Change Your Image
hartmut_berger
Reviews
Punishment Park (1971)
unmistakably a Watkins, eerie
Contains Spoilers
This is a Peter Watkins film. If one has seen his BBC masterpieces "Cullodden" and "The War Game", one will recognize the style (and his voice) within seconds after the start. Made in 1971 it is set in a very near future, when the Vietnam war has escalated even more and now seems to involve China. Nixon is still president and civil disobedience and protest is dealt with violently using drumhead tribunals (outwardly civilian with 'everyday citizens' as judges). Because "prison building can't keep up", an alternative is introduced: The Punishment Park. Delinquents can choose between severe prison sentences and a man hunt in a hostile environment, in this case a 85 km trip through the Californian desert at 100°F. If they reach an American flag at the end without being caught by National Guard or Riot Police, they will be set free, or else they have to serve their sentence (or be dead, as we will see). The film is made in a completely documentary style with three European teams covering a tribunal and the course of two groups already sentenced. Scenes jump between the tribunal tent, the hunting troops and the hunted condemned. Watkin's scarce off commentary gives us raw background information (time, temperature etc.). The tribunal scenes show a kangaroo court on the one side and a wide range of personalities on the other ranging from real terrorists over 'undesirables' to clearly innocents (e.g. a total pacifist who can't even hurt flies). The defense lawyer (who does take his job seriously) has to take abuse from both sides. What makes these scenes especially eerie is their resemblance to the rhetoric of todays administration to the detail. Meanwhile, some unfortunate events in the desert make clear that the 'rules of the game' don't really apply. The question remains open, whether it is rigged from the start or arbitrariness by the troops due to those events that leads to the outcome (I suspect, it is both). At the end we are back at square one with the next group going to "Punishment Park". This description may indicate a heavily biased (or even demagogic) propaganda movie but that would be misleading. The behavior (all participants were nonprofessionals as usual with Watkins) looks and sounds real (the tribunal scenes may even contain text material from real contemporary trials). I'd say that this could be sold as the 'real thing' without problem. With Watkins's "The Forgotten Faces" the reaction was "We can't send that or nobody will believe our real newsreels anymore (because this is indistinguishable from the real thing)". With "Punishment Park" it ought to be the same. Effectively banned in the US as far as I know this is a must see that hasn't lost its power or its relevance (especially today).
Dracula père et fils (1976)
The strange genetics of vampires, Highly underrated
Contains Spoilers
The original running time is a bit unclear, several sources give 110 min. The version I got to see (not the American one) is 94 min but shows no obvious holes/cuts.
This is in my opinion one of the few successful comedic takes on the Dracula myth (please note that the name 'Dracula' doesn't occur anywhere in the film, Lee is just 'The Count' and plays his part totally straight(he actually protested against the the title)).
Start of Spoilers Starting quite like a standard Hammer film it quickly turns a strange way resulting in the Count being responsible for a baby. After several time jumps (signified by the turning of a book's pages) passing through mischievous childhood and shy young adulthood Ferdinand and his father are literally driven away by hammer and sickle and find themselves in France (son) and England (father). Lee turns horror actor(!), Menez becomes an exploited night-watchman. Reunited at last both are interested in a young woman who tries to engage Lee for a toothpaste commercial. Now the film turns pure slapstick until only one remains standing. Jump to the next generation and some new toothing problems. End of Spoilers
Interestingly there are only few overt gags, most of the time the film is quite realistic (how do you make a living when sunlight kills you and your diet is unconventional?). The different solutions for the coffin problem are ingenious. The comedy results primarily from people's reaction to our couple first hiding less than successfully their true nature and then openly declaring it ('That is my traveling coffin!'). Look out early in the film for the author of a book about vampires!
If possible watch the French language version (subtitled if necessary).
Heartbreakers (2001)
Not a masterpiece but worth watching. 7/10
This review will consist of three parts (own opinion/criticizing critics / analysis). Please pardon my imperfect English.
*** Contains Spoilers ***
Own Opinion
I am not a friend of romantic comedys (at least modern ones) and the sole reason to watch this one was Sigourney Weaver starring in it (the rest of the cast was unknown to me, so I am not biased about them). Her performance is great (as to be expected) but this is at the same time an inner weakness of the movie. She emanates just too much power and overexpands the fabric(for a comedy it is deadly if the viewer thinks 'Oh no, that's for real'). The second problem is that she always looked more mature (and therefore older) than her age, she could nearly be the mother of husband #13 (Liotta) (on the other hand that makes her the right partner for Hackman). This and the permanent change of pace (and mood) result in an imbalance. The makers have considerable problems to disentangle the countless twists without exceeding the timeframe. So on the whole I would not name this a great film but it is still enjoyable. I think I will buy it, when (if?) there will be a Region 2 DVD available. I agree with those critics saying that the film has a bitter undertone, so I can understand why a lot of people felt uncomfortable with it.
Criticizing critics
A lot of reviewers said that the plot is predictable. Did you ever see a movie in a fixed genre without knowing exactly what would happen ? It's called conventions. Somebody compared it with comedys from the 30ies (>oldfashioned). Considering what is sold as 'comedy' today, this is praise not dispraise (I already mentioned that I don't like the typical modern garbage). One critic said that it was like 'Mars Attacks' and that would mean:Stars instead of plot. The relationship between the two films is well observed but he missed the point. A star transports a certain image/type/character and that is a golden opportunity for comedy (cast with or against type) allowing weird/queer turns otherwise impossible. Both films are able to use this effect expertly(and don't take themselves too seriously). And personally I don't think that Lee's interest in Hewitt is just hormone driven; she acts unordinary enough to quicken interests (her look merely accelerating it).
Some analysis
It is quite interesting to compare mother (Weaver) and daughter (Hewitt). Their mode of attack is totally different (and complementary;strategist vs. tactician), based on background and experience (the bet scene in the bar is a typical example). Hewitt uses direct one-step approach with physical contact and unmistakable double entendres but has no backup plan. In case of failing she has to retreat and becomes bitchy. Weaver avoids bodily contact(sometimes nearly morbidly), her approach is multi-step, indirect. She has either a backup plan ready or can improvise very fast. Contrary to Hewitt she has perseverance and can use unconventional methods. And while Hewitt is soft under a (fragile) steel hull, Weaver is able and willing to use a sledge-hammer to crack the nut. This is where the bitter undertone breaks the comic surface, because we learn, that she must have been like her daughter once and wants to spare her the bitter experiences that turned herself into a cruel cynic. I think the films main problem is to reach the mandatory happy ending in time without making the back conversion unbelievable (the solution is at least unsatisfactory). Lot of critics said, the ending took to long. I say, the makers had the choice between tragicomedy or another half hour - they chose neither. Please propose a better solution.
Ich klage an (1941)
difficult to judge, excellent film with evil intentions
This is one of the best films made in the third reich with a credible storyline and very credible actors. On the other hand it is one of the most dangerous films containing poison that did not weaken in the 6 decades since its production. This film was intended as a preparation and secret promotion for hitler's euthanasia program. The plot(official, therefore no spoiler): A brilliant doctor's young wife falls ill to multiple sclerosis and urges him to kill her before the agony begins. Unable to find a cure he fulfills her wish and is accused of murder.This sounds like a dime novel but is based on real cases and presented in a very credible way(and I am allergic to sentimental films normally). This credibility and the fact that it is difficult to identify this as a nazi film by simple watching (a few seconds of cutting would remove all evidence) makes this film dangerous even today. The film asks the viewer for his judgement on the topic and even supplies him with possible objections but the answer is inevitable 'pro reo'. So this film could be used as ammunition in todays discussion about assisted suicide and its extensions (e.g. against the patients will if his resistance is considered as irrational by an authority as discussed in at least 2 western countrys). Therefore it (the film)is still banned in Germany except for scientific study. It's a pity, for it IS a very good film but I can't object the reasons.
Morgenrot (1933)
A film with a bad reputation - undeserved
This film was the first to have its premiere after Hitler became Reichskanzler (prime minister), so it is not a nazi film by itself but produced and censored before. The owner of the producing company (Hugenberg) was head of the monarchist DNVP (german nationalist peoples party), so the makers views displayed in the film are 'compatible' with the context (imperial Germany in WW1).The sometimes stilted way of talking is oldfashioned but authentic or even moderated(see below). The technical accurateness of the film is stunning (a hallmark of german sub movies). The warships are real (german T-boats equal to WW1 destroyers, a light cruiser and the last riveted german sub design based on a war type). The events in the film are based on specific real cases or (as the rumour spreading in the village) 'true to original'. E.g. the sinking of the cruiser en route to Russia resembles the death of Lord Kitchener, whose ship was sunk either by a mine layed by a sub or by a subs torpedo (unclear because the sub never returned home). The encounter with the Q-boat and the scene with more men than Tauchretter (emergency diving gear) 'everybody or nobody!' happened several times in reality. So this film is probably the most realistic sub movie ever made. But the film gained a very bad reputation, because nazi propaganda used it for its own purposes (including glorifying heroic death). Goebbels ordered one cut to be made: After the successful sinking of the cruiser the sub commanders mother (Adele Sandrock) refuses to celebrate with the officials because 'So many innocent people were killed just because they did their duty as our people do.They too had relatives now mourning the losses.So we should not gloat but thank god that this time our relatives will come back alive.'. This seemed unacceptable, so this scene was removed. After the war it was put back and another scene got removed: On one occasion, when the commander is forced to hold a patriotic speech he says 'About once a century a country needs a great war like a cleaning thunderstorm to stay united and not to become decadent'. Both cuts I consider as questionable. While it is quite doubtful if any common person in WWI would have said that killing the enemy is nothing to celebrate (so the film ist more moderate than reality instead of vice versa), the opinion 'too long peace results in especially nasty wars' was common and has some of truth in it. Conclusion: This film should be shown without cuts but maybe with some background information. It is in my opinion the best Sub movie made in Germany (far superior to 'Subs westward ho' [crude propaganda] and 'the boat' [even the books author complained about adulterations]),to say nothing of Hollywood junk like 'U 571'.