ILNews

Hammerle On …'Philomena,' 'Nebraska'

Robert Hammerle
December 18, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Philomena

The unforgettable Judi Dench makes “Philomena” a triumph. Based on a book written by Martin Sixsmith, played here by Steve Coogan, Dench embodies Philomena, an aging Irish woman wrestling with profound regret.

Initially, we see Philomena when she was but an Irish teenager in the early 1950s. After a brief sexual encounter with a young stranger, she becomes pregnant and is assigned to a Catholic girls school so she can quietly and silently give birth to her child.

What follows is an indescribable tale that unashamedly indicts the Roman Catholic Church. Having given birth under the nuns’ care, she is confined for four years of virtual slavery in their laundry facility as payment. Count on sobbing – repeatedly.

In the process, she is allowed to see her young son for one hour a day, eventually suffering inconsolable torment when he is adopted without her consent. It seems that the good nuns running this “House of Horrors” were literally selling young children to wealthy Americans, making a handsome profit in the name of our Lord and Savior.

Fifty years later we see Philomena join forces with Sixsmith, a struggling journalist, hoping he could help her find her lost child. He is as critical of the Catholic Church as Philomena is supportive, and the two gradually form a friendship that is inspiring. This is Coogan’s most complete role to date.
While I won’t give it away, the previews show that their journey takes them to the United States, where Philomena continues to pursue some type of contact with the child she has never forgotten. Our two comrades struggle as they both nearly lose hope.
hammerle-nebraska.jpg What transpires is a reaffirmation of the nature of human existence. Additionally, the Catholic Church is fully revealed for its brutal intolerance that mocks its religious principles.
Like Coogan’s character, I also served Mass when I was attending a Catholic grade school, and I still remember how I was taught that eating meat on

Friday was a mortal sin. In other words, if you ate a hot dog and then were killed by a car while walking home, your soul would be condemned to hell for eternity. Sweet dreams were poisoned.

Watching Philomena try to maintain her dignity while struggling to find a missing son shamefully taken from her by Catholic nuns 50 years earlier, you get to honor Dench as an actress in a profession that nears its end. Her eyesight is clearly failing, yet she embraces a character whose nightmare becomes your own.

Pope Francis should require all cardinals to watch this film when they next meet. The Church will benefit.

Nebraska

“Nebraska” is a small, black-and-white film that is beguiling beyond meaningful description. Far exceeding director Alexander Payne’s last contribution to the cinema, “The Descendants” (2011), it is at its heart a sublime story about moments that affect every American family.

Bruce Dern plays Woody King, an alcoholic slowly succumbing to the onset of dementia. Living with an emotionally exhausted wife in Billings, he is dead set on walking to Lincoln, Neb., to claim an imagined $1 million lottery prize. Dressed constantly in a plaid shirt, his head covered by his frizzy, unkempt white hair, he has largely lost any meaningful connection to life.

While Dern is fabulous, the movie belongs to June Squibb, playing his vulgar, very funny wife, Kate, who can no longer tolerate Woody’s antics. In one moment she is as mean as a snake, hoping that her husband is committed to a nursing home. The next moment she is driving her son to the edge of insanity by reliving her sexual life before she married Woody.

Woody repeatedly forces his son David, played magnificently by Will Forte, to leave his job at a music center to pull him off a highway. In desperation, David decides that the only way to help his father is to drive him to Lincoln and see the absurdity that awaits him.

What follows is a road trip as father and son spend time with each other for the first time in many years. Woody is distant and laconic, while David tries to crack through his thick exterior.
hammerle-philomena.jpg There are many incredibly amusing moments, not the least of which is when Woody runs to the nearest bar to down a beer while David gases up his car. Denying he is an alcoholic, David asks him how he can justify constantly consuming beer. Woody quickly looks at him and dismissively responds, “Beer isn’t drinking.”

Our boys eventually stop in Woody’s hometown in Nebraska, where they are joined by Kate and a houseful of distant relatives. Constant raucous interplay follows as his goofy relatives try to tap Woody’s supposed wealth.
Joining the group is Woody’s other son, played wonderfully by Bob Odenkirk. While the boys jointly feel that their father is as mad as the proverbial Hatter, they rally to his side to keep him from being exploited.

Stacy Keach also makes a strong appearance, here playing Ed Pegram, an old business partner of Woody’s who senses a financial windfall. Ed and others really don’t care about Woody personally, but only his money. When they realize Woody’s tragic mistake, they try to publicly humiliate him, resulting in his sons rallying to his side in a moment that is unforgettable.

This is a moving tale about an American family trying to come to grips with the travails involved in the aging process. The central theme of Payne’s film centers on the consequences of a simple, aging American believing what he is told.

If that is a sign of dementia, God help us all.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. 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. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT