The French Dispatch

 The French Dispatch (2021). Director: Wes Anderson

法蘭西特派週報是 1+3 個短片的集合，分別代表『法蘭西特派週報』的四個專欄。在技術層面來說，這部電影應該是 Wes Anderson 個人風格的精華集錦，所有他愛用的技巧以及手法在法蘭西特派週報裡應有盡有：人物置中的畫面配置、實景穿插動畫、黑白彩色交換、畫面橫移換幕等等。如果喜歡 Wes Anderson 風格的觀眾應該會覺得非常過癮。我雖然不算 Wes Anderson 的死忠影迷，但是從1998年的 Rushmore 開始他的每一部電影我都看過，大致上也都喜歡。法蘭西特派週報對我來說就像觀賞一場兩小時的煙火秀，頭一個小時會覺得非常享受，但是第二個小時開始就不免有點疲乏。煙火結束後除了煙霧以及印在視網膜上的殘像之外並沒有太多在情感層面的回味。

Wes Anderson 目前的手法本來就會對深層情感的表達產生限制。這樣的限制在一到兩小時的單一劇情長片中可以達到比較好的平衡，但是在像法蘭西特派週報這樣的作品裡這種短絀就會格外明顯。與 Wes Anderson 較早期的作品相比，如此取捨的演化顯然是他自己在藝術上所下的決定。我不一定喜歡，但是非常尊敬。情感層面之外，Wes Anderson 電影特有的美學與幽默感則完全沒有因為個別故事長度的縮短而受到妥協，我認為光就這些元素就值得把法蘭西特派週報這場煙火秀多看幾次。Wes Anderson 跟一群固定的演員合作已成慣例，而且名單顯然在增加當中（Wes Anderson Cinematic Universe?）。光是對於那些演員又將扮演哪種角色的期待也是我會收看他每一部新片很大的原因。純就個人私心喜好，我還是希望 Wes Anderson 未來可以往情感共鳴那個方向走回去幾步(例如 Moonrise Kingdom 就非常好)。但不論如何，Wes Anderson的新片就像過年特別節目一樣，雖然在看之前就已經知道大概會是怎麼回事，我還是年年引頸期盼。

The Beatles: Get Back

The Beatles: Get Back (2021). Director: Peter Jackson

我很晚才開始聽 Beatles 的音樂。

之前，一直覺得Beatles 之於西洋音樂就像Citizen Cane 之於西洋電影一樣，是那種大家都說是經典，但是在連消化新東西都快沒有時間的情況下應該是無暇去體驗的東西。接觸他們的音樂之後，也發現因為時（年）差的關係對他們到底是怎麼樣的一個團體基本上一無所知。在Beatle解散多年，John Lennon 跟 George Harrison也過世許久之後，看著現在的Paul McCartney跟Ringo Starr時已經感覺不到當年The Beatles到底是怎樣一個樂團了。

所以聽到Peter Jackson要導一部關於Beatles 的紀錄片時非常期待。這部紀錄片叫做The Beatles: Get Back，因為是Peter Jackson的作品所以不意外（誤）的分成三集，並且每一集都超過兩小時。The Beatles: Get Back聚焦在1969年的第一個月，Beatles 在同時籌備新專輯Let It Be 和一場睽違三年的現場演唱會的點滴。對他們的音樂還算熟悉的我來說，光是能親眼看到幾首喜歡的歌曲從無到有的過程就令人非常開心。尤其是Billy Preston出現的段落，那種終於知道「原來這首歌的這個部分是這樣來的」的感覺實在是難以形容的滿足。

音樂之外，Peter Jackson從超過60小時的原始側拍裡呈現了這個樂團在解散前夕的真實面貌：Paul對於即將失去John這個創作夥伴的盡力諒解與悲傷，John和George對Paul一直以來強勢主導的不滿，George長年在John和Paul創作陰影下因而無法在音樂上獨當一面的挫折，還有對一切看起來總是無能為力的Ringo。但是最重要、也最感人的，是即使在極端不愉快的解散前一年，當四個人聚在一起聊天打屁玩音樂的時候仍然流露出的快樂神情。有時候真的很難想像創作出這麼多經典音樂的Beatles，實際在一起的時間只有十年，解散的時候每個人還不到30歲。紀錄片的結尾，是那場有名的屋頂演唱會的完整版，這也是Beatles最後一次的現場演出。紀錄片結束之後，我一邊寫這篇感想一邊把Let It Be這張專輯來回聽了兩次，即使在四十多年後還是非常的棒。誠心推薦。

Last Night in Soho & Spencer

Last Night in Soho (2021). Director: Edgar Wright

 

迷離夜蘇活是以喜劇聞名的英國導演Edgar Wright首次編導的驚悚片。故事描述現代一個到倫敦求學的鄉下女孩Ellie與另一個活在60年代倫敦蘇活區的女孩Sandie生命交錯的奇幻故事。我很喜歡Edgar Wright在故事的開始放的煙幕彈，讓觀眾一開始不確定Ellie每晚夢中的60年代到底是因為精神不穩定之下的幻覺還是某種超自然現象。Ellie與60年代倫敦交集的手法很值得一提，Edgar Wright在這些場景中巧妙的透過畫面的設計讓Ellie成為一個對Sandie感同身受的「觀眾」，我非常欣賞。Tomasin McKenzie和Anya Taylor-Joy 兩位新生代優秀女演員的共演也非常精彩。不過可能因為是首次嘗試純粹的驚悚片(冰淇淋三部曲雖然都有驚悚元素，但本質上還是喜劇片)，我覺得Edgar Wright對一些驚悚元素的掌握似乎還稍顯生硬，有幾個jump scare感覺用的不是非常高明。60年代男人們的鬼魂首次出現時效果不錯，但個人覺得使用稍嫌過度，幾次之後就膩了。在故事的收尾上，我喜歡Ellie起初認為是兇手的男人其實是前掃黃組警探的轉折，也認為那個角色的故事應該可以多說一點。反而真兇因為在整部片的存在感薄弱，所以最後揭曉時在情感上的衝擊不夠，算是有點可惜的地方。

 

Spencer (2021). Director: Pablo Larraín

 

史賓賽描述了黛安娜王妃在1991年聖誕節前後三天的生活。電影一開始就說這是受真實悲劇啟發的寓言故事，說的是所謂門後的歷史。雖然故事多半基於史實，但其中加入了許多想像的對白以及與歷史不同的事件（註一）。當時黛妃與查爾斯王子的婚姻已經瀕臨崩毀邊緣，長年的壓力與不幸福的婚姻讓黛安娜的精神狀況非常不好，電影描述黛安娜在這三天內從崩潰邊緣到重拾自我的過程。Kristen Stewart 的表演個人認為是本片最大（也許是唯一）的亮點。Kristen Stewart精彩之處是不只演好了黛安娜，也演活了一個瀕臨崩潰的黛安娜。電影中讓黛安娜自比Anne Boleyn（註二）也很別出心裁。雖然我個人覺得Anne Boleyn的出現，雖然不是真的「幽靈」，還是跟整片的調性格格不入。另外，也許是因為故事聚焦在黛安娜，也或許是因為Kristen Stewart的表現太過傑出，整部片基本上是她的獨角戲。這個特點本身不是問題，但我覺得其他角色太過薄弱，襯托主角的力道不足。黛安娜的許多對白也寫的稍嫌刻意。個人認為這個劇本用舞台劇作為媒體也許會比較適合。作為一個有趣的對比，Netflix的「皇冠」也花了許多篇幅描寫黛安娜和查爾斯的婚姻，雖然皇冠目前的故事還沒有說到1991年，但兩個根據同一個史實所延伸的創作，我個人比較欣賞皇冠的戲劇文本。

 

註一：根據當年皇室廚師的訪談，至少有兩件事是虛構的。第一是成為黛安娜密友的女侍事實上並無此人，第二是在結尾時黛安娜闖入皇室打獵的場合把小王子們帶走的情節事實上也沒有發生。根據廚師的說法，黛安娜對女王十分尊重，因此完全不可能做出這種事。廚師也有特別稱讚Kristen Stewart把黛安娜的口音口氣模仿的非常到位。

 

註二：Anne Boleyn是亨利八世的第二個皇后。因為無法生下男丁加上亨利八世喜新厭舊愛上Jane Seymour（電影中黛安娜用來比喻卡蜜兒），所以被以叛國為藉口處決。

Pig

Pig (2021). Director: Michael Sarnoski

有句英文成語叫做「不要用封面來評斷一本書的內容」。如果光看中文片名、預告和電影海報，你也許會期待豬殺令是一個像John Wick 那樣的故事，只是小狗換成豬，然後Nicholas Cage把搶走豬的黑幫撤底滅門。

但豬殺令不是那樣的故事。事實上，整個故事裡失去生命的只有一隻豬而已。所謂殺豬的「令」跟故事更是搭不著邊。豬殺令真正要說的是人失去了摯愛的故事。跟豬產生牽連的三個角色 – 豬的主人Robin、跟Robin買松露的中二客戶、還有綁架豬的幕後主使 – 都失去了生命中重要的人，也都以各自的方式在傷痛中擱淺。我很喜歡誅殺令透過Robin尋豬的過程，慢慢的告訴我們到底發生了什麼事。我也很喜歡故事在Robin的過往傷痛周圍留的白。我們到最後都不知道Robin怎麼失去他所愛的人，也不確切知道被綁走的豬跟他過去的關聯，但是我們知道Robin不顧一切也要把松露豬找回來的原因其實跟松露一點關係也沒有、然後我們也才知道豬被綁架的最終原因其實是一個在悲劇下破碎的家庭。

豬最後死了。但是故事中的三個人在Robin尋豬的過程裡面對了各自的創傷。Robin在故事的最後終於能夠把愛人生前留下的錄音帶放出來聽。隨著電影結束，從Robin的音響中流出的女聲唱的是Bruce Springsteen 的I’m on Fire。故事雖然已經說完，但這是這部電影我最喜歡的地方。

I’m on Fire by Cassandra Violet (電影原聲帶)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnSgam75Bmo

I’m on Fire by The Staves（另一個我也很喜歡的版本）

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LVW95Mxv6k

一直以來都認為 Cage 是個好演員，他在豬殺令裡的演技再次證明了他不只能放，該收的時候也一點都不含糊。豬殺令的三個章節名稱都是食物。當我們還不知道Robin的來歷時大概只會覺得很有趣，但這其實跟Robin的過去互相呼應，是很不錯的巧思。

The Last Duel

 The Last Duel (2021). Director: Ridley Scott

歷史背景

 

「最後的決鬥」發生在14世紀的法國，原因是一名騎士控訴一名護衛闖入他家，並侵犯了他的妻子。由於雙方各執一詞，又缺乏客觀證據，於是依當時的法律，以決鬥至一方死亡的方式進行審判。正義的一方受神庇護，因此將會在決鬥中勝出；死亡則被視為有罪的證明。有趣的是，這場決鬥雖在歷史上確有其事，「最後」兩字在史實上來說並不正確。雖然14世紀時決鬥審判已逐漸式微，但法國史上公開記載的最後一場決鬥審判其實發生在約200年後的16世紀。

 

三個觀點、三個真相

 

最後的決鬥從三個角色的觀點 - 原告的騎士、被告的護衛、還有騎士的妻子 - 來陳述事件發生的經過。這個手法讓人聯想到黑澤明的「羅生門」和張藝謀的「英雄」。與這些故事不同的是，最後的決鬥使用如此手法的用意並不是製造懸疑，而是透過把三個「事實」一字排開來凸顯兩位男角的自以為是，以及男性沙文主義與父權社會對當時女性的不公。騎士與護衛在各自的故事裡都認為自己是英勇大度、品德高尚的一方；騎士認為自己是個寵妻的好丈夫，仕途不順是奸人所害。護衛則認為騎士的妻子對自己著迷，而自己則是將騎士之妻從悲慘婚姻中拯救出來的情聖。透過騎士之妻所述的「事實」，我們發現原來兩位男士只有在自己的故事裡才是英雄。

 

在當時的社會，貴族男性即使已婚，在性關係上關起門來即可隨意為之，但騎士之妻僅因曾評論護衛的容貌俊美，竟被質疑「侵犯」是否其實是「你情我願」。騎士之母身為曾經歷相同遭遇的女性，反而責備不願隱忍的騎士之妻。在父權的社會裡，女性壓迫女性的例子比比皆是。東漢班昭寫的「女誡」，正是一個女性全盤接受父權價值後反過來壓迫女性的實際例子（註1）。

 

14世紀的覺醒女性會是什麼樣子？

「最後的決鬥」電影劇本是改編自同名的文本。但是原著並沒有騎士之妻版本的事實，電影的第三幕是主要是由編劇之一的 Nicole Holofcener 原創的。最後的決鬥中的騎士之妻雖然身穿古裝，但舉手投足、說話思考卻和當代的女性主義者無異。看她直指社會的雙重標準以及沙文主義的醜態時雖然過癮，但仍不免帶給我些微時空錯置的違和感；彷彿一位現代女性穿越了時空來到了中古時代。14世紀的貴族女性雖然仍被視為男人的附屬品，但是多數能受良好的教育。許多貴族女性也不會是打不還手、罵不還口的順婦。雖然如此，我還是很好奇她們有沒有直指父權咽喉的話語權，如果有的話，用的又會是怎樣的詞彙。

 

註1：女人所謂「三從四德」的出處即為女誡。三從為「在家從父、既嫁從夫、夫死從子」；四德為「婦德、婦言、婦容、婦功」，都是傳統社會對女性形象舉止的主流要求。此等文字竟由女性寫出，現在看來格外諷刺。

Dune

Dune (2021). Director: Denis Villenueve

沙丘是改編自美國科幻小說家Frank Hurbert 在1965年出版的同名小說。40年前，名導 David Lynch也試過把沙丘的故事搬上大銀幕，但結果並不成功¹。David Lynch這個跟頭栽的並不冤枉；沙丘是一個非常難改編的故事。至於Denis Villenueve這次的嘗試，我認為是很成功的。

 

小說的沙丘

 

沙丘最經典之處，我認為並不是在『前景』的故事情節或是角色刻畫 – 雖然沙丘在這些地方也不差 – 而是『背景設定』。首先，Frank Hurbert 非常詳實的創造了fremen，一個生存在沙漠中的民族，也給了他們生動的生態與文化。Hurbert的創意融合了與現實中人類學與科學的靈感。Hurbert筆下Fremen穿著既能保濕又能回收水分的隔離衣，住在像蟻巢般的石穴中，透過大通風口般的設施來集中夜晚的濕氣，這些都是Hurbert的想像力與科學知識融合的結果。也因為水是無比珍貴，死去的fremen並不會被埋葬或是火化，而是會被化成水來滋養同胞。Arrakis極端惡劣的環境讓fremen演化成戰鬥力絕佳的民族²，卻也同時非常迷信。這兩種特質讓他們被Bene Gesserit姐妹會編造的救世主神話利用。這些，則是Hurbert 從人類學出發的想像。

 

另一個精彩的設計則是Bene Gesserit姐妹會。Hurbert對於姊妹會的構想揉合了遺傳學 的靈感，以及宗教和政治如何一起操弄權勢。姐妹會透過育種不斷精進心智能力，與20世紀前期曾熱門一時的優生學如出一徹。在各個原始的民族裡散播日後可利用的救世主神話，則是把政治跟宗教結合的絕佳設計。值得一提的是，故事裡潔西卡夫人違背姊妹會的指令而生下保羅，打亂了姊妹會的育種大計³。潔西卡對於保羅混合著愧疚和畏懼的母愛、保羅能力逐漸覺醒，接受自己的『天命』後心境的變化、保羅與潔西卡的親子關係的演變，都是我覺得非常出色的地方。

 

從小說到電影的挑戰

 

沙丘的故事情節整體來說並不特別高潮迭起，多數角色的『成長』或『蛻變』也有限。雖然說沙丘故事的背景世界非常迷人，但 Hurbert眾多精彩的設定都伴隨著架空的繞口名詞，加上片斷的解釋，往往必須參考書末的註釋、網路上的導讀、或拼湊散佈在故事各處的資訊來了解。我仍然記得當初被某些橋段深深困惑。這些特色讓沙丘在閱讀時已不容易，如果要變成一部電影，如何呈現這些特色會是非常艱困的挑戰。

 

電影的沙丘

 

2021年的沙丘成功之處就在於對這些挑戰都有找到好的解決之道。首先是在視覺上完全呈現了小說中Arrakis的樣貌，對於一些原著描寫較為不足的地方，例如機械，建築，服裝的細節等等，電影則將它們具象化。我個人很喜歡沙丘電影的視覺美學，有很多我看原著時無法想像的事物，電影給了我很好的著力點。對於一些較難以理解的設定，例如Bene Gesserit背後的動機和算計，電影透過潔西卡夫人以及姐妹會聖母間的對話不露斧鑿之痕的向觀眾做出解釋。對於一些可能不適合用對白呈現的元素 (例如沙漠的生態)，則用影像簡單交代(例如沙鼠的場景)。更值得一提的是，沙丘的配樂與影像非常的契合，在聽覺上也補足了文字媒介無法給予的經驗。在選角上，演員們也都是一時之選，對我來說實在沒有可以挑剔的地方。

 

在看過『異星入侵』以及『銀翼殺手2049』後，我就覺得Denis Villeneuve是一個非常懂得拍科幻片的導演。他偏慢的敘事步調也很合我的胃口，所以聽聞他要將沙丘改編成電影的時候心裡就十分期待。電影也沒有讓我失望。衷心期盼沙丘電影第二部能夠順利問世。

 

註

¹  David Lynch 是我自己很喜歡的導演。他在訪談中承認1984年的沙丘是一次失敗的改編，也是他所有作品中唯一令自己失望的一部。因爲太心痛了，他甚至不願意看Denis Villeneuve的沙丘。

 

² 帝國皇帝的特種部隊 (Sardaukar) 是沙丘世界裡戰鬥能力最強大的軍隊。與fremen相似，他們超凡的戰鬥能力也是(人為)極端環境的結果。Hurbert對逆境如何透過選汰來提昇人類潛能似乎頗為著迷。

 

³  姐妹會的育種計劃原本將會在Atreides 家的女兒與Harkonnen 家的兒子結合時完成。保羅的誕生讓姐妹會被迫將計劃提前了一個世代，讓保羅有了成為『天選之人 Kwisatz Haderach』的機會，後續也產生了諸多波瀾。

 

The Green Knight

The Green Knight (2021). Director: David Lowery 

高文與綠騎士的故事

某年除夕¹，亞瑟王正與王后及圓桌騎士慶祝新年。一名綠色的騎士²突然闖入大廳。綠騎士一手握著一柄巨斧，另一手卻高舉著象徵友誼的冬青樹枝。綠騎士邀請亞瑟王玩一場友善的『砍頭遊戲』³：亞瑟王先向綠騎士的脖子砍一斧，綠騎士則會在一年之後還一斧。亞瑟王正要答應，但年輕的圓桌騎士高文搶著代替亞瑟王接受了綠騎士的邀請。高文一斧砍下了綠騎士的頭，但本該死去的綠騎士卻提著被砍下的頭揚長而去，只提醒高文一年後前往北方的一座教堂赴約。

 

一年後，高文踏上旅程。途中經過一座城堡，受到堡主夫婦熱情款待。堡主提議，接下來的幾天會把每天打獵的收穫獻給高文，但是高文在離開時必須把得到的其他東西給予堡主。高文答應了。之後的每天晚上，堡主夫人誘惑高文，但高文沒有動搖。堡主夫人最後只央求高文收下她的綠腰帶，並宣稱腰帶可以讓高文不受傷害。高文想到與綠騎士的一斧之約，於是答應收下。離開城堡時，高文沒有依約把綠腰帶獻給堡主。

 

高文到達綠騎士等候的教堂。綠騎士砍向高文的脖子，卻只造成輕傷。但一斧已受，砍頭遊戲就此結束。綠騎士原來就是城堡堡主。整件事是與亞瑟王亦友亦敵的女巫 Morgan le Fay 對圓桌騎士的試煉。綠騎士告訴高文他本應毫髮無傷，脖子輕傷是因為高文沒有對領主誠實的緣故。雖然如此，綠騎士仍然稱讚高文的品德。高文返鄉，並從此繫著綠腰帶以提醒自己要誠實。

 

電影的綠騎士

 

綠騎士是美國影人 David Lowery 根據高文與綠騎士的故事加以演繹與改編的電影。與原始故事不同，電影裡的高文還不是圓桌騎士，而是一個未經世事的年輕貴族。我個人滿喜歡這個改動，讓高文變成一個沒那麼成熟，道德上也不那麼高潔的角色⁴。David Lowery讓電影裡的高文在赴約的路上經歷了其他的事件，在此不多做敘述，但是這些事件讓我們了解高文個性中的善、未經世事的天真、以及道德上的懦弱。我很喜歡電影的收尾，在手法上有點類似電影『魔鬼代言人』。雖然與原著不同，但強調品德的精神是一致的。電影的結尾也許更強烈些，藉由高文對未來的觀視來強調如果沒有品德與榮譽心，眾叛親離、身首異處的下場終將來到。這些設計讓高文的試煉與原著相比更為深刻。有趣的是，高文在電影裡的母親正是 Morgan le Fay ，與原著不同。電影中的亞瑟王與王后已是風中殘燭，在原著中亦不是如此。這樣的亞瑟王與王后帶來了一抹蒼涼感，與電影的風格相映，我也很喜歡。

 

這部片的視覺設計相當值得一提，從高文母親招喚綠騎士的儀式、綠騎士的造型到亞瑟王與王后的衣著都非常棒。David Lowery在訪談中有提到，綠騎士的造型完全沒有任何電腦後製的成分，把綠騎士的造型加入植物的元素個人非常喜歡。亞瑟王與王后的王冠在頭後方的圓形設計，據David Lowery所說是要模仿基督教宗教畫中聖徒所擁有的聖光，給兩人一種高尚的氣質。與兩人病態的氣色相對應，確有一種衝突的美感。人物之外，光是電影中的場景就讓本片值得收藏。拍攝地點都在愛爾蘭，也讓我想去一遊。

 

綠腰帶

 

關於綠腰帶的象徵意義有許多解釋。有一說是高文面對色戒的動搖，另一說是高文對上帝信念的動搖。但不論如何，綠腰帶代表的是對品德與榮譽的妥協與淪喪。電影中的綠腰帶原先是由高文的母親給予的，是保證高文能毫髮無傷、功成名就的私心。電影中更安排高文必須屈服於堡主夫人的誘惑後才能再得到之前因故遺失的綠腰帶，與原著相比是一個更加嚴苛的道德試煉。

 

註

¹新年在亞瑟王的時空（六世紀英國）是12月25日，與聖誕節同一天。

²在原版故事裡，綠騎士不只盔甲，連皮膚都是綠色的。在較晚的另一版本裡，綠騎士只是身穿綠甲而已。

³原文『Beheading game』。是中世紀騎士故事裡常見的情節。

⁴電影中高文屈服於堡主夫人的誘惑後，夫人如此嘲諷高文：You are no knight。字面上是指高文不是個騎士（尚未受封），但雙關的意思是高文不配當個騎士。

 

維基百科的相關文章

 

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/绿骑士

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/高文爵士与绿骑士

 

導演的訪談（英文字幕）

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyn2wWwrwwU

The Wind Rises

The Wind Rises (2013). Director: Hayao Miyazaki

With a career spanning across half a century, Hayao Miyazaki announced his retirement last year. If he was serious about it this time, The Wind Rises could be his last animation. Of course there is no way for me to know if Mr. Mayazaki had deliberately chosen to tell this story as his last, I do believe that this story must be dear and near to his heart. The Wind Rises is not necessarily Mr. Miyazaki’s finest work, but it does set itself apart from many of his previous films in a number of ways. In the case that this will indeed become Mr. Miyazaki’s last feature-length animation, I want to write down my thoughts and dedicate them to him and his work.

Most of Mr. Miyazaki’s films take place in fictional, steampunk universes that border between realism and fantasy. Even in those with more realistic settings such as My Neighbor Totoro and Porco Rosso, surreal elements still form the heart of the story. In those films, supernatural things are just part of the storyline; they don’t even appear as dream sequences or assume the form of metaphors. In The Wind Rises, however, Miyazaki uses surreal elements to trace the stream of consciousness of the protagonist and make them merge seamlessly into the reality. Since the story is loosely based on the biography of Jiro, a Japanese plane designer, those fantay-esque sequences trace thoughts and emotions of the main character vividly and make them unfurl in front of the audience. I think The Wind Rises demonstrates Mr. Miyazaki’s masterful way of using fantasy elements to enhance the reality of a story. 

I also appreciate the way this film honors dedication to one's passion as a virtue. Perhaps this is why Mr. Miyazaki chose to tell this story as his last. Watching this film, I couldn’t help seeing Miyazaki himself in Jiro on the screen; how they both dedicated all their lives doing something they felt passionate about. Jiro spent all his life designing and perfecting airplanes, and Miyazaki animations. I would like to think of The Wind Rises as Miyazki’s salute to a man, or a way of living, that he relates deeply to. 

I don’t know if Miyazaki’s announcement of retirement will come true. If it does, The Wind Rises will be a heartfelt farewell from Miyazaki to his beloved animation, and we as audience should tip our hats to the ideal that this film honors and to the master behind its making.

Like Father, Like Son and Philomena

Like Father, Like Son (2013). Director: Hirozaku Koreeda

Philomena (2013). Director: Stephen Frears

Family tie is a curious thing. It is like a tangled ball of yarn, with distinct yet inseparable fibers interweaving from the core and all the way out. Recently, two movies coincidentally explore the meaning of family ties, and each tries to disentangle the intertwined fibers in its unique way. They are Like Father, Like Son, a film that tells a story of two Japanese families discovering that their sons were switched at birth, and Philomena, a film adapted from a true story, where an Irish mother tries to reunite with her long lost son.

In Like Father, Like Son, a successful architect, Ryota, and his wife found out that their son was switched with another baby at birth and that they and another family have been raising each other’s sons for six years. This situation forces Ryota to weigh the value of bloodline against his emotional investment for somebody else’s son during the past six years. Unable to choose one over the other, Ryota considers the possibility of taking the custody of his real son and the son that he’s had for six years. However, Ryota later decides that bloodline is what really matters for a family and persuades the other family to switch the boys. Having his real son back doesn’t make Ryota happy, and through his own struggling with the meaning of a family, Ryota realizes that he never truly knew what it means to be a father. 

Like Father, Like Son approaches the question of what it means to be a family from a father’s perspective. I argues against the traditional, patriarchal view that bloodline is ultimately what constitutes a family. A few dialogue, happening during Ryota’s struggle with who is really his son and delivered from mothers’ point of view, offer excellent counterpoints to this value. When Ryota is troubled by the prospect that the son he’s had for six years will eventually start to look after the parents from the other family, his mother tells him that people who live as a family will eventually start to look like one another, just like married couples do. Unfortunately, this doesn’t give Ryota consolation. Another such dialogue happens when the wife of the other family tells Ryota that he cares so much about whether his “son” looks like him is because he has no real connection to the boy as a father. Being a strict father and reserved man for almost the entire movie, Ryota expressed his love and regrets to his son in scene at the end that is undoubtedly the most touching moment I’ve seen in movies for a while. 

It’s not a flaw in any way, but one thing that is somewhat missing from Like Father, Like Son is how Ryota’s wife feels about the whole situation, as she is hardly the focus of the narrative most of the time. In a way, Philomena provides just such perspective. After giving birth to a son out of wedlock, Philomena is forced to give him away for adoption. She keeps the secret for fifty years but eventually embarks on a journey to the U.S. to find her son with the help of a journalist. Without spoiling too much of the story, Philomena doesn’t get to reunite with her son but finds out, to her great comfort, that her son never forgets her and has also been trying to find her. The story of Philomena illustrates the bond between mother and son from a female perspective. Because it is based on a true story, this film makes moves the viewers with an everlasting connection between a mother and her son, even though their time together as a family only represents a small fraction of their lives. 

Back to the yarn analogy at the beginning, the two movies together give us a good look at the essence of family ties by tracing different fibers to their very roots. But they also let us realize that perhaps we ought to leave the ball of yarn as tangled as it is, because that is how it should be.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (2006). Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Many fantasy stories feature a theme where some adventurer wakes a golem from its slumber, often by reaching into some “core” beneath the golem’s stony skin. Whoever first came up with the idea of golems perhaps meant it to be a metaphor for ourselves. We all have a core of humanity within us. Most of us, for one reason or another, are conscious about the existence of our humanity and use it to guide our actions. However, under certain unfortunate circumstances, people can grow oblivious to what makes us human in the first place and bury the core of humanity under a crust of cruelty or naivete. Those people become golems, whose salvation in not in some adventurer’s hand, but in their own. The Lives of Others tells a story of such a golem, who finds his buried humanity and eventually awakens from within. 

The golem’s name is Wiesler, a secret police (Stasi) captain in East Germany in mid 1980s, a few years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The film opens with Wiesler giving a lecture to a class of Stasi officers-in-training on interrogative strategies, using a person who helped his neighbor escape to West Germany as a real example. Immediately we are convinced about Wiesler’s unwavering belief in communism and his country as a utopia of socialism. It is not yet clear what his character is, as there is little emotion being conveyed out of the efficiency and effectiveness with which Wiesler does his job. Soon after, Wiesler is ordered by the Minister of Culture, Hempf, to perform full surveillance on a famous playwright, Georg Dreyman, and his actress girlfriend, Christa-Maria Sieland, as the authority suspects that Dreyman might have been in contact with the West. Wiesler sets out to perform this assigned mission as usual, but it isn’t long before he realizes that the mission of surveying Dreyman is nothing but Hempf’s dishonorable maneuver of coercing Christa-Maria into being his mistress. 

This finding shakes Wiesler’s long-held belief in the whole political system from the vary foundation. Moreover, the 24-7 surveillance brings Wiesler very close to Dreyman. As his doubts toward the whole operation solidify, Wiesler begins to sympathize towards Dreyman and Christa-Maria. As a viewer, it is wonderful to watch the seed of humanity germinate in a very self-controlled Wiesler as the story progresses. Just as waking a golem doesn’t make it human, this freshly germinated humanity doesn’t give Wiesler a different demeanor, only that now he operates under a different guideline. Only when he is alone do we get to see Wiesler the golem peel off his old stony skin and reveal the soft new flesh underneath. However, there are a few scenes that mean to tell us that Wiesler’s transformation goes beyond his sympathy for Dreymand and Christa-Maria. A scene with a neighbor’s son in the elevator is one example. The son naively asks if Wiesler is the Stasi asshole that his father mentions in private. Years of training prompted Weisler to ask the boy what his father’s name is, but he stops himself before finishing the sentence. He immediately finishes the question by asking instead what’s the name of the ball that the boy is carrying. It’s hard not to smile.

The Lives of Others is one of those films with an ending that holds you at the moment long after it is over. Suffice to say that Wiesler tries to save Dreyman and Christa-Maria, but his attempt is only partially successful. An unfortunate turn of events ensues, and Wiesler pays a dear price for his actions to protect his “friends”. Not long after the Berlin Wall falls. Wiesler now delivers mails for a living. The film doesn’t tell us how Wiesler feels about his demotion and his fall from significance. My guess is that Wiesler considers everything as serving his sentence for being part of, or failure to prevent, the tragedy. The last scene of this movie, however, provides us with a most gratifying recompense in the form of an ode, with a name of A sonata for a Good Man.

The Hunt

The Hunt (2012). Director: Thomas Vinterberg

How much would truth matter if no one believes in it? The Hunt allows us to feel the weight of this question with the story of Lucas, an ordinary man living in a small Danish town. Lucas is a well-liked man in the community and works full-time at a kindergarten. At the beginning of the story, Lucas has just put a recent divorce behind him, and his life is looking to get better in many ways. However, Lucas’ life takes an abrupt turn for the worst when one of the kindergarteners, Klara, who is also the daughter of his close friend, wrongly reports to the staff that Lucas sexually molested her. Lucas knows the truth, but when weighed against the testimony of an innocent little girl, Lucas is shocked to see how quickly his truth becomes irrelevant.

What follows, until almost the end of the story, is how Lucas suffers from a ruined reputation. Lucas’ torment highlights the absurdity of a battle that truth loses to public belief. Up to this point, The Hunt reminds me of Camus’ The Stranger, in that both use a tragic story to show how empty the truth about a person can be and the absurdity that arises from it. For this purpose, it makes sense that the story brings Lucas’ life to the lowest of low, even to the point of being somewhat unrealistically so. Aside from the absurdity, the other thing that is very much worth appreciating is the performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Lucas. He does a wonderful job giving layers to Lucas’ misery, from shocked disbelief to anger and then to despair without being melodramatic at any moment. 

The story takes another turn near the end of the story, where Klara’s father overhears her confessing the false accusation when she falls asleep, and Lucas’ name is finally cleared. A year goes by, Lucas’ life seems to return to what it used to be before the incident. People seem to believe that it was all a mistake and accept Lucas into the community once again. Right before the story comes to an end, however, it presents us with one final twist. At the very end of the story, Lucas goes hunting with other townsfolk to celebrate his son’s admission into a local hunting society. During the hunt, he gets distracted and falls behind. From somewhere unseen, a shot is fired at him but barely missed. Turning around, Lucas sees a man running away but is unable to identify who the man is, and the story ends there. 

I like the ending very much, because it shows once again how elusive the idea of truth is. Even after the truth is revealed by Klara’s confession, the other “truth” will never really go away. Instead, it takes the form of doubt and lives on. Lucas doesn’t do anything to incur his tragedy. He is simply the victim of a crime without any true criminals, trapped forever in the crevice between the truth and what people believe in.

Harold and Maude

Harold and Maude (1971). Director: Hal Ashby

I know that some movies are not made to please the audience, but I don’t know how many movies dare to challenge the viewers the way Harold and Maude does. This 1971 movie uses acute dualities as building blocks to create a story that is both intriguing and unsettling. The male protagonist, Harold, is a young man fascinated by the idea of death; he performs fake suicides and has a hobby of attending funerals. In a stagnant life controlled by his self-centered mother, observing and “practicing” death perhaps gives Harold a taste of freedom, a morbid pleasure in his boring life. Harold becomes friends with a 79-old woman, Maude. Maude is a free spirit who believes living life to its fullest and in doing so often disregards the rules and regulations of the society. The two main characters represent the very first contrast of this movie: the young is an admirer of death, and the old an admirer of life. From this first contrast, there unfurls a story that defies convention in almost every possible way.

The connection between Harold and Maude are so strong that they eventually develop a romantic (and nonplatonic) relationship. The relationship between Harold and Maude daringly upholds the idea that nothing other than the connection between two human being matters, and it challenges the convention through celebrating this “unhealthy” coupling. It even mocks such conventional thought by having a priest express his disgust toward the relationship between Harold and Maude in a comically exaggerated way. Looking at Harold, I wonder if the director deliberately makes him look almost underage to sharpen the contrast between him and Maude. Regardless, even though it only makes sense that Harold and Maude fall in love, as a viewer I do feel uncomfortable when the story progresses as such, and I admire the filmmaker for challenge the audience this way. The story takes a sharp turn soon afterwards on Maude’s 80 birthday, when she tells Harold at the birthday party he prepares for her that she has decided to end her life at the age of 80. Maude dies, and Harold performs one last fake suicide acts by driving his car off a cliff. The movie ends with Harold walking lightheartedly away from the top of the cliff and playing on his banjo a song that sums up Maude’s philosophy of life: “If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out.”

Another sharp contrast is not in the story itself, but in the storytelling. This movie is a mixture of dark comedy and heart-felt drama, and the way the two elements are combined is far from smooth. I wonder if such rough mixture is intentional, because the resulting tonal inconsistency is very visible. The first half of the movie, before the dramatic element starts to kick in, is almost too quirky to my taste. Without the knowledge of Maude’s backstory (of which not much is said), it is very difficult to make sense of and therefore like her seemingly eccentric and self-centered behavior. However, once the dramatic component starts, facilitated by excellent performances from the two actors, the film soon takes flight and everything falls into place. Released in 1971, this movie is perhaps a representation of the Hippie movement, as there are several subplots that clearly have anti-government or anti-war feel to them. 

All in all, the story of Harold and Maude is one of rebellion, where Harold rebels against life by being drawn to death, and Maude rebels against everything deterministic by living (and ending) life solely at her own will. It might also be a rebellion of the filmmaker against conventional story, storytelling and conventional viewing experience.

No Country for Old Men (and a little bit of Fargo)

No Country for Old Men (2007). Directors: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Near the end of the movie Fargo, as a police chief is bringing a murderer to justice, she sighs for her inability to comprehend the actions of taking five lives away for a relatively trivial amount of money. The chief’s remark introduces an intriguing idea about the essence of evil and how incomprehensible the concept of evil may be in the eyes of justice. As capable as she is, the police chief in Fargo is only able to catch the murderer out of sheer luck. The murderer is not a person with cunning wits. The reason why the chief does not catch the murderer is because those murders are not the results of careful calculations of pros and cons, but a result of the murderer’s violent and impulsive nature. Reasoning, especially reasoning done by a person with a sense of justice, simply does not work. Although justice prevails at the end of Fargo, the ending clearly points us to a much darker alternative, where evil thrives on its incomprehensibility to the minds of justice.

Eleven years later, the same directors made No Country for Old Men, a movie that might be regarded as a conceptual continuation from some of their earlier films, such as Fargo, that touch on the concept of evil. While Fargo is a movie about how ill-intended actions can quickly devolve into disasters, we only get a few glimpse of evil as it catalyzes all the tragic turns of events. No Country for Old Men, on the other hand, explores the idea of the obscurity of evil in the eyes of justice and takes it further. In No Country for Old Men, a man named Llewelyn comes across two million dollars from a gone-wrong drug deal. Llewelyn takes the money for his own, not knowing at the moment that the smell (or to be precise, the sound) of the money will eventually lead him to his downfall. A hitman named Anton Chigurh is hired to track down Llewelyn and recover the money. Watching Anton go about doing his business, we see Anton’s evil radiates from his contained pleasure to murder and his cruel indifference as he muses whose life to take.  

At the same time, Texas sheriff Ed finds himself always staring at the leftovers of Anton’s feasts, without any clue where the next feast might be. Ed’s lament on feeling “overmatched” echoes with the remark made by the police chief in Fargo, as both stem from encountering something that’s beyond their comprehension. However, Ed’s frustration tastes far more bitter than the confusion of the chief in Fargo. She gets the bad guy after all, and Ed doesn’t. When the story concludes, Anton Chigurh walks away from his murders untouched by justice. Ed decides to retire because of a realization that he is helpless in front of an evil that he doesn’t understand. The ending, where the prospect of justice prevailing seems very dim, is quite unsettling but at the same time fascinating as it shows how the paths of justice and evil may never be brought to cross if chance doesn’t allow it. Ed’s lament about a time that’s being lost to old men like himself is the epitaph for the death of his justice, and for the chances that he doesn’t have to cross swords with the embodiment of evil.

Abstract thoughts aside, Anton Chigurh is by far the best villain I’ve seen in movies. The character itself and Javier Bardem that brings this cold-blooded hitman to life are both excellent. I’ll even go as far as to say that the performance by Bardem alone would be enough to make this movie worth watching, as disturbing as the viewing experience might be. 

Watchmen

Watchmen (2009). Director: Zack Snyder

Despite being millenniums old, stories from Greek mythology still intrigue many of us today. What makes those stories so fascinating is perhaps not what the Gods of Olympus are capable of, but the fact that those Gods, just like us, are troubled by the same emotions and desires as ours. Millenniums after the birth of Greek mythology, we now have created stories of characters, which we call superheroes. Our superheroes in most cases are simply humans with uncanny powers or physical prowess. With their identities not being God, creators of superhero stories perhaps have more freedom in taking advantage of human weaknesses for the sake of character development, more so than those who write stories of Gods. Much like what makes Greek mythology so fascinating, the best superheroes or superhero stories in my opinion are those that not only bring satisfaction for our wishes of having super powers but also ground their superheroes with the multitude of humanity.

And that is exactly what makes Watchmen my favorite superhero movie: the inner struggle of superheroes. The Watchmen is a group of vigilantes that take care of sorts of nasty problems work under the employment of the US government. When the story begins, there are six of them. Except for one member, Watchmen are just ordinary people with superb physical prowess; none of them really possesses any kind of superpower. After being forced to retire and return to their civilian lives, some of them have drawn the meaning of life so heavily drawn from being vigilantes that life after retirement has become an issue. One Watchman, Nite Owl, visits the previous Nite Owl every week and listens to the same old stories that his predecessor repeats. This perhaps can be seen as a manifestation of the Nite Owl camaraderie, but I think that also represents the only way that Nite Owl can anchor his bland civilian life to his former vigilante one. However, in one occasion Nite Owl finds himself unable to perform sexually if not in his vigilante outfit, which I think is a brilliant revelation of Nite Owl’s identity crisis. Another Watchman, Rorschach, deals with the same issue by refusing to accept his new civilian identity. After so many years of being Rorschach, he has regarded this vigilante role as his true identity; he sees his civilian form the disguise, his civilian outfit the costume. A different, more extreme way of dealing with the same identity issue, but equally brilliant.

And there’s Silk Spectre, who succeeds the identity from her mother. Although the struggle of Silk Spectre is not as thoroughly depicted in the movie as Nite Owl and Rorschach, we can still clearly see that the young Silk Spectre has lived under the shadow of her own mother as the predecessor. In fact, it is out of utter selfishness that Silk Spectre’s mother wants her to be the successor. A very interesting issue. I only hope that there’s more to it in the original comic. The most interesting character, in my opinion, is Doctor Manhattan, a government-hired scientist who is transformed into a supernatural being after an accident. Doctor Manhattan is the only true superhero among all Watchmen, as he transcends time and space and all limits of physical law. Doctor Manhattan is probably as close to a true God as any superhero can be. Interestingly, this character is intriguing because of his lack of human emotions. The immense power and immortality makes everything in the human world transient and therefore insignificant to Doctor Manhattan. Although he has no hostility toward the earth, he gradually stops caring about everything in his former world and removes himself from it. The indifference that grows in Doctor Manhattan is a great psychological twist that I admire the creators of Watchmen for. To put it in Spiderman terms, it is greater aloofness that comes with greater power, the exact opposite of greater responsibility. 

In addition to the non-cliche characters, the plot itself has a political bearing that is dark and thought inspiring. It describes the change of the public idea about the existence of government-employed vigilante, from reliance when the society is in chaos to mistrust, even resentment and fear when the world has become more peaceful. The mistrust and fear toward superheroes is something that’s unique in this movie. We’ve seen similar plots in many other superhero movies, such as the X-Men series. Watchmen sets itself apart from movies that have such plot lines in that it handles it with a kind of dark realism when we see former Watchmen being eliminated, either by the public they used to protect or by the government they used to work for. Unlike most movies of this genre, where superheroes fight villains, Watchmen fight under a looming sense of insecurity, while at the same time battling with their own issues as persons. There may have never been more fragile superheroes, but there may also have never been superheroes with such depth of characters that originates from the creators’ wonderful grasp of humanity.

An Education

An Education (2009). Director: Lone Scherfig

An Education tells a story of Jenny, a smart teenage girl who is bored with her life as a high school student. Just like her classmates, Jenny works hard so that she can get into a good college. Unlike her classmates, however, going to college is not just an end for Jenny, but a means to leaving her ordinary and bland life behind to begin a new chapter; and Jenny really can’t wait. With her talent, Jenny is in a good position of getting into Oxford, the first step of her ticket to a great life. Then she meets David, a mature and charismatic businessman. Jenny sees everything she wants for her own life in that of David. Drawn by the prospect of having the life that she always dreams of, Jenny abandons her plan to go to college and starts a relationship with David, only to find out eventually that David has been deceiving her about many things.  

As the title says explicitly, this movie depicts a life lesson for Jenny, who seeks to change her life so desperately that she falls victim to David’s deception. Up to some point, we can perhaps take a more sympathetic standpoint and blame Jenny’s misfortune to her naivete. However, as much as Jenny is a victim, she is not at all innocent. There are several occasions where Jenny clearly sees David’s shifty nature and immoral deeds. Although she is shaken, even repulsed by such finding at first, she eventually chooses to close an eye to it because she wants to hold on to the wonderful life that comes with David. What makes Jenny eventually confront David is the discovery that he already has a family and therefore cannot marry her as promised. David leaves her life, and Jenny realizes that her dream of a wonderful is her own responsibility to pursue. 

I like this movie for many reasons. The acting of course is excellent, especially Carey Mulligan’s performance as Jenny. Another thing that I like is that this movie delivers a very much overused “there’s no shortcut in life” message in a fresh and genuine way. In addition, with such a message, it is easy to imagine long dialogues, most likely delivered by a teacher or a parent, that reprimand Jenny and preach against her folly; this movie has very little, if any, of those. On the contrary, it uses just the opposite to provide a sharp contrast to Jenny’s immaturity. Jenny’s parents, after realizing that the likable David is a fraud, are very heartbreakingly guilty for not being able to see through David’s disguise sooner. A school teacher, who treats Jenny as her favorite pupil, extends her helping hand when Jenny asks if she would tutor her for the entrance exam, even after Jenny’s earlier comment on the teacher’s life being as good as dead. The most harsh judgement on Jenny perhaps comes from herself, which is beautifully delivered in a one-sentence line, where Jenny says to the teacher that after all that happened, she “feels very old, but not very wise”. 

When the story concludes, Jenny is admitted to Oxford and her life is back on the original track, with new understandings to life and scars that come with the lesson learned. Jenny’s narration at the very end, about pretending to have never been to Paris (David took her there once for her birthday) to subsequent boyfriends in college, sounds old, wise and poignant all at once.  

Rudy Sparks

Ruby Sparks (2012). Director: Valerie Faris, Jonathan Dayton

Ruby Sparks tells a story about a struggling young writer, Calvin, who discovers one day that he has the power to create this girl, Ruby, from his imagination and make her whatever he wants her to be simply by writing down his wishes down with paper and a typewriter. So Calvin creates Ruby, a girl tailored to his own projection of a soul mate, and starts a relationship with her. Just like every relationship, things are really good at first. Then problems arise. Calvin eventually succumbs to the temptation of “fixing” Ruby with his super power, but that only makes Ruby into a broken, if obedient, person. At last, Calvin feels ashamed if himself and decides to set Ruby free. 

I like this movie for similar reasons as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Besides a great script and wonderful acting, the story develops around a surreal premise which the movie uses to explore something about relationships. What Ruby Spark tries to explore, in my opinion, is insecurity, something that everyone must experience at some point of a relationship. Our insecurity has its root in the uncertainty of the other individual. It arises because no matter how well we know the other individual, we can’t get inside their heads and know what’s on their mind. And this makes us insecure. Ruby Sparks magnifies and highlights this issue of ours from the perspective of Calvin, a neurotic person with low self confidence. Every personal space that Calvin permits Ruby to have makes him jealous and insecure, so when Ruby, bored from a lack of her own life, has a taste of freedom and seems to start breaking away from him, Calvin decides to do something about it. What Calvin does here is a realization of something we might wish to but can never do, which is to only allow the other individual to live in one universe: ours. 

Is Calvin happy after he fixes Ruby? Ironically, no. The idea that this movie tries to get across is that an unhealthy controlling desire suffocates both parties. After fixing Ruby, her complete dependence makes Calvin feel very secure, but it doesn't take long before it becomes unbearable, for he now carries two lives on his shoulders. As a result, Calvin decides to change Ruby again, but this time things get really serious. The fight scene just before the finale is very intense and quite unpleasant to watch, but it nonetheless depicts the Calvin’s maturation. Calvin realizes that his insecurity and obsession toward Ruby has turned him into a monster, and that is even more unbearable than those negative emotions that he’s experienced. He decides not to let his insecurity nurture the monster within anymore and sets Ruby free with his typewriter. 

Although the message that Ruby Sparks tries to deliver might be a little unpleasant, on great thing about this movie is that it has lots of lighthearted and cheerful moments in it to balance the somewhat negative tones that Calvin emits. Great performance and chemistry between the two leading actors also makes Ruby Sparks a wonderful movie to watch. Among tons of movies that build themselves around relationships, Ruby Sparks is definitely a rare gem that not only blows us a breath of fresh air but also has the power to make us reflect upon ourselves. 

Short Term 12

Short Term 12 (2013). Director: Destin Daniel Cretton

Short Term 12 tells a story of a young woman, Grace, who runs a halfway home for teenagers from dysfunctional families. However, as the story progresses, we realize that the seemingly strong and capable Grace has issues of her own. By helping those teenagers, it is as if Grace went back in time to save her teenage self. Ironically, this job also seems to bring a comforting intoxication that allows Grace to look away from her own issues. The arrival of a new girl, who reminds Grace of her dark past, cracks the system that Grace has had working inside for years. Grace finally realizes that she needs just as much help as those teenagers under her wings and that she has to confront her dark past before she can put it behind. 

There are movies that are great because their plots serve as beautiful metaphors for something about human nature; there are also movie that are just as great by taking the opposite route. Those movies tell straightforward stories, but do so with such sincerity and emotional authenticity that they grip the audience from the beginning to the end. Short Term 12 is just one such movie. With a story that is truly emotionally riveting, Short Term 12 successfully avoids resorting to sensationalism, both in terms of script and acting. The script is fantastic, especially the humor that is sprinkled here and there throughout the movie; it provides a nice balance to the sometimes heavy story lines and makes us like the characters more. The acting, which so wonderfully delivers the genuineness of the script on screen, is a big reason that makes the movie so emotionally gripping. 

Every once in a while, a movie would come along that sweeps you off your feet in the most direct way possible, with no fancy tricks and no gimmicks. In the time of cinematographic innovations, where making a simple movie has actually become harder, I particularly appreciate films that have great stories and tell them sincerely. Short Term 12 is a movie that will pinch your heart with its plot yet bring the warmth back by the time the credits start to roll. I truly recommend it.

Sideways

Sideways (2004). Director: Alexander Payne

Sideways is a film directed by Alexander Payne that came out in 2004. It belongs to what’s called the “road movie” genre, where the story unfurls along some sort of trip that the main characters embark on. In Sideways, Miles, a dejected English teacher who has been struggling with his dream of becoming a writer and with getting over a failed marriage, takes his best friend Jack, an actor who is well past his prime, to a wine-tasting tour before Jack’s upcoming wedding. However, the two friends set out for the road trip with different things in mind. Miles wants to have a good time with his buddy; Jack on the other hand just wants to have one last fling before getting married. Things happen along the trip, and we get to know this contrasting duo more. Interesting enough, Miles and Jack together, each flawed in his own way, make Sideways one of my favorite movies of all time. 

One great thing about Sideways is the characters of this pair of friends, especially Miles. He is depressed, gloomy and weak-willed. But all the negative qualities that make Miles ordinary (or sub-ordinary even) also make him perfectly relatable; he represents a little bit of you and me with his flaws and weaknesses. Compared with an antihero that wins an impossible battle at the end of the story, Miles’ story may be less victorious but is absolutely more comforting. Despite all those loser qualities in Miles, there’s indeed something good about him, and that is his gentleness and sensitivity. And of course his knowledge in wine. One very touching moment in the movie is when Miles is explaining to a love interest why he is so obsessed with Pinot, a grape that has a very tender nature and therefore can only survive with constant care and attention. The similarity between Miles and the grape he likes cannot be more obvious, although it seems to me that Miles doesn’t intend to use Pinot as a metaphor to reveal anything about himself at that moment. During those few minutes, Miles the loser shimmers from within, which I find immensely moving. Another of my favorite Miles moment is when he find out his re-married ex-wife is now pregnant, he opens the wine that he’s been saving for years for a non-specified special occasion (presumably when his ex-wife comes back to him) and savors it at a fast food restaurant with a burger and some onion rings. There is no tear, and Miles doesn’t even look sad. But that’s one of the most heartbreaking scenes I’ve ever seen. 

Jack provides a sharp contrast to Miles. He is everything that Miles is not: cheerful, impulsive, selfish, shallow and, most importantly, almost nothing troubles him. Jack makes all the troubles and gives us the laughs along the trip. He is the comedic element in Sideways and balances Miles’ misery with his recklessness. Jack is like the sun, but the point is not to show you how bright he is, but to bring your attention to the shadows, and that is Miles. Although I like Miles more and has much less to say about Jack, the story will nevertheless be much inferior without him. I’d like to think that Miles and Jack likely present two people with contrasting qualities for the audience to relate to depending on their own personalities. Who would you rather be? Miles or Jack? 

I am glad that the story ends on a positive note for Miles, and that is the comfort I mentioned earlier. Miles may be a downright loser by various definitions, but there’s something about him that is worth appreciating. At the end, he finds someone to appreciate him for who he is, and I find comfort in that Miles, who is not a hero (or antihero), finds a good ending. 

Amour and The Sea Inside

Amour (2012). Director: Michael Haneke

The Sea Inside (2004). Director: Alejandro Amenábar

Amour and The Sea Inside are two movies made ten years apart, the former a French film and the latter a Spanish one. There might not be any obvious connections between them. However, when I saw Amour recently, it immediately reminded me of this other movie that I saw almost ten years ago. Although this two movies are different in many ways, both inspire lots of thoughts on one same sensitive issue: if the dignity of living is degrading, would terminating life be a sacrilege to life itself? The two movies leave their own footnotes on this matter, and I would like to write down my thoughts here. 

The Sea Inside bases itself on a true story of a man named Ramon, who has suffered quadriplegia after a diving accident and his 30-year fight for the right to end his own life with dignity. Amour, on the other hand, tells a poignant story of an elderly couple after the wife suffers a stroke that both paralyzes one side of her body and makes her mind deteriorate. In The Sea Inside, the man eventually has his wish granted; he ends his own life when in his opinion there is no grace left. In Amour, the husband ends up smothering his wife with a pillow when he sees that all the elegance she used to have has left her. Two deaths, both for the lost of dignity and grace of life. 

The voice in The Sea Within is quite critical. It supports the idea that everyone should have the right to end his or her own life when there is no longer any dignity in keeping on living. What I think is missing from this movie is the other side of the free will coin: the choice of keeping on living, but the movie does come close. In the movie, a catholic priest, whose limbs and torso are also paralyzed, comes over one day and tries to dissuade Ramon from conducting an act that in his opinion is disrespectful to God. This priest could have been a perfect counterpoint if he (or the director, because I don’t know how close this part is to the true story) had not based his whole reasoning upon biblical teachings. It would have generated more spark if the main character in The Intouchables could have been there to have a conversation with Ramon. 

Amour, a movie with much less intention to criticize, is a lament to the loss of grace as a consequence of both illness and age. It isn’t trying to argue that what the husband does is not a crime. In my opinion, it simply wants to present an irony, where taking someone’s life can be an act of love, as cruel  as it might seem. 

As different as their standpoints and agenda, Amour and The Sea Inside both point out how much we humans value life but also how much we demand from life. When the grace of life deteriorates, some of us might honor life by putting an end to such disgrace. Maybe it’s hard to argue sometimes whether this is an act of bravery or cowardice, or whether this is taking responsibility of one’s own life or escaping from life when it brings more hardship than happiness, but we as humans must contemplate on such situations and should have the free will to make a choice when faced with one. 

* As an interesting side note, I was very impressed by the performance of the leading actor in The Sea Inside, only to realize years later that he is Javier Bardem. No wonder.