We're Back Together....

So, Oscar and I decided to take a break.. Well more accurately, I took a break from Oscar..  But because Oscar is simply a proverb for my movie watching challenge and not a literal boyfriend, he was more than happy to take me back.. Phew....

So I have to admit life did go on in the last six months, but Oscar was never far from my mind... I kept telling my friends that I would go back to him... I’m not sure if it was out of want, so much as it was to the guilt of not following through on my challenge... But again because Oscar isn’t a real person, it doesn’t matter what my reasons are for coming back to him, only that I’m back...

So without further ado, let’s get back to the reviewing... I’ve got three films for review this entry so let’s get under way...

Tender Mercies  MOVIE OF THE BIANNUAL

Director: Bruce Beresford
Starring: Robert Duvall, Tess Harper, Betty Buckley, Allan Hubbard and Ellen Barkin

This film was a simple yet complex story. It was presented in a way that it was almost like not much happened, but it really did. I think that’s what I liked about it, no Hollywood over-dramatisation!

The film is the story of Mac Sledge (Robert Duvall), a famous country western writer and performer, who developed an alcohol addiction, destroying both his career and his family. The film opens with Mac, intoxicated in a small motel room somewhere in Texas. The hotel is owned and operated by Rosa Lee (Tess Harper), a widow raising her one and only son, Sonny (Allan Hubbard). With no other prospects or anywhere else to go, Mac stays on at the motel and works there in exchange for food and rent. With Rosa’s positive influence, Mac ceases drinking and soon after he and Rosa marry. Mac seems content with his new life, but cannot forget about his old one and when his ex-wife, Dixie (Betty Buckley) comes to perform in the area, he attempts to meet up with her, in the hope of seeing his daughter, Sue Anne (Ellen Barkin). Dixie refuses to believe that he has changed and prevents him from seeing Sue Anne, claiming “she never thinks about you”.  Soon after, Sue Anne makes contact with Mac independently, seeking his blessing for her new relationship with one of her mother’s back up musicians. Mac agrees to meet with them, but insists that she tell her mother before arranging the meeting.

Meanwhile, a local band in the area sort out Mac, after they found out he was working at the motel and ask him to write some songs for them to perform. He agrees and the band starts to build some notoriety in the area, even getting one of their songs on the radio and securing a record deal.

Just as Mac’s life appears to be getting back on track, his daughter Sue Anne elopes with her boyfriend and is later killed in a motor vehicle accident. Mac, who everyone expected to slip back into alcoholism, is able to pull through this with the help of his new family, whereas Dixie is left completely destroyed. The film ends with Mac throwing the football around with Sonny, with Rosa looking on.

Like I said there is actually a lot of significant events that take place in the movie (e.g. recovery from alcoholism, love, marriage, death of a child, fame etc). And events that would invoke raw emotion, that could easily be presented quite dramatically. Beresford avoids the temptation to get the “easy vote”, which directors in Hollywood often do through over-dramatisation (e.g. big musical scores, over-acting). Rather the story doesn’t delve too much into the emotion of the characters (apart from the final scenes with Dixie inconsolable in her bedroom and one scene with Mac driving around all night after a fight with Rosa). Things just seem to “happen” and despite absolutely tragic circumstances or even highly exciting events (when the bands song is released on the radio for example), life just simply goes on, without too much focus on the emotionality of the character(s).  I liked that very much about the film and hence why I gave it the MOVIE OF THE BIANNUAL status (out of the three I viewed of course).

6.5/10

Terms Of Endearment

Director: James L Brooks
Starring: Shirley MacLaine, Deborah Winger, Jack Nicholson, Jeff Daniels, Danny Devito and John Lithgow

For the only movie I had heard of out of three prior to viewing, I didn’t love it. To me the characters were a bit “unlikeable”, except for Danny Devito, who definitely made me chuckle.

The movie is about the lives of mother Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and her daughter Emma (Debra Winger). Aurora is very overprotective of Emma as a child, resulting in her rebelling by marrying a man her mother did not approve of Flap (Jeff Daniels). Flap is offered a job a long way from home and due his difficulties with Aurora, stemming from her non-acceptance of him, he accepts the position and moves Emma and the kids away.

It is only after Emma moves away and Aurora’s focus has to shift from her daughter, to her own life that she actually begins to live. She is pursued by her womanising, astronaut neighbour, Garrett Breedlove (Jack Nicholson). He’s crude, rude and yet irresistible to Aurora. After a lot of witty banter and a disastrous date or two, they sleep together and actually start to develop a relationship.

Meanwhile, unlike Aurora’s life which seems to get better with the distance, the quality of Emma’s seems to decrease. Her relationship with Flap begins to deteriorate with the stress of raising the children, as well as the financial pressure. She soon discovers that Flap is having an affair with one of his graduate students and so she retaliates with a brief affair with Sam Burns (John Lithgow). Soon after she is diagnosed with terminal cancer and the last part of the film focuses on Emma’s end of life and how the family copes with this. Aurora and Emma are able to repair any relationship damage from the past. Probably the most gut wrenching part for me was watching the way Emma’s eldest son, Tommy (Troy Bishop) related to his mother, even in her dying hours. He was very bratty and although grieving I’m sure, was frankly a “little shit”.

All in all, I didn’t love the movie. There were parts that were certainly enjoyable, namely Danny Devitos’ characters unrelenting pursuance of Aurora. Similarly, I found the interaction between Garrett and Aurora somewhat entertaining, mostly because Garrett did not hold back and consistently made sexually inappropriate comments to Aurora, despite her age and disgust. But I didn’t love the characters. Aurora was uptight and overbearing, Emma was passive and impulsive, Flap was a flake and Tommy was, as I so intelligently put it earlier, a little shit!

5/10

The Big Chill

Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Starring: Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Mary Kay Place, Meg Tilly and Jobeth Williams.

Well, I’m just warning you, I’m not going to waste too much time reviewing this film, because it was my least favourite. It actually took me a few nights to get through it, as I kept falling asleep. Shame really!

The movie is about seven college friends, who are brought back together for a weekend away, following the funeral of one of their other friends, Alex, who committed suicide. The movie focuses on love lost, dreams shattered and ideals compromised. Each character seems to have something unresolved with one of the other characters and these are explored to some extent over the course of the film.

I found it boring, drawn out and frankly pointless. But challenge me and my ease at righting this film off. It was nominated for best film, so I can’t help but feel that I must be missing something. But hey, Oscar can’t always be right, that goes against all the laws of relationships, which state that the woman is always right, right??

