The Prince of Egypt

Misjudged the title of this one.

I thought it was going to present an old school Egyptian tale, one that I'd never heard before, and offer insights into the culture that definitively flourished for agile millennia (I'm curious and I don't know that much about it).

Obviously that wasn't the case and The Prince of Egypt is in fact Moses, and the film examines the famous Exodus that led the Jewish people to new lands.

I was still surprised to see a cartoon showcasing such a revered and solemn tale, with animated pluck and illustrated mischief not grim and stately sombre discord.

Moses is a bit of a punk and habitually revels at play within, causing great disturbances as he teases Ramses who may inherit the civilization.

Ramses is worried because his absolutist father isn't quite so sure he would govern wisely, that he may be too soft indeed to effectively administrate something so vast and historically imposing.

Moses assures him he'll be okay before running into his actual family, who left him freely cast adrift on the fertile Nile so long ago.

Upon discovering his Hebrew roots Moses reacts with sympathy and compassion, for an enslaved people sincerely struggling to maintain balance and upbeat order. 

He leaves his life at the palace behind and takes up their cause with concerted gusto, notably after God commands him to nimbly help his struggling overlooked and crippled subjects.

I don't mind interpretive takes on biblical legends postmodernly accentuated, the literal accounts and associated stories often coming across as far too dull.

In an age of multivariable invention is it not crucial to flexibly adapt, and even embrace alternative interpretations reflexively recharacterizing biblical myths?

When I consider that Moses parted the Red Sea for instance and I imagine it through a parliamentary lens, it's as if the centre-left-red wanted the Hebrews to remain in Egypt, and at one time the far-left-red agreed with them.

But then Moses's messianic savvy was able to convince the more compassionate far-left-red otherwise, and as the red politicians at large debated his clever points, the Jewish people escaped emergent and free (the government wasn't paying attention because it was arguing so much).

It actually sounds a lot cooler with the sea being parted by a sympathetic God.

But is that the only way the story can be told?

For a God, wouldn't it be boring? 

Good Morning, Miss Dove

The age old fascination with dependability and routine, as applied to flourishing bucolic life, through tranquil age and consistency, intergenerationally sustained. 

A clever recent University graduate travels home to see her Dad, who brags about her success and dreams of lucrative dividends. 

But he suddenly passes on and she soon soon finds he's been embezzling funds, and in order to avoid shock and scandal, agrees to gradually pay back the debt.

Thus, she refuses to marry a reliable brilliant eager suitor, and takes a job teaching geography at the local primary school, where she remains throughout her life.

It's the old world stiff-upper-lip resigned to duty and objective sacrifice, without flinching or even the  consideration of much more personally enriching paths.

She doesn't entertain regret or destructive bitterness or disastrous envy, and settles into a steady job she devotedly keeps for years to come.

As time passes, many local students must deal with her requisite tests, her level-headed impartiality encouraging widespread lifelong respect.

When she unexpectedly falls ill several ex-students visit her in the hospital. 

The dedication of an honourable lifetime abounding with reticent heartfelt allegiance. 

It's nice to see that dismal alternatives aren't generally focused on in Good Morning, Miss Dove, that the rewards of service and fidelity are angelically uplifted with enchanting charm.

Also nice to see the profession of teaching narratively celebrated and highly regarded, with the advent of new technologies breaking down timeless methods of instruction.

Do people dislike their fellow citizens so much is there that much social tension promoting A.I?, I honestly doubt it would ever replace teachers, but if I'm not mistaken, others disagree.

Then again the sale of CDs and cassette tapes has greatly decreased in recent memory, I hope artists still make comparable amounts from Apple Music etc. but I'm afraid I rather doubt it.

Professional movie making has been significantly challenged by online streaming and Netflix etc as well, my new remote even came with a Netflix button, I've never seen the like for CBC or CNN.

How else did artists used to make money and encourage independent thought, oh yes books!, is the younger generation reading? It's amazing how much you can learn from reading if you just put in a little time and effort.

Has the internet taken billions away from artistic endeavour as part of a plan to promote obedience, or was it just an unfortunate byproduct skilfully envisioned by pent up grouches?

At least schools are still prominently functioning and pandemic experiments proved infertile.

Doesn't mean they won't try again.

Working on my vinyl collection. 

An Unfinished Life

A loving mother (Jennifer Lopez as Jean Gilkyson) packs up and leaves after her partner becomes abusive (Damian Lewis as Gary Winston), her daughter happy to leave things behind (Becca Gardner as Griff Gilkyson), as they head back to the wilds of Wyoming. 

There the child's grandfather awaits (Robert Redford as Einar Gilkyson) and is something of a grouchy mcgrouchersons, but he means well and sticks up for the downtrodden even if he's difficult to get along with.

His partner (Morgan Freeman as Mitch Bradley) was mauled by a bear and is now generally confined to his belovéd cabin, not blindly seeking rash vengeance, preferring to let the seasoned bear live in peace.

The bear's still around in fact and is eventually captured and then encaged, not in the most hospitable confines, it's sad to think he's no longer roaming free.

Jean and Einar are at odds because Jean accidentally killed his son, after falling asleep at the wheel, he tries but can't honestly forgive her.

She finds work in the old rugged town as 'lil Griff takes a shine to gramps, as he teaches her old school ranching ways, chartered chillin', inchoate enrichment.

But something doesn't sit quite right about that bear's sullen incarceration. 

A plan is hatched seeking animate freedom.

Even though he has quite the temper.

It's a strange mix in An Unfinished Life between different types of violence, on the one hand Jean clearly has to leave her relationship, no one should put up with that kind of nonsense.

But on the other an injured stalwart goes to great lengths to forgive a bear, it's possible he or she may strike again, but are they just functioning according to instinct?

I was happy to see a sympathetic attitude kindly applied to misunderstood bear kind, grizzlies used to range across so much more of North America, and now they don't have very much land left.

It's clear the human has had opportunities to change and definitely should have known better, it's different for a wild daring animal who may freak out if you suddenly surprise it.

Still though, if a bear strikes once and there's no strict penalty, what happens if it strikes again?, if you could transport the bear into the wilds of Northern Canada and Québec, however, there won't be many people around (although bears have been known to travel vast distances back to their original hangouts after being relocated).

The vast majority of the time the bear won't strike according to the books I've read, I've seen several while out and about as well, I've kept my distance and never had any problems.

If only bears were never grouchy or somehow aware of the danger they're in.

I truly believe many of them are.

And that either way they've never meant us much harm. 

Since our ancestors landed! 😜

Delirious

A kindhearted freespirit abounding with compassion finds himself inanimately indisposed, without lodgings or food or friendship or frenzy he wanders New York in search of something new (Michael Pitt as Toby Grace). 

He meets a photographer (Steve Buscemi) who spends his time in search of celebrity appearances, which he swiftly captures then sells to earn a buck, used to life on his own and a rather ornery set of rules, he takes young Toby in and sets him up as his assistant.

As Toby's introduced to the long hours of the paparazzi, he tries his best to ease his benefactor's troubled mind, at times breaking through the multilayered masochism, to placate his cantankerous sadospurious vengeful bitterness.

Mr. Grace is a solid character oft maligned for its gentle trusting, and natural sympathetic instincts, and resonant altruistic charm.

He lacks competitive calculating individualistic self-promotion, and has no time for guts or grievances, he's inherently non-violent.

He's more concerned with friendship than relationships or ownership, and can forgive grand impositions without foolishly giving in.

Delirious is quite romantic as Toby suddenly succeeds, yet still caught up with hardboiled dissonance as his jealous patron won't forgive him.

I suppose the grass is greener and many people covet wealth, but isn't it also important to chill and not concern yourself with opulence. 

I'm afraid I tend to see jealousy as an inhibiting destructive force, which slowly leads to spiritual ruin if left unchecked in freeform dissolution.

When you detect that people are trying to make you jealous, ask yourself, are these people good friends?, there's so much wonderful friendship out there with people who don't try to make you jealous.

Sometimes people share things without intending to show off or brag, they simply just like sharing things and don't see the harm in doing so.

The world does seem to be caught up with jealousy though, and as it blindly promotes incoherence so much innocence is lost.

You can preserve such innocence without getting duped over and over again, the two don't go hand in hand, Toby's actions offer a clear example.

Although ridiculous at points, Delirious demonstrates compassionate understanding, goodwill productively materialized, which even brought a tear to me eye.

Taking out your own shortcomings on others is as impractical as it is dispiriting. 

Better to slowly walk away.

Let them find others who prefer that kind of thing. 

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

True kindness and understanding, humbly presented with compassionate care, eager to learn new things and listen, according to the preferences of his friends and colleagues, willing to encourage an idea within reason, or curiously lend a helping hand, accustomed to supporting friends in startled need, or sitting back to shoot the breeze, perhaps ready to share a contradiction, but not with offensive intent, offered without seeking to contest or duel, but to passively suggest an alternative option, full of thanks and amicable reward, he frankly yet pleasantly proceeds, truly interested in what you have to say, unconcerned with rank or bias, sincere sympathy reflexively conveyed, clear positive energy, an anti-sophist, a remarkably thoughtful and genuine teacher, a good neighbor, one Mr. Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks).

Meets Mr. Angry (Matthew Rhys as Lloyd Vogel), a grown-up devoid of youth, consumed by hopeless cynicism, blind to lighthearts and forgiveness.

It's sad because Angry's in a position to spread hope and good cheer, not simply for merriment's sake, but to encourage less hostile relations, since if the people who are concerned with spreading the truth only see greed and envy, and emphasize the preponderance of these vices in everything they write, even though they have influence, they'll create communities void of trust, especially if they always focus on people like Trump, who bring it on themselves, and don't showcase less grotesque alternatives, Trump's world is certainly violent, and needs to be forthrightly exposed, but if nothing is offered as a less corrupt alternative, because he's selling all the papers, and the news still shapes people's worldview, then there's nothing but individualized angst to rely on, and the world becomes Trump's forbidding place.

I suppose stories about philanthropists and less controversial figures don't sell as many papers, but if the news is entirely focused on death and destruction, and people learn how to behave in response, is it not more ethical to risk less revenue, and share more stories about warmth and compassion?

If the news is saying it's wrong to live within an expedient void wherein which there are no principles or standards, and it shies away from sharing stories which reflect goodwill and sympathy, sharing them along with those it disseminates to expose political corruption, because they want to earn higher profits, does it not also exist in an expedient void where there's nothing but disgrace and corruption?

If they're to be relied upon as the promoters of a better world, should they not also do something to promote that world?

As did Mr. Rogers?

I understand this point in time is particularly bleak, but there must still be noteworthy stories out there about people spreading the light, and your first instinct shouldn't be to denounce them as hypocrites because of something they did 20 years ago, but to perhaps build them up as champions of peace fighting blatant corruption.

If there are no leaders who are worthy of respect what's the point in respecting anything?

Isn't that what Trump wants? Doesn't he suggest there's no point in respecting anyone so you may as well follow him?

I understand life isn't a box of chocolates, but it's not a razor's edge either. There's room for light as well as dark. And people like stories about honest folks.

I'm not looking for a share of the spotlight, I'm just thinking about these kinds of things.

The news often seems so grim.

Other people have messages besides Trump.

Dogman

A kind man.

An awkward man.

A shy man.

A loving man.

He loves animals and his daughter and works hard to impress them, grooming dogs throughout the day to earn money for rest and leisure.

He's done well for himself considering his coastal town's depressed jade, and has friends, clients, healthy relations, and respectability.

He gets by and isn't concerned with that much, but at least still keeps track of the score.

But there's a problem.

A huge problem.

A drug abusing violent bull who cheats and robs the whole neighbourhood takes advantage of his kindness (Edoardo Pesce as Simoncino), and due to his habitual timidity, he has trouble refusing his requests.

You can't negotiate with stark abomination.

And have to one day just strictly say "no".

And take the beating, as it inevitably approaches, Matteo Garrone's Dogman presenting one prick of a criminal abyss, jacked up on malevolent testosterone.

And amphetamines.

It's diabolical dispassionate juxtaposition, each favour just a little more ruthless, and even though each demand's grim and shocking, the door's never shut tight with resolve.

Take care of all things. No matter how brutal. Embrace as they bite, provide guidance they'll ignore.

Marcello (Marcello Fonte) likes being with people. It doesn't really matter who. He wants to fit in, play ball, take part, revel. Enjoy a long lunch. Play soccer in the morning.

But he's too friendly to know when to draw lines.

Seems more like the kind of guy who would read stories to sick kids at the hospital, or plant trees and gardens for his community on weekends.

But if such or similar opportunities exist, he has yet to seek them out or find them.

The film sharply blends innocence and contempt with dismal tragic scorn.

It's painful to watch as Marcello agrees, and is left direly scathed and scrounging.

In a community less saturated with toxic masculinity, he likely would have modestly bloomed, or would have had different options available, that may have encouraged less destructive reckonings.

Dogman makes quite the solemn impact, as lost as it is soul searching.

A world devoid of the feminine.

With good intentions pushed far far away.