Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Dogville (2003)
Dogville’s theatrical, minimalist approach (reminiscent of the stage directions typically employed for performances of Thornton Wilder’s Our Town) is appropriate: a stage bare but for minor decorations and chalk outlines of the buildings, streets and other objects which the actors pantomime interaction with reflects the thematic overtones of exposing the corruption and bigotry that lurk behind closed doors and everyday surfaces. The audience and, more knowingly, the film’s all-seeing narrator (a wonderfully employed John Hurt), see through this everyday façade, and presenting it as a literal reality to which its occupants are seemingly blind to makes its frontal approach all the more poignant. Post-9/11 America continued to profess tolerance and acceptance of minorities and outsides, but the truth was more aggressive and unforgiving (and, much like the film, became more stated and frank as time progressed). Fear was exploited, both knowingly and inadvertently, to create hatred, and while Dogville quite obviously alludes to American culture in a number of ways, to classify it as nothing more than an anti-American tirade is, to quote directly from the film, “condescending.” In the end, the film paints its barbarous implications on all parties with equal viciousness.On the run from gangsters but never completely open about why they were in pursuit of her in the first place, Grace (Nicole Kidman) stumbles upon the lowly town of Dogville, a decrepit community of scarcely two dozen nestled in the Rocky Mountains. Urged by the liberal minded writer-to-be Tom (Paul Bettany), Grace ultimately wins over the town despite their reservations and fears, offering her labor and heart as compensation for their protection. (progressively larger spoilers herein) The film (divided into nine acts, also alluding to its theatrical debts) begins to exhibit its undoubtedly allegorical nature when progressing circumstances see the town withdrawing from their initial support of Grace, who quite rapidly becomes demonized and, quite literally, enslaved by a town that doesn’t like its downfalls being pointed out so effortlessly. Grace stands in for the elite powers that think it just to forgive sinners by means of the former half of the nature vs. nurture argument, although her own patience and graciousness erodes when she realizes that she could never excuse herself had she committed the acts she herself had been forced to endure. Hatred and destruction are answered with hatred and destruction; Dogville condemns not just the shortsightedness of one nation under God gone awry, but all who cave in to violence, intolerance, and prurient interests in the face of hardships. The film is its own illustration, an extreme example framed as such to point out our frailties. If the end credits suggest anything, it is that even after the most heinous of actions, sympathy and redemption are still very much a possibility.
Miami Vice (2006)
Miami Vice is one of the great stylistic triumphs of recent years, a quality that is sure to earn it just as many – if not more – detractors than supporters. First things first: any relationship to the 80’s television series of the same name is as incidental as the shared names of conservative parents who have disowned their radical offspring. Names, locations and some slight nods aside, this Miami Vice is a being all its own, like a prolonged episode of Cops, under the influence, and incredibly in tune to the emotions and textures of its characters and their lives. While not unlike Heat’s existential deconstruction of the cops and robbers relationship, Miami Vice assumes a less epic stance, opted for a more fluid narrative that savors each moments rather than indulging in the trends of the crime genre that wore out their welcome long ago. Vice packs a wallop, albeit of the techno and rhythm type, the ethereal beauty of the nighttime Miami cityscape providing a stunning contrast to Farrell and Foxx’s silent, knowing gazes while the sights and sounds intertwine to create a sensual ambiance. More than anything, the film is aware of the performance-driven nature of its characters’ line of undercover work, their personal and professional duties often clashing both silently and violently. Mann’s aesthetic is certainly no travel brochure for the city, but it contains an almost alien beauty nonetheless. When the film finally rolls around to a big shoot-out, the technical approach has been so effectively stripped down that the gritty gunshots and ricochets – more like something out of an 80’s exploitation film, when gunshots still had personality – are more enthralling than any souped up Michael Bay film can ever hope to be.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
My Hat is Now in the Political Ring: Six Questions
Some people might not like the mixing of politics and movies. Then consider this a warning. If you haven't yet noticed the non-movie related opinions occassionally scattered throughout my reviews and musings, then this is a wake-up call. As both a political science major and someone who believes that all citizens (of the US or otherwise) bear the responsibility of their country and the world. If irritation is aroused as a result of my approach not being one of complete objectivity, then so be it. From this day fourth, A Film Odyssey will be just as prone to movie reviews as it will be the occasional commentary on other goings on in the world. I wouldn't be able to consider myself a moral or upstanding person if I tried to hide from light those things I believe need to be said. Even if those things make you want to cry and huddle in the nearest corner in the fetal position.
This is brought to you today by a very illuminating article I came across, located here but reprinted below for your convenience. The really sad thing is, many people have been saying these exact same things for years now, myself included. Recently, at a family gathering, elder relatives were commenting in a negative fashion on the war in Iraq and on our Commander in Chief, namely in regards to how poorly planned and poorly equipped the whole shebang has been. I guess I really have been but a mime in the background for years now; maybe logic is doomed to be forever ignored until it is too late.
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
by Ken Silverstein
Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004; he served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the formerly anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. I met him for breakfast last week at an IHOP in the Virginia suburbs outside of Washington. Over a plate of eggs and hash browns, he answered a series of questions about the current state of the Bush Administration’s “War on Terrorism.” His prognosis was illuminating and insightful—and, unfortunately, almost unrelentingly grim.
1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that's just a body count, not progress. We can't capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
2. Is Al Qaeda stronger or weaker than it was five years ago?
The quality of its leadership is not as high as it was in 2001, because we've killed and captured so many of its leaders. But they have succession planning that works very well. We keep saying that we're killing their leaders, but you notice that we keep having to kill their number twos, threes and fours all over again. They bring in replacements, and these are not novices off the street—they're understudies. From the very first, bin Laden has said that he's just one person and Al Qaeda is a vanguard organization, that it needs other Muslims to join them. He's always said that his primary goal is to incite attacks by people who might not have any direct contact with Al Qaeda. Since 2001, and especially since mid-2005, there's been an increase in the number of groups that were not directly tied to Al Qaeda but were inspired by bin Laden's words and actions.
We also shouldn't underestimate the stature of bin Laden and Zawahiri in the Muslim world now that they’ve survived five years of war with the United States. You see commentary in the Muslim press: “How have they been able to defy the United States? It takes something special.” Their heroic status is an important fact. It helps explain why these cells keep popping up. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is also assisting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with the view that we've moved from man and organization to philosophy and movement, but one hasn't entirely replaced the other. There are three levels: Al Qaeda central is still intact; there are groups long affiliated with Al Qaeda, in places like Kashmir, the Philippines, and Indonesia; and there are the new groups inspired by Al Qaeda.
3. Given all this, why hasn't there been an attack on the United States for the past five years?
It's not just a lack of capacity; they're not ready to do it. They put more emphasis on success than speed, and the next attack has to be bigger than 9/11. They could shoot up a mall if that's what they wanted to do. But the world is going their way. Our leaders have been clever in defining success as preventing a big terrorist attack on the United States, but we've lost some 3,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've spent billions on those wars, and as in Vietnam the government has suffered a real hit on its credibility. The war in Iraq has created huge divisiveness in our domestic politics, not to mention in our relationships with our European allies. At the same time, there are more people willing to take up arms against the United States, and we have less ability to win hearts and minds in the Arab world. If you're bin Laden living in a cave, all those things are part of the war and those things are going your way.
4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
It broke the back of our counterterrorism program. Iraq was the perfect execution of a war that demanded jihad to oppose it. You had an infidel power invading and occupying a Muslim country and it was perceived to be unprovoked. Many senior Western officials said that bin Laden was not a scholar and couldn't declare a jihad but other Muslim clerics did. So that religious question was erased.
Secondly, Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. We see Iraq as a honey pot that attracts jihadists whom we can kill there instead of fighting them here. We are ignoring that Iraq is not just a place to kill Americans; Al Qaeda has always said that it requires safe havens. It has said it couldn't get involved with large numbers in the Balkans war because it had no safe haven in the region. Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.
