Street Fighter
written and directed by Steven E. de Souza
starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Ming-Na, Damian Chapa, Kylie Minogue, Roshan Seth, Wes Studi, Byron Mann, Peter Navy Tuiasosopo
Yet another film based on a video game, Street Fighters tackles the presence of man who is portrayed as an Evil Warlord by the proper world and as a man of peace by the dictator himself. General M. Bison (Julia) has plans on taking over the world and forcing every population to bow down before him in a grisly display of universal capitulation before the throne of the mighty one. He is facing a direct threat by the Allied Nation forces who are led by Colonel William F. Guile (Van Damme) who are hellbent on bringing him down because he has kidnapped a number of AN workers and is demanding 20 billion dollars.
The film focuses on the antics of a number of personages as they attempt to thwart the machinations of Bison and his forces. Chief among these is a local reporter named Chun-Li Zang (Ming-Na) who has a serious, long-standing grudge against Bison for a crime against her family. She’s also adept at martial arts and slinking about in sexy get-ups that are definitely a must see.
The film offers some decent martial arts fighting although it isn’t particularly special. It lacks elegance and any poetry but it isn’t bad as far as it goes. Van Damme certainly knows how to look most impressive when he’s delivering a drop kick or smashing someone’s skull. But, what makes him stand out is certainly his charisma which is patently obvious throughout the film. He immediately establishes a likability which is necessary for any heroic figure if he or she is to capture the audience and drag them along to the fight. In this case, Van Damme does this rather well; unfortunately he doesn’t have much to play with.
The story is one dimensional as it all targets the devilment of General Bison. In great Hitler fashion he is seen pondering the glorious structures he is to build once his world empire is effectively established. He is a gleeful man, filled with whimsy, and utterly unable to understand just why everyone keeps calling him a warlord. Certainly he used to be a drug lord but he simply wants everyone to get along peaceably. Of course this cannot occur until the world is his and he decides what goes and what stays. Perhaps its due to the charm of Raul Julia but Bison comes off as a wholly sympathetic character who is far more intriguing that all of the others save perhaps Guile (and that is again up to charm and charisma which few action heroes can match).
So, everything ends up at Bison’s compound and eventually a terrible battle ensues. It’s predictable, trite, and lacking in legitimate thrills. It’s like every other mediocre fighting sequences that has ever been filmed. It’s rudimentary, styleless, and coarse. It’s also cartoonish and comical at times. Bodies fly unpoetically about as the heroes make their push into the heart of the grinning beast.
As is often the case in these films the villain is far more fascinating than anyone else trudging through the film. Bison is simply a man with a divine purpose. He wants to create the ultimate soldier in order to facilitate his designs on world domination. It’s an understandable plan but of course we are supposed to consider it demonic and a grave threat to the integrity of the human race which it no doubt is in Bison’s hands. But there is just something about the way Bison prances about like a tit. His gestures are too grand, too demonstrative. At one point he even laughs manically after laying out the fabric for his master plan. In many ways it’s a caricature of the mad despot although he doesn’t actually flail his arms about or succumb to a hissy fit like a disgruntled little girl mad with power.
The film contains many familiar elements and does nothing particularly unusual with them. It’s a generic heroic mission against a tyrannical power with pretenses for global domination. The bad man must be stopped and his plan foiled. It’s up to the heroes to penetrate his lair and take him down. There are a few attempts at witty banter, many fight sequences, and one character who puts himself into direct contact with the enemy thereby risking his or her life for the good of all.
Overall, the film is nothing more than a vehicle for Jean-Claude Van Damme to represent as the anchor of a feature who can carry the weight all by himself. For the most part he succeeds but he does have some help by Ming-Na and Raul Julia who demonstrate their commitment to the project throughout the film.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Film Review--Push
Push
directed by Paul McGuigan
written by David Bourla
starring Djimon Hounsou, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Neil Jackson, Chris Evans, Cliff Curtis, Ming-Na, Nate Mooney, Maggie Siff
This convoluted, unintentionally funny film is consumed with flash and cortisone at the expense of a coherent, watchable story.
The story certainly must make sense on paper. All of the angles, strange weavings, side traps, and frustrating curvatures must be absolutely clear to whomever pitched the film but to the audience, not so much. It isn’t simply that it’s almost impossible to figure out everything that is happening, it’s that the film is so excruciatingly stylistic while it is jerking one’s chain and expecting one to adore it for that very style that is so strangling. Yes, it looks interesting at times but no more interesting that the Bourne films, “Revolver”, “The Transporter” any Bond film, or even the first couple Pink Panther movies. Indeed, the style quickly becomes a liability as it fails ultimately to serve enough as a diversion to take people’s minds off of the fact that there is no story here.
What story there is seems to involve a collection of individuals who all have various talents for mucking up time and space. They can scream to shatter glass and whatever else is in the way, some can program people’s thoughts, some can move objects around at will, and some see the future. There are many others but it isn’t clear just what they all do. What is clear is that these folks are the enemy of “The Division”, a government body who does experiments, allegedly based on those performed by th Nazis, who are said to have tested various subjects with potent new drugs designed to make them stronger and pliable to the Division’s will.
So, all of these characters push each other around as the film’s focus comes into play. There is a briefcase with something of tremendous value in it and a Watcher named Cassie Holmes (Fanning) believes it to contain $6 million US. She is working with a Mover named Nick (Evans) and she keeps reading clues and writing them down in day glo art pieces that are actually not half bad. So, she sees something and they head off to figure out what the hell they are supposed to find. Much of the film plays out this way until they realize it isn’t money that’s in the briefcase but drugs. Specifically some drug that will change the face of medicine forever. So, it’s really serious and if it gets into the wrong hands, it could create a whole race of super robotic humanoid warrior killers. And if it doesn’t fall into the Division’s hands, who knows how ugly it might get.
The film is passable at times mostly because of Dakota Fanning’s performance. She’s naturally gifted at doing the minimum necessary to make a scene work. There are no wasted movements with her for the duration of the film. She knows clearly what she wants in a scene and she conveys it every time, expertly. So, when she is on the screen, the film has an economy that it otherwise lacks. It tries to make up for this lack with fancy montages and pretty color schemes. Granted, there is an icy cool to some of the interiors but they aren’t anything we haven’t seen done better in “Eyes Wide Shut”, “A Clockwork Orange” and many other films. In fact there is nothing unusual or truly fascinating about the camera work at all in this film and the result is just another paint by the numbers attempt to fool the audience with style without giving them anything to sink their fangs into.
The film has the potential to create unsettling vistas that might make audiences truly discomforted throughout the film. But, bright lights and big city are as far as the imagination will take these people who certainly know how to put on an empty show that is nonetheless loud and vibrant. Yes, they have an understanding of color schemes and set design so that everything has a particular look and seems to fit in nicely but in the end it matters not because the story hasn’t been thought out in advance and is muddled. Actually, it’s not terribly difficult to get the general idea of what is going on but rather it is simply none too easy to understand why it is going on. Apparently the Division has kidnapped or brought in a variety of these freaks and have attempted to shoot them up with a super drug that will give them amazing powers only they keep dying. A woman named Kira Hudson (Belle) escapes after being injected and manages to be the first person to ever survive the procedure. She’s important to the others for reasons that aren’t necessarily fathomable.
The entire film was shot in Hong Kong and the film takes advantage of locations that provide the film with an immediacy that is nevertheless no more advanced than any number of superior films that have proceeded it. There is no shortage of energy although the film still manages to seem over long and its vitality is long been tapped out by the film’s conclusion. Also, the ending itself seems designed strictly for a sequel which will never be made because this film has failed to be even remotely successful financially.
Certainly the idea here is rather interesting in that the film suggests that the Nazi’s were responsible for conducting psychic research in order to create a race of superior fighters who might be able use their powers to more effectively disarm the enemy. Whether or not this is true is not of much interest. The point is to link the Nazi’s with the Division who are treated as a sinister entity bent on fulfilling its own dark agenda. It’s a neat trick and doesn’t quite work because we never quite get a handle on just what the Division does and has done to earn such opprobrium.
Overall, the look of this film isn’t special and its story possesses little nuance or purpose. It simply doesn’t stand out visually enough to trick audiences into imagining there is something more here that there actually is. What is here is vapid, superficial, and coldly calculating to elicit a particular response that never arrives. In the end it’s just loud, fast, and wholly pointless. It wastes some fine performances from Djimon Hounsou and Dakota Fanning and remains too engrossed with its spectacle to create something worth investing in.
directed by Paul McGuigan
written by David Bourla
starring Djimon Hounsou, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Neil Jackson, Chris Evans, Cliff Curtis, Ming-Na, Nate Mooney, Maggie Siff
This convoluted, unintentionally funny film is consumed with flash and cortisone at the expense of a coherent, watchable story.
The story certainly must make sense on paper. All of the angles, strange weavings, side traps, and frustrating curvatures must be absolutely clear to whomever pitched the film but to the audience, not so much. It isn’t simply that it’s almost impossible to figure out everything that is happening, it’s that the film is so excruciatingly stylistic while it is jerking one’s chain and expecting one to adore it for that very style that is so strangling. Yes, it looks interesting at times but no more interesting that the Bourne films, “Revolver”, “The Transporter” any Bond film, or even the first couple Pink Panther movies. Indeed, the style quickly becomes a liability as it fails ultimately to serve enough as a diversion to take people’s minds off of the fact that there is no story here.
What story there is seems to involve a collection of individuals who all have various talents for mucking up time and space. They can scream to shatter glass and whatever else is in the way, some can program people’s thoughts, some can move objects around at will, and some see the future. There are many others but it isn’t clear just what they all do. What is clear is that these folks are the enemy of “The Division”, a government body who does experiments, allegedly based on those performed by th Nazis, who are said to have tested various subjects with potent new drugs designed to make them stronger and pliable to the Division’s will.
So, all of these characters push each other around as the film’s focus comes into play. There is a briefcase with something of tremendous value in it and a Watcher named Cassie Holmes (Fanning) believes it to contain $6 million US. She is working with a Mover named Nick (Evans) and she keeps reading clues and writing them down in day glo art pieces that are actually not half bad. So, she sees something and they head off to figure out what the hell they are supposed to find. Much of the film plays out this way until they realize it isn’t money that’s in the briefcase but drugs. Specifically some drug that will change the face of medicine forever. So, it’s really serious and if it gets into the wrong hands, it could create a whole race of super robotic humanoid warrior killers. And if it doesn’t fall into the Division’s hands, who knows how ugly it might get.
The film is passable at times mostly because of Dakota Fanning’s performance. She’s naturally gifted at doing the minimum necessary to make a scene work. There are no wasted movements with her for the duration of the film. She knows clearly what she wants in a scene and she conveys it every time, expertly. So, when she is on the screen, the film has an economy that it otherwise lacks. It tries to make up for this lack with fancy montages and pretty color schemes. Granted, there is an icy cool to some of the interiors but they aren’t anything we haven’t seen done better in “Eyes Wide Shut”, “A Clockwork Orange” and many other films. In fact there is nothing unusual or truly fascinating about the camera work at all in this film and the result is just another paint by the numbers attempt to fool the audience with style without giving them anything to sink their fangs into.
The film has the potential to create unsettling vistas that might make audiences truly discomforted throughout the film. But, bright lights and big city are as far as the imagination will take these people who certainly know how to put on an empty show that is nonetheless loud and vibrant. Yes, they have an understanding of color schemes and set design so that everything has a particular look and seems to fit in nicely but in the end it matters not because the story hasn’t been thought out in advance and is muddled. Actually, it’s not terribly difficult to get the general idea of what is going on but rather it is simply none too easy to understand why it is going on. Apparently the Division has kidnapped or brought in a variety of these freaks and have attempted to shoot them up with a super drug that will give them amazing powers only they keep dying. A woman named Kira Hudson (Belle) escapes after being injected and manages to be the first person to ever survive the procedure. She’s important to the others for reasons that aren’t necessarily fathomable.
The entire film was shot in Hong Kong and the film takes advantage of locations that provide the film with an immediacy that is nevertheless no more advanced than any number of superior films that have proceeded it. There is no shortage of energy although the film still manages to seem over long and its vitality is long been tapped out by the film’s conclusion. Also, the ending itself seems designed strictly for a sequel which will never be made because this film has failed to be even remotely successful financially.
Certainly the idea here is rather interesting in that the film suggests that the Nazi’s were responsible for conducting psychic research in order to create a race of superior fighters who might be able use their powers to more effectively disarm the enemy. Whether or not this is true is not of much interest. The point is to link the Nazi’s with the Division who are treated as a sinister entity bent on fulfilling its own dark agenda. It’s a neat trick and doesn’t quite work because we never quite get a handle on just what the Division does and has done to earn such opprobrium.
Overall, the look of this film isn’t special and its story possesses little nuance or purpose. It simply doesn’t stand out visually enough to trick audiences into imagining there is something more here that there actually is. What is here is vapid, superficial, and coldly calculating to elicit a particular response that never arrives. In the end it’s just loud, fast, and wholly pointless. It wastes some fine performances from Djimon Hounsou and Dakota Fanning and remains too engrossed with its spectacle to create something worth investing in.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Film Review--Gran Torino
Gran Torino
directed by Clint Eastwood
written by Dave Johannson and Nick Schenk
starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahner Her, Brian Haley, Geraldine Hughes, Dreama Walker, Brian Howe, John Carroll Lynch, Chee Thao
A crotchety old racist laments the incursion of Hmong residents in his neighborhoods. Everywhere he looks he is confronted with evidence that the codified, white world he once knew has been essentially eradicated by the new immigrant population.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) loathes all of the Hmong peoples that have moved into his neighborhood. He despises them and refuses to move out of the neighborhood he has called home for a great number of years. He laments the state of the modern world and wishes things could return to their pristine, all white state. He looks around and all he sees is an incursion of the “gooks” he confronted during his tenure in the Korean War. He is under siege and it is coming at him from all sides.
Clint Eastwood delivers an astonishingly tempered performance as a character whose rough edges slowly soften; Walt is initially grim-faced and reticent. Gradually, his face registers pleasure and excitement. Eastwood captures the slow transformation with delicacy and great finesse. There are few things more resonate in film than the lines on Eastwood’s face. They tell the viewer that this man has experienced much of what constitutes living and that his tales are vast and imaginative.
This film explores the death of whiteness and the difficulty it faces in attempting to protect itself from outside forces intent on wholly quashing it. Walt is a throwback to a different age where his neighborhood was entirely white and his prejudices really had no opportunity for expression. He knew his place and was comfortable with what he experienced. He worked hard making cars at the Ford factory and had established himself as a trusted, honorable man in the community. Then, however, the mass incursion of Hmong arrived and gradually everyone moved out but him. He is steadfastly hanging on to the old ways because he doesn’t want to admit a total capitulation. It’s the old soldier in him that refuses to allow him to give in and give up. So, he stays on, despite the increasing levels of discomfort which meet him whenever he leaves his house.
The film opens with the funeral of Walt’s wife. Here Walt witnesses an example of something else that grieves him. He sees his grand-niece Ashley saunter into the service with her navel pierced and her midriff exposed. It is more than bad taste. It is disrespectful, something that Walt decries about the youth of today.
Walt’s greatest adversary in the film comes in the form of Father Janovich (Carley), a man who seems perpetually to be searching for answers but whose religious views Walter just cannot stomach. Father Janovich wants Walt to go to confession because he clearly sees a pain in Walt and he assumes that it can be remedied by the act of unburdening his transgressions. Walt scoffs at the notion even though he is carrying around with him a considerable amount of guilt for his actions during the war. The priest refuses to back down and gradually begins to gain Walt’s confidence in the matter.
