JJ79 Blog

Under discussion:

New World Order  (2009)

THE FLICK
They're called conspiracy theorists, routinely laughed at or mocked in the mainstream media, the people who claim the government shot John F. Kennedy or no man has ever stepped foot on the moon. And in New World Order, a subset of these people try to make a case for the eventual takeover of the entire world by an elite group of individuals. Everything from JFK to 9/11, Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians in Waco are thrown into this 85-minute documentary. The only problem is the film itself doesn't document anything.

Directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel utterly fail at being convincing, let alone at being competent filmmakers. New World Order never has the courage of its convictions to methodically explain its position. Rather, they allow personalities like internet talk show host Alex Jones and 9/11 protester Luke Rudowski to run roughshod over the entire film without a lick of substance. Several times through the production, Jones is allowed to dominate the screen, yelling at callers (and, by default, the viewing audience) in an attempt to be funny. In reality, his performance is comical at best. Rudowski is much more controlled and even-keeled as the camera follows him around New York City as he brings his beliefs about September 11 to the people. In a true documentary, Meyer and Neel would ask each of these men-and the others who share their views-for specific, scientific evidence about the things they fear in the world.

We get a tantalizing glimpse of the logic at play early on when the film discusses JFK. It seems as though a tree is in the line of fire, one of the reasons Jones doesn't believe the official story of the assassination. Plus, when he is given a gun to fire three times within six seconds (Lee Harvey Owald apparently fired three or four times), Jones has a very hard time performing the maneuver, not to mention aiming at a target. It is this kind of evidence the movie quickly throws to the wayside, as if to say,"Our information on JFK was right so believe everything else we tell you." But that's a problem. For every new conspiracy any of the participants mention, no reasonable set of facts is actually laid out in a meaningful fashion.

If we're to believe the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was all by design, then there needs to be supporting documents-videos, memo's, audio tapes, anything-corroborating the theory. There aren't. Meyer and Neel don't even have the participants explain how they arrived at a conspiracy. In Katrina's case, Arkansas transplant Seth Jackson can't (or won't, we don't know since the directors never probe into the question) provide any of the details. Sure, he says the government told citizens to go to the convention center, which was woefully prepared for them, but nothing else. Shouldn't a doc have to show corroborating evidence of the very thing it is presenting to the audience?

Here's another example: Jones and his team are followed by a car they claim is from military intelligence. How do they know? Well, they look at the guys in the driver and passenger seats. Does the camera ever get a good look? Nope. Are license plates cataloged and run through any sort of database? Not that we're privy to. In fact, every conversation which can be construed as any kind of evidence conveniently happens away from a camera. Talk about a conspiracy.

The question then becomes is this major deficiency within the film the result of poor filmmaking or people who simply don't have a leg to stand on. It's a tough call, judging by some of the archival footage the directors are able to incorporate. News coverage of the World Trade Center coming down, the Katrina disaster, newsreel of JFK being shot...it's all there. Because of these inclusions, I tend to think the problem is with the actual information. (Yes, I know I said both director's were at fault early on and I stand by that. Any documentary filmmaker worth their salt would have asked the hard questions and continued to probe into these matters instead of haphazardly putting a film together.)

(There's also a lack of a clear definition for what the New World Order is going to entail. Generally speaking, the NWO wants to control everything in every country, making the people slaves. Again, however, no one actually lays out the plan in any specific terms. It's all based on conjecture and supposition.)

What the film does manage to do fairly well is create a narrative featuring people from all different walks of life, bringing their "passion projects" to the screen and then follow most of them to New York City for September 11, 2008. New World Order doesn't delve much into their personalities, instead choosing to define them based on their beliefs-with very minor exceptions sprinkled throughout. (This is a terribly easy way out of doing real narrative work in the long run.)

THE LOOK
The majority of New World Order is presented in the 1.78:1 (anamorphically enhanced) aspect ratio. Certain segments, all archive footage of various news events, are shown in their native, 1.33:1 ratio. There really aren't any video-based problems in the film to speak of. Blacks maintain a decent sense of depth, considering most of the "new" footage appears to taken with consumer grade cameras. Pixelation is never a problem, nor are desaturated or muddy colors. The color palette is largely the same from sequence to sequence, relying on natural hues over vibrancy.

THE SOUND
Only an English 2.0 audio track is included and, much like the video specs, it does what it needs to do without flash or cause for concern. New World Order's dialogue is replicated well; it is always clear and never overshadowed by sound effects or an unbalanced mix. To be sure, the archival footage has its share of audio issues (the filmmakers wisely subtitle these moments so the audience doesn't strain to hear them), but the main film is problem free. Of particular note is the power behind chants in the finale as demonstrators take to the streets of New York City. The film is largely devoid of directional sound effects, though there are several instances of voice echoes translating from the filming location to the movie. There are no subtitles includes.

THE STUFF
New World Order is packaged in a regular black keepcase with no insert. From the main menu, a series of 20 chapters are available. The only special features come in the form of 7 deleted scenes. They are most notable for a few reasons: two new personalities are introduced which are completely absent from the finished film; Jones admits a fire alarm may not be related to his presence in a hotel; and a reference to the dismantling of Canada in 1996. These scenes are actually useful and drive the point home everyone is up for skewering. In the movie itself, both then-Senators Obama and Clinton are mentioned; here, President Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Walter Mondale are all brought up in one way or another.

Under discussion:

The Surrogates  (2009)

Over the main title credits of Surrogates, the audience is given a brief history of the robots which serve as a proxy for humans. Initially used to fight wars, they are gradually introduced into the mainstream, allowing humans to stay indoors, isolated from true contact with other people and live their lives by plugging into a worldwide grid. The idea is quite simple: a surrogate can do anything the user can think of. Running, jumping, climbing, sex...nothing is beyond them and everything is completely harmless to the human user. That is, until the son of the surrogates inventor dies in an apparent homicide. FBI agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) investigates the case, leading him on a bizarre journey which may very well seal the end of robot use.

Surrogates is the second movie this month to postulate a future where a human controls either another person or a robot through advancement in internet technology. What makes Surrogates different from the vile Gamer is this film has a sense of morality, a larger story it's trying to tell while being "super cool" and "hip." See, from the get go, there is a sub-section of humanity who wants nothing to do with the robots in order to preserve our social interactions and way of life. That in itself already makes this film smarter than the Gerard Butler actioner. But the deep thinking doesn't stop there. Rather, the entire reason this movie exists is because of morality, because people think and rethink their actions, eventually doing whatever they can to change them.

Anytime a film tries to say something useful to the audience, it is a step in the right direction. But when a production can make that message timely, engrossing and compelling, there's something else at work. The script by Michael Ferris and John Brancato (based on the graphic novel by Robert Venditti and Brett Weldele) starts out as a straight forward "who dun it" and slowly but surely escalates into an allegory for the world's current use of the internet. Sitting behind computer screens is analogous to not interacting with people on a physical level. When we don't feel pain or see the other person, we feel like we can do anything to anyone at anytime with no repercussions. And that's exactly what happens here. The question then becomes who's on the other side of the screen, or surrogate in this case.

Surrogates moves a lot of pieces on a rather large board, switching between surrogate interaction, the humans behind the robots and the Dreads with remarkable ease. The fact it all makes complete sense at every step of the way is a testament not only to the streamlined script but also to director Jonathan Mostow. Think about it: when there are two versions of almost every character in the story, seeing Willis as human Greer and surrogate Greer can become utterly confusing. Now multiply that by ten or so, including humans who use surrogates with different appearances. And throw all that into the mystery genre where the idea is to keep the main character and audience off balance. Yes, the story could have become convoluted beyond all recognition. (This aspect comes into play in the finale; maybe the writers understood how the back and forth might look to an audience?)

With the exception of a highly questionable blonde comb over for the Greer surrogate, each actor playing a robot-outside of one-is exacting in their performances. Totally devoid of emotion, stiff and, well, robotic, as the parts demand. From start to finish, the audience easily buys into the idea the surrogates aren't human. The only time this comes into question is during two action sequences with various characters unnaturally scaling walls and cars, among other objects. And, truth be told, these are two rare instances of effects overshadowing the movie proper.

All that being said, the movie isn't perfect. A lot of the story deals with a secret weapon which kills surrogates and their users, not to mention the Dread culture, their leader (The Prophet) and the one man behind everything. While it is easy to extrapolate motivations and rationale, the movie never actually connects the dots in any meaningful way. Without giving away the ending, this is a case of someone trying to rationalize the ends justifying the means. In some weird way, when all the information is laid out, it makes a certain kind of sense for the story to climax the way it does.

The biggest question, at least in my mind going into the film, was Willis. Could he convincingly play one role, let alone two, with neither being named John McClane? The answer is yes. Both versions of Greer are somber, goal driven characters. In essence, the surrogate is Greer, only with a more youthful appearance. His scenes as a human, especially his first time in public without a surrogate and a final, emotional scene with his wife, create a well-rounded personality. When he embraces wife Maggie (Rosamund Pike), who has finally allowed herself to feel a terrible loss, we need no words to understand what is going on. It's poetic in a sense and, in the end, what the entire movie revolve around: people interacting with people, no matter the cost.

Under discussion:

Bright Star  (2009)

Writer/director Jane Campion's Bright Star tells the story of the romance between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne (Ben Wishaw, Abbie Cornish) before he dies at the age of 25. For two hours, the screen dances with their chaste coupling, the pair stealing glances across a table or clandestinely sharing a tender first kiss in the privacy of a forest. And if a Masterpiece Theater-type relationship is appealing, this is the movie for you. If not, Bright Star will be a tough slog for even the most devoted film buff.

That shouldn't be seen as a knock against this drama which relies entirely on the acting abilities of its cast. Rather, comparing this piece to anything Masterpiece Theater can put out is a compliment pointing to how exquisitely designed this film manages to be. As an example-and this is something most audiences won't notice-every scene is lit entirely with natural light. Either sunlight pours through a window, candles and lamps illuminate the rooms or a fireplace gives off a gentle glow. It's a small touch to be sure, but entirely keeping with the tone and feel of the film.

At its core, Bright Star relies on the performances of its actors to carry the film. If one of them had slipped up in conveying the poetry-heavy dialogue, the entire production would have run off its rails. Wishaw and Cornish, by virtue of their lead status, bring a subdued chemistry to the screen, full of sideways glances and built on stolen moments alone. He is particularly remarkable as Keats, a man in full command of the English language but also at ease spouting any number of lines. His cinematic paramour, Cornish, allows herself to be vulnerable, yet strong without coming off as a stereotype or a pushover. Take the climactic scene, for instance, when it is revealed Keats has died. (Not a spoiler since this movie is based on true events.) We expect Fanny to crumple into a pile on the floor, though she manages to walk a fair distance before doing just that while calling out for her mother. The rest of the cast does well with their roles despite being relegated to second-string status.

That may be the only true negative in the entire picture. Various subplots come and go without so much as a mention or blip on the radar. Charles Brown (Paul Schneider), Keats's writing partner, forms a relationship with a servant girl, followed by fathering a child and ultimately marrying her with precious few scenes devoted to creating their story. It's as if Campion didn't much care for anything aside from Keats and Brawne. To be sure, they are the centerpiece of the story; Campion does throw out cinematic convention in an attempt to focus on them. This tactic works to a certain extent and end up feeling claustrophobic in the end. With so much attention paid to the two leads, there isn't a balance between each part of the film.

Friends who whisk Keats off to Italy when his tuberculosis becomes critical casually drop in and out of the story without rhyme or reason. This isn't a tale of their adventure, to be sure, but to have them be mere plot devices doesn't work either. Again, there's the sense of balance for the story which Campion never gets completely right. She tends to name drop these other poets and writers without actually explaining who they are or giving them personalities. It's as if she expects the audience to have a base of knowledge going into the film. Quite simply, not many people will be versed in these names or the work they are famous for.

(In one case, that of Fanny's sister "Toots," the need for balance might be overstated. She is a wise cracking, endearing young girl with an appropriate amount of screen time. Any more and she risks becoming grating or obnoxious. One of her final scenes in among the most touching in the entire film.)

Make no mistake: Bright Star is all about the evolution of one particular relationship to the exclusion of all others. Each scene is designed in such a way as to maximize the bond between Keats and Brawne however it can. The pair, along with Toots and brother Samuel (Thomas Sangster), visit Tom Keats (Olly Alexander), who battles tuberculosis. In this short scene, we're given the first taste of what Fanny would do for John. In terms of the story, she brings her siblings to the home of an ill man and makes them confront mortality head on. Through these sequences, Campion takes great care to present a believable courtship in the context of the time period.

It should be noted, if it was not already obvious, a large amount of the dialogue in the film revolves around poetry and other writerly pursuits. Indeed, the title of the film comes from a poem of the same name. Characters fall into and out of reciting poetry at the drop of a hat, virtually requiring the audience to devote 100% of their attention to the screen. Bright Star isn't a challenging movie; rather, it is created for a specific demographic who will appreciate a certain kind of storytelling with period-realistic sets and costumes. From a visual perspective, Campion has a wild success on her hands. From the story, it's somewhat less compelling.