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

JScott's movie tags

Advertisement
  • Three Monkeys [Review]

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Distant  (2002)

    Climates  (2006)

    Nuri Bilge Ceylan has been a name on the international film circuit since 2002 with Distant - a "well-paced" character study - and has continued his success with Climates (2006) and now Three Monkeys (2008).  Ceylan is putting Turkish film on the map through unorthodox shots and unconventional story telling techniques.  Three Monkeys succeeds on many levels while being quietly devastating. 

    Aesthetically we are presented with images of civilization on the brink.  The dark nature of the film’s content and meaning is echoed beautifully in the cinematography.  The clouds thicken as the plot does.  As Eyüp (Yavuz Bingol) throws a tantrum so does Zeus.  The breadth of darkness that cinematographer Gokhan Tiryaki is able to achieve adds a noirish richness to the film.

    The lingering shots place emphasis on the inner-workings of the characters.  The deliberate pace could be mismanaged by lesser actors. 

    Ismail - convincingly acted by Rifat Sungar - is the son.  Eyüp, the father, goes to jail to cover the crimes of his boss, small-time politician Servet (Ercan Kesal: co-writer of Three Monkeys).  Eyüp is virtually absent from the first half of the film while serving a jail sentence but leaves a heavy depression through an impactful performance.  Hacer (Hatice Aslan) is the mother who is a lonely yet empowered persona. 

    The entire cast worked through a minimalistic style with deliberate themes rooted deep in their character.    

    These characters are shown often shown with animalistic undertones: Ismail's eating habits and hygiene, Hacer's lounging, being surrounded by birds, the soundtrack, and so forth. . These people are all capable of anything and in a moment’s notice will revert to a survival state. 

    The animals that the title refers to are the three wise monkeys - see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil - from the Japanese parable.  Today it is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a willful blind eye to the immorality of an act in which they are involved. 

    This goes back to the underlying political message of the film that the rich can often sidestep their legal responsibility.  All three members of the family are guilty in covering a crime for the bourgeoisie politician.  Ultimately the less fortunate and marginal will have it fall back on them.

    Ceylan leaves potentially excessive and cliché scenes (i.e. sex, murder, etc.) to the viewer's imagination.  What he chooses to show us is more impactful than blood, lust or other stimulate. It's the aftermath of an accident or the reaction to hearing something you shouldn't have.  The silence between a father locked away by his duties and the son who is caged up in his own guilt can tell so much.

    Nuri Bilge Ceylan has successfully created another emotive film.  Three Monkeys has well choreographed pace, award worthy acting and a story that is deep in tone and text.

     


  • Uncounted [Review]

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

    Since 2000 the United States has been up-in-arms about its voting.  2000 was the year of Bush/Gore and the infamous Florida chad - who is not some guy you hung out with on Spring Break.  WOO SPRING BREAK!!

    Director David Earnhardt challenges the electronic voting system and makes some incredible valid points.  For one why a company (Diebold) would make a voting machine that gives out no receipts and isn't auditable when they are a company that produces most of the world's ATM machines thats only job is to print out reciepts and be auditable. 

    While the evidence provided to us tends to lean towards showing us the Republican party gained more from the alleged voter fraud the  documetary does claim to be non-partisan.  Even as a liberal I found this documentary to be too one sided and only focusing on what the Republicans are rumored to be doing rather than spending too much time talking about ACORN and other hot topics of the day. 

    It is difficult to judge this film on what is shown.  I do find it making a convincing argument especially when a programmer testifies that he is the one who developed the software to switch votes (on purpose) and that he was paid by a man who works in the Florida State Government and has ties to the Bushes. 

    Following some of the information provided in the film led me to Blackboxvoting.org which is run by one of the talking heads in the documentary Bev Harris.  Director David Earnhardt is a frequent contributor on that site.  Bev Harris and Mr Earnhardt also frequent the Alex Jones show.  Mr Jones is the leading proponent of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and blames Bush and a secret shadow government (New World Order - not led by Hogan).

    Many of thoes claims seem far fetched to me so I wonder what their agenda is in this documentary.

    Again on the surface it does a good job on convincing you of all this wrong doing which I think is great.  Get awareness out there so we can see it coming but I wonder how much of it is actual fact and how much of it is like the jump-to-conclusions mat.

    Basically what I took away from this is that the TruVote system is the best available (if we go electronic, it allows you to check on your vote online and prints out a hard ballot to be hand counted if needed) and if not we need to stick with paper ballots.

    I know in 2 and 4 years I will be volunteering at the local polling presinct just to be sure there is nothing shady going on.  This documentary is propaganda and much of it may be true but I would urge you to do your own research and get involved in the political process.


  • The Year My Parents Went on Vacation [Review]

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Director Cao Hamburger tells an almost Truffaut-like story of childhood, impossible love, abandonment and ultimately being found.  This film reminds me a lot of The 400 Blows as children occupy the main space of this film.  The actors give an almost neo-realist performance as characters who could be anyone you know.  They are played to perfection and very relatable. 

    The writing is humorous in the right places while choosing to remain classy instead of raunchy.  I appreciate the extra effort taken to make this film approachable for all ages while being sophisticated at the same time.  The somewhat whimsical story doesn't hold back on dealing with political issues and world events of the 1970s in Brazil. 

    I feel that this is a very powerful tale of finding out that home and family are what you make of it.  You could miss what isn't there but then you are just missing what is.  Perhaps thats an overly optimistic view of it.

    If you enjoy films by Francois Truffaut, Roberto Rossellini or Pedro Almodovar I would think you should enjoy this film.  Its a masterpiece.


  • Summer Palace

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Summer Palace  (2008)

    Summer Palace, which was first shown in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006, is remarkable for its candor about sex and politics.  Predictably its honesty has not been appreciated by Chinese authorities who banned Mr. Lou from making movies for five years after he brought it to Cannes without their permission.  The film’s fervent, unsentimental embrace of youthful idealism is likely to strike a chord with anyone who can recall — or imagine — such feelings overtaking his or her own life.

    Yu Hong (Lei Hao), a young woman, recently arrived at Beijing University from a provincial town.  She displays a romantic, sometimes reckless appetite for experience, confiding in her diary a longing to live with maximum intensity.  She satisfies this desire, in the movie’s heady, headlong first half, through a series of friendships and flirtations, most of all her fierce, jealous on-and-off relationship with Zhou Wei (Xiaodong Guo) - a skinny, brooding intellectual and the love of her life.

    But Yu Hong and Zhou Wei and the various other friends, rivals and hookups are hardly ordinary university students.  Or if they are, their matriculation comes at an extraordinary moment.  Yu Hong arrives in Beijing in 1988, and her first year at the university, already full of emotional and sexual upheaval, ends with the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and their violent suppression by the Chinese government.

    Toward the end of Lou Ye’s Summer Palace, Yu Hong reflects that her college years were the “most confused” time in her life.  A lot of us might feel similarly, but the beautiful and passionate heroine of this beautiful and passionate film, is something of a special case. Skip to next paragraph

    Mr. Lou, however, is not interested only in reconstructing a vanished moment of high, intoxicating promise in his heroine’s (and his generation’s) youth. He is equally concerned with what comes after, with the drift, disappointment and compromise that seem, for his characters, to constitute both the legacy of Tiananmen and the mundane facts of postgraduate life.  He follows Yu Hong and Zhou Wei as they make their way across the splintered landscape of adulthood, and takes note, via television clips, of the changing world around them.

    Zhou Wei joins some of their university friends who have become expatriates in Berlin, while Yu Hong finds an office job in a provincial Chinese city. Fashions change.  Rickety bicycles and battered envelopes give way to S.U.V.’s and e-mail.  There are love affairs, a suicide, an abortion, and in the midst of it all Yu Hong clings to a belief in her own future that is all the more poignant for being somewhat vague.

    Neither the later disaffection nor the earlier ardor feels in the least bit melodramatic or overstated.  And in spite of its 2-hour-20-minute length, Summer Palace moves with the swiftness and syncopation of a pop song.  Like Jean-Luc Godard in the 1960s, Mr. Lou favors breathless tracking shots and snappy jump cuts, and like Francois Truffaut, his camera is magnetized by female beauty.  

    Ms. Lei, a tough and uninhibited actress, is not simply the object of the film’s gaze; Yu Hong’s resilience and vulnerability are the film’s emotional core, and its feverish rhythms follow the chaotic pattern of her desires.

    The delirious scenes of dorm-room sex and nightclub dancing in Summer Palace convey more sensation than narrative or psychological meaning.  And this is clearly the point.  In the end Mr. Lou is not trying to reflect on the recent Chinese past so much as he is trying to communicate its texture. Perhaps inevitably, this effort leaves some loose ends and blurred impressions.

    Every day in China students were concerned about the future of their country, even while worried about their personal safety and their own possible punishment for taking part in the demonstrations.  They were being awakened to political consciousness, and they knew the risk they were taking by expressing their views.  The characters in this film were barely conscious of politics or anything else but their personal relationships.  They were basically hormone driven and self-involved whilst living amid political change but too absorbed in their personal misery to notice.  

    The story of a hysterical young woman who liked sex with cute guys and the poor saps who fell for her, along with her mixed up girl friend and other various young students could have been set in any university anywhere in the world.

    But in Summer Palace he nonetheless succeeds in finding a cinematic language that does more than summarize the important events of a confusing decade. He distills the inner confusion — the swirl of moods, whims and needs — that is the lived and living essence of history.


  • Mother of Mine

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

    Walkabout  (1971)

    Nobody Knows  (2004)

    Mother of Mine  (2005)

    Mother of Mine is a film that focuses on the unseen impacts of war.  Eero [Topi Majaniemi] is a Swedish child sent to live in Denmark after his father dies in the war and his mother gives up on life.  He is taken in by a mother who isn't excited to have him and a father who wants nothing more than for Eero to be able to adapt and thrive.  He takes Eero to school where they call him the "war child" which is all he knows about his identity anymore.  It takes over his life.  All he imagines are air raids.

    Every actor in this film is much more than capable.  Personally I think the acting is the biggest strength of the entire film.  Klaus Haro mixes the strength of the acting with the natural beauty and depth of the Finnish landscape.

    I am in the camp of people who believe the flash forwards take away from the film more than they add.  I think the story would flow better and perhaps have more impact if it weren't for the disjointed feeling the flash forwards evoke.

    I think this film would make an interesting double feature with Koreeda's Nobody Knows about a mother who gives up on her children and leaves them to raise themselves without taking their lives into consideration.  There are many great films about troubling childhoods.  Anything from Francois Truffaut or the country of Iran would be a nice start.  I will also always recommend seeing Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout as it might be my absolute favorite coming of age tale.  I also am drawn to its colonizing undertones.

    I think Mother of Mine fits well into the childhood genre and lives up to the high expectations I have for such films and for this film because I had heard so much positive reaction going into it.


  • Movies 101: Leading Ladies

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

    NYU Professor Richard Brown interviews Jennifer Anniston, Jennifer Connelly, Julianne Moore and Sigorney Weaver as part of an on-going series dedicated to sharing their experiences with his class.  Each interview is about an hour long and focuses on their pre-cinema/television careers as well as previews their upcoming work (most of which was dated by the time I watched it.)

    The first interview in the set is Jennifer Anniston.  I went in without a lot of "respect" for her body of work.  No offense to her - I enjoy Friends and I think she is great as Rachel Green.  I just never put a lot of faith in her talent.  I learned however that at age 11 she had a painting hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC.  I am obviously not the most well versed person when it comes to her life but I also learned that her dad (John Anniston) is an actor on a Soap Opera and has been for years.  I am sure many out there are aware of that nugget of information but I wasn't.  I originally felt like Jennifer would be the odd-duck in this line-up of fairly well established film stars who experiment with different roles.  I think after watching the interview and because of Brown's in-depth questioning I found myself most pleased with the Anniston segment.  The conversation between the two was very eye opening and I think even dug deeper than I think she was expecting. 

    The second interview was Jennifer Connelly who I felt was kind of boring.  Even with top notch questioning she fell a little flat.  She talks about her desire to work in film and how she was discovered but overall nothing all that interesting to note.  I have long felt that she has been on a downward spiral since her days of singing with Bowie and dancing with muppets - I think this just about clinches it for me.  If you ever get a chance to watch these interviews you can just pass this one up.

    I am a huge fan of Julianne Moore.  She may be one of my top five living actresses.  She came out about how her parents supported her through her wishes to become an actor but also strongly cautioned that she prepare herself for failure by getting a degree that could lead to a graduate program down the future.  While it doesn't look like she will ever need to take her parents up on that advice it was well taken and could be useful for hundred of people out there struggling to do what they dream.  Her interview is completely uninhibited and she talks frankly about her set affair with her now husband and how she will feel when her children stumble upon the fact that she had done some nudity in her films.  Overall I would say she was the interview I was most hyped up for and it delivers unquestionable.

    Lastly we see Sigorney Weaver who obviously has a spectrum of work from Sci-Fi to Comedy to Drama.  She is just about everywhere.  She was a lot less intimidating and commanding as I thought.  Perhaps I bought into the Ridley Scott persona a bit too much but she seemed to be just surprised and pleased with her career.  She doesn't take it for granted or too seriously while at the same time seeming dedicated and well educated about it.  Along with Anniston this interview changed my mind about the person involved because it opened up a human side of them and showed the struggles and hardships they went through to get where they are.

    For those of you interested in acting or the art of acting this would be an inciteful viewing for you.  Well researched by Professor Brown and well recieved by the audience this is a winner that easily compares to Lipton's Inside the Actor's Studio which gets far more noteriety.  I can't wait to watch the rest of the series.


  • How much do you believe in yourself?

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

    Craig Zobel writes and directs this film produced by independent film maker David Gordon Green about a small record production company also called "The Great World of Sound" or GSW if you want to make a check out to them. 

    Martin (Pat Healy) joins the new company in hopes to make a difference and get some pointers in the world of business to help promote his wife/girlfriend Pam's (Rebecca Mader) arts and crafts that she makes.  Clarence (Kene Holliday of Matlock fame) is Martin's partner as they both learn the ropes of the industry together.  For the record, Clarence is by far the most entertaining character in the film.  The most true and talented artist of the entire film is Gloria a waitress at a bar in Indianapolis played very convincingly by Robert Longstreet.

    The film is about the choices made when faced with adversity.  It shows the proverbial "slippery slope" when dealing with morals and success.  From the small lie of using a cell phone as a camera phone to straight up taking people's hard earned money for a bogus venture the pair of Martin and Clarence run the entire gamut. 

    Many of the potential artists are so willing to believe that they are something special that they blindly hand over checks of up to $3,000 in hopes of getting their music out there.Great World of Sound may turn people off with its ending which initially might leave some feeling unsatisfied.  Zobel does a great job showing how a man even of the highest scruples can succumb to the lows of necessity, want and embarrassment of failure.

    I think this is one of the more real films in recent memory.  There are con artists out there who are trying to play on the desire for people to become overnight sensations by making a quick buck without much work.  It effectively shows the ways people are willing to compromise to believe in their dream.  Smooth talking business men can accomplish a lot with just a few metaphors and words that strike the right chord with the right person.

    There are a lot of pitfalls to big business out there.  Corporations set their own laws in a lot of cases but at least with them you know what you are getting even if getting them to hear your voice might be impossible.  In this case it was the shady small businessman who had no remorse for his actions and left others to hold the bag both financially and morally.

    It is certainly not a positive film to watch in a lot of ways but it is enjoying and worth checking out.


  • No Country for Old Men

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

    Get rich quick schemes used to be reserved for late night television preaching riches if you mailed a nominal sum for the packet containing instructions on how to master said system. Currently at all hours of the day can you find someone promoting a "system" or insider knowledge that has as much to do with chance as anything else.

    Surprisingly this is a main theme of the Coen Brothers' latest film No Country for Old Men. Llewelyn Moss (James Brolin), arguably the main character, stumbles on a drug deal gone the way most movie drug deals go - poorly. A number of poor moral decisions lead him to finding a large sum of money that belongs to another man Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is probably the most terrifying villain since Robert Mitchum in both the 1962 Cape Fear and Night of the Hunter. Llewelyn's desire to hold on to the $2 million leads him running down a path for his own life and the life of others.

    As always with a film by the Coens the dialogue is the strongest point of the film and technically this is probably their best work. The big gripe about the film is the ending. It doesn't really have one but at the same time it does. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) opens and closes the picture with a monologue. By paying attention to his scenes additional themes begin to develop and emerge from the story. The film isn't so much plot driven - although it is for 80% of it - but revolves around the characters and their traits.

    If you go in expecting everything to be tied up in a nice package like National Treasure then you will be disappointed. No Country for Old Men is closer to John Steinbeck's East of Eden where the aforementioned Nicholas Cage project is closer to Where's Waldo. The man in the striped red and white costume is there on the page, you just need to keep your eyes open. Steinbeck requires you to dig a bit deeper and examine the story and not just on the superficial Cain and Abel that they make reference to multiple times.

    No Country for Old Men has layers of depth and meaning to it but it will require some work on the viewer's part to dissect it. It is definitely worth seeing and might be one of the big winners come Oscar Night.

    **** (4/4)


  • Witnesses

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

    Witnesses  (2003)

    Vinko Bresan has made a few films that have landed him international acclaim as a talented filmmaker and as a director who chooses to break down Croatian stereotypes.  Perhaps the most controversial part of Brešan's opus to date is the 2003 war drama Svjedoci ("Witnesses"), based on the novel Ovce od gipsa ("Alabaster Sheep") by Jurica Pavičić. 

    Reminiscent of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, it explores the human complexities and moral murkiness of war through multiple perspectives and flashbacks surrounding the unintended murder of an alleged Serbian smuggler by three Croatian soldiers returning from the front in Karlovac.  The "Rashomon" style of multiple stories is already so imbedded in our society that even the popular 70s TV sitcom Mama's Family used it for an episode called (not surprisingly) "Rashomon."

    Witnesses was nominated for the Golden Bear at the 2004 Berlinale and received the Peace Film Award as well as a Special Mention from the Ecumenical Jury.  It also won the Philip Morris Award at Karlovy Vary in the same year.  Notably, Serbian actress Mirjana Karanović was cast in the role of a Croatian war widow—a decision Brešan had to defend as the film drew protests from the Croatian Party of Rights and right-wing sections of the Croatian public.

    Personally the war film is not my genre.  I just came off of seeing Emir Kusturica's Underground which takes a similiar set of events and ideals but handles them in a completely different tone.  That film is light hearted, funny, yet poignant.  I get tired of the "real life" aspect of some film genres and seek out films that handle them uniquely.  Also Kusturica is obviously a huge fan of Fellini which can't hurt anyone's case.

    Back to Witnesses, I liked a number of things about it including, but not limited to, the lighting, the ambiance, the acting but none of it was able to grab my attention and make me want to continue to watch the film. 

    This film is gritty and real, but that also lends to it being depressing and I guess I am just not in the mood for that.  Maybe watching it down the road would change my opinion but I don't think it will end up in my DVD player again anytime soon.


  • The Darjeeling Limited

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

    Director Wes Anderson's (Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums) new film The Darjeeling Limited features Owen Wilson, Adrian Brody and Jason Schwartzman as three bothers who haven't spoken in a year after their father's (Bill Murray) death.  Each brother has a distinctive way of dealing with the depression left after the funeral.

    The brothers engage on a spiritual journey across India in a train per the request of the eldest brother Francis (Wilson) in order to re-establish trust and a family connection.  He goes so far as the plan their entire trip with the help of his assistant Brendan (Wally Wolodarsky) who maps it out with laminated itineraries.  The bandaged wounds on Francis' face obviously mirror his open inner-wounds.

    Absolutely certain his marriage is going to end in divorce the middle child, Peter (Brody), is possibly the most enigmatic and fatalistic of all of the bothers. He is the one who has a family back home but he disappears within himself as his way of dealing with the tension and stress of the last year of his life.

    The youngest, Jack (Schwartzman), runs away from his girlfriend (Natalie Portman) and hides out at the Hotel Chevalier (more on that later) in France. His inability to have a sustainable and positive relationship with any woman is well developed throughout the film.

    As always, the quirky aesthetics employed by Wes are there but the film isn't as comical as previous Anderson attempts. It is a deeper more mature look into his personal universe.  The brothers' constant use of over the counter Indian pain killers and cough syrup is funny but they go back to that well a few times too often.  The film feels like it has a certain sentimental value to it that you have a hard time putting your finger on.  Anderson's previous films have left me feeling cold and unmoved but this film has certain genuine heartfelt warmth about it that is very different from anything he has done before.

    It feels more like a companion to The Royal Tenenbaums more than a new direction for Wes Anderson. It is a film about the characters that are trapped within themselves and a film about, literally, shedding the baggage of their family's patriarch.

    If you are a fan of Wes Anderson I don't need to convince you to see this. You will and you'll probably enjoy it due to familiar motifs and themes found in his films. If you haven't seen many of his films this one stands well on its own and is much deeper and satisfying than it is on the surface. This might be the type of film that grows on you after a few viewings and to make sense of it all you might want to watch it more than once.

    Hotel Chevalier is the name of the short film that preceded The Darjeeling Limited at the Venice and the New York Film Festivals. The 13-minute short is rumored to be cut from the nationwide release of the film but can be downloaded for free on iTunes. If you plan on seeing the movie, you should watch the short or parts of the film might not make sense.


  • Ten Canoes

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

    The Tracker  (1988)

    Walkabout  (1971)

    Volver  (2006)

    Ten Canoes  (2007)

    Back in 2006 I was in Telluride, Colorado for the 33rd Annual Telluride Film Festival which gave their silver medals (for lifetime achievment essentially) to both Penelope Cruz and Rolf de Heer.  Penelope's tribute had lines around the theatre and had people turned away.  The one for Rolf was in a tiny venue (known as the Sheraton Opera House) that sat maybe 100 people. 

    The show wasn't sold out and we were led into the event by watching clips from Rolf's other films Bad Boy Bubby and a few others.  While they seemed very gritty and true, they also kind of turned me off of this man's work.  Though I do appreciate that he wanted to take a look at the love life/sexual desires of the developmentally challenged.  

    Long story longer, Ten Canoes was my favorite film of the fesitval, even going head-to-head with Pedro Almodovar's (my favorite living director) VolverIt is a fable about life, death and the constant desire to be older than you are ready to be.  The story is told by a narrator (David Gulpilil Ridjimiraril Dalaithngu, the aboriginal boy from Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout) and spans two seperate life cycles.  Not only is the tale inciteful but the real life canoe making is interesting to watch.

    Ten Canoes is the first film ever made to only be made in an aboriginal language which celebrates their heritage and culture, both which are dying.  The film is warm, funny and at times shocking.  These "uncivilized" people aren't much different from you, me or anyone else in your city.  They all want to love and be loved, they all have vices and they think farting is funny and in this film it very much is.

    The subtleties in the camera work (including, but limited to, the exact picture drawn on the chest of Minygululu [Peter Minygululu] the elder matches the area where his soul is deposited, waiting to be reincarnated).  The use of the same actor (Jamie Dayindi Gulpilil Dalaithngu) in two story lines infact shows that cyclical nature of their beliefs and other the film.  Also not to mention that he is the younger brother of the narrator who is telling the story of "his ancestors."

    This film is an incredible oppertunity to see into a culture that most of us will never have a chance to witness.  This film would make an incredible double-feature with the previously mentioned Walkabout (or The Tracker) if anyone is interested in a wholely Australian experience.

    This film may not have the complexity and depth of Walkabout but it shines in other ways and is very much worth a viewing.

    I have absolutely no reservations about giving this film 5 stars.


  • All about my Mother

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

    Pedro Almodovar’s All About My Mother finds many of its characteristics steeped in classic melodramatic themes.  The effects of love and death are felt throughout the film. 

    The entire beginning is a reflection of the entire beginning, if that makes any sense.  We see Manuela (Cecilia Roth) through the eyes of Esteban II (Eloy Azorin).  His perception of her is one that is very high, and his only real regret in life is that he does not know his father.  That’s an all together different heartbreaking moment.  We also get hints as to Manuela’s acting career, and her career as a nurse.  Almodovar almost mocks us by having her act in a scene that she will later experience in her own life. 

    The theatre and Streetcar specifically are very important to the story.  The theatre seems to represent a past life.  Manuela met Esteban-Lola in Streetcar, who brings life to two of the most important people in her life, but also brings death in at least one person whom Manuela cares very much for, Sister Rosa.  Streetcar represents two important melodramatic motifs.  Compassion, or a bond of solidarity, is best echoed when Blanche’s character says, “I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.”  The forceful illustration of sexual exploration are closely related to desire, the other important motif conveyed to us through the movie.

    Sister Rosa (Penélope Cruz), a nun, was impregnated by Esteban-Lola (Toni Cantó).  This child of theirs because Esteban III and became Manuela’s second chance at being a mother, although she has been a mother figure to everyone in the film.  Esteban III is known as “the miracle child” because of the impractically of the couple and because he looks to have beaten AIDS.  That starkly contrasts how Manuela views Esteban III’s father.  She says to him, “You are not a human being Lola, you are an epidemic.” 

    Esteban-Lola only comes into the our view because he wants to witness the death he has caused by spreading AIDS.  At Rosa’s funeral is where the above quote happened and is the first time Manuela and Lola have seen each other since she left him before she had his son, 17 years earlier.  It is only now that he finds out that he had a son that he never knew, it got worse because he found out he was already dead. 

    This film sticks with Almodovar's views of strong women characters and of the discarded, marginal people and the non-traditional family.  The strongest advocate for all of these motifs would be the character of Agrado (Antonia San Juan) a transexual.  At one point she goes through all of the surgeries she has had to become "authentic" which is a throw back to an actual event that happened in South America. 

    The film is full of strong messages and deep meaning.  There is a good chance that if you haven't seen the film the above statements and assessments make no sense to you.  Either way, if you love cinema you need to familarize yourself with his work.  All about my Mother was my first exposure to him and it is a stand alone film that makes a lot of sense and gives you a reason to go back and celebrate the rest of his contributions to film.

    Definately one of my favorite films of all time.


  • 3:10 to Yuma

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

    3:10 to Yuma  (2007)

    3:10 to Yuma

    Unforgiven and Open Range have found success recently but in comparison to the rate at which they were pumped out during the days of John Wayne the western genre is on the down swing of its popularity.  The morals behind the tales are still relevant the same way the Aesop's fables are but I believe that people are more interested in comedies or the more futuristic gadget based movies such as Bond where technology is the star more so than the story.

    3:10 to Yuma is a strong story about redemption, validation and respect.  Dan Evans (Christian Bale) plays a struggling rancher who is experiencing tough times from his land and his family.  His son idolizes bandit Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) who is captured by the determined local sheriff.  Capturing Wade brings on its own set of problems that lead to Evans being signed up to help deliver him to the 3:10 train to Yuma in the next city.  Of course Wade's gang, led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), will at nothing to free him.

    Where the film succeeds is in its storyline, the acting and the unique set design which emphasizes the ticking clock of having to get Wade to the train at the designated time.  The half-built city set design is one-of-a-kind and lends itself well to a well orchestrated chase leading to the finale.

    Both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale do superb jobs in their roles but they are far from the only big name actors involved in this project.  Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol and Luke Wilson also have important parts but in the end it is Bale who outshines the rest of the cast.  His confidence and vulnerability play well off each other leading to a startling reveal that makes him need to deliver Wade for more than just the money alone.  Foster's arrogant approach to playing Charlie Prince provides comic relief and helps the pacing of the film.  Charlie Price is a guy you want to watch even though you despise him.

    This film should do well come Oscar nomination time.  Bale should be nominated, Crowe could be (although there are probably stronger performances elsewhere) but also the Soundtrack (when it is there) is good and the set design is fantastic.

    I would recommend most people see this film, even if you aren't a huge western buff.  I wouldn't say I even enjoy most westerns but this is just a good story.


  • Clean

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

    Clean  (2004)

    Maggie Cheung, best known for her roles in multiple Wong Kar Wai films, stars as Emily Wang a drug addict in her ex-husband, Olivier Assayas' film Clean.  Emily is the mother of burnt out rocker Lee Hauser's (James Johnston) child Jay and bad influence on Lee's life.  All of his aquaintences tell him to drop her and focus on getting his music and his life back together.  He overdoses and she is put in the middle of the investigation.  She denies supplying him with the lethal drugs and pleads guilty to possession.  After serving 6 months in jail she tries to get clean and get her child back, who is being looked after by Lee's parents Abbie and Albrecht (Nick Nolte) that have custody of Jay.

    The film is very much about the title, getting clean, and strong hold drugs can have on people even if they very much want to get off of it.  Ultimately it is Emily's desire to reconnect with her son, who doesn't want to be apart of her life, that makes her "come clean."  She uses a moment of confession by explaining to her 4 year old son what drugs can do to people and how they aren't as simple as people think.  She also confides in him that she did supply the drugs (something we never officially see, but are led to believe anyway throughout the film.)

    The best part of this film was Maggie Cheung's performance for which she was awarded at Cannes.  She is very convincing as a down and out former celebrity who is just trying to reestablish her life.  She hates her "jobs" and wants to get back into the limelight through television or through music.  Her real addiction in life is fame and while she never quite beats that I don't know that I felt she needed to.  She was also addicted to her son, but that could be a very positive influence on a woman who has been pegged as negative for her entire life.

    Nick Nolte's portrayal as a concerned father having to face the death of the two most important people in his life is very powerful.  He doesn't want to see Emily Yang throw her life or her son's (his grandson) life away.  This film would only be a shell of what it is without Nolte's compassion and realistic take on Albrecht.

    Overall the film is solid.  Made for nothing this film looks big budget and very authentic.  I give a lot of credit to the director and crew for making quality.  Usually small budget films try to come away with a unique potent message or a shocking twist but this film comes up short.  While the message is there, it feels more like a Public Service Announcement, or an after-school special.  I am waiting the entire time for Emily to turn to the camera and say, "Family, My Anti-Drug."

    Again, solid film, but not a great film and certainly nothing that everyone should see.  If you like Maggie Cheung then her performance is very convincing and the fact that this was the first film made with her ex-husband after divorce makes this one of those films that "cinephiles" should see.


  • 13 Tzameti

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

    13 Tzameti  (2006)

    13 Tzameti is a French language film written by Géla Babluani, a Georgian.  The film focuses on a poor 22-year old roofer who stumbles on a secretive underground world of russian roulette after finding a letter sent to his boss who overdoses.  He takes a train ticket and is led into a gritty and disturbing world of gambling.  

    The camerawork and the choice of black and white (rather than color) lends itself to the gritty look and the noir look and feel of so much death. 

    My main issue with this film is that I am unsure what it is about.  There seems to be no subversively underlying message other than money seems to dictate these characters' lives.  Many characters are doing this to support their families in some way.  Ultimately all of them are willing to give their lives to help their kin in tough times.  The motif of the bored rich versus the needy poor is a fairly obvious one and reminds me of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Pigsty but more about his other (more infamous) film Salo but minus the crazy sexual influences.

    Sébastien (George Babluani, the director's brother) reacts to events rather that causes them to happen.  Reacting is the first thing a screenwriter will tell you to make a character feel passive and remove him from the audience.  It feels like he is just along for the ride, which in this case is probably appropriate.  Thoughout the film I felt like I was more interested in the game happening than what was going to happen to any of the characters.

    The idea of the movie could be a good one, and talks of there being an American remake give me some hope that a few things can be improved, but I have yet to see a remake (let along a Hollywood one) that is better than the original.  Even if the original writer/director is making it.  The new one looks to be in color which I am not sure is the best decision for a film noir film.

    I think the film is worth seeing and maybe is the type of movie you need to watch multiple times to fully understand but I am not so sure of that.  There didn't seem to be much lurking under the surface but it is an interesting and unique 90 minutes that I am okay with giving up.  It is certainly watchable, but I expected more from a film with so much praise from festival plastered all over its cover.


  • See Once, Twice

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

    Once  (2007)

    This summer’s box-office has been dominated by the high adrenaline action films and junior high level comedies yet the best film I have seen all year goes completely unnoticed.  Once, written and directed by John Carney, is a brilliant Irish film (no worries, no subtitles, they speak English there) about two struggling folk singers who find inspiration, truth, and strength from their relationship.  

    Shot with very little money for a film ($160,000) and largely without permits the film takes a slice of life and radiates hope.  The crossing of these two characters changes both of their lives do a degree that is virtually immeasurable.  They each have past relationships that have their claws firmly entrenched in their lives.  Both characters also have family that they live with who require different amount of need from them.  Their time together is their escape and their time to find themselves and create music.

    All the music in the film is diagetic which means it happens on the screen rather than having a John Williams score being piped in and recorded elsewhere.  By that definition the film is considered a musical but it is very different than recently released Hollywood movies such as Dreamgirls or Chicago.  None of the musical “sequences” involve large productions or dance numbers as seen in Astaire-Rodgers films or the famous Busby-Berkley pan back kaleidoscope shots. 

     

    The music simply happens on a street corner as the lead male character (credited as “Guy” played by Glen Hansgard) sings with his acoustic guitar trying to make a living, or in a music store while the lead female character (credit as “Girl” played by Markéta Irglová) plays a piano during her lunch break.  The singing is infused with passion.  This film has the best soundtrack I have heard since the Coen brothers’ O Brother!  Where Art Thou?  The song “Falling Slowly” performed by the pair in the music store is a lock for an Academy Award nomination for best song.

    I would strongly recommend that everyone go and see this film.  It won’t be in theatres long but after its strong showing at Cannes and positive reviews it is in many local megaplexes and should be supported as one of the most inspirational films to come along in a while.


  • Who's Camus Anyway?

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Touch of Evil  (1958)

    Day for Night  (1973)

    Directed by Mitsuo Yanagimachi.
    Director Mitsuo Yanagimachi creates a gripping atmosphere in an ensamble character study about filmmaking.  This film rotates around life experiences that the cast and the characters each engulf themselves in.  The basis of the film the students are making, The Bored Murderer, is about a Junior High student who kills to see how it feels.  The storyline of that film echoes a number of plotlines used throughout the actual film.  Students are stalked by girlfriends and professors, while others commit borderline adultry and later feel guilty about it.

    The best aspects of this film are the acting, which is great, and the cinematography which is even better.  The opening shot not only draws comparrison to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil via the dialogue but also through the long strolling shot that takes us all across the campus and even through the traditional and modern Japanese culture.

    The cross-cutting between the student's film and the actual film creates a very tense ending.  It grabs the viewer and makes us unsure what we are watching.  For those who have never been on a set it is an unique chance to see how a film is made and what the outcome looks like. 

    The depth of the characters and their continuing evolution through the script mirrors the chance in young adults and in actors.  Like the ending, the film blurs the line the entire time between acting for The Bored Murderer and acting in Who's Camus Anyway?  We learn what this kids are about through the difficulties they endure during the shooting of their student project.  It's very much like Truffaut's Day for Night which was the first mockumentary that Rob Reiner and Christopher Guest later popularized with their brand of tongue in cheek humor.

    I enjoyed the references to La Nouvelle Vague directors (Godard, Truffaut, etc.) and other important films.  There are also mentions of crucial authors and literature.  This film really hits on many levels and I think it is one of the best mocku-drama's I have ever seen.  It blurs the edges so it blends together properly. 

    Definately a winning film.

  • Bourne Again

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

    Paul Greengrass (director of Bloody Sunday, United 93, etc.) is back for his second shot at the Bourne franchise.  Greengrass is largely known for his cinema vérité shooting style that involves shaky documentary style hand-cams that help provide realism.  By bringing this style that into The Bourne Ultimatum he keeps the action fresh and up-tempo, even if it makes it difficult to follow at times. 

    As usual, the fight and chase scenes are the best parts of the Bourne franchise.  I haven’t seen this much adrenaline on the screen since the opening foot chase sequence in Casino Royale, except this movie keeps that pace up for most of it.  While the action is exaggerated it makes for a top-notch thrill ride. 

    Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is a former government assassin who has a case of amnesia.  He searches for answers to his past and to find the people who have made him into this killing machine.  Ultimatum fills in many of the holes that Identity and Supremacy left open.  The plot smoothly connects Bourne’s previous memories and the action sequences.  You are never looking at your watch (or gasp, cell phone, turn them off!) during the 111 minutes. 

    Bourne Ultimatum capitalizes on the summer movie action genre and appeals to our sense of curiosity about what Uncle Sam is doing.  In these times of lack of trust in our own government and belief that security and surveillance are become the hot buzz words that allow our elected and non-elected officials to make decisions beyond recourse, the Bourne story hits on a nerve of corruption and compassion for America.  Any form of art is a mirror of the times, movies may be one of the best examples of this.    

    The acting, save Joan Allen, is pretty good for a film that doesn’t require much.  The camera work and fast editing puts you right into the shoes of the Jason Bourne and keeps your heart racing.   

    A must-see for fans of the series.  If you aren’t up to date, no fret, cable stations are running the first two, or else they are available at your local video store.  You really should watch the first two before going into the third one or much of the storyline will go over your head. 


  • Wondrous Oblivion

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

    Wondrous Oblivion (Paul Morrison) is a warm and funny tale of prospering maturity.  When the Samuels, an astranged Jamaican family, move in to a predominantly white working-class neighborhood sides are quickly taken and the Wiseman's - the once ignored and maligned Jewish family - are caught in the middle.  Knowing what it feels like to be the odd family they are initially shocked but come to terms with their friendly neighbors.

    The youngest Wiseman, David (Sam Smith), has a passion for cricket and the Samuels come from a family tree, and an island full, of cricket players.  Their first task is to measure out and set up a cricket pitch.  The father Dennis (Delroy Lindo) and daughter Judy (Leonie Elliott) take him from cricket score keeper to superstar because of his openess towards them.

    David's own parents Ruth (Emily Woof) and Victor (Stanley Townsend) struggle with their son's acceptance of the Samuels and the neighborhood who wants them to push the unwelcomed vistors out.  Victor is hardly home, barely knowing anything of his son's interests and work ethic while his wife only knows a life of taking care of the family and little of what being a developed adult is about.

    Throughout the film many people's lives are transformed by the Samuels.  Passion, family, womanhood, understanding and kindness are all traits that the Wiseman's and the rest of the neighborhood will learn and embrace.  The line, "you can't miss what you don't have" is echoed through this film and it is certainly the backbone to the story.  Virtually everyone benefits from the family joining their community even if they are slow to react to it in the first place.

    Strong performances by the entire cast as well as an engaging soundtrack and great dialogue keep this film moving along.  If for nothing else this film is worth watching to better understand how cricket is played.  Trust me, it only takes one argument at the local bar for that bit of work to pay off.

    I would recommend this film to anyone.  The characters' own personal obliviousness is something to see and analyze which might also help us open our own thoughts about the changing world around us. 


  • Colonialization and Madame Butterfly

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

    Madame Butterfly  (1995)

    While traditionally Cinema and Opera are seen as two completely separate medias, Madame Butterfly superbly transcends conventional thinking and delivers a work of art pleasing to the eye, the ear and the heart.  It is only fitting that Madame Butterfly returns to its Melodramatic roots that were common during the 16th-18th centuries as a spectacular staging of the struggle between love and death, the Opera. 

                An innocent girl, Cio-Cio San, is leased by an American Captain and emerges from her cocoon to become Madame Butterfly personal trophy.  Captain Pinkerton uses her, leaves her and inevitably kills her, although the death could have been looked at as a release from the death she had been living after Pinkerton left. 

    Not even the bond between two people who have a child together could keep this marriage together.  Even when she has chances to get out and move on, she refuses.  She cries out, to anyone who will listen, that she is American and that she has not been betrayed.  The truly sad part is she is the only person who doesn’t realize the position she is in.

    This movie best portrays what could happen if you use people and discard them like they don’t have feelings.  I am sure almost everyone can be empathetic towards Butterfly if even in some remote way.  You can’t be a complete person without having lost something or someone along the way, and that’s how she felt, but she would rather have not gone on than to live a life in shame and embarrassment.  She had to regain her family’s honor, or that’s likely how she saw it.  Clashes of cultures are potential breeding grounds for Melodramatic moments.

    Butterfly was devoted to Pinkerton’s whole life.  At the first chance she gave up her family, he country and her religion for her new American husband, but when she didn’t have him she fell back to her culture’s practices and what she was brought up on.  It’s too bad she didn’t turn back to her Japanese culture any sooner than the very end for her.

                It was until that time that he had his power over her.  She was living under his thumb because of the money he provided for her to live in that house.  He portrayed a stereotypical male using money and power for a sexual relationship.  Once he was done with the intimacy he was done with her.  He essentially polluted the beautiful scenery by throwing her away like garbage. 

                It was the scenery that caught my eye.  The whole story unfolds at the same place, which just gives us a better perspective of the one person (Butterfly) who we are studying.  It’s her entire world, so it should be ours too.  We are not able to cheat like in other films and know what is happening with the other side of the story so we are left completely vulnerable to all the actions that lead to Butterfly’s demise.

                We are lead to believe since the beginning that these two will not end up together, but even for the audience the prospect of Pinkerton returning to their home brings in further hope that it might end up on a positive note.  It’s unfortunate that it’s nothing more than an additional tug at the heartstrings before finally cutting the cord and letting it all unwind.

                The occasional glimmer of hope and happiness was the only thing to separate the cruelty of the universe that Butterfly lived in.  The ship came in, we felt like things might get better.  Could a reunion be in the works for this couple?  Well, if not that, surely a son would change things, right?  Guess not, and by the end we could see that in the climate change.

                The universe that Butterfly lived in was her house.  That was her entire existence, her reason for living.  It was great to leave us only there for the entire film.  When everything went dark, and became stormy, we knew the relationship was over, and so was Butterfly, or Mrs. Pinkerton, I am not quite sure who she was at that point.  Cio-Cio perhaps? 

                The death of Mrs. Pinkerton symbolically, the taking of her son and the new wife, left the protagonist to return to the only thing she knew anymore.  She reverted back to Cio-Cio and knew she had done nothing other than tarnish the family’s name, so she commits hari-kari to restore that honor.  The colonizer came in and violated the surroundings and left it in worse condition that it began, hmm, sound familiar?

  • Cockaboody

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

    Cockaboody couldn't be simpler in concept.  Co-creators John and Faith Hubley recorded their two daughters having a bedtime conversation.  They then illustrated eight minutes of the conversation with under lit sepia-wash drawings.  We see the two little girls, but they have become shape-changers.  The Hubley’s use many creative ideas in order to illustrate their children’s thoughts.

    This short was made by the Hubleys using a technique they used a number of times -- taping a more-or-less free form conversation, usually between two of their children to form the soundtrack and then animating around the conversation. They won an Oscar in 1959 using this technique with Moonbird. 

    Films such as Moonbird, Cockaboody and Everybody Rides the Carousel re-defined prior notions of animation in their break from Disney literalism and linearity and in their exploration of animation's potential to communicate serious ideas and confront crucial social issues through the use of innovative graphics and improvisational soundtracks.

    Their pioneering use of jazz served as an aural equivalent to their alternative graphics and critical content and speaks directly to their commitment to diversity. The Hubleys worked with some of the greatest composers and musicians in the history of Jazz, the American contribution to music, including Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald and Quincy Jones.  When Cockaboody was finished in 1974, they had definitely refined their technique.

    In Cockaboody, Emily, the older sister, says sagely of grownups, "They laugh and laugh and laugh until they stop laughing and they cry. And then it starts all over again. Laughing crying, laughing crying, laughing crying." The films of the Hubley Studio open a new window on a whole galaxy of human intelligence and emotion: laughing-crying, feeling-thinking, being-doing.

    During the film Emily grows taller and shorter, depending on what she's saying.  Her body size seems to be attributed to how she feels about what she is saying, whether or not she is whole heartedly believing in it or not.  Putting her in her father’s shoes and walking around the room makes us remember that we are just watching kids at play, no matter how grown up either of them are pretending to be.  Georgia still got very upset and threw a fit.           

    When Georgia screeches, her Inner Screech Cat fills her chest and jumps right out of her mouth.  The green cat puts a tangible quality on a feeling and makes it easier for us to see the despair in Emily’s eyes after she had just made her sister upset and forced the cat out of the bag so to speak.A mop smiles and weeps.  Used as a prop in the bathroom but is almost used as a 3rd character in the scene.  Emily’s mannerisms closely mirror that of the mop she is holding who is supposed to be a representation of a significant other.  This is an echo of the earlier question “Georgie, are you going to get married?” that Emily asks her sister.  Not only is marriage already on this young girl’s mind, but also her parents much have thought about it to include it in the visual part of the short.

    Faith Hubley is in this film as well.  She has the small, non-vocal role of sitting on the couch in the living room and looking surprised and dumbfounded.  I found her lack of vocals to be very crucial because she doesn’t attempt to interrupt the children at play, which is something that Faith and John must have had to do often to manage such high quality recordings of their daughters.  It’s almost like because she had no input on what they were saying originally so she should show no input on what the kids do in the animation.

    The Hubley’s have worked with dialogue that was improvised (The Hat) or even recorded without the speakers' knowledge (Moonbird).  This procedure is questionable, because it reduces the director's control over his cartoon, and especially its timing. Dialogue is often times a straitjacket for a cartoon director, even when the director has written it; when he surrenders that responsibility to someone else, he is tightening the straps.

    Allowing two small children to dictate how a line comes off requires a lot of faith in your ability to make it work.  Editing can help this somewhat, but there are so many ways to make something tough to animate.  Were they not clear enough in all the words?  Can an animation be set to what was said?  Is there even a story there?  The upside to taping conversations is that you aren’t asking for genuine emotion, you are getting it.  You can’t write ideas or stories that come out of a 5-year-old’s mind or understand it because we simply are not that age anymore.  It comes to you raw and if you have the ability to handle it and craft it in such a way where it works, you can have a great piece of animation on your hands.


  • One of my favorites

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

    Walkabout  (1971)

    Walkabout 

                If Dr. Emmett Brown slid his DeLorean into my driveway and said, “Grab your duffle bag Marty, we’re going back… to the future” I would first tell him my name is not Marty, and then I would grab Nicolas Roeg’s masterpiece Walkabout, pull down the passenger door, buckle up and prepare to be dazzled by the wonderment that the future holds.

                My vision of the future has the Internet as the main pipeline that feeds world information from all corners to all corners.  Some cultures will get trampled and possibly even forgotten in the shuffle.  Not only is Walkabout an incredible movie technically speaking but it also tells the story of maturity and warns against globalizing culture.

                The driving essence in Walkabout is the rite of passage.  For the three main characters the survival of the outback is their survival from childhood.  The Black boy (actual character name, I am not racist, played by David Gulpilil) is the guide for the white children, but in the end, the British colonials destroy the life of the aboriginal people.  The use of Aboriginal people to mass produce sacred artifacts for market perfectly illustrates the way the British view the culture of the Aborigines.  It’s quaint, it is something to take home and put on their mantle, like a trophy.

                Roeg does an incredible job showing the hypocrisy of the British family.  In the opening of the film we see the two children swimming in a pool not 10 feet from the ocean.  The father, a geologist, reads books about the outback from the inside of his car, which is parked in the outback.  Roeg does an incredible job by subtly implementing examples to support the overall theme of the film.  That is exactly why I feel this film is art.

                Roeg combines a socially conscious message with incredible aesthetics.  That is my passion in art.  Striving for equality and humanistic values for everyone is something I strongly associate with.  Visually Roeg is able to create a world of fantasy by emphasizing the creatures that inhabit the outback. 

                By contrasting the images of the sterile city and the rich natural landscape Nicolas Roeg is able to show that savagery is in the eye of the beholder.  You are forced to ask yourself if the fences and walls are keeping the barbarians out or locked in?  The aboriginals are only shown to kill what they need and to be peaceful people, while the only images of British people are destructive or corrupt forces, except for the little white boy.  He might be Roeg’s hope for a future of cultural awareness as he is able to communicate with the aboriginal boy.

                Ultimately it is lack of communication between the white girl and the aboriginal boy that destroys lives and leaves dreams unfulfilled.  She does not understand his attempt to win her over.  It is only years later after she is assimilated in her mother’s image as a housewife that she realizes what she lost in the outback.

                Even though they cannot speak to each other the aboriginal boy tries to take the white girl to some drawings on a wall in order to bridge the communication gap.  In cultures with no written language, or little to no literacy, drawings and painting are used to tell stories. 

  • Bay and Company deliver a high energy action film *shock*

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

    Transformers  (2007)

    Michael Bay’s Transformers satisfies the summer-action-movie-fan in me as well as any film I have seen this year.  While the overly simplistic and predictable storyline means there isn’t much that is “more than meets the eye” (sorry, I was contractually obligated to mention that) the top notch special effects provided by George Lucas’ ILM more than make up for it. 

    Earth’s survival hangs in the balance as the Autobots and the Decepticons both come from Cybertron looking for the All Spark – a cube that turns electronic gadgets into battle ready robots.  The humans are basically powerless to stop the advanced life forms.   

    The responsibility of saving the planet falls to Sam Witwicky (a convincing performance by Shia LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox), two kids dealing with their own struggles in very different ways.  His family has money but he isn’t accepted by his peers while she has her own family problems but has a lot friends.  I don’t think we need a score by John Williams to figure out where that pairing is headed.   

    Transformers is an action film on the surface but laced with subtle references and pop-humor it has a strong comedic presence.  Bobby Bolivia (Bernie Mac) has a very memorable scene as the owner of a used car lot.  Bumblebee, the Chevy Camaro, pulls up next to a yellow VW Bug and proceeds to prove why he is the better choice for Sam.  If you don’t get the reference, don’t worry, it’s still funny.   

    Ultimately the biggest issue in the film is the same problem I had with Spider-Man 3.  Is it possible to have a scene in a film that isn’t drowning in flesh?  I imagine that the female characters would be taken much more seriously if they weren’t trying to save the world in mini-skirts.  It’s just like why Ginger Rogers gets no love compared to Fred Astaire even though she did everything he did but backwards and in high heels as the popular bumpsticker suggests.   

    Don’t get me wrong, there are moments when the women do provide insight that the men couldn’t come up with and help further the story, but it still seems like they were used more as additional eye-candy rather than full fledged characters.  Hello, we already have 50 foot robots that are difficult enough to follow during the action scenes.  I would really appreciate a dose of reality in an action film now and again, but such is life. 

    Going in I had higher-than-average expectations for the movie, not so much as a life changing film with boat loads of deep subversive meaning but rather a high adrenaline non-stop action film, and I got exactly that.  If you want a 2 1/2 hour thrill ride then Transformers will deliver for you.  If you plan on seeing this movie do yourself a favor and see it in the theatre as it would be underwhelming on the small screen. 

    *** (3 Stars out of 4)


  • A Chaplin Masterpiece

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

    City Lights  (1931)

    The Gold Rush  (1925)

    The Kid  (1921)

    Modern Times  (1936)

    City Lights is a light hearted comedy on the surface and a much more subtle melodrama at it's core.  His pioneering social commentary is common place in all Chaplin films, especially The Great Dictator and The Kid.  This film is so obviously a political movie that it opens on a statue representing justice outside of the local courthouse as it is being revealed for the first time.

    The message of the lower class being forgettable and disposable is repeateded throughout the film but most powerfully at the very end of the film.  The Blind Girl is back from Brazil for her surgery and the Tramp is out of prison, but ultimately she is unable to accept him and only placate him with a smile as he eagerly collects any attention she is willing to pay him.

    Chaplin the first champion of the downtrodden and he inspired Pasolini, DaSica, Almodovar and countless others. 

    Overall the film is impecably put together - everything works.  The quirky coincedences lead our hero into situations which are funny, entertaining and yet still put forth a much more sophisticated tale.

    If you haven't yet done yourself the service of watching a Chaplin film this one would be a great one to start on.  Infact I am a believer that all Chaplin films are worthy of starting on as The Gold Rush and Modern Times are just as good (if not better) as any of the other ones I have listed already.

    He truly is a genius and this is one of his best films, which is tough because they are all really good. 

    75 years later and he is still timeless and as good as anyone else.


  • A Return to Pedro's Roots

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

    Volver  (2006)

    Unlike other European cinemas, Spanish cinema hasn’t had a major influence on the American audience because of Spain’s directors getting limited exposure in America, until very recently (Last Sunday at the Oscar's recent).  Under the positive influence and recognition of Pedro Almodovar, Spanish cinema is now a normally developed cinematic European Nation. 

    Despite his initial reputation of promoting outrageous and shocking cinema he has become known as an auteur that also has a very sensitive side to his work.  He is an iconic reference to his country and the main director in a nation with a limited background in freedom of context of their films.  He is the most celebrated and respected of any director in gay cinema.   

    His growing up in a humble and traditional family, mixed with his flamboyant life style he lived while in Madrid, his double life of postal worker by day and cross dressing stage presence at night, mirrors the duality found in all of his characters.  While they might appear very normal or very extravagant they are always both at heart. 

    Almodovar’s decadence is often a disguise for his sentimental and traditional humanist values.  Love and acceptance are very important to all characters and their ability to procure happiness.  Humor is another very important element to Pedro’s films as it can transcend a lot of taboos and subversive behavior. 

    The apparent subversive nature of Almodovar’s films are primarily an exercise in freedom of speech.  He feels like it is his duty to help erase the 30 years of repression brought on by Franco’s dictatorship.  His films tell a side of a life a lot of us may not be aware of.  Much like Truffaut, Almodovar celebrates the majesty of women which is a main focal point in almost all of their films. 

    Volver opens as Raimunda (Penélope Cruz, Pedro’s 3rd and current muse), her younger sister, Sole (Lola Dueñas), and other women in the village are cleaning and maintaining tombstones.  Raimunda’s mother Irene (Carmen Maura, Pedro’s 2nd muse) and father both died 14 years earlier in a fire that engulfed the village they lived in. The events of the fire are only gradually revealed but are central to the story.   

    Raimunda, a janitor, moved to Madrid and started a family with her husband Paco.  Her teenage daughter Paula (Yohana Cobo) defends herself from Paco’s advancements after finding out she isn’t his daughter.  Raimunda puts it all on her shoulders and hides the truth from everyone. 

    While returning to La Mancha, because of the death of Raimunda and Sole’s aunt Paula (Chus Lampreave), they learn that the village, and specifically the neighbor Augustina a long time friend of Raimunda, has been seeing visions of their mother Irene for years.  Paula’s house is much better kept than someone in her condition could have done alone, and on top of that the women believe the place smells like their mother’s farts.  No Lie.   

    Thematically the film focuses on return, both in the sightings of her dead mother Irene and the return of Pedro to his roots.  He was born in La Mancha.  This is important because as you follow Pedro’s career you notice that he makes films about the areas in which he lived and the experiences he has had.  His first film Labyrinth of Passions, shot on Super 8, was a snap shot of “La Movida” movement he was apart of in Madrid.  In this case, Volver celebrates his mother and her death.  Almodóvar says of the story that “it is precisely about death...More than about death itself, the screenplay talks about the rich culture that surrounds death in the region of La Mancha, where [he] was born. It is about the way (not tragic at all) in which various female characters, of different generations, deal with this culture.” 

    Pedro's films have come a long way from dealing with nymphos and drug addicts.  While hardly anyone in Volver is a perfect character they all exhibit the traditional Pedro style.  They may have a dark side, but overall they are characters who seek out love and wish to be loved.  This film ultimately feels like a response to his earlier film High Heels in which a woman is abandoned by her mother and she yearns for that pressence in her life. 

    Where this film abandons some of Pedro’s transgender traits, it wholeheartedly embraces his stance that art (novels, film, music, etc.) is a source of resurrection.  In all of his other films there is a tie in to art that keeps the main character sane or offers them a way out.  In Volver it is the film crew who stops by the restaruante, where Raimunda is temporarily keeping her dead husband’s body, that need a place to eat and relax during the shooting of their movie.  She is able to break free from her confines as a janitor and finds a new way to develop into a mother who can do what her mother couldn’t do for her.  Take care of her daughter when she is in trouble.  Raimunda is able to fogive her mother and allow the family to reconnect.  The new untraditional family that emerges is not only much stronger and closer than any family they have previously known, but is also one made up completely of women.


  • Y Tu Mama es Infértil

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

    Children of Men  (2006)

    Alfonso Cuarón (Y Tu Mama Tambien) takes the current political climate and makes a potentially realistic jump 20 years into the future by adapting the 1992 novel of the same name.  In Children of Men every major city and nation, save England, has fallen into nuclear winter.  On top of that reproduction has become a myth, something that has become as distant as Homer's epics.  The government, even if its intentions were noble to begin with, has begun corralling "Fugees" (not Praz, Lauren Hill or Wyclef as they are now solo artists) into concentration camps for deportation.

    As one young female "fugee", Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), becomes pregnant she quickly becomes the potential answer to the riddle of why this happened.  Her journey to meet the fable/potentially fabricated "Human Project" (not to be confused with the Human Genome Project, it is the greatest minds on the planet working towards a new civilization) is accompanied by Theo (Clive Owen) who hasn't been able to get over the death of his own son Dylan who's mother is the leader of Le Resistance, Julian (Julianne Moore) who went the Who's the Boss/Tony Danza route and kept her own name for the character.  I hate when that happens.

    The film succeeds in perhaps being the most realistic look into the future I have ever seen on celluloid.  Not much has changed in 20 years aesthetically aside of the flat panel monitors and "Homeland Security" tags everywhere.  The plot twists are fairly obvious but the action is gritty and true to life, at least from the point of view of someone who has never seen legitimate combat. 

    Perhaps the most striking part of the film is that they offer no real explanation as for why the world has suddenly gone barren.  There are newspapers everywhere, almost like 21st century wallpaper, talking about the nuclear weapons that were detonated.  Also we have religious fanatics claiming that because the world lived so wrong that God has taken away the ability.  So was it the Uranium or Devine Will that will be the end of humanity?  That’s the beauty, you can believe either.  Your personal beliefs entering the film will not get in your way of being encompassed in the film.  Some may call it a weakness but honestly if we knew what the cause was, don't you think there would be a potential solution on the horizon?  That is what makes Kee's child so crucial to humanity.  For some reason she is able to have children, but why?

    We left the film and all we could talk about was how gripping and powerful the movie was.  From the second it began I was drawn into it wanting to learn about this future society.  A place where the government cannot be trusted, a place no one can be trusted.  This isn't so much a "government bad" film as it is a cautionary tale of what could come if we aren't responsible with our world and the people in it.  This is best illustrated by the British who want to prevent outsiders from coming in and reeking havoc on their country.  By trying to shut out the "Fugees" they shut out their chance of survival.  They don't trust the government because the government doesn't trust them.  Apparently salvation is a two-way street.

    By replacing hope with sheer chaos Cuaron was able to bring to us a result that is very powerful.  This is far scarier than any slasher/thriller film I have seen and much more poignant than Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.  The Cinéma vérité style of shooting towards the end of the film really places the audience knee deep in the battlefield.  I have never been one to like the sound of a child crying, but I tell you, when that baby silences everything, for that moment it was like it was music to my ears.

    On top of how compelling I believe the story and camera work to be, the acting was even better.  Top-to-bottom the cast was convincing, but Michael Caine (Jasper) as the secluded, smart-mouthed, pot-smoking hippie (as if there are other kinds of hippies) stole the show for me.  He is in all of maybe 10 minutes of the entire film but does so with great humor and humility.  His character is the example of how people should treat each other: with respect and dignity. 

    I've been suggesting to everyone I know that they should see this movie.  It is the rare film that both gets your heart pounding from suspense and aching because you strongly hope that they can accomplish their mission and in fact save the world.

    Now if only there was a cheerleader to save...

  • Catherine et Jules et Jim

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

    Jules and Jim  (1962)

    Truffaut finds the perfect canvas to unite two of his favorite motifs; impossible, destructive, absolute love and the love for art.  Art provides the chance for survival.  He said, “Usually it’s literature that saves film, but here it is film that saved a great piece of literature.”  It’s a unique achievement as normally books are only made into films if they already have a solid fan base. 

    Jules et Jim features the first appearance to Jeanne Moreau (as Catherine).  She was in The 400 Blows but only in a small role, she lost a dog.  Catherine is an incredibly liberating expression of female’s sexual and intellectual freedom.  Truffaut uses love triangles in many if not all of his films.  The end of his films focuses on the left over member of the triangle, the survivor.  Bernadette in Les Mistons, Antoine Doinel in The 400 Blows, Charlie in Shoot the Piano Player, and Jules, all offer their gaze to us and an ambiguous mix of solitude, and freedom.  This is just part of what constitutes Truffaut as an auteur.

    The title leaves out Catherine, the major force of the film.  After this film, the actress Jean Moreau will become a huge star.  Her character will shock the audience for many generations.  She was viewed as amoral, unhealthy and disturbed, which is not how Truffaut sees her.  For Truffaut all of those feelings are equally attributable to love in his opinion.  The positive image of love and of the couple is delivered by Jules and Jim.  Their status as a couple is illustrated by the alliteration of their names creating a sense identity and unity.  They were made for each other.  They could finish each other’s sentences.  At the end of the film they voice over alludes to them as mythical literary characters.  They are compared to Don Quixote and Sancho Pansa.  That duo represents honor, chivalry, not unlike our couple, Jules and Jim.  They even physically compliment each other, one is tall, and one is short.  Jules has brown hair and is French; Jim has blond hair and is German.  World War I will be one of the only things that can separate them, but even during that they are concerned with the destructive of the other’s life partner.  Even Catherine isn’t success in separating them, she succeeded in creating tension, but basically they will live their love through the mediation of Catherine.

    Both male characters are the perfect mirror image of the other.  Their comparison to the mythical literary couple of two idealists lost in a world that will crush them makes perfect sense their deep connection and fascination for life and love comes from literature and art.  Both are writers, one is a journalist, one is a translator.  They each translate the others work. Catherine’s apparent selfishness and cruelty pays tribute to the fact that Jules and Jim are two manifestations of a similar soul.  Catherine loses her immoral values once we truly understand who she represents.  She represents a heroine, or a goddess.  Jules says, “she is unique, she is a queen, she is a Goddess, she is a force of nature.”  She separates Jules and Jim just like the war. 

    When she enters their lives the war starts illustrating her destructive nature.  She is the idealized incarnation of the absolute and unreasonable force of desire, passion and love.   She is in control of the relationships.She symbolically wins a race against them because she cheats, which is a perfect representation of how she is actually handling the two men.  There is constant manipulation that will unfold throughout the film.  This scene reinforces this.   The race happens on a bridge, which is a universal symbol for change.  It clearly foreshadows the end where a bridge is also the place where the race of their lives will end.  Catherine chooses Jules as the witness and Jim and her victim and her lover.  She chose him because he was the only to resist her power.  The last bridge scene is filmed as a ritualistic moment.  Catherine says, “watch us, Jules.”  The scene that follows seals the God-like nature of Catherine and the ritualistic essence of the trio’s relationship.  We have the rite of funeral where Jules pays the last tribute to the two people who represented kinship to him.  The voice over very cynically describes the rite of cremation.  The camera very coldly films the last rite of his two loves as almost a passionless documentary way.  It now seems as if Jules is now free of the bonds of the dual couple. 

    The ambiguous mix of pain and relief will be very similar to Truffaut’s other films.  This tragic moment is rendered in a rather distant way and celebrated by the ironic and pathetic echo of music at the very end.  The song is an illustration of her relationship and presence with each one of them.  It is a song Catherine hums in the middle of the movie.  The film opens with the voice of Catherine reciting a nursery rhyme.  “I told you I want you, you told me I love you, you told me please stay, I told you go away.”  This is obviously her feelings towards the relationships she has with both men during the film.  The camera passes from one face to another, illustrating the lyrics of his song, and finishes by engulfing all of the characters in one shot. 

    The experimental nature of Catherine’s belief in passion and desire is also matched by the camera of Francois Truffaut.  Both bridge scenes are filmed in a similar way.  We have a mix of fluidity with tracking shots and brutal cuts and pans.  The camera captures the crazed face of Catherine when she runs on the first bridge and when she rides to her death.  Both times she has an ecstatic look on her face.  The camera turns avant-garde in order to capture the trio’s daring experiment with love and life.  The use of still pictures enhances Catherine’s iconic statuesque imagery by suddenly freezing the image and immortalizing her presence.  She finally celebrates what both of the men have provided for her in her life; happiness and joy.  The voice over never gives us any dates as if time didn’t matter.  The constraints of the period piece give us some loose indication.  The first twenty minutes of the film develops the kinship of Jules and Jim. 

    Jules and Catherine had a child, Sabine.  So that means Jim and Catherine must have a child, too.  A few years after Jim leaves he comes back, and Catherine invites him to her room to start the cycle over again.  He refuses and she threatens him with a pistol.  Since they try unsuccessfully to create a child they must die together.  Because they cannot have this child, their love slowly dies.  At the chalet in the mountain a game of faces between the unconventional, happy family breaks out.  Sabine, Catherine, Jules and Jim are all there.  The voice over says “in the village they called us the cabin of the insane.”  Strangely, the daughter, Sabine is almost completely absent from the rest of the film.  After providing a mirage for a possible family life for Catherine and Jules the child disappears, even from Jules life.  The only instance where time is crucial is when Catherine is over an hour late to her meeting with Jim.  He was going to tell her not to marry Jules and that could have changed both of their lives forever, but instead she was late and he left.

    The destructive nature of Catherine’s love is illustrated very cleverly by Catherine becoming literally a force of nature during key moments of the film.  Time in the film will be a measure of the combustion of love, especially as the film ends with the ashes of the two lovers.  She has an uncanny connection with nature.  She decides when to live, when to come back to Paris.  Her moods are dependant on the weather.  She carries with her Sulfuric Acid, which is the perfect fusion of fire and water.  She uses it to burn out the eyes of men who lie. 

    This film is an ode to the irrational, destructive yet profound power of desire, passion, and impossible love from a mythical figure.  With this film Truffaut clearly installs one of his crucial obsessions, the fascinating dialogue between the forces of love and the forces of nature and death.


  • Performance Art and Structure

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

    Through the main female character Christine (Miranda July), contemporary art, for once, is presented in an approachable, humanistic, vulnerable, real way.  The film shows the itinerary of a young woman who will, at the end of the film, blossom into an artist.  Her art will be displayed at the center for contemporary art in her city.  It’s as if art may play a crucial role in social life.  Our hero becomes whole by attaining, at the same time, the status of lover and artist.

     

    Unlike other films Christine, who is also the director, presents a very nice mirror image of Miranda July’s life.  This supports the philosophy of art and love that the character displays.  Here the director and the character are one.  It unfolds as a giant performance art piece.  She is not presented as a diva or an unattainable goddess.  She is psychologically fragile and uncertain, while feeling attacked by self-doubt. 

     

    The art directly nourishes itself from this void.  Her art is recreates the presence of love through the connection of two lonely people into a couple.  The photos are often of people in an exotic landscape or somewhere in nature.  In this ideal setting our artist uses (in a poignant yet comic way) her voice to create a sense of communication, harmony, and dialogue between these people.

     

    The director also shows the importance of art being connected to real life.  Her art is a perfect illustration of her needs and quest in life; a soul mate, a lover, a sense of family.  The sense of family is tenderly illustrated by her real job of driving the Elder-cab.  It is not glamorous, but indeed noble as she drives the elderly around town and talks to them.  It’s a nice little tribute to a harsh reality in Hollywood.  Most of the time being an artist in an unattainable dream, and a real constraining job is the destiny for many struggling artists.

     

    Elder-cab is her company where she is a cab driver only for the elderly.  It shows a sense of compassion for people in this culture that tend to be marginalized and isolated.  She offers a sense of mobility, freedom and companionship to these people.  This is because she identifies with these people.

     

    The car becomes a space of intimacy; two people, questions, answers, confessions about life, death and despair.  The fish incident perfectly represents the content of their discussion.  The epic, yet mundane, adventure of the fish being abandoned and exposed reflects their own lives.  The imminent death and momentarily salvation echoes their fragile belief in hope.

     

    The older man will play a crucial symbolic role in the film.  His love story with Helen foreshadows Christine’s love story with Richard, the recently separated shoe salesman.  Very intelligently Miranda July decides not to show the passing away of Helen.  Through her own art, Christine (Miranda July) will play through the love between Helen and the older man.  Christine resuscitates the love between the old man and Helen through her art, as in the museum she offers the older man the chance to achieve Helen’s dream of going to the Mayan Ruins with him.  The Mayan Temples represent the last foundation of a forgotten and lost mythology/civilization.  Art transcends death, transforms life and serves love.  Art was a example of death and rebirth.

     

    Her quest for love is first experienced through another moment of performance art where a trivial, mundane incident is transformed into a parable of life.  A long walk in the streets becomes the symbol and projection of their walk together through life.  Each signpost in the streets becomes a symbol of a landmark in the future life of the couple to the afterlife.  It accounts for the spiritual power that art may deliver. 

     

    Her art has achieved the rebirth of the old couple and now the young couple will have a chance.

     

    The perfectly cyclic structure of the film perfectly illustrates two key concepts: art imitating life, and life imitating art.  In the beginning of the film we have her doing voice overs for two people facing the sun. 


  • KissSony Royalities

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

    Casino Royale  (2006)

    I must admit, I haven't seen the 2-3 recent Bond films.  My last one was GoldenEye but before that I have seen them all from Dalton, to Connery, Moore to Dalton and I do really like Daniel Craig as 007.  Also the running stunts at the beginning of the film gave it a lot of promise.  At the beginning of the film I as really into it.

    Then started the poor writing and tacked on romances.  Yes, Bond is a ladies man, I get that.  But this film takes the interest with Vesper to a new level of hokey.  Does writing need to be this blatently obvious to get over?  The story had a good pace going after the No Limit game, but then it spends 30-40 minutes trying to convince us that this love is chaning James.  Whatever..

    I am just disappointed with the lack of effort to make a quality script.  While there were some pluses I felt that there were more drawbacks to the film.  I like the step away from gadgets and back into espionage but I was hoping for more. 

    I'm not the biggest Tarantino fan but I think had he been able to make this movie (as rumored) it could have been a lot more.  But at the same time I may have just other things to complain about.   

    Oh and the constant Sony ads.  I know thats how movies make money in the system, but I just don't need to see the word Vaio on the screen for over an hour of the movie.  Maybe I am being over critical, it is certainly possible, but I hold out for a world of great films being shown in multiplexes where people don't talk during the film.  I can't believe I had to shush that elderly couple six times.  Six Times! 

    I miss Telluride, everything was so quiet there.


  • Communication is the key

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

    Babel  (2006)

    I've now seen Babel twice.  Once at Telluride and now on opening weekend.  I think the key to the film the the communication (or mostly the lack of) between the characters.  This is best shown by Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) the deaf-mute Japanese school girl.  The only person who ever listened to her was her mother, who is now dead.  Her father doesn't make time for her, her friends are all deaf-mutes too so they can't "listen" to her either.  She acts out in a number of ways after being treated as a monster.

    A similar thing can be said with all of the character relations in this film.  Richard (Brad Pitt) can't get anyone on the phone to help him and his wife, Susan (Cate Blanchett).  They need interpreters to communicate the life and death struggle they are going through, and the people on the bus won't listen to their needs as the couple won't listen to theirs.

    Amelia (Adriana Barraza) only gets a few muffled phone calls, each one shorter and more demanding from Richard and she is forces into a situation that only makes things more difficult for her.

    Babel is a reference to the tower built in the Bible which was supposed to bring man to the heavens.  God is said to have knocked it down and given each different area a language, so they couldn't communicate and work as a team again to try something.  I think that speaks volumns about this film.  Because of the communication barrier they are unable to reach the epitome of social awareness and helpfulness.   


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go