3/10

Well, until next week (hopefully) “bon-voy-age”!

A J.D. Moment

So, if you are familiar with the TV comedy "Scrubs", you should understand where I'm going with this post. But for those of you who aren't, here’s a quick background. Basically, the show is about a bunch of hospital interns who have just recently graduated from medical school. The show depicts their progression from interns into residents and then eventually fully qualified doctors. It centres around a guy by the name of J.D., his best friend Turk and the people they meet whilst working in Sacred Heart Hospital.  The events of each episode are depicted through self narration by J.D. Each episode is called "My..... something" and comes from his perspective. Much like my blog, which by its very nature has to come from somebody's perspective and because it's mine, it should be my perspective right? Not necessarily. As fans of Scrubs would know, once in every season, J.D. will pass the reigns to one of his offsiders and the events taking place are depicted through their perspective and titled "Her/His....... something". What's this got to do with me you ask? Well basically the last movie I watched was The Right Stuff and I fell asleep. So instead of giving you a review that would read something along the lines of "boring action movie about the race to space", I thought I would let my wonderful and supportive partner Tim write this post. He did enjoy the film and managed to watch it from start to finish. Bonus:)

Hey folks, Turk here. I liked the movie. The End.

If you’re looking for a little more information about the movie then here goes. I don’t know any of the actors in the movie so I can’t really tell you that. I didn’t pay too much attention to who the Director was, so I can’t really tell you about that either. What I can tell you is that the movie is about a group of test pilots all wanting to be the best, the fastest, the strongest, the one with the biggest balls. It starts off with the men dragging their wives out to the desert to live as they try and fly their test planes faster than the speed of sound. Some of the pilots crash and die and there is one guy who does succeed. The guy who does go the fastest is held as being the champ. He always gets the best equipment and if someone goes faster than him then he pushes himself to go faster. He always manages to stay on top. The race then turns on who could fly twice as fast as the speed of sound and then three times the speed of sound. With each accomplishment, less and less people care about it and less men travel to the desert to become test pilots.

As the air speed race slows down and less people care about it the next race turns to space. It now becomes a race between Russia and the USA to see who could get the first person into space. Russia puts a lot more effort towards this at the beginning and ultimately is the first person to achieve this. USA is not happy and they make it a priority to make sure that they beat Russia from then on. USA picks seven test pilots who ultimately become astronauts. All seven astronauts get to go into space and each one made it safely back and each achieve a greater goal.

The movie ends with cutting back to the desert with the original champ being the only person left there as everyone has moved on to the space race. He is there with a new plane that had just been delivered for him to test. He and the mechanic believe this plane could beat the record for the higest altitude that a plane could get to. He quickly jumps in the plane and goes for it. He reaches the record but runs into trouble and crashes the plane. He survives and walks away.

So Tim gives this movie a 7/10. Pretty good, but I guess if you want to watch it, you’ll have to take his word for it cos I aint vouching for this rating:p

By the way the director of this film was Philip Kaufman and it starred: Sam Shepard, Scott Glenn, Ed Harris and Dennis Quaid, just in case you were interested!

Until next time, “that’s robot for goodbye” (JD, Scrubs)

Natural Disasters

It seems like an age since I've written on here, but in reality it's only been two weeks. So much has happened since the last post that it feels a lot longer. The day after my last post it seemed that the apocalypse was coming, well for Queensland anyway. Here's the scenario: I rock up to work after taking the day off sick (refer to last post for full details haha). I briefly catch up with a few colleagues about the bizarre and devastating inland tidal wave that had rushed through Toowomba the day before. Many of my colleagues are from the area and whilst their family and loved ones were all okay, I think a lot of them felt quite displaced. The idea that a wave of that magnitude could go through the high set inland town was previously inconceivable particularly for those who had lived there, but was now very much a reality. Whilst we all commented and discussed the tragedy of this event, we all went about our day. A mere two hours later the emergency alarm rang. Next thing I know my manager is talking about evacuation plans and king tides. From there it was a rush to lift valuables up off the ground and contact clients to alert them that the office was shutting indefinitely. Brisbane was going to flood and the prediction was that the water levels would reach higher than those of 1974, which saw much of Brisbane's CBD infiltrated with water. The idea that Brisbane could go under seemed like a foreign concept to me, but I witnessed it. From the safety of my lounge room, thanks to the amazing media coverage, I saw my university UQ go under, I saw one of my favourite restaurant precincts Rosalie destroyed, I saw Riverwalk a place that I had taken visitors from interstate many times literally float away and I saw Suncorp where I'd watch my beloved South Sydney Rabbitohs get thrashed by the Brisbane Broncos literally turn into a giant swamp. From my own neighbourhood, I watched plontoons with lights and park benches on top of them float down the river, I watched Sydney Street ferry terminal be overpowered by the unrelenting tide, I saw a car with water up to its roof top and I watched a poisonous LPG gas tank make its way towards Moreton Bay. This event was unbelievable and left almost no one unaffected. Whilst my home and my workplace were safe, I spent the day leading up to the first king tide helping Tim sandbag his business, I waited with anticipation and hoped with all my strength as one my very best friends was trapped in one of the flood affected suburbs and I watched so many places that I frequent go under water. I have never experienced anything like that in my life and I hope to never again.

E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial MOVIE OF THE WEEK
Director: Steven Spielburg
Starring: Dee Wallace, Henry Thomas, Robert MacNaughton, Drew Barrymore and Peter Cyote

Well I think you have to have been sleeping under a rock, under water, in the deepest, darkest swamp in Botswana to have not seen this movie. It was massive both at the box office and amongst the mainstream and like other science fiction movies before it, still to this day has a massive cult following. I think it’s a little hard to really understand why it was and continues to be soo big, but you have to put yourself in the context of when it was made to really get it. Special effects wise, it had been matched by no other (apart from maybe the Star Wars films). It was a unique story and according to my post viewing reading, was inspired by Spielburg’s own childhood (E.T. himself was an imaginary friend Spielburg had as a child). The alien himself was a costume warn at different times throughout the film by two small people and a twelve year old boy who was born without legs. His arms were played by a mime artist and his voice was that of an elderly woman, who chain smoked, hence the husky tone. Pretty interesting hey!

The movie is about an alien by the name of E.T., who is accidentally left behind by his people during a trip to Earth. He is discovered by a young boy Elliot (Henry Thomas), who lures him into his house using lollies. Elliot decides to keep him and only tells his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) about him. Their little sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore) accidentally finds out about him and they swear her to secrecy. The film starts out as being focused on E.T. learning about Earth and its people from his new friends, however he soon starts to become ill and so too does Elliot due to their psychic connection. The children eventually have to confess to their mother Mary (Dee Wallace) about E.T.s existence, as Elliot becomes sicker, but by this stage the government is well aware of E.T. and bust into their home and take it over. In the final scenes Elliot and E.T. both become increasingly sicker and are both dying. In E.T.’s final moments, he breaks his psychic connection with Elliot and the young boy starts to recover, whilst we assume that E.T. has died. Later, as Elliot asks to be alone with the alien’s corpse to say goodbye, a flower in a pot, which died when E.T. did, suddenly comes back to life, symbolising E.T. also coming back. E.T. has been contacted by his people and they are coming for him, which resuscitates him. Elliot and Michael steal one of the government’s vans and with the help of Michael’s friends, as well as E.T.s ability to levitate them off the ground, abduct E.T. and fly on their bicycles over the town, back to the spot where the ship first left E.T. behind so they can return him to his people (who can forget that famous scene with the silhouettes of the boys on their flying bicycles go across the sunset). Mary and Gertie, as well as a sympathetic and dedicated scientist “Keys” (Peter Cyote) meet the boys and E.T. there. They all say goodbye to E.T. and watch his ship return to space.

For me this film is a childhood classic. To be honest with you, I wasn’t looking forward to watching it, just because I had seen it sooooooo many times. But because I was watching it with a purpose I did enjoy it. And here’s an interesting bit of trivia that I found out during my post viewing reading, Robert MacNaughton (Michael) now works as a mail sorter in the American post. Just goes to show that saying of “fifteen minutes of fame” is sometimes closer to the truth then what we think.

8/10

The Dresser
Director: Peter Yates
Starring: Albert Finney, Thomas Courtenay, Zena Walker and Eileen Atkins

Hmmm, I’m still not sure about this film. It was definitely different, but I just don’t think I liked it. The film is about a Shakespearean theatre company in England during World War II. The film stars Albert Finney as “Sir” the head actor and creator of the company, who appears to be suffering with a form of dementia. The film is about the company’s struggle to perform King Lear, a play that they have performed many times before, but this particular performance is being jeopardised by Sir’s progressive condition. He not only struggles to remember his lines, but has frequent outbursts, which are non-sensical and stop him from being able to perform. The film tracks the lead up to this performance and focuses on the relationship between Sir and his dresser Norman (Thomas Courtenay). Norman appears to be the only one who can get through to Sir, is the only one who can calm him down, but at the same time is often the victim of Sir’s abuse and ego. The performances on screen mirror that of the theatre and particularly the dramatic nature of Shakespearean plays. Sir is the “fallen hero”, the veteran and legendary actor, who is well past his prime and is doomed for a tragic end, like many of Shakespeare’s leading men. The other characters in the film are merely parts of Sir’s world and do not have lives in their own right. Norman’s life is about pandering to Sir’s every need, although he does show an inner strength that one would assume he would not have given his chosen line of work. At various points he stands up for himself against Sir’s abuse and he is steadfast in defending Sir against those in the company who doubt he can perform. There’s Her Ladyship (Zena Walker), who is Sir’s wife, who appears to be so passive and so far removed from her husband, that one could argue Norman is almost playing the part of dresser, servant, friend and wife in her place. Then there’s the stage manager Madge (Eileen Atkins), who has dedicated her life to Sir’s company and has sacrificed her own happiness because of her love for him, even knowing that he would never love her back. In the end, Sir is able to live up to his legendary reputation and perform King Lear for his audience, even with the sirens going off the in background signifying that there may be about to be an air raid. In the final scene, Sir shows Norman the first draft of his biography. The only part he has written is the dedication. In this dedication he makes note of all those who work in the theatre from actors to electricians. Norman is very hurt by this, as he has made no mention of him personally or acknowledge the role of the dresser in his dedication to the theatre. Sir then dies, leaving Norman feeling ungratified and although he has wasted his life, as Sir even in his dying minutes could not tell him how much he appreciated him. The film ends shortly after.

I appreciate that this film was different and in its own way almost seemed like a dedication to the theatre. However, I did not enjoy it very much and found it quite peculiar and a bit boring.

I give it a 3/10!

Until next time “I’ll be right here” (ET, ET: The Extra Terrestrial)

The Sick Day

I never know what's the appropriate etiquette when on a sick day. Sure there's the day's that you call in sick, where you feel like death and the only option is sleeping. But what about those other days, where you're not well enough to be at work, but after tossing and turning for a few hours, sleep becomes a mythological concept? In these situations is it okay to do chores? Is it okay to catch up on Facebook, read a magazine or write on your blog? Or should we become social recluses, riddled with disease, trapped in the deep dark depths of the bedroom, only to resurface once the last sneeze has sounded? Well today I'm compromising! I've got the dreaded and long lasting summer cold and was unable to drag my sneezing and suffling behind into work this morning. So, I'm lying in bed removing the possibility of contaminating anyone else, but at the same time, I'm writing on here.

I also have to apologise, as it has been quite a few weeks since I've been on here. However, despite my absence, I have continued with the films of 1982 and have two to review. So here it goes.

The Verdict
Director: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, James Mason, Milo O’Shea

The Verdict is a court room drama, starring Paul Newman as broke down lawyer, Frank Galvin. The film opens with various scenes of Frank in bars, drunk in his office and trying to swindle work at funerals (he would approach the family members and claim to have known the deceased and offer his services). Of course at this point he is presented as a very unlikeable character, a maggot, drinking way too much and preying on the grief of others. However, it is quite obvious that there is more to this story then what you are seeing on screen (maybe because it’s Hollywood and there always is more to the story, but I would like to think it is because of a deep insight hehe).

Frank’s friend and colleague, Mickey Morrissey (James Mason), has a soft spot for Frank (we do not understand why at this point) and gives him a civil suit case.  However, due to Frank’s self-destructive ways, Mickey tells him they are through after this case. The case is a medical malpractice case, involving a young pregnant woman, who was given the wrong dose of aneasetic and as a result her baby died and she was left in a coma. Her sister and her husband bought the case to Mickey’s firm. They are suing the hospital involved, which is owned by the Archdiocese. All parties are willing to settle out of court with a settlement fee of $210000 going to the plaintiffs. However, Frank much to the opposition of the sister and her husband, Frank decides the case needs to tried, both because he believes that the woman deserves a chance at a more just outcome and because he desires to restore his reputation as a lawyer.

The film is as much about the case itself, as it is about the inadequacies of the court system. The judge (Milo O’Shea) is nothing less than bias and actively works against Frank, openly telling him that he should have settled, dismisses a key witnesses testimony and actually cross examines a witness himself. The defence buys off witnesses and even goes as far as planting a mole, to spy on Frank and Mickey as they build their case. Her name is Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling) and she becomes the love interest of Frank in the film. Both Mickey and Frank confide in her. Mickey tells her about Frank’s background and how he ended up where he did. Frank was once a really strong and successful lawyer, until he found out that witnesses were being “bought off” in a case he was trying. He was going to report it, but those involved found out and set him up. He was arrested for witness tampering himself and was only released from prison after he promised not to report his colleagues. His reputation was ruined after this and this led him to his life style of chronic drinking and ambulance chasing. Laura is eventually caught out by Mickey, after he finds a cheque in her bag from the defence. At this point in the film, the case is going really bad and it is only after Frank seeks out a nurse, who was not testifying for the defence that there is hope for his case. Laura turns over a new leaf and does not tell the defence about the nurse. She is then able to testify and tell the court that her job was threatened by the doctors involved if she disclosed that the patient was given aneasetic one hour after eating, when it should have been nine. They even forced her to change what she had written on the admittance sheet. Based on this testimony (even though the judge told the jury to strike it from their memory, based on some loose precedent allowing him to rightfully dismiss the testimony as evidence) the jury come back in favour of the plaintiff and even ask the judge if they can award a bigger amount then that asked for. We do not find out what that is. The final scene is Frank looking across at Laura from a distance. You get the sense from his look that he is appreciative that she did the “right thing” not revealing that witness to the defence, but that he cannot forgive such a betrayal and they will never be together again.

I really liked the movie. I enjoyed seeing Paul Newman in a film, as being from Gen Y, much like Jane Fonda being the exercise lady to me, Paul Newman is the creator of my favourite spaghetti sauce.

7/10


Missing
Director: Costa-Gavras
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, John Shea

Missing stars Jack Lemmon as Ed Horman and Sissy Spacek as Beth Horman, and is based on a true story. The movie is about the disappearance of Ed’s son and Beth’s husband, Charles Horman (John Shea) during the military coup in Chile in 1973. Beth and Charlie lived there during this period and worked on a liberal newspaper. At the start of the film, they make the decision to return home, deciding that it was becoming too dangerous to remain in the country. The general belief was that American citizens were safe due to an agreement forged between the two counties.

The movie tracks the search carried out by Ed and Beth and the American government’s potential involvement in Charlie’s disappearance. Ed is a high flying businessman and so has good contacts in Washington. At the start of the film he has a strong sense of trust and faith in the American government and is in close contact with staff in the American Consulate in Chile. Beth on the other hand, is very mistrusting, does not believe that Charlie is in “hiding”, which is what the Consulate are telling her is most likely, and is not willing to cooperate in their investigation, opting to find answers herself. Ed and Beth do not have a good relationship at the beginning of the film. It appears that Ed and Charles’ relationship has suffered due to fundamental differences in their politics (Ed is a conservative, believing in the American government, whilst Charles is more liberal and leftist in his politics) and Ed resents Beth, who shares the same views as Charlie.

It is not until Beth and Ed start talking with all those people who were with Charlie in the weeks and days leading up to his disappearance, and through these conversations are able to find out that Charlie was privy to information that could potentially prove America’s involvement in the coup, that Ed starts to question the American government and whether they are doing everything humanly possible to find his son. Despite their differences, Ed loves his son and will do anything to find him. He begs, pleads and offers to be bound and blind folded, if it means he can talk to somebody who knows what happened to his son. The straw that breaks the camel’s back for Ed is when he and Beth uncover the body of one of Charlie’s associates Frank Teruggi. The reason that is the breaking point for Ed is because an official from the Consulate himself, told Ed personally that Frank had left the country, but obviously he had not, as he was dead. Ed finds out towards the end of the film that his son was executed in the National Stadium where the Chilean military were holding people captive. After he finds this out, he takes Beth back to America and sues the American government for negligence. This is the end of the film, however there is a citation just before the credits, that informs the viewer of what happens after Beth and Ed leave Chile. Ed does sue the government, however it takes seven months for them to ship Charlie’s body back to the States making an accurate autopsy impossible. The suit does go to court and after many years of litigation, the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence proving negligence.

The movie was very sad, but I still enjoyed it. Jack Lemon and Sissy Spacek were really good in the film, really bringing the characters to life. I also found it interesting, as I knew nothing of the coup in Chile or the suspicion that the American government may have been involved. In my post viewing reading, I found out that the coup came about potentially because the American government became involved with the Chilean military due to their concern about the socialist regime growing with the Chilean president Allende, being a socialist. He was elected democratically in 1970, however only won marginally, despite America spending nearly half a million dollars supporting National Party leader, Rodriguez’s campaign.

Good movie.
7/10

Until my next entry, “well goooooodddbyyyeeee now, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah” (Natalie, The Commitments)    

Transitions

So it’s that time of year. The festive season! The time of year where everybody starts to wind down, make plans with family and friends and perhaps the most fun part of the season, Christmas parties. These are the time to catch up with friends and family that you might not have seen in a while and eat good food, and drink good wine/beer/egg nog, whatever your preference. As much as I love my family and friends, I think it’s the work Christmas party that I look forward to most. It is definitely the most interesting. You know the scenario. There’s the “organiser”, the one who for better or for worse, is determined to get everybody in the spirit. She/he is the one who decorates the office, organises the office secret Santa and spends the days leading up to the party, sending out reminder emails and geeing everybody up for the event of the year. There’s the “conscientious objectors”, the ones who despite the best attempts by the organiser, refuse to attend the party on the grounds of some reason that is fundamentally important to them. There’s the “wall flowers”, the ones who sit on the side because they are either new to the office or afraid that once that crack the bubbles, their drunken “alter-ego” will attend in their place, dancing the night away and telling everybody how much they love them. Then there’s the “instigators”, the ones who magically appear with “just one more” round of shots or a bottle of wine. They are the first to buy alcohol, the ones who as soon as the food is consumed suggest that everybody do a tequila slammer, and after observing the mess they have made, are the first to go home. Then lastly and perhaps most importantly to the party’s survival, the “party animals”. The ones who consume 50 per cent of the bar tab alone. The one’s who dance the funky chicken or decide to krump on the dinner table (depending on the age of the party animal). The one’s who insist that the party needs to move onto the night club precinct because of both a desire to party on, but also because they have been asked by the function manager to leave the venue due to intoxication and need a new location. The interesting thing is attendees not only transition from their professional self, to their party self, no matter which archetype they fit into, but can also transition from one archetype to another throughout the duration of the party. For example, the organiser may transition to party animal, either because they decide to get loose after a stressful period of organising, or in an attempt to liven up the party after the crickets start croaking. The instigator can also become the party animal. In their efforts to influence everybody else to get drunk, they may participate in one too many tequila slammers, and they themselves become the victim of their own instigating. The party animal can also become the wall flower, although that’s normally at work the next week, after they experience flash backs from the night of stripping down to their undies and throwing up on the dance floor.  

So what was the relevance of the analysis of the work Christmas party? Well (a) because I had mine on Friday night, but more so (b) because it is a fun example of transitions and this was the dominant theme coming out of this week’s films.

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Gandhi

Director: Sir Richard Attenborough

Starring: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Sir John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox and Ian Charleson

This week of movie watching was the best yet. I had an autobiographical film and a child hood favourite. I have to be honest here, I am slightly intimidated to review this film, as it was so fantastic, I don’t know if I will be able to do it justice. But I’ll give it go.

Gandhi is about the life of Mohandas K Gandhi (he later became known as Mahatma meaning “Great Soul”), a man who not only bought about the separation and independence of India from the British Empire, but who was also responsible for legislative changes in South Africa. In studying history, we so often see injustices bought to an end by a violent revolt or revolution of some kind, but what made Gandhi so special, was his commitment to non-violent resistance. He taught his admirers (and it was not just a few, in fact it was almost all of India who followed his teachings), to bring attention to injustice by non-cooperation. He was fundamentally against complying with laws that were in any way unjust or inequitable, however he was absolutely committed to non-violent means of defying these laws, even if this meant being beaten, incarcerated or worse being killed. And the movie depicts this so well.   

The film starts in 1893 with Mohandas travelling through South Africa on the train to take up his new posting as a solicitor. He is well dressed and is travelling in a first class carriage. He is approached by two of the train’s staff and despite having a valid first ticket, is thrown off the train. The movie depicts this as the moment where Gandhi first becomes aware of social injustice and commits himself to fighting this peacefully at every turn. These are the years of apartheid in South Africa, and not only did this apply to its indigenous inhabitants, but anybody “of colour”. During this period, both South Africa and India were part of the British Empire, so there was a large Indian community in South Africa. Like many colonial nations of the time, laws were blatantly racist and functioned to perpetuate the power of the white man over the man of colour. In the film, Mohandas draws attention to this, by burning his pass, which by law was supposed to be carried by all Indians at all times, simply because they were Indian. The pass was a physical representation of registration, which again was required of all Indians living in South Africa. There is a scene which sees Mohandas severely beaten and arrested for burning his pass and that of other Indians who had presented to protest registration. Through non-violent protest, Mohandas drew international attention to the social injustice in South Africa for its Indian citizens, and the South African General was forced to come to a comprise with Gandhi on registration. The film does not go into detail about the terms of this agreement.

The next part of the film depicts Gandhi’s political efforts in India. Between 1915 and 1945, Gandhi commits himself to liberating India from the British Empire, seeing British rule as another form of social injustice. Due to his efforts in South Africa, Gandhi is already well known when he returns to India and immediately joins forces with the Indian Congress. He organises wide spread civil disobedience, in the form of strikes, public protest and defiance of any law, which sees an Indian being treated differently to an Anglo citizen. One protest sees the British Army massacre over one thousand unarmed Indian protestors. This leads to violent protest all over India. In an effort to stop the violence, Gandhi fasts almost to the point of death. During his time in India, seeing poverty as another form of social injustice, Gandhi and his wife, established an “ashram” (a form of religious hermitage) and live like those who were in poverty. This is the point in the film where Gandhi stops wearing suits as a solicitor would, but rather traditional Indian attire. Not only does he wear it, but he makes all his own clothes, as any impoverished Indian of that time would. He claims that in order to understand poverty, you have to experience it.

Eventually, after many years of civil disobedience and non-violent protest, plus many failed negotiations, due to Gandhi’s absolute commitment to Indian independence, the British withdraw from India. The sad thing is that there is then a religious war between the Hindu Indians and the Muslim Indians over power. The solution: create a new country for Muslim Indians, Pakistan. This leads to more violent anarchy and Gandhi, now being in his early 70s begins to fast again, declaring he would not eat until the violence stopped. Despite pleading from his supporters and friends (his wife had passed away by this point) he refuses to eat until the violence stops. Again, he was knocking on death’s door, but due to his national status and the love he had from all of India, the violence does stop and he is saved. In an attempt to bring about peace and ease the country’s unrest, against the advice of his closest confidantes, Gandhi travels to Pakistan. Sadly, he is shot by an extremist and the nation goes into mourning.

From the little study I have done about Gandhi, I thought the film captured his life and achievements really well. As I stated earlier, the movie depicts a major transition. Gandhi goes from a modest Indian solicitor, to an ideological leader. Ben Kingsley was absolutely fantastic in the role. He embodied Gandhi’s gentle nature, but equally his determination and resolve. He even looked like him. A very believable performance! The sets were amazing. As I was watching it, I actually felt almost as if I was watching a documentary. It looked what I imagine early 20^th century India would have looked like. And I was absolutely emotionally invested in the film, which to me as I always say, is a sign of a great film. It was three hours long and split over two parts, but it didn’t feel that long. In fact, it left me wanting more. I was actually sad when it finished.

All in all a fantastic movie and well deserving of the Best Film award!

9/10

Tootsie

Director: Sydney Pollack

Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Bill Murray and Sydney Pollack

So, this was the first film that I have watched as part of this challenge, which I have already seen. Not only once, but many many times. It was a childhood favourite in fact. Also a really great film!

Tootsie is about an aspiring actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), who takes on the persona of a woman he names Dorothy Michaels, in order to get an acting job to raise money for his friends play. He lands a supporting role on a popular day time soap, after many failed auditions, and after his agent, George (Sydney Pollack) fails to inform him that a part that he was supposed to be put forward for on Broadway has been taken by another actor. The catch is the part is a FEMALE hospital administrator.  Despite the fact that he is a very unattractive looking woman, he manages to fool those of his co-stars and the crew on set and the viewing audience (perhaps it’s because Dustin Hoffman has such a small frame and actually does make a dress look good). The irony is that the man, who is a self-confessed womaniser as a man, actually becomes a voice for female empowerment on the show as a woman. This mostly transpires because he is trying to avoid having to kiss his male co-star, and will do anything to avoid this ranging from adlibbing feminist inspired lines, to slapping him in the face. But no matter what the means or motivation for doing what he did on the show, he still speaks to many women as Dorothy Michaels. He in fact becomes so popular, that he is signed to the show for another year, playing the part of Emily Kimberley. The fact that he does not want to play the part of a woman for the rest of his career, coupled with his need to tell the woman has fallen for Julie (Jessica Lange) that he is both a man and in love with her, leads him to reveal himself on the live on the show. In the end, he is able to help his friend fund the play and he gets the girl.

I think what made Tootsie so good, was despite the content of the film (a man dressing as a woman), the movie actually invokes a lot of emotion. There are some funny moments on screen, particularly in the films climax when Michael’s girlfriend, Sandy (Teri Garr) finds love heart shaped chocolates in Michael’s house from a man, so she draws the conclusion that Michael is gay (the chocolates are for Dorothy, but she does not know Michael is Dorothy). Also, when Michael falls for Julie he tries to kiss her as Dorothy and she thinks he is a lesbian. By the way, excuse the interlude, but Teri Garr plays a fantastic role, as kooky, crazy and unstable Sandy. Loved her in this part. But you actually feel for Michael. It’s different to other films that involve gender transformation, where it’s all about the comedy of taking on the alternate gender (think Mrs Doubtfire when Robin Williams’ fake boobs set on fire over the stove top). It’s actually more about how Michael transforms as a man, once he has experienced what it is like to be a woman. After this he is able to commit to one woman and recognise the importance of being honest and faithful. He also becomes a lot more aware of how his actions impact on others. At the start of the film, he is frankly kind of a jerk, unwilling to take direction and unwilling to change his viewpoints, making him very difficult to work with and leading to perpetual unemployment. By the end of the film, he expresses a lot of remorse for fooling everybody and the hurt that he caused by lying about who he was.

A really good film and worth the watch even if you just want to see Dustin in a dress.

7/10

Until next week, “that’s it! This is the last pill, the good bye pill” (Elizabeth, Drop Dead Fred)

The first time

So this week was all about first times and new experiences. It started off last Wednesday, when I learnt how to play a few chords on my five year old guitar. So, my friend Jimmy has decided that he wants to learn guitar and he’s also decided that I’m coming along on the ride with him. The idea that this is a first time experience may sound bizarre given that I referred to my guitar as “the five year old guitar”, but it’s true, it’s a new experience. Five years ago I had a short lived dream that I was going to be the next Jewel (whatever happened to that broad?) I had one guitar lesson with a friend and that was it. My guitar was doomed to a life of dust collecting.

My next first time experience came on Sunday night, when I saw Muse live in concert. I thought the show they put on in terms of the special effects was quite amazing, but I don’t think they as a band transitioned well from studio to stage. Matthew Belamy was a bit “too cool for school”, not conversing with the audience at all. Plus, I think they rely on the sound engineering of the studio a lot to create their unique sound, so the songs did not sound anywhere near as good as they do on CD.

My next first time experience was not at all pleasant and occurred on Tuesday night. I stepped on a bee and got stung. The randomness of this I think will be hard to beat. I stepped on it, not in the park amongst the green grass, but in my bedroom. My bedroom is not located in the country, where the unfortunate create might have lost its way for a mere moment and flown through the window on its way to a sunflower, but rather is located on the outskirts of a busy city. How does that happen? But it did, and I have a swollen, itchy foot to prove it.

My last first time experience occurred last night, when I watched Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yes, I have never seen an Indiana Jones movie before. What did I think, well read on!

But before that, I must review On Golden Pond!

MOVIE OF THE WEEK

On Golden Pond

Director: Mark Rydell

Starring: Henry Fonda, Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda

Before I talk about On Golden Pond, I have to briefly revert back to last week’s blog. I realised after posting that I didn’t rate a movie of the week. Now, it may have been obvious from the review, but I definitely rated Chariots over Reds. Both good films, but I just felt more after watching Chariots.

So, onto On Golden Pond. This movie reminded me quite a lot of Ordinary People. It was a family drama, only this time the dysfunctional relationship was between father and daughter (characters portrayed by the Fonda’s. I wonder if there is any truth to life imitating art in this case). Well can I just say that I now understand Jane’s fame. You see, I am a child born in the 80s, so by the time I was old enough to understand celebrity, Jane Fonda was the star of her own line of exercise videos. I missed the movie star period. I thought she was really great on screen and just absolutely stunning in terms of looks. It was before super skinny became the pinnacle of beauty and curves were a bit more celebrated. It was also great to see a Hollywood legend like Katherine Hepburn in action. Great casting really!

So what’s the movie about? Well it’s about a family, who are brought back together by a step son and a holiday cabin. The movie starts with retired married couple, Norman (Henry Fonda) and Ethel Fayer (Katherine Hepburn), arriving at their holiday cabin at Golden Pond. George is a retired professor, who is not only having extreme difficulty coming to terms with the fact that he is ageing, but also has a major chip on his shoulder, which has impacted on his relationship with his daughter, Chelsea (Jane Fonda). Norman has reached a point in his life, where he is pretty much just waiting to die. He has little hope for the future, has lost complete confidence in himself due to his memory loss and is totally disconnected from his one and only daughter due to an ongoing feud, stemming from her resentment on how he treated her as a child. Norman’s only reason for living is his wife, Ethel. They have a lasting and true love, the kind of love that could only develop through time and commitment. Whilst, Henry is quite bitter and resentful that he is getting older, Ethel is the complete opposite. She is cheerful and embracing of her age. She views it as an opportunity to spend more time doing what they have always wanted to do, like spending time at their holiday cabin, picking strawberries and cooking fish. Her catch phrase in the movie is “oh don’t be an old poop”. Whilst she is quite endearing and initially presents as the sweet old lady, the peacemaker in the family, she is quite feisty and has a bit of a wild side. She goes skinny dipping with Chelsea in the film and at its climax, she slaps Chelsea in the face when she speaks derogatorily about Norman, stating “he is also the man I love”.

Chelsea visits Norman and Ethel at Golden Pond, with her new boyfriend Bill Ray and his son, Billy Ray. From the start it is obvious that Chelsea and Norman have issues. Norman is quite cold, constantly making sarcastic comments under his breath and generally being unwelcoming towards her and her new family. Chelsea has been married before and it seems that there is a bit of a back story there, but no detail is given. Chelsea and Bill Ray leave Golden Pond after a few days to go on a trip to Europe and Chelsea asks her mother if they can leave Billy Ray there with her and Norman. In an effort to try and be the peacemaker (whilst she loves Norman, she does appreciate that he has treated Chelsea poorly) she agrees to this. Norman of course is less than enthused, as is Billy Ray.

To the surprise of everybody, especially Norman, he and Billy Ray actually form a really tight bond. They fish together every day and do the things that he should have done with Chelsea as a child. She of course finds this very difficult to accept and this is when she gets into a fight with her mother, resulting in the slapping incident. Of course because this is a movie, instead of hating both her parents, she has an epiphany. She discovers that she is being a victim (it’s true) and takes charge, by talking to her father and asking him to be open to changing their relationship. She seals the deal, by doing a back flip off the dock, something she could never do as a child because according to Norman she was “too fat”. The movie ends with a sense of hopefulness, with Norman and Ethel strong as ever, Chelsea and Norman committed to improving their relationship, Chelsea and Bill Ray becoming engaged (and I guess this time around her relationship might work because she is resolving her “daddy issues”) and Billy Ray having a more stable home life (no details are provided, but it is insinuated that his relationship with his mother has broken down and that is why he is living with Chelsea and his Dad).

I really enjoyed the movie actually. I thought Ethel was a fantastic character. Kind and gentle, motherly, but also feisty, kinky and funny. I felt for both Norman and Chelsea, which as I always say, if a movie can make you feel something then in my opinion it’s a good movie. I understand why Chelsea is so resentful and angry with her father. He treated her poorly and continued to do so. But I also felt for Norman, because for whatever reason he could not express his love for his daughter. Unlike in Ordinary People where it is obvious the mother just doesn’t love her son, this movie is different. Norman does love Chelsea. This is evidenced when he and Billy Ray are out fishing and he keeps accidentally calling him Chelsea, like the experience of being out there reminds him of when she was a child. For whatever reason he is stunted and unable to tell her. Sad sad sad. But all ends well, which is nice.

Overall I give it at 6.5/10!!

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Ark

Director: Stephen Spielberg

Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen and Paul Freeman

So, it may sound crazy, but yes, I have never seen Indiana Jones before. I was expecting your sort of typical run of the mill, die hard style, action movie. But as my friend Chris said, it was “fun”. I don’t know about anybody else, but when I was a little girl, my Dad used to refer to the evil characters in the movie as the “badies” and the protagonist or hero if you will and his side kicks as the “goodies”. This movie is definitely your goodie vs badie variety movie. Basically it is about this kick arse archaeologist, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) who is hired by the U.S. government to obtain the missing ark, which holds the broken pieces of the tablet that Moses carried down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments on it. Indy is trying to get to this before the Nazis. This movie is definitely action, but almost silly. There is no real gore, but rather slap stick sort of violence. You know where it looks completely fake, but it’s almost supposed to. Like the director is just having a crazy fun time with the audience.

As a whole, I thought the story was quite weak. Just a typical adventure movie. I’m not really getting why it was nominated for an Academy Award. Maybe it was the first of its kind. The stunts were pretty amazing. But I thought the most puzzling part was the end. It went all supernatural, which was weird because it really had no other supernatural elements. The German’s steal the ark from Indy and they take it to a secret island (they steal it from him on the sea, whilst he is taking the ark back to America). They open that ark and I guess the power trapped in it comes out and kills them all (like it literally melts their faces off). Indy and Marion (Karen Allen), the leading lady and Indy’s love interest, survive because they don’t look directly at the light coming out of the ark. Random random! In the end Indy takes it back to America and the secret service take it off him. The last scene is this ware house man, transporting the ark in a wooden crate, into a secret warehouse, where there are literally hundreds of other crates with “top secret” written on it. I guess this supposed to be a reference to how much the American government keeps secret from the population.

Again, at the risk of being unpopular, I didn’t like it. I found it boring and had to keep asking Tim to tell me what was happening because I kept tuning out.

3/10

Until next week, “good bye little one” (Willow Ufgood, Willow)

Bleh

Bleh is the word of the day. Bleh mentally and bleh physically. As I sit here staring at the remains of a KFC Combo that I shouldn't have eaten (but it was delicious) and ask myself the question "why are you engaging in food therapy, it never works?" (but for those five glorious minutes of eating that deep fried goodness, I did feel almost euphoric), I just can't help but feel sorry for myself. Why the woeful attitude? Well it’s been a difficult week at work, perhaps the most difficult since I started in my new position.  Assertiveness! Just a word for many, but for me well..... it’s my Mt Everest. The question that continues to perplex me, how does one be assertive, without allowing the crippling fear of “pissing somebody off” override the need to be assertive. This week there have been a few situations which have called for assertiveness and that fear has taken over me. Perhaps this is very fitting though, as the two movies I watched last week, Reds and Chariots of Fire, both had leading protagonists, who were strong in their resolves and absolutely unshakeable in their beliefs and values, despite many critics. Something to be aspired to I think.

I would just like to point out that this was my biggest challenge as of two hours ago. You know what it is now? Writing this post without screaming! Why you ask? Well I just spent two hours writing this and then lost it, so actually this is a re-post of my original post. Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, on-would we go!

Reds

Director: Warren Beatty

Starring: Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton

Before I talk about Reds, I feel the need to provide some pre-context. Before undertaking this challenge, I made a promise to myself that I would not read any material about the films before watching them. I did this because I wanted to be an empty palate, uninfluenced and completely open, when watching the films, without any predisposing ideas that might impact on the experience of watching them and my own personal views about them. However, this week I feel that the two movies I watched may have been the exception to this rule.  This is mostly because they are historical biographies and unfortunately I did not know anything about the lives of those depicted in the film. During my post viewing reading, I learned a lot more about the characters and felt more of an impact emotionally, once I knew more about them. Nevertheless, being a big fan of historical biographical films, it was a good week for meJ

Reds, depicts the political career of American Communist John Reed (Warren Beatty) and his romantic relationship with feminist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). John Reed was a leader in the Communist movement in America, a writer (he wrote a famous text, Ten Days That Shook The World) and journalist, who was present in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. As with any Hollywood epic, the film has romance, and the primary plot is about the relationship between John and Louise, with his political career being the subplot to the movie. According to my post-viewing reading, the romantic relationship between John and Louise is historically accurate, however I am unsure whether the events surrounding their relationship and the nature of that relationship as conveyed on screen are correct. Anyway, true or not, their relationship is presented as being quite tumultuous with various break-ups and arguments occurring throughout the film. Their problems stem mostly from John’s attitude of “free love” and Louise’s inability to commit to this philosophy. She does try this, even having a brief relationship with playwright Eugene O’Neill (Jack Nicholson), which apparently is also historically accurate, but in the end, really only wants John. She breaks off her relationship with Eugene, after John returns from a long period of travel and proposes to her.

