'The King's Speech' (2010) **** 1/2 stars out of 5. This is the best film of the year

‘The King’s Speech’ is a beautiful film, full of soul. I do not need to get into all the technical accomplishments suffice to say that I will address some later on in the review. It has the all the qualities you come to expect from a great film: the editing is sharp, the screenplay is smart, the acting is evocative and the directing is superb in assembling all of the elements in a cogent manner. This is the best film of the year. The film centres on the Duke of York named Bertie (Colin Firth) who ascends to the throne following the abdication of his brother King Edward the VIII (Guy Pearce) who was the rightful successor to the deceased father of the siblings King George V (Michael Gambon). His brother abdicates due to so called scandalous reasons: he wishes to betroth a twice divorced woman who knows how to put it on. He goes against convention and is forced to abdicate after the intervention of the parliament. Bertie has a significant problem: he stammers and this stammer represents deep psychological barriers within the recesses of his mind. In the very first scene when he is asked to give an address, as the duke, on the King’s behalf you witness how gripping an ordeal it is for him (because of this opening scene I will also show why this film succeeds where ‘The Fighter’ failed). After this ordeal his wife in the opening act, the duchess Elizabeth, (Helena Bonham Carter) prior to her husband’s ascension to the throne, arranges for more unorthodox means to have her husband’s condition improve. You see in the film that the so called established physicians use antiquated methods dating back to Ancient Greece to try and cure Bertie’s speech impediment. Elizabeth turns to Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) to provide so called unorthodox means to treat his patient. Lionel is an everyday man who is not awed by royalty; he may be a failed actor but he has the confidence that the King lacks. What develops is the power of friendship shared by humans everywhere and this film explains how friendship acts as a buffer between hope and despair.  It is because of Lionel why the film adds dimensions which will allow even the most vulgar filmgoer to appreciate. The main crux of this film lies in the final act where you in audience will sit with bated breath hoping to see if King Bertie, with the help of Lionel, will be able to deliver the important speech that will unite his people as they prepare for war with Germany.  As King George V says before he dies before all a king had to do was look civil as he mounted his horse before a parade. With the introduction of technology he bemoans the fact that now the King is forced to deliver messages through various lines of communication such as the radio so as to appear as the nominal leader of his country by seeking out every nook and cranny (thanks to the lines of communication) so that his so called subjects will bear witness to his authority.( Growing up in Jamaica, a former British colonial territory, during the 1990’s I remember every Christmas everyone would note the moment when the Queen would deliver her speech. This is the 1990’s 30 + years after we achieved independence and it presented itself to me,  as a child at the time, as the mental servility that pervades the consciousness of some Jamaicans. We have now latched on to the ass of North America our nominal protector and later it will be Asia.) This film occurs during the inter war period (the period between World War 1 and 2) and so the vestige of royalty still holds sway in the early years of the twentieth century. This is opposed to the message of the film ‘The Queen’ where the image of royalty is seen as a sign of decadence in the present day. If you do not plan to find out Queen Elizabeth of the present day is the daughter of the King Bertie of this film. The film ‘The Queen’ should serve as a worthy companion piece to this film.

This film delves into what it means to be human. This so called civilised world has hampered some of our modes of expression where we become almost soulless and robotic; everything has to be in a straight line and so every curve has to be smoothed out i.e. everything wild has to be tamed. This is what happens to Bertie who has been brought up in the Royal family which by so called divine right represents the ultimate example of decorum and civility. Everything is done by the book. (Just a clue here: when Bertie makes an outburst he does not stammer; now Why is that?)  Lionel recognises this and due to his everyday charm, having come from the outback of Australia, insists that his patients open up to him since stammering or stuttering in most cases reflects some psychological wounds that are still gaping open, unable to close. Lionel realises from firsthand experience that if they are unable to open up their stammer will be with them always and all the physical exercises, rightly classified as superficial, will not do the job. The film demonstrates this in a simple but powerful fashion; you should look out for that moment when Bertie realises that these exercises will not do him justice and he just needs the means to offload his burden for the superficial exercises which he and Lionel engage in are the habit of his life so nothing new will come of them.  It is a powerful scene that will ensure Firth receives the academy award for actor in a leading role. Do not be fooled into thinking by the fact that he won the golden globe simply because he knows how to stammer it is because of the scene where he decides to reveal all. It is because of this scene that I was moved emotionally for the first time by any film since the beginning of 2010. It is a powerful scene and if you watch the film watch it for that particular scene. It is the scene where true friendship is born. It is a brilliant sequence because it highlights an experience common to all of us; there will be a moment when you know definitively that this person you once took for a superficial friend or associate will be with you forever.

The love of friendship is love but as the characters in the ‘The English patient’ explains (in which Colin firth played a good supporting role) there are different kinds of love. The romantic books and films that women enjoy are purely reflective of sexual desire and the urge to have children. In this film the bond between Lionel and Bertie is one where human beings connect in a sphere where there is no fear of being you. You can completely let the person into that sphere which everyone has; a designated sphere. I am being metaphysical here but it can be corroborated by reality. Every human being has a sphere which represents their mode of operation and so there are few people from outside that can enter that sphere and I do not mean holding hands. This is why you only have one or two true friends by the time you are 40 or 50.There will be associates and superficial friends who you have a good chat with now and then but few will be able to enter your space and I do not mean your house; it is purely a metaphysical /psychological concept which is validated by the process of aging where we dispense with baggage as we go along. What Bertie and Lionel experience is the sharing of space and this theme is not uncommon to this film. In ‘Inception’ for instance Nolan realised (see my review of ‘Inception’ for more details) that for his concept of creating an original idea to work he had to allow to explore the emotions which are the primary source of our thoughts which only later can be validated or disproved  by reason. Cobb says to Saito at the beginning of ‘Inception’ ‘you have to completely let me in’. In ‘Pinocchio’ jiminy cricket refers to it as your conscience (listen to the song ‘let your conscience be your guide). When you allow this person to explore your sphere (Psychological not sexual) and you are not mentally revolted then you have discovered what they call love i.e. you have embraced another human being. Some women have been bamboozled to think that it culminates in kissing and having sex; they have been completely bamboozled by the romantics. The film notes importantly at the end that at every speech following the one delivered in this film Lionel was right there with Bertie. When a person enters your sphere definitively you cannot shed them as excess weight as you get older no matter how hard you try which is why in some of these crass songs you have these puerile romantics completely at a loss as to why they can’t let their woman go. Puerile women are also bamboozled by the romantics who claim they can do anything for them. In any case this is the love that is experienced by Bertie and Lionel and as strange as it sounds it is true love. ‘The King’s Speech’ also makes another important point: some people surround themselves with superficiality all their lives that they do not know what it is like to feel. They become imbecilic in the end, uttering gibberish and some of these people are incredulously amazed when they are betrayed by the wolf in sheep’s clothing. When the betrayal is carried out the enemy must smile at your stupidity.   When you see what becomes of King George V father of Bertie then you will know what I am talking about; there was hardly anyone around to care for him.   In the film ‘Sideways’ when Miles and Maya have their life changing conversation at Stephanie’s home Miles here speaks of the wine pinot although Maya knows he is speaking of himself: If someone takes the time to understand pinot; they can then coax it into its fullest expression. (If they do take the time to understand) its flavours are the most haunting and brilliant; thrilling and ancient on the planet’. This is the same thing that occurs in the King’s Speech when Lionel is able to coax Bertie into his fullest expression simply because he had the patience to do so. Bertie’s brother King Edward VIII is also confident but in a very important scene it is clear that Bertie's brother does not have much love for him when he snidely mocks his stammer; this was done to a brother who cared for him. His brother therefore has to be ruled out of the picture and this is why Lionel‘s significance is further enhanced because Bertie’s wife loves him but she cannot help him to find his voice.  This is why when the final scene does come, where the King delivers his speech of course, watch as everything and everyone fades out as the king goes to room where it will be only him and Lionel facing the whole of England and witness how instrumental the presence of Lionel is to Bertie.

There are barriers that hinder the growth of the friendship in the film of course; barriers that must be overcome for it to flower. There is the obvious class distinction: Bertie coming from royalty believes in civility as opposed to Lionel who is an every man who believes in having a good time; having a good time normally means shedding your formal persona (cursing in a friendly manner, belch openly, flatulence everywhere, drinking, no knife and fork only spoon for everything etc). (Go and watch ‘Titanic’ again ladies if you need to be reminded).  You should also note that Geoffrey rush as Lionel almost reprises the role that he played in ‘Shakespeare in love’ his comedic flair is tempered however by moments of seriousness which is why it is Oscar worthy. There is also the question about what it means to achieve or overcoming obstacles which is what the film is about basically. In this film Lionel has to learn patience with his wife reminds him that he should not hastily wish for Bertie to succeed because he never did.  These obstacles are in the film of course and there is also the matter of being open with each other and being honest with yourself. This can be seen in another stellar moment for Colin firth when he shares a tender moment with his wife Elizabeth. This film is not about one scene only. This film succeeds because of how it is told for as a period piece there should be some who are acquainted with the history but few are acquainted with behind the scenes. With history characters are oftentimes engraved in stone they seem rigid and this was why Mozart in ‘Amadeus’ as a childish character worked so well. In this film you get the same thing here and you get to discover the humanity behind the characters.

I mentioned before that this was the only film that moved me for 2010 and I say this because when a film moves you it tends to dismiss some of the incredulous moments. This film is entirely cogent so I am not questioning much in it especially as it is supposed to be a period piece but this is where ‘The King’s Speech’ supersedes its competitors of 2010. Firstly, ‘the Social Network’ was a good film from a technical point of view: Screenplay, editing, musical score, acting etc but it did not make me feel much which is why it seemed more like a film that depended more or less on the screenplay. It failed in this aspect because Eisenberg as Zuckerberg failed. The screenplay did not highlight one moment where you got a sense of his emotional state; it merely hinted at this but never dug deep enough and so the movie became more about the politics than anything else. This is why I said in my review of ‘The Social Network’ that made eisenberg too much of a smart talker and it all depended on the actions of the characters around him to jolt him into some form of realization however there was no scene where he actually reflected on his life and this is why the film felt hollow emotionally although it was a smartly written one. ‘The King’s Speech’ gave us that moment as i mentioned earlier and I am here speaking of the time when he opens himself up to Lionel and finds a friend. The film nailed it and this was due largely to the performance of Colin firth. In ‘The Fighter’ I mentioned, as everyone knows, that the film was too much about Dickie as opposed to Mickie. I suggested in that review that the film should have opened with Mickey fighting so that it would have been established that he was the star; he was the up and coming fighter. The film failed because instead it focused on Dickie in the opening credits and then only later tried to revert to Mickey and this is why we felt no emotional connection when he achieved his victory (See  my full review of ‘the Fighter’). ‘The King’s Speech’ did the right thing when it introduced Bertie as the Duke delivering a speech on the king’s behalf and he fails. This is where you have to start in an underdog film; you have to start at the point where the person is a failure or is considered a failure and then you watch them gradually rise to the top which is why you will be emotionally moved when he has to deliver another address as the King and not merely as his representative. ‘The Kings Speech’ thus supersedes ‘The Fighter’. ‘The Black swan’ was too metaphysical it made you think and you were able to understand the philosophy but  had it not been for Natalie Portman’s performance the film would have collapsed simply because there was no emotional resonance; it was tense for sure but not emotionally resonant. When a film makes you tense but there is no emotional release it does not achieve fully what it set out to do. ‘The King’s Speech’ thus supersedes ‘The Black Swan’. I loved ‘Inception’ but as i stated in my review it was a film more about the concept than about any real dramatization which is why the focus was solely on Cobb. The other characters seemed bland by comparison and were only incorporated due to the role they played in the action. I  mentioned in my review that it would be nominated for Screenplay, visuals and other technical awards  and probably best film but I knew it would not win. It is still innovative however. ‘The King’s Speech’ thus supersedes ‘Inception’.

This is the best film of the year. The only reason it will not win is because of the American views towards the monarchy and their republican virtues that led them to conquer the British in the American revolution in the 1700’s. The only reason it won’t win therefore is politics but the fact still remains that ‘The King’s Speech’ is the best film of the year. ‘The Queen’ with Helen Mirren was more about the politics and it was therefore not very transcendent however in this film, through the character of Lionel played by Geoffrey rush, who is an everyman sort o person, everyone who watches this film can sit back and enjoy without thinking too much.  I like the Winston Churchill character played by Timothy Spall. I think that is how a lot of people imagine him to be which is why I found it sort o’ humorous. This is the best film of the year.

Unforgiven (1992)

'I’ll see you in hell William Munny' says little bill (Gene Hackman) as he stares down the barrel of William munny's gun 'yeah' says William munny and POW Little bill is dead. After "High Noon' and 'The Searchers' no other Western has given me such an eerie feeling as this masterpiece 'Unforgiven'. The film, for those who do not know, centres on Wiliam Munny (Clint Eastwood) a reformed gunslinger and outlaw who claims to be sobered up after he marries his wife of ten years who bears his two children. By the time the film opens in 1889 Wyoming his wife is dead and he has to struggle alone with his two children managing a hog farm which brings in little profit; they are destitute and need money. On comes along the Schoefield kid (Jaimz Woolvett) who says a reward of $1000 is being offered by prostitutes to the one who can kill the two exuberant youths, one in particular, that sliced up the face of one of their companions in a fit of rage. Now that the prostitute, Delilah,(the reference to the name Delilah should not be missed because her face is cut up after she tells the man that he has a ‘tiny pecker’ and she gives a giggle which is seen as an affront to the man. It is no surprise that she invokes the spirit of Delilah who emasculated Samson) has been defaced her manager also seeks compensation and receives a couple of horses in repayment however her companions feel that this is not enough compensation; the two boys deserve to die. Although William munny claims to be sobered up from the whiskey that helped to contribute to his frenzy of violence he still takes up the offer and gets one of his old partners, Ned Logan (Morgan freeman), to join him for one last ride. These men are now old and the glory of the Wild West is now foggy to most. it is now a time when people are writing pulp novels to heighten the extravaganza because they never truly understood it. The great cowboys or gunslingers always appeared so free in their ways and essentially rootless moving from town to town and tearing it down. The world seemed to revolve around them but now in the present setting of the film the world revolves only around their legends. As it stands most of them like William munny and his partner Ned are small farmers or most of them live among us. The opening and final shots truly capture the loss of these bygone days. There are narratives featured in those shots where the mother of the wife, it is said, could not understand how her daughter could marry such a ruthless man as William munny (not exact words). The final shot is basically the same and ends in the same quote. the main difference in these shots is that the opening one features a silhouette of William munny digging the grave of his wife at sunset whereas in the final shot the silhouette is more reflective and disappears as William munny has now  moved on, perhaps to sell dry goods in San Francisco. The imagery of those two shots are haunting where everything is silhouetted against the background of the sunset and there is a light one track note of strings (the instrument could be a harp or a guitar) which only heightens the ethereal quality of the shot.

I am sure everyone, or most people, are aware of the western in its heyday as they (Hollywood) seemed to reel out one after the other. They were fun morality tales which centred on gunslingers and we rarely took them seriously seeing them only at a distance. When have we really cared for the characters apart from the exceptions such as 'High Noon' and others I may not be aware of ( but it can’t be that many). The westerns took a nose dive however and people did not seem as interested in those days because all the violence was repetitive and mind numbing with no essential purpose. There were few that captured the harsh realities of the west. It was also the time of science fiction and fantasy : 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien,  Star Wars, Blade Runner E. T, and others that seemed more palatable to the viewers. The Wild West seemed archaic. Then in 1990 there came a resurgence with ‘Dances with Wolves’ but, although that was a western featuring a lieutenant who befriended the Sioux Indians, the visual textures of that film gave viewers a longing for that time when man was one with nature and the Americans were going through a transition to establish order out of the chaos that came with the settling of the west. ‘Unforgiven’, however, which is probably the greatest western examines or tries to examine the nature of man as he actually was in the west as sheriff little Bill Dagget, William munny's adversary played effectively by Gene hackman, shows, that maintaining order in that time was a hell of a thing because with the single release of a trigger everything seemed tenuous and capable of falling apart. This would explain some of the brutish tactics he employs to those who carry guns into his town despite the warning that says no guns are allowed. He is also responsible for the death of Ned and displays his dead body in a shameless manner which basically highlights that he has taken his actions too far and should be punished for it. (Oh! I forgot to mention that Ned is a black man and so you can read between the lines) ‘Unforgiven’ is a revisionist western so it has all the elements that made the old time westerns fun but with added depth since few people explored the implications that these characters' actions were having on the people around them. There is gun slinging but as one pertinent scene which occurs near the end shows, where the Schoefield kid kills one of the boys that were featured for the bounty money, it is not that simple to kill a man. When we first meet the Schoefield kid he gives the impression that he has killed many men but in reality he had never killed and the experience is traumatic. The veteran William munny tells him to hold a shot of whiskey for it will drown the grief if only for a time because as he explains when you kill a man ' you take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have'. This issue was never explored in any great detail by westerns of the past but here they try and flesh out in a poetic fashion the nature of violence and the consequences for choosing the route of violence. It has to be poetic because they are basically trying to overturn the values that once held the genre together and I am not sure that there is any true story that they could find and this is art after all. The film being revisionist it has to deal with characters as abstracts and not as real people and that explains the shots that open and close the film. The real character is the wild west as we thought we knew it but by the end realise that it was not as fun as we thought and in this film you realise that when the characters are sober they speak mostly of stories of long ago. William munny speaks with Ned of his past wrongdoings when he was under the influence of liquor and how he is trying to change and little Bill recounts endless tales with a pulp novelist who travels into his town with English Bob another gun slinging legend ( whom he incarcerates after his arrival into town after a public beating. This is one scene which shows off Gene hackman's greatness as an actor). The strength of the film is the performances of Clint Eastwood and Hackman for whereas the other characters deal with the legends of long ago the final scene gives us an eerie reminder of those days. It may be a classic shootout but before it begins but you realize that the days of the glorious west were probably terrifying days for the citizens. You know this because you feel the gloom that hangs over the saloon when William munny enters silently to exact revenge on little bill. When these two men interact on the final stage which ends with the quote mentioned at the beginning of this review they, of all the characters, seem closer to the heart of the violence or seem to understand it better than the rest since they were the ones who had to encounter the original character of the west when it was at its most brutal.

William munny as played by Clint is obviously haunted by the days when he was a gunslinger and we hear this in his conversations with Ned and when he is attacked by fever after an early encounter with little bill. He claims, after his recovery, that he saw the angel of death. Eastwood plays him as a man weighed down by the years although he is silent in some shots while others speak; he also seems afraid to drink whiskey which he fears will bring back the dirty harry that he is famous for. He wants to move on but he can’t and it seems that he will always be tormented by his deeds and with the death of ned, the only one it seems he could share anything of his past with, we will never know how he comes to terms with who he is. His heart is a boiling pot of despair and corruption and you realize, when he transforms (aided by drinking a whole bottle of whiskey) and comes after little bill, that his wife never changed him as he claims but only offered him a path. He chose the path but I am not sure that he really did change but he recognized after his ten year hiatus that values change and his children will remind him of that although he himself will never be able to truly share in those values. When little bill says he will see him in hell I am pretty sure that William munny knows he is right because how can he be forgiven and this is who he is? How is a man like that ever forgiven when he can’t even forgive himself? Little Bill is a man who, like William munny, has seen it all; he has seen the famous gunslingers and the rest and I am sure that his experience serves him well when William munny enters that salon seeking him out. His outbursts suggest a man who also has not come to terms with who he is and a man incapable of dealing with gunslingers any other way than with brute force since he is probably aware of their crude nature so an eye for an eye is probably the way to see it. He could have been a famous gunslinger himself so that urge to overpower other gunslingers in his town seems only natural since now he actually has the authority to do what he does. The question with him is: How do you rise above the filth and despair that has characterized the formation of the west? Can you really be kind with vicious people such as this? By placing a label on him stating that he is a villain does not seem very convincing for you have to look at what he himself thinks of his measures.

The movie is highlighted by a gloomy/melancholy atmosphere which is the grounding element of most of our lives although we try to deny it. The other westerns were like great parties but when they are done you have to come home to some form of mundane existence. This is the atmosphere in ‘Unforgiven’. There are shades and there are shots that try and immerse us in the natural character of the west that has not changed although the people have come and gone. You are fully aware that William munny, Ned Logan, little Bill, and English bob are on their way out but you get the sense that they were pioneers in a sense that they helped to construct a system of values that are still rooted in the everyday life of America and that will ensure the film's timeless quality. The west still has an eternal beauty about it that disappears only when humans come and tarnish it with chaos and their settlements to encourage commerce. There are scenes that feature a lot of rain which heighten this atmosphere for it helps to shroud these legends in everyday life and to highlight that their days of glory are gone. In the final scene, for instance, when William munny kills almost everyone it is witnessed by only a few who remain in fear of him as he looms larger than life in the rain still shrouded as a legend, not a real man, since the values of the west have changed or are changing since he graced the scene in the prime of his youth. They will never see his face but you will hear his chilling voice, in the morning the people of the town will be in for a shocking reminder and the bloody scene will remind them of the fermenting pot of harsh truths that characterized the development of the wild west; showing exactly what was required to get justice on your side for as William munny says they had better bury his friend right or else he will come back and he better not hear of them cutting up no whores or he’ll be back. That was how order had to be gotten in the west and William munny and little Bill are both aware of that although their tactics seem a bit incongruous with the present day so it was all shrouded in rain. The people of the town did not have to be shown but they had to be reminded and I am sure that even now the populace of America is reminded time and time again. That final scene is not a scene of glory it is a ghost of the past.

Although little bill was disappointed at the way he died, because he honestly thought he escaped those violent days, I am pretty sure that his final statement which is featured at the beginning of this review brought him closer to the truth of what his actions in the past brought on himself. I am sure William munny knew the same might happen to him someday.

See you in hell

this is a great film.

True grit (2010) *** ½/ 5

‘True grit’ is a good film but there is something missing. I will not state that as if I do not know because I do: it is the melancholy of the Western frontier. It is the type of melancholy that reflects some form of solitude or heart ache. Man and nature do not seem so definable in that setting because they become one. Man, who in the present day is the embodiment of greed and materialist values,  seems more at place with nature and not from the perspective where you watch a sunset or gaze aimlessly at the stars. It is a melancholy setting because of the material advancements man has made since then. The frontier was basically paving the way for settlement of human beings so that commerce could thrive. This film also seems like a run o the mill sometimes and you never feel as immersed as you should be about the West. The production values are good, with the cinematography being a highlight, however there is not much elaboration on what it means to have True grit which is supposed to be some form of temperament that can weather almost any storm. It is particularly essential to have True grit when you are far from so called civilization and your only form of solace is your ability to understand the birds and the bees with no recourse to the laws of man. The story, which is basic, centres on Mattie Ross (Haile Stanfield) who enlists the US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down her father’s killer Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin).  The Texas Ranger Laboeuf (Matt Damon) also tags along for he too has been enlisted by the family of a senator to track down Chaney. These are before the days of Chuck Norris where no one respects this set of individuals.  There is a early scuffle between Mattie and Laboeuf as to where Chaney should be brought to justice. She believes that he should hang in the town where her father was killed whereas the Texas Range wants to bring him down to Texas. Mattie hires Rooster because he was said to have true grit which more than likely means that he can brave the elements of the vast countryside that greets someone once they leave the populous areas where man is concentrated into his concepts of civilisation. The performances are good although you become more than mindful that they are acting because the characters do not seem more than caricatures at times. The Texas Ranger as played by Matt Damon is very straight and there is no deviation in his behaviour; there are no reflective moments and this is where you become conscious that an actor is going through the rounds. His character is also a source of ridicule and so it is hard to take him seriously. As good as Bridges is as Cogburn his character is basically played straight and you become aware that he is a caricature because he seems, at first, only a  source of laughter and only by the end when there is a rush to save Mattie do we get a sense of some variation in his character. People should not miss however that the comedic side of the film does reveal the true grit of Cogburn because of his apparent nonchalance. The film is good but there are no real meditations on life in the West and this is what elevates all the great western films. There are no real shocking elements that would make this seem more than just a retread. The approach seems too conventional and straight with not much deviation i.e. there are no elements of shock which jolts the consciousness or makes us feel that we are witnessing a truly definitive Western. With jolts of consciousness man revels in his originality i.e. when a man encounters something shocking he normally react in a way as if he has never seen it before and this is why we have great music, film, dance, theory etc. They jolt our consciousness because we see things that we have not seen before but later come to the realisation how come I did not see that before and so later accept it as a fact of life always using that moment of shock as your justification. ‘True Grit’ did not do that for me like other westerns like 3:10 to Yuma (2007) and Unforgiven (1992).   I choose to see this film as a solid entry into the canon of Ethan and Joel Coen. All great directors have a canon that represents their body of work where there is usually a masterpiece in the mix that represents the peak of their powers. The others in the canon may not measure up to this masterpiece but certainly fit securely within their style of filmmaking. This is how I choose to see this film ‘True Grit’ as one measured against the superior film ‘No Country for Old Men’ while at the same time adding to the philosophy introduced by that film. While this film will make you want to see ‘No Country for Old men’ again it still has enough to stand on its own and thereby continue the forays of the Coen brother into the Western.

When one has true grit one is firm in his or her temperament. Man has been so besotted by emotion and reason to the point where we have lost of the things that made us master nature. As it stands we are incapable of surviving without the latest gadgets. The final rush to save Mattie in this film reminded me that not many people have that particularly in urban areas however you will find it among some men and women in the countryside who the urban dwellers foolishly ridicule not realising that they grow weaker by the day. How many men today are prepared to give up their material comforts to live a life where it is only your mental temperament that can save you from madness. People with true grit are not so easily identifiable we sometimes think that it is the most aggressive male when in fact his muscles are mush and when real danger comes you realise that his aggression only masks his fears. Aggression at times is only a projection of the fears we hold within nothing more that does not always determine whether you have true grit. I am speaking of those people that are firm almost immovable and staunch in the defence of their beliefs or who when faced with adversity or great loss are able to shed the old skin for the new. The ones without true grit normally curl into a corner to die with their fears which they try to fend off as if they (the fears) are ghosts. They, at times, try to project an air of aggression which has as its foundation fear. The men with true grit normally do not dwell too long on matters they plod along almost without a conscience they are hardly besotted with emotion like the aggressive individual who revels in his or her emotion for comfort. The men with true grit are oftentimes placed in the same category with animals or savages.  Humans get weaker each time man envelops nature and expands his industry and material benefits so that we can live comfy. This is why I believe the Westerns are still important in the film industry to remind us of how much we are losing our oneness with nature. All great Western film remind you of this: The Searchers, Unforgiven, High Noon, Shane,  Dances with Wolves, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly which features the directorship of Sergio Leone and stars like Eastwood and Lee van clef. More recently there is 3:10 to Yuma (2007) the remake of the 1957 classic and ‘No Country for Old Men’ with its modern edge but still retaining elements of the classic westerns.  There are others to be sure but these films remind you of what it was to have true grit which is being lost day by day.

 ‘True grit’ fails to elevate itself to the level of these great westerns because there is no meditation on life in the west there is only Rooster who spouts comedic anecdotes about himself and I suppose these anecdotes of his life, which seems like a failure based on how it is relayed by him, reflect his casual attitude towards them and how little they have affected him. In one anecdote he make mention of his ex- wives who seem to wish he was civilized enough to live a decent civilized life which means he must conform to the rules and ways of man.  There is quirkiness here and you see it in the character of Bridges especially in one scene where he, in a moment of comic mischief by the Coen brothers, kicks two Native Americans from a railing and this reflects more than anything his true grit which is why it is supposed to be funny because how many people today can kick someone off the railing so casually with no regard for their feelings. I then came to understand the reasoning behind the comedic attitude of Rooster. We are introduced to Rooster in court where he is giving testimony and the defence lawyer repeatedly questions Rooster on his arbitrary manner of doing things thereby highlighting his somewhat bestial nature or his unconscionable nature. It is to the credit of the Coens that in this opening scene we actually see a jolt of conscience in his character (try not to miss the pause in his nonchalant testimony).   The elements surrounding the pursuit of Chaney are well detailed and it logically seems to follow as he is a member of a gang and if you find that gang you more than likely find Chaney. A man does not wander wild in the wilderness without company or without the knowledge of the land. It all logically adds up but unlike ‘No country for Old Men’ where there was some meditation by the Sherriff on the changing times there is not much here. In ‘No Country for Old Men’ there is a keen resemblance to this film because everyone is on a trail where paths will collide and there will be clashes and therefore confrontation however the character of the Sherriff is what made the difference in that film as well as the death of Josh Brolin who was seemingly unaware of his being the centre of all the trails that were to lead to that money. He was simply overwhelmed. In this film Chaney was not given much room for development and only appears towards the end of the film. He seems like a very careless individual with few inhibitions and he seems unaware of what is going on at times. The character does not live up to expectations. In this film you hear of all of Chaney’s misdeeds and so you are eager to meet the man himself but there is some weight missing from Brolin’s performance which does not make you wonder about this man and his mode of thought i.e. what are his views on his own actions in life how does he justify them or what is it about this life that makes a man so callous. They instead make him seem like a simpering child a regular vagabond and that is all good for he is an ordinary man but in the Westerns these men always have some sentient weight.  This film is more about the trail of vengeance where she explains at the beginning that everyone has it coming to them. This is why there is an interesting opening shot where Chaney gallops off on his horse thinking he has seemingly escaped however as the movie delineates it logically that wherever you go there is a trail that will lead to you no matter how low you choose to sink. It is the same method used in ‘No Country for Old Men’ but with more tension.

The performance of Hailee Steinfield is the most interesting element in film aside from Bridges. She represents a montage of ideas about civilization and this is reflected in how she negotiates with people presenting herself as mature beyond her years.  At times she seems too clever and Rooster also thinks at first that Mattie is simply a talkative young girl trying to act older than she really is but you understand that he takes her more seriously when she crosses the river, which has a strong tide, to get to the other side where the Marshall and the Texas Ranger are located and where the Marshall feels she wont be able to follow. That scene demonstrated to the Marshall that Mattie was one who had True grit i.e. she has a firm temperament and this is also made clear by the end when you realise that Mattie has lost something but, despite this has carried on firmly in life. She is certainly a sexually repressed female and these women you have to take seriously because they are not besotted like the regular female by romance/emotion and the yearning to have babies as they await their prince charming. These are the type of women who can tangle with men in the cutthroat world. You only realise this at the end with Mattie when she is all grown but you know that she is one of those tough females with how the young Mattie handles the males in this film. Her behaviour is not only unbecoming of a youngster but of a female. She may not have the experience but she certainly has true grit and this is why Rooster takes her seriously. She also encounters an attack of her sensibilities as she has her own preconceptions of how the world works seeing it only through the eyes of the so called civilised world which all boils down to the laws of man. This is where her immaturity figures as she soon realise that she is in the wild and anything goes; the laws and rites of man cannot save you.

All in all this is a good film but I wished there were more reflections on the west and what it means to have true grit. This would have lessened the apparent perception of Rooster Cogburn as a caricature and explain his nature more thoroughly and evoke the old melancholy of the West as all the great westerns do. Some of the actors do not add dimensions to their characters and they seem stiff and motionless. This would only have resulted if the Coens sought to break the conventional mould a little and shock us as they did in ‘No Country for Old Men’. This is still a worthy entry into their canon.

The Black Swan (2010) ****/ 5

The Black Swan is an engrossing film which pierces deep within the psyche of an individual tormented by lofty metaphysical heights.  The metaphysical height in this film deals with the idea of perfection and how it can be achieved. The film centres on the ballerina Nina (Natalie Portman) who is chosen by the director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) to play the role of the Swan princess following the departure of the former princess ( in the ballet company that is) Beth (Winona Ryder). There is also competition from a new member of the company, Lily (Mila Kunis). The director demands that the role of the swan princess which is split into two personas the white (pure, fragile tender etc) and the dark (sensual, beguiling etc)  be played by the lead performer which is Nina. Nina is a natural fit for the white swan because she is tender and fragile by nature but the question is: Does she have what it takes to undergo the transformation from the white swan into the black one? Most of the psychological terror experienced by Nina in this film centres on this question because in her effort to transform into the black swan she endures an inward confrontation that may destroy her in the long run.  In order to play this role one must endure rigorous sessions of practice to acquire the delicate balance between the two personas. The problem could have been easily resolved had the director chosen Lily to be the Black Swan because she is a natural fit due to her libertine behaviour.  Nina does not want to disappoint and so she is determined to play the Black Swan at all costs. What the viewer sees in the film is a metaphysical or Kafkaesque like transformation as opposed to a literal one. Therefore the effects in the film reflect this surrealism which is grounded in a banal reality. The reality is banal because it is merely a ballet where people dance to the music; the audience members will not care about the metaphysical ordeal you will simply feel that it requires practice and rigorous training sessions like any other craft. It is also apparent that Nina is the only one going through this dilemma. While watching it at first I wondered if they were not going overboard but i was reminded that some actors really do inhabit roles to the point of psychological torture (Heath Ledger as the Joker) so as to achieve the goal of perfection i.e. you cannot go any higher. Nina is a technically gifted ballerina but with no soul according to the director because she does not know how to let go when portraying the Black Swan. It is because she is frigid why she is able to play the White Swan perfectly.  Eminem says you have to lose yourself in the music because you only get one shot (Go listen to the song ‘Lose yourself’). This is basically Nina’s dilemma she has to lose herself in the performance when she becomes the Black Swan.

If the Black Swan is complicated for you just remember the story of the Swan Princess as it is told in the film and you will realise that Nina is actually reliving the tale in her psyche. There were two Swans the white swan and the black swan who sought the affection of the dazzling prince. The prince did prefer the white swan but due to some subterfuge on the part of the Black Swan the Prince was beguiled by her charm and eventually chose her. The White swan was heart broken and in despair she leapt from  a cliff to her death. You should bear this in mind so that you can understand the competition between Nina and lily for the affection of the artistic director. It also helps you to understand the end.

The director has a way with the ladies and tries to encourage Nina to lose herself in her sexuality. The erotic release will allow her to relax her frigid state when portraying the Black Swan. He also wants to have his way with her which is what will occur when she does let go. There is a scene where he does grope her but for him that is not the thrill. The thrill is when she can seduce him. This is where Lily would be the perfect fit for the Black swan. The erotic component as it is portrayed in the film is trite but it is necessary in the quest for absolute mastery. The main reason why Nina cannot break her fragile state is her upbringing. Her only life is the ballet and it is a tradition seemingly passed down from her mother who also lives in her own fantasy where she is an overbearing influence on Nina. The mother still sees Nina as a child with her room full of stuffed animals and a windup music box with a ballerina on top that puts her to sleep. That is one obstacle she has to overcome so as to undergo the transition. She has also to indulge in actions which are normally considered negative because they normally involve some form of excess which allows you to let go: drugs and alcohol in the club. All of this is documented in the film and encourages Nina to let go of her inhibitions so that she may transform her frigid white swan state into the Black Swan. This is all accompanied by the metaphysical transformation that is taking place within Nina’s psyche. She starts hallucinating, her skin blushes red her eyes also begin to turn red in her mind and visions of Lily also manifest themselves. Do not be confused because Nina is simply undergoing a metaphysical transformation into the Black swan and not a literal one. The end will reveal all. Lily for Nina represents her natural counterpart not only as her competitor for the position as leading ballerina but from the perspective of personality. This is why she can pick out Lily almost immediately in a crowded train at the beginning of the film without having seen her before. It is one of those connections that we all experience regardless if it is a love/ hate relationship. When someone is fragile and tender they are normally repulsed by one with an aggressive mindset. The two seem to complement each other because the element of each is in all of us we simply embrace one more than the other. Normally for a frigid woman to release her inhibitions it requires an aggressive man or woman to seize her. I am not talking about rape. Likewise for an aggressive person to cool his or her temper it normally requires a placid character like Nina and hence you have the story of Beauty and the Beast.    The white and the Black swan are in all of us. You realize this in an early scene where Nina goes to the office of the director to try and persuade him to give her the role so she wears lipstick to seem more attractive. Although that is all she is prepared to do some women, as Beth (Winona Ryder) states in her own way, would probably perform oral sex or go all the way just to get the part. Does this mean they sell their soul? Or is it simply a part of your nature but it is simply repressed in favour of the other person who represents cleanliness? If you are concerned about the visions of Lily you will realise by the end that she simply represents a state of mind for Nina. As Dr. Crane/Scarecrow explains in ‘Batman Begins’ paranoid people normally focus their anguish on an external tormentor. In Nina’s case it is Lily so the Lily you see at times is not real but a manifestation of Nina’s demons.

This idea of perfection within the context of humanity has to be explained briefly here. Since the dawn of civilization man has sought to perfect himself. I do not mean perfection within him but what lies around him. When we became conscious of the world around nature seemed wild and unforgiving and so it had to be conquered so as to bring it under our sway which would make it more manageable. In the process of taming nature we built upon it our own foundations so that we could manifest our ideas of civilization. Whenever we encroach on nature we are supposedly contributing to the advancement of civilization which is now manifesting in the populous urban areas where commerce is the benchmark of life. This is why nature is regarded by some individuals as interesting but antiquated. Few of us visit nature without our man made appendages which will keep us in line with humanity. We always observe nature at a distance (sunset, sunrise, the moon etc) so that we can make sense of it and its functions.  We, initially, attribute the work of nature to a God or a supreme being and in some cases an external tormentor. The height of our paranoia begins here because god seems like the end all of anything from the perspective of the idealist before he is superseded by the materialist who sees the function of society from an economic perspective. The materialist sees the perfection within the confines of society and how we can make it better. We are all driven to make things better in the world (Human rights, world peace, eco friendly initiatives, love etc) . We are driven to make things better within the material perspective because we are aspiring towards a perfect state. With the idealist (a Hegelian motif) he sees perfection in reaching God or, what boils down to the same thing, being Godlike i.e. maintaining some form of balance within ourselves or control of our surroundings (impartial). Therefore you have idealists believing they are in tune with god or the gods because that concept of god is seen as being perfect. That is the simple form of perfection for the idealist Nina in this film where she tries to balance the act of playing the White and Black swan because as you see by the end there is a lot of light (even the most simple minded person knows what that light represents). This brings me to one more basic idea of perfection for both the materialist and the idealist: contradiction. In order for anyone to be perfect you have to resolve contradiction. It is as simple as that. With contradiction you cannot be perfect therefore the materialist who is aspiring for the perfect man made society has to resolve the fact that even though we as man systematically destroy nature how is it that we enrich ourselves at the same time? Is it not good to destroy nature? Also if I am rich why are you poor? Why do you have to go the Poor house to feed your children and mine can live on steak 5 days a week? Is it a natural Dog eat dog world? (Not trying to be clever but capital ‘D’ in Dog devours common ‘d’ in dog) or can we all be equal? These are questions the materialist has to answer in order to aspire for the perfect society? The idealist, on the other hand, has questions he too much answer when aspiring for perfection. If god is the end all or the essence of perfection and I become like him or in his likeness then what is the point of god if I am now his equal? Can i go further? How is perfection measured? If you aspire to be like God what about those around you? Do you leave them in the wilderness? Is this some selfish quest? Something to make yourself feel better? Why is it that not everyone is in tune with this idea of reaching God? All these questions with regards to the idealist are present in this film. Some of the other ballerinas make some snide remarks when Nina appears such as ‘oh look who has decided to join us from on high.’ (something like that). This is reinforced  in the film because Nina does not mingle with them as the piano player remarks a night before the final concert ‘I have a life’ which equates to ‘Why so serious it is just a ballet?’ The Joker says to the Batman ‘You wont kill me because of this sense of self righteousness and I wont kill you because you’re just too much fun’. That was not an exact quote.

With Nina she is aspiring to be Godlike and this normally puts strain on the one who attempts this as it is a psychological ordeal which later affects your actual physical being. This is what happens to Nina in the film as she tries to attain the balance between the Black and White Swan. In order to do this she must resolve the contradiction so as to achieve the perfect balance where she can play both parts with consummate ease.  The contradiction in this film is how can you be good and evil at the same time. You can also look at it as: How can I be crazy and yet keep my sanity?

All in all this is one of the year’s best films. I endorse Natalie Portman to take home the Oscar

Recommended films with themes of dichotomy: The Bridge on the River Kwai, 3:10 to Yuma( for the characters played by Christian bale and Russell Crowe) The Dark Knight, A Beautiful Mind, Sideways (for the characters of Miles and jack) I cant think of too many right now but there are many out there i am sure

The Fighter (2010) ***½ 5.

Disregard all that you have heard about Amy Adams (Charlene Fleming) and Melissa Leo (Alice Ward) as great supporting roles for it is Christian Bale (Dickie Eklund) who steals the show in ‘The Fighter’. The Fighter is a good film but at times you feel that it is stunted in a way i.e. there is something missing. It is hard to pinpoint at first but you slowly come to the realization that the film is more about Dickie than about Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who is a former welterweight champion and who the story is supposed to be based on. You will come to the same realization when an hour is passed and there is an airing of a documentary that features Dickie as a down and out fighter who has been ensnared by the influence of crack which precipitates his decline on the scale that measures glory or success in an individual. The film opens with Dickie being filmed and he believes that it is a means to highlight to people that he is on the rise again. The idea of his glory stems from a fight he had with Sugar Ray Leonard in 1978 where he supposedly knocks him down. There is an interesting debate in the film about whether Sugar Ray slipped or he was actually knocked down. That issue is resolved by the end but you have a chance to decide for yourself when watching the clips from the film’s opening or when Dickie tries to re-enact that moment of Sugar ray’s fall in his mind while he is high on crack. The film succeeds because of Dickie because as the film progresses and the trials of Dickie take a toll on his family the emotion within you begins to creep up. It does not explode as it did while watching a film like ‘Rocky’ but I became aware of my sympathy for Dickie. If the film had been about him it would have been more effective because Mickey, who the film is to be about, spends most of the film trying to extricate himself from his brother’s shadow. Dickie is a mentor to his brother having influenced Mickey to begin boxing.  It should have been that Christian Bale should have been the main lead alongside Mark Wahlberg. In my mind if I disregard a list of the cast or who is billed as the lead I unconsciously see Christian Bale as an actor in a leading role. This would obviously not be the case if it was not for the documentary and that the scenes with all the emotional weight involve him.

Mark Wahlberg as Mickey does get sufficient screen time but without Dickie he does not offer any energy on his own. In films where there is a strong leading role and a strong supporting role it normally takes the film to new heights i.e. if you disregard screenplay and so forth. They both feed off of one another but the actor in the leading role exudes something that differs fundamentally from the supporting role which is why there is conflict. This does not happen sufficiently in this film which is why it feels stunted. When Mickey does triumph in this film and wins the welterweight title you do not get the impression that he has done it on his own but because he was simply goaded by others; in other words there was no independent factor within him that determines whether he succeeds or not. I say that you do not get an impression because it is there but the filmmakers could have highlighted it some more. It is clear that his character is one that loves to be shepherded rather than be the shepherd. That is how his character is presented. If it is not the influence of Dickie there is his mother, Alice and his girlfriend, Charlene who feel that because they know what is best for him that is how his life should be. His girlfriend Charlene is the counterpoint to his family who set up fights for him that does not seem to be advancing his career any further. His girlfriend shows him a new path where his independence would only be guaranteed if he is independent from his family which are mostly female. His mother on the other hand repudiates the possibility that Mickey should be independent of his family. I like how the influence of Mickey's family is delineated in the film because if i do discuss it there is a clear structure. Firstly it is clear that it is not only Mickey who has been silenced but his father, George Ward (Jack Mcgee). There is a scene where Alice throws pots on him and he seems powerless. That was a hilarious scene. There is another one where he gets knocked over by Dickie and his wife seems unconcerned but more concerned about Dickie. If you miss those instances you do not understand the film particularly the most important one where Alice is talking to the filmmakers of the documentary that features Dickie and outlines the family structure and her legacy of marriage and divorce that sees her raising 9 children. It is not only Mickey that is an outcast but his father who marries Alice after she has been through several husbands and encounters a large family with most of the members disloyal to him. It is no surprise that it is with his father by his side that Mickey meets Charlene and introduces him to a new management team. The father can sympathise with Mickey because the entire family structure is not very welcoming to Mickey who is probably the youngest of the bunch and will therefore always be seen as the outcast trying to fit in rather than be recognised for his own achievements or being a natural fit. Film lovers should check out ‘The Godfather’ and see if they can identify similarities with Tom Hagen, the consigliere, who is not brother by blood. It is because of this why the mother pays more attention to Dickie than to Mickey because she normally expects Mickey to look up to Dickie. I should note that Mickey is a 31 year old man and Dickie is probably only 9 years older. When a man reaches thirty he should be making a name for himself rather than living in the shadow of others. It is because of this weight why Mickey seems stunted in the film and why he expresses certain character traits akin to an adolescent.  I would not be surprised to learn that his mother was the one instrumental in calling him Mickey in likeness of his brother Dickie (I really do not like repeating this name over and over).

