An excellent and unflinching look into one of the most brutal conflicts of the 20th century - the Algerian War (although the French refused to formally call it a war), Intimate Enemies might be categorized as the Frenchversion of Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. Unlike most war movies it also maintains a surprisingly successful level of suspense more associated with film noir (the amazing music score might have something to do with that). It deals with many of the similar themes to aforementioned movies: the unwinnable war, the horrible brutality and dehumanization of the enemy, questionable 'ends justify the means' mentality of one's own side, resignation and bitterness of the common soldiers. Algeria was not merely a war of Algerian revolutionaries against French oppressions, more than two million so-called "blackfeet" - ethnic Algerians who supported the French - fought in the war as well. Both sides butchered and tortured civilians and prisoners alike - truly there were no "good guys". Intimate Enemies has all the military cliche characters that we might expect but still manages to make them seem like real people, and endow them with real emotions and real dilemmas. The French experience has much to teach us about other conflicts going on today: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. Intimate Enemies is now one of my favourite war movies, and the best movie about the conflict in Algeria since the excellent black-and-white "Battle of Algiers". It is now on Netflix in the foreign film category and I strongly recommend it.
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2013
L'ennemi intime (Intimate Enemies) review
An excellent and unflinching look into one of the most brutal conflicts of the 20th century - the Algerian War (although the French refused to formally call it a war), Intimate Enemies might be categorized as the Frenchversion of Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. Unlike most war movies it also maintains a surprisingly successful level of suspense more associated with film noir (the amazing music score might have something to do with that). It deals with many of the similar themes to aforementioned movies: the unwinnable war, the horrible brutality and dehumanization of the enemy, questionable 'ends justify the means' mentality of one's own side, resignation and bitterness of the common soldiers. Algeria was not merely a war of Algerian revolutionaries against French oppressions, more than two million so-called "blackfeet" - ethnic Algerians who supported the French - fought in the war as well. Both sides butchered and tortured civilians and prisoners alike - truly there were no "good guys". Intimate Enemies has all the military cliche characters that we might expect but still manages to make them seem like real people, and endow them with real emotions and real dilemmas. The French experience has much to teach us about other conflicts going on today: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. Intimate Enemies is now one of my favourite war movies, and the best movie about the conflict in Algeria since the excellent black-and-white "Battle of Algiers". It is now on Netflix in the foreign film category and I strongly recommend it.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The horror inherent in chains
Having recently seen Quentin Tarantino's latest film "Django Unchained", I came away satisfied but not quite. It does not feel quite as ambitious as the earlier "Inglorious Basterds", nor was it as intimate as "Deathproof", and while very entertaining at times, its pacing seemed constantly off. But this is not meant to be a review of the film as a film; I'd much rather mention the parts of the film that underscore the intense yet casual and systematic brutality of American slavery. What is surprising to me is that aside from a few excellent documentaries, there are very few feature films made about slavery, the lives of the slaves and the slave owners. Oh, there is Spielberg's excellent Amistad, and the amazing (in my opinion the best) Civil War film Glory, both of which have slave and ex-slave characters, but neither of which are about slavery. The rather poor adaptation of Uncle Tom's Cabin approaches the subject in more detail, but also with more paternalism (as indeed the novel did as well). What Django does extremely well, once we get past QT's signature dialogue, the morbid humour, the long and brutal shootouts and fight scenes, is how it shows the commonplace horrors of slavery in a way that really got under my skin once I noticed them.
*** Minor spoilers ahead ***
For me, one of the most striking shots, but one that I found after the film that the audience had missed, is a shot of the so-called 'hot box' - a half-buried wooden chest sitting in the middle of a lawn, well-outside of any possible shade, into which a recalcitrant slave is thrown as punishment, to endure the heat of the sun and all that it entails. Horrific punishment? Undoubtedly. But what really underscored the horror was that the hot box is situated in the middle of a perfectly manicured lushly green laws, whose greenery is broken by a well-beaten brown path leading only to the hot box. Let this mental image settle and digest for a minute. How many slaves would need to be escorted and thrown into the hot box year after year for their feet - and the feet of the guards - to make this well-beaten path? This one detail demonstrates both QT's genius as a film maker and the care with which he approaches the subject. One tiny detail suggests an entire system in place, rather than an arbitrary brutality.
