MSPIFF 2010: Week 1 Roundup

I made it to only three films during the first week of MSPIFF 2010 - significantly fewer than any other year in recent memory, but a major feat nonetheless considering all things (moving, working, wedding planning, etc.). I still have ambitious plans to make it to ten total films before the festival wraps up next Friday, though it may require booting up my time machine or employing the Zack Morris Time-Out.

Thoughts on the first three, in order of viewing:

Bananas!* - That both the exclamation point and asterisk in the title go entirely unexplained during this documentary is a curiosity, as is the fact that it's really not about fruit at all. While Swedish filmmaker (emphasis on Swedish, because this film is produced and titled in a decidedly non-American way) Fredrik Gertten presents an admittedly interesting legal drama about the Dole corporation's use of a controversial pesticide that rendered sterile a significant number of the company's banana farmers in rural Nicaragua, the film is the victim of unfortunate timing as it exists as simply a lesser version of last year's Crude, which had an almost identical story to tell about ExxonMobil and a community in Ecuador (including a championing American lawyer using the "David vs. Goliath" analogy). 

I'm glad I saw Bananas!* because the courtroom scenes are engrossing and issues like this deserve to be shared with the world, but at the same time I don't feel I received a complete picture of the banana industry.The film boasts the already tired claim that we'll "never look at ______ (insert bananas) the same way again", which is partly true. I'll never look at them the same way again without wondering, "why didn't I learn more about bananas from Bananas!*?"

The Oath - Leave an Oscar nomination slot open on your ballot next year for Laura Poitras' riveting documentary about Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, Abu Jindal, and his ideological struggle to remain loyal to the al-Qaeda oath without advocating terrorism. As I've already mentioned, Poitras was previously nominated for My Country, My Country, an underrated film about an Iraqi doctor in the months following the U.S. invasion in 2003 (Poitras, an American, was reportedly placed on a no-fly list because of the film's critical stance). This is the second film in her planned "trilogy" about Iraq, and I'm here to tell you that the positive buzz out of Sundance in January was warranted. Summarizing the storyline is not really helpful, but suffice to say it is extremely rare that you will see a documentary cover this much material and still remain grounded in its primary subjects.

If you have any interest in international relations, history, war, terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court, Islam, or the Middle East, The Oath may be considered required viewing. Not surprisingly, it will be broadcast as part of the upcoming P.O.V. season on PBS (My Country, My Country was a selection during the 2006 season). If you miss it theatrically don't miss the chance to see it for free at home. 

Night Catches Us -  I noted in my festival preview that Night Catches Us is an example of a film rarely screened as part of MSPIFF (no doubt the influence of guest programmer Linda Blackaby), and sure enough there were only a couple dozen people at the Wednesday night screening. Oh well, those who missed it missed out. On the surface, Tanya Hamilton's directing debut doesn't necessarily transcend the familiar trappings of other racial-historical dramas, but there's no denying this really is an unique story that lingers in the mind for further reflection. The Hurt Locker standout Anthony Mackie shows impressive leading man potential as a former Black Panther re-acclimating to life in 1976 Philadelphia. Kerry Washington holds her own as his moral compass and love interest, but the film belongs to Mackie whenever he is on screen, almost to a distracting degree. To boot, the cinematography is beautifully absorbing and the original music by Philadelphia natives The Roots adds immediacy and authenticity.

The film does not dive headlong into the history of the Black Panthers, but then this is a film about relationships, not politics. Nonetheless, it's easy to view the Panthers' militant spirit in the context of the brewing social unrest in America in 2010 (earlier in the day I'd listened to a local right-wing conservative radio host justify violence on behalf of the Tea Party by quoting JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.") . In any case, whatever Tanya Hamilton's motive was in telling this story I hope she receives a deserved amount of attention for it.

300 Words About: Green Zone

"Look, man, we had to know this would flop after DiCaprio couldn't even carry Body of Lies. At least we got paid up front, right?"

Green Zone is like Glenn Beck, or Keith Olbermann, or even Jon Stewart. It's incredibly loud, incredibly loose-tongued, and incredibly lacking in moderation or nuance of any kind. Incredibly, Universal Pictures wagered $100+ million that cash-strapped audiences would want to see cable news-styled hysterics within the context of one of the most unpopular film genres of our time: the Iraq War movie (remember that The Hurt Locker is the lowest-grossing Best Picture winner in history).

Granted, Universal did have the "Bourne in Baghdad" angle to lure audiences (how has no one made a mash-up trailer yet?), and Paul Greengrass previously directed United 93, one of the best films of the last decade. But as much as Green Zone had on its side in terms of star power, nothing can make up for an extremely dated and painfully retread screenplay by Brian Helgeland - one that overflows with Big Grand Statements, both said and unsaid by its caricatures.

I figured something was wrong when Universal kept pushing the release date for Green Zone later and later (eventually past the 12/31/09 Oscar eligibility deadline), but wow, I haven't been this disappointed since about 10 minutes ago, when I saw that Brian Helgeland also wrote the upcoming Robin Hood reboot starring Russell Crowe.

300 Words About: In the Loop

The charming face of international diplomacy...

Every time I go to Washington, D.C., I find myself increasingly noticing the ugliness of the place. Of course the city is not physically ugly (I love the National Mall), or culturally ugly (quite the opposite), but I'm picking up more and more on the undercurrent of a competitive, cutthroat, ugly attitude that exists in the federal government and the think tanks and the agencies inside the Beltway. It's all happening In the Loop, as it were, and based on anecdotes from my D.C.-based friends and the razor-sharp satire in this terrific comedy, I'm frankly glad that I'm operating outside of the loop.

