33 Men In A Wee Bit Of Trouble

“Thirty three men trapped underground, and we don’t even know if they’re alive?” ~ Sebastian Pinera

“It’s not a question of if it falls, but when.” ~ Andre Sougarret

“I’m not leaving without him.” ~ Maria Segova

“That’s not a rock. That’s the heart of the mountain. She finally broke.” ~ Mario Sepulveda

In 2010, the world was transfixed to a two month long story coming out of the high deserts of Chile, where thirty three miners, trapped deep beneath the earth after a collapse, were discovered alive. Massive efforts were undertaken to rescue them, and the story had an uplifting ending, broadcast to the eyes of the planet. The startling tale, something we just couldn’t believe if it didn’t really happen, is now in theatres with an international cast in the new film The 33, by Mexican director Patricia Riggen.

We’re introduced to the various workers in the San Jose mine, a copper and gold mine in the Atacama desert, an inhospitable place. The owner of the mine has not been taking seriously the concerns that the mountain is becoming increasingly unstable. The men working the mine do this despite the danger. And of course the worst happens- the collapse occurs, and it is catastrophic. All of the workers survive, but they find themselves well and truly trapped, their communication with the outside world cut off, and their supplies low. Above, the company drags its heels, the families maintain a vigil and press for something to be done, and the government intervenes in what becomes a rescue effort.

Watching this film, I remembered the story as it had unfolded on the news. From the stunning revelation that the miners were all alive to the final extractions of each and every one of them, it was a story that spoke to the strength of the human will and the tenacity of human resourcefulness. So of course it was inevitable that someone would end up making a movie about it. The challenge in this case is to make a movie, maintaining suspense, when everyone knows how it all ended.

Patricia Riggen and the writers Mikko Alanne, Craig Borten, and Jose Rivera worked with the miners and their families, crafting a film that tells the story both above and below, focusing on several key figures in the event. With thirty three men below and many people above, there’s really only time to focus on some of them, so some characters are more fleshed out than others. Filming was done in South America, including near the actual site. It has the feel of a disaster movie early on, working into more of a suspenseful film after the cataclysm as those above and below find themselves dealing with the situation at hand. Certainly Riggen handles the technical aspects of the collapse very well- it feels harrowing when it happens, and she captures the claustrophobic feeling of this space throughout the film, as well as the tension.

The cast were well chosen, coming from a multitude of countries. Bob Gunton, who’s been in countless character roles on television and film, appears as the president of Chile, Sebastian Pinera. His minister for mining, Laurence Golborne, is played by the actor Rodrigo Santoro. The character is most directly responsible for overseeing the rescue efforts, while letting the people doing the actual job get their job done. This is the first time I’ve seen him in anything that I liked- he previously played the villain in the 300 movies, as well as a retconned-in character in the television series Lost, characters I found irritating, but that was less because of the actor and more because of the writing. The two characters find themselves dealing with a situation that is both crisis- particularly in terms of initial response- and then opportunity.

The Irish actor Gabriel Byrne turns up in a role with a good deal to do, as the engineer Andre Sougarret, the man overseeing the rescue efforts. Byrne gives the character the sense of competence and professionalism you’d expect, both out of the actor and out of a man in that profession. He’s facing a serious challenge here, and as daunting as it is, he lives up to it. Juliette Binoche turns up in the film as Maria Segova, whose brother Dario (Juan Pablo Raba) is among those in the mine, and with whom she has some unfinished business to resolve. Maria becomes a strong voice among the families of the miners, determined to see them brought back safely. Binoche plays to that- she’s the sort of actress who could make reading the phone book fascinating.

There is a problem of course in filming miners in dark places- how does one tell one character from the other if they’re all grubby, in helmets or masks? Some of the miners get more exposure than others. Raba’s role as Dario provides for some of the family drama- the rift between he and his sister provides some of the tension as well as the regret. Jacob Vargas provides some levity as Edison “Elvis” Pena, so nicknamed because of his fondness for Elvis music. Mario Casas is Alex Vega, a miner with medical issues of his own trapped in a place he’d rather not be in.

The two actors who really get the most exposure among the miners, and who give the strongest performances of the film, are Lou Diamond Phillips and Antonio Banderas. Phillips plays the shift foreman Luis Urzua. The character already has reservations about the state of the mine early on, and there’s something of a pessimistic streak in the man that plays out in the film. And yet there’s a strong sense of the man as capable and organized, things that Phillips plays to in his performance.

Banderas plays Mario Sepulveda, a man who became a public face for the miners, and a strong leader among them, particularly early on while no one knows they’re actually alive. He’s a voice of reason for the others, handling a crisis in just the right way, defusing tensions and despair, and keeping things in order. As much stress as he must feel, Sepulveda succeeds in keeping the others from panic, and these elements that Banderas plays to bring out the best in the actor.

The film does trivialize certain elements- the early political missteps, some stories being set aside in favour of others, the fact that the miners have not been properly compensated, some Hollywood fudging of facts, for instance. It is a big story, something that has to be condensed into a couple of hours, but The 33 does hold our attention, keeping its audience on edge and tense. Yes, we know how it all ends, but watching it unfold is compelling, and ultimately inspiring.

The Most Elegant Family In Concord

Before getting into anything else today, some links for you to peruse. Go and check out Norma's blog for her thoughts on the writer's schedule. Go on over to Gina Adams' second blog American Small Towns for her latest small town profile. See what Lynn has to say about Christmas trees and dogs.  Speaking of dogs, we have a blog with the Square Dogs from AngryParsnip for you to see. And have a look at Krisztina's blog for a Christmas cookie recipe. 

Now then, it's movie review time, and I'm reaching back to the mid-nineties for this one, sort of a Christmas movie (well, it does feature a turning point scene set at Christmas, so...). Anyway, shall we begin?

Little Women has been adapted for film and television before; the beloved novel by Louisa May Alcott about four sisters during and after the Civil War remains a classic today. Alcott wrote two volumes that were collected together, followed by other tales of the March family. The 1994 adaptation remains my favourite (though the Kate Hepburn version from the 1930s is outstanding as well).

This film gives us several years in the lives of four sisters, Jo (Winona Ryder), Meg (Trini Alvarado), Beth (Claire Danes), and Amy (Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis), as they experience the hardships of life on the home front during war, the changes of society around them, tragedy and loss, and love. They are guided by their mother Margaret, affectionately called “Marmee” (Susan Sarandon), along with their gruff great-aunt March (Mary Wickes) and the family housekeeper Hannah (Florence Paterson). Their father is away at war when the film starts, and his presence is a subdued one even as he returns. Mrs. March is the hands on parent in this family, teaching her daughters to value themselves as people.

The sisters are all different. Jo is something of a tomboy, argumentative and imaginative, a writer who seeks the freedom that will come without having to worry constantly about money. Meg is the eldest, conservative in her outlook, concerned about appearances. Beth is painfully shy, only open with her sisters. Amy, the youngest, is particularly romantic and flamboyant, especially as we meet her first as a girl played by Dunst, but also as a young woman played by Mathis.

The family lives in New England in a house called Orchard House, doing their best to get by. Their neighbours are the Laurences, a rich family with the gruff Mr. Laurence (the late John Neville) as the head of the house. His grandson Teddy (Laurie, as he likes to be called) lives with him, and is played by a fresh faced Christian Bale. Mr. Laurence is having him tutored after years of the boy being educated in various places in Europe, looking to have him take on a position with the family firm someday. Hence he has brought in a tutor (Eric Stoltz) to get him ready for university. Laurie is drawn to the March sisters, and particularly to Jo, becoming the brother they never had, a fiercely loyal friend whose dynamics with each of them shakes things up. And so we are drawn into the lives of these people in a film that takes us back in time, a film that never loses its appeal, taken from a book that can never lose its appeal.

Director Gillian Armstrong took the screenplay by Robin Swicord, adapted from the novel, and worked wonders with it. Her attention to detail shows itself throughout, with period costuming looking like it’s from the mid-nineteenth century. The buildings and settings feel very much of the time, at multiple times of the year as the story unfolds over several years. Everything feels like it’s drawn out of the past, and that goes all the way from locations to the smallest details. And the screenplay emphasizes these very strong women, all in different ways. They’re not perfect people, but there’s such humanity in them, such depth. That’s present of course in Alcott’s novel, and having it carry over into the film simply reinforces that. Even the camera work, the lighting, and edits Armstrong chooses along the way, serves the story. Add to that the beautiful character based music by Thomas Newman (one of the underrated composers in Hollywood, and one of my favourites among film composers), and his score is the icing on the cake.

The casting in the film is ideal, but where to start? I’ll start with Sarandon. Her Marmee embodies an inner strength, and a woman of strong principles. She thinks for herself, stresses that her daughters must do the same. She encourages forgiveness (there’s a moment in the film involving an act which for a writer would be unforgiveable). And she is very much the guiding force, the rock upon which her family is based. Her husband’s presence is somewhat subdued, of course, but one gets the impression at least in this adaptation that he accepts his wife being the heart of the family.

John Neville was the great character actor who played many a different role over the course of his career (around the same time he was regularly showing up from time to time in The X-Files as a mysterious member of a shadowy consortium who was something of an ally at times to the pair of FBI agents and at other times a source of profound enigmatic motives). We first get the impression of him as a gruff man, given to the pursuit of wealth, not a terribly friendly man. Yet that changes; when sickness shows itself in the March home while Marmee is away, he freely intervenes with help, and during the Christmas sequence that marks the transition point for the story, we particularly see great warmth and empathy from the man. Eric Stoltz as the tutor John Brooke has a good take on the role. He’s charged with the task of tutoring an unruly student, and there’s an awkwardness about the man’s personality... and yet something about him catches Meg’s eye. Stoltz conveys these qualities well.

Mary Wickes plays Aunt March in the best grouchy way. One would think this was Grumpy Cat in human form. She’s wealthy, the only member of the March family who is, living all by herself in a large nearby home. She’s concerned about appearances, tries to influence her family as best as she can. Deep underneath all that grouchiness, there is more, even a sense of humour, barely hinted at, but also a loyalty to her family. Florence Paterson as Hannah is practically a second mother to the girls, a wise older woman who has a hands on presence in their lives, and an inner warmth that’s infectious. Paterson really brings these qualities across in her performance.

Bale as Laurie is well cast. He was already getting good roles from boyhood by the time he took this role, and as the young man making his way in the world, Bale embodies Laurie just like I would imagine him. He’s passionate and full of mischief, knows what he wants, is willing to do things simply because it’s the right thing to do. He’s loyal to these girls, protective of them and playful with them as well, but also capable of being wounded, retreating into himself when things don’t go as he wished- a situation that shows itself when he is rejected by Jo. He needs to find himself afterwards during a time when he’s become irresponsible and self indulgent and his path leads him in another direction, but ultimately back home. He has great chemistry with these actresses, particularly with Ryder, but also with both of the Amys, in different ways, of course. Bale conveys all of these qualities in the character. The other man in Jo’s life, a professor she meets in New York, is played by Gabriel Byrne, is another example of a good performance. Byrne is one of my favourite actors, and his take on Friedrich Bhaer, a German teacher, is well done. He is drawn to Jo, despite the age difference, intrigued by her thoughtfulness and imagination. It’s a relationship of equals; the two respect each other, challenge each other, and find many common bonds. It doesn’t take long for them to fall for each other, and even so, Friedrich hopes Jo can elevate her work as a writer instead of settling for what’s in demand. Byrne draws on these qualities in his performance, giving us a warm and utterly decent man that we can respect.

The sisters are very well cast. Trini Alvarado draws on the pensive, conservative qualities of Meg throughout her performance. She’s concerned about appearances too- even if she occasionally strays from that. It’s something she seems to draw from her great-aunt March, though Meg has more of a sense of humour. Her relationship with John Brooke feels very natural as it evolves, and being the eldest sister, she seems to be the one who takes things most seriously. Amy might be played by two actresses, but both convey the essential romantic qualities of the character. Kirsten Dunst as the child Amy is headstrong and dramatic in her expressions, occasionally given to acts of jealousy when she’s not getting her own way. Under that, however, is a young girl who does worry about her family, who makes mistakes and tries to make up for them. Samantha Mathis picks up the role a few years later as a young woman, and while she’s more mature a person, more sure of herself, she still embodies that essential romantic nature Amy has, perhaps best expressing itself in a love of art. The two actresses give us a character that’s complicated, a bit of a brat at times, but someone with depth. 

Claire Danes has had a habit of crying on screen in many a movie, and that happens here, of course. She plays Beth in just the right way. There’s such a shyness about the character, and it intrigues me- maybe because I’ve known what it’s like to be shy. She holds much of herself back, comfortable around her sisters but uncomfortable around others. And yet some of the most touching moments in the film are hers. The scene at Christmas with a piano given as a gift by Mr. Laurence will tug at the heart strings. And her final scene is utterly heartbreaking- which makes it beautiful.

Winona Ryder is the core of the film as Jo, and she takes on each quality of the character. She’s ambitious and headstrong, has a great imagination and a strong view of the world. She’s not hesitant about expressing her opinion, a legacy of her mother, and she feels things deeply. She can be passionate and tempestuous at times, but feels very real, a very strongly grounded character. We like her; her spirit and her intelligence draws us to her, and Ryder brings all of these things across on the screen. Her relationship dynamics with the two men in her life, first Laurie, and ultimately Friedrich, feel very natural, and rooted in strong characterization.

Little Women remains a classic twenty years after it was in theatres, giving us strong, positive girls and women in a family that feels very true to life. It does its source novel a great honour by carrying on the story, and is well served by a fine director and crew, and an outstanding cast who give us characters with warmth, depth, and surprises along the way.