When thinking about Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany one needs to explore the different historical, cultural, political and economic circumstances that led to a totalitarian regime. There was something unique about these two places that allowed for the complete subjugation of a people by an elite few. What were those circumstances? Look at Germany in particular: unlike Stalin, Hitler did not overthrow the current government and seize power, he was elected. Why? There is a theory that people will vote for extremist parties in times of economic turmoil and political chaos. When the current system has failed people look for more far-reaching solutions. Look at the United States, for instance. People are feeling relatively insecure and for the past four years we have had to listen to the preachings of Tea Party and other very conservative members of government. I do not argue that America will become another Nazi Germany, it is simply a small example.
How this relates to "The Hunger Games" is the parallels with the creation of these states and the the formation of the Capitol, a monolithic city of decadence and odious gildedness. It is a world of neon, pastel, chrome and wires, where makeup-ed elites walk with flowery pomp eating chocolate-covered strawberries. Their worries are of their entertainment and their depravity knows no ends. Outside of the Capitol are twelve districts set up during military rule following an uprising of the masses. The people there live in utter squalor, hunting and bartering like medieval peasants. Bread is an unfathomable luxury. The haves and the have-nots are split and kept in their respective places. Thus it has been for 78 years.
In District 12 we meet Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a young teenager who looks after her little sister and her unhelpful mother. Living in the woods she has become an expert outdoorsman and a good hunter with a bow. Those who have seen her Lawrence's outstanding, breakthrough performance in "Winter's Bone" will undoubtedly see similarities between Ree and Katniss. This character is a tough girl built for survival, whose beauty is matched only by her stoic persistence.
Every year the Capitol holds the Hunger Games, a barbaric game of survival in which 24 children from age 12-18 are selected at random from their districts to fight to the death for honor, glory, riches (their life!) and, most importantly to the Capitol, to serve as a reminder that there is pride in being a member of this society, that this land is ruled by the king in the Capitol, and revolution will not be tolerated. The Hunger Games is a celebrated week-long spectacle for the upper-crust who pick their favorites, providing money and supplies to those they like. The masses watch with baited breath as children from their communities slaughter or are slaughtered. Perhaps you might see a parallel between this and "Battle Royale".
When Katniss' little sister is chosen in her very first time at the Reaping Katniss volunteers herself to take her place in the games. Throughout her four days of training and being paraded around in sparkling dresses and high-heels she develops a following, along with the boy selected from her district, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). Guided by the help a past winner, an alcoholic named Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), Katniss soon becomes a favorite of the competition.
After that comes the predictable bloodbath. Alliances are made and broken as civilization breaks down in the face of fight-or-flight. We watch young boys and girls hack into each other with knives, swords or simply their bare hands. In a simulated terrain computer-generated obstacles create further peril as these kids fight for their lives. They not only have to worry about each other, but the elements as well.
This is a very sleek and fully-realized vision of a dystopia. I have not read the books, but judging from the positive reaction of fans this will please both those fond of the books as well as people like myself who go in cold. The special effects are fantastic, the action sequences are thrilling, and the story is compelling.
Although it is a bit too long, some of the camera work was unnecessarily sloppy and the love scenes are poorly written, the acting keeps the viewers completely involved. Lawrence is an outstanding young actress, compounded by the fact that she is untrained. Like Ree and Katniss she lives by instinct and definitely pays off. Harrelson too is absolutely wonderful as Haymitch, a boozer with a tough exterior, but someone who really cares for these kids. His alcohol comes from this hatred of the sport and he uses that very complex set of emotions to fine effect.
This film leaves a lot to be desired just in the nature of the world they live in. I found myself wishing I did not have to watch the Hunger Games, but rather simply stay in the Capitol and learn how it functions, how it got the way it is and who these people running it are. How does their entire society interrelate? As I said, although I have not read the books I have a hunch that these questions will be answered more fully and satisfactorily, and because of this I wait in anticipation for the sequels.
3/4
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Great Dictator (1940)
What could possibly be said about Charlie Chaplin's comedy that has not already been before? The way he finds and exploits the oddities of everyday life for his and our amusement is unparalleled. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to watch him without smiling.
Like "The Kid" and "City Lights," though, Chaplin has used this great talent for laughter to envelope deeper and more biting truths in this, his first all talking film. This is one of the greatest political satires this side of "Dr. Strangelove," attacking the influence of Hitler and the susceptibility of the German people in interwar years. He plays dual roles as Chancellor Hynkel, a ridiculous send-up of the clownish nature of Hitler, and a Jewish barber, Hynkel's doppelganger, who by accident is mistaken for the leader.
Hynkel is the Dictator of Tomania, a prancing, short, angry little man who wishes to become Emperor of the World. He is influenced by a team of ridiculous politicians: his Minister of Propaganda, Garbitsch (Goebbels) and his Minister of the Interior, Herring (Himmler) who try to please Hynkel and keep control of the nation as they begin their attacks on the Jews. I almost cried from laughter when hearing Chaplin parody Hitler's speeches using brilliant mock-German (constantly spitting, coughing, and throwing in words like sauerkraut and cheese-and-crackers). Obvious homage is paid to Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" in Hynkel's big speech at the beginning where microphones bend at the power of his voice while the double cross (the swastika) looms up behind him.
Mocking Mussolini is Jack Oakie as Napaloni, the Dictator of Bacteria, as more of a loud, New York Italian doing a terrible accent with great pomp and rude manners. The two play off each other amazingly, always trying to one-up each other which finally escalates to a food-fight at the end.
*A note about this: It is reported that at the end of "Dr. Strangelove" there was to be a massive pie-fight instead of the final ending of nuclear holocaust. I have no doubt that Stanley Kubrick saw this movie and had it in the back of his mind when writing his film.
Not all of his portrayal of Hynkel was comic though--an least not entirely. There is one scene which I found to be strangely beautiful and haunting where he, alone in his grand chambers, picks up an inflatable globe and plays with it, bouncing it in the air and dancing on his desk with it. It resonated particularly strongly with me because of his grace and magnificent score behind it. Its metaphorical meaning is clear and unnerving.
Now on to his second role which is that of his Little Tramp as the Jewish barber. Like most of his films, the Tramp is able to find love through his bumbling mishaps. After suffering from amnesia following an airplane crash during the Great War, he returns to his shop to find it covered in dust and now neighbor to a lovely young housekeeper. While the stormtroopers close in around the ghetto the two fall in love and are saved by a member of Hynkel's inner circle, Schultz, whom the Barber had saved during the war.
As things become too violent, however, and as Schultz falls from Hynkel's grace the three must go on the run to save themselves. In an odd turn of events the Barber is mistaken for Hynkel and Hynkel for the Barber; their roles are humorously reversed. This leads to the Barber having to deliver a speech in front of the entire army. Whilst understandable petrified, Chaplin saw this as an opportunity to send to the world of movie-goers one of the most politically aware monologues that I have ever seen. Casting aside all humor, Chaplin reveals his true strength as an actor where he condemns the tyranny of false idols and calls for peace and love. It is electric and incredibly moving.
This is a very, very brave film to have made right at the onset of the Second World War, but he was rewarded with numerous accolades, and it is now considered one of the greatest English films ever made. His awareness of what was happening in Europe at a time when many others where inclined to ignore it out of fear of personal safety resonates very strongly in his work. He seemed unusually knowledgeable of the inner-workings of the party and who Hitler was which, from the readings I have done about the party, seemed scarily accurate.
I read one critic's review of this film who said that dictators simply aren't funny, and because of that he could not praise the film. I have no doubt that he was impressed by the acting, writing, antics, and political awareness of the movie, but he disliked the content. I wonder if he dislikes "Dr. Strangelove" as well? Sometimes topics become too serious to be played seriously. Had nuclear holocaust been played with gravity in Kubrick's film I think it would have been too terrifying for its audiences. I feel the same applies here, and I applaud Chaplin for having the courage to say "This is the situation. Open your eyes and do not be slaves." And the fact that it makes us laugh can't hurt either, I don't think.
3.5/4
Like "The Kid" and "City Lights," though, Chaplin has used this great talent for laughter to envelope deeper and more biting truths in this, his first all talking film. This is one of the greatest political satires this side of "Dr. Strangelove," attacking the influence of Hitler and the susceptibility of the German people in interwar years. He plays dual roles as Chancellor Hynkel, a ridiculous send-up of the clownish nature of Hitler, and a Jewish barber, Hynkel's doppelganger, who by accident is mistaken for the leader.
Hynkel is the Dictator of Tomania, a prancing, short, angry little man who wishes to become Emperor of the World. He is influenced by a team of ridiculous politicians: his Minister of Propaganda, Garbitsch (Goebbels) and his Minister of the Interior, Herring (Himmler) who try to please Hynkel and keep control of the nation as they begin their attacks on the Jews. I almost cried from laughter when hearing Chaplin parody Hitler's speeches using brilliant mock-German (constantly spitting, coughing, and throwing in words like sauerkraut and cheese-and-crackers). Obvious homage is paid to Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" in Hynkel's big speech at the beginning where microphones bend at the power of his voice while the double cross (the swastika) looms up behind him.
Mocking Mussolini is Jack Oakie as Napaloni, the Dictator of Bacteria, as more of a loud, New York Italian doing a terrible accent with great pomp and rude manners. The two play off each other amazingly, always trying to one-up each other which finally escalates to a food-fight at the end.
*A note about this: It is reported that at the end of "Dr. Strangelove" there was to be a massive pie-fight instead of the final ending of nuclear holocaust. I have no doubt that Stanley Kubrick saw this movie and had it in the back of his mind when writing his film.
Not all of his portrayal of Hynkel was comic though--an least not entirely. There is one scene which I found to be strangely beautiful and haunting where he, alone in his grand chambers, picks up an inflatable globe and plays with it, bouncing it in the air and dancing on his desk with it. It resonated particularly strongly with me because of his grace and magnificent score behind it. Its metaphorical meaning is clear and unnerving.
Now on to his second role which is that of his Little Tramp as the Jewish barber. Like most of his films, the Tramp is able to find love through his bumbling mishaps. After suffering from amnesia following an airplane crash during the Great War, he returns to his shop to find it covered in dust and now neighbor to a lovely young housekeeper. While the stormtroopers close in around the ghetto the two fall in love and are saved by a member of Hynkel's inner circle, Schultz, whom the Barber had saved during the war.
As things become too violent, however, and as Schultz falls from Hynkel's grace the three must go on the run to save themselves. In an odd turn of events the Barber is mistaken for Hynkel and Hynkel for the Barber; their roles are humorously reversed. This leads to the Barber having to deliver a speech in front of the entire army. Whilst understandable petrified, Chaplin saw this as an opportunity to send to the world of movie-goers one of the most politically aware monologues that I have ever seen. Casting aside all humor, Chaplin reveals his true strength as an actor where he condemns the tyranny of false idols and calls for peace and love. It is electric and incredibly moving.
This is a very, very brave film to have made right at the onset of the Second World War, but he was rewarded with numerous accolades, and it is now considered one of the greatest English films ever made. His awareness of what was happening in Europe at a time when many others where inclined to ignore it out of fear of personal safety resonates very strongly in his work. He seemed unusually knowledgeable of the inner-workings of the party and who Hitler was which, from the readings I have done about the party, seemed scarily accurate.
I read one critic's review of this film who said that dictators simply aren't funny, and because of that he could not praise the film. I have no doubt that he was impressed by the acting, writing, antics, and political awareness of the movie, but he disliked the content. I wonder if he dislikes "Dr. Strangelove" as well? Sometimes topics become too serious to be played seriously. Had nuclear holocaust been played with gravity in Kubrick's film I think it would have been too terrifying for its audiences. I feel the same applies here, and I applaud Chaplin for having the courage to say "This is the situation. Open your eyes and do not be slaves." And the fact that it makes us laugh can't hurt either, I don't think.
3.5/4
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Lion in Winter (1968)
It is 1183 AD. King Henry II is growing old. His three sons all vie for throne, but a conflict of interests makes his successor uncertain. This Christmas Eve his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine is released from her castle/prison for the holiday, but a family battle years in the making will threaten to tear the family apart.
There are many such family dispute films--look at the work of Tennessee Williams or "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"--but very few are as incredibly good as this one is. My notes for this film became progressively more illegible as the film went on an I became sucked into the frantic and venomous nature of the piece. Because of my writing turned into nonsensical scribbling the rest of this will be written from memory and emotion.
Peter O'Toole plays Henry opposite Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor. Such electric acting would be hard to find elsewhere. There relationship is one of swords and daggers of the tongue; there is little love to be found, similar to "Virginia Woolf" and yet they do love each other. But jealousy, resentment and an almost masochistic love of feeling the wounds inflicted by each other drowns any visible affection in cruelty and cunning manipulation.
They have three sons: the eldest, Richard (Anthony Hopkins in his first film role), is Eleanor's pick and the model of masculinity--save for one flaw which I won't mention, but let's say that it is rather medieval. Henry's pick is the youngest, John (Nigel Terry), a sniveling, pimply, sixteen year old who apparently smells like compost. And then there is the middle child, Geoffrey (John Castle), a cold, calculating young man with no love but for harnessing power.
As the evening wears on these three become pawns for the great minds of Henry and Eleanor who are so learned in the science of verbal destruction. The boys do their best to influence the politics of the family in their favor, either using each other as weapons or others like Phillip II of France (Timothy Dalton), but in the end the skill of their parents is more than enough a match for them.
This is more than a typical costume drama particularly focusing on the ways in which it tackles certain sexual elements of the material as well as the sheer amount of acting talent blistering its way across the screen. James Goldman adapted his play for the screen with enough force to leave me breathless. The nature of the work would tend to have it lean towards drama which it did, but the power of the characters and the ugly way which they interact with one another would make it almost too draining to watch. Goldman, then, has done a magnificent job in providing just enough comedy (and extremely good comedy at that) to break what would otherwise be relentless tension and attack. My favorite line in the film has Eleanor placing a gold chain next to her breasts. She says, "I'd hang you from the nipples, but you'd shock the children."
The way this film's tremendous cast tackles this incredible script is nothing short of exemplary. Particularly Hepburn, who tied Barbara Streisand for her third Oscar, turns a tremendous role as a queen with no power, locked away by her husband, and who has no other pleasure in life than to see that Henry doesn't get what he wants. The way she navigates through the huge emotional shifts of her character is stunning and is, in my opinion, her best work.
Her skill is met with nearly equal ferocity by O'Toole, whose Henry II is both violently masculine as well as damaged and frightened. Hopkins must be given special praise for having a particularly crucial and unusual role to play, and the fact that he was playing opposite the greatest actress of all time as a complete newcomer to film is worth recognition. The rest of the cast is more than ably performed, but they are drowned in the presence of Hepburn and O'Toole.
For a family drama this is directed with incredible skill keeping the audience centered on the large amount of dialogue and grand yet nuanced performances. This film should not be missed by anyone who has a genuine love of film and the artistry of performance. The expert way in which this dense play is realized makes it a great love of mine.
4/4
There are many such family dispute films--look at the work of Tennessee Williams or "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"--but very few are as incredibly good as this one is. My notes for this film became progressively more illegible as the film went on an I became sucked into the frantic and venomous nature of the piece. Because of my writing turned into nonsensical scribbling the rest of this will be written from memory and emotion.
Peter O'Toole plays Henry opposite Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor. Such electric acting would be hard to find elsewhere. There relationship is one of swords and daggers of the tongue; there is little love to be found, similar to "Virginia Woolf" and yet they do love each other. But jealousy, resentment and an almost masochistic love of feeling the wounds inflicted by each other drowns any visible affection in cruelty and cunning manipulation.
They have three sons: the eldest, Richard (Anthony Hopkins in his first film role), is Eleanor's pick and the model of masculinity--save for one flaw which I won't mention, but let's say that it is rather medieval. Henry's pick is the youngest, John (Nigel Terry), a sniveling, pimply, sixteen year old who apparently smells like compost. And then there is the middle child, Geoffrey (John Castle), a cold, calculating young man with no love but for harnessing power.
As the evening wears on these three become pawns for the great minds of Henry and Eleanor who are so learned in the science of verbal destruction. The boys do their best to influence the politics of the family in their favor, either using each other as weapons or others like Phillip II of France (Timothy Dalton), but in the end the skill of their parents is more than enough a match for them.
This is more than a typical costume drama particularly focusing on the ways in which it tackles certain sexual elements of the material as well as the sheer amount of acting talent blistering its way across the screen. James Goldman adapted his play for the screen with enough force to leave me breathless. The nature of the work would tend to have it lean towards drama which it did, but the power of the characters and the ugly way which they interact with one another would make it almost too draining to watch. Goldman, then, has done a magnificent job in providing just enough comedy (and extremely good comedy at that) to break what would otherwise be relentless tension and attack. My favorite line in the film has Eleanor placing a gold chain next to her breasts. She says, "I'd hang you from the nipples, but you'd shock the children."
The way this film's tremendous cast tackles this incredible script is nothing short of exemplary. Particularly Hepburn, who tied Barbara Streisand for her third Oscar, turns a tremendous role as a queen with no power, locked away by her husband, and who has no other pleasure in life than to see that Henry doesn't get what he wants. The way she navigates through the huge emotional shifts of her character is stunning and is, in my opinion, her best work.
Her skill is met with nearly equal ferocity by O'Toole, whose Henry II is both violently masculine as well as damaged and frightened. Hopkins must be given special praise for having a particularly crucial and unusual role to play, and the fact that he was playing opposite the greatest actress of all time as a complete newcomer to film is worth recognition. The rest of the cast is more than ably performed, but they are drowned in the presence of Hepburn and O'Toole.
For a family drama this is directed with incredible skill keeping the audience centered on the large amount of dialogue and grand yet nuanced performances. This film should not be missed by anyone who has a genuine love of film and the artistry of performance. The expert way in which this dense play is realized makes it a great love of mine.
4/4
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Metropolis (1927)
"The mediator between Head and Hands must be the Heart!"
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" is one of my all-time favorite films and is one of the most inventive, thrilling and interesting movies of the silent era--or any era for that matter. On its original release it had been severely cut to a mere 63 minutes, but as any recent version will tell you before the start a nearly complete copy of the original cut was found in Buenos Aires in 2008 from which an almost complete restoration was constructed. There are still two missing scenes and some of the footage is in poor quality, but the running time now is 144 minutes creating a grand, sweeping narrative and one of the most unusual sci-fi films made.
The story is somewhat complex and difficult to explain. Metropolis is a huge, advanced city of the future where wealthy elites play, prosper, think and generally live a life of leisure and decadence. Their city is a shining beacon of knowledge and futuristic exploration where learning and sexual frivolity consume the time of its inhabitants. But beneath this technological wonderland are great machines which keep it alive. There, thousands of workers toil in misery, mechanized in movement like these great generators, working long hours doing difficult work to keep the machines functioning.
Freder, son of the leader of Metropolis and a member of the bourgeoisie, falls in love with the lovely Maria who is a schoolteacher of children of the underground city and a part-time prophet. Chasing her down into the depths he is disillusioned by the world he finds and decides to give up his life to help in their struggle. In one of her sermons in the catacombs Maria predicts that a mediator must come to break down the walls of the workers and the elites--the Mediator is Freder.
At the same time the Inventor has been working on creating an automaton--a "New Man"--in the likeness of his dead lover who was also the wife of the head of the Metropolis, Joh Frederson, and the mother of Freder. He sees Maria who bears striking resemblance to his lover, Hel, and kidnaps her to steal her image for the robot. Seeing Freder's love for her, jealousy and anger at Joh drive him to create something destructive and evil. He decides to use this machine to destroy Joh's precious Metropolis.
What he creates is a monster in the guise of a beautiful woman. Using her Dance of Death, her hips and eyes drive the wealthy man's sexual appetites to an extreme. She unleashed the Seven Deadly Sins unto the world and watches as the beautiful city above tears itself apart. Down below she incites revolution until all of Metropolis is chaos. It is then up to Freder, his friend Josaphat and Maria to bring order to a world that seems ready to shatter.
If that seems confusing it's because it is. The film certainly needs its near two and half hour running time to properly tell its story and I am not at all sure how it had managed to be told in an hour. Despite its length, though, this film is brisk, exhilarating and always engaging. The massive sets, startling imagery, powerful music and dramatic themes all culminate into a timeless piece of artistic achievement.
When first watching this it seems that it is a Marxist-sympathizing film. To be sure, the class struggle is evident and we do hope for a better life for the workers. Freder is our hero and he renounces his bourgeois lifestyle to help those who can't help themselves. The Capitalists above are stern-faced and unflinching, living in a gilded world which sits precariously atop the sweat of the masses. Time and again there is a theme of barbarism is this world of luxury: the Heart-Machine in the city below at one point becomes the gaping mouth of an Aztec god who swallows the workers of the factory, the catacombs have expressionistic crosses and hovels with are entirely out of place with the rest of the sets, the use of drums, the Dance of Death being performed atop the backs of half-naked black men, the final scene in which the robot is burned at the stake--all of these examples reveal Lang's mistrust of human nature and the facade of advancement.
It becomes clear later that this is not pro-Marxist, but is rather a centrist film. Others may disagree with me on this point, but notice the way Lang explores this "New Man," as well as the way he focuses on the mob at the end of the film. To the first point, this robot was to be the way of the future, a Nietzsche superman if you like. Instead it does nothing but bring destruction wherever it goes and that is its purpose. To the latter, the masses are a mindless being who are lead by a false prophet. They do not question what they are told and had it not been for the work of Maria and Freder the youth of the workers would have perished.
Instead Lang makes the Mediator the hero of the story. Freder is someone from both worlds who was prophesied to bring peace to the two extremes, which of course he does. Lang is mesmerized by technology, and so too is the audience who watches it, but he recognizes that humans are stagnant in their primitive ways of being. For him, technology has developed past the scope of human nature. His distopian world world is frightening, awe-inspiring, and fully realized. It is a work of the utmost beauty and a major influence on the entire medium of film.
4/4
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" is one of my all-time favorite films and is one of the most inventive, thrilling and interesting movies of the silent era--or any era for that matter. On its original release it had been severely cut to a mere 63 minutes, but as any recent version will tell you before the start a nearly complete copy of the original cut was found in Buenos Aires in 2008 from which an almost complete restoration was constructed. There are still two missing scenes and some of the footage is in poor quality, but the running time now is 144 minutes creating a grand, sweeping narrative and one of the most unusual sci-fi films made.
The story is somewhat complex and difficult to explain. Metropolis is a huge, advanced city of the future where wealthy elites play, prosper, think and generally live a life of leisure and decadence. Their city is a shining beacon of knowledge and futuristic exploration where learning and sexual frivolity consume the time of its inhabitants. But beneath this technological wonderland are great machines which keep it alive. There, thousands of workers toil in misery, mechanized in movement like these great generators, working long hours doing difficult work to keep the machines functioning.
Freder, son of the leader of Metropolis and a member of the bourgeoisie, falls in love with the lovely Maria who is a schoolteacher of children of the underground city and a part-time prophet. Chasing her down into the depths he is disillusioned by the world he finds and decides to give up his life to help in their struggle. In one of her sermons in the catacombs Maria predicts that a mediator must come to break down the walls of the workers and the elites--the Mediator is Freder.
At the same time the Inventor has been working on creating an automaton--a "New Man"--in the likeness of his dead lover who was also the wife of the head of the Metropolis, Joh Frederson, and the mother of Freder. He sees Maria who bears striking resemblance to his lover, Hel, and kidnaps her to steal her image for the robot. Seeing Freder's love for her, jealousy and anger at Joh drive him to create something destructive and evil. He decides to use this machine to destroy Joh's precious Metropolis.
What he creates is a monster in the guise of a beautiful woman. Using her Dance of Death, her hips and eyes drive the wealthy man's sexual appetites to an extreme. She unleashed the Seven Deadly Sins unto the world and watches as the beautiful city above tears itself apart. Down below she incites revolution until all of Metropolis is chaos. It is then up to Freder, his friend Josaphat and Maria to bring order to a world that seems ready to shatter.
If that seems confusing it's because it is. The film certainly needs its near two and half hour running time to properly tell its story and I am not at all sure how it had managed to be told in an hour. Despite its length, though, this film is brisk, exhilarating and always engaging. The massive sets, startling imagery, powerful music and dramatic themes all culminate into a timeless piece of artistic achievement.
When first watching this it seems that it is a Marxist-sympathizing film. To be sure, the class struggle is evident and we do hope for a better life for the workers. Freder is our hero and he renounces his bourgeois lifestyle to help those who can't help themselves. The Capitalists above are stern-faced and unflinching, living in a gilded world which sits precariously atop the sweat of the masses. Time and again there is a theme of barbarism is this world of luxury: the Heart-Machine in the city below at one point becomes the gaping mouth of an Aztec god who swallows the workers of the factory, the catacombs have expressionistic crosses and hovels with are entirely out of place with the rest of the sets, the use of drums, the Dance of Death being performed atop the backs of half-naked black men, the final scene in which the robot is burned at the stake--all of these examples reveal Lang's mistrust of human nature and the facade of advancement.
It becomes clear later that this is not pro-Marxist, but is rather a centrist film. Others may disagree with me on this point, but notice the way Lang explores this "New Man," as well as the way he focuses on the mob at the end of the film. To the first point, this robot was to be the way of the future, a Nietzsche superman if you like. Instead it does nothing but bring destruction wherever it goes and that is its purpose. To the latter, the masses are a mindless being who are lead by a false prophet. They do not question what they are told and had it not been for the work of Maria and Freder the youth of the workers would have perished.
Instead Lang makes the Mediator the hero of the story. Freder is someone from both worlds who was prophesied to bring peace to the two extremes, which of course he does. Lang is mesmerized by technology, and so too is the audience who watches it, but he recognizes that humans are stagnant in their primitive ways of being. For him, technology has developed past the scope of human nature. His distopian world world is frightening, awe-inspiring, and fully realized. It is a work of the utmost beauty and a major influence on the entire medium of film.
4/4
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
In Darkness (2011)
Many, many films and books have been written on topics concerning WWII. With some reflection on this I think it is because there has been nothing quite like it in the history of man. The destruction and death is something unprecedented in the world; the number of casualties and the atrocities committed are beyond the scope of imagination or human comprehension. As Joseph Stalin once reportedly said, "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic." It was simply too horrific, and yet we continue to try and find some way of making sense of a senseless era of travesty. It is endlessly fascinating and always we are learning of new stories of heroism or stories of the wonders of the human will for life.
"In Darkness" is a Polish film telling one of the most amazing and upsetting of these true stories about a group of Jews being protected in the sewers of Poland by a sewer inspector who had much to lose by keeping them hidden. For 14 months this group of twelve lived in darkness and human waste whilst the Germans and Hungarians killed or imprisoned Jews literally right above their heads. Their struggle was animal-like--it was inhuman, and yet their story lived on past the end of the war.
Leopold Socha was the man responsible for their rescue. A Pole, but not a Jew himself, this part-time thief comes across a group of men who have dug a hole into the sewers to create an emergency escape route in case of invasion. Seizing the opportunity to make a few easy zloty he agrees not to turn them in in exchange that they pay him an outrageous weekly sum to keep them and their family safe during occupation.
When the Germans arrive he keeps his word bringing dozens of men, women and children into a secluded enclave. When suspicions arise about the possibility of Jews under the streets of Lvov authorities turn to Socha for help, understanding he knows the sewers better than anyone else. Through endless cunning in some very tight spots he is able to smuggle a dozen of them into an even safer region, and there he keeps them for months on end.
Through hunger, disease, birth and death he hides them, which almost costs him his family and his life. At first it is his greed which drives him to do such things, but eventually he begins to see this as his mission for the war. An ongoing joke (if one could call it that) is that people in Poland have no idea that Jesus was a Jew. Eventually the money stops, but he carries on out of a sense of duty, or perhaps it is love. In any case it is baffling and life-affirming. There is ultimate good in Socha. One man helps Socha's friend into a concentration camp to find a young woman, and when he won't accept payment the man simply says, "God will reward me." I think this had a very pivotal impact on him.
