ADAPTATION REVIEW: Inferno by Dan Brown (2016)

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their silence at times of crisis.”

If I had to name some of my favourite authors, the names that would come to mind are Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Rick Riordan, Lemony Snicket, and Dan Brown. And it will be that last author, Dan Brown, whose novel Inferno and its 2016 film adaptation I will be discussing today. Dan Brown writes mystery-thrillers, with most of his novels being based in "history" and revolving around Harvard Symbology professor Robert Langdon. It was actually through Dan Brown's novels that my interest in history really began to bloom (along with high school history) and he, along with Stephen King, was the author who inspired me to begin writing. Dan Brown's books are exciting and very well written with "history" integrated well into the plot of the novel.

However, I will admit that Dan Brown's books do have some problems. The foremost problem is that although his novels are do have historical basis to their plots, some of the historical facts he provides is fairly iffy. From what I can tell, there are parts of it that aren't quite historically accurate and apparently some things are entirely made up to work with the plot and a lot of people do claim that he basically takes conspiracy theories and inserts them into history, occasionally altering a facts to fit (which can be frustrating since Dan Brown claims his books are all grounded in actual history). But to be honest, considering the books are conspiracy theory books that are interwoven with history, I don't always take everything at point value; it may not work best as a historical fiction, but it's a damn enjoyable thriller. He's also apparently not very good at prose writing and he does pad his books out quite often by describing the guns people are using, but he does develop some very good and exiciting plots; the plots are so good in fact that you tend to overlook some mediocre writing and I do like simple page turner novels. 

However, a big problem I do have with Dan Brown is that his books are extremely formulaic: Robert Langdon gets called to some place by an important person, gets involved in some conspiracy that'll involve history and symbology, travel around some city looking for art pieces with clues with a female companion, the antagonist will turn out to be someone that Langdon trusted, and no one except for a few side characters we didn't care much about will die and no meaningful development will happen. The books honestly are so predictable that you can sort of predict what's going to happen to some degree. Not to mention that all of his characters don't tend to be very complex. Pretty much all of his major characters are kind of two dimensional and not the most interesting. Even Robert Langdon isn't all that interesting apart from his eidetic memory, but he's just too much of a perfect hero with no faults, and the fact that he has no character flaws (apart from the occasional fear of enclosed spaces that barely gets brought up significantly) kind of annoys me sometimes because it IS boring to read about the "perfect hero".

That being said, I still love Dan Brown as an author. No matter what his flaws are, I think that he can still develop an interesting and exciting plot, and even though he does make up a lot of "history", he does it well enough that it makes sense in the context of the story. I just felt like I had to adress this bit because apparently he does get a lot of hate that I can understand, but not agree with. Like I get that he claims his fake history is real can be annoying and that his books are formulaic, but to be honest, those issues don't matter to me cause his books are exciting and great page turners. Like I wouldn't consider them anything groundbreaking like J.R.R. Tolkien or even Stephen King, but his books are entertaining enough to make him one of my favourite authors.

Dan Brown's works have been adapted into films three times in total, centred around Harvard Symbology (which I was disappointed to find out that it was NOT a real degree) Professor Robert Langdon (portrayed by Tom Hanks in the films) and all three films (The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, and Inferno) have been directed by Ron Howard. Today, I will be reviewing the film Inferno and comparing it to how it held up against the book. Neither the book or the movie are my favourite of Dan Brown's works or its movie adaptations, but I read & watched it recently, so I will be reviewing it.

Inferno primarily takes place in Florence, Italy, although they eventually go to Venice and later Istanbul, Turkey. It revolves with the idea of overpopulation, population control, and has a plague motif surrounding it. As suggested by the title, the book and the movie draws from Dante Alighieri's poem "Inferno", the first part of the 14th century epic Divine Comedy. In "Inferno", Dante (who happens to be the protagonist of the poem) journeys through hell and sees the different levels of punishment; a big part of the story revolves around Dante's "Inferno" and hell.

Plot Synopsis

The general plot is somewhat kept, although there are few major plot changes between the book and the movie that I honestly didn't like.

Robert Langdon wakes up in a hospital in Florence with constant nightmare/visions of a hellish landscape and no recollection of the events of the last few days, believing himself to be still in America. In his visions he sees a veiled woman who repeats the words "seek and find" and he has been murmuring "Ve... sorry" in his sleep.  His attending doctors are Dr. Sienna Brooks and Dr. Marconi. Sienna reveals that he has a bullet wound to the head, which is likely what is causing Langdon's amnesia. Suddenly, a woman in a police uniform named Vayentha enters the hospitals and kills Dr. Marconi. Sienna and Langdon escape the hospital and returns to Sienna's apartment. 

Langdon finds a cylinder with a biohazard sign in his jacket that opens to his thumbprint. The cylinder contains a Faraday pointer (a small image projector) that projects an image of Botticelli's Map of Hell, a rendering of Dante's poem "Inferno" (explaining his visions). Meanwhile Langdon and Sienna call the US Consulate who claims they have been looking for him and wants to rendez-vous with him; as a test, Langdon gives them the address of a hotel nearby, only then to see Vayentha arrive at the hotel. Convinced that the US government is trying to kill Langdon, they decide to go solo. Langdon realizes that Botticelli's painting has been modified to include letters which form the message "cerca trova" (meaning "seek and ye shall find"). A team of soldiers and the police arrive at Sienna's apartment, having tracked Langdon down after he had accessed his email.

The two manages to evade the soldiers and head to the Palazzo Vecchio, as the Palazzo contains the painting The Battle of Marciano by Vasari (explaining "Ve... sorry") which contains the words "cerca trova". They manage to sneak into the Palazzo by the garden and encounters Marta Alvarez, a worker who is pregnant. Marta recognizes Langdon from his visit with Ignazio Busoni, the director of Il Duomo yesterday. Marta informs them that Langdon and Ignazio were fixated on Dante Alighieri's death mask. She takes the two up to see the mask, but is shocked to discovered the mask missing. In the security room, it is revealed that Langdon and Ignazio had stolen the mask the day before.

Langdon and Sienna escapes and encounters Vayentha, who tries to assure that she is trying to help Langdon but is pushed to her death by Sienna. Langdon and Sienna follows Ignazio's clues that he left before his death via heart attack to a church where the mask is hidden. They learn that the mask is owned by the man named Bertrand Zobrist, a geneticist and an advocate of population control who had committed suicide a few days before. They meet up with a man who claims to be from the World Health Organization. 

With the WHO agent, Langdon and Sienna follows the clue left on the mask to Venice. Sienna and Langdon leaves the WHO agent they met behind, believing him to be their enemy. Langdon and Sienna learn that whatever they're looking for is in Budapest. They are eventually seen by soldiers who have been chasing them, but Sienna leaves Langdon behind to be captured, revealing that she was Bertrand Zobrist's lover all along and have been planning to fulfill Zobrist's master plan.

Langdon is captured by the soldiers and is eventually taken to WHO and its director Dr. Elizabeth Sinskey (who is revealed to be the veiled woman in Langdon's dreams). She explains to him that Bertrand Zobrist has created a biological weapon named "INFERNO" in a water soluble bag that will release on a certain date. This weapon is a disease of some sort meant to control population and has hidden it somewhere with the help of a private security company known as the Consortium (its name in the books). Zobrist had also sent WHO the Faraday Pointer as a clue to this bioweapon and WHO had recruited Langdon to find this bioweapon and he had solved it all, had stolen the death mask before getting amnesia. The Consortium's leader had received a video from Zobrist before his death that was to be released on a specific date. They had caused Langdon's amnesia to stop him from finding the weapon before deciding to turn the video over to the WHO in the hopes of stopping it. It is revealed that Vayentha was an employee of the Consortium who had been ordered to bring Langdon in so that he could work with WHO; Dr. Marconi's "murder" was all planned and Sienna Brooks was simply supposed to play the part of the doctor, but she had gone rogue and Vayentha's role was to stop her and bring her in to WHO custody. They realize that Sienna had always planned on going rogue by tricking Langdon into revealing the location of the bioweapon so she could detonate it earlier.

Realizing that Budapest is where the weapon was placed, Langdon and WHO rush to Budapest in hopes of stopping it. 

And that's where the plot stops being similar. The ending is actually completely changed, along with some important characters and plot points. I much preferred the novel in terms of these differences and I will be discussing some of the details they got right in the next section, followed by everything the got wrong (which is quite a lot).

The Loyal Factors

The central characters were adapted well enough. Robert Langdon's symbology expertise, Harris tweed jacket, and his Mickey Mouse watch are all key parts of Langdon's character. Sienna Brooks being a child prodigy and Bertrand Zobrist's lover who had been helping Langdon just so she could release Zobrist's supervirus herself is accurate. Bertrand Zobrist's message of the dangers of overpopulation and the need for population control and his subsequent deploying of the virus and suicide is present in both the book and the movie. The Consortium in the book and the movie is a mysterious company who provides Zobrist with protection but later cooperates with WHO to stop the virus from being released.

The movie does keep to the general plot points of the novel: Langdon wakes up in Florence with his memory gone, teams up with Sienna to stop a virus from being released, goes to Vienna, Sienna betrays Langdon, and then they go to Budapest. Every major plot point is there up to their arrival in Budapest, which is where the plot of the movie begins to deviate from the book. 

Apart from the plot, this is the list of the things they kept:

- Dante's poem "Inferno" Botticelli's painting Map of Hell being the most significant piece of clue (kind of necessary since the movie IS called "Inferno")

- "Cerca Trova", the Faraday Pointer, and Dante's death mask.

- LOCATIONS: The Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Venice, Istanbul, Hagia Sophia, the Basilica Cistern.

- CHARACTERS: Vayentha, Elizabeth Sinskey, The Provost (Consortium's leader, Harry Sims in the movie), Ignazio Busoni, Marta Alvarez.

If you look at it overall, apart from the final act, the movie reasonably adapted the book well: It contained all the major plot points, objects, characters, locations, and it had the overall theme of population control present. That being said, completely changing the final act ruins any meaningful character that Sienna has and it also does change the entire message of the books about the dangers of overpopulation, even though the way Dan Brown presents it is rather questionable.

So in this next section, I will be discussing the entire ending, why I think the book's ending was really questionable and kind of reckless of Brown's part, Sienna's entire missing backstory, and some of the other plot details the movie missed.

The Disloyal Factors

The biggest difference between the book and the movie is the nature of the virus and its ending. In the film, Sienna and a few other Zobrist followers tries to blow up the Basilica Cistern (the location of the virus) and release the virus early. Langdon & Co. arrive on time and after a brief struggle, the bag with the virus (which turns out to be an ACTUAL PLAGUE) is secured by WHO but Sienna dies in the explosion. 

In the novel, when Sienna, Langdon, and WHO arrive at the Cistern, it is revealed that the virus had already been released and the date Zobrist wrote was the date that the virus would have infected the world population, not the date of release (which was about a week ago). It turns out that Sienna had also realized the horror at what she had helped create and was trying to stop the release of the virus herself, and didn't trust the WHO because she believed that WHO would sell it to a third party. Sienna does not die and ends up surrendering herself to Langdon because she has lost everything she cares for and feels hopeless because she has nowhere to go. Sienna arranges a deal with WHO where she gets immunity in exchange for helping WHO in identifying the virus and figuring out a solution. It is revealed that the virus is a vector virus meant to cause infertility in certain percentage of the population to help decrease the population "naturally". Langdon and WHO agrees (to my extreme shock) that they shouldn't try to reverse the effects of the virus because ZOBRIST HAD A POINT (Yes, Dan Brown actually suggested that forced sterilization was a good thing. I'm very shocked and HORRIFIED.). 

Apart from this, the film removed Sienna's backstory completely. Sienna being a child prodigy is mentioned, but there is a portion of the novel where Langdon learns that a young Sienna had become overwhelmed by all the pressure put on her and ended up diagnosing herself with depression. I was disappointed they left this out (although I understand why) because it made Sienna's eventual surrender more sense; Sienna was thoroughly exhausted by that point and she was overcome with guilt for what she had done. Sienna, like Zobrist, was very much a tragic figure who had found comfort in Zobrist and by the end was just a terrified girl.

The film also (also understandably) left out the fact that Sienna was bald. It turned out that Sienna was sexually assaulted in the Philippines and the resulting stress had made all of her hair fall out, forcing her to wear a wig. Her self-consciousness over her baldness is another reason why she was in love with Zobrist because he genuinely accepted her for who she was and seemed to believe that Sienna was stronger for what she had gone through and that she was a warrior rather than a victim.

The novel was better in this aspect because the film sums up Sienna's motivations to "He's a genius and I love him." But in the novel, it was completely different. Sienna may be the most redeemed, heroic character of the novel; she helped Zobrist create the virus, but she eventually realized how dangerous the virus was and decided to stop it herself, having valid concerns about what would happen if WHO got their hands on it. Even though Sienna betrayed Robert, she did it with good intentions and it makes it so hard to hate such a complex, well-rounded character like Sienna who is very much a redeemed villain.

By cutting out Sienna's backstory, I think they also ruined Zobrist's character quite a bit. Was Betrand Zobrist a bioterrorist? Absolutely. But was he evil? Not exactlu. The book makes it quite clear that not only was Zobrist willing to sacrifice his life for doing what he believed to be saving the world, but through Sienna's character, we see that Zobrist is a good man. Zobrist clearly made Sienna feel safe and loved her for who she was. A big part of Sienna's character is that she was always an outcast due to her intelligence and with Zobrist, she could be herself. I frankly found the novel Zobrist to be a compelling character and a good person who genuinely thought he was trying to help the world.

The film Zobrist on the other hand is just shallow. He shows concern about overpopulation, but we don't see much of the kindness that Sienna experienced, and the fact that he CREATED A LITERAL PLAGUE paints him as an unhinged madman. The novel Zobrist was so much more complex and I think he was really hurt by the removal of Sienna's backstory.

The film also switched out Jonathan Ferris for Christophe Bouchard. In the novel, Ferris was a Consortium agent who had posed as Dr. Marconi earlier and had been sent to keep Langdon and Sienna distracted, posing as a member of WHO, so that WHO could get to them, but is later knocked out by Sienna. Christophe Bouchard was the head agent of the Surveillance and Response Support team of the WHO; he plays a similar role to Ferris, going withe Sienna and Langdon to Venice, but after Sienna betrays Langdon, Bouchard kidnaps Langdon, revealing that he had planned to take the virus for himself and sell it to a third-party, before being killed by the Provost (Harry Sims). I actually liked this change because I liked that they included the idea that there would inevitably someone who would want to take the virus and sell to the highest bidder and I think it was a clever idea to include that aspect.

List of other changes they made:

- In the novel, the Provost and Ferris are arrested for their role in helping Zobrist while in the film, Harry Sims dies heroically helping Langdon.

- Ignazio Busoni dies in the novel while his death is (I don't think) ever mentioned in the film.

- In the film Sinskey and Langdon had a previous relationship but broke up for work-related reasons while their relationship is totally professional in the novel.

- In the novel, while Vayentha's gun held blanks and the Consortium was never trying to kill Langdon, the film's Consortium actually orders a kill order for Langdon (which I guess is why they gave Sims a heroic death to make up for him trying to kill Langdon).

They also made a myriad of smaller changes clearly for time issues that I won't list because they barely affect the plot anyways, but know that a lot of things were changed.

Now I will give my personal thoughts on both the film and the novel in this next section, and give my summative thoughts on Inferno as an adaptation.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

The novel's a fun thriller. It has all the same pros and cons of a Dan Brown novel. It's a fun thriller and a great page turner and seems to be well-researched, but it suffers from Brown's formulaic plots and a boring hero (Langdon's knowledge is genuinely interesting bur he's too perfect and flawless). Another pro with this novel is that Brown did a great job with Sienna and Zobrist; he wrote them well (his side characters are always written superbly compared to Langdon) and made them into complex characters where Zobrist is a bad guy but he's not a "bad person" and Sienna is so complex and interesting. But my biggest gripe with this novel is that Dan Brown kind of promotes forced sterilization as a method of population control. Like he doesn't straight up support it, but the characters all admit that it's kind of a necessary evil and I can't get over that at all. Surely a better ending would've been WHO to say they were going to at least try to find a solution because forced sterilization of half the world's population is just wrong. I understand that Brown is allowed to have his opinions and he might not actually support forced sterilization, but his CHARACTERS certainly are fine with it, which makes it seem like HE supports it as well. Overall, Inferno was a fine book. I prefer The Da Vinci Code and Digital Fortress much more but Inferno was certainly entertaining to read.

The Film: 

The film is actually pretty good on its own; I saw the film first so I can say that it's a well-made thriller. But compared to the book, it's shallow. They painted Sienna and Zobrist as these made terrorists (which they aren't) and took away any real depth to their characters. I also thought it was really dumb that a genius like Zobrist who considers himself to be saving the world couldn't come up with something else other than a bloody plague. That being said, the film's easy to follow, has some very exciting scenes in it, and Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones are pretty great. But if someone were to ask me which Dan Brown film they should watch I would point them to The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons first, because I just think they're better movies (The Da Vinci Code even has Sir Ian McKellen in it). Inferno is a fine movie but it's a poor representation of the books and not the best Dan Brown movie either.

Overall Assessment

As an adaptation, Inferno felt very much like Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park (Reviewed Here: https://studiesofflicksnnovels.blogspot.com/2019/04/adaptation-review-michael-crichtons.html). Not in quality (Jurassic Park was MUCH better in every way) but in the actually adapting. Both adaptations took the general premise and plot of the novel and added their own twists on it. I liked this on Jurassic Park because I thought the movie version was better than the book. With Inferno, I can't say I like either better definitively; the novel's interesting enough, but it's not my particular favourite of Dan Brown's works (mainly because Brown seems to advocate for forced sterilization which I don't think is right) and the movie wasn't a drastic improvement compared to the book.

I considered Jurassic Park a successful adaptation because there is a difference between an accurate adaptation and a good adaption, something that I will be incorporating into my future reviews. Jurassic Park is by no means an accurate adaptation; it kept the bare minimum of the plot while take great liberties to the plot and characters. However, Jurassic Park was a good adaptation in my opinion because the movie still kept the book's message of the dangers of unchecked genetic experiments and trying to play God, and the message is never drowned out by the movie; even subsequent Jurassic Park movies and the two Jurassic World movies revolved around the original novel's themes and I think that it does show some respect to the original book, making it a good adaptation.

Inferno is not an accurate adaptation nor is it a good adaptation. The novel actually took some time to address the dangers of overpopulation, and while the movie does address it a bit, it never comes back full circle. The novel includes Bertrand Zobrist and his ideology throughout the story to remind the readers that Zobrist is almost like Thanos in that he sees an existing problem and is trying to solve it in a messed up way, and the overpopulation issue is actually addressed at the end of the novel. The movie on the other hand mentions Zobrist and his population control ideas only two or three times at most as far as I can remember and forgets to do the one thing that the novel ended up doing: Dan Brown made Zobrist somewhat of a tragic figure. 

Very much like Thanos, Zobrist saw that overpopulation would be a problem so he dedicated his life to work on what he thought to be a real problem, despite it being very flawed. That's why I personally ended up liking the book; I like tragic villains who are misguided into believing that they're doing genuine good, and the movie messed this up really badly. The movie essentially ignored the whole overpopulation issue and became a (well-acted and at least vaguely entertaining) generic terrorism thriller where Zobrist is painted as some random madman. Zobrist was the villain in the novel; his method of forced sterilization for population control is wrong. However, the novel at least took some time to give Zobrist some traits that portrayed as simply a misguide man; he was still probably a bit crazy, but at least we knew that he was trying to do some good. The film Zobrist does still have that goal of population control for the good, but that aspect of him is ignored so much that he simply comes off as a crazed lunatic; furthermore, his virus was the ACTUAL PLAGUE, which makes it very hard to see him in any positive light (At least the virus that Zobrist had in the novel was more humane and painless compared to the LITERAL PLAGUE).

Inferno could have been a better movie and adaptation had they presented Zobrist like Thanos. His character simply wasn't given enough time and as a result, he (Sienna in the process) is presented as some madman trying to kill half the world with a plague. The novel Zobrist was a better antagonist for the same reason Thanos was; they both had good intentions with a poor execution of their plans. While the film did get the plot right, Inferno as an adaptation left me feeling empty because it just felt so shallow to me compared to the novel. If you want to be exposed to Inferno in one way or another, I'd suggest you to just read the book and skip the movie; you won't miss anything apart from Tom Hanks and Felicity Jones being great, but if you want to really watch a good Dan Brown movie, just watch The Da Vinci Code.

As seeing as we are in a state of quarantine that seems never ending, my next review will be reviewing one of Stephen King's masterpieces that seems to be almost prophetic in nature, revolving around a disastrous pandemic caused by the deadly "Superflu" (Laws Yes!) . This book was the centre of attention at the beginning of the pandemic because people were getting paranoid that Stephen King's The Stand was actually happening in real life, when the Superflu of the novel was much more serious. 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: Schindler's List (1993)

''Whoever Saves One Life, Save The World Entire."

Oskar Schindler was a German business, a member of the Nazi Party, and considered a Righteous Among the Nations (a title used by the State of Israel to honour non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis for altruistic reasons). In fact, Oskar Schindler is the only Nazi to hold this distinction. 

Originally employing Jewish workers at his Polish enamelware factory due to them being cheap labour, he later changed his views and began to actively save Jewish people from extermination in the camps by bribing German officials claiming that the Jews (even children and disabled people) were essential labour. By the end of the war, he had saved the lives of around 1,100 Jews, and as of 2012 these "Schindler Jews" were estimated to have over 8,500 descendants all of the world. 

Because of all the money he used to help the Jews and the fact that he was technically a war profiteer (and the member of the Nazi Party), by the end of World War II, Schindler was left destitute and was considered a war criminal. When asked why he saved the Jews at the expense of his personal life, Schindler said "I felt that the Jews were being destroyed. I had to help them; there was no choice." Despite being a member of the Nazi Party, Schindler was by no means a bad man and he truly was a hero to all who did what he felt like he had to do.

In this review, I'm going to focus on just two things from the movie that spoke to me the most. The first is going to be this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIp_8RNNX4k which is the scene where the quote "He Who Saves One Life Saves the World Entire" comes from and I found it to be a very emotionally moving scene with great acting all around and it really shows I think the importance of what Schindler has done. The second thing I'm going to discuss is actually the character of Commandant Amon Göth (portrayed by Ralph Fiennes), a Nazi officer who ran the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp; his character I felt was actually more deep and complex than any other character in the film and I wanted to discuss him more in detail.

The quote "He Who Saves One Life Saves the World Entire" is a line from the Jewish text the Talmud and it was engraved into a gold ring given to Schindler as a gift by his Jewish workers. I always thought this quote was great because it reminds of a quote from Lord of the Rings by Samwise Gamgee who says "There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for." It's a great message to remember in general, but especially so in the difficult times we're facing right now with the COVID-19 Pandemic: We have to remember that good things still exist and we can't ever give up; Schindler's actions is an act of bravery that shows people that even the smallest act of selflessness can change the world for the better by helping people and inspiring others to do good themselves. The quote I also found was just a great summary of what Schindler did. Although he only saved 1,100 Jews in compared to the millions more killed by the Nazis, his actions still saved the potential lives of the descendants of these Schindler Jews. 

The acting in this scene is also superb in my opinion. The moment Schindler realizes that he had been living an extravagant life while people were dying around him and that he could have done more to save them and breaks down is just beautifully acted out. Liam Neeson's acting is absolutely phenomenal in this scene and this is the one scene that really makes me sad the most out of all the other scenes because you can really see the emotion building up from start of the scene all the way to the end where he begins to feel guilty, despite the fact that he saved the lives of 1,100 people at the expense of his own life (remember he was left virtually penniless and considered a war profiteer for making supplies for the Nazis). And while he probably could have done more, 1,100 people alive is still a lot, and as his personal accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) says, "There will be generations because of what you did", and he was absolutely right. Generations of people does exist now because of what Schindler did. 

I also want to discuss Amon Göth (portrayed by Ralph Fiennes), a Nazi officer who ran the Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp. I found his character very interesting because it reminded me of a poem called All There is to Know About Adolph Eichmann by Leonard Cohen which describes Eichmann (one of the major organizers of the Holocaust) as just a very average person to show that evil isn't evident all the time and even the Nazis were human beings. And I feel like the movie humanized Göth to some degree by making him a conflicted character to some degree. There is absolutely no doubt that Amon Göth was despicable human being who was an active participant in the slaughtering of Jews, but this movie reminds us that he is a human being.

Göth's humanity is always expressed in his relationship with Helen Hirsch, a Jewish woman who becomes his housekeeper. Göth clearly falls in love with Helen, and throughout the film you can see the struggle between his desire to be with Helen, and his beliefs that Jewish people are subhuman. This is best outlined when he makes advances on Helen and says: "I realize that you're not a person in the strictest sense of the word. Maybe you're right about that too. You know, maybe what's wrong isn't – it's not us – it's this. I mean, when they compare you to vermin and to rodents and to lice, I just, uh … you make a good point, a very good point." This scene really emphasizes the fact that while Göth IS a horrible person, he IS still a human being. You can tell that he's just slightly beginning to question the Nazi ideals and wonders whether the Nazis are wrong and the Jews are just human beings. However, the scene continues and Göth decides against kissing and beats her mercilessly, claiming that she tried to seduce him on purpose. You can see that Göth loathes himself for falling for a woman he can't be with and he also loathes Helen because she was there for him to fall in love with. It's interesting that although Göth is most definitely portrayed as this evil person, there is still a sympathetic side to him where you can see love almost winning him over.

Many people have disputed whether Göth actually loved Helen or if he just lusted for her sexually. I personally think that while it wasn't anything like true love, it seems to me that Göth did have affection for her that went beyond the basic sexual lust. At one point in the film, Göth says to Schindler "I want her to come back to Vienna with me. I want her to come to work for me there. I want to grow old with her." This to me implies that Göth doesn't just lust for her in a purely sexual sense but he does feel something more akin to love, but because of his hatred of the Jews and his status as a Nazi, he is very conflicted by it, which I believe is the reason for his violence towards her. He hates that he loves a Jewish woman who he considers to be subhuman and he hates that she doesn't love him back as well because of what he is. Although I think whether Göth loved Helen or not if definitely up to dispute, I don't think you could argue the fact that Göth was not just a one-dimensional villain, but a complex, very much human figure in the film.

As far as I'm aware Göth in real life never had any feelings for his Jewish housekeepers and was extremely abusive and cruel to them (although we could never really know what Göth's mind was like). I think that the film was made much better by not making Göth into a one-dimensional psychopath and instead giving his own character and making him more nuanced. It really emphasized the fact that as much as we want to paint the Nazis as some monsters, they still were human beings and that these evil, destructive people really aren't 100% evil and that they're more complex than just murderous psychopaths.

Overall, I really loved this movie. It was very well made film showcasing not only the heroic acts of Oskar Schindler, but also the horrors of the holocaust, and most importantly the duality of man in Amon Göth's very complex character. I also thought that it was a very clever idea to film it all in black-and-white because it does add more gravitas and seriousness to the film. The entire cast acted superbly and I personally found Ralph Fiennes as Amon Göth the best acting because he portrays both the cruel psychopathic side and the more humane side of Göth that makes you question whether Göth was actually evil or if he was just set on a misguided path at a young age.

I think that we all have something to learn from Schindler. It is true that his original intention for saving the Jews was to make money, but eventually he decided to save them, even if that mean he would be left completely destitute. The 1,100 he saved may not be very much compared to the around 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, but there will be generations of people who exist because of all that he did. So really, he didn't save the lives of just 1,100 people, he saved the lives of their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and on and on and on. 

For my next review, I think I'll be doing an adaptation review for once and I'll be covering an adaptation of the works of one of my favourite authors, Dan Brown. 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: Pet Sematary By Stephen King

"Sometimes dead is better." - Stephen King, Pet Sematary

Pet Sematary may be one of the most horrifying novels written by Stephen King, and it's not because of the serial killer baby or the demon in the woods. To be fair, "horrifying" isn't the right word describe Pet Sematary. The novel touches on mostly life, death, loss, pain and a lot of deeper subjects. King of course still touches on those things in other novels but Pet Sematary uses those as its central themes. I'd say Pet Sematary is more "disturbing" than "horrifying" mainly because everything that happens in the novel (the death of a pet, family, friends, etc) are things that nearly everyone has actually experienced once, so it is a book that can be very hard to get through. I'll probably be taking specific moments and quotes from the novel itself and more or less giving my own thoughts on it throughout this post.

Stephen King focuses heavily on loss and acceptance and eventually recovery. There's a really great quote here about the subject matter itself. The main character Louis' daughter Ellie had recently lost her pet cat and Jud, Louis' neighbour and all-around nice guy says, “Maybe she’ll learn something about what death really is, which is where the pain stops and the good memories begin. Not the end of life but the end of pain.” I thought this was a really good quote because there is a lot to be said about getting over a loved one's death. King focuses on the idea that it's unhealthy to be in constant denial and depression and you should rather focus on the happy memories you had with the person (or pet) who passed. The idea of remembering those who died positively as a healthy way of getting over their death is very prominent in book, along with actually ACCEPTING that they're dead, which segues into what I consider to be the central point of the novel: Accepting a loved one's death is so very important.

The premise of the novel is that there is an ancient Indian burial ground that could resurrect any dead living things, but the resurrected people or animals will never return quite the same: they will tend to me more violent and there is a "dead" aura about them that causes them to be out of place. The Pet Sematary in the novel (and yes the cemetery is meant to be spelled wrong; the cemetery in the novel was made by kids and they spelled cemetery wrong) is a place where kids bury their dead pets. The sematary represents accepting death and moving on healthily while the burial grounds represents the idea of unhealthy denial of death. The fact that the resurrected animals and people are very unnatural is another way to show that denial is wrong and shouldn't essentially try to mess with the course of nature even if you could.

The book is a very depressing one because, as it is the case with all King books, deal with some major life issue, in this case, Death. I'm not sure why but this novel hit really hard with me. I haven't really lost anybody close to me yet so the book really instilled a deep, cold fear in me that I could lose someone I deeply care about and that I might not be able to handle it very well. However, it is also possible that I already had that fear and left it unaddressed, which the book just pulled forward.

Even though the book is really depressing and one of King's darkest ones, it actually does provide some really great life lessons about death, preserving the memory of your loved ones, and eventual acceptance. I noticed that this book, even though it is horror fiction, it's also quite philosophical; the book does deal with a lot of deep topics and I honestly do believe that this is one of Stephen King's greatest works.

For my next review, I will be reviewing a movie about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. I consider the movie (directed by Stephen Spielberg and starring Liam Neeson) to be one of the greatest movies of all time. 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

DOCTOR WHO REVIEW: The Ninth Doctor - Christopher Eccleston (2005)

Billie Piper as Rose Tyler (Left) with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor (Right)

Just this once... Everybody lives!!!

Brief Background

Doctor Who is a British science fiction TV show that revolves around the character of the Doctor, a Time Lord from the planet Galifrey and his spaceship the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space) and his travels through space and time with a variety of companions. The show has cycled through thirteen different incarnations of the Doctor so far, using the Doctors ability to regenerate into a different form as a reason to cast new actors every few years. Doctor Who has gained widespread popularity and a massive list of fans from actor Tom Hanks to Queen Elizabeth II herself.

The "Classic" Era of the show first aired in 1964 with William Hartnell as the First Doctor and continued until 1989, when the show ended due to generally poor ratings. After a 1996 TV Movie with Paul McGann as the Eighth incarnation of the character, the show was revived again in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston in the lead role and Russell T. Davis as the Showrunner. Fans typically call the Classic Era "Classic Who" and the Revived Era "New Who", and these are the terms I will be using from now on.

Now, I will be dividing each of these reviews into four sections: The Doctor, The Companion(s), Other Characters (generally villains and supporting cast), and The Stories. The last section won't be an in-depth analysis on each of the stories but I will highlight few particular stories that I liked, and I will also touch on overarching story arcs as well in this section. This review will likely be shorter because Christopher Eccleston only did one season (he left the show after disputes with the head at BBC regarding work conditions and has distanced himself away from the show for the most part).

Eccleston, due to his short stay on the show, has only one main companion, Rose Tyler (played by Billie Piper) compared to the other Doctors but often has other side characters (such as Captain Jack Harkness) travel alongside him. Eccleston plays a very serious, dark Doctor who is more brash and possibly ruthless than most of his other incarnations; the Doctor we meet is a very recent veteran of the Time War and sole survivor who was forced to kill all of his kind to end a bloody war, and as a result shows hints of suffering from PTSD throughout his episodes, and as a result is much darker.

Eccleston is also very underrated and due to his short tenure is often passed over by much of the fans in favour of David Tennent and Matt Smith, who are more "fun" and apparently charismatic in comparison. I personally rank Eccleston as my favourite Doctor mainly because he is an underdog who seems to be nobody's favourite and I personally prefer darker characters. 

The Doctor - Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston)

The Ninth Doctor is, simply put, a veteran. The Doctor has recently fought in the Time War against the Daleks, during which he was forced to kill all of the Daleks and his people the Time Lords to end the war for good. As a result, he is very dark, hardened, and often a quite ruthless warrior. Despite all of this, the Doctor still does not forget his creed of kindness and standing up for the weak; he fights to help for what is right and still often shows compassion. Eccleston's Doctor is one that has PTSD, and Eccleston's brilliant acting genuinely shows the pain and anguish he still experiences, having ended the Time War literally few moments before.

Despite all of his darker moments, Eccleston's Doctor is still genuinely light-hearted and fun. He makes jokes, runs around having a great time with Rose, and most importantly of all, DANCES. Yes, the Doctor dancing is quite "important" (sort of). He can push aside his hatred and pain to have genuine heartfelt moments with the other characters. Christopher Eccleston just mixes the darker and lighter sides of the Doctor extremely well just effectively enough that you can very well believe that Eccleston has actually been through the Time War himself. 

I will be talking more about his acting highlights in the stories section.

The Companion - Rose Tyler (Billie Piper)

Billie Piper is a great actor and Rose was a good companion to start the New Who series off with. She's personally not my favourite because she doesn't really contribute much to most of the stories apart from being a good contrast to the Doctor; she is more light-hearted compared to the darker Doctor. She never contributes heavily to the stories, although when she does she is the one that brings out the most human sides of the Doctor and remind him of the good person/alien he really is. Her character's standout episodes are "Father's Day" and "Dalek", where you can really see the best of Rose's humanity and the best of Billie Piper's acting. Although Rose is still great in this season, her real standout comes in the Tennant Era, where she turns into a much more full-fledged and interesting character.

Other Characters

Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) is a recurring Doctor Who character; he is flirtatious, charming, handsome, charismatic, bisexual, and overall a really likeable character. He never hesitates to flirt with anyone, which is used to great comic effect (as just saying his name is apparently enough for him to win over anyone). He is a time-travelling con man and works in the show as the more conventional charming action hero in comparison to the more methodical Doctor, and will continue to do so. As a matter of fact, his character was so popular he got a spin-off series called Torchwood.

Rose's mother Jackie Tyler (Camille Coduri) and Rose's boyfriend Mickey Smith (Noel Clarke) are not massively important characters in season 1 (although Mickey will eventually become more important in the Tennant Era). They're mostly comedic characters that generally serve as a point of conflict for Rose: whether she will choose the safety and comfort of her family and loved ones or a great time of adventure with the Doctor. They don't particularly do much in this season and are rather annoying, but they grow more in the Tennant seasons, especially Mickey.

The Daleks (voiced by Nicholas Briggs) are the arch-nemesis of the Doctor and are violent, merciless race of warriors whose goals are the conquest of the universe and the EXTERMINATION of all inferior species. The Daleks first canonically appeared in the First Doctor story "The Daleks", and appear for the first time in New Who in the season 1 episode "Dalek". The Daleks were originally believed to have been all destroyed in the Time War, but for some reasons (that I still can't quite understand) have managed to survive. The Daleks have had their emotions removed for tactical purposes (no emotions make them better warriors), but there have been the odd cases where a Dalek has the ability to feel emotions, a plot device that is utilized with great effectiveness in humanizing the villains. Despite their rather silly appearances (at first) the Daleks remain a very real and dangerous threat to the Doctor over the years and they have understandably become fan favourites. I personally love the Daleks mainly because the voice acting by Briggs is genuinely fantastic and I just love the idea of their characters and what they've done with them on the show. 

The Stories

Overall, all of the episodes in this season were outstanding, and unlike the other ones, I genuinely couldn't find any bad one. My favourite story had to be the two-parter "The Empty Child" and "The Doctor Dances", written by later showrunner Steven Moffat. This was easily my favourite because it had a very horror feel to it (Steven Moffat in general is amazing at writing these short, horror stories as seen in the Tennant Era), and I'm a horror fan. It felt very much like a zombie apocalypse movie (the gas-mask aliens moved like zombies) and the line "Are you my mommy?" was just extremely unsettling. It also introduced Captain Jack Harkness for the first time in all his awesomeness and in general had a great script and overall fantastic acting from everybody, especially Eccleston. and I believe that the Doctor dancing was a very pivotal moment for the Ninth Doctor finally actively showing his more human side.

My second and third favourite episodes were "Dalek" and "Father's Day", because these two episodes were particularly standout ones in character for both Rose and the Doctor. In "Dalek", Rose seems to be the sole person who feels any amount of compassion for a lost and rather damaged Dalek (who believes himself to be the last of his kind), and the Dalek itself finds that it has ALSO gained compassion because of the DNA imprint from Rose, and on a bittersweet note self-destructs, unable to cope with the emotions it feels and the fact that he is all alone. The Doctor also has great character moment when he finds the Dalek incapacitated and at his mercy. Gloating over the fact that he has the upper hand, the Doctor's much darker, merciless side unleashes and he tortures the Dalek, mockingly screaming "EXTERMINATE!" as he inflicts the pain to the Dalek. This I think was the moment I truly fell in love with Eccleston's Doctor; the Doctor's dark side truly emerges during this episode and all the pain and anger he had bottled up inside him bursts out and that was one of my favourite scenes from all of Doctor Who. 

Another amazing episode is "Father's Day", a story that is no doubt a Rose Episode. The story revolves around Rose interacting with her mother and father and causes a massive paradox by saving her father from dying in a car accident. This is a great episode because of how genuinely touching all the moments were between Rose and her father Pete. It was especially touching how Rose eventually had to let her father go and allow him to die and Pete's acceptance of this inevitability. I always LOVE character-centered stories, and "Father's Day" delivered it and more. Billie Piper's best acting was in this episode and it was overall one of the best episodes not only in first season but perhaps in Doctor Who.

The final two-parter "Bad Wolf" and "The Parting of the Ways" were both good, especially the second part. I was quite sad at the end of the episode because I knew this was Eccleston's only season and his regeneration was quite emotional for me (although David Tennant still did an amazing job as the Doctor). I do think that the show could've been so much better if Eccleston had done three seasons and I really would have liked to see him interact with new companions (someone like Donna could've been a great match for Eccleston). I found it very interesting that despite his relatively short period active, Eccleston was so very positive going into his regeneration, almost as if he was glad to be out of the body that has caused so many deaths in the Time War (note that at this point Eccleston WAS the incarnation that ended the Time War - John Hurt's War Doctor was not developed yet) and was just accepting of the regeneration, which sort of made the process harder for me.

Overall Thoughts

I think that this season is one of the best season (if not the best) in New Who. Yes, there is a bias because Christopher Eccleston IS my favourite Doctor, but what can you say? The season had all amazing episodes (not a bad one among them), a great Doctor, an enjoyable companion, great villains, and an extraordinary cast of side characters. It's a shame that Christopher Eccleston never did more seasons or even specials because I don't know many people who'll say Christopher Eccleston is their favourite Doctor and I think he's so criminally underrated; he's almost always high on everyone's list, but the top spot seems to quite consistently go to David Tennant (understandable), Peter Capaldi (understandable), Tom Baker (also very understandable), and for some reason I really cannot comprehend, Matt Smith (no offence to Smith, he was a great actor but I just don't see the appeal of his Doctor). I think that if Eccleston did more seasons and interacted with more Who villains (ex. The Master, Sontarrans, Cybermen) and companions, he would most definitely be number one on many more peoples' list and I really do think that his short tenure hurt his popularity. Regardless, Christopher Eccleston will always hold a special place as my first ever Doctor, and I imagine that he will always be my favourite Doctor.

For my next review, I will be returning to Mr. Stephen King once again and will be reviewing his novel Pet Sematary. 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: The Invisible Man (1933)

''I failed. I meddled in things that man must leave alone..." - Jack Griffin, The Invisible Man

H.G. (Herbert George) Wells is considered to be one of the most prolific science-fiction writers of all time next to the likes to Jules Verne (whose novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea I reviewed before here: https://studiesofflicksnnovels.blogspot.com/2019/07/novel-review-twenty-thousand-leagues.html). Some of his most famous works are The Time Machine (1895) and The War of the Worlds (1898). H.G. Wells' concepts have influenced the sci-fi genre vastly, and has even contributed to horror through the character of Griffin, better known as the Invisible Man. The Invisible Man was originally released as a novel in 1897 and was adapted into a film of the same name by Universal Pictures in 1933, with the character joining the cast of Universal Classic Monsters alongside Count Dracula and the Frankenstein's Monster. The film was directed by James Whale of Boris Karloff's 1931 Frankenstein and stars Claude Rains as the title character.

The story of the Invisible Man is quite simple: Scientist Dr. Jack Griffin (simply known as Griffin in the novel) discovers how to become invisible. It's eventually discovered however that monocane, one of the main ingredients of the drug (as it bleaches organisms), has the side effect of inducing insanity in whomever ingests it. Driven mad by the effects of the drug, Griffin plans to use his newfound invisibility to commit crimes as he desires and in general cause chaos. He is eventually caught and shot. As he lays dying in hospital, Griffin regains his sanity as he turns visible again and tells his lover Flora that he ''meddled in things that man must leave alone..." before dying. 

The first thing I'm going to discuss regarding this film is the OUTSTANDING special effects. In 1933, the movie industry still wasn't all that well-developed due to the relatively recent introduction of films (or "moving pictures") to society and technology being not all developed. Despite the challenges presented, the special effect of the floating clothes, weapons, things being knocked down, etc. were so flawlessly done that I frankly think it's just as good as any CGI special effects they could've pulled off in the 21st Century. I'm 100% certain but I'm fairly sure they used wires (for the scene where the Invisible Man is running around nude) and some sort of combining of two different shots when he is wearing clothes. The special effects seriously work brilliantly and are so well timed with the other actors' movements and reactions that it's seriously believable that there could've been an actual invisible man. The special effects ALONE are worth watching the movie for if you're even mildly interested in it because it is seriously mind-blowing.

The plot overall was very well-paced and interesting. The movie is only about an hour and ten minutes (or 71 minutes) so the pacing was pretty fast-paced all the way through and all of the scenes were very well done. Not a single scene felt like a filler to pad time or anything and they all had some purpose in either character development or the plot. The story was fairly simple and nothing in it was very difficult to understand and there were some plot twists in it that were actually very well executed and managed to surprise me a couple of times.

The acting is another point of interest I'm going to focus on. Overall, the acting was very solid. There were few actors here and there who seemed like overacting and kind of annoyed me (although that just could've been what constituted good acting back then), but the main cast gave a very solid performance. Claude Rains gave a phenomenal performance as Griffin, which was very impressive considering he had nothing but his voice to work with the movie until right at the end. As the Invisible Man, he really gave off the impression of being a complete madman; his voice had the right amount of raspiness that really gave off the impression of a maniac. Claude Rains' evil laugh was absolutely genius and was actually quite terrifying; Mark Hamill apparently took inspiration from Rains when doing his voice for the role of the Joker, and I think it was a VERY smart idea. Rains could also portray a sympathetic character very well. Despite being a madman because of the drug for most of the movie, in his dying moments his sanity returns, and as Griffin talks about how he never should have tried to become invisible, I could definitely feel the pain and regret in his voice as he realizes that everything he did was evil, and it really made me sympathize with a character who was largely really loathsome for most of the movie.

Overall, The Invisible Man was an outstanding movie. Despite being an older movie with a much lower production value and resources, it's actually better than most recent films. It's got a great plot, great pacing, sensational special effects, and a really great cast. I think the fact that this movie was barely over an hour actually helped in its favour. It could cut right to the chase and make the viewer solve the mystery of the invisible man with the characters; it also meant that there was no need for "filler scenes", meaning that the film never dragged or got boring and pointless in places just to pad the runtime. From start to finish basically everything was plot relevant and the few scenes that weren't were there to build the mood and the tense atmosphere, which worked amazingly well for the movie. This film, in my humble opinion, is way better than most movies you'd find in theatres nowadays mainly because of how straightforward and concise it all is.

For my next review, I'm actually going to change it up a bit and do a review of a TV show. Specifically Doctor Who. I've been really getting into the show recently and I want to essentially once in a while, as a special Doctor Who Review, review an incarnation of the Doctor (both Classic and Revived Era are fair game). In these reviews I'm going cover the overall characterization of the Doctor, their companion(s), villains, and overall story arc. These reviews are going to be a "once-in-a-while" special, so they won't be too frequent. 

For my first ever Doctor Who Review next week, I shall be reviewing the first Doctor of "New Who" and my personal favourite, the Ninth Doctor, portrayed by Christopher Eccleston. 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: 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