A Prophet
Directed by Jacques Audiard
Starring: Tahar Rahim and Neils Arestrup
Seeing a film as well made as this one, after seeing other great foreign films at the Bloor, makes one think: do Europeans simply make better films than the Americans do, or better films than the three English Canadian films that get made nearly every year? Well, the answer might simply be—yes. However, it may be that we really only see the best of the best of European cinema here in Canada. It’s not like they send over their versions of Gunless or Marmaduke, or even worse, The Hurt Locker (just slightly kidding). I mean they make hundreds of films a year, but we only see their best, right? But when I think of their top films: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, A Prophet, The Secret in their Eyes, The White Ribbon, Broken Embraces, Bliss, Revanche, and a number of other foreign films experienced at the Bloor this year and I put it up against Hollywood’s best: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, The Shite Locker, I think, maybe they are better. Europeans just seem to make films for adults, while Hollywood (generally) makes films for focus groups.
Well fuck the focus groups, here comes A Prophet.
Mixing surreal metaphors with nearly documentary style realism produces a profound combination of artistry and brutality, whimsy and suffering, innocence and experience—Blake would be proud.
Tahar Rahim plays Malik El Djebena, a young thug who’s just old enough to get thrown in a real prison as opposed to the juvies he’s spent most of his childhood in. He’s caught in between several worlds: too old for juvie, too young for prison, he’s French, but he’s also an Arab, he’s a young man trying to be invisible, but he immediately gets targeted to become an executioner or become the condemned himself. Rahim captures the relative innocence and terror of the young prisoner, but where the actor truly shines is as the film progresses and we see him age, not with make-up, but in the subtle way he carries himself. It’s a gradual process that is superbly done.
The acting throughout the film is excellent and the prison scenes (nearly the entire film) are extremely realistic, with the director using many ex-cons as advisors and extras to give his film the honest grit required. But it’s the other worldly moments that flesh out the movie’s themes. In A Phrophet, we have a friendlier version of Hamlet’s ghost that reminds our protagonist of his horrible deed, but also keeps him company and supplies insights into connecting with God. Malik then has a prophetic, eerily beautiful dream of deer that are running through the night. They represent the freedom he longs for but they are also being hunted down. An appropriate, contradictory allegory that suits a film where the world gets turned upside down; where the weak and inconsequential become the sharpest and the strongest; where heavenly visions lead to brutal murder; and where love for your godchild is more compelling and important than your new status as a crime lord.
Point of interest: There are rumours that there may be a sequel to A Prophet, which is something we should all hope for. Excellent ground work has been laid providing us with fascinating characters and a story that just seems to be beginning.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Soundtrack for a Revolution: Review
Soundtrack for a Revolution
Directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman
Sigh.
What am I doing with my life?
I think I should do more.
This is a film that will inspire you, entertain you, educate you, and also make you realize that doing the dishes and the laundry in the same day isn’t accomplishing a lot. These people did something. They changed the world: fighting against the machine, the man, and against centuries old, entrenched bigotries that were literally the law. And they did it all with peace and patience … and song.
The documentary not only takes a fascinating look at the civil rights movement in the U.S. but also at the songs and music that were part of the movement. We hear the archival music that was played and sung at nearly every gathering and we also get new treatments of the songs by some modern artists.
At no point are we overwhelmed by the music. The music and the story inform each other; indeed, the oral tradition of song is one of the few things the slaves that were forced to America had. It’s fitting then, that on the cusp of finally gaining their true freedom, that it was old Negro spirituals that inspired their cause.
The film explores dangers that protestors (in the U.S. or Canada) can hardly imagine today. The threat of jail was light compared to the very real dangers of beatings, castrations and countless murders that were perpetrated against the civil rights marchers. And yet there were not bowed. They carried on, peacefully, until a country was finally shamed into acting. The film weaves archival footage with current interviews and of course, with the soaring, beautiful music.
One of the marchers says, “We were ordinary people who did extraordinary things.” They certainly did. This is why this documentary, like many well made documentaries, makes you think about your own life, and what you’ve done with it. Soundtrack, Shake Hands with the Devil, H2Oil, Crude and other documentaries call to your conscience and ask like a dying Sean Connery in The Untouchables, “What are you prepared to do?”
Point of Interest: The executive producer for Soundtrack for a Revolution is Danny Glover, a man familiar with social causes. Another film that Mr. Glover takes part in, is Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election. If you haven’t had a chance to see it, you should check it out.
Directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman
Sigh.
What am I doing with my life?
I think I should do more.
This is a film that will inspire you, entertain you, educate you, and also make you realize that doing the dishes and the laundry in the same day isn’t accomplishing a lot. These people did something. They changed the world: fighting against the machine, the man, and against centuries old, entrenched bigotries that were literally the law. And they did it all with peace and patience … and song.
The documentary not only takes a fascinating look at the civil rights movement in the U.S. but also at the songs and music that were part of the movement. We hear the archival music that was played and sung at nearly every gathering and we also get new treatments of the songs by some modern artists.
At no point are we overwhelmed by the music. The music and the story inform each other; indeed, the oral tradition of song is one of the few things the slaves that were forced to America had. It’s fitting then, that on the cusp of finally gaining their true freedom, that it was old Negro spirituals that inspired their cause.
The film explores dangers that protestors (in the U.S. or Canada) can hardly imagine today. The threat of jail was light compared to the very real dangers of beatings, castrations and countless murders that were perpetrated against the civil rights marchers. And yet there were not bowed. They carried on, peacefully, until a country was finally shamed into acting. The film weaves archival footage with current interviews and of course, with the soaring, beautiful music.
One of the marchers says, “We were ordinary people who did extraordinary things.” They certainly did. This is why this documentary, like many well made documentaries, makes you think about your own life, and what you’ve done with it. Soundtrack, Shake Hands with the Devil, H2Oil, Crude and other documentaries call to your conscience and ask like a dying Sean Connery in The Untouchables, “What are you prepared to do?”
Point of Interest: The executive producer for Soundtrack for a Revolution is Danny Glover, a man familiar with social causes. Another film that Mr. Glover takes part in, is Unprecedented: the 2000 Presidential Election. If you haven’t had a chance to see it, you should check it out.
The Last Station: Review
The Last Station
Directed by Michael Hoffman
Starring: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, and Kerry Condon
You may remember in my review of The Hurt Locker that I said there were several films I’d place above Hurt for the top films of 2009, well, this is one of them.
The Last Station is an excellent film. Remarkably, it was nominated for both best Actress (Mirren) and for best supporting Actor (Plummer), but somehow, was not amongst the TEN films nominated for best picture. How a film can have both its stars nominated for best acting considerations and not be in the best film race, especially an expanded best film race, is an unsolved mystery best left for Leonard Nimoy to contemplate. Naturally, the Oscars being a home of insanity, they did it twice this year: Crazy Heart pulled off the same feat. Unlike The Last Station though, Crazy Heart is a decent film with a great performance in it from Bridges. How in the world Maggie (last name unpronounceable) was nominated for her work is just yet another riddle poor Mr. Nimoy will have to work out. The Last Station is no Crazy Heart, it is far above merely decent.
This is one of the better acted films of the year. Giamatti, a consistently excellent actor, captures the insecurities and the desperation of Vladimir Chertkov. He’s a man who desires to raise the great author Tolstoy up to the level of deity; but ignores the man himself. James McAvoy is the writer Valentin Bulgakov. He is initially employed as a secretary to Tolstoy and he is also an ardent follower, but McAvoy is truthful and honest, and his character grows along with the film. Kerry Condon, playing Masha, brings humanity to the movement and to the movie with an earthy portrayal of Valentin’s love interest.
It is Plummer and Mirren though, that are the highlights of the film. Their relationship; so full of love and enmity, with a rich past that both haunts and supports them, is the crux of the film. When acting like this comes along, it is sometimes hard to describe, except to call it what it is--virtuosity.
The film is more that just the acting. The settings, the costumes, the cinematography all capture the era perfectly. The hypocrisy of the new religion of Tolstoy is no different that the hypocrisy of all religions. In the pursuit of perfection they forget that perfection is impossible, and that messiahs, especially the messiah of Tolstoy, are far from perfect themselves. Tolstoy seems to realize this, as he frequently says, Chertkov (his disciple) is a much better Tolstoyan than he is himself. This overly strict adherence to a way of life is wonderfully illustrated when Tolstoy kills a mosquito that is on the face of Valentin, only to be scolded by his pupil Chertkov for killing a living thing.
Thus, the followers of Tolstoy, while pursuing an ideal life of love, consistently push love to the side. McAvoy’s Valentin begins to see through the hypocrisy and his burgeoning love story is counterbalanced with the older and more layered love of Tolstoy and his Countess.
See the movie.
Point of Interest: Christopher Plummer is a god.
Directed by Michael Hoffman
Starring: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, Paul Giamatti, James McAvoy, and Kerry Condon
You may remember in my review of The Hurt Locker that I said there were several films I’d place above Hurt for the top films of 2009, well, this is one of them.
The Last Station is an excellent film. Remarkably, it was nominated for both best Actress (Mirren) and for best supporting Actor (Plummer), but somehow, was not amongst the TEN films nominated for best picture. How a film can have both its stars nominated for best acting considerations and not be in the best film race, especially an expanded best film race, is an unsolved mystery best left for Leonard Nimoy to contemplate. Naturally, the Oscars being a home of insanity, they did it twice this year: Crazy Heart pulled off the same feat. Unlike The Last Station though, Crazy Heart is a decent film with a great performance in it from Bridges. How in the world Maggie (last name unpronounceable) was nominated for her work is just yet another riddle poor Mr. Nimoy will have to work out. The Last Station is no Crazy Heart, it is far above merely decent.
This is one of the better acted films of the year. Giamatti, a consistently excellent actor, captures the insecurities and the desperation of Vladimir Chertkov. He’s a man who desires to raise the great author Tolstoy up to the level of deity; but ignores the man himself. James McAvoy is the writer Valentin Bulgakov. He is initially employed as a secretary to Tolstoy and he is also an ardent follower, but McAvoy is truthful and honest, and his character grows along with the film. Kerry Condon, playing Masha, brings humanity to the movement and to the movie with an earthy portrayal of Valentin’s love interest.
It is Plummer and Mirren though, that are the highlights of the film. Their relationship; so full of love and enmity, with a rich past that both haunts and supports them, is the crux of the film. When acting like this comes along, it is sometimes hard to describe, except to call it what it is--virtuosity.
The film is more that just the acting. The settings, the costumes, the cinematography all capture the era perfectly. The hypocrisy of the new religion of Tolstoy is no different that the hypocrisy of all religions. In the pursuit of perfection they forget that perfection is impossible, and that messiahs, especially the messiah of Tolstoy, are far from perfect themselves. Tolstoy seems to realize this, as he frequently says, Chertkov (his disciple) is a much better Tolstoyan than he is himself. This overly strict adherence to a way of life is wonderfully illustrated when Tolstoy kills a mosquito that is on the face of Valentin, only to be scolded by his pupil Chertkov for killing a living thing.
Thus, the followers of Tolstoy, while pursuing an ideal life of love, consistently push love to the side. McAvoy’s Valentin begins to see through the hypocrisy and his burgeoning love story is counterbalanced with the older and more layered love of Tolstoy and his Countess.
See the movie.
Point of Interest: Christopher Plummer is a god.
The Hurt Locker: Review/Diatribe
The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans
That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.
Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.
So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.
Well, not always.
Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.
I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.
James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.
Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans
That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.
Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.
So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.
Well, not always.
Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.
I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.
James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.
Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.
The Men Who Stare at Goats: Review
The Men Who Stare at Goats
Directed by Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Obi-Wan, and Kevin Spacey
All right, this movie isn’t great. It’s not quite sure what it wants to be. Is it a dark comedy? Or just a comedy? Is it in any way serious? Well, sort of. Is this paragraph confusing and disjointed? Kind of.
In some ways, the movie works. Clooney is quite committed and funny, Jeff Bridges, equally so. Kevin Spacey is suitably evil as he often is, but Luke’s teacher is kind of left in the breeze, to be the butt of Jedi jokes and the apparent straight man in a film that’s not even sure if it’s a comedy.
The film is about the (seriously!) true story of a group of soldiers who are trained in psychic abilities to be used against the enemy (the army hopes) or to bring about world peace (the psychic soldiers hope). Naturally, the group is sabotaged by the jealous and the sceptical, and by too many failures to counter the successes. Ridiculous redemption awaits us in the end; however, the movie does touch on some serious themes (Iraq War, the brutality of “hired” security soldiers, the individual Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed, kidnapping, etc.) but never gives them their due. Now, you, the good-looking reader, might think I’m belittling this movie because of its psychic claims; far from it. It’s an absolute fact that this unit did exist, and remote viewing was used, often successfully, for years (although they claim now they don’t use it). It’s the film that belittles the reality and uses any “truth” for laughs. I heard the author of the book that it’s based on being interviewed on the radio, and at first he was pretty pissed about their treatment of his story—it wasn’t a comedy to him. However, in the end he was all right with it. He realized that a story this hard to believe must first be introduced through comedy; let the jester tell the truth, it’s easier to digest.
Point of interest: If you want to check out the “real” story behind the Hollywood treatment, go to coasttocoastam.com and search Jim Channon and check out what he has to say. What’s Coast to Coast AM? It is the most listened to “late night” radio show in the world and it specializes in stories that the mainstream media ignores. Sometimes it focuses on pretty ordinary things, the economy, the environment; and other times it goes into the more bizarre/interesting, like conspiracy theories, Sasquatch, UFOs, ghosts, and other topics that may be unbelievable, sometimes quite believable, but most of the time, fascinating. You can check it out on 640am and if it comes in, 610am, or on the Internet—and no, I’m not being paid by Coast to Coast to recommend them (cheap bastards!).
Directed by Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Obi-Wan, and Kevin Spacey
All right, this movie isn’t great. It’s not quite sure what it wants to be. Is it a dark comedy? Or just a comedy? Is it in any way serious? Well, sort of. Is this paragraph confusing and disjointed? Kind of.
In some ways, the movie works. Clooney is quite committed and funny, Jeff Bridges, equally so. Kevin Spacey is suitably evil as he often is, but Luke’s teacher is kind of left in the breeze, to be the butt of Jedi jokes and the apparent straight man in a film that’s not even sure if it’s a comedy.
The film is about the (seriously!) true story of a group of soldiers who are trained in psychic abilities to be used against the enemy (the army hopes) or to bring about world peace (the psychic soldiers hope). Naturally, the group is sabotaged by the jealous and the sceptical, and by too many failures to counter the successes. Ridiculous redemption awaits us in the end; however, the movie does touch on some serious themes (Iraq War, the brutality of “hired” security soldiers, the individual Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed, kidnapping, etc.) but never gives them their due. Now, you, the good-looking reader, might think I’m belittling this movie because of its psychic claims; far from it. It’s an absolute fact that this unit did exist, and remote viewing was used, often successfully, for years (although they claim now they don’t use it). It’s the film that belittles the reality and uses any “truth” for laughs. I heard the author of the book that it’s based on being interviewed on the radio, and at first he was pretty pissed about their treatment of his story—it wasn’t a comedy to him. However, in the end he was all right with it. He realized that a story this hard to believe must first be introduced through comedy; let the jester tell the truth, it’s easier to digest.
Point of interest: If you want to check out the “real” story behind the Hollywood treatment, go to coasttocoastam.com and search Jim Channon and check out what he has to say. What’s Coast to Coast AM? It is the most listened to “late night” radio show in the world and it specializes in stories that the mainstream media ignores. Sometimes it focuses on pretty ordinary things, the economy, the environment; and other times it goes into the more bizarre/interesting, like conspiracy theories, Sasquatch, UFOs, ghosts, and other topics that may be unbelievable, sometimes quite believable, but most of the time, fascinating. You can check it out on 640am and if it comes in, 610am, or on the Internet—and no, I’m not being paid by Coast to Coast to recommend them (cheap bastards!).
Good Hair: Review
Good Hair
Directed by Jeff Stilson
Produced, Narrated and Generally Made Funny by Chris Rock
I saw this movie right after Crude, and you feel like you see nearly as much toxic goo in this movie as in the former.
Chris Rock takes us through the lucrative hair industry, and how remarkably important it is within the African-American (and I assume Canadian) community. What makes Rock’s story even more interesting is the dilemma of his little girls’ desire to have “good hair” and how he knows he will have to face this battle soon enough.
Rock interviews celebrities, politicians and “normal” people alike, and they all have the same passion for hair that’s not nappy, not natural, and looks European, or at the least, Indian.
Rock even goes to India to see the religious ceremony that produces much of the hair used in extensions. It turns out that India is the world’s largest exporter of hair and indeed, hair is a multi-billion dollar industry in India.
What’s frustrating to Rock and to many in the African-American community is that the vast majority of hair products made for African-Americans are not owned by said community. Like so many industries, they are controlled by Asian powers.
What makes Good Hair an interesting, enjoyable, and funny film is that Rock tackles subjects like foreign ownership with biting humour and exasperation.
His main focus, however, is on the desire of the people of his community (mostly, but not all, women) to have hair that doesn’t look black. He seems amazed, and sometimes a little angry, that very few of these people want to grow their hair naturally. And that, from a very young age (there’s a 4 year old getting a perm) Africa-American girls want to have their hair straightened. To do this, they endure a great amount of pain, placing dangerously toxic chemicals on their heads to take out the curl.
The film is funny, but still asks some tough questions about the lengths we can go to achieve “ideal” beauty.
Point of interest: At one point, the film discusses hair extensions that are so intricately weaved into the woman’s hair that you can’t tell by looking at it that it’s not their own hair; however, you also can’t touch the hair or it’s ruined. The ultimate in vanity, “doesn’t this look good? —don’t fucking touch it.”
Directed by Jeff Stilson
Produced, Narrated and Generally Made Funny by Chris Rock
I saw this movie right after Crude, and you feel like you see nearly as much toxic goo in this movie as in the former.
Chris Rock takes us through the lucrative hair industry, and how remarkably important it is within the African-American (and I assume Canadian) community. What makes Rock’s story even more interesting is the dilemma of his little girls’ desire to have “good hair” and how he knows he will have to face this battle soon enough.
Rock interviews celebrities, politicians and “normal” people alike, and they all have the same passion for hair that’s not nappy, not natural, and looks European, or at the least, Indian.
Rock even goes to India to see the religious ceremony that produces much of the hair used in extensions. It turns out that India is the world’s largest exporter of hair and indeed, hair is a multi-billion dollar industry in India.
What’s frustrating to Rock and to many in the African-American community is that the vast majority of hair products made for African-Americans are not owned by said community. Like so many industries, they are controlled by Asian powers.
What makes Good Hair an interesting, enjoyable, and funny film is that Rock tackles subjects like foreign ownership with biting humour and exasperation.
His main focus, however, is on the desire of the people of his community (mostly, but not all, women) to have hair that doesn’t look black. He seems amazed, and sometimes a little angry, that very few of these people want to grow their hair naturally. And that, from a very young age (there’s a 4 year old getting a perm) Africa-American girls want to have their hair straightened. To do this, they endure a great amount of pain, placing dangerously toxic chemicals on their heads to take out the curl.
The film is funny, but still asks some tough questions about the lengths we can go to achieve “ideal” beauty.
Point of interest: At one point, the film discusses hair extensions that are so intricately weaved into the woman’s hair that you can’t tell by looking at it that it’s not their own hair; however, you also can’t touch the hair or it’s ruined. The ultimate in vanity, “doesn’t this look good? —don’t fucking touch it.”
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Crude: Review
Jan. 12
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger
You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.
For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.
If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.
In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.
Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.
The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.
Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.
If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.
Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger
You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.
For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.
If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.
In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.
Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.
The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.
Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.
If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.
Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)