ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

dark comedy

Days of Darkness – Are We in a New Dark Age?

by Leave a Comment

[NOTE: I wrote this review in 2008 after seeing the film at the Palm Springs International Film Festival, expecting to publish it when it was released in the US. However, the film never got a release. I’ve often wondered what happened to it in all those years. Now it is available on AMC+ and IFC Unlimited (both accessible through Prime Video Channels and both offer a one week free trial.)]

Days of Darkness is the concluding film of the Denys Arcand trilogy that also includes The Decline of the American Empire and Barbarian Invasions. (It could be argued that Jesus of Montreal is also part of this group of films. I’m unsure about the more recent The Fall of the American Empire, which I haven’t seen.) The two earlier films shared common actors and characters.  Two of the characters from those films show up in minor roles in this film, but by and large, this is a very different kind of film from the first two.  The titles of the film harken back to the Roman Empire.  The decadence leads to weakness that allows the barbarians to invade and bring about the Dark Ages.  As a Canadian on the border of the American empire, Arcand seems to be saying that he sees the same sort of process happening in current society.  He may well be right.  What really connects Days of Darkness with the trilogy is that The Barbarian Invasions is about trying to escape death; this film is about trying to escape life.

Henry Thoreau wrote, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”  That certainly describes Jean-Mark in Days of Darkness.  Jean-Marc leads a pretty boring life.  His world is grey – his house, his car, the sky.  His marriage isn’t happy.  His children aren’t happy.  He’s a bureaucrat who spends his day listening to unhappy people.  But he has his imagination.  Like Walter Mitty, Jean-Marc spends much of his time in his daydreams – but this is Walter Mitty as if he had been written by Woody Allen and Hugh Hefner.  Jean-Marc’s fantasy life is not just an escape; it is a critique of the many ways the world has lost its way.

The real world of this film is nearly as surreal as Jean-Marc’s imaginary world.  The great bureaucracy where he works is housed in Montreal’s Olympic Stadium.  It is literally a bureaucratic maze.  His co-workers have to take classes in how to laugh.  The problems he deals with each day are unbelievable, and yet each is an actual case.  (My favorite is a man who was walking on the side walk when a car hit a streetlight.  The streetlight fell on the man, who lost his legs.  The city charges everyone involved in the destruction of public property, so he has to pay for half the streetlight.)  There is rarely anything he can actually do.  One of the lines that sums up this world is “You’re wasting your time; it’s pointless.”

In his dreams Jean-Marc is in control.  He is the lover of a famous movie star and a TV news reporter.  He solves the world’s problems.  He is famous and rich and happy.  Those who are his nemeses are dealt with harshly (but of course they deserve it).

The film reflects the malaise that so often becomes part of life as we go through the same routines day after day.  Not only our personal lives, but our corporate life just seems to be one repetition after another.  Consider the skepticism with which we greet political campaigns.  Do any of the candidates live up to the dreams we have for someone to lead us?  Following Arcand’s post-empire metaphor, the meaninglessness of staged political debates or of reality television or blogs that do nothing but blather reflect a world that is as devoid of wisdom as those centuries before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

If we follow the world into this malaise, it is indeed pointless and we are wasting our time.  Instead all the Jean-Marcs in the world (and that includes us all) need to find a life that has meaning beyond the limits of our minds.

@Sundance: First Date

by Leave a Comment

Sundance offers the chance for many first-time filmmakers to share their films. First Date is the premier feature film from directors Manuel Crosby and Darren Knapp. It is a film that doesn’t fit nicely into any single genre, rather it mixes several together. The results sometimes work, but not always.

Mike, a somewhat shy high schooler, finally works up the courage (with some help from his friend) to ask out his heartthrob neighbor, Kelsey. She is also the target of a local jock with a great car. Mike, sadly, has no car, so for the date he gets conned into buying a junker ’66 Chrysler. It turns out, there are a lot of people interested in that car, including a pair of sheriff deputies, a crazy cat lady, and a band of bickering criminals/book club members. The problems prevent him from picking up Kelsey, who ends up going for a drive with the jock. When Mike and Kelsey finally do get together, their mutual attraction begins to come through, but then more problems with all of the bad guys cranks up the story again.

Tyson Brown and Shelby Duclos appear in First Date by Manuel Crosby and Darren Knapp, an official selection of the NEXT section at the 2021 Sundance Film Festival. Courtesy of Sundance Institute.

In press notes, the directors liken the film to “Kinda like mixing all the different sodas at the soda fountain. You’re not supposed to do it but damn, it’s a sugar rush.” I found that a very apt analogy. We can easily see some of the influences they want to add to the mix. The group of crooks have the same kind of incompetence we remember from Fargo. There is a body count that would fit into a Tarantino film. There’s the romance developing between Mike and Kelsey. There are some car chases.

I think it should be noted that there is a difference between mixing all the sodas, and the blending that happens to make a fine wine. The results of soda mixing may be enjoyable to a point, but it will ultimately never be quite as enjoyable as something crafted with a clear goal in mind.

There are parts of this story that work very well—especially the scenes where Mike and Kelsey got to talk to each other. The writing in those scenes show a good feel for the early stage of a relationship—of two people who like each other, but aren’t sure where it’s going. Scenes where the bad guys bicker aren’t quite at the same level, but still the dialogue and relationships are entertaining.

The crime/action part of the film doesn’t show the same level of craft, perhaps in part because this part seems so outlandish. Toning down some of the violence would have benefitted the overall film. When the action part of the film takes over, the interesting relationships that have been developed get pushed into the background.

One of the good things about festivals giving opportunities to new filmmakers is that it gives them a chance to try things out. They get to try mixing the sodas. Maybe they’ll discover the flavors that do or don’t work together, and build from there.

Nimic – Short and Deep

by Leave a Comment

We may not expect an Oscar nominated writer/directorto bring us a short film. But then we don’t often know what to expect from Yorgos Lanthimos (three nominations between The Lobster and The Favourite). Nimic is twelve minutes worth of the kind of surreal weirdness that makes Lanthimos’s films attractive to some (including me) and off-putting for others.

Matt Dillon plays a cellist and father. One day coming home on the subway, he asks a young woman (Daphne Patakia) for the time. A strange connection takes place which will affect their lives in a very bizarre way. The film could be categorized as either dark comedy or light horror.

Lanthimos often seems to deal with people who are losing their sense of identity and their place in the world. (Or maybe it’s really about finding a new place in the world.)  In that way, this is very much in line with The Lobster and The Favourite. The surrealism of Lanthimos’s films leads us to some very existential questions of what it means to be who we think we are and who we are if we are not that person. Of course, such depths often surprise us in short films. Just as we settle in for a brief entertainment, we have to ask ourselves what it all means.

Photos courtesy of Mubi.

Nimic can be seen on the streaming service Mubi.

The Favourite – Machiavellian Comedy

by Leave a Comment

“I’m on my side. Always.”

It isn’t news that politics can be a cutthroat sport. But in the hands of Yorgos Lanthimos, all that palace intrigue can become the basis of humor. The Favourite is a Machiavellian comedy set 400 years ago that reflects the way power often happens in secret, but with important consequences.

Olivia Colman in the film THE FAVOURITE. Photo by Atsushi Nishijima. © 2018 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation All Rights Reserved

Set in the reign of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) the story takes place almost entirely within the royal household. Anne is frail, crippled by gout, and retiring. She lacks the confidence and, it seems, the intelligence to handle matters of state. Lady Sarah Churchill (Rachel Weisz) is Anne’s longtime friend, confidant, lover, and controller. Even though Anne holds the power, Sarah knows how to manipulate her. Sarah is the éminence grise who, while working with the Whigs in the Parliament, actually runs the country.

When Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone) shows up at the palace looking for a position, Sarah is not all that impressed. Abigail was born a part of the aristocracy, but her family’s bankruptcy took away the life she had expected. Sarah sends her to the kitchen to work as a scullery maid. But when Abigail makes an herbal remedy that helps the Queen’s gout, Sarah appoints her to be her own maid, perhaps grooming her to assist her in her political mechanizations. But Abigail sees it as a chance to make her own way. The Tory leader sees in Abigail a backchannel to the Queen. When Abigail discovers how Sarah is running things, and the power she has over Anne, Abigail begins to undermine her cousin and put herself forward. Eventually, their rivalry will take on much larger significance as each pushes the agenda of their political allies.

Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz in the film THE FAVOURITE. Photo by Yorgos Lanthimos. © 2018 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation All Rights Reserved

This is a dark comedy, with a good deal of scatological and bedroom humor. There is also a satirical quality to it as it looks at the political system as buffoonery. The Queen is unintelligent. The leader of the Whigs carries his prized racing duck around with him. The leader of the Tories is a consummate dandy. None of those tabularly in power is in any way worthy of respect. Or course, we could look at our own political system and wonder if anything has changed.

The story is based on historical people, however the events are fictional. Even so, it shows how important matters, even war and peace, may be determined not so much by reason as by personalities and how they manipulate situations. And because it is nearly all dealing with the aristocracy, we also understand that those who really pay the price for all this are people with no voice.

Rachel Weisz and Olivia Colman in the film THE FAVOURITE. Photo by Yorgos Lanthimos. © 2018 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation All Rights Reserved

It makes for an interesting twist that the world of politics in this story is based on these three women. The men in the story really have no control; they are used by the women to further their own goals. Each of the women is seeking something for herself. The Queen is looking for love. Sarah desires power. Abigail begins by seeking status and prestige, but soon that is not enough, she wants autonomy and freedom to do as she wants. It is a matter of everyone wanting their own good, even if it is at the expense of others.

Photos courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Damsel – A Comedy (sort of) of Pessimism

by Leave a Comment

“Love and survival are all I want.”

“You’re not exclusive in that notion.”

In Damsel, the Zellner Brothers play with some typical movie genres. As a result, viewers are asked to wrap their minds around things that seem to not quite fit together, but in reality make for a quirky, yet enjoyable experience.

As an example of how things don’t quite fit, we see scenes in desert, in forests, and a seashore, that all seem to exist in the same vicinity. It doesn’t really matter how odd this is, it provides a bit of discontinuity meant to keep us slightly off balance. The same is true with some of the language used in the film. It seems too modern for the setting of a western probably sometime in the 1800s.

As the film opens, two men are waiting for a stagecoach in the middle of a red rock wilderness. One (David Zellner) is heading west in search of a new start after catastrophe in his life. The other, a minister (Robert Forster), is headed east after failing to bring salvation to Indians. The wisdom the minister provided the other man is that “Things are going to be shitty in new and fascinating ways.” He then takes off his clothes, giving them to the other man and heads out into the desert to die. The other man takes the clothes and partial Bible and assumes the persona of Parson Henry.

Then, there is the main story as Samuel Alabaster (Robert Pattinson) comes ashore with a crate in which there is a miniature horse. He comes into a typical western town where he enlists Parson Henry to accompany him to marry his fiancée Penelope (Mia Wasikowska), who has been kidnapped. The plan is to rescue her, propose, give her the miniature horse as a gift, and have Parson Henry do the ceremony. But this hero/damsel-in-distress trope is quickly turned on its head. The story has so taken us in that we can’t help but follow it through even more twists along the way of this odd odyssey. It is hard even to classify this as a comedy or tragedy because the humor and pathos are so intertwined.

But the thread that runs through all the characters and their journeys is a desire to find happiness in a world filled with disappointment. But instead of happiness, the words of the old preacher about “new and fascinating ways” for things to go bad play out over and over. But while pessimism pervades the story, the characters seem to rely on a thin hope of optimism to survive. They may never have any evidence that things will get better, but they never give up on that possibility. Just as many of the laments within the Psalms may think that God does not see or care, the psalmists persist in calling on God to restore and renew them. While these characters do not operate with the idea that God will give them happiness, that hope of newness leads them on.

Phots courtesy of Magnolia Pictures

 

Bye Bye Germany – Moving to Life

by Leave a Comment

“If I didn’t embellish life with lies, it would be unbearable.”

In the opening shot of Bye Bye Germany, we watch a three-legged dog happily trotting through a street that turns out to be in a post-war displaced persons camp in Frankfort. While that dog has next to nothing to do with the plot of this light-hearted (yet not quite comic) tale, it makes for an interesting way to understand the characters we meet.

This camp is filled with Jews who have survived the Holocaust. They are awaiting their chance to move on to America or Palestine. But that takes money. David Bermann enlists some others in the camp to take part in a “business opportunity” that will make them all money. He will smuggle in some French linens which they will sell at inflated prices (but convince people they are getting a great deal.) This minor fleecing of the Germans near the camp gives them a small sense of revenge for what Germans did to them. It also gives them a chance to earn the money they will need to have a new life.

However, Bermann may have some skeletons in his closet. He is summoned to the American Army HQ to be asked if he were a German collaborator during the war. Documents show he received special privileges, had some sort of special mission, and even fake travel papers provided by the Germans. As the young American woman officer interrogates him over time, he tells a story of being tasked by the concentration camp commander to teach Hitler how to tell a joke. This story becomes more bizarre each time they meet. Is it the truth or is Bermann just the kind of guy who can tell a tale and make you believe it?

Everyone in this film has their own little story that comes from their experiences during the war. At times they meet someone who harmed them in the camps. Or it may be as simple as a song on the radio that triggers memories. The stories they share may have a poignant humor or show just a touch of the deep pain that each man has suffered.

They also must deal with survivor’s guilt—why they survived while others—some very good people—did not. They each struggle with demons from their past, loss of loved ones, and wondering if they may have done something wrong to save themselves at another’s expense.

They have an uneasy time coming to grips with all that has happened. On the one hand, they can say with just a sense of triumph, “Hitler’s dead, and we’re still alive.” But then at the grave of friend who had a tragic death, as they begin to pray, one says, “How can one pray to a God who makes so many mistakes?” They continue to go between times of joy and yet new suffering.

In a way, they are each like that three-legged dog—they have lost something of great value, but they are intent on moving forward in search of life and happiness. The dog—and these characters—serve to remind us that the trials in our lives are often overcome through continuing to move forward.

Photos courtesy of Film Movement

Dying Laughing: 1on1 with Jim O’Heir (MIDDLE MAN)

by Leave a Comment

For full audio of our interview with Jim, stream below:

While he’s perhaps best known for his role as perennial nice guy Jerry Gurgich from Parks and Recreation, actor Jim O’Heir finally gets to usurp those expectations in the dark comedy, Middle Man.

Written and directed by Ned Crowley, Middle Man tells the story of Lenny (O’Heir), a middle-aged man determined to become a successful stand-up comedian. There’s only one problem: Lenny isn’t funny. Although, after he meets a mysterious stranger named Hitch (Andy West), Lenny finds himself embroiled in a world of violence, intrigue and murder on his journey towards success.

As a long-time friend of Crowley, O’Heir was excited about the project from its inception. Still, because of difficulties finding funding for the project, he explains that the film was far from a sure thing.

“The guy who directed it, Ned Crowley, [and I] have been buddies together since we did Second City together in 1985,” he remembers. “Ned is just a wonderful, wonderful writer and he’d written this script years ago with me in mind but, at the time, no one cared. Then, Parks and Recreation happened so that gave me some notoriety… And the next thing I know, we’re sitting with these producers and I thought ‘Damn, this thing is really gonna happen.’ So, it really was a gift to me because, it was written me with me in mind.  Ned has known me so long that he knows my strengths and weaknesses as a performer so he was determined to let me have a role that showed other sides of my acting range.“

Considering its dark humour, those who are more familiar with his roles as jovial Jerry Gurgich might be surprised about O’Heir’s interest in the project. However, O’Heir argues that the primary the appeal of participating in Middle Man was freeing himself of some of those stereotypes.

