Touched With Fire

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Paul Dalio/Starring: Katie Holmes, Luke Kirby, Christine Lahti, Griffin Dunne and Bruce Altman

Two bipolar patients meet in a hospital and their burgeoning relationship proves to be passionate and artistically inspired but also mutually pernicious. Their struggle to be together becomes an issue not only for their doctor but their respective families, who fear their manic tendencies pose a danger to one another. One patient; Carla (Katie Holmes, who does well with the material), is a published poet who is prone to furious, in-the-middle-of-the-night surges of creativity while the other; Marco (Luke Kirby), is a visual artist and also a poet with his own volcanic emotions.

When we first see Marco, he is pirating electricity in his apartment building after the power is shut off. He explains to his father that he has gone off the grid and no longer needs modern conveniences to survive. It is amusing to hear Marco tell this father that he is able to live on ketchup from McDonald's and free milk from Starbuck's. His apartment is a disheveled wreck of wall to wall books and miscellanies. From the phone conversation with his father, we gather Marco has not only stopped taking his medication but refuses to be on them again.

An incident where Marco sneaks onto the roof of a building to stare at the moon lands him in the hospital mental ward while Carla's highly erratic and manic behavior behavior becomes manifest during a 1AM visit to her mother Sara (an excellent Christine Lahti). Though we expect Carla's behavior to exasperate her mother, her odd visitation doesn't elicit anger or reproach but maternal patience that is quite touching. Concerned with her own condition, Carla admits herself into the hospital and becomes furious the next morning when her doctor refuses to discharge her.

Held against their will, Carla and Marco become part of the hospital's bipolar support/therapy group. During a therapy session, Marco's comments on the apocalypse earn him a rebuke from the therapist and a sharp reprimand from Carla, who grows impatient with his loud, negative chatter. But the two begin to bond during an extemporaneous game whereby the participants recite their own poem with only a word to inspire them. Carla's is immediately taken by Marco's poetic talents. The creative fire the two share leads to late night/early morning meetings in the kitchen, where their respective manic energies become almost overpowering. Their boisterous, late night meetings draw the attention of the staff and their doctor, who try to bring their rendezvous to a halt.

But the doctor's efforts to keep the two apart prove unsuccessful, and their subsequent romance burgeons in spite of his and their parent's interventions.

How the relationship plays out and how the two contend with their illness and their respective families becomes the narrative infrastructure for director Paul Dalio's engaging and well-acted Touched With Fire. If you've read my blog in the past, you may remember my reservations about movies about alcoholics and mentally ill characters, specifically manic-depressives. Watching movies about unstable people can often become monotonous; over-the-top behavior sometimes leads to over-the-top drama. But some films manage to be touching and though I didn't find Dalio's film to be powerful, he at least made his characters real and treats the illness honestly without infecting the story with cheesy romanticism.

The film goes to interstellar lengths--sometimes annoyingly--to link manic-depression to creative genius, which is the story's overarching theme or idea. Van Gogh is held up as the shining example, though other great artists are mentioned; a lengthy list accompanies the closing titles. Marco himself is always ready to share a factoid about bipolar geniuses. We learn from Marco that Van Gogh painted Starry Night after seeing the night sky from his sanitarium window.
Marco and Carla's ability to feel deeply about the world is treated as a virtue but also something dangerous that threatens to keep them from connecting to the non-bipolar world. We see scenes of the two frolicking about the city, splashing in fountains, writing poetry and falling in love but Dalio also shows us the wrenching realities of their illness.

The film does well at showing how their illness affects their parents, who must contend with Marco and Carla's emotional extremes and flights of aberrant behavior. Griffin Dunne as Marco's father George and Christine Lahti and Bruce Altman as Carla's parents Sara and Donald do terrific work here. Some of the film's best scenes are the family gatherings, where the parents almost seem to be pitted against Marco and Carla.

The film isn't without its dark moments. In one such scene, Marco gathers the family for what seems to be an occasion to celebrate Carla's pregnancy before the moment morphs into something tragic. The film's ending is unexpected and unsurprising but hardly neat and comforting.

The film is chock full of light and fire motifs, which serve as visual metaphors for Carla and Marco's creative powers. Their respective energies that they feed off burn brightly like the sun and moon names they adopt but the same fires also burn, which the two discover to their peril.

I can't say every scene works; the film has its lapses but overall it was much better than expected. Kirby and Holmes pull off key performances and manage to make their characters worthy of our empathy. The film often feels like a play, which is good and bad. I was surprised to find it wasn't based on a stage production.

I walked away from the film fairly pleased but my feelings about it unfortunately don't burn the way Van Gogh's painting does for Marco. I thought it was done well but I can't extend my praise beyond that. My feelings for it are more sober, like those of someone on their meds.

Woman in Gold

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Simon Curtis/Starring: Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Daniel Bruhl, Katie Holmes, Jonathan Pryce, Frances Fisher, Antje Traue, Max Irons, Tatiana Maslany and Elizabeth McGovern

Maria Altmann, niece of Adele Bloch-Bauer; the subject of artist Gustav Klimt's masterpiece Woman in Gold (originally titled Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I) attempted to reclaim the painting which was stolen from her family's home by the Nazis during the 1938 annexation of Austria.

A reluctant Austrian government was unwilling to part with what it considered to be a national treasure, and vigorously resisted her efforts. This in spite of the Austrian government's late 20th century push to return stolen artwork to their rightful owners. Altmann pursued the painting by legal means, enlisting the help of a Los Angeles lawyer named Randal Schoenberg but the two found the Austrian legal system formidable. Just as the situation seemed impossible, Schoenberg discovered a way to sue the Austrian government by way of the American court system, which paved the way for a hearing before the Austrian court. Altmann's Sisyphean quest then gained a glimmer of hope after many setbacks and disppointments.

The story of Altmann's pursuit is the subject of director Simon Curtis' new film Woman in Gold.

One would think a real story such as Altmann's would only require minimal effort to be compelling onscreen but somehow Curtis' film simmers but never seethes, leaving the audience with something only adequately told and performed. How could this be, when Altmann's early life in Austria meant being in the company of a beautiful aunt who has since become an icon in the history of art? How could it be when Altmann faced persecution under the Nazi's and narrowly escaped its destructive agenda? Lesson to filmmakers telling "true" stories: riveting history doesn't necessarily mean riveting cinema; powerful intercession is required.

Helen Mirren plays Maria Altmann while Ryan Reynolds is lawyer Randal Schoenberg, grandson of the famed composer Arthur Schoenberg. Altmann and Randal meet in Los Angeles following the news of the Austrian government's restorative gesture. Randal's assignment as a newly-hired attorney in a prestigious law firm is to look into the feasibility of representing Altmann, which entails flying to Austria to examine files and records pertaining to her family. Complicating Randal's task is Altmann, who refuses to return to the country that is essentially responsible for her family's demise. After careful deliberation, Altmann reconsiders. She locks up her L.A. dress shop to join Randal in Austria.

In Austria, Altmann and Randal meet a journalist (Daniel Bruhl), who takes a special interest in her problem.

While Altmann's efforts are hobbled by bureaucratic resistance, her memories of her stunning aunt Adele (Antje Traue) mingle with her grim recollections of Nazi terror, which visited the Jewish population of Austria in the 1930s' and 40s'. Though Adele never faced Nazi oppression (she died in 1925 of Meningitis), Maria's parents, her Uncle and her husband Fritz Altmann all suffered a variety of humiliations, including the confiscation of property, particularly Klimt's famous painting of her aunt.

The film is really a diptych of Altmann's past and present, which also serves as its narrative structure. The closer Altmann comes to realizing her dream of repossessing the painting, the more we learn of the subject of Klimt's masterwork and her special place in Altmann's memory. And as the process of reclaiming the painting becomes an almost hopeless nightmare, we see that Altmann also seeks redress from a nation that abetted her family's destruction.

But the film is also about Randal and what he sacrifices to help Altmann reclaim the painting, namely his family's happiness and his career, which are jeopardized in the process.

The various stories should translate into a powerful film, but too often Mirren's Altmann comes off as a loveable senior with cute witticisms. I give Reynolds credit for taking on a role that doesn't resemble anything in his usual repertoire. He has some moments where he shows surprising range but he is mostly Altmann's straight man/sidekick, leading the legal struggle. Frances Fisher and Katie Holmes are the movie's furniture and little more than that. I wish Bruhl had been given more to do other than remind Altmann how hopeless her cause is. He is better than his very limited, short-shrifted role.

Curtis' film is interesting and if you find that word criminally tepid, then know that I use it deliberately, for that's as much praise as I can award it. I'm a bit weary, nay, very weary of Holocaust-related stories. Though the film is also about other things, it is essentially a story about how the Nazi's devastated a family and robbed it of one of its prized possessions while suppressing the Jewish identity of the woman in the painting Woman in Gold. I feel I've seen Nazi malice portrayed so often on screen, it's lost its ability to shock or make me feel outrage.

