tales of pubescence. Youth in Revolt manages to bring some unique humor to the table, but it also gets disconnected and becomes a little too zany for its own good. It makes us laugh, but really doesn’t show us anything new.

Michael Cera stars as Nick Twisp, the aforementioned “coming of age youth.” He is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place; the rock being his deadbeat Mom and the hard place being his deadbeat Dad (if you’re a deadbeat parent you’ll absolutely love this film). If you want to throw in a third rock, it would be the lack of anything remotely resembling a love life (if

you’re lacking a love life you’ll absolutely hate this film).

He finds his first target in Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday). She’s the good girl gone bad, raised in a religious family, but with a flair for the dangerous. She can’t help but egg on Nick to break out of his shell and “Be bad, Nickie. Be very, very bad.”

Ah, there we go, now we have an excuse for a plot. Nick has to prove how much he loves her, by doing something outrageous! That’s all

well and good, but the plot becomes scattered when the characters seem to come and go. He

starts off having a best friend, the proverbial “awkward, seventeen-year-old virgin” who is worried of dying without getting any. Thirty minutes later he’s replaced by another seventeen year-old-virgin-best-friend, this guy just happens to be Indian (which sets up a later joke…not by me, by the film). There isn’t much of a unique back-story  that allows the characters to be unique or engaging, which sets the film further back.

The film is at it’s strongest when the story focuses on the series of conflicts burying Nick. He’s the hard luck kid that we can’t help but feel sorry for. The relationship that he develops with Sheeni is enjoyable to watch, as both characters find discoveries in one another. Cera does a wonderful job displaying his comedic timing and an edginess that is even more entertaining to watch.

The decision to stylize the story in some wacky montages, and even crazier animated-sex scenes, is a little odd and distracting. The portrayal of Nick and his alter ego in the same scene is entertaining at times, but also hard to follow in others, although Cera pulls off the juxtaposition extremely well.

Youth in Revolt presents itself as a film that doesn’t have much of a story, so it figured it would jazz things up with a strong cast of featured characters. Even the best in the business can’t pull off the proper choices when they’re not strongly linked to the journey and the revolt of the main character. It provides some good laughs, but it tries a little too hard to show us something new, and comes away feeling a lot like the others in the end.

Four time Academy award nominee Jeff Bridges is Bad Blake, the country singer that certainly has seen better days. His gigs are bowling alleys and bars, where he’s spending most of his time throwing up backstage. He’s a drunk, an almost has been, and he pees in a Sparklets bottle when he’s too lazy to stop, driving from show to show. But Bad still has enough charm to bring in the ladies…

Maggie Gyllenhaal is Jean Craddock, a local reporter and single mother faced with a checkered past of falling for the wrong guy, and she’s determined not to re-live that mistake. She interviews Bad for her local paper, but that inevitaby grows into something more. As Bad and Jean become closer, she must choose between her instincts and her desire; does she protect herself or must she fall again for the same kind of man that burned her before?

The incomparable Robert Duvall is Wayne Kramer, Bad’s long-time friend, guiding every decision Bad makes. He’s the voice of reason, when Bad won’t wake himself up. “It’s never too late…It’s never too late.”

The film uses country music as a backdrop to tell the story of some very intriguing characters, but the film doesn’t wallow in the cheesiness of a run-of-the-mill good ole’ boy singing the blues. Bad Blake lives a drunken life, but he has the charm and wit of a man that’s getting himself back on track, he’s just going to do it his own way, and take his sweet time doing it. Bridges explores the character all the way to the roots, discovering who he truly is. Bad Blake is a man looking for redemption, who is finally forced into action, when his recklessness impedes him from progressing towards a more promising life. He’s probably known his lifestyle isn’t okay for some time, but he’s never had the motiviation to take the necassary steps. That all changes when Bad and Jean become so close, that the stakes reach the highest they’ll ever be, and Bad has no choice but to take action. Jean is also a deep character that defies conventional norms, and Gyllenhaal gives a great portrayal of the complex character. She offers a refreshing reality that reminds us to trust in our instincts, even if it might mean losing someone you love.

The only drawback of the film is that it might transition a little too quickly for it’s own good. Bad seems to have something of an overnight transformation, and the relationship between Jean and Bad might seem a little artificial due to the age difference (and the fact that Jean is beautiful and Bad walks around with his pants un-done half the time). But the chemistry is so strong between Bridges and Gyllenhaal, and Bridges pulls of the changes and evolutions of his character so well, the flaws don’t take away much from the experience.

It’s an incontrevertible fact that life never goes as planned. Sometimes the greatest gift isn’t knowing what is in store for us, it’s the opportunity to make changes to better ourselves, and have faith we will become stronger individuals for taking the initiative to right our wrongs.  When we “pick up our crazy heart and give it one more try,” we will always come out ahead.

Life’s events can usually be broken down in a simple synopsis: what could have happened versus what did happen. Uncertainty, dives into the chain of events set off by each decision we make,no matter how trivial our choices may originally seem. It deals with the reality of never turning back, and focuses on the importance of taking matters into our own hands.

Uncertainty is directed by Scott McGehee and David Seigel. It  stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins as Bobby Thompson and Kate Montero. The couple has their lives change by the flip of a coin, sending them in opposite directions, and telling two different stories. They stumble on a cell phone in the back of a cab in the first story, which is sought after by a criminal group, that makes Bobby and Kate their next target. The second tale examines the role of family, as Bobby struggles to become a part of Kate’s family, while Kate struggles to reveal information that may affect how her family judges her. Both stories weave back and forth, as the discoveries emerge, and the tension grows.

As you can probably tell, both plots are thin, and can come across as a little confusing. The film goes back and forth with two different storylines, and tries to juxtapose a central meaning, that

never quite comes to fruition. It touches on concepts of family, love, innocence, and self-discovery, but none of these elements are grounded in much of a reality to where we can connect with them. Both storylines have a vastly different tone that makes them feel like entirely separate movies. I spent the majority of my time waiting for them to overlap or come together, but that never occurred. The parallels exists, but there isn’t much of a payoff. I was left confused as to why things were told the way they were.

The performances are very strong. The plots are thin, and the storylines are disconnected, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins are fully aware of what’s at stake for each of them. The characters are rich and unique and I would like to have seen them developed more, opposed to seeing a story told in provocative fashion.

In the end, we become less attached to the characters because the plots are contrived and lack considerable depth. It’s a great film for those looking for quality performances, but the narrative may be too much for those used to a more conventional film structure.

(http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp),

but… do I really want to see it?

So, I was on guard when I walked into the screening room to see Precious, but as the film unfolded, I was swept away by not only the story, but the amazing way director Lee Daniels found a way to tell it. All the horror of abuse is there, but we don’t have to stare it in the face — which is how many survivors make it through.

Precious, played by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe is so believable that you pretty much feel like this has got to be her story. Comedian Mo’Nique who will surely get an Academy Award nomination for her work in this said on “The Ellen Show” that she drew from her own experience of childhood abuse at the hands of her older brother to create Precious’ monster mother. I didn’t even recognize Mariah Carey — that’s how good she was and Paula Patton as Precious’ teacher managed to confront and comfort Precious at the same time. Sherri Sheperd (The View/Sherri) was also hard to recognize in a part smaller, but no less effective.

At Sundance 2009, the film won the Jury Prize, the Audience Prize and a special jury prize for Acting. Though I had in my mind that this is a true story, an interview with Sappire (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n6_v26/ai_18450196/) says the story is a composite of several people.

I hate reviews that tell you the entire story of the film leaving no surprises from the director or the actors, so I’m going to let you experience this amazing journey on your own, although there is so much buzz about the film right now (it opened in limited release to large numbers the first weekend), it will be hard for you to escape the story. I’ll just say that there are gritty parts and joyful parts – just like life. Real life.

