Taking It Home: Restrepo

(Images courtesy Outpost Films)

"Our idea was...let's make the most visceral war film you've ever seen." 

So said photojournalist Tim Hetherington, who partnered with author/journalist Sebastian Junger to create the Sundance-award winning documentary Restrepo, which delivers what's sure to be the most nerve-racking viewing experience of the year so far. Inception plays like a Saturday morning cartoon in comparison. If Restrepo isn't the most visceral war film we've ever seen, it's at least the most visceral movie about the war in Afghanistan that we've yet seen, and the most insightful documentary on the 21st-century soldier's experience since The War Tapes (which, along with the disappointing Gunnar Palace, comprise the few films that actually feature soldiers and not actors). 

Pro-war, anti-war, McChrystal, Wikileaks, whatever. The talking heads and the rest of the U.S. should stop shouting and hand-wringing for a moment to witness what's actually happening on the ground, or at least was in 2007-08. Restrepo follows the deployment of a dozen or so brave American infantrymen from Second Platoon, Battle Company, of the 173rd Airborne, who spent more than a year in Afghanistan's deadly Korengal Valley. The reasons to see this documentary are as numerous as the opinions about what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan (i.e., the "graveyard of empires"); suffice to say you don't have much business in a conversation about the latter until you've seen the former.

300 Words About: Afghan Star

[Afghan Star was scheduled to open this Friday, September 11, at the Landmark Lagoon Cinema. It has just been dropped from the booking schedule and I have no idea if/when it will actually arrive.]

I don't know why I've never warmed to "American Idol" at any time during the last decade (can you believe it's been nine years?), but I think part of the reason is because it's always seemed to be less like a singing competition and more like a pop-friendly talent show. This is exactly what it is supposed to be, of course, but my point is that it's not really about well these people can sing. It's about how good they look as pop stars.

You need look no further than Susan Boyle, who became an overnight celebrity, literally a household name, not because she could sing well (she couldn't), but because she didn't look like she could sing well. Maybe it says something about Western influence in Afghanistan that "Afghan Star", the equivalent of "Idol", appears to be just as image-obsessed as its American predecessor. But that's where the similarities end.

If you lose in the final rounds of "American Idol" you can still count on a good five year career as a singer. If you lose in "Afghan Star" it can mean a return to the daily struggle in a war-torn country, which is not so bad when compared with the death threats contestants (particularly female contestants) encounter if they simply present the wrong image of themselves on the show. These people are playing for keeps, which makes Afghan Star, the documentary about four finalists in the third season of the show, a compelling cultural study. And also 88 minutes of sweet relief from Ryan Seacrest.

I won't spoil the movie by revealing who wins the competition, but if you really want to remain in suspense, stop reading now. I'll only say that I expected some dramatic twists - maybe even extremely dramatic twists - that never materialized. It's certainly for the best as far as the subjects are concerned, but based on the synopsis and poster (of course I didn't watch the trailer until after the movie), I thought I was in for something much more disturbing.

Not that I would have liked to see that, but as it happens the only real weakness of Afghan Star is that these disturbing issues aren't fully explored. We learn that dancing on stage is bad, women have completely lost their identities under Taliban rule, and contestants represent each of Afghanistan's ethnic groups. I guess I just wanted a little more depth, a few more voices.

Nevertheless, I think I'd much rather watch Afghan Star (or "Afghan Star", the actual show) than "American Idol" because the stakes are real. Even the host of the season of "Afghan Star" that's profiled in the movie is desperate to cash in on the show's success: having arrived in the U.S. for the first time earlier this year to promote the film at the Sundance Film Festival, he skipped out on his flight back home.

300 Words About: Iron Man

I wasn't one of the people in the theater shrieking and hugging my friends after the post-closing credits teaser following Iron Man, which is important to mention because I think it explains why was I fairly underwhelmed by the film. As a (disconcertingly early) start to the summer movie season, it was perfectly adequate. As a significant milestone in the comeback of future Oscar-winner Robert Downey, Jr. (next in The Incredible Hulk and Tropic Thunder), it was very necessary. But as a memorable movie that fully grabbed my senses and left me gasping for breath, it...well, it wasn't. Understand that I'm not calling it a bad movie. It received an 82% based on my calculations, which is nothing to scoff at. My issue with it, I think, was that it didn't set itself apart from the Marvel franchise, and I'd like to blame director Jon Favreau. The elements for a terrific movie are all there: better-than-average acting, cool gadgets, some chuckle-inducing dialogue, and a pretty decent, somewhat meaningful story to work with. But this is no Batman Begins. For one thing, Favreau underutilizes the comedy and overuses the gadgetry. For all the time we saw Tony Stark (Downey, Jr.) hunched over a work desk or strapping things to himself, can anyone explain to me what the magic was behind the technology? And for what seems like a pretty simple story, were all the tedious exchanges necessary between Stark, Obadiah Stane (an almost unrecognizable Jeff Bridges), Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard on autopilot), and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow)? My point is, Favreau didn't make me, a non comic-book reader, really care about what was happening, and he didn't provide enough action, character depth or even enough fluffy Downey-Paltrow exchanges to make up for it. Iron Man didn't disappoint me, but nor did it overwhelm me. The film is glossy, shiny, and light - more aluminum than iron.

REVIEW: Taxi to the Dark Side (B+)

Background: Over the last year or so, public interest in the use of torture has waned quite significantly. It made a brief appearance in 2007's terrible Rendition, but has otherwise been relegated to obscure Abu Ghraib references in pop culture. Alex Gibney, whose Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room was one 2005's best documentaries, takes on the Bush administration's torture tactics with Taxi to the Dark Side. This was his second involvement on an Iraq documentary in 2007 - he was an executive producer on Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight. Both films received Oscar nominations for Best Documentary Feature.

Synopsis: Framing his attack on Bush around the story of innocent Afghan taxi driver Dilawar, who was murdered by beatings in American detention in 2002, Gibney takes us on a torture tour through Bagram prison in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, and, of course, the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. Amazingly, the (now discharged) military personnel involved with Dilawar's death are all happy to share their stories on camera, no doubt to shed some guilt and blame their actions on "following orders." Over and over we see mutilated, naked bodies of detainees in various stages of "interrogation." A few reenactments are oddly interspersed, along with some interviews from authors and experts on torture, the Geneva Conventions, and human behavior. The rest of the 106 minutes are filled with predictable clips of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et. al. defending torture by saying it can't be defined.

I Loved:
+ The interview with former FBI agent Jack Cloonan.
+ Some interesting statistics: 93% of detainees in U.S. military custody were "captured" for a bounty by tribal warlords and militia men. You can only assume that the majority of such detainees are likely innocent, but this unfortunately isn't further explored.

I Liked:
+ The interviews from the military MPs - straight from the source, like it should be.

I Disliked:
- The reenactments - maybe they were necessary (what are you going to do, actually torture someone?), but they just seemed strangely done.
- When Gibney went Michael Moorish at Guantanamo - catchy song with ironic lyrics while showing exaggerated examples of military attitude.
- Not hearing from any interviewees who could have defended the use of torture.

I Hated:
- The explicit male nudity, quite certainly the most I've ever seen in a film. And no, this isn't a "fairness" thing about male vs. female nudity on screen - it's a "dignity" thing. These men, if still alive, have been subject to enough humiliation already, haven't they? The blurred photos with which we are all (hopefully) familiar would have been appropriate and would have sufficed just fine in showing the horror of the situation.

Grade:
Writing - N/A
Acting - N/A
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 26/30= 87% = B+

Last Word: In addition to objectively painting a portrait of a given subject matter, a documentary is usually expected to be an exposé of said subject matter; a story you've never heard, or a story you've heard before, but not in "this way." Though engrossing and often gross, the real weakness of Taxi to the Dark Side is the fact that it's the same story told in pretty much the same way we've always heard: poor leadership within the U.S. administration led to poor decision-making on the ground, which led to poor detainees being treated poorly. Everyone's guilty but no one is to blame. This circuitous chaos is the subject matter and not the fault of Alex Gibney, but I hold him accountable for not telling me anything I didn't already know about it (and for thoroughly confusing me with years and locations). If there was ever an instance of preaching to the choir, this was it. Why did I expect more? Because Gibney's Enron was a triumph - as much as you knew about that scandal (which was probably not much), he laid out a linear, exacting argument that left no room for debate. As ironic as it seems to say so, Taxi to the Dark Side is not going to convince anyone of anything. You either think torture is bad, or you think torture is good. I really don't see a middle ground, and if you're in the second group you won't change your mind from what Gibney presents, you'll just shrug your shoulders. For a brief moment he actually starts to get creative as we hear from a former FBI interrogator whose interrogation techniques were effective and peaceful (as much as he exaggerated). That started to be convincing, so why did it end? And what about the 30 second insight into how torture has been embraced by the American public thanks to the likes of 24? That's an interesting place to go, but we're left with more polarizing soundbites from Bush. How about the flash-quick glimpse into the future repercussions from torture survivors? Gibney even pushes his own personal connection to torture to the credits. Where was that the whole time? The short of it is, by focusing on the same old details and using some pretty tired arguments, Gibney prevents his merely good work from achieving real excellence. Though it's a good excuse to get angry for a few hours, Taxi to the Dark Side can really only be recommended for anyone who has had their head in the sand for the last five years.

REVIEW: The Kite Runner (A)

Background: I didn't read the book. Gasp. Go ahead. OK...done? The Kite Runner is the highly-anticipated film adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's novel by the same name, which, if you didn't know, swept America by storm in 2003. Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction) directs the screenplay that was adapted by David Benioff (The 25th Hour, Troy). Starring are Khalid Abdalla (United 93 - the best film of 2006) and a host of supporting characters (several from Iran), including three amateur child actors from Afghanistan whose safety was in danger in the months prior to the film's release due to the tribal shame expected from a scene in the movie. This in fact delayed the release of The Kite Runner, which was filmed in China and features authentic dialogue in Dari, a Persian dialect spoken in Afghanistan.

Synopsis: Amir (Abdalla) is the son of a wealthy Pashtun in 1970's Kabul. His best friend, Hassan, is a Hazara boy who works along with his father as a servant for Amir's father. The two boys ignore their tribal and class differences as they develop into the best kite flying duo in Kabul. On the day of their greatest victory, Amir silently witnesses the assault and rape of Hassan by local Pashtun teens. Their friendship immediately frays as Amir is privately racked with guilt and orchestrates the resignation of Hassan and his father as the family servants. As the Soviets invade, Amir flees for California with his father, where they work in the local flea market. Here Amir meets his future wife Sonaya and goes onto to become a successful novelist in the Bay Area, until in 2000 he receives a call from his father's oldest friend in Kabul who is asking him to return and rescue Hassan's son from the the Taliban. Amir reluctantly sets off on the journey that he hopes will atone for the sins that have haunted him for 20 years. Kabul has obviously become a different world, and Amir's only chance for redemption is to learn the local culture and fight his inner demons.

I Loved:
+ The sweeping cinematography and aerial shots of what was supposed to be Kabul and its surrounding mountains.
+ Khalid Abdalla, who carried the movie from the first to the last frame. Hopefully more to come from this talented actor, who reluctantly took the role of a terrorist in United 93.
+ The final scene and powerful, memorable last line. I cried through the credits.
+ The charm and talent of Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada as Hassan.

I Liked:
+ The scene in which Amir reads the letter from Hassan. Starts out schmaltzy, ends up devastatingly heartbreaking.
+ The scene in which Amir and his escort visit the orphanage in Kabul.
+ The supporting performances by Iranian actors Atossa Leoni as Soraya and Homayoun Ershadi as Baba. He'll be overlooked when Supporting Actor nominations are announced January 22nd.

I Disliked:
- The scene in which Amir speaks to Sohrab, which felt a little contrived and/or awkward.
- A little bit of drag here or there, which was the awkwardness that comes when a director can only communicate with the actors through translators.

I Hated:
- The poor special effects of all the fake kites flying around.

Grade:
Writing - 9
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 48/50= 96% = A

Last Word: For those 3 or 4 of us in America who have not read the book, The Kite Runner is likely one of the best films we've seen all year. At least I can say that. It's certainly the best story told on screen in 2007, with The Namesake in second place. It's a visual delight with truly believable acting and moments of real suspense, humor, and drama. The casting was absolutely perfect and the only weakness in the production is the kite flying. Aside from your problems with how it differed from the book, I don't know what else you can criticize about the movie on its own merit, and of course that's what I'm interested in here. Marc Forster has done an admirable job as far as I'm concerned, and were it not for the millions and millions of people holding him accountable to the novel, he would probably be preparing a speech for Oscar night.

REVIEW: Charlie Wilson's War (B)

Background: In yet another "War on Terrorism" message movie of 2007, director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer) works with Aaron Sorkin's (TV's "The West Wing") adaptation of George Crile's 2003 book about Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson, and yes, I know this was a long sentence. Charlie Wilson's War stars Tom Hanks (The Da Vinci Code) in the title role, with supporting performances by Julia Roberts (Closer), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead), and Amy Adams (Junebug). I've been reading buzz about it for over a year now - probably because of the Nichols/Hanks/Roberts connection, but with the competition that has surfaced as of late I'm not sure what its award chances are beyond some token nominations. Then again, it's the strongest of the war movies thus far.

Synopsis: In the early 1980's, Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks) is a boozing womanizer with no enemies and plenty of influential friends, including wealthy socialite Joanne Herring (Roberts). At the height of the cold war, she and several others (including Dan Rather) convince Wilson to take on the cause of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who are fighting against the invading Soviets. While pushing an expanding budget through Congress, he quietly enlists CIA troublemaker Gust Avrakatos (Hoffman) - along with friends in Pakistan and Israel - to arm the Afghans with all kinds of weapons. Since Americans are not on the ground, the war goes unnoticed for years, and soon the Soviets are retreating while Wilson is earning accolades in Washington. Before it's all over, however, Avrakatos eerily warns Hanks of what will happen if the U.S. washes their hands of Afghanistan too soon...

I Loved:
+ Philip Seymour Hoffman, who strikes a perfect balance between chafing and charming.

I Liked:
+ The refugee camp scene, which was appropriate and timely (i.e., Darfur, many other places right now).
+ Tom Hanks, who added enough charisma to his role to carry the movie.

I Disliked:
- That the Soviet - Afghan political situation was not further explored. But I guess it didn't need to be, we were going to fight the Soviets no matter what.
- The office scene where Hoffman and Bonnie Bach's (Adams) girls were flying in and out of the room. It was amusing but exhausting.

I Hated:
- Julia Roberts's accent - ouch, that was not working.
- That all of the most important conversations in Washington happen spontaneously while walking in hallways. This is exactly why I don't watch "The West Wing."

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 8
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 43/50= 84% = B

Last Word: There's something charmingly, maybe refreshingly contradictory about Charlie Wilson's War - it's a comedy about war. Of course that's been done before, but certainly not in recent months. As a stand-alone movie, it's entertaining enough and not too provocative. As a referendum on our current situation in Afghanistan, it isn't quite informative enough for me, and it borders on flashy. I guess I should read the book, though, or wait for a DVD interview with the real Charlie Wilson, who of course approved this production. Tom Hanks does an admirable - albeit sometimes awkward - job in the title role, while Julia Roberts seems to yawn through her role. Philip Seymour Hoffman perfectly delivers his juicy lines, and Amy Adams is very good as Charlie Wilson's assistant. All in all, I recommend seeing Charlie Wilson's War for an entertaining lesson on the cold war, despite a couple of minor annoyances.

REVIEW: Lions for Lambs (C)

Background: The week after I posted my review of Rendition and mentioned the challenge of making these as-it's-happening "War on Terror" movies, A.O. Scott wrote this piece in the New York Times. You might call it plagiarism; I call it much more articulate than my drivel. In any case, Lions for Lambs has arrived as the next chapter in the Fall 2007 Iraq War series. It stars now-established Hollywood legends Robert Redford (recently in An Unfinished Life), Meryl Streep (also in Rendition), and Tom Cruise (last in MI:3), with supporting performances by Derek Luke (Antwone Fisher, Catch a Fire) and Michael Peña (Crash, World Trade Center). It's directed by Redford and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, whose first screenplay was, sadly, The Kingdom. Lions for Lambs also marks the first film produced by Tom Cruise, or starring him, since his "termination" from Paramount Pictures in 2006 for "bad behavior." His new contract with United Artists begins with this film.

Synopsis: In Washington, D.C., Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise) is being interviewed in his office by reporter Janine Roth (Streep) about a new military strategy in Afghanistan. At the same time, said military strategy is beginning with complications, as best friends and soldiers Ernest Rodriguez (Peña) and Arian Finch (Luke) are stranded atop a snowy mountain, wounded and vulnerable to the approaching "enemy." Meanwhile, their idealistic college professor, Stephen Malley (Redford), is acting out Good Will Hunting scenes with a disillusioned but brilliant student named Todd Hayes at "a university in California." The three stories are happening simultaneously, and we hear different perspectives and typical talking points about the war, politics, America, apathy, and journalism. We learn about how Irving rose as a Republican star, how Malley fought in Vietnam, and how Rodriguez and Finch ended up in Afghanistan. At the end, there is a meltdown and argument between Roth and her editor about responsible journalism, a final firefight on the snowy mountaintop, and an abrupt send-off of Hayes by Malley.

I Loved:
+ The idea of comparing real time, simultaneously occurring discussions.

I Liked:
+ Tom Cruise, as always. Yes, I am a huge Tom Cruise movie fan. Not necessarily a Tom Cruise fan, but a Tom Cruise movie fan. Get the difference?
+ The final scene with Luke and Peña - I thought that was moving.

I Disliked:
- The loudly placed Hurricane Katrina footage on the TV throughout the entire conversation between Janine Roth and her editor in the newsroom - if you want to make a movie about that, make a movie about that. Otherwise it's just an immature slight.
- Meryl Streep's naive facial expressions and general sensitivity throughout the interview - this is a D.C. reporter with 40 years of experience, including Vietnam, and she is surprised by blunt war talk? She looked like she was about to cry the whole time, and then she finally did.
- The poor special effects in "Afghanistan," especially involving the military chopper.

I Hated:
- Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) - a self-absorbed, jaded, know-it-all college student that I've seen in the mirror before. A true character if there ever was one, but still hard to watch.
- That the usual talking points were about as far as the discussions went.

Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 7
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 4
Significance - 5

Total: 37/50= 74% = C

Last Word: Though it doesn't effectively deliver its ambiguous challenge to America, Lions for Lambs is extraordinarily better than Rendition or The Kingdom, if only because it at least attempts to offer differing perspectives, even if they are the same extremely liberal CNN talking points vs. the same extremely conservative FOX News talking points. We hear a lot of people talking, but nobody is saying anything. In between witty banter by Cruise and Streep, we're lectured by Redford about civic engagement, and at one point even presented with an alternative to the military draft: a mandatory civil service requirement for all high school juniors. This is the only somewhat fresh idea in the whole movie, but it's rightly left alone as it has little to do with our current international dilemmas. Lions for Lambs does a good job in reflecting the current confusion facing all Americans, and perhaps that's enough, but it doesn't even effectively present either side of the war debate. Clearly, Tom Cruise had to do some character research to play a Republican Senator, so that side is poorly developed (and heavily reliant on admission of mistakes). But even the anti-war argument is sloppily delivered - is it just about the troops? And what about the underlying jabs at journalism, students, political science, etc.? Obviously, I can't expect provocative or astute foreign policy analysis from a Hollywood movie, and besides, what could I expect from the writer of The Kingdom?