Foreign Movies

‘Irreversible: Straight Cut’ – Gaspar Noe’s Infamous Film Still Packs a Devastating Punch

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

I remember when Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” was released in 2002 and of the polarizing responses it received at the Cannes Film Festival and from audiences around the world. A rape and revenge story which, like Christopher Nolan’s “Memento,” is told in reverse and comprised of scenes done in long takes, it is still best known for two scenes of punishing ultraviolence: one in which Monica Bellucci’s character is raped in an underpass which lasts for almost ten minutes, and another where a man’s face is bashed in by a fire extinguisher to where he is no longer recognizable to anyone.

I never got to watch “Irreversible” when it played at a theater near me. Back in the day, I considered myself quite the adventurous moviegoer as I went out of my way to watch those films which did not often screen at the local multiplex because they were considered too disturbing for mainstream audiences. But after being so emotionally drained by “Breaking the Waves” and “Dancer in the Dark,” not to mention going through the cinematic equivalent of electric shock treatment that was “Requiem for a Dream,” I was not sure I could stomach what “Irreversible” had to offer, so I waited to view it on DVD where I could lower the volume or fast forward through the hard to watch parts.

Still, part of me regretted never having witnessed Noe’s unnerving film on the silver screen, and this is coming from someone who watched Larry Clark’s controversial “Kids” in a theater with his parents. But now, Noe has released a new cut entitled “Irreversible: Straight Cut,” and on top of it being remastered, it presents the story in chronological order this time around. The question, however, is if this cut will be just a mere gimmick.

The story remains the same with lovers Alex (Monica Bellucci) and Marcus (Vincent Cassel) going to a party along with Alex’s former boyfriend, Pierre (Albert Dupontel). But this straight cut starts with Alex and Marcus waking up after a night of passionate love making. I love watching this opening scene as the intimacy between these two characters, played by actors who were married at the time, as it is so lovely and unforced. So much attention has been paid toward those two unwatchable violent scenes that many forget about these scenes here. Seeing these two lovers together proves to be a wonderful sight as this intimacy is rarely shown enough in movies, and I came out of it feeling envious for Cassel as he got closer to Bellucci than I ever will.

From there, “Irreversible: Straight Cut” goes on a path which leads straight to hell as the road to it is always paved with good intentions. Alex is eager to bring Pierre along for the ride because she knows he gets along rather well with Marcus, and he still has feelings for her. Hearing Marcus and Pierre brag about who was better in bed with her played more strongly for me this time out in this chronological take. In fact, as we are thrust more deeply into one of “Irreversible’s” main targets which is toxic masculinity. Marcus is so consumed with rage over what happened to Alex that he is utterly impulsive and not using anything resembling common sense. Pierre is infinitely desperate to make Marcus see that he would be better off staying in the hospital with Alex rather than trying to seek vengeance and, even though I have long since seen the original cut, I found myself hoping Pierre would succeed this time around.

With “Irreversible: Straight Cut,” Noe has done an excellent job of making this version more than just a mere gimmick. The edits between each scene feel as seamless as they did before, and our attention is now glued to what may happen as opposed to what has already transpired. The more I watched this cut, the more I came to see how it dealt more with the uncontrollable impulses of man to where anything can happen, and this makes the final outcome all the more devastating. Truth be told, the events portrayed here remind me of all those moments I would love to get back as they created a level of damage I never intended.

As for the elongated rape scene, it remains as brutal and unnerving as ever. I did see one man walk out of the theater during it, and part of me expected to see more audience members to do so. I found myself looking away from the screen at times as I became increasingly enraged as ever at what the unrepentant pimp, La Tenia (played by kick boxing champion Jo Prestia in a truly fearless performance), was doing to Alex. There are few other motion pictures I have sat through where I wanted to see a certain character die a most painful death, and La Tenia is seriously deserving of such a fate.

At this point, I should make clear some facts about the rape scene as many of “Irreversible’s” detractors consider this film to be “pro-rape,” something I completely disagree with. The truth is, Noe was not sure how long the rape scene was going to last, and it turns out Bellucci was the one who ended up directing the scene as she wanted it to be as disturbing as possible. Also, Noe’s camera is constantly moving all over the place throughout “Irreversible,” but it remains paralyzed throughout the rape scene as he wants us to remain in Alex’s frame of mind instead of La Tenia’s. Had the camera moved along with every thrust of La Tenia’s body, we would have been in his mindset, and that would have affected the morality of this film in an inescapable way. In my mind, Noe justifies the rape scene in “Irreversible” because of the way he filmed it.

Seriously, “Irreversible: Straight Cut” reminded me of when I first watched “Deliverance” years ago. While many motion pictures are meant to be enjoyed, this one was made to be experienced even if it was against my will. There is no easy escape from the rage of revenge here as Marcus descends even deeper into a hell which Pierre desperately wants to keep him away from. While I have watched “Irreversible” several times before, I still found myself praying still for another outcome.

This film has also been accused of being homophobic as Marcus yells out many degrading insults to the patrons at the Rectum club, but there a couple of things to consider. Noe himself has a cameo as a Rectum regular who is busy pleasuring himself, and this was his way of showing he was on equal footing with characters he portrayed here. As for Marcus, all I can say is that when you find yourself in a state of intense anger or rage, you find yourself saying things you never thought you would ever utter.

As for Pierre, whose vicious actions end up giving him the worst outcome in this film, he represents a case study of deep repression as he keeps his emotions deep inside. But when he bashes that guy’s head in with the fire extinguisher, his repression ends up finding an exit in the worse way possible, and he ends up destroying himself in a way he could never have seen coming.

Basically, what I am trying to say about either cut of “Irreversible” is that Noe did not make this film simply to shock audiences. Yes, he went out of the way to make us feel uncomfortable while we watched it, but there is more substance to this film than we initially saw on the surface of it. In the end, it presents us with a tragedy we would be best to avoid in our own lives as it is anti-rape and anti-revenge more than anything else. If you do not believe me, then you did not look at this film closely enough.

In comparing the two cuts, I have to say I prefer the original cut more as its reverse structure carries more dramatic weight. As we come to see these horrific acts and what led to them, each preceding scene makes us think about what could have been done to avoid such horrific fates. Still, “Irreversible: Straight Cut” gives audiences something to chew on even as it takes things to a finale which is as bleak as can be. When it comes down to it, I am curious to see what people think about the straight cut, particularly those who have not seen either cut before this one. With a film like this, the responses to it prove to be endlessly fascinating.

Come to think of it, comparing “Irreversible” to “Deliverance” reminds me of the pieces of advice characters give in each film. In “Deliverance,” Jon Voight tells Burt Reynolds, “Let’s go back to town and, ah… play golf.” Imagine the horrors those men would have avoided had Reynolds heard Voight out. But when it comes to “Irreversible,” it features a terrible piece of advice which hangs over the film as Alex attempts to cross a busy street when she is told by a woman nearby:

“Take the underpass. It’s safer.”

Original Cut: * * * * out of * * * *

Straight Cut: * * * ½ out of * * * *

No, I Haven’t Seen It Until Now: Akira Kurosawa’s ‘Ran’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

I pride myself on having a vast knowledge of movies. While my many of my friends stumble across a movie they don’t recognize, I am usually quick to name it even if I have never watched it before. Everyone is amazed at how I could know such things. Still, when it comes to older movies and the great filmmakers who ever lived, there are still many I need to catch up on.

One of those filmmakers I really need to catch up on is Akira Kurosawa who is considered by many to one of the greatest of all time. Until I saw “Ran,”, the only movie of his I had previously watched was “The Seven Samurai” which really is one of greatest movies ever made. Of course, I got exposed to the American remake, “The Magnificent Seven,” beforehand, but anyway.

“Ran” was the very last movie Kurosawa made on such an epic scale, and as amazing as it looked when it was first released, this is even more the case more than 30 years later. Kurosawa clearly had the power to request literally thousands of extras, and it is easy to see well-dressed studio executives looking at him to where, had he made this movie today, would have asked him:

“Can’t you just add all these people in with CGI? Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper just to hire like 50 guys instead of 1200?”

If they didn’t ask them that, they would obviously come up with the obvious solution:

“We’ll solve it in post!”

Looking at the title and scenes from the movie trailer, I figured the title “Ran” meant the main characters were running from certain doom throughout like it was a big chase. This should show you what I know about the Japanese language, and that is not much. “Ran” actually means “revolt” or “chaos,” and Kurosawa’s movie is filled with so much of both to where this is ends up being a cinematic experience both physically and emotionally draining.

Kurosawa based the story on the legends of the daimyo Mori Motonari and of how he had three sons who were intensely loyal to him. This led him to look at the story a little differently and say the following:

“When I read that three arrows together are invincible, that’s not true. I started doubting, and that’s when I started thinking: the house was prosperous and the sons were courageous. What if this fascinating man had bad sons?”

Of course, anyone familiar with William Shakespeare will say that “Ran” is heavily influenced by the tragedy of “King Lear.” Indeed, the story very much resembles that of “King Lear” as we watch a powerful leader abdicate his throne, and he ends up being betrayed by his own blood in the process.

The powerful leader at the center of “Ran” is Hidetora, leader of the Ichimonji clan. The story starts with Hidetora abdicating his throne to his three sons Taro, Jiro, and Saburo. The majority of the power is given to Taro who is his eldest son, and Jiro and Saburo are ordered by their father to support him no matter what. Saburo, however, does not agree with Hidetora’s decision to disperse all of his powers, reminding him how his kingdom came about through his own treachery and massacre of others. Hidetora starts acting all uppity as if he’s a superstar celebrity who is not used to hearing the word “no” much, and he banishes Saburo from the clan as well as his servant Tango who speaks in Saburo’s defense. It’s amazing what breaking three arrows together can do to a man’s ego.

From there, it is a vicious downfall for Hidetora as he is banished from his kingdom ever so coldly. Many characters here profess to believe in a god, be it Buddha or someone else, and they pray for their assistance in this little world which is quickly collapsing. If there is a god watching over them, he, or she, is blind to their sufferings or deaf to their endless prayers. Hence, this is quite a bleak movie from a thematic and visual standpoint.

After watching “Ran,” I was compelled to learn more about it. While researching the movie more deeply, It turns out “King Lear” never really entered Kurosawa’s mind until he was deep into pre-production. Along the way, he did incorporate different elements of the play into it, and he had this to say about Shakespeare’s classic tragedy:

“What has always troubled me about ‘King Lear’ is that Shakespeare gives his characters no past. … In Ran, I have tried to give Lear a history.”

Now this is what gives Hidetora, among others characters, such gravity throughout the nearly three-hour running time. He was not a leader who earned his kingdom through family succession, but through the pillaging of villages and murdering those who were against them. Perhaps he would like to forget this, but his power and family are forever stained by his deeds, and he is reminded of this in the most painful of ways.

With this in mind, it is no wonder two of Hidetora’s three sons end up turning against him. What his legacy has taught them is you can’t get anywhere in life without beating the crap out of the other guy and stealing everything he and his followers have. Only Saburo is fearless and selfless in telling him this and of pointing out the fact he will always be seen as a killer. Saburo at least cares enough to tell him this instead of just sucking up to him like his brothers do. Some people hear the word “yes” once too often when they need some others say “no” every once in a while.

As we see Hidetora losing his mind and in a state of disbelief, I was reminded of Will Munny, Clint Eastwood character from “Unforgiven.” Both these characters become sick, and in their feverish state they become haunted by the lives they ended ever so coldly. They have tried to convince themselves they are not the same people they once were, and Hidetora appears to develop amnesia in an effort to block his mind of his past deeds. But nightmares abound in his sleep reminding him of the price he has yet to pay. You could even compare this character to Anakin Skywalker who becomes the very thing he fought against in “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.” In the process of trying to prevent the love of his life from dying, he gives up everything he believes in. Hidetora believes that by passing the leadership duties to his oldest son his clan will continue to prosper. The more we fear of something bad happening, the more likely that bad thing will happen.

Taking this into account makes me realize one of the most important elements in the Kurosawa movies I have seen; they are very dependent on the depth of their characters as much as they are on spectacle. Granted, this is only the second movie of his I have seen, but it feels like just enough to understand why his cinematic works made such a strong impression on Steven Spielberg and George Lucas (“The Hidden Fortress” is said to have been a huge influence on “Star Wars”). Most movies today are just about spectacle, and the characters are usually a distant second to it. But it is this focus on character which makes “Ran” so involving and gives its epic scope much more meaning.

But let’s talk about the spectacle of “Ran” which is incredible to say the least. One of the key sequences is the horrific massacre which takes place at the third castle where Hidetora takes refuge. What really struck me was how Kurosawa put Tōru Takemitsu’s music score over the sounds of violence perpetrated by his sons as it gives what is being presented to us with far more emotional power. Takemitsu’s music further illustrates the immense tragedy tearing this powerful clan apart which leaves Hidetora in an endless state of shock. Without the music, it would still be a cinematic high mark of capturing battle on celluloid, but it would not have the same effect.

The bloodbath of the massacre is made all the more vivid by Kurosawa as “Ran” was made long before the advent of CGI effects. With this sequence, Kurosawa brilliantly captures the ugliness and viciousness of war, and of the cruel nature which dominates these characters’ humanity.

All the acting is nothing short of excellent from as the entire cast invests each of their characters with various complexities which allow them to surprise us in unexpected ways. Hidetora is played by Tatsuya Nakadai, and he immerses himself completely into playing a man whose own pride and self-righteousness proves to be his undoing. Without saying a word in the last half of the massacre, Hidetora communicates his utter regret of his thoughtless decision making which has led to the decimation of what he once had. Nakadai makes Hidetora’s eventual descent into madness all the more vivid, and his performance never ever descends into camp.

I also loved Mieko Harada’s performance as Lady Kaede, Kurosawa’s version of Lady Macbeth. Through her deceitful ways, viciousness and endless manipulation, she always seems to get her way and turn the men around her into quivering jelly. Harada’s moments onscreen are among my favorites as she exploits the fears of the men around her and seduces them despite their mistrust of her. Never let it be said that Kurosawa ever writes weak roles for women because it certainly isn’t the case here. Lady Kaede wants to maintain her high status in the clan, and she is ruthless in how she pursues it.

You could say they don’t make movies like “Ran” anymore, but it did come out in a time when they weren’t being made much. For many, it serves as the culmination of all his talents, of what he has accomplished in his career, and of all the struggle and tears he shed while making this movie. During the making of “Ran,” Kurosawa’s wife passed away. By the time he got around to shooting the movie after working on the script for ten years, he was almost completely blind. Regardless of these setbacks, nothing stopped him from making this movie.

Years after its release, “Ran” stands as one of the classic movies from one of the best filmmakers ever. No one can or should doubt the heart and soul Kurosawa put into it for years and years, and getting to see it on the silver screen was a real treat. When all is said and done, the silver screen is where this movie belongs.

* * * * out of * * * *

Gaspar Noe’s ‘Vortex’ – An Unflinching Descent into Oblivion

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

This movie starts off simply enough with an elderly couple outside of their apartment in northeast Paris, having what looks like lunch and some wine as they are enjoying the long life they have had together. The wife then asks her husband, “is life a dream?” He responds, “life is a dream within a dream.” Seeing these two together in such a simple setting spoke to me of a couple who have lived what looks like a very successful life. It also proves to be the happiest scene this movie has to offer.

“Vortex” is the latest piece of cinema from Gaspar Noe, a filmmaker I very much admire and have no problem nor hesitation in defending. This particular movie is his most mature one to date, but do not for one second think he has lost a single ounce of his audaciousness here. With “Vortex,” he takes us on a cinematic journey which I can best describe as being unflinching as we follow this couple as their mental and physical health are on a permanent downward slope. Gaspar begins this movie with a dedication which states: “To all those whose brains will decompose before their hearts.” This is then followed by Françoise Hardy singing “Mon Amie La Rose,” a song about going from life to death. Suffice to say, you know from there that this movie will not have a happy ending, and there is no music score from Thomas Bangalter to elevate us out of the bleakness on display.

With “Vortex,” Gaspar goes out of his way to utilize the split screen approach, which Brian DePalma used to great effect in his movies, and a line is slowly drawn down between these two characters to where their existence together will never be the same. They go about their daily activities in what seems like the usual mundane way as the husband works on a book he calls “Psyche” which deals with movies and dreams, and the wife goes shopping at local stores near Stalingrad Station where they live. But as she travels through the aisles of one store, we see on her face how lost she is to where it quickly become clear she has no idea where she is at. Keep in mind, this is just the start of the story. We have yet to see how truly bad things will get.

As for the husband, the work on his book is constantly being undermined by his wife’s deteriorating condition which shows itself in the most horrifying of ways. In addition, he is suffering health problems of his own as his heart condition has him checking his blood pressure every other day. Their only hope is the help they get from their son, Stéphane (Alex Lutz, playing one of the few characters here with an actual name), but he can only deal with so much as he has problems of his own which includes raising his son, Kiki (Kylian Dheret), and recovering from his mental breakdown and a drug addiction which threatens to overtake him in the face of inevitable mortality.

We know Dario Argento best for being one of the best horror filmmakers ever which such classics as “Suspiria,” “Deep Red” and “The Bird with the Crystal Plumage” among others. As for Françoise Lebrun, she is a highly acclaimed French actress who has appeared in a plethora of movies, most notably in Jean Eustache’s “The Mother and the Whore.” Together, these two do not act their roles as much as they inhabit them. With the split screen setup, this makes perfect sense as every single moment in this couple’s time together counts for everything. Even the most mundane of details carries a lot of meaning as these two experience a deterioration neither is prepared to accept or fully deal with.

I also have to give Alex Lutz a lot of credit as well. Not only does he inhabit his role alongside Argento and Lebrun, but he never overacts in the slightest as his character of Stéphane has to carry the weight of his parents’ mental and physical demise all on his shoulders, and anyone who has been through a similar situation can certainly relate. Still, the scene where he relapses without even knowing his son is watching him freebase proves to be quite devastating.

With “Vortex,” Gaspar is not out to pass judgment on these two characters or those around them. Instead, he makes us follow them are inevitable journey to death which we know is coming. Is it cruel of him to do this? No, not really as we have a certain denial when it comes to the finality of life. We know it is coming, but who is prepared to deal with it? While we say we will be there for our loved ones when they breathe their final breath, who exactly looks forward to that?

Watching this movie, I was reminded of some dialogue from one my favorite television shows, let alone one of my favorite HBO shows, “Oz:”

“Let me tell you, dying is a lot harder on the living than it is on the dead. Death really only hurts those left behind.”

“Do we care for people when they’re sick because we actually care about them? Or do we care for them because when our time comes, we want someone to care for us?”

“The state’s attitude to the elderly, any elderly, in or out of prison is… hurry up and die.”

With “Vortex,” Gaspar is not out to suggest any course of action, but to instead offer us an unflinching look at a couple’s last moments before they expire. Even if I felt the urge, I could never look away from the screen as these two individuals breathed their last breaths. Now while it might sound like I am spoiling this film for you, I am not. Some films you watch to enjoy, and others are meant to be experienced. “Vortex,” like all of Gaspar’s films, is meant to be experienced more than anything else, and I applaud it for that.

I would also like to add how “Vortex” makes me want to look at my parents and tell them the following:

“If you ever get dementia, I will kill you. You understand?”

Filmmaker Lars Von Trier was once quoted as saying the following:

“A film should be like a rock in the shoe.”

That is certainly the case with “Vortex.” This is not the first Gaspar Noe film to give you this feeling, and it certainly will not be the last.

* * * * out of * * * *

‘Mandibles’ is Not Your Usually Hollywood Fare, Thank Goodness

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

I came out of Quentin Dupieux’s “Mandibles” (French title: “Mandibules”) not sure what to think of it right away. Part of me was expecting an uproarious comedy, but while there are some good laughs to be had, this is not a laugh riot like “Airplane” or “The Naked Gun.” Moreover, the screenplay is a bit flimsy to where the film really shouldn’t work. But even if “Mandibles” is not quite what I expected, it is certainly never boring, and I cannot deny that I enjoyed it.

We are introduced to the main character of Manu (Grégoire Ludig) when an acquaintance spots him sleeping on the beach even as the water washes over him. This acquaintance offers Manu a job; pick up a suitcase and deliver it to a mystery man for a nice big wad of cash. Manu, who has just been recently rendered homeless, jumps at the opportunity, steals a beat-up car which happens to be unlocked, and he brings his longtime friend Jean-Gab (David Marsais) with him for backup. On their way down the road, however, they hear a buzzing coming from the rear. Upon opening up the trunk, they discover there is a housefly the size of a suitcase residing there, and it is the kind you have to check in because it will not fit in the overhead bin.

Now in any other movie, the characters would be wondering where this fly came from and how it got so big, but Manu and Jean-Gab are as interested in asking these questions as Dupieux is in answering them for the audience. Instead, they look at this oversized creature as something they can train for their own benefit to where they can get it to steal food and money for them. From there, we watch as these two characters, who are far too simple-minded for their own good, fumble about in training their new pet fly (Jean-Gab eventually calls it Dominique) while stumbling into various situations they have no business being in.

Dupieux is working with absurdist comedy here as he gives us two male characters whose collective IQs are not very high to put it mildly. They end up kicking an old man out of his trailer so they can train the fly in it, but Manu accidentally burns it to the ground. Seriously, these two are the kind who jump at any get rich scheme in a heartbeat to where their unbridled enthusiasm overwhelms any real thoughts or plans they could possibly put together. They would have been over the moon had they found that advertisement which promised 11 records for a penny, and I take great pleasure in knowing their SAT scores are far worse than mine ever were.

“Mandibles” then shifts into high gear when Manu is met by a beautiful blonde named Cécile (India Hair) who mistakes him for someone she went to school and eventually made out with. Manu cheerfully plays along, and he and Jean-Gab find themselves as guests at a beach house which comes with great vistas, a nice swimming pool and tons of food for the starving duo. Of course, they still have to keep the fly a secret from their hosts, but we know their cover will eventually be blown and their pet discovered. Or will it?

Watching Ludig and Marsais here is endlessly entertaining as they try to stay one step ahead of their suspecting hosts. That they are able to do so speaks more of dumb luck than anything else. They also have their characters saying “toro” to one another in the same way Johnny Depp kept saying “forget about it” in “Donnie Brasco.” “Toro” takes on different meanings for Manu and Jean-Gab as they explain to others how it works for them, and this helps to cement the strong connection they have with one another even as they insult one another, pretending they are brighter than the other.

Another performance worth noting is the one from Adèle Exarchopoulos. She portrays Agnès, a young woman who cannot help but speak at an ear-splitting volume due to a skiing accident she endured which left her with brain damage. Basically, she is like a certain character Will Ferrell played on “Saturday Night Live” who suffered from Voice Immodulation Syndrome, and every word she utters is magnified to an alarming extent. While this threatens to be a one-joke character, and this is a hit and miss comedy, I have to give Exarchopoulos credit for not making Agnes too broad. She could have easily fallen into an acting trap but does not, and the realization when she makes a certain discovery (you will know it when it comes) is worth the price of admission.

I also have to say the fly itself is wonderfully realized by the filmmakers. It looks real without ever coming across as some chintzy special effect. Kudos to actor and puppeteer Dave Chapman for portraying the fly as he makes this creature more than just something which could have easily turned into a wisecracking sidekick. As much as I would have loved for this fly to have down to earth conversations with Manu and Jean-Gab, it’s just as well it did not happen here.

When it comes to Dupieux, he is best known for his film “Rubber” which is about a tire which comes to life and kills people with psychokinetic powers. I have not seen that one, but I did watch his film “Wrong Cops,” a black comedy I could not quite get on the same wavelength with even when I wanted to as its cast gave their material their all. With “Mandibles,” however, I found myself appreciating the conflicts he gleefully subjected these characters to throughout.

“Mandibles” isn’t quite what I hoped it would be, but what unfolded before my eyes on the silver screen, and it was very nice to see this or any other movie on the silver screen in this age of pandemic, proved to be entertaining from start to finish. Some may enjoy it more than others, but there is more to a movie like this than many of the summer blockbusters currently inhabiting the local multiplexes around the world. When all is said and done, it is always welcome to have a piece of cinema which does not conform to Hollywood formulaic standards.

* * * out of * * * *

Corpus Christi Fearlessly Questions Our Beliefs in Religion and Redemption

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

“Corpus Christi” was one of the five films nominated at this year’s Academy Awards for Best International Feature (formerly Best Foreign Film). While it was destined to lose to “Parasite”, this does not in any way speak to its overall quality. In fact, I hope people get a chance to check out this import from Poland if and when they get the chance. While its plot might make it look like a remake of “Sister Act,” “Corpus Christi” is a deeply thoughtful look at religion and of how the road to redemption is a rough one for the average convicted felon.

We are introduced to Daniel (Bartosz Bielenia), a 20-year-old man who has spent several years in prison for a violent crime, as he serves as lookout for the guards while a fellow inmate is being assaulted. But soon after that, we see him taking part in a religious service with the prison chaplain, and we can see he has found a spiritual awakening while behind bars. He aspires to become a priest, but his criminal conviction prevents him from ever becoming one. I always find it interesting how when a convicted felon does his time and is released from prison, but for some odd reason he or she is never fully free. They always seem forever defined by a past which no one will ever let them completely atone for. Like the DMV, people never forget.

Upon his release, Daniel is sent to a remote village where a job as a day laborer awaits him, but he sees a church in the distance and decides to walk over to it. Once there, a quick lie allows him to be mistaken as the church’s new priest, and it is a role he jumps into with little, if any, hesitation. But while he proves to have a strong and positive effect  to where the church seats are filled up more than they were previously, we know his past will eventually catch up with him. Moreover, he knows it will as well, and a scene where we hear a clock ticking loudly alerts us to how his time is running out.

For a time, “Corpus Christi” plays like a comedy as Daniel seems ill-equipped to be a priest. During a confession where a mother talks about the troubles she is having with her teenage son, he furiously looks at the internet on his cell phone to get an answer, any answer. In one of his sermons, he repeats the words the priest in prison spoke to him and his fellow convicts such as “I’m not here to pray to you mechanically” and “each of you is the priest of Christ.” Clearly, he is stumbling about, but he eventually inspires the local community to where the church finds its attendance increasing to an astonishing degree.

Director Jan Komasa, working from a screenplay by Mateusz Pacewicz, is never quick to reveal every aspect of this small-town Daniel resides in. We eventually come to discover how a tragedy has long since engulfed the town in a never ending state of grief, and we are with Daniel every step of the way as he uncovers the devastation which has left the residents in such an infinitely mournful state. While he is essentially doing a “fake it till you make it” act a, the efforts Daniel makes to heal the town of its deep emotional wounds is truly moving, and I found myself rooting for him to have a positive effect.

Bartosz Bielenia gives a powerful performance as Daniel, and he inhabits this character with a truly fierce passion for his newfound calling. While Daniel is in lying about being qualified to be a priest, he quickly proves to us how his spiritual awakening is no joke. His methods may not always be sound, but his willingness to help those in his parish comes from the heart. Even when he is eventually exposed, and this is really not spoiling anything, I was left enthralled by Bielenia’s portrayal as Daniel because his religious calling is never in doubt to him or those who have flocked to his church.

At the heart of “Corpus Christi” comes a number of questions: What does it mean to have faith? What does it mean to be a religious person? Does redemption ever get fully realized by the society which surrounds the sinner? Does any individual deserve to recognized by their past more than their present? While this church, or any other church, may have rules about who can and cannot a priest or a nun, one wonders if those rules should be so stringent after watching this movie. Daniel’s spiritual awakening is no joke, and I personally would rather converse with a priest who was a sinner than one who has a “holier than thou” attitude.

Seriously, the more I think about “Corpus Christi,” the more I am reminded of a routine from George Carlin’s classic comedy album “Class Clown” entitled “The Confessional:”

“I wanted to get into Father Byrne’s confessional one Saturday maybe a half hour before he showed up and get in there and hear a few confessions, you know? Because I knew according to my faith and religion that if anyone came in there and really thought I was Father Byrne and really wanted to be forgiven…and perform the penance I had assigned…they would have been forgiven, man! ‘Cause that’s what they taught us; it’s what’s in your mind that counts; your intentions, that’s how we’ll judge you. What you want to do. Mortal sin had to be a grievous offense, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. You had to WANNA! In fact, WANNA was a sin all by itself. “Thou Shalt Not WANNA”. If you woke up in the morning and said, ‘I’m going down to 42nd street and commit a mortal sin!’ Save your car fare; you did it, man!”

When it comes to Daniel, he may not be a priest, but he is willing to hear you and help you out. While he may be breaking sacred rules, at least he is making an effort to get you past your sins.

“Corpus Christi” ends on an ambiguous note as Daniel may have found a salvation he may not have expected to find in the direst of circumstances. Unlike the average faith-based movie, this one is not out to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus Christ. All that matters is Daniel believes such a person exists, and this may have very well saved him from a horrific fate. Some questions deserve an answer, but others deserve to be pondered on for a long time.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT MY EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JAN KOMASA AND BARTOSZ BIELENIA ABOUT “CORPUS CHRISTI”

‘Shoplifters’ is an Emotional Rollercoaster and One of the Best Movies of 2018

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Shoplifters movie poster

Hirokazu Kore-eda’s “Shoplifters” is one of the most emotionally resonant movies I have seen in 2018, and it is a real gem in a cinematic year dominated by, big surprise, superhero blockbusters and endless sequels. The hope and warm emotions which emanate from it feel like the kind I have not been witness to on the silver screen in ages, and the movie dares you to ponder what the word family really means. While many see families being bound by blood, “Shoplifters” suggests there is more to it than that.

Things start off with Osamu Shibata (Lilly Franky) arriving at a supermarket in Tokyo, Japan, and we will eventually see how this movie got its name. With him is the young Shota (Jyo Kairi), and they use hand signals with each other to indicate when the coast is clear to take what they want and need. Put aside the fact no parent or adult figure should ever be teaching a child to steal; these two have an effective system which leads to them obtaining the goods they need without going through the checkout line or setting off an array of alarms. More importantly, it shows the strong connection between these two, and it is not one which is easily formed.

Upon arriving home, we see they with several other people in a cramped apartment which was made for two people at best. Among them are Osamu’s wife, Nobuyo (Sakura Ando), who works an unforgiving and low-paying job at a local laundromat, their daughter Aki (Mayu Matsuoka) who performs sex shows for anonymous customers, and grandmother Hatsue Shibata (the late Kirin Kiki who steals every scene she is in) whose residence they all reside in. Everyone here is suffering through an unsteady economy dominated by recession, so these characters are forced to steal items such as food and clothes in order to get by. Yes, Hatsue does have her late husband’s pension to fall back on, but it is never enough to fulfill their needs.

Then on one cold evening as Osamu and Shota are returning after another successful day of shoplifting, they come across Yuri (Miyu Sasaki), a 5-year-old homeless girl sitting all alone by herself. As the temperature decreases rapidly, and you could do a drinking game for every time a character says “it’s cold,” they decide to take her home for the night. With their apartment overcrowded, Nobuyo suggests they return Yuri home, but a visit to her residence reveals her parents are abusive to one another and to Yuri as well. As a result, Osamu and Nobuyo find themselves informally adopting her.

What struck me most about “Shoplifters” is how genuine its emotions feel. From a distance, the description of the plot might make it seem something along the lines of “Three Men and a Baby” or maybe even “Raising Arizona,” both of which featured characters who become parents in unorthodox ways. But Kore-eda is not out to manipulate our emotions for a single second as he lets life unfold before us in a way which feels real and unpredictable. No one appears to be acting here, and every single actor inhabits their roles to where you are seduced into the movie’s wonderful atmosphere with what seems like relative ease.

The affection everyone in the small apartment has for Yuri feels wonderful and hopeful to take in, and her presence has a profound effect on them all. The scene where Nobuyo and Yuri burn the 5-year-old’s clothes in an effort to start fresh in life speaks volumes. The two share scars of past abuse, and Nobuyo cuddles her and says how people show their love for one another through hugs, not violence. If there has been a more genuinely sweet scene in a 2018 movie, I missed it.

As for the others, Osamu and Nobuyo find an intimacy in their relationship which has eluded them for far too long, and Aki yearns to get closer to one of her customers as she can no longer keep him at a distance. Shota slowly begins to bond with Yuri to where he feels comfortable calling her sister, but this later leads him on a journey to find himself in a way which will have inevitable consequences for everyone that we don’t really see coming.

Revealing more of what happens in “Shoplifters” would be criminal, but I can tell you the last half is truly devastating as everything we thought we knew about these characters is turned upside down. One of Kore-eda’s masterstrokes as a writer and director is he never judges the characters, and as a result, neither did I. Even as the local news reports of Yuri’s disappearance, Osamu and Nobuyo justify their actions by saying they did not kidnap her since they never asked for a ransom. It’s a weak defense to be sure, but seeing the connection these characters have with one another deeply moved me to where I actually found myself giving them a pass which I never would have in real life.

With “Shoplifters,” Kore-eda aims to look at what makes a family. While we collectively believe it is blood which makes a family, he wonders if there is more to a family than that. At a key moment, one of the characters says if having a baby automatically makes you a parent. Well that goes without saying, but considering the love and affection these characters grace Yuri with, I had a hard time finding enough of a reason to separate her from them.

Kore-eda was also influenced by the Japanese recession, and he uses this to deal with the declining social statuses many are forced to deal with in the country. Then again, “Shoplifters” could be about any country where greed continues to wreak havoc due to corporations valuing the size of their profits over the rights of the workers who helped get them those profits. We Osamu trying to get whatever work he can, and the work he gets never pays enough. Nobuyo’s job offers her a pathetically low wage, and then later we get a scene where her boss forces her and her co-worker to decide amongst themselves who should get fired when it is determined there is only enough money to keep one of them on the payroll.

“Shoplifters” is a movie which will stay with you long after you have watched it. I was deeply moved by it from start to finish as its humanity really made me appreciate the value of family in a way no other movie has in a long time. We are at a point where there are far too many movies to keep up with, but this is one I highly recommend you check out above others. This one took me for quite the emotional ride and left me fully wringed out by its end, and the experience was one of the most rewarding.

* * * * out of * * * *