Paranormal Activity seems to abide by the less is more practice, but it still falls short of achieving something great. Much of the attention the film has garnered is predicated more on the film’s thrifty production. Word on the street is that it cost $400.00 to make, and was shot in two days on an iPhone…using the “film your own movie” app. I’m kidding of course (it was actually an iPhone 3G). Is this the reason for all the attention? Or, does it deserve credit for the final creation of a film well-done?

Paranormal Activity follows two people with the impression that they’re being followed by demons (get in line guys). The film’s story isn’t radically different than what we’ve seen before. What is different about the film is how we literally see the story portrayed. It’s shot in the same manner that a lot of our Dad’s filmed our fourth grade piano recitals (I used to take a sneak peak into the audience and see my old man with the thing on his shoulder, angry at the camera for not really knowing how to work it, and even angrier at my mother for making him film the stupid thing). Paranormal Activity is extremely raw, which attempts to make it feel more spontaneous. You could say it was filmed “handheld,” but that wouldn’t really be doing it justice; handheld, while either drunk at a party, or floating in outer-space, would probably be more appropriate.

What the film’s look and presentation provides is a sense of intimacy between the audience and the characters. We see them sleep, eat, and talk with one another through their eyes, literally, via the camera. Telling a story from this perspective is all well and good, but the problem with relying so heavily on a unique visual vantage point is that you often ignore a lot of the key elements of the story.

Action? The activities of the characters are reminiscent to an episode of the reality series, Big Brother. It’s like Waiting for Godot, except Vlad and Estragon are waiting for….well you get it.

Conflict?

The film is meant to induce fear, but causes hilarity in some instances when the “demons” come out to play. It’s tough for us to be engaged with a character’s external conflict when the aforementioned demons are so nebulous in nature.

Suspense?

The film has a very powerful ending, but the lack of action and tangible conflict doesn’t bode well for a tense build-up or a strong climax.

Paranormal Activity’s ending does pack a pretty strong punch, when the demons come to life and finally begin interacting with the two characters who we’ve almost literally “become,” in a weird sort of way.  Overall, the film doesn’t try to work with a whole lot, which is why it’s successful…at times. It achieves a unique intimacy by stripping the film down to it’s most fundamental elements: Characters and the world they live in. The problem is the length it takes to become attached to the world, and the mundanity of following two characters interacting in such a static environment. It might look like a home movie, and it certainly feels as boring as one at times. I wonder how engaging the film would be if it didn’t have such propaganda behind it? The ideal objective, after all, of any movie is to captivate it’s audience with a distinctive story and characters, not a unique marketing campaign. There are producers with cars the size of my apartment that are laughing at that statement, but I’d like to think it’s true. 

Paranormal Activity did a bang up job in getting it’s story distributed to theaters across the country and it certainly brings a unique style to a watered down genre. But the film’s central appeal is in the story focusing on the production, rather than the film itself.

In a world ripe with everyday reminders of falling stocks, rising unemployment, and world violence, it’s hard not to leave your door every morning expecting Chicken Little to hit you smack on the noggin. Its tough going to bed every night to the sounds of the local news anchor keeping us on the edge of our seats over the next piece of proverbial excrement to hit the fan. When everything has to be so serious, In the Loop gives us a chance to grin at a world trying so desperately to save itself, but inevitably only making things worse in the process. Director Armando Iannucci gives us a clever and sometimes jar-dropping, behind the scenes portrayal of those trying to rescue the world from its problems, but ultimately just adding one more log onto the spreading fire. When problems arise, the instinct of the politicians isn’t how to solve them, but rather how to create the appearance that it’s being solved, all the while not offending those with a shinier badge, silently hoping to get their own name badge if they simply nod, yes, and play along. Life isn’t about whether or not we should go to war or who we should go to war with, it’s about what we call the name of the first attack.

When two sides almost willingly agree to disagree, something has to give. In the Loop takes us into the hilarious world where who is right and who is wrong isn’t based on ethics or playing nice, but on how much proof you have to support your point of view.

The US President and UK prime minister want to go to war, even though not everyone agrees that war is a good thing ( sound familiar?). Secretary of State for International Development, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) isn’t exactly a proponent of going to war, until an accidental slip of the tongue on TV. He suddenly is faced with stopping the same war that he seemingly backed on British television, clumsily digging himself a bigger hole than what he had originally started. He’ll have to win the approval of US General Miller (James Gandolfini) while untwisting his tongue, talking with the brass in Washington, D.C. a task that is overwhelming to say the least.

This film does a fantastic job of playing off of our perceptions of the political world, creating an environment rooted in corruption and narcissism, sprinkling in just the right amount of catastrophe along the way. Also, In the Loop succeeds because we feel immersed in the story, not only because the characters match the political prototypes that we have become accustomed to seeing, but it goes one step further in heightening the ways in which each character will fight to save their own reputation. In the Loop gives us the opportunity to finally laugh at the nature of politics because the events are false, and the outcome is not real, but only a well thought out scenario and believable characters would allow this “suspension of disbelief” to occur. The cast delivers a wide array of actors that bring their own spice to the film, even though they are all fighting for the same thing — everyone has their own weapon in getting what they want. It’s refreshing to see a comedy that doesn’t dare to challenge stereotypes and in many ways, this is one of the film’s methods in accomplishing its number one goal – to tell a politician’s tale via multiple humorous points of view.

Into the Loop hits select theaters July 17, 2009.

Transcending merely the gay rights movement, San Francisco City Councilman Harvey Milk was a messianic figure to many in the late 1970s, and Gus Van Sant’s biographical film gives the slain public figure his due recognition as a naturally born leader though it’s been over 30 years since his assassination by a disgruntled colleague.

Fully inhabiting Milk’s persona is Sean Penn after the role was long rumored to be going to Robin Williams. It goes without saying that Penn gives one of the bravest and most convincing performances of 2008 and the part should bring him an Oscar in a field where all nominees are well-deserving of recognition. Penn wholly becomes Milk for the length of the film, which chronicles the activist’s life from his 1970 move from his native New York to San Francisco where he sought some manner of asylum and had few intentions of becoming political until he sensed the injustices heaped upon the gay community in the nascent gay scene of the mid-1970s. Told through a flashback set in November 1978, Van Sant’s film asserts more than once that Milk forecasted his slaying much like Martin Luther King Jr. predicted that he might not live to see the realization of his own dreams of human equality.

In fact, more so than a film about a pioneer of gay rights, MILK posits its titular character as a champion for rights of all peoples, and draws parallels to other movements in the outgrowth of America’s cultural revolutionary period of the 1960s and 1970s, including civil rights, women’s rights and others of the time. Certainly, Harvey Milk became active block-by-block in San Francisco’s famed Castro district, just six blocks square, but built an entire statewide campaign against Anita Bryant and her anti-gay legislation that road-showed around the US in the late 70s. By the time of that Proposition 6, an initiative to fire gay teachers and those who support them from California schools, Milk was at last an elected official after several close but failed attempts, and worked tirelessly to defeat the proposition, which ultimately failed by a stated 2-to-1 margin.

Ultimately, Harvey Milk’s entire political life was altogether amazingly brief and was senselessly cut short by a competitive conservative on the San Francisco City Council, Dan White (knocked out of the park by a spot-on Josh Brolin), whose own demons led to the demise of at least three people, including himself. One is left to wonder what Milk would have done as a gay activist and humanist in the succeeding AIDS crisis and the current California and national cultural wars over gay marriage. Surely, there is a great deal of irony in releasing a film about a 30-year-old California proposition concerning gay rights just as another anti-gay initiative, Proposition 8, was maturing.

One can picture Penn’s Harvey Mllk lobbying against Prop 8 in the fall of 2008, standing on a makeshift stage with bullhorn in hand, 78 years old, speaking to voters, crying out, “I’m Harvey Milk, and I’m here to recruit you.” Clearly, both the movement and the message could have used his genuine persona and pure soul in recent times. Regardless of the timing of the film, Penn’s Milk is a character you are not likely to soon forget and his story should be examined by all persons, regardless of race, religion, or orientation, for, as Milk himself asked, pointing to a founding US slogan, “aren’t all men created equal?”

With all the turmoil going on in the stock market recently, perhaps Darren Aronofsky’s latest film The Wrestler offers some valuable insight, at least at the macroscopic level, as to what happens to an American ego pushed to the extremes. What appears on the surface as a gritty and hard look at the underworld of professional wrestling, is actually glazed with a sweet coat of nostalgic Americana; ah, the late 80’s – big Jersey hair, thrasher music, good cocaine, unregulated titty bars, and pro wrestling. Wait – wrestling?! Yes, wrestling! It’s as American as apple pie – and if you weren’t fortunate enough to be exposed to the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) when growing up, then obviously you missed out on an important trailer trash tradition and you need to go see this film to acculturate yourself.

Mickey Rourke plays the wrestler Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Once so famous that action figure toys were created in his image – now so poor that he has to work part-time as a storeroom stocker. Randy refuses to go into retirement. Caught in the grisly world of independent wrestling, he’s a tragic hero who pumps his body with steroids, bleaches his hair, and cuts himself in the ring to appease his bloodthirsty audience. When you think Randy has reached the bottom, life just continues to get worse. A heart-attack forces him to look at the emptiness in his life, and he tries to re-connect with his 22-year old daughter Stephanie played by Evan Rachel Wood, failing again miserably. In a last attempt to find love and turn his life around, he reaches out to an exotic dancer named Cassidy, played by Marisa Tomei. But once again Randy is the looser, even the heart-of-gold stripper won’t allow herself to fall for the beast.

Does all this sound a little clichéd? Well, that’s because it is. The screenplay, just like my review, is full of them. First, there’s the tragic hero of “The Ram” written like a textbook character study of Achilles or Odysseus – the sin of hubris, or excessive pride, results in defeat and a fruitless journey. Randy, although aware of his own demise in a dramatic irony sort of way, can’t change his own behavior – he’s destined to fall and fall and fall – over and over again. Which leaves the audience feeling nothing more than one-dimensional pity for this poor creature. Unfortunately, the obstacles he faces pale in comparison to conquering Troy or sailing around the world for seven years in search of home. His obstacles are too easy to overcome and just plane predictable – win your daughter’s love back and win the hooker’s heart. Ok, even if it’s not Greek literature, it’s still bad writing.

Another example: the daughter is a lesbian for Christ’s sake! She’s turned her hate for her father into hate for all men – is this psych 101? And don’t even get me started on the cardboard characterization of Cassidy the stripper. I bet you’ve already guessed that she has a kid she loves more than anything and she’s only stripping to take care of him and move to a better neighborhood – yeah right! Obviously, Robert D. Siegel (screenwriter) has a hard time really understanding the complexity of women.

On a different note, the directing of this film is actually really good and I do hope that Darren Aronofsky is at least recognized with a nomination from the Academy. The choice to shoot in what looks like video with a hand-held camera and fluorescent lighting gives the film an unpolished look that makes the grim setting even more believable. The cinéma vérité style mirrors the soul of the subject matter; a more polished filmmaking technique would not have had the same effect. Even more than technical accolades, Aronofsky deserves applause for creating an omniscient point-of-view that critiques, both good and bad, the extremes of the American dream. From the deli counter scene where our tragic hero is forced to participate in the ugly world of consumer capitalism as a common worker, catering to the demands of idiotic management and an even more idiotic proletarian class, to the final scene when Randy “The Ram” gives his heart, his soul and his life to that dream, flying in mid-air against the back drop of an American flag. Aronofsky’s The Wrestler is a tributory love story to an America that once was and will never be again.

Certainly, Mickey Rourke’s portrayal of Randy will also get an Academy nod. Rourke’s three-dimensional characterization is so good that you can never, even for a second, identify an “acting” moment. Rough, tough and muscularly on the exterior, Rourke must have done some intense Method Acting to get his body as pumped as it is. Physically, he looks like an aged Hulk Hogan. The bathroom scenes where he’s shooting steroids into his ass makes one wonder if Rourke didn’t actually do the same; it’s that believable! However, unlike most Hollywood actors, Rourke doesn’t stop at the mere physical portrayal of the character, the emotional and spiritual side are equally refined. We are not left with a mere beefy portrayal of an unintelligent beast. Rourke’s Randy is simple yes, but he is also aware – aware of what is going on around him, aware of how miserable his life is, aware of his mistakes, and aware of his own tragic destiny. Rourke does for “The Ram” what DeNiro did for Jake La Motta in Raging Bull. It’s a shame the same can’t be said for the rest of the cast.

In conclusion, The Wrestler is a film worth-watching. However, due to the poor quality script, low quality shooting technique (albeit intentional), and average acting ability of the majority of cast members, I wouldn’t waste my $15 on seeing this one on the big screen. It’s a video rental on a rainy night – maybe that’s a bit harsh. I’ll say it’s a video rental on a cloudy night with some of your best buds and a 12 pack of Budweiser. Of course, depending on your orientation, that could be more like heaven than eating cavier and sipping champagne. You decide.

]]> http://actedby.com/2009/08/the-wrestler/feed/ 0 http://actedby.com/2009/08/richard-nixon-pound-for-pound/ http://actedby.com/2009/08/richard-nixon-pound-for-pound/#comments Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:40:44 +0000 Scott Essman http://viamatrix.com/actedby/?p=241

“No holds barred” is how ex-President Richard M. Nixon approached his interviews with David Frost, that is, according to FROST/NIXON, Ron Howard’s new film about the 1977 landmark TV events. And we do get a series of unbridled interview sessions between young TV host and grizzled embittered ex-world leader, going toe-to-toe in increasingly tense sessions. Based on Peter Morgan’s play, which he adapted for this film, FROST/NIXON posits a Richard Nixon we may have never seen before but for those memorable interviews over 30 years ago.

In what might have at first seemed like miscasting, Frank Langella makes for a more than adequate screen Nixon, even when compared to the stellar job that Anthony Hopkins did in Oliver Stone’s 1995 biopic, NIXON. Langella fully inhabits the man who was mocked as Trickie Dickie during his presidency for his maneuverability around controversial subjects. As his foil, Michael Sheen, who perfectly portrayed Tony Blair in THE QUEEN, creates a fully believable David Frost, a playboy TV personality who on a whim decides to produce his own new breed of interview show with Nixon as his initial key subject.

Certainly, there is due drama in both the behind-the-scenes aspects of setting up the interviews and in their ascending narrative tension as Frost begins to sense that he is much overmatched, almost until it is too late to resurrect his chance to give Nixon “the trial that he never had.”

One of the key drawbacks in the film, which may not have been as crucial in the play (which likely targeted an informed intelligensia), is in the presumption that the audience knows the particulars of Nixon’s politics, especially the vital facts and personalities involved with the Watergate scandal which led to Nixon’s 1974 resignation. But even for those in the know, these events of over a quarter-century ago are hardly fresh. In several key research sequences, we instead get a montage and once-over-lightly treatment of those places, dates, and names, so that when we arrive at the last interview, with Blair fully versed in the topic of Watergate, the audience is left to assume that Blair’s notes are on target, as opposed to actually knowing the facts themselves. In contrast to, say, the forensic details of Oliver Stone’s films such as JFK and NIXON, here we are left with scant information and much left to the imagination. An additional sequence or series of graphics with a detailed analysis of Watergate particulars would have solved this problem.

What remains is watching Nixon at first get the better of Frost until Frost musters the guts and courage to pick Nixon’s story apart beat-by-beat in the climactic moments. Certainly, these final scenes make the entirety worthwhile, and much drama ensues around the pseudo-confession of a man who never seemed to really understand the breadth of his “mistakes” as a leader, statesman, and once politically trusted figure. The film never mentions, for instance, that under five months after the Watergate break-in, Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a certain landslide.

Aside from the final title fight between Nixon and Frost, the film’s best moments are outside of the actual interview sessions. In what might be somewhat of a fantasy sequence, Nixon calls Frost late at night at the latter’s hotel, a conversation Nixon later says that he did not remember. Nixon’s rant during the call, during which he goes into a tirade against more privileged people with whom he has had to compete through his life, makes for the most interesting cinema in the film, much like Nixon the president’s late-night foray to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC to meet with protestors in Oliver Stone’s NIXON.

Like other plays turned into movies, FROST/NIXON suffers from the staginess and confinement of its story to one main setting for the better part of the movie. Unlike, say, A FEW GOOD MEN, which easily translated to film, this subject matter fails to “open up” much beyond being a filmed play for its most important scenes. Thus, with other narrative faults intact, while the film is well made and performed, this time, it might have been best left for the stage.

Creating a piece of entertainment about a subject as unseemly as the Holocaust is tricky business. With all apologies to SCHINDLER’S LIST, the topic was probably most effectively disseminated in the 1978 TV miniseries HOLOCAUST, starring Joseph Bottoms, Meryl Streep, and James Woods. That project, created by longtime TV director Marvin Chomsky, whose credits date back to the early 1960s, was cinematic in every aspect and provided a thorough overview of one family’s plight through the entire ordeal, starting with the ascent of the Nazi Party in pre-World War II Germany.Other attempts have been successful in varying degrees, usually while approaching the horrifying events from other perspectives, such as in Roberto Benigni’s LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. In the recent release, THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS, we witness the unfolding of wartime Germany from the point-of-view of a child. Reminiscent of John Boorman’s HOPE AND GLORY and Steven Spielberg’s EMPIRE OF THE SUN, both of which assumed the embodiment of a child for its reference point, BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS, based on 37-year-old Irishman John Boyne’s novel, selectively chooses an innocent German boy as its protagonist, through which we see the events of the time unfold, unbeknownst to this character, the son of a high-ranking Nazi Party official.

In fact, the boy so firmly believes in the goodness of his dad, with only limited clues to the horrors occurring around him, through the whole length of the story, the boy is completely oblivious, as allegedly were many German citizens, to the evil misdoings being undertaken by their own countrymen. Even when the boy, ably played by youngster Asa Butterfield, interacts with the titular boy in “striped pajamas,” his concentration camp friend, he is both unaware and misinformed about his new friend’s situation.

Expertly crafted by English director Mark Herman, who also adapted the screenplay, all of the film’s performances and nuances are truthful and believable, especially as seen through the eyes of an eight-year-old boy of due privilege. David Thewlis as the boy’s father and Vera Farmiga as his mother paint realistic portraits as Germans caught up on either side of crucial issues of the time. All of the other parts, right down to a house assistant who lives in the nearby camp, are meticulously cast and performed.

Needless to say, no story about the Holocaust can end well, though in movies such as the aforementioned SCHINDLER’S LIST and LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, good things can be derived from tragedy. In BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS, we dread the inevitable for its main characters, and despite the naivity of its approach, we constantly feel as though impending doom can happen at any time. However, due to Herman’s measured take on the material, it is not until the film’s final fade out that we have been treated to the entirety of both the story and the unthinkable events that are less than a lifetime away from the present. Parents be warned: despite the youthful cues in the title and appearance of this film, it is wholly NOT meant for a children’s audience.