Wow! I can’t stop thinking about this movie. A couple people summarized it and the idea of a documentary about three men who were adopted discovering that they’re triplets, separated shortly after birth did intrigue me.
Born in 1961 three baby boys were adopted each by a family from a different socio-economic class though the Louise Wise Agency. When one begins community college, he’s weirded out by all the people greeting him and calling him Eddie. Every where he goes people are happy to see “Eddy” even though this young man’s name was Bobby. A friend of Eddy’s figures out that the two are twins.
Soon Eddy meets Bobby and they’re fast friends/reunited brothers. The story goes viral in the papers. Then things get even more unlikely. David Kellman opens the paper and sees two boys who look like him. He quickly learns that he’s a triplet. The three become a sensation and are on The Today Show, Donahue and the entire talk show circuit of the 1980s. They learn they’ve got all the same mannerisms and tastes.
They’re overjoyed and become inseparable pals. In time they move in to a New York apartment and start a restaurant called Triplets.
But the parents, while open to loving all these boys, are angry. How could this adoption agency not tell them their son had siblings? Their attempts at getting answers and justice are thwarted. A meeting with the agency leaders amounts to nothing. The law firms they approached for help turn them away because their employees may want to adopt through Louise Wise, which struck me as odd given how unethical this revelation is. Wouldn’t it be better for the truth to come out, this agency close and another that is more open and truthful take its place?
A journalist investigating research on twins learns about a study by Peter Neubrauer on nature vs. nurture. In this study done with twins and triplets at the Louise Wise Agency. Thus the triplets and other multiple birth adoptees were guinea pigs for a psychological study neither they nor their parents agreed to. It’s frightful.
The movie goes on to show the effects of this study on the lives of this innocent trio. It’s a film you won’t forget. The dramatized scenes of the past are done with authenticity and the interviews of the boys and those close to the story are sincere, funny and poignant. The film is well made and original. It’s full of twists and revelations that will hit you hard as you contemplate the impact of scientists playing with people as if they were toys. It’s a must-see film. You should be able to stream it or get the DVD at your library.
Made and set during WWII, Kinoshita’sThe Living Magoroku didn’t wow me. Though the film begins with an action-packed sequence of a samurai, the rest of the film wasn’t on par with his Morning for the Osone Family or Port of Flowers.
In a nutshell, generations ago the Magoroku family’s field was the site of a bloodbath. They believe a legend that says they shouldn’t plow or cultivate this land. Moreover, the living Magoroku’s believe that their eldest male child will die early. This belief has currently haunted the oldest son, who’s coughs a lot and has some psychosomatic condition. The widowed mother won’t let her daughter marry just in case the son does die. This curse or legend is still strong.
One of the villagers believes that the 72 acre field should be cultivated for food. Japan is in the midst of a war and would benefit from using fertile land.
Keeping this land fallow and the efforts to get the Magoroku’s to change their mind, leads to a a couple engagements getting put on hold.
I would say the film does show how films were used in the war effort, how they tried to persuade the audience to sacrifice. Yet the oldest son’s acting as rather stiff and the story wasn’t as engaging as what I’ve seen from Kurosawa or Ozu. There are better Japanese films to invest your time in.
Though I can’t stand Japanese sweet bean paste, the movie Sweet Bean is another story. Loner Senato runs a snack shop in Tokyo where he makes and sells pancakes stuffed with sweet bean paste when one day Tokue, a cute old lady, comes along and begs for a job. She begs to for a job, but he’s sure at 76 she’s unable to do the lifting and hard work he needs.
When she comes by again bearing a batch of the most incredibly delicious sweet bean paste Sentaro has ever tasted, he relents and hires her. The next morning she’s there at 4 am to make the beans replacing the canned glop used before. Soon there’s a line around the block for the snacks.
Wakana, a student whose single mom wants her to stop studying and get a job, is drawn to this pair of loners. She shows how wonderful friendship is with someone much older. She shares her dreams and memories with Tokue and keeps Sentaro on the right path regarding sticking up for Tokue.
In the midst of the business’ success, the shop’s meddling owner pops in and insists Sentaro fire Tokue because her knobbled hands are due to leporasy. She’s a health risk. She’s got to go.
The film goes into new territory and explores friendship, loyalty and isolation in a beautiful way. I loved this film. My only quibble is that I wanted to know what happens with Wakana. Even though I still can’t choke down a sweet bean pancake and highly recommend this movie.
Keisuke Kinoshita’s Morning for the Osone Family (1946) probably couldn’t get made today. It’s an anti-WWII film that exposes how the military and government squelched free speech and exploited citizens even when Japan was at a point when it was clear they were bound to lose.
Curiously, the film begins with the Osone family celebrating Christmas and singing “Silent Night.” After some chit chat, the eldest son is summoned by law enforcement and is soon imprisoned for writing an article that subtly questioned Japan’s militarism.
