22nd Hall of Fame

Tools    





The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)

I don't have much to add that most of people wrote about this film here haven't said already.

For starters, props to Wyldsyde for nominating a documentary. It's a genre that I feel isn't represented enough around MoFo and it's really nice to see one competing on a general HoF.

I too, had to check what was all this about half through the film, because the director just assumes that you have a basic knowledge of what happened here, or at least that you know the "official" version, to which this documentary poses opposition.
I can understand this film taking only one side of the history (which is something I usually don't like about docs), being that there is already a dominant view on the story and this tries to balance the two sides of the story. What I can't forgive is the feeling that the directors obviously began working on this with their views already set on stone, which ultimately hurts the credibitlity of the film, and my emotional connection of the film.

As an European, there's something so alien in hearing some Americans speak as if they were the only that have freedom and that justifies everything. Adding that my absolute and visceral hate for cults (particularly those involving children) and for people who base their view of a country's laws on a freaking mythology book, it's hard to relate with the crazies who are, according to this documentary, the victims.

That being said, there's obviously some shady aspects of the story told by the government. Is it really like this documentary portraits? I seriously doubt it, but I believe there's some true about it.

As a film, this has some flaws, being the twisted view on the subject the main one, but there's also problems with the selection of information put into this, the pacing and the cinematography isn't really interesting.

-



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I'll play catch up on this thread tomorrow. Sorry for falling behind on it. Looks like just 3 more ballots to gather and a few reviews of course.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Actually I should be caught up now. Just need 3 more from Ed, 5 from Neiba and Wylde. Let me know if I missed any!
You missed my review on Blue Ruin!

And write-up on State of Siege coming right up!



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
State of Siege (1972)

Ooooof... So much to say about this!

I had watched Costa-Gavras' Z in preparation for the 60s Countdown and included it on my list, at #15. Like Z, State of Siege is a profound critique on fascist regimes, on the deterioration of democratic governments due to unhealthy relationships between church, army and state and an ideological defense of the communist revolutionary movements that fought to overthrow this dictatorships. Like Z, State of Siege is an incredibly intelligent film filled with irony and more than a few brilliant moments.
This film is obviously about the political situation in Urugay in the late 60s and early 70s (there would actually be a coup-d'etat in 1973 that installed a definitive fascist regime that last 12 years), but the name of the country is never mentioned. You see flags, you see planes with Montevideo written on them and a couple more clues, but the idea is that this can be applied to any Latin America country that was being a victim of American imperialism and growing fascist movements. It also manages to hit the brazilian dictatorship a few times (that scene where a naked man is being tortured and the camera turns to the brazilian flag which has Order and Progress written on it is one of the many examples of Costa-Gavras irony).

As with any historical drama, particularly a docu-drama like this one, the more you know about the historical context of the film, the more you gain from it. And the more you can relate to the political situation of Uruguay at this time, the more you can relate with the characters, and more importantly in this case, with the movie's concept (which I see has been a problem to most people on this HoF).
My country dealt with a fascist dictatorship that lasted 41 years and that ended in 1974, so not long after this film came out. It ended with a pacific revolution made by the communist resistence (that dealt with a similar opposition as the one the Tupamaros did), then we lived in a quasi-communist regime for 2 years and changed in 1976 to a social democratic government that we still conserve to this day, like most european countries. So, I will always refuse to see comunism as the devil, though I strongly disagree with it. I see its importance particularly in fighting absolutism and unjustice though I wouldn't give the reigns of any country to a communist government.

Now, given that Costa-Gavras was extremely critical of what Santore represented, you would expect that character to be one of the villains of the film. However, he is never treated like that, but like someone who is not only very perceptive but also very sensible. His interrogatory scenes are not framed as if they were between oppresor and captive, but as an ideological debate that has no clear winner, as both sides present extremely valid points. You can see that his interrogator, while not liking him, is one of the few that doesn't want to kill him and is one of the few who actually understands the weight of the final decision the movement has to make regarding Santore's life.

Then you have also someone who I adored to see on screen: the old journalist, who I imagine represents the view of the director himself. Watching everything happen from outside, while being affected by it, seeing his country less and less democratic, not appreciating the violence lead by the Tupamaros but understanding why it was happening and commenting on all of it with the most refined irony. He understood everything beyond the ideologically blind debate and pointed it out time and time again but never being taken seriously.

Now, as I said, a common attack on this film on this HoF is that Costa-Gavras didn't make people relate with the characters which turned the experience a less enjoyable one. While I can understand and respect that, I absolutely disagree. There are only a few scenes where the director asks you to care for individual characters: the funeral, the scene where Santore realizes he's about to die and chooses to write to his wife instead of asking for help and the brilliant bus scene, where you see Tupamaros struggling with a hard decision while not being properly understood by his comrades who only want all capitalists to die no matter what. The rest of the film is not about caring for characters, it's not about the individual members of Tupamaros, Santore or his family, the journalists or the politicians. This film is about caring and relating for an idea, which is way more challenging but equally important. The idea that all men are born equal, that a country deserves its sovereignty and that democracies should never stop checking themselves as the danger is often born from within.

And in that regard, State of Siege is a masterpiece. Thanks Siddon.




Women will be your undoing, Pépé
You saving the best for last or what?
actually, I am. I tried to sit at home last night to sit back and enjoy Joker, but it didn't work out that way, but I do wish to finish off with that nomination.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Shine (1996)

This was a film that had been on top of my watchlist for quite some time now, and I'm glad I finally gave it a go. Sorry for the following review, is quite messy, but I'm tired and have so much on my mind about this film that I can't organize it properly.

A strict father projects his own failures on his talented son who grows surrounded by pressure and extremely poor social skills. The kid eventually snaps when perfoming the monumental Rach 3, one of the most challenging pieces ever written for piano, both technically and musically. This piece had the aditional weight of being the one which, in David's mind, would finally satisfy his dad's never-ending appetite for perfection.

As a story telling device, the film is very well constructed. It never tries to simplify the musical universe, which is more than most music films do, and focuses more on the humane side of the story which is something that a non musically educated viewer can understand and relate to. The perfomances are quite good by everyone involved, with the obvious highlight going to Geoffrey Rush who has some moments of brilliancy (the scene where he meets his father in his room, suddenly becoming so fragile and child-like is exceptional) in a all around very solid perfomance.
The soundtrack is obviously one of the best parts of this film, with a few emblematic pieces of the classical repertoire and a few that I wasn't expecting to hear.
It falls sometimes into the typical cliches found in biopics. I didn't like the way the relationship with the astrologist is explored, it feels too sudden, too fast and almost unbalanced, like she was taking advantage of him, or at least as if that whole relationship was only the tool to show him getting back to doing concerts.

As a musician, this story is not a new one for me. It's not uncommon that amazing young talents just lose their way, falling into depression, schizophrenia or any other mental illness more or less serious, usually for not having enough emotional support nor ways to blow some steam. I know a particular case, of a guy a bit older than me, who is a hell of a pianist but that behaves exactly the character on this film. He doesn't know how to behave with other people, he's always awkward, when I talked to him about driving a car he told me he could never do it because he sees numbers all the time in front of his eyes. But when this man sits in front of a piano, he's no longer the weird man staring on his shoes and fidgeting with fingers, he's a god. I'm sure it's the only time when he sees clearly, when he gives himself to this obsession, the same that took everything else away from him.
David Helfgott obviously had the seeds of his mental illness with him from the start, but there are so many ways the turning point could be avoided. The father has, obviously, the greatest responsability, but not the totality of it. The kid should have played tennis or studied chemistry or did anything else as an hobbie, to learn that living solely for music (or anything really) can lead to this.
Because that didn't happen, music became his cross to carry, not his passion. He began taking pleasure of not missing any notes and not from actually making music, something that commonly happens to many musicians, even those with no mental illness. And there's a moment that ilustrates that perfectly: when he's playing the Rachmaninoff Concerto and the sound shuts up and he can only hear the tapping of his fingers, like the mechanical perfection of a swiss clock. Music shouldn't be about that. It shouldn't be about competition or prizes. It should be about sharing this magical bubble created by musician and composer to which the audience is invited and where mistakes are allowed, but lack of passion isnt'. The fact that there is something called "concert musicians vs competition musicians" (meaning some musicians are amazing at concerts but don't fill the necessary requirements to win competitions, whatever the f*** that is) is a disgrace. And that's the other part of the guilt: the culture surrounding classical music that will forever crush the spirit of the most fragile musicians, no matter how talented.
So it's no surprise David finds the passion again when he's playing on a restaurant, with no added pressure to be perfect. Then there's the moment when he cries after the concert, like he found redemption finally, like it all makes sense... That moment brought me to tears, so thank you ed for the nomination.

