My interest in the Oscar nominees has grown over the past few years. I believe I watched nearly all the Best Picture nominees from last year. This year, however, I wasn't so excited about the options. There were only a couple I was really interested in seeing, and even then, I'm taking my time to get around to them.
I just watched 12 Years a Slave, and I'm not sure I can say that I liked it. It was certainly well-done and deserving of its Best Picture award. My husband did some research and found it was mostly pretty accurate, horrifically enough. I wasn't necessarily surprised by what I saw, being familiar with some of the details of slavery, but it was pretty amazing (and not in a good way, as Brad Pitt's character says) that it all happened to one man. It's based on the true story of Solomon Northup, an educated, free black man who was kidnapped and enslaved in the mid-1800's. He wrote a memoir about his experiences, and the movie is based on that.
I can't say I like the movie because, well...it's brutal stuff, vividly depicted in a visual medium. It's rated R for obvious reasons, among which are violence, nudity (not sexual), and some sex scenes (they are not too graphic, but they are disturbing). Just because something is hard to watch doesn't mean you shouldn't, but each person must take into account what they can handle. In some ways, I'm glad I've seen this movie, but at the same time, I don't think it was necessary. I'm not changed because of it. It disturbed me but didn't impact me. I'm not sure I would really recommend it to anyone. I keep wondering what the purpose of this movie was. Is our culture still so racist that we need this reminder? Will anyone who is racist actually see this movie, and if they do, will it change them? Slavery is awful. What was done shouldn't have been done. But I wonder if we dwell on the past too much when the present has enough injustices of its own. The past is "safe." What's that saying: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"? It's easy to say "I'm sorry" for something that's over. It's harder to stand up for our beliefs and put them into practice right now.
I'm not saying it's the movie industry's job to speak out on modern-day issues (though I'm sure they could certainly figure out a way to do so to great effect, as can be seen with the way they've pushed gay rights). It's not the movie industry's job to fight injustice, but if that was not the purpose of this movie, what was? Surely not entertainment. Perhaps it was to acknowledge an astounding true tale. I can accept that. But if we as a culture are trying to fight injustice, we need to start in the present with the sex trade or abortion, for example. It seems to me that we applaud recognition of our past failures (if I recognize it, I must be better), but we, myself included, merely gasp in horror at the news feed and then silently move on.
In addition to the movie's murky agenda, I didn't think all the nudity was tactfully depicted. You can get the sense of nudity from a person's back. Even bum shots (we all look the same from the back) are better than full frontal nudity which, to warn you, this movie contains. I didn't see the point of it.
One thing, neither bad nor good, that I thought was interesting in the cinematography is that the scenes are long. They are much longer than in most movies, long to the point of being uncomfortable, which I think was the point (and which makes me think there was some moral agenda behind this movie). The beatings are horrifically long. At one point, the main character hangs from his neck, his feet barely touching the ground, for an extended time, not just in terms of hours the man actually hung there in the story but in terms of seconds on the screen. The creators of this movie took time to tell the story well and to make the viewer pay attention. It is only a little over 2 hours long (134 minutes). In terms of how much suffering you can handle, it might feel long, but it is not too long in the sense that it was dragged out.
The music, by Hans Zimmer, is also very dramatic at times, more in keeping with something from Inception (which he also did) than with a period piece, but similarly to the purpose of the longer scenes, I think the purpose was to arouse a sense of foreboding in the viewer.
The acting is superb. Chiwetel Ejiofor (whom I previously knew as the villain from Serenity) is Solomon. And of course, Lupita Nyong'o won Best Actress for her role as Patsey. Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt, among other known actors, make small appearances. And the despicable (and way insane) slaver villain is played by Michael Fassbender.
I obviously have mixed feelings about this movie. While I agree that it has all the makings of an Oscar winner and deserves what it got, I don't think it's for the masses. Honestly, I'm not sure whom it's for. Obviously, not someone like me. The critics out there might call me racist or too prudish, but I can only give my opinion, regardless of how people may misconstrue it. I may be the last one to see this, but if you were considering it still, hopefully my review can help you make a better-educated decision about whether or not to see it.
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (Entire Series) on DVD
My husband and I just finished watching the very last season of the anime series Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. We had to watch all the episodes on the last disc in one go because the end is just crazy!