The adolescent traits he expresses are quite clear. He is not a very technical fighter or does not respond well at times to technical expertise which requires some amount of discipline. You therefore see him at odds with some of the advice that is being dished out to him. There are the techniques he learns from his brother and those of his new management team when he eventually leaves the influence of his family. This tension comes to a head in the final fight where he is able to win of his own accord rather than fight according to the plans of others. I believe this is where the filmmakers went wrong in documenting Mickey’s story. When he first meets Charlene he describes his boxing style to her: he is a brawler. A brawler normally trades blow for blow and so even if he does knock you down normally you would probably have given him a broken nose or a swollen eye. Rocky, for instance, was a brawler who knew how to take a beating whereas his opponents were more technically adept. Mickey explains to Charlene further that he wants to be more like a boxer i.e. he would be more technically adept so if an opponent has a weak spot you try and exploit it. As he explains you hit the opponent in the face enough so he has to guard his face which would leave his body exposed and then you go for the body and so on. What the filmmakers should have done was to actually show a fight where Mickey uses his brawling technique. This would have occurred more likely at the beginning and we would see the crew, which would more than likely include his brother, discussing his technique etc. The filmmakers would have illustrated his point by having him lose this match that would open the film. This is what happened with Rocky. They opened the film with rocky fighting underground with a not very interesting opponent (spider Rico). Even though he wins people still call him a bum.  This opening scene was to highlight, simultaneously,  how low Rocky was as a boxer and as a human being and contrasts with the heights he was to reach by challenging for the World heavy weight title.  It is because this is absent why you miss the triumph in the final fight in this film ‘The Fighter’ where Mickey eventually holds the world welterweight title. He does resort to his brawling technique in the fight but probably in a more modified way based on his technical training. A casual film viewer will then suppose that he suddenly got the balls to start lashing out and this was why he won. They should have contrasted this with how far he had come from being a simple brawler.  The filmmakers erred by featuring Dickie in the film’s opening act as opposed to documenting the rise of Mickey Ward.

There are other signs to look out for when trying to get a sense of Mickey’s character. There is a hilarious scene, for instance, where he takes Charlene to the movies. Before they go in two film viewers from behind comment on how exquisite the cinematography is supposed to be. In Mickey’s mind: ‘what cinematography?’ During the film he (the only person) falls into a deep sleep and this is one indicator that he is not technically adept which equates to a lack of discipline. Charlene did seemed pretty interested in the film but compromises and tries to acknowledge, for his sake, that the film was not all that.  The screenwriters did not highlight this so that you would laugh (only) they highlighted this to reveal his character which is why it is funny.

The influence of his brother is paramount in this film and it is this relationship that accounts for the most tension onscreen. It all adds weight to the premise: How does one escape the legacy of another? How do you measure what this person has achieved and compare it with your own accomplishments? Glory is relative. The glory Dickie revels in was that he challenged for the title but that was it he only challenged. He revels in this glory to the point of paranoia and the people of the town also see it as some form of glory based on the belief that the town is not so renowned. He certainly paved a path for Mickey which is why Mickey is prepared to follow him along the same path that led to his destruction. This was the reason for his ill advised match up with a middle weight where he is pummelled. You get a sense that Dickie encountered these sort of ill advised matchups during his career and was beaten and stung relentlessly to the point where fighting Sugar ray Leonard seemed like an overwhelming achievement. This is what happens when you are coming from an absolute bottom and are trying to rise above. When you are coming from the gutter how you measure success becomes relative. It is clear that Dickie (I do not like writing this name repeatedly) did not rise above to the point where he can be contented with passing on the reigns to his kid brother. He still aspires to go further although he fails to acknowledge that he is passed his prime. This is why at the end of the film they make clear that after Mickey   won the championship he still had some other gruelling fights with other contenders and he was after a couple years finally able to earn a 6 digit salary. It goes to show that for Mickey this was not his crowning point in life. One of the great human tragedies since the dawn of civilisation is when someone never gets to achieve what they set out to do. It sometimes reduces them to skeletons, wraiths and imbeciles. They are often forgotten in the midst of their longing for that goal that slips further and further away particularly if others trample over them and actually achieve that glory they so desperately yearn for. They normally hold it to their bosom until death unless some vital change extracts another positive energy they can pursue. Let us backtrack to Raging Bull where Lamotta who is a middleweight makes clear to his brother Joey that because he is a middleweight he will never fight the best which are normally in the heavyweight class. In ‘Hoop Dreams’ the two youngsters never do reach the NBA and would have been reduced to ordinary persons had it not been for that very documentary. It all depends on how you measure success in the end because there are those who have it all but are still yearning for that peace of mind which will make clear that 'Yes this is the end'. This would explain why they had so many Rockys and as Rocky himself says in Rocky 1: even if he does not beat Apollo Creed he just wants to go the distance with the champ because no one has ever gone the distance with the champ. This is more important to him because seeing that he is coming from the gutter if he gets beaten and stung to the point where he writhing in ignominy on the floor people would have expected that of him because of where he is coming from. If he can just go the distance then people will see what he is really made of. Themes like this were completely absent from ‘The Fighter’ when documenting the rise of Mickey Ward

On a last not the performances are good all round. The character of Mickey ward is stunted in comparison with Dickie but Mark Wahlberg does exude the persona he is known for in Hollywood when his character is given some means to explode. The performances of the two female leads are competent. Amy Adams as Charlene is pretty good particularly in the scene where Mickey’s family, which are all female except Dickie and his son, comes to her doorstep and there is a confrontation. Christian and Bale and Adams share a poignant scene towards the end after both assess their shortcomings.  Aside from that she is good but not stellar and her character is naturally hysterical by nature because she too is a college dropout (Poor Mickey but he should be contented knowing he has achieved sufficiently). Melissa Leo is good as well; the wear and tear in her expressions are sound particularly a tender scene with Christian Bale which shows how battered she really is despite the rough facade.  The star however is Christian Bale. He plays the character as true as he possibly can and sometimes you will miss that it is him which is always a sign of a great performance. He will be nominated for Best supporting role by the academy.

Recommended Films with the same premise: Rocky 1, Raging Bull, Sideways, Hoop dreams and The Godfather when discussing issues with family.