Beyond the Hills

Dir: Cristian Mungiu

2012

****

It is quite amazing just how Cristian Mungiu’s 2012 film Beyond the Hills is so subtle but still manages to go for the jugular. The film takes an intelligent swipe at the Romanian Orthodox church and it is interesting to know that the popular musical The Book of Mormon was released around the same time. I find comparing them quite interesting, as they are both worlds apart in structure and tone but they somehow pull off the same trick – one using laughter and the other using tragedy – but both showing the ridiculousness of some religious practices. The story follows two orphaned young women, Voichița and Alina. Alina has come to visit the Romanian Orthodox convent during Lent, where Voichița now lives. Alina had been working in Germany, and it transpires that the two girls were previously roommates at a children's home and had shared a physical relationship. The monastery is led by a 30-year-old Priest who speaks ill of declining faith in Western Europe, citing same-sex marriage, and forbids anyone outside of the faith from entering. He inquires about Alina to Voichița, who tells him Alina irregularly attends church and does not go to confession. They soon urge Alina to begin confessing, especially if she intends to stay. Alina clearly wants to rekindle her relationship with Voichița, but Voichița tells her they must be cautious given it is Lent. Voichița seems tempted, especially when sex is offered but her new way of life has changed her and she makes it her mission to ‘save’ her friend. Both friends try to ‘save’ each other in their own ways but they have grown too far apart. Some time later after Alina has left the convent, Voichița seeks her out, and when she finds her she tells her she is now a nun, that she has chosen to be with God so she will never be alone, and her love of Alina is different from before. Voichița convinces her to return with her to the convent, but Alina asks Voichița that they escape together. Their relationship is clearly deep-rooted and once more they try to save one another. After Voichița refuses, Alina attempts to jump down a well, but is restrained by the nuns and taken to the hospital. There, doctors restrain Alina to prevent her self-harm, after which they send her back to the convent to assist with recovery. There, the nuns read to Alina about sin. Alina begins a ‘Black Fast’, but when the Priest learns of this when Alina is not at the table, they see Alina is attempting to enter the altar to make a wish to the icon they have there. The Priest admits the icon exists, but says entering the altar is a severe sin, and tells the nuns the Devil is in Alina and the convent. Alina is clearly suffering a breakdown as she feels she has lost her friend, partner and lover. Alina remains tied down to a board with chains and towels. The nuns witness a worsening in her condition and take her back to the hospital. There, the hospital staff find Alina is dead on arrival, and observe the wounds on her wrists and ankles from the restraints. The staff tells the nuns this constitutes homicide and threatens to call the police and media. An officer investigates the convent. Seeing the board Alina was tied to, the officer interprets it as a cross. The officer also says forcible restraint leading to death is a homicide. The Priest denies criminal intent, saying the restraints were to prevent self-harm, and invoking the analogy of a parent's right to force children to take medicine, though the officer replies Alina was not a child and the Priest was not her guardian. The nuns also cite Alina's strength as mysterious, but Voichița says Alina studied martial arts. The police take the Priest and the nuns who tied up Alina away, with Voichița choosing to go with them. The screenplay was inspired by two novels by the writer Tatiana Niculescu Bran, documenting the Tanacu exorcism, in which a young member of a monastery in Moldavia died in 2005 after an exorcism ritual. Mungiu was inspired to make the film after seeing the stage version in New York while promoting 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in 2007. It’s a darker film than Mungiu’s previous work, concentrating on the classic idea of there being two sides to every story. To me this was an atheist film but to someone religious it could mean something else, it basically explores the presence of God and the absence of God, depending on the viewer’s faith. There is a level of ambiguity about it, with all the talk of god, it is really the question of the devil that is at play. I also think that how mental illness is still looked at by many religions is an important subject to explore. The contrast in tone throughout the film is quite unexpected but rather effective. The subjective conclusion was very satisfying, very much a ‘life continues as normal’ outside the happenings of a convent where even the tiniest of events can become exacerbated. Grim and enlightening with a slice of lemon – classic Cristian Mungiu.

The Sacrifice

Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky

1986

*****

Andrei Tarkovsky’s last ever film might just be my favorite of his. 1986’s The Sacrifice is astonishingly good, even by the directors great standards. Although Tarkovsky was unaware of his impending death, it now feels like an intention conclusion to his work in retrospect, especially as the the final shot of the film echoes the opening shot of a tree in his first feature film Ivan's Childhood. A conspiracy theory emerged in Russia in the early 1990s when it was alleged that Tarkovsky did not die of natural causes but was assassinated by the KGB. Evidence for this hypothesis includes testimonies by former KGB agents who claim that the order was given to eradicate Tarkovsky to curtail what the Soviet government and the KGB saw as anti-Soviet propaganda. Other evidence includes several memoranda that surfaced after the 1991 coup and the claim by one of Tarkovsky's doctors that his cancer could not have developed from a natural cause. However, his wife Larisa Tarkovskaya and actor Anatoli Solonitsyn all died from the very same type of lung cancer. Vladimir Sharun, a sound designer who worked with all three in Stalker, is convinced that they were all poisoned by the chemical plant where they were shooting the film. Either way, he was a great loss to the world of film but left an amazing body of work behind him. The Sacrifice opens on the birthday of Alexander (Erland Josephson), an actor who gave up the stage to work as a journalist, critic, and lecturer on aesthetics. He lives in a beautiful house with his actress wife Adelaide (Susan Fleetwood), stepdaughter Marta (Filippa Franzén), and young son, "Little Man", who is temporarily mute due to a throat operation. Alexander and Little Man plant a tree by the seaside, when Alexander's friend Otto, a part-time postman, delivers a birthday card to him. After a long conversation about many different subjects Otto asks about God and Alexander mentions that his relationship with God is nonexistent. After Otto leaves, Adelaide and Victor, a medical doctor and a close family friend who performed Little Man's operation, arrive at the scene and offer to take Alexander and Little Man home in Victor's car. However, Alexander prefers to stay behind and talk to his son. In his monologue, Alexander first recounts how he and Adelaide found this lovely house near the sea by accident, and how they fell in love with the house and surroundings, but then enters a bitter tirade against the state of modern man. As Tarkovsky wrote, Alexander is weary of the pressures of change, the discord in his family, and his instinctive sense of the threat posed by the relentless march of technology. In fact, he has grown to hate the emptiness of human speech. The family, as well as Victor and Otto, gather at Alexander's house for the celebration. Their maid Maria leaves, while nurse-maid Julia stays to help with the dinner. People comment on Maria's odd appearances and behavior. The guests chat inside the house, where Otto reveals that he is a student of paranormal phenomena, a collector of inexplicable but true incidences. Just when the dinner is almost ready, the rumbling noise of low-flying jet fighters interrupts them, and soon after, as Alexander enters, a news program announces the beginning of what appears to be all-out war, and possibly nuclear holocaust. In despair, he vows to God to sacrifice all he loves, even Little Man, if this may be undone. Otto advises him to slip away and lie with Maria, who Otto convinces him is a witch, "in the best possible sense". Alexander takes his gun, leaves a note in his room, escapes the house, and rides his bike to where she is staying. She is bewildered when he makes his advances, but when he puts his gun to his temple the jet-fighters' rumblings return, so she soothes him and they consummate while floating above her bed, though Alexander's reaction is ambiguous. When he awakes the next morning, in his own bed, everything seems normal. Nevertheless, Alexander sets forth to give up all he loves and possesses. He tricks the family members and friends into going for a walk, and sets fire to their house when they are away. As the group rushes back, alarmed by the fire, Alexander confesses that he set the fire himself, and furiously runs around. Maria, who until then was not seen that morning, appears in the fire scene. Alexander tries to approach her, but is restrained by others. Without explanation, an ambulance appears in the area, and two paramedics chase Alexander, who appears to have lost control of himself, and drive off with him. Maria begins to bicycle away, but stops halfway to observe Little Man watering the tree he and Alexander planted the day before. As Maria leaves the scene, the "mute" Little Man, lying at the foot of the tree, speaks his only line, which quotes the opening Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word. Why is that, Papa?". In 1995, the Vatican compiled a list of 45 'great films', separated into the categories of "Religion", "Values", and "Art", to recognize the centennial of cinema. The Sacrifice was included under the category "Religion", along with Tarkovsky's earlier film Andrei Rublev. I can’t help but think that the Vatican missed the point. Tarkovsky considered The Sacrifice different from his earlier films because, while he commented that his recent films had been "impressionistic in structure", in this case he not only "aimed...to develop its episodes in the light of my own experience and of the rules of dramatic structure", but also to "build the picture into a poetic whole in which all the episodes were harmoniously linked", and that because of this, it "took on the form of a poetic parable". While Andrei Rublev rejects the advances of an alluring pagan witch as incompatible with Christian love, The Sacrifice juxtaposes both sensibilities and ends up being somewhat religiously ambiguous. The Sacrifice originated as a screenplay entitled The Witch, which preserved the element of a middle-aged protagonist spending the night with a reputed witch. However, in this story, his cancer was miraculously cured, and he ran away with the woman. In 1982, Tarkovsky wrote in his journal that he considered this ending weak, as the happy ending was unchallenged. It seems to have been a deeply personal film to Tarkovsky, open to interpretation in many respects with an eerie feeling that it was a swan song, even though it wasn’t intended as such. The film’s ending is infamous, not just in that it is incredibly moving and now iconic, but because it was a second take. Alexander's house, specially built for the production, was to be burned for the climactic finale, in which he burns it down along with all of his possessions. The shot was very difficult to achieve and just as the house was lit the shutter of the only camera filming jammed shut. The house burned down without a single second of it captured on film. Divine intervention? The scene had to be re-shot, requiring a quick and very costly reconstruction of the house in two weeks. This time, two cameras were set up on tracks, running parallel to each other. The footage in the final version of the film is the second take, which lasts for six minutes (and ends abruptly because the camera had run through an entire reel). The cast and crew broke down in tears after the take was completed.  Unbelievably (although not for a Tarkovsky film), there are only 115 shots in the entire 140 minute film. It’s an incredible film, one that is still discussed all these years later.

Nuns on the Run

Dir: Jonathan Lynn

1990

*****

I don’t know if it is a British thing or not but the world didn’t really embrace Nuns on the Run when it came out in 1990. I don’t know why not, Eric Idle was a much loved Python and Robbie Coltrane was pretty well known by then for his TV work – most of which made it overseas. The humour is classical – it’s a cross-dressing farce – inoffensive and the best kind of silly. Director Jonathan Lynn wanted to make it in the style of a classic Ealing Comedy, which he managed, although a cross between Some Like It Hot and a Carry On film would be a more accurate description. I guess you either love this kind of comedy or you don’t, I personally do, but only because it was done right. The spoken comedy and the physical comedy are both near perfect which I think is woefully overlooked with this film. Cross-dressing isn’t funny unless it is performed correctly and Coltrane took to it like a duck to water and Idle is probably the funniest cross-dressing comic next to Terry Jones. The story is quite clever too, with both men playing Brian (Idle) and Charlie (Coltrane), a couple of gangsters who are looking to leave their lives of crime behind them. Being a couple of old school criminals, their lives become more uncertain when the boss of their old firm dies and the new, younger boss takes over and does things his way. The pair hatch an idea to hijack their crew’s plan of robbing a local Triad gang of their drug money before scarpering to Rio. However, during the planning process, Brian meets a waitress called Faith and falls in love with her, even though he knows he’ll have to leave her. The actual robbery goes well until Faith stumbles in on the action looking for Brian and Charlie’s get-away car runs out of petrol. In a panic, the two men run into the nearest building them see with an open door – a nunnery. Fearing the police, their old gang and the Triads are after them, they decide to dress like nuns and lay-low for a while, pretending to be Sisters Inviolata and Euphemia who have transferred from the Church of the immaculate conception (the film’s tag line is The Story of an Immaculate Deception). Faith, having witnessed the gunfight and Brian and Charlie fleeing into the nunnery, follows them and poses as a mature student to get inside. Her gunshot wound is exposed and she is taken to the infirmary. Brian pays her a secret visit and claims he is married in order to end their relationship for her safety. Brian soon changes his mind and tries to find her to ask her to come with them but she has been kidnapped by the Triads and subsequently leads them to the pair’s old crew. It’s a madcap ride from there on, with nuns, Triads, gangsters and police all after the unlucky criminals. Their performances are priceless and I love the ending of the film. It’s silly and ridiculous yes but its so easy and so genuinely funny that I personally find it hard to resist – and why would you? It’s a clever crime caper if nothing else and it’s a million times better than Sister Act anyway. The fast-paced soundtrack by Yello suited it perfectly. Sadly it was the last film for HandMade Films before it was bought by Paragon Entertainment who did very little with it other than release Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Sad after all the classic films they had made. I love it anyway, I believe the people who have dismissed it have either missed the point or don’t get the humor, on reflection I think it is a British thing, one for Brits and Anglophiles but story and tone aside, you can beat the performances and just how joyfully daft the whole thing is. I still can't get over how much Eric Idle looks and sounds like my Gran when he's in drag – that could be another reason why I love it so.

One of Us

Dir: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady

2017

***

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady’s infamous fly on the wall documentary Jesus Camp was a terrifying look at how religion has become twisted, manipulated and the opposite of what it thinks it is. It focused in one particular subject – a Christian summer camp for kids. In their 2017 documentary ‘One of Us’ the spectrum is much wider, but unfortunately a little less focused. I really do the it when people accuse such documentaries as being ‘unbalanced’ in their views because religion, unless being discussed in a wider sense, is either going to be told from the side of a believer or non-believer. A documentary that seeks out to find the truth of whether God really exists would be long, arduous and wouldn’t have a conclusion, certainly not one that would please everyone. One of Us chronicles the lives of three ex-Hasidic Jews who all live in Brooklyn. The film is of course one-sided, the Hasidic community and synagogue aren’t exactly going to take part in a film of this nature. I believe everything the three subjects say, the tales of violence, sexual abuse and mental starvation all ring true. One lives in fear, a young women ostracized by her community and family with children to think of. Another has more confidence but is still clearly haunted by his experiences and the last is young and struggles with his new found freedom, eventually turning to drugs and anything else that can numb the pain. The young women has children, that is her main focus but the two men feel lost, now that they have fled everything they have ever known. They know they don’t agree with where they were but they don’t know enough about outside life in order to function like an average member of society. Once more Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady focus on how religion can close the mind and how people struggle when their questions are not answered. The way abuse is accepted and then covered up is also distressing. I don’t think religious people should be offended, as the wrongs here are human, we’re a bad race, religion is one of the many ways we try and justify our bad nature. I think the three subjects were exceptionally brave for coming out against their communities, especially as they had many friends and family still within them. Other members would come up to them in the street and were defensibly hostile, which won’t do their community any good. The interesting aspect for me was learning of the support organisations (Footsteps) for people who leave the community. The interviews were hard to listen to but also fascinating. I’m sure much of their experiences would also shock the Hasidic community, so I hope they see the film also and enter into dialogue. I’m an atheist but I say live and let live, believe in whatever you have to – you can’t prove God exists and I can’t prove he doesn’t but I do believe in people (as horrible as they can be) and open communication and mutual respect. If you hide your faults behind God and are okay with that then your religion means nothing. It doesn’t have the same impact of Jesus Camp but it is compelling and it outs an important truth.

Angels & Demons

Dir: Ron Howard

2009

**

Ron Howard's 2006 adaption of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was overblown, so in his 2009 follow up adaptation of Brown's Angels & Demons he addresses this criticism by making it even more over the top. The Da Vinci Code was suped-up for the big screen, I can see why Howard did it but it was totally unnecessary and everyone said so. Brown's Angels & Demons was actually the first book of his Robert Langdon series but it was never as popular, Howard decided to rewrite the story so that it worked as a direct sequel to The Da Vinci Code so he could develop the main character with more fluidity and so he could connect the series a little better. He also commented that it was the second novel that was the best seller and most people read it before the first novel anyway which is true and fair enough. Many aspects of the story is changed but most people argue that the changes were for the better, however, the constant action sequences have become a bone of contention and Angels & Demons saw less puzzle-solving, more pointless action and some unexpected (and awful) religious fantasy. In this sense the adaptation really doesn't work but at least the returning Tom Hanks is given a proper haircut. Yet again, it's the story's silliness that makes and breaks the film, give me a film exploring the Illuminati, Vatican conspiracies and a science vs. Religion smack-down any day but I lost a bit of interest when the Roman Catholic Church starts helping our hero and the Large Hadron Collider is clearly suggested as being something negative. Its handling of real science is as ridiculous as their handling of organised religion, the silliness only captives for a limited amount of time before it all becomes rather tiresome and then slightly irritating. The subject matter should be full of intrigue and suspense but the reality is that the whole thing falls flat and is as boring as it possibly could be. Adding a fantastical element to the mix makes it a lot less believable and nonsensical. The only thing I really liked about the first film was the history and architecture, there is hardly any of that in the second film and it is a lot poorer for it. Again, it tries to be more James Bond than it should be and less Indiana Jones that it so desperately wants to be, or at least a intellectual version of, which it fails miserably in achieving. Tom Hanks is the only actor to reprise his role from the first film, which is no surprise given the order of the books but there is something rather James Bond about the new female partner/romantic interest and new villain. The cast is strong as it is brave (ha, they got paid handsomely I'm sure) and includes Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino and Nikolaj Lie Kaas. Ron Howard's direction is much the same if not a little better, and while I don't like the fantastical element of the new film, he is rather good at it. Overall it is forgettable and probably best forgotten.

The Da Vinci Code

Dir: Ron Howard

2006

**

I like a bit of sudoku during a long train journey but I was never that interested in reading Dan Brown's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade rip off (main character Robert Langdon even being mentioned as looking like a 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed'), no matter how popular it became. It is a work of fiction, Brown has stated categorically that, as well as copying the works of other conspiracy writers, he wrote Robert Langdon as an adventurer of his fantasy, conjuring up puzzles based on famous landmarks and historical and largely religious artefacts. There is an overblown conspiracy theory thrown in also, because people love puzzles and they love conspiracy theories, mystery literature is full of it and he tapped into something with a winning formula and made handfuls of other authors wonder why they hadn't thought of it first, with many coming forward claiming that they had. However, many fans of the book became convinced that Brown was lying about it being fiction and believe The Da Vinci Code to be absolutely true. I find this aspect of the book more interesting than the story but to be honest, any book that upsets the likes of the Vatican, Catholic Church, Priory of Sion and Opus Dei is alright in my book. I've not read the book so I can only review the adaptation, with that in mind, Tom Hanks wasn't the first person that came to mind when I thought 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed', especially not with foppish hair. He's okay I suppose, I can think of many other actors who I would have chosen over him but I can't think of many who couldn't have made a good job of it, such is the simplicity of the character. I enjoyed some of the mystery, I think it should have been less of an action film and more of a problem solving venture. I enjoyed all the places they visited, thought that most of the links were clever and it held my attention. I think what I enjoyed most about it though was just how ridiculous it all was. I've given it a low star rating because of how ridiculous it was but there was something outrageously stupid about being chased by an albino monk that I both loved and hated. Adding humour would have been a mistake, so it was always going to be a poor man's contemporary Indiana Jones, its biggest mistake was trying to make it into something else at the same time, adding far too much espionage stuff, making it also feel like a poor man's James Bond. I suspect the book was probably more scavenger hunt than car chasing, it's a shame the film tried too hard to cater for everyone. The supporting cast is strong and dependable; Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean Reno and Paul Bettany all do a good job and Ron Howard's direction is fine. Great idea, not such a great film, I only really like it because it caused some very stupid people to make a mockery of themselves and I think that the fact that so many religious organisations protested so much, they only made themselves sound less believable and Brown's novel more believable, which I find hilarious. It's not original but it's clever and I like what Brown has achieved but seriously, after all the controversy, who was responsible for Tom Hank's hair?

Silence

Dir: Martin Scorsese

2017

****

Martin Scorsese's Silence has been in development hell since 1990 and while I really liked it, I can't help but think the 1990 version would have been better. I love Martin Scorsese's work but I don't think he has been on top form for the last few years. I enjoyed 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street but I haven't been that bothered with his work before then, since maybe 1999's Bringing out the Dead, although 1995's Casino feels like Scorsese's last proper Scorsese film. Silence was originally set to star Daniel Day-Lewis, Benicio del Toro and Gael Garcia Bernal but I don't think loosing the big names harmed it any, quite the opposite in fact. Andrew Garfield is superb as Father Sebastiao Rodrigues and Adam Driver is brilliant as Father Francisco Garupre. I can't think of many actors who could have played Father Cristovao Ferreira, Daniel Day-Lewis would have been great I'm sure but Liam Neeson was good in what really wasn't a major role. Garfield leads the film effortlessly but for me Tadanobu Asano (as the interpreter to Japan's Inquisitor) and Shinya Tsukamoto as Mokichi (a villager practicing Christianity in secret) steal every scene they are in, indeed, I think the Japanese actors have been largely overlooked here even though they give the best performances. It's a fine looking film, not as visually epic as I thought it would be but then the budget restraints the film had are now famous and possibly had an effect on this, don't get me wrong, it's beautiful film but I couldn't help but think it wasn't as grand as Roland Joffe's The Mission (the most obvious comparison) or 2015's Embrace of the Serpent. Scorsese seemed to be imitating two of his film-making heroes; Akira Kurosawa and Yasujiro Ozu. It's a wonderful tribute to the two masters of cinema who have influenced pretty much every film made since their classics but I just didn't feel it was Scorsese enough. The Last Temptation of Christ was Scorsese, I think I wanted something along the same lines, although that said, there were certain scenes that almost looked lifted from his earlier film, which I found a little annoying as they weren't done as well. Visuals aren't always everything though, and even though it may sound as if I'm being overly critical, I just thought that after all the issues in development and the low budget, Scorsese would have knocked our socks off and shown everyone how a master does it. However, Silence is first and foremost - and most importantly - an adaption of Shūsaku Endō's 1966 novel. Endō's beautifully written story is a morally ambiguous look at religion from the viewpoint of a Japanese Catholic. Endō, like many other Japanese Catholics, was the victim of religious discrimination in Japan and also suffered racism when he lived in France during the 1950s. He used both (and a debilitating bout of tuberculosis which resulted in the removal of one of his lungs) as a fuel for his fire. The attitude and insults the two Priests receive in the story are almost word for word the same as Endō received throughout his working life as an author. It is a Christian film at its core but it is also extremely balanced and rather poignant in this day and age. The story covers the differences in history and culture as well as belief and social attitude. You can compare it to so much that is happening today and that has happened before and after the book was written and the time when the story was set in the 1630s. I'm a live-and-let-live atheist but there was plenty for me to take home. The Church's global missions caused huge problems, many that you could say still remain today. The film is unexpectedly critical and brutally honest of the mix of culture and belief, which gives the story a lot of weight. God may, or may not be real but persecution certainly exists and a silence remains. I would argue that the non-religious can and should watch the film as it isn't as much about the divine as you may think, it really is a film about human nature. It's a thought-provoking exploration, I found the issue of martyrdom particularly interesting, even though I found a lot of the content to be flawed. It's one of those films that highlights the intolerance of man, the great and bad that men do and a great essay on the fact that man will never totally agree with each other, which is something we can all agree on. Tremendous but with niggles.

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Dir: Peter Joseph

2008

*****

Peter Joseph's 2007 Zeitgeist: The Movie went straight to the jugular and questioned the truth about religion, 9/11 and the world banks and suggested how all three are connected. No matter which side of the debate you lean towards, you have to give Joseph credit for always listing his sources and providing and accessible comprehensive companion guide. Indeed, when you break each component down, everything discussed is factual rather than analytical. It is impossible to say he is wrong when you can't prove God exists, 9/11 raises many unanswered questions and the banking scandals aren't disputed, even by the banks themselves. Zeitgeist: Addendum is exactly what it says it is, an extension of the first film, a more in-depth exploration of the issues already raised but concentrating on our monetary system, the suggested source of all these problems. Money makes the world go round, money is the route of all evil, the debate is as old as currency itself. Joseph breaks down the monetary system in a basic and easy to follow manner interviewing various different world economists. Again, all is factual rather than analytical although the first film had it's fair share of criticism, but then of course it did, said criticism came from the media that we all know is controlled (not conspiracy theory people, this is fact). It's far from a perfect documentary, I believe in most of what it suggests but it is a little manipulative and a small percentage of what it shows is dubious. I will say however that the alternative view is far more manipulative and dubious, to argue that Zeitgeist/Joseph is purely an exercise in propaganda is hilariously hypocritical. Zeitgeist/Joseph bases his argument on history, social and economical patterns and common sense. I don't find anything about the documentary wild of unbelievable. It could however, do without the unhelpful and rather awful staged sequences that involve eyeballs and businessmen reaching epiphanies in the middle of Times Square. Not perfect but interesting, positive, intelligent and enlightening. My kind of thing.

