we like to watch

I believe people have posted on Chronicles of Narnia elsewhere, but I can’t find it, so I’m starting a new thread. I saw this tonight—again, like Kong, it was entertaining enough, but it made me wonder if C.S. Lewis is as much of an English dimwit as this film would indicate. is the film fairly true to its source? It seems like C.S. couldn’t make up his mind whether the English or Christ is more powerful or whether the King of Kings really trumps earthly royalty after all–since the result of saviour Aslan’s triumph is the coronation of not merely one royal power, but four. And is there anything those good English kids can’t do after some toast and tea? And wasn’t the sacrifice of Christ the result of a series of events put in motion by God himself, rather than a self-willed action? And where is the moment of doubt, the “Why have you forsaken me?” The whole thing is so bloodless and painless that Christianity comes off like some kind of ludicrous wish-fulfillment. The completely colorless Peter becomes the King Arthur figure–why? I guess merely because he’s the oldest male. If Lewis’ politics were any more conservative and royalist, the whole thing might be embraced by the National Front. It’s nice that the Beavers and the fauns know their place–to place eagerly the supernaturally-blessed crowns on the divinely-inspired Kings and Queens. In what century was this claptrap conceived? Perhaps it is the latent Protestant in me that protests at a religious view so smugly self-satisfied that Church and State are seamlessly integrated with the blessings given right down to the last stone of “nature.” Was Lewis’ series of books sponsored by the Anglican Church? T.S. Eliot is hard to take but he’s like a raving radical compared to this guy. Continue reading Bad Allegories….

Doing the pretentious thing and keeping the original Danish, for the sort-of-Dogme production Brothers. It’s a very well-meaning, very (very) well-acted melodrama in the Coming Home or Deer Hunter vein, where experiences in war (this time Afghanistan) bleed back into life at home. Which seems timely, except (given the fairly-obvious storyline and its unmissable echoes of such earlier films) it also seems kind of un- or out-of-timely. I liked it well enough, but I kept wondering… well, okay, and?

And on another note, the always-enlightening year-end discussion of movies is ongoing at Slate.

I could pitch my reactions to Neil Jordan’s glorious Breakfast on Pluto as yet another spin on the politics vs. personal desire/domesticity discussion, or as a glam-rock rejoinder (or alternative chorus) to Brokeback‘s mournful fiddle, or simply say:

It’s the most fun I have had at the movies all year. (Tied, if I’m totally honest, with Kung Fu Hustle, but its pleasures are very, very different.) The soundtrack is perfect, the images saturated with color, the performances stellar. And it’s moving, funny, thrilling. I’m torn between wanting to read the novel or just see the film again.

Happy Holidays

http://film.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5952,1671399,00.html

I dare Arnab to remove this. No, wait: I dare Arnab to leave this up. One of those dares is reverse psychology. The other is psychology.

I write a brief note to recommend the funniest book I’ve read in years. John Hodgman’s _The Areas of My Expertise_ keeps sidetracking my grading.

If only to read the Seven Hundred Hobo Names (Stick-Legs McOhio is my favorite) or “How to Win a Fight” (rule #2, “Go Ahead and Use Henchmen”). But perhaps for your spiritual health; perhaps for the health of us all.

By the by, David Edelstein calls Munich the best movie of the year. I think I’m going to try and catch it tomorrow.

There may already be a posting about this movie, but if so, I can’t find it using the search function.

Not a great movie by any means, actually pretty mediocre, but a clever conceit. The movie traces the relationship between a couple in five episodes that take place backwards. It begins with the divorce, after which the couple retire to a hotel room to have sex, though it is far closer to rape than consensual sex. Then the next four episodes uncover the infidelities and angst of the relationship, before ending when the couple meet (which involves the first infidelity).

It doesn’t ultimately work, primarily because the episodes don’t build to anything or explain the nature of the relationship. The third episode appears to be about the Gilles’ reluctance to be a father, or to be in a relationship, but it is hard to tell since it plays out mostly with him sitting in a car smoking. Still, the movie is French, so it can’t be all bad.