Philadelphia (1993)

4/4 stars

About fifteen years ago I had a conversation with a woman who told me she couldn’t understand why I supported gay rights if I was not gay myself. Her ignorance was profoundly telling. About seventy or so Alabaman whites marched at Selma in 1965. Had she been there at the time I knew now where she would have been. She’d have stayed at home. For far too many justice for others is not their problem.

In Jonathan Demme’s Philadelphia, attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) is faced with a similar dilemma. After agreeing to take Andrew Beckett’s (Tom Hanks) case against AIDS discrimination he is propositioned by a homosexual in a drugstore. To this guy it seemed that only another homosexual would take any interest defending a gay man’s rights. But, Miller, an unapologetic homophobe, vehemently and violently denies the assumption. For him the issue is a matter of justice and the law, not social acceptance of the LGBTQ community. Like Oskar Schindler, Miller’s reasons for protecting the disenfranchised are not the same as the disenfranchised’s for seeking his help. When Miller comes around it is not a dramatic scene of recognition of his errors, but a slow process of developing compassion. As their relationship grows Beckett becomes more than just a client. He becomes a fellow human being.

Andrew Beckett is a lawyer working for a prominent law firm who gets fired after receiving an AIDS diagnosis. To him his termination is a cut and dry case of discrimination. But his boss Charles Wheeler (Jason Robards) and his team of lawyers have orchestrated things so that things are not so simple. They sabotage one of his cases by hiding a much needed file so they can accuse him of incompetence. And it is this argument of incompetence they bring to the courtroom, leaving him to have to prove that his homosexuality and illness were the real reasons.
Miller is reluctant, at first, to take Beckett’s case. The fact that he was Beckett’s tenth choice to represent him doesn’t help either. Miller doesn’t think he has a case and he rejects him initially.
The moment of change comes months later when Miller is at the library. As he quietly pores over a stack of books a complete stranger passes him by and stares him down with an angry unprovoked glare. As a 39 year old black man in 1993, Miller remembers a time when racism was legal and institutionalized and the cause of the stranger’s unspoken hostility is obvious. When the moment passes he sees Beckett, his physical deterioration now clearly visible, looking over some law books at another table. The library’s curator and other visitors are uncomfortable with his presence and drop hints that they want him to go study out of sight. The ignorant prejudice that makes them think AIDS is communicable by proximity is fully on display. The scene makes minimal use of dialogue, letting visual language and editing do the talking.

Philadelphia is a film that lets the camera subtly speak for the characters. Emotion is conveyed most strongly in the movie’s shots. Values and thoughts flash by unspoken through glances, gestures, and body language. The film often speaks volumes in scenes where not a word is spoken.

In the court room the defendants exert all their efforts into damaging Beckett’s credibility. They push forward a narrative that Beckett was a mediocre lawyer and the situation with the missing file was the last straw. Their arguments and the facts they present are erudite and convincing enough to leave things seemingly stacked against him. His own defense relies more on circumstantial evidence and it is a very subtle point about his former bosses’ behavior that gives him any chance for success.
Beckett when he is on the stand makes a profound statement about justice. He claims that his favorite part of being a lawyer were those rare moments when he felt he played some role in seeing justice done for other people. It’s a turning point in the proceedings where the looks of shame on the defendants’ faces and the judge’s observation of them silently clarifies everything. They were not the good guys in this story and they knew it.
Being the good guy may seem naive to some, especially to lawyers, but the simple morality of Sesame Street values is where the buck stops at the end of the day. And that is a truth that stands whether we grown-up civilized people want to admit it or not.

Philadelphia is not so much a film about acceptance of the LGBTQ community – despite the subject matter – but rather the universality of human rights and the justice that all people deserve as human beings. What the film states is that we shouldn’t have to approve of someone’s life style and personal identity to afford them rights and give them justice. The fact remains that a man was wrongfully terminated and the act was against the law. A homophobic lawyer’s opinion of his client’s sexuality is irrelevant and Miller understood this when he took Beckett’s case. He finds himself having to remind a journalist in one scene that the Declaration of Independence said that all men are created equal, not all straight men are created equal.

Justice and rights are, as a principle, universal and when we only give them to some we ultimately give them to none. Tides can turn in how the social zeitgeist views certain groups and our salvation and progress lie in the precedent we set today. If we don’t stand up and defend outcasts who are socially safe to discriminate against, who will, when the tides turn again, stand up and defend us?

Director: Jonathan Demme
Writer: Ron Nyswaner
Producers: Jonathan Demme, Edward Saxon, Ron Bozman, Gary Goetzman, Kenneth Utt, Kristi Zea
Cast: Tom Hanks (Andrew Beckett), Denzel Washington (Joe Miller), Joanne Woodward (Sarah Beckett), Jason Robards (Charles Wheeler), Antonio Banderas (Miguel Alvarez), Mary Steenburgen (Belinda Conine), Charles Napier (Judge Garnett)
Composer: Howard Shore
Cinematographer: Tak Fujimoto
Editor: Craig McKay

Doom (2005)

1/4 stars

Doom is a movie that pleases neither fans of the game or fans of action movies in general. Being both I can say this with some authority. ID Software’s 1993 Doom is often heralded as one of the greatest video games ever made and with good reason. It fathered the popularity of the first person shooter genre, was satisfying and cathartic to play, and graphically set the stage for the PC becoming the superior platform for gaming. Alongside BioShock, Donkey Kong Country, and Final Fantasy VI it is one of my favorite video games of all time. It’s simple on story (forgivable in a video game), but it plays like a game of chess. More than just “guns blazing” action it is a game of resource management and split-second decisions on choice of weapon and the player’s movements.

But enough about the video game. I am here to review the movie.

The movie adaptation is a chaotic mess of noise and bad lighting that does no justice to video games or to science fiction movies. Instead of the satanic, heavy-metal inspired inferno of Gothic imagery that made the game so memorable – and so controversial – we get instead a close quarters action thriller that tries to imitate Aliens, but in the end barely reaches the quality of Jason X. At least that movie, awful as it was, had some personality to it. This film has none.
The characters are not characters at all. They exist only because somebody has to shoot the guns, wear the costumes, and get eviscerated every once and awhile. Being written the way they are, the casting can only be an expensive waste of time. Rosamund Pike, The Rock, Karl Urban, and the talented and too often underrated Richard Brake should have fired their agents after starring in this non-spectacle. There is no chemistry to any of their performances. They grunt, scream, and utter some false-ringing phrases of machismo. What the writers don’t seem to understand is that without character investment and plot development, action scenes are going to be boring.
Even had the visuals not been drab and unappealing, the persistent action sequences lack interest. Everything is dimly lit to disguise the paltry special effects budget; the sequences mostly shot in close-up of grimacing faces of space marines space marining their way through dark hallways, strobe lights, and a lot of muzzle flashes and shattering glass.
There is one mildly impressive scene where Karl Urban’s “character” goes into first-person mode (like in the video game) as he fires through a gauntlet of monsters and demons. But the sequence is out of place and pointless. The rest of the film is not shot this way and it doesn’t serve the plot at all. Although admittedly I thought the hell knight wielding a chainsaw was kinda nifty.

My use of the word demon might be a bit premature. In the games they were demons because they were accidentally summoned from Hell by experimental portal tech. But, here they are said to be ancient natives of Mars’s moons that were dug up by an archaeological team. They are explicitly claimed to have one extra chromosome compared to humans and this apparently gives them super-strength and high intelligence. They were products of an ancient eugenic program that turned them into murderous monsters. I won’t comment on the feasibility of all that because I am not a geneticist, but I suspect the science behind this lore is fairly dubious at best.
At any rate the monsters can barely be seen throughout most of the movie. I would expect theater goers expecting some sort of spectacle in 2005 felt ripped off. None of these people spending their cash on a Doom movie were asking for badly lit shadows scurrying past the camera from a distance. But that is what they got, and when we finally get any decent look at the monsters in the film’s last 30 minutes it is too little too late.

This movie really has nothing to do with Hell or even monsters. It doesn’t even have much to do with space marines. There would have to be more genuine camaraderie for that. It doesn’t even have a story worthy of attention. The plot never thickens, it merely simmers. It sticks on one point and doesn’t develop. The space marines go to mars, growl, shoot at things. and die on senseless repeat until the movie is over. Doom was a cheap and tawdry experience to sit through.
If you really want to watch a good adaptation of a video game go watch the Fallout TV series on Amazon. But this movie can stay in Hell where it belongs. It’s the same Circle where they keep the Uwe Boll films.

Director: Andrzej Bartkowiak
Writers: Dave Callaham, Wesley Strick
Producers: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, John Wells, John D. Schofield, Laura Holstein, David Minkowski, Henning Molfenter, Thierry Potok, Jeremy Steckler, Matthew Stillman
Cast: The Rock (Sarge), Karl Urban (John Grimm), Rosamund Pike (Samantha Grimm), Deobia Oparei (Destroyer), Ben Daniels (Goat), Razaaq Adoti (Duke), Richard Brake (Portman), Al Weaver (The Kid), Dexter Fletcher (Pinky), Brian Steele (Hell Knight), Yao Chin (Mac), Robert Russell (Dr. Carmack), Daniel York (Lt. Hunegs), Ian Hughes (Sanford Crosby)
Composer: Clint Mansell
Cinematographer: Tony Pierce-Roberts
Editor: Derek Brechin

Fantastic Planet (1973)

4/4 stars

Fantastic Planet is a beautiful and visually arresting piece of counter-culture art. Roland Topor’s animation is like the illustrations of a storybook. Not a single shot is wasted and every frame is a work of beauty on its own. The images have a grim Dr. Seussian quality and are illustrated like a darker version of the works of Maurice Sendak.

The film presents a challenge to our notions of nature and humanity’s relationship with it. The natives of the planet Ygram are gigantic blue-skinned beings called Draags. Theirs is a sophisticated, proud culture where knowledge is highly sought after and meditation is a regular ritual in every household. Humans are also present, but they are the size of insects in comparison and are viewed as little more than dumb animals to the Draags. The humans are called Oms (evidently derived from “homme” the French word for Man), and when they are not being kept as pets they are treated as vermin.
The movie opens with an Om mother carrying an infant in her arms. When she runs into a large blue hand, it’s finger flicks her around like one would an annoying bug. The casual cruelty brings about her death, but a young Draag child finds the Om baby and adopts it as a pet. Their relationship is a playful one, but I would not call it loving. The young Om is prodded and teased like he’s a toy and when the Draag grows into adolescence she becomes bored with him and neglects him. The Om (whose name is Terr) runs away and finds more of his kind in the wilds. These Oms are considered pests by the Draags and are routinely exterminated in a process called de-Ominization.
The Draag attitude toward Oms is not entirely hostile, but it is highly patronizing. Oms make decent pets they claim, but they breed too rapidly in the wild. As sub-Draag animals in their eyes, the Oms have no rights and kindness is afforded them only when it is convenient. In our own culture dogs and cats are loved and treated with familial affection, but little thought is given to killing them should they bite another human being or if they contract a disease. We distinguish them from humans where individual rights come into play. The Draag opinion of Oms is not dissimilar. What is most alarming about the Draag’s ideas about Oms is how sensible they are from their point of view. Why shouldn’t they flick an annoying Om away like a bug if a bug is all they are? Why shouldn’t their nests be subject to extermination if animals is all they are? As long as the Oms are equated with animals the Draags’ behavior toward them is justified. It’s as justified as how we treat animals on our own planet. No crime is committed when we squash a bug. Even when we take satisfaction and enjoyment from the experience. Think on the last time you squashed an annoying beetle. Did it make a popping crunch when it died? Have you ever sucked terrified pests with a vacuum and watched them go? Was it oddly fun and satisfying? In its own way The Fantastic Planet asks these questions. And it adds one more. Could there be something wrong with being so casual about it, let alone enjoying it? The reason we reject these questions is because we accept that they are sub-human species and the act of killing them and even enjoying it doesn’t carry the same moral weight as doing the same to another human being. As long as the Draag maintain this same view of the Oms they are cushioned against any guilt from causing them harm. When we are convinced of our definitions there is moral justification in committing these acts without moral censure. Roland Topor, who also co-wrote the film, knows this better than most. His father was a Polish-Jew who had been one of a small group of survivors of a Nazi death camp. And like the Draags, the Nazis freed themselves of guilt by their definitions. Jews were not human beings to them. Ergo their brutal treatment was justified. Evil doesn’t cackle and twirl its mustache like in cartoons. It moralizes and debates with cold reason.

Fantastic Planet is the sort of film that is only one of a handful of films that comes along in my lifetime. They are the films that challenge me by asking questions that are uncomfortable and difficult to answer. Like most of my species, I was raised to find the question of animal rights laughable at best. Fantastic Planet asks the question and it is not funny at all. It forces the viewer to face the issue even if the answer is not clear. I appreciate art that challenges. I personally think we need more of it. Even were we to fall back onto the opinions we held before, it is no bad thing to reevaluate them once in awhile.

Director: Rene Laloux
Writers: Roland Topor, Rene Laloux
Producers: Anatole Dauman, Simon Damiani, Andre Valio-Cavaglione
Cast: Jennifer Drake (Tiwa), Eric Baugin (Young Terr), Jean Topart (Master Sinh), Jean Valmont (Adult Terr)
Composer: Alain Goraguer
Cinematographers: Boris Baromykin, Lubomir Rejthar
Editors: Helene Arnal, Marta Latalova

The Plague Dogs (1982)

3.5/4 stars

Hope is a powerful thing. It can push a man (or a dog) to achieve more than he otherwise could without it. But hope doesn’t ensure victory and The Plague Dogs is tragically aware of this. By the close of the first act it is clear that nothing that happens in the movie is going to end well.

The film (by the creators of Watership Down and based on a novel by the same author) opens with a dog being cruelly drowned by lab scientists. They retrieve and resuscitate him; and it is explained that they have been doing this routinely. What is involved is an endurance test in which the scientists time how long the poor dog can be kept underwater before being saved. It’s stated that psychology is a factor. The dog, named Rowf (Christopher Benjamin), begins to anticipate the rescues which gives him the endurance to survive the longer and longer periods of simulated drowning. Simpler put, hope is trained into him as a Pavlovian response.
Rowf doesn’t understand why this is being done to him and wonders aloud if he has been a bad dog somehow. His friend, Snitter (John Hurt), has more reason to think so. Unlike Rowf, Snitter was not raised in captivity and once had a kind, loving master. But his old owner was killed by an oncoming truck after he had tried to coax Snitter off the road. Snitter still suffers from bad dreams over the incident and he views the lab and the harsh world they escape into as a sort of purgatory to atone for his past sins. Snitter is not being drowned routinely like Rowf is, but the scientists conducted an experimental brain surgery on him that causes him difficulty in distinguishing reality from his imagination. This causes him to relive his past traumas vividly and he sometimes dives into his own memories of happier days because he thinks he is physically safer there.

Their escape from the lab presents them with freedom, but not much happiness. The English countryside they wander in is to them a stark wild place. The painted backgrounds present wide open fields and stony ground in late Autumn. It’s a cold unfriendly place that requires cold and unfriendly acts to survive. They begin slaughtering sheep for food which gets a lot of angry attention from local herders. It’s not long before the two escaped dogs are on the news and the lab scientists are working hard to find the dogs and kill them. Turns out there is more to the dogs’ escape than killing sheep and inconveniencing farmers. The dogs are revealed to be carriers of the bubonic plague and the scientists have an invested interest in seeing them neutralized.

Rowf and Snitter don’t understand any of this, of course, and they press on trying to find a safe place away from the harsh environment. At first, Snitter holds out in the hopes of finding new masters to care for them, but the harsh reception from the locals dashes these dreams. In the end their only goal is safety. What they find in the end is a world that has rejected them and won’t allow them peace or security.

The driving force throughout the events of The Plague Dogs is hope. But the situation Snitter and Rowf are in is a hopeless one. The film delves into the psychology of hope honestly. Hope does not always bring about victory, but it can lengthen the duration of survival and add endurance. The dogs’ ignorance and their hope gets them as far as it does. But the film’s final note is one of uncertainty and nothing works out for them as they had wished.

The fact that The Plague Dogs is a cartoon can be misleading to the unwary. The painted backdrops give still life realism to the Fall-to-Winter world they dwell in, and the animated cells are not gaudy and colorful like in a Disney picture. The animals and people are drawn with the same realism in mind and they are photographed as if they were live action and not cute cartoon characters. This is also a very violent film that gives tangible reality to the messiness of death. The Plague Dogs, like Watership Down which preceded it, is not a movie for young children. If anything, this film is more traumatizing and dark than Watership Down ever was. That film was about the harshness and sacrificial requirements needed to achieve victory. The Plague Dogs is not about victory at all. Rather, it is about hope in the midst of hopelessness. Their hope carries them far, but never far enough; and there is a stark sort of truth to how this movie handles hope and its value. Most movies cop out with promises of salvation and victory, even if bittersweet and costly. The Plague Dogs is a movie that has the guts to tell us that sometimes things just don’t work out. That is not to say that hope is a dangerous lie. The film doesn’t indict hope at all. But it does say something about being prepared for failure. It’s a rough truth, but a valuable one.

Director: Martin Rosen
Writer: Martin Rosen
Producers: Martin Rosen, Jake Eberts
Cast: John Hurt (Snitter), Christopher Benjamin (Rowf), James Bolam (The Tod), Nigel Hawthorne (Dr. Boycott), Warren Mitchell (Tyson/Wag), Bernard Hepton (Stephen Powell), Penelope Lee (Lynn Driver)
Composer: Patrick Gleeson
Editor: Richard Harkness

Suicide Squad (2016)

1/4 stars

Suicide Squad barely qualifies as a movie. It plays more like a feature length trailer for a movie that doesn’t exist. I said as much to my family when the movie was over. When I later looked up some info on the movie and found out that the film’s editing was outsourced to a company whose specialty was, indeed, making film trailers I felt fairly vindicated. Its original editor dropped out midway through post-production and the studio opted not to give director David Ayer final cut. The nicest thing I can say about Suicide Squad is that there is good evidence that Warner Brothers sabotaged it.
The entire movie is nothing but the sort of highlights of action and comedy that one sees in marketing. It never takes a break, but keeps moving from one thing to the next, never stopping to flesh out its characters or settle upon a theme. It’s essentially a heist/task force movie; a genre that has put out more garbage than gold most of the time.

Suicide Squad was an endurance test on my patience the entire time I was watching it. When a film has its characters written this thinly, what you get is a boring movie. It doesn’t matter how many action scenes you cram into it. There is no emotional investment in this movie at all. The motivations and drives of its leads are limply delegated to a few short vignettes which don’t do the job. These scenes are also thinly written, serving only to tell us how the characters feel, but the never showing it convincingly. It misuses its cast unforgivably.

Following the death of Superman in Batman v Superman, the film’s plot – or what passes for one – tells us that the US government is concerned about how to combat evil meta-humans going forward. At the Pentagon, intelligence officer Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) comes up with the brilliant idea (and by brilliant I mean stupid) to create a specialized response unit comprised of some of the worst criminals and super-villains in the world. However, the only thing she accomplishes by doing this is, is to create the very problem that the Pentagon feared. One of them goes rogue almost immediately and poses such a serious threat the remaining members of the team are assigned to take her out. The incompetence on display here is staggering. What makes Waller all the more infuriating is she never takes any ownership of the mess. She remains arrogant and overconfident throughout the film, and worse still, she outright murders Pentagon personnel for overhearing information about the Suicide Squad they weren’t cleared to hear. These individuals probably had families to go home to and they are killed to protect a group of gangbangers and thugs. Waller ought to face court martial and a firing squad for this.

Enchantress (Cara Delevingne) is an ancient witch spirit who possesses the body of a woman named June Moore who just happens to be the lover of one of Waller’s subordinates. Enchantress summons her brother Incubus and creates an army of possessed former soldiers in order to destroy the human race. What else is new?
The members of the Suicide Squad are six prison inmates. Deadshot (Will Smith) is a paid assassin and family man who wants to see his daughter again. Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) is a sewer-dwelling lizard man whose sole reason for joining is because he wants to negotiate getting BET on the TV in his cell. El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) is a fire-wielding gangbanger who accidentally killed his family years ago and is now mildly sad about it. He refuses to use his powers at first, but later comes around. Good for him, I guess.
The most interesting of the bunch – yet still woefully underwritten – is Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). She’s an exaggerated caricature of Mallory from Natural Born Killers who maintains a cutesy flirtatious lilt to her voice even when murdering people. She’s the Joker’s (Jared Leto) girlfriend and was at one time his therapist until he brainwashed her by forcing her into an electro-shock therapy machine. Her weapon of choice is a baseball bat which she preposterously brings to gun fights. The other two are Slipknot and Captain Boomerang whose contributions to the film leave them not worth talking about. There is also added to the mix a Japanese swordswoman named Katana (Karen Fukuhara) whose dead husband’s soul lives in her sword.
Joker is one of the weakest points of the movie. His screentime is shockingly minimal and Leto plays him more like a flamboyant mob boss than the master of chaos and insanity that we know. His appearance – slick-backed green hair, white makeup, and shirtless tattooed body – reminds me of someone you’d see in an emo band.

These characters are introduced in quick succession with a few sparing minutes given for each to provide them some semblance of backstory. The movie’s plot gets moving and doesn’t stop as soon as its begins. Suicide Squad barely has a first act which is crucial if you want to tell a story and have the audience give a damn about it.
Instead of plot the film is more obsessed with violent imagery, edgelord humor, and squeezing in as many back shots of Margot Robbie in booty shorts during its runtime as it can get away with. The whole thing is a childish mess and doesn’t deserve to be called a movie. It was made with 12 year old boys in mind. The sort who play a lot of GTA, listen to rap and metal, and who just discovered internet pornography for the first time recently. Not only does Suicide Squad have nothing to say about real people, it isn’t even made for real people. Certainly not people I’d leave alone with my kids.

I find it hard to believe that Suicide Squad is supposed to be connected to Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Those movies, while imperfect, are far more charismatic and wholesome than this piece of juvenile trash. It has all the delicate plotting of a Friday the 13th movie, but even less entertaining. After seeing what Warner Brothers had done to Batgirl I wished they could have shelved this one as well. This is one of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen. I hated every disingenuous moment of it. I hated its thoughtless and pointless approach to violence. I hated the sleaze that went into its writing. Suicide Squad fails on every level, including the simple requirement of being a movie. I would have rather just watched the film’s trailer and pretended it was a short film. The full picture was time wasted that I will never get back. Rarely is a movie so bad that I cannot imagine myself watching it again at some point. But, if I never think about this movie again it won’t be soon enough.

Director: David Ayer
Writers: David Ayer
Producers: Charles Roven, Richard Suckle, Geoff Johns, Steven Mnuchin, Deborah Snyder, Zack Snyder, Colin Wilson, Bruce Franklin, Andy Horwitz, Alex Ott
Cast: Will Smith (Deadshot), Margot Robbie (Harley Quinn), Viola Davis (Amanda Waller), Jared Leto (Joker), Jai Courtney (Boomerang), Jay Hernandez (Diablo), Adewale Akkinuoye-Agbaje (Killer Croc), Cara Delevingne (June Moone/Enchantress), Joel Kinnaman (Rick Flag), Adam Beach (Slipknot), Karen Fukuhara (Katana)
Composer: Steven Price
Cinematographer: Roman Vasyanov
Editor: John Gilroy

The Straight Story (1999)

3.5/4 stars

In the Summer of 1994 74 year-old Alvin Straight drove 240 miles from Laurens, Iowa to Blue River, Wisconsin on a riding mower. His older brother Henry had suffered a stroke and Alvin, too old to hold a driver’s license, decided to make the trip to see him on his John Deere. At 5 miles an hour the trip took six weeks. To sustain himself he packed the mower’s trailer with food, camping gear, clothes, and other amenities; while camping out in corn fields and woods at night.
Why an ailing, elderly man with diabetes and emphysema would do this is not a mystery to me as a native of the Midwest. The old timers in my neck of the woods are notoriously stubborn when it comes to self-preservation, but to them family is everything. They are also always working. After retirement they often take a new lease on life, buying farms, renting properties, or pouring their remaining time onto their vehicles. I’ve met a lot of men like Alvin. None of them did what he did, but they are all quite capable of it and they most certainly would do it if a similar situation arose.

David Lynch’s The Straight Story perfectly captures the rural Midwestern spirit. As a Michigan native much of the imagery and personalities that the film portrays are familiar to me. People in the Midwest, especially among the quiet life of retirees, are very much like the people in this movie. Shot on location, The Straight Story accurately presents in its road movie format the long stretches of road along cornfields that sit between towns. Not on a lawn mower, of course, but I have been on many such trips.

I am uncertain what drew David Lynch, a filmmaker known for his surrealism and fascination with body horror, to this story. But, by taking on the project the film’s title takes on a double meaning. The Straight Story naturally refers to the story of Alvin Straight, but it is also out of all of Lynch’s films the most straight story of his career. What typically characterizes his work are unreliable narrators, non-sequential narratives, and bizarre imagery. None of these elements, however, are here and, what’s more, it is the only Lynch film to be rated G and to be distributed by the Walt Disney Company. To the more adolescent David Lynch fans the film might come across as saccharine and hokey. But, to me, the film is just another example of Lynch’s fascination with human behavior and how it connects to the mystery of what life is about and what it means. Unlike his other films it asks no questions. Instead its characters have either since come up with answers of their own or have given up bothering with the questions at all. Their lives have been lived already. Alvin and the other characters in the movie are not seeking anymore, but only doing. Art is often about making sense out of the human experience. But, it is nice to have a change of pace with a movie that is about simple, plain old-fashioned living and carrying the values we learn without constantly questioning them. Questioning values is a young man’s game. The Straight Story, I suspect, speaks most to those who have gone on long enough to have their lives and values figured out. The Straight Story speaks to young and old alike, but it is to the old that it is chiefly directed.

After Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) suffers a fall in his home, his doctor tells him he has to make serious life-style changes if he is to regain control of his health. Like any rural Midwesterner of his generation he decides to ignore the advice. The sole compromise he makes for the doctor is agreeing to equip a second cane.
Alvin lives with his daughter, Rose (Sissy Spacek) who is understandably concerned about her father’s well-being. She has a severe learning disability that leaves her with the mentality of a ten year-old. To Alvin, calling her slow is far from the mark and he insists that she has shown a capacity for self-sufficiency that others do not understand. Due to her issues the State had taken her children away from her after one of them was injured in a house fire while being babysat. The incident was not her fault and she had nothing to do with it. But, the malicious disregard for the mentally ill and the itchy trigger finger people have for calling Child Protective Services is unfortunately systemic in this country and her voice was never heard. Alvin says not a day goes by when she is not pining for her children. Rose, like Alvin, has past trauma that they bear quietly in the present. It makes them who they are, but the trauma is long in the past and what is left are the lasting effects. Past trauma is often dealt with dramatically in movies. A lot of screaming, crying, slamming of fists, heart-wrenching dialogue, and other bits of Oscar bait. But, in reality people, like the people in this movie, cope with their past trauma quietly and it shapes their character. Neither Rose nor Alvin would be the people they are today without it, but the trauma is not the crux of the film’s story.

Alvin gets more bad news when he finds out that his brother (Harry Dean Stanton) has had a stroke. They had not spoken in years after they had had a spat, but the combination of his health problems and those of his brother gives Alvin a sense of borrowed time. Without being able to drive a car, he hooks a trailer to his John Deere mower and begins a six-week journey to meet his brother and hopefully make amends.

The journey is a celebration of rural and small town Americana. The odyssey is a visual feast of stretches of road, country fields, abandoned barns, and bonfires in woody glades. He passes through a modest number of small Midwestern towns where people gather and stare. The people he meets along the way amount to small episodes where his values and eccentric actions touch them in some significant way. Family is a big part of his value system and many of the folks he encounters aren’t quite there yet, but their meetings with him leave them a lot to think about. In Alvin is found something sweet and wholesome that to some may come across as trite. The triteness is an illusion, though, because for Alvin what he says is very much real and true to life. These encounters frequently put the film at risk of uttering a false note, but I detect nothing disingenuous in the movie’s messages. Even when he encourages a teen runaway to go back home or lectures a couple of bickering brothers about loving one’s family, The Straight Story, never rings false like a Hallmark TV movie. The film proves that jadedness is not a necessary quality of being real, and that wholesome values do not have to be faked in drama.

The real life Alvin Straight never did what he did to garner praise or fame. In fact, he never was much comfortable with the media attention and he had declined offers to appear on Leno and Letterman. I doubt he gave it much thought that driving 240 miles on a lawn mower was unusual. He was just a man like anybody else. A man with an ailing brother he wanted to see and the mower was the only means to get there. He was tenacious, but not special; and that is apparently how he wanted to be remembered.
His story could easily have been the subject of a TV movie – come and gone, and then forgotten. I am glad it was not. By giving it a theatrical release and under the guidance of a talented filmmaker it’s inspiring message is more broadly accessible than something aired on a Friday night. The Straight Story’s radical idea that wholesome values and being real do not have to be exclusive is a message people need to hear more and more.

Director: David Lynch
Writers: John Roach, Mary Sweeney
Cast: Richard Farnsworth (Alvin Straight), Sissy Spacek (Rose Straight), Everitt McGill (Tom), Harry Dean Stanton (Lyle Straight)
Producers: Pierre Edelman, Neal Edelstein, Michael Polaire, Mary Sweeney
Composer: Angelo Badalamenti
Cinematographer: Freddie Francis
Editor: Mary Sweeney

Joker (2019)

3.5/4 stars

Joker is a movie that rarely shows a moment of compassion or kindness. And, yet, compassion is what the film is about. The absence of it creates a vacuum that emphasizes why kindness and warmth are so important. The pervasive images of cruelty and humiliation on display express the film’s ideals by negative example. The lasting impression when the movie is over is powerful.

When I first saw Todd Phillips’ Joker in theaters back in 2019 I had a strong negative reaction to it. I had felt at the time that the film was being disingenuous and that it was catering to the depressive instincts of angry young men. I’m sure you know the type. They quote Nietzsche, wear black, listen to Nine Inch Nails, and casually say life is terrible on principle. But, seven years later, viewing the film a second time, I think I understand the movie a little more. Like Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing it shows a series of conditions that escalate to terrible acts of violence. It grates against black and white thinking that patently condemns these events without considering the importance of recognizing their causes.

Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a severely mentally ill man who has unrealistic dreams of becoming a famous comedian. He lives a lonely existence where the only figure in his life sympathetic toward him is his ailing mother Penny (Frances Conroy), But, she is oblivious to the severity of his problems, suffering from debilitating mental issues and delusions herself. She frequently says he was always such a happy boy even though he is far from happy and likely never was. He is on seven different medications and tells his social worker “You just ask the same questions every week. How’s your job? Are you having any negative thoughts? All I have are negative thoughts.”
Depression is a real bitch and combining it in a cocktail of emotional immaturity, cognitive difficulties, and social isolation is a recipe for disaster. He and his mother live well below the fringes of poverty which forces him to eke out a living in his condition. His job outsources him as a party clown, but his social awkwardness and odd behavior elicits scorn from his boss and coworkers. A part of his condition is a nervous tick where he flies into fits of uncontrollable laughter regardless of what he is feeling at the time. Despite his attempts to explain the condition he only gets mocked and he is frequently asked what he finds so funny. He is unable to connect or bond with anyone. Arthur looks wishfully on as others socialize and engage with one another, but only becomes off putting when he tries to do the same. He comforts himself with childish fantasies of positive social interactions among people he likes and admires. But, in his real life the only time people give him a second look is usually to say something mean.
The isolation he endures is the key to his slow descent into madness. Mental illness and isolation go hand in hand and it gives the sufferer a unique perspective on people. For most of us we can generally separate the mean people from the kind ones; the good from the bad. But, for people with severe mental illness this is harder to do since neither the good people nor the bad people seem capable of treating them very well. The rotten eggs, of course, take every opportunity to heap cruelty and bullying on mentally ill victims. But, there is also a profound failing among more upright people that cuts even deeper. Sidelong glances of irritation, limited empathy, refusing to listen or understand, and social ostracizing are inflicted on the mentally ill by the upright and wicked alike. An impression is given to men like Arthur Fleck that there is a free pass for otherwise nice people to be dismissive and unkind to them because no one really likes them anyway. It’s a road to resentment and painful consequences that often could have been evaded by one encouraging word at the right time that never came.
I think it is these themes that created the polarizing reactions the film got when it came out. The films plays like a dirge for all the school shooters and impassioned murderers who have plagued our recent history. In the wake of a terrible crime it is easy to justify hatred for the perpetrator given the severity of what they had done. And offering them any sympathy or understanding is a big no-no. But, no one wants to acknowledge the onus that is on people who don’t do those things to prevent them. I do try to avoid commenting on specific current social and political issues on this blog so without naming any names I am going to say that I have heard interviews with school shooting survivors who practically boast of the bullying they inflicted on the shooter prior to the event and justify it by what the killer had done. It is hard to blame them after what they had been through, though. There is no denying that what was done is terrible and there is especially no denying that the actions were morally egregious and unjustifiable. But, there is something ugly about normalizing ostracizing the mentally ill on this basis. The disproportion of their crimes too often leaves us unable to recognize that something morally wrong was being done to them regularly before they snapped. And it is these points that made a lot of people angry when they saw the movie. The filmmakers had something to say that many of us don’t want to hear or deal with. There is a reason that the now infamous Aurora, Illinois theater refused to show the film at all after the murders that occurred there during a showing of The Dark Knight Rises in 2012.

The film starts with Arthur working as a street clown twirling a sign to advertise a small business. A group of teenaged thugs steal the sign and beat him up when he tries to chase them down. What follows is one emotional betrayal after another. His boss is angry over the loss of the sign and doesn’t care that he was injured. The social worker he talks to spends their hour staring at him not listening to a word he says. She asks the minimal textbook questions she is required to ask and does little more. Any attempt he makes to express his emotional state usually ends up getting talked over by others who get angry and annoyed with him. They don’t hide their scorn and Arthur is not capable of understanding why he is being treated this way all the time. When pushed to frustration people scream at him for acting out. He writes in his diary, “The worst thing about mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don’t.” In reality what they expect is for him to not defend himself. And he is swiftly villainised when he does. On a subway a group of three college aged youths begin to harass him and they physically abuse him when he tries to get away. He ends up murdering all three and flees the scene. Gotham City’s reaction is split. The privileged and powers that be condemn the shooting and characterize the dead students as innocent victims whose lives and potential were taken away by a maniac. Among the lower echelons there is a different sentiment. There is widespread sympathy given to Arthur, still currently unidentified as the killer, that galvanizes mass protests against the city government. The murders become a controversial talking point and the scenes eerily seem to anticipate the actions of Luigi Mangione a few years later.

Shortly after the killings Arthur goes to a local comedy club in the hopes of making it big with his act. His performance, however, is a colossal bomb. His laughing condition comes out in full force and he is unable to make any of the jokes land. The footage of his performance becomes viral after clips of it is shown on a talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert DeNiro). Prior to this both Arthur and his mother were fans of Murray and Arthur fantasizes of impressing him someday. But seeing Murray Franklin publicly mock him and his comedy act on live television sends him spiraling deeper into depression and anger. Arthur’s issues escalate continually and he becomes a ticking timebomb. While he is subjected to abuse every day he is met with new tragedies that leaves his ability to cope any further untenable. His mother suffers a stroke and is hospitalized. It is, in fact, in his mother’s hospital room that he sees the episode of Murray mocking him. City budget cuts the funding to social programs leaving him no longer with a social worker and without any further access to his medication. The final nail in the coffin for his mental health is when he discovers revelations about his childhood and identity that steals away any last vestige of the things he values and cares about. Now the only thing that seems to matter are the ongoing riots that he inadvertently started. Outside there are rioters in clown masks who view his actions as that of some unknown local hero. He becomes a perverse symbol for the downtrodden and with that he and society part company for good. The result is violent tragedy and leaving Arthur behind to become the Joker is the only thing that makes sense to him anymore.

Joaquin Phoenix’s performance is spellbinding. His portrayal of a sociopath spiraling out of control is played without gusto and hamfistedness. He is far removed from the wide eyed silliness of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard or the madcap wild insanity of characters like Renfield in Dracula or even the Joker in other media. He is more reminiscent of Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver who happens to be a primary inspiration for the film. He captures the vulnerability and loneliness of real life sociopaths so well to the point that watching him becomes uncomfortable. His physical posture and movements are nervous and uncertain and he emotes through affectation rather than responding naturally which is not uncommon to people with his conditions. What Phoenix accomplished and what earned him his Academy Award for the performance is a perfect character study of a person with mental problems slowly losing his grip on living normally. The systemic problems that wind him up end in events that, while violent and tragic, are not unexpected.

This movie sees the second acting win at the Oscars for an actor playing the Joker (first was Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight) and it is clear to me that the role of Joker has become something coveted. It’s a role like those of characters from Dickens or Shakespeare that gives an actor an opportunity to interpret a literary character who is challenging and complicated to pull off. After films like Logan and The Dark Knight trilogy somewhat of a trend of treating comic books as serious subjects has come about and it is no wonder we are seeing more serious actors pursue these sorts of roles.

Some critics of the film have gone so far as to label the movie dangerous. There was a genuine impression among a lot of people that the movie would incite a riot. To many it seems that Joker is a message to others who see themselves in Arthur Fleck that their anger and hatred for society is permissible. But the movie isn’t talking to them. It is speaking to those who are more like the people around him. It speaks to churchgoers who after Sunday services cuss out teenagers in drive-thrus. It speaks to decent folk who snub and dismiss weirdos in elevators trying to talk to them who smell bad. It speaks to family men who regale their loved ones with funny anecdotes of some crazy person they met at the bus stop. it speaks to honor roll students who make sure undesirables don’t eat with them. The film tells us that evil doesn’t have to be violent. Sometimes evil is just failing to see another human being when they sit right next to us.

Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Todd Philips, Scott Silver
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix (Arthur Fleck), Robert DeNiro (Murray Franklin), Zazie Beetz (Sophie Dumond), Frances Conroy (Penny Fleck), Brett Cullen (Thomas Wayne)
Producers: Richard Baratta, Bruce Berman, Jason Cloth, Bradley Cooper, Joseph Garner, Aaron L. Gilbert, Walter Hamada, Anjay Nagpal, Todd Phillips, Emma Tillinger Koskoff, Michael E. Uslan, David Webb)
Composer: Hildur Guðnadóttir
Cinematographer: Lawrence Sher
Editor: Jeff Groth

Batman Returns (1992)

1.5/4 stars

Batman Returns is an ugly, unpleasant, and meanspirited film. There is something sick beneath its surface of gross-out grotesquerie, bondage-inspired sensuality, and gratuitous violence. Watching it, I felt there must have been a lot of anger behind its making. It’s the sort of movie that after viewing it I wanted to ask the filmmakers, “Who hurt you?”

Taking place a few years after the much superior Batman (1989), the film sees the Caped Crusader springing back into action after a group of rogue circus performers kidnap industrialist Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) during a public ceremony. He is blackmailed by the sewer-dwelling Penguin (Danny DeVito) who knows of Shreck’s illegal toxic waste dumping. Unlike the more balanced previous movie, the villains in Batman Returns take center stage leaving Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) more time to brood in front of his TV, I guess. The Penguin, far removed from the boyish aristocratic charm of Burgess Meredith, is a repulsive figure. He waddles in disgusting soiled long underwear, chows on raw fish with ill-manners that Gollum would have objected to, and lecherously leers at any woman he meets. His pasty, balding, hook-nosed visage only further elicits disgust in the viewer. In one of the films most disgusting scenes he chews on a raw fish, flesh dribbling from his mouth, right before biting a man on the nose causing it to gush blood. He then turns his attention to a female assistant and confides in Shreck his sexual fantasies featuring her. He flaps his deformed hands saying he wants to show her his “French flipper trick.” The scene’s comic tone only accentuates the rotten spirit that could have gone into writing it.
Added to the new rogues’ gallery is Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) who starts out as a mistreated assistant to Max Shreck who pushes her out of a window when she discovers too much about his illegal activities. As Selina Kyle, Catwoman’s alter ego, she is a depressing figure. Selina is a misogynistic caricature of a sexually frustrated working woman living in a man’s world. The attempted murder causes her to snap and she returns to her apartment smashes it to bits and then makes herself a shiny black catsuit. As one does.
The character transformation is sudden and without much explanation. She adopts a sultry voice saying to herself, “Now I feel a lot yummier.” Her performance is sexually charged and out of place in a film made to cater to kids. When she allies herself with the Penguin he continually bombards her with unwanted sexual attention, his language vulgar and graphic. The game she plays with him is one of flirtation, innuendo, and rebuff (in that order). Her action scenes play out like a dance where suggestive comments contextualize a connection between sex and fighting. This sort of thing has been done before, but its application here in a movie for young people is disturbing. Catwoman as an archetype has always represented something prepubescent. She represents the growing confused feelings in young boys still overcoming their “girls are icky” phase. But that element is not here. In Batman Returns Catwoman fully embraces a dominatrix persona rife with explicit sexual dialogue. Every time she defeats a male opponent in a fight I kept waiting for them to take a quiet break for a cigarette.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is my favorite Catwoman. She encapsulates the seductiveness of the character and my reasons for favoring her are undeniably male ones. But the writing’s on the wall when put in the movie’s context. This movie is neither The Batman (2022) or The Dark Knight Rises. There is an offset of cartoonish comic book action and storytelling that makes her raw sensuality inappropriate. I have objections to her representation here in a kids movie as both a man and a father, if not so much as a male. To put it more succinctly, a movie that has been marketed with Happy Meal toys really ought not to have elements of BDSM and sexualized violence in its plot.
If I had any sympathy for the movie it was completely lost when we get to the part where Penguin murders a beauty queen. To frame Batman she is kidnapped and pushed off of a tall building with a flock of bats. The woman’s skimpy costume remains well-photographed throughout the ordeal and when she lands she is in surprisingly good shape, if still dead. There is something I find inherently sick about scantily clad women being killed on film that is especially egregious in a movie like this one.
Further adding to my distaste for the film is Penguin’s plot in the final act to kidnap Gotham’s firstborn and drown them in the toxic waste in his sewer. I had hoped that this would remain discussed and that the movie wouldn’t bother with scenes of scared screaming babies being loaded into cages, but alas, no dice; and the film goes there. Of course, Batman comes to the rescue and nothing horrible happens, but still…

This is among some of the most unpleasant superhero movies ever made. I wish I knew what Tim Burton (a very talented director) was going through when he made it. It is definitely the most Burton-esque of his Batman films. Danny Elfman’s score is highly reminiscent of the style heard in Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands and the same Dr. Seussian sense of model design under a winter blue color palette that characterizes Burton’s films is present here. His movies look a lot like the inside of a snow globe.
But, there is a lot of anger and resentment in the film’s writing. Any and every opportunity to be gross, exploitative, and crass is taken throughout. The Joel Schumacher Batman movies that followed are notoriously stupid in their idiotic writing and cartoonish visuals, but Schumacher never juxtaposed the lightweight content with half-naked women being murdered, bondage-geared dominatrices saying “Don’t be too rough with me it’s my first time” before a fight, or vile depictions of gross-out violence. The movie is rated PG-13, but much of the sexual dialogue is more fitting for an R-rated picture. The ugly tone and foul attitudes that fill every scene contains no meaningful commentary, but simply exist for their own sake.
It’s a film where sex is firmly connected to violence, Batman kills people, and the downtrodden and discarded poor folk are, we are told, monstrosities of nature. Batman Returns is the most hate-filled superhero flick ever made, and if I was not clear, I didn’t like it much.

Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Bob Kane, Daniel Waters, Sam Hamm
Cast: Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Danny DeVito (Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin), Michelle Pfeiffer (Selina Kyle/Catwoman), Christopher Walken (Max Shreck), Michael Gough (Alfred), Michael Murphy (Mayor), Cristi Conaway (Ice Princess), Andrew Bryniarski (Chip), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon)
Producers: Ian Bryce, Tim Burton, Denise Di Novi, Larry Franco, Peter Guber, Benjamin Melniker, Jon Peters, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Danny Elfman
Cinematographer: Stefan Czapsky
Editors: Bob Badami, Chris Lebenzon

Batman (1989)

3/4 stars

Tim Burton’s Batman opens and it’s night in Gotham City. A family of three are mugged by two strung-out thugs and they sit on a rooftop counting their stolen money. But this is Gotham City and Gotham City has a protector who rules the night. Looming above them in silhouette like a ghoulish reincarnation of Dracula is a figure in the form of a bat. It swoops down upon the two terrified goons and beats them within an inch of their lives. One of them asks, “Who are you?” Gotham’s hero says, “I’m Batman”, and a legend is born.
All this happens in the first ten minutes. There are no forty-minute prologues of Bruce Wayne’s origins. There is little time given to studying his feelings and character. And there are no grounded explanations for where he gets his gear. When Batman uses a grappling hook to escape, the Joker says, “Where does he get those wonderful toys?” He gets no answer and we don’t need one.

This is the perfect Batman movie. It checks all the necessary boxes that define who Batman is, what his world is, and what a story featuring him should be about. The filmmakers understand that the audience knows who Batman is and that he needs no introduction. Batman doesn’t require an explanation. All he needs is to be properly represented.

Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) is already Batman when the film begins. We are not told for how long, but the sudden introduction of The Joker suggests it takes place during what the fans of the DC comics call Year One.
Keaton plays Bruce Wayne as good-natured and mannered, but a bit shy and antisocial. His loner tendencies reflect the consequence of being Batman at night. As Batman he recalls the Phantom of the Opera. He is reclusive and silent, staying in the shadows lest someone sees too much of him and discovers his secret identity.
Michael Keaton is my favorite of all the Batmans (Batmen?) who have attempted the role. He doesn’t stifle the performance with melodrama, but lets the physicality and look of the character dominate the screen. Batman is an icon and a symbol; and Keaton allows the iconography to define what we see. He is a costume and a chin. And that is Batman as we like him.
The costume is fairly traditional. It’s neither the explicable body armor worn by Christian Bale or the gaudy grey cloth of Adam West. The black bulletproof rubber worn by Keaton fits the gothic tone of the character while retaining our quintessential expectations of a Batman costume. The Bat logo stands out in yellow on the chest. The costume is fundamental and perfect.
The Batmobile is even better. It appropriates the mood and style of Batman better than any other Batmobile, in my opinion. It’s long, dark, angular, and the sort of car Count Dracula would have driven had motor vehicles existed in his day. Toy Biz must have made a killing on the market with this thing. It’s one of the coolest fictional movie cars since James Bond’s Aston Martin.
Tim Burton’s Batman also has the best rendition of Gotham City of all time. The gothic architecture brings to mind the German Expressionist images seen in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, but augmented in technicolor with dark matte paintings and its smoky and steaming set design.
Further setting the mood is Danny Elfman’s iconic score which to this day contains the definitive Batman theme for a lot of fans, myself included. Unlike the more optimistic and rousing Superman theme by John Williams, Elfman’s Batman theme puts itself in the midst of the action, punctuating Batman’s fighting spirit with just a dash of mischievous fun. Like the Williams score it creates its own genre of superhero themes. Sadly it’s becoming a lost art. Does anyone remember the music in the Marvel movies recently? Because I don’t.

But all of these elements add up to beans without a story. The film’s plot manages in its 2 hour runtime to give Batman, Bruce Wayne, and the Joker enough to do in perfect balance. Bruce Wayne juggles his obligations as Batman with his budding infatuation with journalist Vicky Vale (Kim Basinger) while the Joker (Jack Nicholson) has his own eyes on her while he plots to overthrow and take over the criminal underworld.
Nicholson portrays the Joker part with surprising restraint given the madcap lunacy of the character and his plans. He laughs, jokes, and plots morbid absurdities as any good Joker would, but never seems out of control. His madness is more of an attitude he brings to his offbeat behavior. Nicholson plays Joker like his descent into madness wasn’t out of tragedy or untreated mental illness. He chooses madness because he simply got annoyed with sanity and enough was enough. His most wildest actions still manage to reflect this attitude. He punches out a TV with a mechanical glove and murders his own henchmen where other men would just roll their eyes.

Controversially, Nicholson’s Joker, is given a backstory whereas the Joker is traditionally portrayed as anonymous and of ambiguous origins. Here he is introduced as Jack Napier, a right hand man to a mob boss (Jack Palance). After Palance discovers that Jack is sleeping with one of his molls he sets Jack up to be killed in a sting operation. But, when Batman makes an appearance, Jack fights him only to fall into a vat of acid. He survives, but is disfigured with chalk-white skin, green hair, and a permanent grin fixed on his face.
The decision to give Joker an identity and origin is still controversial among fans of the comics, but I have grown to accept the change. Nicholson is by far the most charismatic figure in the movie and the motivations his backstory gives him serve the plot perfectly fine. The Batman mythos is interpretive in adaptation, and the changes made to the established lore here doesn’t denigrate the film in the slightest. A Joker with an origin story is, after all, still more tolerable than a moody and angry Superman that the fans of Man of Steel didn’t seem to mind.
Joker gets revenge by killing his former boss and goes on to bend the remaining mob bosses under his rule, removing (quite dramatically) anyone who opposes him. He plots to poison the citizens of Gotham with infected hair care products, before moving onto bigger game with a parade show with floating balloons full of fatal laughing gas that he wants to unleash upon the city.
In the meantime, Batman broods and investigates Jack’s latest schemes, and his alter ego Bruce Wayne begins to suspect that there is an old personal connection between him and the Joker. Between them is Vicky Vale. Joker desires her, Bruce is falling in love with her, and it is Batman who must save her.

This is not a very thoughtful plot, naturally. But as a superhero movie, the story weaves all of the required elements that make the genre appealing. Christopher Nolan’s brilliant Dark Knight trilogy was made for a different sort of audience in mind. There the characters are ideologues for real-world issues that more sophisticated internet-bred audiences post-9/11 have found meaning and expression in. But, none of that is needed here. This movie was made for the boys and girls who love Batman and the Generation X adults who had grown up on him. During my childhood in the 90s, the grown-ups who were pop-culture conscious seemed to be preoccupied by two things: Star Wars and Batman. They coexisted on the same walls on posters, shared shelf space as action figures, filled boxes with comics, and every respectable nerd had both on VHS and their clothes. And in those happy days it was Burton’s image of Batman that dominated.

Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Bob Kane, Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren
Cast: Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Jack Nicholson (The Joker, Jack Napier), Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Alexander Knox), Pat Hingle (Commissioner Gordon), Billy Dee Williams (Harvey Dent), Michael Gough (Alfred), Jack Palance (Grissom), Jerry Hall (Alicia), Tracey Walker (Bob the Goon), Lee Wallace (Mayor), William Hootkins (Eckhardt)
Producers: Peter Guber, Barbara Kalish, Chris Kenny, Benjamin Melniker, Jon Peters, Michael E. Uslan
Composer: Danny Elfman
Cinematographer: Roger Pratt
Editor: Ray Lovejoy

The Secret of NIMH (1982)

4/4 stars

Don Bluth’s The Secret of NIMH is my favorite animated movie of all time. And, I like to think, for good reason. For one, it is one of the most accessible movies for general audiences ever made. There is more to it than being a kids’ movie. It’s a movie for everyone.
The Secret of NIMH is often called an example of children’s fantasy, but I find the reasoning for this flimsy at best. The movie is called a children’s fantasy because children can watch it without being exposed to elements too mature for them to handle. It’s also called a children’s fantasy because it is a cartoon. And that’s pretty much it.
But, assuming that the absence of sex and vulgar language as well as the presence of animation is not a bar to adult engagement, there is little cause to consider The Secret of NIMH a kids’ movie. A family movie may be closer to the mark. But, the film’s story is sophisticated and engaging enough to attract an adult viewer without the presence of a child at all. I would just call it a movie. And a pretty damn good one too.

Don Bluth saw his first successes working as an animator for the Walt Disney Studios lending his talents on such movies as Robin Hood (1973), Pete’s Dragon, and The Rescuers. But, eventually he grew despondent over the direction he thought the studio was going and went off to work on his own animation production company. The 70’s and 80’s did not see Walt Disney at its best. It was a fairly stagnant period in which the company was churning out mostly forgettable projects that saw more status as cult favorites than as all time classics. It was during this period that Don Bluth began making his own animated films that brought new life and creativity into animation. The first of these was The Secret of NIMH. Throughout the remainder of the 1980’s he followed it up with other classics such as An American Tail, The Land Before Time, and All Dogs Go to Heaven.
But, it is The Secret of NIMH that will forever remain his best.

The Secret of NIMH perfectly balances visual artistry and excellent writing with a keen respect for its audience’s intelligence. In this modern era where cartoons are all safely nestled in the genre of comedy, there is sadly little coming out quite like this movie anymore. The film contains some of the most appealing hand-drawn images to date. It’s painted backdrops are reminiscent of the beautiful images seen in Lady and the Tramp or Pinocchio. Those films had backdrops more like Christmas cards, whereas here there is something more pastoral that echoes the paintings of Andrew Wyeth. The colorful animated characters in the movie mix with the painted backgrounds surprisingly well. The hand-drawn cels contain a vibrance and liveliness unseen in the computer animated images of today and every movement and every frame is full of grace and character; and are vigorous in emotional expression.

But, what makes The Secret of NIMH most special is its story. It’s not much in the way of a deep analysis of the human condition, but is rather a simple tale of survival elevated by its heart and writing.
Mrs. Brisby (Elizabeth Hartman) is a widowed field mouse who lives in a cinder block in the middle of a cornfield. The season where the farmer, Mr. Fitzgibbons begins to plow has come sooner than late and the animals who live in the field are expected to flee before their homes are destroyed. However, one of Mrs. Brisby’s children, Timothy, is sick with pneumonia and would not survive a move in the chill air. She manages to sabotage the plow, but this only serves to delay the inevitable. She meets a crow named Jeremy (Dom DeLuise) whom she rescues from the farmer’s cat and he suggests they visit The Great Owl for advice. Jeremy is a ton of fun as a clumsy oaf who dreams of one day building a love nest for two. DeLuise provides a lovable voice performance that makes Jeremy the sole source of comic relief in the picture. His infatuation with the idea of love has him falling head over heels (literally) in his efforts to find items to build his love nest with. These efforts often causing him more trouble than the items are worth. When Brisby first meets him he is tangled up in some string that he thought pretty and tried taking home with him. The comedy his character adds doesn’t detract from the movie’s overall serious tone. Unlike, say, Jar Jar Binks, Jeremy is a character who has purpose rather than just being a shoehorn for laughs. He represents the little people in this story, like the nosy Auntie Shrew (Hermione Baddeley), who know little and can do little, but will do what they can if the cause is good. There are times in which Jeremy is Mrs. Brisby’s only source of encouragement, offering what little aid he can simply because it is the nice thing to do. You can’t hate a fellow like that.
They meet the Great Owl (John Carradine) in a deep, shadowy part of the forest where he lives alone. He is a figure of awe and terror, wiser than any other being in the movie, and perhaps the most dangerous given his placement on the food chain. Like a god in heaven he is above direct involvement, but not above giving words of wisdom. He is hoary and become awesome in his elder age. He is every bit the creature of the night, flying from his tree to hunt, brushing off cobwebs and old bones with glowing eyes like a vampire flapping into the dark. Brisby is petrified of him at first, but her maternal instincts for her son muster the courage she needs to request help. He tells her to go to the rats who live in a rosebush by the farmer’s house. “They have ways” he tells her and he leaves with no further guidance to offer.
The rats live up to their reputation for problem-solving when she meets them as they are highly intelligent and power their hidden city with lights and electricity stolen from the farmer. Their leader is Nicodemus (Derek Jacobi), an ancient rat with a long beard with powers akin to wizardry. From him Mrs. Brisby learns of the origin of not just the rats, but of herself and all the animals gifted with speech and intelligence. They were the products of a human-led experiment that escaped from their lab leaving the scientists none the wiser to what they had created. The injections they are given by NIMH (the National Institute of Mental Health; a real place) do more than make them intelligent on a par with Man, but also have the side effect of putting them in touch with magic and spirituality. Nicodemus summons a staff like he is Gandalf or something, consults a magic mirror to see what is happening around him, and possesses a bejeweled necklace with mysterious abilities that he gives to Brisby. None of this is explained in the movie and what we are left with is a statement about the nature of science and the unknown. There is nothing in NIMH’s plans that accounts for the sudden contact with the supernatural and it raises questions about animal intelligence and their relationship with us humans and the environment that is not answered. Had the magical elements been removed from the story entirely it would have made little difference, but their presence and the questions they raise adds a layer of potential depth to what is going on.
But, Mrs. Brisby’s quest for aid doesn’t end here and she is soon caught up in an intrigue involving rival parties in the rats’ society. They are not interested in helping Brisby at all and are in a war of words with Nicodemus and his followers regarding their future. At the forefront of the naysayers is the evil Jenner (Paul Shenar), a rat who wants to continue living in the rosebush and stealing electricity from Mr. Fitzgibbons. But, Nicodemus has a plan for the rats to move all of the animals to another location where they can fend for themselves in good conscience without resorting to stealing. Personally, I think this is awfully big of Mr. Nicodemus given that the farmer is the same man who uses a plow to kill the local wildlife and destroy their homes once a year and owns an evil cat named Dragon who roars like an ogre. Nicodemus’s moralizing breaks down to not wanting to raise the farmer’s light bill, which is kind of him I guess. There is something to be said about a story that keeps its ethics basic while all this intrigue and interwoven backstory works its charm on us. Stealing is still wrong, the movie tells us, and I like that. Moral greyness in a lot of stories ends up being a thin excuse for avoiding having anything important to say. Goodness in the midst of institutionalized badness is a theme in need of a revival in this century.

While these events unfold, The Secret of NIMH’s multilayered story never becomes convoluted, but is easy to follow and engage in without the need to dumb down its themes and plot details for the younger audience. While being a cartoon, it takes itself as seriously as any live-action drama would which contributes to its timelessness not a little. As I noted above the plot is appreciable by both children and adults. As a fantasy adventure I would stack the film less with movies like The Sword in the Stone or The Wizard of Oz, but more with The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Harry Potter. These are stories that carry heady weight and dramatic tension alongside their universal accessibility. As a cartoon it challenges pre-conceived notions of what animation is and whom it is for. Like black & white or color cinematography, animation is a legitimate form of visual art that holds boundless potential for story, not limited to a single demographic.

Shameless blurbsters like to toss phrases like “fun for the whole family” with a sincerity that I find suspect when it is lauded at any and all kinds of crap aimed at kids. With that in mind I can say that The Secret of NIMH is the sort of film I honestly believe children will love. But, the adults will love it even more.