RSS

Yearly Archives: 2010

Movie Review: “Secretariat”

I’m generally not a horse movie person. Normally, I’d rather take in a hard-hitting drama or explosive action movie. But there’s quite a lot to be said for doing something with friends – and when the PHC debate team decided to see “Secretariat” after our recent tournament, I was game.

“Secretariat” is the story of arguably the greatest racehorse to ever live. Knowing the ending beforehand can sometimes make a movie less appealing – but in this case, knowing the outcome gives the movie depth and direction. Upon the death of her father, former housewife Penny Chenery (Diane Lane) takes over management of his horse farm, expelling corrupt hired hands and negotiating breeding agreements. Shortly thereafter, Secretariat is born – and, for Penny, is special from the very beginning. As the just-foaled Secretariat staggers to his feet, one observer notes, “No horse ever stands up that fast.”

Penny swiftly determines that a horse with Secretariat’s potential deserves a good trainer, and proceeds to call Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich, in a surprisingly non-creepy role) out from retirement. Together, the two successfully mold Secretariat into a supremely powerful racehorse. That’s not to say Secretariat doesn’t have his weaknesses – generally, he suffers from slow starts and must accelerate rapidly in order to win – but Penny and Laurin are confident in his ability to claim victory.

However, there are cracks beneath the surface of this seemingly perfect story. Penny’s constant trips to the horse farm – as well as to races – start taking a toll on her family. She begins missing her family’s important events, and even becomes embroiled in a heated legal argument with her own brother. Ultimately, however, her crusade proves successful. After winning a series of small races, the next step is logically the Triple Crown. As fans of horse racing will already know, Secretariat wins the three races and sets two records in the process – records that stand unbroken today.

From a purely technical standpoint, the film excels.Notably, the racing sequences in “Secretariat” are truly breathtaking. The effective use of slow-motion cameras enhances the action, making fast-paced horse races much easier to follow. The acting is also effective, although no one performance stands out. Also worth considering is the fact that there’s no innuendo or violence, and very little language, making “Secretariat” a generally good choice as a family film.

However, “Secretariat” has a serious and subtle flaw – the character of Penny Chenery.

It may sound strange to identify the main character as the movie’s biggest flaw, but Penny is just not a likable lead. She is ruthless in pursuing her goal of a victorious Secretariat, and does not care who she alienates in the process. Having known a few people like Penny, I found myself cringing at the way she treats her employees when she believes they’re not helping Secretariat achieve his potential. More problematic is the lack of interest she shows in her children, husband, or brother. Secretariat quickly becomes her #1 priority, trumping all other concerns in her life. It’s a dark undercurrent of aggressive feminism that keeps “Secretariat” from being a completely praiseworthy movie. And this isn’t a sexist argument – I’d raise the same concerns if this was a movie about a man who neglected his wife and children in order to pursue his goals. The film treats Penny’s choice as perfectly valid and praiseworthy, without ever really pausing to consider the impact on her family.

So, should you watch “Secretariat”?

This movie has divided Christian critics. Some don’t see Penny’s single-minded determination as problematic, while others recognize the less positive aspects of her story. Personally, I found it hard to enjoy a movie that, while it may be cinematically excellent, seems to condone putting one’s own self-centered interests above the welfare of one’s family. Some moviegoers may not pick up on these elements, and it’s certainly possible to enjoy “Secretariat” as purely a well-done horse movie. In that respect, at least, the film is well worth watching.

VERDICT: 6/10
A well-done sports movie saddled with an unfortunate underlying message.

Normalized Score: 1.6

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 9, 2010 in Contemporary

 

Literature Commentary: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Long, long ago, I recall reading the story of Gilgamesh in an anthology of myths entitled “The Great Deeds of Superheroes.” Shortly thereafter, I had nightmares about being stalked by the evil ogre Humbaba. Little did I know that fourteen years later, I’d find myself writing a much more comprehensive analysis of one of the West’s earliest literary works.

