Alien: Romulus--back to basics

It's not often these days that I buy a movie ticket to the premiere of a new movie, but I did so recently so that I could attend the first showing (last night) of the new Alien film--Alien: Romulus. I chose to watch it in ScreenX format, which simply means that the screen extends to the walls on both sides of the theater, about halfway up on each side. I wasn't impressed with this format, and interestingly enough, it 'disappeared' about a third of the way into the film. It's simply irritating and added nothing to the movie, which was very good, by the way. I give it four out of five stars. It's a non-stop roller coaster ride into an alien universe that is neither friendly nor habitable for human beings. It's simply a fight for survival by humans and aliens alike. And most of the time, the aliens win. 

The film takes us back to what made the original Alien films (Alien from 1979 and Aliens from 1986) so good. Those films were sci-fi horror at its best. The original Alien film was marketed with the tagline 'In space, no one can hear you scream'. The new film pays homage to these films while finding new ground; the xenomorph monsters in this film are essentially the same as in the original films (with one exception)--murderous and bent on survival at all costs, with corrosive acid for blood and the ability to prey on humans for food and for reproduction. They have a multi-stage life cycle, exhibit hive-like characteristics in terms of how they develop and live, and are fairly intelligent. In short, you don't want to mess with them. But the humans in all these films have no other choice, usually at their peril. 

The overall story is simple enough; a group of young people leave the slave-like working conditions on the perpetually dark planet they live on (Weyland-Yutani's Jackson’s Star mining colony) for a better life on the planet Yvaga III where the sun shines. In order to accomplish this, they need cryosleep chambers that will make the nine-year trip possible. They end up stealing these from a decommissioned space station that was actually a research station, now deserted, that was studying the aliens. Of course we know that this space station is not deserted, but rather inhabited by the xenomorphs, who have killed all the humans on board. I won't divulge the last part of the film or the ending, but suffice it to say that the director, Fede Alvarez, has done a great job of providing non-stop action and scares. The ending didn't really open for a sequel as far as I could determine, which is probably just as well. This film stands on its own as one of the best new entries into the repertoire of Alien films. 

The Wolf's Call--movie from 2019

Antonin Baudry wrote and directed the French film The Wolf's Call (Le Chant du loup) from 2019, now streaming on Netflix. You might think from the movie's title that we're in animal/nature territory, or even in horror movie territory, but the plot of the film is about as far away as you can get from either genre. It's a thriller about two ballistic missile submarines, one of which (the Titane) has been commissioned to take out the other (the Effroyable) that has been commanded to launch one of its nuclear warhead ballistic missiles against Russia in response to a (presumably) Russian launch against France from a decommissioned Russian nuclear sub (the Timour III). Unfortunately, it was not the Russians who were responsible for the latter; it was a terrorist organization called Al-Jadida (who illegally bought the decommissioned Timour III) that launched a ballistic missile (without its nuclear warhead) against France so that France would think it was a Russian attack. The idea being to start a nuclear war between major world powers. 

The film's focus is on the sonar expert Chanteraide (very well-played by François Civil), whose excellent sense of hearing is crucial to tracking down the position of the Effroyable and ending the threat of nuclear war. I was previously unaware of the importance of sonar experts to submarine activities. I knew that subs rely on sonar to detect objects around them, but I didn't know about the importance of sonar experts to that onboard activity, but it makes sense that such experts are needed to interpret the sonar printouts and graphs. The "wolf's call' is an active sonar alarm that indicates that a submarine is detected and targeted; the term 'wolf's call' is navy slang for this event.

I found the film to be very good; it has action, suspense, and the plot complexities that characterize a good thriller. It gave me a new understanding of life onboard these types of submarines and a new appreciation of the men who risk their lives in the service of their countries. I have climbed down a steel ladder into a small submarine once in my life, and climbed right back up again; the claustrophobia was overwhelming. Kudos to the men (and women) who manage to live their lives at sea in this way. I could never do it. If something goes wrong, e.g. as in this film where one of the subs is hit by a missile, it's game over for all onboard. The dead are honored in a poignant scene at the end of the film; I found myself very moved by that, a good indication that the film managed to engage viewers' feelings in addition to being a good thriller. 

