Blood Diamond (2006). Seldom has a movie made me so mad. Listen, buster, when I bought my wife that engagement ring, it was for love! This movie is all over the map, with too many messages for me to keep track of. Like, what do blood diamonds, civil war, child soldiers, and the idea of African-ness have in common? I don’t get it! I could have chosen a ruby, or emerald, or, my wife’s favourite, an opal, but I settled on a diamond, because they are forever. The movie drags on forever. Sure, it might be broad in scope, but it lacks depth. I don’t know exactly how, but it sure seemed like it. And I’m not sure how the director would add more depth without making the movie longer, but that’s his job. The jeweller did a good job of recommending a diamond in my price range, not trying to sell me something way beyond what I could afford. Modest but heart-felt. The director, Edward Zwick, doesn’t care about the real situation in Africa; he just spouts this political correctness about how we’re all guilty white people. And he tries to get the message across with three miserable performances. The soldier of fortune (Leonardo di Caprio) has this phoney Zimbabwe-South African accent, placing way too much emphasis on the South African vowels and not enough on the Rhodesian accent he would have acquired as a youngster. Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is simply a love interest who spouts blood diamond facts and figures, a strange combination. She is a stereotype we’ve seen so many times before. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) never gets to develop as a character. He simply wants to reunite his family—in particular, rescue his son from the rebels. This is all he can think about for days? Myself, when I was buying the ring, I had to juggle lots of different considerations: price, number of stones, setting (very important), timing, and just the overall sense of style that would be appropriate for the one I love. Well, after enduring this movie, I find it ends with some lame message printed on the screen telling me not to buy diamonds that might be blood diamonds. Like, how am I to know!? Listen, buster, I don’t ever want to hear you talk about my wife like that again! Understood? All of the views—all off-base—included in the above review are paraphrased from reviews by accredited critics on the Rotten Tomatoes web site. Two or three times every year, critics go way off base and say lots of stuff they should later regret. As an example, the dense review by a critic from National Public Radio engendered a long essay by a fellow named Steve who went through her review point by point and calmly showed how off base she was. She should be mortified. When, every six months or so, a wave of stupidity swamps a film, I always wonder why. In my review above, I’ve tried to guess at a major part of the reason: Many people objected to this movie because it had something to say, it said it to them forcefully, and it would not let them off the hook. Leonardo di Caprio as Danny Archer was terrific—the best acting that I’ve seen in a 2006 film. First of all, the actor who was a delicate teenage heart-throb not so long ago has to make you believe that he is a tough ex-soldier-of-fortune. He does this in part by bulking up. The ubiquitous head-and-shoulder shots reveal hefty shoulders and a bull neck, but not a perfect ripped physique. He also has to make you believe he is African to the core, and he does this in part by sporting a convincing Rhodesian/South African accent. Here the point is not whether the accent is perfect but whether we believe it. When di Caprio speaks face to face with someone born and raised in South Africa and I cannot hear the difference in accent, I’m a believer. Furthermore, Danny Archer switches dialects, including going into Creole to negotiate with a black revolutionary and arms dealer. Definitely a local guy. But once di Caprio has us believing in his character, the next step is to get us to like his character, and what an unlikable guy he initially seems to be. He is out for number one, and he does not care if his diamond smuggling supports murderous terrorists or not. He is hard and remote, mercurical and dangerous. But gradually we grow to like him—at least like him enough that we are rooting for him rather than the dregs opposing him. Part of this shift comes about when we gain glimpses of why he is the way he is. When he was a kid in Rhodesia, his mother was raped and killed, his father beheaded and hung by a hook in the barn. I infer he didn’t grow up with a lot of love. When we see his adult career as a soldier and soldier-of-fortune, we understand why he quit and went into business for himself. Everyone was ripping off everyone else, and, much like we might have done, he decided to get in on the action. In the dangerous situations he faces, I have to acknowledge that being a macho military guy is often a big advantage. When he and Solomon Vandy (the local who hid a huge, “pink” diamond) have to flee Freetown in the face of a rebel invasion, Danny displays a lot of craft (e.g., avoiding crossfire) and skill (tricking the rebel guards at the bridge) as well as moxy that saves their lives. Politically incorrect as it still is, macho is sometimes good. Jennifer Connelly, who plays Maddy Bowen, the print journalist from America trying to crack the story on blood diamonds, does not do quite the brilliant acting job that di Caprio does, but what a tough act to be on screen with! Her character, however, which has come in for criticism, is complex and, in a strange and realistic way, a perfect match for Danny Archer. Before I support that claim, however, let’s try a thought experiment. Can you imagine a Maddy Bowen character that would not have come in for criticism? No. Here’s a harder version: Can you imagine a Maddy Bowen character that would not have come in for mostly nothing but criticism? I’ll bet people will say the following: She comes into the movie late and exits early, getting short shrift compared to the male characters. Yup, they said it. She is a stereotype. Yup, they said it. She is in the picture merely to spout exposition about the diamond trade. Yup, they said it. She is nothing but a love interest. I’m sure some critic must have said that but I cannot remember who. Oh, and she’s too sexy—journalists in hot, sweaty Africa on a dangerous assignment don’t wear low-cut dresses. Yup, someone said that too. How can the film win? I’d say that Maddy Bowen is a complex and realistic portrait, and well suited to enter Danny Archer’s life. She is complex because she is a peculiar combination of idealistic and hard-nosed. She believes, as Danny taunts her, that she can parachute into a troubled society and actually make a difference by writing about it. At the same time, as she rants to Danny half way through the movie, she is well aware that her human interest stories for Americans are doing pathetically little compared to what she could do if she could get—and here she reels off all the of the hard core information she would need to prove diamond merchants culpable. She is both intellectual and sexy. When she and Danny swap pick-up banter at the chic ex-pat bar, the words are all about international politics and the emotions are all about person-to-person relations. Superbly done, and not stereotypical. Of course, if you are a regular feminist, you will find her behaviour disgusting. But if you are a post- feminist feminist, you’ll think it is spot on—she knows her politics inside out and backwards and she has chosen the perfect black dress with silver studs. Danny and Maddy’s relationship is rocky until one adventurous day when his quick thinking and macho driving saves their lives in an ambush, and when her quick thinking and wealth of experience in different cultures saves them from a wild-looking band of local militia. As they walk away, Danny says, “Do you think they’ve read any of your work?” and they both laugh, finally breaking the ice and making a substantial connection. Maddy is such a good match for Danny because, as he is tough, she is icy. She is intellectually driven and tough minded, and Jennifer Connelly’s sharp features and gray/green eyes convey a personal hardness to match Danny’s bravuro. Edward Zwick’s direction is excellent. His background (Harvard B.A. 1974, MFA from American Film Institute) shows through in the intellectual underpinnings of an action film. The editing is tight—witness the huge number of disparate images cut together to create a seamless escape sequence as Danny and Solomon get out of chaotic Freetown. The camera work is superb, especially the frequent use of deep frame shots where the out-of-focus comings and goings it the background suggest the teeming life of Sierra Leone and sometimes create the subtle feeling that you never know what will come at you. The only quibble I have with the movie is that James Newton Howard’s theme music doesn’t really seem to fit, its thin, modern sound far removed from the bump and grind of the film, its orchestral harmonies floating above two desparate men running for fortune and their lives. Although the film is long, it has a lot of ground to cover, and the high quality script, acting, and camera work create an impact on the thoughtful viewer so that length is not a big issue. Jim Bell
|