Filed under: Drama, Movies, Posted by TA, Review | Tags: Action, Anthony Mackie, Atlanta, Casey Affleck, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cops, Gal Gadot, Gone Baby Gone, Kate Winslet, Police, Russian Mafia, Street Kings, Thriller, Training Day, Triple 9, Woody Harrelson
Triple 9 is the best cop/action thriller of the decade so far. I took it for granted after watching the trailer at a theatre earlier this year. Yesterday, while looking for a movie to watch, I saw this poster with 4 dudes carrying big guns, wearing red balaclavas and thick goggles, involved by red smoke. Before doing a quick search on the story, I immediately thought of a Power Ranger reunion at Color Me Rad. Boy, was I wrong.
This is an all-in-one thriller. It has a complex but solid storyline that connects like a perfect game of Tetris. It’s dark and gruesome. The pace is incredibly fast and nail-biting. Blockbuster action scenes are intertwined with daunting short conversations.
I can see Street Kings and the always-in-mind Training Day being inspirations for Triple 9, but it’s also fair to say that the latter carved its own place in the history of great cop thrillers. By the way, Triple 9 was able to show the ever-existing tension between ghettos and the police really well. In my humble opinion even better than the acclaimed Training Day.
The cast has some of the biggest underrated actors in the last 20 years, led by Chiwetel Ejiofor and Casey Affleck in a role similar to his excellent Gone Baby Gone. There’s also the one-and-only Woody Harrelson and Anthony Mackie at their best. Let us now forget a brilliant Kate Winslet and Gal Gadot, who seemed very comfortable in the few scenes that were given to her.
Affleck reminded me a lot of his role in Gone Baby Gone, which was also a fantastic thriller. Ejiofor is truly the man. He’s the new Denzel. Think of him as in 12 Years a Slave meets Inside Man. He’s truly amazing.
Filed under: Behavior, Behaviour, Cinema, Comedy, Communication, Culture, Europe, Imagination, Media, Movies, Posted by TA, Review, Society, Wars | Tags: Adaptation, Adolf Hitler, Book, Broadcasting, Documentary, Er Ist Wieder Da, fiction, Fifth State, Fourth State, Mockumentary, Oliver Masucci, World War 2
Superb, superb, superb adaptation of the 2012 book.
This movie made me miss Europe. “The Union” is far from perfect, but I still haven’t found people with a smart, more provocative and darkly humorous way of dealing with sensitive issues like they do it there. The best definition I could find for Look Who’s Back is “slapstick”. That’s what the movie is.
The plot is simple: Adolf Hitler magically wakes up in the middle of 2014 Berlin, at the exact same spot of the infamous Führebunker. Yes, the original Adolf. Not a comedian, not a street artist, not a conman; the third post-Middle Ages anti-Christ himself. Obviously it takes him a while to understand what’s going on in the world. Germany is different. People, technology, mentality and the general context are very different from 1945.
Hitler’s journey starts comically. He’s a stranger to his own people. Add to that the fact that he is helped by a clumsy freelancer who has just lost his job and tries to seize Hitler’s convincing persona as an opportunity to go back into the media world. Media, by the way, is one of the key elements in the plot. The Fourth and Fifth State become huge platforms for someone who’s known to have mastered the art of influencing people and the power of public speech. References to Goebbels are abundant. Information and how society reacts to it becomes the core of the movie. That theme reminded me a lot of another German movie, The Wave.
The transition to a more serious, darker take on media and society in general is eye-opening to say the least. For instance, Hitler quickly (re)discovers the power of television and the manipulation of masses. He just didn’t expect how mediocre broadcasting can be these days (in this case, cooking, gossip and Judge Judy-like shows). Hitler’s role becomes more complex as he makes his own sweet way back into popularity in the middle of a fight for power between senior-ranking TV executives. That’s when society starts to revisit old wounds that have never been fully healed… Going further on sharing more snippets of the movie will end up in spoilers, but hopefully by this point you have understood where the whole discussion is going. Some views from ordinary Germans across the country interviewed during the movie are quite shocking to what some of us would have expected.
Look Who’s Back brilliantly switches back and forth from mockumentary to nonfiction. It is oftentimes hard to separate them. Oliver Masucci is a genius. I had never heard of him but have to give him praise for a monumental performance as the Führer himself. He’s well beyond a simple or funny impersonation. Masucci gives full life to 21st century Hitler with a creepily and memorable performance.
I highly recommend Look Who’s Back.
Filed under: Cinema, Life, Movies, Posted by TA, Review | Tags: Argentina, Best Foreign Film, Movie Review, Oscar-nominated, Relatos Selvajes, Ricardo Darin, Wild Tales
#brilliant
Watching an Argentinian movie after a long hiatus was the best I’ve done this week. Wild Tales (Relatos Selvajes) is a series of 6 short stories, all focused on revenge. My favourite one: the “Bombita” engineer.
I do like the concept of multiple, unrelated stories glued together by one general theme. In the case of Wild Tales, humour was super intelligent and all characters were deeply immersed into their roles.
Imagine a scale of 1 through 6, where 1 is the first tale and 6 the last. Every next story becomes more convoluted and full of elements. It becomes a sort of tutorial. The more you learn, the more the plot requires your attention. Every single tale is so entertaining and creative that staying completely tuned to each is easy.
Filed under: Cinema, Drama, Movies, Posted by TA, Review | Tags: Best Actress, Boyhood, Ethan Hawk, Hollywood, Leading Role, Patricia Arquette, Richard LInklater
When will Hollywood stop overrating its own children?
Boyhood is bland, and that is a compliment. Go through its 2 hours and 45 minutes of uninteresting tales and you’ll understand my point. The experiment of taking 12 years to film a movie is remarkable and must be highlighted as much as how unnecessary it was. Boyhood doesn’t lack wrongs.
The story is average to below average, although Richard Linklater tells it really well. That’s his forte and way of life. Characters are awfully dull, Patricia Arquette included, except for Ethan Hawk. Yet, she won an Oscar two years ago. If acting was in any shape or form criterion to judge screen performances, Arquette should have the Oscar for Stigmata way back in the 90’s. She’s a talented actress, and so is Hawk, but neither of them deserved big accolades for Boyhood (or any at all). In my books, Arquette has joined Helen Hunt, Gwyneth Paltrow, Melanie Griffith, Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock on my “If she can, so can I” list of illogical picks.
Boyhood looked like a made-for-TV movie several times. Its camera work was simple and soundtrack almost nonexistent. Nothing wrong with those, just facts.
If the movie turned into an audiobook, I may consider “watching” it again.
Filed under: Cinema, Media, Movies, Oscars, Posted by TA, Review, Society | Tags: Best Movie, Boston, Boston Globe, Brian D'Arcy, Catholic Church, Investigative Work, Liev Schreiber, Mark Ruffalo, Micheal Keaton, Oscars, Priest Scandal, Rachael McAdams, Spotlight, Stanley Tucci
Spotlight is about an extraordinary story told in an ordinary manner. Its brilliance comes not from the fact that one of the oldest and most respected institutions in the world badly screwed up on the background check of its “staff”. Instead, Spotlight focuses on the hard work by a small group of journalists driven by a visionary new editor-in-chief. To me, that’s what made the movie so good.
The Spotlight team at the Boston Globe won a Pulitzer prize for its investigative work. The movie crew and writers tried to add as little noise as possible to keep the film reasonably pure and unbiased. You won’t see phenomenal acting, but a very solid ensemble being as hardworking and committed as the real-life Spotlight team itself. More than solid, in fact. It’s one of the most stellar casts I’ve seen in a non-fiction movie in a while, all consistently solid: Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber, Rachael McAdams (more and more distant from The Notebook, thank goodness), Michael Keaton, John Slattery, and Brian D’Arcy.
Among worthy mentions, there is Mark Ruffalo. The guy has been consistent for more than a decade. He’s a chameleon, my favourite type of actor. He’s a true artist, more of a Da Vinci, less of a Di Caprio. Spotlight also consolidates Michael Keaton’s incredible comeback. He had an Oscar stolen last year. Although his performance was not as strong as Birdman’s, the former Bruce Wayne delivered again.
Giving the Best Movie Oscar to Spotlight was a fair thing to do. May those who abused innocent children rot in hell.
Filed under: Cinema, Comedy, Movies, Posted by TA | Tags: Deadpool, Marvel, Regina, Rotten Tomatoes, Ryan Reynolds, Saskatchewan, Stan Lee, Super Hero, Vancouver, Wolverine, X-Men
I insist this must be Ryan Reynolds and Marvel’s best movie to date. Last Monday I read somewhere that Deadpool had a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, something unheard of, at least for me.
The movie is consistently great, from the most creative opening to closing credits. I honestly felt like it was a stand-up comedy gig, like the best you’ve watched. Maybe Seth Rogen could learn from the writers?
