Movies, Mom & Me

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    I have seen this movie only once, before my mother died (I can't recall if she watched it), but it has such staying power that each time I think of it, I feel as though I saw it just yesterday. It is not only a detailed, devastating story of interpersonal conflict, it is a precise-to-the-point-of-being-painful character study of two people who hash out their differences while not really understanding what their differences are.
    The last time I thought of it I vowed that if I was at home the next time it came to mind, I would immediately order it. It will be arriving here within a few days. I await it with somber anticipation.
    More later.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jennifer Connelly	Kathy Nicolo	Ben Kingsley	Col. Massoud Behrani	Shohreh Aghdashloo	Nadereh "Nadi" Behrani	Ron Eldard	Lester Burdon
  Frances Fisher	Connie Walsh	Jonathan Ahdout	Esmail Behrani	Kim Dickens	Carol Burdon	Carlos Gómez	Lt. Alvarez
  Navi Rawat	Soraya Behrani	Al Rodrigo	Torez	Marco Rodríguez	Mendez	Aki Aleong	Tran
  Kia Jam	Ali	Cooper Thornton	Gary	Ray Abruzzo	Frank	Spencer Garrett	Auctioneer

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2003
    Directed by Vadim Perelman.

Labels: ben-kingsley, character-study, haunting3, jennifer-connelly, tragedy3

# posted by gail @ 01:20    0 comments    email......this post

1. Who's watched:  M & G
2. Mentions:  None
3. 
   Commentary:  I think this movie may have been one of the last I saw in the theatre alone. It is a dream of a movie for me. As well, I like, and have watched a fair amount, of Indian cinema. I'm surprised that this is the only one I own. I look forward to watching it, with or without Mom. From what I remember, I think she'll be transfixed. Sort of an Indian Sex and the City.
   UPDATE 2/24/06:  For lack of anything better to do that interested Mom, I decided to pull out this movie and view it with her, her first viewing of it. She, too, was entranced by the color and composition of the movie, the dancing and the stylized movements (which actually cause the movie to be more like theater than a movie) and the music. Although there is some full female nudity in it and obvious suggestions of sex (both of which actually make this movie less than a true East Indian cinema), she enjoyed it immensely and was transported back to Guam, primarily because that is where she became familiar with East Indian customs and clothing. We talked about Guam, and a store called Radhi's, which shared a space with Eileen Kershaw's. She remembered the sari material she'd bought which I'd transformed into a table cloth and the rich, stunning Asian fabric selections at Radhi's [which, apparently, still exists, although I found an article (internet access to which no longer exists), dated February 12, 2006, that lamented the closing of Eileen Kershaw's, among other stores with which I was very familiar when Guam was our family's home].
     At one point in the movie, when Maya was explaining to Tara how to seduce her husband, essentially telling her that it was simple, I laughed and said, "See, Mom? Men are easy in every culture."
     She laughed and added, "Men have always been easy and always will be."
     Such a woman!
   Update 2/8/18:  All updates on stores on Guam, above, were added today.
   Update 5/8/22:  This post was originally published on 2/7/2005, but I accidentally deleted it a few days ago. Now, it's back, in its original glory.
     

   Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
   Indira Varma	Maya	Sarita Choudhury	Tara	Naveen Andrews	Raj Singh	Ramon Tikaram	Jai Kumar
   Khalid Tyabji	Biki	Rekha	Rasa Devi	Avijit Dutt	Vazir	Zoya Akhtar	Rasa Devi's courtesan

   
     Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
     Release Date: 1996
     Directed by Mira Nair.

Labels: character-study, dramaF, erotic, haunting3, indira-varma, period6, romance5, tragedy2

# posted by gail @ 16:21    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  [4/25/2022] I just finished watching this movie. I'm sure I've watched this movie before, but much later than its release date, as I was only eight years old when the movie was released and was aware neither of religion nor of the Catholic Church nor of nuns.
    My introduction to the Catholic Church and nuns took place when our family moved to Guam (and remained there for thirteen years) when I was nine; that's right, a year after this movie was released. Guam was (and, likely, still is) a thoroughly Catholic island. I had many Catholic friends. I had several teachers in public schools, from elementary through college, who were nuns. The last nun I had as a teacher was Dr. Margaret Stumpf at the University of Guam. She was a habitless nun (as many nuns became, once the Church necessity for habits was abolished). She was also one of my favorite college teachers.
    I was surrounded by the practice and pageantry of the Catholic Church, even though I neither believed in nor practiced Catholicism. By the time I was in junior high I knew the rosary, both the standard version and the special stations-of-the-cross version, because every night of our lives, from 5:45 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. (5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. on holy days) we were exposed, at home, on television, to "The Rosary Hour", featuring Father (then Bishop, then Archbishop) Flores droning through the rosary prayers before KUAM's entertainment programming began. When I was in college and my younger sisters were in high school the word "nun" became a humorous pejorative indicating that the person (either male or female) to whom it was applied was, well, a bit of a dit (which, itself, meant, a kind of low-brow, unthinking, unintending asshole). At any rate, Guam was so saturated with Catholicism that I was, too, despite not ever becoming Catholic or wanting to.
    Curiously, though, I do remember wondering whether I might like to become a nun. This was probably the time that I saw The Nun's Story, likely on television. I think I found the cheery dedication of the nuns I knew inspiring, although I gave little thought to what would be involved in becoming a nun, especially considering that I was not only not Catholic, I was raised in a kind of Protestant hot-home full of religious discussion but lacking religious practice. It often occurred to me, during this time, that I was not alone in this day-dream, that, in fact, quite a few of my female friends considered exactly the same possibility for exactly the same reasons as me. Thus, I had a keen interest in this movie when I obtained it a few days ago. I think I may have wanted to refresh my memories of my jumbled, ahem, "religious upbringing".
    The first thing I noticed is that once Sister Luke (played by Audrey Hepburn) arrives in the Congo, a lot of the movie is filled with what I can only describe as National Geographic video footage of African tribal life (minus the bare breasts; I guess the producers of this movie felt that what teenagers, in their bedrooms in the late 50's and early 60's, slavered over in the glossy pages of National Geographic, a "family" magazine, was not fitting fare for a 1959 movie screen). The second thing I noticed is the depth of the interpersonal soul-scouring conversations between Dr. Fortunati (played by Peter Finch) and Sister Luke. The third thing I noticed is that the characters of the nuns and their relationships amongst one another were portrayed with a seriousness and delicacy that I hadn't remembered.
    I thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie again. Frankly, I had not retained much of it, so it was rather like watching it anew. I'm glad I had the opportunity to add it to my collection. I agree with someone I read on this movie, I can't remember who, that, although dated, in part, it is likely Audrey Hepburn's best performance, and she was supported by actors who were also at the top of their game. Oddly, my favorite performance in the movie, a bit part, is that of Mother Marcella (played by Ruth White) the nun who urges Sister Luke, in order to address a difficult relationship involving wrestling with humility with one of her fellow nuns, to fail her upcoming final exam at the School of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp. Ruth White absolutely nails the portrayal of this cruel nun who is, obviously, lacking in humility, herself. The performance was so good, so chilling, that I looked up Ruth White and bookmarked her to remind me to seek out more of her video work.
    A miscellaneous note: On February 3, 2020, the America - The Jesuit Review published a review of this film by Nadra Nittle, who praised this film. The Wikipedia article (to which I've linked, below), in mentioning Nadra Nittle's article, tacked on the following sentence: "There is no mention of the magazine's late literary editor Father Gardiner and his support for the source material and involvement in the adaptation." I'm not sure why this sentence was included, unless to attempt to create a tempest in a teapot. At any rate, Nadra Nittle isn't a Jesuit, there is no mention of whether she's Catholic, and I think this one sentence observation underlines a problem the author of the Wikipedia article has with the Catholic church, rather than a problem with the movie or Nittle's review. At any, rate, Nittle's article is far from the only review of praise for this movie. Although Roger Ebert did not review this film, I've linked the title of this write-up to an interesting and far from negative review of the movie by Glenn Erickson, DVD Savant.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Audrey Hepburn	Sister Luke	Peter Finch	Dr. Fortunati	Mother Marcella	Ruth White	Niall MacGinnis	Father Vermeuhlen

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1959
    Directed by Fred Zinnemann.

Labels: biography3, character-study, coming-of-age2, dean-jagger, dramaF, religion2, spiritual2

# posted by gail @ 12:44    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  This movie turns on Sarah Tobias' (played with verve and extraordinary competence by Jodie Foster) dance in the game room of the bar she was in the night she was raped. The dance is joyously energetic, celebratory, expressive and, yes, seemingly provocative, except that it is clear she wasn't trying to provoke anything, she was merely expressing. That dance, more than anything in the movie, is what defines the criminal injustice in what happened to her next. The idea of rape was clearly present in the minds of the watchers even before the dance took place. The rapists were simply waiting for the opportunity to do the deed. It didn't matter on who they perpetrated the rape. It could have been any of the women in that bar. It just happened to be Sarah. It was Sarah because, if you notice, all the other featured women in the bar left as the rape took shape in the minds of the rapists and onlookers or as it commenced. This movie is, in my opinion, a brilliant commentary on male society's perspective on rape. To men, they are not the perpetrators, women are, for simply being, well, women. Although a dance preceeded this rape, rarely does anything objectively "provocative" preceed most rapes. Thus, the presence, or absence, of a provocative dance is not up for question. The movie clearly underlines that rape isn't something women, or men, for that matter, provoke, it's something that men perpetrate upon weaker members of the society, women, primarily, but not exclusively.
    I initially saw this movie a long time ago, possibly on television, but I can't be sure. I'd forgotten about it until it popped up in a sale of film products featuring female actors and other crew. Suddenly, I was remembering the extraordinary effect it had on me. It did not make me afraid, so much, as disgusted at the shenanigans through which the legal system put this case. It smartened me up right quick, as they say in the trades. I've never had to participate in such a case, and hope I never do, but thinking, yet again, about this movie still kindles a sense of righteous anger in me.
    Let me state this clearly: As a woman, and, only, as a woman, I neither like nor trust men. I learned this, first from my father, not explicitly, but implicitly, ambiguously. Even when some man, somewhere, says or does something with which I concur, which is often, I am guarded. I am always thinking, in the back of my mind, that at any moment that particular man is going to say or do something else that will completely undercut any act of seeming fairness or support. That's just what it is to be a woman in this society, and many others. It could be different but, in 1988, when this movie was released, and now, in 2022, as I just completed watching it for the second time in my life, this remains true. And, men wonder why in the world some feminists want to separate from, or get rid of, men.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jodie Foster	Sarah Tobias	Kelly McGillis	Kathryn Murphy	Bernie Coulson	Kenneth Joyce	Ann Hearn	Salley Fraser

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1988
    Directed by Jonathan Kaplan.

Labels: 20th-century-chick-flicks1, character-study, dramaE, feminist, jodie-foster, legal, violence4

# posted by gail @ 12:10    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  You'll notice that this Lisbeth Salander movie and the other two are listed out of sequence on this side of my journal. That's because I'll not be receiving the third until next week. I don't know why. According the the Post Office, they're all originating from the same facility, but, I guess, not shipping at the same time. Oh well. I'm waiting until I have all three, sometime next week, to watch them all, back to back, in order, in a Lisbeth Salander revelry. I've not seen any of the other Salander movies, only the ones in the Millenium series in which our heroine is played by Noomi Rapace. I've also read all those books, but no more. Perhaps I'll develop a hankering for the other Salander movies, and books, by the time I get through these. I've seen the first, and I have vague memories that make me think I've seen the second, at some time, perhaps at someone else's home, which is always a dicey exercise for me, since, it never fails, when you watch a movie at someone else's house you are also obligated to listen to their commentary and engage in polite visitation rituals, which, inevitably, take place while the movie is playing. Now, dear reader, do you understand why I have my own movie collection?!?
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Noomi Rapace	Lisbeth Salander	Michael Nyqvist	Mikael Blomkvist	Lena Endre	Erika Berger	Sven-Bertil Taube	Henrik Vanger
  Peter Haber	Martin Vanger	Peter Andersson	Nils Bjurman	Marika Lagercrantz	Cecilia Vanger	Ingvar Hirdwall	Dirch Frode
  Björn Granath	Gustav Morell	Ewa Fröling	Harriet Vanger	Michalis Koutsogiannakis	Dragan Armansky	Annika Hallin	Annika Giannini

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2009
    Directed by Niels Arden Oplev.

Labels: action3, character-study, detective1, journalism, neo-noirB, revenge1, super-hero2, suspense3, thriller2, violence4, women's-movie2

# posted by gail @ 17:03    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  I've seen snippets of this movie, which is why I decided I not only wanted to see the whole movie, but that I wanted to own it. I'll be watching it, in toto, tonight. In the meantime, I've seen enough of it to wonder why Roger Ebert gave both this movie and the other directed by Chris Weitz to which he compared it, About a Boy, the same number of rating stars, three and a half. Although I enjoy About a Boy and own a copy of it, just from what I've seen of this movie, if I'd seen About a Boy before this movie and given it three and a half stars, I'd be inclined to give this movie four stars.
    It's not that I always agree with Roger Ebert. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with him a little less than a quarter of the time, although I rarely find one of his reviews in which I don't agree with something he's said, and, anyway, I appreciate his insights and the extra movie info he provided in his reviews, which is why I link to a lot of them. His reviews continue to point me toward movies I haven't yet seen but might find interesting. But, I notice, of all the Chris Weitz movies Ebert reviewed (they're listed in the immediately previous link), Ebert gave only one a full four stars: The Golden Compass, a movie I really tried to get into but just couldn't. It was full of razzle dazzle, yes, but the story, to me, was old and tired and leaning so heavily on its artistic presentation that the whole of the movie just kind of crumpled. When considering Ebert's reviews against my own, I always have to remind myself, he gave The Polar Express an enthusiastic four stars both times he saw it (one review was of the IMAX version), whereas I had a dim view of that movie (my write-up of it is linked to the title, further back in this sentence) and, out of two watchings, my mother didn't like it the first time around, although she enjoyed it the second time. Nonetheless, I got rid of it. She never asked to see it again and turned an offered viewing of it down after she'd seen in a second time.
    Perhaps I'll feel differently about this movie, A Better Life, after I watch the whole thing. Perhaps I'll even feel the same as Roger Ebert and consider it not-quite-a-four-star-movie. We'll see. Stay tuned.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Demián Bichir	Carlos Galindo	José Julián	Luis Galindo	Dolores Heredia	Anita	Carlos Linares	Santiago
  Eddie "Piolín" Sotelo	Himself	Joaquín Cosío	Blasco Martinez	Nancy Lenehan	Mrs. Donnely	Gabriel Chavarria	Ramon

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2011
    Directed by Chris Weitz.

Labels: §1, character-study, coming-of-age2, dramaD, father-son-dynamics1, gang-movie, reflective

# posted by gail @ 15:25    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  I just received this movie today, 8/30/21. I haven't yet seen it. I'm excited, though, by its reviews, including the one by Roger Ebert, linked to the title of this post, and yet another review written, importantly, 17 years later, for Roger Ebert's website by Seongyong Cho. If you're interested in this movie, read both of them, and you'll understand why it is important that the movie was reviewed, again, 17 years after its initial released.
    I'll report back once "the deed is done".
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Sean Nelson	Fresh	Giancarlo Esposito	Esteban	Samuel L. Jackson	Sam	N'Bushe Wright	Nichole
  Ron Brice	Corky	Jean-Claude La Marre	Jake	Jose Zuniga	Lt. Perez	Luis Lantigua	Chuckie
  Yul Vazquez	Chillie	Cheryl Freeman	Aunt Frances	Anthony Thomas	Red	Curtis McClarin	Darryl

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1994
    Directed by Boaz Yakin.

Labels: §2, character-study, coming-of-age2, dramaD, father-son-dynamics1, gang-movie, giancarlo-esposito, reflective, samuel-l-jackson

# posted by gail @ 15:16    0 comments    email......this post

• 
  Commentary:  I enjoyed this movie so much the first time around I watched it again, this afternoon (7/23/2021)! It's an interesting and curious story about a daughter who, even after his death, can't get out from underneath the restrictive hand of her father. It's my first movie under the category "father-daughter-dynamics". Seems odd that I haven't noticed any others to which that label applies, so I'll have to check through and see if I just didn't notice this with any other obvious possibilities.
    This movie features a sweet, retiring "older" single daughter who feels so protected in her father's all-encompassing care that she doesn't realize until some years later in her life, well after her father's death, that the dynamics between her and her father have warped her for any semblance of enjoyable male-female relations. In addition, her first, and last, suitor is the smoothest and most dastardly of cads, but this is something she doesn't realize until it is too late, emotionally, for her to even consider pursuing any sexual bond. Her aunt, as well, doesn't help. She is a widow who so idealizes her one marriage that she is completely blind to what the audience sees developing almost immediately. In this blindness she offers her niece, Catherine, who is completely untutored in romantic relationships, such cockamamie advice that this smart, but, unfortunately, naive, niece of hers is simply locked in a web of well-meant but treacherous deceit. And don't even get me started on her father! Fathers, and aunts, and cads, oh my!
    Very well acted. Very well written. Her change of character seemed sadly inevitable as I watched it happen, but her life and her reactions are fleshed out so well that, by the end, I did't feel pity for her but simply acknowledged her personal resolve. Yes, dear reader, I was surprised by my final reaction.
  Update 8/10/21:  I just obtained the 1997 remake of this film, or, rather, a re-filming of this story, Washington Square. At this precise moment I have not viewed it, yet, but I will be doing so tonight. I may, or may not, have comments to add, here, about the correspondences (or lack, thereof) between these two films. Stay tuned.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Olivia de Havilland	Catherine Sloper	Ralph Richardson	Dr. Austin Sloper	Miriam Hopkins	Lavinia Penniman	Montgomery Clift	Morris Townsend
  Vanessa Brown	Maria	Betty Linley	Mrs. Montgomery	Ray Collins	Jefferson Almond	Mona Freeman	Marian Almond
  Selena Royle	Elizabeth Almond	Paul Lees	Arthur Townsend	Harry Antrim	Mr. Abeel	Russ Conway	Quintus

  
    Here is the Wikipedia write-up for this movie.
    Release Date: 1949
    Directed by William Wyler.

Labels: character-study, Criterion2, dramaD, father-daughter-dynamics, miriam-hopkins, romance4

# posted by gail @ 19:13    0 comments    email......this post