Grand Illusion-1937 June 17, 2010
Posted by ultimateserge in 1937, Anti-war, Erich von Stroheim, French Actors, French Directors, Great Films, Jean Gabin, Jean Renoir, Marcel Dalio, Uncategorized, War.Tags: 1937, Anti-war, Antiwar, Classic Films, Erich von Stroheim, Film, film criticism, French Film, Grand Illusion, Great Films, Jean Gabin, Jean Renoir, Marcel Dalio, Movie, reivew, War
add a comment
Rating:*****
Directed By: Jean Renoir
Starring:
Grand Illusion contains a scene were the German commander sticks out his hand to welcome his respected fellow French commander who is a prisoner of war. The frenchman, Captain de Boëldieu, welcomes this nice gesture and shakes Captain von Rauffenstein hand. With such beautiful sentimentality, Jean Renoir-a WWI veteran-creates a colorful world where the place of the captive and his guard seems awfully perplexing. Where are they they? Or, who are they? Who is the Nazi? Who is the victim?
Grand Illusion presents a group of Frenchmen, most notably Lieutenant Maréchal, Lieutenant Rosenthal, & Captain de Boëldieu, who are prisoners of the war-during World War I-on the German front. They soon cooperate with their fellow prisoners in an attempt to escape prison and flee Germany. Their plan goes as smoothly as most escapes due until they are moved from their camp, and all their tasks seem futile. However, they are given a second chance to escape in their new camp; unfortunately, this requires a third person to distract the guards while the other men escape with utmost ease.
The first thing the audience may be surprised by is the sheer politeness, courteous manners of the German toward their prisoners. The etiquette of the Germans seems to cross decorum and comes across-initially-as a superficial, conservative, fearful portrayal of the prison guards. When Marechal is placed in solitary confinement, being mentally tortured in the process, the German guard lends him a Harmonica and a couple of cigars. For a large portion of the film, Renoir’s intent by displaying these guards overly humane treatment seems misguided considering the many tragedies of WWI, such as the Armenian genocide. As the film progresses, the sheer audacity of this aspect of the film becomes quite clear. Renoir intents to create an anti-war film where the German, French, etc. are all innocent as their country and the times of war has required them to be in such regards toward each other. As they cite their reasons for escaping becomes clear, it is clear that these are no vicious, blood thirsty French soldiers who cannot wait to return to their soil and give the German side a piece of their mind. They fight neither because they enjoy nor because they deem it a necessarily righteous war. The majority of the soldiers have joined the army because they genuinely believe it is they must serve their country in a productive manner, and unfortunately this war is the major way in which they can serve their countries needs at this time. In one scene, Maréchal reveals that if his escape is successful, he would not relegate himself to a private citizen; but he would regain his post, and as a pilot resume his duty. The question between the Germans, Russians, and French is not of It the war is appropriate or not, but if the war is thriving it is our duty to serve our country and put a stop to it as soon as possible. In a sense, most of the soldiers in the film-disregarding nationality-would rather serve their country in any other way, than the one proposed; however, it seems no alternatives have been proposed by their country.
Renoir employs clever tactics in fogging the nationalities of the characters, and even the prison guards. Besides the Hakenkreuz-the infamous Nazi symbol-and familiarity with the characters, there really are no other features that distinguish the prisoners from the German guards. As Captain von Rauffenstein reveals to de Boëldieu, their conditions are equally distasteful. De Boëldieu is surprised as how the Captain can be compared to him, a prisoner, but when the German Captain speaks of the permanent “gifts” the battlefield has bestowed upon, we believe him to also be a prisoner of war. People like de Boëldieu are prisoners because they cannot flee their captors grasp, but others are prisoners because they are perished day after day, even though they are highly regarded men. Rauffenstein may be free to roam the land as he wishes, but he is the prisoner of the prison, as he is unable to function as he wishes, as he is confined to this prison’s mansion-like structure. An important scene concerns Boëldieu’s questioning of his German counterparts disregard for his fellow soldiers. It is a well known fact that Rauffenstein respects Boëldieu for their mutual acquitance, but also because he respects him as an officer. Boëldieu informs him that his fellow friends are also very good soldiers and that they also deserve his respect and trust. Von Rauffenstein chuffs as this statement, responding: “…A Rosenthal and Maréchal?” If these German’s are to be guilty of anything, it is their superiority complex. Unlike the WWII Nazi’s who attempted to conquer this superiority by lambasting the “inferiors.” These German’s only mildly harbor such feelings, feelings that have yet to be instilled with hate.
A pivotal character of Grand Illusion is the Jewish Lieutenant Rosenthal. Coming from a wealthy, banking family he shares his parcels that he receives from home with all his fellow prisoners. Rosenthal is the vision of humanity, and his nice deeds are continuously praised by his fellow prison mates as a righteous person, and in one occasion Maréchal discount all prejudices toward the Jews, and says: “You’ve been a good pal.” Though released before the onset of WWII, Grand Illusion wants to firmly announce the equality of all races, and courageously-especially for its time-does not lambast the Germans nor pities them. It presents soldiers as humans, and implies that the blame is not upon the soldier but the ruler, dictator, President, or/and government of each respectable country. These are soldiers who fight to hopefully end the war sooner, and criticizing them for the travesties is to avoid the masterminds behind the global genocide that was WWI.
Jean Renoir has often been cited as among the greatest directors in the history of film, and Grand Illusion and other works like the masterful Rules of the Game, make this honor seem valid. Renoir’s sensitivity is unusual for an antiwar film as he doesn’t force any morality down the viewer’s throat, but asks questions. Grand Illusion is a film with a series of questions that are remained unanswered, not because Renoir is unable to answer them, rather due to the fact that humanity-the part of humanity responsible for the wars-has yet to realize the cruelty and insignificance of the benefits of war in consideration to its pains and anguish. Released two years before the onset of WWI, Renoir could not have possibly believed that the torments of his first global war would be rekindled, and this time the costs of this war were much worse than the First World War It is notable that even without its condemnation of either side, Grand Illusion was labeled as “Cinematic Public enemy number one” by the Nazi’s not much after its release.
The Deer Hunter-1978 June 15, 2010
Posted by ultimateserge in 1978, Infidelity, John Cazale, Mental Illness, Meryl Streep, Michael Cimino, Robert De Niro, Torture, Uncategorized, War Film.Tags: 1978, Deer, Film, Hunter, John Cazale, John Savage, Meryl Streep, Michael Cimino, Movie, Robert De Niro, roulette, Russian, The, War
add a comment
Rating:****
Directed By: Michael Cimino
Starring: Robert De Niro
John Cazale
John Savage
Christopher Walken Meryl Streep George Dzundza
The Deer Hunter is as much a traditional war film as Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a comedy. Each category fits the respectable film, but their true intentions spread beyond these categories. As much as Dr. Strangelove was a political film, The Deer Hunter is a psychological study of the torments of war.
The Deer hunter is concerned with a couple of friends living in Pennsylvania, and their daily exploits. Young men as they are, there is constantly a 
clash of emotions between them. The film wants to vividly display these emotions by showing one of the friend’s wedding, Stephen and his bride-Angela. The scene which possibly lasts for more than half an hour attempts to do nothing but highlight their personality and sheer innocence. Three of these men, Niki, Stephen, and Michael, who are to venture to Vietnam for military duty, have a few precious days for reflection before their lives will be changed forever. After the first act, which introduces the characters and their lives, the second part focuses on the war, or rather the frustration of facing death in a “game” of Russian roulette “hosted” by the enemy. This game, in a nutshell, is the central element of the film that displays the agony of the war in a small setting. Every trigger could mean death or momentarily holding on to life. This symbol is brilliantly used, making the audience ask itself is the winner of Russian roulette, the winner, or is he the true victim of the psychological elements of the game; or, in a larger scale, the survivor of war may have won the battle, or conquered the hardships, but it seems that he lost the game of life, for he has lost his control, sanity, and livelihood. If these are the conditions for all veterans of war, is not death a better option?
After the second act, the third part focuses on the psychological study of the three friends that attended and survived the war. The film asks us to consider how war can change a person, and even if a person retains his personality after war? Everyone is so damaged, physically and mentally, that not only is their innocence shattered, but even their soul has been robbed by this war. Michael, played by Robert De Niro, who enjoyed deer hunting before the war, now doesn’t have the heart to shoot a deer. These men are prisoners of war, even though they are not in prison. War has encompassed their life, that their very actions, thoughts, emotions, have been modified by the war. The distance they keep from their loved ones, distaste from firearms, and altered memory of events and people is due to the very effects of war that has made Niki, Michael, and Stephen the anthises of their previous selves.
The film’s unexpected ending solidifies it as a tragic, and at times tearful, experience, rather than a mere display of military potential. At the beginning, we are at loss in the significance of the overlong wedding sequence, or the seemingly unnecessary conflict between Michael and Stanley, played by John Cazale. There seems to be a lot of fluff, but as the intent of the film sets in, it becomes clear that Michael Cimino wants to display the humanity of the characters before sending them to the most severely harmful place on the planet. In many war films, the audience becomes familiar with the characters on the battlefield; in a condition, that the human being is being tested emotionally, physically, and mentally. In such conditions, we do not really know the human being, but, rather know the distraught mess of a person. The portrait of men before war is pivotal to understanding the effects of war; in other words, the conditions of the man of war can be tested by his life before his engagement in war. Unfortunately, the film does not warn the audience of its psychological study, so for much of the film we are at a loss in how to approach the work. It does not hint that this is not a traditional war film, but rather an observation of the post-conditions of men of war. In this respect, the audience has to remodify its approach to the film to actually understand it from the specific angel it wishes to approach. If not, The Deer Hunter will seem nothing more than an overlong patch-like study of sections of a couple of men’s lives, without each part being detailed or entertaining as a whole.
The film is a solemn, unexciting, slow-moving, character building experience which aims not at humanizing its characters, because they don’t need the help. Its purest intentions are to display the cruelty of war on the human psyche, while cleverly lambasting the unnecessary Vietnam War. The film has long been criticized for its supposed liberal standpoint, but such a title would be best left for films such as Oliver Stone’s Platoon. The Deer Hunter far extends the Vietnam War and warns of the effects of all wars, short or long in length, on the warrior. At the beginning of the film, in the wedding ceremony, there is a poster wishing luck to the soldiers that will serve this land in the name of God. The final scene of the film also harbors the same patriotism by the cast’s singing of ”God Bless America” which sounds, as unfortunate as it may be, mockingly funny, for it was the patriotism that got them in all the trouble that they find themselves in. Or, maybe it was a work of reverse psychology telling us that as wise as humanity is, war will always be an integral part of his life; maybe he just isn’t wise enough to realize the harmful cultural ideas that have made him proud of his war service.
Man Bites Dog-1992 June 14, 2010
Posted by ultimateserge in 1992, Belgium, Benoit Poelvoorde, Black & White, Country of Origin, Gore, Murder, Other Film Stars, Themes, Uncategorized, Violence.Tags: Benoit Poelvoorde Man Bites Dog Film Europe Belgium Movie Black & White 1992
add a comment
Rating:***.5
directed by Remy Belvaux
Andre Bonzel
Benoit Poelvoorde
Starring: Benoit Poelvoorde Remy Belvaux
Intriguing and useful documentaries at times tackle ordinary topics, but in the process show the will, determination, hope, love, and basically the good and bad of the subjects it has chosen to utilize. On the opposite side are mockumenataries who satarize the hell out of the issues that documentaries attempt to discuss and debate seriously and intellectually; Mockumentaries such as Spinal Tap take pleasure in diligently mocking their subjects. Sometimes the effects can be as offbeat as Bruno or as idiosyncratic as Waiting for Guffman. Man Bites Dog, however, treads ground that no documentary has tread before; actually it covers ground that rarely even films attempt to discuss seriously.
