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. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT