Fighting as a “Gladiator”

Among the battle scenes and epic storyline of redemption in “Gladiator”, there is a deeper tale dealing with personal identity being told under the surface. Most have seen the film helmed by Ridley Scott so I won’t bore you with a synopsis of the entire movie, but there’s much more to the story than grisly battle scenes and political scheming. Maximus learns the true value of who he is and what he’s willing to fight for. Maximus has just been offered to succeed the dying Ceaser. Ceaser’s son Commodus, of course, isn’t going to let this happen. It’s his job to rule, and he will stop at nothing to get it. After the smothering of his father, Commodus has Maximus arrested and taken to be executed. However, Maximus is a resourceful and skilled Roman soldier. He escapes and kills his would-be executioners and races to save his family. Too late, he is taken by slavers to be a gladiator. It’s as a gladiator that Maximus takes a knife and scrapes off the tattoo on his arm that designates him as a soldier and citizen of Rome.

What a crazy response! That would be akin to an American citizen renouncing their citizenship and losing all the benefits thereof. The tattoo removal tells us something important about Maximus. He no longer identifies himself with Rome, an empire he once swore to protect because he loved and believed in what it stood for. He was wronged by the very institution he had previously given his life to, and under Commodus and as a slave he can no longer consider himself a citizen. He doesn’t want to. It’s not that he is rejecting Rome, he’s rejecting the idea that Rome gives him his identity. This is in stark contrast to the cultural norm of the day- blind allegiance to and worship of Ceaser no matter what. Anything other than that was deserving of punishment by law- an effective tactic at ruling the large empire that was Rome. Maximus knows himself well and has the courage and self-determination to fight for what is right, and nothing can take away that away from him. It’s not his Roman citizenship that defines him and determines his life anymore. He is defined by the ideals he holds, which contrast with what Rome under Commodus had become.

This isn’t about political reform, although I see how it could be taken as such. This is about identity, and what informs it. It’s an interesting character study, as Maximus defines himself based on his convictions not his circumstances. His identity shift occurs with the removal of his tattoo, and from that point on he is a different man. He is no longer a soldier, but a gladiator. He’s given up his old life as a soldier and has embraced his new life as a gladiator so that others can benefit.

He knows who he is no matter what others do to him, with or without shackles.

Writing a Great Story with “Ink”

The indy film “Ink” is a fresh take on the battle between good and evil as they fight over our souls in the unseen, spiritual realm in which they interact. The film, which was not wide-released, focuses on the redemption of the relationship between John and his daughter Emma. This battle takes place in an extra-dimension in which our world can be seen but not interacted with physically. Two groups, the Incubi and the Storytellers, within this existential realm are in constant opposition. The Incubi seek to recruit members by infusing fear and hatred through nightmares. The Storytellers seek to recruit by giving people hope through good dreams. When the two sides clash, street-fighting style battles erupt.

Ink, a recent addition to the spiritual world, needs to deliver Emma’s soul to the head Incubi in order to join their forces, in a sort of initiation. He’s intercepted by a gang of Storytellers when he abducts her soul and successfully takes Emma with her as he journeys to the Incubi headquarters. Meanwhile, in the waking world, she lies in a coma. John, estranged from his daughter for reasons revealed in the film, battles with himself over whether to visit her in the hospital. This battle is intensified by the influence of the Incubi and the Storytellers as they both try to sway John’s decisions through the dreams that they give him.

As the spiritual realm affects those in the film through dreams, there’s a cause and effect that happens. Will characters be influenced by the evil, dark, destructive Incubi or the hopeful, valiant, heroic Storytellers? Taken a step further, what can be said about decisions that we make every day? The idea that our decisions are affected by and affect a reality we don’t see is provocative. The stakes are high, as decisions to love or to hate either add to the good guy side or the bad guy side. Will bitterness help evil forces at work in the spiritual realm, or will love and forgiveness add to those who fight to give hope to the hopeless?

There’s not much mention of any kind of leader of each of these groups. There’s a sort of head Incubi, but not much is explored with this character. There’s a brief mention of God from the Storytellers. Perhaps this was done on purpose. Spiritualizing the film too much would have turned many off. However, the absence of any kind of mastermind behind each group begs a lot of questions. Does the film mean to invoke the idea that God and the devil are involved? Who gives the orders? Who strategizes? What are the motives of both sides, other than to recruit members? Why does one side need good to flourish, and the other side need evil?

These questions and more make “Ink” a provocative and psychological mind-bending, accessible film.

Exploring Cultural Differences in “District 9”

Produced by Peter Jackson, District 9 is a dark movie that examines what happens when two cultures collide. The alien species, or prawns as they are called by humans because of their crustacean-looking bodies, have a ship that hovers above Johannesburg, South Africa for 20 years when the film opens. They seem unable to operate their ship, and are stranded on Earth. Living in tenements below, they scavenge what they can. They love raw meat and strangely enough, cat food. MNU, a military contracted private corporation, "keeps the peace" between aliens and humans. This means all kinds of maltreatment and abuse, carried out with military precision. The filmmakers have said that the story is not a political statement, but it's hard to hide the fact that those in power have abused those who are weaker in the film.

The story plays like a reverse colonialism scenario. The aliens, who have traveled from some distant planet, have landed on a spot on Earth and have taken up residence. Instead of taking ownership and invading, like many other alien films, they are destitute and must rely on the help of humans. They seem as though they don't even know how to operate their own technology very well, causing the question to be asked: Did a "higher" intellectual class exist before some mutiny on board their ship?

For the past 20 years, interactions between the aliens and the humans have allowed the two species to be able to understand the other's language, although misunderstandings are frequent. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and judge the humans for their poor treatment of a helpless group. Ask yourself these questions: What would I do in the same situation? What policies would I enact to ensure the safety of humans while also aiding the aliens? What would I do about communication? Those are not easy to answer.

As you might have guessed, after 20 years, the aliens start to fight back. They are tired of the oppression that is undeserved. They just want to go home. An especially bright alien enacts a plan to reach the mothership in order to leave Earth. The closing scenes are incredibly graphic as humans explode when the alien weaponry is used. It's ultra-realistic, and the CG animation of the aliens, as well as the special effects of explosions, spaceships, and robots is impressive as the plot unfolds. Half the movie is shot like a documentary, the other half like a true sci-fi movie. Most of the cameras used are handheld, lending a very intense, in-your-face experience.

What a great experience it is!

Clint Eastwood Makes Good Movies

The impressive films directed by Clint Eastwood, “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima”, expose the often unheard of parts of the Pacific offensive during World War II. Each film tells the story from the point of view of either the Americans or the Japanese as they fight each other during the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Helmed by Clint Eastwood, the stories are unabashedly honest from both sides. History tells us that Americans are the good guys and the Japanese are the bad guys, but these movies showcase that's not the case. This has been done before, and the concept is not new, but these movies do a really good job of showing the human side of war.

In “Letters to Iwo Jima”, the main protagonist Saigo just wants to get home safely to his family and his journey was harrowing. It was frustrating that the American soldiers and Japanese officers made his efforts next to impossible. The Americans were bent on decimating "the enemy," while the beaten Japanese field officers ordered their men to kill themselves rather than be "dishonored" by being caught.

In “Flags of Our Fathers”, American soldiers violated human rights because it was convenient for them. The traditional view from World War II is that the Americans are good guys, but they committed war crimes just as the “bad guys” did as well. Now, the severity of war crimes was different, but mistreatment is mistreatment. America did not do horrific "medical research" on our enemies, but cruel treatment was common on both sides. This honest look at this issue was well executed by Eastwood.

Although a difficult pair of movies to watch, they show the need for the humane treatment of people during war. It seemed as if Eastwood flipped stereotypes on their head- the bad guys were the Americans and the good guys were the Japanese. Hats off to him for boldly exploring alternation views to a historically and popularly held conception of how World War II really was!

Being “A Man Apart”- Spoiler!

The fairly predictable “A Man Apart” shows a little grittiness, a tough but sensitive Vin Diesel, and lots of action. The story plays like a textbook script- a cop brings down the leader of a drug cartel, the new leader “El Diablo” sends hit men to take him out, his wife is killed, and our intrepid cop goes on the rampaging revenge path. He breaks a few skulls and rules along the way, and then has a final showdown with the new leader and blows him away. Wait. No he doesn’t!

This is where a Season 1 of “24”ending would feel most natural. Diesel cathartically killing the man who was responsible for the death of his wife would have been the predictable Hollywood ending. Diesel has the means and the “moral right” to exact his revenge. Armed, he finds El Diablo in a Mexican village sipping on a margarita or whatever. You think he’s going to grab his gun, point, and pull the trigger.

Instead, Diesel lets his law enforcing buddies surround El Diablo and arrest him. This is a surprising ending in a world and culture that values revenge. We want to see the bad guy go down, to “get what he deserves.” And yes, criminals deserve justice for sure. But at the hands of a lone avenger, a vigilante? There are laws against such actions. Everyone is lawfully guaranteed a trial. If guilty, any criminal is allowed due process, sentenced, and given punishment in accordance with crimes committed. Usually in Hollywood, the hero dispatches the bad guy, dispatching as well the rights of the due process guaranteed by law.

“Children of Men” Save the World

The premise of “Children of Men” is pretty ingenious. In an apocalyptic future in which no woman can get pregnant, the world is in chaos. The youngest person alive is a celebrity. No cause is found for this bizarre phenomenon. The end draws near. Suddenly, a young woman is found to be pregnant. If people knew about this, there would be riots. So, in secrecy, she is shuttled off to a mysterious island so that scientists can find out why she's pregnant. The movie spans this transport of the pregnant woman to a place of safety. There is a major biblical parallel; a helpless baby born in a dark world and the sacrifice it took to ensure the safety of mother and child by the protagonist. The movie really played up the idea that the birth of a baby was a scientific impossibility.

What the premise says about our world is up for debate. I had a conversation with a man on a train one time about M. Night Shyamalan's "The Happening," a movie we both disliked. However, I was given a new perspective on the movie that may translate to "Children of Men," I suppose. In Night's movie, plants start releasing a neurotoxin that causes people to dramatically commit suicide. The "point" of this is that we are killing ourselves by killing the planet, kind of like global warming but on a much more personal and dramatic level. Is the point of "Children of Men" that we as a human race are so antagonistic to each other that we are rendering the race sterile? Are we killing ourselves out of existence? Genocide, civil war, fighting over resources, religious fanaticism- are all these the possible cause of human extinction?

It’s an interesting allegory used at times in films for such purposes. If death is what we do, than death is what we’ll get. It’s sort of the reversal of Chaos Theory as explained in Jurassic Park. Instead of “life finding a way,” we find that “death finds a way.” We’ve been entrusted to take care of an earth. We have a moral responsibility to treat life as sacred. How are we doing on those fronts? The writer of “Children of Men” may have something quite provocative to say about that.

Let’s Go “Good Will Hunting”

Einstein once said that, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Will Hunting (Matt Damon), an Einsteinian genius, is nevertheless a fish who is trying to climb a tree in “Good Will Hunting”. Although he knows his mind makes him a mathematical powerhouse, he is the epitome of a self-sabotager. Those around him, especially the MIT professors who envy his ability to solve mathematical theorems with ease, wonder why Will wants to throw it all away to live in a seedy south Boston neighborhood and work as a laborer.

Will is smart, and not just with numbers. His incredible wit is matched by his sarcastic attitude about everything. Instead of dealing with any personal issue he’s confronted with, he’ll throw out all kinds of facts and cynical philosophy to avoid the personal introspection needed to answer the question. His brutal honesty about how he’s feeling and thinking is extreme, and the walls he’s built up are high and thick. The average psychologist is not a good fit for him, and he knows and exploits this to their utter exasperation. It takes an equally strong personality to counter Will’s verbal attacks, and Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) is just that man. Matching expletive with expletive, the two verbally duke it out like the street brawlers they grew up as.

Will’s defensiveness is hiding his wounds, and he doesn’t even know it. It takes Sean’s style of in-his-face therapy to eventually get Will to begin to tear down his walls, to admit his pain. It’s only then that Will sees the bigger picture, and that he was stuck in an endless, self-destructive cycle that kept him from the fulfilling life that he wanted. He finally realized that he was a fish meant to swim in the water, not scale a tree.