Hi everyone!
I just want to take a moment to tell you all about two books releasing on Tuesday, November 5th that you should know about: The Marble and the Sculptor by Keith Lee and Jiu Jitsu Jurisprudence by Ryan Danz. Both are published by ABA Publishing, the book publishing division of the American Bar Association.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am especially supportive of these books because, well, I'm responsible for bringing them both into print. I am the Executive Editor who acquired both of these books, worked with the authors through their respective writing, editing, and production processes and basically lived and breathed these books for the past year. Having said that, even if I had nothing to do with their publication, I'd be pitching these books anyway. And on top of that, both authors are terrific guys.
The Marble and the Sculptor: From Law School to Law Practice is written by Keith Lee, a Birmingham, Alabama-based lawyer and the power behind the influential and widely followed legal blog The Associates Mind www.associatesmind.com. It is a practical, no-bullshit guide for helping new lawyers manage the transition from law student to becoming an actual lawyer. It covers everything from what classes you should take in law school to succeeding in your first years practicing law. But it is so much more than this. Despite its obvious legal angle, The Marble and the Sculptor provides useful and sensible advice for anyone looking to get the most out of their professional and personal lives regardless of career path or industry. In my totally biased opinion, there is no other book currently on the market that dispenses this information in a way that 1) respects the reader and his/her intelligence and 2) is such a joy to read. Simply put, no aspiring lawyer or professional of any type can afford not to have this book in his/her library. The message is timeless. The Marble and the Sculptor is destined to become a classic of its genre.
Jiu Jitsu Jurisprudence: A Guide to Balancing Your Law Practice with Your Life Practice through the Art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is written by San Diego-based Ryan Danz, http://ryandanz.com, a recent contestant on The Amazing Race and The Apprentice: Martha Stewart as well as former in-house counsel for a New York-based hedge fund and currently an investment manager and entrepreneur. This book is unique in that it introduces the reader to the martial art of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu while showing the reader how to use the physical and mental aspects of the sport to improve their life and law practices. Author Ryan Danz also shares with the reader his own personal journey and how BJJ transformed his life (both personally and professionally) and made him the successful and deeply fulfilled person he is today. Like The Marble and the Sculptor, Jiu Jitsu Jurisprudence has broad applicability to anyone looking for a path to help them become a successful and more balanced person regardless of their career or life trajectory. In this capacity, it is truly inspirational.
Both books publish next Tuesday, November 5th and are sure to be top sellers as we go into the holiday shopping season. They are currently available for pre-orders on Amazon and on the American Bar Association's retail site. The links are posted below. For a limited time only, special autographed hardcover editions of both books are available exclusively through the American Bar Association web site.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Marble-Sculptor-School-Practice/dp/1614388865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383099468&sr=8-1&keywords=the+marble+and+the+sculptor
http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/index.cfm?pid=1620542HRD§ion=main&fm=Product.AddToCart
http://www.amazon.com/Jiu-Jitsu-Jurisprudence-Balancing-Brazilian/dp/161438889X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383098875&sr=8-1&keywords=jiu+jitsu+jurisprudence
http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/index.cfm?pid=1620541HRD§ion=main&fm=Product.AddToCart
Read and be inspired!
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Spiral Season 4
Hi everyone!
I've just finished watching Season 4 of "Spiral" (Engrenages) and am very pleased to say that it is the best season to date. All of the crew are back and spending 12 hours with them is like spending time with close friends.
SPOILER ALERT:
Season 4 picks up more-or-less right where Season 3 left off. Laure is under investigation for allegedly shooting a suspect (held over from Season 3). Judge Roban returns after the scandal involving the suicide of his intern and is determined on re-establishing his reputation despite it seems the entire French justice system being against him. Pierre and Josephine are working to establish their private practice. Gilou still cannot help being drawn to the 'dark side'. Tintin continues to be as honorable as ever while he and his wife expect a new baby.
Season 4's central plot is complicated and multi-faceted. On the surface, it seems to be about the plight of illegal immigrants in France and the harsh conditions they face in detention centers. But, of course, this being "Spiral", there's a lot more to it than that. Throw into the mix anarchists trying to overthrow the government through terrorism, a Kurdish family that is straight out of the Godfather, and a Russian emigre gangster with some serious family issues, police and political in-fighting, and you have a season with more twists and turns than ever.
But what makes this season most satisfying is the human element. Even the seemingly strongest characters show a surprising amount of vulnerability. We learn something of Josephine's background and why she's the ruthless, rather heartless, woman we've come to love to hate. Laure finds herself in the midst of a love triangle with all-too-tragic consequences. Pierre crosses the line into the corruption he has heretofore resolved to vanquish.
The other thing that strikes me -- and is the series' central theme -- is how even the most honorable among us is not always immune to the temptation of corruption and the immediate benefits it seduces us into believing it can give us.
The characters of "Spiral" are extremely flawed. Justice is their ultimate goal but the means by which they achieve this noble aim are often questionable, never more so than in Season 4. No one comes out of this season with their hands clean. (And without giving anything away, the final moments of the final episode are heartbreaking. I was wiping away tears as I watched.)
I recently read that Season 5 is currently in production. For those of us in North America this means we'll sadly have to wait another year to see it. In the meantime, relish Season 4 or binge-watch it if you must, or go back to Season 1 and watch all 40 episodes from the start.
In my opinion, "Spiral" Season 4 is one of the best television series ever made.
I've just finished watching Season 4 of "Spiral" (Engrenages) and am very pleased to say that it is the best season to date. All of the crew are back and spending 12 hours with them is like spending time with close friends.
SPOILER ALERT:
Season 4 picks up more-or-less right where Season 3 left off. Laure is under investigation for allegedly shooting a suspect (held over from Season 3). Judge Roban returns after the scandal involving the suicide of his intern and is determined on re-establishing his reputation despite it seems the entire French justice system being against him. Pierre and Josephine are working to establish their private practice. Gilou still cannot help being drawn to the 'dark side'. Tintin continues to be as honorable as ever while he and his wife expect a new baby.
Season 4's central plot is complicated and multi-faceted. On the surface, it seems to be about the plight of illegal immigrants in France and the harsh conditions they face in detention centers. But, of course, this being "Spiral", there's a lot more to it than that. Throw into the mix anarchists trying to overthrow the government through terrorism, a Kurdish family that is straight out of the Godfather, and a Russian emigre gangster with some serious family issues, police and political in-fighting, and you have a season with more twists and turns than ever.
But what makes this season most satisfying is the human element. Even the seemingly strongest characters show a surprising amount of vulnerability. We learn something of Josephine's background and why she's the ruthless, rather heartless, woman we've come to love to hate. Laure finds herself in the midst of a love triangle with all-too-tragic consequences. Pierre crosses the line into the corruption he has heretofore resolved to vanquish.
The other thing that strikes me -- and is the series' central theme -- is how even the most honorable among us is not always immune to the temptation of corruption and the immediate benefits it seduces us into believing it can give us.
The characters of "Spiral" are extremely flawed. Justice is their ultimate goal but the means by which they achieve this noble aim are often questionable, never more so than in Season 4. No one comes out of this season with their hands clean. (And without giving anything away, the final moments of the final episode are heartbreaking. I was wiping away tears as I watched.)
I recently read that Season 5 is currently in production. For those of us in North America this means we'll sadly have to wait another year to see it. In the meantime, relish Season 4 or binge-watch it if you must, or go back to Season 1 and watch all 40 episodes from the start.
In my opinion, "Spiral" Season 4 is one of the best television series ever made.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Syria's Lost Generation
Hi everyone!
This blog originally started out as a forum for me to share and expand upon my views of current affairs, particularly in regards to the rise of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria. But I eventually found keeping up on these events hard-going and, frankly, rather depressing. For every step forward it seemed, two rather large steps back were taken and I felt that the whole process -- despite what at the time seemed to be some very positive developments -- just became utterly moribund. So I turned away from the news and chose to devote this blog to entertainment -- music and movie reviews and the occasional riff on Big Brother, etc.
But I've felt compelled for some time of late to give Syria another look. I just didn't know where I wanted to start. And then I read New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff's extremely tragic piece in this morning's paper, "The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice", and realized this was the launch I was looking for.
Mr. Kristoff writes about a Syrian middle school kid named Mohammed who is currently living with his family in one of the overpopulated refugee camps in Jordan. He writes that although Mohammed wasn't one of the original child activists that started the Syrian civil war -- I'd completely forgotten it began with schoolchildren -- Mohammed was arrested and tortured by the Syrian police. This is a twelve year-old boy. After his release, Mohammed continued his protest. The police arrested and tortured his father and burned their home. Now Mohammed and his family have left Syria, like thousands of others, and are living as refugees in neighboring Jordan. He is now a part of what Mr. Kristoff describes as "Syrian's lost generation".
It's shameful that the Western World continues to allow tragedies like this to happen. The situation in Syria is rapidly approaching three years with no end in sight. Assad greeted the shameful US-Russia alliance on chemical weapons as a victory and although he claims to be cooperating with chemical weapons inspectors, we all know he's using this as a means of strengthening his resolve and brutality against his own people. Yeah, the opposition is fractured and rife with Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists and the West has to be extremely judicious in how and where it offers its aid.
And yet, the issue here isn't chemical weapons. The issue is the fact that President Obama -- who is increasingly becoming a do-nothing president -- chose to take the easy way out. His pact with Russia (which I'll predict now was doomed from the start) is nothing short of collusion with the enemy -- not just with Assad, but Putin, Assad's greatest ally apart from Iran. And this is a tragedy of epic proportions. We are collectively failing Mohammed and millions of children like him who want nothing more than a decent education and the opportunity to advance in life.
How many more children like Mohammed have to suffer in the face of diplomatic intransigence? How many more millions will be added to Syria's Lost Generation?
For shame.
This blog originally started out as a forum for me to share and expand upon my views of current affairs, particularly in regards to the rise of the Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria. But I eventually found keeping up on these events hard-going and, frankly, rather depressing. For every step forward it seemed, two rather large steps back were taken and I felt that the whole process -- despite what at the time seemed to be some very positive developments -- just became utterly moribund. So I turned away from the news and chose to devote this blog to entertainment -- music and movie reviews and the occasional riff on Big Brother, etc.
But I've felt compelled for some time of late to give Syria another look. I just didn't know where I wanted to start. And then I read New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff's extremely tragic piece in this morning's paper, "The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice", and realized this was the launch I was looking for.
Mr. Kristoff writes about a Syrian middle school kid named Mohammed who is currently living with his family in one of the overpopulated refugee camps in Jordan. He writes that although Mohammed wasn't one of the original child activists that started the Syrian civil war -- I'd completely forgotten it began with schoolchildren -- Mohammed was arrested and tortured by the Syrian police. This is a twelve year-old boy. After his release, Mohammed continued his protest. The police arrested and tortured his father and burned their home. Now Mohammed and his family have left Syria, like thousands of others, and are living as refugees in neighboring Jordan. He is now a part of what Mr. Kristoff describes as "Syrian's lost generation".
It's shameful that the Western World continues to allow tragedies like this to happen. The situation in Syria is rapidly approaching three years with no end in sight. Assad greeted the shameful US-Russia alliance on chemical weapons as a victory and although he claims to be cooperating with chemical weapons inspectors, we all know he's using this as a means of strengthening his resolve and brutality against his own people. Yeah, the opposition is fractured and rife with Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists and the West has to be extremely judicious in how and where it offers its aid.
And yet, the issue here isn't chemical weapons. The issue is the fact that President Obama -- who is increasingly becoming a do-nothing president -- chose to take the easy way out. His pact with Russia (which I'll predict now was doomed from the start) is nothing short of collusion with the enemy -- not just with Assad, but Putin, Assad's greatest ally apart from Iran. And this is a tragedy of epic proportions. We are collectively failing Mohammed and millions of children like him who want nothing more than a decent education and the opportunity to advance in life.
How many more children like Mohammed have to suffer in the face of diplomatic intransigence? How many more millions will be added to Syria's Lost Generation?
For shame.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Movie Review: Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby", or rather "Gatsby!!!"
Hi everyone! And happy Labor Day.
I finally saw Baz Luhrmann's film of "The Great Gatsby" the other night. I've always been less a fan and more an admirer of his work. Taken as a whole, his films ("Strictly Ballroom", "Romeo & Juliet", "Moulin Rouge", and "Australia") are an impressive body of work if for no other reason than the audacity of their vision. I think Luhrmann is one of the few filmmakers today who can inspire both groans of despair and sighs of irrepressible glee in the span of a single film. His films knock you over with their frenetic pace and awe with their stunning visual palate. He takes chances in ways few of his contemporaries ever do and while the results aren't always positive, one can never say a Luhrmann production lacks vision.
"The Great Gatsby" proves no exception. It worked for me in ways that I didn't expect it to. And it failed for me in much the same way. Having said that though, I think of any film I've seen thus far in 2013, Luhrmann's "Gatsby" is -- from a purely cinematic perspective -- one of the year's best.
It all comes down to his vision. This is a film that leaps off the screen in bold gleaming colors and artificial landscapes and cityscapes that have no bearing on any sort of reality. Everything is capped with an exclamation point. If this were a musical -- which it very nearly is -- it would undoubtedly be called "Gatsby!" Let me see your Jazz hands everyone...or at least your Charleston. Gatsby's estate looks like the fairy castle at Disneyland with fountains that shoot water into the sky amid a rainbow of technicolor light. The gas station which houses the ill-fated Myrtle and Wilson exists in a weird almost post-apocalyptic wasteland of dirt and industrial ash. There's no missing the contrast between the excessive wealth of Gatsby and his East Egg crowd and the desperately poor (and just desperate) milieu inhabited by the less fortunates.
And while at first blush it is all rather over-the-top and vulgar, the vision works. Some critics have wrongly, I believe, written of the film that it celebrates and revels in the excess that the novel berates. Yes, there is excess and yes there is an almost orgiastic revelry to the proceedings, but never does the viewer (or at least this viewer) feel that he wants to be a part of it. These people are irredeemably shallow and the beauty is merely skin deep. This is "The Great Gatsby" set in a certain kind of gilded hell. And added to that is the hip hop-tinged soundtrack that I fully expected to criticize but came away thinking it was an utterly appropriate (if not inspired) accompaniment to the events on screen. Who would have thought that Beyonce, Jay-Z, and will.i.am would translate as well as they do in a 1920s setting? Perhaps only in a Luhrmann film...
My biggest criticism of the film is its acting. I will say that Tobey Maguire as Nick and Australian actor Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan were really very good. At heart, this is Nick's story. The reader (and the viewer) see the story of Gatsby and Daisy through Nick's eyes. Maguire (while no Sam Waterston) manages to convey both Nick's awe and repulsion with a sense of humor and a plucky kind of aplomb that is a lot of fun to watch. Edgerton's Tom is blustery (a "brute" Daisy calls him in the climactic scene at the Plaza Hotel), macho, and one senses capable of real violence. His is a presence that manages to cut through the excess all around him, which is no small task for an actor in a Luhrmann film. While not entirely sympathetic, Tom Buchanan is probably the closest to real flesh and blood of any of the characters.
Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Leonardo diCaprio as, of course, Gatsby fare less well. I think Ms. Mulligan is an amazing actress (her heartbreaking performance as Michael Fassbender's lonely and tormented younger sister in 2011's "Shame" is masterful), yet there's surprisingly very little depth to her portrayal of Daisy. She pouts and giggles and poses on cue without really ever seeming fully inhabited in the role. And diCaprio's Gatsby is neither here nor there. I realize that part of the mystery of Gatsby is that he is ultimately unknowable. DiCaprio doesn't exude mystery here. His line readings are flat and he comes across as a little kid dressed up in big kid finery. And while I've liked him in other films ("J. Edgar" is, I believe, his finest moment) he is woefully miscast as Gatsby. I'd be intrigued to see what an actor like Michael Fassbender, for example, might do with the role. It would probably be a very different film.
So my final verdict on "The Great Gatsby" is that there is much to be admired in its visual audacity, its excessive cinematography and its pulsating soundtrack. I also admire the fact that it is quite faithful to Fitzgerald's original novel and I wasn't even bothered by the narrative device of having Nick relate the story from a mental institution. It made sense to me. If you're already a Luhrmann fan and have seen at least one or two of his earlier films (for sheer romanticism and epic sweep I highly recommend "Australia") you're probably in a better position to admire and even enjoy his version "Gatsby". But for the uninitiated or for those who expect more from a very talented cast, this is going to be a disappointment.
Bottom line: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. I happened to like it very much but I can also appreciate why others might not feel the same. But like it or hate it, you can't deny this film makes an impact. And I also doubt any other film this year will come close to matching its audacity.
I finally saw Baz Luhrmann's film of "The Great Gatsby" the other night. I've always been less a fan and more an admirer of his work. Taken as a whole, his films ("Strictly Ballroom", "Romeo & Juliet", "Moulin Rouge", and "Australia") are an impressive body of work if for no other reason than the audacity of their vision. I think Luhrmann is one of the few filmmakers today who can inspire both groans of despair and sighs of irrepressible glee in the span of a single film. His films knock you over with their frenetic pace and awe with their stunning visual palate. He takes chances in ways few of his contemporaries ever do and while the results aren't always positive, one can never say a Luhrmann production lacks vision.
"The Great Gatsby" proves no exception. It worked for me in ways that I didn't expect it to. And it failed for me in much the same way. Having said that though, I think of any film I've seen thus far in 2013, Luhrmann's "Gatsby" is -- from a purely cinematic perspective -- one of the year's best.
It all comes down to his vision. This is a film that leaps off the screen in bold gleaming colors and artificial landscapes and cityscapes that have no bearing on any sort of reality. Everything is capped with an exclamation point. If this were a musical -- which it very nearly is -- it would undoubtedly be called "Gatsby!" Let me see your Jazz hands everyone...or at least your Charleston. Gatsby's estate looks like the fairy castle at Disneyland with fountains that shoot water into the sky amid a rainbow of technicolor light. The gas station which houses the ill-fated Myrtle and Wilson exists in a weird almost post-apocalyptic wasteland of dirt and industrial ash. There's no missing the contrast between the excessive wealth of Gatsby and his East Egg crowd and the desperately poor (and just desperate) milieu inhabited by the less fortunates.
And while at first blush it is all rather over-the-top and vulgar, the vision works. Some critics have wrongly, I believe, written of the film that it celebrates and revels in the excess that the novel berates. Yes, there is excess and yes there is an almost orgiastic revelry to the proceedings, but never does the viewer (or at least this viewer) feel that he wants to be a part of it. These people are irredeemably shallow and the beauty is merely skin deep. This is "The Great Gatsby" set in a certain kind of gilded hell. And added to that is the hip hop-tinged soundtrack that I fully expected to criticize but came away thinking it was an utterly appropriate (if not inspired) accompaniment to the events on screen. Who would have thought that Beyonce, Jay-Z, and will.i.am would translate as well as they do in a 1920s setting? Perhaps only in a Luhrmann film...
My biggest criticism of the film is its acting. I will say that Tobey Maguire as Nick and Australian actor Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan were really very good. At heart, this is Nick's story. The reader (and the viewer) see the story of Gatsby and Daisy through Nick's eyes. Maguire (while no Sam Waterston) manages to convey both Nick's awe and repulsion with a sense of humor and a plucky kind of aplomb that is a lot of fun to watch. Edgerton's Tom is blustery (a "brute" Daisy calls him in the climactic scene at the Plaza Hotel), macho, and one senses capable of real violence. His is a presence that manages to cut through the excess all around him, which is no small task for an actor in a Luhrmann film. While not entirely sympathetic, Tom Buchanan is probably the closest to real flesh and blood of any of the characters.
Carey Mulligan as Daisy and Leonardo diCaprio as, of course, Gatsby fare less well. I think Ms. Mulligan is an amazing actress (her heartbreaking performance as Michael Fassbender's lonely and tormented younger sister in 2011's "Shame" is masterful), yet there's surprisingly very little depth to her portrayal of Daisy. She pouts and giggles and poses on cue without really ever seeming fully inhabited in the role. And diCaprio's Gatsby is neither here nor there. I realize that part of the mystery of Gatsby is that he is ultimately unknowable. DiCaprio doesn't exude mystery here. His line readings are flat and he comes across as a little kid dressed up in big kid finery. And while I've liked him in other films ("J. Edgar" is, I believe, his finest moment) he is woefully miscast as Gatsby. I'd be intrigued to see what an actor like Michael Fassbender, for example, might do with the role. It would probably be a very different film.
So my final verdict on "The Great Gatsby" is that there is much to be admired in its visual audacity, its excessive cinematography and its pulsating soundtrack. I also admire the fact that it is quite faithful to Fitzgerald's original novel and I wasn't even bothered by the narrative device of having Nick relate the story from a mental institution. It made sense to me. If you're already a Luhrmann fan and have seen at least one or two of his earlier films (for sheer romanticism and epic sweep I highly recommend "Australia") you're probably in a better position to admire and even enjoy his version "Gatsby". But for the uninitiated or for those who expect more from a very talented cast, this is going to be a disappointment.
Bottom line: this is a Baz Luhrmann film. I happened to like it very much but I can also appreciate why others might not feel the same. But like it or hate it, you can't deny this film makes an impact. And I also doubt any other film this year will come close to matching its audacity.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Movie Review: Ain't Them Bodies Saints -- My Pick for Best Film of 2013 So Far
Hi everyone! Happy Labor Day Weekend...
"Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is a quiet and impressionistic little film that evokes the work of Terrence Malick while establishing David Lowery as a director to watch. Set in and around a small town in Texas sometime in the 1970s, Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck star as Ruth and Bob, childhood sweet hearts separated at the beginning of the film by a crime that puts Bob behind bars. Ruth is pregnant and has a daughter, Sylvie (sweetly played by twins Kennadie and Jacklynn Smith), whom she raises on her own under the watchful eye of Skerritt (a terrific Keith Carradine), her childhood guardian, and Patrick (a sweet and sweetly sympathetic Ben Foster), a local cop. Four years pass. Bob escapes from prison and makes the trek back home with the intention of reuniting with Ruth and Sylvie.
I won't say anything more about the plot which isn't really the driving force behind my recommendation. What impressed me most about this film were the performances of its stars, Bradford Young's understated yet lush cinematography and its overarching sense of atmosphere. I've liked Ms. Mara's work in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Side Effects". But here I found her to be somewhat of a revelation. Her performance is effortless. You feel her loneliness, her love for her child, and her dread at the inevitability of Bob's return but it all registers so quietly. She inhabits this role so completely you almost forget she's acting. The same can be said for Mr. Affleck, who's always been an interesting actor, much more so than his older and better known brother, Ben. As Bob, Mr. Affleck brings an intensity and a certain kind of vulnerability to a character that doesn't merit sympathy. And yet you care about him while hoping at the same time he's unsuccessful in achieving his aim. As the third point in this rather conventional love triangle is Ben Foster's Patrick, the small town cop whose unrequited love for Ruth really provides the emotional core of the film and gives it its heart. Mr. Foster's performance is graceful and understated and utterly real. You just can't help but root for him.
"Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is a refreshing change of pace from Hollywood's bombastic summer blockbusters, most of which have either bombed at the box office or underperformed this year. This is a film of few words, gorgeous photography, and captivating performances that need no artificial amplification, CGI effects, graphic violence (though it isn't without its bloodshed), or gratuitous sex. It is the perfect film to kick off the Fall season and it is my pick for best film of 2013 so far.
Have a good holiday weekend.
"Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is a quiet and impressionistic little film that evokes the work of Terrence Malick while establishing David Lowery as a director to watch. Set in and around a small town in Texas sometime in the 1970s, Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck star as Ruth and Bob, childhood sweet hearts separated at the beginning of the film by a crime that puts Bob behind bars. Ruth is pregnant and has a daughter, Sylvie (sweetly played by twins Kennadie and Jacklynn Smith), whom she raises on her own under the watchful eye of Skerritt (a terrific Keith Carradine), her childhood guardian, and Patrick (a sweet and sweetly sympathetic Ben Foster), a local cop. Four years pass. Bob escapes from prison and makes the trek back home with the intention of reuniting with Ruth and Sylvie.
I won't say anything more about the plot which isn't really the driving force behind my recommendation. What impressed me most about this film were the performances of its stars, Bradford Young's understated yet lush cinematography and its overarching sense of atmosphere. I've liked Ms. Mara's work in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Side Effects". But here I found her to be somewhat of a revelation. Her performance is effortless. You feel her loneliness, her love for her child, and her dread at the inevitability of Bob's return but it all registers so quietly. She inhabits this role so completely you almost forget she's acting. The same can be said for Mr. Affleck, who's always been an interesting actor, much more so than his older and better known brother, Ben. As Bob, Mr. Affleck brings an intensity and a certain kind of vulnerability to a character that doesn't merit sympathy. And yet you care about him while hoping at the same time he's unsuccessful in achieving his aim. As the third point in this rather conventional love triangle is Ben Foster's Patrick, the small town cop whose unrequited love for Ruth really provides the emotional core of the film and gives it its heart. Mr. Foster's performance is graceful and understated and utterly real. You just can't help but root for him.
"Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is a refreshing change of pace from Hollywood's bombastic summer blockbusters, most of which have either bombed at the box office or underperformed this year. This is a film of few words, gorgeous photography, and captivating performances that need no artificial amplification, CGI effects, graphic violence (though it isn't without its bloodshed), or gratuitous sex. It is the perfect film to kick off the Fall season and it is my pick for best film of 2013 so far.
Have a good holiday weekend.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Movie Review: "Lovelace" -- An Astonishing Star Turn from Amanda Seyfried
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Book Review: "HHhH" -- Heydrich, WW2, the Czechoslovakian Resistance Movement, and an Author's Angst
Hi everyone!
Are any of you familiar with Operation Anthropoid? No? I wasn't...and unless you're a World War Two aficionado or a scholar of 20th Century Czech history, you probably aren't either. And for this reason, French novelist Laurent Binet's curious yet ultimately rather compelling historical novel "HHhH" may be of interest to you.
I picked it up a couple months ago at the Waterstone's book store on Piccadilly in London. It was one of those Buy One Get One Half Price deals that spell trouble for hopeless bibliophiles like me. The cover is very striking -- a black-and-white photograph of an SS officer with the letters "HHhH" printed in rather dramatic block fashion across the officer's face, obscuring it completely. These same letters provide decoration both on the book's spine and the edges of its pages. The overall impression made by the packaging is harsh and rather subversive, not necessarily something I'd want to be seen reading in public...unwholesome and dirty, if you will.
The novel itself is perfectly respectable. Fascinating even. It tells the story of Reinhard Heydrich, head of the SS during World War Two and the man responsible for setting in motion the Final Solution. Heydrich reports directly to Himmler but, according to the novel, "Himmler's brain is called Heydrich", the acronym translated into German spells "HHhH"...hence the title.
There are actually three stories that weave together during the course of the novel's nearly 300 pages: the story of Heydrich's rise to power; the London-based plot to assassinate Heydrich, organized by the Czech government-in-exile and the Czechoslovakian resistance movement; and, rather obscurely, the story of the author (Binet)'s struggle to write a strictly fact-based account of an influential if not pivotal moment in World War Two history without creative embellishment. All of these combined amount to a novel that is alternately thrilling -- especially once the assassination plot and its aftermath kick in -- yet frustratingly confounding.
The novel succeeds best when the author gets out of the way and gets down to the business of telling a great wartime adventure tale. This isn't to trivialize the history of the early days of the Holocaust or the evil mind(s) responsible for sending more than six million Jews and other minorities to their deaths. It's just that Binet's attempts to analyze the psychological make-up of Heydrich and his cohorts aren't particularly engaging and don't really reveal anything we don't already know or can't readily surmise. Although I will say the depiction of the massacre at Babi Yar is chilling.
Our heroes, the Czechoslovakian parachutists Gabcik and Kubis, are suitably dashing yet rather vaguely drawn. I think part of this vagueness is due to the fact that the author seems to consciously keep the reader at a remove from the characters and the action, jumping in with annoying frequency to ruminate over the role of the narrator and whether or not he is doing his characters a disservice by relating their lives through a fictional lens. Frankly, I just didn't care about this existential debate. I wanted to know whether the assassination plot upon which the novel hinges is carried off successfully or not. And for this reason, I found the last third of the novel unputdownable. The action is fast and furious and even though you know things probably aren't going to end well for our heroes -- the author (and history of course) basically informs us of this right at the start, you keep hoping for the best.
I daresay "HHhH" could make a cracking World War Two film. All the elements are there. Pare down -- or cut altogether -- the author's existential angst, and you've got a really rather excellent historical novel that sheds light on an important event that contributed to the turning of the tide against the Germans in 1942. I found the first half of the novel a disjointed slog but somehow Binet manages to pull off a tour de force that kept me turning pages long into the night. In this regard, the novel should be considered a success...but only for the most patient and dedicated of readers.
Special commendation should also be given to Sam Taylor's excellent translation from the French.
Are any of you familiar with Operation Anthropoid? No? I wasn't...and unless you're a World War Two aficionado or a scholar of 20th Century Czech history, you probably aren't either. And for this reason, French novelist Laurent Binet's curious yet ultimately rather compelling historical novel "HHhH" may be of interest to you.
I picked it up a couple months ago at the Waterstone's book store on Piccadilly in London. It was one of those Buy One Get One Half Price deals that spell trouble for hopeless bibliophiles like me. The cover is very striking -- a black-and-white photograph of an SS officer with the letters "HHhH" printed in rather dramatic block fashion across the officer's face, obscuring it completely. These same letters provide decoration both on the book's spine and the edges of its pages. The overall impression made by the packaging is harsh and rather subversive, not necessarily something I'd want to be seen reading in public...unwholesome and dirty, if you will.
The novel itself is perfectly respectable. Fascinating even. It tells the story of Reinhard Heydrich, head of the SS during World War Two and the man responsible for setting in motion the Final Solution. Heydrich reports directly to Himmler but, according to the novel, "Himmler's brain is called Heydrich", the acronym translated into German spells "HHhH"...hence the title.
There are actually three stories that weave together during the course of the novel's nearly 300 pages: the story of Heydrich's rise to power; the London-based plot to assassinate Heydrich, organized by the Czech government-in-exile and the Czechoslovakian resistance movement; and, rather obscurely, the story of the author (Binet)'s struggle to write a strictly fact-based account of an influential if not pivotal moment in World War Two history without creative embellishment. All of these combined amount to a novel that is alternately thrilling -- especially once the assassination plot and its aftermath kick in -- yet frustratingly confounding.
The novel succeeds best when the author gets out of the way and gets down to the business of telling a great wartime adventure tale. This isn't to trivialize the history of the early days of the Holocaust or the evil mind(s) responsible for sending more than six million Jews and other minorities to their deaths. It's just that Binet's attempts to analyze the psychological make-up of Heydrich and his cohorts aren't particularly engaging and don't really reveal anything we don't already know or can't readily surmise. Although I will say the depiction of the massacre at Babi Yar is chilling.
Our heroes, the Czechoslovakian parachutists Gabcik and Kubis, are suitably dashing yet rather vaguely drawn. I think part of this vagueness is due to the fact that the author seems to consciously keep the reader at a remove from the characters and the action, jumping in with annoying frequency to ruminate over the role of the narrator and whether or not he is doing his characters a disservice by relating their lives through a fictional lens. Frankly, I just didn't care about this existential debate. I wanted to know whether the assassination plot upon which the novel hinges is carried off successfully or not. And for this reason, I found the last third of the novel unputdownable. The action is fast and furious and even though you know things probably aren't going to end well for our heroes -- the author (and history of course) basically informs us of this right at the start, you keep hoping for the best.
I daresay "HHhH" could make a cracking World War Two film. All the elements are there. Pare down -- or cut altogether -- the author's existential angst, and you've got a really rather excellent historical novel that sheds light on an important event that contributed to the turning of the tide against the Germans in 1942. I found the first half of the novel a disjointed slog but somehow Binet manages to pull off a tour de force that kept me turning pages long into the night. In this regard, the novel should be considered a success...but only for the most patient and dedicated of readers.
Special commendation should also be given to Sam Taylor's excellent translation from the French.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)