Ariel (Emma Bolger) and Christy (Sarah Bolger) are two little Irish
girls, who have hopped the U.S./Canada border, and immigrated into the
States with their parents (Paddy Cosidine and Samantha Morton), who buy
an apartment in a rundown and dangerous Manhattan complex with literally
all the money they have. Their father, Jim, is an actor, searching for
any performing job that will allow him to start immediately. Their
mother, Sarah, was a teacher back home, but she must settle for work at
an ice cream parlor, in order to support the family. In many ways, the
girls would like to adapt to the American way. They begin this
transformation by going trick-or-treating in the building that they live
in, but only one man opens the door for them. His name is Mateo (Djimon
Hounsou), but he is referred to as “the man who screams,” by the
occupants of the apartments surrounding his. This is because he keeps to
himself, but yells so loud sometimes that the entire complex can hear
him. However, he ironically befriends the girls and their family, and
halts their transitioning, making them aware of many things about life,
in general. In the midst of all of this, the four are also still
mourning the death of their son/sibling, who was just two-years-old when
he fatally fell down a flight of stairs.
In America works
because the story is told in the eyes of the girls, making for a light
tone. Because of their young age and simplistic knowledge about the
world, they have little fear or worry. For example, take the incidence
in which they go trick-or-treating. Despite the fact that they live in
an unhealthy and frightful place, full of bad people, they still
anxiously pound on everyone’s door multiple times, in an effort to get
their fair share of Halloween candy. When he first meets them, Mateo
shouts at the two as they chant the beloved words “trick-or-treat” at
his apartment’s entryway. Rather than running away, as a normal person
would, they increase their voices. They’re clearly intrigued by the new
country, not afraid of it. Also: look at the time in which they first
observe how badly their parents are in need of money. Ariel and Christy
believe that their mom and dad will be able to work their way out of it,
and that good times ensue in the future. If In America had been
about Jim and Sarah’s hardships, then I guarantee you that I would’ve
despised it. It could’ve been a blatant and helpless film, only
discussing losers and their problems. But, instead, it’s an uplifting
one. It’s made in such a way that will cause audiences to root for the
girls and their parents. Ariel and Christy have hope, and this is
key to the impression that the movie will make on its viewers. In
America isn’t profound, but director Jim Sheridan, who has written
this screenplay with his two daughters, and based it on their own
personal experiences, knows how to find an emotional resonance with his
audience. This, alone, makes it well-worth seeing; you will undeniably
leave the theatre touched.
As good as the Bolger
sisters are as Ariel and Christy, and Cosidine and Morton are as their
parents, I believe that the best performance belongs to Hounsou. He
creates one of the most wonderfully emotionally violent characters in
the history of film. When with the girls, Mateo remains subtle and
gentle, a model figure for them. But when contemplating his own personal
issues, he has eruptions of confliction and craziness. There’s something
remarkable about Hounsou’s work when this happens; his performance
doesn’t only appear to be real, it feels real. Acting is
certainly the strongest aspect of In America, and he is a
terrific representation of this.
When we watch this
movie, we feel as though we’ve been transported into a world of only
optimism and ambition, in one of the most paradoxical of places. Our
protagonists do not seem like dreamers, but wishers. And for the whole
film, we’re merely wishing with them—wishing that their wishes come
true.
This is not a movie
about the world, in general. It’s about the conflict between and the
contrasting ways of people, and their behavior as a result of it. All
director Vadim Perelman requires of his audience is that they understand
his characters, even if they may not sympathize for them. House of
Sand and Fog’s intentions are pure; realism isn’t nearly as
important to the story as the interests and opinions of personalities
that we become acquainted with during it.
Jennifer Connelly plays
Kathy, a woman whose house is mistakenly taken from her, when records
show that she has not paid her taxes. It’s auctioned off to Behrani (Ben
Kingsley) and his family, who have been exiled from Iran. The house has
been in Kathy’s family for years, and was left to she and her brother
(who does not live there) by their late father. Since Behrani will not
sell the house back to the government, Kathy will face an uphill battle
in getting it back. Kathy also has hardly any money, because she’s a
low-paid housecleaner, making the traumatic event even tougher. On top
of all of this, she begins to fall in love with Lester (Ron Eldard), the
police officer who comes to evict her. He’s unhappily married, only
staying with his wife to make life easier for his children, but
instantly changes his mind when his relationship with Kathy begins to
bud.
Kathy and Behrani
aren’t likeable characters by default, and director Perelman doesn’t
give viewers an answer as to who they should root for. It’s not his job
to guide us into taking someone’s side. There’s no need for us to do so,
either. We pondering the actual confliction between the two characters
is much more crucial to the impact in which the film will put upon us.
Why should Kathy and Behrani’s disagreement affect their physical
actions so much? Is it human nature, their pasts, or the given issue
that’s causing this? Can we relate to them? On the surface, perhaps not,
but their desires are usual, just presented in an exaggerated form.
However, it’s this exaggeration that leads to the depressingly painful
finale, which both shows and symbolizes the intentions of the two. These
are noticeably triggered by both Kathy and Behrani’s passion towards
various aspects of their lives and them beginning to be true to
themselves. This is presented in a frankly brute form, but it’s a
strikingly honest one, albeit stretched. The point of House of Sand
and Fog is not to depict a situation, but to observe via reflection.
Kingsley and Connelly
are both fabulous, and quite daring in their portrayals of these
characters. The two talents show us the clash between Kathy and Behrani
in an unlikely, but wondrously profound way. For Kingsley, this means
dramatizing his character, and emphasizing the grounds on which his
position is based upon. I believe that the life that he has lived
creates his opinion, in addition to imminent fear that lurks within his
family, as a result of previous experiences in their native country. The
way in which he deals with the entire situation may not be a good
method, but it’s evident why he chooses it. Connelly’s work is a little
more ambiguous, but she undeniably hits the right note. It is, however,
clear that Kathy’s life has always been a never-ending cycle of
negativity. Connelly illustrates this in a flawless manner, which is, in
a sense, exhaustingly magical. She and her co-star deserve Oscar
nominations.
To create a story, you
need a conflict. House of Sand and Fog is about conflict. This,
alone, makes one hell of an enriching, interesting, and emotionally
engaging story. It is one of the year’s best motion pictures.
The family film is one
of the only genres of the medium that the industry can never quite
master. Most movies that are content appropriate for kids, and advertise
themselves as fun for adults as well, usually fail because they’re one
of three things. (1) Too cutesy. (2) Too kiddy. (3) Too obvious. I
couldn’t even attempt to make a list of how many pictures have been
torturous to view, because they are characterized by one of those
adjectives. But if I managed to write one, the latest version of
Peter Pan, directed by P.J. Hogan, would not be on it. This movie is
sweet and honest with its viewers, always maintaining a delicate balance
of humor, romance, and adventure. Imaginative and inventively wondrous,
it has the ability to sweep every viewer away. Peter Pan is
engagingly brilliant, a stroke of true genius—so amazing that it’ll be a
complete shame if it doesn’t get the recognition it deserves.
I’m confident that I
watched at least one of the original versions of Peter Pan when I
was younger, but I don’t remember anything about them. Going into this
movie, all that I knew about the story was that it featured a boy named
Peter, that he could fly, and that Michael Jackson thought that he was
him. Hence, it was no surprise that I was so greatly immersed in the
plot, and the ideas that it presented. The experience was wildly
unpredictable for me; I was able to respond to it in a wildly infectious
and loving way. The world that Hogan has created is hypnotizing, and I
am confident that anyone, even if they’re familiar with the story, will
be transfixed by it.
For those of you who
are in the minority (as I was), and have absolutely no clue as to what
Peter Pan is about, please allow me to indulge you in the
following explanation. Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood), a British girl, is
visited in her home by Peter Pan, a boy who can fly and lives in the
magical world of Neverland, where children remain young for an eternity.
Wendy hesitantly leaves the world as she knows it and goes with Peter to
Neverland, along with her two brothers, John and Curly (Harry Newell and
George MacKay). They, too, learn to fly like Peter; all you must do to
do so is think happy thoughts (or touch fairy dust). In Neverland, they
must fight along side Peter against his arch-enemies, the villainous
Captain Hook and his fellow pirates, but they are happy for quite
awhile. However, when Wendy thinks about love and the other luxuries of
growing up (which are absent in Neverland), she soon convinces several
of the kids there that they should return home, even though Peter
refuses to leave. This leads up to a mystical climax that’s completely
satisfying. It’s a big and grand story, and has a sort of epic feel
about it, which is pretty astonishing, considering the material.
And while the gigantic
scope of the film certainly enhances it, the best part of the entire
story is rather small—Ludivine Sagnier as Tinker Bell, the tiny fairy
that accompanies Peter everywhere he goes. Sagnier, the sexy French
actress who starred in both of Francois Ozon’s latest efforts,
Swimming Pool and 8 Women, has become one of my favorite
modern-day performers. She’s actually quite miraculous in this role;
even though she doesn’t have any dialogue, her talented expressions make
the movie. She’s both hilarious and saddening; I’m not using hyperbole
when I say that her work the most poignant and expressive of the year.
This fact may be scary, but it’s true.
The visuals are also
extremely impressive, and it doesn’t take us long to notice this. When
the kids leave for Neverland, and soar past the planets in the solar
system, I was stuck by a feeling of joy. I grinned the entire way
through Peter Pan, simply because of the eye candy, let alone the
other dazzling features. Though it may sound silly, this deserves to be
a contender at the Academy Awards, two months from now. It’s one of the
biggest technical triumphs of the year.
There have been many
adaptations of the classic novel Peter Pan, but this one most
definitely deserves to be recognized as the best. If it isn’t, then I’m
going to scour my local video store, in search of unbelievable greatness
in one of the previous editions of the film.