DVD Review: The First Two Films by Ramin Bahrani

Man Push Cart (2006) *** ½
Directed By: Ramin Bahrani.
Written By: Ramin Bahrani.
Starring: Ahmad Razvi (Ahmad), Leticia Dolera (Noemi), Charles Daniel Sandoval (Mohammad), Ali Reza (Manish), Farooq 'Duke' Muhammad (Duke), Panicker Upendran (Noori), Arun Lal (Father-in-Law), Razia Mujahid (Mother-in-Law), Hassan Razvi (Ahmad's son).

Chop Shop (2008) *** ½
Directed By: Ramin Bahrani.
Written By: Ramin Bahrani & Bahareh Azimi.
Starring: Alejandro Polanco (Ale), Isamar Gonzales (Isamar), Ahmad Razvi (Ahmad), Carlos Zapata (Carlos), Rob Sowulski (Rob).

I am a little embarrassed to admit that it has taken me so long to catch up with the first two films of Ramin Bahrani, an Iranian-American filmmaker who Roger Ebert has called “the next great American filmmaker”. In my defense, neither Man Push Cart or Chop Shop played in Toronto (at least, outside the film festival), and most video stores never even got the movies in. With the release of his latest film, Goodbye Solo, getting great reviews across the board, I figured I owed it to myself to go back and watch his first two films. Both are excellent, and I agree with the assessment that Bahrani is the real deal – a filmmaker with a unique vision and the skills to pull it off.

Man Push Cart (2006) tells the story of Ahmad, a Pakistani immigrant who wakes up early every morning and heads into Manhattan where he hauls his pushcart through the streets and sells coffee and bagels to the office workers in the area. When his day is done there, he wonders around on the street and tries to sell cheap porn DVDs to passersby on the street. He doesn’t make very much money – in fact he seems to only make enough working to allow himself to continue working.

We get only brief glimpses into Ahmad’s past. Apparently, he was a rock star in Pakistan. His wife died a little more than a year ago, and his in-laws will barely let him see his own son. How is wife died, and how he went from rock star in Pakistan to street vendor in Manhattan is wisely never explained – it doesn’t really matter, what matters in that Ahmad is in pain.

He makes two friends, Mohammad (Charles Daniel Sandoval), a wealthy Pakistani-American who works on Wall Street, who hires Ahmad to do some renovations on his upscale apartment. When he realizes who Ahmad is he says he’ll set him up with a friend of his who does bookings for entertainers – help Ahmad get back on stage again and making real money. The closest Ahmad comes is working as a doorman at a nightclub.

The other relationship is with Noemi (Leticia Dolera), an immigrant from Barcelona, who works at a newsstand. The two have a tender relationship, and share a sort of sad attraction to each other. Both are lonely, far away from home, and have little money. Mohammad also likes Noemi, and since Ahmad doesn’t seem to be making a move, and Mohammad can offer her things he can’t, perhaps she will allow herself to be taken in by him as well.

Man Push Cart appears to have be shot on the fly, with the camera sitting back impassively simply observing the action. Apparently, that is exactly what they did – many of the people in the movie had no idea they were being filmed, because Bahrani and his camera stay out of sight. The film simply observes Ahmad as it goes about his day-to-day life, his small tragedies (none sadder than the fate of a kitten he adopts) and his even smaller triumphs. We are reminded of the work of the Italian neo-realists, most notably Bicycle Thieves by Vittorio De Sica, which was also about a poor man whose lively hood depends on a vehicle of sorts. When something similar happens to Ahmad that happened to the hero of that movie, Ahmad first reaction is frantic, and then he slowly becomes resigned to his fate. His “friends” aren’t really his friends, and his life is going to be this, probably forever. Nothing changes.

I don’t think that the movie is really an attack on the American economy, where some people work constantly and cannot get ahead, whereas others, like Mohammad, don’t seem to do anything, but have a lot of money. I think the movie is about exactly what it seems to be about – Ahmad and his life, where every day he has to do the same damn thing.

Bahrani’s follow-up to Man Push Cart was Chop Shop (2008). Despite the fact I’m giving both films the same rating (I tell you, the rating system will be the death of me); I do think Chop Shop represents a significant step forward for Bahrani. While the influence of the neo-realists is still strong – especially since the movie concentrates of children, a favorite subject of the neo-realists – the film is a more visually alive and inventive than Man Push Cart. The camera is not simply passively observing the action, but instead is now painting fascinating images.

The movie is about Ale (Alejandro Polanco), a young Puerto Rican child of about 12 living in the Queens New York. Where his parents are, we have no idea. His only family is his sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales), who is around 16. Neither attends school, and they share a room above the chop shop where Ale works running down spare parts, and essentially doing any job that is assigned to him. Apart from that, he goes out on the street and will sell just about anything. Like Ahmad in Man Push Cart, his constant working just leads to more work – but Ale has a dream. An uncle of friend has a catering truck for sale, for $4,500 that Ale wants to buy so he and his sister can go into business for themselves. Both he and Isamar work constantly to try and get enough money and things seem to be going okay, until Ale realizes just what it is that Isamar does for money.

If Ahmad had already had his soul crushed at the beginning of Man Push Cart, and the movie simply observed the aftermath, then Chop Shop is about how Ale’s soul is slowly crushed. He bounces from job to job, all of which miserable, some of which are illegal, but for the most part seems to be in good spirits. He has a dream, he has a goal, and he’s going to get there. But he is dealt one crushing blow after another, to the point where it’s almost painful to watch this kid forced to grow up so fast.

Bahrani’s camera probes the area in which Ale and his sister live. Right outside Shea Stadium, the blocks that Ale and Ismar inhabit seem more like something we’d see in the Third World than right inside New York City. The movie captures, in unflinching detail, the day to day lives of its characters. While in many movies, we would be invited to judge the characters and their morality, here it isn’t a question. No one else is going to help out these kids if they don’t do it themselves.

Taken together, the first two films by Rahmin Bahrani represent two immigrant stories the likes of which we don’t often see on screen. We are not sure how or why Ahmad and Ale have arrived in America, and why it seems like everyone has abandoned them, but are invited into their world for a short period of time. Both films are powerful, with complete, naturalistic performances, and are films that stay with you – and haunt you – for days after seeing them. They represent the beginning of what I think will probably be a great career.

The Film of Martin Scorsese Part V: Italianamerican

Italianamerican (1974) ***
Directed By: Martin Scorsese.
Written By: Lawrence D. Cohen & Mardik Martin.
Featuring: Catherine Scorsese, Charles Scorsese, Martin Scorsese.

Italianamerican is a short (49 minute) documentary that Martin Scorsese shot in his parents Elizabeth Street apartment in 1974. The film is essentially a long conversation between Scorsese and his parents – Charlie and Catherine – about their experiences growing up in New York City as the children of Italian immigrants. By its own nature, this is not the most exciting feature in Scorsese’s career, but it is a fascinating little documentary nonetheless.

In a sense, we have seen this movie before. We have all heard countless immigrant stories told in countless movies, books and TV specials, but what makes Italianamerican interesting is that we haven’t heard this story, about these people. And it must be said that Charlie, and especially Catherine Scorsese, are excellent storytellers.

Throughout the movie, we hear stories about what the Scorsese’s childhoods were like in New York. Both came from large families, to parents who didn’t have a lot of money. They were all scrunched together in tiny tenement apartment buildings, and when relatives came over from the old country, you took them in, even though you already had 11 people living in a four room apartment. The Scorseses talk of a time long gone – when essentially the neighbors in your building became a part of your extended family. Charlie tells a story that if he didn’t like what his mother was cooking for dinner, he’d just go downstairs and see what the neighbors were having.

The film, more than anything, is a loving tribute that Scorsese pays his parents, and by extension his grandparents, who they talk about so lovingly. Times were hard on them, but they came together and survived it. The film is fairly conventionally shot for a documentary – talking heads interspersed with old photos, but Scorsese still manages to get a tracking shot in as he follows his mother from the living room to the kitchen as she makes her special tomato sauce.

The thing I enjoyed most about Italianamerican is watching the way Scorsese and his parents interact with each other. Notice a scene where Charlie stops Catherine in the middle of a story to comment on Scorsese’s chipped tooth, and how they all stop to examine it briefly.

Italianamerican is essential viewing for Scorsese fans. It is the most personal glimpse he gives us into his upbringing and his roots, and it shows how and why Scorsese is interested in the subjects that he is (one of the reasons he undoubtedly made Gangs of New York was to tell an “immigrant” story, even though the immigrants in that movie are Irish, who his father tells him used to live in the same neighborhood until the Italians moved in). It is a real treat to see Catherine Scorsese tell her stories. Scorsese cast her in five of his movies (most famously in GoodFellas), always playing somebody’s mother. For him, she was the quintessential, ideal mother.

For non-Scorsese fans, the movie will likely be nothing more than a mere curiosity piece. Yes, it is interesting on its own terms, but it is special because of the glimpse we get at a great artist and his roots. While the film does not come close rivaling Scorsese’s best documentaries, it is still a fine little film.

The Films of Martin Scorsese Part IV: Mean Streets

Mean Streets (1973) ****
Directed By: Martin Scorsese.
Written By: Martin Scorsese & Mardik Martin.
Starring: Harvey Keitel (Charlie), Robert De Niro (Johnny Boy), David Proval (Tony), Amy Robinson (Teresa), Richard Romanus (Michael), Cesare Danova (Giovanni), Victor Argo (Mario), George Memmoli (Joey), Lenny Scaletta (Jimmy), Jeannie Bell (Diane), Murray Moston (Oscar), David Carradine (Drunk), Robert Carradine (Boy With Gun), Harry Northup (Soldier), Martin Scorsese (Jimmy Shorts).

“You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.” – opening narration of Mean Streets, read by Martin Scorsese

“It's all bullshit except the pain. The pain of hell. The burn from a lighted match increased a million times. Infinite. Now, ya don't fuck around with the infinite. There's no way you do that. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart... your soul, the spiritual side. And ya know... the worst of the two is the spiritual.” – Charlie (Harvey Keitel).

These two quotes are I think the key to Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets. As Pauline Kael wrote in her famous review of the film upon its release “No matter what Charlie does, he’s a sinner”. What Kael meant was that no matter what he does, he views himself as a sinner. He confesses early in the movie that he doesn’t really feel absolved of his sins when he goes to confession, and says the penance that the priest assigns him. Throughout the movie, Charlie repeatedly holds his hands above flames – a match or whatever is around. The pain of the fire is a meaningful for him than the words the priest has him speak.

What’s odd about Charlie is what he feels guilty about. He is a low level gangster, working for his uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova), collecting debts and essentially doing what he is told. He feels no guilt or remorse about this – these people borrowed money from his uncle, and if they don’t pay it back, something needs to be done about it. What he feels guilty about is his relationship with two people who are like family to him. First there is Johnny Boy (Robert DeNiro), his best friend since childhood. Johnny Boy is a person who lives completely in the moment, and never thinks about the consequences of his actions. When we first meet him, we see him blow up a mail box. Why? I don’t know, and I expect he doesn’t know either. He blew it up because it was there, and he could and he thought it would be fun. For Johnny Boy, that is enough of a reason to do anything. Johnny Boy owes money all over town, but is getting deeper in debt to Michael (Richard Romanus), another childhood friend of Charlie and Johnny’s, who is starting to get impatient with him. Charlie vouched for Johnny Boy, which means if he doesn’t pay up, the debt could become his. His uncle warns him to stay away from Johnny Boy, because “honorable men go with honorable men”, and Johnny isn’t honorable.

The other relationship that Charlie feels guilty about is with Johnny Boy’s cousin Teresa (Amy Robinson). The two have been sleeping together for a while, but keeping it a secret. When she confesses that she loves him, he tells her that if he loved her, he wouldn’t be there right now. This movie, an extension of Scorsese’s first film Who’s That Knocking at My Door, has the same attitude about sex. If Charlie wanted to marry Teresa, he wouldn’t be there sleeping with her. But it is clear that he does in fact love Teresa, but he cannot admit it anyone, least of all himself. His uncle also warns him away from her – she has epilepsy, which in his old world mind is equal to mental disease.

So poor Charlie is in a tough spot. He knows that he should probably cut Johnny Boy loose – let him sink or swim on his own. Everyone, including Teresa has told him so. “You have to look out for yourself first” she tells him, to which he responds “That’s where you’re wrong. Francis of Assisi, he knew”. She just laughs at him. These two grew up in the same neighborhood, attended the same churches and schools, yet their Catholicism has led them to different points. He has taken the lessons seriously – which is why he feels so much guilt about sex, about abandoning his friend, about not listening to his uncle, about it all. She has grown more cynical, and simply wants to live her life and be happy.

Mean Streets is the first Scorsese film where you truly feel that you are in the hands of a master filmmaker. In Who’s That Knocking at My Door and Boxcar Bertha, there were flashes of inspiration, where you could tell that this was a special filmmaker, who just wasn’t quite there yet. In Mean Streets, he got there. True, the movie is still a little rough around the edges, and it does meander perhaps a little too much in spots, but it is the first movie of his career in which the action seems to proceed headlong into its inevitable conclusion. The first movie in which his characters really seem to be on a crash course with their destiny.

The filmmaking has also been raised a notch. The writing in the movie is better, and the cast could not be better. This was the first film in which Scorsese worked with Robert DeNiro, a collaboration that would become the most fruitful between any director and actor in history. Watch DeNiro in his first scene, where first he is all bluster as he introduces Charlie to two girls he picked up. Then when Charlie pulls him aside and asks him why he hasn’t paid Michael this week, he launches into a long rant about a dice game, and cops and chases, and how everything was going his way, until it wasn’t. It’s clear that he’s lying – Charlie knows he’s lying, and Johnny Boy knows he knows, and it certainly doesn’t help when Johnny Boy gets lost in his own story. To watch that scene is to watch screen acting at its finest – not just by DeNiro who has the plum role, but of Keitel, who just patiently lets Johnny Boy tell his story. He wants to be angry with him, but cannot be.

Mean Streets is also the first Scorsese movie where the threat of violence seems to hang over almost every scene. Like all Scorsese movies, when the violence does come, it’s not in stylized action movie form, but in a much sloppier, much more realistic form. Take for instance a scene in a pool hall, where a casual insult results in a brawl, even though none of the people involved seem to know really how to fight. Or course the violent climax, where blood is split, and Charlie ends up on his knees looking towards heaven.

For many directors, Mean Streets would represent the apex of their career. The fact that Scorsese has made a number of films that are better than Mean Streets is a testament to just how good a filmmaker he is. Mean Streets is quite simply put, a masterpiece.

DVD Review: Eden Lake

Eden Lake (2008) *** ½
Directed By: James Watkins.
Written By: James Watkins.
Starring: Kelly Reilly (Jenny), Michael Fassbender (Steve), Jack O'Connell (Brett), Finn Atkins (Paige), Jumayn Hunter (Mark), Thomas Turgoose (Cooper), James Burrows (Harry), Thomas Gill (Ricky), Shaun Dooley (Jon), James Gandhi (Adam).

Eden Lake is an exceptionally good horror film. It is terrifying, disturbing and downright chilling. What makes the movie so effective is that neither the victims, nor the killers, are portrayed as cookie cutter characters, but real people. The fact that the killers this time are not a group of inbred freaks, or back water yokels, but realistic teenagers makes the movie downright disturbing.

The movie stars Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender as Jenny and Steve, a good looking young couple who decide to go on a camping trip for the weekend. The go to an abandoned quarry that Steve knows. The area around there used to be a public park, but now it’s turning into a construction site for the development of new homes. No matter, that just makes their vacation all the more private. They are having a good time, until a group of teenagers show up. Each confrontation escalates a little more. First it’s just an argument about the volume on a stereo. Then it’s the kids goofing off, and finally it gets to the point where the kids steal their SUV for a joyride, leading to violence. Things get so far out of control that there really is no turning back.

Poor Michael Fassbender. In Hunger, also from this year, he is beaten, tortured and slowly starves himself to death. In this movie, he is beaten and tortured, and that’s just the beginning. Kelly Reilly has it worse. This is almost an endurance test for her as an actress, as she spends so much time running, screaming, covered in mud, blood and who knows what else. The fact that these two actors are able to forge a connection between them is what makes the movie so effective. Writer/director James Watkins gives them time at the beginning of the movie to build a rapport with each other. By the time things escalate, we are clearly on their side, and asking ourselves what we would do in the same situation. These two actors never give in to hysterics or over acting – they behave much like we like they would.

The kids in the movie are just as effective. With the exception of the ringleader Brett (Jack O’Connell – absolutely bone chillingly good), they do not appear to be all that bad. Like many teenagers, they like to hang out, drink, smoke and make fun of people they see as uncool. By themselves, none of them would probably do what they do in this movie. But there is a difference between what you’re capable of as an individual, and what you’re capable of as a group. Take Cooper (Thomas Turgoose, so good in Shane Meadows’ This is England in 2007, and apparently just as good in Meadows Somer’s Town). He appears to be the youngest of the gang, and the most hesitant to stab Steve when Brett makes them all take a turn (that way, no one can squeal). He is clearly uneasy about it, doesn’t want to do it, and later in the movie, when he comes across Jenny by himself, we get the impression that he may even help her – but he doesn’t get a chance. Adam (James Gandhi) is even more tragic – he isn’t a member of the gang so much as their usual target – so grateful is he that they are picking on someone else, he’s willing to do something he would never do otherwise. Quickly, tragically, however he discovers who is real friends are.

For most of its running time, Eden Lake is a supremely effective horror film. It’s a violent, bloody film, but it never devolves into torture porn. There is nothing thrilling about the violence in this film – it’s real, and it’s painful. But in it’s the movie final scenes where the film truly elevates itself above just an above average genre film. We’ve spent the film wondering how the kids could have gotten so far out of control – so twisted morally that they would think that they were justified in doing what they are doing. Then we meet their parents, and it all snaps into place. Poor Jenny and Steve – they never had a chance.

Movie Review: Adventureland

Adventureland *** ½
Directed By: Greg Mottola.
Written By: Greg Mottola.
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (James Brennan), Kristen Stewart (Em Lewin), Martin Starr (Joel), Bill Hader (Bobby), Kristen Wiig (Paulette), Ryan Reynolds (Mike Connell), Margarita Levieva (Lisa P), Jack Gilpin (Mr. Brennan), Wendie Malick (Mrs. Brennan), Matt Bush (Tommy Frigo).

Who among us hasn’t had a job that we consider beneath us? While in high school or university, we have all had those mind numbing, pointless minimum wage jobs that failed to stimulate us on any intellectual level. When you’re in university, that’s when you’re full of these great ideas and illusions about your future career. And that’s when you have to work those jobs you hate. The only good thing about those jobs is that you often meet people in the same boat as you – together you forge a bond to hate the job together.

That is essentially what Adventureland is about. James (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated university, and was planning on spending the summer backpacking through Europe before heading to Graduate school at Columbia in the fall. But his dad gets demoted, and they have no money, so instead, he ends up taking a job at Adventureland amusement park. At Adventureland there are two types of people – Rides People and Games People. The Rides People are the glamorous ones, so of course, James ends up as a Games person. Why? Because his boss Bobby (Bill Hader) got that Games Application out first.

The job is soul sucking. He basically sits around all day administrating games that are rigged so the customer can never actually win the giant panda they all want so badly. The only bright spots are the people he works with. He finds a kindred spirit in Joel (Martin Starr), who hates it all much more than James does, because after all, this isn’t his first summer there. There’s Connell (Ryan Reynolds), the maintenance man who is the essence of cool – he once jammed with Lou Reed! And then there’s two girls who are drawn to James. There’s Em (Kristen Stewart), who is pretty and smart and funny, and perhaps unavailable. And there’s Lisa P. (Margarita Levieva), who isn’t very smart or funny, but gorgeous, and available. The promise of what James will get from each is written right on their shirts. Em’s says “Games, Games, Game”, Lisa’s “Rides, Rides, Rides”.

From the previews, you’d think that Adventureland is another Superbad – they certainly do play up the comedy of the movie, and the fact that both films are directed by the same guy – Greg Mottola. But other than the fact that both are comedies about young men, the two movies share very little in common. Yes, Adventureland has some laugh out loud moments – many involving Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig as the couple who runs Adventureland. They are one of those couples who seem like complete opposites, but somehow complement each other perfectly. They are equally disturbed, but somehow they balance each other out. But most of the movie is made up of a more knowing, intimate, character driven humor. The film reminded me of Freaks and Geeks, one of the best TV shows of all time, which based its humor more on the pain of growing up then on anything else. The movie isn’t a series of comic misadventures, but rather a document of a long, confusing, painful summer, where sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. If this makes the movie sound dark, that’s unintentional – it isn’t – but I have a feeling that most people are going to see a little bit of themselves in these characters.

The acting is uniformly excellent, which in a movie like this is crucial. Jesse Eisenberg maybe a poor man’s Michael Cera, yet in a movie like this, he may be a better choice. With Cera you always have his comic persona getting in the way of a real character, whereas with Eisenberg, he feels a little more real – like his dialogue is more than just a series of punch lines. Kristen Stewart has grown into a gifted actress, and she makes Em into a complete, complicated, confused young woman. Ryan Reynolds is very good as that older guy who always seems to be hanging out with the young kids well past the point where he should. And Martin Starr makes Joel into a sympathetic character – one who tries too hard to fit in, and finally just gives up.

Adventureland will not be as popular a movie as Superbad was. It is a little too serious for that. But what both movies share is a knowledge of what young people are actually like, and the desires that drive them to do what they do. Superbad worked because each and every joke was based on the characters, and was hilarious, not because it was overly realistic. Adventureland works because it captures that spirit of fun and pain that accompany growing up just about right. The movies couldn’t be more different – but they are about equal in terms of quality.

God and the Cinema Part IV: The “New” Documentaries

Unlike many people, I absolutely love documentaries. I know that when many people think of documentaries they think of those drying, boring films that they make you watch in school, or are constantly playing on the history channel. I would bet that most people out there cannot name very many documentaries that weren’t directed by Michael Moore, or don’t feature penguins or Al Gore. Those are really the only documentaries that have truly broken through in the last decade or so. But there have been a lot of great documentaries this decade – far greater than any of the films I have alluded to. And many of those films have dealt with religion in one way or another. This piece will look at some of the best, and one of the worst, documentaries this decade that have dealt with God.

