Pazdziernik Archive

Barbershop

[Archive July 3, 2006]

Well, it's summer vacation time. So, I decided to break out of drama and action movies and get something different. I decided on Barbershop (2002 MGM; Rated PG-13 for language, sexual content and brief drug references), in part, because David Letterman joked a few years back that Pope John Paul II spent his summer vacation watching Barbershop 2.

Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) inherits his South Side Chicago Barbershop from his father. It is the local gathering place of the neighborhood community. After mounting debt he decides to sell the barbershop to loan shark Lester Wallace (Keith David) who is going to turn it into a "gentleman's club." He regrets this decision and tries to buy it back but the price to re-purchase is at the price of extortion by Wallace.

One sub-plot, among several, has J.D. (Anthony Anderson) and Billy (Lahmard Tate) stealing an ATM machine. They prove to be a great comedy team along the lines of Carvelli and Murray from Welcome Back Kotter. For the DVD “extras” we learn that the director and producer cut out all the scenes that touched upon “religion/church/faith”. Unfortunately, they decided to leave in the misuse of sexuality and language. Regardless of these flaws, this film had an overall positive message. I was pleased that stereotypes were minimized in favor of showing the human condition of a community and different viewpoints.

In the barbershop, the gang learns from BET (Black Entertainment Television) that some are seeking some sort of “reparation” for the past enslavement of African-Americans. Ricky Jones (Michael Elay) is the two-time “street smart” felon. “Old man” Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer) has a chair at the barbershop and is constantly telling stories in the first person. (He eats and sleeps at the shop but does not seem to cut much hair.) Jimmy James (Sean Patrick Thomas) is a didactic Northwestern college student.

Ricky: Jews did not get reparations. Holocaust survivors got reparations.

Eddie: We had affirmative action and welfare. Is that not reparations? Is that not reparations?

Ricky: We don’t need reparations. All right. We need restraint. Some disciplne. Don’t go out and buy a Range Rover when you’re livin’ with your momma. And pay you momma some rent. And can we please please please try and teach our kids something other than the Chronic album. And please black people be on time for something other than “free before eleven" at the club.

Jimmy: You know that was a surprising passionate and well articulated argument.

Ricky: You mocking me?

Jimmy: Not at all sir. I applaud your virtuosity.

Ricky: You know what schoolboy for your information a scallop is a shell fish

Jimmy: No I’m afraid it isn’t.

Ricky: No. I’m afraid it is because it is a mollusk before it come to you dinner plate it got two shells wrapped around it just like a clam.

The barbershops of my youth seem to be quickly becoming be a thing of the past in favor of the likes of "sterile" places like "Great Cuts" and "Supercuts" but they can still be found. Eve plays a very likeable Terri Jones. She should stick to acting and forget music. “Now, who drank my apple juice?”

Photo: Cedric the Entertainer as Eddie (©2002 MGM)
Tags: Barbershop, Ice Cube, Cedric the Entertainer, Eve

Superman Returns

[Archive June 29, 2006]

We had a chance to see Superman Returns today with Brandon Routh as Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. This movie is very much like the 1978 "classic" Superman: The Movie with Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman. It is part action film and part romance like the 1978 version. It had some drama but not much because we know that in the end Superman will save the day.

It is not a remake of the 1978 film. Rather it is more of a continutaion of the story: A "Superman V" , perhaps? Clark's foster father has died. Clark returns to earth after a five year absence. In the five year period, Lois found another man, Richard and they are living together in co-habitation arrangement and have a child Jason. Without giving away any spoilers, it seems that Jason is indeed Superman Jr.. (Can you say "sequel"? or "Superman VI"?) Kevin Spacey plays an excellent Lex Luthor. I'm not a big Spacey fan but he makes an outstanding performance in this movie. And Kate Bosworth plays a very likeable Lois Lane.

The score by John Ottman keeps John Williams' original —and most excellent —theme and adds new music to it unlike the three Superman sequels that followed the 1978 movie.

Aside from Lois' relationships, there are no morally problematic items to note. The violence persented is in line with a comic book action movie. The George Reeves Superman from television was for "Truth, justice and the American Way." Routh's Superman is for "Truth, justice and all those other things." "Those other things" are unnamed and it may be a small quibble to note that the "American way" is dropped in Superman Returns. I can't recall how Christopher Reeve's Superman treated "these other things." I recommend this movie and am sure that it will be the big summer hit.

