Finding Vivian Maier

Posted on April 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Vivian Maier was a Chicago-area nanny. Only the children in her care knew how much she loved taking pictures. After her death, the possessions she had in storage were auctioned off and a man named John Maloof bought some boxes of negatives, thinking he might finds some images for his research about a Chicago neighborhood. The quality of the photos surprised him. He put them online and the response was swift and passionate. Who was this photographer who captured these striking images? And why had no one ever heard of her?

Maloof bought up the rest of Maier’s negatives and anything else she left behind. She was something of a hoarder, so there were piles of ephemera as well as rolls of undeveloped film. Maier’s passion for privacy came up against someone equally obsessive about uncovering her secrets as well as her photographs. As co-producer of the film, Maloof’s own motives do not get the scrutiny they otherwise might, but it is clear that he has something to gain from promoting her work, and that he is at least aware of the moral dilemma of creating such a public persona for such a private person after she no longer has a say. Though he is clear about his purpose: “My mission is to put Vivian in the history books.”

It is very rare in this country, where fame and braggadocio are considered virtues and we put people on magazine covers who are just famous for being famous, that gifted people are also private people. Those who decide to leave the limelight — Salinger, Garbo — are a source of great curiosity for us. What are they thinking? And then there are people like Maier and another Chicagoan, Henry Darger (also the subject of a documentary), and James Hampton, who are drawn more by compulsion as well as inspiration. If there is an intended audience, it is not of this world.

People who knew her, or thought they did, describe her: paradoxical, eccentric, private, loner. And there is the inevitable snobbery: “Why is a nanny taking all these photos?” But photographers recognize one of their own. Joel Mayerowitz, the film’s most engaging voice, says she had “an authentic eye and a real savvy about human nature and photography in the street.” She has human understanding, warmth, playfulness, at least in her photos. An employer said she has “an eye for the bizarre, the grotesque, the incongruous, the folly of humanity.”

Her camera of choice was a twin-lens Rolleiflex, a “great disguise camera…to generate a moment where two presences vibrate together.” Her subjects could look her in the eye while her camera was unobtrusively at her waist. She took up nannying so that she would not have to worry about shelter and she would have an excuse to be out and about. Her charges, now grown, remember her taking them all over, always with her camera, sometimes to rather odd places, like a stockyard.

Some of her secrets are revealed, including her efforts to hide her origins. Some are only indicated. And of course the photographs tell as much about Maier as they do about the people she captured.
As we look at them, though, we realize she captured much of us as well.

Parents should know that this movie includes discussions of abuse, an auto accident, and a sad death.

Family discussion: Which of Maier’s images is your favorite and why? Should her photos be made public after her death even though she kept them secret while she was alive?

If you like this, try: Martha & Ethel and Annie Leibovitz: Life Through a Lens and the book Vivian Maier: Street Photographer

Related Tags:

Not specified

Walking With the Enemy

Posted on April 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Why do we keep making movies about the Holocaust?

Because we are still trying to understand one of the most shocking, inhumane tragedies in history. Because it is the essence of heightened, dramatic storylines, with the most depraved real-life villains, the bravest heroes, and the direst moral dilemmas, the most devastating sacrifices. Because we have to ask ourselves, “What would I do?”

And because there are still stories left to tell. “Walking With the Enemy” is inspired by the true story of Pinchas Tibor Rosenbaum, a Hungarian student who escaped from a labor camp to help the “Glass House” workers forging Swiss citizenship papers to get Jews out of the country. He impersonated an SS officer to rescue Jews they were about to execute.

This first movie from the brand new Liberty Studios and first-time director Mark Schmidt is a tense and exciting story of a part of the Holocaust not widely known. Because Hungary’s Regent (played by Sir Ben Kingsley) made an alliance with Germany, the Nazis did not interfere with the country or its Jewish citizens for the first years of World War II. “I aligned Hungary with what I thought was the lesser of two evils.”

But then, as Germany started to be hemmed in by the Allied forces, it took over Hungary and began to send Jews to labor camps and concentration camps. A heroic Swiss diplomat named Carl Lutz (played by William Hope) was given permission to issue 8000 passes to Hungarian Jews with family in Switzerland. He managed to get those passes to tens of thousands, who were able to escape the Nazis.

Handsome and likeable Jonas Armstrong (television’s “Robin Hood”) plays Elek Cohen, a character based on Rosenbaum. While his uncle worked with Lutz in the “Glass House” (called that because it had been a glass factory), helping to hide Jews, Elek wore a Nazi uniform to infiltrate Nazi offices and operations to free Jews about to be sent away or killed. Over and over, he takes terrible risks, knowing that even if he survives, he will fail more than he succeeds. “Why does it have to be you?” someone asks. “Because I have one thing left.”

The first-time director wisely worked with experienced filmmakers, especially cinematographer Dean Cundey (“Apollo 13,” “Jurassic Park”) and a capable cast of top British actors. The film is ably scripted, shot, and edited. The sound effects are exceptional; I don’t remember ever hearing gunshot sounds so sharp and directed. The story is very affecting. One oddly sterile note is that for a story about Jews, there is very little Jewish activity other than a blessing over a family dinner. Reminiscences of the Holocaust include many stories of Jews praying together and doing their best to observe rituals and worship, reciting the Shema as they were led to the gas chambers. Here, even those about to be shot by a firing squad do not say a prayer, an odd oversight in a story that is about those who were trying to preserve their right to maintain their religion and their community.

Parents should know that this is a WWII movie depicting events of the Holocaust. There are many scenes of wartime and anti-Semitic violence and many characters are injured and killed.

Family discussion: What was Elek’s toughest decision? Is it hard to help, knowing how much more cannot be fixed? What can we learn from Elek and Lutz? Who is most like them today?

If you like this, try: “Schindler’s List” and “Conspiracy”

Fading Gigolo

Posted on April 17, 2014 at 9:24 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some sexual content, language and brief nudity
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Some violence
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	April 19, 2014

John Turturro wrote, directed, and stars in “Fading Gigolo,” a bittersweet meditation on the ways we seek and hide from intimacy, sometimes at the same time.

Turturro plays Fioravante, a florist who works part-time for Murray (Woody Allen), the third-generation proprietor of a used and rare bookstore. But the bookstore is folding. “Very rare people buy rare books.”

As they pack up the shop’s inventory, Murray tells Fioravante that his dermatologist said she was willing to pay for sex. “Are you on drugs?” “Apart from my Zoloft, no.” The empty bookshelves suggest the sadness of anything or anyone who has something to give that is not being used. Murray says he thinks the quiet, unassuming Fioravante would be just what this doctor ordered, and volunteers to act as the middle-man, or, to put it more directly, the pimp.

The subject matter and the presence of Allen suggest a broad comedy, something between “Deuce Bigalow” and “Deconstructing Harry.” After an awkward start with female characters who are superficially drawn and some uneven tonal shifts, it becomes a thoughtful drama that gets much more interesting in the second half, when after encounters with gorgeous, successful, worldly women like the doctor (Sharon Stone) and her friend (Sofia Vergara), he takes on Avigal, a young widow from the ultra-Orthodox Satmar community (French singer Vanessa Paradis, in a performance of exquisite sensitivity).

The same quiet, sensitive quality that makes Fioravante careful and tender in taking care of plants makes him very good at his new job. He gently dances with one of his clients to make her feel cherished. And he is respectful of Avigal, caressing her back and letting her weep.

The Satmar community has its own police force. Liev Schreiber plays an Orthodox cop, who wears a tallit under his uniform and whose professional responsibilities come second to some strong feelings he has for Avigal.

But the most compelling character here is the city itself. Turturro skillfully shows us the complications, juxtapositions, and unexpected connections of the city’s diverse populations. Gorgeous music weaves through the story to bring it together. By the final moments, we see it is as carefully tended as Fioravante’s flowers.

Parents should know that this is a movie about prostitution and it has explicit content and strong language.

Family discussion: What difference did Avigal’s relationship with Fioravante make in her life? Were you surprised by the decision she made?

If you like this, try: “Hannah and Her Sisters” and “Hester Street”

Related Tags:

Drama Movies -- format

Transcendence

Posted on April 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Think of it as “Her 2: The Revenge of Him.” Or Samantha infected by Heartbleed.

Just as in last holiday season’s Her, “Transcendence” is the story of an artificial intelligence contained in a computer program that becomes or is seen as human consciousness. Instead of the warm, affectionate voice and bubbly laughter of Scarlett Johansson, we get the portentous monotone of Johnny Depp, as a scientist murdered by anti-technology activists, whose mind and memories and personality are uploaded to a mainframe before he dies. Apparently he has time to read the Oxford English Dictionary aloud, too, so his voice can be preserved.

Cinematographer Willy Pfister, best known for working with Christopher Nolan, turns to directing for a story set in the world of the highest of high tech but grounded in hubristic themes that go back to Icarus and up through “Frankenstein,” and “The Unknown Known.” Even with Nolan as producer, however, he is weak on narrative, pacing, tone, and working with his talented cast. Morgan Freeman, Clifton Collins, Jr., Kate Mara, Paul Bettany, and Rebecca Hall have never appeared so toned-down and disconnected, just plain under-used. Depp appears mechanical even when he is still human. And the film has the unmistakable flavor of a recut following disappointing early audience responses.

A promising premise gets bogged down right from the beginning when Max Waters (Bettany) introduces us to a post-apocalyptic world where traffic lights no longer work and discarded keyboards are used to prop open the doors of bodegas that are out of more items than they have to sell. The grid is down. It has been down for a long time. And no one knows when it will be back.

We go back five years earlier to meet the brainy, gorgeous, and so-in-love couple Will and Evelyn Caster (Depp and Hall). Here’s how adorbs they are; in her beloved garden (hmmm, Evelyn — is she Eve?) he is installing a copper canopy, to cut them off from cell phone signals and other technological intrusions). They are on their way to present their work to donors, where he explains that she is the one who wants to change the world. He just likes to work on cool stuff.

When he is fatally injured in an anti-technology attack led by Bree (Kate Mara) — we know she is up to no good because of the heavy eye liner — Evelyn decides she can keep him alive in some sense by uploading his consciousness to the mainframe. Max helps her, but when it works, he immediately sees that it is a problem, and Evelyn, furious, tells him to leave. Evelyn is so happy to have Will back in any form that she is happy to follow his directions. Soon, his intellectual capacity is increasing exponentially and she is following his directions to take over a remote, all-but-deserted town, install a football field-sized solar panel energy generator and a five-stories-below-ground lair a Bond villain would envy. She walks through endless corridors like Beauty in the castle of the Beast.

“It’s like my mind has been set free,” the computer-Will tells Evelyn. The combination of the human urge for learning and growth and the unlimited capacity of the computers leads to problems that are only evident when Will is too big to stop. Somehow, even his infinitely magnified intelligence and endless capacity to snoop do not make him capable of understanding women. “Your oxytocin and serotonin levels are off,” he tells her tenderly, if a bit robotically), “I’m trying to empathize.” This becomes extra-creepy (as in “Her”) when he tries to come up with a way for them to be together physically,

Will figures out a sort of 3D printer of any kind of cell, including human tissue. He is able to cure any illness, heal any wound. Without asking or even telling the patients, he tweaks them all as well, inserting himself into their brains. Those anti-technology activist/terrorists are looking pretty smart now, but perhaps not as smart as the government, who allies with them only so they will have someone to blame.

We know where this is going because we saw the beginning of the movie, just two hours earlier. Just to remind us, we get to see the exact same images all over again, but instead it reminds us we have not seen very much in between.

Parents should know that this film includes bloody violence with guns and heavy artillery and some disturbing and graphic images, some strong language, and some sexual material.

Family discussion: Was the computer consciousness Will? Did it stop being Will? What is the significance of Will’s name?

If you like this, try: “Her” and “12 Monkeys” (rated R)

Related Tags:

Science-Fiction Thriller

Heaven is for Real

Posted on April 15, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for thematic material including some medical situations
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Child very ill, discussions of death
Diversity Issues:	Assumption that all faiths have or should have the same beliefs about heaven
Date Released to Theaters:	April 16, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	July 21, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00KDK64DY

A movie like “Heaven is for Real” requires two different reviews, one for believers/fans of the 1.5 million-volume best-selling book, one for those who are unfamiliar with the book and whose views about faith and heaven and proof may differ from the evangelical beliefs of the Wesleyan pastor who wrote the book about his son. The first group will find what they are looking for. Anyone else is unlikely to feel enlightened or inspired.

Nebraska clergyman Todd Burpo co-wrote Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back, the story of his not-yet-four-year-old son Colton, who told his parents about a visit to heaven when he “lifted up” during abdominal surgery. On that visit, he said, he sat on Jesus’ lap and spoke to two family members. He described the bright colors of heaven and Jesus’ horse.

Fans of the book and those who share Colton’s ideas about heaven will find the movie skillfully made by co-writer/director Randall Wallace (“Secretariat,” “Braveheart”) and very true to the story that Burpo tells. Others may find what is very much a four-year-old’s concept (he asked the angels to sing him Queen’s “We Will Rock You”) limited and cloying. This is very much a self-congratulatory closed loop wish fulfillment idea of heaven, where everyone is young and healthy and we are reunited with everyone we lost (apparently everyone of our faith, anyway), even those who died before birth.

Greg Kinnear is likeable as always as a father coping with the stress of many different commitments and pressures. He has a devoted wife, Sonja (Kelly Reilly of “Flight”) and two darling children. But his garage door business is suffering in the depressed economy. He is also a volunteer fireman and a high school coach as well as pastor of the Crossroads Wesleyan Church. He has had some injuries and health problems.

And then what they think is stomach flu turns out to be Colton’s burst appendix and he is rushed to the operating room. While Sonja calls church members to ask for their prayers, Todd goes to the hospital’s chapel and cries out to God over the unfairness of putting his little boy at risk.

Colton (Connor Corum, a cute kid with a nice natural presence but no actor) recovers. After he is home, he matter-0f-factly begins to tell his parents about his experiences in heaven. At first, they are dismissive, but then Todd and, later Sonja are convinced, based on details he shares about people and events he could not have known. Todd allows a reporter to write about Colton. Members of the church are concerned, but they, too, become convinced.

Those who are already believers, especially fans of the book who want to see the story on screen, are likely to be very satisfied with this well-produced and sincere portrayal of the Burpo’s story, and it is for them that the movie gets a B grade. Those from other faith traditions, seekers, and skeptics are unlikely to be convinced, however. For many people, the “proof” from Colton’s stories is easily explained away or the vision he describes is substantially different from their understanding of God and the afterlife. The one consistent reaction from viewers is that both believers in this specific idea and those who are not will both find their views re-affirmed by this movie.

Parents should know that this movie includes a seriously ill child and discussions of miscarriage and loss. There is some marital sexual teasing.

Family discussion: Ask family members for their ideas of what heaven is like and research different faith traditions and their views of heaven.

If you like this, try: the book by Todd Burpo and Diane Keaton’s documentary Heaven