Wednesday, 31 December 2014
Despite being a big fan of Jim Carrey I didn't intend to see this film in the cinema. I vaguely remember seeing the first Dumb and Dumber film many years ago and not liking it. I wrote it down to Jim being at the beginning of his career and not having developed his style. However, my good friend Elisha persuaded me to see the film with her, for which I have to thank her. The sequel, though not up to the quality of most of his other films, is very watchable.
Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carrey) had a mental breakdown after the events of the first film and has spent the last 20 years in a mental institution. His best friend Harry Dunne has been visiting him every Wednesday. Suddenly Lloyd reveals that he's only been pretending to be mad as a prank. Awesome! After Lloyd's discharge the two visit Harry's old home, where they find out that Harry had a daughter 20 years ago who has been given up for adoption. They decide to search for her, not because Harry loves her but because he needs a kidney transplant and he thinks she would be the ideal donor.
I won't write any more about the film because it's still running in the cinemas in England. Just one small thing: don't leave the cinema too soon, there's an after-credits scene.
It was interesting to see popcorn being unloaded before I went in to see the film. They sure eat a lot of it at Cineworld. And the man told me that it was only one of four pallets that had just been delivered. I hate popcorn. It isn't the taste, it's the smell. I find it so sickly. The fresher popcorn is the worse it smells. When I worked at IBM in Poughkeepsie there were microwave machines in the corridors to heat popcorn, and the smell filled the building. It was awful.
This is Elisha. Is she wild? I'm not telling.
Here is Elisha scavenging cardboard from the streets. It's all for a good cause. She needs it to pack the items she sells on Ebay.
Monday, 29 December 2014
2014 has marked the return of the Biblical epics to Hollywood. First "Noah", now "Exodus". The screenwriters had the opposite problem in the new film. The problem with the story of Noah is that very little is said about it in the Bible, only four chapters of Genesis for a momentous occurrence that destroyed the world. The problem with the story of Moses is that a lot is written about him, four whole books of the Bible. This meant that the film about Noah was puffed out by adding new elements, which (in my opinion) totally destroyed the story. The film about Moses has to rush through the events, shortening some and omitting others, even though it concentrates on the first half of the Biblical book of Exodus. 150 minutes is too short to tell the full story.
Let me point out a few of the major changes in the story and give my opinion on whether they are justified.
1. God is portrayed as a young boy who only Moses can see.
While it's not what we read in the Bible, it's an interesting way to portray the unportrayable. In the book of Exodus God is described as being so terrible in appearance that anyone who sees his face will die. As God speaks to Moses on the mountain when Moses asks to see God, "You cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live. There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back, but my face must not be seen". (Exodus 33:20-23).
Showing God as a child is, in my opinion, an acceptable compromise. The alternative would have been a dazzling white light and a booming voice, which would have looked comical rather than awe-inspiring.
2. Aaron plays an insignificant role in the film.
In the Bible God speaks to Moses, but Aaron speaks to the Pharaoh on Moses' behalf. The two brothers go to Pharaoh together to plead for the Israelites to be freed. This is because Moses claims to stutter. Moses said to God, "Since I speak with faltering lips, why would Pharaoh listen to me?" To this God replies, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country". (Exodus 6:30-7:2).
This is a deliberate simplification of the story, a conscious decision made in order to let the film be about the man Moses. Giving his brother a bigger role would have detracted from the character development.
3. Moses leaves his family behind in the film.
The Bible is very clear that Moses returned to Egypt with his family. "Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt". (Exodus 4:20). Yes, there were two sons, Gershom and Eliezer, not one as in the film.
I'm not sure why this was changed. Maybe it is because very little is written about Moses' wife Zipporah in the Bible, and having her shown at Moses' side would have made it necessary to develop her character.
4. Only 400,000 Israelites left Egypt in the film.
The actual number, though not explicitly stated, was much higher. The people were counted in the desert, and according to Numbers 1:46, there were 603,500 men over the age of 20 who were able to serve in the army. This number does not include the women, children or old men. Based on this we can estimate that the full population was at least two million, maybe as many as four million.
There was no need for the film to minimise the population in this way. Telling us the full numbers, even if it had been as vague as to say "millions", would have made the exodus all the more overwhelming. This would have made the crossing of the Red Sea all the more impressive. How much time would it take for two million people to cross the sea?
5. The miracle of the parting of the Red Sea is minimised.
In the film the water level goes down overnight, so that the Israelites can wade through the low water on the next day. The Bible describes this much more spectacularly. "Moses stretched his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left". (Exodus 14:21).
The film has the strange episode of Moses running back into the sea to save Pharaoh when the water comes back. The waves wash Moses back onto the shore, while Pharaoh gets back to safety on the opposite shore. This scene is intended to show the poignancy of the relationship between Moses and Ramses, two men who had grown up as brothers. It's a cute story, but inaccurate. The Pharaoh died along with all his army, and Moses would never have risked his life to save him.
Apart from these major changes, there are other subtle changes that are suggested without being explicitly stated. Moses seems relatively young at the time of the exodus, but he was actually much older. "Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh". (Exodus 7:7).
There is also the aspect in the Bible that God was influencing the Pharaoh to make him Moses' enemy. We read several times that God himself hardened Pharaoh's heart to make him oppose Moses, for instance, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will not listen to you". (Exodus 7:3-4). These verses cause problems for Biblical scholars, but the best explanation I can offer is that Pharaoh had already been an evil man all his life -- he was probably in his 70's at this time -- and God's patience with him had run out. It's common for Christians to say that it's never too late to turn from evil, but these chapters of the Bible say the opposite. Pharaoh had probably had repeated chances to act well towards the Israelites all his life, but at this time God said "No more", and brought the ten plagues as a judgement over Pharaoh and all of Egypt. I think all ten plagues were shown, although they happened very quickly in the film, running swiftly into one another.
Moses frequently pleads with God during the film, asking him to show mercy. This is an accurate portrayal of Moses' personality. During the time in the desert God repeatedly said he would destroy the Israelites because of their unbelief, but Moses pleaded with God to change his mind. Moses was a man who stood up to God, not just accepting everything he was told.
The Passover feast is totally ignored in the film. That's a shame. This is the thing that I most missed. Maybe it was a matter of pacing. It might have been difficult to make a pause between the first nine plagues and the tenth plague for Moses to make long explanations to the Israelites how they should spend the night when their houses would be passed over. Maybe Ridley Scott, as the film's director, was afraid that any discrepancies would have been savagely attacked by Jewish reviewers, because the Passover Feast is the most important celebration of the Jewish year.
The presentation of the so-called "Ten Commandments" is rushed in the film. This could have been left out completely. The tablets were actually written twice. The first tablets were created by God, (Exodus 31:18), but after Moses destroyed them in a rage he had to make the replacement tablets himself. (Exodus 34:1). The film shows Moses writing the words, but this is wrong, because God wrote the words on both sets of tablets. It would have been better to omit this altogether. The final scene shows Moses being carried in a cart (the ark of the covenant) with the stone tablets. This is also wrong. It was God himself who was carried in the cart. But that's going too deep into Biblical exposition.
At least the film didn't show Moses arriving in Israel. That was the one thing I feared would be shown wrong, but the film ends on the journey. Moses was punished for his anger in the desert. "Because you did not trust in me enough to honour me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them". (Numbers 3:12). In fact, of all the men who left Egypt, only two entered Israel, Joshua and Caleb. All the rest died during the 40-year journey through the desert. Only their children, the ones born on the journey, and the ones who had been under 20 arrived at their destination. (Joshua 5:4).
Overall, the film makes a good impression. The inaccuracies can be overlooked. I can recommend it to my readers, whatever they think of the Bible.
Wednesday, 24 December 2014
Sometimes it's difficult for a review to do a film justice. What I mean is, there are some films where you describe the plot and other people just yawn and say "That's not my sort of film", but if they saw the film for themselves they would be amazed. This is one of them. In my review four years ago I summed up the film:
This is the true story of the New Zealander motorcyclist Burt Munro and his first trip to the United States in 1962 to attempt to set a new land speed record.
That's it. That's all the film is about. Does it sound boring already?
After writing my review in 2010 one of my readers (also a personal friend) decided to check out the film. The next time I saw her she said, "Wow, Mike, that's my new favourite film". How can such a boring sounding film touch someone like this? While re-watching "The World's Fastest Indian" today that's the question I was asking myself. It's difficult to give an answer. The film is just perfect in so many different ways. I can name a few things about it that I like, but the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
- It's a perfect portrayal of life in 1960's New Zealand.
- It's a cute tale about an eccentric old man.
- It's a road movie through breath-taking scenery.
- It's a film about the culture clash of a man entering a new world.
- It's a collage of strange looking people in America.
But more than anything else, it's a story about the triumph of determination over adversities. Everyone told Burt that he would never succeed in his dreams. Everyone thought he was an idealistic old fool. But he didn't listen to them. At 63, an age when most men are content to sit in a rocking chair watching the world go by, he was determined to be the world's fastest man on a motorbike. Crazy. But he had a dream and he refused to back down.
When watching the film today I felt like scrapping all my lists and calling this the best film ever made. That's the immediate impression it makes on anyone watching it. That's the impression it will make on you if you decide to watch it after reading my review. Take my word for it.
This is the third film in the "Night at the Museum" series, and probably the concluding part of a trilogy. Only time will tell if there will be a fourth part, but somehow I doubt it. This film revisits and expands on the premise of the series, that museum statues are brought to life every night by a magical Egyptian artefact, the Golden Tablet of Akhmenrah. In this film the tablet begins to decay, causing the museum characters to sporadically return to inanimate forms during the night. The only person who knows how to solve the problem is the Pharaoh Akhmenrah himself, of whom a statue is currently on display in the British Museum of Natural History. Night guard Larry Daley, once more played by Ben Stiller, takes the tablet to London to re-animate Akhmenrah and ask him for help.
I have mixed feelings about the films in this series. The first two films are definitely not masterpieces, whatever that word means, but they're zany comedy romps that are worth watching at least once. The third film is no different. It made me laugh, but it's not a film I'm likely to add to my DVD collection
The film has sentimental value to me as the last film starring Robin Williams before his death by suicide in August this year. It was moving to see him on screen, and I regret that he didn't have a bigger role. Rest in peace.
Monday, 22 December 2014
This film is based on true events that occurred in Eckartshausen, a small village near Schwäbisch Hall in the south of Germany, from April 2nd to April 6th 1945. In the film the village is called Nesselbühl, and the supporting characters are fictitious, but the major events are accurately portrayed.
It's April 1945 in a sleepy little village in Swabia. The American army is close by, and the villagers are already making preparations for the arrival of the troops. When the radio broadcasts propaganda about Germany's Endsieg (final victory) they just laugh. 20-year-old Anna works in her father's tavern, pouring wine and schnapps for the guests, most of whom are German soldiers. Some of them have been discharged with injuries, some are on leave, some are deserters. When the SS come to inspect the tavern the deserters hide. The SS officers are northerners, unwelcome in Swabia for their accents alone.
During the night of April 2nd a damaged transport train arrives in the station. It can only continue on its way if the back three wagons are unhooked. The SS say the wagons will be picked up by another locomotive the next day, and they leave three soldiers to guard the wagons. But the locomotive doesn't come, because the American army has taken control of the surrounding stations. The villagers are disturbed by the sounds of screaming coming from the wagons, day and night. The children stand amazed, staring at the faces at the windows. The locals, who know nothing about concentration camps, don't even know that the prisoners are Jews and assume that they must be criminals. Nevertheless, they're shocked by the conditions, almost 100 people in each wagon with not even enough room to lie down. Out of sympathy Anna calls on the local women to bring bread and wine to feed the prisoners, but the wagon doors are only opened for ten minutes, and they don't have time for the third wagon.
Then, on the third day, the soldiers guarding the wagons desert. It's the village's problem now. What should they do? Is it safe to free the survivors, because, after all, they might be dangerous criminals? The wagons can't stay where they are, because the stink is terrible, the odour of urine, faeces and dead bodies. The shocking decision that they make exemplifies the moral quagmire of Germany during the Nazi years.
In the West the Germans were mocked when they said that they didn't know what had happened to the Jews. That's short-sighted. Very few Germans knew about the concentration camps. It was a strict secret known only to those who were involved. The camps were officially called Arbeitslager (work camps), and over the camp doors there was the slogan "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free"). The German people, on the whole, didn't know the Jews were being slaughtered. They knew they were disappearing, but they assumed that they were either emigrating or being sent to the semi-benign work camps. In the film Anna is shocked by the mistreatment of the prisoners and says, "It's inhuman how the soldiers are treating them. We should let the Führer know, so that he can stop them".
Saying this doesn't excuse the average German, though. We see this in the film, when the villagers have to deal with the Jews themselves.