Image: Superman Returns ©2006 Warner Bros.

David P. McGinley on TDVC

[Archive May 24, 2006]

David P. McGinley of Regent University Law School, Dr. M. G. "Pat" Robertson's University in Virginia Beach, Virginia, wrote a crisp commentary this week on The Da Vinci Code phenomena in The Washington Times. In particuliar, he tries his stab at grasping why it is so popular.

Much has already been written about the historical and theological errors, misrepresentations and calumnies of The Da Vinci Code. Surely the Rodney King style-clubbing that Our Lord's purity and Divinity, the Catholic Church and it's personal prelature, Opus Dei, have taken are disconcerning to conscious Christians and to others. Those who are less-than-conscious may indeed find some "weird comfort" or "entertainment value" in it.

Mr. McGinley has this to say...

Why a novel becomes popular is never easy to determine but certain elements of "The Da Vinci Code" may help to explain its success. First, the book appeals to feminists and, therefore, the left, in that it claims a woman, Mary Magdalene, not Jesus, was the true leader of the early Christian Church. According to the story, Mary Magdalene was removed from her rightful seat as the feminine deity of Christianity by the church's "patriarchal hegemonic" structure. Thus, men, more specifically white men, are the bad guys.
...
Secondly, Mr. Brown seems to take special pleasure in attacking and criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, always a popular target.

In fact, much like the rebuttals to Mr. Brown's novel, criticizing the Roman Catholic Church is its own cottage industry. And not just by non-Catholics. Many people who claim to be Catholic relish the opportunity to state what is wrong with "their" church. Though these "Catholics" do not believe in the teachings of that church, somehow claiming they are Catholic gives them the moral authority to criticize and jettison the very basis for their so-called beliefs. When asked why they don't just become Episcopalians, these "Catholics" are incensed you would have the audacity to suggest that.

"Extreme feminism" and anti-Catholicism are surely popular, perhaps the latter even more so. But I think that McGinley really get to the heart of the matter which actually has a guilty conscience at heart.

But the overarching theme of Mr. Brown's novel, that Jesus is not the Son of God, is probably what has made his book so successful. Nothing whets the appetites of the hordes of postmodern, moral relativists like the denial of Christ's divinity. Any theory of denial, whether from thin air or based on mythical "fact," as in Mr. Brown's novel, is readily embraced.

Most people have no problem with a belief in a god, as long as that god remains generic. However, when the name of Jesus is invoked, most people become uneasy. Why the discomfort?

Many justify their uneasiness by complaining Christianity is divisive and resort to the new secular creed of "inclusiveness." Their argument says "everyone must be included and since Christians think their religion is right they aren't inclusive because no one can be right and be inclusive unless everyone is right." Thus, "spirituality" is perfectly acceptable because, basically, it is meaningless. The "believer" gets to define God, everything is true (meaning nothing is true), and all roads lead to heaven.

David P. McGinley's full article "Forum: 'Code' word for cash flow" can be found here. Should we really be pleased that The Da Vinci Code has had a trickle-down effect on the American economy?

Joyce Kulhawik on TDC Movie

[Archive May 18, 2006]

Reviews have begun for director Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code movie. So far, nearly all are rotten tomatoes. Boston’s CBS-4’s Joyce Kulhawik, a Boston “staple” and Polonia, gave her opinion on tonight’s 11pm newscast.

Anchor Jack Williams: Are you a believer?

Joyce Kulhawik:
I am a believer in good movies and this is not one of them. I actually got a kick out of the book which is far from literature but is a diabolically compelling read, so I had hoped that the film would maintain the intrigue and even fill in what was missing, characters, nuance. Not so. In staying so close to the revved-up plot The Da Vinci Code is as flat as the Mona Lisa without her smile.

Joyce’s full review can be found here.

Tags: Joyce Kulhawik, Boston Television

Sometimes In April

[Archive March 13, 2006]

We had a chance to view Sometimes In April (2005) from HBO Films last night. This was a movie about the genocide of Tutsis by the Hutu-led Rwandan government. This genocide began in April 1994, lasted for about 100 days and killed close to a million Tutsi and sympathetic Hutu men, women and children. This small African country of Rwanda was a former German and Belgium protectorate. It gained independence in 1962.

The topic of genocide is not a “fun topic” to consider but it is a reality. It is safe to say that a movie such as Sometimes In April requires a certain maturity. It should be approached with caution especially for those who are inclined to strong emotional reactions. I think that those who are cynical or prone to pessimism should also avoid this movie. “They’ve been killing each other for thousands of years” is an expression of cynicism.

Grim movies like this one are not “flights from reality” in any sense. One shouldn’t approach a movie like this for entertainment per se but rather for understanding. For those who have hard hearts and are not moved by the sufferings of others, Sometimes In April, at minimum, is a good look at daily life in Rwanda.

A 1948 United Nations resolution defined genocide as follows:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Article 2, (December 9, 1948)

Sometimes In April focuses on Augustin Muganza (Irdis Elba), his brother Honoré Muganza (Oris Erhuero), both Hutus, and Augustin's wife, Jeanne Muganza (Carole Karemera), a Tutsi. Debra Winger, a more well-known actress, plays Prudence Bushnell of the U.S. State Department.

Augustin, although a Hutu, does not support the genocide. His brother Honoré is part of a radio station that broadcasts anti-Tutsi propaganda. The radio broadcasts dehumanize Tutsis as “roaches” that need to be exterminated and so forth. The Hutu government army gets cooperation from many Hutu citizens who are also told, through the same radio broadcasts, that the Tutsis are planning to enslave them. The story alternates between a United Nations War Crimes Tribunal in Tanzania after the conflict, of which Honoré is indicted, and the events of April 1994.

UN and French troops evacuate only Westerners and leave others to fend for themselves. It is their mandate only to evacuate Westerners. In one scene, a Hutu mob come out of the jungle area to attack Tutsis with clubs and machetes after a UN convoy had just departed the area.

Augustin’s two young sons are killed by government troops while trying to escape his brother Honoré’s help. Augustin’s daughter is also killed at a Catholic girls school. Hutu troops arrive at the school and demand that the children, about 120, be separated, Hutus from Tutsis. The implication is that the Hutus would be safe from harm. The children and their mistress refuse stating that they are all sisters and are united together. Most are slaughtered on the spot but the mistress and a few children survive the attack.

The United Nation troops were not effective in stopping the bloodshed. The Tutsis own rebel militia, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), eventually overtake the capitol city of Kigali and the complicit Hutus flee to neighboring African nations, creating a refugee crisis.

Honoré is repentant at the UN War Crimes tribunal. The movie ends by stating that to date only 20 individuals have been convicted for War Crimes.

Image: Tutsi woman in Sometimes in April

On the Banks of the Niemen (part 2)

[Archive February 14, 2006]

Following up on my last post , the father-son reconciliation scene in On the Banks of the Niemen (Nad Niemnen) (1987) resonated with me. I appreciate substantive dialog in movies. Moreover, it was a near perfect father-son archetype that I haven’t seen in a film with this quality in a long time. I thought that I would post it here. Understanding, acceptance, justice and charity all nicely worked out here. In context, Benedykt, the father, has disowned the son, Witold. Benedykt and Witold are Korczynskis. Now, the son returns from a wedding of the Bohatyrowicz family to see his father. Both families used to be united together but are now divided by class and by a lawsuit. Benedykt is bitter. Witold is young and idealistic.

Benedykt: You’re home? But the Wedding’s not over yet.

Witold: It is for me. I heard too many complaints.

Benedykt: About whom?

Witold: About you, father.

Benedykt: What… did I rob someone on my way here? Or eat someone’s kid?

Witold: Please, father, there’s no need to use that tone of voice.

Benedykt: All right then… So what did the Bohaterowices tell you? Did they say I wanted to rob them of everything? That I wouldn’t let their animals graze or let them slowly take away my land? They wanted to go to court, so we did, and they lost!

Witold: It’s not just about that, dad. They say you don’t consider them to be real people. They mentioned uncle Andrzej.

Benedykt: Oh, so this is what people talk about at weddings nowadays. Sit down.

Witold: Yes, dad, because they can’t forget that you’re his brother. They are ready to repay you for every good gesture. These people are our only hope. These people whom you despise.

Benedykt: Listen. If you young people think that you were the first ones to think of these noble ideas and that you were the first ones to love this land, it’s people and justice, then you’ve made a big mistake. We, too, once said: “Together friends! …” “All our goals are dependent on our happiness!” We all got together and we believed in our cause like we believed in salvation. And there were quite a bit of us knights, poets, preachers. Unreachable dreams, great hope, passionate eagerness. And then, everything fell apart around us. But nobody has the right to say that the Korczynskis lacked ideals. One of them died for these ideals and the other one is jealous because of it.

Witold: Father! Father. I’ll be grateful to you until my dying breath for not having raised me to be a worthless rich boy. If it wasn’t for you, I would be like that miserable Zygmunt or like that Rozyc.

Benedykt: I would be a fool if I thought that my son was so much different from other people. A load would be lifted from my shoulders if I confessed all my problems to you. You still don’t know, and I hope you never find out what it’s like to live most of your life without anyone who you can open yourself to who you can confess all your joys to and give advice to or even seek help from. I hoped that you would be like that but during the last year my hope seemed to have been in vain. I wasn’t only jealous of Andrzej but also of all the others who died.

Witold: Now you know, dad, what’s separated us all this time. You must believe in my attachment to you. Dad! Tell me, why are you always fighting with them?

Benedykt: What am I supposed to do? After our failure, what was I supposed to do among the ruins? People begged me to hold on to the land so I did, and I still do. Do you know what it’s like fighting over every little piece of land with whom you once called brothers?

Witold: But who’s fault is that they’re so uneducated, vengeful? Or maybe they’re just poor and hungry? Isn’t it ours?

Benedykt: You’re so stubborn! Just like me. You’ve got the Korczynski blood. Go see them, and tell them that I’ll postpone the due date, let them pay in installments or maybe even… Someday, maybe you’ll… Well? Go, go! Don’t stay there too long. I want you near me for a bit.

On the Banks of the Niemen

[Archive February 12, 2006]

A good old Nor’easter hit New England today, so we had a chance to watch On the Banks of the Niemen (1987). This was a movie based on an 1887 Eliza Orzeszkowa (1841-1910) novel: Nad Niemnen. It was in Polish with English sub-titles. It was a period film of Polish society in Lithuania set after the 1863 uprising against Tsarist rule. It was a time in which peasants sang while working in the field and people were addressed, Mr., Mrs. and Miss.

It reminded me of Gone with the Wind (1939) but thank heaven, without Ashley Wilkes. For a “slow movie” is was actually pretty engaging. The focus of the story was on Justine Orzelska (Iwona Pawlak) who was of the Korczyn estate, a somewhat wealthy noble family. She falls in love Jan Bohatyrowicz (Adam Marjanski) who is a ploughman-peasant of the “rival” Bohatyrowicz estate. They were nobles in former time but now are peasants and live the pastoral life. Both families were united as brothers and sisters before the events of 1863. Now, twenty years later, class and status divide the families. This forms the backdrop of the movie.

Justine is also pursued by Teofil Rózyc (Andrzej Precigs) of the Woloszczyna estate and by a married man Zygmunt Korczynski (Jacek Chmielnik) who was both her first love as well as her cousin. Justine eventually chooses Jan and the pastoral life over both Teofil and her cousin and in the end.

A lawsuit between the rival families is another sub-theme. The patriarch of the Korczyn estate, Benedykt Korczynski (Jansuz Zakrzenski) wins the lawsuit which calls for a one time sum of 1000 rubles from the Bohatyrowicz estate. This is a large amount of money that a peasant family would have difficulty paying. The love between Justine and Jan eventually allows him to have a change of heart and he eases the burden on the peasant clan by calling for simple installments instead. Benedykt also realizes that much of his unhappiness comes from the success of his wealth. The insertion of charity into justice is nicely worked out here.

Benedykt and his son Witold (Marek Herbik) also have their disagreements but are reconciled in the end. These “disownment and reconciliation” scenes as well as the one of a peasant wedding (not of Justine and Jan) were the real highlights of this movie. Overall it was very nicely done.

In 1905 Eliza Orzeszkowa was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. The prize was awarded to Henryk Sienkiewicz.

Photo: Filmweb.pl

Fatelessness

[Archive February 3, 2006]

Fatelessness (1975) by Imre Kertész (b. 1929) is a semi-autobiography of his experiences in several German-run concentration camps during World War II. Imre Kertész was awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Fatelessness is a first-person narrative of a 15 year-old Jewish boy from Budapest, György Köves, who is arrested at a bus stop, along with other boys of his age, on the pretext of a promise of work, and sent by train to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in southern Poland. Later, he is sent to other camps: to Buchenwald near Weimar, to Zeitz, and then back to Buchenwald. Although he is Jewish and wears compulsitory “yellow star”, he knows neither Hebrew nor Yiddish nor practices his religion and as such is not accepted as a Jew by many of his fellow prisoners. (At Zeitz there are other Hungarians as well as Latvians, Finns, Muslims, Gypsies etc.) In total, he spends a year living and working in these various concentration camps.

First such a topic, Fatelessness is not sentimental but more matter-of-fact in tone. For comparison, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago is a much more difficult and depressing read than Fatelessness. Of course, from the perspective of a fifteen year-old — and Kertész’s novel remains true to this perspective throughout — circumstances and events can be approached “more purely” as “here and now” observations without any deeper or broader philosophical and historical context. Overall, it was actually a refreshing read for such a serious and dark historical topic.

György Köves details his experience of concentration camp life: the hunger, the deprivations, the cruelty, the techniques of the mind to survive, his atrophy, the vermin that cover his clothing, body and wounds, and so forth. His transformation from health to an unrecognizable state is presented. Yet, surprisingly, he finds happiness in “this beautiful concentration camp” (Buchenwald).

After the American liberation of Buchenwald, György refuses to compare his time in the camps with hell, although others insist that he make this comparison. He does not know hell but he does know the camps.

”Would you care to give an account of your experiences, young fellow?” I was somewhat dumbfounded, and replied that there was not a whole lot I could tell him that would be of much interest. He smiled a little and said, “Not me — the whole world.” Even more amazed, I asked, “But what about?” “The hell of the camps,” he replied, to which I remarked that I had nothing at all to say about that as I was not acquainted with hell and couldn’t even imagine what that was like. He assured me, however, that it was just a manner of speaking: “Can we imagine a concentration camp as anything but a hell?” he asked, and I replied, as I scratched a few circles with my heel in the dust under my feet, that everyone could think what they liked about it, but as far as I was concerned I could only imagine a concentration camp, since I was somewhat acquainted with what that was, but not hell.

“All the same, say you could?” he pressed, and after a few more circles I replied, “Then I would imagine it as a place where it is impossible to become bored,” seeing as how that has been possible in the concentration camp, even in Auschwitz —under certain conditions of course. He fell silent for a while before going on to ask, though rather as if it were now somewhat against his better judgment: ”And how do you account for that?” After brief reflection, I came up with “Time.” “What do you mean time?” “Time helps.” “Helps?… With what?” “Everything,” and I tried to explain how different it was, for example, to arrive in not exactly opulent but still, on the whole, agreeable, neat, and clean station where everything becomes clear only gradually, sequentially over time, step-by-step.

By the time one has passed a given step, put it behind one, the next one is already there. By the time one knows everything, one has already understood it all. And while one is coming to understand everything, a person does not remain idle: he is already attending to his new business, living, acting, moving, carrying out each new demand at each new stage. Were it not for that sequencing in time, and were the entire knowledge to crash in upon a person on the spot, at one fell swoop, it might well be that neither one’s brain nor one’s heart would cope with it, I tried to enlighten him somewhat, upon which, he offered me one of his crumpled cigarettes, which I declined, but then, having taken two deep drags, he set both elbows on his knees and leaned his upper body forward, not so much as looking at me, as he said in a somewhat lackluster, flat tone, “I see.”

On the other hand, I continued, the flaw in that, the drawback you might say, is that the time has to be occupied somehow. For instance, I told him, I had seen prisoners who had already been — or to be more accurate were still — in concentration camps for four, six, even twelve years. Now those people somehow had to fill each one of those four, six, or twelve years, which in the latter case means twelve times three hundred and sixty-five days, which is to say twelve times three hundred and sixty-five times twenty-four hours, and twelve times three hundred and sixty-five times twenty-four times … and so on back, every second, every minute, every hour, every day of it, in its entirety.

From yet another angle, though, I added, this is exactly what can also help them, because if the whole twelve times three hundred and sixty-five times twenty four times sixtyfold chunk of time had been dumped around their necks instantaneously, at a stroke most likely they too would have been unable to stand it, either physically or mentally, in the way they actually did manage to stand it” “That, roughly, is the way you have imagined it.” At this, still in the same position as earlier, only now instead of holding the cigarette, which he had meanwhile discarded, with his head between his hands and in an even duller, even more chocking voice, he said: “No, it’s impossible to imagine it.” For my part, I could see that, and I even thought to myself: so, that must be why they prefer to talk about hell instead.

György’s — Kertész’s — father died at the German Mauthausen camp in Austria.

The big-screen film version of Fatelessness, Fateless, was Hungary’s entry for the March 5th Academy Awards®. However, it did not make the final five nominations as “Best Foreign Film.”

Fateless from ThinkFilm can be found here.

Image: Think Film Company, Inc. ©2005

Narnia

[Archive December 30, 2005]

Today I had a chance to catch a matinee of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Walt Disney Pictures/Walden Media 2005) As you may already know this movie is based on one of C.S. Lewis’ fictional works. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) was a Christian (Anglican) convert with the help of fellow fantasy writer J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973) (“The Hobbit” and “Lord of the Rings”). I was already familiar with some of C.S. Lewis’ non-fantasy writings but have never read any of the seven books in the Narnia series.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe met all of my expectations. The story, acting, casting, filming, and graphics were all top notch. However, I wasn't too impressed with the score. Hollywood can still produce some really great movies like this one! It is a fairy tale. Good versus evil. This movie is not Christian allegory but does have strong Christian theology. Lewis had a mythological approach to Christianity. For him, like Tolkien, Christianity was a “myth” that just happened to be true. For more detail on the movie’s symbolism see narniaoutreach.com .

I am sure that with the success of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe we will see C.S. Lewis’ second book of the Narnia series, Prince Caspian, made with the same level of quality in the near future.

Here’s some interesting trivia about this movie:
One of the four children cast is the great great great grandson of Charles Darwin. Hint: two to choose from.

Photo: © DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. and WALDEN MEDIA, LLC. All rights reserved.

Donnie Darko

[Archive December 23, 2005]
We had a chance to view Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut (2001) on DVD tonight. It is the type of movie that you may think to yourself while watching it: “This is really a really weird film. What is it really about?” And near the end you would say, “This is a really worthwhile film.”

It was set in October 1988. For artistic merit, it was beautifully filmed and had really good acting —Jake Gyllenhaal, Patrick Swayzee, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle were the notable stars — and also had some memorable ‘80s tunes on the soundtrack. It was basically It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) in reverse but in the span of 28 days and with a mentally troubled teenager, Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal), as the central character. (BTW. I did watch It’s a Wonderful Life in full a few weeks back.) Unlike It’s a Wonderful Life where the bad effects of the absence of George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) are highlighted, the influence and effects of Donnie Darko’s absence of 28 days, both good and bad, are presented.

Although Donnie Darko had some bad language and behaviour —It was rated R— the underlying themes were very edifying. First, Donnie does not shy away from telling the truth of things. His comments and observations are certainly not “politically correct” in today’s culture. The disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that “cautions” us that the opinions expressed are not those of the movie company or its subsidiaries etc, were the first clue that these opinions may be worth a hearing.

Donnie goes to a Catholic High School where a “politically correct” and progressive agenda has taken the place of a more traditional curriculum. Donnie, although mentally ill with imaginary friends (or is he?), sees clearly the falsehood of what is being presented to him. Donnie’s interest in the possibility of time travel opens him up to the question of God, predestination, His influence on events etc. While at the same time, his therapist presents to him only the options of atheism and agnosticism. His high school teacher refuses to speak to him about God when speaking about the science of time travel —at a “Catholic” high school — in fear of his job.

Second, this film does not shy away from the fact that life is not perfect and can be “messy” sometimes. His family is not perfect but nevertheless, Donnie’s family is intact with his mother, father and two sisters. Although Donnie floods a school, burns down a house, and shoots a person, he also exposes a child porn ring and falls in love. Others in Donnie’s life think that he is crazy but his family does not and accepts him as he is. Overall, the message is that life is worth living even for the mentally handicapped.

I was disappointed that personal responsibility and personal responsibility in relation to mental illness were not explored in this film. “They made me do it” was sort of Donnie’s tag line via his imaginary friends. There was also much symbolism, hence, “a weird movie,” that in hindsight may only be caught only after multiple viewings.

I got this movie as a “hot tip” some time back. I now pass it along to ya’ll. It is not a perfect movie but I don’t think that you’ll be disappointed. However, be aware that it was rated R for “language, some drug use and violence”