Man Bites Dog is a fictional documentary following a serial killer, documenting his daily exploits. The serial killer, Benoit, is followed by a film crew whose sole responsibility-initially-is to document his interactions with his family members, victims, and his general ideology on society. As it may be assumed, these filmmakers do not have the most noble taste in choosing their subjects, but they also lack the funding to complete the project as they wish. Benoit promises them that he will help them found their project, and with his seemingly innocent promise, the participation of the film crew in the crimes begin; who is some instances actually aid him in dispatching the bodies or even participating actively in the crime.
Benoit is no ordinary serial killer. His philosophy is different from usual portrayals because his ideologies on suburban life and media as conspiracy-like as it may seem, rings true. In addition, he does not kill simply to fulfill some nagging carnal desire, but he kills because the source of his income were his victims possessions. Even his girlfriend shares in the delusion, that as unusual as his work maybe, everyone has got to live somehow-besides the victims, of course. His family, from his mother to his grandparents, are pleasant folks, and it is in their presence that the best of Benoit’s empathy and love is displayed. They are not knowledgeable of his work; however, they do indirectly condemn his work as it appears in the newspaper-not knowing that it is their son who is the culprit of many crimes occurring in the city.
The Crimes, themselves, are merciless, gory, uncensored, and most of all excessive. The audience witnesses dozens and dozens of corpses, murders, and even an account of rape throughout the film. The killing itself is genuinely interesting, at times consisting of original ideas in the murder of the elderly, but the processes of disposing of the corpses is unrealistic and not believable. There are scenes where Benoit is hauling a body in the vicinity of a moving train, or using the most unprofessional methods, to a serial killer, of getting rid of his victims. If the police even were remotely active in such a city, they were bound to identify Benoit with every murder he commits. After a while, we wonder how is that after so many gunshots, suffocations, and basically instances of crime on a relatively stable community, the Police have no suspect and no lead. Benoit does explains that the reason, but his answer is not accepted sufficient enough to excuse his entire output. If it is accepted that the camera crew follow Benoit for less than half a year, considering his age, it can be speculated that Benoit has killed the equivalent of entire villages of people without a lead pointing towards him.
Man Bites Dog intent is to satirize the sorry state of contemporary media’s scrutiny of controversial people and issues. It implies how the media simply sees the people it documents as subjects rather than individuals who may need or desire help and guidance. The Film crew follows Benoit without really comprehending what horrific incidents they are filming, and even lending a hand in the crimes. In other words, in the process of documenting such certain events, the media can become as cruel as the perpetrator of an incident, or rather become him. In a truly bizarre case, Benoit murders a person who also has a film crew with him, demonstrating one of the funniest and most poignant moments of the film. A question, however, that must be asked is if Man Bites Dog is a critique of certain aspects of society, or if it is a vehicle for exploiting mutilated corpses, long rape scenes and other mentioned unpleasant aspects of Benoit’s “craft.” The answer is that it is a very wise critique in its own respect, but as the running time progresses the film slowly shifts towards exploitation. As this happens, the gravity of Benoit’s work becomes less tragic, as corpse after corpse is displayed to us. In the end, all the unpleasant sights are simply excessive, losing their shocking and tragic elements.
Man Bites Dog as great a satire as it may be, overstays its welcome by reducing Benoit from a killer with an agenda to a deranged serial killer. The film is among those works that should have retained a shorter length because the longer it gets, the more focus it loses, and the more its timely criticisms seem to strain on. The graphic nature of Man Bites Dog should not be taken lightly, as it demonstrates the murders with vivid detail, and incorporates cruel and disturbing methods in some instances. The film also caves in when one considers certain unanswered questions, such as: why are these fictional filmmakers, who lack financial stability, following such a subject around for their documentary? Documenting a serial killer’s exploits does not carry ideal commercial weight as to grant these filmmakers fame or riches. The fictional filmmakers seem pleasant people who truly wish to demonstrate something great with this work, but considering the subject matter and the detail which they film the issue in hand, it seems they are in delusion concerning what this film really and truly demonstrates. Even Benoit doesn’t dwell on why they would want to film him, even if there was a valid reason, wouldn’t the release of the film endanger his work? Man Bites Dog may be as violent as the society it satirizes, but to leave its desired effect it does need to attain such a level of violence; without it, our disgust and pity of our own society would not be as drastic as it should be.
