W.

Oliver Stone is famously known for his period pieces of American history (World Trade Center, Platoon), specifically events surrounding American presidents such as JFK or Nixon. In W. he explores the life of George W. Bush, beginning at his freshman year at Yale all the way to the end of his presidency. The movie holds a few contradictions with history that I will outline, but that aside, I found it to be a surprising portrayal of the man who, at one time held the lowest approval rating in presidential history. Surprising because, all controversy aside, the film shows sympathy towards George Jr. and one could say lets him off the hook to easily.

The film surrounds the complex Bush had with satisfying his father, George Sr. who was also president. It continuously brings up the issues he had with his older brother being the one his father was proud of and perhaps suggests in the end that it was this complex that caused him to proceed and insist on pushing the Iraq war (because George Sr. pulled out of the Gulf War in what W. thought was too early). The film implicitly suggests that the only way W. could make his father proud was to do what his father could not.

It seems outlandish to say, but the film even suggests that it was simply because of W's wish to please his father and be better than his brother Jeb that he became governor of Texas and even President. Outlandish because of what the film accurately reveals Bush to be; an immature, lazy rebel with a free ride because of the prestige of his family name. Bush quits the multiple opportunities that were handed to him though his family and somehow finds a way to find his own niche in the world. He becomes owner of the Texas Rangers with the help of investors that his family knows. As the eyes of his father cause him to doubt his place in the world, his life in politics begin.

Josh Brolin plays Bush and his performance can only be described as mystifying. He proves that he studied Bush's walk, mannerisms and even the piggish way he eats. He shows a rude and egotistical man who shows his human side through his insecurities. Brolin watched hours of Bush clips and phoned random hotels in Texas to get the accent down while studying for the role. It is interesting to note that Christian Bale was initially cast to be Bush but he backed out at the last minute. Personally I don't see how Bale would have pulled it off being so young, but he hasn't ceased to amazine before. Regardless I think Brolin was meant to be. The cast is stacked (Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheyney, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush, James Cromwell as George Sr.). Thandie Newton's performance as Condeleeza Rice was hard for me to put a finger on. I couldn't figure out if it was a horrible job or she was going for something. As everyone else in the film was acting like they've done their homework, I couldn't figure out why she stuck out as if she hadn't done any homework at all. I came to realize that in the film, Rice is portrayed as a sinister sidekick who punches in not alot of lines, but the right ones to swing Bush her way. The other characters are overbearing and obvious in how they convince Bush to go into Iraq (Cheyney with oil, others to get reelected) but Rice seems to chirp her way into his head by convincing him that there were nuclear weopons in Iraq, without actually saying so. Everyone but Colin Powell is the villan in the boardroom, who speaks from his heart, but in the end sides with the majority and addresses the UN against his will in favor of invasion.

As Bush adresses congress to convince them Iraq is the right move, he is reading a teleprompter where every word is finely written by a team of speechwriters. During breaks in the speech the teleprompter woudl read "applause" and at the end of the speech the teleprompter reads "massive applause" as if to suggest that every aspect of convincing the room, and the country was intensely orchestrated according to the team's exact intention.

The theme of God is overarching throughout the film. Between every big event in W's life there is always consultation with his priest or after every big meeting in the White House they always bow in prayer. Overarching it seems because it suggests that every decision Bush made was justified by his belief in God. He states to his priest in the film that he doesn't even want to run for president but God is asking him to. Again when Rice askes him what his father thinks of invading Iraq he says he doesn't care about his father, only his higher father. Bush was criticized for creating or pushing a theocracy in his presidency and meshing church with state in his politics, these examples are the manifestation of those criticisms.

The choice of soundtrack in the film is carefully crafted. As he addresses congress in regards to invading Iraq the famous happy song plays, "It's wonderful world" in ironic fashion. There is a folk song that tells the story of Robin hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor that plays a couple different times in the film as he plans the Iraq invasion. Perhaps this is to say that Bush thinks he is a good guy doing it through criminal means, stealing from the powerful and giving back to the people in Iraq. Or its just meant to be funny calling Bush Robin Hood as a hero is something he surely thought he was, but was not. In the film as you watch pay special attention to other soundtrack choices as they are also interesting.

Historically in the film there are a few discrepancies. During the fraternity hazing scene, a person asked if Bush was legacy, Bush says yes and says his father and grandfather, etc were all delta kappa's. This is not true, his grandfather Prescott was in Zeta Psi. Only Bush Sr. and Jr. were in Delta Kappa Epsilon. It was mentioned in the film that Laura Bush had voted for LBJ. Johnson ran for president only in 1964, on the day that Laura had attained the age of 18. Before the 1972 election the minimum voting age was 21, so she could not have voted before 1968. At several points, real life quotes from George W. Bush are used in very different contexts. For example, "Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?'" is shown being said during his Texas Gubernatorial run, but was actually said in January 2000.

There is one dream sequence that continues to run throughout the film. Bush states that his dream job would be in baseball, but his father tells him he isn't good at it. The dream is Bush continuing to catch fly balls in center field. After each monumental moment in Bush's life he catches a fly ball. However, after it shows the failure of his presidency in finding out that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq after all, the movie ends with the crack of a baseball and Bush getting ready to catch a ball but it never comes down as he lowers his glove he looks confused followed by the credits. This sums up his presidency and maybe his life, looking up for something big to happen amongst his rise to power, but unfortunately power doesn't always come with success. The fact that the movie ends with this scene further makes the viewer feel sympathy for a man that could have been misunderstood. The famous incident of Bush choking on a pretzel while watching a football game takes place in the film but is given an ambiance that actually makes you concerned instead of something worth mocking or used as a giant joke to the media and variety TV programs that month. In regards to this baseball dream sequence, I'm curious to hear what you think it means.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 59% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating because, even though it is not necessarily an important film about an important figure, it attempts to prove a unique portrayal of a man we view so typically as. I would go slightly higher and give it a 6.5/10

Again, I wouldn't say it is an important film to watch. Nor would I say that it's a crucial piece of media for someone studying his life or presidency. However, what does stand out is how the film takes events that the world is familiar with and makes us wonder, as we watch the film and think, "how did this guy, and that happen to that country?" How the hell did this happen? It is an astonishing film that makes you realize how ridiculous it was that the reigns of America were under such an insecure, incompetant man.

Miracle at St. Anna

Miracle at St. Anna follows four black soldiers of the all-black 92nd Infantry Division who get trapped near a small Tuscan village on the Gothic Line during the Italian Campaign of World War II after one of them risks his life to save an Italian boy.

In my last review of Milk, I discussed a historic movie with an agenda. In Milk, the true story was placed in defense to current events as a political statement with honorable intent. In Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee presents his agenda in defense to the lack of portrayal of Blacks in World War II films. Unfortunately, though it may be a fact that there are no representations of Blacks in war films, and there are indeed many untold stories of their heroism, this portrayal of their sacrifice plays it to shame. Clint Eastwood made two films which juxtaposed both sides of the same WWII story in Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Spike Lee publicly criticized Eastwood for not having a single African American in both films, even though they were a very real and important part of the war. Eastwood never released a response, and rightfully so. It was not only a shameful way to plug his own movie, but Spike Lee in this fashion pushed in what he thought was relevant to a story that didn't involve or even contain any blacks within it. It would be like criticizing Spike Lee for not having any whites good at basketball in He got Game. Seems racist doesn't it? It is an important step in stopping racism to stop bringing attention to the fact that there is racism when it is negligible. Personally I think this was an attention-seeking move by Lee in order to plug his own movie.

The movie, by the way is a horrid representation of what Lee was going for. Todd Gilchrist made a great point by revealing that "By choosing for his definitive portrait a tale based on a fictional novel rather than an actual true story, Lee has undermined his own efforts to properly depict the wartime experience for WWII-era blacks." Jules Brenner says, "There are endearing moments but we're in a Spike Lee world where it's okay to interject his "black vs. the privileged white-man" lecture time and again to the detriment of the film."

The movie seems like an appropriate piece for prime time made for TV that should have premiered on BET.

If Lee truly wanted to represent and honor the Buffalo Soldiers of WWII, why did he use a work of fiction to manifest true events in history? The film came under controversy as Wikipedia states:

Protests were scheduled for the film's Italian premiere in Viareggio, Italy, by unspecified organizations resulting from the plot line of a partisan collaborating with the Nazis. This runs directly counter to the accepted Italian version of events, which is that the slaughter was not a reprisal but an unprovoked act of brutality and that the hunt for partisans was a pretext. Giovanni Cipollini, deputy head of Anpi, said the film was a “false reconstruction” and a “travesty of history”. However, Lee unrepentant, stated “I am not apologizing.” He told Italians there was “a lot about your history you have yet to come to grips with. This film is our interpretation, and I stand behind it." McBride, the novel's author, stated: "As a black American, I understand what it’s like for someone to tell your history...unfortunately, the history of World War Two here in Italy is ours as well, and this was the best I could do...it is, after all, a work of fiction.”

Spike Lee, although he has made pieces of cinema that reveal the African American perspective in flawless forms both fiction (Do the right thing) and has successful represented African American history as well (Malcolm X), this film is by far one of Lee's greatest shortcomings next to Ray Allen's acting in He Got Game. Sean Gandert points out why, perhaps the movie seems like a conflict of interest "The combination of Lee's concerns for his characters' depictions with Disney's concerns for mass-market appeal ends up pleasing no one." The film seems about an hour too long and forgive me as a movie critic, but i fast forwarded a chunk in the middle, don't blame me though I"m no Roeper, I'm a common viewer telling you exactly what you would have done. Peter Rainer says of the film's length "Clocking in at 160 minutes, this interminable movie comes across like a rough cut. Perhaps Lee believed its length would give it gravitas. The opposite is true."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 34% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I was happy to see after watching the film that people agreed with me. I thought for a second that I was being racist by not liking the film, however many shared the same sentiments with me that it was an overbearing piece of fiction attempting to portray the realities of war. Although I am a fan of Derek Luke, and he does a great job delivering his role, the story itself is long, dry and uneventful. I immediately went to look at many parts of the film that didn't seem to make sense. Ask ten people who've seen this movie what the title's "miracle" is referring to, and you'll get a couple of different guesses and a whole lot of blank stares and shrugs. The ending is definitely going for tears, but I couldn't help but laugh. Do not see this film.

Milk

The 2008 film Milk explores the last ten years of Harvey Milk's life, the first openly gay man to win an election in a major political office in the United States. Walking into this movie, I was excited to review it as a typical Hollywood film where anything about being gay automatically gets Oscar nods and is critically acclaimed as a classic film pushing and transcending boundaries. As it turns out, after seeing the film I didn't find this at all, though it may push boundaries for some, it is a true story and one that brings exposure to important issues. The movie is filled with inspiring quotes that can be applied to many mediums, not just the fight for gay civil rights. The movie shows the opposition to the fight for gay rights from the political, religious and most bigoted perspectives. Though it spoke with a clear agenda aiming towards glorifying Harvey Milk, its obvious placement in theateres after proposition 8 and not considering the other sides credibility in perspective, I found it to be a wonderful film in regards to an average person creating exceptional circumstances.

Harvey Milk: All men are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words.

The film's roles gave opportunities for high caliber actors to shine their true potential as Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Sean Penn made noise with their roles as homosexuals, Josh Brolin played an amazing jealous politician who was trying to do what he thought was right, until it drove him so mad that he shot the mayor and Milk.

Milk's presence in political office came with charisma and presence as he used his influence to not only be a voice for gays but senior citizens and the poor. In the movie, the portrayal of the religious right is perhaps a bit extreme and makes each person in opposition to Milk in even the slightest seems extreme, however the film will turn (even they can stomach to watch a couple dude on dude make out scenes) the most extreme bigot into a more tolerant person I would hope as it illustrates the inhumane circumstances a homophobic America has put the gay population through over decades of abuse. Before his death, Milk was quoted as saying, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door." His fight for proposition 6 in California succeeded that no openly gay teacher could be fired for their sexuality.

Harvey Milk: If it were true that children emulate their teachers, we'd have a lot more nuns running around.

After his assasination Dan White (Josh Brolin) went on trial and was given a minimal sentance even for shooting two politicians at work including the mayor. The jury was biased towards White and it is no wonder he got off so easy for having too much sugar in his diet. Wikipeda states "Milk's and Moscone's murders and White's trial changed city politics and the California legal system. In 1980 San Francisco ended district supervisor elections, fearing that a Board of Supervisors so divisive would be harmful to the city, and that they had been a factor in the assassinations. A grassroots neighborhood effort to restore district elections in the mid-1990s proved successful, and the city returned to neighborhood representatives in 2000. As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired. Diminished capacity was abolished as a defense to a charge, but courts allowed evidence of it when deciding whether to incarcerate, commit, or otherwise punish a convicted defendant. The "Twinkie defense" has entered American mythology, popularly described as a case where a murderer escapes justice because he binged on junk food, simplifying White's lack of political savvy, his relationships with George Moscone and Harvey Milk, and what San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen described as pandemic police "dislike of homosexuals". Dan White served a little more than five years for the double murder of Moscone and Milk. On October 22, 1985, a year and a half after his release from prison, White was found dead in a running car in his ex-wife's garage. He was 39 years old. His defense attorney told reporters that he had been despondent over the loss of his family, and the situation he had caused, adding "This was a sick man."

After hearing of the easy sentance the gay community was furious and a surge of people from the Castro District walked again to City Hall, chanting "Avenge Harvey Milk" and "He got away with murder".Pandemonium rapidly escalated as rocks were hurled at the front doors of the building. Milk's friends and aides tried to stop the destruction, but the mob of more than 3,000 ignored them and lit police cars on fire. They shoved a burning newspaper dispenser through the broken doors of City Hall, then cheered as the flames grew. One of the rioters responded to a reporter's question about why they were destroying parts of the city: "Just tell people that we ate too many Twinkies. That's why this is happening." The chief of police ordered the police not to retaliate, but to hold their ground. The White Night riots, as they became known, lasted several hours.

Milk was included in the "Time 100 Heroes and Icons of the 20th Century" as "a symbol of what gays can accomplish and the dangers they face in doing so". Despite his antics and publicity stunts, "none understood how his public role could affect private lives better than Milk ... [he] knew that the root cause of the gay predicament was invisibility"

Sean Penn is a revelation as Milk. He not only has a remarkable resemblance to the real man but his energy drives the story. Something I really enjoyed about the film's acting is it revealed the many sides to homosexuality. The gays in the film were not stereotypical and some were true to life just like every day people. James Franco for example is very much like he speaks in real life, wheras Penn and Hirsch resemble different manifestations in themselves. Overall the film is worth seeing, Van Sant (director) has a powerful story to tell, and he tells it with craft, as it was written.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 93% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

In conclusion, I'd like to switch it up a bit and write a personal piece in response to a movie that begs such controversial questions and in emulation of Harvey Milk, I'd like to be a voice within my own community.
Why someone can still be religious and support gay civil rights:
The mormon document "The family: A proclamation to the World" states blatantly that each child is entitled to a mother and a father. Personally I beleive that I would rather have a child be adopted into any family with a loving parent than be an orphan, whether the "mother" and "father" roles are male and female, as long as they love eachother and show love to their child I feel that that is a power that is special either way. Seeing The plan of god is freedom to choose/free agency, the whole reason (the church believes) that we are here is to have a freedom of choice. I don't think personally in all honesty that being homosexual is the right thing, but I do believe that if you do think it is right then you should have the free agency to choose and the rights that go along with it. It’s obviously a human rights issue; we are beyond the times when we can ignore it as immoral. It’s not about political ideology or proving you are accepting and liberal, it is about believing that people should have the right to act as people. There is a theory that if we allow homosexuals their right, who is to say a man can’t marry a horse or pedophilia shouldn’t have its demands heard? First of all, to compare the two in the same breath is arrogant and secondly the percentage of the population that actually believes that this is okay is a dot on a very large map. The day when pedophiles and advocates of bestiality want their voice heard and it is actually getting recognized is when I will admit we have definitely stepped in the wrong direction.

The church is under a lot of heat because of proposition 8 in California. It funded a third of the campaign to get it passed. There are protesters outside of temples and even persecuting people when they go into church on Sunday. I have a lot to say about this. There are so many elements of irony and paradox in the way the gay community is handling the situation. first of all I should mention that not all Mormons were along side with the church, many put signs up to the contradictory view on their lawn because they believe the same as me...does this mean we are unfaithful or bad Mormons or even thinking of leaving the church?...I don’t think so, the ultimate doctrine of the church is that god will look into your heart. And in my heart I feel I’m right.

Secondly, the protesters decide to pick on our church, which makes sense, but the other 2/3rds of the funding came from African American churches, Baptists and Catholics. When interviewed, an African American said that he denies the gay community the right to compare their struggle with that of the blacks in the civil war because it’s totally different and what he called immoral. He also criticized them for being contradictory because they all solicit a vote for Obama and because they are gay push attitudes of acceptance for the blacks as well, however not one protester has come to a black Baptist church or any black church because he said they are scared to be seen as racist. I just thought it was kind of funny that hundreds of protesters have been outside Mormon buildings but fail to recognize all the other sects.

Finally I have my main point as to why if I was in California I may have not voted for prop 8 despite my beliefs: It was the plan of democrats and the gay community that soon, since gay marriage was legal bylaw any church that did not allow gay marriage would therefore not be allowed to practice marriage at all. This is outrageous, if the whole principle for gay marriage is based on rights, then why deny a hetero couple the right to marry the way they want or a church to act in the way they wish. It’s almost a revenge wish and quite frankly the criticism of if there were only gay people the human race would cease to exist: doing something like this actually gives credit to that notion. To me, this is completely ironic and hypocritical. If the world ever becomes this liberal I think it’s gone downhill. Religion isn’t a bad thing, the world definitely has blinders on the great things religion has created within people despite the views of Islamic fundamentalism and political theocracies (bush).

The solution: give both sides complete civil rights and take nothing away. Give the homosexual community all the civil rights of a marriage. A loved one or a partner should be able to visit someone in the hospital when they are ill, without this civil right they aren’t considered family and therefore are denied aspects that a married couple would. Simply give them all the civil rights that a married couple would and then don’t deny rights to the other side. When blacks or women got civil liberties, nothing was taken away from other races
of gender.

The bottom line is: I find that there are many like me. Liberal views and the church can still mix, my faith is secure with my liberal ideology: I feel non-discriminate even though I do believe that being homosexual is not the right thing to do, or rather the natural order of things meant to happen (which does not contradict with what the church believes), outside of the church I can still practice my civil rights (which are separate) to be accepting of how people want to practice their free agency. When issues like this come up in church, I defend my view and it is not discriminated or mocked, it’s accepted. There are people in the church who are bigoted, and even racist. But there are people like this everywhere. The point is there are people in the church that are very liberal minded as well and we keep practicing our faith because it brings me closer to that pure heart spirit that I believe ultimately matters. I think almost all churches can help someone achieve this, but for me personally this is the best church to help me do just that. To be frank, I will go as far as to equivocate the view of many people on homosexuality and homophobia to the extremist racist views of just a few decades ago, our children or grandchildren will be ashamed of the way society has treated gays just as I am ashamed of how society has treated blacks and aboriginals.

The Visitor

The Visitor tells the story of an economics professor (Richard Jenkins) who to New York City to attend a conference and finds a young illegal immigrant couple (from Senegal and Syria) living in his old apartment. He decides to be kind to them and let them stay there while he attends the conference. As a widower he has found himself lonely for over 20 years and admittedly crawls through life without doing anything important, only trying to look busy. His only attachment to his wife, a talented pianist, is trying to make use of his piano by taking lessons and trying to hear her music through his fingers. After going through many different piano teachers, he finds it frustrating that he can't improve at all. He has no human concern for the likeness of others as he shows no sympathy for his students or co-workers. The first sign of attachment the professor, Walter has seen in years, maybe decades is when he shows interest in his immigrant friend, Tareek (Haaz Sleiman), playing the drums. He sees that the rhythm of the African drum is something that he can express his beat through and the two start to gain a relationship.

Tareek is mistakenly caught jumping the rail at the subway and then arrested, which as the movie suggests is because of racial profiling. He is then sent to an immigration prison where Walter becomes the only catalyst for communication between Tareek, his girlfriend Zainab and eventually his mother, who travels into the city to be a near source of comfort. Walter becomes emotionally attached to the situation and does all he can to get Tareek out of prison. Many tiny elements of social commentary are placed in the film (although director and writer Thomas McCarthy did not intend for this film to be a social commentary, more of a character-based drama) it has become one of the greatest social statements of the real lives of immigrants, racial profiling and the treatment of foreigners, even people under strict, inhumane policies.

Walter begins to see much more clearly and notice those around him because of his found relationship in a friend and a blossoming romance in Tareek's mother, who he takes to a Broadway play that she has only dreamed of seeing in reality, The Phantom of the Opera. She even notices at one point what I believe to be a metaphor that Walter has new glasses, which represents not only the literal meaning that he has now decided to present himself better because he cares more about the people around him but also that he has new eyes to see the world clearly, with a new found sympathy and contempt for the people around him.

Tareek's girlfriend sells crafted necklaces on the street market and when a rich white woman asks her where shes from (Senegal), she states that she visited Cape Town last year (which is on the other side of the continent) and a manifestation to the viewer that there are people who not only view all of Africa as one, same culture, but also that when people travel to a place, they assume they can identify with the culture/people. So often is travel misrepresented in resorts and tours. One can never identify with a culture, only learn to appreciate it more and more.

Assuming that the reader has not seen the film, I will not reveal the ending, however I will say that the ending is typical of what happens in hundreds of cases throughout the country as immigrants are separated from their lives, family and friends. The film illustrates that it is easy to frown upon immigrants and the amount that exist when you merely look at numbers. It is easy to write policies when you are detached in an office with no human reach. However, the reality is that when you put a face, even a story to even one of the millions that exist across America it changes your story and theirs. In Us debates they talk of immigrants as objects and literally brush around the topic as if they are chess pieces with no resistance to their hands. This film puts a face and a story to what policy and stereotypical governments can do to real people as if they were numbers or chess pieces. Tareek is ripped away from everything he loves most, without any fair reason or treatment. It is true that illegal immigrants are trespassing, and there is much policy that is required, but does the government really have to treat them like prisoners, especially just because of the color of their skin?

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 92% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

As Jeffrey Anderson put it The Visitor, "Dabbles in messages and liberal guilt, but more importantly, it sets up a reasonable and genuine space for a fascinating and heartbreaking character." Richard Jenkins gives a near-perfect performance in a story that reveals its facts through a natural momentum, nothing seemed forced as the film simply walked through life and unexpected circumstances and relationships happen to the viewer as seamless as the character Walter in the film itself. The viewer is left wondering and hoping that such a profound experience, so everyday, could happen to them as we continue to interact as a human race instead of within the race of our skin. If you enjoy this movie I beg you to watch the greatest, most heart-felt movie I have ever seen (in my top 50 of all time) with immigration as a major theme called In America.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

The Chronicles of Narnia is the fiction film in which a family of four children are deported from London to the house of an eccentric professor during World War II. The four children: Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, use a wardrobe as a magical gateway to the land of Narnia. Ancient Narnian prophecy has told of two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve (humans) who will come to save Narnia from the white witch’s spell, which has caused a cold winter to come over the entire land. It is not until the arrival of these four humans that the world of Narnia sees the power of the witch to weaken as hope from the Narnians increases. Temptation spells casted by the witch cause Edmund to betray his siblings, and as a result the plot thickens into not only saving Narnia from its evil witch and her spells, but also saving their brother Edmund from her evil power to trap/tempt him.

There is obvious indication of the director’s religious background as he has portrayed Aslan (who represents Christ) as an epitomised figure who eventually resurrects from the dead after being sacrificed. The bias represented in the film is paramount when not only understanding its relations to witchcraft, but also when analyzing the premise of the film itself. The author C.S. Lewis, and director Andrew Adamson use overarching metaphors to reflect their Christian bias. The entire film is an allegory for the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; however it takes place on a stone table similar to an altar of sacrifice. The bias is obvious in the way that the entire story is constructed with a passage into an eternal world through a veil-like wardrobe, a Satan versus Christ conflict where the themes of hope/faith save the world and Atonement is made to achieve it. The bias/allegory is even as apparent as the kingdom after Aslan’s departure being passed on to a character named Peter, just as Christ gave his kingdom to the Apostle Peter after his death. The author/director is clearly attempting to deliver a message through this tale reflecting the bias of their beliefs.

The director portrays Aslan being humiliated as his mane is cut off and he is scolded then sacrificed just as Jesus was. He resurrects the morning after through beaming light in the film and is seen alive again for the first time coming through a tomb-like structure in perfect form and greeted by Lucy (which is similar to Mary Magdeline being the first to see Jesus upon his resurrection). The connection to Christ’s resurrection is almost seamless and crafted with full intent by the director to reflect Christian bias/background as good magic, or the power of God is used to make the unbelievable happen. Also worth noting is once the magic of the witch is defeated her dark magic loses power, causing those under her spell (made into stone) to be reborn or set free from her spell just like the concept of overcoming the temptations or spells of Satan will cause one to be reborn in Christ. This shows the brilliance of the director’s craft, that he used witchcraft and good magic to reflect and represent his views on Christianity and faith.

The point of view represented is a combination of the religious and magical. In fact, the story uses magical means to reflect a religious point of view. Aslan explains in the film that “there is a deep magic that rules over all of Narnia that is within us all.” The magic he speaks of here can be taken literally, however in reality it is meant to mean faith in God that empowers one to overcome the darker magic or temptations that Satan (the Witch). The Witch, for example uses magic to create Edmund’s favourite treats and entice him to come to her side. This, in effect is a perfect example of using magical means to represent religious principles, or in this case, the temptations of Satan. The wardrobe itself is a magical gateway representing a pathway into eternity, which is a religious concept.

The supernatural is presented as good and evil within the land of Narnia. The witch, Jadis, is a supernatural character that uses magical powers for her own evil purposes. For example, the white witch turns mystical creatures into stone when they disobey her. Specifically, the witch represents Satan and uses magic in devious ways to entrap the world for her control and demonic means. The lion, Aslan uses magic for good to help save Narnia from the evil white witch. As Aslan represents Christ, who sacrifices himself for “the son of Adam” in order to save the world. His sacrifice is performed by the evil witch in occult-like fashion amongst chantings, fire and blood. His righteous power overcomes evil however and the good magic prevails as he is resurrected in a perfected form.

I believe that the author/director believes in the supernatural, because the entire film is made to emulate his belief in Christ’s crucifixion which is a phenomenal, supernatural event. The director uses supernatural characters, such as talking animals and mystical creatures to bring Christian messages and archetypes. They are presented as metaphors for Christian themes as seen in the bible. Therefore, the author/director clearly must believe in a supernatural order or being as the parallels presented and outlined above are meant to represent this higher deity and is trying to press them through this fantasy tale.

Although questions could arise with the author/director’s approach of using witchcraft or occult themes to bring about religious beliefs (somewhat of a paradox), I feel that the author/director has done a brilliant job in their use of metaphor. His literary methods have created a well-known international masterpiece that has fully portrayed predominant Christian themes that continue to exist in modern-day literature and literature that has been seen in literature for centuries and films for decades. In regards to witchcraft and the supernatural, the author/director has brought out overarching connections to the occult and Satanism in more ways than one through the white witch in the film. It is because of these well-crafted literary connections that I agree with the author/director’s approach and point of view towards the supernatural, as he has used it as a tool to achieve a stronger and more meaningful literary purpose. I fully agree with this approach over the alternative, which would be to use the supernatural as a means to entertain something dark or satanic.

The Chronicles of Narnia is a fictional allegory, which uses witchcraft and the occult as a metaphor to represent the power of Satan in opposition with the power of God/Christ. The viewpoint could emerge in this light that argues in favour of the film being propaganda for those who watch it. For example, a child could watch the movie and be under the impression that they are just watching an exciting tale of fantasy; however in reality, the film would be exposing them to Christian archetypes, themes and even doctrine. It is because of this subtle form of passage that it would especially be viewed as propaganda. One of the major themes of the film is about the importance of sacrifice, which is a religious principle. Even if a child is watching the film and doesn’t clue into the Christian allegories and metaphors, they would still learn religious principles, such as resurrection, the good overcoming evil, faith, hope and sacrifice. Due to the film’s obvious connections to Christianity, it does not leave events of the movie up to other interpretations and therefore could be seen as a propaganda piece in favour of Christians.

Although there are elements of the occult in Narnia, it did not enhance my understanding on the subject, rather it presented stereotypes. The film assumes that anything associated with the witch is evil, when in reality witchcraft does not always hold such a negative association. The film also stereotypes the fact that witchcraft is only associated with females, as the white witch Jadis is a strong female character. However, witchcraft can, and has presented itself in both male and female forms. The white witch herself manifests stereotypes as she ever so typically uses a wand and casts spells, which are not necessarily common methods of performing witchcraft. Even though Narnia is a fictional story, the strongest stereotypical case could be made in regards to the inconclusive evidence that witches have ever existed at all.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 75% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I would recommend this fantasy classic because it is captivating and visually compelling. Even for one who is not Christian it is easy to dispense with the religious undertones and simply enjoy the adventure, if a viewer finds it hard to get over the religious allegory and hidden messages of the film there is something a little more bigoted and one-sided about the viewer, rather than the film. It is enormously better than its successor Prince Caspian, a sequel which should be avoided.

Groundhog Day

Zoom-in analysis looks into movies, as you know, beyond the simple, obvious and surface of the film and takes even the most common, everyday films and 'zooms-in' past the everyday critique. Groundhog day may appear on the surface to be Harold Ramis's classic comedy about a man who continues to live the same day over and over again until he finds peace with himself and those around him; however, this hysterical, yet profound concept is reminiscent of and contains archetypes from the religion of Buddhism. This zoom-in review will be arguing that the entire film is a metaphor for the religion itself.

First, the religion of Buddhism itself needs to be explored before explaining its parallels, a simple explanation is found on Wikipedia:

Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices, considered by many to be a religion. A Buddhist is one who takes refuge in The Three Jewels: the Buddha (the Awakened One), the Dharma (the Teaching of the Buddha) and the Sangha (the Community of Buddhists).

Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as "The Buddha" (of our era), who lived in the northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent. Buddhists recognize him as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering by understanding the true nature of phenomena, thereby escaping the cycle of rebirths with suffering (saṃsāra).

The Four Noble Truths were the first teaching of Gautama Buddha after attaining Nirvana:

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving or attachments to worldly pleasures of all kinds. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or people that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends, when one is freed from desire. This is achieved by eliminating all delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

If the parallels haven't made themselves manifest to you already, allow me to point them out for you, with the help from an excellent essay I have read on the subject (Romeril, 2008).

The film demonstrates the wonder of living each moment as a totally new event. It follows a day in the life of weatherman Phil Connors, a sarcastic curmudgeon. He wakes upon the same day, Groundhog Day, again, and again, and again. His namesake, Phil the groundhog (himself a weatherman), sees his shadow, is frightened and goes back into his burrow, thus predicating six more weeks of Winter. Phil Connors is frustrated by living the same day over and over again. He wants to get somewhere else, find new circumstances, he tries to escape each day with the scenarios of his life. He pursues sex, but after a while it is a dead end. Crime is exciting but becomes tiresome. Drinking, therapy, suicide, finding a love relationship, all are explored. The habits and shadows of his life are found wanting.

Each action has consequences. This is the law of karma: he has a choice, but each choice leads to a new reality. Perhaps the turning point of the movie is when he tries to save a homeless man day after day after day, and, no matter what he does, the man dies. He really wants something and is powerless to insure its happening. We have freedom, but within limits. This is "samsara" in Buddhism, the cycle of becoming driven by our karmic intentional activity. We have desires and wants but we may never reach them. Eventually, through many days [lifetimes] he chooses a life of service, works through his demons, and breaks the cycle of Groundhog Day.

Each moment becomes a new opportunity, so the same situation is brand new and his unique response leads to a unique result.

If we recognize what is driving us, and clarify our true intention, the unexamined shadows are no longer about some solely external reality or objective weather, but about us. Each moment is a new beginning. Our projections and stance in the world can cast a long shadow on our lives, and the Spring of each moment is postponed for a long Winter. If you examine and test your perceptions, each moment brings forth a new world. If we lead an unexamined life, we feel each day is different, but it is really a rerun of our habits. If we examine a disciplined life closely, each instant can blossom into a unique flower.

This film parallels Buddhist practice. In a training temple, the wake-up bell rings the same time every day. You go to the same place, wear the same clothes, and follow the same routine, and yet each moment is unique. Not distracted by your desire for changed conditions, you can live each moment not knowing what it will bring, seeing the familiar landscape with new eyes.

On this last day Phil is Awakened, becomes a Bodhisattva, and finally awakes to February 3rd. The same is playing and "I Got You Babe" has a complete different meaning than from the "first time" he heard it on Groundhog's Day. As he ran outside with Rita he declared that Punxsutawney was a beautiful town and that they would stay; true to a Mahayana tradition once enlightened stay with the people and teach them the dharma until the escape samsara. He even stayed true to the principle of annica and opted to first rent a house as to avoid attachment and evade the consequences of dhukka.

Phil Connors in the end "wins the girl." He gives up trying to possess her, so that true intimacy, true participation, can occur. Affecting and being affected by each other and each thing is the true interpenetration of self and other.

The cycle of samara is broken, his shadows are seen through, and each moment blossoms.

As in the tenth ox-herding picture, Phil Connors comes out of his burrow to the market place with gift bestowing hands. He sees the shadow of his reflections and bows to it, as it must to him.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes has no rating for this film

Zoom In Analysis will give it a 7 out of 10

The film Groundhog Day is more than just a romantic comedy, it's about self-improvement, becoming further connected with the people and things around you (including yourself). It begs the question is there anything that can save you besides you. In the end Phil didn't sell out and become Arhat, but instead stayed with the people he had already spent eternity with. He stayed true to the principle of annica and opted to first rent as to avoid attachment from things that may not really exist. Nagarjuna was right in that "samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara" (Wikipedia, 2007). Phil learned the four noble truths traversed the noble eightfold path, quit being a weatherman, and finally lived in the moment of now.

Barton Fink

Movies with ambiguous endings stay with you forever. Think of the first time you saw Lost in Translation (what does he whisper in her ear!?) or pondering why the birds came in Hitchcock's The Birds, the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, Broken Flowers, Fight Club, No country for Old Men and even the Dark Knight all present endings and elements throughout that provide intense interpretations and lend themselves as prime subjects for Zoom-In analysis. However, one that presents itself as a highly metaphorical and highly ambiguous film is the Coen Brother's 1991 film, Barton Fink. The first film to win all three major awards (Palme D'or, Best Director, and Best Actor) at the Cannes Film Festival. Also, it was unanimously chosen for the Palme D'or.

The entire film presents itself as a metaphor for heaven and hell. Barton Fink is played by John Tuturo (what ethnicity is this guy!? He plays everything) who is a critically acclaimed playwright who is hired to a contract in Hollywood to make the transition into film. He claims to write scripts for and about the "everyday man." After being offered to bunk up in a Hollywood suite, he insistintly declines in order to stay in an average hotel called the Hotel Earle. When Chet (Steve Buscemi, the hotel clerk) first appears he comes out of a door on the floor after it takes him a long while to reach the top, like if he was ascending from the underworld. - The word "six" is said three times in the elevator. - Hotel Earle can be an anagram of the words Hell and Erato, the Greek Muze of lyric poetry.

Charlie (John Goodman) is Barton Fink's neighbor who Barton feels an attachment to. Most people concur that Charlie represents the devil. Instead, I think that Charlie represents the repressed rage that "common men" trapped in dead-end lives feel. The pealing wallpaper and heat represent the rage stewing just under the surface, the flames are when Charlie's pent-up anger and resentments finally explode to the surface. Barton struggles through writing his first film, with deadlines about a wrestler. He seeks aid in the help of a famous writer's wife (Audrey) who he ends up sleeping with and he wakes up to her dead (slashed, bloody) body next to him. He finds out that Charlie is a serial killer who chops off people's heads from the police who question Barton after finishing his script. The studio hates the script and Charlie arrives at home to his apartment lit on fire by Charlie who kills the police investigators that are waiting for him with a shotgun.

The Hotel beings to burn and the wallpaper (which has been ripping off throughout the movie continues to rip away). Charlie then says my favorite line in the movie, as the apartment is burning to the ground: "If you need me, I'll be in my room." He then says he went to visit Barton's parents on the East coast where he is from and leaves Barton a gift in a box.

Barton leaves the apartment and walks on the beach where he sits down in front of a beautiful women which resembles exaclty the picture of a woman on the beach that has rested on his wall of the hotel room that he had gazed at for realease throughout his time spent there. This brings us to the last lines of the film between the woman and Barton:

Beauty: It's a beautiful day.
Barton: Huh?
Beauty: I said it's a beautiful day.
Barton: Yes. It is.
Beauty: What's in the box?
Barton: I don't know.
Beauty: Isn't it yours?
Barton: I don't know. You're very beautiful. Are you in pictures?
Beauty: Don't be silly.

The questions arise: what is in the box? what does the girl in the picture come to real life represent? and finally what does the wallpaper ripping off mean?

Here are some explainations I have dug up:

First of all this is like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction it is not meant to be known. I have always thought it was Barton's mind. He couldn't write before but once he got his mind back he was free to write away. Also at the end he finds out that Capital Pictures owns him and his mind so when the girl asks if that is his box he responds "I don't know" meaning he doesn't know if it belongs to him or to Capital Pictures.

Now this of course isn't supposed to be taking literally I know his mind isn't actually in the box but it is symbolic of it.

ALSO:

The suggestion seems to be that's it's Audrey's head. Yet, there's a very "Pulp Fiction" aspect to it as well where we're not really meant to know. And yet, more than in "Pulp Finction"- where the mystery remains much more sublime than any attempt at explantion- we seem invited to seek out an interpretation here to find one that is more symbolic than literal. Barton's "mind" or "the truth" are good ones- "mind" could also be interpretted as Barton's creativity or even his soul (much like those slightly tedious interpretations of Marcellus's briefcase- I reckon it works better here.) The only real clues we have are the size of the box and Mudnt's confession that he lied and that it doesn't really belong to him (ie. does that mean it's Audrey's head or something belonging to Barton?)

However, I think it's significant that Barton doesn't actually open the box- therefore doesn't actually release his mind/creativily/soul. The way I like to look at it is that it is that very mystery of not knowing what's in the box that finally releases his creativity (and so leaves the explanation unknown-like Pulp Fiction). The point that Barton also confesses that he doesn't know what's in the box- and therefore might mean that he doesn't know if he still owns his own creativity- is a good one, but it could work on this level too- ie. that he still doesn't know what's in the box and is- perhaps- still feeding of that mystery. Who knows? Do we really need to know? Sometimes unanswered questions are more inspirational than answered ones.


Personally I thought that what was in the box was the head of his parents who he went to visit, meaning that when you go to hell, you bring everyone you know down with you. What did you think?

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 91% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it a 7.5 out of 10

Although there is a lot of ambiguity and the movie defintly pulls on the critics strings hitting all the right notes, it lacks audience appeal, but a great flick for those who love to interpret movies. If only judging it as a well written story with long lasting affect I would agree with RT, however when popping this movie into a wide appeal audience it won't be for everyone.

I Am Legend

The premise of I Am Legend had great promises. It was a highly anticipated movie that settled for less than it was capable of. Will Smith's charisma and Francis Lawrence's ability to endeavour in make believe made this movie's potential out to be Castaway meets 28 Days Later. Unfortunately a sub-par script (the film was actually green -lit even before the script was written!) that wavered far too much from the novel it was supposed to based on and digital, rage-filled zombies halve in dramatic interest with every second that passes. Why does Hollywood insist on using CGI for special effects? It ruins movies; my only beef with The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent's face when he became Two-Face. It ruins the realism the authenticity and when its purpose it to raise the pleasures of voyeurism it does the opposite for me. CGI ruins movies when used on people. However, CGI is an incredible tool when used on inanimate objects, disasters and cityscapes. The way director Francis Lawrence manages to turn New York city into a run-down, immaculate ghost-town taken over by vegetation (plants were transported via trucks from Florida to dress up the city streets as if weeds had overtaken them) is an admirable feat! And he's smart enough to let Smith be Smith. But there's only so much you can do with CGI monsters that don't seem right for this kind of sci-fi scenario. Guerillmo Del Toro with Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth has proven that films can be so much better without CGI band-aids and taking the time and funding for old fashioned make-up. Coincidently Del Toro was Smith's first choice to direct the film, but turned it down to do Hellboy II. Del Toro could have saved this train wreck. How much scarier would the zombies have been if they were given a 28 Days Later makeover? Basically in the long run You're left gawping at a $100 million worth of a futuristic B-movie.

In anticipation for this review I read the novel by Richard Matheson, I want to tell you exactly where the movie failed its 1954 original counterpart. The book is based on a disease which creates vampires, who were once "legend" that turn out to be very much fact as the disease spreads and wipes out the entire human race except for Robert Neville. Neville boards up his home and goes out during the day to get supplies and food. Pretty much like the movie, right? No, in the movie they aren’t vampires at all, they are zombie-like humans infected by a disease. A disease which somehow (inexplicably) gives the super-human strength. As put by a film critic "Before the diseased-yet oddly superhuman villains start to appear en masse, I Am Legend works surprisingly well." Admittedly, there is a scene where the CGI zombies are huddled in a dark corner of a building pumping their backs back and forth while Neville tries to save his wandering dog without being seen. This scene was very chilling and pretty scary. Unfortunately one scene can't save $100 million.

The zombies start to evolve and get smarter, placing Neville in a trap. In the novel, the vampires evolve into day-walkers and send a girl to spy on Neville, pretending she's never been infected. Neville discovers her true self and after running away the day walkers capture Neville and perform an execution at their hideout, killing the last man alive. There is a complete role reversal in the end as Neville ironically becomes legend and the vampires become fact. The title makes sense to the novel in that vampires are folklore or legend, but in the movie it makes no sense as the creatures that end up killing Neville aren't legend but freaked-out science accidents. As stated in a very accurate film review "This new version of I Am Legend completely perverts the meaning of the title, losing the clever dark irony and turning it instead into something heroic rather than something tragic." The ending to the film is abrupt with a sudden solution to the earth's problems and in a single, selfless heroic act Neville passes the cure on to an escaping woman who takes it away to save the world. How many times have we seen a similar scenario? Typical Hollywood.

In the movie, Neville is faced at the end of a dock about to get eaten by the zombies, but of course (out of nowhere) in the nick of time comes a woman and her son who have somehow been surviving on a boat to save him. Hollywood is infected with fairy-tale endings and heroism that are so frequent that "Hollywood" films have become predictable to film viewers across the globe with their typical endings, ego driven protagonists and perverse twists on what they call "tragedies." As one critic has put it "the infantile prioritizing [in I Am Legend] that occurs when Hollywood wants to be inspirational, the hero's everyman crisis of religious faith is supposed to be as important to audience as his struggle to save humanity from distinction."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 69% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and give it an emphatic 4 out of 10

There is a fine line between make-believe and make believable and unfortunately I Am Legend forces the viewer to flirt with the latter. Go for the thrills, for some nerve-gnawing suspense, for the wonderful production design and for the opportunity to spend some time with Will Smith (if you like him at all), but this is film is not the stuff of Legend.