love

Author Topic: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy  (Read 14026 times)

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2019, 02:44:52 AM »
The Salt of the Earth
As for Wenders, I much prefer his fictional works over his documentaries, which are (as far as I can recall) all works of a fan for a fellow artist. He hides himself to put the subject front and center, in this case photographer Sebastião Salgado. While this kind of art is all subject to the viewer, Wenders does a great job conveying Salgado's talent, backed up by hundreds of pictures. I wish more time was spent on the wife, who seems a key piece of guidance and support for Salgado, and the turn towards nature photography doesn't get pressed for a satisfying explanation, though the results are just as good. (It even contradicts the title of the film.) Overall, I liked it, but I don't see what makes it an exceptional documentary.
I too prefer his fictional works over his docs. Pina, Buena Vista Social Club, Tokyo-Ga they're good, and in the last I even had preexisting interest in the subject (if you haven't seen it it might be a nice cap to your Ozu exploration if you make it to the end), but they're not exceptional to me in the way Alice in the Cities, Kings of The Road, Paris, Texas or Wings of Desire are (I need to see more now that I'm looking through his filmography).

So why this one? I didn't write a review when I watched it a year or so ago but I think I remember, and maybe it ties to the discussion above from Timbuktu. What you wrote is a good starting point. The film conveys Salgado's talent really well and so we get not only to enjoy learning about a bunch of things, but we get to appreciate his wonderful photography. And I do agree that more time on his wife would be appreciated. But if this was just a film about an interesting man with an interesting life it wouldn't be on my list (or maybe it would, I dunno, Salgado's life is really interesting). What makes it stand out for me are three things. The first is Salgado's life of travel and exile (of sorts). While the specifics of his life are, obviously, alien to me the generalities, especially from an emotional perspective, hit close. I see parts of me in him and parts of my parents and their experiences and choices and while that's a small part of the film it was definitely something that gave me an entry point to connect with it. The second is the amazing photographs. They are captivating and haunting and insightful. They show us the world and a slice of its turmoil, its humanity and its inhumanity. They are incisive in the way they show us not just the world and its people, but they show us so much that isn't in the pictures, the causal events and circumstances that lead thousands to a mine or to death on a road to nowhere. It's insight into the diversity of human experiences that, much like in Timbuktu, feeds my desire for exploration and knowledge and provides path for me to consider my place in this world. My own good luck and my misfortunes, a view outside my own little world, and even the slightly wider but still constrained view of the western world into the wider human experience.

But the key to the film, the thing that makes it so powerful for me, is the way it interweaves those two things. It isn't just a film about a photographer, it isn't just a film about downtrodden people in the world, it's a film about the interaction and intersection of the two. It's about Salgado exploring the same questions I'm exploring without trying to give me a trite or easy answer. The photography is given context that gives it another layer of meaning, so that it's not just the subjects in the photographs we consider, but the photographer and how he got there and what he sees and what he thinks of what he's seeing and what he's doing. And it's messy. It's tough to watch sometimes and it eats at you, the way it should eat at all of us that this is the reality of the world we live in. I don't recall how much the turn towards nature photography is explicitly explained in the film, but I never felt it needed more pressing because it seemed so obvious to me. Humanity broke his soul. There's only so much misery and death one can witness, and eventually whatever small part we feel we're doing feels overwhelmingly inadequate. The life he was leading was increasingly hard to live, because of age, because of familial constraints and, more than anything, because the subject matter became too much and witnessing and documenting no longer felt like enough. Artistically the result is, as you say, just as good, but it's once again the interaction between the photos and the photographer that is the key. And in this final chapter the photographer is not just documenting the actions of others, he's documenting something he's doing himself and connecting the people and the earth. As a saying "salt of the earth" may represent the people, but the final chapter puts an emphasis on the "earth" part. It's not a contradiction of the title, it's a recontextualization of it. A reminder that not only are we of this earth, this earth is also of us.

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #71 on: May 01, 2019, 03:03:36 AM »
Z (1969)

Well, this feels alarmingly timely. My "joke" tweet while watching the film, says that the film is a total exoneration for the government. No collusion! No obstruction!

The film is essentially two halves: the build-up to an attack on a member of the opposition party, and the aftermath investigation by Robert Mueller Christos Sartzetakis that very much finds collusion and obstruction. Based on factual events from Greece in the early 1960s, Z acts as an excellent look into the operations of right-wing quasi-authoritarianism...in that space where it vaguely maintains democratic legitimacy but in reality has left it behind. After all, the context of the attack is that the target is an opposition politician they fear will win at the polls.

This really ties into something I've been contemplating. There is seemingly a belief in martyrdom effects in politics...and certainly those around the target of the attack see revolution as a silver lining to the incident. If you look back at the 60s in our own country, it was a decade marked by political strife and violence. If you can detect a momentary bump in liberal outcomes in the aftermath of JFK's death, once MLK and RFK were taken, it is hard not to see the subsequent decades as an overwhelming win for the right-wing. Something that grated on me watching the film, knowing where it was headed, was their insistence on non-violence. I've become bleak on the efficacy of unilateral non-violence when the other side is actively inciting violence against the best and brightest in your movement.

But even though the film resonates with some very depressing things in modern politics, it is not a depressing film. Costa-Gavras instead opts for a dry and dark comedic tone though most of the proceedings. As a conspiracy it is petty, it is dumb, it is inept...it is a perfect analogy for the Trump Administration. A sure-fire inclusion on my discoveries list for the year and the Bondo Collection.
Watching this in the current political climate must be something else.  I watched it back when the content seemed a thing of the past. Harrowing still, especially since its after effects never really disappeared, but still with a brighter future ahead. I'm not going to touch that third paragraph, but suffice to say I don't have it in me to give the strong disagreement I would have eagerly given a decade ago.

This kind of film is Costa-Gravas' wheelhouse, depressing to its core political content turned into a political thriller that makes it much easier to explore without sacrificing an ounce of the bite or condemnation. How can it have the tone it has while remaining sincere and effective? I don't know but it's a masterpiece because of it. I'm really glad this worked so well for you.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2019, 06:23:03 PM »
I'm not sure how I feel about the Wiesel quote, but I like your response to it.

I'm not sure how I feel about it either! :)

This is beautifully said. So much in the film is broken and distorted and wrong, but the depiction is free of judgement enough to let us see that while still understanding the desires that bring it about. It's such a hard thing to give an honest depiction of sentiment without either demonizing it (if the depiction is meant to be negative) or praising it (if the depiction is meant to be positive); to show those those conflicts as they exist and let things run free in some direction.

Ah! You hit the nail on the head! Storytelling without judgement. It's not an easy thing to pull off, but it's well illustrated with this film.


Also! I ran out of time this month, but still have M*A*S*H* to watch and write about. :)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 12:55:59 AM by Sandy »

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #73 on: May 01, 2019, 07:05:12 PM »
This kind of film is Costa-Gravas' wheelhouse, depressing to its core political content turned into a political thriller that makes it much easier to explore without sacrificing an ounce of the bite or condemnation.

My only previous CG feature was Missing which I also really liked (thought not quite to this extent) and it certainly also fits into this type of category. I guess I should probably keep digging.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #74 on: May 01, 2019, 07:24:00 PM »
Fight Club

I agree, this film is just stuffed with ideas.  It is not the originator of any of them-- heck the original novel by Chuck Palahniuk covers almost all of this ground-- but rare is the movie that can fill us with so many new thoughts at the same time.

Still, I have some questions for you about this film:
-this is a distinctly male film.  Do you feel it presents the point of view of "men's rights"?  Certainly some called on this film as a supporter of the idea of the oppression of white men.

I should be asking you! I'm not sure even what "men's rights" means. :) Are their rights in jeopardy? The white Narrator is being "oppressed" by a white man. He's part of a system which he's helping create. I don't see this as a call to arms, or that this behavior is in anyway laudable. Those that do are missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the cautionary tale, the pendulum swing from one misery to another, escaping immobility into uncontrolled action. But maybe I don't see the draw of the individual trees. Is hitting something hard, or destroying beauty, or controlling others where it's at?

Quote
-Is this film honestly presenting any viewpoint?  Is it anti society, is it promoting a revolution or trying to avoid it?  Does it present a distinctly male form of protest that could be balanced?  Is there any message, or is it just a presentation of a screwed up individual?

PeacefulAnarchy was just talking about story telling without judgement. There may be some of that here. I don't think the movie sides with any of the destructive behavior, but it presents it as a sought after human desire. That's not condoning, it's commentating. In the end, the Narrator sees what he doesn't want, but it takes the whole movie for him to come to that conclusion. I see the message as, we have immense untapped power within us. How are we going to manifest it, if at all?

oldkid, do you see a message? And if so, was it effectively executed?

Quote
-Is it just presenting ideas, or are there some approaches the film takes on women that you find offensive?

There's not much space in this movie for women, except as a measure of perceived virility (for men) and a vehicle for a change of heart.

Honestly, that's the place women have been relegated to in film for so long, I didn't see this as any more "offensive" than say films like, The Godfather, or Full Metal Jacket.

Quote
This movie needs a full discussion and actually, I should look for someone's commentary on Fischer's approach to gender.

I'm interested in hearing what others think about it. It's outside of my personal understanding, not being a man. I can only come at it and reflect on it as a woman.

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2019, 07:39:31 PM »
This kind of film is Costa-Gravas' wheelhouse, depressing to its core political content turned into a political thriller that makes it much easier to explore without sacrificing an ounce of the bite or condemnation.

My only previous CG feature was Missing which I also really liked (thought not quite to this extent) and it certainly also fits into this type of category. I guess I should probably keep digging.
State of Siege is really good too. Those three are actually the only three I've seen, so I need to keep digging too.

I'll get to the other reviews in a bit.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 07:48:15 PM by PeacefulAnarchy »

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2019, 10:38:47 PM »
I still have that last one. Maybe tonight.


Whose month is it?

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #77 on: May 01, 2019, 11:16:23 PM »
Fight Club

I agree, this film is just stuffed with ideas.  It is not the originator of any of them-- heck the original novel by Chuck Palahniuk covers almost all of this ground-- but rare is the movie that can fill us with so many new thoughts at the same time.

Still, I have some questions for you about this film:
-this is a distinctly male film.  Do you feel it presents the point of view of "men's rights"?  Certainly some called on this film as a supporter of the idea of the oppression of white men.

I should be asking you! I'm not sure even what "men's rights" means. :) Are their rights in jeopardy? The white Narrator is being "oppressed" by a white man. He's part of a system which he's helping create. I don't see this as a call to arms, or that this behavior is in anyway laudable. Those that do are missing the forest for the trees. The forest is the cautionary tale, the pendulum swing from one misery to another, escaping immobility into uncontrolled action. But maybe I don't see the draw of the individual trees. Is hitting something hard, or destroying beauty, or controlling others where it's at?

Quote
-Is this film honestly presenting any viewpoint?  Is it anti society, is it promoting a revolution or trying to avoid it?  Does it present a distinctly male form of protest that could be balanced?  Is there any message, or is it just a presentation of a screwed up individual?

PeacefulAnarchy was just talking about story telling without judgement. There may be some of that here. I don't think the movie sides with any of the destructive behavior, but it presents it as a sought after human desire. That's not condoning, it's commentating. In the end, the Narrator sees what he doesn't want, but it takes the whole movie for him to come to that conclusion. I see the message as, we have immense untapped power within us. How are we going to manifest it, if at all?

oldkid, do you see a message? And if so, was it effectively executed?

Quote
-Is it just presenting ideas, or are there some approaches the film takes on women that you find offensive?

There's not much space in this movie for women, except as a measure of perceived virility (for men) and a vehicle for a change of heart.

Honestly, that's the place women have been relegated to in film for so long, I didn't see this as any more "offensive" than say films like, The Godfather, or Full Metal Jacket.

Quote
This movie needs a full discussion and actually, I should look for someone's commentary on Fischer's approach to gender.

I'm interested in hearing what others think about it. It's outside of my personal understanding, not being a man. I can only come at it and reflect on it as a woman.


I found an interesting article that gives an overview of Fincher's presentation of gender and feminism in his films. https://www.thedailybeast.com/david-finchers-backseat-feminism

I think that the view of the film is that everything that happens is the work of a madman, and should be viewed in that light. As innocent as our protagonist seems, he is actually an evil genius.  But when it is presented, much of the mad premise is quite entertaining, from making soap out of human fat to the acts of Project Mayhem.  It is difficult not to be attracted by the freedom Tyler espouses, even though he already had that freedom and it was making him insane.  So Fight Club is interpreted widely, because ultimately people see what they want to see in the film, either their pet ideology brought to life or their hated enemy.  I don't know that, in the end, the movie is espousing anything other than "these are not the paths to freedom." 

Wikipedia Page: Interpretations of Fight Club
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #78 on: May 02, 2019, 02:17:38 AM »
Since I don't have good enough internet to stream anything at the moment I hope it's okay that I rewatched something from your list. One of the DVD's that got left behind at the cabin I'm staying at was Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. I haven't seen it since the time of it's release. I never did go on to watch any of the other films in the series. On ICheckMovies it's got more checks than Jurassic Park which I think is a travesty, but I digress.

The moonlight sword fight is quite a highlight even now. The effect is seamless.

The story and characters, they really don't do much for me. Depp is sort of interesting to watch because he's weird, but that wears off after a while. I enjoyed Kiera Knightly more when she ditched the gowns and ran around in a red Marine's jacket. Bloom is playing a character I probably wouldn't enjoy regardless of who played him. Geoffrey Rush is as good as the script allows.

I could see enjoying future films in the series more since the stories are probably better than this one. Damsel in distress blah blah blah.

It's not a bad swashbuckler... I'm surprised to find it in your top list though, particularly in such a high position. Ahead of pretty heavy hitters too in the blockbuster genre.
It's a genre I greatly enjoy even if it's not particularly well represented on my list (this and Star Wars and The Princess Bride is it, I think. I like Raiders quite a bit but there's something that just keeps me from embracing it on the same level) and I'm sad there are so few adventure films out there. Most lean heavily on the spectacle of action (which is an issue for the last few Pirates films) and forget the the things that make them work for me: fun characters, fun banter, and a winding set of adventures that allow the character interactions to take centre stage. For me Pirates strikes the best balance of these. Princess Bride is its equal (maybe slightly superior at times) in banter but lacks a character quite on the level of Sparrow. Star Wars surpasses both in world building and has the most effective narrative of the three but the dialogue and acting are not on the level of the other two.

Depp's performance did start to wear off for me around like the fourth film so I understand that it might wear out its welcome sooner for others, but even rewatching the first film after that it still held up for me. It's not just that Depp is weird, it's that he builds a character with an underlying emotional backstory, and even though we aren't told most of it, it shines through in the performance. In some of the later films he becomes a caricature, but in this one he's a, very strange and surreal, person and I really appreciate the performance. I agree that Knightly is constrained a bit by the film, I wish it had more of her and more of Rush and less of Bloom, but they're still given a decent chance to shine and Bloom is fine even if he's nowhere near as interesting as anything else in the film. The level of acting all the way down the cast is a big part of why I like this so much.

"Damsel in distress blah blah blah." But that's exactly how the film feels too? The setup is a damsel in distress film, but that's not what the film actually is. Every character has their own personal motivations and very little is actually about saving Knightly's character who can take care of herself just fine. The writing is the other big thing I love about it. It's pure fun, and has a good share of silly moments, but still plays it straight enough that all the dramatic moments carry real weight. The banter is a lot of fun in moments big and small and helps create the film's tone. It also allows the characters to develop in a context that doesn't give them much room for organic growth. But the biggest thing is that the script charts a winding series of mysteries and revelations and double crosses without ever hand-holding the viewer but without losing them either. It takes the viewer on a ride and never stops but allows them to enjoy the journey and always gives enough information to let the viewer feel on par with the characters.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Top 100 Club: PeacefulAnarchy
« Reply #79 on: May 03, 2019, 12:30:24 AM »
Seventeen
You read about the impossibility of a true documentary because people alter their behavior when they're aware a camera is recording them. Filmmakers looking for the purist possible Cinéma vérité will try their best with cameras shooting from far away. The most fascinating aspect of this doc to me is whatever technique was used to get these teens to behave so openly. There seems to be no hint that they thought their captured actions would ever be seen by the general public, let alone friends and family who might have something to say about the horrible way they treat teachers and other adults, along with the casual racism between friends.


I don't care much about depictions of cultures per se, I care about depictions of people. It's not about the cultural influences themselves but rather the way normal things get transformed by different cultures and perspectives. I don't know that it's a conscious thing (most of the time) but it probably is among the things that triggers my interests.

Here it is again with a very specific time and place that seems like ancient history now that teenagers are living with social media and a need to create some sort of public persona. Even the 2008 documentary American Teen frames the subjects as a real life Breakfast Club. This film is closer to Richard Linklater with a scoop of Harmony Korine, and still those two filmmakers hangout pseudo-docs are slick Hollywood product by comparison. There's an identifiable realism that seems impossible because of the camera's presence. A culture that existed only a few years ahead of me, never to be repeated again.

 

love