When new neighbors move in next door, Walt is necessarily chagrined. It’s just another example of what has gone terribly wrong and he resigns himself to his circumstances while vocalizing to himself his great disdain. Yet he is unable to avoid interaction which begins when his neighbor Thao tries to steal his Gran Torino to impress a gang. Walt apprehends the boy with a shotgun and lets him go. Then after Thao upsets the gang they return to his house and try to abduct him. Walt responds to the fracas, not because he wants to protect Thao, but because the fighting has spilled over onto his lawn. Still, his actions prompt the entire community of Hmong to reward him with food and plants that they place on his porch and steps. Walt cannot understand the meaning of their generosity at first because he rightfully feels that he didn’t do anything to deserve it. His actions were strictly in the spirit of self-preservation yet they were interpreted as heroic. Walter knows heroism and he realizes the circumstances that foster it. His actions do not warrant such grandiose gestures especially from a community of people who cause Walter such continuous grief merely by their proliferation and continuance.
Walter is an equal opportunity racist as evidenced by his confrontation with a trio of oversexed black males who are sizing up Thao’s sister Sue (Her) as a probable rape victim. He refers to them as “spooks” before he shoves a shotgun in their face and escorts Sue home. It is this gesture that spawns a friendship between Sue and Walt. Most of this is at her dogged insistence because she’s determined to melt Walt’s harsh exterior and it works after a fashion.
The key to this film comes in Walt’s discovery that his neighbors are not the same people who he fought during the Korean War. He begins to see them simply as people with really good food who are merely trying to establish themselves in the same way he did fifty years ago. This doesn’t altogether alter Walt’s basic outlook regarding the other. It’s an instance where one allows a certain degree of lapsing to occur when it comes to individuals one has actually gotten the chance to experience on their terms, as they actually live. This doesn’t necessarily alter the basic assumptions being made but it does alleviate some of the tensions Walt is experiencing in the neighborhood.
After Thao tries to steal Walt’s car he is punished by his parents who force him to work for Walt. In doing so Thao demonstrates both that Hmong have integrity and can work hard and that young people aren’t entirely worthless. We see Walt taking Thao under his wing and providing him with useful, practical knowledge that enriches the boy and allows Walt to share his vast storage of knowledge to someone who is willing to listen. Walt’s two sons seem only interested in getting Walt into a home and there is a grave disconnect between them and Walt. In one devastating scene Walt calls his son Mitch (Haley) is a wistful, fragile mood. He clearly just wants to be close to his son but Mitch cuts him off because of concerns he feel are more pressing. It’s a terribly sad scene played beautifully by Clint Eastwood who captures the hurt Walt feels expertly.
Walt is indicative of the ethos of hard work and capacity for creating a viable life that is both necessary and complete. He toiled for forty years at a plant assembling cars. He knows what it means to build one’s life up brick by brick and this is made clear by his collection of tools that Thao marvels at.
The performances in this film are all supremely effective. As mentioned Clint Eastwood gives us a man of infinite complexities who is nevertheless uncomplicated in his essential worldview as the film opens. His trials are psychological and emotional and he has been living with grave decisions he was forced to make as a soldier. Eastwood is decisive and forthcoming in this film. Walt is the kind of man who shakes one’s hand with vigor while looking one dead in the eye. He says you can tell a lot by how a man shakes your hand and there was a time when this observation was actually applied. Much of the joy in this film comes in watching how Eastwood moves. His body expresses itself in deliberate, elegant movements. Christopher Carley is impressive as Father Janovich. He’s grounded, solid and immovable in this film. One believes this character has the strength of his convictions and that he honestly cares about bringing about change in people’s lives. Bee Vang captures his character’s initial meekness and his gradual evolvement to a boy of legitimate strength and vitality. Ahney Her is vivacious and wholly delightful in this film. Sue’s boundless energy is a perfect counterpoint to Walt’s severity.
Overall, this film tells an exceedingly compelling story that is both poignant and decisively realistic. It’s a story that is ably told by a master who knows how to get the best out of his actors. Each of the principals in this film come together to create a lasting piece of great beauty that will remain with us, in our memories, for many years to come. The film deals with issues that continue to plague us and will so unless we are able to finally actualize common denominators between peoples in this country. Walt begins the film solidly expressing racist views that reduce several ethnic groups to gross stereotypes. He is fearful and cannot fathom why his entire neighborhood has been infested with so many of them. Yet he doesn’t want to abandon his experiences to a foreign horde of invaders. He doesn’t want to give up his place in the world despite the incursion of so many odd looking people with their peculiar ceremonies and rituals. Yet, he is brought into the strange new world and actually likes what he sees. It is mostly the environment that pleases him as well as his connections with the kids who act like a conduit between him and the elders in the family although the grandmother (Thao) continues to abhor him. Walt lives his life facing a huge brick walk that slowly crumbles to reveal a window from which he can look out and see a different kind of world from the one he is accustomed to.
directed by Clint Eastwood
written by Dave Johannson and Nick Schenk
starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahner Her, Brian Haley, Geraldine Hughes, Dreama Walker, Brian Howe, John Carroll Lynch, Chee Thao
A crotchety old racist laments the incursion of Hmong residents in his neighborhoods. Everywhere he looks he is confronted with evidence that the codified, white world he once knew has been essentially eradicated by the new immigrant population.
Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) loathes all of the Hmong peoples that have moved into his neighborhood. He despises them and refuses to move out of the neighborhood he has called home for a great number of years. He laments the state of the modern world and wishes things could return to their pristine, all white state. He looks around and all he sees is an incursion of the “gooks” he confronted during his tenure in the Korean War. He is under siege and it is coming at him from all sides.
Clint Eastwood delivers an astonishingly tempered performance as a character whose rough edges slowly soften; Walt is initially grim-faced and reticent. Gradually, his face registers pleasure and excitement. Eastwood captures the slow transformation with delicacy and great finesse. There are few things more resonate in film than the lines on Eastwood’s face. They tell the viewer that this man has experienced much of what constitutes living and that his tales are vast and imaginative.
This film explores the death of whiteness and the difficulty it faces in attempting to protect itself from outside forces intent on wholly quashing it. Walt is a throwback to a different age where his neighborhood was entirely white and his prejudices really had no opportunity for expression. He knew his place and was comfortable with what he experienced. He worked hard making cars at the Ford factory and had established himself as a trusted, honorable man in the community. Then, however, the mass incursion of Hmong arrived and gradually everyone moved out but him. He is steadfastly hanging on to the old ways because he doesn’t want to admit a total capitulation. It’s the old soldier in him that refuses to allow him to give in and give up. So, he stays on, despite the increasing levels of discomfort which meet him whenever he leaves his house.
The film opens with the funeral of Walt’s wife. Here Walt witnesses an example of something else that grieves him. He sees his grand-niece Ashley saunter into the service with her navel pierced and her midriff exposed. It is more than bad taste. It is disrespectful, something that Walt decries about the youth of today.
Walt’s greatest adversary in the film comes in the form of Father Janovich (Carley), a man who seems perpetually to be searching for answers but whose religious views Walter just cannot stomach. Father Janovich wants Walt to go to confession because he clearly sees a pain in Walt and he assumes that it can be remedied by the act of unburdening his transgressions. Walt scoffs at the notion even though he is carrying around with him a considerable amount of guilt for his actions during the war. The priest refuses to back down and gradually begins to gain Walt’s confidence in the matter.
When new neighbors move in next door, Walt is necessarily chagrined. It’s just another example of what has gone terribly wrong and he resigns himself to his circumstances while vocalizing to himself his great disdain. Yet he is unable to avoid interaction which begins when his neighbor Thao tries to steal his Gran Torino to impress a gang. Walt apprehends the boy with a shotgun and lets him go. Then after Thao upsets the gang they return to his house and try to abduct him. Walt responds to the fracas, not because he wants to protect Thao, but because the fighting has spilled over onto his lawn. Still, his actions prompt the entire community of Hmong to reward him with food and plants that they place on his porch and steps. Walt cannot understand the meaning of their generosity at first because he rightfully feels that he didn’t do anything to deserve it. His actions were strictly in the spirit of self-preservation yet they were interpreted as heroic. Walter knows heroism and he realizes the circumstances that foster it. His actions do not warrant such grandiose gestures especially from a community of people who cause Walter such continuous grief merely by their proliferation and continuance.
