johnplotz
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
9 years
Reviews
Anne of Green Gables (2016)
A poor second best
This production has the misfortune of following the brilliant 1985 version. Marilla Cuthbert in 1985 was a solid, religious, grounded woman, who learns to love Anne. The present Marilla is merely cranky. The character of Matthew Cuthbert in 1985 was shy and deep. The present Matthew is a superficial fool. The 1985 Anne was passionate. The new Anne seems forced. The actress does not really inhabit the role -- but rushes through her lines and puts on laughter or tears as the script directs. In 1985, the characters interact and change each other. In this production, they seem to bounce off each other. They are not really present. I agree with other reviewers that the story was rushed.
Come to think of it, I don't believe the house had green gables -- or any gables at all. (Maybe I'm wrong about that.)
Maybe if the viewer has never seen this charming story before, the 2016 production would be good. Compared to the earlier version -- still easily available -- it is a great disappointment.
Come to think of it, I don't believe the house had green gables -- or any gables at all. (Maybe I'm wrong about that.)
Maybe if the viewer has never seen this charming story before, the 2016 production would be good. Compared to the earlier version -- still easily available -- it is a great disappointment.
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Moonrise Kingdom compared to Romeo and Juliet
Moonrise Kingdom and Romeo & Juliet both concern very young lovers insisting on their love for each other in defiance of their elders. Moonrise Kingdom is (mostly) comic and has a happy (though unlikely) ending. M.K. & R&J are not at all the same stories – but there is enough similarity between the two to invite comparison.
Common to both stories is the background idea that romantic love, especially among the young, can flare quickly and intensely – but usually burns out quickly. I say "idea" – but really it is a truth understood by nearly all grown-ups, including the theater audience. Young lovers almost never understand that truth – or do not care about it. The wiser audience has to smile at the children's antics – but it must be understood that the children's passion for each other, though naive, is the real thing. It may look from the outside that they are playing at love – but in fact they are not playing. They may be awkward and ignorant, but they are truly in love.
Parents may have (do have) an interest in protecting their youngsters from the consequences of a premature consummation. Very early marriage or very early pregnancy are not good things in our society. In Romeo & Juliet, however, what is chiefly on their parents' mind is not their children's welfare, but their idiotic family feud. Like most such, the feud is irrational – even whimsical, you might say -- but also full of self-indulgent hatred and violence. The lovers, though they are little more than children, are wiser than their narrow-minded, pigheaded elders. It takes their death to wake up the parents.
Moonrise Kingdom is an altogether more amiable tale. The children's love is not based on sudden passion, but grows from the real and prolonged experience of helping each other, especially in their escape. They have good reason to run away. Their home situations are a bit short of desperate, but they are not good. The children are, in my view, not so much defiant as insistent on being their own person (if that distinction makes sense). And note that in the boy's case, his oppressors include the other boys at scout camp. They form a united front against him. Later, to their credit, most of his campmates switch sides.
As in R&J, the grown-ups in M.K. are clueless buffoons – but their characters are nuanced. The police captain and the scoutmaster are not the smartest or most sophisticated people, but their hearts are good through and through and they give the children effectual aid. The girls' parents are neurotic & self-absorbed. The dad sweeps aside his daughter's feelings and concerns. He lays down the law as though he were a wise and knowledgeable man -- powerful, too. But in fact he is weak and pathetic. His pretension to wisdom is based merely on the fact that he is middle-aged. He is not, however, vicious -- just clueless. The Scoutmaster-in-Chief and "Social Services" are, indeed, vicious – but (in this fairy tale) they are defeated in the end. As in Romeo & Juliet, the children are wiser than their elders. The bad folk in M.K. are immoveable – completely convinced of their own rightness. The good folk in M.K. (including the children) are more modest and have the capacity to change.
Let me add that it is very funny in parts. Especially touching is the "courtship" scene on the beach -- which is the children's "moonrise kingdom". The boy and girl have somehow gotten it through their heads that lovers have to go through the ritual of dancing together to popular music, and having a lover's quarrel. They proceed to do those things before "consummating" their love. (It is a bit unclear -- but I think their lovemaking does not go beyond making-out.) A fine movie with exceptionally good acting all around (though the girl is maybe a bit weak).
Common to both stories is the background idea that romantic love, especially among the young, can flare quickly and intensely – but usually burns out quickly. I say "idea" – but really it is a truth understood by nearly all grown-ups, including the theater audience. Young lovers almost never understand that truth – or do not care about it. The wiser audience has to smile at the children's antics – but it must be understood that the children's passion for each other, though naive, is the real thing. It may look from the outside that they are playing at love – but in fact they are not playing. They may be awkward and ignorant, but they are truly in love.
Parents may have (do have) an interest in protecting their youngsters from the consequences of a premature consummation. Very early marriage or very early pregnancy are not good things in our society. In Romeo & Juliet, however, what is chiefly on their parents' mind is not their children's welfare, but their idiotic family feud. Like most such, the feud is irrational – even whimsical, you might say -- but also full of self-indulgent hatred and violence. The lovers, though they are little more than children, are wiser than their narrow-minded, pigheaded elders. It takes their death to wake up the parents.
Moonrise Kingdom is an altogether more amiable tale. The children's love is not based on sudden passion, but grows from the real and prolonged experience of helping each other, especially in their escape. They have good reason to run away. Their home situations are a bit short of desperate, but they are not good. The children are, in my view, not so much defiant as insistent on being their own person (if that distinction makes sense). And note that in the boy's case, his oppressors include the other boys at scout camp. They form a united front against him. Later, to their credit, most of his campmates switch sides.
As in R&J, the grown-ups in M.K. are clueless buffoons – but their characters are nuanced. The police captain and the scoutmaster are not the smartest or most sophisticated people, but their hearts are good through and through and they give the children effectual aid. The girls' parents are neurotic & self-absorbed. The dad sweeps aside his daughter's feelings and concerns. He lays down the law as though he were a wise and knowledgeable man -- powerful, too. But in fact he is weak and pathetic. His pretension to wisdom is based merely on the fact that he is middle-aged. He is not, however, vicious -- just clueless. The Scoutmaster-in-Chief and "Social Services" are, indeed, vicious – but (in this fairy tale) they are defeated in the end. As in Romeo & Juliet, the children are wiser than their elders. The bad folk in M.K. are immoveable – completely convinced of their own rightness. The good folk in M.K. (including the children) are more modest and have the capacity to change.
Let me add that it is very funny in parts. Especially touching is the "courtship" scene on the beach -- which is the children's "moonrise kingdom". The boy and girl have somehow gotten it through their heads that lovers have to go through the ritual of dancing together to popular music, and having a lover's quarrel. They proceed to do those things before "consummating" their love. (It is a bit unclear -- but I think their lovemaking does not go beyond making-out.) A fine movie with exceptionally good acting all around (though the girl is maybe a bit weak).
Quiz Show (1994)
One of the best movies ever about American Jews
Quiz Show portrays various Jews of the 1950's with great brilliance: (1) John Turturro is a "schlimazel" -- Yiddish for someone inept and unlucky. Turturro plays an intelligent man, a striver, but also a failure. He is very cynical. He is dishonest, but not really such a bad guy. He will never be fully integrated into American society. He will always wear a sign around his neck reading "Jew". "Jew" because he makes no effort to hide his Jewishness and because he fits antisemitic stereotypes: clever, dishonest, hook-nosed and ugly.
(2) Rob Morrow is Turturro's opposite -- well-educated, good-looking, and highly successful as a hotshot young government lawyer. Morrow thinks highly of himself. He is super-ethical and is offended by other people's dishonesty. He greatly admires the Van Doren family -- the ultimate academic WASPs with a WASP house and WASP speech and WASP attitudes -- in principle above the dirty game of making money, their minds set on higher things. Morrow can integrate if he wishes -- but at the price of giving up much of his Jewishness. His wife sees this clearly and objects.
(3) The producers of the rigged quiz show are Jews, as is the owner of the TV network. These characters are dishonest, indifferent to morality, and highly successful -- especially the owner, played with spine-tingling accuracy by Alan Rich.
In contrast to these Jews is Charles Van Doren, played by Ralph Fiennes. He is tall, handsome, and American (i.e., a Gentile). He is like Morrow in being well-educated. He is like Turturro in being dishonest. He is even more dishonest than Turturro, since he is also a hypocrite.
I have known all these characters. They are highly familiar to me. I can attest to how close to reality they are. The movie nails them. It gets them exactly right. A triumph.
(2) Rob Morrow is Turturro's opposite -- well-educated, good-looking, and highly successful as a hotshot young government lawyer. Morrow thinks highly of himself. He is super-ethical and is offended by other people's dishonesty. He greatly admires the Van Doren family -- the ultimate academic WASPs with a WASP house and WASP speech and WASP attitudes -- in principle above the dirty game of making money, their minds set on higher things. Morrow can integrate if he wishes -- but at the price of giving up much of his Jewishness. His wife sees this clearly and objects.
(3) The producers of the rigged quiz show are Jews, as is the owner of the TV network. These characters are dishonest, indifferent to morality, and highly successful -- especially the owner, played with spine-tingling accuracy by Alan Rich.
In contrast to these Jews is Charles Van Doren, played by Ralph Fiennes. He is tall, handsome, and American (i.e., a Gentile). He is like Morrow in being well-educated. He is like Turturro in being dishonest. He is even more dishonest than Turturro, since he is also a hypocrite.
I have known all these characters. They are highly familiar to me. I can attest to how close to reality they are. The movie nails them. It gets them exactly right. A triumph.