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

vhsparrow Blog

  • Tom Jackson is no Michael Moore...

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

    Out of Balance  (2007)

    And that's just about the only place where this film falls flat.

    'Out of Balance' is a concise, thoughtful condensation of the Climate Change issue that makes creative, if not authoritative use of interviews and stock footage to make the case for Global Warming and the damage than man has done to the Earth's climate. Tom Jackson has managed to package the science, politics and business concerns related to climate change into a coherent and persuasive film that's fully accessible to a general audience.

    In particular, Jackson tracks the history and growth of Exxon/Mobil, the largest publicall-traded oil company, taking account of it's failures, specifically that of the Exxon Valdez tragedy and the corporation's efforts to control and manipulate the social and ecological damage done by that accident.

    'Balance' is a fine informational documentary replete with many valuable interviews with scientists, reserchers and stakeholders, etc. The film's only shortcoming is filmmaker Tom Jackson's half-serious 'confessional' contributions to his film.

    But not everybody can be Michael Moore -- Moore's intimate relationship with his subjects -- the Auto Industry, the NRA, even socialized medicine -- is unparalelled because Moore takes the time to develop his narratives: As a Flint, Michigan native, he watched as his relatives and neighbors suffered because of GM's failures; Moore consistently makes an effort to create a personal connection between himself and the institutions that he chooses to roast. In 'Roger and Me' it was the economic devastation reaped upon Moore's hometown as a result of a GM plant closing. In 'The Big One', Moore expanded Roger's technique to deal with other plant closings throuhout the United States. 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Fahrenheit 9/11' were expansions of the same premise, essentially looking at corporate and Executive malfeasance and it's effect on the common, blue-collar working man. It also doesn't hurt that Moore is a natural entertainer, who adopts a feckless, Columbo-like persona when he takes to the streets and corporate HQ elevators in search of his interviews.

    And that's the one problem with 'Out of Balance' -- Tom Jackson is no Michael Moore -- his self-deprecating monologue at the beginning of the film falls a little flat and at no point in his documentary does he create a personal connection betweenn himself and the greed-heads of Big Oil, much less the target of his documentary, the Exxon/Mobil Corporation. It has been well established that with Valdez, Exxon/Mobil perpertated one of the worst-ever ecological disasters of any major corporation  -- why has Exxon earned the rebuke of this film from Jackson -- for an accident that occurred back in 1989? Is Exxon more guilty of damaging the environment than any of the other oil companies? More guilty than the car manufacturers for whom this oil is lifeblood?

    Now, I don't mean to diminish Mr. Jackson's film here - rather, it just seems as though he stopped short of creating a more effective film. Rather than simply manifest a vendetta against Exxon/Mobil, he could have crafted a simple fact-based film that addresses the problems we face as an oil-dependent civilization. Of course, these movies work best when there's an identifiable villain, but by singling-out Exxon, jackson diminishes his message somewhat.

    Mr. Jackson ought to leave the self-deprecating humor to Michael Moore and simply present his interviews as the focus of his films, a technique used to it's greatest effect in documentaries like Charles Ferguson's 'No End in Sight'.


  • Charlie Wilson is an un-person, erased from history, until now...

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

    Charlie Wilson’s War’ is a tricky film to write on, because I have both a Proustian relationship with the material and a more generalized, historical appreciation for the the effort that writer Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols have accomplished.

    In fact, the week before I went to see 'Charlie Wilson' I was revisiting 1984 and discovered a scene that bears a curious similarity to waterboarding, with John Hurt on the table and Richard Burton alternately dousing Hurt and fiddling with electricity. That said, I fell into something of a fugue when David Bowie's "Let's Dance" spilled across the speakers for a key scene.

    In 1984, I was also a junior in high school, choking down Orwell’s complete body of work and fair measure of dystopian British fiction - Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and a good few Philip K. Dick novels. Even as the year 1984 came and went I wondered if the world that Orwell decribed had, in fact, arrived unbeknownst to everybody alive at that moment.

    Lo, and behold, history has been re-written before our eyes as it was Ronald Reagan that took credit for ending the Cold War by outspending the Soviet military budget. What has been left out of the ‘official’ history is Charlie Wilson’s role on the front-line of that conflict.

    Based on the eponymous George Crile book, ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ recounts the political career of the Honorable Charles Nesbitt Wilson (1933- ), who served in the U.S. Congress for 24 years, spanning the Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations, and served 16 of those years on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, earmarking funds for the CIA’s ‘black bag operations throughout Central America and the Middle East.

    No stranger to fast-living, liquor and controvery, Wilson apparently had an epiphany while sitting in a Vegas hot-tub with a pair of showgirls. A consummate public servant, Wilson was distracted from his hot-tub by a 60 Minutes segment , where Dan Rather reported on Russian incursions into Afghanistan. As a fervent anti-Communist, and a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Wilson saw a funding opportunity in the Afghani Mujahideen.

    Of course, the Mujahideen were absorbed by the forces of light, once Ronald Reagan heard of them, but by that time Wilson (played by Tom Hanks) and his CIA attaché, Gust Avrokotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) increased foreign appropriations for the Afghani ‘freedom fighters’ from $5 million to $750 million a year during the ’80’s. Through Wilson and the efforts of his sometime-mistress, Texas Socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), the US funneled weapons to Afghanistan, creating a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviets on the other side of the Black Sea. The billions of dollars that the Russians sank into Afghanistan invariably helped collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War in 1989.

    Politics aside, there is actual entertainment to be found in ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’. Rather that take the easy route and lampoon the New World Order pontifications of the Republican Administrations that Wilson served, Sorkin uses the opportunity to make art. Between the progress of the Mujahideen and Wilson’s back-room deals, Sorkin and Nichols have fashioned an old-fashioned Capra-esque movie.

    Hanks’ Wilson is a fairly serviceable imitation of Jimmy Stewart , while Roberts seems to channel Barbara Stanwyck in either ‘Executive Suite‘ or ‘Meet John Doe‘. And just to make sure you know what kind of movie you’re watching, Sorkin and Nichols have peppered their film with numerous door gags, rapid-fire dialogue and a few trademark Sorkin walk-and-talks.

    The productive ingredients here are Hanks’ and Roberts’ willingness to play character roles, rather than the soppy, Libtard heroism stuff that they’ve become accustomed to.

    This one gets five stars for the willingness to tell a relevant story and the effort they’ve taken to tell it as an old-fashioned Hollywood yarn. Usually such efforts make me suspicious, but in Sorkin’s hands it’s a marvelous piece of restraint.

    It’s not always the guy on the white horse that’s the hero — sometimes it’s just the paper-pusher who makes the funds available for the revolution.

    Unfortunately, Universal chose to dump ‘Charlie Wilson’ into release four days before Christmas, denying it the attention of the broadest possible audience. But it *is* on the Oscar, Bafta and Golden Globe short-lists and remains in theaters 6 weeks after it opened. Try to see it while it’s still in theaters!


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<February 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728291
2345678


Categories
 


Advertisement