kristen Blog

A Plastic Face the only Human Part

kristen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:47:32 GMT

Get Smart (2008, Peter Segal, USA) *

Anne Hathaway began her movie career as the ugly duckling in The Princess Diaries (2001). But as we know, the ugly duckling turns into the most beautiful swan. And Presto! A little bit of makeup and beauty coaching completes her transformation. A darling new woman appears on screen and even snags her prince charming. In 2006, Hathaway co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada playing an unfashionable assistant who transforms into savvy fashion queen. That same year she was named one of the 50 most beautiful people by People magazine. But in life did something strange happen to Anne Hathaway's innocent face? Did she feel the need to undergo a real transformation? Don't her lips seem to crinkle in the most unnatural way? There have been rumors of plastic surgery though none have been confirmed (to my knowledge).

In her latest movie Get Smart, Hathaway disguised as Agent 99 discusses her (rumored) plastic surgery. In the self-proclaimed most honest part of the movie (Maxwell Smart played by Steve Carell coaxes the truth from Agent 99). Agent 99 confesses that she used to look like her mother and that she regrets having lost that unique feature. This true moment comes out in the most artificial way because the movie is completely devoid of human nature and incapable of inspired human interaction. In Get Smart, Agent 99 underwent a complete cosmetic makeover because her identity was compromised on a mission. And in the process, she took a few years off her face. Now the agent uses her face to complete her missions. She escapes death by kissing a terrorist (who plummets to earth). She seduces evil Russian Ladislas Krstic to gather necessary information. The actresses' looks are constantly referenced. At dinner, Agent 99 remarks on how it seems she can eat all the carbs she wants without worry because she never seems to get fat. Maxwell Smart creates the funniest part of the movie (or the only funny part) when he consciously mimics Agent 99's kiss tactic in order to throw the enemy off guard.

Hathaway's career is marked by an obsession with beauty. This is not unique. Most women, especially actresses, feel the pressure to be beautiful. And fortunately for her, many people think she is beautiful (even if her most sexy role is Agent 99 who had complete facial surgery). As Agent 99, every character in Get Smart finds her attractive regardless of her artificial face. The characters accept her altered face the way the audience accepts her new look for this movie. The characters believe that the face she has is the real Agent 99. And that artificial face does belong to her. So what's all this talk of plastic surgery about? Hathaway denies having plastic surgery but in an interview with the Herold Sun she reveals that “When I was growing up, I wanted a nose job because I just didn’t think my nose was good. Now I feel like it’s [acting] what lets me change my face a lot".

Isn't acting a little bit like plastic surgery? She changes her face to fit the demands of the audience. And that is the kind of surgery she is talking about through her character Agent 99. In the same interview, Hathaway exclaims, "I can be glamorous as Agent 99, but I’ve just made a movie with Jonathan Demme where I play a recovering drug addict and I look really rough". The face of an actress is always altered to the movie. So in a strange way, Get Smart touches on an issue directly related to Hathaway's life. Unfortunately, the connection is a little too vague and there are no other human parts in the movie.

In many ways, Get Smart is like The Love Guru. The comparisons wrote themselves. These two miserable comedies opened on the same day, inviting the fight to the death competition. The Love Guru died though Get Smart is just as dead boring. The Love Guru offended many of the Roger Ebert type with its juvenile penis and defecation jokes. If this sounds promising, its a facade. Mike Meyers regurgitates his old persona's into a careless plot with mind rotting results. Get Smart suffers from the same insipid nature. In Get Smart, the audience was so starved for jokes that they laughed hysterically when Maxwell slams into a wall and exclaims, "missed it by that much!" (a joke we've all seen a mission times in the trailer). The plot of Get Smart is a rehash of action movies like Mission Impossible and the James Bond series, which could provide fertile ground for a comedy. Unfortunately, the movie includes the never-been-done-before parody of Entrapment where the characters seductively weave their bodies through a web of lasers (obviously a hilarious joke). Terrence Stamp plays an unoriginal villain (one bent on destroying the world). Of course the love story is weak, but at least Hathaway is more than a stupid sex toy existing only to sleep with like Jessica Alba (and she always plays this insult to womanhood). The jokes are so stale that both movies fail even to be escapist entertainment. Instead we realize how miserable we are for having nothing better to do than sit through these blunders of cinema.

~Kristen Gorlitz

"Are you two Gay?" "Nooo... YES!!!"

kristen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:11:12 GMT

A Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) **

This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings.

So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor.

I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Wall-E Destroys Mankind!

kristen — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:48:40 GMT

Wall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton, USA) **1/2

Be warned: humans grow fatter by the day by consuming fast food in a cup, the earth is in a state of decay, trash lines the cities, and robots- well robots are more cute and cuddly than ever (except…). EXCEPT the evil Hal robot (ok, so the computers name isn’t Hal, but it looks like Hal) bent on destroying man. It must want humans to get fat and it definitely does not want humans to return to earth. But why not? Earth is the universe’s biggest junkyard thanks to the humans’ carelessness (which presumably sent them up into space in the first place). But I guess evil Hal knows that complacent, fat humans are better than environmentally conscious ones. And good thing this Hal does not have a brain, because if it did it would know that letting fat humans who barely have a bone structure because of extreme decay (so much so that they can barely walk) and who think that pizzas grow on trees wouldn’t survive a day on the barren waste filled earth. Or maybe this evil Hal likes the human’s and wants them to survive, even if it means they live in The Brave New World.

The mission? For humans to return to earth- for after 3,500 years the earth’s atmosphere is finally able to support life, again. But Hal cannot let them complete the mission. Thank goodness for the anthropomorphic robots Wall-E and Eve.

Aren’t they adorable?

They can get the plant to the center of the spaceship so that humans can return home. Too bad these intelligent, capable, and loveable robots do not realize that earth for these pathetic humans is a death trap. The humans on the ship may envision earth as a utopia but they are unaware of the death and struggle that awaits them on earth. Without their food in a cup (their soma) how will they live? Food does not grow in a matter of days unlike the cheerful ending implies. No one realizes the utter destruction that the darling robots Wall-E and Eve unknowingly inflict upon these bestial humans. I would say even the creators at Pixar did not think that their safe, family friendly entertainment would secretly be the end of mankind. But now they have been warned, even the cutest robots reap destruction.

Is this evil what unknowingly happens when a movie tries to be the family friendly 2001: A Space Odyssey? Let’s face it, Wall-E opens in the full glory of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the avant-garde technique first discovered by 2001- visuals as a means of storytelling- Wall-E discards dialogue for the first 27 minutes. Standard narrative storytelling has never been as abstract as this curious little robot Wall-E, after all isn't it shocking to hear no dialogue and just sound effects! 2001 would be glad that its avant-garde techniques (such as no plot, a 30-minute sequence of rapid colors, a star child, and monoliths) would be realized in this non-threatening, easy to swallow story made for audiences of all ages. After all, Kubrick intended to make a heartwarming, human tale, its just that Hal destroyed the mission.

And now the humans in Wall-E stand to meet a similar fate as the humans in 2001. Why did we ever trust the robots!

~Kristen Gorlitz

Hamlet (1948, Lawrence Olivier, USA) **

kristen — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:09:36 GMT

Andre Bazin in his essay “In Defense of Mixed Cinema” claims that screen adaptations cannot damage the source literature- “ It is nonsense to wax wroth about the indignities practiced on literary works on the screen, at least in the name of literature. After all, they cannot harm the original in the eyes of those how know it, however little they approximate to it. As for those who are unacquainted with the original, one of two things may happen; either they will be satisfied with the film which is as good as most, or they will want to know the original, with the resulting gain for literature”. While this is technically correct- no one would say that a repudiated novel is horrible solely because the movie is bad, Bazin fails to realize that cinema offers a false substitution.

Surely, degradations do not directly damage the original. When (under pseudonym) Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda published his own inferior sequel to Don Quixote the work did not damage masterpiece Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, in fact, Cervantes incorporates this false sequel into his own sequel, using the blunder to his advantage.

Cinema seems to be a synthesis of other arts. It includes the auditory and visual strengths of theater, the mobility in time and false motion of literature, the memorable images of photographs and paintings, the notes of music, and to some extent the craftwork of sculptures. Because cinema contains elements from each of the art forms before it, at surface level cinema seems an evolutionary progression or extension of these other art forms. Cinema is in some perceptual ways more realistic than other forms of art because a main strength of cinema is its isomorphic representation of reality and its illusion of motion. Cinema appears to have more ties to reality. And being more realistic in auditory and visual ways, when cinema adapts literature it appears to be an almost evolutionary enhancement of literature- an extension of what was. This is not the case. But many feel that a cinematic adaptation is an apt substitute for literature- this is the illusion of substitution. Many feel that an adaptation equals the source, and as a result, one is often traded for another.