Another equally striking scene is that of house slaves setting up a table in the fanciest European style (as the plantation owner is entertaining a European immigrant). Their movements are precise and practiced, the camera lingers on the motion of their fingers as the slaves carefully smooth the napkin after setting down each piece of cutlery and china. The scene is beautiful yet haunting - the juxtaposition between their status as slaves and the finery and opulence that surrounds them (is indeed in their hands!) is clear. This short scene serves as a preamble to a narratively more important dinner scene later on, but coming on the heels of the hot box (and one other scene) it has undeniable power. The director seems to be suggesting that the contrast isn't merely between wealth and slavery, but also between the different hierarchies among the slaves, and it does so in a purely visual way that is just as effective (if not more so) than Samuel L. Jackson's excellent performance as the house slave butler.
I'll conclude with another powerful scene. A character is walking with a beautiful slave girl on plantation grounds, inspecting it as it were. Throughout the long shot there is a sound of a whip cracking in the background and it's getting louder. The audience of course tenses up - we think we know what's coming. Yet observe the background and the slave girl giving the tour. Life is going on in the background, children playing, women washing linen, and so on. Can the slaves not hear the whip? Of course they can. Do they not feel pain and horror at having one of their number ? Of course they do. But to them the crack of the whip becomes the background noise of everyday life which is already brutish, nasty and short. The implication in the seemingly tranquility of life in the background is that such an occurrence is so systematic and pervasive that it does not bear thinking about consciously.
There are many other similar details, often tiny and background, that underscore the brutality of the system, and for that QT should receive high accolades indeed, because behind the dialogue, the Western tropes, the humour, the stylish (sometimes even cartoony) violence, "Django Unchained" is an honest and unflinching look at a very dark time and place in American history. Nowadays, despite having a black president, there are many attempts to whitewash the history, often in reaction to historical revisionism of 1960s-1990s. Textbooks are being rewritten to eliminate any mention that the Founding Fathers were for the most part slave owners, that many American presidents were slave owners and profited from it greatly, that slavery was not merely an evil perpetuated by individuals but that it was an integral part of American political and economic history. But that's a discussion for another time.
*** Minor spoilers ahead ***
For me, one of the most striking shots, but one that I found after the film that the audience had missed, is a shot of the so-called 'hot box' - a half-buried wooden chest sitting in the middle of a lawn, well-outside of any possible shade, into which a recalcitrant slave is thrown as punishment, to endure the heat of the sun and all that it entails. Horrific punishment? Undoubtedly. But what really underscored the horror was that the hot box is situated in the middle of a perfectly manicured lushly green laws, whose greenery is broken by a well-beaten brown path leading only to the hot box. Let this mental image settle and digest for a minute. How many slaves would need to be escorted and thrown into the hot box year after year for their feet - and the feet of the guards - to make this well-beaten path? This one detail demonstrates both QT's genius as a film maker and the care with which he approaches the subject. One tiny detail suggests an entire system in place, rather than an arbitrary brutality.
Another equally striking scene is that of house slaves setting up a table in the fanciest European style (as the plantation owner is entertaining a European immigrant). Their movements are precise and practiced, the camera lingers on the motion of their fingers as the slaves carefully smooth the napkin after setting down each piece of cutlery and china. The scene is beautiful yet haunting - the juxtaposition between their status as slaves and the finery and opulence that surrounds them (is indeed in their hands!) is clear. This short scene serves as a preamble to a narratively more important dinner scene later on, but coming on the heels of the hot box (and one other scene) it has undeniable power. The director seems to be suggesting that the contrast isn't merely between wealth and slavery, but also between the different hierarchies among the slaves, and it does so in a purely visual way that is just as effective (if not more so) than Samuel L. Jackson's excellent performance as the house slave butler.
I'll conclude with another powerful scene. A character is walking with a beautiful slave girl on plantation grounds, inspecting it as it were. Throughout the long shot there is a sound of a whip cracking in the background and it's getting louder. The audience of course tenses up - we think we know what's coming. Yet observe the background and the slave girl giving the tour. Life is going on in the background, children playing, women washing linen, and so on. Can the slaves not hear the whip? Of course they can. Do they not feel pain and horror at having one of their number ? Of course they do. But to them the crack of the whip becomes the background noise of everyday life which is already brutish, nasty and short. The implication in the seemingly tranquility of life in the background is that such an occurrence is so systematic and pervasive that it does not bear thinking about consciously.
There are many other similar details, often tiny and background, that underscore the brutality of the system, and for that QT should receive high accolades indeed, because behind the dialogue, the Western tropes, the humour, the stylish (sometimes even cartoony) violence, "Django Unchained" is an honest and unflinching look at a very dark time and place in American history. Nowadays, despite having a black president, there are many attempts to whitewash the history, often in reaction to historical revisionism of 1960s-1990s. Textbooks are being rewritten to eliminate any mention that the Founding Fathers were for the most part slave owners, that many American presidents were slave owners and profited from it greatly, that slavery was not merely an evil perpetuated by individuals but that it was an integral part of American political and economic history. But that's a discussion for another time.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Newsroom
The season's end of HBO's new show "The Newsroom" hits all the right notes in an otherwise tone-deaf series. I had been deeply ambivalent about the show and what it was trying to do after the first episode. I don't think I would be remiss in saying that there are only two essential and wholly good episodes in the show - the first and the last one.
But perhaps I am being too harsh, because in its own way The Newsroom is more ambitious than any other HBO - or indeed television in general - show. It is not about the gorgeous costumes, huge casts, lush sets, gratuitous violence and sex (hello Game of Thrones and Rome) - it is instead about the viewers' minds. It is not the first time that the show's most famous writer and creator - Aaron Sorkin - reaches for a lofty goal. His purpose is to reach the viewer's heart and soul, and through them the viewer's mind and reason itself. He realizes that there are essentially two ways in which to make an issue matter: one is to make it as personal as possible, the other is to appeal to emotions (anger and hate works for Rush Limbaugh, humour and contempt work for Stewart and Colbert). Sorkin attempts to do both. He is - to paraphrase the show's dialogue from the last episode - the Greater Fool.
Why the deep ambivalence? For one thing the attempt to make the cast seem more human and approachable was rather heavy-handed. By having the characters engage in slapstick (falling down, tripping over desks and open cabinets, getting tangled up in a phone wire) they are perhaps supposed to appear more vulnerable. The only thing that registered with me was how ridiculous and out of place it looked. The characters are already compelling and interesting without these cheap tricks. I don't need a big "See how much they are like you!" sign to sympathize with the characters.
The other attempt to make the characters more human and interesting, and - I suppose - inject more human interest in the show, is the romance. There is nothing in and out of itself wrong with that, but it constantly felt to me that the romantic subplots (because there are several) were intruding into the show's real heart. The bittersweet unresolved breakup and attracting between the show's main characters Will and Mackenzie was at times very compelling, yet Sorkin then injects a cliche and trite office affair between the young and restless associate producers, that then turns into a love triangle, which later turns into a love square (or would it be two love triangles?), and then introduces even more complications that just tend to slow down the pace of the main plot. That's not to say that there is no heart in it, but it seems added on and overblown. In another attempt to give the characters more depth, midway through the show the main character Will starts attending therapy. The therapy sessions are meant to be glimpses into Will's psyche and past, but they too feel mostly unnecessary. Sorkin delights in telling us, not showing us.
But now I get around to two main sticking points. The Newsroom is about a major syndicated TV news show (the fictional broadcasting corporation is a convenient acronym amalgam of CNN, ABC and NBC - notice the conspicuous absence of F to the O to the X). Every episode of the series the cast of The Newsroom cover a piece of news. What makes it brilliant is that the news they cover is not of the fake variety, but are actual important (for the most part - forgive me if I think that Anthony Weiner twitter scandal was complete and utter shitstorm in a teacup) events that have happened last year. The premise is that the cast of characters are struggling to make good objective news - objective, thoughtful, backed by facts, and dignified - what the character of Mackenzie insists on calling News 2.0 (that the actors did not cringe when using this line is a credit to their talent). However, their coverage is anything but objective! In Sorkin's world, courageous and credible and objective news show is one that incessantly criticizes Republicans (especially its Tea Party branch) and big businesses. Now personally I have no problem with criticizing either of these, but every time one of the characters goes on a moral rant about how they are bringing reason and objectivity into the news profession it just ends up sounding like a self-parody. That the characters do not apparently see their own bias and continue to insist on delivering "just the news" is bewildering.
Sorkin is unapologetic, however, about his goal. He wants to educate Americans, bring our attention to the issues of the past and remind us of the things that matter, and restore the faith in America, its style of democracy, and its citizenry. The problem is that quite often his characters tend to slide into snarky moralizing. What are otherwise perfectly valid and important and well-stated facts and arguments, begin to sound like high-handed condescending sermons directed from the pulpit of a news desk (or an office desk sometimes) at the ignorant unwashed masses. What makes it even more unpalatable is that the most of the time these sermons are directed at characters who are already in essential agreement with the gist of the message. It never seems that convincing is all that hard to do. A fiery impassioned speech backed up by facts delivered in Sorkin's signature quick-firing monologue style while the camera dramatically hovers or cuts shots mid-speech, always seems to do the trick. If only it was always this easy. And the final point in this negative part of the rant is that for all the cast's concern with educating the American citizen no impact on the citizenry is in fact shown, and the common viewers of the show appear very infrequently as crowds in the background, adoring fans asking for autographs, and occasional person or two in a store or at a party. The news-making characters of the show very rarely engage in any meaningful dialogue with 'the common man' (first and last episodes a big exception), which just makes them seem like they are living in their beautiful glass garden on top of an ivory tower.
Hold on, you might be saying. Isn't there anything good about the show? What about all the stuff you've said at the beginning? Well, this is still a show worth watching and admiring for what it's trying to accomplish, and how. For starters it has a great cast. There is great chemistry between the actors, they are convincing no matter how unconvincing the dialogue (or rather the monologue) is, and they make the characters seem real and interesting without the aid of slapstick, romance, or depressive ennui. Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer shine, Dev Patel of "Slumdog Millionaire" fame is a funny and endearing character, Sam Waterstone's is at times uproariously funny and at times tragically sad, Olivia Munn is convincing as a socially inept genius economist, and Terry Crews (yes, THE Terry Crews from Expendables and way too many action B movies to list) really steals the show in the last few episodes. The show's young and restless (the associate producers) fall rather flat. John Gallagher, Allison Pill and Thomas Sadoski may be fine actors (I only recall Allison Pill from her previous works), but they try too hard and their characters are a mess.
The show's dialogue (as opposed to its monologues and declamations) is sharp, witty, snappy, and funny. The quick-firing exchanges are never difficult to follow and nearly always entertaining. The show's humor comes out in these exchanges, and the show's humanity and creators' love for their characters come out in the rare quiet moment. Ironically the characters do not sound as mouthpieces for Sorkin precisely when they are actually delivering the news. We expect our news anchors to talk to us, to be masters of monologue (if only most of them were), and so those moments when the character of Will McAvoy or Olivia Munn are speaking to us behind the news desk are precisely the moments when the passion of the show's writers is most convincing.
What really makes the show work, however, is its premise (fictional show about real news) and the goals of the show's creators. It strives to make politics, media and society seem human and relevant again through a medium that has largely failed to do so in the past. Although not a talk show like the Daily Show or the Colbert's Report, it attempts the same thing - people pay more attention to actually important news if they are being entertaining (through drama or comedy, or The Newsroom's case both). The thing is, it really does say all the right things. It really does raise the demons of our not-too-distant past that need to be revisited. There is a deep and abiding faith that the country is not lost, that its people are not a herd of mindless cattle, that its political leaders (Democrats and Republicans) can do better, that the media is not always out to fool us. In one episode a character accuses the cast of living in a utopian dream. Well, it might be utopian and it might be a dream. But in these flashes of brilliance when everything comes together, The Newsroom shows us why it's a dream worth having. Bring on Season 2!
But perhaps I am being too harsh, because in its own way The Newsroom is more ambitious than any other HBO - or indeed television in general - show. It is not about the gorgeous costumes, huge casts, lush sets, gratuitous violence and sex (hello Game of Thrones and Rome) - it is instead about the viewers' minds. It is not the first time that the show's most famous writer and creator - Aaron Sorkin - reaches for a lofty goal. His purpose is to reach the viewer's heart and soul, and through them the viewer's mind and reason itself. He realizes that there are essentially two ways in which to make an issue matter: one is to make it as personal as possible, the other is to appeal to emotions (anger and hate works for Rush Limbaugh, humour and contempt work for Stewart and Colbert). Sorkin attempts to do both. He is - to paraphrase the show's dialogue from the last episode - the Greater Fool.
Why the deep ambivalence? For one thing the attempt to make the cast seem more human and approachable was rather heavy-handed. By having the characters engage in slapstick (falling down, tripping over desks and open cabinets, getting tangled up in a phone wire) they are perhaps supposed to appear more vulnerable. The only thing that registered with me was how ridiculous and out of place it looked. The characters are already compelling and interesting without these cheap tricks. I don't need a big "See how much they are like you!" sign to sympathize with the characters.
The other attempt to make the characters more human and interesting, and - I suppose - inject more human interest in the show, is the romance. There is nothing in and out of itself wrong with that, but it constantly felt to me that the romantic subplots (because there are several) were intruding into the show's real heart. The bittersweet unresolved breakup and attracting between the show's main characters Will and Mackenzie was at times very compelling, yet Sorkin then injects a cliche and trite office affair between the young and restless associate producers, that then turns into a love triangle, which later turns into a love square (or would it be two love triangles?), and then introduces even more complications that just tend to slow down the pace of the main plot. That's not to say that there is no heart in it, but it seems added on and overblown. In another attempt to give the characters more depth, midway through the show the main character Will starts attending therapy. The therapy sessions are meant to be glimpses into Will's psyche and past, but they too feel mostly unnecessary. Sorkin delights in telling us, not showing us.
But now I get around to two main sticking points. The Newsroom is about a major syndicated TV news show (the fictional broadcasting corporation is a convenient acronym amalgam of CNN, ABC and NBC - notice the conspicuous absence of F to the O to the X). Every episode of the series the cast of The Newsroom cover a piece of news. What makes it brilliant is that the news they cover is not of the fake variety, but are actual important (for the most part - forgive me if I think that Anthony Weiner twitter scandal was complete and utter shitstorm in a teacup) events that have happened last year. The premise is that the cast of characters are struggling to make good objective news - objective, thoughtful, backed by facts, and dignified - what the character of Mackenzie insists on calling News 2.0 (that the actors did not cringe when using this line is a credit to their talent). However, their coverage is anything but objective! In Sorkin's world, courageous and credible and objective news show is one that incessantly criticizes Republicans (especially its Tea Party branch) and big businesses. Now personally I have no problem with criticizing either of these, but every time one of the characters goes on a moral rant about how they are bringing reason and objectivity into the news profession it just ends up sounding like a self-parody. That the characters do not apparently see their own bias and continue to insist on delivering "just the news" is bewildering.
Sorkin is unapologetic, however, about his goal. He wants to educate Americans, bring our attention to the issues of the past and remind us of the things that matter, and restore the faith in America, its style of democracy, and its citizenry. The problem is that quite often his characters tend to slide into snarky moralizing. What are otherwise perfectly valid and important and well-stated facts and arguments, begin to sound like high-handed condescending sermons directed from the pulpit of a news desk (or an office desk sometimes) at the ignorant unwashed masses. What makes it even more unpalatable is that the most of the time these sermons are directed at characters who are already in essential agreement with the gist of the message. It never seems that convincing is all that hard to do. A fiery impassioned speech backed up by facts delivered in Sorkin's signature quick-firing monologue style while the camera dramatically hovers or cuts shots mid-speech, always seems to do the trick. If only it was always this easy. And the final point in this negative part of the rant is that for all the cast's concern with educating the American citizen no impact on the citizenry is in fact shown, and the common viewers of the show appear very infrequently as crowds in the background, adoring fans asking for autographs, and occasional person or two in a store or at a party. The news-making characters of the show very rarely engage in any meaningful dialogue with 'the common man' (first and last episodes a big exception), which just makes them seem like they are living in their beautiful glass garden on top of an ivory tower.
Hold on, you might be saying. Isn't there anything good about the show? What about all the stuff you've said at the beginning? Well, this is still a show worth watching and admiring for what it's trying to accomplish, and how. For starters it has a great cast. There is great chemistry between the actors, they are convincing no matter how unconvincing the dialogue (or rather the monologue) is, and they make the characters seem real and interesting without the aid of slapstick, romance, or depressive ennui. Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer shine, Dev Patel of "Slumdog Millionaire" fame is a funny and endearing character, Sam Waterstone's is at times uproariously funny and at times tragically sad, Olivia Munn is convincing as a socially inept genius economist, and Terry Crews (yes, THE Terry Crews from Expendables and way too many action B movies to list) really steals the show in the last few episodes. The show's young and restless (the associate producers) fall rather flat. John Gallagher, Allison Pill and Thomas Sadoski may be fine actors (I only recall Allison Pill from her previous works), but they try too hard and their characters are a mess.
The show's dialogue (as opposed to its monologues and declamations) is sharp, witty, snappy, and funny. The quick-firing exchanges are never difficult to follow and nearly always entertaining. The show's humor comes out in these exchanges, and the show's humanity and creators' love for their characters come out in the rare quiet moment. Ironically the characters do not sound as mouthpieces for Sorkin precisely when they are actually delivering the news. We expect our news anchors to talk to us, to be masters of monologue (if only most of them were), and so those moments when the character of Will McAvoy or Olivia Munn are speaking to us behind the news desk are precisely the moments when the passion of the show's writers is most convincing.
What really makes the show work, however, is its premise (fictional show about real news) and the goals of the show's creators. It strives to make politics, media and society seem human and relevant again through a medium that has largely failed to do so in the past. Although not a talk show like the Daily Show or the Colbert's Report, it attempts the same thing - people pay more attention to actually important news if they are being entertaining (through drama or comedy, or The Newsroom's case both). The thing is, it really does say all the right things. It really does raise the demons of our not-too-distant past that need to be revisited. There is a deep and abiding faith that the country is not lost, that its people are not a herd of mindless cattle, that its political leaders (Democrats and Republicans) can do better, that the media is not always out to fool us. In one episode a character accuses the cast of living in a utopian dream. Well, it might be utopian and it might be a dream. But in these flashes of brilliance when everything comes together, The Newsroom shows us why it's a dream worth having. Bring on Season 2!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
John Carter of Earth, Mars, Pandora, Dancing With Wolves, and Middle Earth.
Just returned from watching Disney's "John Carter", based on Edgar Rice Burrough's Martian Chronicles books. Full disclosure - as a kid I devoured those novels, so I was not fazed in the slightest by the setting, the outdated premise, or the character names. Also, this will not be a comprehensive review, but rather a semi-rant about the plot follies - and I don't mean plot holes (there are aplenty), but rather the problems with the way the plot was written and developed.
Every story needs a plot. Most also require at least one subplot. Sometimes an author can deftly weave many subplots together and pull it off. Sometimes the work is dragged down by the weight of needless subplots into the bog of mediocrity. Sadly "John Carter" is a prime example of this. Let's get the good stuff out of the way - the movie is very pretty, the computer graphics are superb and are blatantly obvious in only a couple of scenes, the supporting cast is superb (seeing Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony from HBO's "Rome" series on a big screen was awesome), the male and female leads do a good job of looking pretty and heroic and convincing, the art direction and design are excellent, and the action scenes are competent.
Where the film fails is in the needlessly muddled plot and various subplots that bring the movie to needlessly tedious 2+ hours. The original Martian Chronicles were by no means subtle - the villains were villains, the heroes were heroes, the conflict was obvious, and it was all about rousing action, exotic vistas, nubile Martians, dastardly bad guys, and subtly effective humour. In other words, what Star Wars (heavily based on Martian Chronicles) and other (better) movies are made of. The film needlessly complicates the plot in many different ways. As all English teachers drone on from year to year - every story needs a conflict. Conflict is what creates a story. Otherwise nothing would happen. Let's count the conflicts in the Disney version (working from memory here):
- John Carter vs. mysterious aliens
- John Carter vs. savage yet somehow noble aliens
- John Carter vs. human-looking aliens
- John Carter vs. his troubled past and his guilt over losing his family
- John Carter vs. the United States of America
- John Carter vs. a scheming alien princess
- John Carter vs. himself (in this case over where he truly belongs - on Earth or Mars)
- John Carter involving his nephew in an improbable *REDACTED FOR SPOILERS*
- John Carter vs. giant apes
- John Carter vs. gravity
- Alien dude and his daughter vs. their tribe
- Alien princess vs. her father
- Alien princess vs. bad guy
- A three-way alien war
- Mysterious aliens vs. just about everyone else
OK, obviously some of these get resolved in a scene or two, but quite a few of these drag on for most of the movie, and are mostly irrelevant to the story as a whole or its resolution! Most of the subplots in "John Carter" do not move the main plot along, instead they meander away from it, slow down the film, confuse the audience, and are either dropped or resolved so abruptly that they might not have even happened in the first place.
The subplots seemed to have two major purposes in this film, the first being a justification for action scenes. Personally I thought the main plot - even if trimmed - would have provided plenty of opportunities for action scenes on its own, and probably would have provided opportunities for the same exact action scenes minus the time spent on developing and explaining the subplot. The second purpose was to cut away from the main action, give the supporting cast more screen time and give the main heroes more chances to whine about something. The result, however, is the needless increase in length, an actual decrease in tension (if the audience is fidgeting or falling asleep, chances are they will be confused once the main plot kicks back in), and angst. OK, I get it, nowadays having a straight-cut hero with little to no emotional baggage verges on a parody, but come on! In an action adventure flick like this one we want to see the heroes (and heroines - Deja Toris kicks serious butt in the film) act heroically not brood, self-recriminate, doubt themselves, and gush with insecurity (or at least not for very long). Leave all these things to the Prince of Denmark.
Anyway, the rant is pretty much over. "John Carter" is a film that would be enhanced by removing scenes, rather than adding more deleted scenes. I almost hope to see a DVD version of it that will actually redact the movie!
Every story needs a plot. Most also require at least one subplot. Sometimes an author can deftly weave many subplots together and pull it off. Sometimes the work is dragged down by the weight of needless subplots into the bog of mediocrity. Sadly "John Carter" is a prime example of this. Let's get the good stuff out of the way - the movie is very pretty, the computer graphics are superb and are blatantly obvious in only a couple of scenes, the supporting cast is superb (seeing Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony from HBO's "Rome" series on a big screen was awesome), the male and female leads do a good job of looking pretty and heroic and convincing, the art direction and design are excellent, and the action scenes are competent.
Where the film fails is in the needlessly muddled plot and various subplots that bring the movie to needlessly tedious 2+ hours. The original Martian Chronicles were by no means subtle - the villains were villains, the heroes were heroes, the conflict was obvious, and it was all about rousing action, exotic vistas, nubile Martians, dastardly bad guys, and subtly effective humour. In other words, what Star Wars (heavily based on Martian Chronicles) and other (better) movies are made of. The film needlessly complicates the plot in many different ways. As all English teachers drone on from year to year - every story needs a conflict. Conflict is what creates a story. Otherwise nothing would happen. Let's count the conflicts in the Disney version (working from memory here):
- John Carter vs. mysterious aliens
- John Carter vs. savage yet somehow noble aliens
- John Carter vs. human-looking aliens
- John Carter vs. his troubled past and his guilt over losing his family
- John Carter vs. the United States of America
- John Carter vs. a scheming alien princess
- John Carter vs. himself (in this case over where he truly belongs - on Earth or Mars)
- John Carter involving his nephew in an improbable *REDACTED FOR SPOILERS*
- John Carter vs. giant apes
- John Carter vs. gravity
- Alien dude and his daughter vs. their tribe
- Alien princess vs. her father
- Alien princess vs. bad guy
- A three-way alien war
- Mysterious aliens vs. just about everyone else
OK, obviously some of these get resolved in a scene or two, but quite a few of these drag on for most of the movie, and are mostly irrelevant to the story as a whole or its resolution! Most of the subplots in "John Carter" do not move the main plot along, instead they meander away from it, slow down the film, confuse the audience, and are either dropped or resolved so abruptly that they might not have even happened in the first place.
