Away From Her

Away From Her (Sarah Polley, 2007) [7]

For a first time director, Polley has made a solid but by no means spectacular film, as some reviewers are wont to believe. Julie Christie's performance is solid but not nearly as great as the reviews state. From those reviews, you would think that the film centers around Christie's character but the film is more from the husband's viewpoint, played by Gordon Pinset. The film, after all is called Away From Her. I really don't want to knock Christie's performance because it is good but I found Pinset just as credible and dealing with a lot more complicated emotional issues. It's the nature of the story that Grant, being the husband, has to deal with the brutal realities more directly than his wife. Polley, who also adapted the screenplay from an Alice Munro short story, does a good job of handling the complexities and turmoil that the two main characters' relationship and love go through. What is impressive of her direction, especially for a first-timer, is that she a pretty good hold on a continuity of style throughout. She floods her scenes, especially in the assisted living home, with light, which is always being mentioned by the home's director. Even the elements that I think don't work so well, such as the ellipses in the narrative and too much camera movement in key scenes, aren't too much of a detriment because they are consistent in the style Polley's established. The acting performances also carry the film above any flaws in the style. Christie and Pinset's insightful and emotionally deep performances are key and Polley does a good job of keeping the film's focus on them.

Monthly Listening Post - September 2007

Ken Burns' new documentary on PBS, The War, has been taking up all my viewing time for the past week. While not as good as either The Civil War or Baseball, it still has some pretty powerful moments. A full review when the entire series is done. For now, here's what I'm listening to now:

Animal Collective - Strawberry Jam
Heavy Trash - Going Way Out with Heavy Trash
Devendra Banhart - Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon
Iron & Wine - The Shepherd's Dog
Patton Oswalt - Werewolves & Lollipops

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach, 2007) [7]

What Loach does here is very skillful, in that he starts one way (Irish vs. British) and ends up in a completely unexpected place (Irish vs. Irish). The material he's working with is very incendiary, especially if approaching the events with sympathy for the Irish as I was. The film is an unsparing look at all sides of the Irish fight for independence at Great Britain, which Loach turns a critical eye all forces fighting in the struggle. The British occupying force is rightfully vilified, but Loach doesn't let the IRA off that easy either. There are scenes involving them that are just as cold-blooded and villainous as anything the Black & Tans did. That involves the Irish killing their own, as one thing the film does well is shift the identities of those fighting around as events in the film progress. Loach keeps the focus on this by focusing mainly on two characters, a set of brothers, Teddy, more in love with power than ideals, and Damien, the young doctor turned idealist. It's this amorphous identities of the characters that is interesting, especially when Teddy gets into power. The other interesting twist is how Damien moves from nationalist to socialist by the end. There's no denying that the poor where the ones behind the nationalist uprising, but the church and other factors suppressed the socialist tendencies of some especially after Ireland gained some autonomy. This clash of ideals the idealism of Teddy and the compromised power of Teddy is a real interest facet but only comes up in the end. It helps redeem the film a bit, as the second half gets bogged down in two much dissection of ideology and talking. It almost takes the film out of the intense fighting sequences that Loach has established in the first half. Still, he handles the material more than admirably and has made a film that doesn't try to sugarcoat history.

Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride

Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride (Tom Thurman, 2006) [5]

The first thing I want to say about this documentary on the life of Hunter S. Thompson is that it should be longer. Sure, this will appeal to any fan of Thompson's writings but I also think die-hards will also be disappointed mostly because it doesn't have that much depth. Thurman has constructed the film around interviews with people like Bill Murray, Johnny Depp, and Sean Penn, who became close with the good doctor, and cuts in with some film clips and interviews. What I really wanted to see more of and don't get nearly enough of are interviews with Thompson himself. One of the key points of the film is the Raoul Duke/Dr. Gonzo character Thompson created of himself for the public was not really the real Thompson. That burden of being a pop culture icon is covered, as Thompson has become a cult figure for generations now. All in all, Thurman does the best with what he's given to work with. It's worth seeing this just to see the unintentionally hilarious Gary Busey interview. The problem with this film is that it's appealing to those that are familiar with Thompson and his work and basically, no one else.

