Valkyre
directed by Brian Singer
written by Christopher McQuarrie, Nathan Alexander
starring Tom Cruise, Tom Wilkinson, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, Carice van Houten, Thomas Kretschmann, Eddie Izzard, Kevin McNally, David Bamber
Much more that Tom Cruise with an eyepatch and a bunch of snobby British actors, this film explores a relevant topic that keeps a great number of people up at night. It exposes a period in history that few are familiar with. It is very much a David and Goliath story pitting a group of disgruntled officers in the German army against the almighty Nazi power structure. It’s a film that uses courage as a launching point to tell this particular story at this particular time.
Based on actual events, this film relates the story of the 20 July, 1944 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler (Bamber) by German officers during WWII.
In this telling, the central figure in the plot is a man named Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) who early on is injured in Tunisia, North Africa leaving him without a left eye, right hand, or two fingers on his left hand. Upon recovering he is recruited into the resistance and soon becomes an integral part of the operation to bring Hitler down.
The film opens with an attempt perpetrated by Major General Henning von Tresckow (Branaugh) to set a bomb on Hitler’s plane. The plan is to conceal a bomb inside a box allegedly containing brandy and have it delivered to someone on the plane. When it failed to detonate von Tresckow is forced to retrieve it himself. This is designed to show that the there were other less famous efforts to remove the Fuehrer from office. The plots were numerous and numbered in the dozens although the film states that there were only 15. Indeed, Hitler was a target from the very beginning and this film seeks to composite all of the efforts into one singular event with potentially catastrophic consequences for the Nazi regime.
General Friedrich Olbricht (Nighy) seems to be slightly unsure about the efficacy of the plot. It’s all in Nighy’s eyes as Olbricht issues the order to mobilize the Reserve Army and later when he refuses to do the same thing during the initial phases of Operation Valkyrie. He comes off as begrudgingly allegiant to protocol when all the dust settles and everything is on the line. This can also be attributed to his pragmatism and a clearer view of the dangers facing the plotters if any one aspect of the plot fails to be properly administered. He’s motivated to put an end to the Nazi regime but wants to make certain the mission is properly handled. In the end it doesn’t much matter but it is at least interesting to consider what might have happened had the army been mobilized earlier.
There is a tremendous energy in this film and it seems to get most of the historical data accurate. There is a definite sense of authenticity to the film as it is obvious much research has gone in to making things as true to life as possible. It’s a sweeping drama filled with moments of grave concern as von Stauffenberg becomes more embroiled in the great plot. Indeed, once the plot is put into play and the bomb goes off, the film becomes terribly tense as the instigators scramble to ensure they are able to take over the key aspects of the Nazi war machine and change the central government.
This is the most grounded Hitler in any of the cinematic treatments of the event. Still, he’s enigmatic and distant but of all the previous versions he’s the most in control of how his policies are being put forth.
There is a sense of fatalism that hangs over every frame of this film. Knowing the ending it is impossible not to feel considerable distress as the film moves closer to its terrifying ending. It would be interesting to go back and not have studied the plot so the ending might come as something of a shock. In pure cinematic terms it’s often best not to know anything about the story before you go in. Otherwise expectations can ruin the experience and you are left with nothing but a disgruntled disposition. In this case, I knew von Stauffenberg’s fate and such knowledge informed my viewing rather considerably.
The film spends quite a bit of time centrally focused on the plot itself and everything that lead up to it. It shows the failed attempt on 15 July at Wolf’s Lair when Himmler was not present at the meeting and subsequently von Stauffenberg did not attempt to activate the bomb in his briefcase. He is left to reconfigure his plans and the date is set for 20 July. The agony of the operation is succinctly felt as the further plans are laid out and the direction of the operation is firmly held.
Each step is portrayed as critical and necessary to complete the secret directive at hand. Each participant in the plot does their part to ensure a successful ending to their intended outcome.
Tom Cruise is certainly filmed like the hero he is intended to be. The camera lovingly scans his face to ensure that the audience remember this is indeed still a Tom Cruise film. He is never quite able to slip away into the role and it’s a detriment to the film. He will always be Tom Cruise playing himself in any film he dares to commit to. He did manage to become lost in “Tropic Thunder” but that’s only because he was wearing make up and a fat suit. Otherwise, he is trapped in his persona and cannot escape it. Still, it’s really not that important because this is not about von Stauffenberg as much as it is about the Resistance movement and how vitally important it has become as a method in which to assuage the collective national guilt in Germany for the horrors of the second world war.
The film wants the audience to root for the plotters because it is considered a universal truth that they were on the right side of justice. The film mostly achieves this aim although to its credit it doesn’t go out of its way to demonize the Nazis. They are merely presented as a political structure sans their social and spiritual components. They are portrayed as part of machine and simply taking their orders and administer them as instructed. Still, they are not exactly lionized either. This is not the glamorous Nazi of “Night of the Generals” or the scintillatingly sexy Nazi of “Miracle at St. Anna”. They are merely cogs in a giant wheel and their individuality is never fully examined. On the other hand, the Officer’s corp. and certain army leaders such as Major Otto Ernst Remer (Kretschmann) who is portrayed as a military man with something resembling a conscience, are depicted as more humane and morally sound.
It is clear that this film is pushing a specific agenda although it doesn’t necessarily get in the way of the story. These are vital characters performing deeds that they know very well could cost them their lives yet they push on. They are motivated by something much greater than their fear of discovery and possible annihilation. It’s a timeless, if not slightly hackneyed tale of conscience over captivity and imminent death.
The performances in this film all do justice to the tenaciously tremoring narrative. Tom Cruise may not quite lose himself in this role but he still manages to convey von Stauffenberg’s drive and dedication to his mission. He’s ultimately believable after a fashion and his character demonstrates a clearly defined directive that is never abandoned. Tom Wilkinson is captivating as Fromm, an indecisive military leader whose sole intent is to come down on the side that is right. Wilkinson demonstrates his character’s authority and steadfastness. Fromm in this version is not struggling with his conscience. He merely wants to protect his status and not get his hands dirty. Bill Nighy captures his character’s strength of intent and his careful approach to the severity of the plot; Olbricht represents the years of toil that have gone into facilitating this one brilliant moment and he doesn’t want it to slip through their fingers.
Overall, this film is motivated by a specific point of view that never comes out of focus. It wants to touch its audience and make them aware of specific historical moments when certain individuals put their lives on the line in order to bring about a drastic change in the order of things as they stood during the waning moments of WW2. The characters are all well developed and their motivations are for the most part decidedly clear. One is left with the impression that this film needs to express its position in as undiluted a manner as possible. There is terrible longing in this film and it possesses every moment on screen. The film is exquisitely photographed from start to finish and the lighting creates an occasionally haunting quality which accentuates the overall style of the film. Ultimately, this is a fine introduction to the very true story that deserves to be further investigated by those in the audience compelled by fiction to take a stab at the actual past and come to their own conclusions.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Film Review--The Fast and the Furious (1955)
The Fast and The Furious
directed by John Ireland
written by Jean Howell, Jerome Odlum
based on a story by Roger Corman
starring John Ireland, Dorothy Malone, Jean Howell, Marshall Bradford, Larry Thor, Lou Faraday, Bruce Carlisle, Bruno VeSota
A trucker named Frank Webster (Ireland) is charged with running another trucker off the road and killing him. He is sent to prison and manages to break out and finds himself on the run. He reaches a small diner where he is accosted by Bob Nielson, also a truck driver, and manages to knock him out. He grabs Connie Adair and forces himself into her car where he takes off just ahead of a major manhunt in his honor.
The film focuses on the way that Connie turns from professing to loathing Webster to loving him. It’s a predictable plot device and it never quite heats the film up to a considerable degree. It’s obvious they are going to get together and there is no mystery to it. Webster just kisses her early on and that is that. She isn’t even stunned by the kiss and seems to take it as part of her captivity. Of course she warms up to her captor almost immediately so whatever tension might have been brought between them is quickly demolished and it’s to the film’s detriment.
All that happens is that the pair drive to a great street race and Webster drives in it in order to lay low and avoid the police. That’s really it as far as plot. There is no conflicts, no terrors, and nothing particularly pressing throughout the rest of the film. It’s focus is one dimensional and it doesn’t quite manage to keep the attention of the audience altogether. The race isn’t terribly exciting and the relationship is typical so there is nothing to get worked up over.
The real joy in this film is Dorothy Malone. She has a Grace Kelly quality to her and looks quite good all roughed up. Webster has his way with Connie-- shoving her onto the ground, picking her up hard by the arm, and she seems to enjoy this type of treatment. He even ties her hands, completing the slave-master relationship that develops between them. Webster is very hard with Connie and treats her with disdain before forcing himself on her early on in the film. He literally takes her and she’s perfectly willing to give herself up. She’s fairly weak throughout the film and this is made concrete after Webster locks her in a barn. She meekly cries out for help for quite a while before finally hitting on the idea to set the barn on fire in the hopes that someone will see it smoldering and rescue her. She seems to be the type who is always in the need of such rescuing and incapable of doing much her self although it is mentioned that she is something of a race car driver herself. All that is thrown out the window in this film as she appears to be trapped for much of the film.
Yes, the trapped woman totally at the mercy of a seemingly dangerous man who may or may not be a heartless killer is a staple of this genre. They are sweet natured, essentially meek, and unable to force their way out of their dire situation. The only option is to succumb to the man’s gristly charm and further become but another trophy he has accumulated along his particular hard path. He is a ravisher and she knows this. She also knows she shouldn’t give in because by doing so she might be putting herself in acute danger. Still, she is unable to prevent the inevitable from sweeping her away so she does what comes naturally to any woman when put in such a situation. She allows herself to be subdued and captured by a man who is possibly capable of some exceedingly shifty business.
John Ireland plays Webster with a knowingness that informs his character with a sense of purpose. It is always clear that Webster is in control of every situation, especially when it has to do with Connie. Webster is a confident man who is determined to escape the slick hand of justice and it is apparent that he’s willing for much of the film to take Connie down with him as far as he goes. He knows he has her and that she clings to him tenaciously and will not let go. It certainly helps him as he scrambles away from the authorities who seem to have an ubiquitous presence in this film. They appear at every turn and Webster is forced into a position where he must keep his eye firmly on his goal lest he lose his most precious commodity–his freedom.
Overall, this film has a gritty style and possesses a considerable amount of energy throughout. It doesn’t maintain a proper tension between the two leads which manages to grind the film down. There are no mysteries in this film as it drives forth toward only one conclusion that is predictable and possibly necessary for the narrative. Still, the film doesn’t work and the results aren’t vital enough to sustain it’s promise. It’s generic and none-too-stylistic although Dorothy Malone is worth looking at, particularly when she is being roughhoused and reduced to her primal, carnal core. Connie is all flesh and her button-up presentation has a definitive erotic appeal.
directed by John Ireland
written by Jean Howell, Jerome Odlum
based on a story by Roger Corman
starring John Ireland, Dorothy Malone, Jean Howell, Marshall Bradford, Larry Thor, Lou Faraday, Bruce Carlisle, Bruno VeSota
A trucker named Frank Webster (Ireland) is charged with running another trucker off the road and killing him. He is sent to prison and manages to break out and finds himself on the run. He reaches a small diner where he is accosted by Bob Nielson, also a truck driver, and manages to knock him out. He grabs Connie Adair and forces himself into her car where he takes off just ahead of a major manhunt in his honor.
The film focuses on the way that Connie turns from professing to loathing Webster to loving him. It’s a predictable plot device and it never quite heats the film up to a considerable degree. It’s obvious they are going to get together and there is no mystery to it. Webster just kisses her early on and that is that. She isn’t even stunned by the kiss and seems to take it as part of her captivity. Of course she warms up to her captor almost immediately so whatever tension might have been brought between them is quickly demolished and it’s to the film’s detriment.
All that happens is that the pair drive to a great street race and Webster drives in it in order to lay low and avoid the police. That’s really it as far as plot. There is no conflicts, no terrors, and nothing particularly pressing throughout the rest of the film. It’s focus is one dimensional and it doesn’t quite manage to keep the attention of the audience altogether. The race isn’t terribly exciting and the relationship is typical so there is nothing to get worked up over.
The real joy in this film is Dorothy Malone. She has a Grace Kelly quality to her and looks quite good all roughed up. Webster has his way with Connie-- shoving her onto the ground, picking her up hard by the arm, and she seems to enjoy this type of treatment. He even ties her hands, completing the slave-master relationship that develops between them. Webster is very hard with Connie and treats her with disdain before forcing himself on her early on in the film. He literally takes her and she’s perfectly willing to give herself up. She’s fairly weak throughout the film and this is made concrete after Webster locks her in a barn. She meekly cries out for help for quite a while before finally hitting on the idea to set the barn on fire in the hopes that someone will see it smoldering and rescue her. She seems to be the type who is always in the need of such rescuing and incapable of doing much her self although it is mentioned that she is something of a race car driver herself. All that is thrown out the window in this film as she appears to be trapped for much of the film.
Yes, the trapped woman totally at the mercy of a seemingly dangerous man who may or may not be a heartless killer is a staple of this genre. They are sweet natured, essentially meek, and unable to force their way out of their dire situation. The only option is to succumb to the man’s gristly charm and further become but another trophy he has accumulated along his particular hard path. He is a ravisher and she knows this. She also knows she shouldn’t give in because by doing so she might be putting herself in acute danger. Still, she is unable to prevent the inevitable from sweeping her away so she does what comes naturally to any woman when put in such a situation. She allows herself to be subdued and captured by a man who is possibly capable of some exceedingly shifty business.
John Ireland plays Webster with a knowingness that informs his character with a sense of purpose. It is always clear that Webster is in control of every situation, especially when it has to do with Connie. Webster is a confident man who is determined to escape the slick hand of justice and it is apparent that he’s willing for much of the film to take Connie down with him as far as he goes. He knows he has her and that she clings to him tenaciously and will not let go. It certainly helps him as he scrambles away from the authorities who seem to have an ubiquitous presence in this film. They appear at every turn and Webster is forced into a position where he must keep his eye firmly on his goal lest he lose his most precious commodity–his freedom.
Overall, this film has a gritty style and possesses a considerable amount of energy throughout. It doesn’t maintain a proper tension between the two leads which manages to grind the film down. There are no mysteries in this film as it drives forth toward only one conclusion that is predictable and possibly necessary for the narrative. Still, the film doesn’t work and the results aren’t vital enough to sustain it’s promise. It’s generic and none-too-stylistic although Dorothy Malone is worth looking at, particularly when she is being roughhoused and reduced to her primal, carnal core. Connie is all flesh and her button-up presentation has a definitive erotic appeal.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Film Review--Devil Times Five
Devil Times Five
directed by Sean MacGregor
written by John Durren and Sandra Lee Blowitz
based on a story by Dylan Jones
starring Leif Garrett, Sorrell Booke, Gene Evans, Taylor Lacher, Joan McCall, Shelley Morrison, Carolyn Stellar, John Durren, Gail Smale, Dawn Lyn, Tierre Turner, Tia Thompson, Henry Beckman
In the rarest of cinematic exercises, five disturbed children embark on a thrilling, mesmeric killing spree after their bus from a mental institution crashes. They hike for hours and finally reach a hotel resort that has been closed down. Inside they find a group of terribly uninteresting people who have gathered for a makeshift vacation including the owner, Papa Doc (Evans). The kids are cold and hungry and quickly set up house with the unsuspecting others.
This is really a film that is only worth seeing because of the various methods of killing that are employed by the wee ones. Plus it stars teen-heartthrob Leif Garrett in one of his early film roles. They range in age from 10-14 and are quite ingenious when it comes to murder. David (Gararett) is a cold, menacing figure. He and the others are grim faced and determined throughout the film. There is a young girl who believes she is a novice nun named Sister Hannah (Smale) who most certainly adds a sense of purity and sanctity to the proceedings. Brian (Turner) is the leader and he imagines he’s right in the middle of a war and carries himself like a true soldier replete with a mock M-16. Susan (Thompson) enjoys playing with fire and little Moe (Lyn) is cute in a most disarming manner.
The group of revelers is a hopeless bunch especially when the kids trap them in the house and they have no route of escape. Papa Doc is a gruff man who is involved in some exceedingly shady dealings. His son Harvey (Booke) is a lowly type who can’t stand up to Papa Doc and embarrasses his drunkard wife Ruth (Morrisson). The others are truly dismal and serve no purpose other than being killed. There is a slut named Lovely (Stellar), Rick (Lacher) and his nervous, twittering wife Julie (McCall). The kids do a fine number on all of them and it’s a glory to behold.
Killers who escape justice are an exceedingly scarce thing in cinema these days. Morality being such a restraining force in peoples’s lives, the usual ploy is to kill off the bad guys so one or a few upstanding types can live another day. Here we have what may in fact legitimately be evil. Most things that are labeled evil are not so much but we do meet five children who appear to be without conscience and who kill for the amazing thrill of it all. They seem to quite enjoy the hunt and are incredibly apt in the presentation of their techniques for getting the job done right.
For these children, murder is playtime and they do seem to get fairly animated after completing a kill. Otherwise they are dead serious and do not betray the sheer giddiness they experience upon knocking off one of the miserable folks who provide them with food and shelter.
The idea of a lot of possibly insane children wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting population is a charming one and this film manages to transform it into campy fun. As the deaths pile up and panic grips the soon-to-be victims it’s difficult not to root for the juveniles as they complete their work and escape unscathed. After all, the kids have drive and purpose and they are making the world a much better place by dispatching a group of ciphers who have not been properly flesh out and subsequently are devoid of any legitimate emotional characteristics. The film doesn’t bother to make anyone save the children likable in any discernable way. This lack of character development makes it that much easier to side with the children. They are so darling when they plot and scheme and one can’t help but be taken in by their charming mannerisms.
There is one character named Ralph (Durren) who only seems to be in the film to elicit something akin to pity. He’s mentally challenged and the but of any number of cruel comments that make fun of every aspect of his person. Still, he does have a rapport with his rabbits and seems able at last to communicate legitimate feelings to them. Unfortunately he’s the first to go as his captors rig up a noose and before Ralph can figure out what’s happening he’s swinging and exceedingly dead. It’s actually kind of sad to see Ralph go. He’s the only character amongst the lodgers who deserves any sympathy. That is probably due to the fact that we just don’t want to see mental rejects die in films, especially in this manner. Nevertheless, Ralph is stricken from the record and the little fiends slowly and methodically make their way through the group.
Kids who kill are a fascinating, exquisitely controlled lot. Mary Bell and her friend Norma Bell killed two three year old boys and no doubt giggled about it uncontrollably. It was all some dizzying lark and probably felt like nothing else they had ever experienced. In this film, it’s pretty much in the same spirit. It is suggested that they will simply move on to another house because once the people are dead it just isn’t any fun anymore. Yeah, what’s the point if there isn’t any more to kill?
Overall, this film is aesthetically pretty lousy. It’s not well filmed and the acting is subpar at least amongst the adults. The youths fare better and they certainly possess much more elan and energy. The premise is inspired and there is no moral. The “evil” get theirs and nothing is done to stop them. They get to laugh amongst themselves and reminisce at least until the next one. The little ragamuffins come in so winningly and prove their gratitude with a series of horrendous deaths that dramatically serve their overall purpose. It isn’t mentioned just why the kids were locked away in a mental institution so there’s no great telling of each of theirs personal hell story. It’s supposed that they all committed serious crimes of the starkest brutality and were unceremoniously tossed away. At least I hope so.
.
directed by Sean MacGregor
written by John Durren and Sandra Lee Blowitz
based on a story by Dylan Jones
starring Leif Garrett, Sorrell Booke, Gene Evans, Taylor Lacher, Joan McCall, Shelley Morrison, Carolyn Stellar, John Durren, Gail Smale, Dawn Lyn, Tierre Turner, Tia Thompson, Henry Beckman
In the rarest of cinematic exercises, five disturbed children embark on a thrilling, mesmeric killing spree after their bus from a mental institution crashes. They hike for hours and finally reach a hotel resort that has been closed down. Inside they find a group of terribly uninteresting people who have gathered for a makeshift vacation including the owner, Papa Doc (Evans). The kids are cold and hungry and quickly set up house with the unsuspecting others.
