I am 21 years old and so I have never lived in the 1970's (or 60's which the novel that the film was based off was written). Because of this, the resonance of the struggle of the old and new way of thinking--youth versus old--becomes lost on me. The microcosmic world of this period of time which audiences cheered for on its release seemed slightly lost on this apathetic viewer, and left me merely focusing on the mere cinematic aspects of the film.
Milos Forman's classic tells the story of the common conman, R.P.McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), who slyly shirks his work duty at a prison by feigning madness and getting moved into an institution. The nurses and doctors there know he's faking it, but his being entrusted to them by the state means their hands are tied from doing anything but evaluating him. His boyish attitude and sense of recklessness immediately disturbs the quiet sameness of the ward and pits him against the ruthless Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) in a battle of wills, representative of the generational battle going on at the time.
This idea is interesting and almost works. But it is troubling to say that on the one hand our society has youth who are free-minded, dangerous delinquents who are lazy, boozing, sex-starved gamblers, and on the other hand we have uniformed, unflinching, passive-aggressive white coats, both groups out to win over the doped-up, mildly unbalanced masses. It's placement in the institution is a flaw in itself if this is the point it's making and it makes for some questionable scenes.
But let's say for a moment that that was not the intent of Foreman. Looking at the film literally let's examine how this outsider fits in which a group of the outsiders of outsiders. "Cuckoo's Nest" has a fantastic set of supporting characters such as Billy Bibbit, Martini, Harding, Bancini and others whose lives are disrupted by this jailbird. Each of them has a fascinating story and we, like McMurphy, get to experience these stories for the first time. They are not given room to breathe, however, as McMurphy's small war against Nurse Ratched interferes. I don't begrudge them that though. The antics are humorous and the small attacks carried out make for some brilliant scenes.
This greatness falters when the story becomes too fantastic. The realism of the work is engaging and impeccably acted until the story is removed from the institution. The group steals a bus and then a boat where McMurphy takes the patients of the ward fishing with a girlfriend of this. The scene is enjoyable in itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie it makes no sense and does nothing but distract the viewers from what the plot is actually about.There is another scene, but that is best saved for a post-viewing discussion as it is something of a spoiler. These sorts of things take away from time which I should very much have liked to have spent watching McMurphy's relationships with the other patients and learning about the patients themselves.
The best moments of this film are those when McMurphy tries to instill some sense of life into this group which has, for too long, been taking medication to placate them. He starts a gambling ring, tries to get the World Series shown (and does, in his own small way), and there is a fantastically funny scene where he starts a basketball game against the workers of the facility. Ratched responds by turning on horrible ugly music, rationing cigarettes and doing everything she can in order to curb the new jolt of electricity sparked in her clean, white ward.
The two leads deliver fantastic performances. Nicholson is one of the most interesting actors to have worked for the silver screen and his performance as McMurphy was one of the those beautiful ones he did before he became "Jack Nicholson". Fletcher so easily makes you hate her with her piercing eyes and lips that never move until she has won some minor fight in which a whisper of a smile cracks her otherwise unfeeling face.
The writing is superb even if the story falters at points. I remember reading the novel after I had seen the film for the first time and I thought that the novel was adapted beautifully into the screenplay. I still don't believe that the institution as a metaphor makes sense, but the story is simply engaging and performed by these actors it is a powerful piece. The final scene of the movie is incredibly strong and much credit has to be given to a film whose staying power has lasted over 30 years.
3.5/4
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Five friends go for a weekend trip to a nice, secluded cabin in the middle of nowhere. It's the perfect setup for a good ol' slasher film, right? Easy. Predictable. Done to death.
Not even close.
This is one of the coolest films this year, and one of the most inventive and breathlessly fun additions to the horror genre ever. It has simply changed the game and all other horror films are going to have to step things up a notch to compete with something that has so perfectly turned the genre up on its head. Not since "Scream" have we seen a movie that has been so self-aware in the positive respect, utilizing every cliche to lull the audience into a sense of security (in that we feel we know exactly what is going to happen) only to have every one of those cliches utterly smashed in our faces.
The thing of it is, this is not just a slasher film. This is a slasher, wrapped in a conspiracy theory film, wrapped in an even larger horror movie and it took me until at least half way through in order to finish puzzling it out. I can't give too much away as it would ruin all of the fun and momentum that these filmmakers have worked tirelessly to create.
What I can say about it is that the acting is purposefully over the top; the writing, intentionally horrible; the plot, methodically ridiculous. These elements combine into something really, truly exciting for the moviegoer. The film is funny, scary and insanely sharp, sometimes all at once, and has revitalized a dying breed of film.
