13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI

John Krasinski   Max Martini   Pablo Schreiber   Dominic Fumusa   David Constabile   James Badge Dale

          13 Hours is based on the accounts of five members of a special operations force [Global Response Staff (GSR)] that was contracted by the CIA to provide back-up security in Benghazi, Libya, written up in a book by Mitchell Zuckoff.  The team is sent to a “temporary diplomatic outpost” which they find woefully inadequate in security measures and they question the competence of the local guards.  According to the book and the film, the chief officer (played by David Constabile) is dismissive of them, questions their judgment, and is critically slow in making emergency decisions.  This is alarming when we learn of the experience and judgment previously shown by the individuals in the GSR.  The film is not meant to be a political statement or exploration of cultural elements of the September 11, 2012, attack; it’s a reflection of what the team experienced in the operation, their doubts, their pain, and love for one another; and, finally, reveals a certain amount of resentment that the country did not fully acknowledge their heroism.

          For the average viewer, the film is difficult to watch, in that it’s like reading a warrior’s diary that only talks about battles, the tediousness of waiting for the next round—whatever that may be—and the frustration of bureaucracy and an incompetent leader.  Yes, we see a number of sieges taking place, the infrared views of terrorists sneaking up to the compound, and endless exchanges of barrages of bullets and mortars, but through the lens of a jumpy camera in the dark, which reveals little about who the figures are. 

        I find that the biggest fault of this film is that it offers little about the political/social context in which the action takes place.  It seems like the GSR team is so much more capable than the CIA and the U.S. government powers that be—and that may very well be true.  However, the film does not provide the viewer with any validation of the premise and does not go into any of the complexities involved in personal, cultural, or international terms. 

Direction by Michael Bay, cinematography of Dion Beebe, and the portrayals by actors John Krasinski, Max Martini, and David Constabile are OK, especially the brother-to-brother talks about what everything meant in the end; I just wanted more.  I am glad to have heard the account of this trying time, however.  Maybe I’m expecting too much.  Wouldn’t it have been great if the film could have explained more than what the government-appointed review board and Senate/House Committees uncovered?

Battle scenes galore without much elucidation.

Grade:  C                         By Donna R. Copeland

WHERE TO INVADE NEXT

     In his usual, clever, playful style, Michael Moore decides he will “invade” other countries to see what he can bring back to America that will be useful to us.  His travels take him to Italy, France, Finland, Slovenia, Germany, Portugal, Norway, Tunisia, and Iceland. 

In all these countries he finds valuable benefits that started in the U.S., but somewhat mysteriously, are no longer available.  For instance: 

• Worker benefits (more vacation time, fewer hours of work, maternity leave), representatives from the working class sitting on boards, boards more equally represented between males and females, and unions that negotiate peacefully with corporate management.
• Educational programs that maintain excellence without mountains of homework or standardized tests, no student debt for higher education, and healthy meals in the cafeteria.
• Absence of laws against drugs—those who get addicted are treated rather than incarcerated.
• A modern prison system in which prisoners are rehabilitated rather than punished (recidivism is only 20%, as compared to the U.S. 80%), there is no solitary confinement or death penalty.
• Civil protesting is more common than in the U.S. and has been effective in keeping tuition-free universities and women’s rights.
• Finally, perpetrators of banking fraud have been punished.

     So, once again, we learn that the U.S. is not first in any of the major areas of living:  Educational opportunities without tuition, participation of women and the middle class in running a company, respect and consideration for the rights of workers, and effective treatment of drug users and prisoners.

     Well, of course upon hearing about all the services governments provide their citizens, we immediately think about how high their taxes must be.  Moore shows with graphs how much more we actually pay for the services with hidden costs that are no different from taxes, e.g., co-pays for health care.   Most (60%) of our taxes go for military costs instead of education, health care, or infrastructure.

     The ironic part of all these “goods” is that they all originated in America, but we have gradually allowed them to be taken away for a number of reasons.  An articulate woman in Iceland stated that she wouldn’t want to live in the U.S. because we’re not neighborly; we don’t take care of others around us, and seem to have only our individual interests uppermost in our minds.  Another problem implicit in Moore’s interviews is that we do not protest when unjust laws are passed or unfair policies are enacted.

     Moore gives us a comprehensive look at what other countries offer their citizens, and even though most of them originated in the U.S., we have fallen far behind.  I’m not sure how entirely accurate his figures and conclusions are, but I think we can guess that he is mostly right.  A friend did point out to me that all these benefits are achieved much more easily in smaller countries that until recently have been more homogenous in ethnicity, class, and culture. 

    This is a sobering documentary on how much less American citizens receive from government and corporations compared with other Western nations, even though, if hidden costs are calculated along with taxes, we pay more, work longer hours, and receive fewer benefits.

And the comparative status of Americans’ lives in the world?

Grade:  B+                                              By Donna R. Copeland

THE FOREST

Natalie Dormer     Eoin Macken     Taylor Kinney

            The Forest is really for fans of horror who still get thrilled even in the face of obvious tricks (e.g., sudden blasts of noise or light to make the audience jump) and characters who do really foolish things.  If there is a warning or a rule, they will inevitably disregard it, i.e., “Don’t get off the path”, and that is absolutely what they will do. 

            In this case, the path is in an enchanted forest in Japan with a reputation for its beauty and for being the site of suicides and mysterious events.  The main character, Sarah (Dormer) is convinced her twin sister Jess is in the forest and in need of her help, so she flies to Japan and wangles her way into the fabled Aokigahara Forest with a guide.  Aiden (Kinney) is an Australian reporter she meets in a bar who will be going into the forest with a trusted guide the next day, and he invites Sarah to go along. 

            The guide allows it, but outlines specific rules about staying on the path, not remaining inside the forest after dark, and to remember that if she sees anything strange, it’s not real; it’s all in her head.  As noted above, in the next 24 hours, she will manage to break every rule and end up completely horrified.  For those who take to these kinds of thrills and chills, they will be treated to a scary ride.

            Natalie Dormer, best known for her role in the hit TV drama “Game of Thrones”, plays an entirely different character in The Forest; here, she is oppositional, headstrong, and has no trouble speaking her mind—at least in the beginning before she gets freaked out.  Her performance is fine; it’s just that the script makes her an unappealing character; and then after the stage is set for her to seem paranoid and psychotic, a radical switch in the action makes you see her in an entirely different light.  The problem is that there are no cues or logical transitions to carry you along to that conclusion; it’s a deux ex machina technique to end a story.

            The most interesting aspect of The Forest is its apparent setting in an actual forest in Japan that is part of Japanese mythology (the filming actually took place in Serbia).  The forest is very dense with trees, has icy caverns and is associated with demons, angry spirits of the dead, and paranormal events.  And it is known as one of the favored places in the world to commit suicide.  Cinematographer Mattias Troelstrup gives us grand vistas showing a dense forest in all its beauty, as well as the grounds with hanging corpses, exotic little crawling creatures, and underground cave-like passages.

A fairly typical horror story with the usual spills and thrills.

Grade:  C-                        By Donna R. Copeland

            

THE REVENANT

Leonardo DiCaprio     Tom Hardy     Domhnall Gleason

          The Revenant is an apt title (for one who returns after death) because Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) gets wounds severe enough to kill him—several times.  He is mauled by a grizzly bear, is stitched up by someone whose father was a doctor, and before his wounds heal he is dragged, almost smothered to death, almost buried alive, shot at…well, you get it.  I was reminded of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ when he pulls his heavy cross up a hill after he has been beaten so severely it’s difficult to see how he is alive, much less able to carry a cross.  When films go to this extreme, they lose me. 

       The one thing that compensates for this is the ever-stunning cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki (Birdman, Gravity, To the Wonder, Tree of Life).  His camera revels in nature, and he enhances it with lighting, interesting contrasts and juxtapositions, and texture.  One of many examples in this film is when torches are being carried in a night scene with a red glow in the background, and stately, majestic trees towering through it all.  The trees—shown theme-like over and over—pick up on symbolic dialog spoken by Glass’s dead wife about how the branches of a tree might look like the tree is going to be felled by a strong wind, but when its roots are strong, it survives. 

        DiCaprio’s performance is a tour de force; he does not—is not able to—say much during the whole film, but is eloquent in his grunts and actions.  His eyes alone can convey the message.  The subtitle of the novel on which the film is based indicates that the story is about revenge, and the film highlights that aspect, giving it a noble connotation in that Glass has every reason to be vengeful.  And the actor is to be admired for enduring the brutal elements during the nine months of filming, which started in Canada, but was moved to Argentina when a warming trend melted the snow in Canada.

         Tom Hardy is adept in different kinds of roles, and here he plays the villain, and makes you grow to hate and disdain the character.  He is especially good at being glib but convincing when he argues about doing something that’s actually wrong.  He is one of the few actors who can keep the viewer mesmerized during a two-hour drive just talking on the phone! (in Locke). 

         I loved Innarritu’s Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel, and Birdman, but this film does not measure up to those accomplishments.

        My problem with The Revenant is with the script, both in its content and in its length.  Because of the illogical content, the movie is over long.  And it’s become a cliché in action movies when two adversaries both lose their weapons and then resort to hand-to-hand combat.  Ending a story like this in hand-to-hand combat with one of the players almost dead from his wounds weakens the conclusion.

The cinematography and DiCaprio’s performance are the main reasons to see The Revenant.

Grade:  B                                      By Donna R. Copeland

ANOMALISA

Voices of:  David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tom Noonan

          To watch Anomalisa, the viewer needs to be prepared to see an internal fantasy world in which we observe the inner life of a frustrated, despairing middle-aged man who feels that everyone he meets wants a part of him, and he cannot find for himself the peace and contentment he craves.  To accentuate the surreal qualities of his existence, writer/director Charlie Kaufman in collaboration with animation specialist/co-director Duke Johnson populate the film with puppets in stop-motion animation.  In bringing home a specific point, only Michael Stone (Thewlis) and Lisa (Leigh) are voiced by the actors; everyone else is voiced by Tom Noonan.  It’s helpful to know beforehand that the film references the Fregoli delusional disorder in which one imagines that everyone else is the same person, and that person is against him.  That Michael checks into the Fregoli Hotel sets up the scenario.  The experience is illustrated early on in the film when the screen turns black and all we hear is a cacophony of almost indistinguishable voices talking about the mundane. 

        Michael is a Brit now living in Los Angeles with a wife and son and is on his way to Cincinnati where he is to give an important speech.  He is an expert in customer relations and has written a book entitled, How May I Help You Help Them?  The man seated next to him on the plane, the taxi driver on the way to the hotel, and the hotel attendants all chatter in banalities to which he responds politely with gritted teeth.  Each one is indistinguishable from the other to him.  He is clearly bored, and follows a routine when he gets to his room.  Call wife who insists he talk to son, order room service, look over speech, call old girlfriend. 

        Somehow, Michael, this expert in customer relations (whose bottom half of his mask falls off in the hall at one point), inevitably manages to offend (his real bitter self and intentions are revealed) and he is ultimately left on his own, lonely and isolated.  He does manage to engage two women during the evening, and the story proceeds to show how Michael deals with personal relationships, including his life at home.  With little ability to introspect and learn, Michael continues on in his existential misery, never understanding how to the bridge the gulf that separates him from everyone.

       Anomalisa has been a critical favorite in its questions about the nature of identity and what it means to be human, to ache, to be alive.  It’s generally considered to be a comedy.  My objection to it is its pessimistic, cynical point of view and the absence of any movement of the main character out of his miserable condition.

Anomalisa, a film for Charlie Kaufman fans.

Grade:  C               By Donna R. Copeland

JOY

Jennifer Lawrence   Bradley Cooper   Robert De Niro   Virginia Madsen   Isabella Rossellini   Diane Ladd   Edgar Ramirez   Elisabeth Rohm

            David O. Russell knows families, and in Joy he portrays them once again in all their glory—and shortcomings.  He wrote the script based partly on a true story by Annie Mumolo about a young housewife who was creative and resourceful from childhood.  Her grandmother predicted she would soar to great heights someday, although the journey would be challenging.  In young adulthood with a divorced husband still at home, two kids, a grandmother, and resident parents who are divorced, Joy (Lawrence) is the mainstay for all of them.  When it is clear she will need to support everyone financially as well as emotionally, she invents a handy “Miracle Mop” that doesn’t have to be wrung out by hand and can be thrown into the washer to clean it for the next room.  In addition to showing what happens across time in the family, the film shows the development of this remarkable woman from a simple housewife to an astute but compassionate businesswoman.

            Russell goes a bit over the top in depicting this motley group, with a helpless mother (Madsen) who stays in bed and watches TV, a father (De Niro) who lacks the sharpness to run his own auto shop business and needs a woman to support him, and an ex-husband (Rodriguez), a club singer who can’t seem to get a place of his own, and a competitive half-sister (Rohm) who is rather a dim bulb.  They are all dependent on Joy and continually interrupt her for something they need.  She does have support from her grandmother (Ladd) and her kids, whose expressions always indicate that they are clearly understanding their mother and what is going on around them.  I always appreciate Russell’s respect for children’s perceptiveness and wisdom.

            Family members contribute to the comedy in Joy (and there are dozens of funny moments), but the serious, more in-depth and fascinating aspect of the drama is Joy’s transformation across time, giving credence to her grandmother’s predictions and encouragement and her early creativity and intelligence (valedictorian of her graduating class).  Without anyone to show her the way, Joy has to try to sell her own product on television’s QVC, out-maneuver contractors who try to cheat her, and somehow secure the patent she needs for her own invention.  Bradley Cooper, a staple in any Russell-Lawrence film has the role of a supportive executive at QVC who gives her a second chance when the first attempt fails.

            Danny Elfman’s music meshes artistically with the 1980’s culture and the mood of each scene, helping to carry it along its lyrical way.  Similarly, Linus Sandgren’s cinematography is ordered and sharp in the chaos of the story, helping to convey mood and spirit.  Or starkness, as when we see Joy in a bare, austere hotel room confronting a man she has never seen before to negotiate a settlement. 

            Jennifer Lawrence and David O. Russell seem to have a special synchronicity in their work together (and Bradley Cooper fits in seamlessly here, although he has a small role), and it shows in the quality of the films they make.  The supporting cast couldn’t be better, especially Robert De Niro, Virginia Madsen, and Edgar Ramirez.  But the topper is Isabella Rossellini, the wealthy widow who stands to lose everything she has by investing in this crazy family.  Rossellini brings such authenticity to the role you could swear she must have lived some aspect of it.

Joy—a joy to see—except when it’s sad and exasperating, and even then it’s entertaining.

Grade:  A-                                    By Donna R. Copeland

45 YEARS

Charlotte Rampling     Tom Courtenay

            45 years refers to a couple’s marriage when they’re approaching their 45^th wedding anniversary, which will be celebrated with a huge party.  The couple, Kate (Rampling) and Geoff (Courtenay), are elderly, but still active in their daily lives.  They have an easy-going relationship; Kate is nurturing when Geoff needs something like a thumb damaged from fixing a lavatory, and although Geoff is a bit absent-minded, he is attentive and responsive to Kate.
          One morning when Charlotte returns from walking the dog in the beautiful English countryside, Geoff is reading a letter written in German, but needs to dig up his German dictionary to understand it fully.  As the two go through their things in the storage room and attic, we get a hint that the past will be encroaching upon the couple and figuring into present experience, a favorite theme of David Constantine, the author of the short story (“In another Country”) on which the film is based.

       Indeed, the letter is to inform Geoff that the body of a woman he was very close to fifty years ago has been discovered preserved in the ice in a Swiss Alp after she fell into a crevasse by accident during a hiking trip.  Her body was never found until recently.  Geoff is informed by virtue of his being listed as “next of kin.” 

      Kate remembers hearing a bit about Katia, but Geoff hasn’t been completely open about this earlier relationship.  When she finds out how close they actually were, she becomes uneasy, even though this is something that happened years earlier before she even met Geoff.  She can’t let it go, and keeps quizzing him and even goes through old memorabilia to find out more.  This only makes her feel worse, but she feels compelled.

     Geoff has mulled over the possibility of going to Switzerland, but Kate is emphatically against it, so he dismisses the idea, and reassures her.  She is bothered enough, however, to make him promise that he will be present at their anniversary party.

      45 Years may seem like 45 years to those who love films with a lot of action.  But Kate and Geoff lead fairly conventional lives, and most of the film is showing us a picture of their lives and their personalities.  Much of the value is the way in which the two, especially Rampling, fill up the screen as powerful actors.  They are in sync the way couples who have lived together for years become, and that will be the appeal for viewers who enjoy observing people in their everyday lives. 

       Another highlight is Geoff’s toast to his wife at the dinner party; it is tender and says the things Kate would seldom hear from him.  They dance together lovingly, but the story doesn’t quite end there.  Constantine is a gifted storyteller who delights in last minute surprises.

A look at a marriage approaching its 45^th year.

Grade:  A-                      By Donna R. Copeland