Change Your Image
Patrick_Waggett
Reviews
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Real war as it should be portrayed
Going to watch 'The Hurt Locker,' I was naively unaware of the talents of one Kathryn Bigelow. Having now seen the film, I find myself wanting more, much more. This is of course the main theme throughout the film. From the offset we are made to think about a quote from war journalist Chris Hedges and standout phrase that 'war is a drug.' We soon learn exactly why. The opening scene sets the tone perfectly as a seemingly simple and straightforward procedure to end a bomb threat goes terribly awry. The familiar washed out look of many Gulf War films is there (Three Kings, Jarhead), but somehow it is fresh and new as Bigelow paces the proceedings so that the audience are only too aware of the bleak surroundings as are the soldiers on the front line as shaky hand-held camera work puts the audience there too (Barry Ackroyd delivering a gritty, very real scope). This paranoia that anything or anyone could be a threat is established. Watch as an approaching civilian seemingly distracts Sgt. JT Sanborn (the no nonsense Anthony Mackie,) heightening tension that is surrounding Sgt. Matt Thompson's (Guy Pierce) bomb disposal squad so that even the slightest of inklings to a threat as a mobile phone is missed, resulting in the horrific end to this incident . Jeremy Renner's Sgt. William James now takes over as Bravo Company's bomb disposal squad staff sergeant. Immediately he is carefree and alarmingly self assured to the particular annoyance of Sanborn. Despite this lack of professionalism as team leader, we fully believe that James is more than capable of doing the job right (he has disarmed over 800 bombs so far.) Walking head strong into the arena, James disarms with ease; it is mainly the surroundings that Bigelow uses to add a daunting prospect and tension. As James gets on with his work, the audience are with Sanborn and Special Owen Eldridge (the painfully torn Brian Geraghty) as they assess the threat and will themselves to be out of harm's way as soon as possible. Contrasting Sanborn and Eldridge's desire to be safe and precarious, James keeps little momentums ('signatures') from each bomb he disarms, revelling in the fact that it could've killed him as we understand that this is James' drug. The much talked about scene where Bravo Company meet up with British mercenaries is a thing of frustrating and never ending tension that excites and grips more than anything I have seen all summer as detail is lost in the distant desert as snipers pick out this meeting, we witness a drawn out and mind numbingly sparse stake out that Bigelow is in no rush to conclude. The tight angles reveal little and the unknown enemy who fire from off screen create a claustrophobic atmosphere, even in the expansive land. A film not about 'war' as such in the political sense, it is about those in war and how they deal with the pressure, whether they love it or hate it. Eldridge seems to have found a Father figure in lesser character Col. John Cambridge (Christian Camargo) and is agonisingly torn between his affections for Sanborn and James as role models. Sanborn, the ever professional does not like the risks and carelessness of James and is not afraid to express this and yet, in the end, we see a broken man who seemingly envies James. Then Renner as James gives the most conflicted and rounded character. Here is someone who smiles at the complexity and difficulty of disarming a bomb that could destroy half a city, secretly admiring the bomb maker. His obsession with bomb disposal overshadows every aspect of his life, he can't even bear to talk to his wife on the phone and once home with family, admits that he has one love, one drug as it were, war. The timing of this film comes perfectly as juxtaposition to Tarantino's 'Inglorious Basterds.' Where Tarantino fictionalises war for his story, 'The Hurt Locker,' has the brilliance of a writer with first hand experiences of the gulf war (journalist Mark Boal) and delivers a very 'real' experience. Where explosions may light the sky up in other summer blockbusters, here we are showered in dirt and debris (there are particularly beautiful touches with slow motion observations of the reverberations of explosions) and where other soldiers may talk about going home to their daughter and beautiful wife, we have men who have nothing but war and when they do, it is not enough. War is where they are at home and home is where they are at war.
