Change Your Image
j-timbers
Reviews
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Bad Hollywood Film with some Great Performances
Anyone who has read Anthony Beevor's magnificent history of the battle of Stalingrad will find their toes curling at the way that Hollywood distorts this historic victory. The real story of the battle that stays in my mind the most is that when the German 6th Army's Panzer divisions advanced on the city, Soviet troops fought them off with anti aircraft guns lowered to the ground. When the troops had all been killed, the guns were taken over by a group 0f 14 year old girls from a local school, who fended the Nazis off for hours before every one of them in turn were killed by the world's best army.
The story in this film highlights the story of just one hero, Seitsev, a sniper, who was actually Asiatic. In this film he is changed to a pretty boy white European. Frankly, that's racist! During the battle, the Stalinlist press focused on his remarkable achievements as a sniper, but the truth was that it was a collective effort. This film continues that fiction whilst making crude American points about Communism (it's too idealisitic, doesn't work in practice yak yak - yeah, just like the American dream or Iraq, Vietnam, etc. etc.).
Stalin's regime was horrible, but I would have preferred more insight.
However, Bob Hoskins makes a superb Khrushov, and I wish he had a better vehicle to explore the character of this remarkable (but venial) man who turned against Stalin after his death, and tried to save the dictatorship by humanising it somewhat.
It's good to compare this film to 'Downfall', which was made with grown-ups in mind. Without embellishment or distortion, it presents a picture of the Nazis that makes your blood run cold, and gives those of us who didn't face the last war (unlike my poor father on Arctic convoys) an idea of its horror, heroism and desperation. And sheer madness.
Stalingrad deserved a better treatment than this piece of nonsense with its manufactured romance and conflict between two rivals. Oh, please! it's just the same old plot with Red Army uniforms......
Machuca (2004)
Best Political Film Ever
This is the story of the relationship between a boy from a middle class suburb and two children from a shanty town in Santiago during the dying days of Allende's democratically elected communist government, which as we know was overthrown by a cruel military dictatorship with CIA involvement.
As others have pointed out this film does not idealise the Allende government, which was inspired by high ideals, but arguably created economic chaos in Chile. What it does do is explore the reality of class in terms of the relationship between the children. It is a coming-of-age movie in a time of political terror, where the moral and emotional realisations are linked to social and political developments, which both heighten the love between the central characters and intensify their separation and aloneness.
The Far Left and the Far Right (like the US Republican Party and Fascists/ Baathists etc.)might both have difficulties with the way that morally compromising reality defeats propaganda in this film.
Ken Loach, eat you heart out!
Sir Henry at Rawlinson End (1980)
Brilliant if flawed film from a continuing literary tradition
Mad, propelled by language and stereotype reinvented by surreal humour, this is a unique and brilliant film of a text which ranks with 'Under Milk Wood'or 'Facade' by Edith Sitwell. There are, however, too many references to 'sambos' and 'jungle bunnies' for my liking although I appreciate that the characters are supposed to be reactionary, the narrator also joins in. I suspect that Vivian Stanshall both loved and hated his subject matter. If you want a living parallel, try the poetry of Mike Haslam.
Given the junk, like Pirates of the Caribbean, which gets 7.5 +, I don't think the assessment of this film reflects its uniqueness. It's good to see Trevor Howard debunking Englishness too.
Rome (2005)
Almost Got it Right!
The BBC has a lot to live up to having adapted Robert Graves's novels 'I, Claudius' and 'Claudius the God' into a memorable series in the 1970's starring some wonderful actors.
Rome's production values were superior to the BBC in the 1970's, but the acting, alas, was not always so good. In the 1970's acting on the BBC was excellent, but the sets were cardboard. In 2005, it might be harsh to say that the situation was reversed, but it certainly did seem like that at first. In particular, the guy who played Julius Caesar didn't manage to convey a strong presence until he was on the verge of assassination, although Kenneth Cranham, as Pompey, was brilliant from the start.
The first episode had a couple of scenes of totally pointless female nudity but this did not feature so prominently later on, so I imagine that the intention may have been to engage male viewers, who'd tuned in specifically to see some pre-Christian morals on display. Polly Walker, however, recovered from that (beautiful) indiscretion and managed to portray the snobbish, self-serving, selfish anti-heroine (the name of the character escapes me)whom you can't help but like, with vigour and aplomb. 'Desperate Housewives' have nothing on her.
Turning to the presentation of pagan Roman society, I have to say that I was extremely impressed by what I saw. I think we are fairly certain that Roman society was cruel and competitive, and social compassion was rare. Relationships were patriachal and men dominated society, although rich widows did have some autonomy. Thankfully, we've come a long way since then, and Christianity, for all the wrong-doing which has been done in the name of God, has clearly made life more tolerable in the West (as perhaps other religions have done elsewhere). What was fascinating about Rome, however, was the meticulous attention given to a society which gave us many legal concepts which are still familiar, and some moral ones, such as stoicism, attachment to personal privacy and loyalty to family and military formation, which may have influenced subsequent developments. This lived side by side with corruption, greed for wealth, power and status, rampant crime and a vicious class system. Rome managed to portray all of that and still get on with the story about the last year's of the Republic. The plot about the 2 soldiers which acts as dramatic counterpoint to the high politics, until one of the characters gets involved with Caesar,works well, and allows us to study the polarities in Roman society and mores without heavy-handedness.
Anyhow, it's certainly worth watching but unfortunately, you couldn't show it to a 10 year old whose imagination is stirred by those times.