Floating Weeds (1959)

“Floating Weeds” is a simple film with a simple story. It is heavily weighted with Japanese tradition and culture, but there are still universal principles in the underlying message. Director Yasujiro Ozu communicates through his unique camerawork, his depiction of Japanese culture and familial relations, and through simple depictions of conversation the universal ideal of finding beauty in the every day.

Ozu is revered for his filming style. He uses an unmoving camera technique to create the feeling that the voyeur is paying such close attention to the characters he wouldn’t want to miss anything by moving. Each low-angle shot feels like a still and the lack of zoom, tracking cam, and fade-outs make it seem like the audience is catching a precious, intimate glimpse into real life. It’s as if Ozu doesn’t wish to jazz up the every day just to entertain, we should just appreciate the privileges of daily living as they come.

Family relationships play an important role in this. In most cultures, families are valued; it is no different with Japanese culture. Having spent time in Japan myself, I've learned that the ways we express our love and appreciation for our family and loved ones differ from America to Japan. Komajuro, the main character, certainly exhibits a certain compulsion to be in control of his mistresses and son. The idea of a patriarchal society is very important to the Japanese people. This acceptance of male dominance can be disconcerting for the foreign viewer, but this was not looked down upon in 1950’s Japan. Komajuro cared for his son, Kiyoshi, and wished to protect him. There are a few instances of physical abuse from Komajuro to his mistress, Kiyoshi, and Kiyoshi’s lover. Though this left me with a bad taste about Komajuro, it was still just a manifestation of him caring after those he was close to in the way he knew how. His devotion to his family, though his methods are different from our own culture, still help us see the importance of caring for our own family and appreciating our lives with them.

Ozu manages to capture these glimpses into the family life through simple conversations. Besides the overarching conflict of Kiyoshi not knowing his true parentage, there are very few major conflicts. These family relationships are just a part of life. As we learn from these families, it helps us appreciate those small, meaningless conversations with our own families. Many times, we talk about nothing. But those are still formative in our relationship building and bonding. These times are to be appreciated.

“Floating Weeds” is sometimes slow and much different from other American films. But given the time, it is rewarding to relate to another culture and see the ways they appreciate their lives to help us appreciate our own. 5/10





The Imitation Game (2014)

Morten Tyldum's "The Imitation Game" is based on the biography "Alan Turing: The Enigma" by Andrew Hodges. The movie title, of course, refers to Alan Turing's occupation during World War II working undercover "to break an unbreakable Nazi code and win the war." This British pioneering computer scientist must hide his incredible contribution to the war to protect the integrity of the project. Now we know their efforts to break the Enigma code were successful and we know who was responsible. But as this well-kept British secret remained classified for many years, it's taken some time for people to appreciate the extent of Turing's hand in significantly shortening the war. This is made even more significant when we think of Turing playing not one, but two imitation games. Not only does Turing pretend to have a different job than he does, but Turing pretends he is not a homosexual.

The irony behind this idea of imitation is that Turing's personality is completely unapologetic. With these two large secrets he must hide beneath, he refuses to let any other facade control him. His genius drives his creation of this code-breaking machine he fondly names after his childhood love, Christopher. Though he works with a team of other brilliant minds he compulsively does things his own way and doesn't do anything to suppress his abrasive personality. His coworkers struggle to decipher Turing just as much as they struggle deciphering the Enigma. Turing's sexual orientation, of course, plays a role in his socially awkward behavior, though I don't mean this in a derogatory way. Homosexuality was outlawed in Britain at that time, for Turing to acknowledge who he was would be illegal. Turing plays the game, but not without a breaking point.

Benedict Cumberbatch smartly and complexly plays the role of Alan Turing. Though I have been reluctant to join the Cumberbatch fan-girl bandwagon (which, to be frank, I still don't totally understand), I was impressed by his impeccable portrayal of the troubled mathematician. Turing's odd and disagreeable behavior could easily be dismissed as a dislikable character, but Cumberbatch brings out the endearing side. He allows us to see beyond the surface to triumph with his successes and feel sorrow over his pain.

Cumberbatch is perfectly balanced by Keira Knightley's supporting performance. She plays Joan Clarke, the bright female team member and Turing's close friend. She represents a much needed soft, lighthearted, joyful side to Turing's hard-nosed, serious presence. Knightley manages to capture Joan's struggle between her unfaltering loyalty to Alan with the subtle under-the-surface heartbreak of a love that could never be fully reciprocated. Other supporting performances are notable including Matthew Goode, Mark Strong, and Allen Leech.
The story itself develops like a suspenseful drama with pieces of a puzzle coming together in the manner of slow computers. The tone and pace are brilliantly fitting for a movie set in 1939 at the dawn of computer engineering. Of course the computing process is painstaking and Turing's discoveries take a while to make any real change because what we are witnessing is invention at its purest. Turing's story of technological breakthrough is told in classic flashback fashion, but it doesn't feel overwrought. Starting in 1951 with the intrigue of a police investigation and a defeated Turing suffering prosecution for indecency, to flashbacks of 1939 Bletchley Park (where the bulk of the narrative is focused), and integrating further flashbacks to young, bullied Turing in 1927. The jumbled patchwork of scenes slowly reveal different facets of our main character's life and being to help create this puzzle effect.

Though Turing's homosexuality was important to note in the plot, I was disappointed that the ending changed its focus so much to LGBT rights. Don't get me wrong, I support gay rights. I just thought the idea of homosexuals being subjected to such horrible treatment is, of course, cruel but was already represented implicitly. The explicit closing credits changed what the film was about. It's not a political movement. This is a film to celebrate intelligence.

In fact, this is where "The Imitation Game" succeeds best: in its inspiring depiction of brilliance. Though Alan Turing was a rather socially awkward specimen, he exhibited brilliance in more than just mathematics. Right after he and his team break the Enigma Code, his quick thinking to the responsibility they now held in the war is, in my mind, the time where he proves himself most as a genius worthy of respect. This is one of those movies where you walk away having learned more about a story worth hearing. 8/10

Comparing The Graduate with The Great Divorce


Change and growth are fundamental to the human existence. C.S. Lewis addresses this basic need for change and progression in his short novel, "The Great Divorce." Of course, the premise is based in Christianity as he illustrates his points through a metaphorical tour of hell and heaven. For the religious reader, the novel can provide many spiritual insights into repentance and help further their desire to devote themselves to God. However, when I read this book I didn’t think first of religion. I thought of the main protagonist in the 1967 film "The Graduate." One may wonder, why Benjamin Braddock? He isn’t religious; he has no desire to devote himself to God. However, Benjamin Braddock represents each of us on our own different but equally difficult journeys to change. His scandalous affair with Mrs. Robinson is the basis for his life of stagnancy and difficulty to move forward. "The Great Divorce" provides a framework for both Benjamin and the reader to overcome complacency and progress to something better.

Change is a process and both texts tell of characters on journeys. In "The Graduate", Benjamin is returning home to California after graduating from college. The opening scenes show Benjamin in the airport standing on a moving walkway. He stands and he moves, but he himself is not moving – illustrating this theme of complacency early on. People pass him, seemingly busy and occupied. But they are not real to him nor do they matter. Much like the translucent ghosts in "The Great Divorce," Benjamin looks right through them. His clear feelings of isolation could be perfectly described by Lewis, “In spite of . . . a ‘crowd’, the solitude was so vast that . . . [he] could hardly notice the knot of phantoms in the foreground.”

The narrator in "The Great Divorce" is similarly on a journey. At the beginning of this journey, he is found in a grim city he refers to as the “Grey Town” and he further describes it as a place where the people seem devoid of joy. We later learn that the Grey Town represents hell and few of its inhabitants choose to progress to heaven, remaining stagnant. The narrator wonders, “Do they like this place?” and a fellow passenger responds, “As much as they’d like anything. They’ve got cinemas and fish and chip shops and advertisements and all the sorts of things they want. The appalling lack of any intellectual life doesn’t worry them.” Benjamin Braddock, too, finds himself in his own Grey Town. Upon his return home, and after becoming involved in his affair with Mrs. Robinson, he quickly plateaus to a state of complacency. He becomes satisfied tanning in his swimming pool under the California sun with plenty of margaritas and sex for his pleasure. He likes it as much as he’d like anything.

At this swimming pool, Benjamin and his father have a conversation that is very telling of the situation. His father asks, “Ben, what are you doing?” to which Ben responds, “Well, I would say that I’m just drifting. Here in the pool.” “Why?” “Well, it’s very comfortable just to drift here.” It’s easy to see why a life of complacency is temporarily appealing. Even though going to work or studying will ultimately help people to progress more than watching TV would, the latter is still a more appealing choice. “There is always something they prefer to joy - that is, to reality.” However, it may be easy to be content with complacency and meaningless material possessions, but that further entails ignorance to the happiness awaiting those who choose to progress forward. Benjamin is disillusioned by his affair and doesn’t see how his stagnancy is damaging. To the Apostate in "The Great Divorce" who will not change, Lewis adds, “What is more soul-destroying than stagnation?” A life without change and without progress cannot bring true happiness.

There is always, however, something or someone to hold us back from making changes. In "The Graduate," this is Mrs. Robinson. She has a hold on Benjamin that prevents him from progressing. When he starts to fall for her daughter, Elaine, he finally realizes that he must make a change. Mrs. Robinson, however, attempts to prevent this relationship and threatens “to make his life quite unpleasant.” We all have vices and weaknesses that prevent us from achieving our potential, and could be manifested by anything from ex lovers to alcoholism. In "The Great Divorce," the Ghost with a lizard on his shoulder represents this type of vice. The lizard’s incessant whisperings are seemingly discouraging the Ghost from continuing his journey. Just as Benjamin was disillusioned by his affair and couldn’t see how he could get out, the Ghost couldn’t see beyond the lizard. He quickly succumbs to the temptations and starts to turn around until he is stopped by one of the Spirits. The Spirit politely asks, “May I kill it? I cannot kill it against your will.” The Ghost couldn’t do it alone. Lewis teaches us through this Spirit that we sometimes need a helping hand to get out of these inhibiting situations. It’s hard for the one suffering to see clearly and the task to overcome these vices is daunting. However, another person can see beyond our own capacity and understand our vices for what they truly are.

The ghost becomes a new man. The lizard’s transformation to a stallion represents his weakness becoming his strength. The Spirit teaches the Ghost, “Nothing, not even the best and noblest, can go on as it now is . . . It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Flesh and blood cannot come to the Mountains. Not because they are too rank, but because they are too weak. What is a lizard compared with a stallion? Lust is a poor, weak, whimpering, whispering thing compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed.” Though the Spirit is talking about spiritual rebirth, the universal principle we can learn is that true change must precede progression. Benjamin could have used this perspective. Though it is unclear how long this Ghost had the lizard with him, I can only guess that his journey to overcome the temptation was quickened by the aid of the Spirit. Benjamin was so caught up in his affair that he never sought other’s aid nor allowed people concerned about him to help. An outsider could have helped provide him with more perspective on his need to be reborn.

This process to become new and to change, however, is difficult. There are characters, like the Ghost with the lizard, in "The Great Divorce" that would wish to leave the Grey Town and continue their journey to heaven. In fact, some characters do leave and enter into another realm. They do not, however, anticipate the conditions of the next stage. In their ghost-like state, heaven is much too solid for them. The sharpness of the grass, the difficulty to navigate through the terrain represents the difficulty that comes with change and repentance. At first, it hurts. Who would want to remain in a place so painful to inhabit? The narrator soon sees that “if one stays . . . [there] one would get – well, solider – grow acclimatized.” So these characters must make a choice to either turn back and return to the comfort of complacency or to take the pain and grow.

Benjamin Braddock must also make a difficult decision. He has grown comfortable in his affair with Mrs. Robinson. He knows, however, that he will need to end the affair if he wishes to be with Elaine and soon sees that it could be painful. The choice to end it did indeed come with consequences and Elaine wished to never see Benjamin again. It would have been easy for him to step back from the pain and return to his state of complacency. But his choice to remain there – in the prickly, sticky situation – allowed him to acclimate. He knew he had found something better and was willing to work for it.

“You have seen Hell: you are in sight of Heaven. Will you, even now, repent and believe?” There must be a sacrifice in order to find heaven. It is not easy for Benjamin to finally get himself out of his rut, but when he sees the potential for his life ahead, he is able to repent. In the end he can leave his mistakes behind in Pasadena while he and Elaine move forward on a bus to an unknown future. Benjamin is able to change.