Patrick Waggett
Zidane, un portrait du 21e siècle (2006)
n/a
Following an obvious influence that is Hellmuth Costard's focused documentary on George Best playing against Coventry in 1971, Director's Douglas Gordon and Philippe Parreno have made a spectacular visual observation of one of the world's greatest ever players coming to the end of a glittering career. For this fact, it is an excellent project to appeal to such an astute audience who follow football closely and with it's release not long after the 2006 World Cup when Zinedine Zidane was so famously dismissed for violent conduct, its sold itself. Using 17 cameras that solely focused on Zidane through a match between Real Madrid and Villareal, 23rd April, 2005 and Darius Khondji's superb intentions and training of each camera operator meant that 'Zidane' was always destined to just look deliciously irresistible. From the start of the visual documentary, the French feel is realised and a homey feel with broadcast quality picture and sound lure the audience into a false sense of security. When the stunning High Definition picture bursts onto the screen with blistering sound, the audience are thrown into Zidane's majestic world. Worries that the film is too long and eventless as it follows one player closely on screen may be a problem for those not really appreciative of football or the player himself. But Zidane's presence is immediately felt and the intrigue as to who he is and what is going on in his head is a strong element. As he strides around the pitch effortlessly, his exertion in the game in the first half seems minimum, and you can see that for whatever reason, Zidane is very withdrawn from everyone else. Speaking little words (calling out for the ball only on several occasions) and expressionless face displays his intense, personal concentration. Along with the visual aspect of the film, the sound is imperative. The sound design is fantastic as Zidane's every breath is heard as though it were your own, every blade of grass is heard crunching under his feet, the crowd are deafening and then muted to concentrate on Zidane. It is when the Mogwai music kicks in eerily that you get a shiver down your spine. The score whimsically gives Zidane more importance and strength on screen, but sometimes can suggest something is about to happen (and when it doesn't, disappointment can be felt). The editing is again superb, every kick of the ball and tackle made intertwine perfectly as does the running of Zidane, each stride leads onto the other flawlessly and smoothly shows another perspective from close ups of the band on his wrist, Zidane dragging his feet on the floor and the highly defined sweat on his brow. It is so different from documentaries it could be looked upon as an avant-garde visual piece, but the subject matter seems so personal and full of admiration for the player that seductively draws the audience in. When the subtitles roll from Zidanes own words about being a boy and hearing his own commentary in his head and a magic moment when he predicted he would score, you understand the attraction more to an amazingly talented artist and that this is someone special who has so much about him to analyse. Clever devices break the film up to avoid the same footage over and over of Zidane running around the pitch. At half time there is a subplot concerning the documentation of Zidane in this match itself and how many other things happened on that day around the world, in nature, society, politics, war and so on. The message here concerns the audience and their decision to watch the film questioning, '23 April, an ordinary day, will events be remembered or forgotten?' Is this why the film is being made? To make events remembered and talked about? It is unclear in the end and their point isn't really stated with any convincing grounds. Other devices used, involve a change of format in the replays from the game involving Zidane and his involvement in the goals onto broadcast television again and again. There is interesting point of view shots on film from Zidane as he looks to the skies every now and then and another change of format to film that journeys through the corridors of the stadium as though it were a fan going tot heir seat that nicely displays the environment. In the end though, (after Zidanes expressionless reaction to going 1-0 down in the game) is when the film reaches a true climax. As though a lightbulb had been switched on in his head, Zidane suddenly begins to control the game, a deft touch here and there and a powerfully skillful run down the left to cross the ball into the box sets up his teams equaliser and it is the first time we see him smile. It is clear to see the amount of respect those around him have for him, yet he seems so distant from each player (sharing one moment with Roberto Carlos with a joke is his only real interaction). As the music soars through and Zidane running almost constantly with the ball now, so much more than before, you wonder what will happen next even after he is involved again in the wining strike for Real Madrid. However, (and the film could not have picked a better 'event' to observe a personality like this one) in the end and in a confusing manner, Zidane gets involved in a bust up on the pitch and throws an arm at one of the opposing players. Why? It is a tragic irony in the end that he is dismissed for something so uncontrolled despite his extreme concentration and exemplary game leading up to this that leaves the audience with questions that the film cleverly discovers about this ageing footballer.
I Am Trying to Break Your Heart (2002)
n/a
The decision to document the journey of a little known popular American band in 2000 on their hopeful way to superstardom seemingly paid off. Sam Jones, as a first time Director seems to observe well what is going on in the band 'Wilco's development of their new album in which they want released by Time-Warner, but that is all he does, observe. The films seems too convoluted with footage of the band playing music whether in a recording studio, live or watching front man Jeff Tweedy singing solo that becomes painstakingly boring and irrelevant to the story. The observation looks nice in black and white film, and there seems to be a lot of money gone into the visual of the film with apparent B-crews and good camera with extensive amounts of stock allowing them to just keep shooting what is going on around them. Yet it has the feel of a very low budget film and due to it's black and white grain effect and appearance of the band, it was hard to place the time it was set, seemingly early nineties (the music and attitude suiting progressive bands like Nirvana in the early nineties) yet it was filmed in 200/01. Watching and understanding the band as a group of extremely talented musicians who have been given money to make the album on their own with a view to release their record and hit the big time, the film starts off with high spirits from all involved. But predictably, problems began to occur, namely with Jeff Tweedy and Jay Bennett who had major creative differences. One of the most pleasing piece of documentary film making observed the said two have a disagreement with a mix of a record and the air of exhaustion and frustration begins to show at the seams as the camera keeps rolling from afar and their conversation is barely audible over the playing music which is extremely interesting to watch and try to understand. As more music plays, the film appears to go into music video mode for the band around a whole song, so much in fact that you start to become distracted when the music is playing that you don't listen to what is being said in the narration. You would miss the apparent influence 9/11 had on Tweedy and his songs because of this, and it was something the Director wanted to make clear in portraying Tweedy. But saying this, Sam Jones never tries to get into the personal lives of any of the band members, it is all professional (apart from one scene with Tweedy and his family going to eat). When news hits that the bands album has been refused a release as it stands, there is no fuss made which is strange to view. It plays out like an every day event but it is almost unbelievable that they didn't get a release which could be because the first half of the film was so pro- Wilco and possible propaganda for the band making you believe that they were the next best thing. The introduction of a new player to take over Jay Bennett's departure (O'Rourke) again seems to be misdirected and not shown in its utmost importance to the bands eventual success and ironic redemption by being signed by a Time-Warner owned record company. Had Sam Jones concentrated more on the goings on with each band member and the importance of their actions, rather than flooding the film full off music and gig footage, the documentary could have followed a nice narrative that wasn't distracting with relevance into each of the band members actions and how they solved their problems to realise their ambitions.
Shakespeare Behind Bars (2005)
n/a
Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc
and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc
everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now.
Wisconsin Death Trip (1999)
n/a
Not in the traditional documentary format, Wisconsin Death Trip is disturbingly beautiful. The first thing that is noticeable about the film is its intensely visual direction in an extremely eye pleasing black and white art house style backed up with Ian Holm's competent narration (another narrator is used in confusing whisper to tell of those sectioned at the mental asylum, something of which doesn't really make any sense of have any meaning to it but is a nice difference in direction). As a documentary, the film just documents facts. Focusing on strange stories from a small Wisconsin town (Black River City) in the 1890's when (unexplainably) the people started to randomly commit crime after crime in horrific fashion through anarchy, murder, arson, paedophilia and other deranged acts (including a humorous tale of a cocaine addict who persistently smashed local windows for now reason.) Wisconsin Death Trip has these moments of humour, but by no way stretch of the imagination is it a pleasing narrative. Harrowing accounts of acts of violence from the local journalist about the occupiers of the small city and its surroundings are reinacted for the screen in a dry, depressing surrealism. In narrating article after article of random stories of suicide, murder etc
the Direction shows actors play out these events in a wonderfully designed time of old in America taking us throughout the seasons of the year in subtly effective montages of newspaper being printed. Contrasted to this is a modern perception of the same town, displaying school children in a playground happily getting on with life. The elderly living contently at a home and other accounts and recollections of stories they had heard from rumour about the history of Black River City and Wisconsin. However, the film never tries to even start to understand what happened in that area for everyone to commit these heinous crimes in the 1890's, nor does it seem to hold this as a relevant part tot the story, it merely documents the events that took place with linear narration and hand in hand visual aids that were very cinematic. It differs greatly to traditional documentaries in this sense by not following any one particular story, but deciding to document what had already happened and disturbingly, this film was made for television, something of which is interesting to contemplate how it was marketed. The film may be looked upon as having no real meaning and would bore audiences who seek an answer, but they would be a hard audience not to be drawn into the film by its wonderful cinematography and appealing narrative.
The Brandon Teena Story (1998)
n/a
The documentary about Brandon Teena retells a horrific story about a murder of a peculiar young girl who believed she was born the wrong sex. Adopting the name Brandon, we learn that he went through life at his small town befriending many people and even finding partners in relationships successfully and happily. Recounting the details after the death of Brandon, there is some interesting on screen titles to give information about certain dates, court hearings and accounts from Brandon however this can only hold the audience for so long and doesn't really make up for the cheap, distractingly poor cinematography. In one scene there is a camera device where there is a dutch tilt from a travelling car looking at houses and the sky above that has no relevance to the narrative whatsoever. The talking heads also, become boring in their blandness and the content of each interview slowly gets tiresome in it's repetitiveness concerning how people perceived Brandon from friends and family. Saying this, the first act of the film is highly polluted with people's accounts of who Brandon was, how he treated those around him and an eventually pieced puzzle about how he befriended the two who eventually killed him after all the same old content and narrative that the audience are subject to for a lengthy period of time. However, the interviews do give Brandon substance and makes him a very likable person giving him much sympathy to his tragic end. We learn that he had stole just to buy gifts for his loved ones and how he brought happiness to people in a town full of not too appealing people in a prejudice America. Once we find out exactly what happened in the tragic last Christmas/New Year period in Brandon's life, there are disturbing accounts of what happened and what Brandon was subject to by his so called 'Friends'. The most disturbing piece of film shows still information and audio over the image from the actually interview Brandon was in with a Police Officer concerning his bullying. It is almost laughable how moronic and insensitive the Officer is in his investigation forcefully questioning his sexual abuse to detail and unbelievably asking for a repeat of the statement in very unprofessional terms. I was disappointed that the film was so long, it became hard to concentrate on in the final act. New people were introduced in what seemed random talking heads and the Directors/Writers Susan Muska and Greta Olafsdottir seemed to lose their way in the narrative by concentrating on the two men who murdered Brandon and their court case. It seemed like a whole different film and purpose in studying their prosecution and the pace suggested that possibly they could have (and in my opinion, should have) in fact made another documentary into their story and the possibility of looking at their motives and Southern Americas discriminatory motives today.