Triage: Dr. James Orbinski's Humanitarian Dilemma
directed by Patrick Reed
As a guiding light in world humanitarian efforts, Dr. James Orbinski has seen more than his share of utter heart break. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 on behalf of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for which he was a field doctor during the Somali famine and the Rwandan genocide. In this film he traces his steps 15 years since he first took the assignment and put his best foot forward in the effort to save lives.
Dr. Orbinski, a native of Toronto sets aside his daily life as a professor at the University of Toronto and as a doctor in order to reinforce memories that have haunted him from afar for the decade and a half since his work ended there.
Dr. Orbinski seems destined to apply his many medicinal talents to the project of easing misery in some of the most hostile territory on the globe. He is focused and driven in a way that few human beings ever are. The film shows us three countries as they stand today. Somalia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo become for Orbinski a chance to come to terms with what he has seen and what he hopes to see in the future.
We learn that human life can be and is treated with almost a sense of disdain in places where there is no stability and lives are lost for a variety of reasons that are wholly unnecessary. The militant government in Somalia, to take one example, often stymied the influx of foodstuffs that were so desperately needed by a population slowly succumbing one person at a time. In this climate of political unrest and rampant famine, Dr. Orbinski worked against incredible odds to reduce suffering as much as it was possible and to bring hope to the region. His safety was always threatened and there were many instances where there was simply nothing he could do to save a life.
By his own estimation, Dr. Orbinski and his team were able to aid over 80,000 sick and starving individuals who most likely would have died without the assistance. They built dozens of MSF clinics and a hospital which enabled them to perform their tasks more effectively.
The effect of the film is deeply troubling and moving. There is a genuine feeling of despair that cannot be washed off. Poverty, disease, and limited access to medicine and hospitals have ravished these populations and led to moments of outcry from the few who recognize the horrors imbedded in the landscape. Dr. Orbinski is one of those who has come face to face with the ultimate enemy of mankind. He has experienced all of human kind’s darkest instincts and has written a book to help himself make sense of all of the chaos, pain, and mayhem that he has witnessed firsthand. He is described in the film as both cynical and optimistic about what can be done to further ease the burden of suffering that so many must endure on a daily basis. He is cynical about mankind’s ability or interest in solving these glaring problems that continue to plague such large and imposing groups of people.
In Rwanda, he was there during the mass killings that took the lives of at least 500,000 persons. He saw firsthand what politically sanctioned death initiatives can do to an entire population. In this film he bears witness to the suffering simply be describing what he has seen and where he has been. He doesn’t preach any message save compassion for those who are so unduly afflicted and are too weak to establish even a modicum of their rights as participants in the whole human experiment. The film can be seen as an open call to those qualified to help and who are willing to subject themselves to great stress and danger for the pure purpose of saving lives. He never lets the audience forget just how treacherous this particular life can be but he also reminds them that without the continuing efforts of doctors, scientists, and others the situation would be a whole lot worse.
Overall, this film is yet another reminder of the struggle for decency in embattled regions that continues to seem like an almost unwinnable situation. Nevertheless, it puts forth a strong case that despite all of the horrors and difficulties the work remains and will always remain paramount because to do nothing is to sanction the atrocities, the sickness and the death. Dr. Orbinski is an example of a lone individual who has chosen to put himself at risk in a true humanitarian sense and has come back from his experiences with enough material to forge a book that will undoubtedly shed even more light on various health crises that continue to plague various regions throughout the world.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Film Review--It Came from Outer Space
It Came from Outer Space
directed by Jack Arnold
written by Harry Essex
based on a story by Ray Bradbury
starring Richard Carlson, Barbara Rush, Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, Russell Johnson, Kathleen Hughes
In this rather drab and unexceptional film adaptation of a Ray Bradbury story, aliens crash land near a mine field in Arizona causing a bit of a glaring concern. Admittedly, the 3-D effects add to the overall impact of the film but they aren’t enough to make up for a formulaic story utterly lacking substantive necessity.
John Putnam (Carlson) is an astronomer and a writer. He’s hanging out with his frigid girlfriend Ellen Fields (Rush) when a meteor like objects makes impact nearby. Naturally he investigates and learns that there is more to it than meets the eye. He makes several failed attempts he gets Sheriff Matt Warren (Drake) to believe his cockamamie story about the alien’s joy of kidnapping humans, replicating them, and walking around pretending to be their captives. Eventually he succeeds but Warren is more interested in blasting the critters to oblivion than attempting to learn anything from them. The aliens do nothing at all interesting with their amazing ability. They kidnap some transients and others but they could have done so much more. Indeed, there isn’t a whole lot of imagination on display in this film. The set designs are uninspired and mostly very ugly. The aliens themselves are not nearly as hideous as they are made out to be. They are supposed to be too ugly for humans to look at and they aren’t even mildly repulsive. They look like the inside of a refrigerator.
Ellen Fields is a bored teacher who seems to have no other role in this film than to pretty much go along with everything the men determine to be right. There is a scene where she’s standing high on a ledge of a cliff wearing a foxy dress and she actually looks aloof and glamourous. Of course she’s been replicated and what we are seeing is the alien inhabiting her body. She lets loose with a laser straight at the audience and the result is the most thrilling use of 3-D technology in the film. Otherwise she keeps her mouth shut and remains frustratingly in the background.
The absolute best moments in the film involve a very brief scene with a woman named Jane (Hughes). Hughes is only in the film for a couple of minutes but she makes a dramatic impact that is lost on the other actors in the film. She comments on her husband Matt’s hunger and the way she says it makes it clear what she is really talking about. Then when she leaves the room she says goodbye in such a way that it too is clearly suggestive of something quite naughty indeed. Unfortunately, her scene comes and goes and it’s soon back to figuring out what to do with the aliens.
The film is exceedingly claustrophobic but not in an exciting, sickening way where the film feels like it is about to crush the viewer. No, this film is simply limited to a few people who have an encounter with an ingenious race of beings who have a secret mission that is not fully revealed. It would have been thrilling to see them turning on the humans, especially the police force, but they don’t. They are wholly benign save of course their tendency to capture stray humans who get in their way.
All that is left is a 3-D experience that does manage to add a viable element to the production. There is great depth and objects are set apart from their backgrounds in an intriguing way. On occasion something like a rock flies into the audience’s faces but these moments are few and far between. Still, it’s absolutely worth seeing in this format because it is how it was intended to be seen and it’s always important to take advantage of these opportunities for novelty.
The story itself is certainly intriguing. The ideas behind it are fascinating and possess limitless possibilities in terms of application. The idea that an alien race of beings could in fact copy humans and inhabit their bodies for any purpose imaginable definitely has its merits. If only it were attacked here with more enthusiasm; perhaps it would have become something truly vital and terrifying. Aliens are supposed to scare us to death and we demand that they be frightening and capable of searing our minds with terrible images that have a lasting impact. Or, if they don’t fit into this category, they should at least have some sort of erotic appeal that is aesthetically stimulating. These creatures are just a junk heap and it’s a shame.
I wanted to at least watch the replication process. I wanted to witness the terror in the eyes of the captives, particularly Ellen. I wanted to see her when she is unduly scared. Science Fiction films get a lot of traction out of the fear exhibited by their female stars. Of course most of them just gawk and do nothing to save themselves from the imminent catastrophe. In this one Ellen just gets herself caught and is totally at the mercy of the alien forces coupled with the men outside’s ability to solve the dilemma. She is unable to effectively extricate herself from the dire situation and is essentially a victim for much of the film.
Charles Drake gives the Sheriff a rustic tenacity that is a grounding point in the film. Warren is rough and fully capable of at least initiating a mission to protect the population from any further incursions into their way of life. He’s the one solid and true character in the film and his actions make sense throughout. Richard Carlson is not utterly bereft of charm but he masks it in his everyman persona which the film is clearly going for in Putnam’s characterization. Subsequently, he’s bland and neutral which means he’s as boring as sitting around with your fat aunts Helen and Helga watching “The Price is Right” reruns. Barbara Rush has been described as pretty but not too pretty. It actually works in this film because otherwise she’d be a distraction and because the film is so dreadfully blase the male viewer would cast their gaze entirely on her. She’s frigid, certainly, but her buttoned up sexuality isn’t really present. There is nothing here just begging to be released by some cruel lover. Kathleen Hughes sells immediate sex in a few words and one gesture. It is the only sex in the entire film and it stands out for its frankness and immediacy.
Overall, this film enjoys legitimate cult status that most likely grows every year. I’m not certain what people are seeing when they view it but I find it lacking a real sense that the aliens represent some sort of danger that must be averted. They merely appear, do some mighty fine tricks, and are gone again. The humans, save a couple, are spiritless like many characters in sci-fi, unfortunately. One doesn’t quite care what happens to them and would rather they be systematically disposed of in as cruel and heartless a manner as possible. Of course this is not that sort of film and it probably shouldn’t be. It is most likely designed to make the audience uneasy but it doesn’t manage to successfully pull this off. There is no sense of panic. A thoroughly menacing and terrifying film might have come out of these ideas but this isn’t it.
directed by Jack Arnold
written by Harry Essex
based on a story by Ray Bradbury
starring Richard Carlson, Barbara Rush, Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, Russell Johnson, Kathleen Hughes
In this rather drab and unexceptional film adaptation of a Ray Bradbury story, aliens crash land near a mine field in Arizona causing a bit of a glaring concern. Admittedly, the 3-D effects add to the overall impact of the film but they aren’t enough to make up for a formulaic story utterly lacking substantive necessity.