The Epic begins by introducing Gilgamesh, king of the Sumerian city of Uruk. Gilgamesh is a tyrant and a womanizer, and his people beseech the gods for relief. Enter Enkidu, a beast-man of unparalleled strength – created for the sole purpose of defeating and humiliating Gilgamesh. After a wrestling match in which Gilgamesh proves himself the stronger, the two become best friends. They proceed to defeat not only the aforementioned Humbaba, but also the rampaging Bull of Heaven. The latter act incurs the ire of the goddess Ishtar, who smites Enkidu with a fatal illness. Upon his friend’s death, Gilgamesh is overcome by a terrible, all-consuming fear of the grave. He proceeds to seek out the wise man Utnapishtim (the Sumerian equivalent of the biblical Noah) who has been blessed by the gods with eternal life. Braving lions, scorpion-men, and stone-giants, he finds Utnapishtim’s island and learns the secret of immortality: a thorny plant growing at the bottom of the sea. Unfortunately, the plant is stolen by a serpent while Gilgamesh sleeps, rendering his search futile.

The “Epic of Gilgamesh” is both a religious treatise and a seminal work of ancient literature. Exploring issues of friendship, mortality, heroism, and humanity’s relationship to the divine, it lacks the expected “happy ending.” Rather, the Epic is a cautionary tale identifying man’s failings without providing much hope for the future.

Gilgamesh’s fundamental flaws are clearly pride and indecision. At the beginning of the book, his arrogant hedonism leads the gods to punish him by sending Enkidu. Later, his killing of the Bull of Heaven offends the gods yet again – resulting in the death of his best friend. Gilgamesh also is a passive figure, reluctant to act without external stimuli. He only chooses to face Humbaba after Enkidu’s arrival, and is only motivated to pursue immortality after Enkidu’s death. Most damningly of all, he timidly refuses to test the “plant of immortality” himself, deciding instead to observe its effect on someone else. This provides the necessary opportunity for the snake to steal away his chance at everlasting life.

The vision of the afterlife offered by the Epic of Gilgamesh is hopelessly bleak. As he dies, Enkidu warns Gilgamesh that he is not going to a pleasant destination. According to Enkidu, souls (represented as humans covered in mangy bird feathers) cower in a bleak city of dust, eating clay to survive. This sharply contrasts with the views of other ancient religions (such as the Egyptians and the Greeks), which promised their adherents some form of eternal bliss. Interestingly, it is unclear from the Epic what role the gods themselves serve in the Sumerian afterlife.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a classic work of myth, and a must-read for all who desire a fuller understanding of ancient Sumerian culture. It does contain mild sexual implications (Enkidu is “tamed” by a prostitute), but such content is not included to titillate. While the story is dark, brooding, and ultimately remains unresolved, it offers a glimpse into the hopelessness of Sumerian religion. Having read the Epic, I could better appreciate the eternal promise offered to Abraham in Genesis 12. This was the great benefit of reading the Epic – its despairing philosophy dramatically contrasts with the hope and freedom offered to the great Old Testament saints.

The Epic is definitely an important piece of Western culture, and a fascinating window into ancient Mesopotamian civilization. And, if you like books like the “Odyssey,” it makes for a good read.

VERDICT: 8/10
A unique perspective on both Sumerian culture and timeless human weakness.

Addendum: Changes coming to Literary Analysis!

As many of you are aware, I’m currently enrolled in college and don’t have much time for outside reading or moviegoing. (My local library and movie theater have been replaced by an Amazon Kindle and a Netflix-equipped laptop.) In light of this, I’m planning on making a few changes to Literary Analysis. While I’ll still write detailed commentaries on classic literature and current theatrical releases, I’m also setting up a Twitter feed for Literary Analysis (http://twitter.com/litanalysis) to provide “mini-reviews” of popular DVDs, CDs, and books. It may take a couple of weeks for this to get established, but I’m looking forward to exploring new venues for discussion.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on October 19, 2010 in Classic