ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD (G)

Werner Herzog is one of my favorite directors, period. He can be erratic and overblown, yes, but he is inarguably a deep thinker, outrageously creative and attacks his art with a ferocious, focused, almost rabid passion. He is, likely, a bit insane.


Encounters at the End of the World, which may be his first G-rated film ever, piqued my interest immediately, and I was rather excited by the prospect of taking K to see a Herzog film (I’m sure I’ll force Fitzcarraldo on him before he’s ready for it; he wants to see Grizzly Man, but I’m holding off on that, as great as it was.). We missed a showing of End of the World at our (lone) little rep theater in the area, due to a dead car battery, and when it showed later in the Big City, it was showing at a theater that I find so physically uncomfortable (let’s say, repulsive) that I’m on a personal boycott of the place.

So, I resigned myself to renting it, and watching it on a small screen at home (so wrong!), and promptly put it on our Netflix list.

Imagine my surprise when I saw a listing for it at a wonderful new space in our area, one that shows films and occasionally hosts live events, while also serving pretty good food. There it was, a Saturday matinee. Off the three of us went.

So, here is the good news and bad news about Encounters at the End of the World.

First, the good news: it’s a wonderfully, fully-Herzogian adventure, replete with colorful characters (what kinds of people end up at the Antarctic, at the very edge of the earth?) who tell endlessly entertaining stories (what are they doing there? what brought them there?), and, of course, there is impossibly beautiful cinematography: Antarctic scenery resembling moonscapes, and underwater shots of sea life and topography that simply turn the world upside down.

Herzog somberly makes clear, early in his narration, that he was not intending, by any means, to make “another film about fuzzy penguins.” Funny, that’s not something we think Herzog is even capable of.

The bad news: it’s a bit long (even husband D – also an avid Herzog admirer – grumbled toward the end, “It should be over now”) and the interviews with the characters who live there probably appeal, in all honesty, more to adults than to kids. There are also hilariously Herzogian moments (that are a bit problematic for the kiddies) such as when Herzog asks a scientist questions such as, “Have you observed a segment of the penguin population that is gay?” and (imagine Herzog’s thick, intimidating accent here) “Do penguins ever just go insane?” (At which point D and I howled with appreciation for our favorite German filmmaker.) Insane penguins? Leave it to Herzog!

Of course, Herzog then proves we are laughing because we are heartless, shallow people. To prove the depths of possible penguin insanity, the segment ends with a classic Herzog moment, a heartbreaking shot of a confused, lone penguin, heading in the wrong direction while his buddies follow their instincts and waddle off to the ocean. “He faces 5000 long miles to the other coast, and will most certainly die,” Herzog intones mournfully.

One of the scientist’s answers about “gay” behavior involved an explanation about how some female penguins exhibit behavior called “prostitution," which is only distantly related to the human behavior as we know it . You can see how you would likely have some questions coming from your kids that you might not want to tackle at that very moment.

Do I recommend Encounters at the End of the World? Unequivocally, yes. Oh, for your kids? Well, it depends. Son K was sliding around in his chair and sighing audibly towards the end (ok, honestly, he even started shooting me looks that implied, “WHY AM I HERE?”), and while he is physically a very active (hyperactive we might admit) kid who has a hard time sitting still, he has managed to get through numerous films that aim a bit higher than the usual kid fare does. My guess is that kids over 12 may enjoy this the most, and get the most out of it, and if yours are a bit cerebral and don’t need explosions or cool special effects every fifteen minutes, you might give it a try at any age (again, if you’re willing to deal with some delicate issues along the way).

Personally, I was as happy as a skittering, Antarctic clam to sit through it, and am already looking forward to Herzog’s next adventure.

SAFETY LAST! (G)

I think I promised long ago to write about Harold Lloyd, and I’m sorry it took so long! Someone asked me the other day to recommend one of his films, and after I gave a rushed, 30-second summation and a thumbs up, I wrote a note to myself to post about Safety Last! (1923) next.

Harold Lloyd is one of the great masters of silent film comedy, and yet his name doesn’t come to mind for most folks in the same way Chaplin’s and even Buster Keaton’s names do. I’m not sure why that is, especially with a film like Safety Last! in his oeuvre; it was recently selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

As I wrote in an earlier post about the charm and the value of silent films for kids, exposing your children to a whole different film methodology will be a learning experience and something I bet they’ll enjoy. I think it engages them on a different level, having their little brains jump from the words on the screen back to the image, putting the two things together to make a whole.

The plot of Safety Last! isn’t all that complicated, or important really (the gist is: Lloyd is trying to both impress his fiance by pretending to be something he’s not, and he’s trying to win a tidy sum of money by pulling off a marketing stunt at the department store which employs him). What makes the film work is Lloyd’s utter likeability and “underdog” character, and of course the wonderful physical comedy. There are mix-ups and stunts and site gags galore that bring on the giggles, but the pivotal and most famous scene in the film is Lloyd’s climbing the side of a building, filmed of course before the advent of special effects and CGI and all that cool trickery to which we are now accustomed. It looks real, feels real, and you hold your breath for what seems like an eternity as things go wrong and he hangs on for dear life to the hands of a tower clock. (A similar scene played out years later in the movie Back to the Future.)

If your kids’ reading skills are up to snuff, I’d say young ones around age seven or eight should have no trouble keeping up with the brief lines of dialogue that need reading, and they should delight in the simplicity and honesty of what they’re seeing on the screen.

TRUE GRIT (G) (PG)

Mattie Ross: I'm off early tomorrow morning for the Indian nation. Marshal Rooster Cogburn and I are going after the murderer, Tom Chaney.

Col. Stonehill: Cogburn? How did you light on that greasy vagabond?

Mattie Ross: They say he has grit. I wanted a man with grit.


John Wayne won an Oscar for his role as Rooster Cogburn in 1969’s True Grit (it also won the Golden Globe’s Best Film prize that year), and even if John Wayne doesn’t float your boat in general, this film will likely give you a few good laughs and perhaps (mildly) alter your perception of one of Hollywood’s most manly men. (Maybe what I really mean to say is that Wayne was one of Hollywood’s most “man’s man” type of actors, as women never really swooned over him, but men like my dad sure admired him, in their own, clearly manly way.)

The appealing thing about Wayne’s first appearance as the outsider lawman Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn in True Grit was his ability to completely embrace the feral, less than perfect aspects of the character. Rough around the edges, living in the equivalent of shack in the back of a Chinese restaurant, a fresh bottle of drink always within reach, Cogburn is a little bitter but not a bit remorseful over some missteps earlier in life, and is resigned to his current situation. He doesn’t care a whit to get married again, or to turn his life around and live in what might be considered “normal” circumstances. He just wants to bring criminals to justice, get paid for it, and have a drink ... everyone else can just mind their damn business.

The gist of the story is Cogburn’s reluctant acceptance of a job that pays good money but means he’s working for a tough, spirited teenage girl (Mattie Ross, played by Kim Darby), who wants him to find her father’s killer. Of course, to make the film really interesting, she insists on going along on the adventure. She’s a tomboy, not a bad shot, darn sure of herself, and possesses sass by the wagonload. True Grit can be seen as an early, low-key, feminist fable, and certainly helps enforce the idea of equality between the sexes.

The writing is colorful, clever, and one would assume, true to the time. It’s a joy to listen to this kind of dialogue:

Mattie Ross: You never told me you had a wife.
Rooster Cogburn: Oh, well, I didn't have her long. My friends was a pack of river rats and she didn't crave their society so she up and left me and went back to her first husband who was clerkin' in a hardware store in Paducah. "Goodbye, Reuben," she says, "the love of decency does not abide in you!" That's a dee-vorced woman talkin' for you, about decency. (Snorts.) Well, I told her. I said, "Goodbye, Nola, and I hope that nail-sellin' bastard makes you happy this time!"

Anther plus for the film is a plum bad guy role played by Robert Duvall. Dennis Hopper, who has a slightly smaller part as another bad seed, further sweetens the deal. They make a great team.

I have a real soft spot for old westerns. (I have to say here that, come to think of it, some of my favorite movies in recent years include The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 3:10 to Yuma, and the fantastic The Proposition, written by one of my longtime musical obsessions Nick Cave, who writes songs filled with dark, twisted plot lines, and kept true to form in The Proposition. There’s some pretty grisly violence in this movie, and it’s not for the faint of heart. But it rocks.)

When you want something kid friendly, it’s hard to find westerns that don’t feature an overabundance of drinkin’ and whorin’ and cussin’ and fightin’ – not to mention potentially bothersome sub-plots about killing “injuns,” etc. True Grit passes the kid friendly litmus test, but not without needing a little grease to help it squeak by.

Apparently, the video version of True Grit was edited slightly and earned a G rating. However, the DVD version has a PG rating, equivalent to the original “M” (for mature) rating the film received. While John Wayne’s eye-patched, swaggering, growling, manly man seems to survive on not much more than whisky, it’s done with an effectively light, buffoonish touch, and so offers up moments ripe for observations such as, “Oh, see what getting drunk does? That’s just no good, is it? He fell off his horse!” etc. There’s a sprinkling of hard language, and bit of peril (honestly, nothing too frightening). But it’s all wrapped in a woolly cloak of spunk and humor, delivered with plenty of clever storytelling and witty dialogue.

Wayne’s second appearance as Rooster Cogburn was with the great Katharine Hepburn as his feisty, brazen feminine counterpart in Rooster Cogburn, which was clearly a ‘70s film (1975 to be exact). I personally enjoyed it a great deal, but think it’s a bit much for kids; it has more violence and harsh language, plays up Rooster’s drinking habits more, and just doesn’t seem appropriate for kids under 12 (it also has a PG rating). It’s a great character study, if you’re up for an old fashioned western some night on your own. The two main characters, Rooster and Hepburn’s Eula Goodnight, come to life here, and again the writing sparkles with smart and snappy dialogue. It's great fun for the ears, and the western scenery (filmed in the Grants Pass and Rogue River areas in Oregon) is a lush treat for the eyes.

We'll Be Right Back

We just had a great, long weekend with some of our dearest friends from the "old coast" visiting... and, ah, not much got done in the way of DVD thinking/writing. I hope to get something up today... so come back sooner than later!

Quick aside: I took K to see Igor last week... and while the artwork was pretty cool and the idea of the story very clever (why do all Igors play second fiddle to the mad scientist? Why can't an Igor BE a mad scientist?), it fell oddly flat. Sometimes I think to myself, "Hmmm. Ok. Whatever. It's just me. This wasn't made for me," but when I do that, nine times out of ten K will comment on the way out, "That was only OK, wasn't it?"

I love that.

DUMA (PG)

Duma is a charming and emotional movie about an orphaned cheetah (Duma, which is Swahili for "cheetah"), and the young boy, Xan, who adopts him and ultimately comes to the difficult decision that he must return the animal to its true home, where Duma can “be fully alive.” With a bit of family strife as the backdrop, Xan takes off on his own in his dad’s motorcycle, with Duma riding shotgun, on the adventure of a lifetime, set in stunningly beautiful South Africa.

The journey to the Erongo Mountains will take many days, and is hundreds of miles from Xan’s home, and along the way they encounter a mysterious, wandering stranger (friend or foe?), furious river rapids, crocodiles, lions and deadly poisonous threats. The terrain – lush jungle, scorched salt flats, the unfriendly scrub of the Kalahari Desert – makes for some incredible scenery, and it also, of course, serves up countless moments of danger.

Hope Davis is the distraught mom, and Campbell Scott is the dad, fighting his own battle to stay alive. Xan is played by an actor named Alexander Michaletos, and is captivating as the brave and conflicted boy, trying so hard to do what he knows is right.

The director is Caroll Ballard, who also did the wonderful Flyaway Home, which I’ll write about another time. (But do put it on your list of must-sees!)

Duma is rated PG for “mild adventure peril.” It’s a pretty safe movie for the young ones in terms of other undesirable elements, and the “peril” itself is not presented in an unreasonably heightened way. Good judgment and sound decision-making are underlying themes, and overall the movie is a satisfying experience, with plenty of visual beauty. It also won the 2006 Genesis Award for a Family Feature Film, which recognizes the entertainment industry for efforts in animal awareness.

FANTASTIC VOYAGE (PG)

Grant: Wait a minute! They can't shrink me.
General Carter: Our miniaturizer can shrink anything.
Grant: But I don't want to be miniaturized!
General Carter: It's just for an hour.
Grant: Not even for a minute!

This 1966 sci-fi adventure film is a blast. It holds up incredibly, unbelievably well forty-odd years later, from the very sophisticated opening credit sequence to the first, action-packed scenes, right up to the stunning sets and creative visual design. (A noisy airport scene unfolds with deafening jet sounds, brilliantly minus any dialog or music; it feels real and authentic, and builds tension immediately. This segues to men in black limos, departing the airport, and a sudden, intentional car crash and a shootout. .. still no incidental music and only barebones dialog. Very cool.). The film won two Oscars, actually, for Visual Effects and Art Direction).

There are many things about Fantastic Voyage to love and to rave about, but many of those details would spoil the fun. You need to know the plot, though, don’t you? A secret government project can shrink anything to microscopic size – anything, from buildings to army tanks to people – for 60 minutes or less. When the clock runs over that time, the item or person who has been “miniaturized” begins to grow. (What do you think they call this amazing machine? Why, the “Miniaturizer,” of course!)

One of the world’s top scientists, working originally for unnamed bad guys (I’d put my money on the Commie Rat Bastards), holds the key to extending the period of time that the items being shrunk can stay shrunk, and he wants to cross over to our side. Problem is, on the way to the secret, underground government laboratory, the scientist – yes, riding in one of those limos from the airport – comes under attack, hits his head, and soon has a life threatening blood clot in his brain. The only way to save him? Send in a medical crew with a laser gun to dissolve the clot, using The Miniaturizer, of course!

So a crew of doctors gets shrunk, and are injected into the man’s bloodstream, where they must navigate the arteries and veins in a teeny, tiny nuclear-powered submarine (with virtually no training beforehand, which is hilarious).

The visuals are wonderful, the acting is solid, and threats at every turn deliver thrills and giggles. And to add to the suspense, one of the doctors on board may or may not be “bad guy.” (It couldn’t be Raquel Welch, who seems pretty mousy until they have to put on diving gear for the first time, and her boxy white jumpsuit comes off to reveal a much more form-fitting ensemble she wears for the rest of the film. Va va va voom. Too sexy to be a bad guy, no?)

There are scary, strangling anti-bodies, G-force currents, a sudden dangerous turn towards the heart, and an unexpected stop in the inner ear drum, where any sudden, loud sound in the operating room would send all our shrunken rescuers into a tailspin. Not a good time to drop the scissors, there, sister!

Parents like my friend Steve-The-Nurse(/winemaker) will love explaining various details about biology to the kids along the way. And if you don’t know the movie Osmosis Jones (2001), it has a similar theme, with a story taking place inside the body, focusing on Osmosis Jones, an anthropomorphic white blood cell. It features Bill Murray, Chris Rock and David Hyde Pierce, is part animated and part live action, and is rated PG for some “bodily humor,” but I recommend it.

CHILDREN OF HEAVEN (PG) (Iranian)

This 1999 Academy Award contender (nominated for Best Foreign Film) is one of several charming films by Iranian director Majid Majidi. Obviously, watching films set in other countries and cultures offers a multitude of learning opportunities for kids, and Children of Heaven is full of such moments. K and I talked about class, poverty, wealth, Iranian culture (especially as it pertains to women) both during and after viewing, and midway through the film, K expressed concern that it was going to get difficult to watch. He thought the lighthearted touch of the director and the palpable charm of the two child stars were going to give way to bigger tragedy than a pair of lost shoes.

I had a moment of vklempt-ness, realizing my son’s capacity for empathy was not shrinking away as he got older (and sassier, and more jaded, and less open to things his friends wouldn’t like [this extends to food, clothing, etc. – you’ve all been warned]). But I was going on little more than a couple of reviews I’d read, which claimed the movie was “lovely,” “magical,” “delightful” and any number of other positive adjectives, so I was hoping and praying it was going to stay light, and get lighter.

The threat of tragedy hangs like a low flying insect trying to make a landing – the threat of being caught in a web of lies, of being thrown out of school, of a “beating” from dad, of mom’s illness taking a turn for the worse – but, thankfully, none of those things ever happen. I (the reviews) was right, the movie is sheer delight, and those two kids, playing the brother and sister, are absolutely adorable, and their tears, fears and joy are tangible. You just want to hug them.

The story is told, more or less, from the eyes of these children, who love and respect their parents, have great responsibility at home (moreso than many American kids do, I’d venture to say), and want to do the right thing, always. And yet they're like young kids everywhere, and when Ali is out running errands (picking up his sisters’ shoes at the cobbler, buying fresh flatbread, picking produce at the market – and he’s nine, people), he loses the shoes. He panics, and doesn’t tell anyone, except his sister, Zohre. They then work out a schedule to share the only pair of decent shoes Ali owns, trading shoes for slippers after Zohre finsishes her morning classes and Ali runs off to his in the afternoon.

Of course the kids’ solution is tenuous at best.

What follows are wonderfully told vignettes, of Ali’s father embarking on a new scheme to make extra money, of little Zohre discovering her beloved shoes on another’s little girl’s feet at school, and of Ali entering a long distance foot race, in order to win a brand new pair of sneakers.

You barely need to say things like, “See how good you have it?” to your kids when you watch films like this, as they can easily see for themselves how different life is elsewhere, and how difficult it can be. A film like this lifts them out of their everyday life, out of their comfort zone, and enables them to see the joy of very small things, and the beauty of the unknown. It can truly open their eyes to the gifts of the world.

Note: Your kids will have to read subtitles, and the PG rating is for a one or two very mild curses (one “what the hell” and one “damn,” if I recall correctly; nothing worse) by the father, who is capable of intense anger.

HBO's JOHN ADAMS

The HBO miniseries John Adams, starring Paul Giamatti, just won a number of Emmys and has certainly caught my attention. I added it to our Netflix list, even though I noticed its “TV 14” rating (“This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age.”). After scanning a few pages of reviews (yes, mostly positively glowing), I’ve yet to see anything by a viewer explaining this rating. I had to stop reading after four or five pages, as my brain lost the power to process the actual words, since they were so redundant (“brilliant,” “superb,” “incredible”).

Have you seen John Adams? If so, can you articulate what might make it unsuitable for kids under 14 (or so)?

I appreciate the help!

WHITE FANG (PG)

Last in our trio of "snow dog" movies, we have White Fang (1991), another Jack London story put to film. Also set in Alaska during the Gold Rush, Jack (a young Ethan Hawke) sets off to find gold on his deceased father’s claim, but runs into some real bad guys and an intriguing dog (half wolf) along the way.

While it’s basically the well-worn story of the bond between man and dog, there is more to it (clear themes of friendship, trust, good and bad, etc.), and, again, for a Disney movie, it has a mature sophistication about it that sets it apart. That said, it’s also for older kids, definitely 10 and up. There is a bit of violence and some unseemly dead bodies and threatening situations that are surely not meant for the younger set. Any of these would do well on a cold winter night, with a cuppa hot cocoa to wash down the popcorn.

(Or better yet, watch them on a hot summer night... they’ll help cool everyone down!)

EIGHT BELOW (PG)

A "snow dog" movie that’s difficult to negatively pick apart is Eight Below (2006). This is a superb telling of a story about a professional guide at a scientific research center in the Antarctic and his sled dogs, and the terrible ordeal they face on a particular expedition. (And, yes, it's a Disney film, but it doesn't feel like one!)

Actually, that’s about half the movie, with the other half concentrating on the fate of the dogs, which are left behind at the center when everyone evacuates due to a deadly storm. There’s no room on the plane for the hardworking canines, and their abandonment is difficult for everyone, including the viewer. We follow the guide as he goes through the painful process of finding his beloved dogs.

I remember getting choked up a few times watching this movie, but some reviewers have referred to it as too manufactured or formulaic.

They’re just heartless.