Nora’s Will

Deb 4 Me 6

This is a rare movie from Mexico and it was good for me to see it. Usually when I think of Mexico I picture the northern border states, the ones that are desert and rely heavily on tourist trade to support their meager economy. But in the south Mexico is a fertile and hearty land with big cities and farms abounding. I remember being there in 1980 and thinking this is a great, quick way to get a European experience that is only hours away and much cheaper. So seeing this Mexican movie set in an upscale apartment and centered around an affluent Jewish family, I was pleasantly surprised.

The whole movie is built on the back of a Hemingway-esque guy named Jose (no surprise there) played by Fernando Lujan. He was great. Someone else could have been cast in this role, but this cat carried the weight of the film with quiet assuredness.

And it is a very quiet film. Slow and quiet. No big movements here. When it was over we both had criticisms and wondered about a dozen issues that were presented but not resolved. Normally that pisses me off. But this movie was like going to someone’s house for dinner. It was a nice way to spend the evening, but I don’t need to go back and I don’t really wonder how their issues get resolved. They were good people, we had a nice time and went home. Did I mention this is a Jewish family in a heavily Catholic land? This presents several cultural clashes that never occurred to me and I liked that. I liked the kids in the movie, normally I consider them a pain in the ass.

The movie kept me engaged through each snail-paced scene and I enjoyed it. I figure an average movie is a 5, and this was just a hint above average. For Deb it was a bit below. It’s nothing I’m going to tell you to go see, but if you have a free evening, looking for some harmless entertainment, this might fit the bill.

I just remembered, most of you are renters. I liked it for an evening out, but I don’t think I’d like it at home on a TV.

Nowhere Boy

Deb 8 Me 7

First off, there was a huge line at the theater. I was sure all these young people were here to see this tribute to John Lennon’s youth. We got in the theater, there were two other couples and one guy dragged in after the movie started. That was it, a total of seven people there on opening Friday night. The mob was there to see Jackass 3D ..enough commentary on the times we live in.

I think a lot of people my age have a general awareness of the lives of the fab four, certainly a grasp on their lives as Beatles and after. This is a pretty solid look at the care and feeding of John Lennon in the early days, from conception all the way up to going to Hamburg. It’s a well told story, slow, but forever interesting. It’s an English flick, the accents are authentic and the acting is great. They actually shot it in Liverpool and it is apparently endorsed by Yoko. If you accept the story as true, it is quite informative (and knowing what lies ahead), quite engaging.

The movie left us with several unanswered questions. Some of the ancillary players were confusing, his college days were indicated by no more than two sentences; there is some room for criticism. We both felt the “toughness” of Lennon was underplayed and I wondered where his famous humor was. Something I would like to see developed in a film (about someone) is an examination of creativity. You know, how its developed or discovered, how the artist controls it or succumbs to it, its role in basic life, does it come into play only while generating art or does it pop up while brushing your teeth. I'm sure everyone has a different story and it's really the foundation for success; but neglected in every bio-pic I've ever seen.

Overall this was an enjoyable and informative feature.

HOWL

Deb 9 Me 7

I was very excited about seeing this movie. We have stumbled across a string of really good movies lately and my hopes were high. Yet, I am always skeptical about these movies. Too often movies about artists are made by people who don’t understand the art, or resent the art and make a hatchet job portrait. Rob Epstein and Jefferey Friedman created a sympathetic and effective way to pay tribute to this epic poem.

It is made in four parts, like the poem itself, and they are blended in an easy to follow way. There are actors who portray the central characters, and I know them all too well, Kerouac, Cassady, Burroughs, Ferlinghetti, Huncke and of course, the author of HOWL, Alan Ginsberg. Over time I have developed a paternal need to protect them from their detractors but for some reason I didn’t feel like this film was going to be a problem, and it wasn’t. The actors were certainly capable, and with the exception of Ginsberg, they didn’t try to cast ringers (which I would have liked, since there wasn’t a lot of depth to any of the supporting beats).

The film’s text was made from tapes and notes and transcripts and divided into four parts. One sequence was an interview, presented in a realistic manner, with Ginsberg expounding on his work in an honest and straightforward monologue, supported with an effective visual atmosphere.

Another segment was Alan reading his work to his peers in a compact coffee house that has become the icon of the period. I was happy they didn’t use the brick wall of the Hungry Eye that every club across America has appropriated.

The third element was the trial that Lawrence Ferlinghetti went through for publishing the work. This was skillfully adapted and I’m sure compiled from transcripts. I wanted more meat here; it seemed like the prosecution only presented a superficial attempt at banning the book. I was impressed with the casting choices too. It seemed that actors were excited about being involved with the film.

The last segment was the weirdest one for me. There was animation woven in as a sort of illustration of the text of HOWL. This took me by surprise, and I probably shouldn’t have told you (sorry) and redeemed itself pretty quickly. It was done by a guy named Eric Drooker. Ginsberg was a big fan of Eric, collected his work and initiated a collaboration with Drooker to do HOWL in its entirety. This was told to us in graphics at the beginning of the movie and I’m happy about that, it gave credibility to something that otherwise seemed strange. After the initial shock of seeing animation I quickly acclimated and really enjoyed the imagery that was created to support the words.

Everything about the movie is just what I wanted it to be, with one exception (which could be me). I was never involved. I was just watching. It had a clinical feel to it. This is a very emotional, passionate, piece of art that we are focusing on and yet the movie felt like an analytical exercise. But it was a positive movie and one that might encourage others to use their tools for honest expression.