It's Been a Long Time Since Some Random Thoughts...

but I got to get some things out there:

1) There's been a lot of panning of the new Rilo Kiley album, or at least mixed reviews. Let me go on the record and say for the most part, it's a fairly good album. Older fans may take umbrage that the album is too "mainstream" or whatever other half-assed argument they have, but I find the wide range of sounds there appealing. Granted, not everything is that strong but I'm really digging on "Close Call" and "15." (I know I'm using hippie verbs but some things are too hard to break)

2) The ads on television for the Dane Cook/Jessica Alba cinematic abortion (thanks Stereogum!) that is Good Luck Chuck seem to be nonstop for weeks now. If people getting bit in the balls by penguins and hitting shit a lot is your idea of comedy, this will be right up your alley. Personal declaration: I used to think Dane Cook was funny when I first saw his Comedy Central Presents special but have sense come to my senses. His popularity is one of the reasons why I boycott MySpace.

3) It's getting pretty close to the end of the year and I know everybody is looking forward to my year in review in music (humor me here, I know I'm the only one who visits this site). I said a while ago I thought Feist would take the title but don't count out The National and as a potential sleeper, Okkervil River. But 2007 will still see releases by Band of Horses, Devendra Banhart, and Drive-By Truckers. I've been really trying to keep up with all releases so a comprehensive review will be coming in December.

4) And finally, the Useless Film Snob will be relocating to Portland, Oregon after the new year, which will hopefully mean a more relevant film review site as well as concert reviews and coverage of other stuff that doesn't happen in a cultural backwater like Binghamton, New York. While I'll always have fondness for my hometown and its gradual growth as an arts community, the Snob is looking forward to attending the Portland International Film Festival in February.

I'm Reed Fish

I'm Reed Fish (Zackary Adler, 2007) [4]

The only element I really liked about this film is the setting; not the way the town of Mud Meadows is portrayed but the physical setting seems like a nice place to live. Nothing in this film is that strong: the characters are thin and dull, the story is lackluster, and the ways screenwriter Reed Fish and Adler try to spice it up are superficial. Besides putting your name in title , the whole film-within-a-film aspect feels pandering to sophisticated film goers and critics. Average film goers may see it as clever but it really doesn't make much sense in the world of the film. It allows Fish to have a somewhat interesting twist in regards to his two main female characters but I'm still not buying its usefulness. With the exception of Schuyler Fisk's performance at times, nobody else does anything impressive in this film. Some reviews I've read state it's hard to believe Jay Baruchel's character is in the middle of these two women because of his physical appearance. I feel that's a shallow observation; I happen to like Baruchel as an actor, especially in Undeclared. What I do have a problem with the character he plays is that the character of Reed Fish is constantly sabotaging himself with both relationships. This allows him to perpetually wade in a pool of self-pity which the film tries to mask as melancholy which I'm not buying. Alexis Bledel doesn't do anything to break away from the rigid box that Gilmore Girls has placed on her acting. Overall, these characters and the film itself are completely dull with the exception of brief instances. There's nothing that Fish the writer and Adler can do from dragging the film out of the hole it dug for itself by trying too hard to be cute and clever.

Protocols of Zion

Protocols of Zion (Marc Levin, 2005) [6]

Levin has made here a earnest, inquisitive documentary that has real interesting moments but ultimately trips on itself trying to do too many things at once. It was a little different than I expected; the Netflix review specifically mentions how supposedly all Jews were told to stay home from the World Trade Center on September 11th, which is what I was expecting this to mainly be about. Instead, Levin uses that as a jumping-off point to examine anti-semitism in general, especially focusing on a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion supposedly telling how the Jews were to go about ruling the world. The book is a proven forgery from Czarist Russia but Levin wants to find out why it is still popular in so many circles. Besides Muslim fundamentalists, Levin also interviews white supremacists, born-again Christians, and other assorted nutjobs to find a root cause for anti-semitism. What Levin finds out is not any hatred towards particular Jews; "the Jews" act more as a figurehead for disgruntled people to place their blame. That's how Levin gets such statements out of people that Rupert Murdoch must be Jewish because he's a media mogul and Rudolph "Jew"-liani isn't what he appears to be. What's fascinating about all this is how blind the delusion of these people are, how anti-semitism has become so ingrained in certain cultures that it trumps all sort of rational thought. There are moments and comments that border on comedy they're so ludicrous. The film brings out the realization that anti-semitism is still something that is large and so deep in certain elements of society that it may never be eradicated. What the film really lacks are suggestions on how to do that. Levin presents the wide array of material but never really gives any answers. He still seems as confused as when he started his project. That the film goes in so many directions really makes it lose a central focus which Levin could have addressed. He just puts too much in and the whole Passion of the Christ subplot didn't feel necessary. Still, Levin gets credit for going out there and somehow, staying calm and rational when confronting so many lunatics.

Brazil

Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985) [8]

I really don't know how much I actually like this; I may be too easily swayed by the positive accolades over time and there's no denying how fully immersed into its own world the film is. For me, this is by far Gilliam's most accomplished film, at least in terms of what you think of a Terry Gilliam film to be. All that being said, I tend not to care that much about the film when it was over. It's certainly an achievement on a visual level and I found the story to be compelling but the complete lack of a concrete opinion about it bothers me. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, it's well made, but I just have the feeling that if I were to watch this a couple of years down the road, either I will completely get it or lower the grade.

Gilliam treads into Orwellian territory with a story about an omnipresent totalitarian society enslaved to technology and corporate brainwashing. What is impressive was how much this film is on the mark in terms of technology and computers controlling peoples' lives. Against all the jackbooted thugs and endless bureaucracy, a lone man is fighting to regain his imagination. What I find most weak about the film is the story of Lowery. The entire situation with him and his dreams and his relationship feel weak compared to the menacing presence of the world that he occupies. This appears to be one of the themes of the film, as Sam is trying to break free of the deadening control of his life and fulfill his dreams. The less personal, man against the system story here is better in my opinion. In regards to the much publicized trouble of ending the film, Gilliam's original ending is really the only logical one. The system in which Sam lives in is just way too big and powerful for one person to have any success in changing it. It may be downbeat but it really does fit the world of the film.

As with all Gilliam films, there are memorable images and effects. Much of my admiration for the film centers on how complete the world Gilliam created for the film works, especially the scenes dealing with the giant, never-ending bureaucracy of the monolithic state. And there was sly little Battleship Potemkin homage towards the end.

The Intruder

The Intruder (Claire Denis, 2005) [7]

On the narrative level, this film is extremely difficult. There really is no linear narrative in this film. On a purely visual level, in terms of images, it is riveting and typical Denis. Her filmmaking has always been about the sensory experience of images, of letting the camera linger over bodies and landscapes. This film really has to be appreciated on a visual level with an almost complete disregard for plot. That's not to say there isn't one, but it is there. What story there is basically comes down to is a man living in rural France needs a heart transplant which soon his body begins to reject. The man then goes on a travelogue to Tahiti to make amends with his long lost son. Denis does not spend that much time on explaining anything and instead captures the happenings. It's this lack of explanation that makes the film difficult to follow in narrative terms. On a more abstract level, it is a much more rewarding experience. As with all her films, Denis captures numerous captivating images and they themselves speak of the important elements of this film: the man's loneliness, his need to make amends with his son, and the themes of intrusion. There are numerous intruders in the film, from the unexplained psychical intruders on the man's property to the man's other son and family to the heart itself. Who or what are the intruders are never really concrete. The distinction between dreams and actual existence are never really defined. It all creates a baffling experience. However, if the viewer can detach themselves from the constrictions of narrative and experience the film as a sensory experience and interact with it on the emotion of its images, it can be appreciated.

Closely Watched Trains

Closely Watched Trains (Jiri Menzel, 1966) [5]

For its time, this film could have been considered on the cutting edge of addressing sexuality in a real and frank manner on celluloid. Unfortunately, it hasn't aged particularly well and is definitely a product of a different place and era. The plot centers around Milos, an apprentice train dispatcher who becomes wrapped up into losing his virginity to his conductor girlfriend. Initially, he has some, um, difficulties, and compensates by trying to commit suicide. The rest of the film concentrates on Milos getting some practice before finally consummating his relationship with Masa. That description sounds fairly crude but Menzel handles the material with enough wry humor and respect for his characters that it comes off as harmless and sweet. This isn't some raunchy numbskullery like American Pie. The film has a poignancy to it that isn't often seen in American cinema dealing with this subject matter. But the operating world of the film is weirdly disjointed, as the film is so engrossed in Milos and his quest that everyone is completely oblivious to the fact this is occurring during World War II and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. The war and its effects pop up sporadically, especially the end, but it feels like the reality of the world at war is being repressed. Sex is probably one of the only topics that could supersede war in a person's mind. It paints a quaint story for this film, but something, that sadly doesn't translate particularly well over the years.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2007) [7]

After viewing this, it's no real surprise that this film has been so critically acclaimed and received Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars. It's the same type of middlebrow, safe picture like Mystic River that can appeal to critics and a general American audience. I don't mean to say these are bad films, they're not. A film like this is so stringent in its narrative and what it wants to say that it really leaves any room for anything else. On one level, that's appealing in that everything is being spelled out for the viewer but it's also a bit disappointing that it leaves no room real risk-taking. What saves this film here is that von Donnersmarck has superbly crafted this film in terms of tone and images that take away from the aggressive thematic and plot elements. He overdoes the entire art triumphing over strict ideology too much, as the characters of Wiesler and Dreymen are too easily encased in their roles. As the film progresses towards the end, it appears to me that the film is riding too much on getting to its pre-determined ending, which ends up being its bittersweet resolution. All this sounds like I didn't like the film, but there's something about it that makes it palatable. von Donnersmarck's direction is solid and the look he has created for the film, especially the contrast of the cold, darker world or Wiesler the stodgy ideologue with the more vibrant, light look of Dreyman the artist. It brings out the argument being made by the film that totalitarian socialism, by restricting and monitoring art, hurts the very same ideals that it supposedly stands for.

Battle In Heaven

Battle In Heaven (Carlos Reygadas, 2006) [6]

Reygadas's film is about many things (the urban landscape of Mexico City, the immense social stratification of that nation, sexual attraction, religion) and really not about anything. This is an extremely rigorous film, a film that needs strict attention to the visuals. Reygadas has stripped any normal sense of plot away from the film, as the film meanders from scene to scene, taking its time. What makes it difficult is trying to decipher just want to take away from this. You can read into the religious angle, the social commentary (the whole subplot of Carlos and his wife kidnapping the baby), and of course, the sex. The film itself never really gives a strong toehold into any of them, only to mention them and then move on to something else. It has been a couple of days since I've seen this and I'm still not sure exactly what to make of it. By stripping his film of so many filmic elements viewers take for granted, it's hard to say I like it in terms of plot and character. But I'm also a person very interested in the visual aspects of cinema, and here with languid, meditative shots, it is something I can really appreciate. Overall, I'm still puzzled by it but know underneath my mental haze, there is something worth being said underneath.

Monthly Listening Post - August 2007

A fairly busy month for new releases, a mix of new artists and old favorites. I don't know how many of these will be on my final top ten but this is a strong group of contenders.

1) Josh Ritter - The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter
2) Rilo Kiley - Under the Blacklight
3) Jason Isbell - Sirens of the Ditch
4) Okkervil River - The Stage Names
5) Augie March - Moo, You Bloody Choir

Also, after a lousy summer for concerts, the fall concert season is definitely heating up, especially in Upstate New York. Syracuse has Bob Dylan/Elvis Costello and Phil Lesh in October while the Magic City Music Dump here in the Binghamton area has Gov't Mule, and Umphrey's McGee. The biggest surprise is that Bright Eyes will be playing Magic City in November which is completely unbelievable that an "indie" artist is playing Binghamton. Plus I'm heading out to Portland, Oregon in November to see The Hold Steady (more on that later.) It's definitely going to be an eventful fall.

Spectres of the Spectrum

Spectres of the Spectrum (Craig Baldwin, 2000) [7]

I'm a big fan of Baldwin's work, especially Tribulation 99 and this film treads much of the same ground as that film. Baldwin is a collage or found footage filmmaker, which means he uses images from other sources to create his films. This film as well as Tribulation 99 use mostly old science fiction footage to create what appear on the surface to be paranoid psuedo-documentaries but do have a critique of American political and business policies. Spectres focuses on a father and daughter who are out to show that a corporate/government monopoly on communications and radar technology to control the population and destroy the natural ionosphere of the earth. It's incredibly complicated exaggeration Baldwin has come up with, the father and daughter having to travel back in time to save the world. This plus while taking tangents into Tesla's alternating current, the creation and subsequent monopoly of radio and television, and political commentary. The first 30 to 45 are difficult to grasp but once the father and daughter get down to actually carrying out their task the film becomes much more streamlined and easy to follow. As with any Baldwin film, there are an overload of images, from everything to 50's science television programs to more modern films like Gremlins. On the surface, this all seems rambling and incoherent but the underlying message of Baldwin's films are its most important points. Baldwin is urging the public to take back their media and ways of getting information. The media conglomerates have for far too long has a stranglehold on determining what information that people can hear. Baldwin makes the point that media like radio and television initially belonged in the public arena and that corporate control is bad for the earth as a whole. It may be hard to grasp from the density of images assembled, but it's there to be found.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (David Leaf & John Scheinfeld, 2006) [6]

An interesting at times documentary on the Nixon administration's failed attempts to silence and deport John Lennon for his political views and associations. What's interesting more than Lennon the person are the issues being raised of celebrity, using celebrity for voicing dissent, and the role of the U.S. government in monitoring those individuals. Leaf and Scheinfeld interview numerous people, some like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky, who have no tangible relation to Lennon. It doesn't work formally because it creates tangents but what they say would be a much more interesting documentary than this one. My main issues here is that this is well covered ground and the filmmakers are bringing nothing that enlightening to Lennon himself. The only real interesting facet that gets revealed but not covered enough is that Lennon's message of peace was extremely naive and that the radicals he associated himself with became more and more confrontational and even violent as the 70s wore on. The film shows that Lennon's power of celebrity was what people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were really after, not so much the ideas. The actual details of Lennon's immigration case are relatively boring but it is interesting to see how paranoid the Nixon administration was in their belief that one entertainer could have that much sway on public opinion. The sad reality, over the years, has become that no famous person (0r group of celebrities) has any real power to influence the political establishment or stop a war. It sure hasn't been successful with Iraq. What this film shows is that John Lennon was really the last entertainer that has had a broad impact on the culture at large but even he never had the influence to make change.

Strange Brew

Strange Brew (Rick Moranis & Dave Thomas, 1983) [5]

It's hard reviewing this film so many years later because it's basic structure, the adventures of two dim-witted men, has been aped by Wayne's World, Tommy Boy, and almost every Will Ferrel movie that it's hard to remember that this was pretty much the first one. Moranis and Thomas the McKenzie brothers made famous on SCTV and now so more for their beer commercials. They're basically two dim-witted brothers concerned with drinking beer and calling one another hoser and telling everyone to take off. Their Canadian white bread routine is funny for a while (about the length of a skit) but the repetition of eh's and hoser only can get so much laughs. Still, there were moments throughout that made me laugh out loud, especially the scene with the two brothers fighting in straight jackets. That's more that can be said for most comedies today. The plot, loosely based on Hamlet, has no real importance to the film; it could have been anything as long as it propels Bob and Doug along and gets them to act stupid. The film also suffers like most comedies of its era from cheesy 80's syndrome, highlighted by not very effective effects and the corny opening credits song. Some credit has to go to Moranis and Thomas for breaking down the fourth wall, clearly addressing the audience and letting them know that they know they're making a movie, something Wayne's World would copy and make seem like new years later. Also, for being two dim bulbs, the McKenzie brothers are completely likable, something that the smugness of Ferrel's characters lack. Strange Brew isn't great and it shows its age but it certainly has more laughs than Rush Hour 3, which I guess passes for comedy nowadays.

Exterminating Angels

Exterminating Angels (Jean-Claude Brisseau, 2007) [4]

It's hard to get people to pay attention to the message of your film when all people are going to remember is hot girls masturbating. Brisseau has always been a director that's going to push the envelope in terms of sexuality, but here he goes so far overboard that he ends up drowning his film. This treads some of the same ground as Secret Things, his previous film (which I happened to like). That film, however, dealt more with the issue of power in relation to sexuality and had campy elements that made it much more enjoyable to watch than this one. Exterminating Angels and especially the character of Francois take themselves way too seriously. Francois especially, since he acts as a vessel for these women to bring out their desires and taboos, which is just a little too convenient for what Francois is looking for. Francois doesn't say or make anything profound out of what he's doing; he comes across as being underhandedly manipulative and eventually, his transgressions (real or imagined) result in tragedy at the end. The only thing that really comes out of the film, mostly because it's repeated, is that Francois doesn't realize what he's getting into. The meeting with Julie at the end reinforces this idea even more. Besides that, Brisseau doesn't offer up anything more. The angels themselves appear haphazardly and don't take on any significance until the end. Brisseau aims for provocation and there's no doubt the sexually explicit scenes here will both intrigue and offend people. The real problem with this film is that there's a lack of anything worthwhile about the sex that's shown beyond titillation.

