400 Blows
directed by François Truffaut
written by Marcel Moussy and François Truffaut
starring Jean-Pierre Léaud, Claire Maurier, Albert Rémy, Guy Decomble, Patrick Auffay, Georges Flamant
It’s one of the most famous images in film. A young boy named Antoine Doinel (Léaud) has escaped detention and finally, for the first time in his life, reaches the sea. A close-up of his face is followed by a freeze frame. We don’t know where he is going from here only that for one brief instance he is free. In this intoxicating French film about the gnarled vagaries of youth, Antoine struggles to find himself amidst tremendous criticism that comes at him from every conceivable angle.
Antoine is not keen on school. He acts out, cuts class, and behaves essentially as if he considers it burdensome and not worth his time. His home life is fraught with tensions as his financially-strapped parents seem more adept at arguing than creating a loving home for him. His mother Gilberte (Maurier) is particularly cold while his stepfather Julien (Rémy) looks on helplessly. With his friend René (Auffay) Antoine makes the best of his life on the run from all the forces that would strangle him in his sleep.
The film explores issues of oppression, freedom, as well as the treatment of juvenile prisoners in France at the time the film was made. There is a monotonous quality to the prisoner’s care that mimics that at the hands of the school administrators. There’s quite a bit of marching in line involved which must grate particularly on Antoine’s nerves as he attempts to establish his individuality in a world that only seems capable of creating copies of copies. Antoine senses this and rebuffs it as often as he can.
The sensuality of youth is expertly exploited in this film. There is a legitimate feeling of adventure as we follow Antoine through the travails and incongruities of a properly misspent adolescence. He faces a singular presence that want nothing more than to restrain him, to make him into a good little citizen who fits in, plays nice, and doesn’t do anything to upset the perfect order to which he must succumb. He is threatened with ostracism and feels it so strongly that after being caught in a lie where he told his teacher he missed class because his mother died, rather than face the forthcoming wrath he spends the night away from home. It isn’t clear whether or not Antoine knows instinctively that he is behaving in a rebellious manner. It’s more likely that his instincts are guiding him away from the trap that life sets out for the unwitting and easily led.
Antoine is a spirited lad with a tremendous zest for life. There’s a scene at an amusement park of sorts where Antoine is spinning on a low-gravity ride and gleefully maneuvers his body well off of the floor where most of the others have their feet firmly planted. There’s a look of tremendous joy on his face as he works the ride. It’s such a simple thing but it shows a kid who simply by nature is more adventurous than most. He’s always looking for a strange new angle and cannot be satisfied with what is typical or expected. Subsequently he is singled out for punishment not because he’s particularly guilty of anything but more because he’s so unabashedly different.
There just isn’t anything in the codified world that is being shoved down his throat that inspires Antoine in any way whatsoever. He clearly longs for a way out and proceeds to run away on several occasions because the air at home is too stifling. Indeed, his parents want him to behave in a specific manner and he refuses on principle.
Antoine is a bright kid who knows enough to recognize the methods his administrators and parents have devised to keep him in check. He would rather wander the streets and beg for his supper than to be subjected to their tyranny one minute longer. Yet, he isn’t as tough as he imagines himself to be and there are many scenes throughout the film when he displays an acute vulnerability that resonates strongly. He isn’t quite prepared for a life on the road but he knows it beats being trapped in a life he despises.
There is one scene that stands out for its incongruity. Gilberte Doinel is a keenly sexual woman who is exceedingly cold to Antoine at every turn. She sits down and proceeds to take off her hose as a flash of thigh is displayed. She’s just about the only female in this film as everything revolves around male activities. Suddenly, there is a peek into flesh that is usually carefully concealed. It’s a sign that female sexuality remains a potent force in this film no matter how hard boys and men attempt to get away from it in their games and activities. Or perhaps it’s just flesh with no significance attached. Either way, it’s an exquisitely crafted scene that is worth worrying over strictly based on its aesthetics.
There are peeks into Antoine’s secret world such as when he places a candle and a picture of Balzac in a shrine. Unfortunately the curtains drawn in front of the flame catch fire and Antoine is blamed for trying to set the house on fire. Yes, he has criminal inclinations and very well may end up out in the world terrorizing others for fun and profit. But, one senses he is basically a good kid who needs something more profoundly illuminating in his life than what he feels and sees about him. Crime is an intoxication and more thrilling than the rudimentary fallacies that make up the typical life. He demands something to explode in the sky, forever enticing and robust. Yet, the authorities and his parents demand he sit still and be agreeable to their genteel sensibilities. But he cannot do it. He must explore this thing within him that is forever at odds with the social order. He demands to know more about it and how he can best exploit it.
Antoine is simply every mischievous boy who gets a taste of the illicit at an impressionable age.
He is shown another path toward instant gratification through the theft of a typewriter he and René plan to sell. Unfortunately he is caught when he tries to put it back and this is where his true troubles begin. He is thrust into a wire cage with another boy and it’s agonizing to watch him sit there rotting for his crime. He is eventually cast into a home for juvenile delinquents and is forced into the same repetitive inanity that he attempts to escape when he is on the outside. Still, no jail can hold the truly adventurous spirit and he manages to escape during a game of soccer. He runs and runs until he finally reaches the sea.
Will Antoine run into a brick wall and find himself accosted with the brutal reality of the genuine jail experience? He’s escaped for now but it’s most likely inevitable that he will be hunted down and dragged back to the home and forced to endure the agony of incarceration. Or will this sense of possibilities remain entrenched in his psychic makeup affording him an opportunity to retain his rebellious spirit within the framework of conventional society? Either way he is going to have to adjust to a type of order.
The performances in this film are all exceptionally adept at capturing the essence of the narrative. Jean-Pierre Léaud, is dynamic from start to finish. He makes us believe in his character’s audacity and his yearning for something extraordinary. He also establishes Antoine’s vulnerability as well as his naivete. There is such an openness on his face at all times that he reflects back at us all of those moments where we shared the same lack of comprehension about the legitimacy of authority both parental and external. Claire Maurier is impressive as the cool, ravishing beauty who is not quite willing or able to bond with Antoine in the manner which he deserves. She’s cold, primal, and wholly impatient with her son. She wants results and is perfectly unaware of her role in helping achieve them.
Overall, this film explores the nature of youthful rebellion with an exacting, realistic urgency. The cinematography by Henri Decaë brings a clarity to Antoine’s plight and resonates with a stark beauty that routinely fuels the imagination and arrests the senses. There is a tremendous amount of hope in this film as cemented in its final image. There is freedom, delight, and longing for something that exists beyond the horizon. Antoine is a cataclysm. He’s vibrant, seeking, and altogether poised and willing to face whatever comes. Still, he’s a difficult child and his parents seek only to reign him in so that he can get a proper education and take his place in society. It’s a common plea and not unreasonable. Still, Antoine must make a decision and the genius of this film is that we are left awaiting such a decision and have no idea how his life is going to pan out. At least until the later series of films where Truffault continues with his character showing his development at later stages in his life.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Film Review--Revenge of the Pink Panther
Revenge of the Pink Panther
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and Frank Waldman
starring Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Burt Kwouk, Dyan Cannon, Robert Webber, Robert Loggia, Paul Stewart, Andre Maranne, Graham Stark, Sue Lloyd
A gangster and businessman named Phillipe Douvier (Webber) wants to make a deal with the New York Mafia for a whole mess of heroin but they think he’s too weak to close the deal. To prove his tough guy credentials he decides to take out the irrepressible oaf, Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers). Soon, Clouseau is the target for a maddening array of hits that all magically miss their mark. On one such occasion Douvier lures Clouseau with the promise of valuable information but his plan is thwarted when a transvestite named Claude Rousseau (Lloyd) steals Clouseau’s car and subsequently dies in his place. Clouseau is thought dead and his arch enemy Dreyfus is released from a mental hospital to reassume his post as Chief Inspector.
In this film Clouseau seems to have his feet with him and he maintains a certain vertical solvency throughout much of the film. Much of the mayhem in this film is caused either by Clouseau indirectly or by the other characters altogether. Clouseau himself continues to go about his business completely unscathed by all of the missed attempts at taking his life.
Throughout this film there is a running gag where Dreyfus continually sees Clouseau and promptly faints. It’s a continuation of Dreyfus’s deep seated fear and loathing of Clouseau and a sign that his nerves are essentially frazzled which makes for a lousy cop in the end.
Douvier is determined to get rid of Clouseau but manages to turn his rage on his lovely secretary Simone LeGree (Cannon) who is also his mistress. He dumps her and she suggests she might try to do something unsavory to get back at him. Subsequently he determines that she too must die but his henchmen are no match for the ingenious Clouseau who manages to unwittingly save her life. This begins a casual romance that is sustained through the rest of the film.
Clouseau is still a sex magnet despite himself and he somehow manages to exude charisma which the ladies seem unable to resist. I suppose there is some women out there who feel sympathetic to the colossal boob and are drawn into the chaos that inevitably surrounds them. Simone is perhaps rebounding from her five year relationship with Douvier so she’s most likely looking for a dramatic change. Still, Clouseau remains a man of mystery with great powers of influence over all the women he meets. He’s like Bond in that way although he doesn’t necessarily always end up with the girl.
The film lacks the energy of previous installments in the series. Despite this, it still manages to remain necessary throughout and there is a spark of vitality that is retained over the course of the film. It’s always a pleasure to watch Clouseau because one knows that something very wrong is about to occur and that he most likely will have a hand in it.
The look of the film is somewhat south of “Return” and the first film in the franchise. It’s ugly at times and there is a dark hue to many scenes that reflect the machinations of the mob and how they operate in the seedier regions of any community in which they take up shop. Clouseau himself seems to be being dragged through the film as if he’s not particularly sure what to do next and if he should do anything at all.
Sue Lloyd has the distinction of playing a man pretending to be a woman which Blake Edwards later exploited in his film “Victor/Victoria” with Julie Andrews as the quasi transvestite. Lloyd manages to pull this stunt off quite effectively although her male persona in the film does have amazingly high cheekbones for a man and is exceedingly “pretty”. Still, it’s a fine turn in a film that seems to require such quirky moments to keep it afloat.
The performances in this film are all intriguing. Peter Sellers doesn’t possess the same grace that made his first two attempts at the character so rewarding. Clouseau doesn’t come across as challenged either vertically or horizontally in this film. He’s simply not as clumsy although he does manage to get into several scrapes due to positional malfunctions. Also, his performance isn’t nearly as fluid although additional viewings might be required in order to fully appreciate what he does in this film. Robert Webber has a strong performance as Douvier, the man who would be king of the underworld. Webber plays Douvier as deadly serious throughout the film. His character is a man without mystery and decidedly nefarious in his dealings with creeps and lowlifes. Herbert Lom is a bit more subdued in this film as his wild-eyed lunacy takes a back seat to the officious nature of his job. Burt Kwouk is particularly enjoyable in this film as his Cato is more prominently featured in this film. He does more than merely attack Clouseau to keep him sharp; he is present in the final confrontation and plays a sizable role in the satisfaction of the conclusion.
Overall, this film has its charms but it doesn’t quite rise to the level of the classics in this series. Still, it swaggers at times and there is a decided muscle to the threats and shady dealings that populate the film. Clouseau remains a walking disaster but his actions seem to bring less damage upon himself that others. But, he’s still infinitely dangerous to everyone he comes in contact with and this film manages to exploit this fact fairly well.
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and Frank Waldman
starring Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Burt Kwouk, Dyan Cannon, Robert Webber, Robert Loggia, Paul Stewart, Andre Maranne, Graham Stark, Sue Lloyd
A gangster and businessman named Phillipe Douvier (Webber) wants to make a deal with the New York Mafia for a whole mess of heroin but they think he’s too weak to close the deal. To prove his tough guy credentials he decides to take out the irrepressible oaf, Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers). Soon, Clouseau is the target for a maddening array of hits that all magically miss their mark. On one such occasion Douvier lures Clouseau with the promise of valuable information but his plan is thwarted when a transvestite named Claude Rousseau (Lloyd) steals Clouseau’s car and subsequently dies in his place. Clouseau is thought dead and his arch enemy Dreyfus is released from a mental hospital to reassume his post as Chief Inspector.
In this film Clouseau seems to have his feet with him and he maintains a certain vertical solvency throughout much of the film. Much of the mayhem in this film is caused either by Clouseau indirectly or by the other characters altogether. Clouseau himself continues to go about his business completely unscathed by all of the missed attempts at taking his life.
Throughout this film there is a running gag where Dreyfus continually sees Clouseau and promptly faints. It’s a continuation of Dreyfus’s deep seated fear and loathing of Clouseau and a sign that his nerves are essentially frazzled which makes for a lousy cop in the end.
Douvier is determined to get rid of Clouseau but manages to turn his rage on his lovely secretary Simone LeGree (Cannon) who is also his mistress. He dumps her and she suggests she might try to do something unsavory to get back at him. Subsequently he determines that she too must die but his henchmen are no match for the ingenious Clouseau who manages to unwittingly save her life. This begins a casual romance that is sustained through the rest of the film.
Clouseau is still a sex magnet despite himself and he somehow manages to exude charisma which the ladies seem unable to resist. I suppose there is some women out there who feel sympathetic to the colossal boob and are drawn into the chaos that inevitably surrounds them. Simone is perhaps rebounding from her five year relationship with Douvier so she’s most likely looking for a dramatic change. Still, Clouseau remains a man of mystery with great powers of influence over all the women he meets. He’s like Bond in that way although he doesn’t necessarily always end up with the girl.
The film lacks the energy of previous installments in the series. Despite this, it still manages to remain necessary throughout and there is a spark of vitality that is retained over the course of the film. It’s always a pleasure to watch Clouseau because one knows that something very wrong is about to occur and that he most likely will have a hand in it.
The look of the film is somewhat south of “Return” and the first film in the franchise. It’s ugly at times and there is a dark hue to many scenes that reflect the machinations of the mob and how they operate in the seedier regions of any community in which they take up shop. Clouseau himself seems to be being dragged through the film as if he’s not particularly sure what to do next and if he should do anything at all.
Sue Lloyd has the distinction of playing a man pretending to be a woman which Blake Edwards later exploited in his film “Victor/Victoria” with Julie Andrews as the quasi transvestite. Lloyd manages to pull this stunt off quite effectively although her male persona in the film does have amazingly high cheekbones for a man and is exceedingly “pretty”. Still, it’s a fine turn in a film that seems to require such quirky moments to keep it afloat.
The performances in this film are all intriguing. Peter Sellers doesn’t possess the same grace that made his first two attempts at the character so rewarding. Clouseau doesn’t come across as challenged either vertically or horizontally in this film. He’s simply not as clumsy although he does manage to get into several scrapes due to positional malfunctions. Also, his performance isn’t nearly as fluid although additional viewings might be required in order to fully appreciate what he does in this film. Robert Webber has a strong performance as Douvier, the man who would be king of the underworld. Webber plays Douvier as deadly serious throughout the film. His character is a man without mystery and decidedly nefarious in his dealings with creeps and lowlifes. Herbert Lom is a bit more subdued in this film as his wild-eyed lunacy takes a back seat to the officious nature of his job. Burt Kwouk is particularly enjoyable in this film as his Cato is more prominently featured in this film. He does more than merely attack Clouseau to keep him sharp; he is present in the final confrontation and plays a sizable role in the satisfaction of the conclusion.
Overall, this film has its charms but it doesn’t quite rise to the level of the classics in this series. Still, it swaggers at times and there is a decided muscle to the threats and shady dealings that populate the film. Clouseau remains a walking disaster but his actions seem to bring less damage upon himself that others. But, he’s still infinitely dangerous to everyone he comes in contact with and this film manages to exploit this fact fairly well.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Film Review--Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan
Friday the 13th Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan
written and directed by Rob Hedden
based on characters created by Victor Miller
starring Kane Hodder, Jensen Daggett, Barbara Bingham, Peter Mark Richman, Saffron Henderson, Martin Cummins, Vincent Craig Dupree, Sharlene Martin
First of all, Jason doesn’t exactly “take” Manhattan. Two thirds of the way through the picture he does manage to visit there and continue in his delightful occupation, but it hardly constitutes full-blown mayhem which the title certainly promises. What we have is a boatload of highschool seniors who are heading off to New York for their graduation. As the film opens, a naughty couple are having sex aboard a boat. They drop anchor and it inadvertently hits a powerline which awakens Jason yet again. He manages to get on the pleasure cruise ship and subsequently fulfils his tender oath and begins slaughtering the unsuspecting ciphers one at a time.
This film adds an element that hasn’t been as pronounced in earlier installments in the series. Jason’s victims bleat and plea for their lives more in this one and it adds a scintillating element to the story. Best of all is a scene with the prissy and demonstrably conniving Tamara Mason is taking a shower and Jason comes in to seduce her. While romance is thwarted and he ends up stabbing her with a shard from a broken mirror. She cowers, whines, and otherwise puts on a pretty decent show before her unceremonious demise at the hands of her would be suitor.
Jason’s kills are not very imaginative here and the film definitely lacks style points as the dull, burdensome killings continue unabated. If only there was a single character worth getting thrilled over than these films would be more vital than they are. Instead, we are left with characters who, as has almost always been the case, lack a discernible personality that elevates them above the typical kill victim. Actually, there was a promising character early in the film but Jason spears him within the first ten minutes. His performance suggests something more than what is generally to be expected in these films.
In this film a girl named Rennie Wickham (Daggett) is taking the cruise against the wishes of her Uncle Charles McCulloch (Richman), the group’s chaperone. She is haunted throughout the entire film by images of a young Jason who we learn apparently tried to pull her down after Uncle Charles pushed he off the dock intending to teach her how to swim. She sees him everywhere and it truly twists her melon to the point that she can hardly tell what is real and what is imaginary at some point. Rennie is a meek girl who is shy and the complete opposite of girls like Tamara, the prom queen who also enjoys a bit of nose candy now and again. Rennie is protected somewhat by Miss Colleen Van Deusen (Bingham), another chaperone who is constantly at odds with Uncle Charles.
One imagines terrific excitement once Jason finally lands in Manhattan but the result is pretty much a downer. Yes, he takes care of a couple of junkie thugs, a cop, a bouncer at a bar, and several members of our merry crew who escaped when the ship caught on fire. But he has so much opportunity to run wild in the streets cleaning up the sewage at every opportunity. Instead, his focus remains strictly on the last two survivors and he chases them on a subway, through Times Square, and into the sewers. Again, so many chances are not taken and the end is not particularly satisfying.
There is something rather odd about watching Jason perform basic human tasks such as shutting a storage hatch. Somehow the action is more pronounced, more deliberate, and not without its grace. It shows an elegance about Jason which he mostly attempts to hide when he’s off enjoying the sights and hacking up his chosen ones. This film shows that Jason has a very focused mind and is not distracted easily by what is taking place around him. He chases his victims with a strong sense of purpose and never gives up on them. He knows what he wants and how to get it. So very few nowadays can say the same thing which makes Jason into a character worth admiring on a certain level. He’s very good at what he does although he does seem to run into some trouble now and again. No matter, there’s always lightning or power surges or a girl’s telekinesis to help him out of a tight scrape.
Overall, this film does nothing particularly novel and lacks some of the urgency that has made earlier films in the series more dynamic. The deaths are rudimentary and the film simply does not live up to its title. Ultimately, there is little character development which is nothing particularly new for the franchise. Jason’s killing spree seems truncated and could have enveloped so much more if that plot line were pursued.
written and directed by Rob Hedden
based on characters created by Victor Miller
starring Kane Hodder, Jensen Daggett, Barbara Bingham, Peter Mark Richman, Saffron Henderson, Martin Cummins, Vincent Craig Dupree, Sharlene Martin
First of all, Jason doesn’t exactly “take” Manhattan. Two thirds of the way through the picture he does manage to visit there and continue in his delightful occupation, but it hardly constitutes full-blown mayhem which the title certainly promises. What we have is a boatload of highschool seniors who are heading off to New York for their graduation. As the film opens, a naughty couple are having sex aboard a boat. They drop anchor and it inadvertently hits a powerline which awakens Jason yet again. He manages to get on the pleasure cruise ship and subsequently fulfils his tender oath and begins slaughtering the unsuspecting ciphers one at a time.
This film adds an element that hasn’t been as pronounced in earlier installments in the series. Jason’s victims bleat and plea for their lives more in this one and it adds a scintillating element to the story. Best of all is a scene with the prissy and demonstrably conniving Tamara Mason is taking a shower and Jason comes in to seduce her. While romance is thwarted and he ends up stabbing her with a shard from a broken mirror. She cowers, whines, and otherwise puts on a pretty decent show before her unceremonious demise at the hands of her would be suitor.
Jason’s kills are not very imaginative here and the film definitely lacks style points as the dull, burdensome killings continue unabated. If only there was a single character worth getting thrilled over than these films would be more vital than they are. Instead, we are left with characters who, as has almost always been the case, lack a discernible personality that elevates them above the typical kill victim. Actually, there was a promising character early in the film but Jason spears him within the first ten minutes. His performance suggests something more than what is generally to be expected in these films.
In this film a girl named Rennie Wickham (Daggett) is taking the cruise against the wishes of her Uncle Charles McCulloch (Richman), the group’s chaperone. She is haunted throughout the entire film by images of a young Jason who we learn apparently tried to pull her down after Uncle Charles pushed he off the dock intending to teach her how to swim. She sees him everywhere and it truly twists her melon to the point that she can hardly tell what is real and what is imaginary at some point. Rennie is a meek girl who is shy and the complete opposite of girls like Tamara, the prom queen who also enjoys a bit of nose candy now and again. Rennie is protected somewhat by Miss Colleen Van Deusen (Bingham), another chaperone who is constantly at odds with Uncle Charles.
One imagines terrific excitement once Jason finally lands in Manhattan but the result is pretty much a downer. Yes, he takes care of a couple of junkie thugs, a cop, a bouncer at a bar, and several members of our merry crew who escaped when the ship caught on fire. But he has so much opportunity to run wild in the streets cleaning up the sewage at every opportunity. Instead, his focus remains strictly on the last two survivors and he chases them on a subway, through Times Square, and into the sewers. Again, so many chances are not taken and the end is not particularly satisfying.
There is something rather odd about watching Jason perform basic human tasks such as shutting a storage hatch. Somehow the action is more pronounced, more deliberate, and not without its grace. It shows an elegance about Jason which he mostly attempts to hide when he’s off enjoying the sights and hacking up his chosen ones. This film shows that Jason has a very focused mind and is not distracted easily by what is taking place around him. He chases his victims with a strong sense of purpose and never gives up on them. He knows what he wants and how to get it. So very few nowadays can say the same thing which makes Jason into a character worth admiring on a certain level. He’s very good at what he does although he does seem to run into some trouble now and again. No matter, there’s always lightning or power surges or a girl’s telekinesis to help him out of a tight scrape.
Overall, this film does nothing particularly novel and lacks some of the urgency that has made earlier films in the series more dynamic. The deaths are rudimentary and the film simply does not live up to its title. Ultimately, there is little character development which is nothing particularly new for the franchise. Jason’s killing spree seems truncated and could have enveloped so much more if that plot line were pursued.
Film Review--Echelon Conspiracy
Echelon Conspiracy
directed by Greg Marcks
written by Kevin Elders, Michael Nitsberg
starring Shane West, Edward Burns, Ving Rhames, Sergey Gubanov, Martin Sheen, Tamara Feldman, Jonathan Pryce
An American computer tech expert named Max Peterson (West) working in Thailand receives a GPS cell phone and is provided with instructions regarding gambling possibilities. He follows the advice at a Casino in Prague and quickly garners the attention of security captain John Reed (Burns) who has him trailed. FBI agent Dave Grant (Rhames) becomes involved and it becomes quickly apparent that something mightily untoward is going on.
The film has many plot holes that would take hours of deep hemorrhaging to fill; certain aspects of the film simply do not add up and by the end the story is so convoluted and confusing that one wonders if it is on purpose just to piss off audiences who might think they can actually solve the thing.
When the film opens Peterson receives the package and it begins to give him specific instructions about which table to play, where to sit, and which slots to hit. It’s a thrilling aspect of the film and it causes the viewer to wonder how far they are going to take it. Unfortunately, it becomes more of a chase film where the object is to track down whomever or whatever is behind the messages.
The sinister machinations of the NSA are prevalently displayed in this film. Boss Raymund Burke (Sheen) desperately wants an upgrade for the Echelon program–the grand surveillance software that in the new form will have access to every bit of electronic data ever transferred through computers, cell phones, and the like. It sounds much as the NSA actually is so it’s difficult to ascertain just why this poses a particularly new and dangerous threat to the safety and freedoms of world citizens.
It becomes clear that the source of the messages has also targeted others who have mysteriously been murdered upon their reception. Indeed, once Peterson begins to work with the FBI he is sent a message telling him he will be killed if he shuts the phone off.
The film follows a generic, predictable pattern that offers no particularly intriguing dynamics. There are the cursory fight sequences, car chases, and love scenes which have all been treated with more elegance and style in superior films dealing with similar subject matter. Still, there is a charge to the main idea of the film however banal it proves itself to be in the end. The film resorts to being a Big Brother type thriller without the thrills or the real, intense threat that is supposed to be behind the messages and the fundamental thrust of the film.
It’s the sheer lack of originality that drags this film down in the end. Yet, the plot does resonate and remains interesting enough for all of those who sense a frightening agenda on the part of those who claim to have our best interest at heart. But it’s just not quite enough to supercede the methods employed in telling this story. Ultimately there is nothing worth getting particularly excited over here despite the hysteria on display.
The necessary love interest comes in the form of Kamila (Feldman), an agent who predictably falls in love with Peterson, in an attempt to crank up the heat. Unfortunately, there is zero chemistry between these two and it’s difficult to imagine them together. Again, it’s obligatory in these films to inject a love sequence however much it manages to stall the momentum that has precariously been built up.
Shane West has a definite Jim Carrey quality working for him and one expects him to break out in some rubber faced nuttiness at every turn. Subsequently, it’s impossible to take him seriously in this film. Jim Carrey knows how to leave the gimmicks behind when he tackles a “serious” role. West is merely playing the straight moments in Carrey comedies before his lauded transformations into peculiar nit-wits.
Overall, this film should be more terrifying in the end. It possesses all of the elements that go into making a quality conspiracy thriller but it does nothing novel with them. It’s just a rote, cookie cutter film with a decent premise that is never properly explored. Nevertheless, there are moments where it livens up a bit and the film almost seems worth paying attention to. The message here is well known and subsequently there is no seriously discomforting reveal in this film. It’s common knowledge to anyone who is paying attention that this type of situation is certainly in the minds of certain types who would create just such a scenario if the technology could be developed that would allow for it.
directed by Greg Marcks
written by Kevin Elders, Michael Nitsberg
starring Shane West, Edward Burns, Ving Rhames, Sergey Gubanov, Martin Sheen, Tamara Feldman, Jonathan Pryce
An American computer tech expert named Max Peterson (West) working in Thailand receives a GPS cell phone and is provided with instructions regarding gambling possibilities. He follows the advice at a Casino in Prague and quickly garners the attention of security captain John Reed (Burns) who has him trailed. FBI agent Dave Grant (Rhames) becomes involved and it becomes quickly apparent that something mightily untoward is going on.
The film has many plot holes that would take hours of deep hemorrhaging to fill; certain aspects of the film simply do not add up and by the end the story is so convoluted and confusing that one wonders if it is on purpose just to piss off audiences who might think they can actually solve the thing.
When the film opens Peterson receives the package and it begins to give him specific instructions about which table to play, where to sit, and which slots to hit. It’s a thrilling aspect of the film and it causes the viewer to wonder how far they are going to take it. Unfortunately, it becomes more of a chase film where the object is to track down whomever or whatever is behind the messages.
The sinister machinations of the NSA are prevalently displayed in this film. Boss Raymund Burke (Sheen) desperately wants an upgrade for the Echelon program–the grand surveillance software that in the new form will have access to every bit of electronic data ever transferred through computers, cell phones, and the like. It sounds much as the NSA actually is so it’s difficult to ascertain just why this poses a particularly new and dangerous threat to the safety and freedoms of world citizens.
It becomes clear that the source of the messages has also targeted others who have mysteriously been murdered upon their reception. Indeed, once Peterson begins to work with the FBI he is sent a message telling him he will be killed if he shuts the phone off.
The film follows a generic, predictable pattern that offers no particularly intriguing dynamics. There are the cursory fight sequences, car chases, and love scenes which have all been treated with more elegance and style in superior films dealing with similar subject matter. Still, there is a charge to the main idea of the film however banal it proves itself to be in the end. The film resorts to being a Big Brother type thriller without the thrills or the real, intense threat that is supposed to be behind the messages and the fundamental thrust of the film.
It’s the sheer lack of originality that drags this film down in the end. Yet, the plot does resonate and remains interesting enough for all of those who sense a frightening agenda on the part of those who claim to have our best interest at heart. But it’s just not quite enough to supercede the methods employed in telling this story. Ultimately there is nothing worth getting particularly excited over here despite the hysteria on display.
The necessary love interest comes in the form of Kamila (Feldman), an agent who predictably falls in love with Peterson, in an attempt to crank up the heat. Unfortunately, there is zero chemistry between these two and it’s difficult to imagine them together. Again, it’s obligatory in these films to inject a love sequence however much it manages to stall the momentum that has precariously been built up.
Shane West has a definite Jim Carrey quality working for him and one expects him to break out in some rubber faced nuttiness at every turn. Subsequently, it’s impossible to take him seriously in this film. Jim Carrey knows how to leave the gimmicks behind when he tackles a “serious” role. West is merely playing the straight moments in Carrey comedies before his lauded transformations into peculiar nit-wits.
Overall, this film should be more terrifying in the end. It possesses all of the elements that go into making a quality conspiracy thriller but it does nothing novel with them. It’s just a rote, cookie cutter film with a decent premise that is never properly explored. Nevertheless, there are moments where it livens up a bit and the film almost seems worth paying attention to. The message here is well known and subsequently there is no seriously discomforting reveal in this film. It’s common knowledge to anyone who is paying attention that this type of situation is certainly in the minds of certain types who would create just such a scenario if the technology could be developed that would allow for it.
Film Review--Milk
Milk
directed by Gus Van Sant
written by Dustin Lance Black
starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, Diego Luna, James Franco, Alison Pill, Victor Garber, Denis O’Hare, Joseph Cross, Stephen Spinella, Lucas Grabeel,
Amidst a backdrop of persecutions, arrests, harassments, and other attempts to stymie and reduce the visibility of gays, this film tells the story of one man’s peculiar path to local political power.
Harvey Milk (Penn) is first introduced to us while picking up the much younger Scott Smith (Franco) in New York. Together they realize the limitations for opportunities and decided to head West. Into the explosion of color and STD’s flooding into San Francisco they emerge and quickly set up Castro Camera which becomes a hotbed of political inquiry. From this touchstone an army of supporters and volunteers is established and these individuals prove to be valuable assets as Milk begins to direct his attentions toward political office.
The film can be viewed as a primer for the gay rights movement as it sashayed its honey ass throughout America, but most particularly in San Francisco. The film was made almost entirely in Milk’s Castro, a neighborhood mostly of gays who had swarmed upon San Francisco escaping whatever dull and oppressive life they had previously been forced to endure. There is a genuine sense of openness throughout this film despite very public attempts to deliberately quash the civil rights of homosexuals.
The arch enemies of this film are held up with the appropriate amount of contempt. Orange County comedian John Briggs (O’Hare) and singer Anita Bryant both undertake campaigns to reduce gay rights. Specifically, in Dade County, Florida, Bryant spearheads her mission to rescind a gay rights ordinance and is successful. Briggs creates Proposition 6 to allow schools to fire any gay teachers or those who are sympathetic to them. The film spends a considerable amount of time on these issues, showing the intensity surrounding the legislation with clarity and resolve. The film was released a few weeks before Proposition 8 went before the public in California. It seems clear that Black had it in mind when he wrote the script because the film focuses so much time on Proposition 6 and its potential implications for gay people not only throughout California but most likely the entire United States. Both Bryant and Briggs are shown to be bogeymen who stand for everything the film is against. Their implied bigotry reverberates throughout the film.
The film possesses an insider’s feel into an intricate world of self-determination and fierce political savvy. Milk is portrayed as a firebrand speaker with a true gift for getting to the heart of whatever matter he is attempting to convey to his constituents. It is clear throughout the film that Milk is to be seen as a heroic figure speaking up for the rights of those who have been traditionally rejected by normative society. He is shown as not only a voice for the gay community but all minorities who have lacked proper representation on the government level. Much of the genius of this film comes from the breadth of Milk’s essential message of hope which he maintained throughout his brief but eventful political career.
Sean Penn so readily takes on Milk’s skin that his accomplishment with the role can hardly be seen as simply acting. From the moment we are introduced through the duration of the film, Sean Penn disappears leaving us with an earnest, fearless, naked performance that deservingly won him the Academy Award. There is just something about the way Penn smiles that convinces one that his portrayal is genuine and touchingly heartfelt. After Proposition 6 was defeated, there is a scene where Milk and his associates are celebrating. Milk’s face is a testament of awe, surprise, exultation, and the pure poetry of unadulterated joy. It’s about as intoxicating a display of release and relief that has ever been displayed on film. It says everything about what this film is attempting to convey through its ritualized portrayal of a man who meant so much to so many people. The film, and especially Penn, establishes the significance of Milk as a viable human being whose worth is not merely limited to the political arena. There is tremendous warmth and desire emanating from the character, a freedom that the film clearly wants to impart to all those youths in small towns who find themselves no longer able to put up with unsympathetic conditions. If anything this film is made for those kids and screen writer Dustin Lance Black made this apparent during his acceptance speech at this year’s Oscars.
