ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Leonardo DiCaprio

5 Days of Christmas GIVEAWAY #5: ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD

by Leave a Comment

Actor Rick Dalton gained fame and fortune by starring in a 1950s television Western, but is now struggling to find meaningful work in a Hollywood that he doesn’t recognize anymore. He spends most of his time drinking and palling around with Cliff Booth, his easygoing best friend and longtime stunt double. Rick also happens to live next door to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate — the filmmaker and budding actress whose futures will forever be altered by members of the Manson Family.

The winner will receive a copy of Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood on Blu-Ray!

To enter, simply like or share our post on Facebook. For a bonus entry, like or share the post on Twitter and Instagram.

All entries must be completed by 11:59pm on Friday, December 20th, 2019

Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood – A Tarantino Fairy Tale

by 1 Comment

When I first heard that Quenton Tarantino was going to be making a movie that involved the Manson Family killings, I assumed the violence and blood would be overwhelming. But Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood turns out to be his least violent film. All of Tarantino’s films have an aspect of his appreciation of cinematic history, but this is his most explicit love note to Hollywood and the film industry.

As the title suggests, the film has a bit of a fairy tale aspect, focusing on the Hollywood myth—a world of stars, fame, and a bit of perversion. Set in 1969, the story focuses on Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a former star of a TV western who has been reduced to guest starring as a heavy in other series. His longtime friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), serves as his driver and emotional sounding board. Dalton’s career is on a downward trajectory, but he has an offer from an agent (Al Pacino) to go to Italy and make spaghetti westerns.

The time and place are important aspects of the film. 1969 Hollywood serves the same function as the “woods” in fairy tales. It is the locale of magic and danger and dreams. There is a real nostalgic quality to the film that seeks to recreate 1969 L.A., down to the Real Don Steele on 93 KHJ (a DJ and radio station, for those who didn’t grow up here at that time). The film makes excellent use of the remaining locations from that period, as well as recreating Hollywood Boulevard to resemble what it was like then.

The danger that lurks in these woods is the Manson Family. This subplot comes into the story in two ways. Dalton’s new next-door neighbors are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). That home became the scene of a murder by some of Charles Manson’s followers. But the main way this subplot develops is through Booth’s meeting hitchhiker Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) who takes him out to the Spahn Ranch where the Family lived. As a stuntman in westerns, Booth knew the ranch and its owner. Booth does not trust the group that is there, and soon leaves, but not before making enemies, including Tex Watson (Austin Butler) and Squeeky Fromme (Dakota Fanning).

Six months later, much has changed in the lives of Dalton and Booth. Perhaps their friendship is coming to an end, but when the Manson Family comes on the night we know as the night of the Tate murders, Tarantino doesn’t show us what we think we will see. The violence is still there, but [spoiler] there is an alternative history. The way Tarantino twists the story makes for a fairy tale happily ever after ending (of sorts).

Tarantino fills the film with myriad movie references and reminders of stars of the time. It is not just for nostalgia’s sake. It helps to create that fairy tale environment of hopes and dreams and magic. All of this is real history, but its telling is the relaying of the mythology of the Dream Factory for dreams that may not come true. His cinematic history is at times humorous. He even manages to make us think about and laugh at the kind of violence he’s become famous for.

Fairy tales are not just happy (or scary) stories; they have meanings and lessons. As we watch Dalton, Booth, Tate and others living their lives in this fairy tale, we note the importance and frailty of egos. Whether it is Tate going to a local theater where one of her movies is playing to hear the audience reaction to her on screen, or Dalton being disparaged (and later praised) by a child method actor (Julia Butters), or Booth dissing Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) on the set of The Green Hornet, we see people who struggle, even in success, with personal fulfillment. Perhaps it is of note that the person who seems most satisfied with his life is Booth, who is the person who isn’t famous. He is the one whose ego doesn’t require constant feeding. He is at ease with himself and his place within this world that is filled with artifice. He understands that he is a part of the artifice that the others believe to be reality.

In this film, Tarantino creates an artifice built around a reality that is well-known. By focusing on the Hollywood myth, he is able to create a world of happy endings out of a real-life tragedy. But then, he knows cinema enough to know that that is why we love movies.

Photos courtesy of Sony Pictures Entertainment

5.23 Living the Dream in ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD

by Leave a Comment

The year is 1969 and Hollywood is changing. Fading star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) has been forced to the sidelines as new stars like Sharon Tate are stepping into the limelight. Joined by his faithful stuntman who is closer than a brother but not as close as a wife, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), Dalton tries desperately to reclaim the fame that is slipping away. This week on the show, That Shelf’s Victor Stiff returns to talk about Tarantino’s fairy tale, finding satisfaction and whether Cliff Booth is redeemable.

You can also stream the episode above on podomatic, Alexa (via Stitcher), Spotify or Soundcloud! Or, you can download the ep on Apple Podcasts or Google Play!

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

5.23 Once Upon a Time… in HollywoodDownload

Before the Flood – Is It Too Late to Deal with Climate Change?

by Leave a Comment

gardenBefore the Flood opens with a Heironomus Bosch triptych, “The Garden of Earthly Delight”, which Leonardo DiCaprio tells us is one of his earliest memories because a print of these paintings hung over his bed as a child. On the right, the painting is a scene of Eden, on the left a depiction of Hell. In the middle a very involved scene with various people who are in the midst of life—perhaps living out the sins of the world. That makes for an interesting setting to talk about the dire aspects the world faces because of climate change.

Many may not know that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon designated DiCaprio as a Messenger of Peace focusing on climate change. Before the Flood is a way we get to see what that means for him. To be sure, he is banking on his celebrity to travel the world and meet with many people, some of great power, to discuss the causes and possible solutions to climate change. Among those he meets with are President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Pope Francis. He also sees first hand some of the destruction that is causing climate change and is being caused by climate change. Like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, this is intended to bring to light the dangers we are facing.

One of the differences between this film and the earlier documentary is DiCaprio’s personality. Early in the film he notes that he may not be the best person to serve as a Messenger of Peace because he is so pessimistic about our being able to respond to climate change. In the Q&A with director Fisher Stevens and writer Mark Monroe after the screening I attended, they spoke of DiCaprio’s darker vision and their more optimistic views as they were making the film. I think that tension helps to give the film some balance rather than being only gloom and doom.

Those who follow climate change may not find a lot of new information in this film, but it is often put forward in new easily understandable ways. For instance, I kind of liked the comparison of a ½ pound hamburger having the same carbon footprint as driving 42 miles in my Prius (a bit less that I put on the car when I drove to and from the screening).

One of my thoughts while watching the film was what the carbon footprint of this film was, since DiCaprio was traveling so much to see so many places in the world. The producers thought of that as well and paid a voluntary carbon tax to offset what the film was adding to the climate change problem. They also offer a website where people can calculate their own carbon tax. (A carbon tax, by the way, is one of the key ways being considered to help cut emissions.)

One section of the film points to the spiritual aspects of climate change. DiCaprio gets an audience with Pope Francis (who issued an encyclical, Laudato Si’, dealing with the issue. While we only see a bit of footage but hear no conversation, DiCaprio later summarizes their meeting.

Besides its theatrical release, this film will be broadcast by National Geographic Channel, commercial free, in 171 countries around the world on October 30. They were clear they thought it important for it to be seen before the U.S. election.

The film returns at the end to the Bosch triptych. It serves as a metaphor not only of the spiritual aspects of Paradise and Perdition, but also of how close we may be coming to living in a world that becomes its own kind of Hell. And we are reminded that it is in the middle part of that set of paintings that we live now, and have a chance to determine what our world will be.

Remembering The Revenant (Oscar Spotlight: Best Picture)

by Leave a Comment

revenant2In The Revenant, Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his son are scouts for a team of fur trappings in the late nineteenth Century. After a chance encounter with a bear, Glass is left bloodied and (almost) dead. As the team struggles to carry him along, they decide to leave him until he passes on. However, after a rogue member of his team causes Glass an even greater personal tragedy, he fights to survive in the harshest of winter conditions in order to exact his revenge.

Shot by uber-cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki in the wilds of Canada in natural light, The Revenant is certainly beautiful to see. It’s grey-blue landscapes are simply striking in their scope, drawing us into the film without the use of 3D trickery. Furthermore, DiCaprio’s performance is arguably the best of his career and (in my humble opinion) is much deserved of that elusive Best Actor award.

So, it must deserve Best Picture, right?

revenantMaybe—but ultimately, no.

While the film has something to say, frankly I don’t believe that it’s worthy of the hype. Hardy has received praise for his portrayal of Fitzgerald but I don’t feel that his character becomes anything particularly new from the archetype. In addition, as DiCaprio wanders in the desert, there are times where I feel the script does as well.

Further leaving me cold was the film’s message. In his acceptance speech at the Golden Globes, DiCaprio shared his award with the Indigenous Peoples of the world, arguing that it’s “time we recognized their history”. I couldn’t agree more with this statement. However, I don’t think that The Revenant necessarily accomplishes this in any particularly special way. In fact, rather than elevating native peoples, The Revenant actually equates them with the beastliness of the various fur trappers on a number of occasions. As a result, The Revenant creates an overall sense of animal-like nature of humanity. Yes, there are things that man does that one could consider noble (love of family or compassion, for instance); however, in the end, humanity is portrayed as vicious and cruel, a product of the elements.

revenant

The one bright hope within the film is the fact that, throughout his quest, Glass appears to receive strength from a power greater than himself. While much has been made of his ‘one-ness with nature’, his flashbacks and spiritual encounters point to an Influence from outside. He lives because he was allowed to live. He has purpose because he’s been shown there’s more to live for. What’s more, Glass even appears conscious of this when, at the end of the film, his angry heart recognizes that ultimately “revenge is in God’s hands”.

Despite this spiritual hope, however, the film’s conclusion still finds a man who is left with nothing. While his journey has come to an end, his life goes on—and his final glare to the camera suggests that he’s not sure why.

To bring the Oscar home for Best Picture, I simply don’t think that’s enough.

And the Nominees are… Important?

by Leave a Comment

The 85th Academy Awards® will air live on Oscar® Sunday, February 24, 2013.
The 85th Academy Awards® will air live on Oscar® Sunday, February 24, 2013.

The announcement of this year’s Academy Awards nominations always brings with it the usual debates.  Who surprised?  (Straight Outta Compton!)  Who got snubbed?  (Ridley Scott!)

Momentum.  Controversy.  Favourite.  Underdog.  Every year, all of these words are used to argue about the Academy’s picks.  In fact, I’m even sure that I’ll address these issues as time draws nearer to the eventual opening of the envelopes.

Though really, the question for the Church today is something different…

“Should we care?”

revenant2

Most people give a resounding ‘No!’ to this issue.  After all, the Oscars is really nothing more than an opportunity for Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson to gear up in Versace and Prada and walk the red carpet.  It seems to be frivolous fluff.  (See Globes, Golden) Besides, they haven’t seen the other movies anyways.

As a church, however, I don’t think we should be so quick to tune out.

Although the Academy has always been accused of being ‘out of touch’, the films that win (and are even nominated) demonstrate themselves to be cultural touch points.  Because everything is always a product of its own time, we learn a lot about the worldview and values of our culture from the stories it feels the need to tell.  Films like The Big Short, Mad Max: Fury Road, and The Revenant are films which speak our moment in time (even if they’re not set in it).  For the Church at large to ignore this fact is to miss an opportunity to engage Hollywood on their turf.

Christian Bale plays Michael Burry in The Big Short from Paramount Pictures and Regency Enterprises
Christian Bale plays Michael Burry in The Big Short from Paramount Pictures and Regency Enterprises

Art is a doorway to a culture.  The Apostle Paul knew that and would study the poetry and art of a city upon his arrival.  (Lest we forget the statue to the ‘Unknown god’ in Acts 17)  As Christians, we have been called into our world to speak hope in a relevant manner with humble hearts.  We don’t always like the messages we hear from the cinema–but that doesn’t make them less important.  How can we truly speak the Kingdom of God into a culture if we aren’t willing to listen to them first?  (After all, Karl Barth once said that the best theologians are the ones that “have a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other.”)

At the same time, I also think that the answer to our question about the Oscars can also be ‘No’ as well.  (Though maybe not for the reason you’d expect.)  The truth is that, as important as it is to engage the stories of our dominant culture, it doesn’t hold a candle to the truth of the stories of those in our nearest proximity and community.  In other words, although understanding the theological values inherent within The Martian and Room is a healthy exercise of the mind, the stories that matter most are the ones from the people we know.  To contemporize the Gospel, we must first engage our own world.  The values in our area may be entirely different than those that are revealed in this year’s Oscar race.

room1

Wrestling with the texts of those worthy of even being mentioned with the phrase “Best Picture Nominee” needs to be vital exercise within the church if it is to stay relevant.  Still, we also can’t assume they reflect the views of everyone we know.

And seriously, what does Ridley Scott have to do to get a win for directing?  Not even for Gladiator?  Throw him a bone, people…

martian-gallery3-gallery-image

The Revenant: Humanity’s Best & Worst

by Leave a Comment

revenant2

The Revenant cleaned up at the Golden Globes – Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Film Not in Matt Damon’s category. [Okay, I made that last category up… sort of.] But the truth is that while director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s latest film (he’s the artistic mind behind Birdman) dances gracefully, bloodily, across the fallen snow, the storyline lacks for aspects of the plot that could’ve made it grand.

John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the scene-chewing villain of this particular story, kills Hugh Glass’ (Leonard DiCaprio) half-Indian son and leaves Glass for dead in the 1820s. Furious, a ‘resurrected’ Glass goes hunting for Fitzgerald, fit and tied for revenge. Over ice and snow, Glass is undeterred by hypothermia (highly unlikely) or the bear mauling (which may be the best part of the film). But for two and a half hours, Glass pursues Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald runs, and we’re set up for an obvious confrontation. Along the way, we see some other subplots that play out as you’d expect, and nothing much unexpected happens.

revenant

That said, beyond the bear attack, one vignette in the film stuck out. It’s the portion of the film where Glass is cared for at his weakest by another fellow traveler, a Native American. The man provides for Glass and his needs, protecting him and even “housing” him. It struck me almost immediately that it was The Parable of the Good Samaritan played out in the middle of this Pacific Northwest thriller. It’s one man’s recognition that another man’s life–even a stranger’s–is worth saving because life is sacred.

Yes, The Revenant will gain attention for its style and its crew, but it isn’t the best film I’ve seen in the last year. It’s fun, exciting, and at times, terrifying, but the best of the film is found in about ten minutes of the middle third, when we see humanity at its best.

Trotting on the (Golden) Globes

by Leave a Comment

golden-globes-2016-ricky-essentiel-series-702x336

Upon the conclusion of last night’s Golden Globes, Oscar season has officially begun.

Run by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (or HFPA), the Globes have become one of Hollywood’s biggest parties. Alcohol flows freely. A-Listers hang out and have some laughs. Big name hosts like Ricky Gervais or Fey and Poehler run an evening more akin to a celebrity roast than an awards ceremony.

It’s got all the glitz and glamour you’d expect from Hollywood.

While stars like Leonardo DiCaprio (!) and Sly Stallone (!!) make room in their trophy case, and The Revenant and The (please don’t call me a comedy) Martian score big wins, suddenly we’re going to be told that these have immediately jumped to the forefront of Best Picture race when the Oscars roll around in a few weeks.

Don’t believe them.

That’s not to say that either of these pictures aren’t a worthy winner – or even a front-runner – but the Golden Globes aren’t necessarily the sure thing that they want you to believe. Even though they draw a substantial television audience and garner attention from some of Hollywood’s biggest and brightest, the HFPA is most guilty of their own sense of self-importance in the awards season shuffle.  (Ricky Gervais even remarked in his opening monologue that the awards were worthless, telling the celebs in attendance that “It’s a little piece of metal that some journalist made so they could take a selfie with you.”)

1895

How do we know?

For starters, the HFPA is a notoriously private non-profit organization whose membership consists only ninety journalists. Yes, you read that correctly: ninety members. That’s less than the average university film class. Or half the available seating at a standard movie theatre. When you compare this number to fact that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences consists of over six thousand members, you get the feeling that the HFPA is not nearly as accurate a gauge on what the arts community believes to be the ‘Best’ of the year.