Granted, half of In the Loop takes place in London, but things are no better over there, the only difference being the flavor of expletive used in any given conversation. Directed by British TV veteran Armando Ianucci, In the Loop shows us a side of international relations that's just too bizarre to be fake, because really, given the nasty dynamic of the health care debate at the moment, and the 25-hour news cycle, and the sheer size of the circuitous bureaucracy that is our federal government, there's every reason to believe hijinks like this take place with some frequency. After all, the government is comprised of us - "we the people" - and the ratio of good apples to bad apples is the same on Main Street as it is on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Calling Ianucci's directly style "breezy" would be an understatement. Tornadoes of dialogue whoosh through most scenes, and with the number of accents and the number of voices speaking at the same time (e.g., the elevator scene), you're likely to be scratching your head as much as you are laughing. But I like that, because it rewards paying attention and it means that you're laughing at a different joke than your neighbor, simply because they probably didn't catch the one you did. The few moments that don't feature dialogue are filled in by deadpan comedic acting, with so many scowls and smirks that it would appear it's a competition as to who can do the best impression of Dick Cheney/Karl Rove (the winner is David Rasche). Or in the case of the impossibly sarcastic Chad (Zach Woods), who can do the best impression of Kristen Wiig.

If there's one thing I didn't care for in this otherwise wickedly amusing film, it was the use of handheld cameras and quick zooming during completely static scenes (people sitting in cubicles), which at this point is so prevalent in every movie, commercial, and TV show, that I'm left wondering who will be the first director to just have their actors throw the camera back and forth to each other during scenes of casual conversation. Fortunately, there are no scenes of casual conversation in In the Loop, so for the most part the crazy camera work simply enhances the sense of chaos, or at the very least makes the film resemble a documentary. Which it isn't - I hope.

Taking It Home: The Hurt Locker

[A reminder: "Taking It Home" is an alternative review style in which I haphazardly share my thoughts on a movie's themes and how they may relate to my life, while focusing less on the acting, writing, technical aspects, or even plot of the film. It's simply a collection of the ideas I took home, "because the movie experience shouldn't end in the theater".]

I think it was during a marathon desert standoff between U.S. soldiers and Iraqi militants in Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker that I had a realization both horrifying and humbling: these guys are just actors. This is a set, and soon after this scene was filmed, Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie probably relaxed in cooled trailers on location in Jordan before eventually heading home to posh Los Angeles-area homes. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; it's how movies are made.

But as I've written ad nauseam here over the last couple of years, the unspoken truth of The Hurt Locker and every similar movie made recently is that there are a couple million Jeremy Renners and Anthony Mackies who aren't returning to posh Los Angeles-area homes. They're returning to our blocks, our apartment buildings, our families, our schools, our workplaces and our circles of friends.

Of the few veterans I know who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or even Vietnam, for that matter), none have engaged in conversation with me about their tours abroad. I can't blame them; after all, like the exaggeratedly naive army psychiatrist in The Hurt Locker, I wouldn't know the first thing about the pain of their experiences. My military service has been limited to obediently registering for the Selective Service System when I turned 18 and then, in the absence of a draft, steering far and clear of recruiting offices.

I'm too old now to be drafted even if the Congress and the President ever authorized one, but that's little comfort when I know that so many people around me are going to be dealing with PTSD and other physical and psychological wounds for the rest of their lives. That my future children and I will be paying for their lifelong medical care with our taxes may not be much of a sacrifice compared with what they've given for their beliefs (or if you like, "our country" and "my freedom"), but I feel like my continued efforts to bring this conversation to light might be productive in some way.

For example, I lamented on the 5 year anniversary of the war in Iraq that the 100+ movies to date had done nothing but further stereotypes. Three weeks later when I reviewed Stop-Loss, my #8 best movie of 2008, I called it "the first important movie about the war in Iraq, and the only one I can recommend that isn't a documentary...the first mainstream movie (The War Tapes from '06 is a similar doc) that may wake up the public and start a dialogue about the future."

It it didn't really happen then and it may not happen after The Hurt Locker, either, primarily because it's framed as a gripping thriller instead of a character drama. Not since United 93 has a film featured such unbearable suspense through scenes in which the resolution is already known, or at least easily foreseen. It's not that The Hurt Locker is predictable, but aside from two key scenes (the aforementioned desert shootout being one of them), you can see every explosion - or non-explosion - coming well enough in advance to feel some sense of security. The story can't continue without the characters, after all, so they have to stay alive at least most of the way through.

As it is, staying alive seems to be the primary goal of all soldiers as they count down the days until their rotation is complete (the actual count on screen in The Hurt Locker is a little too convenient to the ending, in my opinion). Within this daily struggle, then, is when we really see the toll exacted on their minds - the constant paranoia, the distrust of anyone not wearing a uniform, the stamina required to remain mentally alive in a place surrounded by death.

These are the invisible scars they will bring home, and to the extent that we actually see how PTSD and war dependency develop (as opposed to Stop-Loss, in which we only witness the after effects), The Hurt Locker absolutely provides more insight than any other Iraq War film to date (again, other than The War Tapes, which if I haven't already made it abundantly clear is the best documentary about the war hands-down).
Much has been made about the "realism" portrayed in The Hurt Locker, but I think it's worth mentioning that the Army refused to support this movie "due to inaccurate depictions of soldiers". According to an article featuring interviews with actual EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) soldiers in Iraq who viewed the film, most of them appreciated the effort but made it clear that "it's definitely Hollywood". One of them complained that "the movie was a little skewed toward PTSD...it's not as prevalent as it is in this movie."

I find that hard to believe based on the number of news reports these days about suicide rates among veterans. If "war is a drug" (as presented by the quote that leads off The Hurt Locker), and these soldiers are coming home with raging addictions to said drug, exactly what are they going to do when it's no longer available and they can't get their fix? What kind of symptoms can we expect to see from this withdrawal? These are the questions that horrify me much more than any of the bombs, bullets, or blood on the screen in these war movies.

Veterans' issues aside, another point made by a soldier actually does support a suspicion I had about The Hurt Locker: "The way [James] was poking around and fooling with the IEDs without knowing what they were is extremely dangerous...I don't think someone like Staff Sgt. James would do well [in the field]." Phew. Although I was wracked with tension during most of the bomb defusing scenes, I couldn't believe that a soldier would really act as such a rebellious renegade and later on be commended on his actions by a commanding officer. I know there are some real heroes in our military ranks, but my hope would be that they are taking such insane risks only under duress, not as regular practice.

Speaking of regular practice, I greatly enjoyed how screenwriter Mark Boal (who also wrote 2007's simply decent In the Valley of Elah) turned war movie production on its head once again by only featuring three main characters in The Hurt Locker. A handful of other recent war movies (Three Kings, Jarhead, Rescue Dawn, Flags of Our Fathers, Miracle at St. Anna) have also narrowed their focus, and I greatly prefer it to the regular competition of "how many big name stars can you cast in one movie". Examples of this include but are not limited to: Platoon, Casualties of War, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Pearl Harbor, Windtalkers, When We Were Soldiers, and, if you like, even Tropic Thunder. In my opinion, a focus on fewer characters lends itself to much more interesting storytelling.

Finally, I find it curious that the three films I have discussed here as the best of the Iraq War bunch (The Hurt Locker, Stop-Loss, and The War Tapes) have two other interesting traits in common: a.) they don't feature a lot of explosions and shoot-outs, and b.) they are all directed by American women. Coincidence? Hmm...

What did you take home?

300 Words About: State of Play

I've been itching a little bit to write more words about several new releases, but in writing 100-word reviews for MSPIFF films for the Strib a couple weeks ago, I'm still "thinking small" about crafting reviews (plus I'm perpetually short on time this spring). This will probably remain true for a while since I'm going to see about 10 movies a week for the next two weeks, but as with the films I highlighted from the Beyond Borders Film Festival two weeks ago, I hope to expand some of the MSPIFF write-ups/festival reports to full reviews before select films have their wide releases later this year.

In the meantime...

Why do we trust star investigative reporters to organize details when they can't even find a stapler on their desk?

Like a paper clip that's twisted one too many times, State of Play eventually snaps apart, unable to regain its form and sending you into your desk drawer, or rather film library, for a new conspiracy thriller. It's certainly taut and tense, but almost to its own detriment. From the jarring opening scene to the roaring climax, we're hardly given a moment to stop and consider what these characters are doing and, more importantly, why. Directed by Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) but heavily influenced by the typically overambitious writing of Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity), it's full of memorably witty "gotcha" lines, but empty, for the most part, on thought-provoking insights.

Attempting and mostly succeeding in masking the blubbering writing (the characters are mostly relegated to shouting in newsrooms or mumbling into cell phones) is a high-caliber cast highlighted by Helen Mirren, Jason Bateman, Jeff Daniels, and, incredibly, Ben Affleck's mid-Atlantic/Philly accent. Less excellent but still decent are Russell Crowe (who evidently is embracing his newfound role as Hollywood's favorite "misunderstood yet resolutely righteous" schlub), Rachel McAdams, Viola Davis, and Robin Wright Penn, the last three of whom all deserved more screen time.

Moving on, I must declare that I'm becoming increasingly intolerant of manipulative, Michael Clayton-ish percussive sound effects and musical scores. Chases through dark alleys and parking garages are - or should be - harrowing enough without ominous musical blasts (evidence: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days). If the characters are well developed and the urgency of their plight is properly illustrated, crutches like shaky cameras and menacing music can actually end up detracting from the suspense, in my opinion.

I haven't seen the BBC miniseries on which State of Play is based, but I can see why it received critical and popular acclaim, as it touches on controversial and relevant issues involving everything from the death of newspapers to the birth of mercenary private defense contractors. But therein lies the problem - State of Play ends up only "touching" on these topics, compromising in-depth examinations of them for the sake of cheap suspense and a happy ending. It should say something that instead of discussing these controversial issues, my friends and I ended up talking about the overreaching coincidences and gaps in logic.

Call it a decent little thriller hiding a missed opportunity.

REVIEW: Body of Lies (C+)

"Trust no one. Deceive everyone.," declares the official tagline for Ridley Scott's Body of Lies. The phrasing is an appropriate metaphor for the movie in two ways: 1.) the wording is as unoriginal and bland as the story itself, and 2.) it describes the internal marketing strategy for this movie at Warner Bros., since they're clearly trying to deceive us into thinking we're getting something richer than the action-packed trailer suggests.

It was only last April that Washington Post columnist David Ignatius's bestselling novel of the same name was released. Filming on Body of Lies began in September. How did they do that, and what was the rush anyway? We're guaranteed years more of these movies about Iraq and the "War on Terror" (a veritable genre is developing), so what was accomplished by fast-tracking this one for an October surprise?

As it happens, the biggest surprise in Body of Lies is the fact that it's not a better movie. Sir Ridley Scott's track record has been shaky in the last few years (though I don't think either American Gangster nor A Good Year were as outright terrible as some people think), but this is still a director who helmed a Best Picture winner within the last decade (not to mention Blade Runner decades ago), so the name automatically carries a fairly high level of expectation. Body of Lies marks the third time in as many years Scott has directed Russell Crowe, and the first time he's worked with the reliably great Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond, The Departed).

Unfortunately, this truly A-list trio has produced a truly C-grade movie. Body of Lies is admittedly better than several of its cousins (The Kingdom, Rendition), but despite an experienced director and committed cast, it still ends up achieving only mediocrity. It's almost as if Ridley Scott knew that substance was lacking but just decided to produce his way out of it and hope nobody noticed. Significantly slicker and more visually realistic than its predecessors, Body of Lies commands your attention only to tell you something annoyingly trivial. What was the point of this again?

Oh yeah, to celebrate jingoism and reinforce toxic stereotypes about the Middle East. Look, I'm not saying terrorism isn't a real threat and that these movies don't have some educational potential, but at this point the "rogue American hero infiltrating terror cells and romancing the beautiful local woman" is a pretty stale set-up, and we never learn any lesson at the end anyway, do we? The number of clichés on display here is almost breathtaking; it's disconcerting and frankly insulting, for example, to see CIA agents continue to disguise themselves in foreign countries by wearing track jackets, sunglasses, and floppy hats, successfully establishing themselves as the only people in the country ever dressed like that.

But I'm asking for too much if I'm asking for a new story. It's just that I would enjoy something fresh, a crazy conspiracy theory or a shocking twist at the end - anything new. If I'm not going to get anything meaningful out of these movies, at least entertain me. Russell Crowe knows this, otherwise why would he ham up his performance as a hilarious hybrid of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush? Leonardo DiCaprio (whose "costume" here is almost comical: brown contact lenses and a lumberjack goatee?) knows this, otherwise why would he leave me near tears laughing at the scene with the children at lunch, one of the funniest I've seen all year? In fact if it wasn't for Crowe, Russell, and what should finally be a star-making turn for Mark Strong (Sunshine; Stardust), the movie would be almost unbearable to sit through, even if it is kind of pretty to look at.

Hollywood surrenders to contrivances and clichés yet again...

If any of this sounded familiar as you were reading it, imagine how I felt writing it. I already reviewed this movie here, here, here, here, here, and, most importantly, here. Turn a synopsis from any of those reviews into a Mad Lib and you'll likely end up summarizing Body of Lies in the process.

Grade:
Writing - 7
Acting - 10
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 7
Music - 4
Social Significance - 5

Total: 39/50= 78% = C+

REVIEW: Standard Operating Procedure (A-)

Background: At the risk of losing any credibility I might have, I need to admit that I've not seen Gates of Heaven or The Thin Blue Line (considered two of the most important documentaries of all time) in their entirety. Unfortunately, the only work I've seen by documentary filmmaker Errol Morris is The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. If you have not seen the 2004 Academy Award winner for Best Documentary Feature since it played in the theater, revisit it as soon as possible. You'll lose sleep, but you'll gain perspective as well. Morris' new film, Standard Operating Procedure, focuses on the infamous photographs from Abu Ghraib, and it was the winner of the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival in February. I have to mention here that I attended a screening of Standard Operating Procedure followed by a discussion with Errol Morris and his set photographer, Nubar Alexanian. In most cases this does not significantly affect my impression of a movie, but I'm convinced that my experience with Standard Operating Procedure would have been very different had it not been followed by such a lengthy and illuminating discussion.

Synopsis: Do a little research if you've never heard of Abu Ghraib before, because Morris is not interested in educating us with elementary facts. Right away we're in the middle of the videos and photographs - thousands of them from several different cameras, including angles the public hasn't seen before. As we're taken through an examination of the circumstances surrounding these infamous photos, we hear directly from the familiar faces that are in front of and behind the camera, including Lynndie England, Javal Davis, Megan Ambuhl Graner, Sabrina Harman, Janis Karpinski, and Jeremy Sivits. They candidly explain not just why and how the pictures were taken, but what they were thinking at the time and, most importantly, what was going on that wasn't documented. Within this analysis, Morris interjects artistic reenactments and showy camera work. He lets the interviewees present most of the political talking points for him, and perhaps consequently, he leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

I Loved:
+ The fascinating interviews that left me hanging on every word. The honesty with which the interviewees speak is unbelievable, and Morris' "Interro-tron" creates an unparalleled sense of intimacy for the viewer.
+ The cinematography, particularly the extreme close-ups and mesmerizing, 1000 fps slow-motion shots. On the cooking egg shot, Morris quipped that his favorite practice (and his advice for future filmmakers) is to "just show things dropping."

I Liked:
+ The singular and unwavering focus on the photographs and the circumstances surrounding them. The precision to which the photographs are examined is stunning, and the visual organization is well designed.
+ The funniest line in an unfunny film - Javal Davis, on using country music as a torture device after "Hip Hop Hooray" and "Enter Sandman" failed: "That worked."
+ The musical score by Danny Elfman, even though it initially reminded me of the Spider-Man trilogy.

I Disliked:
- The reenactments of the torture and photo incidents. I understand that we were supposed to see what wasn't in the photographs, but to me they were flashy, unnecessary visuals that ultimately didn't show us anything new. The uncropped photos were more illuminating for me.

I Hated:
- Not hearing from Charles Graner, who is imprisoned and has no way to try to convince us that he is actually human.
- The uncensored photographs. I mentioned the same thing in my review of Alex Gibney's Oscar-winning Taxi to the Dark Side: despite the fact that we don't know who they are, these men are still actual people, and continuing to humiliate them for years after they were tortured doesn't sit right with me. This film actually happens to be about the power of photographs (unlike Taxi), so I can't fault Morris for using them. It's not the use that I hate; I just have a visceral reaction that tells me these men, if truly innocent, somehow deserve better.

Grade:
Writing - N/A
Acting - N/A
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 27/30= 90% = A-

Last Word (expanded): "There is an inherent mystery to every photograph," said Errol Morris early in the post-screening discussion, which lasted nearly as long as the film itself. If you're familiar with his blog (and his other films), you know Morris has an obsession for studying images. An important excerpt:

"...photographs attract false beliefs...photography can makes us think we know more than we really know. It is easy to confuse photographs with reality. To many of us, photographs are reality. But however real they may seem, they are not reality. Reality is three-dimensional. Photographs are but two-dimensional, and record only a moment, a short interval of time snatched from the long continuum of before and after...They provide an imperfect simulacrum of the surface of things."

As Morris outlines with the meticulous detail of a forensic scientist in Standard Operating Procedure, the photographs from Abu Ghraib have simply tricked us into believing in a reality that did not exist the way we think it did. He attempts with moderate success to convince us that the "few bad apples" we want to blame are the wrong ones - that their complicity only relates to the photographs and the extent to which they were influenced by their environment.

In terms of the technical merits of the film, Morris has created an absorbing and often gripping documentary. His use of light, sound, quick edits and music borders on manipulative, but it also adds a stylish sense of professionalism and expertise that you don't see very often. The photo arrays were impressive and the interviews transition smoothly. I didn't get a lot out of seeing the handwritten letters from Samantha Harman so often, but they're critical as the only evidence of a conscience at Abu Ghraib.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Standard Operating Procedure is, in fact, that evidence, and you can't help but admit that without these photographs we may never have known about Abu Ghraib or any of the interrogation methods used by U.S. military intelligence. You could argue that the photos literally changed the course of the war, and a study of them was a clever choice by Errol Morris. The questions they raise about war, leadership, gender, behavior, control, psychology, and culture are worthy of doctoral research, and Morris touches on them enough to satiate the intellectual viewer. Unfortunately, his main thesis - that blame should be placed on the U.S. government instead of the enlisted soldiers - is just a tad too extreme for me to embrace. His true political leanings aren't fully on display in the film (believe it or not), but speaking afterwards he didn't hold back, using words like "monarchy" and urging us to "impeach Bush."

In fact, at one point he could hardly contain himself in his chair, shouting and pointing at a questioner who inquired about any signs of remorse or apology from the interviewees. His face flushed with anger, Morris unloaded a tirade about how the soldiers were used as pawns; how Bush was reelected because he was able to blame everything on them; how the entire Abu Ghraib debacle was a big cover-up. He gradually calmed down and apologized, but he'd made his point: though they did some questionable things, the soldiers weren't evil and they weren't complicit, they were just cogs in the war machine. He concluded, "The crime was not the torture; the crime was the photography. And that's sick. And amazing." In other words, embarrassing the country by taking pictures of torture turned out to be a more punishable offense than the torture itself. That's a sad truth, but it's not given enough attention by Morris, who tries only to convince us only that the wrong people were held accountable.

Separating those two issues is splitting hairs, but the failure to do so prevents Standard Operating Procedure from reaching its full potential. For all the time spent studying photos and interviewing the key players, we should have learned something more about human nature, something more about the military mindset, something more about interrogation and intelligence and American culture. Instead, Standard Operating Procedure brings us right back to where we started: people were mistreated and nobody knows why. All anyone wants to do, including Errol Morris, is point fingers at the government.

REVIEW: Stop-Loss (A-)

Background: Nine years ago, Kimberly Peirce won a trophy case full of "Outstanding Directorial Debut" awards for Boys Don't Cry. Then she disappeared. When her younger brother enlisted in the Army after 9/11 and served in Iraq, she began developing a screenplay about soldiers going AWOL which eventually became Stop-Loss, named after the involuntary service extension policy created by Congress after the Vietnam War. Distributed by MTV Films (who most recently brought us How She Move), Stop-Loss was taken on a tour of college campuses and heavily marketed to teens, despite its justified R-rating. Many of the actors are familiar faces to those under 30: Ryan Phillippe (Breach), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (The Lookout), Channing Tatum (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints), Rob Brown (Finding Forrester), and Timothy Olyphant (Live Free or Die Hard), to name just a few. You'll also recognize Ciaran Hinds (There Will Be Blood) in already his third film of 2008, and you may know Alex Frost from Gus Van Sant's disturbing Elephant.

Synopsis: We meet a group of U.S. soldiers in Tikrit as they are routinely manning a checkpoint. A shootout leads to a chase that leads to an ambush, and the troops, led by Sgt. Brandon King (Phillippe), suffer several casualties. Tommy Burgess (Gordon-Levitt) loses his best friend, Steve Shriver (Tatum) gets trapped in a building, and Rico Rodriguez (Victor Rasuk) loses two limbs and his sight. Shaken, the unit arrives back home in Texas to celebrate, commemorate, and commiserate, but it only takes one night for us to know they aren't the same young men who left. Alcohol is the preferred method of therapy, but violence and shooting stuff in the woods suffice in between hangovers. King has finished his tours and thinks he's home to stay, but when the unit reports to base on Monday he learns he's been stop-lossed and is scheduled to go back to Iraq within a matter of weeks. Enraged, he takes off for D.C. with Shriver's girlfriend, Michelle (Abbie Cornish), where he hopes to cash in on a favor from a smiley senator. Along the way he struggles with his status as a fugitive and the terrors that haunt his mind. His buddies back home aren't faring much better - Tommy especially is having a difficult time handling his friend's death. When King realizes the senator can't help a fugitive, he's thrown for a loop. He visits Rico in the hospital and buys a Canadian passport just in case he decides to flee, but his guilt is weighing too heavily on him, and a visit from Shriver combined with an incident back home convinces King that his options are limited. He can't handle another tour, but is he willing to live in paranoia and guilt for the rest of his life?

I Loved:
+ When King visited Rico at the army hospital - one of the most important scenes in the movie.
+ Victor Rasuk as Rico Rodriguez. Raising Victor Vargas is one of my favorite movies of the decade, and I can't get enough of this guy. He was also great as Tony Alva in Lords of Dogtown, and I hope he gets some better roles in the future.

I Liked:
+ Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Channing Tatum, again. Gordon-Levitt has successfully erased the developing ("3rd Rock from the Sun") years of his career with solid roles in Brick, The Lookout, and this, and Tatum is 2/2 by my count after Saints. They'll both be in next year's G.I. Joe.
+ The first 10 minutes - that combat looked more believable to me than any other dramatizations that have come out of Iraq. No stupid jokes, no dog running across the alley to break the tension, and no easy heroics. Just pure, unflinching horror that set the tone for us to understand the characters the rest of the way.
+ Abbie Cornish as Michelle. As really the only female presence in the movie, she successfully and simultaneously added the important representation of the Army wife, girlfriend, sister, and fiancee. As an Australian, her Texan accent was pretty good, too. I'm positive I recognize her from something, but her only other credit that I've seen is A Good Year, and I don't think it's from that. I'm stumped.

I Disliked:
- The funeral scene - it was poorly written and too long.
- Rob Brown, who was discovered at an open casting call for Finding Forrester and hasn't done much since. Either he's in the wrong line of business or he's just unable to find solid roles.
- The epilogue text about Bush and stop-loss statistics. It wasn't underhanded or inappropriate, but it wasn't necessary, either. Anybody who's not troubled by what they've seen in the last two hours won't be convinced by some numbers, and anybody who wasn't already aware of stop-loss is probably too far out of it to understand anyway.

I Hated:
- "LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR!" This song by Drowning Pool has now made its second appearance on screen in the last two months. Who writes something like this? Would you want to go to that concert? I must be the only one disturbed that this is becoming the unofficial theme song for U.S. troops and that Drowning Pool has been the most popular U.S.O. touring act for the last few years. Yes, it's catchy and I "get it," but...well, maybe I don't. "Killing music" isn't really my preferred genre.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 9
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 46/50= 92% = A-

Last Word: At the five year mark of the war a couple of weeks ago, I lamented that Hollywood has poured out over 100 movies about Iraq and somehow still added little to the discussion. Consider Stop-Loss the counterargument. Sharply directed and superbly acted, it's the first important movie about the war in Iraq, and the only one I can recommend that isn't a documentary. It isn't perfect, and it's not The Deer Hunter or Coming Home, but it's a lot better than you would think an MTV-produced movie made for teenagers would be. Kimberly Peirce has absolutely nailed her sophomore effort and proven to those unconvinced that a woman can translate the horrors of war as well as a Clint Eastwood or Oliver Stone (and I'm hopeful that she'll help forge a path for female directors behind her). There are a few melodramatic moments and the writing isn't airtight, but the film packs an emotional punch because the characters are people that we know exist all around us, and will for the rest of our lives. Stop-Loss forces us to accept this reality as much as we don't want to. We can go back to our TVs and movie blogs and other distractions, but are we going to be ready when the real effects of the war start here? When hundreds of thousands of veterans are going through the same unexaggerated struggles as these characters? That question has been on my mind for about five years now, but Stop-Loss is the first mainstream movie (The War Tapes from '06 is a similar doc) that may wake up the public and start a dialogue about the future. Hopefully we can at least agree on the importance of that discussion in this polarized and partisan culture, and Kimberly Peirce has successfully attempted to initiate one.

War in Iraq: 5 Years, 116 Movies

Today marks the five year "anniversary" of the War in Iraq, War on Terror, Iraq War, Gulf War II, Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever it's going to be called.

That number, 116, is not entirely exact - I just did a keyword search for "Iraq War" since 2003 on IMDb. Off the top of my head I know it's missing No End in Sight, Taxi to the Dark Side, and Operation Homecoming - all of which were nominated for Oscars last year. So the number may be a conservative estimate, but the exact figure isn't that important. The point is, Hollywood's churned out a lot of films related to Iraq in the last five years (I'm not even counting Afghanistan), and there are probably hundreds on the way in the next 20 years.

So, do any of them get it "right"? Or maybe the better question is, what's been the point of all of these movies?

For perspective, I'll start off by listing the ones I've seen, in reverse chronological order:

Taxi to the Dark Side
Southland Tales
Lions for Lambs
In the Valley of Elah
Rendition
No End in Sight
The Kingdom
My Country, My Country
Iraq in Fragments
The War Tapes
Protocols of Zion
Why We Fight
Turtles Can Fly
Fahrenhype 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11
Gunner Palace
Control Room
Uncovered: The War in Iraq
The Fog of War

Have I learned anything from these films? Of course. Am I able to separate fiction from reality? I think so. Are any of the 100+ films convincing and convicting? Well...yes...but I don't think much differently about the war than I did five years ago while watching grainy video from embedded reporters driving up through the deserts of Iraq. Does that say something about my "politics"? That I'm stubborn and I only watch what I know I'm going to agree with? Maybe. But I would argue that it says more about the ineffectiveness of these films, and here are the reasons why:

Fictionalized Hollywood Films:
- They're polarizing when they try to be patriotic. My review of The Kingdom tells you what I think of these ridiculous movies and TV shows like "24." I don't know if I totally swallow the notion that such material makes our problems worse, but let's just say I wouldn't consider it very diplomatic either.
- The wrong people are making them. Consider Lions for Lambs, perhaps the biggest commercial dud of the 2007 Iraq group. Streep, Redford, and Cruise are career actors and Hollywood legends - not necessarily the people you want to hear lecturing you about foreign policy.
- It's too early. We could be at the halfway mark in this thing for all we know, and there is just no way to have a clear perspective of what's going on. Platoon won Best Picture more than 10 years after the war was over in Vietnam. There needs to be time and space; filming the war while you're fighting it is like trying to take a picture of yourself while you're sprinting - the picture is unfocused and incomplete.
- They're bad. It's simple - almost all of these have been critically panned, and with good reason. Besides keeping the crowds away, the message of the movie is going to be lost if the movie is poorly made. Case in point: Rendition.

Documentaries:
- Our lives are already saturated with news about the war. The aforementioned embedded reporter videos were just a sign of things to come. Never has a war been so accessible to the public - foreign news bureaus, soldier blogs, live webcams, and at times, 25 hour a day coverage on cable news. This was my main criticism of Taxi to the Dark Side - Alex Gibney didn't have much to tell us that we didn't already know.
- Their focus is too broad. The strength of No End in Sight was that it picked a singular moment in time (the first month after Saddam's regime fell) and successfully dissected it. While it's an extreme example, Fahrenheit 9/11 was as scattered as a Jackson Pollock painting.
- It's too early, or too late. See above. Though last year's The War Tapes was a frightening look into the soldiers' experiences, many of the circumstances have changed. Same with Iraq in Fragments, which, while beautiful to look at, was dated before it was even released. With a war as dynamic as this one it's incredibly difficult to nail down a static story.
- They only focus on Iraq. We Americans are a self-centered group, and we want to see and think about ourselves. How is the war affecting families and communities back home? What's been the effect on the economy, and what will it be in 10 years? How are we preparing to deal with the hundreds of thousands of veterans who will depend on our tax dollars for care and support for the rest of their lives? OK, so maybe people won't flock to the theater for a documentary about those issues, but it would at least be a new angle on the war.

I'm not complaining - with the exception of some senseless provocations like Redacted, I've watched as much as I've been able to watch. I think I know what's going on and I've learned a good deal about the demographics of Iraq, if not the ever-changing issues. Of course I'm not looking to get my international education from Hollywood, but many of these films offer a better glimpse into the situation than we could otherwise hope to get. Indeed, some of the well-made documentaries have helped educate all of us.

But with well over 20 movies about the war being made each year, maybe it's time to consider whether we should sit back, collect our thoughts, and focus on the actual stories instead of the celluloid ones.

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: Southland Tales (D)

Background: Director Richard Kelly’s breakthrough film, at age 26, was also his first feature: the cult classic Donnie Darko, which made a star out of Jake Gyllenhaal. As he also did for Darko, Kelly wrote his long-awaited second film, Southland Tales, which is part of a six-chapter story – the first three chapters in graphic novel form, the last three chapters in the movie. Kelly has moved away from a character-driven story this time, as seen by the sheer numbers of stars in the cast. And by stars I mean pop stars, not necessarily actors – consider Mandy Moore, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Justin Timberlake, and SNL’s Cheri Oteri and Amy Poehler. You'll recognize almost every single character from something - seriously, everybody from Jon Laroquette to Vizzini from The Princess Bride to Booger from Revenge of the Nerds to Christopher Lambert, none other than Highlander himself. Despite the high wattage names and cult favorite director, however, Southland Tales was totally and unabashedly rejected at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, drawing boos, jeers, and the lowest scores given by voters. Despite this, Sony picked it up and reworked it with Kelly for what they hope is a better popular reception from his devoted fans.

Synopsis: (First, know that this movie has deservedly been labeled "unsynopsizable." I'll do my best.) In July 2005, Abilene, TX is the site of the first nuclear attack on America. Timberlake's character narrates a montage of what happens in the post-apocalyptic U.S. over the next three years - security crackdowns, closed borders, government surveillance, etc. The story picks up in July 2008 in what used to be L.A. but is now called the "Southland." As the country is preparing for the 2008 presidential election, a famous actor (The Rock) has been kidnapped and is cavorting around Venice Beach with "neo-Marxists" (Oteri, Poehler) and a porn star (Gellar). Two Iraq veteran buddies (Timberlake and Seann William Scott, a.k.a., Stifler) are dealing with their own issues - psychosis/drug addiction and amnesia, respectively. A weird German doctor has developed a new form of energy called Liquid Karma off the Santa Monica pier, and the U.S. government has some kind of Big Brother surveillance program monitoring everything. A corrupt police officer (Jon Lovitz), a crazed ice cream truck driver (Lambert), and a bald pimp (Mad TV's Will Sasso) float in and out. Throw in about 20 more characters and 20 more storylines, and you're about there, but don't forget a lot of cryptic dialogue about the end of the world. The finale brings us to election day on July 4th (uh?) in downtown L.A., where the inaugural launch of a Liquid Karma-fueled blimp is threatened by a do-rag-wearing white kid with a rocket launcher standing on top of the supernaturally floating ice cream truck, inside of which the neo-Marxist/Iraq veteran/Hermosa Beach cop (Scott) is trying to talk his clone (from another dimension) out of committing suicide. Have I left anything out? Yes, a lot.

I Loved:
+ Richard Kelly's ambition - it was kind of a cool idea, and it looked real slick.

I Liked:
+ The delayed reflection in the mirror scene.

I Disliked:
- Lou Taylor Pucci (from Thumbsucker) as a bizarre wannabe gangster/army recruit.
- The predictable opening explosion - hmm, idyllic neighborhood home video...what could possibly happen?
- Bai Ling as...I don't even know what her character was supposed to be. Same goes for Kevin Smith and about 10 other people.

I Hated:
- Mandy Moore's screen time.
- The outrageously misplaced music video for The Killers' "All These Things That I've Done."
- The Rock's finger fiddling - drove...me...crazy.
- Justin Timberlake's smirk - why was he always on the news, anyway?
- So much more, but what I've listed is what comes to mind first.

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

Total: 33/50= 66% = D

Last Word: Uggh. Southland Tales was just a complete mess, and a huge disappointment. It was ambitious, yes, unique, sure. Does that alone deserve my praise? I'm afraid not. I can't believe Richard Kelly was so surprised at the boos he received at Cannes. It just proves that he thought his outrageous plot and absurd characters were going to be unconditionally loved - just because they were outrageous and absurd! Sorry, bud. Parading around a bunch of D-list stars with ridiculous character names and no plot may have sounded like a good idea, but whatever he had in his mind completely got away from him. I don't think I "didn't get it," and I don't think the director's cut will tie any loose ends, but probably create more. If he was trying to be David Lynch he should have been a lot darker and creepier. Otherwise, stick with your strength - a character-driven story. Yes, Donnie Darko was completely bizarre as well, but at least the focus was on one person in one place at (almost) one time. And it was great. Unfortunately, Kelly bit off a lot more than he could chew with Southland Tales, and he's now officially 1/2. I'll see his next film only because he's proven he can make a great one, but I'm going to be reeaaly wary.

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?

REVIEW: No End in Sight (A-)

Background: Guess what? The U.S. is at war in Iraq. First time filmmaker Charles Ferguson decided in 2004, after it was clear the post-Saddam era in Iraq was in trouble, that he would investigate the causes behind the initial chaos. The focus on this aspect of the war is what separates Ferguson's film from other documentaries such as The Fog of War; Uncovered: The War in Iraq; Control Room; Fahrenheit 9/11; Gunner Palace; Why We Fight; My Country, My Country; Iraq in Fragments; or The War Tapes (one of my 10 Best of 2006). The title of Ferguson's film does not attempt to hide a political bias, nor does it need to, since the film industry has not produced anything supporting the war. Wake up if you don't know Hollywood's politics by now. Anyway, Ferguson did take the high road with No End in Sight in that he at least went to Iraq himself to film it, hiring his own security and arranging transportation. Quite a way to make your first film.