The relationship between Milk and Dan White (Brolin) is complicated throughout the film. White is a conservative Christian who is publically appalled by the homosexual lifestyle. His actual views are a little less clear, however. The film refuses to paint White as a mere bigot who shoots Milk out of hatred for gays and their encroachment on family values as defined by fundamentalist Christianity. There is something much subtler at play here and Brolin does a magnificent job with his character’s slow-burning rage at circumstances he feels are gradually conspiring against him. One gets the impression through Brolin’s performance that Dan White is at odds with himself and his public persona in politics. Brolin allows us to see a complicated man consumed with pride and unable to lose. The film would have us believe that White’s murder of Milk was directly related to Mayor Muscone’s decision not to reinstate White as Supervisor after he had resigned his post.
The actual Dan White claimed that he wasn’t going to shoot Milk until he smirked at him, causing an instinctual reaction that cost Milk his life.
The film explores the personal life of Milk, specifically his relationships with Scott Smith and Jack Lira (Luna). They are both fraught with complications that slowly disintegrate and eventually collapse in on themselves. Smith couldn’t stand the political life and simply walked away. Lira also had difficulties with the politics and sought a different way out of his predicament. They are both young men to whom Milk is fiendishly attracted and the film shows how they slowly become disinterested in Milk’s new focus and his intent on winning political office. Although they are main characters in this film, neither Lira nor Smith seem particularly present for much of this film. It is clear that this is a direct decision by the actors and not something akin to a fault on their part. They simply drift through the film not connecting with anything Milk is attempting to do. They are apolitical and disinterested with the hoopla that is a necessary component to any political campaign. Smith does return near the end as a stronger presence yet he remains elusive and impossible to pin down.
The performances in this film are all spot on and exceedingly subtle. Sean Penn delivers a nuanced, daring turn as the titular character whose strivings are made readily apparent throughout the film. He captures the longing, the infinite desire for change that fuels Milk’s entry into the political ring. One gets a real sense of the man’s convictions and his glad taking of the role as spokesman for the gay community. In this film, there is a sense that Milk fully understands his place in history and is willing to take the mantle and do whatever is necessary to ensure that he represents his constituents in the most effective manner possible. Josh Brolin creates a character who is also fully engaged in his work but who finds himself up against a wall at every turn. Brolin understands the depths of his character’s despair and demonstrates this through gestures and posture. This is not a case of a man driven by rage against the gay population. It’s far more complex than that and one comes away with a clear impression that Dan White feels trapped in his circumstances and upset that he may lose his way of life and holds Muscone and Milk responsible.
James Franco captures his character’s sensuality and it’s easy through his performance to understand Milk’s attraction to him. Franco casts his shadow over Milk and the film in a delicate fashion that is mercurial and consumed with tenderness. He portrays Smith as a clear force of good in Milk’s life who understands the necessity of creating a grounding for Milk that can be used to propel him into political office. Diego Luna is wonderfully irritating as a troubled, difficult man who is ill-prepared to handle the rise of Milk’s star. Lira is wholly disagreeable throughout the film and this is a testament to Luna’s indirect approach to his character and his ability to articulate Lira’s vulnerability and his lack of a demonstrable acumen.
Overall, this film offers us a direct link to a time that was fraught with complications that brought forth truths and embattlements that have resonated ever sense. This is a portrait of a man who found his voice in the tumultuous climes of public office which enabled him to pursue rights issues that deeply affected his constituents and forced issues onto the table that challenged the proscribed mores of the established order. Harvey Milk comes off as a visionary and a poet of the streets. His core message of hope comes through clearly and openly and one is left with a feeling that his death is a lasting and enduring tragedy that is made hard by Sean Penn’s fearless performance. Yet, there is also a sense that he accomplished more with his death than he ever did in life. His legacy is something that the film projects as something that galvanized people and made activists out of those who before had merely stood on the sidelines. Milk reached many more people through his death than the citizens of Castro. He remains a symbol that resonates in the hearts of everyone who has ever had the courage to come out to their friends, parents, employers, and co-workers. The film makes it readily apparent that this is what Harvey Milk stood for in the end. Total freedom and a release from socially-sanction bindings designed to keep gays from actualizing their potential.
directed by Gus Van Sant
written by Dustin Lance Black
starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, Diego Luna, James Franco, Alison Pill, Victor Garber, Denis O’Hare, Joseph Cross, Stephen Spinella, Lucas Grabeel,
Amidst a backdrop of persecutions, arrests, harassments, and other attempts to stymie and reduce the visibility of gays, this film tells the story of one man’s peculiar path to local political power.
Harvey Milk (Penn) is first introduced to us while picking up the much younger Scott Smith (Franco) in New York. Together they realize the limitations for opportunities and decided to head West. Into the explosion of color and STD’s flooding into San Francisco they emerge and quickly set up Castro Camera which becomes a hotbed of political inquiry. From this touchstone an army of supporters and volunteers is established and these individuals prove to be valuable assets as Milk begins to direct his attentions toward political office.
The film can be viewed as a primer for the gay rights movement as it sashayed its honey ass throughout America, but most particularly in San Francisco. The film was made almost entirely in Milk’s Castro, a neighborhood mostly of gays who had swarmed upon San Francisco escaping whatever dull and oppressive life they had previously been forced to endure. There is a genuine sense of openness throughout this film despite very public attempts to deliberately quash the civil rights of homosexuals.
The arch enemies of this film are held up with the appropriate amount of contempt. Orange County comedian John Briggs (O’Hare) and singer Anita Bryant both undertake campaigns to reduce gay rights. Specifically, in Dade County, Florida, Bryant spearheads her mission to rescind a gay rights ordinance and is successful. Briggs creates Proposition 6 to allow schools to fire any gay teachers or those who are sympathetic to them. The film spends a considerable amount of time on these issues, showing the intensity surrounding the legislation with clarity and resolve. The film was released a few weeks before Proposition 8 went before the public in California. It seems clear that Black had it in mind when he wrote the script because the film focuses so much time on Proposition 6 and its potential implications for gay people not only throughout California but most likely the entire United States. Both Bryant and Briggs are shown to be bogeymen who stand for everything the film is against. Their implied bigotry reverberates throughout the film.
The film possesses an insider’s feel into an intricate world of self-determination and fierce political savvy. Milk is portrayed as a firebrand speaker with a true gift for getting to the heart of whatever matter he is attempting to convey to his constituents. It is clear throughout the film that Milk is to be seen as a heroic figure speaking up for the rights of those who have been traditionally rejected by normative society. He is shown as not only a voice for the gay community but all minorities who have lacked proper representation on the government level. Much of the genius of this film comes from the breadth of Milk’s essential message of hope which he maintained throughout his brief but eventful political career.
Sean Penn so readily takes on Milk’s skin that his accomplishment with the role can hardly be seen as simply acting. From the moment we are introduced through the duration of the film, Sean Penn disappears leaving us with an earnest, fearless, naked performance that deservingly won him the Academy Award. There is just something about the way Penn smiles that convinces one that his portrayal is genuine and touchingly heartfelt. After Proposition 6 was defeated, there is a scene where Milk and his associates are celebrating. Milk’s face is a testament of awe, surprise, exultation, and the pure poetry of unadulterated joy. It’s about as intoxicating a display of release and relief that has ever been displayed on film. It says everything about what this film is attempting to convey through its ritualized portrayal of a man who meant so much to so many people. The film, and especially Penn, establishes the significance of Milk as a viable human being whose worth is not merely limited to the political arena. There is tremendous warmth and desire emanating from the character, a freedom that the film clearly wants to impart to all those youths in small towns who find themselves no longer able to put up with unsympathetic conditions. If anything this film is made for those kids and screen writer Dustin Lance Black made this apparent during his acceptance speech at this year’s Oscars.
The relationship between Milk and Dan White (Brolin) is complicated throughout the film. White is a conservative Christian who is publically appalled by the homosexual lifestyle. His actual views are a little less clear, however. The film refuses to paint White as a mere bigot who shoots Milk out of hatred for gays and their encroachment on family values as defined by fundamentalist Christianity. There is something much subtler at play here and Brolin does a magnificent job with his character’s slow-burning rage at circumstances he feels are gradually conspiring against him. One gets the impression through Brolin’s performance that Dan White is at odds with himself and his public persona in politics. Brolin allows us to see a complicated man consumed with pride and unable to lose. The film would have us believe that White’s murder of Milk was directly related to Mayor Muscone’s decision not to reinstate White as Supervisor after he had resigned his post.
