Archive for the ‘The Arts’ Category

The Thinker

Second viewing: M*A*S*H (the TV show)

When you are retired you often find you have time on your hands. Netflix streaming provides lots of content, but much of it is comfort content, i.e. stuff you have seen before. So I’ve slogged my way through all eleven seasons of M*A*S*H, mostly in microbursts, over the last few months.

For a show that began in 1972, it is still surprisingly good. “Good” is relative, however. In a time when most markets had four or 5 TV stations, you took what you could get. For its time, M*A*S*H was excellent TV. Today, it just rates as very good. Why is this? It’s because forty years later TV has gotten much better. This is due to the proliferation of cable and pay TV. While lots of dreck can still be found on TV, there is now so much excellent content on TV that it is excruciatingly hard to decide which ones merit your time. I’ve finished three seasons of House of Cards. While waiting for new episodes I have been watching Mad Men. Each episode of Mad Men sends jolts of adrenaline to my enjoyment system: it’s just so well done!

So M*A*S*H is comfort TV, although the harshness of that war would not normally make it something you would want to watch. There had never been a TV show that showed the reality of war before M*A*S*H. It showed life at a mobile Army hospital during the Korean War, and the crazy antics and horrifying things that happened there. Going through it again, I realize that I have seen every episode, not just once, but several times at least. I’m not sure when I found the time to see them so many times. I’m guessing it was when they were endlessly repeated on late night TV. Thirty plus years of distance has at least made me a more critical viewer. Some modern day reflections and observations:

  • The show is actually a reflection of the emerging values of its time (the late 60s and early 70s) than the time of the Korean War. Hawkeye (Alan Alda) and Trapper John (Wayne Rodgers) might as well be flower children with shorter hair. Their liberal and antiwar positions would have put them in the extreme minority in the early 1950s, and dangerously so. Both would have been children of the Great Depression but they are all flower power. The 1969 movie by Robert Altman provided the template for the show, and in 1969 the Hippie movement was everywhere, the Vietnam War was obviously a disaster and cynicism was rampant. It’s entertaining as hell, but it’s simply not an accurate reflection of the years it purports to represent.
  • You can sort of break down the show into three rather distinct segments: the slapstick/buffoon comedy years (Seasons 1-3), the serious comedy-light years (Seasons 4-7) and the extended mediocre denouement years (Seasons 8-11).
  • The first year is particularly hard to watch today. Its blatant sexism and the casual way women are treated as objects rather than people is actually hard to endure today, and this is good. We have evolved.
  • The second segment is actually the best part of the show. The horrors of war and the imperfect way its characters react to it is the heart of the show.
  • There are some good episodes in the third segment, but it’s perfectly okay to stop at the end of Season 7. Those last seasons will disappoint if you’ve seen the other seasons. The show feels played out, particularly since the show lasted eleven seasons and the Korean War lasted less than four years.
  • Alan Alda won a number of Emmys for his performance as the surgeon Capt. Hawkeye Pierce. I found myself having a love/hate relationship with both the actor and the character. I don’t think there was that much difference between the actor and his character, aside from the fact Alda is not a doctor. Alda must have been insufferably difficult to work with on the set. He dominates the show in frequently unhealthy ways, making it hard for other characters to shine. On the other hand, he’s really good, very intense and totally convincing. It’s not too surprising that Wayne Rodgers left after three seasons, sick of playing Harpo to Alda’s Groucho (in some episode literally). McLean Stephenson must have felt the same way portraying Lt. Col. Henry Blake.
  • In spite of Alda’s overwhelming presence, most of the other characters do make their marks. Most notably is the maturation of Major Margaret Houlihan (Loretta Swit), the head nurse. For three seasons she played comic relief but in the second segment she becomes human, matures and deepens as a character. It’s lovely to watch and an excellent reason to stick around.
  • Who’s the better sidekick: Trapper John or B.J. Hunnicut? Seeing it again, I found Trapper more real and interesting. M*A*S*H would have been a much better show if directors had restrained Alda a bit more so Trapper’s character could shine. Mike Farrell is not really funny, but Wayne Rodgers certainly is. Rodgers was intense where Farrell was understated. It was a real loss when Rodgers left the show.
  • Who’s the more entertaining commander: Henry Blake (McLean Stevenson) or Sherman Potter (Harry Morgan)? Henry Blake for sure, even though he was there for only its first three years. Stevenson was consistently hilarious but somehow grounded in the insanity going on around him. Harry Morgan is not a comedian at heart, and it showed. The show lost a lot of its luster when Stevenson exited stage right.
  • The series most memorable and adorable character is unquestionably Radar O’Reilly (Gary Burghoff), who was the only character that also appeared in the movie. He is an innocent thrown into a complex adult game that remains a good person with childlike tendencies. He’s cuddlier than his frequently present teddy bear.
  • Corporal Clinger (Jamie Farr) makes good comic relief but simply does not convince in any other role other than a Section 8 seeking transvestite. He should have been kept in a dress and probably let go after a couple of seasons.
  • Larry Linville as the one-dimensional Major Frank Burns was actually an excellent comedian. His character is so insufferable that it is hard to see this. I don’t think he ever won an award for portraying Major Burns, but he should have.
  • David Ogden Stiers as Major Charles Emerson Winchester did much to make the second half of the series worth watching. It declined steadily anyhow, but Winchester was certainly an interesting and quirky character.
  • Some of the sporadic characters are delicious, particularly Sidney Freedman (Allan Arbus) and Colonel Flagg (Edward Winter). Any episodes with either of them in it are worth watching, and in one episode they both appear together. Flagg is actually the funniest character in the whole show; he just appears so irregularly.

You have to be a die-hard fan to watch all eleven seasons, particularly the last few years of the show. If you are tempted to watch the show, cringe your way through very funny but hard to endure first season and stick with it through seven seasons if you can. By the end of the first season all the characters are well established. Certain shows are gems and worth watching if you don’t have the time or patience for the many episodes that endlessly repeat the same theme (war really stinks). These include:

  • Yankee Doodle Doctor (Season 1, Episode 6)
  • Tuttle (Season 1, Episode 15)
  • A Smattering of Intelligence (Season 2, Episode 24)
  • O.R. (Season 3, Episode 5)
  • Abyssinia, Henry (Season 3, Episode 24)
  • Welcome to Korea (Season 4, Episodes 1 and 2)
  • Change of Command (Season 4, Episode 3)
  • Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler? (Season 4, Episode 10)
  • Dear Sigmund (Season 5, Episode 8)
  • Fade Out/Fade In (Season 6, Episodes 1 and 2)
  • Major Topper (Season 6, Episode 25)
  • Point of View (Season 7, Episode 11)
  • The Party (Season 7, Episode 26)
  • Good-bye Radar (Season 8, Episodes 4 and 5)
  • Mr. and Mrs. Who? (Season 8, Episode 9)
  • The Life You Save (Season 9, Episode 20)
  • Goodbye, Farewell and Amen (Season 11, Episode 16 – the extended end to the series)
 
The Thinker

Two short movie reviews

Ex Machina

In January, we saw The Imitation Game: the story of Nazi code breakers. Its principle character, Alan Turing, introduced the idea of the Turing test: a machine so sophisticated that when you interact with it you can’t tell it from a real human being. A lot of very wise people are quietly freaking out that we may be close to an era where we will be controlled by the machine. In Ex Machina we get to see what a machine that might pass the Turing test would look like and what it might mean. “She” is Ava (Alicia Vikander), the creation of mega billionaire Oscar Isaac (Nathan Bateman). Isaac created the next Google search engine and became so rich that he created a house and laboratory for himself so remote that even Verizon can’t reach it. Its location is unclear, but it appears to be in Alaska. One of Oscar’s employees, Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson) is invited to Oscar’s remote location to be the second person to meet Ava. At the end of the week he is supposed to make a judgment on whether Ava passes the Turing test.

Ava is pretty obviously a machine because much of her frame is transparent. The 26-year-old Caleb though quickly finds her mesmerizing, although they cannot touch each other. They interact through a glass partition. However, her programming is obviously top notch. Caleb has a hard time not thinking about her, although their daily sessions are relatively brief. While Ava seems real enough to him, there are some unexpected glitches in their laboratory. It suffers from occasional power outages. During this time Ava is unmonitored. Like Ava, Caleb is pretty much a prisoner in this weird estate. His keycard will get him into certain rooms and won’t allow him into other rooms. During power outages he is locked in his subterranean room. He talks daily with Oscar, who tries to be something of a distant buddy to him. Oscar may be a genius but he also has human frailties, including binge drinking.

This is a movie with hardly more than a handful of characters. It’s clear there is something else going on but it’s unclear what it is. Oscar is a bit of a control freak and Caleb is perhaps too intelligent for his own good. During power outages, Ava tells Caleb that she wants to escape from her room. Caleb eventually plots a way for them to escape together. I won’t spoil the ending but it does indicate if Ava passes the Turing test.

The movie is creepy without feeling like it is out of an Albert Hitchcock movie. Director Alex Garland’s greatest achievement might be the technical wizardry that shows that Ava is actually a machine. She is mesmerizing to watch with her blue tubes pulsating with artificial life. Yet she is not the only android on the premises. It’s unclear at first but Ava is but the latest version, and Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno) who does the cooking is another one. In fact there are a whole lot of robot parts in the closet.

This is a tightly focused movie that should keep you engaged and curious. It’s not exactly Oscar material, but it is a good use of your time nonetheless. 3.2 out of four stars.

Rating: ★★★¼ 

Tomorrowland

I was expecting Tomorrowland to be a different movie than the one I watched. I was expecting this Disney movie to be saccharine, but it wasn’t. It starts out that way when twelve-year-old Frank Walker attends the 1964 World’s Fair in New York City. The fair is pretty much Tomorrowland from Disney World, but Frank is there to impress the judges with his version of a jet backpack. Unfortunately it has some technical flaws, but he at least catches the eye of Athena (Raffey Cassidy), a mesmerizing freckle-faced young girl who we will later learn is a robot.

Athena senses in Frank a wild-faced optimism, not atypical of its times. In the early 1960s our future looked a lot like The Jetsons, and it was mostly filled with well adjusted and happy white people. Tomorrowland is at least faithful to that naïve way of thinking. Following Athena while at the fair the young Frank stumbles briefly into a real Tomorrowland, or at least its slick representation.

Fast forward to the present. We are quickly introduced to Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), another incurable optimist in an age of climate change. She spends her evenings sneaking into the Kennedy Space Center to prevent a famous launch pad there from being disassembled. This helps keep her father (Tim McGraw) employed but everyone sees the writing on the wall for the pad and for the end of human spaceflight. Casey is like a somewhat older version of Athena: she is mesmerizing to look at and full of positive spirit. Being an optimist she believes that global climate change can be averted and that the future will look like something out of The Jetsons. This also makes her of interest to Athena, who surreptitiously provides her with a token from the 1964 World’s Fair that takes her to this future, at least while she is touching the coin. It works great when she isn’t running into walls or ending up in the muck. And apparently its battery is not an Eveready.

What Frank and Casey have in common is Athena. They are destined to intersect, but Frank has aged fifty years and now looks suspiciously like George Clooney. This Frank is a cynical one who understands the forces pitted against a happy future, and these include David Nix (Hugh Laurie), the leader of Tomorrowland. Nix’s Tomorrowland bears little resemblance to the slick advertising that a younger Frank and Casey encountered. In fact, human life is about to end very abruptly on the planet and its end is certain. Just watch the countdown clock.

With Casey’s arrival though, the probability of this happening mysteriously drops from 100 percent. Athena eventually connects Casey and Frank, and a series of improbable adventures starts that forms the heart of the movie. Can somehow at this late date the future be changed for the better? It will take a lot of optimists and the time is very late.

So Tomorrowland was a bit of a surprise, both for the quality of the acting and the slick way director Brad Bird puts it altogether. Somehow the lovely Disney optimism is woven around the truly depressing reality of what mankind is doing to its biosphere. It makes you want to click you heels three times and find yourself back in Kansas. The depressing reality is that we are already victims of climate change and it will only get worse. Still, while this movie entertains its real mission may be to introduce to mass audiences the very serious problem of climate change. And if it is to be fixed it will take the masses demanding action. Given our general inability as a species not to look much beyond tomorrow, I am not hopeful, but perhaps if we were filled with less adult cynicism it would be otherwise. At least Disney is doing its part in describing the magnitude of the problem, while likely reeling in profits for shareholders for doing so.

I think Uncle Walt would be proud of what his gang did some fifty years after his passing.

3.4 out of four-points.

Rating: ★★★½ 

 
The Thinker

Double feature: Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 2

There are so many testosterone-laden movies out there to choose from that a pure women’s film is something of a rarity in the cinema. Pitch Perfect (2012) and Pitch Perfect 2 now in theaters drip with the estrogen. No fan of testosterone movies myself I thought I might go for these dedicated chick flicks. Maybe they would have more substance than the vapid stories in your typical shoot-em-up and car crash movies. Two movies about college women bonding in a women-only a cappella group should certainly scratch my itch for rich and meaningful relationship movies.

In truth, I didn’t seek out these movies. I have seen snippets of Pitch Perfect these last few years, mostly over my wife’s shoulders because she is obsessed with the movie. Naturally she wanted to see Pitch Perfect 2 the week it came out. So before I accompanied her to see the sequel this week I sat down with her to see the first movie in its entirety.

Both films center on Beca Mitchell (Anna Kendrick), a slinky but introverted woman with a passion for creating mix up tapes. In the first film she is a freshman (freshwoman?) at the fictional Barden University. She ends up with the perfect roommate, who is as distant as she is. Attending class doesn’t seem to be a priority for her. Both films don’t even mention majors, professors or classes. Her father works at the university and is something of a hovering presence, at least in the first movie. Beca knows it’s past time for her to connect with her gender, which doesn’t come naturally to her. She does half-heartedly try out for the Barden Bellas. (Those in an a cappella group sing together and use voice only. Songs and dance acts are interwoven, and part of its art is to imitate instruments using only the human voice.) The Bellas, in its most recent incarnation, are having a hard time getting traction in this world. Perhaps it is in part due to its dictatorial leader Aubrey (Anna Camp), size zero or smaller, who seems intent to drive all the girls on the team nuts with her obsessive-controlling behavior.

This group of Bellas consists of a fairly unusual group of women including Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson), Stacie (Alexis Knapp) their black Bella and lesbian and Chloe (Brittany Snow) as the dreamboat redhead men like me fantasize about. So naturally bonding is a bit difficult, which is good if you are doing a chick flick because the whole point of the movie is to explore the ways they bond, and the permutations of their characters and interactions. It does this while subjecting the young women to “riff offs”(informal competitions between a cappella groups) and of course regional a cappella contests.

Both movies try to overlay these relationships with comedy and heavy sarcasm. Comedy is in the eye and ear of the beholder. To this beholder, the comedic aspects often failed and were often quite gross. In the first movie we quickly discover that Aubrey has the dubious ability to involuntarily projectile vomit at inconvenient times. This is the source of a lot of its “humor”. It had my wife laughing, but I just thought it was gross. And at size zero, there is no way she could projectile vomit quite so much. In the sequel the humor orients around Fat Amy, whose Miley Cyrus imitation on stage manages to expose her private parts to an audience that includes President Obama. At least there is no more projectile vomiting in the second movie. As for the sarcasm, the co-producer Elizabeth Banks also acts as one of the color commentators. She and her co-host John Smith (John Michael Higgins) put on quite a show themselves with their commenting, with their sarcastic and obscene opinions. It’s like they are doing an a cappella version of a Howard Stern show. Funny? Not for me, but it seemed to work with the female crowd.

These relationships often seem overly scripted and superficial; the characters are somewhat cardboard-ish. At times these movies are sweet, and sometimes the humor does work. As one or more very important competitions provide the frame of a plot for both movies, it’s hard not to root for these women. It’s not hard to predict that despite many wardrobe or digestive problems, these women will triumph in the end.

There is romantic tension of a lite variety between a male in an a cappella group at Barden, the Treblemakers and Beca. It can’t quite seem to blossom into love, but includes plenty of understated romantic tension, but at least Fat Amy attracts a quality suitor in the second movie. In the second movie Jesse and Becca’s relationship deepens somewhat but still feels more like a relationship out of a Disney animated movie than a plausible one.

Both movies reminded me that most movies are made principally to grab a few quick bucks. That seems to be the case with these movies. This is not high art. It’s arguably not art at all. There will be no Academy Award nominations for this sequel. It feels more like a female version of Animal House than the rich relationship movie I was expecting. But it’s at least good enough to make you care about the Bellas a bit, at least until they win their contests.

In general though there is not much here for the most men to enjoy, aside from a lot of mostly skinny and gorgeous young women and some light humor. Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 2 are both reasonably amusing movies. However, I suspect many men who sit through this movie will do so sitting on their hands, or looking for an excuse for a potty break. It’s a hard movie for most guys to relate to. Not having grown up a female, I can’t say the same for women. Its financial success for its relatively modest budget indicates both movies succeeded in their goals of titillating and amusing a lot of women.

I can only give them a 3.0 (my B movie rating) because the singing and dancing make up for a lot of mistakes. The puking in the first movie and the crotchless scene in the second movie were both big directorial mistakes that the singing and dancing partially but not fully mend.

Rating: ★★★☆ 

 
The Thinker

Two movie reviews

The Avengers: The Age of Ultron

I’m sure it’s just me, but I’m kind of hoping that one of these days between major crises the Avengers use their fantastic powers to do something about more pedestrian problems, like global warming or making sure litter is getting picked up along our highways. Instead, they are usually busy saving our world that these days seems frequently less worth saving.

In The Avengers: The Age of Ultron we at least get a different kind of criminal: one entirely of the Avengers own creation. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner just can’t help themselves after The Avengers raid a Hydra outpost and in the process acquire some artificial intelligence from a scepter once owned by Loki. The fighting is hardly over before they have pumped the A.I. software into J.A.R.V.I.S, Stark’s talking virtual machine with a mission to completely defend the planet. The result is Ultron. This sounds worthwhile: it would put The Avengers out of business. Naturally it’s not quite that simple and the only way Ultron can figure out how to keep the planet safe is to destroy all of humanity, which at least shows you that Ultron is not stupid. The Avengers get to spend the rest of the movie cleaning up their mistake. It probably won’t spoil any endings to tell you they eventually succeed, but of course not without a lot of work, sweat and character exposition. It was up to Joss Whedon to once again to pull it off.

Perhaps because of his original Avengers movie in 2012, the public was primed for more of the same. The result is that the movie is turning out to be one of the highest grossing movies of all time. However, the movie often feels anticlimactic, and a bit of a hot mess with a lot of it not making a whole lot of sense. Presumably audiences didn’t care too much, as they were far more interested in the spectacle and the nuances between character interactions than to worry about how coherent the story would be. There’s no time to ponder its logical holes and its directorial flaws however. Like the last Avengers movie, this is a speeding bullet and it’s all the audience can do to keep up with the moment-to-moment details.

For those into Marvel comics there is plenty to marvel over. Whedon clearly has not lost any of his directorial talent. Since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Whedon can credit his success to a combination of story and interesting characters. When his superheroes aren’t trying to defeat Ultron, they are arguing with each other, or he’ll meander into controversial plot points such as a budding relationship between Black Widow and The Hulk. This is the part of the movie that brings home the bacon. The Ultron plot and all the carnage that results is mostly window dressing. What we really care about? Can Tony Stark’s bloated ego be controlled? Will Captain America stay pure? Can anyone but Thor wield his mighty hammer? This movie then is really a complex exploration of these many Marvel superheroes for you to enjoy. And enjoy it you will if you are into this stuff. If like me you didn’t read many comic books growing up and are not familiar with the nuances of all these characters, it’s more of a bloated shoot-em-up movie and thus more of the same.

The financial success of the movie speaks for itself and for Whedon’s wise choices directing the movie. While engaging, the movie arguably gets lost in these conflicts and contrasts of characterization. Just as Star Trek movies have a long backstory, so do these Marvel characters. The more you know the backstory, the more you are likely to enjoy it or be upset by Whedon’s interpretation. Without the backstory, it is just another bloated but reasonably engaging superhero movie, just with lots of superheroes imperfectly trying to work together. Frankly, I’d prefer more attention to the superhero part instead of the character part, which is why I’m probably rating it lower than most of those who waited in line for midnight showings have.

3.2 out of four-stars.

Rating: ★★★¼ 

The Interview

I hadn’t planned to watch The Interview, but that was before I read this recent NPR story about North Korea’s unique way of killing its defense minister: using anti-aircraft guns. North Korea desperately tried to stop the release of The Interview some months back because it was not complementary to its dear leader. North Korea’s hack of Columbia Pictures though simply gave people reason to see a terrible movie. I have to wonder why Columbia Pictures executives, after having viewed this mess of a movie, would have released it at all. Releasing it at least let them cut their losses.

If you like sophomoric movies like Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues then you might like this movie, but I doubt it. This movie is highly grating, not the least bit funny even if inebriated and actually makes you feel sympathetic toward the North Korean dictator. He may be evil, but at least he’s not Dave Skylark. Kim Jong-un, like his father, is known for quietly having western tastes, at least in cars, women and bad TV. One of these bad TV shows is “Skylark Tonight”, starring Dave Skylark (James Franco), which is produced by his buddy Aaron (Seth Rogen). Skylark gives wild interviews with celebrities like Eminem, but Aaron is bored with their formula and hungers for the show to be newsier. When they discover Kim Jong-un is a big fan of his show, he reaches out to North Korea and is quickly granted an interview. This helps elevates their show in the ratings.

The plot involves an attempt by the CIA to use Skylark to kill the dictator. All it takes is a simple handshake and about twelve hours of waiting. Once the two actually meet though Skylark finds Kim to be his new bestest buddy and can’t imagine that he is as evil as he is portrayed. The humor of this movie, such as it is, includes lots of Lord of the Rings references, blowing things up with a tank, backslapping, and hard to watch buddy-love. There are also potty-mouth scenes that are not the least bit humorous and make sophomoric humor in the Anchorman movies seems somewhat elevated. Does Kim Jong-un “pee and poo”? This is one of the “humorous” plot points that this “movie” turns on.

In short, it’s a mess of a movie, and largely Seth Rogan’s carnage since he helped direct and write the movie. It’s amazing that they found backers for this piece of garbage. I’ve seen worse movies than this, but only a few, with Ishtar coming immediately to mind. I can’t actually assign a rating to this movie. It’s not quite zero, but its heartbeat is simply too feeble to read. Its dismal box office totals ($6.1M gross to date, with an estimated production cost of $44M) attest to this waste of money.

As with Anchorman 2 if you are going to watch this a few beers before the movie may help you sit through it, as anything that will lower your critical thinking is likely to help. But there’s really no way to turn this ugly weed into anything of redeeming value. The only funny thing about this movie is why North Korea went through the bother of trying to stop its release.

 
The Thinker

Review: Cinderella

My last movie review was a review of The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. In that review, I noted that there were two actors from Downton Abbey in the movie. It looks like during offseason the younger Downton actors are also booking joint gigs. That’s certainly the case with Disney’s live action version of Cinderella now in theaters. We get two young Downton actors in this movie: Lily James (“Rose” from Downton Abbey) as Cinderella and in a big role reversal from her utterly adorable portrait as Daisy, the kitchen maid/chef we also get Sophie McShera as Drisella, one of the stepsisters.

It should go without saying that you don’t go see a movie about Cinderella expecting any plot twists. You certainly get none here, but you do get a somewhat kinder and gentler version of the tale. Cate Blanchett gets to chew up the scenery as the wicked stepmother, but she seemed sort of wicked-lite to me. Mostly you get a rather upbeat version of Cinderella that moves along at a surprisingly brisk pace. There’s hardly another nasty person in it. The closest is Stellan Skarsgård as the Grand Duke, whose only crime is looking out for the best interests of the kingdom. And that would be that the prince needs to marry an actual princess, for the good of the kingdom.

Granted, most red blooded men would be happy to trade money and protection for the slinky and gorgeous Lily James, who must wear size zero dresses. With beautiful brown eyes, moist and pouty lips and of course long flowing blonde tresses this Cinderella would turn any prince’s head no matter how many cinder ashes are on her clothes or in her face. Besides, she takes to heart her mother’s dying advice: always be kind and have courage. She has to draw on a deep reserve of it after both her parents die and her stepmother quickly turns her into a servant. Yet sweet, dopey and innocent Ella can’t seem to be mad at any of them even when (bet you didn’t see this coming) her stepmother won’t let her go to the prince’s ball.

It’s not entirely clear why I went to see this movie. My adult daughter really liked it, which was something of a surprise as she is a feminist. The whole “I can only be complete with a man” and worse “I can only be fully complete if I marry a prince” memes should make any feminist retch. Well, it’s the magic of Disney I guess. It being Spring Break week and discount day at the cinema, we had a decent crowd for a Wednesday 1 PM matinee. It was perhaps 50% girls under age 8, 40% mothers attending to girls under age 8 and a few oddballs like my wife and I just looking for something halfway decent to see in early April when the movie pickings tend to be slim.

If nothing else Disney knows how to do fairy tales. More typically it has been delivering animated fairy tales. Having plumbed that for pretty much all the profit possible, making live action versions are now a big part of their business plans. Thankfully, at least with Cinderella they do a good job of it. What’s not to like about the handsome, kind and dutiful Prince (Richard Madden), except when he is hunting an elk in the forest (where he first runs into Cinderella, of course) that the ever kind hearted Cinderella does not like to see hunted? The king (Derek Jacobi) is similarly kind hearted, as is pretty much everyone except Cruella, I mean the wicked stepmother. The wicked stepmother is there mainly to keep the adults in the audience awake, and Blanchett gives a fine but not unexpected performance. Among the minor parts we get Helena Bonham Carter as the fairy godmother.

It’s all so clean, sparkly and well done. There are no rainy days in this kingdom. The temperature seems to hover around seventy during the days. There is no mud from horse drawn carriages in the streets. The only thing dirty in this movie, and it’s just a smudge really, is Cinderella, who often sleeps next to the fire to stay warm. If there is a surprise in this movie, it’s its director: Kenneth Branagh, yes that Kenneth Branagh, the Shakespearean actor and director with memorable films like Henry V. How Disney snared him, or even considered him as a director in the first place, is something of a mystery, but it’s a good match. Branagh makes this well loved but predictable story not quite memorable (since you know the plot) but largely entertaining in spite of its lack of originality. Disney should consider him for more work like this, since it’s hard to get these factors right.

Branagh hits all the notes that make little girls sigh and swoon. Adults may sigh and swoon a bit too, given that we were young girls and boys once too. There’s nothing to criticize about this movie as long as you can forgive its utter lack of any originality. It’s sweet but not saccharine, strangely heartfelt yet absurdly surreal and it can take even us jaded adults back into a more innocent age in our minds, at least for a little while. The only thing that would have made this better would be to pull it off with a new plot, but then that would be a different story.

Enjoy the lack of surprises but also enjoy the way it so perfectly pulls all your strings as well. It’s the difference between hearing Beethoven performed by your high school orchestra and the New York Philharmonic. Branagh has made Cinderalla high art.

3.4 out of four-stars.

Rating: ★★★½ 

 
The Thinker

Review: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

This movie answers the burning question: what do the actors of Downton Abbey do off-season? I can’t say what all of them do, but the film will answer the question of what Maggie Smith (the Dowager Countess) and Penelope Wilton (Isobel Crawley) do, which is do movies together, well, at least The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

Wilton is principally a British TV actor. Maggie Smith’s career needs no introduction. She inspires in most admirers a sense of awe with her amazing and seemingly reflexive acting. She can broadcast more meaning from a single stare or a turn of the head that many actors can do in the course of an entire movie. Like the late Robin Williams, Smith can make even a mediocre movie memorable, which helps in the case with The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I suspect men who see the movie will share my opinion about its mediocrity. Most women who see it will probably be like my wife, who was crying at the end. In short, at the risk of showing gender bias, I strongly suspect that this is principally a chick flick.

It’s also a movie for old folks. With a few exceptions, the entire cast is sixty plus, and in most cases seventy plus. As such while the movie certainly has its comic moments, the subtext is that going from old to ancient is not an easy process. Each of these senior citizens deals with the problem in their own way. For example, there is Evelyn Greenslade (Judi Dench) who won’t let the fact that she is turning eighty keep her from a career buying fabric in India for her company. She has a knack for finding great stuff, stuff that will prove highly fashionable, and for getting it at discounted rates. For Muriel Donnelly (Maggie), her job seems to be to give up control. She and her much younger business partner Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel) run The Best Marigold Hotel in India. Sonny is an energetic young man anxious to prove his business acumen, which is why he and Muriel start the movie in San Diego seeking venture capital from hotel moguls. But mostly the movie takes place at their hotel. Aside from the staff it appears to be populated with white, 60+ Americans and Brit ex-pats who check in but never seem to check out. The clientele is so stable that Sonny and his fiancé Sunaina (Tina Desai) do a daily roll call every day by yelling their names from the open-air lobby, mainly to see if their permanent guests are still alive.

This is a movie with several tracks that clumsily intertwine. One is Sonny’s desperate need to prove his business acumen by creating a second Marigold Hotel. The other is Sonny’s jealousy. He suspects that Sunaina actually prefers their flashy friend Kushal (Shazad Latif) because he is smarter and more entrepreneurial. The rest is a conglomeration of issues with many white people aging. These include Douglas (Bill Nighy), who is technically married and estranged but loves Evelyn with a dopey puppy love that would be cute except he is seventy something. For the women there is the eye candy of Guy Chambers (Richard Gere) to stalk. And there is a fair amount of aging infidelity, of the heart if not of the body, between these aging seniors. Happily the older men are of an age where they fall for personalities not good looking older women. Judy Dench and Maggie Smith are great actresses, but both are packing on the pounds they try to hide behind large blousy dresses.

So it definitely helps to be a much older person to appreciate the movie. For a weekday matinee our theater was surprisingly full, and virtually all of them were senior citizens. This is not surprising due to the day of the week, but also because there are not a whole lot of movies out there marketed for seniors. So this movie is a special treat for them, and something they can relate to instead of another superhero movie featuring impossibly gorgeous people in their twenties. So kudos, with some exceptions, for at least giving us a cast where character is more attractive than looks. With the exception of Gere, none of these seniors will win a senior beauty contest.

Sonny makes for an amusing and energetic if somewhat frantic co-owner. He provides decent entertainment for any of the under fifty crowd that shows up. Filmed principally in India, it of course must have a Bollywood element, which means there must be singing and dancing in it somewhere. Most of it happens at the wedding at the end of the movie. It makes for an interesting amalgamation of Hollywood and Bollywood.

But principally this is a relationship movie, which is what makes it a chick flick. A lot of the pairings don’t make a whole lot of sense to this older male, and overall it seems to be much ado about nothing. However, it at least fills a rarely filled niche of decent movie for the seventy plus crowd. Its basic message: your old but you’re not dead. Enjoy life in whatever way you can while you still have it. And just because you are much older doesn’t mean you won’t encounter a lot of heartache along the way, not to mention new opportunities for love and personal growth.

Both Maggie Smith and Judi Dench though provide plenty of incentive to see the movie regardless of its targeted market. Like a fine wine, these actors age well on camera. The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is not a great use of two hours, but it’s a pretty good use of the time. In general, the older you are the more this movie is likely to tickle your fancy. If relationship movies are your thing, go for it. How nice to get through a movie without anyone dying from a gunshot wound.

3.0 out of four-stars.

Rating: ★★★☆ 

 
The Thinker

Double feature, take two

Jupiter Ascending

The last time I reviewed a Wachowski movie, it was a review of Cloud Atlas, a film with lots of potential. It sadly missed the mark, but was still worth seeing. The Wachowski siblings will probably always be best remembered for The Matrix (1999) and its two sequels.

In my humble opinion, Jupiter Ascending is equally as good as The Matrix, and maybe a little better. Sadly, it’s not doing too well at the box office. I have to attribute this to poor publicity, but it may also be because it is at its root a feminist movie and that will bug some people. The heroine, Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) doesn’t take much shit. She spends her days in part getting rid of shit by cleaning toilets. She’s part of a Russian immigrant family living marginally in Chicago. Thieves in Russia killed her father before she was born. Of course Jupiter is drop dead gorgeous, and it’s kind of hard to see her being so devoted to her hardworking extended immigrant family that scrambles together a living cleaning other people’s houses. She naturally resists her 4:45 AM wakeup call to begin another day on her hands and knees. She hates her life, she tells us, but won’t do much to change it.

This is not much of a compelling plot but it quickly gets very weird. Apparently Earth is just one of many planets owned by huge profit-oriented conglomerates controlled by various families. We humans and specifically our DNA are much in demand so that its rulers can maintain effective immortality and maximize their profits. In fact, the likely heir to the earth, Balem Abrasax (Eddie Redmayne) is eager to harvest Earth, but first has to get rid of Jupiter, who has no idea that she owns the planet. It’s Caine’s (Channing Tatum) job to try to protect her, even though he is from a far inferior class (half human, half wolf). He does have a few tricks up his sleeve, including these amazing boots that keep him levitated and effectively make him a skywalker. He also has a terrific if somewhat violent dad, Stinger (Sean Bean) who when he is not beating up his son is busy helping him save Jupiter.

Jupiter’s hard scrapple life though is something of a blessing. It makes her tough, resourceful and someone who won’t take much shit when she learns she actually owns the earth and is something of a queen. It also makes her grounded, and she begins to appreciate her simple family that quickly becomes pawns in a much bigger chessboard of universal intrigue.

So that’s the plot, and it seems more appropriate for a comic book than the screen. What’s amazing is what the Wachowskis manage to do with this story. They breathe real life into it in an amazing directorial tour de force. I generally hate CGI in movies because they tend to overwhelm the story. That’s not the case here. The CGI complements the story, and intelligently so and it is full of neat special effects that I’ve never seen before, including ghostly figures and amazingly detailed extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, the characters (all of them) are quite interesting. There’s a real universe here, full of quirks and complexity and it is amazingly well visualized by the Wachowskis. There are also some very humorous scenes, such as when the new empress has to get certified by its bureaucracy, which is something out of a 19th century Dickens novel. If it seems a little familiar, think Brazil (1985), which was Terry Gilliam’s (of Monty Python) directorial tour de force. Gilliam shows up here as one of the bureaucrats. It’s a minor part but memorable one.

I personally have not had this much fun at the movies since the last Indiana Jones movie. If you liked Guardians of the Galaxy, this is equally as good as that, if not better. It’s just not getting the same traction, for reasons I really don’t understand.

3.4 out of four stars.

Rating: ★★★½ 

Birdman

I usually end up seeing Best Picture, for which Birdman took home the Oscar this year. It is usually sometime after it wins the award, and that was the case this year. Birdman is definitely memorable and is a directorial tour de force just like Jupiter Ascending, just on the micro scale. This movie by director Alejandro Iñárritu was made on a shoestring but he managed to assemble a pretty impressive cast anyhow, including Michael Keaton as Riggan (i.e. Birdman), Emma Stone as his borderline dysfunctional daughter Sam, Naomi Watts as his ex-wife Lesley and Edward Norton as the temperamental actor Mike. If you are looking for something you haven’t seen before at the movies, Birdman definitely qualifies. It is mostly a small series of very long takes wherein the camera closely follows Riggan, a washed up actor known for his Birdman superhero movies from twenty years earlier.

The sixty-something Riggan looks pretty awful. (Michael Keaton is not aging well.) This has to do with his life being a complete mess. His daughter Sam is fresh out of rehab and acting as his assistant, and doing a bad job of it. Riggan is out to prove himself, not as Birdman, but as a Broadway actor, and at the St. James Theater of all places. (I saw The Producers there many years ago.) He has sunk what is left of his fortune into this play, but he can’t seem to keep the other male actor. His producer manages to snag Mike at the last moment, but Mike is quirky, temperamental and prone to blowing up. Riggan struggles mightily to keep his play from imploding, which seems impossible, as each preview is rife with major problems. Moreover the characters intersect, mostly disastrously while what feedback Riggan gets is that he is not cut out for the real theater on Broadway.

It’s all this and Riggan seems to have the mystical powers of his Birdman character, including the powers of levitation, moving objects and flying. It’s left unclear how much of this is real or a product of Riggan’s imagination. But it is impressive to be able to pull off these incredibly long and intimate scenes so flawlessly. I am sure it took a lot of rehearsals. It shows what can be done for so little money and in such a short period of time. I am not sure it deserved Best Picture but it’s quite fascinating as a technical achievement, but perhaps a bit longer than needed. Plus you get to see Michael Keaton go around Times Square in his underwear.

3.3 out of four-stars.

Rating: ★★★¼ 

 
The Thinker

Spock lives!

When us denizens of the Internet yesterday weren’t debating whether a certain dress was gold and white or blue and black we were mourning the death of actor Leonard Nimoy, famous in his portrayal of the logical and taciturn Vulcan (well, half human-half Vulcan) Mr. Spock in the original TV series Star Trek, not to mention a bunch of Star Trek movies and even some animated episodes in the 1970s. It was unclear to me which topic won the day, but I do know which topic will endure: Leonard Nimoy’s outstanding portrayal of our favorite Vulcan. Spock, and by extension Leonard Nimoy who defined him, has become immortal.

Here’s the truth about Star Trek: it was always far more about Mr. Spock than it was about Captain Kirk. This was because Leonard Nimoy could act and William Shatner could not, unless he had a really good director (e.g. Nicholas Meyer, who directed Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982)). But of course it was also because Spock was a far more interesting character. He was deep and mysterious, in spite of his projected lack of emotions and clockwork-like brain. He was different but somehow cool, an outsider but someone most of us secretly wanted to emulate. He was Sherlock Holmes on steroids, a super outsider fighting for truth, justice and the United Federation of Planets. He was virtually flawless: an intellectual giant that specialized in synthesizing disparate information for the benefit of good. His only flaw to my way of thinking was his dopey, over the top and undeserved loyalty to James T. Kirk, his friend for life who frankly deserved his scorn, not his admiration.

Unsurprisingly, Nimoy was thrice nominated for an Emmy for best supporting actor for his role as Spock while Shatner never got a single nomination. Maybe it was the 1960s, but we couldn’t get enough of Mr. Spock. Women in particular were fascinated by Mr. Spock. In a time when women were required to tightly reign in their passionate sides, Mr. Spock gave them a safe channel to vent. In particular women were fascinated by the Kirk-Spock relationship, mainly because it hinted that two men could have a relationship of great depth during a time when men’s relations with other men were typically superficial. Women knew there was something deeper there that us men did not see: a homosexual context. Perhaps Kirk was a repressed homosexual, or at least a bisexual. Spock’s puppy dog admiration for Kirk hinted that Spock’s ultra logical personality was a mere projection. Inside he was a cauldron of passion for his true love: Kirk, and certainly not Nurse Christine Chapel.

Spock was the infectious character of his time. While the series died in 1969 the character simply would not go away. Star Trek lived principally because of the subtext of the Kirk-Spock relationship. It was women more than men who kept the show in their hearts and petitioned Paramount for movies and spinoffs. When the movies became successful (and they did when the Kirk-Spock relationship became front and center in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan) of course the demand would spin off all sorts of Star Trek themed shows, some good, some not so good.

The emotional subtext of Spock aside, we grooved on Spock because of what he stood for. Our world today is far messier than it was in the chaotic late 1960s. But Star Trek producer Gene Roddenberry laid out an idealistic but somehow hopeful vision of humanity’s future where we had overcome issues like racism and classism. We lived in peace and in something close to utopia, except for the Klingons, Romulans and other another assorted unenlightened species we encountered exploring brave new worlds that wanted to do the United Federation of Planets harm. Star Trek inspired us. It inspired me. The Prime Directive (which Kirk often ignored) was an enlightened way that acknowledged the greater forces at work shaping civilizations. Maybe it inspired the Beatles to create their song Let it be. It shaped my thinking on our war in Iraq and how we should handle our current conflict with ISIS. It was Spock, not Kirk that modeled this new and enlightened universe. As long as this half-breed could maintain his civility and logic, there was hope. I often think that President Obama channels Mr. Spock, so much so that I wrote a post about it. Due to Nimoy’s death, the post has surged to the top of my most popular posts list.

It was Nimoy of course who impressively pulled off a plausible and coherent character that the rest of us could latch onto. Unsurprisingly, Nimoy developed a love/hate relationship with his character. It caused him write a book, I am not Spock and years later another book, I am Spock where he wrestled with his feelings with being saddled by the character. However, it was Nimoy that really brought Spock alive. The character brought Nimoy huge celebrity and also drove him to drink, but like it or not it made him and his character immortal.

Nimoy quickly became typecast by Spock, which put a serious dent on his acting career. He wanted to be more than Spock, but for the most part he wasn’t allowed. He dabbled in directing and summer stock. His most impressive non-Spock role was as Morris Meyerson, the husband of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. He was nominated for an Emmy for his performance, but didn’t feel too bad for losing, as he lost to Laurence Olivier.

Nimoy is gone but Spock has endured, and was most recently portrayed by Zachary Quinto, who was tutored in the role by Nimoy himself. At one time (2003) I was convinced that Star Trek was dead. These newest Star Trek movies proved me wrong, thankfully, because they were done so well. However, the reason they survived was because Spock, not Kirk, proved too popular to die. After all Spock died in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and we had to resurrect him, just like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has to resurrect Sherlock Holmes from certain death.

Nimoy, a Jew, did not believe in resurrection but his character is likely to endure and may prove as immortal as Sherlock Holmes in the decades ahead. It would not surprise me if when the 22nd century dawns that portrayals of Mr. Spock will still endure on popular media and Star Trek, in it’s 22nd century projection, will as well. United Federation of Planets, here we come! And here’s hoping that Spock will be in charge.

 
The Thinker

Double feature

Seeing double? I am, after seeing two movies in two days. Here are capsule reviews:

Selma

Having seen two of the 8 films nominated for Best Picture this year (The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything), it’s not hard to understand how the director and producers of Selma would feel overlooked for not having their film at least nominated. Some say that it is due to racism: when whites are largely responsible for nominating films, they tend to nominate films starring whites. But then again, it was only last year that 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture. Whether or not it deserved a nomination, Selma is definitely worth seeing and certainly feels on par with the nominated films. Then again, any film about Martin Luther King during the height of the civil rights movement, if made really well, would make a compelling movie. Director Ava DuVernay certainly delivers the goods with the help of a cast of thousands (at least in some of the protest scenes), but principally with David Oyelowo as King and Carmen Ejogo as his wife Coretta Scott King.

The movie had to be made with a lot of funding from African Americans instead of traditional sources, which some attribute to discrimination. Oprah Winfrey plays Annie Lee Cooper but also owns Harpo Productions. Her company doubtlessly paid for a large part of the film’s costs, since it shows up in the opening credits. The producers’ struggle to make the movie was doubtlessly easier than King’s struggles in and around Selma, Alabama in February and March 1965, which is the focus of the movie.

In a way this movie is a brave portrait of King, since it does not shy away from King’s alleged infidelities. It is not like his mistresses are in your face, but it is alluded to in a very grownup discussion between King and Coretta. It’s hard to see how King could find time to fool around, but it is clear that he was both great and flawed, which seems to be true of all our great heroes. Also flawed is the movie’s portrayal of President Lyndon Johnson. Very early in the movie, he is portrayed as wanting to punt on the Civil Rights Act in favor of more achievable goals. This is factually incorrect. Someday Hollywood will give Johnson his own movie because he is an interesting character, just not a particularly telegenic one. Selma does make clear that Johnson was a pivotal character in the civil rights struggle. Arguably, only Johnson had the power to get the Civil Rights bill passed, as his southern credentials (as well as his overwhelmingly Democratic congress) gave him the mojo to do this. Few blacks could actually vote in the south due to poll taxes and unreasonable voter registration requirements. This is the focus of the movie and the stage is Selma.

What Selma does brilliantly is connect us with the extreme discrimination and oppression in the south at this time. Your heart will race during many of these pivotal scenes. The focus of the movie is the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge by principally black protestors. These events are now fifty years in our past and thus beyond the memory of most Americans. The movie makes it easy to run back the clock and to understand the extraordinary bravery exercised by blacks (and some whites) back then.

King’s portrayal is thus nuanced, which make him plausible instead of glorified. Along the way we get a host of characters, some best forgotten like Alabama Governor George Wallace, and some we should remember more than we do, like Ralph Abernathy and Andrew Young. Like it or not you will get a close encounter with our nation’s ugliest side but you will also get a sense for the power of faith in action. King will bring down the walls of Jericho with the help of a lot of dedicated and very brave people. You should get an appreciation for King’s strategic and tactical strengths, and his ability to outthink his opponents. Short of being a reptile, you should be very moved by this movie.

3.4 out of four stars.

Rating: ★★★½ 

Lucy

Lucy is another movie that really deserved an academy award nomination. It will unfortunately receive nothing from the Oscars this year because it was not nominated for anything. Interstellar will probably win any awards issued this year for a science fiction movie, but really Lucy is the better science fiction movie. In my humble opinion, it’s the most mind-blowing movie in this genre since The Matrix.

And yet of course there are parts of this movie that strain credulity, with its premise being the biggest one. Morgan Freeman plays a professor that ponders what humans would be like if we could use more than ten percent of our brain. This is a lot of silliness, as we do use all of our brain, but perhaps not with 100% efficiency. Lucy (Scarlet Johannson) gets to find out when she unwittingly becomes a drug courier for a very special drug, reputedly a chemical created during pregnancy that stimulates creativity in the fetus. In higher doses Lucy will discover it will let her use 100% of her brain, and this leads to all sorts of magical powers and incredible abilities to use her brain and process information and discern truth. The bad men in Taiwan who put the drug into her body (and a number of other couriers) must take commercial flights with the 500 grams placed in a pouch sewed up inside their bodies. Some very well moneyed clients are waiting, which means that Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi) and his well dressed and well armed henchmen won’t let anything go wrong, and are willing to kill lots of people to make it happen. Lucy, once she is transformed by the massive drug overdose, wreaks her own revenge while trying to make use of her abilities to save her knowledge for mankind, while also certain that she will die soon from the cell replication the process spawns.

Johannson is a great actor and gives us a riveting performance as Lucy, while the director Luc Besson makes sure lots of people get killed in and around her for those of us who demand action, blood and gore. Lucy is not afraid to kill either, and with her new precognition she really can’t be beat. But things really get freaky as she uses more and more of her brain and starts to have supernatural and then god-like abilities. But can the knowledge she acquired be passed on before she dies, particularly when so many people want her dead?

This is a terrific movie for any science fiction fan plus you get tons of cool special effects to enjoy too. I’m frankly baffled why it wasn’t nominated for anything and why it wasn’t rated higher by reviewers. It’s a great film, the sort of movie where when you leave the theater you definitely feel you have been taken someplace new. And a bonus: Johansson can act. I can’t say the same about Keanu Reeves (Neo) in The Matrix.

3.4 out of four stars too! What a great double feature!

Rating: ★★★½ 

 
The Thinker

Review: The Imitation Game

Warning: The Imitation Game ends with perhaps the most heartbreaking five minutes in movie history. You might want to bring a box or two of tissues with you to the movie theater. Aside from the heartbreak principally at the end, it’s natural to feel irritated by Alan Turing, portrayed in this movie by the rising megastar Benedict Cumberbatch. Turing is not an easy man to like and really no one liked him except his parents and his childhood friend Christopher. Christopher is rarely seen in the film but he has really the major part in the film, as will become clear when you see the film.

Turing’s extreme antisocial behavior and brusque manner though did make a certain amount of sense. He was a product of his environment but mostly he was a homosexual. During the 1940s this was not something that you announced, or even admitted in duress. Homosexual conduct was a crime. To survive, Turing learned to keep his feelings tightly bottled up inside of him. Sexual orientation and intelligence have no correlation but perhaps his homosexuality fed his extreme introversion and fascination with mathematics. Today, Alan Turing is known as the founder of modern computer science. The movie is an attempt to show his impact on the world. I am a beneficiary of Alan Turing’s impact, for my career in information technology and my standard of living is a direct consequence of his work. Turing was the unknowing and largely unknown catalyst that brought the computer to life.

He was a more extreme version of Stephen Hawking, whose recent movie The Theory of Everything I recently reviewed. Hawking is a physicist. Turing was a mathematician, but both were geniuses in their own right. It was Turing though who succeeded in the impossible task of cracking the Germany’s Enigma machine, which was used by the German Army and Navy to decode instructions for German forces. This was done by sending coded broadcasts over the radio. The Allies had captured an Enigma machine but without understanding the cypher, which changed daily, there was no way to figure out what the true message was. Decrypt it and the Allies could probably win the war.

This was a staggering problem. Turing’s hope was to create a machine that would test all possible combinations and spit out a decrypted answer. It was an expensive approach and considered a fool’s errand. Commander Denniston (Charles Dance) was tasked with the project’s success. He disliked Turing personally and tried to cut him off. Turing simply went over his head and appealed directly to Winston Churchill, who ensured he had autonomy and millions of British pounds needed to construct his machine. Turing quickly got rid of many of those who were supposed to help him, but looked for suitable candidates by publishing a unique crossword puzzle and encouraging those who could solve it quickly enough to apply for a unique position. One of those he snagged turned out to be Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley) with whom Turing forms a close professional bond, something of a close emotional bond but obviously nothing of a sexual bond. Most of Turning’s staff found him thoroughly irritating and disapproved of his methods. They detected his underlying homosexuality and resented being forced to work for him.

Turing though perseveres, in spite of his initial ambivalence about the war in general and his difficulty winning the respect of those charged to work for him. He inexpertly fends off attempts to shut down his project and also inexpertly tries to win the respect of his team. Their work of course is highly secret and takes place in a hidden military base deep in England. Only one of his male coworkers seems to respect him: John Cairncross (Alan Leech, who you may know as the character Tom Branson from Downton Abbey.) John though is carrying secrets of his own. There is in fact subterfuge underway, which will become clearer as the movie progresses.

It won’t surprise you that the team actually succeeds, thanks to Turing’s machine. Once decrypted though the story takes a different turn, as British intelligence must figure out a way to use the information without tipping off German intelligence that Enigma has been broken.

The movie occasionally moves ten years into the future after the war when we learn that Turing’s patriotism is being questioned and more importantly his homosexuality is discovered, and prosecuted. Turing’s work was so highly classified that his importance to winning the World War II was unknown to the police. Turing nearly went to prison for being a homosexual, and avoided it only through chemical castration that was thought to control his homosexual impulses.

Benedict Cumberbatch is ideal for the role and looks a lot like Turing, except he is skinnier. Keira Knightley is also a good choice as Joan Clarke, but director Morton Tyldum overall does a fine job with this cliffhanger that takes place well behind enemy lines. What becomes clear through the movie is that Turing is a broken and dysfunctional man who inexpertly rises to the occasion. He was also a man of genius, foresight and determination. The movie makes clear the magnitude of his accomplishments.

Turing began the information age. Stephen Hawking was searching for the theory of everything. Turing not only won World War II for the allies but also effectively ended the age of manufacturing and ushered in the information age. As you disable your smartphone before the movie starts, ponder that his accomplishments made your cell phone possible.

3.3 out of 4-stars.

Rating: ★★★¼ 

 

Switch to our mobile site