Posts Tagged ‘Movies’

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.

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…)

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…)