Kagemusha: A Review (Review #1037)

KAGEMUSHA

Akira Kurosawa is held as one of the Great Directors, a master craftsman of cinema.  This is a well-earned reputation, especially in his early films.  His latter films still had sparks of brilliance, though Kagemusha, at the end of his career, may be more for the Kurosawa lover than for an average film-goer. This is not the film I would use to introduce him/her to Kurosawa, mainly due to length and subject, but it still has enough of his brilliance to make it a worthwhile visit.

Japanese warlord Shingen along with his brother Nobukado (Tsutomu Yamazaki) find a petty thief about to be crucified who bears a striking resemblance to Shingen. This thief will now become Shingen's double, essentially a 'kagemusha' (shadow warrior).  The thief (Tatsuya Nakadi in a dual role) is a little bit bonkers, but hardly in a position to argue. 

The plan is to use the double on special occasions as needed, but as Shingen is laying siege to a castle, a sniper gets the warlord.  Shingen extracts a promise to keep his death secret for three years, lest his enemies take advantage.  Now, the kagemusha is forced to go through this charade full-time.  At first, he refuses, especially after discovering Shingen's preserved body inside a massive jar.

However, while spying Shingen's courtiers sailing to a lake with his body, the double discovers that enemy spies have seen this too.  He then offers his services, and a cover story is created that the massive jar was really sake and that the jar was an offering to the gods for victory.  This rouse seems to work, but Shingen's enemies are still suspicious about the goings-on around Shingen.

For his part, the kagemusha is bonding with his somewhat dubious grandson, while Shingen's own son Katsuyori (Ken'ichi Hagiwara) is highly irritated by the shenanigans, as it will mean he has to wait three years to take full command.  Shingen's heir attempts to trick the kagemusha into revealing his true identity despite the careful training and coaching the courtiers have given him, but for once the kagemusha manages to outwit his opponents.

The other warlords still have doubts and decide to strike anyway.  The courtiers want a more measured approach, but Katsuyori won't be denied.  Soon, the kagemusha becomes a pawn in everyone's plans, with him powerless to do anything on his own.  He soon starts being haunted by the real Shingen, dreaming he has come to stomp him out. 

Eventually, the kagemusha soon takes on too much of Shingen's manner and is thrown from Shingen's horse, who is not fooled.  The deception unmasked, the thief is sent away and the courtiers, against their better judgment but cajoled by Katsuyori, decide to engage the enemy in battle.  It's a slaughter, and the thief, attempting to gain some kind of redemption, is himself struck down, his body carried off by the waters, unable to save the clan's banner.

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this, but Kagemusha may be a subtle critique of Japan's continuing struggle to deal with its World War II past.  I thought of this during the scene where the kagemusha is instructed to sit there in silence while the generals discuss strategy, only speaking when he is signaled to end the meeting.  When he gets an unexpected surprise when Katsuyori asks 'Shingen' (whom he knows is a fake) what to do, everyone is stunned.  The kagemusha manages to say something that sounds reasonable, then manages to dismiss the meeting.

I was reminded of how then-Emperor Hirohito was always presented in post-war Japan as a mere figurehead with no powers while his generals and ministers did the dirty work ranging from the Rape of Nanking to the Bataan Death March and all points in between.  The actual involvement Hirohito had in Japan's war direction is still a subject of fierce debate, but one that in Japan is all but verboten.  Is Kagemusha, with its story of war and the involvement of the courtiers with no input from its false head, a hidden allegory on the idea that maybe the head really didn't have any involvement whatsoever?  Could the head of government and head of state be both passive and active simultaneously?

Granted, this might be my own interpretation, but it did leave me wondering.

In other matters, Kagemusha still holds some truly beautiful visual moments that Kurosawa could create.  Some battle sequences appear to be precursors to Ran, and the dream sequence between Shingen and the double are both hypnotic and slightly deranged. The double's discovery of Shingen's body is shocking and so well-rendered.

Kurosawa also got strong performances out of his cast, though it is interesting that women do not feature much in Kagemusha apart from Shingen's mistresses, who are fooled thanks in part to the double not lying with them, only to them. 
 
Nakadai does double duty as the proud Shingen and the slightly crazed and meek double, and he has some exquisite moments.  One such powerful moment is when he is instructed to wait and watch as his troops defend him as they go out to die.  He is impassive and weak, yet so many are dying for him, even those who know the whole thing is a sham.

Again, I go back to whether Kagemusha, with its tale of futile battle for something others knew was futile, was Kurosawa's opaque commentary on how, even after the Japanese leadership knew they could not win the Second World War, they kept fighting on for a lie.  And again, I may be the only one reading that interpretation, but I am happy that such a thought could be drawn from the film.

Again, at three hours Kagemusha may be too much for a casual film-viewer.  It may also put people off thanks to some of the more theatrical acting, even if it would stay within more traditional Japanese acting.  Apart from that, Kagemusha still has enough within it to make it a strong film, though I favor Ran as the late-Kurosawa masterwork.  I can see how films like Kagemusha might have influenced others like Kurosawa fanboy Martin Scorsese with Silence. 

Kagemusha says much about the futility of maintaining myth, especially in war.  It also, oddly, made me think of all things, Moon Over Parador (unimportant person is forced to masquerade dead leader), so there's that.  Who knew Kurosawa's Kagemusha could potentially influence a comedy?

DECISION: B+ 

Winchester (2018): A Review (Review #1036)

WINCHESTER

I've heard of the Winchester Mystery House, on how the proprietress of said mansion, Sarah Winchester, is said to have built it to keep the ghosts at bay who might seek out revenge for their deaths at the hands of the Winchester rifle.  Regardless of the veracity of said legends, they persists.  Winchester attempts to meld those stories into a more traditional horror film that still tries to be contemporary in its frights and gruesome visuals, but it ends up being an unintended comedy.

Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke), a man with a troubled past who has a weakness for women and a drug addiction, has been asked by the directors of the Winchester Repeating Company to evaluate the mental health of its majority stockholder, Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren).  Sarah, the widow of the Winchester founder, has had a continuous construction crew in her California home for years, working nonstop day & night, only to either tear down parts of the house later or bolt empty rooms up.

Price sees that there are only two other residents at the Winchester Mystery House: Sarah's niece Marion (Sarah Snook) and Sarah's son Henry (Finn Scicluna-O'Shay). Already spooky things are going on, as Henry has started sleepwalking, and in his state either threatening other people or at one point jumping off a ledge, with only Price seeing this bit and racing to catch him.

Mrs. Winchester believes that the spirits of those killed by her company's product are coming after her, and in her madness there is method: the rooms keep the spirits locked in until they accept her remorse, wherein they can be free and the rooms torn down.  She, apart from that, is of sound mind and body.  Price, however, has an otherworldly connection: he 'died' when his wife shot him, but managed to return from the beyond.  Despite his own brush with death, he is a skeptic.

However, he sees malevolent spirits jump around him, and sees Sarah apparently possessed by a spirit, furiously drawing out a room that she has quickly built.  The room is vaguely familiar to Sarah, and soon we know why.  One of her 'servants' is really Corporal Ben Block (Eamon Farren), a Confederate who lost two brothers in the Civil War thanks to the Winchester's superior power over the Confederate weapons.  Blaming Winchester for their deaths, he storms into the Winchester headquarters to kill them all, only to end up getting killed himself at the showroom when police storm in.

Now, the spirit of Corporal Block has come from the beyond to unleash his vengeance, preying on young Henry as part of his supernatural plot.  It takes a battle to defeat him, and to both bring peace to the Blocks and the Winchesters.  Having seen all this, Dr. Price himself finds peace with his own past, abandons drugs, and gives Sarah a clean bill of health.

I think the big problem with Winchester is that it exists.  That might be a bit harsh, but everything about Winchester is so bungled that rather than be scary, it ends up being funny.  The fact that Peter & Michael Spierig (The Spierig Brothers as they are billed) are so sincere in their efforts to make everything 'scary' only makes things more hilarious.

The servants are all so overly creepy in their looks and mannerisms that any real sense of tension and danger is gone.  They constantly throw in those 'jump scares' where some monster pops out at you that again, you aren't scared.  Rather, you are amused.

Even the family is so overtly 'scary' that you just have to chuckle at it all.  No amount of 'jump scares' and overly moody music can save Winchester from being so silly as to be almost a spoof of horror films.  Part of me thinks that Winchester would have been better if it had intentionally set out to mock some of the horror conventions rather than try so desperately to use them in the way they did.

Bless Mirren and Clarke for trying to take all this seriously, but in their performances, you get the sense that even they knew that Winchester was an unintended spoof and at a certain point gave up.  Mirren hopefully had a lot of fun playing the eccentric Sarah, because if this was a sincere performance, Mirren went off the rails.  She was at times almost silly as the spooked Sarah, her efforts to 'calm' the spirits playing like farce.  Clarke, I think, wanted to play this seriously, and the Spierig Brothers screenplay written with Tom Vaughn, attempted to give him a backstory with his drug problem and haunted past (no pun intended).  However, the film had a hard time making him the skeptic when he kept finding himself facing off against monsters and creepy servants left right and center.

It takes a particular skill of badness to get good actors into looking like fools, so the Spierig Brothers have that.

What is genuinely sad is that the story of Sarah Winchester and/or the Winchester Funhouse make for fascinating subject material without all the hocus-pocus hokum Winchester threw at it.  By drowning a potentially good story with second-rate, cliched supernatural overtones more suited to Insidious or Annabelle-type films, what could have been a good time turned into a comical misadventure of supernatural proportions.

