Into the Wild (2007)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Into the Wild (2007) – S. Penn

Phony society, we reject your false values!  Or so said The Fleshtones.  Here, Christopher Johnson McCandless (a real person whose story was told first in a book by Jon Krakauer and then in this movie by Sean Penn) follows suit (with no reference to the ‘80s band, of course).  Perhaps the clearer link is to Bob Rafelson’s Five Easy Pieces (1970) which saw Jack Nicholson escaping his upper crust existence to work on oil rigs and date waitress Karen Black.  Except in Into the Wild, the rejection of the materialistic parents (Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt) is only part of the story and instead it is the rejection of the materialistic culture as a whole that is the focus.  McCandless, dubbing himself Alexander Supertramp (and played by Emile Hirsch), really did burn all his money and set off for Alaska to try self-sufficient living “off the grid” (a term not invented in 1990-92 when the events took place).  The film bounces back and forth between scenes of Chris/Alex at his “Magic Bus” abode alone in the North, living off plants and animals that he kills and the two-year journey across the US (and Mexico) that led him to that point.  He meets a number of other “fellow travellers”, mostly hippies living commune-style with others (Catherine Keener and Kristen Stewart included) but also blue collar rebel Vince Vaughn and elderly loner Hal Holbrook.  They all have their stories to tell that add a critical perspective to Chris’s choices.  Director Penn experiments with different cinematic techniques and styles (slo-mo, jump cuts, split-screen, superimposed text, etc.) in the different parts of the film which works well to hold interest (the whole thing runs 2 ½ hours) and Eddie Vedder’s raw folksongs infuse everything with a certain mood. Sometimes things feel truly ecstatic.  However, in the end, the film succeeds so well because it raises so many complex issues.  First, it encourages us to question the goals of our society and our own behaviors that contribute to its materialism (which is destroying the environment, hastening climate change, creating economic inequality, destroying souls by undermining human relationships, etc.).  Second, in contrast to the first, it asks whether complete rejection of society is the right choice or whether there could be other choices.  Third, it contemplates whether a crusading quest for a sense of meaning is a hallmark of youth and whether people become complacent as they age.  Fourth, it lets us think about the relationship between humans and “the wild” (and the on-location cinematography is often breath-taking) – are we exploiters, could we survive on our own without our “tribe”, are we social animals? McCandless’s provocative decisions (which are undoubtedly echoed by those joining the growing vegan movement and “occupying” various cities) are a very thought-provoking inspiration for a film that will certainly have you questioning your own existence.

  

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) – L. McCarey

An obvious influence on Ozu’s Tokyo Story (1953), Leo McCarey’s film also shows the sad plight of elderly parents who realize that they cannot rely on their adult children.  In this case, Beulah Bondi and Victor Moore have had their house foreclosed on by the bank and must move out; this is the Depression, after all, and a number of the men in the film are also out of work.  This becomes an excuse justifying the decision not to take the parents in.  Instead, the couple is split up – after 50 years of marriage – and sent to separate houses.  Bondi slowly drives son Thomas Mitchell’s family crazy with incessant talking and good-natured meddling. Moore is also in the way in daughter Cora’s house.   Eventually, the kids plan to send him to California (where another daughter lives) and to put her in a nursing home for women.  Before they part again, the parents are allowed one last day in New York City, where they revisit the locations of their honeymoon decades earlier.  Yes, it’s a real tearjerker but the moments feel authentic and McCarey gives Bondi and Moore room to react to and reflect on their situation.  The adult children (and teen granddaughter) are also treated humanely.  The end result, as in Ozu’s film, is a profound condemnation of a society that does not value its elders, even as it leaves you feeling that every individual “has their reasons”.  A humanistic classic that resonates even more as we age.

  

Ghostbusters (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Ghostbusters (2016) – P. Feig

Ghostbusters (1984) was my favourite movie during high school (apart from Stop Making Sense, also 1984).  So, it was with some trepidation that I approached this remake/remodel.  Luckily, I am pleased to be able to say that this new version manages to maintain the tone of the original: genial, silly, and amusing with enough special effects and pop music to keep it moving along.  As with The Force Awakens (2015), the original plot of the earlier film is used only schematically such that the points of connection provide “a-ha” moments for those who recalled/loved the earlier films.  This version of Ghostbusters also features cameos by many of the original cast members, albeit in different roles, including “Slimer” (the only one who maintains his same character, I guess).  Of course, the big new thing in this film is that the Ghostbusters are all women; this change only slightly changes the dynamic.  There is a natural camaraderie/banter between Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy -- and Kate McKinnon (playing weird/nerd/scientist) and Leslie Jones round out the team with their more offbeat/stereotypical characters.  I felt they earned the right to be ghostbusters just as much as Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson before them. Moreover, the plot, while perhaps more disposable than the one used in 1984, was perfectly satisfactory as a container to hold these characters and their shenanigans.  It is hard to get these sorts of action/comedy/blockbusters right, let alone with the pressure to live up to a cherished forerunner – kudos to director Paul Feig and his team.  Thumbs up from me!

   

Ernest and Celestine (2012)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Ernest and Celestine (2012) – S. Aubier, V. Patar, & B. Renner

Based on children’s books that we’ve never encountered (by Belgian author Gabrielle Vincent), the film tells the story of Ernest, a bear (voiced by Forest Whitaker), and Celestine, a mouse (voiced by MacKenzie Foy).  The animation is charming (and of the seemingly hand-drawn type – with watercolours, since it’s in French) and the story speaks of friendship between those from different backgrounds, teaching a lesson while also being fun.  Except the kids grew worried (in the theatre, asking to go home) when Ernest and Celestine got themselves into enough trouble that the police were looking for them.  In fact, they did break the law – stealing both candy and false teeth (to appease Ernest’s hunger and Celestine’s dental school master, respectively).  They end up in court!  I promised that there would be a happy ending – and of course there was (though we worried until the last minute).  In the end, the kids voted for 4.5 stars out of 5 and 10 stars out of 5 (from a 7 year old and a 4 ½ year old, respectively).  For me, the animation carried the day with excellent (voice and pictorial) characterisations all around – the film managed to be both touching and funny. Moreover, as an adult, I didn’t feel bored or neglected in the audience (and there didn’t need to be smirky or topical adult jokes to keep me interested).  Highly recommended!