THE TWO POPES

Jonathan Pryce     Anthony Hopkins     Juan Minujin

     It’s fascinating to hear two popes we’ve all seen on television having intimate conversations about their lives and about the Church, and showing in detail how the transition between the two leaders came about.  They met three times in the Vatican before the transfer of the papacy from Benedict to Francis.  Anthony McCarten based his script on his book, written after careful research and interviews with both popes (both of whom live in the Vatican). Director Fernando Meirelles says that all the lines in the script come from these interviews or conversations reported in the book.  It should be noted that the actual meetings are not likely to have taken place.  This is a dramatization based on McCarten’s work.

     But because the dialog is based on interviews with the real popes, the film conveys a sense of authenticity, helped along by the skills of the two actors and their genuine pleasure in one another’s company.  The story begins with the election of Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, who took the name of Pope Benedict upon his ascension.  The name of one of the other candidates was the always-reluctant Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  Ratzinger did not care much for Bergoglio, who was fairly openly critical of him, as was Bergoglio of Ratzinger.  And indeed, the two held starkly contrasting views about the Catholic Church.  In general terms, the earlier pope was much more conservative than the progressive latter one, who became the present Pope Francis.

    The two could not have been more different, one coming from Germanic beliefs about society and conventional order, and the other from a passion about the sacredness of the priesthood in following the teachings of Jesus in terms of humility and equality.  Ironically, what brought them together were their Christian beliefs and their devotion to the Catholic Church.

     The conversations and flashbacks remind or inform about the sex and financial scandals that surfaced in the Catholic Church during Benedict’s term and the political history of Bergoglio when he was a Jesuit priest first, then bishop, in Argentina.  In trying to help during the junta and subsequent “Dirty War”, he made some political mistakes, for which he paid dearly, but subsequently believed that the experience was helpful to him morally.  Benedict came to realize that he had not acted judiciously and promptly to address scandals.

     In this somewhat haunting—but always interesting—tale, all of the components of filmmaking are top-notch.  Writing, direction, and editing move the story along at a good pace, maintaining the viewer’s keen interest, and flashbacks and changes of location are smooth and logical.  Cinematography is stunning at times and simply gorgeous at others, and the music is in turns wondrously sacred, dancing, or playful.  (References to ABBA and the Beatles are sure to bring chuckles).  

     One of the most impressive scenes I’ve seen in a film occurs in The Two Popes during an especially sensitive event, when there is an ethereal ray of sunlight, soft religious music, the speaker’s voice seeming to go into a tunnel, then everything abruptly stopped, and what we see is the stark midsection of a closed wooden door.  

     One of the most touching sequences in the film is the progression of the two characters’ frank distaste toward and disagreement with one another to a place of intimacy, acceptance, and above all understanding.  It is clear that in the end, each learned from the other. Each acknowledged a change of heart and belief in a way that should inspire us today in our time of extreme antagonism and suspicion among groups.  

This is a film for everyone in its inspiration for overcoming discordance in a fractious time and its artful, even humorous, portrayal of a beloved, sacred system.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE WIFE

Glenn Close     Jonathan Pryce     Christian Slater     Max Irons     Elizabeth McGovern

     How many young wives have made the bargain of being a dutiful, adoring wife to their husbands with the tacit agreement that his career is top priority?  Countless, I would say, with most never realizing the long-term consequences of that bargain.  That’s Joan in the ‘50’s as a wide-eyed English student at Smith College taking a writing course from erudite Professor Castleman.  He praises her work—and asks her to babysit for him and his wife.  During that time, she is introduced to a female writer of some note—but not really famous—who advises her not to write, because publishers (who, at that time, are men) will not take women’s writing seriously.  Her books will end up only on university alumni shelves.

     It isn’t long before Joan and Joe are having an affair, and his divorce and their marriage come soon after.  But friction between them surfaces after she reads one of his manuscripts, which has been rejected by a publisher.  She critiques it honestly (and innocently), suggesting that the characters are “wooden” and the dialog “stilted”, and he goes into a narcissistic rage.  (Through the years, temper tantrums will continue to be one of his preferred methods for getting her to give into him.)  She responds by belittling herself and offering to “fix” the manuscript.  She is waiting tables at the time, and when she overhears men discounting writers who are women/Jewish, she runs home for “their” manuscript, gives it to the critical men, and sure enough, they agree to publish it.  Is there any mention of attaching her name as a co-author? No!  This is the fifties…

     The film opens on the cozy relationship between Joe Castleman (Pryce) and his wife Joan (Close), who have been married for years and have a daughter who’s pregnant with their first grandchild and a son, surly David (Irons), an aspiring writer. (Oedipal issues abound in the story, and are accounted for toward the end.)  Soon, jumping-on-the-bed rejoicing comes after an early morning call from Sweden informing Joe that he has won the Nobel Prize for literature. We get an “all is (almost) right with the world” vibe from the couple, and they head for Sweden along with their son David, who seems to be wishing he were anywhere else.  Clearly, Joan must constantly intervene in the men’s quarrels—which will make sense later on in the story.

