Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
timdonderevo
Reviews
1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture (2022)
Best Doc of the Year
This would be an important movie if it was merely a document of the infamous historical moment that it describes; the mistranslation of the Bible in 1946 to include (for the first time) the term "homosexual". The story of the scholars who made the unfortunate mistranslation, and the researchers who uncovered the blunder is covered as well as one would hope from a history documentary. However, it is the secondary aspect of the documentary that is so compelling, namely the stories of homosexual christians who discuss squaring their devotion to faiths that exclude their sexuality. The Movie's director, Sharon Roggio shares her own version of this story, appearing alongside her father; a minister who preaches against homosexuality. Sharon's incredible ability to survive in this juxtaposition is a singular example of compassionate cognitive dissonance. Relating to her situation is challenging for a white sis male viewer like me, who has zero experience living in a culture that rejects me - and that's what gives this doc a second level of fascination. And yet, despite the director's compelling culture war story, she has the grace to allow the other contributors' moving stories eclipse her own. Important subject, excellent production, essential viewing.
Emily (2022)
A masterful benchmark of cinema.
Warning - gushing ahead! But I rarely gush about anything, so take heed.
Not being particularly interested in Emily Bronte, or anything close to this genre of movie, I had low expectations of Frances O'Connor's directorial debut - and now I feel foolish on both counts. Emily is an exquisitely crafted piece of cinema in every respect, and has made me an unlikely fan of the eponymous author - as well as a huge fan of O'Connor.
With direction this concise and elegant it's hard to imagine any actor not thriving. The cast of Emily are clearly empowered to be as modern and free as they choose, while denoting psyches specific to the era, as well as the real people portrayed. O'Connor clearly wrote and directed every character from a place of love and compassion, and brought it to the screen with astonishing restraint and clarity. As such, every single performance shines, not least that of Star Emma Mackey who effortlessly shifts from disturbed outsider to beguiling enchantress, to sage poet with absolute conviction and relatability. However, the story of each and every character reached me with equal amplitude and gravity, which is no mean feat in a complex period Drama. O'Connor's knowledge of and passion for the project has doubtless created this ecstatic level of screenwriting and sublime direction.
However, it is pure film craft that propels this film into the heights of cinema greatness (and in my opinion it is up there!) From the outset, the cinematography is perfection; I imagine it would be hard to find a single frame that is not a magnificent composition in its own right - everything seems precise and charged with significance without seeming deliberate or distracting in its construction. Sometimes, to me nothing looks right in a movie - but every single shot of this film is a wonder.
The score is stunning, and the audio mix is perhaps the best I've ever heard - silence, through glorious music, to lush, immersive sounds of nature. The combination of these moments with the stunning visuals and urgent performances is irresistibly evocative. I had an urge to immediayely stick my head out of the window and breathe in the outside world as Emily and, later, Charlotte do in the film), and would have, had the movie not been so enthralling. I didn't want to miss a second.
I think perhaps it is the editing that really elevates this film into the heavens - you'll understand when you watch it. The editing quickly becomes a dynamic and narrative tool that accompanies and compliments all of the other brilliant elements of the film. Unexpected and intriguing choices in the edit lifts the pace to that of a page-turner, and enhances the high emotional peaks of this brilliant film. With expert imperceptibly, the editing in Emily is at once avant-garde, and in line with the best of contemporary popular cinema.
I can't say enough good things about Emily, and that is a complete but welcome surprise to me. If this isn't typically your kind of movie, watch it as a benchmark of how good this kind of movie can possibly be. And if the name Brontë immediately turns you off - prepare to have your mind changed. Not many films, I can honestly say, have done that for me!
Brava Frances O'Connor! I can't wait to see what you direct next.
Brazil (1985)
Benchmark Absurdism
In my view, Gilliam's first masterpiece was the blueprint for absurdist, surreal and fantasy for decades to follow. Without Brazil, no Jean Pierre Jeunet, Michel Gondry and maybe even Tim Burton. A truly unique film that is one of his most well balanced, with themes of paranoia and conformity balanced with (un-pythonesque) comedy. Visually stunning and totally original. Love it.
Arrival (2016)
This soup needs more salt, and more soup. Contains spoilers!
Despite the almost universal appreciation of Arrival as a smart and thought-provoking sci-fi film, actual scientists and hardcore nerds will find it clumsy and lightweight. The plot seems deliberately unscientific, from the non-taxonomic name given by scientists to the aliens, to the lack of biologists in any of the assigned teams (!!!), it becomes clear that the writers put science to one side, and concentrated on the fiction, rehashing first-contact plots from great films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Signs, The Abyss and Contact (they are all shamelessly plundered in Arrival!)
Adams' turn as linguist Dr. Banks is up to her typically high standard, but against the improbable and sanguine plot, her character flounders. The concept that she alone, among hundreds of scientists, could initiate communication just by her skills as a linguist is farcical. All other scientists are portrayed as clueless, terrified idiots. Renner, as a theoretical scientist of an undisclosed and apparently useless field provides some much needed mirth, but his character contributes nothing to the plot save some future DNA.
But Arrival really falls apart for sci-fi fans as soon as it is revealed that the aliens experience non-linear time, and pass the technique of doing so on to Dr. Banks. At this juncture an inquiring mind should consider the magnitude of the concept of a creature that can exist in non-linear time - they are essentially omniscient and immortal, being able to access any point in their lifetime at will. They can also change their past and future, essentially being able to create parallel universes at will. Banks proves that this is the case by accessing information from General Chang's wife, suggesting that Banks can access her past and change it (she previously did not have the info on Chang's wife's dying words, at least not in the linear time-going-forward presentation of the movie). With the power of time travel and multiverse-hopping at her fingertips, surely Banks would teach the technique to her future daughter, allowing her to never have to access the part of their lives where she dies of cancer and Banks' life falls apart. Why would Banks persist in re-living her tragic future instead of changing her past and living a parallel life in a parallel universe? Sentimentality over her daughter would likely become less significant once Banks had simultaneously lived a billion different lives with a billion different daughters in parallel universes. Perhaps that dehumanization would have been a good subject to focus on - we might see Banks allowed to change her tragic future, but deciding to keep it. But that didn't happen in this film.
Banks would also have had these abilities for her whole life, not just from the moment (in linear time) that the aliens arrive. Thus she would have been aware of their language and writing without all that torturous study and work. The aliens, whatever their agenda in visiting Earth in the 21st Century, would also have known that Banks would be their contact, so why send eleven other ships across the globe, terrifying the planet and risking war? And why did it take so long for them to start 'writing' and communicating with the US team? The potential sci-fi generated from the concept of non-linear time is genuinely mind-blowing, and is not even touched-on in Arrival. The movie relies on the emotional subplot of Banks' 'future' memories and undisclosed 'future' relationship with Donnelly (Renner) - but the alien visit and subsequent time-skipping-ability don't provide a very interesting counterpoint to this.
Essentially this is a story about a woman dealing with the tragic death of her daughter... oh yeah, then some aliens help her to save the world from the Chinese. Look back to the movie 'Signs' - similar concept, a family struggling to come to terms with the death of the mother amid an alien invasion. In Signs, the invasion scenario drives the plot forward, allowing the characters to develop and an interesting story arc to grow. In Arrival the contact scenario nearly starts and then stops a war, but has little impact on the characters other than the omniscience thing, which is rather wasted on visual rhymes and whimsical sentimentality. Arrival is vapid sci-fi, and there's a place for that in cinema, but when the plot (and marketing) of a film hangs on the science of linguistics, concepts of time and existence and is delivered with full-force tepid brown- graded realism - that science better be excellent. In my view, the Jurassic Park homage during the helicopter scene was a disservice to a film with a superior vapid sci-fi concept.