Arctic Shores Contemporary Reviews

The King James Version of the Bible states: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”  Every Protestant child, including myself, had the idea behind the verse, if not the verse itself, thwarted upon him or her throughout their early years.   And since everyone that experienced such an upbringing has at some point in their life been haunted by the thoughts of demons watching over them awaiting every opportunity to take advantage of every sin, however minor, it should surprise no one that a director like Sam Raimi would turn such an idea into a plot for a horror movie called Drag Me to Hell.

In Drag Me to Hell, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a loan officer at a bank, seemingly too soft hearted to ever receive recognition for a promotion.  Mr. Jacks (David Paymer), her boss, would like to see her succeed, but he favors her co-worker, Stu (Reggie Lee), who is much more ambitious and has turned bootlicking into an art form.  As Christine sees that coveted promotion to Assistant Manager begin slipping away from her, she takes her frustration out upon an old and seemingly decrepit woman with one bad eye by the name of Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) that comes to the bank begging for an extension on her house payment.  Since Christine refuses to budge to this obviously eccentric customer and humiliates this person by calling in security to take the old woman away, Mrs. Ganush places upon Christine the mother of all curses.  A Lamia is summoned up to harass Christine for three straight days and, if not appeased, than drag her into hell.  Unfortunately, before Christine can beg Mrs. Ganush to call off the demon, Mrs. Ganush dies – probably as a result of being evicted from the home in which she had lived for some thirty years.

Now Christine has a boyfriend named Clay Dalton (Justin Long) who, despite having a deep rational streak and an overbearing mother with incredible wealth, is absolutely devoted to Christine and would do whatever it took to help her out.  Clay is not convinced that Christine is in anyway haunted, but he does know that something is bothering her and humors her when she decides to seek the aid of a spiritualist by the name of Rham Jas (Dileep Rao).  Though Rham has a tendency to be a bit greedy and originally seem to perceive Christine’s predicament as a welcome opportunity to supplement his income, he is also a real believer in the occult and becomes convinced that Christine’s curse is very real.  After giving Christine a few recommendations that fail to rid Christine of the curse and after a few harrowing incidents that convince Rham that this is no ordinary demon that they are dealing with, Rham summons Shaun San Dea (Adrianna Barraza), a world class shaman, to attempt to get rid of this curse once and for all.  Sadly, Shaun San Dea – who had previously seen a Lamia drag a young child off to hell after that child stole some precious silver – was only temporarily successful at shooing the demon away.  Instead, the exertion of the exorcism was so great that Shaun San Dea collapsed and died.  Christine’s one remaining option was to give the way a button for which the curse revolved around to another individual with the knowledge that whoever takes the gift would receive her curse.  She thought of Stu, but didn’t have the heart to do this to him.  Instead, in the middle of the night, she digs up Mrs. Ganush’s grave and deposits the envelope in which the button was supposed to have been placed inside of Mrs. Ganush’s mouth.  Only the next day, when she goes on her rendezvous to meet Clay at the train station where they are to go off on a vacation, does she discover that Clay had the envelope that contained the button.  Since Christine is thus not able to rid herself from the curse, the Lamia then arrives to drag her to eternal damnation.

Though Drag Me to Hell is a horror movie and commercial blockbuster as well, this is a fairly well-made movie.  To begin with, it’s only 99 minutes long which is a positive.  Lorna Raver is excellently cast as the mysterious Mrs. Ganush, and Alison Lohman comes off as surprisingly tough when she needs to be towards the end of the movie when digging up Mrs. Ganush’s grave.  With talking goats, an odd assortment of characters that for some reason or other reside in Los Angeles and a take on the lighter side of animal sacrifices, the film contains a good deal more fun than one is accustomed to in this sort of genre.  I was a bit taken aback by critics accusing Raimi of using “gross-out” tactics or “cheesiness” to pull movie-goers into the theatre.  I admit that the soundtrack was a bit overdone at times with the use of loud noises, but with a PG-13 rating the visual effects are certainly no more filled with gore than what the average child could see on network television almost every night.  This is a horror movie that was never intended to be taken seriously, and the movie certainly complies with the modern day formula for that genre.  It just happens to do that with nothing that resembles wholesale slaughter. (I guess because of the assets of Drag Me to Hell I can forgive Sam Raimi for directing the Spider Man movies, though I won’t go as far as the Boston Globe which states: “ ‘Spider Man’ restored a kind of joyful sincerity to his [Sam Raimi’s] work.”  I’m not quite sure what that means.) 

I probably should mention that five years from now, almost everyone that ever watched Drag Me to Hell will forget that it ever existed.  This is only a minor objection since the same thing is true of every blockbuster that has been shown during the last couple of years - save a handful of movies that received some additional hype.  There has been an overkill of horror movies so that even the best of this genre get confused with the many imitations.  If not for the fact that Hitchcock directed it, most moviegoers would forget that Psycho was the film every other horror film director since has attempted to duplicate as far as film technique goes.  If Psycho had been directed with or without an anonymous director in 1980 instead of 1960, it too would have been mostly forgotten.  The barrage of computer generated special effects and sound systems that can make a noise sound like it has been generated from almost any location in the theatre has made almost every horror film seem almost a copy of one another.  So Drag Me to Hell, better than many films labeled “Best Picture” material and certainly better than 95% of all horror flicks (though this in itself is nothing worth boasting about), will have practically no significance in cinematic history.

I like this movie because it has somewhat of a moral while not at the same time pretending to be any sort of “message” film.  It does not bother me that at least temporarily Drag Me to Hell will pick up more money at the box office than any of the five films featured at the Academy Awards.  To “reap what we sow” is a great storyline for any horror film, but it works especially well here because it is obvious that the bank clerk gave into the temptation of ambition for perhaps once and the only time in her life.  In other horror films, the only motive for the consequences seems to be a sexually frustrated loser that understandably cannot find himself a date.  I’d say that Drag Me to Hell brought back a sort of “joyful sincerity” to Sam Raimi’s work that was missing in the three prior Spider-Man movies.

© Robert S. Miller 2009

Although I’m tired of neurotic middle-aged characters and put-off by scripts that are loaded with intellectual blather, I was delighted to discover that the film Sideways was actually less than half-bad.  Let’s consider the context of such movies as this.  Woody Allen made such storylines popular and usually funny.  Films like Network or Broadcast News were decent efforts that nevertheless now seem worn-out.   This formula started feeling false with the hyping of movies like The Big Chill and American Beauty.   Now we have to endure films like Knocked Up,   The 40 Year Old Virgin and American Wedding that are close to being one-hundred percent crass.  Some movie’ critics offhandedly dismiss viewers that shun such films by accentuating the kind of tolerance and daring that is required to enjoy them.  Or perhaps “tolerance” only refers to lack of discrimination and daring can be defined as the ability to digest anything rancid.  Anyway, it’s safe to say that the formula has now become overused.

Sideways is about two friends that decide to tour the wine country in central California.  Miles (Paul Giamatti) is an English teacher, an aspiring novelist and wine connoisseur.   Jack (Thomas Haden Church) is an actor that takes on bit parts on television or does voiceovers on television and radio advertisements.  Neither are particularly happy individuals.  Jack is about to get married, but to say that he fears commitment would be a great understatement.  Miles, still in the process of healing from a recent divorce, is to be Jack’s best man.  While Miles wants to use their trip as an opportunity to show Jack the majesty of the winemaking industry, Jack wants to use this trip as an opportunity to have one last wild fling before being condemned to the drudgery of marriage.  Jack shamelessly tries to bed almost every woman that he meets.  Miles wants to relax and make sense of the direction his life has taken.

The friends meet two women along the way.  Maya (Virginia Madsen) is recently divorced and another lover of the art of wine tasting.  She is essentially a good person and is obviously suited for someone like Miles.  Stephanie (Sandra Oh) is less discriminating than Maya and is willing to take Jack at his word.  It doesn’t take a lot of persuasion for Jack to convince Stephanie to sleep with him.  Matters become complicated when Miles confesses to Maya that Jack is about to get married.  Such information gets back to Stephanie who immediately proceeds to break Jack’s nose.  Jack, rather than learn his lesson, next takes a married woman to bed only to be discovered by the woman’s husband.  Miles, being the dutiful friend, helps Jack avoid any greater trouble.  However, in the process, a misunderstanding has erupted between him and Maya concerning his own set of values.  Miles now has not only had to endure the antics of Jack (along with learning that his novel that he has been working on for years has been rejected by a publishing company), he also feels he needs to make amends to a person he has come to very much care for.  Miles leaves a heartfelt but rambling message on Maya’s phone to make her understand the person he really is.  After Jack’s wedding, Miles listens to a message on his telephone from Maya that seems to imply she still cares for him.  Thus we have the prospect of a happy ending.

The struggle to find meaning in life is a subject that has fascinated us since the beginning of mankind.  Without question, Miles for all of his idiosyncrasies was the better of the two friends – with or without considerations of decency.  We have no doubt that in time Miles will find some answers to his struggle.  And though Jack will never have to struggle in the same way, there is a very good chance that Jack will also never grow.  There was one scene towards the end of the film that almost rang authentic.  Miles was sitting at the desk in his classroom while a student reads from a piece of literature.  That what the student was reading seemed to suggest that there was no hope did not affect Miles so much as the fact that the student was trying to learn and was speaking to Miles in a tone of ultimate respect.  This tone of respect was something that was missing during the entire seven days he spent with Jack out on the road where Jack addressed him with nothing but crude remarks - hiding Jack’s inner insecurity.  Most of Jack’s humor was not all that funny and most of his tough talk was a façade.

Sideways is a 126 minute movie.  The first hour dragged on far too long, but the movie did pick up during the next hour and almost made the first hour worth the wait.  It was directed by Alexander Payne, best known for previously directing About Schmidt.  About Schmidt is a better movie because Schmidt (played by Jack Nicholson) is a more fully developed character than Miles ever becomes.  Miles constant talk about the art of winemaking eventually sounds too scripted and we want him to move on to other subjects.  The symbolism of wine and wine country is also too blatant.  I’m not all that touched when I see Miles staring at a bunch of grapes.  It also gets to be uneventful seeing how long it takes Miles to catch on that he was not going to find peace in the company of Jack.  Certainly Miles had his struggles, but at some point Miles has to stop feeling sorry for his self while having the opportunity to see some of the most beautiful scenery in the world in the Napa Valley region.  Still, Sideways is similar in theme as About Schmidt and it does come close to making us understand what makes such an unhappy character as Miles.  Undoubtedly, it has a great deal to do with being middle-aged while seeing all of the good things in life going to Jack – a person that has no appreciation for real beauty whatsoever.

Sideways reminded me of Little Miss Sunshine and, to a lesser degree, Juno.  All three films depended to too great of a degree on one-liners and typecast characters.  Miles is the most authentic of all the characters in this film, but even he is a type of personality we see in hundreds of other movies.  And like Little Miss Sunshine, it felt like the director of Sideways took a very long time to actually figure out what he wanted to do with this movie.  I could almost understand why someone would not sit through the first hour of this film.  It’s too bad that there was not some sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that promised the viewer something better to come in the second half.  However, with all this film had against it, it is surprising it is as good as it was.  Unlike most movies in this genre, I could probably watch Sideways again – but I would only do so with reservations.  I know it is a dubious distinction to suggest that this is one of the better movies using a worn out formula.  That it is watchable is at least something I can say.

© Robert S. Miller 2009

We’re inundated with jargon.  Terms and concepts such as synergy, legalese, out-sourcing, co-sourcing, or thinking outside of the box have become as much a part of our language as terms with real substance such as bread or water.  Critics in particular like to use such words or phrases because it disguises a lack of precision.  The 92 minute film, Point Blank, is often described as film noir because there is so much about the film that cannot be easily described.  Film Noir I suppose could be used to describe a stylish crime drama except that Point Blank is not always so stylish.  The dream sequences in the movie may lead the viewer to the conclusion that it is stylish, but many of the film’s action sequences could just as easily be described as cheesy (especially when one considers this movie was released in 1967).  The film includes scenes in strip-clubs, features loud car crashes, lots of gun play, and plenty of graphic sex scenes thrown in (at least as graphic as it could be for that time period).  But setting that aside, the problem with describing this movie as film noir is that it downplays the film’s borderline exemplariness.   The supporting cast, and especially Angie Dickinson, John Vernon and Carroll O’Connor, admirably underplay their roles.   Lee Marvin, who had already played a number of significant roles, may have played his best part here ever as Walker, the loner and existentialist with no first name.

In the beginning of the film, Walker lies in an Alcatraz prison cell having what is either a flashback or a bad dream (and even at the film’s end we are not sure which it is) about a crime spree that went badly wrong for him.  In a heist for money in the amount of $150,000 – of which $93,000 is supposed to go to Walker – which was to take place on the island of Alcatraz , Walker is double-crossed by his partner Mal Reese (John Vernon) and by Walker’s wife, Lynne (Sharon Acker).   Reese subsequently shoots Walker after Walker has returned to his prison cell.  How this all happens with the absence of guards at the infamous facility is never clear.  Realism shouldn’t be assumed here.  Unfortunately for Reese and for Walker’s wife, Walker does not die from the gunshot wound (unless, of course, Walker is dreaming the whole revenge thing up).  Lynne, when confronted by Walker and out of feelings of guilt for her alliance with Reese (that included more than the simple shooting of her husband), commits suicide.  Walker, through the help of Lynne’s sister, Chris (Angie Dickinson) -  who also had a dalliance with Reese, but who now comes to fall in love with Walker – then comes back to kill everyone in the crime syndicate organization, from Reese on up, that is responsible for what had happened.  Reese only happens to be one of the lowly players in the entire scheme.   Others in the organization include Stegman (Michael Strong), a used car salesman, Frederick Carter (Lloyd Bochner), who is killed along with Stegman by a hit man (James Sikking) – a hit man that does not seem particularly disconcerted that he shot the wrong two people – and finally Brewster (Carroll O’Connor), who runs his crime organization like it was a corporation.  All of these individuals (and many more) die because of Walker’s intricate plan.  The irony is that Walker never gets his $93,000 back.  Since the crime syndicate is run like a corporation with millions of dollars in assets, the $93,000 is basically all on paper and is not readily available in dollar bills.

What Point Blank is ultimately about is only slightly less complicated than the plotline.  As much of a thug as Walker proves himself to be as evidenced by the number of individuals that he has killed or bludgeoned throughout the movie, he seems to have exhibited more integrity than any other major character in the film.   Walker is up front concerning his motives.  He wants money in dollar bills.  To the other characters in the movie, $93,000 is a mere pittance and would bring none of the major players any satisfaction.  Stegman enjoys the prestige of hearing his add for his car lot on the radio and wouldn’t show up at the job at all if not to eyeball attractive female clientele.   Reese attempted to kill Walker only because it was a way of moving up in the crime syndicate and provide him with a penthouse where he could entertain his female companions – including Walker’s wife, Lynne, and her sister, Chris.  Carter was willing to set-up and to kill any individual that would affect his prestige in the syndicate.  Brewster only paid attention to ledger sheets and account balances without any concern that the numbers also reflected people killed.  As much as Walker was familiar with a life of crime, he was completely at a loss to understand a crime syndicate as heartless and impersonal as a corporate conglomerate. 

In Point Blank, Director Boorman not so innocently juxtaposes corporate culture and organized crime – fairly successfully.  Walker as anti-hero is still not the real villain in this film.  The real villains have become number crunchers and live the life of executives attending cocktail parties and flying all around the country for business meetings.  They don’t talk like prototypical criminals and are even offended when having to witness the conduct of an old-style gangster like Walker.  What Boorman is trying to say with this film is both amusing and valid.  Corporate executives in this nation have been at least since the 1960s posing as something they are not.  All the talk about entrepreneurship and carrying on that dynamic frontier spirit of the 1800s notwithstanding, these moneymakers have been in many respects the very antithesis of the romantic trailblazers we hold so dear in American mythology.  In truth, corporate culture has high-jacked the definitions of individualism and autonomy, and in claiming these concepts for  their own have turned the American Dream into something unseemly and uninspiring  – like having an insurance actuary posing as an operator of an oil derrick.  Corporate executives thrive in a culture of organization and bureaucracy and have no backbone to succeed where one has to go it alone.  This is precisely why such characters as Brewster and Carter and Stegman and particularly Reese are so ineffective in dealing with Walker directly.  Yet it is because society is now so dominated by such individuals that someone like Walker feels so completely alienated from a society where he once played such an important part.  What sets a loner like Walker apart from other men of the modern era is his capacity to feel real human emotion.  As cold and ruthless as he may seem, he was capable of caring for people like his wife and her sister.  He was tough, courageous and loyal – if the company he kept might not always been worthy of loyalty. 

Director John Boorman also directed Deliverance.  It was probably the only other movie in the director’s long and ongoing career that was as unusual as Point Blank.  Yet both movies contain masculine themes, involve unusual characters, and concern violent circumstances that go beyond the key characters understanding.  Boorman seems obsessed with viewing modern society (and especially America) as evolving in a way that is not for the better.  Both films involve men wanting to live by codes of conduct that go beyond living by the strict letter of the law.  Yet in Deliverance the four main characters were friends of each other.  They trusted each other, and in the end the trust was deserved.  In Point Blank, Walker has no friends.  His one friendship with Reese, who he had trusted, ended in disaster.  Walker was forever condemned to go it alone save an occasional woman that he took to bed.  Walker was a man in a world that was otherwise devoid of men.  And so long as the world was impersonal and was ruled by profit motive and corporate protocol, he was forever condemned to go it alone.

© Robert S. Miller 2009

I wonder if the hysteria contained in Inherit the Wind is realistically portrayed, but then it’s difficult to dismiss phenomena that occurred in 1925 when similar happenings are still occurring in 2009.  The insanity may have been overstated in the film, but at least it was plausible.  John Scopes, a twenty-four year old school teacher, violated Tennessee’s Butler Act, a law that prevented the teaching of the theory of Evolution in our schools.  If he had been practicing witchcraft, there would not have been such an outpouring of rage.  Scopes did something much, much worse than commune with the Devil.  He chose to be right rather than try to belong to the good community of Dayton, Tennessee.

Inherit the Wind is the story of the Scopes Trial with some of the names changed.   Dick York plays Bertram T. Cates, a fictional John Scopes.  Frederic March plays the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Harrison Brady, a fictional William Jennings Bryan.  Gene Kelly plays the journalist, E.K. Hornbeck, a fictional H.L. Mencken.  And most importantly, Spencer Tracy plays the defense attorney, Henry Drummond, a fictional Clarence Darrow.  Cates is charged with teaching evolution; Brady comes to town to prosecute him and stir up the town people into a religious fervor; by a strange quirk, Drummond cross-examines Brady concerning his knowledge of the Bible and in the process makes a mockery of Brady’s beliefs; Hornbeck, the cynical journalist that he is, takes glee in the carnival-like atmosphere surrounding the trial; and Cates is found guilty and fined a paltry one-hundred dollars.  Brady, suddenly realizing that he has been made a fool of, suffers a stroke at the conclusion of the trial and falls dead to the floor.  While packing away the material used at trial (and with the intention of appealing the guilty verdict), Drummond walks out of the court carrying Darwin’s Origin of the Species and the King James Bible together in his hands.

