Change Your Image
ertank
Reviews
Lo imposible (2012)
Mediocre disaster movie
I was cautiously excited the moment I learned that the director of the movie, Bayona, is also the director of the lovely sad horror movie 'The Orphanage'. Still, shooting a disaster movie has a number of drawbacks -hence the caution-. 1) developing a character without resorting to clichés, such as the scared man/woman turning resilient, broken couple who rediscover each other, etc. 2) relying on too much on the technique -everyone wants to shoot a lovely disaster scene, which often shadows the movie itself- 3) finding an original way to tell the story.
Since the work is based on a true story, Bayona has an excuse on narrative issues. But he doesn't have any excuses on a lot of mistakes:
1. No character development: We barely learn anything about our typical white family before the tsunami hits. Actually, it makes sense; because our family is so ordinary, so typical white; that developing a character out of them is almost impossible. Hence, he lets the tsunami roll as early as possible.
2. Inconclusive attempts: Bayona tries to create small stories, but almost all of them fails miserably. In the early stages, we catch our adolescent male protagonist looking at her mother's breast with mixed feelings. Only natural if you are adolescent, but Bayona doesn't follow the trail; he leaves it there. Why did you start it in the first place then?
Also, we see the mom reading Conrad -most probably "The Heart of Darkness"- in the plane on their way to Thailand. Nice touch to stress the white - indigenous tension, and nice referral to Peter Jackson's "King Kong". Nevertheless, if you imply such a tension, you have to give the audience the follow-up your promise, which Bayona fails to do so. A careful eye will observe two-three other subtexts which Bayona put forward to make his story more interesting, but none goes anywhere. I have a feeling that the stories were most probably lost on the editing table. Or worse: Bayona wants to show off, "Look, I know Conrad! I even read a couple of works on post-colonial studies!"
3. I'm not even mentioning the lack of subtleties in the movie: the indigenous dragging the mom in spite of her leg wound, and the son not preventing it, etc.
Avid movie lovers know the difference between a 'character' and a 'type'. This movie doesn't have a single character; and this would have worked if Bayona tried to create a distance between the victimised typical white family and the audience. But you cannot prevent your audience to create an emotional attachment with the victims, and as a matter of fact, we can't see any traces of Bayona making an effort on that, either. For instance, there is no side-story that would have made the deeper. Instead, all the tragedy of the 'else', apart from a couple of white side-kicks who happen to have the chance to bump into our white protagonists, is reduced into general "Oh, see how dramatic it is!" shots.
All in all, this movie is full of intellectual inconsistencies and half-spent efforts; which drags it into the league of mediocre and typical disaster movies. Makes me think that the real magic in "the Orphanage" was not director Bayona, but the executive producer, known by the name, Guillermo del Toro.
Cooking History (2009)
cooking history - a good title
I have to admit that I started watching this documentary with low expectations, particularly because of its insufficient and irrelevant one-liner in IMDb. Actually, although this documentary tells about 'military cooking', it manages to put it into a historical. at the same time very human context.
The documentary starts with details on cooks and cooking in the German and Russian armies during the Second World War. It visit Hungarian military cooks who happened to witness Soviet occupation in 1956, then continues with two French military cooks with different viewpoints on the Algerian occupation, then it visits Czechoslovakia in 1968, again, during the Soviet Occupation. The next stop is Yugoslavia, but then, we have an interesting guest, the cook of Josip Bros Tito. Afterwards, we witness the disintegration of the same country through two different eyes / cooks. There is an epilogue as well, of which I wouldn't give any details.
To be honest, such a topic can be handled in a wide scope ranging from extremely boring to extremely loose. I think Peter Kerekes was concerned enough about that, so that he always yearns for a discourse. The other that he is good at is, although the historical venues I mentioned above are mostly eclectic, he tried to catch a common pattern by asking 'thick' questions about the similarities in military orders and recipes, about war, about occupation and collaborators, about killing. Nevertheless, humour is always there.
One last note: in the movie you'll watch animals getting killed in various ways, for their meat. These are deeply disturbing scenes, but I think, as a vegetarian, any meat eater should be disturbed.
Trouble Every Day (2001)
Misplacement of Human Relations
All of us know the French cinema tradition, which is best telling us human relations. This tradition started with "New Wave" -particularly with 'Jules and Jim' of François Truffaut-; and continues with Blier, Lelouch and Beineix.
If you read the plot, you could have guessed you are about to see an Italian like gore-horror film, such as of Argento's or Bava's films. Forget about them, Claire Denis tries an irrelevant job to 'extract' the problematic of human relations -particularly between men and women-. However, the story is so dry that it could not have been a masterpiece even in Antonioni's hands, for instance, let Denis aside. Denis simply fails in montage. Almost half of cuts are simply irrelevant, denoting an unsuccessful effort of artsy impacts. The lights, the acting, the dialogues are below average. What makes this film worth seeing is the sour taste left with you -no, I don't mean the film quality, you know, sometimes it happens when you are affected by something you don't know-. Apart from that, waste of time.
Signs (2002)
Successful 'pastiche'
In this film, Shyamalan tries some new things.
1) Unlike The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, this film has some Brechtian effects inside -such as the aluminium helmet, or sad, however funny dinner scene-. However, they are quite weak, and simply don't serve the aim.
2) He pays tribute to films such as 'Birds' of Hitchcock, or 'Night of the Living Dead' of Romero -for the film, remember the finger cut scene, and the birds afterwards. Or the alien 'design'...
I'm not quite sure about the casting in this film. Mel Gibson is really good in reflecting the 'aura' of a middle-class farmer; however, he simply fails to reflect the inner transformation of a former priest who has difficulties for believing in God. That's apparently not an important matter for Shyamalan, for he usually lets it go for the role. What he emphasizes on is the visuality and the dramaturgy, which is quite good in this film as well.
Nevertheless, the end is by no means successful. It is understandable that Shyamalan avoids conventional action scenes, but the fight scene was really alienating. One can understand Shyamalan's real problem is to reflect the inner transformation of Hess, i,e., his return to belief, however, the ending is really weak for that. I highly recommend Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' for anyone who wants to see a good example of that.
Shyamalan continues Hitchcock's tradition to appear in his own films; however, Hitchcock never had a key role a Shyamalan did -and agonizingly failed- in this film.
What Syhalaman always does best, is, the spooky and at the same time sad atmosphere in his films. Just remember the sad ending of The Sixth Sense or the sad family in Unbreakable, this film contains the very same sadness. It's a success if you make someone both sad and scary in a film.
An overall evaluation: Not his best film, but it's always hard in Hollywood to shoot three successive masterpieces. Consider this as a kind of break, or as a successful compromise.
The Others (2001)
A political film?
Let me tell you my personal experience with the film. It was all too ordinary for me when I left the movie theater. I was thinking 'Yeah, it was good, Kidman was good, kids were good, and Amenabar had a good film.' I had my shopping, some other daily routines, etc. But when I was returning home, everything suddenly began to open one by one in my mind, forcing me to the conclusion that this was quite a political film as well. How come? Well, anyone familiar with the theory of postmodernism might start even from the name of the film. The concept of the "other", in fact, has been carried into the intellectual agenda by so-called 'postmodern' thinkers such as Foucault. The film marks the fragility of the establishment of a concept of 'the other', for the grounds of this very establishment cannot escape from relativism. In other words, how can you prove that in some other context, some other time and/or space, you would not be 'the other'? The postmodern criticism doesn't end here. I think the fact that the story goes through in the end of Second World War is not a mere coincidence. As you know, there is a consensus that Nazism, fascism, atomic bomb, mass massacres have been marked as the signs of the end of rationalism, a sine-qua-non of modernist way of thinking to that time. And the concept of 'light' in the film can be read as a critic of the concept of 'enlightenment'. Well, these are parts of brainstorming; but let me remind you that Amenabar's previous film had obvious traces from another postmodern thinker, Jean Baudrillard, on the concept of 'reality' and 'hyperspace'. As a summary, I have to say this is a successful film, moreover, not a mere horror film, but a political film, which could have been shot by a director that has a considerable intellectual background on the political issues I have mentioned above.
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
Paradise Lost
First of all, this film is not for the mainstream viewers. For there is something behind the camera this time, each movement of the cam means something, and there is a magnificent combination of pictures, acting, and music, which are hard to find all in a film. This film is clearly underrated, because nobody wants to hear sad stories, with sad ends confirming something about our lives. I have to note that, in the beginning, the village is clearly defined as a paradise. What paradise is: where everyone is happy even with all their idiosyncracies, deceptions, and earthed jealousies. And then something intereferes in our lives. An accident, death of a friend, a disaster. And then life changes. We are not the old tabula rasa's, we know something about life now, but there is a price for that. Simply, this film is the best film of the last two decades. It reminds me of the third symphony of Gorecki: simple, but sorrowful, and human.
Our God's Brother (1997)
The Poor shall stay the Poor
'Our God's Brother' is apart from the typical track Zanussi follows in his films. In fact, this film is clearly a tribute to Pope Jean Paul II, the Polish Pope, who is the writer of the novel. I individually separate the film into two. First is the film itself. It is, in fact, not a film, but the camera witnessing a theatre play. Wilson acts like a theatre actor, and I have to admit he is better in theatre than in cinema, like all the other actors in the film. The camera just finds the best angles to witness this theatre play, and they are literally the best angles. Wilson is unequivocal in his role, the lights are really good, and the theatrical environment reanimated in the film is successful. But one point, it is not something new and different under the sun. If I were forced to make a choice, I'd choose Carlos Saura's 'Bloody Wedding',the camera witnessing film to Lorca's play, Antonio Gades and Christina Hoyos, two prominent flamenco dancers of Spain, acting in the film. Unlike this film, I have to say that, though the writer is the strongest figure of Christianity in the world, 'Our God's Brother' doesn't have a soul, but quite a reactionary idea instead. Here comes my second part: This film tells about the poverty. The poverty of masses is witnessed by a Polish painter, and his life dramatically changes. First he tries to help the poor by being a benefactor, but then he understands it helps increase poverty, not for it is not the way to save the poor, but for the poor are pleased to get with the benefits of being helped, so that they don't have the motivation to save themselves from poverty. At first, I thought I might have misunderstood the moral, but after having had the opportunity to talk to Zanussi, the director who is also a close friend to Pope, in Ankara Film Festival in Turkey, I was amazed by the fact that this is what the Pope thinks. This is politically reactionary, an idea which I supposed remained in the raw capitalism era, having been the dominant ideology. But it seems it is living with the basic institution of Christianity! In the film, the painter Adam 'Hard to Write Surname', a true character, finally convinces himself and the poor to become beggars to face the worst kind of poverty, thus suffering enough to become perfect Christians. I believe there is a way for human to become rich altogether via just share of the resources of this world, and I have the question if there is no way to punish the unjust richness in this world. Pope says no, but I will look for it.
Gizli Yüz (1991)
An Overall Confusion about Time
Omer Kavur's film, Gizli Yuz (The Hidden Face), is based upon the scenario of Orhan Pamuk. The film tells, in fact, the concept of time, and the sub-concepts of it. The human, love, the unreachable, within time. Orhan Pamuk is known about his keen observations and obsessions about the very contradiction between the East and West. The Eastern and Western civilisations were always different in the perception of time, individual, god and related matters. nevertheless, both the scenario and the film are too vague about what they want to tell. The pictures are of inferior quality, too touristic, orientalist, to say, and the words -not dialogues, actually, for they don't develop in the sense of dialogues- are harmingly artistical (!) What saves this film being a kitsch is the good acting of Rutkay Aziz and Zuhal Olcay, two prominent theatre players of Turkey.