5. Things seemed to have turned for the worse in Afghanistan too. What's your take on the situation there?
The President was sold a bill of goods by George Tenet and the CIA—that a few dozen intel guys, a few hundred Special Forces, and truckloads of money could win the day. What happened is what's happened ever since Alexander the Great, three centuries before Christ: the cities fell quickly, which we mistook for victory. Three years later, the Taliban has regrouped, and there's a strong insurgency. We paid a great price for demonizing the Taliban. We saw them as evil because they didn't let women work, but that's largely irrelevant in Afghanistan. They provided nationwide law and order for the first time in 25 years; we destroyed that and haven't replaced it. They're remembered in Afghanistan for their harsh, theocratic rule, but remembered more for the security they provided. In the end, we'll lose and leave. The idea that we can control Afghanistan with 22,000 soldiers, most of whom are indifferent to the task, is far-fetched. The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 soldiers and utter brutality. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, [the military historian] John Keegan said the only way to go there was as a punitive mission, to destroy your enemy and get out. That was prescient; our only real mission there should have been to kill bin Laden and Zawahiri and as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible, and we didn't do it.
6. Has the war in Lebanon also been a plus for the jihadists?
Yes. The Israel-Hezbollah battle validates bin Laden. It showed that the Arab regimes are useless, that they can't protect their own nationals, and that they are apostate regimes that are creatures of the infidels. It also showed that the Americans will let Israel do whatever it wants. It was clear from the way the West reacted that it would let Israel take its best shot before it tried diplomacy. I saw an article in the Arab press—in London, I think—that said Lebanon was like a caught fish, that the United States nailed it to the wall and Israel gutted it. The most salient point it showed for Islamists is that Muslim blood is cheap. Israel said it went to war to get back its captured soldiers. The price was the gutting of Lebanon. Olmert said that Israel would fight until it got its soldiers back and until Hezbollah was disarmed. Neither happened. No matter how you spin it, this will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then there have been the two intifadas, and now this. The idea of Israel being militarily omnipotent is fading.
7. And finally, an extra question—what needs to be done?
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies—and at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy.
At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.
What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil. What benefit do we get by letting China commit genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs? What do we get out of supporting Putin in Chechnya? He may need to do it to maintain his country, but we don't need to support what looks like a rape, pillage, and kill campaign against Muslims. The other area is Israel and Palestine. We're not going to abandon the Israelis but we need to reestablish the relationship so it looks like we're the great power and they're our ally, and not the other way around. We need to create a situation where moderate Muslims can express support for the United States without being laughed off the block.
This is brought to you today by a very illuminating article I came across, located here but reprinted below for your convenience. The really sad thing is, many people have been saying these exact same things for years now, myself included. Recently, at a family gathering, elder relatives were commenting in a negative fashion on the war in Iraq and on our Commander in Chief, namely in regards to how poorly planned and poorly equipped the whole shebang has been. I guess I really have been but a mime in the background for years now; maybe logic is doomed to be forever ignored until it is too late.
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
by Ken Silverstein
Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004; he served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the formerly anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. I met him for breakfast last week at an IHOP in the Virginia suburbs outside of Washington. Over a plate of eggs and hash browns, he answered a series of questions about the current state of the Bush Administration’s “War on Terrorism.” His prognosis was illuminating and insightful—and, unfortunately, almost unrelentingly grim.
1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that's just a body count, not progress. We can't capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world. There's our military presence in Islamic countries, the perception that we control the Muslim world’s oil production, our support for Israel and for countries that oppress Muslims such as China, Russia, and India, and our own support for Arab tyrannies. The deal we made with Qadaffi in Libya looks like hypocrisy: we'll make peace with a brutal dictator if it gets us oil. President Bush is right when he says all people aspire to freedom but he doesn't recognize that people have different definitions of democracy. Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.
2. Is Al Qaeda stronger or weaker than it was five years ago?
The quality of its leadership is not as high as it was in 2001, because we've killed and captured so many of its leaders. But they have succession planning that works very well. We keep saying that we're killing their leaders, but you notice that we keep having to kill their number twos, threes and fours all over again. They bring in replacements, and these are not novices off the street—they're understudies. From the very first, bin Laden has said that he's just one person and Al Qaeda is a vanguard organization, that it needs other Muslims to join them. He's always said that his primary goal is to incite attacks by people who might not have any direct contact with Al Qaeda. Since 2001, and especially since mid-2005, there's been an increase in the number of groups that were not directly tied to Al Qaeda but were inspired by bin Laden's words and actions.
We also shouldn't underestimate the stature of bin Laden and Zawahiri in the Muslim world now that they’ve survived five years of war with the United States. You see commentary in the Muslim press: “How have they been able to defy the United States? It takes something special.” Their heroic status is an important fact. It helps explain why these cells keep popping up. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is also assisting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with the view that we've moved from man and organization to philosophy and movement, but one hasn't entirely replaced the other. There are three levels: Al Qaeda central is still intact; there are groups long affiliated with Al Qaeda, in places like Kashmir, the Philippines, and Indonesia; and there are the new groups inspired by Al Qaeda.
3. Given all this, why hasn't there been an attack on the United States for the past five years?
It's not just a lack of capacity; they're not ready to do it. They put more emphasis on success than speed, and the next attack has to be bigger than 9/11. They could shoot up a mall if that's what they wanted to do. But the world is going their way. Our leaders have been clever in defining success as preventing a big terrorist attack on the United States, but we've lost some 3,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've spent billions on those wars, and as in Vietnam the government has suffered a real hit on its credibility. The war in Iraq has created huge divisiveness in our domestic politics, not to mention in our relationships with our European allies. At the same time, there are more people willing to take up arms against the United States, and we have less ability to win hearts and minds in the Arab world. If you're bin Laden living in a cave, all those things are part of the war and those things are going your way.
4. Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
It broke the back of our counterterrorism program. Iraq was the perfect execution of a war that demanded jihad to oppose it. You had an infidel power invading and occupying a Muslim country and it was perceived to be unprovoked. Many senior Western officials said that bin Laden was not a scholar and couldn't declare a jihad but other Muslim clerics did. So that religious question was erased.
Secondly, Iraq is in the Arab heartland and, far more than Afghanistan, is a magnet for mujahideen. You can see this in the large number of people crossing the border to fight us. It wasn't a lot at the start, but there's been a steady growth as the war continues. The war has validated everything bin Laden said: that the United States will destroy any strong government in the Arab world, that it will seek to destroy Israel's enemies, that it will occupy Muslim holy places, that it will seize Arab oil, and that it will replace God's law with man's law. We see Iraq as a honey pot that attracts jihadists whom we can kill there instead of fighting them here. We are ignoring that Iraq is not just a place to kill Americans; Al Qaeda has always said that it requires safe havens. It has said it couldn't get involved with large numbers in the Balkans war because it had no safe haven in the region. Now they have a safe haven in Iraq, which is so big and is going to be so unsettled for so long. For the first time, it gives Al Qaeda contiguous access to the Arabian Peninsula, to Turkey, and to the Levant. We may have written the death warrant for Jordan. If we pull out of Iraq, we have a problem in that we may have to leave a large contingent of troops in Jordan. All of this is a tremendous advantage for Al Qaeda. We've moved the center of jihad a thousand miles west from Afghanistan to the Middle East.
5. Things seemed to have turned for the worse in Afghanistan too. What's your take on the situation there?
The President was sold a bill of goods by George Tenet and the CIA—that a few dozen intel guys, a few hundred Special Forces, and truckloads of money could win the day. What happened is what's happened ever since Alexander the Great, three centuries before Christ: the cities fell quickly, which we mistook for victory. Three years later, the Taliban has regrouped, and there's a strong insurgency. We paid a great price for demonizing the Taliban. We saw them as evil because they didn't let women work, but that's largely irrelevant in Afghanistan. They provided nationwide law and order for the first time in 25 years; we destroyed that and haven't replaced it. They're remembered in Afghanistan for their harsh, theocratic rule, but remembered more for the security they provided. In the end, we'll lose and leave. The idea that we can control Afghanistan with 22,000 soldiers, most of whom are indifferent to the task, is far-fetched. The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 soldiers and utter brutality. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, [the military historian] John Keegan said the only way to go there was as a punitive mission, to destroy your enemy and get out. That was prescient; our only real mission there should have been to kill bin Laden and Zawahiri and as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible, and we didn't do it.
6. Has the war in Lebanon also been a plus for the jihadists?
Yes. The Israel-Hezbollah battle validates bin Laden. It showed that the Arab regimes are useless, that they can't protect their own nationals, and that they are apostate regimes that are creatures of the infidels. It also showed that the Americans will let Israel do whatever it wants. It was clear from the way the West reacted that it would let Israel take its best shot before it tried diplomacy. I saw an article in the Arab press—in London, I think—that said Lebanon was like a caught fish, that the United States nailed it to the wall and Israel gutted it. The most salient point it showed for Islamists is that Muslim blood is cheap. Israel said it went to war to get back its captured soldiers. The price was the gutting of Lebanon. Olmert said that Israel would fight until it got its soldiers back and until Hezbollah was disarmed. Neither happened. No matter how you spin it, this will be viewed as a victory for Hezbollah. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon six years ago. Since then there have been the two intifadas, and now this. The idea of Israel being militarily omnipotent is fading.
7. And finally, an extra question—what needs to be done?
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies—and at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy.
At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.
What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil. What benefit do we get by letting China commit genocide-by-inundation by moving thousands and thousands of Han Chinese to overcome the dominance of Muslim Uighurs? What do we get out of supporting Putin in Chechnya? He may need to do it to maintain his country, but we don't need to support what looks like a rape, pillage, and kill campaign against Muslims. The other area is Israel and Palestine. We're not going to abandon the Israelis but we need to reestablish the relationship so it looks like we're the great power and they're our ally, and not the other way around. We need to create a situation where moderate Muslims can express support for the United States without being laughed off the block.
Lenny (1974)
Thankfully abandoning the traditional three-act structure that plagues so many entries of the biography genre (by means of stripping down the nuances and insights of its figure of interest so as to fit them into a tidy, crowd-pleasing form), Bob Fosse’s inquisitive Lenny never quite takes flight, although its continuous takeoff efforts are savory enough in their own right. Rather than packing the turbulent life of Lenny Bruce into traditional narrative form, Lenny opts for a pseudo documentary approach, recreating key moments of his life, interspersed amongst retrospective “interviews” conducted with the cast members (posing as their real-life counterparts) and Hoffman’s onstage performances as the deceased comic. Lenny Bruce’s onstage antics typically involved the use of language and sexual imagery (tame by today’s standards, but horrifically obscene at the time) as a means of satirizing and commenting on American society and culture, his aim being to enlighten his audience on the injustices of the world and the power of knowledge and honesty in writing such downfalls. His means to seeking the truth earned him equal doses of fame and followers as well as copious amounts of legal trouble (those inspired by him include George Carlin and Bill Hicks, among many others), his use of swear words often landing him in court for obscenity. In many ways, Lenny feels incomplete, never really pinpointing the deeper aspects of its characters’ motivations or beliefs, although it’s not for lack of trying, particularly on the part of Dustin Hoffman’s bravura performance. But, in regards to its celebrity figures’ boundary-pushing humor, the film certainly does justice in attempting to deconstruct it so wholeheartedly. Few scenes in the film work better than a handful of extended takes of Bruce’s comedy act, calmly observing his thoughts and words as they unfold like a carefully controlled torrent of pathos and insight up on the stage.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Screening Log, August 2006
August 15th
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Dir: David Lynch
Source: Universal DVD
Even if one isn't able to put together the pieces of Lynch's erotic fever dream, his mise en scène is so compulsively watchable that it would hardly flag the experience. However, once the viewer accepts, unquestionably, the twisted logic of the film and its tragic heroine, there isn't a single moment that fails to make absolutely perfect sense. The film effortlessly folds back within itself like a psychoanalytical puzzle, profoundly thrilling both in the form of scattered pieces as well as its mind-bogglingly complete form.
August 16th
The Godfather (1972)
Dir: Francis Ford Coppola
Source: Paramount DVD Box Set
There's hardly an example where watching Coppola's masterful debut that isn't a cause for celebration; in this particular instance, it was introducting the film to my long-time cohort, thus filling in one of his most embarassing blind spots. The Godfather weaves its tale of crime, honor and family together with magnificent ease, although after this viewing (probably my 5th or 6th) I think it now certain to say I prefer Part II. There's hardly a moment of this original that doesn't reach some sort of pinnacle, but if I had to single out one complaint, it's that the operatic gestures often beg for a more subtle intimacy with the characters' emotions.
In the Mood for Love (2000)
Dir: Wong Kar-Wai
Source: Criterion DVD
"Wow. Are you sure you weren't having sex?"
- Paul Schrodt (replying to the description of my experience watching said film)
Full review here.
August 17th
Un Chien Andalou (1929)
Dir: Luis Buñuel
Source: Transflux Films DVD
There's far more to be written about this film than I could possibly muster up after only one viewing. Buñuel's, and - fittingly - cinema's first foray into the realm of surrealism is transfixing and completely engaging even when it doesn't make a bit of sense. Of course, that's only if you're looking for a story or plot on which to fixate the progression of events. Un Chien Andalou is cinema, its often illogical images of death and decay reflecting human sexuality and immortality with titillating ease. The first scene of the film shows a man (the director, no less) slicing open a woman's eye with a straight razor, thus inflicting upon his audience the challenging (and, literally, eye-opening) nature of his imagery. A recurring box that appears throughout the film (perhaps an inspiration for Mulholland Dr.'s immortal "blue box"?), only to be shattered into bits at the end, thus signifying the destruction of convention in order to pave the way for a new wave of cinema.
August 18th
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Dir: David R. Ellis
Source: Theatrical Print
The title says it all, really. If you want to see it, then chances are you will like it.
Full review here.
August 20th
V for Vendetta (2006)
Dir: James McTeigue
Source: Warner Bros. DVD
One of my beliefs is that anyone can be wrong about anything and should at least be mature enough to own up to it when such is the case. For this reason, I will often re-watch movies of which my opinion is in the minority. This has often led to 180-turns (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which I initially hated, now love; vice-versa for Saved!), while in cases where my opinion remains steadfast, I refuse to watch the film in question more than three times (Crash, The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket); sometimes that majority will disagree with you and that's that. However, revisiting V for Vendetta, amidst landslides of fanboy hype and praise from within my circle of friends, did little to improve my opinion. I'm sure a great movie could be made from this material, but the film, concerning a terrorist/revolutionary figure set on overthrowing the corrupt government in futuristic Great Britain, is too idealogically reductive to be taken seriously, and strains so hard to be taken as such that it's also very little fun. The filmmaker's are obviously trying to comment about current America by means of David Lloyd's graphic novel, but the overt usage of Orwellian language and explanatory dialogue renders any illumination more condescending than enlightening. The anti-government stance, driven by a plot element that indicates the government once killed thousands of its own citizens in order to further a political agenda, is less a re-imagination of current 9/11 conspiracy theory concerns than it is simply a means of getting idiot liberals some anarchy to get excited about, while the humanistic elements (such as a sepia-toned flashback to a now-dead lesbian's persecution) are outright demeaning in their hollow nostalgia. V for vacant.
August 21st
Adaptation. (2002)
Dir: Spike Jonze
Source: Sony Pictures DVD
So few films (or any work of art, for that matter) feel as startlingly complete as this, reuniting Kaufman and Jonze from their work on Being John Malkovich for a film just as inventive and exhuberant. Ouroboros is the key word here, for Adaptation. is literally about the creation of itself... or is it? For anyone who has ever strived to do something true and creative and unique while others succeed through a celebration of mediocrity, Adaptation. will become something of a theme song.
Gosford Park (2001)
Dir: Robert Altman
Source: Universal DVD
It can't hold a candle to Nashville, but this Altman ensemble piece slowly accrues a deep sense of involvement between the audience and its characters, a slice of both the upper and lower classes convening at a high-class party in the country. When an unsuspected murder takes place, deep, personal secrets and unspoken pasts emerge with a tranquil profundity. And what is it with Bob Balaban playing characters with movie-related professions? (a scene of him dodging a falling fowl at a hunting party had me laughing hysterically)
August 23rd
Lenny (1974)
Dir: Bob Fosse
Source: MGM DVD
Full review here.
August 24th
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Dir: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Source: Theatrical Print
Indie cinema has long had its own set of formulas to rival Hollywood fare, and this is the latest in a long line of quirky dramedies without much in the way of real substance. Some great performances aside (Steve Carrell is borderline brilliant), the movie trades strictly in strange eccentricities far too much to really get at the heart of its familial dysfunction.
Miami Vice (2006)
Dir: Michael Mann
Source: Theatrical Print
What movie was I watching the first time? Arguably the most soulful "action" film so far this decade, Mann's film is fluid on plot and heavy on sleek imagery, like a meditative music video under the influence. Any connection with the 80's series is purely incidental, and it's all the better for it.
Full review here.
August 25th
A Scanner Darkly (2006)
Dir: Richard Linklater
Source: Theatrical Print
The animation style isn't as well-employed as in Waking Life (although Keanu Reeves' scramble suit is quite cool), but this Phillip K. Dick adaptation is solid Linklater material, intriguing and, more than anything, quite funny at times. For once, an anti-drug movie that doesn't take itself so godawfully serious all the time.
August 26th
L'Enfant (2005)
Dir: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
Source: Sony DVD
Another film that benefitted greatly from a second viewing. Full review coming soon.
Dogville (2003)
Dir: Lars Von Trier
Source: Lions Gate DVD
Full review.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Dir: David Lynch
Source: Universal DVD
Even if one isn't able to put together the pieces of Lynch's erotic fever dream, his mise en scène is so compulsively watchable that it would hardly flag the experience. However, once the viewer accepts, unquestionably, the twisted logic of the film and its tragic heroine, there isn't a single moment that fails to make absolutely perfect sense. The film effortlessly folds back within itself like a psychoanalytical puzzle, profoundly thrilling both in the form of scattered pieces as well as its mind-bogglingly complete form.
August 16th
The Godfather (1972)
Dir: Francis Ford Coppola
Source: Paramount DVD Box Set
There's hardly an example where watching Coppola's masterful debut that isn't a cause for celebration; in this particular instance, it was introducting the film to my long-time cohort, thus filling in one of his most embarassing blind spots. The Godfather weaves its tale of crime, honor and family together with magnificent ease, although after this viewing (probably my 5th or 6th) I think it now certain to say I prefer Part II. There's hardly a moment of this original that doesn't reach some sort of pinnacle, but if I had to single out one complaint, it's that the operatic gestures often beg for a more subtle intimacy with the characters' emotions.
In the Mood for Love (2000)
Dir: Wong Kar-Wai
Source: Criterion DVD
"Wow. Are you sure you weren't having sex?"
- Paul Schrodt (replying to the description of my experience watching said film)
Full review here.
August 17th
Un Chien Andalou (1929)
Dir: Luis Buñuel
Source: Transflux Films DVD
There's far more to be written about this film than I could possibly muster up after only one viewing. Buñuel's, and - fittingly - cinema's first foray into the realm of surrealism is transfixing and completely engaging even when it doesn't make a bit of sense. Of course, that's only if you're looking for a story or plot on which to fixate the progression of events. Un Chien Andalou is cinema, its often illogical images of death and decay reflecting human sexuality and immortality with titillating ease. The first scene of the film shows a man (the director, no less) slicing open a woman's eye with a straight razor, thus inflicting upon his audience the challenging (and, literally, eye-opening) nature of his imagery. A recurring box that appears throughout the film (perhaps an inspiration for Mulholland Dr.'s immortal "blue box"?), only to be shattered into bits at the end, thus signifying the destruction of convention in order to pave the way for a new wave of cinema.
August 18th
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Dir: David R. Ellis
Source: Theatrical Print
The title says it all, really. If you want to see it, then chances are you will like it.
Full review here.
August 20th
V for Vendetta (2006)
Dir: James McTeigue
Source: Warner Bros. DVD
One of my beliefs is that anyone can be wrong about anything and should at least be mature enough to own up to it when such is the case. For this reason, I will often re-watch movies of which my opinion is in the minority. This has often led to 180-turns (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which I initially hated, now love; vice-versa for Saved!), while in cases where my opinion remains steadfast, I refuse to watch the film in question more than three times (Crash, The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket); sometimes that majority will disagree with you and that's that. However, revisiting V for Vendetta, amidst landslides of fanboy hype and praise from within my circle of friends, did little to improve my opinion. I'm sure a great movie could be made from this material, but the film, concerning a terrorist/revolutionary figure set on overthrowing the corrupt government in futuristic Great Britain, is too idealogically reductive to be taken seriously, and strains so hard to be taken as such that it's also very little fun. The filmmaker's are obviously trying to comment about current America by means of David Lloyd's graphic novel, but the overt usage of Orwellian language and explanatory dialogue renders any illumination more condescending than enlightening. The anti-government stance, driven by a plot element that indicates the government once killed thousands of its own citizens in order to further a political agenda, is less a re-imagination of current 9/11 conspiracy theory concerns than it is simply a means of getting idiot liberals some anarchy to get excited about, while the humanistic elements (such as a sepia-toned flashback to a now-dead lesbian's persecution) are outright demeaning in their hollow nostalgia. V for vacant.
August 21st
Adaptation. (2002)
Dir: Spike Jonze
Source: Sony Pictures DVD
So few films (or any work of art, for that matter) feel as startlingly complete as this, reuniting Kaufman and Jonze from their work on Being John Malkovich for a film just as inventive and exhuberant. Ouroboros is the key word here, for Adaptation. is literally about the creation of itself... or is it? For anyone who has ever strived to do something true and creative and unique while others succeed through a celebration of mediocrity, Adaptation. will become something of a theme song.
Gosford Park (2001)
Dir: Robert Altman
Source: Universal DVD
It can't hold a candle to Nashville, but this Altman ensemble piece slowly accrues a deep sense of involvement between the audience and its characters, a slice of both the upper and lower classes convening at a high-class party in the country. When an unsuspected murder takes place, deep, personal secrets and unspoken pasts emerge with a tranquil profundity. And what is it with Bob Balaban playing characters with movie-related professions? (a scene of him dodging a falling fowl at a hunting party had me laughing hysterically)
August 23rd
Lenny (1974)
Dir: Bob Fosse
Source: MGM DVD
Full review here.
August 24th
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Dir: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Source: Theatrical Print
Indie cinema has long had its own set of formulas to rival Hollywood fare, and this is the latest in a long line of quirky dramedies without much in the way of real substance. Some great performances aside (Steve Carrell is borderline brilliant), the movie trades strictly in strange eccentricities far too much to really get at the heart of its familial dysfunction.
Miami Vice (2006)
Dir: Michael Mann
Source: Theatrical Print
What movie was I watching the first time? Arguably the most soulful "action" film so far this decade, Mann's film is fluid on plot and heavy on sleek imagery, like a meditative music video under the influence. Any connection with the 80's series is purely incidental, and it's all the better for it.
Full review here.
August 25th
A Scanner Darkly (2006)
Dir: Richard Linklater
Source: Theatrical Print
The animation style isn't as well-employed as in Waking Life (although Keanu Reeves' scramble suit is quite cool), but this Phillip K. Dick adaptation is solid Linklater material, intriguing and, more than anything, quite funny at times. For once, an anti-drug movie that doesn't take itself so godawfully serious all the time.
August 26th
L'Enfant (2005)
Dir: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
Source: Sony DVD
Another film that benefitted greatly from a second viewing. Full review coming soon.
Dogville (2003)
Dir: Lars Von Trier
Source: Lions Gate DVD
Full review.
I Confess
While there are few things I would like as much as to be able to put all my efforts into this and my other online movie dealings, it's high time to realize that, being both unprofessional and unpaid for my efforts at the moment, this is wholly beyond reason. Educational, financial and familial concerns take up a good portion of my time (as they do with just about anybody), thus preventing me from adequately covering everything that I would like to. Yet, my movie watching rarely diminishes even as my time online waxes and wanes, so methinks it would be pointless to not have some indication of what has been on my playlist and how I've reacted to it.
My proposal is that all new releases will, at one point or another, get a full review (300+ words), while all movies seen by me will from this day forward be documented in a "screening log" (thank notcoming.com for the inspiration), which will record the usual information (title, date, year, director), where and how I saw the film (DVD, video, name of theater), and at least a sentence or two on my thoughts. This will help in exhibiting (1) at least a glimpse of everything that I manage to sit down to, (2) a general look at my viewing habits, and (3) some more recommendations for or against movies for my readers (as few as they may be).
With the nature of this blog, I will, at the beginning of each month, post a new "screening log" post, with a permanent link to be provided with the rest of the links. This way, the screening log can be partially organized into monthly archives. Let's cross our fingers for this little experiment.
My proposal is that all new releases will, at one point or another, get a full review (300+ words), while all movies seen by me will from this day forward be documented in a "screening log" (thank notcoming.com for the inspiration), which will record the usual information (title, date, year, director), where and how I saw the film (DVD, video, name of theater), and at least a sentence or two on my thoughts. This will help in exhibiting (1) at least a glimpse of everything that I manage to sit down to, (2) a general look at my viewing habits, and (3) some more recommendations for or against movies for my readers (as few as they may be).
With the nature of this blog, I will, at the beginning of each month, post a new "screening log" post, with a permanent link to be provided with the rest of the links. This way, the screening log can be partially organized into monthly archives. Let's cross our fingers for this little experiment.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
In the Mood for Love (2000)
In the Mood for Love is a film of hallways, doors, mirrors and archways; these are the architectural structures that simultaneously make up and constrict our lives, and it is within this plethora of oppressive frameworks that its two main characters must vie for their right to exist as free beings of choice and emotion. They are Mr. Chow (Tony Leung Chiu Wai) and Mrs. Chan (Maggie Cheung), two neighbors who slowly realize that they’ve both been shunned by their spouses, who are routinely away at the same times, their betrayal always felt but never seen. The unfaithful remain permanently off-screen while the damaged seek comfort for their shared pain in the presence of one another. Vowing to not be like their adulterous partners, they bind emotionally but merely skirt around each other physically, their feelings like a boiling liquid vying to escape its enclosed container. Wong Kar-Wai isolates these characters from the rest of the world much in the way their emotions have them utterly unto themselves; any interaction with others is almost purely routine, their shared presence but lack of tangible connection making up the film’s ravishing soul. Mind you, however, the visual constructs made up by the film’s maze-like attentiveness to architectural detail is a far cry from the generic “broken mirrors” and “rails as prison bars” metaphors. The presence of these elements is both passive and completely saturating; take them away, and these characters would exist in but an empty space. Paired with the seductively tantalizing soundtrack, In the Mood for Love takes on the status as a poetic mosaic of sight, sound, and bodily language, both literally and figuratively timeless as it unfolds with an aching sense of restraint. I think it worth mentioning that the film's ravishing construct sent my body into alternating fits of chills, helpless aesthetic delirium, and absolute breathlessness. The unfulfilled desire is as tender and pulsating as life itself, and it’s ravishing, voluptuously artistic dance suggests the mounting ecstasy of sex freed from the clumsiness of the physical.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)
It doesn’t take much experience to recognize the pitch-perfect lampooning of the modern biography genre on display in Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which apes the clichés and conventions of its declared genre in the name of self-aware ridiculousness of the SNL brand. Unfortunately, this re-teaming of the creative minds behind Anchorman runs parallel to the material it mocks for its own good, failing to give Ferrell and company the free range necessary for them to get their improvised comedy kick up to full gear. Instead, it follows the beaten path with but the faintest shades of difference – a few tweaks and a character change, and this could be Ray or Walk the Line. Sure, that’s largely the point, but knowingly subversive imitation doesn’t last forever in the laughs department, and while Ferrell (largely channeling his hilarious George W. Bush impersonation) certainly makes the most of his part (a self-obsessed NASCAR driver whose celebrity and familial status is threatened by the emergence of an up-and-coming French driver), the film seems to forget that his funniest moments are often sporadic and unscripted: Talladega Nights restricts his skills by adhering them to a more stringent script. Some golden moments shine through, however: a frantic scene that slyly combines elements of both Murderball and Young Frankenstein provides possibly the biggest laughs, along with an uproariously sardonic take on the traditional "motivational speech," delivered to perfection by Junebug’s Amy Adams. If the handful of alternate takes provided during the end credits are any indication, this is a case where the blooper reel would be funnier than the actual movie.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
T.G.I.F.?
It's been a hell of a busy week, although that isn't as clear on this blog as it should be. Zoom today at 1 pm for Slant Magazine (my first review!), everything afterwards is up in the air. My aim, lest I fall asleep, is to pour out my thoughts into the keyboard later this afternoon on a number of films I've seen recently, including a large batch of silents that I've recently caught up on. Until then, I leave you with a YouTube hosted clip from Buster Keaton's incredibly underrated and underseen Go West, further proof that silent cinema is often more joyous than anything the sound era has to offer. Ed Gonzalez took the words out of my mouth: "Keaton never had a better, more endearing leading lady than that cow." It's so very true. Click below to enjoy the clueless antics of old stone face.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Basic Instinct (1992)
Forget all the controversy and ballyhooing: Basic Instinct is, in the words of the late, great Bill Hicks, a piece of shit. Rigidly and unimaginatively conforming to the archetype standards of the thriller genre, Verhoeven tries to add some unique flair by masquerading the whole things as a titillating piece of porn, and unsuccessfully at that. Michael Douglas is Nick Curran, a cop with a checkered past who can’t resist the opportunity to again go in over his head, this time when sexy novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is suspected of killing her boyfriend in the same manner as is described in a book she wrote years ago (two words: ice pick). Much bare skin and fucking ensues, but for all the tension and sense of danger the film tries to instill, its X-rated elements (trimmed down repeatedly to earn the necessary R rating, thus denying its viewers the prurient elements they crave, substituting them with a case of blue balls) are particularly sterile and tame (yes, even the infamous “crotch” shot). Sharon Stone is the only cast member who seems to recognize the impossibly cheesy overtones to the script, playing up her ice queen role as if it were the wet dream manifestation of itself. Everyone else, filmmakers included, fail to play with or subvert the clichés they’re adhering to – they just turn up the volume. Nothing in the film, however, is more enraging than the final shot: a half-assed fade to black segment bisects the scene so as to allow for easy editing, depending on which way test audiences prefer the film to conclude. Trash like this needs a healthy dose of self-awareness.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Army of Shadows (1969)
Finally receiving a long-overdue release in the United States, the French classic Army of Shadows is a near-masterpiece at exhibiting the corrosive nature of war and political oppression upon the human mind and soul. Following the efforts of a small resistance organization formed in France during the Nazi occupation of World War II, the film observes with a detached, ethereal sterility the crushing spiritual oppression of this time in history, particularly exhibited by these individuals who give everything and more to an idea that has very little chance of manifesting within their own lifetimes. A sense of unity exists between the persecuted, many of whom have come together from all walks of life to stand up against the monstrous evil of the Third Reich; the practices of war, however, see that even the most good-hearted of people must often perform the most heinous of deeds if they are to keep themselves and their beliefs alive. They operate silently, deliberately, and with the utmost patience; this is the political thriller stripped of its glamorous intellectual overtones. The film is reminiscent of The Battle of Algiers in its capturing the processes of these dedicated insurgents, although Army of Darkness emerges darker in that it doesn’t (and can’t) follow through to witness any sort of victory. The magnificent opening shot sees a line of Nazi troops march before the L’Arc de Triomphe, ultimately turning towards the camera and encroaching menacingly upon the viewer. The frame seems to exist as a constrictive force against these freedom fighters, the steady camerawork reinforcing the rigidity of society and their inability to alter it. While certainly not meant to instill a sense of optimism towards the chances of the righteous underdog, Army of Shadows portrays with staggering authenticity the degrading effects that often accompany a determination to fight the good fight.
Kekexili: Mountain Patrol (2004)
The more customary theme of man vs. nature takes a backseat to man’s internal moral conflict with himself, here manifested in the long-running antagonistic relationship between those who illegally poach the Tibetan antelope and the volunteer citizens of the Kekexili region who regularly risk their lives in an effort to protect the endangered animals. Largely inspired by real events of the 1990’s, the National Geographic-produced film presents its events as unfolding realities, the location shootings and unflourished camerawork suggesting no overt morality plays or intended fables. Many lingering shots posit the lone humans against the depth of the unforgiving wilderness, much like the underrated Wolf Creek (but without the blisteringly hellish overtones of impending doom); Mountain Patrol’s sense of natural fear grows steadily out of its unglamorous approach to the material. The team of protectors, dubbed the Mountain Patrol, are a ragtag team who sacrifice happiness to do what needs to be done, often without adequate funding or equipment, and even more so at the expense of their own safety. Despite some moments of horrific mortal terror (made all the more effective by the straightforward presentation), Mountain Patrol’s most permeating quality is one of human perspective, establishing its human players, both “good” and “bad,” as significant beings even despite their relative role as but dust in the wind. Ultimately, the film is an ode to the great sacrifices that often accompany the will to do the right thing.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Size matters in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which recreates the swashbuckling adventures of its predecessor in excess but forgets to take the necessary breathers between for more natural, less contrived fun. Plot was almost besides the point to 2003’s surprise hit The Curse of the Black Pearl, which so joyously mined the cheeky antics of the resurrected pirate genre and melded them with Johnny Depp’s most delectable showcase of over-acting for the rare case of a truly worthwhile mega-blockbuster. That film's chief flaw was its plot-heavy, overindulgent running time, a lopsided two-and-a-half-hours that could have easily been sharpened into a leaner and more energetic form. Dead Man’s Chest repeats this error by piling on the set pieces and subplots beyond the point of necessity or worth; the CGI might be impressive, but with the focus on such generally rudimentary developments, there’s no chance for the visuals to instill a lasting sense of wonder. Depp’s savory performance is a perfect extension of his previous, Oscar-nominated turn, although his own eagerness seems dimmed by the extra narrative baggage being lugged around this time; at times, his frantic bodily language is reminiscent of Buster Keaton’s silent pantomime. Captain Jack must pay a long-standing debt with his soul to the aquatic villain Davy Jones, while engaged William and Elizabeth are arrested for aiding the outlaw Jack in the past. With a plot that piles on the icing whilst forgetting the cake as well as a cliffhanger ending that will lead directly into the third installment (to be titled At World’s End, one can’t help but think that the movie would have been better described with the subtitle Reloaded.
Running Scared (2006)
Holy bejesus, where to begin? More aptly titled Grand Theft Auto: The Motion Picture (and even that is an affront to said game series' sly social commentary and satire), Running Scared is the kind of film that knows no limits, although that description is probably more empowering than I intend it to be. The disposable plot concerns a mob underling trying to recover a gun used to whack a crooked cop before it falls into the wrong hands, or something like that – once the movie begins, there’s little point in trying to discern anything for yourself, as the makers are more content to ram it down your throat with all the class of a raging alcoholic (for the record, expect self-declaratory hookers, pedophiles and "mack daddy pimps" along the way). It’s hard to decide what’s more ridiculous: some of the absurd elements the film tries to pass off as serious (an abusive father whose fuel for anger is a childhood obsession with John Wayne) or its lambasting visual style, the inconsistency and obtuseness of which suggests a kid using Photoshop for the first time, randomly inserting whatever CGI enhancement or camera trick looks cool at the moment. With its nonexistent personalities, an inexplicable obsession with the word “fuck,” splintered scenes seemingly constructed entirely in the editing room, and a complete disregard for the audiences’ intelligence or imagination, Running Scared is quite possibly the worst new release I’ve endured in almost three years.I'm almost ashamed to admit, however, that at the height of the film's preposterous climax, I experienced one of those rare feelings of incredible illumination, a profound sense of heightened awareness washing over my senses in a moment of dawning awareness. For a fleeting instant, I felt intimately connected with the inevitable moment of my own death, the finality of life's end, the uncertainty of existence beyond the realm of the flesh. This has happened before; during one of Before Sunset's exquisitely intimate conversations, I felt an immense peace deep within, knowing that life would one day end and that everything would somehow be okay afterwards. With Richard Linklater's masterpiece, it was the result of the connection between the viewer and the work, an intangible product of art that unveils previously unknown feelings and gives life itself added meaning. With Running Scared, on the other hand, I quickly realized that it was merely indicative that the film itself had caused a little bit of me to die inside.
Superman Returns (2006)
A religious-like approach to this sequellian rehash meant to follow the first two Superman films (pretending, rightly so, that Superman III and IV never existed in the first place) both justifies the existence and limits the potency of Superman Returns. Spearing head-on the thought that Superman’s god-like strength makes him an inaccessible, and thus, irrelevant superhero (no more so than in Lois Lane’s emotional abandonment of Superman), Bryan Singer’s reverent film looks at a world that, for five years, has had to go on without the Man of Steel, he having temporarily returned to his home planet of Krypton in order to search for any remnants or survivors of the once great world. The customary world-dominating villain tactics, handily supplied by Kevin Spacey’s Lex Luthor, are more a mundane necessity than the tension-inducing focal point of the film, which, by distancing the audience from the characters by means of a deliberately arms-length approach, sacrifices some of its emotional potential in turn for the ability to more prominently flex the muscle of its main characters’ iconic mythology. Thus, Superman Returns is a film intrinsically in conflict with itself. At times, the film seems less about Superman than about the audiences’ relationship with the character, a reminder of his importance, both literally and figuratively, in a post-9/11 world. Meanwhile, the action set pieces are genuinely enthralling, although, while the CG work is scores better in terms of realism than its 1978 and 1981 special effects counterparts, it lacks the gee-whiz imagination of those first two films. At the end of the day, however, Superman Returns succeeds – albeit slightly – in that it looks not at how much Superman owns as it does why we want him to in the first place.
The Descent (2005)
The Descent’s adherence to horror conventions proves to be a double-edged sword, effective in providing some of the most genuine and lasting scares as any film of the past decade, and reductive in its superficially mundane handling of its human characters. The opening act establishes the whos and whats of its all female cast, a group of friends all handily preformatted with archetypal character traits that will alternately mesh and clash as the progressing events necessitate. The first twenty minutes are a patience-testing bunch, laying on the superficial sense of familiarity too many films mistake for genuine character establishment with reckless abandon. Any true veteran of the genre will know in detail where future events are heading, if only thanks to two overly obvious indicator shots, and it is in this aspect that the film condescends to easy build-up and pay-off plot tactics; what is so ultimately surprising, then, is how effective the overall payoff is when the movie finally moves beyond the routine BS and dives headfirst into its visceral intentions.Lacking both the intimate primal immediacy of The Blair Witch Project and the shattered-routine overtones of Wolf Creek, The Descent’s slick aesthetic only truly comes alive when its protagonists finally begin the titular descent into the underground cave system that makes up the bulk of the film, with heavy emphasis placed on the crushing claustrophobia and the utter frailty of the human form when pitted against the unforgiving elements of nature. Without typical establishing shots or attempts at creating a sense of spacial relationship, the sense of helplessness is projected back onto the viewer without mercy. The Descent repeatedly follows the “boo” moment orchestration to a key, but makes such supreme usage of its location as to increase their effectiveness even when they are completely predictable (for the record, any film that causes me to inadvertently shout “holy fucking shit” in a crowded theater must be doing something right). The completely natural horror elements of this film would be sufficient enough, but a further twist is presented in the form of a race of carnivorous man-like albino beings living underground and ready to attack the largely helpless humans: blind, pale and craggly, they make The Lord of the Rings’ Gollum appear cute and cuddly by comparison.
Moments of the progressing horror set pieces, particularly building up to the climax, continue to tap into the poorly established character conflicts and thus are less than enthralling, but this is the rare case where the benefits afforded by a weak structure are strong enough that I’m able to forgive the films more basic sins. Like Alien before it, The Descent begs for feminist readings and probing into its laden sexual imagery, but the scattershot limpness with which the film explores these elements itself suggests that they are better left behind so that the relentless scares can flourish unhampered. The nature of the humanoid villains suggests more ideas (particularly of Darwin descent) than the film itself offers, but that aside, they are still a bunch of creepy motherfuckers. Homages to genre predecessors abound, as well as plenty of non-horror films, none more striking than the apocalyptic baptism of the newly empowered Sarah, who takes on the aura of a Kill Bill Bride as she emerges from a bloody pool not unlike Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now; in her greatest moments of triumph, she appears more like the cave creatures she is forced to overcome than her human self. The reductive character treatment is an absolute disappointment (preventing it from achieving truly great status), but the maelstrom of terror at the films center almost makes up for its more cardinal sins.P.S. If you see the film in the US-side release, check the link below for the original, extended ending, and much more emotionally satisfying ending (it’s downright insulting that the American release abandons this for a hollowly jolting conclusion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xJgAj8HbVs
Monday, August 07, 2006
Wah-Wah (2005)
Wah-Wah is director/writer Richard E. Grant’s autobiographical tale of a disaffected youth growing up in colonial Swaziland under British rule, but for the rudimentary approach given to the material it may as well have taken place in a glass bubble cut off from the rest of the world. In the first scene, a young Ralph Compton witnesses a small piece of the affair that will soon break up his family: thought to be asleep in the backseat of a car, his mother and uncle indulge each other in ways sure to be damaging to his young eyes and ears. Progressively worse, however, is his fathers drinking, which escalates even after he takes on a second wife, an American woman named Ruby who quickly takes Ralph under her wing. Grant, certainly from personal experience, takes on the troubled feelings of an unstable adolescence such as Ralph’s with some touchingly illuminating details (a recurring facial tick that Ralph sports, a teenage obsession with A Clockwork Orange, etc.), but he’s less skilled when it comes to thrusting the narrative forward as more emotional landmarks befall its characters. Perhaps like a misguided youth, the film doesn’t know quite what it’s trying to say, but this is less reflective of such ails than it is an impediment upon all the things that Wah-Wah does well otherwise. Ultimately, the many good performances are siphoned into a series of developments that, if not culled from numerous other films of the genre, are left emotionally tepid from a lack of zealous personal distinction, instead reliant upon conventions that nip Wah-Wah’s uniquely specific potentials squarely in the bud.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
The Jokes Just Write Themselves
As thankful as I am for the comedic aid of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Lewis Black, among others (including Michael Moore, on the rare occasion that he pulls his head out of his own ass) during these times of political quicksand, I'm beginning to wonder if we even need them anymore to get our necassary medicinal laughter. Even without Colbert egging him on, this video is funny enough, and illustrates a good 2/3 of what is wrong with American politics nowadays.
This next week is going to be a busy one, if I manage to finish everything that I hope to. Expect a landslide of reviews for movies that I've seen over the past month, as I catch up on the latest of summer offerings. A number of current releases are on my schedule for the next few days, including Kekexilli: Mountain Patrol, The Descent, Lady in the Water, Talladega Nights, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, as well as a special American release of the French classic Army of Shadows at the local 19th Street Civic Theatre. Bonus: on Friday I'll be seeing my first film to review for Slant Magazine: the most-likely-going-to-be-atrocious, not-being-screened-for-critics Zoom, starring Tim Allen as a retired superhero. Expect a link provided to the review late on Friday or early on Saturday, depending on how long it takes me to 1) recover, 2) watch The Incredibles so as to ensure that I don't forever hate the genre, 3) write the review itself, and 4) for Ed to post it on the site itself.
P.S. For lack of anything better to do during some down time yesterday, I popped in the 90's trash classic Basic Instinct in order to see what I've been missing out on all these years. While I reserve the right to re-evaluate my opinion should the film reveal itself to have some kind of subversive Showgirls-like greatness, let me for now say that the quick-capsule review so readily supplied by the deceased comic Bill Hicks is more than an adequate summary of my thoughts: peice of shit.
This next week is going to be a busy one, if I manage to finish everything that I hope to. Expect a landslide of reviews for movies that I've seen over the past month, as I catch up on the latest of summer offerings. A number of current releases are on my schedule for the next few days, including Kekexilli: Mountain Patrol, The Descent, Lady in the Water, Talladega Nights, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, as well as a special American release of the French classic Army of Shadows at the local 19th Street Civic Theatre. Bonus: on Friday I'll be seeing my first film to review for Slant Magazine: the most-likely-going-to-be-atrocious, not-being-screened-for-critics Zoom, starring Tim Allen as a retired superhero. Expect a link provided to the review late on Friday or early on Saturday, depending on how long it takes me to 1) recover, 2) watch The Incredibles so as to ensure that I don't forever hate the genre, 3) write the review itself, and 4) for Ed to post it on the site itself.
P.S. For lack of anything better to do during some down time yesterday, I popped in the 90's trash classic Basic Instinct in order to see what I've been missing out on all these years. While I reserve the right to re-evaluate my opinion should the film reveal itself to have some kind of subversive Showgirls-like greatness, let me for now say that the quick-capsule review so readily supplied by the deceased comic Bill Hicks is more than an adequate summary of my thoughts: peice of shit.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Passion of Gibson, or: Ha! I Told You So!
The review below was written late in 2005 in preparation for a class project I did that compared The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Gospel According to St. Matthew. My feelings on Gibson's film are more or less the same today, although in their purest form they are less like words than they are a painful screeching sound. Thus, I won't inflict you with them.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Forget Michael Moore’s divisive but juvenile Fahrenheit 9/11; The Passion of the Christ is the seminal propaganda film of the new century. The final hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, savior of humanity to the Christian faith, are brought to the cinema with as much epic swell and booming dramatics as any number of big budget Hollywood epics, not to mention almost twice the violence of Braveheart in about half the running time. One cannot deny Mel Gibson credit for the sheer endeavor undertaken, not to mention the personal investment in the project, but this is a film as off-putting as any on the subject matter at hand, what with its strictly black-and-white portrayal of good and evil and simpleminded, beat-you-over-the-head perceptions on a story far more complex (on a social, religious, spiritual and political level) than Gibson is either willing or able to portray.
Jesus is the unquestionable savior and God the vengeful overseer in Gibson’s epic, and anyone who questions either can expect without a doubt to have some divine ill-will getting medieval on their ass. Save for brief flashbacks to his life and teachings (included more for standardized dramatic tactics than any real insight), we are given no real explanation into what was so crucial about Jesus’ crucifixion during the time of the Roman Empire – any references to the political uprisings or social disorder at the time is wholly incidental – and thus no real justification for the much ballyhooed importance of it all. With as much as is shown, we’re to assume that Christ is savior simply because Gibson says so, his humanity seemingly extending only to his ability to endure previously incomprehensible levels of physical agony.
Inflicting the agony Jesus endures back onto the audience is the end result of The Passions glorification of the physical trails endured before the ultimate crucifixion. The films centerpiece is a brutal depiction of the physical destruction of Jesus’ earthly body, first via traditional whipping, then cat-o-nine-tail razor chains that rip and tear at his flesh until he more closely resembles a hamburger patty than a human being. The violence should be disturbing and powerful, and it is, but in all the wrong ways. Instead of a horrifying look at mans inhumanity to man, or the sufferings of an innocent to serve a higher good, the glorification of this scene instead revels in the violence as the epitome of Christ’s being. Granted, it can be seen as glorious, but without any substantive spiritual context, it’s just an orgasm of thrashing and gore, missing only Matrix bullet time effects to go along with the slow-mo whipping and flying chunks of flesh and blood.
Even more offensive than the misused violence is Gibson’s dangerous depictions of good and evil. Subtlety is nonexistent here; villains are almost entirely of darker complexion, drunk on either spirits or incessant laughter, and seem unable to bear anything other than bad teeth. The Jewish leaders are raving, bloodthirsty fools, and while I question Gibson’s own potentially racist attitudes, it isn’t just that the antagonists of the story are excessively demonized, but that everything is watered down into simplistic visual representations that exaggerate already broadly painted strokes. Satan is a gender-bending figure who provides obvious contradictions to Jesus’ goodness (signified early be a beam of light extending over him from the heavens), with a knack for carrying albino-retard-demon-children to accentuate just how incredibly evil he/she/it is. Christ (portrayed with singular intensity by Jim Caviezel) himself is as undeveloped as any character in the film, a messianic figure of singular intensity upon which Gibson projects his ideals to the audience. There is no mention of his mission nor the need for his crucifixion as mandated by none other than God; with the cartoonish portrayals of his persecutors and torturers, goth-horror overtones and unmitigated shock tactics employed, one might assume that his death was not a necessity on the path to salvation but a sin that mankind will pay dearly for.
What’s depressing about The Passion is not just how severely misguided its exploitative elements are, but that so many accomplished and even masterful elements have been employed in service of something so predominantly conflicting and hateful. One scene late in the film, in which a repenting criminal crucified aside Jesus asks for remembrance in heaven, struck me as almost transcendent in its portrayal of a relationship to the divine and the forgiveness that extends outwardly from, but was so quickly undermined by Gibson’s obsession with violence (a la a crow pecking out the eye of a non-believer) so as to prove more of a chance fluke than anything out-of-step with the rest of the work. If Gibson wanted to express what was important about Jesus’ life and what could be derived from following his example, he lost it in his embracement of a believe-or-die mind setting (and if he thinks he can guilt-trip people into following Christ by overindulging them on gratuitous violence, then doesn’t that miss the point of true faith, anyway?) only exacerbated by the fact that this Jesus is more akin to a human piñata than a three-dimensional savior. Jesus may say on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but I’m hard-pressed to believe that Gibson believes the same thing. With the extremity of the you-had-better-listen-to-me, I-told-you-so narrative, The Passion of the Christ reveals itself as a story supposedly about love told entirely through means of hate.
Mel Gibson on July 28, 2006, after being pulled over for DUI: "Fucking Jews...the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. What are you looking at, sugar tits?" (to a female officer)
Seriously, folks, these jokes just write themselves. Need I say more? Anyone who didn't see the blatant anti-semitism and hatred of The Passion of the Christ back in 2004 was either already on Mel's batshit crazy bandwagon or must have had too many bloody chunks of flesh lodged in their eyes to see well enough. That everyone is so surprised about this incident is what blows my mind more than anything. Hell, this kid could have told you all about it over two years ago.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)Forget Michael Moore’s divisive but juvenile Fahrenheit 9/11; The Passion of the Christ is the seminal propaganda film of the new century. The final hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, savior of humanity to the Christian faith, are brought to the cinema with as much epic swell and booming dramatics as any number of big budget Hollywood epics, not to mention almost twice the violence of Braveheart in about half the running time. One cannot deny Mel Gibson credit for the sheer endeavor undertaken, not to mention the personal investment in the project, but this is a film as off-putting as any on the subject matter at hand, what with its strictly black-and-white portrayal of good and evil and simpleminded, beat-you-over-the-head perceptions on a story far more complex (on a social, religious, spiritual and political level) than Gibson is either willing or able to portray.
Jesus is the unquestionable savior and God the vengeful overseer in Gibson’s epic, and anyone who questions either can expect without a doubt to have some divine ill-will getting medieval on their ass. Save for brief flashbacks to his life and teachings (included more for standardized dramatic tactics than any real insight), we are given no real explanation into what was so crucial about Jesus’ crucifixion during the time of the Roman Empire – any references to the political uprisings or social disorder at the time is wholly incidental – and thus no real justification for the much ballyhooed importance of it all. With as much as is shown, we’re to assume that Christ is savior simply because Gibson says so, his humanity seemingly extending only to his ability to endure previously incomprehensible levels of physical agony.
Inflicting the agony Jesus endures back onto the audience is the end result of The Passions glorification of the physical trails endured before the ultimate crucifixion. The films centerpiece is a brutal depiction of the physical destruction of Jesus’ earthly body, first via traditional whipping, then cat-o-nine-tail razor chains that rip and tear at his flesh until he more closely resembles a hamburger patty than a human being. The violence should be disturbing and powerful, and it is, but in all the wrong ways. Instead of a horrifying look at mans inhumanity to man, or the sufferings of an innocent to serve a higher good, the glorification of this scene instead revels in the violence as the epitome of Christ’s being. Granted, it can be seen as glorious, but without any substantive spiritual context, it’s just an orgasm of thrashing and gore, missing only Matrix bullet time effects to go along with the slow-mo whipping and flying chunks of flesh and blood.
Even more offensive than the misused violence is Gibson’s dangerous depictions of good and evil. Subtlety is nonexistent here; villains are almost entirely of darker complexion, drunk on either spirits or incessant laughter, and seem unable to bear anything other than bad teeth. The Jewish leaders are raving, bloodthirsty fools, and while I question Gibson’s own potentially racist attitudes, it isn’t just that the antagonists of the story are excessively demonized, but that everything is watered down into simplistic visual representations that exaggerate already broadly painted strokes. Satan is a gender-bending figure who provides obvious contradictions to Jesus’ goodness (signified early be a beam of light extending over him from the heavens), with a knack for carrying albino-retard-demon-children to accentuate just how incredibly evil he/she/it is. Christ (portrayed with singular intensity by Jim Caviezel) himself is as undeveloped as any character in the film, a messianic figure of singular intensity upon which Gibson projects his ideals to the audience. There is no mention of his mission nor the need for his crucifixion as mandated by none other than God; with the cartoonish portrayals of his persecutors and torturers, goth-horror overtones and unmitigated shock tactics employed, one might assume that his death was not a necessity on the path to salvation but a sin that mankind will pay dearly for.
What’s depressing about The Passion is not just how severely misguided its exploitative elements are, but that so many accomplished and even masterful elements have been employed in service of something so predominantly conflicting and hateful. One scene late in the film, in which a repenting criminal crucified aside Jesus asks for remembrance in heaven, struck me as almost transcendent in its portrayal of a relationship to the divine and the forgiveness that extends outwardly from, but was so quickly undermined by Gibson’s obsession with violence (a la a crow pecking out the eye of a non-believer) so as to prove more of a chance fluke than anything out-of-step with the rest of the work. If Gibson wanted to express what was important about Jesus’ life and what could be derived from following his example, he lost it in his embracement of a believe-or-die mind setting (and if he thinks he can guilt-trip people into following Christ by overindulging them on gratuitous violence, then doesn’t that miss the point of true faith, anyway?) only exacerbated by the fact that this Jesus is more akin to a human piñata than a three-dimensional savior. Jesus may say on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but I’m hard-pressed to believe that Gibson believes the same thing. With the extremity of the you-had-better-listen-to-me, I-told-you-so narrative, The Passion of the Christ reveals itself as a story supposedly about love told entirely through means of hate.Mel Gibson on July 28, 2006, after being pulled over for DUI: "Fucking Jews...the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. What are you looking at, sugar tits?" (to a female officer)
Seriously, folks, these jokes just write themselves. Need I say more? Anyone who didn't see the blatant anti-semitism and hatred of The Passion of the Christ back in 2004 was either already on Mel's batshit crazy bandwagon or must have had too many bloody chunks of flesh lodged in their eyes to see well enough. That everyone is so surprised about this incident is what blows my mind more than anything. Hell, this kid could have told you all about it over two years ago.
Categories
Where I'm Published
Features
Latest posts
Archives
Screening Log
Links
- 19th Street Civic Theatre
- Cinemarati
- David Edelstein
- Elusive Lucidity
- Film Experience
- The Fountain
- girish
- GreenCine Daily
- The House Next Door
- The IFC Blog
- Internet Movie Database
- it's only a movie
- Jim Emerson's Scanners
- Like Anna Karina's Sweater
- Long Pauses
- Nick Schager Film Project
- No More Marriages!
- Once Upon A Time In The West... of Wales
- Patrick St. John
- ReelViews
- Reverse Shot
- Roger Ebert
- Rotten Tomatoes
- Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule
- Slant Magazine
- A Sleep Over
- The Stranger Song
- Take Back Your Tea Time
- This Modern World
- when canses where classeled...
- World of Pop
Search
Contact
- Questions? Comments?
- Absolutely hate my guts?
- Let me know!
- E-mail: strjh02@moravian.edu