There is a side story contained in the film that was made up totally in the imagination of the screenwriters.  In the film, Cates is engaged to Rachel Brown (Donna Anderson) who also happens to be the daughter of the Reverend Brown (Claude Akins).  Reverend Brown happens to be a Fundamentalist Christian and fully disapproves of Cates method of teaching to the point that he would even disown his own daughter for association with the young teacher.  In fact, Reverend Brown represents that type of Christian that believes in infant damnation, the banning of textbooks in schools, and the condemnation of all that disagree with him.  This man of God is the descendent of the Puritans and precursor to modern day fundamentalists like Oral Roberts and Bob Jones.  Though Rachel tries to maintain her loyalty to her father, she eventually rebels and sits next to Cates at the trial.  It is left up to the audience to determine who “troubleth his own house,” Reverend Brown or his daughter, and shall therefore according to the Book of Proverbs “inherit the wind.”  This subplot is probably the weakest portion of the film, though it does allow March to show the human side of the character that he plays.  And, unfortunately, the character of Reverence Brown is too frighteningly real.

The screenplay for the film was written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee some ten years before the film was actually released and was allegedly in response to the HUAC hearings that were presided over by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Obviously, the film and the play were more aimed at the subject of the right to think freely than it was meant to resolve the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Just as obvious, the filmmakers take the side of Cates and Drummond over that of Brady and the majority of the townspeople.  Yet despite the willingness of the filmmakers to take sides, the movie still challenges the audience perhaps because our minds have really not opened up that very much since 1925.  Our conception of religion still seems so narrowly and dogmatically tailored that it will not let in the questioning mind or any healthy skepticism.  For during the trial, when Drummond (or Darrow) gets Brady (or Brady) to admit that there are some portions of the Bible that are open to interpretation, the argument at that point should have been all over.  Yet Brady could not admit to being wrong, and it was that rigidity that probably killed him.  Brady, like the real life person upon which the character was based, ran for President three times, represented many of the progressive causes that were vital to the ordinary citizen and who probably truly cared for those same people, will be remembered most during his last days for, in the words of H.L. Mencken, “demagogy so dreadful that his very associates at the trial table blushed.” 

Whether the reactions of the townspeople in the film were overstated, the reproduction of the two protagonists in the courtroom is adeptly played out.  March was excellent in the role of Brady, but only occasionally does the screenplay let his humanity show.  Personally, I think that Kelly played the role of Hornbeck much better than most critics give him credit for doing.  Again, the screenplay fell short as far as characterization.   Spencer Tracy is immaculate in the role of Drummond and is the most well rounded of any character in the movie.  It is the character of Drummond that is trying to announce to the town people and everyone else in the world that Cates was trying to enhance the beliefs of people rather than take any beliefs away from them.  Though always challenging in his approach, Drummond in the end also respects those that disagree with him at least to the point that those same people respect his right to disagree with them as well.

Directed by Stanley Kramer, who also directed The Defiant Ones and Judgment at Nuremburg, this 128 minute’ film seems more like a play than a movie – just like almost every movie that Kramer ever directed.  Kramer is making a quasi-political point about the obligation to be free and independent, even under the most oppressive of conditions.  In Judgment at Nuremburg, Tracy played the role of a judge that made the determination that one single man has to be responsible for his own actions and cannot excuse that obligation by giving into pressure of others.  Inherit the Wind is only a slightly different variation on the same theme.

Many people still wear their ignorance on their sleeve as if it was a badge of honor.  It happens in the field of science and reason, religion and politics (as is evidenced about every four years in our Presidential elections).  We’d prefer to give up and become complacent towards what we call the truth rather than struggle for the answer from which will bring us real spiritual awards.  We are awarded for our compliance by never having to think too hard about what cowards we are in simply giving into the pressure of others.  As Drummond makes the point in the film Inherit the Wind and as Darrow made the point in real life, we have allowed such people to insult religion by making the claim that they are somehow representative of religion as a whole.  If not perfectly portrayed, at least Inherit the Wind shows how bad following the mob can turn out to be and, if not rewarding, how noble standing up for one’s belief in face of the crowd can be.

 © Robert S. Miller 2009