I’ve obviously not read every stitch of Oscar hemming and hawing out there, but I was struck by at least one sly detail I haven’t seen remarked upon: having Steven Spielberg, whose DreamWorks is now partnered with Indian money, present the Best Picture, a category the winner of which was expected by almost everyone to be… Slumdog Millionaire. A tacit signal to the world that the movies as we know need the world to survive. Not just their money. The Australian director Bill Bennett says it’s the same as the tale of the cowboys and the campfire. Every so often, an influx of talent or inspirations needs to come from far away, from over the horizon, just like cowboys around the campfire expected strangers to stop and tell tales they hadn’t heard, the news they didn’t know yet.
Archive for February, 2009
Presenting Slumdog: the cowboys and the campfire
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009MoMA to Showcase Ramin Bahrani's Films
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009If you live in New York City and you’ve not had a chance to see Ramin Bahrani’s films, now’s your chance. Bahrani won the Spirit Awards’ Someone to Watch Award last year, and this year Chop Shop was nominated for Spirit Awards for both direction and cinematography; Roger Ebert featured Man Push Cart in his 2006 Overlooked Film Festival (also known as Ebertfest), and Chop Shop will play at Ebertfest 2009, coming up in April.
Bahrani’s newest film, Goodbye Solo, which won the FIPRESCI Prize at the Venice Film Festival before playing the Toronto International Film Festival last September, is opening March 27 in New York City at the Angelika (roll-out to other cities to follow).
Leading up to the opening, the Museum of Modern Art is screening all Bahrani’s films. Here are the screening times, so you can mark your calendars:
Wednesday, March 4th: MAN PUSH CART 615pm & CHOP SHOP 8:15pm
Thursday, March 5th: GOODBYE SOLO 7pm (Bahrani will attend for intro and Q&A)
Friday, March 6th: CHOP SHOP 6pm
Saturday, March 7th: MAN PUSH CART 6pm
If you’re not in NYC, but you are going to SXSW, Goodbye Solo is playing at the fest on March 16th and 19th.
I’ve written before about how much I love this filmmaker’s work, and I want to take the opportunity now to talk about all these films. Bahrani, in his first three films, has worked with themes of immigrants, poverty, outsiders, and surviving on the fringes of society, and each of the films explores these themes through unique, interesting characters, symbolism and a vaguely open-ended conclusion that leaves it to the viewer to project what arc the characters will continue to take off the screen.
Return To The Dark Knight
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009One of the blog commenters can’t seem to separate why Slumdog won from why The Dark Knight was not nominated. In response, I found myself explaining my TDK issues
BYOB – Catching Up…
Wednesday, February 25th, 2009The days after the Oscar season end feel a bit like the first days getting back to school after months of summer vacation… waking up on a different schedule… new people, many familiar, but different… work to do but somehow, not as quick to get out the pen… even the feeding schedule (and the food itself) is different.
It’s a hangover, but not unpleasant that same way. Just an “Oh yeah… there is something else other than the Oscars and Watchmen going on….”
Then there is the real downside
Remember When…
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009August 28, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES AND WARNER BROS. PICTURES
TO JOIN FORCES ON THE NORTH AMERICAN RELEASE OF
DANNY BOYLE
A Shout Out…
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009To TJ Simers… who has long been one of the few reasons to pick up the LA Times… for naming names and speaking his truth.
And Ken Turan… for speaking his truth, even if he smeared the internet and not the real source of ugliness in his own yard.
And to the LA Times readers… a committed group… who spoke their own truth this morning.
Beyond my own smugness, the interesting lesson here should be that people looking to find problems have become really good at finding problems. But thinking beyond the immediate moment to the bigger picture… to the longer term picture… and not just trying to ride the internet snark train… is harder and requires some getting used to. Saying whatever you think when you think it is okay for civilians. But it is not okay for professional writers who have readers. We have a responsibility. Every one of us, online or off. And perspective is part of that responsibility.
Unfortunately, the result of this push back against a guy like Patrick is likely to be him trying to rationalize why he was right and others were wrong for years to come, with films and actors and whomever he associates with the smack back to pay the price of his futuresnark.
