"WIKILEAKS - THE FIFTH ESTATE" - AND WHETHER IT LIVED UP TO EXPECTATIONS...

It was only a matter of time before the films about Wikileaks started pouring out of the production companies I suppose. Julian Assange`s Wikileaks is one of the greatest and most extraordinary information phenomena of modern time. Assange has exposed more corruption and human rights violations than any other media outlet in existence today thanks to his technical skill, his tenacity and determination to get the information ``out there``. In reach for all of us.

But , as this film points out, does that mean he is perfect? Does that mean he has no demons of his own to fight? Does it mean the whole process was easy? The Fifth Estate would argue not. Benedict Cumberbach plays Assange and Daniel Bruhl plays Daniel ??? the two men who basically kicked off the global phenomenon. Daniel gets by and large swept up by Julian`s charisma and the strength of his ideas. He is a very able IT technician with bright ideas and connections to back them up. Julian is, of course, the main driving force behind the whole operation, the one with the inspiration, but well… How to put this… Organization is not exactly his strong point, which is basically where Daniel comes in. Staging an online revolution does, however, come at a cost. Julian has sacrificed anything and everything that ties him even remotely to an ordinary life to get the online revolution going. And as Wikileaks takes its first strides across the information super highway, Daniel is faced with the same choices... Is he prepared to make all the sacrifices Julian made? Or would that be going a step too far?

I imagine quite a few of us were aware that this film was a complete failure at the box office. It was partly why I was intrigued enough to watch it in the first place. I mean with a current and charismatic topic like Wikileaks and Julian Assange and acting greats like Benedict Cumbarbach and Daniel Bruhl, one would assume the film was set to be a massive success. It just goes to show (as if we weren`t aware of it) that the way you handle a story is just as important as the material itself – especially when using visual mediums like film (or indeed theatre). Now the portrayal of Julian Assange is one thing. We do get to know him quite well, and as some of you may have heard, what we see is not exactly complimentary. He is selfish when he comes to his relationships with everyone else, with his mind only on Wikileaks and himself. He has very little consideration, or in fact patience for any idea or happening not pertaining to himself or the cause, and even ``pertinent`` concerns are dismissed if they are not directly in line with his way of thinking. I have no idea if this rather selfish portrayal of the man is entirely accurate but it does make sense in the sense that you have to be more than a little extraordinary to come up with an idea like Wikileaks and this, combined with past traumas, might well make you, well… A little too extraordinary. And herein lies the problem with the film. The only other character we really get to know is Daniel. But apart from these two, the entire pantheon of characters could well be made up of cardboard cut-outs. Of course a film cannot have more than a certain number of protagonists and secondary characters but I strongly feel having two main protagonists accompanied by what largely amounts to a rather over-populated Greek chorus does nothing to advance the film. And, I am sad to say this, but as far as character development goes, in the sense that often in films we find the main character(s) changed and developed in some way at the end of the story, the author also leaves us hanging. Julian Assange is basically the same as he ever was – all be it with a much stronger voice on the internet now – Daniel has developed slightly but only in that he no longer hero-worships Julian and has decided that he cannot sacrifice every single vestige of what he cares for, for this cause. The rest of the cast we barely get to know so we cannot really comment on. The rather disconcerting result is that the film reads a bit like a documentary played out by pre-formed ``types`` of Hollywood` s Golden Age. And while the documentary-like approach to the film was unavoidable given the nature of the subject and how recently the events portrayed took place, that is no excuse for the shallowness of the characters we see on the screen. I mean, even in the case of Julian Assange, the most developed character in the film, it doesn`t take an expert to see that Cumberbach has basically been asked to take his famous Sherlock Holmes character and adapt it to the world of IT. This is not to say that Cumberbach does a bad job of it, only that with an actor of his caliber one could have asked him to do something slightly more adventurous and different… That is, after all, a large part of the ethos of Wikileaks.  

The one thing I thought the film did do rather well on was the way they portrayed the online world, the internet itself. I was watching a video in the exact same matter quite recently (check it out HERE) and it was basically talking about the new search in films today as to how best one should portray online transactions on film. Various experiments have been made pertaining to telephone messages  and although we do have variations, critics seem pretty unanimous in naming the style as used in the BBC`s Sherlock  (where the messages usually free-float across the screen in proximity to whoever received it, in a font similar to the one used on our phones) is the style to keep to. The internet however, and chatting is yet to find its on screen avatar. I am not going to indulge myself with lengthy descriptions and let you guys discover the whole deal yourselves but I will just say that I like it. I am not sure it will end up as the definitively accepted ``thing`` (I mean, as ``definitively accepted`` as these things get) but I definitely think it`s on the right track.

In short, I was rather disappointed with The Fifth Estate. My only consolation is, I am sure other films with different and better interpretations of the topic are bound to surface as this is one historical phenomenon no one is about to forget in a hurry. Shame one can`t say the same about the film. 

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…

FROM THE "QUENTIN TARANTINO OF THE 16TH CENTURY" : THE DUCHESS OF MALFI (as broadcast by the BBC)

Well, this was an unusual one.  Recorded at a perfect reconstruction of a Jacobean theatre with a live audience this is a rather glorious performance of a classic by one of the greatest rivals of Shakespeare himself. I`m not quite sure if this one qualifies as a film. I`m not even sure if this is on DVD or not or how anyone based outside the UK will potentially get to watch it. Of course there have been films made of the story. But this is not a film, not strictly speaking. Then again, I loved it. It tempted me into putting money aside so I can go to theatre. And watching in Jacobean style, lit only with candles and with no backdrop, was a real experience in itself. I mean not to mention the fact that televised and recorded artistic experiences (be it museum tours or concerts) are more and more of a ``thing``. So… I reckon it gets a place in the blog. Besides, in the scheme of things these days John Webster is often overshadowed by his more famous contemporary. It`s high time there was a spotlight on his talent.

So what is the story? Well, our heroine, as you may guess, is the Duchess of Malfi. She is quite young and newly widowed, so she naturally has quite a few suitors milling around. The duchess however loves one man – Antonio. Unfortunately for all concerned however, he is not a nobleman but a steward of the household. Her feelings are quite requited and Antonio and the Duchess marry and have three beautiful children. This joyous state of affairs does not please the duchess` brothers. Her older brother the Cardinal is one problem. Her twin brother Ferdinand, whose ``brotherly`` love borders on obsession, is a completely different one. And they have their own ideas as to how best to ``retaliate`` to this ``act of treason``. 

The ``true crime`` fans among us will be fascinated to find out that this is, in fact, a true story. It is the story if Giovanna D`Aragona and her two brothers, Ludovica D`Aragona, the cardinal of Santa Maria in Cosmedin and her fraternal twin Carlo D`Aragona, the Marquis of Gerace. While there is no historical evidence of any actual foul play; there is evidence that Giovanna (who, to put things into perspective was married off at the tender age of 12 and widowed at around 17) lived in terror of her brothers` retribution. There is also historical evidence that the duchess, her two youngest children and Antonio were murdered in quick succession. Only their eldest son survived the carnage and, thankfully, lived a long and successful life. I think you can probably see where the inspiration for this particularly ghoulish play comes from…

And don’t get me wrong the play is bloody – one of the experts in a documentary I watched on the play described Webster as a Jacobean Quentin Tarantino – but for me that is not where the true horror of the play lies. We learn that the play comes after years of disappearance on Webster`s part – as in he just drops off the existing records for a number of years – then he just reappears and writes this. Whatever happened in the meanwhile, it clearly was not pleasant. Because we have eerily accurate descriptions of madness and depression that, combined with a strong cast, are fit to give the strongest theatre-goers the chills. In this performance we have a very striking character in the shape of Bosola – brought to life by  Sean Gilder – who is the catspaw for the Cardinal and Ferdinand. He is clearly depressed (and I mean clinically people, not just having a bad day) from the moment we are first introduced to him. It is the state of mind of a man who, thanks to the Cardinal’s dirty dealings , has already been sucked so deep into a world of blood, intrigue he just does not see a way out for himself.  Watching him fight himself and suffer as he gets sucked deeper and deeper into the two brothers plans is harrowing within itself. Then, of course, there is Ferdinand. Ferdinand is unstable from the word go, and I don`t just mean about his sister (although that is a massive part of it of course). As the stress on his system increases we find him incapable of coping and he transforms from the arch-villain to a tragi-comical character. It’s quite a natural progression really. Consider the villains we have seen in the past, the wild stares, the maniacal laughs the typical ``mad they called me, mad!`` Does it not follow that one of them should just fall over the edge at some point DURING the narrative? I`m rather amazed this hasn`t been done before really. I know it would spoil the ``dichotomy`` as far as Hollywood were concerned (you know, the hero wouldn`t have an opponent at his own weight category and that would kinda throw the film of kilter). But surely some of the indies could have done it? In this story the problem of the ``missing baddie`` is easily solved through the presence of the Cardinal who is the archetypal “evil priest”.  The Cardinal is nothing short of a psychopath by the way, in a way a lot more frightening than the unstable Ferdinand or Bosolo whose hands are steeped in blood but I’m going to let you guys discover that for yourselves later. And last but not least, a word or three must be said for Gemma Arterton who does a spectacular job as the duchess. The duchess you understand is neither a saint nor a harlot. She is a regular young and beautiful woman, still full of life and madly in love. She cares not about “familial duty” or social standards, she just wants to marry the man she loves. Her suffering and torment will turn her into what is almost a heroine from a Greek tragedy while her death (don’t tell me you didn`t see that coming) transforms her into what would be akin to a martyr in this play. There is something to be said about the fact that she ends up as “tragedy” while her fraternal twin, through his insanity becomes “comedy”, albeit with a deeply tragic streak. But that is possibly another post all together…

Finally, one simply must say a word or two about the production itself, because of course we must remember that this is not a film but a filmed play – which is a different thing all together. First of all of course, the minimalist approach and lack of props are probably going to throw you a bit if you’re not used to this kind of production. The lack of backdrops etc. may well mean you get a bit disoriented at first, but as long as the audience is willing to use a little imagination – and of course the performances are strong enough – you will find it very easy to follow “where” we are. Besides it gives the performance a strange kind of freedom, a sort of sense of being untethered from the material things. I mean this is tame in comparison too; I have seen a performance of Anthony and Cleopatra at the Globe where the actors just sat on a bench at the end of stage if they weren’t in the particular act being performed. So in effect, almost the whole cast was on the stage the whole time which is slightly disorienting to say the very least. What else? Oh yes, the lighting. It barely gets a mention in this blog I know (and God knows it SHOULD get mentioned) but here it takes on a life of its own. When multiple candles are used to mimic the bright light of day all is well and good but when night falls… The play between light and dark and the way the shadows are used are nothing short of (and in fact I would hazard a guess that in this particular modern production they were heavily influenced by) the kind of German expressionism in early black and white film that later also influenced the likes of Orson Wells and many other film noirs. In fact there is one portion of the play that takes place in complete darkness. Do take a minute to stop and think how that was received back in the 16^th century – the audience must have been terrified.  This period of darkness is part of the psychological torture prepared for the duchess and trust me, a 21^st century audience would be jumping out of its skin – much less a 16^thcentury one.

Do you know something? I would have loved to have seen this in the flesh. It must have been such an immersive experience… I really, really need to go to the theatre more often. Even watching this performance on TV was just… So striking… I really hope you get a chance to see this performance, recorded live or even in the form of a different film all together. Especially for all you gore and horror fans, there is a real treat in store.

THE HORROR THAT BEGOT A HUNDRED MONSTERS : "THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE"

Oh I know, you’re surprised, right? Appearances by horror films on this blog are rare as it is, much less the much sniggered-at slasher. I mean, I can’t deny it, I snigger at slashers myself. But the point is, the horror genre is there and there to say whether you like it, hate it or are too much of a scardy-cat to watch a film or three and make a judgement on it. And every genre has a history. Forefathers. Films that did things for the first time, that led the way for other films that walked in their footseps and, for better or worse, copied them. You can have a million different opinions on horror films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but you cannot deny its importance. Which is why we are looking at it today. Plus, between you and me, I did rather like it. So, yeah.

The premise of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is simple enough. We start off with a group of five teenagers out on a drive on a barmy afternoon. We have two couples and the invalid brother of one of the girls, a rather difficult young man stuck in a wheelchair.  They are exploring the brother and sisters  grandparents hometown, the old family house etc and well… Getting up to the kinds of stuff young couples get up to on trips like these. But the thing they don’t know is things have changed around these parts since they were children. The old abbatoir is closed, some townspeople have passed on and some of the survivors are getting… Well… Restless…

The film does everything it says on the tin. And it is what has become a “classic” slasher. Characters being picked off one by one, one female survivor… The film is not one to watch for originality. I mean, it was back in the day – but not anymore. This is the film - or at least one of the films- all those slashers you were watched as a teenager and then get bored of, copied. The thing is, this is the original, this is the “first time” that was done and even as someone who is not a great fan of horror films I have to admit, the original idea is a lot more vivid and bright than many of the copies it spawned. I mean take, for example the invalid brother, Franklin. Franklin is wheel-chair bound. He is clearly bitter about his condition and not a little immature. He is an all-round difficult character and all in all not the most pleasant. But the point is, that as a paraplegic, he is an integral cast member and an important part of the story. In fact his disability is, more than anything else, a vessel to create tension and conflict in the film – ultimately red herrings of course given the real antagonists in the film. Now, how many films can you think of that have disabled characters with important roles?  You have the odd “blind sage” type character, a character as old as Homer but can you think of any deaf characters? Anyone in a wheelchair? No. I mean ok, I can see the argument against not having wheelchair users in action films where the acrobatics are almost as important as the storyline if not more important in places (although I can fully imagine some wonderful “acrobatics” being executed with a wheelchair and am a little baffled as to why no one has even tried it) but what about other genres? The hero of a romantic comedy never falls for a beautiful deaf girl… I mean I do know that Hollywood is in the business of showing us “perfect” pictures but hey…  It is the 21^st century. And the indies aren’t doing an overly impressive job of including disabled characters. I mean that, in itself, shows originality.

I was lucky enough to get my hands on the edition of the film that includes a 72 minute “making of” documentary. Do take the time to watch it if you get your paws on this edition. It makes you even better appreciate the amount of work that went into creating the creepy “family home” (you probably know what I’m talking about) and the eerie family. It is a wonderful film that builds atmosphere very subtly and even if, like me, you make a game of “guessing what’s coming next” (yes, watching films with me in a venue where we can talk outloud (i.e at home as opposed to in a cinema) is a very frustrating experience indeed) you will jump. You will get startled and possibly (if you’re anything like me) wave wildly at the screen yelling “Stop it you fool!” The scene that struck me most was the first encounter with the family i.e. the segment with the hitchhiker. This of course was largely fuelled by real life stories of serial killers and hitchhikers, albeit in a role-reversal scenario where the innocent victims actually pick up the hitchhiker. But of course the real life story that inspired the film the most is the horrific recent (at the time) discovery of serial killer Ed Gein. Now, it is not this blog’s aim to talk in length about serial killers but you might want to check here to give you a certain idea of what caused the film’s inception. If you are into the macabre, I would advise you to take a closer look at Gein’s story, it has inspired many a big-name film including Psycho  and Silence of the Lambs. It may be the fact that this film was made relatively closer to the first discovery of Gein’s house of horrors that it’s rendition (or re-rendition) of the story is more visceral, more striking. While other films have taken a character inspired by Gein and put them into various situations, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre creates almost an entire family clan of Gein’s and puts them face to face with a bunch of very normal young people.  In actual fact, the combination of real life horrors put face to face with real people – young people who were more often than not the principal patrons of horror films – meant that the film was a roaring commercial success. And shall I tell you something else? Knowing about Gein, knowing that something very similar to this actually did happen… Coupled with Tobe Hooper’s masterful directing… Makes for… Well a chronic distrust of hitchhikers. And little houses sitting all by themselves. Ehm. 

PAPILLON - ON THE IMPORTANCE OF NEVER LOSING HOPE... NO MATTER WHAT...

Love is a strange and many splendored thing. Sometimes it comes with a flash of light and a clap of thunder, engulfing us all in an instant. But sometimes it sneaks up on us quietly taking us over so gently we don’t even realise until we have been completely engulfed. This film crept up on me exactly in this way. I started off watching it almost out of a sense of duty – it’s a known classic and I felt as if I should have watched it by now – and for the first hour or so honestly wasn’t that hooked. I ended up deciding that my first tattoo will be the butterfly that gave the film it’s name – the butterfly tattooed on the main character’s chest. I have the pain threshold of a slug when it comes to needles (terrified doesn’t scratch the surface of how they make me feel as anyone who has tried to take blood from me can testify) so this is really something. Allow me to endeavour to explain how.

The film is based on the memoires of the same name of Henri “Papillon” Charriere,  a petty criminal native to France. Convicted (all his life he claimed wrongly) of killing a pimp, he is sent to the penal colony in French Guyana. This is a dismal place where the prisoners are treated little better than animals and the more unruly ones (like Charriere) are kept in solitary confinement for years ( that’s “years”, plural) so that they are “broken” (and often killed). Of course it’s completely possible to get yourself into trouble even in solitary confinement in which case you are deprived from light for up to six months… As you can imagine, Charriere is not an easy prisoner by a long shot. Two things keep him alive and (relatively) sane: his friend Dega who is a renowned forger and a man of means who can make *ehm* connections even in this most dismal of jails and his dogged obsession with escaping. The trouble is that this place is specifically designed so, as the guard so succinctly puts it, France can “wash her hands” of the men and dispose of them. For ever. It is going to take one hell of a lot more than determination for Papillon to escape…

You may have made the analogy already. And to tell the truth, yes,  in places the film has that distinct feel one gets from “escape from POW camps” type tales that were so popular around the time of the 2^nd World War. You know, completely disparate characters pulling together against a common brutal enemy and almost impossible odds. The fact that we have Steve McQueen (who was the lead in The Great Escape ten years before this film was made) in the title role does nothing to alleviate this analogy. Of course genre-wise, it’s your basic buddy-movie really. The strong decisive “masculine” one (Steve McQueen) and the more effeminate, “scaredy” one who “gets things done” aka Dustin Hoffman as Dega. Technically the film is brilliant in so many ways. One of my particular favourites was that beautiful if slightly jarring contrast between the paradise island of French Guyana and the brutality of the colony. And to me, to be absolutely honest, this film stuck out with its story, more than anything else…

First of all, a tiny bit of research straight away proved what I strongly suspected: it is widely presumed that the stories Charriere tells as his life story partly come from other prisoners. You could very well argue that the story is a bit like a swashbuckling pirate story. And I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. It’s just one of those things where when you look at the list of misfortunes that befalls the hero, it is almost numerically impossible for one single person to be THAT unfortunate. But then again, I don’t think the fact that it didn’t happen to a single person detracts from their force – considering they were probably true. I’m pretty sure 6 month blackouts happened as did solitary confinement for years on end along with God knows what else besides…  I mean these stories are unbelievable, but the truth often is stranger than fiction…

And secondly, just because an event is based on reality but doesn’t match up to it 100% must we, in every single case, wag our fingers and dismiss it because it’s not “telling the truth”? This is a story about the amazing capacity human beings have to find inner strength and keep up hope. And shall I tell you something else? I don’t even think it’s that important whether Papillon made it to freedom or not…  (SPOILER ALERT!) What matters is, when he is put on Devil’s Island – a minimum security branch of the colony where the prisoners are pretty much left to their own devices on a tiny island surrounded by shark- infested waters and nowhere to launch a boat from Papillon, who is now old and grey and not a little insane after 5 extra years in solitary confinement, STILL hasn’t given up. While Degas (who has somehow landed himself on the same island) is happy to settle in and concentrate on growing carrots, Papillon is still plotting… Now call it obsession or madness if you will, I think Papillon’s tireless bids for freedom speaks to something in all of us. You know. The part that secretly “knows” that one day you will be famous. You will be rich. You will have that red Ferrari. The entire world may be telling you that that plan, whatever it is, is very probably going to end in heartache. Outwardly you agree. Inwardly, there is a tiny voice inside insistently telling you to keep plugging at it. Papillon is the story of a man who never, never lost that voice. And I think this is a far more important message than any other the film may or could contain.

I mean, look at it this way. As I write this review, Holocaust Remembrance day is almost upon us. I just finished watching a documentary about British Holocaust Survivors. They site a lot of different “ingredients” for survival in those most horrific times, blind luck being one. But the second? Optimism. A sense of humour. And if that doesn’t tell you something about what it takes to survive in this world, I don’t know what will…   

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. 

THINKING BACK ON RECENT HISTORY : "W."

When Oliver Stone, one of the directors most associated with political films – be it bios or cautionary tales, made a biography of George W. Bush, I am sure none of us was particularly surprised. I mean, if you think about it, with Stone’s anti-war record behind him and with the war going on in Iraq at the moment, I personally would have been a tad surprised if he hadn’t made one. I watched this film in a period when I was researching war films, specifically about the war in Iraq. And it surprised me – a lot. But before I go into the reasons why, let’s briefly remember the story first. Not that the story needs much in the way of remembering, in its essence. The biography of George W. Bush is now pretty well known around the world. Starting off as a trouble maker and an alcoholic, George W. Bush then found religion and rose to become the president of the United States of America. Stone’s biography takes a very close – fly on the wall, you know, re-enactment style – look at his life “behind the scenes” as it were. Stone shows us a not so public side to Bush. His relationship with his father, also a onetime president, and like any son who follows in the family business George W. Bush struggles to get out from under his father’s shadow. September 11 happens, decisions have to be made and like anyone now ex-President Bush must make tough decisions and maintain his work – life balance. The thing is, a lot more hangs in the balance in this case than with your average folk… Now this film, like I said, surprised me. Because with Oliver Stone’s track-record I would have fully expected him to “rip into” the ex-president, as it were. But no, not at all. No matter what you think of his politics, when you look at the personal side, the George W. Bush we see is not in the least bit a caricature, he is very, very human – a fact we tend to forget with a lot of public figures whether we agree with them or not. Stone has made it quite clear that he doesn’t agree with the war in Iraq – to the best of my knowledge anyway – and the view he takes of the people surrounding ex-President Bush is a tad harsh, be it Colin Powell, Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. But I almost feel that with George W. Bush Stone was trying to say “Hey. I don’t agree with you but it’s nothing personal. It’s your politics.” A mature view, and in a way one should expect nothing less from a director of Stone’s caliber. And a rare thing in our polarized times. Another point you might want to bring up is “well this is technically a bio – are you sure you can call it a war film with a clear conscience?” My answer would have to be yes. One needs to be neither a political analyst nor an expert in film studies to realize that in the case of the ex-president, he personally and his presidency is now inextricably tied to the events of September 11 and the War in Iraq. So yes, I think when talking about a war, both the decision making process that started the war and the life of a man who was the main decision maker – the president at the time of the United States no less – is well worth examining. And very pertinent. A good film in my opinion both technically and in its handling of a historic moment and its personages. Definitely worth watching.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT : "THE TERRORIST"

Don’t let the name of this film irk you. It is neither a dodgy action movie nor some sort of propaganda film. It is, on the contrary, quite a respectable art film. It’s respectability extends to the point that on viewing it in a festival in India, John Malkovich was so impressed by it that he personally took on its distribution, thus kick-starting novice director’s career – it was, in fact, his first feature film. On viewing the film, I cannot in all honesty say that I can see what impressed him in the film… Whether I would be THAT impressed by it, is another matter altogether.
The story takes place in a terrorist cell in the south of India – a Tamil terrorist cell to be precise. Malli is the one-woman-wonder in of this particular cell, her renown for bravery and devotion to the cause is a thing of legend. Her fame is pushed even further by the fact that her brother has actually died for the cause. So, as you can imagine, she is greatly honored when she is selected for a suicide mission that will kill a high-profile political figure. She travels to the location the “operation” will take place and begins to await her big moment. But the few days between her arrival and the event itself will prove vital; on the one hand there is the old couple, blissfully unaware of her intentions, who are her acting landlords and who have taken to her almost like a daughter. On the other hand there are the memories of true love back at her initial camp. But on the other side of the scales there is the cause she believes in and her family honor to keep to the standard her brother has set. Although this seems unthinkable at the beginning, the main question has soon become, will she be able to go through with it?
Now, after having created such suspense I hate to give the answer so quickly, but it is only to point out that the film is based on real events; notably the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indra Ghandi. But don’t forget, that was real life and this is a film, who knows, maybe the director has used some artistic license? Besides, it is not always the suspense of not knowing what is going to happen next that keeps us watching a film. This is just one of the tropes; the most commonly used in the west but by far not the only one. One can also empathize with the protagonist and “root” for him or her, getting carried away by the story and our emotions and being a little more benevolent than maybe we would have as far as plot twists and clever narration is concerned. The story of The Terrorist does, I have to say, loose its originality after a certain point (I will not give that point away though, you’ll have no trouble spotting it if you watch the film) but you have somehow become so emotionally involved in the story that by the end, the suspense alone is almost literally killing you.
And if the narrative has its defaults, I can find nothing to say against the photography. Some of the moments captured on film are brilliance themselves. If ?? lacks originality in his message he has without a doubt found a unique way of conveying this message so much so that some of the visuals by themselves are enough to make the film “watchable”. Yes, The Terrorist is a very good example of art cinema, and highly recommended to all who don’t particularly mind watching films in foreign languages =)

LA HAINE

I’m not quite sure how to begin this one… I mean, if I told you this film is a stinging critique of French society today, you’d probably run a mile… That, however, is EXACTLY what it is… The film is based around true events – or rather they have true events at their heart… Do you remember a couple of years back; France was scene to a series of violent protests around the Paris suburbs especially? These places were poor areas where immigrants settled and tried (and still try) to make lives for themselves in France. We are taken to those housing projects, and the day after the bigger of the protests, we follow three youths from the neighborhood around for a day and we try and understand what is wrong and what exactly they are protesting about…
Hubert, Vinz and Saed are the three youths. Hubert, Afro-French, is the worst for wear among the three. He has the responsibility of caring for his mother and siblings and his only way of doing that, his gym, was destroyed in the protests the night before. Saed, originally Arab, thinks the whole thing is a big adventure, not quite aware of how serious the situation is. Vinz – or Vincent, is the eldest son of a Jewish family and Saed’s best friend. He takes the protests really seriously and is frustrated with his friends for not “getting up and doing something” to change things in the projects… It only takes one day out of their lives to see the problems with society in general – much less that of society in France…
La Haine – Hatred is a film criticizing all global societies. In today’s brave new world, the old divides no longer matter… Saed and Vinz tease each other calling one another a “mock Arab” and a “mock Jew”, as far as they’re concerned, they are both French; they live in the same society. No, the new “us” and “them” is largely based around “have”s and “haven’t”s. The rich people in good neighborhoods, the cops (the “pigs”) who don’t give them a chance, they are the enemy. And the film does a strikingly good job of showing us the general sense of helplessness in front of this rather gargantuan and faceless enemy. You may have your feet firmly placed on the ground like Hubert, you may do Travis Bickle impressions in front of the mirror like Vinz, if you’re in the projects, well, the feeling is you never get out… The scene where Vinz is doing said impressions (in French naturellement) is quite touching actually. We are all actually so similar… And we dream the same dreams; we suffer from such similar things… The film has a great sadness about it which is possibly exacerbated by the fact that it is shot in black and white – in true film noir style. It will fill you with an overwhelming sense of injustice mixed with helplessness, but La Haine says a lot of things that truly need to be said and asks a lot of questions that need to be asked… I will not give too much away but just want to add, the end is one of the most striking I have ever seen…