"Perfect Love Casteth Out Fear"

Since 1992 Westboro Baptist Church, led by Pastor Fred Phelps, have been protesting homosexuals. They have done so by picketing the funerals of homosexuals, or soldiers who have died in Iraq. They claim that God has called them to tell America and the homosexuals that God hates them and we are all going to burn in hell.

K. Ryan Jones' directorial debut Fall From Grace(2007) follows this church and its members while trying to get at why it is they are the way they are. It opens with the scripture John 13:34 " I give you a new commandment; love one another as I have loved you". We are then spearheaded into Fred Phelps and his beliefs on America and homosexuals.

The film does a great job of not taking sides. We are not only introduced to Fred Phelps and his church (which is mostly made up of his sons, daughters and grandchildren) but to other Christian pastors who believe Phelps is wrong, the mayor of Topeka Kansas(where WBC is located) and some others who have encountered Phelps along the way.

At 70 minutes the film hits you quickly without giving you time to breathe. It is the perfect amount of time allotted for such a subject because any longer would have become overbearing.

While not taking sides, most will probably view Phelps as a horrible and terrifying human being(as they should). He will be seen this way, not because the filmmakers aim for it to be this way, but because he aims for it to be this way. The bits they show from his sermons are horrifying enough. It is as if you are watching a horror film. Fred Phelps is Anton Chigurh without the cow gun and bad hair cut.

Some of the issues the film brings up are interesting. The film tries to focus on the freedom of speech subject but loses its way a little while getting mixed up in focusing on the Phelps family a little too much. The question brought up is should freedom of speech be allowed even when it is utterly hateful? The film doesn't answer this but it does show the ACLU actually take a case to help the Phelps clan when the President signed a bill that would force them to be so many feet away from a funeral service for a certain amount of time before and after the funeral and during.

The juxtaposition of other Christians railing against Phelps while cutting back to Phelps shows a great divide between the two groups. The film really shines when Rev. Jeff Gannon explains that Fred Phelps is the perfect example of a person that "needs love but is so undeserving of that love".

This films major questions; freedom of speech, separation of church and state are greatly dealt with(although sometimes pushed aside) and well crafted to seamlessly fit into what could also be viewed as a character study of a family so filled with hate and fear that they are blind to what love really is.

K. Ryan Jones, who made this film as a school project by filming the Phelps family for a year, does a great job on a hard to tackle subject. This film has been highly overlooked but is important to America today because of the battles waging about Homosexual rights, especially marriage. It is also important to America because it shows that sometimes tolerance has to go both ways, even when it's this hard to do.

"We Haven't Located Us Yet"

The baggage we carry around with us can weigh us down. It can hold us back from moving on in our lives, and tear us away from those that we love. This is a theme that runs through many of Wes Anderson's films and it seems to culminate in his latest effort, The Darjeeling Limited(2007).

The Darjeeling Limited follows 3 brothers on a spiritual journey through India(riding a train called The Darjeeling Limited). Francis, Peter and Jack Whitman (played perfectly by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman respectively) are all searching for some sort of peace in their lives. They haven't seen each other in a year, since their fathers funeral, But Francis pulls them together to try and see where things went wrong. Along the way they make stops at various spiritual hot spots, but it isn't until tragedy hits that they are again able to come together and gain any sort of wisdom from their journey.

I found that Wes Anderson really poured his heart into this film, it seems, more than any other. The brothers try and try and try to get things right but they continue to make mistakes.

The works of Anderson constantly have some sort of downfall with the father. In Rushmore(1998) Max is embarrassed of his father and his profession, so he looks up to Mr. Blume as a father figure. What Max realizes is that his father loves him and that's all that matters. In The Royal Tennenbaums(2001) none of the children feel connected to their father in any way. He has fed them lie after lie, and it isn't until the father realizes how he has let them down that they can have reconciliation. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou(2004) finds Steve being confronted by a son he never knew he had, and dealing with wanting to be a father.

We go through all of this and see their is always some sort of reconciliation or comfort found in the father by the end. The Darjeeling Limited cannot offer such comfort because before the film takes place the father is already dead. So what we get here is a beautiful story of 3 brothers coming to the realization that they need to let go of the past and embrace the future.


