Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)

*Spoilers*

It is the most anticipated movie of the year, and then some. It is the sequel fans have been waiting for since 1983. It is the contemporary master of nostalgia cinema J.J. Abrams take on the holy grail of franchises. It's buzz tremendous, it is being eagerly greeted as a spiritual experience perhaps greater then a personal visited by Pope Francis. It is Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, and it is good, maybe even real good, but its not great.

A recent article on Vice tagged this movie as 'the least interesting Star Wars yet', and I think that nails it, though a statement like that requires some unpacking. Lucas's prequel trilogy to his original set has come to be nearly cinematic shorthand for failing expectations. To those who grew up on the original films the lead up to the release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace was heady times indeed. We were stoked in 1999 that Lucas would again give us a big screen Star Wars experience, that wasn't just a slight reediting of the first three films liked he'd given us in 1997. There was denial I think at first for many us, the movie just wasn't that good, and the two that came after it also not on par with the original now sacred trilogy. We blamed Lucas, and to a lesser extent Hayden Christensen. The master had gone astray, seduced by the dark side much as Anakin had been. But Abrams would be our Luke Skywalker, he would rescue the franchise, he would restore balance to The Force. And he did, kind of.

It was in many ways an unenviable challenge and perhaps Abrams was the only name you could attach to the property to put people at an instant ease. He had a way with these things, he was a turn around artiest, be they franchises like Mission Impossible and Star Trek, or neglected genera types like 80's style family adventure movies (Super 8) or to a lesser extent monster destroying city pics (Cloverfield). Abrams could make things cool, Star Wars was inherently cool, so it shouldn't be a problem for him. But the task at hand, the job he confronted was what do we, both he and us the collective audience, want these new Star Wars movies to be? It is a question that in-fact I still don't know my personal answer to. But I know the answer that most people seem to have had, they wanted more of the same, they wanted the feel of the original trilogy back, and they go that. Episode VII feels like one of the first three films, more specifically it feels like Episode IV, but more on that later.

Abrams took the safe choice, the popular choice, he avoided risk. This is what Disney no doubt wanted of him, he took the road more traveled and that made all the difference. In his prequel trilogy Lucas let his creative energies fly, not just in the visuals, harbingers of our excessively computer soaked blockbusters of today, but in the story. Lucas sought to expand the universe of his own creation, taking it places in the era of Clinton and Bush II that he couldn't have gone in the time of Carter of Regan. The prequel movies were opened up, they were free of the constraints of the earlier productions in terms of sets and scope and budget. Naboo was impressive, so was Coruscant. We were seeing the mythologiesed  past of The Old Republic only hinted at in the original trilogy. We were seeing a Camelot, were Jedi Knights had been the guardians of galactic order for ages. We were seeing the seeds of destruction planted as they paved the way for the collapse of the old order. We were seeing the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, a sort of hero's journey in reverse the paved the way and added more context to the mythic Joseph Campbell hero's journey of Luke in the original trilogy. Lucas took a risk in telling that story, he could have just continued with the original cast (Harrison Ford's schedule permitting) and people would have eaten it up (as they are now). We knew the end of Anakin's story, why did we need to see the beginning?

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

The Unknown Known (2013)

