ILNews

Hammerle On … 'Elysium' and 'Blackfish'

Robert Hammerle
August 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

bob hammerle movie reviews“Elysium”

In Director Neill Blomkamp’s initial hit, “District 9” (2009), he took a startling look at the consequences of apartheid in South Africa, this time seen through the eyes of segregated, crustacean-like aliens trapped on Earth. With “Elysium,” we are catapulted forward to 2154 and an Earth that has been left in massive disarray. The wealthy and powerful have fled to a luxurious orbiting space station known as Elysium, while the remaining riffraff on a decaying Earth are left to battle for a menial existence.

Matt Damon plays Max, an ex-con trying to earn a meager living in a factory where any semblance of unions has been left in history’s dust. Suffering exposure to radiation poisoning that threatens his life, he is forced to seek a way to Elysium where medical facilities have evolved to effectively make humans immortal.

In the process, Max agrees to undergo a massive surgical process that attaches steel braces to his back and arms, not to mention a computer implant in his brain. If he wants a trip to Elysium, he has to help a benevolent underworld figure known as Spider (Wagner Moura) who is seeking a way to break Elysium’s code and bring equality back to the Earth.

What ensues is Max’s conflict with Elysium and its deadly robot henchmen on Earth. A massive anti-immigration policy exists on the circling station, and any intruding suspect is immediately killed. Jody Foster plays Delacourt, a heartless cabinet leader of Elysium’s government.hammerle
The suspense in the film builds rapidly and focuses on three superb performances by supporting actors. Sharito Copley, who was also fantastic in the above-referred to “District 9,” plays Kruger, a violent, cursing hitman doing Delacourt’s dirty work on Earth.

While Diego Luna embraces his role as Julio, Max’s devoted friend, Alice Braga steals the movie as Frey, Max’s friend from childhood. Now a nurse on Earth, she is desperately trying to get her leukemia-stricken daughter to Elysium for a cure.

What Mr. Blomkamp has created is an Earth where the wealthy care only about the wealthy. If global warming has destroyed our environment, so be it. Let the poor and the oppressed care for themselves, as that is their problem, not the nation’s. All that is needed is an ideal place to live and a robotic police force on Earth that will harshly maintain order.

In Stanley Kubrick’s “Paths of Glory” (1957), the powerful governments on this planet learned nothing after killing over 10 million young men in five years. The well-to-do, powerful politicians in Washington today proudly embrace Christianity on one hand while simultaneously ignoring Christ’s words of “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Mr. Blomkamp remembers that contradiction and it would be wise for us to do the same.
“Blackfish”

“Blackfish” exposes in dramatic, touching fashion the exploitation of Orca whales by the moguls running our billion-dollar national entertainment industry, and it simply cannot be missed. This documentary forces you to consider how these intelligent ocean creatures survive while confined for life in small aquatic facilities.

Told with the cooperation of multiple ex-trainers, “Blackfish” exposes this ongoing tragedy. Originally called Blackfish by Native Americans, the viewer soon learns that Orcas spend their entire lives at sea in a family community. Their lifespan generally reflects that of humans, and offspring stay in the company of their mothers for their entire lives. Additionally, their intelligence and communication skills are still being analyzed, and their attachment to each other is inspiring.

Though it has now been banned in the waters off of the United States, there are still whales in Sea World-type facilities that were captured as young calves at sea. One of the aging, grizzled participants in this brutal folly literally cried without shame while describing how Orca mothers refused to flee to safety when their offspring were captured in nets. I am certain that you will react the same way.
hammerle For reasons that are all too apparent, the largest fin of all the males droops noticeably in captivity, something that you seldom see in the oceans. You don’t have to guess why.

The bottom line is that these whales are kept penned up in facilities so that young kids can look on with awe and buy stuffed replicas as they leave. The effect is exactly the same as if we kept children locked in a 10-foot-square cell enclosed with glass at a mall so that people could pay to see how cute they are, not to mention how they like to play with their “trainers.”

However, it was the death in 2010 of Dawn Brancheau at Orlando’s Sea World that brought temporary focus on to this monstrosity. She was a recognized expert, loved by families and co-workers alike. There is actual film footage of the moment when Tilikum dragged her into the water by her arm, proceeding to then viciously demolish her. This was the third human Tilikum has killed in over 20 years of captivity, much of it in isolation, and you are left weeping for him as much as his victims.

Ironically, my wife, Monica Foster, and I just spent a week in the San Juan islands off the Washington coast. On a small raft we sat transfixed as we witnessed several pods of Orcas swim majestically near us. The thought of these intelligent creatures being kept in captivity remains heartbreaking.

As one of the ex-trainers said on film, 50 years from now this abhorrent process will have long ended, and those citizens will be wondering how their ancestors could have allowed it to happen at all. It is time to return these gorgeous creatures to the sea.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT