Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

An inordinate number of peppers

  • The reign of subjectivity

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I did my civic duty and saw this film because I like war movies, I like what there is to learn at the extremeties of valor and cowardice, where men sacrifice everything for each other and nothing finally comes of it. I expected to have Clint follow this basic pro-war platform informed by a slender draught of cynicism. Everyone is a bit culpable for doing what needs to be done. To be thrust on a stage is as hard as to be thrust into battle. The reactions of public taste are amplified upon you and whatever success or failure you gleen for yourself is not what was promised. This is WWII informed by Vietnam. Another jungle snakepit.

    I love Kieslowski. I love him for so many reasons but mainly his tireless regard for the truth. What really needs to be said is what we should spend ourselves saying. Here, Clint Eastwood tries his hand at the various viewpoints that ally around a battle line. A line stretched through depths of mind we may not embrace and are likely not to survive. The great injustices countered and rebutted. The gunfire is all neutral, a mutual excuse for death.

    For Clint to do Letters from Iwo Jima as well as Flags of our Fathers was such a calculated gesture on someone's part. I imagine what Clint wanted was the epic effect of one of Kieslowski's trilogy. A broad canvas. I can't say, I haven't seen Letters. It seems interesting to me that the studios felt it was a harder sell to tell the enemy's side in a time of war, to remind the world that war is always hell and is best only done in the most perilous circumstances. These stories are old enough to teach their tales from all sides. Perhaps we learn more from our effects than our causes.

    Clint also gets to pass verdict on history. His vision will now forever cloud this country's vision of itself at war. What have we done even for the best of reasons that is worth being proud of? It's the second film that paints the true battle lines. I can't wait to see it.

    As it stands, I think this movie gets a little muddled at the end. The pretext for telling the story is plausible but never really comes to life.

  • Isabelle Adjani's best

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    This is my favorite movie starring Isabelle Adjani. The movie by itself is a nice mid-career Truffaut, but what Adjani does on screen is something quite transcendant. The role could have easily come off flat if it were a lesser actress. It's a strange circumstance. Adele H. is the daughter of Victor Hugo who has gone off to Canada after the scoundrel who has seduced her. She is a great woman, a strong woman with a tendancy to abandon herself to an ecstatic depression. When she chases this man, she is doomed. She knows this somehow and does it anyway. She seems intent on being ruined perhaps because of the ecstacy of emotion it provokes in her. This is one of those movies that I took out from the library and the DVD was so horribly scratched that I only got halfway through it before it skipped like mad. So I was left with this performance and the fragments of a story. I finally bought it so I could close the door on it and, I admit, the ending was a little disappointing. But then, perhaps I had built Adele into a different sort of creature than she was in the end. It was as if seeing only half the film allowed her to live in my mind as a greater person than Truffaut allowed. Truffaut did her an injustice by playing out the story as reality would have it. How is that? Sometimes seeing only part of a film lets it be a more personal experience than what the director would have allowed. It becomes your own vision.

 


Advertisement