A Cracking Good Yarn

I didn't plan it this way, but over the Labor Day weekend, I saw an excellent film about the troubles of one working man in England and how he overcomes his daily struggles. Hell Drivers is the picture, released in 1957 and while it was a relatively low budget B-film, it's a heckuva film, a "cracking good yarn," as they'd say in England.

The film was directed and co-written by Cy Enfield (John Kruse was co-writer of the screenplay). Enfield was an American who was named a Communist at an HUAC meeting in 1951 and was summarily blacklisted; he moved to England soon after and wrote and directed several films, his most famous being Mysterious Island (1961) and Zulu (1964).

Given Enfield's political ousting from America, it's easy to understand the motives that were at work in Hell Drivers. It's a deceptively simple piece of work - I say that as a compliment - about a young man named Tom Yately (Stanley Baker) who, upon being released from a year in prison, looks for any sort of decent job to get back on his feet. As the film opens, he is inquiring about a job as a truck driver for a company in the gravel business - their fleet of drivers transports ballast over short distances several times during the day. Seems simple enough, but a necessary requirement of the job is to make as many runs in a day as possible - 12 is a minimum - but one driver, "Red" Redman (Patrick McGoohan) regularly completes 18 in a single day. Of course, the only way to approach that level is to drive as fast and as loose as possible, often with potentially dangerous results, as the drivers' route shares a few roads with local country traffic.

The title sequence, filmed from the P.O.V. of a driver's seat, puts us front and center into what these men face on a daily basis, as they maneuver twisty, narrow roads on the way to their destination. Filmed in stark black and white by the great cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth (who would go on to be the director of photography on such films as 2001: A Space Odyessy and Cabaret - he won as Oscar  for the latter), this brief introduction to the trucker's perils is edgy and a little rough around the edges in its approach, which is an ideal way to draw us into this world. This is followed a few minutes later by a test run that Tom takes with the assistant of the company boss, who gives him tips on how fast he must drive and how he needs to take turns. He narrowly survives more than one serious accident along the way - this is the first day, mind you -but as he needs an income, he takes the job.

Patrick McGoohan as Red (l.) and Stanley Baker as Tom

The conflict of this story involves how Tom has to deal with the rough and tumble attitude of Red. The latter not only makes the most runs per day (he fittingly drives truck number 1, while Tom works with truck number 13, an intriguing psychological quirk, to say the least), but also runs roughshod over the other drivers, who look upon him with a mix of fear and respect. You don't tangle with Red, as Tom is soon to discover and it's this subtext of the story that gives us a rooting interest in Tom. 

There's also a nice subplot about an Italian immigrant named Gino (beautifully played by Herbert Lom), who hates Red and befriends Tom in his quest to become the top driver. Gino has a girlfriend who happens to be keen on Tom; this piece of business is always in the background, but it quietly simmers, giving the film an even sharper edge.

What I loved about Hell Drivers is the straightforward, no nonsense way in which this story is told and how it unfolds. The character of Red is a bit clichéd, but thankfully McGoohan stops short of portraying him as a monster. The bottom line here is making the proper choice between greed or honor; combine that with a smart screenplay and pinpoint direction and you've got a B-film that makes the grade on just about every level. Maybe it was the humiliation of the blacklist that got Enfield to write this story/fable, but he definitely set about to right some wrongs and in doing so, he gave us a marvelous entertainment.

Misguided Emotions

You Will Be My Son (Tu Seras Mon Fils) is a film that asks the question, what does a man gain if his business career is successful, yet he is a failure at being a father? Set amidst the vineyards of Bordeaux, this French film, directed and co-written by Gilles Legrand, is a very moving work that deals with pride, jealousy and misguided love in a very sophisticated manner.

Paul de Marseul (Niels Arestrup) is the owner of a prestigious wine estate in the Saint Emilion district of Bordeaux. He succeeded his father many years before and takes great care in producing the finest wines, offerings that reflect his land and will be enjoyed for numerous years down the road. His son Martin (Lorant Deutsch) works at the estate, but only in a limited fashion, as he takes care of administrative duties, such as ordering barrels or hiring workers to pick the grapes. Martin is eager to handle chores in the cellar and help craft the wines, reminding his father that he has a degree in winemaking. Yet Paul will not let Martin do that, bluntly telling him, "You don't make wine in college. You need a nose, a palate. All you have is an ear."

As the grapes are ripening, Paul learns that his estate manager François Armelot (Patrick Chesnais) has been diagnosed with inoperable cancer and has been given a diagnosis of only six months to live. Paul has trusted his long-time friend for years and asks him to finish what will be his last harvest. Yet François is too ill to be active for more than a short time, forcing Paul to contact François' son Philippe in America, where he is the winemaker at Coppola. Paul asks Philippe to return to Bordeaux to oversee the harvest as well as look after his ailing father and the young man agrees.

Paul is happy, as is Philippe, who is a talented winemaker. Yet Martin only feels more and more estranged from his father, as he witnesses first hand the love that should be his being directed toward Philippe. Martin becomes jealous of Philippe, while at the same time, feeling greater anger and disgust with his father. At the same time, François, who does his best to work at the estate despite his ailing condition, wonders what to make of this situation.

This is a multi-layered story about characters that we truly care about, as the screenplay by Legrand along with Laure Gasparatto and Delphine de Vigan, offers a great deal of insight not only into winemaking and the culture that surrounds it, but also looks at how tradition and success can change an individual. Much has been made of the Biblical nature of this story, with some critics relating this to the tale of the Prodigal Son. Yet, I see this as having more in common with John Steinbeck's East of Eden (a work also Biblical in nature, in part based on the story of Cain and Abel), in which a father deprived one of his sons with love, while offering nothing but praise for his other son. In Legand's film, the story is slightly different as these are not two sons, yet the themes of love and isolation are quite similar.

As Paul, Niels Arestrup delivers a beautiful performance. Elegant and poised, yet fearful and self-consumed, this is a man with numerous demons that drive him. Arestrup is more than up to the task, giving a natural and controlled performance that is always believable. He has an ease and charisma that enthrall the viewer and his work is a key to the success of his film. I first saw Arestrup in Steven Spielberg's War Horse, in which he gave a very moving performance in a small, but critical role. He is an actor that is largely unfamiliar to Americans, but I predict that we will see a lot more of his work in this country soon.

Patrick Chesnais gives the other notable performance in this film, portraying the character of the ailing François with great charm and ease. It would be easy for him to try and win us over with sympathy, yet the actor does not go that route, opting instead to find strength in his will to live and continue his work at the estate as best as possible. This is a very endearing performance about a character who balances out the selfishness of Paul with a grace and simplicity that sum up his attitude toward others.

Credit also to Yves Angelo for his excellent work of cinematography; the soft light in the vineyards as well as the dim tones of the cellar are equally accomplished.

Serious wine drinkers will love the scenes of old treasured bottles being opened and consumed, but even if you're not someone that partakes in wine, there is a message for everyone in this film. Success is more than awards and memories; success is a measure of how we lead our lives everyday.


You Will Be My Son (Tu Seras Mon Fils) opens in New York City and Los Angeles on August 16. In French, with English subtitles.

Malick's Latest Vision

Perhaps only Terrence Malick - working with his supremely gifted cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki - could make a laundromat seem otherworldly. That is one of the striking images that give Malick's latest work To The Wonder, a dreamlike quality, something the director displays in all of his films. This film continues the reflectiveness of his last work The Tree of Life (2011), especially on a religious note, although without the operatic qualities of that opus, preferring instead to focus on male/female relationships. If the film does not have the structure of the director's finest films such as Days of Heaven, Badlands or The Thin Red Line, this is nonetheless, another moving study of the power of imagery from perhaps the most visually gifted filmmaker working today.

The focus of this film is about a couple Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko), who fall in love in France, as Neil is visiting there. She decides she prefers to live in America with him, so along with her young daughter (Tatiana Chiline), she shifts her surroundings from the mystic qualities of her homeland (visually represented by the famed Mont Saint-Michel church, situated on an remote island in Normandy) to the golden plains of Oklahoma, where Neil works for an oil company.

I won't delve into the plot details; there are problems that Neil and Marina encounter soon afterwards; both have affairs. The scenes with Neil and his new love Jane (Rachel McAdams) are shot with more intensity and a sense of beauty than the rather straightforward affair between Marina and a carpenter (Charles Adams) who catches her eye. There is a scene where Neil and Jane are walking through the plains and are suddenly surrounded by dozens of bison; this is one of the most unexpected and stirring visuals in any of Malick's films.

There is also a subplot about a priest, Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), who preaches love and understanding on Sunday to his flock in Oklahoma, but at the same time is questioning his own faith. While this subplot does not seem all that necessary to the film, the message with this character - as well as almost all the individuals of this film - is that they yearn to feel necessary; they want a connection to someone, some place.

This uncertainty of life, of facing what's ahead, was a primary theme of Malick's last film, The Tree of Life. That film, which dealt with everything from creation to the inhuman jungle of skyscrapers and corporate towers that dehumanize us, was a "bigger" film than Into The Wonder, a fact not lost on the critics of the director's latest film; for them, this new work is a disappointment. Yet I throughly enjoyed the film and if it isn't the best thing Malick has done, well, even a second-tier Terrence Malick film - one filled with stunning images as well as inspiring choices of music - is still a rewarding experience, one far more inventive and arresting than just about anything else being made today.

William Friedkin - In His Own Words

William Friedkin (Photo ©Tom Hyland)

"One of my unfulfilled goals in life is that I haven't made Citizen Kane. But nobody else has... It has the same values at the great impressionist paintings." - William Friedkin, speaking in Chicago, April 16, 2013.

William Friedkin is a filmmaker who has always done things his way, so it certainly came as no surprise to listen to what he had to say during a lecture in Chicago, where he recently appeared to promote his new memoir, The Friedkin Connection. Speaking with great ease and offering marvelous charm and wit while relating his stories, the evening was one of the famous director talking about any number of things, from his early days in Chicago to specific tales about his best-known films such as The French Connection and The Exorcist to his thoughts about a few movies from the 1940s and 1950s that greatly influenced his ideas about his craft.

Friedkin related several tales of his youth and fondly recalled the individuals that helped him along the way; he was able to poke fun at himself while narrating this history, as when he went in for an interview at the WGN mail room in the Tribune Tower on Chicago's Michigan Avenue. Ray Damalski, a station employee who was the only person there, liked the young Friedkin, but told him that the ad he was replying to was for a different radio station across the street. Friedkin laughed when he recalled that he had confused the Wrigley Building with the Tribune Tower. Thankfully, Damalski liked him and hired him for the position, which led to a subsequent promotion working on television programs for WGN.


"The only thing I had when I was young was radio. You remember radio. No-inch television."


The director also related how a chance meeting with a priest, Father Robert Serfling, led to his first film. Serfling was the Protestant minister at Cook County Prison on Chicago's South Side; he was assigned to the prisoners on Death Row. Friedkin talked to him about his work and asked him if he thought that any of the current prisoners at that time was innocent; the priest replied that there was one, a young man named Paul Crump.

Fascinated by this exchange, Friedkin went with Father Serfling to the prison to meet Crump. In his book, Friedkin weaves an engaging section about this meeting ("I had no fear of Paul") and his decision to learn all the facts of the case. After gathering as much information as he could and having listened to Crump tell his version of what happened, the director decided that he could help the convict in his appeal to be spared the electric chair, as he would make a documentary about this case.

That film, The People vs. Paul Crump, made in 1962 on a shoestring budget, was a passionate work that Friedkin and his cameraman Bill Butler (who would go on to have a distinguished career as a cinematographer in Hollywood on such films as Jaws and Capricorn One) assembled on their own time, as both had full-time jobs at WGN at that point. Friedkin relates this story in his book, admitting that neither of them knew much about the technical aspects of editing and synching sound with visuals. Despite this, the film was much admired and did help Crump in his efforts; Friedkin was on his way as a filmmaker.

(Photo ©Tom Hyland)

Friedkin related a number of stories about his films, especially The Exorcist. This was one of only three instances of exorcism recognized by the Catholic Church during the 20th century. The director told us all he could about this incident, including the fact that it was a 14-year old boy and not a 12-year old girl, as this was altered for the film; he also mentioned that while he knows of this male, who recently retired from NASA after a successful career, he has never said his name in public - and never will.

He also told a great story about how he was able to tap into some of the anger in Gene Hackman's performance in The French Connection. Without going into all the details, he said that after a take, he would tell Hackman that his performance was pretty bad; the actor, full of rage at this response to his work, was infuriated. Friedkin would then tell his cameraman to start rolling so he could capture Hackman's finest moments. As everyone knows, Hackman would go on to win an Academy Award as Best Actor for that film, but as Friedkin related, "I take no credit for Gene's work."

"The worst thing you can say about a film is that it's 'interesting. Interesting?' What, for fifteen bucks?"

Friedkin also spoke of his love for the MGM musicals of the 1950s - "the films I wish I'd made" - and the studio system. About this topic, he admitted how this approach to filmmaking fascinated him, as directors often made four, five or even more films a year. "I would give half my career away if I had worked in the studio system... I would have been a better filmmaker."

Along with his passion for the work of Orson Welles on Citizen Kane, Friedkin also spoke of how he loved the films of Alfred Hitchcock; in fact, his advice for aspiring filmmakers is to go see all of Hitchcock's movies. "They're all made with clarity and simplicity... He would direct actors beautifully without saying much." He also recommends that young movie makers go out and shoot something, edit it and put it on YouTube.

While several of the stories Friedkin related in public are also in his book, there's a great deal of information about his career in his new memoir that he did not talk about, including a number of details about the famous car chases in both The French Connection and To Live and Die in L.A. (about the former, he writes about the six "events" he planned for that sequence and how a few things happened accidentally along the way). It's just as fascinating to read Friedkin's harsh description of the early documentaries he made for David Wolper and how he learned a valuable lesson about the people he worked for - as well as himself.

Friedkin also writes of his inner demons (appropriate, one imagines, for the director of The Exorcist) and admits to harboring "anger and resentment." He is quick to point out his flaws and just as swift to thank his current wife Sherry Lansing (former head of Paramount Studios) and his children who help him "suppress my darker impulses." Not many people as well known as Friedkin would write about their own personal struggles; it certainly makes for fascinating reading and adds a lovely touch of humanity to this wonderfully creative man.

I'm pleased to have met William Friedkin and listen to him talk about his life in films; I'm even more delighted that he has written his memoir (buy here), a fascinating study of Hollywood, the individuals that populate it and how one director came to enjoy great success in that world, despite his disagreements with others. If you love Friedkin's films, this is a must. But even if you don't know much about his work or don't consider yourself a movie fanatic, this book is recommended for its frankness and no-nonsense attitude. Would you expect anything less from this man?

A Beautiful Final Tribute to Roger Ebert

"Roger didn't just dominate his profession, he defined it." - Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, speaking in tribute at the funeral of Roger Ebert.


I attended the funeral of Roger Ebert this morning at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. The day started out overcast and rainy; I could have easily said, "It's a lousy day," and skipped going. But after what Ebert went through? How could I even think of not attending? I am so thankful I did.

The ceremony was the traditional Roman Catholic ceremony, performed so simply and beautifully by three priests backed by a choir and organist. The priest who delivered the eulogy (sorry I don't have his name), also teaches film classes at Loyola University in Chicago and knew Roger and his wife Chaz quite well and spoke about their discussions of life and film.

He mentioned how certain 20th century authors such as Flannery O'Connor, Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh had all found "a dark place." Ebert, to the priest's way of thinking has also "made a discovery in the darkness," and as a life-long Catholic, "had found a different Jesus." Quoting from the 2002 film The Hours in which Nicole Kidman portrayed the author Virginia Woolf, he repeated one of her lines: "To love life for what it is." Clearly Ebert always shared that sentiment, even after cancer robbed him of many of his everyday activities.

Towards the end of the ceremony, several dignitaries and one co-worker from the Chicago Sun Times spoke in tribute. Mayor Emanuel started things off in a light-hearted way, saying that when he was growing up and wanted to see a movie, there were two things he had to know; "what time did it start and what did Roger Ebert think of it?" That comment drew a nice laugh from the large crowd (not quite overflow, but almost a full house). Emanuel ended up his speech by talking about all of Roger's work, be it a film critic, journalists, author, tv host, blogger, et al. "What Roger loved most of all was living."


Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois called Ebert, "a righteous oak. We thank God for his purposeful life." Jonathan Jackson, son of civil rights activist, Jesse Jackson, read a brief tribute from his father as well as one from filmmaker Spike Lee, who reminded us that Ebert was one of the few critics who understood the message of Lee's film Do The Right Thing, back in 1989. His boss at the Sun-Times (I do not have his name), said that he never had to worry about Ebert getting his work in on time, adding that "Roger was 24/7 before any of us ever heard that term."


Finally it was time for Ebert's wife Chaz to speak. Amidst a standing ovation, she admitted that she wondered about getting out of bed this morning to attend to this and that speaking was the farthest thing from her mind. "But I knew that Roger would have wanted me to speak." Adding a charming human touch, she pointed to her dazzling hat she wore for the occasion and said, "Besides, Roger loved this hat."

Her brief speech was lovely and heartfelt. "Roger was a champion for social justice. He had such a big heart." She finished by saying "I feel like Roger is here with us."


The hymn Amazing Grace was played during the middle of the ceremony. One line in this hymn struck me as very appropriate for this day.

"Tiz grace that brought me safe thus far,
"And grace will lead me home."


Through his marvelous life, Roger Ebert touched the hearts of so many people. Here was a cathedral filled with mourners not for a politician, not for a world leader, not for an athlete but for a film critic. Clearly he went far beyond his duties in that role to tell us a message about living life to the fullest. Yes, Roger Ebert is heading home, a man draped in God's grace.

A Different Looking Romance

Upside Down, directed by Juan Solanas, is a film that takes a time-honored story - that of Romeo and Juliet - and places it in a visually stunning futuristic world. It's a perfectly watchable piece of work with a few moments of inspiration, but in the final analysis, it's a bit of a disappointment, despite its uniqueness.

The premise of the story, we are told in the title sequence, is that the characters inhabit a world of dual gravity. It then becomes a conflict between the haves - those from the upper world, known as Up Top - and the have nots - the ones from the bottom level, Down Below. The ones at the bottom - including Adam (Jim Sturgess) who narrates the opening sequence - have been put there by the evil (make that EVIL in capital letters) conglomerate Trans World, whose corporate tower connects the two worlds.

Eden (Kirsten Dunst) lives in the upper world, one of great natural splendor, as opposed to the dark, gritty reality of the underworld. The two of them meet as young children and are immediately attracted to each other; romance between the two worlds cannot exist, so their meeting is broken up by the authorities.

The storyline then jumps ten years, which is when the film becomes more involving. Adam discovers that Eden works at Transworld, so following his heart, he knows he must take a job there, if he has the smallest chance to rekindle their romance. The set piece here is the main work place, which is divided into two horizontal halves- with the worker bees if you will, (bees are a theme here) from the underworld sitting on their level, while the employees from the upper world sit on top - who we see right side up and upside down in any one scene depends on the point of view that is being shown and it's a nicely done device, one that in my opinion is not overdone. There's also a nicely conceived shot of the elevator panel that displays the various floors (from negative to positive) sideways and not up and down, as up belongs to the treasured employees, while down is about the entry level workers that generally do most of the creative stuff that management takes credit for- so what else is new?

There are some other nice visuals as well, including the memorably designed ballroom as well as the eclectic restaurant where Adam and Eden have lunch. The two characters are individuals, first and foremost and if their embodiment in the screenplay is not exactly three-dimensional, well, I can forgive that to a certain degree, given the human spirit versus corporate greed angle of the story. Kirsten Dunst is not exactly given a meaty role here, but she's quite good, charming as ever and absolutely beautiful. As Adam, Jim Sturgess has a certain charisma that's fine, but his acting here depends too much on his "aw, shucks" reactions, as he turns his head and shrugs his shoulders to emphasize his uncertainty. The only other role of note is that of Bob Boruchowitz (Timothy Spall), a member of middle management, who literally overlooks (thanks to the upside down visuals) Adam's work and hatches a plot to help Adam prosper; Spall plays the role with a nice gruffy, matter-of-factness. (Additional note: There is only one black character in the film and he's not in the upper world. Were the creators of this film trying to add social commentary to this romance? It's worth a discussion, one that has gone largely unnoticed by most critics.)

As I mentioned at the start of this review, this is a perfectly watchable film and it certainly has its heart in the right place. But it's a rather trivial piece of movie making, despite the remarkable amount of post-production work that went into it. These days, we expect some pretty special visuals in just about every film, even if it doesn't deal with futuristic sets. But a movie needs a lot more than fancy images to capture our hearts. Certainly Life of Pi was dependent on a great amount of CGI work, yet it's a marvelous film, thanks to the religious aspect of the story and screenplay as well as the intelligent direction of Ang Lee. Upside Down would have been a lot better film if the same amount of effort that is evident in the production design and special effects had been instilled in the screenplay. As it is, it's a movie with a few nice moments; I just wish it had been a little more involving.

Photos courtesy of Millennium Entertainment

A Gut-Wrenching Experience

The Impossible, the story of one family's struggle to survive the wrath of the deadly 2004 tsunami that his Southeast Asia, is a gut-wrenching film, one that grabs hold of the viewer from the start and never lets go. It is gripping, highly emotional and a first-rate piece of filmmaking that captures the monstrous power of nature as well as the tender love of humanity.

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona, the film focuses on the story of a British couple and their three young boys who have traveled to Thailand for the Christmas holidays. Only a few minutes into the movie, the tsunami hits their idyllic oceanside retreat; the recreation of this disaster is stunning in its detail, visual and aural power and emotional punch to the stomach.

At first, the images are quiet; a poolside blender suddenly stops, a wind quietly picks up and blows away a page from a book that Maria (Naomi Watts) is reading, a flock of birds takes wing from nearby palm trees. And then... there is that sound - the sound of doom, of the oncoming wave of destruction. The visuals in recreating the tsunami are amazing, but a great deal of credit also goes to sound designer Oriol Tarrago for his outstanding work, as the sounds as well as the sights of the force of the storm overwhelm us. Especially noteworthy are the sounds of characters gurgling and spitting out water that they have swallowed as the storm carries them on its deadly path. At times with an underwater camera, we cannot see exactly what is happening, which adds to the confusion and terror of the immediate moment so these random sounds only heighten the drama.

There are basically two story lines here; the first (and strongest) is that of Maria and Lucas, who have been joined together in the destruction. She has been severely injured, as her leg has been cut along the storm's path. Lucas, who is terrified, suddenly has to become a man, tending to his mother, as he ultimately leads her to whatever medical help he can find. Holland, who is 16 years of age, is excellent in his role, especially in the scenes in the hospital, where he willingly helps other survivors try to locate their loved ones. His sudden strength is one of the major points of this film, as we learn how the human spirit can triumph over incredibly strong odds.

The other subplot deals with Henry (Ewan MacGregor), who not only has been separated from his wife and oldest son, but also his two youngest sons, Thomas and Simon, who are both under 10 years old. I've admired MacGregor for some time for his naturalistic acting style and he's quite good in this role. He has a much-talked about scene in which he phones a far-away friend and breaks down, sobbing uncontrollably. It works beautifully and in all seriousness, it's one of the most honest scenes I've ever witnessed in a film of a man crying. His fellow survivors in this scene, each desperate to connect with a loved one, feel his pain and we the audience do as well.

There has been a fair amount of criticism regarding the sentimentality of this film. Is it overly sentimental? Well answering that is like asking if someone is "excessively jealous." To borrow a line from the great 1959 courtroom drama Anatomy of a Murder, "what's the norm of jealousy?" If this film is too sentimental in its tone, well that's up to the person watching this work. It is a film that pushes human emotions to the forefront, but I never thought it became maudlin or syrupy.

There have also been some attacks on the makers of this film for not doing enough to show the human loss of this tsunami. Some critics have pointed out that 230,000 people lost their lives in this disaster, yet the film deals only with this family and a few dozen other individuals. I don't know what these critics wanted, as the story of this family (based on the true story of a family from Spain) is quite engrossing. Perhaps the creators of this film should have included a card in the final title sequence honoring the dead; I would have liked that, but I don't think the film suffers because of this omission.

I also want to mention the outstanding work of cinematographer Oscar Faura, whose bright, deeply saturated images at the beginning of this film stand as an ironic contrast to the starkness of the wrecked landscape that we see throughout most of the movie. In between these visual tones, the natural lighting and look of the hospital where many of the survivors are being treated is extremely well done. This is the work of an accomplished cameraman; I would have liked to see him receive an Oscar nomination, but this year as in most years, there are eight or ten films that could get this nod, so it's not necessarily a slight to Faura that he wasn't nominated, but he is certainly someone to take notice of.

I would have also enjoyed seeing composer Fernando Velasquez get a nomination for his marvelous score, but it didn't happen. I think it should have, as this is one of the three of four best scores of the year. It is quite romantic at times, especially in a scene of some of the family members reuniting; perhaps some thought his score was a bit over the top. I don't think this was the case at all, especially when he provides a wonderful cue with nervous strings underlining a scene in which the two young boys are being driven away in a truck with other survivors to who knows where. It's a taut, nervous cue, one that perfectly suits the fractured emotions of the characters (as well as the audience, who want to see a family resolution). The score stands beautifully on its own and let's just say that if John Williams or the late John Barry or Jerry Goldsmith composed this score, they would not only have received an Oscar nomination, but it would have been labeled an "instant classic." (think of the score for Out of Africa by Barry or The Russia House from Goldsmith or Schindler's List from Williams and you'll get an idea of the quality of this musical opus.)

For a film that has received so many positive reviews, it's become a bit unhip lately to praise this film. Well even if that's the case, I don't give a damn. I was moved by this film and I am certain most people will be as well. Congratulations to director J.A. Bayona for making this film the way he wanted to, by highlighting the human emotions that saved this family. One particular sequence that is one of Bayona's best moments occurs near the end of the film when Maria undergoes anesthesia before her surgery; her inner thoughts are on display visually as we see her body float underwater amidst the debris of the storm. At one point, we see the light of the sun from above change this image from that of devastation to one of hope. It's a striking, moving, emotional image that is perfect for this scene and for the overall tone of the film.

You'd have to not own a soul to not be affected in some strong way by The Impossible, especially in the final scene where Maria sees the storm's destruction from above. Watts is perfect in this scene, as she is in just about every moment she is on screen. Her strength is something we can all admire and hope we can display under times of hardship. We may never go through the struggle Maria goes through in this film, but we can identify with her strong will to live. What a lovely message!