Winchester the Movie, you're bringing me down...

Circa 1840-1922

DECISION: D+

Rebel in the Rye: A Review

REBEL IN THE RYE

I read The Catcher in the Rye, the major work by J.D. Salinger, and was not overly impressed.  It's a brilliant, well-written book, but it was not for me because I am well past my angst years.  Truth be told, I don't think I had any actual angst years. 

Salinger, our lovable cantankerous recluse, refused to ever sell the film rights to The Catcher in the Rye and spent his decades post-Catcher refusing interviews and writing but not publishing.  We had to wait seven years after his death to get a biopic, Rebel in the Rye.  Salinger, I'm told, loved movies.  He certainly would not have loved Rebel in the Rye save for being played by the extremely handsome Nicholas Hoult.

In 1939, Jerome David Salinger (Hoult) yearns to be a writer of note.  He certainly does not yearn to be a 'bacon king' and follow in his father Sol's (Victor Garber) footsteps in business.  Jerome has his eyes on a pretty young thing named Oona O'Neil (Zoey Deutch), daughter of legendary playwright Eugene.  He manages to squire her around town, but he also is a bit hesitant to succumb to her charms.

He manages to get into Columbia University, where he finds a mentor in Whit Burnett (Kevin Spacey), a writing instructor who also edits Story Magazine.  Our cocky, cocksure Jerome keeps pushing to be published and arrive, while Whit keeps shaping him to write with his own authentic voice.

One short story particularly impresses Whit: A Slight Rebellion Off Madison, as does the main character, one Holden Caulfield, whom Whit pushes Jerome to write a whole novel for. 

Then comes The War, and Jerome goes off to Britain to fight.  Here, two major events in Jerome's life occur: he learns that Oona has not waited for him but married Charlie Chaplin, and he participates in both D-Day and the liberation of concentration camps.

Jerome returns, emotionally battered and with a new wife he quickly disposes of.  He also continues to write, but finds himself struggling.  It is only through meeting a Buddhist guru that Salinger starts finding another way, and he punches out The Catcher in the Rye.

He finds the idea of publishing and the press/public attention to his work very bothersome.  He becomes more metaphysical, marries again and soon starts withdrawing from everyone and everything.  He breaks off relationships left right and center and eventually turns total recluse.


I find that Rebel in the Rye is hardly rebellious.  In fact, writer/director Danny Strong's film is quite standard in telling this part of Salinger's life story.  We get the standard 'he finds bits that will eventually find his way into his Opus' details.  There's the opening scene, where Salinger complains about the 'flits and phonies' he meets at a club.  There's when after getting beat up by robbers, he finds himself in front of a carousel, watching the children in delight. 

We get those words of wisdom from the mentors, ranging from Whit's advise of "imagine a book that you want to read, and then write it" to Salinger's guru own metaphysical insights. 

We see lots of scenes of him writing out at his typewriter or on his notebook, with his loving mother cheering him on while his disapproving father and sister don't.

In many ways, Rebel in the Rye is quite square.

Not that there is much wrong with that, as I believe that it is hip to be square. It is just that Salinger still remains highly opaque, physically there but emotionally or spiritually absent.  A lot of Rebel in the Rye felt rushed, where we were hitting a few highlights on our way to this inevitable masterpiece of American literature.  The love story between O'Neill and Salinger was underdeveloped to where when he reads that she married Chaplin, there is no impact on the viewer. 

Same when Salinger breaks off his relationship with Whit.  From the film, this split comes from Whit's inability to get an anthology published.  Salinger thinks it was deliberate, Whit insists he fought hard and simply could not do it.  I'm thinking it was somewhere in between, but Rebel in the Rye isn't convincing for either version.  It also does not show how Salinger was becoming either more eccentric or more arrogant, such as in his refusal to have the manuscript published for others to read.

This led to a good moment in the film, when the publisher went up to our crabby literary genius and asked if he wanted a publisher or a printer, for if he wanted the latter, he could go and do that himself.  It's the only time where someone stood up to Salinger, and the only time Salinger gave in to someone else.

Perhaps apart from being too handsome to be a realistic Jerome David Salinger, Hoult was one of the positives in Rebel in the Rye.  He's become an extremely reliable actor who can elevate the material, at least as much as he can.  I cannot fault Hoult for not making Salinger into someone I could either relate to or understand, or in those awful voiceovers that are the bane of my cinematic experiences.  Spacey, in perhaps one of his final films before his shocking downfall, shows us his talent, making Whit's evolution from the cynical mentor to desperate supplicant a strong performance.