This can be signified mainly by the simple fact that they are riding a train. In film, the train generally is said to signify progress. Mainly in westerns we see this because most of them are set in the time where railroads are first being built. This is why I believe they named the film after the train. This film is the progress of the brothers lives.



All the brothers want is to feel something again, anything. They are so numb from the pills they pop throughout the film that it's amazing any of them can perform a coherent thought. At one point while visiting a temple in India, all three brothers are praying beside each other when Jack asks "do you feel anything yet?" and Peter responds with "I hope so." Through this we can see their emptiness and their need for anything. They don't care what it is but if some of the most spiritual places in the world can't help than what can?


Francis' face, throughout the film, is covered in bandages. He explains that it was from a motorcycle accident, what we find out is that it may not have been an accident. After the brothers face tragedy and seem to make a move at "becoming brothers again like (they) used to be" do we finally see the damage on Francis' face. He cuts off the bandages and says "Looks like I still got some healing to do." to which Jack replies," getting there though" and Peter adds "its definitely going to add a lot of character to you". Through this we can really not only see that he is growing but they are growing together.

The cinematography in this film is absolutely beautiful, it truly captures the feel of India, but also the feeling of the brothers. The camera, as usual in a Anderson film, flows from room to room, or cabin to cabin and just almost seems to be another character.

This story about family and the bonds that tie them together is serious yet funny, ugly yet beautiful, tragic yet hopeful. The ending couldn't have been more perfect.

"Dad's bags aren't gonna make it."

Looking Out The Window at Gods and Monsters

"Classic" directors are name dropped every second on IMDB and talked about to a great extent by anyone interested in film, but many directors considered classic haven't really proven their abilities with a classic film. Many directors have made great films, astounding films, but few have made classics.

Alfred Hitchcock certainly did quite a few times in his life, but one of the most notable efforts he ever accomplished was a film called Rear Window(1956). Other directors have tried to match it's suspense, thrills and wit but have yet to compare in either of those three categories.

Another filmmaker who knew how to draw out the best of suspense, thrills and wit was the great James Whales. He made many great films, but he had one masterpiece. The Bride Of Frankenstein(1935) still holds up on many levels today, possibly even more than it did back in its hey day.

When trying to look at classic films, we like to compare them with other classic films of the same time period, or even by the same director. Close Encounters(1977) and ET(1982) both brought us nice aliens for a change, while The Graduate(1967) and Bonnie and Clyde(1967) both fell in our laps in the same year and brought a major shift in cinema. As we often compare films like these, we rarely compare films from different time periods or completely different directors.

Rear Window came some 20 years after Bride of Frankenstein. They represent 2 very different times in history. In 1935 we were about to end The Great Depression and in between wars, while during 1956 we were just coming off the Korean War. The times were much better in the 50s, but there was one thing the country was worried about. The very thing we feared was nuclear war, this led to massive paranoia throughout the country.

Both of these films represent just that, paranoia. In The Bride, everyone is paranoid that The Monster is out to hurt them, but really all he needs is a friend. He is simply misunderstood and taken forgranted for the good he has in him. In Rear Window, LB Jeffries suspects a neighbor of killing his wife and becomes paranoid that he spends every waking moment checking on every move the man makes. The difference between the films is where the blame lies. In The Bride, the blame lies on the people who were too unaccepting of something they didn't understand that they would stop at no length to kill him. In Rear Window, the man really is who we are made to believe he is. Thus the paranoia is proven correct. What is with the sudden shift though? Why all of the sudden is the role changed and the monster really is a monster. It could very well just be that he was made that way by his terrible, complaining, naggy wife. That doesn't cover his actions. The murderer was still in the wrong obviously for killing her, but he may have been brought to the edge as The Monster happened to be at some points of The Bride.

Both films reveal a little something about the paranoia of the time they were made and both reveal themselves in the end to be films about humanity and the hope we have in ourselves and others.

"Oh Dear, Weve Become a Race Of Peeping Toms"

A peeping tom is defined as "One who derives pleasure, usually sexual, from secretly spying on others" by the Websters Dictionary. This is most notably looked upon as a terrible act. This story of the first ever recorded act of the peeping tom was found on http://www.dictionary.com/.

"In an age when we can speak of peeping Tom cameras or electronic peeping Toms we have indeed come far from the time of the legendary peeping Tom. Godgifu (fl. 1040-1080), Lady Godiva to us, pledged her legendary ride as a means of persuading her husband, Leofric, Earl of Mercia, to lower taxes. In the original version of the story she was observed by all the townspeople as she disrobed, but in a much later version of the story a tailor or butcher named Tom was the only person to observe her as she rode by, everyone else having shuttered their windows as they had been asked. Peeping Tom, first recorded around 1796, has become a term for a voyeur, not at all a pleasant fate for this legendary fellow. As W.H. Auden has said, "Peeping Toms/are never praised, like novelists or bird watchers,/for their keenness of observation.""

The line that struck me from this paragraph was the last one. I happen to know of two such films where the peeping tom is praised. In Alfred Hitchcocks 1954 classic Rear Window we follow L.B. Jeffries as he "peeps" on his neighbors through his back window, simply because his leg is broken and he has nothing better to do. Fast foward 53 years and we are brought Disturbia(2007, DJ Caruso) a film starring new "it" boy Shia Lebouf about a kid under house arrest who has nothing better to do than also "peep"on his neighbors.

These two films have more in common than mere peeping. We are made to believe through each films structure that the only time our protaganists have "peeped" is once brought to complete boredom, at least this is at the surface of each film. Both films explore the idea that we are all peeping toms. In Rear Window Stella, Jeffs nurse of sorts, states "We've become a race of peeping toms. What people oughta do is get outside their own homes and look in for a change." Is she merely critiquing Jeff for peeping out his back window, or making a statement about the human race? Furthermore Lisa, Jeff's girlfriend, is seen reading fashion magazines in the end, peeping on the lives of others. Jeff may have quit looking out his back window, but Lisa hasn't, maybe not through a window, but through the pages of a magazine it is her window to the lives of others.

DJ Caruso's Disturbia follows this same ideology but brings it to the new age of technology. We aren't simply looking through the pages of magazines, or out our back windows. We now have a beautiful thing called the internet. Youtube is constantly mentioned throughout the film as well, a website of note that is all about peeping on the lives of others. The last scene in this film also helps drive this point home. Although Kale has finished looking out his back window at the neighbors they aren't going to quit peeping. When him and Ashley are kissing,Ronnie comes around the corner with a camcorder and says "Soon to be the most popular video on YouTube".

While both films are made in completely different times they both drive the same point home, which is completely wrapped up in Stellas statement about we, the human race, being a race of peeping toms.

"This is a lot harder than it looks on the Internet."

I've thought to myself a few times, what would I do if I had for some reason been put under house arrest? D.J. Caruso's 2007 thriller Disturbia answers this question while still managing to throw on the horror and suspense. Spending just enough time watching girls swim to keep you interested if the tried and true thrills fall short. This "hip" updating of the Hitchcock classic Rear Window(1956) does little more than just that, all the while still managing to entertain and keep its head above the water.

The story opens with a bang. The catalyst to the story is thrust in within the first 5 minutes of the film when a tragic event brings out the worst in Kale, a high school slacker who makes a mistake and gets put under house arrest for the entire summer. We see Kale deal with his boredom in many ways, very few of those ways please his mom who just wants him to gain some responsibility. At first he kills time by playing X-Box and watching television but when he has these things taken away because his mom doesn't want this to be "another vacation like usual" he starts watching out the window for entertainment. He picks up on the quirks and overall oddness of suburban life and before long he's showing his friend Ronnie, who seems to be his only connection with the world until he is caught spying by Ashley while she's swimming. She stops by and finds out just what he does all day and when the two of them stumble upon seeing a young lady go over to a neighbors house she is unsuspecting but after she goes home Kale sees exactly what he had thought he might, or did he?

Laced with traces of technology, paranoia and voyeurism Disturbia follows the typical Hollywood fare to the tee, while still adding some food for thought. When left alone to watch people how do you tell the difference between true stories and ones you've made up yourself? When no one is there to tell you that you didn't see something, than how do you know if anything you see is real? Kale tends to have trouble with this throughout the film. While thinking he has just seen a brunette be murdered he then sees her walk out to her car and drive off, is his mind playing tricks?

Characters mention Youtube and the Internet frequently, enough that it becomes a major component of the film. Could D.J. Caruso be telling us that by watching these videos on Youtube we are acting just as voyeuristic as Kale does in the movie? It seems to me the film is trying to make the statement that we are all people watchers. Most of us don't sit at our windows and watch our neighbors with a pair of binoculars in hand but we will mindlessly watch far stranger things than what lies behind the glass of our window. The thing is, these things are being done by our neighbors and us. So the only difference is we are cutting out the boredom by not waiting for something interesting to happen out our front door and cutting straight to the chase by people watching through our computer screen.

While the film might be trying to say this, it isn't saying it loud enough. It focuses to much time on making you jump than making any type of statement at all. While it is a popcorn movie, I will say I didn't mind it, it is a well crafted thriller and Shia LaBeouf is very likable and funny. There is a great scene where Ronny has broken into someones house to get something he had left behind earlier and we are only seeing Ronny through a camcorder he is carrying. By doing this it creates an element of suspense, while also eventually leading to a clue, and not explaining to us right away what exactly just happened.

On the flip side, the dialogue is very cardboard, as are the characters. They are very broadly written, even the "bad guy". This takes away from what could have been a smart update of a film that is already realized as a classic. A subplot involving a very doubtful and unbelievable love story does more to distract from what is good about this film than what it does to bring you deeper into the characters.

The film doesn't take a step away from exactly what you expect and does this on purpose. It really couldn't have been written any broader than it already is, and that's disappointing because there is a good movie buried in here. The films message gets caught up in the static of all that is the Hollywood storyline and while still being a well crafted and decently executed thriller all hope is lost on the film that could have been.

The Bride Of Frankenstein

James Whales’ The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is, among other things, a tale of redemption. We see in the monster that love and kindness can come from the most unlikeliest of places.

The story takes place just where Frankenstein left off. A building is burning to the ground with The Monster inside. He is proclaimed to be dead but when the father of one of The Monster's victims must know for sure, he ignorantly climbs into the burning building only to find The Monster taking refuge in what seems like a water filled cellar. The Monster of course escapes and begins terrorizing the town again. Dr. Frankenstein is talked into helping an old mentor of his, Dr. Pretorious; create a bride for The Monster.

Pretorious is a man who feels the world would be better off if we were all devils. "Sometimes I wonder if we'd all be better off being devils, and no nonsense about angels."

The theological aspects of this film, particularly this plot, cannot be excluded as they are heavily prevalent. It is much like The Garden of Eden and The Tree Of Knowledge. Pretorious representing the serpent and Dr. Frankenstein is representing Adam and Eve. They want to become like God. They want to know what it feels like to have generations come of something you have created with your own bare hands. They want to create a world where “Gods and Monsters” rule, in which they would be the gods and the monsters their creations.

The Bride Of Frankenstein (1935) has been most notably talked about as a manifestation of Whale's homosexuality. Through this film, it is said, he made gays acceptable to an unaccepting public without them even realizing it. Though I can see where they are coming from, and definitely see this correlation. I find that focusing on Whales personal sexual preference, overshadows the overall message of the film, which I don’t feel as being a gay parable as much as a story of accepting those who are different.

In the film we reach the point where the monster escapes and he has run into the forest to get away from his would-be capturers. He comes across a small cottage in the middle of the woods after hearing a violin playing, which has a sort of soothing effect on The Monster. We come to find out a blind hermit is living here and playing this music to pass the time. The Monster bursts open the door and lets out a yell, but the blind man doesn’t scream, or run in fear. He shows love and kindness by calling the Monster friend and asking him what it is he can do for him. A question The Monster has never heard. Through this meeting comes a few of the most heartfelt, human scenes in the film. The Blind man feeds The Monster and lets him rest. He prays and thanks God for sending him a friend to help the days pass by. We see this is a lonely man, but he holds no resentment towards God or any man for his injustices. He accepts what he is, and where he is and simply enjoys when something good comes his way. The next morning when we see him teach The Monster to speak we realize that he is willing to go to any great lengths for this friend. Through this scene we also see that The Monster isn’t really a monster at all but very human. He isn’t out to quench a blood lust after all, but simply misunderstood. He loves wine, bread and having a friend, just as any human being would. In this scene we find the heart of the film. When later on a few men come asking for directions and see The Monster, the blind man stands in front and refuses to allow them to hurt his friend.

Being blind to others faults and accepting them for what they are is what this film represents. An ending filled with redemption and extreme humanity shown by the monster follows, only to prove that The Monster, the creation, was less a monster than Pretorious.