Further than just taking a massive bite out of the type of film it wanted to satirize, "The Cabin in the Woods" also managed to cleverly attack the industry in general. In a very visible sense it demonized (pun absolutely intended) Hollywood and the way in which it does not ever allow horror films to escape mundane repetition. We can generally acknowledge that there are a very few great horror movies: "The Exorcist," "Rosemary's Baby," "Halloween" and a handful of others, but these were starters, not followers. They set the standard and others came after. This film is not a follower and it has ruthlessly criticized a part of the film industry that does not allow for change to happen. In doing so it has brought change itself.
I want very much to say more about the plot, but you will just have to watch for yourself and go on a thrilling ride navigating twists and turns--and a very surprising cameo--to find something deliciously and gruesomely different. Hats off, friends.
3.5/4
Not even close.
This is one of the coolest films this year, and one of the most inventive and breathlessly fun additions to the horror genre ever. It has simply changed the game and all other horror films are going to have to step things up a notch to compete with something that has so perfectly turned the genre up on its head. Not since "Scream" have we seen a movie that has been so self-aware in the positive respect, utilizing every cliche to lull the audience into a sense of security (in that we feel we know exactly what is going to happen) only to have every one of those cliches utterly smashed in our faces.
The thing of it is, this is not just a slasher film. This is a slasher, wrapped in a conspiracy theory film, wrapped in an even larger horror movie and it took me until at least half way through in order to finish puzzling it out. I can't give too much away as it would ruin all of the fun and momentum that these filmmakers have worked tirelessly to create.
What I can say about it is that the acting is purposefully over the top; the writing, intentionally horrible; the plot, methodically ridiculous. These elements combine into something really, truly exciting for the moviegoer. The film is funny, scary and insanely sharp, sometimes all at once, and has revitalized a dying breed of film.
Further than just taking a massive bite out of the type of film it wanted to satirize, "The Cabin in the Woods" also managed to cleverly attack the industry in general. In a very visible sense it demonized (pun absolutely intended) Hollywood and the way in which it does not ever allow horror films to escape mundane repetition. We can generally acknowledge that there are a very few great horror movies: "The Exorcist," "Rosemary's Baby," "Halloween" and a handful of others, but these were starters, not followers. They set the standard and others came after. This film is not a follower and it has ruthlessly criticized a part of the film industry that does not allow for change to happen. In doing so it has brought change itself.
I want very much to say more about the plot, but you will just have to watch for yourself and go on a thrilling ride navigating twists and turns--and a very surprising cameo--to find something deliciously and gruesomely different. Hats off, friends.
3.5/4
Sunday, April 8, 2012
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007)
Expert treasure hunter Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicholas Cage) finds himself in a cross-country and indeed international treasure hunt in an attempt to find Cibola, the lost city of gold. For some reason or another this will help to prove the innocence of his great-grandfather, Thomas Gates, and prove his grandfather wasn't a liar when it was recently asserted that Thomas Gates was a mastermind behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
The discovery of a missing page of the diary of John Wilkes Booth has his name on the list of conspirators, but we know the antique collector Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) is up to no good. A prologue at the beginning of the film already proves Gate's innocence, but now it is up to his great-grandson to use his considerable wits to make sure the rest of the world knows it too.
This plot is slapdash enough to start out with, but the way it continues is almost unbearable as one absolutely preposterous event after another occurs with infinite ease and almost no engaging conflict. Securing the help of his ex-girlfriend, Abigail (Diane Kruger), and his techno-wiz sidekick--crony would be a more appropriate word, considering how awfully Ben treats him--Riley (Justin Bartha), this small team travels from Paris to London to D.C. and finally to Mt. Rushmore unraveling riddles before the evil antique collector can catch them and before the information about his grandfather can go public (I think?).
What was absolutely maddening to me about this film was the complete lack of believability of the actions of its characters, particularly Ben. Using some pompous excuse about securing the truth of history he not only breaks into Buckingham Palace and the Oval Office, but also kidnaps the President of the United States in order to gain information about the President's Book, a mythical book said to have been passed down president to president containing all of the nation's secrets including Watergate and Area 51. He could go to federal prison simply to make sure that his name wasn't besmirched in history books. Ben can use any sort of flowery language he wants to convince himself otherwise, but I'm not buying it.
Going from place to place the team encounters riddle after impossible riddle, but Ben, with his superhuman archival knowledge of American history is able to piece them together in a matter of about 30 seconds which I would imagine a normal scholar or historian would take months. The only time his runs into snags is when it comes to reading ancient Latin American hieroglyphics. But never fear! Mommy dearest (Hellen Mirren) just so happens to be one of the only people on earth who is fluent in reading these ancient languages. Therefore this mystery which has been kept secret for hundreds of years is solved in a week. Good for you, Scooby Doo.
Besides the lack of human failing which they should inevitably have come across, I also dislike Ben as a person. He walks about with a swag like he is some nerdy James Bond who has every right to break into the house of his much prettier ex-girlfriend, and can treat his little buddy, Riley, like absolute garbage. I understand fully that Riley was supposed to provide "comic relief," but this poor guy gets trampled underfoot at every turn. Without his technical expertise Ben would have gotten nowhere, but he remains completely unappreciated. During the final scene (eerily reminiscent of Indiana Jones) there comes a moment when one of them could be left alone in a cave, possibly forever. Riley, almost heartbreakingly, assumes it will be him and volunteers. Riley is not Ben's friend, he is his whore and it is very angering.
The one aspect that I did like about this film was the relationship between Ben's mother and father (Jon Voight). Though they haven't seen each other in 30 some-odd years it is understood that their relationship will be rekindled. Both Voight and especially Mirren give much more to their roles than they should have and it makes for a nice change of pace to have some genuine pathos and multi-dimensional characters on the screen.
I do enjoy the concept of trying to make learning and history exciting, and perhaps this will be enjoyable for kids in the 8-12 range, but God if it wasn't punishing for me. The action is banal, the plot is routine, and for the most part the acting isn't worth your time. This is a definite miss on what could otherwise have been an engaging and well thought-out family film for people who appreciate a good challenge. I haven't seen the first, but I would guess it's much the same.
1/4
The discovery of a missing page of the diary of John Wilkes Booth has his name on the list of conspirators, but we know the antique collector Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) is up to no good. A prologue at the beginning of the film already proves Gate's innocence, but now it is up to his great-grandson to use his considerable wits to make sure the rest of the world knows it too.
This plot is slapdash enough to start out with, but the way it continues is almost unbearable as one absolutely preposterous event after another occurs with infinite ease and almost no engaging conflict. Securing the help of his ex-girlfriend, Abigail (Diane Kruger), and his techno-wiz sidekick--crony would be a more appropriate word, considering how awfully Ben treats him--Riley (Justin Bartha), this small team travels from Paris to London to D.C. and finally to Mt. Rushmore unraveling riddles before the evil antique collector can catch them and before the information about his grandfather can go public (I think?).
What was absolutely maddening to me about this film was the complete lack of believability of the actions of its characters, particularly Ben. Using some pompous excuse about securing the truth of history he not only breaks into Buckingham Palace and the Oval Office, but also kidnaps the President of the United States in order to gain information about the President's Book, a mythical book said to have been passed down president to president containing all of the nation's secrets including Watergate and Area 51. He could go to federal prison simply to make sure that his name wasn't besmirched in history books. Ben can use any sort of flowery language he wants to convince himself otherwise, but I'm not buying it.
Going from place to place the team encounters riddle after impossible riddle, but Ben, with his superhuman archival knowledge of American history is able to piece them together in a matter of about 30 seconds which I would imagine a normal scholar or historian would take months. The only time his runs into snags is when it comes to reading ancient Latin American hieroglyphics. But never fear! Mommy dearest (Hellen Mirren) just so happens to be one of the only people on earth who is fluent in reading these ancient languages. Therefore this mystery which has been kept secret for hundreds of years is solved in a week. Good for you, Scooby Doo.
Besides the lack of human failing which they should inevitably have come across, I also dislike Ben as a person. He walks about with a swag like he is some nerdy James Bond who has every right to break into the house of his much prettier ex-girlfriend, and can treat his little buddy, Riley, like absolute garbage. I understand fully that Riley was supposed to provide "comic relief," but this poor guy gets trampled underfoot at every turn. Without his technical expertise Ben would have gotten nowhere, but he remains completely unappreciated. During the final scene (eerily reminiscent of Indiana Jones) there comes a moment when one of them could be left alone in a cave, possibly forever. Riley, almost heartbreakingly, assumes it will be him and volunteers. Riley is not Ben's friend, he is his whore and it is very angering.
The one aspect that I did like about this film was the relationship between Ben's mother and father (Jon Voight). Though they haven't seen each other in 30 some-odd years it is understood that their relationship will be rekindled. Both Voight and especially Mirren give much more to their roles than they should have and it makes for a nice change of pace to have some genuine pathos and multi-dimensional characters on the screen.
