I was given the impression from one person that this was a totally cringe-worthy chick flick, but obviously the person who loaned it to me thought it was a worthwhile watch. So I began not really knowing what to expect. Seeing the 'R' rating gave me a little shock, but it was nothing overly outrageous. Some pill-popping and teenagers being teenagers.
This movie made me cry buckets. 'Sweaty eye syndrome' was suggested, but this was more along the lines of 'sweaty because I've just run a marathon barefoot over gravel' syndrome, so I'll just admit I bawled. More than I have in a long, long time. But in the middle of a teary part, something would happen to make me laugh, so I think I could watch it again and enjoy it. (There are some really funny lines).
There was so much in this movie. How to make something of your life, even with only a few months to live. What makes us happy. How to make our kids happy and productive people. How do you know who you are? How we relate to our parents, how we see them and judge them and react to them. Even though the movie was made about 10 years ago, it is so pertinent to today. More on that soon.
The family situation reminds me a bit of the 2 movies I've seen in the last year about school killings. A house which is more magazine than home, and a father who is more absent than involved. And a lack of hugs. Not so apparent in the other movies (Beautiful Boy and We Need to Talk About Kevin), I only really noticed it here because the youngest child is so free with giving hugs. When he gives an unsolicited hug to his dad, the dad finds something that the boy needs to fix (wash hands or do homework or something like that). On the subject of physical contact, one scene really struck me. In the earlier part, the main character, George, is in hospital and his nurse touches his forehead. He comments that he hasn't been touched in a while and the nurse is surprised. "Everyone is touched by someone who loves them", she says. That is taking so much for granted. There have been times in my life where I've been without physical contact for weeks and weeks, and only when a student has given a spontaneous hug that the drought has been broken.
This movie also highlighted the connectedness of our lives. We see a family extended through divorce and remarriage. As the house gets going, neighbours start to chip in and by the end there are about 20 people at work. The Problem Neighbour is persuaded not to stop progress of the house as he is unfortunately connected to Sam (the 16-yr-old son of George). Another neighbour - actually, if I say there are decades of neighbourly interaction I think that will be enough.
Rules, boundaries and risks. Such a fine balance that is needed. Children need boundaries, guidelines for what is ok and not. But when does a boundary become a box? George had been restricted by his father's ideas for his whole life and only when he has merely months to live does he pull down those walls (literally and figuratively) and make his life his own. Although his death is terribly sad and so frustrating now that he's making good connections with his son, how wonderful that he had this forewarning that he didn't have long, and the courage to do what he needed to do with his life. Not all of us get this chance, or the vision to see past the walls put up around us by ourselves and by others. We need boundaries, but we also need to take risks. If we don't take risks we don't grow and are again restricted in our lives (just like me ice skating yesterday), plus we don't develop the resilience needed when life deals us a surprise blow. As I said, just as pertinent now as 10 years ago, if not more so. Navigating what's ok and what's not, believing in our kids and protecting them from the horrors in the world but giving them the skills to deal with life on their own - I'm sometimes amazed that people manage to turn out well-adjusted at all.
How do we know who we are? As a creative person, this question has plagued me for many years (closely twinned with Does my life have purpose?). Sam says, "I am what I say I am", and this is in some ways such a true statement, but in other ways such an unhelpful statement. I am what I say I am (provided my actions correspond), but how do I know what to say? I can say whatever I want, but how do I know which version of me is true, and how do I stay true to myself? How can I build my life to be as Me as I can? And how can I still be happy? It seems the key to happiness is to do what we love - which seems like such an obvious statement, but how many of us ignore this and do what we think others want us to do, or do what will make others happy instead of ourselves? When Sam finally starts to help with the house (against his wishes, but a useful task) he finally finds some self-worth. Partly because his dad didn't give up on him, but made him stay there for the summer to do something useful with his life instead of wasting those months with a friend. And how blokey, for them to bond over pulling down a building (it reminded me of the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa thinks she's losing her smarts, and Homer and Bart are delighted by a tv show of buildings being torn down). Even more, by the end Sam has grown as a person so much that his last act is so selfless, so mature, so right, correcting his grandfather's misdeed.
So now I need to ask myself: am I happy? am I doing what I really love? am I building a house (metaphorically) that I love and is me, or am I building four walls around me that are restricting my life?
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Monday, 18 June 2012
Friday, 30 March 2012
Movie #11 - The Departed
Sam has loaned me a few DVDs, and for the last week or so he has been bugging me to watch The Departed. Yesterday was his birthday, so I thought it fitting it was watched then. I went for a run, started to inhale my dinner, and began the movie. Not a good idea. I was a little distracted by some other things at first, but then when I really got into it, the food was ... just... not welcome.
I used to be fine with violence on-screen. One friend will even watch my face when we're in a violent movie, and when I stop grimacing she'll face the screen again. But a couple of weeks ago I saw Safe House and didn't cope too well, and last night didn't go swimmingly either. Well, I should clarify. I'm not ok with violence to extremities, especially hands. So when Leo is having his arm, only just now in plaster, bashed against a pool table, I was curled in a ball with my eyes averted. That reaction happened a lot. (This is a really good way to avoid eating too much of anything during a movie).
This is a movie I will need to see again - just not near a meal-time. I loved all the twists and turns, and the deception on both sides - it was quite Shakespearean. Especially the ending, where pretty much everyone is dead. And the last man standing is the character I liked the least for most of the time, but who was (I think) the only one who really was who he said he was.
Often when I see a movie with well-known actors, I know who they are the whole way through. There's no escaping some people, no matter what part they are playing at a particular time. I was surprised that I kept forgetting who these actors were, they did such a good job. And not just their acting skills, but the actual casting. Leo's face is so perfect for this role - trying to clean up, but able to look rough. Jack Nicholson (with hair - didn't recognise him at first) so godfather-like, but also similar enough in features to both Matt Damon and Leonardo di Caprio that he could have passed as a father to either of them. I knew Mark Wahlberg was in the cast, but with longer hair and not showing off his guns in most scenes, as well as really offensive language, it took quite some time for me to spot him. And Alex Baldwin and Martin Sheen, similarly, looking almost trustworthy but with enough sleaze you doubt yourself.
One thing that kept swimming around my brain today was the idea of environment and choice. It seems (from my movie and tv watching) that often, the bad guys are bad guys because of their environment. If you grow up in a gang neighbourhood, it's really hard to get out of that. If that's what you know, it takes a lot of guts to even see another way, let alone pursue it. As humans, we need to adapt to our environment and society in order to survive. It may not always be legal, but it's human. So, Leo's character is far more likeable because we can see that he is coming from a scumbag environment, but trying to be a better, more upright person. Matt Damon's character, though, once we find out "Dad" is in fact Costello (Nicholson), is far less likeable, as he's got the good upbringing but is putting it to waste by being a rat. And that's aside from the fact that he's not the right man for Vera Farmiga (who is becoming one of my favourite actresses).
But there's even more to it than that. In order for the law enforcement agencies to bring down Costello, there was such a web of deception. So many people were rats that it seemed all Costello's crew were actually undercover agents, and most of the law enforcement people were rats for Costello. Finding the right people to do your dirty work, as it really was, would be so hard - but then, actually being that person would be immensely hard. As we see with Leo's character. Trying to lead a double life, convincing both sides you're loyal to each of them, knowing this might get you killed, trying to 'keep things on an even keel' (a line which pops up a few times) and deflect suspicion - it does your head in.
And this really ties in with personal identity. Who are you? Are you a rat, a cop, an ex-cop, an undercover cop? One thing Leo says near the end is, Being a cop is not an identity. Which has only just got my brain ticking over. When is your occupation your identity? When is it not? How do you know who you are? Getting very philosophical here...
Other small things about this movie: Having visited Boston many years ago, I really enjoyed seeing that scenery, picking out those landmarks, pretending to be there again. A few of the phone numbers were not - I repeat, not - 555 numbers. (I guess they were real, then...). Music - there seemed to be very little, and what stuck in my head was the opera. IMDb tells me it was Lucia di Lammermoor, and also reminded me of all the Irish and Scottish music. Duh. I don't know if it's an actual thing, or a scheme set up by producers or something, but older bad guys seem to have a thing for opera. I wonder about the psychology of that. Does it make us think more highly of them? Is it intended to mess with out brains? Anyway... All in all - a very satisfying movie. Ooh, it does come with violence and language warnings though. Not one to watch with squeamish people, or one's parents.
I used to be fine with violence on-screen. One friend will even watch my face when we're in a violent movie, and when I stop grimacing she'll face the screen again. But a couple of weeks ago I saw Safe House and didn't cope too well, and last night didn't go swimmingly either. Well, I should clarify. I'm not ok with violence to extremities, especially hands. So when Leo is having his arm, only just now in plaster, bashed against a pool table, I was curled in a ball with my eyes averted. That reaction happened a lot. (This is a really good way to avoid eating too much of anything during a movie).
This is a movie I will need to see again - just not near a meal-time. I loved all the twists and turns, and the deception on both sides - it was quite Shakespearean. Especially the ending, where pretty much everyone is dead. And the last man standing is the character I liked the least for most of the time, but who was (I think) the only one who really was who he said he was.
Often when I see a movie with well-known actors, I know who they are the whole way through. There's no escaping some people, no matter what part they are playing at a particular time. I was surprised that I kept forgetting who these actors were, they did such a good job. And not just their acting skills, but the actual casting. Leo's face is so perfect for this role - trying to clean up, but able to look rough. Jack Nicholson (with hair - didn't recognise him at first) so godfather-like, but also similar enough in features to both Matt Damon and Leonardo di Caprio that he could have passed as a father to either of them. I knew Mark Wahlberg was in the cast, but with longer hair and not showing off his guns in most scenes, as well as really offensive language, it took quite some time for me to spot him. And Alex Baldwin and Martin Sheen, similarly, looking almost trustworthy but with enough sleaze you doubt yourself.
One thing that kept swimming around my brain today was the idea of environment and choice. It seems (from my movie and tv watching) that often, the bad guys are bad guys because of their environment. If you grow up in a gang neighbourhood, it's really hard to get out of that. If that's what you know, it takes a lot of guts to even see another way, let alone pursue it. As humans, we need to adapt to our environment and society in order to survive. It may not always be legal, but it's human. So, Leo's character is far more likeable because we can see that he is coming from a scumbag environment, but trying to be a better, more upright person. Matt Damon's character, though, once we find out "Dad" is in fact Costello (Nicholson), is far less likeable, as he's got the good upbringing but is putting it to waste by being a rat. And that's aside from the fact that he's not the right man for Vera Farmiga (who is becoming one of my favourite actresses).
But there's even more to it than that. In order for the law enforcement agencies to bring down Costello, there was such a web of deception. So many people were rats that it seemed all Costello's crew were actually undercover agents, and most of the law enforcement people were rats for Costello. Finding the right people to do your dirty work, as it really was, would be so hard - but then, actually being that person would be immensely hard. As we see with Leo's character. Trying to lead a double life, convincing both sides you're loyal to each of them, knowing this might get you killed, trying to 'keep things on an even keel' (a line which pops up a few times) and deflect suspicion - it does your head in.
And this really ties in with personal identity. Who are you? Are you a rat, a cop, an ex-cop, an undercover cop? One thing Leo says near the end is, Being a cop is not an identity. Which has only just got my brain ticking over. When is your occupation your identity? When is it not? How do you know who you are? Getting very philosophical here...
Other small things about this movie: Having visited Boston many years ago, I really enjoyed seeing that scenery, picking out those landmarks, pretending to be there again. A few of the phone numbers were not - I repeat, not - 555 numbers. (I guess they were real, then...). Music - there seemed to be very little, and what stuck in my head was the opera. IMDb tells me it was Lucia di Lammermoor, and also reminded me of all the Irish and Scottish music. Duh. I don't know if it's an actual thing, or a scheme set up by producers or something, but older bad guys seem to have a thing for opera. I wonder about the psychology of that. Does it make us think more highly of them? Is it intended to mess with out brains? Anyway... All in all - a very satisfying movie. Ooh, it does come with violence and language warnings though. Not one to watch with squeamish people, or one's parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)