And though the young Maria Altmann's (Tatiana Maslany) escape from Nazi operatives gives the film a temporary pulse-quickener, it does little to bestow any vigor on the proceedings. What should be a powerful film is really just an okay film that could have been an AMC, HBO or Netflix production for streaming or television. As the story carried on, my eyelids began their inexorable pilgrimmage toward leadenness. I cared about Altmann's struggle but I could already anticipate the end titles that would inevitably say something about what became of Altmann's efforts.

Funny how many people I met at the local theater rolled their eyes when I asked if they had seen the movie. "Geez, the trailer looks bad, doesn't it? seemed to be the most frequently heard question/comment.

I implore you to see the trailer and skip the flick. If you find a two-minute trailer insufferable, the 109 minute version won't alter your perception much.

The Giver

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Phillip Noyce/Starring: Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes, Taylor Swift and Odeya Rush

All one need know when seeing The Giver are the plots of The Hunger Games and Divergent and if one is familiar enough with both films, then the story from director Phillip Noyce's latest can be traced like a subway map, though it might not be as interesting.

In a future time, society overcomes many of the problems that nearly caused its demise, like war, racism and inequality and in an attempt to prevent further catastrophe, it effectively erases all differences between people. A homogenous society arises, where everyone wears identical clothes and lives in identical homes. Memory of the past and all its horrors has been essentially erased. I guess minorities suffered the same fate, for I don't remember seeing one the entire film. Did society missplace them? Turn them into Soylent Green?

As in Divergent, one is assigned to a career path following one's teen years; each according to his or her attributes. And like the aforementioned flick, one stands before a great hall of bland, almost faceless citizens, who applaud each graduate after their role is designated by the Chief Elder (played by Meryl Streep, who is burdened with a ridiculous hairstyle).

At this point my eyes were nearly rolling out of their sockets at the cornball attempt to depict one more dystopian society onscreen, which unfortunately resembles every other of its kind this year.

And wouldn't you know it, our hero Jonas (Brendon Thwaites) is the last to receive his assignment, which causes much anxiety among his two best friends and his family. And would it surprise you to learn he has all the prized attributes rather than just one? Because Jonas is so unique, his given role is that of a kind of archivist, whose duty it is retain the history of mankind, which the people are expressly forbidden to know.

Jonas reports to a mysterious, bearded man whose library lies inside a building at the periphery of what is essentially an island in the sky; where all the inhabitants of this society reside. Below the island and beneath the cloud cover, one can see the surface of the earth, which is off limits to everyone.

In said building is The Giver (Jeff Bridges); an elderly keeper of civilization's memory. In his hall of books, The Giver takes on Jonas as his eventual successor and in doing so, subjects him to memories from Earth's violent past. As the old man grasps Jonas' arms, the young man sees two soldiers in Vietnam under intense sniper fire. He also has a vision of a sled and a log cabin in the snow, which he doesn't understand--its meaning is revealed later.

Returning to his community and friends, Jonas shares what he has seen and learned (an act prohibited by the authorities) with his friends and in doing so, subjects himself to the long reach of the oppressive big brother. Can you see where this is all going? Jonas becomes a fugitive, placing family and friends at risk and imperils himself in the process. Do you think he might discover the whereabouts of his predecessor; a young woman who vanished into the surface world and was never seen again? Where will Jonas eventually end up, I wonder? (Please note my rhetorical sarcasm).

In addition to being unoriginal and lethally dull, The Giver offers not one surprise or moment of suspense, though it tries. I had to fight like a demon to overcome the drowsies all through the film. It wasn't that I was tired; it was more that I was overcome with the somnolence I tend to feel when I know precisely where the story will go and how it will arrive there. And what were Streep and Bridges doing in this tedium? Bridges has an excuse as a producer but what about Streep? Must have been a favor. It seems fitting a fluff-pixie like Taylor Swift would be in this stale silliness.

The sled, one of the film's visual motifs, is so Rosebud its another eye-roller. And what Jonas discovers at the film's end is so unbearably asinine it may as well be a Budweiser commercial. You'll know what I mean if you bother to see this tripe.

I think what is unforgivable about a film like The Giver isn't its over-familiar setting and story but its creative exhaustion. Ripping off other movies isn't necessarily a crime--especially in Hollywood--but if your story lacks its own identity, then at least offer an exciting clone. I tried to care about the characters but they mostly came across as styrofoam apparitions. If my regard for this film were any more feeble, I might be arrested for a hate crime.

While online today, my eye caught an ad for the film that read "It's like no other movie you've seen before."--People Magazine. If that's really the reviewer's conviction, he or she might think about taking up another line of work, like writing menu descriptions for Chili's. Let my Good Samaritan deed for the month be my saving you money better spent on a better movie. Like no other movie you've seen before, eh? Please.