ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

luke evans

Midway: Battle-Ready, Willing and Able

by Leave a Comment

Set in the heart of WWII, Midway tells the dramatic story of the US soldiers and pilots who fought during the Battle of Midway in June 1942. Having remained ‘officially’ neutral in the war, the US found themselves drawn into the conflict after the bombing of Pearl Harbour in December 1941 at the hands of the Japanese. Over the next few months, they engaged in a military chess match as both superpowers attempted to outmaneuver one another, culminating in the epic Battle of Midway.

Directed by Roland Emmerich (The Patriot), Midway is a bold and sweeping film that attempts to walk the line between historical drama and action blockbuster. Known for such epic films as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, Emmerich understands the nature of spectacle, which he puts to good use onscreen here. With every screaming bullet and fiery explosion, Emmerich seats the viewer in the centre of one of WWII’s most iconic battles. As a result, the sweeping nature of the action and its ‘rag-tag’ group of characters who come together to win the day fits well into Emmerich’s repertoire. (Ironically, however, it’s interesting to note that the historical aspect of this particular film makes Midwaysomewhat of a departure for him as well, given that his filmography consists almost entirely of science fiction epics.)

Unfortunately, where Midway loses its way is in the area of character development. Like many of Emmerich’s other films, Midway’s heavy reliance on stunning battle sequences often leaves its characters somewhat one dimensional in the middle of complex circumstances. As a result of the film’s emphasis on action, heroic historical characters like Lieutenant Commander McClusky (Luke Evans), cocky war hero Dick Best (Ed Skrein), and Admiral Chester Nimitz (Woody Harrelson) aren’t given the time to explore their true feelings and motivations in the midst of the most difficult of times. None of this is particularly surprising, given Emmerich’s back catalogue. After all, for Emmerich, the greatest drama lies in the victories and losses as opposed to the inner battles of his characters. However, it does keep Midway from truly landing as a truly compelling historical drama. (Although, it is worth noting that one of the most surprising aspects of the cast is its lack of ethnic and gender diversity. While the film is set in the 1940s and the film’s heroes were actually Caucasian males, the script gives little opportunity to anyone else to speak their voice, an important aspect that is usually a staple of Emmerich films.)

However, the film’s penchant for spectacle does powerfully emphasize the nature of sacrifice. For Emmerich, the greatest demonstration of valor comes when people are willing to give their lives in the service and protection of others and Midway demonstrates this truth well. For these characters, war is neither driven by a quest for glory nor individual medals but by doing what is required in order to keep their families safe. In some ways, Midway exemplifies the power of sacrifice best in its smaller moments. For example, one brief scene where a young girl is rescued by her mother as Pearl Harbour is destroyed speaks to the more personal implications of war. In another, as Best informs his troops that, ‘even though they’ve been through hell, they have to get back out there’, the audience recognizes the sheer exhaustion that is required of military troops when they are thrown into the field. Brief moments such as these speak to the true sacrifice of life at war when families are directly impacted or men and women are called upon to give more than they have to offer in service to a call greater than themselves. In this regard, Midway wears its heart on its sleeve by demonstrating Emmerich’s admiration for those who have committed their lives to the mission.

Even so, as the end credits roll, Midway leaves the audience with somewhat of a mixed bag of emotions. While the film’s spectacle is thrilling and often gorgeous to see, frequently one-dimensional writing for its characters and a surprising lack of diversity hold the film back from true greatness. While it’s easily Emmerich’s most entertaining film in years, Midwayis still missing enough depth to truly land the plane.

Midway brings history to life in theatres on Friday, May 8th, 2019.

The Alienist – CSI 1896

by Leave a Comment

“I must follow this wherever it goes, even if it leads me to the darkest pit of hell.”

We’re used to police procedural TV shows that include forensic science (including fingerprints and autopsies) and psychological profiling. But there was a time when such things were not commonplace in solving crimes. That is the world of The Alienist, based on the Caleb Carr novel, (Carr also wrote the first two episodes of the series which I was able to preview.)

The series is set New York City in 1896. A boy prostitute has been found murdered. Hearing of the circumstances, Dr. Laszlo Kreizler (Daniel Brühl) sends John Moore (Luke Evans) an illustrator for the Times, to capture the scene. Kreizler is certain that this is the work of a serial killer and that he can use his skills as an Alienist (what we would call a psychologist today) to find the killer. The police are indifferent, at best. Most are completely disdainful.

New police commissioner Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Geraghty) wants to reform the corrupt NYPD. He encourages Kreizler to conduct a parallel enquiry outside of the police department. Kreizler is joined by Moore; Sara Howard (Dakota Fanning), a secretary in the police department; and Marcus and Lucius Isaacson (Douglas Smith, Matthew Shear), two detectives with a scientific outlook. They set out to follow the evidence that their innovative theories provide.

As the subject matter would suggest, there is a great deal of darkness. It is not limited to killings, but also is reflected in the much harsher world that existed at the time. The police are brutal and corrupt. Brothels were commonplace (and Moore regularly frequents on). Antisemitism is the norm. I think what I appreciated most in the first two episodes was the ability to create the time and place so well. (The series filmed in Budapest to provide a semblance of 19th century New York.)

The term alienist reflects the view that those with mental illness were “alienated’ from their true nature. But it is also the case that the characters in this story are alienated from society in various ways. The principals in the series are each in their own way an outsider. Moore, a journalist, is disdained by police. Kreizler is a practitioner of a strange new discipline. Howard, as a woman, is deemed unimportant and powerless. The Isaacsons are Jewish and so not trusted by others in the police. Even Roosevelt with his power is an outsider within the police department, seen more as a threat to the status quo than really part of the department. Because they are not part of the police culture, they will face additional obstacles, but also be able to bring different perspectives to the task.

The first two episodes are essentially table setting. We meet the characters, see the crime, and the group is formed to set out on the task. The mystery solving is only just beginning.

Having seen only two episodes I am left to guess where the series will lead. But I expect that the theme of alienation will continue to be advanced, as will the idea of the darkness that fills the world. There will likely be many contrasts, including rich and poor, and graft and honesty. I suspect the darkness will not be limited to whoever is going around killing boy prostitutes, but also include the darkness within the so-called proper people of society. Those that look the other way. Those who think what happens to the underclasses is unimportant. I suspect that the “darkest pits of hell” to which Kreizler and the others will encounter will not be limited to the criminal world.

Photos courtesy of TNT

Beauty and the Beast – Now the Live Action Version

by 1 Comment

“Tale as old as time/ Tune as old as song”

Yes, this is a story that has been told before. Beauty and the Beast is a live action remake of Disney’s 1991 animated (and much beloved) version of the French fairy tale that dates back to at least the 18th Century La Belle et Le Bête. Disney has also presented this as a stage musical. Is it time to tell it again? Does the new format make it a better telling of the story?

In case this oft told story has eluded you, it is a story of discovering the beauty where others only see ugliness. The Prince (Dan Stevens) leads an extravagant life full of parties and expensive trappings, One night an old woman shows up during a party asking for shelter and food, offering only a rose as payment. He ridicules her and turns her out, not knowing she is really an enchantress who places a curse on him and his castle. He is transformed into a hideous beast and his servants transformed into household objects. Unless he can give and receive love before the final petal falls from the enchanted rose, they will stay like this forever.

In town Belle (Emma Watson) has grown up with her widowed father (Kevin Kline). She longs for something more than can be found in her village. She is wooed (in spite of her clear rejection) by the vain and pompous Gaston (Luke Evans). When her father gets lost in the woods and comes across the Beast’s castle, he makes the mistake of picking a single rose to take to Beauty. The Beast locks him up as a thief. When Belle finds him, she takes his place in the cell. The Beast is rude and angry, but over time (and with the help of the talking household objects), the two discover in each other something more than either expected.

This is a film that showcases Disney’s strengths—wonderful production design and CGI effects, plus the music that has served the story well in the previous incarnations (plus three new songs by Alan Menken and Tim Rice). The humor is right for young viewers with just enough more mature comedy for adults to enjoy. The production numbers often involve crowds of people all singing and dancing. This is clearly designed to move to a new level from the stage version. Director Bill Condon wanted to create a musical worthy of the Golden Age of musicals, and also tell the well-loved story with a bit more depth to the characters.

The film’s key message is found in the love story between Belle and the Beast. It teaches that love is found when we are open to one another as Belle and the Beast eventually open themselves to know and be known. But there is also the whole theme of how do we welcome those who are different from us. Failure to do so is what led to the Prince being transformed into the Beast in the first place. For the Prince at the beginning of the film and for Gaston throughout, self-centeredness and failure to see others as something other than to be possessed is the root of the ills of the world. In that, this story could speak to us of how we relate to the world around us that is filled with people who are different from us. Do you judge their value by what that can provide to make us happy—or by the inherent value that all people have in their diversity?

Given that this story is so similar to the earlier film and the stage version, it is worth asking if this really adds to the story. I suspect that is going to be a matter of taste. Some will like all the production values of this version. They’ll love the sets and costumes. They’ll like the CGI characters. But it is also a bit darker and heavier at several places than the animation version. Others may think that this story is much better dealt with through animation. It should be noted that the animated version was seen as ground breaking at the time. It was the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture. Personally, for all the beauty and splendor of this version, the darker tone that comes into play seems a bit much. I think the animated version is the better approach to this story.

Photos courtesy of Walt Disney Studios

The Girl on the Train: The Lies We’re Told & The Lies We Tell Ourselves

by Leave a Comment

To be clear, I had not read Paula Hawkins’ thriller before seeing the stories of three suburban women unfold onscreen in Tate Taylor’s (The Help, Get on Up) cinematic version of The Girl on the Train. Like Gone Girl, I had the sense early that the gradient versions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would filter differently as the events played out in front of me, but even greater themes were at work here. As I unpacked the story of Rachel Watson (Blunt) and her voyeuristic view from the passenger train, I realized that much more was at stake here than a simple thriller.

For those who haven’t heard the story, let me simply say that it revolves around Watson. She’s the ex-wife of Tom (Justin Theroux) and still bears the marks of his affair with his new wife, Anna (Rebecca  Ferguson). But she comforts herself by imagining the perfect life of Megan Hipwell (Haley Bennett) and her husband, Scott (Luke Evans), who are next-door neighbors of Tom’s. This is unfortunately complicated when Tom and Anna hire Megan to be their nanny. All of this is watched by Rachel as she commutes to the city each day.

We recognize that all is not right in the world of Anna – she wants to be a mother but lacks the necessary mindset to put her child above herself. We see that Megan wants more for her life, but plays the part that each of the men in her life want from her, whether it’s subservient or aggressive. We watch Rachel’s life revolve around drinking herself into oblivion, both in the present and in the past, presented in flashbacks. All of these women are flawed, but the way that the women are presented pales in comparison to the way that we’ll see the men by the end of the film.

But as the film unravels, mirroring Rachel’s own mental unravelling, we see that we can’t necessarily believe what we see, or hear, or understand about the narrative in front of us. This is a net result of the way that alcohol clouds Rachel’s judgment and memory; in fact, her alcoholism carries with it blackouts that require her to rely on others to know what happened to her or what she did herself. (This seems to be the kind of warning narrative we might show to those wondering how alcohol is harmful, but the impact of the drinking is overshadowed.)

The other impact on the narrative and our understanding of truth is the sheer amount of lying that each of the people in the story participate in. With each other, to others. While Rachel is our protagonist (we think), she begins to involve herself in the lives of the other major characters and lying about her whereabouts, motivations, and perceptions. Even while she appears to be aimed at doing something good, she continues to lie, spinning a spirit of deception that extends throughout most of the film.

But when the crime that serves as the catalyst occurs, one person’s actions are ended, even as the deception continues. At this point, the film switches from psychoanalyzing Rachel to exploring the mystery of the crime. And honestly, the switch led to a mindset that seemed motivated in a battle of the sexes.

While none of these characters end up being Noble Peace Prize winners, the women lie and the men are violent, manipulating, even psychopathic. Ultimately, Rachel’s resolution of the situation comes about when she resorts to engaging in ‘male’ behavior as depicted in the film; the violence she must resort to is the way we’ve been shone that healing must happen. It is not enough for to take back her life and kick addiction to the curb; she must dive into the masculine world and invoke violence as her right.

Ultimately, I found The Girl on the Train entertaining and provocative. But I found myself disturbed by the fact that the plays for sexuality by the women, manipulating and powerful, were given the nod for acceptable behavior, and the men’s verbal and physical violence was evil. I would say that both genders did violence to each other, through manipulation physically, emotionally, and mentally, breaking down a world of love and trust that should occur in marriage and loving relationships. The downfall was widespread – and even the liberating factor proves that the cycle is broken by more of the same.

Special features include deleted and extended scenes, a look at The Women behind The Girl, “On Board the Train,” and a feature-length commentary by director Tate Taylor. Now available on Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital HD.