Showing posts with label Anthony Hopkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthony Hopkins. Show all posts

Sunday, April 4, 2021

The Father (Amazon Prime)

 

The Father (Amazon Prime)

Antony Hopkins is the tail end of legendary British actors: Olivie, Geilgud, O’Toole and Burton. His performances are masterful whether in lead or in supporting roles. His character, Anthony, who suffers from dementia is diametrically opposed to the vibrantly intelligent Anthony Hopkins of 83 years. Hopkins portrayal is painfully accurate.

For people of a certain age this movie will have a chilling effect. A neurologist once told me when you walk  into a room and you forget why you went there, that’s OK. When you cannot find your misplaced phone, no problem. But when you come home remove your shoes and put them in the freezer then you have a problem. Anthony’s condition is beyond kitchen appliances. Antony slips in and out of a state of  lucidness to befuddlement with vacant eyes and fingers fumbling for his missing watch. Dementia is a thief, robbing  you of memories of past and present. Certain words you have known all your life can not escape the tip of your tongue.

The direction and editing of the film gives a visceral example of dementia. In Antony’s mind different people are the same person and his residence is of uncertain ownership or location. A closest is a doorway to another place. It is a bit confusing to keep up with the film.

Olivia Colman (Favorite, and the Queen in the Crown) is the anguished daughter. In the post nuclear family her dilemma is whether to live her life or care for her father. His deteriorating condition is a challenge to her and a carousel of spent caretakers. Colman’s anxiety is relatable to caregivers or to people expecting care. She gives a bravi performs to a demanding role.

This is not an easy movie to watch. It is an excellent movie with outstanding performances. Both Hopkins and Colman are nominated for 2020 Academy Awards. As they should be.

 

 

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Noah


This film is a mish mash of movie genres; fantasy, sci-fi, adventure and Bible stories. The problem is which reference point do you use? In a sci fi movie like Star Wars you have no problem accepting a Wookie, a Death Star or a guy with a fish head playing a clarinet in a dive since your reference point is sci fi. In Noah, no matter how hedonistic you may be, your reference is the Bible. When fantastic creatures are on screen they are just incongruent. Bible stories themselves have elements of fantasy but there is a commonality to them. The fantasy in this movie falls outside of that commonality. When I saw the Watchers (fantasy creatures), I sat up and said “what the heck” (I did not say heck, I said something else). I guess the writers could not get beyond spit balling the script.

Russell Crowe does not look like a 500 year old pre flood patriarch, rather he looks like He-Man. He has on going battles with the bad guy king Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winston; a British actor who is basically a thug with an Equity card. All the actors are very good. This is about the third time Jennifer Connelly is married to Russell Crowe on screen. Antony Hopkins, Methuselah, is Noah’s grandfather and does some wizardry with Emma Watson (go figure) who is Noah’s adopted daughter. Methuselah gives Noah magic beans (sounds familiar) to get the Ark started.

The Ark looks like a failed wood shop project. It is a long tar covered rectangular box of logs and timber. The animals came two by two, or so they say. Then Noah’s family goes throughout the Ark with incents putting the animals to sleep. Fortunately humans are not affected. This biblical anesthetic is complemented by iron, bamboo, tea, gun powder and iron pipes all in the same time line. Even fantasy needs some rationale and order. The writers never heard of PBS.


Towards the latter part of the story the film focuses on solid dramatic acting without gimmicks. It is a key climatic moment and very well done. Is it that well done to carry the film? I would not go so far. In the end to legitimize the film the writers steal two sub plots directly from the Bible. Noah is seen picking grapes and getting drunken from his five day old wine. In the Bible Noah is the first drunk. The script alludes to the Curse of Ham (Ham is Noah’s son) but it needs to be more revealing (see Genesis 9:20). It is odd that a movie so divergent wants to end on the right side of God. May be sacrificing the writers is justified?