In 2003 documentarian Errol Morris won an Academy Award for The Fog of War, his film about former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. A decade later Morris released The Unknown Known a documentary about another former Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. The two films and the two men serve as odd mirror images of one another. While McNamara was deeply troubled and repentive about the role he played in the escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam War, Rumsfeld shows no such signs of regret or introspection about the Afghan and Second Iraq War, save on a few relatively minor points, but on the whole he thinks he did right. While The Fog of War stands on its own I couldn't help but see The Unknown Known (title is Rumsfeld speak for things 'we thought we knew but turns out we didn't) only in relation to the earlier film and its subject. This film is Rumsfeld narrating his life's journey, from Congressman, to Nixon aid, Ford confident and Secretary of Defense, to foreign policy trouble shooter under Regan and a return to the Defense Secretary post just months before the tragedy of 9/11. Through it all Rumsfeld shows his single minded determination, and ability to get himself placed in favorable positions. Indeed much of this was true also of McNamara, but he had a sense of self criticism and introspection that Rumsfeld seems to lack. Not the Donald Rumsfeld, in many ways a very smart man like McNamara, has no ability to self analyze, it's just that he seems capable of doing so only to point, and that point, where I suppose further introspection might somehow risk his sense of self, he stops and will go no further. This is an interesting film, in some ways more interesting then The Fog of War, because its subject is to me less understandable a man then McNamara, so this film is a valuable historical document about how Donald Rumsfeld sees himself, and there is a lot to be learned from that. ***

The Daily Script

The Thing (1982)

After a disappointing experience this past October with The Thing's 2011 remake/prequel, I finally got around to watching John Carpenter's original 1982 version of the story. Now I can see what the remake was truly a pale imitation of, I've already sat through basically this same story, with roughly the same setting and similar characters, but this one was just so much better. It had a sense of life and energy to it, and certainly of originality that the more recent movie lacked. Even the special effects, though they were showing basically the same kind of stuff, namely 'The Thing' contorting human like bodies into all sorts of weird shapes, was so much more satisfying when you know its done with physically effects not computers. All this being said there was still a part of me that was tempted at the end for them to make a third The Thing movie and use modern digital effects to have a young Kurt Russell and a young Mary Elizabeth Winstead team up to fight the alien beast, but I'm pretty sure that that to would only be a pale imitation of the original, about like an alien attempting to assume human form. ***1/2

More than Honey (2012)

Swiss documentary about how all the bees are dying. Well more precisely it's about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a still only vaguely understood condition that has been effecting a troubling number of western honeybee colonies since at least 2006. It's bad, we are losing a lot of bees, and bees are very vital to life on this planet. In parts of China, as shown in this documentary, bees are basically gone, and now migrant workers are being employed to artificially pollinate orchards, a time consuming and ineffective process. There are some reasons to hope however, honeybees in Australia seem to be doing just fine, and the so called 'killer bees' or Africanized honeybee in the America's appear to be resistant to the condition that is near decimating its domesticated brethren. But beyond all that I was surprised just how little I understood about bees, how they work and the effects generations of human interface in their lives has had on them. This is a well done documentary that has some fascinating information and really beautiful shots of bees in it. Worth seeing if your at all curious about the subject. ***

Pinochet's Last Stand (2006)

BBC production, distributed domestically by HBO, Pinochet's Last Stand tells the story of how in 1998 former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in Britain while visiting for some surgery and spent 18 months fighting extradition to Spain for war crimes. Ultimately through various face saving maneuvers Pinochet was allowed to go home to Chile and never faced prosecution for his alleged crimes, including the deaths, disappearance and torture of thousands of people. Pinochet's Last Stand stars Derek Jacobi as Pinochet, Peter Capaldi as the human rights lawyer responsible for getting him arrested, and Anna Massey (in a piece of 'why didn't I think of that' casting) as Margret Thatcher, the former PM and Pinochet ally who helped get the man released.

While the story itself is interesting and even important, it was the first time an arrest of this nature had been made, that of a former head of state who was traveling legally in a foreign nation, its also pretty damn dry for a TV movie. The acting's good though restrained and there are occasionally interesting bits to it, like Pinochet's at first strained and later friendly relationship with the British police tasked with keeping him under house arrest, however on the whole its kind of a snoozer. There is probably a good article or two on this in some back issues of The Nation, I'd say read those, and don't bother with this movie. **

Trumbo (2015)

Trumbo tells the story of screenwriter Dalton Trumbo's roughly 12-year and ultimately successful battle against the Hollywood blacklist. Trumbo, who wrote the National Book Award winning novel Johnny Got His Gun, as well the screenplays for such movies as Thirty Seconds over Tokyo and Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, was an avowed leftist and member of the communist party for five years (1943-1948), yet also a patriotic American who loved his country and served in World War II, albeit not in a combat role. By 1947 Trumbo had become the highest paid screenwriter in Hollywood, but that same year he and nine associates known collectively as 'The Hollywood Ten' were blacklisted from work in the movie industry for their refusal to 'name names' to the House Un-American Activates Committee, Trumbo himself even spent some time in prison for contempt of congress (technically a crime we are all guilty of, am I right?).

After coming out of prison Trumbo continued to work under pseudonyms and the names of friends, even winning two Oscars that way, for Roman Holiday in 1953 and The Brave One in 1956. Mostly though Trumbo wrote and doctored the scripts for various B and below movies, the most famous and best of which is probably Gun Crazy, which I recommend. Though working in secret, if something of an open one, the Trumbo's (because the whole family was involved really) had to give up a lot of luxuries they were used to be, but they stuck together and worked through it until in 1960, with the political climate sufficiently changed and the support of Hollywood heavyweights like Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger, Trumbo's name again could appear on film as the screenwriter of such blockbusters as Exodus and Spartacus. The blacklist was effectively over and Trumbo would continue to write films (including a personal favorite of mine Papilon) before dying of a heart attack at the age of 70 in 1976.

Bryan Cranston plays Dalton Trumbo, and its a great performance, he is going to at the very least be Oscar nominated for this (and if he wins will become only the second person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar winner, after Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn in The Aviator). Trumbo was a man with a very distinct way of talking, a distinct look and a distinct bearing, Cranston captures all of this wonderfully, impressing me and giving me yet another reason to finally watch Breaking Bad. The large supporting cast is good and its hard to pick out just a few performances for comment, though Elle Fanning's and Louis C. K.'s are to me probably the most memorable. Though do any JAG fans want to comment on what they think about having David James Elliott play John Wayne?

Trumbo is a smart film about a smart writer, but the thing I appreciated most about it was that it was an optimistic film, and Trumbo an optimistic man, in the face of everything he was up against. It's just so pleasant to see something smartly written and positive, there's a lot of well written stuff out there, and a lot of positive stuff, but those two things don't overlap as much as I'd wish so it's really refreshing when they do. ***1/2

The Conspiracy (2012)

Canadian independent film distributed by XLrator Media. I had heard good things about this movie, which is why I decided to watch it, but the previews for other XLrator fair the proceeded it were enough to cause me some worry. However The Conspiracy rose above the bad action/gimmick ethos of its movie trailer brethren. I was actually impressed by it, I think they got a lot out of the limited budget/resources they had, and even had some mildly interesting things to say, the movie was certainly smarter and better put together then might be expected.

The Conspiracy is about two friends who decide to make a documentary together about a local conspiracy theorist, but when that man disappears, suddenly under mysterious circumstances, one friend finds himself drawn into the world of such theories, while the other remains skeptical, at least at first. The movie is presented in the form of 'the documentary' the two ultimately make, which I don't think entirely worked but mostly does. This movie reminded me chiefly of two films 1) Primer, by virtue of its limited budget and story about two friends whose side work project gets totally out of hand, and 2) The Devil Rides Out, by virtue of secret ceremonies in the woods and stuff. Said ceremonies are the center piece of the pictures longish and surprisingly tense climatic sequence. The movie does a great job of being about as artistically strong a film as its story and budget could possibly permit it to be. If director Christopher MacBride ever makes another film, I'd certainly consider seeing it. ***

Pitfall (1948)

Mediocre and forgettable film noir about a married insurance exec (Dick Powell) who gets involved with the girlfriend (Lizabeth Scott) of an embezzler (Byron Barr) who is the object of obsession for a P.I. (Raymond Burr), and that's the girlfriend he's obsessed with, not the embezzler, just clarifying. Weak, pointless, there is really no reason to bother with this movie. It's sad how quickly Miss Scott's career landed in the doldrums after a promising start in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers. *

Big Stone Gap (2015)

In the spring of 2000 I served for six weeks in and around the community of Big Stone Gap, Virginia as part of my LDS mission. One of the most picturesque and charming little towns I spent time in, I was there right around the time the novel Big Stone Gap first came out. Said novel was by a town native named Adriana Trigiani who had previously been a writer on The Cosby Show and A Different World before becoming a novelist (I really do feel bad for anyone whose career is tied to Bill Cosby's). Set in 'the Gap' in the late 1970's BSG is the story of a 40ish town spinster of Italian extraction who never really felt like she belonged and finally finds true love and answers about her past after discovering a trove of letters that had been sent to her late mother. The novel was quite successful and as of now has spawned three sequels. Full of quirky characters, humor and a pleasant love story the novel was well suited to be adapted as feature film, so it's a little surprising that it took so long to come to the big screen.

I suspect that the reason for this however is that Trigiani wanted to make sure that the thing was done right, and she did, both adapting her own novel for the screen and directing the thing. Trigiani managed to put together a wonderful cast to bring her odd ball collection of character to life. Said film stars Ashley Judd as lead character Ave Maria Mulligan (perfect casting), Patrick Wilson and John Benjamin Hickey as her two love interests, and Whoopi Goldberg and Jenna Elfman as her two best friends Fleeta and Ivey Lou. Anthony LaPaglia also appears enjoyable cast against type as the preternaturally calm and soft spoken Spec Broadwater. A few characters from the novel are left out, like the two town handymen, but most everybody else makes at least a short appearance.

To me one of the most interesting things about the film is that it was shot in the actual Big Stone Gap, a town I haven't been in in 15 years, but one so small that I recognized much of what I saw on screen. It's a weird experience seeing a house you distinctly remember knocking on as a missionary up on a movie screen. Big Stone Gap is an enjoyable film of limited scope that is in no hurry to get where its going, a lot like the novel it was based on. While I preferred the book this is the next best thing. **1/2

Experimenter (2015)

Bio-pic about the famed social psychologist Dr. Stanley Milgram, whose early 1960's experiments at Princeton University showed that almost all Americans were willing to subject a stranger to painful electrical shocks if asked to do so politely by a man in a lab coat. This work provided great insight into the human disposition towards obedience to authority and is now discussed in almost every college level introductory psych course, including the one I took in 2003. These experiments were to shape and define the life and career of Dr. Milgram in ways that he likely could never have anticipated, in fact it said that he never expected the results of his study to show nearly the level of blind obedience to authority that they did. These experiments both made Milgram's career and in a way limited it, despite a great deal of interesting research he conducted subsequent to the Princeton study, and which are well depicted in the film, that early work would always define his career and legacy, and give him a strong association with things Orwellian. In fact Dr. Milgram was never in greater demand on the lecture circuit then he was in that ominous year 1984, ironically the same year in which he died, he was only 51 years old.

Milgram is plaid quite well and with convincing detachment by Peter Sarsgaard, his wife Alexandra "Sasha" Milgram is played by Winona Ryder, who doesn't have that much to do in this role but it was nice to see her on the big screen again just the same. The rest of the cast is rounded out by a great number of well known actors in small supporting parts, many of them as participants in Milgram's most famous study, including Jim Gaffigan (kind of a perfect part for him), Anthony Edwards, John Leguizamo, and Taryn Manning. Dennis Haysbert is also in the film briefly playing actor Ossie Davis, he does a wonderful job of capturing that actors voice and presence, and no I'm not going to tell you why Ossie Davis would appear in a bio-pic about Stanley Milgram, you'll have to find that out on your own.

While Milgram and his work are very interesting in and of themselves, as the subject matter for a movie they have their limitations. The arc of Milgram's life in some ways lacks dramatic heft, at least of the type one generally associates with the subject of biographical film. Yes Milgram was frustrated by the way in which his career had been "typecast", but he was always able to get work in his chosen field, and for the most part seemed to have a happy and successful marriage, his widow of 30+ years Sasha never remarried and even briefly appears at the end of the film, which I think says something.

The filmmakers seem to have been aware of these limitations and sought to compensate for them in part through stylistic flourishes in presentation, which to my mind met with mixed results. Having Sarsgaard narrate the film and speak directly to the camera works, having a literal elephant walk behind him in a hallway when he discuses how being Jewish made him particularly interested in the concepts of blind obedience because of the Holocaust, that kind of works though pushes it, but having him and the other actors in color against a blown up black and white photograph of a living room when visiting the home of a colleague he's not too found of, well that mostly felt silly and a little pertinacious. The fake beard Sarsgaard wears through much of the film, also silly, but also kind of entertaining.

Experimenter is an interesting but uneven film which I was expecting to be better then I ultimately thought it was. A little too arty, a little too abstract, it never achieves the level of emotional connection with the audience that I was hopping for. Still, it's consistently interesting and at times even insightful.  **1/2

Black Mass (2015)

Eighteen years ago Johnny Depp played an FBI agent infiltrating the mob in the movie Donnie Brasco, now in a weird bit of symmetry he plays a gangster infiltrating the FBI in the new(ish) movie Black Mass. Like Donnie Brasco, Black Mass is based on a true story, specifically it is based on the 2001 book Black Mass: The True Story of an Unholy Alliance Between the FBI and the Irish Mob by Dick Lehr and Gerard O'Neill. It is the story of how James "Whitey" Bulger used his position as a secret FBI informant to rise from a relatively minor figure in the Boston underworld to become the most powerful crime boss in Massachusetts, before going into hiding and successfully evading authorities for 16 1/2 years. Bulger has become a larger then life figure, perhaps the seminal American gangster of the 2nd half of the 20th century, he was the basis for Jack Nicholson's character in the 2006 Oscar winning film The Departed, and along with his successful politician brother William M. Bulger inspiration for the 2006-2008 Showtime series Brotherhood, both of which I would recommend.

The casting of Depp, a talented actor who all too often falls into self-parody is at the same time perfectly logical and thoroughly unexpected. This is a part that in another time or another universe would have gone to Ray Liotta, and I kept thinking of Liotta throughout the picture, even coming up with the tag line "Johnny Depp is Ray Liotta as Whitey Bulger". Now that could be seen as a put down to Depp, but its really not, its a testament to that fact that Depp is so good in the role that he hardly registers as acting, or even as being there. Depp is Whitey Bulger, and Whitey Bulger is the kind of character Ray Liotta would play in a movie, hence this weird trinity.

This is violent movie, it can be rightly criticized for that violence. It is a movie that makes a real life monster its central character, and by virtue of the way dramatic narratives work the viewers surrogate, which brings with it a certain level of implied sympathy. Though it delves into the darkness of Bulger, and how that darkness evolved over time (there is a certain murder he commits a little more then halfway through the film which is so clearly unnecessary, whereas his previous murders had a certain internal logic to them, that it forces the audience to acknowledge what an awful guy they've been following) it none the less can't help but in some ways glamorize him. I mean look at all the things he was able to get away with, and how long he got away with them, there is a reason movies have been made about this guy, he was very good at what he did. In a final, but less weighty piece of criticism, I've seen a lot of mob movies and this movie didn't break any new ground, as awful as these real life evils where, I felt I'd seen them before, and that lessened the impact.

But the central performance stands, while the supporting performances are largely sufficient if not much more then that, I feel the movie was over cast with recognizable names. A competent movie, but one whose very existence is kind of disconcerting. Why make this movie? Why did I see this movie? Not for lofty reasons, but because sometimes we like to vicariously see bad people do bad things. We probably shouldn't. The strongest emotion this movie invoked in me was that of unease. ***