This is really a film that is only worth seeing because of the various methods of killing that are employed by the wee ones. Plus it stars teen-heartthrob Leif Garrett in one of his early film roles. They range in age from 10-14 and are quite ingenious when it comes to murder. David (Gararett) is a cold, menacing figure. He and the others are grim faced and determined throughout the film. There is a young girl who believes she is a novice nun named Sister Hannah (Smale) who most certainly adds a sense of purity and sanctity to the proceedings. Brian (Turner) is the leader and he imagines he’s right in the middle of a war and carries himself like a true soldier replete with a mock M-16. Susan (Thompson) enjoys playing with fire and little Moe (Lyn) is cute in a most disarming manner.
The group of revelers is a hopeless bunch especially when the kids trap them in the house and they have no route of escape. Papa Doc is a gruff man who is involved in some exceedingly shady dealings. His son Harvey (Booke) is a lowly type who can’t stand up to Papa Doc and embarrasses his drunkard wife Ruth (Morrisson). The others are truly dismal and serve no purpose other than being killed. There is a slut named Lovely (Stellar), Rick (Lacher) and his nervous, twittering wife Julie (McCall). The kids do a fine number on all of them and it’s a glory to behold.
Killers who escape justice are an exceedingly scarce thing in cinema these days. Morality being such a restraining force in peoples’s lives, the usual ploy is to kill off the bad guys so one or a few upstanding types can live another day. Here we have what may in fact legitimately be evil. Most things that are labeled evil are not so much but we do meet five children who appear to be without conscience and who kill for the amazing thrill of it all. They seem to quite enjoy the hunt and are incredibly apt in the presentation of their techniques for getting the job done right.
For these children, murder is playtime and they do seem to get fairly animated after completing a kill. Otherwise they are dead serious and do not betray the sheer giddiness they experience upon knocking off one of the miserable folks who provide them with food and shelter.
The idea of a lot of possibly insane children wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting population is a charming one and this film manages to transform it into campy fun. As the deaths pile up and panic grips the soon-to-be victims it’s difficult not to root for the juveniles as they complete their work and escape unscathed. After all, the kids have drive and purpose and they are making the world a much better place by dispatching a group of ciphers who have not been properly flesh out and subsequently are devoid of any legitimate emotional characteristics. The film doesn’t bother to make anyone save the children likable in any discernable way. This lack of character development makes it that much easier to side with the children. They are so darling when they plot and scheme and one can’t help but be taken in by their charming mannerisms.
There is one character named Ralph (Durren) who only seems to be in the film to elicit something akin to pity. He’s mentally challenged and the but of any number of cruel comments that make fun of every aspect of his person. Still, he does have a rapport with his rabbits and seems able at last to communicate legitimate feelings to them. Unfortunately he’s the first to go as his captors rig up a noose and before Ralph can figure out what’s happening he’s swinging and exceedingly dead. It’s actually kind of sad to see Ralph go. He’s the only character amongst the lodgers who deserves any sympathy. That is probably due to the fact that we just don’t want to see mental rejects die in films, especially in this manner. Nevertheless, Ralph is stricken from the record and the little fiends slowly and methodically make their way through the group.
Kids who kill are a fascinating, exquisitely controlled lot. Mary Bell and her friend Norma Bell killed two three year old boys and no doubt giggled about it uncontrollably. It was all some dizzying lark and probably felt like nothing else they had ever experienced. In this film, it’s pretty much in the same spirit. It is suggested that they will simply move on to another house because once the people are dead it just isn’t any fun anymore. Yeah, what’s the point if there isn’t any more to kill?
Overall, this film is aesthetically pretty lousy. It’s not well filmed and the acting is subpar at least amongst the adults. The youths fare better and they certainly possess much more elan and energy. The premise is inspired and there is no moral. The “evil” get theirs and nothing is done to stop them. They get to laugh amongst themselves and reminisce at least until the next one. The little ragamuffins come in so winningly and prove their gratitude with a series of horrendous deaths that dramatically serve their overall purpose. It isn’t mentioned just why the kids were locked away in a mental institution so there’s no great telling of each of theirs personal hell story. It’s supposed that they all committed serious crimes of the starkest brutality and were unceremoniously tossed away. At least I hope so.
.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Film Review--Speaking in Strings
Speaking in Strings
directed by Paola di Florio
Speaking in Strings is a documentary whose subject embodies much of the turmoil, anguish, and occasional heartbreak that afflicts many exceedingly gifted artists. Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg is considered by many to be one of the premiere solo violinists in the world. Her performances betray a singular passion that has strangely put off certain critics who claim she is too demonstrative for their tastes. They further claim that she lets her strong personality overpower the voice of the composer who they believe have the last word in any interpretation. Nevertheless, she is revered by many for the same reasons that put off the other critics. Through considerable archival footage the film clearly reveals a woman who has brought a level of intensity into the classical music arena that cannot be overestimated.
Sonnenberg claims that music has saved her life on more than one occasion. Still, it was something akin to fate or chance that saved her when she was suffering through a deep and unrelenting depression. She’d purchased a gun and after phoning a friend who rushed over she picked it up and frantically darted about her apartment. The friend hid the weapon but she managed to find it and locked herself in the bathroom. She says she actually put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger but it jammed. Two weeks later she was back playing and gradually, painstakingly, the fog lifted.
The cliche of the troubled artist is well documented. There are many who for whatever reason seem to be on a collision course with their own mortality. Sonnenberg doesn’t come across as a woman with a particular death wish yet she seems innately aware of tragedy and its implications. She is able to transform her darkest, most foreboding thoughts into each composition she tackles. If this is what is meant by putting too much of herself into the pieces that she plays then perhaps those early critics have an argument. But, ultimately, it is this ability that allows Sonnenberg to transform various works while maintaining their essence.
Suffice to say the music in the film is simply intoxicating. It’s haunting, uplifting, and most certainly creates a mood that is transcendent. It’s particularly gratifying to watch Sonnenberg put every ounce of her being into her performances. It’s thrilling to watch a human being who is at the very pinnacle of her profession and who plays with such unyielding conviction. It’s very much a high wire act as Sonnenberg plays at a level that demonstrates a rare and peculiar genius that is the result of long hours of excruciating work and a natural felicity with the instrument that cannot be taught. Her mother describes her performances as communion and this is as apt a description as one can articulate.
Sonnenberg is the product of a musical family and she became introduced with the violin at a very young age. She recalls with fondness sitting with her grandfather listening to opera as he described in minute deal everything that was happening. She remembers in grade school that the class was to bring in their favorite thing in the world. She brought in an album of Brahms and was ridiculed for it. She says she tore the record from the turntable and called everyone idiots before storming out and running all the way home. It’s an apt image of how classical music is grossly underappreciated in this country. Granted, it is considered elitist by many who have not been trained to fully appreciate it for its nuances and color. Sonnenberg exists in a world that remains closed off to most because it demands so much from the listener and can be subsequently superficially dismissed for this reason.
There is an incident in the film that is essentially every violinist’s worst nightmare. While cutting vegetables Sonnenberg sliced the tip of her pinkie finger off. Luckily a surgeon was able to reattach it and instead of lamenting the state of things she simply reworked every piece she was to play for three fingers. She steadfastly refused to miss a performance because she rightly surmised that the audience deserved to have their expectations met.
Sonnenberg flies in the face of every preconceived notion of what a classically trained violinist should be. She moves quite a lot when she plays and she actually smiles on stage. It is clear in this film that there are prevailing notions that have become cemented about just how one is to appear when they perform classical music. One gets the impression upon watching this documentary that performers are supposed to remain rigid, stone faced, and essentially static. Sonnenberg simply refuses to play by these codified rules and naturally it has irritated certain traditionalists who decry her approach to the music.
It’s uncommon to say the least to witness such craftsmanship at any level. Sonnenberg is truly a master and her performances are akin to watching a high caliber athlete defy the world with astronomical feats that move us in ways we are simply unable to effectively describe. I thought of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps during the Olympics. But of course it’s much more than mere skill that produces a Sonnenberg. It’s a quality that cannot be quantified and perhaps it might be related to the tendency toward certain types of depression. Sonnenberg spent many months locked in a debilitating depression from which she most likely imagined she might not ever recover.
Overall, it’s a joy to discover the personality that informs the music. This is a gripping, telling ride with a woman who has carved out a unique niche in the world of classical music. It’s apparent that she possesses tremendous appreciation for the music and that she is deeply humbled by being lucky enough to share her love with audiences world wide. She comes off as entirely fearless when playing but not so much when she’s attempting to live the rest of her life. This is a portrait of a complicated woman who struggles with the intricacies of daily life and is never more comfortable than when she is tearing through Tchaikovsky.
directed by Paola di Florio
Speaking in Strings is a documentary whose subject embodies much of the turmoil, anguish, and occasional heartbreak that afflicts many exceedingly gifted artists. Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg is considered by many to be one of the premiere solo violinists in the world. Her performances betray a singular passion that has strangely put off certain critics who claim she is too demonstrative for their tastes. They further claim that she lets her strong personality overpower the voice of the composer who they believe have the last word in any interpretation. Nevertheless, she is revered by many for the same reasons that put off the other critics. Through considerable archival footage the film clearly reveals a woman who has brought a level of intensity into the classical music arena that cannot be overestimated.
Sonnenberg claims that music has saved her life on more than one occasion. Still, it was something akin to fate or chance that saved her when she was suffering through a deep and unrelenting depression. She’d purchased a gun and after phoning a friend who rushed over she picked it up and frantically darted about her apartment. The friend hid the weapon but she managed to find it and locked herself in the bathroom. She says she actually put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger but it jammed. Two weeks later she was back playing and gradually, painstakingly, the fog lifted.
The cliche of the troubled artist is well documented. There are many who for whatever reason seem to be on a collision course with their own mortality. Sonnenberg doesn’t come across as a woman with a particular death wish yet she seems innately aware of tragedy and its implications. She is able to transform her darkest, most foreboding thoughts into each composition she tackles. If this is what is meant by putting too much of herself into the pieces that she plays then perhaps those early critics have an argument. But, ultimately, it is this ability that allows Sonnenberg to transform various works while maintaining their essence.
Suffice to say the music in the film is simply intoxicating. It’s haunting, uplifting, and most certainly creates a mood that is transcendent. It’s particularly gratifying to watch Sonnenberg put every ounce of her being into her performances. It’s thrilling to watch a human being who is at the very pinnacle of her profession and who plays with such unyielding conviction. It’s very much a high wire act as Sonnenberg plays at a level that demonstrates a rare and peculiar genius that is the result of long hours of excruciating work and a natural felicity with the instrument that cannot be taught. Her mother describes her performances as communion and this is as apt a description as one can articulate.
Sonnenberg is the product of a musical family and she became introduced with the violin at a very young age. She recalls with fondness sitting with her grandfather listening to opera as he described in minute deal everything that was happening. She remembers in grade school that the class was to bring in their favorite thing in the world. She brought in an album of Brahms and was ridiculed for it. She says she tore the record from the turntable and called everyone idiots before storming out and running all the way home. It’s an apt image of how classical music is grossly underappreciated in this country. Granted, it is considered elitist by many who have not been trained to fully appreciate it for its nuances and color. Sonnenberg exists in a world that remains closed off to most because it demands so much from the listener and can be subsequently superficially dismissed for this reason.
There is an incident in the film that is essentially every violinist’s worst nightmare. While cutting vegetables Sonnenberg sliced the tip of her pinkie finger off. Luckily a surgeon was able to reattach it and instead of lamenting the state of things she simply reworked every piece she was to play for three fingers. She steadfastly refused to miss a performance because she rightly surmised that the audience deserved to have their expectations met.
Sonnenberg flies in the face of every preconceived notion of what a classically trained violinist should be. She moves quite a lot when she plays and she actually smiles on stage. It is clear in this film that there are prevailing notions that have become cemented about just how one is to appear when they perform classical music. One gets the impression upon watching this documentary that performers are supposed to remain rigid, stone faced, and essentially static. Sonnenberg simply refuses to play by these codified rules and naturally it has irritated certain traditionalists who decry her approach to the music.
It’s uncommon to say the least to witness such craftsmanship at any level. Sonnenberg is truly a master and her performances are akin to watching a high caliber athlete defy the world with astronomical feats that move us in ways we are simply unable to effectively describe. I thought of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps during the Olympics. But of course it’s much more than mere skill that produces a Sonnenberg. It’s a quality that cannot be quantified and perhaps it might be related to the tendency toward certain types of depression. Sonnenberg spent many months locked in a debilitating depression from which she most likely imagined she might not ever recover.
Overall, it’s a joy to discover the personality that informs the music. This is a gripping, telling ride with a woman who has carved out a unique niche in the world of classical music. It’s apparent that she possesses tremendous appreciation for the music and that she is deeply humbled by being lucky enough to share her love with audiences world wide. She comes off as entirely fearless when playing but not so much when she’s attempting to live the rest of her life. This is a portrait of a complicated woman who struggles with the intricacies of daily life and is never more comfortable than when she is tearing through Tchaikovsky.
Film Review--Capturing the Friedmans
Capturing the Friedmans
directed by Andrew Jarecki
The Friedmans are very much a typical Jewish family. They are tight knit and Arnold, the patriarch, is well respected and deeply loved. The film focuses on the bond between father and sons as they are described as sharing many outstanding moments together doing nothing in particular. Arnold has enjoyed a fulfilling life of work, family, and unerring calm; he once headed for the hills of the Ozarks to fulfil a dream of playing in a Latin ensemble in which he was the prominent figure. Everything about the family is ordinary in every way. Much of their life is documented by the eldest son, David, who seems keen to keep a record of family get togethers-- picnics, parties, and such. Arnold has spend much of his later years teaching first piano and then computers to the local children. By all accounts he is great with the kids and none of the parents have any complaints.
Arnold Friedman does, however, hide one dirty little secret that gets the attention of the police. He attempts to secure a copy of a specific magazine that contains pictures of naked little boys out and about. The authorities search his home and find a rather considerable stack of similar magazines hidden none-too-well by the family’s piano. They also find a list of names of children who have taken Arnold’s course and they decide to do some checking up with the kids. What they discover upon interviewing several children startles them considerably and shortly thereafter Arnold is being questioned and arrested charged with several accounts of sodomy and various other improprieties. In all there is a massive list of charges and the resultant publicity rocks the small town as one might expect. Still, there is much more to come as youngest son Jesse is also charged with an astounding number of offenses that would have him buggering young boys every day for several months.
The film simply shows how the family lives and how their own interconnectedness is ravished by the allegations. It doesn’t absolutely convict Arnold but rather reveals a man who appears to slowly shrink away throughout the commotion. There are several shots of Arnold looking for all the world like the noose is already about his neck. He is framed alone on several occasions by David, who remains ubiquitously behind the camera, as if to reveal something profound about his father’s condition.
David and his mother Elaine are interviewed for the film. David does not believe that either his father or brother did anything wrong. Elaine is more reticent and seems to waver about her assessment of the horrors that have befallen her family. There is a lot of fighting captured by David and much animosity. David himself appears to loathe his mother for giving up on Arnold like she does while attempting to make sense of the whole ordeal.
There is a great amount of footage tracking the Friedman’s life at various stages. One gets the sense of unity amongst the boys and a rather unmistakable lunatic streak that has them performing odd little skits throughout. They don’t appear to be particularly troubled as adolescents although this is not necessarily something that can be readily captured by a film camera. Still, they are jaunty, vivacious, and seem genuinely content with what amounts to their lives. Arnold comes off as a doting father and a family man who is the picture of health.
It is revealed by Arnold to Elaine that he indeed fooled around with a boy earlier in his life. Elaine doesn’t act on this information although she appears to be horrified later when she finds out that it was two boys and not one.
There is so much awkwardness in the home made films. There is a bit of overkill to them but at their core they convey a family who is not aware of itself as subjects for the camera’s eye to manipulate and edit as necessary. They don’t move with any particular grace or style and subsequently much of the filming comes across as exceedingly trivial and unnecessary. It’s just like much of the footage from other families who do not know how to act as if someone is watching most likely because they do not know somebody is.
There are myriad ways to attempt to explain the behavior of a pedophile who allows his keen interest to be actualized in actual physical intimacy with a subject. The leap from images to carnal behavior is probably much greater than most people want to admit. Still, Arnold took that terrible leap and somehow, according to the police and the courts, managed to keep his activities hidden from his wife and at least two of his sons. If all charges are true, he sodomized youths while she was carrying on perfectly unawares in other areas of the house. As was her son Jesse who is said to have brutalized his targets as well as sexually assaulting them.
The film makes it a point to include references to the McMartin pre school sexual abuse case. It’s significant because in that case the testimonies of the children were the only evidence produced by the prosecutors and ultimately none of the defendants were convicted. It has been shown that children can be persuaded to satisfy the preconceived intentions of those who are asking the questions. This inclusion vaguely puts the charges against Jesse in doubt. They suggest a sexual sadist with an insatiable sexual appetite. He is portrayed in the film as a decisively meek, somewhat scared individual and the courts determine him to be something of a monster. He proclaims his innocence and sticks with his story until the end. It is important to note that none of the alleged victims ever said a word to their parents about what it is claimed was done to them. Despite apparently being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused for hours while at the Friedman’s home, they went home as if nothing was amiss. Yet, in interviews, enough of them were able to describe perfectly ghastly events that had gone on when they were supposed to be learning about computers.
We learn about specific aspects of the alleged abuse from those who claim to have been victimized by either or both Arnold and Jesse. Now an adult, one of these victims declares that there was much more going on then had ever been suggested by any of the other kids. His tale seems to fit in with potentially hysterical recounting of events. There were others who proclaim that they saw nothing untoward happening and that their experiences with the Friedman’s were quite enjoyable. What it comes down to is who is to be believed. Arnold pleas guilty and is sent away for the rest of his life. He claims to have done so only to keep his son from the same fate. If so, that’s an awfully lame reason to throw your life away, however close you claim to be to your son. Jesse is pretty much convicted before the case ever makes it to court. Those who are claimed to have sexually abused children get no sympathy in any sector of society and even a not-guilty verdict is not enough to protect the alleged abuser from an exceedingly harsh fate. Just the suggestion is enough to destroy a life.
This film impresses upon the viewer a sense that there is truly no way to tell who is diddling about with the kiddies and who isn’t. It also strongly conveys the stark reality that most abusers are well known to their victims and have established both a realm of trust and authority with them. Arnold grooms his victims like all sexual predators do. He warms them up with naughty computer games, no doubt shows them various images to illustrate how his designs on them is perfectly normal, and somehow persuades them to help satisfy his errant longings.
Overall, this film reveals a pervasive sickness that only appears to be spreading. It shows one ordinary man, a humble man, with an appetite for young boys, and seemingly no lack of opportunity for securing them. The film does not judge Arnold or Jesse and instead lets the viewer take on that task. Personally, I wasn’t presented with all of the data so I cannot pass judgment. The film doesn’t make a case either way so I can’t rely on that either. However, I know emphatically that appearances are often deceiving and that any one person is capable of the most hideous act. Jesse may seem harmless but his sexuality might and probably is completely bent and it makes sense that he might decide to take it out on young boys. Especially considering how he claims to have fallen prey to his own father’s insatiable lusts as a child.
directed by Andrew Jarecki
The Friedmans are very much a typical Jewish family. They are tight knit and Arnold, the patriarch, is well respected and deeply loved. The film focuses on the bond between father and sons as they are described as sharing many outstanding moments together doing nothing in particular. Arnold has enjoyed a fulfilling life of work, family, and unerring calm; he once headed for the hills of the Ozarks to fulfil a dream of playing in a Latin ensemble in which he was the prominent figure. Everything about the family is ordinary in every way. Much of their life is documented by the eldest son, David, who seems keen to keep a record of family get togethers-- picnics, parties, and such. Arnold has spend much of his later years teaching first piano and then computers to the local children. By all accounts he is great with the kids and none of the parents have any complaints.
Arnold Friedman does, however, hide one dirty little secret that gets the attention of the police. He attempts to secure a copy of a specific magazine that contains pictures of naked little boys out and about. The authorities search his home and find a rather considerable stack of similar magazines hidden none-too-well by the family’s piano. They also find a list of names of children who have taken Arnold’s course and they decide to do some checking up with the kids. What they discover upon interviewing several children startles them considerably and shortly thereafter Arnold is being questioned and arrested charged with several accounts of sodomy and various other improprieties. In all there is a massive list of charges and the resultant publicity rocks the small town as one might expect. Still, there is much more to come as youngest son Jesse is also charged with an astounding number of offenses that would have him buggering young boys every day for several months.
The film simply shows how the family lives and how their own interconnectedness is ravished by the allegations. It doesn’t absolutely convict Arnold but rather reveals a man who appears to slowly shrink away throughout the commotion. There are several shots of Arnold looking for all the world like the noose is already about his neck. He is framed alone on several occasions by David, who remains ubiquitously behind the camera, as if to reveal something profound about his father’s condition.
David and his mother Elaine are interviewed for the film. David does not believe that either his father or brother did anything wrong. Elaine is more reticent and seems to waver about her assessment of the horrors that have befallen her family. There is a lot of fighting captured by David and much animosity. David himself appears to loathe his mother for giving up on Arnold like she does while attempting to make sense of the whole ordeal.
There is a great amount of footage tracking the Friedman’s life at various stages. One gets the sense of unity amongst the boys and a rather unmistakable lunatic streak that has them performing odd little skits throughout. They don’t appear to be particularly troubled as adolescents although this is not necessarily something that can be readily captured by a film camera. Still, they are jaunty, vivacious, and seem genuinely content with what amounts to their lives. Arnold comes off as a doting father and a family man who is the picture of health.
It is revealed by Arnold to Elaine that he indeed fooled around with a boy earlier in his life. Elaine doesn’t act on this information although she appears to be horrified later when she finds out that it was two boys and not one.
There is so much awkwardness in the home made films. There is a bit of overkill to them but at their core they convey a family who is not aware of itself as subjects for the camera’s eye to manipulate and edit as necessary. They don’t move with any particular grace or style and subsequently much of the filming comes across as exceedingly trivial and unnecessary. It’s just like much of the footage from other families who do not know how to act as if someone is watching most likely because they do not know somebody is.
There are myriad ways to attempt to explain the behavior of a pedophile who allows his keen interest to be actualized in actual physical intimacy with a subject. The leap from images to carnal behavior is probably much greater than most people want to admit. Still, Arnold took that terrible leap and somehow, according to the police and the courts, managed to keep his activities hidden from his wife and at least two of his sons. If all charges are true, he sodomized youths while she was carrying on perfectly unawares in other areas of the house. As was her son Jesse who is said to have brutalized his targets as well as sexually assaulting them.
The film makes it a point to include references to the McMartin pre school sexual abuse case. It’s significant because in that case the testimonies of the children were the only evidence produced by the prosecutors and ultimately none of the defendants were convicted. It has been shown that children can be persuaded to satisfy the preconceived intentions of those who are asking the questions. This inclusion vaguely puts the charges against Jesse in doubt. They suggest a sexual sadist with an insatiable sexual appetite. He is portrayed in the film as a decisively meek, somewhat scared individual and the courts determine him to be something of a monster. He proclaims his innocence and sticks with his story until the end. It is important to note that none of the alleged victims ever said a word to their parents about what it is claimed was done to them. Despite apparently being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused for hours while at the Friedman’s home, they went home as if nothing was amiss. Yet, in interviews, enough of them were able to describe perfectly ghastly events that had gone on when they were supposed to be learning about computers.
We learn about specific aspects of the alleged abuse from those who claim to have been victimized by either or both Arnold and Jesse. Now an adult, one of these victims declares that there was much more going on then had ever been suggested by any of the other kids. His tale seems to fit in with potentially hysterical recounting of events. There were others who proclaim that they saw nothing untoward happening and that their experiences with the Friedman’s were quite enjoyable. What it comes down to is who is to be believed. Arnold pleas guilty and is sent away for the rest of his life. He claims to have done so only to keep his son from the same fate. If so, that’s an awfully lame reason to throw your life away, however close you claim to be to your son. Jesse is pretty much convicted before the case ever makes it to court. Those who are claimed to have sexually abused children get no sympathy in any sector of society and even a not-guilty verdict is not enough to protect the alleged abuser from an exceedingly harsh fate. Just the suggestion is enough to destroy a life.
This film impresses upon the viewer a sense that there is truly no way to tell who is diddling about with the kiddies and who isn’t. It also strongly conveys the stark reality that most abusers are well known to their victims and have established both a realm of trust and authority with them. Arnold grooms his victims like all sexual predators do. He warms them up with naughty computer games, no doubt shows them various images to illustrate how his designs on them is perfectly normal, and somehow persuades them to help satisfy his errant longings.
Overall, this film reveals a pervasive sickness that only appears to be spreading. It shows one ordinary man, a humble man, with an appetite for young boys, and seemingly no lack of opportunity for securing them. The film does not judge Arnold or Jesse and instead lets the viewer take on that task. Personally, I wasn’t presented with all of the data so I cannot pass judgment. The film doesn’t make a case either way so I can’t rely on that either. However, I know emphatically that appearances are often deceiving and that any one person is capable of the most hideous act. Jesse may seem harmless but his sexuality might and probably is completely bent and it makes sense that he might decide to take it out on young boys. Especially considering how he claims to have fallen prey to his own father’s insatiable lusts as a child.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Film Review--The Serpent and the Rainbow
The Serpent and the Rainbow
directed by Wes Craven
written by Richard Maxwell and Adam Rodman
based on the book by Wade Davis
starring Bill Pullman, Cathy Tyson, Zakes Mokae, Paul Winfield, Brent Jennings, Conrad Roberts
Loosely based on Wade Davis’s experiences with Haitian voodoo culture, this film tracks the efforts of an American anthropologist to uncover the mysteries inherent in the art of zombification. It starts out promisingly enough but quickly devolves into an absurd parody of itself.
Bill Pullman is Dennis Alan whom as the film opens is ransacked in the Amazon jungle and forced to walk over two hundred miles to escape. He is propositioned by a major pharmaceutical giant who wants to market a drug based on the potion that is used to turn people into the walking dead. He travels to Haiti and soon learns how deeply the roots of this phenomenon go in Haitian society. The film focuses on his awakening after a fashion as he battles a sinister boss of the secret police named Dargent Peytraud (Mokae) and the Haitian military.
Haiti is in tatters having suffered the ill caprices of its tyrannical leader, Baby Doc, for many years. Marshall law is declared as well as a curfew preventing the populace from leaving their homes at night. Amidst all the turmoil there is a fine mixture of Catholicism and Voodoo which are both given equal credence in the territory. Most of the people are Catholics but “110 percent” are Voodoo in the words of Alan’s contact on the island, Marielle Duchamp (Tyson).
Alan is desperate to find the powder that is used in these rituals so he enlists the talents of Louis Mozart (Jennings), a man who claims to be able to manufacture the powder that leads to zombification. After a false start Alan and Mozart work together to find the right mixture of ingredients for creating what Alan is seeking.
Peytraud is presented as a petty tyrant who tortures those who question the efficacy of the state. He carefully observes Alan and seems to possess the ability to transport himself into Alan’s dreams among other things. It is clear that Peytraud is an exceedingly powerful man who is given cart blanche by the government to do what ever he sees fit to protect order and serve the administration.
The people are poor but quite energized by the color and eccentricities of their culture. There are many voodoo ceremonies where persons are possessed by various spirits who are hanging about for the show. Marielle Duchamp herself is a practitioner of Voodoo and she participates in the possession ceremony much to Alan’s amusement and alarm. It seems to turn him on more than anything else because the pair soon find themselves sexually involved in a scene that combines straightforward intercourse with a dash of Voodoo histrionics. The film seems to take a wrong turn at this point and the story becomes increasingly more preposterous as it goes along.
Lucien Celine (Winfield) is Alan’s straightforward guide in this confusing and terribly entrancing world. Celine is the one who sets Alan on his terrible path toward either enlightenment or horror. Celine is a non-believer who is able to provide an outsider’s view regarding the activity pressing on the island.
There is a tremendous amount of energy to the first half of the film as the rich, dynamic Voodoo ceremonies play out in all their opulent splendor. There is a decisive appreciation for the religion as many aspects are demonstrated throughout giving a sense of authenticity to the proceedings. However, it’s most likely only a semblance of what the actual environment during these rituals must be like for those not affixed to the Religious point of view that guides the practitioners. Still, the dancing and shouting combined with the colorful outfits and intensity manage to create a lasting impression on the viewer.
It has been argued that zombification is merely a tool used by the government to rid itself of unnecessary adversaries. In this film, Peytraud is devoted to stealing souls for his own glory and infinite power. He represents a corrupt government that treats its population with disdain, leaving them with nothing save their religion to salve their psychological and emotional wounds. In this respect, Voodoo is presented as a vital force that enables its believers to deal with the great oppression administered by the state. As society crumbles it remains the one constant that can never be effectively stripped away from those who adhere to its tenants.
Alan is portrayed as a typical dumb American who stumbles into a world that he is utterly ignorant of. He’s chauvinistic, careless, and represents the greed and arrogance of the American medical establishment. Still, the powder obtained is in fact used in experiments designed to ascertain its anaesthetic qualities. It is hoped that tremendous breakthroughs will be made to save lives. Nevertheless it all comes down to the bottom line which is the amount of money the drug companies can make from hawking the newly fabled medical miracle.
The clash of cultures is amusing at first but eventually loses its luster as Alan continues to meander throughout Haitian society. It’s a typical fish out of water story but of course Alan eventually gets the upper hand as all Westerners do in such films. The West has all the answers and necessarily gets precisely what it is after because in the end Voodoo is fraught with dangers that are beyond our petty concepts of good and evil and therefore must be decimated or at least ridiculed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Bill Pullman possesses just enough cocksureness to sell his character’s snide attitude towards Haitian culture in general and Voodoo in particular. He’s also believable when Alan starts to slip down the slippery slope into actual awareness of all of the intricacies of Voodoo. Brent Jennings is a particular standout as he imbues Mozart with a tremendous lust for life that comes through in every scene he’s in. He’s easily the most vibrant and dynamic character in the entire film and it’s a tremendous joy to watch him perform. Cathy Tyson captures the steamy aspect of the Voodoo experience. Marielle is guarded for much of the film until she loses herself in Voodoo or sex. She’s a woman who understands the sexuality of Voodoo and how the connection to the gods can lead to orgasmic revelations that transcend all religion.
Overall, this film has moments of clarity but they are essentially dashed by and ending that is simply too fantastic to believe in. There are many scenes of hallucinations and dreams that seem to set up the final third of the film but when they crash through to reality they becomes less mysterious and in fact pedestrian. It’s all just too silly to work effectively and the mood of the piece is entirely shot. Ultimately, it leaves a sense of the wonderful and terrible aspects of Voodoo but leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouth once the drama is all sorted out.
directed by Wes Craven
written by Richard Maxwell and Adam Rodman
based on the book by Wade Davis
starring Bill Pullman, Cathy Tyson, Zakes Mokae, Paul Winfield, Brent Jennings, Conrad Roberts
Loosely based on Wade Davis’s experiences with Haitian voodoo culture, this film tracks the efforts of an American anthropologist to uncover the mysteries inherent in the art of zombification. It starts out promisingly enough but quickly devolves into an absurd parody of itself.
Bill Pullman is Dennis Alan whom as the film opens is ransacked in the Amazon jungle and forced to walk over two hundred miles to escape. He is propositioned by a major pharmaceutical giant who wants to market a drug based on the potion that is used to turn people into the walking dead. He travels to Haiti and soon learns how deeply the roots of this phenomenon go in Haitian society. The film focuses on his awakening after a fashion as he battles a sinister boss of the secret police named Dargent Peytraud (Mokae) and the Haitian military.
Haiti is in tatters having suffered the ill caprices of its tyrannical leader, Baby Doc, for many years. Marshall law is declared as well as a curfew preventing the populace from leaving their homes at night. Amidst all the turmoil there is a fine mixture of Catholicism and Voodoo which are both given equal credence in the territory. Most of the people are Catholics but “110 percent” are Voodoo in the words of Alan’s contact on the island, Marielle Duchamp (Tyson).
Alan is desperate to find the powder that is used in these rituals so he enlists the talents of Louis Mozart (Jennings), a man who claims to be able to manufacture the powder that leads to zombification. After a false start Alan and Mozart work together to find the right mixture of ingredients for creating what Alan is seeking.
Peytraud is presented as a petty tyrant who tortures those who question the efficacy of the state. He carefully observes Alan and seems to possess the ability to transport himself into Alan’s dreams among other things. It is clear that Peytraud is an exceedingly powerful man who is given cart blanche by the government to do what ever he sees fit to protect order and serve the administration.
The people are poor but quite energized by the color and eccentricities of their culture. There are many voodoo ceremonies where persons are possessed by various spirits who are hanging about for the show. Marielle Duchamp herself is a practitioner of Voodoo and she participates in the possession ceremony much to Alan’s amusement and alarm. It seems to turn him on more than anything else because the pair soon find themselves sexually involved in a scene that combines straightforward intercourse with a dash of Voodoo histrionics. The film seems to take a wrong turn at this point and the story becomes increasingly more preposterous as it goes along.
Lucien Celine (Winfield) is Alan’s straightforward guide in this confusing and terribly entrancing world. Celine is the one who sets Alan on his terrible path toward either enlightenment or horror. Celine is a non-believer who is able to provide an outsider’s view regarding the activity pressing on the island.
There is a tremendous amount of energy to the first half of the film as the rich, dynamic Voodoo ceremonies play out in all their opulent splendor. There is a decisive appreciation for the religion as many aspects are demonstrated throughout giving a sense of authenticity to the proceedings. However, it’s most likely only a semblance of what the actual environment during these rituals must be like for those not affixed to the Religious point of view that guides the practitioners. Still, the dancing and shouting combined with the colorful outfits and intensity manage to create a lasting impression on the viewer.
It has been argued that zombification is merely a tool used by the government to rid itself of unnecessary adversaries. In this film, Peytraud is devoted to stealing souls for his own glory and infinite power. He represents a corrupt government that treats its population with disdain, leaving them with nothing save their religion to salve their psychological and emotional wounds. In this respect, Voodoo is presented as a vital force that enables its believers to deal with the great oppression administered by the state. As society crumbles it remains the one constant that can never be effectively stripped away from those who adhere to its tenants.
Alan is portrayed as a typical dumb American who stumbles into a world that he is utterly ignorant of. He’s chauvinistic, careless, and represents the greed and arrogance of the American medical establishment. Still, the powder obtained is in fact used in experiments designed to ascertain its anaesthetic qualities. It is hoped that tremendous breakthroughs will be made to save lives. Nevertheless it all comes down to the bottom line which is the amount of money the drug companies can make from hawking the newly fabled medical miracle.
The clash of cultures is amusing at first but eventually loses its luster as Alan continues to meander throughout Haitian society. It’s a typical fish out of water story but of course Alan eventually gets the upper hand as all Westerners do in such films. The West has all the answers and necessarily gets precisely what it is after because in the end Voodoo is fraught with dangers that are beyond our petty concepts of good and evil and therefore must be decimated or at least ridiculed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Bill Pullman possesses just enough cocksureness to sell his character’s snide attitude towards Haitian culture in general and Voodoo in particular. He’s also believable when Alan starts to slip down the slippery slope into actual awareness of all of the intricacies of Voodoo. Brent Jennings is a particular standout as he imbues Mozart with a tremendous lust for life that comes through in every scene he’s in. He’s easily the most vibrant and dynamic character in the entire film and it’s a tremendous joy to watch him perform. Cathy Tyson captures the steamy aspect of the Voodoo experience. Marielle is guarded for much of the film until she loses herself in Voodoo or sex. She’s a woman who understands the sexuality of Voodoo and how the connection to the gods can lead to orgasmic revelations that transcend all religion.
Overall, this film has moments of clarity but they are essentially dashed by and ending that is simply too fantastic to believe in. There are many scenes of hallucinations and dreams that seem to set up the final third of the film but when they crash through to reality they becomes less mysterious and in fact pedestrian. It’s all just too silly to work effectively and the mood of the piece is entirely shot. Ultimately, it leaves a sense of the wonderful and terrible aspects of Voodoo but leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouth once the drama is all sorted out.
Film Review--The Serpent and the Rainbow
The Serpent and the Rainbow
directed by Wes Craven
written by Richard Maxwell and Adam Rodman
based on the book by Wade Davis
starring Bill Pullman, Cathy Tyson, Zakes Mokae, Paul Winfield, Brent Jennings, Conrad Roberts
Loosely based on Wade Davis’s experiences with Haitian voodoo culture, this film tracks the efforts of an American anthropologist to uncover the mysteries inherent in the art of zombification. It starts out promisingly enough but quickly devolves into an absurd parody of itself.
Bill Pullman is Dennis Alan whom as the film opens is ransacked in the Amazon jungle and forced to walk over two hundred miles to escape. He is propositioned by a major pharmaceutical giant who wants to market a drug based on the potion that is used to turn people into the walking dead. He travels to Haiti and soon learns how deeply the roots of this phenomenon go in Haitian society. The film focuses on his awakening after a fashion as he battles a sinister boss of the secret police named Dargent Peytraud (Mokae) and the Haitian military.
Haiti is in tatters having suffered the ill caprices of its tyrannical leader, Baby Doc, for many years. Marshall law is declared as well as a curfew preventing the populace from leaving their homes at night. Amidst all the turmoil there is a fine mixture of Catholicism and Voodoo which are both given equal credence in the territory. Most of the people are Catholics but “110 percent” are Voodoo in the words of Alan’s contact on the island, Marielle Duchamp (Tyson).
Alan is desperate to find the powder that is used in these rituals so he enlists the talents of Louis Mozart (Jennings), a man who claims to be able to manufacture the powder that leads to zombification. After a false start Alan and Mozart work together to find the right mixture of ingredients for creating what Alan is seeking.
Peytraud is presented as a petty tyrant who tortures those who question the efficacy of the state. He carefully observes Alan and seems to possess the ability to transport himself into Alan’s dreams among other things. It is clear that Peytraud is an exceedingly powerful man who is given cart blanche by the government to do what ever he sees fit to protect order and serve the administration.
The people are poor but quite energized by the color and eccentricities of their culture. There are many voodoo ceremonies where persons are possessed by various spirits who are hanging about for the show. Marielle Duchamp herself is a practitioner of Voodoo and she participates in the possession ceremony much to Alan’s amusement and alarm. It seems to turn him on more than anything else because the pair soon find themselves sexually involved in a scene that combines straightforward intercourse with a dash of Voodoo histrionics. The film seems to take a wrong turn at this point and the story becomes increasingly more preposterous as it goes along.
Lucien Celine (Winfield) is Alan’s straightforward guide in this confusing and terribly entrancing world. Celine is the one who sets Alan on his terrible path toward either enlightenment or horror. Celine is a non-believer who is able to provide an outsider’s view regarding the activity pressing on the island.
There is a tremendous amount of energy to the first half of the film as the rich, dynamic Voodoo ceremonies play out in all their opulent splendor. There is a decisive appreciation for the religion as many aspects are demonstrated throughout giving a sense of authenticity to the proceedings. However, it’s most likely only a semblance of what the actual environment during these rituals must be like for those not affixed to the Religious point of view that guides the practitioners. Still, the dancing and shouting combined with the colorful outfits and intensity manage to create a lasting impression on the viewer.
It has been argued that zombification is merely a tool used by the government to rid itself of unnecessary adversaries. In this film, Peytraud is devoted to stealing souls for his own glory and infinite power. He represents a corrupt government that treats its population with disdain, leaving them with nothing save their religion to salve their psychological and emotional wounds. In this respect, Voodoo is presented as a vital force that enables its believers to deal with the great oppression administered by the state. As society crumbles it remains the one constant that can never be effectively stripped away from those who adhere to its tenants.
Alan is portrayed as a typical dumb American who stumbles into a world that he is utterly ignorant of. He’s chauvinistic, careless, and represents the greed and arrogance of the American medical establishment. Still, the powder obtained is in fact used in experiments designed to ascertain its anaesthetic qualities. It is hoped that tremendous breakthroughs will be made to save lives. Nevertheless it all comes down to the bottom line which is the amount of money the drug companies can make from hawking the newly fabled medical miracle.