If there is a great flaw in Rebel in the Rye, it is that so many other important figures, such as O'Neill or Claire Douglas (Lucy Boynton), his second wife, pop in and out so quickly you don't get what the connection was between them.

As an insight into this most mysterious and crabby of literary giants, Rebel in the Rye does not give us much.  It is not a bad film, with respectable performances and a great fondness of jazz music.  I could never accuse Rebel in the Rye of being a phony, because it was not very sincere to begin with.

1919-2010

   
DECISION: C-

I Can Only Imagine: A Review

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE

I am not a MercyMe fan, and I can understand why I Can Only Imagine, their first major hit song that was so popular it even found its way out of Contemporary Christian radio into country and pop stations, might have suffered from over-saturation.  This song has become a mainstay in many Christian worship and funeral services since its 2001 debut.  The film I Can Only Imagine chronicles not the actual writing of the song, which according to its songwriter Bart Millard took ten minutes, but Millard's life story and all the events that inspired the creation of perhaps the most recognized faith-based song outside Amazing Grace.

Bart Millard has a love of music, mostly as an escape from his parents' very troubled marriage.  As a child, he cannot please his drunk, abusive father Arthur (Dennis Quaid).  His mother takes him to a youth camp, where he re-encounters Shannon, who is a Christian and unbeknownst to him, has a major crush on him.  After he comes back, however, he has a nasty surprise: his mother has left and leaves him with Arthur.

Arthur was a major football star, and this is how an older Bart (J. Michael Finley) tries to win his father's love and approval.  Bad advise about 'never being brought down', however, causes Bart a career-ending injury.  He has no choice but to live out a version of Glee: the football jock forced into the glee club for his extracurricular course.

Bart adjusts to being the sound guy, but his glee teacher finds him singing along to one of his many cassettes, oblivious that anyone is actually hearing him.  To his shock and horror, Bart finds himself as Curly in a production of Oklahoma!, and to his bigger shock, he's actually good.  Even his beloved 'Memaw' (Cloris Leachman) cannot believe that is her Bart singing.


Arthur isn't won over, nor does he tell anyone the truth of his health issues.  Bart grows closer to Shannon and to faith but he is still an angry young man.  Arthur slams a plate at Bart's head before he goes to church to sing, and this is the last straw for him.  Bart is having a great crisis, for he not only has ended his relationship with Arthur but with Shannon, after she not-so-subtly suggests in front of Bart that "someone" needs prayer.

As soon as graduation comes, he flees his Texas roots to Oklahoma City, where eventually he begins his pursuit of a music career with a group of musicians.  Bart and his bandmates, calling themselves 'MercyMe' after one of his Memaw's favorite sayings, hustle to get the attention of the record industry.  Eventually they do find a producer, Scott Brickell (Trace Adkins), who sees something there but who also tells them they are not ready.

Despite his own misgivings, Brickell rides along with them, and manages to get a showcase for them in Nashville.  Bart forces his way to the post-concert meeting, where he's told again he isn't good enough.  The memories of Arthur's dismissive words come back to Bart.  Brickell urges him to 'stop running from the pain' and settle things with his father.  Bart goes back, and finds a more humane Arthur.  Despite Arthur's efforts to make peace and ask forgiveness, even admitting he has found faith and is attempting to make sense of Scripture, Bart will not yield and maintains his anger.

It is only when he learns that Arthur has terminal pancreatic cancer that Bart relents and starts mending his relationship.  They have a brief time together before Arthur dies, and at the funeral, Memaw gives him words of wisdom, telling him to imagine all the things Arthur now sees.

After returning to MercyMe, Bart still struggles with his own emotions: about Arthur, about what happened, about his failed attempts to reconcile with Shannon.  He looks over an old journal from his first youth camp, and finds the word 'Imagine' and the phrase 'I can only imagine' over and over.  Taking this as a sign, he writes his new song.

The song gets the attention of one of Bart's inspirations, Amy Grant (Nicole DuPort) through her friend Michael W. Smith (Jake B. Miller), both major Christian music icons.  Grant needs a 'comeback' song, and thinks I Can Only Imagine would be perfect for her new album and tour.  She plans to debut it at her first concert and has already recorded it.  However, she finds she cannot perform it, and asks Bart, who is in the audience, to sing it instead.  All his emotion pours out to a thunderous reception.  Shannon, who was at that show, reconciles with Bart, and Grant gives the song back to MercyMe.


In some ways, I Can Only Imagine is a bit fast and loose with facts.  For example, it isn't until the end that we discover Bart had a brother. Other aspects, such as his relationship with his mother, are pretty much rushed through.  However, I think Alex Cramer, Brent McCorkle and codirector Jon Erwin (who directed with his brother Andrew) were not aiming for a strict chronological story.

Instead, they were focused on Bart's own story, and one of the many pluses of I Can Only Imagine is that Bart Millard's story is one that many people outside of their faith or faith itself can relate to.  The issues of abuse, emotional and sometimes physical pain, redemption and forgiveness are issues that do not impact only those with a faith system.  It's a pretty universal story, as there probably has not been a person who has not had issues with their parents.

It's also a pretty human emotion to struggle with death and what comes after.  Millard's faith leads him to believe in an afterlife, and the song, when heard, expresses that peace that surpasses all understanding.  It speaks about hope for those who have passed on and for those who remain.

I find that I Can Only Imagine, more than most Christian-themed films, is not afraid to show Christians in a bad light.  Bart Millard is a deeply flawed and human individual.  Some of his flaws are for comic effect: the shock of his Oklahoma! casting causes him to fall over as he's trying to balance himself on his wheelchair's wheels.  Other times, though, his reaction to things is surprisingly human.  He remains angry at his father, even after Arthur struggles to make amends.  Bart yells, he snaps at people, he pushes Shannon away.

The image I Can Only Imagine creates of Bart Millard is not that of a saint, but as a man who even while acknowledging and feeling Christ within him also at times lets his human nature get in the way of being that new creation.  As Christians, we should forgive when someone asks forgiveness from us.  As sinners, we can hold onto our hurts and angers despite our faith.

It's a major credit to the film in finding Finley to play Millard.  A Broadway performer making his film debut, Finley makes Bart into a very relatable person: pleasant, enthusiastic, troubled, hurt, capable of causing hurt, angry, regretful and even a bit shy.  This is an excellent debut for the actor, who keeps Millard grounded in reality, neither setting him up to be a metaphorical voice of God or a cold, hard cynic.  The Bart Millard that Finley creates is that of an average man, feeling his way across life with a faith that he sometimes fails to live up to but which also gives him hope.

Quaid may have been a bit of a scenery-chewer as Arthur at times, but in his later scenes, where he is a reformed man, he does display Arthur's struggle with this new man he is attempting to be.  Quaid brings out that struggle, that unsteadiness in a man who is seeking out redemption and forgiveness to beings he does not know and that he's a bit afraid of: Christ and Bart.

It is nice to see Leachman, even if her role is small, and Adkins is carving out a nice side career as an actor, even if he too had a small role.  Madeline Carroll as the long-suffering Shannon did a good job, though the film sometimes forgot she was in there too.  As this was Bart's story, the formation of MercyMe or their transition from rock to a softer sound did get left a bit off, but again, this is not the MercyMe Story, or even the story of I Can Only Imagine the song.

Instead, it's the story of this one man, Bart Millard, who went through very painful early years and came out of it inspired, through his faith in Jesus Christ, to create something that has brought comfort to thousands upon thousands. 

Scripture tells us that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose.  It was sad and painful and tragic what Bart Millard endured, but out of that came a modern-day hymn about a joyful future past death.  I Can Only Imagine the film touches the viewer as deeply as the song.

This is The Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Born 1972

DECISION: B+

Gotham: Reunion Review

GOTHAM: REUNION

How crazy is a Gotham episode where Selina Kyle, future Catwoman, is the most moral and rational of our characters?  Reunion does a great job using its title to mean so many things, both for good or for ill, and it is exceptionally well-acted with some genuine twists. 

It also has that graphic violence that still troubles me to no end.

Bruce Wayne (David Mazouz) has finally come to the realization that his indulging of the flesh has not healed his soul.  He asks his loyal manservant, Alfred Pennyworth (Sean Pertwee) to return to Wayne Manor and him, but Alfred refuses until he gets a sign that Bruce really has changed.  Moreover, he still thinks Bruce has not embraced all the qualities of who he really is, both the light and the dark.

Ivy Pepper (Peyton List) is plotting her newest murder spree, targeting all those who have done her wrong.  Her efforts to kill former Detective Harvey Bullock (Donal Logue) fail when he is not at his bar, but then she gets an unexpected bonus when, using her hypnotic powers, gets Bullock to 'reunite' with his former partner, Captain Jim Gordon (Ben McKenzie) and lure him into a trap.  Her efforts to kill two birds with one stone: have Harvey kill Gordon then kill himself, go awry when Gordon uses his intelligence to outwit them both.

Sofia Falcone (Crystal Reed) is now plotting to take over all of Gotham, but there is still one area not  under her control: The Narrows.  She 'reunites' with her former sister-in-law, Leslie 'Lee' Thompkins (Morena Baccarin), the unofficial Queen of the Narrows.  She pushes Lee to force The Narrows to pay 30% on all activities, which Lee knows will break The Narrows.  Lee tries to convince Sofia that it would be better to leave The Narrows alone by offering information on Gordon, but Sofia scoffs at this.  She uses Lee's own men against her, as well as bringing back the former Narrows boss Sampson (Stu 'Large' Riley) to do Lee bodily harm.

