gailspilsbury

Attachment is a modern-day thriller/horror film with no violence or blood, just fear of the supernatural lurking in the atmosphere. The story involves Jewish mysticism-what non-mystics would call superstitions to ward off demons and evil. The only way to talk about the film risks a spoiler, for the plot's clues are so subtly woven into the action as to be missed. Be forewarned: unless you keep an unswerving eye on the camera's focus and listen acutely to the dialogues' subtext, puzzlement may result. And the epilogue's playful twist only adds to audience uncertainty. At the same time, it is this very eeriness about the presence of invisible evil that disturbs us in a marvelous way.

The film moves briskly and features three female protagonists, two of them-Maja and Chana-antagonists for the love of the third, Leah. Chana is Leah's Jewish mother and Maya is Leah's non-Jewish lover. A fourth character, Lev, Chana's Orthodox brother-in-law and religious bookstore owner, is a scholar of the Kabbalah-Jewish mysticism that has, as Lev tells us, "the power to unlock the secrets of the universe and ward off evil." Chana also knows and practices the Kabbalah's esoteric rituals that include amulets, heaps of salt in the corners of rooms, candles lit at night, and soup concoctions made with chants to activate their magical powers-incantations like those of the witches in Macbeth, their cauldron bubbling with portentous vapors. We meet shopkeepers in London's Orthodox neighborhood, home to Leah, Chana, and Lev. These vendors also know the mystic traditions and secretly sell Chana the sacred ingredients she needs for the rituals she performs for Leah, her lovely and charismatic daughter.

The film begins with Leah, a graduate student, meeting Maja during a research trip to Denmark. The two fall in love and return to Leah's London flat, located above her mother Chana's flat. The plot then takes off with sinister and suspenseful sounds and inexplicable happenings. Lev shows Maja a book from his shop about "the other side." He turns the pages, pointing out supernatural beings who are evil, such as the Dybbuk, the tortured soul of a dead person who possesses a living person's body, causing that person derangement and death-unless the Dybbuk can be expelled. Secret rituals can attempt to exorcise a Dybbuk, Lev tells Maja, but they are life threatening to those who perform them, and "nowadays out of favor, deemed dangerous. The Talmud forbids black magic and sorcery."

Leah's increasingly strange condition and her mother's even stranger behavior, feeds the suspense and mystery of the movie. Catastrophe looms in the atmosphere. Uncertainty rivets each ticking minute: Who is good, who is evil? Is Chana a witch? Is Lev dangerous? What is going on that we do not yet understand? And can Maja-the only innocent one in this scary coterie-save her beloved from the invisible evil clutches moving in at an ever faster rate? Attachment offers viewers a fabulous, bated-breath film journey.

Sofie Grabol (Chana) deserves special note for her role as Leah's mother. She fully embodies Chana's deep psychic pain for the life of her daughter. Every detail of Chana's internal, turmoiled state brims in her facial expressions, her movements and speech. It is as if she herself is possessed by a terrible power slowly destroying her. Attachment eschews back story-we learn little about the characters before the film's present moment, and that is all we need to be in the grip of this thrilling tale.

"Maarriage Story," written and directed by Noah Baumbach, stirs a lot of thoughts for audiences. It gives a realistic depiction of a youngish couple with a child going through divorce. Adam Driver plays the husband Charlie, a rising-star, theater director in New York, and Scarlett Johansson plays his wife Nicole, a talented actress in his plays. Laura Dern plays Nicole's tough L.A. divorce lawyer. Released by Netflix, the movie is billed as a drama/comedy, but there is no comedy in this film's sad, realistic portrayal of two decent persons' drifting apart, with one of them deciding to leave. After the separation, horrendous acrimony slowly builds until a final, emotional blow-up shatters everyone-the couple and the audience.

Whose point of view tells this story? The man's or the woman's? Or, was the take-away for a man watching this film different from the take-away for a woman? Having thoroughly experienced the couple's feelings, I, a woman, left the theater wondering if a man had experienced the characters' heartbreak differently from me. I felt it must be so, for the film's point of view lacked clarity.

I called a friend, a male and a millennial psychologist, and indeed his take-away was wholly different from mine. While I identified and sympathized with Nicole's stunted potential in a marriage where she served her rising-star husband, who loved her and their family life, but had no true interest in her "being," who she was, as his passion and focus were totally on himself and his work and ambition. Everything else was rote for him and done according to the book of what was right and currently "enlightened," such as how to be a good father, a considerate household partner, and a good, fair, and beloved director to his troupe.

When, as happens in long marriages, Nicole lost interest in sex, Charlie found sex with the stage manager of his company. No, he didn't love her, he just needed that kind of intimacy and ego-gratification. He is god in his world. But the affair isn't why Nicole leaves. She leaves because at age 40ish, she realizes she isn't fulfilling her own life, her own gifts, her own passion, and she will never be able to if she stays with Charlie to serve his life and his success, which includes receiving a MacArthur grant for $600,000 to further advance his talent. Moreover, his new play is going to Broadway. His power and recognition are only going to keep growing while she stays as she is-his dependable wife, his actress in second place, his competent family partner, his solace and safety when home in the nest she provides.

As in all marriages that begin in the mid-twenties, the partners evolve with time and their risk of not evolving together is high. Charlie and Nicole clearly love and care about each other, but the marriage is over for Nicole if she wants to live, if she wants an authentic, fulfilling life. She returns to her mother's home in L.A. when a pilot TV series offers her a role. She takes their son Henry along. It's not certain the show will take-off, so the trip is presented as short-term to see what happens. Once there, however, life feels so good to Nicole-her true identity is able to emerge, not only as an actress free from the shadow of her husband's greatness, but also as a future director herself, which is her dream. Henry also loves living in L.A. with Nicole's active, extended family life that includes cousins. The only problem is, Charlie's life is in New York, so that his career and ambition become bombed by Nicole's decision to remain in L.A. when the pilot succeeds. But it's not just the pilot that makes her stay. It's her good feelings about herself, about having a meaningful life, her right just as much as his. In L.A., she's not Charlie's appendage anymore, which was fine in her twenties when she worshiped him and came under his wing, but it's not fine now in her maturity. She has her own developed talent, equal to his when freed from its cage.

My male friend's take-away was different. He saw Charlie as the victim of Nicole's manipulations. She left New York knowing her L.A. stint was going to be permanent. She tricked him, and now has the child legally in L.A. causing a custody suit. Her character was shallow while his was deep. Not only that, but Adam Driver was a far better actor than Scarlett Johansson. And Nora, the aggressive L.A. lawyer, was creepy, hideous-he shuddered just remembering her.

I want to pause here and say that Nora, portrayed as L.A.'s toughest, man-gouging divorce lawyer for women, also affected me as a female viewer. She's groomed pejoratively: slinky, skin-revealing clothes , long blond hair incongruous with her aging face, and a fake way of communicating with her new client, all saccharine in order to win her business. Why was Nora presented this way? Perhaps to mock L.A./Hollywood culture when it comes to divorce, for Charlie's L.A. male lawyer is even worse. These characters are driven by money and how much you can get from your future ex-spouse; no concern for damage done to children and the parents in such an antagonistic, bitter, and volatile tug of war. It's crass and tragic.

But there's more to consider. Everything that spouts from Nora's smart, fighter lips about the double standard is true. Who is listening to her? Perhaps some members of the female audience. I heard her and as a result, overlooked her unappealing traits because she spoke the truth about male-female relationships and how society condones men and condemns women in the same situation. My male friend couldn't tolerate her, and because of her money-grasping and exterior traits, he felt even more that Nicole was a conniving manipulator and Charlie a victim. Again, the film's point of view comes up. Was everything Nicole said to Charlie about her deepest feelings and why she was leaving, and Nora's pronouncements about the double standard, part of the script for the truth they told or part of the script to mock women in favor of Charlie the battered hero?

It would be interesting to set up a poll to compare the male and female responses to this movie-and I welcome hearing from you. The film ends nicely, because Nicole and Charlie are able to go back to their original, honest and caring roots and dump the lawyers in their divorce. And Charlie accepts the reality that Nicole is not coming back and figures out a way to make fruitful changes in his professional life in order to be near his son. But what is the film's point of view about that, about Charlie making changes to accommodate the divorce? My point of view is: good solution. My friend's point of view might be: she forced him to wreck his career, give up his New York life and passion. Nora the lawyer might say: This film perpetuates the way society has always viewed women as demons; it upholds the superior integrity and value of men. And the film? We don't leave the theater knowing the film's point of view, but my closest guess is: Charlie's beleaguered treatment deserves our support. Hopefully it's a wrong guess.

Director Aäläm-Wärqe Davidian drops you right into daily life in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa during the long Ethiopian Civil War. The year is 1989, and American audiences plunge into a completely new culture with the backdrop of a chaotic war, where teenage boys are "kidnapped" to supply the government's army.

The protagonist Mina (Betalehem Asmamawe), 16, is Jewish and lives with her grandmother (Weyenshiet Belachew) and her brother Rata (19), who has lost his arm in the war. A Christian woman and her son, Eli (Yohanes Muse), also live with the family. Mina grew up with Eli, and now, in adolescence, they are in love. The family goes to great lengths to hide Eli from the constant army raids to round up boys. When her chores are done, Mina steals away to meet Eli at their trysting spot, a giant fig tree.

A wheeling-dealing government official arranges papers and transportation for Jewish citizens to immigrate to Israel, and Mina's grandmother has been working with the woman to arrange the family's escape. Mina's mother is already in Israel. But Mina's distraught-how can they leave Eli and his mother behind?

The film captures "first love"-its childlike innocence awakening to sexual desire. These beautiful scenes between Mina and Eli, more than anything else in the movie, bring us into the family circle and the terrible ordeals the members endure. We experience what it really feels like to witness a son or your love being snatched by the enemy-being captive and abused to face what horrible fate?

Because we dive straight into the lives of Mina's family without any back story or exposition, we have to work fast to learn the characters' names, their customs, the war situation, and the plot. This full-immersion method of storytelling is the most effective way for an audience to experience a foreign world and crisis situation as if in it themselves.

In Fig Tree, women play a strong role. They absorb all the tragedies occurring around them; they keep life going for everyone else. They're the bulwark and the source of wisdom for children and men to depend on.

The movie's cinematography also tells the story (and won Israel's equivalent of an Oscar). Even though we're in a tense, scary, unpredictable war zone, the film is quiet, told more by the actors' faces and the scenery than through their dialogue. We become familiar with this setting and its culture; we become part of the community. Mina's family could be ours; we know the members that well, We easily identify with one character's anguished words, "I can't deal with all their evil anymore!"

Fig Tree is a beautiful, honest look at our world and the violence and cruelty that pervades it.