Up today is another director associated with French New Wave, Jacques Demy. Though he was a contemporary of Jean-Luc Godard, Demy’s films are much different (especially Godard post-1970), with more optimism, and frequently about love, though usually with a melancholic feeling, like a lost love. The word most often used to describe Demy’s films is bittersweet.

Lola is one of those films where all of the characters’ lives intertwine, usually without their knowledge. Roland is a young, aimless man, who can’t hold a job and doesn’t know what he wants. One day he stumbles upon a childhood friend, Cecile, who has grown up to become a cabaret dancer and goes by the name Lola. She is Roland’s first and true love, but she doesn’t return his affections now as an adult. Instead, she misses her first love, Michele, who abandoned her as a pregnant young woman 7 years ago. Lola is pursued by Frankie, and American sailor, who is the focus of infatuation of a young girl named Cecile (the same name is obviously not a coincidence), whose mom is attracted to Roland, etc, etc. Obviously the film is about love, and particularly, how strong our “first love” can be. The film is much less esoteric than Godard’s stuff, and is a great date film if you want to try to dip your toes in the French New Wave without getting all wet.

I didn’t like Bay of Angels much at all, in fact the only thing that really sticks with me is its visual style. The movie is about a young man, Jean, who is introduced to gambling by his friend. Jean earns half a year’s salary on his first day at the casino, and goes on a vacation. You think he is going to cut with his winnings and be happy, but he finds himself at a casino again in the Riviera, where he meets a slightly older woman who is definitely addicted to gambling. Together the duo spend the rest of the film winning a lot, and losing it all, a couple times. Very little plot that I could tell, and I wasn’t impressed with the acting of the lead guy; I couldn’t make up my mind if we were supposed to like him or not. The one thing that was done well was the visuals. You could tell Demy was going for the starkness of black or white, right or wrong, etc. Everything is black or white, from the walls of the hotel to the dresses worn by the woman to the furniture in the buildings. Other than the visual appeal, the film was a dud.

Demy redeemed himself with his next film, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, his first major hit, and the one that launched Catherine Deneuve’s career. A musical, it is completely sung-through. It was his first color film, and he made good use. The bright, bold colors are beautiful, as is the jazzy music. Guy is a local mechanic, and he is in love with Genevieve, who works at her mother’s umbrella shop. The mother does not approve, because Genevieve is just 16, but she isn’t too worried because Guy is only 20 and hasn’t served his compulsory time in the French army yet. When Guy is called up, he and Genevieve “say their proper goodbyes” and leaves, and of course, shortly afterwards, she finds she is pregnant. She decides to not to continue to wait for Guy’s return, and instead marries a man who has had his eye on her, none other than Roland, who has finally moved on from his first love, Lola. This film is often cited as an inspiration for the recent hit La La Land, and it is easy to see why. Though the stories are different, there is still that bittersweet, longing feeling, and ultimately both are about a young couple who fall in love but are separated by real life. Other similarities such as the bright and beautiful colors (remember the deep blue sky, Emma Stone’s yellow dress, etc) are shared across both films. And even the opening tune of Umbrellas is musically very thematically similar to the main song of La La Land, City of Stars.

The Young Girls of Rochefort followed, and from the opening scene when a group gets out and stretches from what looks like a long car trip, and the stretching suddenly becomes a dance number accompanying the opening music, we know this will feel more like a traditional American musical than the previous film. Twins Delphine and Solange (real-life sisters Catherine Deneuve and Francoise Dorleac) are each seeking love, and the film plays out in as a series of missed opportunities and near-misses. Delphine wants to marry an artist, and it just so happens a young artist has painted a picture of her as his vision of the ideal woman. Solange wants to marry someone talented in music like she is, and it so happens a composer is in the area (a surprising French role by the talented American legend Gene Kelly). The twins’ mother runs a local restaurant, and she reminisces about her first true love, whom she fled years ago, and he happens to be a musician friend of Solange. These are just a few of the cosmic-level coincidences that the viewer watches play out in this colorful and beautifully shot movie. A lighthearted film, it was dismissed as fluff when it was first released, but I think it is much better than that.

Donkey Skin is Demy’s adaptation of the famous (or infamous?) French fairy tale of the same name. A king’s wife dies, but on her deathbed, she makes him promise that he will not marry anyone less beautiful than she was. The king decides that the only person suitable in his kingdom is his own daughter. This incestuous plot is probably why the story is less well known here in the west. To flee her father, the princess has his prized donkey killed and skinned, and wears the skin as a cloak. This causes people to think she is ugly and smelly, and she moves to a new kingdom to live as a scullery maid. The prince of this new kingdom sees through her disguise though, and seeks to marry her. The movie isn’t perfect, for instance, the princess’s father disappears from most of the film once she flees, despite his supposed insistence on marriage, but it is a very enjoyable movie. Was also Demy’s most successful commercially.

Demy’s other films weren’t as successful, but there are some worth watching. Model Shop is an American-made film which serves as a semi-sequel to Lola. In it, Lola finds herself in the USA after Michele has left her to run off with the woman gambler from Bay of Angels. A film made in the 80’s, Une chambre en ville, is also sung-through like Umbrellas, but is a much darker film, and was nominated for 9 Cesar awards when it was released. Definitely worth watching. Demy is definitely one of those directors who doesn’t have the name recognition, but has some real treasures.

In the last month of so, I’ve seen every movie Lucas Hedges did in 2018 (though it was just a minor part as the older brother in mid90s). This one takes the cake. Boy Erased is another movie about a teen sent to gay conversion therapy, the second such film I’ve seen recently too. In the other, Chloe Grace Moretz thought there was nothing wrong with her but she played along (at first). In Boy Erased, Hedge’s character, Jared Eamons, is the son of a pastor and thinks there is something wrong with him, and he can be “fixed.” He prays, he does his therapy, and he wishes he could not be attracted to other boys. The counselors at the camp blame family members, blame lack of faith, blame anything they can to say that it is a sin, and a choice, and that he can free himself from these thoughts. Really great film, with Hedges and also a strong performance by Nicole Kidman as his mom, who goes along with her husband’s wishes while hating seeing what it does to their son. Written and directed by Joel Edgerton, who is a good enough actor, but has a supreme talent for writing, and I’ve enjoyed most that I’ve seen (especially The Rover and The Gift).

The Old Man and the Gun is loosely based on the true story of Forrest Tucker, an old robber who couldn’t seem to stop robbing banks, no matter how many times he was captured (and subsequently escaped). Played by Robert Redford, he and his cohorts, two fellow old-timers (Danny Glover and Tom Waits), have been hitting banks throughout the midwest and south. Tucker doesn’t do it for the money, but simply for the thrill of it. He is being chased by the cops and in particular a smart young detective named John Hunt (Casey Affleck). Tucker seems to want to settle down, especially when he meets a woman he likes (portrayed by Sissy Spacek), but he can’t help himself. The film is fun and funny, and since Redford has since announced his retirement from acting at age 82, it may be his last. If that’s true, it is a fitting swan song: someone who, despite his age, kept on doing what he loves.

Bad Times at the El Royale is one of the most wild, fun films I’ve seen in awhile. It takes place at said hotel, a hotel with a checkered past. Four strangers check in to the desolate place in the late 60’s, each with a secret unknown to the viewer. We learn these secrets in the first half, in Clue-like fashion, and it all explodes in the second half. The film sets itself up with sinister, suspenseful intrigue from the opening moments, and doesn’t take its foot off the gas throughout the movie. It features an all-star cast with Jeff Bridges, Jon Hamm, Dakota Johnson (may be the first time I’ve enjoyed her acting, making me re-think my thoughts of her as an actress), and Chris Hemsworth, in a rare turn as a diabolical bad guy. A fantastic neo-noir thriller, and come prepared to be surprised.

The newest Harry Potter franchise film, The Crimes of Grindelwald, has a little bit of the Peter Jackson Hobbit trilogy in it, meaning, it is beautifully shot, has glimpses of greatness, but unfortunately never really materializes. Picking up where the first Fantastic Beasts film left off, the devious Grindelwald didn’t stay locked up for long, escaping in the opening scene. His goal is to recruit Credence, who also survived the first film, to some terrible, as-yet unknown deed. The Ministry of Magic wants the powerful Credence dead, but Albus Dumbledore does not. Since he himself is under the careful watch of the Ministry, he gets Newt Scamander to do what he can to help. The film plays out as a race between the various factions, as we slowly learn everyone’s intents and what skin they have in the game. Unfortunately now two movies in, the main characters have failed to develop to fleshed out, living, breathing heroes and villains. What made the initial run of Harry Potter films so great is the realism of its characters, and too many in this new series are one-dimensional. These films can still be fun initial viewings, but they ultimately become forgettable afterwards.

Triple Frontier is a decent thriller for lovers of the military-action genre. It is about a group of friends, former special forces, who come together to kill and rob a drug lord in Colombia. One of them has been working in the private sector down there for a few years, struggling to make a difference, and when he finally sees an opportunity to take down the head honcho, and in doing so make some money in the process, he calls up his old war buddies for the help. Fairly straight forward, paint-by-numbers film, and shoddy narrative at time, but an all-star cast elevates this one above generic “B” movie status. Oscar Isaac runs the group, along with Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy), Garrett Hedlund, and Pedro Pascal (Oberyn from GoT). Good action scenes, and the dramatic effects are just enough to keep the forward momentum going.

Not the first of the French New Wave (Truffault and Resnais, among others, beat him to the punch), but without a doubt it was Breathless that brought the movement to the world’s consciousness. Paradoxically an uptempo film with long shots, showcasing the gritty feeling of a Paris culture infused with American cinema style, and a jazzy soundtrack that sometimes seems at odds with what is happening onscreen (but which you later realize is inherently intertwined), Breathless is a masterpiece. It is about a ne’er-do-well who, in the first few minutes of the film, steals a car, abandons a girl, and kills a cop. However, he does have one thing keeping him from getting away with it all, and that is the love of an American girl. He doesn’t even want to admit to himself that he loves her, but it is apparent when he has chances to head out of town but keeps coming back to her. The real focal point of the movie though, as a New Waver will tell you, is the movie itself, and the story is almost secondary. Jean-Luc Godard put his stamp on the world with this, his first, film.

Band of Outsiders is what happens when a classic American heist film hits the French New Wave. It follows a trio of young people, Franz, Arthur, and Odile (the charming Anna Karina), as they rob Odile’s wealthy aunt. Franz and Arthur are your typical Godard men with a rebel streak, and they think Odile is a dumb girl, but really she is just young and naive. The movie is funny and engaging from its opening moments, and is often considered one of Godard’s most optimistic films, though it definitely had a dark undercurrent running through it too. There’s also a famous dance scene in the movie that you’ll recognize as having influenced several movies and shows you’ve seen. Certainly the most accessible of any of these Godard films I’m watching today.

I have really liked most of the Godard films I have seen, but unfortunately was not able to find that joy in 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her. The Her in this case is Paris, and Godard presents the film almost as a pseudo-documentary about the middle- and lower-middle class women who have to work as prostitutes to provide food for their families. There is a loose story as we follow a single woman with other smaller tales interspersed throughout, and there are moments I enjoyed, in particular, the voice-over narrator (voiced by Godard himself), who chats with the audience, often along with his actors who break the fourth wall, either as the character or sometimes as the actor themselves. But without a traditional story to follow, I felt like I was just watching Godard’s pessimistic views on the contemporary world and the ill effects of capitalism on society. A bit of a bummer for me, who has liked most of the other French New Wave films Godard produced.

I liked Weekend, from 1967, a whole lot more than I anticipated. I had heard it was very political, and it is that, but hell if it isn’t a marvelously made film too. Godard’s attack on the west and capitalism is ramped up here. It is about a married couple who leave Paris to visit the wife’s mother and dying father, not to see him before his death, but to make sure they get their share of the inheritance. If that not-so-subtle hint of lost humanity for the sake of the almighty dollar isn’t enough for you, Godard rams it down your throat for the next 90 minutes. As the couple make their way through the French countryside, they are confronted time and again with the breakdown of society, until they end up with cannibals and anarchists at the end. The film is famous for its long, scrolling camera shots, the most famous being an 8 minute continuous take of a traffic jam on a country road. The camera continues to move steadily past a row of stopped cars, as we see the drivers and passersby engaging in traditional western activities, oblivious and/or uncaring to the death and hurt of the people in the accident at the front of the jam. Almost all of the movie is filmed from a distance, both to show the destruction going on around our couple, but also I think to dehumanize them. This could be any two middle class people, they could even be ourselves, if we become too wrapped up in our own world to notice what is going on around us. Really great film.

After a decade away from making traditional films, in which Godard made movies with more political themes, he returned in 1980 with Every Man for Himself. At first I didn’t know what to think about this one. Godard’s character’s frequently have a rebel, devil may care attitude, but everyone in this movie seems to be a narcissistic asshat and/or terrible person. There is a father who sexualizes his daughter, the daughter and mother (ex wife) who only care for money and presents, and a prostitute who, when her very young sister asks for money, tells her she can earn it herself on the street instead. I think that’s actually the point of the film though. The characters are all emotionally detached from any kind of humanity, most notably in a scene where the prostitute is serving a couple men and all involved are just following directions by “the boss.” Like many of his films, music is closely intertwined throughout, to the point that some scenes are slowed down in order to let the music play out. Not one of my favorite Godard films, but not bad. And it does star the incredible Isabelle Huppert.

I enjoyed Wreck It Ralph, but liked the sequel, Ralph Breaks the Internet, even more. Taking place years after the first, Ralph enjoys the routine of his life, but little Vanellope wants more adventure in her life. When her racing arcade machine becomes broken, the duo ride the newly installed wifi router to the internet, and a whole new universe opens up. Ostensibly there to replace the broken part in Vanellope’s machine, she instead finds a new racing game with greater action, and meets new friends in the process. Ralph of course wants her to return to the arcade with him. It’s a great movie for all ages, dealing with codependent relationships and the meaning of true friendship, but has plenty of laughs for young and older alike (like visual throwbacks for my generation, such as the broken “Geocities” sign in the internet graveyard).

Shoplifters was a smash hit in its native Japan last year, and won the highest prize at the Cannes Film Festival too. It is about an extended family riding the line between poverty and all-out homelessness. Most of the family income comes from the grandmother’s pension, but everyone has a job, including a factory worker, a launderer, and a hostess club worker. The man of the house is teaching his youngest son, Shota, how to stealthily steal from local stores to also support the family. One night they come across a young girl who has obviously been abused by her parents, and bring her home with them. The film shows their daily ins and outs for quite awhile, and we get to know each family member intimately. When the grandmother dies though, we find that everyone has been keeping secrets. Though I thought the biggest revelations were telegraphed a bit too much, that didn’t take away from the fact that it is a tremendous and emotional film, about what makes up the true definition of family.

Monsters and Men received some accolades for shining a light on racial tensions that still prevail in the USA, and specifically, the sometimes murky truths when a black man is shot by white cops and the obvious anger by the black community when this happens. In the film, the man is killed, and all is captured by a cell phone camera, purportedly showing the man was not being belligerent and there were in fact 6 cops surrounding him when he was shot. It has good points and some strong scenes. However, some parts are hard for me personally to swallow, such as when a black adult woman says all the man was doing was resisting arrest, and she asks if that makes him deserving of getting shot. I can sympathize with a community who is always targeted, I get the anger and apprehension to police officers in that scenario, and I know I can never truly understand what a man of color goes through in his life, but if I ever find myself getting arrested, I know the last thing I would do is resist, whether I know I’m guilty or not. When a couple white cops are ambushed and killed, you think the pressure is going to ratchet up, but instead the film shifts focus to a young teenager in the area and his views on what is going on around him. This young man potentially has a bright future, but he is willing to throw it away for the groundswelling movement. It’s a decent, raw, unflinching movie, and I’m sure it will resonate more with a black person than this white boy, but I still think you can avoid a lot of problems in life by staying away from situations liable to put you in trouble. Fun fact: the main character, the black cop who tries to balance the color of his skin with his fellow officers and their collective views towards his race, is played by John David Washington, son of none other than Denzel.

Ben is Back is a decent independent movie, but it should be a lot more based on its cast, headed by Julia Roberts. It is about a young man who comes home from Christmas, but rather than welcomed with open arms, he faces hostility because he is a long-time drug addict. Ben seems to be telling the truth, that his sponsor said it was OK to leave the sober living facility for the day, but his step-dad and younger sister in particular don’t trust him at all, whereas his mother Holly thinks only the best about him. As he does more and more secretive things, the viewer starts to wonder if he is still sober or not. The film develops into an almost thriller/drama. The plot is a bit contrived and the dialogue is honestly rough at times, almost like it is based off a bad young adult novel, but overall not a terrible film. Good acting by Lucas Hedges as Ben (his father Peter Hedges wrote and directed, and he also wrote About a Boy and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape).

To round it up, of course I had to see Captain Marvel on opening weekend. Anyone who’s read my blog knows I’m a diehard for the Marvel films, and have generally liked them all. This one is an origin story, taking place in the mid-90s (the first to go back in time in the Marvel series since way back in 2011 with the first Captain America film). It tells how Captain Marvel came into her powers, portrayed magnificently by badass Brie Larson. I’m sure Marvel hoped for the best but feared the worst when she was cast; Larson has done a number of big blockbusters but has shined more in her small independent films (remember, she won an Oscar for Room back in 2016). As it turned out, there was nothing to fear. She commands the screen in this film. It follows her as she kicks ass and finds out about herself, and in doing so, sets up the start of the Avengers. A great backstory which seems to perfectly set up the final Avengers film (Avengers: Endgame is due in just about a month). For a series that started over 10 years ago and now stands at 21 movies and 11 television shows (with more on the way), it has grown to be quite the juggernaut, and somehow they just keep pumping out great stuff.

Ernest Hemingway’s last major work was The Old Man and the Sea, published in 1952. A short novel, it tells the tale of a single day of an old fisherman outside of Havana, Cuba. He is thought past his prime and the locals think maybe he has lost his mind, but one young man still believes in him, and believes he has much that he can teach. One day, the old man goes out by himself and goes further out to the sea than anyone else, in hopes of finding a great catch. He spends the day talking to himself and contemplating what he has left to offer, before he feels a great fish grab one of his lines. Over the course of the next 3 days, he fights the fish, tiring both of them out, but he knows how fish think and behave and is finally able to reel him in. However, the fish has pulled him even further away from land, and in the course of making his way back, sharks continually attack, and there is nothing left of the great kill before the old man makes it back, late at night on the third day. All that is left is the skeleton, and while its great size causes quite the stir among the other fisherman, it doesn’t change their view of the old man. The young man though promises to start fishing with the older, so he can learn his ways.

This book won a Pulitzer in 1953 and was cited as a contributing factor when the Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to Hemingway in 1954. Since it is written mostly in the old man’s head, it is written as he thinks, which is to say, it flows in a simple way but with quiet intelligence. The old man is not a scholar but he has a lifetime of experience in fishing and knows all there is to know, to the point that small actions in his conquest are carried out almost by instinct. He knows how to tire the fish, knows when to pull and when to let out line, knows what the fish will do and what it will not do. As the third day comes, the old man knows that he or the fish will die that day, and he is content with either outcome. Great, quick read.

Today we go back to one of the most famous actors of the silent film era, Charlie Chaplin. To anyone who hasn’t seen a movie or two of his, for thinking it is outdated, you are missing out. Probably the best pantomime actor of all time, but also an incredible director and writer as well. Though we shouldn’t condone his personal transgressions (he impregnated and married several woman much younger than himself, including a couple teenagers), he is without a doubt one of cinema’s greatest of all time.

Chaplin broke down a lot of barriers with his film The Kid in 1921. To this point, he had become famous making 2 and 3 reel shorts with his Tramp character, but he wanted to make a full, feature length film. When he was told it would be impossible to keep the comedy going for that long, he replied that the film would also have a drama element. We take it for granted now, but at this time in film (and radio, and theater), comedies and dramas were kept apart, as producers thought the audience would be confused if you joined them. In The Kid, the Tramp becomes a surrogate father to an abandoned child and raises him as his own. Always poor (as Chaplin’s Tramp always was), the duo have several adventures, but always manage to rely on each other in the worst of times. Very funny but also very endearing, the film clearly shows Chaplin was ahead of his time.

The Gold Rush, from 1925, may be Chaplin’s favorite movie, and he is on record for saying it was the one he most wanted to be remembered for. Most of Chaplin’s silent films were created spontaneously; he would have a general idea for the movie, but the film with develop during shooting (and re-shooting) until it made a cohesive whole. Not so for The Gold Rush, which was fully written before he started filming. It is also the only silent film that he later “converted” to sound, releasing (in 1942) with narration replacing the intertitle cards, and a new musical score. It even won a couple Oscars upon the re-release. I watched the original silent film though, and really enjoyed it. The Tramp finds himself in the great north, swept up in the search for gold with hordes of others. Along the way, he finds a close comrade, fights off a villainous murderer, falls in love, and ultimately becomes rich. Chaplin is at his comedic best, but the film is also chuck full of adventurous tension and unrequited love, and you are truly pulling for the little guy from the very beginning. If you are going to watch any Chaplin film, watch this one.

As forward-thinking as Chaplin was in his writing, he resisted “talkies,” probably because he had become so famous in his silent films. City Lights came out in 1931, four years after The Jazz Singer broke “the sound wall,” but Chaplin stayed the course for the silent era. Another comedy-drama, in this one, the Tramp falls in love with a blind girl. He uses his friendship with a rich man (who only recognizes Chaplin’s character when he is rip-roaring drunk) to get money to support the girl, ultimately finding a way to pay for an operation for her to regain her sight. In doing so though, he is accused of theft and sent to jail. When he emerges months later, he tracks down the girl, who only recognizes him when she touches his hands in the final scene. Maybe even more heartwarming than The Kid, City Lights showcases Chaplin as an actor with decades of experience behind him, and coming into his own as a director.

Chaplin’s last use of the Tramp character, and his last silent film, was Modern Times in 1936. Released nearly a decade after sound make its way to the cinema, it is a fitting farewell. Ostensibly about the Tramp falling in love with a poor girl and being unable to support her in a down economic time (and his own laughable inability to hold even a menial job), the film really satirizes the changing world as a whole, and the movie industry in particular. Obviously under a lot of pressure to move to sound films (though he had full creative control through his deal with United Artists), he thumbs his nose at his naysayers by making a clever, funny movie with virtually no dialogue. When the Tramp opens his mouth and sings a song in the final minutes of the film, the words are just gibberish, yet still we laugh.

Chaplin’s first sound film came in 1940, The Great Dictator. Very controversial at the time, it satirizes Hitler (called Adenoid Hynkel here), with Chaplin playing both him and a Jewish barber concurrently. Hynkel is portrayed as a petulant child, a bumbling idiot with a temper. He makes rash decisions that his advisers need to keep talking him out of. The barber is a regular joe trying to get by in a crazy world, but he is able to avoid persecution for having saved a Tomainian (German) officer during the first World War, an officer who went on to be high up in the government. Through a crazy turn of events at the end of the film, the barber is mistaken for Hynkel and finds himself on the podium addressing a mass of military and citizens. Here, Chaplin comes out of character, faces the camera, and gives an impassioned speech for people to fight fascism and dictatorship, a speech that seems to mean as much today as it did in 1940. Look it up and read it, or better yet, watch the film.

Next up on the list is a book that remains a standard in elementary/middle school literature: The Call of the Wild by Jack London. A short novel, it follows a dog, Buck, who is “dog-napped” because of his large size, and taken from his home in California up to the Canadian Yukon territory, to serve as a sled puller during the Klondike gold rush. Having previously led a life of comfort, Buck is faced with the cruel and demanding conditions of a harsh landscape, kill-or-be-killed confrontations with other dogs, and the whims of his human masters. After a few terrible moments early in his new life, Buck is able to assert his dominance in great part due to his size, strength, and cunning, but ultimately he loses all semblance of the docile animal he used to be. Buck’s existence becomes a stream of changing owners, some kind but firm, others dumb and unready for the unforgiving climate. Along the way, he makes friends and enemies alike among the other dogs, but sadly it seems none survive long in such an environment. When his last, loving human master dies, Buck heads off into the wild to rule over wolves and wild dogs.

For such a short book (the paperback I read was just 130 pages long), there are a lot of evident themes to ponder, the most prominent for me being the obvious nature vs nurture argument. Buck comes from a life of privilege but finds it easy to become a master hunter and killer when the need arises. London also continually strikes home the law of survival of the fittest, as Buck fights first against Spitz, the old and cruel leader of Buck’s first pack, and later against other animals and humans. Weakened or sick dogs are put down so as to not hold up the rest of the group. This is a fun, quick read, and was a welcome respite from my last couple long and at times tedious book reads.

Sometimes you just have the read a book at the right time to really enjoy it, otherwise you might not. I firmly believe that is the case for To the Lighthouse, by Virginia Woolf. This is the third of her books I’ve read. I found Orlando and Mrs Dalloway fairly boring, but for some reason, I really dug this one, though written between those first 2 books, it is much like them in style (especially compared to Mrs Dalloway). It is very introspective, in fact there is little dialogue and even less “action,” with most of the book taking place inside its characters’ minds. Even so, it is beautifully written and engrossing from page to page.

The book follows a family and their circle of friends, living at a summer home on a coast. The book starts inside the head of Mrs Ramsay. She is kind and patient to those around her, in start contrast to her bullying husband. Mr Ramsay is a somewhat well-known philosopher but he is egotistical and downright rude to others. They have many children together, including the youngest, James, who wants to visit the Lighthouse seen from the window. Mrs Ramsay promises to take him, but over the course of a long day, Mr Ramsay continually denies the request, mostly because he doesn’t want to be put out. Other guests float in and out of the day, including Lily, a talented but unsure painter.

The second part of the book jumps ahead 10 years to another day. Now after World War I, several people have died, including Mrs Ramsay, but the friends return to the summer house and sort of pick up where they left off. Mr Ramsay is finally taking his teenager son James to the Lighthouse, but James’ fear as a youngster has turned into hatred as a young man, and he promises himself that he will kill his father if he so much as makes one harsh comment. However, near the end, he is actually praised, for perhaps the first time in his life. Lily is also finally able to overcome her self-doubt and finish the painting she started 10 years earlier.

That is really most of the story in a nutshell, but as I said, the devil is in the details. The doubts of Lily, the patronizing attitude of Mr Ramsay, and the jealousy of James are all carefully described in Woolf’s melodic, lyrical prose. It falls just this side of stream of consciousness writing, which is good for me because I typically do not like those books. I really enjoyed this one though. It is beautifully written and has a quiet suspense too. For much of the book, it felt like the women were colorful and intriguing, and the men were all one-dimensional, but Mr Ramsay redeemed himself and his sex in the end. After feeling let down after the first two Woolf books, I feel like I finally see what all the buzz has been about for the last hundred years or so. Truly fantastic writing.

Starting today with a great film that, I think, can hit very close to home for a lot of people in our country, on a subject very often not talked about. Private Life is about a couple in their upper 40’s who have waited, possibly, too late to decide they want to have children. Richard (Paul Giamatti) and Rachel (Kathryn Hahn) have all ready done several cycles of IUI and are now moving on to the more expensive IVF. At the same time, they are exploring adoption and surrogacy, but so far are finding dead ends and disappointment everywhere. When it becomes clear that Rachel can’t provide enough viable eggs, a niece steps forward to offer one of her own, against her mother’s wishes. But even this doesn’t seem to go well. I’m not telling if you’ll find a happy ending here or not, but you will find fantastic performances by all actors involved, and a truly special movie that explores all aspects of the frustration over infertility, including family problems, the drain on the relationship and sex life, the stigma that follows women who have problems conceiving, and everything else.

Telling the story of Queen’s rise to stardom from humble beginnings, culminating in their triumphant concert at Live Aid in 1985, as well as Freddie Mercury’s personal struggles, Bohemian Rhapsody features a standout performance by Rami Malek as Mercury. I write this the day before the Oscars, so I don’t know yet if he won, but he is certainly deserving. Though the movie is just OK (not bad, not great), Malek IS Mercury for those 2 hours, and not just because of the dental prosthetic he used to help get him the look. Those biopics where the actor disappears and the muse is all we see are the ones that stand out to me, and this fits the bill. The film tries to do its best to show all of the members of Queen, and continually drives home that the band was a family as a whole, but make no mistake, this is Malek’s film and he commands the camera in every scene, just as Mercury did in life.

The Miseducation of Cameron Post stars Chloe Grace Moretz as Cameron, a high school girl in the early 90’s, found making out with a girl in a car outside of their homecoming, and then sent to a gay conversion therapy center by her Christian parents. There, Cameron is continually questioned by adults and other teenagers as to why she has feelings for girls, and why she is the way she is, and who did this to her, but Cameron doesn’t know why. She faces the questions the same way someone would ask why the sun comes out every day: just because it does. At the same time, she does make friends among those that are forced to be there, who aren’t trying to “get better.” The film depicts some of the downright ridiculous things that go on in these camps (Maybe Cameron likes girls because she has a masculine name? A boy getting his hair shaved off by a teacher for letting it grow too long.) and some of it is hard to watch, especially a devastating moment near the end. A powerful line comes in the last 10 minutes when a person asks Cameron if she is being emotionally abused here, and her reply is, “How can a place that teaches you to hate yourself not be emotionally abusive?” Moretz has all ready made a ton of movies at her young age (just 22 right now), and she’s had both hits and misses. I’ve always found her to be at her best in the smaller, independent films she’s done, and she shines here again.

What They Had is about a family clinging to things that just aren’t there anymore, no matter how much they wish it were so. Bitty clings to her daughter’s college education, though the daughter hates school. Bitty is also clinging to her 20 year marriage, which is perfect on the surface but miserably lonely to her. At the center of it all is Bitty’s parents Norbert and Ruth. Ruth is suffering from dementia but Norbert is clinging to the memory of how things were, and refuses to let her go to a care facility, despite her becoming increasingly more dangerous to herself. Bitty’s brother Nick is the pragmatist who sees everything as it truly is. The film is about a lot of things, much can be taken from it, but perhaps what I took the most is the traps we can fall into in our closest relationships. It is easy to play a part, because it is safe, expected, and comfortable, but perhaps not always the best for us. Great work by all four leads, Hilary Swank, Michael Shannon, Robert Forster, and Blythe Danner.

I tried to like Suspiria, even though I think lead actress Dakota Johnson can’t act her way out of a paper bag. It has an interesting premise and I really wanted to get into it, but I could only make it 1 hour and 8 minutes before tossing in the towel. The setup takes place in 1970s Berlin, at a famous dance school, with newly arrived Susie there to take the world by storm. A former student has just mysteriously gone missing, after having spewed crazy stuff about witches and rituals about the school to a psychiatrist. Great start, unfortunately a suspenseful thriller should have both suspense and thrills, and this film just seemed to be spinning its wheels. There were a couple good moments, and some grisly scenes that will leave even a horror film connoisseur squeamish, but if there’s not enough after an hour, I’m not sticking around for the rest. The movie is based on an Italian classic which is highly regarded, so maybe I’ll give the original a go sometime.

The infamous axe murders of 1892, which became tabloid fodder and spurned a fun little rhyme, are depicted in the film Lizzie. Lizzie Borden and her sister Emma were adult women living in a very strict home with their father, step-mother, and a housemaid, Bridget. After enough backstory is developed, the murder of the parents goes down, and Lizzie is tried for their murder. The film does a good job of showing all the flaws of the father, his molestation of Bridget and metal abuse of his daughters, providing motive of the killing for several people. The acting is superb, especially from Chloe Sevigny as Lizzie and Kristen Stewart as Bridget. I don’t know how historically accurate the film is, but I enjoyed it; it is a good character-driven film perfect for lovers of period dramas, with a bit of quiet suspense thrown in.

Sometimes fantastic acting makes the film, and sometimes it just isn’t enough. For some odd reason I couldn’t connect with Journey’s End, which is lauded by critics but did little for me. It follows a company of British soldiers as they take their place in a trench, right on the front lines in World War I. They must spend 6 days here before they are swapped out again, and all know that a German attack is imminent. They also know that no reinforcements are coming, and they are supremely outnumbered at this front. The movie is mostly about the comradery of the soldiers, faced with certain death in an impossible situation. Their fear is palpable through the screen, but honestly I was bored for much of the film. Maybe I just wasn’t in the mindset today, but for a war film, I expect more than 20 or so minutes of real action.

A Bag of Marbles is a French film following a Jewish family in Paris during the Nazi occupation of World War II, and specifically, the two youngest boys, Jojo and Maurice. When the father sees the writing on the wall that German forces will start rounding up the Jews, he separates the family and tells everyone to meet up in southern France, which is occupied by Italy and thus less antagonistic to Jews. Jojo and Maurice go on quite the adventure but do arrive their safely. Unfortunately the peace is short lived before they must separate again and continue to hide. Over the following years, the two rely on each other while always seeming to be one day away from being caught, and constantly hoping for news from their parents or older brothers. Amazingly, I found out during the end credits that it was based on a true story, though I’m sure it was a similar story for many who survived that terrible moment in our history. Fantastic film about an incredible story.

Another tremendous film is Beautiful Boy, and also based on a true story. This one features tour de force performances by Steve Carrell and Timothee Chalamet as a father and son. David Sheff seems powerless to help his son Nick overcome his drug problems. The movie is nearly non-linear, with frequent jumps back in time, both short and long, to show Nick’s gradual descent into full-on addiction. David reminisces about the care-free, loving little boy Nick used to be, and can’t wrap his head around how Nick came to be in this predicament. In and out of rehabs, nothing seems to work. Even surviving an overdose doesn’t turn Nick’s life around. As a viewer, we see all of the pain this is causing David, and I kept rooting for Nick to find peace. Unfortunately as the movie goes along, we aren’t sure if we’ll get the Hollywood ending or not. More heart-breaking than heart-warming, it is one of the powerful films I’ve seen in awhile.

Final film today is mid90s, a coming-of-age film taking place in the era it advertises, which so happens to be my own. However, as a goody two shoes, I didn’t participate in most of the activities portrayed in this film. Written and directed by Jonah Hill, this movie has plenty of humor, but none of which detracts from the unabashed look at the want, or need, for acceptance among others at one of the most critical points in a person’s development. Stevie is a 13 year old, small for his age, who has no power in his personal life and no friends in his circle. He is bullied by his much older brother and suffocated by a single mother. Stevie finds friends in a local group of skaters, and is introduced to the world of drinking, marijuana, and sex. A very raw film, I was uncomfortable with the portrayal of Stevie, mostly because he looks so young, but the movie does (I think) accurately show the experiences of many that grew up in the 90s, even if it differed from my own. I totally understand the human need for a sense of belonging, and I couldn’t help but be reminded of a scene in Good Will Hunting, where Robin Williams’ character says, “Why does he hang out with those retarded gorillas as you called them? Because any one of them, if he asked them to, would take a bat to your head. That’s called loyalty.”