• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Film
  • DVD
  • Editorial
  • About ScreenFish

ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Interviews
  • News
  • OtherFish
  • Podcast
  • Give

Ben Kingsley

Operation Finale – Capturing a War Criminal

August 29, 2018 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“We’re all animals fighting for scraps on the Serengeti.”

One of the most celebrated trials of the twentieth century was when Israel put Adolph Eichmann on trial. Eichmann headed the SS Office for Jewish Affairs and was one of the key architects of the Holocaust. But before they could put him on trial, they had to find him and get him to Israel. Operation Finale is the Mission Impossible style account his capture.

In 1960, Eichmann (Sir Ben Kingsley) is living with his family under an assumed name in Argentina. There is a community of Nazi supporters there, including many in the Catholic Church. When a young Jewish girl connects that this person is Eichmann, word gets to Israel. In the past Israel has looked for Eichmann to assassinate him, but now the government wants him captured to be put on trial for his crimes. A select group of Mossad (intelligence) and Shin Bet (security) agents develop a daring and dangerous plan to capture him and smuggle him out of the country on a special El Al plane.

Among the Israelis on this team is Peter Malkin (Oscar Issac). Malkin had taken part in an earlier assassination attempt that targeted the wrong man. As the plan develops, Malkin is the man who actually grabs Eichamnn just a few yards from his house. But after the capture things get complicated. The team is now told that they must get Eichmann to sign a document saying he agrees to be tried in Israel. At the same time, the right-wing Argentine security forces begin the hunt to rescue Eichmann.

As the time for the getaway draws near, Eichmann is understandably reluctant to cooperate. He says he should be tried in Germany. He says he could never get a fair trial in Israel. Only one person on the team was to negotiate with Eichmann, but when no progress was made, Malkin offered a different approach. Over a period of days Malkin and Eichmann discuss the realities of war, of nationalism, of human nature. Finally, Eichmann agrees, but they must still get him out of the country before being found.

Much of the film is a thriller—both the plan to capture Eichmann and the cat-and-mouse game between the Israelis and Argentinians. But what elevates this over other such films is the near philosophical discussion between Malkin and Eichmann. Both men have agendas that they bring to this dialogue, but in their back-and-forth they move each other to deeper levels of understanding. Eichmann strives to manipulate Malkin by pushing him on a personal level.

That seems to be a major difference between the two men. For Malkin (and the other Israelis) this is something that touches their lives. All had lost people in the Holocaust. For Eichmann it is about massive numbers. There is a sense in which 6 million Jews may overwhelm us, but there is more power in the knowledge of a single person we know. Eichmann did not know those whose death he oversaw. They were annoyances to be exterminated.

The actual trial of Eichmann is something of an anti-climax in the film. It is shown briefly, but the real testimony of the film is in these scenes of speaking about victims, justification, and our common human nature.

While the film doesn’t accept Eichmann’s rationalizations for his crimes, it does show him to be a man who cared for his family and his country, just as Malkin and the other Israelis cared for their families and nation. It is this humanizing factor that serves to point out the basis for all of Eichmann’s sins in the Holocaust—the failure to see that humanity in others.

Photos courtesy of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures

Filed Under: Film, Reviews Tagged With: Adolph Eichmann, Argentina, Ben Kingsley, Chris Weitz, Holocaust, Israel, Lior Raz, Oscar Isaac, thriller

The Jungle Book – Updating a Classic of a Classic

April 15, 2016 by Darrel Manson Leave a Comment

“Now this is the Law of the Jungle — as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.

As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back —
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

The Jungle Book is Disney’s new high-tech, live-action (sort of) remake of their 1967 animated film based on Rudyard Kipling’s 1894 book. The new version tries to find a middle path between the more light-hearted earlier film, and the darker, more mythic Kipling story. Director Jon Favreau purposely wanted to keep some of the elements of the earlier film that he loved as a child. But rather than produce a straight remake, he has created something much more enticing with much greater depth.

Because the film is mostly CG animation (assisted at various points of production with puppetry and motion capture), it has an amazingly realistic look to it. These are not cartoon tigers, wolves, and bears. They look real, even though they talk. That in itself makes the film a bit darker and scarier (especially for younger children). The action/adventure element can be intense at times, but that just adds to the enjoyment of the film.

thejunglebook55f856edc4aa8

The film is part coming of age story and part hero’s journey. This is the story of Mowgli (Neel Sethi, the only actual onscreen performer), a man-cub discovered alone in the jungle as an infant by the panther Bagheera (voiced by Ben Kingsley). Knowing that Mowgli would need “a people” to raise him, he was left with the wolf pack lead by Akela and Raksha (Giancarlo Esposito and Lupita Nyong’o). This is the only home and family that Mowgli has known. When the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) discovers there is a man-cub in the jungle, he vows to kill it and anyone who stands in his way.

It is decided that Mowgli must leave the jungle for the realm of men. He and Bagheera start off on a journey to the human village. Along the way there are adventures—some fun, others quite dangerous—in which Mowgli must learn to make wise choices. He also must use his resourcefulness (a part of his human nature) as he makes his way. Among those he meets on the way are Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) a massive and seductive python, Baloo (Bill Murray) a slothful but lovable bear, and King Louie (Christopher Walken), a huge Gigantopithicus (a cross between an orangutan and a yeti) who wants Mowgli to give him the secret of man’s red flower (fire) so he can rule the jungle.

thejunglebook56b918f3de2d4

There are several themes in the story worth exploring. The first is what it means to be human and what it means that humans are animals. Mowgli, having been raised by the jungle animals, really thinks like them. He has had no contact with humans so he doesn’t know what they are like. Yet, he is also different from the animals. He has “tricks”. He creates and uses tools. He makes complicated plans to achieve an end. But Mowgli, even though he has certain skills as a part of his nature, is never seen as above the other animals. He feels he belongs to the jungle, and most of the animals accept him as he is.

Mowgli also must choose between two approaches to life. Bagheera, his primary mentor, and the wolf pack live by order and rules. The pack regularly recites the Law of the Jungle (taken from a Kipling poem). Bagheera (as played by Kingsley) has a military swagger. But when Mowgli meets Baloo, he is exposed to a much different understanding. Baloo lives for ease and pleasure. At first look, this may come across as the kind of difference between wisdom and folly found in the biblical book of Proverbs. But Mowgli learns that each way of living has its own rewards. It is not so much that he must choose between them as he must learn to balance them. Bagheera and Baloo also learn of the need to balance.

thejunglebook56b918f52fcee

But the key value that The Jungle Book puts forward is that of community. Mowgli alone may be resourceful and creative, but he is no match for the dangers in the jungle. That is why Bagheera gave him to the wolf pack to raise. Much of the film is built around the idea of community: Mowgli and the Pack, Mowgli and Bagheera’s relationship, and Mowgli’s working and playing with Baloo are all about the importance of being tied to one another. And when Mowgli and Shere Kahn must settle scores, as we know they must, it is the Law of the Jungle—“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack”—that sets the stage for the outcome. In Ecclesiastes it says,

“Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help. Again, if two lie together, they keep warm; but how can one keep warm alone? And though one might prevail against another, two will withstand one. A threefold cord is not quickly broken.”

The importance of helping each other and living in peace with others is at the core of The Jungle Book.

Photos courtesy of Walt Disney Studios

Filed Under: Featured, Film, Reviews Tagged With: 3D, animation, Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Christopher Walken, Disney, Giancarlo Esposito, Idris Elba, Jon Favreau, Lupita Nyong'o, Neel Sethi, remake, Rudyard Kipling

Self/Less: It’s Got Soul

July 15, 2015 by Jacob Sahms Leave a Comment

self:lessI was hooked by the concepts of Self/Less after one look at the trailer. Ben Kingsley’s Damian wants to extend his earthly life, so he buys a spot in a shadowy scientific experiment where his consciousness will be transplanted into another body. He thinks he’s buying a newly cloned figure but what he gets is instead the body of Iraq veteran Mark Hale (Ryan Reynolds), and Hale’s consciousness hasn’t completely vacated the premises. When Damian’s dormant sense of morality surfaces, it draws him into direct confrontation with Dr. Albright (Matthew Goode) and his lethal henchmen. Will the pursuit of immortality and financial wealth be everything Damian hoped for?

(Short answer: Of course not.)

To be fair to Damian pre-“shedding” (the film’s verb for the the transplanting personality process), he thinks that his decision is his and his alone. He thinks that no one else is being affected, that no one is getting hurt. But it’s his awareness that there is collateral damage (repeat to oneself: “there are no victimless crimes) that drives him to track down the origin of the images of his head, that is, Mark’s wife (Natalie Martinez) and daughter.

Now, we have two sets of memories or personality/experiences competing in the same mind, two men who made bad decisions because they were thinking only of what they needed or thought was best. The plot holes might be big enough to drive through like, what’s the science behind the transplanting? What do we know about how the conscious works (what makes a person – a soul, body, mind, character, etc.?) Why is there never any surveillance video when someone breaks in somewhere? How does Hale’s muscle memory work? Can a man’s chin really break a toilet bowl? But I digress…

The fact is Albright offers Damian immortality. He’s like the devil tempting Jesus in the wilderness, only Damian isn’t Jesus. The ability to buy, purchase, steal, overwhelm – those are the ways he’s succeeded in life. It’s why he can’t relate to his daughter, but he can buy himself a new body. It’s the slippery slope that his pleasure and his pain drives him to, regardless of what questions he should be asking and doesn’t, a point Albright is quick to point out later.

The remaining two-thirds of the film (after Damian/Hale break out of Albright’s approved behavioral pattern) are an all-out action chase that is pretty standard for “fish out of water people on the run.” Nothing there is really going to blow your mind from a chase perspective but… it’s the theological/social/moral issues that really drive the film to be of any interest.

self:less3In general, the average human being seems pretty afraid to die, so prolonging our lives has definite attraction, right? This may depend on how old you are, and how “at your peak” you feel that you are. [An older person I saw the film with asked, “who wants to live forever anyway?” The way you answer that may also depend on how you feel about what happens after we die!]

For most of us, we take vitamins, work out, try various diets/meditations/practices to be healthier, usually not because we really want to but because we’re told it will help us live longer. You’ve heard that “everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die,” but I’d argue that few people would acknowledge wanting to die. And yet… there are apparent physical consequences to extending one’s life in the context of the movie, but there are social/moral/psychological ones as well, like…

… Damian has to pump himself with pills to mask Hale’s personality. Taking pills that are not too dissimilar to the pills he takes to fight cancer.

…Damian may have upgraded his body from Kingsley to Reynolds (wrinkly to six-pack?) but he is still estranged from his daughter, and he doesn’t understand her value system.

…Damian recognizes that doing it more (drinking, spending, sex) doesn’t make it better when it’s not in relationship. He’s still alone, and his life is a waste.

self:less 2But the truth about Self/Less, while it’s a warning about exploitation, power, greed, and corruption, it’s also a story about second chances, and finding yourself. Like Scrooge after his visit by the four ghosts [Editor’s note: Check out A Christmas Carol; Marley, Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Future), Damian’s ability to see life from someone else’s perspective, including their pain and loss, let’s him see what he’s been missing and what he has messed up. Damian realizes that more of him means less of Hale, and vice versa. When he decides to lay his life down, to defend Hale’s family, it changes things, and in the process, he saves the part of himself that Albright can’t help him with: his soul.

Self/Less might be a dismissible tale, too insightful to be mindless entertainment and not original enough in stunts and violence to make the mainstream truly happy. It’s something of a modern day parable, a la Minority Report or I Am Legend. It might not be great, but it’s got soul.

Filed Under: Featured, Film, Reviews Tagged With: Ben Kingsley, Immortality, Matthew Goode, Ryan Reynolds

Primary Sidebar

THE SF NEWS

Get a special look, just for you.

sf podcast

Hot Off the Press

  • Stanleyville: Exposing our Killer Instinct
  • SF Radio 8.25: Mental Health and the Multiverse in EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
  • Chip ‘N Dale: Rescue Rangers – Dusting Off these Two Gumshoes
  • GIVEAWAY! Advance Screening of TOP GUN: MAVERICK!
  • Men: Trapped in Man’s World
Find tickets and showtimes on Fandango.

where faith and film are intertwined

film and television carry stories which remind us of the stories God has woven since the beginning of time. come with us on a journey to see where faith and film are intertwined.

Footer

ScreenFish Articles

Stanleyville: Exposing our Killer Instinct

SF Radio 8.25: Mental Health and the Multiverse in EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE

  • About ScreenFish
  • Privacy Policy

© 2022 · ScreenFish.net · Built by Aaron Lee

Posting....
 

Loading Comments...