Month: January 2014

Family and Race Matters: A Review of Out of the Furnace

Link posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

As an older sibling, I often ruminate about my responsibility to my younger siblings.  I wonder how much I am responsible for rescuing them from  catastrophic situations or whether I have no liability regarding helping them to make the most sagacious decisions.  I know that Cane asked God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Although these concepts are not explicitly stated, they are implicitly discussed in Out of the Furnace, a film directed by Scott Cooper. The film stars Christian Bale ( before gaining 50lbs for American Hustle)  as Russell Baze,  Casey Affleck as Rodney Baze, Woody Harrelson as Harlan DeGroat, Willem Dafoe as John Petty, Forrest Whitaker as Chief Wesley and Zoe Saldana as Lena Taylor, Russel’s love interest.  The film’s title is a metaphor for Iraq and possibly a metaphor for prison. Rodney Baze was discharged from the military after serving his tour of duty in Iraq and Russell Baze was released from prison for serving a sentence for vehicular homicide for driving while intoxicated.  In the opening scene, we are introduced to Harlan DeGroat, the antagonist of the film.  We realize that he is a brute who engages in unconscionable and egregious behavior.  Afterward, we are introduced to Rodney Baze who loses a wager to Petty that costs him over a thousand dollars and that he is unable to pay.  Russell, the protagonist, decides to pay the debt, but wants to conceal that he has made the payment.  Rodney believing that he still owes the debt wants to pay down his debt; thus, he is ready to earn money any way he can so that he is no longer indebted.  Petty vehemently tries to dissuade him from fighting albeit futilely. He is not easily discouraged from fighting such an infamous fighter from North Jersey.  He is adamant about fighting this one fight so that he can pay what he believes to be his debt.  He agrees to fight a notorious violent fighter for money (one of the Ramapo Indians); however, he must lose the fight in order to receive remuneration.  At first he is not in accordance with this arrangement.  He is quickly convinced that this is the best route to take. Rodney leaves a letter for his brother informing him about his plans.  He says that he will return after the fight is over.  He never returns, however.  After the fight, Rodney’s body and Petty’s body are soon found and DeGroat (the leader of the Ramapo) is suspected to be the killer.  Russell spends the rest of the film trying to avenge his brother’s death.  He feels that it is his responsibility to ensure that his brother’s killer is found and simultaneously brought to justice.  In the end, Russell risks his freedom as he kills DeGroat when Russell has every opportunity to retreat.

The pending questions that the film explores are: Why does Russell Baze feel as if he must avenge his brother’s death? Why can he not leave the investigation up to Chief Wesley? Why would he risk losing reconciliation with his former girlfriend, Lena (she left him during his prison stint)? For what singular cause is a man willing to risk losing everything he has? Does one murder justify the killing of another?  Is avenging the death of one’s sibling justifiable?  At the end of the film, one can assume that Russell will end up in the penitentiary unless mitigating circumstances allow for his acquittal. Some of these questions are implicitly answered.  We know that Russell feels that the police chief and the Bergen police lack the courage to challenge DeGroat.  We know that Russell lost the love of his life.  Perhaps he feels as if his life is meaningless without the love of this woman.  The other questions go unanswered.  One can speculate that Russell feels responsible for his younger brother.  We know he exhorted his brother go get a “real” job.  He may feel as if it is his responsibility to protect his brother.  Perhaps, he feels that he did not do enough to protect him In the past.  Maybe he is his brother’s keeper.

Many of the scenes are horrifically intense in order to depict the lawlessness of a particular group of people.  Although the violence is not gratuitous, some of the scenes are difficult to watch.  The opening scene is of high intensity, and it prepares the audience for future scenes.  Woody Harrelson’s character, DeGroat is the most violent.  He is a long way from Woody in “Cheers”.  As an audience member, I hoped that DeGroat would be less violent, but the character was to epitomize a group of people (according to the filmmakers the film is fiction) known for extreme violence, lawlessness, and drug addiction. Profoundly illustrative, the film shows the extent that a brother will go to seek justice for his brother, even if it means incarceration for avenging his murder.

After the film was released, a group of  Native Americans from Ramapo in North Bergen County, New Jersey were outraged. Currently, 17 members of the Ramapough Native American nation are suing the filmmakers for their negative depiction. Furthermore, according to the New York Daily News, some of the least palatable characters in the film have names common to their tribe.  Most of the plaintiffs in the suit, have the last name DeGroat and live in Bergen County or in another area where the action in the film occurs.  They believe that the film is an attempt to portray them in a stereotypical negative way.  As a result of the film, they claim that they have suffered mental anguish, emotional distress, and defamation. They insist that they are not violent people, but people who do not believe in technological advancement and who live in their own community.  They say that any violence in their community is no more prevalent than in others.

As an African American, I know how harmful negative stereotypes are.  No one wants to be inaccurately portrayed.  Although, the filmmakers say that the film is fictitious, there was probably some attempt to sensationalize the film through this extreme portrayal of these Native Americans. Although names are common, I had never heard of this group of Native Americans with the last name DeGroat. It is unfortunate that my first source of information is negative.  In an attempt to dispel the negative stereotype (especially if you see the film), let’s all agree to read about this tribe that is a descendant of the Lenape.

In spite of the negative depiction, I recommend this film for its intensity and captivation.  All of the actors played their roles to the extent that as an audience member I could feel the raw emotion as I often screamed during some of the scenes.  I felt as if I were part of the scenes as they unfolded.  I wonder though, if I would recommend it if the stereotypes negatively depicted blacks.  It’s food for thought.  Comments welcome.

Saving Mr. Banks: The Backstory of Mary Poppins From Book to Film

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

As children many of us grew up on songs from the film Mary Poppins.  We remember singing “Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down.”  Many of us also as children sang “supefragilisticexpialidocious, even though the sound of it is very quite atrocious.” In spite of seeing the film as a child, I never knew the story behind it. I would never have suspected that these songs were rebuffed by the original author of Mary Poppins. It is this backstory that Disney illuminates in Saving Mr. Banks by showing us the contentious contract that Walt Disney himself negotiated with the author of Mary Poppins for twenty years in his visionary fulfillment of the book ‘s adaptation to film. The film stars the inimitable Tom Hanks as Walt Disney and the accomplished Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers, the author of the original book, Mary Poppins. The film is set during the 1960’s in California.  Chivalry, diplomacy, and family loyalty were three of the prevailing attitudes reflected during this time. They are adequately portrayed through the characters.  During the film, Walt Disney shows Travers the utmost respect and decorum and both Disney and Travers are committed to the project in spite of their dogmatic opinions on how the film would be presented.  Saving Mr. Banks takes us through the musical process, and ultimately through the originally unwanted animation.  Working with Travers proves to be a daunting task to which Disney is committed because he promised his children that he would bring the book to film.

Travers is recalcitrant, intractable, and cantankerous throughout the entire process of developing the screenplay including the musical score for the film.  When the film opens, Travers’s attorney makes us aware of the two decades that have passed since Walt Disney first requested the rights to make the film.  With her financial stability depleting, Travers acquiesces and agrees to allow the process of adaptation to move forward; however, there is one caveat: all communications must be recorded and there must not be any animation.  Unfortunately, the one film genre that Disney is known for is animation.  He unwillingly agrees.  The process becomes quarrelsome because they each have separate agendas regarding the production of the film.  Travers, a British citizen, has her own views on how seriously she wants two of the characters to be depicted. She deplores what she sees as frivolity regarding the Disney empire. The title of the film takes its name from one of the characters in the book.  Mr. Banks, one of the main characters in the book, is a facsimile of Travers’s real life father. Disney is unaware that there is a connection between Travers and her characters in the story.  It is this connection that holds up the creative process.

As the action rises, we see the challenges that Mrs. Travers has as a young child and as an adolescent. Travers grew up with an alcoholic father and with a docile mother.  Travers’s father had difficulty maintaining a job and he was chronically ill because of his excessive drinking.  He died during Travers’s childhood.  She felt guilty because she believed that she was not everything that her father wanted her to be.  Thus, during the film’s production, she wants to pay homage to her father.  She wants to make sure that the portrayal of  Mr. Banks (Disney once again had no knowledge that the story Mary Poppins had elements of Travers’s life) was accurate.  Travers did not want the portrayal of her father to be desiccated.  Near the end of Saving Mr. Banks, Walt Disney realizes that Mary Poppins is based on Travers’s life.  Disney, at that juncture makes a personal connection with Travers.  He shares with her his personal difficult childhood experiences.  His identification with her made her decide to move toward completion of the film, in spite of its animation.  Disney assures her that her father’s character would be an authentic portrayal of his life in all of his goodness and he assured her that the character Mary Poppins would be similar to her character in the book.

Emma Thompson gives a convincing performance.  She is able to show the stubborn disagreeable temperament that Travers must have had.  Thompson’s depiction of Travers is often superb when conveying Travers’s dismissive attributes.  Thompson is able to convey Travers’s lack of satiety with both the ideas of the musicians or with the ideas of the writers of the screenplay. Through Thompson’s performance, we are able to see Travers’s dissatisfaction. Thompson’s performance is compelling as the audience begins to fully understand Travers.  As the production of Mary Poppins is completed, one sees the reserved elation exuded by Thompson.  Thompson’s captivating performance helps one want to reexamine the original book as well as Disney’s film so that all of the literary process could be fully appreciated.  I just wish that I had seen the Broadway production of Mary Poppins.

Tom Hanks plays a tenacious Walt Disney.  He is not deterred by hardship.  His childhood was difficult.  He clearly depicts the etiquette of the time period regarding how women were treated during the 60’s.  Disney’s gentility toward Travers is fully conveyed. Because the film is largely about Travers, Hanks plays a less dominant role than Thompson.  Thus, Hanks has less of a pivotal role than Thompson.  Nevertheless, he plays his role well.

As the film credits role, authentic recordings of the original process are played. We hear Travers voice, we hear her recalcitrance, we hear her reluctance, and we hear her strong will.  These recordings help validate the authenticity of the film.  Without Saving Mr. Banks, I would have never know that there was a real life story behind the making of the film, Mary Poppins.  Although this film is rated PG, it’s more for adults who can appreciate the literary and creative process that is involved in filmmaking.  The film’s setting helps to maintain the film’s family atmosphere although young children and most teenagers would fail to appreciate the ingenuity of the film.  They will however, appreciate the highly chimerical Mary Poppins since it “will help the medicine go down.”

If you desire a quality film with no objectionable content, then this film is for you.  It has great acting, a great story, and great cinematography that captures the zeitgeist of the 60’s. It is highly enjoyable and may even help you break out into singing a song with unintelligible words.

Folksy Llewyn Davis: A Review of the Coen Brothers’ Film

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

When I hear the term folk music, I immediately become nostalgic as I reminisce about artists such as Joan Baez, Peter, Paul, and Mary, Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan. Although, I was born in the sixties, my taste in music is eclectic and I have listened to folk music as a way to validate my life experience.  I also enjoy the folksy music of Norah Jones.  In fact, just last night I found myself listening on my IPOD Bose Sound Dock to an old folk song by Peter Paul and Mary- Don’t Call Me Names.  With folk music as the backdrop for Inside Llewyn Davis, brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, tell the story of Llewyn Davis’s total colossal failure even when his music is involved.  He has had limited success because he is informed that achieving financial success as a folk singer is difficult.  The scenes also help us to be transported back to the sixties via some of the classic automobiles and other props of the era.  The film begins and ends at the same point. We are first introduced to Llewyn Davis, played by Oscar Isaac, in a bar where he is soon brutally assaulted in its back alley.  We are not immediately told about the events that lead to the attack, but the film immediately begins with the depiction of Davis’s life. The cast of characters that help support the depiction of Davis includes Carey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake as Jean and Jim Berkey respectively, his two musician friends who have supported him in many ways.  Additionally, John Goodman’s role in the film is both comedic and tragic.

Davis has no home, but manages to ruin relationships with either friends or acquaintances with whom he stays with throughout the entire film. With each place that he stays, he has myriad challenges that hamper these relationships.  He loses his friend’s cat, his sister is disgusted with his behavior, he rants at the wife of a friend, and he fails to use prophylactics especially with a forbidden relationship. He is either held in high regard or in contempt both by friends and by acquaintances. The only solace he has is in his music, despite the challenges of receiving music gigs. The story focuses on the many failures and mammoth mistakes that Davis makes regarding his relationships with both family and friends.  He is indigent, but manages to fulfill himself sexually by impregnating two women, one of whom is the wife of his friend, Jim. He offers to pay for an abortion for her although he borrows the money from her unsuspecting husband. He later finds out that the other woman whom he impregnated, never had the abortion for which he previously paid.  Because he perpetually has no address and therefore no phone, (it’s the 60’s in which there is no cell phone) the doctor was unable to reimburse him for the money paid. As a result when he pays for Jean to have her abortion, the doctor says that he still has the money from the prior payment.  It is with this surplus, that he tries to start a new life-possibly as a marine shipman.  Even that desire becomes a financial challenge because nothing turns out as he hopes. The film takes us through his challenges of trying to stabilize what is left of his musical career after the suicide of his partner. He travels to Chicago, and he thinks of traveling to Ohio to find the girl that may have had his child.  In the end, he is battered and bruised as a result of his own disdainful behavior.  He never despairs of his music despite his inability to succeed prodigiously.

The score is what makes this film successful. Oscar Isaac sings  “Fare Thee Well” and “Hang me, Oh Hang Me”.  These songs are the signature pieces of the film which adds to the melancholy and pessimistic tone that possibly Davis can not achieve success either in his music or in his personal life.  The music is extraordinary for its catalytic propensity to catapult the audience back to the 60’s.  Even if folk music is not one’s passion, one can appreciate the music as it tells the story of Llewyn Davis.  I may just purchase the soundtrack to remember times past.

Although the film never allows us to go inside the mind of Llewyn Davis, the film’s purpose may not have been to inform us about his childhood experiences which may have been the incendiary device that causes the series of unfortunate events.  We are also not given background information on Davis’s past.  We are given no information for his failed relationships.  We never go inside Llewyn Davis to help us empathize with him.  Despite the film’s silence on his background, we sympathize with him because we want him to succeed paramountly with his music.  Although the market is saturated with quality films, if one is looking for a film without outrageous plot lines, without hedonism, without hyperbolic sex either visually or aurally, then this is a great film to watch.  I make this statement not facetiously, for I have seen many films during the last several months and “I’ve been all around this world” ( lyrics from the film).  It may not receive an Oscar or a Golden Globe award for best picture, but just possible it may receive one for Justin Timberlake’s song, “Please Mr. Kennedy.” Please, let there be just one hit song to further affirm such a classic film!

The Book Thief: A Restoration of Faith in Humanity

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

We have all seen and read films about the Holocaust: Elie Wiesel’s Night, The Diary of Anne Frank, Schindler’s List, etcetera; however, these films and books as well as others that have been written about the Holocaust are true accounts by victims of the Holocaust or true accounts of Jews who were helped by Germans or other Europeans during War World II.  The Book Thief, however, is a novel by Australian author, Markus Zusak, that uses verisimilitude as it tells the story of a German family who hid a young Jewish man for several years during World War II. The book has been made into a film of high quality directed by Brian Percival. The film is told through a personified death (Roger Allam) that knows all of the characters because at some point in the retelling of this drama, he becomes intimately acquainted with all of them. The protagonist, Liesel ( Sophie Nelisse), is placed in a foster care family when her mother (Heike Makatsch)) is no longer able to care for her.  Her brother dies shortly before she is placed undesirably with this family (Liesel and her new mom are both skeptical of her becoming part of the family).  Upon arrival, Liesel bonds with her new dad (Geoffrey Rush) but she has a strained relationship with her new mother (Emily Watson).  After attending school for the first time at her new school, her inability to read or write is detected.  As a result, her father adroitly teaches her to read.  Liesel has a friend, and a confidant  (Rudy, played by Nico Liersch) who makes her feel comfortable in her new environs.  The backdrop for this film is the impending Holocaust.  The film highlights the difficulty of being Jewish during this time.  As history tells us, the Jews in many European countries were rounded up and taken to concentration camps.  The film, however, does not focus on the concentration camps, but on the personal sacrifice of one family to help a young Jewish man, Max (Ben Schnetzer), escape detection.  Like Anne Frank, this man was hidden in Liesel’s family’s basement over a protracted period. When deciding whether the family would help this man whose father was known by the family, the father says, “We can’t afford not to.”

This commitment proves to be difficult both financially and emotionally, for the family must now engage in surreptitious behavior and Liesel must clandestinely hide this information from her best friend, Rudy.  The family must ration their food to feed their house guest, Max.  Liesel must engage in mendacity and the family must take care of Max during his recurrent illness.  The film underscores the daunting secretive tasks that the family undertakes to safely hide the young man and protect the family. As we see the challenges that befall the family, the film causes an emotive response that makes one despise the vestiges of prejudice regardless of its source.

The title of this film takes its name from Liesel’s desire to read.  She is given books by the wife of her mother’s client.  At that point in the film, the woman’s husband prohibits Liesel from reading the books.  As a result, she stealthily takes books from their library.  Moreover, when books are forbidden to be read and they are burned, she smuggles a book that she desires to read.  During the seclusion of Max, both he and Liesel read books until he is no longer able to read because of his recurring malaise which periodically plagues him for long periods of time.

During the war, the family undergoes great heartache and sorrow and the young man realizes that he must flee as he feels that his detection is imminent.  No one knows  whether he is likely to survive the horrors of the war, but one clings to hope and does not want to despair. The writer of the  screenplay and the director both have an ability for producing an emotional response from the audience.  The film highlights the hatred for others, including blacks.  It also juxtaposes hatred with admiration as the film shows that not everyone hates those who have been deemed outcasts.  In spite of all the sullen moments, the film helps restore our faith in humanity. As the climax happens, one feels raw emotion and wonders whether anything good can be resurrected from such a tragedy.  We get our response from our narrator Death, who is omniscient regarding the life and times of all of the characters.  As the denouement comes, one cannot help but ask, ” Is there a balm in Gilead?” That question is answered.

The greatness of this film lies with its ability to connect with the audience’s humanity.  Most progressive people loathe prejudice directed against segments of society.  Most likely, the audience is sensitive to everyone’s need for both love and acceptance.  As a result, the audience is able to see and feel the destruction of one’s prejudice.  The director helps us see how unacceptable prejudice is to the social fabric of our society.  When Liesel’s friend puts tar on his body because he identifies with the runner, Jessie Owens, he is ridiculed for wanting to be athletically successful like Owens. The film shows how children emulate the ideas of their parents- both good and bad.  Those children who learn hate from their parents, grow to hate those who are not of the same culture as they are.  Likewise, Liesel and her family are empathic toward others.  Their self-sacrificing behavior restores our faith in humanity and helps us realize that good does triumph over evil. Although this film lacks high profile American actors, it is arguably one of the best films of the year and it is worth seeing. The film’s brilliance is in its screenplay and in its direction. Although the acting is of great quality, the story in its conflicts, in its hopes, and in its resolution make for a splendiferous viewing. It helps us walk away with “esperanza” as the music played on the accordion ushers us toward a more halcyonic time.  It is in limited release.