Lessons of Darkness (1992, Werner Herzog)

I think I am starting to get Herzog. Aguirre: The Wrath of God left me very underwhelmed and I didn't like it for some inexplicable reason, but his documentaries (if you want to call them that) seem to really click with me. And Lessons of Darkness is the best film I have seen from Herzog yet, an incredible masterpiece and true visionary film.

Simply put, Lessons of Darkness is one of the most spectacular goddamn things I have ever seen.

Running at only a brief 54 minutes, Herzog presents a highly unconventional experimental documentary, loosely structured with chapters, of the after-math of the Gulf wars and the occurring oil fires. The film is one of the most amazingly audacious and bombastic apocalyptic visions I have ever seen. Herzog edits the film together like some maniacal maestro, with his sparse narration never better, carrying with it an at times biblical presence, as he quotes from the Book of Revelations. So cold and raw and amazing. There are only two (brief) interviews in the film; one where a woman tries to recount the torture and death of her son, but she is so traumatized that she literally cannot speak; and the other between a young mother (a widow) and her young boy, who tells how her young son was stomped on and traumatized so harshly that he won't speak. Whether these interviews were staged or not is not really important to me. In Herzog's visual poem, words cannot describe the destruction and despair, so fittingly it is told through images and sound. The rest of the film, apart from Herzog's occasional narration, is played with silence, save for the booming classical music and the droning noise of oil and water and flames and bubbling oil. The mostly faceless engineer workers, trying to put out the oil fires, at times look like some kind of extraterrestrials standing amidst the geysers of flames.

Additionally, what makes Lessons of Darkness unique is that it refuses to make any cheap political statement. Others have described the experience as like being an alien staring down in bewilderment of the perplexing and reckless nature of the human species, our tendency towards demise, destruction, and death. I suppose some might find this as too overly arty and heavy, but I personally eat this shit up.

Furthermore, it is an unbelievably insane film, with Herzog's depiction of this wasteland being haunting and unforgettable, both staggeringly beautiful and frightening at the same time. It is a hypnotizing experience as you get lost in the chaos of it all. And there are so many images I won't forget. There really aren't many films, if any, that I have seen like this. At only 54 minutes, it left me perhaps wanting even more, but I can't fault it for that. I think Herzog told us all he wanted to tell. I loved this even more than Grizzly Man, which is another masterwork documentary.

10/10 

Sidney Lumet RIP (1924 - 2011)

A legendary American director (and a favorite of mine), Sidney Lumet, has left us today, dead at age 86. Making his departure even more saddening is the fact that, even at his older ager, he was still directing new films, including most recently the much acclaimed heist film of Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, released in 2007.

Despite having an extremely prolific career, his best film is perhaps his feature debut, the classic court-room drama, 12 Angry Men, a film which is amazingly cinematic and transcends its genre and becomes an extremely intense and profound exploration of group interaction -- an endlessly fascinating film which only gets better each viewing and is in my top 5 films.

Network, my second favorite film of his, is a masterpiece in outrageous satire, extremely compelling and brilliantly acted, one of the greatest scripts ever. I have also seen Fail-Safe, Serpico, and Dog Day Afternoon, each very good films and well worth seeing. But alas, there is still so much more to see, so I look forward to exploring more of his work.

RIP

SEVEN SAMURAI (1954, Akira Kurosawa)

I first began to dabble into Akira Kurosawa (and classic world cinema, in general) over a year ago. Despite being the world filmmaker titan that he is, my first encounters with Kurosawa didn't go over as smoothly as expected. But perhaps my tastes are changing, or I am simply becoming more in tune with his style (probably both), but upon revisiting his perhaps most major classic, Seven Samurai, a film which initially underwhelmed me, I can now unequivocally say it is a great film and truly worthy of its mega-classic status.

I'm sure most know or could recognize its plot-line -- after-all, it's been used in remakes such as the western The Magnificent Seven (which admittedly I am not too fond of) and the adequate Pixar remake A Bug's Life. During the 1500s in Japan, a peasant village is continually robbed and brutalized by bandits. When one of the villagers hears that the bandits will return again, this time possibly taking everything, the desperate villagers seek help from seven skilled samurai, whom they can't pay with money but have to instead offer food. Seven Samurai's high popularity isn't surprising, given the fact that the story is remarkably accessible, especially for western audiences like myself. To put it simply, it's basically a Western but with samurais instead of cowboys.

Even with its nearly 3 1/2 hour running time, the film is remarkable entertainment from start to finnish, and most of the time simply flies by. Each of the samurai characters are well-drawn, interesting, and outstandingly acted, with classic Japanese actors Takashi Shimura and Toshiro Mifune being even bigger standouts. Much of the film is a build-up to the long extended battle sequences in the end, yet perhaps the most fascinating section of the film for me is watching the interaction between the samurais and the peasant villagers, where Kurosawa takes time to address the class system. We watch as the villagers amusingly cower away from the samurais, but it is also revealed some of the samurais mild (but still present prejudices), all leading to Mifune's character's powerful, impassioned speech. And yet underneath all that is a tender love-story between the youngest, most inexperienced samurai and one of the daughters of the villagers, a plot-line which could have been cheesy but is instead handled quite effectively. When the villagers and samurai finally gel, it feels real. Through all the character-development and other small details, it has been earned. So while some may say that the build-up is too long, I feel it is perfect and essential to the success of the film.

I would reckon that for about 3/4 of the movie, it is essentially FLAWLESS entertainment. Gripping story, excellent character interactions, great moments of humor, and brilliantly photographed. Kurosawa really knows how to position the camera, actors, and stage the action. Some of the epic shots are masterful, and his use of weather, landscape, and simply the geography of the village is at times incredible. That said, like with his major American influence in John Ford, I feel that pacing wasn't always his strongest suit. And, don't get me wrong -- the film is fast-paced and doesn't have any major issues at all, yet I do find some nearly inexplicable lags in the latter stretch of the film. I feel that it is in the climax of the subplot between the young samurai and the peasant girl, for while it is perfectly developed and essential to the film, it's placement right before the climactic battle strikes me as awkward, and I feel it slightly  drags the film down a tad.

That said, that seriously is my only complaint which, considering its 207 minute running time, is pretty damn impressive. And really, the final battle scene, soaked in rain, mud, and blood, damn near makes up for it. Better yet, the film showcases one of the greatest bitter-sweet endings I have seen in all of cinema. The villagers sing on in celebration from a distance after defeating the bandits, while the remaining alive samurai stand from a far and look on in grief. Even more tragically, the young samurai looks on in the distance as he watches the young girl he loves celebrate with the villagers. Nothing has to be said, their love will be no more, their fleeting romance is over. Both the samurais and villagers, despite living and fighting and dying together in the past month time, will go on their separate ways, and it will be accepted without having to say a word. Kurosawa's masterpiece shows us the power of a united people, how under harsh conditions these social barriers can be shattered, yet in the end we are given a sobering reminder of what powers these barriers still hold.  I find it to be a subtly powerful ending to a great film.

9/10

BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE (2002, Michael Moore)

Being the cliche college leftist that I am (well, really, I am too apathetic anymore to have any true political standing), I should gladly embrace Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. I have seen it before, but many years ago, yet I liked it then. I still like it now, but my feelings are definitely mixed. 

Moore essentially takes the horrific Columbine tragedy, but doesn't really focus on it, and instead uses it as a branching point to explore America's gun-violence problems, giving him the opportunity to rant about media-indoctrination, corporatism, and of course FEAR MONGERING. You know, his favorite stuff. And that's okay, but it does get a bit redundant during the film. I imagine there are other good documentaries which strictly cover the tragedy in Colorado that I might prefer more, because while I do enjoy the rather large scope of the film, I have to say that its focus (to me anyway) seems to wander at times.

And of course any time you see a Michael Moore film you have to deal with Moore himself. The way he imprints himself on his films gives it most of its style, for better or worse. I can see this being better on personal projects, but here he can obviously be quite of intrusive, and he a lot of times overshadows the film's content, no surprise. I suppose it comes down to what style of documentary filmmaking do you prefer or find more effective? The one where the filmmaker puts his or herself out in the spotlight with the subject; or films like Hoop Dreams and Harlan County USA where the filmmakers work quietly in the background, letting their subjects tell the story? I think both have their place, and I have to give credit to Moore, because "Bowling for Columbine" is entertaining and well-made, and the satirical approach is fun. However, you could argue that he puts entertainment in front of insights and true journalism. 


It seems that Moore always nukes himself in the final stretches of his films -- where he basically does something that is just too sensational. It's like he lacks confidence in what he is presenting, so he has to bring out the sledge-hammer to make his "point" across. Instead of just making a documentary to explore a subject, he has to provide an artificial climax. It's like the point I made about him putting entertainment in front of journalism. In Fahrenheit 9/11 you have the horrendous scene that essentially exploits a distraught, grieving mother of a fallen soldier; in Sicko you have a ridiculous scene in Cuba, where Moore laughably paints it as some paradise; and here in Bowling for Columbine you have a nasty final scene with Charleston Heston, where Moore becomes an outright bully.

In fact, Moore spends the bulk of the film hammering away at the point that it's FEAR which drives the country to be so violent, stating how in Canada they own as many guns, yet there are no gun-murders to speak of. Yet, then at the end, why go after Heston and the NRA? What's the point if we know that simply owning a lot of guns isn't the cause? Moore sees Heston as an easy target to start a fight with and he ends up essentially bullying him. The whole interview was pointless to begin with, and it ended disgracefully. Sure, Heston and the NRA can be insensitive, as rightfully pointed out by Moore throughout the film, but going after them served no other purpose other than to create some theater. Moore is just needlessly confrontational at times,  often with it going nowhere. Some of it was successful, like the amazing turn-out with the two poor guys who were wounded from the Kaymart bullets -- while some of it was pointless. I often don't feel an angst or passion within these films, but rather a childish, mean-spiritedness -- Fahrenheit 9/11 especially, but also here in this film as well. 

That said, there are some really outstanding interviews, two big highlights for me are the ones with Matt Stone (co-creator of South Park) and Marilyn Manson. There are some great sequences, and there are definitely things in the film which I could get behind. I wonder just how cosy the portrait of Canada truly is, but it wouldn;t surprise me, and the statistics of murder in the US is still appalling shocking, regardless.

So I suppose I am pretty indifferent to the film, but I wouldn't say it wasn't enjoyable, nor was it a waste of time. Moore has a talent as a filmmaker, but unfortunately his egotism and drive for needless sensationalism overshadows genuine journalism which is what is truly needed.

6/10

THE THING (1982, John Carpenter)

As a remake of Howard Hawks' 1950s sci-fi B-movie The Thing From Another World, John Carpenter's The Thing, while initially dismissed by critics upon release, has over the years bettered its reputation and is now rightfully considered the sci-fi horror masterpiece that it is.

Opening with a stunning shot of the frozen Antarctic tundra, Carpenter immediately establishes a sense of place in the desolate and isolated frozen land, as the film begins with a mysterious sequence of Norwegian men flying on a helicopter trying to snipe at a snow dog running towards an American scientific research base. Seeing this, the Americans at the base believe the men are deranged and eventually the Norwegian men are accidentally killed, with the Americans rescuing the chased dog, which they then take under their care. Little do they know, this snow dog has been over-taken by an alien creature which has complete consumed and imitated the canine's body -- a creature we'll call "the thing". An alien organism which, if left alone (in any shape or form) with another living organism, can in fact consume and imitate said organism, without it being remotely apparent to any outside party, making it nearly impossible to determine if the person or animal has been infected. When the "the thing" starts infecting members of the American scientific research base, paranoia, distrust, and chaos ensues.

Perhaps nothing profound, yet the film does an interesting job of exploring group dynamics. As isolated as this small group of men is, everything relies on mutual trust between each and every member, and when that trust is fractured, the cohesiveness that glues this group together now crumbles. Despite the vile nature of "the thing", most of its damage is caused by just sitting back and letting other uninfected individuals destroy each other in reckless mistrust and paranoia. This is an organism which is only bent on survival; it keeps quiet, lurking in the shadows. Carpenter works heavily in ambiguity. More questions are left open than those that are answered. Instead of utilizing dramatic irony in showing us, one by one, who is infected, information is purposefully left out or vague, keeping the audience always guessing if any character at any given time is infected or not. Notice how characters consciously withdraw and avoid each other out of fear of having no one to trust. The audience as well becomes isolated and paranoid, for even the traditional hero character (played by Kurt Russell) is still left ambiguous for much of the film as to what his condition is. The film perfectly puts the audience in exact same position as the characters in the film. And as the film progresses, it becomes clear what kind of world-wide implications the characters face if they cannot destroy this "thing". This is a very bleak and grim film, from the very beginning up until the ambiguous end.

In addition to its psychological aspects,  The Thing of course is famous for its outrageous gore, which is indeed fantastic. Despite approaching 30 years in age, the film and its special effects remain as fresh as ever. Yet is a horror film which works on even more levels as well. Legendary composer Ennio Morricone supplies a wonderfully minimalist musical score which, in combination with the brilliant use of setting and amazing lighting, helps create a thick atmosphere. Working in more subtle ways, perhaps the most deeply unsettling images are the striking shots of the souless eyes of the alien "possessed" dog, as it quietly wanders around the base, the shots so (relatively) simply composed, yet carry so much impact. Carpenter's skill in story-telling and technical mastery elevates what is essentially a B-movie remake into high art -- a brilliant blend of mainstream and art-house sensibilities. This is perfect cinema.

And yet, beyond all that, what is ultimately so remarkable about The Thing is how refreshingly clear and to the point it is. It is neither profound nor shallow -- neither pretentious nor mindless. There are no extraneous subplots, no distractions. You get what you sign up for -- a sci-fi horror/mystery of the highest order. Slow-burning, visually stunning, and atmospheric -- yet also fantastically gory and bad-ass. The performances are perfectly adequate from the whole cast, if not at times particularly impressive. The tension in some of the scenes is incredible. It walks a fine line between "serious" and campy horror to perfection -- enough so that the film always remains intense and frightening, yet it never loses its B-movie charm.

To put it simply, I would rank The Thing easily amongst the finest films I have ever seen.

AMERICAN DREAM (1990, Barbara Kopple)

Remaining in obscurity, this is another Union strike documentary from director Barbara Kopple, the brilliant filmmaker who brought us the landmark masterpiece documentary Harlan County USA, this time chronicling a strike of meat-packers in Austin, Minnesota -- around the time where Reagan put the clamp down on Unions, with his decision to fire the striking air-traffic controllers. Is it as great as Harlan County USA? No. Is it worth seeing? Most definitely, especially for those who were fans of the previously mentioned film, for while it is not on the same level, American Dream is a very fine film in its own right, bringing some more interesting things to the table.

It starts a little slow, and I am not sure how relevant the film remains today, but it slowly becomes more and more absorbing. If Kopple's previous film, 14 years earlier, was a profound documentation of the power of the working class and the success of the Unions and people working together -- then American Dream is a documentary about the FAILURE of the Unions. This is a rather bleak film, augmented by the shots of the snow-covered, frozen land of Minnesota winter, giving the film at times a very cold mood. I would say that this film, although obviously taking sides with the strikers, is fairly even-handed. More importantly, however, it shows the major divisions in the Unions in how to achieve their goals and how to avoid the worst outcome, which is everyone losing their jobs and in essence being crushed by the companies.

As in Harlan County USA, the film is at its best when dealing with individual dramas and human moments between the people. While Kopple does offer some occassional narration and an added musical score, her presence is often un-seen, allowing the people to tell the story, with the drama ultimately being created by the film's editing. We essentially see how the people of the Union, from the top down, are basically torn apart as their cause becomes more and more hopeless. How people of the community have to pick between crossing the picket line and reviving their job, or keeping their promises and integrity to the Union and to the community. We see people in heated arguments, we see people in brawls, best friends against best friends, brothers against brothers. There are some fantastic moments of drama. Like in Harlan County USA where we feel the overwhelming feeling of a people united, standing up against the powers that be, here we see it all crumbling and falling down. For this alone it, it makes American Dream very much so worth seeing, as it is works as a very interesting continuation of Kopple's previous film, only 14 years later, and this time the vision of the American worker and the community it creates is only ever more bleak.

8/10

SOUTH PARK: Bringing Sanity to an Insane World (TV essay)

Emerging on to Television in 1997, the controversial and iconic adult cartoon, South Park, quickly shook up the airwaves. Created and heavily voiced by Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the show employs rather (appropriately) crude animation in creating the fictional town of South Park, Colorado, with the main characters being four foul-mouthed fourth graders, among several other hilarious and often outrageous side characters. Unfairly dismissed by some, and simply revolting to others, the show has a bad rap for its being potty-mouth, gross-out humor. While that is certainly a big part of the show -- especially in its earlier episodes -- what people often miss is the piercing social and political satire layered beneath the immense vulgarity. A show that never holds anything back, South Park is easily amongst the most daring, provocative, and flat-out hilarious work seen on television, with much more purpose and intelligence than it is often given credit for. Through examination of the show’s creation, characters and episodes, one sees just how South Park boldly tries to bring sanity to an insane world.

Indeed, what makes South Park so brilliant is its always fresh and sharp reflections and criticisms on not only American pop culture, but also the country’s social and political climate. What sets it apart from most shows, however, is its incredible ability to always remain timely -- strikingly timely, in fact. According to the show’s trivia section from the website, Internet Movie Database, the show has the amazing ability, during the days between the weekly episodes of a season, to write and create new episodes in days and even hours before they are aired, compared to most cartoons that take months to be created (South par. 26).The incredible timeliness of their episodes allows their satire to cut deeper, as they catch the audience right in the moment. Most notable were such episodes like, "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow", which was about Hurricane Katrina, and "Osama bin Laden has Farty Pants", which was about 9/11, making South Park the first show to use the obviously touchy subject of 9/11 as its topic (South, par. 26). These extremely timely episodes, which directly -- and rather outrageously -- address recent American tragedies no less, are not merely attempts at cheap shock humor, like some critics might suggest; nor is Stone and Parker always trying to be preachy and ram messages down the audience’s throat. It is simply a show which, refreshingly, is not afraid of sharing its opinion about the world’s often abundant chaos, aburdity, and plain illogical and irrational stupidity -- and South Park merely achieves this in a highly entertaining and hilarious fashion.

Consequently, although Stone and Parker are libertarians, which often comes through within the show, South Park often makes an effort of staying in the center of issues, not in a timid attempt of avoiding to take sides, but rather with the distinct purpose to mock the absurdities of the extremes. As Stone put it in an interview on the The Charlie Rose Show, “[We believe] that the people screaming on this side [of an issue] and the people screaming on that side [of an issue] are the same people, and it’s OK to be someone in the middle, laughing at both of them” (Valleau 297). South Park’s target is more often than not political and social extremism. The two protagonists, best friends Stan and Kyle, are two level-headed and intelligent 4th graders who are often far more rational then the outrageous and insane behavior of their parents and other adult characters (Valleau 296). The show often follows the formula of having the two protagonists get lost in a chaotic and silly situation which satirizes something in current American life, and ending eventually with Stan and Kyle, acting as literal mouth-pieces for the ideas of writers Stone and Parker, who almost tongue in cheekly deliver the episode’s main moral. The endings of episodes often as serve as a final moment of respite and a kind-hearted lesson after enduring the previous 20 minutes of vulgarity, crudeness and chaos. It is the several side characters, like Stan’s idiotic father, Randy, and their annoying, racist, right-wing “friend”, Eric Cartman, who are normally the butt of the jokes and the subject of criticism in their actions and beliefs. 

And Cartman, in particular, is one of the shows most notorious, hilarious, and fascinating characters. Beyond being just a smart-alleck, foul-mouthed, and overweight fourth grader, he is often characterized as a heavily racist, anti-semetic, hippie-hating, right-wing nut-job who, despite being technically a supporting character, often takes the central role in several of the episodes. He is usually the main antagonist, working as a conniving, greedy, and loathsome character set up to portray the insane values that Stone and Parker are poking fun at. He is intentionally portrayed as an embarrassing, stupid, and even evil person  -- some episodes even featured him imitating Hitler -- in order to easily ridicule the values that he holds. But in order to understand not only Cartman but also the show’s satirical techniques even better, let’s take an even closer look at some of the show’s best episodes.

For example, in the episode “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce”, the subject is 9/11 conspiracy theories, which were beginning to really run rampant at the time and still do today. The episode begins with Cartman giving a presentation to his class that claims Kyle -- who is a Jew, and there people who think Jews/Israel/Mossad were behind 9/11 -- was responsbile for 9/11. Stan and Kyle, in an attempt to discredit this bogus and ridiculous claim, end up stumbling across other conspiracy theories of 9/11 until they comically get caught in a ‘real’ one, featuring the United States government and George Bush being behind it. Ultimately, as the two boys discover more and more to the mystery, the show highlights, among other things: first, how  incompetent and incapable the government really is, which makes the notion of pulling off 9/11 ridiculous; and secondly, how silly such conspiracy theories are in the first place. Stone and Parker, the libertarians that they are, are amused by the fear and paranoia people have of their government, and thus argue that certain members of the population will just convince themselves to believe that the government is actually that powerful, and consequently that fear then just creates more power for the government which really does not actually exist. At the end, Kyle, still confused, asks who was responsible for 9/11. With Stan replying, “What do you mean? A bunch of pissed-off Muslims” (Urinal).

Additionally, among their finest work is the two part episode, “Go God Go Parts 1 and 2,” from Season 10. Notorious for being a show that has mocked nearly all forms of organized religion, South Park now turned the tables and took aim at extremist atheists. Essentially, in the two part episode, among multiple other subplots, Cartman ends up freezing himself and ends up being thawed 500 years in the future, where the whole world has turned atheist, with religion extinct. In this world, people worship science instead of God. Humorously, these future beings say things like “Praise Science,” or “Science, damn you!” Additionally, there idol, in replacement of Jesus, is the famous athiest writer and intellectual Richard Dawkins. What is most striking about this episode, however, is that it shows the future beings still fighting senseless wars, even in a time where religion is extinct and “science” has now reigns supreme. Many athiests argue that the world’s biggest problems and wars are mostly attributed to organized religion, but Stone and Parker argue that, regardless of  organized religion, people would still be finding things to foolishly worship and they would still be finding reasons to fight senseless wars. Essentially, it is not organizes religion that is necessarily the problem -- it is people! People are inherently irrational and violent. Regardless if they subscribe to the doctrine of supernatural Gods or the ideas of science, people remain to be reckless, violent, insane, and power-hungry. A cynical view, no doubt, but a rather brilliantly astute observation (Go).

And yet sometimes South Park delivers contradictory messages as well, especially concerning issues which are naturally complex. A most notable example is the hilarious episode, “The Snuke,” from season 11. In a parody of the television show 24, the episode begins with Cartman being extremely unreasonably suspicious of a new Muslim boy who just moved into the  town and joined their class. Based on his bigoted beliefs, he of course suspects him of being a terrorist. In coordination with Kyle, who Cartman tricks into believing something serious is going on, they both keep investigating the new Muslim kid at school, but they end up stumbling across a whole separate terrorist plot, planned by Russian mercenaries, to assassinate Hillary Clinton -- a plot which has absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim kid at school. Throughout the episode, Cartman imitates Jack Baurer from 24, and South Park here takes aim at mocking the silly, sensationalist television shows which make a spectacle out of the “War on Terror.” In the end, the real terrorist plot is foiled and Hillary Clinton and South Park is saved, and Kyle discovers that Cartman’s bigoted belief that the new Muslim kid was a terrorist was completely wrong. However, Cartman then points out how his initial bigotry and suspicion of the Muslim kid is what ultimately uncovered the separate terrorist plot. So, what exactly is Stone and Parker trying to express here? Do they side with Kyle’s view, which is that bigots like Cartman are wrong for focusing unwarranted suspicion on Muslims? Or do they think that profiling is a useful way of discovering terrorist plots and protecting people? Perhaps they are somewhere in the middle. Or perhaps they just wanted to make a hilarious episode, regardless of any clear message. Either way, they succeeded (Snuke). 

Furthermore, although definitely not a show for everyone, South Park remains one of the more refreshing, confrontational, and even thought-provoking shows on television, with its outrageous and sharp social and political satire which attempts to mock the absurdities of American and global society. Regardless if one always agrees with South Park is trying to say, just be happy to have found a show which has substance beneath its crude surface.