The subplots seemed to have two major purposes in this film, the first being a justification for action scenes. Personally I thought the main plot - even if trimmed - would have provided plenty of opportunities for action scenes on its own, and probably would have provided opportunities for the same exact action scenes minus the time spent on developing and explaining the subplot. The second purpose was to cut away from the main action, give the supporting cast more screen time and give the main heroes more chances to whine about something. The result, however, is the needless increase in length, an actual decrease in tension (if the audience is fidgeting or falling asleep, chances are they will be confused once the main plot kicks back in), and angst. OK, I get it, nowadays having a straight-cut hero with little to no emotional baggage verges on a parody, but come on! In an action adventure flick like this one we want to see the heroes (and heroines - Deja Toris kicks serious butt in the film) act heroically not brood, self-recriminate, doubt themselves, and gush with insecurity (or at least not for very long). Leave all these things to the Prince of Denmark.
Anyway, the rant is pretty much over. "John Carter" is a film that would be enhanced by removing scenes, rather than adding more deleted scenes. I almost hope to see a DVD version of it that will actually redact the movie!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Drive: the review
Today I've had the lucky occasion to see "Drive" starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman. It is a movie too violent for some, too slow-paced for others, but I found it a riveting meditation on love, violence and obsession. Ryan Gosling, who was spectacular in "The Believer" (2001), plays a quietly pleasant man who works as a stunt driver in Hollywood movies and a part-time mechanic by day, and an efficient professional getaway driver by night. He is a man of few words, but he is no less a presence for that - his character has emotions that run deep, rather than being repressed like so many other male characters. I was reminded of Clint Eastwood's Blondie from "Dollars" trilogy of Westerns or Jeremy Renner's character in "The Hurt Locker." He is a professional, he loves what he is doing, he is - when we first meet him - content with his life. Unlike many other close-lipped macho characters, however, he seems like a friendly and unassuming person. He is polite, and has a slow way of smiling that I've felt really captures the audience's sympathy. Perhaps that is why Irene - played with touching innocence and vulnerability by Carey Mulligan - and her little son Benicio take a liking to him.
The Driver - for he has no other name in the movie - likes them back. He is nice to both Irene and Benicio without being pushy, territorial or aggressively sexual towards Irene. There is a growing attraction between them, and there are several wonderful long shots that are quietly revealing. We sense that there is a potential for a real human connection - a lasting relationship - between the Driver and Irene and Benicio, but then of course everything starts going wrong for them as "Drive" becomes a stylish and intellectual crime thriller. Driver's friend and boss gets into debt to some very dangerous criminals (played adroitly by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman), Irene's husband is released from prison and he too owes dangerous people a lot of money. As people close to the Driver begin to pin their hopes and fears on him, his emotional calm begins to disintegrate, revealing a dangerous, violent and complex man underneath. To reveal more would be to spoil the surprises in the movie. "Drive" is slow-paced by current Hollywood-Michael-Bay standards, but still features a shocking amount of violence (all of which looks far more realistic than most Hollywood movies released this year), plot twists, and amazing car chase scenes.
"Drive" makes excellent use of real car stunts, not once did I feel that computer graphics were used, and indeed - none have. Indeed, "Drive" has outstanding cinematography throughout. There are gorgeous shots of the city, the road, landscapes, and shadows, that create a vision of Los Angeles that few movies have attempted to do before - "Collateral" (2004) being one of them. Director Nicolas Winding Refn also makes excellent use of music - music is used successfully to drive the action forward, and the way it subtly bleeds into the scene - it almost becomes a character in the movie! It is a beautiful movie from beginning to end.
I cannot recommend "Drive" highly enough. It is a beautiful, emotional, and charged movie, with a fantastic cast and art direction. It might be too meditative or alternatively too violent for some audiences, but I think that it will be a sleeper hit of 2011, and will be talked about and discussed for a long time to come.
*Warning, this a red band trailer*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)