Trailer — Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
Posted on November 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
Idris Elba stars as Nelson Mandela in this film, opening November 29.
Posted on November 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
Idris Elba stars as Nelson Mandela in this film, opening November 29.
Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm
A-Lowest Recommended Age: | Mature High Schooler |
MPAA Rating: | Rated R for violence/cruelty, some nudity and brief sexuality |
Profanity: | Constant use of racial epithets, sexual references |
Alcohol/ Drugs: | Drinking and drunkenness |
Violence/ Scariness: | Intense and disturbing violence including rape, murder, whipping, and abuse, disturbing and graphic images |
Diversity Issues: | A theme of the movie |
Date Released to Theaters: | October 18, 2013 |
Date Released to DVD: | March 3, 2014 |
Amazon.com ASIN: | B00G4Q3NDA |
Watching “12 Years a Slave” is a shattering experience. It shatters any remaining illusions of gracious, chivalrous, Southern plantation life in the pre-Civil War era. They were based on the late 19th century myth-making from the children of slave-owners in a toxic effort to disguise the reality that the South was fighting to preserve a system of virulent racism fueled by the economics of plantation life. It shatters cherished notions of the first principles underlying the founding of this country. The man who wrote the revolutionary words that “all men are created equal” was a part of this atrocity. It shatters all previous depictions of slavery. By comparison they seem cartoonish and fraudulent, from “Gone With the Wind” to “Django Unchained,” more about the time they were made than the time they depicted. And, like all great films, it shatters our previous notions of what was possible on screen, with performances so vivid and compelling they seem to break through every boundary, between us and them, between then and now, between actor and audience. In one audacious moment, Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free man sold into slavery, looks into the distance, eyes filled with ineffable suffering and loss, and then turns to face us, looking into the eyes of those who are looking at him, bringing us further into his world.
This is different because it is a rare story of pre-Civil War South told from a black person’s point of view. It is based on Northrup’s book, written after he returned to his family. It is the story of slavery from a man who experienced it, and who knew what it was like to live as a black man who was not just free but better educated and more successful than most people of any race in his community. In that sense, it is a story told from inside the system of our country’s greatest shame. In another sense, it is presented by outsiders, director Steve McQueen (British) and stars Ejiofor (the British son of Nigerian immigrants) and Lupita Nyong’o (born in Mexico, raised in Kenya, educated in the US). They tell us Northrup’s story — and ours — without being tied to the way we prefer to tell ourselves what our history is and means.
Northrup is a successful musician, happily married with two adored children and respected by both white and black members of his community in New York State. He accepts a job playing with some circus performers (Scoot McNairy and “SNL’s” Taran Killem) in Washington, D.C., where slavery is legal. They drug him and sell him to a slave dealer (Paul Giamatti). Without his papers, he cannot prove he is a free man. Soon he is renamed Pratt and transported to Louisiana, where he is sold first to a comparatively benevolent man (Benedict Cumberbatch), but then, when he gets into a fight with the overseer (an oily Paul Dano), he is re-sold to a brutal man who prides himself on being an n-word-breaker (Michael Fassbender). Northrup loses more than his family, his liberty, his name, and his freedom. He loses his very self; he is told early on that if the white people know he can read and write, it will create more trouble for him. Indeed, when he tries to be helpful by suggesting a better system for transporting the crop, he earns the gratitude of his master but incurs the jealousy of the white boss. The only way to survive is to pretend to be the sub-human the owners need them to be to continue to hold onto their bigotry.
This movie makes clear the poisonous, psychotic twisted mind that can accept or even justify the idea that one person can buy and sell another. Over and over, we see the slaveholders at the same time acknowledging and denying the humanity of the people they think they own. A female slave sobs because her children have been sold and she will never see them again. The woman of the plantation, briefly sympathetic, says, “Poor woman.” But then, immediately after, “Your children will soon be forgotten.” Slaves are included in family worship services (though not seated with the family). But their souls are never acknowledged; they are categorized as livestock.
There are terrible beatings. There is torture and rape. Slave children run and play, laughing, ignoring the man who is almost choking to death as punishment. There are property identification chains slaves must wear if they go off the property, like something between a hall pass and a dog tag. There is a slave who has made her peace with what she has done to get better treatment — and with what she now does to other slaves.
Instead of the lush orchestral score usually underlying period films or the melancholy flute and drum usually heard in Civil War films, Hans Zimmer has created spare, edgy music that is bleak without being maudlin. McQueen’s approach is sure and direct and the script by John Ridley is ably structured and thoughtful. Nyong’o’s gives performance of exquisite grace and heart-wrenching dignity. But the center of the story is Northrup. Ejiofor is sure to get an Oscar nomination for a performance of unparalleled depth and eloquence.
Parents should know that this film includes very graphic and disturbing images of slavery, with rape, murder, and abuse, brutal whipping and atrocities, nudity, sexual references and situations, constant racial epithets, drinking and drunkenness.
Family discussion: What was the significance of the early scene in Mr. Parker’s store? How does this story differ from other movie depictions of the pre-Civil War South? Why did Northrup join in the singing of “Roll, Jordan, Roll?”
If you like this, try: book by Solomon Northrup, “Amistad,” American Experience: The Abolitionists, and Roots
Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm
BLowest Recommended Age: | High School |
MPAA Rating: | Rated R for language and some violence |
Profanity: | Very strong language |
Alcohol/ Drugs: | Drinking |
Violence/ Scariness: | Some violence including murder of two people and footage of military killings |
Diversity Issues: | None |
Date Released to Theaters: | October 18, 2013 |
Amazon.com ASIN: | B00BEIYRYM |
In late medieval times, when people first began to divide each other into groups defined by status and power, they began to speak of a “first estate” (the clergy), a “second estate” (the nobility, which also at the time meant the government), and a “third estate” (the common people. Later, the “fourth estate” was added to describe journalists and what today we call news media. Julian Assange, the Australian teenage hacker turned founder of Wikileaks is singular, unprecedented, gui generis. He collects masses of “secret” data and publishes it without editing, digesting, analysing, or redacting any of it. And so, this movie, with Benedict Cumberbatch as the white-haired Assange, is called “The Fifth Estate.”
This movie, from director Bill Condon (“Kinsey,” “Dreamgirls”), and based on a book by Assange’s now-estranged former partner Daniel Berg (played in the film by “Rush’s” Daniel Brühl) at times feels as though it is un-digested and un-analyzed. As a government official forced to resign due to some of the disclosures says near the end of the film, “I don’t know which of us history’s going to judge more harshly.” I would advise anyone interested in Wikileaks to begin with the documentary, “We Steal Secrets: The Wikileaks Story,” directed by Alex Gibney.
Assange says that he has two goals for what he calls “a whole new form of social justice.” He says he wants transparency for institutions and privacy for individuals. The problem, or, at least, one problem is that institutions are made up of individuals. And so, when one of Wikileaks’ early scoops is a list of British members of the far right “National Party,” it does not bother him that the members’ contact information is disclosed. Assange is an absolutist. He refuses to edit or redact (remove identifying information from) any of the documents he publishes. “Editing reflects bias,” he says. He is also something of a monomaniac and a megalomaniac, at least in the view of his one-time colleague. According to this film, he grew up in an odd Australian cult called “The Family,” with severe beatings, and has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. He is very protective of his own privacy as he exposes the secrets of others. And, as they say, just because you’re paranoid does not mean they’re not really out to get you. Once Assange starts exposing the secrets of the wealthy and powerful, they start coming after him, and the thing about being wealthy and powerful is that they have the resources to inflict a lot of harm. Two of his sources are murdered.
Condon does his best to minimize the scenes of people staring intently into monitors while they bang on the keyboards. He has some nice visualizations to evoke the experiences, some fantastic, some just the rocky topography of Iceland, one of many places Assange hid. And he takes a balanced approach. Everyone would agree with some of what Assange has uncovered. And everyone would object — even be horrified — by something he has done. Both sides quote Orwell. Big Brother is watching. Like “The Social Network,” the movie focuses on the rise and fall of the friendship and partnership more than the impact of the product they were working on. In this case, that is in part because we don’t know what that impact will be. But in this case, we do know that the impact is transformational. This is not some Facebook advertiser using an algorithm on your status posts to figure out what to sell you. This is a 22-year-old destroying the confidentiality that allows candid conversations between diplomats, including information about the foreign nationals who are giving them information.
Assange explains early in this film that the program he has developed to protect the identity of the providers of leaked documents is to drown them in false and phony data. He can say that editing reflects bias, but in the case of terabytes of information dumped in undigested and unredacted form, the data dump can be just as distorting. Like the journalists Assange worked with on the Bradley Manning material, this film tries to put some shape and perspective on a story that is still too big and too new to frame as a definitive narrative. But it is an absorbing story and as good an assessment as we can get for now.
Parents should know that this film has very strong language, violence including shooting and wartime scenes with some disturbing images.
Family discussion: What is the answer to the State Department official’s question about whose side history will be on? Who should decide what gets released? If Wikileaks makes other organizations accountable, who makes Wikileaks accountable? Do you agree with the two things Assange says you need to have to succeed?
If you like this, try: the documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks,” read up on the most recent leaker, Edward Snowden, and take a look at the Wikileaks page
Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm
B+Lowest Recommended Age: | High School |
MPAA Rating: | Rated PG-13 for sustained intense sequences of menace, some violence with bloody images, and for substance use |
Profanity: | Strong language |
Alcohol/ Drugs: | Drugs |
Violence/ Scariness: | Intense, graphic, and disturbing violence including threats, torture, and guns |
Diversity Issues: | Diverse characters |
Date Released to Theaters: | October 11, 2013 |
Date Released to DVD: | January 21, 2014 |
Amazon.com ASIN: | B008JFUNKU |
Memorable movie villains tend to fall into two categories: volatile and violent or sociopathic and megalomaniac. Both kinds are caricatures, sketched in exaggerated terms to justify our feeling of triumph when the hero prevails. But in “Captain Phillips,” the true story of a US merchant ship taken over by Somali pirates, the villain is far more real and far more terrifying. Somali native Barkhad Abdi stars as Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, the leader of a group of four teenagers sent to hijack ships for ransom money by elders in their village. Muse is the scariest of villains, someone with no other options and nothing to lose. Abdi’s performance in his first acting role is stunning, terrifying, and heartbreaking.
An awkward opening scene shows Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks) is at home in Vermont, preparing for his trip and driving to the airport with his wife (Catherine Keener), with some clunky, exposition-heavy dialog intended to foreshadow upcoming unrest. Once he gets to the boat, called the Maersk Alabama, director Paul Greengrass locks into the taut, intimate style he showed in “United 93” and two Bourne movies. The ship has a crew of 20. They have been warned about the possibility of pirates and have had some training in how to respond. Phillips orders a surprise drill to make them practice their defensive tactics. But this is not a military ship. They are carrying 17 metric tons of cargo. Their primary tactics are diversion and their primary weapons are their firehoses.
At first, the firehoses work. But then the Somalis get close enough to the ship to attach their ladder and climb aboard. “I’m the captain now,” says Muse. His lack of affect is chilling.
Director Paul Greengrass has an intimate, documentary style that keeps even those who remember the details of the real story on edge. The pirates search the ship, looking for the crew like a nightmare game of sardines. Phillips leads them around, genial and cooperative on the surface, but always thinking about how to impede them without making them angry. When their boat is destroyed, they take one of the lifeboats, more like a capsule than a ship, and they take Phillips as hostage. For four grueling days, Phillips has to try to keep calm and do what he can to help the US Navy, which is assembling its response. Hanks goes deeper than he ever has before, ultimately reaching a place of wrenching vulnerability.
After a shaky start, Greengrass and his talented cast make this into more than a story of courage and resilience. While he clearly has a point of view and never pretends that the pirates are justified, he allows us to understand their desperate circumstances.
Parents should know that this is the true story of a pirate attack on a US ship, featuring intense and disturbing scenes of threats, torture, and violence with some graphic images and dramatic emotional breakdown.
Family discussion: What was Captain Phillips’ most difficult decision? What was the most difficult decision for the US military in responding to the pirates? Do you disagree with any of their actions?
If you like this, try: “United 93,” another true story from the same director and Captain Phillips’ book, A Captain’s Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea
Posted on September 26, 2013 at 6:00 pm
The immensely gifted screenwriter Peter Morgan reunites with his “Frost/Nixon” director Ron Howard and returns to his favorite theme, a real-life drama about the clash between two brilliantly talented but flawed figures. This time it is the bitter rivalry between Formula One race car drivers James Hunt (“Thor’s” Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (“Inglourious Basterds'” Daniel Brühl). The British Hunt is Maverick to the Austrian Lauda’s Iceman, the Michael to his Sonny, the id to Lauda’s superego.
Both were the rebellious sons of wealthy fathers. Hunt is handsome, careless, and catnip to the ladies. “He will have you pulling your hair out nine days out of ten,” a character says, but on the tenth day, when you need him, he will deliver. Lauda is methodical and analytical. He calculates the odds. But they both know that they are among the very few who know what it feels like to get into a car that is essentially a bomb on wheels and speed it around a racetrack. They both do it not because they like driving in circles but because they like to test themselves. They both like to win, even need to win. And, as they remind us perhaps one or two times too many in this film, they both know that the best way to do that is to compete against one another. “The only people I can get along with are those who can drive fast,” Hunt says. He does not really get along with them, either.
Hemsworth, 30 pounds lighter than his Thor/Avengers muscled-up Norse god look, is able to make Hunt magnetic even in 70’s hair. We meet him as he walks into an emergency room with a bashed nose, not from a racing accident, from a jealous husband. The pretty nurse (Natalie Dormer) asks what he did to anger the husband and he rakishly offers to show her. The curtain rings squeal against the rod as it is quickly swung around and soon he is introducing her to his pit crew as “Nursie.” No time to learn her name, and no need.
Hunt was the James Bond of race car drivers, sexy, sophisticated, and fearless. But I don’t think James Bond ever threw up before a confrontation. “Rebels, lunatics, dreamers,” he tells us about race car drivers. “People who are desperate to make a mark and willing to die for it.” Formula One averaged two deaths a year. But, he adds, “The closer you are to death, the more alive you feel.”
Lauda says his brain is not that strong but his ass is very smart. He can tell from a car’s vibrations under the seat that a fan belt will be in trouble and which tire needs air. He negotiates his driving deals the way he drives, calmly but ruthlessly. He gets up early to walk the track. He calculates risk constantly and accurately. When he explains that one race should be called off because the heavy rainstorm has made conditions unsafe, Hunt, behind on points, persuades the other drivers to vote to continue. Lauda is very badly injured, including burns on his face and severe lung damage. In one of the most extraordinary comebacks in the history of sports, Lauda was back on the track 42 days later, against doctor’s orders but able to compete. In what passed for cheerfulness from the dour Austrian, he told the press that there was one advantage to the skin grafts on his forehead. They don’t sweat, so he would no longer be bothered by sweat dripping in his eyes. And, has his wife told him, you drive with your foot, not your face.
Howard conveys the pressure and the thrill of Formula One racing, giving us the view from inside the helmet, and showing us that Hunt’s air of casual mastery is accompanied by a nervous habit of playing with the cap on his cigarette lighter. He shows us how Hunt and Lauda are always racing, whether it is Hunt visualizing the track or Lauda walking it, competing for the best cars and sponsors, or exchanging barbed comments about whether it is more important to be feared than loved. The action is electrifying, on and off the track.
Parents should know that this movie includes some disturbing images of crashes and injuries, very strong language, sexual references and situations with nudity, drinking, smoking, and drug use, as well as a great deal of reckless behavior.
Family discussion: What were the most important ways in which Hunt and Lauda were alike? If you were a sponsor, which would you hire and why?
If you like this, try: “Winning” with Paul Newman, “Grand Prix” with James Garner, and “Le Mans” with Steve McQueen, and Peter Morgan’s “The Damned United” about another real-life sports rivalry.