Praise for "Bella"

UPDATE: From the Heartland Festival Website:

The Heartland Film Festival® celebrated and honored some of the world’s most talented and inspiring independent filmmakers during the 16th annual Crystal Heart Awards Gala at Conseco Fieldhouse tonight. Awards and $200,000 in cash prizes were presented to 16 films. Heartland announced “Bella” by Alejandro Monteverde as the $100,000 Grand Prize Award Winner for Best Dramatic Feature (pictured); “Hear and Now” by Irene Taylor Brodsky as the winner of the $25,000 Award for Best Documentary Feature and “Validation” by Kurt Kuenne as the winner of the $10,000 Vision Award for Best Short Film.

Three stars from Roger Ebert, who writes:

I have failed to convey the charm of the movie. Verastegui, despite sporting a beard so thick and black it makes him look like a 19th century anarchist, has friendly eyes, a ready smile, and a natural grace in front of the camera that will soon have fans shifting their Banderas pinups to the bottom drawer. And Blanchard fits comfortably into the role of a woman who wants to do the right thing but feels alone, friendless and broke. All she needs is someone to trust, and she melts.

There is also a lot of cooking in the movie. Jungles of cilantro are chopped. The restaurant's staff luncheon features quail in a mole sauce. Verastegui looks like he knows what he's doing in the kitchen. His IMDb profile says he likes cooking, which I believe, although that's usually the desperation answer by people who can't think of anything they like. You sense a little of that, indeed, in his profile's next two sentences: (1) "He has a golden retriever," (2) "He likes golden retrievers." He stops short of liking to cook golden retrievers.

The movie is not profound, but it's not stupid. It's about lovable people having important conversations and is not pro-choice or pro-life but simply in favor of his feelings -- and hers, if she felt free to feel them. The movie is a little more lightweight than the usual People's Choice Award winner at Toronto, but why not? It was the best-liked film at the 2006 festival, and I can understand that.

The San Francisco Chronicle has this praise:

"Bella" is a tearjerker that earns its sobs with heartfelt emotions. The main characters - a chef in an upscale Mexican restaurant in New York and a waitress he helps get through a rough patch - seem like real people, and so you sympathize with them as you would a friend or relative.

Although made to attract Latino audiences, this bittersweet drama has a universal appeal. It won the Toronto International Film Festival's People's Choice Award.

Unfolding during a single day, "Bella" avoids a sense of confinement by frequent flashbacks and an occasional flash-forward. Their significance doesn't crystallize until the end, when the Kleenex is sure to come out.

All this switching back and forth in time is never confusing. Director Alejandro Monteverde immediately draws you into the co-workers' lives and uses dramatic devices to hold attention, ensuring that the pieces of the puzzle will stay in mind until they fall into place. This is difficult for a seasoned filmmaker to pull off; for a rookie like Monteverde it's a near miracle.

The Orlando Weekly gives "Bella" five stars:

Bella is billed as a love story, but that’s a misnomer; the crux of the film isn’t love but rather those intense and unexpected events that punctuate life and change one’s course. Where a typical love story is often fantastical, the characters and situations in Bella are penetratingly real, with the grit, glare and sorrow that so often invades reality. Mexican director/writer Alejandro Gomez Monteverde, a new talent to watch, has developed a strong style of close-ups, sharp angles and other techniques that are fresh yet seamlessly poetic. Even more impressive is Monteverde’s ability to portray a feeling, thought or a full moment in a scene with nothing but camera angles, sound and an actor’s expression or gesture. Above all, however, Monteverde has succeeded in eliciting deep empathy and emotion, and that is what makes this film a winner.

John Anderson of Newsday writes:

A whisper of mystery and sprinkling of magic loft this parable of broken souls somewhere above the New York streets where it so comfortably tells its tale.

Starring former Mexican telenovela star Eduardo Verastegui as Jose, an ex-soccer-star-turned-cook with a tragedy in his past, and the wonderful Tammy Blanchard as Nina, a waitress with a bun in the oven, "Bella" is best when it's dealing with the relationship between the two.

When Nina is fired by Jose's cafe-owner brother Manny (Manny Perez), Joe walks out too, and a bad day starts to sparkle, as they get to know each other. The film, co-written by debuting director Alejandro G. Monteverde (with Patrick Million and Leo Severino), grows more pedestrian when the two visit Jose's family, and values start marching through the movie. It's better when the earthy Nina and the dreamy, Christlike Jose are more or less floating through the city.

• The "Bella" website
• Theaters showing "Bella"
• Steven Greydanus on the people behind "Bella" and the making of the movie
• Thomas Peters of "American Papist" has a number of links and additional info.

Comments

[Devils Advocate (Chad Toney)]

But it's only got a 33% at RottenTomatoes. And Barb Nicolosi wasn't all that impressed either. That makes me hesitant.

[Brian Schuettler]

It's only someone's opinion...think for yourself.

[Devils Advocate (Chad Toney)]

Brian, I *think* Catholics should be careful that we don't drum up too much hype for art that is mediocre just because it has some kind of a message we like.

I'm not saying Bella is this. But based on the evidence that I have, it very likely might be.

If I go see a movie this weekend, it will more like be Darjeeling Limited.

But chalk this up as just a sensitive issue for me, being one of the main reasons I started to question my evangelical protestant upbringing (its horribly utilitarian and deficient view of the arts).

[Catherine Harmon]

Re: Nicolosi's review...since I haven't seen the movie myself, I won't say anything about her harsh criticism of Bella's artistic merits (or lack thereof, as she contends).

It does strike me as odd that she argues that the movie isn't genuinely pro-life because pro-abortion people are liking it. "Do you really think, under any conceivable scenario, that a movie that compellingly articulates the Culture of Life, would get under the radar of the lefty crowd at the Toronto Film Festival?" she asks. This seems to me like a very pessimistic view of the Christian screenwriter's chances for success in Hollywood, particularly coming from someone who is herself a Christian screenwriter in Hollywood. And who has started a company with the purpose of promoting the success of Christian screenwriters in Hollywood. If Christians are going to make any inroads in the culture, they're going to have to speak with language and imagery that appeals to "lefties." Which I thought had been one of Nicolosi's key points all along.

Weird.

[John Herreid]

It's getting mixed reviews, yes, but some of the movies I really like got mixed reviews when they came out. And one of Barbara Nicolosi's faves from this year, Evan Almighty, only got 24% good reviews at RottenTomatoes. And it had a huge Christian marketing push behind it, possibly bigger than Bella's. Bella sounds like it's a solid film despite being from a first-time director. I'll have to see it sometime soon.

I don't really understand Barbara Nicolosi's animosity towards Bella. From what people have been saying about it (from the positive side) is that it's a charming, low-budget indie flick--nothing earth-shattering. Perhaps some people have built it up too much. She says "As with so many other mediocre Christian movies, the only 'message' that Hollywood will get if Bella does well, is that the Christian audience has no idea what a good movie is and will rave about anything that remotely mirrors our world-view." I think that's kind of low.

And Chad--Darjeeling wasn't that good, unfortunately. (I'm a big Wes Anderson fan, but this was definitely his weakest film yet.)

[Mark Brumley]

It seems highly unlikely that BELLA can really be as manifestly mediocre as some critics, especially the Christian ones, judge it to be. Perhaps the movie isn't as good as some people think. (I speak here of those, such as myself, who like the film based on the finished version.) But surely it can't be so obviously bad that, as some critics have claimed, the only thing Hollywood will conclude from a good showing at the box office is that Christian audiences are clueless about quality.

Of course people can allow ideology to govern their assessments so that even a reasonably good movie might unjustly be dissed. Perhaps even if BELLA is a reasonably good movie, ideology will lead some folks in Hollywood not to see it as such; just as, if it's not very good, ideology may lead some Christians to think otherwise. We'll see.

However, it seems more likely that the judgment of reputable film critics such as Roger Ebert, not especially known for Christian ideological commitments to determine his reviews, will be given due consideration by at least some of those in the "Hollywood" whose assessments some Christian critics cherish. Perhaps even if that "Hollywood" doesn't judge BELLA as favorably as Ebert and others do, it won't simply for that reason decide Christians don't know anything about good movies. Maybe at least some of those Hollywood folks won't think their opinions so manifestly correct that the Eberts and other notables who disagree must certainly be incapable of recognizing a mediocre film or must have just decided to be "kind". Perhaps they'll just conclude that, as is often the case with films, reasonable people disagree.

In any event, it is hard to see why those of us who like the film should much care. (I don't say "care at all", but "much care".) If the film does reasonably well at the box office and some folks in Hollywood notice, maybe those of us who like the film will find Hollywod willing to invest in other projects to our liking. That may upset some of BELLA's Christian critics, but since their judgment seems so out of wack here with some respectable movie critics, it is difficult to get worked up about the prospects of the Christian critics' displeasure.

Here's what I mean. It's one thing for people to think they're right about judging works of art--most of us do. It's another thing for people to think they're so right in this highly subjective area that they'll not take seriously different opinions by others about a work, even when the others in question are as expert or more expert. That, to put it bluntly, is the Know-It-All Syndrome. If there is a danger that widespread Christian appreciation of a bad film will undermine Christian credibility in "Hollywood's" eyes, there is also a danger that critics perceived to suffer from Know-It-Allism will also harm their cause by their disproportionately negative reactions--not simply to the film but to other critical viewers' opinions about it.

It seems that when the Toronto Film Festival folks and Roger Ebert and other notables judge BELLA to be a good film, the rest of us who have seen BELLA, have liked it, and have judged it a reasonably good film, have good grounds for thinking our opinions don't simply mirror our theological or moral commitments, even if our opinions about the film happen in the infallible judgment of the Divine Mind ultimately to be mistaken. One can be wrong about such things as films for lots of reasons, including even non-ideological prejudices; one can also make plain old mistakes in artistic judgment such as the confusing of taste with critical assessment. (De gustibus non disputandam est. Yet people dispute about them all the time.)

What would be helpful from some BELLA critics, I would suggest, is a more-than-pro-forma acknowledgement of their fallibility--not merely about BELLA but also about how obviously wrong other people must be to disagree with them about BELLA and the implications of BELLA's success for the future of Christian film-making. That should suffice to allow us all the space to do the critical dance about the merits and demerits of this film, and to avoid the unpleasantness of Know-It-Allism.

[Julia]

John Herreid is spot on. Barbara Nicolosi spoke positively of Evan Almighty, a film that was not only roundly panned, but was problematic theologically as well. But she didn't bother to take a whole blog post or two to blast it. Did she really like it? I find that hard to believe. I do remember that she's acquaintances/friends with the director, Tom Shadyac. She's got Evan Almighty on her sidebar as one of the best of 2007 alongside "Once" and "The Lives of Others." Unbelievable.

[Jackson]

"This seems to me like a very pessimistic view of the Christian screenwriter's chances for success in Hollywood."

My father is a Hollywood guy. I've been around the Hollywood crowd a lot. What you're calling pessimistic strikes me as actually quite realistic.

[Tom]

If Walker Percy could use "indirection" in The Moviegoer and win the National Book Award, why couldn't an indirectly pro-life movie win plaudits from "leftie" critics?

[Mark Brumley]

If Walker Percy could use "indirection" in The Moviegoer and win the National Book Award, why couldn't an indirectly pro-life movie win plaudits from "leftie" critics?

Of course. Can someone explain to me why that point seems so difficult for some people to grasp?

[Catherine Harmon]

Jackson, you may be right: maybe it isn't pessimism, but realism. My point was that Nicolosi's various projects (like Act One) and writings all seem to be supporting the notion that the Christian worldview can find a voice in Hollywood if talented Christian screenwriters stick to their guns and perfect their craft. In general, she seems very hopeful about the Christian screenwriter's chances in Hollywood, if they have talent, work hard, etc. Her statement that it is well-nigh impossible for a movie created from a culture-of-life worldview to be successful struck me as uncharacteristically gloomy, and as undercutting (what I understood to be) her entire project.

[Carl Olson]

Of course. Can someone explain to me why that point seems so difficult for some people to grasp?

Jealousy. I think it's that simple.

[Mark Brumley]

The Bella debate is diminishing, at least in my circles. As people I know see the film, none of them is willing to repeat as their own the criticism of the few Christian critics they've read. They don't even grant that the critics generally have a point. Perhaps that reflects only my circle of family, friends and acquaintences. Some people I know have expressed criticism of this or that aspect of BELLA, as they usually do with other films. But even in those instances they generally like the film, with some thinking it's a great film and others thinking it only a good film. No one I know has told me he thinks it bad or mediocre. No one has said that he thinks the only message Hollywood will get if the movie is a box office success is that Christians don't know nuttin' about movies.

But perhaps my sampling is not a fair one.

BTW, are reactions to movies (a) a matter of taste alone; (b) a matter of critical judgment alone (and therefore a matter of objective truth re: beauty); or (c) both of the above?

If (a), then it would seem that reactions to films are beyond dispute. How can one rationally resolve a debate between someone who insists that strawberry pie is "better" than cherry pie and someone who maintains the opposite? One might say, "I like strawberry better than cherry", but that isn't the same as saying strawberry is better than cherry.

If (b), then while we may decide it isn't worth arguing about a particular film or any film, there would remain an objective state of affairs that one person's judgment may more accurately reflect and another's person's judgment may less accurately reflect. Whether one could convince another in a given dispute would be a different question, but debates about film would be open, in principle, to resolution, unlike arguments over strawberry and cherry pies.

If (c), then some disagreements about film would be unresolvable, while others would be resolvable, at least in principle. Part of the problem would come down to being able to distinguish in a given instance when a disagreement is a matter of taste--one of personal likes and dislikes--and when it is a matter of truth--of poetic truth and the truth of beauty.

Thoughts?

[Kate Sciacca]

I have seen the film twice, first at a pre-screening and again in the theatre.

It is a film that is easily seen twice, and enjoyed much more the second time - when one already understands the "flashbacks" and the "fast forwards" involved in the story telling.

The pre-screen audience was polite but I would not say overly enthusiastic - the theatre crowd (regular movie goers, not a church or Christian group)
seemed much more in tune with the film and gave long and loud applause as the credits rolled.

The color is the best part of the film (that, and the way it makes you want to go out and have really good, authentic Mexican food as soon as you are able!)

An enjoyable film that you can take your teenage kids or elderly parent to see is rare - this one is worth seeing.

[Elizabeth Andrew]

The movie is a work of art.

[Cristina A. Montes]

Mark: A philosophy professor of mine gave me the following answer when I asked a similar question: it's a matter of taste but some people have better tastes than others.

[Cristina A. Montes]

As for Nicolosi's review of "Bella" -- I haven't watched the film and I don't know if I will get a chance to do so, so I can't agree or disagree with her. But I wish she were more specific in her criticism. I wish she explained more why she thought the movie was mediocre.

[Mark Brumley]

The expression "good taste" is often used to refer to aesthetical judgment. However, when "taste" is contrasted with "truth", "taste" means one's disposition to like or dislike a thing, which is different from one's judgment whether the thing is objectively good or objectively beautiful.

The statement of your professor, Christine, "It's a matter of taste but some people have better tastes than others", does not attend to the distinction between likes and dislikes that precede rational judgment, and rational judgment based on the aesthetical truth of the matter. Your professor apparently wanted to stress a point often denied--that there is an objectivity of truth in aesethical judgments. However, it would also seem true that some differences are not differences over the objective truth, but entirely subjective.

Whether we use the term "taste" for the former and "truth" or "aesthetic truth" for the latter, or some other terminology to distinguish them, it remains true that there is a distinction between mere likes and dislikes on the one hand, and aesthetic judgments based on truth on the other.

Are views about films simply matters of likes and dislikes, like the statement, "Strawberry ice cream is better than cherry", or do they at least sometimes involve genuine aesthetical judgments, the objective truth of which can, at least in principle, be determined?

[Barb N]

>Jealousy. I think it's that simple.

Really? That simple? And you know this because of what exactly? And you better be sure, because if you're wrong, it is calumny. (And even if you are right, it's detraction....but for what it's worth you are wrong.)

>Did she really like (Evan Almighty)? I find that hard to believe. I do remember that she's acquaintances/friends with the director, Tom Shadyac.... Unbelievable.

First of all, Tom Shadyac and I are not friends. We've spoken twice in passing in the last four years.

So the inference that I would give a biased review for a friend doesn't work here because there is no friendship. (And the acquaintanceship suggestion doesn't work either because I had much more face time with Peter Jackson, and I gave his King Kong a much harsher treatment than Bella.)

So that latter comment begins with a lie and then proceeds to the calumny.

Which I actually find more unbelievable than a tough review on a mediocre movie.

Honestly guys, "What does it profit you..." but for Bella?