Furthermore, the strange categorizations of films and actors/actresses doesn’t necessarily indicate that they’ll be loved by the Academy either. Remember when Madonna won Best Actress at the Globes and didn’t even receive an Oscar nod? Or when David Fincher was a lock for The Social Network? Brokeback Mountain, Boyhood, Dreamgirls, Avatar and, yes, The Hangover – all Golden Globe winners of Best Picture that failed to make Oscar’s historical list of winners. (To be fair, the Globes actually have a relatively solid record of picking the eventual Oscar winners in the acting categories but they are far from a guarantee.)

golden-globes-2016-leonardo-dicaprio

While I am actually a full supporter of the Awards season shuffle (look for my editorial on Thursday after this years nominees are announced for my reasons why), the Globes just don’t convince me. They know how to throw a great party and garner attention but, when you get beyond the sizzle, there’s simply no steak. (A great example of this came in 2008 when, as a result of the Writers Guild strike, they opted to strip down the ceremony. Without celebrities or pageantry, their awards were announced from behind a desk—and people barely noticed.)

While it would be completely fair to make this same accusation about other awards ceremonies, the Globes just strike me as particularly empty. Call them what you will but the HFPA appear to carry an overly-inflated view of themselves.

Still, I can’t put too much blame on them.

In truth, the Globes are a product of our own culture and it’s obsession with glamour. In essence, the primary reason they remain prominent in the ratings is because they put on a show of excess. We love to create an idol culture where celebrities maintain importance simply because they’re famous. Memes of Leonardo DiCaprio wincing at Lady Gaga or fashion-shaming the dresses on the red carpet remind us that we think we’re better than they are. Our own pride and sinfulness drives us, not only to create idols, but also place ourselves above them.

So, you see, the problem really isn’t the Globes.

Although I believe it’s fair to celebrate quality art, our natural—read: sinful—tendency is to view ourselves with attitudes as falsely as the Globes themselves. When we humbly acknowledge our own brokenness, it reminds us of the emptiness of a culture of celebrity and allows us to celebrate what is good. Ultimately, that’s what matters most—and what the Globes most lack.

Regardless of who’s hosting.

golden-globes

The Revenant: Return to the living

by Leave a Comment

“As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight. You breathe… keep breathing.”

Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s The Revenant fits all the qualifications of a big film: star-caliber acting from Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, and others; astounding cinematography in gorgeous settings; and a story that seems to be larger than life. The film is “inspired by” the legendary life of Hugh Glass, a 19th Century frontiersman about whom various stories, some likely true, but others apocryphal, arose and were embellished by the newspapers of the day.

Guided by sheer will and the love of his family, Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) must navigate a vicious winter in a relentless pursuit to live and find redemption.The film begins as a trapping expedition lead by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) is preparing to return back to civilization. After being attacked by Native Americans, they must make their way back over mountains. Glass (DiCaprio) knows the area and convinces the Captain of the plan to get back over strong objections from John Fitzgerald (Hardy). Along the way Glass is attacked and mauled by a grizzly. Along with Glass’s son, Fitzgerald and a young man volunteer to stay with Glass while the others go on. Soon, however, Fitzgerald kills Glass’s son, and convinces the other man they must leave the dying Glass to his fate. But Glass does not die. Rather he battles through recovering from his injuries and slowly makes his way back where he will have revenge on the man left him for dead and killed his son.

On the superficial level, this journey back is a marvel of the human will to survive. From the time he crawls out of the grave Fitzgerald threw him in, Glass must struggle through each day, each step. He survives not only the grizzly attack that initially injures him, but even more trials along the way: waterfalls, warring Native Americans, starvation, and winter.

But there is also a sense in which this is a journey to humanity. Early on in this Odyssey, it seems that Glass survives by reverting to primal, animal behavior. In press notes, Iñárritu says, “Glass’s story asks the questions: Who are we when we are completely stripped of everything? What are we made of and what are we capable of?” I was struck to the way that he seemed very like the bear that had mauled him: wearing the bear skin, grunting in a similar way, catching and eating raw fish. But there are also events that remind him that there is more to his life than just a will to survive. One of the best of those events is the simple act, along with a Native American companion, of catching snowflakes on his tongue.

One of the strongest emotions that drives him is the memory of his love from his son and wife (who was Native American and killed by soldiers). He frequently dreams of their time together and the things that his wife taught him and his son about overcoming fear and troubles. Those memories and the love they represent were as sustaining for Glass as was the food he caught along the way or the healing provided by a Native American who, like him, had lost everything dear to him.

The interplay between the savagery of nature and the façade of civilization serves to provide insight into what it means to be human. Glass must revert to an animal nature to survive the wilderness, but before he can come back to the world of people, he must be reconnected to something that is beyond the animal aspect of who we are.