Synopsis: By late 2002, the Bush Administration had alledgedly already decided to go to Iraq. Plans were in place for the invasion of Baghdad and overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, however the strategy for a temporary U.S. occupation and installation of a new government was unclear. The film focuses on this lack of planning, featuring numerous interviews with Defense and State Department employees who were involved at the highest levels of decision-making during the first years of the war. In between interviews, Campbell Scott narrates sections (titled, for example, "Chaos") that neatly lay out an argument that the Bush Administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bremer, et. al.) made a series of bad decisions beginning in the summer of 2003, most of which were the result of poor planning and rushed orders in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Baghdad. By the end of the film, you're unsurpisingly meant to be convinced that the current situation in Iraq is worse than you could have ever possibly imagined, and all blame can be directed the place in the film's poster.

I Loved:
+ The quality of Ferguson's cinematography - after only seeing news clips and grainy videos for years, it is a significantly different experience to see high-quality digital video of Baghdad.
+ The interviews with Richard Armitage, Jay Garner, and Paul Hughes, three extremely involved Administration officials who air their frustrations but have the humility to refrain from attacking anyone in particular because they recognize that the problems were systemic.

I Liked:
+ The interviews with the soldiers - they were some of the most poignant I've heard/read from Iraq veterans.

I Disliked:
- The financial factoid graphic - $1.8 trillion is so much money it's difficult to even comprehend, and the point is lost. Better to show how else it could have been spent.

I Hated:
- The poorly chosen settings in which people were interviewed - a half-darkened office, a half-darkened studio loft, a half-darkened stairwell. Why would an interview ever be filmed in a stairwell!?

Grade:
Writing - N/A
Acting - N/A
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 27/30= 90% = A-

Last Word: At some point in the last few years, my reading of articles and essays on the war in Iraq significantly decreased. I'm just unable to get any new insights into what's happening. I understand the divisions and the debates, but let's face it, I've grown tired of the rhetoric. Ferguson doesn't necessarily add anything new to the story, but his organization is helpful, and hearing a lot of former Administration officials take responsibility for their actions is pretty impressive. Also, it's worth seeing No End in Sight to review the decisions made in the initial stages of the occupation (i.e., disbanding the Iraqi Army), since one official points out that the current and probably future chaos can almost entirely be traced back to the first month after Saddam was taken out. That's speculation of course, but it's the reason you won't feel very well walking out of the theater.

REVIEW: In The Valley of Elah (B)

Background: Remember this? Tommy Lee Jones is hoping you don't, but just to make sure he's followed it up with roles in The 3 Burials..., In the Valley of Elah, and the upcoming No Country For Old Men. The guy plays a craggly, suffering old sheriff/cop/marshal with a drawl like nobody else. Elah was written and directed by Oscar darling Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash) and also stars Charlize Theron, who can never resist a chance to try to look ugly (Monster, North Country). This film, one of many this fall indirectly or directly involving the War in Iraq, was apparently inspired by a 2004 Playboy article (isn't that a punchline?) about Army soldier Richard Davis, who disappeared after returning from his first tour of duty in Iraq. With Elah, Haggis has now written three war screenplays in a row (Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima), and he apparently wrote this film with Clint Eastwood in mind for Jones's part. Eastwood can decently play a craggly, suffering old sheriff/cop/marshal, but he doesn't have a drawl and reportedly turned down the role because he thought it would be a little much to make 4 movies in 3 years with the same guy. Or maybe I just thought that would be a little much, despite the fact that it works for Scorsese & DiCaprio.

Synopsis: In 2004, scraggly Hank Deerfield (Jones) receives a phone call notifying him that his son, just back from Iraq, is AWOL. Like any concerned parent, he heads to the Army base from which his son vanished. There he meets his son's unit, none of whom can shed any light on his whereabouts. Jones files a missing persons report at the local police station, where rookie detective Emily Sanders (Theron) is stuck solving animal cruelty cases. After a rocky start, the two develop an awkward relationship after the stabbed, dismembered, charred, half-eaten body of Deerfield's son is found in a nearby field (and shown in detail). Deerfield, who happens to be a retired MP, works with Sanders to try to solve the mystery of his son's death. Suspicion is initially directed toward Mexican drug cartels before finding its way to Deerfield's closest army brethren, three of whom were last seen with him on the night of his death. Deerfield, now living out of a motel, studies corrupted cellphone videos his son took from Iraq, has harsh phone conversations with his wife (Sarandon), and discusses the fog of war with a number of soldiers. Confessions are made and retracted until you lose count (and your nerve), but eventually the case is closed and we all learn something new about being in war: it's bad.

I Loved:
+ Tommy Lee Jones - excellent in balancing Deerfield's anger, frustration, and forgiveness.

I Liked:
+ The subtle musical score.
+ The symbolism behind the picture Deerfield's son took with his cellphone.

I Disliked:
- The dragging pace of the film - this could have been 20 minutes shorter and still kept its meaning.
- The gloomy gray throughout 90% of the scenes - this isn't Gotham, and the emotional effect is unrealistic and unnecessary in a film that's already so depressing.

I Hated:
- The exaggerated chauvinism within the police department - that may be based on her reality, but it was annoying, repetitive, and added little to the story.
- The cellphone video quality - I understand it's corrupted, and it's from a cellphone, but the audio static drove me crazy.
- The guy sitting behind me in the theater, who for 10 minutes not only jingled his change in his pocket but actually rubbed the coins together, making an incredibly grating sound. By my estimate, he had 13 pennies, 6 nickels, 8 dimes, and 6 quarters. Thanks for taking me out of the most important part of the movie...

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 9
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 9
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 43/50= 86% = B

Last Word: Though framing its anti-war argument around the original story of a veteran's mysterious disappearance back at home, In The Valley of Elah doesn't really rise above other movies involving Iraq. Its best parts are because of the solid acting and some of Haggis's writing, but the fundamental lesson - that sending innocent boys to war is like sending David up against Goliath, could probably have been told in a more powerful way. I think this film just got away from Haggis as he spent way too much time on the dull details of a murder case. Instead of adapting the story of Richard Davis and trying to teach a lesson on war, he could have come up with a much better and original plot with more interesting characters. Oh well, maybe somebody else will. In the meantime, it's nice to see Tommy Lee Jones back doing what no one else can: being old and scraggly with a drawl.