It’s our impulse that whenever we hear the term ‘Italian film,’ we think of either Life Is Beautiful or something in the spirit of Fellini. 7 Minutes is a completely different film. It’s a film about a serious topic and worth seeing.
The film starts at a textile plant in Italy. There’s been a merger with a big French company. The merger is seen as a threat to 300 female employees as they fear their jobs would be outsourced, and they protest outside. The heads of the Italian company plan to meet with the French CEO Mme. Rochette. However it’s only after Mme. Rochette meets with some of the female protesters that she starts talking with the Italian company.
The heads talk with the CEO in one room. Ten females who are part of the textile section wait in another room expecting anything, even the worst. Bianca is the only woman from the textiles section allowed in the meeting with the bigwigs. She looks onto their discussions in an untrusting matter awaiting their fate.
Finally the news comes to them. No jobs are really in jeopardy. However the eleven including Bianca are given an issue to vote on. They are asked to accept their current jobs as long as they give up seven minutes of their break time. This first seems like a simple thing to vote on; vote ‘yes’ and keep their jobs secure as well as the jobs of the 300 other woman who are now out celebrating. However Bianca is not happy and speaks her disagreement. The others are easier-going and all vote ‘yes’ at first.
However all realize they really need to think this through. They didn’t do it the first time. Some see it as more than a vote on a simple labor issue. Some see it as a test to see how much of a ‘sheep’ to the system they could make of themselves. Others however feel they are justified in voting ‘yes’ and give substantial reasons. Even one worker who’s pregnant feels this vote could affect the future of the daughter she’s carrying inside. A lot of discussion comes of this. We learn it was because of faulty machinery why one ended up in a wheelchair, and was pressured into signing an agreement that it was her fault. we hear from immigrants like Albanian Hira and African Kidal about their own difficulties. Then we hear from Bianca who always got far in the company by playing the system, but now wants to be the courageous one and stand her ground. Then there’s one who’s pregnant and needs to be rushed to the hospital to give birth. Before she leaves, she requests her vote be ‘no.’
Meanwhile time is running out. It’s 4pm. More than five hours have passed and a final vote has not been reached. This is especially infuriating for Mme. Rochette as she has a flight to catch. She becomes impatient and just lets it out on the Italian colleagues in French. However the ten have to come to a vote. Bianca announces her ‘no’ vote and announces she will resign as the labor leader of her group. There is a final vote at the end: five vote ‘yes,’ six vote ‘no.’
This film is very insightful. At first you think this film is about voting over a simple labor compromise, but it’s not. This thing about voting over a seven-minute compromise to their break time would prove to me more than just about that compromise. You’d hear in their conversations that it would be about a lot more. It would be about what other businesses would do. It would be about businesses trying to make other possible compromises in the future. It would even be a test of one’s personal dignity and what they believe in. It’s unfortunate that these women have to vote on this compromise for the sake of hundreds of jobs for other people, but it’s an issue that very common right now and could happen close to home. That’s why this dialogue in the film is so important.
The story isn’t just about the yes-voters and the no-voters stating their case. The story is also about the eleven women involved in the voting. We have eleven women of various different backgrounds. They range in ages from a 60-year old veteran of the place to a 20 year-old newcomer, married or divorced mothers to single women, two immigrants from Albania or Africa, and even a woman disabled from an injury on the job. All of them make their backgrounds and life-experiences known in the film as they all try to reach their final vote. Whenever you hear one of the women state her reason for her vote, what you hear is the story of at least a thousand other women who share her experience. What they say is that valuable.
The film does bring dignity to the six that vote ‘no.’ The film however does not try to make the five women who vote ‘yes’ look like they’re stupid or ‘conformist sheep.’ You just have to hear their stories on why they voted the way they did. The film does keep the dignity of those that voted ‘no,’ but also brought a human side to those that voted ‘yes.’ You’ll see in the film that those that voted ‘yes’ at the very end didn’t do it like they were in a flock of sheep. A lot of heart and soul and a lot of heavy thinking went into their ‘yes’ vote too.
