Genius man portrayed by Genius Actor

Eddie Redmayne in “Theory of Everything” was superb in his portrayal of Dr. Stephen Hawking. I saw every nuance of the character that Eddie was portraying. He created a story with his body that went from healthy individual to a person losing his muscle ability. This was extremely difficult character to play. And I can only imagine what Eddie had to do to show us the transformation and what it means to live with motor neuron disease (or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig Disease). 

The cameraman and the director (James Marsh) captured Stephen Hawking’s life brilliantly. They showed how he picked up a pen from the floor with already strange looking fingers in 20s.  They captured how hard it was to crawl up the stairs, to talk, and to breath. However, they also showed us that optimism, humor, and the will to live of one of the smartest men that has ever lived on this planet. Thankfully, he is still alive and is just 73 years young. I never read anything about Stephen Hawking or his work. In fact, I never heard of him until much later living in the U.S.  Now, I think I will read about this remarkable human being from whom we can learn a great deal about life, self-encouragement, survivability, and looking at life with optimism and wonder.

In addition, I liked a great deal how the movie captured what might have been happening inside Stephen Hawking’s mind as he was mesmerized with new ideas and inspirations that led him to come up with ideas and conclusions that he described in his work.   Thankfully, he lived long enough to tell us that. Even if he doesn’t believe in God, there is some force out there that allowed him to live 50 years more than what a doctor told him about his chance of survival (2 years). By the way, did you know that real Stephen Hawking had a chance to experience zero-gravity flight? I’m not joking. And I do hope that Stephen Hawking hasn’t lost his humor through the years of tribulations that he had had; I don’t think he did.

The rest of cast was superb as well. Felicity Jones (Jane Wilde) was great in portraying a nice-church going person who, probably, wanted a regular life. But heart does as heart does, right?  Her Jane came as close to real Jane as she could’ve. (After all, we don’t really know these people). I’d venture as to say that somebody should erect a statue to Jane Wilde as an example of a woman who loved a man so dearly that, while knowing, married a person who’d become ill and went through a lot of difficulties that included raising children, taking care of her husband, making sure home was in good order, bought and cooked food, worked, and studied in school to receive her PhD (i.e. pursued a dream). This is an illustration of grand love that she found, fought for, and persevered. However, in the end, they couldn’t stay together though they might’ve.

I recommend you all to watch this movie and to experience its magic. If you think that it is horrific to watch a person to go from healthy to paraplegic, then you definitely must watch it. Because at the end of it all, the movie teaches us to be human and not be afraid of tragedy or happiness that might come if one invests in it. After all, in life, there are no guarantees. There are only adventures. And, I believe, Stephen Hawking, Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, and the rest of the cast and crew had one grand adventure that most people should, on some level, be a little jealous of. Thanks to all of them we were able to see and experience it.

Eddie Redmayne’s win at Golden Globes was a worthy win of the hard work he put into it. I only hope he will win an Academy Award. And perhaps the movie would win one more award as well at the Oscars.

Missing Middle-Earth

“Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” was the last movie in the Hobbit series. In fact, it was our last journey into Middle-Earth. Or, at least, this is what we were told. But, hey, I heard a rumor about turning “Silmarillion” into a movie, or three. If you haven’t heard or been living under a rock to avoid Middle-Earth hysteria, here is the link: http://www.thesilmarillionmovie.com/. Nevertheless, was the movie a great ending to this storyline?

The third "Hobbit" didn't disappoint. It had plenty of battles, conflicts, love, and psychological transformations. It was entertaining.

Peter Jackson made Hobbit more than a connecting thread to his original masterpiece. This was an adult story with complex story lines. He used other JRR Tolkien tales to tell this story and hint at a larger world of Middle Earth. As such, the second Hobbit was the only successful movie of the three; sorry big fans of Middle Earth movies. So what were some minuscule mistakes?

First of all, I constantly saw Lord of the Rings (LOTR) battle scenes. Sure, they were very different, but I always expected another Dwarf army (from Blue Mountains) to come charging-in and help our heroes like Dwarves of Iron Mountain did. (I think in the book there were two dwarf armies). For me, it looked like a last battle-party where everyone was invited to participate.

Second, the mentioning of Aragorn was a huge mistake. He wasn’t even born during this adventure. After all, LOTR tale took place 60 years after the Hobbit. Aragorn would have been about 80 by the time Frodo went on his journey if he was alive during this time; in LOTR, Aragorn was between 30 and 45. 

Last, but not least, the movie showed 3 dead Dwarves. In the book, if I remember correctly, only one died. I can imagine that the death of three was more metaphorical and if not allegorical; allusion to the future perhaps. I know these errors are trifles but they got to me.

However, I enjoyed some other powerful scenes. I liked the battle between Lady Galadriel and Necromancer. I was happy to see the full might of Lady Galadriel; in LOTR, we had to take Peter Jackson’s word for it. Now, I can see why many were frightened of her and why Sauron didn't want to attack her kingdom until he took out human strongholds; though, of course, he tried to buy her with promise of power like he did with Saruman. (I probably would’ve known about Galadriel’s power if I read the book, but I didn’t. Now have to dust it off and read it).

The second scene was the transformation of Thorin Oakenshield. I believe this was the most powerful scene of the movie. I could feel like the camera and the actor were taking me on the wild ride into a person’s corrupted mind with a heart of stone. The slanting of the camera and special effects felt like I was Thorin and left my corrupted thoughts behind in that golden floor. (Actually, it felt like being in a trance after taking a psychedelic drug).  Though I am coming out of my own shadows, Peter Jackson made Thorin look like a person who at last found his heart of his own accord with wise words from Bilbo, his compatriots, and of Bard. (He did look like Jesus Christ, didn’t he? But then, when a person finds one’s own heart, she or he might look like that and/or feel that light coming out of him or her all around).

Lastly, when the Eagles came and attacked those ugly bat-type creatures, I had to surmise my own conclusions about this situation. After all, this occurrence didn’t happen in the book. In the book, there were no bats. There were crows that didn’t attack anyone. Instead, they covered the sun allowing orcs and Wargs to attack. And Eagles came to disperse those annoying creatures. Nevertheless, this was entertaining, and Peter Jackson told it superbly.

My favorite character portrayal was Thorin Oakenshield played by Richard Armitage. He brought deep dimensions and complicated levels of acting to give Thorin life. In LOTR, there were two: Gandalf and Aragorn.

On last note, I thank Peter Jackson, actors, movie crew, and background actors for working hard in the toughest conditions to bring us the visual aspects of Middle Earth. Everyone did a perfect job for a perfect story as JRR Tolkien envisioned a fairy-tale should be told. Peter Jackson has been a master storyteller who understood Tolkien’s philosophy quite well.  Thank you.

So, did you enjoy the last journey to Middle Earth?

Interview with Successful Author: Irvine Welsh

I decided to share with you this post because it is very inspirational. Sometimes, I enjoy listening and reading interviews with people like Irvine Welsh. They are direct and don't care how they come across. This is both positive and negative. Positive is that you will know where they stand and what they might think of you. Negative is that you might feel naked and exposed. But you know what? It's much better to feel naked and exposed than hiding behind your own shield that you are trying to protect.

From this interview I gathered that it might be a good thing I failed at everything I have done. Now, I just have to succeed. Well, that is why I created this blog: One step for me to rise from ashes. I hope you will enjoy this interview that was re-posted from the website "The Talks" that can be found at http://the-talks.com/_________________________________________________________________________

IRVINE WELSH: “FAILURE IS MORE INTERESTING”

Mr. Welsh, how did your upbringing in working class Scotland shape you as a writer?

It’s very difficult to be objective about yourself and your own circumstances, but one thing I do know about is that I grew up surrounded by storytellers. Everybody in my family were great storytellers. My dad and his brothers would just go on and on, they could tell amazing stories. I think it was something to do with the Celtic, oral storytelling tradition. People very much had that propensity towards telling tales. When I got older, I started going to the pubs and I just loved it.

To hear people tell their stories in the pubs?

Yeah, you’d go out and have a mad night and then you’d sit in the pub all day Sunday just talking about what you’d done at the weekend. These were some of the best days. Actually, I think the main thing that informed me was that… It is about that sense of community. Stories are important. I learned so much about the other generations by listening to people tell these stories, listening to parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles tell me about what had gone on.

How would things have turned out had you gone to a prestigious school and studied literature?

I would’ve probably been a very different kind of writer. I would have been more aware that I was standing on the shoulders of these giants. But because my orientation at first was very much an aural one, I was very interested in music, I think I was trying to kind of vent with that and be part of that community and culture. I didn’t consciously reject the great writers of our time but I don’t reference them in such a way that I would’ve done had I come from a more middle-class background.

What is more important as a writer: life experience or writing experience?

I think you’ve got to draw a balance between the two. To be a good writer, you have to be a good reader, you have to be interested in literature, you have to be interested in some of the great classic books, you have to constantly enjoy books and enjoy the work of it. You really do. But you’ve also got to be prepared to get out and do stuff and look around and engage with people. You’ve got to engage your senses. You live your life, and that way you can bring something new to the table, because otherwise you’re just a compiler or an editor of other people’s experiences.

I would have thought that you put more emphasis on experience judging from your books.

They go hand in hand together. I remember one pal said to me, around the time that I did Trainspotting, he said to me, “You stole my fucking book!” He’d been a junkie for years, longer than I had, but I was the one that wrote the book, you see? You’ve got to actually do it. You’ve got to actually sit there and do it, it can’t just be about the experience. Lots of people have fantastic experiences in life, but don’t have any inclination to put pen to paper.

The idea isn’t enough.

Exactly. The idea is not enough. And the most annoying thing for me as a writer is that people will come up to me and say, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea for a book. I’m not a writer, but I’ve got a great story.” (Laughs) It’s a generous thing for people to say, but I say to them, “Look. I’ve got loads of fucking stories. I’ve got a fucking warehouse full of ideas.” It’s never the ideas that are the problem for me. It’s sitting down and writing about them. That’s always been the difficult thing for me to do.

There’s a program that’s mentioned in your newest book Sex Lives where people have to write three pages in stream-of-consciousness every day. Is that something that you do to initiate your creative process?

No! No, it’s not at all. I don’t use them, but I love these kinds of things, these self-help, self-improvement things. I love the culture around them. I love the idea that you can’t just sit down and write a good book, you have to go through a fucking program. Of course, if it works for you, do it – I don’t meant to criticize or laugh at anyone – I just find it quite amusing. These people that just move on to the next program, the next diet. That’s the kind of consumer society we live in. We’re always looking for the next product that’s going to change your life instead of just going out and changing your life.

How much are your books based on your own experiences?

Your earlier books are always somewhat autobiographical, more so than your later ones. Skagboys andTrainspotting particularly have a lot of me in them. The two central characters in my last book are two American female characters in their thirties, but my wife read it and said, “You are these two characters!”(Laughs) In some ways your characters are snapshots of what you’re going through at the time, but some days you’re surprised as well.

By the shocking things your characters end up doing?

Yes, but if you try and shock, you never really do. Everything that you do in writing has to come out of your characters. I like to get into these characters that are polluted by their situations. In Trainspotting Renton is in a really bad place in his life, he’s trying to get off heroin… You meet him when he’s in a very bad place, and those bad circumstances lend themselves to drama. Bruce Robertson in Filth, you can see that he had a different life before he had that mental breakdown. These things are very constructive to me and they are basically about failure, and how we fail as human beings.

You are interested in failure?

Failure’s just more interesting. Success only comes in one form. It doesn’t teach you anything. Failure kind of comes in all sorts of ways, and teaches you all sorts of things. You learn by feeling. Maybe it’s just the Scottish way of thinking but even when I’ve done something that’s a massive success, I can always tease bits of failure out of it. That’s often what life is about, is failure. The ultimate failure is that we get old and die.

That’s morbid.

Maybe, but the other failures that we have in some way kind of foreshadow that. They tell us about the human condition. For me, when you’re looking at this kind of misery and depravation, in some kind of de facto way you’re also putting the beauty of life in focus.

Where have you failed in your life?

I failed at a lot of things – I failed at being a musician, I failed at expressing myself artistically in any other way. That’s why I said that I was going to write a novel and I gave myself 18 months to do it. I told myself, “I don’t care what it ends up like, I’m going to finish the bastard.”

You’ve since said that figuring out what you wanted to do with your life gave you the kind of buzz you were looking for when you used to do heroin.

Yeah, I’ve got to a point where I really enjoy what I’m doing. I enjoy going out, meeting people, but I’m not a fucked up menace anymore. Recently I met Andrew Innes from Primal Scream and we’re having a cup o’ tea, it’s a beautiful day out, we’re enjoying it, chatting with people who come out to the café, the birds are singing. And normally in that situation we’d go straight to the pub – but we had no inclination to do that. It’s kind of like, we’ve been fucked up for so long that sobriety is actually the new getting fucked up.

Is that refreshing?

It is, it really is. It’s like a weight is lifted. When you get older you don’t really intoxicate in the way that you used to. You don’t really intoxicate in a euphoric way because you’ve come to experience it so many times that emotions don’t present themselves in the same way. The intoxication level sort of falls. I think when you get older you start to think that there is a finite number of days left. It’s better than the old days where you could spend weeks getting fucked up, you had no concept of your own mortality. When you get older you’re much more conscious that, “This is what I enjoy doing, this is what gives me a buzz.” Back in the day, I used to really enjoy writing with a hangover!

Really? I can hardly get out of bed when I’m badly hungover, much less do something productive or creative.

I can’t be bothered now. I’ll just lie in bed and feel sorry for myself! But I’d be up and fucked and still bottomed from last night, starting to feel really bad but almost letting myself out of it, taking myself out of the pain that I was feeling. I can’t do that now. When you get older, you get a hangover and you’re fucked. When you’re younger you can physically remain in quite good shape getting fucked up, but if you do it when you’re older, it starts to tell on you. Especially when you’ve got a job, and you’re sitting at a desk all day like I am… But I buzz and vibe on that.

http://the-talks.com/interviews/irvine-welsh/

"Imitation Game"

"Imitation Game" provided us with a glimpse into the life of the man who defeated Hitler with his team and "Christopher" as well about homosexuality and its treatment, and the rise of secrecy and duplicity that has ruled this world to this day. After all, we do live in the world of Enigma's shadow. 

Benedict's performance was brilliant. And he portrayed real Turing's character with all of his strange and yet unique behavior. The supporting cast provided wonderful acting-support that was required of them to make Turing alive and real. For Benedict, he lived in the character. He re-created him, lived as him, and then was him. That's what great acting, for me, is all about.

I liked also how the movie began with the Voice-Over prelude. Benedict's voice was captivating, and I was ready for a great story to be told. The story was told with great finesse. Most probably, the only award that this movie might receive will be for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role, i.e. Benedict Cumberbatch.  (Benedict created Alan as a brilliant human being who wasn’t acknowledged appropriately in his time.) However, I didn't enjoy the constant jumping between time and places from 1950s to 1940s to Turing's years in school and back. Only at the end of the movie, I understood what the creators tried to do, but it was a bit annoying.

The movie was an adaptation from the book "Alan Turing: An Enigma" written by Andrew Hodges. I never heard this story before. I have known about Enigma, but this story gives a different meaning to how war is won. This story should be looked by us more deeply. After all, we live at a time when some past secrets are coming out because they are not relevant anymore to a nation’s security. Because of this, our understanding of history will deepen. However, it was incomplete in the past and what and how history is taught in schools and other in so-called institutions of higher-learning have been incomplete, if not wrong.  

Moreover, the movie shows that perhaps we live in one big lie because really what do we study in schools? To be educated? To be able to be analytical? Or to be manipulated with learning what already living people decided for us to learn and to know before even we came to school? Feels like a true Enigma, doesn't it? We are manipulated to think according to the world we enter. One's own perception is irrelevant unless you are smart (or "geeky", "weird") enough to start learning on your own to stand up above the masses.

Hopefully, we will have more stories where our knowledge of the past and present is increased. And, I hope, that we will be true scientists of life to lead a life for the sake of truth no matter where it will lead, whether it is reading books or meeting new people. We must keep an open mind, pursue our own learning desires, and consider scientific inquiry as the basis of our knowledge to accept others who are different from us, our families and friends. Those who say otherwise only say it because they deem it comfortable in knowing what is what, who is who, and how to handle a person that is different from 10 other people; all for the sake of control – as if others know how you should live your life. Maybe, just maybe, we are all brilliant if given the opportunity to develop, and then to live and create something remarkable according to us.

See this movie and be inspired and be challenged forever.

“Wild” wasn’t that wild

“Wild” is getting a lot of praise these days along with Reese Witherspoon (Cheryl Strayed). I am happy for both.  However, I am not a big fan of the movie, and it’s not because of the storyline.

The movie was about self-discovery and self-healing after our hero survived her childhood trauma of having an abusive father, being a daughter of a single mother, siblings who barely spent time with each other; losing mother at 22 and going on the journey of cocaine and un-endless sex with total strangers to marrying and divorcing. So, after all that our hero decides to go on a journey by taking Western Pacific Trail route from Mojave Desert (there about) to the border between Washington State and Canada. 

Throughout her journey, she was unprepared like in her real life (though she read a great deal of books and was a good student). She met whole bunch of people from friends to possible evil men. And finally she reached the end of her journey and miraculously was transformed. 

Why this movie was not as wild? The reason was simple. It just dragged on. From the beginning, I felt like stop watching it. I don't really know the problem of this boring feeling, but it could be that script was bad or the camera angles were not convincing. (Imagine if, at times, camera showed us the hero's point of view, i.e. first point of view; that would be wow). Of course, the other reason could have been Reese Witherspoon’s acting, but I doubt it because she convinced me of her struggles either in life or on the trail.

As a person who has gone on similar journeys in England, Europe or Peru, I was convinced with Reese Witherspoon's performance as a person who was ill prepared for her journey. After all, unlike today, there weren't many how-to guides on surviving such a trek. In fact, there are no true preparation except for common sense and bare necessities, which Cheryl lacked.

I also liked the portrayal of characters our hero met, and she showed well her genuine fear, assumptions, and happiness. Everything was very moving, and I had some strong reactions given her struggles and loss (mother and mind). For example, I enjoyed her relationship with her mom, Bobbi, (Laura Dern – great performance), her lack of any solid connection to her siblings, and how she fell apart. I also enjoyed how the flashbacks were handled. They were flashes of the past. After all, memories are exactly that. We don’t live in those experiences anymore. We just remember them like flashes.

The problem, for me, was that I didn’t believe her transformation. I didn't see it. And having a child singing to our hero is nice and sweet and almost, half-expectedly, the movie came close to showing Cheryl transform. And the last two guys she met who thought of raping her was a solid test for our hero to stop her old behavior to fuck every random guy she met. Though I was happy about her resolve, but why did she sleep with a guy she met later? No growth there. So, her transformation was not as believable. The creators thought that Voice-Over (V.O.), at the end, would do the trick? They were mistaken. "Wild" failed to convince me of her transformation. At the end of the movie, I felt like she would just go home and go back to her old behavior. V.O. was trying to convince us of her change, but failed because we had to listen to Cheryl’s voice to tell (not show, as good storytelling supposed to do) us that she changed her life because she got married and became a mom. I didn’t think it was enough. I’m sure that in the book, the author described in depth about her life after the trek. However as a person who didn’t read the book, I wanted to see that. After all, personal transformation is not what happens to the person on the trail, but what happens to him or her after she returns from the journey. What did a person learn from such an ordeal about herself and her relationship with other people and nature? People might fall apart again and return to their old-ways. Consequently, I wanted to see Cheryl at home. But that would be a different movie.

One of the storytelling tricks I would put in this movie would be for Cheryl to walk to the bridge through the sunlight or something else magical.  That’s how personal transformation happens. It doesn’t happen with V.O.s. Besides, when a person suddenly marries and becomes a parent, it shows that person didn’t transform. The reason is because the thinking is that marriage is last chance to absolve oneself of all mistakes and poor decision-making and receive approval from others. Instead, transformation is when you can live by yourself with yourself perhaps even in the same location where mistakes were made. After all, the question for me is why did she get married? How did she meet her life partner? In “Eat, Pray, Love”, the movie answered those questions though book did it with more success. But like I said, that would be a different movie.

This movie just showed that self-transformation journeys should be left as books and not made as movies. Or, perhaps, I should’ve read the book first, but I never heard of it till now. I guess this is true movie’s success to get us buy 300+ page book on the same journey. However, "Celestine Prophecy" (adapted from a book) succeeded to take a guy from losing it all and finding his strength through his journey. In this movie, there was magic, but why wasn't it in "Wild"? I wished it would have been. It would’ve made it look more real. Otherwise, this movie was slightly better than "American Hustle".

The reason is simple. Self-discovery is personal. No one will see it or know about it but to a person who this is happening, even if that person tells others. Others will smile, shrug their shoulders, wish you good luck or say great job. But they won't be able to see it or experience it as you will even if they ask how the experience was. Would you be able to explain your spiritual journey, or would you recount what you did on that journey, if not too embarrassing? So, to show that in a movie is extremely hard. It is a tall task and movies with this type of theme should be commended, but unless you have gone through self-growth or done a similar trek, it will be hard to even scratch the surface and one will find this movie unbearable. I've done similar trek in Peru (sort of) and I felt her agony, frustrations, self-doubt, and finally seeing the beauty inside and outside. For me, Machu Picchu was that magic place, as I was standing, in the early morning, and saw the sun come up. Tt Machu Picchu, the sun’s rays take on new whole meaning of heavenly life on Earth. For our hero, a bridge over the river looking out on forests and unseen horizon was the Machu Picchu, and I almost got that glimpse of her change. Instead, I didn’t see her smile or take a deep breath as if she is ready to tackle the next stage of her journey. I saw her standing there barely even cracking a smile. I felt she was still afraid. 

Other way to look at this movie is metaphorically. Our hero started her trek like a baby starting a new life and quickly got into trouble. This time though no parent came to help. By meeting different people, she learned about life and made decisions based on whether they were safe and beneficial for her. The child and his grandma who she met in the forest were her innocence and wisdom that she had but was not aware of. The forest was what is in us. We live in thick beautiful forest of darkness with some light peering through. And while we live in it, we forget our innocence, dreams, strength, and wisdom about ourselves though we must never do that. But what the heck was the metaphor of sly and pretty fox? I was befuddled by it. Overall, this movie was worth watching and experience. 

Though, I wished they would’ve showed more of first point of view and some magic of self-realization. After all, when I had similar experiences, I would feel warmth in my body, and mind would calm down and relax. The whole body created an illusion of control and not worrying about anything. But putting camera inside the body won't show it because we will see only organs like heart and brain's synopses firing off in different directions like fireworks. Maybe, warmth could be shown through a flower and mind through the sunlight. After all, this is storytelling and some leeway is acceptable even in movie making.

So, does Reese Witherspoon deserve her nomination? Yes. Will she win it? Unlikely.  She didn't go through her transformation. But everyone's the critic. What is your take? What did you think about this movie? 

P.S. The soundtrack in this movie was superb like performance by Simon & Garfunkel "If I could, then I would...)

“The Judge” in us

“The Judge” was about a hotshot lawyer (Robert Downey Jr. --“Hank Palmer”) who came back to his hometown in Indiana from Chicago to bury his beloved mother. However, his father (Robert Duvall “Judge Joseph” aka “Judge”) was not happy to see him. But our heroes had no choice but to work through their unresolved issues because Judge was accused of murder. The movie was tour-de-force with cast that also included Vincent D’Onofrio as “Glen Palmer” whose baseball career was cut short due to car accident caused by Hank. Vera Farmiga as “Samantha” who was Hank’s first love; she had a daughter and owned a local diner and a bar. In addition, Jeremy Strong played “Dale Palmer” who was mentally challenged and connected with the world via a video camera. Last, but not least, Billy Bob Thornton as “Dwight Dickham” played a lawyer who wanted nothing more than to bring Hank Hank down to earth from the Heavens by putting his father in jail. (His last name says a lot about his character, doesn’t it?). And Dax Shepard as “C.P. Kennedy” who was an incompetent lawyer who had trouble separating philosophical justice from real-world justice.

Relationships here were crucial. The director’s (David Dobkin) choices were straight forward: close ups, long lenses, tight lenses, etc. He didn’t do anything out of extraordinary as we saw in “Birdman.” The reason was because of relationships and actor driven performances. 

The number one relationship was between Hank and Judge Joseph, father and son. From the start, they were not fond of each other. They barely spoke though Hank tried to get an “I’m sorry” from his father. After all, according to Hank, he didn’t remember his father spending time with him after the age of 13. And Judge didn’t budge. As he pointed out to Hank, he was the one who had to “put roof over his head, food in his mouth, and clothes on his shoulders” given that Hank’s mother was a housewife. And this tag of war continued throughout the movie. This game was played brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr. and Robert Duvall as if they were real father and son. This family dynamic reminded me of “Nebraska” and “August: Osage County” where family’s emotions opened-up and felt like they were going to kill each other. Perhaps, this is what really missing in our real lives: Honest conversations with no holding back. But can we handle it especially when we live under one roof? If we could, perhaps, some indescribable hole(s) in our lives wouldn’t exist when the lights went out.

In the end though, both son and father realized that they were not truthful with each other and to themselves. For Judge, he didn’t realize that when his son needed him the most, he wasn’t there. Yes, he worked hard, but what about the evenings? What about the weekends? But since Judge grew up in tough household himself, he thought he was doing a service to his son as his father did for him. He made him stronger and made him into a man that became. Of course, he probably was wrong. After all, Hank’s “acting-out” (as psychologist might call his behavior) was to get his father’s attention and perhaps love. Unfortunately, Judge saw Hank as troublemaker and dream crusher. He sent his son to Juvenile Detention Center because he believed it would help. But it didn’t. When Hank was 17, he crashed his car with his older brother, Glen, on board ending Glen’s “great” baseball career. And because the Judge thought of Glen as Heaven and Earth, he couldn’t forgive Hank. As such, Hank left this small town. Surprisingly, Hank didn’t have any criminal record on his file. Perhaps, it was expunged. Or, perhaps, his father had something to do with that. Or, it was never started. After all, Hank finished Northwestern University and became a prima-donna lawyer with great paycheck and family (on superficial level at least). But he left behind his family, his first-love, and his town. And bitterness toward him grew because, as the town believed, he ran instead of owning-up to his mistakes.

His father was bitter because he didn’t think Hank was a man. A man must take responsibility for his actions, apologize to his mom and dad for his behavior, and do what was required of him. But then why should he? Hank was angry at his father for “abandoning” him. Interestingly, that what Hank wanted from his dad too. He wanted to hear that magical “I’m sorry.” But should anyone apologize for one’s past actions to others when such a person, on a spur of the moment, made a decision, accepted it, and acted on it? This goes both ways. In this instance, it was between Hank and Judge. Hank and Judge should’ve apologized for anything to themselves and not to each other. After all, when people apologize, they might not understand what is really meant. It is life, and we don’t have a guidebook on how to talk to each other, how to listen to each other, and how to make decisions on spur of the moment. Life is a like a curveball. You don’t know how it will curve in the air and how it will land. And Hank and all the others did what they thought was right in that particular moment and time given past experiences and interactions. Thankfully, Hank and Judge recognized it in the end, and they acknowledged each other.

Glen was bitter at his brother because what he did to his parents, leaving him to take care of Dale, and ending his dream of a baseball career. However, Glen didn’t look like a guy to held a grudge. He probably understood Hank for leaving his family but not returning. Similarly, Samantha felt the same about Hank. Everyone, on some level, understood his disappearing act, but they did not forgive him for that. The Judge said it to Hank beautifully in the sense that Hank didn’t even once come and visit, at the very least, his mother before she died. But when a person is angry, judgment, love, and care are clouded and one cannot see beyond it until he is hit with a brick on the head. And that what happened to Hank. He missed his chance to say goodbye to only one person who truly loved and understood him: his mother. This doesn’t mean I agree or disagree with any character in this movie though I can relate to them. This movie showed what happens when we live in our heads too much and become too self-absorbed in our self-importance forgetting not what other did or still do for and to us, but that people with whom we spend the most (especially in the beginning) are important to us and we want to take care of them because, in some way or form, they are family. And no distance or time zones will change that. We cannot escape from that. That umbilical cord is always with us till the end regardless of what we want to believe or think about those people we call family, and even friends.

I believe, in the end, Judge and Hank understood that. Judge died on a river on a boat while fishing with Hank. Before he passed, he told Hank, his son, that he was the best lawyer he ever met. But also, on some level, Judge understood that Hank was a better man and a good son. Likewise, Hank forgave (again on some level) his father and understood his father’s beliefs, the meaning of a legacy, and that he was a good dad. As the last scene showed us, he considered staying in his hometown and not be a “run-away” again. But we were left to ponder that as well. In 1989, he probably saved himself from his further falling apart. He found himself even though people closest to him or the whole town didn’t really understand it. But do we really understand other’s point of view and motives to do or not to do something? Just because Hank was known by a lot of people including his town, he wasn’t them. He probably never thought like them. That is why I believe Hank understood his mistakes and forgave himself as his town began to forgive him though Glen’s comment to stay and help him to take care of Dale was a bit selfish. But didn’t Glen want to be a good father to his sons? Therefore, forgiveness and providing help is essential when you care and love people in your life no matter how much pain they give you, or by how much you disagree with their decisions or lack of making any decisions. These people could be your family, friends, and even acquaintances. After all, isn’t this what makes us human?

One last thought: This is not the movie like “Birdman” though they are both psychological roller-coasters and about families. “The Judge” doesn’t have the same intensity and dynamism.  However, it has heart and slightly different look at a family’s relationships though the concept is not new. I recommend seeing this movie and deciding for yourselves what and how do you relate to this story because, I know, you do.. And if you did or wen you do, buy it and store it in your home collection. This movie is classic, and Robert Duvall is the true award nominee (SAG Award Nomination) because without him, we wouldn’t buy Robert Downey Jr.’s character.

I can relate to this movie more to its family structure because it is a common theme all around the world that I’ve seen, read about, and heard before. I believe no matter where a person is from, family dynamics don’t really change and not that unique. They are all in some way or form the same, just like all of us. It just comes down to how we relate to our own family at a given current moment in our lives.

And also I would like to congratulate Robert Downey Jr. and his team on creating this movie as his first project of his new production company. Please, continue to bring us material where disguises and suits are not part of a movie.  

Final Note: I could’ve written a lot more, but decided not to. The reason is simple. Do you really want to read a 20-page paper? This movie is very deep and can be a great psycho-analytical case study, but this is not the point of this blog.

So until next time, Adieu.

The Future of Film

While my next blog entry is coming, I decided to share this little article about what one of our greatest Hollywood directors and producers says about the future of film industry. Re-posted from Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604.

Steven Spielberg Predicts 'Implosion' of Film Industry 

by Paul Bond

Steven Spielberg on Wednesday predicted an "implosion" in the film industry is inevitable, whereby a half dozen or so $250 million movies flop at the box office and alter the industry forever. What comes next -- or even before then -- will be price variances at movie theaters, where "you're gonna have to pay $25 for the next Iron Man, you're probably only going to have to pay $7 to see Lincoln." He also said that Lincoln came "this close" to being an HBO movie instead of a theatrical release.

George Lucas agreed that massive changes are afoot, including film exhibition morphing somewhat into a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher. His prediction prompted Spielberg to recall that his 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial stayed in theaters for a year and four months.

The two legendary filmmakers, along with CNBC anchor Julia Boorstin and Microsoft president of interactive entertainment business Don Mattrick, were speaking at the University of Southern California as part of the festivities surrounding the official opening of the Interactive Media Building, three stories high and part of the USC School of Cinematic Arts.

Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

Lucas lamented the high cost of marketing movies and the urge to make them for the masses while ignoring niche audiences. He called cable television "much more adventurous" than film nowadays.

"I think eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television," Lucas said. "As mine almost was," Spielberg interjected. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close."

"We're talking Lincoln and Red Tails -- we barely got them into theaters. You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater," Lucas said. "I got more people into Lincoln than you got into Red Tails," Spielberg joked.

Spielberg added that he had to co-own his own studio in order to get Lincoln into theaters.

"The pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller," Lucas said.

Mattrick and Spielberg also praised Netflix, prompting Boorstin to ask Spielberg if he planned to make original content for the Internet streamer. "I have nothing to announce," said the director.

Lucas and Spielberg also spoke of vast differences between film making and video games because the latter hasn't been able to tell stories and make consumers care about the characters. Which isn't to say the two worlds aren't connected. Spielberg, in fact, has teamed with Microsoft to make a "TV" show for Xbox 360 based on the game Halo and he is making a movie based on the Electronic Arts game Need for Speed.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I agree with both Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Lucas. The current movie production will not be sustained soon due to the Internet (Amazon, Netflix, YouTube etc.) and cable. Everyone will try to save as much money to earn more than even today. Movie theaters will suffer because their bottom line depends on how many movies they show per week. And if a movie will be played for more than year, then going to one will be like going to the Metropolitan Opera as Mr. Spielberg said. I also hope with less movies filming, maybe, we'll see more original and mind-expanding projects around. After all, do we need to see ten different movies per week that by the end of the year, they look the same?

This is bad news for those who want to enter this profession because competition will be more fierce, and production studios will want to hire actors with experience. Therefore, the need for actors to write and film themselves will be immense, and today, it is a great time to film. 

My concluding thought is perhaps to read, write, and make movies by yourself. And if you are not inclined, then just read books. You might benefit from them more. And this change could benefit us somehow. Ain't the times exciting?
Thoughts?