John Putnam (Carlson) is an astronomer and a writer. He’s hanging out with his frigid girlfriend Ellen Fields (Rush) when a meteor like objects makes impact nearby. Naturally he investigates and learns that there is more to it than meets the eye. He makes several failed attempts he gets Sheriff Matt Warren (Drake) to believe his cockamamie story about the alien’s joy of kidnapping humans, replicating them, and walking around pretending to be their captives. Eventually he succeeds but Warren is more interested in blasting the critters to oblivion than attempting to learn anything from them. The aliens do nothing at all interesting with their amazing ability. They kidnap some transients and others but they could have done so much more. Indeed, there isn’t a whole lot of imagination on display in this film. The set designs are uninspired and mostly very ugly. The aliens themselves are not nearly as hideous as they are made out to be. They are supposed to be too ugly for humans to look at and they aren’t even mildly repulsive. They look like the inside of a refrigerator.
Ellen Fields is a bored teacher who seems to have no other role in this film than to pretty much go along with everything the men determine to be right. There is a scene where she’s standing high on a ledge of a cliff wearing a foxy dress and she actually looks aloof and glamourous. Of course she’s been replicated and what we are seeing is the alien inhabiting her body. She lets loose with a laser straight at the audience and the result is the most thrilling use of 3-D technology in the film. Otherwise she keeps her mouth shut and remains frustratingly in the background.
The absolute best moments in the film involve a very brief scene with a woman named Jane (Hughes). Hughes is only in the film for a couple of minutes but she makes a dramatic impact that is lost on the other actors in the film. She comments on her husband Matt’s hunger and the way she says it makes it clear what she is really talking about. Then when she leaves the room she says goodbye in such a way that it too is clearly suggestive of something quite naughty indeed. Unfortunately, her scene comes and goes and it’s soon back to figuring out what to do with the aliens.
The film is exceedingly claustrophobic but not in an exciting, sickening way where the film feels like it is about to crush the viewer. No, this film is simply limited to a few people who have an encounter with an ingenious race of beings who have a secret mission that is not fully revealed. It would have been thrilling to see them turning on the humans, especially the police force, but they don’t. They are wholly benign save of course their tendency to capture stray humans who get in their way.
All that is left is a 3-D experience that does manage to add a viable element to the production. There is great depth and objects are set apart from their backgrounds in an intriguing way. On occasion something like a rock flies into the audience’s faces but these moments are few and far between. Still, it’s absolutely worth seeing in this format because it is how it was intended to be seen and it’s always important to take advantage of these opportunities for novelty.
The story itself is certainly intriguing. The ideas behind it are fascinating and possess limitless possibilities in terms of application. The idea that an alien race of beings could in fact copy humans and inhabit their bodies for any purpose imaginable definitely has its merits. If only it were attacked here with more enthusiasm; perhaps it would have become something truly vital and terrifying. Aliens are supposed to scare us to death and we demand that they be frightening and capable of searing our minds with terrible images that have a lasting impact. Or, if they don’t fit into this category, they should at least have some sort of erotic appeal that is aesthetically stimulating. These creatures are just a junk heap and it’s a shame.
I wanted to at least watch the replication process. I wanted to witness the terror in the eyes of the captives, particularly Ellen. I wanted to see her when she is unduly scared. Science Fiction films get a lot of traction out of the fear exhibited by their female stars. Of course most of them just gawk and do nothing to save themselves from the imminent catastrophe. In this one Ellen just gets herself caught and is totally at the mercy of the alien forces coupled with the men outside’s ability to solve the dilemma. She is unable to effectively extricate herself from the dire situation and is essentially a victim for much of the film.
Charles Drake gives the Sheriff a rustic tenacity that is a grounding point in the film. Warren is rough and fully capable of at least initiating a mission to protect the population from any further incursions into their way of life. He’s the one solid and true character in the film and his actions make sense throughout. Richard Carlson is not utterly bereft of charm but he masks it in his everyman persona which the film is clearly going for in Putnam’s characterization. Subsequently, he’s bland and neutral which means he’s as boring as sitting around with your fat aunts Helen and Helga watching “The Price is Right” reruns. Barbara Rush has been described as pretty but not too pretty. It actually works in this film because otherwise she’d be a distraction and because the film is so dreadfully blase the male viewer would cast their gaze entirely on her. She’s frigid, certainly, but her buttoned up sexuality isn’t really present. There is nothing here just begging to be released by some cruel lover. Kathleen Hughes sells immediate sex in a few words and one gesture. It is the only sex in the entire film and it stands out for its frankness and immediacy.
Overall, this film enjoys legitimate cult status that most likely grows every year. I’m not certain what people are seeing when they view it but I find it lacking a real sense that the aliens represent some sort of danger that must be averted. They merely appear, do some mighty fine tricks, and are gone again. The humans, save a couple, are spiritless like many characters in sci-fi, unfortunately. One doesn’t quite care what happens to them and would rather they be systematically disposed of in as cruel and heartless a manner as possible. Of course this is not that sort of film and it probably shouldn’t be. It is most likely designed to make the audience uneasy but it doesn’t manage to successfully pull this off. There is no sense of panic. A thoroughly menacing and terrifying film might have come out of these ideas but this isn’t it.
Film Review--The Reader
The Reader
directed by Stephen Daldry
written by David Hare,
based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink
starring Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross, Vijessna Ferkic, Hannah Herzsprung, Bruno Ganz, Lena Olin, Alexandra Maria Lara,
In this gripping British drama film, based on the German novel by Bernhard Schlink, loyalty and the purity of young lust is examined with clarity and precision.
The film follows the lives of two individuals whose paths meet rather by chance. Michael Berg (Kross) gets off a tram in the pouring rain and vomits in an alleyway. He is attended to by a woman named Hanna Schmitz (Winslet) who cleans him up a bit and walks him partway home. Michael comes down with Scarlet Fever and is bedridden for three months. After recovering he pays a visit to Hanna and the pair quickly become sexually involved.
The film treats the affair rather artfully, with a lot of close ups of quivering flesh, soft lighting and a light, breezy score. One cannot help but retain the knowledge that this is a wholly illicit and in many places illegal coupling. We are supposed to view it as a lovely thing, wholesome, and beautiful for itself. It is untrammeled passion between two people utterly famished for the opportunity.
The relationship is built around both sex and texts. Michael brings books and begins to read them to Hanna. He reads “The Odyssey”, “Hucklelberry Finn”, Sappho, Schiller, and most prominently “The Lady with the Dog” by Chekov. Hanna revels in this experience even managing to cry during a particularly tragic moment. They read, satiate themselves, and read some more. Hanna points out that Michael is an excellent reader, an observation that is important for the rest of the film.
The salient aspect of this relationship is Hanna’s position of power. She controls most everything that occurs from the type of position she wants to employ to when they will be reading to the time they are to meet. She dominates the entire spectrum of behaviors that the couple engage in and Michael has little say about how events are orchestrated. Of course he doesn’t seem to mind considering how he’s dipping his wick every day in a real life grown up woman who is able and willing to fulfil his every desire. She gives him what he confuses for sex and he gives her another trophy on her mantle piece. She claims to love him but only after telling him that he doesn’t matter to her. Regardless, she has commandeered the relationship and is in a position of direct authority.
The film fast forwards six years or so and Michael is in law school under the tutelage of Professor Rohl (Ganz) who takes the small class into the courtroom to observe a trial. Michael is fidgety, looking nervously about until his eyes fix on the defendant. It is Hanna and she is being tried for war crimes. Michael becomes flush and nearly nauseous. Yet he is transfixed by the alleged crimes his former lover committed.
The trial of Hanna Schmitz takes up a considerable portion of the film. She is being charged in relation to a specific event that happened when she was a guard in the S.S. According to the affidavit Hanna and five other guards herded a large group of Jewish women into a church and bolted the doors. In the night a bomb hit the church and set it alight. As the women rushed the door screaming and wailing, none of the guards came to their aid. They let three hundred women die in the fire. When drilled for an explanation Hanna ridiculously states that the prisoners were their responsibility. They couldn’t let them go because the resultant chaos would be impossible to manage.
The film hinges on a special piece of information that Michael has been made privy to regarding Hanna. He says it is something that could change the course of her trial if not exonerate her. The only problem is that Hanna is too embarrassed by the information and would never want it made public. Regardless, it’s a narrative trick that seems designed to portray Hanna in a more forgiving light. It shows her as vulnerable, human.
Hanna is certainly a complex enough woman for several film treatments. When we first meet her she is working as a tram conductor in the late fifties. She is roughly fifteen years beyond the war and has seemed to have put it behind her. Unfortunately a woman named Ilana Mather (Lara) has written a book that features the issue of the church fire. Her mother Rose (Olin) was in the fire and in fact was the only one who escaped. Without the book it is unlikely that Hanna would have ever been tried but once the story made it into print, her fate was effectively sealed. As it is both the author and mother make appearances in the trial and there is much hand ringing. Hanna gives no indication, before her arrest, of looking over her shoulder. She presents herself as an exceedingly officious person with a keen sense of detail and order. Her job position affords her the opportunity to exploit the same tendencies that made her such an effective Nazi guard. Still, one gets the impression that she misses the codified world she inhabited when she was pushing Jewish women about and exhibiting all of the fine characteristics expected from her position. It appears on her face that she knows she is slumming a bit and that certain faculties are not being properly exercised in her present position.
The film makes its case for humanizing Hanna through many close ups that show her in various states of confusion and distress. At least it wants the audience to entertain the option that she is actually a human being who merely acted under orders. It’s an exceedingly complicated thing that cannot be fully actualized. On the one hand we see a woman capable of expressing instances of genuine affection. She laughs, she’s a good lay, etc. In the end she makes one grand gesture that of course makes up for nothing but it at least demonstrates she’s capable of a type of generosity. On the other hand there is the issue of all the Jews she actively allowed to go to their deaths. In most people’s minds, not manipulated by the affects of cinema, the Nazi activity trumps every other kind deed and she is thereby a wholesale monster deserving of whatever fate is meted out to her. I’m not so sure if that’s how we are supposed to feel. Perhaps we’re not supposed to feel any particular way; we’re only to keep a few possible reactions in mind while we pursue our analysis of this film.
We hear quite a bit about the church fire but we do not actually see it. For dramatic purposes I wonder how much harsher the reaction to Hanna would be if we witnessed everything that is alleged to have happened that day. Would it change anything if we saw her and the other guards standing about smoking cigarettes and chatting amongst themselves while the prisoners screamed in terror and the church burned? Or would this disrupt the finely honed balance between sympathy and disgust that the film is so carefully trying to maintain? Would it visually, and therefore too readily, create a portrait of her that can never be redeemed? Speculation, without visual documentation, can be skewed many different ways. But once you see what she has done, your mind is most undoubtedly set. Unless of course you take the position of the guards and sympathize with the job they are forced to do and can understand the difficulties they would face if any of the women managed to escape.
Kate Winslet gives a performance that certainly deserves to be considered one of those most likely to take home an Oscar although I liked her performance in “Revolutionary Road” more. Still, it’s controlled, intelligent, and it’s really near impossible not to sympathize with her on some level. She captures a certain aloofness and her character has a chilliness about her throughout the film that doesn’t ever wash off. Even when Hanna is in the throes of ecstatic release there is a remarkable distance between her and the body she is employing to sate her wanton lusts. Winslet plays Hanna as something of an enigma and it is difficult to ascertain the impetus for her crumbling pronouncements. Ralph Fiennes creates a character who is eternally possessed and haunted by his boyhood sexual experiences with Hanna. There is a sadness about his eyes that is consistent throughout the film. He seems lethargic at times and stuck in place. David Kross brings a youthful enthusiasm into his role as Hanna’s young paramour. Michael demonstrates a deep appreciation for the word and Kross uses this as a guide to maneuver his way throughout the film. Michael is driven, focused unswervingly on the future. Still, he is horrified by what he apprehends when he sees Hanna in the courtroom. Kross captures all of the sickly emotions tied in to such a painful moment.
Overall, this film doesn’t articulate any intended response it designs to elicit out of it’s audience. Hanna is a character who has committed reprehensible actions but who possesses real human traits such as tenderness and warmth. She is a common woman who is thrust into a most uncommon situation and she simply followed orders without question. Of course this is no excuse for letting your humanity slip to the point that you can stand by while three hundred individuals with lives and families are burnt to death. Ultimately, the film unleashes a litany of questions about what makes one a “good” person and how it may change over time. What is “good” about Hanna is battling with all of her atrocious deeds in the eyes of the viewer. Yes, she is responsible for the deaths of many women. But she also sheltered certain prisoners and protected them from the gas chambers. It’s a wholly complicated situation that proves how difficult it is to make a fair assessment about anyone. In this case, Hanna is certainly to be held responsible for any crimes against humanity that can be unilaterally proven against her. She should also not be allowed to go about recruiting young boys to satisfy her sexual needs. But, the question remains. What sort of person is Hanna Schmitz? Can inhuman acts be seen as an anomaly in someone’s character? Should they always define that person or is some sort of rehabilitation possible in the eyes of the civilized world?
directed by Stephen Daldry
written by David Hare,
based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink
starring Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross, Vijessna Ferkic, Hannah Herzsprung, Bruno Ganz, Lena Olin, Alexandra Maria Lara,
In this gripping British drama film, based on the German novel by Bernhard Schlink, loyalty and the purity of young lust is examined with clarity and precision.
The film follows the lives of two individuals whose paths meet rather by chance. Michael Berg (Kross) gets off a tram in the pouring rain and vomits in an alleyway. He is attended to by a woman named Hanna Schmitz (Winslet) who cleans him up a bit and walks him partway home. Michael comes down with Scarlet Fever and is bedridden for three months. After recovering he pays a visit to Hanna and the pair quickly become sexually involved.
The film treats the affair rather artfully, with a lot of close ups of quivering flesh, soft lighting and a light, breezy score. One cannot help but retain the knowledge that this is a wholly illicit and in many places illegal coupling. We are supposed to view it as a lovely thing, wholesome, and beautiful for itself. It is untrammeled passion between two people utterly famished for the opportunity.
The relationship is built around both sex and texts. Michael brings books and begins to read them to Hanna. He reads “The Odyssey”, “Hucklelberry Finn”, Sappho, Schiller, and most prominently “The Lady with the Dog” by Chekov. Hanna revels in this experience even managing to cry during a particularly tragic moment. They read, satiate themselves, and read some more. Hanna points out that Michael is an excellent reader, an observation that is important for the rest of the film.
The salient aspect of this relationship is Hanna’s position of power. She controls most everything that occurs from the type of position she wants to employ to when they will be reading to the time they are to meet. She dominates the entire spectrum of behaviors that the couple engage in and Michael has little say about how events are orchestrated. Of course he doesn’t seem to mind considering how he’s dipping his wick every day in a real life grown up woman who is able and willing to fulfil his every desire. She gives him what he confuses for sex and he gives her another trophy on her mantle piece. She claims to love him but only after telling him that he doesn’t matter to her. Regardless, she has commandeered the relationship and is in a position of direct authority.
The film fast forwards six years or so and Michael is in law school under the tutelage of Professor Rohl (Ganz) who takes the small class into the courtroom to observe a trial. Michael is fidgety, looking nervously about until his eyes fix on the defendant. It is Hanna and she is being tried for war crimes. Michael becomes flush and nearly nauseous. Yet he is transfixed by the alleged crimes his former lover committed.
The trial of Hanna Schmitz takes up a considerable portion of the film. She is being charged in relation to a specific event that happened when she was a guard in the S.S. According to the affidavit Hanna and five other guards herded a large group of Jewish women into a church and bolted the doors. In the night a bomb hit the church and set it alight. As the women rushed the door screaming and wailing, none of the guards came to their aid. They let three hundred women die in the fire. When drilled for an explanation Hanna ridiculously states that the prisoners were their responsibility. They couldn’t let them go because the resultant chaos would be impossible to manage.
The film hinges on a special piece of information that Michael has been made privy to regarding Hanna. He says it is something that could change the course of her trial if not exonerate her. The only problem is that Hanna is too embarrassed by the information and would never want it made public. Regardless, it’s a narrative trick that seems designed to portray Hanna in a more forgiving light. It shows her as vulnerable, human.
Hanna is certainly a complex enough woman for several film treatments. When we first meet her she is working as a tram conductor in the late fifties. She is roughly fifteen years beyond the war and has seemed to have put it behind her. Unfortunately a woman named Ilana Mather (Lara) has written a book that features the issue of the church fire. Her mother Rose (Olin) was in the fire and in fact was the only one who escaped. Without the book it is unlikely that Hanna would have ever been tried but once the story made it into print, her fate was effectively sealed. As it is both the author and mother make appearances in the trial and there is much hand ringing. Hanna gives no indication, before her arrest, of looking over her shoulder. She presents herself as an exceedingly officious person with a keen sense of detail and order. Her job position affords her the opportunity to exploit the same tendencies that made her such an effective Nazi guard. Still, one gets the impression that she misses the codified world she inhabited when she was pushing Jewish women about and exhibiting all of the fine characteristics expected from her position. It appears on her face that she knows she is slumming a bit and that certain faculties are not being properly exercised in her present position.
The film makes its case for humanizing Hanna through many close ups that show her in various states of confusion and distress. At least it wants the audience to entertain the option that she is actually a human being who merely acted under orders. It’s an exceedingly complicated thing that cannot be fully actualized. On the one hand we see a woman capable of expressing instances of genuine affection. She laughs, she’s a good lay, etc. In the end she makes one grand gesture that of course makes up for nothing but it at least demonstrates she’s capable of a type of generosity. On the other hand there is the issue of all the Jews she actively allowed to go to their deaths. In most people’s minds, not manipulated by the affects of cinema, the Nazi activity trumps every other kind deed and she is thereby a wholesale monster deserving of whatever fate is meted out to her. I’m not so sure if that’s how we are supposed to feel. Perhaps we’re not supposed to feel any particular way; we’re only to keep a few possible reactions in mind while we pursue our analysis of this film.
We hear quite a bit about the church fire but we do not actually see it. For dramatic purposes I wonder how much harsher the reaction to Hanna would be if we witnessed everything that is alleged to have happened that day. Would it change anything if we saw her and the other guards standing about smoking cigarettes and chatting amongst themselves while the prisoners screamed in terror and the church burned? Or would this disrupt the finely honed balance between sympathy and disgust that the film is so carefully trying to maintain? Would it visually, and therefore too readily, create a portrait of her that can never be redeemed? Speculation, without visual documentation, can be skewed many different ways. But once you see what she has done, your mind is most undoubtedly set. Unless of course you take the position of the guards and sympathize with the job they are forced to do and can understand the difficulties they would face if any of the women managed to escape.
Kate Winslet gives a performance that certainly deserves to be considered one of those most likely to take home an Oscar although I liked her performance in “Revolutionary Road” more. Still, it’s controlled, intelligent, and it’s really near impossible not to sympathize with her on some level. She captures a certain aloofness and her character has a chilliness about her throughout the film that doesn’t ever wash off. Even when Hanna is in the throes of ecstatic release there is a remarkable distance between her and the body she is employing to sate her wanton lusts. Winslet plays Hanna as something of an enigma and it is difficult to ascertain the impetus for her crumbling pronouncements. Ralph Fiennes creates a character who is eternally possessed and haunted by his boyhood sexual experiences with Hanna. There is a sadness about his eyes that is consistent throughout the film. He seems lethargic at times and stuck in place. David Kross brings a youthful enthusiasm into his role as Hanna’s young paramour. Michael demonstrates a deep appreciation for the word and Kross uses this as a guide to maneuver his way throughout the film. Michael is driven, focused unswervingly on the future. Still, he is horrified by what he apprehends when he sees Hanna in the courtroom. Kross captures all of the sickly emotions tied in to such a painful moment.
Overall, this film doesn’t articulate any intended response it designs to elicit out of it’s audience. Hanna is a character who has committed reprehensible actions but who possesses real human traits such as tenderness and warmth. She is a common woman who is thrust into a most uncommon situation and she simply followed orders without question. Of course this is no excuse for letting your humanity slip to the point that you can stand by while three hundred individuals with lives and families are burnt to death. Ultimately, the film unleashes a litany of questions about what makes one a “good” person and how it may change over time. What is “good” about Hanna is battling with all of her atrocious deeds in the eyes of the viewer. Yes, she is responsible for the deaths of many women. But she also sheltered certain prisoners and protected them from the gas chambers. It’s a wholly complicated situation that proves how difficult it is to make a fair assessment about anyone. In this case, Hanna is certainly to be held responsible for any crimes against humanity that can be unilaterally proven against her. She should also not be allowed to go about recruiting young boys to satisfy her sexual needs. But, the question remains. What sort of person is Hanna Schmitz? Can inhuman acts be seen as an anomaly in someone’s character? Should they always define that person or is some sort of rehabilitation possible in the eyes of the civilized world?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Film Review--This Dust of Words
This Dust of Words
written and directed by Bill Rose
In 1999, fifty year old Elizabeth Wiltsee went missing. This film traces her steps from her precocious childhood to the final journey she undertook after saying she was going home.
By all accounts Elizabeth Wiltsee was exceedingly uncommon. Rated with an IQ of 200 she was always on the fast track for tremendous success. She read Homer in the original Greek, taught herself Mandarin Chinese, and was equally adept at both Science and Literature. She possessed an uncanny ability to penetrate into the very heart of things and much of this film is based upon an essay written by one of her Stanford English Professors, a man named John Felstiner. Felstiner relates his take on Elizabeth and its fraught with tension and tenderness and allows for something of a portrait to emerge.
After Graduation Elizabeth eschewed furthering her education and au paired in Paris for a bit before moving to Spain for a year. She moved back to the States and found work in various libraries along the way. She also wrote feverishly completing two novels, numerous plays, and critical essays. She took a job as a proofreader but she couldn’t restrain herself from adding her own editorial commentary on the works as well. Eventually, she ended up in California where she rented a room in Watsonville. A few years later she was kicked out and became from that point on a homeless person. At some point she began hearing voices and became acutely paranoid that her phone was being tapped and that she was being watched.
Elizabeth’s family have put the pieces together and concluded that she suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia although she was never properly diagnosed mainly because she both feared and loathed the prospects of visiting a doctor for any reason. She fell ill with adult-set measles when she was thirty and her family believed that the difficulties she later faced were born with that sickness. This is never discussed in the film because director Bill Rose felt it would pervert the narrative.
Regardless of the source of her illness, one cannot help but ponder over the connection between near genius and mental illness. Elizabeth seemed to be the classic free spirit who refused to be pinned down and who moved around without constraint. There is no explanations here about what happened to her or why. All we are left with is a portrait of a beautiful, vivacious young woman who managed to slip into the skull of Samuel Beckett in her 1970 senior thesis.
This is a story that proves the adage, “There but by the grace of God go I”. The line between mental illness and so-called normalcy is of course paper thin. One feels baffled that such a gifted person, with rare and possessive talents, could ever find herself grappling with imaginary voices and periodic fits of absolute rage. She took refuge in a parish and slept in the doorway. She spent her days in Watsonville at the library where she studied Chinese poets and read everything she could get her hands on. One wonders about her lucidity and perhaps if she did indeed retain her unassailable ability to see more clearly than just about everyone else. What solace did it give her if any? What does a brilliant mind do when parts of it start to shut down?
Elizabeth Wiltsee is a phantom who haunts this film from start to finish. Through a voice over artist we hear her words from her novel as the camera moves slowly over water. It’s calming, soothing, but her words are deeply melancholic and fueled with dread and a quiet resignation.
A key aspect of this documentary are the individuals who stretched out a hand when Elizabeth was sleeping on the steps of the parish. One concerned woman named Toni Breese gave her peanut butter, yogurt and apples as well as a list of all the church goers along with their pictures so she might be able to connect with them. Another was a man named Walter Washington, a language arts teacher at the school attached to the parish, who brought her into the Fishes and Loaves soup kitchen and managed to get her to open up to him about her past. In fact a reporter wrote a piece on Elizabeth whom everyone seemed to know and concluded that the entire town had pitched in and were supporting her.
This film does not attempt to capture its subject because she will always remain elusive. She is an enigma that forever will remain distant and strange to anyone who attempts to solve her if only for a short while. All that is left are fragments that do not remotely express a viable truth about this single individual. Indeed, this film articulates a basic fact that will always separate even the closest friends. It is impossible to effectively read every facet of another person and there will always be gulfs that develop, lacks of understanding and empathy. Elizabeth Wiltsee lived through texts. They became her escape and most likely kept much of the violence in her head from spilling out in even more dramatic outbursts.
Elizabeth existed in a mental realm populated by the very few. Clearly her life was consumed with a mad array of possibilities regarding any type of future she might have desired. She turned her back on it and decided to pursue a more low-key existence on her own terms. It’s not easy to understand the nature of her motivation for skipping out on the brilliant future others had already mapped out for her. Perhaps it has most to do with her disdainful attitude for academe. She wrote furiously for much of her life and many of her later works were politically-oriented plays although she herself did not confess to being remotely political. Somewhere along the line the words betrayed her and began to come at her in frightening and unpredictable ways. She who filled her mind with phrases, formulas, arguments was ultimately crushed underneath their collective weight.
Overall, the film provides a rich portrait, one of many possible portraits, of a complicated woman who was difficult for many to effectively know as far as it is possible to know another person. Her mind soaked up everything she encountered and she is remembered as impossibly bright, vibrant, and consumed with an overarching desire to know everything. She never lost her thirst for knowledge, not even when the voices were attempting to impede her progress. There is something terribly romantic about someone spending most of her day obsessing over this or that special text. One can’t help but wonder if her ability to process all this material changed as her disorder worsened. Did she move from more or less a full understanding to one that was more fragmented or were the fragments always there? Are there always signs that precede the development of major mental afflictions? Can these be extracted from her Samuel Beckett thesis, plays and novels?
written and directed by Bill Rose
In 1999, fifty year old Elizabeth Wiltsee went missing. This film traces her steps from her precocious childhood to the final journey she undertook after saying she was going home.
By all accounts Elizabeth Wiltsee was exceedingly uncommon. Rated with an IQ of 200 she was always on the fast track for tremendous success. She read Homer in the original Greek, taught herself Mandarin Chinese, and was equally adept at both Science and Literature. She possessed an uncanny ability to penetrate into the very heart of things and much of this film is based upon an essay written by one of her Stanford English Professors, a man named John Felstiner. Felstiner relates his take on Elizabeth and its fraught with tension and tenderness and allows for something of a portrait to emerge.
After Graduation Elizabeth eschewed furthering her education and au paired in Paris for a bit before moving to Spain for a year. She moved back to the States and found work in various libraries along the way. She also wrote feverishly completing two novels, numerous plays, and critical essays. She took a job as a proofreader but she couldn’t restrain herself from adding her own editorial commentary on the works as well. Eventually, she ended up in California where she rented a room in Watsonville. A few years later she was kicked out and became from that point on a homeless person. At some point she began hearing voices and became acutely paranoid that her phone was being tapped and that she was being watched.
Elizabeth’s family have put the pieces together and concluded that she suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia although she was never properly diagnosed mainly because she both feared and loathed the prospects of visiting a doctor for any reason. She fell ill with adult-set measles when she was thirty and her family believed that the difficulties she later faced were born with that sickness. This is never discussed in the film because director Bill Rose felt it would pervert the narrative.
Regardless of the source of her illness, one cannot help but ponder over the connection between near genius and mental illness. Elizabeth seemed to be the classic free spirit who refused to be pinned down and who moved around without constraint. There is no explanations here about what happened to her or why. All we are left with is a portrait of a beautiful, vivacious young woman who managed to slip into the skull of Samuel Beckett in her 1970 senior thesis.
This is a story that proves the adage, “There but by the grace of God go I”. The line between mental illness and so-called normalcy is of course paper thin. One feels baffled that such a gifted person, with rare and possessive talents, could ever find herself grappling with imaginary voices and periodic fits of absolute rage. She took refuge in a parish and slept in the doorway. She spent her days in Watsonville at the library where she studied Chinese poets and read everything she could get her hands on. One wonders about her lucidity and perhaps if she did indeed retain her unassailable ability to see more clearly than just about everyone else. What solace did it give her if any? What does a brilliant mind do when parts of it start to shut down?
Elizabeth Wiltsee is a phantom who haunts this film from start to finish. Through a voice over artist we hear her words from her novel as the camera moves slowly over water. It’s calming, soothing, but her words are deeply melancholic and fueled with dread and a quiet resignation.
A key aspect of this documentary are the individuals who stretched out a hand when Elizabeth was sleeping on the steps of the parish. One concerned woman named Toni Breese gave her peanut butter, yogurt and apples as well as a list of all the church goers along with their pictures so she might be able to connect with them. Another was a man named Walter Washington, a language arts teacher at the school attached to the parish, who brought her into the Fishes and Loaves soup kitchen and managed to get her to open up to him about her past. In fact a reporter wrote a piece on Elizabeth whom everyone seemed to know and concluded that the entire town had pitched in and were supporting her.
This film does not attempt to capture its subject because she will always remain elusive. She is an enigma that forever will remain distant and strange to anyone who attempts to solve her if only for a short while. All that is left are fragments that do not remotely express a viable truth about this single individual. Indeed, this film articulates a basic fact that will always separate even the closest friends. It is impossible to effectively read every facet of another person and there will always be gulfs that develop, lacks of understanding and empathy. Elizabeth Wiltsee lived through texts. They became her escape and most likely kept much of the violence in her head from spilling out in even more dramatic outbursts.
Elizabeth existed in a mental realm populated by the very few. Clearly her life was consumed with a mad array of possibilities regarding any type of future she might have desired. She turned her back on it and decided to pursue a more low-key existence on her own terms. It’s not easy to understand the nature of her motivation for skipping out on the brilliant future others had already mapped out for her. Perhaps it has most to do with her disdainful attitude for academe. She wrote furiously for much of her life and many of her later works were politically-oriented plays although she herself did not confess to being remotely political. Somewhere along the line the words betrayed her and began to come at her in frightening and unpredictable ways. She who filled her mind with phrases, formulas, arguments was ultimately crushed underneath their collective weight.
Overall, the film provides a rich portrait, one of many possible portraits, of a complicated woman who was difficult for many to effectively know as far as it is possible to know another person. Her mind soaked up everything she encountered and she is remembered as impossibly bright, vibrant, and consumed with an overarching desire to know everything. She never lost her thirst for knowledge, not even when the voices were attempting to impede her progress. There is something terribly romantic about someone spending most of her day obsessing over this or that special text. One can’t help but wonder if her ability to process all this material changed as her disorder worsened. Did she move from more or less a full understanding to one that was more fragmented or were the fragments always there? Are there always signs that precede the development of major mental afflictions? Can these be extracted from her Samuel Beckett thesis, plays and novels?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Film Review--A Shot in the Dark
A Shot in the Dark
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty
based on the play “L’idiot” by Marcel Achard
starring Peter Sellers, Elke Sommer, George Sanders, Herbert Lom, Tracy Reed, Graham Stark, Moira Redmond,
In the second installment in the manic Pink Panther franchise, sex and murder create a mesmeric backdrop against which high lunacy plays itself out.
A lovely maid named Maria Gambrelli (Sommer) is the target of a murder investigation after her boyfriend is shot dead and she is discovered holding the still smoking murder weapon. Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) is put on the case and it doesn’t take him long to determine that Maria is not guilty of the crime. Most of his analysis has no basis in fact and he is indeed going strictly with both his instinct and his carnal lust for Maria. The film spends a lot of time orchestrating the budding romance between the two as the bumbling and idiotic Inspector continues to work toward solving the case. He has Maria released from prison mostly because he wants to goggle at her while pursuing his strict romantic interests.
Soon, there is a total of four murders and each time Maria is implicated. Each time Clouseau has her released and these actions irritate the Commissioner Charles Dreyfuss (Lom) who routinely ponders the legitimacy of having Clouseau on the case. Clouseau is repeatedly taken off and reinstated as Benjamin Ballon (Sanders), the owner of the home where the murder was committed, manages to have him put back on the case.
The formula is followed rather succinctly in this filming. Clouseau is a clumsy jackass who fails at every attempt to get any closer to the murders. He ruins suits, falls into a fountain, and embarrasses himself at every turn. He even tears poor Maria’s dress during a fumbling attempt at lovemaking. He simply hasn’t a clue yet despite everything he manages to solve the crime which in the end is his only mission. He is known for his acute sensory memory which aids him well during his struggle to formulate a plan. He simply sees and hears things that nobody else does and this ability gives him an edge over the others in his field. He is hired because he is always the best man for the job and clumsiness aside he proves this with his tremendous success rate.
The sight of a naked Clouseau stumbling through a nudist colony is exceedingly funny. Particularly as he insists on covering his naughty bits with an acoustic guitar that makes him conspicuous and even more ridiculous. He manages to get himself arrested on four different occasions for purely absurdist reasons including painting and selling balloons without a license.
In essence Inspector Clouseau in this film is nothing short of a horn dog chasing and capturing tale that he can not afford to lose sight of. Maria for her part is perfectly willing to go along with whatever whim Clouseau introduces into her prim little world.
Elke Sommer is the perfect combination of mischievous little girl and satanic tigress waiting for the right moment to pounce. Sometimes her face is the model of innocence and it betrays the sweltering heat that dwells within her candy breast. She is one of the more succulent damsels to appear in a major film production. It’s a pleasure just watching her move across the screen; she is impossibly elegant and always impressively stylish. It’s charming to imagine her as a mass murderer but of course the film does not afford one such luxuries. It’s no mystery that she is not responsible for the killings but for a brief moment one can entertain the idea and it’s scintillating.
Inspector Clouseau is of course now rightly recognized as one of the seminal characters in cinematic history. His unbalanced antics have charmed film goers in a total of eleven films including the recent remakes. In this film Peter Sellers begins to add to his character’s repertoire a series of bumbled French phrases which would become synonymous with the trip-happy Inspector. The combination of cleverly constructed physical comedy with the French language torture is irresistible especially how Sellers presents it.
Peter Sellers must have found it peculiarly challenging to master the sheer lunacy embodied by his Inspector Clouseau. There are moments where the character is chillingly serious but one knows another accident is just around the corner and that it will be dramatic and over-the-top. There haven’t been too many, if any, bumbling Inspectors in cinema so it’s true when director Blake Edwards states that the character is something of an original. Sellers certainly brings a freshness to the role that is demonstrated most clearly in his boundless energy and ability to redeem himself after so many lousy spills.
Overall, this film furthers the mysterious oddity that is Inspector Clouseau and follows him as he stumbles blindly through a case he knows instinctively he is going to solve. It is demonstrated in this film that Clouseau is simply cursed by a lack of symmetry with physical objects. He’s idiotic in his relationship with things but at his core he’s actually a very capable Inspector. He simply knows things that others fail to see and it is this extraordinary capacity that leads him to his man or woman time and time again. He’s just a bit hapless when it comes to performing fundamental tasks that most people, bereft of the affliction, take for granted. The film features Elke Sommer at her titillating best which is always a cause for celebration. She adds a massive amount of sex appeal that never wanes over the course of the film. The stunts are immaculately performed and elaborately staged. They tend to drive the film forward as they become more necessary as the film progresses. It simply becomes a matter of waiting for the next great fall and occasionally but rarely the tomfoolery supercedes the actual story. Still, it’s a fascinating tale and filled with memorable moments that are as infectious as that little pout Elke Sommer delivers to cement her place as one of the centuries truly great sex kittens.
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty
based on the play “L’idiot” by Marcel Achard
starring Peter Sellers, Elke Sommer, George Sanders, Herbert Lom, Tracy Reed, Graham Stark, Moira Redmond,
In the second installment in the manic Pink Panther franchise, sex and murder create a mesmeric backdrop against which high lunacy plays itself out.
A lovely maid named Maria Gambrelli (Sommer) is the target of a murder investigation after her boyfriend is shot dead and she is discovered holding the still smoking murder weapon. Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) is put on the case and it doesn’t take him long to determine that Maria is not guilty of the crime. Most of his analysis has no basis in fact and he is indeed going strictly with both his instinct and his carnal lust for Maria. The film spends a lot of time orchestrating the budding romance between the two as the bumbling and idiotic Inspector continues to work toward solving the case. He has Maria released from prison mostly because he wants to goggle at her while pursuing his strict romantic interests.
Soon, there is a total of four murders and each time Maria is implicated. Each time Clouseau has her released and these actions irritate the Commissioner Charles Dreyfuss (Lom) who routinely ponders the legitimacy of having Clouseau on the case. Clouseau is repeatedly taken off and reinstated as Benjamin Ballon (Sanders), the owner of the home where the murder was committed, manages to have him put back on the case.
The formula is followed rather succinctly in this filming. Clouseau is a clumsy jackass who fails at every attempt to get any closer to the murders. He ruins suits, falls into a fountain, and embarrasses himself at every turn. He even tears poor Maria’s dress during a fumbling attempt at lovemaking. He simply hasn’t a clue yet despite everything he manages to solve the crime which in the end is his only mission. He is known for his acute sensory memory which aids him well during his struggle to formulate a plan. He simply sees and hears things that nobody else does and this ability gives him an edge over the others in his field. He is hired because he is always the best man for the job and clumsiness aside he proves this with his tremendous success rate.
The sight of a naked Clouseau stumbling through a nudist colony is exceedingly funny. Particularly as he insists on covering his naughty bits with an acoustic guitar that makes him conspicuous and even more ridiculous. He manages to get himself arrested on four different occasions for purely absurdist reasons including painting and selling balloons without a license.
In essence Inspector Clouseau in this film is nothing short of a horn dog chasing and capturing tale that he can not afford to lose sight of. Maria for her part is perfectly willing to go along with whatever whim Clouseau introduces into her prim little world.
Elke Sommer is the perfect combination of mischievous little girl and satanic tigress waiting for the right moment to pounce. Sometimes her face is the model of innocence and it betrays the sweltering heat that dwells within her candy breast. She is one of the more succulent damsels to appear in a major film production. It’s a pleasure just watching her move across the screen; she is impossibly elegant and always impressively stylish. It’s charming to imagine her as a mass murderer but of course the film does not afford one such luxuries. It’s no mystery that she is not responsible for the killings but for a brief moment one can entertain the idea and it’s scintillating.
Inspector Clouseau is of course now rightly recognized as one of the seminal characters in cinematic history. His unbalanced antics have charmed film goers in a total of eleven films including the recent remakes. In this film Peter Sellers begins to add to his character’s repertoire a series of bumbled French phrases which would become synonymous with the trip-happy Inspector. The combination of cleverly constructed physical comedy with the French language torture is irresistible especially how Sellers presents it.
Peter Sellers must have found it peculiarly challenging to master the sheer lunacy embodied by his Inspector Clouseau. There are moments where the character is chillingly serious but one knows another accident is just around the corner and that it will be dramatic and over-the-top. There haven’t been too many, if any, bumbling Inspectors in cinema so it’s true when director Blake Edwards states that the character is something of an original. Sellers certainly brings a freshness to the role that is demonstrated most clearly in his boundless energy and ability to redeem himself after so many lousy spills.
Overall, this film furthers the mysterious oddity that is Inspector Clouseau and follows him as he stumbles blindly through a case he knows instinctively he is going to solve. It is demonstrated in this film that Clouseau is simply cursed by a lack of symmetry with physical objects. He’s idiotic in his relationship with things but at his core he’s actually a very capable Inspector. He simply knows things that others fail to see and it is this extraordinary capacity that leads him to his man or woman time and time again. He’s just a bit hapless when it comes to performing fundamental tasks that most people, bereft of the affliction, take for granted. The film features Elke Sommer at her titillating best which is always a cause for celebration. She adds a massive amount of sex appeal that never wanes over the course of the film. The stunts are immaculately performed and elaborately staged. They tend to drive the film forward as they become more necessary as the film progresses. It simply becomes a matter of waiting for the next great fall and occasionally but rarely the tomfoolery supercedes the actual story. Still, it’s a fascinating tale and filled with memorable moments that are as infectious as that little pout Elke Sommer delivers to cement her place as one of the centuries truly great sex kittens.
Film Review--The Pink Panther (1963)
The Pink Panther (1963)
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards
starring Peter Sellers, David Niven, Robert Wagner, Capucine, Brenda De Banzie, Claudia Cardinale,
In the first installment in the Pink Panther franchise, the infamous idiot Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) battles a world renowned jewel thief known only as “The Phantom”.
A lovely Princess named Dala (Cardinale) is in possession of the largest diamond in the world which is flawed deep inside with the shape of a leaping Pink Panther, thus its name. It was a gift from her father, the Shah of Lugash, when she was a little girl and naturally it’s desired by nefarious creeps the world over. The Princess is a slinky thing, purring enticingly as she quietly observes the dissolute revelers around her. She is referred to in the papers as “The Virgin Queen” and falls into the waiting arms of Sir Charles Lytton (Niven) who attempts to woo her by plying her with too much champagne. Charles is also attempting to steal her diamond as he is the one and only Phantom, a thief who has been confounding authorities for more than twenty years. During this entire run he has struck every year at one of the many parties thrown by socialite Angela Dunning (Banzie), a chatty broad who takes her elevated lot in life a bit too seriously.
The film has a swingin’ sixties vibe to it as it seems to be filled with wealthy types who apparently have too much free time on their hands. They dance, they drink, and they carry on like hogs at a feeding trough. There is a hint of scandal in the air as the crowds swoon and titter about nothing in particular. Angela’s parties are always lavish affairs and this one includes a mad array of costumes including a zebra, two gorillas and a number of strange and slightly elegant concoctions.
Inspector Clouseau’s naughty little wife Simone (Capucine) is sneaking around behind his back with Sir Charles. She’s also helping the master thief in his attempt to realize his latest score. Of course the bumbling Clouseau has no clue about anything whatsoever especially the filthy maneuverings of his treasured wife.
The film is based around the clumsiness and buffoonery of Clouseau. He routinely falls down, runs into things, destroys clothing and other objects, and essentially anything that isn’t nailed down. Peter Sellers is indeed deserving of his reputation as a comedic genius because it can’t be all that easy to behave so destructively on purpose. Falling down is as old a staple in comedy as comedy itself. There are few who turn it into ballet however and Sellers is certainly one of those. It’s one of those things that gets funnier the more you see it and this isn’t the case with many who have lived and died by the pratfall. Indeed, Sellers is one of the few who have elevated the discipline to high art.
The film oozes with bawdy sex appeal as the party goers dance and flirt playfully throughout the course of the evening. There is a ribald essence to each maneuver and the players all seem ready for some illicit encounter or another. Of course the most succinct player is Sir Charles who it is described can juggle ten women at once and not drop a single one. David Niven certainly has the correct approach in this film. He infuses Sir Charles with the proper intensity and charisma which it is clear can not be resisted by any woman fool enough to get caught in his lair. Sir Charles is the best kind of anti-hero. He’s more attractive and genuine than any other man in the room and his confidence knows no bounds. His luck with the ladies proves that ambition coupled with an overarching desire can be insistent enough to convince just about any woman to slip out of her clothes for a special rendezvous. Of course there is always a Princess Dala to make things interesting.
The film isn’t as much about the Pink Panther as it is about selling a free and loose lifestyle enjoyed by those who can afford most of life’s pleasures and take advantage of this fact at every turn. There are several long scenes between characters who suffer various frustrations that afflict them in interesting ways. One such scene depicts the Princess and Sir Charles as he attempts to lay on the charm and sway her into his bed. Unfortunately for Sir Charles she is devoted to her virginal status and manages to pass out on champagne before he can make his move.
Sir Charles’s son George shows up straight from Yale with the sole intention of stealing the diamond and blaming the theft on the Phantom. Unfortunately he discovers that his dad is the master thief which puts a bit of a kink in his plans. Subsequently he spends all of his time trying to get into Simone’s panties. Simone is relegated to fending off all of his many advances and he seems unwilling to take no for an answer. It’s but another relationship trouble that is prevalent throughout the course of the film. The only one not benefiting from the slippery sexual politics is Inspector Clouseau who seems too bent on causing inadvertent mayhem through his bumbling stupidity. He’s forced to eschew sexual gratification in order to solve the case once and for all after failing so many times before.
As mentioned Peter Sellers is supremely entertaining throughout this film if witnessing a buffoon stumbling about and knocking everything over in his path is particular to one’s brand of comedic bliss. But what really impresses is the solidity of his performance when he’s not falling down and making an ass out himself. He’s very good at playing it straight and mock-serious as the audience awaits the next great physical demonstration. David Niven has all of the attributes one expects from a Lothario who can bed any woman he desires. Sir Charles is cool, well ordered, and exceedingly graceful throughout. His ease of movement is intoxicating and it’s easy to live through him as he goes about the business of securing the holy diamond and trying to bed any woman he encounters. Niven captures ever aspect of the ideal male character with such ease that it’s almost perverse. His charm is ruthless and brutal in its effectiveness. Capucine captures her character’s core desirability and her insatiable sexual appetite. Claudia Cardinale is perfectly cast as Princess Dala. She’s highly believable as the luxurious sex pot who refuses to give her self up to just any man, including the celebrated Sir Charles. Yet Cardinale plays her as robust and genuinely affected but there is but a hint of sadness to the character that Cardinale reveals mostly through her eyes.
Overall this is a top notch comedy of errors that has the extra bonus of the perennially baffled Inspector Clouseau irritating everyone about him with his foolish antics. He does everything wrong and the exaggerated results of his faulty actions lend the film an air of absurdity which it uses effectively. Clouseau is simply one of the few characters whose actions are immediately recognizable and Sellers remains for many the seminal portrayer of this menacing pest who is a real and lasting threat to himself and others. His behavior is just one of the many reasons that make this film so successful. It’s got mystery, sex, and betrayal and these components work together to create a thoroughly engrossing film that never loses its momentum.
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards
starring Peter Sellers, David Niven, Robert Wagner, Capucine, Brenda De Banzie, Claudia Cardinale,
In the first installment in the Pink Panther franchise, the infamous idiot Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) battles a world renowned jewel thief known only as “The Phantom”.
A lovely Princess named Dala (Cardinale) is in possession of the largest diamond in the world which is flawed deep inside with the shape of a leaping Pink Panther, thus its name. It was a gift from her father, the Shah of Lugash, when she was a little girl and naturally it’s desired by nefarious creeps the world over. The Princess is a slinky thing, purring enticingly as she quietly observes the dissolute revelers around her. She is referred to in the papers as “The Virgin Queen” and falls into the waiting arms of Sir Charles Lytton (Niven) who attempts to woo her by plying her with too much champagne. Charles is also attempting to steal her diamond as he is the one and only Phantom, a thief who has been confounding authorities for more than twenty years. During this entire run he has struck every year at one of the many parties thrown by socialite Angela Dunning (Banzie), a chatty broad who takes her elevated lot in life a bit too seriously.
The film has a swingin’ sixties vibe to it as it seems to be filled with wealthy types who apparently have too much free time on their hands. They dance, they drink, and they carry on like hogs at a feeding trough. There is a hint of scandal in the air as the crowds swoon and titter about nothing in particular. Angela’s parties are always lavish affairs and this one includes a mad array of costumes including a zebra, two gorillas and a number of strange and slightly elegant concoctions.
Inspector Clouseau’s naughty little wife Simone (Capucine) is sneaking around behind his back with Sir Charles. She’s also helping the master thief in his attempt to realize his latest score. Of course the bumbling Clouseau has no clue about anything whatsoever especially the filthy maneuverings of his treasured wife.
The film is based around the clumsiness and buffoonery of Clouseau. He routinely falls down, runs into things, destroys clothing and other objects, and essentially anything that isn’t nailed down. Peter Sellers is indeed deserving of his reputation as a comedic genius because it can’t be all that easy to behave so destructively on purpose. Falling down is as old a staple in comedy as comedy itself. There are few who turn it into ballet however and Sellers is certainly one of those. It’s one of those things that gets funnier the more you see it and this isn’t the case with many who have lived and died by the pratfall. Indeed, Sellers is one of the few who have elevated the discipline to high art.
The film oozes with bawdy sex appeal as the party goers dance and flirt playfully throughout the course of the evening. There is a ribald essence to each maneuver and the players all seem ready for some illicit encounter or another. Of course the most succinct player is Sir Charles who it is described can juggle ten women at once and not drop a single one. David Niven certainly has the correct approach in this film. He infuses Sir Charles with the proper intensity and charisma which it is clear can not be resisted by any woman fool enough to get caught in his lair. Sir Charles is the best kind of anti-hero. He’s more attractive and genuine than any other man in the room and his confidence knows no bounds. His luck with the ladies proves that ambition coupled with an overarching desire can be insistent enough to convince just about any woman to slip out of her clothes for a special rendezvous. Of course there is always a Princess Dala to make things interesting.
The film isn’t as much about the Pink Panther as it is about selling a free and loose lifestyle enjoyed by those who can afford most of life’s pleasures and take advantage of this fact at every turn. There are several long scenes between characters who suffer various frustrations that afflict them in interesting ways. One such scene depicts the Princess and Sir Charles as he attempts to lay on the charm and sway her into his bed. Unfortunately for Sir Charles she is devoted to her virginal status and manages to pass out on champagne before he can make his move.
Sir Charles’s son George shows up straight from Yale with the sole intention of stealing the diamond and blaming the theft on the Phantom. Unfortunately he discovers that his dad is the master thief which puts a bit of a kink in his plans. Subsequently he spends all of his time trying to get into Simone’s panties. Simone is relegated to fending off all of his many advances and he seems unwilling to take no for an answer. It’s but another relationship trouble that is prevalent throughout the course of the film. The only one not benefiting from the slippery sexual politics is Inspector Clouseau who seems too bent on causing inadvertent mayhem through his bumbling stupidity. He’s forced to eschew sexual gratification in order to solve the case once and for all after failing so many times before.
As mentioned Peter Sellers is supremely entertaining throughout this film if witnessing a buffoon stumbling about and knocking everything over in his path is particular to one’s brand of comedic bliss. But what really impresses is the solidity of his performance when he’s not falling down and making an ass out himself. He’s very good at playing it straight and mock-serious as the audience awaits the next great physical demonstration. David Niven has all of the attributes one expects from a Lothario who can bed any woman he desires. Sir Charles is cool, well ordered, and exceedingly graceful throughout. His ease of movement is intoxicating and it’s easy to live through him as he goes about the business of securing the holy diamond and trying to bed any woman he encounters. Niven captures ever aspect of the ideal male character with such ease that it’s almost perverse. His charm is ruthless and brutal in its effectiveness. Capucine captures her character’s core desirability and her insatiable sexual appetite. Claudia Cardinale is perfectly cast as Princess Dala. She’s highly believable as the luxurious sex pot who refuses to give her self up to just any man, including the celebrated Sir Charles. Yet Cardinale plays her as robust and genuinely affected but there is but a hint of sadness to the character that Cardinale reveals mostly through her eyes.
Overall this is a top notch comedy of errors that has the extra bonus of the perennially baffled Inspector Clouseau irritating everyone about him with his foolish antics. He does everything wrong and the exaggerated results of his faulty actions lend the film an air of absurdity which it uses effectively. Clouseau is simply one of the few characters whose actions are immediately recognizable and Sellers remains for many the seminal portrayer of this menacing pest who is a real and lasting threat to himself and others. His behavior is just one of the many reasons that make this film so successful. It’s got mystery, sex, and betrayal and these components work together to create a thoroughly engrossing film that never loses its momentum.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Film Review--The Wrestler
The Wrestler
directed by Darrin Aranofsky,
written by Robert D. Siegel
starring Micky Rourke, Marisa Tomei Evan Rachel Wood, Ernest Miller
Two people struggle to come to terms with the ravages of age and the feeling that life has become increasingly more difficult at every turn.
Robin Ramzinski known to his legions of fans as Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Rourke) used to be a wrestling champion who once fought a match against the Ayatollah (Miller) at Madison Square Garden in front of 20,000 fans. Twenty years on he’s picking up weekend matches on the local circuit while working part time unloading at a grocery store. Pam, known as “Cassidy” to her customers at a local strip club, is no longer as desirable as a lap dancer as she once was. She’s a thirty plus mother of an eight year old boy and she knows instinctively that she needs to get out of the game of selling the illusion of sex for cold hard cash.
Randy is one of Cassidy’s regulars and she insists on treating him like a customer because it’s the law of the club that she is prohibited from fraternizing with him. She tries to cement this idea in Randy’s head but he refuses to listen. He convinces her to have a beer with him and they share a brief kiss. It’s handled with great delicacy and comes across as utterly significant. It clearly illustrates the difficult situation Cassidy finds herself in because she wants more but is too afraid to admit it to herself. Citing the rules of the club is just a means of attempting to use policy to protect herself from getting hurt. The tension between these two characters is intense for the duration of the film.
The film hinges on these two performances and both of them are total daggers straight through the heart. Mickey Rourke possesses a massive presence that resonates throughout the film and it isn’t necessarily related to his physicality. Randy is an enormous person inside, completely separate from the body which threatens to break down at every turn. Indeed, Rourke has created here a character who has fallen so far down that he’s not sure where he needs to stand to start climbing back up. A rematch is scheduled with the Ayatollah and Randy considers this the first step back up to the top. It’s not beyond the possible but in viewing his body it’s difficult to imagine that it could ever hold up long enough to make the climb. Especially after he suffers a heart attack and is forced to undergo a bypass surgery. He is told not to wrestle ever again. He is told to stop taking steroids.
Mickey Rourke gives a heartbreaking performance that is consumed with a brutal silence that resonates in every frame. He makes the audience feel every cut, every gouge, and every other wound that is inflicted upon his flesh. There is a very real sense of the transforming nature of pain, of suffering, as it is experienced in real time. Rourke’s work in this film is as subtle as it is imposing as his character battles both his opponents and the tyranny of time. Admittedly, I was near tears for the first half of the film and this is the result of the way Randy carries himself throughout the early part of the film. It’s devastating to watch his body move so agonizing slow as it’s clear he’s enduring considerable pain that he suffers because of his untrammeled marriage to the ring, the glory, and the experience of being lauded by his current fans many of whom remember what it was like when he was wrestling for serious money. Rourke captures the breadth of Randy’s insistence to return to the ring time and again knowing the impact it is having on his health. He makes us believe in Randy’s need for this, his addiction to the accolades that still pour over him like light whenever he enters the ring. They still cheer for him and such a response provides him with a boost that he can get nowhere else. Life has let him down but the ring still remains a place in which he can be appreciated mainly for the stallion he once was and by rights will never be again.
Randy embodies the once great performer who has been reduced to a shadow of the totemic presence he once inflicted on the circus of primacy which informed the ring in which he stood supreme. His fall from the pinnacle of greatness has been gradual and almost imperceptible. It has landed him in a small trailer working a job he hates. After deciding to back out of the rematch with the Ayatolla he agrees to take on extra hours working the deli counter at the grocery store. We follow Randy until he stands on the precipice before entering the deli and the soundtrack of the film plays applause. We view his work at the deli as something of a crushing blow. He is humiliated and it’s clear the film wants us to view this experience as uniformly degrading to such a man who once commanded the allegiance of tens of thousands of rabid fans to whom he was an icon of terrible strength and skill. It’s a mighty step down and one can sense the frustration on Randy’s face as he dishes up ham and pesto salad from behind the imprisoning counter. Yet he is able to put on a happy little face which only proves to be more devastating.
The film presents a wide array of contemporary Professional wrestlers who provide the film with authenticity. It’s humorous to watch the wrestlers who have been pitted against each other back stage going over their game plan with one another for the audience. One such match is exquisitely difficult to watch as it includes staple guns, barbed wire and broken glass. Randy is particularly wounded by the barb wire and it leaves a nasty gash above his stomach. It’s a reminder of the insatiable desire for barbarism and the desperation of the wrestlers to remain in the public’s eye if only for just one more match.
After Randy suffers a heart attack he is faced with an almost impossible dilemma. The thought of giving up wrestling is abhorrent to him because the prospect of life outside the ring fills him with
such dread. He simply cannot bear the fact that he might be prevented from doing the one thing that has ever brought him joy. Cassidy convinces Randy to seek out his daughter Stephanie (Wood) after having been absent from her life for many years. At first Stephanie is hesitant and exceedingly angry. On the second visit he convinces her to spend the afternoon with him. They agree to meet the following Saturday but Randy does coke and gets laid, waking up after the agreed upon meeting time. He goes to Stephanie’s home late that evening and is immediately chastised by her. She tells him their relationship is over and that she never wants to see him again.
Marisa Tomei plays a decisively strong and fiercely independent character who is really two people. She is the devoted mother who cares for her son and does everything a good mother ought to. She is also a stripper who grinds on a pole and sells herself cheaply to any man with enough cash to order her to move in a most specific manner. She insists that the two selves do not bleed into one another but it’s impossible to believe that this is indeed true. There is too much sadness in Cassidy eyes that is slowly lifted over time as she works toward pulling herself up and out of the quagmire. It’s a tribute to Tomei’s work here that she doesn’t allow Cassidy to fully collapse in on herself. Cassidy makes great strides to extricate herself from her prison and it’s profoundly moving to watch her make the effort.
Evan Rachel Wood gives a startling performance as Stephanie. She’s not in the film very often but one gets a legitimate sense of her character’s rage as she faces the father she has all but declared as dead. All the promises broken, all the shattered hopes, are written clearly on Wood’s face. In many ways it’s a terrifying performance because it expresses with clarity how wrong Randy has been regarding his obligations to his flesh and blood. Stephanie has suffered Randy’s lack of commitment to her and Wood brings this all to bear with her work in this film.
Overall, this film consistently pulls the rug out from under the viewer. Emotional truths are handled with conviction but they never come across precisely as expected. This is a daring film that captures all of the wrecked vitality of its two leads without ever succumbing to sentimentality. These characters are cruelly realistically and their relationships are gratifyingly complicated. There are no easy answers in this film and the final sequences contain mysteries they maintain straight up to the end. This film offers portraits of individuals who all possess a very real pain that afflicts them with tremendous pressure much of the time. Yet, there is also much more here and this is the product of the performers who lay themselves out in some of the most naked performances I have ever seen. This is a raw, difficult film that comes off as exceedingly honest, hard, and supremely forthcoming.
directed by Darrin Aranofsky,
written by Robert D. Siegel
starring Micky Rourke, Marisa Tomei Evan Rachel Wood, Ernest Miller
Two people struggle to come to terms with the ravages of age and the feeling that life has become increasingly more difficult at every turn.
Robin Ramzinski known to his legions of fans as Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Rourke) used to be a wrestling champion who once fought a match against the Ayatollah (Miller) at Madison Square Garden in front of 20,000 fans. Twenty years on he’s picking up weekend matches on the local circuit while working part time unloading at a grocery store. Pam, known as “Cassidy” to her customers at a local strip club, is no longer as desirable as a lap dancer as she once was. She’s a thirty plus mother of an eight year old boy and she knows instinctively that she needs to get out of the game of selling the illusion of sex for cold hard cash.
Randy is one of Cassidy’s regulars and she insists on treating him like a customer because it’s the law of the club that she is prohibited from fraternizing with him. She tries to cement this idea in Randy’s head but he refuses to listen. He convinces her to have a beer with him and they share a brief kiss. It’s handled with great delicacy and comes across as utterly significant. It clearly illustrates the difficult situation Cassidy finds herself in because she wants more but is too afraid to admit it to herself. Citing the rules of the club is just a means of attempting to use policy to protect herself from getting hurt. The tension between these two characters is intense for the duration of the film.
The film hinges on these two performances and both of them are total daggers straight through the heart. Mickey Rourke possesses a massive presence that resonates throughout the film and it isn’t necessarily related to his physicality. Randy is an enormous person inside, completely separate from the body which threatens to break down at every turn. Indeed, Rourke has created here a character who has fallen so far down that he’s not sure where he needs to stand to start climbing back up. A rematch is scheduled with the Ayatollah and Randy considers this the first step back up to the top. It’s not beyond the possible but in viewing his body it’s difficult to imagine that it could ever hold up long enough to make the climb. Especially after he suffers a heart attack and is forced to undergo a bypass surgery. He is told not to wrestle ever again. He is told to stop taking steroids.
Mickey Rourke gives a heartbreaking performance that is consumed with a brutal silence that resonates in every frame. He makes the audience feel every cut, every gouge, and every other wound that is inflicted upon his flesh. There is a very real sense of the transforming nature of pain, of suffering, as it is experienced in real time. Rourke’s work in this film is as subtle as it is imposing as his character battles both his opponents and the tyranny of time. Admittedly, I was near tears for the first half of the film and this is the result of the way Randy carries himself throughout the early part of the film. It’s devastating to watch his body move so agonizing slow as it’s clear he’s enduring considerable pain that he suffers because of his untrammeled marriage to the ring, the glory, and the experience of being lauded by his current fans many of whom remember what it was like when he was wrestling for serious money. Rourke captures the breadth of Randy’s insistence to return to the ring time and again knowing the impact it is having on his health. He makes us believe in Randy’s need for this, his addiction to the accolades that still pour over him like light whenever he enters the ring. They still cheer for him and such a response provides him with a boost that he can get nowhere else. Life has let him down but the ring still remains a place in which he can be appreciated mainly for the stallion he once was and by rights will never be again.
Randy embodies the once great performer who has been reduced to a shadow of the totemic presence he once inflicted on the circus of primacy which informed the ring in which he stood supreme. His fall from the pinnacle of greatness has been gradual and almost imperceptible. It has landed him in a small trailer working a job he hates. After deciding to back out of the rematch with the Ayatolla he agrees to take on extra hours working the deli counter at the grocery store. We follow Randy until he stands on the precipice before entering the deli and the soundtrack of the film plays applause. We view his work at the deli as something of a crushing blow. He is humiliated and it’s clear the film wants us to view this experience as uniformly degrading to such a man who once commanded the allegiance of tens of thousands of rabid fans to whom he was an icon of terrible strength and skill. It’s a mighty step down and one can sense the frustration on Randy’s face as he dishes up ham and pesto salad from behind the imprisoning counter. Yet he is able to put on a happy little face which only proves to be more devastating.
The film presents a wide array of contemporary Professional wrestlers who provide the film with authenticity. It’s humorous to watch the wrestlers who have been pitted against each other back stage going over their game plan with one another for the audience. One such match is exquisitely difficult to watch as it includes staple guns, barbed wire and broken glass. Randy is particularly wounded by the barb wire and it leaves a nasty gash above his stomach. It’s a reminder of the insatiable desire for barbarism and the desperation of the wrestlers to remain in the public’s eye if only for just one more match.
After Randy suffers a heart attack he is faced with an almost impossible dilemma. The thought of giving up wrestling is abhorrent to him because the prospect of life outside the ring fills him with
such dread. He simply cannot bear the fact that he might be prevented from doing the one thing that has ever brought him joy. Cassidy convinces Randy to seek out his daughter Stephanie (Wood) after having been absent from her life for many years. At first Stephanie is hesitant and exceedingly angry. On the second visit he convinces her to spend the afternoon with him. They agree to meet the following Saturday but Randy does coke and gets laid, waking up after the agreed upon meeting time. He goes to Stephanie’s home late that evening and is immediately chastised by her. She tells him their relationship is over and that she never wants to see him again.
Marisa Tomei plays a decisively strong and fiercely independent character who is really two people. She is the devoted mother who cares for her son and does everything a good mother ought to. She is also a stripper who grinds on a pole and sells herself cheaply to any man with enough cash to order her to move in a most specific manner. She insists that the two selves do not bleed into one another but it’s impossible to believe that this is indeed true. There is too much sadness in Cassidy eyes that is slowly lifted over time as she works toward pulling herself up and out of the quagmire. It’s a tribute to Tomei’s work here that she doesn’t allow Cassidy to fully collapse in on herself. Cassidy makes great strides to extricate herself from her prison and it’s profoundly moving to watch her make the effort.
Evan Rachel Wood gives a startling performance as Stephanie. She’s not in the film very often but one gets a legitimate sense of her character’s rage as she faces the father she has all but declared as dead. All the promises broken, all the shattered hopes, are written clearly on Wood’s face. In many ways it’s a terrifying performance because it expresses with clarity how wrong Randy has been regarding his obligations to his flesh and blood. Stephanie has suffered Randy’s lack of commitment to her and Wood brings this all to bear with her work in this film.
Overall, this film consistently pulls the rug out from under the viewer. Emotional truths are handled with conviction but they never come across precisely as expected. This is a daring film that captures all of the wrecked vitality of its two leads without ever succumbing to sentimentality. These characters are cruelly realistically and their relationships are gratifyingly complicated. There are no easy answers in this film and the final sequences contain mysteries they maintain straight up to the end. This film offers portraits of individuals who all possess a very real pain that afflicts them with tremendous pressure much of the time. Yet, there is also much more here and this is the product of the performers who lay themselves out in some of the most naked performances I have ever seen. This is a raw, difficult film that comes off as exceedingly honest, hard, and supremely forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)