The "Paa" That Refreshes

If you have ever said to yourself, “Man, I would love to find an Indian film about a boy with progeria in which the boy is played by a 67-year old man and it would be great if it had a little singing it in too,” I have the film for you! The 2009 Indian film, “Paa,” is about Auro, a 12-year old boy born with a condition known as progeria. Progeria is rapid aging in which a 12-year old boy looks like he is elderly, yet still has the mental state of his proper age. Auro was born to Vidya (the exceptionally attractive Vidya Balan) a medical student studying in England at the time of her pregnancy. The father is Amol (Abhishek Bachchan), a young man who is chasing a career in politics. Vidya decides that she is better off raising her son without Amol in the picture so she returns to India to live with her mother (Arundathi Nag).

Auro, the young boy with progeria, is played by Indian superstar actor, Amitabh Bachchan. According to IMDB, Bachchan has been in 188 films since 1969. Auro being played by Mr. Bachchan would be akin to the same character being played by Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, or Robert DeNiro. For the first thirty minutes of the film, I could not tell if Auro was being played by an adult or a child actor. I finally gave in and looked it up on IMDB and found that he was being played by this superstar actor. Bachchan is quite good as Auro and even though I am not terribly familiar with his body of work, I could still not tell that it was an adult actor underneath all the makeup. Auro is played by Bachchan with the right amount of childlikeness and only a few times does the character seem like he is approaching leaning towards slapstick. Thankfully, Bachchan and the script reign in any tendencies for taking the character of Auro to such an unfortunate extreme. The film has a mostly dramatic tone as it should. There is some humor in the film, however, the film, overall, is not played for laughs.

“Paa” does contain some social statements as the character of Amol (Auro’s father) does become an important politician and is fighting to turn some of India’s worst slums into nicer areas in which to live for the people who are already living there. It is his goal to make the wealthy people of India aware of the fact that the people living in slums should be able to live in a cleaner, more hospitable environment. Most reading this may already know that it seems to be a mandate that all Indian films contain a certain amount of singing and dancing scenes. Fortunately, “Paa” contains what must be the bare minimum amount of such scenes. This is not a film that lends itself to the song and dance numbers that populate many Indian films. In some films, it works very well. In “Paa,” though few, such scenes in the film slow down the action to a complete halt and seem added in just because that is what is expected in Indian films. I do understand the fact that Indian films tend to contain many song and dance numbers that extend the running times of films so as to give the audience more movie for their money. Many people in India do not have a lot of money so they appreciate being able to get a lot out of the money they spend on going to the movies. The following explanation of why Bollywood films are long is from www.thebollywoodticket.com:

“For starters, Indians are used to longer forms of entertainment. Cricket matches last for days. So do Indian weddings. A three-hour movie isn’t long at all in comparison. Also, Indians tend to be value-conscious. They expect a full afternoon or evening of entertainment for the price of a ticket. But the biggest reason Bollywood films are long is artistic. The time commitment required of the audience heightens their emotional investment in the story. (The same is true of operas, which are often as long or even longer than Hindi films.) The effect can be powerfully moving, even for Americans accustomed to shorter films. Bollywood movies are getting shorter, though, mostly because there are fewer musical numbers than there used to be. While three and a half hours was once typical, three hours or less is now the norm.”

While all of this is true, it does not take away the fact that the extended song and dance scenes in many Indian films are superfluous. This is the main reason why I have not gravitated towards Indian films. I do enjoy long films, however, if the subject matter of such films does not peak my interest, I will not watch them. “Paa” happened to peak my interest as I have not encountered any film from any country about a boy with progeria, much less a film in which said boy is played by an adult. “Paa” is a comparatively brief 135 minutes, thanks largely to the fact that it seems to contain the minimum amount of song and dance scenes.

The way in which the film is edited is a bit of a hindrance. In most films, if the director or editor wanted to show a character moving from one end of a room to the other, the camera would simply follow that character walking from one side to the other, or, perhaps cut from one character to another or cut from the character that is moving to another object in the room, then back to the character that has moved. In our more impatient world of quick edits, the way in which some scenes in “Paa” are edited may appeal to some audiences. In some scenes, the way in which a character is shown moving from one place to another is done with quick edits, and even quick fade-ins, that do not show us anything different onscreen other than the fact that the character has moved a few steps. Though I did notice all this, it is distracting in a negative way. The story in “Paa” is interesting enough, though, so that my annoyance at this editing style did not distract me too much from the action of the film. Despite the unnecessarily annoying editing contained within, I recommend you check out “Paa” and experience something a bit different than the average, ordinary Hollywood film. It is available on Netflix Instant Streaming.

"42" Is the Answer to the Question, "What is a Good Baseball Movie?"

The new film, “42,” has nothing to do with Douglas Adams’ series of books about a particular hitchhiker’s guide. As well, fortunately, it was not necessary for me to have seen “8 ½,” “10,” or “The Number 23” prior to seeing this film about Jackie Robinson. Brain Helgeland’s film, which he wrote and directed, is an outstanding depiction of Robinson’s rise from the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs to being brought to the major league Brooklyn Dodgers by Branch Rickey, president of the Dodgers organization. Jackie Robinson, the first black player in major league baseball, is portrayed wonderfully by Chadwick Boseman. Boseman has a great screen presence as does Nicole Beharie who portrays Rachel, Jackie’s wife. Harrison Ford is great as Dodgers owner, Branch Rickey, a man who wanted to win and it did not matter to him if a good player was white, black, or anything else.
The look of the film is authentic. It feels as though we are dropped into 1946 America as we watch Robinson play in Kansas City, at spring training in Florida, and at impressive representations of actual major league stadiums of the day. The wardrobe and set design add to the film’s representative look and feel. The baseball details in “42” are spot-on. It is evident that Helgeland either is a baseball fan or he educated himself as to the intricacies of the sport. There are not any glaring baseball technical errors. There is even a scene in which a young boy explains to his mother the balk rule as Jackie Robinson scores in a game on a balk committed by the pitcher. Apparently, Major League Baseball gave the producers of the film permission to use replica uniforms of real teams. In some baseball films, one will not clearly see players’ uniforms so it is evident that permission was not granted by MLB. Sometimes fake teams will be used such as the Des Moines Cornshuckers or the Albany Dragons or something silly like that. The fact that Robinson is seen playing in games versus real teams such as the Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Cincinnati Reds adds to the authentic feel of the film.
It was a joy to see Alan Tudyk from “Firefly” in the film, however, his character is easily the least likeable in the film. Tudyk plays Ben Chapman, the absolute jerk of a racist manager of the Philadelphia Phillies. In Robinson’s first game against the Phillies, Chapman shouts racial slurs and insults at Jackie from the Phillies’ dugout in an attempt to rattle Jackie. In a film that easily could have hammered home the fact that Robinson was playing in a difficult time of racial inequality, the character of Chapman is one of the few sources of this fact as the film does not offer a sermon about the ugliness of racism as it appears to understand that the audience already is aware of this fact. I appreciated the fact the “42” does not dwell on an obvious problem of the time, but, rather focuses on the man and his achievements and the fact that Robinson was able to achieve his goals during this time in history. I suppose one may categorize “42” as light fare, as it is definitely a “crowd-pleaser,” however, at the same time, never does the film condescend to the audience. It works like an enjoyable history lesson about what was going on in baseball between 1945-1947. I learned a few things I did not know about before such as the suspension of Dodgers’ manager Leo Durocher for conduct found to be immoral by the Catholic Youth Organization. I learned that Branch Rickey went to Ohio Wesleyan Unversity. This stuck in my memory because I remembered that former Seattle Supersonics basketball great, Jack Sikma, played his college career at Illinois Wesleyan University, located just a bit south of Normal, Illinois, a fine town where I once had a car repaired while on a cross-country road trip.
The baseball facts in the film were obviously well-researched and, as a baseball fan, I appreciated this fact. “42” is not as good as, but does follow the same kind of well-organized and well-structured pacing as “Argo.” The script does not linger on trivial subplots that do nothing to advance the story. This is always appreciated as it does not allow the audience’s mind to wander and it does not allow the film to stall at any point. If you enjoy well-made films in which you learn a little something about a subject of which you may have known very little or if you enjoy such films and also like baseball, you will surely enjoy “42,” the answer to the question, “What is the ultimate good movie about Jackie Robinson?” or "What is the title of a good baseball movie?"

The Wonderful Documentary, "Best Boy"

Ira Wohl’s 1979 Academy Award winning documentary, “Best Boy” is a fantastic account of three years in the life of Philip “Philly” Wohl, Ira’s cousin. Philly is retarded and has been living a mostly secluded life in his parents’ house for most of his 52 years. Ira’s idea is to obtain his aunt and uncle’s permission to send Philly to a school for the retarded so Philly may gain more experience in the outside world and learn what he can so as to function a little bit better after his parents pass away. Philly’s parents, Pearl and Max, are retired. Both are near 80 years old so their ability to care for Philly will soon pass.



“Best Boy” is a filmed documentation of Philly’s time in his new school and the outings he goes on with Ira and Ira’s friend Christine. They take Philly to see “Fiddler on the Roof” on Broadway, take him the park, and several months later, Philly goes to a special six week camp for retardates.

The most impressive element of this film is how it documents how Philly is always happy. He does not see life as a burden, however, one can tell by observing his parents, especially his elderly and increasingly sick father that he is, indeed, a burden, a burden who they, of course love and are compelled to care for. The juxtaposition of how Philly sees the world and how his parents see it is fascinating. Whether Ira Wohl intended this to be part of his film or not, I could not tell, however, whichever is the case, this juxtaposition is the soul of the film. I think he probably did intend for this to be a part of his film. Not one time in “Best Boy” does the audience see Philly angry, upset, or sad. Oftentimes, however, do we see the quiet frustration, but still love, of his parents. His parents are loving towards Philly and never outwardly show him their frustration. Perhaps this is one reason why Philly does not appear to have any internal anger or sadness, while his father, though a quiet man, is definitely sad and angry, but he loves his son and his wife and does not verbalize how he feels.

One reason I like this film quite a bit is that it is from a different generation of documentary filmmaking. Ira Wohl’s goal is to simply document what happens to Philly and Philly’s progress over the course of a few years. Such is stated by Wohl at the beginning of the film. Throughout the film there is no forced conflict and fake drama as one may unfortunately see in today’s reality tv. Ira Wohl has a plan, sticks to it, and is successful in documenting exactly what he set out to do. He captures interesting moments and the film is edited in a way that keeps the story flowing at a relaxed pace. I never felt rushed through the proceedings.

I saw “Best Boy” in a list I found online of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s Top 10 Lists From 1969-1998. “Best Boy” was number 10 on Ebert’s list for 1980. Not knowing anything about the film, I was fairly certain that it was not a movie about a crew person working on a movie set. I looked up the title on IMDB and found it to be a film I would be interested in seeing, especially considering the endorsement of having a spot on an Ebert or a Siskel Top 10 list in addition to the fact that I love a well-made documentary. “Best Boy” is as “human” and “personal” a film as you may encounter. I urge those interested to seek it out and give it a shot. It is available on dvd from Netflix.

Get Your Head Ready For "Brainwash"

The 1981 film, “Brainwash,” is what us intellectuals like to call a “crazy-ass” movie. It begins like an average film would, in that it introduces the main characters of the story, in this case, several employees of a company called Mystique. These employees are sent to a week-long training course by their employer. This training course is supposed to train these people for moving up the old corporate ladder and being able to better compete for such jobs. Little do they know what is in store for them at the resort-like retreat at which they arrive. The training course, it turns out, forces these people to confront their worst fears, emotional fears, not things like spiders, lions, staplers, ants, or anything like that. The beautiful and talented, Yvette Mimieux, plays Bianca Ray, the woman in charge of the facility and the leader of the men's training sessions. You may remember Mimieux as Weena in the 1960 version of “The Time Machine.” The wives of the men who are the competing for a higher position within their company are placed in a different set of training sessions with the husband of Bianca Ray.

The bulk of the film focuses on the captivating Mimieux and her cruelty towards these men. The film is not simply about how a woman is cruel to men for her own entertainment, rather it seemed to be a criticism of corporate culture and the things people allow themselves to undergo to make more money and gain higher power in their jobs. At the beginning of their training, Bianca has the men form a semicircle in the classroom. The first man she forces to face his fear is made to strip and get into a cage. She humiliates him, however, the result of this is unexpected. In different ways, she makes every man in the group do something humiliating or frightening so as to force each man into a confrontation with his fears. By the end of the film, the reason for all of this activity is explained, hence my rationale that this film is anti-corporate world and speaks to the pressures felt by some in said world. This is not a film one would want to watch with impatient movie fans. There are scenes where some may want to yell at the screen and say, “Don’t let her do that to you!” The situations presented in the film are not that simple, plus there are big bodyguard dudes in the room anyway, so fighting back wouldn’t help them out a whole lot. “Brainwash,” aka “Circle of Power,” is a unique film, made during a time of more daring filmmaking, basically 1970-1985. It probably did not get much of a theatrical release and it is not on dvd. You can find a vhs copy of it on Amazon and Ebay from time to time, however. It is worth seeking out and watching because of it’s no-nonsense approach. Not much time is spent lingering on unimportant nonsense before the primary action of the film takes place. After about ten minutes, we meet Mimieux’s character and the fun begins. There is a poster for this film one may find online which shows a woman whose face we cannot see and whose shirt is opened up revealing a bit of breasts, or as us intellectuals call them, breastages. This is a misleading poster as Mimieux’s character is not meant to be a sexual object in the film. She is very sexy, however, the image in that poster has nothing to do with the film. This poster below is not that one.

“Brainwash” was directed by Bobby Roth, who according to IMDB, has directed four episodes of the current popular ABC tv series, “Revenge.” He has also directed episodes of “Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman,” “Prison Break,” “Lost,” and the short-lived “Flash Forward.” The film does,at first, have the feel of a made-for-tv film, however, it’s subject matter and some other factors quickly remove all thoughts of Quinn Martin or the old ABC Sunday Night Movie theme.
The reason I like “Brainwash” is fairly simple. I had never seen a film quite like it before. Also, the film’s low budget gives it a more intimate feeling, a sense that the viewer is in the training classroom with Mimieux and these men. This makes the film more tangible and without a feeling of isolation from the action in the film. This is one of the probably unintended, though almost always present, aspects of low budget films of the 70’s and 80’s. Because these films were not able to afford to have a lot of special effects and had to rely on atmosphere, they are sometimes more interesting as long as, of course, the script is decent. I encourage you to seek out this film and not be brainwashed into thinking that just because a film has a low budget and was likely seen, at the time, as just drive-in fodder, that there is not some substance within that film. Obviously, not all low budget films of this time period are good, however, there are quite a few that are worth watching and some great discoveries to be made.

Watch Out For Falling Debris!

When “Olympus Has Fallen” had ended, my lone question after seeing the film was, “Did Morgan Freeman ever get his coffee?” That is pretty much the most profound question one will likely have after viewing this film, a special effects bonanza, without a whole lot of interest in giving the audience anything too much to have to think about. It’s a “things go exploded” movie. What saves “Olympus Has Fallen” from a bad case of Battleship-ism, a term for the ailment of a film which has absolutely nothing going for it and is so bad that an appearance by Tommy Wiseau from "The Room" or from Matt Hannon of "Samurai Cop" would be appreciated, is the fact that most of the performances in the film are good. The film stars Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Angela Bassett, and Gerard Butler, all of whom provide nice performances in a film in which the script does not really deserve high-caliber acting talent. Luckily for anyone seeing this film, these four actors make the endeavor bearable.

At the beginning of Antoine Fuqua's film, the president of the United States, Benjamin Asher (Eckhart), is riding in a motorcade with his wife Leah (Radha Mitchell) in a snowstorm outside of Camp David. Another vehicle runs into the car in which the president and his wife are riding. The First Lady dies in the accident. Mike Banning (Gerard Butler), a secret service agent, is among those unable to save the life of the First Lady. Banning has demons haunting him as a result. Banning is demoted to a desk job, unfairly, I believe, but for the sake of the script, it happens.

Where’s Morgan Freeman’s coffee?

North Korea decides to attack Washington D.C. so the president, his Secretary of Defense, Ruth McMillan (Melissa Leo) are moved to a bunker underneath the White House. What do you know? One of the secret service agents is a traitor and has teamed up with Kang (Rick Yune) to hold the president and the Secretary of Defense hostage as the North Koreans bomb hell out of D.C. The vice president is killed by Kang’s gang so the nation needs a leader. Who else would you want to lead the country in a time like this but the Easy Reader himself, Morgan Freeman? Freeman plays Speaker of the House Trumbell, a quick thinking and cerebral man whose job it now is to guide the government through this crisis. Freeman’s performance is actually very good. Unfairly, perhaps, I expected him to give a fill in the blank action film performance, however, his character has a nice amount of depth. I have a bit of Morgan Freeman tiredhead, as many of his recent performances seem to be in similar kinds of films. I expected as much in “Olympus Has Fallen,” however, I was pleasantly surprised.

So we have Morgan Freeman guiding the country through everything getting all ‘sploded and the president and Secretary of Defense stuck in a bunker with an angry North Korean and an American traitor. I do not remember why the North Korean and his gang were of a mind to bomb hell out of D.C, but in this film, it doesn’t really matter does it? Eckhart plays the president as a man of solid character. He is fine in this performance. Butler was good as Banning, the lone man who eventually finds himself as a one man army against the enemy. Yep, pretty much “Die Hard” stuff here. He even has an army general (Robert Forster) who does not trust him, but Easy Reader does trust Banning, so all is well. If there is a sequel to this film that focuses on Gerard’s character, it should be called, “Banning!” The exclamation point is very important to include. Banning!

Where’s Morgan Freeman’s damn coffee? Come on!

So, yes, it’s pretty much a United States versus the bad guys movie with plenty of things exploding and a misunderstood hero whose job it is to save the day. The script is one that has been recycled many, many times before, but the performances in this film make it better than it may have been otherwise. It’s not great, but it’s not bad either. There’s some high praise. You won’t want to fall all over yourself to see it, but I have seen much worse. Battleship.

Is that coffee on it’s way?

Get Your Brain Ready For the 2013 Rutgers Epistemology Conference

The 2013 Rutgers University Epistemology Conference will be held May 10-11, 2013 at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Unfortunately, Olivia Munn is unable to accept the invitation sent to her to attend this year's conference due to prior commitments, however conference coordinators say every effort will be made to retain her services next year.

This year, conference attendees will have to make do with speakers including Daniel Greco of Yale University who will present a talk on Friday, May 10 entitled, “Iteration and Fragmentation” and, from Harvard University, Susanna Siegel, who will present a talk on Saturday, May 11 entitled, “Phenomenal That’s-All-Ness.” Also on Saturday, one may choose to attend the talk entitled, “Epistemic Entitlement and Luck,” presented by Sandford Goldberg of Northwestern University. Discussants at this year’s conference include Imogen Dickie of the University of Toronto and Pascal Engel of the University of Geneva. All sessions of this year’s conference will be held in the Brunswick Ballroom. Complimentary refreshments will be served during the 3:00 hour both days of the conference.


Keep in mind that on Friday, May 10, lunch will be served buffet style. To the best of our knowledge, the buffet will include delicious chicken fried steak with brown gravy, buttered broccoli, and as requested by the contingent from Notre Dame, lime Jell-O. Refer to this website for more information regarding this upcoming conference: http://philosophy.rutgers.edu/events-335/epistemology-conference.

Arranging "The Ninth Configuration"

I began watching “The Ninth Configuration” not knowing anything about what it was about. I enjoy approaching movies in this way from time to time. It is fun to discover a film as you watch it, as if you had never heard much about it, as was the case with me as far as William Peter Blatty’s 1979 film goes. The film opens with a man sitting at the window of a castle which is surrounded by fog. The song, “San Antone” by Denny Brooks plays on the soundtrack. This is a very nice, soft rock, almost country sounding song. This is a very strange, yet a welcome kind of strange, way to open this film. The title suggests that it is going to be some kind of horror film involving Satan, demons, and God in some way. “The Ninth Configuration” turns out to be a religious-themed film, but not in the way one may expect. As the film unfolds, we meet Army psychiatrist, Col. Vincent Kane (Stacy Keach). Kane is assigned the duty of counseling the inmates of a special Army psychiatric hospital somewhere in a forest in the Pacific Northwest. The hospital is located in an old castle which tends to be surrounded most of the time by fog and clouds. It turns out the castle is really in Hungary, as the entire film was made in and around Budapest. Kane meets a fellow psychiatrist, Col. Richard Fell played by Ed Flanders who you may remember from the tv show, “St. Elsewhere.” The inmates are introduced in the film one at a time, the primary of which are Lt. Frankie Reno (Jason Miller—you will likely remember as Father Karras from “The Exorcist”) and astronaut, Capt. Billy Cutshaw, played by Scott Wilson from “In Cold Blood” and the tv series, “The Walking Dead.” Wilson plays Hershel Greene, the veterinarian, on “The Walking Dead.” The first 80 minutes of “The Ninth Configuration” center on the patient/doctor relationship between Kane and the inmates. There is definitely an anti-war stance at work in this film as the mind of every patient we meet as been adversely effected by his time in combat. The film uses humor, in the way “Catch-22” and “M*A*S*H” do, to convey the fact that these soldiers’ minds have been seriously harmed by war. “The Ninth Configuration” is more than just an anti-war film. The film makes an argument for faith in God. How it does so, would necessitate a more detailed description of the film, which would require too many spoilers to be divulged, so I will simply stop here and reiterate that the film is not simply an anti-war film and it is not a horror film. It is also not an overtly religious film like the “Thief in the Night” films of the mid-70’s and early 80’s. The film takes a dramatic shift in tone after these first 80 minutes as it changes the location of the action from the castle to a biker bar. At first this seems like a strange choice, however, what ensues during the scene in the bar heightens the meaning of the film tremendously. All of the performances in the film are very good, especially those of Stacy Keach, Ed Flanders, and Scott Wilson. Another performance worth mentioning is that of Steve Sandor who plays one of the bikers in the bar scene. He conveys a sense of menace that is powerful and frightening. His eye make-up, which can be seen in some of the posters for the film, is interesting to look at and, though it seems strange, it fits his character. “The Ninth Configuration” was directed by William Peter Blatty, author of the book, and author of “The Exorcist.” When “The Ninth Configuration” opened in theaters, it was, at one point, known as “Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane,” which makes the film sound like a slasher film. This kind of advertising, though misleading, made sense in the late 70’s and early 80’s, as a multitude of slasher films were being released at this time, captializing on the success of “Friday the 13th” and “Halloween.” As previously mentioned, “The Ninth Configuration” is not a horror film. It does not even have any horror film elements in it, other than the fact that the castle in which most of the action of the film takes place has a lot of fog surrounding it. It is the kind of film which may require a bit of patience from the viewer, though if you enjoy films that take their time to tell a story and are character-driven, you will likely enjoy this film.