As she is technically family, Sofia will only smash one of Lee's hands.


Edward Nygma (Cory Michael Smith) continues to struggle against being 'reunited' with his alter ego, The Riddler.  It's a losing battle as the decency of Nygma continues to face off against The Riddler's malevolence.  It gets to a crisis point where Nygma decides to commit suicide rather than let The Riddler take over. 

However, another alternative comes his way, and Nygma volunteers to commit himself to Arkham.  As he figures he has won over his darkest impulses, he gets a nasty surprise.

Waiting for him is his thwarted love, Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin (Robin Lord Taylor).  Pengy reveals that the letter he sent to Nygma was not really for Nygma, but for the one whose name he would not speak.  Now, however, Penguin speaks it, and speaks it with pride...The Riddler.  It was all part of his plan to break his enemy, and in turn get his help in breaking him out of Arkham.

Edward Nygma finally collapses, and The Riddler has taken over.

Ivy's plans for revenge culminate at the Wayne Foundation Annual Dinner, where she plans to kill everyone with her poisonous shrubs.  Bruce has already left but sees the chaos of the event and the GCPD storming the place.  After saving Alfred, his loyal manservant tells him he has found his destiny.  A disguised Bruce defeats one of Ivy's henchmen, and avoid capture by Gordon after the latter shoots him, the bulletproof vest saving his life. 

Ivy escapes but finds Selina (Camren Bicondova) at her place.  Selina is determined to stop her murderous frenemy, and it becomes a duel to the near-death, with both of them coming close to killing the other.  Ivy warns Selina to stay out of her way, and withdraws her killer claws.  This frees Ivy from the knife-point Selina has, though the Lazarus Water is now all gone.

Alfred returns to Wayne Manor, reunited with Bruce and it feels so good.

Reunion manages to balance all its spinning stories quite well: Ivy, Edward, Bruce, without shortchanging the others. There is never a sense that one story is the main story that overwhelms the others, though I figure Ivy is the dominant story as it is her plan to commit mass murder that drives a lot of the action.

As a side note, if I were a Gothamite I would seriously avoid the Wayne Foundation Annual Dinner.  It seems that every year some crazed super-villain attempts to kill everyone there.  I'd just send the check next time.

Director Annabelle K. Frost not only balances all the stories well in Peter Blake's script, but draws great performances out of this extremely talented cast.  The early scenes between Mazouz and Pertwee are especially strong and moving, their interplay so well-done. Bicondova too excels as Selina, whether facing off against Ivy or summarily dismissing Bruce, who is in search of someone to talk her.  Her mixture of toughness and morality makes this version of the future Catwoman exceptional, and true to the idea that Catwoman is more anti-heroine than straight-up villain.

CMS really does exceptional work in essentially a dual role, showcasing the gentility of Edward and the coldness of The Riddler. Granted, given the tortured relationship between Nygma and Cobblepot, I was not sure whether they'd kill or kiss each other, but Smith really has done exceptional work.  Even in his one scene, RLT shows simply what a find he was as The Penguin, coming across as both almost childlike and extremely dangerous.

I find that Logue, despite looking quite awful: overweight, in need of a haircut, still makes Harvey into someone you like, and his pairing with McKenzie's Gordon continues to work.  List's Ivy still vamps it up, but in a good way, and in smaller roles Baccarin and Reed maintain truth in their character's basic decency and evil respectively.

All the qualities in Reunion, however, cannot make me forget what I consider a gruesome moment when Sofia smashes Lee's hand.  By Gotham standards, this was pretty tame, especially since unlike past episodes, we did not see the nature of Ivy's killings.  However, what we saw was quite enough.

Given all the wild and actually logical twists, the strong acting, and the evolution of the characters heroes and villains, Reunion was an exceptional episode.  I am knocking a point for what I considered a bit too graphic a moment, but on the whole, this season of Gotham has been its best.

9/10

Next Episode: The Sinking Ship, The Grand Applause

Knife Skills: A Review

KNIFE SKILLS

The transitions from prison to civilian life is hard, especially when it comes to employment.  There is a prejudice against those with criminal pasts in terms of employment, which makes it hard for people who are attempting to transition into mainstream society.  That in turn can lead them to commit crimes again, where they return to prison.  Knife Skills looks at the issue of ex-convicts from a unique vantage point: from that of a business that deliberately sought them out.

Edwin's is a new, posh French restaurant in posh Cleveland.  With only six weeks to go before opening, restaurateur Brandon Chrostowski gathers a group of formerly incarcerated men and women to fill out the staff, everything from cooks to servers to sommeliers. This is already a pretty daunting task, but it is more daunting when you consider that none of the Edwin's employees have any background in fine dining, let alone know the differences in cheeses. 

