Woman on the Beach (2006)

 Woman on the Beach

Hong Sang-soo

South Korea

(I know this trailer doesn't have English subtitles.  I will try to see if I can upload one at a later date.)

Woman on the Beach, the seventh film by South Korean director, Hong Sang-soo, is about the choices a person makes in their search for love when they meet someone new. When does attraction take hold? Why do some people meet and fall in love while others remain friends or mere acquaintances? These questions are tough to answer, and making the wrong choice can lead to unwanted consequences. Weighing your options is sometimes not enough to come up with a good answer because the heart can be mysterious. It can fly in the face of your greater instincts which can cause great inner turmoil. Feelings can also change toward someone in short time and you can be left wondering how you ever fell in love in the first place. These problems all exist in this film, but don't expect any straight answers. The characters are all trying to figure it all out themselves.

All the drama centers around multiple love triangles involving a composer named Moon-sook. When she travels to the coast with a film director, Joong-rae Kim, and a production designer, Chang-wook, they spend all their time trying to be with her, even though they are supposed to be there on business to write a script. After days of making drunken advances towards her and subtly bullying others around him, Director Kim tells her he loves her and they sleep together. Afterwards, he blows her off and they go their separate ways while hurting their friendship with Chang-wook. Director Kim later ends up back at the beach again by himself and begins chasing a new girl who reminds him of Moon-sook. Then in Vertigo-like fashion, he begins to repeat all of the same things he did with Moon-sook the first time he was at the beach and even ends up sleeping with the new girl in the same hotel room. At the same time, Moon-sook interrupts them by drunkenly pounding on the door in the middle of the night.

Lovers, and feelings, come and go in this film. At one point a character may be desperate for another's affection and at a different point may be completely indifferent towards the same person. They can also let their hangups get in the way of a good thing, such as when Director Kim cannot get over the fact that Moon-sook dated and slept with European men when she lived in Germany. His hangups ruined his first marriage because he couldn't get over his wife sleeping with a mutual friend before they met. Moon-sook is disappointed in Director Kim because her adoration for him as a director and artist fades and she begins seeing him as “just another Korean man.” Moon-sook says that her greatest fear is obsession and this is displayed in her distaste towards Chang-wook's clinginess and later, Director Kim's desperation to be with her again. She showed much more interest when he was acting like an alpha male towards her in the beginning of their relationship.

In the beginning, Moon-sook has a choice between Director Kim and Chang-wook. Then Director Kim has a choice between Moon-sook and a new lover. In the end, two men help Moon-sook get her car unstuck in the sand. Woman on the Beach shows that there is always a choice in romantic relationships and you are never stuck with your current love. But is this always a good thing? It seems to create much more confusion as the characters go through the agony of desperation and then suddenly distance themselves and feel indifferent towards the object of their affections. It seems as if everyone in the film is at one time attracted towards each other but can never get it together enough to make it work. No one is on the same page at the same time to make anything last. It reminds me of a quote from a song by LCD Soundsystem: “Nobody's falling in love, everybody here needs a shove, and nobody's getting any touch, everybody thinks that it means too much.” Everybody is guilty of taking things too seriously sometimes and maybe in the beginning that isn’t what love and attraction is about.

Rating: 7/10

-Ryan Sallows

Next time: A review for Clint Eastwood's World War II film, Flags of Our Fathers, his companion piece to an earlier reviewed film, Letters from Iwo Jima.
We will put up a review for the French romantic thriller, Tell No One, by Guillaume Canet, winner of the César Award for Best Director and three others!

12:08 East of Bucharest (2006)

12:08 East of Bucharest

Corneliu Porumboiu

Romania

Set in the Romanian town of Vaslui sixteen years after the fall of the Communist regime, 12:08 East of Bucharest tells the story of a place and its people struggling to find its identity post revolution.  The film takes place in a single days time, and centers around a talk show host’s singular question; was there or wasn’t there a revolution?

As the film opens we are introduced to three central characters. Mr. Jderescu (Teodor Corban), a textile owner turned talk show host, who begs the central question. Although, Mr. Jderescu’s life is not that of a traditional talk show host, as he spends most of the day on the phone leaving nasty (and hilarious) voice messages for the guests he cannot get a hold of the day of the show.  As replacements for his guests, Mr. Jderescu first finds a master at deadpan comedy, Old Man Piscoci (Mircea Andreescu). The old man is known in town for his seemingly legendary role as Santa Claus. Still, most of the kids in the town scare him throughout the day with ear piercing fireworks. Mr. Jderescu’s second guest is Manescu (Ion Sapdaru), a high school history teacher and town drunk. The task of recalling the 1989 revolution is reluctantly placed in the hands of these two.

Throughout the day leading up to the talk show, Porumboiu takes us through the monotony of life in Romania. The use of a colorless landscape and seemingly every tone of grey throughout the film leaves the viewer wanting out of such a dreary town. Residents of Vaslui are readying themselves for the Christmas holiday, but the general well-being and cheer that accompanies such a celebration can only be found in dirty Santa suits and half-baked Christmas trees.  While battling a busted signal in his television set, Old Man Piscoci is asked to fill in as Santa Claus. He tries on a weathered Santa suit he refers to as a “dirty dishtowel,” in one of the films many dry comedic moments. The children cannot be found in the streets playing sports or riding bicycles, but rather they spend the day scaring old men with fireworks. Even the tripod used for the talk show camera does not work properly. The revolution has clearly not brought much fortune to the town of Vaslui.

Porumboiu chooses to use single stationary camera shots throughout the entirety of the film, further adding to the drab disposition of the Romanian town. Even through his camera technique blends seamlessly into the final act of the talk show, the director purposefully uses theses simple shots to convey the dull lifestyle.  Once the film reaches the conclusion of the talk show, it becomes obvious as to why the town of Vaslui appears so downtrodden. Manescu’s account of the day the Romanian leadership stepped down is suspect at best. His version of the story cannot be corroborated by one of the many residents who call into the talk show. Nobody is able to give a clear account of the day's events, and answer whether or not the townspeople of Vaslui took to the streets prior to the leadership relinquishing power (at 12:08 p.m. on December 22, 1989), leaving us with a healthy suspicion. Even Old Man Piscoci tells his story of that day through an argument he had with his wife, that led him to the streets to protest; simply to show his wife that he was a real man.

On the other hand, Porumboiu suggests the people of Vaslui may be asking the wrong question, when they wonder whether or not they played any part in the Romanian revolution. Possibly the reason why they are not reaping the benefits of a revolutionary change is simply because they have yet to learn how.

The talk show closes with one last caller; a woman who confesses that her son was killed during the revolution. However, she does not call into the show to tell her story. Rather, she calls to tell the three men the weather conditions outside. “I’m just calling to let you know its snowing outside,” she exclaims. “It’s snowing, Big white flakes…enjoy it now, tomorrow it will be mud…” While debating history and their role in the Romanian revolution, the people of Vaslui are simply overlooking the simple joys and beauties of their country. Abandoning the melancholy single frame long takes; the director closes the film with soothing pictures of Vaslui, with white snow falling on the streets. 

Rating: 7/10

- Joshua Albrent

Next time:  A review of South Korean romantic comedy, Woman on the Beach, by Hong Sang-soo.  This review will appear after the Christmas holiday, on December 28th.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)

 The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Ken Loach

Ireland/United Kingdom

The “Troubles” in Ireland have their roots in the Irish War of Independence, in which a band of rebels, some would call them freedom fighters, yet others might say terrorists, fought against British troops stationed in Ireland. They were demanding Home Rule be granted to their country, so they could have independence from the British government. Leaders from both sides struck the Anglo-Irish Treaty after a few years of bitter struggle. Some Irish backed this agreement while others felt it was a "sell out" because the treaty granted them some representation, but not complete freedom from the British government. This led to the Irish Civil War in which brother fought against brother for what they felt was the right path towards liberty. Those that supported the Irish Free State felt they could settle things with the Brits with diplomacy and politics while the Anti-Treaty IRA (Irish Republican Army) wanted total freedom on their own terms. The film shows that a war with an outside force can lead to war within. The lengthy conflict that still creates sporadic violence is a touchy subject for both the Irish and the Brits. A mention of the “Troubles” can elicit fierce emotions on either side of the Irish Sea due to issues of patriotism, nationalism, religion, oppression and deaths that have occurred from the fighting.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley is a film about both of these wars (Irish War of Independence and Irish Civil War), the treaty and the emotions on each side of the Irish Civil War. The film by British director, Ken Loach, won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival which is the sought-after Grand Prize of one, if not the, most important film festivals in the world. It became the highest-grossing Irish-made independent film ever. As a result of the controversial subject matter, some reviewers gave it negative press and attacked it without even seeing it (they couldn't have because it had only been shown at Cannes at that time and they were not in attendance.) Even now, film message boards are blowing up on the internet over the subject matter of the film with people taking opposite sides and arguing. Loach is known best for making films about social issues like homelessness, child abuse and labor rights. He lends his style of social realism to a war story set in the picturesque Irish countryside. 

