Featured Post

Hiroshima: A Real Decision

My great retirement-from-retirement plan not having worked out, I was idly surfing the net reading about the apparent and "surprising&...

Monday, April 9, 2018

A Quiet Place

I continue avoiding doing my taxes and writing about politics.

Instead, I, reluctantly, went to the movies with a couple of my sons and one of their significant others. They insisted we go see "A Quiet Place." As noted, I went reluctantly as I generally do not like modern "creature feature" sic-fi such as "Alien" and others of that ilk.

So . . . surprise! This film was actually very, very good--excellent, in fact, and I highly recommend it.

John Krasinski--he of "Office" (US version) and "13 Hours" fame--is the director, co-writer, and one of the stars along with his real-life wife Emily Blunt--she of "I am ashamed of my US citizenship!" fame--and a set of very talented children actors. By now you probably all know the premise: a post-apocalyptic world where the few human survivors struggle against a generally unseen horde of carnivorous creatures that react to sound. Humans survive by being quiet. Was this funded by a librarian lobby?

The film is beautifully shot in rural upstate New York. Krasinski, frankly, does a masterful job as director. It is, in fact, one of the best directing jobs I have seen in a long time. The tension in the movie is intense and unrelenting; the pacing is superb. I also liked that instead of having some introductory text scroll across the screen explaining the disaster and setting the scene, or some off-screen narrator filling us in, Krasinski cleverly, almost casually, provides some of the back story to the apocalypse: passing shots of dirty old newspapers announcing the disaster; a faded bulletin-board in the background with pictures of missing persons; the family looking for medicine in a ransacked and decrepit supermarket (an Aldi?) which still has a full stock of loud crunchy chips--no scavenger, no matter how desperate, wants those, and for good reason--and a wonderfully understated scene in which the family lights a fiery beacon at night, and in the background wilderness we see faint widely-scattered beacons from other families.

The barefoot characters hardly talk with each other, and use American sign language, instead. The acting is superb by all involved as the players must convey a range of emotions and thoughts almost always wordlessly to avoid the sound-seeking creatures--which make rare but heart-pounding appearances in the film.

The film has flaws, of course: e.g., the family farm still has electricity for which no explanation is given; the lack of defensive barriers, including, for example, an electric fence or barbed wire is puzzling; and the presence of a strategically placed nail is not explained. Why, furthermore, doesn't the family join forces with other survivors? But, never mind that stuff. This is a great and thoughtful horror movie with a surprisingly conservative theme.

I don't know if Krasinski and Blunt, two typical Hollywood libs, meant to do it, but their movie provides a strong depiction of the power of a traditional family--it does not take a village to raise, educate and protect these kids. This film pounds home the at-times gut-wrenching responsibility parents have to protect their children from the monsters out there--and that parents despite their best efforts don't always succeed. We see a pro-life stance (in a Hollywood movie!) as the Emily Bunt character becomes pregnant and gives birth despite all the risks. The birth scene is quite harrowing, and Blunt does a tremendous acting job. The family also prays silently before dinner--not a vegan meal, by the way. Both father and mother understand their equal but different roles in protecting the children. There is even a pro-gun element: a mother's love and a Remington 870 prove a useful combination when fighting monsters.

Go see it . . but make sure your phone is off and you don't eat anything crunchy . . . you never know what might be lurking out there in the dark.

42 comments:

  1. I went to the quiet place on Diplomad's recommendation tonight. It was a good movie; although i suspected bout half way thru that it would recapitulate Signs (with gibson-another good flick). My 11 yr old daughter liked it too.
    I came home to read that the FBI has raided Cohen, Trump's private attorney. WTF. Perhaps Trump, our duly elected president and commander-in-chief needs to send some navy seals to 935 Pennsylvania Ave to raid headquarters. Seriously, who the fuk these guy think they are?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a coup, overseen by the DoJ.

      Delete
    2. This latest FBI stunt is outrageous.

      Delete
    3. With respect, outrageous is not sufficient. Abomination- this shit is getting biblical!

      Delete
    4. So, lawyers are allowed to violate campaign finance laws with no repercussions?

      Delete
    5. Does AG Sessions do anything? Or is he sitting at his desk spinning in his chair and throwing pencils into the ceiling? Trump needs to follow his gut and fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller. cb

      Delete
    6. I think a blended approach is called for... strategic pardons as well as prejudicial dismissals. This is bad very bad. Cosa Nostra lawyers were shown more deference than those of the elected president. The dilbert guy gets it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXG3w4_4ss

      Delete
    7. On the bright side, Trump seems to be doing an excellent job. How can I tell? Because the wailing, moaning, and gnashing of teeth among the overwrought left continues apace. I just heard a couple of them over on the other side of the room, moronically speculating about Cohen turning on Trump, and impeachment, and blah-blah-blah. What a bunch of maroons. The more the left wails, the more I smile.

      Delete
    8. One Brow - yes, unless you can darn well prove it! In fact, this kind of thing should be smoking-gun-proved-publicly *when* the raid occurs... otherwise this is a fishing expedition using dynamite, where the fish is our Constitution.

      Trump should fire the DOJ, including the FBI, and reconstruct a new federal law enforcement organization. I'd say top the whole org chart half way down, because they guys doing *actual* work probably aren't corrupt.

      I'll be wrong if they have him pleading on serious charges, but the most likely wont. If they could nail him, they wouldn't have raided his files. They raided his files in hopes of finding dirt on Trump, with near certainty.

      It's the US Government, it's the best in the world at protecting itself, by *any* means necessary.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. One Brow - yes, unless you can darn well prove it! In fact, this kind of thing should be smoking-gun-proved-publicly *when* the raid occurs... otherwise this is a fishing expedition using dynamite, where the fish is our Constitution.

      Agree with the first sentence, disagree with the second. I would expect and hope judges are particularly scrupulous when granting warrants on lawyers. However, if we accord lawyers the privilege of forcing all evidence against them to be made public before a search can be conducted, why not all citizens?

      Delete
    10. The reason is the legal special privilege we grant to attorney-client communications, much like we grant to husband-wife communications.
      This case diverges also where it involves communications with a sitting President, which may wind up telling this and future Presidents that they cannot communicate openly with advisers and legal representatives.

      There's a principle at work here, much like in the common workplace. So long as everything is humming along just fine, there's not a whole lot of need for 'additional transparency', for non-safety items, management can just perform routine operations. But when things stop functioning correctly, management needs to start looking more intrusively and more transparency is required. "We The People" manage congress and the executive and, by extension, hopefully, the FBI. This raid should be raising flags, even if those flags end up being false alarms. When flags are raised, the people surrounding the issue need to be more transparent about what's happening, rather than less.
      As a result of this raid and the time elapsed with no pleas or indictments, our executive institutions are at risk of losing the perception of legitimacy.
      Show some evidence, indict some people, file some plea agreements, or do *something*. The Mueller investigation itself needs to be more forthcoming about where it's been and where it's going, because they've been wallowing around without actions relevant to their original stated purpose. This is evidenced by them having to trot out secret memos to justify the directions of their investigation when questioned. Nobody wants an inquisitor, operating in the darkness with no oversight. At some point, things need to start coming out, and it's been over a year with pretty much nothing. The best they had, was Rosenstein saying there was no evidence of anything other than a few campaign staffers among many others, being the unknowing subjects of attempted manipulation by russians.
      Meanwhile, this investigation has gotten Mr. Dip banned from Twitter because... he's conservative.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  2. FSA (McCain's buddies) did the most recent "Syria Dunnit!" chem attack.

    Let us hope Bolton's got the sense to recognize that and only then, figure out how to counter *our* media's goading toward "retaliation."

    Recall Elizabeth O'Bagy and John McCain.

    http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-elizabeth-obagy/

    Mr. Bolton? Please, interrupt this what seems inevitable.

    We now recognize the Brit's premature ejaculation to be just that.

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, please interrupt this. Stop it ! There is no evidence of any gas attack in Syria. https://news.antiwar.com/2018/04/09/red-crescent-says-no-evidence-of-chemical-attack-in-syrias-douma/
      And the "chemical attack" on the Russian spies in Britain was all fake news. The couple is alive and well. It was only their poor, abandoned cat that died from neglect while they stayed in the hospital, possibly because of some food poisoning. Bad oysters ? I read a lot of British comments about that. Brits seemed to be much more concerned about that poor cat than anything else. They understand what´s real and what´s not. So therefor " The evil Theresa May caused that innocent animals death !"
      These neocons are trying hard to get their war. It is horrible. What kind of soulless people are they ?! Did they all sign Faustian contracts ?
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    2. ..."the "chemical attack" on the Russian spies in Britain was all fake news. The couple is alive and well."

      NYET my Putin hugging propagandist, the Skripals, father and daughter, are not "well", nor is the Cop who first responded!

      Who poisoned the Skripals in Salisbury? A new analysis from the international oversight organization that enforces chemical weapons treaties doesn’t directly name names, but the report falls foursquare behind the analysis of the UK’s own investigators. The OPCW confirmed that the nerve agent was a Russian variant, which points the finger at Moscow:
      ...
      The OPCW worked both lanes and came to the same conclusion in each — that Novichok was used to “severely injure[]” the Skripals and one police officer who attempted to help them.

      Now who's the Faust in the House, dear lady?
      On Watch~~~

      https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/12/international-wmd-watchdog-confirms-skripals-poisoned-russian-nerve-agent-high-purity/

      Delete
  3. One of daughters gave me La La Land as a gift, saying I'd like it. It sat on my desk for months because I was sure I wouldn't.
    Last week I watched it, and ten minutes in I was still sure I wouldn't like it.
    However, the movie got much better right after that - New director? What changed? - and I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of it. Beautifully done. The ending was outstanding. I recommend it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Despite the glowing recommendation of the purveyor of this blog, I will continue to eschew horror movies on the basic principle that I simply don't like them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lewis - Can you take a look at this, the guy needs help. Looks legit in Colombia. Know embassy ways there? https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/04/michael_fumento_jailed_in_colombia_on_trumpedup_charges.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know if Krasinski and Blunt, two typical Hollywood libs, meant to do it, but their movie provides a strong depiction of the power of a traditional family--it does not take a village to raise, educate and protect these kids. This film pounds home the at-times gut-wrenching responsibility parents have to protect their children from the monsters out there--and that parents despite their best efforts don't always succeed. We see a pro-life stance (in a Hollywood movie!) as the Emily Bunt character becomes pregnant and gives birth despite all the risks.

    YOu must no see many movies involving families. Hollywood has parents taking care of their kids all over the place (Taken 1/2/3, the flick with Owen Wilson in southeast Asia, etc.) Also, if Blunt's character was choosing to have a baby, rather than being forced to, that's a pro-choice position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If by that, you are asking me to leave, I will respect your wishes, of course.

      Delete
    2. *SCRIPT* excerpt

      DIPLO-HOST: Give it a rest.

      LOST-BROW: ...you...asking me to leave,

      Script Note: "Rest", a genteel remedy for tiresome scribblers... although the Bollywood fix, "a mother's love and a Remington 870", could be prescribed for zombie wet work? Shhhh~~~~~
      Quiet on the set~~~Roll Camera~~~Action!
      OW~~~

      Delete
    3. The comment starts off with:

      "YOu must no see many movies involving families."

      My impression is that the tone of this statement is suggesting that Mr. Dip is uninformed, naive, or ignorant and is derogatory in a way that I consider totally unnecessarily negative. I suspect that there's a fair bit of political opinions inferred from Dear Dip's postings that run contrary to your own. Same here to some extent. I agree with the articles here a lot, but I wouldn't put it at 100%. There's room for respectful disagreement.

      I don't think Dear Dip was asking you to leave, but I do think he might've been asking you to be polite... and if he wasn't, I guess I am? :)

      I'm absolutely certain you could've phrased this comment with clarity and detail and expressed the ways in which you think hollywood has been positively characterizing traditional families, which would be welcome news here and probably providing great movie material references.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. >--{{{{MIDDLE OF THE TARGET 1-4-8-2}}}}-->

      ~~~~~~~~~~~@^@~~~~~~~~~~

      ~~~~~~~~Scope Down~~~~~~

      ~~~On Watch_SS525~~~

      Delete
    5. My impression is that the tone of this statement is suggesting that Mr. Dip is uninformed, naive, or ignorant and is derogatory in a way that I consider totally unnecessarily negative.

      No, I do not think he is uninformed, naive, nor ignorant. However, from what I can tell, he is not immune to the common human frailty of remembering what we dislike as opposed to what we like. As for politeness, the level of sarcasm and hyperbole runs quite high in many of the commentators on this site.

      the ways in which you think hollywood has been positively characterizing traditional families

      You mean, a list of movies where families are treated as important, and restoring family bonds is treated as significant? Where families play a significant role in guiding people? Specifically where a father fights for his wife, or kids, or both? If you can be a little more precise, how large would you like this list to be, and how many years am I allowed to go back?

      Delete
    6. Someone else being impolite is no excuse, we are responsible for our own actions, regardless of what others do. Dip didn't insult you, you probably shouldn't insult him, particularly being he's the blogger here (we can leave this blog, he can't... so-to-speak). Get in an insult war with a commenter who insults you here, I won't begrudge you on that and you seem well able to handle your own there. I called out a conservative commenter here on some unjustified derogatory comment about Hillary Clinton's gender and attire... didn't make any friends there.... :) But I am aware this happens, it's unpleasant when things go personal in attacks. In this case, you seemed (to me) like you didn't understand why Mr. Dip would respond as he did, so I was trying to make it more clear because I felt like I did understand why he responded like that, even though I might be totally wrong.

      The statement I *think* you were responding to is: "This film pounds home the at-times gut-wrenching responsibility parents have to protect their children from the monsters out there--and that parents despite their best efforts don't always succeed."

      I certainly have watched movies where such parenting is featured, but it's not that common, and my personal impression is that hollywood films *mostly* denigrate family units and opt of the "it takes a village" claptrap (<- my opinion there).
      I think there's intent behind this (as in, there's an intent to emancipate children from their parents at a young age and make them wards of the institution/state), but that would be very difficult to prove to any reasonable accuracy.... just a personal observation that may be quite wrong.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. DiploMad,

      I offer an apology for creating a comment that could be read as indicating you were uninformed, naive, or ignorant. My opinion is that you are informed, mature, and well-educated. Should I undertake any future efforts at satire in here, I will be much more clear on the particular human frailty to which I am referring.

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      Thank you for taking me to task on politeness here. While I disagree that DiploMad could be a victim in this type of exchange (he has a delete button, and more generally, he can set the tone while not affecting the content), the rest of your comment on my behavior was on point.

      Delete
    9. I very rarely delete comments. I am not Twitter or Facebook. All views are welcome.

      Delete
    10. reader #1482,

      In order to not dilute the message of the previous comments, I am commenting on the Hollywood discussion separately.

      I quoted two sentences that I was responding to, you chose the second to quote only. However, the first was just as important. I regularly watch films where I see a "strong depiction of the power of a traditional family"; they are practically a staple of comedies.

      However, there are not the most heavily advertised films, because they don't make as much money as superheroes or killing teenagers. I did a quick review of the 2017 box office grosses, and I didn't see any film of this description in the top 50. Hollywood is the most capitalistic place on earth. They will make films depicting whatever people will pay money to see.

      So, I would say that, while there are many films depicting traditional families, they are not well-known, because Americans don't want to see them.

      Delete
    11. I think that's very difficult to separate cause and effect. I appreciate the effort, but I'm probably not going to be convinced. Does the purchasing public decide what films are made? Does Hollywood decide? It's certainly true that one of those can't make the decision without the other.
      I'd lean it on Hollywood, though I think Hollywood has an interest in breaking down families so producers can abuse the rootless children for their own nefarious purposes. If you want young, insecure women flooding to the movie industry, a strong family bulwark is going against your efforts. Not a compelling argument, perhaps... more just explanatory of my view.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    12. basically, I don't think weinstein is an anomaly

      Delete
    13. and yeah... trolls don't apologize.... always suspected you weren't a troll... there've been plenty of trolls here too...

      Delete
    14. I agree Weinstein is not an anomaly. People in power always take advantage of those without power, it's teh human way.

      Delete
    15. I think that's very difficult to separate cause and effect. I appreciate the effort, but I'm probably not going to be convinced.

      It's a feedback loop. Hollywood figures out what buttons to push to make more money out of us, and hammers away at those buttons. The process only works because Hollywood pushes the buttons and because we respond to those buttons.

      You don't need to break down families to get people to want fame; and traditional nuclear families have been producing young, insecure women for generations. I'm sure we would have different explanations on what factors go into making women feel insecure. :)

      Delete
    16. There is a recursive component to it, though I would say the hollywood part lends itself to manipulation more easily than the audience part, as the hollywood part involves a smaller subset of power players, whereas the audience is very diffusively influential.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    17. A book addressing this:
      https://www.amazon.com/Influencer-Science-Leading-Change-Second-ebook/dp/B00BPO7710/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524162321&sr=8-1&keywords=influencer

      it's almost comical how the book sets up the people influencing other as 'the good guys', yet it's really not clear that even all of their examples are 'good'. Several policy changes have been implemented through application of these principles (which aren't far from common sense or a traditional understanding of propaganda)
      Remember.. it's only propaganda if we disagree with it. :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  7. Here is IMDb's (Internet Movie Database) review of the movie.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6644200/?ref_=nv_sr_1

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, OK, I might give it a go on your recommendation. Usually the protagonists in horror flicks are so inept as to be incredible---halfway through I usually find myself rooting for the monster(s).

    ReplyDelete
  9. The future lawsuit by Tim Lebbon, whose book The Silence bears more then a passing resemblance to A Quiet Place and predates it by more then a few years, should be fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the tip. I had not heard of that book but looked it up: it's the same story! It's seems that Silence is also being made into a movie; I don't know how that's going to work.

      Delete
  10. for those who want to support movies of parents defending their children, there's another one coming out Friday called Breaking In.

    That's two major releases this year, and 2018 is not yet half over. Doesn't seem all that rare.

    ReplyDelete