The clash of cultures is amusing at first but eventually loses its luster as Alan continues to meander throughout Haitian society. It’s a typical fish out of water story but of course Alan eventually gets the upper hand as all Westerners do in such films. The West has all the answers and necessarily gets precisely what it is after because in the end Voodoo is fraught with dangers that are beyond our petty concepts of good and evil and therefore must be decimated or at least ridiculed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Bill Pullman possesses just enough cocksureness to sell his character’s snide attitude towards Haitian culture in general and Voodoo in particular. He’s also believable when Alan starts to slip down the slippery slope into actual awareness of all of the intricacies of Voodoo. Brent Jennings is a particular standout as he imbues Mozart with a tremendous lust for life that comes through in every scene he’s in. He’s easily the most vibrant and dynamic character in the entire film and it’s a tremendous joy to watch him perform. Cathy Tyson captures the steamy aspect of the Voodoo experience. Marielle is guarded for much of the film until she loses herself in Voodoo or sex. She’s a woman who understands the sexuality of Voodoo and how the connection to the gods can lead to orgasmic revelations that transcend all religion.
Overall, this film has moments of clarity but they are essentially dashed by and ending that is simply too fantastic to believe in. There are many scenes of hallucinations and dreams that seem to set up the final third of the film but when they crash through to reality they becomes less mysterious and in fact pedestrian. It’s all just too silly to work effectively and the mood of the piece is entirely shot. Ultimately, it leaves a sense of the wonderful and terrible aspects of Voodoo but leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouth once the drama is all sorted out.
directed by Wes Craven
written by Richard Maxwell and Adam Rodman
based on the book by Wade Davis
starring Bill Pullman, Cathy Tyson, Zakes Mokae, Paul Winfield, Brent Jennings, Conrad Roberts
Loosely based on Wade Davis’s experiences with Haitian voodoo culture, this film tracks the efforts of an American anthropologist to uncover the mysteries inherent in the art of zombification. It starts out promisingly enough but quickly devolves into an absurd parody of itself.
Bill Pullman is Dennis Alan whom as the film opens is ransacked in the Amazon jungle and forced to walk over two hundred miles to escape. He is propositioned by a major pharmaceutical giant who wants to market a drug based on the potion that is used to turn people into the walking dead. He travels to Haiti and soon learns how deeply the roots of this phenomenon go in Haitian society. The film focuses on his awakening after a fashion as he battles a sinister boss of the secret police named Dargent Peytraud (Mokae) and the Haitian military.
Haiti is in tatters having suffered the ill caprices of its tyrannical leader, Baby Doc, for many years. Marshall law is declared as well as a curfew preventing the populace from leaving their homes at night. Amidst all the turmoil there is a fine mixture of Catholicism and Voodoo which are both given equal credence in the territory. Most of the people are Catholics but “110 percent” are Voodoo in the words of Alan’s contact on the island, Marielle Duchamp (Tyson).
Alan is desperate to find the powder that is used in these rituals so he enlists the talents of Louis Mozart (Jennings), a man who claims to be able to manufacture the powder that leads to zombification. After a false start Alan and Mozart work together to find the right mixture of ingredients for creating what Alan is seeking.
Peytraud is presented as a petty tyrant who tortures those who question the efficacy of the state. He carefully observes Alan and seems to possess the ability to transport himself into Alan’s dreams among other things. It is clear that Peytraud is an exceedingly powerful man who is given cart blanche by the government to do what ever he sees fit to protect order and serve the administration.
The people are poor but quite energized by the color and eccentricities of their culture. There are many voodoo ceremonies where persons are possessed by various spirits who are hanging about for the show. Marielle Duchamp herself is a practitioner of Voodoo and she participates in the possession ceremony much to Alan’s amusement and alarm. It seems to turn him on more than anything else because the pair soon find themselves sexually involved in a scene that combines straightforward intercourse with a dash of Voodoo histrionics. The film seems to take a wrong turn at this point and the story becomes increasingly more preposterous as it goes along.
Lucien Celine (Winfield) is Alan’s straightforward guide in this confusing and terribly entrancing world. Celine is the one who sets Alan on his terrible path toward either enlightenment or horror. Celine is a non-believer who is able to provide an outsider’s view regarding the activity pressing on the island.
There is a tremendous amount of energy to the first half of the film as the rich, dynamic Voodoo ceremonies play out in all their opulent splendor. There is a decisive appreciation for the religion as many aspects are demonstrated throughout giving a sense of authenticity to the proceedings. However, it’s most likely only a semblance of what the actual environment during these rituals must be like for those not affixed to the Religious point of view that guides the practitioners. Still, the dancing and shouting combined with the colorful outfits and intensity manage to create a lasting impression on the viewer.
It has been argued that zombification is merely a tool used by the government to rid itself of unnecessary adversaries. In this film, Peytraud is devoted to stealing souls for his own glory and infinite power. He represents a corrupt government that treats its population with disdain, leaving them with nothing save their religion to salve their psychological and emotional wounds. In this respect, Voodoo is presented as a vital force that enables its believers to deal with the great oppression administered by the state. As society crumbles it remains the one constant that can never be effectively stripped away from those who adhere to its tenants.
Alan is portrayed as a typical dumb American who stumbles into a world that he is utterly ignorant of. He’s chauvinistic, careless, and represents the greed and arrogance of the American medical establishment. Still, the powder obtained is in fact used in experiments designed to ascertain its anaesthetic qualities. It is hoped that tremendous breakthroughs will be made to save lives. Nevertheless it all comes down to the bottom line which is the amount of money the drug companies can make from hawking the newly fabled medical miracle.
The clash of cultures is amusing at first but eventually loses its luster as Alan continues to meander throughout Haitian society. It’s a typical fish out of water story but of course Alan eventually gets the upper hand as all Westerners do in such films. The West has all the answers and necessarily gets precisely what it is after because in the end Voodoo is fraught with dangers that are beyond our petty concepts of good and evil and therefore must be decimated or at least ridiculed.
The performances in this film are all quite good. Bill Pullman possesses just enough cocksureness to sell his character’s snide attitude towards Haitian culture in general and Voodoo in particular. He’s also believable when Alan starts to slip down the slippery slope into actual awareness of all of the intricacies of Voodoo. Brent Jennings is a particular standout as he imbues Mozart with a tremendous lust for life that comes through in every scene he’s in. He’s easily the most vibrant and dynamic character in the entire film and it’s a tremendous joy to watch him perform. Cathy Tyson captures the steamy aspect of the Voodoo experience. Marielle is guarded for much of the film until she loses herself in Voodoo or sex. She’s a woman who understands the sexuality of Voodoo and how the connection to the gods can lead to orgasmic revelations that transcend all religion.
Overall, this film has moments of clarity but they are essentially dashed by and ending that is simply too fantastic to believe in. There are many scenes of hallucinations and dreams that seem to set up the final third of the film but when they crash through to reality they becomes less mysterious and in fact pedestrian. It’s all just too silly to work effectively and the mood of the piece is entirely shot. Ultimately, it leaves a sense of the wonderful and terrible aspects of Voodoo but leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouth once the drama is all sorted out.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Film Review--Ted Bundy
Ted Bundy
directed by Matthew Bright
written by Matthew Bright and Stephen Johnston
starring Michael Reilly Burke, Boti Ann Bliss
The first modern serial killer gets the bio treatment in this fictionalization of Ted Bundy’s duplicitous and thoroughly convincing personality scheme.
Bundy (Burke) is a straight shooter with a loving if too desperate girlfriend named Lee (Bliss) who lets a whole lot of evidence slide on by as she clings haltingly to her man. Ted is good with kids and truly able to say the right things at the crisis clinic he works at a couple days per week. He’s exceedingly well groomed and polite to most everyone he meets when he’s being affable Ted who is disarmingly charming and sweet natured. Of course he’s also a brutal killer who does horrific things to the bodies of the girls he mercilessly butchers. It’s this duplicity that is examined with precision and great skill. This remains arguably the best film ever devoted to a killer of this type. It’s nuanced, stylized, and exceptionally forthcoming with the litany of violence toward Ted’s many victims.
Our first introduction to Ted sees him standing in front of a three paned mirror. We thus find him in triplicate trying out his introduction to whomever happens to catch his fancy. This is the side of Ted that his friends and associates are familiar with. Then he goes into a ghastly routine where he makes gutteral noises and funny, absurd faces. In this instance he’s something unhuman, a fiend of sorts who represents the side of Ted that allows him to murder and rape with impunity. From there we meet the civil Ted who is attending Law School and genuinely attempting to better himself. He even has eyes on political office and it’s apparent to everyone that knows him that he has a definite shot of realizing his dream.
Lee is something of an emotional battering ram for Ted. He never treats her all that well and when she discovers handcuffs in his car she brushes it off because Ted claims to have never seen them before. But then he convinces her to allow herself to be tied up and ravished as Ted says “Fuck You, Bitch” over and again. It’s a painful scene to watch mostly due to the look of horror plastered on Lee’s face as she allows Ted to pummel and verbally abuse her. Still, she fully believes she is in love and subsequently puts up with whatever it is he decides to do. She’s an enabler who only wants to see the best in Ted and is driven by her affection for him.
Ted is remarkably good for Lee’s young daughter. He clearly dotes on her and provides her with much affection, filling in the void left by her absent father. There is no doubt that Ted is sincere with his treatment of the girl; he genuinely adores her and would certainly react viciously to anyone who attempted to harm her. He can clasp hands and tell her silly stories in the afternoon and rape the corpse of some poor girl he’s lured away in the evening. It’s his ability to keep both personalities working simultaneously that makes him such a worthy subject for this treatment.
The music throughout this film is often incongruous to the filmed action. In particular there is a happy bit of Christmas music that is played when Ted and family are opening presents and looking so ebullient and joyful. The scene switches to a long hallway, with the same music, where Ted is play acting that he is in terrible shape and in need of assistance. A woman rushes to his aid only to be savagely attacked and the music continues as her legs repeatedly twitch. It’s a funny scene simply because it’s not the sort of music one expects to hear at a time like that. There are several such instances in the film as much of the source music is uplifting and cheerful after a fashion. The score itself is, however, consistent with the criminal acts being projected on the screen.
There is a substantial amount of violence in this film and it all possesses a sort of grim beauty in how it is presented. One gets a real sense of the sexual mores of Ted as he has his thrills with all the girls he sways with his charm and ingenuity. He feigns a broken arm, pretends he’s a cop, and even tells poor little Kimberly Leach that something horrible has happened to her father. They all go with Ted because he is so convincing in whatever role he is affecting. They believe in him long enough to ensure that they will fall prey to his enormous sexual appetite. There is a sense that they are all lost little girls who find themselves face to face with the big bad wolf who necessarily devours them for their prettiness and sweet, unassuming natures. But Ted cannot help but carry out his deeds because the urge for total domination is far too strong to ignore. He even assaults Lee when he’s got her legs spread and bound; he half heartedly tries to smother her thereby demonstrating his own special take on love. Still, she stays by him no doubt more confused than horrified.
The film is routinely chilling and admittedly it’s grotesque nature is expressed most fluently through the slight introductions we are afforded to several of Ted’s victims. Many of them are anonymous but some of them are given just enough personality to make their killing truly horrific. Despite Ted’s charm and tenderness, he isn’t portrayed in such a way that it’s easy to sympathize with him. This is not the sort of film that either demonizes or lionizes its subject. It’s simply a straightforward, albeit fictionalized, telling of one man’s unquenchable thirst for power and his particular method of obtaining it. One does not sense that Ted is unduly troubled by his actions which makes them all the more baffling to the common observer. He isn’t torn necessarily by his actions; he merely performs them as if he were doing something as innocuous as running his fingers through the hair of Lee’s young daughter. They are as much a part of him as his immaculately arranged sock drawer.
The sickness aspect of Ted’s endeavors is not really dealt with in this film. There is no gross attempt at psychoanalysis that would be an obvious attempt to foster a sort of explanation for his behavior. Instead, there is but a clean, clear-headed account of one serial killer’s obsessions and delights. We don’t gain a tremendous amount of insight into Ted’s character other than to be made privy to how gentle and kindhearted he can be when the situation calls for it. There are indications throughout that the remnants of his peculiar hobby have bleed into the rest of his well-structured, orderly life but they are not significant enough to suggest any mortal danger.
Michael Reilly Burke is thoroughly believable playing the two most prominent aspects of Ted’s personality. He is able to convey both the sweetness and the part of Ted who sees a lovely girl and just has to cane her head in and fuck her dead body in an old, filthy shed. Burke is quite good at providing Ted with the type of charm that convinces such females to let down their guard and wander off with a complete stranger. Boti Ann Bliss is truly remarkable as a legitimate light in Ted’s life who is nevertheless unable to see him for what he truly is. Bliss captures Lee’s longing and confusion throughout the film. Lee is a strong character and Bliss allows us to feel her desperate need to be loved so completely by the man to whom she is so often callously rebuffed.
Overall, this film does an excellent job conveying the complexities inherent in its subject. It explores the natures of various types of love including love as affliction, love as utter blindness, and love stolen from the cold and dead lips of death. It provides little insight into the nature of these crimes other than to demonstrate the sheer, unadulterated urgency that demands that they must be actualized as quickly as possible. Indeed, Ted is portrayed for what the real Ted Bundy was and remains: a keenly driven individual who becomes acutely focused on the rape and murder of young, unassuming females. His is the carnal will taken to its most illogical conclusions. At some point in his life, and this is certainly never explored in this film, young Ted learned to associate pain and suffering with the sexual release. To Ted, the orgasm is most fully realized in the quickly cooling rectum of a girl he has so recently rent from the niceties and cruelties of life. It’s satisfying in its own way.
directed by Matthew Bright
written by Matthew Bright and Stephen Johnston
starring Michael Reilly Burke, Boti Ann Bliss
The first modern serial killer gets the bio treatment in this fictionalization of Ted Bundy’s duplicitous and thoroughly convincing personality scheme.
Bundy (Burke) is a straight shooter with a loving if too desperate girlfriend named Lee (Bliss) who lets a whole lot of evidence slide on by as she clings haltingly to her man. Ted is good with kids and truly able to say the right things at the crisis clinic he works at a couple days per week. He’s exceedingly well groomed and polite to most everyone he meets when he’s being affable Ted who is disarmingly charming and sweet natured. Of course he’s also a brutal killer who does horrific things to the bodies of the girls he mercilessly butchers. It’s this duplicity that is examined with precision and great skill. This remains arguably the best film ever devoted to a killer of this type. It’s nuanced, stylized, and exceptionally forthcoming with the litany of violence toward Ted’s many victims.
Our first introduction to Ted sees him standing in front of a three paned mirror. We thus find him in triplicate trying out his introduction to whomever happens to catch his fancy. This is the side of Ted that his friends and associates are familiar with. Then he goes into a ghastly routine where he makes gutteral noises and funny, absurd faces. In this instance he’s something unhuman, a fiend of sorts who represents the side of Ted that allows him to murder and rape with impunity. From there we meet the civil Ted who is attending Law School and genuinely attempting to better himself. He even has eyes on political office and it’s apparent to everyone that knows him that he has a definite shot of realizing his dream.
Lee is something of an emotional battering ram for Ted. He never treats her all that well and when she discovers handcuffs in his car she brushes it off because Ted claims to have never seen them before. But then he convinces her to allow herself to be tied up and ravished as Ted says “Fuck You, Bitch” over and again. It’s a painful scene to watch mostly due to the look of horror plastered on Lee’s face as she allows Ted to pummel and verbally abuse her. Still, she fully believes she is in love and subsequently puts up with whatever it is he decides to do. She’s an enabler who only wants to see the best in Ted and is driven by her affection for him.
Ted is remarkably good for Lee’s young daughter. He clearly dotes on her and provides her with much affection, filling in the void left by her absent father. There is no doubt that Ted is sincere with his treatment of the girl; he genuinely adores her and would certainly react viciously to anyone who attempted to harm her. He can clasp hands and tell her silly stories in the afternoon and rape the corpse of some poor girl he’s lured away in the evening. It’s his ability to keep both personalities working simultaneously that makes him such a worthy subject for this treatment.
The music throughout this film is often incongruous to the filmed action. In particular there is a happy bit of Christmas music that is played when Ted and family are opening presents and looking so ebullient and joyful. The scene switches to a long hallway, with the same music, where Ted is play acting that he is in terrible shape and in need of assistance. A woman rushes to his aid only to be savagely attacked and the music continues as her legs repeatedly twitch. It’s a funny scene simply because it’s not the sort of music one expects to hear at a time like that. There are several such instances in the film as much of the source music is uplifting and cheerful after a fashion. The score itself is, however, consistent with the criminal acts being projected on the screen.
There is a substantial amount of violence in this film and it all possesses a sort of grim beauty in how it is presented. One gets a real sense of the sexual mores of Ted as he has his thrills with all the girls he sways with his charm and ingenuity. He feigns a broken arm, pretends he’s a cop, and even tells poor little Kimberly Leach that something horrible has happened to her father. They all go with Ted because he is so convincing in whatever role he is affecting. They believe in him long enough to ensure that they will fall prey to his enormous sexual appetite. There is a sense that they are all lost little girls who find themselves face to face with the big bad wolf who necessarily devours them for their prettiness and sweet, unassuming natures. But Ted cannot help but carry out his deeds because the urge for total domination is far too strong to ignore. He even assaults Lee when he’s got her legs spread and bound; he half heartedly tries to smother her thereby demonstrating his own special take on love. Still, she stays by him no doubt more confused than horrified.
The film is routinely chilling and admittedly it’s grotesque nature is expressed most fluently through the slight introductions we are afforded to several of Ted’s victims. Many of them are anonymous but some of them are given just enough personality to make their killing truly horrific. Despite Ted’s charm and tenderness, he isn’t portrayed in such a way that it’s easy to sympathize with him. This is not the sort of film that either demonizes or lionizes its subject. It’s simply a straightforward, albeit fictionalized, telling of one man’s unquenchable thirst for power and his particular method of obtaining it. One does not sense that Ted is unduly troubled by his actions which makes them all the more baffling to the common observer. He isn’t torn necessarily by his actions; he merely performs them as if he were doing something as innocuous as running his fingers through the hair of Lee’s young daughter. They are as much a part of him as his immaculately arranged sock drawer.
The sickness aspect of Ted’s endeavors is not really dealt with in this film. There is no gross attempt at psychoanalysis that would be an obvious attempt to foster a sort of explanation for his behavior. Instead, there is but a clean, clear-headed account of one serial killer’s obsessions and delights. We don’t gain a tremendous amount of insight into Ted’s character other than to be made privy to how gentle and kindhearted he can be when the situation calls for it. There are indications throughout that the remnants of his peculiar hobby have bleed into the rest of his well-structured, orderly life but they are not significant enough to suggest any mortal danger.
Michael Reilly Burke is thoroughly believable playing the two most prominent aspects of Ted’s personality. He is able to convey both the sweetness and the part of Ted who sees a lovely girl and just has to cane her head in and fuck her dead body in an old, filthy shed. Burke is quite good at providing Ted with the type of charm that convinces such females to let down their guard and wander off with a complete stranger. Boti Ann Bliss is truly remarkable as a legitimate light in Ted’s life who is nevertheless unable to see him for what he truly is. Bliss captures Lee’s longing and confusion throughout the film. Lee is a strong character and Bliss allows us to feel her desperate need to be loved so completely by the man to whom she is so often callously rebuffed.
Overall, this film does an excellent job conveying the complexities inherent in its subject. It explores the natures of various types of love including love as affliction, love as utter blindness, and love stolen from the cold and dead lips of death. It provides little insight into the nature of these crimes other than to demonstrate the sheer, unadulterated urgency that demands that they must be actualized as quickly as possible. Indeed, Ted is portrayed for what the real Ted Bundy was and remains: a keenly driven individual who becomes acutely focused on the rape and murder of young, unassuming females. His is the carnal will taken to its most illogical conclusions. At some point in his life, and this is certainly never explored in this film, young Ted learned to associate pain and suffering with the sexual release. To Ted, the orgasm is most fully realized in the quickly cooling rectum of a girl he has so recently rent from the niceties and cruelties of life. It’s satisfying in its own way.
Film Review--Blood Shack
Blood Shack
directed by Ray Dennis Steckler
written by Roy Haydock and Ray Dennis Steckler
starring Carol Brandt, Ron Haydock, Jason Wayne, Laurel Spring, John Bats, Steve Edwards, Linda Steckler, Laura Steckler
Ah, the great Ray Dennis Steckler. His films are certainly an acquired taste but they go down fairly easily once you have adjusted your digestive track by being kicked multiple times in the stomach. This film comes half way through his maniacal career and it’s truly one of his best/worst. It’s really hard to tell with Steckler because he’s definitely going after a particular aesthetic in his films. The acting has to be as unnatural as possible and there has to be scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever loose plot is hanging about. In this one there are numerous scenes of a rodeo that seem only to have been injected into the film because Steckler likes rodeos. They mean nothing otherwise and only manage to drag the film down. It’s only 55 minutes long anyway and the rodeo kills ten minutes so that leaves even less time to convincingly tell a story.
The story as far as it goes involves a creepy house/shack that is over 150 years old and apparently whenever anyone goes into it they are attacked by something called the Trooper, I believe, although it could just as easily been the Terper. Regardless, it’s just a crazed man in a sort of ninja outfit who attacks those who wander into the building by mistake. As the film opens a pretty girl named Connie (Spring) is for some odd, goddamn reason that is never explained supposed to spend the night in the house. She does and is naturally attacked and killed in a ridiculous fashion that comes from a director who never could kill someone convincingly. Then her husband Charlie (Bats) shows up and he too gets slaughtered. A constable (Edwards) shows up to investigate the disappearance of the two kids and he gets killed. That’s pretty much it for plot.
There is also two little girls (Steckler’s real live daughters Linda and Laura) and they seem to have no purpose other than to play on things and run about hysterically when they are being chased out of the house by Daniel (Wayne) who has warned them about the house time and time again. They go in and one would expect the Trooper to butcher them but of course being kids and therefore protected from such an act they merely run out of the house and shriek. Naturally they are adorable as hell and do add that special something cute kids add to all horror films which is simply a counterpoint to all the terror and bloodshed that is going on. The kiddies almost always escape the hearty blade or axe of the maniac because he never sees them as much of a challenge. It’s all too easy to bag a tot although one would imagine the pleasure would be even more pronounced than usual because the wee ones are so valuable. They are simply worth more than adults and subsequently their sad little deaths might have more currency in hell.
The Trooper in this film is a silly little man. He appears out of nowhere to kill and then leave. Daniel is left to clean up after the act and buries the bodies somewhere out in the desert.
The sexy quotient of the film is filled by the exquisite Carol Brandt, Steckler’s real life wife. She plays Carol and is indeed the heart of the film as she always leaves a permanent mark in whatever Steckler production she appears in. She slinks about, looking awkward and a bit confused and she doesn’t do much of anything. In fact nobody does much of anything in this film except the rodeo participants who do some mean riding but that’s about it. Otherwise, nothing gets done and people just stand around waiting for something that is never going to happen. One would at least expect an utterly pointless sex scene between Daniel and Carol but that never happens. Maybe one of the girls could get caught in barbed wire. That would certainly be terribly fun in an Edward Gorey sort of way. But, there’s nothing at all. Just a wicked house and a man in a wacky costume snuffing whoever goes into it.
The Trooper has to be Steckler. Who ever would be able to play such a significant part in this film? It’s not easy playing psychotic. It takes a special kind of person to mimic actual psychosis and I think Steckler does a fairly good job at it. As good as anyone on no budget could do.
The acting in this film is inspired in a classically terrible sort of way. It’s often hysterical, far too over the top, especially and mostly by Wayne as Daniel. The others are flat except for Carol Brandt but she’s the only actor in the lot. In fact, except for Roy Hadock (Tim) the rest of them never acted in another film. So, it’s not fair to judge them. Actually, they are only considered “bad” when compared to those who have gained a certain amount of artificiality with their presentation. In fact, these “actors” are quite natural after a fashion. They have what used to be called “spunk” which is a nasty word with an entirely different meaning these days.
Overall, these kids put on a helluva show here in this little film. It isn’t exactly entertaining or interesting or even particularly fun. But it does have a real Manson Family vibe which makes it considerably more thrilling in the end. One expects Charlie to show up to groove on, man, with ten or twelve young girls for his infinite pleasure. Charlie don’t need seventy virgins, he’s already had them and they were as good as advertised. In this film, it’s all about waiting for the Trooper to come in and do his dastardly thing on the flesh of some unsuspecting idiot. That’s it for suspense and it just doesn’t come enough. It’s such a filthy shack and poor Connie had to sleep on a filthy mattress that looked like some ghastly things were done on it. Who knows how much fluid has soaked into its material. It’s not that pleasant at all to consider but it’s so clear that there’s been a whole lot of it. It would have been even better if the Trooper was a sexual sadist or something equally cliched. Or if he wore a smashing tutu and a funny bowler hat when he did them all in. Or a President Millard Filmore face mask.
Ultimately, it’s a laugh riot all the way through. The kids give the film much needed energy and their movements are certainly enjoyable throughout. Still, they are kids and therefore become a bit less grand after a while. The film has a definite look that is difficult to come by when you put too much effort into it. It certainly feels like a desert as the thick clouds of dust are very palpable. It’s sort of greasy and dirty and one feels as if they have spent the night on that wretched mattress by the end of it. So, indeed, it’s successful in creating a mood of despair and disease. One can’t wait to wash it all off by the time it’s over. This film manages to do what few films are able to do. It creates an actual physical response in its audience although that response is one of great discomfort and it has nothing to do with the subject matter. The killings are easily maneuvered around but the look of the film is impossible to ignore and it is quite enough to make a person feel ill for a short while. Maybe not full on sick but certainly a bit nauseous with clammy skin and stomach cramps. If any film can create spontaneous boils, it is this film.
directed by Ray Dennis Steckler
written by Roy Haydock and Ray Dennis Steckler
starring Carol Brandt, Ron Haydock, Jason Wayne, Laurel Spring, John Bats, Steve Edwards, Linda Steckler, Laura Steckler
Ah, the great Ray Dennis Steckler. His films are certainly an acquired taste but they go down fairly easily once you have adjusted your digestive track by being kicked multiple times in the stomach. This film comes half way through his maniacal career and it’s truly one of his best/worst. It’s really hard to tell with Steckler because he’s definitely going after a particular aesthetic in his films. The acting has to be as unnatural as possible and there has to be scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever loose plot is hanging about. In this one there are numerous scenes of a rodeo that seem only to have been injected into the film because Steckler likes rodeos. They mean nothing otherwise and only manage to drag the film down. It’s only 55 minutes long anyway and the rodeo kills ten minutes so that leaves even less time to convincingly tell a story.
The story as far as it goes involves a creepy house/shack that is over 150 years old and apparently whenever anyone goes into it they are attacked by something called the Trooper, I believe, although it could just as easily been the Terper. Regardless, it’s just a crazed man in a sort of ninja outfit who attacks those who wander into the building by mistake. As the film opens a pretty girl named Connie (Spring) is for some odd, goddamn reason that is never explained supposed to spend the night in the house. She does and is naturally attacked and killed in a ridiculous fashion that comes from a director who never could kill someone convincingly. Then her husband Charlie (Bats) shows up and he too gets slaughtered. A constable (Edwards) shows up to investigate the disappearance of the two kids and he gets killed. That’s pretty much it for plot.
There is also two little girls (Steckler’s real live daughters Linda and Laura) and they seem to have no purpose other than to play on things and run about hysterically when they are being chased out of the house by Daniel (Wayne) who has warned them about the house time and time again. They go in and one would expect the Trooper to butcher them but of course being kids and therefore protected from such an act they merely run out of the house and shriek. Naturally they are adorable as hell and do add that special something cute kids add to all horror films which is simply a counterpoint to all the terror and bloodshed that is going on. The kiddies almost always escape the hearty blade or axe of the maniac because he never sees them as much of a challenge. It’s all too easy to bag a tot although one would imagine the pleasure would be even more pronounced than usual because the wee ones are so valuable. They are simply worth more than adults and subsequently their sad little deaths might have more currency in hell.
The Trooper in this film is a silly little man. He appears out of nowhere to kill and then leave. Daniel is left to clean up after the act and buries the bodies somewhere out in the desert.
The sexy quotient of the film is filled by the exquisite Carol Brandt, Steckler’s real life wife. She plays Carol and is indeed the heart of the film as she always leaves a permanent mark in whatever Steckler production she appears in. She slinks about, looking awkward and a bit confused and she doesn’t do much of anything. In fact nobody does much of anything in this film except the rodeo participants who do some mean riding but that’s about it. Otherwise, nothing gets done and people just stand around waiting for something that is never going to happen. One would at least expect an utterly pointless sex scene between Daniel and Carol but that never happens. Maybe one of the girls could get caught in barbed wire. That would certainly be terribly fun in an Edward Gorey sort of way. But, there’s nothing at all. Just a wicked house and a man in a wacky costume snuffing whoever goes into it.
The Trooper has to be Steckler. Who ever would be able to play such a significant part in this film? It’s not easy playing psychotic. It takes a special kind of person to mimic actual psychosis and I think Steckler does a fairly good job at it. As good as anyone on no budget could do.
The acting in this film is inspired in a classically terrible sort of way. It’s often hysterical, far too over the top, especially and mostly by Wayne as Daniel. The others are flat except for Carol Brandt but she’s the only actor in the lot. In fact, except for Roy Hadock (Tim) the rest of them never acted in another film. So, it’s not fair to judge them. Actually, they are only considered “bad” when compared to those who have gained a certain amount of artificiality with their presentation. In fact, these “actors” are quite natural after a fashion. They have what used to be called “spunk” which is a nasty word with an entirely different meaning these days.
Overall, these kids put on a helluva show here in this little film. It isn’t exactly entertaining or interesting or even particularly fun. But it does have a real Manson Family vibe which makes it considerably more thrilling in the end. One expects Charlie to show up to groove on, man, with ten or twelve young girls for his infinite pleasure. Charlie don’t need seventy virgins, he’s already had them and they were as good as advertised. In this film, it’s all about waiting for the Trooper to come in and do his dastardly thing on the flesh of some unsuspecting idiot. That’s it for suspense and it just doesn’t come enough. It’s such a filthy shack and poor Connie had to sleep on a filthy mattress that looked like some ghastly things were done on it. Who knows how much fluid has soaked into its material. It’s not that pleasant at all to consider but it’s so clear that there’s been a whole lot of it. It would have been even better if the Trooper was a sexual sadist or something equally cliched. Or if he wore a smashing tutu and a funny bowler hat when he did them all in. Or a President Millard Filmore face mask.
Ultimately, it’s a laugh riot all the way through. The kids give the film much needed energy and their movements are certainly enjoyable throughout. Still, they are kids and therefore become a bit less grand after a while. The film has a definite look that is difficult to come by when you put too much effort into it. It certainly feels like a desert as the thick clouds of dust are very palpable. It’s sort of greasy and dirty and one feels as if they have spent the night on that wretched mattress by the end of it. So, indeed, it’s successful in creating a mood of despair and disease. One can’t wait to wash it all off by the time it’s over. This film manages to do what few films are able to do. It creates an actual physical response in its audience although that response is one of great discomfort and it has nothing to do with the subject matter. The killings are easily maneuvered around but the look of the film is impossible to ignore and it is quite enough to make a person feel ill for a short while. Maybe not full on sick but certainly a bit nauseous with clammy skin and stomach cramps. If any film can create spontaneous boils, it is this film.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Film Review--Jungdok (Addicted) (2002)
Jungdok (Addicted) (2002)
directed by Young-hoon Park
written by Won-mi-Byun
starring Byung-hun Lee, Mi-yeon Lee, Eol Lee, Seon-yeong Park
The sure-to-be-wretched remake will be coming out soon, so it’s best to first look at the original before our minds are twisted into oblivion by the scavengers responsible for massacring this film.
On a terrible day, two brothers are seriously injured in separate car crashes; both fall into comas and one wakes up after a year. His actions and mannerisms are precisely like his older brother and he manages to convince his sister-in-law that he indeed is her husband.
Dae-jin (Byung-hun Lee) is a motor race enthusiast and is scheduled for a big race down at the track. His brother Ho-jin disapproves of Dae-jin’s hobby but cannot convince his brother to give it up. Ho-jin (Eol Lee) is a furniture maker who has a big exhibition coming up and he is busy preparing for it. On the day of the race, Dae-jin heads for the track and Ho-jin, although exceedingly late, takes a cab to watch his brother. At the same moment, both brothers are involved in crashes that leave them in comas. When Dae-jin wakes up he begins to do the same things that Ho-jin used to do. He waters the plants in the same way, puts toothpaste on his sister-in-law Eun-su’s (Mi-yeon Lee) toothbrush, makes elaborate meals like Ho-jin, and begins to create furniture pieces in the same manner as his brother. The film focuses mainly on Eun-su’s reaction to Dae-jin’s insistence that he is indeed her husband.
The film could easily have lost momentum after Eun-su accepts Dae-jin and the couple consummate their new, odd love. Indeed, there is a ten minute sex scene (very soft core) that seems to threaten the continuity of the piece but it doesn’t quite because the film doesn’t dwell on that aspect of the relationship after that prolonged sequence. Mainly it’s just two lovers doing what lovers do and it’s relatively sweet and unencumbered. Still, one knows there’s a twist coming and although it doesn’t seem particularly shocking it does put the entire film in perspective.
Motivation is a key element to this film as one attempts to understand what pushes these characters to do the things they do. Especially late in the film it becomes important to understand the drive of a singular character and what it is that inspires them to take the particular road that they travel on.
There is a tremendous sadness in certain scenes particularly where Eun-su is confused about Dae-jin’s behavior and heartbroken over losing her husband. The film does a great job at conveying the difficulties that Eun-su faces as she tries to understand the nature of this new situation. She is forced to see in Dae-jin the man she married and it’s a testament to her will to experience her husband again that she is able to see past the simple fact that she is looking straight at Dae-jin and not Ho-jin.
The chemistry between Eun-su and Dae-jin shifts throughout. At first there is a wall between them as Eun-su refuses to humor Dae-jin and will not take him at his word. It’s just too strange and impossible that the spirit of her husband has somehow taken root in the body of his brother. She does not want to believe that such a thing can be true so she keeps Dae-jin at arm’s length and tries to carry on with her life as best she can. It isn’t until Dae-jin reveals information that only Ho-jin could know that she caves in and accepts Dae-jin for who he says he is. As Ho-jin, Dae-jin is convincing and he manages to make Eun-su fully embrace him as her husband. She so desperately wants any part of her husband she can get so she allows herself to fall in love with what she believes to be the spiritual essence of Ho-jin.
An intriguing development occurs when a doctor becomes convinced that Dae-jin has become possessed by the spirit of Ho-jin. He orders a hypnotist to work with Dae-jin and he comes to the same conclusion. This angle isn’t fully explored but it doesn’t take away from the energy of the film. The characters all work together to create a scenario that proves to be even more complicated than it does initially.
There is an innocence about this film as each of the characters have very wholesome personalities and do not exhibit animosity or any other kind of detrimental behavior toward one another. There is no abject cruelty here in this film and nary a word of anger is raised against any other person. In a way it feels like a fairy tale that has at its core an intensity the belies the tenderness that effects the film throughout. The characters behave in a civilized manner that is expressed in simple terms.
The character of Ye-jin (Seon-yeong Park) is the one who is most effected by Dae-jin’s transformation. Before the accident she professes her love to him and seems greatly wounded by circumstances she cannot control. She is forced to watch Dae-jin and Eun-su pursue the relationship that Ye-jin believes should have been at least put on hold as Ho-jin fights for his life while in a coma. The thought of seeing her boyfriend making overtures at her friend is exceedingly difficult to bear.
Overall, this film explores personality and the ways in which one’s routine causes others to imagine that they have a grasp on who one is. It’s a film that has a twist that tears up the foundation and casts everything that proceeds it into serious doubt. Everything we view turns out to be suspect and the film forces the viewer to interpret the film in an entirely different way. There is a profound sense of longing and loss that is conveyed simply yet with an intensity that informs the film and provides it with a legitimate purpose that is deeply moving and effective. Each character is well-rounded and it’s not difficult to develop a real and lasting bond with each of them.
directed by Young-hoon Park
written by Won-mi-Byun
starring Byung-hun Lee, Mi-yeon Lee, Eol Lee, Seon-yeong Park
The sure-to-be-wretched remake will be coming out soon, so it’s best to first look at the original before our minds are twisted into oblivion by the scavengers responsible for massacring this film.
On a terrible day, two brothers are seriously injured in separate car crashes; both fall into comas and one wakes up after a year. His actions and mannerisms are precisely like his older brother and he manages to convince his sister-in-law that he indeed is her husband.
Dae-jin (Byung-hun Lee) is a motor race enthusiast and is scheduled for a big race down at the track. His brother Ho-jin disapproves of Dae-jin’s hobby but cannot convince his brother to give it up. Ho-jin (Eol Lee) is a furniture maker who has a big exhibition coming up and he is busy preparing for it. On the day of the race, Dae-jin heads for the track and Ho-jin, although exceedingly late, takes a cab to watch his brother. At the same moment, both brothers are involved in crashes that leave them in comas. When Dae-jin wakes up he begins to do the same things that Ho-jin used to do. He waters the plants in the same way, puts toothpaste on his sister-in-law Eun-su’s (Mi-yeon Lee) toothbrush, makes elaborate meals like Ho-jin, and begins to create furniture pieces in the same manner as his brother. The film focuses mainly on Eun-su’s reaction to Dae-jin’s insistence that he is indeed her husband.
The film could easily have lost momentum after Eun-su accepts Dae-jin and the couple consummate their new, odd love. Indeed, there is a ten minute sex scene (very soft core) that seems to threaten the continuity of the piece but it doesn’t quite because the film doesn’t dwell on that aspect of the relationship after that prolonged sequence. Mainly it’s just two lovers doing what lovers do and it’s relatively sweet and unencumbered. Still, one knows there’s a twist coming and although it doesn’t seem particularly shocking it does put the entire film in perspective.
Motivation is a key element to this film as one attempts to understand what pushes these characters to do the things they do. Especially late in the film it becomes important to understand the drive of a singular character and what it is that inspires them to take the particular road that they travel on.
There is a tremendous sadness in certain scenes particularly where Eun-su is confused about Dae-jin’s behavior and heartbroken over losing her husband. The film does a great job at conveying the difficulties that Eun-su faces as she tries to understand the nature of this new situation. She is forced to see in Dae-jin the man she married and it’s a testament to her will to experience her husband again that she is able to see past the simple fact that she is looking straight at Dae-jin and not Ho-jin.
The chemistry between Eun-su and Dae-jin shifts throughout. At first there is a wall between them as Eun-su refuses to humor Dae-jin and will not take him at his word. It’s just too strange and impossible that the spirit of her husband has somehow taken root in the body of his brother. She does not want to believe that such a thing can be true so she keeps Dae-jin at arm’s length and tries to carry on with her life as best she can. It isn’t until Dae-jin reveals information that only Ho-jin could know that she caves in and accepts Dae-jin for who he says he is. As Ho-jin, Dae-jin is convincing and he manages to make Eun-su fully embrace him as her husband. She so desperately wants any part of her husband she can get so she allows herself to fall in love with what she believes to be the spiritual essence of Ho-jin.
An intriguing development occurs when a doctor becomes convinced that Dae-jin has become possessed by the spirit of Ho-jin. He orders a hypnotist to work with Dae-jin and he comes to the same conclusion. This angle isn’t fully explored but it doesn’t take away from the energy of the film. The characters all work together to create a scenario that proves to be even more complicated than it does initially.
There is an innocence about this film as each of the characters have very wholesome personalities and do not exhibit animosity or any other kind of detrimental behavior toward one another. There is no abject cruelty here in this film and nary a word of anger is raised against any other person. In a way it feels like a fairy tale that has at its core an intensity the belies the tenderness that effects the film throughout. The characters behave in a civilized manner that is expressed in simple terms.
The character of Ye-jin (Seon-yeong Park) is the one who is most effected by Dae-jin’s transformation. Before the accident she professes her love to him and seems greatly wounded by circumstances she cannot control. She is forced to watch Dae-jin and Eun-su pursue the relationship that Ye-jin believes should have been at least put on hold as Ho-jin fights for his life while in a coma. The thought of seeing her boyfriend making overtures at her friend is exceedingly difficult to bear.
Overall, this film explores personality and the ways in which one’s routine causes others to imagine that they have a grasp on who one is. It’s a film that has a twist that tears up the foundation and casts everything that proceeds it into serious doubt. Everything we view turns out to be suspect and the film forces the viewer to interpret the film in an entirely different way. There is a profound sense of longing and loss that is conveyed simply yet with an intensity that informs the film and provides it with a legitimate purpose that is deeply moving and effective. Each character is well-rounded and it’s not difficult to develop a real and lasting bond with each of them.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Film Review--Captives
Captives
directed by Angela Pope
written by Frank Deasy
starring Julia Ormond, Tim Roth, Colin Salmon, Mark Strong, Kenneth Cope, Bill Moody
Fresh off a bad marriage, a female dentist becomes sexually obsessed with a murderer and finds herself unable to extricate herself from the relationship.
Rachel Clifford (Ormond) gets hired on at a men’s low security correctional facility. One of her first patients is a man named Philip Chaney (Roth) and he immediately begins to seduce her by running his hand along the folds of her coat. She allows events to proceed to the point where the couple have sex in a bathroom stall at a restaurant. There is a tenderness between the two and it contrasts neatly in an overhead shot with the rather filthy environs they have chosen to consummate their love. From that point on Rachel is utterly enslaved by her carnal needs and her longing to be held again by someone who truly cares for her.
The story is incredibly simple. It deals almost entirely with Rachel’s eroding sense of Self. She gets herself involved in a world to which she is alien although the illicitness of her involvement with Philip pushes her forward to the point of no return. She could lose her job and he could lose his liberty but there is nothing that threatens them enough to force them to terminate their interaction.
The film is a decent investigation into the nature of obsession and how it can transform a person into someone they scarcely recognize. As Rachel crumbles her needs become more acute although she does have serious reservations after discovering that Philip broke his wife’s neck after determining she was having an affair. Rachel tries to rationalize this act but is wholly unable to convince her self that it might have been a legitimate reaction considering the circumstances.
A strange and fascinating aspect of this film is that the jail lets its prisoners out at a certain time every night and on weekends. This means that murderers and rapists are given the opportunity to go out and commit more heinous crimes before having to go back inside. I am not certain if this is actually how criminals are treated but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Still, it works for the film as it allows Philip and Rachel to expand their relationship and carry it forward in different locales.
Sexual urgency is palpable throughout this film. There is a genuine hunger throughout that each character fully embraces and acts on without hesitation. There is desperation, grief, the sudden shock of recognition in the flesh of another, the body reacting to sensations deprived for a certain length of time. Philip has apparently been sans female attention for a very long time so naturally he’s ready to explode the moment he first apprehends the pretty dentist. He reacts to her quite coolly, and casually explores her reactions to his overtures without giving too much away.
It is Rachel who allows the relationship to flourish because she has the opportunity early on to snuff it and chooses not to. She clearly longs to become involved with a greasy-haired con whose crimes early on she remains ignorant of. She knows she is playing with fire but refuses to give in to any doubt that might otherwise preclude her from acting on her instinct for sordid, messy sex in filthy locales with men who might have a fancy to choke the life out of her. One can’t help but feel a considerable amount of pity for this woman who seeks out her pleasure in such low places although this is tempered by the intensity of the bond that develops between these two. They truly do seem to be clutching each other as if their lives depended on it. Rachel even mentions that Philip reminds her of her father who used to hold her that way and whom she misses terribly.
The performances in this film are all quite natural and consistent for the material. Julia Ormond captures the essence of a woman who is spiraling out of control and knows of no method to stop it. Tim Roth is dynamic as a rather unsavory character who nevertheless possesses enough charisma to bed a woman whose emotions are easy to manipulate. Roth conveys both the sliminess of his character as well as his genuine desire to be loved. Mark Strong is frightening as a character who is ruthless and brutal when he needs to be.
Overall, this film is fundamentally an intriguing look into how raw, untrammeled passion can lead a person down a highly dangerous, sinister path. Rachel is a regular woman who allows herself to fall into a pattern where she is not in a position to protect herself. She loses her Self to her sexual needs and falls quickly into a realm of despair and desperation. Her plight is easily conceived as that of a woman who cannot distinguish between her anger over separating from her husband, and her desire to seek some sort of validation through her sexual encounters with Philip. She never seems to clearly demonstrate what she wants in this film. It is subsequently clear that she doesn’t know and moreover she doesn’t much care to know. Her body becomes the central focus of her endeavors and each moment spent with him takes her away from the pain she is otherwise experiencing in her life.
directed by Angela Pope
written by Frank Deasy
starring Julia Ormond, Tim Roth, Colin Salmon, Mark Strong, Kenneth Cope, Bill Moody
Fresh off a bad marriage, a female dentist becomes sexually obsessed with a murderer and finds herself unable to extricate herself from the relationship.
Rachel Clifford (Ormond) gets hired on at a men’s low security correctional facility. One of her first patients is a man named Philip Chaney (Roth) and he immediately begins to seduce her by running his hand along the folds of her coat. She allows events to proceed to the point where the couple have sex in a bathroom stall at a restaurant. There is a tenderness between the two and it contrasts neatly in an overhead shot with the rather filthy environs they have chosen to consummate their love. From that point on Rachel is utterly enslaved by her carnal needs and her longing to be held again by someone who truly cares for her.
The story is incredibly simple. It deals almost entirely with Rachel’s eroding sense of Self. She gets herself involved in a world to which she is alien although the illicitness of her involvement with Philip pushes her forward to the point of no return. She could lose her job and he could lose his liberty but there is nothing that threatens them enough to force them to terminate their interaction.
The film is a decent investigation into the nature of obsession and how it can transform a person into someone they scarcely recognize. As Rachel crumbles her needs become more acute although she does have serious reservations after discovering that Philip broke his wife’s neck after determining she was having an affair. Rachel tries to rationalize this act but is wholly unable to convince her self that it might have been a legitimate reaction considering the circumstances.
A strange and fascinating aspect of this film is that the jail lets its prisoners out at a certain time every night and on weekends. This means that murderers and rapists are given the opportunity to go out and commit more heinous crimes before having to go back inside. I am not certain if this is actually how criminals are treated but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Still, it works for the film as it allows Philip and Rachel to expand their relationship and carry it forward in different locales.
Sexual urgency is palpable throughout this film. There is a genuine hunger throughout that each character fully embraces and acts on without hesitation. There is desperation, grief, the sudden shock of recognition in the flesh of another, the body reacting to sensations deprived for a certain length of time. Philip has apparently been sans female attention for a very long time so naturally he’s ready to explode the moment he first apprehends the pretty dentist. He reacts to her quite coolly, and casually explores her reactions to his overtures without giving too much away.
It is Rachel who allows the relationship to flourish because she has the opportunity early on to snuff it and chooses not to. She clearly longs to become involved with a greasy-haired con whose crimes early on she remains ignorant of. She knows she is playing with fire but refuses to give in to any doubt that might otherwise preclude her from acting on her instinct for sordid, messy sex in filthy locales with men who might have a fancy to choke the life out of her. One can’t help but feel a considerable amount of pity for this woman who seeks out her pleasure in such low places although this is tempered by the intensity of the bond that develops between these two. They truly do seem to be clutching each other as if their lives depended on it. Rachel even mentions that Philip reminds her of her father who used to hold her that way and whom she misses terribly.
The performances in this film are all quite natural and consistent for the material. Julia Ormond captures the essence of a woman who is spiraling out of control and knows of no method to stop it. Tim Roth is dynamic as a rather unsavory character who nevertheless possesses enough charisma to bed a woman whose emotions are easy to manipulate. Roth conveys both the sliminess of his character as well as his genuine desire to be loved. Mark Strong is frightening as a character who is ruthless and brutal when he needs to be.
Overall, this film is fundamentally an intriguing look into how raw, untrammeled passion can lead a person down a highly dangerous, sinister path. Rachel is a regular woman who allows herself to fall into a pattern where she is not in a position to protect herself. She loses her Self to her sexual needs and falls quickly into a realm of despair and desperation. Her plight is easily conceived as that of a woman who cannot distinguish between her anger over separating from her husband, and her desire to seek some sort of validation through her sexual encounters with Philip. She never seems to clearly demonstrate what she wants in this film. It is subsequently clear that she doesn’t know and moreover she doesn’t much care to know. Her body becomes the central focus of her endeavors and each moment spent with him takes her away from the pain she is otherwise experiencing in her life.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Film Review--The Plot to Kill Hitler
The Plot to Kill Hitler
directed by Lawrence Schiller
written by Steven Elkins
starring Brad Davis, Madolyn Smith Osbourne, Ian Richardson, Kenneth Colley, Michael Byrne, Helmut Lohner, Jonathan Hyde, Helmut Griem, Mike Gwilym
In this made-for-tv 1990 film, a group of dissident officers conspire to bring down Adolf Hitler in the hope of avoiding more bloodshed and Germany’s ultimate total surrender.
The story focuses on the intention to remove Hitler from power and put into a place a nominal government with the intentions of working with the Allies whom they hoped would not be overly harsh in their reprimands. It also deals with the home life of a key conspirator in the operation, an aristocratic officer named Count Claus von Stauffenberg, his wife Countess Nina, and their three children.
The plot is complicated and involves the perfect execution of a number of maneuvers that were required to see it to fruition. The main conspirators are von Stauffenberg, General Olbricht (Byrne), General Beck (Richardson), Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, (Colley) and Axel von dem Bussche (Graves). Each of them play their part and the table is set to bring down the most powerful leader in the Western World.
The film suffers slightly from the tenacity of its focus. There isn’t much room for anything beyond the plot and the interactions between von Stauffenberg and his family. There are many moments of relief when vo Stauffenberg returns or when the bombs don’t destroy the family’s home. These are handled relatively well and the intentions toward the participants allow them to demonstrate legitimate emotional reactions to the troubling circumstances afflicting them.
The war itself is not projected with any demonstrative urgency although it is felt tangentially in every frame. Count von Stauffenberg is eventually cast as an adversary to the Nazi regime and the film pushes through to showcase his trajectory from supporter to outright foe.
There is a sense of doubt hanging over the film as the participants are none to certain that their attempt on Hitler’s life will reap the rewards they intend. It is made known that there have been numerous such attempts and all of them have failed for various reasons. Hitler himself comments on these designs on his life and considers himself blessed by Providence and that it constitutes a sign that he is destined to succeed in his mission.
This version of Hitler (Gwilym) is a jokester with a fiery temper who is shown to abhor meat and cigarettes. He seems fit, agile, and cantankerous; he’s fully engaged in his power struggle and his designs for conquest. He is presented as a man of tremendous energy and ambition as well as being a bit fussy about his appearance. He wants to make sure that Il Duce approves of his trousers.
Von Stauffenberg is a careful man who’s exacting behavior sets up the exceedingly complex machinations to rid the world of the Führer. His movements are precise and controlled and his carriage is determined by the course he has set out for himself. The success of the plot lays on his shoulders because he has determined himself to be the most qualified to plant the bomb as he has the most direct contact with Hitler.
Knowing the outcome it’s still thrilling to watch as the film sets up the great moment where everything proceeding it comes to a head. The intrigue is handled with delicacy and care as each part of the puzzle is put into place.
The film doesn’t seem to come down on whether or not it would have been a good thing to have Hitler removed from the war equation. There is some dialog about it not effecting the Nazi machine at all because someone would simply emerge to take his place.
The Nazis in this film are, as is often the case, filmed in such a way that they come off as vibrant, healthy administrators with a strict, methodical mien that allows them to relate strategically with the affectations adopted by every soldier. This is indeed a film that expresses several aspects of war and those who are responsible for perpetuating the necessity of it. Von Stauffenberg and his lot are the sole voice that decries the war effort and insists on taking brave and dangerous measures to do anything they can to put an end to it. In the context of the film their attempt is neither vilified or viewed heroically. It’s merely the act of a number of desperate men who seized on an opportunity to potentially effect the entire outcome of the war.
I suppose the “message” of this story which has been reinterpreted in several other versions, is that there was a resistance inside Germany comprised of individuals who denounced Nazism and sought to bring it to its knees by any means necessary. The scope of the endeavor is of course enormous and there were indeed many failed attempts to actualize the intention. Von Stauffenberg was simply one man with an undiluted passion for taking the necessary measures to ensure that Germany was not to be thoroughly raped by the inevitably victorious Allies.
Overall, this is a cleanly devised film that highlights an exceedingly significant event at the height of WWII. It creates viable personalities on both sides of the dilemma and allows the viewer an insight into the ways that revolution can be struck as a guiding principal. The film effectively brings the essential conflict into clear focus through the intensely practical maneuverings of those dedicated to fostering what they hope to be lasting change for their country and its citizens. There is a very tangible sense in this film that Germany was at this time emphatically losing the war and that it wasn’t long before they would be dragged into hell by the furious and vengeful Allied forces. There is a legitimate urgency in this film as the stewards of this decisive act realized that their window of opportunity was decisively narrowing and that they probably would not have another opportunity to carry out the deed.
directed by Lawrence Schiller
written by Steven Elkins
starring Brad Davis, Madolyn Smith Osbourne, Ian Richardson, Kenneth Colley, Michael Byrne, Helmut Lohner, Jonathan Hyde, Helmut Griem, Mike Gwilym
In this made-for-tv 1990 film, a group of dissident officers conspire to bring down Adolf Hitler in the hope of avoiding more bloodshed and Germany’s ultimate total surrender.
The story focuses on the intention to remove Hitler from power and put into a place a nominal government with the intentions of working with the Allies whom they hoped would not be overly harsh in their reprimands. It also deals with the home life of a key conspirator in the operation, an aristocratic officer named Count Claus von Stauffenberg, his wife Countess Nina, and their three children.
The plot is complicated and involves the perfect execution of a number of maneuvers that were required to see it to fruition. The main conspirators are von Stauffenberg, General Olbricht (Byrne), General Beck (Richardson), Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, (Colley) and Axel von dem Bussche (Graves). Each of them play their part and the table is set to bring down the most powerful leader in the Western World.
The film suffers slightly from the tenacity of its focus. There isn’t much room for anything beyond the plot and the interactions between von Stauffenberg and his family. There are many moments of relief when vo Stauffenberg returns or when the bombs don’t destroy the family’s home. These are handled relatively well and the intentions toward the participants allow them to demonstrate legitimate emotional reactions to the troubling circumstances afflicting them.
The war itself is not projected with any demonstrative urgency although it is felt tangentially in every frame. Count von Stauffenberg is eventually cast as an adversary to the Nazi regime and the film pushes through to showcase his trajectory from supporter to outright foe.
There is a sense of doubt hanging over the film as the participants are none to certain that their attempt on Hitler’s life will reap the rewards they intend. It is made known that there have been numerous such attempts and all of them have failed for various reasons. Hitler himself comments on these designs on his life and considers himself blessed by Providence and that it constitutes a sign that he is destined to succeed in his mission.
This version of Hitler (Gwilym) is a jokester with a fiery temper who is shown to abhor meat and cigarettes. He seems fit, agile, and cantankerous; he’s fully engaged in his power struggle and his designs for conquest. He is presented as a man of tremendous energy and ambition as well as being a bit fussy about his appearance. He wants to make sure that Il Duce approves of his trousers.
Von Stauffenberg is a careful man who’s exacting behavior sets up the exceedingly complex machinations to rid the world of the Führer. His movements are precise and controlled and his carriage is determined by the course he has set out for himself. The success of the plot lays on his shoulders because he has determined himself to be the most qualified to plant the bomb as he has the most direct contact with Hitler.
Knowing the outcome it’s still thrilling to watch as the film sets up the great moment where everything proceeding it comes to a head. The intrigue is handled with delicacy and care as each part of the puzzle is put into place.
The film doesn’t seem to come down on whether or not it would have been a good thing to have Hitler removed from the war equation. There is some dialog about it not effecting the Nazi machine at all because someone would simply emerge to take his place.
The Nazis in this film are, as is often the case, filmed in such a way that they come off as vibrant, healthy administrators with a strict, methodical mien that allows them to relate strategically with the affectations adopted by every soldier. This is indeed a film that expresses several aspects of war and those who are responsible for perpetuating the necessity of it. Von Stauffenberg and his lot are the sole voice that decries the war effort and insists on taking brave and dangerous measures to do anything they can to put an end to it. In the context of the film their attempt is neither vilified or viewed heroically. It’s merely the act of a number of desperate men who seized on an opportunity to potentially effect the entire outcome of the war.
I suppose the “message” of this story which has been reinterpreted in several other versions, is that there was a resistance inside Germany comprised of individuals who denounced Nazism and sought to bring it to its knees by any means necessary. The scope of the endeavor is of course enormous and there were indeed many failed attempts to actualize the intention. Von Stauffenberg was simply one man with an undiluted passion for taking the necessary measures to ensure that Germany was not to be thoroughly raped by the inevitably victorious Allies.
Overall, this is a cleanly devised film that highlights an exceedingly significant event at the height of WWII. It creates viable personalities on both sides of the dilemma and allows the viewer an insight into the ways that revolution can be struck as a guiding principal. The film effectively brings the essential conflict into clear focus through the intensely practical maneuverings of those dedicated to fostering what they hope to be lasting change for their country and its citizens. There is a very tangible sense in this film that Germany was at this time emphatically losing the war and that it wasn’t long before they would be dragged into hell by the furious and vengeful Allied forces. There is a legitimate urgency in this film as the stewards of this decisive act realized that their window of opportunity was decisively narrowing and that they probably would not have another opportunity to carry out the deed.
Film Review--The Unborn
The Unborn
written and directed by David S. Goyer
starring Odette Yustman, Gary Oldman, Meagan Good, Cam Gigandet, Idris Alba, Jane Alexander, Atticus Shaffer, Ethan Cutkosky, Jane Alexander
The same old story with nary a thrilling moment to be found. A pretty girl starts having queer dreams that bleed into actual life. She embarks on a treasure hunt to ascertain precisely what the hell is wrong with her. The film combines the mythological dybbuk, Jewish Mysticism, Nazi research involving twins, a geriatric Holocaust survivor and numerous dodgy effects that neither startle or alarm.
Casey (Yustman) has been having strange dreams that are bleeding into reality. She has several hallucinatory experiences that leave her confused and very paranoid. She sees a little creepy boy (Cutkosky) everywhere and when she babysits the even creepier Matty (Shaffer) and his baby brother she finds the boy flashing a mirror in the baby’s face while mumbling something about the door being open. When she tries to turn him around he accosts her and smashes her in the face with the mirror. This kid shows up periodically to warn various persons involved in this convoluted chaos.
The Kabbalah becomes the sacred text that can drive the dybbuk back to whence it came. Apparently, the dybbuk is a spirit who is barred from heaven and spends quality time looking for a body to inhabit. Casey learns about the dybbuk from a woman named Sofi (Alexander) who she finds after discovering a clipping from the newspaper about her. The woman naturally turns out to be her grandmother and after some momentary hesitation explains the reasons for the dybbuk’s appearance. She and her twin brother took part in experiments the Nazis conducted on twins for DNA related purposes. Her brother died but was soon resurrected although she discerned that there was something possessing him so she killed him. But the little fucker wouldn’t die and has been haunting the family ever since. Casey’s mother hung herself to get away from it and now Casey is going through hell because it clearly wants something that is so obvious that the final reveal means nothing whatsoever.
So, there are a few scenes of Yustman in her underwear which is always necessary in films as predictable as this. There needs to be a bit of sex to take the mind off of the pablum being presented.
The story itself seems intent on providing very few moments of genuine terror or excitement. The effects seem amateurish and do nothing to enhance the mood the film is attempting to establish. Ultimately it’s a good thing that this girl is being chased about by a demonic phantasm who wants her terribly bad and will stop at nothing to attain it. Certainly the deaths of some flotsam along the way only adds to the importance of the great final sequence when all is settled and good once again triumphs over what it deems to be evil.
I for one sympathized with the dybbuk and its eternal striving to find a body to inhabit. . You can’t fault it for its objective because it’s a natural reaction to being banned from a proper resting place. In this film the dybbuk is demonized but it’s not really fair. I was hoping for much more mischief from the dybbuk but it merely turned off the lights, caused a bit of a wind, and sucked the lives out of a few goodly people. Frustration will cause anyone or anything to react violently and if the dybbuk could have only been allowed to inhabit a body then none of this would have happened.
Casey and her friend Romy (Good) are exceedingly tight and seem to do most of everything together. Romy thinks that all Casey needs is to relax and focus on other things because the thing she is being tormented by is essentially not real. Casey’s dad is nonexistent for much of the film so there is no solid fatherly figure until Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) appears. I admit to sitting through this for the sole purpose of seeing just what drew Oldman into this mess and I came away even more perplexed by the end. It falls on his shoulders to perform an exorcism to get rid of the terrible thing that is ruining everyone’s good time. He’s a bit dusty but thankfully Casey has brought him “The Book of Mirrors” which he uses in the ceremony to drive the dybbuk back. Oldman is underused in this film and probably finished his scenes in a few days. He makes for a formidable holy man and certainly knows how to forcefully elicit the poetry of the Kabbalah in a convincing manner. Still, it’s a shame that all of these films end the same. There is always a dark element that everyone in the film wants to cast away because it poses a perceived threat the source of which is never investigated. We simply are supposed to root for the innocent humans because they are more like us and therefore deserving of our sympathy. But by the end of this film I didn’t much care for any of the surviving characters. I wanted to follow the dybbuk as it tried and failed to find another pathway to oblivion.
It’s a terrible curse to be forever doomed to ramble with no set place to settle down and gain familiarity with order and stability. In this film the dybbuk is merely a force of evil that must be eradicated at all costs. It is a terrorist who cannot be negotiated with because in the minds of those populating this film all it understands is destruction. Whereas if one sees the film from the dybbuk’s perspective then it becomes a matter of facing nothing but hostility and cruelty at every turn with scarcely an opportunity to actualize the one thing held dear by you. From that angle it’s a much more gratifying story and would be more so if the dybbuk could finally be allowed to inhabit a body it can manipulate. Is it not impossible to destroy a dybbuk and doesn’t casting it out only make it more determined to make good on its attempt for reentry? Regardless, the film doesn’t make its case as to why the audience is supposed to invest in these characters and actually feel anything substantial regarding their plights.
Overall, this film doesn’t come across with any integrity. It’s a generic story with occasionally lousy acting and it manages to completely waste Gary Oldman which one can hardly imagine being even possible. There are interesting elements, namely the Nazi experiments, that are unexplored mainly for expediency sake. Still, what is pursued lacks any significant power to effect the viewer in any form and so by the end all one wants is everyone dead and a free dybbuk finding something vital to penetrate with its terrible form. There are a few decent freak out scenes, a bit of gore, and the boy who haunts the film is strange enough looking to keep one’s interest. Ultimately, though, the film does not stand out. It doesn’t surprise and there are no moments that can remotely be considered as suspenseful. The dybbuk is a grand element that is unfortunately categorized as a vile, pestilent thing worthy of obliteration. It’s typical of these films because humans want to see other humans survive their neuroses in tact.
written and directed by David S. Goyer
starring Odette Yustman, Gary Oldman, Meagan Good, Cam Gigandet, Idris Alba, Jane Alexander, Atticus Shaffer, Ethan Cutkosky, Jane Alexander
The same old story with nary a thrilling moment to be found. A pretty girl starts having queer dreams that bleed into actual life. She embarks on a treasure hunt to ascertain precisely what the hell is wrong with her. The film combines the mythological dybbuk, Jewish Mysticism, Nazi research involving twins, a geriatric Holocaust survivor and numerous dodgy effects that neither startle or alarm.
Casey (Yustman) has been having strange dreams that are bleeding into reality. She has several hallucinatory experiences that leave her confused and very paranoid. She sees a little creepy boy (Cutkosky) everywhere and when she babysits the even creepier Matty (Shaffer) and his baby brother she finds the boy flashing a mirror in the baby’s face while mumbling something about the door being open. When she tries to turn him around he accosts her and smashes her in the face with the mirror. This kid shows up periodically to warn various persons involved in this convoluted chaos.
The Kabbalah becomes the sacred text that can drive the dybbuk back to whence it came. Apparently, the dybbuk is a spirit who is barred from heaven and spends quality time looking for a body to inhabit. Casey learns about the dybbuk from a woman named Sofi (Alexander) who she finds after discovering a clipping from the newspaper about her. The woman naturally turns out to be her grandmother and after some momentary hesitation explains the reasons for the dybbuk’s appearance. She and her twin brother took part in experiments the Nazis conducted on twins for DNA related purposes. Her brother died but was soon resurrected although she discerned that there was something possessing him so she killed him. But the little fucker wouldn’t die and has been haunting the family ever since. Casey’s mother hung herself to get away from it and now Casey is going through hell because it clearly wants something that is so obvious that the final reveal means nothing whatsoever.
So, there are a few scenes of Yustman in her underwear which is always necessary in films as predictable as this. There needs to be a bit of sex to take the mind off of the pablum being presented.
The story itself seems intent on providing very few moments of genuine terror or excitement. The effects seem amateurish and do nothing to enhance the mood the film is attempting to establish. Ultimately it’s a good thing that this girl is being chased about by a demonic phantasm who wants her terribly bad and will stop at nothing to attain it. Certainly the deaths of some flotsam along the way only adds to the importance of the great final sequence when all is settled and good once again triumphs over what it deems to be evil.
I for one sympathized with the dybbuk and its eternal striving to find a body to inhabit. . You can’t fault it for its objective because it’s a natural reaction to being banned from a proper resting place. In this film the dybbuk is demonized but it’s not really fair. I was hoping for much more mischief from the dybbuk but it merely turned off the lights, caused a bit of a wind, and sucked the lives out of a few goodly people. Frustration will cause anyone or anything to react violently and if the dybbuk could have only been allowed to inhabit a body then none of this would have happened.
Casey and her friend Romy (Good) are exceedingly tight and seem to do most of everything together. Romy thinks that all Casey needs is to relax and focus on other things because the thing she is being tormented by is essentially not real. Casey’s dad is nonexistent for much of the film so there is no solid fatherly figure until Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) appears. I admit to sitting through this for the sole purpose of seeing just what drew Oldman into this mess and I came away even more perplexed by the end. It falls on his shoulders to perform an exorcism to get rid of the terrible thing that is ruining everyone’s good time. He’s a bit dusty but thankfully Casey has brought him “The Book of Mirrors” which he uses in the ceremony to drive the dybbuk back. Oldman is underused in this film and probably finished his scenes in a few days. He makes for a formidable holy man and certainly knows how to forcefully elicit the poetry of the Kabbalah in a convincing manner. Still, it’s a shame that all of these films end the same. There is always a dark element that everyone in the film wants to cast away because it poses a perceived threat the source of which is never investigated. We simply are supposed to root for the innocent humans because they are more like us and therefore deserving of our sympathy. But by the end of this film I didn’t much care for any of the surviving characters. I wanted to follow the dybbuk as it tried and failed to find another pathway to oblivion.
It’s a terrible curse to be forever doomed to ramble with no set place to settle down and gain familiarity with order and stability. In this film the dybbuk is merely a force of evil that must be eradicated at all costs. It is a terrorist who cannot be negotiated with because in the minds of those populating this film all it understands is destruction. Whereas if one sees the film from the dybbuk’s perspective then it becomes a matter of facing nothing but hostility and cruelty at every turn with scarcely an opportunity to actualize the one thing held dear by you. From that angle it’s a much more gratifying story and would be more so if the dybbuk could finally be allowed to inhabit a body it can manipulate. Is it not impossible to destroy a dybbuk and doesn’t casting it out only make it more determined to make good on its attempt for reentry? Regardless, the film doesn’t make its case as to why the audience is supposed to invest in these characters and actually feel anything substantial regarding their plights.
Overall, this film doesn’t come across with any integrity. It’s a generic story with occasionally lousy acting and it manages to completely waste Gary Oldman which one can hardly imagine being even possible. There are interesting elements, namely the Nazi experiments, that are unexplored mainly for expediency sake. Still, what is pursued lacks any significant power to effect the viewer in any form and so by the end all one wants is everyone dead and a free dybbuk finding something vital to penetrate with its terrible form. There are a few decent freak out scenes, a bit of gore, and the boy who haunts the film is strange enough looking to keep one’s interest. Ultimately, though, the film does not stand out. It doesn’t surprise and there are no moments that can remotely be considered as suspenseful. The dybbuk is a grand element that is unfortunately categorized as a vile, pestilent thing worthy of obliteration. It’s typical of these films because humans want to see other humans survive their neuroses in tact.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Film Review--The Night of the Generals
The Night of the Generals
directed by Anatole Litvak
written by Paul Dehn and Joseph Kessel
based on the novel by Hans Hellmut Kirst
starring Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif, Tom Courtenay, Pleasence, Joanna Pettet, Phillippe Noiret, Charles Gray, Coral Browne, Christopher Plummer
The July 20, 1944 plot to kill the Führer is the backdrop in this sordid tale of lust, sex murder, and the Nazi push to conquer the entire known universe.
The film opens with a ghastly murder. A prostitute has been butchered–stabbed over one hundred times–by a General in the German army. The only witness was hiding under the stairs and saw the tell-tale red stripes of the General’s trousers. Major Grau (Sharif) takes the case and learns that three Generals do not have alibis for the night in question. These include the impossibly dapper, and exquisitely high strung General Tanz (O’Toole). Tanz personifies the classic duplicity of a person who projects a precise image of themselves in public while utterly abandoning themselves to a keenly opposing lifestyle while in private. He’s a clean freak, obsessed with order, and must have his bath water at precisely 31 degrees Fahrenheit. He’s also transfixed by Vincent Van Gogh’s “decadent” self titled work know alternatively as “Vincent In Flames” and drinks and smokes extensively, something he hides in his clean-cut public image. He’s very fond of art and although he appears exceedingly uncomfortable out in public, there is a direct sense that he is drawn to the sounds, the lights, and the smells of life as it is lived by those not afraid of the dark.
The murder takes over twenty years to solve and it’s no mystery because we see the poor bastard do another one in close to the end. This would be the prime suspect all along, the goodly General Tanz who manages to make it seem as if his orderly Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann has committed the crime with some deft maneuvering. The greatly nervous Tanz goes into trances on occasion and especially when he’s gazing at the Van Gogh Painting. It’s supposed to symbol something regarding the madness inherent in the painting and how this triggers the incipient madness lying withing the General who is entirely mad throughout the film.
In many ways this is a film, at least partially, about the relationship between extreme order and dissolution and perhaps how in certain individuals they are forever intertwined. General Tanz is an example of a rigid, exacting type who must have everything precisely as he requires it at all times. But also, he’s fond of drink and manages to put off his obvious discomfort and convinces Hartmann to pick up a whore from inside a bar while he waits in his car. Of course he then uses the fact that others at the bar will have seen Hartmann and not him with the girl as a brilliant ploy to pin the blame on the younger Colonel. He’s not too thrilled with much of what passes for fun in the towns but he seems to like voyeuristically experiencing all of the filth and commonness found in one of these places. He enjoys watching the wretched have their fill at their holy troughs without actually getting his hands dirty. He wears gloves while he smokes and the effect is quite startling.
While General Tanz is shown about Paris, the plot to snuff Hitler is undertaken by a great number of the remaining Generals. Chief amongst these is Maj. General Kahlenberg (Pleasence) who secretly reveals his intentions throughout the early part of the film. We don’t get a clear picture of what is about to unfold until the second half when Kahlenberg openly mentions it. It’s an effective ploy on the part of the film makers because one feels conspiratorial before even quite knowing what is in the works. It’s difficult, to be sure, for most of the audience to relate to Tanz as he is essentially a psychopath albeit with a strange generous side. On one hand he’s doling out foodstuffs for the kiddies and then he turns about and scorches nearly the whole town just because he can. He’s a man with extremely cruel appetites and these almost always go along with an epicurean which can never be fully satisfied by merely beautiful or exotic things. There always has to be a taste of real, toxic horror in order for him to be truly alive. When he’s in control of other lives he himself finally feels as if he is not merely made of wax but fiercely, demonstrably alive.
Major Grau refuses to give up on the case and flat out accuses General Tanz of committing the murders. This only causes Tanz to call him out for supporting the plot. Tanz isn’t confronted with his deeds until twenty years later after yet another murder of a prostitute. He is tracked down by Inspector Morand (Noiret) to a conference in his honor. Naturally, he plays the same devilish cool he does throughout the film and refuses to accept defeat.
There is many pejorative references to prostitutes and their profession in this film. It seems that the film makers want to create a certain disjunct between the lofty pretensions of the Generals and their staff and the whores who they consider are polluting the street with their abject foulness. They are treated like dogs to be kicked, hardly worth troubling oneself over with an investigation. But Grau is unlike the rest. He’s dedicated to finding justice wherever it lies and will not abandon a case merely because the victim is felt to be a second class citizen by many in the upper brass.
Peter O’Toole perhaps is far too elegant and finely clothed in this film. This is the film where certain critics would have all Nazis be grunting, barely articulate fiends hardly capable of appreciating art. But O’Toole is mesmeric in this role and brings out the aesthete Nazi type in full swing. He is appealing which makes people uncomfortable because he is presenting a beautiful, thrilling Nazi to the world which when this film was made was only 22 years from the end of the war. He’s impossibly dashing and incredibly cool throughout the film; he certainly makes for the mannered, precise, hyper-polite sensible creature that the perfectly regulated General we all imagine inhabits with tremendous ease and will. Donald Pleasence has a sniveling quality about him in this film. His character is the antithesis of Tanz. He’s awkward, a bit clumsy, and far too official in his presentation. He appears as if he’s never had a really good time in his whole life. Tom Courtenay gives his character a strong, sturdy effectiveness through his gestures and maneuverings. He’s as controlled as Tanz but it doesn’t quite come off as so aristocratic. He’s still a but rugged and projects actual charm rather than an impenetrable fortress of perfect style and affectation.
Overall, this film resonates as a sensational plot film colored blood red by the gouging of a trio of harlots. The cast is exceedingly effective at bringing these characters vividly to live. Still, no matter what else, this is Peter O’Toole’s film. He commands it from the second he is seen in that uniform replete with long black leather coat. He looks so foreboding and sexualized it’s impossible not to get just a bit of a jolt from apprehending this character. Still, that has everything to do with O’Toole’s precision while portraying the character. He moves his body in an orderly manner that expresses order projected as wholly ideal by the state. Yet, truly, at his core, he’s a degenerate who represents everything the state is trying to eradicate. He’s beyond decadence with his blood lust. Or rather he takes decadence to its logical extreme. He’s cold, reserved, and well spoken. He has never been married for obvious reasons; he is married to the haughty ideals he embodies when he puts on the uniform. In it he is transformed into something vital and very unlike the person he is without it. He is not a stranger to himself.
directed by Anatole Litvak
written by Paul Dehn and Joseph Kessel
based on the novel by Hans Hellmut Kirst
starring Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif, Tom Courtenay, Pleasence, Joanna Pettet, Phillippe Noiret, Charles Gray, Coral Browne, Christopher Plummer
The July 20, 1944 plot to kill the Führer is the backdrop in this sordid tale of lust, sex murder, and the Nazi push to conquer the entire known universe.
The film opens with a ghastly murder. A prostitute has been butchered–stabbed over one hundred times–by a General in the German army. The only witness was hiding under the stairs and saw the tell-tale red stripes of the General’s trousers. Major Grau (Sharif) takes the case and learns that three Generals do not have alibis for the night in question. These include the impossibly dapper, and exquisitely high strung General Tanz (O’Toole). Tanz personifies the classic duplicity of a person who projects a precise image of themselves in public while utterly abandoning themselves to a keenly opposing lifestyle while in private. He’s a clean freak, obsessed with order, and must have his bath water at precisely 31 degrees Fahrenheit. He’s also transfixed by Vincent Van Gogh’s “decadent” self titled work know alternatively as “Vincent In Flames” and drinks and smokes extensively, something he hides in his clean-cut public image. He’s very fond of art and although he appears exceedingly uncomfortable out in public, there is a direct sense that he is drawn to the sounds, the lights, and the smells of life as it is lived by those not afraid of the dark.
The murder takes over twenty years to solve and it’s no mystery because we see the poor bastard do another one in close to the end. This would be the prime suspect all along, the goodly General Tanz who manages to make it seem as if his orderly Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann has committed the crime with some deft maneuvering. The greatly nervous Tanz goes into trances on occasion and especially when he’s gazing at the Van Gogh Painting. It’s supposed to symbol something regarding the madness inherent in the painting and how this triggers the incipient madness lying withing the General who is entirely mad throughout the film.
In many ways this is a film, at least partially, about the relationship between extreme order and dissolution and perhaps how in certain individuals they are forever intertwined. General Tanz is an example of a rigid, exacting type who must have everything precisely as he requires it at all times. But also, he’s fond of drink and manages to put off his obvious discomfort and convinces Hartmann to pick up a whore from inside a bar while he waits in his car. Of course he then uses the fact that others at the bar will have seen Hartmann and not him with the girl as a brilliant ploy to pin the blame on the younger Colonel. He’s not too thrilled with much of what passes for fun in the towns but he seems to like voyeuristically experiencing all of the filth and commonness found in one of these places. He enjoys watching the wretched have their fill at their holy troughs without actually getting his hands dirty. He wears gloves while he smokes and the effect is quite startling.
While General Tanz is shown about Paris, the plot to snuff Hitler is undertaken by a great number of the remaining Generals. Chief amongst these is Maj. General Kahlenberg (Pleasence) who secretly reveals his intentions throughout the early part of the film. We don’t get a clear picture of what is about to unfold until the second half when Kahlenberg openly mentions it. It’s an effective ploy on the part of the film makers because one feels conspiratorial before even quite knowing what is in the works. It’s difficult, to be sure, for most of the audience to relate to Tanz as he is essentially a psychopath albeit with a strange generous side. On one hand he’s doling out foodstuffs for the kiddies and then he turns about and scorches nearly the whole town just because he can. He’s a man with extremely cruel appetites and these almost always go along with an epicurean which can never be fully satisfied by merely beautiful or exotic things. There always has to be a taste of real, toxic horror in order for him to be truly alive. When he’s in control of other lives he himself finally feels as if he is not merely made of wax but fiercely, demonstrably alive.
Major Grau refuses to give up on the case and flat out accuses General Tanz of committing the murders. This only causes Tanz to call him out for supporting the plot. Tanz isn’t confronted with his deeds until twenty years later after yet another murder of a prostitute. He is tracked down by Inspector Morand (Noiret) to a conference in his honor. Naturally, he plays the same devilish cool he does throughout the film and refuses to accept defeat.
There is many pejorative references to prostitutes and their profession in this film. It seems that the film makers want to create a certain disjunct between the lofty pretensions of the Generals and their staff and the whores who they consider are polluting the street with their abject foulness. They are treated like dogs to be kicked, hardly worth troubling oneself over with an investigation. But Grau is unlike the rest. He’s dedicated to finding justice wherever it lies and will not abandon a case merely because the victim is felt to be a second class citizen by many in the upper brass.
Peter O’Toole perhaps is far too elegant and finely clothed in this film. This is the film where certain critics would have all Nazis be grunting, barely articulate fiends hardly capable of appreciating art. But O’Toole is mesmeric in this role and brings out the aesthete Nazi type in full swing. He is appealing which makes people uncomfortable because he is presenting a beautiful, thrilling Nazi to the world which when this film was made was only 22 years from the end of the war. He’s impossibly dashing and incredibly cool throughout the film; he certainly makes for the mannered, precise, hyper-polite sensible creature that the perfectly regulated General we all imagine inhabits with tremendous ease and will. Donald Pleasence has a sniveling quality about him in this film. His character is the antithesis of Tanz. He’s awkward, a bit clumsy, and far too official in his presentation. He appears as if he’s never had a really good time in his whole life. Tom Courtenay gives his character a strong, sturdy effectiveness through his gestures and maneuverings. He’s as controlled as Tanz but it doesn’t quite come off as so aristocratic. He’s still a but rugged and projects actual charm rather than an impenetrable fortress of perfect style and affectation.
Overall, this film resonates as a sensational plot film colored blood red by the gouging of a trio of harlots. The cast is exceedingly effective at bringing these characters vividly to live. Still, no matter what else, this is Peter O’Toole’s film. He commands it from the second he is seen in that uniform replete with long black leather coat. He looks so foreboding and sexualized it’s impossible not to get just a bit of a jolt from apprehending this character. Still, that has everything to do with O’Toole’s precision while portraying the character. He moves his body in an orderly manner that expresses order projected as wholly ideal by the state. Yet, truly, at his core, he’s a degenerate who represents everything the state is trying to eradicate. He’s beyond decadence with his blood lust. Or rather he takes decadence to its logical extreme. He’s cold, reserved, and well spoken. He has never been married for obvious reasons; he is married to the haughty ideals he embodies when he puts on the uniform. In it he is transformed into something vital and very unlike the person he is without it. He is not a stranger to himself.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Film Review--The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Directed by David Fincher
Written by Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Starring Brad Pitt, Julia Ormond, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, Jason Flemyng, Taraji P. Henson, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Peter Donald Badalamenti II, Tom Everett, Robert Towers, Jared Harris, Elle Fanning, Rampai Mohadi
Few films leave a strong, emotionally-laden impression once we are removed from their immediacy as cinematic experiences. Fewer still disrupt the flow of our blood or irritate our waking consciousness with slight perversions we cannot shake. This film manages to haunt the imagination with ideas that are exceedingly unsettling and will remain so. Everything dies and there isn’t a thing we can do to stop it. Time won’t stop for us no matter how boisterous our protestations and no matter how grand our efforts to make our mark. For the central character in this film, time poses a wholly novel set of problems as he has been brought into the world to age precisely in the opposite way from everyone else. It’s an intriguing conceit and the film offers a profoundly melancholy study of loss, loneliness tempered as they are by fleeting moments of the rarest joy.
The film uses a framing technique in which the story proper is contained. In this instance elderly Daisy (Blanchett) is dying in a New Orleans hospital with Hurricane Katrina bearing down). She asks her daughter Caroline (Ormond) to read from a journal written by Benjamin Button (Pitt). We are then brought into the story and witness Benjamin’s sad birth on the day celebrating the Allies’ final victory during WWI in which his mother dies during delivery. His father Thomas (Flemying) panics when he sees the baby because the poor thing has been born with disorder that gives him the physiognomy of an eighty year old man. He takes the baby to a nursing home and leaves him on the steps with $18. The child is discovered by two caretakers named Queenie (Henson) and Tizzy (Ali) who argue briefly before Queenie decides to bring the boy inside and raise him herself.
So straight away we have an interesting case of rambunctious, mildly manic child trapped in the body of a decrepit and decaying old man. He sees the world as all innocents do yet is forced by some cruel trick of nature to remain encased in a physicality that affords him nary a dream of movement or an application of limbs and delight to playtime in the typical sense. He is raised as Queenie’s own in a home where his friends fall faster than flies. He becomes acquainted with the immediacy of death while also apprehending the fact that each death merely makes room for another’s civil story to be told. Benjamin gains strength while all around his codified world others with whom he shares a passing resemblance are succumbing to their various ailments. Then he meets Daisy (Fanning) and a deep bond is forged.
Benjamin starts out a little baby boy trapped in the flesh of a helpless old man. His joints are stiff, he cannot walk, he can barely keep himself together. As his internal clock advances his actual age, his physical age reverses and so he gradually becomes younger in body but older in spirit. He throws off the shackles of the wheelchair and soon is running. Meanwhile his actual age puts him in a perfect position to welcome Daisy who sees him clearly whereas others merely see a tottering old man who is quite strange in a way they cannot fully articulate. Daisy becomes a touchstone and as Benjamin moves out of the nursing home and begins his life he maintains contact with Daisy through a number of postcards from the many ports he has visited through his job
The film employs a combination of live actors and CGI to walk the viewer through the various stages of Benjamin’s early life. Three actors play him through the early stages of his development and each of them bring a definitive sense of Self to their portrayals. All through, they capture Benjamin’s essentially innocent outlook and this perspective is never abandoned as the film progresses. In this film Benjamin is more than a mere character to whom certain events bash their ugly heads against. He is an embodiment of the joy that life is haunted by. He is a testament to thoughts that ravish the sense of duration and permanence and twist themselves into knots in our stomach as we make the vain attempts to get on with our lives. This film is not altogether bleak although it is incredibly sad from start to finish. If anything it’s simply realistic and offers a clear vision of life’s impermanence. It’s sad because it’s too grim a reminder of one’s own mortality and that remains the most difficult of all obstacles we must eventually face.
Benjamin becomes a tug boat man working for Captain Mike (Harris), a hard drinking, hard loving, artist trapped in the body of a tug boat captain. Benjamin befriends Elizabeth Abbott (Swinton), the wife of an English Spy who is staying at the same hotel as the tug boat crew. They embark upon a brief, elegant affair where they meet every evening in the lobby and stay up nearly to dawn talking, making love, etc. Elizabeth puts restrictions on their relationship by informing Benjamin that he cannot make eye contact with her during the day and that they must never say “I Love You.” Benjamin imagines himself to be in love with Elizabeth and is temporarily heartbroken when she leaves him with a note that simply says “It’s nice to have met you.” Then the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and the little tug boat is called out for war. Benjamin witnesses what he describes as deaths that just don’t seem natural as he is used to seeing death snatch those who have reached the fair end of their allotted time.
Daisy (Blanchett) haunts Benjamin throughout the film. He cannot forget the first moment when he laid eyes on her and the film certainly plays out like a tortured love affair between the two. Their paths cross over the course of the film but difficulties related to maturity levels and age always get in the way. Eventually they meet and realize they are near enough the same age to pursue a romantic relationship and the film slows down considerably as they become more intimate. Much hinges on the quiet authority of their relationship. It’s handled with delicacy and a strained urgency which brings them together as if by fate. The film spends considerable time setting up and developing this relationship and once it is consummated it becomes something of an act of resistance against the cruel order that governs hearts.
Time plays its role in the film as a great number of clocks are featured throughout. At the beginning a blind man spends several years constructing a clock for the city square. When he reveals it townsfolk are aghast because it runs backward. The creator says that this is so perhaps the boys who have gone off to war will return whole. Clocks are everywhere reminding the viewer that time will not cease to afflict mankind straight through to that inglorious end to which we all must submit. Benjamin Button is forced to endure life with a strange new formation of memories that challenges the perfect order of things. His march to the grave is not tempered with experience or maturity. Indeed, all of the memories and skills he has obtained in a life are stripped from him slowly and he can do nothing to bring them back into his realm of expertise. The world slips from him in a different, exceedingly tragic way, and he slowly devolves eternally backward into a chasm no less open for his reversed process of gaining oblivion.
There is a tremendous sadness to this film that does not abate. The film asks questions about whether or not it would be better to go out as an oblivious baby or an oblivious old man. Either way is fraught with complications that deny the accused’s right to retain a stranglehold on the remnants of their existence. Rarely has a film explored with such precision the very natures of life as it is lived and death as it is thrust upon all things that have been, against their will, brought under the coursing tyranny of life. Ingmar Bergman’s “Wild Strawberries” is perhaps the best example of a film that covers these hard, cold facts with clarity and unassuming objectivity. This film succeeds in not sentimentalizing these concerns but rather it merely states them for what they are.
This is not a romantic glorification of death as it stands. Instead, we are provided with a simple truth that cannot be disputed. It’s exacting, necessary and blindly loyal to very hard facts. That doesn’t make each death less significant or heartbreaking–indeed each death in this film takes on a pertinence that is the engine that drives the film. We are introduced to it’s permanence straight away as Benjamin experiences the passings of numerous residents toiling obscurely in the home. He meets a woman who teaches him piano. She has no visitors, never leaves, but she becomes the closest he has come to a friend until she too succumbs to the inevitable. There is so much death in this film that it shapes the very structure of the film and necessitates a certain distance between the viewer and those who must fall headlong into the grave. Otherwise, this film would be impossible to watch. There is simply too much loss in the film and each loss carries with it a tremendous weight. Death in the home is indeed quite natural and almost genteel. However there are other types of death that are cruel and unjust and make no sense whatsoever.
This is a film that clings to the ever pressing intensities of life. It celebrates action and movement and solace. Life in reverse is a releasing, a perpetual affectation that is not burdened by the hostilities that afflict those who must undergo the natural aging process. The body ceases to remind the man of his earlier failings and internal disagreements. Instead, the body casts off all doubts and pushes toward the effervescence and indeed oblivion of youth. The age of promise comes at the end when there is nothing to be done. Enthusiasm for life, just waking up and exploring the day, is met with a world-weariness that is more profoundly despairing that the curse of gnarled, angry flesh.
The performances in this film are all remarkable in their precision. Cate Blanchett possesses a decisive spirit throughout this film. She has never been filmed so exquisitely. Every aspect of her tremendous beauty both physically and as a kind soul are exploited in such a refined, dramatic way. This is a role that is hardly apparent in films today. It seems to capture the essence of the actor and projects that essence outward creating a character that is much more than merely a seminal aspect of a film. Brad Pitt is just fearless in this film. He creates a character of such sublime sympathy that one almost feels that the two hour and forty five minute running time isn’t nearly enough. Pitt captures the deep melancholy and infinite grace of Benjamin through a most understated performance. It has everything to do with his eyes and how open and reflective they are throughout the film. His innocence throughout is encouraging as life appears to his character as a purely fascinating challenge filled with genuinely thrilling and amazing moments. Life is in this sense merely a series of things that happen to us. Our entire existence is thus predicated on our experiences and our reaction to those experiences. Tilda Swinton is deliciously frail and frustrated in this film; her pain is so deliciously apparent on her face at all times. Her character embodies a regalness, a classy elegance that Swinton plays up to the hilt. Hers is a return to classic Hollywood glamour so drenched as it is with ennui and alcohol. Taraji P. Henson is perfectly cast as Benjamin’s mother. There is an infectious quality to Queenie that is carried straight through the film. She’s a bit brash, but clearly consumed with a love that radiates. Jason Flemyng captures a certain amount of loneliness and longing with his character. Thomas Button is a cold figure of infinite regret. He cannot but despair at the sight of Benjamin knowing how cruel he was to just get rid of him like he was a used can of motor oil.
Overall, this film both celebrates life and offers a clear, evenhanded depiction of the niceties of death as it remains eternally true. The final result is not grief but a desire to continue struggling for the joy that we seek for our troubles. We are haunted more by the future than what we have either accomplished or failed to do in the past. The future scares us into revolt and we long to return to those halcyon days when nothing mattered and life was a true adventure. But we are forced to slip further away from those memories that have sustained us and come to define our lives. Without memory we are rudderless and our very identity becomes suspect. We don’t get too much of Benjamin’s internal agony but just enough through Brad Pitt and the other fine actors who play Benjamin at various stages to understand something of the pathos in such an existence. There is certainly an anguish in this character and it’s a testament to the brilliant work of Brad Pitt and the rest of the cast that the film becomes truly memorable and lasting.
Directed by David Fincher
Written by Eric Roth, Robin Swicord
based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Starring Brad Pitt, Julia Ormond, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, Jason Flemyng, Taraji P. Henson, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Peter Donald Badalamenti II, Tom Everett, Robert Towers, Jared Harris, Elle Fanning, Rampai Mohadi
Few films leave a strong, emotionally-laden impression once we are removed from their immediacy as cinematic experiences. Fewer still disrupt the flow of our blood or irritate our waking consciousness with slight perversions we cannot shake. This film manages to haunt the imagination with ideas that are exceedingly unsettling and will remain so. Everything dies and there isn’t a thing we can do to stop it. Time won’t stop for us no matter how boisterous our protestations and no matter how grand our efforts to make our mark. For the central character in this film, time poses a wholly novel set of problems as he has been brought into the world to age precisely in the opposite way from everyone else. It’s an intriguing conceit and the film offers a profoundly melancholy study of loss, loneliness tempered as they are by fleeting moments of the rarest joy.
The film uses a framing technique in which the story proper is contained. In this instance elderly Daisy (Blanchett) is dying in a New Orleans hospital with Hurricane Katrina bearing down). She asks her daughter Caroline (Ormond) to read from a journal written by Benjamin Button (Pitt). We are then brought into the story and witness Benjamin’s sad birth on the day celebrating the Allies’ final victory during WWI in which his mother dies during delivery. His father Thomas (Flemying) panics when he sees the baby because the poor thing has been born with disorder that gives him the physiognomy of an eighty year old man. He takes the baby to a nursing home and leaves him on the steps with $18. The child is discovered by two caretakers named Queenie (Henson) and Tizzy (Ali) who argue briefly before Queenie decides to bring the boy inside and raise him herself.
So straight away we have an interesting case of rambunctious, mildly manic child trapped in the body of a decrepit and decaying old man. He sees the world as all innocents do yet is forced by some cruel trick of nature to remain encased in a physicality that affords him nary a dream of movement or an application of limbs and delight to playtime in the typical sense. He is raised as Queenie’s own in a home where his friends fall faster than flies. He becomes acquainted with the immediacy of death while also apprehending the fact that each death merely makes room for another’s civil story to be told. Benjamin gains strength while all around his codified world others with whom he shares a passing resemblance are succumbing to their various ailments. Then he meets Daisy (Fanning) and a deep bond is forged.
Benjamin starts out a little baby boy trapped in the flesh of a helpless old man. His joints are stiff, he cannot walk, he can barely keep himself together. As his internal clock advances his actual age, his physical age reverses and so he gradually becomes younger in body but older in spirit. He throws off the shackles of the wheelchair and soon is running. Meanwhile his actual age puts him in a perfect position to welcome Daisy who sees him clearly whereas others merely see a tottering old man who is quite strange in a way they cannot fully articulate. Daisy becomes a touchstone and as Benjamin moves out of the nursing home and begins his life he maintains contact with Daisy through a number of postcards from the many ports he has visited through his job
The film employs a combination of live actors and CGI to walk the viewer through the various stages of Benjamin’s early life. Three actors play him through the early stages of his development and each of them bring a definitive sense of Self to their portrayals. All through, they capture Benjamin’s essentially innocent outlook and this perspective is never abandoned as the film progresses. In this film Benjamin is more than a mere character to whom certain events bash their ugly heads against. He is an embodiment of the joy that life is haunted by. He is a testament to thoughts that ravish the sense of duration and permanence and twist themselves into knots in our stomach as we make the vain attempts to get on with our lives. This film is not altogether bleak although it is incredibly sad from start to finish. If anything it’s simply realistic and offers a clear vision of life’s impermanence. It’s sad because it’s too grim a reminder of one’s own mortality and that remains the most difficult of all obstacles we must eventually face.
Benjamin becomes a tug boat man working for Captain Mike (Harris), a hard drinking, hard loving, artist trapped in the body of a tug boat captain. Benjamin befriends Elizabeth Abbott (Swinton), the wife of an English Spy who is staying at the same hotel as the tug boat crew. They embark upon a brief, elegant affair where they meet every evening in the lobby and stay up nearly to dawn talking, making love, etc. Elizabeth puts restrictions on their relationship by informing Benjamin that he cannot make eye contact with her during the day and that they must never say “I Love You.” Benjamin imagines himself to be in love with Elizabeth and is temporarily heartbroken when she leaves him with a note that simply says “It’s nice to have met you.” Then the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and the little tug boat is called out for war. Benjamin witnesses what he describes as deaths that just don’t seem natural as he is used to seeing death snatch those who have reached the fair end of their allotted time.
Daisy (Blanchett) haunts Benjamin throughout the film. He cannot forget the first moment when he laid eyes on her and the film certainly plays out like a tortured love affair between the two. Their paths cross over the course of the film but difficulties related to maturity levels and age always get in the way. Eventually they meet and realize they are near enough the same age to pursue a romantic relationship and the film slows down considerably as they become more intimate. Much hinges on the quiet authority of their relationship. It’s handled with delicacy and a strained urgency which brings them together as if by fate. The film spends considerable time setting up and developing this relationship and once it is consummated it becomes something of an act of resistance against the cruel order that governs hearts.
Time plays its role in the film as a great number of clocks are featured throughout. At the beginning a blind man spends several years constructing a clock for the city square. When he reveals it townsfolk are aghast because it runs backward. The creator says that this is so perhaps the boys who have gone off to war will return whole. Clocks are everywhere reminding the viewer that time will not cease to afflict mankind straight through to that inglorious end to which we all must submit. Benjamin Button is forced to endure life with a strange new formation of memories that challenges the perfect order of things. His march to the grave is not tempered with experience or maturity. Indeed, all of the memories and skills he has obtained in a life are stripped from him slowly and he can do nothing to bring them back into his realm of expertise. The world slips from him in a different, exceedingly tragic way, and he slowly devolves eternally backward into a chasm no less open for his reversed process of gaining oblivion.
There is a tremendous sadness to this film that does not abate. The film asks questions about whether or not it would be better to go out as an oblivious baby or an oblivious old man. Either way is fraught with complications that deny the accused’s right to retain a stranglehold on the remnants of their existence. Rarely has a film explored with such precision the very natures of life as it is lived and death as it is thrust upon all things that have been, against their will, brought under the coursing tyranny of life. Ingmar Bergman’s “Wild Strawberries” is perhaps the best example of a film that covers these hard, cold facts with clarity and unassuming objectivity. This film succeeds in not sentimentalizing these concerns but rather it merely states them for what they are.
This is not a romantic glorification of death as it stands. Instead, we are provided with a simple truth that cannot be disputed. It’s exacting, necessary and blindly loyal to very hard facts. That doesn’t make each death less significant or heartbreaking–indeed each death in this film takes on a pertinence that is the engine that drives the film. We are introduced to it’s permanence straight away as Benjamin experiences the passings of numerous residents toiling obscurely in the home. He meets a woman who teaches him piano. She has no visitors, never leaves, but she becomes the closest he has come to a friend until she too succumbs to the inevitable. There is so much death in this film that it shapes the very structure of the film and necessitates a certain distance between the viewer and those who must fall headlong into the grave. Otherwise, this film would be impossible to watch. There is simply too much loss in the film and each loss carries with it a tremendous weight. Death in the home is indeed quite natural and almost genteel. However there are other types of death that are cruel and unjust and make no sense whatsoever.
This is a film that clings to the ever pressing intensities of life. It celebrates action and movement and solace. Life in reverse is a releasing, a perpetual affectation that is not burdened by the hostilities that afflict those who must undergo the natural aging process. The body ceases to remind the man of his earlier failings and internal disagreements. Instead, the body casts off all doubts and pushes toward the effervescence and indeed oblivion of youth. The age of promise comes at the end when there is nothing to be done. Enthusiasm for life, just waking up and exploring the day, is met with a world-weariness that is more profoundly despairing that the curse of gnarled, angry flesh.
The performances in this film are all remarkable in their precision. Cate Blanchett possesses a decisive spirit throughout this film. She has never been filmed so exquisitely. Every aspect of her tremendous beauty both physically and as a kind soul are exploited in such a refined, dramatic way. This is a role that is hardly apparent in films today. It seems to capture the essence of the actor and projects that essence outward creating a character that is much more than merely a seminal aspect of a film. Brad Pitt is just fearless in this film. He creates a character of such sublime sympathy that one almost feels that the two hour and forty five minute running time isn’t nearly enough. Pitt captures the deep melancholy and infinite grace of Benjamin through a most understated performance. It has everything to do with his eyes and how open and reflective they are throughout the film. His innocence throughout is encouraging as life appears to his character as a purely fascinating challenge filled with genuinely thrilling and amazing moments. Life is in this sense merely a series of things that happen to us. Our entire existence is thus predicated on our experiences and our reaction to those experiences. Tilda Swinton is deliciously frail and frustrated in this film; her pain is so deliciously apparent on her face at all times. Her character embodies a regalness, a classy elegance that Swinton plays up to the hilt. Hers is a return to classic Hollywood glamour so drenched as it is with ennui and alcohol. Taraji P. Henson is perfectly cast as Benjamin’s mother. There is an infectious quality to Queenie that is carried straight through the film. She’s a bit brash, but clearly consumed with a love that radiates. Jason Flemyng captures a certain amount of loneliness and longing with his character. Thomas Button is a cold figure of infinite regret. He cannot but despair at the sight of Benjamin knowing how cruel he was to just get rid of him like he was a used can of motor oil.
Overall, this film both celebrates life and offers a clear, evenhanded depiction of the niceties of death as it remains eternally true. The final result is not grief but a desire to continue struggling for the joy that we seek for our troubles. We are haunted more by the future than what we have either accomplished or failed to do in the past. The future scares us into revolt and we long to return to those halcyon days when nothing mattered and life was a true adventure. But we are forced to slip further away from those memories that have sustained us and come to define our lives. Without memory we are rudderless and our very identity becomes suspect. We don’t get too much of Benjamin’s internal agony but just enough through Brad Pitt and the other fine actors who play Benjamin at various stages to understand something of the pathos in such an existence. There is certainly an anguish in this character and it’s a testament to the brilliant work of Brad Pitt and the rest of the cast that the film becomes truly memorable and lasting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)