Homeschool Mom Movie Mavin – Type "AUDIO" into the search box for AUDIO version. And remember…EDUCATION DOESN'T HAVE TO ALWAYS COME FROM A BOOK

Wow. There are some filmed stories that are not so much “movies” as they are works of art. Thus it is with Collateral Beauty, a film written by Allan Loeb and directed by David Frankel.

The story emerges about Howard (Will Smith) who has retreated so far into himself after the death of his 6 year old daughter that his competency in the major advertising firm he has built with his friends is put in question. On the verge of a make or break deal, his partners, having tried everything from grief counseling to interventions, are in a precarious situation. Without either Howard’s active involvement or his retreat from the firm the FIRM and everything they have worked for will die. And Howard will not engage with any of them long enough to even discuss the issues. He just doesn’t care any more. All he will do is show up to work and make domino bridges (which you will find is a brilliant piece of cinematic analogy – that one event can begin a chain reaction).

Whit (Ed Norton) has a chance encounter with Amy/Love (Keira Knightly) an aspiring actress with a three-man underground acting troupe, the other two being

Brigitte/Death (Helen Mirren) and Raffi/Time (Jacob Latimore). Desperate, Whit comes up with a plan which should succeed either in getting Howard engaged in the world again or subject to a declaration of incompetency. See, Howard has written letters to Time, Love and Death, seeking answers as to why he lost his daughter. Whit decides to call Howard’s bluff and hires the out of work actors to play the personifications of the concepts for Howard’s benefit.

The writing of Collateral Beauty is excellent, the plot both whimsical and practical, covering all the alternatives and reasons for the different twists and turns with grace. I always hate it when something peculiar is not pondered. For example, WHY would they go to such extremes? It is covered in one brainstorming session among the partners. How do they get the letters? Sensibly explained. How shall they proceed with the charade? It’s written as though we, the audience, were in on the entire situation and the actors speak for us.

So it is with the actors who portray Death, Time and Love. They speak for those concepts in the way the actors speak for us. And this simple technique draws us in to the landscape, making the story personal.

Unlike many stories about death of a loved one, there is no “dread” moment. The death has already happened and is gradually eased in to. It is a very gentle movie and yet, at the same time, it will hit you like an emotional truck. But afterwards you will feel not destroyed but soothed.

I don’t want to give much more away as the audience should let this unfold in the way the cast and crew intended, like a blossoming flower you should appreciate, one layer at a time.

I will say to pay attention though. Everything everyone says means something – either conceptually or aiding the plot, every connection one character makes to another is meaningful. For example (without revealing too much) Raffi/Time connects with Claire (Kate Winslet) who is feeling tragically that her time to have children has passed her by. Amy/Love befriends Whit who comes to the realization that in the disastrous aftermath of his messy divorce he has lost the love of his daughter. Geddit?

Collateral Beauty is part It’s a Wonderful Life, part Christmas Carol, part Fisher King (odd quirky Terry “Monty Python” Gilliam movie about a man who loses his mind after a tragedy), part Shadowlands (love story in the midst of mortality) and yet is unique unto itself.

It’s the most understated performance by Will Smith of his career and while he probably doesn’t say more than three hundred words during the entire film, this is his most effecting, voluble, heart wrenching and loudest work. His character doesn’t speak of his grief – he personifies it in much the same way Mirren does Death or Knightly does Love.

The beauty in this film is in the details – from the red in all of Amy/Love’s clothes to the care with which the dialogue plays out.

To use a quote from the film: “Just be sure to notice the Collateral Beauty,” for which you must listen and watch carefully or you might miss something important.

I went to see Dr Strange expecting a brainless sci fi shoot ‘em up adventure. And while it is all that, I should have known there would be more to it, since Cumberbatch stars. He IS the modern Sherlock, instilled a demonic but compelling personality to the animated Smaug, and did a stage Hamlet different and still wonderful from the dozen I’ve seen before.

Without giving away too much I would encourage you, before you go see the movie, to read just a little teeny bit of GK Chesterton’s poem The Ballad of the White Horse.  White Horse is an epic poem (arguably the last written in the English language) published in 1911 and written by GK Chesterton, the lesser known friend and Christian docent of the famous CS “Narnia” Lewis. The poem is about the legendary exploits of Saxon king Alfred the Great as he expels the Viking Danes from England in the 9^th century. But you don’t have to read the whole thing. The portion that will exploit a deeper appreciation of Dr Strange is a 4 line stanza in Book III titled “The Harp of Alfred”, lines 339 through 342. You can even get it online. The lines begin:

“Though all lance’s split….”

You won’t know why that is important until you get to the right moment and then you’ll instantly understand.

Dr Strange is beautifully filmed and CGI’ed. While I’m not a big 3D fan, the effects in this were quite good. They did NOT look like they had been shoe-horned in to be SURE you noticed them, as they did in the old ‘50’s “house of horror” type movies or in the first few movies that restarted the trend. Movies like 47 Ronin and Avatar seemed to have some scenes filmed for the EXPRESS purpose of showing off the 3D techniques. Use or AB-use of said technology always reminded me of the old SCTV routine – “3D House of Beef” – where John Candy would shove a plate of pancakes towards the camera to demonstrate the “3D” effect – which, of course, didn’t exist because it was a Canadian parody skit ABOUT such things shown on the television – which gives you an idea of how much I generally respect 3D.

BUT the 3D in Dr Strange was done well.

I actually FORGOT it was “3D” until something appropriate and unexpected sort of wafted or flew my way. Good job Scott Derrickson (director) and Ben Davis (cinematographer).

It’s also the first film I’ve ever seen Tilda Swinton in, in which she did not give me the creeps. She has played disturbing (White Witch in Narnia)  REALLY disturbing (incestuous vampire in Only Lovers Left Alive) and funny, as twins Thora and Thessaly Thacker in the brilliant Coen brothers’ Hail Caesar!

But she normally gives me a creepy crawly feeling. This uneasy quality she manages to normally spray like a firehose is toned done to a slight flavoring, blending into a beautiful performance as the Sinead O’Connor-“coiffed” mentor extraordinaire, The Ancient One.

So – a little homework this time before viewing will make your experience of Dr Strange more effective and satisfying than the average super hero fare. GK Chesterton – Marvel….huh, who would have ever thought?

We all know how a magic act works – dazzle the audience with lights and pretty girls while the magician pulls off the most unlikely of actions and makes them, ergo, believable. I mean it MUST have happened the way he presented them because you saw it with your own eyes, right?

Well, Allied is the same way. The cinematography is beautiful (either that or the CGI technology has gotten a bit TOO good. Though they DID film on location in Fuerteventura, which actually does have dunes.) Directed by Robert “Back to the Future” Zemeckis the story is cogent, character driven and artfully told (no Deloreans though folks). The acting is very good. I am not a Brad Pitt fan at all (never even seen Fight Club – *gasp*) but he is well suited to the role of Max, the Allied spy who goes to Casablanca to meet with a woman he has never met but must pretend is his wife, Marianne played by Marion Cotillard.

Gotta digress here – Cotillard is wonderful in every role I’ve seen her in: from the beleaguered singing wife, Luisa, in Nine to the lunatic surprise bad guy, Miranda, in The Dark Knight Rises to Mal in Inception. She’s done a LOT of French films too – makes sense because she is — well, French. I must admit she has never been able in anything I’ve seen to shake that very heavy French accent, but who cares? She could be holding herself out as an IRA member with that heavy French accent and her acting is so good I’d believe it…..which is actually part of the problem.

We are so busy watching the acting and the cinematography and enjoying the artfully constructed story that we do not realize the story is….well…..stupid.

During the course of the movie, and I will TRY to avoid too many spoilers, we are asked to believe:

1. A brilliant accomplished spy could be manipulated into a corner as easily as your average unassuming citizen – James Bond, Bourne, or heck even John McClaine from Die Hard would have found an alternative.

2. You can escape Vichy France during World War II after an assassination by just turning a corner noting that you were not followed – yeah, well tell that to Victor Lazlo.

3. Any relevant current intel can be obtained from either an alcoholic one armed derelict in a local prison or from a long-term care wounded inmate of a hospital.

4. That a sexual lifestyle appropriate to the musical Caberet would be casually and openly accepted by the extremely straightlaced community of 1940’s London.

5. That a high ranking spy would entrust extremely classified information to his easily compromisable sibling smack dab in the middle of a time sensitive investigation JUST because he is upset.

6. That an accomplished and high ranking spy would host a wild raunchy guests-literally-having-sex-in-the-broom-closet party in his home where he admits that he does not even know who the identity of half of the people there, when sensitive information is IN THE HOUSE along with weapons much less, again, in the middle of a classified internal affairs investigation, or that his ranking officer would approve much less attend such party. THIS one was so dumb that I thought there MUST be a follow up red herring coming, but no.

And the BIGGEST sword which we’re supposed to swallow is that upon discovering a spy in one’s midst one is REQUIRED under pain of DEATH to dispatch them IMMEDIATELY. Do not pass go, do not collect $50 and certainly do not bother to INTERROGATE them or turn them over to the proper authorities or your intelligence superiors for questioning or EVEN POSSIBLY turning them into a double agent!! No, that would make far too much sense.

So while an intriguing movie to watch it, much like getting a peek under the magician’s table cloth, you will be disappointed by reality if you examine it too closely. So watch for fun, watch for the actors, but do not watch it for any logical plot.

NOTES OF CAUTION: There are some raw words, particularly in one meal scene with our two protagonists. While it was NOT anachronistic as the word was in common usage, it seemed gratuitous. Additionally, there are two VERY steamy sex scenes and a few others not quite so detailed, but nonetheless certainly not appropriate for younger teens much less children. And a good deal of violence, but, after all, it was World War II.

Absolutely not!!!!!

In 1982 there was a movie called My Favorite Year about a fictious appearance by Errol Flynn in the shank of his career appearing on the Sid Caeser variety show. Only Errol Flynn, in the movie, was called Alan Swann and was played hilariously by Peter O’Toole. And the Sid Caeser show was called King Kaiser. At one point in the movie Swann is called upon to perform before a live audience. Understanding his own thespian limits he panics, bellowing: “I’m not an actor, I’m a movie star!!!!”

In the Hamlet we saw with Mr Cumberbatch, about the time our depressed aristocrat delivered his iconic “to be or not to be” speech my husband turned to me and uttered his ultimate complement about a performer: “He’s an actor, not a movie star”.

I’ve seen a lot of Shakespeare. I’ve always been fond of it but started to take it seriously when our homeschooled children were quite young. I remember taking my then two oldest at 6 and 8 in 1996 to the 4 HOUR Kenneth Branagh uncut, unabridged, unaltered version of Hamlet at the movie theater. In preparation we had read over some of the key speeches with them. But, sensibly, I brought backpacks for each of them including: snacks, crayons, a coloring book and a small flashlight so if they got really bored we could forestall an early departure as long as we could. They never even unzipped the bags. At intermission, 2 hours in, right after his “fight for a plot [of earth]…which is not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain” speech I turned to each and asked if they understood what was going on. They each gave a wide eyed and excited version of the plot: that Hamlet’s uncle had killed his father and now Hamlet was REALLY mad. And they couldn’t WAIT to find out what happened next. Well, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to me. Shakespeare, as I explain to anyone who will hold still long enough, was the Steven Spielberg of his time. Playing to large audiences of the common man, he understood the need to entertain in an accessible way. But Shakespeare also respected the average person’s ability to understand a heightened language which afforded a verbal pallet 4 times richer than that used by other of even the most educated and talented writers of his time. No – literally. He used a vocabulary of 17,000 words – 4 TIMES that of the educated of his peers. He INVENTED 1,700 words!!! in that he was the first one to use them, changing nouns into verbs and verbs into adjectives, accessing and plumbing the depths of the Latin language which was competing with the relatively new English one at the time, to invent new ways to say things: metamorphize, equivocal, fashionable, hurried, obsequiously, ode and varied being only a few of his gifts to the future Messeurs Merriam and Webster as well as the learned at Oxford and Cambridge.

I LOVE Shakespeare. And I’ve seen, to date, Hamlet played by a range from brilliant to terrible by: Ethan Hawke, Mel Gibson, Derek Jacobi, Kevin Kline, David Tennet, Lawrence Olivier, Nicol Williamson (only part of this one – it was pretty bad) and the BEST: Kenneth Branagh. Plus I have seen reduced, condensed and spoofed Hamlets. This one with Cumberbatch was innovative, fresh, dark, and clever. Cumberbatch was amazing bringing new insight into the character just when I thought I was able to get all I could out of it (referring to my limited analytic talents, not a limit on the facets of the character). He managed to show me another variation, another explanation of the foundational reasons for Hamlet’s makeup by word and gesture of which I had never thought. And, while using all the original language (though with some rearrangement of scenes and some cropping of dialogue — I mean, it IS a VERY long play) Cumberbatch makes you believe you have never heard these words spoken quite this way before.

This Hamlet is an ill-fated man in a prolonged adolescence, internalizing and mentalizing all the righteous anger which should have spilled over into action, tragically prolonging intervention and responsibility until it is far too late. The analogy to the modern self-indulgent, overly spoiled, responsibility and moral dodging Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y -ers are painfully, honestly, bravely and deservedly tweaked.

At one point Hamlet bemoans the challenge his life now requires he overcome and laments: “Oh cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right.” Well Cumberbatch was indeed born to set this role right, in one of the two most gripping versions of Hamlet I have ever seen.

Hopefully it will be out on DVD soon. Keep and eye on National Theater.org.