Change Your Image
adykstra-1
Reviews
Say Amen, Somebody (1982)
A regular viewing
Never have I responded so thoroughly to people in a documentary. I initially became curious about it because of Roger Ebert who rated it so highly.
Now I have it in my collection and whenever I am feeling down, I watch it. In addition to Willie Mae Ford Smith and Thomas A. Dorsey, I love all of the other singers too. In an era when it is possible to feel numb about life, this film and its vivid people help you to process pain and sadness. What survivors! How I would like to meet all of these people. Some of these people are not conventionally pretty, but, oh my! they help you feel again. It is so moving to hear their reminiscences when many are shown later in their lives.
So sadly, many of them are no longer with us. We are all a little poorer without them. That's why we can be so thankful that this film was able to capture what we might have missed. What a terribly sad end to the life of Sallie Martin!
God bless mother Smith and Thomas Dorsey.
We are all richer for them.
North Country (2005)
Comments by Alfred Hitchcock that apply here.
Some comments by Alfred Hitchcock may find a parallel in this film. Hitchcock was speaking about the difference between surprise and suspense. Two men are sitting in a room when, unexpectedly, a bomb explodes. That is a surprise. Another way to show the scene is to show the two men in the room, pan down to the floor under the table and the audience sees a box, hears a ticking sound, sees that a bomb is going to explode very soon. The audience holds its breath in suspense, silently urging the two men to quickly get out of the room.
Now think about North Country. For most of the film the men of the area are portrayed as social cretins. (Is anybody in Minnesota taking offense from this screenplay? You should!) Then, near the end of the story, an "explosion", a surprise!-- we discover there are men in Minnesota who have a conscience. Only now do we see men who are morally conflicted over what happened to this woman. All they needed was a scolding to bring it out. In this film, this is a "surprise". Up until this point we have been shown little evidence of sympathy. Dramatically it is dishonest to portray 100% of the men as cretins. If ANY group is portrayed dramatically as being 100% the same, something is wrong. (Hitler did falsely but effectively.) This screenplay portrays a victim and all men are cretins/victimizers. Is nobody conflicted? I don't buy it. Dramatically this would have worked much better, I would have been in "suspense" if I had been shown, early on, certain men who see it all happen, have doubts and conflict BUT WHO DO NOTHING. That is dramatically interesting. Even the father doesn't grow until an extremity. I was intriguers by the opposing lawyer (a woman) who seemed to be the one prostituting herself in an evil cause. I almost caught a glimpse of her moral conflict.
By the way, does homophobia reign supreme in Minnesota? I don't think so, but you wouldn't know it here. What's with all the "homo" epithets in film lately?
The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John (2003)
Henry Ian Cusick is brilliant portraying Jesus of Nazareth
This film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival. Amazingly, it avoided all of the mistakes made in most other attempts to tell this story. The Bible's presentation of the story of Jesus is based primarily on four narratives--each stamped with its author's own personality and unique perspective.
Many previous films have sampled more than one of the Biblical narratives on the life of Christ. Also, they needlessly added scenes not found in the original sources. The authors of those screenplays in merely sampling from several sources, lost the unique focus of each respective author and diluted the overall effect of the story.
This film is based on John Goldsmith's screenplay which deftly avoids all the laughably silly cliches of previous film versions. Goldsmith's screenplay is based on only one man's perspective, that of Jesus' disciple John. Many stories with which the viewer is familiar, such as the nativity, are missing from John's gospel and therefore also from this wonderfully complex and yet lucid screenplay. Jesus' words are not here presented as pious platitudes, but occur within a context where Jesus responded to those around him.
The dialogue is solely based on the Good News Bible (also known as Today's English Version) Christopher Plummer very ably supplies the verse by verse narration from the same source. His delivery re-enforces the clarity of what is on the screen. Most of the other actors were not known to me--which I felt helped. (What part could one give to an actor who previously portrayed a drug dealer?)
Jesus is brilliantly portrayed by Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus the man with human emotions, Jesus the visionary resented by the religious establishment of his day. This Jesus did not refer to them for his authority. Cusick, convincingly portrays Jesus the carpenter as a handsome, masculine, very charismatic man. Cusick is very much equal to the task. I spoke very briefly with Cusick after the screening, thanking him for his portrayal of a part that is loaded with hazards--all of which he avoided. I hope we see a great deal more of this fine actor.
The music by Jeff Danna is wonderful--well beyond what I could have hoped for.
One friend of mine at the screening expressed his concern that this film in portraying Jesus' death at the hands of the Jewish establishment might make it vulnerable to accusations of Antisemitism. I reassured him that in its earliest days, Christianity was a sect within Judaism. Almost all the people portrayed in The Gospel of John were Jewish. It was not until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 that the Christian sect became predominately Gentile.
Director Philip Saville has done an enviable job directing a project that was fraught with artistic traps.
I hope this film receives very wide distribution. Even Christian conservatives should be very happy with it.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
Laura Linney Shines!
On top of being a superior supernatural thriller, the acting is terrific. Laura Linney makes us care what happens to her. I don't know if this story "really" happened, but the treatment it gets in this film is enchanting. This is not merely a shock picture whose sole purpose is to frighten. It has eerie moments, especially when a phone rings that has just been ripped from the wall. I especially enjoy films that question whether we can trust what we see, hear or feel.