-



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Dronningen (2019)

Third (?) danish film on these HoFs, third film about pedophilia. What's up with the danish movie industry, @MovieMeditation? All of them great, btw!

This is obviously a very twisted and heavy film. Like someone said, it's pretty much the counterpart to Jagten.
I like how the characters are introduced to us and how much our perception of them changes with the film. We are shown a woman who is very successful, who does a job protecting children, who has a nice marriage and obviously loves her daughters and who can, in the first interactions she has with Gustav, show a lot of empathy and good parenting. We are conditioned to root for her from the start even when she starts abusing the boy (if it was a man abusing an underage girl, the public perception would be a lot different) which is a very well executed manipulation done by the director. Also because the kid is shown as a mature and intelligent young adult rather than as a child, the whole relationship doesn't look as wrong as it inherently is and even the extremely graphic sex scenes normalize the whole thing to the point it doesn't feel as uncomfortable as it should.
However, we soon realize that the whole reason behind her behaviour is a middle age crises and as soon as she realizes that she might deal with the consequences of her actions she turns into somebody else. She lies, manipulates her husband and Gustav, does the old victim blaming and creates the idea on the mind of the boy that she is powerful and nothing he can do can affect her. This shows Gustav as he truly his - a child who was abused and who has not the mental structure to hold such a thing - and works as a wake up call for the audience. It reinforces how monstrous pedophilia really is and how wrong we were in relativizing Anne's actions, even if we were conditioned to do that. The ending is as brutal as predictable and you can only hope that woman has a horrible future ahead of her.

The acting is very very good, especially by Trine Dyrholm who shows an impressive array of emotions. Gustav Lindh does also a great job.
The cinematography serves perfectly the theme of the film, creating and releasing tension on the right moments and giving it an aura that unifies the whole picture.

Very good nomination MM!

+



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Joker (2019)

So... second time watching this in a few months and I have to say I am one of those who thinks this loses all its power on a second run. I never thought it was brilliant but at least it made me root for the main character. This time around though, it did nothing to me.
I'd say the main problem is that it lacks unity. A lot. Besides Joaquin Phoenix' perfomance - who does a terrific job as usual, but neither he is the best man that ever played Joker nor this is Phoenix' best work - there are no homogenous elements. The script is a mess, the mental illness doesn't seem coherent and many decisions seemed motivated more by social commentary (to call it politely) than by artistic reasons which is something I hate. And I won't even talk about the clear borrowing from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, both much greater films, precisely for being able to build great atmospheres that tie the film together.
There are some moments of great cinematography which again are isolated and the same could be said about the soundtrack.
The film eventually becomes boring because none of the characters are believable or relatable and everything seems unorganic. I can say I wasn't expecting to struggle to finish this but these 2 hours seemed like a lot more...

+



The trick is not minding
Waco: The Rules of Engagement


Watching Waco we become aware of several things:

1). The ATF acted outside their jurisdiction.
2). Evidence either disappeared or was lost.
3). The child abuse charges and statutory rape charges have, to this day, never been proven. Indeed, on of the key alleged victims seems to have read an “account” that seemed written for her. She has also been accused of giving contradictory statements.
The films paints an ugly picture of a bungled raid that quickly spiraled out of control. As events continued to spiral away from the agents, they eventually made a desperate last attempt to bring them to their knees.
I was 13, I think when this occurred, And remember it vividly. The fire. The news reports. No one at the time could have predicted what would happen. Yet watching this documentary, one wonders how that’s possible?
The movie switches between video archive of deceased Branch Davidians, and the resulting hearing that followed. In between those are actual footage of the gunfight. It even shows the smoking bodies. It isn’t for the faint of heart. But this movie doesn’t draw its own conclusions. It presents the evidence from both sides and allows us to make up our own minds.
And of course, the spectre of David Koresh looms ominously through out. Presented by archives video during the siege and video recordings, his charm obvious to those who knew him.
Was he insane? Possibly Was he as dangerous as the Government claimed? Maybe. We’ll never know for sure. What we do know, however, is that he absolutely defied the government, and we know how they tend to respond to such defiance.
And at the end, the FBI, having taken over, had decided that it was enough. What transpired was a tragedy.