Source Code

Source Code is spoiler-sensitive; a single sentence could ruin the experience the filmmakers intended. It is what may be referred to as a "roller-coaster" experience, with twists and turns and more twists and all that exciting stuff. Knowing this, I will make sure that I don't explain too much of the plot. And I would be careful reading reviews that don't preface this kind of assurance since a thorough explanation of the plot could compromise the surprises and clever reveals with which the film is put together. And to be frank, these surprises are why it's worth seeing. The science-fiction component has interesting ideas, but their execution is inconsistent. I saw the film with J.D. A two-hour post-film discussion on what we had just seen took place and only a very rough consensus was made. But more on that later.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays a soldier who is being sent somewhere that looks like a moving train a few hours ago but actually isn't. Actually, the words "sent" and "somewhere" are misleading because where he's being "sent" has no spatial existence. But, even though it merely looks like the past, it is a perfect representation of the world as it existed at that time. In other words, it looks really really really real.

But he's not going as himself, he is usurping another body. When he looks into the mirror, he sees another man. The film, because it assumes its audiences would otherwise get confused, shows the man as Jake Gyllenhaal, even though the man looks completely different to the other passengers. I think it would have been cooler if, when he woke up, we actually saw the man he was usurping instead of Jake Gyllenhaal so that we could, you know, figure out through good acting that he was being occupied by a different mind. Oh well.

Did I mention the train blows up? I mean, what else would it do? Make all regular station stops?

After eight minutes he wakes up in a capsule. He is told by military personnel to keep doing it until he finds the guy who blew up the train.

Okay I won't say any more about the plot. All plot exposition I've given you learn by the first, oh, I dunno, say, 13 minutes? Maybe I've said too much. This is after all, a roller-coaster movie. The entire first half of the film is cut together so that you are left completely in the dark as to what is going on. There are a few red herrings that in retrospect kind of, if you will, stink up the film. But it is an exciting film if you can temporarily forget about them, which I did.

About halfway through the movie, you sort of learn what's going on. The film assumes we know enough. Maybe we do. But I should point out something.

After discussing the events of the film with J.D., I read some reviews on the internet. There is no clear consensus as to what is actually happening in this film. You may have heard that it is a time travel film. Ryan Lambie from Den Of Geek describes the plot as (don't worry I won't give anything away) that of a man who is required to "travel repeatedly back … in time." Peter Howell of The Toronto Star writes, perhaps facetiously, that he is able to "twist time, space and DNA." But some critics are clear in their review that it is not a time travel film. Tim Robey from The Telegraph writes that "[i]f it sounds like time travel, it isn't." And Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle writes that a certain object that is integral to the plot (I remind the reader I am being vague purposely) is "not, strictly speaking, real," and that we are seeing "a kind of echo memory." Some critics don't commit either way. Ryan Fleming from Digital Trends writes of certain sequences: "It is not real, and yet in a sense it is." If you're confused by that, you should be; it makes no sense, and yet in a sense it does.

It can't be a time travel movie because when he supposedly goes back in time, all changes he makes have no effect on the future. The pseudo-science babble also clearly states that it isn't time travel, and that the world he sees is made up of information collected from electric-magnetic signals emitted by humans in the surrounding area. Or something crazy like that. But it can't be an "echo memory" because the traveller doesn't have the memories of the body he's usurping. He has his own memories. And he also is able to explore areas of which the usurped body had no experience. The critics who talked about parallel realities are closest to getting it right. The film suggests strongly that the worlds he revisits are just as real as the reality from which he came.

The film is a better roller-coaster than it is an exhibition of science-fiction ideas. There are ambiguities that left me asking a lot of questions, and some of them could be answered with intelligent argumentation, using clues provided throughout the film. Some of them, however, suggested lazy writing. For example, what happens to the mind of the body Gyllenhaal's character usurps? Does he cease to exist? And if he does, then what kind of reality is it where a mind randomly enters it and takes over its body? How real can that reality be? And the end. Oh my God, the end. What the hell was that?

This film resulted less in discussion of its ideas and more in attempts to make it intelligible. In the end, J.D. and I had to agree that there isn't enough conclusive evidence to support any one of our several theories. This isn't always a bad thing, but somehow, for Source Code, it was a bad thing.

Des hommes et des dieux (Of Gods And Men)

When Sucker Punch is one of the most interesting films in a theatre near you, it's time to take a trip to the theatres out of town and way behind. Right now is the best time of the year to go to them because they are about three to four months behind, and three to four months ago was when films were released so they'd be noticed by the Academy.

Last week I went to The Bookshelf, a quaint little theatre slash book store slash cafe slash lounge. Yes, all of these things are located in a single building. It's all connected. It's pretty cool! The Bookshelf shows movies that you wouldn't think citizens of Guelph would have the privilege to see. It's not fair, really. It helps that my girlfriend lives in Guelph, the city in which it's located, and that she was happy to tag along. We saw Des hommes et des dieux, France's submission for the Best Foreign Language Film this year.

The film failed to get a nomination. And after the first twenty minutes of the film, I thought I knew why. It was established that eight Christian monks live together in a monastery. They eat together, they till their soil, they study, they write sermons, and they sing hymns. As far as I was concerned, no story was being told yet.

But by forty minutes it was clear what the film is doing. These monks have situated themselves in a country in wartime; not only are they the spiritual bedrock of its peaceful citizens, they provide health care and medicine to victims. And now, as violence escalates and the risk increases, the monks are urged by the Algerian and French governments to leave. They question their resolve. The will of God is under scrutiny. The film asks some pretty big questions. To what extent should we determine our lives? If one has committed to something, can certain death be a breaking point?

A quick Google search yields that the film is based on incidents occurring during the Algerian civil war. I would warn moviegoers, if they don't already know, not to learn the details of those incidents before watching it because they are not the film's focus. I knew the details, and as a result I felt unnecessarily anxious during the film, anticipating a turbulent and devastating climax. I was happy that the film didn't go that route. The film is not meant to be a portrayal of violent events of a particular war. I don't recall Algeria being mentioned once. It's better if it isn't. The scope of this film is beyond the events of a particular war. The film is about the desire for peace, and the commitment to total humility, in the face of war.

There's an extent to which the film can be criticized for being a bit too long, or causing a yawn or two. Or four. The scene with the two bottles of wine - if you've seen it you know what I mean - is edited awkwardly. It didn't have the emotional punch it could have had. But the sum of these criticisms just don't add up to much when weighed against its idea, which its focus and its main point. Appropriately, the same applies to its characters. Say what you want about Christianity; you can't argue against a good will, with or without a Christian semblance.

In case it isn't clear, I would see this again. It would have been worth the trip from Toronto to Guelph to see it instead of Sucker Punch. Even in terms of visual experience, Des hommes et des dieux excels as its final shot, with shrewd focus and choreography, gives a visual representation of a concept of peace the Christian monks strive for. It was thought-provoking and more satisfying than a single frame of Sucker Punch.

I would show it to a world religions class after teaching Abrahamic religions. Christianity and Islam are put in a holistic perspective, and treated with equal respect. The film takes no sides.

I caught the last showing of the film. This week The Bookshelf starts showing The King's Speech (the original), I Love You Philip Morris, and short films from Cannes. All holdovers from 2010 that are generally acclaimed. But Source Code looks pretty good so it might be okay to go to a theatre near you now.