The Walk

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Robert Zemeckis/Starring: Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Ben Kingsley and Charlotte Le Bon

There once were a handful of people in the world who could claim they scaled Everest but now the feat no longer seems extraordinary (though it is) since the mountain became a tourist destination. Setting foot on another planet may also become commonplace one day. But there is a spectacular feat only one member of the human race ever attempted and succeeded at: crossing a high wire between the former World Trade Center buildings. The militant rabble who later brought the towers to the ground didn't see the buildings as a stage for artistic expression as the wire-walker Philippe Petit did, but as something to violently erase from the New York City skyline. These same lower-life forms have seen fit to destroy some precious works of art and architecture in the Middle East. I guess those who create will always be heavily outnumbered by the empty-headed who destroy. But that's another topic not entirely germane here. What is relevant is director Robert Zemeckis' new film; The Walk; an otherworldly beautiful, exhilarating and often whimsical film that insists we feel wonder and awe, which it convincingly expresses.
Based on high-wire walker Philippe Petit's book; To Reach the Clouds, The Walk tells the story of his historic walk on a wire suspended between the World Trade Center towers in 1974. Providing narration is the wonderfully talented Joseph Gordon-Leavitt as Petit, who affects a reliable French accent. It is entirely appropriate that Petit stands (by way of CGI) on top of the Statue of Liberty as he tells his story; the twin towers standing proudly in the background.

As we learn something of Petit's life in France before the climb, the film's playful, jaunty tone takes hold. We see him in his early years at a circus, standing mesmerized before the high-wire performers. The story moves forward, as an older Petit sneaks into a circus tent. As he scales a ladder to mount the wire, he is stopped by a man named Papa Rudy (Ben Kingsley). Petit learns Papa Rudy is the high-wire expert, whose sons have all performed as he has. In a short time, Papa Rudy becomes Petit's mentor.

But Petit's audience isn't circus patrons but those in the city streets, as he rigs his wire between lamp posts. His public performances begin to clash with another street performer; a busker named Annie (the stunning Charlotte Le Bon), who doesn't take kindly to his creative intrusions. Petit and Annie soon become an item and collaborators as she plays her guitar during his high-wire performances. After a disastrous performance at a fair, where Petit's high-wire comes undone, Papa Rudy offers the young wire-walker crucial advice about rigging, which proves to be invaluable later.

Petit becomes more ambitious and daring as he rigs a wire between the towers of the Notre Dame Cathedral, an act he successfully performs. Gaining fame and acclaim, he looks for a bigger challenge. Seeing an article about the newly built World Trade Center buildings in New York, Petit decides the towers will be his next performance. The preparations begin in earnest as Petit gathers vital statistics about the building and its dimensions.

Petit recruits two Frenchmen to accompany he and Annie to New York; one of whom suffers from acrophobia, which he finds hardly disqualifies him. An amusing scene takes place in customs at Kennedy Airport, as a puzzled agent questions Petit about his cables and equipment. Rather than prevaricating, Petit tells the agent the truth about the equipment, which elicits only a shrug.

In New York, Petit's resolve weakens slightly when he and Annie stand before one of the towers, which are more imposing in real life. After finding a way to the top of one tower, he is able to look across the yawning chasm between the buildings and even steps out on the edge of a girder to survey the distance, which also provides inspiration.
The preparation for his climb becomes the narrative focus; the logistical details are not only fascinating bits of minutiae but generate suspense as well. Petit finds it necessary to recruit Americans to help him carry out his performance; one of whom is a WTC employee while another is a stoner who fears being busted by the cops. It is very entertaining to watch Petit and his team encounter numerous obstacles en route to the climb; including a nail-biting incident at the uppermost floor of one tower, where Petit and a team member hide from a security guard under a tent, only to find themselves suspended over a shaft that leads to the bottom of the building. The preparations begin to feel like a bank heist as the team dodges WTC workers, security guards and even cops.

The problem of sending the cable from one building to the other is cleverly accomplished with a bow and arrow, which is first worked out in a park with the precise distance measured out.

As the day and time are chosen for the walk, the thrills and tension mount. But the team discovers Petit is difficult to work with. Annie finds it necessary to reproach him for not showing gratitude to the team, which he promptly rectifies with an unusual gesture of thanks.

I must say that the actual act is one of the most exhilarating and terrifying moments I've ever experienced as a filmgoer. I also noticed something that has never happened to me before while watching a film; my palms were actually sweating.

Watching Petit take the first steps is breathtaking. It is also disconcerting and surreal to see fog engulf the upper reaches of the building before it miraculously clears to reveal the first beams of morning light. Listening to Petit's narration of his experience is quite touching as his fear and worry give way to a feeling of confidence and finally a feeling of euphoria. It is a magical sequence made possible by extraordinary CGI. One would swear the towers were still intact and Leavitt-Gordon is actually suspended above the New York City streets.

One may squirm when Petit chooses to make not one but several crossings; all in the presence of the N.Y.P.D., who gather on both roofs to apprehend him. In a climactic, harrowing moment during a penultimate crossing, Petit stops midway to lie on the wire when a seagull comes to rest briefly on his chest. Down below, Annie draws the attention of a vast crowd, who breathlessly watch Petit high above. I felt only relief when he finally stepped off the wire and into the arms of the police officers, who quickly handcuff him.

The aftermath is triumphant, as Petit is applauded by the police, WTC workers and the city of New York.

The film and Petit's high-wire act are nothing short of poetry. I must say I've had problems with Zemeckis' films in the past--one in particular I absolutely detest, but he also has his share of winners; Romancing the Stone, I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Back to the Future. I think The Walk is another achievement in his career. Having seen the excellent 2008 documentary on Petit's walk; Man on Wire, I felt a narrative film was superfluous and very unnecessary... until I watched Zemeckis' take.

Gordon-Leavitt is a hypnotic presence and an actor that never ceases to surprise or amaze but he is helped along by CGI, which made an astonishing re-creation possible.

I expected something perfunctory when I sat down to watch the film but instead I came away feeling ecstatic and more importantly; a feeling of wonder. October films have already compensated movie-goers handsomely for the dull Summer fare. The Martian and The Walk have restored my flagging enthusiasm and with the Steve Jobs biopic on the horizon, things can only get better for cinephiles.

I'm glad Zemeckis told Petit's story. An extraordinary feat is made thrilling by a spellbinding film.

Learning to Drive

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Isabel Coixet/Starring: Ben Kingsley, Patricia Clarkson, Grace Gummer, Sarita Choudhury and Jake Weber

Spanish director Isabel Coixet (My Life Without Me, Elegy) helms Learning to Drive; her adaptation of Katha Pollitt's essay of the same name. The film arrives in theaters with little advance notice. I found this strange, given the considerable talents of its two principal actors: Ben Kingsley and Patricia Clarkson. With an accomplished director, cast and intelligent source material, one might think the film would be a sure thing. Think again. All conflict in Coixet's film is very light and unlikely to upset seniors attending a Saturday afternoon screening. Its attempts at profundity: the car as a metaphor for self-empowerment and Zen-like here-and-nowness are trite and reaching.

Patricia Clarkson is Wendy, a moderately known book critic who discovers her husband Ted (Jake Weber) has left her for another woman. In spite of his callous disregard for her feelings, Wendy's love for him still burns. Her daughter Tasha (Grace Gummer), who is supposed to be in college, is living happily on a farm in Vermont; an act of activism Wendy doesn't entirely approve of.

When Tasha invites her mother to the farm, Wendy decides to take driving lessons in hopes of being able to drive herself. The move is supposed to represent self-determination; a quality Wendy lacks.

Her instructor, an Indian cab-driver named Darwan (Ben Kingsley) meets her one night after a cab ride in which she and her husband have a relationship-ending shouting match. Not long after, Wendy contacts Darwan for driving lessons. Her initial instruction is a disaster, which discourages her from taking a second lesson but Darwan's professional pride makes him persistent.

We learn Darwan is a political refugee who has since became naturalized. His Sikh identity becomes an object of oppression in his native country. With no wife and child, he shares a house with Indian refugees in Queens, many of who are illegal.

As the driving lessons continue, Darwan and Wendy become friendly. The lessons also become life lessons, as Darwan's instruction is supposed to serve (at least for the audience) as ways to cope with the real world.

Forging ahead without her husband, Wendy begins to date but finds it less than satisfying. Meanwhile, a marriage is arranged for Darwan and his wife Jasleen (Sarita Choudhury), who makes her way from India to be with him. Darwan finds life with Jasleen rather difficult, for his work keeps him away from home while her fear of her new surroundings keeps her isolated. Making an attempt to learn English, Jasleen picks up a few words from a children's program, only to be told by Darwan the words are actually Spanish. Darwan finds his new wife's self-imposed isolation frustrating but his patient nature prompts him to encourage her rather than scold.

Though an attempt is made to make Darwan three-dimensional, somehow the character still comes off as a genial guru without flaws, in spite of Kingsley's best efforts. The character of Wendy seems also sadly underwritten. If this story is based on real life people and events, it also seems rather cliched and the characters appear as lazily-conceived people from a B-movie drama. Because of this, the story walks an uninspired straight line. The movie does tantalize with the passing possibility of true friendship between Darwan and Wendy but it sadly doesn't happen.

Most every problem in the film is ironed out in orderly fashion. Jasleen succeeds at meeting people and venturing out of the house, Wendy earns her license, buys a car, becomes empowered and sheds her husband's influence, while her daughter Tasha, an uninteresting peripheral character, leaves the farm to return home. Darwan finds a wife and the makings of happiness, in spite of his permanent exile from India. I normally avoid giving away such information regarding characters but their respective arcs aren't difficult to ascertain within the first five minutes of the film. I expected a lot more from a story based on an essay. Do these people really exist in real life? If so, they must be more fascinating than they appear here. This comes as a surprise, for Coixet's films are usually populated with more nuanced characters.

I really wanted this movie to work. I've always held Kingsley and Clarkson in the highest esteem but as talented as they are, actors can only do so much with material so broadly drawn. This should be a touching story; Indian refugee and Manhattan book critic become friends, but it doesn't stretch itself. I won't read the article the film is based on; it would be frustrating to learn the real story has power and unpredictability.

Learning to Drive isn't horrible but it isn't good either. It's difficult saying anything about the movie because I find myself barely inspired enough to comment. If it weren't for Kingsely, Clarkson and Coixet, I may have skipped this post. Take my advice, wait for the film to stream.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Ridley Scott/Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Ben Mendelsohn, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde and Hiam Abbass

Ridley Scott is a director who never met a big screen spectacle he didn't like and after watching his new Biblical opera Exodus: Gods and Kings, you might come away with the feeling that a 3D version might be redundant (2D is quite adequate, thank you very much). Scott has never kept counsel with subtlety though he's proven he can wring some entertainment from his bloated enterprises. Taking on the Biblical story of Exodus, one can be forgiven for making the story monumental but its grandiosity needs to be tamed and I'm not sure an epic-minded director like Scott is up to the challenge, though I was pleasantly surprised with his interpretation of the character of Moses.

Exodus is occasionally fun to watch but what dazzles are the expertly rendered CGI landscapes and visitations of God's wrath. It also has its intermittently clever flourishes but one will find the film's charms dissolving like Alka Seltzer before one can pull away from the theater. Too bad, because Scott has gathered considerable talent to realize his story but unfortunately, some never have an opportunity to make much of an impact. More on those unfortunates later.

I really like the casting choices for Moses and Ramses (Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, respectively). Rather than play the Hebrew prophet as a majestic, Biblical statue, Bale brings more of an every-man dimension to his portrayal, as does Edgerton.

Scott shows some creative flourish in his characterization of Moses but isn't fussy with the narrative. He establishes Moses and Ramses relationship quickly; creating and maintaining adversarial tension. This Moses isn't the Lord's passive and peaceful shepherd; we see him join Ramses in the Egyptian army's battle against the Hittites early in the film. He and Ramses are not only sons to Pharaoh Seti (a gloriously miscast John Turturro) but his enforcers who keep enemies and the Hebrew slaves who labor to build monuments and temples in check.

I'll assume everyone is familiar with the story of Moses, either from the Biblical source or from Cecil B. DeMille's film so I won't waste time with a synopsis. The issue of Moses' Hebrew heritage seems to arrive quickly in the narrative and when Ramses catches wind of it, we know Moses will be exiled into the desert wilderness.

Scott uses CGI effectively, showing us the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis in all its glory and construction. It all looks more convincing than Sigourney Weaver in Egyptian finery, who is given little to do in the film other than plot Moses' death. The same can be said for Hiam Abbass, the excellent Syrian actress, who plays Moses' surrogate mother Bithia. The Old Testament has little use for women, as does Scott. Moses' found wife Zipporah (the hypnotically lovely Maria Valverde) has the distinction of being the female character we see most (and that isn't much, given the story is two and a half hours).

After Moses marries, we know the Burning Bush awaits, which he encounters on the rocky slopes of Mt. Horeb. Scott's conception of God is one of the more inspired moments in his film. Rather than portray the Almighty as smoldering shrubbery broadcasting a stentorian voice, God appears to Moses as a little boy. I found this unexpected, fascinating and entirely appropriate. God usually acts like a angry child in the Old Testament; stomping his feet when things don't go his way or his humans thumb their noses at him, as Ramses does often. We see God's child-like petulance as he voices his impatience with Ramses and his refusal to free the Hebrew slaves. Through it all, Moses seems a little skeptical of God and his power; he doesn't grovel before Him like a toady as we might expect.

Though Moses' staff plays an integral role in Exodus, Scott strangely denies him that which harnesses God's power. We do see Joshua (played by Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul; another peculiar casting choice) wielding Moses' wood but it never really earns its mythic reputation in the film.

After Moses follows God's mandate to return to Egypt to demand his people's freedom, the naturally recalcitrant Ramses tells Moses to take a hike. Of course we know the plagues will soon follow--and how! Again, Scott uses CGI to great effect; swarms of locusts, toads and the superbly blood-rendered Nile waters are catastrophically convincing and create a hellish nightmare for Pharaoh. All is accomplished matter-of-factly by Moses, who carries out the Almighty's wishes without succumbing to melodramatic displays of power. Ramses and his people aren't spared the uglier plagues, like the disease that disfigures faces and the choking swarms of flies.

Soon after, Pharaoh's heart softens and he agrees to free the slaves. In the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt, God's general leads the ragged masses into the wilderness and in Scott's determination to show us a more human Moses, the Prophet betrays moments of doubt and indecision; unsure where to deliver those he helped free.

Eager to avenge his son's death by the Hebrew God's plagues, and to assuage his wounded ego, Ramses and his army give chase to Moses and the refugees and in doing so, we come to the much-anticipated moment in the film when God's chosen find themselves trapped between Pharaoh and the deep blue sea--the Red Sea, that is. As in the film The Ten Commandments, we expect to see a spectacular parting of the waters but again, to Scott's credit, he shows some restraint. Instead of a massive, watery furrow being ploughed through the Red Sea, we see the waters gradually shallow then trickle away as the Hebrews make their way across the damp seabed. As Ramses and his legions edge ever closer, a towering wall of water approaches, threatening to engulf Hebrew and Egyptian alike. One would think God would ensure Moses' safety but along with Ramses and his chariots, he too suffers the force of the wave. And of course Moses survives (Scott isn't brazen enough to rewrite Biblical history--too bad) while a chastened Ramses also emerges from the sea to exit the story and history.

Finally, on the upper slopes of Mt. Sinai, as the wayward Hebrews frolic and sin and erect golden idols, Moses sits with the boy God taking dictation on stone tablets. God asks the ever-contentious Moses if he agrees with his Commandments, to which he offers his assent. It is a wonderfully mundane exchange that further humanizes the story; making a significant Biblical event seem accessible.

So let it be written--no, wait, that's the other story of Exodus. Let's deal with Scott's.
In spite of his attempt to bring the story down to Earth and to rehabilitate Moses' action figure stature, I couldn't help but ask myself; did this story really need to be told or reinterpreted? Aside from Scott's creative re-tooling of details, it is essentially The Ten Commandments sans Technicolor. Though we see a few other characters share the spotlight--Ben Mendelsohn's Viceroy Hegep and Aaron Paul's Joshua, most of the other characters make appearances as brief as the passing shots of stately Egyptian temples and pyramids.

And what is Scott trying to get at in his re-telling? If one wants to spend $140 million dollars for the express purpose of humanizing a Biblical story, then I question that person's motives. As much as I find Bale and Edgerton to be fascinating actors who do terrific work in Scott's film, they can only help make the film a fun romp, rather than something powerful. For all the hokum in DeMille's telling, I still prefer it to Scott's. All its color and pomp never seem to dull. I can't say the same for Exodus: Gods and Kings. Though I enjoyed it (in spite of itself), I can't imagine it will make me want to revisit it again the way DeMille's film does. Is it unfair to compare two films separated by almost 60 years? Probably. I'm guessing half the audience who sees Scott's film will be under 35 and will have no knowledge of the older interpretation so any comparison would be irrelevant to them but bear in mind that DeMille's film is still playing on television in the 21st century. Will Scott's enjoy the same longevity?

I respect Scott's reinterpretation much in the way I respected Darren Aronofsky for retelling the story of Noah (please let there be a moratorium on religious-themed movies in 2015!) in more humanist terms but I didn't like Noah any better for its earthiness; in spite of that quality.

So where does that leave us? I had fun watching the film; if only for the leads and to see what tricks Scott might have up his sleeve. But now that I have a few days of separation from the screening, it has already begun its own exodus from my memory. Mr. Scott, I liked your Moses but I think I'll stick to Heston and Brynner and DeMille's Barnum and Bailey Biblical imaginings.

And yes...So let it be done.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.