Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category

Crazy Heart: A Film

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhal turn in very nice performances in Crazy Heart, another of so many movies/stories of American lost men on lost roads [Paris, Texas; Don't Come Knocking; Red Lights, based on a Simenon novel; all the Randolf Scott/Bud Boetticher collaborations - The Tall T, Ride Lonesome] featuring wide open western landscapes that appeal to everybody’s shuck the maddening crowd sensibility. In our fantasies, of course, the deserts, the plains, the tumbleweed, the austere table-top hills retain something cozy about them; we can be alone and then come home. In the real lives of marginal men like Bad Blake, the country musician Bridges portrays, there’s nothing very cozy about it at all. Miles and miles of roads, slender paydays, no where to turn but the bottle creates a life not many would chose if they could see the whole package at the beginning.

Bad Blake at 57 looks 77. He’s at the sorry end of a once promising career, driving to whatever gigs his agent can get him, backed by young hopefuls with guitars and drums in barrooms and bowling allies where the audience is all about his age, living the lives of their remembered youths in the nostalgia of his songs. In Santa Fe Jeane (Gylenhall) comes to interview him and (inexplicably) is attracted to him, and he, more explicably, to her. He sourly accepts a big payday to be the warm-up act for his earlier protege, Tommy Sweet who, young and studly, is attracting the crowds and the big dollars. Sweet acknowledges, on stage and personally, his debt to Blake. Coming on the heels of the new affection Blake finds in Janie, we see the possibility of self worth returning and a way of the Blake’s self sought hell. Both Sweet and Blake’s agent keep hammering him for new songs though he claims he’s washed up and they don’t come like they used to. A bad accident, Janie’s devotion, and that of her young son, move Blake back into song writing. An alcohol induced near tragedy with the young boy leads to his separation from Janie and his final turn from alcohol and a modest tale of redemption, not saturated in the Hollywood obvious but real enough…

The music is quite respectable for music-made-for-movies, and the sound track with other familiar country tinged tunes is very nice.

So, does the who package work? Modestly, I’d say.

Somehow the film seems to sag between several of the important scenes. There is a sense of the schematic — that yes, this might happen; yes, I see it — but I don’t feel it. I don’t quite believe. The transition from watching a movie to forgetting we are watching a movie doesn’t happen.

Bridges as a singer is just about perfect. His voice is gravelly and resonant, flirtatious and exhausted. His lyrics and tunes aren’t cliches but are familiar stories from the best of the country-western canon. The make up artists, set designers and most of all Bridges himself give us a visceral, sad portrait of alcoholic ruin; too much of a portrait perhaps. Almost unwatchable. Were we in the room with him we’d turn our heads. We really see a man in the last throes of destruction, from flabby uncared for flesh, to watery eyes, mouth trailing vomit, the bottle being cradled in coma like results.

Gylenhall as Janie is a perky, way cute southwestern woman, who has made some mistakes and is determined to make no more. Her 4 year old, Buddy, is the center of her life. As love blooms she trusts Bad Blake with the child and sets our disaster alarms ringing. And yet, its hard to credit the attraction he creates in her, in the space of time devoted to it. She warms to him in two prickly, short interviews he has granted — the second, with the intention of getting into her pants. Somehow he is not charming enough; he is too unkempt, we don’t quite suspend our disbelief. He is not just the standard older male to the standard younger woman; he is A LOT older – a grandfather….ewww! OK, women are more generous with men’s surface appearances than vice-versa but for a woman who claims to have learned from her earlier mistakes she is pretty quick to forget that Blake’s surface is surely bound to his inner and life-long realities. Something more needed to be done to help us agree to this relationship.

There is somewhat the same problem between Blake and Sweet. The key scene in which Sweet acknowledges his debt to Blake is, as the falling in love scene with Janie, too schematic. It is a well developed sketch for the scene that was needed. They needed a fight in the parking lot gravel or something to help us with the contradictions, tensions, guilt, anger. Oh, and the agent, as an LA not-quite-a-creep was rotely written and rotely acted. Agents get a percentage of their clients earnings. He couldn’t have been getting much from the low-life bars Blake was singing at. There must have been something more generous at work, some belief in the man, some worry for a friend, that might have added to the relationship. We don’t see him at all as Blake finally surfaces to sobriety and modest success at the end of the film.

It was great to see Robert Duvall appear, someway into the film, playing an ex-alchy, still bar-owner, long time pal of Blake’s. Duvall’s appearance in a movie is just about enough to make me pay for admission [if you've never seen Tomorrow, put it on your short list.] But Duvall looked like he was losing a step or two, himself. The longest scene, when he takes Blake out fishing and offers “sage” advice has the same schematic feel as other parts of the film. Yes. Maybe. But not quite. Blake does not follow up on the advice and Duvall sort of disappears.

I’m not with the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers who universally appreciate it. The SF Chronicle’s Little Man just about gets it for me: sitting up in the chair applauding. Though in my case, not long and not hard. It’s a good film in parts; a good film for collectors of on-the-road movies; a good film for country-western genre songs. I wouldn’t wait for it to appear on TV but I might not take a a first date to it, unless already known that wrenching stories, AA redemption and sad songs will be appreciated.

It shouldn’t go without mention that the film is based on a slender novel of the same name by Thomas Cobb. Haven’t read it so no comment, but do if you have.

Avatar: The Movie

Monday, January 18th, 2010

Avatar, the technically amazing, richly conceived and executed movie, will not be to everyone’s taste.  It is tasty enough, however, to have broken all box office records, streaking to be the fastest movie to gross over $500 million, in only 32 days. Second place goes to The Dark Knight, which took 45 days, followed by Cameron’s Titanic taking 98 days.  The “you-gotta-see it” factor is enormous.  Even those who avoid big American films –including yours truly– are persuaded, and pay the 3-D marked up ticket price.

The visual richness and imaginative detail of Pandora, the moon/planet,  the setting of the entire film, is simply astounding.  The floating-in-space scenes as the humans approach their destination, unforgettable.  The merging of human/actors with humanoid/graphics is seamless, especially when both seem to be appearing in the same sequences – an actor in an attack helicopter alongside an enormous computer graphics gun ship, complete with a mad man in command and troops with guns on the loading dock.

It’s not clear if the biology of the fantasy creatures came from a common point of departure, informed by a fantasy  chemistry and physics of the world being designed.  What is it that would have brought forth six legged creatures, the size of horses and rhinos? What is that would have created gill-like breathing organs, and two sets of eyes?  What allows a force-vortex on the planet, in which mountains float, electronic instruments don’t work, but flying dragon-birds [Ikran and Toruk] can maneuver at alarming speeds and wrenching roll-overs, all the while the riders holding on? Never mind. On the whole, it is enormously entertaining.  The realism of the cliff diving and sure footed racing along enormous tree limbs over caverns of green jungle, all in 3-D, is enough to induce nearly full vertigo for those so tuned.

[Update: Carol Kaesuk Yoon, science writer for the NY Times is wowed by the biology of Avatar, though she doesn't answer my question if there is an underlying organic fantasy out of which the marvelous creatures come.

Update II: Yoon, in an e-mail to me, doesn't plan to write anymore about Avatar but she turned me on to this article about Jodie Holt, Botanist, who worked on the plant conceptions for the film. Interesting. ]

The story and Cameron’s intention in telling it are another matter, though I suspect for many it won’t matter at all. The thumbnail of the plot is that an enormous warrior army, corporate financed, has descended on Pandora, fleeing the world almost destroyed by humans, in search for an element, (“unobtanium” in a too cute coinage) that will enrich them, save them?, all. The invaded people of Pandora are an invented culture of Na’vi humanoids, sometimes looking African, sometimes Amer-Indian despite their wonderful tails, large eyes and marvelous twitchy ears.  In a set-up Cameron intends to stand-in for too much of recent human history, the ancestral home of the Na’vi is smack on top of the main source of the coveted element. The earthlings are going to take it, by persuasion if possible, by overpowering shock and awe if necessary, and as the arch fiend, Colonel Miles Quaritch [Stephen Lang] dearly hopes, soon and with maximum force.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), the human center of the drama is a paraplegic ex Marine who is brought to Pandora to replace his dead brother as an avatar guide. Avatars, being living representations of Na’vi controlled by humans who act as their brain and emotions while sealed in capsules. Jake’s task, in his avatar, is to infiltrate the Na’vi people and bring back the intelligence which will enable the corporate mining plan to succeed.  He falls in love with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana)  who rescues him from dismemberment by swarming viperwolves, and interprets certain signs to save him from the justified fear and anger of her father, the chief, her mother, the high shaman and her brother, the lead “brave.” All sorts of possibilities present themselves – most of which won’t be a surprise to anyone who has paid attention to decades of westerns, cross-cultural romances, good guys among the bad, bad guys among the good, and the newly rising themes of sheltering earth and predatory man.

If anything is new in the standard film myth  it is Cameron’s raising to a literal, if imagined, level the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock, and much of the celebration of it by the western world’s techno-spiritual-new ageism. The People, the Na’vi, understand their world as One and connected.  Riders bond with their mounts, whether winged or legged, with a literal interweaving of hair follicles. The mother-tree is connected to all the other trees in the forest. The People, by active, conjoined meditation connect to the Holy tree and under the right circumstances bring the severely wounded back to life, or transfer life-forces between bodies. The visual representation of these ideas is lovely, with pale luminescent strands and fronds, pulsing with life and peacefulness.  The mounts, although “broken” in a contest of wills, as with so many wild-west stories, are then “bonded,” with their riders and team as one. The flash of the dragon-bird wings is one of the most memorable signatures of the movie.

As a motive for telling the story, I am less appreciative. And motive it is. Cameron himself said, on receiving the Gold Globe award January, 2010

“Avatar asks us to see that everything is connected, all human beings to each other, and us to earth. And if you have to go 41/2 light years to another, made-up planet to appreciate this miracle of the world that we have right here, well, you know what, that’s the wonder of cinema right there,”

I would wish Cameron well in his intentions.  The world is out of balance, Koyaanisqati as the Navajo word has it.  Though not a literalist, a connected world makes sense to me; living within the world instead of against it seems as fundamental a truth as there is.  Anthropomorphizing the connections, however, into wriggling other-aware dendrites seems wrongheaded to me, though I appreciate it as a story-telling, myth creating device.

The problem is that what seems most connected, in Cameron’s telling and in the world he wishes to be celebrating, is the violence — vast, omnipresent, destructive and connected generation to generation, across species,  and unstoppable.  Though he wishes to show us a primordial and “natural” world, and the stupidity of its destruction, he himself is really, really really fascinated with destruction. [See: Terminator; Rambo: First Blood;  etc. ) A perverse but reasonable reading might be that if the connectedness of violence were to end, the world itself would collapse, its motivating force gone.

The imagination and technical expertise put into massive gunships, fast attack helicopters, armaments of every kind, from flame throwers to explosives-filled pallets, and especially the human-carrying transformers -- absolute works of depraved genius -- is incredible; beyond belief.  As fabulous as the jungle is, the creatures, the floating mountains, they are obscured by the weapons of destruction imagined for us.  The final battle is a festival of mayhem like few ever seen on the film, loud enough to warrant earplugs, explosive enough to delight the blow-up gene of every boy.  Flames turn the jungle and our irises red, bodies fly through the air. Treason against the bad and loyalty to the good provide emotional satisfaction as weapons are turned on former friends. A final robot-man against man-avatar battle provides the appropriate climax to the thunderous "do-it-now" orgy of weapons and and battle lust.

Interestingly, looking away from the weapons of man-created destruction and back to the primeval jungle itself with all of its creatures, all but a few are fearsome with fang and claw --six legged viperwolves, rampaging rhino like monsters with head plate anvils destroying trees with a swing of the head.  The exotically, butterfly colored dinosaur-bird, Toruk, is a killing machine itself.  The noble savage of the film, although one with their world, are no flower bedecked dancers in the woods, themselves.  They recognize courage in Jake's avatar, they give high value to it in their leaders, and as the climactic battle shows, they are skilled fighters themselves -- something they did not get, we must assume, by sitting at their fathers' knees and being told about days  of old.

Though the story teller's conceit is that the natural world, after a prayer by turncoat Jake Sully to the Na'vi goddess-tree, turns against the despoilers, it is an in-kind turning, maybe "natural" but death dealing just the same.  You won't be surprised to read that Cameron began development in tandem with Avatar another film he now hopes will follow.  The title?  Battle Angel.

As graphical story telling we have an amazing piece of work.  Computer graphics, and performance capture have made major leaps forward.  The technology of movies, and therefore movies themselves are being catapulted into a new era.  As sociology, anthropology and history we have pretty thin gruel.  Most, I assume, will not care.  That's not what they came for.  In fact, many are turning the film and its imaginings into an alternative universe of their own, beginning with full onslaught toy marketing and winding its way into participatory computer games and online communities.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that erotic Na'vi dolls are soon to be available.

I'm of a contrary mind, though. Movies, even those set in 2154, are about today.  They reflect the state of knowledge, hope and desire in the writer, or in this case the director and the team creating the movie.   I'm sorry to see, despite the serious work done to invent a language, to characterize a species, to invent a world and to confront the serious questions of greed, conquest and murder that  the human adventure, even to someone who wishes the good, has been returned to the same old, same old, quest for fame and glory, orgasmic pyrotechnics and utter dependence on, even adoration of,  the implacable will of the last man standing.

It would be unfair to ask James Cameron to conceive of new ways of being as richly as he has the new technical superstructure of wow film making.  It is less unfair to ask him and ourselves to recognize that in the fancy new bottles the same old wine is being served.  He could sit down and watch Terrence Malick's 1998, old fashioned, Thin Red Line to see what war in paradise without all the imaginary apparatus looks like.  It's not nearly as exciting and though there are good guys and bad guys the only cheering we feel like is when the killing stops.

[Update III: Front page of the NY Times on Wednesday Dave Itzkoff writes of the many takes on what Avatar is all about -- including Chinese who see the Na'vi as a parable of those whose dwellings have been razed by governments.  The conservative religious don't like it either, for the infringement on their belief systems by nature-connected pagans....   I stand by my criticism; that his ostensible message of care for the earth is swamped by his love of what his technology does best --blow things up.]

The Secret Life of Words: A Film

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

In The Secret Life of Words, one of the best films you’ve never heard of, Spanish director Isabel Coixet, guides Tim Robbins and Canadian actor, Sarah Polley, in roles of a life time, to an exploration of human suffering and human redemption quite unlike anything I have ever seen.  Without a frame of bomb blasts, bayonet thrusts or corpse strewn fields The Secret Life of Words brings us one of the truest, most powerful –because most personal– indictments of war ever done on film.  And under nearly impossible circumstances — most of it shot at a hospital bed where Josef (Robbins), his flesh burned, an arm fractured and blinded by seared cataracts, is nursed by a strange, morose, nearly speechless young woman Hannah (Polley) who, when she speaks, is clearly a foreigner and doubly an object of mystery and puzzlement.  To bring the setting even further from the mass chaos of war, this bed is on an oil rig in the Irish sea with only 5 other people aboard, the rest having been evacuated following the disastrous oil fire which injured Josef  and, as we learn,  killed his once best friend.

The film begins so oddly and continues long enough oddly that one, especially watching in a home setting, is tempted to get distracted,  turn to other things, write it off.  It pays back enormously to follow through, let the puzzlement float until the trajectory begins to be seen.  The quirkiness of the beginning, which continues throughout, is the disarming normalcy through which great depths are visited.  Hannah  works in an enormous, loud, plastics plant, not specifically sited, though somewhere in Europe.  She is an outsider, by her accent, her hearing aid assisted deafness — which she keeps off as she desires– her somber, depressive demeanor.  Her non-attentive dress and make up, except for strange amounts of bar soap, one of many object-metaphors in Coixet’s lexicon,  add to her public signing of wishing, completely, to be left alone.

Early in the film she is called in by her manager who says, despite Hannah’s fears, that she is such a perfect worker the company wouldn’t think of firing her.  She must, however, to ease the concerns of her colleagues and the trades-unions, take some time off, so as not to imply that workers need only work.  She clearly doesn’t know what to do or where to go and winds up in a hotel room as plain as her own lodgings — far from the palm trees and beaches suggested by her manager.  Still at a loss as to how to “vacation” she overhears of a need for a burn-trauma nurse and volunteers for the duration of her holiday.  She is trained, she tells the doctor, and has seen terrible things.  She is helicoptered out to the oil rig where she takes over full time care of Josef;  the doctor departs (“Give me a call in case of trouble”) and leaves her with Josef and the 5 other crewmen.

Josef can’t see through his clouded corneas.  He is painfully burned on his face, shoulders and much of his body which we never see below the blankets.  Yet in his pain, barely able to keep up his patter as she changes his bandages and applies compresses to the burns, he is irrepressible.  It’s unclear if he is meant to be a brougish Irishman –Robbins keeps his American accent –yet there is much of the roguish, suggestive bawdiness of an irrepressible story-teller and a man who has not known no from too many women.  To her silence, and our vision of her dour, withdrawn face, he keeps it up, at first a bit to our discomfort.  But he is never mean, never leering; he nudges but does not press.  He has a bantering ease and preternatural cheerfulness in the face of great pain, and as we learn as he begins to reveal his secrets, great sorrow.  Coixet,  having drawn us in finally, and at some risk of loosing us, keeps pulling us into the story, and into the two stories Josef and Hannah are telling.   Josef begins to draw her out, and finally,  telling a great secret makes her laugh at last in its seeming silliness.  Subsequently the secret shared becomes the powerful closing emotional peg of the movie.  Odd little bits of information appear and are left to float, puzzlingly, even irritatingly for some, until the context appears later and the aha! comes.  There is a scene in which the engaging Spanish cook brings and feeds another wonderful dish to Josef.  The two begin verbally tussling over Hannah’s attractions when Simon (Javier Cámara) skewers Josef with “…since when could a single and unattached woman hold your attention?”‘ and Josef orders him out of the room, to the puzzlement of some reviewers. (What is the point of this bad temper? Why is Josef such a jerk? How could she like him?)    Too bad.  It’s another of the tiny, key moments, in which Josef’s partially self-induced pain is set up as a counter to Hannah’s entirely other-induced trauma.  It is excellent work by a thoughtful and talented director.  She is sure handed with other metaphors –of deafness and hearing aid as a response to the enormous cruelties of those she had trusted in, of swimming and fear of sea-monsters, of the importance of oysters…

Hannah remains quiet and withdrawn for a great long while.  We begin to dread a Bergmanesque film with splashes of contemporary silliness, but Josef persists.  He tells her stories of his life and through them, his fears. He keeps prodding her, playfully  –”no fair, I tell you all and you tell me nothing,”– until finally, as we are witnessing, she is drawn out of the enormous shell of mistrust and desperate self-protection and trusts him enough to tell her story.  In one of the most wrenching, compelling monologues I have ever witnessed in a movie, aided by a stunning piece of erotic jujitsu,  almost all of it delivered sitting in a chair beside his bed, Hannah tells of her experience as a young woman of Dubrovnik, Croatia, at the hands of her “own soldiers.”   She, and her best friend, both twenty years old were kidnapped and kept with 16 others in a “rape house,” during the entirely horrific and promptly forgotten, if ever known by many,  Balkan (Yugoslav) Wars.  Her story, delivered with every feature of her face and voice, is as if we are actually sitting near a very dear friend and hearing  for the first time something that happened to her and which though we might have known, we didn’t, and which she has kept from us, unable to allow the memories to surface to be shared with others.   Her voice and presence of re-lived anguish is doubled in power by the dialog  of touch as Josef, still blind,  begins to take in what she is telling him, his blind eyes starting in the disbelief of his own scarred face.  It is an amazing ten minutes of film.

Prior to her revelation, Hannah had called the doctor and told him Josef should be taken off the oil rig; he was not healing fast enough.  And so the helicopter comes. They leave, tightly holding hands until he is put in the ambulance in Ireland, expecting her to stay with him.  She disappears.  We see her return to her factory job and her silent, withdrawn existence.  Josef recovers and leaves the hospital where he is handed Hanna’s backpack, which she had left, stuffed with personal items from his room including unopened letters from the lover we had noticed floating in the background.  The final keys to the story click into place.  The door is fully open.

In the weakest part of the film Josef tracks down a Copenhagen therapist, played by Julie Christie, and tries to get her to reveal Hannah’s location and biography to him.  The scenes with Inge, based on real life Inge Genefke, founder of the The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims,  are too didactic for the tone and the elliptically allowed discoveries of the rest of the film.  She takes Josef through a vast warehouse with shelves of accounts of others raped and brutalized, tortured and murdered in the Balkan  — and presumably other– wars and speaks to him directly what we suppose are  Coixet’s  driving reasons for making the film.  We cannot let these atrocities be forgotten.  We must find, and heal, and through testimony not allow to be repeated such cruelties.  Who can disagree with her?  Yet for me the point was already being powerfully made.  A quiet walk through the memoirs, with Josef picking up and putting down tape, and videos and diaries, with Inge saying their names, their suffering, their origins and mortal state would have continued the understated power of the film set up between the two main characters.  In the closing credits Coixet thanks Peter Berger, the compelling British/French writer,  for “helping her to see.”  Perhaps the urgency of what she has seen, and wants more of us to share, over rode her artistic sense and instead of letting us discover quietly and personally, simply had to shout:  sit up and listen!

Josef goes on to track Hannah down at the factory gate.  He wants to be with her and she with him.  She rejects him.  She cannot go with him, she says because one day, she won’t know when, she will begin to cry and cry and cry until the whole room fills with her tears and they will both drown.   We have already heard of Josef’s terrible fear of water and of drowning and as she begins to walk away again he calls out to her  with his sweet, brave, hopeful — and, still Josef,  quirky, line –  “I can learn to swim.”  It is a powerful moment, and yet understated –as it should be.  Robbins is just simply terrific as a man whose sunny, jocular optimism has been reborn in the certain, real sadness and cruelty of life, both his and hers.   It is a great role to which he does great justice.  Hannah overcomes her muting, well founded, fear and walks to him. They touch, and embrace.  The film comes to a swift close depicting them as married, with children, and yet the tiny, injured, terrified girl within her, whose voice we have head mysteriously throughout the film, still speaking from time to time, as it would in any of us.  There are no permanently happy endings in life, only the eternal possibility of  hope and human connection triumphing over evil, loneliness and despair.

Coixet has succeeded in doing what Tony Judt reminds us in his book Reappraisals: Reflections of the Forgotten Twentieth Century, that Primo Levi, Arthur Koestler,  Manes Sperber and other Holocaust writers came to believe: Language is the only possible answer to human extremism and cruelty.  Without language we have nothing.  We must speak.  We must not forget.

“The importance of language — that we can communicate and that we must communicate, that language is vital to humanity and the deprivation of language is the first step to the destruction of a man– was enforced within the camp (words were replaced by blows — “that was how we knew we were no longer men”); but it can be applied outside. Judt, 57

And Coixet reminds us it is not just the Shoah we must not forget, unique of course in human history, but not as unique was some have come to believe.  By remembering, and knowing, by use of words we begin to heal, to reconnect, make life in hope and life-giving possible for those who are, and are still to come.

Gardens of Stone: A Film

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

For some, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) is the best film made about the Vietnam War:  for some it is one of the greatest war/anti-war films ever made. It was certainly a manic, filmic projection of a manic man-eating war.  Eight years later Coppola made another film about Vietnam, this one quiet, no napalm, no screaming jets, just the daily, non stop burial of those coming back in boxes, to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and the agonizing grief of those who loved them.  Like too many of Coppola’s films, Gardens of Stone, (1987) fell into puzzlement and dismissal and has all but disappeared. It may be worth taking another look at it with another, terribly similar war thrumming in our ears, and the forgetting of the earlier one all but complete.

The story is a simple one. The spit and polish 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment carries dead soldiers and presidents to their graves at Arlington National Cemetery.  The Regiment is the public face of the respect and honor given to the military dead.  The soldiers are drilled and groomed to an almost unbelievable perfection, and Coppola gives them their full due.  As an artist of the technical you can almost see Coppola’s admiration in the repeated shots of precision arms handling, marching, saluting.

Among the soldiers are three, around whom the story is built.  James Caan plays Clell Hazard, a very believable top sergeant.  Lean and tough, he is taunted for being a “pacifist” because he thinks the war in Vietnam is the wrong war against the wrong people, and being fought the wrong way; in other words — get out.  But if it is going to be fought, he believes he should not be with the Old Guard, a “toy soldier,” but should be at Fort Benning training young soldiers to fight and stay alive.  [The reasons that he is not allowed to go is one of the weaker parts of the film.]

His superior and good friend, Sergeant Major “Goody” Nelson, is played by James Earle Jones –the Sergeant Major, with more gold on his sleeve than can be lifted, and a sternness in his presence that is entirely convincing.  For great military tough guy pyrotechnics you could not have cast better. They go after each other, and anyone in sight with hammer and tongs. Yet, their friendship is real and extends back to the Korean war.

Into the Regiment comes a new recruit, Jackie Willow (D.B. Sweeney) who is regularly called “Dildo” in the eternal male teasing that says if you can deal with this, then you’re a man and we can can trust you. He does all right, being the son of another sergeant, retired, who served with Nelson and Hazard in Korea.  The kid is all military, all the time, and wants to go to OCS (Officer Candidate School) and then to Nam — the only place a military man should be. The two sergeants take the newcomer to their hearts and comradeship [another bit of weakness as I remember the military, but needed for the story.] In fact the mechanism for telling the story of the film are a series of letters Willow writes to Hazard after he is shipped to Vietnam, recalling the older man’s warnings, and reflecting on what he has learned in a year there.

Hazard, divorced by a woman who had had it with Army life, makes an awkward approach to Sam (Samantha) Davis, played nicely by Angelica Huston, who to stir the pot quicker is a reporter for the Washington Post (the well known communist rag) and thinks the war is genocide. However improbably, the two fall in love — in some very nice and believable scenes.  Sgt. Major Nelson has a firebrand girlfriend of some years.  Willow, after he makes sergeant, runs across the young woman who has not been answering his letters. He persuades her to re-find her love for him and stand against her father, a Colonel who does not want the shame of his daughter marrying into the enlisted ranks — a piece of the film that rings true to my military bred eyes.

Set in 1968-69 the set up is obvious for knock down, drag out arguments about the war but Coppola has another aim in mind, and one that is obvious as soon as Willow comes on the scene.  By the time he announces his goal of going to Officer Candidate School (OCS) and then to Vietnam there is no other end in sight.  Second Lieutenants in Vietnam had the highest causality rate of any rank. We are going to go with these three couples and enter the work-a-day world of the men as one of them moves through the ranks and comes back to be buried as he buried others.  We share the sorrow and grief, even of those who fight the war, for those they love.  Histrionics are not necessary.  Everybody knows: this is what war brings to families and friends.

Why is the film worth seeing now in 2010?

Soldiers are going again to war, a war which many think the U.S. should not be in, but to which many are glad to go –as this is what soldiers do.  They go with mixed emotions, proud of beings soldiers, determined to meet the test of fear and prove themselves capable; they go bound to their friends.  Yet they go knowing they are leaving behind those they love and that their own futures are more uncertain than most others.  Families are saying good bye again, families with mixed emotions of pride, of dread, perhaps of anger at the decisions that are sending their kids over there.  Some will think their child has no business in another country, killing and in danger of being killed, but will love him as he goes.

Some of these children, these newly weds, these fathers and mothers will come back and be buried with pride and honor by those they left, and with a grief that will go on for years.

Coppola does a good job of showing military life and emotions to those of us unfamiliar with either, and with no polemics he shows us the sorrow and the pity of it all.

The dialog and script are tight and snappy.  The scenes of  military life, on the parade ground or fighting in bars, are real.  We don’t get to know much about the women, especially Angelica Huston’s character who could have been given more background, and more of a struggle between her love for Hazard and her hatred of the war.  Jackie Willow, the eager recruit is a bit too naive and wide-eyed for me, especially as the son of a top Sergeant, but the performance is just a bit distracting, not a major impediment.  The use of actual war footage, helicopters coming in for the dead and wounded, grainy and with realistic radio mil-com between the pilots and units on the ground is well used, cut into the daily lives in Arlington, the first time as a mystery and a warning, the second as a proof and a portent.

Gardens of Stone was built around a novel of the same name, by Nicholas Proffitt, who not only was Newsweek’s Bureau Chief in Saigon in 1971, but had been a member of the Old Guard in the early 60s. As usual, one wants to know how film and novel complement or contradict each other but I’ll leave that for another day.  If you’ve read it, and have an opinion, leave a comment.

The movie itself is available on Netflix, and in the Instant Play offerings as well.

The Road — Taken

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, translated into film, opened in scattered theaters this week. In the Bay Area only two houses were projecting it. After a brief, sweet opening scene of a loving couple, The Road sweeps on with some of the most thrilling scenes of the aftermath of destruction ever filmed: roaring forest fires, ash laden skies, mountain sides of dead trees, not a bird, beast or insect — until the closing minutes– alive. If, as Paul Goodman once claimed, anti-war films are pornography for pacifists, The Road is surely that for environmentalists — a place to go to enjoy all that they fear.

TheRoad

George Monbiot, the well known environmental dystopian, believes the novel is “the most important environmental book ever written.” (Yep.) I hate to remind George, but anti-war films, much less books, have done precious little to slow the slaughter on seven continents (well, six, since Antarctica is, so far, excluded from the killing fields.) It is also unlikely that The Road will juice the battle to save the planet.

Though neither the film, nor the book, specifies what is, or what brought on, the cataclysm, it looks from the evidence in the movie as though it has nothing to do with human agency. Late in the film the earth heaves, buckles and throws down enormous trees. This, and the smoke filled skies, forests ablaze and freezing weather would indicate a Yellowstone like super volcano, of the mammoth proportions the earth has experienced many times in its existence. The area of the ash cloud, the depth of the ash fall and the toxic gases released could well cause scenes like those of the film (and worse), or of McCarthy’s imagination. Such events however, have nothing to do, with mankind’s dangerous environmental folly and that folly, even in the worst case scenarios — say of Greenland ice sheet melting– is not predicted to cause scenes like the film presents us with. If McCarthy’s concern and the film-maker’s intent was to warn us about human caused environmental collapse, it needs to be re-imagined to something not as totalized but in its own way, locally and viciously picking winners as losers, as wrenching and fearful.

Leaving aside claims of who caused it, what really interests McCarthy is how we respond to it — and in his view, not too well at all. A mother commits suicide rather than living to try to protect her son; roving bands of marauders, starving, are on the look out for flesh, any flesh but young is better; the last two bullets in the doting father’s gun are saved for murder-suicide.

The cannibalism looms large in the telling — and not only that it is happening, but that it happens in the most cruel and bloody ways; that it is not mere necessity that drives it but that the moral order has completely collapsed — somewhat at odds with what is known about cannibalism in human history, where it is (always?) part of a rigid moral order. Eating your enemy, or part of him, is done in highly ritualized ways, not only for nutrition but to prevent his return, or to claim his strength. Not for McCarthy, Penhall (script) and Hillcoat (director.) The scenes seem lifted from teen-popular horror movies.

The Road is worth seeing, with a few dodges behind the hands, for the incredible death-of-nature, death-of-cities scenes and for the very good make-up work. Robert Duval, though still Duval, is a wonder of aging, starving, cataract blindness. Prosthetic teeth give great verisimilitude. The filth and squalor of the road are entirely believable. You will appreciate your shower and warm reading lights when you go home.

The images of starvation are less successful. Many of the faces are gaunt and drawn, but not more so, for example, than in many spaghetti-like westerns. One scene, as Vigo Mortenson strips off his clothes to swim, improbably, through rough seas to a listing freighter, shows his ribs as starving distended, but on the whole the bodies do not match the entire lack of eating we are shown. The two main characters are able to walk with some spring in their steps, months after the cataclysm. People still have their teeth. We, of the 20th century, know what starving and emaciated bodies look like; the film has none of them.

The emotions of love and bonding between father and son, also, don’t entirely work for me. There is something odd about many of the scenes between them, often revealed in the script or their expression of it. It’s as though the director has said, “can you punch it up a bit there?” There is, to my ear, an unnatural rhythm or word-stress in expressions of care and tenderness, perhaps a lack of the urgency and despair that under-gird all the rest of the movie. And, I kept thinking, as the tenderness continued, when was the father going to help the son into the toughness that he needed? When would the lessons begin? This is how you sharpen a stick, son. This is how you defend yourself. These are the places on the body that will disable a man when hit. This is how you kill a gopher should you ever see one, and practice! Practice! Practice! I wondered more than once, how a Native American father, in the wilderness of his world, would be showing his son the means of survival they had at hand. Childhood is a relatively late invention. For millennia ten olds have been considered merely not quite full grown adults, and capable of about the same percentage of work, alertness, toughness as that growth. The ratio of heart to body size in young adolescents is the highest of the entire life-span, and as such they can exceed adult effort in many things. It would seem the necessity of the road would make all this apparent quite fast. Tenderness, yes but strength and cunning as well.

I suppose the book portrays the devastation as unrelentingly total as does the movie, but I found the complete and utter lack of any plant, animal, shell-fish (when they reached the ocean) to be distracting. Even after the great Chicxulub asteroid and the wipe-out of the dinosaurs, much survived. In fact, the dinosaurs-becoming-birds found new opportunities and became a major part of the world we inhabit. They, and the whole storm of mamals all found food, even in years of suppressed sun and wild weather. So, my willing suspension of disbelief, the pact a reader or viewer makes with the author to let the improbable or fantastical become part of the story, kept being interrupted by the thought: how is this possible? There has got to be food of some kind. There have got to be worms, bugs, water plants…. In fact, at one point father and son walked right by upright and waving golden sheaves of grain.

Further, in not one house they entered, with one notable exception, was there any food: no cans, no bags, no bottles, no rotting potatoes. Nor were there any empties, as if the food had all been eaten and the detritus left. It was as if something beyond an explainable disaster had taken place, something in the realm of myth or magic — the authorial voice decreeing, “and then there was nothing.” But watching the very real struggle to survive one engages with the characters: this is what I would do; this is where I would look. And I want to know: What of the bark on the trees? The grass? The shoe leather — all comestibles in histories of actual starvation and struggle.

A movie to find at Netflix to see what an enormously effective apocalypse-bringing-cannibalism film can do is Fires on the Plain, by Kon Ichikawa. In this case the cataclysm is the collapse of the Japanese war machine at the end of WW II and the frantic efforts of remnants of the Japanese army on Leyte Island in the Philippines, to get to the last foothold and onto ships going home, before being captured or killed by the Americans.

fires-on-the-plain-_1
The action centers around one soldier, separated — through deliberate and cruel exile– from his unit who makes his way through the jungle and sere, rocky landscape, starving, cold, shoeless, covered with mud, fearing his own former comrades as much as the Americans. The fact of cannibalism being practiced by others, and his own temptations towards it, and final refusal, slowly grows on us through out the film — and as such, in my opinion, has far more power and effect than the bloody, horror-genre presentation of cannibalism in The Road. Fires on the Plain doesn’t lack for images of horror — piles of bodies, broken shoes pulled from the dead, driving rain, hands chopped off and discarded from the more meaty bodies. But the sensibility throughout is one of defeat and introspection. Ichikawa takes the time to say, and let us absorb — look! This is what we do to each other! These are the results of our own choices and actions.

Further, the human response to the disaster rings truer, in my experience, than that in The Road. People in extremis DO gather together, warily and with fingers on the trigger perhaps but the knowledge is certain: without others I surely will not survive. The pull towards others, though strenuously denied in the myths of go-it-alone America, is as strong as the pull of gravity. The Japanese soldiers know this. The son in The Road knows it as well. Had his father organized those he met on the road instead of driving them away, the hope that appears at film end would have been growing in better prepared ground.

In the book, The Road, perhaps the prophetic warning, or despair at the human will-to-evil holds it own alongside the raw, terrifying physicality of the world McCarthy is so good at depicting. Penhall and Hillcoat, have caught the physical sense of rock-bottom survival and compel us to look, but the prophetic voice, the mysterious sense of watching a future unfold and being able to contemplate it, has gone missing it seems to me. As American film makers they can’t entirely shed the urge to see a good adventure film sharing the stage with the story of bare survival. And to underline the obvious as the film ends and the orphaned boy finds a new family he judges to be among “the good guys,” who don’t eat people, we are treated to the entirely unbelievable promise by the found-mother that “everything is going to be all right.”

We don’t believe it and she shouldn’t have said it. A simple taking of hands would have been all the promise needed. New children looking each other over, walking away from the cameras along the life-source sea and we all get, in Dylan Thomas’ memorable phrase, “the force that through the green fuse drives the flower,” will prevail, eventually…

My Little Man is sitting up and watching intently but not applauding, at least until the credits roll.

Will Kirkland
Dec 2 2003

Reviews: Janet Maslin; Metacritic compilation [the book;] [the movie;]

The Burmese Harp: Fires on the Plain: Two Films

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

When Kon Ichikawa’s name is mentioned, ears don’t perk up in recognition. Even if “film maker” is added as a hint, most will shrug, go on to talk about Kurosawa, Eastwood, others…. Too bad, because in the 1950s, in post war Japan, he made two of the most powerful movies on war that have ever been seen. The Burmese Harp (1956) and Fires Over the Plain (1959.) Both are now available in the new Criterion series of classic films [many available on Netflix,] with commentary from directors, historians and critics. You’ll want to see them, and together. When seventeen year old children in your presence get glassy eyed from the pleasure of wars imagined, or seen on the screen, buy them tickets to these, and go with. Once seen, not forgotten.

Both films are about the actions of platoon sized elements of the defeated Japanese Army in the last months of World War II. The Burmese Harp takes place in Burma (though most was filmed in forested parts of Japan) as a platoon of soldiers faced with the inexorable advance of Allied (U.E., British, Indian, Chinese) forces –the tide having turned since the Japanese ascendancy in 1942-43 in Burma, and about which the Bridge on the River Kwai is a well known filmic telling — wrestle with fighting to the finish, as had been drilled into them, or surrendering. Surrender was considered an act of cowardice. One soldier swims against the tide of death by suicidal attrition, trying to persuade his comrades to be part of building the new Japan; their deaths now were simply foolish. They condemn him and he slips away, stealing a bathing Buddhist monk’s clothing for disguise and gradually becoming a monk himself, staying behind in Burma to bury the dead, and to carry some of the pain he was witnessed.

Firesontheplainposter Fires On The Plain, takes place in Leyte, Philippines, just months before the atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is absolutely the most reality based war film that has ever been made, which is to say, by it’s documentary nature it is explicitly an anti-war film. As Ichikawa says in his remarks, included on the DVD, “war is absolute evil. That is what I wanted to show.”

As in The Burmese Harp, the soldiers are wrestling with surrender or death. It is not fear of imprisonment, torture or death if they surrender; it is that surrendering is an act of cowardice. Japanese soldiers have sworn before their God-King. They have a wrenching decision to make, if it can be made at all. Surrender, as a physical proposition would be the easiest of all choices. And it isn’t the daily battering of big guns, snipers and superior forces advancing, though there is some of that. It is their utter exhaustion, their starvation, their lack of equipment, clothes, medicine and food. The scenes of men listlessly trampling through the mud, stopping to look at shoes on the road to see if they are better than the ones they have, the theft of shoes from men just barely dead, the look of emaciated exhaustion on their faces is unlike anything I have ever seen. I have read stories of the U.S. Civil War, in which freshly dead bodies were ransacked for better clothing and equipment, and similarly in Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, or Moscovian’s resistance to the Nazi seige. Nowhere have I seen it depicted in such a way that my feet hurt, I shivered in the drenching rain. In fact I viscerally felt the tug to get some protein in my belly, regardless of the source.

Ichikawa gathered a determined group to make the film in 1959. The war has ended only 14 years earlier. War Crimes trials had been held, in Japan. Over 5,000 had been tried, 900 executed. The sense of shame and complicity in Japan for the years of imperialism was wide-spread. Nevertheless, to make a film so explicitly pointing at war-time behavior was fraught with controversy. Ichikawa was determined. His own family had been living in Hiroshima the day the first atomic bomb was dropped. He had not been in the city, and didn’t know for weeks what might have become of his family. They survived in a outlying area of the city. Ichikawa saw the devastation up close.

The lead actor Eiji Funakoshi [Tamura] was so determined to act the part of a fleeing, starving soldier he showed up for the first day of shooting, and collapsed at its end. His wife told Ichikawa he had been starving himself for a month to be ready for the part. The filming was postponed for several weeks while he recovered.

The theme of hunger and starvation, already a minor part of most war films, takes on a central role in Fires on the Plain. Hunger for most movie warriors is having to eat C-rations day after day; it’s shown in the happiness of finding fruit or bread at some unexpected point. Never have I seen, not just a mention of hunger-that-leads-to-cannibalism, but a deep and graphic exploration of it, an exploration that does not smugly set down the behavior to aberrant action of one or two, but to the logical and necessary outcome of a war like this: to fight, we much be strong; to be strong we must have meat. Call it monkey meat, call it what you want. Look away if you can’t stand it, but eat, and fight.

The_Burmese_Harp The Burmese Harp is a much less trying film. The cracking of bodies, the starvation, the sheer misery is not the arresting part of the canvas. The decision to surrender or not costs the soldiers less. Though following the soldiers as they retreat across Burma, and seeing them wrestle with their decision, its major interest is how a man makes amends; how a deepening sense of compassion is born, how sacrifice is conceived of and carried out in the name of balancing the weight of war and loss. The growing being-against-the-war is seen in the growing, quiet absorption of what has happened in the eyes of the deserting, becoming-a-monk, soldier. There is a deep sadness but a forward going, a suggestion that had the compassion been more widely held in the beginning the carnage would have not happened. There is resolution.

The order Kichikawa made them is strange to me because with The Burmese Harp, he had looked at war, it seemed, and without going into its ferocity, saw its horror and saw a means of resolution. The quiet trek of the soldier, deserting into monk-hood, and the lush choral music help us out of the despair. It was a kind of “act of contrition.” With Fires On the Plain, it is as if that contrition, or going-forward, exploded. He had not found resolution at all. It was as if he’d been beaten up again by his understanding of what had happened, of what war means. Though “resolved” several years earlier, he screams aloud his pain again. It is almost unbearable to watch, even on a television screen. It was very very difficult to sit through – from the muddy marches of starving men, to the maniacal shooting of a surrendering soldier, by a Philippina guerrilla, unable to rise over her emotions of what the Japanese had done to her country, to the slowly dawning realization that those who were still strong were eating the flesh of the dead. It’s no wonder than when the critics tackled it in 1959 they complained. Bosley Crowther said it was the most “grisly and physically repulsive film” he had ever seen. Pauline Kael, true to form, calls it a “masterpiece.”

I would recommend seeing them in reverse order: Fires on the Plain was made after The Burmese Harp. See it first, with its more haunting, more despairing fullness of war, unbearable for some to watch. Follow with Burmese Harp which was made first.

Both films are based on novels published in Japan, just a few years before, and converted into very strong screen-plays by Ichikawa’s wife, Nato Wada, needless to say an unheard of occupation for a woman in Japan at the time. The books are both available in English translation, and worth reading, though as with many written mothers, quite different than their filmic offspring. Fires on the Plain, originally, Nobi, is written by Shohei Ooka, himself a POW of the American in the Philippines, and author of several WW II memoirs and fictions. The Harp of Burma was written by Michio Takeyama, originally as a children’s fantasy

Ichikawa and Wada, converted it to an adult morality tale about the carnage and ache of war, and what one man is moved to do.

Kon Ichikawa only died recently, January 2008. It’s too bad he isn’t more widely known, and his detestation of war more widely shared. There is nothing of the patriotic, hero petting, flag waving of so many war films — even those which pretend to show it all. Nor are we buried beneath the technological glory of fast loud airplanes, beautiful scarlet explosions, sweaty but determined and ultimately winning men. We are seeing war as so many have seen it, and come home never to talk about again.

These are war films like none you have ever seen, and perhaps the only war-time musical worth citing as one. The choral whistling and catchy tune of Bridge On The River Kwai, the sister film of war in Burma, pales before the rich, resonant singing in the Burmese Harp.

You’ll want your own copy.

I’d like to thank Joyce Cole for recommending The Burmese Harp. I’d not heard of it and was struck many times over. My own synthesizing self brought me to Fires on the Plain, and this this essay. Ichikawa did many other films, of course, though nothing even of this war-genre. He was better known as a maker of comedies and social stories. He always thought of himself as a “cartoonist.” (!) Thanks Joyce.]

White Light / Black Rain

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

More than 64 years have gone by since atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, August 6 and 9, 1945. As Steven Okazaki’s 2007 documentary for HBO, White Light / Black Rain, shows, for many, younger Japanese, even in the affected cities, the dates bring up no connection to the horrific events. For others, who were ten and twelve and twenty at the time, the experience of being burned and mutilated, of watching their siblings and parents die, of years of radiation sickness have been with them every moment since the bombs went off.

Okazaki uses many of the black and white images we may have seen over the years, of the unimaginable destruction in both cities, of acres of blasted, seared ground where once there had been tall buildings, trees and streets. He shows some of the gruesome images taken within days of the bombing of the charred corpses, the indistinguishible faces, the separated limbs. But what he really brings are the remembrances of people who survived while their whole familes died. Survivor’s guilt is clear and spoken about. One woman’s sister stepped in front of a speeding train in such despair over the loss of her family. The speaker herself tried to do the same, and stepped out of the way at the last minute. She spoke about the courage to die, and the courage to live.

They spoke about the discrimination they faced in Japan because of their mutilations, or for showing the signs of radiation sickness which many thought to be contagious. And interestingly, none of them spoke with pointed anger at the United States for bringing the bomb. One man had been part of an activist group to make the Japanese government take responsibility for war victims, as the initiator of the war. A woman had been to the United States in the mid 1950s as one of Twenty Hiroshima Maidens brought for plastic surgery. She herself had had 30 operation in a year and a half. She remembered fondly the kindess of the Americans who helped her.

One of the men, after we have heard him talking and seen a relatively undamaged face for much of the film, takes off his shirt, on camera, to reveal such a map of wounds and traumatized flesh we can barely take it in. His ribs are literally showing, the pulse of the heart beating behind them, visible. And then he turns to show his back. He recalls how he cried out for death as the doctors repeatedly had to pull off old bandages and replace them with new. His wife still applies salve all across is back to ease the pain. 64 years later.

What they all spoke about, in common, was that such a horror not be allowed to happen again, that the pain and suffering they had had to carry should be taken as a warning and a plea to never use such weaponry again.

Though they, nor the film maker, didn’t carry a pure pacifist message, it’s hard to see how one could not extend the argument of their lives to those who were burned, maimed and rendered lifeless in the firebombing of Tokyo, done without nuclear weapons, or the Chinese hacked to death, raped, burned and drowned in Nankin at the hands of the Japanese, or those bombed and blackened in Dresden or London, or the savage treatment at the hands of Japanse soldiers in Indonesia, the Philippines, in Korea. From everywhere, survivors could be found to speak of the great sorrow and pain of their lives. Whether the storm of destruction took thirty seconds or three days matters little to them, nor should it to those of us who don’t need to have our eyes blown out to understand the tragedy.

White Light / Black Rain is a non-polemical, wrenching plea for peace, for dismantling the weapons of destruction — the most dangerous ones first.

It’s available at Netflix and other DVD distributors. It will trouble you to watch. Hearing the tears, and yes laughter, of the victims as they remember their losses and show their survival is a trouble that will bring rewards.

Army of Shadows: A Film

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

Army of Shadows — a French film noir about resistance to the Nazi occupation –The Resistance. What could be better? Brave silent men coming out of the shadows to slit Nazi throats, blow up bridges, derail trains. Isn’t that how it happens? Not according to one who was there and lived to make a film about it.

Jean Pierre Melville, if he is known at all in the U.S. is likely known for his gangster films. Even if France he is called the father of the French gangster film. Bob le Flambeur, 1955, Le Samouraï, 1967 and Le Cercle rouge, 1970, are regularly cited as innovative and perfect examples of his distant, observational noir style, his meticulous attention to detail, often in natural –not studio– settings, with plenty of dark shadows, wet streets, resounding footsteps, and grim, matter-of-fact dialogue. His main characters are often small-time crooks and his interest is that they exist and in the details of how a caper is pulled off. Is there agreement or disagreement? Does everything go as planned? How do they dress and how do they speak? Above all: how is loyalty and betrayal played out? He is not much interested in making sentimental or moral points. Life is life.

What aren’t as equally well known are his films of war-time.

He made three, —Le Silence de la mer (The silence of the Sea [1949]), Léon Morin, prêtre (Leon Morin, Priest [1961]) and L’Armée des ombres (The Army of Shadows [1969].) The earlier two are concerned with close relationships of two or three people living in a war time situation. The Army of Shadows is about war and the French resistance itself. It’s interesting both for the anti-heroic viewpoint Melville takes, and that it is the only such film he made as he had been part of the Resistance during his young, formative years.

His original name was Grumbach, from his Hungarian Jewish French emigre family. He took the name Melville from his American writing hero during his years in the Resistance.  The skeleton of the film was taken from a book of the same name written by another resistance fighter Joseph Kessel (who also wrote the novel which became the ground-breaking mainstream erotic movie, Belle du Jour with Catherine Deneuve .)

Filmed in color but almost all in Melville’s preferred blue and brown pallete suggesting the dark, fatalistic cast of Melville’s sensibility, it is the story of 5 resistance fighters in Paris, Marseilles, Lyon and occasionally London. But we see nothing of the successful bridge demolitions or daring clever assaults on the German occupation forces or the Vichy collaborators. Instead, Melville is interested in the tension fraught daily life of those living under cover, with deadly blows against the enemy as their goal but built on the base of chance, choice, personality and fate — where one can never know who is true and who will be false or what the circumstances will demand.

Army of Shadows After beginning with a strutting German parade in front of the Arc de Triomphe, the camera, below the introductory titles, trains on a dark country scene of continuous heavy rain. And so we enter Melville’s world.
(more…)

Katyn: A Film

Friday, September 11th, 2009

I was just on the cusp of realizing that “foreign” films existed and were a real alternative to what 1950s Hollywood was serving up when Andrzej Wajda’s first films began appearing.   Art houses were far and few between in Falls Church, Virginia. DVDs and streaming video weren’t yet conceptualized.  Tape was something we used for music, if at all.  For movies we went to theaters and we watched what the theater was showing.  War movies ran to The Sands of Iwo Jima [that would be John Wayne], or Run Silent, Run Deep [Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster] .  The heroes were inevitably templates for what was held to be the way American men comported themselves as soldiers –stoic, silent and brave, true to their loved ones and noble to those they rescued –in battles which, despite losses and setback, Americans always won.  If there were deaths the bodies twisted and fell in the middle distances allowing us to stay wrapped in the same safety we were in our own backyard games.  Not known, much less seen, were “A Generation,” [1955] “Kanal,” [1957] or “Ashes and Diamonds,” [1958]  Wajda’s famous war trilogy that announced him to Polish and serious European audiences, war films that had a different take on heroism and the glories of war.

Even as I began to appreciate the Italian neo-realists, French noir and then New Wave, Wajda’s name only floated in that distant sphere of film auteurs with unpronounceable names we must one day see — Russians, Japanese, Poles.  Somehow I never sat in the dark and absorbed his immense, dark vision. Too bad for me.  I’ve been able to begin making up the absence now that technology lets us locate and see films we have long wondered about, have heard or read mentioned of. We can see a short series by a particular director, or follow a theme that interests us, or watch an actor in various roles at various ages. Sitting in a dark room with a big screen in the company of others is still the best way to see a movie, but putting yourself to school in your living room is not a bad second choice.