One of the best known of these films was 2006’s Jesus Camp directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. The film looked at a summer camp, where the children of Evangelicals go every summer to learn about God. Many are “born again”; although at that age I’m not sure what that means. The movie is scary because of the ferocity in which some of these kids, and many of the adults, practice their faith. What is the point of scaring children to death with talk of sin, and how they’re going to hell? Why must they “break” the kids to the point where they are crying? Why are they dragging 10 year olds into a debate on abortion? Jesus Camp examines an issue I’ve always found fascinating and frightening about religion and that is the need of some to scare their children into believing. Shouldn’t religion and God be something that provides comfort and peace in people’s lives, not something you do because you’re scared of going to hell? And I am the only one who had chills run up my spine when one woman said that she wants America’s children to be willing to fight and die for Jesus the way many Muslim children appear to be willing to fight and die for Allah? True, the filmmakers certainly have an agenda, that they make all too clear by cutting over to Air America broadcasts where the radio host talks about how the fundamentalists are taking over the country (these segments were not needed in the film, and weaken it overall, by underlining the films points too strongly). And it’s also true that many of the kids in the movie appear to be very healthy and happy – but a few of them, while they’re just scary.

Personally, I think George Ratliff’s Hell House (2001), a much lesser known film, delves into Jesus Camp territory even better than that film did. Hell House is about a church group who every Halloween puts on a Haunted House – but it’s a religious haunted house, so instead rooms full of ghosts and vampires, we get rooms devoted to suicide, homosexuality and abortion, where of course all the offenders end up in hell at the end of the “skit”. What makes Hell House a more effective documentary than Jesus Camp (which is still very good), is that the filmmakers don’t judge the participants in their documentary – they simply show them. It is quite possible that the participants in this documentary are actually fans of the film, whereas I don’t think you can say that about Jesus Camp.

A film that looks at a similar situation, but of a different religion, is Lucy Walker’s Devil’s Playground (2003), about Amish teenagers. When Amish teenagers reach a certain age, they are encouraged to spend a year or two outside of their communities, embracing the modern world, before they make a decision as to whether or not to rejoin their communities. The teenagers in this movie certainly do embrace the modern world – they do drugs, drink heavily, have sex, drive around in fast cars, and essentially act like normal teenagers. Like Hell House, the movie doesn’t judge its subjects; it simply sits back and observes them. This is a fascinating documentary about a group, the Amish that we rarely get any insight into. I respect the Amish for not simply pretending the modern world isn’t out there, and letting their children make the decision for themselves. Most of them come back to the group, but one wonders if some more would be tempted not to, if doing so didn’t mean giving up all contact with their families.

One of the worst things that ever happened to the Catholic Church in America was the clergy molestation scandal that came to light in the 1990s. It wasn’t so much that some priests had molested children – there are people from all walks of life who are pedophiles, we just hear about more priests because it’s more sensationalistic – but because the church itself worked hard to cover up the incidents. Time and again, they convinced families not to press charges, not to go public, and gave them assurances that the priests were getting the help they needed and would not be placed around children anymore. In reality, these priests were just shunted off to another parish, and set free to abuse another group of children. The scandal went so high up, that Pope Benedict had to ask for immunity from prosecution in the case before he could visit America. He received it.

The two best documentaries I have seen on the clergy molestation scandal are Amy Berg’s Deliver Us From Evil and Kirby Dick’s Twist of Faith. The two films essentially look at the flip side of the same coin. Dick’s documentary concentrates on the victims of the scandal. All grown up now, Tony Comes still struggles with what his Priest did him as a child. He finds support from other victims, and his loving wife, but it only helps so much. He will always be plagued with his memories. Deliver Us From Evil, an even more powerful film, somehow convinces a Priest convicted of being a pedophile to talk to the camera. Father Oliver O’Grady is a screen villain who makes your skin absolutely crawl. When he smirks into the camera that he has already confessed his sins, and therefore been forgiven and will go to heaven, it made me want to puke. The film does interview some of the victims, and many have had their faith stolen from them by O’Grady, and their stories remind you of Comes’ in Twist of Faith, but its O’Grady that makes this film one of the best of the decade.

Another film about the evils of the Catholic Church was Constantine’s Sword, based on the book by James Carroll, where he explores his own faith, and what led him to first become a Catholic Priest, and then leave the Priesthood. The film basically concentrates on the historic role that the Catholic Church play in the persecution of the Jewish people, from its beginning right up through the Holocaust, and to Pope Benedict’s reinstitution of an Easter Pray retired after Vatican II, which called for the conversion of the Jews people. Constantine’s Sword is certainly not as immersive an experience as many of the other documentaries – Caroll narrates it himself and he is a bit boring – but it is full of fascinating information.

If Caroll’s documentary focuses on the failings of the Catholic Church in a somewhat dry, but meticulous way, than Bill Maher’s Religilous looks at the failings of ALL religions in an irreverent and humorous way (true, he pretty much leaves out the Buddhists and Hindus, but one suspects, he’s not a fan of them either). I think as a documentary, the film leaves much to be desired – it doesn’t even try to be fair to its subjects, and Maher makes it easy for himself by going after sitting ducks as his targets. Yet the film still fascinated me, and is truly funny. Maher does make his point loud and clear – religion is standing in the way of humanity’s advancement. Whether you agree with him or not, the film is certainly worth a look.

I know that pretty much all the films I have covered so far end up taking a fairly grim view on religion, and so in sense, they are preaching to the choir when it comes to me. But each film is intelligent and challenging, even if none of them are flawless. But before I go into what I think is the best documentary about religion this decade – Lake of Fire – I thought I ought to show at least one film from the other side.

Now, I’m not sure if I’m simply not paying attention, or if the fact of the matter is that there are few “pro” religion documentaries being made right now. I’m sure there are many being made, but they don’t really hit theaters that much and they aren’t entering my radar. Whether this is some vast, left wing, atheist conspiracy by the godless sodomites who run Hollywood, or because the films aren’t very good, I’m not sure. The only documentary I can think of this decade that took a truly positive view of religion is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and, of course, it’s one of the worst films I have ever seen. The film follows TV personality Ben Stein as he crisscrosses the country looking into the intelligent design debate, and how “Big Science” has effectively shut down any voice that tries to expound on the theory intelligent design in a science classroom.

When I watched the movie, I tried to set aside the fact that I think intelligent design is useless as a scientific theory, as it rests on the notion that there is a God and if there is a God, then he/she exists outside of the realm of science. If you could scientifically prove there was a God, then they would cease to be God. What I was hoping for was a documentary that explained the theory, and WHY it should be taught in a classroom – that way, even if I disagreed with the film, I would at least understand the debate a little more. What I got instead was an anti-intellectual screed that blamed Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for everything – including the Holocaust. All films, including the ones listed above, have an agenda, but this is a film that in my mind simply doesn’t play fair.

Which brings me, finally, to the best documentary about religion I have seen this decade – Tony Kaye’s Lake of Fire. Lake of Fire is a documentary about the abortion debate in America that, amazingly, refuses to take sides. It shows everyone – from extremist nuts on both sides, to more reasonable people on both sides, and simply lets the audience decide what they believe. The film is scary, and almost impossible to watch at some points. We see an abortion in all its gruesome detail, and also see what women went through when they didn’t have access to legal abortion, and the pain and tragedy that often resulted because of it. Some of the people you see in the movie will scare you, some will make you think, some you’ll agree with, some you’ll disagree with, but it is impossible to watch the film and not have your beliefs tested – at least a little bit. It is possible to be pro-choice, like I am, and have those beliefs shaken in this movie, and just as possible to be pro-life and have those beliefs shaken. The movie doesn’t take sides – it lays the information out there, and leaves it for the individual audience member to decide. It is the most powerful documentary of the decade.

Documentaries are an ideal medium to tackle tough subjects like religion. Of course, almost every documentary has an agenda – something it wants to set out and prove to the audience. This has only become more prevalent in the years since Michael Moore hit the scene. Moore’s films are more like video essays than anything else – he knows what he believes going in, and finds the evidence to support that, and ignores the rest. Great documentaries can take that form, but I find myself drawn more and more to documentaries that would rather sit back and observe their subjects, and let the audience make up their mind about the subject. Some of the documentaries above do that – many don’t – but they are all interesting and thought provoking.

April Preview

This month, I decided to start a newly monthly series looking at the wide release movies hitting screens in that month. I will go over every wide release (with the limited releases, who know when you’ll ever actually see them) and then give each an anticipation rating out of 10 (1 meaning no desire, 10 meaning must see as soon as possible). So here goes.

April 3

Adventureland – The director Superbad returns, with what looks like another funny, coming of age coming. This time, he wrote the screenplay himself, and his filled his movie with a good bunch of actors – Jessie Eisenberg (so good in The Squid and the Whale), Kristen Stewart (better than what Twilight would have you believe), Martin Starr (of Freaks and Geeks), Ryan Reynolds and my own favorites Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig. It may be too much to ask that this film be anywhere near as good as Superbad, but I cannot wait to find out. Anticipation Level: 9

Fast & Furious – This series never really got over losing Vin Diesal after the first installment. Try as they might, they were never able to get the right chemistry with the co-stars in the second and third movies. So I for one, want to see what the series has left in the tank for the fourth installment. True, none of the other films were exactly masterworks, but they weren’t boring either. I still wonder why Justin Lin decided to go in this direction after his excellent debut film, Better Luck Tomorrow, though. Anticipation Level: 6

April 10

Dragonball Evolution – I have never seen the TV show, or played the card game (there is a card game, right?) so I have no idea what the hell a dragonball is, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t care. As much as I like Chow Yun Fat, and think that director James Wong will one day make a movie worthy of his talent, unless I hear this is a masterpiece, I’m staying as far away as possible from this one. Anticipation Level: 1

Hannah Montanna: The Movie – Okay, I’ll be honest, I have been known to sit down and watch Hannah Montana. It’s a cute, innocent show, and when I want to watch some TV that makes absolutely no demands on my brain, and there’s nothing else on, Hannah Montana fits the bill. Still, there is a difference between watching the show at home on my couch, and going out and actually seeing the damn movie. I think I’ll wait until video. Anticipation Level: 4

Observe and Report – Seth Rogen can generally do no wrong by me. I have been a fan of his since Freaks and Geeks, and I don’t think he’s made a movie that didn’t make me laugh, so I look forward to everything he does. The trailer for this one is a killer – both kind of hilarious, and terrifying at the same time., with Rogen playing a kind of comedic Travis Bickle. While I may have not liked director Jody Hill’s debut, The Foot Fist Way, it certainly did show potential. This film, which wasn’t on my radar at the beginning of the year, has turned into THE must see film of the month. Anticipation Level: 10

April 17

17 Again – Surely, there have been some decent movies made out similar concepts – that is an adult trapped in a teenagers body – but 17 Again really does not look like one of those movies. For one thing, I don’t think Zac Efron is very good as an actor, and as younger version of Matthew Perry – really not so good. For another, the trailer is just one cliché piled on top of each other. I’m sure teen girls will go gaga for it, but I thin I’ll pass. Anticipation Level: 2

Crank 2: High Voltage – The original Crank was my worst film of 2005, so you would think that this film was rank much lower than it does. But I have to admit I am curious to see if the filmmakers can make a louder, more incoherent, more racist, more misogynistic, more homophobic and altogether more hateful film than they made the last time around. I would say it was impossible, but what the hell – I have to see them at least try! Anticipation Level: 5

State of Play – Kevin Macdonald proved with The Last King of Scotland that is capable of making intelligent, adult dramas, and illicit great performances for his cast. This film, a conspiracy thriller set in Washington stars Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren, Jason Bateman, Robin Wright Penn, Jeff Daniel, Henry Lennix, Viola Davis and more. The trailer is wonderfully tense, and the film looks like a top notch entertainer. In April, that’s rare, so I for one cannot wait. Anticipation Level: 9

April 24

Fighting- Ditto Morel’s first film, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, was a strong debut in the Mean Streets vain, and proved that Channing Tatum can be more than just a pretty face. The two of them reteam again for this film, about the underground world of, you guessed it, fighting. The movie, which also features Terence Howard, certainly doesn’t look like Fight Club, but it looks a hell of a lot better than Never Back Down. We’ll just have to wait and see. Anticipation Level: 7

Obsessed – I’m quite enjoyed Idris Elba in his recent stint on The Office, and Beyonce Knowles isn’t that bad an actress, and Ali Larter can probably be okay as well, but something about this African American version of Fatal Attraction is turning me off. I think it’s the trailer that makes the film look like a direct to video sex thriller. I may see it, if I’m bored, but I’m really not looking forward to it. Anticipation Level: 4

The Soloist – As much as I love Robert Downey Jr., and think that Joe Wright (Atonement and Pride and Prejudice) is a fine filmmaker, this movie just isn’t doing that much for me. Haven’t we seen this film before? The gifted, but mentally disturbed prodigy brought out of his shell by a once selfish, amoral asshole? I’m sure the movie is done well – not only because of Downey and Wright, but also because of Jamie Foxx and Catherine Keener, and it may well be fine film. It’s just not one I’m on the edge of my seat looking forward to. Anticipation Level: 6

And that’s a wrap for April. In May, we’ll have some bigger films like Wolverine, Star Trek, Angels and Demons, Up and Drag Me to Hell.