The actual Dan White claimed that he wasn’t going to shoot Milk until he smirked at him, causing an instinctual reaction that cost Milk his life.
The film explores the personal life of Milk, specifically his relationships with Scott Smith and Jack Lira (Luna). They are both fraught with complications that slowly disintegrate and eventually collapse in on themselves. Smith couldn’t stand the political life and simply walked away. Lira also had difficulties with the politics and sought a different way out of his predicament. They are both young men to whom Milk is fiendishly attracted and the film shows how they slowly become disinterested in Milk’s new focus and his intent on winning political office. Although they are main characters in this film, neither Lira nor Smith seem particularly present for much of this film. It is clear that this is a direct decision by the actors and not something akin to a fault on their part. They simply drift through the film not connecting with anything Milk is attempting to do. They are apolitical and disinterested with the hoopla that is a necessary component to any political campaign. Smith does return near the end as a stronger presence yet he remains elusive and impossible to pin down.
The performances in this film are all spot on and exceedingly subtle. Sean Penn delivers a nuanced, daring turn as the titular character whose strivings are made readily apparent throughout the film. He captures the longing, the infinite desire for change that fuels Milk’s entry into the political ring. One gets a real sense of the man’s convictions and his glad taking of the role as spokesman for the gay community. In this film, there is a sense that Milk fully understands his place in history and is willing to take the mantle and do whatever is necessary to ensure that he represents his constituents in the most effective manner possible. Josh Brolin creates a character who is also fully engaged in his work but who finds himself up against a wall at every turn. Brolin understands the depths of his character’s despair and demonstrates this through gestures and posture. This is not a case of a man driven by rage against the gay population. It’s far more complex than that and one comes away with a clear impression that Dan White feels trapped in his circumstances and upset that he may lose his way of life and holds Muscone and Milk responsible.
James Franco captures his character’s sensuality and it’s easy through his performance to understand Milk’s attraction to him. Franco casts his shadow over Milk and the film in a delicate fashion that is mercurial and consumed with tenderness. He portrays Smith as a clear force of good in Milk’s life who understands the necessity of creating a grounding for Milk that can be used to propel him into political office. Diego Luna is wonderfully irritating as a troubled, difficult man who is ill-prepared to handle the rise of Milk’s star. Lira is wholly disagreeable throughout the film and this is a testament to Luna’s indirect approach to his character and his ability to articulate Lira’s vulnerability and his lack of a demonstrable acumen.
Overall, this film offers us a direct link to a time that was fraught with complications that brought forth truths and embattlements that have resonated ever sense. This is a portrait of a man who found his voice in the tumultuous climes of public office which enabled him to pursue rights issues that deeply affected his constituents and forced issues onto the table that challenged the proscribed mores of the established order. Harvey Milk comes off as a visionary and a poet of the streets. His core message of hope comes through clearly and openly and one is left with a feeling that his death is a lasting and enduring tragedy that is made hard by Sean Penn’s fearless performance. Yet, there is also a sense that he accomplished more with his death than he ever did in life. His legacy is something that the film projects as something that galvanized people and made activists out of those who before had merely stood on the sidelines. Milk reached many more people through his death than the citizens of Castro. He remains a symbol that resonates in the hearts of everyone who has ever had the courage to come out to their friends, parents, employers, and co-workers. The film makes it readily apparent that this is what Harvey Milk stood for in the end. Total freedom and a release from socially-sanction bindings designed to keep gays from actualizing their potential.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Film Review--Waltz with Bashir
Waltz With Bashir
written and directed by Ari Folman
How could this happen? It’s a simple enough question but one that most likely elicits no satisfactory answer. In the Israeli-Lebanon war of 1982 hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese in the Sabra and Shatila villages were rounded up and slaughtered by Christian Phalangists. This animated documentary film explores the Israeli forces’ involvement in the massacre. Director Ari Folman was a soldier during the period and this documentary is an attempt to uncover just how much the Israelis knew and if they knew about the severity of the operation why they did nothing to stop it. Specifically Folman wants to remember his role in the atrocities as he has never been able to remember anything regarding the incident.
This is the first Israeli animated feature ever released to theaters. The look of the film is startling and unique and it has a haunting quality that does not easily wash off. It starts off with a sequence in a bar where a friend of Folman is telling him of a dream that perpetually plagues him. We see a pack of wild dogs running through the streets. Their yellow eyes match the terrible yellow of the skies. The dogs are fierce and angry and one is greatly impacted by the terror they represent. There is a very real threat that the dogs will savagely attack anything that impedes their course. The dream stems from an incident in Folman’s past that took place during the war.
Of course there are no answers that can possible bring solace and clarity to Folman or anyone involved either directly or indirectly. In this film there is only a series of questions that bring Folman no closer in his quest for understanding. Through a series of interviews with various individuals with direct knowledge of the political climate that fostered the massacre, Folman begins to put the pieces together.
Many of the soldiers in this film are young guys like Folman, who at 19 joined the Israeli military forces. They don’t understand the intricacies of what they are being instructed to carry out. They simply do what they are told to do because it’s protocol and they are commanded. The massacre plays out like a particularly perverse and surreal drama that effects them only tangentially.
The film is heartbreaking in its immediacy. This is most readily demonstrated at the very end where we see live action documentation of a group of women who have reentered their village after the slaughter. They scream and wail and their pain is devastatingly apparent. Bodies are stacked up and we are left with a clear cut, positive actualization of the impact of the event. The film does not let its audience off the hook and reminds us of just what can happen if certain military and political forces make terrible designs on the lives of the innocent.
This film creates a climate where many questions relating to the miseries inflicted upon the heads of civilian populations can be effectively conveyed. The questions are openly displayed but of course the answers are not so readily apparent. They remain elusive so many years after the massacre and will most likely never be fully realized. Many of the facts are obscured by time and political contrivances and uncovering truth in this matter is a Herculean task. In the film there is not a pressing need to remember. There is simply a psychic recoiling at vague phantasies that plague the mind now and again when its resistance is at its weakest. Ari Folman is in just such a state as the film opens. After twenty years he is haunted by fragments, particularly one scene where he and two other soldiers are submerged in water. They rise and walk naked toward a series of buildings as flares explode across the sky. It’s all he has to go by and it becomes a launching point toward other memories that he recovers upon interviewing various individuals he relies upon to help him connect with his dubious past.
Perhaps the quest for these memories stem from a feeling of guilt that will not wash off. Folman may imagine himself to be responsible somewhat for the massacre and wants to reassure himself that there was nothing he could have done to stop it. By extension he suspects that perhaps the entire Israeli political machinery is complicit in the killings and this thought disrupts his sense of civic pride. However he examines the event, he returns to the same ugly guilt which is what he ventures forth to understand.
One wonders what can be done so many years after the fact to salve the wounds that have been created by such a callous, cowardly act. The Israeli military has been exonerated of all charges and the Phalangists have never been called out for their involvement. It is perceived as something that just happened and perhaps Folman is attempting to bring it into focus so that this younger generation will never be able to forget. The sheer making of this film in Israel is a testament to a sort of collective guilt that must be purged by any means necessary. With the events in Gaza, Israeli military prowess is being examined closely across the globe. It’s a timely subject and one that this film will shed some light upon. If nothing else, it should remind us that even the best intentions can lead to calamitous results if people fail to pay attention.
This film doesn’t indict the Israeli military and leaves the question of their involvement up to those whose business it is to posit such queries. It does however suggest that the officials in charge of managing the Phalangists may have looked the other way when the atrocities were committed. Again, this does not mean that there was a conspiracy to commit murder on the part of the Israeli military. It’s understandable why certain Israeli politicians and pundits have questioned the veracity of this film for the way it portrays the Israeli military and for the very suggestion that they may have been involved in the attack. At this sensitive time when worldwide opinion of the Israeli military is very much at an ebb, it makes sense that this film is being examined in certain quarters quite critically.
Memory is existence. Without memory no society can function, let alone flourish. Folman has brought forth an effort to create a foundation out of memory that can be used to create something beautiful and lasting that will honor these memories and keep them forever in currency. He is not trying to raise the massacre to the level of the Holocaust. He is not in all honesty trying to compare the orchestrators of this tragedy with the Nazis. I wouldn’t even say that he suggests it although it is mentioned in the film. Still, one prays that memory serves as a warning but it never does. Atrocities are committed every day and for the most part the world turns its back and says or does nothing. Humans cannot learn to quell their aggressive drives and the thirst for blood is never ending. It’s the one legacy that endures. This film merely wants to showcase a specific event that caused the deaths of hundreds of people during a heated war with a great enemy. History has not proved the adage that unless we remember the past we are destined to repeat it. Remembering solves nothing by itself. It merely helps assuage the living whose consciences begin to torment them.