Their relationship is also challenged by John’s constant travelling, due to his involvement in the Communist Movement.  After the proposal, they soon break up again, after Louise is unable to accept the affairs that John has been having. They reunite again, when John asks her to go to Russia with him to cover the Russian Revolution. She only agrees to go on the proviso that there is no “funny business”, but of course funny business occurs and they are reunited. I guess it takes a revolution to fix some people’s relationships. Following many months in Russia, they return to the United States, committed to each other and to the idea of settling down together. Unfortunately for Louise, John’s passion and drive for the political movement that was occurring in America at the time and his desire to be a part of that, see’s him return to Russia without her. Whilst she is furious about it, she agrees to remain true to him, on the condition that he return by July the following year. He agrees to this and remains true to his promise, but unfortunately is prevented from leaving by Russian bureaucrats, who refuse to grant him a train pass to travel through Eastern Europe (the only way to travel safely during post-Revolutionary times) as they see him as being too important to the cause. His dedication to Louise, leads him to try and leave Russia without the pass and he is arrested, but eventually released back to Russian authorities. Louise suspects that something suss is going on and despite many objections from Eugene, goes to Russia to find John. After many months, various treks through snow and a train explosion, which John was travelling on at the time, John and Louise are reunited. Happy ending you think? No! Soon after John develops a terminal illness and dies in Russia.

So what did I think of Reds?  Well, Warren Beatty was the first man in the film industry to get simultaneous nominations for Best Director, Producer, Co-Writer and Starring Actor, since Orson Welles and Citizen Kane. Pretty impressive! And the most interesting part of the film, were the interludes, where witnesses from the time period depicted in the film, provided interviews on their personal recollections of John and Louise and that time in American history. Something I have never seen done in any film. But all in all, it fell short for me. Again, as I have said about so many of the other films, I thought the characters were unlikeable. John was quite unemotional at least in his relationship with Louise and a bit of a player, Louise was erratic, uninhibited and at times unsympathetic because of these personality traits and Eugene was quite cruel, narcissistic and an alcoholic it seems. I just felt quite removed from the characters. Even the end where John dies, it did not invoke much of an emotional response from me. Mostly, I think it happened all too quickly (although nothing else in the film did believe me, it went for three hours). One minute I was watching this big emotional scene, where after many months of being apart and not knowing whether each other was even alive, Louise and John were reunited, to the next minute where John is on his death bed. Then literally five minutes later he dies and then the closing credits roll up on screen. It felt a bit like all this build up and... deadsies!

All in all I give it a 6/10 (really a five, but given it was nominated for twelve Oscars, it probably deserves more than half on the rating scale).

Chariots of Fire

Director: Hugh Hudson

Starring: Nicholas Farrell, Nigel Havers, Ian Charleson, Ben Cross

“DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAAA” “DA DA DA DA DA” “DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAA” “DA DADA DA DAAAAAA” If you’ve got a look of “what the hell” on your face then you obviously haven’t seen Chariots. If you’ve got a cheesy smile across your face (think slow mo shots of people running across the beach if you haven’t seen it) then we’re on the same pageJ

Chariots of Fire was the winner for Best Film for 1981. A major upset according to my post-viewing reading, with Reds being the favourite. The film depicts the sporting career of four athletes on the British track and field team, leading up to the Paris Olympics of 1924. The film has romantic themes, people overcoming adversity, ethic s and a grand and recognisable score, all components of a great film. The film’s main characters are Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish Brit, who was the fastest 100m runner of his time to come out of Cambridge University (he may still hold this record) and Eric Liddell, a Scotsman with devout Christian values.

Harold Abrahams, was among the fastest athletes of his time, but the film also depicts his personal struggle with the anti-semantic attitudes that were prevalent at the time and could have easily threatened his career. Rather, than allowing this to get the better of him, he actually uses it as a motivator. His desire to show his aggressors that he was a winner pushed him to train harder and to keep going. It also unfortunately caused him to have quite a major chip on his shoulder and made him almost obsessive compulsive about winning. This obsession with winning almost cost him his relationship, but luckily for him, she was very understanding and agreed to wait for him until he made his dream of winning gold come true, which of course he did at the 1924 Olympic Games.

Eric Liddell, experienced a different struggle, that of faith versus desire. Eric, as well as an elite runner, was also a Christian Missionary and had spent much time in China doing missionary work before joining the Olympic team.  Throughout the film, he constantly had to manage the demands of his responsibilities as a Christian and that of being an Olympic athlete. For much of the film, he tries to marry the two by using his celebrity status as a platform for sharing his Christianity. He is eventually faced with a choice between the two, and makes a decision that almost ends his Olympic career. In the film, he finds out on the boat to Paris, that the heat for the 100m sprint is on a Sunday, and being a devout Christian, he did not play sports on a Sunday (Sabbath). Despite, begging, pleading and even threats from British officials, including the Prince of Wales himself, Eric remains strong in his resolve and refuses to compete in the event. Andrew Lindsay (Nigel Havers), a fellow student at Cambridge with Abrahams and competitor on the British Olympic team, offers his spot in the 400m event to Liddell (Lindsay had already won Silver in the hurdles and was happy with this).  Liddell accepts and amazingly goes on to win, despite the fact that he had been training for the 100m and 200m events. I found Liddell to be so inspiring. Even with the Prince of Wales himself, imploring him to compete, he refused to compromise his values. Now that’s assertiveness!

My thoughts on Chariots. I really liked it and thought it was deserving of the Academy Award (although I haven’t watched the other two nominie’s for 1981 yet). The content was interesting, it was presented well and that opening score... well cheesy heavenJ

7/10

Well that’s it loyal readers. Fours hours later and I’m done.

Until next time

“See ya sucker” (Janice Ian, Mean Girls)