ZERO DARK THIRTY

Onwards and upwards with the Oscar® nominees this year! Of course, it was only a matter of time before matters like the death of Osama bin Laden made it to the big screen. Following up to some degree (I suspect) on her success with The Hurt Locker, Katheryn Bigelow looks into this historic event, how it came about and the men and women – and one woman in particular – who played a vital part in this happening. I have to say, I was a tad disappointed. However, it is not a film you can easily avoid these days, plus I am not exactly saying “it was awful” so there you go. My take on it. Let’s take a look at the storyline first.

Our heroine and main character is Maya. She is a novice CIA operative and very dedicated to her job. She hits the ground running in Pakistan in 2001 with the interrogation of persons of interest suspected of involvement with the September 11 attacks. From then onwards, her single-minded obsession will become uncovering the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. It will be a decade long slog of ups and downs, with good friends found and lost on the way. But it will end with the death of the terrorist leader at the hands of a navy SEAL team. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, before I start, please don’t get me wrong. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden was one of the most important historical events. Of course we should make films about it – heck, it’s inevitable, what historical event HASN’T made it to the big screen? And I have nothing but the utmost respect for everyone everywhere who enabled this capture at great personal, psychological cost. That goes without saying.

However, I sincerely feel that it was a tad unfortunate that Kathryn Bigelow was the one to make the movie. I think the subject matter would sincerely benefit from the point of view of a different director. I’m going to be blunt about this; this is pretty much The Hurt Locker 2. Maya and William James

I’m sincerely disappointed because it’s not like Bigelow lacks the skill or artistic imagination to make original films. Heck, check out her early work, there is some seriously cutting edge stuff in there for its time. I am sad to report that it seems she has headed down the franchise route. It worked the first time round (and how. She is the first female director to win the Oscar® for Best Director, which is no mean feat) so, you know what, she went and did it again. The fact that subject matter is similar helped tremendously. But admit it, would it not have been great to have a completely different cinematic way of tackling the topic? Especially coming from the same director? It would be such a showcase of talent and versatility. Missed opportunity me says.

Zero Dark Thirty is not a bad film though. However, you will think of it whatever you thought of the Hurt Locker. If you liked The Hurt Locker, go see it. If you disliked it, pass. Sad but true. 

THOUGHTS ON ONE OF THE EPICS: "THE DEER HUNTER"

Oh, I’m pretty sure that those of you who know of this film sort of sat up in your chairs and took notice when you saw the name. I know. There is a lot to say about this film. Which is precisely why I reckon we should say it. As you guys know by now,  I usually only go for films that I like, unequivocally. But with a film like the Deer Hunter, the thing is you can’t help being emotionally involved in it at some level, but then again you may not necessarily love / like it. Well, I was affected by it. And there is a ton of stuff to say about this film. So maybe we should leave the “like” pre-requisite to one side? Hm, hang on. I see a theme emerging. But first, The Deer Hunter.

The Deer Hunter is a Vietnam story. It is the story of war and how it affects the inhabitants of a small industrial town. Nick (Christopher Walken) and Michael (Robert De Niro) are best friends. They and their gaggle of friends in this small close-knit town have pretty average lives, going hunting and boozing together – not to mention working together, day in, day out. Then, however, war erupts. And the two boys, along with their friend Steve, go to Vietnam to serve their country.  The horrors of war are absolutely unspeakable and when Michael, our hero, returns he is not the same person. However, a promise means he has to return to Vietnam and come face to face with his demons. And the demons that haunt his friends…

Now, I have gone down the more lyric route and done my best not to give away spoilers but it is such a famous film a lot of you know the score, I am pretty sure of that. In fact, this was talked about, in fact became quite a controversy back in the day. I am of course, talking about the infamous Russian roulette scenes, where our three heroes are forced to play Russian roulette with each other by their captors. In the first place, let’s jump right in and point out that not only has it been argued (quite eloquently) that this is completely inaccurate, the portrayal of the Vietnamese borders quite heavily on racism. They are all despicable psychopaths with no morals, who often take great pleasure in torturing others and they almost all harbour this bizarre addiction to Russian roulette – or watching it. Granted, it makes for a very emotional build-up and the climatic end (that naturally involves Russian roulette) made me jump even if I could see it a mile away.

This one is funny. I mean, it almost really touched me. But something was missing. I am unsure what. The fact that I watched it in several chunks – as opposed to in one sitting – no doubt has something to do with it. Then again, the film is a proper old fashioned epic; it’s almost 3 hours long. Cimino’s aim was, no doubt, to have a Godfather-like effect. The dates fit, it has to be said. The film even starts with a wedding. We have the main guys, but the thing is we follow them around. For far too long. The aim is, no doubt, to establish emotional connection and this does happen on a level. I really felt Christopher Walken was, for example, great for this part; especially with his looks as a young man, he is the perfect, tragic poetic hero. And Robert De Niro is… Well, he’s Robert De Niro. So duh, of course they’re both brilliant. But I don’t know. The film is, I think, trying far too hard to be epic. And it’s doing this for three hours flat. At some point, you start to seriously glaze over.

And there is the whole matter of the afore-mentioned racism against the Vietnamese and the seriously nationalistic – American – overtones. But I don’t know, the thing is, it’s an important film. It does some good stuff. I mean, there are a lot of poetic things in there, far too many for my liking but you may spot something you like. I am pretty sure you won’t like it all. But at the very least, this is an important film of cinematic history. You kinda need to see it, if only to know why you don’t like it. That’s my opinion on the matter anyway. 

THE TIMES ARE GOING TOO FAST - TRUE STORY - "JARHEAD"

Ok, I think I told you a couple of weeks back that I was doing my dissertation on war films. And that said war films would crop up on the blog from time to time. Honestly, Jarhead was kinda scheduled right from the start; Sam Mendes is one of my favourite directors of all times. I think his great success lies in his ability to portray very dramatic emotions with honesty, in all their brutality and drama but without exaggeration. This is why, when you watch one of his films, you will very probably be turned on your head – metaphorically. But you can’t take refuge in the excuse that “oh that’s not realistic at all”. Combine this quality with war; you get something quite extraordinary and unforgettable. Jarhead is a beautiful commentary on modern warfare and all the different tragic stories it entails. “Swoff” (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a jarhead. A jarhead is slang for a U.S. marine. He goes through boot camp, trains as a sniper and then… War breaks out. The first Gulf War. Swoff and his fellow snipers are among the first to land in Iraq, trained to the teeth, ready for anything. They are quick to discover that all their classical army training has not prepared them for the realities of war, especially the First Gulf War. The main enemies the soldiers have to fight is heat, boredom and the constant suspense provided by the threat of actual warfare. Just when they have adapted to this set of conditions however, war breaks out. And the snipers have to face the realities of war, a reality that they could not have imagined, no, not even in their worst nightmares. Now, you know that there are one heck of a lot of “war is hell” type films about. You also know that I have a bit of a soft spot for them. This, ladies and gents, is not one of those films. The film is set in war and is about war, this much is true. But if you dig a little way under the face value of the whole affair, you will find there are greater philosophical concerns. This film is largely about the fast changing world today. Technology, modern life, you will have noticed everything changes. Everything changes very, very quickly. It is about the sense of disorientation you get face to face with the computers dominating our lives today; and I’m not talking about your grandmother’s generation trying to make sense of a tablet computer. I’m talking about all the computers, in areas you never even thought they were. The marines, Swoff and his friends have their ideals, their dreams, yet the life they have built is already mutating by itself, passing them by. It is interesting, philosophical and in a sense tragic. But most impressive of all is the very understated “based on the book by anthony swofford” nestled among the credits. Yes people, scarily enough, it’s a true story. About stuff that is really happening / has happened”. All told in Mendes’s hard-hitting, emotional style. It will give you a lot to think about. It will grab you by the heartstrings and not let go for a good, long while. Please don’t miss it…

MY WEEKLY DOSE OF MALIK: "THE THIN RED LINE"

I hesitated, for like 5 minutes before I decided to put this one in this week. I do get it, it’s beginning to look a tad ridiculous. There’s almost a “weekly Terrance Malik” now in the blog. I know, I know… Well the good thing is, there is just one more to go – and you can revel in the fact that I haven’t actually found the film yet – and then that’s it until Mr. Malik makes another film. For, as some of you know, the great director goes for quality over quantity. Thus, once I get my grubby paws on Tree of Life, that will, for all intents and purposes be all for a while. As you may or may not know Mr Malik has directed a total of 5 films to date, his sixth film, the internet informs us, is finished and due to be released end of 2012 – beginning of 2013 (insert howl of anguish – how will I wait that long?). The fact that, with a total of five films, he has been nominated, among other things, for 3 Oscars ® should tell us something though… Anyhoo, moving on to specifics – although I’m pretty sure Mr. Malik is in no way averse to a little meandering here and there – but seriously. Let’s get back to the Thin Red Line. “What was the film about?” is rarely as complicated a question as when we are talking about a Malik film. The Thin Red Line is no exception to this. Set in the Pacific during WWII, we follow a company of American Soldiers making their way through the jungle. Through them we explore not only the horrors of war but the various different facets of war, the tragedies, the difficulties and all the sides of war we probably never really considered in depth. We ponder what makes men fight, the place of love for your fellow man on the battlefield, all the different things that motivate men to fight, make decisions and sometimes, in this case, die. We wonder if another world, another kind of life where everything is simpler, more peaceful and beautiful is possible. Or maybe all that is just a fanciful dream that cannot survive in what we call the real world. I get why people may criticise the film. It is deeply poetic and philosophical; you might say this has no place on the battlefield, or maybe that this is not a realistic depiction of battle. As the film progresses, and by the way Malik by no means shies away from gory deaths and realities of the battlefield, the film is interspersed with Malik’s hallmark breath-taking photography that presents a truly beautiful background to the inner ponderings of various characters. It is very true, it is not a “typical” depiction of a battlefield, but I don’t think it’s any less realistic. It is just that, through sheer cinematic genius, Malik has found and magnified facets and snapshots others would have overlooked. Yes, war is truly horrific, and like I said the film portrays that, but this horror also leads to deeper thought. Platoon famously asked the question “WHY?”, Malik, I feel, attempts to answer. Or maybe just to set out a train of thought for the viewer to follow. And besides, personally never having been on the battlefield I could not swear to the fact that the men on the ground do not stop for more philosophical thoughts brought on by the very out of the ordinary circumstances they are living in, if only for a couple of moments… This multiple Oscar® nominee (seven to be precise)is hard to watch on many levels, not least because it is three hours long, but I felt I truly learnt something from it. You’ll know what I mean once you watch it…

WAR AND SADNESS "IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH"