The film is actually based on a stage play by Stefano Massini. I’ve never seen the stage play, but it’s very possible the play was just set in the meeting area with the eleven women discussing the deal. There would have to be some elements needed to bring this play to the big screen and make people want to watch it. I think the element of having the boss from France, Mme. Rochette coming over and holding the meeting adds to it. That scene near the end where she gets frustrated with the long wait and walks out telling off the Italians in French said quite a bit. It had me wondering: “Is that what people in France think of Italians?” It also sent a message of the disconnection between the business hierarchy and workers that obviously exists. Mme. Rochette appears at the beginning to be empathetic with the workers, especially Hira. She appears to be a congenial partner with them especially when she receives the gift of the big mozzarella. However the truth about how she feels gets revealed when the women delay their vote long enough. That doesn’t simply speak of Mme. Rochette, but lots of other CEO’s worldwide. I think a lot of them feel they need to have a disconnection from them in order to make business happen, no matter how cruel.
This film directed by Michele Placido, who co-wrote the screenplay with Toni Trupia and original playwright Stefano Massini, did a very good job in creating an intriguing film where most of the action takes place in one location. Massini’s play on its own is excellent in creating well-dimensioned roles for all eleven women in the play. Placido makes the right additions for the sake of the film while maintaining the importance of the debate as the focal point. The standout actress of the film has to be Ottavia Piccolo. She does a very good job in playing a woman who achieved a lot of success in playing along with the system, but now wants to be the strong one. Piccolo allows her role as Bianca to be a role that speaks as much in silence as she does in dialogue. All eleven women who are part of the voting scene all have roles that are full of volume. Each of the roles represent a woman everyone knows and were well-acted out.
7 Minutes is more than a film about a labor issue being voted upon. It’s also about people in this modern work world, most specifically women, and their feelings coming across as they vote.
Sure, Furious Seven is another sequel. However it is one that has been anticipated hotly. Particularly of a star’s death. Nevertheless does it hold up as a movie?
I admit that the only previous Fast and The Furious movie I’ve seen was the very first one. I can’t really judge it against the ones I haven’t seen. What I can say is that it is for the most part a very cliched movie. There were some notable moments that made the story unique with some cred like Dominic’s love to Letty and Brian’s struggle of being a family man while simultaneously being part of the ‘mission.’ However it had the typical thick action you’d come to expect from an action movie. The plot is nothing you haven’t seen before. It also includes scenes where you’d feel it’s too over-the-top. It’s especially notable when you see Dwayne Johnson come on from out of the hospital with his machine gun. You can see the Mr. Heavy Testosterone acting there. Even the comedic parts from Roman looked too ridiculous and question if it was too over-the-top for this movie. Many times I asked myself during his ‘song and dance’ at the Dubai party “Is this really necessary?”
Despite all this, there are some relevant qualities to the movie. Vin Diesel did well as Dominic. Actually he made the role of Dominic in the franchise. I was better at stomaching him than Dwayne Johnson as he was better at playing a macho character that doesn’t come across as Mr. Testosterone. Michelle Rodriguez was also impressive as Letty as her acting wasn’t as showy or over-the-top. And Ludacris as Tej knew how to keep Tyrese Gibson from unnecessarily stealing the show. And Paul Walker, whom I will focus on later in this review, did a respectable job as Brian.
As I mentioned at the beginning, I’ve only seen the first of the series. The first Furious movie was a good adrenaline rush, especially for those who like to street-race, but had a formula too similar to what you’d find in popcorn movies. I remember turning 2 Fast 2 Furious down because Vin Diesel wasn’t in it. Being a person who’s only seen the first and the last, I have to say the films other biggest quality is showing how far this film series has come. When The Fast And The Furious started, it started as street racers who would find themselves involved in fighting criminal activity Most of which are at high speed. The film ended with a street race. Six sequels later, the street-racing days are over but the fighting crime has continued and even progressed to the point of the type of action you’d come to expect in superhero movies. High speed action scenes continue to occur but this will surprise anyone who has only seen the first Furious movie. I’m sure I’m not the only one. I usually pass on Hollywood sequels because for all intents and purposes, I consider most Hollywood sequels the actors, directors and producers masturbating for two hours. This sequel was common to expect from a Hollywood sequel but it did have some positive traits. Showing how far this franchise has come since the first is one of them. When I saw the first, I didn’t expect it to grow this big.
