My Un-Edited Thoughts About Don Cherry

I can't believe I feel compelled to write about this Don Cherry bullshit but I'm sick and very aggravated with the amount of God's dandruff falling from the sky and I need a distraction so, here goes.

1. Don Cherry was a pretty piss-poor career minor-league hockey player who displayed some marginal coaching skills. He was a middling coach who took an "in their primes" Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito-fronted Bruins team to a Stanley Cup final appearance. ONCE! His coaching career was colourful but largely unremarkable.

2. He was able to parlay that "colourful personality" into a thirty-seven-year gig commenting mostly on hockey, while occasionally veering off into bizarre tangents and rants.

3. His weird-assed suits, strange obsession with his dog, friendships around the league, and penchant for protecting fighting in the game, garnered him an angry but loyal following of like-minded fans who could not ever accept the changes in society, in general, and hockey, in particular.

4. As his appeal grew, so did his boldness. He often would veer into xenophobic, anti-European, and flat out racist rants that had little to do with the game. (I would provide the links and receipts but did I  mention that I'm sick and I'm not your fucking Google? It's all YouTubed for you to discover.)

5. The CBC who first hired his racist-ass never really challenged his bullshit because, frankly, he was great for ratings. To be blunt, they enabled him and allowed his platform to grow. To understand just how beloved he was to his loyal minions and sycophants, remember that he was once on a list of the One Hundred Greatest Canadians. (He clocked in at number 7 ahead of Alexander Graham Bell and Wayne Gretzky.)

6. When Rogers Sportsnet bought the rights to Hockey Night in Canada, there was a subcontracting arrangement set up whereby the CBC would simulcast the Saturday night games and the playoffs so that there would be continuity and so that the product would reach more Canadians. Rogers rehired Cherry and his sidekick Ron MacLean, to continue Coach's Corner. It was a money decision. Budweiser (who owns Labatts) is the primary sponsor. They have been at Rogers for the past seven years, so all of you busting the backs of the CBC ombudsman, back the fuck off. They do not employ any of the hockey announcers. Rogers does and it is Rogers that finally stepped up today to fire Cherry.

7.  Don Cherry did not have his right to free speech denied today. He is free to spew or believe whatever racist shit he'd like. What he doesn't have a right to, is a private company's platform from which to cackle. Cherry worked for Rogers. He, like every other employee, is subject to and bound by whatever the code of conduct Rogers deems appropriate. Cherry obviously violated that today because his employer took action. Some, myself included, would say that his dismissal is long overdue. Perhaps. But whatever sent Rogers over the edge today had absolutely nothing to do with a violation of free speech. Cherry was hired to talk hockey and even though he veered off on more than one tangent in his career, this latest one was a bridge too far for his employer. We might never know the exact conversations that occurred at Sportsnet today but you can be damn certain that the sponsors' and money considerations were involved.

8. For all of you spouting the fact that Cherry was held to a higher standard for his racism than our own Prime Minister, I will not argue the point. It is true that what Justin Trudeau did in blackface was abhorrent and I won't defend it but we just had a job review concerning his actions and for whatever the reasons, a strong minority of Canadians rehired him. Cherry's employer chose to go a different direction and for that I applaud them. I also will not accept "whataboutism" in any form. Every case is singular and should be examined on the merits.

9. This entire episode is being spun around Cherry's affinity for our veterans and the poppy symbol. I have no doubt that he is passionate about them both but let's not pretend that his rant wasn't filled with racist dog whistles ("you people") and immigrant hating verbiage. In the words of that great philosopher, Judge Judy Sheidlin, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

Nobody is entitled to a lifetime pass in a job unless you happen to be an American Supreme Court Justice. Don Cherry's time has long passed him and his vocal minority of supporters by. The NHL, Hockey Canada, the mayors of Mississauga and Toronto, and other high profile hockey people and politicians called for his removal. This isn't "cancel culture". This is a clear example of a man who grossly abused and violated his platform and job description and got canned for it.  The ranty, racist uncle act wore thin with the wrong people and I believe that both hockey fans and Canadians will be better for his exit from the public arena.

High Holy Day Philosophy Courtesy of Shtisel

I attended a very cool panel discussion last evening featuring some of the cast and creators of the Israeli broadcast sensation, Shtisel. If you haven't already been swept up by this worldwide phenomenon, I suggest that you hit up your Netflix account post-haste and do not dare surface until you have binged the entirety of both seasons. (A third season is in the works and cannot come soon enough.)

The panel was sponsored jointly by Beth Tzedek and Beth Torah congregations here in Toronto and was the precursor to the midnight service of Selichot which marks the official beginning of the Yamim Noraim or High Holy Days. The Selichot prayers are those of repentance during which we Jews communally ask The Divine Spirit for forgiveness. The service is often a poignant and soul-stirring precursor to the Days of Awe. Having the Shtisel cast precede the service was a brilliant ploy on the part of the two congregations to draw in worshippers to a unique but difficult service, given the lateness of the hour. An enthusiastic group of Toronto Shtisel groupies packed the synagogue last night hoping to feed their fandom. For most, I am certain that Selichot services were deep in the dark recesses of their minds.

I will admit that Shtisel was the drawing card for me as well. Having led my share of Selichot services, the novelty of seeing the Israeli cast in person was way ahead on the depth chart of attending a midnight service for which I have tremendous difficulty in staying awake. I'm not certain what I expected of these actors but I certainly wasn't prepared to be dazzled by a true Yamim Noraim moment.

During a question about how she reconciles her abandoned Haredi wife character of Giti with a far more liberal interpretation of how we believe that women should react to the return of a wayward spouse, actress Neta Riskin was incredibly circumspect and, frankly quite brilliant in her answer when she stated,

"We tend to judge other people by their actions but we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions."

I was stunned by this bit of truly cogent modern philosophy.

We do judge others by their actions or, worse yet, their inactions but we tend to excuse our own inaction by what we consider to be honourable intentions.

What if we were to flip the equation? What if we tried to look beyond the actions of those we easily condemn with a keystroke or a flippant remark and instead we attempted to see the work behind what they have done or plan to do? Conversely, what if instead of holding onto our good intentions like life preservers, we finally put some of what we say we are going to do into concrete action? Obviously, it isn't a perfect idea. There are still those out there whose actions are inherently nasty or those who spout platitudes without backing up their rhetoric, but what if we judged others a bit more by their intentions and ourselves a bit more by our actions? Isn't it possible we might find a more balanced approach to the way we live our lives and perhaps a steadier manner to how we exist in a world fraught with emotional landmines?

We enter into the New Year with a great deal of anxiety. We are concerned by the lack of moral fortitude by our leaders and we see suffering coming from all corners of the earth. We are living in a time of schism and the chasms between us seem unbreachable. But what if, for a brief moment in time, we looked at those closest to us and tried to reach past what we perceive they have done and look more into their intents. And then, we look inward and move beyond our stated intentions and into concrete plans of action to back up our words. Couldn't we find a small measure of common ground with those whom we disagree?

In order for it to happen, we need to accept our own failings and apologize without hesitation or reservation to those whom we have caused pain, and we must accept the apologies of those who have failed us.

"For sins against The Almighty, the Day of Atonement atones, but for sins of one person against another, the Day of Atonement does not atone until they have made peace with one another."

Neta Riskin's Giti needed to move on from her philandering husband's actions otherwise she couldn't find true teshuva (repentance) for herself. She chose to see the intention of his renewed commitment to her and the family and to forgive his sin of leaving. It was the most difficult of paths but it enabled her to move forward.

Action and intention are truly two sides of the same coin. Let's enter into the year 5780 with both for ourselves and hope that others are trying to do the same.

May the coming year be one of health, commonality, love, life, and peace.

Shana Tovah U'metukah.

That's a Wrap, TIFF '19

What a wonderful way to spend eleven days.

TIFF is over for another year and given the unending torrent of shit that is coming our way every single day, I am once again grateful to have had the distraction of the art of filmmaking.

Not every movie that we saw was great. Many were good, some mediocre, and some had stellar performances in otherwise lacklustre films. That said, each and every one was a labour of love for its director. I remain in awe of this form of storytelling and even though a movie might not live up to my expectations, the amount of energy, money, talent, and vision that is expended continues to amaze.

Such was the case with our final screening of TIFF, Steven Soderbergh's The Laundromat. Boasting an all-star cast including the incomparable Meryl Streep, the always chameleonic Gary Oldman, and the ever-charming Antonio Banderas, The Laundromat attempts to unravel and simplify the true to life story of wealth consolidation uncovered in the Panama Papers. Using an odd combination of satire, story vignettes, some fourth-wall-breaking narration, and the simplicity of animation, Soderbergh tries, somewhat in vain, to breakdown the exploitation of the world's financial systems that were used to enrich a few greedy individuals and that was ultimately uncovered through whistleblower testimony by newspapers around the globe. It is a maze of shell companies, insurance frauds, paper wealth that wasn't, and off-shore entities that is as confusing as it sounds and it is truly anger-inducing for anybody who finally has a "Come to Jesus" moment about these financial scams.

Unfortunately, the mess of the financial atrocities uncovered in the Panama Papers is a bit more than even the great Soderbergh can chew in one bite. While the acting is as stellar as one might imagine given the cast, the script is uneven and convoluted. Meryl Streep's enraged "widow on a mission" isn't nearly enough to sustain a storyline that goes off the rails with several subplots that do little to advance the chain of events. While there is a bit of sleight of hand at the end of the film when Soderbergh allows his version of the whistleblower to have his/her say through the voice of one of his characters, it really isn't enough to redeem the rest of the film.

The Laundromat is another Netflix film that will be on a streaming device near you very soon, so there is little downside to watching the movie but I would be hardpressed to give it a full-throated recommendation.

Dawn and The Husband's review of The Laundromat: The Husband would give it a marginal YUP. He definitely liked it more than I did. I would give it an unqualified MEH. Watch at your leisure but don't expect brilliance.

And...That's a wrap for TIFF '19. We screened seven films and while none were terrible, none were particularly memorable either. My favourite was most definitely A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood while Renee Zellweger puts in an unbelievable performance in a very flawed Judy. The People's Choice Award this year went to Jojo Rabbit which will immediately climb to the top of our must-see list. 

Thanks for following. Until next year, TIFF.

We Need a Good Caper Flick at TIFF

Editor's Note: For the third consecutive year, Dawn and The Husband will be spending chunks of the next fortnight attending the Toronto International Film Festival, known to the locals as TIFF. While they can now proudly call themselves seasoned veterans at this madness, they have still selected a modest, albeit an increased number of films, (7) because they are old and lining up for hours is tough on the joints; have no interest in midnight madness viewings; and that number is honestly far more films than anybody really needs to view in less than ten days. TIFF still serves as a tremendous distraction from the world's ills, the impending High Holidays, and asshole would-be dictators whose names rhyme with Dump and Thug. (If you are British, you can reasonably now add the asshole who rhymes with Doris to this list.) The next several posts will focus exclusively on TIFF and will offer very quick bullet point reviews for the movies seen. 

I love a good caper movie.

Charade, Ocean's 11, The Italian Job, How to Steal a Million, The Thomas Crown Affair, The Hot Rock, The Sting, A Fish Called Wanda...this list is endless and while most are average films, they are good fun to watch.

I am less inclined to love a psychological thriller but given the right plot, intrigue, and direction, I might find myself immersed.

The Husband is a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan. He loves the masterful way that Hitch would weave a story together without ever really giving away the goods until the very end. Years ago, as a birthday gift, my brother gave The Husband tickets to see Psycho on the big screen with a Q and A that followed with Janet Leigh. Viewing Hitch's masterpiece in the manner in which it was intended, was one of the most terrifying evenings I have ever spent in a movie theatre. And...I had seen the film before and knew everything that was about to occur. That's how good Alfred Hitchcock was at manipulating our psyches during a film.

Few directors today are able to achieve that level of cognitive distortion. While we might accept Hitchcock as the master and understand that coming close to his status is probably unattainable for most filmmakers, it frustrates the hell out of me when I can drive a truck through plotholes and predict the outcomes of movies that are being billed as twisted thrillers.

Such was the experience today with our screening of The Burnt Orange Heresy. Director  Giuseppe Capotondi adapts the 1971 novel of the same name and updates the time, space, and location of the bête noir book. A formally esteemed art critic and his weekend fling are summoned to the Lake Como summer home of a wealthy art collector (a really terrific and surprising turn by Mick Jagger) whereby he is asked to perform a small task for his benefactor. On the grounds of the estate, our leading man and lady meet up with a hermit artist (Donald Sutherland) whose paintings seem to mysteriously keep disappearing from world view. There are the requisite banter and sexual tension and even a terrific back and forth on the value of art and its meaning but there is much that is far too obvious. The red herrings are everywhere in the story but the problem is that they aren't very well hidden.

While the acting is capable and the story has promise, this film frustrated the hell out of me because I wanted to scream at the screen whenever I noticed a flaw in the storytelling. It isn't that The Burnt Orange Heresy is a bad film, it just should have been so much better. As we walked home from the theatre, The Husband remarked that if we had seen it on Netflix or Amazon Prime, we probably would have enjoyed it more. Our expectations are often lower with home viewing and perhaps that is an inherent issue with how our viewing habits have been altered by streaming. I wouldn't tell people not to see this movie but I would probably wouldn't recommend it for a more expensive evening out either. Hitchcock, it ain't.

Dawn and The Husband's recommendation: Two Mehs.

Claes Bang and Director Giuseppe Capotondi

Powerful Women at TIFF: Harriet Tubman and Judy Garland

Editor's Note: For the third consecutive year, Dawn and The Husband will be spending chunks of the next fortnight attending the Toronto International Film Festival, known to the locals as TIFF. While they can now proudly call themselves seasoned veterans at this madness, they have still selected a modest, albeit an increased number of films, (7) because they are old and lining up for hours is tough on the joints; have no interest in midnight madness viewings; and that number is honestly far more films than anybody really needs to view in less than ten days. TIFF still serves as a tremendous distraction from the world's ills, the impending High Holidays, and asshole would-be dictators whose names rhyme with Dump and Thug. (If you are British, you can reasonably now add the asshole who rhymes with Doris to this list.) The next several posts will focus exclusively on TIFF and will offer very quick bullet point reviews for the movies seen. 

Two films for the price of one post today.

Women in Film has been a mantra around TIFF for the past couple of years. The organization has been actively pursuing and showing movies made by women filmmakers both at the festival itself and throughout the year at the TIFF Lightbox theatre. I have followed the program with some interest only to be massively disappointed when reviewers, press people, and award bestowers have, with acute regularity, ignored the dynamic work women in the industry have been creating. It isn't as though we planned to centre our TIFF going this year around dynamic women directors and artists but it certainly has turned out that way. The first four films that we screened were all directed by women and the two on which I will concentrate today feature incredibly powerful performances by the leading women. In fact, I suspect that both Harriet and Judy will long be remembered more for the work of Cynthia Erivo and Renee Zellweger rather than the artistry of the films themselves.

Harriet is an important film and one that I frankly cannot believe hasn't been made until now. When introducing the movie last evening for its world premiere, TIFF director Cameron Bailey stated that there have been more than thirty movies made about General George Custer and yet, this is the first major screen treatment about Harriet Tubman. It is a shonda that it has taken Hollywood so long to get around to recognizing the heroic, dauntless, and flat-out ballsiness of a true American hero. In the capable hands of director Kasi Lemmons, Harriet Tubman is returned to her rightful place of honour in the film history books. Cynthia Erivo (Widows, The Colour Purple: Broadway) is simply sublime in her star-turn as the runaway slave turned rescuer turned the leader of a rebellion. She embodies Harriet's tenacity, resourcefulness, faith, and toughness and imbues it all with tremendous grace. Director Lemmons makes a conscious choice to not show all the brutality that Harriet suffered during her slave years on the screen, but rather she has put together a film that is well-crafted and showcases the enormous talents of Ms. Erivo. (She even gets to show off her magnificent singing voice.) That said, the movie does fall flat at times and the transitions are often awkward. The supporting cast is fine, with a really nice turn by Janelle Monae as a business owner/friend, but it is the power of Cynthia Erivo that drives Harriet. There have been other movies about the American slave trade that have probably been more muscular and more difficult to digest in our modern context, (Twelve Years a Slave comes to mind) but that shouldn't negate what Lemmons and Erivo have attempted to do here. It is important that the people who worked to end the scrouge of slavery, like Harriet Tubman, are given their proper place in the annals of history.

I will admit to having mixed feelings about Judy. Let's just get the obvious facts out of the way right off the top. Renee Zellweger is simply spectacular as the late in life and totally fucked up icon. She inhabits her skin and it is, at times, really creepy. She is raw and weathered and vulnerable and a real mess. She is everything that Judy Garland was in those tragic six months before her death. Ms. Zellweger even manages to display some Judy-esque vocals that, while nowhere near the real thing, are passable for a drugged-out version of the brilliance. There is no question that Renee Zellweger will be at the top of everybody's awards' lists this winter.

But...

I am still trying to figure out why this movie needed to be made. As a huge Judy Garland fan, I was not in any way surprised by anything I saw on the screen. Judy Garland was a tragic woman with the voice of the century. She was used and abused by every single person with whom she ever came in contact with the exception of her children. She was set on a path of personal destruction by an overbearing mother and a closeted and unhappy father. She was misused and treated badly by the Hollywood studio system and when she could no longer function properly due to years of alcohol and drug use, she was cast aside by friends and family until she was broke and homeless. All of this is well documented and well understood. So...why did we have to see the final breakdown on film?

I was uncomfortable watching this film in a way that I was uncomfortable watching Mommy Dearest. I just don't understand why this side of her tragedy was necessary to display. Judy Garland was the greatest live performer of all time. Watching the unravelling made me feel like a voyeur. Zellweger shows the integrity in Judy's determination to perform and why she was so appealing and she successfully captures the volatility that was her personality but the movie is uneven and difficult.

So far, this year at TIFF has been the year of the woman for us.

Dawn and The Husband's give two happy Yups to Harriet and two marginal Yups to Judy. Both positive reviews based on the powerful performances of their lead women.

**A quick follow-up to my post about How to Build a Girl. I saw the incomparable Beanie Feldstein last season on Broadway in Hello, Dolly! when she played Minnie Fay. I completely forgot about it while writing that post. She was great then and great now. She will next be featured with her old friend Ben Platt in the theatrical version of Sondheim's Merrily We Roll Along.

TIFF-ing in a Neighbourhood In Order to Build a Girl

Editor's Note: For the third consecutive year, Dawn and The Husband will be spending chunks of the next fortnight attending the Toronto International Film Festival, known to the locals as TIFF. While they can now proudly call themselves seasoned veterans at this madness, they have still selected a modest, albeit an increased number of films, (7) because they are old and lining up for hours is tough on the joints; have no interest in midnight madness viewings; and that number is honestly far more films than anybody really needs to view in less than ten days. TIFF still serves as a tremendous distraction from the world's ills, the impending High Holidays, and asshole would-be dictators whose names rhyme with Dump and Thug. (If you are British, you can reasonably now add the asshole who rhymes with Doris to this list.) The next several posts will focus exclusively on TIFF and will offer very quick bullet point reviews for the movies seen. 

After a very busy weekend, we resumed our TIFF-ing on Sunday with two screenings. I'm not exactly certain what we were thinking when we decided that after serving Torah study breakfast, hosting a citizenship party at our home, and an unveiling on Sunday morning, that watching two movies in one day was a great scheduling choice but there we were struggling to keep our eyes open for A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood and How to Build a Girl.

We needn't have worried. Both films are exceptional and rather than fall victim to exhaustion, instead, we were exhilarated.  

I will admit to having concerns about Beautiful Day when we purchased the tickets. I have been a Mr. Rogers fan for decades and was so very moved by the documentary last year entitled Won't You Be My Neighbour that I am still stinging from its exclusion in Oscar consideration. If you haven't seen this beautiful film about Fred, it is a must-watch. The doc details the most intimate details of Rogers' life and his lifework with children. It is truly stunning that anybody could have been as fundamental a human being as Fred Rogers was, his approach to his own life and how it affected the world at large, is an ethos we should all be striving for. As much as I love to watch Tom Hanks create a character, I was concerned that Beautiful Day would reduce Mr. Rogers to a caricature in a mediocre biopic. I needn't have worried. 

Under the lovely and tender hand of director Marielle Heller (Can You Ever Forgive Me, The Diary of a Teenage Girl) Fred Rogers becomes the vehicle for her vision of wanting to give the world more of what Fred Rogers was rather than who he was. Based on the real-life friendship of Rogers and writer Tom Junod, Beautiful Day is less a movie about Fred Rogers' life and much more about how the values that he lived by are so lacking in the world. Tom Hanks is exceptional in the role but it is Matthew Rhys (The Americans) who really carries the film. His tortured writer is central to the film and he really carries the heavy lifting. The article that the film is based on is available here and I would really recommend that you read it after you have seen the film. It will help with your wonder and we all know that Mr. Rogers really did appreciate the wonder. At the Q and A following the screening, Heller was asked if she was concerned that the documentary would hurt the reception for the film but she replied that she views the two movies as sister projects and that they should be seen as a complete compilation of Mr. Rogers. She said, "It can't be a bad thing to have more Mr. Rogers in the world." As Fred himself said, "If it is mentionable, it is manageable." 

A quick aside. The music is phenomenal in this film, both the melodies that were written by Fred Rogers and the choices for the soundtrack. It was truly a character in the film.

Our second screening of How to Build a Girl was less about the film itself and more about the absolute star-making turn by its lead Beanie Feldstein. (Lady Bird) The film really did remind me of a 21st-century version of Clueless. It is a smart, funny, sometimes pathetic, but often brutal portrait of teenage girl self-discovery. Feldstein is a revelation as Johanna and she eats up every single hectare of screen real estate. She is fearless and takes on the role with a verve rarely seen today in film. It was simply a joy to watch her and she absolutely blows Alfie Allen (Game of Thrones) and all of her other costars off the screen. Ms. Feldstein is a star, an unconventional one to be certain, but a real actor's actor. Her career trajectory is about to explode. Expect to see her everywhere in the next year. The movie is slightly predictable and falls apart a bit in the third act but it is really well done and it is very easy to overlook its flaws and tired tropes. 

Both A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood and How to Build a Girl will be much buzzed during award season but it really doesn't matter at all. See them both. You will be happy you did. 

Dawn and The Husband give both films two enthusiastic YUPS!

**Note: People have asked why I haven't given more detail in these reviews. I hate when I read reviews that give away the movie. I loathe trailers that show you all the best bits. I hope that you will see the films as much as I did and go in with your eyes and your hearts open. Just because I may not like a movie, doesn't mean you won't. Film enjoyment is subjective. I'm giving you the essence, not the plots.

Director Marielle Heller and the writers of Beautiful Neighbourhood

Military Wives Sings

Editor's Note: For the third consecutive year, Dawn and The Husband will be spending chunks of the next fortnight attending the Toronto International Film Festival, known to the locals as TIFF. While they can now proudly call themselves seasoned veterans at this madness, they have still selected a modest, albeit an increased number of films, (7) because they are old and lining up for hours is tough on the joints; have no interest in midnight madness viewings; and that number is honestly far more films than anybody really needs to view in less than ten days. TIFF still serves as a tremendous distraction from the world's ills, the impending High Holidays, and asshole would-be dictators whose names rhyme with Dump and Thug. (If you are British, you can reasonably now add the asshole who rhymes with Doris to this list.) The next several posts will focus exclusively on TIFF and will offer very quick bullet point reviews for the movies seen. 

I have at least three hard and fast rules that must be followed when choosing a film. 

1. Never ever attend a slasher/horror/zombie film. I simply like sleeping at night and trust me when I say, this particular genre is lousy on the REM cycles. As well, women tend to fare poorly during these movies.

2. Always attend any film that involves music or a choir. Choir geeks understand the emotional attachment to singing with friends, so movies about choirs usually involve tight relationships, emotional weepiness, and bonding. The Pitch Perfect trilogy, Sister Act (1 and 2), Joyful Noise, it really doesn't matter how bad the flick is, I will love and revere each moment.

3. I will pay hard cash money for a seat at any film starring Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep, Annette Bening, or Kristin Scott Thomas.

Today's TIFF installment followed all three of Dawn's Movie Rules. 

Military Wives is a lovely, winsome, often poignant and sometimes bitingly funny movie based on the real-life stories of the Military Wives choirs that have swept across the United Kingdom. It is a movie that has few surprises and the plot at times was predictable and could be a bit pedantic but I loved every single minute of it. Directed by Peter Cattaneo (The Full Monty) and starring the luminous and aforementioned Kristin Scott Thomas along with the very funny and entertaining Sharon Horgan (Catastrophe), Military Wives had me laughing, crying, singing, and reminiscing about how much camaraderie exists between people who sing together. The women left behind while their spouses have deployed to Afghanistan are desperate for some thread of normalcy to keep their emotional heads above water. The formation of their choir offers them a welcome distraction from the economic difficulties faced by military families as well as from the hardships of single parenthood. 

There are the requisite tears and a few awkwardly funny moments but it is the music and the fact that it isn't always flawless that had me glued to the screen. Singing doesn't need to be perfect. It simply needs to be. Sometimes a movie doesn't need to have an agenda nor does it need to be thought-provoking. It simply needs to entertain.

A final word about the magnificent Sharon Horgan. If you haven't taken the time to watch the Amazon Prime series Catastrophe you are missing out on one of the great comedic performances of the past several years. Military Wives could and should be her theatrical coming out party. She was in town and on stage answering questions after the screening. She is simply delightful and is The Husband's latest celebrity crush. 

Military Wives doesn't have a release date until March but it is getting two enthusiastic YUPS from both The Husband and me. 

Peter Cattaneo, Sharon Horgan, Jason Flemyng