DENIAL

Rachel Weisz     Timothy Spall     Tom Wilkinson     Andrew Scott

          Picture an intelligent, attractive young woman who is a professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta.  Deborah Lipstadt’s (Weisz) area of expertise is the Holocaust, and she has written a book about it.  She is gutsy, organized and articulate, and it’s obvious that her students respect her.  Suddenly, an odd looking gentleman begins lurking at the top of the theater style auditorium where she is lecturing, and during the Q&A intrudes on her class.  As a Hitler apologist, he starts arguing that she is wrong about the Jews being persecuted.  She knows who David Irving (Spall) is, a “pretend” historian she has previously criticized by drawing a distinction between the facts and his opinion.  He won’t shut up, so security is called.  Unbeknownst to her, he has an accomplice film her making critical statements about him, and two years later she receives notice that he is suing her for defamation and ruining his reputation. 

          The interesting part of the film is that he is suing her in a British court, where, unlike in the U.S., where a defendant is innocent until proven guilty; in London, it is upon her to prove her innocence.  I say this is interesting because an aspect of this film is showing legal procedurals, some distinctly British, but some I take it are common to both countries.  But the director (Mick Jackson) has made a very intelligent film based on Deborah Lipstadt’s novel (David Hare, screenplay) in which the legal strategies are entertaining and instructive, but in addition, we see how they affect an independent, outspoken, learned woman who is emotionally/culturally sensitive.  So in all, there is conflict in legal approach as well as conflict between Lipstadt and Irving, with social sensitivities and concerns mixed in.  Not only does Deborah want to testify, she wants Holocaust survivors to appear on the stand as well.

        Her team of lawyers, Anthony Julius (Scott), Richard Rampton (Wilkinson), and their assistants have a different plan, one based on logic in which emotion is minimized.  She is incredulous that they don’t want her on the stand, or talking to reporters, or bringing in survivors.  Moreover, they want to go before a judge rather than a jury.  “What?!”, says Deborah, “the truth of the Holocaust is to be decided by one man?”  She wrestles with the team every step of the way, and the naïve (to law) viewer will feel sympathy for her.  This provides the tension in the film; is the legal team’s strategy hair-brained or is it brilliant? Her attorneys explain the difference between putting the Holocaust on trial vs. keeping the focus on Irving, his veracity, and his motivations.

          I am impressed with Rachel Weisz’s acting range through the years, and notably this year, she plays an aggrieved mother in The Light between Oceans, a chameleon figure in Complete Unknown, and now a university professor in Denial.  In all three, she lights up the stage with immersion in her character.  Tom Wilkinson is his usual expert actor here, showing his character’s unassuming manner, dedication to his work, occasional self-doubts, and warm compassion.  Andrew Scott lends flash and charisma to a complicated character who can be playful as well as deadly serious.  The music by Howard Shore and cinematography by Hares Zumbarloukas contribute greatly to the mood, beauty, and drama in Denial.

      Denial falters a bit at the end when closing scenes are dragged out beyond a reasonable length, as if audience suspense needed to be hyped up.

An intelligent picture with legal strategy, personality, and social conscience all interacting.

Grade:  A-                  By Donna R. Copeland

SNOWDEN

Joseph Gordon-Levitt   Shailene Woodley   Rhys Ifans   Nicholas Cage   Tom Wilkinson   Melisso Leo   Zachary Quinto

           Oliver Stone and his co-writer Kieran Fitzgerald present a close-up look at the man who successfully blew the whistle on the U.S. Government for what he terms “running a dragnet on the whole world” by “tracking every cell phone.”  He says that terrorism is really an excuse for acquiring economic and social control for the supremacy of the U.S. Government.  We learn that there is a wide network of surveillance that encompasses the whole world, including friendly allies and virtually everyone in our own country.

     Who is Edward Snowden?  In the process of hearing about his life and his accomplishments, our respect for him grows.  He is articulate in expressing his observations, was a star player in his advancement through government posts by virtue of his intelligence and hard work, and regarded as one who is conscientious, questioning, and honorable in his values.  He made numerous attempts to give service to his country, but each time he encountered evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the NSA and CIA, it was a challenge to his conscience.  He tried to express his concerns to his mentor, Corbin O’Brian, the deputy head of the NSA, but was given rationalizations for the government’s going against the Constitution.  Finally, at great sacrifice of his personal life, he decided he needed to let the American people know what was going on.

        It’s a matter of historical record—and Snowden was actually warned of this—that previous whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and Bill Binney were severely punished for trying to go through proper channels in expressing the same concerns as Snowden.  It ruined their lives and their careers because they didn’t have concrete “proof” of their allegations.  That is why Snowden did not make a formal complaint and made sure he had the proof of his allegations; and so he is charged with “stealing” classified documents.

        Snowden carefully plotted how he would proceed, which was to fly to Hong Kong, contact a documentarian, Laura Poitras (Leo) and newspaper reporters from London’s Guardian, give them his information, and trust them to analyze and publicize it at their discretion.  As we all know, his plan after that was to fly to Moscow, then Cuba, then to Ecuador for asylum; however, the U.S. withdrew his passport, and he has been in Moscow ever since 2013.

          Stone wisely inserted into the story Snowden’s personal relationship with his girlfriend Lindsay (Woodley).  This serves several purposes; namely to fill out the picture of Snowden and show his human normalcy and the significant influence of Lindsay on his life and balance the wealth of technical information the viewer must process during the film with a real love story.

         Gordon-Levitt is award-worthy in his capturing the look and essence of Snowden, and Woodley gives her character Lindsay life that shows smartness, spunk, and curiosity.  They have wonderful chemistry in showing how this couple has remained together to this day, despite countless separations and pressures.  Ifans, Cage, Leo, Wilkinson, and Quinto are incredibly good supporting actors that help elevate the quality of Snowden.

      My problem with the film is its lack of chronology.  It seems to be a fad among filmmakers today to jump around in time.  There is some sequencing of Snowden’s jobs, but seemingly at random, we go back and forth between Hong Kong, Snowden’s relationship with Lindsay, CIA operations, Geneva, Tokyo, and Oahu.  I see no reason for this, and feel jerked around.

        After the screening I attended, we were treated to a live broadcast of a conversation with Snowden (via satellite from Moscow), and the filmmakers Oliver Stone, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Shailene Woodley, hosted by Matt Zoller Seitz (Editor-in-Chief RogerEbert.com and author of The Oliver Stone Experience). 

        In this, Edward Snowden gives us further proof of his character, saying that it’s obvious that he is “the world’s worst boyfriend.”  In the film, he and Lindsay have many conflicts about his official need for secrecy, his absences, and his preoccupation with his job.  Each time it looks like they’re about to have a normal life, he gets another offer of a position he can’t turn down.  At one point he says wistfully, “Lots of people cruise happily through life; why can’t I?”  He pays tribute to Lindsay in the televised conversation, acknowledging that she is stronger than he is.

       Oliver Stone elaborated on how the film got off the ground.  He had nine visits in Moscow with Snowden before they agreed to proceed.  He pointed out how much technical information he had to process, the wariness of Snowden which made Stone wonder if he would cooperate, and the time it took for them to develop mutual trust.  Snowden said he was impressed with Stone’s complete concentration and attention to detail on a project; “He was consumed with it”, he said.

      Gordon-Levitt and Woodley touched on the challenges and fulfillment of extreme emotional scenes and the rigor of multiple takes of the material.  Woodley commented on the media’s treatment of Lindsay after the announcement of Snowden’s defection, acknowledging that the pictures of her on the Internet were one-dimensional and stereotypical, whereas she is in fact a woman of depth and talent.  Gordon-Levitt expressed the gratification he felt when Snowden’s family attended the movie’s premiere in New York and thanked him—the best feedback he has ever gotten, he says.

         Finally, Snowden addressed the question of “I don’t have anything to hide, so I don’t care if the government monitors my phone calls, e-mails, and Internet posts.”  He said that “privacy is the fountainhead of all other rights”, so we should be mindful of what it means to lose that privacy.  He urged everyone to start at the local level in advocating for it, discuss it openly with others, and unite in efforts to let the government know we are against universal surveillance without cause.

A must-see for everyone who values their freedom.

Grade:  A-                                    By Donna R. Copeland

LITTLE BOY

Jakob Salvati     Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa     Emily Watson     David Henrie     Tom Wilkinson     Kevin James

            Little Boy is full of paradoxes, and at first I wasn’t sure what to think of it.  At times, it seemed like a story with a religious point of view (Christian at first, but then Eastern beliefs were mixed in); at times, it seemed to be admiring violence, but at other times, it seemed anti-war; and numerous times it seemed to imply a causal connection between events that were simply correlated in time. 

            Pepper Busbee, aka “Little Boy” (Salvati) is a slight, meek child of around eight who is small for his age and who is bullied by the heavy-set punk in town and his lackeys.  The refreshing part is Pepper’s completely innocent, inquiring mind.  He has an extremely close connection with his father who plays with him and uses fantasy to build up his self-confidence and self-esteem.  Unfortunately, this is during World War II, and the father is called away for military service.  In addition to Little Boy, he leaves behind his wife Emma (Watson) and older son London (Henrie).  London isn’t really old enough to manage his father’s business well, and he seems to have a chip on his shoulder and have a weakness for drink, so things will not go smoothly in the father’s absence.  In addition, the screenwriters (Director Alejandro Monteverde and Pepe Portillo) made Emma, the mother, out to be a “weak Willie”, who seldom gives guidance or comfort or sets limits when she needs to.  To the film’s discredit, the fully talented and skilled Watson is hung out to dry.

            The film deals with discrimination against other nationalities in the form of the local Japanese man, Hashimoto (Tagawa), showing the cruel ways in which a small town un-welcomes such a person in their midst.  London is one of these; however, the priest (Wilkinson) has subtle ways of protecting him, and unwittingly gets him and Little Boy acquainted.  Now, Hashimoto has a friend and Little Boy has two father figures to stand in for his beloved dad, the priest and the Japanese man.

            Much of the story is played out in Little Boy’s magical and religious efforts to bring his father back through mind control and charitable tasks that are similar to those in the Bible (e.g., give shelter to the homeless) that the priest has given him to fulfill so that divine intervention might come into play.  This ploy is challenged a bit by Hashimoto who relies more on a Zen-like philosophy.  A strong point of the film is juxtaposing these two points of view of two friends without taking sides with either. 

            Little Boy is engaging with good direction and skillful acting, and I especially appreciated its exemplifying differing points of view without taking a clear stand.  Yet, there was the irritating experience of feeling like the filmmakers were coming down on the viewer too heavily, as if the audience wouldn’t get the point or like a preacher who is trying to convert the nonbeliever.  It also seemed unnecessary—and a little cheap—to insert a sleazy character like Dr. Fox (James) who makes inappropriate advances on Emma when her husband is away.  Of course there are people like that, but the interchanges do not seem to belong in this type of film.

            Finally, I concluded that the bottom line of Little Boy was that small things and small people could have a huge impact on those around them and that belief in oneself is essential for that to occur.  From that standpoint, it seems like an uplifting story told something like a fairy tale, with “good” and “bad” elements made fuzzy so that the listener has to think.

A sort of modern fairy tale set during WWII.

Grade:  C+                        By Donna R. Copeland

BONE IN THE THROAT

Ed Westwick     Vanessa Kirby     Rupert Graves     Randy Nyman     Tom Wilkinson     Steven Mackintosh

Bone in the Throat is not a who-done-it; we know who did and why.  But the film is an exciting, fast-paced look into the world of a chef who is making good, coming from a Mafioso family, the consequences of which will become a problem.  Gentle Will (Westwick) works at Fork (nice pun), a chi-chi restaurant in Manhattan.  He’s doing well, and is dating Sophie (Kirby), the daughter of the owner, Rupert (Graves).  The problem comes when Rupert’s drug use and debts are catching up with him and he is behind on payments to the Mafia. 

When Ronnie (Nyman), the main kingpen’s hit man, is given his orders to kill Rupert, the unfortunate Will is a witness.  Now since he is “family” to Ronnie, everyone is reassured that Will will not reveal anything to the police, until a snoopy cop manages to get evidence by not-quite legal means.   The Mafia find out about, though, and then not only is Will’s life is in danger, but Sophie’s is as well.

Bone in the Throat is not simply a thriller, in that bits of comedy are thrown in, along with a look at a kitchen in a fine restaurant—not such an appetizing picture if you plan to eat at one anytime soon.  It’s a den of barked orders, personal conflict, absence of handwashing, and tastes from the simmering food pots, and even customers’ plates.  (Hopefully, this is comedy too, but maybe not.)  Some of the funniest lines are by and about Ronnie, something of an evil fool.  He loves fish, which he carries around, making others hold their noses, asking, “What’s that smell?”  He always explains that he prefers fish because “meat makes me aggressive.”

The worst drawback in Bone in the Throat is the poor sound quality.  The theater has to turn up the sound so much it has an echo effect, and this with the actors’ British accents, sometimes makes it difficult to follow the plot.  A minor disappointment for me is that with such elegant food being served up, the camera barely shows any of the plates, except at the very end.

Bone in the Throat has a lot of blood and brutal murders, but the very end is clever and satisfying.  It is based on the book by Anthony Bourdain, a former chef and current television personality and one of the producers of the film.

High drama in the kitchen.

Grade:  C+                        By Donna R. Copeland