In the conclusion of "The Great Divorce," Lewis teaches that repentance is possible for all who wish to find it. The principle of repentance is much more than abandoning sin and searching for God. This need to overcome complacency and move forward with life is a necessity of humans regardless of their religion. As we reflect on our own lives in comparison to Benjamin and through the framework that "The Great Divorce" illustrates to help us progress, we can see that repentance and progression are universal. Though the future may be uncertain, there is more hope in choosing to progress than there is discouragement. And “if they leave that grey town behind it will not have been Hell”

87th Oscar Predictions and Picks

PICTURE: Boyhood
Birdman, maybe? I'm gonna swing for Boyhood on this one. But I have to say that Grand Budapest Hotel was my favorite from this year.

DIRECTOR: Richard Linklater - Boyhood
I love Inarritu, but just based on the 12-year thing ALONE, I think this should go to Linklater.

ACTOR: Michael Keaton - Birdman
This is a tough one (isn't actor always pretty tough?) it might swing to Redmayne, but Keaton was my favorite part of Birdman and should be acknowledged!

ACTRESS: Julianne Moore - Still Alice
Have you SEEN this movie??

SUPPORTING ACTOR: JK Simmons - Whiplash
There is literally no competition. Though I hope Mark Ruffalo gets his someday.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
I feel very solid in this pick. I never used to like Arquette, but she is great in this.

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Birdman
COSTUME DESIGN: Grand Budapest Hotel
ANIMATED: Big Hero 6
DOCUMENTARY: Citizen Four
I know nothing about documentaries, I never do, so it's always a random pick in this category.
DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Crisis Hotline
Same
FILM EDITING: American Sniper
FOREIGN LANGUAGE: Ida
MAKEUP: Grand Budapest Hotel
MUSIC: Grand Budapest Hotel
SONG: "Glory" from Selma
PRODUCTION DESIGN: Grand Budapest Hotel
SHORT FILM (ANIMATED): Feast
SHORT FILM (LIVE): Boogaloo and Graham
Wtf is this anyway
SOUND EDITING: Birdman
SOUND MIXING: Birdman
VISUAL EFFECTS: Interstellar
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: American Sniper
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Boyhood

Babette’s Feast (1987)

“Babette’s Feast” is a rather quiet film. There are no villains; there are no major conflicts between characters. Nevertheless, there is something we can learn from the quiet subtlety of this Danish drama. “Babette’s Feast” teaches that through self-sacrifice, we gain a lot more than we lose.

This theme is manifested primarily in the characters. Early in the film, it shows the two sisters Martine (Birgitte Federspiel) and Filippa (Bodil Kjer) sacrifice romantic possibilities and personal happiness in order to continue the religious ministry of their father. This can be seen as a great loss to them as they never married and sometimes you can almost argue that they are not happy. However, in their sacrifice to a religious ideal of their family they are able to form closer bonds with each other and with those that they serve in their congregation. That’s not to say that the film condones religion over love, but I think the film does promote the ideal that sacrifice is sometimes necessary when you truly devote yourself to something. Religion was very important in 19th century Denmark, as was family, and the film encompasses that ideology of the time. Through their sacrifice it is apparent that they gained more compassion and were able to show love more to those around them. This is shown when they take Babette in to be their maid and finally in the last scene where they realize how Babette has sacrificed things too.

Of course, Babette (Stephane Audran) is the main proponent of this theme. After she wins the lottery of 10,000 francs, she chooses to spend it all on a “vrai diner français” for the sisters and company. While it would be more logical to spend that money to return to her home in France, she instead spends it on the people who gave her shelter and warmth over 14 years. This provides the reward for the sister’s sacrifice in their youth in the form of a meal. It is a symbol, but I think the movie is trying to tell us that there are many simple things in life that are important to us, and sometimes good things come to those who wait. Babette, through her fiscal sacrifice, is able to express her gratitude and gain a sense of self. In that final conversation, you can see in her face that she feels content with her choices and that there was more reward in seeing those she cares about enjoy a meal and pleasant company than in selfishly returning home.

One thing I found interesting in context of this theme was the use of irony. The sisters – thinking the exotic meal to be some form of devilry – decide not to show any appreciation for the food itself for fear they will indulge in sin. I found this ironic, when you expect them to rave about the deliciousness they simply eat and quietly converse. I think the film was trying to communicate that when we do make sacrifices, the reward we gain isn’t always manifest in the way we expect. Perhaps Babette expected audible praise. But that wasn’t as important as the rekindling of relationships and the redemption of the human spirits that was shown in that meal.

Though this is a foreign film, I think the theme is universal. We are all humans and we all make sacrifices. This film helps us to remember why we sacrifice of ourselves and what can be gained because of it. It was an interesting film to think about and to reflect on, but it was still a little removed and slow. 7/10

Sometimes Less is More


When I was 13, I saw Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” for the first time. Like many others, I loved this horror classic for its creepy intensity and fascinating psychological themes. Afterwards, my mom asked me when I thought the film was made.

“I don’t know, like 1950?”
My mom responded, “What in the film makes you feel like it’s made in the ‘50s?”
“Um, I guess because it's black and white?”
“Lauren, what year was ‘The Wizard of Oz’ made?”
To be honest, I’m feeling a little sheepish at this point, but I respond, “Like, 1960?”
My mom laughs and says, “And why do you think—“
“Because it’s in color!”
“Would it surprise you to learn that ‘The Wizard of Oz’ was made over 20 years before ‘Psycho’?”

Yes. Why yes, it would – and did – surprise me.

In this amusing exchange between my mother and myself, I started to think about film and the way it is perceived by my generation. Black and white photography, silent films, and blue screens automatically label a film as “old” and “dated.” Many may think that the black and white Holocaust movie “Schindler’s List” was made in the ‘40s or ‘50s based on its cinematography when in fact it was made in 1993. Perhaps this has something to do with the ignorance of ~some youth in the 21st century. But this skewed perception of filmmaking has less to do with ignorance and more to do with a filmmaker’s deliberate decisions to make his or her film communicate something.

Like I said, I loved “Psycho.” The more I thought about the time in which it was made, the more I thought about what a genius Alfred Hitchcock was. Besides his many innovations in the suspense genre, he understood one key thing: he didn’t need to utilize all technology to tell a story just because it was available to him. The further into the 2000s that we go, the more we lose touch with the past in the entertainment industry. It may surprise some of you to learn that “Gone with the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz” were both released in 1939 in full color – over 75 years ago. Naturally, with the innovation of color technology it would make sense that there was no going back for most directors and they would continue moving forward in Technicolor. However, what is most fascinating about any new invention is that it does not erase what you already had available to you. In fact, with an increase of options also comes the freedom to do more with less.

In the 1950’s a stream of science fiction B-movies were released. Movies like “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “I Married a Monster from Outer Space” are hardly remembered by today’s audiences except through the occasional parody. These movies tried to make use of all technology available to them without much thought of effective storytelling. I could compare this to Michael Bay – a name most of us are familiar with. Nowadays, because technology has advanced so much in the last 20 years, there is a lot more you can do with film and Michael Bay has a knack for manipulating CGI to create some fascinating and mesmerizing eye candy. Movies like “Transformers,” or even others like “Avatar” or “The Avengers” have some incredible special effects that make these movies fun and enjoyable. But will those movies pass the test of time like “Psycho” has been able to?

Alfred Hitchcock chose to make “Psycho” in black and white despite it becoming more obsolete in the 60’s. The Master of Suspense – as he is known – knew how to captivate an audience with this throwback cinematography – reminding everyone of the film noir that took the 40’s and 50’s by storm and creating a mood that was dark and psychologically tormenting. He didn’t need color technology. But having color technology available to him helped to tell the story better.

Even Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” of this past year employs a lot of great special effects to captivate the audience and engage them in an exciting ride. But what Nolan and Hitchcock have in common are their selective usage of technology and the ability to transport an audience to another time. “Interstellar” pays homage to “2001: A Space Odyssey” – the classic sci-fi opus of the 60’s and effectively brings the audience to a different mindset than usually induced by the likes of other 21st century action or science fiction films.

Many young filmgoers in today’s society may be thrown by a film deciding not to use every special effect available to them just as it would be a foreign concept for one of their peers to choose a flip phone over an iPhone. But as we learn to appreciate the filmmaker’s perspective more we can realize that with more options also comes the option to use less. And more often than not, less is more.