 

The film shows both points of view through the two brothers who make up the films main protagonists: Cillian Murphy as Damien O'Donovan (a doctor) and Pádraic Delaney as Teddy O'Donovan (a young man itching for conflict with the British.) The film opens up with Damien set to go to London to attend an internship at a prestigious hospital, but before he can leave the country, he views two conflicts with the British military also known as the Black and Tans. In one instance, a friend of his is killed right before him for not telling the soldiers his name in English (instead, he would only answer in Gaelic.) So he joins the fight for freedom and goes on a number of missions using guerrilla warfare tactics against the much larger British military. The film is comparable to Lawrence of Arabia in the kind of warfare used, as well as the reaction of the natives to the British political machine. The tactics used by the British are shown to be horrible and shocking. Because the film takes place around 1920 – 1925, you only get a taste of what is to come over the next 80 years or so. By the time the credits role, the fight still has a long way to go.

Threatening to cheapen the story is a love subplot, which is thankfully tastefully presented and does not take too much from the main story. It is used to soften and humanize the main character and display the emotional effect that war can have on family and loved ones. The cinematography is beautiful, portraying stark realities of war in a dreamlike place of great natural beauty. It might not be possible to make an ugly film in Ireland, the land is just too gorgeous. The war is shown on a small scale and never goes into action film territory. There is even a scene where the viewer believes an explosion is going to occur but the bomb malfunctions and never goes off. Loach doesn’t want to glorify the violence that happens in battle by amping up the level of excitement, but does show some of the horrific results. In many war films, people are killed with no emotion shown from the surviving side, but here it shows the effect killing someone can have on the morale of a soldier. Every life taken is dwelt upon with great sadness and victories often seem bittersweet. This is a passionate film that is truthful in presentation and lends insight as to how a terrible war can occur in such a beautiful and proud land.

Rating: 8/10

-Ryan Sallows

Next time: A review of Cannes Film Festival Camera d'Or winner and Romanian political satire, 12:08 East of Bucharest.

Half Nelson (2006)

 Half Nelson

Ryan Fleck

USA

The story of drug abuse in the inner city of America has been told many times over. We are all familiar with the story of the minority family struggling to get by, with the promise of the American Dream just out of reach. Destitute inhabitants, knowing their fates lie in either selling drugs, or abusing them. After the conclusion of David Simon’s masterpiece HBO original series The Wire, it’s nearly impossible not to measure all stories of the like against his raw portrait of Baltimore, Maryland. David Simon’s Baltimore personified the daily struggle in modern America. However, Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden’s story of Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling), a middle-aged junkie schoolteacher in Brooklyn New York, offers a fresh take on the genre.

As most stories of the like deal with kids and their temptations with drugs, it is Dan who struggles with addiction. The film takes us through Dan’s daily life as a middle-school history teacher in Brooklyn, New York. He lives alone in a quaint apartment with his cat. But it quickly becomes obvious that Dan’s addictions have caused him to live this isolated life. Dan’s former girlfriend, who has battled addiction as well, briefly comes back into his life; only to disclose she has beaten addiction and has found love in someone else. Dan’s visit with his family reveals they are overtly clueless to their son’s drug abuse, as they flounder about in a suburban-whitewashed haze.

Within each of these encounters, Dan tries to reach out for help but doesn’t know how to get it, and therefore doesn’t receive any in return. Dan is perpetually stuck in a cycle of addiction, and doesn’t know how to break out. In spite of these failures, he finds help in an unlikely source; a young student named Drey.

Dan’s relationship with Drey develops in the classroom and in the gym, where Dan coaches the girls basketball team. Dan takes a liking to Drey, as she is clearly a standout in Dan’s classroom. But their friendship takes an unexpected turn when Drey comes across her coach, smoking crack in the locker room. As Dan trips on his high, Drey stays with him until he comes down. Drey keeps the secret between the two of them, as she deals with the other side of drug addiction. Drey’s brother is in jail for dealing, and the man he worked for has taken Drey in as a younger sister, hoping one day she will sling drugs like her older brother.

