FILM REVIEW: Jojo Rabbit (2019)

"Dancing is for people who are free." - Rosie, Jojo Rabbit

Who would have ever thought you could actually make Adolf Hitler somewhat likeable? Now let's get something straight: I'm NOT praising Hitler. No, I'm praising Taika Waititi's writing and playing of the fictional character Imaginary Friend Adolf Hitler in his 2019 film, Jojo Rabbit, directed by Polynesian Director/Actor Taika Waititi, who is perhaps best known as the director of Marvel's 2017 film Thor: Ragnarok, as well as playing the rock creature Korg in the film and once again in Avengers: Endgame. Jojo Rabbit won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay and was also nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Scarlett Johansson, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, and Best Picture. Based on a 2008 novel Caging Skies by New Zealander-Belgian novelist Christine Leunens, he film is about Jojo Betzler, a young boy who has been indoctrinated quite deeply into Nazi ideology growing and learning to see the truth through his interactions with a Jewish girl living in his house. Jojo is supported by his mother Rosie, his best friend Yorkie, his "mentor" figure Captain Klenzendorf, and most of all, his imaginary friend Adolf Hitler, who is a more buffoonish but likeable version of Hitler that Jojo uses as a support system.

I really liked this film overall because of how satirical, yet still quite historical. Taika Waititi captured pretty well what it must've been like in Nazi Germany towards the end of World War II; people were brainwashed into believing that the Nazis were still winning, despite there being people who knew they had basically lost the war. This brainwashed aspect of Nazi Germany is shown very well in the film as most people are almost blissfully unaware that the Nazis are horribly losing the war; the only people who do know this (such as Capt. Klenzendorf) are forced to pretend as if everything's going great, even though when we know it isn't. The Nazi hatred of Jewish people and the propaganda they use to make young children think that the Jews are some demonic, monstrous creatures are also well done, especially the part about them "hypnotizing" you into believing that they weren't evil, which I believe was an actual propaganda tool.

I really liked the fact that not everyone in the film was a devoted Nazi and that there were other people (apart from Jojo) who were questioning the war and even Nazi ideologies. Captain Klenzendorf (AKA Captain K) says in his first scene "And even though it would appear our country’s on the back foot and that there really isn’t much hope us of winning this war, apparently we’re doing just fine.". Jojo's mother Rosie is also definitely aware of the war situation and her line "Things are changing. The Allies have taken Italy. France will be next and the war will soon be over... It’s war I hate. It’s pointless and stupid and the sooner we have peace the better." shows that she also has not been indoctrinated by the Nazi propaganda. Having characters that are not 100% devoted Nazis make the movie more realistic in my opinion because I'm sure that there were many Germans who simply never agreed with Hitler's ideologies.
Finally, Jojo's best friend Yorkie is also someone who is questioning the Nazi antisemitic ideologies. During a conversation with Jojo, Yorkie talks about a group of Jewish people he saw captured, and he says of them "Personally I didn’t see what all the fuss was about. They weren’t at all scary and seemed kind of normal. But don’t tell anyone I said that." It was interesting to see the contrast between the "die-hard" Nazis and the skeptical Nazis. Yorkie does fall for some of the Nazi propaganda, but at the same time he also seems to be a regular person. I think that Yorkie probably would've represented a lot of the German population at the time; they were regular people who were questioning some of the things that the Nazis were telling them, but didn't DARE speak out against them because of their devotion to war. War bring together the citizens of a country in a frightening unity. As George Orwell best put it in 1984, "War is Peace".
The ending battle was really well done and it seriously showed how desperate the Nazis were getting and how devastating the war really was. A large amount of the Germans fighting against the Americans were civilians, and there were even many children involved, with many used as suicide bombers. Although the entire movie did a great job showing the bleak reality of Nazi Germany, it was the ending battle that highlighted the real dark side of reality well. It was the part where the kids were just blindly running into fight that hit the hardest because they were very likely heavily brainwashed to just become soldier and that was really dark for me and I think that the scene was filmed and directed superbly.

Of course, I can't review Jojo Rabbit without talking about Jojo's imaginary friend Adolf Hitler played by Taika Waititi (for convenience sake I'm going to refer to him as HitlerWaititi). I just want to point out how AMAZING Taika was in this movie. He made the character he played a very likeable one (at least at the start) and worked really well as a parallel character to Jojo's growth as a character. Taika plays a very buffoonish and friendly version of Hitler, who has essentially been over-glorified in Jojo's mind.
At the beginning of the movie, Jojo is a pretty insecure boy who really lack confidence about a lot of things. So HitlerWaititi is there as a father figure (as Jojo's father is absent) and friend to Jojo. This Hitler is very likeable; he is nothing but supportive to Jojo and constantly encourages him to be more brave, but also lets him know that there's nothing really wrong him being himself, telling Jojo "Be the rabbit. The humble bunny can outwit all his enemies and that is why he is a hero." These early scenes are really interesting because this is the point where Jojo is pretty much fully brainwashed. meaning that his views of Hitler is a very much a fantastical one. This Hitler showers Jojo with essentially unconditional love and acceptance, something that the insecure Jojo desperately needs, which is why he is on screen very often.
Throughout the course of the movie, as Jojo meets Elsa (his sister's childhood friend and a Jew) and gets to interact with her and even fall for her, Hitler's presence becomes more and more scarce. As Jojo gains Elsa as someone new to trust even more, Hitler's presence is no longer needed as much. When Hitler DOES appear, it is in the moments where Jojo's faith to the Nazis are questioned, and HitlerWaititi is there to "keep him in line". As Jojo learns more about the reality of the Nazi party, Hitler's antisemitism takes more centre stage and his conversations with Jojo turns more into "You need to kill her" type conversations rather then encouraging pep talks like before.
By the end of the movie, Hitler has become a full-on monster. Jojo has recently learnt of Hitler's suicide and has broken free of the Nazi brainwashing, even admitting to Elsa that he's in love with her. Hitler now is openly spewing slurs against Elsa, referring to her as "that thing" and a "disgusting Jewy cow". He also amusingly has a bullet wound on his head and directly belittles Jojo into trusting him. Jojo has now also become a very confident, independent boy who has grown through his experiences, meaning that he no longer needs to have Hitler around as a support system. HitlerWaititi in contrast therefore has become an snivelling coward who is desperately trying to seem powerful and is begging for Jojo's admiration and attention. Jojo permanently banishes Hitler with a beautiful "Fuck off" (This is a real quote from the film).
It was really clever idea to use Hitler as a parallel to Jojo's growth as a character. You can really see how Hitler changes as a support system as Jojo grows as a character. Hitler's on-screen presence noticeably begins to decrease as Jojo learns more and is eventually phased out of Jojo's life forever. You can really tell Taika had a lot of fun with the character (clearly satirizing the crap out of Hitler to mock him as best as possible) and I honestly think he deserved an Oscar nomination for the role. You can really see the REAL Hitler's dark sides poke out here and there in the middle of the light-hearted ones and it was simply fantastically acted.

Of course, while Jojo and HitlerWaititi are really the "central" characters of the film, the thing that made this film even more great are the supporting cast, namely Jojo's mother Rosie, Jojo's best friend Yorkie, the Jewish girl Elsa, and Jojo's mentor-like figure Captain Klenzendorf (Captain K) and Captain K's "friend" Freddy Finkel. I love each of these character because they each represent different aspects of people living in and fighting against Nazi Germany in their own clear ways. While I'd love to go into them in detail, I don't want to spoil any of the major plot developments (which I'll probably end up doing if I go too far into this) so I'll leave it to you to figure it out yourself since it's honestly not the most subtle thing in the universe. For example, Elsa clearly represents the repressed Jewish people hidden by a non-brainwashed German, Jojo's mother Rosie, and later Jojo. Overall, all of the supporting characters (although Rosie and Elsa technically are main characters) really embellished the movie in their own little ways and made the experience more realistic for me.

Jojo Rabbit was probably one of my favourite films of 2019 and maybe ever. It portrayed Nazi Germany and the people inside very well. The film had all the diverse types of people in Nazi Germany; the repressed hidden minorities, the rebellious people, the Nazi fanatics, the questioning citizens, and even the brainwashed child soldiers. It was an emotional ride as well. It was no doubt a comedy, but there were some REALLY dark and depressing moments that could make someone tear up. I don't understand how Scarlett Johansson didn't get the Oscar as much as I won't ever understand how Taron Egerton wasn't even nominated for Best Actor or Rocketman nominated for Best Picture. The acting was overall pretty flawless. Everybody performed well, most impressively 11 or 12-year-old Roman Griffin Davis, who played Jojo and Archie Yates who played Yorkie. Those two kids were honestly REALLY great; Roman was really good at portraying deep emotions that I never could've achieved NOW, much less at TEN and Archie had really hilarious line delivery. So overall, if you like comedies that satirize historical events and characters, Jojo Rabbit is THE movie for you: I can't really think of faults to it and the movie was seriously great, and if it had won Best Picture, it would've 100% deserved it.

So for my next review, since I've reviewed a pretty recent film, I'm going to go a little back in time to the 1930s (1933 to be exact) to a film based on a novel by the sci-fi writer and eugenics supporter Herbert George Wells. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Parasite (기생충) - Dir. Bong Joon-ho

Director Bong Joon-ho with Parasite's Academy Awards

As I am writing this, the 92nd Academy Awards are still fresh in my mind. Some Academy Awards, such as Joaquin Phoenix's well-deserved Best Actor award for his performance in Joker were. for me very much expected. One film I really didn't expect to win many Oscars was the South Korean film Parasite, or 기생충 (Pronounced Gi-saeng-chung). Sweeping through the categories of Best Original Screenplay, Best International Feature Film, Best Director, and Best Picture, Parasite and its Director Bong Joon-ho made history; not only did Parasite have the most wins that night, but they also became the first Korean film to be nominated for and win an Oscar, and also became the first non-English language film to win Best Picture. While to a degree I expected Best Original Screenplay and Best International Feature Film, I did not expect the film to win Best Director and certainly not Best Picture. As a Korean myself, I was overjoyed that Parasite did so well and I do hope that this will allow Korean films to come into the light more and be recognized for their talent.

Alongside his film, Director Bong has become a very popular figure in the film industry, loved by many for his eccentric sense of humour, humbleness when receiving his awards (he was especially well-loved for acknowledging all of the other directors during his Best Direct acceptance speech, putting fellow nominee Martin Scorsese on a pedestal), and his genius directing skills. While Director Bong has only received full international acclamation recently, it is important to note that he is by no means an unknown in the film industry. He is well-known in Korea for his films Memories of Murder (2003), The Host (2006), and the 2013 English film Snowpiercer. I have seen the three films myself and I can attest to Director Bong's genius skills in film-making as I recall thoroughly enjoying all three of them, especially Snowpiercer.

It's interesting to note that Snowpiercer, a film I really liked, and Parasite are quite similar in terms of theme. They both revolve around the themes of appearance VS reality and social inequality, and it's brilliant how Bong used two films that are fundamentally about different things to deliver a similar message and theme. In Parasite, it is very clear that social inequality is an obvious theme. The film refers to a number of times the extravagant lifestyle that the Park family live in comparison to the Kim family, who has to struggle just to survive on a daily basis. The film even goes further and ingeniously uses levels to highlight the wealthy disparity: while the wealthy Parks live literally on a higher ground from everyone else, the poor Kims live in a sub-basement, with the window as their only view to the outside world, symbolizing that while the Kims do not live in complete poverty, they may as well be.

The title of the film "parasite" is also a very clever way to describe the two major families in the story. The Kim family are the most obvious 'parasites', lying their way into the Park household and leeching off of their wealth. The Park family are also parasites in a sense to the Kim family and perhaps even to each other. The Parks rely quite heavily on the Kims to live their every day lives to the point that none of them can function without the other. The father and mother of the Kim family, Ki-taek the chauffeur and Chung-sook the housekeeper, are two people the Park family relies very heavily on; the mother of the Park family Yeon-gyo is almost useless in the household, being incapable of doing the simplest tasks such as using the dishwasher. She heavily relies on both Mr. and Mrs. Kim for shopping and the housework, and the father Dong-ik, while not completely reliant on their employees like his wife, still uses his authority over them.

The main theme in Parasite is clearly social inequality and social divide. The movie shows this social divide very well foremost in the use of levels like I mentioned above, but they also show it in the form of the employees of the Park family; the Kim family, former housekeeper Gook Moon-gwang, and former chauffeur Mr. Yoon are all treated as expendables and not as real human beings. While I won't go into the specific details, there's a scene towards the end which shows very clearly that the Park family (ESPECIALLY Mr. Park) clearly treats not only their employees, but people of lower class then them as just expendable parts rather than real human beings. There is very much a sense of detachment that the wealthy Park family has from the poorer Kim family and others around them; a main example of this is the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Park fetishize the concept of being poor and therefore "dirty" and imagines themselves as of being lower class to "get themselves going". This really shows how detached the Park family is from the rest of society as they are so completely unaware (or even uncaring) of the less-wealthy's misfortunes and struggles that they can use something that's a bitter reality for many people as a strange fetish to the point that it's revolting. The class division in the film and the detachment from reality that the Park family has is so strikingly well-presented, from major things like the characters' actions down to the tiny things like the crazy expensive sirloin they use to make the instant noodles ram-don (짜파구리, or Cha-pa-gu-ri in Korean) or the VOSS water that they exclusively drink.

Parasite overall has amazing scenes, plot, acting, characters, dialogue, and cinematography. Bong Joon-ho was fantastic as the director and the film really deserved every single Academy Award it got. The film I think did so well because the theme of the disturbingly large divide between the rich and poor is a concept that is so universal that it is adaptable to pretty much every country in the world. The entire cast really performed outstandingly, and it really was a well-made film overall. I think that Parasite is the beginning of a new era in film where Korean movies will begin to become more and more recognized on the international stage of films, and I really hope to see more Korean movies nominated for Academy Awards. I also don't think this will be the last time we see Bong Joon-ho on the stage either... 

For my next review, I will be reviewing a satirical comedy on Nazi Germany made by a Polynesian Jewish film director who plays Hitler in the film. The film won the Oscar for Best Adopted Screenplay and was nominated for five others. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Library Policeman by Stephen King (From his collection Four Past Midnight)

So we're once again back to Stephen King, the genius maniac masquerading as an author. I recently got for Christmas one of his novella collections called Four Past Midnight. The four novellas are: The Langoliers, Secret Window, Secret Garden, The Library Policeman, and The Sun Dog. This time, I'm going to be reviewing my favourite novella out of the four, The Library Policeman. I really liked this story because it reminded me very strongly of IT, one of my favourite King novels; just like how IT is about overcoming your fears to defeat a greater evil, The Library Policeman is about confronting and overcoming a childhood trauma to defeat the greater evil, and the two main antagonists of the novel, Pennywise the Clown in IT and Ardelia Lortz in The Library Policeman, are also very similar types of Lovecraftian horrors, Pennywise and Ardelia both feeding off of fear from the children.

The overall theme of the story was great, and I really liked the idea of the "Library Policeman" being used as a monstrous villain and a personification of Sam Peebles' (the protagonist) childhood rapist coming back to haunt him. I'm not sure if the library policeman is a concept unique to the United States since I've never heard of it here in Canada, but it's really interesting how King used something from one's childhood memories that might have been just a little scary and turn it into a stuff of NIGHTMARES. I don't even know what about the Library Policeman scared me so much, but it terrified the hell out of me. It felt so real and the fact that it kept triggering something in Sam that he didn't know how to deal with.

Sam was terrified of this library policeman for some strange reason, and he didn't know why. The reader follows through Sam's journey of discovering himself and coming to terms with his childhood trauma, where we eventually learn that he was raped in front of the library by a man who called himself the library policeman. Sam had been repressing this memory in fear that the rapist would return for him if he ever let anyone knew, and the repressed trauma eventually took the form of the library policeman, who was the exact, terror-inducing incarnation of Sam's rapist. 

Ardelia Lortz, the main antagonist is a creature akin to Pennywise the Clown. Her MO is that during story time at the library when it was just her and the kids, she would put them into a trance of some sort, terrify them, and drink their tears/fears in form of tears, which was what she used to sustain herself. Even in her sweet, human form she's pretty terrifying. As a young woman she can seduce anyone she wants to essentially do her bidding; as an old woman, she's supposed to be this kind, friendly woman, but is so oddly terrifying in everything she says and does. One of the things that King knows how to do best is writing compelling characters, SPECIFICALLY terrifying villains. It was a pretty cool concept and she bears a striking resemblance to IT: they both are shape-shifting demons posing as a friendly figure to children so that they could feed off of childrens' tears; they even share the same silver eyes and the characteristic of using puppets to do their bidding! Combining this with the the sorrow-feeding Outsider (from The Outsider) and Dandelo the emotion-feeder (from The Dark Tower series), it seems as though Stephen King was really keen on these types of Lovecraftian monsters.

The most scary part of the novel was definitely right at the end when Sam is confronting his childhood traumatic memory of being raped. King describes the scene in such horrific and graphic detail and yet keeps it as suspenseful as possible so when the rape is described, you do a big double take of horror. When he comes to face with the trauma and announces out loud that he WAS raped, he is able to confront the monster in the form of his rapist and defeat it, which I think is a really good message by King for victims of abuse: you shouldn't be suppressing your trauma, but be confronting it, and that's how you can start the healing process. I went into this story expecting a really good horror story; I got exactly that, but I also got a story that is essentially the MeToo movement before MeToo was even a thing. Stephen King is so great at weaving the theme of the MeToo movement into the story in a way that you don't even realize it's actually about confronting and defeating your rapist until you think about the story after it's over. It is absolutely brilliant/

I know I usually do a summery and a rating out of five here, but I don't think I'll be doing that anymore. I don't want my number rating to affect someone's views on a novel or a film, and honestly it is getting hard to give ratings lower than four out of five since all the stuff I'm reviewing are usually stuff that I really like. But overall, The Library Policeman is a great story. It's reminiscent of IT and The Outsider, and the overall theme of overcoming your childhood trauma and facing your fears is a really great message. Stephen King is VERY good at making his novels revolve around very real-life themes such as childhood fears or the death of a loved one, and these stories I think can really help people actually deal with these issues because of the focus King puts on these themes. 

My next two reviews are two films that are the recipients of Academy Awards in 2020. The first film is a Korean one which has received FOUR Academy Awards (including Best Picture). The second one is a film set in Nazi Germany and is the recipient of Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award. I think you can guess which movies they are, so keep your eyes peeled for them! As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

VALJEAN OR JAVERT: Who is the Hero? The Murky Morality of Les Misérables

I may have tackled something too complex for me... we'll see how it goes.

Les Misérables is an 1862 novel written by Victor Hugo and it was later adapted into a musical theatre production in 1980 by Claude-Michel Schönberg which was then adapted into a 2012 film directed by Tom Hooper. Les Misérables chronicles the life of Jean Valjean, a man arrested for stealing bread whose life was turned around by the kind and loving Bishop Myriel who sets Valjean on a path of redemption through his interactions with the cold, law-abiding Inspector Javert, the tragic yet strong Fantine and her daughter Cosette (who he eventually adopts after Fantine's death), the romantic young revolutionary Marius Pontmercy, among many others. While the story clearly focuses on Valjean as the "hero" of the story and Javert as the "villain", the reality is not as black and white as many might believe. What if Javert was the real hero of the story, chasing Valjean, a dangerous criminal?

The one misconception I want to address is this: "Because Valjean is the 'protagonist', or the 'hero' of the story, Javert has to be the 'antagonist', or the 'villain' of the story". This is a common misconception; you cannot equalize "protagonist" and "hero", and you cannot equalize "antagonist" and "villain". A PROTAGONIST is defined as "the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text" while a HERO is defined as "a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities". On the other hand, an ANTAGONIST is defined as "a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary" and a VILLAIN as "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot". From these definitions, you can clearly see that a protagonist is not always a hero and an antagonist is therefore not always the villain.

So in Les Mis, because the story focuses on Valjean, we can say that he is the protagonist and that Javert, his adversary, is the antagonist. But when it comes to the hero and the villain, it is not as simple and clear-cut as you may think. While Valjean is definitely a heroic character (he is selfless, brave, and forgiving), he also portrays villainous characteristics; after all, it is his stealing of the silver goods from Bishop Myriel that sets him on the right path, and Valjean is a criminal. On the other hand, Javert is also undoubtedly a heroic character: he is simply a lawman diligently doing his duty to the country by persevering after the dangerous convict Valjean. Despite this, Javert's unwavering devotion to the law blinds him to see the world as either black or white; in Javert's mind, one is either good or evil and no one is morally middle (although Javert is very much a "morally middle" character). Javert's villainous characteristics show however, during the Les Amis de l'ABC's (the student revolutionary group with Marius) rebellion; Javert actively attempts to thwart the revolt and purposefully lead the students to their deaths by posing as a Les Amis spy and feeding them false information, and his clear blindness of (or perhaps a refusal to accept) the corrupt and faulty monarchy and the fanatical devotion to the government and the law leads him to make the choice to lead students to their deaths.

Interestingly, his disdain for the rebellion is actually understandable if we look at Javert's early life. Javert was born in 1780 and dies in 1832. This means that Javert would have been around 9 years old when the French Revolution began (1789) and puts him in his early to mid twenties (about 23 years old) when the Napoleonic Wars began in 1803, meaning that he would most likely have fought in those wars. This puts Javert in an interesting situation: from what we know of his character, it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume he was a militaryman for almost all of his life, and as a child, he firsthand witnessed the horrors that revolution could bring and the radical changes that took place in government (the Revolution began in the rule of the monarch and eventually reverted back to a monarchy).
     If we are to make the educated guess that Javert has always been a firm believer (almost to the degree of being a fanatic) in the government and the law, it is not difficult to believe that Javert saw monarchy as the most ideal form of government (after all, the revolution did fail to bring a significant change in government as it basically reverted to a monarchy). And because Javert finds no fault in the law, and by extension, the government, it is entirely logical that he wouldn't have supported the movement of the Les Amis as even if he saw issues within the government, he would have known the atrocities associated with rebellions (which would have put him off of the idea completely, experiencing all of that as a child) and would have eventually seen resistance against the monarchy as being futile, and he was technically right as the Les Amis' rebellion ended up failing quite horribly.
     While all of this is more or less speculation on my part, if one were to try and explain Javert's fanaticism to the law to the point of becoming blind by his faith towards it, it would be possible to explain his character as a result of being shown the atrocities of (and eventually the failures of) revolutions at the very young and impressionable age of 9 or 10, which than paints a picture of Javert as someone who is merely trying to keep the peace because he has (or at least believes he has) learnt the lesson. And you have to admit that growing up during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars COULD NOT have been a very pleasant experience for Javert
     Additionally, Valjean was already 20 by the time the French Revolution took place (born in 1769) and began his prison sentence in 1796 and got out in 1815, meaning that he was significantly old enough by his arrest to know that there were serious issues with the monarchy, a wisdom and knowledge that the younger Javert did not have (but Javert WAS apparently a prison guard at age 16).

So there are two big ways to view the morality of Les Mis:

1. Jean Valjean is reformed man trying to do good in the world while Javert is the soulless devotee to a corrupt government whose goal is to rid the world of any good and ensure that the tyrannical regime stays.
2. Inspector Javert is a just lawman doing his duty to capture Jean Valjean, a dangerous criminal, and put him behind bars because he is a danger to society.

It's a conundrum, isn't it? You can't definitively say that neither Valjean or Javert is good or bad. They're both heroes of their own story, and the villains of the others'; because the story is told generally from Valjean's POV, Javert is portrayed as being more villainous than he actually is.
Here, I have a third option that I really think summarizes the situation of morality in Les Mis perfectly:

Neither Javert nor Valjean is the hero or the villain: They are morally grey characters struggling to survive with what they are given and try to do what they believe to be the right thing.

So, is there a hero and a villain in Les Mis? If so, who are they? 
     I believe that the answer is YES. There actually are three characters who can be summed up as the true hero and the villains of this story: Bishop Myriel and the Thénardiers.
     Bishop Myriel is truly a faultless character: he is selfless and noble through and through. He is a man who lives with the philosophy of kindness and love. He helps Valjean when he is in need without question and without caring Valjean's criminal status (I'm not quite sure if he knew Valjean was a criminal or not but even if he did know, he wouldn't have cared). Furthermore, when Valjean runs off in the night with his precious silver and is arrested the next day, the Bishop lies to the soldiers that the silver was a gift to Valjean from himself and actually chastises Valjean for forgetting to take the silver candlesticks with him. After the police leave, the Bishop tells Valjean to use the silver to become an honest man. Although the Bishop does not appear in the story afterwards, his kindness and love towards Valjean is the turning point of his character: Valjean cannot comprehend the compassion he had been given because he was hardened into a man knowing nothing but hate during his (arguably too long) time in prison. He begins to realize how horrible he was, betraying the trust of the one person who had been kind to him, and feels shame. It is at this point that Valjean vows to become a man of light, doing nothing but good, and the entirety of Valjean's character for the rest of the story is the result of Bishop Myriel's love and compassion.
     Next are the villains of Les Mis, the Thénardiers. I genuinely cannot think of a SINGLE redeeming qualities of these characters. They do nothing but cheat and swindle and rob people out of their money, and their first song in the musical, "Master of the House" is solely dedicated to their crimes and the glee they get from it. They are abusive to young Cosette, cheats Fantine out of money (lies to her they need money for a sick Cosette), and after they lose their inn, they essentially become con artists and cheap pickpockets. One of the worst things their characters ever do in the musical is this particular line they sing during "One Day More": "Watch 'em run amuck, catch 'em as they fall, never know your luck when there's a free for all. Here a little 'dip', there a little 'touch', most of them are goners so they won't miss much!". It is meant to be seen as being more comedic than anything, but I just found the idea of these two not caring about the lives of schoolboys who are essentially fighting for a better life for all (something that's going to positively affect the Thénardiers). It gets even worse as in the novel, they steal from the corpses of killed students. I cannot stress enough how much I HATE these two. As a small consolation, Madame Thénardier dies in prison after being arrested by Javert (go Javert!), but Monsieur Thénardier scams some money from Marius and goes to America to be a slave trader. Apparently Monsieur Thénardier is protected from karmic punishment, although I guess having punishment come to Madame Thénardier in the novel is at least better than both of them surviving and still running cons in the musical.

Although Hugo liked making his characters morally grey, it seems like there were at least three who were indisputably good or evil.

Well, that was a long rant. I honestly really love Les Misérables as a story, and it's probably because I'm crazy for history and this has some historical elements in it. But I really loved the fact that Victor Hugo managed to make nearly every character be morally grey and not explicitly good or evil (even Marius is like this as he is actually a Bonapartist in the novel) which makes reading about their actions just so much more interesting because having a morally grey character means that it is much more . Even though I haven't actually read the novel yet, I'm in love with the musical itself and all of these songs (and I'm going to go watch it live for the first time this June!) and I think it's just written beautifully. Victor Hugo's creative genius also must be given praise to: he writes his character so well that I was so deeply invested in their well-beings even in their much more stripped-down musical counterparts (Javert in particular is my favourite because he shows some great character conflicts). I seriously love Les Misérables and I truly recommend everyone to at least give some of the songs a listen or watch the full 10th Anniversary performance with the Dream Cast, you won't regret it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG-gojr493E.

My next post will be a review of a Stephen King book/novella (I'm not quite sure what to call it), from his collection, Four Past Midnight. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Dead Poets Society (1989)

Before I begin, I would like to dedicate this post to Robin Williams. He is one of my all-time favourite actors, and a source of inspiration for many. His saying "No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change the world", is one that helps me to stay positive to this day.
Robin, you were taken from us too soon.
Thank you for your contributions.
Rest In Peace, Oh Captain My Captain.

"Carpe diem. Seize the day, boys. Make your lives extraordinary." 

- Captain John Keating

Robin Williams is one of my all-time favourite actors. Some of his movies like Good Morning Vietnam and Mrs. Doubtfire are some of my favourite movies to this day, but no movie resonates in me as much as Dead Poets Society. This movie carries a beautiful message of essentially not being constrained by expectations of society and being yourself, which is something that I think is so crucial in society where there still is a big call by the conservative population to make everyone sort of conform to the "ideal societal values". Watching Robin in this film is also what gave me the inspiration to become a teacher because I wanted to be someone who could change the world even a little bit, one student at a time.

This film is just filled with so many great quotes that could be applied to real life very easily. "Boys, you must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, 'Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.' Don't be resigned to that. Break out!" Even in today's much more liberal society, there is still a heavy pressure on young people to get those traditional, high-paying jobs like doctors, lawyers, etc. and the value is most definitely on money, and not what you enjoy. Of course, I'm not saying that it's not important to have a good job with a good pay: it is important for survival; but what's the point of having a good job if you're absolutely miserable at it? Mr. John Keating (Robin's character in the film) really strikes that message in; he says "And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for." Yes, the academic jobs are crucial for life, but without the arts, there's no beauty in life; we have to "live deep and suck out all the marrow of life." (Henry David Thoreau).

How do we "live deep and suck out all the marrow of life", then? The answer is simple: "Carpe diem, seize the day. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may." You just have to seize the day. This is seen pretty evidently in the books; all of the kids are so restricted by their parents' wishes and desires for them (lawyers, doctors, bankers, etc.) that they can't even begin to unearth the surface of their true, imaginative selves; remember, "No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world". This desire for conformity and "Tradition" (the motto of Welton Academy) is seen best in a brief interchange between Mr. Keating and school Headmaster Nolan; Keating says, in a conversation about his creative teaching methods: "I always thought the idea of education was to learn to think for yourself." Nolan responds harshly with, "At these boys' age? Not on your life!" This brief exchange shows that the adults in the society wants to force the kids to conform, so that they'll follow the old-fashioned values of their parents and to suppress free-think. While this idea definitely is dangerous (forcing something on people at the a young age is never good), Mr. Keating does seem to admit to the pros of "conformity" to a degree.

Although he urges the boys to "seize the day" and be daring, he also understands that being too much daring isn't always good; he says: "There's a time for daring and there's a time for caution, and a wise man understands which is called for." and "Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone." And this, along with the message of "Carpe Diem" leads to a VERY importance message/theme in life: MODERATION. Yes, it is importance to express yourself and be daring and brave, but you must do all of them in moderation. You can't just live by your passions all the time; you have to be smart and make logical decisions. It's fine to do what you love doing, but you also have to plan ahead; look to the future and make the best choice. You can do what you enjoy as a career, BUT it also should be something that will give you a good quality of life; that's what Keating emphasized to the members of the Dead Poet's Society: they can go ahead and meet up and read poetry and be creative, but they shouldn't risk their life with expulsion by being stupid. Being bold can be being stupid.

So, is it important to Seize the Day and be brave and daring and express yourself? Of course. But is it important to keep things in moderation? Of course. The real takeaway message here is though, don't let ANYONE define you and who you're meant to be. Neil was the victim of this. He let his father have too much control over his life; he let his father define who he was until too late. And to him, suicide may have been the only argument he had left against his unwilling-to-listen father; and while we are meant to resent Neil's father for driving him to suicide, we can also empathize with Neil's father: All Mr. Perry wanted was for his son to have a good, successful, comfortable life; it's been mentioned multiple times that his family wasn't particularly rich so Mr. Perry had to work hard to get Neil into Welton and on a path to a difficult, but ultimately satisfying (at least in Mr. Perry's eyes) life. We can see where Mr. Perry comes from, so it's hard to hate him completely, and he does seem to care deeply about his son, which is most likely why he lays all the blame on Keating rather than himself because he can't come to terms with the fact that he caused his son's death.

So like I said, don't let ANYONE define you and who you're meant to be. Carpe Diem, "Seize the Day", "suck out all the marrow of life". But don't be foolish about it either: don't "choke on the bone"; be in moderation. Balance your deepest dreams and desire with practicality. I think that Neil and all of the other boys would have been fine if they were allowed to express themselves WHILE they continued their studies; if Neil could have continued acting as a hobby, than he wouldn't have killed himself. The film was a war between the freethinking, radical thinkers of the Dead Poets Society and the hard-nosed, traditionalist teachers and adults. Mr. Keating is the moderator in all of this: he is a freethinker yet a respected teacher; a man who encourages his students to follow their passions, but not to let that take over. I think that everybody needs to be like John Keating: everyone needs to find a middle ground between radicalism and traditionalism; to be perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

DPS Rating: 5/5

So I know this wasn't much of a review as me rambling on about life and kind of getting cynical, but it's a new approach I'm trying, so please let me know what you think about it below! As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Joker (2019)

"I used to think that my life was a tragedy, but now I realize, it's a comedy."

The Joker is a character throughout fiction whose name is almost synonymous with evil, chaos, anarchy, and insanity. No sane person would ever describe him as "sympathetic" or "humane". But with Joaquin Phoenix, those are the words you would use to describe Arthur Fleck; gone is the anarchistic evil-genius who wants to watch Gotham burn, replaced by a weak, damaged man who just simply wants to fit in, to be accepted for who he is. Joker is not a "comic book movie"; it's a social commentary to raise awareness of  people with mental illness and how horrible society is still treating them overall. A big contributing factor to this of course, is the drastically changed character of Joker.

The Joker has always had a consistent character: he's a psychotic genius and a leading figure in Gotham's criminal underworld who is obsessed with plunging Gotham into chaos; his backstory is also generally consistent: a criminal who becomes disfigured and insane after falling into a vat of toxic chemicals. But Joaquin Phoenix's Joker was created in a toxic society that didn't care about him or didn't attempt to understand him. It's like Arthur says, "Everybody's awful these days. It's enough to make anyone crazy". In the film, Arthur's laughter is involuntary. He suffers from a brain damage that causes a neurological disorder similar to tourette syndrome that forces him to laugh at uncontrollable times. This makes him a social outcast because despite his card explaining his condition, no one cares about him. Everybody just treats him like he's a freak and expects him to "normal" like everyone else. Arthur is clearly angry and saddened about this, as he writes, "The worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don't" in his notebook of jokes.

What's interesting about this Joker is that Arthur didn't really cause most of the violence on purpose. He triggered a series of violent events that was essentially caused by an act of self-defence (sort of). I did like it though that he began to lose more and more of his humanity as he went on but still retained some of it at the end. This is very obvious as while Arthur does kill people mercilessly, his murder of them is not without reason (to an extent). Everyone that Arthur kills has objectively been cruel to him (the Wayne Workers, his abusive mother, the co-worker that got him fired, and Murray who mocked him on TV). He even says "I killed those guys because they were awful". And they were. Those people he killed were awful people; especially the Wayne workers. They were well-off, entitled people. Arthur even makes a statement about the imbalance between the wealthy and the poor: "Ugh, why is everybody so upset about these guys? If it was me dying on the sidewalk you'd walk right over me! I pass you everyday and you don't notice me! But these guys? Well because Thomas Wayne would cry about them on TV?"

It is true that people only cared about the Wayne employees because they were rich and because they were "normal" and "successful". The disparity between the wealthy and the poor is so big, and Arthur's right when he says "Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody's civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it's like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it's like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don't." While I won't agree or disagree, I won't deny that there isn't some truth to this comment; that maybe we don't care enough about "the other guy" like Arthur.

Political commentary aside, I can't finish this blog without commenting on the fantastic acting from Joaquin Phoenix. I had only seen him in Gladiator (2000) and Hotel Rwanda (2004), so while I knew he was a great actor, I didn't expect this amount of mastery going in. Phoenix's highlight scenes in this film are his laughs. Like previously mentioned, Phoenix's Joker laughs because of some sort of muscle disorder caused by brain damage, meaning that he can't control his laughter. Not only does he have the laughter down perfectly, but he also shows the immense pain Joker is going through so painfully well. You can see the pain in the rest of his face when he laughs and it becomes very hard to watch sometimes when a sob breaks out of the laughter once in a while, reminding you that this is a man in horrible pain. In nearly every line he says, you can hear pain and sadness and even anger towards a society that "abandons him and treats him like trash", and it makes you wonder if those people really did what they deserved because we finally get to see what it's like to be "the other guy". I can 100% see an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Best Picture, and even though I think Phoenix would deserve an Oscar for this role, he's against very tough competition this year with Taron Egerton (Rocketman), Tom Hanks (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood), and a number of other actors who I'm sure is just as deserving.

WARNING: THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS, SO PLEASE SKIP TO MY CONCLUDING THOUGHTS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM YET.

This really has nothing to with the actual review, but I have a little theory that everything that happens after Murray's death (and perhaps a good portion of the film) is all in Arthur's mind. It is obvious that Arthur IS an unreliable narrator; he imagined being with Sophie (which took up a good portion of the film), and is prone to "fantasies". I think that much of the movie is an exaggeration of Arthur's mind. For example, it feels very silly to think that just because someone in a clown mask killed three affluent men, the city begins to fall into anarchy. I think that while there were "Clown Protests" going on, it was nowhere near as severe as the film out to be. At the most, I think it was just a small group of angry fanatics protesting against the corrupt Gotham.

However, I do think that Joker DID kill Murray, but much of that is likely exaggerated; Arthur suddenly becomes very "normal" and courageous: he dances like he never could before, he outrageously kisses one of the other guests without repercussions, and he no longer laughs uncontrollably. While the interview definitely DID happen and Arthur DID kill Murray, I think that the interview is an idealized version of what Arthur wishes the interview would have been like. The fact that other stations report Murray's death IS proof that the "execution" DID happen, but I think that Arthur was simply arrested and taken to Arkham State; he was never saved, he never did the bloody smile with that almost ridiculously large mob of people around him. And that's why other's laughing at the end. He IS the joke. He's not this great leader of revolution he believes himself to be through his delusions; he's just a crazy man who started a small movement that maybe did cause the death of the Wayne, but overall had no effect on society. His life is a comedy; a tragic comedy. His life is still a tragedy; he just chooses to see it as a comedy.

THE SPOILERS HAVE ENDED, YOU MAY CONTINUE READING.

What more do I have to say? I absolutely love character studies, movies that revolve about mental illness and psychology, and the Joker has also been one of my all-time favourite fictional characters. The slow pacing really worked to build Arthur Fleck as a character in this movie, the plot was definitely something realistic enough that we could sympathize with Arthur, but at the same time detached ever so slightly enough that it wouldn't incite any serious conflict in real life. Joaquin Phoenix delivered the best acting I've ever seen from an actor; hats off to Mr. Phoenix for bringing life to a Joker that is such radically different, yet will be immortalized next to the other greats such as Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill, and Heath Ledger. Joker receives a 5/5.

So next film review will be about an actor that has been my favourite for many years. It was watching him that sparked my interest in acting. Even though he is no longer with us, he is still an inspiration to me; he is my Captain. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

P.S. Also I AM aware that all of my posts have been very, VERY positive with the scores (my last two along with this one and the next one had a 5/5). Don't worry, I will actually actively criticize things too. I just wanted to write some positive things about movies & books that I really love.

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Rocketman (2019)

Taron Egerton (Left) as Sir Elton John (Right)

Sir Elton John (original name Reginald Dwight) is a British rock music legend, and his musical prowess has been put on par with other legendary rock stars such as Freddie Mercury, Sir Paul McCartney, and David Bowie. Recently, he has announced that he would be retiring from touring to spend more time with his family and has begun his Farewell Tour: Farewell Yellow Brick Road. Apart from his musical career, he has also appeared in the 2017 film Kingsman: The Golden Circle as himself, which is where he met and befriended actor Taron Egerton, who would later go on to portray Elton himself in the biopic which I will be discussing today.

To begin with, I was genuinely impressed by the overall acting from the entire cast. Taron Egerton not only LOOKED like Elton John, but I loved that the movie showed all the parts of Elton's lifestyle and didn't shy away from the rougher portions like the drug abuse, suicide attempts, and even his promiscuous sexual life, and I really respect that Elton, as executive producer actually made sure to paint a rather accurate picture of his personal life, warts and all, showing the sex, his addiction to cocaine, his suicide attempts, and finally his triumphant return. Egerton really showed all the emotions Elton was going through amazingly, and he made the movie an excruciatingly emotional experience to sit through. It was rather depressing watching Elton John suffer through one horrible human being after another and never finding the courage to admit that he needed help until it could have been too late (a suicide attempt and a heart attack that got more or less ignored was two disasters too much), and the fact that none of that is fabricated to add dramatic tension (all of that IS real) was really messed up.

Apart from Taron Egerton, the other three breakout stars I think were Richard Madden as Elton's manager/lover John Reid, Jamie Bell as Elton's longtime friend & lyric writer Bernie Taupin, and Bryce Dallas Howard as Elton's distant mother Sheila. Even though Madden was playing an abusive, cruel, manipulative human being, he was so damn charming and charismatic the rest of the time that while I definitely hated him throughout the film, I also wanted to see more of the character. Bell and Egerton seriously have an amazing onscreen chemistry and I'm not sure if they've acted together before, but they really feel like best friends. Bryce Dallas Howard is sort of known for playing very easily hated characters (Example being The Help), and she was absolutely brilliant in this. She played Elton's cold, uncaring, perhaps even emotionally abusive in some sense, mother (who really was like that in real life) amazingly, especially with the extremely hurtful line "You’ll never be loved properly"; and yet, she also portrays a softer side with that line as well. This is shown even more when Elton attempts suicide later and she is genuinely in tears, concerned for her son, suggesting that maybe Shelia is a more deeper, complex person then we see.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the song choices in this film. As far as I'm aware, all of the music in this film were Elton John songs, but it was sung by the cast. All of the song choices were perfect for each of the scene they were used in, and I really liked that it was in a musical format (mainly because I really love musicals) but each of the songs added more depth and emotion into those scenes because it felt like Elton was narrating his life with his songs (a rather strange choice since it was Bernie Taupin who wrote the lyrics, not Elton). My favourite one were no doubt "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and "I'm Still Standing" because of the sheer raw emotion you can hear in those particular songs that didn't exist as much in the originals.

Overall, Rocketman was a great movie. I really loved the cast, the songs, and I really respect the fact that they portrayed every part of Elton's life, warts and all, with no censorship or "sugarcoating" them like they did with Bohemian Rhapsody. Taron Egerton may not sound EXACTLY like Elton John, but he comes damn close and having Taron's less trained voice sing them worked much better to convey the emotions. I can definitely see an Oscar nomination coming for Taron (although he'll have a rather heavy competition this year with Joaquin Phoenix and Tom Hanks also deserving one). Rocketman gets a well-deserved 5/5.

You know how people say laughter can sometimes be the best medicine? Well I think it's time to put a smile on someone's face by reviewing a certain movie about a clown (and it's NOT a Stephen King movie). As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur