Grace Is Gone

I absolutely loved this movie, I thought it was a very touching story that covers a very hard topic. John Cusak, Allessandro Nivola and the two little girls were all fantastic in the movie. It is such a simple story, but it hits home in a very big way. This is a movie that should be seen by everyone. It has so many human elements that I believe will make it a very important film for many years to come. It does not take a political stance. It is about life. The loss of life, and the effects of war. It does not force you to take a political stance, just a look at your own humanity and how you might deal with the tragic loss of a loved one. I am the first person to go and see a high budget action film and turn my brain off to enjoy, but some times its nice to leave your brain on in a movie.

John Cusack is one of the character actors I admire. And in Grace is Gone, it centers upon his ability to bring you into his character's world. He really transformed himself into the role of Stanley Philipps with his thick glasses, walking with an instep, and that little hunch and a paunch, and delivers probably one of his finer touches in disappearing into a character that's so everyday average joe. He's a salaryman earning his keep while watching over his two girls while Mrs Grace Philipps (Dana Lynne Gilhooley) is a career soldier who gets her tour of duty in Iraq.

The crux of the entire story laid on the premise of Stanley trying to find the appropriate moment to tell his children about the unfortunate demise of their mother, while at the same time fighting hard to accept the bitter truth that the woman he loves is gone. More so of course when it is revealed later some things that can no longer be reversed in time, which makes it all the more sad, and regrettable.

But we also learn more about Stanley through the eyes of his children, when they throw the occasional tantrum, or have issues to deal with. Shelan O'Keefe as Heidi the older daughter, is a remarkable actress, lending some gravitas to her role when it called for it, and holds her own opposite Cusack very well. Gracie Bednarczyk as younger daughter Dawn I guess was just being herself, injecting much needed effervescence to counter the heavy drama that circulates throughout the movie.

Besides some expected and really moving scenes in the movie, some from plot devices, while others from the characters themselves, writer-director James C. Strouse also managed to sneak in a comment or two about War and Truth, which is what we make it up to be, most of the time. Alessandro Nivola also turned in a rather short but nice performance behind that heavily bearded appearance as the brother of Stanley and the children's uncle.

If I need another plus point to recommend Grace is Gone, then it will be the score by Clint Eastwood (yes, what a surprise when the end credits rolled), punctuating the story neatly when it called for it. All in all, a story without any major plot twists (since the title already said it all), simple yet effective, and hinged very much on excellent acting to bring the characters to life.

I get the feeling that people who do not like this movie wanted some large seen where John Cusack's character tells what he is thinking. I'm confused at this. If we wanted to watch movies where characters laid out their thoughts verbatim we wouldn't have an opportunity to infer our own emotions on the situation. I would have been upset if this filmed decided to tackle the issue of war instead of the issue of how modern loss can effect us. This is a film about being put on pause. When we are shaken out of our sense of normalcy how do we cope. In this case, how do you explain the loss you cannot comprehend to your children. I think that this film is powerful in it's absent of the affectation of the outside world. You have a man who insulates himself from the events and in that case you have something a lot more honest. If the film had chosen to attack those issues i think the depth of loss would have been shattered. This isn't an anti-war nor pro-war film. I think that if you go in expecting that you will dislike immensely. This is a film about normalcy and our failure to cope. I think it works. I think wanting it to do something it isn't trying to do is an incorrect way to view this film.

John Cusack was excellent in this role. I saw a side of him that I never expected possible. His characters are usually intelligent and witty with sarcastic undertones, but this film shows a side of his versatility that has never surfaced before. He plays a father of two that is struggling to find a common ground. His military background leaves little commonality between himself and his daughters. The devastating loss of his wife, and the mother of his children force this character in a place that few have ever been. After an entire childhood of emotional absents, his children finally see the softer side of their father as he struggles to tell them of the untimely death of their mother. It was truly an emotional roller coaster.

Many reviewers gushed about how this movie is a wonderful drama about coping after a loss. Sure it is, but that's not the point of the movie.

It was clear when watching this film that it was one thing only: preachy propaganda. Now, I'm not judging the message of the preachy propaganda, just pointing out what this film is: One strong, loud message, which is so blaring that it scared people away from the box office. It wasn't an emotional fiction, it was 100% political commentary, and moviegoers can smell that a mile away and they usually don't like that. They want entertainment, not a sermon. Not only that, I further submit that John Cusak is an extremely intelligent person and knows exactly what he was doing by agreeing to take on this project. He knew the movie wouldn't do financially well but the message probably spoke to his beliefs.

It's not an anti-war message in the literal sense. The point isn't "War is Bad." It's more of an anti-Bush's stupid notion to go into Iraq itself. It's mostly critiquing Bush's main reason of going into Iraq, namely "Ahm a war prezidunt." Most Americans realize now that Bush wanted to go into Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea for a campaign against evil without 1) understanding the true consequences of attempting it and 2) without the determination to stay hard when things get messy, which things did, which is why he never made it past Iraq. This movie's message is: "Hey, future presidential leaders! Please realize that when you make some tossed-out decision about "gowin' tawore" that you're sending real actual men and women who have lives, who have families, and there will be huge repercussions for each loss, every victim is a major tragedy, not just 'Oh, cool, we only lost 4 this week.'" I think the writer of this movie felt that this message was a necessary one to reach the hearts of every American because he probably believed that the Iraq war was a half-thought out plan that Bush decided on just because he felt like it. To make my theory more obvious, they even had a scene where Cheney or Rumsfeld or whomever was saying the rhetoric of 'if we don't continue our aggression it will be seen as a sign of weakness.' Liberals HATE that line of reasoning, which is why it's in here, to have viewers scream "That's why soldiers are dying?!"

So, where do I stand? I definitely agree with the message of the film but at the same time, I had no idea I was signing up to join a rally for 90 minutes in watching a movie. The obviousness of the film's message was a bit eye rolling, that's all. And it therefore seems like a project or an after-school special for adults that only reached a handful of US audiences. I guess it's good to have it out there for the record. Perhaps it can even be shown in schools. Great, stellar acting by all, for what it's worth.