Das Weisse Band (The White Ribbon)

Directed by: Michael Haneke

I love the ending of the film, of which I will give away nothing save to say that it makes the film less of a mystery and more of a study. Does it matter who committed these crimes? Is anyone in this community really innocent?

What's frightening and wonderfully complex about a film like this is that it does not focus on individual crimes, a flaw of so many films which center on 'who dunnit'. The question is not who committed these crimes, but who didn't. Who in this town is actually innocent? By the end of the film I had implicated nearly everyone, children and adults alike, save the sweet and naive young couple innocently falling in love in the midst of the collapse of their community. The symbol of the white ribbon is a powerful one, especially as we watch a father tie it to his children, himself as guilty of sordid and heartless actions as his children, whose innocence may simply be a guise for a deeper malice, or perhaps just a transparent film behind which plays the irrational emotional explosions of childhood.

This is the kind of film you can watch over and over and learn more each time. It is disturbing and disheartening in the honesty and deception of the characters, and never strays into cliche or simplicity. A powerful film, captured in black white with brilliant art direction, that puts us into the time period of the film. This is not a film to enjoy, but it will leave you with a feast of symbols and thoughts on which to dine.

The Hurt Locker

Directed by: Katheryn Bigelow

Featuring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty, with cameos from Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse, and Evangeline Lilly.

Films can open doors to new worlds, perspectives, and understandings, can expand our minds and force us to think critically about our world. But films are also entertainment. As such, a film about war has to do something really special for it to be justified, because war is not, and should not be, entertainment.

There is no doubt, in watching The Hurt Locker, that Katheryn Bigelow is a talented director. The movement of the camera, the pacing and visuals of the film are all exceptional. However, this was the wrong way to direct this movie. Bigelow focuses on all the wrong things in this film. She slows down shots of explosions so that we see every particle of dust rise from the ground, but what we should be seeing is the faces of the people affected.

The biggest issue with The Hurt Locker is that we are introduced to characters, not people. Look at our three protagonists: We have the straight-talking African American with a witty sense of humor, The Innocent, and The Maverick. Well acted, for the most part, but still all too familiar. If you really pause to study them, you will see that we are not watching real people, but characters, written for a Hollywood movie. In the end, what really separates this film from one like Top Gun? What I want to see from a film about war is real people and real life. Something to make us think critically about what is going on rather than sit back with our popcorn to happily soak up the romantic images of war that Hollywood is feeding us. The fact that Bigelow cast major stars in minor roles, like cameos from David Morse and Evangeline Lily illustrates the studio-nature of this film. Whenever a major actor is cast in a minor role it's hard not to assume that the filmmaker is cutting corners, casting an actor whose previous persona can carry the role, rather than developing characters with true depth and realism. It takes great confidence in your script and story to cast unknowns, and sadly this film lacks that confidence and realism.

The war in Iraq is a complicated and tragic event. Americans are clearly struggling to process it and so I am continuously disappointed when the story tellers among us, who have this powerful opportunity to provide clarity and perspective on this time in history, settle instead for making blockbusters. That Bigelow ends the film with rock music is the final tell tale that this film does not take itself or its subject matter seriously. The rock music blares as the main character marches back onto the front lines, as though we are watching a sports game. I have no experience myself with going to war, but I am sure that this is not what it is like over there. This film asks the audience to play along with these romantic, emotion-tugging images when it should be asking us to think critically about a sad and heavy issue. I cannot condone Hollywood war movies, and no matter how much people claim that this is a 'low budget' film, there's no mistaking the Hollywood mark on it.

Sherlock Holmes

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Starring: Robert Downy Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams

Guy Ritchie is a director who loves fight scenes, explosions, drugs, gambling, quick British wit, and guns. Yet his films are so smart, so cheeky, so understatedly hilarious, that I am always charmed into loving them.

The classic Sherlock Holmes has of course been re-vamped here, with Robert Downey Jr. playing Holmes, and Jude Law as Watson.

Watch the way Downey commands this role, physically. He uses not only his voice and facial expressions, but his whole body. Every movement, even the most subtle, is a deliberate choice. Of course, one could hardly expect less of the man who played the title role in Chaplin (1992).

I haven't read the Sherlock Holmes books in years (though maybe I would have if I had pictured Watson as anything looking anything like Jude Law). I do, however, remember The Hound of the Baskervilles and the dissection of seemingly supernatural events by the calculating and rational Holmes, a theme which is revisited here. The mystery is, of course, inconsequential. We don't really care who did it or why, it simply serves the purpose of providing the witty dialogue and fast-paced action scenes, though there are quite a few surprising pay-offs when we learn how the mystery unravels.

This is a purely fun movie. There's some smart, very witty dialogue and the action sequences are stylish and interesting, especially when we hear Holmes planning out his method of attack before hand. Don't expect this to take you back to cozy nights reading the classic Sherlock Holmes books, but it's interesting to see Ritchie take his usual story of London gang-life and apply it to Holmes' times. If you like Guy Ritchie, I expect you'll enjoy this latest film of his.

A History of Violence (2005)

Directed by: David Cronenberg

Starring: Mario Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Viggo Mortensen

I remember when this movie came out years ago and I chose not to see it, despite its rave reviews, because of its notoriously grizzly and shocking scenes of violence. I have been reading review after review, however, claiming that such scenes are not gratuitous, but are meaningful, integral to the story, and meant to shock you, so that you feel the real impact of violence on people's lives. So I decided to take a chance and see it.

The film begins with the "bad guys." They are having a slow morning at their motel. They are tired from too many days on the job, and move with sluggish reluctance. This is an interesting way to begin the film. So often films of this sort begin with the protagonist, and to start with the antagonists puts the audience on their side for a moment, starts the film off from their perspective. I won't give away the rest of the scene, but I will say that it ends with a whimpering child, holding a doll, and cuts to an angelic looking child screaming after a nightmare, in the home of the "hero," Tom Stahl. This is a cheap trick. It strips the scenes of their credibility (you can see in the girl's eyes that the director just said, "Ok, and remember after I say 'action' you scream and don't look at the camera") and is clearly an easy and in-genuine tug at our heartstrings.

Looking back on the film I see scenes rather than substance, scripted lines rather than atmosphere, cut-out characters rather than real people.

This is an interesting idea, and one with great potential, but it is hardly fulfilled here.

67th Annual Golden Globe Awards

I can't let the Golden Globes go by without at least mentioning my thoughts on them. I didn't see the whole show, but I caught some good moments. I'm just going to give a brief synopsis of my thoughts:

I'll admit that I am not a fan of Quentin Tarantino (for reasons which I will go into at another time), though I recognize and fully appreciate his gift as a director, and so was not as moved by the complimentary speech given by Christoph Waltz, who won Best Supporting Actor for Inglorious Basterds.

Avatar was not my pick for Best Picture, Drama, though I am not surprised it won. I do not agree with many other critics, however, who believe that this is a precursor to the Oscars, foretelling another 'Titanic' sweep by Cameron. I have a feeling that the academy will cave to the controversy caused by Avatar, though it will likely win some major effects awards, and well it should.

The highlight of the show for me was Meryl Streep's speech, after winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Julia Child in Julie and Julia.

"I just want to say that in my long career, I've played so many extraordinary women that I'm getting mistaken for one," Streep said. "I'm very clear that I'm the vessel for other people's stories and other people's lives"

If you've ever listened to Streep's other interviews, or seen her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio,' you'll recognize that this selflessness is what makes Streep stand out as one of the greatest actresses of our time. The great actors are the ones who recognize that their job is to tell a story, to give voice to those who otherwise would have none, and to do it with respect, honesty, and empathy. This is the power of acting, and Streep is one of my great role models for exemplifying that.

The other highlight of the show was seeing Martin Scorsese presented with the Cecil B. DeMille award. They were spot on when they said that not only is Scorsese one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, but his devotion to film preservation, his clear passion for film history and for the art as a whole makes him a true gift to this industry. This is a man who fell in love with film and did something great with that love. If only we all followed our passion with such fervor. Another incredibly inspiring role-model. I can't get enough of seeing him recognized for all he's done for cinema.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Directed by: Wes Anderson

Written by: Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbauch, based on the book by Roald Dahl

Featuring the Voices of: Eric Chase Anderson, George Clooney, Willem Dafoe, Michael Gambon, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Meryl Streep, & Owen Wilson

The whole time I was watching this film I just wanted to reach out and touch the characters. This is the magic of classic stop-motion animation. Unlike CG animation, where the fur may look just as soft but lacks the tangibility, stop-motion has an earthy, unpolished look, reminiscent of the original King Kong or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer or Yoda before his digital make-over.

Wes Anderson is a very talented director. Take a look at the shots in his films and notice the color palettes. Every scene has been deliberately painted with rich colors, turning an ordinary shot into a visual feast. If you watch any behind the scenes footage or take a look at the breathtaking book, The Making of Fantastic Mr. Fox, you'll know that Wes Anderson has that obsessive attention to detail characteristic of great directors. He'll repaint a set just to get it to that exact perfect shade of crimson, or make notes next to character sketches to 'add ribbing to the sweater,' 'adjust the angle of the shoulders,' 'make the fingers a little longer and finer.' It pays off.

For this film, Anderson combines his three dimensional stop-motion characters and sets with the occasional two dimensional backdrop, providing a decidedly picture-book feeling, as though you really are watching the characters in a children's book pop up from their 2-D page and come to life.

The characters here will be familiar to anyone who's seen any of Anderson's previous films (as will many of the voices as well). There's the over-confident, deluded but hopelessly charming wanna-be criminal, Mr. Fox (voiced by Clooney), his insecure, quirky but lovable son Ash, and a host of other characters, full of personality and real-life idiosyncrasies, hardly expected of children's book characters. The plot is fun and provides for plenty of strange and amusing situations. This is one of those few films that will likely be enjoyed more, or at least as much, by adults as children. Anderson's style certainly compliments Dahl's, and this film makes apparent just how much the two are cut from the same artistic cloth.

Another Look

Closer (2004)

Directed by: Mike Nichols

Starring: Jude Law, Clive Owen, Natalie Portman, and Julia Roberts

Art has two faces. One which has the ability to communicate at a depth which connects us, and one to exploit. Like the truth. The truth can heal, can build, can bind. It can be told out of pain to ease the pain of another. Or it can be told out of a self-satisfying masochism, to both feel the pain and watch it carve its forms into someone else. Closer explores these two faces and it brings us, willing or no, into the discourse. There is something strangely seductive and satisfying about listening to these people bear all, speak with such frankness, even in their deception, about their deception.

What I love about this film is that it is, it has to be, self-aware. We are not simply watching the characters, we are the characters. Not in our actions, perhaps, but in our fascination with truth, with deception, and with seeing pain made beautiful; romanticized. As Portman says, it makes us feel better. The photo exhibition in the second act act of the film implicates the audience, since Closer itself is like the exhibit: we are watching people experience pain. Someone writes about it beautifully, photographs it beautifully, and acts it beautifully, and so the pain, even at its most ugly, becomes beautiful. If you don't agree, look up the reviews from critics, who all agree that Closer is a great film. Art.

Of the truth, Law's character says, "with out it, we're animals," but with it, these characters are at their most brutal. It's not about the truth, it's about our intentions with it. And it's not about our intentions with it, it's about our subsequent actions. Why do we tell the truth? Why do we create art? Why do we communicate? Is it because we want to feel something deeper than our superficial layer to what we share beneath it all? Is it to bring us closer? Have you ever told the truth, not because it was the right thing to do or because it was brave, but out of self-righteousness or because you knew it would hurt the other person? This film toys with the fine line that exists here. It brings up questions about art, about love, and about our relationships with one another.

I saw Closer in high school and all I remember is a strange kind of draw to the rawness of the characters and the way they spoke to one another. Seeing the film again, six years later, I realize that this is exactly the feeling Nichols must hope his audience will leave with, and hope, further, that they will take the time to examine. It raises some fascinating and troubling questions.