The film was made for television in 1995 and broadcast on the 50th anniversary of the events, but it received such critical acclaim that it was released in the cinemas a few months later. There have been so many films made over the years about the mistreatment of Jews in Germany, but this film has something new to say. I'm surprised that it has only recently been released on DVD, 20 years after it was made. For now it's only available in German, but I sincerely hope that it will be released with English subtitles.
Saturday, 20 December 2014
This is my first post for 10 days. It's rare that I don't watch a film for so long. I've been catching up on watching my favourite television series, in particular "Batman" and "Arrow". I don't have television reception at home, so I rely on catchup services like BBC's Iplayer and the equivalent services of the other main television channels. Or, of course, I watch TV series on Blu-ray or DVD.
"Merantau" has been on my list of films to watch for more than six months. I was highly impressed by "The Raid" and its sequel, both directed by Gareth Evans and starring Iko Uwais, so I wanted to see their first collaboration. In it Iko plays an 18-year-old boy called Yuda from the Indonesian countryside. There is an Indonesian tradition that on reaching manhood the young man leaves his family for an unspecified period of time to gain experience on fending for himself in the world, before returning to his family to settle down in his own village. This tradition is called Merantau. Unlike the Australian aborigine walkabout tradition, it's not necessary to live alone. Yuda goes to live in the Indonesian capital Jakarta with vague plans to become a teacher of Silat, the fighting style that he studied as a teenager.
When he arrives Yuda is homeless and has to live on a building site. He spends his days wandering the streets. He befriends a beggar boy called Adit, and when he sees Adit's older sister Astri being abused by her boss, the owner of a strip club, he steps in and defends her. Yuda feels responsible for the pair and watches over them. Astri's boss decides to sell her to be sent to the West with other girls to work as a prostitute. This leads to spectacular martial arts action, as Yuda takes down the people trafficking gang.
Unlike "The Raid", this is a more realistic film. The action is more realistic, less over-the-top. There is a subdued level of spirituality that's missing from his later films. Iko plays a naive young man, not the hardened cop that we know from the other films.
In England "Merantau" has only been released on DVD, but I prefer Blu-ray if available. Unfortunately the American Blu-ray release is locked to region A, which my Blu-ray player can't handle, so I bought the German Blu-ray release. The film has the original Indonesian dialog with subtitles, but I made the conscious decision to watch it dubbed into German. I defend this choice, even though many serious film fans are opposed to dubbing. German dubbing can't be compared with the dubbing of foreign films carried out in England and America. In Germany the majority of films shown in the cinemas come from other countries are in foreign (i.e. non-German) languages, so a large dubbing industry has developed. The dubbing is done very professionally and has a much higher quality than the Anglo-American dubbing. The dubbers are often successful stage actors with excellent voices and the ability to express emotions. It's usual for each famous actor to be assigned an official dubber, so it's guaranteed that throughout his career he will have the same voice in German films. In some cases the same person speaks the voices of different actors, as in the case of Arne Elsholtz, who has been the voice of both Bill Murray and Tom Hanks for the last 30 years.
The whole point of dubbing isn't to present a film for scientific study, but to make a foreign film entertaining. I'm sure that in German film schools only the original dialogue is studied. But when it comes to popular recent films like "Gravity" and "The Avengers", it's all about entertaining the cinema audiences, reducing any distractions caused by making them look down at the text during the film action.
To sum up, I greatly enjoyed watching "Merantau" in German. My enjoyment would have been lessened by using the original dialogue with subtitles.
Thursday, 11 December 2014
I went to see this film in the cinema today with mixed expectations. It's yet another film about the life of the Chinese hero Ip Man. Haven't we had enough of them in recent years, especially the films made starring Donnie Yen? Is there anything left to say? And Tony Leung is definitely not of the same calibre as Donnie Yen when it comes to fighting skills. On the other hand, this film stars Zhang Ziyi, one of my favourite actresses, and any film she appears in has to be good.
From the very first minutes the cinematography was overwhelming. The film opened with a typical Chinese one-against-ten (or hundred, or thousand) fight, in which Ip Man had no difficulty disposing of his multiple opponents. Unusually for Chinese martial films, the camera showed mostly close-up shots, making it difficult to recognise the fighting moves. While intended to give the fight a unique style, it also covered up any deficiencies Tony Leung has as a fighter.
First a brief summary of the plot. The film begins in 1936 and continues to 1952, with frequent flashbacks. Gong Yutian is a kung fu master from north China who first became famous for unifying different northern fighting styles, then moved to open a school in Foshan, in south China. After 25 years he intends to retire and move back to north China with his family, handing over his school and teaching legacy to his disciple Ma San, even though he says that his daughter Gong Er (Zhang Ziyi) is more skilled. But as everyone knows, it would be scandalous for a woman to be a master. That's not right!
Before retiring, Gong Yutian wants to have a final fight with a southern master. The other masters insist on Ip Man representing them, even though he technically isn't a master because he doesn't teach kung fu. He defeats Gong Yutian in a heavily stylised fight which is more of a dance and exchange of philosophical ideas than actual combat. That ought to be the end of the matter, but Gong Er challenges Ip Man to avenge her father's honour. She defeats Ip, the first battle he has ever lost, but while fighting they fall in love. They agree to have a rematch, but due to the Japanese invasion it never takes place, and they don't meet again until 1951 in Hong Kong.
Many other things happen in the film, but I won't write about them here. Now my thoughts about the film. I greatly enjoyed it, because of its style and atmosphere rather than the fights themselves, but it does have problems. It seems that the director, Wong Kar-wai, who also wrote the screenplay, didn't know what he wanted to do with the film. Was it a biopic about the life of Ip Man? Was it a martial arts epic? Or was it a love story? It ended up as a mixture of all three, although the love story remained in the foreground. Long portions of the film were only about Gong Er and what she did during her separation from Ip Man. The biographical elements of Ip's life were relegated to texts that appeared on screen during the film. Maybe this is due to the long production time? Wong Kar-wai needed almost ten years to make the film. He actually began to make it before the other Ip Man films. He failed to receive financial backing from Chinese studios, so he had to turn to American investors. They probably demanded changes to make it a film more suitable to American audiences. The end result is a film full of beautiful set pieces, but with jerky pacing like it's three films glued together.
Here's a photo of Zhang Ziyi looking more modern. Isn't she beautiful? I've been told by my Chinese friends that this is the correct way to write her name, even though she's usually called Ziyi Zhang, even in the film credits of "Grandmaster".
Sigh..... she's so beautiful and so talented.
You can click on the pictures for other (larger) photos.
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
I decided to rewatch "Ip Man" today because I intend to see "Grandmaster" in the cinema tomorrow, also a film about Ip Man's life. The last time I reviewed it three years ago I was lazy, merely quoting what another reviewer had said. Let's give my own thoughts this time.
The film begins in 1935 in the city of Foshan (called Fo Shan in the film's English subtitles), a place well known for having many martial arts schools teaching different styles. Donnie Yen portrays Ip Man as a polite man of wealth who is revered for his fighting skills, even though he modestly attempts to keep them hidden. When the masters of other kung fu schools come to spar with him he does it in the privacy of his home, without spectators, in order to avoid embarrassing them. Nevertheless, his wife still thinks he spends too much time fighting and talking about fighting. Ip doesn't work, he doesn't need to.
Ip is drawn out of seclusion when Jin Shanzhao, a rude man from the north, comes to prove that southern Chinese martial arts are inferior by beating up all the city's masters. Ip restores the southern honour by decisively defeating Jin and making him leave the city. Young people flock to Ip, asking him to be their master, but he refuses.
The second half of the film takes place in 1937 after the Japanese army has invaded Foshan. (I believe this is an error, since I have read that Japan didn't conquer Foshan until November 1938). Ip Man's villa has been confiscated to be used by the Japanese high command, and he now lives with his family in poverty. Ip gets a job as a coal miner. The city's commander, General Miura, is a fan of fighting, as well as being a karate black belt himself. Every day he invites Chinese workers to fight in his dojo, promising a bag of rice to anyone who can defeat a Japanese fighter. The general himself is fair and sends victorious Chinese fighters home with their rewards, but his deputy Commander Sato is cruel and sometimes shoots the Chinese. Ip takes revenge by challenging the general himself.
While this film has strong elements of Chinese anti-Japanese nationalism, General Miura isn't shown to be completely bad. In black and white terms, think of him as dark grey. He considers it wrong for victorious Chinese fighters to be shot in his dojo, but he doesn't punish the man who does it, he just shouts at him and says, "Don't do it again". Obviously his opinion is that a bad Japanese man is worth more than a good Chinese man.
This is a spectacular film, establishing Donnie Yen as a master of martial arts. Let's wait till tomorrow and see if "Grandmaster" has more to offer.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Saturday, 6 December 2014
This was the second film that I watched in my Chinese film evening last night. It takes place in 1937, 12 years after "Legend of the Fist", and the situation in China has greatly deteriorated. It's a sadly underrated classic. It was only shown in a small number of cinemas in the UK and America, despite starring Christian Bale, who was one of Hollywood's biggest stars at the time after appearing in "The Dark Knight". I'm not sure what the problem was. Maybe the Anglo-American film studios didn't know what to make of it. It doesn't fit the pattern of the usual Chinese films shown in the West, i.e. martial arts epics. It's a dirty, gritty war film, which doesn't pull any punches in showing the horrors of war.
Maybe another problem is the Japanese lobby in the West. In the film the Japanese are portrayed as absolute monsters with no redeeming qualities. This was the reality of the 1937 "Rape of Nanking", as it is known today, but it's not something people like to talk about. After all, Japan is now a democratic ally of the West, whereas China is a single-party socialist state with a history of human rights violations. (The Chinese government doesn't like to be called Communist, but that's what it really is).
The film has also been criticised for focusing on the plight of the schoolgirls in the convent, rather than the war itself. This is deliberate, and for me it's what gives the film its character. It's a story of redemption and salvation. It's often said that war brings out the worst in people, but this film shows that it can also bring out the best. A godless undertaker can rise to selfless deeds of heroism. Vain prostitutes can give their lives to save others. The film is deeply moving, and several of us had moist eyes when the final credits rolled.
Yesterday evening I hosted a film meeting in my home, to watch two Chinese films back to back. The film group has had home film meetings like this before, but this was the first one that took place in my house. The first of many, I hope. It's good to watch films in the cinema, but it's also good to watch them with friends at home. I already have some ideas for other theme nights, always two films at a time.
The theme for last night was two Chinese films set in modern times, i.e. they both take place in the 20th Century. They're both films that I watched last month. That's no coincidence. I was already planning the film night, and I wanted to watch the films again to see if they were suitable.
"Legend of the Fist" is a masterpiece. It gets better every time I watch it. Chen Zhen, already known as the character played by Bruce Lee in "Fist of Fury", is now a superhero with a secret identity, living in Shanghai in 1925. Actually he has two secret identities. During the daytime he poses as Qi Tianyuan, his friend who died in 1917 in France. At night he goes onto the streets as the Masked Avenger, opposing the Japanese tyrants who are in control of Shanghai.
It would have been good to see the Masked Avenger have spectacular successes, but that wasn't possible. The only director who rewrites history is Quentin Tarantino. Even though Chen Zhen is a fictional character, the events surrounding the story are true. Japan had been occupying parts of China since 1895, and the 1920's were the time when they were slowly increasing their control of China. The Masked Avenger wasn't able to drive the Japanese army out of Shanghai, however much we would like to have seen him do it.
The martial arts sequences are stunning. Donnie Yen is a true action hero, probably more spectacular than Jet Li. In a comic book forum I posted a suggestion for Donnie Yen to be cast as Wong in the upcoming Doctor Strange film. In the comics Wong is a background character, but a major action star like Donnie Yen could upgrade him for the 21st Century.
|Film fans Zoe, Annie and Kit... with Buster.|
Thursday, 4 December 2014
This is a live action film based on the stories of Paddington Bear, who first appeared in a children's novel by Michael Bond in 1958. There have been three television series featuring Paddington, in 1975, 1989 and 2008, but this is his first appearance on the big screen. It's fortunate that we've waited so long, because the state of computer animation is finally good enough for a miniature bear to look realistic.
The film begins with Montgomery Clyde, an English explorer, visiting the "darkest jungles of Peru". He discovers intelligent bears, that he teaches how to speak English. He also teaches them English culture, including the love of marmalade.
50 years later a young bear decides to travel to England to see the wonderful country that his aunt and uncle have talked about. He arrives at Paddington Train Station and meets the Brown family. The Browns can't pronounce his name, so they call him Paddington. Things aren't as perfect in England as expected. Paddington is hunted by Millicent, an evil taxidermist who wants to stuff him. That's such a strange concept for an arch-enemy that I'd be tempted to ridicule it, except that Millicent is played by Nicole Kidman, who looks bizarrely sexy in her blond wig.
I was rather surprised to see Peter Capaldi. I hadn't heard he was in the film, and I almost jumped out of my chair when he first appeared on screen in a phone box. That was a nice touch.
As a children's film, I couldn't really relate to it. But take your kids to the cinema with you, I'm sure they'll enjoy it.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
This film, directed by Roman Polanski, is one of my favourite films. When I saw it in the cinema in 2000 it wasn't the first film that I had seen starring Johnny Depp, but it was the film that made me appreciate him. It immediately made Johnny Depp my favourite actor. Unfortunately, I no longer have this opinion. He's done too many long-haired comedy roles for me to take him seriously as an actor any more, sometimes as pirates, sometimes as native Americans. Even his recent serious roles, such as in "Transcendence", aren't as good as in his older films.
Dean Corso (Johnny Depp) is an unscrupulous New York book trader who is hired to check the authenticity of a rare book, "The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows", written by Aristide Torchia in 1666. It is supposedly a book that contains information on how to summon the Devil in person. Only three copies are still in existence. The wealthy collector Boris Balkan gives Dean one of the copies and hires him to travel to France and Portugal to compare it with the other two copies. As Dean investigates he finds out that each of the three copies has variations in the engravings. There are genuine versions, signed LCF, and altered versions signed AT.
Even though I've watched the film many times already, there were certain things that I've never understood until now. Today I didn't just watch the film. I listened to Roman Polanski's commentary for the the first time, and after that I read several interpretations of the film that I found online. Overall, Polanski's commentary wasn't very helpful in understanding the film. Mostly he gave anecdotes about the way he made the film. For instance, he said that whenever there's a close-up of Dean Corso's hands he didn't use Johnny Depp's hands, he used a stand-in. Unfortunately he failed to say why. Are Johnny's hands so ugly?
One of the things that I never understood about the film is the identity of the unnamed mystery woman who follows Dean wherever he goes. We first see her when Boris Balkan is holding a lecture, in which he says, "A witch is a person who, though cognisant of the laws of God, endeavours to act through the medium of a pact with the Devil". The camera focuses on her while these words are spoken, suggesting that she is a witch, but as the film progresses it becomes obvious that this isn't the case. Later in the film she teases Dean when he tries to find out who she is. When he asks if she's a student she first says Yes, but then later says that she's only a "sort of" student. Later still, after she saves his life he calls her his guardian angel, which amuses her, but she agrees.
Obviously Roman Polanski knew that this might not be obvious to the viewers, so this provokes him to make his most direct statements about the film's meaning:
"For those who don't get it, I would like to say a few words about the character of the girl in the film, who clearly represents the Devil. Even if it's not the Devil himself, she's at least his messenger, but she can be interpreted as the Devil, who takes an appearance more suitable for the work he has to do".This ended my thoughts on the subject, until I read an online review of the film. (I read several reviews, but this one is the best). "The Ninth Gate" is based on a novel called "The Club Dumas" by Arturo Perez-Reverte. Polanski says of the book that it's too complicated, with interlocking plots, so the screenplay greatly simplifies it. That's acceptable. However, the reviewer has also read the book, and he tells us that in the novel the girl is very clear about who she is. She tells Dean that she was one of the angels who took Lucifer's side when he rebelled against God, but she now stands alone. This actually makes more sense, even in the film itself. She's a free agent who is sympathetic towards the Devil, but is prepared to make her own choices.
The other thing that I didn't understand was the film's ending. I thought it was leaving things open, not telling us how Dean's quest would end. The very opposite is the case. The final scene is Dean's enlightenment. I mean "enlightenment" in a literal way. Lucifer is presented as the light carrier, and in the final scene the ninth gate opens so that Dean can walk into the light.
I don't want to discuss the whole plot of the film, and I certainly don't want to repeat everything I read in Michael Howard's review, which I mentioned above. Let me just say a few things.
Summoning the Devil sounds like a person wants to follow a path of evil. That isn't the way the Devil is presented in the film. The Devil is Lucifer, the light carrier, who wants to give people the knowledge that God is denying them. In the film the reason for Boris Balkan's downfall is that he searches for power, not knowledge.
In Genesis 2:16 God tells Adam and Eve, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die".
The Devil, in the form of a serpent, contradicts this in Genesis 3:4, "You will not certainly die. For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil".
This was the first time that newly created man had to make a choice. God said one thing, the serpent said another. Who should he believe? He chose to believe the serpent. But who was telling the truth, God or the serpent? First of all, we have only one side of the story in front of us. The Bible is God's Book, i.e. it tells us what God wants us to know. If the Devil had written a book we could put the stories side by side and make a more objective judgement. But since I only have one book in front of me I'll base my judgement on that.
Let's analyse the serpent's words. He said that Adam and Eve would not die after eating the fruit. This was incorrect. Adam died 930 years later. Was the serpent lying? Maybe, maybe not. It could just be that the serpent didn't know that eating the fruit would lead to death. After all, it was God who created man, not the serpent.
Going on to what he said next, the serpent was correct. Adam and Eve's eyes were really opened after eating the fruit. They knew the difference between good and evil, like God, and the first thing that their newborn conscience told them was that nudity was wrong. They quickly covered themselves with fig leaves, but even that wasn't enough. When they saw God walking in the garden they still felt naked and hid from him. It's rather puzzling to me why nudity should be described as evil, but let's take the story at face value. The serpent said that eating the fruit would open man's eyes, and he was right.
There's still something wrong with the story though. If you ask a typical semi-religious person today what God wants from us he would say something like, "God tells us what's right and wrong and wants us to do what's good". But that's not the lesson of Genesis 2 and 3. The serpent wanted man to know what is good and evil. God wanted man to be innocent and do whatever he wanted, not asking questions of morality. God wanted man to be naked, the serpent wanted man to see that nudity is wrong. But God accepts man's new knowledge. God gave Adam and Eve clothing made of skin, which probably meant killing an animal to provide for them. He also barred access to the tree of life. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22). This tree had been previously allowed. Man's biggest mistake in the Garden of Eden wasn't eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it was that he didn't eat the fruit of the tree of life first.
The story told in Genesis 2 and 3 shows that the Devil wanted to enlighten man, whereas God wanted man to remain ignorant. If that is still the case today it's understandable that enlightened man doesn't want to follow God.
Of course, the Devil is accused of lying throughout the rest of the Bible. For instance, in John 8:44 Jesus says of the Devil, "There is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies". Nevertheless, some might choose to follow the Devil, despite being cognisant of the laws of God. That's something that we can decide with our own free will. But one thing is for certain: if you choose to follow the Devil it can result in negative consequences, because God is the stronger of the two.
Here are the engravings of the nine gates placed in their correct order (1-4-3-6-7-5-8-2-9). For these pictures I had to rely on images I found published on the Internet. Not all of the images below are the genuine LCF versions; some are the altered AT versions. If you look at the pictures carefully you can find the signatures to tell them apart.
In picture 3 there should be an arrow pointing upwards in the quiver.
In picture 6 the man should be hanging from the other leg.
In picture 8 the man with the club should have a halo.
The genuine version of picture 9 is shown in the screenshot at the beginning of this post.
4. by a long and circuitous route,
3. to brave the arrows of misfortune,
6. to fear neither noose nor fire,
7. to play the greatest of all games
5. and win, forgoing no expense
8. is to walk the vicissitudes of fate
2. and gain at last the key
9. that will unlock the ninth gate.
This is what I didn't properly understand while watching the film in the past. The nine gates are steps that have to be followed to reach the goal, full enlightenment. Boris Balkan tried and failed, due to the ninth engraving being a forgery. Dean Corso succeeded, with the help of the green-eyed girl.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
When a good man loves a woman he wants to serve her. When a bad man loves a woman he wants to possess her.
After the big success of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" at the 2001 Academy Awards, unprecedented for a foreign language film, the moneymakers in the back rooms were anxious to cash in on the Chinese film trend. They needed to find the next big thing. It took them a while, but finally they stumbled on the director Zhang Yimou. It must have been difficult for those guys, because they're not real film fans. They just sit and look at spreadsheets of box office takings, and when a number stands out they jump up and shout, "I've found a good film".
"House of Flying Daggers" was the first film directed by Zhang Yimou that I saw. Despite being made two years later than "Hero", it was shown before "Hero" at my local cinema. I went to see it at the Odeon on New Street with my two daughters. As I remember, they were overwhelmed and didn't know what to make of it. It was too different to anything they had seen before. I personally knew what to expect, and I was blown away. It's a stunning tragedy of epic proportions, with dazzling imagery underlining every nuance and every plot twist.
The film takes place in 859 AD. The Chinese Tang Dynasty is struggling to hold onto power, and a particular annoyance is a rebel group called the Flying Daggers. Leo and Jin, two local police captains, are given the job of finding and capturing the Flying Daggers' new leader. Mei, a blind girl who works in a nearby brothel, is suspected of being the daughter of the the old leader. To gain her confidence Leo first arrests her, then Jin frees her from prison. Jin pretends to be in love with Mei, and together they Mei ride north to meet the Flying Daggers.
That alone would make a good plot, but there are multiple layers of lies and deceptions which we learn during the film. As I already stated above, the film is a tragedy, and in tragedies the good guys don't win, the good guys die. It's been about five years since I last watched the film, and today it was like I was rediscovering it. It really ought to be rated among my top 10 favourite films. I need to take time to rewrite my list.
Saturday, 29 November 2014
This week I finally bought "Machete Kills" on Blu-ray after seeing it in the cinema last year. Reading my original review reminded me that I was disappointed when I saw it. After watching it again I don't understand why. Maybe it was because I expected it to be like the first film? It's different, and I think the changes in style are justified. "Machete" was 100% grindhouse from beginning to end. "Machete Kills" is more of a James Bond spoof. It's so obvious that I don't know how I missed it the first time. I should have realised it at the latest when Miss San Antonio was presenting Machete Cortez his weapons, with dialogue that could have been spoken unchanged by James Bond and Q.
The film ends by preparing us for the sequel, or rather the third film in the trilogy, "Machete kills again in space". From what I've been told "Machete Kills" was a box office flop. That's a shame. I hope it doesn't mean the trilogy will never be completed.
"Machete Kills" is also notable for being Lady Gaga's first film role. Despite her character being seemingly killed in a car crash, it's already been announced that she will appear in the next film. Let's hope it will be made. I want to see more of her as an actress. It seems to me that in "Machete Kills" she's playing herself. I want to see if she has real acting ability. Among today's pop singers she's the one who impresses me most. She's more talented than most, nothing like the run-of-the-mill rappers being churned out by the American music industry. She also has an attitude that has made her notorious, shown by her skimpy clothing or even lack of clothing. In this respect many people compare her to Madonna, as she was in the 1980's. I'm sure that's meant as a compliment, but I disagree. When Madonna showed off her body, for instance in her 1992 photo book called "Sex", it seemed artificial. While many raved about it and many others were shocked by the contents, to me it seemed like a publicity stunt, an awkwardly deliberate attempt to shock. When Lady Gaga exposes herself it seems natural, like she's a woman who truly enjoys showing off her body.
|This isn't the last you'll see of Lady Gaga.|
Friday, 28 November 2014
Now that's a really sexy film poster. It's also the picture used on the DVD cover. Three pretty girls in blue bikinis, and the one in the middle is holding a knife threateningly. "Seduction is murder", it says, telling us what the sexy girl intends to do with the knife.
Unfortunately, the poster has nothing to do with the film. There are only two women in the film. Neither of them wear blue bikinis or carry a knife. My guess is that whoever designed the poster didn't have time to watch the film first.
So what is the film really about? Rachel, Ken and Marco are on holiday in Tunisia. Ken is Rachel's boyfriend, Marco is Rachel's ex-boyfriend. That's a weird setup, and Marco doesn't appear to be comfortable it. They hire a boat to sail to a small island. As they approach the island the boat gets caught on underwater rocks. While they're wondering what to do a man swims to their boat, who then collapses dead on deck. Afraid that they'll be charged with his murder, they wade to the island with his body and bury him. But then they see that a woman has been observing them. She introduces herself as Silka. She promises not to tell anyone about the dead body, and then sings a song for them.
From this point on the terror begins. The three holidaymakers have hallucinations and have difficulty holding on to reality. They find dead bodies scattered all over the island. They begin to suspect that Silka is more dangerous than she seems, but every time they challenge her she sings to them, and the hallucinations begin again.
As independent horror films go this is a reasonable offering. It's no masterpiece, but it's worth watching once.
As a Bruce Lee fan I have to sadly admit that this was his weakest film, even though it was the only film that he wrote and directed himself. I think that the problem is that he felt the need to make a film that wasn't only about fighting. He wanted to have more of a plot and more comedy. Once more, as in the case of "The Big Boss", there's a long delay before Bruce throws his first punch. This time the reason is that Bruce, as the scriptwriter, evidently wanted to spend time with character development before the fights began. It wasn't necessary. His fans go to the films to see the fights, not to chuckle at the misadventures of someone far from Hong Kong who can't speak any English.
That's another problem. The film takes place in Rome. When Bruce presented his script, couldn't someone have told him that in Rome they speak Italian, not English? This is a strange and terribly unforgivable blunder. It's not just that the wrong language is accidentally used, it's emphasised over and over again. At the airport the announcements are made in English. When Bruce goes to a restaurant the waitress speaks English with him, and he can't understand the menu because it's in English. Twice during the film he's criticised for being no help to his uncle because he can't speak English. I fear that Bruce went to his death without ever finding out that Italy has its own language.
The film is best known for the fight between Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris in the Colosseum. Personally, I find the fight overrated. It only lasts six minutes, from beginning to end, and the last two minutes isn't really fighting, it's just Chuck struggling to stand up. It could have been better choreographed, and it could have been longer. There are better fights in all three of Bruce's other films.
On a side note, who was responsible for the subtitles on this DVD release? In particular, when Bruce wants to go to the toilet, the subtitles say, "Tell me where the shitter is". That's horrible. Even in the dubbed version Bruce says, "Can you please tell me where the toilet is".
"Everything must go". That's the literal translation of the film's title. It's a recent German film made for television, first broadcast in October 2014. As I've pointed out before, German television films are usually made with large budgets, so the quality is as high as films made for the cinema. This is certainly the case for this three-hour family drama. It gripped me from the first minutes, and I was unable to look away.
The film is about a fictional company, Faber, with more than 8000 drug stores throughout Germany, that went bankrupt in 2012. Supposedly fictional. Even though the names of the main characters have been changed, the similarity to the company Schlecker is so obvious that everyone knows what it's really about.
The film begins with the 70th birthday party of the company founder Max Faber. He's still in good health for his age, but he uses the occasion to appoint his daughter Kerstin as the second company director, next to himself. It sounds to everyone that she is to be his equal, but he has already told his division chiefs that they are not to give her any information about the company finances. He has a good reason for this. Following the advice of a dubious cocaine snorting investment banker he has just made a stock market loss of 200 million Euros. This is all the more shocking when we discover later in the film that the investment banker personally earned 600 million Euros from the same deal. Isn't there a law against insider trading in Germany? Nevertheless, Max took out a loan in the company's name to speculate, and now the bank wants its money back.
When Kerstin finally realises what is happening -- which is unavoidable when she sees that Faber's suppliers are refusing to deliver goods due to non-payment -- she finds a Dutch investor willing to save the company. The investor's only condition is that Max should step down and let Kerstin continue as the sole company director. Max refuses and makes it clear that he would rather close down his company than let it be taken away from him. He's an old-school company owner, which is the very reason that the investor wants to ditch him. "What's mine is mine". Despite having a nationwide company under his control he likes to walk into local branches and shout at the employees if he thinks they're doing something wrong.
Schlecker, to use the company's real name, was one of the best known store chains in Germany. I call them "drug stores", for want of a better word, but the German word "Drogerie" isn't quite the same as an American "drug store". Think of it as a supermarket that sells everything except food. I used to shop at Schlecker. It was cheap. But that was the reason for its notoriety. The cheap prices were because the store hired only women and paid them low wages, well below the usual German wage levels. The Schleckerfrauen (Schlecker women), as the press called them, couldn't complain about sexual discrimination, because there were no men to compare their wages with. The stores were under-staffed, which led to anecdotally high levels of shop-lifting, but it was all part of the company policy. It was cheaper to accept loss through shop-lifting than hire extra staff. When Schlecker went bankrupt in 2012 it was women who went onto the street protesting. They weren't paid much, but it was all they had.
The film also follows the story of a typical women affected by the bankruptcy, Janine Krause, a single woman living in poor quality accommodation in Berlin. She finds out that she's pregnant too late to have an abortion. Then she hears that she will lose her job. Just one story among thousands.
This film has already been given high critical acclaim. Don't expect an English version any time soon, but I recommend it to anyone who can speak German.
Thursday, 27 November 2014
This is a Chinese war epic about the Yang clan, the same clan that is featured in "Saving General Yang". It's impossible for me to say how true either film is. I strongly suspect that "Legendary Amazons" is based on a true story, but it's been strongly altered and exaggerated to make the story more exciting.
After the death of Yang Zongbao in battle there is only one man in the Yang clan left alive, Yang Wenguang, an 18-year-old boy. Wenguang is put in charge of an army of 10,000 troops to battle against enemy forces of 100,000. The women in the family, under the leadership of Wenguang's great-grandmother Taijun, correctly surmise that enemies in the government want to use the opportunity to wipe out the Yang clan, so they decide to accompany the army into battle to protect the boy from harm. It soon becomes apparent that Wenguang lacks the experience to lead an army, so his mother takes his place as commander.
The battles are marked by unusual manoeuvres that seem highly unrealistic, but this doesn't make the film any less enjoyable. They are exciting to watch. I've read other reviews that call the manoeuvres comical, but I disagree. Think of them as army versions of the exaggerated kung fu fights that we're used to in Chinese cinema.
The film has stunningly beautiful cinematography. Maybe it's too beautiful. What I mean is that in some scenes the picture is so perfectly serene that it seems unnatural. It's always clear skies and perfect weather. That's not the world that I live in.
A problem that I have with the film, though this may be a result of following a written legend too closely, is that there are too many characters in the film. There are 14 women who go into battle with Wenguang. They're introduced by name in the early scenes, but even if the names were English there would still be too many for me to remember them all. When they ride into battle wearing identical helmets it's impossible to tell them apart. I'd have to watch the film repeatedly to be able to keep track of who's who and who's doing what.
This message at the beginning of the film is the strangest disclaimer I have ever seen. The first paragraph is fairly standard, but the second paragraph is downright weird.
"The motion picture is not a substitute for independent professional advice. Viewers should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of the views and statements expressed in the motion picture".Wow! What's that supposed to mean? How would any sane person find advice he considers worth following in a film like this?
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Did you hear the one about the Welsh film director who made an Indonesian movie? That sounds like a joke, but it's serious. Gareth Evans went to Indonesia and loved the country so much that he didn't just make one film, he made three. This is the third, so far. Gareth has raised the bar in action adventures. Despite making films with relatively small budgets, they look spectacular, and the action sequences are breath-taking. What will he do if he's ever given a big budget?
"The Raid 2" begins immediately after the events of "The Raid". It involves Rama, the hero from the first film, being pronounced dead, so that he can be given a new identity and do undercover work for the police. To be more accurate, it's undercover work for a single police detective called Bunawar. The rest of the police force aren't told that Rama has survived, since Bunawar believes there are too many corrupt police officers in the force, on the payroll of one of the Jakarta gangs. It's a lengthy job. Rama has to spend two years in prison so that he can join one of the gangs when he comes out.
Even though his job is to work in a gang in order to expose the corrupt police officers, he begins to respect Bangun, his new boss, and takes his side when a power struggle breaks out within the gang. This situation escalates into an all out gang war with Rama caught in the middle. The action is over the top, with fight scenes following one another with barely a pause for breath.
The film ends on a cliff-hanger with many issues still unresolved. Let's see how it continues in "The Raid 3". Where will Gareth Evans take us from here? Can he give us even more action?
Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Henry Fudd is a good Jewish boy. He's in his mid 40's, he lives with his mother and he's still a virgin. Maybe he's not quite such a good boy. He's a voyeur, who watches couples making out in cars and in the park, and sometimes he even peeks through his neighbour's bedroom window. But I guess it doesn't hurt anyone, and Mommy's still happy.
One day Henry is walking past a flower shop and discovers a talking plant. A female talking plant. He buys her, takes her home, and after realising that she's the only one who accepts him they fall in love. Henry fulfils her every desire, which is her need for more and more food. Yes, she's a carnivorous plant. She begins by eating flies, then progresses to frogs, cats and dogs. Eventually she wants to eat humans, and she is particularly attracted to Henry's big, fat mother.
The film is amusing. The special effects are primitive, even for 1973 when it was made, but they don't need to be any better for a comedy like this. My only criticism is that there are too many voyeur scenes. One or two would be sufficient, the first to offer insight into Henry's lonely life and the second for some sexual titillation in the middle of the film, but there must be at least half a dozen voyeur scenes. I wasn't counting them, but there are too many. I was impatient because I wanted to see Henry go back home to hump his plant again.
|Inter-species love was never so hot.|
Monday, 24 November 2014
I know I only watched this film last month, but I had to return to it already. It's a powerful film that grows on me more every time I watch it. I realise that it might be dissatisfying for many viewers. Tragedies are no longer popular in our western culture. The film builds up towards a positive resolution, but in the end there is no happy ending. Even the final scene, which ends ambiguously, suggests that there is a hand of God that strikes down the victors before they can claim their prize.
Click here for my last review.
A film doesn't need action and a fast pace to be truly great. If you don't believe me, watch "The Imitation Game". To be honest, I didn't intend to go to see it. It's the true story of Alan Turing, the man who cracked the code of the German Enigma machine during World War Two. It hardly sounded like a thrilling adventure. But then I read reports that it's one of the top contenders to win next year's Best Film prize at the Academy Awards, so I thought I should check it out. Within the first ten minutes of the film I understood what the fuss was about. It's probably the best new film I've seen this year.
Since it's a true story about a famous person, I don't have to worry too much about spoilers, but I'll still limit myself to a brief plot outline. In the Second World War Germany used a machine to code the messages they sent to their fleets by morse code. The machine was called Enigma. One of the machines was stolen and smuggled to the England in 1939, but having the machine alone didn't help. The Enigma machine had settings which were changed every day at midnight, with 159,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible permutations. While other cryptologists tried to solve the encryption algorithms by hand, Alan Turing had the revolutionary idea to build a machine to crack the code. This machine can justifiably be considered to be the first computer. The text at the end of the film calls it a "Turing Machine", but this is actually a mistake. Alan Turing called his machine Christopher, named after his best friend when he was 16.
It took two years for the machine to crack the code, but there was a second level of difficulty. Nobody, not even Alan's boss, was allowed to know that he had been successful. The decrypted messages were sent to the British Secret Service, MI6, who then decided which messages should be ignored and which should be passed on to the military, claiming that the information had been leaked from other sources. The problem was that if the British acted upon all messages they encrypted the Germans would have known the Enigma code was cracked and they would have stopped using the machine.
At the end of the war Alan Turing was Britain's greatest unknown hero. His machine and all his notes were destroyed. He was forbidden to speak about what he had done during the war. He remained unknown, apart from academic publications, until 1951, when he was arrested after it was discovered he was a homosexual. Given a choice between imprisonment and chemical castration, he chose the latter. Two years later he committed suicide. It was a sad end for a great man.
After the film I had the chance to discuss the former treatment of homosexuals in England with some of my friends from the film club. Homosexuality remained a crime in England until 1967. One of my friends said that laws shouldn't be arbitrary, they should be governed by morality. Homosexuality obviously isn't immoral, so it shouldn't be illegal. I think his statement was wrong, in several ways. First of all, morality isn't an absolute. To my friend it seems obvious that homosexuality isn't immoral, but there are millions of others, even in England, who would disagree. Morals are strongly influenced by the religious community in which one grows up. If I follow a religion whose holy book says that homosexuality is evil, I shall develop a natural aversion to homosexuality and consider it immoral. Even indirectly this is the case. Even if I'm not religious, but I grow up in a place where homosexuals are made fun of, I'll have a feeling that it's wrong, which could go as far as thinking it's immoral.
Apart from this, laws aren't always a always a matter of right and wrong, they can be arbitrary. There can be other reasons to create laws. An example is taxation. It is required by law for various taxes to be paid to the government. Not paying these taxes is illegal and will lead to imprisonment or other forms of punishment. Does that mean that paying taxes is moral, and that not paying taxes is immoral? That would be a very strange application of morality. Law and morality may overlap, but they aren't identical, and it shouldn't be attempted to make them identical, even if we could agree on what's moral and what isn't.
Whether homosexuality is right or wrong is a more complex question than people on either side of the argument are willing to see. What I mean is, one camp says that it's obviously wrong, while the other camp says that it's obviously okay. The very fact that two groups should have such different views should make everyone clear that there's more to the question than they realise. Unfortunately, any attempt at dialogue is blocked by bigotry on both sides. The anti-gay camp says, "Our religion forbids it, so it's wrong, and we refuse to compromise". The pro-gay camp says, "Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, so it's okay, and we refuse to compromise". Both sides need to abandon their prejudices and listen to one another.