Room

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Lenny Abrahamson/Starring: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Joan Allen, William H. Macy, Sean Bridgers and Tom McCamus

The film Room is dramatized beautifully and with great power but its most fascinating character may be a little boy, who, never having seen the world in his first five years, is suddenly thrust into it with little or no preparation. What does the world look like to him; his understanding of it being solely derived from television and what his mother has told him? Director Lenny Abrahamson and Emma Donoghue, who adapted the screenplay from her own novel of the same name, attempt to answer that question and in doing so, leave us with a gripping and unforgettable story.

Without tracing the steps leading to the young woman and her son's imprisonment, we meet the mother; Joy "Ma" Newsome (Brie Larson, in an amazing, breakthrough role) and her son Jack (an equally impressive Jacob Tremblay). Confined to what we gather is a shed, no space in their tight living arrangement is wasted. As it becomes clear Ma and Jack are denied egress from their uncomfortably cramped space, we also learn how they survive when someone they refer to as Old Nick arrives periodically with food and supplies.

When the story begins, Jack rouses his mother from the bed they share to announce his birthday. In the course of the day, Ma manages to make him a cake but is unable to provide the candles Jack eagerly requests. How did Ma come to be here and who might her captor or captors be? Both questions are answered forthwith.

Sometime later we see Old Nick (Sean Bridgers)from Jack's perspective; through the closet door slats. Joy forbids her captor any visual or physical contact with her son (though it could only be his). Unable to see Nick's face, he watches as the man makes small talk with Ma while removing his clothes. That Old Nick imprisoned Ma is made fairly clear. How it happened is revealed later in a conversation between Ma and Jack.

We learn Ma has been held captive seven years, which means Jack was born in a sort of captivity. How Ma explains the world to Jack and how he makes sense of it becomes the narrative focal point. What Jack knows, including what he sees on television and who Old Nick might be, and what, if anything, lies beyond their walls, is filtered by his mother. The only view of the outside world is the skylight, which Jack stares out of with all the curiosity and wonder of a child.

As Jack's curiosity blossoms further and their health becomes more of an issue, Ma begins to see that an escape is an imperative, especially after Old Nick's violent outbursts become more frequent. But before she can hatch a plan, she explains to Jack who Old Nick really is and why they must leave Room (as Jack refers to it). Ma's explanation that there is a world outside the walls is met with disbelief and anger, as Jack rejects her descriptions as absurd fabrications. It is hard not to think about Plato's Allegory of the Cave as Ma attempts to make the concept of outside comprehensible. When Jack questions her about what is real and imaginary on television, we can see how someone ignorant of the world might not know the difference.

Their escape (no spoiler here; the trailer gives it away) is harrowing and thrilling; a cunning feat Ma devises but doesn't go entirely to plan. That the scheme involves Jack leaving Room for the first time is part of the excitement.

The rest of the film deals with the aftermath of their long incarceration as their liberation becomes a media circus and Ma is reunited with her mother Nancy (Joan Allen) and father Robert (William H. Macy). How Ma; now Joy, and Jack cope with freedom becomes the new focus. And with freedom comes an array of problems with which Joy must contend. One is her father, who is emotionally ill-equipped to deal with his daughter and grandchild and another is her mother, who she assigns some blame for her abduction. We also see the acute psychological fall-out from her ordeal. But again, it is Jack's introduction to the world that we await with bated breath. Abrahamson makes us see how strange and frightening it would be to find oneself suddenly thrust into the world and for Jack to live in an unconfined space with people other than his mother. We also feel Jack's reluctance to love and trust others. We also get a sense of what it would be like for a little boy to see a dog for the first time. Joy's most fervent desire--for Jack to be connected to the world, is an issue the film doesn't leave dangling.

I left the theater, unable to think of little else but Abrahamson's film. It is a story that stimulates many emotions; fear, dread, anger, love, elation, wonder and at the risk of sounding mawkish; hope. Though the story is Joy and Jack's; it is really in a sense his story and because Abrahamson and Donoghue make it so, the film is the richer for it.

Brie Larson has quickly become one of America's most versatile actresses. Her performance alone is reason enough to see Room but her co-star nearly steals the show. No doubt Jacob Tremblay will figure prominently in year-end award considerations.

If the film is a breakthrough opportunity for Larson, it is no less so for Abrahamson. Room is a radical departure from his amusing, oddball film Frank. Abrahamson shepherds the story through the emotional crests and troughs with such sensitivity and power; never forgetting the center of this affecting story: a five year-old boy.

Room opens near the end of a month in which a surge of excellent films made their mark. It earns its designation as being among the best of the year. It derives its power from something so seemingly elemental as the relationship of a mother and her son. I'm still thinking about it days later.

The Gambler

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Rupert Wyatt/Starring: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Alvin Ing, Brie Larson, Jessica Lange and Michael Kenneth Williams

I'll never quite fathom remakes. Unless a director or producer feels the original was an utter pile of bat guano demanding re-tooling, then I suppose the effort makes sense. But Hollywood history is littered with cinematic rubbish some producer or director felt needed to be retold or made current. I've seen very few remakes that best the original. And what do such ill-conceived endeavors often produce? Useless, vacuous, retreads that lack the original film's dramatic power, wit, humor, charm or spirit.

So movie screens are carrying director Rupert Wyatt's remake of the 1974 film of the same name and I again find myself asking rhetorically: Why? And why The Gambler? Did James Caan not perform his part well, or did the film suffer in some way that made Wyatt or the current producers (Wahlberg among them) itch? Was there an impassioned movement, membership a million strong, clamoring for a remake? If so, why was I not made aware of this? I suppose I could devote a blog-post solely to questions regarding remakes but I won't exhaust your eyes with something so pointless.

Mark Wahlberg plays Jim Bennett, literature professor, author and pathological gambler. When we first see him, he is having a run of luck at a blackjack table in an illicit gambling establishment. Rather than playing sensibly, Bennett transfers his winnings to the roulette table, where he places all his chips on black, but the ball falls on red. His all or nothing approach to gambling is his MO in the film, which brings him misfortune and trouble.

Bennett's freewheeling gambling habit leaves him with prodigious debts to underworld figures who become a ubiquitous presence in his life. A Korean kingpin named Mr. Lee (Alvin Ing), whose illegal gambling houses Bennett frequents, allows the professor to run up a $250,000 debt, which he demands in seven days time. Another shadowy wraith to whom Bennett is indebted is Neville Baraka (Michael Kenneth Williams), who is keen to level his own threats.

When not gambling, Bennett teaches literature at a local university and in his class is a young woman named Amy Phillips (Brie Larson, in a thankless, underwritten role), who is employed in one of Mr. Lee's establishments.

I'm not sure Mark Wahlberg makes a convincing literature professor. I can't picture him actually picking up a copy of Albert Camus' The Stranger or sharing his insights on the book in class. Actually, it may be one of the only books mentioned in his course. Bennett takes up a lot of class-time (and screen time) hectoring his students about their lack of writing talent, though he singles out Amy for her exceptional writing skills. We have to take his word for it; we never see any evidence in the film that would substantiate his value judgement.

A romance between Bennett and Amy percolates, which his dire gambling situation complicates. The relationship is very unconvincing. The lack of chemistry between the two is one of the film's salient failings. Aside from Bennett's lofty praise and her link to his extracurricular life, the relationship is the screenwriter's far-fetched contrivance.

As the days to the deadline are counted onscreen, Bennett seeks out his mother Roberta (Jessica Lange, doing terrific work in a small role), whose wealth offers him his only recourse to debt alleviation. World-weary and edgy, Roberta receives her son's plea for an exorbitant amount with a degree of outrage but she agrees to his request; citing fear of losing another family-member as her means to justifying her action. The subsequent scene in the bank of Roberta and Jim sitting before a puzzled manager is one of the film's best moments (of which there are a scant number).

Rather than eliminate his debt, the self-destructive, volatile Bennett decides to gamble with the money; a catastrophic act that is too mind-boggling to imagine and too painful to watch.

What are the psychological underpinnings of Bennett's gambling? One might say it is merely a gambling addiction but that practical explanation isn't enough to characterize his reasons for such aggressive, manic behavior. It's hardly the thrill of risk, for Bennett doesn't exhibit any elation or high from gambling. A flimsy, existential motivation is subtly posited but no explanation is really satisfying. Except maybe profound stupidity.

Having foolishly and recklessly gambled his mother's money away, Bennett has little choice but to borrow a sizable sum from a dangerous loan shark named Frank (John Goodman), who issues his own vague but ominous threats. But unlike Mr. Lee and Neville, Frank takes a paternal interest in Bennett, though the threats remain.

With the deadline only days away, Bennett hatches a plan that involves offering a basketball star in his class a chunk of cash to moderate his performance on-court to cover the spread on the odds. Bennett's plan to satisfy all his debts with the winnings is risky, dangerous and contingent on the player meeting his end of the deal.

I don't know about the original film--I haven't seen it in years--but this iteration seems more than just a bit silly. Wahlberg's over-the-top classroom theatrics don't resemble that of any literature professor I encountered in college. Wahlberg is a terrific actor given an appropriate role, but his broody-cool demeanor isn't mysterious, just hokey. Brie Larson, whose breakthrough performance in Short Term 12 showcased some fine acting, may as well be a hologram for all that is expected of her in the film. Her motivations are limited to; adore Jim Bennett and then adore him some. The more intriguing performances belong to Lange, John Goodman as the Jabba-the-Hut-like loan shark and Michael Kenneth Williams, who also does much with so little.

Whatever motivates Bennett seems nebulous and nonsensical. Nothing about his character or his predicament is recognizably human. Does he learn anything from his follies? It is hard to say; Jim Bennett remains a cipher to the end.

The ending is what it is; hardly unexpected and unsatisfying. But what does one expect of a remake? I wish I could recommend the original but as I mentioned earlier, I haven't seen it in years so I can't vouch for its quality here.

I'm sorry to say this will be the last film for which I offer an impression in 2014. If only my last posting could have been A Most Violent Year, a film I have yet to see but is earning rave reviews. That will have to wait until January. For now, let my final blog-post for the year end with a whimper and a groan, while I hope for better cinematic experiences in 2015. See you there.