Overall, this film is a gorgeously rendered tone-poem to the nature of human brutality and the machinations of war. It provides its audience with insight into its own tendency toward horror and states emphatically that peoples cannot turn their head and pretend that abuses aren’t happening. This film is a tool to help us remember the simple fact that we cannot altogether distance ourselves from those who would take it upon themselves to commit various acts of terror toward civilian populations. We all possess the same drives that lead to atrocities and the film suggests we would best be served never to forget this fact.
written and directed by Ari Folman
How could this happen? It’s a simple enough question but one that most likely elicits no satisfactory answer. In the Israeli-Lebanon war of 1982 hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese in the Sabra and Shatila villages were rounded up and slaughtered by Christian Phalangists. This animated documentary film explores the Israeli forces’ involvement in the massacre. Director Ari Folman was a soldier during the period and this documentary is an attempt to uncover just how much the Israelis knew and if they knew about the severity of the operation why they did nothing to stop it. Specifically Folman wants to remember his role in the atrocities as he has never been able to remember anything regarding the incident.
This is the first Israeli animated feature ever released to theaters. The look of the film is startling and unique and it has a haunting quality that does not easily wash off. It starts off with a sequence in a bar where a friend of Folman is telling him of a dream that perpetually plagues him. We see a pack of wild dogs running through the streets. Their yellow eyes match the terrible yellow of the skies. The dogs are fierce and angry and one is greatly impacted by the terror they represent. There is a very real threat that the dogs will savagely attack anything that impedes their course. The dream stems from an incident in Folman’s past that took place during the war.
Of course there are no answers that can possible bring solace and clarity to Folman or anyone involved either directly or indirectly. In this film there is only a series of questions that bring Folman no closer in his quest for understanding. Through a series of interviews with various individuals with direct knowledge of the political climate that fostered the massacre, Folman begins to put the pieces together.
Many of the soldiers in this film are young guys like Folman, who at 19 joined the Israeli military forces. They don’t understand the intricacies of what they are being instructed to carry out. They simply do what they are told to do because it’s protocol and they are commanded. The massacre plays out like a particularly perverse and surreal drama that effects them only tangentially.
The film is heartbreaking in its immediacy. This is most readily demonstrated at the very end where we see live action documentation of a group of women who have reentered their village after the slaughter. They scream and wail and their pain is devastatingly apparent. Bodies are stacked up and we are left with a clear cut, positive actualization of the impact of the event. The film does not let its audience off the hook and reminds us of just what can happen if certain military and political forces make terrible designs on the lives of the innocent.
This film creates a climate where many questions relating to the miseries inflicted upon the heads of civilian populations can be effectively conveyed. The questions are openly displayed but of course the answers are not so readily apparent. They remain elusive so many years after the massacre and will most likely never be fully realized. Many of the facts are obscured by time and political contrivances and uncovering truth in this matter is a Herculean task. In the film there is not a pressing need to remember. There is simply a psychic recoiling at vague phantasies that plague the mind now and again when its resistance is at its weakest. Ari Folman is in just such a state as the film opens. After twenty years he is haunted by fragments, particularly one scene where he and two other soldiers are submerged in water. They rise and walk naked toward a series of buildings as flares explode across the sky. It’s all he has to go by and it becomes a launching point toward other memories that he recovers upon interviewing various individuals he relies upon to help him connect with his dubious past.
Perhaps the quest for these memories stem from a feeling of guilt that will not wash off. Folman may imagine himself to be responsible somewhat for the massacre and wants to reassure himself that there was nothing he could have done to stop it. By extension he suspects that perhaps the entire Israeli political machinery is complicit in the killings and this thought disrupts his sense of civic pride. However he examines the event, he returns to the same ugly guilt which is what he ventures forth to understand.
One wonders what can be done so many years after the fact to salve the wounds that have been created by such a callous, cowardly act. The Israeli military has been exonerated of all charges and the Phalangists have never been called out for their involvement. It is perceived as something that just happened and perhaps Folman is attempting to bring it into focus so that this younger generation will never be able to forget. The sheer making of this film in Israel is a testament to a sort of collective guilt that must be purged by any means necessary. With the events in Gaza, Israeli military prowess is being examined closely across the globe. It’s a timely subject and one that this film will shed some light upon. If nothing else, it should remind us that even the best intentions can lead to calamitous results if people fail to pay attention.
This film doesn’t indict the Israeli military and leaves the question of their involvement up to those whose business it is to posit such queries. It does however suggest that the officials in charge of managing the Phalangists may have looked the other way when the atrocities were committed. Again, this does not mean that there was a conspiracy to commit murder on the part of the Israeli military. It’s understandable why certain Israeli politicians and pundits have questioned the veracity of this film for the way it portrays the Israeli military and for the very suggestion that they may have been involved in the attack. At this sensitive time when worldwide opinion of the Israeli military is very much at an ebb, it makes sense that this film is being examined in certain quarters quite critically.
Memory is existence. Without memory no society can function, let alone flourish. Folman has brought forth an effort to create a foundation out of memory that can be used to create something beautiful and lasting that will honor these memories and keep them forever in currency. He is not trying to raise the massacre to the level of the Holocaust. He is not in all honesty trying to compare the orchestrators of this tragedy with the Nazis. I wouldn’t even say that he suggests it although it is mentioned in the film. Still, one prays that memory serves as a warning but it never does. Atrocities are committed every day and for the most part the world turns its back and says or does nothing. Humans cannot learn to quell their aggressive drives and the thirst for blood is never ending. It’s the one legacy that endures. This film merely wants to showcase a specific event that caused the deaths of hundreds of people during a heated war with a great enemy. History has not proved the adage that unless we remember the past we are destined to repeat it. Remembering solves nothing by itself. It merely helps assuage the living whose consciences begin to torment them.
Overall, this film is a gorgeously rendered tone-poem to the nature of human brutality and the machinations of war. It provides its audience with insight into its own tendency toward horror and states emphatically that peoples cannot turn their head and pretend that abuses aren’t happening. This film is a tool to help us remember the simple fact that we cannot altogether distance ourselves from those who would take it upon themselves to commit various acts of terror toward civilian populations. We all possess the same drives that lead to atrocities and the film suggests we would best be served never to forget this fact.
Play Review--Madea's Class Reunion by Tyler Perry
Madea’s Class Reunion
written and directed by Tyler Perry
starring Tyler Perry, Terrell Carter, Chantell D. Christopher, Chandra Currelley-Young, D’Wayne Gardner, Anselmo Gordon, David Mann, Tamela J. Mann, Judy Peterson, Cheryl Pepsii Riley, Pamela Taylor
In this 2003 stage play Tyler Perry employs a hotel setting to tell a story about deceit, trauma, and the first agonizing steps toward overcoming personal adversity. Through it all lies the power to forgiveness, to say to one’s enemies that they no longer have you by the throat.
The titular reunion really amounts to very little as half of the class is dead and two are in nursing homes. It takes up very little of the film and comes across as an afterthought without any lasting significance.
Again, this is a deeply spiritual work that explores the nature of human weakness through several characters who have fallen into a chasm of their own devising. These are broken folks who have fallen very far from God and the play makes it clear that they need to reconnect with the Lord if they are ever to be free of the agonies that have beset them. Chief amongst these characters is Stephanie (Riley) who is being brutalized by the father of her child, a pimp named Horace (Gardner) who prostitutes her leaving her terrified and wavering. This is typical of the kind of relationship Perry likes to dissect. It constitutes an essentially heroic feminine figure who has been led into darkness by an unruly man who simply wants to exploit her for his own ends. Throughout the play Stephanie struggles mightily within herself to gain the courage to extricate herself from this man who has treated her so callously for so long.
This play features a new character played by Tyler Perry. Dr. Willy Leroy Jones is a pure troublemaker who begins to work for the hotel as a bellboy and bartender. He’s much better suited to running his mouth which he proceeds to do for the duration of his appearance. He’s like a male, younger, thinner version of Madea and prone to the same wistful flights of fancy that in this play conjure up the ghosts of “The Color Purple” and “Good Times” among others.
Madea is really big on Whitney Houston in this play as she warbles through several of the singer’s songs throughout. She’s also big on laying out the law regarding domestic violence and the measures women ought to take should they find themselves beaten by a man. These are moments of clarity that allow Perry to effectively preach to his audience about a number of life’s ills that befall the unwitting and the ill prepared. They are moments where the pulpit is most visible and Perry takes the opportunity to stick in social commentary which is always a latent aspect of his plays and only occasionally overtly expressed so openly.
In this play marriage is again tested through the characters of Cory (Carter) and Trina (Taylor) Jeffery. She cheated on him and cannot understand why he cannot forgive her. The play focuses much of it’s effort on promoting the idea that forgiveness is the most essential ingredient to any life. It suggests that without it there is no causes for living. Trina and Cory represent the terrible aspect of forgiveness as it is actually lived by people who are forced to deal with it in a very real sense.
There is a tremendous amount of heavy negativity threatening to corrupt this farce that features Mr. Leroy Brown (David Mann) at his lunatic best. Mann is an exceptional performer who despite his corpulent state can do the splits and contort his body with the best of them. This is one of his most memorable performances and it livens up every scene because Brown is just so absolutely off his nut. He’s a buffoon who is infinitely likable which is a testament to Mann’s ability to fully engage the audience and to bring them into his realm of crazed antics. The play needs Brown to show up in his ill-fitting, glaringly menacing outfits to add a dose of easy comedy to the proceedings. Without Brown Madea loses a bit of her immediacy because so much of what she says is at Brown’s expense. They play so perfectly off one another in the classic sense of great comedic teams who take insult into the heady realm of the sublime.
The play features some of the best songs to be found in any Tyler Perry production. There is a ferocity to these performances that cause them to stand out for me. There is anger here that some of the earlier numbers have lacked and each song is very much a dagger straight into the heart. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be emotionally impacted by the power of these songs. They hit very hard and it takes a while to recover from their intensity. In this play Perry perfectly melds song and acting together in a cohesive whole that is breathtaking to witness. Sometimes in other works the music only proves to be an annoyance, a momentary respite between Madea’s hysterical yammerings. But here they seem vital and necessary. There is a kick to them, a driving insistence that carries them across to the audience.
Tyler Perry has devised a system that allows him to produce works that are both emotionally edifying, spiritually uplifting, and devastatingly funny. He’s pretty much cornered the market on theatrical experiences that combine all of these aspects. He has created a character with so much blistering charisma and acute naughtiness that she has become an internationally renowned symbol of coarse, brutal truth and fearlessness. Madea releases pent up frustrations and angers through aptly timed insults that are tempered with great parochial wisdom that always seems to get to the heart of the matter.
Here we have interwoven scenarios which play for high melodrama and intense emotional outbursts that often take the form of song. There is a lot of pleading to God in this film that delves deeply into the core of what this play is attempting to convey to its audience. God is paramount to every note, every utterance, and Perry ensures that the audience will go home with a clear cut message about the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship to Christ above all things. Certainly, the message in this play feels heavy handed at times to non-believers but to those who truly engage with Christianity it is profound in both its simplicity and its application.
Overall, this play captures all of the elements that go into creating an effective Tyler Perry production. It features top notch songs, a strong narrative that is occasionally nuanced in its presentation, and terrific performances that resonate throughout. It combines big laughs with a serious story involving terrible emotional aspects that ring true. The characters mostly come off as real people attempting to work through various agonies that insistently torment their lives, working to cast the sufferer head long into a ditch. It’s one of Perry’s more satisfying productions and he manages to work in themes that audiences everywhere will have no hard time identifying with.
written and directed by Tyler Perry
starring Tyler Perry, Terrell Carter, Chantell D. Christopher, Chandra Currelley-Young, D’Wayne Gardner, Anselmo Gordon, David Mann, Tamela J. Mann, Judy Peterson, Cheryl Pepsii Riley, Pamela Taylor
In this 2003 stage play Tyler Perry employs a hotel setting to tell a story about deceit, trauma, and the first agonizing steps toward overcoming personal adversity. Through it all lies the power to forgiveness, to say to one’s enemies that they no longer have you by the throat.
The titular reunion really amounts to very little as half of the class is dead and two are in nursing homes. It takes up very little of the film and comes across as an afterthought without any lasting significance.
Again, this is a deeply spiritual work that explores the nature of human weakness through several characters who have fallen into a chasm of their own devising. These are broken folks who have fallen very far from God and the play makes it clear that they need to reconnect with the Lord if they are ever to be free of the agonies that have beset them. Chief amongst these characters is Stephanie (Riley) who is being brutalized by the father of her child, a pimp named Horace (Gardner) who prostitutes her leaving her terrified and wavering. This is typical of the kind of relationship Perry likes to dissect. It constitutes an essentially heroic feminine figure who has been led into darkness by an unruly man who simply wants to exploit her for his own ends. Throughout the play Stephanie struggles mightily within herself to gain the courage to extricate herself from this man who has treated her so callously for so long.
This play features a new character played by Tyler Perry. Dr. Willy Leroy Jones is a pure troublemaker who begins to work for the hotel as a bellboy and bartender. He’s much better suited to running his mouth which he proceeds to do for the duration of his appearance. He’s like a male, younger, thinner version of Madea and prone to the same wistful flights of fancy that in this play conjure up the ghosts of “The Color Purple” and “Good Times” among others.
Madea is really big on Whitney Houston in this play as she warbles through several of the singer’s songs throughout. She’s also big on laying out the law regarding domestic violence and the measures women ought to take should they find themselves beaten by a man. These are moments of clarity that allow Perry to effectively preach to his audience about a number of life’s ills that befall the unwitting and the ill prepared. They are moments where the pulpit is most visible and Perry takes the opportunity to stick in social commentary which is always a latent aspect of his plays and only occasionally overtly expressed so openly.
In this play marriage is again tested through the characters of Cory (Carter) and Trina (Taylor) Jeffery. She cheated on him and cannot understand why he cannot forgive her. The play focuses much of it’s effort on promoting the idea that forgiveness is the most essential ingredient to any life. It suggests that without it there is no causes for living. Trina and Cory represent the terrible aspect of forgiveness as it is actually lived by people who are forced to deal with it in a very real sense.
There is a tremendous amount of heavy negativity threatening to corrupt this farce that features Mr. Leroy Brown (David Mann) at his lunatic best. Mann is an exceptional performer who despite his corpulent state can do the splits and contort his body with the best of them. This is one of his most memorable performances and it livens up every scene because Brown is just so absolutely off his nut. He’s a buffoon who is infinitely likable which is a testament to Mann’s ability to fully engage the audience and to bring them into his realm of crazed antics. The play needs Brown to show up in his ill-fitting, glaringly menacing outfits to add a dose of easy comedy to the proceedings. Without Brown Madea loses a bit of her immediacy because so much of what she says is at Brown’s expense. They play so perfectly off one another in the classic sense of great comedic teams who take insult into the heady realm of the sublime.
The play features some of the best songs to be found in any Tyler Perry production. There is a ferocity to these performances that cause them to stand out for me. There is anger here that some of the earlier numbers have lacked and each song is very much a dagger straight into the heart. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be emotionally impacted by the power of these songs. They hit very hard and it takes a while to recover from their intensity. In this play Perry perfectly melds song and acting together in a cohesive whole that is breathtaking to witness. Sometimes in other works the music only proves to be an annoyance, a momentary respite between Madea’s hysterical yammerings. But here they seem vital and necessary. There is a kick to them, a driving insistence that carries them across to the audience.
Tyler Perry has devised a system that allows him to produce works that are both emotionally edifying, spiritually uplifting, and devastatingly funny. He’s pretty much cornered the market on theatrical experiences that combine all of these aspects. He has created a character with so much blistering charisma and acute naughtiness that she has become an internationally renowned symbol of coarse, brutal truth and fearlessness. Madea releases pent up frustrations and angers through aptly timed insults that are tempered with great parochial wisdom that always seems to get to the heart of the matter.
Here we have interwoven scenarios which play for high melodrama and intense emotional outbursts that often take the form of song. There is a lot of pleading to God in this film that delves deeply into the core of what this play is attempting to convey to its audience. God is paramount to every note, every utterance, and Perry ensures that the audience will go home with a clear cut message about the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship to Christ above all things. Certainly, the message in this play feels heavy handed at times to non-believers but to those who truly engage with Christianity it is profound in both its simplicity and its application.
Overall, this play captures all of the elements that go into creating an effective Tyler Perry production. It features top notch songs, a strong narrative that is occasionally nuanced in its presentation, and terrific performances that resonate throughout. It combines big laughs with a serious story involving terrible emotional aspects that ring true. The characters mostly come off as real people attempting to work through various agonies that insistently torment their lives, working to cast the sufferer head long into a ditch. It’s one of Perry’s more satisfying productions and he manages to work in themes that audiences everywhere will have no hard time identifying with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)