Andrei Rublev

Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky

1966

*****

Andrei Tarkovsky's masterpiece is an eight chapter epic that depicts the life and times of one of Russia's most famous 15th-Century religious icon painters. While much of Rublev's life is relatively unknown, director Tarkovsky researched all that he could find about him, the areas he is known to have traveled and medieval Russia in general. Tarkovsky's intention was to show Rublev as a global historic figure and Christianity as an axiom of Russia's historical identity. It is fascinating that the film was forced to have a very limited release during the strictly atheist and authoritarian Communist Soviet Union, as it deals with artistic freedom, political ambiguity and free thinking in a time during a regime that ultimately lead to the Tsardom of Russia, something that Communism overthrew. Whether or not the film was intended to highlight current political issues remains ambiguous. The eight chapters are in chronological order and each is an example of what Rublev could have experienced and each is an example of the attitude and mindset of society during a very turbulent period in time. The film opens with a striking prologue, full of symbolism that continues throughout the film. A man hangs on to and launches himself off a Church roof onto a hot air balloon he has devised. He takes off but is chased by an ignorant mob who presumably see his plight as ungodly. His helpers are attacked and although he takes flight, he crashes soon afterwards, his escape thwarted and his pioneering creativity, and body, crushed. Throughout the rest of the film we see Rublev's frustrations and conflicted attitude unveil until the eighth and arguably, most exciting chapter of the film. Rublev's revelation and the film's big conclusion is a rewarding finale to the films three hour crescendo. The film ends with examples of Rublev's work, in colour, separating life from art and giving the audience a rewarding and contemplative rest in many many respects. Andrei Tarkovsky's direction is flawless, every shot and every decision meticulously thought through and researched. Anatoly Solonitsyn was outstanding in his performance in the lead role, Tarkovsky describing the actor as his great discovery. Indeed Tarkovsky would go on to cast Solonitsyn in many of the films he made after and also included reference to Andrei Rublev in his classics; Solaris and The Mirror. It's easy to see why the film is regarded as one of the greatest ever made, it's near perfect and pretty much everyone agrees. A much better debate would be to ask if it was Tarkovsky's greatest film? A tough question to answer as I struggle to think of many other films that fit the description 'masterpiece' as well as Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev.

In God We Tru$t
Dir: Marty Feldman
1980
****
In God We Tru$t was the second and last film to be directed by comedy great Marty Feldman following his 1977 debut The Last Remake of Beau Geste. It is a mix of Monty Python and the sort of thing you'd expect from a Gene Wilder film but considering Feldman wrote for both it is hardly surprising and shouldn't be regarded as anything other than original comedy. Unlike Monty Python's Life of Brian, In God We Tru$t takes more of a swipe at evangelicalism, although a lot of what is parodied has weirdly come true. It's the little skits within the film that really make it the fall about film that it is. Feldman's physical comedy reaches much further than his wonky eyes and the brilliant props really are genius, my favorite being a sign that hangs outside the monastery where the Monks, who have taken a vow of silence, reads "Keep thy Trappist shut". Louise Lasser is lovely as the Hooker that teaches Feldman's Brother Ambrose about sex, describing the act as ordering dinner, and Peter Boyle is reunited with Feldman as a down on his luck religious con-artist. Richard Pryor almost steals the show as G.O.D. a supreme supercomputer but it is Andy Kaufman as televangelist Armageddon T. Thunderbird who makes the film somewhat unforgettable. Brilliant comedy from some sorely missed greats. Satire has never been so innocent, it's so sweat that I'm sure even the Pope could forgive them their fun.

Left Behind
Dir: Vic Armstrong
2014
*
Based on the first novel of Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins' Left Behind series, Vic Armstrong's film concentrates on just one aspect of the overall idea; a dispensationalist apocalypse. The books have been successful, not just in Bible-belt America, but I think this is largely down to the suspenseful writing, the style often compared to that of Stephen King and Tom Clancy's. I've heard Christian rock songs with good rifts and some of the most popular of pop songs have ridiculous, nonsensical and sometimes insulting lyrics, sometimes you can go with the flow without noticing certain intentions but this isn't one of those examples. Vic Armstrong's 2014 film, the forth made from the franchise so far, is one of the most stupid films I have ever seen. It would be offensive if it weren't so ridiculous. The premise is simple; one day, without warning, everyone who believes in God disappears, supposedly ascending into heaven. Everyone else not worthy is left behind and face the prospect of seven years of God's wrath. However, the film doesn't get to the wrath bit, that is saved for the equally unlikely event of a sequel. The main story is extremely similar to that of Stephen King's The Langoliers that was a short story made into a film in 1995. It saw a similar 'event' whereby half the passengers on an Airplane suddenly disappear and the remaining passengers try to deal with the panic that follows. In King's The Langoliers, the Airplane wonders through a rift in space and time and they find themselves in a slightly different dimension whereby the passing of time is represented by giant spiky ball monsters who eat everything in site. It's a far more realistic and entertaining story. In Left Behind, our passengers not deemed worthy include an ex-drug user (should have said no), a science guy (not so clever now), a Muslim (wrong God dude), a couple of atheists (will they ever learn?), an adulterer (dirty girl), the wife of a famous Baseball player (everyone knows God is an ice-hockey fan) and a midget (?). Fairly insulting and judgmental work but then the Christians who are taken are portrayed as about as obsessive and delusional as they possibly could be. I'm not sure who the film tries to please, judging by the reviews I've read, absolutely no one. The insulting message is only the start though, the acting is terrible (just when you thought Nicolas Cage's career couldn't get any worse), the effects are shocking and the script is easily the worst I've ever heard. One of the worst films ever made. Save yourselves and watch the excellent This is the End instead.

Jesus Camp
Dir: Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady
2006
*****
2006's Jesus Camp is shocking. Not shocking because it tells us something society wasn't aware of as such, but quite how excepted the subject matter is. This isn't cutting edge investigative journalism, it's very simple stand and shoot stuff and that makes it quite a frightening watch. No one openly challenges the subject and everyone in the film seemed to be quite happy to contribute to the filming, all the better for documentary makers Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady and Mike Papantonio but terrifying that they were allowed in many respects. Their restraint must have taken a lot of will power, I applaud them for that. Personally, I wouldn't batter an eyelid if this film were to be re-categorized as a horror. The clever thing about this fly-on-the-wall documentary is the idea of acceptance. It's not the hate or ignorance that is on display that frightens the most though, we've seen this before. It is disturbing to see such young people mislead and manipulated, even more so when the manipulators actually say "I don't see why we can't brainwash them" but it is the acceptance of the parents, the believers and those involved that there is nothing wrong with what they are saying, even when they contradict themselves that really sends the shivers down the back. I liked the fact that the opposition, or 'voice of reason' if you like, came from a Christian, a real one that goes to a real church and believes religion and politics are two very different things. You have to be pretty naive to not realise that many of the worlds problems stem from religion but to see it up close and invited can be quite deeply disturbing, especially when it can be absolutely anyone who is doing the preaching.

The Magdalene Sisters
Dir: Peter Mullan
2002
*****
2002's The Magdalene Sisters is a harrowing film and so it should be. It's a harrowingly real depiction of real life events, an amazing film but at the same it's hard to really claim to have enjoyed watching. The hardest thing to really grasp is how this ever happened in the first place, especially in the name of goodness, and that the last correctional facility actually only closed in 1996, just 16 years before this film was made. I'm an atheist, quite a staunch one at that but live and let live. I was bought up a catholic and was an alter boy for several years. Our priest was one of the kindest (and funniest) guys I've ever met and it often annoys me when priests are constantly portrayed as either paedophiles or cruel persecutors as I find it to be a bit of an unfair cliche to the many who are guilty of nothing but kindness. However, terrible suffering and cruelty has and still does occur, quite a bit around the world, and it is important that the true stories are told. The Magdalene Sisters tackles the subject quite gracefully, I was so impressed by Peter Mullan's direction of his debut film, 1998's Orphans, and this just cements my views that he is just as good behind the camera as he is in front of it. Eileen Walsh's performance was stand out for me but the whole cast put in strong performances, never once falling short of being utterly compelling. Highly recommended food for thought, tastefully and intelligently handled. My biggest and only gripe was the awful poster that was released in America promoting the film (doe-eyed Eileen Walsh, looking playfully to one side, making the film look like a romantic comedy). For me it was just another example of a long list of films that are marketed by idiots who know nothing about the product.

The Jazz Singer
Dir: Richard Fleischer
1980
****
Richard Fleischer's remake of The Jazz Singer (the original is noted as being the first 'talkie') is cheesy as hell and is probably the blue-print for every awful music biopic made in the 1980's. So obviously I really enjoyed it and thank it for what it has done. Neil Diamond isn't an artist I can really say I'm a huge fan of but I have to admit I was really taken by the songs (I even bought his greatest hits off the back of watching this and it is now a much listened to album during long car journeys) and he's a pretty good actor too. To star alongside a great such as Laurence Olivier and look unfazed is pretty impressive, he isn't the best actor in the world but i do find it surprising that this was his first and only acting experience. It's no masterpiece but it has that late 70's/early 80's charm that I dearly love, so I really enjoyed it.

Ro.Go.Pa.G. (AKA Let's Have a Brainwash)
Dir: Pier Paolo Pasolini, Jean-Luc Godard, Roberto Rossellini, Ugo Gregoretti
1963
****
RoGoPaG is a collection of 4 short films. Ro is for Roberto Rosselini. His film Illibatezza (Virginity) is the introductory film, a mildly amusing film about obsession, control and lust. It's really nothing special and has dated somewhat. Go is for Jean-Luc Godard. His film Il Nuevo Mondo (New World) is actually a 'first draft' if you will of Alphaville which he made 2 years later and is a million times better, although it is nice to see the progression of ideas and it's still quite good. Pa is for Pier Paolo Pasolini's controversial and notorious, La Ricotta (Curd Cheese) and the main reason I wanted to watch the film. Shocking to think that Pasolini spent 4 months in prison for his efforts, due to Italian governments strict laws on blasphemy. Who says the church don't have a sense of humour! Unfortunately, it packs little punch in this day and age, I can see why it caused offence but I still don't think it's a particularly clever idea. It is beautifully shot though, especially the colour scenes. The last and in my opinion, the best of the three films is actually the one I was bothered about the least. G is for Ugo Gregoretti. His film Il Pollo Ruspante (Free range Chicken) is probably the only film here that is relevant to our current society and modern life. The script is fast and furious, deadpan and quite brilliant. It's worth watching the other 3 mediocre films for, criminally underrated and overlooked. That said, all four films are worth watching, all insightful into modern thinking and the social revolution of 1960's Italy.

Religulous
Dir: Larry Charles
2008
****
Religulous is more comedy than documentary but it's almost as much of a documentary as Borat was but without the fake characters (excluding the guy who thinks he's Jesus). Anyway, I'm an Atheist, so I wasn't offended and I thought it was funny. Bill Maher, a comedian I wasn't familiar with until watching the film, was preaching to the converted as far as I was concerned. Did he pray on easy targets? I suppose he did in a way, the people he interviewed were pretty much all ignorant and weren't even sure of the teachings, history or scriptures of the religions they were following. However, these weren't people minding their own business, these were people either making a living from religion or standing on soap boxes preaching about their religion, making them more than fair game. Bill Maher doesn't respect other peoples beliefs. How can you really respect something you yourself don't agree with, I certainly don't disrespect other religions, live and let live but I'm with him on that one, one can be vocal about something they don't agree with as much as something they believe in. He asked good questions, intelligent questions but all the answers given where ridiculous. Like him, I can no more truly respect an adult that believes in Santa than an adult who believes in God, virgin birth, taking snakes etc, although I would defend your right to practice and we could still be friends. To be fair, for all the anti -Christianisums going on here, it's the two interviewed priests that came off best with no joking around, just intelligent and interesting conversation. It's actually the US senator that comes off worst and you can't say he was an easy target (or maybe you can). Maher has been criticised for concentrating mainly on Christians but like he says in the film, it's pretty hard to infiltrate certain religions - especially when he looks so Jewish and certain religions are antisemitic, he was born Christian and so sticks to what he knows best to a degree. He still gives it a good go and the three big religions get a look in. Larry Charles is a clever guy too, a sneaky guy but someone who has mastered the art of satire quite well. The editing of the film is hilarious, I laughed throughout. Richard Dawkins represents atheists on an intellectual level but he's just not very funny, he also gets (understandably) worked up when actually giving the other side a little more than they deserve. Bill Maher on the other-hand says, you know what, you've been shoving this crap down our throats for long enough, religion should not be used by the higher power for control and in order for us to evolve as a race we need to grow up and stop looking for fairies. Everyone is fair game, we've heard your opinions again and again, now it's our turn. Now he could have done this the nice way or the nasty way and I can't say I saw anything nasty here. If you're offended, chances are you're religious. Didn't like it? Well now you know how most atheists feel. I'm not playing a tiny violin or anything but the argument that this is somehow unbalanced annoys me as religion has had centuries to speak uninterrupted.

Holy Smoke
Dir: Jane Campion
2000
**
Comedy dramas are ten a penny but that's not to say they're easy and always work. That's not to say you can't have dramatic moments in comedy or funny scenes in dramas but this particular film fumbles between the two in such a clumsy way that neither the drama or the comedy elements hold any weight. Jane Campion is a better writer and director than this, the performances from Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel are fine, so I'm afraid the blame lies with her. It has been sold as a 'Sexy Satire' but I'm afraid I saw no satire and nudity doesn't automatically make something sexy in my opinion. I was thoroughly bored by the middle of the film and there was no great conclusion to make me feel I'd spent my time wisely. The direction was good but not enough.

Lourdes
Dir: Jessica Hausner
2009
*****
A film destined to be misunderstood I wonder. Jessica Hausner's Lourdes is a film about a young woman in a wheelchair who is paralysed with MS and is embarking on a pilgrimage to Lourdes, the holy retreat in the southwest of France that many believe to be a place of miracle healing after a visitation of Mary to a local many years ago. This isn't meant to be a film about religion (Christianity), faith, the existence of God and/or the possibility of miracles. That's just a narrative to uphold what the film is really about, and that is people (although obviously faith is explored but in the context of the human condition rather than as in religious/catholic faith). Every human emotional trait is explored, and quite wonderfully so. It is subtle, accurate but never preachy, pompous or pretentious. It is also my favourite film of 2009 and in my opinion, one of the best of the decade. Jessica Hausner is a director I'm definitely going to be looking out for and Sylvie Testud is a wonderful actress who I'm equally on awe of. Utterly captivating and oozing charm, it is a beautiful film.