The 4th wall worked beautifully, and so did many updated references to pop culture, movies in particular, other comics like X-Men and whatnot. The flow is quite unpredictable, a lot more fun to watch and be surprised. Stay tuned to every scene. Humour is great but also fast and witty. If you snooze, you will lose some of the best lines in the business. Also prepare yourself for a lot of blood. It’s a gory show at times.
These are many scenes filmed in Vancouver. It was nice seeing places so familiar and so close to me. The theatre almost went down when Stan Lee made his usual cameo. It was brilliant.
I didn’t know much about Deadpool but became a big fan after watching it. I’ve known many funny Saskatchewans, but Regina’s Wade Wilson (a.k.a Deadpool) has just been inducted into my honour roll.
Filed under: Drama, History, Military, Movies, Politics, Posted by TA, Wars | Tags: 2012, Ambassador, Arab Spring, Benghazi Attack, CIA, diplomacy, John Krasinski, Libya, Michael Bay, US State Department
I was positively impressed for many reasons.
- It was the first movie in a very long time that proudly announced “This is a true story”, unlike “Based on a True Story” or even “Inspired by True Events”. Trust me, the real deal makes a huge difference.
- Herr director Michael Bay has changed. He did his best to tell what actually happened in Libya 3.5 years ago. Before watching 13 Hours I saw one featurette and one making off. At least 3 of the guys who went through the battle survived to tell the story and served as consultants to the movie. If you look at Bay’s filmography, it will be almost impossible to find something close to the truth.
- Yes, there is the usual Hollywood embellishment and excessive patriotism in some scenes but overall acting and the story are pretty convincing. Background and personal stories are not an excuse for the plot. If you watched Pearl Harbor (also directed by Bay), you’ll get my point.
13 Hours’ weakness lies on the lack of the in-depth coverage around the causes of the attack. The movie leads you to believe that angry Libyans randomly decided to attack Americans on 11-September. The work was in fact orchestrated by a local militia. Days later, more than 100,000 “true” Libyans went on to the streets to claim for justice and strongly condemn the acts of violence.
If you forget about the military bragging typical of American movies, the story is quite compelling. There are several interesting lessons to learn from the situation:
It’s remarkable to know that some people will put their own lives on the line.
If you’re part of a militia trying to attack highly trained military operators, don’t charge frontally. Read the books and every single commander will tell you that it is suicide except for very specific scenarios.
If you’re the American government dealing with a highly stressful and life-threatening event, there must be better and more efficient ways to make decisions. The lack of action to support the besieged Americans was appalling. If details are true (and I’m assuming they are because everything is logged), the US had massive forces all over the place but decided against deploying the options. Why?
Unfortunately 13 Hours is yet another good reminder of how American foreign policy fails on “post-game” handling (to quote a term from the movie Charlie’s War referring to the American support to Afghan mujahedeen against the USSR).
Filed under: Drama, Law, Movies, Posted by TA, Review, Wars | Tags: Belvedere Gallery, Daniel Bruhl, Gustav Klimt, Helen Mirren, Holocaust, international law, Ryan Reynolds, Vienna
There’s only one thing that really matters: the story is incredible and the context for watching this movie couldn’t have been better. It is to true that I actually cried in the end. Everything else was average.
Filed under: Comedy, Movies, Posted by TA, Relationships, Review | Tags: Film Review, Humor, Jason Sudeikis, RomCom, Sex
I had the impression that Jason Sudeikis is starting to grow up. Compared to his previous movies (Horrible Bosses 1 and 2 and We’re the Millers for example), his cynical humour has stepped up a notch towards maturity and sophisticated sarcasm. The goofy days are starting to be in the mirror. I usually split Sudeiki’s movies into three parts. Sleeping with Other People is an improved “classic”.
- The porn beginnings – meaning each story starts with several awkward and funny situations that will eventually develop into a scrambled plot.
- Jason in the (random) middle – all sorts of things happen there. If you manage to get through this sometimes confusing and mixed-message part of the plot, you’ll be ok. It’s normally a funny but somewhat disconnected set of events.
We knew it – the ending part is quite obvious.
It occurred to me that Jason Sudeikis must play his real-life character in the movies. The guy is a natural and has a knack for portraying embarrassingly raunchy situations. He always starts as a highly attractive jerk, sex-addict man-whore, always fished by the exact opposite type of personality, so he can turn into a more conservative and attached man as the story goes by.
This time he went deeper though. Unlike other silly roles, the movie deals with very modern and adult relationship topics. Those go from the benefits of a bachelor life (vs. marriage with kids), dating at work and even, believe it or not, reflections on abusive relationships. I also liked the way the story flowed. It was more complex and realistic, truly above average.
Filed under: Movies, Oscars, Posted by TA, Review | Tags: Alejandro Iñarritu, Leonardo di Caprio, The Revenant, Tom Hardy
Overall, I didn’t quite like it despite its many pluses. They are: Iñarritu’s vision was quite original and his amazing camera work followed along from Birdman. Cinematography and production are some of the best I’ve seen in a while. Tom Hardy’s back to shape. That was by far his best work ever (remember when I gave him a timeout after 3 terrible back to back flicks?). If it costs you only $5.38 to watch (that’s how much I paid), watch it in the theatre. Otherwise, wait.
My peeve with the Revenant was is about the flow and intention. 2 hours and 37 minutes of cold and gory film was too much. The story got broken several times when unnecessary takes were added. There’s too much symbolism and crazy philosophical chit chat. I find it hard to believe that was the way Midwest pioneers used to behave. And let’s be honest, Indians are also stereotypically depicted. Historical inaccuracies also stand out in this movie, and I have a big problem with that. The Revenant is “Inspired by True Events”. That’s one of the lowest in the historical movie accuracy categories.
The intention of The Revenant is also not clear. Did Iñarritu try to make a western, a thriller, a morally pleasing testament to First Nations / Pioneer relations in the 19th century? The beginning suggests a story of rage and revenge that turns into an emotional tale of survival. Those two themes don’t usually sync well together. It gets confusing.
One has to recognize Leonardo di Caprio’s acting improvements. He’s good in the movie. Grunting for an entire hour in the snow requires skills. In my acting ratings, he now sits along with Dakota Fanning.
Filed under: Movies | Tags: 007, Christoph Waltz, Daniel Craig, James Bond, Spectre
“Bond’s next gen: The most incomparable, unique and mature of all”.
At the end of the screening, a slow-moving couple forced me to stay 30 more seconds and ask myself: “Was this the best Bond I’ve ever watched?” The answer is no. Why? Was it bad? Not at all, it was brilliant. Then…? This was the most unique Bond film I’ve ever watched. It simply has no comparisons with any others in my humble opinion. Reasons below.
Everything before the opening credits reminds you of a typical Bond movie. The action, silly jokes and stunts. After the Bond theme, performed by Sam Smith and simply the worst I’ve ever heard, things change significantly. Bond’s world has become darker, meaner, more hopeless and unpredictable. Most scenes I recall happened in the dark, at dusk or night, inside bunkers or labs, during winter, at a funeral. James didn’t go to the beach or flexed his muscles in a minimal speedo. Even the biggest car chase (which was awesome by the way) happened with lights dimmed. Yes, there were other typical Bond elements, such as killing a bad guy and then… immediately making out. But that really doesn’t deviate you from the main plot.
Spectre also introduced a more cohesive approach to Bond’s work. Forget about the one-man army idea. He relies more heavily on his MI6 partners. A lot more. Quite often Bond says that he needs a favour or something else from his colleagues. That’s unprecedented but way more realistic than any previous Bond movies. I liked it very much. The latest Bond has a much slower pace. Action-packed scenes are still there, but the “game” has become more complex. Complexity is not necessarily a matter of actions but also thinking.
Many things have changed since Daniel Craig took over the main role. Since Casino Royale, I’ve noticed a very elegant way to transition the Bond role to a more humane, vulnerable type of agent. Yes, he has always been charming, but killing bad guys, saving the world and making out with the hottest chicks were getting way too easy and boring. Skyfall was a marvelous piece of transition in characters, when Ralph Fiennes elegantly assumed the role of M, replacing Judy Dench. Spectre follows that line and suggests there’s a new transition coming up. I won’t go into further details as they will likely turn into a spoiler. After watching it, please share your thoughts. Similarly to Skyfall, the latest installment of the franchise seamlessly hints an upcoming change, this time not caused by death.
Christoph Waltz really doesn’t need any comments. The guy is brilliant. His role is more psychologically dense than previous villains, even when compared to Mr.Javier Bardem’s Silva in Skyfall and Monsieur Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. By the way, there are several references to Skyfall and Casino Royale (less to Quantum of Solace). If you haven’t watched them or need a refresher, make sure to do so before watching Spectre. I’ve just found you a great reason to do a Bond marathon.
I hope you enjoy Spectre. If you have the chance, write back and share your opinion.
Filed under: Cinema, Entertainment, Movies, Posted by TA, Review | Tags: Dwarves, elves, Gandalf, J.R.R. Tolkien, LOTR, New Zealand, Peter Jackson, Smaug, The Battle of the Five Armies, The Hobbit
Right off the bat, I must warn you: LOTR Return of the King is still better than Five Armies. However, the latter is also worth watching in the theatre. It’s been almost 15 years since the first LOTR movie came out. Five Armies is an honourable culmination of the second trilogy.
For those who have watched the Hobbit movies since the beginning, you’ll notice there are several reasons to celebrate and enjoy the last instalment. The special effects are even better and more detailed. A good example is the conversation Smaug has at the very beginning of the film. I grew up thinking Tiamat (the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon dragon) was a visual masterpiece. Just wait until you see the close-up of Smaug. It’s scarily realistic.
The pace of the whole movie is pleasantly more dynamic (especially if compared to the first Hobbit film) and the story is marvellously told. I always look for gaps or flaws in the script and honestly couldn’t find any this time. Photography and costume design are at its best. Don’t forget the amazing New Zealand scenery all over the place. For some reason it looks even more beautiful in this one – it must be the high frame rate footage. Ah, yes, that is, by the way, another very cool feature to appreciate. For the first time in years I didn’t have a bad feeling about watching a movie in 3D.
Character development was also brilliant. It’s amazing to follow Master Baggins’ transformation from a hapless Hobbit peasant to a realistic and somewhat grim part of the story. I liked he was depolarized from people’s attentions, at least most of the time. King Thorin has become greedy and almost unrecognisable. Thranduil, the king Elf, and the orcs have a more prominent role in the story, and that made a big difference in the plot. Let’s give kudos to Tolkien for being such a gifted writer but also Peter Jackson and his scriptwriters for making such a brilliant adaptation. No, it will never be perfect, but how many times have you seen books-turned-into-movies becoming masterpieces like these?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2310332/
Filed under: Cinema, Entertainment, Environment, Imagination, Life, Movies, Posted by TA | Tags: character, Charles Darwin, Clint Eastwood, David Suzuki, Dirty Harry, Education, enforcement, personality
A few days ago I was zapping channels and managed to find the very first Dirty Harry in its last minutes on AMC. This was the very first one, from distant 1971. D. Harry is still my favourite Clint Eastwood movie and character by far. I’ll go on the reasons why later.
As Harry walked towards the “punk” character, this latter also bearing a gun and using a kid as a human shield and trapped between Harry’s big 357 and a lake, I immediately thought about what would David Suzuki (the Canadian PhD environmentalist) do in a situation like that? Talk the punk over and convince him to hand the kid? Maybe speak up the punk’s rights and try to be diplomatic? For a moment, I thought they were night and day different, but I was wrong.
I admire both characters, Dirty Harry and David Suzuki, but I’ve always been a big Harry fan. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison, as Harry has only been a movie character, as opposed to a very real human being such as David Suzuki. However, Harry’s personality and particular ways of dealing with things are everything I’ve always wanted to be (with some extreme exceptions). Both roles represent two different and important ways of leading life. Both are packaged differently but completely match in concept in the end.
Harry is a ruthless, straightforward cop that doesn’t hesitate or ponder for a single second. Everything is black or white (hence my matching personality with him), there’s only one way out and in, and he doesn’t overcomplicate or compromise. Behind Harry’s tough psyche though, there’s the truest desire to serve a bigger cause. He doesn’t see any personal gain but to do his job to the script. Suzuki is all about the education, the understanding behind an idea and how sustainable it should be. Turning people into more educated, self-conscious citizens about the environment around them should be the best way to make them embrace the cause. Suzuki couldn’t care less about his own personal interest or even foundation affairs. He realizes there’s a bigger player behind the movement. Similarities don’t stop there. David Suzuki is in his 70s, and so is Dirty Harry. Each has a set of own special convincing weapons, but all are equally hard to say no to once you’ve seen them in action. Their personalities and accomplishments are respected and hated among friends, peers and colleagues around.
Can you imagine if we could unite Dirty Harry and David Suzuki for a good cause at least once in a lifetime? More and more I convince myself human beings must adapt every day. Charles Darwin concluded that more than 150 years ago, but society’s still debating it. One can’t be a Dirty Harry or a David Suzuki all the time. There has to be a balance between power and touch.
