John Wick, Logan and the Current State of Action Movies in Hollywood

     The action genre has been in a bit of a dearth since the late 90's. The emergence of CGI and the increasing popularity of frenetic, rapidly edited action scenes has meant that many action films today feature subpar action set pieces, often filmed in constrained circumstances by a second unit. These sequences are shot with as much coverage as possible and then edited and in a rapid pace to make them feel artificially intense and to cover up any clumsiness. As a result modern action scenes are often incoherent, rarely feel connected with the story and any impressive stunt work is lost in the editing.

     Since the beginning of the decade this has been changing, slowly but surely. The first real sign of hope was 2011's The Raid, a foreign release, but one that did unusually well in the US. Later that year Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol took everyone by surprise, becoming the best received and most financially successful film in that franchise. Both of these films featured more old school approach to the action. Since then films like Mad Max: Fury Road have continued this trend but perhaps none were more successful or as surprising as 2014's John Wick.

     John Wick was made on a fairly modest budget of 20 million dollars. It was helmed by two directors who had previously on worked on second units and it's star, Keanu Reeves, hadn't had a real hit in almost 10 years. It opened to wide acclaim from critics, made over 80 million dollars at the box office, and became something of an instant classic.  All of a sudden, Keanu Reeves was cool again, and it was only a matter of time before John Wick got a sequel. That sequel, John Wick: Chapter 2, has gone on to even greater success.

     As a fan of the action genre I couldn't be happier about the success of these movie and the changes in the industry they seem to be promoting. A good action scene is like a well choreographed dance, if you shoot and edit it in a way where you can't appreciate the choreography or, worse, can't even comprehend what's going on, it kind of misses the point. There are exceptions to this however, realistic war films and crime dramas often make the violence intentionally off-putting or confusing. This can help to simulate the confusion and revulsion one might feel in an actual fight but it also helps to ensure that these films, which take their content seriously, don't glorify violence.

     This brings me to Logan, a film that is fully aware of the consequences that violence can have in a persons life, and explores how someone who has killed as many people as Wolverine, has to live with this. Like many Western hero's Logan finds that he ultimately can't escape his life of violence, it leaves scars that never really heal. As Laura says near the end of the film, quoting George Steven's Shane (1953), "there's no living with with a killing. There's no going back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand. A brand sticks." The action scenes in Logan are not as amazingly choreographed as those in John Wick, nor are they as easy to follow, but that's kind of the point. There meant to be grueling, hard to watch even.

     A few years back I did a moral analysis of John Woo's The Killer (a film that, according to the directors, had an influence on John Wick). I ultimately determined that the portrayal of violence in that film, though problematic at times, was ultimately morally acceptable from a Christian perspective. I not going to diverge into a similar analysis of the John Wick movies here, though I will say that I think they ultimately work by portraying the violence as cyclic and a part of the corrupt world created by the film, as opposed to being cathartic or redemptive. I'll also say that the sequel, in many ways, helps this case by making John's plight a direct consequence of his actions in the first film.

     The point I'm making is that as glad as I am to see the direction action films are going, Christian audiences should always approach movies like this with caution. They should ask themselves if any given film wants you to question the violence in it and, if not, is that ok?

Lent Reviews Week 6: The Miracle Maker (2000)

Sorry this is so late, it's been a crazy last couple of weeks...

     The Miracle Maker was released March 31st, 2000. It is directed by Stanislav Sokolov and Derek W. Hayes and stars Ralph Fiennes. It tells the story of Jesus public ministry, death and Resurrection.

     The Miracle Maker is a stop-motion animated film and, though not as slick as Hollywood productions like A Nightmare Before Christmas is still visually stunning, featuring life-like figures and intricately detailed sets. It also utilizes hand-drawn animation  for scenes involving flashbacks, parables, or visions. Though somewhat distracting at first, this helps the film-makers to fill these scenes with more imaginative flourishes and makes for some really inspired bits of animation in contrast to the more restrained, realistic stop-motion.

     Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Jesus is very humanistic. His speech patterns are more naturalistic and less formal then usual and he is able to display kindness and geniality, humor, righteous anger, commanding authority and, yes, even human weakness at different times in the story. The other voice actors also do well in their respective role. I particularly enjoyed Ian Holm's take on Pilate, one much more vile than the usual more weak-hearted portrayals.

     Like every film ever made about Jesus, The Miracle Maker can't help but feel episodic at times. It manages better then most however by often framing the narrative, mainly, through the eyes of Jairus and his daughter, allowing the audience to grow closer to Jesus as they do. It also gives the viewer frequent glimpses into the doings of the pharisees and shows their growing concern over Jesus, imbuing the film with a greater sense of escalating conflict. As with many of these films it portrays Judas as a Zealot who slowly becomes disappointed with Christ's seeming failure to openly challenge Rome.

     At 90 minutes the film is a little rushed at times, especially during the scenes dealing with the Passion. In particular I felt that the Blessed Virgin, who is mostly absent after Jesus ministry starts, could have used more screen time. Despite this The Miracle Maker is still one of the better films I've seen about the life of Christ.

Score: 9/10

Well that's it for this Lent! Until next year its back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Lent Reviews Week 5: Quo Vadis (1951)

     Quo Vadis was released on December 25th, 1951. It is directed by Mervyn LeRoy with a script by S. N. Behrman, Sonya Levien, and John Lee Mahin. Based on the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz the film follows legate Marcus Vinicius (Robert Taylor) who falls in love with Lygia (Deborah Kerr), a devout Christian, and becomes intrigued by her faith amid the backdrop of Emperor Nero's (Peter Ustinov) reign.

     Quo Vadis is one of the better biblical epics I've watched though its not among the best. It does a decent job synthesizing a fairly long and complicated event, namely the beginning of the Christian persecution in Rome, into a workable movie. It certainly takes dramatic license at times. Nero may have been responsible for the fire of Rome but he certainly would not have done it with the help and full knowledge of other Roman officials. On the other hand, I quite enjoyed its portrayal of early Christians, who are viewed with suspicion by the Roman people. The film contrasts their piety with the decadence and moral indifference of Roman society and gives the viewer a good understanding of how different the early Christians were from the people around them.

     You may noticed that I haven't mentioned the two main characters. That's because this film, like many Hollywood epics, has focus problems. The subplot, or background plot, involving Nero and the larger impact of the Christian persecution, distracts from main drama. Part of the problem is that not enough time is spent with Marcus and Lygia. But its also true that Peter Ustinov, with his brilliant unhinged, melancholy take on Nero, and Leo Genn, as a wonderfully sardonic Patronius, steal the show. Indeed while Deborah Kerr's performance is solid Robert Taylor is somewhat bland in his role and the two have little chemistry. So their romance is a bit stilted and underdeveloped.

     Quo Vadis features a great score by Miklos Rozsa, anticipating his later work for Ben-Hur and King of Kings. His use of hymns and chant is particularly effective here. Mervyn LeRoy's classical style of composition serves the material well, allowing the story to take center stage but always reinforcing the meaning of a scene through the visuals. Cinematographers Robert Surtees and William Skall provide some striking imagery particularly during the scenes depicting the Great Fire of Rome and the crucifixion of Christians in the arena.

     Quo Vadis is a typically flawed but never-the-less highly entertaining Biblical epic. While the central drama falls a little short, this is more than made up for by Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero and some good old Hollywood spectacle.

Score: 8.5/10

Lent Reviews Week 4: Jesus Christ Superstar (Musical Mondays)

A devout religious person, who I have a lot of respect for, showed this film, which I had been told was  blasphemous,  to my brother and he said I should check it out...

     Jesus Christ Superstar was released in 1973. It is directed by Norman Jewison (Fiddler on the Roof) and adapted from the Broadway musical by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. It tells the story of the end of Jesus' (Ted Neeley) ministry, his betrayal by Judas Iscariot (Carl Anderson) and his execution by the Romans.

     The controversy around this film focuses, mainly, on three accusations. One is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene share an implied sexual attraction. I find this to be pretty baseless. There are some scenes where she physically caresses Him, but this is not necessarily sexual. There is also one song, I Don't Know How to Love Him, where she speaks of her attraction to him and says "And I've had so many men before". However, she also says, "Yet, if he said he loved me I'd be lost. I'd be frightened". The point of this song is that her feelings toward Jesus are complicated and she has no real basis or prior experience to compare them with. They go deeper than sexual love, which makes sense because only Jesus, as the Son of God, can fulfill the deepest longings and desires of our hearts. Regardless, Jesus himself is never shown to reciprocate these feelings in any way.

     The second accusation is that the film is antisemitic. Though I don't feel that this was intentional I do understand that the story of Christ's death at the hands of the Sanhedrin can carry certain antisemitic tones if not handled carefully. As there are no real sympathetic Jewish characters in this film who aren't Jesus' followers this may be problematic for some, though it is not explicitly antisemitic.

     Finally, and most importantly, many condemn this film's portrayal of Jesus as too flawed and human. Jesus is often shown to be unsure of His mission and there is one scene in particular, which gives me pause. A bunch of Lepers surround Christ and beg him to heal them. Overwhelmed He screams, telling them to leave him alone. This is certainly not a Christ-like thing to do, but it could be argued that this is an inner expression of Christ's feelings, as song lyrics often are, rather than something He's audible saying. If this is indeed the case, I feel inclined to give the writers artistic license in this regard. St. Paul tells us, "we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15)." I think this gives artists a fairly wide berth for interpretation as to what Christ may have been thinking or feeling at any moment. What's important is that his actions are never sinful. Aside from this, the film never makes it clear if Jesus believes himself to be the Son of God. It would appear from certain interviews that lyricist Tim Rice is an agnostic, but he's also a member of the Church of England. I can't help but feel that some of his more controversial statements, that he see's Christ as a man and not God for example, may have been to attract a younger, less religiously inclined audience to his musical. In any case it's clear that this musical was trying make Jesus to a young audience in the 1970's, so it leaves the question of Christ's divinity for the audience to answer for themselves. That's perfectly fine by me.

     The songs, written by Andrew Lloyd Webber with lyrics by Tom Rice, are mostly solid with I Don't Know How To Love Him and Damned For All Time being standouts. The film opens by showing the cast arrive in Jerusalem in a bus and modern anachronistic props and costumes are used throughout. This gives the film a meta quality, we're made acutely aware that this is a modern reenactment of Christ's life. It also gives the movie a hip 70's vibe, one that is reinforced by Webber's rock infused score and Rice's lyrics which mixes biblical words with modern jargon. Sometimes this works, "Could Muhammmed move a mountain, Or was that just PR?" but other times it feels a little forced, "Hey JC, JC won't you die for me?"

     Similarly, the 70's setting makes for some indulgent film-making at times. Norman Jewison makes good use of slow motion and there is one freeze frame in Hosanna that is particularly inspired. Other numbers particularly Simon Zealotes/Poor Jerusalem go way over the top with music video montage editing, and countless freeze frames. Overall, I think Jewison did a really good job with limited material. Jesus Christ Superstar was originally a concept rock album (in the same vein as The Who's Tommy) before it was brought to Broadway and, as a result, the story is very truncated, moving from one song to another with very little room to breath. Using the magic of cinema the director is able to overcome this, in part, and add some brief, quiet moments amidst all the bluster. Indeed some of the film's most powerful moments are those with no music at all.

     Of the cast Yvonne Elliman as Mary Magdalene and Carl Anderson as Judas put in the strongest performances. Both can sing rather well but also imbue there respective characters with passion. Ted Neely as Jesus is more inconsistent. He has some brilliant moments, particularly during the climax but his singing is, at times, a little shrill. Philip Toubus does well in his scenes as Peter but his character really could have used more screen time. Barry Dennen's Pontius Pilate is more smarmy then most while Bob Bingham's Caiaphas is more assertive (this does not help to allay the Anti-semetic undertones of the story). Finally, Josh Mostel's portrayal of Herod is probably the most debauched I've seen.

     In the end Jesus Christ Superstar is not the most pious (or well made) film I've seen about Jesus' life but it's certainly the most unique. I would probably avoid it if your easily offended but if you enjoy unconventional takes on traditional stories and don't mind a little 70's cheese I think you'll probably enjoy it.

Score: 8/10

Lent Reviews Week 3: The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

     The Passion of Joan of Arc was released on January 1st, 1928. It is directed by Carl Dreyer and stars Renee Falconetti. It dramatizes trial and execution of St. Joan of Arc (Falconetti) by corrupt, English allied Catholic clergy in 15th century France.

     Often cited as one of the greatest films of all time The Passion of Joan of Arc is a film that must be experienced. It's more a subject for contemplation than analysis. As such it is difficult to really put my feelings about it into words but I'll do my best. The things that really make it stand out are Dreyer's direction and Renee Falconetti's amazing performance. The former is dissonant. With his reliance on close ups and medium shots Dreyer forces the viewer to become intimately familiar with the faces of the protagonist and her accusers. This, of course, is where Falconetti comes in. Her facial expressions are truly haunting. Reportedly, the actress had to endure kneeling on hard stone and doing takes over and over again until the director got the nuance he was looking for. Not, perhaps the most ethical method of film-making but it's hard to argue with the results. Many consider Falconetti's performance here as the greatest in any film.

     As with most silent films, the score for The Passion of Joan of Arc was provided by an organist or pianist and would vary from one showing to another. As such different copies of the film have different scores to accompany it and some prefer to watch it in complete silence, heightening the films contemplative qualities. Coming to it for the first time I opted to watch it with a score, in this case Richard Einhorn's "Voices of Light", an oratorio inspired by the film. As I watched the movie for free on Youtube I was forced to bring up the score in a separate tab and it was not perfectly in sync. In addition to this I watched the film over multiple sittings as I was distracted with other responsibilities. Despite all of this I still felt myself incredibly moved by the it. If this is a reflection of my laziness when it comes to writing for this blog hopefully it's also  a testament to the raw emotional power of this film.

     I highly recommend The Passion of Joan of Arc for any film enthusiast or those interested in religious art.

Score: 10/10