Katyn is the 85 year old director’s latest film, released in Poland in 2007 and in the U.S in early 2009.  It’s available on DVD already.

katyn_swit_na_stacji_400Katyn for the Poles is a one-word tolling-bell of meaning, as 9/11 is for Americans.  Katyn is a place. It’s a town and a forest near Smolensk in Russia.  It is a massacre of Polish officers, intellectuals, priests and students by the Soviet NKVD.  It is a German propaganda campaign carried out against the Soviets.  It is a Soviet propaganda campaign carried out against the Nazis.  It is the exhumation of bodies, forensic analysis of bullet holes, pieces of cloth, hidden journals. It is the insistence of the truth of the massacre against denial, punishment, imprisonment and torture. It is, the revelation in secret papers between Stalin and Beria, of what was planned, when and who was to carry it out. And it is, finally, Poland the nation becoming Poland a country and able to stand for its own people and the truths they have had torn from their history. All these things are Katyn.
(more…)

Inglourious Basterds: A Film

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009

You either love Quentin Tarantino’s movies or you think they are disgusting. I fall into the second camp. To lift a line from the best acted role in Inglourious Basterds, If 99.9% don’t die it’s not a Tarantino.

My purpose is to dissuade you from going to see the film, so if that seems improper for a review, stop here. There are plenty of reviewers who think highly of his work and will pitch you with “swaggering fun,” extremely witty,” gleeful violence,” and such. [Actually, only 74% at Rotten Tomatoes don't give it a "splat."]
(more…)

Nanking: 1937

Saturday, May 2nd, 2009

In the macabre history of human horrors the Japanese Army’s Rape of Nanking, China, December 1937, stands in the first ranks. As a young man who had lived in post-war Japan and had thought of returning as an adult, attracted to the aesthetic, the culture, the status of being an honored outsider, I first heard the whisperings of The Rape of Nanking with dubious disbelief. Though my growing knowledge of human behavior told me the Japanese, for all their politeness and Buddhist beliefs, were not exempt from such crimes, from engaging in actions that for savagery and gruesomeness can scarcely be comprehended. Indeed not.

The Second Sino-Japanese War (which goes under various names — War of Resistance Against Japan, the China Incident– depending on the speaker) began in earnest in July of 1937 when the Japanese Army captured Beijing and Tianjin. Chiang Kai-shek for the Republic of China then led the Chinese army against the Japanese foothold in Shanghai in August of 1937 in full scale warfare that lasted for three months, the Japanese eventually victorious, though with heavy casualties. In Nanking, then the capital of the Republic of China, all eyes were on Shanghai, knowing it would be the gateway to Nanking if the Japanese were successful. As the evidence mounted the wealthy led the way in fleeing the city, followed by all who had the means to travel and a place to go. The army itself, under Chiank Kai-shek was withdrawn, following a strategy of trying to draw the Japanese deep into China and defeat them piecemeal, with the added practicality that the army was in tatters and deeply dispirited after the battle for Shanghai. Nanking was left under the authority of an International Committee, led by John Rabe, a German born member of the Nazi Party and Siemens business man, and some 17 additional westerners who chose to stay despite the ominous news of the Japanese advance.

nankingbombingvictimAs the army poured into defenseless Nanking, after days of bombing from the air, massacre, rape, gratuitous killing, burning groups of people alive while they were tied together became common place. The Committee had set up a Safety Zone about the size of Central Park where, in 25 refugee camps, some 250,000 people sought safety, and to a large degree found it, through the courage of the outsiders who stayed behind. The invasion of Nanking and deaths of an estimated 300,000 souls became known to some as The Rape of Nanking, though for most the knowledge of the horror was submerged in the world-wide conflagration of World War II where the victims seemed more familiar and therefore more precious to the press and historians.

rapeofnankingIt was only in 1997 with the publication of Iris Chang’s powerful book, “The Rape of Nanking” that memory began to be recovered in the west, and to be indelibly stamped in my own. In 2007 Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman undertook to re-imagine the unimaginable with a film called, “Nanking.” It was short listed for an Academy Award and became the highest grossing documentary film in Chinese history, though its presence in American theaters was short and not much commented on, despite universally approving reviews [100% of "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes.]

japaneseenternankingThe heart of the film is actual footage shot during the invasion, some of it secretly by John Magee, one of the western missionaries who stayed, some of it, presumably, by the Japanese themselves, discovered by the film makers in wide ranging searches around the globe. Cut between the war footage, and some of it is the most gruesome you will ever see, are wrenching recollections of the days of killing by now elderly Chinese survivors. One in particular, is a very old man who recounts watching his mother being repeatedly knifed by soldiers, and his baby brother being pitched away at the end of a bayonet. He found his bleeding brother after the soldiers left and brought him to the dying mother who tried to nurse him, blood from her wounds mixing with the milk. The man, remembering this and speaking about it 70 years later, is so overcome with emotion he can barely continue talking. The sobs of the translators can be heard below his own voice.

The framing device for the film is 9 actors reading from the memoirs of those who stayed with the Committee and helped save so many. Though a bit odd — the actors are sitting in chairs as at a theatrical reading for a part– their familiar faces — Woody Harrelson, Mariel Hemingway among them– and the sense that they are reading, gives a useful distance to the direct witnessing of the survivors’ stories and the sequences of rape, burning and killing. They calm us, as it were, allow us to get our breath without suppressing what we have seen. And, in their own witnessing-by-reading they give us the very little light that seeps out of such horrors: that a few brave people, over and over again in history can make a difference. By their actions — sometimes in daily confrontations with Japanese soldiers– tens of thousands of lives were saved. The elderly Chinese, speaking of them and weeping at the memory, call them heaven sent, and angels of survival.

The memories of elderly Japanese men who were part of the invading murdering army are disturbing in their own right, as there is so little repentance, so little self reflection at what they had participated in. The age-old war cry — “Everyone was doing it. I had no choice!” — is offered in exculpation. We see a few rabid nationalists in full denial, familiar to us from our own homegrown apologists for torture and targeting civilians in war.

A terrible moment in history told in a way to help us absorb it. Two other films, Chinese productions, have also been made of the Nanking massacre. I haven’t seen either nor are they readily available in the U.S.. Some commentators seem to have found copies on e-bay or gotten them from over-seas vendors: “Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre,” 1995, and “Nanjing, 1937.”

For an interesting account of how this film came to be made — a direct result of one man reading of the suicide of Iris Chang and then reading her book — see the website of “Nanking,” here.

For more about the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone see here. For the Nanking Massacre, here, and of course “Chang’s book.

Sin Nombre: A Film

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

The corners and sidewalks at truck rental places, hardware stores, building supply stores in Marin County are filled with small, brown skinned men, in day wear shirts, baseball caps, sturdy pants and athletic shoes. They are out early and stay most of the day, day after day. They number in the hundreds, signaling passing motorists and especially drivers of pick-ups, and SUVs. If you have work, they can do it: dig a ditch, load a truck, sweep a construction site, set up chairs for a big event. Pay them a handful of cash and they are gone. Your work is done. Everyone is happy — like magic elves that appear and disappear at the clap of the hands. Farmers have know about these elves for decades. Harvest time: poof! Appear. Harvest over: poof! Disappear. And most people like it that way. It’s the closest thing to the free market ideal of supply and demand for labor that can be achieved. No annoying residents who, out of work, need social support. These migrants move on, move on.

Of course it isn’t magic that they appear. Of course they are not elves who poof in and poof out of the great workshops of the world. Like all of us they eat, drink, excrete, love, hate, ache, despair, laugh, hope. Unlike us they come from some of the poorest places in the world. Places where it takes an entire family working 10-12 hours a day to eat, where dozens crowd in single shantys, where bathing is a once a week luxury. Unlike us, with us on their borders, they will risk life and limb on long, fear fraught journeys to find a refuge in a strange land where their waking hours of work gives some greater promise of escape than staying at home.

Sin Nombre, a Sundance debuted film by newcomer Cary Fukunaga from Oakland, California is about two small subsets of this south-of-the-US world, and the long desperate journey to “La Norte,” mostly on the tops of north-bound trains, unprotected from the weather or human predators. One group of 3 is Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) traveling with her long absent father and his younger brother, destination New Jersey where her father’s wife and other daughters live. The other group, begun as three but quickly reduced to one, with a murderous gang on his trail is Willy, or El Casper (Edgar Flores). He, along the leader of the local Mara Salvatucha gang and a young recruit, after a fearsome introduction to their lives and values, hop the train to prey on the north bound workers. Sayra attaches herself to Willy after he saves her from being raped by the leader and the story progresses as the two head north, both hoping for new lives. Having killed his gang leader Casper is in deadly danger for the rest of the trip, the film braiding the dangers to the migrants of hunger, weather, physical danger with the violence of the gang, to each other, and the migrants themselves. A third strand is the recruitment and indoctrination of the 12 year old boy, “Smiley”, into the gang.

Fukunaga has done an unbelievable job of taking us into the lives of the desperate migrants and viciously desperate gang members. The lighting, the camera choices, especially some night shots in the train yard are first class. The impression of the full-face tattoos, scars, casual violence and mix of Christian symbology with tenderness and brutality of the gang members will stay with you a long time. How Fukunaga got his cameras onto the tops of freight trains and into train-side squatter camps is a feat in itself, much less the panoramic shots of sunsets, the moving shots of rail side slums, of people tossing oranges, or stones, at the riders. Nor is this made up from a romanticized past, as of North American hobos of the depression.
tren2

Yet somehow the film falls short. The three strands, of migrant danger, gang violence and bringing the young boy into the gang, don’t leave equal impressions. Instead of a story of dangers to migrants, prey to the gangs being one of them, we have story of gang savagery, doubled by its corruption of the young boy, with a side story of migration to the north. The result to the viewer is less of understanding and compassion for the migrants — who most of us see, and take for granted, daily– and more fear and disgust at the gangs.

In part, it seems to me, the two of the three stories don’t mutually re-enforce each other, because there is a certain schematicization in the telling. The gang somehow tracks the fleeing Casper, who we see for days on the trains. Border to border in Mexico is about 800 miles, on very slow trains. Yet we never see the gang covering the same distance, in cars, on other trains, on the same train. They just appear at the next stop, and not other members of the widely extended Mara Salvatrucha gang, but the same thugs, from the same city of origin. The tension of knowing they are after Casper is not reinforced with cars racing trains, multiple phone calls, all the devices of modern chase movies. Though the film flashes up the names of cities as the train and its passengers go through, and though Sarya’s father brings out a map of the distance they have to travel, we don’t know well enough how far they’ve traveled, for how many days, and therefore, how close to success or failure they are, or, until the final frames, that the revenging gang members follow Sarya and Casper right to the banks of the Rio Grande.

To a lesser degree, but similarly, we don’t see the details of how the migrants are getting the food to feed themselves, how they relieve themselves; we don’t see quite enough of their pure misery. We know they are poor and desperate but we don’t have enough details to outweigh our visceral response to the gang presence with a sense of the entirety of their plight. It’s as if Fukunaga let the more obviously shocking images overwhelm the actually more shocking story of the migrant experience, of which being preyed upon by tattooed hoodlums is only a part. Finally, there is a collapsing of the different peoples and cultures who are making this migratory run into one, more or less homogeneous group of brown Spanish speakers. We don’t get a sense that the Hondurans are different from Guatemalans –and therefore wary of each other–, different from the Mexicans of Chiapas, different from the Mexicans of Tamaulipas. We don’t know if the Salvatruchenos are Mexicans, immigrant Salvadorans– where the gang originates– or what. Without differentiation, they all are collapsed into the searing images of the gangs — vicious, brown skinned, Spanish speaking thugs. Be afraid.

The story of the young boy’s recruitment and indoctrination into the gang is well integrated into the gang story. We believe it. And yet we are in disbelief. A twelve year old being shown how to shoot a man in the head, arms around him to steady his hand, as casually as being shown how to swing a bat at a baseball.

For all that, it’s a film worth seeing, perhaps along with the 1983, and very interesting, “El Norte,” by Gregory Nava, which tracks a similar journey north, with a happier ending.

The Edge of Heaven: A Film

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

The Edge of Heaven is a fine, too little seen, film from Turkey and Germany, a tale of sorrow and repentance, love and forgiveness, across borders and cultures, wrapped up in a slightly twisting plot, with enough mystery and violence to keep the sadness of the characters from slowing the film to a Bergmanian pace. The DVD was released after a small theatrical roll-out in 2008 following its award at Cannes for Best Screenplay in 2007.

I don’t recall what led me to track it down and have Netflix send it. I knew nothing of the director nor the actors, little of Germany and less of Istanbul. To be frank, it didn’t start off well for me. Within minutes, an elderly man has made his choice of several window-sitting prostitutes and is getting a blow job; no shy shadows or averted camera eye. A purely functional exchange. We aren’t sure where they are, or what language they are speaking though we get the idea they are both Turks in Germany. The prostitute seems to speak German well enough to not immediately give away her origins to the old man.

The story begins to build as Ali makes his second visit and makes known his real need — an abiding companion. With pure nonchalance he outlines the deal: you get paid as much as you are making now; you live with me and sleep with no other. After she is threatened by two fundamentalist Muslim young men for disgracing her religion and her country and to avoid implicit violence she “repents” –a word and emotion we will encounter often– she takes the old man up on his offer. She moves in. We see Ali’s son, Nejat, lecturing on Goethe at the University and so the dissonance of the separation and convergence of two cultures, German and Turkish, which we will be reminded of again, begins. He is initially appalled at his father’s choice though as he begins to know her acceptance grows. He finds she has been sending money to her daughter, Ayten, in Istanbul so she can attend University. She has been lying to her daughter that the money is coming from her job as a shoe saleswoman.

The new relationship ends badly with the old man in jail, the mistress dead and Nejat setting out to Istanbul to try to track down the daughter and make amends for her mother’s death. The second thread of the story’s stichery is picked up in Istanbul were we see the young woman, involved in anti-government actions and fleeing, as it happens, to Bremen where she thinks she will find her mother, and from which Nejat has departed to look for her.

In Germany Ayten, homeless and broke, is taken in by a blond, German student, Lotte, and soon the two are passionately in love — in Lotte’s mother’s home, Susanne, who is not happy with the distraction from serious studies her daughter has fallen into. The visuals of the two young women, one dark the other pale and blond strikingly reaffirms “the other” as the film’s original title conveyed; their love, in visuals, shows the transcendence, however fleeting, of this otherness.

A chance police stop sends Ayten, with no identification papers, to jail and eventually back to Turkey, determined to be ineligible for the asylum she has requested — on reasonable but bizarre diplomatic grounds. About the same time, Nejat’s father is released from his German prison and deported to Turkey, where his son refuses to see him. The stitchery begins to tighten as Lotte, desperate, follows Ayten to Istanbul to be near her and try to help her. In a nice contrivance, which seems not at all contrived, she finds a room for rent in Nejat’s apartment and the two Germans become friends.

It is not long before the threads of the story tighten and a coffin is sent back to Germany, in a well chosen mirroring of shots, to match that sent to Istanbul earlier with Yeten’s body. Lotte’s mother arrives in Istanbul, mourning her missing daughter and trying to come to grips with her love for the young Turkish woman. Finding Nejat, the ties of friendship and compassion begin to work; she takes her daughter’s room in his apartment and takes up her work of getting Ayten released. In a modest, nicely drawn scene she helps Nejat see his father again through his anger. He drives out to the old man’s village to connect again over their separation. Again there is some nice camera work mirroring an earlier scene, displacing us and replacing us in the same moment as a knot is carefully tugged tight.

The marvelous last scene of the film, with the credits rolling, has Nejat sitting at the edge of a cove waiting for his father to return from fishing, waiting to call him his father again, while Susanna has brought the now released Ayten –who has “repented” her former associations– to her room in his apartment where she will be waiting — all still unknowing– that he has been searching for her.

The story does not unfold in quite such a straight line, of course. Chance, passion, sudden decisions play a role as they do in Babel, Iniarittu’s much praised film. We are shown the two cultures in the rough mix of migration and globalization; we are taken to the streets of Istanbul and Bremen, the chaos of modernity and the soft hills and bays of Turkey. And yet we know these people, normal, thrown-together people of the world: Germany-Turkey, Mexico-US, Italy-Africa, with as Fatih Akin, the director, calls it, the gap that connects between them.

So, I don’t recall what drew me to the film but I will be looking for others by Akin, Short Sharp Shock and Head On, among them.

Akin speaks, in one of the special features on the DVD, of human love and forgiveness, the humanness of all people. Elsewhere he speaks of the doors to seeing and reconciliation which death opens… At 34 years old he’s making his mark in international cinema, with projects in the U.S. and with Scorsese coming up. Read more about him here, here and here and about The Edge of Heaven, here.

The Reader: A Film, and Questions Unanswered

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

winsletkosstub The Reader, a film by Stephen Daldry, screenplay by David Hare, Produced by Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack

So Kate Winslet won best actress for her role in The Reader, a film by Stephen Daldry based on a phenomenally best selling German novel of the same name by Bernhard Schlink, and staying for weeks on U.S best seller lists in Carol Brown Janeway’s translation. If you’ve seen the film you will agree it was an impressive piece of acting, showing the most subtle emotions through a mask of containment, from lover in the bathtub to prisoner in the dock — though perhaps we needed a stronger hint or two of her inner life. Ralph Fiennes as her teenage lover grown up, is all right, though still too recognizable as a Ralph Fiennes ™ character, suppressed, silent and brooding. David Kross, the young man who plays the boy is much better – more expressive, more obviously gripped by life, really a sweetheart — a set up for what the world delivers him.

But what are we to make of the film itself? Though nominated for Best Film it did not win, nor was there much buzz about it in the appreciations of Ms. Winslet. With justice I think.

My experience in seeing it, and in subsequent discussions and readings of reviews is that the film did not rise to the clarity and rigor of her acting. We walk out grasping not a new reality or new set of circumstances to which we must respond. We come away puzzled. Is there something inside the interesting shell of plot and action we are meant to extract and appreciate? Is this more than just a story of young love and sad discovery in post WW II Germany?

The story itself is relatively simple to recount. A 15 year old German boy, Michael, in the late 1950’s spends a summer of love with an older woman, a tram conductor, working class and living in extremely modest circumstances –where they spend their afternoons alternately making passionate love — as she directs– and with him reading aloud to her, at her insistence and her evident great happiness. Their idyll ends, baffling to him, and the years go by until, as a law student, Michael encounters her on trial for Nazi war crimes. He is sick, both because of the abandonment of years ago and because of what he is now learning of her past. As he witnesses her admit on the stand to her leading role in letting the Jewish prisoners under her charge burn alive, he realizes she is lying. She could not have had the role she is admitting. She cannot read, he suddenly understands, and could neither have written the report she has claimed, nor been in charge of her fellow soldiers.

Torn by the conflicts of condemnation and love he pulls back from offering this knowledge to her or the court, leaving her to life in prison. For years, unable to face her, or to condemn her completely, he sends tapes of himself reading from the books he had read during their summer together. With his voice and the same books from the prison library she teaches herself to read and, we think the film says, to understand, though even this is buried in confusion. He himself stays knotted in his own conflicting emotions and knowledge, and in the end can do little more than try to tell the story to his now grown daughter, passing it on to another generation.

The great problem for the American viewer, who has not read the book, is that the personal story – the explicit love making, the transgressive nature of it between a 15 and 35 year old –, the slender outsiders knowledge of the Holocaust, the precarious perch of presumed moral innocence, give a frame through which the movie is viewed which obscures what is being said. The experience of viewing, by itself does not break this frame.

We are left wondering: What is this all about? Can it really be saying that her illiteracy was the cause of her unknowing? Are we meant to think that her actions are somehow mitigated by her inability to read? Does Michael think this? There were, after all, radio broadcasts nearly around the clock in Germany of the war years. She was in the company of many who could read and who knew and knew well what they were doing. By 1943 when she joined the SS, no one in Germany was unaware of the war raging around them. Does the young law student withhold his knowledge of her illiteracy because he realizes it does not excuse her and that she should be punished, or because he thinks it does mitigate her somewhat but but cannot forgive her? What weighs more heavily on him – her abandonment of him as a lover, or her actions which he has discovered as a young student? Are we meant to think that learning to read means that she has learned the truth of her actions? If so, why this conceit? It was those who could read, after all, who created Nazi Germany, not the illiterate. Why is the story framed as the older man telling his adult daughter, evidently to explain to her why he had been so distant as a father?

If the core of the story is the discovery by the young of the evils done by those they love, and the confusion of how to respond, how are we to get there, to make the leap from erotic love of the film to familial and fraternal love of the actual experience of Germans?

It’s a puzzle. Though long, and deliberately told, it seems as though significant parts are missing, and as if the love making and nudity of youth ran on too long to leave room for the heart of the matter.

What is the heart? What was the author propelled to talk about? What was on his mind?

Schlink has said this:

“It is definitely not a book about the Holocaust. It is a book about how the second generation attempted to come to terms with the Holocaust and the role in it played by their fathers’ generation.”

For me, this rearranges the colors of the film. What was foregrounded now shifts to the background. What was dim is now more visible. With this we can see what the film wanted to be about, and why it was only partially achieved.

Until lighted by Schlink’s words, the struggle of the young, as a generation, to come to grips with their elders’ behavior during the war is barely noticed, swamped by Michael’s personal ecstasy and misery. Though the generational struggle makes an appearance in a few scenes in a law seminar as the generation of ‘68 in Germany –as throughout the western world– howls in fury at the criminal wars of its elders, it is not enough. Though Michael’s burden is meant to stand for that of his whole generation – the conflict between condemnation and love – we are so weighted with visuals of his first sexual love it is a leap too far to understand the more filial connections of his fellow students to parents or teachers. The boat of metaphor is swamped with the eroticism of his singular relationship.

Understanding the author’s intention the film becomes clearer, though by itself it doesn’t make the case strongly enough. How does one generation, bound by lives given, love, community, judge the crimes they discover in their elders? What should be done to remedy enormous moral collapse? Is there any remedy? Do we condemn absolutely, without equivocation those who let so many die? Do we “shoot them personally” as one outraged student says? If so, do we ourselves become moral monsters, “shooting” those we love?

Or if we don’t condemn, do we simply accept that the evil of Hannah’s war years was merely banal, in Arendt’s characterization of Eichmann? She was an illiterate girl in need of a job. Being a guard for the state seemed not such a terrible choice. She was nice to the children she asked to read to her before she lined them up for transportation to the death camps. That she left the doors locked to the church in which 300 were trapped was not because she hated Jews, or prisoners, but because order and discipline came first. She could not allow, as a guard, the chaos of 300 fleeing. She had a job to do. Can we leave it there? Can we, in the popular phrase of today, “put it behind us, move on with our lives?” And if we do, are we thereby moral monsters for not naming the earlier monstrosity?

Michael is meant to stand for one response to the dilemma. His solution is not much braver than the actions of his lover, it seems. He can neither condemn her absolutely, nor exonerate her with arguments that she was the victim of circumstances. He opts to help her, to be kind as it were, as she was to the children she sent to the ovens, but without personal connection. He spends hundreds of hours we imagine, reading the books aloud and sending the tapes. Yet, though she writes him, having learned to write, he never responds, except by sending more tapes. A relation but not a relationship; acknowledging some connection while holding himself distant from it.

Is this Schlink’s answer then? Or Daldry’s or Pollack’s? Or is it just a reportage – this is how some have responded, not to be taken as a prescription? And what are we to make of the concern with literacy? Surely illiteracy was not at the heart of Germany’s failure – one of the most literate cultures in Europe. Is Schlink suggesting a wider illiteracy? A moral illiteracy? In the denser context of the book, and German history, is the illiteracy meant to stand for understanding the Holocaust –or not understanding; for inability to read human behavior, writ large, or only that of non resistant citizens of the Third Reich? The film does little to help us make such a bridge.

Left unexamined is the question which Hannah herself asks her judge. “How would you have acted in similar circumstances?” The judge responds with discomfort, but without an answer, nor is the question pursued. Too bad. This to me is the great question: Not, Are YOU guilty? But how would I have acted? How ought I act tomorrow? How am I acting today? How will most people act as society erodes around them, and what can be done now to school ourselves in possible responses? How do we build communities that do not succumb when new virulence appears?

There was an opportunity for the film to take Michael’s inability to either forgive or condemn and let it seep into ourselves and open up the most basic of all questions: How must we live? In the face of great evil, what do we do? It seemed to me the insight, left undeveloped but hinted at, is that while we must acknowledge and condemn the great evils of the past, and present, as performed by those we love, in doing so we must remain enormously humble in the knowledge that it will not be as easy as it seems, cloaked in safety, should our time come.

There is something of this dilemma for Americans today in response to those individuals who tortured prisoners being held in US camps. While blaming the privates, or CIA agents alone, as though their actions were self-generated and wayward behavior, is clearly wrong, a counter impulse has risen that exonerates them, since the orders were clearly formed at the top. Yet as we know, and the film makes clear, exoneration is not a possible path. How do we think, and what do we do, for those who ordered the torture, those who looked away, and those who actually laid on fist and boot? What do we do? How should we live our lives? That is always the question.

For all the incompleteness I felt of the film, the book itself, which I have only read summaries of, seems to do much fuller work in exploring the problem of guilt and love, generational divide and generational connection. Contributors at Wikipedia is a good place to start. Or perhaps you’d like a review of the book itself.