     The rest of the film juxtaposes the luxurious Nobel surroundings and people with the Castleman family drama, one that realistically portrays the struggles families must undergo across time as new experiences and new events alter individuals in significant ways.  Everyone must adjust—some do so successfully, some not so admirably.  

     The Wife is based on a novel by Meg Wolitzer (screenplay by Jane Anderson) and skillfully directed by Bjorn Runge.  Although I usually don’t like films going back and forth in time, that arrangement works here in giving us some information in the present, then explaining it by showing past events.  The contrast between the Castleman couple’s coming together in the fifties and their experiences forty years later shows the turn of events that makes it seem topsy-turvy—but not if you pay attention to transitions.

     Humor, gut-wrenching interactions among characters, and apprehensions of all kinds keep the plot forging on while we sit transfixed, wondering how it will all turn out.  All this is beautifully dramatized by the actors.  Glenn Close is exemplary in her role as a woman of substance:  a delight, and a creative contributor, facilitator, arbiter, planner, and negotiator.  She is deserving of a major award.  As her foil, Jonathan Pryce is more than convincing as a self-obsessed dependent tyrant who has little insight in himself.  Max Irons is talented in portraying a range of characters, from FBI rogue agent (TV’s “Condor”) to disenchanted son with mountains of resentment; and Christian Slater is up to his usual portrayal of a formidable persona.

A family story outside the norm for “housewives.”

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS

Dan Stevens     Christopher Plummer     Jonathan Pryce     Miriam Margolyes     

Simon Callow     Bill Paterson     Donald Sumpter

     This film is related to the Goodbye, Christopher Robin story in its reflection of real events and troublesome experiences in the authors’ lives that produced the two works of art that have been beloved by the public for generations:  Winnie the Pooh and A Christmas Carol.  The Man Who Invented Christmas, Charles Dickens, drew on his own childhood memories, dreams (nightmares), and elements in his adult life to weave into a tale about a miserly old man who is visited by ghosts of his past, who make comments about his character and predictions about his future.  According to this account, Dickens identified with Scrooge enough to motivate him to make some changes in his own life as a result.

     The small book seemed to have a similar effect on the readers when it came out just before Christmas in 1843; and according to the historian who wrote the book on which this film is based (Les Standiford), it transformed the Christmas holiday from a Puritanical and Industrial Revolution attitude into one now considered as a time of giving and good cheer. Charitable giving in the country went up noticeably the year of its publication.

     We get a good look at Dickens’ life during the time he was writing A Christmas Carol, when he was reeling from three commercial failures, was ridden with debt, had a large family to support, and had the burden of caring for his parents.  There were constant interruptions to his writing, which made him lose his temper and make rash judgments, only to try to reverse them later.  The film shows his visions of Scrooge and other characters visiting him, inspiring him to rush to his desk to include them in his story.  An interesting aspect of the film is its depiction of Dickens incorporating not only his own memories and fantasies into his writing, but other observations he makes in his everyday life.  For instance, he has a nephew who is very ill and has to use a crutch (a model for Tiny Tim, perhaps?).

     Director Bharat Nalluri and screenwriter Susan Coyne present us with a story that cleverly weaves together Dickens’ everyday life with his fantasies, dreams, and the story he is writing, based on the book by Les Standiford.  Production design by Paki Smith shows the house in Victorian London where Dickens lived and worked, its transportation, factories, stores, and clubs in rich detail.  Music by Mychael Danna and cinematography by Ben Smithard evoke the period and, all together, the filmmakers give us a beautifully rendered period piece that is likely to appeal to the viewing audience at Christmas-time, although the general viewing audience may find it tedious to go through Dickens’ fits and starts in the writing process.

     Dan Stevens as Charles Dickens beautifully portrays the harassed young writer, who, although often displaying a quixotic manner, is constantly pressured by others (and himself) to distinguish himself from his father by being a practical businessman.  Christopher Plummer possesses all the qualities of a Scrooge who continually feeds the author valuable information and feedback.  Another standout is Jonathan Pryce as the feckless parent who is gifted in coming up with excuses on the spot for his failings.  Justin Edwards as Dickens’ loyal friend and agent and Morfydd Clark as wife Kate provide good support.  The cameo by Donald Sumpter as Jacob Marley is priceless.

 

The Man Who Invented Christmas is a worthy addition to holiday viewing.

Grade:  B+                                         By Donna R. Copeland