The movie--The Banshees of Inisherin

You won't see a stranger film from 2022 than The Banshees of Inisherin (written and directed by Martin McDonagh). You also won't see a better one. My husband and I saw it today in a mostly-empty theater (the afternoon showing); one can hope that the evening showings are more packed, because it's definitely not a film to miss. It's been described as a comedy, albeit a dark one, but I would describe it as more of a drama with some comedic elements and some bizarre (almost horror) elements. It's the story of a friendship between two men; one older--Colm (well-played by Brendan Gleeson), and one younger, Pádraic (wonderfully acted by Colin Farrell)--that ends abruptly one fine day when Colm decides he no longer wants to be friends with Pádraic whom he describes as dull. His explanation for ending the friendship is that he simply got tired of listening to Pádraic's inane conversation. Colm seems to have become acutely aware of his mortality and the legacy he will leave behind; he wants to be remembered as a musician rather than as a nice man who did little with his life, something Pádraic does not understand or really care about. The severing of the friendship leads to all sorts of nastiness, mostly on the part of Colm who is not afraid to act on his threats of what he will do if Pádraic does not stop pestering him to remain friends. And Pádraic continues to visit Colm in the hope that somehow the friendship will right itself and everything will continue on just as before--going to the local pub at 2 pm for their beers and hanging out until it's time to go home. The year is 1923, Ireland is in the middle of a civil war, and the island on which they live, Inisherin, a fictional island off the coast of Galway, is as far removed culturally and politically from the mainland as it could possibly be. The people who live on Inisherin spend their entire lives there and die there as well. Few leave. They are churchgoers, farmers, shopkeepers--simple folk--but underneath their genial surfaces lie a fair amount of cruelty, pettiness, malicious gossip, and small-mindedness. These are not people with whom one becomes friends with overnight, if ever, since it's hard to envision their accepting any outsiders into their fold. It's not difficult to understand that Pádraic feels quite hurt by Colm's actions and refuses to accept that the friendship is over, until he does, and by that point, we have been witness to the conversion (evolution) of a simple nice man into one capable of cruelty himself, driven to it by the cruelty of Colm and the local policeman Peadar, the latter who baits him and threatens to kill him after Pádraic calls him out for sexually abusing his son Dominic. Dominic is a sweet simple teenage boy who takes a liking to Pádraic's sister Siobhán (also wonderfully-acted by Kerry Condon). Siobhán is unmarried and lives together with Pádraic in their family's home; she takes care of the house, reads books, and generally appears fairly well-educated. Her life changes when she gets a job offer from a library on the mainland, which she takes. She knows that she is far too smart to end up as the wife of any of the men on Inisherin, and she is not afraid to say so. At one point during the film she tells Colm that all of the men on Inisherin are boring when he tells her that Pádraic is boring. And she's right. She's smart enough to know that she needs to change her life, and she does. Pádraic does not have her intelligence or the skills necessary to change his life; he likes his routines and does not really embrace change. He is a simple farmer at heart and remains one, despite the tragedies that unfold around him. For anyone who has experienced the loss of a friendship as he did, it's not difficult to relate to his hurt and his feelings of grief at the loss of something he valued so highly. 

I wondered about the title of the film, The Banshees of Inisherin. The word banshee describes 'a female spirit in Gaelic folklore whose appearance or wailing warns a family that one of them will soon die' (Banshee Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). There is an old woman in the film (Mrs. McCormick) who wears long black dresses and a black veil, whom some of the island residents refer to as 'the ghoul'. Several times she announces to some of the residents that one or two people are going to die, and there are in fact two deaths that occur. She qualifies as Inisherin's banshee. But Colm has written a song of the same name as the title of the movie, and he used the word 'banshee' because he liked how it sounded together with Inisherin; there is no logical reason for using the word other than that. 

Every time one is tempted to say that life away from civilization, from the mainstream, is idyllic, along comes a film (like this one) that demonstrates otherwise. There is nothing idyllic about Inisherin. Yes, the landscape is lovely, but the people are not. Many of them are strange, some mentally-ill, others quite superstitious. They go to church on Sunday, but you can wonder why, for all of the heartless behavior they exhibit toward their neighbors and fellow residents outside of church. Granted, the story took place in 1923 and times were different then, but people are people, and those who live an insular existence remain insular in many ways. They may prefer that way of life and think they are better than the city folk they often criticize, but that is not necessarily so, and that holds true for modern times as well. 

The Nightmare Before Christmas--a Halloween film that's become a classic

I remember the first time I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas (The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) - IMDb). It was in 1993 and we were still living in San Francisco, although our year there was coming to an end. The film was released in the USA on October 29, 1993, just in time for Halloween, and I saw it during the first week of November in a movie theater on the north side of Golden Gate Park. I remember that day very well, because I was the only one in the theater for the 3 pm afternoon showing, which they did not cancel, thankfully. I had left work early in order to see the film and it would have been disappointing not to have seen it. I left the theater thinking that I had seen an amazing film, and some years later I actually bought a video cassette of the film and watched it one or two more times before VHS films were phased out. I never purchased a DVD version of it; it was always on my to-do list but eventually streaming channels came along and I figured it would be possible to watch it on Netflix or HBO or the myriad of other streaming channels at some point. Sure enough, it's available on Disney+ (no surprise there since it's a Disney production) and Apple TV, among others. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it highly. The story of Jack Skellington the Pumpkin King, who decides that he can better his life by 'producing' Christmas one year instead of Halloween as usual, is a memorable one. The songs, the text, the creatures, the animation--all of them combine to make a film that is truly exceptional. As I said, at this point it's a classic.

Apart from It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, which is a wonderful Halloween classic, there aren't that many films that can be considered classic Halloween films for the entire family (meaning kids and their parents), not in the same way as for Christmas films. I know that there are a lot of Halloween horror films and that many of them are classics, but they are for adults and teenagers (the Halloween movie series comes to mind, and yes, they are creepy). 

There is something about seeing some movies on the big screen together with other people you know are fans. That was my experience today. Frogner Cinema in Oslo, which dates from the 1920s, set up two showings this weekend of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I went to today's 3 pm showing and the theater was almost filled, which was good to see. The majority of the attendees were teenagers and young adults, men and women alike. At the end of the film, people actually clapped, and that hasn't happened in ages in my experience. It was good to see because it gave me hope that there is still 'room' in modern society for movie theaters. I don't want them to disappear because there is nothing like seeing a movie for the first time (or even second and third times) in a dark movie theater. It's always a memorable experience, especially if the film is worth seeing. Many of my memories from youth are of times spent going to the movies. I thank Frogner Cinema for setting up these showings this weekend; it was a fun way to spend a couple of hours on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Just in time for Halloween......

Klaus--a new Christmas classic

The film Klaus just recently showed up as a new offering on Netflix, and I was immediately interested, as I am in most animated films for children (and adults). It's a Christmas film to boot, so I was completely hooked. I'd call it a new Christmas classic--a sweet and memorable film about how the phenomenon of sending letters to Santa Claus and children receiving presents got its start. The story is original and unafraid to depict different aspects of human behavior, including cynicism, negativity, meanness, kindness, generosity, and positivity. I won't describe the entire story or provide spoilers, but will say that it was absolutely worth seeing! You can read more about it at this link:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4729430/

Movie recommendation: Minuscule: Valley of the Lost Ants

I watched this film tonight and was absolutely captivated by it. The animation is wonderful, the story likewise. I haven't enjoyed an animated film this much since I first saw Fantasia. There is something about the feel of the movie--it's thoroughly original, sweet, and engaging. This is a film for all age groups, because the message is timeless. You'll be rooting for the head black ant and the ladybug. Here is the official trailer; check it out. And if you get a chance to see the entire movie, do so.

Why I loved La La Land

If you haven’t seen La La Land, the movie musical that won and lost the Oscar for best picture in the space of a few minutes (it was mistakenly announced as Best Picture at the Oscar awards), see it. It was nominated in fourteen Oscar categories, and won ten of them (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3783958/awards). The Oscar fiasco is quickly forgotten when you slip into the world that La La Land creates. I am not a real movie musical fan—it’s not my favorite genre—but if more of these kinds of musicals are made in the coming years, I may become one. The songs in this film are lovely, catchy, bittersweet and memorable. There is an air of respect in the movie that is rare these days. It was a refreshing change to experience that level of respect for nearly everything in a film--respect for the genre, for the actors, for the plot, for jazz music, for acting, for individual dreams, for good manners, for courtship and good old-fashioned romance (more important than one often likes to admit), for serious conversations, and overall for the art of movie-making. That art is on display in full force in this movie—stylish lovely sets, historical references to the Hollywood of a bygone era and to a Los Angeles of a bygone era as well. It’s a dreamy, dreamlike film in some respects that has its feet firmly planted on the ground in most respects. Boy meets girl, they don’t get together right away, and then they do. Both are talented individuals who have big dreams, and whose pursuits of those dreams unite them in a common cause. They love each other and they want the other to succeed. And when the other doubts himself or herself, they are there to remind them of the bigger picture, the goal, the big dream. They are there to remind them to never give up. Neither of them do. I loved pretty much everything about this movie. It evoked just the right amount of nostalgia for a (presumably) more innocent time, the longing for a time in one’s life when everything was still new and untested, when love was new, when conversations between people mattered as a way of getting to know them. It illustrated the importance of striving tirelessly to achieve your dreams regardless of the outcome (not always a happy ending), of not compromising or settling for the job that gives you the most money, of believing in yourself even when everything seems to be falling apart around you or when the voice of reason is telling you to give in and settle for less. Along the way, we are treated to acting that tugs at your heartstrings (Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone were wonderful together and singly) and a story that reminds you of that time in your life when dreams and love were new and your future, largely unknown and somewhat daunting, was ahead of you. There were some really good dance numbers and some memorable songs. I found myself humming one of the songs (the one that Ryan Gosling whistles when he is walking out on the pier) on the way out of the movie theater. The director, Damien Chazelle, makes it clear that the typical Hollywood happy ending as depicted in the fantasy sequence at the end of the film is not always the ending in real life for those who achieve their dreams. Boy and girl don’t always ride off into the sunset together. We need that reminder, even though we are rooting for the couple to be together against all odds. Sometimes we experience a love when we are young that transcends us and our real lives, and we are not ready for it. Or it may simply serve another purpose—to bring out the best in ourselves and to help us achieve our dreams—and that kind of love is to be cherished for a lifetime. 

Watching the zombie world war unfold

World War Z. I saw this film the night it had its premiere in Oslo (July 11^th) at the Colosseum in Oslo. Packed theater. Lights go down. The film starts. Normal family life for the first ten minutes, with Brad Pitt as Gerry Lane, who used to work as an investigator for the United Nations, and who now seems to be a stay-at-home dad, making his kids pancakes for breakfast. And then they’re in their car, he and his wife and two children, stuck in traffic on a Philadelphia city street. Normal life ends right here. All hell breaks loose in Philadelphia in a scene that is guaranteed to make you feel like you’re climbing endlessly to the top of a roller coaster hill followed by an unpleasant ride down, only to start on the next climb. That’s how the film continues for almost two hours. An intense, relentless, horrific ride to the finish. The final five minutes of the film resemble the first ten minutes—family togetherness, in this case, a reunion. In between, you’ve got to be made of stone not to be affected by some of the scenes that pop out at you (literally, thanks to the 3-D): the stewardess-turned-zombie moving on from economy class to the front of the plane on the plane ride from and to hell after having been bitten by a stowaway zombie, as well as the scene in the WHO facility in Cardiff Wales, where the former head of the lab, now a zombie, tries to ‘understand’ what happened to his prey (Gerry) who has injected himself with a deadly pathogen in order to camouflage himself from the zombies. This zombie won’t attack Gerry because the pathogen makes the prey sick and the zombies can smell sickness which they avoid.

The film has some similarities to other films/TV series in this genre: 28 Days Later (the fast-moving zombies, how quickly people ‘turn’ after having been bitten, and the apartment hallway scene where they climb the stairs to flee the zombies), Resident Evil (the suspenseful lab/facility scenes), The Walking Dead (the dimly-lit corridor scenes with zombies waiting to attack just around the corner), and a few others. But it’s on its own when it comes to some specific scenes: zombies swarming and piling up on each other like insects in order to scale the huge wall in Israel erected to keep them out, and the unbelievable plane scene come to mind. I think what sets this film apart is the relentlessness of the zombie hordes and the sheer numbers of zombies. Cities are overrun in minutes. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. There is no time to hatch a plot, to follow it through. Panic ensues immediately among the crowds of people trying to flee. You’ve got to think on your feet, and if you don’t keep moving, as Gerry points out, you’re dead. Meaning you’re a zombie.

There are some implausible scenarios. One of them is when the plane crashes in the mountains of Wales and Gerry awakens and finds himself wounded and dripping blood. The female Israeli soldier he’s traveling with, Segen (played by Daniella Kertesz), who has had her arm hacked off by Gerry after having been bit by a zombie, has also survived. For a brief second, it looks as though she may transform. But she doesn’t. They both walk the distance it takes for them to reach the WHO research facility in Cardiff that is their intended destination. But my question is--why wasn’t there a horde of zombies attracted to the site of the plane crash? The zombies are apparently attracted by noise, and wouldn’t a crashing plane make a lot of noise? The other is when Gerry and Segen are walking very slowly through town on their way to the WHO facility, her supporting him since he is having problems walking. Where are the zombies? Or is Cardiff a zombie-free zone? It’s not made clear, or if it was, I missed it. They had ample time to reach the facility, something that seems rather out of tune with the rest of the film. Additionally, Gerry is losing blood fast, something the zombies would definitely register.

Once inside the facility though, they meet a team of scientists who are very skeptical to their presence; they want to know why they’ve come. Gerry explains his theory about using pathogens to camouflage the living from the ‘undead’, and they agree that his theory is worth testing. However, there are zombies wandering the halls of the wing of the lab building where the pathogens are stored; they are rather sluggish due to the lack of prey. They became zombies because the lead researcher accidentally infected himself with the blood of a zombie. And that led to his attacking other staff members; the uninfected managed to seal off this wing to keep the undead out.  

I’m halfway through the book of the same name by Max Brooks. I’d have to describe the tone of the book in much the same way—relentless and creepy, but the relentlessness and creepiness are spread out over many pages and the story unfolds gradually through the voices of the different people interviewed, who inform about what they have witnessed in a matter-of-fact tone. The book and the film are very different in this respect, as there is no ‘main’ character like Gerry in the book. But the ever-increasing paranoia and the shocking events are similar; the paranoia is perhaps more pronounced in the book than in the film. And at least with the book, I can put it down when I’ve had enough for an evening. Unless you close your eyes in the theater, it’s hard to escape what’s going on. At certain points, I had to remind myself that it was a film, to breathe normally. It occurred to me that World War Z is not a film for the kiddies or the weak of heart (just like roller coaster rides generally). I know I needed a few days to calm down after having seen it. I wonder if Brad Pitt let his kids watch this one?

Oblivion and other sci fi films this year

2013 promises to be an interesting year for sci-fi films; Oblivion with Tom Cruise has already opened, and Star Trek Into Darkness and After Earth are opening in May and June respectively (in Norway). I’ll be seeing the latter two when they open. I remember looking forward to the premiere of Prometheus last year around this time. I went to see Oblivion tonight and loved it, in contrast to several of the online reviews that I’ve come across that were mostly negative. The focus of the reviews always seems to end up on Tom Cruise the person, not Tom Cruise the actor. That of course is partially his own fault since he draws attention to himself with his vocal religious beliefs and viewpoints, but as an actor he delivers in this film, and that’s all that matters to me. Did he make the part of Jack Harper--drone repairman, believable, did I root for him, was I stepping onto a post-apocalyptic planet earth along with him, was I accompanying him on his daily visits to the planet to repair the drones, did I feel his confusion and determination, and was I rooting for him to be reunited with his wife Julia? I can answer yes to all these questions. And besides Tom Cruise, there are other good actors and actresses that do their part to make this a memorable film, e.g. Morgan Freeman as Beech, Olga Kurylenko as Julia, and Andrea Riseborough as Victoria. Oblivion is an epic sci-fi film, beautifully photographed with a number of impressive bleak shots of a barren planet earth in rubble, some great action sequences (especially the flying), some evil-looking machines/weapons called drones whose potential for nastiness reminded me of the spider bots in Minority Report from 2002 (another Tom Cruise film) and an ‘alien’ we never really see except as a computer screen image of a human woman named Sally. As the story unfolds, we come to understand that Jack's world is not really what he thinks it is; he is willing to follow his curiosity and to find out what is really going on, whereas his partner Julia, who monitors his daily activity as a drone repairman on the earth's surface, is not.

Oblivion is really about one man’s quest to find himself (after his dreams and memory flashbacks have prompted him to become curious about his past life) and his home in a world destroyed by war and treachery. Oblivion is a great title for this movie--what is it Jack has forgotten, and has Jack been forgotten? I was moved by the portrayal of the importance of the instinctual (primeval) desires we have as humans--to know where we come from, to have a home we call our own, and to have someone to love, or perhaps more importantly, to have someone who knows us, thus saving us from oblivion (being forgotten). Watching the scenes of Jack with his wife Julia (one scene especially where she talks about growing old together, dying and being forgotten by the world) brings us to a wistful place where the belief in the power of love is all-consuming. Real life doesn't always play out this way, but we want it to, no matter how many times it does not. The character of Julia as played by Olga Kurylenko has a non-aggressive quiet way about her that is quite endearing; her sweetness makes a nice contrast to Andrea Riseborough’s Victoria, who is calculating, direct and effective (almost robotic-like) as Jack’s former co-pilot and current team partner who is in love with him. I won’t give away the story or the ending, but I can definitely recommend Oblivion. I also enjoyed the film music; Jack Harper is a Led Zeppelin fan (Ramble On--an appropriate song for parts of this film) and a Procol Harem fan (Whiter Shade of Pale). The film title track is also quite a good song—Oblivion—performed by a group called M.8.3 with Susanna Sundfør. 

About the film Shoot the Moon

I sat and watched the 1982 film Shoot the Moon last night on TCM; it has to be at least the tenth time I’ve seen the film. It is hands-down the best movie I’ve ever seen about marital problems, impending divorce, and the effects of a broken relationship on children. I love this film for its raw honesty and the incredible acting of Albert Finney (George), Diane Keaton (Faith), and Dana Hill (who plays their eldest daughter Sherry). These are characters that you can actually like and get to know--better put, these are people that you can relate to. Each time I watch the movie, I realize that the entire story resembles life—messy, chaotic, no pat answers, situations that are not explainable or forgivable or black-and-white. There are no easy answers in this movie, and no contrived happy endings. If you choose to interpret the ending as a new beginning for the estranged couple, you are a romantic. I am not so sure, even after the tenth viewing. And that could say more about me than about the character of Faith, who remains ambiguous about her feelings for George even after he dumps her for a younger woman (Sandy, played by Karen Allen) with a small son, moves out, and goes to live with Sandy. I like Faith’s ambiguity; she isn’t sure what she wants, even when she gets involved with Frank (played by Peter Weller), who is the contractor she hires to build the tennis court she has always wanted. She still loves George, even though she knows that so much of their relationship is irretrievably broken. She is jealous of Sandy and has no desire to hear about her. She has four daughters to take care of and does a good job of taking care of them in a difficult situation. She could have demanded more attention and focus on herself; she could have wallowed in self pity. But she doesn’t. Her father’s illness and her mother’s interference in her life are also issues that she deals with, in addition to the demise of her marriage. This too is the way real life is. You don’t get to choose all the time what you want to deal with—one problem at a time. Sometimes there are multiple problems that get dumped on you all at once, and the only choice you have is to sink or swim. George for his part still loves Faith, but he is in love with Sandy because she pays attention to him, like Faith used to before she got totally involved in raising their children. He is also a jealous person, aggressive, and has an explosive temper; he doesn’t like Frank and doesn’t like the idea of Frank hanging around his old home getting to know Faith or his children.

The most poignant scenes in the film are those between Sherry and George, and Sherry and Faith. Sherry, who is a teenager on the verge of adulthood, is most affected by her parents’ split, and desperately tries to understand what is going on. She doesn’t get many clear answers from either parent. What they do manage to impart to her is how much they love her, despite their own problems. Sherry gets to see her parents as flawed people; again, this is how real life is. The scene when she asks her mother why husbands and wives don’t wait for each other as they pass through doors on their way to new rooms—in essence, why they don’t share their new experiences with each other—is touching. Or when she asks her father if he loves Timmy (Sandy’s son) more than his own daughters and George says no. But Sherry knows (and verbalizes) her doubt about his priorities; she knows that Timmy will ultimately usurp her and her sisters’ places in their father’s heart. Sandy will see to that. This is also a reality many people in such a situation do not want to deal with. It’s easier to lie, to say that nothing will be different, when of course nothing could be further from the truth. Children know the truth; they can intuit it. Children in the same family may deal with their parents’ divorce differently. Sherry is the oldest daughter and the hardest hit. It’s hard not to sympathize with her anger and confusion. Shoot the Moon is timeless despite its being thirty years old; it has as much to say to us today about marriage and divorce as it did when it was made.     

Summer movie viewing

Some really good (old and newer) movies that I have seen recently, in no particular order:

·         Mon Oncle (1958) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050706/

·         Elementarteilchen (The Elementary Particles--2006) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430051/

·         Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/

·         Midnight Cowboy (1969) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064665/

·         The Skeleton Key (2005) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397101/

·         Two Weeks in Another Town (1962) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056625/

·         Bloedbroeders (2008) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071201/

·         Harrys döttrar (2005) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456972/

·         Puss in Boots (2011) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448694/

·         Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/

·         Prometheus (2012) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Ridley Scott's Prometheus

Last night I did something I haven’t done many times before in my life. I attended the pre-premiere of a movie whose release I have been eagerly anticipating—Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. The film’s official release date in Norway is today, June 1^st. But the Colosseum movie theater in Oslo showed the film last night (9pm showing only) to a packed house, which in and of itself was an enjoyable experience. The film was introduced by a young man who apparently works for an American company in Norway involved in the film’s promotion. At one point he asked for a show of hands for how many women were in the audience. I guess because men outnumber women when it comes to liking sci-fi films? Anyway, there were a lot of women in the audience. Never occurred to me before that sci-fi might be a genre dominated by men, since I personally know more women than men who enjoy sci-fi books and films. But never mind—I want to tell you about the film.

The story is somewhat intricate and uneven; the film opens with fantastic footage of what is supposed to be prehistoric earth; the 3D effects give the viewer the experience of actually moving over the planet in a low-flying spaceship. An alien human-like figure stands on the precipice of a huge waterfall, and drinks some kind of strange liquid in a pod. He is alone. Above him a spaceship hovers, apparently the ship that brought him there. After drinking the liquid, his body reacts violently, transforming into some strange-looking creature that falls off the cliff into the water; as he does, his body explodes, releasing the DNA that will be the precursor DNA to our own. Cut to 2089, where a group of scientists (among them Elizabeth Shaw played by Noomi Rapace, and Charlie Holloway played by Logan Marshall-Green) interested in the origins of humanity discover cave paintings on the Isle of Skye in Scotland that resemble cave paintings from other archaeological digs around the world. All of them ‘point’ to the stars; the patterns seem to be an invitation to visit that distant world, which is exactly what these scientists are dreaming about—finding the origins of man. Four years later, they are traveling in space on their way to this world, in a spaceship called Prometheus. They land on this new world, and all hell breaks loose, literally. That’s the point of these films, and also the fun of watching them. You know something bad or evil is lurking in the wings, just waiting for its chance to break free. I will definitely not spoil the film for you by describing what happens; it is well-worth seeing and you will be impressed beyond belief at the special effects and the 3D experience. I felt like I had traveled to that world after being in the theater for two hours. I found myself wishing the movie was longer, the effects were that good. The images of that deserted, barren, dark world will haunt you for hours afterwards. The fact that the plot has a few loopholes, or that there are some illogical occurrences, was not a problem for me, although I know it is for some others who have voiced their criticisms on IMDB. I am more interested in the atmosphere that these kinds of films can create, and Prometheus delivers.  It manages to create the world it set out to create, just like in the Alien films.

Mythological and biblical references are prevalent in this film. What can the story of Prometheus in Greek mythology tell us about the film’s plot? Prometheus was a Titan god who was given the task of creating mankind out of clay. Prometheus ended up in conflict with Zeus, who had given him this task, because he liked his mortal creations very much and wanted the best for them, a feeling that Zeus did not share. Zeus became angry at Prometheus for a number of things—among them that Prometheus had tricked the gods into allowing man to keep the meat from sacrificial offerings to the gods, whereas the gods got only the animal bones. As punishment, Zeus withheld fire from man; Prometheus decided to steal the fire back and deliver it to mankind, which he did. Zeus punished him by chaining him to a stake on a mountaintop where an eagle fed upon his liver, which grew back each day since Prometheus was immortal. In the film, the very idea that the scientists could obtain the knowledge of their origin can be seen as a ‘transgression’ against their divine ‘creators’ (Engineers). At the risk of over-interpreting the meaning of the film, I couldn’t help but think of the story of Adam and Eve. Like Adam and Eve in the garden of Paradise, who ate of the fruit from the tree of knowledge that ended in their being banished from the garden, the scientists are ‘punished’ for trying to seek and attain the knowledge that will place them on the creative level of their creators. The ‘gods’ are jealous; they and they alone wish to hold the keys to (knowledge about) the creation of mankind. The gods of Greek mythology were not all perfect gods—they could be angry, jealous, and vindictive—just like their creations; there were any number of wars in the heavens. The universe was thus both orderly (good) and chaotic (evil). Christian mythology describes how Lucifer the archangel, whose name means ‘light bearer’ (interestingly enough when talking about Prometheus and his bearing of fire to mankind) defied the will of the divine Creator and was banished to hell along with his followers. Lucifer and his followers are the bad angels whose sin was pride and thinking they were better than God. It is clear in the film that the distant world that harbors so much chaos and evil for the space travelers was a repository of ‘life’ guarded by alien humanoids that were tall, strong and violent. Are these the bad angels? One gets the feeling that this dark world was more like hell, where transgressors against the gods, as Prometheus was, would have been banished.

So where then is the world of our creators? Where do they live, since they do not live on this dark barren world? This is the question Elizabeth Shaw has at the end of the film. How come our creators were so unsatisfied with their creations that they relegated them to a hellish world? What was the transgression committed by the original creations? Did they attempt to trick their creators or to steal something of value to them, like Prometheus did with Zeus? Did they try to become the creators? Why did the creators choose earth as the place for their creations? Why did the alien humanoid in the first scene die such a violent death in order that his DNA would be spread in the waters of earth, as a precursor to our own? When did this happen, before or after the settling of the world on which the spaceship Prometheus lands? Why did things go so horribly wrong on this world? Why do the Engineers on this world want to destroy earth as is the plan when the giant spaceship attempts to take off toward the end of the film, and what stopped them up until this point? These remain unanswered questions at the end of the film. Perhaps they will be answered in a sequel, or perhaps not. In any case, the film opens for different questions and interpretations. And in the final analysis, it is perhaps not so surprising that as we (viewers and movie directors alike) age and approach our mortal ends, that the questions of where we come from, how did we get here, and where we (might) end up after death, preoccupy us. We would prefer that our lives had meaning and that it is not the emptiness of the abyss that awaits us. We would prefer heaven to the barren, deserted and dark world that the Prometheus found. 

The indie film 'Another Earth'

I have self-published three books that I am sure would never have seen the light of day had I sent them via an agent to a large publishing house, so that makes me an indie author. Not that I am against traditional forms of publishing, mind you. I just believe in giving underdogs a small chance. I may try the traditional publishing route with my next book, but it’s not finished yet and I may still change my mind. As I’ve written about before, Amazon/CreateSpace has given indie authors like me a chance to get our books out there. I’ll never be a millionaire from the royalties I get from the minor book sales I enjoy, but I’ve learned valuable things about the publishing and marketing worlds, and that by itself is worth gold, because I don’t have to pay a publicist to market my book. This is the true beauty of our modern society—dreams can become realities in the digital age.

But this time around this post is not about my experiences as an indie writer, but rather about an indie movie I rented recently. A nice little gem of a film released in 2011 called Another Earth; it had its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on 24 January 2011 where it won an award. You can find it listed on IMDB at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1549572/. It was directed by Mike Cahill, and written by him and Brit Marling, who also has the lead female role of Rhoda in the film. Another Earth is labeled as both a drama and a sci-fi film, and I guess you could say that it is a sci-fi film of sorts. But the science fiction aspect is not paramount; it is the backdrop for the personal drama that plays out in the film. Despite the presence of the ‘other earth’ in the sky—a hauntingly beautiful orb that looks just like our planet—the film is really about what happens to individual lives in the aftermath of personal tragedy. It is about making amends, paying back, trying to forgive, and trying to move on with one’s life. The two main characters, Rhoda and John (played by William Mapother), have a hard time moving on with their lives. Their paths become entwined through a mistake really, or rather a failure on the part of Rhoda, a college-age young woman, to inform John, a middle-aged professor for whom she cleans house, about her role in the car accident that took his wife and child from him. Her inability to tell him about her role in his personal tragedy leads inevitably to another type of failure—the end of a love affair, but which inspires her to try to set things right for him. The film is well-worth seeing. The sci-fi elements of the film serve to keep us wondering about the possibility of second chances on the other earth, and this involves the aspect of whether or not there is synchrony between both planets. Will the other ‘me’ on the other earth have lived the same life as I did on this earth, and so forth. I won’t give away the details or ending of the film, but will say that despite a rather abrupt ending, you won’t be disappointed. The film will make you think, and if you read the message boards about this film on IMDB, you will find that there are others who are puzzling about the very same things. The mark of a good film—it gets people talking, discussing and trading ideas and possible scenarios.

I have no idea how much it costs to make films, nor do I have any idea of what it cost to make Another Earth. According to IMDB, it grossed $77,740 in the USA on its opening weekend (24 July 2011); it opened on four screens. As of 2 October 2011, it had grossed $1,316,074 in the USA. I rented the DVD here in Oslo just last weekend; I cannot remember that it opened in the theaters here, although according to IMDB it opened here in Norway in November 2011. No matter. I’ve seen it on DVD. It will be interesting to see what returns will come from the foreign market, especially from DVD rentals/sales. The American earnings are not a lot of money really, compared to what some of the commercial blockbusters rake in. But I’m betting that Mike Cahill and Brit Marling are not complaining. I doubt it cost them that much money to make the film. So now they may even have some funds to write and direct a new film. It will be interesting to follow them further; I hope they make more films like Another Earth. 

Dark Shadows and 'marginal weirdness'

I have been eagerly awaiting the opening of Tim Burton’s new film, Dark Shadows; it opened here in Norway this past Friday, May 11th. So I was online a few days before and ordered a ticket so that I was assured a seat in the theater. I needn’t have worried; the theater was not full, and I doubt it will be for any of the showings. Not because the film isn’t worth seeing, it is, but mostly because it will have limited appeal given its subject matter in a cinema world where vampires have been done to death. I need think only of the Twilight films and of True Blood, both of which I don’t really watch, although I have seen one of the Twilight films and a few of the True Blood episodes. They don’t appeal to me as much as the original Dark Shadows TV series or the two Dark Shadows films from the 1970s (House of Dark Shadows and Night of Dark Shadows) based on the TV series. The original Dark Shadows series and even the subsequent films managed something none of the other vampire films or series has managed as well, with the possible exception of Francis Ford Coppola’s incredible wonderful film version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. And that is to take themselves seriously, despite that the subject matter was nothing more than pure fantasy. They wove the supernatural fantasies of vampires, ghosts, witches, werewolves and other creatures into a soap opera storyline filled with romance, love, sex, deceit, treachery, normal life, family life and honor, wealthy families, and tragic lives. They managed to be serious and campy simultaneously. The Dark Shadows TV series was talky, like a good soap opera should be. It kept its viewers hanging literally onto each word a character uttered. Those words were important to the storyline, driving it forward, and since the series ran from Monday to Friday, viewers were guaranteed a treasure trove of conversations, arguments, conflicts, ultimatums, discussions and more conversations. In between all of these, something supernatural could occur—there might be vampire or witch activity, or ghosts that wandered about the Collinwood mansion or estate, which was often shrouded in darkness or fog. It seemed to be always evening on Dark Shadows; and like the individual characters, I was always relieved when they got indoors, into the foyer and then into the main drawing room—a safe haven for the most part, because that was where normal family life happened, where ghosts and vampires and witches were kept at bay at least when the individual family members met there. Of course the other parts of the house were not as ‘safe’; I need only think of the different rooms inhabited by ghosts, or rooms that were portals into parallel times. I think those are the parts of Tim Burton’s film that I liked the most—when the Collins family sat down to dinner, with the matriarch of the family, Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michele Pfeiffer) sitting at the head of the table, in complete control of her family. All she had to do was open her mouth and tell someone to be quiet, and he or she toed the line. At these times during the film, there was conversation, a sense of family, a sense of why these people stayed together and lived together in the house. Viewers learned about the history of the Collins family and how they made their living. There was character development and storyline progression. Much of this took place during the first half of the film. And then came the second half of the film, which took off into another realm completely—the absurd really, with Alice Cooper visiting the mansion as entertainment for one of the family’s famous ‘happenings’, or Angelique (played by Eva Green) ranting and raving about being scorned and how she would make Barnabas (Johnny Depp) and the family pay. She did a good job, but I would have preferred less emphasis on her and more on Barnabas and Victoria/Josette (played by Bella Heathcote), on Carolyn (played by Chloë Grace Moretz), or even on David (played by Gulliver McGrath). The film ends up being rather schizophrenic; I preferred the first half—the return of Barnabas, his entrance into and confrontation with the 20^th century, his meeting with his old family, his having to live and act as a vampire—all those things. The second half of the movie toyed with the first half. I would have preferred otherwise. But I am not sorry I saw the film. Why? Because after I got home, I went online and found some of the old Dark Shadows TV episodes on YouTube, and watched a few. And then I went onto Amazon and ordered the entire DVD collection of the original TV series (131 DVDs spanning 470 hours). I’ve decided that I will come home from work each day and watch one episode, just as I ran home from school in the 1970s to watch an episode on TV. I am looking forward to the experience of reliving the original series.

I’ve been following the reviews of Burton’s film to this point. The New York Times gave it a good review and even put it on its Critics’ Pick list: http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/movies/johnny-depp-stars-in-tim-burtons-dark-shadows.html. IMDB has a list of the different reviews so far: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1077368/externalreviews

But the review that resonated most with me was the one on Salon: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/johnny_depps_delirious_dark_shadows/. Why? The following excerpt from this review will explain it well: 

“Barnabas Collins predates not just “Twilight” and “True Blood,” but also Anne Rice’s “Interview With the Vampire” and the entire rise of the Goth sensibility. In the 1970s, vampires were something that only marginal weirdos who went to science-fiction bookstores and watched Hammer films like “Dracula: Prince of Darkness” knew about. People like the teenage Tim Burton, in other words”.

Well, marginal weirdo could describe me too. I may not have gone to sci-fi bookstores when I was a teenager (I’ve done so in my twenties and loved all the ones I’ve been in), but I did watch the many Christopher Lee vampire films and I even dragged my poor sister to them to keep me company. Heck, I dragged her to a lot of different horror films from that time. Needless to say, she does not have the same fond memories I have of time well-spent in dark movie theaters watching horror films. Of course, now that I think of it, she did accompany me, when she could have said no. Sometimes we were accompanied by a friend of hers, who was a marginal weirdo like myself. He liked those kinds of films, and was even the type to build models of Frankenstein and Dracula that glowed in the dark. I don’t know what happened to him after high school; I can only wonder if he too has seen Burton’s film. I would love to hear his take on the film.

'Until Tomorrow' by Gail Ann Dorsey

I have fallen in love with a song--this song. Pure poetry set to music. It's beautiful, both the music and the lyrics. It is a song from the soundtrack to the movie Phoenix, itself a very good and very underrated little movie, just like this song. I tried finding the lyrics online and couldn't, so I listened carefully to the song and wrote them down. I believe Gail Ann Dorsey wrote this song and sang it. If so, she is as good a songwriter as she is singer and musician. Here are the lyrics to 'Until Tomorrow'. Enjoy........


These are the pieces
Of all that I was
My troubles will never define me
Overcoming them does.

If I try to stand up
Would you hold me down?
The choices I made
Were all my own
All my own.

(chorus)

I have fallen in too deep
Miles to go, before I sleep
Before I sleep.
Give me peace
I am lost
Give me wings, to rise above
To rise above.

If I ask forgiveness
Would you give me that now?
If I wanted to hold you
Would you show me how?

No need for reasons
No time for sorrow
Each day is a new day
And lasts only until tomorrow.

(chorus)

Sing-along

I attended a very enjoyable dinner party yesterday evening; a friend invited about fifteen of her good friends to share her birthday celebration with her. Get a group of women together, and you know the evening won’t lack for enthusiastic and interesting conversation, and it didn’t. But this evening ended up being a heck of a lot of fun in a whole new way. The hostess sings in a choir, as do a number of her friends. In other words, she loves to sing. So she invited us to a sing-along, in this instance, to the film The Sound of Music. In between eating dinner and dessert, we watched the film from start to finish and sang the different songs as they showed up in the film. We had been dealt out our respective roles, many of which overlapped with others at the party. For example, I was dealt out the singing role for Rolf, the nun, and Gretl, along with two other women at the party. I had never done this before, so naturally I was a bit skeptical (as I always am) to anything that might place me at the center of any unwanted attention. I also love to sing, but reserve it mostly for when I am puttering around at home alone or in the shower or in the typical places one might sing—mostly alone when no one is listening. I have been told that I have a good singing voice, but I don’t sing in a choir and am unlikely to do so at this point in my life. But I have to say that this sing-along experience was an incredibly uplifting and fun group activity, with no particular focus on any one person, and that made it all the more enjoyable. At different points, I found myself listening to us as we hit the high notes, and how our voices all soared in unison, and it was a rush. I sometimes get that feeling when I am in church and the entire congregation sings and the united voices lift you to a whole new place. It’s a wonderful experience and one that will move you out of yourself if you let it.

I was very young when I first saw The Sound of Music; seeing it again was a moving experience, because Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer and the children were wonderful to watch. All of us watching the film shared our memories of the time in our lives when we had first seen the film. Some of the women had been taken to the theater by their parents, some by their schools—but all of us had been touched by our original experience of the film. And I have to say that it was like being at a teenage slumber party again listening and watching grown women hoot, holler and comment when Maria and Georg kissed for the first time, or when the Baroness tried her best to keep Georg and Maria from being together. It made me realize that there is a common bond among women that transcends cultures, if allowed to surface, which is what this film was able to accomplish for us last night. There was a lot of laughing as well as singing, and it was all a great deal of fun. I’d love to do it again.