[OnePiece] Mark Rance on restoring The Whole Shootin' Match digitally
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009Most people don’t realize how fragile film history is, and it’s not about the third DVD in a row arriving in two pieces from Netflix. When I was a kid, Eagle Pennell’s 1978 The Whole Shootin’ Match (released in New York in 1979), made for around $30,000, was written up in all the film magazines that I read to read about the films that would never have come to my part of Kentucky. This slacker avant le lettre Austin fable was obscure then (even with a Vincent Canby notice) and would remain obscure to this day if not for the discovery of a mint print of the shot-on-16mm black-and-white film, and the digital restoration of its gamy glories by veteran DVD producer Mark Rance, who’s just launched his Watchmaker Films DVD label with a pleasing three-disc set devoted to the feature, its music, and a new documentary on Pennell’s slow, if spirited, dive into failure.
[MARK RANCE TALKS ABOUT THE WEALTH OF POST-1970 CINEMA THAT'S IN BASEMENTS, NOT IN ARCHIVES, AWAITING PRESERVATION.]
The DVD booket is rich with background, including bits from Austin’s legendary journalist Louis Black. Paul Cullum, an Austin peer, writes that “the man belonged in the Alcohol of Fame; he put pop alcoholics like us to shame.” Cullum got confirmation that this quote from Robert Redford was indeed about the troubled Pennell: “I thought a real service to the industry would be to provide a guy like that with a place to train, a place to go where he could develop his skills. It would shortcut a lot of the problems he was going to be facing.” Voila: Sundance.
But voila aussi: The Whole Shootin’ Match, which also inspired the similarly shaggy but much more prolific filmic ambitions of another Austin cineaste, Richard Linklater. This rambling, profane charmer of a film is still an inspiration, and it’s terrific that it’s out for a new generation of potential regional filmmakers to admire. (And a Texas-size cautionary tale to boot.) [Interview shot at Chicago's Siskel Film Center.]
[RANCE TALKS ABOUT RESOLUTION DRIVING THE NEXT GENERATION OF RESTORATION.]
[Below, Rance describes "frame-based" restoration.]
Mr. Hollywood and the Women
Monday, February 23rd, 2009
When it comes to the movies, we all know sex sells … but to what extent does Hollywood perpetuate gender stereotypes and the objectification of women?
A couple of disparate things cropped up the other day that got me pondering the role the media in general and movies in particular play in perpetuating stereotypes about women. First up was this Princeton study I read about on CNN about men’s reactions to women wearing bikinis. According to the study, actual scientific proof backs up what most of us knew already: that when men see women dressed in bikinis, they tend to think of them in objectifying terms. Shocking, I know.
What interested me most about this was the assertion that this happens on a subconscious level, which raises some interesting questions about how male audiences react to objectified images of women in movies, why sex sells, and how films that objectify the female gender end up getting greenlit to begin with in a Hollywood where the decision-makers are still predominantly men.
The study, according to the CNN article, also found that for the men in the study who scored highest for “hostile sexism” — meaning they hold the view that women attempt to dominate men — the part of the brain responsible for the ability to analyze another person’s thoughts, feelings and intentions was “inactive while viewing scantily clad women.” The article also references an earlier study that found that after men view highly sexualized images of women, the way in which they react to real women in real situations is negatively affected. Both interesting points, but wouldn’t men who test high for “hostile sexism” to begin with already be more inclined to react to real women in objectifying terms, whether they’ve just viewed a picture of a scantily clad woman or not? And is the part of the brain that would otherwise allow these men to analyze the thoughts, feelings and intentions of others turned off generally for this group of men, or just after they’ve viewed pictures of babes in bikinis?
Later that same day, I finally got around to watching a screener I was sent a while back for a film calledWhat’s Your Point, Honey? This documentary (which is available online at iTunes, Amazon and Jaman currently, if you’re interested in checking it out) is an examination of the myriad ways in which we still have a long way to go, baby, in equalizing gender in the workplace, politics and society overall. For instance, the film raises the points that the percentage of women in high offices in government in the United States is lower than the percentage of women in like offices in Pakistan, and that women in the United States still make 77 cents to every dollar a man earns.
However, some of the filmmakers’ methods are questionable for whether they elicited valid responses from their subjects. They have three young girls zipping around town on Wheelies and scooters, asking kids at a playground to look at a ruler with pictures of all the US presidents on it and asking what their peers notice. When the other kids fail to get the point of the exercise — that all the presidents on the ruler are white men (this was obviously filmed pre-Obama) — the girls helpfully point that fact out, at which point they get a variety of “Oh, yeah … that’s not really fair” responses. And when some of the kids being interviewed do have something to say about why a woman has never been president, it’s hard to discern what’s their actual opinion versus when they’re parroting what they’ve heard at home, though in either case some of the answers are quite telling.
The girls also interview a variety of adults on the street about whether they’d vote for a woman for president, and to a man, the subjects answer “yes” — which makes one wonder if these same people would have responded the same way if they were being interviewed by an adult who they’d consider part of their peer group rather than a group of very cute and charming schoolgirls. Would the male garbage-truck driver respond differently if he was asked the same question by a guy in a bar? Were the answers these men gave their honest thoughts, or were they just magnanimously (perhaps patronizingly?) being “nice” to these sweet-faced young girls in not wanting to hurt their feelings?
The film also follows a group of seven young women who were selected for Cosmogirl‘s 2024 internship program, whose stated goal is putting a Cosmo girl in the White House by 2024. I hadn’t heard of this program, which matches smart, driven young women with tony internships in their fields of interest, and after seeing the film, I’m still of two minds about it. On the one hand, I think it’s great that Cosmogirl has set its sights on targeting young women who might otherwise be reading their magazine for fashion and dating tips with the idea that they can do something smart and career-driven as well.
But on the other, Cosmogirl, like its big sister Cosmopolitan, is a magazine that makes its money off selling girls and women the idea that their physical appearance is paramount and that the primary interests of girls and women should be beauty, fashion and men. If you look at the Cosmogirl home page, the navigation tabs across the front read as follows (in this order): Horoscopes, Beauty, Fashion, Life Advice, Guys, Entertainment, Fun and Games, Free Stuff, and Connect. Careers, politics, and women’s issues generally don’t merit a navigation tab at all. Further, the ads in both magazines regularly depict women in a sexually objectified context. So there’s a certain amount of irony in the Cosmo empire pushing the idea of a woman in the White House — a career path that, one hopes, would require one to focus more on brains, knowledge of politics and an understanding of world events than on what’s hot to wear with your sundress this summer or how to best please your man on a date or in the sack.
While magazines, billboard ads, popular music and television shows all have their role in perpetuating gender stereotypes, the multi-billion dollar movie business plays a starring role as well. Sex sells, as evidenced week after week by the box office charts, in which movies that feature scantily clad or nude women, or women as objects of sexual pursuit, consistently bring in the bank. Is it the fault of the male-dominated studio system for continually churning out films in which women are relegated to subordinate roles within a patriarchal framework? Or is it the fault of the men and women in the viewing audience, who shell out the cash to support such movies at the box office to the tune of millions of dollars in gross, that such films continue to be made? Put more broadly, do movies help determine and perpetuate gender roles, or are they merely reflecting the reality of the world in which they exist?
Whether they’re selling ideas or merely reflecting the world around them, the reality is that movies perpetuate gender stereotypes and the objectification of women consistently (if they didn’t, websites likeMr. Skin, which tracks movie nudity, would soon find themselves out of business). Whether selling women as the objects of sexual pursuit for the male leads (Fired Up), or women as obsessed with fashion and shopping (Confessions of a Shopaholic, Sex and the City) or their relationships with the men in their lives (He’s Just Not that Into You, Sex and the City), or women in peril (Taken, Fridaythe 13th, Slumdog Millionaire), or a career woman learning the importance of love and a good man (New in Town), in any given week’s box office charts you can find abundant examples of the ways in which Hollywood marginalizes the societal role of women.
And when you hear both kids and adults in a film like What’s Your Point, Honey? discussing gender roles, and the likelihood that a woman will ever be president, you have to start to wonder where the ideas being expressed by the subjects have their roots. When one of the Cosmogirl interns has dinner with her family and discusses her experiences there, you can feel her buried frustration as her older family members of both sexes perpetuate this head-patting sense of ”Oh, isn’t that cute, she thinks a woman her age could really be president by 2024,” and yet, in spite of whatever sense of empowerment her internship has given her, she mostly bites her tongue. I so wanted to see her stand up at the table and go off on a rambling rant to her family about how their attitude towards her and her ideas is condescending and indicative of how deeply gender stereotypes are ingrained, even in families that support, generally, the idea that their daughters are smart and talented and able to achieve whatever goals they might set for themselves.
There’s hope expressed in the film as well, in the idea that after 2008, more and more women will run for higher office, and over time it won’t be a novelty, but just accepted fact, and then eventually men and women will be held to the same political standards and no one will even consider the gender of a candidate in making a voting decision. But one also has to wonder if, so long as what boys and girls, men and women see in magazine ads, billboards, television programming and movie theaters continues to sell patriarchal and sexually objectifying ideas about the proper roles of women, we’ll ever reach that day.
I certainly don’t have all the answers here, but I think it’s worthwhile to raise the questions. Movies have a tremendous reach and probably a greater influence over shaping the views of audience members than viewers want to admit or Hollywood studio heads would ever want to accept responsibility for. And while I wouldn’t want to see a world in which movies are subjected to some politically correct feminism film censorship board, it would be nice to see Hollywood reflecting more accurately the realities of the post-feminism world in which we live today — and helping to shape a tomorrow in which the idea of women as subjects controlling their own destinies — not just objects orbiting around men — are the rule rather than the exception.
Mr. Hollywood and the Women
Monday, February 23rd, 2009Sex sells, as evidenced week after week by the box office charts, in which movies that feature scantily clad or nude women, or women as objects of sexual pursuit, consistently bring in the bank.
Is it the fault of the male-dominated studio system for continually churning out films in which women are relegated to subordinate roles within a patriarchal framework? Or is it the fault of the men and women in the viewing audience, who shell out the cash to support such movies at the box office to the tune of millions of dollars in gross, that such films continue to be made? Put more broadly, do movies help determine and perpetuate gender roles, or are they merely reflecting the reality of the world in which they exist?
Read the rest of this entry …
New Yorker Films, 1963-2008
Monday, February 23rd, 2009In college, a friend made a 16mm faux trailer for an apocryphal Straub-Huillet film starring Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis and Marlon Brando, entitled “The Patriarch, the Plebian and the Penis.” Their austere camera style was part of the send-up, as well as a critic’s quote: “A one-of-a-kind film… may be the best of its kind ever made.” (Which I used years later in film review.) The best joke, if the title didn’t have you rolling in the aisles right off, was the credit up top, with a logo familiar from all the scritch-scratchy 16mm prints of movies we’d rented for the university film societies, with one addendum: “Coming for Christmas from New Yorker Films.” I think we’d just watched Werner Herzog’s Even
Dwarves Started Small when the notion came up. We were readily amused in those days and I think it was also around the time we’d witnessed a double feature of Ingmar Bergman’s Persona and Jerry Lewis’ Nutty Professor. The idea of a Christmas promo from the company still makes me smile, but not the news that its library had been used as collateral on a loan that went into default and the company was shut down today. And, among the modest honorifics that have ever come my way was the pleasure of being quoted on New Yorker DVDs from Tim Roth, Emir Kusturica and Claire Denis, even if the quotes are goofy. For Underground, it’s something about beer and women; for Beau Travail, it’s the ellipsis-heavy “A MASTERPIECE! Exquisite… Mysterious… Magical.” Missing only a second exclamation point! Presentation treatments and the seven-to-fifteen second fanfares that accompany them have always given me a little rush, on films old or new. But the silent white-on-blue New Yorker logo that accompanied movies like Wim Wenders’ American Friend is forever married in my memory to the low hiss and crackle of a well-distressed 16mm optical soundtrack. Here’s hoping some part of their legacy is salvaged from the bank’s vaults. In his new blog at the New Yorker, Richard Brody considers implications of the closure, including the fact that “unlike book publishers, whose wares are widely distributed to libraries (it’s bitterly sad when a publisher goes out of business, but the back catalogue is already out there), film distributors hold the prints of the movies they own rights to; those which are out on home video have a second life, but the 35mm prints are, as of now, locked up, and revival houses wanting to screen them are simply out of luck.” [More at the link.]
