate.”

Since the experience consists of 1,100 young men battling for political gamesmanship, the film also feels like a window into youthful (and potentially toxic) masculinity. Filmed at the time surrounding the MeToo movement of 2018, McBaine notes that, while she didn’t know what to expect, she was encouraged by what she saw in some of the young men.

“We went with all these questions about democracy and hyperpolarization, and what are [the next generation are] taking in, and what they’re seeing in adult state,” she clarifies. “I think what we didn’t quite realize until we got into the room with 1,100 boys, that we also had this incredible window into boyhood. [It was] 2018. I guess if I thought hard enough beforehand, I would have realized this is what we’re going to see, but not until I got there did I really have to confront that we were making a film about masculinity on some level. I’ve never been in a space like that. Myself and two other cinematographers I think we were the only females for miles around. There was plenty on display there that kind of met my expectations for good or for bad about what I would see.” 

“In checking in on boyhood in 2018, around the era of MeToo, around conversations about toxic masculinity [and] what they’re seeing in politics in Washington, I knew I was going to see a certain amount of it. Some of it was going to scare the heck out of me and some of it was going to upset me. What I wasn’t totally prepared for—and I love this about what I do for a living—is that I then also saw and experienced all kinds of masculinity I hadn’t expected to see. And that really did involve a lot more empathy. Not just from Steven, this was really in a lot more spaces around the event than I thought, [with] listening and real emotion, frankly. It was an emotional week that I didn’t think was going to be an emotional week. That too has power in that space, and truly profound power. The connections that were made between some of these boys was really heartening, frankly and made me less worried about the men of the future… We want to do [Girls State] next. I don’t really have any good intel on what happens in those spaces yet, but we plan to soon.” 

When he considers whether or not their experience at Boys State has changed their view of the current political system, Moss believes that the film shows the type of maturity and growth within the participants that gives him hope for the future.

“I think we both wanted, on some level, a Hollywood ending to our story,” Moss reflects. “Actually, it was a process to accept what the outcome was, but we found it actually ultimately very uplifting that it’s a struggle. Stephen will continue to fight for what he believes in and he has so much to offer both in he himself, um, but in what he embodies and will inspire in others. Renee as well, what’s also been great to see is how much reflection Ben has brought to his behavior two years ago at Boys’ State and now he recognizes the corrosive impact of such politics on our body politic. He’s really disavowed that kind of politicking and the gamesmanship. I think that kind of moral growth we need as a country, he shown us in person, and that’s also really hopeful. Just the fact that we can still all get together, Ben, Renee, Steven, Robert, and kind of talk in a small form embodies what I hope for us as a country. We may not agree on everything, but at least come together and find out as Steven would say, what can we agree on? I’m sure there is something.”

Boys State is available on AppleTV+ now.

Boys State: Politicizing Youth

by Leave a Comment

“I think he’s a fantastic politician… but I don’t think fantastic politician is a compliment either.” – Rene Otero, Boys State

Streaming on AppleTV+, the new documentary Boys State takes the viewer behind the scenes at Boys State, a summer leadership program for teenage boys, developed by The American Legion. (The film indicates that there is also a Girls State program but the filmmakers opt to only follow the males.) With over a thousand teenagers in attendance, the youth are challenged to build a representative government from the ground up. As the young men nominate and elect candidates, they also must decide what means—and requires—to win at the game of politics.

Boys State

Produced and directed by Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine, State is a fascinating look at both the inner-workings of the US political system and the poisonous effects of power. While the film may focus on one week of ‘camp’ for teenage boys, it feels like a fly on the wall of the American political sanctum. Featuring all the battles between moral judgments and political power that one would expect within the world of the US government, Boys State is both a terrifying look at the corrupting nature of power and a glimmer of hope that the next generation of leaders will set right the mistakes of the past. 

While the week begins with the teens bringing the expected amount of youthful exuberance into the political process (like, for example, attempting to secede Texas from the US), things eventually begin to take a turn as process progresses. As the race for Governor begins to pick up steam, things become far more serious behind the scenes as candidates begin to move away from youthful chaos into political positioning. As smear campaigns, double speak and blind dedication to ‘whatever the Party agrees on’ begin to arise in backroom conversations, the teens begin to sound less like youth and more like their adult counterparts on Capitol Hill. (In fact, one candidate even goes so far as to mention that his primary impulse for entering into the race is not about serving others but simply to fulfill his own need to ‘win’.) In doing so, State becomes an example of how the drive for power can corrupt at any age when winning turn out to be the primary objective.

At the same time, while some candidates become obsessed with achieving their goals for personal glory, State also shows that there are some candidates who remain committed to victory through honourable means. In the face of political maneuverings, some youth are willing to maintain their character in a healthy manner. But can they win that way? In many ways, the greatest—and most terrifying—question within Boys State is not whether or not the youth will resort to ‘dirty campaign tricks’ but whether or not keeping their integrity will bring victory in the end. 

In this way, State feels like a film that features a battle for the soul of a nation. If the young men selected to participate Boys State see the importance of integrity in their politicians, maybe the next generation will also consider that a high value. If not, it stands to reason that little will change in the future. As a result, Boys State may focus on a week of camp for teenage boys but, in actuality, the film is about much more than that. As these young men fight for power amongst their peers, their decisions may also offers a glimpse into the future, whether its bleak or hopeful.

Boys State premieres on Apple TV+ on July 17th, 2020.

To hear audio of our interview with directors Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine, click here.

Boys State – Political Gamesmanship

by Leave a Comment

Can 1,100 high school senior boys form an efficient state government? Each summer, the American Legion sponsors week-long camps known as Boys State (as well as separate Girls State) in every state that bring together a wide mix of high school students to learn what goes into elections and government. In Boys State, filmmakers Jesse Moss and Amanda McBride take us to the 2018 version of Boys State in Texas. As these young men play out the process of party politics, it reveals some interesting things about our political system. The film was awarded the Grand Jury Prize for documentary at Sundance Film Festival this year.

Ben Feinstein

The film opens with a title card with a quotation from George Washington’s Farewell Address: “[Political parties] are likely to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.” Boys State is geared around a two-party system, although not ideologically based, as with Democrats and Republicans. Instead these young men are randomly divided into two parties, Federalist and Nationalist. It is up to each party to determine its platform, issues, and select candidates for an election. In essence, the parties are teams vying to win a political game.

The film focuses on four key characters as the week plays out. Ben Feinstein is a Reagan loving conservative. He’d like to join the armed services, but as a double amputee that’s not possible. Perhaps he’ll try for the CIA or FBI. Steven Garza is a progressive son of immigrants. After the Parkland school shooting he organized a gun control march in Houston. Robert MacDougall is good looking, athletic, outgoing—a typical high school A-lister. His dream is to go to West Point. René Otero is an African-American who has only recently arrived in Texas from Chicago. Ben becomes the Party Chair for the Federalist. René is his counterpart for the Nationalists. Steve and Robert are rivals for the Nationalist gubernatorial nomination.

Steven Garza

As the week plays on, we watch as the political process becomes more and more like real life. There are chaotic party meetings with challenges to leadership, there are smear campaigns, there are rousing speeches, an admission from one candidate that he will say what he thinks others want to hear, even if it is different than his own beliefs, and an example of a would be leader who wants to work cooperatively, but will maintain his integrity.

Because this is Boys State with rooms full of 17 year-olds, there is a lot of testosterone in the room. And because it is Texas, the predominant ideology is conservative, especially in terms of issues relating to guns and abortion. It would be interesting to see what issues would come up and how they would be handled at Girls State and in blue states.

Robert MacDougall

One of the things that attracted the filmmakers to Texas Boys State was that the year previous, the Texas Boys State government voted to secede from the US. That issue is brought up again in this film, and it is interesting to see how the student leader dealt with the issue to prevent another such occurrence.

A cynical viewer might watch the film and be discouraged that the political gamesmanship puts so much emphasis on winning per se over ideas and character. But there are also signs of hope. Steve, in one of his wonderfully crafted and impassioned speeches, asks his listeners to be united and show the adults how things can be done. Perhaps he seems a bit idealistic, but as we head into the current political season, Boys State might make a good primer for us to use in considering the way we see real politicians acting. Will we see them with cynical eyes, or have idealistic hope in what could be?

René Otero

After a virtual theatrical opening, Boys State will be streamed on Apple TV+.

To hear audio of our interview with directors Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine, click here.

Photos courtesy of Apple Originals.

Battle of the Soul: 1on1 with Aaron Schneider (GREYHOUND)

by Leave a Comment

You simply don’t ignore a phone call from Tom Hanks.

As the director of the latest WWII epic, Greyhound, Aaron Schneider was thrilled to have the opportunity to work with Tom Hanks in bringing the story to life. Featuring a screenplay written by Hanks himself, Greyhound transports the viewer back to February 1942 and follows the journey of U.S. Navy Cmdr. Ernest Krause (Hanks). For his first war-time command, Krause is assigned to lead an Allied convoy across the Atlantic during World War II. Forced to travel without air support across the area known as the ‘Black Pit’, his convoy is suddenly pursued by German U-boats. Despite his anxiety about the situation, Krause must remain steadfast and committed to his crew if he is to successfully lead his convoy across the Atlantic to safety. 

While he was thrilled to partner with Hanks on the project, the primary appeal of the film to Schneider was the opportunity to help the iconic actor bring his passion project to reality.

“[When] you get a hold of a Tom Hanks-starring WWII script, the filmmaker in you gets excited right away,” he admits. “But what really drew me in was that Tom had written it, not just the novelty of that [either]. I had made a short film early in my career, called Two Soldiers… It was fun and a little scary, but it’s what I wanted to do. It turned out great! We were honored with an Oscar for our effort and it was the beginning of my director’s career.” 

“When you’re inside of it though, you don’t know any of that. All you know is that you’re trying something new. So, when I saw Tom’s name as screenwriter, my first thought was, ‘Oh my gosh, Tom Hanks is a big movie star and yes, he’s done it all. But I wonder if this is something new and a little scary and a little challenging for him, the way my film was.’ How cool would that be? That I could sort of help out a filmmaker like Tom with something that’s personal [and] new to him. Just the idea of helping a filmmaker do something different sounded like even more fun than just making a movie with Tom. That’s what it turned out to be. It was a passion project [that] he’d been sort of secretly building behind the scenes over time, when the mood struck him. He finally debuted it and here it was falling into my lap. So, that was very exciting and that’s what drove me.” 

Based on C.S. Forrester’s classic book, The Good Shepherd, Greyhound may not be a true story but it is based on actual events. In his research and preparation for the film, Schneider was amazed by the stories that he heard and sought to be as historically accuracy as possible.

“I’ve read [that] some people kind of wish it was true story, as if somehow that would affect their enjoyment of the film,” he muses. “The truth of the matter is that I started doing lots of research when I came on the project. One of the first things I began to learn is that every ship in that convoy and Naval engagement is based on an actual event. There’s a story out there about [the drive-by of the sub] happening and the guns not being able to tilt down far enough. In the real-life story, men even started picking up Coca-Cola bottles and potatoes and throwing them at the sub. As it turned out, somebody recalling the event said that the Germans thought the potatoes were grenades and it kept them from manning their guns. One of the destroyers in Greyhound had a history too. I was doing historical research and sure enough, I said, ‘Oh, my goodness, C.S. Forrester has basically borrowed the history of this real-life destroyer in terms of giving it its backstory in the book. So, it’s a fictionalized story and a fictional character that uses many of the many real-life events and stories from actual battles as a foundation.”

Though Hanks’ career has brought him to WWII on several occasions, this was Schneider’s first attempt at re-creating this period of history. Asked if there was anything in particular that he learned from the experience, Schneider says that the most meaningful aspect was seeing for himself the level of hard work and sacrifice that was required from those who served.

“It was a crash course. You look back at the heroes of WWII, and you already know that they sacrificed,” Schneider points out. “You already honor the heroism. But it isn’t until you get inside of it, research it and your job is to dramatize what made that job so hard to do. It took all those things, the difficulties, the hardships, the challenges, the talent that it took, the commitment, it took just to do the job, let alone win the war. So, I’d say that was probably the biggest lesson for me is submersing myself in this tin can, this ship, learning how it works and learning all of its moving parts and how they had to work together to succeed. That was probably the most meaningful lesson to me because it wasn’t easy work. It was hard enough to risk your life, but the job itself was such a challenge, it makes it that much more heroic.” 

To bring history to life, special effects and sound mixing are always essential to create the proper atmosphere for the audience. By developing a balance between the whizzing of bullets, crashing waves and (at times) muted dialogue, Greyhound becomes a visceral experience for the viewer. In doing so, Schneider explains that the process helps the viewer focus their perspective on the film’s most important narrative aspects.

“The challenge for the filmmakers at any point in time is that it’s about point of view,” Schneider explains. “You can tell a story based on focusing on one point of view over another. There’s that great moment in the Normandy beach landing in Saving Private Ryan, where a shell goes off near Tom’s character and it blows it ears out for a moment, right?… As [his] ears ring, Tom looks around and he’s taking in all these chaotic horrific things going on around him and then boom, a shell lands and jerks you out of it.”

“That’s a great example of how both the camera and the sound can have a point of view in terms of what you’re focusing the audience on. This was a big challenge in Greyhound as well. The movie kind of sticks to Krause’s shoulder [and] his point of view and experiences. He’s our conduit. He’s our ‘way in’ to everything… The goal in sound design, I think, is always to make sure that the sound design helps support the point of view of what the character is experiencing. Sound design is trying to adhere to the same subjective point of view that the camera is or that the story is. Then, that boils down to balance and what you choose to bring to the foreground and what you choose to push to the background.”

In fact, point of view is essential to Greyhound. By following Krause’s character, the film offers a unique perspective on the battle that gives a personal feeling to the action.

“From the very beginning, Tom described this as the perfect 90-minute procedural,” Schneider explains. “He wanted it to be a rip-roaring, experiential event for the viewer. He wanted to honor and dramatize the experience of the Battle of Atlantic by dropping you off over Krause’s shoulder, without giving you anything to hold on to, and force you to follow him, move through his experiences and, in some case, without a full understanding of where you are and how things work. Over time, you would engage with the film, educate yourself, acquaint yourself, get yourself more comfortable, exactly the kind of experience you’d have if I beamed you aboard the USS Keeling, and you found yourself in a foreign world in the middle of a very dangerous battle. So, in that sense, making the whole movie experiential and Tom’s character becomes the human conduit for the person following him around, through all this.” 

More specifically, one of the most interesting aspects of Krause’s character is his devout faith. As a man who sees the value of every human soul, his faith puts his heart into conflict as he is called into battle. According to Schneider, this experiential aspect of Krause’s character helped provide weight to the film.

“In that regard, you introduce this character upfront and you’re in a very private moment, praying and preparing yourself emotionally and spiritually for the day and for the job at hand,” he describes. “We’re not even sure we know we understand [the situation] yet, but you get a sense of the kind of man you’re going to be moving through this journey with. So, now knowing this about him, that he lives his life within a certain set of principles and we get an immediate sense of what we can imagine that he holds dear, right? And then, boom. All this stuff begins to happen. So, in those little private peeks we get inside his mind that maybe the crew doesn’t absorb or get to see, we know enough him that we can begin to ask questions about the way he feeling about this.” 

“That’s where the soul comes in. You have to understand who a person is and what lives in their soul before you can you can explore who they are and what any of this means to you. It’s not a classical drama in the sense that there’s no soliloquies announcing who this man is or how he feels. The only way into that is what you can pull away, learn about and derive from the way he’s making these decisions. So, in that sense, getting to know the character is experiential. You only get to learn as much about this guy as you’re willing to study and pull out of it. You have to do a little bit of work if you want to know this man. The goal there is to engage audiences in their curiosity about who he is. We see him kill his first 50 soldiers. The ship is cheering, but he’s staring out at these floating dead bodies as a man of faith. He’s confronting the irony of having to kill. You’ve got a job to do, He’s got to protect. He’s got to serve, but, but he’s got to do something that’s in conflict with his nature and his spiritual principles. If we’ve done our job right, we created a moment there where you’re empathizing with his internal struggle. Now, you put that in your back pocket and you move forward through the rest. It’s an exploration of somebody’s soul moving through these horrific events.“

As Krause journeys across the treacherous waters, the film reminds the viewer of the importance of every decision that he makes. Using the theme of ‘yesterday, today and tomorrow’, Greyhound places great emphasis upon working through the struggles of the moment while keeping the end firmly in view. Interestingly, in this way, Schneider also sees comparisons between his film and the emotional strain of our current global pandemic.

“From the beginning, as the screenwriter, Tom was fascinated with the feeling of what he calls ‘stasis’,” he explains. “Looking back at WWII, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. But, if you can try for a moment to imagine the world shortly after we entered the war where the entire world was on fire in a fist fight with itself, nobody knew who was going to win. Nobody knew what their fate would be. Nobody knew when it would end, right? In many ways, without even knowing it would occur, we’re living in similar times with the pandemic. We’re fighting this war against this virus and nobody really knows where we’re going and how long it’ll take. It’s a disquieting feeling but the best you can do inside of all that is maintain vigilance. We got yesterday, we got today and we’re going to have tomorrow. You hold onto that… Krause wants to succeed. He’s got his eye on the end. He doesn’t know when it’ll come, but he’s fighting for the end. Then, Charlie [his XO, tries] to remind him that the battles aren’t won in a moment. It’s about getting from yesterday to today, because, if you do that enough times, land will appear. That’s kind of where we are now in the world. We’ll get there.” 

For full audio of our interview with Aaron Schneider, click here.

Greyhound is currently streaming on AppleTV+.

Greyhound: A War for the Soul

by Leave a Comment

Directed by Aaron Schneider (Get Low), Greyhound is a visceral experience that attempts to create the terrifying realities of the Second World War. While film’s distribution change is completely understandable given the global situation, Greyhound is the first true cinematic victim of the pandemic era. Featuring broad visuals and incredible sound mixing, Greyhound is a film that truly needs to be experienced, rather than taken in at home. As a result, I found myself wishing that I could feel every crashing wave on the big screen, as opposed to my television set. 

Greyhound transports the viewer back to February 1942 and follows the journey of U.S. Navy Cmdr. Ernest Krause (Tom Hanks). For his first war-time command, Krause is assigned to lead an Allied convoy across the Atlantic during World War II. Forced to travel without air support across the area known as the ‘Black Pit’, his convoy is suddenly pursued by German U-boats. Despite his anxiety about the situation, Krause must remain steadfast and committed to his crew if he is to successfully lead his convoy across the Atlantic to safety.

Adapted for the screen from Forester’s classic war novel, The Good Shepherd by Hanks himself, Greyhound is an intense ride that moves along at a rapid pace. While most blockbusters today seem to be pushing their length well beyond 2 ½ hours, this film is surprisingly brief in its runtime. Clocking in at just over 90 minutes, Hanks’ script makes good use of its time, rarely giving the viewer a minute to catch their breath amidst the drama. While it’s not surprising that Hanks turns in another solid performance as the steady but overwhelmed Krause, his handling of the material shows yet another skill that he’s developing in his career. As only his third screenplay after Larry Crowne and That Thing You Do!, Hanks has a clear vision in mind for the project and follows through well.

Continuing the trend of recent films such as Dunkirk and 1917, Greyhound reframes the depiction of war by moving away from focusing on specific characters and their relationship to one another and instead drops the audience in the middle of the drama itself. Similar to recent efforts, Greyhound offers little backstory to its characters yet somehow maintains the fact that every one of them is important. Deliberately muddled audio and an ever-moving camera gives the film a ‘fly-on-the-wall’ quality and, in doing so, brings further reality to the moment. Because dialogue is often blurred (or, frankly, nautical speak), the drama can be a little confusing at times. Yet, at a moment when men are fighting for their lives, the decision to muddle what’s spoken somehow adds to the authenticity of the piece as well. Besides which, there is simply so much happening visually at any given moment that there is simply no time to have lengthy soliloquys about the value of man. What matters most in Greyhound stems from the viewers immersion of it. In essence, you may not always understand exactly what’s being said… but you can feel it.

Unlike war films of the past that glorify the mission, Greyhound recognizes that glory stems from survival. As his first war-time command, Commander Krause is not a man who seeks personal glory but rather one who genuinely cares about the souls of others. A devout man of faith, it is apparent throughout the film that every soul is important to Krause. He breathes out Scripture as prayers for those around him. He mourns the loss of his own men and the lost lives of those on German U-boats that he’s forced to defend himself against. He even refuses to eat the elaborate meals he’s offered in order not to differentiate himself from his men. Like the Scripture verse that hangs upon his wall, Krause is a man who seeks quality of character ‘yesterday, today and tomorrow’ and understands the essential value of every soul with whom he comes into contact.

In many ways, it is appropriate that the film is adapted from a book called The Good Shepherd, for that is what Krouse is. For him, what matters most is the soul of each soldier who have put themselves on the line. When one man is lost, Krause mourns. When many are lost, he mourns. (In fact, the film highlights this idea at its close by mentioning that 72, 200 souls were lost during the war making these journeys.) In Greyhound, every soul matters, regardless of nationality. 

Though the story is fictional, Greyhound feels like an authentic trip into the midst of the Second World War. Even so, while the visuals are spectacular, it’s the film’s focus on the importance of the soul that sets it apart. With each bullet fired or crash of the waves, the film’s focus and attention to detail points to the tragedy of war and the value of every human life. Despite the terrifying chaos of the situation, it’s in the moments of contemplation that Greyhound really finds its true worth.

Now, if only I can find a theatre that’s open so I can see it on the big screen.

Greyhound premieres on Apple TV+ on July 10th,, 2020.

Dads: A Love Letter to Fathers

by Leave a Comment

Dads don’t always get a lot of good press these days.

At a time when important conversations about toxic masculinity dominate the news and absentee and abusive fathers have become common, men have become better known for their sins than their strengths. From acts of violence to abuse of their authority, the nightly news features the latest examples of how men have lost sight of what it means to be a positive influence.

Thankfully, Dads, the new documentary by Bryce Dallas Howard, wants to tell us another story.

In her directorial debut, Howard takes the opportunity to explore modern fatherhood and celebrate those men who want to leave a positive mark on the lives of their children. Beginning with personal stories about her own famous father, Howard clearly wants Dads to be a love letter to fathers who remain dedicated to their families. Juxtaposing the testimonials of such celebrity parents as Will Smith, Neil Patrick Harris, Kim Jeong, Hasan Minhaj and many others with the stories of everyday families around the world, Howard recognizes the successes, challenges and failures that dads experience as they attempt to navigate the world of contemporary parenting.

Charming and engaging, Howard’s doc balances its voice effectively by showcasing men of different races, sexualities and social status in order to offer a variety of perspectives on fatherhood and the male experience. In doing so, Howard brings to light many of the common experiences of these men who want their children to be healthy and feel loved. Though their circumstances differ, each of the men featured in Howard’s doc hold the responsibility of parenthood firmly in view as they struggle to navigate the challenges of raising children. Whether they are breaking stereotypes as stay-at-home fathers or looking to maintain a work-life balance, each testimonial speaks to the sacrifices that these men are willing to make for the sake of their child’s emotional or physical health. While none of these men suggest their own perfection, each one speaks to the depth of their commitment to their families, despite their anxieties about their role as parents.

In fact, it’s the film’s openness about paternal insecurities that gives Dads its emotional weight. While the film offers numerous success stories about what it means to be a committed parent, the openness of her subjects and interviews serves as a reminder that fatherhood is often riddled with feelings of inadequacy. Regardless of their situation, each man openly expresses the fears and frustrations of attempting to navigate the trials of raising children ‘without a manual’. Though every father featured adores their family, they all confess to feeling insufficient in their role, unsure of whether or not they actually measure up as a parent. (In fact, in one particularly honest moment, Minhaj even points out that his greatest question is whether it’s actually he or his children that are the ones that truly decide the quality of his parenting.) 

By giving voice to their parental insecurities, Howard recognizes the humanity of the men that have influenced our lives. Highlighting their brokenness, the true beauty of Dads is that it paints these men with a loving brush of grace as a reminder that their role matters in the lives of their children. For Howard, the point is not to depict these men as faultless but rather serve as a reminder of the love that drives so many fathers, despite their imperfections. (After all, doesn’t love cover a multitude of sins?) In this way, Howards portrays her subjects as examples of commitment and courage, regardless of their situations or flaws.

While Dads contains very few ‘revelations’ about parenting, it’s clear from the outset that this is never the intent of the film. Instead, Howard’s debut is meant to be ‘thank you card’ to fathers of all types that reveals what goes on in their minds, whether it be their reactions when they first meet their child to dealing with feelings of failure. As a result, Dads is an emotionally powerful celebration of the imperfect men in our lives and their impact upon us all.

Dads is available to stream on Apple TV+ now.