With 9 / 11 and the subsequent war in Iraq there are more and more films discussing the matter; giving the pros and the cons and the different ideas and opinions as to what is going on. In the valley of Elah is one of these films. I am actually doing my dissertation on war films by the way so over the course of the next couple of weeks you will be hearing about these films quite a bit. I may even do a week on them but more about that later. First let’s take a look at the film in hand. Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones – one of my favorite actors incidentally) has the misfortune of getting the call every parent who has a son or daughter in the armed forces dread: “your son is missing”. The irony of the situation being that the young man did not get lost on the battlefield but actually back in the United States, when they had just returned from the tour in Baghdad. An ex-serviceman himself, Deerfield is determined to figure out the full truth of what has happened to his son. With the help of Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) Deerfield starts his own investigation in the face of the apathy of the institutions. First of all, as you may have guessed the story does contain some quite open political overtones and messages. I am not going to get into that – this blog was not set up for politics. So let’s concentrate on the film itself. And the film itself is quite something. First of all, the film is quite brilliant as a crime / murder mystery alone. I mean I grant you, having a single hero – Hank – who just happened to be a retired intelligence officer doing a better job than the entire police force by himself is a bit “old”. But the film does save this particular gimmick by making him a middle aged man with a lot of flaws in his character – he is in fact a rather difficult man all in all. Tommy Lee Jones’s rugged charisma fits the role very well and they go well together with Susan Sarandon who plays his wife. Although there are a few “types” among the characters, but what I really liked about them is the fact that none of them are perfect. And the flaws in their characters do not look slightly off, as they do in some films, some times a flaw is there simply because the writers reckoned the characters turned out too perfect. Here we have very real and realistic people portrayed – the benefits of having an Oscar® winning writer / director (Paul Haggis, director of Crash) on the crew I suppose =) In the valley of elah is, above and beyond everything, a look into the human psyche and the way it reacts under pressure. In the valley of elah is definitely up there in good company along with a series of war films that look at the states of mind and changes in character that occur in prolonged combat. And it is of course very sad and in bits rather hard to watch but definitely worth it. By the way, just found out that Tommy Lee Jones was actually nominated for an Academy award with this role. Well deserved says I.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND THE "CASUALTIES OF WAR"

Ok, so, there is actually a very good reason why a lot of my film theory books point out that the Vietnam war was one of the most “televised” wars in history, not necessarily in the same sense as the First Gulf War when we first got “live action” warfare but in the sense that there were many, many films made about it. I always am rather careful when I suggest war films. My dissertation topic means I have to watch a fair number of them (long story) but this has made me see that the good ones are very very good. The bad ones are horrid. Which complicates things even further because the “horrid” ones mean that sometimes very valid themes are put to one side as “oh been there, done that”. But they are actually truly worth talking about. Especially since this film about the Vietnam War and Brian De Palma’s latest film on the war in Iraq Redacted share, despite their many differences in theme, share some key scenes. Which means to me that despite time going by war is still war and we have a lot to learn… But enough philosophy, let’s get to this week’s fare. Casualties of War is, sad to say, a true story. Private Eriksson (played by Michael J. Fox who I haven’t seen around for years after is illness – I hope he’s doing alright…)is a new arrival in Vietnam. His squad seems to be an average group of guys. Their Sergeant, Meserve (played superbly by a young Sean Penn) is a bit rough but charismatic and an excellent soldier. His fellow soldiers seem an average group of guys. Until the squad is sent on a mission deep into the jungle. Angered by the recent death of a comrade and pushed to the brink by the horror of war, the squad decides to take their frustration out on the Vietnamese, or rather on one particular Vietnamese girl who is kidnapped from her village and taken with them as “portable r & r”. Eriksson cannot believe that his squad could be serious about this until the girl is actually among them, but once she is there Eriksson’s quest for justice in one of the locations he is least likely to find it begins. Like I said, the topic is not new. It isn’t new because stories like this, true stories, happen in every war. We are horrified to hear it yet a little jaded for having heard the story so many times before. For the victims however, the horror is very new. It doesn’t matter if they heard the story before. It is the first time they are witnessing /experiencing such a thing. And this is why the stories need to be told. Over and over if necessary. Until we figure out that war is a terrible thing. DePalma may well be accused of being overly emotional, the soaring, “typical” Hollywood scores and the emotional dialogue are all of a certain type of film. I am not a massive fan of his endings either (with the exception of Redacted – watch this space for the review on that one), they tend to be a little too “flowery” for my liking, a little too “fairy tale”. But Casualties of War is a good film. It is a very good film indeed. Don’t fall into the trap of saying *yawn. Another Vietnam film, let’s give it a miss.* The messages it has are universal.

"THE KILLING FIELDS" OF THE KHMER ROUGE

My blood ran cold the moment I picked this one up. I had vaguely heard of the film – winner of three Oscars and nominated for a total of seven back in 1985 – a true story about the experiences of New York Times correspondent Sydney Shanberg (played by Sam Waterstone) in Cambodia of 1975 in the months leading to the take-over of the Khmer Rouge. The years after the takeover of the Khmer Rouge are told through the eyes of Dith Pran (played by Dr. Haning S. Ngor); he was Shanberg’s guide, translator and personal friend who was subjected to the full “Khmer Rouge experience” so to speak.
Sydney Shanberg is a war correspondent like any other during the war in Cambodia. The authorities on all sides find them slightly pesky, but the war correspondents of all nationalities stick together to form a motley crew of friends – and none were as close as Shanberg and Dith Pran. In Pran’s own words they are like brothers and together they have got into and out of many scrapes throughout the war. Yet they are both actually pleased when the Khmer Rouge take over, now at last it seems, peace may reign over this war-torn country… History has proved how wrong everyone who thought that was… While Shanberg, being western, escapes, Dith Pran, being Cambodian, has to remain. And we then turn from Shanberg to follow Pran, hear his amazing story and bear witness to his own first-hand experience of the killing fields of Cambodia…
In today’s turbulent times, Cambodia usually doesn’t feature at the top of international concerns and thus except for the discerning and politically conscious among us, the suffering endured in Cambodia is pretty much forgotten. This is why I think films like this are good things. True there is no lack of war – great escape – miraculous survival stories on the market (now don’t make that face; how else could an entire hour of footage be based on one man’s experiences in a communist dictatorship – surely you had figured that one out? Of course Dith Pran survived). My personal view is that as long as they are films of such good quality, they should definitely be watched, for two reasons. First of all, to bear witness to the suffering endured by these people. If Cambodia is no longer the top of news bulletins, such horrors should definitely not be forgotten. We will probably forget some murky article we see on the internet or in a history book; a well-made film however will stick in our minds. Secondly, because basically, we simply mustn’t become cold and callous to this kind of thing. I have a nasty feeling we are getting more and more immune to violence as a general concept thanks to the excess of it in films and video games and the media. This, I think, is not a good thing. Seeing the stories of real, actual people like Shanberg and Dith Pran remind us of the human side of the whole thing. It reminds us why war and violence are terrible things. And even though we all know this in theory, there is no harm in being reminded once in a while, right?

RESCUE DAWN

Rescue Dawn – or rather writing it’s review – is one of those jobs I keep meaning to get round to and failing miserably. So now I’m in the mood for a bit of writing and have the time, I’m just riding the wave ;) This can be qualified as one of the most extraordinary true stories I have ever heard. Master director Werner Herzog and talented actor Christian Bale tell the unbelievable story of Dieter Dengler, one of only two survivors who escaped from the Pathet Lao prison camp in Laos, during the Vietnam war.
On Febuary the 1.st 1966, Lt. Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale in the film) was shot down over Laos. His fate is similar to that of all prisoners of war at the time; he is arrested by peasants and taken to the Pathet Lao prison camp. There, he meets seven other prisoners of war, Americans and Thai civilians (who worked as “kickers” with the army – a kicker, by the way, is a person whose job at that time was to kick pallets of rice and food down the plane to aid refugees in the Peace Corps thank you Wikipedia for enlightening me on that one!). Anyway, so, there thy are, in the prison camp, but Dengler is determined not to stay there – so the group rallies and an escape plan is soon made. The plan is executed with heroism but they are very far from being “out of the woods”… Because their actual prison is the jungle itself and getting out of it is going to take even more determination than the getting out of the prison…
Now, I want to add a disclaimer here. Researching this film, I have found numerous claims the film is quite inaccurate on a lot of counts – especially the way one of the POWs, Eugene DeBruin is portrayed. Here, you can find a critique by the families of the other prisoners of war on the matter, but although the link comes first, I would save it for later and click here to read more about Dieter Dengler, and don't forget to scroll down and check his fellow inmates if you have the time – or maybe you would like to try here to read an excerpt of his book “Escape from Laos”. And I would watch the film, it is a VERY exciting Hollywood film. (Possibly “Hollywood Film” is the key word here – you cannot help but notice certain "Hollywoodisms" in it.)Just bare in mind it is “based on” true events as opposed to a “true story”. A good work of fiction and not an actual, factual account. Besides, it pushed me to do quite a lot of research on the matter and has brought to light, for me personally anyway, an incredible story of determination and survival, not just on the part of Dieter Dengler but for all the men – even those who struggled heroically but didn’t make it home… It’s also a stunning reminder of the horrors of war and the man’s capacity for cruelty to his fellow man. A topic I seem to be repeating myself on but then again… It’s one of those things you can’t really repeat enough…

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT

Oh No! I hear you cry. Surely not. That wonderful literary classic turned into some Hollywood war-flick? A follow up to The Hurt Locker maybe? Whatever next… Well I’m pretty sure there are a few such re-makes although I cannot name them off the top of my head. And (I hang my head in shame) I haven’t actually read the book either. Something I must correct incidentally. However, what I did come across was an absolute classic of a re-make. Filmed in (wait for it) 1928; this little gem (as I often seem to call films I like but I don’t mean to repeat myself he, he) actually won an Oscar® in the 1929-1930 Oscars®.
Now, before I get stuck into it, a warning to all you viewers: this one is kinda for cinephiles only. The fact that it was actually filmed in 1928 should give you a good idea as to why. Black and white (it is re-mastered but we are the generation of 3D and CGI, you don’t think it’ll feel much different but believe me, it will if you’re under a certain age). NO special effects. Rather stuffy acting with slightly over-done facial expressions (a remnant of the age were Movies were not Talkies yet. Facial expressions were all they had to express themselves with). Very slow editing and bad connections from one scene to the next; and that makes the storyline a touch hard to follow if you haven’t read the book. Almost two hours long. I mean, make your own mind up but I personally might not have gone through with it, if I hadn’t seen it of more of an intellectual challenge and learning curve. In short, a fascinating period piece – but not for “general consumption.
Well, I guess we all know the story. It is the story of a class of boys, who at 18, are “carried away” by their teachers patriotic speech and enlist “en masse”. This is the First World War. And the unsuspecting boys – along with us the viewers – are subjected to the true horrors of the trench wars…
This is possibly one of the best anti-war films ever made. As you can see it doesn’t have much of a “storyline” per se, it is one of a now almost dead breed; films made exclusively to put a message across. And in this case, the message is the horrors of war. And if you can get passed the fact of how alien it feels on a purely technical basis and get stuck in the story, you will be truly moved. You will, as you voyage with the class see everything, from a young soldiers’ first kill and the trauma thereof, to field hospitals; from the rats in the trenches, to the absolutely impossible task of finding food every day. And when you use a little imagination to think that these were the actual conditions under which wars were fought, you would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved or even seriously upset. (Let me put it this way: my mother, who had read the book and criticized the film for “jumping around” and not sticking to or explaining the chronology of events in great detail was so distressed by it she couldn’t actually watch it to the end). And of course, it gives one the chance to reflect on the state of the world today and the shameful distance we all are from living peacefully together as a planet… But I guess that’s a topic for a different blog…

VALKYRIE

If you turn round and tell me that you are actually fed to the back teeth with WW2 films and that you do not want set eyes on another again, I would sympathize. I mean, I would find your reaction a tad excessive but I could see where you were coming from. Truth be told, tragic though the events of WW2 were, I feel that too many mediocre to bad films have been made on the topic. Thus people get the impression that if they’ve seen one they’ve pretty much seen them all. The good Allies vs. the evil Germans. Now this was no doubt true up to a point, but not completely. I mean, you can’t realistically claim that ALL Germans were evil / frightened / following the Nazi party without thinking. In fact, Valkyrie is the true story of a group of German officers who took on the Third Reich; if only to “show the world that not all of them were like him”.

The group is actually comprised of Nazi army officers. They, however, think that Hitler is destroying Germany. And they feel he must be stopped at all costs. Under the leadership of Colonel Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) a daring plan is hatched. They will utilize the “Valkyrie” plans, plans to be used to maintain order in Germany if Hitler is killed or is cut off from the rest of the country. Stauffenberg himself will murder Hitler. The Valkyrie plans will in the meanwhile be re-written to exclude the SS and thus the “friendly forces” will act quickly, taking over all points of authority and taking over the country without shedding a single drop of blood (except Hitler’s). However as we all know, and as John Lennon very rightly put it, “Life is what happens while we are busy making plans”…

Now, you may have had prior knowledge of this coup. And for anyone who has basic knowledge of the WW2 history, the end of the film is pretty evident. The plot failed, the group was caught and as for the consequences… Well let’s just say they weren’t rapped on the knuckles and set free… But I still think you should watch it. Why? Well, first of all, my very short rendition above doesn’t even come close to doing justice to how complicated Operation Valkyrie actually was. It’s a very, VERY exciting story of strategy, resistance and a delight to watch for anyone who relishes that feeling of watching the “dominos fall” if you see what I mean. I have heard Tom Cruise’s performance being called a failure – honestly, I wouldn’t go that far. He’s not my favorite actor either but his performance isn’t really bad. Besides, I was personally very touched by the quote I stated in the first paragraph. The band knew only too well that their plan might well fail, spelling death to them all but desperately and above and beyond anything wanted to show the world that they were not all “like him.” Seeing that they died in the attempt, I feel we owe it to them to at least listen to their story…
(For those who want to learn more about this, check here for the Wikipedia page. Always a good place to start =)

"INTIMATE ENNEMIES"

This “strong and silent type” French film almost didn’t make the list. Not because I don’t like it, quite au contraire, but I wasn’t sure how much it would appeal to you guys for some reason. I don’t know, French war movie about the Algerian war, set at the height of the operations in 1959… But I watched it for the second time for work today. And I cried my eyes out. Again. So I just had to share it with you.
Lieutenant Terrien has a tough job ahead of him. He is an industrial designer by trade and a happily married father of one but he has volunteered for the war in Algeria. He is stepping into a dead Lieutenant’s shoes. Apart from having these shoes to fill, the clashes with the rebels / resistance are getting more and more brutal. His sergeant Dougnac is a sullen and silent man, but he soon shows Terrien that he knows the area and their job a lot better than he does. Terrien is shocked at first by the area, by the mentality of the soldiers and the sheer “horror” (remember Apocalypse Now? If you didn’t get what “The Horror” meant then, you will now I promise you) of proceedings. He is unable to understand Dougnac’s apparent coldness and callousness. But soon, both him and we realize that the true enemies that are the hardest to conquer lie not in some mountain range but deep within our own souls…
This film is not a happy one. It is definitely a “disclaimer” film. I mean, ok, I’m guessing you expect violence. But this isn’t “Saving Private Ryan” type violence. It is a lot deeper and hard-hitting than that. And it is not horrifying in its scale - we are not talking about people dying in their hundreds – but in its meaning. All through the film we are given no respite about the psychological suffering of soldiers at war. And I don’t mean just the French soldiers either, you must remember there were a lot of Algerians fighting alongside them as well… We are reminded that war Is a tragedy, and just sometimes it is a pointless tragedy. We are reminded that this violence effects the ones who witness it and sometimes leaves incurable scars. And of course, the politics. Terrien lays out the arguments of the film within the first half-hour – basically the fact that the de Gaulle government was very much to blaim for the Algerian war. But when it comes to the brutalities that went on there, we are forced to admit, that if we were in Terrien’s – or any of the characters – shoes, we probably would not have, in fact could not have acted in any other way…
My memory is pretty good and I remember pretty much all the plot twists quite clearly. But I could not hold back the tears as I watched Terrien slowly crack and turn into something he despised (and I know this is sort of a spoiler but I’m guessing you saw this coming, no?). You will not find it easy viewing at all. But then again, some things don’t come in pretty packages and yet they are true and beautiful…

WELCOME ON BOARD THE U-BOAT - IN ENEMY HANDS

Well, the modern movie go- er cannot survive on Indies alone; just occasionally some old-fashioned Hollywood makes are needed. And if you have reached that time in your movie schedule, allow me to offer you In Enemy Hands.
In Enemy Hands is a movie set during World War 2. Now now, don’t scoff, it may not be a classic but it is a GOOD movie set during World War 2. And the subject matter is well, not exactly fresh, but fresher than a lot of films out there. Allow me to run through the story-line first.
At the height of the u-boat wars during World War 2, a German u-boat and an American submarine come head to head. They battle it out, the Germans win an astounding victory destroying the American submarine and capturing the surviving crew members. However, the American p.o.w. s have brought an uninvited guest with them: Meningitis. Fatal and highly contagious, the disease spreads quickly throughout the u-boat and soon so many men have been lost that there is only one way for all to get home alive: forming a mixed crew of Germans and Americans to operate the u-boat…
The film is, needless to say, full of all the clichés you would expect it to be full of : The adoring beautiful ( read perfect) wife waiting back home, the rash young captain who refuses to listen to his more experienced officer and bringing disaster to all the crew, on the other side the subordinate who has been held back from becoming a captain by his own insecurity and who is of course pushed into making important decisions , a very balanced mix of “good” and “bad” Germans. I could actually go on but you get the picture. Still, the film has its moments. And although you probably can already guess how the movie ends, if you need some Saturday night entertainment without too much effort, give it a spin…

EICHMANN – THE SOLDIER. THE FATHER. THE MONSTER.

Ok, heads up, this is a Second World War film. Another one. Now I’m sure you have your own view on that statement; I am personally one of those who are not sick and tired of them. Not of the good ones at any rate. And Eichmann is definitely “a good one”.
My only criticism of the film would be that it pre-supposes a bit of general knowledge; in brief, the answers to the questions “Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did he do?” (To be fair though, they are pretty easy to pick up as you go along)To those of us who do not know, he was a high ranking Nazi officer who was in charge of the “coordination” of concentration camps. He was responsible for every aspect, from the work to the transport. His coldness and cruelty were a thing of legend. In 1960, he was captured and brought to Israel. He was tried for war crimes and executed. Before his trial, he was interrogated by the military prosecutor Avner Less. The film is based on the transcripts of these interviews.
Thomas Kreschnann and Troy Garity (who play Eichmann and Less respectively) have pulled of quite a feat. Although flashbacks of Eichmann’s past and Less’s life outside the interrogation chamber play an important part, the two men’s dialogues constitute the backbone of the film and never once lose their sense of purpose…
As to the subject matter, what makes this film fresh to my eyes is that apart from showing the horrors of the Nazi regime, the film also tries to understand what went on in the minds of its administrators. And that, in my view, is a very good question indeed.
Take the case of Eichman. Before us we have a seemingly average army officer. Loving father of four. Womaniser with several mistresses. The single handed organizer of the death camps that took the lives of millions of human beings. And of course the defense is as easy to predict as the events are easy to research : “I was following orders.” “I was not responsible.” What we find out here, along with Avner Less, is how this defense was born. And how it is actually possible for the defendant to believe it in a way… I do not want to give away more of the film than I can help but let me put it this way. If you ever read something, no matter how brief, about the Nazi regime – or dictatorships anywhere – and wondered “what the hell they were thinking”, this a very good stab and an answer. Let me also add that the conclusion reached is hair-raisingly human…