Miss Moffat (Bette Davis), an educated and very independent woman,
arrives in a small Welsh mining village in 1895 to live in a house she inherited
and start a school for the miners’ children. She is told, “Down here, they’re only
children until they’re twelve. Then they are sent away to the mine and are old
men in a week.”

None of the children can read or write, and few know any English at all. She
persuades Miss Ronberry (Mildred Dunnock) and Mr. Jones (Rhys Williams) to
help her, but the local landowner, called “the Squire” (Nigel Bruce), and the
owners of the mine are opposed and do everything they can to stop her. She is
about to give up when she sees an essay by Morgan Evans (John Dall), a young
mine worker, that shows a real gift. She tells him he is “clever,” which makes him
“want to get more clever.”

They work together for two years, but she does not realize he is becoming
resentful and impatient. His friends make fun of him for learning and call him
the schoolmistress’s dog. He quits. Later, when Mr. Jones persuades him to come
back, Miss Moffat prepares him for Oxford and even uses “soft soap and curtsying”
to persuade the Squire to recommend him. He wins a scholarship.

Bessie,
the dishonest and slatternly daughter of Miss Moffat’s housekeeper, is pregnant
with Morgan’s child. Miss Moffat adopts the child so that Morgan will be able to
go to Oxford. She tells him his duty is to the world. Then she tells herself, “You
mustn’t be clumsy this time,” and resolves to be more sensitive in raising Morgan’s
child than she was with him.

This movie is an adaptation of a play by Emlyn Williams, who
was actually saved from the coal mines by an understanding teacher. It has a lot
of parallels to My Fair Lady and Born Yesterday, which also deal with intense
teacher-student relationships that transform the lives of both.

Like Billie Dawn in Born Yesterday
and Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, Morgan is excited and disturbed by the way learning changes
him; he panics at the thought of losing everything familiar to him (including
ignorance), and he gets angry and impatient. Eliza would understand Morgan’s
telling Miss Moffat, “I don’t want to be thankful to no strange woman.” Like
Henry Higgins, Miss Moffat does not want thanks.

Miss Moffat is different because of her reason for teaching Morgan. She
responds to his spirit and his potential in that first essay. Perhaps because she
responds so strongly, she stays very distant from him, admitting she knows every
part of his brain, but does not know him at all. She cares for him deeply. The
contrast between her spirited response to the Squire when he prevents her from
using the barn for a school and her “soft soap and curtsying” to get him to help
Morgan shows how far she is willing to go.
Ultimately, she takes on Morgan’s child, knowing it means she will never see
him again, because both of them believe the child will be better off if the break is
permanent.

Also worth discussing: the consequences of careless sexual involvement, the idea
that there may be something more important to some women than getting married (especially in that era, when married women had so little say over what happened
to them), and Bessie’s statement that she only had sex with Morgan to
spite Miss Moffat. Families should also discuss:

• Why didn’t the Squire want the Welsh children to learn?

• Why did the miners make Morgan feel bad about learning?

• Why did telling Morgan he was clever make him want to learn more? Why did
Bessie’s telling him he was clever have a different effect?

• What did Miss Moffat mean by “soft soap and curtsying” and how did she use
them? How did she feel about using them?

• Why was Morgan so angry about having to be grateful?

The real-life Morgan Evans, Emlyn Williams, became a
playwright and actor and can be seen in Major Barbara as Snobby Price. The
Squire is played by Nigel Bruce, best known as Dr. Watson in the Americanmade
series of Sherlock Holmes’ movies. Bessie’s mother belongs to a group like
the one Sister Sarah belongs to in Guys and Dolls, or Major Barbara does in the
film of the same name.

A good book about this part of the world is On the Black Hills, by
Bruce Chatwin, and there are some outstanding books about the history of coal
miners in many different parts of the world.