Next time I watch Dirty Harry or David Suzuki on TV, there will be no hesitation in saying that both men are alike. For the sake of mankind, we need more Harry’s and Suzuki’s working together to make this world a better place. Suzuki’s already doing his part. I might volunteer to be a real-life Dirty Harry.
Filed under: Fiction, Imagination, Movies, Musings, Posted by TA | Tags: 1940, 1950, A Dangerous Method, anima sana in corpore sano, Berlin, Billy Elliott, Black September, Bridesmaids, Carl Jung, CIA, Clint Eastwood, Daniel Craig, Denmark, Europe, fiction, films, Friends, George Lucas, Germany, Goodbye Lenin, Gran Torino, Israel, James Bond, Japan, Jason Bourne, Jedi, KGB, Leonard Nimoy, Leonidas, life, Master, Matt Damon, Michael Fassbender, Mission Impossible, Movies, Munich, reality, Ross Geller, Saving Private Ryan, Sparta, Spock, Star Trek, Star Wars, Sweden, Switzerland, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, UK, United Kingdom, What to do in case of fire, Yoda
… who would I be? Where would I live? What would I do? Thinking about a different life is a fun exercise. Instead of looking at movie stars’ personal lives, I’d much rather concentrate my thoughts on the characters they play. Let’s get started. And remember “all characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
Personality: This would be a very wild mix between Daniel Craig’s James Bond, Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne, Gerard Butler’s King Leonidas, Leonard Nimoy’s Spock in Star Trek, David Schwimmer’s Ross Geller in Friends (forgive the TV reference here) and Star Wars’ Jedi Master Yoda. How do they connect? Well, I’ve always been fond of characters involved in mystery and internal emotional turmoil. It also would be great if my personality allowed me to talk as little as possible and be a master in everything a human being can possibly do (like the tricks Bourne and Bond operate). But being Bond or Bourne, reporting to other people and receiving orders without questioning are not exactly a picture perfect scenario for me. I’d like to be in a commanding position like the fearless Spartan leader. He was respected, a great decision make who knew exactly what he wanted to die for. And people would follow him. The capacity to lead and be heard is what I like about Yoda. He’s a Master who solves everything with a sentence, usually in reverse order, but he’s also a fighter. Perfect combination of anima sana in corpore sano (or “healthy mind in a healthy body” if you’re not familiar with the expression). He also personifies that wisdom and knowledge come with time and a lot of effort. He didn’t achieve that rank by chance or accident. In fact, George Lucas should go back in time and tell Yoda’s story in a whole new trilogy. Similar to Yoda is Spock. He is the master of wisdom, shaped to be the most knowledgeable being out there. But most of all, what attracts me to Spock is his ability to control feelings and show no expression. He goes way beyond the poker face term. Even better, his entire Vulcan culture is based on science and knowledge, and not passion and emotion. Wouldn’t that be great? From Ross Geller I only wanted his PhD title. From all the traits and tasks above mentioned, that might actually be the easiest one to achieve during my lifetime.
Origins: Personality explained and based on my own self-knowledge journeys, I’m sure I would have been born in Germany or Japan. If I had to tell a story about my origins, this is what it would be: my father was a Swiss university professor (like Michael Fassbender’s Carl Jung in A Dangerous Method) living in Munich at the time of the Black September attack against the Israeli delegation. He’s so disgusted about the act that he decides to “defect” and move to East Berlin, where he meets my mother, an anarchist disguised as a KGB agent operating in the DDR. They meet, nine months later I come to this world only to realize that my father turned to the dark side of the force and got arrested by the CIA. He’s never seen again. My mother decides to cool her jets and change her way of life, but KGB doesn’t accept it, so she runs away to Canada and raise me in Halifax.
Time: If my life was a movie, growing up in the 1940’s or 1950’s would be my ideal scenario.
Place: I would definitely live somewhere in Europe, definitely, but with lots of traveling involved. Anywhere in Germany (Berlin, like the characters from Goodbye, Lenin or What to do in case of Fire), Denmark, Sweden or northern England like Billy Elliott.
Occupation: a spy like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible, a soldier who dies for his country like Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, a grumpy veteran like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino or any other sort of really critical occupation like Meghan in Bridesmaids (she takes care of the nuke codes).
I better get back to reality now…
Angel and Tiggs 