I was hesitant to even review this TV show (based on a Japanese manga book series) because of its violent and gruesome content, and I wouldn't recommend it for most of my readers here. As far as anime goes, it's pretty tame and clean on the sex (there isn't any, and about the most you see is cleavage). There's a bit of language, but not the worst kind. In fact, I don't think the F-word is used at all, but don't quote me on that. Still, I would rate the show R (it's actually rated TV14) for violence and disturbing images of evil.
The premise is rather complicated, so if you are already a fan of the show, you'll notice how much I leave out here as I try to make it as simple as possible. Ed and Al Elric are two young brothers who live at the turn of the twentieth century in an alternate version of our world where certain humans can use alchemy to achieve inhuman feats, such as reshaping metal into a sword or creating flames with the snap of a finger. When the boys' mother dies, they try to bring her back to life through alchemy, but what they "bring back" is an abomination that costs the older brother, Ed, an arm and a leg, literally, and costs Al his entire body. Ed binds Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor, thus saving his life in some form. Determined to get their original bodies back, the two boys, barely in their teens, one with a metal arm and leg, the other apparently an empty suit of armor, set off to find out all they can about alchemy and the fabled, powerful philosopher's stone. But the journey leads them through unexpected twists and turns, and evil lurks around every corner, waiting to destroy them or, worse, use them for its own nefarious purposes.
Just a side note here (but it's important!): Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is not quite the same as Fullmetal Alchemist, in case you look it up. The original TV anime is simply called Fullmetal Alchemist, and it ends very differently from Brotherhood because it caught up to the manga books and had to veer off on its own and make up an ending. Once the manga was finished, the show was rebooted with Brotherhood, the ending following more closely to the book. Where the two TV series diverge from each other, they become completely different shows. I've seen both. From what I can remember of the first, comparing the two, Brotherhood is darker and bloodier with a completely different thematic focus. Note that this review is about Brotherhood.
So, interesting as it may sound, if the show is so graphically violent, why am I reviewing it at all? Amazingly, this is a show about right and wrong, about morality, about how far is too far, and about the value of a single human life, among other large-scale moral questions. In other words, it's actually perfect material for this blog.
In Ed and Al's world, alchemy's greatest rule is that everything must be traded for something of equal value: equivalent exchange. In the attempt to raise their mother's body back to life, the boys lose parts of their bodies. What they try is not permitted among alchemists for good reason. The show explores what equivalent exchange looks like throughout every aspect of the world and whether or not it is a decent rule to live by.
(Minor SPOILERS) Later, when Ed and Al realize what the philosopher's stone really is, they refuse to use it to get their bodies back, and they become the voices of reason and right in the show. At times, they stray, but ultimately, they choose right. It's not easy for them. They have to make hard choices, and again and again, they prove that the easy, obvious choice is not always the best. They refuse to cave before evil, and they refuse to use evil means to get their way. They are the counterpart to the adults on the show who think they have to kill sometimes for the greater good; the Elric brothers are always looking for ways around that, looking for the good in people. Several times, they spare their enemies, which sometimes leads to surprising benefits later. Equivalent exchange at work again.
The religion on the show is not just a little hokey, and religion mucks things up a bit at the end. But at the same time, some Christian values creep in there: redemption; the value of giving more than one receives (not equivalent exchange!); compassion, even for the vilest of creatures; loyalty; and giving up what makes us who we think we are. The series also tackles heavy themes of loss and grief, sacrifice (both forced and freely given), and choice (do we choose what's right, even after we've messed up and redemption seems hopeless?). It's rather beautiful, after the dark.
And that sums up the show for me: beauty amidst despair, hope in the darkest places, pure goodness breaking apart the forces of evil. Despite the violence, this is a show that is overall uplifting and deeply moving. It's not for everyone, and I certainly don't agree with all of its message. But for what it is, it has value and merit. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the series and look forward to every disc in the mail, but I really want to emphasize that this is not typical fare for this blog, nor is it something I recommend you watch. Also, it's definitely not for kids. Anime is not animation, though both are animated (I may be speaking to the veterans here, but you never know).
If you do choose to watch it, knowing full well what you are getting into, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do because there is certainly entertainment and worth here.
I was hesitant to even review this TV show (based on a Japanese manga book series) because of its violent and gruesome content, and I wouldn't recommend it for most of my readers here. As far as anime goes, it's pretty tame and clean on the sex (there isn't any, and about the most you see is cleavage). There's a bit of language, but not the worst kind. In fact, I don't think the F-word is used at all, but don't quote me on that. Still, I would rate the show R (it's actually rated TV14) for violence and disturbing images of evil.
The premise is rather complicated, so if you are already a fan of the show, you'll notice how much I leave out here as I try to make it as simple as possible. Ed and Al Elric are two young brothers who live at the turn of the twentieth century in an alternate version of our world where certain humans can use alchemy to achieve inhuman feats, such as reshaping metal into a sword or creating flames with the snap of a finger. When the boys' mother dies, they try to bring her back to life through alchemy, but what they "bring back" is an abomination that costs the older brother, Ed, an arm and a leg, literally, and costs Al his entire body. Ed binds Al's soul to a nearby suit of armor, thus saving his life in some form. Determined to get their original bodies back, the two boys, barely in their teens, one with a metal arm and leg, the other apparently an empty suit of armor, set off to find out all they can about alchemy and the fabled, powerful philosopher's stone. But the journey leads them through unexpected twists and turns, and evil lurks around every corner, waiting to destroy them or, worse, use them for its own nefarious purposes.
Just a side note here (but it's important!): Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is not quite the same as Fullmetal Alchemist, in case you look it up. The original TV anime is simply called Fullmetal Alchemist, and it ends very differently from Brotherhood because it caught up to the manga books and had to veer off on its own and make up an ending. Once the manga was finished, the show was rebooted with Brotherhood, the ending following more closely to the book. Where the two TV series diverge from each other, they become completely different shows. I've seen both. From what I can remember of the first, comparing the two, Brotherhood is darker and bloodier with a completely different thematic focus. Note that this review is about Brotherhood.
So, interesting as it may sound, if the show is so graphically violent, why am I reviewing it at all? Amazingly, this is a show about right and wrong, about morality, about how far is too far, and about the value of a single human life, among other large-scale moral questions. In other words, it's actually perfect material for this blog.
In Ed and Al's world, alchemy's greatest rule is that everything must be traded for something of equal value: equivalent exchange. In the attempt to raise their mother's body back to life, the boys lose parts of their bodies. What they try is not permitted among alchemists for good reason. The show explores what equivalent exchange looks like throughout every aspect of the world and whether or not it is a decent rule to live by.
(Minor SPOILERS) Later, when Ed and Al realize what the philosopher's stone really is, they refuse to use it to get their bodies back, and they become the voices of reason and right in the show. At times, they stray, but ultimately, they choose right. It's not easy for them. They have to make hard choices, and again and again, they prove that the easy, obvious choice is not always the best. They refuse to cave before evil, and they refuse to use evil means to get their way. They are the counterpart to the adults on the show who think they have to kill sometimes for the greater good; the Elric brothers are always looking for ways around that, looking for the good in people. Several times, they spare their enemies, which sometimes leads to surprising benefits later. Equivalent exchange at work again.
The religion on the show is not just a little hokey, and religion mucks things up a bit at the end. But at the same time, some Christian values creep in there: redemption; the value of giving more than one receives (not equivalent exchange!); compassion, even for the vilest of creatures; loyalty; and giving up what makes us who we think we are. The series also tackles heavy themes of loss and grief, sacrifice (both forced and freely given), and choice (do we choose what's right, even after we've messed up and redemption seems hopeless?). It's rather beautiful, after the dark.
And that sums up the show for me: beauty amidst despair, hope in the darkest places, pure goodness breaking apart the forces of evil. Despite the violence, this is a show that is overall uplifting and deeply moving. It's not for everyone, and I certainly don't agree with all of its message. But for what it is, it has value and merit. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the series and look forward to every disc in the mail, but I really want to emphasize that this is not typical fare for this blog, nor is it something I recommend you watch. Also, it's definitely not for kids. Anime is not animation, though both are animated (I may be speaking to the veterans here, but you never know).
If you do choose to watch it, knowing full well what you are getting into, I hope you appreciate it as much as I do because there is certainly entertainment and worth here.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
The Sanctuary
Ted Dekker strikes again! The Santuary is a stand-alone thriller (not young adult, I should clarify, since most of the other stuff I read is), but readers will recognize its two main characters from The Priest's Graveyard. The Sanctuary doesn't have to be read as a sequel, but it does pick up where the other book left off, in a way. If you haven't read The Priest's Graveyard and want to, this review may contain unwanted SPOILERS. Thematically, the books are related, but the emphasis is different, and the two stories are separate and self-contained. I guess, however, that you could say the themes from The Sanctuary are a natural progression of the thoughts from The Priest's Graveyard. Although you wouldn't have to read both, I would recommend reading them together and in order.
Danny Hansen confessed to two murders he didn't commit in order to spare his wife a prison sentence, but Danny is by no means innocent. In his old life, he was a priest who took the law into his own hands. Now, Danny willingly pays the price, knowing he's become the very monster he tried to keep off the streets, but someone from his past doesn't think Danny and Renee have suffered enough, and the villain has concocted a game to get his revenge and expose Danny for the monster he is. Danny, however, has taken a vow of nonviolence. How hard will his enemy have to push him to break him? And can Renee rescue him before it's too late for both of them?
As usual, this latest Dekker thriller is hardcore and not for the faint of heart. Dekker is a Christian, but I think a lot of Christians would have a hard time reconciling his worldview with their own. As my husband puts it, Dekker likes to make Christianity "visceral." He uses extreme imagery to get across simple but deep truths about what it means to follow God. His thrillers may be fit for the secular market, but they are anything but cheap, shallow entertainment. Yeah, there's a lot of shock value, but it's there to shock us awake, which has to be a good thing.
In The Sanctuary, the main issue is violence. Is it wrong? What if the person you love more than life itself needs your protection? How do you stand up for the weak when the world is full of violent predators? What kind of justice does a murderer deserve? What does it mean to be human? What is grace? These are all questions that are tackled in a plot that delves right into the middle of some of the worst kind of violence. Murder, rape, torture; it's all in there, handled carefully but not lightly. Dekker likes to open up the black holes of the world and blast a floodlight on them. You've been warned. But time and again, the trip has certainly been worth it for me.
I have a shelf full of Dekker books, most in hard cover. My favorites among them I've rated five stars. The Sanctuary read quickly but didn't have quite the same impact as some for me, falling at about a three-star rating. Still good. And it delivered one of Dekker's famous end twists, which I really didn't see coming and which made me kind of want to go back and see how the book might read differently had I known what was really going on.
Danny Hansen confessed to two murders he didn't commit in order to spare his wife a prison sentence, but Danny is by no means innocent. In his old life, he was a priest who took the law into his own hands. Now, Danny willingly pays the price, knowing he's become the very monster he tried to keep off the streets, but someone from his past doesn't think Danny and Renee have suffered enough, and the villain has concocted a game to get his revenge and expose Danny for the monster he is. Danny, however, has taken a vow of nonviolence. How hard will his enemy have to push him to break him? And can Renee rescue him before it's too late for both of them?
As usual, this latest Dekker thriller is hardcore and not for the faint of heart. Dekker is a Christian, but I think a lot of Christians would have a hard time reconciling his worldview with their own. As my husband puts it, Dekker likes to make Christianity "visceral." He uses extreme imagery to get across simple but deep truths about what it means to follow God. His thrillers may be fit for the secular market, but they are anything but cheap, shallow entertainment. Yeah, there's a lot of shock value, but it's there to shock us awake, which has to be a good thing.
In The Sanctuary, the main issue is violence. Is it wrong? What if the person you love more than life itself needs your protection? How do you stand up for the weak when the world is full of violent predators? What kind of justice does a murderer deserve? What does it mean to be human? What is grace? These are all questions that are tackled in a plot that delves right into the middle of some of the worst kind of violence. Murder, rape, torture; it's all in there, handled carefully but not lightly. Dekker likes to open up the black holes of the world and blast a floodlight on them. You've been warned. But time and again, the trip has certainly been worth it for me.
I have a shelf full of Dekker books, most in hard cover. My favorites among them I've rated five stars. The Sanctuary read quickly but didn't have quite the same impact as some for me, falling at about a three-star rating. Still good. And it delivered one of Dekker's famous end twists, which I really didn't see coming and which made me kind of want to go back and see how the book might read differently had I known what was really going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)