The Greatest Trick

First, let me say the critics are wrong about this film. Knowing has been slated just about everywhere, with some calling it the worst film ever made when it’s actually a perfectly decent Twilight Zone-type slice of apocalyptic hokum.

The plot concerns a time capsule sealed in 1959 when some children buried their drawings of what they thought the future would look like. Fifty years later, the capsule is dug up and for various reasons one of the drawings ends up in the hands of recently widowed University lecturer John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) and his young son Caleb. Except it’s not a drawing but a series of numbers which predict – Bible Code style – every major catastrophe from the fifty years with perfect accuracy, and there are another three still to come.

John becomes increasingly obsessed with this numeric code, and tracks down the daughter of the girl who wrote the code in the first place, Diana Wayland (played by Rose Byrne, best known for her role in excellent TV series Damages). He tries to get some answers from her, but she is reluctant to give them. In the meantime, there is a subplot involving Caleb and Diana’s daughter Abby, who are being approached by mysterious and seemingly menacing strangers.

That’s about as much as I can say about the plot without spoiling it. However I must reiterate: do not believe the critics. Although Nicolas Cage’s performance is a little wooden at times and some of the special effects don’t fully convince, this is a surprisingly gripping picture that presses all the right Doomsday buttons and has the guts to follow the grim premise through to its logical conclusion. Yes, it’s hugely derivative of 1950s sci-fi movies like Where Worlds Collide, as well as other more recent silly films about numbers like The Number 23, but anyone who calls it the worst film ever made has obviously only ever seen brilliant films. Alex Proyas, who directed I, Robot and more interestingly Dark City (which had a similar premise to The Matrix, but preceded it) calls the shots, and does a decent job of generating suspense and scares.

However, the main reason I believe Knowing is a significant film is because I believe it is prophetic. By that, I don’t mean that it’s theologically accurate. There have been many misguided articles in the Christian press attacking the film on a number of theological levels, but this is a story, not a sermon. It’s a parable.

What do I mean by prophetic? That’s not the same as when a film reflects the times we live in, which of course countless films do. By prophetic, I mean they depict not so much events but images of things that are yet to come. Fight Club is a good recent example, with its hauntingly prophetic images of a falling skyscraper that anticipating 9/11. How is this possible? Well, it says in the Bible that God has appointed pastors, evangelists, prophets, teachers and apostles. But these offices exist outside the church as well as inside. Bill Gates for example is an apostle in the business world. Steven Spielberg is a prophet to the media, and so on. And we are made in the image of God, which means through art, business or whatever field we are in, we will reflect his glory and truth to some degree whether we want to or not, albeit sometimes in a peculiarly distorted way.

SPOILER WARNING: From this point, I am going to discuss in detail the ending of the film, so do not read on unless you want it spoilt for you.

The film concludes with the destruction of the entire world, caused by a massive solar flare. At the same time, the mysterious strangers that have been appearing to the children are actually angels or aliens (it’s never made clear which, although there are suggestions that they are the angels Ezekiel describes in Ezekiel chapter 1). They offer the children a chance to escape and start again on a new world. The adults however are left behind to die.

This sounds harsh, and the no-adults policy of the aliens/angels is one of the reasons the film has been criticised by Christians attacking its theological veracity. However, as I am at pains to point out, this is a parable, not a sermon. The fact that it is only children who are allowed to escape is deliberately provocative for a number of reasons. First, Jesus spoke of how we need to enter the Kingdom of God like a little child. Second, because throughout scripture the people of Israel or the Church are never once referred to as God’s adults. We are all God’s children. The rapture-esque idea of angels taking children away to what is effectively a new Heavens and a new Earth has obvious scriptural overtones, regardless of one’s eschatology, but the children still have to choose to go, just as well all have to choose to accept Christ or not.

It is also interesting to see the anguish of those “left behind”. In contrast to the children, who do not seem to view the impending destruction with any fear (despite obviously being horrified at what the aliens/angels show them is coming), the adults go completely crazy in the final moments, particularly Diana whose fear-dictated actions lead to her demise. This reminded me of the scriptures that indicate how Christians in the last days will be at peace, anticipating their redemption, whereas those in the world will have their hearts fail them for fear.

However, in spite of this, the film carefully closes with a moment of family reunion and forgiveness. John has not spoken to his pastor father in years for reasons that are never made entirely clear, but he does so seconds before annihilation. This, and the way the angels/aliens inform Abby that her now dead mother is “safe” is perhaps a way of alluding to the salvation of those that come to faith after the rapture but are martyred, as described in Revelation chapter 7. Furthermore, the imagery of fiery destruction caused by the sun does remind one of Revelation chapter 16, during the final phase of God’s wrath when the sun is given power to scorch the Earth dwellers.

Of course, there is a counter argument that can be made; that Knowing ignores completely the concept of a loving God. The angels/aliens make no attempt to save the world, and scenes depicting fiery death (particularly in a plane crash), nightmarish visions given to the children by the aliens/angels and general scariness could give some Christians pause. However, to my mind this counter argument is mistaken. I don’t think Knowing completely ignores the idea that God loves us, but it does major on the fact that eventually he will have to judge the world because he is just.

Again there is nothing theologically accurate about Knowing, but because the film contains these apocalyptic concepts, it becomes an ideal film for the non-churched as a springboard for discussion. That’s assuming of course that Christians are prepared to do so, for those pesky, apocalyptic bits of the Bible are often brushed under the carpet by Christians who are perhaps embarrassed by them. But as someone who believes the Bible – including the book of Revelation – says what it means and means what it says, I have personally found the non-churched are often most interested in these sections, and watching a film like Knowing is a great way to open up discussions about them, ultimately pointing the way to salvation through Jesus Christ. If Knowing can be used in such a way, then it is the ideal prophetic film.

Simon Dillon, March 2009.

Director Tony Gilroy is perhaps best known for his Oscar nominated Michael Clayton. Not a bad little film and one that featured excellent performances from George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. For his next film Duplicity, Gilroy is on altogether lighter territory, albeit still within the world of corporate skulduggery.

The tone here is similar to Oceans 11 or Charade, although not as good as either of the aforementioned caper classics. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts play corporate spies Ray and Claire who share a steamy past. They decide to pull off an elaborate multi-million dollar con on their respective employers, but can they trust each other?

Clive Owen is good, and Julia Roberts isn’t bad either (though not up to the standard of her more interesting Erin Brockovitch type roles). The excellent Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti offer good support as Claire and Ray’s feuding bosses and there are a host of interesting bit parts from the likes of David Shumbris, Oleg Shtefanko, Kathleen Chalfant and Wayne Duvall.

The screenplay feels a little forced in the first half, but it picks up a good head of steam in the second, leading to an entertaining, moderately exciting climax. There are countless betrayals, twists and turns, each of which are progressively more implausible but that’s part of the fun. However, I did have some issues with the way it was directed. The split screen technique seemed rather forced, and on a more trivial note I really don’t need four separate shots of Nelsons Column, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, a red bus and an onscreen subtitle to tell me the location we’re seeing is London.

There are also some sexual references which may irritate some Christians, but nothing too severe. In short, this is fluff, but entertaining fluff.

Simon Dillon, March 2009

A friend recently asked what I thought about high definition TV. I replied that I thought high definition moving images were great, but they are not a recent discovery. They have been around for over a hundred years and as far as I’m concerned are called cinema. For me, it doesn’t matter whether your home TV set up has a 50 inch HD flat-screen monitor, THX surround sound and other gimmicks – nothing will ever beat seeing a projected image on a cinema screen.

Which brings me to writer/director Asif Kapadia’s Far North; a must-see at the cinema for those who enjoy staggeringly beautiful landscapes that transport you to another time and place. It’s an adaptation of Sara Maitland’s short story about a mother and daughter, Saiva and Anja, dwelling and surviving alone in the unforgiving icy tundra somewhere in the north. One day Saiva comes across a dying man called Loki and against her better judgement nurses him back to health. However, events are complicated when both mother and daughter begin to compete for his affections.

Michelle Yeoh, Michelle Krusiec and Sean Bean all contribute understated but excellent performances, particularly Yeoh, who has the most difficult role as Saiva. The spare screenplay contains very little dialogue but the cast milk every subtle nuance, look and gesture to create a rare and palpable sexual tension that recalls the brilliance of Nic Roeg’s 1971 masterpiece Walkabout.

Roman Osin’s incredible cinematography shows off the stunning Norwegian locations to tremendous effect. Menacing snow covered mountains, the endless tundra and frozen seas generate an astonishing, almost dreamlike sense of loneliness. The perilous landscapes offer few clues as to precisely when this is set, or even who these characters are. I assume they are indigenous East Asian Eskimo hunter-herders perhaps, and soldiers in flashbacks appear to be of Russian origin sometime around World War II, but the film is somehow all the more powerful and intriguing through placing these characters against a not clearly defined background and time. This powerful and intriguing setting enhances the deep sense of isolation and makes the extremely disturbing ending all the more horrific. Dario Marianelli’s quietly effective music score also compliments the hugely atmospheric drama.

Spiritually, this is a fatalistic tale, almost like a Greek tragedy like Oedipus Rex where characters destinies are pre-determined by the gods and cannot be changed. A key element in the story is how Saiva was told at an early age by a tribal shaman that she would bring disaster on all who came into contact with her. The results of this terrible curse, shown through flashback, lead her to choose to live away from other people, with only her daughter for company. However, when she chooses to help Loki his fate is sealed. The tragedy that ensues is both inevitable and (in the case of the shocking finale) a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously, this is not what the Bible teaches, especially when it comes to the issue of spiritual curses, which we can be free from in Christ.

To be fair, this is not a film for everyone, for two main reasons. Firstly and most obviously, not all will appreciate the languid pacing, sparse plotting and minimal dialogue. However, those not brainwashed by the need for continual car chases who stick with it will find their patience richly rewarded.

Secondly, there is the question for Christian audiences whether its worldview can be considered noble, lovely and true. Spiritually I’ve already suggested it isn’t but I didn’t think the violence was gratuitous. Although the ending is horrifying it doesn’t dwell too much on blood and gore, and I have always taken issue with Christians who think such events can never be justified in a film when the Bible is full of such tales. I don’t think Judges chapter 19 will be made into a film any time soon, but its more horrific than anything here.

With the above caveats firmly in place, this is a very good and hugely underrated film, destined for cult status.

Simon Dillon, March 2009.

A colleague of mine recently told me he was considering going to see Watchmen, but having read the comic, said he would first overdose on “happy” films like Singin’ in the Rain in order to counterbalance the negativity and darkness.

Watchmen is certainly a dark film, in every sense of the word. Those expecting Batman or Superman type heroics are in for a massive disappointment. Like the comic, this is a bleak, blood-soaked tale packed with sex and violence, where the “heroes” are not so much flawed but often downright reprehensible, capable of corruption, rape, murder and even playing God. By contrast, even the most repugnant of the “villains” are vested with redeeming qualities.

Set in a parallel 1985 where Vietnam was won and Nixon was elected five times, the story kicks off when the Comedian, a retired superhero, is murdered. His former colleague Rorschach (think Travis Bickle with a morphing ink-blot mask) is paranoid someone is picking off the group of superheroes he belonged to, the eponymous Watchmen.

Of the various former Watchmen, only one actually has superpowers. The enigmatic Dr Manhatten, a blue naked giant (no, really), was created Captain America style in a laboratory experiment gone wrong. Although he has served America over the years, even he does not think he can stop the impending nuclear war that everyone seems to think is inevitable. This impending threat is the backdrop to Rorschach’s investigations and as the story progresses, each of the other Watchmen – Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, Ozymandias (named after the Shelley poem) – have their elaborate stories explored in flashback.

Based on the celebrated graphic novel by Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore, this is an ambitious, complex and eagerly awaited work. The adaptation had been mooted several times over the years, and was even considered by such cinematic luminaries as Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass, but had always ended up in back in development hell. Eventually it was picked up by 300 director Zack Synder, but by this point Alan Moore wanted nothing more to do with Hollywood, and had his name removed from the film. He had always considered (as I had) that Watchmen was inherently unfilmable.

There are really three ways to approach adaptation. The first and obviously worst approach is to try to make it as commercially viable as possible, if necessary ignoring anything dark and difficult in the original text. Cinema history is littered with countless examples of such films, but comic fans will need only one film cited: Judge Dredd.

The second is to be slavishly faithful to the text, which is the approach Synder has taken despite inevitably losing chunks of the story, including the comic-within-a-comic Tales of the Black Freighter and the squid (fans will know what I’m talking about). However, this reverential (and in this case fanboyish) approach can lead to surprisingly timid and bloodless films – the first two Harry Potter pictures spring immediately to mind. Watchmen isn’t exactly bloodless or timid, but it is emotionally flat and probably incomprehensible to non-fans. Admittedly, the comic was radical in its epic approach, but the film just feels long and tedious. To be fair, there are some decent performances from the mostly unknown cast, including Billy Crudup, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley. Furthermore, Synder’s direction is often clever, framing shots so they appear like cells of the comic. However, it all feels like much ado about nothing. Even the soundtrack is badly judged. When I heard Simon and Garfunkel’s The Sound of Silence, I started to wish I was watching The Graduate. When I heard Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries, I started to wish I Was watching Apocalypse Now.

There is a third, and to my mind preferable, approach to adaptation: keep what is cinematic and reinvent the rest whilst remaining faithful to the spirit of the original. This is an extremely difficult trick to pull off, but it can be done. It involves subtracting what doesn’t work and adding something better. For instance Dangerous Liasons featured many changes from the text, but was so brilliant critics and audiences didn’t mind. The same is true of Hitchcock’s version of The 39 Steps, David Lean’s slimmed down Great Expectations, Michael Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans and even Peter Jackson’s take on The Lord of the Rings. Re-read the books and you’ll be surprised how much was changed or removed, but you’ll also admit that what was added made the films better. This is what ought to have happened with Watchmen. Divorced of the comic’s undeniably bold and innovative formatting, without reinvention what is left simply doesn’t hold together as a film.

On a moral note, the tone is relentlessly bleak and nihilistic in a way that appealed to me as a teenager, but not anymore. However, my main issue is with the film (and comics) attempts to grapple with difficult moral dilemmas in a frankly infantile way. For instance, the hoary old “do you kill millions to save billions” quandary rears its ugly head, but it is tackled in a banal and juvenile manner without bringing anything new to the argument. Spiritually this has a pointlessly pessimistic worldview where God is entirely absent. Add to that the presence of extremely graphic and bloody violence, sex, nudity and bad language this is something most Christian audiences will want to avoid. For all Watchmen’s supposed kudos as an “adult” comic, there is far more truth, honesty and intelligent grappling with difficult moral issues in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (to give two recent examples).

Like my colleague, I can only suggest avoiding such negativity and watching Singin’ in the Rain instead.

Simon Dillon, March 2009.

When reviewing Clint Eastwood films, it’s getting harder and harder to manfully resist the “gets-better-with-age-like-a-good whisky” cliché. Yet here more than ever such a cliché seems appropriate. If Gran Torino turns out to be the last starring role for Clint, his brilliant portrayal of Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski is certainly a great way to end an extraordinary acting career. His subtle and layered performance really captures the grouchy nuances of this complex character, and although it’s initially tempting to picture him as Dirty Harry in retirement, Walt Kowalski proves to be something altogether different and unexpected.

Opening at his saintly wife’s funeral, Walt quietly fumes as he watches his spoilt grandchildren texting in the service. His estranged sons provide no comfort for him, especially as they want to put him into a retirement home. Walt himself is unwell, and spends most of his time performing DIY tasks, drinking beer, talking to his dog Daisy, and moaning about how his sons don’t buy American products.

The funeral wake is contrasted with a baby party his Oriental neighbours are engaged in at the same time, suggesting something new is about to be emerge from the ashes of Walt’s own life. Because of his experiences in Korea, Walt sees all Oriental people as essentially the same, and he is equally xenophobic about other races living in his neighbourhood. However when Thao – a troubled teenage boy from next door – attempts to steal Walt’s most prized possession, a mint condition 1972 Gran Torino car, events take an unusual turn. Thao’s family are mortified at his attempted theft, and insist he help Walt around the house to make up for it. Walt reluctantly accepts, but when it transpires that Thao’s efforts to steal the Gran Torino were part of an initiation to join a dangerous neighbourhood gang, Walt decides to take the boy under his wing. He becomes an extremely unlikely mentor, inspiring him mainly by insulting him. Soon he has Thao getting a job at a construction site and going on a date with a girl he was previously painfully shy in front of. At the same time, Walt also saves Thao’s bright sister Sue from being accosted by a gang, and the two form an unlikely friendship. She invites him into their house and he slowly becomes a family friend.

Prior to her death, Walt’s late wife persuaded young Catholic priest Father Janovich to look after her husband and to get him to confess his sins. At first, Walt is having none of it, and gives the persistent young priest a very hard time. However, as events in the story progress, Walt’s actions become increasingly redemptive. Whilst he still refers to his neighbours with all manner of racial slurs, right to their faces, it becomes clear that he has more in common with their honourable ways than that of his own spoilt family. A grudging mutual respect develops, and it soon Walt wants to do something to ensure that Sue and Thao’s lives are no longer plagued by the gangs in the neighbourhood.

Behind the camera, Clint Eastwood’s spare, stripped-back and deceptively simple directing style once again proves he is second to none at allowing his story and characters to breathe. Dave Johannson and Nick Schenk’s screenplay does not rush things, but moves slowly yet compellingly. In addition, it’s also very funny, and contains several laugh-out-loud moments often as a result of Walt’s grumpy old man persona. Lines like “Get off my lawn” will almost certainly become as memorable as “Do you feel lucky punk?” and other classic Clint one-liners.

On a moral and spiritual level this is absolutely tremendous stuff. For a start, Walt’s mentoring of Thao is an unashamedly old school – if unorthodox – study of discipleship. Whilst Walt has issues of bitterness and lacks tact, his tell-it-like-it-is attitude actually does Thao great favours. Gran Torino is also a fearless exploration of racism and ageism, unfettered by political correctness. But it is even more than that. It is, above all, a profound parable of sacrifice and redemption, the details of which I will not go into as I do not wish to spoil the film.

As an aside, how Oscar voters ignored the brilliant one/two punch of Changeling and Gran Torino is a mystery to me. Both are far better than certain other films that were nominated (The Reader for instance) and one of them at least should have had its place in the nominations. Perhaps the presence of two great Clint pictures split the vote, but I take the rather more cynical view that when it comes to Clint Eastwood liberal Hollywood is happier to recognise the brilliant but spiritually abhorrent Million Dollar Baby, rather than the brilliant and spiritually redemptive Gran Torino.

It’s only fair to point out that the film contains a great deal of bad language. However, it didn’t strike me as gratuitous and given the outstanding moral and spiritual content contained herein those who can stomach it will find a great deal to praise. Although the supporting cast are very good – particularly Bee Vang as Thao, Ahney Her as Sue and Christopher Carley as Father Janovich – it is Clint Eastwood who rightly dominates the film, giving what could well be his finest single performance to date. For this reason alone, Gran Torino feels like the culmination of an American legend’s life’s work and is therefore a must-see.

Simon Dillon, March 2009.