The Weekend That Was
Monday, February 23rd, 2009Things have changed a lot over the years
The Oscar Ratings…
Monday, February 23rd, 2009Up in overnights… we’ll see what the finals are.
Still… irrelevant to the issue of whether the show worked.
Very relevant as to whether the producers this year created, with The Academy, a sense of anticipation that has been missing in recent years.
I wish the ratings obsession and the shallow reporting on it would disappear.
The First Modern Era Oscars
Monday, February 23rd, 2009The Boo Birds are out on the Oscar show last night.
And really
Quickly… Nikki Finke Is Gossip… And A Liar
Monday, February 23rd, 2009I am making this a single entry as I start to write about the weekend, mostly because I don’t want the infection that is La Finke to turn anything else I might write sour.
But I still feel compelled to point this out…
Nikki’s coverage of the gossip around The Oscars was based around the two things that have made her what she is today… one source that had an agenda and didn’t care what effect his spreading of information had on the show and those in charge of it and secondly, the ability to leverage most of the information she did have – which went unpublished – into future favors.
Every year, she screams about not caring about it… and every year, she tries to make her reputation by running more gossip more quickly than anyone else. This year, the result was otherwise intelligent reporters at The New York Times embarrassing themselves by running gossip about changes in the production and even linking to a rundown of the show that most other papers decided to pass on promoting further. This is the influence of the gossip columnist and nasty piece of work known as Nikki Finke.
The notion that Roger Ebert or anyone else should be expected to parse her statements as she later claims she intended them when it is her regular method of operating to overwrite stories when she gets them wrong, trying to disappear her mistakes rather than admit them, is absurd on its face. This is what Roger got out of the UK Independent pick-up of her gossip. And this is what Nikki intended.
I guess that one should be kind to the simple-minded, but Nikki
Viral snowfall
Monday, February 23rd, 2009Best. Oscar. Show. Ever?
Sunday, February 22nd, 2009More way later…
The Check is in the Jail
Sunday, February 22nd, 2009| Madea Goes to Jail was the overwhelming winner as it grossed an estimated $41.2 million in its debut weekend. In another record breaking session one of the few down notes came from the session’s other freshman release — the teen comedy Fired Up — that struggled to $5.9 million.
Niche openers ranged from good to strong including another potent Bollywood entry Delhi 6 that bowed to $660,000. Another Indian newcomer — the Punjabi Jag Jeondyan de Melle — set a record for films from the region with an $111,000 gross from just 10 screens. In Canada a pair of films repping the nation’s two solitudes faired well. Cadavres in Quebec grossed $132,000 and Stone of Silence that premed at the Toronto festival had a $68,400 box office from 18 screens. There was also a noteworthy $6,600 tally from the single screen bow of the documentary Must Read After My Death. Combined with a number of firm holds from continuing titles and a bit of an Oscar boost weekend business pushed past $140 million for a 26% decline from the three-day portion of last weekend’s President’s holiday stanza. It was additionally 29% better (and all-time record gross) than 2008 when the premiere of Vantage Point bowed with a $22.9 million box office. Reversing the trend of steady declines for his twice annual movie releases, filmmaker Tyler Perry set his popularity several notches higher. Of late his films have opened to roughly $25 million and Madea Goes to Jail wasn’t expected to shake up those expectations even though tracking reports clearly indicated it would lead in weekend ticket sales. However, Perry’s popular cable series have likely contributed to broadening his appeal from what’s been an entrenched core set of fans. Also slowly expanding its appeal from a strict family crowd is the 3D animated Coraline. The film was always more adult than traditional cel movies but it’s taken several weeks for word-of-mouth to get that across and if it can maintain positive buzz, the film should tally up a domestic gross of better than $80 million. With Oscar just hours away, virtually all the best picture and foreign-language nominees got at least slight box office boosts. Admittedly only Slumdog Millionaire is in wide release; adding about 600 theaters to the mix and pushing its domestic tally to $98 million. The film’s done an additional $70 million internationally with such key countries as Germany and Japan still to open. Apart from the torrid overseas business already generated for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the rest of the contenders list including Milk, The Wrestler and The Reader are holding their breath in hopes of securing at least a single major win in the top eight categories to fuel some foreign commercial traction. And the one category that almost always benefits from Academy largesse — foreign-language — looks like a nail-biter between Waltz with Bashir and The Class (Entre les murs). Weekend Finals – February 20-22, 2009
Estimates – February 20 – 22, 2009
Domestic Market Share – January 1 – February 19, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Oscars and Iraq
Sunday, February 22nd, 2009
Not surprisingly, perhaps, movies about the war in Iraq have failed to capture the attention of the movie-going American public, commercially or otherwise. In the competition for Academy and Spirit awards, theatrical releases inspired by W and Dick’s Excellent Misadventure have been virtually ignored, as well.
Michael Winterbottom’s Daniel Pearlbiopic, A Mighty Heart, earned three nominations from Film Independent judges, while Best Actor finalist Tommy Lee Jonesis the sole Oscar finalist, for his wrenching portrayal of the father of an Iraq veteran slain on American soil, in In the Valley of Elah.While Marc Forster’s adaptation of the best-selling novel, The Kite Runner, was nominated in the Best Original Score category, it was set in Taliban-era Afghanistan and, likewise, tanked.
Is there something to be gleaned from the perceived lack of interest in such topical subjects, or did the movies simply fail to measure up to the hype emanating from the festival circuit?
Three compelling non-fiction titles, inspired by U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, will compete in the academy’s Best Documentary category: No End in Sight, Taxi to the Dark Side and Operation Homecoming … four, if one counts Michael Moore’s trip to Gitmo in Sicko. Although no similarly themed documentary made the cut for Saturday’s beach-side tent show, Winterbottom’s The Road to Guantanamo won the 2007 award and P.O.V. was among the runners-up.
In the Valley of Elah, Rendition and Lions for Lambs had all the star power a marketing team could desire, and Redacted was directed by an A-list filmmaker. The acting was uniformly impressive, the films looked good and the storylines were familiar to anyone who still reads a newspaper. None could be characterized as being entertaining, exactly, but their ability to provoke visceral responses to the material was undeniable.
The American public simply wasn’t interested in being insinuated into a debate on military and political policy, especially Hollywood filmmakers widely perceived as being anti-administration, if not openly communist. Even if opinion surveys attested to the citizenry’s growing distaste with our involvement in a civil war, with no end in sight, audiences remained skeptical about the filmmakers’ motive.
The amazing success of Fahrenheit 9/11 may have blinded studio execs to the reality that mainstream audiences aren’t anxious to watch American military and intelligence personnel rape, plunder and torture innocent non-combatants. The new edition of Rambohardly set box-offices on fire, either. Heroic acts may occur on a regular basis in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, in light of the Pat Tillman fiasco, the exploits of legitimate heroes remain largely unsung.
“Where have you gone, Audie Murphy? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you … Ooo, ooo, ooo. ”
At its core, Paul Haggis’ heart-wrenching In the Valley of Elah is a work of crime fiction, in which Tommy Lee Jones’s Hank Deerfield ostensibly plays the P.I. and Charlize Theron’s beleaguered small-town cop informs the procedural angle. The disappearance of Jones’ soldier son, almost immediately upon his return from Iraq, provides the mystery to be solved. Haggis’ political point – that war can corrupt innocent souls – is almost too obvious and clichéd to mention.
The elder Deerfield is a proud veteran of a foreign war that was as different from the conflict in Iraq as Vietnam was dissimilar to Korea and World War II. Although he doesn’t have to be reminded that war is hell, he becomes increasingly confounded by a mission that turns patriotic volunteers into Adrenaline-fueled sadists. Deerfield thinks he knows his son, but it isn’t until he discovers images shot by him in combat, on his cellphone camera, that he learns how much he was twisted by the cold realities of war. An even clearer portrait is sketched by the soldiers who served with Mike Deerfield in Bosnia and Iraq, and nicknamed him Doc for reasons that shock his dad. Susan Sarandon isn’t given much to do here, besides play the anxious mother of a missing child and the disillusioned wife of a gung-ho lifer. But, she does it well.
In Gavin Hood’s similarly disturbing Rendition, Reese Witherspoon plays the pregnant wife of an Egyptian-born chemical engineer, abducted by CIA types upon his return from a business trip. His crime was being in possession of a name that closely resembles that of a suspected terrorist, and, as in real life, government officials want us to believe that’s sufficient reason to ruin his life. Almost immediately, a hood is placed over Anwar’s head and he’s whisked away to an unnamed Arab nation, where he’ll be subject to legalized torture. His wife, Isabella, is told that Anwar never boarded the plane to America, and he’ll turn up sooner or later. She doesn’t buy it, and uncovers evidence that he had, which she presents to a friendly aide to a key senator. When it becomes obvious the CIA is stonewalling the aide’s investigation, Isabella portrays the unctuous spook overseeing the rendition program. Meryl Streep portrays Corrine Whitman as a heartless martinet, who might have shared the same ethical womb as Vice President Cheney. In a story that parallels the necessarily fruitless interrogation of Anwar, the daughter of his torturer has fallen in love with a Jihadist and left home. Overseeing the ordeal is a prematurely jaded intelligence agent (Jake Gyllenhaal) who finally loses his religion when electric-shock treatments replace the waterboarding. It’s an exciting movie, and the portrayals of the CIA’s authorized out-sourcing of torture might seem implausible, if it weren’t for investigative pieces in newspapers and such documentaries as The Road to Guantanamo and Alex Gibney’s Taxi to the Dark Side.
Lest anyone argue Winterbottom and Gibney are on Osama Bin Laden’s payroll, remember that the former also directed A Mighty Heart, an adaptation of Mariane Pearl’s account of the work and assassination at the hands of terrorists of her husband, Daniel. Gibney’s father served as an interrogator for the Navy in World War II, and his distress over reports of the use of torture by Americans inspired Gibney to take on the project.
It was from him that Gibney learned information beaten out of suspects can rarely be trusted. In Rendition, Anwar’s confession revealed the names of champion soccer squad.
A Taxi to the Dark Side chronicled the abduction of an innocent, 22-year-old Afghani taxi-driver, Dilawar, who died in custody at Bagram Air Base in 2002. An official investigation into the death found Dilawar had been repeatedly kicked and punched, and was chained to the ceiling of his cell for days.
If you study Osama Bin Laden’s words, if you study other terrorist groups throughout history, the goal is to get liberal democratic societies to publicly undermine their own principles, Gibney has argued. Well, in this case? Mission accomplished.
In the film, we hear Cheney argue, soon after 9/11, “We have to work the dark side.”
How far on the dark side, the Vice President didn’t say. Where do we, as a nation, draw the line?
Most of us wouldn’t blanch at torturing Bin Laden and other known Al Qaeda operatives to extract information. Many Americans probably wouldn’t attempt to block the advance of a lynch mob, as was required of heroes in Westerns. Must we, however, condone with our votes the beating of suspects who almost certainly don’t have anything to offer?
Certainly, we were horrified by the beheadings of Pearl and other westerners. If terrorists or operatives for an enemy nation abducted a high-ranking Pentagon or CIA official and renditioned them to North Korea or Iran, the least we’d demand was a trial.
Dilawar, and the prisoners forced to pose naked for photographs, at Abu Ghraib, weren’t as fortunate. The officers who pretended not to be aware of such treatment have yet to punished, leaving the buck to stop on the laps of ill-trained reservists and over-extended grunts.
After Redacted was awarded the Silver Lion at last year’s Venice Film Festival – and received an ecstatic early review in the Hollywood Reporter – it appeared as if Brian De Palma had raised the ante on movies about America’s continuing presence in Iraq. Three months later, the movie was accorded an anemic limited release, and its lack of success became emblematic of the public’s perceived ambivalence over movies about the war.
Maybe so, but Redacted was a purposefully experimental project, and an unlikely candidate for commercial success, by anyone’s standards. Beyond any desire on De Palma’s part to make a statement about the war – or remind viewers of the ugliness exacted on innocents in his Vietnam-set drama, Casualties of War – he seemed equally as curious about the impact of digital technology used by embedded reporters, media-savvy terrorists and cell-phone-equipped soldiers. For the first time, perhaps, unfiltered images of combat and occupation could be relayed not only to television stations and other media interests, but also to Internet sites, blogs, drinking buddies, relatives and war fetishists.
Some uploads provided evidence of the chaos in the streets and perils of driving vehicles not fully protected by armor. Ambushes and raids were accompanied by rap and heavy-metal music.
Several of the earliest and best documentaries about the war were informed by this raw footage. In Redacted, De Palma put hand-held digital and lipstick cameras are front and center in nearly all of the scenes. They’re used by reporters, soldiers and terrorists.
It’s a worthwhile subject for discussion and analysis, to be sure. In his attempt to make his soldiers’ dispatches look homemade, however, De Palma’s resorted to far-fetched portrayals of the individual soldiers in front of and behind the lens. This is especially evident during the revenge attack on an Iraqi family and the rape of a 15-year-old girl. As ugly and difficult as it is to watch, the incident also feels absurdly amateurish and gratuitous.
The first-hand testimony of Iraqi refugees, gathered in a screening room in Lebanon and added to the bonus package, far more successfully demonstrates how the American liberation of Iraq opened the gates of hell, allowing Satan’s minions to destroy what was left of Iraq, after the American invasion. Compounding the misery, Magnolia Films forced the director to black out the faces of dead Iraqis in a photo montage, presumably fearing the dead would rise again and demand royalties. Redacted was financed by HDNet’sMark Cuban, who limited De Palma’s budget to $5 million and required him to shoot in HD, a format most grunts likely wouldn’t be able to afford. Gunner Palace, The War Tapes and Operation: Dreamland are far better options.
The other nominated documentaries are Charles Ferguson’s No End in Sight andRichard Robbins’ Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience. An influential policy wonk, Ferguson readily admits that he supported the Iraqi invasion, but became appalled by the management of its aftermath. The evidence of malfeasance by administration, CIA and Pentagon officials, and the media, is insurmountable.
Robbins’ film, which aired on HBO, represents a collection of poetry, letters and essays written by soldiers returning from the war. Many were read by well-known actors.
Lest we forget previous American military engagements – some of which turned out better than others — the History Channel has packaged archival material and interviews for its two-disc TV-to-DVD, The Vietnam War. The set takes a more comprehensive than rhetorical approach to the material, much of which was captured for television audiences by photojournalists and cameramen on the front lines of the conflict. Now that we’ve become trading and tourism partners with our former enemy, it’s especially sad to recall the folly of a conflagration based primary on the since-discredited Domino Theory.
History Channel also has released a 14-disc America at War mega-set, which chronicles this country’s military history, from the Revolutionary War to the present conflict. The chronological collection enlisted historians, military authorities, engineers and war correspondents to amplify on the 30 hours worth of archival material, documents and news footage.
It’s important to remember that monstrous acts committed by leaders of great armies no longer need go unpunished, unless, of course, they were perpetrated by members of the winning team. Christian Delage’s Nuremberg is a documentary reminder of the judgments rendered on the architects of the Second World War’s European theater. Also included in the set are That Justice Be Done, Nazi Concentration Camps andAtrocities Committed by the German Fascists in the USSR, films that were used as evidence in the tribunals.
February 22, 2008
- Gary Dretzka















