Calvary (2014) – Review

Review: Calvary is a strange yet effecting religious drama.

The film is about Father James, a good priest in a small Irish town. On an average Sunday, he is told that he will be murdered in one week by one of his parishioners because that parishioner was brutally raped as a boy by a priest. This man believes that killing a good priest will garner more attention than killing a bad one. Now, Father James has a week to put his affairs in order – but he also has a few choices. He knows who has threatened him. He could go to the police; he could flee; or, he could speak to this person and try and change their mind.

Unintentionally – let us call it a happy accident or fortunate coincidence – the last film I saw before seeing Calvary was The Passion of Joan of Arc (which I was revisiting, having not seen it in a few years). The two films make quite good companion pieces. The Passion of Joan of Arc is about Jeanne d’Arc’s trial, torture, and execution (burnt at the stake) at the hands of ecclesiastical jurists. Each film has a similar profound duality to it. In The Passion of Joan of Arc, Carl Theodor Dreyer’s direction presents the Catholic jurists in a very unflattering light. They do not know what to do with Jeanne, so they try to trick her and hurt her until she confesses to not being an instrument of God, but rather of Satan. They want to absolve themselves of responsibility (through historical context, we also know that they were under tremendous pressure by the English to find her guilty of heresy). The film does not take a kind view of the Catholic Church (if these are its learned representatives), but at the same time Jeanne is an incredibly pious and inspiring young woman (believed to be about nineteen at the time of her death). Her devotion to her faith is palpable and true. She is completely uncorrupt. She presents a vision of someone who has embraced God’s pure love, unshaken in her conviction even in the face of absolute cruelty and hate. The film exhibits the ugliness of religion and its beauty. So too does Calvary.

It is clear that writer-director John Michael McDonagh has a cynical view of the Catholic Church. The film is ripe with constant reminders of the Catholic Church’s crimes. The Church is to some extent only as good as the people who represent it. Here, Father James is a very good and understanding priest, but he has a dark side as well (his wife died young; his daughter feels abandoned by him; and he is an alcoholic). Father Leary (the other priest in the town) is fairly incompetent and probably should even not be a priest to begin with (it does not appear to really be his calling). As Father James makes his rounds around town, he is bombarded with the negative implications that his vocation seems to imply. He visits a cannibal in prison who asks him why God would make him the way he is. He is accosted by an angry father for walking near a young girl, not because he was behaving in any inappropriate way but because there is a stigma about priests and children. His friends like to remind him of the evils the Catholic Church has undertaken throughout time (and there are many). And yet, even though he is continually persecuted for his faith, he is still a good man, always willing to try and help his flock. McDonagh is unkind to the Catholic Church (which is not an unfair sentiment to have, given their history and current state), but even so he has made the film’s most authentically good person a priest. Like The Passion of Joan of Arc, Calvary has a duality. Despite all that is wrong and ugly, there is still goodness and beauty in faith. Both films, however, seem to put the emphasis on the individual as having the choice to be good or bad while the group (the Church) is by its own nature corrupt. The individual’s faith in God can be pure and beautiful, but that faith is corrupted by the institution of organized religion. Father James is aware of this but would rather look at the good in people than focus on the sins, much like McDonagh with his film. The sins (of man, the Church, society, and so on) are plainly present, but even so there is still something that can be beautiful about faith (and man). There can be goodness amongst all the rotten.

Calvary is structured in a very interesting manner by McDonagh. The film is very linear, counting down each day until the Sunday in which Father James is supposed to die. Calvary, as a title, implies that the film will detail a narrative of great suffering, maybe even one ending in crucifixion (literally or metaphorically); and thus, there is no happy ending for Father James from the start. McDonagh fills the film with Catholic symbolism. The film can be read as playing out the Stations of the Cross. Father James is condemned to death. He decides not to inform the police, instead carrying on with his work (thereby carrying his burden – his cross). He faces his failures: he tries to make amends with his daughter, he visits his former pupil who became a murderer in prison, and he succumbs to his drinking. He loses many of his most personal processions: his church is burnt down, his beloved dog is murdered, and his daughter leaves him to return to her home (although, they do find reconciliation). He tries to help Veronica Brennan, a loose woman in town who has been knocked around. He tries to help Teresa, a foreigner whose husband has just been killed by a drunk driver. He tries to help Michael Fitzgerald, a wealthy man who feels like life is meaningless and is emotionally detached (he was in finance, making millions off the losses of others, but not seeks some sort of redemption). He tries to help Father Leary realize that being a priest is not his true vocation. And finally, Father James is murdered.

McDonagh also explores the five stages of grief in the film (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance). Certain characters seem to be personifications of these stages. As Father James makes his rounds around town, interacting with these characters, he seems to be witnessing people in different stages of grief in terms of their reaction to being letdown by the promise of life (and maybe even the promise of God or the promise of the Church). Life (God and the Church) promises to be a beautiful and wondrous thing that will bring you happiness and satisfaction, but then the reality sets in that life is really just a meaningless, tedious march towards death, with moments of happiness only existing as fleeting distractions – and they are hardly ever pure. The world is ugly and hard, just as God appears uncaring and cruel and the Church corrupt and greedy. Yet, Father James exemplifies that despite this darkness there can still be good and that meaning can be derived from our interactions with each other.

Father James too must come to terms with his own grief – be it over the loss of his wife, the pain his daughter lives with, or his own impending death. He decides to face his death because he has accepted that he must die to provide healing, both for the man who was wronged by the Church and to the Church itself. Maybe with his death, the Church will try to reform instead of constantly side stepping difficult truths. This is all interpretation, however, as Father James never explicitly informs the audience of why he decides to face his killer on the beach. Even though it does seem like Father James has accepted his fate, there is still a hint of hope that the man can be consoled and can forgive the Church.

In addition to all this heavy symbolism and drama, Calvary also has a wickedly black sense of humor and strangeness to it. The film is often very funny, but in an off sort of way. The characters that occupy McDonagh’s world are almost all odd ducks. The small Irish town is in a sense almost a surreal place, as its only inhabitants seem to be these bizarre people, who all seem to drift towards the fringes of society. Only Teresa, a foreigner, seems like a normal decent person. Fiona, Father James’s daughter too seems normal, except she has recently just attempted suicide and is clearly a damaged person. Father James, in this way, thusly seems to reside over a flock of broken people. He cannot run away because they need him.

The film is also aesthetically quite striking, with brilliant photography, design, writing, acting, and music. Tonally, everything works well together. The only slight flaw is the film’s pacing. McDonagh seems to deliberately pace the film to be very slow, giving a sense of weight to each day that passes. He also wants to make time for each of his wonderful scenes (usually an interaction between Father James and one of the other characters – speaking about some matter that really veils something completely different). The pacing works for the most part, especially when the film is considered as a whole, but in the moment there are parts that do seem to drag. The quirky nature and seemingly cynical approach to the Catholic Church will also put some viewers off.

McDonagh does a good job creating his characters. The supporting characters are odd, as stated above, yet have a certain depth to them. Initially, they seem like caricatures, exaggerated for effect, but as the film plays out a deeper side is revealed and they feel much more fleshed out. Father James is a great character. He is troubled, yet strives to be good and just. His darkness, however, makes him more relatable, because we too are imperfect, just trying to do our best.

Calvary is not a film for everyone – far from it – but for those with a dark sense of humor and an appetite for complex and thought-provoking drama and emotions, it is well worth seeing. It is in many ways a brilliant piece.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: John Michael McDonagh has two strong features to his name now with Calvary and The Guard. He has a great talent for black comedy, garnering strong performances, and writing fantastic dialog. I look forward to his next film.

Composer Patrick Cassidy’s score plays on the more tonally heavy nature of the film – the emotional toll of facing one’s own death as well as sounding influenced by music played during church services. It also features local Irish singing. Larry Smith’s cinematography is very good. He works in mostly darker tones, and the film features many beautiful landscape shots. There is not much color in the film’s palette, but when some does sneak in (like the church fire) it is quite striking by contrast. It is excellent work. Mark Geraghty’s production design is very simple and quiet in the film. His sets feel very naturalistic, which works well in allowing these eccentric characters to still feel grounded by their surroundings.

The cast is excellent in Calvary. David Wilmot, Marie-Josee Croze, M. Emmet Walsh, Isaach De Bankole, Pat Shortt, Killian Scott, and Orla O’Rourke are all very good in small supporting roles. Domhnall Gleeson gives a standout performance (though it is short) as cannibal Freddie Joyce. His energy is so electric and creepy. Dylan Moran plays an arrogant twit fantastically, yet there is such an inner sadness to him as well. Aiden Gillen too is fantastic at playing a complete bastard; though with his character, there does not seem to be remorse or sadness. He seems to be the way he is just to get a rise out of people (and maybe a little anger in there too). Kelly Reilly is very good at playing damaged characters. Here, she plays Fiona with equal measures of sadness and hope for the future; though she attempted suicide, she is nonetheless one of the stronger people in Father James’s life. Chris O’Dowd is wonderful in the film, giving probably his best performance to date. There is such anger and sadness and frustration behind his seemingly friendly and playful nature. It is very good work from him. Brendan Gleeson too gives a marvelous performance as Father James. He plays the man almost as if he were from a different genre, as though he were a no-nonsense sheriff in a western, but along with his gruff demeanor there is a true heart wanting to help. It is among the best work I have seen this year.

Summary & score: Calvary mixes its fiendish sense of humor and strangeness with its intensely emotional and provocative drama. The result is a film that is utterly compelling and challenging on multiple levels. 8/10

TV Series of the Month – The IT Crowd

This month’s series: The IT Crowd (2006-2010).

The British comedy series is about the adventures (and goofing around) of the IT department in the basement of Reynholm Industries. The IT department consists of Jen, the new manager who knows nothing about computers, and Roy and Moss, two geeky slackers with no higher ambition.

The series is created and written by Graham Linehan. He also created and wrote the hit British comedy Father Ted.

The cast is brilliantly funny. Chris O’Dowd, Richard Ayoade, and Katherine Parkinson star as Roy, Moss, and Jen. They fantastically carry the series. Matt Berry (who is hysterical), Christopher Morris, and Noel Fielding (who many know as his Old Gregg character from The Mighty Boosh) feature in support.

The IT Crowd is one of the funniest of the modern British series and I highly recommend it for fans of shows like Community, Freaks & Geeks, Spaced, and Party Down. And, like many successful British series an attempt to bring it to America was made. NBC shot a pilot and even momentarily picked it up, but then new chairman Ben Silverman killed it (you can watch the pilot here). Update: Creator Graham Linehan has announced that production on a 40-minute finale to the series will be shot over the summer with O'Dowd, Ayoade, Parkinson, and Berry all returning.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD and Streaming

This Is 40 (2012) – Review

Review: This Is 40 combines very funny comedy with well-developed characters and strong dramatic moments. The film is about married couple Pete and Debbie. They have been married for about fourteen years and have a seemingly comfortable life, but troubles at work and at home begin to fray their relationship.

Writer-director Judd Apatow is known for his brand of comedy – mixing crude ‘R’ rated jokes, usually derived in an improvisational manner, with heartfelt drama and strong characters. This Is 40 in many ways is the culmination of his style. It has numerous scenes of fantastic comedy and big laughs, ranging from realistic to over-the-top (as jokes are exaggerated for comedic effect), but it all works. And, it also has what is ultimately very realistic feeling drama, focusing on domestic issues that the audience can relate to. Pete and Debbie might as well be real people the audience knows, that is how authentic their drama feels and is presented.

This results in two reactions. Either way viewers will relate to the drama and characters, however for some viewers it will be too much, too realistic and cutting. Cinema is still viewed as an escape, and a mainstream ‘comedy’ like This Is 40 is often viewed as something that should not have material that will bring the audience back into their own lives asking them to relate by looking at the highs and lows in their own relationships – it is supposed to be an escape and just make them laugh. The film is too good a drama in this sense and thus for viewers that just want to laugh it might hit too close to home, as even though Pete and Debbie essentially only have ‘white-people problems’ (and yuppie white people at that) the deeper drama is universal. However, for viewers that enjoy being completely emotionally engaged, the film works quite well showcasing the ups and downs of life and the struggles people go through to make their relationship work.

While Pete and Debbie struggle in their relationship with each other, their kids, and their parents, most of the supporting characters outside their family are there primarily to provide comedy. Apatow has put together a wonderful group of very funny people (like with all his films) and they deliver hilarious material. Viewers who enjoy Apatow’s brand of humor will not be disappointed. This is a very funny film, even with all the drama. Plus, the ending very much makes it a comedy in the classical sense.

Narratively speaking, Apatow’s films have often been criticized for being overly long and over indulgent in the material left in – in other words he is not an economical storyteller, which is an important component of good Hollywood filmmaking. This Is 40 is no different. It really just amounts to a snapshot taken from Pete and Debbie’s life. Yes, there is a deep emotional and dramatic significance to the drama, as they are at a crossroads, but the film does not leave the audience feeling life everything will be happy forever after. There will still be highs and lows, but for now they are okay – in a better place in their relationship than when the film starts. Thus, the film works more as dramatic experience (which also happens to be very funny) than a more straightforward narrative story. The viewer takes in the drama, relates to it, and takes something away from the experience.

This will also have one of two results for the viewer. It will either feel too loose and rambling, as if Apatow merely shot a bunch of footage and then found some semblance of a story in editing but did not want to lose any of the jokes or performances so he over stuffed it. Or, it will resonate with the viewer as a dramatic journey, again showcasing the ups and downs in Pete and Debbie’s relationship(s).

Despite Apatow’s filmmaking style, and how it seems to somewhat be moving further away from typical comedic narrative filmmaking, This Is 40 is both a very funny comedy and an in depth and emotionally true look at marriage that entertains and dramatically engages its audience (something few comedies achieve).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Judd Apatow has now directed four films, each straddling a difficult tonal line between comedy and drama. His first two films (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) clearly felt like comedies, but with good dramatic moments and characters (again, his trademark). But, his last two films (Funny People and This Is 40) have come much closer to being dramas, and in many ways are as the characters and their issues outweigh the jokes. Viewers (steered by marketing) go into these films expecting comedies but are met with character-based dramas that also happen to be really funny and have happy endings. This seems to be splitting opinion much more, as many just want funny movies not character pieces, while others recognize what Apatow is doing with his films and appreciate them for what they are (something different and interesting). I for one really enjoy what he is doing with his films and look forward to his next.

Jon Brion’s score works to accentuate the dramatic shifts in the film, while Apatow also greatly uses a good soundtrack to strong effect. Phedon Papamichael’s cinematography is very good as well. The film is shot in a very straightforward fashion, but visually everything looks great. Jefferson Sage’s production design is used to ground the characters in reality, but Sage also has fun with some of the sets (like Pete’s office, which looks like a rock nerd’s fantasy).

The film is very well acted with a great and very funny supporting cast. Jason Segel’s, Chris O’Dowd’s, and especially Melissa McCarthy’s (who is hysterical) performances standout among the smaller supporting roles. Megan Fox is also surprisingly good in her supporting part. Albert Brooks is great in support, capturing the essence of the film, playing Pete’s father to both be funny and dramatically compelling. This is the third time Apatow has used his own daughters (Maude and Iris Apatow) in his films, but never with so much dramatic responsibility. They are both fantastic, and casting ‘real’ young actors in the roles would not have been an improvement. Paul Rudd is wonderful in the film. He gives Pete such a carefree cool vibe, but underneath there is so much stress and worry that just eat away at him boiling up when he can no longer bare it. Rudd also has perfect comedic timing. However, it is probably Leslie Mann who steals the film. Debbie just wants to have the perfect life and she tries to control everything around her to make it so, but this leaves her perpetually disappointed and ultimately unhappy. She just seems so frustrated all the time, but desperately wants to be happy.

Summary & score: This Is 40 is not going to work for everyone. It is not just a funny comedy, but also a cutting character drama. For those it does work for, it is a wonderful experience full of hilarious comedy and emotionally resonate drama. 8/10

Bridesmaids (2011) – Review

Bridesmaids is funny (very funny at times), but lacks a strong narrative structure and developed characters. Directed Paul Feig and writer/star Kristen Wiig are able to create a number of hilarious bits on par with the best comedies (male oriented or otherwise). There are a number of scenes (of course depending on your comedy preferences) that will find you laughing, giggling or otherwise occupied with fits of hilarity. There is no questioning this film’s ability to be funny and entertain, because it is and it does. The issues arise more from its pacing, characters and overall narrative structure. The funny scenes are held together by an underdeveloped story centering on Wiig’s Annie (the best friend of the bride who feels threated by another seemingly more successful bridesmaid, as she fears losing her friend). Annie may not be an overly likable character (but comedic protagonists do not have to be likable), but Feig does a good job with her character (she may even be overdeveloped, with a few unnecessary character scenes undermining the forward momentum of the narrative). However, all the other characters for the most part are one-note jokes, caricatures or narrative stereotypes and not fleshed out characters (leaving the audience with only Annie to relate to and connect with). Thus, the stakes of Annie’s journey are not as impactful, leaving only the humor to carry the film (which it does for the most part; though, the best comedies have funny jokes and great characters we can connect with). The film feels hollow without developed characters regardless of how funny some of the scenes and characters are. An even bigger problem is the terrible pacing. The film feels longer than it is, losing momentum (and the audience) a number of times, which directly relates to the weak narrative and trivial characters. As funny and enjoyable as moments of Bridesmaids are, overall it is disappointing given the poor structure.

Technical and acting achievements: Director Paul Feig has an excellent resume for comedy on TV (The Office, Freak and Greeks and many others), but he needs to refine and improve his feature narrative storytelling, as it is by far the weakest part of this film (and really stops it from being something special). He is able to garner very funny work from his actors, and his filmmaking style is suitable for standard comedies (he does not have much of an artistic style, more of a straightforward Hollywood style). Character development among co-starring and supporting characters is also an area that needs improvement for future feature films, but this is also the case for writers Wiig and Annie Mumolo (this being their first feature as well). The score by Michael Andrews, the cinematography by Robert Yeoman and the production design by Jefferson Sage are all good and fitting, but nothing more – the performances taking center stage. The supporting cast features a number of very amusing bit parts, highlight by performances from: Jon Hamm, Ellie Kemper and Rebel Wilson. Jill Clayburgh is quite good as Annie’s mom, both sweet and caring, but strong and challenging. Rose Byrne is good, but Melissa McCarthy steals much of the comedy (and scenes) awarded to the supporting cast and Chris O’Dowd provides a needed break from the exaggerated bit humor, with more personal and heartfelt scenes (and also providing some laughs; if only his character had more development and screen time). Wiig is very funny and proves she is deserving of more leading roles in comedies as she certainly can carry a film and deliver the laughs.

Bridesmaids is funnier than the score may suggest, but as a narrative film it is not quite good enough. 7/10