This substitution should never happen, but it does happen when people do not have the time to read the book. For example, James Whales’ movie adaptation of Frankenstein is a dim-witted, pale reflection of the original Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein though people more readily recall Boris Karloff as the monster than Mary Shelly’s novel. The viewer that substitutes the inferior movie for the original literary classic either 1. has no interest in the original work because of the poor quality of the movie, or 2. feels s/he has a sufficient understanding of the literature because of the information provided in the movie.

The fact is cinema is art and an art that is distinct from literature. A movie can equal or surpass its literary source in terms of greatness (see Kubrick). But one should not judge a book by its movie. Unfortunately, because a movie is related to its source book material, associations from the movie affect people’s perceptions of the book. If one watches a bad adaptation before reading the novel, it is possible that the viewer/ reader will (when reading the book) recall the images from the bad movie, and thus the movie will negatively impact their reading of the novel. We should remember the distinction between the two art forms and judge according to the standards of quality for each art, but one cannot deny that the perception of a movie does sometimes affect (and/or create an aversion) to the source book. Movie should not, but they do affect the reading of a book. Movies also help to create a popular conception of the source literature. And so, a bad adaptation can, contrary to Bazin’s claim, negatively effect literature.

Satisfaction with inferiority can damage art. “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams”. ~Hamlet, scene ii. Hamlet (in one aspect) is a play about the inifinite space of the human mind. Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet offers a very weak interpretation of Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet (Bias alert- I think Shakespeare’s Hamlet is undeniably one of the greatest pieces of art in any category of all time). For the majority of the movie, Olivier (as Hamlet) is bounded in a nutshell, for his approach to the character is of a restrained melancholy introvert. As a result, Olivier denies us the mind of Hamlet through his too cautious restraint. O that his too too solid flesh would melt. Olivier is too firm, too resolved for a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As a result, we have the loss of infinite space. It is tragic to deny us this mind.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Speedracer (2008, Wachowski Brothers, USA) ****

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:40:32 GMT

Speedracer is to me what Iron Man was to a lot of people- pure entertainment. No, Speedracer does not have much complexity or depth but I would argue that it is not a movie about ideas or characters- it is about aesthetics. The movie has a unique vision never before put to screen. Yes, it is a candy-colored world with child-like imagination but the movie is not innocent. It is not a Spielberg world where everything is childlike. There are some chillingly violent scenes in Speedracer that are almost too bizarre. In one scene, a henchman’s finger is shredded by neon colored piranhas. Other scenes on the death race are equally eerie.

One might make the claim that this is damaged art, like Sydney Lumet’s The Wiz but I’d say that Speedracer is too intentional. I feel that the directors achieved exactly what they set out to do, and that is to put a unique cinematic vision to screen. From the source material one can gather that they were not trying to make a profound movie.

No, I cannot defend this on an intellectual level, but I loved watching the movie. And I cannot think of another movie like it. That is why I think it is great.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008, Nick Stoller, USA) ***

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 17:19:41 GMT

To my dismay, Forgetting Sarah Marshall beings with all the college student movies clichés. A boy comically brushes his teeth in the mirror. Then he grabs a whole box of cereal and eats it in his grossly decorated apartment. The montage of lazy, filthy boy continues. We see him in sweat pants flopping from one lazy position on the couch to another. He tries to exercise but can’t find the motivation. Then his lovely girlfriend calls and says she’ll be home early. Boy must clean the house.

When Sarah Marshall arrives Peter steps out of the shower completely naked to greet her only to realize that she is breaking up with him. Instead of being awkward and vulnerable comedy, the scene drowns in insincerity. Every real moment is traded for the laugh. The director seems to celebrate his cleverness yet at every step falls flat to cheap jokes.

I almost walked out of the theater. Fortunately, the movie gets a lot better. Peter tries to escape his misery by going on vacation to a lovely spot that Sarah and he frequently talked about in Hawaii. Only it turns out that Sarah had the same idea. To his horror, Sarah is at the same hotel with her flippant pop singer boyfriend Aldous Snow- a recipe for cheap jokes. For example, Peter stalks them back to their room and interrupts their kiss. He tells his stepbrother on the phone that he thinks her ruined Sarah’s day. Cut to Sarah having orgasmic sex with Aldous. There are jokes about Peter sobbing in his suite like an old woman, jokes where Peter has to sit at a table looking at Sarah, jokes about Peter drinking all the time.

Only when the movie stops the cheap jokes and relies on sincere drama does it work. Peter meets a wonderful girl named Rachel who seems to be the perfect girl. But the movie understands what it is like to get over an ex. It takes time, even if you meet someone else. Rachel does help Peter to have fun, but when Peter sees Sarah again, he cries. Sarah then begins to realize how great Peter was only when Rachel threatens to take him away. These are the remnants of a real relationship. Sarah realizes that her pop-star boyfriend is not as special as Peter. Peter realizes that Sarah was great but maybe she didn’t always understand him.

There are some fantastic moments. When Sarah’s TV show is canceled Aldous cannot understand her fear about the future. Peter walks by Sarah and recognizes her pain. Peter is able to comfort her, a reminder of the relationship they once had. At another point, Sarah confesses to Rachel how pretty Rachel is. This shows both jealousy and real respect for Rachel as a person who is able to help her ex in his time of need. At an awkward dinner where Sarah accepts a courteous invitation to dine with Rachel and Peter, Peter and Aldous bond over laughing at Sarah’s ridiculous role in a movie (where cell-phones kill people). Rachel seems to bond with Sarah, respecting her role as a movie star. While surfing, Aldous comes up to Peter and gives him a respectful compliment about his music. Peter is grateful and feels that Aldous really understood what he was trying to do with his music. At another point, Sarah confesses how hard she tried to make the relationship work, but that Peter was too lazy to notice. This is the first point where he seems to understand what went wrong.

The movie evolves into a pretty realistic look at break-ups, the struggles with getting over a past love. It is clear that the relationship is over for these two, but that in no way means it is easy. The rebound relationships aren’t perfect. Peter has to evolve before he can make things work with Rachel, who genuinely seems a perfect match.

The comedy does not work for the most part. The Dracula musical seems to rely on a Dracula musical with puppets being inherently funny. No thought or effort is put in to developing the joke. The movie works best with its realistic depiction of relationships and breakups and fortunately there are a few funny moments that make this entertaining. I was pleasantly surprised with the way the movie turned out.

~Kristen Gorlitz

A Boy and his Dog (1975, L.Q. Jones, USA) ***

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:36:38 GMT

I just saw the amazingly bizarre A Boy and his Dog. Set in apocalyptic earth after WWIV, Vic (Don Johnson) telepathically communicates with gifted dog Blood. Blood has the infallible ability to locate females, a fantastic gift for endlessly horny Vic. Starving and horny the two wander the desolate land. Their only hope for is the world over the hill- utopia (one conversation suggests that this is the dream of lost civilization, the idealized world of yesterday). In this animal world, a primitive and violent Vic survives solely on pillage and rape. The most poignant remainders of humanity are found in the touching relationship of this boy and his dog.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it introduces several interesting ideas and does not explore them. For example, there's a threatening glowing green force called the screamers that are apparently very harmful. One reference suggests that is they so much as touch you- you'll die. Even the toughest of men run like children at the mention of screamers. Vic temporarily suppresses his male urges when the woman he intends to rape escapes in the pit of the screamers. Only when Blood tells Vic to stop quivering like a baby does Vic deny his fear and follow his instinct. This lust, however, almost gets them killed. A group of 20+ men come to rape the woman. A stubborn Vic at this point cares more about sex than his life. As a result, Blood, Vic and the woman are almost killed and must hide out in the screamers pit. To the wise Blood's dismay, the two continually disrupt his peaceful sleep with their animal sex.

Manipulated by the sexual prowess of the woman, Vic abandons Blood to follow her to the underworld. The remainder of civilization is preserved underground. It is an eerie, Lynch-like Pleasantville ruled by a committee. It turns out that the power-driven woman submitted herself to Vic in order to lure him down there and earn her place on the committee. It should be noted that her drive for power is the only non-misogynistic element in the movie. It turns out that the committee has selected Vic to provide the sperm for their women. This sounds like a dream come true until Vic is hooked up to a sperm-extracting machine. Again, this Brave New World, 1984 dystopian idea of population control is left unexplored. Through a turn of events, Vic escapes with the woman back to the barren, desolate ruins of the surface world. The movie avoids the clichés and does a good job showing that the surface land has as many problems as the underworld.

Blood waited for Vic, but as a result he is on the brink of death. Vic must make a crucial decision. This ending is incredibly funny, and well realized as it bring the movie round full circle in an evolutionary, survival of the fittest way. The movie is best for it’s oddly telling male relationship.

~Kristen Gorlitz

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964, Jacques Demy, France) ****

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:18:31 GMT

It’s hard to know where to being to begin to describe my personal reaction to this movie but it helped me to understand a deep tragedy in my life- in the views I had adopted. Maybe it helped me to realize the reality of the love that I had so soundly convinced myself was inconceivable, unobtainable, lost. And so, it is a movie about the lost love of my life and the movie that helped me to find him again.

I begin with my “DEPARTURE” (the 2^nd section of the movie) with Guy. In this section of my life, I convinced myself that even the most real love was suspect and could not sustain a relationship. I believed more in logic than in love because I knew that, from my own experience, I had the best love, the truest love, and that it had escaped me. I tried with all my powers of deception to make love compatible with logic. I convinced myself that I could will myself in love. Now I know this is foolishness, but I had to test the idea. I tried to love another man. He was practical, kind, thoughtful, romantic (in an odd way), eccentric- potentially a match.

He fell in love with me just as Mr. Cassard fell in love with Genevieve. Mr. Cassard’s character is interesting because he is a longing romantic, though admits that he fell for a woman who never loved him. Genevieve reminds him of that woman. But Genevieve gives him new hope and new grounds to walk on. At least he can be completely happy in this relationship. This is probably because Mr. Cassard has never known the love that Guy and Genevieve share. Mr. Cassard only gives love; he has never been loved.

I gave my Mr. Cassard hope. I felt that for all practical intents and purposes that I should love him; should be with him. But the memory of my Guy never left me, not for a day. Genevieve similarly is grateful that someone will accept her in her vulnerable (pregnant) state. She believes that her child needs a father. She wants her love Guy to return from the war but her hope in happily ever after wanes as he consistently forgets to write. So she chooses Mr. Cassard- a completely rational choice- though never forgets Guy (she names her daughter Françoise in memory of Guy). This is how we know she will always long from the love she once had.

She is moderately happy because there are other things in her life to love like her daughter. This happiness is part of the deception I told myself while dating Mr. Cassard. Genevieve lives securely, and like life, security provides a livable happiness.

By the “ARRIVAL” (3^rd Act) I realized that I too had thrown away, given up on my Guy. Why had I stopped believing in the truly magical love of Act 1? Why did I settle for a relationship where only one person loved? Is that happiness?

I was greatly disturbed for the rest of the day. The movie shook the logic that was he foundation of my relationship with Mr. Cassard. The movie does not so much ask what could have been. It knows the answer. Guy and Genevieve had a love so rare that only a few are blessed to have it, but they chose something practical. The movie, however, is never cynical but quite realistic. Even though they never eternally realized their love, their lives continue with moments of happiness. And there’s always the memory of what once was.

Even after the movie, I was happy with just the memory of my Guy. I could not conceive of how we would get back together. Now I realize that the tragedy of Guy and Genevieve was almost my tragedy. I, for so long, denied my first, my only love, my real happiness.

I was so close to experiencing the painful moment years in the future when it became impossible to restart our relationship. I would have had to live with that torturous moment when a married Genevieve and encounters Guy for the first time in years. The bittersweet movie shows how they do have their happiness, but they do not love their spouses out of anything more than duty and security.

Duty and security led me to believe that I loved Mr. Cassard. Now I know that I never forgot my Guy.

This movie helped me avoid Guy and Genevieve’s tragedy. It perfectly shows true love. There is an ever-present sense that Guy and Genevieve should never be apart, but the movie, being a realistic representation, shows what happens in a world where logic survives over love. The movie captures the tragedy that happens to so many people. Yet the movie never denies the greatness of love, even when the characters fully do. That is how the movie is great. The movie knows life but longs for love.

I learned a great deal about life with Mr. Cassard, but thankfully the movie restored my faith in love. I got a second chance with Guy. This time I was able to make a brilliantly illogical decision- all in the name of love.

~Kristen Gorlitz

The New World (2005, Terrence Malick) ***

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:08:17 GMT

How do you get over your first love? Maybe you will always love him, but that is all right because it is possible to love the man of your past and live in the present. Terrence Malicks fourth film The New World (2005) is an epic love story that misses the mark.

Pocahontas, Q'orianka Kilcher, exuberates life. She experiences the joys of first love with Colin Farrell. They share pleasures in a fantasy world, which Farrell says is a dreamlike world, but he later acknowledges that this world was the most real thing he has known. The dream world shatters with the outside world, which demands Farrells attention. Farrell feels the call of reality and leaves his love, and instructs the she be informed that he is dead in an attempt to make her forget him. His departure almost breaks her. Another man, Christian Bale, relates to her sufferings and eventually grows to love her. They marry, but she has not forgotten her first love.

Voiceovers tell the emotions. These voiceovers have a beauty and quality of their own, for they are the only insight into the characters love. Some may say that they detract from the love; however, they are the only way that the depths of the love are made known. The acting is minimalist and one could not understand the love on its own.

The movie has a generic look comparable to the recent epics like Ridley Scotts Kingdom of Heaven (2005) or Oliver Stones Alexander (2004). There are a few beautiful shots of nature, but this is not uncommon. Nick Cassavetes The Notebook (2004) also features dazzling shots of the sunset and rain.

A subplot to the love story is the clash of cultures. The British civilize Kilcher while she carries on her romances. These details play a minor role in contrast to the love story.

Some of the metaphors in the film are poorly written. At one point Kilcher says something to the effect of your words pour through me like a river. There is also a running symbolism with trees. After Farrell leave Kilcher, she is encouraged to be like a tree, one that grows and always reaches for the light. The last shot is the tree metaphor cashed out in poor taste.

The film is too big for a simple love story. The audience senses a detachment from the characters, possibly because of the voiceovers. The movie has some insight on how first love stays with a person, but the problem is that the relationship with the second lover is hardly established. The love seems forced. The movie is a disappointment for Malick fans.

Ryan just informed me that Malick, in between making films, is a philosophy professor and is into Kierkegaard: a good choice with Kierkegaard if you want your life to be changed in a necessary but depressing way. There is some hope to his despair.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Gallipoli (1981, Peter Weir, Australia) ***

kristen — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:06:38 GMT

A better runner film than Gallipoli (1981) is Hugh Hudson’s Chariots of Fire (1981). A better male bonding film is Howard Hawk’s Rio Bravo (1959). A better historical representation film is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) But as a fantasy film, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) works with a grace unique unto itself.

Archy, Mark Lee, trains hard to be the fastest runner. Gallipoli (1981) does not explore this passion for running as in Chariots of Fire (1981). Running may be a way for Archy to advance in life. However, the film implies that his uncle Jack may like the fact that Archy runs more than Archy does. Archy tells Jack that there is more to life than racing. The film does not explore the dynamics of the sport, or introduce intense passion to win a race.

Instead, the fact that Archy is a runner serves as a base for a friendship with Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. In the first organized race of the film, Archy defeats the cocky Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. The two have talent, and their athletic inclinations allow for nonsexual male bonding. Frank and Archy wander in the desert, uncivilized like the cowboys of the west, though their comradery is not as profound as iconic cowboy John Wayne and his partners in Rio Bravo (1959). The bond does not make a deep impression because Archy and Frank are flat characters.

We learn background information on Frank. The British murder his mother and that is why he opposes the war. Yet, Frank remains the lovable rebel for the duration of the film. He has his adventures (he hops a train), his fun (he sleeps with a prostitute), and his problems (he has no money). Frank is good deep down, and Archy sees that. Archy is an optimist and always in good spirits. He is naïve for he devotes himself fully to the war without thinking of the horrors it brings. Archy is too good to be interesting. He risks his life for Frank by refusing a safe position. Frank may have a loose morality, but he would never harm anyone. The two go from a time of joy, to a time of despair in war, yet their outlooks do not change. It seems that the death that surrounds them has no effect. To the fault of the film, the characters are static to an ever-dynamic backdrop.

The Australians remember the Battle of Gallipoli as a major controversial historical event in a way comparable to how Americans remember Vietnam as controversial (“Battle at Gallipoli”). The movie Gallipoli (1981) is a fictionalized account of this battle in World War I (Thompson and Bordwell pp 664). The problem with Gallipoli (1981) as a historical piece is that it spends so much exposition on Archy and Frank (fictional characters) and only leaves ten or so minutes for the battle to take place. The film so loosely bases the story on the battle that the battle becomes irrelevant. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) fictionalizes the Vietnam War with sets and characters, yet captures the controversy of the war. The Vietnam War is an indispensable part of Full Metal Jacket (1987).

Gallipoli (1981) does stand out in one aspect, and that is its 80’s synthesizer-pop score. The synth-pop music initiates when there is a race. This music is so jarring that it takes one out of the atmosphere of the film and places one in a science fiction- fantasy world. Since the characters are flat, the absurd music does a wonder to ruin any gravity that Gallipoli (1981) tries to establish. Three times the film transports us to a world beyond our understanding. The music leaves a more memorable impression than any other aspect, which is why this is such a good fantasy movie. The world is beyond what we would expect, but we like it all the same.

~Kristen Gorlitz