Wednesday, February 20, 2008

More Movies, Movies, Movies

So, the movie theater experience this time around (see previous post) was not great. But my DVD selections made up for it. Thanks to a recommendation I received here from Brissiemum2, I finally rented The Incredible Story of Mary Bryant, another Aussie film. Weirdly enough, I had moved it up in my queue without really paying attention to its order and the next film to follow was Amazing Grace. Weird because both movies are about British colonial imperialism and both feature the actress, Romola Garai, who portrayed the adult Briony in Atonement.

I am definitely a huge Anglophile but these movies confirm that the Brits clearly had a lot to answer for when it came to their imperialist past. Mary Bryant is based on the true story of a woman who was transported to Australia as a convict for stealing food. The scenes depicting the voyage to Austrialia and events that befall the convicts when they reach Australia are graphically disturbing. I particularly had a hard time watching a scene of mass rape. But the difference here was that the depiction of violence was necessary to understand the horrific conditions that drove Mary to escape her imprisonment. Garai is brilliant in portraying Mary's determination to survive and to save her children. Jack Davenport is dashing but despicable as the British officer whose relationship with Mary mirrors the Britain's imperialistic treatment of the Australian colonialists. Alex O'Loughlin is wonderful as Mary's husband, Will, who starts out as a charming, roguish character but is later tested by the trials and sacrifices demanded by his and Mary's bid for freedom. I just love O'Loughlin's ability to communicate, through his eyes and facial expressions, the feelings and emotions of his character in a way that words alone cannot convey. I understand he was nominated for acting awards for this role and he definitely deserved it. (OK, enough! *shakes fist in air* AO'L, you are an incredibly lovely actor but I refuse to give in and turn this blog into another fansite for you! Moonlight ad? What Moonlight ad?? Go away!)

Needless to say, the end of the movie reduced me to tears but also left me inspired.

Inspired was also how I felt about Amazing Grace. I will admit I was a bit skeptical about this film, thinking it might be a bit saccharine and maybe too sanctimonious. It's not that I have anything against films portraying faith and belief in a positive way. Unfortunately, more often than not, I find it's not generally done in a nuanced and realistic fashion (or in a manner that does not make it a easy target for ridicule). Like Mary Bryant, the movie is based on the true story, that of William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament, who was a reformer and took on the fight to abolish slavery. Wilberforce was influenced by his mentor, John Newton, the former slave trader who ultimately renounced the slave trade, and became a minister and the writer of the hymn, "Amazing Grace" (played by Albert Finney, no less). Ionn Gruffud masterfully portrays the quirky Wilberforce, who at the beginning of the film, is struggling with whether he should give his life over to religious contemplation instead of political activism. (There is a really great scene between Wilberforce and his manservant in the garden of his estate where Wilberforce explains his conflicted feelings.) His friend, William Pitt the Younger, leads him to see that taking on abolition is a way to reconcile his faith with his activism.

Although not as graphic as Mary Bryant in depicting the horrible effects of Britain's imperialism, Amazing Grace does effectively portray the monstrous nature of the slave trade and the political machinations that equated abolition efforts with sedition, on the premise that a threat to Britain's economic interests would weaken its ability to protect itself against France and the American colonies.

The movie flashes between the past and present as Wilberforce describes to Barbara Spooner, a woman who has followed Wilberforce's career and later becomes his wife, the series of difficulties and setbacks he faced in fighting to bring slavery to an end. I almost did not recognize Garai in this movie, her elegant and fashionable Barbara so sharply contrasting with the rough and almost feral Mary Bryant.

Just as the end of Mary Bryant brought me to tears, so did the end of Amazing Grace when Wilberforce, at great personal cost, finally achieves his life-long dream of ending Britain's slave trade.

I guess I have to accept the fact that I may not be as "with it" as I thought when it comes to the current film scene. I still look for those movies with the mythological character arc, where the hero (or anti-hero) undergoes the trial and comes out transformed on the other side. It's probably why I loved these 2 DVD movies and was not so crazy about There Will Be Blood and In Bruges. We all know life can be banal and brutal but our stories and dreams don't need to be.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Movies, Movies, Movies

Although I am a die-hard cinema lover, it seems like I have a feast-or-famine approach to seeing movies. A month or so can go by and my feet don't ever cross the threshhold of a movie house and my DVD achieves a fine coating of dust, with Netflix making sheer profit on the DVDs that remain unopened on my coffee table. Then suddenly, my entire social calendar is taken up by dinners and a movie, or I remain huddled on my "fainting" couch (yes, I have one--don't laugh), watching DVD after DVD, wondering if I should up my plan to 6 movies per month.

Well, I'm in the feast phase right now and it has been partially satisfying (at least on the DVD side). At the theaters, I saw In Bruges and There Will Be Blood. I went to In Bruges because I like Colin Farrell and love Martin McDonagh's dark stage plays so wanted to give his first movie a try. Sadly, I was disappointed. I mean, I did kind of appreciate the dark satirical jab at the American way of life that I think I saw in the movie. But in the end, Farrell's character was *echh*, and I guess I am just so tired of graphic, senseless violence being used to portray "serious" cinema, that McDonagh's first movie effort pretty much left me flat. (Regrets to Brendan Gleeson because I thought his acting was really superb and to Bruges, a really lovely town that deserved better than this movie.)

There Will Be Blood definitely didn't score points with me either when it came to the senseless violence bit. I can't believe I am saying that I didn't like this film, particularly since the actor I admire most, Daniel Day Lewis, is in it. The problem with the movie was not with DDL's acting, which was intense and compelling as always. In fact, the movie really had me entranced for probably the first three-quarters of its running time and I was particularly fascinated by the development of the relationship between Plainview and his son. It was the final scene between the preacher and Plainview that just totally lost me. Maybe it's my own sick sense of humor, but I really found it laughable and so out of keeping with the rest of the atmospheric tone of the movie. Maybe that was the director's intention? One of these postmodern rug-yankings to remind you that you are watching a movie? Who knows? Whatever. It didn't work for me. (Note: For effective treatment of postmodern themes in film, please see Atonement, which by the way, is now my choice for Best Picture)

Enough for now. More on my more satisfying DVD movie experiences in the next post...

Saturday, February 2, 2008

A Modest Proposal

So, we all have heard about this financial stimulus incentive package that was put together by our illustrious government. You know the one where all citizens get a rebate that they are supposed to: (1) not save, (2) not use to pay off debt, (3) not put toward their kid's education, but (4) immediately spend on anything their hearts desire. Even if they really don't need it. Even if it just contributes to all the material clutter that we surround ourselves with, and then muck up our environment with, when we get tired of it.

I guess I am more than irked about this stupid financial program because I just attended a lecture on global poverty and the progress (or lack thereof) by the US in supporting the Millennium Development Goals set by nations meeting at the 2000 Millennium Summit. Needless to say, we're not really doing well in this endeavor. I assume that now that it looks like our economy is moving towards recession, we'll have even less of a desire to address the issue. No, we will be too busy pushing ridiculous financial incentive programs that are short-term and short-sighted. (Another indication of the corporatization of society--where else but in corporate America does short term thinking rule, with no thought given to long-term strategy?)

Where does my proposal come in? Actually, I can't totally take credit for this idea because it's really a friend of mine who came up with it. I was talking to him about Kiva, this great program where individuals can get involved in microfinance. He said it sounded like a great idea and then he suggested that what he might do is take his so-called incentive rebate and become a microfinance lender.

Well, after tonight's lecture, I think it's a brilliant idea. Instead of using the money to buy something you don't need to create some artificial short burst of financial activity, how about supporting individuals in regional economies that really could use some help? I am guessing that the contribution to support an entrepreneurial business will have a more long-term effect than a one-shot commercial purchase.

Call it my "Three Musketeers" economic theory. A stronger global economy based on fair allocation of financial resources has to be better for the US economy than the self-centered, isolationist approach we've relied on for too long.