Search This Blog

Showing posts with label john leguizamo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john leguizamo. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

The Odyssey (5/5 Stars)




There is a primal quality to this most ancient of tales. It speaks to a deep seated fear of the ancient traveler, that these things you have, your wife, your family, your property, your place in the community, can be taken away by usurpers behind your back as soon as you are far enough away to be unable to defend them. What makes men respect the possessions of a man called to war across the sea, where fate and/or chance can delay or prevent his return. Well, there is this most well known and oft-told story of a hero of the Trojan War, one Odysseus, King of Ithaca, who was lost for almost ten years after the Fall of Troy (gone from home home twenty years in total), but did indeed come back, stronger than ever, and with vengeance for all those who sought to take advantage of his absence.

The Odyssey is a long convoluted tale with a lot of different set pieces. I believe it would be exceedingly difficult to parse this ancient material, honor those elements that are famous, and keep a core through-line. Christopher Nolan’s masterful adaptation not only does this, but adds material that enhances and develops his themes, making the movie version of the story, in important ways, superior to the original text. This movie is not only easier to follow, it means more, because it knows better what the story is about than the original text (or it is at least clearer what Nolan wants the story to mean).

Everyone knows the various encounters that disrupt Odysseus’s return home, the island of the cyclops, the sirens, Charbydis and Scylla. In many tellings, these well-known set pieces overwhelm the scenes at home because, in Ithaca, there is no action, just subtle political intrigue. The strength of this movie comes from Nolan’s focus on first establishing the Ithaca subplot, developing it in an important and dramatic scene in the center of the movie (in the Land of the Dead), and then paying those scenes off in the climatic ending.

How Nolan does this is entirely his addition to the story. He adds two characters not in the original text. In the beginning they are teenage boys, subject to the Ithaca draft for the Trojan War. One, Antinious, draws the short straw, but since he is the only son of his family, Odysseus (Matt Damon) allows another boy, Sinon, to take his place. Antinious promises to Sinon to take care of his family while he is gone.

At the end of the Trojan War, Antinious (Robert Pattinson), we learn, has broken his vow to Sinon and not taken care of his family. Indeed, we find him squatting with a bunch of other suitors in the home of Odysseus, putting pressure on his wife Penelope (Anne Hathaway) to choose another husband. The situation is fraught with danger. Penelope intuits, I think correctly, that any man she chooses to be her husband would eventually see her son (Tom Holland) as a political threat and kill him. And she can’t just crown her son the king, because, not being of age, he again, would be a target for assassination. The best thing she can do is what she does here, proclaim her confidence in her lost husband’s survival and stall for time. Realistically, she can only do this until her son comes of age. Then her son will have to claim the throne and all hell will break loose.

Sinon (Elliot Page) dies at the beginning of the movie (i.e. the end of the Trojan War), but comes back onto the screen at the midway point in the Land of the Dead to warn Odysseus of the dangers at home. He speaks of Antinious' pledge to support his father and how, when he showed up in the Land of the Dead, his father was the first to greet him. Sinon provides Odysseus a token that Antinious will recognize as the promises he didn’t keep. This exchange is paid off handsomely in the final scenes. Again, there is nothing in the book that provides the character arcs of these two added figures. In the text, Odysseus doesn’t know any of the suitors by name. Nolan added Sinon and Antinious and they do much to hold together the frame of the movie while Odysseus goes on his many journeys between the flagposts.

It is also a testament to Nolan that he puts much effort into strengthening the weaker segments of the journey, as opposed to omitting them entirely or gliding over them, so that all scenes have their merit (a good idea in a 3-hour movie). A particularly good example is Odysseus' encounter with the land of the giant cannibals. The text is unsatisfying. Odysseus loses the majority of his men, and all of his ships but one, in the space of a few pages against a foe with no special characteristics. In the movie, these beings have been transformed into truly terrifying armor-plated giants that have mystifying control over the forest they dwell in. They look so cool, that this usually forgotten part of the story is being used for the movie poster. The scene is also a good example of Nolan’s use of practical effects as opposed to digital trickery. (It involves casting 7 foot tall actors as the giants, and using a 4 ft 11 inch stunt double for Matt Damon. An old Hollywood trick)

The world of 1000 B.C. was an unforgiving place, and within that unforgiving place was an even more unforgiving element, sea travel. One could see a person off on a sea voyage and not only have no idea if they would ever come back, but really have no idea of what actually befell them when or where. Once the boat passed the horizon literally anything could have happened to them. On the open sea/ocean, there are no witnesses. It is no surprise that in Shakespeare there is a consistent trope of shipwrecks and miraculous survivals. Since there was no way to tell if someone died in a shipwreck, there always existed some hope that they could come back someday. This primal hope of the return is as deep-seated as the fear of the traveller mentioned above.

The solution to this anxiety is to instill in society a “Golden Rule” culture, which extends hospitality to strangers. In turn, those strangers are to respect the house and possessions of those extending the hospitality. In The Odyssey, this is known as “Zeus’s Law” and it is mentioned frequently in the movie. Nolan adds one more thing that the writers of the Odyssey could not have possibly known. The story was born in a period of darkness, between the collapse of the Golden Age of Egypt and the Near East (of which Troy was a principal city) around 1100 B.C. and the revitalization of Ancient Greece, circa 600 B.C. One of the cited causes of this first dark age were invasions by “Sea Peoples”. (This phrase comes from contemporaneous Egyptian Heiroglyphs). Nolan makes a connection that the original Trojan Horse is a violation of Zeus’ law since it takes advantage of hospitality, and also makes a connection that the sack of Troy is an invasion by “Sea Peoples”. This is not ahistorical per se (the Mycenaeans did invade by ship) but it would certainly be a surprise to the Mycenaeans to be described as such. Nor would anyone in Ancient Greece conclude that the Trojan Horse was a harbinger and/or the cause of the dark times to come. Instead, they celebrated Odysseus’ cunning. Again, this is an addition by Nolan, but it is not unwelcome. Really the most satisfying element in this movie is Nolan’s ability to meld modern morals onto this ancient tale and still keep and earn its climatic ending, that most primal of cautionary tales. I bet this tale lasts another 1000 years.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

CHEF (5/5 Stars)




“I get to touch people’s lives with what I do and I love it and I want to share this with you.”
- El Jefe

The science of cooking has to do with the recipe: ingredients, measurements, and timing. The art of cooking has to do with feeding people: presentation, atmosphere, and love. Cooking is the most accessible form of art. Books, movies, and music can nourish the soul but one can live without it. You need to eat. Thus, every meal is an opportunity.

I loved this movie like I love good food. It is a representation of all the good things in life. The story is about Karl Kasper, a chef in a creative rut. He runs a kitchen that has not changed its menu in five years. The owner, played by Dustin Hoffman, insists against innovation. They have had no complaints and are doing well financially. If you went and saw the Rolling Stones he asks, wouldn’t you be mad if they didn’t play “Satisfaction.” Play the hits he recommends. Karl is dejected by this situation. He explains his frustrations in a way that should be instantly accessible to anyone who does art for a living. “Ahi Tuna is a huge crowd pleaser. You put Ahi Tuna on a menu and it will sell out. We all know this. But there are chefs that cook food that they believe in and that people will try because they are open to a new experience and they will end up liking it.” That sentence is a great explanation for this movie. The writer/director/star is Jon Favreau who started out in Hollywood as a writer/actor mostly known for Swingers but then became the big time blockbuster director of such hits as Elf, Iron Man, and Iron Man 2. The man can cook his Ahi Tuna. But this movie, his first writing credit in ten years, is a smaller more personal film that not so many people will see but should be a treat for anyone open to a new experience and I bet they will really like it.

First of all, Jon Favreau did a perfect job of casting by casting himself as Karl Kasper. I can’t think a better actor in this role. Favreau is my ideal notion of what a chef should look like. He’s a big guy but not too out of shape, you know the type of guy who obviously loves food but doesn’t eat terrible junk all day. And it may just be his inner director coming out, but he carries gravitas around him in the way he speaks and acts. At the same time he’s got the focus of a great artist. Just look at that guy make that grilled cheese sandwich for his son. It’s the most important thing in the world to him at that moment. 

You can also see Favreau’s connection to the bigger blockbuster world in the very efficient way the movie is edited and the also in the special effects, which do a very good job of representing the digital cloud of social networking. To be specific, there is a lot of Twitter in this movie and the effects that Favreau uses to portray are perfect. They do what they are supposed to do and nothing else. Something that doesn’t work so well because it is distracting is his Hollywood hookup that allows him to cast huge movie stars in tiny cameo roles. But notice what I just did there. I just said that Robert Downey Jr.’s cameo in this movie was the worst thing because it was distracting. Do I love this movie or what?

Things come to a breaking point with Karl Kasper at his restaurant when a prominent food critic, played by the distinguished and portly Oliver Platt, completely takes apart Karl’s lazy cooking. And here is where Karl earns super great artist points with me. He cares what the food critic says. He cares in general about what his work means to be people. Forced to cook for the critic the same menu by the owner of the restaurant, Kasper quits instead. And while witnessing the acidic live tweeting of the menu cooked by his Soux Chef, he decides to walk into the restaurant he just walked out of and lays down the ultimate criticism of criticism an artist has a right to. The subject is a Chocolate Lava Cake. The critic decries that Kasper didn’t even have the courage to undercook it. Kasper angrily explains that a Chocolate Lava Cake is not undercooked, it is cooked in such a way so the middle is molten, like Lava you Dick! What is Karl saying here? The critic does not know what he is talking about. He doesn’t even know how the art is made. You have no right to criticize what I’m doing if you don’t know how it is supposed to be done. Substitute ‘Chocolate Lava Cake’ for ‘movie’ for ‘painting’ for ‘song’ for ‘architecture’ for anything really.

At the bottom, Karl’s ex-wife, played by Sofia Vergara, hires him as a nanny for their son on her next trip to Miami. In a bistro in Little Havana that serves Cuban sandwiches the real reason for the trip becomes apparent. Sofia wants Karl to open a food truck. He gets to be his own boss. He gets to be creative. (She gets a great food truck for her event planning business.) And at this point the movie makes a pivot. Karl’s son, played by Emjay Anthony, goes along for the ride. The movie becomes not only a great movie about being a great artist but also being a great father. Karl puts his son to work in his food truck. The first thing have to do is clean the truck; the lesson being learned obviously is that doing things the correct way takes work. Love takes work. It takes standards. And it’s worth it. The best moment of the movie is when Karl’s son is about to serve a Cuban sandwich that has been burned. The kid’s reasoning is that the person who will be getting the sandwich is not paying for it. Karl takes him outside the truck and has this dialogue.

“Slow down for a second. Is this boring to you?”
“No, I like it.”
“Yeah well I love it. Everything that’s good that has happened to me in my life came because of that. I might not do everything great in my life. Okay I’m not perfect. I’m not the best husband and I’m sorry if I wasn’t the best father. But I’m good at this. And I want to share this with you. I want to teach you what I learned. I get to touch people’s lives with what I do. And it keeps me going and I love it. And I think if you give it a shot you might love it too.
“Yes, chef.”
“Now, should we have served that sandwich?”
“No, chef.”
“That’s my son. Get back in there. We got hungry people. He’s ready to cook!”

Giving kids work is important for discipline but great parenting involves teaching kids why the work they are doing is worth doing at all and to do that you have to treat your kids as if they were intelligent human beings. You have to trust them with unflinching information about the world. Traditionally, so much of parenting is merely locking your kids in a tower and hoping sensory deprivation will bide the time till they are past the age of impulsive behavior. That won’t work in the 21st century. Kids will find out anything and everything anyway so it is up to parents to actually do work now and affirmatively teach kids correct things not merely shelter them from bad ones. Hopefully they will figure those things out before they have kids. Most don’t. In “Chef” the son is not treated like a child. The reasoning as Jon Leguizamo, our chef’s soux chef, points out, “You’re kitchen staff. Kitchen staff doesn’t have an age!” Exactly.

God I loved this movie. Try not to see it on an empty stomach and give the best cook you know a big fat kiss afterwards.