THE DEATH OF STALIN (2018)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Death of Stalin (2018)

Did you know Stalin pissed himself when he died? I didn’t. But Ianucci and his fellow writers made sure to point that out to us with drolling gags over the dictator’s unconscious body. Is it insensitive? Well one could argue, but if political humor gets under your skin then this British farce reel isn’t for you. The Death of Stalin makes contemplative points on the Soviet’s transition away from Stalin’s reign of terror, with laughs the entire way through.

If you need a brush up on your history, I’ll give you a quick recap: Josef Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920’s, through World War II, and up until his death in 1953. Even though he and the Soviet Union deserve much credit for defeating the evil Nazis, Stalin is pretty much unanimously perceived as another Hitler; a malicious and powerful politician who we have no remorse for. So just like it’s okay to see Hitler thrashed by a close range machine-gun in [Title of movie removed due to Spoilers], it’s also okay to watch politicians comically fuss while standing over Stalin’s lifeless body and brain-exposed head.

Stalin’s in the mood for a late-night screening of a cowboy picture, so his Central Committee members watch alongside him while they fall asleep in their chairs. They don’t want to be there but what can they do? If they don’t watch the movie, they might be shot. If Stalin suspects them as betrayers, they might be shot. If the doctors diagnose Stalin with an illness, they might be shot. If the guards outside Stalin’s room enter when they hear him fall from his stroke, they might be shot. Everyone, everyone, lives in fear of their lives, and it’s hilarious.

After Stalin’s death, the Central Committee of seven nervously reorganize and push the Soviet narrative forward, but they don’t know what one another’s agendas are, nor where each other stands. Nobody wants to be singled out, so they nervously follow each other’s lead to keep themselves under the radar and out of sight of the crosshairs.

Malenkov (Tambor) becomes the new Premier and First Secretary, but he’s weak and completely depends on his comrades, comically contradicting himself to adhere to their say. Beria (Beale) is a brute, disguising himself as a savior to the Soviet public in order to save his skin and control the state. Khrushchev (Buscemi ) is the hope out of autocracy but is belittled by his comrades. Vasily Stalin (Rupert Friend) frantically tries to rule like his father, but he receives not even an ounce of respect from the lowest Soviet guard. It’s laughable how powerless he is compared to his authoritarian father.

Paranoia feeds the committee’s indecisiveness, hesitancy, and concealment of their true feelings. These are the people that are supposed to be ruling a nation and they’re completely out of whack. Just like Kubrick with Dr. Strangelove, Ianucci makes total fun of very serious politics.

One scene in particular sums up the screwy spectacle that is, The Death of Stalin: A team of soldiers seize a government building and execute one person after another, including workers and guards. At the end of the seize, the military vehicles roll out, and a soldier turns his pistol on his comrade (who looked to be orchestrating the seize in the first place), and fires at his head. It’s absurdist humor used to reflect an equally absurd governing body.

I found myself laughing out loud at the ridiculous circumstances, just like Adrian McLoughlin (Stalin) laughs out loud in a thick British accent before he croaks. Ianucci is more than aware of how ludicrous his picture is and equally aware of how ludicrous some horrendous political rule on our planet has been. So my advice is; don’t be offended like Russia (who banned the film in their country), and let the wisecracks roll.

---

If you liked The Death of Stalin, you might also like; Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Wag the Dog (1997), In the Loop (2009), The Dictator (2012).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: Rauloncinema.com

FILM REVIEW – INHERIT THE WIND (1960)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Inherit the Wind is a classic courtroom drama that will grip and entertain you with its vital material, distinct characters, and outstanding acting. Hollywood has produced many great courtroom dramas in the name of moral justice; this one concerns the right to intellectual freedom.

Wind is an adaptation of a play by the same name, that fictionalizes the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial; a trial in which school teacher, John T. Scopes was accused of violating Tennessee law for teaching human evolution in a high school classroom. Political leader and biblical expert, Matthew Brady comes to the small Christian town to help prosecute Scopes, and his old-time acquaintance and respected legal attorney Henry Drummond arrives to represent the defendant. In this ambitious duel, the whole town is on board with Brady, marching the streets singing “If it’s good enough for Brady, it’s good enough for me”. All odds are stacked against Drummond and Scopes, even though they are clearly in the right.

The subject matter is the most integral aspect of the film’s appeal. Here is a social taboo that is the very vehicle of the story. Wind uses Darwinian evolution vs Biblical creationism as a means to bring forth a direct message to the viewer. Proverbs 11:29: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the Wind”. A passage from the bible is used in a film that criticizes a town’s militant biblical enforcement. This brilliant irony proves playwright, Lawrence’s point that this is not about science vs religion but rather, the right to think. Societies tend to be blindly dogmatic in serving their version of the truth to the table of their own citizens, thus troubling their own house.

What takes Wind to the next level is that this communication is all-inclusive. Because the characters have no choice but to face the controversial dilemma head-on, we get a good look at who these characters really are, what they stand for, and where they’re heading. Rich characterization reaches far beyond just Brady and Drummond. Scope’s wife is caught in the middle of her husband and her father (an authoritarian reverend), and the Brady family mixes in, creating both support and confusion for all. Judge Coffey and influential newspaperman Hornbeck, have a lesson or two to learn themselves. A well thought out script keeps character attributes and plot turns unpredictable and effective. Outstanding acting, keeps everyone and everything believable and relatable.

As you would imagine, much of the film’s best moments take place in court. Ceiling fans spin, personal fans flap, and suspenders and sweat-spots are visible for all to see. This is a hot topic we’re dealing with. Tempers flair, elevating the courtroom-heat to a courtroom-broil. People are pushed to the limits of their beliefs. Not just the people, but the politicians, the court, and the press, all have an agenda and an image to withhold. How is everyone going to handle the pressure?

Inherit the Wind should be shown in classrooms, film-related or not. Director Stanley Kramer respectfully addresses an important aspect of education and life that largely goes unnoticed. Its quality execution keeps Wind standing as one the better courtroom dramas to this day.

---

If you liked Inherit the Wind, you might also like; Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), 12 Angry Men (1957), To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Judgement at Nuremburg (1961), Witness for the Prosecution (1957), The Verdict (1982).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – ARRIVAL (2016)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Arrival (2016)

Just the day before I watched Arrival, I was looking up the word “palindrome” in the dictionary. A palindrome is “A word, phrase, or sequence that reads the same backward as forward” – e.g., “Hannah”. I was not aware that the film was going to speak on palindromes, nor did I know it would speak on the nature of time, and future moments effecting the present moment. This isn’t your average alien-contact film. Arrival is a brain stimulating, cerebral cyclone, that will make you question your very being and purpose.

Twelve alien spacecrafts assume positions across the Earth, one of which hovers over American soil. Linguistics expert, Professor Louise Banks, is summoned by the United States government to lead in communications with the newly arrived heptapods(name given to aliens) and is joined by theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly, who leads the scientific team. Banks makes breakthroughs on the heptapod’s written language, most notably the fact that their logogram’s are free from the boundaries of time. As Banks continues to communicate with and study the heptapods, she begins to think like them too. In order to progress in the relationship with them, Banks unintentionally connects family moments throughout the entirety of her life with her present life, receiving hints and clues from outside of the present moment through accidental ESP. Strange, huh?

Yes, strange and intriguing. The filmmakers really force-fit the thinking caps on your head. The best part is that Arrival isn’t a glob of farfetched sci-fi. Many of the subjects addressed in the film are taken seriously in modern western intellectual and psychological communities, as well as traditional eastern culture. Refer to Carl Jung’s book, Synchronicity, for a scientific breakdown on the correlation of separate meaningful events. Refer to Einstein’s theory of relativity to see that time really is not what it seems to be. Read Vedic Sanskrit to learn the true meaning of karma. Arrival is stuffed with intellectualism and evolutionary hypotheticals, so if this sort of thing bores you or turns you off, steer clear.

However, you don’t have to fully understand the material (not that anybody does) in order to enjoy the film. As long as you get somewhat of a grasp, Arrival will tingle both your brain and your spine. I had cold chills for the entire final fifteen minutes. Not just because I could relate personally, not just because of a mind-boggling twist, but because of the way everything comes together so well, like a complex puzzle. Moonlight (2016) had a good script, but Eric Heisserer should have won the Oscar for best adapted screenplay. His inclusion of describing palindromes in a language riddled story and its relation to the completed story as a whole was nothing short of genius.

Director, Denis Villeneuve keeps you eager as usual; the guy really knows how to keep a grip on his audience. Although he didn’t have his partner Roger Deakins this time, cinematographer Bradford Young, proved himself to be a serious talent, with a well deserved Oscar nod.

Arrival rightfully earned a plethora of critical acclaim. Not often do we get an intelligent film, that takes such a powerful hold of your senses. Arrival will keep you in hot anticipation of what’s to come while penetrating your mind. Every so often, we get a film that sparks a debate on what really happened and what it was all for. This is one of those films.

If you liked Arrival, you might also like; Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Contact (1997), Signs (2002), Irreversible (2002), Primer (2004).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my new website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – BEING THERE (1979)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Being There (1979)

“As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden” —

— A metaphor full of wisdom, that can be applied to so many aspects of life. Well it may seem so, unless the quote comes from an actual gardener…

Right from the beginning we are introduced to ‘Chance the gardener’ for who he is – an aging man, dumber than a sack of bricks. Chance’s whole life is spent watching television and gardening. That’s it. He is not capable of anything outside of what he has seen on the TV screen, not even making a sandwich. When the ‘old man’ of the house, where Chance lives and tends to the garden, dies, Chance is forced to move out and face the real world. Fortunately for Chance, he is hit by a vehicle that belongs to a very wealthy man shortly after. Chance’s suit, tie, and stupidity is mistaken for confident upfrontness and charm. And so he is welcome to reside in the Rand’s wealthy home with open arms.

This mistaken identity sums up just about every scene. There are dozens of ridiculous moments that may have you bursting out in laughter. While riding an elevator in a wheelchair, Chance asks the mansion escort, “How long do we have to be in here?”. The escort responds to the question in reference to the wheelchair. But Chance is actually referring to the elevator. He doesn’t know what it is. He’s never seen it on TV before. In another scene the president mistakes Chance’s basic words on gardening, for wise words on economic growth. The whole situation of Being There is just absolutely ludicrous, but it never feels unrealistic. Although a case this extreme could never happen in real life, the world that director Hal Ashby situates his madcap character in, withholds the audience’s suspension of disbelief.

Peter Sellers plays the noble numbskull role so convincingly, that it comes as no surprise for us to see the surrounding characters falling for this unintentional persona. The high-class characters themselves, compliment the believability as they are so caught up in the world’s socio-political charades. An aging white man in a suit must be decent and relative! Every aspect connects to allow Being There to be a successful assessment on the hierarchical world we live in.

With minimal music, preconceived characters, and lifeless lighting throughout, Being There relishes in monotone beauty. I felt like a deaf man watching professional dancers perform the Waltz. Ashby forces you to find the beautiful comedic ironies by leaving the laugh track out, so to speak. If you are not in tune with Ashby’s irony, then you won’t be dancing. Being There is about as dry as it gets.

The matters that Ashby addresses are of the most serious nature. By flipping politics and elitism on its back and into a formal circus, Ashby turns our point of view on the ruling class into something to be laughed at. Heck, why shouldn’t we? “Life is a state of mind” as the film states. You can become discouraged by the problems of the world and yourself. Or you can live as Chance does, totally trouble-free and content at all times.

Being There is an intelligent satire on modern society. I would label its comedic nature as “seriously ridiculous”. With Peter Sellers’ unforgettable performance as Chance and Hal Ashby’s silly but drab atmosphere, Being There really sets itself apart from the in-your-face comedy that you may be used to. The consistent deadpan humor is ultimately mixed with a surprising ending that turns the already clever film into a sternly provocative piece.

If you liked Being There, you might also like; Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Harold and Maude (1971), Wag the Dog (1997).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my new website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.