Steven Soderbergh's "Che: Part 2 (Guerrilla)" (2008)

>





I don't know that I have ever seen a bio-picture that wasn't overtly romanticized, for better or worse. Any small attempt of music or monologue in "Guerrilla", was heavily overshadowed by the day-to-day struggle of living in transition (in the jungle), of not having good communication with the "outside", and of having little to no political support from the Communist Party in Bolivia - and oh, 300 days of guerrilla warfare. It becomes even worse to watch, when Che, himself, endures an asthma attack, for days on end. Finally, we sit in silence while the credits roll. not romantic.

but I think that is why I love the film. failure is up front, and personal...certainly in regards to the Communist funded revolution. but not necessarily for the character of Che. he had accepted this way of life, in direct opposition of retaining his high rank from the Cuban Revolution. he could have been drinking the finest Mojitos all these years, smoking amazing cigars, becoming that which he preferred to oppose. but he could not separate himself from the bottom, from "the people". and this is what draws many of us to Che (even though many of us prefer non-violent methods of revolt), his integrity speaks for itself - and his compassion for the peasants is very real - and Che the healer/doctor was as tangible as was Che the executioner.

whether it was a real event or not, Che performs surgery on the severely infected eye of a peasant boy - an overt symbol of healing the blind, so that they may see.

Che will always remain controversial, and violent revolution will always carry great contradiction and pain, but Che did not die a politician. He was not wearing a suit and tie when he died, nor the garb of a successful doctor/surgeon. whatever wealth and fame he could have incurred and/or exploited, he rejected, unless it could somehow benefit the least of these. and most of all, he fought front and center of whatever war he waged. the rest of us watched it on television.

Funny Games (2007)

A Film Reflection by Blake Marshall

Have you ever noticed how there's always a slasher/horror film being released on Christmas day? Who wants to spend the holiday in a dark theater watching the life juice flying? Obviously, there is a market for this macabre medium; however, it still baffles me that so many people find joy through the suffering of others. Now, I'm not saying I'm a cinematic saint.. I'm far from it. I've become so desensitized to onscreen violence; however, I don't have a blood lust for "torture porn" films like "Hostel" or the "Saw" films. I believe director Michael Haneke is attempting to delve into this absurd fascination with suffering and violence depicted on the big screen. "Funny Games" is an almost shot-for-shot remake of Haneke's 1997 German film of the same title. Why the remake only ten years later? Maybe this writer/director thinks he has something important to say and wanted to reach a larger audience? Does Haneke succeed in transcending the genre and delving into the human psyche of violence, or does he simply add to the growing pile of blood, guts, and tears intended for your viewing pleasure?

"Funny Games" is not an enjoyable film. This, I believe, is by design. The film depicts the psychological and physical torture of a well-to-do family by two straight laced protagonists. The family must unwillingly participate in "games" that Peter and Paul create; however, there's not much plot otherwise. There is very little exposition to each character and the plot breaks down into a wager set forth by Paul, betting that in twelve hours that the family would be dead. In novice hands, this could be just another survival horror film; conversely, Haneke does not deliver any "spooks," per say. Instead, he decides to give the viewer a moral lesson... asking the question: "Why are you watching a film like this, anyway?" This theme teeters hazardously between subtle nuances through dialogue and overt methods (i.e. the character of Paul sporadically breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience).

Touching briefly on the performances in the film, I must say that Michael Pitt was quite the revelation. Pitt has always played smaller supporting roles in the majority of films I've seen him in; however, he's fantastic here as Paul, the more intelligent and ruthless protagonist. He's accompanied by Peter, played by Brady Corbet, who is affectionately nicknamed "Tubby" and other cartoon characters by Paul. The family consists of Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, and young Devon Gearhart. These actors do a fine job of portraying realistic suffering; however, we're deceptively tricked into rooting for these characters. The film acknowledges this when Paul turns to the audience during the establishment of their wager and asks: "I mean, what do you think? You think they stand a chance? Well, you're on their side, aren't you? Who are you betting on, hmm?" Haneke doesn't let us go that easily. We're not given the satisfaction of the victim turning the tide on the two protagonists (I won't use the term antagonists, because they're the ones who truly push the story forward) and when it does, we're forced to sit through a scenario where Paul takes control, literally, of the narrative and alters the outcomes rather dramatically... The audience must endure violence for violence's sake and experience the ramifications.

This film is an interesting experiment. Nevertheless, I'm afraid Haneke might not deliver his message as I believe he intends to. He handles the violence rather well, with most of the action taking place off camera and leaving the disturbing imagery up to the imagination of the viewer. There were several scenes where my heart just wrenched and I wanted to stop the movie. Also, I got the "message" rather quickly and had to endure the film's rather anti-climactic latter half with a few grains of salt. I may have got the message rather quickly, but I'm sure others won't think too much about it. Much akin to writer/actor Sacha Baron Cohen's films delivering a political or ethical message under the guise of a screwball comedy, I can see some people walking away from "Funny Games" with only the understanding of the film's face value. It appeared that Haneke wanted the film to be marketed towards the "splatter" fans, yet I'm not sure how a moral message on pornographic violence would work in a disturbing film about home invasion? Again, I must reiterate: this film was not enjoyable in the very least and I will not watch or recommend it to any of my closest friends; conversely, I am glad to see the wide release of an experimental film that has the courage of asking the important question: "Why did you pay 10 bucks to watch this crap?"

Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (1972)

>
>







This film might be the "Thin Red Line" of the Science Fiction genre. Long, boring, poetic, disturbing, beautiful, brilliant.

'The salvation of humanity lies in its shame.'









(several days later)...

i have watched it twice now - and i cannot yet grasp the complexity and depth of this film. it is far and above any sci-fi film i have ever seen - simply because it subverts the genre itself - condemning the false ideals of progress and evolution, which man violently celebrates.

Sidney Lumet's "Network" (1976)

>





this film thunders like a book from the Old Testament. It is like a Michael Moore documentary, without political bias and shameful tactics. It predicted Jerry Springer, Big Brother, and Fox News! but whatever. we don't care. we want our MTV!

and that's the point. the revolution will not be televised, because it requires eye contact, and a touching of skin.

best if watched between George Clooney's "Good Night & Good Luck" and Spike Lee's "Bamboozled".

Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)

>




it has been a few weeks since my first viewing of 2001. after reading some interesting reviews, and then trying to hash out some theological possibilities/probabilities, i still am not sure what to think, let alone feel. and even though i may still yet be floating around in Kubrick's synchronized, psychedelic void, i can say with great confidence that it is, without question, one of the greatest film experiences that i have had (even without taking Acid or eating shrooms - which has been said to be essential for viewing).

the reason, i believe, is that kubrick has no qualms suggesting that technology (manipulation and control of resources for survival or progress) is our greatest defense mechanism, yet our anti-salvation. from the first day we decided to defend and conquer, rather than share and support, we would not progress (even in the final frontier) - until we decide we will not be dependent upon HAL/Microsoft/Matrix/Credit/Debit/Status/Flags/Facebook/Dehumanization/etc. however, if we decide to be human and confront death - then we shall be born again. to be alien, is to be not afraid.

District 9 (2009)

A Film Reflection by Blake Marshall

The term "unknown" is a great buzz-word for most Hollywood films. This typically means a lesser known director or actor has a breakthrough entry into the world mainstream film. In the case of "District 9," both are covered. Director Neill Blomkamp was a visual effects "whiz kid" who was taken under the wing of Peter Jackson, who saw a talent in Blomkamp after witnessing his highly renowned short films based on the popular game franchise "Halo." Jackson worked with Blomkamp on directing a feature length Halo film; however, studio bureaucracy killed the production before it even crystallized. In response to this disappointment, Jackson green-lit a full length feature based on one of Blomkamp's first shorts called "Alive in Joburg." (You can watch the entire short film on youtube.) For the role of main protagonist, Blomkamp went with another "unknown" actor named Sharlto Copley, a fellow South African director. Copley plays Wikus Van De Merwe, a desk jockey turned field operative for a private military corporation known as "Multinational United" (MNU). So do these "unknowns" prove themselves as proper contenders? Does "District 9" accomplish more than just satiating our desire for onscreen alien/robot action? Well, yes... indeed it does.

In stark contrast to explosive-laden, hyper edited Michael Bay "Transformers 2," the audience is treated with a summer action film with actual sustenance. Born and raised in South Africa in the late seventies, Blomkamp experienced the ramifications of government established apartheid firsthand. These experiences factor in major influences into the film's plot, which establishes a world where a large alien space ship appeared over the skies of Johannesburg, South Africa during the early 1980's. After a time of hovering ominously over the city, government forces decided to explore the interior of the ship, where they find bewildered and frightened alien creatures. Time passes and the aliens are quarantined in an area known as District 9. Unable to understand these creatures, tensions arise between the humans and the insect-like aliens, which are given the derogatory term "prawns." The main protagonist, played by Copley, is promoted and assigned to head up a mass displacement project of the aliens into refugee camps miles away from the city. It is this relocation project that culminates the action that takes place in the latter half of the film. The director does a fantastic job of creating this world within the first few minutes, much akin to what Zack Snyder did in establishing the world of "Watchmen" during the opening credits. The film can really be broken down into two disparate acts: the brilliant documentary-esque first half dealing with apartheid and zionism... and the action-packed latter half. Each part works well, but it felt like Blomkamp created a film with an identity crisis... but I will get to that later.

In terms of acting, Copley had to deliver a believable character who is despicable and likable at the same time. To add to this pressure, the majority of Copley's screen time is spent interacting with CGI characters - a difficult thing to do. It is very daring to produce a film that puts so much emphasis on the believability of a sole leading role (see Sam Rockwell in "Moon"). Thankfully, Copley delivers a superb performance that allows for Blomkamp's documentary style to come off as all the more believable. Most protagonists go through a transformation during the narrative, and I won't spoil how Wikus changes in D-9; however, my feelings toward this character does change dramatically. Aside from Copley, the supporting cast is capable; nevertheless, their roles are quite shallow and only service to further the plot line. At the end of the day, I only cared about Wikus and these computer animated creatures... which, just briefly touching on the CGI, were rather impressive and were implemented well into each frame (especially considering this film was made for $30 million dollars, an incredible feat when compared to Transformer 2's budget of over $300 million!). This film will be referenced by many future directors on how to successfully create a believable science fiction film with a limited budget. Plus, distrubutors and production companies don't have to take huge leaps of faith (i.e. James Cameron's upcoming film, "Avatar").

Getting back to the identity crisis I alluded to earlier, this film is ripe with inconsistent storytelling. The combination of documentary camera footage and traditional camerawork is really disjointing at first. Blomkamp attempts to separate both camera styles with a time stamp and MNU logo during the documentary bits. However, I wish Blomkamp had abandoned the Greengrass-esque "shaky-cam" style during the non-documentary sections of the film. A smoother, flowing style would have separated both storytelling elements and resolve any confusion that can be had with this film. Conversely, the gritty action in the latter half of the film is really complimented with this shaky style of camerawork. So with that in mind, I'm not sure my recommendation would benefit the film. In any case, I believe this film needed better clarification in how it was being portrayed on screen.

The identity crisis continues outside of the directing/cinematography and into the writing as well. The first half of the film brings important issues dealing with apartheid and misunderstanding of those different from us. The film treads into very complicated social issues with the exploitation of these creatures (i.e. warlords selling cat food for exorbitant prices to the aliens, who are addicted to the stuff) and the parallels of antisemitism/racial hatred. The shots of the rows upon rows of slum housing is real footage of the tin cities that exist in Soweto and the outer limits of Johannesburg. But, then the film abruptly shifts tone and becomes a "buddy" action flick, complimented fully with stereotypical dialogue and a copious amount of explosions. Most people would say this is a digression; however, I enjoyed the latter half as much as the first. My only complaint is that the shift is very jarring and disorienting. It's almost as if Blomkamp thought he was becoming too preachy and shifted gears from intellectual social commentary to a fast-paced popcorn flick with alien robots. Don't get me wrong, I like arugula salad and I like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I just don't like the two mixed together.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

A Film Reflection by Blake Marshall

Director Quentin Tarantino knows how to appease his audience. Two decades into his career, Tarantino has successfully proven himself by paying homage to the films he once loved, while simultaneously subverting genres with witty dialogue, overt (and almost humorous) gore, brilliant use of pacing, and a visual style much onto his own. "Inglourious Basterds" takes no exception to these rules. The film opens with a scene that plays out just like a Sergio Leone western epic; however, Tarantino shifts his tone throughout the five chapters of the film. Not unlike his prior works, Tarantino playfully inserts aspects derived from 1970's exploitation films, the most notable being the introduction of Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz (played by Til Schweiger). Conversely, Tarantino seems to restrain himself in these homage sequences, giving the film less gimmicks and subsequently more room for narrative.

But does this film develop it's own identity? Is it more "Pulp Fiction" than "Death Proof"? After watching this film and giving it a week to marinate for a proper reflection, I'm inclined to believe that Tarantino has created an anti-propaganda masterpiece. And, most importantly, this is a film about love for movies and their incredible influence in shaping the world. I know, I know... the hyperbolic scale is off the charts, but give me a chance to explain myself. First, let's get through the basics of the plot...

"Inglourious Basterds," if you haven't already surmised from the trailer, posters, and other adverts, is a darkly humored World War II period piece. The story breaks down into two parts: The first following the "Basterds," a small group of a Jewish soldiers led by Lt. Aldo Raine (played by Brad Pitt). And the second part follows a female protagonist by the name of Shosanna Dreyfus, (played by Mélanie Laurent) who independently owns and runs a cinema in Nazi-occupied Paris. Both plots focus on revenge and (in Tarantino fashion) eventually become intertwined. Of the two, I found myself more engaged with Shosanna's story, mainly because Tarantino gives only little exposition of the "Basterds" and it could also have something to do with my affinity for attractive women who speak French. In addition, I believe Tarantino is one of the very few Hollywood writers/directors who consistently creates powerful female characters depicted on screen.

With the exception of an odd cameo and the unwieldy Eli Roth (director of torture porn and QT's best buddy), the cast delivers great performances all around. The most notable being Christoph Waltz, who plays this year's most menacing/interesting antagonist, Col. Hans Landa. Not only can this man act very well in four languages, he can also simultaneously charm and disgust the viewer in the same scene. If the Academy overlooks Waltz for Best Supporting Actor, I will boycott the Oscars for the rest of my life (in spite of the siren call of a singing/dancing Hugh Jackman). Michael Fassbender also turns in a solid role as British S.A.S. Leuftenant Archie Hicox, who goes undercover as a German officer and meets up with the "Basterds." Fassbender first came onto my radar with his incredible depiction of Bobby Sands in the 2008 film, "Hunger." It is no surprise then to find that both these actors were the central forces in the film's most powerful scenes. The opening scene with Hans Landa and the bar scene with Archie Hicox are stellar examples of suspenseful writing and transcendent acting.

Brad Pitt will certainly polarize the audience. But, I think he's a different type of character when compared to Hans Landa or Archie Hicox. He's fulfilling a caricature, cartoon-like, John Wayne archetype. In fact, the "Basterds" are very linear and flat characters. They have very little back story and are utilized to move the story forward through violence and action. In contrast to the "Basterds," we're also given the intricate interactions between Shossana Dreyfus (Laurent) and Private Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl). Here's the odd thing: On paper, these plots don't fit into the same movie, let alone the same genre of film... yet Tarantino makes it work.

Now I've mentioned the writing far too much already, but it needs to be said: Tarantino is a prolific writer for the screen. No line is wasted in this film. Every single word is either used to build tension or deliver cleverly disguised exposition. In a film with such explicit violence, words cut far deeper and give stronger lasting impressions than spurting corn syrup. It is the mark of a good writer who can simultaneously and consistently entertain, inform, and deliver suspense through dialogue... Tarantino does that here in spades. He is constantly changing the dynamic of scenes, making every line of dialogue take on a level of complexity that can only be fully appreciated upon repeat viewings. In addition, Tarantino choreographs subtle and blatant film influences throughout his writing, directing and cinematography. Look for influences from films like: "The Searchers," "Once Upon a Time in the West," "Cinderella," "Miller's Crossing," "Metropolis," "Breathless," "Pandora's Box," "The Big Red One," "Sherlock Holmes," "King Kong," et-cetera, et-cetera.

It is the power of film that influences and moves the narrative forward. Tarantino obviously understands the power of film to move people to tears, anger, and war. There is a scene in this film that absolutely floored me. Now, I'm not revealing any major spoilers that television commercials have not already revealed, therefore I can say that Hitler does make an appearance in this film. The Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels also plays an important role, with other smaller references to directors Leni Riefenstahl, Fritz Hippler, and Helmut Käutner. The scene I'm referring to is the depiction of Hitler laughing hysterically at the violence depicted on the screen at a Paris screening of "Nation's Pride," a propaganda piece. I believe that Tarantino is using this despicable character and turning it around on the audience and saying: "Hey, this is you." It was only a few moments ago that the audience was laughing and cheering for the graphic violence inflicted on the Nazi antagonists. This sobering moment might go over many a head; however, I feel that Tarantino is attempting to scare his audience into realizing how influential and subversive the medium of film can be. I mean, just look at how influential a film like "Birth of a Nation" can be to film makers and layman alike.