“Here’s the thing:  People think they know me because of Jerry… well, they don’t,” he explains. “Jim O’Heir loves dark. Jim O’Heir loves funny. So, to put dark and funny together is just the perfect combination for me. And then, as an actor, you get labelled, good or bad. I’m not complaining because I’ve been very blessed… but a lot of it has been the comedy, big guy wacky roles… but I am an actor at heart. It keeps my blood pumping. To get a chance to play a role that’s so opposite of what people have seen me do [is] scary because there was a lot riding on this film.”

With this in mind, O’Heir also felt that one of the greatest challenges about the project was moving into the film’s lead, rather than the comfort of being involved in ensemble roles.

“If I didn’t pull it off, the film would fail. I’ve never had that much pressure on me in my life,” he insists. “On Parks, there were 8 of us—and, one point, 10 of us—so if you don’t like one guy, switch to another guy. But, in this film, if you hate Jim O’Heir, turn the thing off because there’s only 3 scenes I’m not in. So, it’s very much on my shoulders which was daunting, exciting, terrifying all of the above. Thankfully—and there’s no one more critical of me than me—but I think I pulled it off enough that I didn’t ruin Ned’s film. So, that makes me very happy.”

Despite his larger role, O’Heir claims that part of what makes Middle Man work so effectively is the strength of its supporting cast.

“Andy West, who plays Hitch, is so damn good.  He certainly made me up my game and he said I upped his so it was a good collaboration and it just seemed to work out that way,” he beams. “Andy auditioned and, right away, I thought something was special. We auditioned lots of people. Auditions were good and there were wonderful actors who are good and would have been great but Andy and I just connected. The same thing happened to Anne Dudek, who played Grail. Same thing… That’s not to take anything away from anyone else that auditioned… but sometimes it’s what connections are made and Andy and I and Anne and I just connected.”

Ultimately, O’Heir believes that what drew such amazing actors to the film simply amounts to the quality of the script.

“Here’s the thing I tell everybody,” he states. “This film was not made with a lot of money but you saw the talent in it. What people need to know is that good actors—name actors—will work for very little money. There’s other ways to make your money… You get a good indie script? The names that showed up and wanted audition—you wouldn’t believe it. Then I said, I get it. It’s a great script. Who the hell wouldn’t want to be in it? [For] actors who really love acting, it’s not just all about the money.”

One of the most unique aspects of Middle Man is its comedic vision for Lenny’s murderous exploits. While there are those who may not always find humour involving death and severed hands appealing, O’Heir understands that the effectiveness of comedy depends entirely on the individual.

“Comedy is so subjective,” he supposes. “I mean, we could sit in a room together and one guy go crazy laughing and the other go, ‘What the hell’s so funny?’… It’s hard to say. Comedy is so subjective. There are people who hate Parks and Rec and some people who say it’s the best show ever created. I know I’m pretty easy. I don’t look for things not to be good. I do enjoy laughing and enjoying things. I’m an easy laugh.”

In light of this, it’s worth noting that Middle Man portrays Lenny as a man obsessed by his quest for fame. When asked why he feels that this was so important to his character, O’Heir maintains that Lenny’s primary motivation lies in his relationship with his mother.

“I think, in his mind, it was all about his mother,” he reflects. “They sat around listening to Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin and I think, to him, he saw that [to] his mother, that was the top of the heap. She always told him that he was funny… There’s a very quick line where, at the very beginning, he’s saying goodbye to the girl who never had time to go out because she was ‘always busy with family’. He says, ‘Look for me on television.’ For him, that was the ultimate victory to be on tv.”

According to O’Heir, “At the beginning, Lenny is an innocent. Lenny has had no life experience other than what he and his mother did. Maybe they would go apple picking on the weekend here and there but their fun was sitting at home and listening to old Vaudeville tapes. So, he was very, very innocent. I always say that I’m pretty sure that Lenny was a 50-year-old virgin. I just believe that he just would not have had that life experience. Then, he’s experiencing things he’s never experienced before. So, he’s thrown into a world he knows nothing about with the type of person that Hitch is. Certainly, he knows nothing about that type of crazy. Part of my thinks he’s snapped. I think he was in over his head and did not know how to get out… None of this makes sense to him.”

As Lenny slowly descends into darkness, O’Heir still believes that his character remains redeemable because of his innocence.

“Lenny is probably like me in the fact that he’s Catholic and guilt ridden just about everything. That’s just the life I’ve led. I think there is [redemption]… Nothing he did was out of malicious intent. I think Lenny could have redemption because he’s a forgivable character. Hitch is not forgivable. He’s a human piece of garbage… I do think that there’s redemption for Lenny because he does have a heart of gold and he’s put into a situation that his brain just could not process.”

In the end, O’Heir recognizes that the hard work put into the team was worth it, especially given the final product.

“It was a really, really hard shoot. We were in the desert. I’m a fat man who sweats. It was a nightmare shoot. They had me digging holes in the ground… but when it was all said and done, it was worth every flop sweat day I had.”

 

Middle Man is currently streaming on Netflix.

The Big Sick – All The Feels

by Leave a Comment

Image may contain: one or more people, text and outdoor

Recently, Steve Norton and I were lucky enough to attend an advance screening of The Big Sick in Toronto, which had two surprise guests – Kumail Nanjiani and his wife, Emily V. Gordon!

This film had already been released in select cities in the States at the time of the advance screening, and will have a wide release this weekend.  This particular independent film just keeps expanding, and it’s not difficult to see why.

Image result for the big sick

Based on the true story of Kumail Nanjiani and his wife, Emily Gordon, The Big Sick gives us a glimpse into how they met, their cultural differences and the life altering experience they went through.  Written by Nanjiani and Gordon themselves, this film was directed by Michael Showalter and produced by Judd Apatow and Barry Mendel.  Premiering at the Sundance Film Festival on January 20, 2017, the film next won the Audience Award: Festival Favourites at South by Southwest in March.

If you’re unfamiliar with Kumail Nanjiani, he is a stand-up comedian and actor.  He’s currently on the HBO comedy series, Silicon Valley.

Image result for the big sick

This movie has a fantastic cast.  Each actor captured the essence of their character extremely well.  Zoe Kazan plays Kumail’s girlfriend, Emily Gordon.  Holly Hunter and Ray Romano are cast as Emily’s parents; and Zenobia Shroff and Anupam Kher as Kumail’s parents.

Image result for the big sick

Fun fact: We found out at the Q&A that Kumail asked his father in real life who he wanted to play him in the movie.  He said Anupam Kher, who is a big Hindi film star.  They didn’t think it was possible but asked anyway.  Anupam said yes!  And this was his 500th movie!  (Incidentally, the film legend was also in the American film, Silver Linings Playbook).

The Big Sick takes us on Kumail and Emily’s journey of courtship, including navigating their cultural differences and what their parents expect of them.  During a rocky period in their relationship (in fact, they were broken up at the time), Emily fell ill with a very serious infection.  The doctors needed to put Emily into a medically induced coma and had to operate to remove the infection.  Emily was in a coma for 8 days.  She was diagnosed with adult-onset Still’s disease which is a rare form of inflammatory arthritis that can seriously affect your organs, if left untreated.

Image result for the big sick

While Emily was in a coma, Kumail was at the hospital constantly, anxiously awaiting news of her condition and hoping she would be able to wake up soon.  During this time, Kumail had many interactions with Emily’s parents, who were not his biggest fans.  But as time went on, they got to know each other better and they realized that Kumail was in love with Emily and had nothing but the best of intentions.

Image result for the big sick

Simultaneously, Kumail’s parents, who are devoted Muslims, were trying to arrange for a Pakistani woman that Kumail could marry.  On every visit to his parent’s house, Kumail had to meet a new woman.  He was also expected to pray to Allah.  This presented a huge conflict for Kumail as he was in love with Emily and his parents didn’t even know it.  He was also struggling with his faith and trying to figure out what he believed.

This movie raises so many intense topics.  While they were very honest about these subjects, they were also very respectful.  During the Q&A we attended, Kumail spoke about the effort that was made to cover the different perspectives without making it seem like one perspective was right or wrong.  I found it to be very inclusive of different points of view.

One of the first themes I picked up on was traditionalism.  Kumail and his family are from Pakistan and he was raised Muslim.  He was expected to pray daily and have his marriage arranged by his parents.  His brother’s marriage was arranged and Kumail received encouragement from him to follow the Muslim traditions.  Kumail lived a fairly western life in that he did not wear traditional clothing, he dated non-Muslim women and he chose an unconventional career – stand-up comedy.

I also noticed some stereotypes.  For a good portion of the movie, Kumail’s family appear to portray a stereotypical Muslim family and they’re almost made to be a joke (which is not unexpected given that at the core, this is a comedy film).  But there is a scene where Kumail confronts his parents with his truth and we finally get to see a more serious side of them.  We get a sense of their struggle and what they had to go through to give their children a good life.  Kumail’s mother said she hadn’t seen, I believe, her mother in over a decade.  And his father had to completely retrain in his occupational field when he came to America.

Kumail’s confrontation to his parents was largely about his faith, or lack thereof.  He admitted that he hadn’t been praying.  He would go to the basement and play video games during prayer time.  He admitted that he did not want an arranged marriage and, in fact, had been dating an American.  He told his parents that he needed to figure out what he believed on his own.

Image result for the big sick

Another aspect was that Kumail was often judged based on the way he looks.  In the film, he’s heckled on stage with racial slurs telling him to “go back to ISIS”.  Although Kumail says this particular scene didn’t happen in real life, he has actually been racially heckled on numerous occasions.

Lastly, there is a large theme of family in this film.  There is a striking scene close to the end of the movie which happens after Kumail confronted his parents and had been kicked out of the family.  Here, he returns to his parents house and tries to pretend everything was the same as it used to be by talking about how he refused to be kicked out of the family. (After all, no matter what, ‘they’ll always be family’.)  He promises to never give up on them and refuses to let their differences ruin their relationship.  For Kumail, his family matters, despite the tensions and differences that lie between them.

We also see a different family dynamic in how Emily’s parents stuck by her every second while she was in the hospital and at home recovering.  They were very protective over her when Kumail came around as they believed he was no good for Emily.  And then when they realized that Kumail was the right mate for her, they tried to encourage that relationship.

I experienced so many emotions while watching this movie.  It was genuinely funny–and not all of the funny scenes were in the trailer which is unfortunately what happens a lot these days.  (I even almost cried a few times.)

Bottom line – it’s a great movie.  It’s witty, smart, and eye opening.  I would highly recommend it.

Beatriz at Dinner – Visions of the American Dream

by Leave a Comment

F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” That pretty well sums up the thesis of Beatriz at Dinner. I’ve read some reviewers who call this the first film to deal with the Trump era. There are certainly elements of the film that make it applicable to today’s political situation, but this film’s social commentary is really much more about the divisions that exist in society and the visions that compete for the soul of our culture.

Beatriz (Salma Hayak) is a holistic healer who spends most of her time dealing with sick and dying patients. One afternoon she drives a significant distance for an appointment with Cathy (Connie Britton), the mother of a patient Beatriz had worked with in the past to give a massage. When Beatriz’s car breaks down, Cathy invites her to stay for dinner, even though it is a business dinner at which her husband is hosting Doug Strutt (John Lithgow), a very wealthy developer who is starting a new project that has taken some political manipulation to gain approval.

While there are others at the dinner (all in the upper one percent), the real conflict is between Beatriz and Doug. They represent very different ways of seeing the world and how we are to relate to it. Beatriz is a very spiritual person, in a New Age manner; Doug is the embodiment of materialism. Beatriz views the world as needing healing; Doug feels comfortable destroying environments for his own gain or pleasure. Doug represents all the privilege that the wealth represents. Beatriz came to the U.S. as a child, in large part because a new resort displaced her family from their beautiful seaside town.

One might think this set up is destined to be a comedy, especially since director Miguel Arteta and writer Mike White are known for comedies (and it is listed as a comedy on IMDB). However, this is so dark that the term ‘comedy’ hardly seems to fit. It is uncomfortable to watch at times because the nerves of this film are so close to the surface. Beatriz is something of an empath and brings the suffering of all the people and animals she has comforted into the mix. Doug’s smugness seems to make him immune from any criticism.

This is really a film about the American Dream and two different ideas of what that means. For Doug (and the others who depend on him for their own fortunes), the American Dream is about the accumulation of wealth and being able to enjoy all the pleasures that wealth can afford. But for Beatriz, the American Dream means the ability to bring goodness into a world that is filled with pain and suffering. This American Dream is seen in her relationship to the goats she keeps (one of which was killed by a neighbor). It is about connections and care.

The election of Donald Trump did not create this conflict in our culture, but it certainly has brought it to the fore and perhaps even exacerbated the differences. This film is clearly on the side of Beatriz’s vision of the Dream. But Doug and the others are not just straw men set up as targets. Cathy in particular seems to want to be a good person, but is at a loss trying to understand what is bothering Beatriz. This is after all her dream life, how can others not want the same? That is really the crux of our societal struggle: how can others not see the American Dream as we see it? Beatriz at Dinner provides us a chance to think about the Dream and how we should bring it to reality—and for whom.

The Brand New Testament – God’s Daughter Comes to Us

by Leave a Comment

Let’s get it out of the way from the start: The Brand New Testament is a sacrilegious, blasphemous film. But once you get past that, you may discover that this dark comedy speaks to us about finding love and joy in a world that is often defined by death.

brand_new_testament_-_3

The key premise is that God is alive—and living in Belgium. God (Benoît Poelvoorde) is also a self-satisfied jerk who treats his wife and ten-year-old daughter Ea (Pili Groyne) with contempt. He spends his day in his bathrobe as he dreams up new universal “laws” to annoy us, such as that the other line always moves faster. One day, Ea sneaks into her father’s room and hacks his computer. To get back at her father for all he’s done, Ea texts everyone in the world with the date of their deaths. People react to this in various ways. How would you react if you knew you had another sixty years to live? Or only eight days?

Ea then sneaks out of the apartment and goes into the world to find some apostles. Her brother JC had twelve, but Ea’s only ten years old so she sets out to find six. First, she comes across Victor, a homeless man who becomes her scribe as she comes up with a new testament based on her soon to be found Apostles. Each one is making changes based on the information of their death date. We see their stories in chapters entitled “The Gospel According to…” There is a one-armed woman, a would-be explorer, a sex maniac, an assassin, a woman whose husband leaves her, and a boy who decides he’d like to live his last few days as a girl. As the stories blend together people find love and meaning for their lives. Meanwhile, God has come looking for Ea and must deal with all of the annoying laws he’s made, and his wife is busy cleaning the apartment and perhaps making some changes of her own.

brand_new_testament_-_4

The film is a heavily satirical look at religion, but through that satire some of the basic questions that people have about life and its meaning are brought forward. A key question is how do we view life differently in the face of death. If death is something close at hand, we may make different choices than if it is far off. For example, when the dates are sent out, wars come to an end because the soldiers realize that it doesn’t matter what they do. If they don’t kill the enemy, they will die anyway if it’s their time; if it’s not their time they can’t be killed. For one person who knew he had 62 years to live, he started doing increasingly more dangerous things just because he could.

brand_new_testament_-_1

The film also raises the question about how we want to picture God. Do we want God to be a benevolent dictator who decrees things to make our lives better? (That is certainly not this God.) Or do we want God to be some distant, impersonal force—the Deistic watchmaker who created the universe and lets it run? Sometimes we may well think that God is very much like the jerk that is in this film—who plays with us without really caring. There have been some very key thinkers who have held that God often is not very nice, especially when we look at disasters (which we term “acts of God”) or events like the Holocaust (which God never stopped).

I’m sure there will be some who will be offended by the very nature of The Brand New Testament. But like Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, this film uses humor and even blasphemy to help us discover some important spiritual truths.

Photos courtesy Music Box Films