Walter is an equal opportunity racist as evidenced by his confrontation with a trio of oversexed black males who are sizing up Thao’s sister Sue (Her) as a probable rape victim. He refers to them as “spooks” before he shoves a shotgun in their face and escorts Sue home. It is this gesture that spawns a friendship between Sue and Walt. Most of this is at her dogged insistence because she’s determined to melt Walt’s harsh exterior and it works after a fashion.
The key to this film comes in Walt’s discovery that his neighbors are not the same people who he fought during the Korean War. He begins to see them simply as people with really good food who are merely trying to establish themselves in the same way he did fifty years ago. This doesn’t altogether alter Walt’s basic outlook regarding the other. It’s an instance where one allows a certain degree of lapsing to occur when it comes to individuals one has actually gotten the chance to experience on their terms, as they actually live. This doesn’t necessarily alter the basic assumptions being made but it does alleviate some of the tensions Walt is experiencing in the neighborhood.
After Thao tries to steal Walt’s car he is punished by his parents who force him to work for Walt. In doing so Thao demonstrates both that Hmong have integrity and can work hard and that young people aren’t entirely worthless. We see Walt taking Thao under his wing and providing him with useful, practical knowledge that enriches the boy and allows Walt to share his vast storage of knowledge to someone who is willing to listen. Walt’s two sons seem only interested in getting Walt into a home and there is a grave disconnect between them and Walt. In one devastating scene Walt calls his son Mitch (Haley) is a wistful, fragile mood. He clearly just wants to be close to his son but Mitch cuts him off because of concerns he feel are more pressing. It’s a terribly sad scene played beautifully by Clint Eastwood who captures the hurt Walt feels expertly.
Walt is indicative of the ethos of hard work and capacity for creating a viable life that is both necessary and complete. He toiled for forty years at a plant assembling cars. He knows what it means to build one’s life up brick by brick and this is made clear by his collection of tools that Thao marvels at.
The performances in this film are all supremely effective. As mentioned Clint Eastwood gives us a man of infinite complexities who is nevertheless uncomplicated in his essential worldview as the film opens. His trials are psychological and emotional and he has been living with grave decisions he was forced to make as a soldier. Eastwood is decisive and forthcoming in this film. Walt is the kind of man who shakes one’s hand with vigor while looking one dead in the eye. He says you can tell a lot by how a man shakes your hand and there was a time when this observation was actually applied. Much of the joy in this film comes in watching how Eastwood moves. His body expresses itself in deliberate, elegant movements. Christopher Carley is impressive as Father Janovich. He’s grounded, solid and immovable in this film. One believes this character has the strength of his convictions and that he honestly cares about bringing about change in people’s lives. Bee Vang captures his character’s initial meekness and his gradual evolvement to a boy of legitimate strength and vitality. Ahney Her is vivacious and wholly delightful in this film. Sue’s boundless energy is a perfect counterpoint to Walt’s severity.
Overall, this film tells an exceedingly compelling story that is both poignant and decisively realistic. It’s a story that is ably told by a master who knows how to get the best out of his actors. Each of the principals in this film come together to create a lasting piece of great beauty that will remain with us, in our memories, for many years to come. The film deals with issues that continue to plague us and will so unless we are able to finally actualize common denominators between peoples in this country. Walt begins the film solidly expressing racist views that reduce several ethnic groups to gross stereotypes. He is fearful and cannot fathom why his entire neighborhood has been infested with so many of them. Yet he doesn’t want to abandon his experiences to a foreign horde of invaders. He doesn’t want to give up his place in the world despite the incursion of so many odd looking people with their peculiar ceremonies and rituals. Yet, he is brought into the strange new world and actually likes what he sees. It is mostly the environment that pleases him as well as his connections with the kids who act like a conduit between him and the elders in the family although the grandmother (Thao) continues to abhor him. Walt lives his life facing a huge brick walk that slowly crumbles to reveal a window from which he can look out and see a different kind of world from the one he is accustomed to.
Film Review--Hotel for Dogs
Hotel for Dogs
directed by Thor Freudenthal
written by Jeff Lowell, Robert Schooley
starring Emma Roberts, Jake T. Austin, Don Cheadle, Johnny Simmons, Kyla Pratt, Lisa Kudrow, Kevin Dillon, Troy Gentile, Ajay Naidu
An early contender for worst film of the year, this tawdry exercise in absolute pablum features too many dogs, hideous and charmless children, and the sadly wasted talents of Don Cheadle and Lisa Kudrow.
Indeed, one has to wonder how Don Cheadle chooses what he’s going to allow to be the vehicle through which he emotes grandly and eloquently. How did his agent sell this film because even on paper it screams Nickelodeon tv movie. It should have never made it beyond a small screen treatment but somebody greased the right poles and it inexplicably received a wide release. Don Cheadle essentially gives on of the best great actor in a terrible movie performances of recent memory. He’s consistently the only thing worth paying attention to in this ludicrous retread. Lisa Kudrow manages to get everything she can out of her role and does a pretty amazing job with limited material. She’s funny but it’s mostly her posture and body movements which score the biggest laughs. She’s just so pent up and restrained and her character does most when she’s not actually saying anything or reacting to a situation before her.
Firstly, the kids all lack even a modicum of personality except perhaps for the fat kid Mark (Gentile) who acts a bit outrageously like all fat kids do in these films. Gentile always brings a freshness into his films because he’s a fairly gifted comedic actor with excellent timing and within the limited script he manages to elicit a few laughs in this film. Otherwise, it’s the most charisma deprived gallery of kiddies one could ever hope to find. Even Gentile burns off after a while leaving a chubby husk doing tricks for food. It isn’t strictly a wretched script holding this film face down in the feces but it doesn’t help. It’s true that whenever the kids are on screen, the audience cannot wait for them to be off the screen. It’s fairly simple for me. In order, the most desirable things to see in this film are: Don Cheadle, a few of the dogs, the sidewalks and eateries, Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon, a few more dogs, the closing credits, more dogs, and perhaps maybe a kid or two at the most.
Unfortunately, one has to deal with the kids in this film as at least one of them is in nearly every scene that doesn’t involve the dogs tearing through the hotel. I can’t quite ascertain just what the young people in this film are supposed to elicit out of the audience. They are so utterly generic they might as well have been cut out of a JC Penney newspaper advert. Are we supposed to identify with them and vicariously experience their journey as our own? Regardless, it’s just not a journey that is infused with any particularly fresh ideas.
The story is straightforward enough. Two moppets named Andi (Roberts) and Bruce (Austin) have a dog named Friday. Friday runs afoul of the law and gets himself locked in the pen where our heroes spring him. On the way back to their foster home, where they have not told their parents about Friday’s existence for reasons left out of the film, Friday sneaks through an opening into a derelict hotel. The kids follow him in and discover two more dogs inhabit the joint. Ultimately, this leads to Andi and Bruce rescuing every stray dog they can find and setting them up in the hotel.
The kids lost their parents five years ago and have bounced from home to home since that time. They hate their current parents, the Scudders, Lois (Kudrow) and Carl (Dillon), who spend most of their time writing dodgy guitar driven pop ditties and ignoring the kids. Naturally, the grinding wheels of the Child Welfare Services system threaten to turn the lovelies into mulch. But, such a sappy film as this is not going to let that happen because happy endings are the stuff from which such movie experiences are made. It couldn’t possibly be any other way and the film delivers a sickly, predictable, and saccharine ending that pleases noone in the end.
Well trained and cinematic dogs are always an easy sell in films. They are cute, they do tricks, and they are mostly infused with charismatic appeal. In this film it’s no different as several of the dogs stand out as having purely adorable personalities that are a joy to behold. However, a film needs much more than dogs to be effective and this film fails to deliver a story worth getting behind. Too much of a good thing can have an adverse effect on any experience and in this film there is simply too much footage of the dogs gallivanting about doing what dogs know best. With no story behind all the canine nuttiness, the scenes with the dogs actually become tiresome after a fashion.
Despite everything else that is wrong with this film the gadgetry that is devised to keep the dogs occupied in the hotel is somewhat ingenious. Great work went into creating the various contraptions that feed and entertain the dogs when the humans are elsewhere. Of course we are supposed to believe that a kid, however technically gifted, is able to construct this elaborate schema but it’s just one of many improbabilities in this film. Regardless, they are entertaining and certainly add something of value to the film.
I wonder how difficult it is to find actors who are viable enough not to be overtaken by animals in films. There just has to be a great number of young talent who could have carried this film with much more charisma and individuality than these dreadful, cookie-cutter models of everything that is wrong with contemporary American cinema. They offer nothing, serve no purpose, and deliver not a single moment of joyful surrender in their performances. This seems to be a trend that is only becoming more pronounced over time. Yet a few like young Troy Gentile are carving out a niche for themselves as energetic, thrilling and dynamic personalities who will one day be able to carry a film on their own. But they are clearly the exception and this film proves it.
Overall, this film offers nothing of note that can possibly be considered edifying. The dogs are entertaining up to a point, Don Cheadle is brilliantly understated and straightforward, Kyla Platt gives a memorable turn as Bernie’s (Cheadle) wife Heather, and there are many fine machines that serve particular purposes. Otherwise, it’s a drab, flat affair that puts the film on the fast track to the worst film of this or any year. It would be a total write off without Cheadle but even he is not able to rescue the film from its overarching inanity. He’s only in it for a handful of scenes and cannot prevent the train from leaving the tracks turning its entire passenger load into scorched sausage.
directed by Thor Freudenthal
written by Jeff Lowell, Robert Schooley
starring Emma Roberts, Jake T. Austin, Don Cheadle, Johnny Simmons, Kyla Pratt, Lisa Kudrow, Kevin Dillon, Troy Gentile, Ajay Naidu
An early contender for worst film of the year, this tawdry exercise in absolute pablum features too many dogs, hideous and charmless children, and the sadly wasted talents of Don Cheadle and Lisa Kudrow.
Indeed, one has to wonder how Don Cheadle chooses what he’s going to allow to be the vehicle through which he emotes grandly and eloquently. How did his agent sell this film because even on paper it screams Nickelodeon tv movie. It should have never made it beyond a small screen treatment but somebody greased the right poles and it inexplicably received a wide release. Don Cheadle essentially gives on of the best great actor in a terrible movie performances of recent memory. He’s consistently the only thing worth paying attention to in this ludicrous retread. Lisa Kudrow manages to get everything she can out of her role and does a pretty amazing job with limited material. She’s funny but it’s mostly her posture and body movements which score the biggest laughs. She’s just so pent up and restrained and her character does most when she’s not actually saying anything or reacting to a situation before her.
Firstly, the kids all lack even a modicum of personality except perhaps for the fat kid Mark (Gentile) who acts a bit outrageously like all fat kids do in these films. Gentile always brings a freshness into his films because he’s a fairly gifted comedic actor with excellent timing and within the limited script he manages to elicit a few laughs in this film. Otherwise, it’s the most charisma deprived gallery of kiddies one could ever hope to find. Even Gentile burns off after a while leaving a chubby husk doing tricks for food. It isn’t strictly a wretched script holding this film face down in the feces but it doesn’t help. It’s true that whenever the kids are on screen, the audience cannot wait for them to be off the screen. It’s fairly simple for me. In order, the most desirable things to see in this film are: Don Cheadle, a few of the dogs, the sidewalks and eateries, Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon, a few more dogs, the closing credits, more dogs, and perhaps maybe a kid or two at the most.
Unfortunately, one has to deal with the kids in this film as at least one of them is in nearly every scene that doesn’t involve the dogs tearing through the hotel. I can’t quite ascertain just what the young people in this film are supposed to elicit out of the audience. They are so utterly generic they might as well have been cut out of a JC Penney newspaper advert. Are we supposed to identify with them and vicariously experience their journey as our own? Regardless, it’s just not a journey that is infused with any particularly fresh ideas.
The story is straightforward enough. Two moppets named Andi (Roberts) and Bruce (Austin) have a dog named Friday. Friday runs afoul of the law and gets himself locked in the pen where our heroes spring him. On the way back to their foster home, where they have not told their parents about Friday’s existence for reasons left out of the film, Friday sneaks through an opening into a derelict hotel. The kids follow him in and discover two more dogs inhabit the joint. Ultimately, this leads to Andi and Bruce rescuing every stray dog they can find and setting them up in the hotel.
The kids lost their parents five years ago and have bounced from home to home since that time. They hate their current parents, the Scudders, Lois (Kudrow) and Carl (Dillon), who spend most of their time writing dodgy guitar driven pop ditties and ignoring the kids. Naturally, the grinding wheels of the Child Welfare Services system threaten to turn the lovelies into mulch. But, such a sappy film as this is not going to let that happen because happy endings are the stuff from which such movie experiences are made. It couldn’t possibly be any other way and the film delivers a sickly, predictable, and saccharine ending that pleases noone in the end.
Well trained and cinematic dogs are always an easy sell in films. They are cute, they do tricks, and they are mostly infused with charismatic appeal. In this film it’s no different as several of the dogs stand out as having purely adorable personalities that are a joy to behold. However, a film needs much more than dogs to be effective and this film fails to deliver a story worth getting behind. Too much of a good thing can have an adverse effect on any experience and in this film there is simply too much footage of the dogs gallivanting about doing what dogs know best. With no story behind all the canine nuttiness, the scenes with the dogs actually become tiresome after a fashion.
Despite everything else that is wrong with this film the gadgetry that is devised to keep the dogs occupied in the hotel is somewhat ingenious. Great work went into creating the various contraptions that feed and entertain the dogs when the humans are elsewhere. Of course we are supposed to believe that a kid, however technically gifted, is able to construct this elaborate schema but it’s just one of many improbabilities in this film. Regardless, they are entertaining and certainly add something of value to the film.
I wonder how difficult it is to find actors who are viable enough not to be overtaken by animals in films. There just has to be a great number of young talent who could have carried this film with much more charisma and individuality than these dreadful, cookie-cutter models of everything that is wrong with contemporary American cinema. They offer nothing, serve no purpose, and deliver not a single moment of joyful surrender in their performances. This seems to be a trend that is only becoming more pronounced over time. Yet a few like young Troy Gentile are carving out a niche for themselves as energetic, thrilling and dynamic personalities who will one day be able to carry a film on their own. But they are clearly the exception and this film proves it.
Overall, this film offers nothing of note that can possibly be considered edifying. The dogs are entertaining up to a point, Don Cheadle is brilliantly understated and straightforward, Kyla Platt gives a memorable turn as Bernie’s (Cheadle) wife Heather, and there are many fine machines that serve particular purposes. Otherwise, it’s a drab, flat affair that puts the film on the fast track to the worst film of this or any year. It would be a total write off without Cheadle but even he is not able to rescue the film from its overarching inanity. He’s only in it for a handful of scenes and cannot prevent the train from leaving the tracks turning its entire passenger load into scorched sausage.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Film Review--Pray the Devil Back to Hell
Pray the Devil Back to Hell
directed by Gini Reticker
War and famine. 1990's. It’s the same old bloody story that articulates an essential characteristic of the human animal. In Liberia, a country haunted by conflict, strife, and a wholesale disregard for the well being of its population, the women were getting fed up. Instead of sitting idly by and witnessing the continuous killing and maiming of their people with no respite, they organized. This film is their story and it is both terrifying and uplifting. The film suggests that grassroots resistence can make an impact on facts on the ground and that peoples need not mask their voices when faced with various agonies that immediately effect the course of their lives.
These are mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, nieces, etc. and slowly but methodically they began to gather forces in a quest to impact the government of Liberia in finding a viable solution toward ending the bitter civil war between the embattled government of President Charles Taylor and insurgents such as Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD).
The film documents images that are deeply unsettling including children being recruited or kidnapped into bearing arms and fighting in the war. These young boys are given drugs to lower their inhibitions making them more malleable killing machines. We see them in groups being carted around in trucks, their special rifles gleaming, and a blank, expressionless look in their eyes.
As the civil war continued its unstable pace, women both Muslim and Christian unite in a singular force and begin their quiet protest. They gather and wait hoping to gain the President’s ear but are ultimately rebuffed. They weather extreme hot and hold their position perfectly unwilling to give up their fight for calm and peace. One of their leaders is a woman named Leymah Gbowee. She’s affable and driven in manner that is exceedingly rare and courageous. Eventually there are hundreds of women all wearing white t-shirts, itself an open protestation directed at the corrupt regime. They argue that women ought to deny their husbands sex until the conflict is settled.
Ultimately the women hold a sit-down protest at the Presidential palace in Ghana as negotiations are finally attempted between the two sides of the conflict. They refuse to move and are threatened with arrest but they remain firm. The film points out that the talks ultimately fail but that Charles Taylor is accused of crimes against humanity and other charges. He flees to Nigeria only to eventually resign as president in 2003. The question remains. Just how influential were these women in initiating a regime change that leads triumphantly to the rise to power of the first ever female African President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? The film would make it out that they were directly responsible for the removal of Taylor but these situations are often far more complex than a simple documentary film, however well constructed and ably told, can possibly reveal.
We are left with a very strong impression regarding the great potential for simple protests in impacting outrageous political circumstances. We come away with a belief that these demonstrations actually work in altering the landscape into something less rife with violence and fear-mongering. The film does a fine job setting up the conditions under which the majority of the population was forced to endure for a great many years that preceded Taylor’s reign.
This film celebrates a plea for peace in the region, and by extension, throughout the world. These women express outwardly an open, demonstrative desire to affect real and lasting change that clearly other means cannot remedy. Are they heroic or just opportunistic? Is it heroism to simply do what is the right thing to do when faced with circumstances that call for protest? Perhaps not, but there remains an impetus here that is focused entirely on facilitating the end of bloodshed, a termination of senseless violence that does not, cannot, recognize the will of those people who are caught in the crosshairs and give their lives to a struggle they can scarcely comprehend.
directed by Gini Reticker
War and famine. 1990's. It’s the same old bloody story that articulates an essential characteristic of the human animal. In Liberia, a country haunted by conflict, strife, and a wholesale disregard for the well being of its population, the women were getting fed up. Instead of sitting idly by and witnessing the continuous killing and maiming of their people with no respite, they organized. This film is their story and it is both terrifying and uplifting. The film suggests that grassroots resistence can make an impact on facts on the ground and that peoples need not mask their voices when faced with various agonies that immediately effect the course of their lives.
These are mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, nieces, etc. and slowly but methodically they began to gather forces in a quest to impact the government of Liberia in finding a viable solution toward ending the bitter civil war between the embattled government of President Charles Taylor and insurgents such as Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD).
The film documents images that are deeply unsettling including children being recruited or kidnapped into bearing arms and fighting in the war. These young boys are given drugs to lower their inhibitions making them more malleable killing machines. We see them in groups being carted around in trucks, their special rifles gleaming, and a blank, expressionless look in their eyes.
As the civil war continued its unstable pace, women both Muslim and Christian unite in a singular force and begin their quiet protest. They gather and wait hoping to gain the President’s ear but are ultimately rebuffed. They weather extreme hot and hold their position perfectly unwilling to give up their fight for calm and peace. One of their leaders is a woman named Leymah Gbowee. She’s affable and driven in manner that is exceedingly rare and courageous. Eventually there are hundreds of women all wearing white t-shirts, itself an open protestation directed at the corrupt regime. They argue that women ought to deny their husbands sex until the conflict is settled.
Ultimately the women hold a sit-down protest at the Presidential palace in Ghana as negotiations are finally attempted between the two sides of the conflict. They refuse to move and are threatened with arrest but they remain firm. The film points out that the talks ultimately fail but that Charles Taylor is accused of crimes against humanity and other charges. He flees to Nigeria only to eventually resign as president in 2003. The question remains. Just how influential were these women in initiating a regime change that leads triumphantly to the rise to power of the first ever female African President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? The film would make it out that they were directly responsible for the removal of Taylor but these situations are often far more complex than a simple documentary film, however well constructed and ably told, can possibly reveal.
We are left with a very strong impression regarding the great potential for simple protests in impacting outrageous political circumstances. We come away with a belief that these demonstrations actually work in altering the landscape into something less rife with violence and fear-mongering. The film does a fine job setting up the conditions under which the majority of the population was forced to endure for a great many years that preceded Taylor’s reign.
This film celebrates a plea for peace in the region, and by extension, throughout the world. These women express outwardly an open, demonstrative desire to affect real and lasting change that clearly other means cannot remedy. Are they heroic or just opportunistic? Is it heroism to simply do what is the right thing to do when faced with circumstances that call for protest? Perhaps not, but there remains an impetus here that is focused entirely on facilitating the end of bloodshed, a termination of senseless violence that does not, cannot, recognize the will of those people who are caught in the crosshairs and give their lives to a struggle they can scarcely comprehend.
Film Review--Shotgun Stories
Shotgun Stories
written and directed by Jeff Nichols
starring Michael Shannon, Douglas Ligon, Barlow Jacobs, Natalie Canderday, Glenda Pannell, Michael Abbott Jr., Travis Smith, David Rhodes, Lynnsee Provence
A man dies leaving three sons by two wives. Tensions that have been building up for years between the two sets of brothers finally erupt after the old man’s funeral.
The three Hayes boys by the first woman either do not have or choose not to go by proper names. They are referred to as Son (Shannon), Kid (Jacobs) and Boy (Ligon). Son is the quiet, restrained leader who nevertheless is fully capable of action when the situation requires it. He seems to be burning with a terrible rage that he manages to keep under control. His work is trawling at a fish factory along with Kid. He has a wife named Annie (Pannell) but she’s been staying at her mother’s because whatever Son is doing isn’t right. Mostly it’s gambling because Son has himself a system that he plans on using at all the major casinos to make himself independently wealthy. Annie thinks he’s full of it and subsequently has left Son to bemoan her absence.
At his father’s funeral Son leaps out of his chair and demands to be allowed to say a few words about his dear old daddy. He proceeds to tell everyone his opinion of what a lousy rotten bastard his dad was and then he spits on his coffin. This doesn’t sit well with the three other sons, Mark (Smith), John (Rhodes) and Steven (Provence). They take the first step towards setting things right by butchering the well-loved dog owned by Boy Hayes. This leads to Kid smashing Mark in the head with a rod and either John of Stephen stabbing Kid. Both men die leaving huge gaping wounds in each family.
The feud idea is as old as cinema itself. It is handled relatively easily here and is properly maintained. The tension is felt throughout the film and a great and terrible vengeance could come down on the heads of any one of the brothers at any time. There is always a chance that it will erupt again, leaving even more dead and nobody any closer to getting to the bottom of the feud. It has been going on in words mostly for many years, probably ever since the mother was out of the picture either by death or disownment and married a new woman with three new boys to contend and compete with. Especially if you think about the psychological manipulation at play when you can’t even name your children properly and the other boys do have normal names. Add the fact that the abusive, conniving father who truly was rotten to these boys has suddenly transformed himself into a model father. There are countless reasons that resentment has been fostered here between these two sets of brothers. Each side sees the other side as weak and unviable.
We don’t get a whole lot about the boy hoods of these two groups. We also don’t find out a hell of a lot about the beginning of the feud when the father married a new woman and took on the responsibility of raising three other boys who the first lot must have viewed as intruders. Much of this feud does start with Son and co. because of all the factors mentioned but there is two sides to every battle and the other side is readily perpetuating the feud as their counterparts are.
This film capitalizes on its Midwest setting. Everything is wide open and the characters have a large area of space to maneuver themselves around. Each Hayes son in this film has the opportunity to spread out, to forget about the feud and to get back to their lives without anyone getting hurt. Unfortunately Kid loses his head and winds up getting himself killed for his brief burst of anger and frustration. It doesn’t seem like something Son would ever do; he’s more together and less likely to snap over the death of a dog. Indeed, Son is quite like Cleamon Hayes (Abbott Jr.), the eldest brother of the other clan. He’s not involved in the feud for the most part yet he is clearly capable of doing his part if it is required of him. Both he and Son want peace but aren’t sure what price they are willing to pay for it.
Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins) is Kid’s friend who brings news regarding the other side’s actions and comments. Son and his brothers learn that the two younger Hayes boys were at the scene of the crime when Kid was murdered. This causes a direct action by Boy who ends up getting laid low by a large group of farm hands who nearly kill him with their assault. He responds by threatening to murder Cleamon in front of his children and so it goes.
It isn’t a particularly fresh film. It doesn’t do anything in an exciting, new way. But within its limits it’s an effective film that conveys what it intends to without too much wasted effort. The Hayes spawn in this film nearly all get caught up in an unnecessary feud that is severe enough to cost each side a brother. It seems ridiculous from the outside but one of the film’s merits is that it allows the viewer to get inside the heads of its characters just enough to gain an opportunity to figure out their motivation for this behavior. Still, it’s difficult to see much of anything due to the thick fog of confusion that hovers over every scene.
These are characters who are frustrated on different levels throughout the film. Their lives contain a certain core of misery that plagues them as they go about their daily existence bound by some strange oath to take care of those who threaten their autonomy or who simply piss them off in a particular way. They are ready to exert their grand physicality in a cause that resonates with them in a most specific way. Keeping the peace is not part of the program. They are merely waiting for an opportunity to strike hard, strike fast, while avoiding any repercussions in the purchase. Young Steven and John are young, trigger-happy, and exceedingly dangerous. They do not possess enough control on their own and must be reeled in by Cleamon lest they murder Boy who makes a truce gesture in a dramatic scene that at first doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It isn’t until one realizes the simplicity of his offer that it becomes more clear.
The performances in this film are all rather impressive. Michael Shannon plays Son with quiet ferocity that propels him forward throughout the film. Son is a character who seems a bit resigned to his fate and would rather avoid any direct confrontation with the other boys. Shannon provides him with a tendency to lose his bearings now and again and the resultant confusion is clearly played on Shannon’s face. Barlow Jacobs is solid in his role as Kid. He plays kid with an energy that occasionally threatens to override him. Jacobs captures the slight madness that causes Kid to take his fateful step into oblivion. Travis Smith conveys much of his characters drive and ambition. Mark is a bit hot-headed and Smith gets into his skin. He’s not a particularly deep character and there is little room for understanding. Still, the end result is an important character who is central to understanding the key argument.
Overall, this film is a satisfying investigation into the nature of conflict as it falls into the hands of those who are essentially unable to fully take responsibility for it. Actions in this film have fatal consequences that can never be washed off. Yet, there is no justice only more and more retribution until it threatens to get to a point of acute oblivion where there is but one left. To the film’s credit, it gives its characters dilemmas to work with toward the end that greatly affect the nature of the mini war.
written and directed by Jeff Nichols
starring Michael Shannon, Douglas Ligon, Barlow Jacobs, Natalie Canderday, Glenda Pannell, Michael Abbott Jr., Travis Smith, David Rhodes, Lynnsee Provence
A man dies leaving three sons by two wives. Tensions that have been building up for years between the two sets of brothers finally erupt after the old man’s funeral.
The three Hayes boys by the first woman either do not have or choose not to go by proper names. They are referred to as Son (Shannon), Kid (Jacobs) and Boy (Ligon). Son is the quiet, restrained leader who nevertheless is fully capable of action when the situation requires it. He seems to be burning with a terrible rage that he manages to keep under control. His work is trawling at a fish factory along with Kid. He has a wife named Annie (Pannell) but she’s been staying at her mother’s because whatever Son is doing isn’t right. Mostly it’s gambling because Son has himself a system that he plans on using at all the major casinos to make himself independently wealthy. Annie thinks he’s full of it and subsequently has left Son to bemoan her absence.
At his father’s funeral Son leaps out of his chair and demands to be allowed to say a few words about his dear old daddy. He proceeds to tell everyone his opinion of what a lousy rotten bastard his dad was and then he spits on his coffin. This doesn’t sit well with the three other sons, Mark (Smith), John (Rhodes) and Steven (Provence). They take the first step towards setting things right by butchering the well-loved dog owned by Boy Hayes. This leads to Kid smashing Mark in the head with a rod and either John of Stephen stabbing Kid. Both men die leaving huge gaping wounds in each family.
The feud idea is as old as cinema itself. It is handled relatively easily here and is properly maintained. The tension is felt throughout the film and a great and terrible vengeance could come down on the heads of any one of the brothers at any time. There is always a chance that it will erupt again, leaving even more dead and nobody any closer to getting to the bottom of the feud. It has been going on in words mostly for many years, probably ever since the mother was out of the picture either by death or disownment and married a new woman with three new boys to contend and compete with. Especially if you think about the psychological manipulation at play when you can’t even name your children properly and the other boys do have normal names. Add the fact that the abusive, conniving father who truly was rotten to these boys has suddenly transformed himself into a model father. There are countless reasons that resentment has been fostered here between these two sets of brothers. Each side sees the other side as weak and unviable.
We don’t get a whole lot about the boy hoods of these two groups. We also don’t find out a hell of a lot about the beginning of the feud when the father married a new woman and took on the responsibility of raising three other boys who the first lot must have viewed as intruders. Much of this feud does start with Son and co. because of all the factors mentioned but there is two sides to every battle and the other side is readily perpetuating the feud as their counterparts are.
This film capitalizes on its Midwest setting. Everything is wide open and the characters have a large area of space to maneuver themselves around. Each Hayes son in this film has the opportunity to spread out, to forget about the feud and to get back to their lives without anyone getting hurt. Unfortunately Kid loses his head and winds up getting himself killed for his brief burst of anger and frustration. It doesn’t seem like something Son would ever do; he’s more together and less likely to snap over the death of a dog. Indeed, Son is quite like Cleamon Hayes (Abbott Jr.), the eldest brother of the other clan. He’s not involved in the feud for the most part yet he is clearly capable of doing his part if it is required of him. Both he and Son want peace but aren’t sure what price they are willing to pay for it.
Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins) is Kid’s friend who brings news regarding the other side’s actions and comments. Son and his brothers learn that the two younger Hayes boys were at the scene of the crime when Kid was murdered. This causes a direct action by Boy who ends up getting laid low by a large group of farm hands who nearly kill him with their assault. He responds by threatening to murder Cleamon in front of his children and so it goes.
It isn’t a particularly fresh film. It doesn’t do anything in an exciting, new way. But within its limits it’s an effective film that conveys what it intends to without too much wasted effort. The Hayes spawn in this film nearly all get caught up in an unnecessary feud that is severe enough to cost each side a brother. It seems ridiculous from the outside but one of the film’s merits is that it allows the viewer to get inside the heads of its characters just enough to gain an opportunity to figure out their motivation for this behavior. Still, it’s difficult to see much of anything due to the thick fog of confusion that hovers over every scene.
These are characters who are frustrated on different levels throughout the film. Their lives contain a certain core of misery that plagues them as they go about their daily existence bound by some strange oath to take care of those who threaten their autonomy or who simply piss them off in a particular way. They are ready to exert their grand physicality in a cause that resonates with them in a most specific way. Keeping the peace is not part of the program. They are merely waiting for an opportunity to strike hard, strike fast, while avoiding any repercussions in the purchase. Young Steven and John are young, trigger-happy, and exceedingly dangerous. They do not possess enough control on their own and must be reeled in by Cleamon lest they murder Boy who makes a truce gesture in a dramatic scene that at first doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It isn’t until one realizes the simplicity of his offer that it becomes more clear.
The performances in this film are all rather impressive. Michael Shannon plays Son with quiet ferocity that propels him forward throughout the film. Son is a character who seems a bit resigned to his fate and would rather avoid any direct confrontation with the other boys. Shannon provides him with a tendency to lose his bearings now and again and the resultant confusion is clearly played on Shannon’s face. Barlow Jacobs is solid in his role as Kid. He plays kid with an energy that occasionally threatens to override him. Jacobs captures the slight madness that causes Kid to take his fateful step into oblivion. Travis Smith conveys much of his characters drive and ambition. Mark is a bit hot-headed and Smith gets into his skin. He’s not a particularly deep character and there is little room for understanding. Still, the end result is an important character who is central to understanding the key argument.
Overall, this film is a satisfying investigation into the nature of conflict as it falls into the hands of those who are essentially unable to fully take responsibility for it. Actions in this film have fatal consequences that can never be washed off. Yet, there is no justice only more and more retribution until it threatens to get to a point of acute oblivion where there is but one left. To the film’s credit, it gives its characters dilemmas to work with toward the end that greatly affect the nature of the mini war.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Film Review--China Blue
China Blue
directed by Micha Peled
A fifteen year old girl leaves home and heads off to work in a jeans factory. This film documents the lack of worker’s rights and the occasionally abysmal working conditions at the factory.
Jasmine is just like many young girls who are forced to seek work rather than stay in school. She starts working as a thread cutter and spends sometimes eighteen hours per day prettifying jeans that will be sold all over the world for prices that are often more than one of these girls make in a month.
Granted, the cost of living is exceedingly cheap with a cup of tea going for half a yuan (3 c, US) and apparently college costing 3000 yuan, so the misery reports that continue to circulate aren’t entirely accurate. Still, it’s clear that the workers at this particular factory get no money for overtime, do not have sick or pregnancy leave, work insanely long hours and are fined at every turn for the most insignificant infraction. Their lives are consumed with work and they do the same, dull and repetitive task day in and day out. Seven days per week. Some get off better than others. There is one girl who learned to sew zippers and she gets off way earlier than most of the others do. She can go out and hang out with her boyfriend and go to discos. For the others there are no such opportunities as they often work well past midnight and must suffice on three or four hours per sleep per night.
Jasmine’s story is most likely typical. Girls are preferred because they are considered easy to manipulate and won’t fight back. In the film the workers do threaten to strike as their wage packets are held back for weeks. The owner, who is facing a shipping deadline that he must meet or risk losing valuable clients, relents and finally pays his employees. The girls return and work until three o clock the next day to complete the order.
Clearly very few fashionistas spend even a fleeting thought pondering just where their fancy pair of new jeans originates from. They remain painfully ignorant of the simple fact that a group of young girls have essentially performed slave labor for a wage way below the minimum just so they can fit their bony asses into the latest jeans. And should they care? Does it truly matter where something is made as long as it is made and displayed for hungry consumers who just must have it because it’s for sale? Of course it does but we don’t feel obligated to do anything about it. Everything must be new, immediate, and available. To a Chinese girl, there is a different focus. Jasmine is crestfallen because she cannot afford to go see her parents at New Years. A bus ticket home costs a month’s pay and she’s new so she’s stuck.
Wages are most likely insufficient in terms of actual spending money. One girl has enough to pay her debts, pay for room, board and food and has a little left over to send to her parents. That’s it. Working day and night nonstop with no breaks and no chance to do anything fun just so Europeans and Americans can wear designer labels does seem a trifle unbalanced. Fashion seems to require suffering although only a few zealots even seem to be pointing out the nature of the dilemma. Most of us are just dazzled by the feel of new jeans and the lowly existences of poor Chinese girls are bereft of meaning. That’s just the nature of things.
There are whistle blowers who are supposed to determine if certain factories are mistreating their workers but the film points out that they never seem to find anything. The film then goes on to state that this is because the owners and managers of the factories train the girls how to lie to make it seem that they are truly happy doing what they do. But who could be happy in such conditions? What kind of pleasure or opportunity for growth can there be in such a situation? Apparently not much although Jasmine has created a super heroine character who flies away from the absolute boredom that afflicts her life. It most likely keeps her sane in an utterly insane situation.
Overall, this film shows that all of China’s pretenses toward democracy are not improving the lives of its factory workers. It’s clear that these girls are being exploited because there is nobody who will stand up for them if their conditions become intolerable. They can risk a strike but ultimately it would just cost them their jobs. There is absolutely no protection because unions are outlawed and there is no recourse for grievances. They did manage to get their wage packets weeks late but only because they refused to work. If there wasn’t the tremendous pressure on the factory staff to meet the deadline, perhaps they might not have been so lucky.
directed by Micha Peled
A fifteen year old girl leaves home and heads off to work in a jeans factory. This film documents the lack of worker’s rights and the occasionally abysmal working conditions at the factory.
Jasmine is just like many young girls who are forced to seek work rather than stay in school. She starts working as a thread cutter and spends sometimes eighteen hours per day prettifying jeans that will be sold all over the world for prices that are often more than one of these girls make in a month.
Granted, the cost of living is exceedingly cheap with a cup of tea going for half a yuan (3 c, US) and apparently college costing 3000 yuan, so the misery reports that continue to circulate aren’t entirely accurate. Still, it’s clear that the workers at this particular factory get no money for overtime, do not have sick or pregnancy leave, work insanely long hours and are fined at every turn for the most insignificant infraction. Their lives are consumed with work and they do the same, dull and repetitive task day in and day out. Seven days per week. Some get off better than others. There is one girl who learned to sew zippers and she gets off way earlier than most of the others do. She can go out and hang out with her boyfriend and go to discos. For the others there are no such opportunities as they often work well past midnight and must suffice on three or four hours per sleep per night.
Jasmine’s story is most likely typical. Girls are preferred because they are considered easy to manipulate and won’t fight back. In the film the workers do threaten to strike as their wage packets are held back for weeks. The owner, who is facing a shipping deadline that he must meet or risk losing valuable clients, relents and finally pays his employees. The girls return and work until three o clock the next day to complete the order.
Clearly very few fashionistas spend even a fleeting thought pondering just where their fancy pair of new jeans originates from. They remain painfully ignorant of the simple fact that a group of young girls have essentially performed slave labor for a wage way below the minimum just so they can fit their bony asses into the latest jeans. And should they care? Does it truly matter where something is made as long as it is made and displayed for hungry consumers who just must have it because it’s for sale? Of course it does but we don’t feel obligated to do anything about it. Everything must be new, immediate, and available. To a Chinese girl, there is a different focus. Jasmine is crestfallen because she cannot afford to go see her parents at New Years. A bus ticket home costs a month’s pay and she’s new so she’s stuck.
Wages are most likely insufficient in terms of actual spending money. One girl has enough to pay her debts, pay for room, board and food and has a little left over to send to her parents. That’s it. Working day and night nonstop with no breaks and no chance to do anything fun just so Europeans and Americans can wear designer labels does seem a trifle unbalanced. Fashion seems to require suffering although only a few zealots even seem to be pointing out the nature of the dilemma. Most of us are just dazzled by the feel of new jeans and the lowly existences of poor Chinese girls are bereft of meaning. That’s just the nature of things.
There are whistle blowers who are supposed to determine if certain factories are mistreating their workers but the film points out that they never seem to find anything. The film then goes on to state that this is because the owners and managers of the factories train the girls how to lie to make it seem that they are truly happy doing what they do. But who could be happy in such conditions? What kind of pleasure or opportunity for growth can there be in such a situation? Apparently not much although Jasmine has created a super heroine character who flies away from the absolute boredom that afflicts her life. It most likely keeps her sane in an utterly insane situation.
Overall, this film shows that all of China’s pretenses toward democracy are not improving the lives of its factory workers. It’s clear that these girls are being exploited because there is nobody who will stand up for them if their conditions become intolerable. They can risk a strike but ultimately it would just cost them their jobs. There is absolutely no protection because unions are outlawed and there is no recourse for grievances. They did manage to get their wage packets weeks late but only because they refused to work. If there wasn’t the tremendous pressure on the factory staff to meet the deadline, perhaps they might not have been so lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)