Unbreakable: Purpose and Identity

Unbreakable is a 2000 supernatural/drama written and directed by the now-infamous M. Night Shyamalan. It was his follow up to the Academy Award Nominated The Sixth Sense, not creating as much buzz as his recent film before.

Throughout the recent years, as superhero films slowly created a deep carving in our culture, Unbreakable has become an even more relevant and distinctive superhero film than what has come after. Part of this reason is the approach to the superhero and comic book genre in general, followed by its near-perfect execution.

        Unbreakable is both a superhero movie, and it's not one. Which why if one was to ask me"Hey, what's your favorite superhero movie?", I'd without hesitation say it's the very film I'm discussing right now.  The reason it works is because it manages to tell a story that is grounded in reality in such a way that the first time I saw this film as a kid, I had no clue where any of this was going.
To quote Roger Ebert, "The true subject of the film is well guarded, although always in plain view". Shamyalan keeps the audience misdirected the entire time, and leads to satisfying payoffs that prompt multiple watches to see purposeful details that might not seem important the first time around.

      I re-watched the film at a very difficult time in my life. This involved countless mistakes that I had to pay for, such as totaling my car from sleeping on the wheel, and struggling to get to work. This was an extensive ordeal. At the same time, I was trying as hard as I can to connect and relate to other people. I've always felt like an outcast and I've always felt alone. Nothing felt right and nothing felt like it made sense. This compelled me to watch Unbreakable on several occasions because I felt back then, like I was meant for something more but I refused to answer that call. Instead I tried to constantly shift aspects of my life in a way that felt good for me, but wasn't for me.

This is what made me feel like David Dunn (played by Bruce Willis), the first protagonist. A man who refuses to grasp what his true identity is. After he survives a train disaster, being the only one to survive, without breaking a bone of any kind, he attempts to pretend as if what happened wasn't remotely defining. He readies to pack and go to New York for another security job, leaving his son, Joseph Dunn, and his wife, Audrey Dunn.

It's not until he meets Elijah Price (played by Samuel L. Jackson in my favorite role of his), another man who has a defining moment at birth, where the first thing that happens when born is that his arms and legs are broken. This reveals he has osteogenesis imperfecta, a rare genetic disorder that causes him to have a very brittle bone structure, meaning at any time, he can break any of his bones without effort. He learns of David Dunn's defining moment and encounters him, telling that there's a reason why he can be easily broken, and David is the complete opposite. He believes that comic books are exaggerations of these real-life possibilities.

Throughout the course of the film we learn that both men are both similar and different, same as the film's genre explorations. It's realism interconnects with familiar superhero and comic book tropes, but doesn't fully manifest until the surprise ending. Both characters become very integral to each other's personal stories.

Both David and Elijah are men struggling to find their place in the world. The only difference is Elijah is driven to find himself through his obsession with comic books, his life growing up around them to find comfort in incredibly difficult parts of his life. David is not driven, but instead resistant to any possible truths about who or what he is. He blocks out his past events such as when he drowned as a child, and when he saved Audrey from his car accident in his college years.  David doesn't want to feel different and wants to change his life in anyway possible to keep it the same. Elijah is an eccentric through, and doesn't believe that David's normality is real. Elijah embraces his differences and attempts to pull what's different out of David.

        Throughout the film both characters go through their own journeys, such as Elijah confirming David's intuition of a man carrying a gun at the college stadium he works at, and David learning he can lift over 400 lbs when bench-pressing followed by his fear of water, and lastly he hasn't taken a single sick day in his life, never remembering ever being sick. Once David attempts to reconnect with his family, he begins to reconnect with himself and near the third act of the film, he contacts Elijah through the phone and tells him of his past events that actually did happen.   

David realizes that these powers are for a reason and espouses his possible calling to take action. It's no coincidence that he chooses a job as a security officer, which causes his rain poncho to be his costume. He becomes a superhero through his calling, with his son, Joseph being his only confidant to keep his powers a secret.
Then we have Elijah, who has come in tune with his purpose, revealing that David's defining moment was caused by Elijah, at the expense of killing more than thousands from three huge disasters to find someone who is his opposite. Elijah considers himself to be David's arch-nemesis, Mr. Glass.

Both characters' journeys are both realistic, while still staying close to comic book elements, mainly of the superhero genre. They both look for their purpose and their character arcs lead them to in a sense, a satisfying revelation for both as they both discover their purpose and identity in a world that is as real as our own, even if Elijah might've manipulated the world into a comic book. But Shamyalan manages to keep things both subversive and subtle, keeping story and characters first before other elements.

In conclusion I've found this film to be perfectly inspiring for me. I struggle to connect with many things and people, and through a series of ordeals in my life it could draw leads to possibilities of a greater purpose. Unbreakable is a film that tells us to not hide from who we are and what are purpose is, no matter how scary or risky it could be. In a world that seems like there is no purpose, we as individuals have one.

Did you enjoy the film? Leave a comment below on what you thought of it!

Thoughts On: Secret Sunshine - Grief, God, and the Human Condition

Warning: MINOR SPOILERS

Secret Sunshine is a 2007 South Korean film directed by the acclaimed Lee Chang-Dong, the director of films such as Poetry, Oasis, and the excellent 2018 film Burning.

Unfortunately I haven't tackled all of his films yet, except Secret Sunshine and Burning. I struggle to to pick which film out of the two I love the most, because both are elegant, emotionally artful and complex films. But Secret Sunshine left a lasting impression on me long after I watched it. It's undeniably one of the best films I've seen recently. I feel I watched this film at the right time in my life, and after seeing it twice I feel it's safe to confirm it was more than perfect timing.

The film follows Shin-ae Lee (played by Do-yeon Jeon, who won best actress for this film at Cannes) a newly widowed single mother who with her son move back to her late husband's home town Milyang to be a piano teacher. As she adjusts to the town she inadvertently befriends a kind-hearted yet weird man named Jong-chan Kim (played by Kang-ho Song, Parasite) who gives her a ride to the town after her car breaks down.

Everything seems seasonal and uninterrupted in her life, until she loses her son. This leads to what appears by a phone call to be some sort of hostage situation where her son is being held for ransom. After following the orders she was given, the results still end up nightmarish. The police assist her in the finding of her son, only to discover he's dead. Once the killer is jailed and her dead son is in a casket, her own humanity is tested.

The film deals with grief in ways not many films, or any film for that matter has ever done. The film aims for subjectivity and does not prompt for easy answers or solutions, otherwise there would be no room for self-contemplation. Do-yeon Jeon's performance truly communicates the natural realism of coping with a splintering loss and how grief is a natural part of who we are as people.

This film also has interesting, yet misunderstood by viewers of the film, explorations of Christianity. There's a point before she loses her son, Shin-ae has no interest in God when a doctor, who is a devout Christian, tells her that God can heal her pain. She respectfully denies this offer at first, but then turns to God after her son is killed. Months later (as implied), she does turn to God, is part of a prayer group, and goes to church regularly.

This film received controversy for it's usage of Christianity as it hasn't proved to truly help Shin-ae with her grieving. When she decides to visit the man who killed her son at the prison he's in, he tells her gently that he has found God and prays for her and himself regularly. This proves to be less than satisfying for Shin-ae, and she returns to her grieving, anger, and confusion. She says to God in the film ''I won't let you win'', believing God is trying to bring misery upon her.

As a Christian myself, I found this to be a believable, and relatable personal struggle that is all too human for even believers. Also, Lee-Chang Dong being a former minister himself, I doubt he'd make a film that outright condescends Christianity. I also believe the unsympathetic and slightly superficial take on the Christians in the town was for a story purpose. Shin-ae's loss of her son was probably greater than any loss the town dwellers had ever experienced. And their lack of truly connecting with her during this time of her life has to do with setting themselves in their own ways that's comfortable for them because this isn't their son they lost, it was Shin-ae's. The only person that is truly emotionally stabbed from this event is Shin-ae, and her choices in the film are centered around trying to fight through this grieving process in ways she understands.

The film's ending is open to interpretation, but shows a glimpse of Shin-ae starting and learning to cope on her own and hopefully accepting her loss. My feeling of the ending is that no one should be allowed to move on at anyone else's pace. Humans are complex and we are all as different as we are similar. We are reactionary and we all respond differently to things we are faced with. This is film about humanity and how we can only be human when struck with tragedies. Not all of Shin-ae's choices are justified, especially near the third act, but as I said, only SHE knows how much it hurts, no one else.

I also wanted to speak on Kang-ho Song's character Jong-chan Kim, takes a strong likeness in Shin-ae. His character is probably the biggest enigma for me, even after watching it twice. He's both incredibly likable and incredibly odd. This is mostly due to the questioning of why he's so in love with Shin-ae. His heart seems to always be in the right place and he's always wanting to attend church with her, help her out in any way possible, and follows her around for an abnormal number of times.

There are instances where he's framed many times sitting or standing behind Shin-ae. I might do another post on the film whenever I revisit it. Either I'm over-analyzing, or I truly am missing something. But regardless I still love his character and didn't want to forget acknowledging him.

 In conclusion, Secret Sunshine is a film that is highly personal to me, even after losing a friend of mine I used to take care of. So my grieving also took some time to wither away and even then, my heart is still clinging onto that loss.

Lee-Chang Dong has crafted a patient, sensitive, and emotionally gripping story that will connect with many that have lost someone special and are struggling with their own personal grievances.

Have you seen the film? Share your comments below on your own thoughts!

Django Unchained: Why the scene with the Australian slave owners is important.

Django Unchained: Why the scene with the Australian slave owners is important. 

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the film. 

                Django Unchained has always been my favorite Taratino film right next to Pulp Fiction. The reason being is because Tarantino streamlines his pacing linearly compared to his out-of-sequence narrative approach with Pulp Fiction. This reaffirmed his strength as both a writer and director. The first time I watched the film, I didn't feel the 165 minute length until after the massive shootout in Calvin Candie's Big House 3/4 of the way in. Many felt like this, feeling the rest of the film starting dragging on after Django was sold to the mining company where he'll be worked to death. 

This scene where he cons the mining company slave owners started to become more bearable after several re-watches and I started asking myself why and others who saw this film felt otherwise at first. Why did this scene and the rest of the film afterwards feel drawn out? What was missing or what was needlessly added? I might know the reason: it might have to do with the absence of Christoph Waltz's character Dr. King Shultz.

The dynamic between Django and King has been notably the highlight of the film. Not only from many of Waltz's scene-stealing moments, but because of how Shultz handled almost 90% of the situations him and Django encountered. Shultz's role in the film plays heavily into Django's character arc throughout the story. This includes many small moments such as Shutlz reminding Django to remove his hat when they enter the racist bar earlier in the film, and when he'd usually have to reiterate, enforce, or the most obvious one, vouch for both of them. 

Django's character grows from his relationship with Shultz. Django learns not from what Shultz teaches him personally, but from what he didn't teach him, and more of what Django learns about himself. This is a vice versa with Shultz, who is an enforcer but only enforces the side of slavery he's familiar with. When he enters deep into Django's world, he makes the brash decision he tried to prevent Django from doing. As he told Django (and I'm paraphrasing a bit) "You need someone to with a conscience to go with you".  But the role reversal is slowly revealed as they enter in the uglier side of slavery. Django still isn't perfect, but he understands the harshness they encounter more than Shultz does. 

And lastly the Calvin Candy Big House scene shows Shultz no longer as the composed, enforced, controlled mindset after seeing how much of a monster Candy actually is. Witnessing what Django has experienced, our expectations are subverted after seeing Django almost make the first violent move. But alas, it's Shultz that makes the first violent action, unable to control his subtle anger, frustration, and hatred of Candy's treachery, shooting him with the same tiny gun he used earlier, and what Django used no soon after. With Candy dead, and Shultz killed right after, Django taps into his inner instinct, as well as what potential Shultz pulled out of him, only getting so far. 

Now finally this leads to what might possibly by one of my favorite scenes in the film. Django cons the director and the other two slave owners into going back to Candyland to kill the wanted men he tricks them into believing are actually there. The reason I've grown to love this scene is because it felt like Shultz was still there. It felt like Django and Shultz fused into one singular character and both traits of both characters were taking the proper action at the needed time. This scene stuck with me because we've seen Django starting out as a slave that felt like he had no power or control, but really pulling the potential he had from inside based off his relationship with Shultz. 

Shultz being a German character also brings a new element into what Django weaponizes against both Candy around the second act and the mining company slave owners. It shows the power of persuasion is universal and it helps him escape the mining slave owners. Once Django uses this power of persuasion he learned from Shultz, he goes full Django and plugs bullets into all three. For me personally, this was another subversion I didn't expect. I expected them to actually go back to Candyland but I digress; what did happen made more sense. 

So when people say this was less Django's movie and more Shultz's, I can understand that. However, I feel that was intended so that Django can become a fully-bodied and fleshed out character, making his victory all the more rewarding by the end.

Have you seen the film? How did you feel about the scene? Or the film in general? Leave a comment below! And Happy Friday!

Reviewing: The Top 3 Oscar Snubs (Ranked best to worst)

             
Anybody who saw the 2020 Oscars could agree (at least from my perspective) that they were better than what was presented the past few years. I honestly had no interest in the winning of films like Green Book and Spotlight. There's a part of me that still, DESPITE my love for the film Moonlight, the Oscar Win for Best Picture was clearly politically driven. That's for a another discussion entirely.

My admiration and appreciation for the 2020 Oscars comes from simply Parasite (Directed by Bong Joon Ho) leading the wins with Best Original Screenplay, Best Directing, Best Foreign Language Film, and lastly of course, Best Picture. A truly historic moment where an oversees film wins Best Picture and hopefully will change the Oscars for the better. That's still not enough for me.

The list of film nominations kind of disappointed me though. Joker, 1917, Parasite, JoJo Rabbit, Once Upon A Time.......In Hollywood, Little Women, Marriage Story, and Ford vs. Ferrari were the flagship films leading the 2020 Oscars. But there are several nominations that make me wonder what the academy watched and didn't watch, if it wasn't apparent enough anyone else.

There are three, I repeat, three movies that I thought could've replaced three other unmentionable Oscar nominations that left large question marks on my head that kept dropping on me and giving me bruises. Oscar snubs are nothing new but I thought I'd pinpoint this year as a start to mention what was sadly ignored and are far better films than 3/4 of the nominations, excluding the films nominated that I actually loved.  My discussion will be about the top 3 Oscar Snubs of 2020. This will follow with what I feel these films should have been nominated for or won based off the merits the films have. Happy Reading!

1. UNCUT GEMS
    Josh and Ben Safdie have established themselves as new filmmakers putting their foot into the industry and sharing their own unique vision that hasn't been seen before.  Their films are presented very differently as they have an anxiety, claustrophobic, and high energy tone that delivers an effective and memorable experience. The experience in their films blends the intensity and realism of natural human characteristics in our own lives, with a surreal, other-worldly use of lighting, music, and a beautiful retro feel overall of films from the 70s.

After Good Time (which I highly recommend) I, like everyone else, were curious about what they would do next. The on-set images of Adam Sandler with a goatee, glasses, a leather jacket, yellow polo shirt, and black slacks made me fervent, convincing me they were going to give Adam Sandler the redemption he deserved. Then the trailer dropped a year later, and I watched the trailer probably more times than what's healthy for a human being. The alternate version of Travis Scott's song "Pray 4 Love" ft. The Weekend combined with the excellent editing of the trailer that gives pretty much nothing away, proved enough that Good Time possibly wasn't just a fluke. And thankfully, it wasn't. Not by a long shot.
Much like Good Time, Uncut Gems is a character study of a protagonist that's easy to hate, but you're still invested in their journey to reach their goals. I'd argue Howard Ratner is a much worse character than Connie Nikas, but even that opinion occasionally shifts depending on both characters' choices during the gravity of their initial situations. Adam Sandler, with his natural charisma and effortless comedic timing, makes this (for the most part) despicable, scum of a character likable and enjoyable to watch all the way through. Despite almost every single imbecilic, greedy choice Howard makes to achieve the ultimate win is not only stressful and anxiety-inducing, but also incredibly fun to watch. The film's pace is like a wobbly Jenga game, where pieces are being forced into places that will possibly result in the entire tower falling to the ground, but shockingly doesn't. So the odds continue to stack as Howard balances his debt collectors, his opal, and his personal life, trying to maintain full control.

The Safdie's stressful-like directing is still here but understandably restrained since unlike Good Time, which was only 100 minutes, Uncut Gems is 135 minutes and has a more complex chain of events. Either way, the length is barely noticeable because the plot moves at a breakneck and roller-coaster like pace. Their directing is strategic here on how to shoot certain scenes during down times, and when the tension is revved up to 11-plus. It really shows the variety and intelligence of their film making, making every scene still a joy to watch due to the consistency of the tone. Not a single minute of this film feels slow, dull, boring, or unnecessary.


By the end of the film you can't help but take this big, deep, breath of relief as if this massive weight is taken off your shoulders, then if you're like me, itching to want to retake the ride a second or third time. The story, characters, and overall chaotic energy of the film is sublime and nearly flawless in its execution.

Nomination Categories:

• Best Actor in a Leading Role - Adam Sandler
• Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Julia Fox
• Best Original Score - Daniel Lopatin 
• Best Cinematography - Darius Khondji
• Best Director(s) - Josh and Benny Safdie
• Best Original Screenplay - Josh Safdie, Ben Safdie, Ronald Bronstein
• Best Costume Design - Miyako Bellizzi
• Best Sound Mixing - Anton Gold

2. THE LIGHTHOUSE

Now before I watched this film, I checked out Robert Egger's first film The VVitch. And as much as I enjoyed The VVitch I was starving for a little bit more than what I got. But it was a first film by Eggers and with what he had, I was still very impressed with.  The Lighthouse is very much what I was asking for from The VVitch. Both films deal with the unknown in an isolated location away from society. In The VVitch, that answer is clear earlier in the film of what that unknown is, hence the title also. The Lighthouse is a film that doesn't give a definitive answer of what's real or not, but allows for more than one interpretation, but still left me hugely satisfied by the end.

Both Robert Pattinson and William Dafoe give possibly the best performances of their career, particularly Dafoe. Dafoe disappears completely into the role of Thomas Wake, a near-Captain Ahab stereotype with more of an edge.....and a lot of farts. His character had a bit of insanity and mystique but balanced with a hefty amount of entertainment. Dafoe was so good that I keep forgetting that's Dafoe in the first place. Every single scene he's in, including his powerfully sublime monologue in the second act, flares the screen with life.

Robert Pattison holds his own flawlessly next to an acting titan like Dafoe. He's already proven from working with the Safdie Brothers that he's a rising star with acting talents unimaginable. His role as Thomas Howard was equally entertaining to watch. Pattinson's performance shows us a character that has a certain degree of darkness from his past. A man that's unable to face his past actions and attempt to cover those actions with temporary distractions that still doesn't cover his nature. Both actors are the only two (excluding the extras) truly spotlighted and their raw chemistry is compelling and watchable throughout the run time.

The film ascetically is incredible beyond words. The film is beautifully shot all the way through. Cinematographer Jarin Blashke shot the film black-and-white with the aspect ratio being 1.19:1. Also with the inclusion of 35mm film, adding an othrochomatic aesthetic reminiscent of 19th century photography to really pull the viewer into the time period. The dialogue itself is of 19th century English dialect from sailors, which the filmmakers heavily researched through journals and documents. That combined with Dafoe and Pattinson's delivery of their lines elevates the immersion, never feeling artificial once.

The sound design and editing also pulls the viewer into the world, from the sound of rain or wind storms, to loud noises of dated machinery, to sounds that are distorted and unnatural coming from things you wouldn't expect. The music for the film as well as a classic horror feel, still hasn't left my mind even months after seeing the film.

The Lighthouse, granted, isn't for everyone, and I doubt people I know closely would enjoy this film, but it's a shame the academy ignored the number of merits this film clearly had. It's a truly atmospheric and mind-bending ride into madness with homages to H.P. Lovecraft, and German Expressionist films of the 1900s. It's a truly overlooked and undervalued masterpiece I hope many discover in the future.

EDIT: The Lighthouse was nominated only for Best Cinematography. A deserved nomination but there are clearly more elements of the film that were overlooked.

Nomination Categories:

• Best Actor in a Leading Role - William Dafoe
• Best Original Screenplay - Robert and Max Eggers
• Best Cinematography - Jarin Blaschke
• Best Film Editing - Louise Ford
• Best Sound Editing - Damian Volpe
• Best Sound Design - Damian Volpe
• Best Director - Robert Eggers
• Best Original Score - Mark Korven
• Best Costume Design - Linda Muir

3. WAVES

Some might disagree about me putting Waves as the worst of the three. This is a film that will work differently for numerous people. Waves is film that requires a certain degree of patience mostly due to its pacing. Regardless, this was still a passionate and meaningful film and never once broke my engagement of the story.

Waves tells the story about an upper-class black family being effected by a horrific event that they learn to slowly but surely heal from. I won't spoil anything because I feel this is a film many should see for themselves. Trey Edward Shults had deemed to be a truly talented director with films such as Krisha and It Comes at Night. With those two films, Shults makes terrific use of the limited budget he had for both films, resulting in a strong execution of his vision. It shows the strength of a filmmaker with a concrete visual of what he wants his films to be and accomplishes that goal professionally.

Waves clearly having a much larger budget and running an hour longer than both his previous films, makes this Shult's most ambitious project so far. He manages to tell a big, emotionally gripping, and heart-wrenching story exploring complicated family dynamics and relationships, self-worth, and reconciliation.

My personal issue with the film as I already mentioned is its pacing. The film tells two different stories that connect thematically with the same characters but many will state the first half of the film is much better than the second half. On my second viewing the pacing wasn't as odd-feeling as it was at first, and I've grown to appreciate the second half because the storytelling stayed consistent throughout, still being emotionally invested. I have a feeling Shults might've wanted more story to tell but knew what needed to be trimmed for time's sake.

The film is shot beautifully, especially the opening. The cinematography in the beginning left a huge impression on me with its VR (virtual reality) style camera movements. Everything felt fast and fluent combined with "Be Above It" by the band Tame Impala, making the montage of Tyler's high school sports life one of the most exhilarating experiences of 2019.  The soundtrack overall was implemented flawlessly into the story, making each song essential to the narrative. Shults also switches aspect ratios throughout the film which I found questionable and even after my second watch I still found it mildly jarring and unnecessary, but I grown accustomed to it because of how beautifully filmed the entire experience was overall.

The performances were also excellent across the board, the standouts being Kelvin Harrison Jr. and Sterling K. Brown. Their father/son relationship is the launching pad for contributing the film's meaning. The chain of events will truly rip out a viewer's heart after witnessing where things go. Lucas Hedges, whom which I'm not a fan of, does a better job than he's ever done and his character's journey later in the film was emotional and crushing, but poignant.

Overall, Waves is far from perfect, but it hits the right notes a family drama should, leaving with a satisfying ending. I don't think everyone will appreciate its challenging creative choices of how writer/director Shults approached the story, but I think anyone who loves Shult's previous films will find something that will resonate with them long after they've watched the film.

Nomination Categories:

• Best Director - Trey Edward Shults
• Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Sterling K. Brown
• Best Cinematography - Drew Daniels
• Best Film Editing - Isaac Hagy and Trey Edward Shults

In conclusion, some will agree with my opinions, and some won't. Others will think I have an A24 bias mindset on which films I picked. It's nowhere near the case. I found these three to be standouts that shockingly did not get academy attention as they're obviously made with excellent mastery (with the exception of The Lighthouse's only nomination). A24's films barely receive academy attention and I'm not sure why. It might be the possibility that they can't put an easy label or category of their films they release so it's easy to just remove them from consideration. Either way, these three films were worthy of higher praise and I hope in the future they'll be recognized and are rewarded for their merits; or other A24 films for that matter. 

Leave a comment below if there are other films you feel were snubbed at this year's Academy Awards! Or share your thoughts on my 3 picks!