On the surface, Dan and Drey’s friendship is an unlikely one. A relationship between a teacher and student, each from the opposite sides of the tracks, is not to be expected. But they gravitate toward each other, simply because they need one another. The relationship between the two of them is where the film and the actors truly shine. While Ryan Fleck’s film offers a different perspective on the American inner city tale, it still offers the same ideologies of compassion and redemption. “Second chances are rare; you should take more advantage of them,” Dan exclaims to a student caught cheating on his test. Dan is certainly given chances to change his life, and it would certainly pay dividends for him to listen to his own advice. But from time to time we need others to remind us how to live by our own principles; and Dan is fortunate enough to find such a person.

Rating: 8/10

-Joshua Albrent

Next time: A review of Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or winner, The Wind that Shakes the Barley, an Irish war drama by Ken Loach.

The Departed (2006)

 The Departed

Martin Scorsese

USA

“We have a question: Do you want to be a cop, or do you want to appear to be a cop?”

Martin Scorsese is great film. He lives and breathes the medium. From hearing him talk, it is hard to imagine a conversation that happens in his vicinity that is not somehow related to film. Scorsese is president of The Film Foundation, an organization devoted to the restoration and preservation of the artform. The way I always remember him is in interviews, speaking at rapid-fire, discussing other films with so much passion and enthusiasm. He is a prolific director that has produced masterpieces such as Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Mean Streets, The King of Comedy and my personal favorite, Raging Bull. In recent years he put out greats like The Aviator and Gangs of New York. Somehow he had never won an Oscar for Best Director or Best Picture until The Departed came out. When he won, he jokingly asked them to “double-check the envelope”.

The Departed is Scorsese's third film with lead actor Leonardo DiCaprio and it is also their best. The movie is based on a Hong Kong film, Infernal Affairs, in which a cop is put into deep undercover to infiltrate a Triad gang, while a member of the gang does the same in the police force. Both films have fantastic star-studded casts with some of the best actors within their respective countries. The Hong Kong film stars Tony Leung, often billed as China's answer to Clark Gable, and Andy Lau, an insanely popular movie and pop music star. Infernal Affairs is highly recommendable as it is a complex tale of honor and brotherhood with themes of identity at its core. The soul of the film is Tony Leung, with his conflicted undercover cop, who does things he despises as the right hand man to a Triad boss to keep up appearances as a gangster. Leung is an amazing actor that has been in so many brilliant films that it would be hard to name them all here. 

 

The Departed lifts the story from Infernal Affairs and sets the action in South Boston with Leonardo DiCaprio playing the undercover cop, Billy Costigan, as the right hand man to Jack Nicholson's frightening Irish mob boss, Frank Costello. There is so much talent in this film with Martin Sheen as a Police Captain, Mark Wahlberg as a ball-busting Staff Sergeant, Alec Baldwin as another Police Captain and Matt Damon as the mole in the Police force, Colin Sullivan. Damon's character appears to be a sort of golden boy, rising through the ranks while using information he learns there to warn Costello of the Police investigations against him and his people, often while in the middle of pretending to head up stings against the very same mob. The film's running time is an hour over Infernal Affairs and doesn't feel at all bloated or overlong as the film moves at a brisk pace with action, suspense, strong violence and witty, often hilarious, dialogue. Many of the added scenes are expanded dialogue that are full of strong characterization, offering insights to the players' motivations and personalities. Also, the tone is changed slightly and with a strong soundtrack of rock music hand-picked by The Band's Robbie Robertson that makes the film feel more fun than its Hong Kong predecessor. 

 

The filmmakers use of sound is highlighted with a complex communication system for the two moles involving cellphones. The editing and dialogue is punchy and quick, creating a constant forward movement in the plot as well as a feeling of density in the story. The film reveals more of itself on repeat viewings as you begin to understand the slang and catch references you may have missed before. Scorsese has a knack for mafia films, creating worlds inhabited by gangsters, toughs and other social outcasts. This film continues his usual themes of crime, masculinity and violence to create something beautiful out of parts so ugly. DiCaprio plays such a convincing role as a rattled undercover cop that you can feel his distress of being found out. His fears and anxieties would be what yours would be if you had to protect your identity at every turn. He starts to really unravel towards the end and it seems like his sanity is probably hanging onto a thread while desperation is taking hold. There are so many great scenes with DiCaprio in what is probably his best role. You can see he is running on all cylinders and I believe it to be a tour de force as far as his acting ability goes. 

 

It seems fitting to discuss this film now due to the arrest of real-life Irish mob boss from South Boston, James “Whitey” Bulger, who was finally caught by the Police this year after evading the authorities and being on the lam since 1995. The character of Jack Nicholson's Frank Costigan is based on “Whitey” and Matt Damon's mole in the force was based on John Connolly, an FBI agent who tipped Bulger off regularly for years. It is strange to see a film by Scorsese with so many real world ties that also happens to be based on another film, but somehow he makes it his own and the film feels like it can stand next to many of his masterpieces. This is his first Oscar win for Best Director and Best Picture, but he also deserved to win for Raging Bull, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. There was a lot of talk of Scorsese having to win the award in 2006 because he was slighted in the past but he may have deserved the award for this film anyway. Along with Best Director and Best Picture, The Departed won for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing by Scorsese's longtime editor and collaborator Thelma Schoonmaker (her third win; the others being for Raging Bull and The Aviator.) The Departed is one of the best films of the year and comes with highest recommendations. It's exciting, tense, funny, smart and highly cinematic in presentation. Of the five nominees, the Academy made the right choice. 

 

Rating: 9/10

-Ryan Sallows

Next time: The real meat of our blog begins as we dissect and analyze great films that weren't nominated for Best Picture but could have been and maybe even should have been. Maybe there was a film that was even better that The Departed. We will find out. First up is a review of award-winning drama, Half Nelson, directed by Ryan Fleck.

The Queen (2006)

 The Queen

Stephen Frears

UK/France/Italy

“That’s the way we do things in this country; quietly, with dignity,” proclaims Queen Elizabeth II, portrayed dutifully by Helen Mirren in Stephen Frears' The Queen. As the constitutional monarch, the Queen values majesty over all else, and this is made abundantly clear in Peter Morgan’s earnest screenplay. However, it is the attributes of Elizabeth that we don’t see on the surface that come to define her character and the film.

The story centers on the death of Diana, Princess of Whales, who, as we all know, was killed in a car crash in Paris, France in 1997. At the time of her death, the story quickly became the topic of conversation. However, the film does not sensationalize the actual events, but rather portrays the crash in a montage of actual footage taken by photographers the night of her death. As a viewer, it becomes immediately clear that Frears is not going to rely on the emotion of the historical events. Rather, we are instead presented with two characters that are deeply involved in the drama, which seem at odds from the start, yet find themselves sympathetic to one another.

The film begins with the election of the Labor Party and the subsequent appointment of Tony Blair as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Blair (played for the second time by Michael Sheen) represents the modern leader, elected on a revisionist platform. By contrasting the imperial monarchy of Queen Elizabeth with Blair’s progressive rhetoric, the director is able to show us two sides of the story that surrounded the death of Princess Diana. For the entirety of the film, the director even uses different film stock when shooting each of the respective characters. The first half of the film focuses mainly on Tony Blair, and the rumblings of Great Britain becoming a Republic in the aftermath of Diana’s death. At this point in the film, it begins to feel like a political statement, railing against the English monarch and its archaic characteristics.

However, the second half of the film downshifts, revealing the Queen as a character all people can sympathize with; even those clamoring for change. After the death of Diana, the Queen feels the matter should be dealt with privately, and with dignity. Yet, her real issue with the death of the princess comes from her sense of family, and duty to her country. “Duty first, self second,” the Queen proclaims. Elizabeth feels Diana’s embarrassing divorce from her son Prince Charles, and her subsequent behavior, clearly segregated her from the Royal Family and her children. Thus, her death should not be publicly recognized as a death in the Royal Family.

The obvious reaction to the Queen’s traditional approach is to label Elizabeth as simply out of touch with the emotions of the people of her country. She continuously refuses to return from her vacation home to pay her respects, and even refuses to fly the flag at half-mast at Buckingham Palace. However, Helen Mirren’s performance allows us to feel otherwise; garnering our sympathy by revealing the human buried deep inside her. The depth of her character, at once seeming so cold and empty, comes alive with emotion and breadth. The pivotal scene comes with her chance encounter with a deer while on her vacation in the highlands of Scotland. The majesty of the animal brings the Queen to tears, and we catch a glimpse of the human inside her that is truly hurt by the events taking place in her country. She knows that she must return to her country, as it is her duty to comfort her people during this emotional time.

The death of Princess Diana created a divide within the English political institutions; a segregation that favors the emotions of the English people, and their need to grieve over the death of someone they considered one of them. After all, Tony Blair proclaimed her as the “people's princess.” However, it is Helen Mirren’s stunning performance, which brings to life the humanity of Queen Elizabeth; a side of her that many never get to see. As we all look to our leaders to be steadfast and resolute, we lose sight of the soul that makes them a human being. But the truth is they are every bit as vulnerable as we all are. The Queen, and Mirren’s portrayal of the Queen Elizabeth, reminds us that we are all human, each with a sense of pride and compassion.

Rating: 8/10

-Joshua Albrent

Next time: A review of Martin Scorsese's The Departed, winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Letters From Iwo Jima (2006)

 Letters from Iwo Jima

Clint Eastwood

USA

Created as companion pieces to one another, Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers tell the story of the battle at Iwo Jima during World War II from the perspective of the soldiers from each country. Both were directed by Clint Eastwood and they were released within two months of each other in 2006. Letters from Iwo Jima was well-received in Japan, where it premiered, which is remarkable considering the subject matter and that it had an American film director and production company. In fact, what makes the film so interesting is this is the first American war film production told entirely from the viewpoint of soldiers fighting against us. The dialogue also happens to be almost exclusively in Japanese. The film was nominated for four Academy awards including Best Picture and Best Director. 

 

While Flags of Our Fathers tells the story of selling the war at home to American citizens by urging them to invest in war bonds, Letters from Iwo Jima is more of a straight-forward war picture. It tells the story of how the Japanese fought and lost at the island of Iwo Jima, and the repercussions that the soldiers faced for failure. Iwo Jima was sought after by the U.S. for it’s proximity to the Japanese mainland. Our military could use it as a base to rally troops and house bomber airplanes. The Japanese soldiers knew that if Iwo Jima fell, the war would basically be over for them so this battle was viewed as a “last stand.”

The story focuses on a simple baker named Private Saigo, and his interactions with soldiers of other classes such as a disgraced former Kempeitai (Japanese military police), Private Shimizu, Olympic gold medalist Lt. Col. Takeichi Nishi, and General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, who commanded the final showdown with the Americans on the island. Saigo is played by Kazunari Ninomiya, a boy band member turned actor, while Kuribayashi is played by Ken Watanabe, who was Oscar-nominated for his supporting role in The Last Samurai. Both are given moments to shine as Saigo is hopeful to return to his life outside the military and be with his young bride and newborn child while Kuribayashi wishes to bring honor and victory to Japan. Unfortunately, events threaten the goals of both of these men as they strive to do the right thing in the chaos of war. 

 

Seeing the conflict through the eyes of the Japanese makes the tale more unique and it causes the viewer to come to understand more about the motivations and concerns of the different kinds of soldiers that fought against us. The soldiers are conflicted by different feelings of obligation to country, family and self. Honor and loyalty play a large part in the daily lives of the soldiers and they are constantly being told to be ready to die for their country as if it is predetermined. Their obligation to bushido code require them to commit suicide if things look bad to uphold their honor. There is a grisly scene in which this happens with some soldiers. Saigo holds onto his hope that he may someday see his family again to force himself to keep going despite the insanities of war swirling around him. 

 

Letters from Iwo Jima's style is interesting in comparison to modern war films like Saving Private Ryan because Eastwood shuns the “shaky camera” look that is employed so often to create a sense of realism in the battle scenes. The filmmakers instead go for a more moody, dark and gloomy look with plenty of fog so the landscape looks alien in the dark. This emphasizes the soldiers’ feelings of hopelessness and of not being able to escape their impending doom. Similar in effect to a film noir, there is an air of dread mystery that pervades the combat sequences which creates a sense of isolation and anxiety. The film uses a muted color palette to emulate the black & white films of the era.  The Warner Brothers logo that appears at the start is even a silver color to make it look like it could be period specific.

Overall, this film makes a fine addition to the repertoire of the prolific Clint Eastwood as a director, and stands with Million Dollar Baby and Mystic River as one of his great recent films. While I must say that I feel Letters from Iwo Jima is superior, Flags of Our Fathers is worth watching as well and they make fine companions to each other. It is beneficial that they are vastly different in content so they both remain engaging even if they are watched back-to-back. In both films, the enemy appears little so they do not seem caricatured as evil foreigners in each film. Both movies focus on the good and bad sides of each military and it makes the films appear more honest for doing so. Eastwood has directed so many great films in the last 35 years that it is easy to see he is one of the greatest living directors. He has touched so many aspects of film, both in front of and behind the camera, that it would be hard to imagine Hollywood history without his presence.

Rating: 9/10

-Ryan Sallows

Next time: A review of Best Picture-nominated British drama, The Queen.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

 Little Miss Sunshine

Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Ferris

USA

Dysfunctional families; a plot that has been done countless times throughout the history of film. Rob Reiner’s 1989 classic, Parenthood, and Wes Anderson’s 2001 film, The Royal Tenenbaums, immediately come to mind. Each one of these films carried stellar ensemble casts, each worn down by daily struggles and family bitterness only to later realize they need the love and support of those around them to survive. Written by Michael Arndt and directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valeria Faris, Little Miss Sunshine takes us on such a journey with such a family; the Hoovers. The youngest member of the family, Olive (played wonderfully by soon-to-be star Abigail Breslin) discovers she has been invited to participate in the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant in Huntington Beach, California. Much to the dismay of the family, they all pile into their rusty VW bus to take to the road to support the young girl, not knowing they may yet discover something about themselves along the way.

As the film opens, we are quickly introduced to all members of the Hoover family. Richard (Greg Kinear), the father, is desperately trying to sell his failed motivational success program in order to support his family. The mother, Sheryl (Toni Collette), is seen frantically smoking a cigarette, trying to ease her nerves as she drives to pick up her brother Frank (Steve Carell), who has been hospitalized for attempting to take his own life. Dwayne (Paul Dano) is Sheryl's son from a previous relationship, who spends most of his teenage life reading Nietzsche and figuring out a way to get to spend the rest of his life without his family. Richard’s shit-talking father (Academy Award winner Alan Arkin) rounds out the dysfunctional crew by making sure everyone knows, well, just how dysfunctional they really are.

As the family stumbles along their journey to California, they are met with endless challenges, opening up deep wounds and divisions within the family unit. Richard’s desperate book deal for his motivational success program falls through when he discovers no publishing company is willing to take a chance on his idea. It becomes very clear that he has been counting on this deal to come through in order to support his family for some time. Dwayne, taking a vow of silence till the day he is accepted into the Air Force Academy, discovers he is color blind while playing a simple card game with his younger sister leaving him to break his vow in order to scream out his frustrations. We learn that Frank, the world's top ranked Proust scholar, attempted to take his own life after discovering the man he loved had fallen for his worst enemy; the world's second ranked Proust scholar. Richard, the heroin-snorting grandfather who was kicked out of his nursing home for using drugs, dies unexpectedly after one too many hits. To make matters even worse, the clutch in the VW bus burns out, leaving a team effort to push start the car as the only option.

However, it is Breslin’s charming innocence that grounds the film, and keeps the family from completely falling apart. It is at this point in the film, that all the hardships that befall the Hoover family begin to feel a little over the top. However, the multiple setbacks only allow the family unit to grow stronger, as it quickly becomes evident they must work together to get Olive to California.

Once they arrive in California, the Hoovers enter a material world full of children dressed up like Barbie dolls, and parents vicariously living out their sick fantasies through their kids. This is clearly a world the Hoovers and Olive do not belong to. Anticipating the embarrassment that we befall Olive, a pudgy glasses-wearing little girl, Richard and Dwayne plead with Sheryl to pull her from the contest. With little debate, it becomes clear to the family that Olive must go on stage, because that is what she wants. Once Olive takes the stage, the film takes an unexpected turn, allowing the family to rise above their selfish ways and come together in support of Olive.

Dayton and Faris paint a wonderful picture of the growth of the family spirit through the age-old story of people leaning on one another to get through tough times. Even though this is a story that many of us have seen before, and the themes and events of the film feel slightly contrived at times; it somehow seems fresh in the hands of young actors Abigail Breslin and Paul Dano, as well as savvy veterans Steven Carell and Alan Arkin. The cast assembled in Little Miss Sunshine drives the film, because without it we would not buy into the lingering family angst. From the very start of the film, it feels like we are thrust into a family feud, and the tension is high. However, the anxiety is built with each setback along the road, and we are ultimately rewarded with a joyous celebration of familial love. 

Rating: 7/10

-Joshua Albrent

Next time:  A review of Best Picture-nominated World War II Drama, Letters from Iwo Jima.

Babel (2006)

Babel

Alejandro González Iñárritu

USA

Nominated for seven Academy Awards including Best Picture, Babel was given the prestigious Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival where it also premiered. The film structure of Babel consists of four separate but connected narratives that span across the globe. Along with two other films, Amores perros and 21 Grams, this is Iñárritu’s third and last pairing with screenwriter, Guillermo Arriaga. The three films share similar themes and structures to form what is referred to as their “Death Trilogy.” All three feature characters whose lives intersect around a traumatic event of some kind. 

The title, Babel, derived from the Bible story of the Tower of Babel, is representative of the issues with language throughout the feature and it displays the obstacles that come with the inability to communicate through language. Of course, racial and political issues go hand-in-hand with these difficulties. Unlike a film like Crash, and other films with a sociological or humanitarian message to deliver where there seems to be a solution to work toward, this film presents a a problem which cannot be solved. There will always be difficulties or breakdowns in communicating that come from speaking different languages. This is an advantage the film has, as there are no clear cut answers throughout, and there is a lack of blunt social messages that could be construed as pushy propaganda from self-righteous filmmakers. In other words, you're not being hit over the head with anything here. 


All four stories of Babel are particularly bleak and there is little relief from the tension that permeates throughout each person’s tragedies. Because there is so much happening in four different plots, the viewer does not get to know each character well, which is strange considering the star power attached to the film. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are big names and neither really get the attention they would in another film, although there are moments of beautiful tenderness between them. They play a husband and wife struggling to connect after one of their children dies from what appears to be Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS.) They go on a trip to Morocco to reconnect where Blanchett’s character is shot in a random act of senseless violence. Stranded in a remote town in a foreign land with a mortally wounded wife highlights a feeling of powerlessness and the frustrations that come from not being able to communicate effectively. This also gives Blanchett little to do but scream, cry and tremble as she probably has less than ten real speaking lines in the film. She does all of these things adequately enough though. 


The shooters, two young sons of a peasant goatherd, were given a gun to scare away jackals from picking off their livestock. On impulse, they shoot at moving cars to test the gun's range. Their tragic story is filled with death and anger over the ignorance of two very young boys playing with a deadly high-powered weapon. While the boys portray sympathetic characters, it would have been more understanding to see Blanchett shot by the gun by accident, rather than having them deliberately aiming at a moving bus. The viewer can recognize they are supposed to appear as simple farmers but the scene lacks believability, and leads one to question whether anyone can be that simple. 


Meanwhile, the two living children of Pitt and Blanchett are being watched by their Mexican nanny played by the wonderful Adriana Barraza. The nanny's plans to visit her son’s wedding in Mexico are thrown off by the shooting event in Morocco, so she decides to travel with her nephew (Gael García Bernal) and the two American children across the border. The return trip turns disastrous when they are stopped at the border with the two sleeping children in the backseat. Bernal’s part is small and inconsequential enough that an actor of lower-caliber could have played it just as easily, which is unfortunate after seeing him in great pictures like Y tu mamá también, Bad Education, The Motorcycle Diaries and even The Science of Sleep which appeared this same year. 


While all four narratives of Babel are strong the one centered around deaf-mute teenager, Chieko, played by Rinko Kikuchi in Japan, rises above the rest. Her struggle to understand people in her own country and the frustrations with connecting with boys because of her disability are something that hasn’t been seen in the cinema enough or, possibly, at all. On top of this, she is also struggling to understand the suicide of her mother. Her acting through sign and body language creates a sympathetic and heartrendingly beautiful character. She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for this film and it was a crime that she did not win. 


The cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto is gorgeous and while the landscapes are often as bleak as the story, there is a fortunate ten minutes or so where there is cross-cutting between a picturesque wedding in Mexico with an evening out in a Japanese club that results in pure visual and aural sensuality. These scenes offer to take the film to a different place, but as the events end, everything comes crashing back down to a harsh reality. The editing style is interesting with events appearing out of chronological order, but since Pulp Fiction came out this technique has been used so often that it is almost cliché. All of the films in this trilogy use similar editing techniques, so this is the third time we have seen comparable structures by this team of creators. 


Ultimately, while this is a competent film that is worth seeing, it is easier to recommend both Iñárritu’s Amores perros, which also stars Bernal, and then his 21 Grams. Both of these films explore equivalent themes, but seem to come together more smoothly. This might be because the characters interact more directly in those films. While every narrative in Babel is interesting and well executed, a more engaging film could have been made by focusing exclusively on the more unique story of the young deaf-mute in Japan. It would also center on a more specific problem rather than general language issues. The problems that come from speaking different languages in each story are too vague and unanswerable.

Rating: 6/10

-Ryan Sallows

Next time: A review of Best Picture-nominated comedy-drama Little Miss Sunshine.