In Stardust Memories, Woody Allen’s character refers to his mother’s cooking as putting food through the “deflavorizing machine.” His latest movie feels as though he has taken his complex and powerful Crimes and Misdemeanors abd put it through a deflavorizing machine. It raises many of the same themes, but it is flatter, more superficial, less heartfelt, and less involving. Fans who have been disappointed with Allen’s lightweight, almost listless recent films have called this his best film in years, but it is just a weaker version of his favorite themes. Changing the location (and the accents) from Manhattan to England (a decision made for tax reasons, not artistic ones) and substituting opera for jazz creates only the semblence of substance, a cinematic emperor’s new clothes.

It begins with a nod to luck, the force that determines outcomes from a tennis ball’s being in or out to a chance meeting that leads to love or heartbreak.

Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers of Bend it Like Beckham) is a professional tennis player who was never quite good enough. So he take a job as a teenis pro at a luxurious country club.

He meets and hits it off with Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), the son of a wealthy family. Their common interests in tennis and opera land Chris an invitation to the Hewett’s estate, where he meets Tom’s sister, Chloe (Emily Mortimer) and Tom’s American fiancee, Nola (Scarlett Johansson), an actress. Chloe likes Chris. Chris likes Nola.

But Nola is not available. And marriage to Chloe means a very comfortable life with a beautiful and generous woman who is devoted to him. So Chris marries Chloe, and her father finds him a job that pays much better than tennis.

And then Nola is available. She and Tom break up, and she and Chris begin to have an affair. He is enthralled by her. But things change, and she becomes an inconvenience. Is Nola worth giving up everything Chloe and her family have given him?

I can accept that what appears to be arbitrary in the script is intended to illustrate the role of luck and chance. But there is no such justification for the thinly written roles of the characters. The females in particular are just narrative conveniences. They exist for no other reason than to put Chris into various contrivances of the plot. And there’s no reason other than financial to set the story in England, except maybe switching from New York ersatz country squire a la Ralph Lauren to the real thing.

The whole question of the movie’s theme is suspect as well. Is it really a matter of luck whether a tennis ball is inside or outside of the line? Isn’t the whole idea of athletic competition based on the premise that it is a matter of skill? Is it a matter of luck or judgment that a man decides to have an affair or commit a crime? Chris goes from being a tennis pro to the cushy job his father-in-law finds for him without any effort whatsoever.

We are supposed to believe that Chris has no problem whatsoever in performing satisfactorily (not better than anyone else but certainly more than adequately). This feels less like a portrayal of luck than like a lazy short-cut, and one that undermines the power of the movie’s themes, for all its efforts to leverage operatic sweep. The lucky one here is Allen, whose change of venue has dazzled his long-waiting fans into thinking he has returned to form. It’s just a net ball.

Parents should know that this is a serious and tragic film with a character who cheats, lies, and murders to get what he wants. The film includes some strong language, drinking and smoking, as well as brief but shocking and explicit violence and sexual references and situations.

Families who see this movie should talk about experiences they have had that made them think about the importance of luck and what they think will happen to Chris in the future.

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate Crimes and Misdemeanors and the classic film A Place in the Sun, based on Theodore Dreiser’s book An American Tragedy.

If you believe the previews or have seen the poster of an aggressively extended and bejeweled ring finger, then you might presume that “The Family Stone” is going to be a light-hearted romp of a comedy. Boy brings home uptight girl to meet his kooky and free-spirited family, amusing and embarrassing behavior follows, family and girl all learn important lessons about one another, then the movie ends on a wacky but upbeat note.

No, nope and not even.

There are embarrassments, humorous moments and lessons here as well as some physical gags, but the movie is a much more ambitious work that jumps all over the emotional spectrum before settling on quirky tear-jerker.

Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker), as tightly wrapped as her hair and as annoying as the constant ringing of her cell phone, tries to hide her insecurities behind a brittle facade of confidence but ends up broadcasting every thought and perceived offense. That might be fine when she is in her element but going to the Stone home for Christmas as the girlfriend of beloved-son Everett Stone (Dermot Mulroney) makes her the square peg in this close-knit family circle. What Meredith doesn’t know is that Stone matriarch Sybil (Diane Keaton, who chomps through this role like it was cotton candy) is ill and that the interloper will make a handy punching-bag on which the family can take out their frustrations.

Stoner and truth-speaker Ben (Luke Owen), bitter Amy (Rachel McAdams), distracted mom Susannah (Elizabeth Reaser) and sunny, deaf Thad (Tyrone Giordano) round out the Stone siblings collected around the catalogue-perfect living room and mellowed by relaxed dad Kelly (Craig T. Nelson). When Meredith manages to offend nearly everyone in the liberal household, she calls in back-up in the form of lovely little sister Julie (Claire Danes who glows sufficiently to compensate for not having much in the way of a character to inhabit).

The strengths of this movie are top-notch performances, several more-than-a-bundle-of-quirks believable characters and plenty of space for the audience to have their own thoughts. Relative newcomer director Thomas Bezucha does a good job framing Diane Keaton’s scene-devouring energy and using an understated Luke Owen as the emotional anchor onscreen. However, these two cannot compensate for the movie’s lack of self-knowledge and forced sentimentality. Like the character of Meredith, the film’s bravado cannot mask a messy soul but should be given respect for showing up and sticking it out.

Parents should know that this movie has mature themes, including the illness of a family member, the projection of anger from something that causes pain to someone on the outside and the hypocrisy implicit in embracing acceptance but rejecting someone who does not think like you. A tender and committed interracial gay couple adopts, leading to discussions of race and sexual orientation that include some remarks interpreted as bigotry. Brothers tussle and try to hurt each other. An emotional character gets into a fender-bender off-screen. A character’s illness is the elephant in the room, about which nobody will speak. A character gets drunk and loses inhibitions, social drinking and references to pot smoking. There is brief profanity.

Families might wish to discuss the different ways the characters have of showing support and understanding, from Sybil’s discussions with Everett related to her mother’s ring to the scenes where Kelly and Sybil are alone. How is your family like — or not like — to the Stones and how would you react to a newcomer to the family who seemed different?

Families looking for more movies that highlight messy familial tensions around holidays might wish to watch the thoughtful Pieces of April, What’s Cooking or Home for the Holidays. Those who wish to see Diane Keaton demonstrating her comedic chops should watch Something’s Gotta Give or Annie Hall.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

In the savage satire The Player, actor/screenwriter Buck Henry makes a hilarious pitch for a sequel to The Graduate, something of a savage satire itself, though cloaked in the garb of a romantic fantasy of rebellion and authenticity. The thing about Henry’s pitch is that no one wants to see a squel to The Graduate; it is such a patently stupid idea that it is funny to see him try to pitch it.

I would love to see a movie of the pitch that got this sort-of-sequel made, one of the very worst ideas for a movie since they decided to try to make a horror movie about rabbits.

So, here’s the pitch — a young woman named Sarah (Jennifer Anniston) discovers on the eve of her sister’s wedding that the movie The Graduate was inspired by her own family. Before her parents got married, her mother briefly ran away with a young man in her class at school named Beau Burroughs (Kevin Costner) who had had an affair with her mother (Sarah’s grandmother, played with bite by Shirley Maclaine). Sarah decides that Beau must be her biological father, so she flies to San Francisco to meet him. When it turns out he was not her father, she becomes the third generation in her family to sleep with him. And when her fiance (Mark Ruffalo) finds out about this, he is not happy.

I want to take a shower just writing those words. I wanted to take two showers watching it on the screen.

In other words: Ew.

Ew. Ew. Ew.

There is actually something very twisted about all of this and perhaps John Waters could make it work, but Rob Reiner directs it as though it was a very traditional light romantic comedy, albeit one with overtones of incest and jokes about testicular injuries.

