Does it feel refreshing, then, that you have to work so hard to orient yourself in a Paul Thomas Anderson movie?  Both yes and no, depending on the movie.  Mr. Anderson’s last work, There Will Be Blood, left you feeling at the end of the movie, that all the work you had done was worth something; there was a reward of sorts involved.  Not so with this one: it’s a long setup to get to the core of the story- the encounter with Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Lancaster Dodd, and the ensuing relationship that is the rest of the movie.  At its finish, you may feel a sort of release, but nothing close to reward.  That does seem to be the point of the movie, however; every shot, every gesture, every word is very carefully orchestrated.  This meticulous attention to detail is one of Mr. Anderson’s trademarks, one of the reasons why he is probably the greatest American director of his generation.

It’s a waste of time to try to explain the order of events in the movie; it wouldn’t do it justice.  Mr. Anderson understands the reason why movies exist, their unique ability to tell a story that differs from the other mediums- the marriage of image and text.  Neither can exist properly without the other, and neither makes sense by itself.  Remove the dialogue from this movie, and it wouldn’t have the impact- nor could you simply read the script and understand its meaning.

Having said that, even with the two together and an audience’s captive attention can’t necessarily shed light on what exactly the movie is trying to say.  After sitting through the movie, I still can’t really explain it.  The subtext was rife, and the metaphors difficult to digest.  Essentially, it’s a story about a philosopher (I hesitate to say “religious leader”, even though that is a part of what the movie is about, because he doesn’t utter the word god once in the entire two and a half hours).  It’s a story about what people choose to believe and how logic can’t be applied to it, and the easy way out of rational discussion is to raise your voice and call the person questioning you a cretin. But it’s about much more than that.  It’s about being a true believer, being brainwashed, questioning life’s meaning, animal urges and behaviors, violence, sex, death, love, and every human being’s true intentions.  It’s about the truth, lying, friendship… it’s about everything because it’s about life.  But never in an after-school special kind of way.  In a fellini-esque, unanswered questions, Paul Thomas Anderson kind of way.

Again, everything I can possibly write makes the movie sound heavy-handed, and it’s actually exactly the opposite.  It is so subtle that it borders on incomprehensible.  Long conversations the characters hold have little discernible meaning, and the density of the dialogue is only made more obscure by its masterful delivery by Phoenix and Hoffman.  The thing that is reassuring for an audience member lost in the weeds is that everyone making the movie was on exactly the same page.  There is no confusion, no mixed messages or differing intent.  At certain points in the movie I tried to picture the intense huddles that must have been held by Messrs. Anderson, Hoffman and Phoenix as they decided exactly what each scene was about and how they were going to do it.  Then again, I could be totally wrong, and maybe there was no discussion, no conspiracy, just acting.  It’s difficult to tell.  Either way, the end result is impressive, albeit slightly mystifying.

The quote that best encapsulates the movie is said in the penultimate scene by Lancaster Dodd, to Mr. Quell.  “…you’ll be the only man in the history of the world who has never served a master.”  Obviously, the implication is that every man serves some sort of master, whether physical or mystical, and it’s impossible to escape that sort of indentured servitude- life is comprised of it.  But if one of the characters actually said that, broke down the basic meaning of the line, then the entire movie would have shattered into pieces.  Because the entire goal of the movie is never to say out loud any kind of proclamation either way about religion and whether it’s good or bad.  Even that sentence I just wrote feels wrong, feels like a betrayal somehow of the movie.  It is a questioning.  An unanswered questioning about what people seek to help get them through life.  While it’s frustrating to admit, the movie echoes the plain, unspoken truth that there are no correct answers, only more questions as we move through life, and perhaps on to other lives.

It’s really hard to tell who the target audience is forMirror Mirror.  At certain points, it would have worked better if they had simply animated the whole thing.  At other moments, it seemed they were trying to make an exciting action movie.  Unfortunately, the dull fight choreography paired with uninspired direction leave something to be desired.

It also must be said that the casting for Mirror Mirror could have been revamped.  The very lovely Lily Collins, who plays Snow White,  does service to the role, with some nice moments sprinkled in (although Saoirse Ronan was apparently cast first- it leaves one wondering what she might have done differently).  Armie Hammer is also wonderfully charming as the handsome prince.  Nathan Lane tries to find comedy in the script, and one has to question Julia Roberts entirely.  Roberts is without doubt, a wonderful actress in certain roles.  She has the ability to be nicely dialed down in serious, contemporary stories.  But not only does she look uncomfortable and out of place in the period costumes, she does not fit the genre or era.  It’s not her fault.  She tries very, very hard.  And, to be honest, the script did not give her ANYTHING to go on.

If the script had been written by a class of tenth graders, it might have won a local prize for filmmaking.  But alas, without a drop of actual humor in what must have been pitched as a romantic-comedy story, sags even further as the movie wears on.  There are weird storytelling loopholes- at one point, the evil queen is unable to throw a party because she is out of money.  She has her henchman go to town to collect taxes from the starving villagers.  The money is stolen on the henchman’s way back to the palace… it is never replaced.  A few scenes later, the queen throws an elaborate wedding for herself.  Where did that money come from?  Or did her bank invent credit cards in the interim?

Also, the queen uses her magic mirror to transport herself to a sort of wooden, suspended-above-water bungalow.  Why?  The palace was apparently without a dungeon or secret lair.  Clearly, the movie-going public was not supposed to concentrate on these types of simple plot questions, but without anything else to think about for 106 minutes, it was difficult not to dwell on such banalities.

The movie is not without merit, or entertainment value, and it’s certainly accessible enough for very, very small children, who might simply love the bright colors and may find the humor the rest of the audience could not.  But it did not look cheap to make, and so one wonders what else the studio might have made, had they invested that money somewhere- anywhere- else.

Planet Egypt, a four-part series about the very beginnings of Ancient Egypt- a period of that country’s history that, until very recently, almost nothing was known about. It should be so interesting, the forging of the culture and creation of the language, etc. Instead, it is simply a chronicling of four of the most influential rulers of that time.

The most useful tool is the map of Egypt, which gives the viewer a great idea of where temples are in relation to the other places along the Nile. The camera work, using the computer generated map, is very good. You get swooping views of the Nile as you move from place to place. Unfortunately, by the third installment, this technique feels overused and uninteresting. Another very interesting tool used is the computer generated reconstruction of some of the towering statues of the gods. In one shot, you will see a team of archeologists working on the pieces of a statue. Then the camera will shift and you will see the computer image of what that statue looked like in its original, full form.

Of course, they use the cheesiest of cheesy tools for storytelling- dramatic re-enactment. Whoever came up with that idea should be punished severely. As we all learned from watching the “Drunk History” segments on YouTube, there is nothing more mock-able than people pretending to behave like their historical counterparts- especially using the silent-movie acting techniques such as dramatic facial expressions and over-dramatic movements. Let’s come up with another method, shall we? This one is old and leaves the viewer either laughing or cold.

In addition, the stodgy, curmudgeony historians they get to talk about the subjects are beyond dull. In most of these segments, a Wilford Brimley lookalike with only a portion of the charisma (if that’s even possible), lectures on at you about how groundbreaking each of the concepts that are being covered really are. This is the best programming about history out there? Maybe toss a couple more dollars into the human part of the budget and a couple less into the computer element. Or, change method entirely, hire someone with a wonderful speaking voice to do voiceover and ONLY use computers to demonstrate the concepts. It’s gotta be one or the other, because neither can work together very efficiently. History is interesting, it just needs to be handled in the correct manner.