OH THERE'S LIFE IN THE OLD DOGS YET! MEET "THE MONUMENTS MEN"

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 21^st 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…

REACH FOR THE STARS... "ELYSIUM"

I wonder if Neill Blomkamp was at all nervous when he rolled Elysium out? I don’t say this because he is (or may have been) incompetent as a director. He is not. We all saw that as clear as day in District 9. In fact that is, in a nutshell, the problem. District 9 was categorically awesome. Most of the planet agreed. Anything he did after that was bound to be compared to it, especially since they have, visually speaking at least, such similar premises. And I mean heck, the similarities are not just visual, if you turned your head and squinted slightly, you could argue that he had simply replaced the aliens of District 9 with “non-citizens” in this film. Now I’m not saying that Elysium is a bad film, it definitely is not. But I do wish he had done it BEFORE District 9, not after…

But what is this Elysium of which we all speak? Well, in the late 21^st century, the world has been devastated by disease and poverty. So much so that the rich and wealthy (the 1%, as it were) have moved to a space station in the sky called Elysium. Here the elite live the high life (see what I did there ?) and enjoy many benefits, not least that of an almost magical medical system which allows them to stay young and beautiful almost indefinitely. I mean, it’s not immortality, but it’s darn close. Darn close. But all that is just on Elysium you see. On earth, people get ill, suffer and die the way they always have – we can’t have the plebs getting their dirty paws on this technology, right?  Anyway, Max (Matt Damon) is an ex-con and orphan who lives on earth and can only dream  of ever going to Elysium one day (because, as you may have guessed, it ain’t all that easy to become a citizen of Elysium).  But one day, just as he is genuinely trying to turn his life around a freak accident at work leaves him with a matter of days to live… There is one thing that can save Max now : the medical attention available on Elysium. With days left to live, Max is ready to take on any risk to get to Elysium… But his efforts will start a chain reaction that will threaten to shift the entire balance of the world he lives in…

Now, this film gets a lot of things right, I have to say, because Blomkamp is, like I said, a very talented and capable director. I especially love the fact that we have a strong female villain in the shape of Jodie Foster. She plays Delacourt (and I don’t know if it’s a dig in the ribs to old conventions or a genuine re-birth of the phenomenon but our elitist villains are mostly French or French-speaking) the Defense secretary who has her eyes firmly glued to the president’s seat. In the proceedings Delacourt has what we generally term “male characteristics” – she is ambitious, decisive and although she is up to her neck in political scheming (but that’s more because she is a politician and less because she is a woman if you see what I mean) she does not so much as bat an eyelid as she orders two shuttles full of innocent civilians (innocent civilians who are trying to sneak over the border into Elysium… Oh wait does that remind you of something?) to be shot and annihilated. So brownie points for reversing gender roles.

But now onto the social commentary. Because this is mainly what Blomkamp is “all about”.  But the film would have fared so much better if Blomkamp had actually done something artistic to put it across as opposed to make something that very strongly resembles his own rather brilliant previous film and a typical Hollywood action  / sci-fi film and tack on some social commentary. Ok, I’m being a bit harsh here but seriously… There is virtually nothing original about the film at all… It even has a surrogate family unit:  Max, his love interest and her daughter. I mean ok, fair dues, the family unit does NOT come together at the end and the villain is the victim of her own political scheming and not our hero but still… Yes there are some very good original notes in there but at the end of the day I saw this as Blomkamp taking a huge step back. And given the success of District 9, I don’t understand why… I mean never mind how much the “world” in Elysium resembles the shanty towns in District 9. Never mind the fact that they repeated the marketing tactics they used for District 9 too… (You must have seen the “no aliens” stickers when district 9 came out right? Did you catch the spoof ads for vacancies in Elysium? I saw a few on the tube myself ) Do you know what it felt like to me? Blomkamp reckoned we “didn’t get” his message the first time. So he “dumbed it down” and re-stated it. And, much like watery soup, it still tasted ok but for those of us who were a fan of the real thing we kinda wanted a decent meal. And we were kinda looking forward to tasting something new. I mean the least Blomkamp could have done is to leave the soup well alone and wait a bit if he couldn’t think of something new… Ok I may have run a little too far with this analogy but you get the picture… 

NO INTRODUCTION NEEDED REALLY: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

This is yet another one that most of us have seen by now. And yet another one I actually caught for the first time this week. Now, I do understand if you say it’s a little too Hollywood, you know, a little too “been there, done that”. I get it. Some people don’t fancy Hollywood that much, honestly I don’t blame them. But you really cannot just go tarring the entirety of Hollywood with the same brush as it were. In the context of Hollywood films, some directors come up with really spectacular works. True, you may feel you know the story already, but maybe there is something in the film itself that will make you go for it anyway, eh? A bit like The New World written above; we do know the story of this one. It is a pleasure to watch anyway. 1944 – D Day. While the American forces are faced with the undiluted horrors of the war, the results are creating their own tragedies back home. When the armed forces realize that three of the Ryan have been killed in the war, leaving their only surviving sibling among the parachuters who were accidentally dropped behind enemy lines, there seems to be only one thing to do. Send out a search party. Find Private Ryan. Send him home. For this, Captain John Miller (the legendary Tom Hanks) Is selected and told to assemble a team. The task in hand is dangerous, in their own words they are basically looking for a needle in a haystack of needles. They are not entirely sure why they are doing this and resentment for this Private Ryan is growing without even having met the man. It will take all of Miller’s skills as a leader if he is to see this mission to completion. Like I said, this is one of those films that remind us of the sacrifices of previous generations, the price of peace as it were. The criticism this kind of film usually receives is that it glorifies war and paints the whole situation in a far more rose tinted – if you will – light than it actually is. Spielberg isn’t having any of that. The landing sequence in D Day, depicting what happened on Omaha beach back in the day is now a thing of movie legend. And Spielberg was, I am reliably informed by the many books strewn around my desk, quite aware that the sequence was hard to watch. It was, however, a matter of principal. The other good thing about the film is that the team looking for Private Ryan is very, very human. By the middle of the mission they have ceased to care about the Private at all, in fact they are pretty sure he is insufferable. Captain Miller has to keep them in line the whole time, but the thing is he is just doing his duty too; he is just as sick of the mission but also wants to get the job done. It is true there are a few romantic “bits” in it, a few classic characters thrown in for good measure but hey, it’s a sweeping epic, I think we can give it that much… In general, the depictions are quite real and down to earth. And with the subject matter to hand of course, this makes the film a hard one to watch from time to time… But hey… totally worth it. Just bring tissues.

CURRENT AFFAIRS : "GREEN ZONE"

Anyone who has so much as glanced at world events over the last couple of years can make an educated guess as to what the “green zone” refers to. And where exactly it is. The backdrop for our last war film this week is one of the most recent wars, the war in Iraq. The film has many advantages, a director experienced in the action / thriller genre, Paul Greenglass who can proudly add the direction of The Bourne Ultimatum and the Bourne Supremacy to his list of achievements. The lead actor of the film is also a familiar name, Matt Damon, whose performance in the Bourne Trilogy has gone down in action movie history. Plus of course, there is the marked advantage of it being a recent film about a recent war; emotions concerning the war run high making the audience (potentially anyway) that much more involved in the film and of course there aren’t that many films about it yet; the Second World War and the Vietnam War, although the backdrops of some of the best films in history are now generally considered “hackneyed subjects”. The Iraq war is “fresh” so to speak. In short, the film seems to promise a lot. I am happy to tell you, it delivers.
Chief Warrant Officer Miller (Matt Damon) has been in Iraq for a while now, and he has begun to smell a rat. He and his team are on an important mission; finding the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein is said to have hidden around the country. They receive intelligence report after intelligence report, hit location after location, but they come up with nothing. Miller doesn’t believe in coincidences of such great size and begins to question the sources of the intelligence they are given. After all, the weapons are the reason the army is in Iraq, Miller considers it his duty to sort out what is going on. And the more he digs the bigger the mystery seems to become, Miller will finally be pushed to go rogue to discover the truth… Such discoveries can however, be dangerous. Even fatal.
Another advantage this film has is, without a doubt, is the fact that a lot of us have seen quite a bit of coverage of the war. Greenglass has made a clever choice as far as filming is concerned, favoring a style very close to documentary or news report coverage to show the actual fighting. The pictures are not necessarily clean-cut, they are definitely shaky, in short they are not the squeaky – clean typical action film shots. They do however; give us the eerie impression of watching something that is actually happening. Thus, at the point of getting into the story the adrenalin is pumping already. Then of course the second “layer” of action comes along, namely the discovery and attempt to unmask the conspiracy that is going on. The film is actually based on a book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone")by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. Now I haven’t read the book, but the story told on the screen was 24 karat gold. And the suspense doesn’t let up for one minute; although we have all seen our fair share of “conspiracy theory movies” (the afore mentioned Bourne Trilogy being one of them), Green Zone has enough curveballs in store to throw the oldest of film veterans off track. I can understand why one might have a general aversion to war films as a rule. In some examples, there tends to be an over-reliance on action and explosions to the detriment of the story, especially in modern times. Not so this little beauty. It shows us the horrors of war realistically and without getting over-dramatic, it presents a clever plot without getting convoluted and over-doing itself. A good ‘un, no doubt.

GEORGE CLOONEY SPECIAL WEEK : A PARADE OF STARS - "OCEAN’S 11"

Now, as we all agree our dear Mr. Clooney is, to put no finer point on it, yummy. And naturally, he is, in himself, quite sufficient to glue one to a film from beginning to end whether the film has substance or not. A film like Michael Clayton, where you have to really use the “little grey cells” to coin the phrase of one of my favorite detectives (oh of course you know who, just think for a second!). Mr. Clooney really and truly knows how to act, the story is amazing and exciting, in short you are surrounded by various levels of yumminess. Sometimes, however, one’s little grey cells have had enough exercise for one day. They want to kick back and be entertained, they don’t want to work. That’s when your typical, common or garden “entertainment” movie comes in. Hopefully it has a clever plotline. Plenty of action, a few nice special effects, a few handsome gents and some beautiful dames, add a little pop corn, grab a soda, what more do you need? How about just such a movie starring George Clooney… Brad Pitt… Matt Damon… AND Julia Roberts? Too good to be true? No. Ocean’s 11.
Danny Ocean (George Clooney) is fresh out of prison. He is also a man with a plan. He intends fully to make up for the lost couple of years of his life, and he will do that by robbing three of the biggest casinos in Las Vegas. Of course, if you’re robbing a casino in Las Vegas, you have to do a touch more than walk in with a gun and yell “Stick ‘em up!” You’ll need a plan. And a team to execute it. Now we have already explained, Mr. Ocean is a man with a plan. All he has to do is acquire a team, and thanks to his own old contacts – and his best friend Rusty’s (Brad Pitt) this is not actually going to be a problem. All they have to do is to find nine other men as mad as themselves, and pull of the biggest casino heist in the history of Las Vegas… All in a day’s work for Danny Ocean…
Ocean’s 11 is all you expect it to be, and more. There’s really no wonder it kind of turned into a trilogy. Now there is one thing you have to bear in mind when it comes to this kind of film. It sounds simple. That’s what usually trips people up. If “anyone” tries to film a robbery – heist movie, chances are you’re going to get something that is pretty much 10 a penny these days. Completely predictable with 3rd rate acting and photography. Do any of us go out and watch these? Well some of us do, that much is obvious, but most of us do not. However if Steven Soderbergh is at the helm of the boat and if so many classic actors are crammed into the film (the afore – mentioned foursome PLUS Andy Garcia, Bernie Mac and Casey Affleck – and that’s still only part of the cast!) you get true, good quality entertainment. The film is great fun from beginning to end, the plot twists are intelligent and not predictable (as a general rule, anyway) and besides come on… We’re talking about George Clooney here… Of course the film’s brilliant!

INVICTUS

Do you know what I like most in a film? The ability to show me a different side of things. A different angle. So difficult these days as well, in our age of mass commercial film production, we seem to be rapidly running out of topics. That is, I think, why we are turning more and more towards real events, because real life is nearly always stranger than fiction. And this is how we can find fascinating stories even in the most famous events in history.

Take the election of Nelson Mandela (portrayed in the film by Morgan Freeman) as the president of South Africa. I’m sure we all have at least cursory knowledge of the Apartheid regime. And I’m sure we at least know that Nelson Mandela spent a lot of time in prison and was then elected president, right? The big question is what did he do after that? The Apartheid regime had ended, everyone was equal but that, in fact, was just the beginning. You see, think about it, the white South Africans had not just vanished over night… They were there, the memories of the Apartheid were there with everyone and the whole country seethed with enmity and division. Mr. Mandela was, therefore, faced with the rather formidable task of uniting his supporters with the very people they had been fighting against for all those years… The very people, in some cases, who had sent him to prison…

In troubled times like this, symbols gain more importance than ever. And the most mundane things sometimes suddenly gain symbolic meaning. Case in point, the Springboks, the South African National rugby team. Well, when I say National, don’t take it too literally, because at the time the team was seen as one of the tools of the Apartheid regime and black South Africans would cheer against literally anybody they were playing against just so they didn’t cheer for the Springboks. Not that the Springboks gave their fans much to cheer about, in 1990, when the story took place, they were going through the lowest of low patches performance-wise. Nelson Mandela quite unexpectedly for most, summoned François Pienaar (Matt Damon) the captain of the Springboks to tea at his residence one afternoon. You see, the people needed something to unite them. Something to rally behind. South Africa was hosting the rugby world cup in under a year. And the Springboks were the designated champions behind whom the people would rally… If François could motivate his team into getting their act together that is…

The film has a lot going for it to give it its due… It is produced and directed by Clint Eastwood – and that surprised me… I mean don’t get me wrong I have all the respect in the world for Clint Eastwood; however, his films generally tend have a rather “rugged, masculine” feel about them. This is especially pronounced if he is actually acting in them too. Now, I hear you protesting already: “Hey, it’s a RUGBY team. It doesn’t get more masculine than that, surely?” Ok, fair enough. And I won’t deny the fact that with the exception of ??? Mr. Mandela’s faithful assistant, almost all the female characters fell into nice little stereotypes (faithful wife, worried mother, homely housekeeper, serious secretary). However, the quiet, peaceful yet determined outlook of Mr. Mandela and the emotions of the South African people are portrayed with finesse and feeling – a fact that will surprise anyone who thinks of Mr. Eastwood as basically “A Cowboy”. I mean, naturally Mr. Morgan Freeman may have had just a touch to do with it – the man’s less of an actor and more of an institution as far as I’m concerned. Mr. Damon also holds his own – in fact both were nominated for Oscars ® this year for their respective performances in this film…

I am not a sports fan. I don’t see “the point” of a lot of sports (I won’t bore you with details that is the topic for a whole other entry). However, the power a sport has and the power of success are undisputable. This is a story about the vision of a truly extraordinary leader and a story of reconciliation – something the world truly needs a lot of these days. And I know I’ve ribbed Mr. Eastwood about being too macho in this article but it has to be admitted that the director of this films needs to be someone who “sees the point” of rugby (you know what I mean ladies – not the “esthetics” of the players but the actual sport ;) ) to tie it in with the social union of the people. A film of powerful emotion – and very deserving of a gander…

THE INFORMANT!

Well, naturally, no week of picks could be complete without a good old “true story”. And this week’s true story is the rather unbelievable tale of Mark Whitacre – corporate informant and conman extraordinaire. Well, sort of…
What seems to be a pretty routine security issue in the big food corporation ADM turns into a career-making sting for the FBI agents involved when they cross paths with Mark Whitacre. Mark Whitacre is a decent man, he is one of the youngest department heads in the company history and he can take it no longer : The company is part of a massive price-fixing scam. The scam spans pretty much the entire world and a vast range of products – well, technically every single item the corporation is producing. The agents are intrigued but cautious : they demand solid proof. To their surprise Whitacre participates in the inquiry with almost as much vehemence as the agents themselves. He wears a wire, makes tapes and when all that does not yield the information needed even maneuvers a secret camera. When the FBI closes in the “sting” is MASSIVE. All the company’s records and paperwork come under the scrutiny of the FBI. The price fixing is most definitely there… However, so are a few other things Mr Whitacre “forgot” to mention…
Well my first comment is, the story is definitely true (and documented I hasten to add) and truly fascinating. It is fascinating to the point where you may well feel the need to give yourself a pinch and remind yourself it actually is real. It is, I must say a tad hard to follow in bits but nothing a simple rewind (or pausing, turning to whoever was watching with you and asking “what was that?”) won’t solve. Another point I MUST mention is Matt Damon, who plays Mark Whitacre. Now, the problem with actors like Damon is that it is very easy to slip into thinking they’re merely a pretty face. Mr Damon’s face is anything but pretty in this particular case (no offence whatever to Mr Whitacre but very few of us have looks to match Hollywood actors – I most certainly don’t!) . But since his looks are “removed” from the equation, his considerable talent shines through. He is absolutely HILARIOUS to watch and coupled with the talented Mr Steven Soderbergh as a director the film is in a word “made”.
This fast-paced and intelligent dark-ish comedy is a brilliant and original choice for your evening’s entertainment – despite its mainstream pedigree. I mean, I loved it despite my high expectations for it – and despite the fact that I knew part of “the plot”. Between you and me folks, I think we may be looking at a modern classic folks – watch this space!