The film is a true testament to the human spirit. One miserable event adds to another, but still these simple folk carry on determined to protect themselves and their family and friends. I left the cinema utterly depressed with my own issues in perspective, but simultaneously I had the strange feeling that they couldn't have been completely unhappy. They were there for so long, but the fact that they were strong with faith in their beliefs, each other, and most importantly Socha affirmed my deeply held beliefs that humans will find a way to carry on and make the most of the worst situations. People may say they would rather die, but perhaps the smallest pleasure in the worst conditions is still life enough.
This is a very well made film. Dialogue, acting, and cinematography were all superb. The claustrophobia and the horridness of the sewers was pervasive; it seemed to ooze right out of the screen. I would like to point out that in most every film I have seen about wartime Poland it is always shot in grays and tobaccos. Now I have never been to Poland, but I'm guessing this is something of a cliche. No matter though, it was shot beautifully and added to the desolate mood of the film. There was a distinct tinge of "Schindler's List" in both the filming as well as the content which no doubt influenced its development.
SPOILER: The memoirs of one of the little girls was the text used for the creation of the movie. I have no doubt that some of the material was affected by time, the girl's age, and the actual content of the events, but it is still otherworldly the amount of detail presented. I enjoyed this, through all of its abject misery, and it reaffirmed my love of history and what it can tell us about human psychology.
3/4
"In Darkness" is a Polish film telling one of the most amazing and upsetting of these true stories about a group of Jews being protected in the sewers of Poland by a sewer inspector who had much to lose by keeping them hidden. For 14 months this group of twelve lived in darkness and human waste whilst the Germans and Hungarians killed or imprisoned Jews literally right above their heads. Their struggle was animal-like--it was inhuman, and yet their story lived on past the end of the war.
Leopold Socha was the man responsible for their rescue. A Pole, but not a Jew himself, this part-time thief comes across a group of men who have dug a hole into the sewers to create an emergency escape route in case of invasion. Seizing the opportunity to make a few easy zloty he agrees not to turn them in in exchange that they pay him an outrageous weekly sum to keep them and their family safe during occupation.
When the Germans arrive he keeps his word bringing dozens of men, women and children into a secluded enclave. When suspicions arise about the possibility of Jews under the streets of Lvov authorities turn to Socha for help, understanding he knows the sewers better than anyone else. Through endless cunning in some very tight spots he is able to smuggle a dozen of them into an even safer region, and there he keeps them for months on end.
Through hunger, disease, birth and death he hides them, which almost costs him his family and his life. At first it is his greed which drives him to do such things, but eventually he begins to see this as his mission for the war. An ongoing joke (if one could call it that) is that people in Poland have no idea that Jesus was a Jew. Eventually the money stops, but he carries on out of a sense of duty, or perhaps it is love. In any case it is baffling and life-affirming. There is ultimate good in Socha. One man helps Socha's friend into a concentration camp to find a young woman, and when he won't accept payment the man simply says, "God will reward me." I think this had a very pivotal impact on him.
The film is a true testament to the human spirit. One miserable event adds to another, but still these simple folk carry on determined to protect themselves and their family and friends. I left the cinema utterly depressed with my own issues in perspective, but simultaneously I had the strange feeling that they couldn't have been completely unhappy. They were there for so long, but the fact that they were strong with faith in their beliefs, each other, and most importantly Socha affirmed my deeply held beliefs that humans will find a way to carry on and make the most of the worst situations. People may say they would rather die, but perhaps the smallest pleasure in the worst conditions is still life enough.
This is a very well made film. Dialogue, acting, and cinematography were all superb. The claustrophobia and the horridness of the sewers was pervasive; it seemed to ooze right out of the screen. I would like to point out that in most every film I have seen about wartime Poland it is always shot in grays and tobaccos. Now I have never been to Poland, but I'm guessing this is something of a cliche. No matter though, it was shot beautifully and added to the desolate mood of the film. There was a distinct tinge of "Schindler's List" in both the filming as well as the content which no doubt influenced its development.
SPOILER: The memoirs of one of the little girls was the text used for the creation of the movie. I have no doubt that some of the material was affected by time, the girl's age, and the actual content of the events, but it is still otherworldly the amount of detail presented. I enjoyed this, through all of its abject misery, and it reaffirmed my love of history and what it can tell us about human psychology.
3/4
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sita Sings the Blues (2008)
It would not be too much praise to say that this is quite possibly the coolest and conceptually interesting animated film I've seen since "Spirited Away". I have no idea how this film got the go-ahead to be made, but more importantly I have no idea where the inspiration for this lavish, off-beat, and very interesting movie came from. Despite many aspects that could have made this a disaster it works, and it works well.
An interestingly feminist hue is applied to the Indian epic, Ramayana. In this tale which I read years ago Rama, the immaculate man who was banished for fourteen years with his wife, Sita, due to the conniving wishes on one of Rama's father's wives, ascends to the throne and rules justly. His treatment of Sita is less than chivalrous, though. Captured by the many headed Ravana, Sita remains pure and true to Rama, but her love is not appreciated and Rama believes her to be tainted. She endures a fire test to prove her purity--and passes--but he still holds doubts. Rama's self-centeredness loses him his wife who, having born him sons and remained ever faithful finally returns to the womb of Mother Earth where she is immortalized.
It's no spoiler writing this as you could find it on Wikipedia or in Sanskrit as the story is thousands of years old. The point is not to leave you guessing, but rather it is to re-imagine this classic tale placing it in a 21st century context. Alongside the traditional story is one of a couple in San Francisco. Dave is sent off to India to work in IT leaving what seemed to be a happy relationship with Nina behind. When she joins him his love for her is gone, and when he tells her not to come back while she is on a trip to New York Nina is understandably heartbroken. But reading the Ramayana and seeing the power of Sita she is comforted and assured that she is in the right.
It's a simple tale of one woman's devotion to her husband going unappreciated, but the way in which it's told is anything but ordinary. It is more of Westernized telling of it to make it accessible to ignorant white audiences like myself. Three hilarious shadow puppets narrate and Sita moves the story along singing the bluesy music of Annette Hanshaw of the 1920's.
The animation seems to be inspired from a mixture of comic books, acid trips and cardboard cutouts. It makes 2D animation very 2D, but always challenges what the audience is expecting. The beginning of the second act (actually broken up by an intermission) is an amazing bit of Bollywood-themed dancing and cerebral images. It was stunning.
The running time is very short. There might not have been enough to the story to add, but more likely it was that the animation took too long to create. However, even at that brisk running time I felt there was a bit of filler in the story. Sita sings lots of songs. Lots. Also there was the intermission, and I'm not particularly sure that that secondary plot was necessary. I suppose giving the Ramayana context is good, but when all is said and done it seemed they were looking to stretch it out.
That said, the voice acting is great, the artwork is tremendous, and the story still seems fresh and compelling. I find it fascinating that whenever I watch a film about India I am always so much more interested in the culture. There is a romanticism, an exoticism, and an alien nature about it that I find irresistibly curious. All of those aspects were captured in this brief little movie and it was wonderful. Treasures like this film don't come around often enough--it was very inspiring.
3.5/4
An interestingly feminist hue is applied to the Indian epic, Ramayana. In this tale which I read years ago Rama, the immaculate man who was banished for fourteen years with his wife, Sita, due to the conniving wishes on one of Rama's father's wives, ascends to the throne and rules justly. His treatment of Sita is less than chivalrous, though. Captured by the many headed Ravana, Sita remains pure and true to Rama, but her love is not appreciated and Rama believes her to be tainted. She endures a fire test to prove her purity--and passes--but he still holds doubts. Rama's self-centeredness loses him his wife who, having born him sons and remained ever faithful finally returns to the womb of Mother Earth where she is immortalized.
It's no spoiler writing this as you could find it on Wikipedia or in Sanskrit as the story is thousands of years old. The point is not to leave you guessing, but rather it is to re-imagine this classic tale placing it in a 21st century context. Alongside the traditional story is one of a couple in San Francisco. Dave is sent off to India to work in IT leaving what seemed to be a happy relationship with Nina behind. When she joins him his love for her is gone, and when he tells her not to come back while she is on a trip to New York Nina is understandably heartbroken. But reading the Ramayana and seeing the power of Sita she is comforted and assured that she is in the right.
It's a simple tale of one woman's devotion to her husband going unappreciated, but the way in which it's told is anything but ordinary. It is more of Westernized telling of it to make it accessible to ignorant white audiences like myself. Three hilarious shadow puppets narrate and Sita moves the story along singing the bluesy music of Annette Hanshaw of the 1920's.
The running time is very short. There might not have been enough to the story to add, but more likely it was that the animation took too long to create. However, even at that brisk running time I felt there was a bit of filler in the story. Sita sings lots of songs. Lots. Also there was the intermission, and I'm not particularly sure that that secondary plot was necessary. I suppose giving the Ramayana context is good, but when all is said and done it seemed they were looking to stretch it out.
That said, the voice acting is great, the artwork is tremendous, and the story still seems fresh and compelling. I find it fascinating that whenever I watch a film about India I am always so much more interested in the culture. There is a romanticism, an exoticism, and an alien nature about it that I find irresistibly curious. All of those aspects were captured in this brief little movie and it was wonderful. Treasures like this film don't come around often enough--it was very inspiring.
3.5/4
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Beetlejuice (1988)
Following his success with "Pee Wee's Big Adventure," Tim Burton decided to flex his creative muscles and show the world what was really going on inside of that head of his. The result is this slapdash, confusing, sometimes funny but always fun ghost pic starring one insufferably annoying Michael Keaton.
Following and unfortunate accident on a bridge, recently deceased Adam and Barbara Maitland (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) find themselves dealing with new issues not commonly known about the afterlife. First, they can't leave their house due to the fact that they will be transported to Saturn where sandmonsters will try and eat them. Second, their mysteriously appearing handbook on being dead reads "like stereo instructions". Third and most important, a family of artsy New Yorker's have moved in and plan to renovate the house to make it a bit more trendy. Barbara and Adam, being newly dead, are not too skilled at haunting yet and can't seem to figure out how to get them out.
Jeffery Jones is Charles Deetz who brings his family out into the country following a nervous breakdown in New York. Catherine O'Hara is his wife, Delia, a would-be sculptor and artiste who is about as phony as a three dollar bill. And Winona Ryder in one of her first screen performances is Lydia, a young girl with a fondness for black lace, spiders, and Polaroid photos. Also in tow is Otho, a paranormal interior decorator who knows as much about the occult as he does about designer shoes. I don't get him--maybe you could explain him to me.
The Maitland's handbook says the living ignore the strange and unusual, but the unusualness of Lydia means she can see them and they form something of a surrogate family. When the rest of the family is finally convinced of the presence of ghosts (in a hilarious and iconic dinner-party scene involving the calypso and shrimp cocktails), instead of running away frightened they decide to invest in the situation and turn the house into a tourist attraction.
Out of ideas of how to scare these pests away, the Maitland's turn to the one source they've been warned to avoid at all costs: a bio-exorcist named Beetlejuice. Keaton plays the loud, boorish, slapsticky and completely vile character, whose 17 minutes on screen feel like an eternity. Trapped forever in a model of the town, he uses he particular skills of revulsion to get the living away from the dead.
This is a zippy, trippy and nonsensical film, but I've always liked it. The jumps through time are confusing and there are so many unanswered and conflicting questions about the rules of the afterlife. I don't need it to make sense per se as this is a story about ghosts, I just need these rules to be clear so I don't get distracted from the film puzzling over them. However, always a bit like Lydia and Burton myself, I find the dark humor and gothic atmosphere really exciting and interesting to look at. The makeup, sets and costumes are all brilliant which add together to create one little house of Burton.
Several of the performances are very good too. O'Hara is scene-stealing as the conniving, trendy, two-faced stepmother, and Davis is always hilarious in what she does. Ryder shows off some definite potential in this role as well. I suppose Glenn Shadix as Otho was funny, but his character made absolutely no sense at all which I found irritating.
All in all this is a showcase for Burton's eccentric mind and the work of some stellar makeup artists. I'm sure had I been alive and actively watching films when this came out I would be very interested in seeing what future work Burton would bring to the table. No other director has such a distinct style to his work and it is clear that it all began here.
3/4
Following and unfortunate accident on a bridge, recently deceased Adam and Barbara Maitland (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) find themselves dealing with new issues not commonly known about the afterlife. First, they can't leave their house due to the fact that they will be transported to Saturn where sandmonsters will try and eat them. Second, their mysteriously appearing handbook on being dead reads "like stereo instructions". Third and most important, a family of artsy New Yorker's have moved in and plan to renovate the house to make it a bit more trendy. Barbara and Adam, being newly dead, are not too skilled at haunting yet and can't seem to figure out how to get them out.
Jeffery Jones is Charles Deetz who brings his family out into the country following a nervous breakdown in New York. Catherine O'Hara is his wife, Delia, a would-be sculptor and artiste who is about as phony as a three dollar bill. And Winona Ryder in one of her first screen performances is Lydia, a young girl with a fondness for black lace, spiders, and Polaroid photos. Also in tow is Otho, a paranormal interior decorator who knows as much about the occult as he does about designer shoes. I don't get him--maybe you could explain him to me.
The Maitland's handbook says the living ignore the strange and unusual, but the unusualness of Lydia means she can see them and they form something of a surrogate family. When the rest of the family is finally convinced of the presence of ghosts (in a hilarious and iconic dinner-party scene involving the calypso and shrimp cocktails), instead of running away frightened they decide to invest in the situation and turn the house into a tourist attraction.
Out of ideas of how to scare these pests away, the Maitland's turn to the one source they've been warned to avoid at all costs: a bio-exorcist named Beetlejuice. Keaton plays the loud, boorish, slapsticky and completely vile character, whose 17 minutes on screen feel like an eternity. Trapped forever in a model of the town, he uses he particular skills of revulsion to get the living away from the dead.
This is a zippy, trippy and nonsensical film, but I've always liked it. The jumps through time are confusing and there are so many unanswered and conflicting questions about the rules of the afterlife. I don't need it to make sense per se as this is a story about ghosts, I just need these rules to be clear so I don't get distracted from the film puzzling over them. However, always a bit like Lydia and Burton myself, I find the dark humor and gothic atmosphere really exciting and interesting to look at. The makeup, sets and costumes are all brilliant which add together to create one little house of Burton.
Several of the performances are very good too. O'Hara is scene-stealing as the conniving, trendy, two-faced stepmother, and Davis is always hilarious in what she does. Ryder shows off some definite potential in this role as well. I suppose Glenn Shadix as Otho was funny, but his character made absolutely no sense at all which I found irritating.
All in all this is a showcase for Burton's eccentric mind and the work of some stellar makeup artists. I'm sure had I been alive and actively watching films when this came out I would be very interested in seeing what future work Burton would bring to the table. No other director has such a distinct style to his work and it is clear that it all began here.
3/4
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Detour (1945)
A conversation with a friend recently had us both come to the conclusion that you shouldn't hitchhike solo. Mum and dad always say don't talk to strangers, and I've always just assumed that anyone willing to give you a ride must have rope, duct tape and a shovel in the trunk--perhaps I watch too many horror films. But what if the danger was the hitchhiker--just as likely, no doubt--and what if that danger was unintentional? Al Roberts learns that sometimes Fate is the real danger on the road.
When his lovely bar-singer girlfriend goes to try her luck in Hollywood, Roberts (Tom Neal) goes off west to try and pick her up. A poor pianist at a club, he says he barely had enough money for food after selling his belongings let alone a ride, so he thumbs it out to California. In the deserts of Arizona he is picked up by Charles Haskell Jr. This fella seems too good to be true--he agrees to take him all the way to Hollywood and even pays for his dinner. But Charles unexpectedly dies under suspect circumstances, and in a wave of panic Roberts dumps the body, taking Charles' clothes, money, car and papers essentially becoming Mr. Haskell.
How unfortunate for him, then, when he decides to pick up a broad named Vera (Ann Savage) who happens to be one of the only people who could ever identify the real Haskell and knows Roberts had something to do with his death. A convict herself--and one tough cookie to boot--she ropes him into a couple of nights in Hollywood with her, threatening to expose him unless he agrees to help her squeeze as much money out of their situation as possible (and there is the possibility of a lot of it).
At just over an hour long, this film is brisk, taught, and has some really fine performances. Savage steals ever scene she's in as the motor-mouth, tough girl who is secretly in love with Roberts. Neal does a fine job playing a guy possibly always in the wrong place at the wrong time. I say possibly because what was so great about this film was the ambiguity of it all. The film is told in flashback with Roberts narrating. He makes the point repeatedly that his stories sound far-fetched, but they're true! When you watch the story unfold yes, Haskell could have died the way he says and true, the break in the partnership of Roberts and Vera might have happened the way it did, but they seem almost too convenient.
Roberts is a nice guy. We root for him and the loving way he talks to his girl. He seems softer than a lot of men in noir films--more sensitive--and therefore we should very much like to believe his stories. But then again maybe he's only nice because they are his memories and he can paint himself however he likes. He certainly doesn't make any effort to clear his name, and his actions in times of stress don't help his case. Of course it's impossible to determine his guilt or innocence, but that's the fun. I personally think he's a murderer, for this film is also making a large statement about poverty and the lengths people will go to for money.
Short, fun and intelligent. Has all of the gritty poetry of good noir picture.
3.5/4
When his lovely bar-singer girlfriend goes to try her luck in Hollywood, Roberts (Tom Neal) goes off west to try and pick her up. A poor pianist at a club, he says he barely had enough money for food after selling his belongings let alone a ride, so he thumbs it out to California. In the deserts of Arizona he is picked up by Charles Haskell Jr. This fella seems too good to be true--he agrees to take him all the way to Hollywood and even pays for his dinner. But Charles unexpectedly dies under suspect circumstances, and in a wave of panic Roberts dumps the body, taking Charles' clothes, money, car and papers essentially becoming Mr. Haskell.
How unfortunate for him, then, when he decides to pick up a broad named Vera (Ann Savage) who happens to be one of the only people who could ever identify the real Haskell and knows Roberts had something to do with his death. A convict herself--and one tough cookie to boot--she ropes him into a couple of nights in Hollywood with her, threatening to expose him unless he agrees to help her squeeze as much money out of their situation as possible (and there is the possibility of a lot of it).
At just over an hour long, this film is brisk, taught, and has some really fine performances. Savage steals ever scene she's in as the motor-mouth, tough girl who is secretly in love with Roberts. Neal does a fine job playing a guy possibly always in the wrong place at the wrong time. I say possibly because what was so great about this film was the ambiguity of it all. The film is told in flashback with Roberts narrating. He makes the point repeatedly that his stories sound far-fetched, but they're true! When you watch the story unfold yes, Haskell could have died the way he says and true, the break in the partnership of Roberts and Vera might have happened the way it did, but they seem almost too convenient.
Roberts is a nice guy. We root for him and the loving way he talks to his girl. He seems softer than a lot of men in noir films--more sensitive--and therefore we should very much like to believe his stories. But then again maybe he's only nice because they are his memories and he can paint himself however he likes. He certainly doesn't make any effort to clear his name, and his actions in times of stress don't help his case. Of course it's impossible to determine his guilt or innocence, but that's the fun. I personally think he's a murderer, for this film is also making a large statement about poverty and the lengths people will go to for money.
Short, fun and intelligent. Has all of the gritty poetry of good noir picture.
3.5/4
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
A Woman Destroyed (1947)
The title of this film is misleading. It's original title was "Smash-Up: The Story of a Woman," which I don't find any better as they both imply that this melodrama could unfold at any point for any woman. It is a small point, but this film is about the affects of stardom on a once loving family. It is a story of a singer with a promising career who sacrifices her future for her husband who, in turn, makes it big. This story can't be that of any woman because these characters are exceptional.
Susan Hayward is very strong as Angie who sees life through rose-colored glasses. Her aspirations of being a singer are set aside when she marries and has a baby girl. At the same time her husband, Ken (Lee Bowman), is signed on to sing cowboy songs on the radio in the morning. When he takes a chance to sing an original piece he is suddenly rocketed to stardom.
All is well until the family has enough money were they have butlers, nannies, a penthouse, and Angie is left with no responsibility, a feeling of inadequacy, and a fully stocked liquor cabinet. As Ken goes jet-setting around the country with a very pretty secretary Angie is left with nothing but her suspicions. The film takes a dark and twisted road in to the realms of alcoholism as we watch this once-been glamour girl spiral into depression at the sake of her family.
The middle of this film was very good, but it was trapped in between the sickly-sweet first act, and wildly melodramatic third one. The writing was sometimes corny, sometimes overly-sentimental, and sometimes ludicrous. The arc of the character Ken made no sense at all whatsoever. He begins as a loving, sweet man who wanted nothing more to provide for his family. But suddenly we are expected to believe that this man who came from nothing should come to the conclusion that the way to earn Angie's happiness was to buy her things? It never occurred to me that Ken should be that dense.
A further point was the way in which the screenplay tackled the idea of alcoholism. It seems to me that alcoholics would probably be ashamed of their drinking and do it more secretively than Angie did. However, she practically reveled in it; she was hardly ever seen without a drink in her hand, or making a reference to drinking, or describing how nice it was to drink. It didn't seem at all believable to me. If a person in real life were to behave in such a way there would be no possibility of them continuing on the same way for as long as Angie did. The lack of subtlety was irksome.
I am lukewarm to this film. I would never watch it again as it barely held my attention, but Hayward as a drunk was very convincing and there were some very beautiful moments of acting from the wider cast as well.
2/4
Susan Hayward is very strong as Angie who sees life through rose-colored glasses. Her aspirations of being a singer are set aside when she marries and has a baby girl. At the same time her husband, Ken (Lee Bowman), is signed on to sing cowboy songs on the radio in the morning. When he takes a chance to sing an original piece he is suddenly rocketed to stardom.
All is well until the family has enough money were they have butlers, nannies, a penthouse, and Angie is left with no responsibility, a feeling of inadequacy, and a fully stocked liquor cabinet. As Ken goes jet-setting around the country with a very pretty secretary Angie is left with nothing but her suspicions. The film takes a dark and twisted road in to the realms of alcoholism as we watch this once-been glamour girl spiral into depression at the sake of her family.
The middle of this film was very good, but it was trapped in between the sickly-sweet first act, and wildly melodramatic third one. The writing was sometimes corny, sometimes overly-sentimental, and sometimes ludicrous. The arc of the character Ken made no sense at all whatsoever. He begins as a loving, sweet man who wanted nothing more to provide for his family. But suddenly we are expected to believe that this man who came from nothing should come to the conclusion that the way to earn Angie's happiness was to buy her things? It never occurred to me that Ken should be that dense.
A further point was the way in which the screenplay tackled the idea of alcoholism. It seems to me that alcoholics would probably be ashamed of their drinking and do it more secretively than Angie did. However, she practically reveled in it; she was hardly ever seen without a drink in her hand, or making a reference to drinking, or describing how nice it was to drink. It didn't seem at all believable to me. If a person in real life were to behave in such a way there would be no possibility of them continuing on the same way for as long as Angie did. The lack of subtlety was irksome.
I am lukewarm to this film. I would never watch it again as it barely held my attention, but Hayward as a drunk was very convincing and there were some very beautiful moments of acting from the wider cast as well.
2/4
Monday, March 12, 2012
Scarlet Street (1945)
It's interesting that I watch this so soon after I last spoke with my father. In our conversation we were talking about James Cagney and how he essentially created, simply in his state of being, the face of typical P.I. film gangsters. His look, his voice and his physicality started a new trend. I did not know that he was starring in this film until I began watching, and interestingly he plays the exact opposite of such a character.
Cagney plays Chris Cross, a clerk who is despised by his wife, relatively unappreciated by his friends, and is a self-proclaimed loser. His one passion and hobby is painting, but all lack of encouragement keeps it something of a dirty secret.
By chance one night his prospects change when he saves a beautiful young woman from an assailant on the street. She is Kitty March, a glamorous Hollywood-type with ugly habits, but infinite charm. A friendly conversation turns into infatuation on Chris' part, and through a misunderstanding she comes under the belief that he is a famous artist.
Kitty has a boyfriend, though, who complicates matters for them all. He is Johnny, a thug and a liar whose slick tongue and good looks has Kitty under his spell. Johnny uses all his charms to employ Kitty's to squeeze every once of money from Chris, believing him to be world famous.
Tensions grow--albeit at a snail's pace--until finally the story ruptures at the seams. Fritz Lang directs, and I saw in this film many parallels to his masterpiece, "M", which is about a child-killer whose presence in the city causes a breakdown of society. Although Lang didn't like to admit the expressionist influences of his work they are undeniable. In this film it is more content based, rather than aesthetics, but it was still very clear to me.
It is a story of a faceless man with no spine who finally cracks after being pushed around for far too long. He simply longs for a place to fit into in the world and this beautiful woman with the false smile could be the answer. When he learns it's all sham, which of course we know he would--how could he not?--Lang makes a very interesting argument about his ideas of love and loyalty. Chris is a failure and remains so. He fails at everything in life up until the end of the film which was haunting and tragic.
I really loved the last third of this movie, but the first two acts were almost unendurable. Firstly, the lack of any sort of interesting conflict was taxing. There was far more buildup than there needed to be for very little outcome. The stakes were not raised until I had almost lost interest, and then the characters' dense attitudes towards these changes was entirely unbelievable. This last point was the fault of the writer.
Then there was the tremendous issues with casting. As I mentioned, Cagney was known for the character which he created and frankly he should have stuck to just that. There is simply too personality in the man to be bottled up in the hollow shell that is Chris. Then the caricature portrayals of Chris' wife as a screechy, soulless harpy, and Johnny as the tough guy, cool cat were irritating and boring simultaneously. Joan Bennett as Kitty almost saved this film. It's clear to me that she has talent and with a better script could have done some good work. For instance, there is a moment on a balcony when she is hobnobbing with an art critic and her poised demeanor and sultry voice wooed me instantly.
However, there is not enough in this film to recommend. Lang is a great director, but this film was too long, too boring, and it was too obvious that I was watching actors recite lines.
2/4
Cagney plays Chris Cross, a clerk who is despised by his wife, relatively unappreciated by his friends, and is a self-proclaimed loser. His one passion and hobby is painting, but all lack of encouragement keeps it something of a dirty secret.
By chance one night his prospects change when he saves a beautiful young woman from an assailant on the street. She is Kitty March, a glamorous Hollywood-type with ugly habits, but infinite charm. A friendly conversation turns into infatuation on Chris' part, and through a misunderstanding she comes under the belief that he is a famous artist.
Kitty has a boyfriend, though, who complicates matters for them all. He is Johnny, a thug and a liar whose slick tongue and good looks has Kitty under his spell. Johnny uses all his charms to employ Kitty's to squeeze every once of money from Chris, believing him to be world famous.
Tensions grow--albeit at a snail's pace--until finally the story ruptures at the seams. Fritz Lang directs, and I saw in this film many parallels to his masterpiece, "M", which is about a child-killer whose presence in the city causes a breakdown of society. Although Lang didn't like to admit the expressionist influences of his work they are undeniable. In this film it is more content based, rather than aesthetics, but it was still very clear to me.
It is a story of a faceless man with no spine who finally cracks after being pushed around for far too long. He simply longs for a place to fit into in the world and this beautiful woman with the false smile could be the answer. When he learns it's all sham, which of course we know he would--how could he not?--Lang makes a very interesting argument about his ideas of love and loyalty. Chris is a failure and remains so. He fails at everything in life up until the end of the film which was haunting and tragic.
I really loved the last third of this movie, but the first two acts were almost unendurable. Firstly, the lack of any sort of interesting conflict was taxing. There was far more buildup than there needed to be for very little outcome. The stakes were not raised until I had almost lost interest, and then the characters' dense attitudes towards these changes was entirely unbelievable. This last point was the fault of the writer.
Then there was the tremendous issues with casting. As I mentioned, Cagney was known for the character which he created and frankly he should have stuck to just that. There is simply too personality in the man to be bottled up in the hollow shell that is Chris. Then the caricature portrayals of Chris' wife as a screechy, soulless harpy, and Johnny as the tough guy, cool cat were irritating and boring simultaneously. Joan Bennett as Kitty almost saved this film. It's clear to me that she has talent and with a better script could have done some good work. For instance, there is a moment on a balcony when she is hobnobbing with an art critic and her poised demeanor and sultry voice wooed me instantly.
However, there is not enough in this film to recommend. Lang is a great director, but this film was too long, too boring, and it was too obvious that I was watching actors recite lines.
2/4
Friday, March 9, 2012
Coriolanus (2011)
I saw a stage production of "Coriolanus" four years ago at the Ashland Shakespeare Festival and I must say I wasn't at all impressed. I'm not sure if it was the production, the play itself, or the fact that I was unknowledgeable in the works of Shakespeare. I suspect it was a mixture of the three, but I would guess it was mostly due to what I originally thought: this is simply not material that is interesting to watch on stage for it it too constricted by the limitations of the theatre. This is a heavily political piece of drama that has to skirt around the violent repercussions of the ample dialogue which doesn't make for interesting viewing. So when I heard that Ralph Fiennes was directing and starring in a film adaptation of one of the English master's more obscure work I was more than skeptical.
This film goes to show, however, what visionary talent can do with a mediocre piece of material (mediocre Shakespeare compared only with himself, that is). Fiennes is probably slightly mad, but this self-assured directorial debut is a seismic piece of cinema and he is the fault line. "Coriolanus" is a triumph of political film-making, made fresh and uncomfortably relevant when mentally placing it on the backdrop of our economically turbulent Europe.
Fiennes stars as the title role. Caias Martius Coriolanus is the greatest war hero that Rome has. A viciously blood-thirsty fighter, unscrupulously elitist, and with a huge presence he comes to political stardom after a triumph against a warring neighbor. But Rome is in turmoil; it is fighting an internal war as well as its foreign conflict as hunger and repressive political measures bring protesters to the streets in violent form.
When he is voted to be a member of the consulate crafty politicians and his own mother (a superb Vanessa Redgrave) seal an unfortunate fate for Coriolanus, as he is asked to earn his legitimacy through popular support of the public. But the plebeians are easily swayed, and power-hungry senators turn the masses against him. Banished and vengeful, he turns to Rome's foreign enemy and his greatest rival, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), to exact his revenge on his family and his nation to which he was once so devoted towards.
The stage production I saw was modernized as is this film version, but Fiennes' vision is so much more fully realized than the Ashland production, I think, in part because of his ability to show the aggression, anger, and chaos of the state. The first half of the film is unflinchingly violent, taught and bracing, and unnerving in the zeal in which every character down to the last extra played his part. The military engagements are so gripping that a missile's explosion comes as a relief.
Fiennes has created a world scarily close to what I imagine a fascist Italy to be like. It is world of metallic colors, camouflage, symbols, icons and stark beauty. The police are a faceless, solid wall of black and guns, and Coriolanus' crystal eyes and rigid, grey uniform distance him from the masses. He is a dragon who can move the earth with his gaze; a figure of rage and contempt who was born to lead, but not to guide. It is a bleak Rome with an ugly poetry.
This film works so well because everyone involved was able to understand the point of view of the director and they added to it with gusto. I would have shied away from such a project and consequently would have missed out in being a part of a very skillful adaptation. Shakespeare (whose language has been kept) would have been proud, I think. This is what he had envisioned: a stark world, a god-like man amongst pandemonium, and a mass of sheep all too willing to be directed by cunning minds. He has created a monster, but he has also revealed monstrous truths. I await Fiennes' next work with anticipation.
4/4
This film goes to show, however, what visionary talent can do with a mediocre piece of material (mediocre Shakespeare compared only with himself, that is). Fiennes is probably slightly mad, but this self-assured directorial debut is a seismic piece of cinema and he is the fault line. "Coriolanus" is a triumph of political film-making, made fresh and uncomfortably relevant when mentally placing it on the backdrop of our economically turbulent Europe.
Fiennes stars as the title role. Caias Martius Coriolanus is the greatest war hero that Rome has. A viciously blood-thirsty fighter, unscrupulously elitist, and with a huge presence he comes to political stardom after a triumph against a warring neighbor. But Rome is in turmoil; it is fighting an internal war as well as its foreign conflict as hunger and repressive political measures bring protesters to the streets in violent form.
When he is voted to be a member of the consulate crafty politicians and his own mother (a superb Vanessa Redgrave) seal an unfortunate fate for Coriolanus, as he is asked to earn his legitimacy through popular support of the public. But the plebeians are easily swayed, and power-hungry senators turn the masses against him. Banished and vengeful, he turns to Rome's foreign enemy and his greatest rival, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), to exact his revenge on his family and his nation to which he was once so devoted towards.
The stage production I saw was modernized as is this film version, but Fiennes' vision is so much more fully realized than the Ashland production, I think, in part because of his ability to show the aggression, anger, and chaos of the state. The first half of the film is unflinchingly violent, taught and bracing, and unnerving in the zeal in which every character down to the last extra played his part. The military engagements are so gripping that a missile's explosion comes as a relief.
Fiennes has created a world scarily close to what I imagine a fascist Italy to be like. It is world of metallic colors, camouflage, symbols, icons and stark beauty. The police are a faceless, solid wall of black and guns, and Coriolanus' crystal eyes and rigid, grey uniform distance him from the masses. He is a dragon who can move the earth with his gaze; a figure of rage and contempt who was born to lead, but not to guide. It is a bleak Rome with an ugly poetry.
This film works so well because everyone involved was able to understand the point of view of the director and they added to it with gusto. I would have shied away from such a project and consequently would have missed out in being a part of a very skillful adaptation. Shakespeare (whose language has been kept) would have been proud, I think. This is what he had envisioned: a stark world, a god-like man amongst pandemonium, and a mass of sheep all too willing to be directed by cunning minds. He has created a monster, but he has also revealed monstrous truths. I await Fiennes' next work with anticipation.
4/4
Monday, March 5, 2012
Great Expectations (1946)
Charles Dickens created some of his most beloved characters in his beautifully funny novel "Great Expectations," and this film does them justice. Considered to be one of the greatest British films of all time by legendary director David Lean, this is also one of the best film adaptations of a novel that I have ever seen.
The story is very Dickensian. The young orphaned Pip is raised as a blacksmith's apprentice at the hands of his domineering aunt and his simple, but oh so lovable uncle, Joe. His fortunes change, however, when he is called upon by the mysterious and eccentric Ms. Havisham to "play", and from there he meets the lovely, if cold, Estella. As he enters adulthood he learns that he is to become a gentleman--he has great expectations--and will come into property from an unknown benefactor. This rags to riches tale shows the effects of money on someone who came from nothing as much as it tells one of the greatest of all unrequited love stories.
First and foremost we must discuss characters as each one, played with the utmost conviction and skill, blend together to balance the macabre and the sublime, the hilarious and the devastating. Firstly there is our hero, Pip. The narrator as well as the main character, Pip becomes what Dickens hated. He becomes a snob, always unhappy at his misfortune, and unwise as to his mistakes. He has a tender heart, but money has corrupted him and it takes a very peculiar revelation for him to be redeemed.
Then there is Estella, beautiful and unforgiving who was constructed without a heart. I use that verb particularly as Estella was not the result of her own doing, but rather that of Ms. Havisham's. This latter character is one of the most interesting of puzzling of all great fictional figures. A wounded heart left her bitter, almost literally stuck in time at the day when her bridegroom left her at the alter. Since then she has sought to seek her vengeance on the male sex with Estella as her cutting tool. The time spent in Satis House where she dwells like a spider is disconcerting in the most gothic way.
Also there is Herbert Pocket, endlessly nice if somewhat of a buffoon, who becomes Pip's closest companion. And of course there is Magwitch, but we shan't discuss him.
There are smaller characters (who admittedly did have much larger parts in the novel), but each of them contributed something invaluable to the plot. Mr. Jaggers, Mr. Wemmick, Joe, Biddy, and all of the rest create layer after layer of wonderful involvement in the plot, the result of which is a lovely, lovely film. I tend to think that in more modern adaptations of Dickens's work directors are too afraid to allow their actors to give it everything they've got, to risk making their characters cartoonish even though Dickens had a flair for exaggeration. There was no restraint here making every person a treat to watch.
I feel as though the writers had something of a difficult time adapting the very long novel into the brisk two-hour film as they did. That said, they were triumphant even if they did leave out some of my favorite quotes from the book. It maintained the wit of the original source while still making it pleasant to the ear. The editing was done well, in that it cut out the more unnecessary bits in order to keep the pace moving which it did splendidly.
I have but one objection to the film which I regret to say as this was a great movie. I do my best to keep books and films separate if I can--they are two different mediums and needed to be treated as such. However, since this film was such a close adaptation to the novel (which I have just finished reading not too long ago) I find it hard to maintain that distance. My one qualm comes with the ending. The final chapter of the book was one of the most touching and romantic moments of any book I've read, in which Pip and Estella sit amongst the ruins of Satis House and reach some sort of agreement between each other which is not love, but leaves hope for the future. It is set in the moonlight, it has a somber tone, it is rich and enchanting. The film completely disregarded that, instead choosing to shift back to a darker mood followed by an inexplicable swelling of joy that was almost corny. Had they stuck to what the genius had penned then I would agree that this was one of the best film adaptations of all time.
I do not wish for this last point to dissuade viewers from watching the movie. It was a greatly enjoyable film, for readers of the novel especially, but not singularly. I highly recommend it as I think it is a brilliant introduction to one of the great writers of our time.
3.5/4
The story is very Dickensian. The young orphaned Pip is raised as a blacksmith's apprentice at the hands of his domineering aunt and his simple, but oh so lovable uncle, Joe. His fortunes change, however, when he is called upon by the mysterious and eccentric Ms. Havisham to "play", and from there he meets the lovely, if cold, Estella. As he enters adulthood he learns that he is to become a gentleman--he has great expectations--and will come into property from an unknown benefactor. This rags to riches tale shows the effects of money on someone who came from nothing as much as it tells one of the greatest of all unrequited love stories.
First and foremost we must discuss characters as each one, played with the utmost conviction and skill, blend together to balance the macabre and the sublime, the hilarious and the devastating. Firstly there is our hero, Pip. The narrator as well as the main character, Pip becomes what Dickens hated. He becomes a snob, always unhappy at his misfortune, and unwise as to his mistakes. He has a tender heart, but money has corrupted him and it takes a very peculiar revelation for him to be redeemed.
Then there is Estella, beautiful and unforgiving who was constructed without a heart. I use that verb particularly as Estella was not the result of her own doing, but rather that of Ms. Havisham's. This latter character is one of the most interesting of puzzling of all great fictional figures. A wounded heart left her bitter, almost literally stuck in time at the day when her bridegroom left her at the alter. Since then she has sought to seek her vengeance on the male sex with Estella as her cutting tool. The time spent in Satis House where she dwells like a spider is disconcerting in the most gothic way.
Also there is Herbert Pocket, endlessly nice if somewhat of a buffoon, who becomes Pip's closest companion. And of course there is Magwitch, but we shan't discuss him.
There are smaller characters (who admittedly did have much larger parts in the novel), but each of them contributed something invaluable to the plot. Mr. Jaggers, Mr. Wemmick, Joe, Biddy, and all of the rest create layer after layer of wonderful involvement in the plot, the result of which is a lovely, lovely film. I tend to think that in more modern adaptations of Dickens's work directors are too afraid to allow their actors to give it everything they've got, to risk making their characters cartoonish even though Dickens had a flair for exaggeration. There was no restraint here making every person a treat to watch.
I feel as though the writers had something of a difficult time adapting the very long novel into the brisk two-hour film as they did. That said, they were triumphant even if they did leave out some of my favorite quotes from the book. It maintained the wit of the original source while still making it pleasant to the ear. The editing was done well, in that it cut out the more unnecessary bits in order to keep the pace moving which it did splendidly.
I have but one objection to the film which I regret to say as this was a great movie. I do my best to keep books and films separate if I can--they are two different mediums and needed to be treated as such. However, since this film was such a close adaptation to the novel (which I have just finished reading not too long ago) I find it hard to maintain that distance. My one qualm comes with the ending. The final chapter of the book was one of the most touching and romantic moments of any book I've read, in which Pip and Estella sit amongst the ruins of Satis House and reach some sort of agreement between each other which is not love, but leaves hope for the future. It is set in the moonlight, it has a somber tone, it is rich and enchanting. The film completely disregarded that, instead choosing to shift back to a darker mood followed by an inexplicable swelling of joy that was almost corny. Had they stuck to what the genius had penned then I would agree that this was one of the best film adaptations of all time.
I do not wish for this last point to dissuade viewers from watching the movie. It was a greatly enjoyable film, for readers of the novel especially, but not singularly. I highly recommend it as I think it is a brilliant introduction to one of the great writers of our time.
3.5/4
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008)
My friends would probably assume that I would hate a film like this being the fascist that they suppose me to be, and content wise I suppose I did. But I will try to put suppositions aside and simply look at the film for what it is--if I can.
In the 1960's and 70's West Germany saw the birth of the Red Army Faction (RAF), an extremist left-wing terrorist group who committed robberies, arson, bombings and assassinations all in the name of the people. They were met with conflict both inside and outside their circle as their urban guerrilla movement fell into a hierarchical structure and power struggles emerged. With an embittered internal system and an entire nation out hunting for the fanatics the means and methods used to protect themselves became more extreme until finally the head members were captured. The remaining time for the leaders of the group was spent in prison, trying to find a way out of confinement, and watching with disgust as second generation members bungled what they had set out to do.
As far as historical political films are concerned this was very good irrespective of how much I disliked the content. The blend of stock footage, violence, the great production values, and the fact that it presented these radicals as almost human gave it significant weight and believability that could have been missed had the writer and director simply tried to take a more distant observational approach to the material.
This film presents the question: how far would one be willing to go in order to achieve one's political and social ideals? There are figures like Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin who are consumed with their ideology and seem to care nothing for the destruction they cause; they simply want to be heard and feel terrorism is their last resort. And then there is the more complex Ulrike Meinhof, who was a well respected left-wing journalist, who we see make the very difficult decision to leave her family as she is almost guilted into becoming an extremist.
Beginning as a fight against "American imperialism" in Vietnam and other cases, it soon becomes a muddled struggle for anything they deem to be counter-revolutionary, and they seem to be less and less scrupulous about what they fight for and how. They are blind to the hypocrisies of what they do--that they fight against coercion while they are coercive, that they fight for the people but care very little for human life, that they fight against fascism while their methods involve propaganda, terror and demagogic figures--and the fact that eventually they use their status and influence less to help their cause and more to fight for their personal freedom and safety.
I am naturally disinclined to like a film like this simply because I don't like characters like these whose goals are ones that they fight for. But as I said it is a solidly made film with rich characters played by very committed actors, with strong direction and a very sound script. I found it difficult to determine where the allegiances of director Uli Edel lie. For much of the film he seems to sympathize with his characters which put me off. However, in the final ten to fifteen minutes of the film these characters develop new layers and finally become relatable; they are not simply machines carrying out acts of destruction for loosely constructed views expounded by Ho Chi Minn, Mao Zedong, and Che Guevara, but people finally dealing with the repercussions of lives lived without rules, responsibility or--in my not so humble opinion--any real human sympathy.
The final line of the film I think redeemed this film politically for me when Brigitte Mohnhaupt, a second generation radical, turns to an enraged member following the suicides of the three leading members and says, "Stop seeing them the way they weren't." But then there lies my confusion. For much of the movie their lives are seen through rose-colored glasses only to have the image shattered by one of their own saying they are worshiping false idols. Perhaps the message all along was that these were people led astray by natural human instincts which are channeled through ideology and zealousness, or maybe it was simply a statement on the state and the youth movement. You tell me.
3/4
Note: This film bears striking resemblance to the much better film, "The Battle of Algiers". Watch and compare.
In the 1960's and 70's West Germany saw the birth of the Red Army Faction (RAF), an extremist left-wing terrorist group who committed robberies, arson, bombings and assassinations all in the name of the people. They were met with conflict both inside and outside their circle as their urban guerrilla movement fell into a hierarchical structure and power struggles emerged. With an embittered internal system and an entire nation out hunting for the fanatics the means and methods used to protect themselves became more extreme until finally the head members were captured. The remaining time for the leaders of the group was spent in prison, trying to find a way out of confinement, and watching with disgust as second generation members bungled what they had set out to do.
As far as historical political films are concerned this was very good irrespective of how much I disliked the content. The blend of stock footage, violence, the great production values, and the fact that it presented these radicals as almost human gave it significant weight and believability that could have been missed had the writer and director simply tried to take a more distant observational approach to the material.
This film presents the question: how far would one be willing to go in order to achieve one's political and social ideals? There are figures like Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin who are consumed with their ideology and seem to care nothing for the destruction they cause; they simply want to be heard and feel terrorism is their last resort. And then there is the more complex Ulrike Meinhof, who was a well respected left-wing journalist, who we see make the very difficult decision to leave her family as she is almost guilted into becoming an extremist.
Beginning as a fight against "American imperialism" in Vietnam and other cases, it soon becomes a muddled struggle for anything they deem to be counter-revolutionary, and they seem to be less and less scrupulous about what they fight for and how. They are blind to the hypocrisies of what they do--that they fight against coercion while they are coercive, that they fight for the people but care very little for human life, that they fight against fascism while their methods involve propaganda, terror and demagogic figures--and the fact that eventually they use their status and influence less to help their cause and more to fight for their personal freedom and safety.
I am naturally disinclined to like a film like this simply because I don't like characters like these whose goals are ones that they fight for. But as I said it is a solidly made film with rich characters played by very committed actors, with strong direction and a very sound script. I found it difficult to determine where the allegiances of director Uli Edel lie. For much of the film he seems to sympathize with his characters which put me off. However, in the final ten to fifteen minutes of the film these characters develop new layers and finally become relatable; they are not simply machines carrying out acts of destruction for loosely constructed views expounded by Ho Chi Minn, Mao Zedong, and Che Guevara, but people finally dealing with the repercussions of lives lived without rules, responsibility or--in my not so humble opinion--any real human sympathy.
The final line of the film I think redeemed this film politically for me when Brigitte Mohnhaupt, a second generation radical, turns to an enraged member following the suicides of the three leading members and says, "Stop seeing them the way they weren't." But then there lies my confusion. For much of the movie their lives are seen through rose-colored glasses only to have the image shattered by one of their own saying they are worshiping false idols. Perhaps the message all along was that these were people led astray by natural human instincts which are channeled through ideology and zealousness, or maybe it was simply a statement on the state and the youth movement. You tell me.
3/4
Note: This film bears striking resemblance to the much better film, "The Battle of Algiers". Watch and compare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)