I do enjoy the concept of trying to make learning and history exciting, and perhaps this will be enjoyable for kids in the 8-12 range, but God if it wasn't punishing for me. The action is banal, the plot is routine, and for the most part the acting isn't worth your time. This is a definite miss on what could otherwise have been an engaging and well thought-out family film for people who appreciate a good challenge. I haven't seen the first, but I would guess it's much the same.
1/4
Thursday, April 5, 2012
City of Life and Death (2009)
Being a very active film-goer I spend a lot of time slugging my way through a lot of awful movies. Occasionally I catch glimpses of greatness and sometimes even find a really good film. Oftentimes, however, I simply drudge my way through half-formed ideas and pointless plots with mediocre acting. Then, in all too rare moments, I find something that completely changes my views of life and the possibilities of film. "City of Life and Death" is one of those that left me literally breathless as I tried to grasp the enormity of what I had just viewed. It is films like this that make me spend those countless hours in dark rooms hoping for cinema to occur.
This is nothing short of a masterpiece of Chinese film-making about the "Rape" of Nanking--the Nanking Massacre--in 1937, where Japanese soldiers took the capital of China killing roughly 300,000 in the process. There are certain heroes to this film: a Nazi scholar who protects Chinese civilians in refugee camp; his secretary, Mr. Tang, who watches his life collapse as he uses all of his power to protect his family; Miss Jiang, who struggles to protect all of the women of the camp against mandatory rape--"pleasure girls"; Kadokawa, a Japanese CO whose conflict of conscience leads him to make small and almost unnoticed acts of kindness towards the Chinese. Despite these few which the "plot" revolves around this is absolutely about the Chinese people in general in some of the most unbelievably horrific circumstances imaginable.
This film makes no effort to tell the backstory of the politics of the Second Sino-Japanese War but simply throws the audience right into the middle of the fighting. From the opening scene of the siege of the city we are hurtled into a relentless two hours of the horrors of war and the depravity of men. The battle scenes are gruesome and brilliantly shot in ways reminiscent of the opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan," but this shelling is nothing compared to what happens once the city is taken.
There are images of hundreds of unarmed soldiers being driven into the ocean from gunfire, people being buried alive in a mass grave, women being shot in a confessional in the local church. Image after image of the most ruthless violence one could expect--or rather believe--a human being could be capable of. The line between a man having to discard his humanity and an animal becomes blurred as these acts continue.
It is absolutely extraordinary, writer/director Chuan Lu managed to do in the first 45 minutes of the film what many directors try in vain to do within the entirety of their film career: he made me think. He made me reflect on the importance of my life, the love of my fellow man, and made me contemplate the human condition. These are acts too horrific to be committed by a person and yet they were. That mental paradox is dizzying in its implications. Of course this film is not the first to make that statement, but rarely has it been done with such ferocity.
After the initial fighting we are left to watch the occurrences that took place within the refugee camps which are possibly worse. Senseless violence against soldiers in a hospital ward takes place including murders of the nurses, a young child is thrown to her death out of a window, a hundred women are taken forcibly to be used sexually by the Japanese in exchange for food for the camp. These women were literally sexed to death. It was absolutely revolting.
Throughout all of these nearly indescribable acts of heinousness we are provided with something that looks like hope. What the director managed to portray as brilliantly as the acts of depravity were the acts of solidarity and kindness. His treatment of the mass human spirit was almost overwhelmingly beautiful. I challenge anyone to watch the scene in which the 100 Chinese pleasure girls volunteered to sacrifice their bodies for the sake of the children and not tear. The power of those raised hands showed a strength beyond what we may think possible.
Chuan Lu does not take a complete anti-Japanese approach to the film, but it is very nearly impossible to sympathize with any of them. There are moments early on and in the final scene that does make sure to state that times of war are not real, they are hallucinatory moments where right and wrong in the individual sense all but ceases to exist replaced by single mind of the collective. This can be swayed either towards generosity and human sympathy, or it can follow a path to our most natural instincts of sex and violence. Both are examined and both succeed completely.
It has been a long time since I was so moved by a film. This is one of the best Chinese films I have ever seen, it ranks with "Saving Private Ryan," "Platoon," "All Quiet on the Western Front" and others of that caliber as one of the best war films I have seen, and is in general a magnificent example of a fully realized vision for the screen. I cannot praise this film enough as I simply do not have the linguistic powers to do it justice. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this film worth a million.
4/4
This is nothing short of a masterpiece of Chinese film-making about the "Rape" of Nanking--the Nanking Massacre--in 1937, where Japanese soldiers took the capital of China killing roughly 300,000 in the process. There are certain heroes to this film: a Nazi scholar who protects Chinese civilians in refugee camp; his secretary, Mr. Tang, who watches his life collapse as he uses all of his power to protect his family; Miss Jiang, who struggles to protect all of the women of the camp against mandatory rape--"pleasure girls"; Kadokawa, a Japanese CO whose conflict of conscience leads him to make small and almost unnoticed acts of kindness towards the Chinese. Despite these few which the "plot" revolves around this is absolutely about the Chinese people in general in some of the most unbelievably horrific circumstances imaginable.
This film makes no effort to tell the backstory of the politics of the Second Sino-Japanese War but simply throws the audience right into the middle of the fighting. From the opening scene of the siege of the city we are hurtled into a relentless two hours of the horrors of war and the depravity of men. The battle scenes are gruesome and brilliantly shot in ways reminiscent of the opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan," but this shelling is nothing compared to what happens once the city is taken.
There are images of hundreds of unarmed soldiers being driven into the ocean from gunfire, people being buried alive in a mass grave, women being shot in a confessional in the local church. Image after image of the most ruthless violence one could expect--or rather believe--a human being could be capable of. The line between a man having to discard his humanity and an animal becomes blurred as these acts continue.
It is absolutely extraordinary, writer/director Chuan Lu managed to do in the first 45 minutes of the film what many directors try in vain to do within the entirety of their film career: he made me think. He made me reflect on the importance of my life, the love of my fellow man, and made me contemplate the human condition. These are acts too horrific to be committed by a person and yet they were. That mental paradox is dizzying in its implications. Of course this film is not the first to make that statement, but rarely has it been done with such ferocity.
After the initial fighting we are left to watch the occurrences that took place within the refugee camps which are possibly worse. Senseless violence against soldiers in a hospital ward takes place including murders of the nurses, a young child is thrown to her death out of a window, a hundred women are taken forcibly to be used sexually by the Japanese in exchange for food for the camp. These women were literally sexed to death. It was absolutely revolting.
Throughout all of these nearly indescribable acts of heinousness we are provided with something that looks like hope. What the director managed to portray as brilliantly as the acts of depravity were the acts of solidarity and kindness. His treatment of the mass human spirit was almost overwhelmingly beautiful. I challenge anyone to watch the scene in which the 100 Chinese pleasure girls volunteered to sacrifice their bodies for the sake of the children and not tear. The power of those raised hands showed a strength beyond what we may think possible.
Chuan Lu does not take a complete anti-Japanese approach to the film, but it is very nearly impossible to sympathize with any of them. There are moments early on and in the final scene that does make sure to state that times of war are not real, they are hallucinatory moments where right and wrong in the individual sense all but ceases to exist replaced by single mind of the collective. This can be swayed either towards generosity and human sympathy, or it can follow a path to our most natural instincts of sex and violence. Both are examined and both succeed completely.
It has been a long time since I was so moved by a film. This is one of the best Chinese films I have ever seen, it ranks with "Saving Private Ryan," "Platoon," "All Quiet on the Western Front" and others of that caliber as one of the best war films I have seen, and is in general a magnificent example of a fully realized vision for the screen. I cannot praise this film enough as I simply do not have the linguistic powers to do it justice. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this film worth a million.
4/4
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Land and Freedom (1995)
The struggle for revolution is an arduous and often fruitless endeavor built upon ideas and ideals which long for something better. A cynic would say that class differences are inherent and the elites permanent, and therefore a fight for something like socialism, communism, anarchism is futile. I am a cynic and am therefore not inclined to appreciate films with would-be guerrilla fighters hoping to change the world. Ken Loach, however, has made me second-guess those impulses with his powerful and at times deeply moving film about an Englishman who travels to Spain to fight fascism.
Ian Hart plays David, an unemployed communist from Liverpool, who seeing a rather pointless life in Britain decides to pack up and leave his love for Spain to overthrow Franco in 1936. He knows no Spanish, doesn't seem as if he has ever been off the island and is romantic in his ideas of war. He makes it where he needs to be and finds a ragtag group of militia men and women of POUM from all nationalities and creeds hoping to fight the same fight David does.
Their group is entirely socialist, everything is voted on including CO's and this motley crew functions as a family unit. Genuine bonds of friendship and love form amidst the shelling which makes deaths all the more upsetting for the characters as well as the audience. I dislike films who have preachy characters expounding their political beliefs (especially when they are not my own), but these people did not bother me because they believe what they do and don't feel the need to drown the audience with it. In fact, not very much in the way of politics manages to seep its way into the script. These Spaniards, Italians, Germans, Americans, French and Brits are people trying to fight off oppression and nothing more.
Loach does concede that there does need to be room for these sorts of debates, however, and this is done in the form of a town meeting in the pueblo they are stationed at where the militia and the townspeople debate whether or not to collectivize the town's land. This scene is what makes "Land and Freedom" rise far beyond other political war films of its kind. Much of this film is about interpersonal relationships on a one-to-one or small group basis, but here the director has utilized a large number of actors to create real people facing real problems of hunger, poverty and death to magnificent effect. It is a scene of top-notch film-making.
What makes Loach's film so good is his ability to keep the plot centered in reality. It's based off of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia which is apparently riddled with historical inaccuracies (I myself have never read it, but I know this from a very reputably source) and consequently I am sure that this film adaptation is as well. However, the way in which Loach decided to shoot the battle sequences on location in the desert or in the pueblo, filled with missed shots and accurate deaths--which is much different than other war films which seek simply to thrill--gives a real sense of gravity to the movie and makes those inaccuracies irrelevant.
Further, as I have mentioned, the way these characters relate to one another without the cliches of what a "communist" or "socialist" might be, really gives a sense of general despair for the world they inhabit. In one scene David and his love interest, Blanca, are walking to their post and pass by a family of peasants walking home. Blanca sneers at David for thinking he was poor when living in Liverpool, and explains to him about people living in caves or dirt holes. "That is poor," she says. It's little touches like that help to remind me that perhaps I needn't be so cynical all the time. I do not like these revolutionary far-left politics, but a film like this reminds me that there are real people behind the term "socialist" who lived in abject misery that we, in the Western World of 2012 have never known, and they truly believed the change would come. They fought and died for that change and perhaps those misguided ideas need to be respected too.
What Loach's message is I'm not sure. There is a loving portrait of these people painted, but I think he believes in the futility of it all as well. Watch the American: is he me, or is he Loach?
3.5/4
Ian Hart plays David, an unemployed communist from Liverpool, who seeing a rather pointless life in Britain decides to pack up and leave his love for Spain to overthrow Franco in 1936. He knows no Spanish, doesn't seem as if he has ever been off the island and is romantic in his ideas of war. He makes it where he needs to be and finds a ragtag group of militia men and women of POUM from all nationalities and creeds hoping to fight the same fight David does.
Their group is entirely socialist, everything is voted on including CO's and this motley crew functions as a family unit. Genuine bonds of friendship and love form amidst the shelling which makes deaths all the more upsetting for the characters as well as the audience. I dislike films who have preachy characters expounding their political beliefs (especially when they are not my own), but these people did not bother me because they believe what they do and don't feel the need to drown the audience with it. In fact, not very much in the way of politics manages to seep its way into the script. These Spaniards, Italians, Germans, Americans, French and Brits are people trying to fight off oppression and nothing more.
Loach does concede that there does need to be room for these sorts of debates, however, and this is done in the form of a town meeting in the pueblo they are stationed at where the militia and the townspeople debate whether or not to collectivize the town's land. This scene is what makes "Land and Freedom" rise far beyond other political war films of its kind. Much of this film is about interpersonal relationships on a one-to-one or small group basis, but here the director has utilized a large number of actors to create real people facing real problems of hunger, poverty and death to magnificent effect. It is a scene of top-notch film-making.
What makes Loach's film so good is his ability to keep the plot centered in reality. It's based off of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia which is apparently riddled with historical inaccuracies (I myself have never read it, but I know this from a very reputably source) and consequently I am sure that this film adaptation is as well. However, the way in which Loach decided to shoot the battle sequences on location in the desert or in the pueblo, filled with missed shots and accurate deaths--which is much different than other war films which seek simply to thrill--gives a real sense of gravity to the movie and makes those inaccuracies irrelevant.
Further, as I have mentioned, the way these characters relate to one another without the cliches of what a "communist" or "socialist" might be, really gives a sense of general despair for the world they inhabit. In one scene David and his love interest, Blanca, are walking to their post and pass by a family of peasants walking home. Blanca sneers at David for thinking he was poor when living in Liverpool, and explains to him about people living in caves or dirt holes. "That is poor," she says. It's little touches like that help to remind me that perhaps I needn't be so cynical all the time. I do not like these revolutionary far-left politics, but a film like this reminds me that there are real people behind the term "socialist" who lived in abject misery that we, in the Western World of 2012 have never known, and they truly believed the change would come. They fought and died for that change and perhaps those misguided ideas need to be respected too.
What Loach's message is I'm not sure. There is a loving portrait of these people painted, but I think he believes in the futility of it all as well. Watch the American: is he me, or is he Loach?
3.5/4
Monday, April 2, 2012
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A futuristic London is run by the youth--it is terrorized by them, rather. People lock their doors at night as young men in lipstick and top hats wielding chains and knives run amok, stealing, raping, burgling, beating and generally causing mayhem at will. The police are ineffective at quelling the gangs who roam and fight, hopped up on milk-plus. It is a dark London filled up with dark characters.
Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is head of his droogs, Pete, Georgie and Dim who are one such gang clad in baseball pants and bowler hats. His criminal record is extensive and he lives by inspiration. These impulses are largely fueled by his love of music, particularly that of the great Ludwig Van. His cheeky grin, piercing blue eyes and natural charm help him lead with pomp and swagger.
His demise comes when he "accidentally" bludgeons a woman to death with a large penis sculpture and he is imprisoned. With good behavior he is transferred to a medical facility to take part in a new experiment which will wipe out crime for good. Through means I won't reveal he is conditioned to become physically ill when the temptation for violence or sex arises. Thus, his ability to choose whether to be good or evil is effectively taken away from him.
The novel of the same name was written by Anthony Burgess in 1962, and it is my favorite book. I have a fascination with dystopias and director Stanley Kubrick has been able to transfer this world onto the silver screen keeping Kubrick's inherent cynicism and flair for stage picture, whilst staying incredibly true to the source material. This is true in all but one major respect: the English edition of the novel has 21 chapters, the American has 20. Kubrick chose to adapt the American version which is important when analyzing the Alex's character as well as Kubrick's message to the audience. I will tread carefully here and state only that the Alex of the end of the 20th chapter is entirely different to the one in the 21st; Kubrick neglects to show the final, incredibly significant change of character.
All sorts of ethical questions are raised in the book and consequently by the movie as well. The most glaring one tackled is the importance of free will: if a man is no longer given the ability to choose to be evil does that necessarily make him good? One of the defining characteristics of man as opposed to other creatures of the animal kingdom is his ability to reason--if that is taken away is the man still a man?
This plays out some very contradictory theories on religion, but in the end the Church is probably seen as a positive pillar of society. The priest of the prison where Alex is confined condemns the practices of this medical facility being used on the boy. Strangely though, Alex also has a pet snake, figures of Jesus in his room and a giant painting of a naked woman. In one shot the three are seen together creating an obvious allusion to the Garden of Eden. If Alex is evil and has the biblical references throughout his room, then what artistic statement is Kubrick trying to make?
Also the issue of the role of the intellectual and the artist arises. Scientists utilize film to shape the nature of man, but is this correct? Kubrick surprised me in his choosing to do this film as it reflects rather poorly on the role of the filmmaker. However, Kubrick always had very strong and judgmental ideas of the ways in which people interact and how society functions as a whole and his films could be strongly argued subvert the traditional role of the filmmaker in the same way he utilizes them in "A Clockwork Orange".
This is a very, very divisive film with strong critics against it. I think that their complaints stem mostly from the aggrandizement of the villain (which is something I have always loved). I spent about five minutes grappling with the content trying to decide whether Kubrick loved or hated Alex and in the end I determined that he feels neither. It comes across as a love of this sadistic young man, but in the end Kubrick was angry at the ways in which people follow others blindly, never having ideas of their own. I believe that Kubrick loved the idea of Alex as someone who hears music and reacts to it. His choice is wholly his own and he chooses to be bad.
The artistic elements of the film are startling and eccentric. Visually, Kubrick is at his best designing a world of abstract color and design that juxtaposes the artistic with the destroyed. There is very little to define this film in a particular era; it simply is its own world of vivacity and blood. The director's fondness of music is clearer throughout than it is any of his films other than "2001: A Space Odyssey," which makes sense considering Alex's love of classical music. What I have neglected to mention is the uncomfortable humor of the movie. At times it is very funny, though one might feel ashamed to laugh considering the content. The music is crucial to this as Kubrick used it (I think...) to be an on-going joke. Continuously there are pieces chosen which clash in tone with that of the visual elements of the scenes in which they are played. For instance, Beethoven's 9th symphony is remixed using all sorts of weird electronic equipment and a toy piano, I believe. It is Kubrick mocking us for feeling uncomfortable watching what he presents us; it is a cruel jab.
He was very lucky to find Malcolm McDowell. It is well known that this film almost didn't get made as Kubrick searched unsuccessfully for two years trying to find someone to play Alex. In the end I think McDowell has done what no actor has done before: he threatened to upstage Kubrick. His twisted, maniacal and hilarious Alex at times makes one almost forget that Kubrick meticulously planned every bit of his performance, and that is an impossibly rare feat.
Not everyone will enjoy this film, but everyone should see it especially because there has never been another film like it. In order to fully appreciate it, though, it is probably important that you go into it with deep bitterness about humanity. Only then will everything make sense.
4/4
Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is head of his droogs, Pete, Georgie and Dim who are one such gang clad in baseball pants and bowler hats. His criminal record is extensive and he lives by inspiration. These impulses are largely fueled by his love of music, particularly that of the great Ludwig Van. His cheeky grin, piercing blue eyes and natural charm help him lead with pomp and swagger.
His demise comes when he "accidentally" bludgeons a woman to death with a large penis sculpture and he is imprisoned. With good behavior he is transferred to a medical facility to take part in a new experiment which will wipe out crime for good. Through means I won't reveal he is conditioned to become physically ill when the temptation for violence or sex arises. Thus, his ability to choose whether to be good or evil is effectively taken away from him.
The novel of the same name was written by Anthony Burgess in 1962, and it is my favorite book. I have a fascination with dystopias and director Stanley Kubrick has been able to transfer this world onto the silver screen keeping Kubrick's inherent cynicism and flair for stage picture, whilst staying incredibly true to the source material. This is true in all but one major respect: the English edition of the novel has 21 chapters, the American has 20. Kubrick chose to adapt the American version which is important when analyzing the Alex's character as well as Kubrick's message to the audience. I will tread carefully here and state only that the Alex of the end of the 20th chapter is entirely different to the one in the 21st; Kubrick neglects to show the final, incredibly significant change of character.
All sorts of ethical questions are raised in the book and consequently by the movie as well. The most glaring one tackled is the importance of free will: if a man is no longer given the ability to choose to be evil does that necessarily make him good? One of the defining characteristics of man as opposed to other creatures of the animal kingdom is his ability to reason--if that is taken away is the man still a man?
This plays out some very contradictory theories on religion, but in the end the Church is probably seen as a positive pillar of society. The priest of the prison where Alex is confined condemns the practices of this medical facility being used on the boy. Strangely though, Alex also has a pet snake, figures of Jesus in his room and a giant painting of a naked woman. In one shot the three are seen together creating an obvious allusion to the Garden of Eden. If Alex is evil and has the biblical references throughout his room, then what artistic statement is Kubrick trying to make?
Also the issue of the role of the intellectual and the artist arises. Scientists utilize film to shape the nature of man, but is this correct? Kubrick surprised me in his choosing to do this film as it reflects rather poorly on the role of the filmmaker. However, Kubrick always had very strong and judgmental ideas of the ways in which people interact and how society functions as a whole and his films could be strongly argued subvert the traditional role of the filmmaker in the same way he utilizes them in "A Clockwork Orange".
This is a very, very divisive film with strong critics against it. I think that their complaints stem mostly from the aggrandizement of the villain (which is something I have always loved). I spent about five minutes grappling with the content trying to decide whether Kubrick loved or hated Alex and in the end I determined that he feels neither. It comes across as a love of this sadistic young man, but in the end Kubrick was angry at the ways in which people follow others blindly, never having ideas of their own. I believe that Kubrick loved the idea of Alex as someone who hears music and reacts to it. His choice is wholly his own and he chooses to be bad.
The artistic elements of the film are startling and eccentric. Visually, Kubrick is at his best designing a world of abstract color and design that juxtaposes the artistic with the destroyed. There is very little to define this film in a particular era; it simply is its own world of vivacity and blood. The director's fondness of music is clearer throughout than it is any of his films other than "2001: A Space Odyssey," which makes sense considering Alex's love of classical music. What I have neglected to mention is the uncomfortable humor of the movie. At times it is very funny, though one might feel ashamed to laugh considering the content. The music is crucial to this as Kubrick used it (I think...) to be an on-going joke. Continuously there are pieces chosen which clash in tone with that of the visual elements of the scenes in which they are played. For instance, Beethoven's 9th symphony is remixed using all sorts of weird electronic equipment and a toy piano, I believe. It is Kubrick mocking us for feeling uncomfortable watching what he presents us; it is a cruel jab.
He was very lucky to find Malcolm McDowell. It is well known that this film almost didn't get made as Kubrick searched unsuccessfully for two years trying to find someone to play Alex. In the end I think McDowell has done what no actor has done before: he threatened to upstage Kubrick. His twisted, maniacal and hilarious Alex at times makes one almost forget that Kubrick meticulously planned every bit of his performance, and that is an impossibly rare feat.
Not everyone will enjoy this film, but everyone should see it especially because there has never been another film like it. In order to fully appreciate it, though, it is probably important that you go into it with deep bitterness about humanity. Only then will everything make sense.
4/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)