Live Free or Die

Live Free or Die (Gregg Kavet & Andy Robin, 2007) [3]

The quirky indie comedy is starting to go the way of the studio romantic comedy, so full of standard archetypes and characters that it's hard to make it good. This film, from two former Seinfeld writers, should be a lot funnier but falls back into the pitfalls of quirky just for the hell of it characters and a plot that doesn't really go anywhere. The plot issue isn't that big but the characters here are so unlikable and treated with such indignation by the writers that the end result is completely homeless. Kavet and Robin are so concerned with their convoluted plot and character quirks that they forgot to make a comedy with laughs in it. Granted, there are a few but they mostly involve the hilarious comedian Judah Friedlander, who sadly, isn't in this film enough. The two main characters are treated with such disrespect by the writer/directors by having so little intellect that it's insulting to the viewer as well. Aaron Stanford plays a two-bit loser that tries too hard to be a hardened criminal. Besides being stupid, his character is so over the top in his wannabe macho nature that he's completely unlikable and lacks any real personality. The other, played by Paul Schneider, is even worse. He plays the dim bulb and is there to be laughed at and nothing else. There's something wrong with playing a character's lack of intelligence purely for laughs and not giving him any humanity. I may be a cynic at heart but I like my films to have some human qualities in them and these two walking cartoon characters are so blatantly offensive to my sensibilities that I wanted to strangle the ones responsible for them. It's too bad because the story itself does have some funny moments but the down ending is completely off base for the rest of the film. This film's lack of consistency makes it a muddled mess that doesn't work at all.

Zodiac

Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007) [8]

I've never been that big a fan of Fincher's work, finding the queasy opulence of films like Seven and Fight Club not to my taste. Here, he tones it down and plays his hand relatively straightforwardly about the notorious serial killer who terrorized the Bay Area in the late 60s/early 70s and vanished, never to be solved. This film on one hand contains the standard procedural drama, laying out the facts of the case which have been well covered over the years. What makes this film work and how Fincher differentiates it from banality is the thread of male obsession that runs through. Obsession and compulsion can be used to describe the killer himself, as the Zodiac claims in the film. But the obsession of knowing the truth is what really drives this film. The three other main characters, the boy scout cartoonist, the hardened, boozy reporter, and the earnest detective at some point become all consumed with the details of the case and are unable to let it go. The performances of the three, Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr., perfectly embody the determination and obsession that come with wanting to know what happen. They perfectly stand in for the audience as everybody wants to know who the Zodiac was and why he did what he did. But Fincher also succeeds in not really answering anything. The film wants to tag Arthur Leigh Allen as the Zodiac but all the psychical evidence in the case cannot be linked to him. The film doesn't have any more answers by the end than when it started. The strength of the film is that it can still be effective even though the entire course of it was a search for answers and it turned up nothing.

Fincher as the director here is a near perfect match. Someone who is notoriously detail obsessive as he fits the overall theme of the film perfectly. No detail in matching the period of the early 70s is spared all the way down to the studio cards at the beginning of the film. I've found Fincher's style to be a little overbearing in the past, but with this film, it fits consistently with the theme of the film.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2006) [6]

I always have an issue with people making movies about a foreign culture. Not to get all theoretical but the idea of "the other" always pops up in American cinema when addressing other cultures. This is always more true about the Orient (see Edward Said). While I don't begrudge Eastwood for tackling the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, I was wary of this film to say the least. I have no real interest in seeing Flags of Our Fathers so I have no counterpoint to compare to this film. It's well made and is certainly stronger in its first half. By the end however, it becomes too repetitive in its themes. Everything always comes back to the Japanese fighting to their death, the honor of dying coming above survival. We get the character of Saigo to be the argument of this point. The problem with him is that I think Eastwood and Haggis are making him the rational, and therefore American voice in the film. From a Western way of thinking, no soldier would would think of committing suicide on the battlefield. Even though they may not have intended for him to be this way, Saigo is there to show this idea of the other. It just seems to emphasize this displacement of thinking between American and Japanese thought of warfare. Eastwood has made a good standard war film but these ideas keep poking around my head as I watch it. Other critics say that the Americans are the enemy in this film but not really. Outside of Saigo and General Kuribayashi, there is no strong identification with the Japanese side. Even though the film is of the Japanese fight of Iwo Jima, Eastwood can't keep an American perspective out of it. He may be reverential to the Japanese, but he still makes the viewer question why they would fight the way they did. It's not something that makes the film bad, but it leaves some holes that are never really filled.