Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Groggy]

Well, it isn't a documentary. Arguably it's propaganda as it was largely funded by the Algerian government. I think most of those omissions can be put down to scope; there was a conscious decision to focus it on the street-level violence rather than high-level politics.

[Groggy]

Maybe Pontecorvo is challenging us in that way: challenging us to first say "Mathieu seems to be a pretty decent guy," while then wondering how we could have possibly had any sympathy for a cold-blooded killer just because he uses nice justifications and speaks with respect about his enemy.... But on the other hand, is Pontecorvo making a similar immoral justification for the terrorist acts? All too many times, I've heard it said about certain terrorists, "I don't support their actions, but I understand what would drive them to do it." Usually, that's a thinly disguised justification for said actions.

The characterization of Mathieu is very troubling. On my first few viewings I definitely saw him as sympathetic. Unquestionably he's a better-drawn character than any of the Algerians, the nominal protagonists. Rewatching the film with the above critique in mind, though, I can certainly agree with the author's take.

But if we accept that, how valid a characterization is he? There's no question that the French officers in Algeria were fanatics: they overthrew one government and many tried to oust De Gaulle later on. They put a higher premium on patriotism and "the glory of France" over loyalty to a President. Not to mention they came from a military system that largely encouraged independent action over "following orders." Marcel Bigeard's probably the closest historical analogue to Mathieu, and he never turned against De Gaulle. He's certainly an exception to the rule, though.

Maybe this is just the history geek's complaint. Probing it though, it's clear Mathieu was characterized as he was, precisely in pursuit of a rhetorical point. For all his intelligence, skill and occasional likability, he lacks real commitment - he's just a cog in a machine. Perhaps this is to contrast the human Algerians, devoted to a cause if nothing else, with an inhumanly professional French officer? If so that makes a very different point in a very different fashion.

[drinkanddestroy]

The characterization of Mathieu is very troubling. On my first few viewings I definitely saw him as sympathetic. Unquestionably he's a better-drawn character than any of the Algerians, the nominal protagonists. Rewatching the film with the above critique in mind, though, I can certainly agree with the author's take.

But if we accept that, how valid a characterization is he? There's no question that the French officers in Algeria were fanatics: they overthrew one government and many tried to oust De Gaulle later on. They put a higher premium on patriotism and "the glory of France" over loyalty to a President. Not to mention they came from a military system that largely encouraged independent action over "following orders." Marcel Bigeard's probably the closest historical analogue to Mathieu, and he never turned against De Gaulle. He's certainly an exception to the rule, though.

Maybe this is just the history geek's complaint. Probing it though, it's clear Mathieu was characterized as he was, precisely in pursuit of a rhetorical point. For all his intelligence, skill and occasional likability, he lacks real commitment - he's just a cog in a machine. Perhaps this is to contrast the human Algerians, devoted to a cause if nothing else, with an inhumanly professional French officer? If so that makes a very different point in a very different fashion.

(All I really know about the attempted assassination of de Gaulle is from The Day of the Jackal  ), but was that due to patriotism and glory of France, or due to the fact that these guys had spent years risking their lives fighting for a cause, only to see de Gaulle just give it away, like he wasted all those years of their lives.

(And btw, personally I don't see anything less fanatical/extremist about devotion to patriotism than devotion to a president).

[Groggy]

was that due to patriotism and glory of France, or due to the fact that these guys had spent years risking their lives fighting for a cause, only to see de Gaulle just give it away, like he wasted all those years of their lives.

These are men who'd lived through one betrayal (or perceived betrayal) after another: the fall of France and the Gaullist/Vichy split, the indignity of Indochina, the craven handling of the Suez Crisis. Thus officers, by necessity, pursued individual interpretations of loyalty and patriotism. Add a perpetually unstable post-war French government that rose and fell seemingly every other week. Then a feeling that with the war, not only France's colonial possessions were endangered but France itself. Couple that with a sense that De Gaulle was personally beholden to them for helping him take power. Voila, you have the OAS.

personally I don't see anything less fanatical/extremist about devotion to patriotism than devotion to a president

I was trying to make the opposite point. The OAS were self-described fascists who murdered thousands of civilians, both in France and Algeria. At various points they fought the FLN and the French government simultaneously. Their "higher" form of patriotism consisted of a very personal, outdated view of France's destiny and place in the world.

PS: Any French/historically-knowledgable poster is welcome to correct me if I get something drastically wrong.

[Groggy]

Farewell to the King - 5/10 - American deserter Nick Nolte becomes king of a Bornean tribe, leading them in a guerilla war against Japanese troops. John Milius provides another riff on Conrad with this overstuffed WWII saga. Awkward character development gives way to routine action, cribbing entire sequences from Lawrence of Arabia and The Man Who Would Be King. Everything feels rushed and overwrought, perhaps due to cuts, or perhaps Milius was just sloppy this time round. Nolte is either very good or very bad; he's certainly more interesting than the amateurish supporting cast (even James Fox).

[drinkanddestroy]

I was trying to make the opposite point. The OAS were self-described fascists who murdered thousands of civilians, both in France and Algeria. At various points they fought the FLN and the French government simultaneously. Their "higher" form of patriotism consisted of a very personal, outdated view of France's destiny and place in the world.

PS: Any French/historically-knowledgable poster is welcome to correct me if I get something drastically wrong.

sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that "I don't find anything less fanatical about devotion to a President than devotion to patriotism." I think it's all bullshit. A president isn't necessarily any more moral than is an abstract concept like patriotism.... I'm certainly not defending the actions of these French officers; I was just commenting on what I saw as your implication that in general, devotion to a President is less fanatical than devotion to patriotism.

[drinkanddestroy]

Thinking more about that article on Colonel Mathieu. I have to say that no matter how bad Mathieu is, the worst actions in the movie are committed by those women of the FLN who plant those bombs. Sitting there and casually sipping a coke while calmly looking at the baby eating ice cream whom she is about to blow up, is something that we don't see Mathieu ever doing. She doesn't at least try to get the baby away, or show the slightest bit of inner conflict; Mathieu shows more complexity/concern for his opponents. (Not that murdering adults is really any less evil than murdering children, but it is at least in the language of cinema). This is no way condones any actions by Mathieu; but if someone wants to argue that Mathieu is one of the worst characters in movie history, then so are those women.

------------

Also, I was thinking that perhaps showing Mathieu as somehow conflicted was the worst sort of trickery by Pontecorvo, for the following reason: perhaps you can say that if the movie had portrayed the FLN as unambiguously good and the French as unambiguously evil, then nobody would accept a word the movie says, it would all be dismissed as propaganda. However, by purporting to portray the French leaders' inner conflicts, it allows the viewer to say, "this movie is trying just to portray the facts, as they are." So when they subtly make us believe that Mathieu is the epitome of all evil (as the author came to believe after several viewings), we accept that, because we believe the movie was attempting an honest portrayal. And ditto for the FLN's actions: by portraying the atrocities that it commits, we can tell ourselves that the movie is trying to be honest, and therefore accept the movie's ultimate view of things. So, perhaps I am just playing devil's advocate, but I think you can make an argument that the movie's purported "honest" portrayal is actually its biggest treachery and its way of suckering you in to what is ultimately a very opinionated position?

[Groggy]

Galileo (1975) - 8/10 - Fine adaptation of Brecht's Life of Galileo, transferred to the screen mostly intact. It works surprisingly well: Brecht's play is much more challenging, intellectually and artistically, than its spiritual successors (A Man for All Seasons, The Crucible) and the force of ideas proves compelling. Topol's boisterous performance is frequently criticized but he worked alright for me. And the supporting cast! John Gielgud, Edward Fox, Michael Lonsdale, Colin Blakely, Margaret Leighton, Patrick Magee, John McEnery, Michael Gough.

[Groggy]

Also, I was thinking that perhaps showing Mathieu as somehow conflicted was the worst sort of trickery by Pontecorvo, for the following reason: perhaps you can say that if the movie had portrayed the FLN as unambiguously good and the French as unambiguously evil, then nobody would accept a word the movie says, it would all be dismissed as propaganda. However, by purporting to portray the French leaders' inner conflicts, it allows the viewer to say, "this movie is trying just to portray the facts, as they are." So when they subtly make us believe that Mathieu is the epitome of all evil (as the author came to believe after several viewings), we accept that, because we believe the movie was attempting an honest portrayal. And ditto for the FLN's actions: by portraying the atrocities that it commits, we can tell ourselves that the movie is trying to be honest, and therefore accept the movie's ultimate view of things. So, perhaps I am just playing devil's advocate, but I think you can make an argument that the movie's purported "honest" portrayal is actually its biggest treachery and its way of suckering you in to what is ultimately a very opinionated position?

There's definitely something to this drink. I went through a few of the DVD commentaries the other day and it seemed most parties involved were concerned with a balanced portrayal of the conflict. Of course, Pontecorvo and Solinas being Marxists, they likely have a different definition of "balance" than your lay viewer.

[dave jenkins]

We Need to Talk About Kevin
Unbearably awful. Anyone seen it?

Well, it may be unbearable. But awful? No, it's extremely well crafted and artfully effective.

Tilda Swinton plays a mother who bears and raises a son who goes on to be a kind of Columbine killer. The chronology of events are shuffled so that we see a number of episodes leading up to the horrible event as well as the mother's life afterwards, but not the event itself until late in the picture. The final scene is Swinton asking the boy in custody for an explanation and not getting one. But then, it's pretty obvious from the get-go that the kid is just evil. There isn't much to chew over on that account; more interesting, perhaps, is the mother (and it's really her story). After the massacre she chooses to stay in the community and takes whatever the locals dish out to her. Is she doing penance of some sort? The photography is impressive and the frames are invariably well composed. There is an interesting score by Jonny Greenwood. John C. Reilly plays the clueless dad who never gets the fact that his son is the demon seed. Three different actors play the hellspawn at different stages of its life.The film is difficult to sit through, but definitely re-watchable. 8/10.

[dave jenkins]

Galileo (1975) - 8/10 - Brecht's play is much more challenging, intellectually and artistically, than its spiritual successors (A Man for All Seasons . . . ) . . . .

This seems an odd thing to say. The two plays have very little to do with each other. Galileo’s problem is rather common and not all that interesting: can a truth-teller hold to his convictions while living under a tyranny (here the Catholic Church standing in for any totalitarian regime) when that tyranny is bent on eradicating such convictions? In fact he can’t, he must either recant or die. So he does either one or the other, or both, but remains unrepentant privately.  Galileo’s is the face worn by ten thousand dissenters.

A Man For All Seasons, however, presents not only a truth-teller but a man-of-conscience (a very different thing) who suffers a much more exquisite dilemna: how to be loyal to both King and Church when those two are in opposition to each other, especially when that man-of-conscience is a lawyer and believes that the two institutions lay legal/moral/spiritual claims of equal weight upon him. It's not merely a question of staying alive. It's a matter of reconciling two irreconcilable obligations, both sanctioned From Above. We intuit that the conflict must bring the hero to his tragedy, but the precise how provides the drama. More climbs up on his tightrope and walks it as long as he can before it is cut from beneath him. The impossibility of his position confers on him, if not nobility, than at least a kind of uniqueness. We applaud his courage. When the catastrophe comes we feel singed by it.

Galileo is presented as a victim of his culture. More is shown transcending his. Galileo is craven, More heroic. Galileo is made the poster boy for modern man, oppressed but defiant. He is vindicated by history (i.e. the audience), but is incapable of tragic stature. More, on the other hand, requires neither vindication nor history (he is for All Seasons). Galileo’s character is easily limned. More imparts catharsis but remains elusive. We can only apprehend him, as we do Oedipus, as we do Lear.

NB: I refer above, of course,exclusively to the characters in the plays, not to the historic personages.

[Groggy]

Bolt was open about Brecht's influence on Man, particularly Galileo. There's even a deliberate misquote (the line about "a land that needs no heroes") in Bolt's play.

Of course there are substantial differences between the two plays. Bolt's drama is more individualized, focusing on More's personal dilemma. The actual effects of the English Reformation are kept offstage and scarcely discussed. Brecht is more concerned with the broader implications of Galileo's work than his unremarkable character.

Of course, that's very much Brecht's point. We can sympathize with Galileo but don't especially admire him, by design. It's a deliberately anti-heroic Marxist drama, placing ideas ahead of individuals. On the other hand, Man is a triumphalist piece with a very clear protagonist. Bolt's play is dramatically superior but its central conflict is easier to digest.

[dave jenkins]

Bolt's drama is more individualized, focusing on More's personal dilemma.

Exactly. But I said it better.

[Groggy]

Perhaps, but you seem to value one approach over the other, whereas I do not.

[Groggy]

The Dark Knight Rises - 6-7/10 - Memo to Christopher Nolan: learn how to fucking end a movie. Things start out fine, with a cool opening, Batman showing half-believable character development and Anne Hathaway as a surprisingly alluring Catwoman. Everything's in place for a good flick, with the right balance of fun and intensity. Then Bane shows up, takes over Gotham, throws Batman in a hole, and things take a nosedive. The second half is packed with hamfisted political content, with Bane imposing a Jacobin regime complete with show trials and roving murder squads. Then comes a twist so asinine I shouted "Oh come on!" Add near-useless characters like *spoiler* Batman's untrustworthy gal pal and the Man Who Would Be Robin to pad things. Never mind either giant plot holes like the entire police force being left alive underground with firearms (!!!). Throw in Nolan brand skull-crushing exposition (monologues *over* flashbacks!?! genius!) in case viewers aren't sufficiently insulted. Nolan came this close to making a good Batman flick. You get an A for effort but a D for execution.