Plus, it has a lot of annoying logical inconsistencies. For example, Sarah, a journalist, instantly recognizes the very obscure name of the author of the book The Graduate (Charles Webb) but registers nothing about the name of one of the wealthiest dot.com entrepreneurs at the height of the boom era? The movie is also set in the 1990’s (to make the timing work with the publication of the book), but makes no use whatsoever of the era except to put in random details like big cell phones and television clips of President Clinton. A character has an anxiety attack on an airplane for no purpose other than to have her back home again and then, as soon as we no longer need her, she is somehow all better. No one behaves in a way that makes any sense, even within the genre of farce, which means no one is worth caring about. It’s a terrible shame to waste some of the most talented light-comedy performers in Hollywood on a script that is not just not funny, not just not engaging, but downright gross.

Parents should know that this is a movie that presents a man’s sexual encounters with three generations of women in the same family as material, including infidelity to a husband and two fiances as material for a light-hearted comedy. Characters use some strong language. They drink (including getting drunk) and there is a reference to drug use.

Families who see this movie should talk about why Sarah did not feel more connected to her father and sister and what Jeff saw in Sarah that made him want to be with her.

Families who enjoy this movie should watch The Graduate. They might also enjoy 40 Carats.

The first “Fun with Dick and Jane” was the popular reader that millions of first graders used to sound out words like “Oh” and “Run!” Dick and Jane were perfect suburban children in an idealized world of smiling parents, sunny lawns, and purring kittens.

The second Fun with Dick and Jane was a satire that introduced us to a married couple who were victims of the economic recession so decided to turn to a life of crime. Its most memorable scene had the couple’s lawn being repossessed — it was rolled up and carted away.

And now we have the third version, updated for the post-dot.com bubble, post-Enron era. This time, Dick (Jim Carrey) works for a huge conglomerate that “consolidates media properties.” Jane (Tea Leoni) is a travel agent. Dick is overjoyed to receive a sudden promotion to Vice President for Communcations until, in his first day on the job, he is appears on a television program to announce the company’s projected earnings, only to be attacked by Ralph Nadar because the CEO (Alec Baldwin) has been secretly selling his stock and the company is under investigation for financial shenanigans. The company tanks. Soon, Dick and Jane are failing at various efforts to earn money, and finally — the lawn repossessed and living off of all-you-can-eat buffets and visits to the soup kitchen, they take up a life of crime. See Dick steal. See Jane drive the getaway car.

In corporate terms, here is the movie’s balance sheet: On the asset side we have two exceptionally talented and attractive performers in Carrey and Leoni. His loopy physical humor in the rendition of “I Believe I Can Fly” in an elevator and the portrayal of a marionette are perfectly matched by her more understated but equally precise comic timing. Further assets are some sly pokes at contemporary life — Dick and Jane have a son who speaks with a Spanish accent (like the nanny) — and some surreal detours (as when Jane signs up as a guinea pig for a new beauty treatment that goes very wrong and when Dick tries to get work as an illegal immigrant and is deported).

On the liability side is a script that relies too much on easy jokes like silly costumes and expects us not to notice that, for example, Dick and Jane are completely incompetent as crooks (hello, fingerprints?). If they had just had to rely in some way on the skills they had learned on the job — if they had just been clever instead of lucky, this would have been a better, funnier movie.

But if it isn’t an Enron-style spectacular failure of a 2005 holiday comedy (that would be Rumor Has It…) it has enough smiles in it to keep the family feeling cheerful. Dick and Jane are still fun to be around.

Parents should know that this is a movie in which some characters feel a sense of entitlement, in part because they feel cheated and stolen from, that they believe justifies stealing from others. There is brief strong language, and the movie includes sexual references and non-explicit sexual references. Characters drink and one abuses alcohol to help numb his feelings.

Families who see this movie should talk about the corporate scandals listed at the end, including WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, and Tyco. What is the difference between a corporate crook and a bank robber? What will Dick and Jane do next?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the original, starring Jane Fonda and George Segal and Woody Allen’s Take the Money and Run.