March 29, 2013
Film Review: The Sapphires

Dir. Wayne Blair
Score: 5.5

If movies about music and musicians can be said to have one particular recurring trope, it’s that they far too often require the soundtrack to power them through every obstacle in the film’s path. We get it, music can solve almost any ills (especially if it comes from the heart!), but in the meantime, it’s like the films themselves rely on the music cover up any gaping deficiencies elsewhere.

Wayne Blair’s film, based on a true story, about three young Aborigine sisters and their cousin forming a girl band and touring Viet Nam at the height of both the war and the civil rights movement in the late ’60s, throws a veritable kitchen sink of issues at their heroines — prejudice, sexism, war, poverty, social injustice and, naturally, love — but good soul tunes, and their fine singing voices, carry them through with nary a scratch.

The young women — Gail (Deborah Mailman), the eldest and least-talented musically, but the glue that holds them all together; Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell), the “sexy” one, who wants very much to get in trouble with boys; Julie (Jessica Mauboy), the most talented singer, but also the most petulant; and Kay (Shari Sebbens), the girls’ fair-skinned cousin, who was snatched off their reservation and “given” to some white parents in Melbourne — first meet up with Dave (Chris O’Dowd), a sloppy drunk working half-assed musician jobs, at a shady talent contest in the nearest town to the girls’ reservation. They lose the contest — we are to understand the prejudice in Australia at the time was still rampant — but get the idea that they could form a group together under Dave’s management and tour Viet Nam to entertain the U.S. troops stationed there.

One problem: The girls, whose musical aptitude comes from their doting mother, only know country songs. Dave correctly surmises that soul is the way to go for this particular gig and commences teaching them the basics of the genre. Before long, of course, the women, now dubbed The Sapphires, tighten up their game and take Indochina by storm.

Technically, plenty of other things happen at this point, as the women and their backing band embark on a whirlwind tour of the war-torn region, but nothing terribly much leaves a bruise. Friendships are re-kindled, sisterhood proves indefatigable and love begins to blossom between two unlikely sources (though you will likely see it coming a mile away).

It can be said the film is big hearted, and treats its characters with respect bordering on reverence (for good reason: It turns out co-writer Tony Briggs is the son of one of the original women), but it can also be said everything feels lost in service to the soundtrack, which is chock filled with such film-friendly standards as “I Heard it through the Grapevine,” “What a Man,” and “I’ll Take You There,” and unlike Les Miz, it is very easy to tell none of the music is sung live, and only one of the actresses (Jessica Mauboy, who does have impressive pipes) are actually singing the tunes themselves. What we have here, then, is a kind of Dreamgirls meets The Commitments, with the soundtrack asked to do much of the film’s emotional heavy lifting.

At one point, Dave makes a point to the girls about the difference between country and soul. Both genres are about loss, but country songs, he explains, people get their hearts broken and “they’ve given up” and are just “whining about it.” In soul, even if they get their hearts broken, they still are holding onto hope that they can make things right again. They don’t cave in, in other words, they fight for their love and happiness, even in the face of total failure.

The movie itself, by contrast, can be said to be light and sort of bouncy, the kind of thing you’ll doubtless see on standard cable channels for years to come (it comes as absolutely no surprise that this film is adapted from the stage show of the same name). There’s no dishonor in that, exactly, but one wishes it had dabbled a bit more in the darker side of soul music, a bit more shake, rattle and roll, then so meekly settling for a steady diet of sugar pie and honey bunch.

March 27, 2013
RETRO Watch My Movie: Nicolas Winding-Refn on “Drive”


Unearthing some of the archived pieces I wrote for NBC’s ill-fated entertainment blog The Feast back in 2011. Let’s go back into recent time a bit, shall we?


Sometimes the artistic inspirations of a given director are difficult to determine: They involve many different styles and genres and become a distilled hodge-podge of ideas. Other times, the inspirations are far more recognizable. The work of Nicolas Winding Refn, a Danish filmmaker who spent part of his formative years in America, runs inspired and violent, a standing homage, it would seem, to one of his favorite directors, Martin Scorsese. His new film, Drive, stars Ryan Gosling as a nameless car mechanic living in L.A. and using his superhuman driving skills as both as a stuntdriver in movies and as an occasional getaway man for various nefarious gigs. When he falls for a single-mom neighbor (Carey Mulligan), and his boss at the garage (Bryan Cranston) makes one last play at a big payoff, you can sense the oncoming barrage of bad tidings and violent outcomes. Refn, who appears to be the type of man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, nevertheless agreed to pitch the film for us. We’re just glad we didn’t make him angry.

Can you describe your film in a single tweet?
Drive is about transformation, it’s about a man who transforms himself into a superhero.

What’s a good log line for the movie?
I can’t answer that, because I don’t make films like that. But Pretty Woman was an inspiration.

If someone really liked this film, what three other films would Netflix recommend to them in their Netflix queue?
Vanishing Point, Point Blank and The Killer, by John Woo.

Should you drink before or after the movie?
Drink while seeing it.

What should you drink?
Well, I don’t drink alcohol, so I don’t know what people drink, but I always said Drive was like good cocaine: You can’t get enough.

Should you see this movie alone or with friends?
See it with a date. See it with a woman.

Read my full review of Drive.

March 27, 2013
RETRO Watch My Movie: Tom Hanks on “Larry Crowne”

Unearthing some of the archived pieces I wrote for NBC’s ill-fated entertainment blog The Feast back in 2011. Let’s go back into recent time a bit, shall we? 

Meeting Tom Hanks for the first more or less goes exactly in the way you’d imagine. You know that scene in every Tom Hanks movie where he does the hail good fellow routine and greets everyone at his job (go to the 7:40 mark) with a rousing, personal salutation (go to the 5:00 mark)? That’s pretty much the Tom Hanks Effect: He comes across as both larger than life and, somehow, just like anyone else. The two time Academy-Award winning actor is doing press to promote his new film Larry Crowne, which he co-wrote with My Big Fat Greek Wedding scribe Nia Vardolos, directs and co-stars along with Julia Roberts. The film, which opens July 1, is about a middle-aged man who loses his job and goes back to college in order to earn the degree he didn’t get when he enlisted in the Navy many years before. In school, he becomes attracted to one of his professors, played by Roberts, and the two begin an unlikely dalliance.

Describe your film in a single tweet.
Julia Roberts is my teacher and guess what happens? How’s that? Is that under140 characters? How about with 82 question marks after it?

What’s a good log-line for this movie?
Yes. It’s Gone with the Wind meets Citizen Kane.

What three films would Netflix recommend from someone who enjoyed this? Interesting question. To Sir With Love, how about that? Cleopatra, because of Liz [Elizabeth Taylor] and Dick [Richard Burton] and The Wild One for the scooters.

If two other actors were to portray the male and female leads, who would they be?
If it’s not me and Julia, I’d say Buster Keaton and Bridget Bardot.

Should you drink before or after the film?
During.

And what should you drink?
You should have a nice refreshing glass of something with a something in it. A blended Margarita, no salt.

Should you see this movie alone or with friends?
Oh, with friends. Come on. Yak it up.

Read my full Larry Crowne review, if you dare.

March 27, 2013
RETRO Sin City: Kristen Wiig & Wendi McLendon-Covey for “Bridesmaids”

image

Unearthing some of the archived pieces I wrote for NBC’s ill-fated entertainment blog The Feast back in 2011. Let’s go back into recent time a bit, shall we? 

Longtime “SNL” veteran Kristen Wiig is poised to break out this summer. Her new film, Bridesmaids, opening May 13, promises to be one of the standout comedies of the season, propelling the comedienne, who co-wrote the hilarious script with Annie Mumolo, to rarified heights in the process. The film, about a pair of best friends on totally different trajectories in their lives, also co-stars Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne and “Reno 911” stand-out Wendi McLendon-Covey. The Feast caught up with Wiig and McLendon-Covey recently at the elegant Four Seasons Hotel and found out a little bit more about what makes these funny women tick. 

These questions are about the Seven Deadly Sins. What do you crave most?
Kristen Wiig: Sleep.
Wendi McLendon-Covey: Oh my gosh, I was just going to say sleep. Sleep and salty cured meats.
KW: I was going to say just salty foods.

Do you know your limits?
KW: No. I don’t think anybody does. Did I blow your mind? Can you put a sound-effect explosion after I say that?

What won’t you share?
WM-C: None of your business. [laughter]

What makes you angry?
KW: Seeing people yell at their kids in public.
WM-C: If you want to know what makes me mad, we’ll be here for three hours, but racial intolerance and discrimination of any kind.
KW: I agree with that.
WM-C: And people that fart and won’t own up to it.

In that order. If you were to win a medal, what would it be for?
KW: Okay, well I’m going to do Wendi. For being able to be extremely sweet, generous and nice and, at the same time, always speaking her mind.
WM-C: Oh my gosh. I would have to give that medal back, because I don’t deserve it.
KW: You don’t have to do me!

WM-C: Yes, I do. The humility Award: Not one drop of diva out of this girl. And this is the face of America. This is the face of comedy. It’s true. Does she make demands? No, she doesn’t. Does she remember every single person’s name? Yes, she does. From the driver that drives the shuttle bus on set to everyone else. Honestly, she remembers and she makes everybody feel special.

What great idea should’ve been yours? It can be small or big.
KW: I’m going to have to say the wheelbarrow.
WM-C: I’m gonna say…
KW: Oh, Pajama Jeans!
WM-C: I was gonna say the Snugglies?
KW: The Snuggies!

What are Pajama Jeans?
KW: You don’t know about Pajama Jeans?!
WM-C: Let’s hope you never see someone in public…
KW: They’re exactly what they sound like…they look like jeans. 
WM-C: But they aren’t made from denim, they’re like stretch jeans. So it’s like, ‘You can go straight from bed to a night on the town.’ Or, ‘Come home from a club and just pass out.’ It’s so gross. You can only get ‘em through the mail.

What has been on your to-do list the longest?
WM-C: Well, I still haven’t finished putting away my Christmas decorations. And winning an Oscar.

Read my full review of Bridesmaids.

March 22, 2013
Film Review: On the Road

Dir. Walter Salles
Score: 5.2

It’s not that I’m entirely unsympathetic to director Wallter Salles and screenwriter Jose Rivera and their largely ineffectual adaptation of the Jack Kerouac beat manifesto. In much the same way young male writers would do well to put off their reading of Hemingway until after they’ve already established their own voice, it’s all too damnedably easy to fall into the literary wormhole of Kerouac’s loose, scatty, be-bop prose.

Kerouac’s novel captures the essence of a very particular time and outlook in one’s life, questioning everything of convention, constantly brushing up against the most elemental existentialities and responding to the overwhelming meaninglessness of it all by hitting the open prairie and pouring a good-sized dram of diesel fluid with your best mates, putting the heavy lifting off for another day and instead pondering every nook and cranny of the great, vast openness around you.

This, as you might imagine, is not impossible to examine cinematically, and it’s where Salles’ film achieves its best moments. Where the film goes wrong, where any simple adaptation of Kerouac’s novel falls flat, is in the perspective of the narrator. Kerouac’s novel is clearly set in the past, not from decades away, but far enough removed from the giddy energy of self-discovery that the entire book is soaked in regret and nostalgia, it’s less a giddy travelogue and more of an extended epigraph, a eulogy for beauty lost. Kerouac wasn’t just writing about his wild, mad friends and their adventures together, he was writing about a kind of paradise that can only exist for a very short time and leaves you forever after regretting that you can never return.

Instead of nostalgia, though, we get an endless parade of zoom zoom. When we meet him, Sal Paradise (Sam Riley) is a young writer in Queens burning for something he can’t quite put his finger on. When he meets the unbridled Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund) through his good friend Carlo (Tom Sturridge), he recognizes a star at last to which he can affix his trajectory. In tow with Dean’s 16-year-old wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart), Sal and co. travel the countryside on an endless blitz of east/west wanderlust, stopping only occasionally to get menial jobs in cotton fields or freight trains, and, in Dean’s case, having to appease one beautiful paramour or another he’s left in a bad way in his endless travels.

Through a steady stream of side characters – including Dean’s other wife (Kirsten Dunst), the spurned wife of yet another road warrior (Elisabeth Moss), and the William Burroughs stand-in Old Bull Lee (Viggo Mortensen) – Dean and Sal’s world is expanded and contracted like a cornerstore on a busy thoroughfare, but nothing, it seems, can keep the boys away from one another for terribly long, or from the endless stretch of highway forever in front of them.

It’s fine in concept, but the film suffers from two kinds of malaise: It’s either too earnest (“My mind is a veritable echo chamber of epiphanies,” the Ginsberg stand-in Carlo squeals to Sal as they hit the town one night), or too scattershot (as the scenes of Sal and Dean begin pile together, they somehow become more – not less — opaque) to be anything much more than tedious. It’s like hearing a particularly self-congratulatory colleague recount the details of their childhood summer camp experiences, all set to a showy jazzed-up soundtrack. The film is filled with scenes of the boys going to wild jazz shows, getting lit up under a sheen of sweat and smoke, and then writing furiously early the next morning, perched on rotted out rooftops overlooking the city, but you rarely feel any of their joy and effusiveness.

There are a few scattered highpoints: Hedlund offers up some kind of approximation of Dean’s hedonist charisma; Mortensen’s slow Burroughs’ drawl is pretty much spot-on; the beleaguered Stewart offers up one of her better performances as the spunky, sharp-witted chanteuse Marylou; and there’s an effective scene with Sal desperate to write but out of paper, resorting to using almost any kind of flat surface, which speaks eloquently to his feverish resolve; but so few of these good pieces fit together, the film still falls shockingly flat.

It’s all too easy to turn the beats into their own iconic caricatures, that’s a good deal of what Kerouac was attempting to do with the novel in the first place, but whereas the film seems only preoccupied with the experiences he and his crew embodied, in his original novel, he understands just how much he and his friends have lost in the aftermath.

March 22, 2013
Film Review Link: Spring Breakers


Harmony Korine’s latest fleshy opus is a deft satire that also manages to make a star out of James Franco. 

March 15, 2013
Film Review: Stoker

image

Dir. Chan-wook Park
Score: 4.4

It’s not often that a team of sound designers is asked to carry the majority of the story in a feature film, but Chan-Wook Park’s peculiar gothic thriller relies so heavily on Chuck Michael and John Morris and their skilled team of sound technicians, it’s almost as though they should be getting top billing in the credits.

Sound is integral to the film, both because the main protagonist, 18-year-old introvert India (Mia Wasikowska), has nearly super-human hearing, but also because left on its own merits, the film’s story hangs together about as well as a bowl of cream left out in the sun all day.

India, normally recalcitrant, is especially down because her beloved father (Dermot Mulroney) has just been found dead in his car, after what appears to be an accident. Left in their mansion-like property with her bizarrely impassive mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman), India is also surprised to find, at her father’s funeral, that she has an uncle she never knew about. Charlie (Matthew Goode) suddenly appears at their house, and immediately begins to creep India out.

He’s slick and well-mannered, but he seems totally unaffected by his brother’s sudden death, and wastes no time making inroads with Evelyn, whom, to India’s horror, shows immediate interest. Before too long, of course, Charlie begins to turn his attentions over to his niece, who is also not entirely repulsed, even as scads of her acquaintances suddenly go missing.

Things sort of escalate from there, with plenty of curious psycho-sexual nuances and blatant visual metaphors permeating the proceedings. Indeed, Chan-Wook and his longtime DP Chung-Hoon Chung, can’t resist cramming nearly every frame of the film with oddities — smoking birthday cakes, spiders crawling up legs, shimmering figures, mysterious keys — there’s a sense that the filmmaker and his team want to throw as much as they can at the audience in the hopes that something will resonate. Some of the imagery is creepily effective, some of it is so on the nose (a fly trapped in the back of a car taking a young boy to an insane asylum, for example) that you find your teeth involuntarily grinding.

And then there’s the sound surrounding India at all times. Whispering voices, crickets, the whirring of a fan, the subtle crackling of an egg shell being rolled on a table, the ticking of a metronome, everything gets noted and highlighted, which has the opposite effect it desires: By making the sound so blatant, so obvious, it draws attention to itself as a thing separate entirely from its environment. Instead of sinking us further down into the narrative (a la Barton Fink), it pushes us away and makes us all to aware of what desired effect the production team is hoping for.

This is more or less in keeping with the rest of the film’s many faults. The script, hacked together by Wentworth Miller and Erin Cressida Wilson, feels as if it’s been run through Google translator before being shot. Almost nothing makes much sense or hangs together particularly well. We’re never asked to question why Eveyln takes all of half-an-hour before wanting to jump her brother-in-law’s bones, or why she seems incapable of any emotion other than self-pity and loathing of her daughter (“I can’t wait to watch life tear you apart,” she says helpfully). Equally poorly drawn, India comes across as moody and apathetic, a cold-hearted, ultra sensitive kid who dearly misses her father, but falls for the man who might well have killed him.

Some of this is no doubt Chan-Wook’s imitable style. The revered director of Oldboy and Thirst often revels in these kinds of peculiar emotional configurations, but, in his first English-speaking film, everything feels amped up as if he were desperately trying to impress us. Southern Gothics are melodramatic almost by definition, but they are really just hyped-up emotional responses that you could otherwise find in the natural world. Not trumped up outbursts from space aliens.

Kidman always does good work, and Wasikowska, given the lead role, can convey an incredible amount with the smallest movement of her mouth. But it’s as if the actors all received the instruction to speak as affectless and banal as zombies. An early dinner table scene, with the three of them all trying to under-emote each other comes across as quasi-satire, not, I strongly suspect, what their director was hoping.

Stuffed with a steady stream of dream-like sequences and absurdities, the film traffics in improbabilities in such a way that we never get anchored down by any of its endless visual and auditory tricks. They can use all the advanced sound-scaping they want, but Chan-Wook and his team can’t entirely drown out the sound of a colossal emotional misfire.

March 11, 2013
Film Review: John Dies at the End

image


Dir. Don Coscarelli
Score: 6.0

All film aficionados can point back to a single period of time from their childhoods where they first fell in love with movies. It could be a single screening of a film, caught on a cable TV show by accident, or it could be something you were dragged to by your parents, but there almost always is a that one time you can look back on and say to yourself “That’s what did it.”

For me and many of my friends, it was in our early teens. A friend of mine and I would get hold of a VCR — relatively new technology at the time, which does seriously date me, I’m afraid — and go to the local video store to rent enough movies for continuous run from Friday night through until Saturday evening.

Of the films we’d chosen, heavy on the action/gore/comedy side (we were adolescent boys, for God’s sake), we’d always try to throw in a few wild cards — peculiar films we’d never heard of that either had wild box art, or something that portended to the complete unknown.

These we’d tend to play late at night, after more than a few of us had already dropped off and there was little chance for a parent to roust themselves out of bed to find out what in the hell it was we were watching. Often, our wild card choices would be terrible — unknown for damn good reason — but once in a while we’d hit a gem, something we could namedrop with each other for years afterward to suggest our industrious cleverness at having found it.

I suspect, had we spotted it at the time, writer/director Don Coscarelli’s gory comedy (goramedy?), with it’s promise of otherworldly creatures, jet-black humor and squiggly, cartoonish carnage would have definitely ended up in our weekend take-home pile.

Coscarelli’s film, based on the cult-novel by David Wong, begins with a second person narration, calmly describing a scene in which you are being forced to hack a man’s head off with a small axe in the snow, and fearing his eventual return. If that’s not enough for you, even the title is a deliberate mislead: John dies very closely to the beginning of the proceedings, it’s just that the film’s conception of death is pretty far removed from the standard template.

We meet Dave (Chase Williamson) as he is trying to explain his long, strange story to a skeptical newspaper features writer (Paul Giamatti) in a Chinese restaurant. It seems as if Dave was accidentally injected with a drug that allows you to see alternate realities, with everything sort of co-mingling together, despite the differences in time-space. His best friend, John (Rob Mayes), tried the same drug, given to him by a mystical Jamaican man named Robert Marley (Tai Bennett), along with a bunch of others who died almost immediately after dosing.

Somehow, Dave and John are the only ones who can survive the experience, which eventually leads them to the lair of a giant, squid-like supercomputer, and which they will have to put out of commission or risk destroying everything in their universe.

Jumping back from flashback to various points in time, the movie darts around its plotline like a hyperactive five-year-old wearing jet-skis. Along the way we’re treated to such deliciously peculiar visions as a monster formed entirely out of a multitude of frozen meats from a basement freezer; a junior-squid-type slug with a round curvature of razor-sharp teeth; heads and arms being ripped off; and a cavalcade of weapons including a paint gun loaded with a propane tank and a spiked baseball bat with pages of the Old Testament wrapped around it.

It’s an unusual vision, chiseled down directly into the sweetspot of cult-movie fandom, gore/violence/cartoon realism and amusingly deadpan characters. Both Williamson and Mayes are experts as downplaying the association of atrocities going on around them, with Williamson, in particular, scoring big points for being the audience’s lone sane focus throughout the chaos.

Of course, it’s also derivative as all hell, liberally taking elements from early Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson films and sewing them together with the kind of disjointed time narrative that Tarantino stole from Godard and the French new wave. I suspect it won’t take the place alongside the shelf of such cult classics like The Evil Dead II, Eraserhead or even Coscarelli’s own late ‘70’s gore-filled pas de resistance, Phantasm, but it warmly suggests them, nonetheless, and as anyone who has stayed up later than everybody else to watch bizarre movies that only make sense when it’s three in the morning and you’re in your friend’s basement, it might conjure up some fond memories.

March 8, 2013
Film Link Review: Oz the Great and Powerful


Come and rejoice at the magic of seeing a bunch of skilled actors stand in front of a green screen and emote powerfully!

March 8, 2013
Film Review: A Place at the Table

image


Dir.
Kristi Jacobson & Lori Silverbush
Score: 6.3

If you’re feeling up to it, you could pretty effectively encapsulate the neglect this country heaps on its children via a punishing double-feature of societal discord: First, view the 2010 documentary on the failing public school system Waiting for Superman; then follow it up with this documentary about hunger in the U.S. from directors Kristi Jacobson and Lori Silverbush. By the end, you might feel thoroughly wrung out, but that won’t hold a candle to the kinds of suffering and heartache felt by the families on the wrong end of our geo-political spectrum.

The doc travels across the States, finding small, intimate stories to highlight the misery felt by more than 49 million Americans who live in a constant state of what’s known as “food insecure” — literally not knowing from where your next meal will be coming. There’s the single mother of two in Philadelphia, who after searching for work for more than a year finds gainful employment (with a food stamps office, ironically enough), only to find that her new salary just passes the meridian for her children to receive free meals at their preschool; the young girl in Colorado, whose dreams of a future are curtailed by her constant hunger pains, which distract her from her studies; a pastor whose simple food charity has grown from a small sporadic service to an absolute necessity for the town’s many needy families.

There are no lack of examples of this kind of suffering, and a depressingly large number of statistics that speak to the culprit. Giant agribusiness, which has almost entirely replaced the small local farms, has found it increasingly profitable to harvest only the largest of commodity crops (rice, corn, soy, wheat and cotton) and soak up 84% of the government subsidies, while basic fruit and vegetables get less than a single percentage point. The result is an outrageous increase in the cost of fresh food, coupled with a 40% decrease in the cost of processed, far less healthy, possibilities.

In the early ’70s, CBS News aired a special report documenting the problem of hunger in the world’s richest country and the resulting public outcry caused then President Nixon and the Democrat-lead congress to enact several far-reaching bills to help eradicate the issue. Surprisingly successful, hunger had almost been wiped out by the close of the decade, but once Ronald Reagan was elected in ‘80, he began the practice of slashing taxes for the super-wealthy (part of the utterly failed “trickle-down economics” policies favored by the president), and balancing the budgetary loss by cutting social services, a galling tradition that is still very much at work in the present day.

The film isn’t all doom and gloom, of course, and offers at least a few possibilities for hope, but unlike the education system, which is incredibly complex and intricate, the solutions are right at our fingertips; it’s just that our government hasn’t seen fit to make it a priority. President Obama’s far reaching “Healthy Hunger Free Kid” act did eventually get passed, but only after getting its funding cut by more than half, with a majority of the funding coming out of — you guessed it — the food stamp program.

As activist Jeff Bridges says in the course of the film “If another country were doing this to our kids, we’d be at war.” You can forgive them if this country’s famished kids and needy families are too weakened and exhausted to take up arms.

March 1, 2013
Film Review Link: Phantom

A submarine-gone-wrong flick whose minuscule budget hogties what might have been a hell of a story. 

March 1, 2013
Film Review Link: Jack the Giant Slayer

Bryan Singer’s latest action thriller actually proves itself somewhat capable of action — and thrills. 

March 1, 2013
Film Review: The Gatekeepers

image

Dir. Dror Moreh
Score: 6.8

Dror Moreh’s Oscar-nominated documentary opens with an aerial view of a maze of city streets somewhere in Israel from high above, through what appears to be a (simulated) military satellite camera, a simulation absolutely appropriate for a country which is forced to see almost everything through the prism of a crosshair.

As with any polarizing issue, there are those who would say the Israel/Palestinian occupation is a simple, black-and-white case of good vs. evil, wrong vs. right and oppression vs. the oppressed (just which country would fit on which side of the margin would, of course, be very much open to the interpretation of the speaker). But if anything can be gleaned from the conflict since the six-days war back in 1967 allowed the Israelis to take command Gaza and the West Bank, it’s that there are more shades of grey here than could be imagined on the palette of a color-blind painter.

If ever that were in doubt, Moreh’s film looks to add some more dialogue to this already richly covered political quagmire, by interviewing the living former heads of Israel’s super-secret intelligence agency, Shin Bet. By utilizing individual interviews with these six men, and intercutting with other mixed media, including video, photographs and computer graphics, the historic incidents they discuss in detail, Moreh strives to offer a sense of the kind of muddled morality and stubborn convictions of the Israeli military since occupying the Palestinians.

As you can imagine, it’s anything but clear and concise. To the contrary, several of the former security heads seem to contradict themselves from sentence to sentence, as is the case with one of the more notorious Shin Bet leaders, Avraham Shalom, who lead the agency from ‘80-‘86 (each serves up to a six-year term), now old and grandfatherly rotund, with pudgy pale fingers that don’t seem capable of independent movement. One moment, he’s discussing his extremely controversial decision to have the Army brutally beat to death a pair of young terrorists who had hijacked a bus (an incident observed by an Israeli journalist, who naturally filed a story that night), the next he suggests the best way to achieve peace in the region is to talk with “everyone” — even despised terrorist leaders — and continue an open forum.

He’s not alone amongst the former Shin Bet commanders. Carmi Gillon, who abruptly resigned his post only two years after then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, having recently signed the potentially peace-bringing Oslo accords, was assassinated by a radical Israeli right winger, seems particularly wistful about the lost opportunity when his leader — who finally seemed to be within hailing distance of a genuine, groundbreaking peace accord — was lost.

But, there are also much darker turns. Yuval Diskin, the most recent of the leaders having served a term from 2005-2011, speaks of the terrible “power” of the position, calling it “unnatural,” as if wielding the authority to wipe someone — or entire families — off the face of the earth could be anything other than a horrible burden. More chillingly, Shalom refers to the first major Arab uprising in Gaza, and subsequent successful terrorist attacks as a good thing in that it gave him an excuse to get back to work, taking prisoners, leading interrogations and crushing the Palestinians where they lived. Put simply as Ami Ayalon (‘96-‘00, completing the term after Gillon’s resignation), “with terrorism, there are no morals.”

Aligned together in this way, you begin to understand just how complex and deep-seated the conflict becomes. After all, it wasn’t Palestinian terrorists who killed Rabin, after a series of scalding riots and uprisings of religious Israelis (who believed that peace would never be an answer with the Arabs), it was one of Rabin’s own countrymen. And when Israelis themselves complied with the will of their leadership, merciless splinter groups such as Hamas were always quick to create discord and further muddy the waters with brutal bombings and further acts of violence.

Not to mention the deep divisions between the military/security wings of the government, dedicated to preserving Israel and its citizens at almost any cost, and the elected politicians, who always needed to cover their collective backsides against bad press and international condemnation. This is what Shalom means to address when he says of the government’s policy, “There was no strategy, just tactics.”

To make matters even more morally confounding, the film touches on the rise of the Jewish Underground, a non-sanctioned Israeli terrorist organization that sought reprisals to Palestinian aggressions by systematic assassinations, demolitions, and — most horribly — a plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most sacred shrines, in Jerusalem, in order to bring about total warfare in the Middle East. Captured by the Army, the leaders of the Underground, many of whom were well-placed members of Israel’s upper class, were eventually let go by Knesset and were free to resume their former positions in society.

Still, it would seem as if all hope weren’t completely lost. At least in the aftermath of having this “terrible power,” many of the former Shin Bet commanders seem thoughtful, even reflective, in their advancing years (“when you retire,” one of them says, “you become a bit of a leftist”). Even Shalom, considered even by his fellow Shin Bet brethren to be a “bully,” speaks to the nature of an occupation on the soul of a nation, likening it to, of all things, the German army during WW II. This analogy, startling in its stark honesty, almost has to be seen as a sign of hope — a form of progress that can’t so simply be taken away.

February 22, 2013
Radio Times: Oscar Predictions

The brilliant Marty Moss-Coane and I take our best shot at what might happen this Oscar night. We’re both perplexed and enraged “The Master” isn’t represented in either the Best Picture or Best Director categories. 

February 15, 2013
Film Review Link: A Good Day to Die Hard

image
John McClane doesn’t die hard anymore; he simply doesn’t die, period. 

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »