 |
|
Blood Diamond Reconsidered
 From Chicago, this is Filmspotting... I'm Adam Kempenaar.
A quick note: I'll be in NYC Saturday night and will be seeing "The Lives of Others" along with IFC host/listener Matt Singer and a few others. If you're interested in meeting up, get the details here.
A few months ago we asked you to decide which new movie we should
review -- Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" or Edward Zwick's "Blood
Diamond." "Apocalypto" won pretty handily, and I'm glad; it's a good
movie that justified the time we spent discussing it. (In fact,
Robert Duvall says in the current issue of Premiere that it's the
best movie he's seen in the past 25 years and is probably better than
"Apocalypse Now." True story.) However, if you knew then that "Blood
Diamond" would have led to one of the all-time great Filmspotting
smackdowns, would you still have given Gibson your vote?
Last week in this space Sam wrote a scathing critique of "Blood
Diamond," which is nominated for five Academy Awards and was the last
of the big Oscar nominees we both needed to see. I thought I'd offer
up a less hysterical response to the film. But first, let's reflect
on Sam's comments:
"Hated it. It ranks with "All The Kings Men," "Black Dahlia"
and "Running With Scissors" as one of my least favorite films of
2006."
"Thanks for all the super preachy lessons about the diamond
trade, child soldiers and the hypocrisy of journalism, Mr. Zwick! And
so awkwardly integrated into the script!"
"The Interpreter, Lord of War, The Constant Gardener, The Last King of Scotland and now Blood Diamond. Bad films that draw attention to just how terrible things are in Africa. This has got to stop."
Let's start with that last gem. Frankly, I can't believe he left
out "Hotel Rwanda" since he didn't like that film either. I feel
compelled, though, to highlight once again Sam's fudging of the
facts. He gave 3-star, positive reviews to both "The Constant
Gardener" and "The Last King of Scotland", and is here conveniently
embellishing his record in order to 1) Not let it get in the way of
making his larger point and 2) Try to annoy me by ripping on "The
Last King of Scotland" -- not necessarily in that order. It's true
that with both films Sam commented on what he considered to be
exploitation, but his "bad films" remark is nevertheless blatantly
misleading.
Here's the thing about Sam, and if you've listened to the show
for a substantial length of time this should be pretty clear: He
doesn't like mean people. This is the guy, you'll remember, who
didn't enjoy "Little Miss Sunshine" because he found all of the
characters to be too "unpleasant." He also doesn't like violence.
Both are noble traits. I'm not fond of mean people or violence myself.
Well, "Blood Diamond" is full of mean people. I think one of the
movie's strengths is that even our protagonist, DiCaprio's diamond
smuggler Danny Archer, is an anti-hero. Genre dictates that at some
point in the story Archer and Solomon (Djimon Hounsou), the man
leading him to the titular stone, are going to become friends; or
that Archer will at least sympathize with Solomon's plight as he
tries to reunite his family and will stop being driven by selfishness
and greed. I don't want to spoil anything for you, but this doesn't
really happen, and the filmmakers deserve credit for having the balls
to present such an unsympathetic hero.
Part and parcel with all of the mean people is a heavy dose of
violence. In fact, there was quite a bit more brutality than I
expected going in. And it bothered me, too. However -- and I know Sam
would argue with this -- I simply don't accept that the script,
acting or possible exploitation of Africans was what kept him from
appreciating the movie. Early on, he was turned off by the meanness
and violence and essentially tuned out the rest of the film; or, at
the very least, became hyper-sensitive to its shortcomings.
I'm not sure how else you can explain Sam's final lash against
Zwick and company:
"Q: Is it appropriate to stage a big-budget action-romance
film in one of the most tragic places on earth?
A: No, I don't think it is appropriate. Because when you impose a preposterous story ... onto a war-torn landscape like Sierra Leone circa 1999, you turn the real victims of the place into props ... the torture and bloodshed and cruelty are mere decoration. A vivid backdrop for cringe-inducing dialogue, hackneyed characters and a manipulative story."
He's right that victims can be turned into props in these cases,
as I think Fernando Meirelles inadvertently did in "The Constant
Gardener." But here's something else to know about Sam. He tends to
be a bit, how do I put it... excitable. And he isn't afraid to think
out loud, as anyone who remembers the Dope Sheet where he gave
himself the bold task of explaining why "Anchorman" is funnier than
"Blazing Saddles," then proceeded to not provide any explanation
whatsoever. (For the record, I agreed with Sam's premise; "Anchorman"
probably does make me laugh more than "Blazing Saddles.")
I respect both Sam's passion and his willingness to throw his
thoughts out there to the world, but let's turn the discussion over
to Tim in New York, who offers a rebuttal to Sam's rhetorical Q&A:
"Are you joking?? Where would be an 'appropriate' setting for a
big-budget romance? The skating rink at Rockefeller Center?? Now that
would be a real tragedy! What's wrong with placing a little context
and social relevancy in a film that centers on a romance? Couldn't
you say that "The Sound of Music" used Nazi Germany and the Holocaust
as a 'prop,' and didn't "Gone With the Wind" do the same with the
Civil War/Slavery? Even "Casablanca" centers on tragic situations,
and these are all widely regarded as classics and not particularly
'manipulative.'"
Of course, Tim is right. There ISN'T anything wrong with "placing
a little context and social relevancy in a film that centers on a
romance." Especially when said film doesn't actually center on a
romance, as is the case with "Blood Diamond." I'd also suggest a film
for Tim's list that Sam recently proclaimed to be a misunderstood
masterpiece, "The Good German." Sure, Steven Soderbergh is interested
in the whitewashing of Nazi scientists and America's complicity in
it, but even Sam would have to admit the movie isn't really about
that. It's a thriller that pays homage to 1940s filmmaking and is
about the unrequited romance between George Clooney and Cate
Blanchett.
Soderbergh never asks us to fully consider the plight of any
holocaust victims -- and I'm not suggesting he should have. But then,
isn't the holocaust just a backdrop and its victims props? Why is Sam
so sensitive about Africa and not other historical tragedies?
I think the answer has something to do with the fact that the
problems in Africa, including the issues "Blood Diamond" explores,
are not in the past. They are open wounds that provoke strong
reactions (and guilt?). Perhaps a better explanation is that despite
the recent string of films Sam mentioned, the ongoing African
tragedies have yet to become Hollywood conventions, the way perhaps
the Civil War, Holocaust and other events have.
Listen, Sam isn't completely wrong about "Blood Diamond." I don't
think it's a great film. There's a scene with some refugee kids that
is just as unnecessary and potentially exploitative as the one in
"Gardener." A good chunk of the dialogue is preachy and its lessons
are, from time to time, "awkwardly integrated into the script." Plus,
Jennifer Connelly, an actress I have always liked, is flighty and not
entirely convincing as an adrenaline-junkie journalist. I would also
argue that there is a lack of suspense due to the fact that the
outcome is never really in doubt. I was always confident how the
Solomon storyline would resolve, and the script heavy-handedly makes
it clear what HAS to happen to Archer.
But the notion that the filmmakers are truly more interested in
titillating their audience with action and romance (again, something
there is very little of in the film) at the expense of the African
people... well, I welcome anyone reading this to watch the entire
film and tell me that Sam is right. If the story was just about
Archer looking for the diamond, I could see it. But Solomon isn't a
prop; he's a primary character, one we care about and sympathize with
far more than Archer. And he is a constant reminder of the human cost
of the diamond trade.
Finally, at the risk of having a restraining order filed against
me, I'm no longer (that) upset that DiCaprio received an Oscar
nomination for this and not "The Departed." I'm sorry, but I think he
is brilliant here -- accent and all. I remember saying on-air a while
back that I couldn't get excited about "Blood Diamond" because of
DiCaprio's ridiculous South African accent. But in the same breath I
pointed out how I had a similar reaction to his Boston accent when
seeing "The Departed" trailer and it turned out great. Same thing
here -- it's consistent throughout, seemed completely natural, and is
never a distraction.
It's funny, glancing at some Netflix reviews I came across this
comment: "And who in the world would believe any character DiCaprio
plays is going to win a fist fight with a man the size and physique
of Djimon Hounsou?"
I don't know... me? The movie makes it clear that Archer is not
only a former soldier, but a good soldier. During the scene in
question, Hounsou -- a fisherman, albeit a big one -- has flown into
a violent rage. Who's going to come out on top in that fight -- the
calm, cool soldier or the crazed fisherman? I'm taking Leo, because
in addition to his character's experience, the bottom line is that he
sells the scene physically. He sells every scene physically,
emotionally and psychologically -- even the contrived, poorly written
ones.
|
|
|
| |
|
Correction
Last week in Sam's review of "Volver," we erroneously published that
Blanca Portillo played the mother and Carmen Maura played the
cancer-stricken friend. The reverse is true, plus the friend's name
is Agustina, not Irene. Irene is the name of the mother. Thanks to
Eric Sanderman (among others) for Errorspotting.
|
|
|
| |
|
Overlooked DVD: Who Killed The Electric Car?
 How's this for coincidencespotting? This morning during my commute,
Chicago Public Radio had a story about the new E85 vehicles that
major automakers like General Motors are currently working on. These
vehicles run on fuel that is 85% ethanol and only 15% gasoline. If
you are curious, you can
read about the supposed benefits here,
which includes less CO2 emissions. In other words, it's more
environmental-friendly. Except that it's probably not. According to
one expert featured in the story, gas mileage is reduced enough that
you emit less but have to burn more, making the whole thing a wash.
If I had heard this story even 12 hours earlier, I wouldn't have
cared in the slightest. But as it turns out, late last night I popped
in the recent documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?" Director
Chris Paine explores the rise and quick fall of GM's EV1, which
became popular in the mid-1990s, primarily in California -- and with
movie stars such as Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson -- but eventually became
extinct. Completely extinct. As in, no matter how much you loved
your EV1 and were willing to pay for it, GM wouldn't let you purchase
your lease. The company took possession of every single (perfectly
functioning) model and sent them to the scrap heap.
The irony of hearing the E85 feature was that the documentary
discusses the rise of hydrogen fuel and how everyone is touting it as
the magic bullet to save the environment and reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. But the doc makes it clear that this brave new hydrogen
world is at least 20 years away from being a practical reality. Now
we have a new magic bullet that is probably just more snake oil. It's
pretty depressing when you realize after seeing the movie that we
more or less already had the innovation right in front of us.
Anyway, the movie obviously piqued my interest. Paine does some
solid investigative work, gets a load of reputable talking heads, and
doesn't place the blame for the electric car's demise solely at the
feet of corporate America. It's pretty amazing... in one scene, we
watch as the last EV1 in California is loaded onto a trailer,
reluctantly removed from its owner, actor Peter Horton. Without
grandstanding or manipulation by Paine, we watch in disbelief -- in
sadness, even -- as the car is taken away, like a beloved pet heading
off to the vet to be put to sleep.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Links
The First Ones
What were the first movies that had a profound impact on you?
That's the question director Jake Paltrow (Sundance hit "The Good
Night") asks of seven actors -- Cate Blanchett, Brad Pitt and Helen
Mirren among them -- in this artfully-rendered New York Times
Magazine short film.
Ace Zentura
The Dope Sheet isn't in the habit of linking to personal profiles
(preferring strictly art-related pieces instead), but after finishing
this TIME magazine feature of Jim Carrey, the only thought we were
left with was, "Oh man, you've got to read this."
Bambi vs. Godzilla
Upon reading David Mamet's new book "Bambi vs. Godzilla," Steve
Martin proclaimed, "I'm sure he'll be able to find work somewhere,
somehow. Just no longer in the movie business." Watch Charlie
Rose's chat with the characteristically blunt Mamet (following a
29-minute roundtable discussion about Barack Obama) to better
understand what would possess Martin to say such a thing.
OSCAR BONUS:
On Saturday, February 24, AMC theatres across the country will be
hosting an all-day Best Picture marathon. Catch all five of this
year's nominated films while gorging on all-you-can-eat-and-drink
popcorn and soda for only $30.
Check AMC's site
to find the closest participating theatre near you.
-- Dope Sheet editor Jeff Huston
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Prizes!
 The Dope Sheet Subscription Drive is on! As you heard in this week's
podcast, all Dope Sheet subscribers will be eligible for not one but
two prizes! As a subscriber, simply NOT cancel your
subscription and you're immediately entered to win! Or for those
friends for whom Adam and Sam's witty repartee hasn't quite been
enough, well now you have a tangible incentive to offer them! The
contest runs through March 1.
The Prizes:
-- 1st Place: A blue, Filmspotting engraved iPod shuffle
-- 2nd Place: Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" DVD
These prizes have been made possible by the generosity of two
Filmspotting contributors:
Message Boards
moderator Alex Knesnik donated the iPod shuffle while Paul "Symptoms
of Majesty" (a Platinum Club donor from the UK) popped for the
"Idiocracy" DVD. Thanks guys!
The winners will be announced the week of March 5. Good luck to
everyone, and thank you for subscribing!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