Guided by master French chef Gilbert and sous-chef Gerry, the former complete with French accent, the various men and women at Edwin's must learn the variety and nuances of French cuisine while doing their best to stay within the training program.  We meet a variety of staff, such as Alan, who had served four years for drug trafficking, Marley, who has had a heroin addiction, and Daudi, who once had served ten years for aggravated robbery and now finds himself studying the vast variety of cheeses.

As a side note, if Edwin's were in Green Bay and not Cleveland, there would be a good Cheesehead joke somewhere in all this.

What makes this program all the more interesting is that Brandon is no mere do-gooder.  He himself has had trouble with the law, with a record for drug possession and evading arrest.  As someone who has been there himself, he knows the pressures his staff is under.

Edwin's opens, and there are a few bumpy moments, but for the most part it looks like the restaurant and the staff are a success.  There are, unfortunately, bad moments: Marley finds herself arrested again, drunk and passed out in public, and another trainee, Dorian, has a dispute with Brandon over a humidifier that causes him to leave the program.

Both, however, eventually return.  We learn that every year, 650,000 prisoners are released, with the rhetorical question hanging as to what happens after they go out into 'The World'.


We see in Knife Skills that these men and women are not their pasts.  Instead, we see a valuable lesson reinforced: that by trusting people to do their job, even after they make mistakes in their professional and/or private lives, they may still rise to the occasion and prove a greater worth.

Edwin's program is not purely altruistic.  It is there to make a profit, and if you cannot cut it, you yourself are cut.  It does not coddle you in any way, as you have to know your information. 

What I think people should get from Knife Skills is that people who are trusted in turn will trust themselves.  The men and women are taking the opportunity given to them and the ones profiled take it.  They show themselves to be skilled and intelligent, learning this rather strange new world and going into it with some trepidation but coming out of it with confidence.

Of note is Alan, one of the men featured who waxes rhapsodic about how his mother loved all those cooking shows like Julia Child, and who showed her children the arts and art appreciation.  It is not her fault that Alan made a poor decision, but we see this good man working to improve himself and in a sense, make his mother proud.

We also see that Brandon himself is not without his own flaws and demons.  He can be prickly and even insecure, confessing at the end that when he puts on his suit and tie at Edwin's, he feels confident and secure, but outside he still is troubled.  His message to his newborn son at the end has him struggling with his emotions, and he breaks down in tears at one point, the emotions within overwhelming him.

Knife Skills is a fascinating look at not only what goes into making it in the hard-and-fast world of fine dining, but of the people involved who seek redemption and a second, even third chance.

DECISION: B+

Two Short Film Reviews: Men Don't Whisper and Call Your Father

This will be reviews for two short films, both directed by Jordan Firstman: Men Don't Whisper and Call Your Father.

The first is Men Don't Whisper, which is 22 minutes.

Even among gay men, there appears to be an expectation of what a 'real man' is or isn't.  Men Don't Whisper, the short film, touches in a wry way these expectations about 'masculinity', leading to rather odd circumstances.

It's a sales conference seminar where Reese (cowriter Charles Rogers) and his business/life partner Peyton (Firstman) find themselves embarrassed by Dr. Jocelyn Verdoon (Cheri Oteri).  Dr. Verdoon encourages her mostly female audience to 'sell like men', and is shocked to find both Reese and Peyton hesitate when asked what they want.  Verdoon insists that men know instantly what they want and go and get it, so Reese and Peyton's hesitancy puzzles her.

Reese asks Peyton if he think Reese is 'masculine', and soon it becomes an informal competition between our males as to which of them is.  Reese insists his one heterosexual tryst in high school puts him as the more masculine, while Peyton turns to his more successful sales record.

There is only one way to settle this: they have to sleep with women.  Fortunately, there are two women who are hot to trot for our attractive duo: the clinically depressed and sunburned Beth (Bridey Elliott) and her more aggressive BFF Dominique (Clare McNulty).  Despite Reese and Peyton's more gentle manner and vacation pictures of hot Greek guys from their vacation in Mykonos, the women agree to have sex with the men.

Both men, however, are starting to question their decision to 'go straight'.  Reese finds himself with Dominique, while Peyton is paired with Beth, still struggling with the fact her soon-to-be-ex-husband killed someone in a hit-and-run.  The boys struggle to find sexual interest, more than once running into the bathroom together to encourage each other emotionally and physically.

Their efforts at heterosexuality flop big time for as hard as they try, they simply cannot.  It's Beth who states the obvious, then lectures the both of them for being misogynists.  "Just because you're gay doesn't mean you're not misogynists," she tells them, with both declaring they will report them to Human Resources.  Our boys, defeated, return to their hotel room, accidentally finding Dr. Verdoon in a compromising position with a man they had seen earlier powdering his face at the bar and dismissed as less masculine than either of them.

Men Don't Whisper made me wonder whether Reese and Peyton really were misogynists, and the more I think on it, they probably are.  Even as they were not attracted sexually to Beth or Dominique, they were going to use them as both sex objects and as 'notches on their belt' in the same way heterosexual men would.  This hoped-for tryst was nothing more than a metaphorical penis-measuring contest between this gay couple, and Men Don't Whisper plays well with this curious concept.

Firstman gets good performances out of his cast, and any film that uses Oteri in such a wild way as the hyper and hyper-assertive seminar leader gets points.  We get a great contrast between the more sexually aggressive and somewhat clueless Dominique, who does not think anything is off when Reese tells her he loves her shoes, and the more dubious Beth, who questions why there are so many pictures of shirtless men on Peyton's phone.  We also get good visuals, in particular when our very confident 'heteros' stride back to the girls, ready for a romp they both know they have no desire for in any way.

First and Rogers also give us nice subtle moments that reveal character, such as Peyton scrolling through his phone at liking various photos of attractive men while assuring his partner that he is indeed masculine.

Men Don't Whisper is a short that could be expanded more, especially if it gives Oteri another chance to really go wild and showcase her talent.  I was a bit lost as to who was whom between Reese and Peyton, as they don't use their names until later.  I had to see it twice to notice their name tags.  I also think the bit where they had to go back to the hostess' desk to be seated and served at the bar even though the bar was practically empty was a bit odd.

However, on the whole Men Don't Whisper was a nice, brief tale of two gay men trying to live up to some ideal of what 'a man' is, only to come out looking foolish.

DECISION: B-

The second review is for Call Your Father, running 20 minutes.

Call Your Father is a smart comedy on the pitfalls of generational romance which has moments of oddball humor and moments of actual human emotion, a well-crafted dramedy.

Greg (Craig Chester) is a fifty-year-old gay man who is on a daylong date with Josh (Firstman), who is 24.  This date takes very curious turns, where the different worldviews between a Boomer and a Millennial keep crashing into each other.

Josh constantly tries to get Greg to drink, even after Greg tells him more than once that he is sober (so I'm assuming he is a recovering alcoholic).  Josh texts while Greg waits, then muses that all of Greg's friends must have died of AIDS while waxing rhapsodic on his own friend's suicide.  He gets Greg involved in a theft of a Rihanna mug, with a very embarrassed Greg unsure why Josh did that, or exactly who Rihanna is.  Greg is temporarily stranded in the city until Josh surprises him and invites him to his place.

There, Greg is still slightly puzzled by Josh, but the sexual attraction is too great and they have sex.  Greg asks Josh if he has a condom, and while Josh replies that he does not and implies he does not need one, Greg's lust overtakes his caution and they indulge in the pleasures of the flesh.  It's only after Josh appears to threaten suicide by hanging that Greg finally has had enough of this rather mercurial yet intensely attractive fellow and leaves.  However, in his car, while swearing he won't get involved with Josh, he still hesitates, the push-pull between a paternal and erotic love making him doubt.

Call Your Father, whose title comes from something that the older Greg yells at Josh, seems to have a lot of fun mocking the younger generation.  As portrayed by Firstman, Josh is self-centered, prone to saying oddball things, and showing very little discernment.  He also appears needy and irrational.

However, Greg is no saint either.  He endures Josh's behavior primarily out of self-interest, and despite having seen first-hand the ravages of AIDS, which sadly many Millennials think is both a thing of the past and something that won't touch them, he lets his erotic desire for Josh trump the rational caution of using a condom.

Firstman should be congratulated on having some wonderful visual moments in Call Your Father, particularly the beautiful lighting when Greg and Josh consummate their relationship.  He also draws a wonderful performance from Chester as the much put-upon Greg, who seems sensible but who also cannot argue against Josh's rather torturous logic about how texting while on a date is 'acceptable' because Greg never told him to stop and thus, accepted the behavior.

Firstman also does a good job as Josh, making him mostly a comic character who makes even the most ghastly statements and actions almost endearing in his clueless nature.  His monologue about Greg's friends all dying because of AIDS is both cringe-inducing and amusing in its insensitivity.  Even when rationalizing strange moments, such as when he tells Greg, "I stole because you're boring," we see Josh as more thoughtless than deliberately mean.

I am not sure if Call Your Father is a bit of a spoof of a May-December relationship or an exploration of the differences between the generations when it comes to romance.  It is, however, a good short film, even if I wonder about a date that goes as long as this one.  Then again, I was not sure if this was a first date or not.

Nevertheless, Call Your Father and Men Don't Whisper show Jordan Firstman to be a young filmmaker on the make, with these proving strong calling cards.

DECISION: B+