It’s a big hit for a family whose father died a while back. The mother has tried to live up to the father’s pacifist philosophy. She continues to support her second son, who’s a struggling artist, and her daughter who wants to marry for love, but now that her fiancé has been drafted, is getting pressured by her uncle to marry a scion he’s lined up.
The family unity continues to dissolve. The painter gets drafted and the daughter goes to work in an army support job. The uncle, who’s an officer and very pro-war moves into the family home with his haughty wife. Their presence, and particularly their lavish lifestyle enjoying black market goods, while most citizens starve, sickens the mother and daughter. The final straw is when the uncle urges the youngest son, who’s still in high school, to enlist in the army.
Morning for the Osone Family offers a beautiful, moving view of history. My hunch is few Japanese have seen this film, but they should. We should too. I’m glad I did.
If you’re looking for a fun gangster movie with a message, pick up All Through the Night (1942) starring Humphrey Bogart, Conrad Veldt, who played Major Strasser in Casablanca, and Peter Lorre, who was also in Casablanca, William Demerast (of My Three Sons), Phil Silvers and Jackie Gleason. Bogart plays Gloves Donnahue, head of a minor gang of gamblers in New York. Devoted to his dear old mother, when she calls Gloves because she’s got a weird feeling about the disappearance of the baker who lives below her, Gloves comes running. Soon the baker’s body’s found and Gloves gets wrongly implicated in the man’s murder.
To get the police off his case, Gloves must get to the bottom of this mystery and he soon encounters a group of Nazi spies operating under the U.S. government’s nose, planning all sorts of evil. Some romance is added to the story through a pretty German singer Gloves meets. Whether she should be trusted remains to be seen.
The film moves briskly and there are plenty of quips in every scene, as you’d expect in a Bogart film. By the end, the jaded gamblers are protecting their country and offering examples to the audience on how we should all band together. All through the night entertains, despite its occasional hokey joke.
Perhaps I missed something, but The Spirit of the Bee Hive confounded me. A story about Anna, a young girl living in a village in Spain, who sees a Frankenstein film and gets obsessed with figuring out why Frankenstein killed a girl who had tried to play with him. She asks her older sister, who’s probably 7 or 8 years old, and gets a fanciful response which sends her on a mission to find Frankenstein in a local field.
Because I don’t know much about Spanish history and couldn’t understand the context a lot of the film was beyond me. Moreover, the family was so alienated. The parents spent little time with each other or with their children. There were some touching scenes, but as a whole the parents seemed distant and lived in their own heads. The kids were allowed to wander wherever including along and on railroad tracks. They’d put their ears to the tracks to determine if a train was approaching. That made me tense, but on the suspense scale, I wanted something more.
At one point a man who’s been shot jumps off the train and makes his way to the abandoned barn in the desolate field where Ana seeks her Frankenstein. We never learn his story. Ana innocently cares for him and brings him food and tends as best she can to his wound. He never says much. One day after she leaves him some food and starts for home gunfire takes the man out. We never learn the source of the bullets. Since Ana’s given the victim her father’s jacket with his watch in the pocket, her father is questioned by police. We never hear what’s said and never does the father talk to Ana about her actions. So much is left to the imagination and without understanding of Spanish modern history and its impact on the culture, I couldn’t appreciate this film.
The father was a beekeeper and scholar and there’s plenty of bee hive patterns, like the windows shown above. Still I really never got the significance of the title. I was going to watch some of the extras on Disc 2, but I figured I didn’t want to spend the time digging deeper in the hope of possibly understanding an opaque film.
Ana is blessed with the most beautiful, arresting eyes and they’re well photographed. Her sister is pretty as well. Seeing how they’re captured on film was the best part of this movie. For the most part, the emotionally distant characters left me cold.
Serendipity brought me Gigot starring Jackie Gleason of The Honeymooners fame. I remember Gleason’s sitcom from my childhood, but my view of him as an actor in film was vague, i.e. I knew he was in movies, but hadn’t watched any, not even Smoky and the Bandit.
Gleason wrote the story of Gigot, a pet project of his. Gene Kelly directed it and someone else wrote the screenplay. Gigot is a mute janitor in France. He’s the butt of everyone’s jokes and pranks. His landlady cheats him. Yet kind-hearted Gigot lives according to his own generous principles. He never gives up on goodness, though no one treats him well.
Late one night Gigot runs across a prostitute and her young daughter trembling in the rain and he gives them shelter in his basement apartment. Soon Gigot and the girl bond and his life mission becomes keeping Nicole, the girl, in good spirits. The scene where Gigot follows Nicole inside a church and she asks him what this building is was beautiful. Gleason astonished me with his acting. He showed so much heart and intelligence behind the veil of his character’s disability.
The prostitute is just as jaded and conniving as many of the villagers. She argues and berates Gigot, until the scales fall from her eyes, for a time.
The film is moving, but if you can’t take some sentimentality you won’t like it. If you want to see Jackie Gleason’s depth as an actor or just enjoy a movie with a lot of heart, before sarcasm became en vogue, try Gigot.