Author: Deirdre M. DeLoatch

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.

Do the Hustle: An American Tale of Mendacity, Prevarication, and Reciprocity

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

The seventies was a decade of disco dancing, music, platform shoes, and political deception. In New Jersey, at that time, the Abscam scandal was unfolding.  The scandal took its name from a phony Arab that was used to lure politicians into taking bribes with the promise of helping the city of Camden, NJ prosper economically. The mayor of Camden along with several Congressman and a U.S. Senator were arrested on federal charges including bribery.  This political corruption and the social era of the seventies serve as the backdrop for the film American Hustle directed by David O. Russell and starring Christian Bale (Irving Rosenfeld), Bradley Cooper (Richie DiMaso), Amy Adams (Sydney Prosser), Jennifer Lawrence (Rosalyn Rosenfeld), and Jeremy Renner (Carmine Polito). Robert DeNiro makes both a noteworthy and witty performance. Many other actors deliver captivating performances.  The film catapulted me retroactively to the seventies era of great music and dancing.  I expected to see the characters dance the hustle as a symbolic representation of that era and of the film.  Unfortunately, I did not notice this dance in the two dance scenes.  However, there were other decade emblems that captured the decade well.  This awesome film is all about deception and reciprocity. It scintillatingly uses wit and humor to convey the themes of both covert mendacity and reciprocity. The first half hour of the film is largely told in flashback so that the audience can understand the first ten minutes of the film.  It ends with a twist that is reminiscent of  déjà vu; however, because it was unexpected, the scene helps render a surprising conclusion to this superb film.

In the opening scenes of the film, we are introduced to the characters’ foibles and proclivities.  Bale sports a “comb over” to hide his balding head with a glued on toupee, for which he is ridiculed. The audience is immediately drawn into this comedic scene that may be all too familiar for some older or younger audience members.  As we are introduced to the major characters, the mendacious dynamics of the relationship between the characters is unclear; however, as we are given more information through flashback, the opening scene becomes less obscure. We are informed about the relationship between Sydney and Irving and how they came to meet Richie.  All of the characters are comical either because of their attire, their hair, their obsession with foul smelling nail polish, and because of their relentless obsession with greatness while disdaining mediocrity.

The acting under the direction of Russell is superb as the actors are all given lines that greatly illustrate their range of acting. Bale is able to show the duality of his character as he shows compassion when the audience least expects it.  Both Cooper and Lawrence are hilarious as the audience breaks out in boisterous guffaws during many of the scenes. Adams in her risqué clothing and phony accent delivers a compelling performance.  The setting is exemplified by all of the cars, clothing, and music that help the actors shine in their respective roles.

Many of the Oscar worthy films this year are based on true events.  American Hustle, is a fictionalized account of a true event, but it is told with great humor that may make it difficult to win an Oscar for best picture, for its chief competitor may be Twelve Years a Slave, a serious account of an unfortunate historical event.  In spite of the humorous raconteur, it is one of the best films that I have seen this year.  I highly recommend this film.  I may just see it again and join the audience in spirited laughter. Beware of long lines!

Review of Kasi Lemmons’s Black Nativity, the musical

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

Relationships are often fraught with conflicts. With hope, these conflicts are resolved favorably.  These conflicts and their subsequent reconciliation are evident in Kasi Lemmons’s the Black Nativity. He is both the author and the director of the screenplay. The original work, by Librettist, Langston Hughes, uses themes of love, hope, and reconciliation as the backdrop for the birth of Jesus in this film. It is through the birth of Jesus and through His life that we find these themes aforementioned.  The film is centered around Langston who has to spend Christmas with his grandparents whom he has never known.  The film stars at least one A-list actor as well as other accomplished actors.  Forrest Whittaker stars as Rev. Cornell Cobbs, Angela Bassett stars as Aretha Cobbs, his wife, Jennifer Hudson stars as Naima, his daughter and Jacob Latimer stars as Langston, the grandson of Rev. Cobb. There are other talented musicians who star in this musical performance who help make this film celebrity filled and enjoyable.  The film is a combination of both a musical and a drama that captivates its viewers from the inception of the film. It is through Langston that restoration takes place.  The question that permeates the film is if Christ is omnipotent, then why has reconciliation not taken place between Rev. Cobb and his daughter? This is a question that every Christian must apply to his own life and answer at some time during his relationship with Jesus. The answer is that with Christ, reconciliation is always possible.  At what cost are we willing to reconcile and how long are we willing to persevere in prayer until it happens? These questions and answers are explored in great depth in the film.

The soundtrack has songs that greatly speak to the emotions of the characters and the daunting circumstances that surround the characters. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film,  we are able to empathize with Langston when Nas, a rapper, sings “Motherless Child”.  Langston feels like a motherless child because he is sent to live with family whom he had never met. Moreover, the decades old song, “Jesus is on the Mainline” sung by Bassett and Whittaker speaks to the hope of reconciliation by Rev. Cobb and his wife with their daughter. Additionally, “He loves me still ” helps everyone to see that Jesus loves us in spite of our faults, in spite of our “mess ups”. The songs inspire us to come to Jesus in spite of our mistakes.

Forrest Whittaker and Jacob Latimer deliver stupendous performances.  Many viewers will be able to both empathize and sympathize with both characters.  Latimer is an up and coming singer and actor who exhibits great effusion when acting.  Whittaker, as Cobb, when perturbed manages to deliver his lines emphatically without losing his ministerial attributes.  When leaving the theater, one feels encouraged and hope filled-knowing that with Christ all things are indeed possible.

This film is beautiful and inspirational.  Although the themes and some scenes are mature, this is a great family film that can give all of us an impetus to work through conflicts so that reconciliation takes place.  This film helps us realize that Christ’s love is the reason for the season. This film is highly recommended.

Alexander Paynes’s Nebraska: A Film Review

Link posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

When the state of Nebraska is mentioned in conversation (almost never actually, except for conversing about a woman I once met and befriended from Nebraska) the discourse is usually about corn fields and football.  One seldom associates the state with major events let alone a film.  In addition, many of us from the NYC metropolitan area may not know many people from Nebraska or may never have visited the state ever.  Currently, the state is on my list of places to see as I become closer to attaining my goal of visiting all 50 states.  After seeing Alexander Paynes’s  comedic – like Nebraska, shot in beautiful black and white with awesome cinematography, one may not be inclined to place it at a high priority for tourism except that some of the people portrayed were the most lovely people.  The movie stars Bruce Dern as Woody Grant, Will Forte as David Grant, June Squibb as Kate Grant, Woody’s wife, Bob Odenkirk as Ross Grant, and an unforgettable appearance by Stacy Keach as Ed Pegram.  Squibb has some classic comedic laughs that have the effect of producing guffaws. Forte and Odenkirk have some memorable scenes that makes one chuckle and smile.

The film is not so much a representation of the state of Nebraska as it is about the representation of the state to Woody Grant, played by Bruce Dern, who won best actor at the Canne Film Festival this year for his portrayal of Grant. The film centers around Woody Grant who believes that he has won a million dollars because he received a letter in the mail alluding to the idea that he may be a winner.  As a result of his mistaken belief, he sets out on a journey from Billings, Montana (A state with natural awesome wonders) with David, one of his sons (his son is aware of his dad’s demented belief) to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim his winnings.  On the journey, Woody and David meet family and friends whom they have not seen in years.  In various ways, Woody and David try to reconnect with family and Woody himself meets old friends.  Through all of these encounters, Woody’s son gains a better understanding of his father.  As with most people who have won a prodigious amount of money, news travels through Woody’s hometown about his supposed winnings.  Old family and friends come to collect money that Grant has allegedly owed for many decades.  It’s with all of these former relationships that the feelings and thoughts about the mundane lives of these Nebraskans spring forth.

Throughout the film, there are many comedic lines in the midst of a couple of disheartening scenes.  These comedic scenes interspersed with great cinematography is illustrative of what Nebraska represents to Woody, his wife, and his two sons all of whom join him on his journey for either part of the way or for the entire adventure.  Old memories that once faded into the background are resurfaced.

The final scenes of the film make for a heartwarming dramatic denouement.  This is one of the best endings seen in recent memory. Just maybe reconnecting with an old Nebraskan friend or acquaintance may be a great antidote for whatever ails us.  Make this film a priority.  Do not be fooled by the title.

Review of Vallee’s Dallas Buyers Club

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

Over the last three decades there has been great advancement in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.  Many of us know of or about someone who died from the disease.  Jean-Marc Vallee’s Dallas Buyers Club chronicles Ron Woodruff’s (played by Matthew McConaughay) journey from his diagnosis to his treatment of HIV, and the impact he had on the AIDS community.  The film is a tribute to his impact on AIDS patients throughout the country in the mid to late 80’s and well into the next decade. The film also stars, Jared Leto, both a fellow AIDS patient and crossdresser, and Jennifer Gardner as Dr. Eve Saks, the doctor who initially treats both men.  The title emanates from “buyers clubs” that sprouted up as a result of the inability to get effective treatment that suppresses the impact of the AIDS virus without significant side effects. As many of us recall, HIV was originally thought to be a gay man’s disease.  This idea is greatly apparent in the film as Woodruff, at the outset of his diagnosis, refuses to acknowledge that he has the virus that causes AIDS.  He insisted that he was no “Fag”.  Initially in the film, Woodruff uses pejorative language against gays because he did not agree with their lifestyle .  He and his associates have total disdain for the gay community. Once diagnosed, Woodruff is given thirty days to live.   After a brief period of denial, he realizes that he did indeed have HIV.  Consequently, he researches treatment as well as the side effects of the medication he is given.  Initially, he obtains AZT illegally, but soon realizes that the side effects are too great.  McConaughay plays a convincing Woodruff for his resolution and for his tenacity which are depicted as if Woodruff had played the role himself.  Unfortunately, Woodruff is no longer with us  to affirm McConaughay’s performance.  The film is told through the trials and triumphs of the AIDS community.

In the late 80’s, AZT was the drug that was commonly prescribed; however, the drug in its original strength was too strong for the average AIDS patient. In the film, Woodruff decides to go out of the country to buy drugs for fellow AIDS patients.  Despite the law against selling drugs in the United States that were purchased internationally, Woodruff decides to sell them to patients so that they would have the needed medication; however, that is ephemeral.  As a result of the illegality of selling the drugs, he forms a buyers club to skirt the law.  The AIDS patients become part of the Dallas Buyers Club where they pay for membership in the club that enables them go receive the medication as part of their membership which pays for the medication.  In the end, he helps an innumerable amount of people live longer than expected.  Moreover, he helped the medical community rethink their treatment of AIDS patients, including the prescription and strength of AZT.

During this time, he becomes less contemptuous and disdainful toward the gay community as his character is transformed.  They grow to love him and he grows to respect them. He even befriends Rayon, a cross dresser, played by Leto, who has AIDS.  The film chronicles the friendship of Woodruff and Rayon as they both support one another through their illness.  In the end, because of all of his efforts, Woodruff lives for seven years past his initial pronouncement of thirty days to live.

In the beginning of the film, we are given a glimpse of Woodruff’s character and of his sex addiction. He is not amiable toward others, especially to the gay community.  Moreover, there are multiple scenes and derisive language concerning his sex life and concerning his original lack of empathy that are quite graphic. We are shown his sexual addiction over  his entire adult life, even after his initial diagnosis.  He never used protection because he associated AIDS with gay men.   He rejected the diagnosis because he loved “pussy” so much that he could not fathom that he could be diagnosed with AIDS. Both he and his friends mocked gays; however, as time passes, we see him defending gays and going through great difficulty to assist them. That enamor is reciprocated by the many people whom he helped live longer and more comfortably with AIDS.

As stated, Matthew McConnahey is convincing in his role.  He lost fifty pounds to play this character.  He was transformed from a handsome virile man, to one who was sickly in spite of his aggressive actions for  survival. One can see that Woodruff, as played by McConaughay, is not unctuous, but sincere in enabling us to see his transformed character.  His performance is Oscar caliber, although his costar, Leto, may in fact receive the Oscar nomination for his stunning portrayal as a crossdresser. Both actors move with ease in their role.  Currently, actors who star as crossdressers or as men playing female characters are receiving accolades and plaudits for their roles.  We have seen this in Fierstein’s Kinky Boots and in the musical adaptation of Dahl’s Matilda.  The Oscar’s await us with great expectation.

Analysis of Resilience in All is Lost and in Gravity

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

Two current films that both center around the theme of resilience are Gravity and All is Lost.  Both films have limited dialogue and a limited number of characters.  Gravity has barely two and Lost has one. Gravity involves an astronaut who is in the fight of her life for survival.  The situation is grave, and it is the lack of gravity that hinders her throughout the film. The astronaut, played by Sandra Bullock, has to decide whether she is willing to fight for survival or whether life is not meaningful enough to work through harrowing situations.  The astronaut endures a series of mishaps while despairing.  Her despair is evident early in the film narrative. Except at the commencement of the film, she has no one to exhort her to survive; however, with the help of her fellow astronaut, via a dream, she survives after landing in a body of water and swimming, thereafter, to the surface of the water.  The second film, Lost, also has a similar theme.

One cannot say that All is Lost is reminiscent of the silent film era because the score and a few words negate its characterization as a silent film.  Yet, this film depicts the true concept of acting when no dialogue is used.  This film, stars Robert Redford cast as a man whose name is “unknown.”  The film is told in flashback over a period of eight days.  This nameless man is both resilient and resourceful for he manages to survive at sea in the middle of the Indian Ocean with Madagascar as the nearest land mass.  This film is about ingenuity and survival in the face of great difficulty.  In the beginning of the movie, Unknown composes a letter presumably to his wife or another loved one apologizing for his lack of survival after his boat is severely damaged at sea by a barge or vessel.  At that point, the film flashes back to the beginning of this ordeal.  The man awakens to find that his boat has taken on water.  At that time the man engages in many acts of survival including hoisting himself at the top of the sail in an attempt to be noticed, sending out SOS signals, repairing the boat, ditching the boat that became more distressing to him, and inflating a raft that allows him a means of survival.  Despite all of his efforts for survival, his attempts at rescue go both unheard and unseen until he sets a massive fire in the inflatable raft so that his ship can be seen in distress.  He then jumps into the water because of the fire.  One then wonders whether he will survive in the ocean or succumb to the rough and vast current. At the end of the film, as Unknown is swimming back toward shore, a hand reaches down to help pull him out of the water.  At that point, the film ends.  In spite of unknown’s difficulties, one learns that all is not truly lost, for he survives amidst daunting circumstances.

The question to be asked and answered is what makes one both strong and resilient while others despair and capitulate.  Can these skills be taught?  If so, how do we teach them and should they be taught in conjunction with other attributes.  While analyzing All is Lost and Gravity, one can look at the resilience of both characters and examine possible reasons for their resolution for survival while applying the concept of resilience to humanity at large.

In both films, the major characters both realize that they have to lay aside every weight that entangles them,  In Lost, unknown ditches his boat because he sees it as an impediment to his survival.  Similarly, in gravity, the astronaut lets go of her original spacecraft because it is also a hindrance to her survival. Thus, there is a connection between letting go of weights and moving past life’s difficulties and its disappointments.  The first task is that one must recognize weights that hold him down.  The astronaut lost her young daughter.  As a result, she has not been able to move past this tragedy.  She feels as if she has little reason to live.  Thus, when she is in crisis, she is ready to quit fighting; however, her fellow astronaut exhorts her to look at her life so that she realizes that all is not lost (yes, we are still talking about Gravity.  The movie is about loss as well.) and that life is still worth living.

One of the best ways to develop resilience is to be exposed to tragedy, and while exposed to it, it helps to have a supportive person who functions in a hortatory capacity. That person can coach a person through the challenging time; however, if one never experiences difficulties, he will be stymied at the onset of a tragedy.  In Lost, there was no coach, but Unknown clearly had survival skills.  He knew how to employ many measures to ensure his survival.  In Gravity, the astronaut had her fellow astronaut appear in a dream. He helped her to become resilient.

In addition, one’s temperament also impacts one’s resilience.  Having a choleric or aggressive temperament, may help one become resilient as long as one’s anger does not impede his ability to work through the difficulty.  If one is of the melancholy temperament, resilience may be more difficult because of the  natural tendency to wallow in misery. In Gravity,  the astronaut may have had a melancholy temperament, but through encouragement, she rises above her mercurial nature.  In lost, Unknown appears to have  a choleric temperament.  He is extremely aggressive when working toward survival. His aggression is an asset.

Resilience is a necessary skill for emotional survival.  Both determination and perseverance are needed for resilience to occur.  In both films, the major characters had these attributes. These skills can be taught, but one must have supportive family and friends or must have varying degrees of tragedy to help survive future tragedies. The old adage is true: no pain, no gain.

All is Lost is highly recommended for its superb acting.  Gravity is a poor second when compared to Lost.  If it were not in Lost’s shadow, Gravity may have been worth seeing.

Review of Claire by the Sea Light

Posted on by Deirdre M. DeLoatch

Claire by the Sea Light, by Edwidge Danticat is a lyrically  descriptive novel that intricately weaves seemingly unrelated characters and stories with each other.  Danticat is a Haitian American writer who sets her novels in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemiphere that has seen its share of atrocities and disastrous natural events.  The story begins with Claire of the Sea Light, a seven year old girl whose mother passed during the childbirth of Claire.  Her father has raised her in spite of the difficulties because of the loss of maternal care.  He often tries to have maternal influence and connections with the mother’s family; however, Claire realizes that these visits are insufficient.  Her father decides that he needs to have someone “adopt” her so that she can have a better life.  At the point of transfer, Claire mysteriously disappears at first thought into the sea.  The next vignettes weave connections of different characters and their relation to each other. Most of the vignettes are macabre like, bordering on the French genre, danse macabre, which horrifically weaves stories of death with a central theme between each story. Beautifully, yet tragically told, the novel ends with a hint of optimism and ends with courage that the characters can face life’s disappointments and its challenges.

After the disappearance of Claire, the narrator details the connection of Madame Gaelle Lavaud, the woman who was to adopt Claire, with both Claire and her father Nozias. Madame Gaelle is pregnant with a baby that is not expected to live.  Her doctor tells her that her baby is going to be still born. As the chapter progresses, one believes that the baby will die; but, with tragic irony, Gaelle’s husband, Laurent Lavaud, is shot and killed.  According to the narrator, “The shots had rung out as Laurent was leaving the station, and he was struck by three bullets to the heart and died on the spot.” Madame Gaelle’s connection to Claire ‘s story is that at the point of Claire’s mother’s death, Madame Gaelle became the wet nurse for Claire.  Madame knew Claire’s mother briefly, not intimately.  In spite of their lack of closeness, Madame is responsible for Claire’s viability.  Gaelle gives Claire life in spite of  the enormity of the constant grief that she suffers as a result of the death of her husband.  To connect the relation of the characters,  the novel opens in the first few vignettes with a recantation of Claire’s mother’s death, with both the disappearance and assumed death of Claire, and with the brutal death of  Laurent Lavaud, Gaelle’s husband.

Similarly, we encounter in the next vignette, Bernard Dorien who is tragically killed in a gang assault. The narrator tells us that “Bernard Dorien was found dead in the bed of his bedroom.  He is murdered in the same way that Laurent Lavaud, the owner of the fabric shop had, with three bullets expertly, and, in Bernard’s case, silently, administered to the heart.” Gangs have invaded Ville Rose, the community in which this novel is set.  Dorien, has a friend, Max Ardin Jr, who moves away before Dorien’s death.  Danticat surreptitiously and creatively exposes the connection of these characters with others in the novel.   Much later in the novel, Danticat intricately connects Claire with Max Ardin Jr, and explains the relation of Ardin with Bernard and the reason for his sudden departure.

Throughout the next series of vignettes, Danticat exposes the foibles and vices of other characters.  We see that husbands are having covert affairs and some affairs that appear to be less covert.  We see that Max Ardin Jr, has raped a worker in his parent’s home.  His rape is exposed in a dramatic radio program as the woman in which Ardin is covertly seeing seeks revenge for an indignity that she believes she has suffered. Both Ardin Senior and Junior suffer a public humiliation as a result of their stealth actions that have now been exposed.  Max Jr fathers a child as a result of rape.  The narrator also touches upon the gay relationship that Ardin had with Bernard Dorien.  His father tries to cover the rape.  He is distraught because he is prohibited from becoming a father to his child.  He cannot face the public humiliation and he desires to commit suicide.  He goes out to sea and nearly drowns.  He is rescued by Madame Gaelle and by Nozias who have spent time looking for Claire, who has disappeared possibly into the sea.

Lastly, Claire goes to a place, ” Inutile” defined in English as useless ; however, it becomes useful to Claire because she retreats to the top of Inutile where she is able to process the burgeoning new life that she can have with Madame Gaelle.  If she takes her life, she wonders whether she will be missed.  She realizes that her sorrow can be turned into hope.  She sings a song with the lyrics, “She has to go home/To see the man/ Who’d crawled half dead/Out of the sea.”  Through CPR, life is pumped back into Max Ardin Jr.  Concurrently, life is pumped back into Claire of the Sea Light.  At that point she grows into her name and just may possibly be the person who becomes the light to others through the offer of hope.

Through this beautifully crafted story one can see the interconnectedness of life.  One event impacts the other just as we impact the lives, positively and negatively, of each other.  Although this novel first appears to be about death, it is about how the characters are given a new chance at life in place of sorrow.  One cannot help but hope that that same hope can be transferred to Haiti in spite of its gang violence and its random deaths.