My Favorite Films: A Man for All Seasons (Lent Reviews Week 2)

"More is a man of an angel's wit and singular learning. I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And, as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes, and sometime of as sad gravity. A man for all seasons."
- Robert Whittington on Thomas More

     I first saw A Man for All Seasons when I was a young man and it left an immediate impression on me. I was inspired by Thomas More's steadfast moral conviction. Over the years I've begun to appreciate how complex this film is and to appreciate it more and more.

     This film has, quite possibly, my favorite screenplay ever. It was written by Robert Bolt, who adapted it from his own successful play of the same name. It's thematically rich, so much so that I notice new themes and complexities every time I watch it. In my most recent viewing I noticed how it comments on the corruption in the church and in English politics at the time. For instance it is emphasized how rare a lawyer Thomas More was for not accepting bribes. Thomas' son in law William Roper often complains of church corruption and More doesn't really object to these complaints, only that Roper is, initially, a heretic, following the teachings of Martin Luther. But these ideas are only scratching the surface. The film deals, mainly with the significance of words in laws and oaths, and with themes of personal conscious and integrity in the face of institutional corruption.

     There is much discussion in the film about words and the letter of the law. When Roper suggest that More should try to have Richard Rich imprisoned for duplicity, More counters that Rich has done nothing illegal. He must respect the law even when it protects the wicked along with the innocent, because society is built upon laws. If you ignore them or tear them down society will crumble.

     Thomas More himself is portrayed as a very morally complex character, one who will avoid confronting corruption if he can but will never betray his conscious or his principles. When Parliament proclaims King Henry as supreme head of the Church in England, Thomas resigns his post as Lord Chancellor in order to avoid controversy. And when the Act of Succession is passed, which requires all Englishman to take an oath recognizing Henry and Anne as the legitimate heirs to the throne, and repudiating the pope's authority in this manner,  he at first holds out a hope that he may be able to take it if the wording is sufficiently vague. He tells his daughter, "If he suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping...then we can clamour like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it's God's part to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our natural business lies in escaping."

     Ultimately though, More cannot escape and when his daughter tries to convince him to take the oath saying that God values the thoughts of the heart more than the words of the mouth he replies, "When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands, like water. And if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again."  An oath is made up of words but it amounts to something much more grave.

     Besides the awesome screenplay there are many other things I love about this film. Director Fred Zinnemann was known for his meticulous attention to detail and historical accuracy which is very apparent in all aspects of this film. Ted Moore's elegant cinematography really helps to put the viewer in the 16th century England, at times evoking contemporary art, George Delerue's score also goes a long way in invoking the period, drawing largely form the antiphonal music of the time, and the costume and set design are equally magnificent.

     I would be amiss not to mention the performances. All the supporting players do an excellent job from Robert Shaw's almost bipolar performance as Henry VIII to John Hurt's pitiful, sleazy portrayal of Richard Rich. Wendy Hiller, Susanah York, and Nigel Davenport are really sell the unique personalities of Thomas' wife Alice, his daughter Margaret, and his son-in-law Roper respectively. But it's Paul Scofield's Thomas More (a role he also played on stage) who effortlessly carries the film on his shoulders, giving a really subtle and complex performance of a very well written and fleshed out character. Fred Zinnemann insisted on casting him despite the producers reluctance and it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role. Showing uncanny wit and great strength of character with an undercurrent of vulnerability, Scofileds's More truly is a man for all seasons.

     Combining a great screenplay with awesome production design and really solid performances A Man for All Seasons is easily one of my favorite films of all time.

Lent Reviews Year 3 Week 1: Bernadette

Here we go again...

Bernadette is a 1988 French film directed by Jean Delannoy. It tells the story of St. Bernadette Soubirous (Sydney Penny) and the miraculous apparition of Our Lady to her at Lourdes, France.

It is interesting to compare this film to The Song of Bernadette which I reviewed last year. This film is more historically accurate and also less dialog driven, preferring to let the simplicity of the story speak for itself instead of using it to explore issues of faith and rationality as the King film did. It's also less comprehensive. Where Song covered her life in the convent and her death after a long-term illness, this film ends with her entering the convent, leaving the rest of the story for a sequel, The Passion of Bernadette. On the other hand this film gives a little more insight into the political background than the King film did. The authorities in Lourdes, being republicans, are shown to be initially afraid that the apparitions are a royalist scheme. Perhaps the main reason for these differences is that The Song of Bernadette was based on a novel, while this movie is based simply on the historical account of the story, which the director Jean Delannoy wanted to follow as closely as possible.

Because of this historically accurate approach, and perhaps also due to budgetary constraints, the movie has a fairly realistic tone and minimalist style. The Blessed Virgin is never seen, only Bernadette's transfixed reaction to her. This is what impresses me most about the film. It allows the viewers to judge the truth of the events largely by themselves.

The cinematography is restrained and unobtrusive as, again, Delonnoy prefers to let the events speak for themselves. The acting is generally strong from Sydney Penny's forthright, humble portrayal of Bernadette to Jean-Marc Bory's ill tempered and firm-but-kind, Father Peyramale. The score, though clearly low budget, effectively evokes the mysterious aura of the apparitions and miracles. 

The film is not without problems. The pacing is sporadic at times and there are characters and subplots that feel underdeveloped. But overall I really appreciate the directors restrained, reverential approach to the story and would certainly recommend this film to any one interested in the Lourdes apparitions.

Score: 8.5/10

Update: Youtube videos and the return of Lent Reviews!

I haven't posted in a while. I've been busy with Christmas and school (and the flu season :P). Lent is upon us once again and I'll be posting (or trying to at least) my usual weekly religious film reviews between now and Easter. Expect the first one some time next week.

On another note I've been helping my brother build up his youtube channel theBrotherThre3. To tide you over ;) and make up for lost time here are some reviews I've participated in one there over the last month or so. WARNING: The Sin City review contains some (very little) profanity (as well as some Frank Miller bashing from yours truly).

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

 
The Hateful Eight

Sin City

Short Review - Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Spoiler Free)

I was so excited about this movie that I bought the tickets in advance and went to see it Thursday night. It's hard to temper expectations going into a movie as big as this but I tried my best to keep an open mind...

The best thing about this movie is the characters. Rey and Finn immediately come to life and have great chemistry with each other and with Han Solo and all three main characters have really solid arcs as does the new villain Kylo Ren. The writing in the film is generally quite strong and there is a lot of fun humor. The film also looks really great with a lot of practical effects and cool creature and environment design. With that said I do have some problems with the film. There is a major plot point borrowed from the original Star Wars film that I found rather derivative. In addition to this the pacing is somewhat rushed and erratic at times especially toward the end. I also have mixed feelings about this film's place in the overall Star Wars canon that I won't get into here. Overall though The Force Awakens is a pretty strong film with solid writing acting and direction. Perhaps the best complement I can give it is that I feel anxious to see it again.

Score: 8.5/10

Quick Note: Blog "Makeover"

I've done a few things to update my blog this past week. These include reformatting old posts, adding a featured post and external links (which you'll see over to the right), and and tagging (or labeling as Blogger calls it) all of my posts to help you find similar ones. You can scroll down below and look through the tags under Labels. On another note, I recently saw the Force Awakens and will try to get a review up for it in the next few weeks...

My Favorite Films: Star Wars

     For a long time now I've wanted to write reviews for some of my favorite films. Since I'm trying to post on this blog more I figured now was a good a time as any...

     When I was growing up my parents were generally opposed to works of science fiction and fantasy  though there were notable exceptions like Mary Poppins and The Princess Bride. As a result of this I didn't watch Star Wars until I was 16. In many ways this was my entry point into the world of sci fi and fantasy. I had always been intrigued by Star Wars, pretty much all of my friends and relatives had seen it and I would often discuss it with them. As you might imagine I was very curious to finally watch it for myself. However seeing it for the first time was somewhat underwhelming. Perhaps it was partly the fault of the poor quality Youtube video I watched, but I initially thought it was somewhat hokey and dated. What did strike a chord with me was it's world building and sense of scope. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi, I'd taken my first step into a larger world and in many ways I think that was Lucas' intent in making the film. To recapture the magic and adventure that he himself had experienced as a kid in the old Flash Gordon serials.

     As time has gone on I've come to appreciate many other aspects of this film. For one thing it has pitch perfect pacing. The film wastes no time establishing the plot which is basically laid out in the opening crawl. It starts out with a bang, showing an Imperial Star Destroyer chasing down the rebel blockade runner but, after this, slows down for a while to focus on R2D2 and C3PO. From here the movie gradually increase the pace as the stakes get higher and the action ramps up. This culminates in one of the most exciting climaxes in cinema history. 

     Another thing I love is that Star Wars pretty much stands on its own. Though the sequels continue the story and flesh out the universe more, Star Wars has the distinction of being the only film in the series to have a self contained beginning, middle and end. The prequels aren't really needed to understand where these characters are coming from and really, the way the film ends, there's no reason to think that the rebellion won't easily triumph over the empire and that everyone will live happily ever after. In other words it doesn't feel the need to end on a cliffhanger or spend time setting up future films, though it does subtly (and at times inadvertently) lay the ground for them. 

     Bruce Campbell once said that "a movie that is hard to make is a lot easier to watch." This is another reason I really love Star Wars. As someone who's been involved in some amateur film-making myself I can really admire all the hard work that went into making every aspect of this film and the more I've learned about it's plagued production the more I've come to appreciate it. Star Wars is an example of collaborative film-making at it's best. George Lucas had a rather brilliant concept for a story but it took a whole host of people (and compromises) to bring that vision to life. Whether it's Ralph Mcquarrie's concept art, Ben Burtt's sound design, ILM's revolutionary special effects, strong performances from Harrison Ford and especially Alec Guinness, or John Williams majestic score, they all combine to make a truly special film. 

     

     My admiration for Star Wars has only grown over time. In many ways it's impact on cinema can still be felt today. It's made me into something of a geek, it's inspired a whole generation of filmmakers and I can only imagine that it will continue to do inspire future generations for as long as people go to the movies. 

Of Syria, The Dark Knight and Girard

The recent terrorists attacks on Paris have caused alot of controversy. I am very troubled by these developments and wanted to say something. As I tend to focus on movies and popular entertainment on this blog I decided to write about this issue by making an analogy to The Dark Knight and, in particular, by applying the writings of French philosopher/literary critic Rene Girard to both the movie and to this current crisis.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert on Girard's writings nor do I fully subscribe to his theories. I'm also not aware that his writings had any direct influence on Cristopher or Jonathan Nolan when they wrote the screenplay for The Dark Knight. My intention with this article is to use his writings to challenge people to think a little deeper about this issue. It's not meant to proselytize and or to offend anyone.

According to Girard all history can be boiled down to a series of conflicts springing from what he calls mimetic rivalry. These conflicts come to a head with the victimization of some innocent individual or group whose death is perpetuated by the rival parties. The death of this victim puts an end to the conflict. Because the involved parties deny the innocence of the victim in order to justify their actions this is known as the scapegoat mechanism. This occurs multiple times in the Dark Knight,when the Joker demands the death of some victim (Batman, Coleman Reese, and the people on the barges) in order to stop him from killing people. Notably this is forestalled all three times. Once because of the ultimate good conscious of the people on the barges, once because of Batman's intervention, the other time because of the Harvey Dent's sacrifice. This sacrifice once again recalls Girard's writings, in this case his assessment of Christianity. For Girard Christ is the one figure in history to subvert the scapegoat mechanism. Like so many other victims he is sacrificed to bring about peace under the pretext of a supposed guilt (blasphemy and rebellion against Caesar). However, rather then accepting this lie, the gospel writers proclaim Christ's innocence and his willingness to be sacrificed, thus attacking collective ignorance and destroying the myths that had shaped society up to that point. Harvey Dent (and at the end of the film Batman himself) follows Christ's example by allowing himself to be sacrificed for the greater good. The key difference of course, is that each of their sacrifices is based on a lie which brings us again back to Girard. If Girard is right and Christ revealed the lie behind the violent sacrificial order of society why hasn't this order come to an end. Girard says that this hasn't occurred because truth requires a receptive listener in order to have a real impact and the masses of men are not receptive to the truth. The people of Gotham (accepting those on the freighter) do not appear to be receptive to the truth either.

So what does this have to do with the crisis in Syria? Fearful of another terrorist attack like the one that occurred in Paris many want to deny the entry into our country of hundreds of innocent victims because some of them might be terrorists. Some justify this by claiming that the Muslim religion is inherently violent and those who profess it are inherently dangerous. Others want to ignore the conflict altogether and stand by while innocent people are slaughtered because its none of our business and the middle east will always be a violent place so why bother. In both cases sweeping generalizations are used to justify abandoning innocent people in need. Meanwhile, the slaughter continues. Have we learned anything from Christ's sacrifice? A sacrifice that was performed, by the way, just as much for those who hated Christ and wished him dead as those closest to him? Or are we, like the people of Gotham, motivated more by fear than reason? Are we all to willing to feed the innocent to the dogs as long as we ourselves aren't put in  harm's way?