Finally I’ll focus on the memorializing of Paul Walker in the film. It’s no question that the Fast and The Furious series was what made Paul Walker. Sure, he had experience as a child actor in TV and movie bit parts, sure he had a major role in the renowned Flags Of Our Fathers, but it is his role as Brian O’Conner in the Fast and The Furious franchise that he will most be remembered for. Of course the first movie was a product featuring Vin Diesel and hoping to propel his stardom further. Even though it did, it also made a star out of the supporting player: Paul Walker. It was the breakthrough Paul had hoped for. Otherwise his movie career’s peak would have been the Disney Schmalzfest Meet The Deedles. Paul would go to star in all but one of the Fast And The Furious movies. It seems like a bizarrely tragic irony that Paul’s death at the age of 40 came as he was street racing along with his friend and crashed his car at a high speed. The death could even add to the stigma of Paul Walker being Brian O’Conner. So it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that Furious 7 opened huge, albeit a bigger-than-expected $140 million on opening weekend. That set a record for biggest opening weekend for an April release.
As for this movie being a fitting ‘last hurrah’ for Paul Walker, his acting was fine. Nothing spectacular but nothing out of what you’d expect for the role of Brian O’Conner. The ending first seems like a good tribute to Paul and a nice final salute to him. However it would not be too long until the secret was given out that Paul’s look-alike brother was used to film the final screen and that his face was computer enhanced to look more like Paul. Knowing that will make the final tribute to Paul very questionable. Even seen as tacky. It’s also a question whether this movie was intended to be Paul’s last Furious movie right from the start. Right into the plot Paul talks about the challenges of putting his past behind and moving onto family life. That could be a hint this may have been intended to be his last movie. Even the ending of the beach scene will make one wonder if it was planned before his death or after. Something to think about, especially as they’re in the works of making Furious 8.
Furious 7 is your typical Hollywood sequel continuing and building on the formula made popular. It also tries to be a good farewell to Paul Walker. Despite it being off in a lot of areas and leaves Paul’s farewell questionable, it does have some positive qualities and succeeds in entertaining its core audience and pleasing fans of the franchise.
Most of the time I do reviews of movies. This article is different as I do a side-by-side comparison of two versions of the same story. There’s Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs that generations of moviegoers are familiar with. There’s now Snow White And The Huntsmen that aims to be a modern version of the famous fairy tale character. The question is how do they compare side to side?
First off, let’s run down the first nitty gritty factors of the movies. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfsis more than just a delightful animated
movie. It’s a part of filmmaking history. It’s the first ever feature-length animated movie. And it was made against incredible odds. Walt Disney took five years to make this movie as it involved a lot of drawings and a lot of effort. It was expensive for its time at $1.5 million and Walt had to take out a lot of loans for this movie. And during the Great Depression to boot. In the end, it became a huge hit in 1937 grossing $8 million worldwide and world propel further animated movies in the future. To this day the American Film Institute still ranks it as the Best Animated Movie ever.
Now Snow White And The Huntsmen isn’t really much of a filmmaking breakthrough. It’s a life-action version of the Snow White story, which has been done before. It features familiar actors Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth and Sam Claflin. While this film is not much of a cinematic breakthrough, it is a personal breakthrough for director Rupert Sanders. He has directed commercials and TV episodes in the past. This is his first direction of a feature-length film and it cost $170 million to make. It has so far grossed $152 million at the North American box office: $370 million worldwide.
To compare the actual Snow White character, let’s give a bit of a rundown in terms of the times. First off Snow White And The Huntsmen is done in the present by modern-day director. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs was released in 1937 and done by Walt Disney. You can be sure both films would be reflective of the ideal female roles for the two main female characters and both would reflect the directors’ visions at the time. The Disney Snow White has a very happy and cheerful attitude but is very naive to the threats that surround her. She lost her parents and is exiled in the woods but still holds her spirits high even after the queen’s assassin tells her to flee. The modern Snow White, played by Kristen Stewart, is a girl scorned. She has had enough of the imprisonment and wants out. However she feels there’s no way out. It isn’t until after she sees an opportunity escape and seizes it that it’s revealed she has a determination in her to fight to be free, even if it means walking through castle sewage to get it.
The reflections of the different types of Snow White characters is also reflective in their biggest desires. Disney’s Snow White wants to be free but she feels she found it in living with the seven dwarfs. Her biggest desire is to find her ‘prince’ as evident in the song ‘Someday My Prince Will Come’. Modern Snow White wants love too but she wants her freedom more. She knows she has to continue fighting even after she is free from the prison. She knows the queen and her men and she knows the threats will continue as long as the queen is alive.
Both Snow Whites are subject to negative opinions from some about the way they’re depicted. First off modern audience goers would find the Disney Snow White, voiced by Adriana Caselotti, as too naive for the present and very lacking in ‘street smarts’. Kristen Stewart’s Snow White could also be subject to negative opinions as Disney fans may feel she lacks the cheerfulness and many other moviegoers could think she makes Snow White into Xena: Warrior Princess.
The character of the queen has a common similarity: beauty. Walt Disney wanted a beautiful queen in his film as part of the reflection of the queen’s desire to be the ‘fairest of all’ and her evil envy of Snow White. We shouldn’t forget that sometimes evil can be disguised as something beautiful. The modern evil queen is given a name, Ravenna, and is played by Charlize Theron who is renowned for her beauty. The dissimilarity between the two evil queens is that the Disney queen is seen as very stockish in her desire to see Snow White dead because of her envy, and only because of that. Ravenna is shown as the killer of Snow White’s father, whom she killed on her wedding day and had Snow White imprisoned. It’s the familiar evil stepmother role in fairy tales. Ravenna is shown not only as a queen of envy over Snow White but as a victim herself. She learns from the mirror that has to destroy Snow White for the sake of her immortality or she will be the mortal one. Even giving Snow White the poisonous apple would show two differing means of disguises. The Disney queen would take a potion to tune her into an old lady. Ravenna would metamorphose into William, son of Duke Hammond, to give Snow White the fatal apple.
The other notable difference of the two Snow Whites is the differing their main supporting character, or characters. In Disney’s Snow White, it was the seven dwarfs. All seven were cute with cute names and charming personalities. They worked hard but they sang, danced and lived cheerfully. They were first surprised to see Snow White and thought of her as an intruder but would come to welcome her, love her, and even avenge her against the queen after she gave Snow White the poisonous apple. In the modern Snow White, the dwarves are seen as a minor supporting character in the movie who assist with the Huntsman in her well-being and warriors with Snow White and the Huntsman against the queen. It’s the Huntsman in the modern Snow White who’s the main supporting character now.
The Huntsman in the modern Snow White is under command from the queen to kill and receive the hand of her brother’s deceased wife in marriage. He learns from Finn, the brother, that it was a false promise and then becomes Snow White’s ally helping her escape with the help of women disfigured by Ravenna and the help of the seven dwarves. The Huntsman is the man who kisses Snow White back to life but it’s not happily ever after yet as they must battle Ravenna before Snow White can be married to the Hunstman. In Disney’s Snow White it is the prince whose kiss revives Snow White and marries her. The Huntsman is only seen at the beginning as the one who tries to kill Snow White but can’t and gives the queen a pig’s heart to trick her into thinking Snow White is dead.
It’s not just the characters themselves that make the two Snow White movies different but also the stories themselves. The beginning especially. In the Disney movie we’re given a storybook narration of what has happened in the past and leads to the beginning with the queen at the mirror saying “Mirror, mirror on the wall…” Snow White and the Huntsman goes back to when Snow White is a young girl and her favorite playmate is the Duke’s son William. Ravenna is prisoner of the Dark Army rescued by the recently widowed King Magnus, father of Snow White. King Magnus is actually killed by Ravenna after he marries her, imprisons Snow White and seized control of the kingdom leaving it lifeless and full of sadness. Even the setting of the forest is different as Disney shows a charming forest full of happy creatures while the modern Snow White shows a nice forest that’s not immune by threats like insects and other dangers.
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs and Snow White And The Huntsman are two differing movies of the same story. As for which is the best depiction, I can’t say because I have not read the original Snow White story by the Brothers Grimm. Nevertheless both have their entertainment values and one would appeal over another depending on their movie preferences.
This is it. On Wednesday June 15th at Rogers Arena, the Stanley Cup will be decided in a single game. The two finalists–the Vancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins–both have won three games apiece. Both have shown their strengths and both have shown their weaknesses. Both have some key players out, either by penalty or injury. Both have also been the subject of negative opinion and positive opinion. Whatever the situation, tomorrow decides it all. But who will win? Instead of predicting the winner for tomorrow, I decided to sum the two all up and break them all down:
VANCOUVER-Three wins on home ice. All of their wins have been very close: 1-0, 3-2 overtime and 1-0. One thing about the wins is that they may not have been big or spectacular but the Canucks knew how to play smart at home in order to make the wins happen. Yes, the wins were mostly conservative but their conservative play would pay off at home. Their losses to Boston have been a lot bigger: 8-1, 4-0 and 5-2. Part of the reason for their losses in Boston have to be with the lack of confidence many would display. It would be noticeable as they would miss many important plays. Also during the Boston games, there was a noticeable weakness in Roberto Luongo as he let in a total of fifteen goals. Whenever he was replaced by Cory Schneider, the Canucks would soon get their confidence back and start playing better hockey. Already two top players: Aaron Rome and Mason Raymond are out.
BOSTON-Also three wins on home ice. All three of their wins against the Canucks have been decisive: 8-1, 4-0 and 5-2. The Bruins definitely know how to go all out on them while at home but during the away games, they’re lacking. All three of their losses have been tight games. They’re not as good at scoring in Vancouver and despite having a lot of puck control, they don’t materialize it at Rogers Arena as well as they could. One thing about their big wins is that they’re hoping to use it to intimidate the Canucks en route to winning the Stanley Cup. The big wins didn’t intimidate the Canucks enough as they would win 1-0 on Game 5. Tim Thomas has been an excellent goalie conceding only eight goals in the final. However this would prove to be a weakness as there would be two Canuck wins of 1-0. Plus Boston’s big wins in Game 3 and 4 didn’t succeed in intimidating the Canucks as they would win Game 5 1-0, putting the embarrassments of Game 3 and 4 behind them.
Now there’s the overall play. The media are already calling this the ugliest Stanley Cup finals in recent years. It all started in Game 1 with the Burrows Bite. Then in Game 3 came the check from Canuck Aaron Rome to Bruin Nathan Horton. That left Horton hospitalized and out of Finals play. For Rome’s part, he was slapped with a four-game suspension also leaving him out of Finals play. Then came the ‘pumping his tires’ reference from Bruins goalie Tim Thomas to Roberto Luongo that has been well-published. Already the Canucks were labels the most hated team of the Finals by many. Then things took a worse for Boston. Game 6 saw a check to Canuck Mason Raymond which left him hospitalized with a fractured vertebrae. Also many on the web have suspected the Boston ice to be too soft and the Boston referees too ignorant to the Bruins own penalty-worthy misdoings. Already the Finals are memorable for a lot of wrong reasons.
With Game 7 just more than a day away, people are already giving out their predictions. There has even been some numerology and trivia bits floating about to hint who will win. Now I’m not one who completely believes in numerology or trivia odds and ends but I have been hearing some interesting facts that may lead to tomorrow’s fates. I heard that a Canadian host city of an Olympic Games would win the Stanley Cup the following year: Montreal hosted in 1976 and won in 1977; Calgary hosted in 1988 and won in 1989: Vancouver hosted last year and it’s just so close. Also in favor of Vancouver, there’s the fact that of the fifteen previous Game 7’s of the finals, all but two have been one in the Game 7 host city. However there’s also one going against Vancouver which I learned of during Game 5’s telecast. Of the previous fifteen Cup Finals that lead to a Game 7, all but four winners of Game 5 would not win the Cup.
Whatever the odds and ends, whatever play happened in the previous six Finals games, only tomorrow will decide the 2011 Stanley Cup Winner.. Will Vancouver’s conservative style of playing and winning at home pay off? Or will it take its toll in Game 7? Will Boston’s big wins succeed in intimidating the Canucks for Game 7? Or will it be like in Game 5 in which the Canucks were able to bounce back from humiliation and show the Bruins they weren’t so intimidated? It will all be decided when the puck drops in Rogers Arena tomorrow, Wednesday, June 15 at 5pm Pacific time. May the best team win!