BEFORE: This film wasn't part of the original plan, but I won a DVD copy playing trivia on Oscar Night. While it apparently doesn't focus on thieves, the money from a heist is a big part of the plot, so I'm slotting it in here, even though it screws up my actor linking a bit. The best connection tonight is that Michael Caine from "The Italian Job" was also in "A Bridge Too Far" with Alun Armstrong, who appears tonight playing St. Peter in a vision.
THE PLOT: A 7-year old finds a bag of Pounds just days before the currency is switched to Euros.
AFTER: This is a short and sweet little film about a couple of kids who happen upon a huge pile of money, and what happens after. It appears to literally "fall from the sky", although later it becomes very clear where the cash came from.
And apparently there was a frenzy in the U.K. to turn in those old pound notes for euros - though in reality there was a few months grace period where the old currency was still accepted, and the film just sort of glosses over that fact. EDIT: I've done a little more research, and Wikipedia is telling me that the U.K. never officially adopted the Euro as their currency, though they still have the option to, and they're still using the Sterling Pound. Now I'm really confused, because that calls the whole premise of this film into question. If they never made the switchover, then when does this film take place? Did someone speculate about how this process would work, and then went ahead with releasing the film, even though the events depicted never took place? Curiouser and curiouser...
Anyway, this process is seen through the eyes of a child, one who has trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality - he has visions of the saints and has conversations with them about how they died and what they're the patron saint of. For many adults it might be hard to remember how they thought about things when they were kids, especially concerning religion. I swallowed all the Catholic dogma that I was fed until I was 15 or so, then I couldn't wait to go to college so I could stop wasting my Sundays in church. When you're young you don't think about the impossibility of it all, and you're told to treat Jesus like some kind of superhero, with all his miracle powers.
Actually, that's something of a great analogy. Superman, the ultimate superhero, is special because he's the Last Son of Krypton. He's a great Jesus analog because he comes from outer space (heaven), he's got powers far beyond those of mortals, he stands for truth and justice, and he's here to save mortals. (And like Jesus, he's a fictional character...) He even "died" in the comics a few years back, but got resurrected in true savior-like fashion.
But he's special because he's unique, the only Kryptonian. The mistake made by DC Comics was in introducing Supergirl, another Kryptonian, then the Phantom Zone criminals, the Eradicator, then the Kandorians in the bottled city (originally not Kryptonians, then they were...), then Doomsday. Just before the recent reboot, they introduced a new Kryptonian (Kristin Wells), and then after the reboot, they introduced H'El, another one. All of this goes toward making Superman less special.
It's kind of like that with the Saints - each one seems to have a small portion of "Jesus power", and miracles supposedly get done in their name after they die, so what are we supposed to make of that? Don't all these other miracle-performing dead people chip away at the uniqueness of Jesus? If God is so all-powerful, why does he need all these "go-betweens"? Why do we need a patron saint for cobblers, headaches and rabies? (all true) Sick horses, perjury and dysentery? (That must really suck, to be the patron saint of dysentery...) Why is there a patron saint for television? Actually, considering last year's fall line-up of shows, television probably needs all the help it can get...
Anyway, back to the film. The kids have to consider what to do with all the cash they found - they can't put it in the bank or risk having it taxed, they can't donate it without raising suspicion, and they can't spend it in big chunks for the same reason. They give a bunch of it away, or at least try to, before one of the thieves comes around looking for it.
Essentially, this is a spin on the classic question, "What would you do if you won the lottery?", and obviously anyone's answer when they're 10 would be very different from the one they'd give at the age of, say, 40. If you're a kid, you might think that giving money to a charity is a great idea, because of all the good you can do in the world. As an adult, you might realize that 80-90% of the money given to a charity covers their operating expenses (staff, rent, postage and supplies to solicit more donations) so it's not necessarily the best way to go about making significant changes. As a kid you might think taking a bunch of homeless people out to lunch is a great use of the money, but as an adult you might wonder if this is the best way to go. How does this help them eat tomorrow, or the next day?
We went to a Chinese Auction ("Chinese" as in weird, not Asian - like Chinese checkers or Chinese fire drill. I know that's a bit racist, but I didn't name these things...) this weekend, which is a fund-raising event popular among Scout troops and PTA groups on Long Island. You pay an entry fee and you get a sheet of tickets (more tickets available at extra cost) and then there's a function hall or gymnasium full of prizes. You put your tickets into little paper bags or plastic containers next to the prizes you want, and then they have a drawing for each item. The popular items are harder to win, of course - the first time we went, I went "all in" on a Jenga game and won it. This time, my wife won a basket of haircare products, but I haven't won anything since the Jenga game. I just don't see the point in spending hundreds of dollars to maybe win something worth about $20. But I will buy tickets for the 50/50 raffle, the end jackpot that was worth about $700 this time.
Afterwards, we were hanging out with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, and as usual, the conversation turned to one of those "What would you do for XX amount of dollars?" questions. My sister-in-law loves to ask these theoretical questions like "Would you build me a deck for $10,000?" and "For an extra $5,000 would you wear an orange tuxedo while building the deck?" If I should point out that I don't possess the skills necessary to build a deck or that I don't own an orange tuxedo, it only aggravates her, so I've learned to just say "yes" or "no" and move the conversation along.
But through this process she's figured out my pricing scheme on many different tasks, so the end result is that for a six-figure salary, I've more or less agreed to be her indentured servant for a year's time. God help me if she ever wins the lottery, and I have to put my life on hold for a year and complete a bunch of random tasks, while wearing an orange tux.
Also starring Alex Etel, Lewis McGibbon, James Nesbitt, Daisy Donovan, Christopher Fulford.
RATING: 5 out of 10 Mormons
Building a deck is fun. Any carpentry project that only involves right angles is fun to do. I helped my Dad build two. Carpentry and woodworking are like playing with Legos, only at the end, you get a table or a bookcase out of the deal.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes: if someone offered an Orange Tuxedo bonus equal to the cost of a two week vacation in Hawaii, I'd take it.