Robin Hood

Year:  2010

Filming:  Color

Length:  102 minutes

Genre: Adventure/Drama/History

Maturity:  PG-13 (for violence and sexual innuendos)

Cast:  Russell Crowe (Robin Hood), Cate Blanchett (Marian Loxley), Mark Strong (Godfrey), Max von Sydow (Sir Walter Loxley), Oscar Isaac (Prince John), William Hunt (William Marshall), Danny Huston (King Richard), Eileen Atkins (Eleanor of Aquitaine), Matthew Macfadyen (Sheriff of Nottingham), Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), Kevin Durand (Little John), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Alan a’ Dayle), Douglas Hodge (Sir Robert of Loxley), Lea Seydoux (Isabella of Angouleme),

 Director: Ridley Scott

Personal Rating:  2 Stars

 

***

       After managing to survive Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves starring Kevin Coster, I decided I might as well take a shot at Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe. I figured since the former depended on a California cult symbol dressed in Lincoln Green, mayhaps a New Zealander might cut a better wildnerness figure? It remained to be seen. I came, I saw…I sighed. Okay, who decided to call this production “Robin Hood” again?? 

    We meet our main protagonist, a common English archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart, on a field of battle in France. After being accused on cheating in a betting game, he is brought before the king, who is a far cry from the traditional heroic depiction. Somehow or other, they get to discussing the justice, or lack thereof, of The Crusades, and Robin basically confronts Richard about the mass execution of Muslim prisoners at Acre. The king is none-too-pleased at the archer’s impudence, and has him and several of his comrades locked in the stocks. But when Richard is killed by a French arrow, Robin and friends manage to escape and head for the hills. 

     But as they are fleeing through the forest, they come upon an English knight who  is being set upon by Frenchmen, and nobly come to his aid. The knight, Sir Robert of Loxley, has been mortally wounded, and entrusts Robin with the crown jewels he had been carrying  to safety and his own sword to return to his father. Even though Robin is a deserter, and running for his life, he agrees to fulfil the man’s dying request. In order to do this, he takes on the identity of Robert of Loxsley and makes for England.  
 

    Upon returning home and presenting the crown to Prince John, Robin journies to the north and to hand over the sword to the dead knight’s father, Sir Walter Loxsley. While there, he also meets Sir Robert’s young widow, the formidable Lady Marian, and is compelled to continue his guise as Sir Robert in order to secure the estate from the greedy local officials. He also hassles with miserly churchmen who are carrying off the grain needed by the commoners to plan to pay tithes to the bishop. One gent named Friar Tuck is complicent in this, but is forced to change his policity at the point of Robin’s sword! 
 

    As Robin becomes proficient in managing the estate, he earns the admiration of Sir Walter, who practically adopts him as a son, and the affection of Marian, who never had much feeling for her late husband to begin with. Meanwhile, there are some very complex transations are going on between the royal courts of England and France, resulting in something of a political crisis as the French prepare to invade England and the English barons prepare to rebel against their own heavy-handed King John! Since Rob is the one who brought home the crown, he is selected to pressure the king into giving the people a “charter” to guarentee their liberties and loyalty. And as it is later revealed, Rob’s late father wrote just such a charter befor his death, only to be executed for his trouble, and the sword of Loxsley actually used to be his! 
 

    Cutting to the chase, the king and his noblemen agree to the concept of a charter and prepare to join forced to combat the invasion. The English and French have it out in an epic battle on the coast, and Marian shows up disguised as a knight to avenge the death of Sir Walter, who was killed off by a very bald Frenchman named Godfrey. In the process of this, she’ll need to be rescued by Rob, earning his “knight in shining armor” status. But no sooner have the invaders been driven back than King John reneges on his charter-deal, and declares Robin to be an outlaw for impersonating a nobleman (he knew??!!). Rob and Marian head into the forest, where they are taken in by a band of vagabond orphan boys (who decided to turn the Merry Men into the East End Kids?) and…and…we are assured by computer generated lettering at the end that “the adventure begins”!  
 

    Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is just as bad as Kevin Costner as Robin Hood – but in different ways. The Costner film stuck with the basic plot line, while trying desperately to make it hip (Californian accents, hokey witches, naked bathing sequences, galactic sword fights…the full treatment!). The Crowe film, on the other hand, threw out the plot altogether, and created a totally new entity – but for some unreasonable reason decided to cling to the title for dear life! There were moments in the film when I said, “Hey, it’s not so bad – if it wasn’t called ‘Robin Hood’”! But it was. Like in the movie King Arthur starring Clive Owen, the producers make a vain attempt to create an “historical” explanation for a legend, simultaneously mangling history and ruining the legend we all know and love.  
 

    I will admit that the acting overall was decent enough, although the main cast seemed terribly miscast. Russell Crowe might be great as “Lucky Jack” Aubrey, and Cake Blanchett as the Lady Galadriel, but they just don’t cut the mustard as Robin and Marian. Both are too dark, too heavy, too conflicted. The whole setting, while lush and haunting, lacks sparkle and charm that make the original tales so endearing. Some will insist that “Merrie England” never existed, and therefore should not be recreated. But it always has and always will exist in the heart and in the imagination. It is the rebel streak and sparkling wit and glorious romance that is so characteristic of the British nature, and Robin Hood personifies it. Again, if they had decided to be original, and the whole plot was just about this random English archer who takes the place of a dead nobleman and battles against the invading French, etc., yes, it might work to change the tone. But they didn’t, and it isn’t, which is sad.  
 

    Marian’s character is one of the more complex ones in the script. She is basically bitter over having to be a pawn in the world of men’s injustice, appealing to feminist types who thrive on this sort of storyline. On that subject, the female warrior gets a bit old hat, but if that’s what women need to feel valuable, I suppose they must inndluge! While Marian obviously has come to sincerely lover her father-in-law, her relationship with her late husband seems to have crumbled due to his long absence on crusade. But honestly, her measuring of marital worth seems to rely heavily on activity in the marriage bed as opposed to any deeper emotional attachment. When chatting with Robin about her past, she sums up her marriage by one “short but sweet” night in which they had sex. I can’t help but wince at this. Is that really what defines a marriage?  
 

    Even if my marriage had been similarly arranged and cut short, I would hope I might choose to remember something about the person as opposed to the body. If her husband was a decent man, and all references indicate that he was, can she not recall one fond memory of him? One conversation shared? One letter sent? One moment when she noticed the color of his eyes for his first time? Those are the things I would hope to remember, that I would find even the slightest bit romantic. To Marian’s credit, however, I will say that she doesn’t rush off on a fling with Robin and remains chaste even when he is pretending to be her husband. In fact, she is quite determined to keep him in line…and she sleeps with a dagger just to make sure! 
 

   As for historical accuracy qualms, the writers definitely should have scrapped all the silliness about his father penning the pseudo-Magna Charta. Come on, on-set historians…ever hear of Bishop Stephen Langton? Evidently the writers were too busy vilifying the clergy to a man – including Friar Tuck, the wine-guzzling bee-keeper hoarding all the supplies from the common people! Marian even gives up going to mass because there are too many hypocrites (not a very good reason, really…the Church is a hospital for sinners). Furthermore, the Crusades got short shrift, driven by the same unreasoning bias that permeated Prince of Thieves. Indeed, we can all agree that atrocoties were committed by both sides during the wars, but in what way does that invalidate the cause to free the Holy Lands from Muslim domination? Also, the portrayal of King Richard is basically that of a war-monger lunatic. While he was certainly a warrior-king, I don’t think anyone would call him crazy. 
 

    The music score in the film was fairly good, especially the theme played during the credits, although even that seemed rather confused and lacking the proper feel. There seemed to be a desperation to replace the notion of “Merrie England” with a Celtic Distopia. When Marian and Robin are dancing, the Irish song “Spancil Hill” is played, which is totally off geographically and come after the story by almost nine centuries! And will these people please stop trying to recapture the “Braveheart Moment”, with some awkwardly worded, would-be rousing speech about “freeeeeeeedooooooom”??? Aren’t there any other things to seek after in this world? An interesting tid-bit is Russell Crowe’s seeming inability to keep his accent consistent, sounding English sometimes and Scottish others. I think he was trying his best to sound Northern English, but it was said that when someone accused him on sounding Irish, he walked off the set in a rage! Oh, well. Anything to mask the New Zealand ork-accent, what?  
 

        Overall, this picture seemed confused as to what it wanted to be when it grew up! I'll admit that there were a few moments when I was actually enjoying it, especially the big battle sequence on the coast. Look out for the lush scenery scope, including the famous White Horse markes out in the hill. And there were even moments when I could have possibly warmed to Russel Hood and his sword (interesting inscription, in the spirit of the “real” Robin Hood: “Until Lambs Become Lions”). That having been said, the combination of historical and legendary innacuracy and wrong “feel” in general left a rather bitter taste in my mouth. As I mentioned in the review of Prince of Thieves, if you want to see good adaptations, try the ones with Richard Greene, Richard Todd, Erroll Flynn, and the cartoon fox!



Robin-sort-of-ish-Hood (Russell Crowe) rides with Marian Loxsley (Cate Blanchett)

15 Worthwhile Movies Commonly Watched at Christmas

The Nativity:

A little-known, but generally good adaptation of the story of the first Christmas. A few notable inaccuracies, as well as mischaracterizations, but also a tender love shown between Joseph and Mary and a good handle on Jewish cultural traditions. It is a reverent portrayal of the Divine meeting the Human, and the faith and hope brought about by the birth of a tiny infant in a drafty stable. Also, we get to meet three fictional agents of King Herod, sent to hunt for the child who ultimately come to worship him.


It's a Wonderful Life:

This classic needs little introduction. A man on the brink of despair, who has spent his life trying to better his hometown only to wind up bankrupt, is saved from suicide by his guardian angel. And as a bonus, he is given the oppurtunity to see what the world would be like without him. A glorious ode to the reality that every life, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is of inestimable worth.


A Time to Remember:

A simple production with a profound message, set in a 1950's suburbian neighborhood. Angelo Villano is an Italian-American boy who has a dream to be a great singer one day. His grandmother and parishs priest encourage him in his talent, but his father will have none of it, determined to "make a man out of him." After tragedy strikes and Angelo loses his voice, it will take a Christmas miracle to restore it and change his father's heart. This one get's me crying every time.


White Christmas:

Classic musical involving two former WWII soldiers who hit the road as entertainers and get mixed up with a singing sister act down on their luck. Trekking up to Vermont for a snow-capped Christmas, the foursome discover that there is no snow to be found. Nevertheless, they set about restoring the spirits of a retired general and his granddaughter, and making his mountain inn a center of holiday entertainment. Generally fun stuff for family viewing, except for a couple of riske dance sequences.


The Sound of Music:

Another all-time classic, not explicity Christmas, but often shown during the season! Governess Maria earns the respect of Colonel Von Trapp and the love of his rumbunctious troupe of children against the scenic backdrop of the Austrian Alps. Lots of memorable songs, a charming romance, and a touch of intrigue as WWII forces the colonel and his family to take refuge across the border rather than support the Nazi regime.


Seasons of the Heart:

A heart-breaking, heart-warming tale about a women struggling with the loss of her two golden-haired daughters to cholera on the Oregon Trail. Haunted by memories and angry at God, she becomes bitter and reclusive. When her husband insists that they adopt a recently orphaned boy named Danny, she finds herself annoyed at everything he does and unable to see how very much he needs her as a mother. But one Christmas night, she learns of the transformation that only the Chirst Child can bring.


The Christmas Box:

A couple and their small daughter move into the home of a reclusive elderly woman who eventually befriends the little girl. When the father opens a small music box in the woman's attic, he has a paranormal experience and vision of a ghostly little girl. Meanwhile, the woman tries to teach all of them the true meaning of Christmas, in the face of her own past heart-breaks. Again, another film that requires kleenex!


Christmas Eve:

A kind-hearted rich woman spends her life doing good for all those around her (human and animal). When she is diagnosed with a brain tumor, and given only a few months to live, she seeks to restore family unity by hiring a private detective to track down her grandchildren, all of whom have broken ties with their money-grubbing father. Her hope is to bring them all together of a final Christmas reunion. A bitter-sweet tale...also a tear-jerker (is this some trend...?)!


Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer:

Fasten your sleigh-belts for the "real" story of Rudolph and his mission to the infamous "Island of Misfit Toys" with his companions Hermie the Elf (who really wants to be a dentist!) and Yukon, intrepid arctic explorer. Oh, yeah, and lest we forget the Abominable Snowman...well, I just gave him special mention! For Children of All Ages...which proceeds right into adulthood! ;-)


The Legend of the Candy Cane:

A widower and a spinster find love in the Old West with the help of a mysterious candy-maker who brightens up the town with his sugary treats. He also teaches the children about the legend of the Candy Cane, harkening back to the importance of Christ's birth. Plus, we get to meet a goat who's a afraid of heights! Delightful animation, music, and storyline.


Mickey's Christmas Carol:

Meet Donald Duck with a Scottish burr as our Scrooge, and Mickey as his long-suffering clerk, Bob Cratchet! Toss in a couple whimsical ghosts from Christmas Past and Present, plus a scary one from the Future, and it's sure to be a delightful Disney event! Who knew Dickens' tale would take on so many different visages over the years?!


Frozen:

Another film that needs little introduction, thanks to the flush of fan-dom surrounding it! Meet Queen Elsa of Arendell, whose magical freezing powers get out of hand on her coronation day and accidently lays an icy curse on her kingdom. But never fear: Princess Anna, her determined younger sister, is determined to bring her back from exile and lift the curse, with the help of the faithful mountain-man Kristoff, her beloved reindeer Sven, and the irrepressible talking snowman, Olaf!


Under the Greenwood Tree:

A delightful BBC Period Piece that goes through the four seasons in a small village during the Victorian era in Dorset, England. A young woman, Fancy, becomes the school teacher, and is courted by three different men: the worldly vicar, the affable  aristocrat, and the charming son of a mover. Will she follow the path to social prestige, or the longings of her own heart? A lovely Christmas section in the beginning, including traditional English Christmas Carols!


Little Women:

Louise May Alcott's classic story of the March Sisters, growing up, facing the world, and falling in love. Meet Meg, Joe, Beth, and Amy, four very different girls who live and love in the face of good times and bad, adapting to changes in different ways, but ultimately using New England sturdiness and Christian faith to help them overcome the difficulties of life. Some lovely Christmas scenes in this one, too.


The Lord of the Rings Trilogy:

Okay, so this isn't exactly my idea of a Christmas movie set, but I know some of my friends who make it something of a tradition. I will grant them that the movies came out during Christmas, and that it has been said that, in the Middle Earth calendar, Frodo supposedly set off on his quest to destroy the Ring on December 25. So, while I might not personally recommend it, if your family and friends who have come over for Christmas can agree on nothing but tales of hobbits, elves, dwarves, men, orcs, ring-wraiths, etc., I guess this is your pick! And I will admit it does have some deep theological significance, especially with regards to the corrupting influence of sin and the power of simple people displaying virtues of courage, loyalty, and especially mercy.

Merry Christmas from Movie-Land!

Frozen

Year:  2013 

Filming:  Color 

Length:  102 minutes 

Genre: Adventure/Animated/Family/Fantasy

Maturity:  PG (for fantasy action and some rude humor)

Cast:  Idina Menzel (Elsa), Kristen Bell (Anna), Jonathan Groff (Kristoff), Santino Fontana (Prince Hans), Josh Gad (Olaf), Alan Tudyk (Duke of Weselton), Chris Williams (Oaken), Ciaran Hinds (Pabbie), Eva Bella (Young Elsa), Liwy Stubenrauch (Young Anna)

 Directors: Jennifer Lee and Chris Bucks

 Personal Rating:  4 Stars

***

     Fads come and fads go, especially in the realm of the Silver Screen. Most are far less supercalafrajalistic than made out to be. However, there are a few that at least live up to the title “enjoyable”. Among them are Disney’s Frozen, a 3D animated spin on Hans Christian Anderson’s classic fairytale, The Snow Queen. Although I can’t say this one stuck to the original script, it was a worthwhile entity in its own right, and minus a few ill-chosen remarks in the dialogue and possibly agenda-driven implications, I would recommend it as a fun holiday film to view during a snowy day. 

    Our story opens in the Scandinavian kingdom of Arendelle, where two young princesses, Elsa and Anna, are playing in the snow. This would be normal enough, except for the fact that Elsa is the one creating the snow inside the palace with her magical freezing powers, and Anna gets accidently zapped with an ultra-brain-freeze! The king and queen are naturally disconcerted, and immediately whisk Anna off to a troop of trolls to have the memory of her sister’s powers erased…which will somehow unfreeze her brain! Then they have Elsa confined to private quarters in the palace until she can master her icy powers.

    For years, Elsa has limited contact with anyone, including her sister Anna, who cannot understand the sudden separation, but continues to love Elsa and believe that Elsa loves her. After their parent’s death, Elsa becomes queen and must emerge from her seclusion for her coronation. At the same time, Anna get her first taste of first love, in the form of the tall, dashing Prince Hans. But when Hans and Anna decide to be wed immediately, Queen Elsa withholds her permission. The ensuing struggle of wills between the estranged sisters results in Elsa accidently revealing her icy powers, and the sinister Duke of Weselton convinces the people that she is a monster. In response, Elsa runs away from Arendelle, leaving a frozen trail behind her.      

    But Anna is determined to set things right be reconciling with her sister and convincing her to return and melt the ice. But first, she has to find her in the wilds of the mountains, with the aid of three faithful companions: Kristoff, the rough-and-tumble yet dependable mountain-man, Sven, he beloved reindeer companion, and Olaf, the magical talking snowman who “likes warm hugs” and longs for warm weather…er…yeah, he doesn’t know the harsh realities of a snowman’s life expectancy rate! But anyway, the dynamic quartet manage to make their way to Elsa’s new place of residence: a humungous ice palace, guarded by a humungous abominable snowman! 

    When Anna finally does manage to have a meeting with Elsa, she informs her sister that Arendelle has been frozen over. Elsa, still struggling to control her powers and terrified of harming anyone, is horrified by the suffering she unintentionally and unknowingly caused, but does not know how to undo the spell. Even though Anna insists that she should return to her kingdom, and that they can work it out together, Elsa angrily sends her away, against accidently shooting her with an icy ray that always emanates from her hand when she is upset. Although shaken, Anna insists that she is fine. Elsa, equally shaken, has them chased out of the ice palace by her abominable snowman guard.  

    Despairing of ever convincing Elsa to come home, Anna and Kristoff make their  way back to Arendelle empty-handed. But along the way, Kristoff decides to visit his own home so Anna can “meet the family” – a bunch of rocks that turn out to be the same trolls that healed Anna from brain-freeze when she was a little girl! Under the assumption that the two of them are an item, they make quite a to-do of welcoming her to their festive gathering, but when she feels ill and collapses, they are able to deduct that something is dreadfully wrong. In fact, her heart has been frozen by Elsa’s ice ray! The trolls inform her that only an act of true love can save her life, so Kristoff rushes to get her back to Arendelle and her “true love” Prince Hans who he believes can save her through a kiss. But things go a little differently than everyone expected as they search out what true love really means and how it effects us all.  

    I personally thought Frozen was the best 3-D Disney Princess film to date. The animation was quite spectacular, especially the panoramic shots of the charming Kingdom of Arendelle and the Scandinavian surroundings that seemed to leap out from a Hans Christian Anderson fairytale. Also, the formation of the ice castle was quite magical. Plus, the music really did branch out into something of a Broadway production, which was impressive for a cartoon. Tangled certainly started the trend of characters singing, Brave moved away from it, and Frozen came back to it with force. Also, beyond all this, the story really was a very good one, teaching some deep lessons about the meaning and power of love. 

    This is not to say it didn’t have its problems, because it did. Among them were occasional, unnecessarily crude language and gags (including references to urination and nose-picking) and rapid-fire humor that left one feeling out of breath. As I usually remark upon watching a “modern” cartoon, I don’t understand why they feel the need to try to force us to laugh instead of letting it all come naturally.  Also, there were several gaps in the plot. For example, how did Elsa get her magic freezing powers, and how was it that the trolls were able to heal Anna’s frozen brain by simply erasing all memory of her sister’s powers? Did the two sisters have any interaction at all after that point until their parents’ death? If not, who did have contact with Elsa all those years as she struggled to control her icy powers? Surely someone had to care for her!  

    The part that shocked me the most was when Hans revealed his true colors. I mean, I know it was supposed to be shocking but – couldn’t they have given us at least a little foreshadowing? With Kristoff entering the equation and the issue of “love at first sight” being brought up in a negative light, I think most of us surmised that Hans wasn’t going to be the leading man after all (at least, not with regards to Anna). But I thought he might wind up falling in love with Elsa instead, or otherwise just rather superficial and incapably of truly loving the way Anna needed to be loved in order to save her life.  

    But I never expected him to be a latent assassin or crown-snatcher! Honestly, I don’t think it was necessary to go that extreme! Besides, reading between the lines, I can’t help but get the feeling that the writers were going out of their way to completely obliterate any image of “Prince Charming” that might be lingering in the female subconscious. Now, I’m not crazy about charmers myself, and the “love at first sight” bit is usually a good recipe for disaster. But does that mean that all those exhibiting gentlemanly qualities are somehow suspect?

    It all goes back the way the upper classes are handled on screen in period pieces. Basically, according to Holly wood perception, the tendency of being attracted to dashing, well-dressed nobleman has been completely spun around to the point where it is a given that a dashing, well-dressed nobleman is bound to be evil. Beyond that, there is a notion that girls should never want to be rescued. While I agree we don’t always want to be (sometimes we can take care of it better ourselves!), that’s not always the case. Is the concept of a perverted “Prince Charming” invocating a liberal feminist agenda? 

   On that same subject, there are some who believe that there is a covert LGBT agenda running through the film as well, although I’m not sure I’d really agree. If it’s there, it’s far too light to detect directly…so why make a fuss? It’s been pointed out that Elsa has no male love interest (probably the only princess in Disney history not to have one…but considering her freezing problem, is that so odd?). I will admit that the song “Let It Go” could be applied to some sort of sexual liberation (especial with the reference to Elsa being forced to be a “good girl”), but really, it could mean anything. Indeed, Elsa is expressing only one phase in her journey, not the conclusion. She does not remain in her icy palace forever; she is brought back into the human race through the love of her sister, and this learning about love is what enables her to control her powers and save her kingdom.  

    But even if Elsa does not have a big love life (certainly not a crime in and of itself), Anna and Kristoff do make a lovable couple. She’s sweet and stubborn; he’s clever and stout-hearted. He’s also pretty funny, and knows how to tease and be teased, which to me is a very important trait. It’s obvious they have a chemistry from square one, and it was pretty easy to figure out they would be together in the end. But of course there was the question of what to do with Prince Hans. After Anna is struck by the icy ray, Kristoff is willing to give her up in favor of Hans who he believes is the only one able to save her life through a true lover’s kiss. However, when Hans betrays her, he rushes across the fjords to save Anna himself.  

    If Anna and Kristoff are a match made in heaven, Olaf is the best sort of third-wheel (well, fourth wheel, counting Sven…but the reindeer is not half as colorful as the snowman!). The comic concept of a snowman dreaming about the glories of warm weather is just hilariously incongruent, not to mention to erudite commentary at tense moments (“Hang in there, guys!” he shouts, whilst Anna and Kristoff are dangling from the edge of a cliff)!  But Olaf is not just hanging around for comic relief purposes. Actually, he has a profound role to play in teaching Anna about true love after she is ruthlessly left to freeze by Hans. Seeing her slumped in the corner shivering, he immediately begins to build a fire. When Anna tries to stop him, insisting that he’ll melt, he replies, “Some people are worth melting over.” (Aww…) 

   While Kristoff and Olaf are certainly important elements in the revelation of love, the relationship between Anna and Elsa takes priority. Even though Anna had seen barely anything of her sister for years, she has enough memory to know that she did indeed have a fond relationship with her sister in their youth, and she continues to believe they could have the same sisterly love again. It is this belief, this inner knowing, that inspires her to save Elsa by throwing herself in front of her and taking the blow from Hans’s sword. At the same time she freezes, and her icy hand smashes the blade. Through this act of true love, she saves both herself, returning to life, and Elsa, who finally understands that love is the only way to conquer fear and melt the ice encrusting Arendelle.  

    So overall I give Frozen a good rating. Some would even say that it has some Christian allegorical overtones, although I would probably just stick with saying it has a sturdy moral backbone. Even though it carried touches of liberation theology here and there (I can do what I want to do because…I can do what I want to do!), I think the plot successfully worked out the trouble spots and taught that we do have a calling to show true love to one another, and never to settle for giving or receiving second best. That being the meaning of Christmas as well, I suppose it makes a very appropriate holiday flick at that!

Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) rides in a sleigh with Anna (Kristen Bell)

David and Bathsheba

Year:  1951

Filming:  Color

Length:  116 minutes

Genre:  Biblical/Drama/Religious/Romance

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Gregory Peck (King David), Susan Hayward (Bathsheba),

Raymond Massey (Nathan), Kieron Moore (Uriah), James Robertson Justice (Abishai), John Sutton (Ira), Jane Meadows (Michal), Gilbert Barnett (Absalom)

 Director:  Henry King

Personal Rating:  4 Stars

***

     Underrated and overlooked, David and Bathsheba is another “sword-and-sandal” flick that takes liberties with the scriptural text but still manages to artfully convey the moral potency of the ultimate story of sin and redemption. It may not have the rollicking action of Ben-Hur or the grand spectable of The Ten Commandments, and yet the excellent acting and poignant “what-ifs” make it another Easter film to remember.  
 

    Gregory Peck stars as King David, a man torn between the flesh and the spirit as he struggles to rule the kingdom of Israel and make his peace with God. But one night while walking on the palace balcony, his restlessness diverts his attentions towards Bathsheba, the beautiful wife of one of his captains, who he spies bathing in her yard (“Peeping Dave”!). Bewitched, he invites her to be his guest for dinner, where it is revealed that she has been spying on him as well (don’t tell he has a royal tub on the veranda, please…) and is quite taken with her observations. They both agree it would mutually pleasurable to shack-up. 
 

    Lest we forget her husband Uriah – well, he’s out fighting for King and Country in the Israelite army. He doesn’t quite know what’s afoot back in his happy home, and King David is determined to keep him in ingnorant bliss. If Bathsheba is caught in adultery, she could be stoned to death according to the law of the land, which outranks even the king himself. Plus, David’s out reputation would be pretty much sunk by courousing with the wife of one of his war heroes. But when Bathsheba becomes pregnant with a royal child, David will stop at nothing to save her. 
 

    First, he tries to get Uriah to go home on leave so that it can claim to be the child’s father. But this brillian plan is foiled by Uriah super-soldier who insists upon sleeping in the field with his men. So reluctantly, the king falls back on Plan B: have Uriah to be thrown into the front lines of battle, and then have everyone else fall back, assuring his removal from the realm of mortal existence. The plan is a smashing success. Or at least, as a temporary fix. But he takes full advantage of it and marries Bathsheba before the world knows she’s pregnant. 

    But when a terrible drout strikes the land, people begin to wonder if it is the punishment of God. Also, Michal, David’s estranged first wife (he has something of a harem going for himself), is dertimined to make him suffer, and turn his favorite son Absolom against him. Needless to say, the Bathsheba incident only makes their relationship less fuzzy, and when the Prophet Nathan comes out to accuse the king of adultery, Michal is determined to seal her husband’s fate. With the net closing in on him, and the death of Bathsheba’s child making him feel even more isolated, David must embark on a personal quest of redemption and spiritual awakening in order to save Bathsheba’s life, the Kingdom of Israel, and his own soul.  
 

    I persoanlly think this is one of the better Biblical movies out there, and certainly the best version of the story of King David (please, avoid Richard Geer like the plague!). Even though it does take liberties with the text, it stays much more on track that some other big-budget blockbusters including The Ten Commandments. In fact, I find it more believable because this film does not try for really outlandish special effects, like fyberoptic burning bushes, and yet maintains a quality in the setting and camer-work. Also, I find it to be more an intimate spiritual journey of one man searching for God, and a man who is much more relatable to every-man than Charlton Heston’s portrayl of Moses. 
 

    I’m also happy to note that the subject of David’s epic affair is treated tastefully…a few passionate kissing sessions, and we get the picture. We don’t have to follow them through the visual blow-by-blow of bedroom sequences. However, as with I Confess, the advertisements indicate all sorts of torrid happenings that are never shown in the movie. Indeed, even Bathsheba bathing is mostly shot from a suitable distance, with close-ups showing her behind a screen (no Kevin Costner in the resovoir here…although we can well imaging that David has a better vantage point to see things from his balcony!).  
 

    What I like best about this portryal of the relationship, though, is the way David is shown as going through something of a mid-life crisis at the same time. It is interesting to watch the comic scene when he is unable to hit his mark with a sling-shot, even though a nearby shepherd boy can do it. “Did you really kill a giant, David?” Bathsheba asks him twittingly. But beyond the irony, it is symbolic of how far he has strayed from his roots. Another symbol of his sense of disolusionment is his lament over Jonathan, his dearest friend who was killed in battle under his father Saul. At the time, Saul was hunting David for fear that he would take his throne, even though that was not David’s intent. Jonathan had helped him escape, and David had been on the run during that battle that resulted in both Saul and Jonathan being killed. Now he continues to feel that he somehow failed his friend, and knows not how to remedy that failing.  
 

    Gregory Peck makes a robust, worldly, yet sympathetic David who seems to have lost his grasp on the spiritual world amidst all the turmoil of military conquests and political negotiations that come with kingship. In his climb to the top, he has lost any sense real love, whether it be romance with women, friendship with men, or even divine consolation from God. In reaching out for Bathsheba, it is almost symbolic of his inner confusion, seeking spiritual intuition and true love in a forbidden embrace. Susan Hayward as the alluring and strong-willed Bathsheba also shows a yearning for true love, even if that means being an accomplice to murder and plunging the whole kingdom into turmoil. At the same time, one has to feel for her a little bit in light of her husband’s portrayed neglect (I’m just talking about physical, but emotional as well), and she seems to be truly repentent for the way things went in the end.  
 

    Whether or not Uriah was a frustratingly law-abiding goody-two-sandals is lost in the mists of time and story-telling, but this portrayal certainly makes it clearer why David finds it expedient to have him hurled out front to save Bathsheba’s life and his own reputation! I can’t say I care much for the portrayal of the prophet Nathan as a religious fanatic, as I don’t believe the Bible portrays his actions in that like at all. He was actually using great wisdom in his approach of making David convict himself of his own crime from his own mouth, and I think that this scene suffered in the film because Nathan was made to look like a wild-eyed holy man, hell-bent on Bathsheba’s death. I think the film was trying to make him a symbol of the more tribal Old Testament understanding of God before the coming of Christ, but Nathan look coo-coo in the process wasn’t worth it. 
 

    But in the end, the plot does highlight the very essence of God: Mercy. As rebellions is seething outside the palace walls, and the mob bays for Bathsheba’s blood, she seems to have resigned herself to whatever fate might be in store, and calmly asks David to play her something that he wrote his boyhood on his harp. He chooses “The Lord is my Shepherd”, but mutters in a tone of cynicism that the God he belived in as a boy, who he had seen in the beauty of Creation and as the strenght of the weak, was only a childhood fancy. Nathan’s God, he decides, is vengeful and merciless. 
 

    But suddenly he is struck with the necessity of finding out which portrayal of God is true, and to find it out for himself.  So he goes into the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant is housed, and begs God from the bottom of his heart to have mercy on his people and Bathsheba, saying that he will willingly take any punishment for his sins. Then he asks that the innocent boy, David, might live again in him. In a deliciously dramatic moment, he stretches out his hands and touches the tabernacle.
 

    David then experiences a flash-back of his boyhood, when he was called in from tending his flocks to be annointed king of Israel by the prophet Samuel, and the realization that God had judged his heart worthy to be the King of his people. Then he also sees the day when he battled the giant Goliath, with only a sling-shot and five small stones, and his friend Jonathan cheerss him on from the Israelite lines. He remembers the victory, and the overwhelming sense that God was with him and working through him.     When King David comes back to the present, he hears rain falling on the parched land. “God is a mystery”, Nathan remarks, “but today we have seen a glimpse of his face.” 

     So while this movie is all too often passed over in favor of other big-budget Biblical flicks, I really think that this story is too poignant to be forgotten. David himself is such a multi-faceted character, emphasizing all the high and low points of our own lives, and the pain when confronted with an inability to claim the deepest desires of our hearts. That God singled out this flawed man to the king of his chosen people when he is just a shepherd boy tending his flocks is amazing enough. But there was even more to the story of this man who sinned, repented, and found forgiveness: he was being chosen to found a dynasty that would bring forth Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the World. So this Christmas, I urge you to look up David and Bathsheba, a powerful Biblical film that shows us the mercy of God and gives us a “glimpse of His face.”

King David (Gregoery Peck) plays the harp for Bathsheba (Susan Hayward)

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Year:  2013

Filming:  Color

Length:  146 minutes

Genre:  Action/Drama/Horror/Sci-Fi

Maturity:  PG-13 (for intense themes, strong violence, and some language)

Cast:  Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne), Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy),  Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Lenny Kravitz (Cinna), Alan Ritchson (Gloss),

Willow Shields (Primrose Everdeen), Paula Malcomson (Katniss’s Mother), Stanley Tuccman (Caesar Flickerman), Jenna Malone (Johanna Mason), Donald Sutherland (Pres. Snow),
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Plutarch Heavensbee), Jeffrey Wright (Beetee)
         

Director:  Francis Lawrence

Personal Rating:  3 Stars

***

    It’s a sad fact, but sequels are usually never quite as good as the originals. That having been said, Catching Fire hasn’t done horribly following up the massive success of The Hunger Games. There still was the haunting music that accompanies the unfolding events. There is still Jennifer Lawrence, with her moving acting and facial expressions. But I’m afraid there were times when I felt like it was just a re-run of the first film, especially in the area of violence, which is one of my biggest qualms in the whole franchise.

    The story opens in the aftermath of the 74^th Hunger Games, when victors Katniss Everdeen and Peek Mellark are finally allowed to return to their home in District 12. But Katniss finds it impossible to simply return to the way things were before; she is emotionally scarred from the Games, and cannot even hunt without fearing her potential to kill. To make matters worse, Katniss and Peeta are forced to embark on a victory tour through the districts of Panem, playing up their make-believe romance for the cameras and acting as propaganda symbols for The Capital.

    But unbeknownst to her, Katniss has actually become a symbol of resistance to the people because of her refusal to kill Peeta in the Games. A revolt is fermenting beneath the surface, and when Katniss visits District 2 and gives a heartfelt speech in memory of her fellow tribute, Rue, who was killed in the Games, the crowd erupts in fury against the Capital authorities, and Katniss can do nothing but watch as an old man is shot before her eyes by the soldiers dispersing the mob. She is warned by her sponsor Effie Trinket and mentor Haymitch Abernathy to “stick to the script” as the darling of the Capital, and she and Peeta struggle to suppress their own emotions and do as they are told. Meanwhile, their own relationship grows closer as they mutually comfort one another.

    At their victory reception at the Capital, in which they insist that they are engaged to be married, Katniss dances with Plutarch Heavensbee, the new official “game-maker” who plans to launch several special for the 75^th Annual Hunger Games the next year. She suspects something unusual in his character, but cannot put her finger on it, but continues to observe him cautiously. Upon her return to District 12, it is announced that a “Quarter Quell” version of the Games will be held, in which all past winners will be forced to fight against each other. Since she is the only female tribute ever to win from her district, Katniss knows she will be chosen.

    Determined that Peeta should be kept out of the Games, Katniss begs Haymitch to take his place should Peeta be picked as the male tribute. Haymitch agrees, but when he is picked instead, Peeta nobly takes his place, and he and Katniss are sent back to the Capital to prepare for another fight to the death in the arena. But this time, there is a note of serious discontent among the chosen tributes, who had been promised a peaceful life after winning their first Hunger Games competitions. Now, as the vicious fighting in the arena begins, Katniss struggles to keep Peeta alive at all costs. But beyond the arena, there are other forces at work conspiring to save her life and make her a symbol of rebellion.

    For HG fans, getting the chance to return to Panem for the sequel was a long-awaited treat, complete with commemorative poster-stuffed magazines at every grocery store counter nation-wide. For me personally, it at least gave me something to sink my teeth into after just getting beginning to appreciate that the story has amazing sticking power. My mind was vibrating: “What’s going to happen to Katniss? Will there finally be a rising? And why the heck hasn’t there been one already, if these Games have been going on for 74 years??” For one who has never read the books, these questions really were pressing.

     Unfortunately, I can’t say I was totally satisfied with the continuation. I’ll admit that after just watching movie one, I really, really did not want to see another Hunger Games competition, and held out hope that this film would be focused on a popular uprising. For half of the movie, I believed it was indeed going this way, and that the Quarter Quell would never actually take place, especially after the wonderful scene in which the tributes all held hands in a show on support on Live TV. Plus, Peeta even went the extra mile by claiming that he and Katniss had been secretly married and that she was with child, causing even the hardened Capital crowd to raise their voices in protest. 

     But the Games went on anyway, even more disturbing than the first round with new forms of torment inflicted on the tributes in a clock-shaped arena. There were genetically altered birds and baboons to attack them, poisonous gas to suffocate them, and the blood rains to drench them. As a result of these horrors, you naturally had people going crazy...eek! Honestly, I couldn’t help but think that these new additives to go above-and-beyond in the realm of gruesomeness were stuck in not so much for plot purposes as for selling purposes. It’s perverse that these things should make people want to indulge, but I think there’s something terribly perverse when people try to tap into the dark side of the human consciousness through books and films, especially when they are meant for young adults. Why, we wonder, do people wind up desensitized, just like in The Capital? It’s because they come to view horror as fun, and death as a game.   

   I also thought some of the acting quality in the sequel lessened (not with regards to Jennifer Lawrence, but some of the others) and there were more "suggestive" scenes that spoiled the clean record (sexually, at least) of the first film. Johanna Mason was a really annoying character, and the part where she strips of her clothing in the elevator was totally unnecessary and vulgar. Evidently, according to the book, she is supposed to be mocking Katniss for being “pure”, but this doesn’t translate well into film. Also, I have to say I found Gloss to be rather…creepy? I mean, he had his good points and all, but he seemed he was making a pass at Katniss in the beginning!

    That having been said, I agree there was more hope that the People were finally rising up to throw off their oppressors, and there were some really moving scenes of heart-felt defiance. Probably two of my favorite scenes are (1. when she gives Rue's eulogy and is saluted by the old man in the crowd and (2. when she is saluted by her sister and mother after being selected for the Games again. Katniss definitely does shine through as a strong female lead, mixing toughness with vulnerability. To her credit, she is obviously suffering from psychological trauma in the aftermath of the first Games, even though she is trying her hardest to hold together for her family’s sake. She starts to turn in on herself, and wants nothing more than to be left alone. 

   One scene that really highlights this is at the beginning of the movie when Katniss is out hunting with Gale, and has a panic attack after envisioning that the turkey she just shot was a tribute from the Games. Another powerful scene demonstrating her shattered nerves is when he is about to be transported to the arena via a tube-elevator, and is forced to watch helplessly from inside the enclosure as her fashion-designer + friend, Cinna, is beaten by Capital soldiers for making Katniss a Mockingjay costume (a symbol of resistance) for her TV interview the night before. Panting with anger and frustration, she emerges in the arena with the realization that Haymitch was right: the real enemy is not the tributes she must fight, but the game-makers themselves.  

    Her destiny is calling her to become a symbol of hope for the people, and her sister Prim encourages her to answer that call, assuring her that her family is behind her. The deciding moment is towards the end of the film, when Katniss refuses to kill a fellow tribute, Gloss, but rather shoots an arrow into the control panel, short-circuiting the arena. Knocked unconscious by the election shock, she winds up being rescued by rebels who had infiltrated the Games, and is urged to officially take up their standard. Now that she has become “Mockingjay”, it will be interesting to see how she handles the intense pressures of her newfound position.  

   Of course, the love triangle is roped around the plot as well, which really bored me to death at times. I mean, come on Katniss, will you make up your mind already? She’s kissing Gale and Peeta alternately, and not just with a sense of passing affection! She even sleeps with Peeta, although I’m happy to report that this is just a matter of Peeta comforting Katniss who is having nightmares, and is not sexual. But at any rate, things are really being dragged out her with regards to her feelings, the one major hand-me-down from teeny-bopper-romances left in this otherwise frightfully adult flick. While we’re on the subject of cheesiness, there is a pretty hokey sequence in which Gale starts to be flogged by Capital soldiers, and Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch all have to come to his rescue. I just thought the officer guy was a really over-the-top villain (who reminded me strongly of an ork from LotR), and the emotional desperation just looked way too much like acting and a vain attempt to make us really feel the pull of the love triangle!  

   One character who becomes more sympathetic in this film is Effie Trinket, who finally begins to realize just how much suffering the Hunger Games really inflict on the people of Panem. She has obviously come to have more than a passing affection for Katniss, Peeta, and even the scruffy Haymitch, and is furious that the Capital would ever force any of them to return to the arena after they had already won against the odds.  She tries pathetically to make some gesture of solidarity with her doomed tributes, insisting that they all should wear something gold to show their unity of spirit saying "we're still a team, aren't we?" I’m hoping her character will be even more fully explored in the next installment.

    It’s interesting to ponder the affect that Hunger Games Fandom is having on our world. Aside from the tee-shirts and archery classes, people really are taking the story-line to heart. Liberals and Conservatives alike have painted it as an allegory for the ills in American society, and some rebels against regimes they deem to be tyrannical have even adopted the three-finger salute of defiance. It does serve as a demonstration of how well-written literature really can enlighten the mind, inspire the heart, and rouse the blood.

    That having been said, I must include a note of warning here. Not all revolutions and independence movements are justified, and governments should not always be stereotyped as the bad guys. Just because one group or another shouts “we are being tyrannized”, it doesn’t necessitate it’s true. Good judgment is vital in determining what causes are worthy of fighting. Also, not all problems within society can be reasonably compared to the extreme situation in Panem, nor do they require a revolution to solve! Sorry, just the British bit of me advocating moderation unless all else fails (see: William Wilberforce in Amazing Grace)! 

    So I suppose my summary of Catching Fire is that it is meant to make us think, and think hard. I wish that more of the film was focused on exploring more of the issues presented instead of barbarically extended “action” sequences. I am sometimes concerned that the sensationalism surrounding the stories is taking away from that very important exercise, and that it is becoming more of a play-thing for the masses. And yet from a Catholic perspective, there is still much to be taken away about how society can either be a life-sustaining, love-affirming safeguard of our liberties, or can be nothing more than a means of channeling all the avarice and vanity of Man into a structure which can do more harm than imagined. These are the ultimate alternatives that we as society-builders must always keep in mind.    

Ceasar Flickerman (Stanley Tuccman) interviews Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence)