Film Screening: 'The Last Temptation of Christ'

Winona State University's English Department, Mass Communication Department, Sociology Department, Darrell W. Krueger Library and Sounds of Cinema are sponsoring a screening of the motion picture The Last Temptation of Christ on Thursday, April 10th, 2014 at 7pm in the Stark Hall Auditorium at Winona State University. The event is free and open to the public.



Directed by Martin Scorsese and based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, The Last Temptation of Christ is a fictional take on the life of Jesus, dramatizing the struggle between earthly desires and higher callings. Roger Ebert wrote, “This film is likely to inspire more serious thought on the nature of Jesus than any other ever made.” Ebert’s prediction was partly correct. When it premiered in 1988, The Last Temptation of Christ incited a fierce public debate. But, as is often the case with controversial movies, the arguments over the film had little to do with its actual content and many of the charges against it were irrelevant, disingenuous, and stupid. This reaction was unjustified and unfortunate. Scorsese and his filmmaking crew went about making this picture with an earnest regard for the subject matter and at the very least The Last Temptation of Christ is one of the most interesting religious pictures ever made. It remains a challenging film but it is worthy of serious consideration by believers and non-believers alike.

The Last Temptation of Christ is rated R by the MPAA. 

A webpage with links to reviews and essays on The Last Temptation of Christ can be found here.

Check out the Facebook event page here.

Questions about the screening can be referred to: nwardinski@winona.edu. 

Film Reviews: March 16, 2014

Here are the reviews from today's show:

300: Rise of an Empire may not be a perfect sequel but it is a very good one. The film does much of what a follow-up should, complicating the story and raising the stakes. This picture sets up the series for a third installment and hopefully we don’t have to wait another seven years before it arrives.

Non-Stop is a mediocre movie. For fans of Liam Neeson’s action pictures, this is acceptable as an afternoon matinee time waster but the film could have just as easily have been a direct-to-DVD feature starring Nicolas Cage or Jean Claude Van Damme.

About Last Night is a flawed movie because of its reliance on the comedy of Kevin Hart but the central relationship between Michael Ealy and Joy Bryant is engaging enough to make the movie work. This is an enjoyable romance and a worthwhile remake.

Grand Piano is a terrific thriller. The movie may play fast and loose with reality but it commits to the premise and the story moves along so fast and is so involving that its improbabilities are barely noticeable. This is an exciting and slickly made picture and director Eugenio Mira proves himself to be a filmmaker to watch.

Phone Booth is a well-made thriller with a great concept that is well executed. However it may have dated, the core conceit of the movie holds up and the picture builds so well and is so involving that its anachronisms are overcome.

Full reviews are posted in the Sounds of Cinema review archive.

Remembering Harold Ramis

I spent the second half of today's episode of Sounds of Cinema paying tribute to the work of Harold Ramis, who passed away on February 24, 2014 at the age of 69. Ramis left behind a filmography that is among the most distinguished of American comedic filmmakers.

Ramis was best known to audiences as an actor for his performance as Egon in Ghostbusters but he had a much longer and more complicated filmography than that. In addition to his acting roles, Ramis worked extensively behind the camera as a writer, producer, and director. Many of the films he was involved with were some of the greatest comedy titles of all time.

Harold Ramis began his career working for Playboy as the magazine’s joke editor. He got his first experience in show business in live comedy and in the late 1960s and early 70s he was a member of Chicago's Second City's Improvisational Theatre Troupe, which had also given breaks to John Belushi and Bill Murray. Relocating to New York, Ramis began working on the television comedy series SCTV. This led to feature film work and between 1978 and 1981 Ramis had writing credits on four generation-defining Hollywood comedies: Animal House, Meatballs, Stripes, and Caddyshack, the last of which he also directed. 

In a career that spanned nearly four decades, Harold Ramis would direct eleven theatrical features including National Lampoon’s Vacation, Groundhog Day, Multiplicity, and Analyze This. He also received writing and acting credits on films such as Ghostbusters and Back to School. Near the end of his career, Ramis directed for television, and he is credited on several episodes of The Office. 

In his acting career Harold Ramis was often cast as the straight-man against Bill Murray. This may have lessened public perception of Ramis as a comedian but his filmography stands with directors like Billy Wilder, Blake Edwards, Mel Brooks, and John Hughes among the great comic filmmakers. 

The first picture that Ramis wrote was Animal House, released in 1978. Set on a college campus in 1962, the dean attempts to destroy a troublesome fraternity full of colorful characters. I have to admit that I don’t especially like this movie. It does have some funny stuff in it but the picture also has a mean and misogynistic streak to it. Nevertheless, Animal House is extremely influential with virtually every subsequent college comedy, echoing the movie or just simply ripping it off, making this one of the most important comedies ever made. Notably, Animal House inspired a short lived television series called Delta House, and the writing staff of that show included John Hughes.



After writing Animal House and Meatballs, Harold Ramis made his directorial debut with Caddyshack, which he also co-wrote. The film does not have much of a plot to speak of; it’s more of a kaleidoscope of set pieces and the strange characters who populate an exclusive golf club. Despite the haphazard nature of the movie, Caddyshack works because these various pieces fit together so well, which is a testament to Ramis’ skill as a director. The film features memorable performances by Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield, and Ted Knight and it utilizes the same appeal as Animal House, pitting the underdogs against the snobs, and in many respects Caddyshack does it better. This is also one of the most quotable movies of all time.



After Caddyshack, Harold Ramis directed National Lampoon’s Vacation, the first installment of the Griswold family’s holiday adventures. The franchise was uneven in its quality but the first Vacation film is very funny. The script was written by John Hughes, who had gotten his start on the television series Delta House and Hughes would go on to write and direct movies like The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.



After the success of Caddyshack and Meatballs, the creative talents of those films united for Stripes. Directed by Ivan Reitman, the film co-starred Bill Murray and Harold Ramis as a pair of slackers who enlist in the army. The picture shows significant inspiration from the 1970 motion picture MASH but Stripes is a better movie than Robert Altman’s film and the 1981 picture has been enormously influential; every military comedy that has come since is inevitably compared to Stripes and they often borrow gags and sequences. Even military movies that aren’t comedies have echoed Stripes, namely Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket and Sam Mendes’ Jarhead. The film has its flaws but like a lot of movies of its time those imperfections are a part of its charm.



After the success of Stripes, the talents of that film reunited for 1984’s Ghostbusters. The picture was directed by Ivan Reitman and was written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, who also co-starred in the film with Bill Murray. This film tells the story of paranormal investigators who go into the ghost removal business. Ghostbusters is in many respects as perfect as a movie can get. Building on the successes of Stripes, the lead actors play to their strengths but everyone shows a heightened focus and the movie plays up the comedy troupe’s best qualities while also providing a much firmer narrative, more likable characters, and much higher production values. Comedy does not usually age very well but Ghostbusters remains as entertaining now as it was in 1984.



After Ghostbusters, Harold Ramis’s filmography becomes a little more uneven with titles such as Club Paradise, Armed and Dangerous, and underwhelming sequels to Ghostbusters and Caddyshack. But Ramis had one more great film to make: 1993’s Groundhog Day. In this film, which Ramis directed and co-wrote, Bill Murray plays a misanthropic weatherman who finds himself reliving the same day over and over again. It’s a clever premise but it’s also a thoughtful movie and in interviews Ramis has said that religious leaders of various faiths and denominations embraced the movie and found it affirmed something about their lives.



In 1999, Harold Ramis directed and co-wrote Analyze This, a comedy about a psychiatrist who tends to a mob boss. This was the first film in which Robert De Niro sent up his Goodfellas screen persona, something he has continued to do since (with diminishng returns) and so the novelty of this film is somewhat tarnished. However, De Niro and the film earned nominations at the 2000 Golden Globe awards. A sequel, Analyze That, followed in 2002.



The last feature film that Ramis directed was 2009's Year One. Although the movie is not at the same level as Caddyshack or Groundhog Day, this film was misjudged by critics and audiences at the time of its release. Year One has some great comic set pieces in it and its humor merges contemporary off-beat jokes with the style of older comedies like Life of Brian and History of the World: Part I.



Comedy doesn't get much respect from critics, academics, or the Hollywood awards circuit but there is great value in making people laugh. Despite the cold shoulder they might get from the critical establishment, these films are going to last forever because Harold Ramis was one of our great artists.

Love the Art, Hate the Artist

There is a desire to see our great artists and thinkers as more than merely talented or brilliant. We want them to be morally impeccable as well. This manifests itself in the call for our entertainers and athletes to be “role models” and it is cause for a lot of handwringing when they fall short. This expectation put upon our public figures is always doomed to failure because it does not allow for human fallibility and the fixation on artists’ moral integrity distorts the value of their achievements. 

The publication of Dylan Farrow’s open letter in the New York Times alleging sexual abuse by filmmaker Woody Allen revived a controversy that has dogged the filmmaker for the past two decades. In the 1990s, when Woody Allen and Mia Farrow (Dylan’s adoptive mother) were divorcing, claims of child abuse were made but later dismissed when a panel of court-appointed experts concluded that Dylan Farrow’s stories were inconsistent and suggested that her mother may have coached her testimony. However, other reporting on the matter has questioned the court’s findings and maintained public speculation. 

Whatever the truth may be, the stigma of the allegations will follow Woody Allen to his grave and beyond. However, I don’t wish to spend this editorial picking over the facts in the case. These are matters for the courts, social services, and biographers. The problem that Farrow’s letter presents for those of us who like Woody Allen’s films, and movies in general, is how to reconcile an impressive and important body of work with the personal failings and criminal outrages of the creator. 

Farrow’s accusations have elicited impassioned reactions online and in the press. Some of the commentaries have been sane and well considered such as Tanya Steele’s piece at IndieWire which asks readers to “honor the victim” while recounting her own conflicted relationship with the music of Marvin Gaye. But the loudest and most consistent response has called for a virtual immolation of Woody Allen’s filmography.

As is often the case with moral outrage, passion has led these writers to make stupid and absurd claims. At The Wrap, Richard Stellar rages that it’s time to shun Woody Allen and his work, arguing that “when you look the other way at the dark side of genius, you become culpable in the crime.” Making a similar argument, Roxane Gay of Salon wrote that Cate Blanchette, who won a Golden Globe for her performance in Allen’s Blue Jasmine, “chose art over humanity.” As Stellar and Gay would have it, being in a Woody Allen film makes an actor (and presumably a makeup artist, a set dresser, an editor, or a key grip) an accessory to child abuse and watching his films turns the viewer into an enabler. This is as absurd as arguing that Enron’s janitorial staff were accomplices to Kenneth Lay’s financial crimes.

Art must be evaluated on its own merits and to that end any emphasis on the artist's biography is usually trivial and almost always irrelevant. Reflecting on the implications of Dylan Farrow’s accusations against Woody Allen, commentator  Andrew Sullivan thoughtfully links the issue to the valuation of other great artists and thinkers. He writes:

“And so it is essential to understand [Martin] Heidegger’s foul complicity in the Third Reich but impossible to reduce his world-historical genius to it. That T.S Eliot was a rancid anti-Semite does not, frustratingly, dilute the perfection of the Four Quartets, nor does Philip Larkin’s racism alter the triumph of Aubade. [Thomas] Jefferson’s thought and career, for that matter, will always elude the facts of his ownership of human beings and intercourse with some of them.”

In addition to those named by Sullivan, consider what would be lost if we cast out the works of artists with problematic personal lives: Richard Wagner and Mel Gibson were known to be anti-Semitic, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, and Lord Byron were rumored to be abusive husbands, and Michael Jackson, Errol Flynn, and Roman Polanski were plagued by charges of child molestation, with the latter’s guilt confirmed in court. Throwing the works of these men out of the canon does not repair the damage done to their victims. It only compounds the loss to the culture.

The case for casting out art is especially problematic when applied to motion pictures. Despite what auteur theorists would have us believe, movies are not made by a single person. They are made by casts and filmmaking crews that may number in the hundreds. Even a filmmaker like Woody Allen, who writes, directs, and frequently acts in his films and can be rightly called an auteur, cannot be considered the sole author of his motion pictures. When critics call for the banishment or destruction of a director’s work they also call for the destruction of the work by everyone else involved in the production.

The moral passion elicited by accusations of abuse is entirely warranted. Sexual abuse is a tremendous problem and quite often our society fails to adequately protect the victims or prosecute the guilty. The enormity of the problem and our moral disgust with it can cause feelings of helplessness in those who are witnesses to the aftermath, whether that happens indirectly through high profile news stories or personally in the lives of our family, friends, and acquaintances. This point is made plain in Stellar’s piece for The Wrap, in which he recalls his own experience with abuse—an acquaintance had abused a young woman—and in a transparently guilt ridden admission he calls for the purge of Woody Allen and his work because, “I owe it to every child who is abused by an authority figure. I owe it to the broken souls who will spend the rest of their lives trying to get back on track. I owe it to the children of those abused who question the intermittent sadness in their parents. I owe it to myself as a human being.” Clearly, Stellar’s call for a ban on Woody Allen has less to do with Dylan Farrow and much more to do with his own guilt. And whatever twinge of discomfort we all experience while viewing the films of Woody Allen or Roman Polanski and others is really an acknowledgement of our own shame and the failures of our society.

If Woody Allen is guilty of sexual assault, let him be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But let’s not kid ourselves, as Ellen Tordesillas did by suggesting that “boycotting Allen’s films would go a long way” to fighting child abuse. Dismissing his body of work under the auspices of combating child abuse is disingenuous at best and, worse, gives us the false sense of satisfaction that we’ve done something productive. The call for us to choose between our admiration of a film and our moral disgust with its director is a false dilemma. In short, love the art and hate the artist.

'Inequality for All' Screening Feb. 20

The documentary film Inequality For All will be screened at 4p.m. on Thursday, February 20th, in East Hall of Kryzsko Commons at Winona State University.



A live webcast discussion with former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich will follow the film at 5:30 p.m.

The screening is sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ American Democracy Project and the Democracy Commitment, Democracy Matters, Generational Alliance, Generation Progress, Campus Compact, Project Pericles, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the U.S. Students Association.

The event is free and open to the public. 

'FrackNation' Screening at WSU Tonight

FrackNation, the documentary that was contentiously removed from the Frozen River Film Festival schedule, will be shown tonight at 6:30pm in the North Lounge at Lourdes Hall at Winona State University. The screening is sponsored by the WSU College Republicans.

Here is a clip of FrackNation director Phelim McAleer appearing on Fox News to comment on the removal of his film from the festival schedule.  



Note: I post this information as a matter of public interest. This should not be taken as an endorsement of the content of FrackNation.

Best and Worst Films of 2013

On today's episode of Sounds of Cinema I counted down my picks of the best and worst films of the past year.

Best: 

1. 12 Years a Slave 


2. Her


3. The Square


4. Nebraska


5. Gravity 


6. Stories We Tell


7. The Place Beyond the Pines


8. I Declare War


9. American Hustle


10. Philomena


Worst:

1. A Good Day to Die Hard
2. A Haunted House / Scary Movie V
3. Grown Ups 2
4. Texas Chainsaw 3D
5. The Host
6. Red 2 
7. The Counselor
8. The Big Wedding
9. Passion
10. Machete Kills

You can find more information, including rationales for each film and lists of honorable mentions and cinematic trends of 2013, here.