I did attend the closing night of the Chicago Critics Film Festival at the Music Box theatre and got the opportunity to see Paul Harrill’s Light from Light. I would describe Light from Light as a drama that is combined with melancholy, quietness, and desolation set in Knoxville, Tennessee. The film stars Marin Ireland and Jim Gaffigan, the one who the world knows for his clean and hysterical comedy and his tagline HOT POCKETS! However, Gaffigan is not the funny man in this film, he is the widower who is deep in thought after a series of dramatic events. The film is about connection and finding the answers to unanswered questions after the death of someone. As you might guess, the film is not very positive.

Marin Ireland plays Sheila and she is a paranormal investigator that is hired to search for potential ghosts at the request of others. She meets Richard (Gaffigan) and he feels that there has been strange paranormal activity going on at his farm after the passing of his wife, Susanne.  She died in a plane crash a year prior to the odd activities happening in his home. Richard wants Sheila to try and figure out why his lights have been going on and off their own, and why his items move when he sets them places. This makes Richard start to believe that their may be a ghost in his home and that it may be because of his wife or that perhaps it is her at his home.

The weird activity causing Sheila to be at Richard’s home begins to make them grow closer as friends. The film had a few moments where they question themselves and are curious if they are alright in the lives they have, or if they feel they need more friends or more support from someone. The film focuses on support and feeling like people are still together. Even the person who has died is still around, just invisible.  The film helped me to realize that people who truly care about someone do not let them down. That is because Sheila does not give up on Richard’s home.  She wants to come to a solution to determine if it is really his wife that is still there for him even past the time of her death. Light from Light is vast with beautiful scenery and solitude that will grasp viewers in the moments of loneliness and connection between Sheila and Richard.

Light from Light has received all kinds of press while it has been screened at other festivals. It seems that many viewers have had mixed emotions. I did as well, because the film is not great nor horrible.  It is just set to be how it is which is enticing in its solitude and geared on Sheila and Richard. The focus is their feelings and attitudes towards how the paranormal activity around them makes them feel. Overall, I give Light from Light three stars.

At the Chicago Critics Film Festival which was held at Music Box and recently ended, I got around to seeing Julius Onah’s Luce. When I read the synopsis of the movie before attending, I had mixed feeling about how the film would be. However, when I did experience Luce, I viewed the film to be a psychological and inviting drama that is deep with vindictiveness, politics, cultural beliefs, and menacing behavior among high school students. The menacing behavior is all about one boy who wants to prove his point of view regarding the society he is living in and how he believes it should be. The problem is that his role models do not feel they can be there to support him or the conflicts he creates.

The movie is about Luce Edgar (played by Kelvin Harrison Jr.), a very academically inclined student. He is on the track team as well as the debate team, and he always strives to make his teachers and his adopted parents proud. His parents are Amy and Peter Edgar (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth), and they have lots of faith in Luce’s future based on his academic performance and all the recognition his school has given him thanks to his success. However, faith in Luce begins to deteriorate when Amy goes into a meeting to meet with Luce’s teacher, Harriet Wilson (played by Octavia Spencer). Harriet saves an essay that Luce has wrote and it raises a lot of suspicion and concern for Amy and Peter. That is because Luce is descriptive in his essay about why he feels violence in society and other negative elements in life would make the world right. Amy and Peter try as hard as they can to be on Luce’s side and hope he can keep his positive reputation. The problem is that the essay is not the only alarming discovery, but that fireworks were also found in Luce’s locker. This starts to make Amy, Peter, and Harriet start to really have concerns about Luce and question if they can believe he is telling the truth.

There are multiple moments in the movie where Luce is put on the spot about recent conflicts, his views on politics, and how he views his negative judgments. In those moments he does the same thing to cover up his tracks. He tries to over elaborate on why he feels what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. He does so by making odd connections, referencing prior political beliefs, and using his positive reputation as a technique to make the people who are questioning him think twice. The problem, however, is that it is obvious that Luce is being dishonest. While he is indeed lying, his parents and other people who like him at the school are still taking his side, and Harriet is the only person that is questioning him.

With Luce, I found it to be a cat and mouse game between teacher and student. Harriet wants Luce to be punished for his actions in writing the essay. Luce does not want to admit fault and wants to keep his ego. Viewers can tell Luce has an ego because in all the scenes where Luce is talking he is clear and precise about how he believes he is doing something right or how he is going to be on top of the world. He also resorts to being vindictive because of people having mixed emotions about him. He arranges for harsh vandalism directed at Harriet.  He causes other people to be depressed due to his rude words and he even starts to put his parents down for being concerned about him. Luce is one of those movies, where one disturbing error is going to have a disturbing resolution or comeback.

Luce should release to more locations by August.  Overall, it is quite a worthy movie and is attention-grabbing with its haunting dialogue and cultural elements that the director incorporates with its main character and the people around him. Watts, Roth, and Spencer are also top-notch in this movie. Both Watts and Roth have done a fair amount of films on disturbing subjects, and this one takes the cake. I remember Watts starring in 21 Grams (2003), We Don’t Live Here Anymore (2004), and Demolition (2015). These films lean on either dishonesty or someone dealing with a loss, so Luce was right for her because she is good at playing a mother who has serious concerns. Also, Roth starred in Captives (1994), No Way Home (1996), and Deceiver (1997). Those films focused on consequences for illegal actions and dishonesty, and most of the time Roth’s character in those films are in the center of the conflict. This time, he is the one trying to figure out how to help his son get out of a dark hole that he has put himself in. Luce is a must-see although it may be hard to watch more than once based on the violent actions that take place in it. I give Luce three and a half stars.

For Werner Herzog, he is definitely an auteur and impressive director due to his vast array of  memorable films ranging from Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972), The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner (1974), Stroszek (1977), Nosferatu the Vampire (1979), Grizzly Man (2005), and Rescue Dawn (2006).  Meeting Gorbachev is a documentary about the life of Mikhail Gorbachev, the eighth and final president of the Soviet Union. Meeting Gorbachev is visually engrossing with its vivid information and background scenarios regarding Gorbachev himself, but requires a serious amount of attention to fully understand the political issues detailed in the film. Herzog’s narration and interviews with Gorbachev will leave viewers deep in thought and in curiosity.

The focus of the film is Gorbachev, including his role in the talks about reducing nuclear weapons, the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of Gorbachev’s country. The film explores these scenarios in multiple ways but is confusing at times. I found that Herzog tries to be as faithful to Gorbachev’s words as he can be, but when the topics jump back and forth it was challenging to determine exactly how the political issues correlate together. The film still held my attention, partly because Herzog’s dark and heavy slurring voice makes his viewers want to listen closely to his films when he is doing the narrating.

The film did take me back to Grizzly Man because of how that was also a film based on actual events as Meeting Gorbachev is. That film had lots of background information on bears and how a man got himself hurt filming them which was overall much easier to understand than this current film.  Meeting Gorbachev is a film that requires some knowledge and even background research for viewers to completely understand the main points as well as the conflicts during Gorbachev’s time as president of the Soviet Union. Herzog is deep in conversation with Gorbachev, but there is so much dialogue between the two that I wished at times that I could rewind the movie while I was in the theatre. When I could not follow the conversation, I felt I missed certain elements.  This, in turn, kept me from understanding what the outcome of certain  events were later in the film.

Overall, this is a thought-provoking documentary. If viewers are fans of Herzog, then this is a must watch.  From my vantage point, it is not amazing, but it is memorable. This film is different for Herzog, but he still is faithful to it being believable and accurate. I did enjoy its short time frame of ninety minutes, and I believe others will as well. For Meeting Gorbachev, I give it three solid stars.