The Wrestler

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

There is probably no more appropriate theater in San Francisco to see The Wrestler, a film about a decrepit, down at the heels professional wrestler and his missed connection to an aging stripper than at the Bridge, on Geary Avenue just west of Masonic. Mickey Rourke, in a part to match his persona, watches as his body gives way and reveals what adrenalin and male stupidity have kept away: he has no one. He tries to respond to the vulnerability and loss he feels, first with his favorite lap-dancer (Marisa Tomei), and then with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) in a cavernous, decrepit fun house along the Jersey Shore, and fails at both.

The Bridge is decrepit to match. It seems a hybrid between an art house and a house of porn. It is cold. It shows trailer after trailer of film to match the main feature – explosions, horrified faces, blood dripping down rainy windows. It is in a decrepit two blocks of Geary Avenue, next door to an empty Carpeteria, and Liberty Income Tax with a girl dressed up as a scarlet Statue of Liberty trying to wave in interest. An old black man layered up against the Richmond District, January cold until he’s as big as a black bear, is pushing a shopping cart filled with his worldly belongings. It is across the street from a two-bay self car wash, a Bedroom and Furniture Outlet — only the elderly Vietnamese proprietor showing any interest in the merchandise. The only likely lively place in eye shot is the Pig and Whistle, sometimes a cheerful Irish, neighborhood bar, tonight not, dim and forlorn, men bent over the bar with their britches revealing what they no longer notice. Inside The Bridge the audience is widely disbursed, as if wanting to be alone in their buttoned up coats, unobserved by others as they watch the parallel, theatrical worlds of professional American wrestling and professional American stripping, of raw injury and raw sex, both pumped by the same sound track.

Rourke is fabulous. In his world of strange theater, professional wrestling, where he has played so long, and longs to hold on to, he seems genuinely real to us as we watch. The wrestling ring is the play within the play. We know he is doubly acting. We see him deliberately cut his face as he moves to “Act II” of his evening drama, yet we believe we are looking at Mickey’s genuine face, worn, flailed, stitched, sagging. Every bad light that hits him, showing every crevice and boil, seems a real light. Tomei is just barely not as good. At first curvaceous, buttocky, beguiling, the sordid dream of those who are drawn to her stage, she ages as the play runs through, and has no better instincts or experience than Rourke, turning his awkward need away, when she too is in need. She is no longer the youngest in the club. She is turned down for a “special,” her g-string does not fill with fivers. She is a mom, with dreams of a condo miles away from her place of work and yet, no more than Rourke, can she make the break when it is offered. Oh, man is there a story to be told here, of the future arriving with all of its weight on those who’ve lived day to day on adrenaline, testosterone and youth.

Maryse Alberti’s camerawork fits the story. The garish colors of the strip club retain all their offending attraction. The cold streets of New Jersey, the bone chill of a trailer park all come through. Shot often in ambient light with gritty authenticity there are shoulder held shots tracking Randy the Ram through the crowds, through the worn out gyms where the play goes on, through the maze of the Acme super store where he picks up work, unloading trucks, and then, in some bravura scenes, as a deli clerk as the wrestling check falls lower. Sometimes the “verite” seems to go on for its own sake though, like long dance sequences in other films when all plot is suspended to enter the play and flow of dance and camera. There is one particularly long shot down stairway, around corner, through hallway to make the sort of silly point that the Ram’s former entry to the clamor of the wrestling crowd is now only to the Deli on weekend rush.

Yet for all that pulls us in, story, acting, camera work, somehow the parts do not become whole. I’m not sure why. In part it is way too predictable. This loser if not going to find his way out. He is going to mess up; he is going to return to where he can no longer go — because he has no where else to go. There is an alternative ending, the happy one, in which Tomei and Rourke recognize and make the connection, in which the last fight comes out triumphant and the Hollywood story of Man’s Will triumphs over all is told again. Only it doesn’t. The only redemption is the Ram’s professed belief in himself, that having recognized that he has failed in his human relations, and that his body is failing, he finds meaning in being who he is — a decrepit wrestler — that he will wrestle as long as his “family”, the fans, and the only family he has, will have him…and yet we can’t even be sure this isn’t his last failure, his last pretense, that he knows his ruined heart will not make it through the bout.

Ahramson’s wrestling genre makes a run at the great fight genre films of Eastwood and Scorsese and others, but it doesn’t get there. Perhaps the story itself, of a man running out of steam, doesn’t have enough steam to overcome the ruin. Perhaps the freneticness of the fight and strip scenes upset the rhythm of the slow deterioration and the slow telling of it.

I’m not sure what I would have done to fix it. More might have been made of the honor among thieves of the wrestling men — their respect for each other, their acceptance of each their role, their nonchalant working up each evening of the sequence of blows and falls, holds and escapes. The bizarre “staple gun” guy who calls Ram, “sir,” and wants to make sure he’s OK with the staples. “What’s it like?” “Oh it stings a little when it hits. You gotta pull em out after, but nothin big.” In a sense, this is the Ram’s family — and it flashes a few times, but more could have been made of it. Less could have been made of the utterly bizarre: the barbed wire in the back, the banging of a garbage-can encased villain with the prosthetic leg of an audience member. And oh yes, it’s bloody.

And for me, there was too much booty in the face, too much time staring dumbly at the buttocks, the crotch, the energetic, rote, pole dancing. I get distracted, wondering if these aging men of film making think they are still being edgy, taunting us to turn away and prove we aren’t sophisticated. OK, I’m not. The sadness of her situation is overwhelmed by the latent prurience of her story teller. He’s got two stories on his mind: the carnival of blood and booty, and the coming to grips with frailty and ending. A few less moments of Tomei’s aging back in supine come-on and a few more of her recognizing her care for Rourke, understanding she had screwed up in the fuck-you-get-out-of-here scene would have made me care a little more — about her, about him, and about the whole film.

Charlie Wilson’s War

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

Charlie Wilson’s War, the new Mike Nichols film based on George Crile’s book of the same name opened last week to decent reviews and pretty good word of mouth – even in liberal crowds. The story outline is pretty well known by now. Charlie Wilson, an early Blue Dog Democrat — a socially liberal and weapons loving Congressman from south eastern Texas, (east of Houston and Galveston Bay, bordering on the Gulf and Louisiana,) teamed up with go-it-alone CIA case officer, Gust Avrakotos, to get millions of secret US dollars to various anti-Soviet mujahideen eventually leading to the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from Afghanistan and setting the stage for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

It’s a good film of course, with Nichols directing, witty script by Aaron Sorkin, Tom Hanks playing Charlie Wilson and the chameleon Phillip Seymour Hoffman playing Avrakotos. Julia Roberts isn’t bad as Wilson’s goad and top sex object, Born Again Joanne Herring. Plus there are lots of boy toys: helicopters bowing up, Soviet jets blowing up — handsome Russians silenced in mid fear: Boom!; enormous tanks lifting off the ground in flames. More boy toys in Wilson’s nubile staff, including one he refers to as “jail bait.” Sex and firepower! What’s not to be liked?

This depends on what you go to movies for.

The acting or the story. Or to think about what is being sent your way, the set of values the story advances.

Some would argue that the acting is paramount. Without good acting and a good script you cannot have a good movie. If that’s your criteria this is a good movie. Aaron Sorkin’s typically crisp dialog (West Wing on TV, A Few Good Men…) with the witty repartee of the old Cary Grant films flowing like the language we’ve come to expect of these larger than life characters, wishing we were as witty and quick as they are. It doesn’t hurt that some of it comes directly from the real Charlie Wilson’s mouth. When asked why all his congressional aids are beautiful young women his answer was “You can teach ‘em to type. You can’t teach ‘em to grow tits.”

If the style and the jewels and the hot tubs are all –in some update of Dallas, the long running series about Texas greed and excess – unrelated to anything in our world, then it is a good movie.

The story is not unrelated to us of course. It is about land mines disguised as toys that maim children. It is about stinger missiles that incinerate and atomize in one glorious show. It is about communists dying. It is about international politics of the most gruesome kind. It is about the United States Congress and how its business gets done. All of this is real and contemporary and none of it is pretty. So how do we get to enjoy a “comedy” about all this? I didn’t.

If the story were about a fictional world in Macondo and Charlie Wilson were decked out in white tropicals with epaulets and the fighting done with muzzle loaders and swords I think I could get in on the fun. It isn’t
(more…)

The Devil Knows

Tuesday, December 11th, 2007

We wound up at “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead,” Sidney Lumet’s new film, last night because we couldn’t get into “I’m Not There,” the multi-actor Bob Dylan film. We hadn’t done our usual homework on “Dead” so we didn’t have a clue what we were in for, except the class A list of actors: Phillip Seymour Hoffman (most memorably of “Capote”,) Ethan Hawke, Maria Tomei and Albert Finney. Looks like a go, we said.

Imagine our surprise when, without previews, without titles, without warning we were watching an overweight, naked white male plowing — at length, from the rear — what seemed to be a beautiful woman, or at least a woman with lots of beautiful hair. I have to say, it was a long scene. In part because I was trying to figure out how this well lit porn shot fit the movie I thought we’d paid to see. It ended in sweet hilarity, somewhat redeeming the man who, keep in mind we know nothing about yet, reserved half his amorous attention for the figures in the mirror. Somewhat. Their conversation lets us know that this loving, and the following sweetness is unusual in their lives. It throws them back to the “old days,” the days they met. And it clues us to the financial pressures –so central to the rest of the film– that are squeezing “Andy” as he tries to live a life larger than even his sumptuous salary can maintain. The woman’s sudden withdrawal from happy coitus tell of her unhappiness at his day to day absence, emotional and physical.

After a dippy little subtitle –”The Day of the Robbery”– almost indicating we are watching a comedy, we are zipped into a little shopping corner as banal as can be found. The L of stores around mostly deserted asphalt, a UPS truck, an elderly man dropping his elderly wife off, a white sedan with two guys sitting in it, waiting for stores to open. The woman unlocks a door and goes into a store, takes off her coat, begins to settle herself. It’s a jewelry store. And suddenly the filmic dip from high sexual fever into banality explodes into threat and violence. One of the men in the car comes into the store, a mask pulled over his face and a big gun waving at the elderly woman. Lots of shouted orders. Frail responses. The tension is unbearable. And then hell breaks loose.

Lumet is no stranger to hell breaking loose. He’s a master at screwing up the tension between the bad and the good. In doing so he can usually be counted to be on the side of the good. Twelve Angry Men, Serpico, Prince of the City, even Dog Day Afternoon –which he has described as showing that even the freaks in our lives are more like us than we can ever know. But something different is going on here. The “Devil” is a fast plunge into hell, with not too much redemption going on. The story is told in overlapping segments. We are moved back in time before the robbery as subtitles tell us “Two Days before the Robbery;” “One Week Before the Robbery.” We see new parts of the larger story connect to parts we’ve already seen, the same sequence of lines and actions repeated, now set into new contexts. Always we see the family — of men, the mother is dead and the sister is barely present — collapsing in on each other, wildly trying to leap over the previous mistake that had brought them to the present precarious position.

Hoffman is the older brother, the one we have seen in the opening scene, successful, aggressive, sure of himself but in trouble. His success is falling short of his needs. The falling short is driving him to drugs, impotence and financial chicanery. Hawke is the younger brother, the baby, the unambitious, the loser as he is called by his angry ex-wife and his disappointed daughter. Both brothers need money and they need it bad. When Hoffman — Andy — proposes a simple robbery to jump start their lives, Hawke — Hank — at first is incredulous, then resistant, then crazed by his need for money, acquiescent. Andy details the plan. Knock over their own parents’ jewelry store. They don’t work on Saturday and the old woman who does can be hustled into the back room. The jewels are covered by insurance. They stolen ones can be fenced. The old man, it turns out later, is no warm and nurturing dad. No harm, no foul. Everybody’s happy.

Hoffman is a genius at becoming the nasty, seductive older brother. Hawke a little less successful at being a chump but pretty damn good. Trouble is, he decides he can’t possibly pull the robbery off himself so he enlists the help of a real thug. A real thug with a real gun juiced by heavy metal music and pumped testosterone leads to certain mayhem. Perhaps he’s the only bad guy from the old Lumet world, to get what’s coming to him. All the rest live in a gray zone, some charm, some evil; men in the modern world caught up in their greed and bad decisions, the women not too helpful either. Maria Tomei, Andy’s thick haired wife we met in the opening scene, acts out her despair at Andy’s lack of emotional/sexual accomplishment –when not on vacation– by meeting Hank once a week for a good long nooner. It’s all a fuckin’ mess, as they say. So far from the sweet Irish toast from which the title comes ” May your glass be ever full. May the roof over your head be always strong. And may you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead” that one imagines it was deliberately done. Meaning the opposite of what is intended.

So watching it, as I always do, I ask myself: why is this film being made? What is on the director’s mind? The writer’s? What is the story they want to tell and why do they think it important enough to spend several years in its making? Why this film and not another? For some, the only reason to make a film is because it looks like a cash machine. Story, purpose, not important except to draw ticket buyers. Lumet isn’t one of these guys. In most of his earlier films the question of “why this film?” is easy to answer. He is dealing with significant questions in life. He has stories to show us people and how they deal with the messiness and uncertainties of the world. He has hope. Without being simplistic he writes the good over the bad. The “Devil”?

The story spirals into a murderous tiny point –warning, Plot Spoiler(more…)

The Rape of Europa

Monday, June 4th, 2007

Here’s a recommendation for a couple of your hours. You won’t think them ill spent. The Rape of Europa is a documentary film that neither by title nor subject matter beckons one in: Rape? Stolen art? Don’t we already know the Nazis were the world’s biggest bastards? I’ll even confess, we went in one of those “obligation” moods: this is a subject we should know more about, but let’s have a good dinner afterwards… Believe me, we came away filled, amazed, ready to talk and learn more. Forget the fine wine and fancy pizza. Most of you will come away similarly, knowing how much you didn’t know about something you thought you knew a good deal about, and you’ll praise the way the film makers got you there. You’ll call your friends, as we are, and tell them: Go see it.

Adele

We all knew that among the crimes of the Nazis, small crimes perhaps, but crimes nevertheless, was the theft of culture. What we didn’t know was the extent of this theft. It was not casual or opportunistic. Enormous resources were spent locating, loading and shipping great works of art and small household goods all over Europe. Hitler himself, and his chief lieutenants spent hundreds of hours evaluating art, having it shipped to their private palaces. Even as Hitler prepared to shoot himself he was talking about his memorial art gallery planned for Linz, Austria, his birth town.

Professionals and volunteers in Paris, Florence, Krakow and elsewhere spend thousands of hours clearing the major museums as the German armies approached, spied on by informers and turncoats; they packed hundreds of thousands of objects, some of them fragile to the point of collapse, and sent them by truck, train and animal carts to distant, hidden sites, before the Nazi looters arrived. The Mona Lisa was sent in a climate controlled truck so effective that her accompanying curator was passed out upon arrival.

German and Allied bombers devastated museums, monasteries, wealthy homes filled with art. The US sent a small corps of what came to be called “The Monuments Men,” along with the Allied push up through Italy, trying to locate, preserve, mark for future recovery monuments, buildings, mosaics, paintings. Train loads of goods filled with Nazi loot were found abandoned on the tracks, cataloged and sent back to the cities of origin.

Following the war and increasing in tempo in recent years efforts have been made to find the original owners, many of them dead or disappeared in the war and concentration camps. One of the key themes of the film was the return of Gustave Klimt’s Portrait of Adele from the Austrian National museum to Maria Altman, a niece of Adele Bloch-Bauer, deceased subject of the painting.

The film has an incredible range, from Klimt’s position in pre-war Austria, to the Nazi “purificiation” of art and their greed for the best, to the unbelievable devastation of Europe — incredible newsreel footage from both German and US cameras, long minutes panning over burned out buildings. Yet it doesn’t lag, isn’t simply didactic. Based on Lynn Nichols 1995 book of the same name, the film adds personal interviews, images of the art, history as it was lived. And as importantly we realize that while the real horror was the death of people, the destruction of those things they loved adds, does not distract, from those memories.

This is a film I would show on every Memorial Day: Memory of what was done; Memory of those who emerged, still decent, still able to build new lives and to remember the richness of family and culture.

The Rape of Europa is showing in Marin for as long as people keep going. Get some friends and Go!

Kicking In The Door

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

The scene was familiar: uniformed soldiers, rifles swinging restlessly, big man at the door, boots, gun butts smashing smashing, male voices screaming orders: Get down! Get down you fuckin’ shit! Where are the guns! Where are the fuckin’ guns! Female and children’s voices screaming in terror. No guns here! No man here! –You fuckin’ liar! Hand grasping clothing, hurling bodies against the wall, against the floor. Gun barrels held inches from skulls, from terrified eyes.

Sitting in a dark theater, watching actors and not threatened at all, understanding that the actors aren’t threatened, still the adrenaline pump is in high overdrive. The throat constricts. The heart hammers.

This is all too familiar stuff.

For the last four years, on TV and in documentaries, in still photos and on the Internet, in Anbar province, in Diyala province, in the back alleys of Baghdad. Yet this is not Iraq. This is a film about Ireland 1919 to 1921. The men in uniform and half-uniform are the Black and Tans, special British forces created, at Winston Churchill’s suggestion, to get the Irish insurgency against British rule under control. The Irish want the British out. 800 years was enough. To the Irish, the Black and Tans, and the fearsome Auxiliaries, were occupiers and to be resisted.

As in Iraq in 2003 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 the insurgency only grew, fed by the efforts to suppress it. It grew in numbers involved. It grew in viciousness — on all sides. It grew to civil war and neighbor fought neighbor. Brother killed brother.

The film we were watching is The Wind that Blows the Barley. Directed by Ken Loach, it won the Cannes 2006 Palm d’Or. In England however, it, and the director, has been excoriated by the setters of opinion and taste. Loach is British and the history he shows is not warm hearted about his country’s behavior. There are those who, after 86 of peace with Ireland, call him treasonous. One prominent critic compares him to the Nazi’s Leni Riefenstahl. It leaves one wondering what has elevated these scribes to the level of serious critics. They seem to have some power though. Loach claims there were only 40 copies of the film in England while there were 400 in France. Even those who aren’t frothing in the gums yip in some alarm.

Loach has a long history of social realist films, beginning in 1965 with a BBC production called Up the Junction about working class life in South London. He has some 26 films to his credit, including Which Side are You On?, Bread and Roses, and Land and Freedom about the Spanish Civil War. Loach knows, in other words, which side he is on.

Yet he is not on a side blindly, and he has no romance in him about the great struggles or that great intentions will hide great evils. He has no uncertainty that the occupation of Ireland by Britain was wrong, or the actions of the Black and Tan. The struggle of the IRA against them is justified by all that men hold dear. And yet, and yet the IRA does terrible things and Loach shows us – brutality traded for brutality, revenge the spark for revenge. This is war. But it is not a war film like those favored by the winners.

The Wind Blows the Barley, like Vilsmaier’s Stalingrad, like Dragojevic’s Pretty Village, Pretty Flame, like Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima, take all the romance out of war. Damn such films, anyway! No stirring shots of friendly aircraft wheeling in formation, wings waggling in salute; no sailors standing windswept on the deck, eyes narrowed in pride and recollection; no tearful reunions as Johnny comes home, honored and bemedaled. Instead, we have fingernails being wrenched out; heroes shooting collaborators in the head and then vomiting because they had been boyhood friends; brothers parting over the aims of the fighting, finally coming to blows and to execution, up close and personal.

As the Irish –and the two brothers in the film– against the fog of war and promise of partial success, begin to split into differing, then disputing, then civil-waring camps, Loach is not didactic. He likely feels the militants who rejected the treaty –signed by their own leaders– were the more right. But those who did sign, and then fought their brothers, were no less principled, their perceptions of hold this and advance another day were not dishonorable. Loach lets us see the uneasy, unpredictable and terrible results once the battle has been entered into.

I don’t think he set out to make an anti-war film, but by making a real film about a real war we are wooed away from the propaganda platitudes of martyrs and heroes and certainties of God’s favor. We get the sense of how serious the questions are, how seriously they must be answered, before gaily signing on for war. What else can be done? How else can victory be won?

How right are we to hear the echoes of those screaming from 1920 down to our own day?

In his acceptance speech at Cannes he said, “in no uncertain terms, that his movie wasn’t only about the Irish Problem, but was also meant as a commentary about the Bush and Blair policies in Iraq.” [Review.]

Nothing had to be contrived. The mechanisms are well known.

Eventually the wars in Ireland ceased; the longest running in the northern 6 counties, only recently. Somehow all the reasons to rip fingernails out, to control the lives of others, to shoot people in the head all diminished and life went on. The film doesn’t comment on this of course, though we, sitting in the dark, shaken by the violence, thinking perhaps of our own ancestors’ probable participation in it, cannot help but know. The Irish and the English somehow live as cousins now, despite all of that. The Iraqis will one day know the same peace. And yet today, the occupying army still in place, the civil war exploding on a different street corner every day, there seems to be nothing to be learned to help them skip the carnage yet to come.

Film: Amazing Grace

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

Darn! I wanted to like it. I wanted to like it real bad.

Amazing Grace is the latest film by that title, and the first to treat the unutterably difficult, and in retrospect stunning, struggle in Britain in the late 1700s and early 1800s to put an end to the British slave trade. Caught in the blinding amnesia of modern life it is almost impossible for us to imagine what was taken as a matter of comfortable fact in the life of the British nation, and had been for at least one hundred years — and longer in Portugal and Spain.

So long as the Empire, and material wealth, grew few cared to ask how it happened. “Favored by God” was a popular belief of course. British ships carried cargo to the four corners of the earth. The merchant fleet was the greatest ever seen. Though the Colonies had recently been lost, Great Britain was still the greatest power on earth. Sugar had been flooding the nation for decades, replacing other sweeteners and providing the cheap energy source, in sugared tea and marmalade for noon-time bread (the first “fast food”,) for the growing industrial classes. Where it was coming from, or how, was of no more interest to most British than the source of bacon or roses is to modern Americans. We like ‘em, we want ‘em. We pay (too much!) for ‘em. End of story.

In 1787 a band of 12, mostly Quakers, assembled in a print shop in George Yard in London to begin a quixotic campaign to convince millions of their fellow citizens, and the members of Parliament, that abominable cruelty was responsible for much of this wealth. It was being practiced in their names, on human beings like themselves. It was being done with neck-irons and branding, with flogging and mutilation. It was being done with enslavement and torture and death as its chief implements: death by drowning, death by impalement, death by starvation, death by dogs. If you don’t believe it, they said, look at this evidence. They set irons, and whips, testimony and drawings before disbelieving eyes and described it in exquisite detail. This, they said, is what we are doing, and this, they said, must stop. Regardless of the financial cost to you or to me or the Empire itself, it must stop. They carried their campaign to every ear and eye in Great Britain for 46 years, until the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833. This story is one of the great stories of human history and is scarcely mentioned in textbooks and hardly known except among handfuls of historians.

This is the story I wanted to see. How did this campaign unfold? What were it’s trials, its errrors, it setbacks and successes? I wanted to see Thomas Clarkson barely escape with his life on the docks of Liverpool as a group of slave ship officers tried to end it and his damnable success in attacking their livelihood. I wanted to see him riding the 35,000 miles on horseback going to meetings. I wanted to see James Stephen witnessing the trial in the Barabadoes that changed his life, and his colleague on board a slaver taking notes in Greek so as not to be spied upon and turning them over to the organizers. Oh, what a splendid movie might have been made!

It was not to be. Apparently Michael Apted, the director (also of Coal Miner’s Daughter, Gorillas In the Mist, Incident at Oglala, as well as thrillers like Extreme Measures, and The World Is Not Enough (Bond)) was asked to do a film, not about the anti-slavery movement, but about William Wilberforce — and that is what we get. Clarkson, Stephen, John Newton, the repentant slave ship captain who wrote the song “Amazing Grace,” all appear but as peripheral lights to the candelabra of Wilberforce, his friendship with William Pitt, and the long and intricate Parliamentary battles they waged. We see Wilberforce’s loss of faith, his battles through illness, his falling in love and fatherhood, his regaining of strength and faith and the first two victories in the struggle — though we don’t see the final, great victory, the news of which he got on his deathbed. Curiously, we aren’t told the source of his own wealth or if it was threatened by his obsession, nor who is father is — the famous Bishop Wilberforce who battled Darwin’s heretical ideas from pulpit and pamphlet for decades.

As such a film — a period biography — it was good enough. The fine volunteers at rottentomatoes.com give it a 72% favorable. I would be one of those tempted to throw, not hold, my tomato though.

Some liked it well enough. Andrew Sarris is among them. He takes it, and reviews it, as a very well done bio-pic. Fair enough, and perhaps the way to enter people’s hearts. Heck, even the Socialists like it, so maybe I’m missing something. For an aging curmudgeon though, who has seen enough movies about splendid love-affairs in period costume, and stirring speeches to sitting nobles, to last him into a second lifetime, it was a disappointment.

Where is the film we need to see? The Battle of Algiers for the nonviolent? The raw, gripping black and white scenes of clandestine meetings, broadsides hastily posted, meetings fearfully attended in guttering candle light? Where are the close ups of eyes witnessing the dumping out of sacks the terrible instruments of confinement and torture? Where are the gasps as the schematic of a slave ship’s hold is displayed and viscerally understood? Where is the sense of a growing movement, of people refusing to buy sugar, of putting up with privation, with suffering the scorn of their neighbors? Where are those who stopped their work, risked their livelihoods, to join the movement, to gather the evidence, to provide the heaving social earth of a social movement from which the Parliamentary maneuvers came and upon which they depended?

That’s the movie we need. Meanwhile the present Amazing Grace is good enough to spend your time with. It’s long past time for William Wilberforce’s memory to be dusted off and held in the spotlight reserved for our heroes. Though after you see the movie, or in place of it, read deeply and hold dear Adam Hochschild’s marvelous Bury the Chains, the book that should be the source of the movie we all want to see.