When I
first saw this film I wasn’t entirely sure I wanted to see it. I mean come on;
it’s yet ANOTHER heist type movie where George Clooney is the ringleader of the
gang. You may love George Clooney but don’t try and tell me it’s an original
idea an entire “Oceans” franchise later. But then again, as you know, I love to
keep a movie or two just for “take your brain out and relax” purposes so
Monuments Men went onto that pile. It has, much to my surprise, thrown up a
number of rather deep questions. It’s partly the film and partly my weird mind.
But hang on. Let me tell you what the film is about first.
The
Monuments Men. Otherwise known as Monuments Fine Arts and Archives. A division
not quite like any other seemingly composed of the ones the regular army
rejected. Older men, men with birth defects – heart trouble say – and their
jobs as art historians, curators an architects don’t seem to prepare them for
their roles in the war either. But you see, this a division not quite like any
other. Their duty, should the army chose to accept it (or not) is to find the
great works of art the Nazis have hidden somewhere behind enemy lines and when
possible return them to their rightful owners. The war is raging on despite the
fact that everyone seems to feel it’s winding down, so the Monuments Men face
many real difficulties. Not least among them is the fact that they find it hard
to get the Allied Forces to actually take them seriously. But the Monuments Men
are deadly serious. As their superiors and the Nazis are about to find out…
I mean it
is what it says on the tin. George Clooney – albeit not so much the handsome
rogue but a middle aged and wise curator – leads a group of disparate
(brilliant enough to make this elite force yet, naturally, sorely in need of a
leader) individuals. He has a right hand man (Matt Damon) who fills the quota
of the “heart throb of the film” an archetypal, Muppets style grumpy old man (Bob
Balaban) and the slightly younger men who gets a kick out of teasing him (Bill
Murray) forming the bickering couple (oh come on, you HAD noticed there always
is a bickering couple. Yes you had.). There are the obligatory casualties (I
will not be snide about this as not only does it represent real deaths but I
actually welled up quite a bit while watching them). There is a moment when you
think that the whole affair will be in vain. There is a chance breakthrough
and, at one point a race against time. Oh and a love triangle. Yeah. Original
it is not. But perfectly executed it most definitely is. Don’t expect any
artistic revelations from this movie but of its kind it is a perfect example.
And I mean, with a veteran like Clooney at the helm it’s pretty much a
slam-dunk. If nothing else, he has been in enough of this kind of movie to be
able to replicate it in his sleep. Plus he is a bit of a talent too, so yeah. Well
and come on with that cast (And John Goodman AND Jean Dujardin)
But then
again, I reckon the way this project got green-lighted was that it took this
tried and tested frame to a touching and original story. It is not surprising
at all that at 53 Clooney turns to a story that gives a band of seeming rejects
a place in the lime light and in history. I mean, not that I’m for a minute
implying that Clooney is headed for the scrapheap any time soon but age plays
on all our minds constantly at the best of times but in ageist Hollywood it
must be more in the forefront of Clooney’s mind than most. And I mean age is
not the only thing that makes this group “rejects” – things like sickness plays
a part also the fact that these men are not “manly men” but academics, artists,
the sensitive ones, not the big “manly men”. Of course this is less of a stigma
in the 21st century but in the ‘40s this was a whole different
kettle of fish. And of course the army is the army at all times in history so
the Monuments Men have the added duty of proving to the people who should be on
their side that what they were doing was… Well, worth doing. And I’m pretty
sure that also appealed to Clooney the artist.
In closing
I just want to express my surprise at the partly coincidental influx of films
speaking of the efforts to hide artworks from Nazis in my life. They are not
all new films, the topic has cropped up in some of the older films I have
watched (I am being a very good girl and keeping up with watching my older
movies as well as my new ones). I do wonder, in this age where the digital
melds with the classic art forms, what our reaction would be to a similar
invasion. Would we desperately be trying to secret great artworks from our
enemies? I mean, would we be doing it as desperately as the films tell us were
done? There’s part of me that would say no. But then again, our whole concept
of art has changed a lot too. I was watching a show by the Japanese group
Siro-a the other day (check them out Here if you haven’t heard of them). It’s a
wonderful visual performance combining computer generated imagery with theatre
and dance. I mean just by his poise and the way he held his hands I’m pretty
sure at least one of the performers I watched was classically trained. Yet the
whole amazing performance would not be possible without heavy digital
intervention. I’m pretty sure the older generation would say “Oh that’s not
art”; but is that fair? Is it even true? What would we try and hide if World
War 3 broke out? And would the new Monuments Men include, in part at least,
hackers? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as crazy an idea as it
seems…
Kayıtlar
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder