I received the following from VIZ Media this morning:
Official Statement From VIZ Media Regarding The Earthquake And Tsunami In Japan:
The terrible events in Japan affects us all at VIZ Media directly, personally and professionally. Our hearts go out to those affected by the tragedy and the ongoing crisis, and we hope for a quick recovery. We know the people of Japan will persevere & prevail.
Sincere thanks to all those who have inquired about our parent companies, Shogakukan, Shueisha and Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions. Our colleagues in Tokyo are safe and the situation is stabilizing, though resuming normal day-to-day business activities may take a little while. On a company level, we will be coordinating activities with our parent companies to support the disaster victims.
The victims of this tragedy are in our thoughts, and our gratitude goes out to all of the heroic people around the world pulling together to help them.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Review: "Crash" Crashes into Itself (Happy B'day, David Cronenberg)
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 45 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux
Crash (1996)
Release date: March 21, 1997 (USA)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: Canada/UK
Running time: 100 minutes (1 hour, 40 minutes)
MPAA – NC-17 for numerous explicit sex scenes
PRODUCER/DIRECTOR: David Cronenberg
WRITER: David Cronenberg (based upon the novel by J.G. Ballard)
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Peter Suschitzky
EDITOR: Ronald Sanders
Cannes winner
DRAMA/THRILLER
Starring: James Spader, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas, Deborah Kara Unger Rosanna Arquette, and Peter MacNeill
After being seriously scarred in a near-fatal collision (that was his fault and cost a man his life), television director James Ballard (James Spader) finds his soul mate in Dr. Helen Remington (Holly Hunter), fellow crash survivor and wife of the man killed in the accident. Anxious to connect with the widow, Ballard joins Dr. Remington in a study of cars, sex, and death in which they focus on the point where the three meet. Together, with a band of misfits that include Ballard’s wife, Catherine (Deborah Kara Unger), and Vaughn (Elias Koteas), a fetishist who recreates and eroticizes famous car crash deaths (James Dean and Jane Mansfield’s seem to be his favorites), they probe the eroticism of the automobile and the sexual violence of auto accidents.
To call David Cronenberg’s Crash “weird” would be kind of dumb and simple. To call it an obtuse art project would be close. The film continues Cronenberg’s look at the effects of technology, in this case machines, in particularly the automobile, on the human body. The film seems to take place in the near future, sort of a tomorrow or the day after that. Sensations increasingly have become the method of communication between humans, and mechanical things intrigue people, in particularly how they can be an extension of the human body and also extend perception of or enhance sensation. Cronenberg gives us lots of sex scenes that involve cars, car crashes, and death as aphrodisiacs.
Those who like film as art with an emphasis on the visual sensation or the visual communication of film will find interest in this. However, Crash too often comes across as a boring exercise in creating mildly disturbing images. Sometimes, those images are disgusting, but in a way that makes you roll your eyes. Still, Cronenberg is, as always, daring in the way he challenges audiences to come with him as explores the darker side of humanity merging with machinery.
6 of 10
B
NOTES:
1996 Cannes Film Festival: 1 win: “Jury Special Prize” (David Cronenberg); 1 nomination: “Golden Palm” (David Cronenberg)
Crash (1996)
Release date: March 21, 1997 (USA)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: Canada/UK
Running time: 100 minutes (1 hour, 40 minutes)
MPAA – NC-17 for numerous explicit sex scenes
PRODUCER/DIRECTOR: David Cronenberg
WRITER: David Cronenberg (based upon the novel by J.G. Ballard)
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Peter Suschitzky
EDITOR: Ronald Sanders
Cannes winner
DRAMA/THRILLER
Starring: James Spader, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas, Deborah Kara Unger Rosanna Arquette, and Peter MacNeill
After being seriously scarred in a near-fatal collision (that was his fault and cost a man his life), television director James Ballard (James Spader) finds his soul mate in Dr. Helen Remington (Holly Hunter), fellow crash survivor and wife of the man killed in the accident. Anxious to connect with the widow, Ballard joins Dr. Remington in a study of cars, sex, and death in which they focus on the point where the three meet. Together, with a band of misfits that include Ballard’s wife, Catherine (Deborah Kara Unger), and Vaughn (Elias Koteas), a fetishist who recreates and eroticizes famous car crash deaths (James Dean and Jane Mansfield’s seem to be his favorites), they probe the eroticism of the automobile and the sexual violence of auto accidents.
To call David Cronenberg’s Crash “weird” would be kind of dumb and simple. To call it an obtuse art project would be close. The film continues Cronenberg’s look at the effects of technology, in this case machines, in particularly the automobile, on the human body. The film seems to take place in the near future, sort of a tomorrow or the day after that. Sensations increasingly have become the method of communication between humans, and mechanical things intrigue people, in particularly how they can be an extension of the human body and also extend perception of or enhance sensation. Cronenberg gives us lots of sex scenes that involve cars, car crashes, and death as aphrodisiacs.
Those who like film as art with an emphasis on the visual sensation or the visual communication of film will find interest in this. However, Crash too often comes across as a boring exercise in creating mildly disturbing images. Sometimes, those images are disgusting, but in a way that makes you roll your eyes. Still, Cronenberg is, as always, daring in the way he challenges audiences to come with him as explores the darker side of humanity merging with machinery.
6 of 10
B
NOTES:
1996 Cannes Film Festival: 1 win: “Jury Special Prize” (David Cronenberg); 1 nomination: “Golden Palm” (David Cronenberg)
-------------------------------
Finale of "Cross Game" Anime Streaming on VIZAnime
VIZ MEDIA PRESENTS THE FINALE TO THE HIT ANIME SERIES CROSS GAME
Concluding 2 Episodes Of The Coming-Of-Age Sports Drama Streaming On VIZAnime.com And HULU
VIZ Media presents the finale to the acclaimed anime series CROSS GAME with the availability of Episodes 49 and 50 today on VIZAnime.com, the company’s own premiere website for anime, as well as through the streaming content provider HULU (www.Hulu.com). VIZAnime is a free-to-use interactive web destination that is now the permanent home to some of the company’s best-loved animated series.
CROSS GAME is based on a hit manga (graphic novel) series created by Mitsuru Adachi and is set against the backdrop of baseball. The series is a moving coming-of-age drama that is heartfelt and true and flows delightfully with a light and amusing touch. It centers on a boy named Ko, a family of four sisters who live down the street, and their shared passion for the sport of baseball.
In the gripping series conclusion, Ko faces tough odds in the 12th inning of the final game. Thanks to Ko’s pitching, his team has earned a one-run lead, and all the players are fully aware that a championship is just within reach. But pitching eleven innings is starting to take its toll. The count is full, and Ko must put his all into one last pitch!
One of the biggest names in the manga industry today, Mitsuru Adachi made his debut in 1970 with Kieta Bakuon in the pages of Deluxe Shonen Sunday. The creator of numerous mega-hits such as Touch, Miyuki, and Cross Game, Adachi-sensei received the Shogakukan Manga Award for all three of the aforementioned series. His cumulative works have seen over 200 million copies sold, and many of his series have been adapted into anime, live-action TV series and film. A master of his medium, Adachi has come to be known for his genius handling of dramatic elements combined with romance, comedy and sports.
For more information on the CROSS GAME manga and other titles from VIZ Media’s Shonen Sunday imprint please visit http://www.shonensunday.com/.
For more information on the CROSS GAME anime series, please visit http://www.vizanime.com/.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Review: "The Quiet American" Waits Until the End to Get Loud (Happy B'day, Michael Caine)
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 51 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux
The Quiet American (2002)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for images of violence and some language
DIRECTOR: Phillip Noyce
WRITERS: Christopher Hampton and Robert Schenkkan (based upon a novel by Graham Greene)
PRODUCERS: Staffan Ahrenberg and William Horberg
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Christopher Doyle
EDITOR: John Scott
Academy Award nominee
DRAMA/MYSTERY with elements of a thriller
Starring: Michael Caine, Brendan Fraser, Do Thi Hai Yen, Tzi Ma, Pham Thi Mai, Robert Stanton, and Rade Serbedzija
Michael Caine earned a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance in Phillip Noyce’s film The Quiet American. It’s an understated, but rich performance by a veteran actor. However, you have to watch closely as you might miss some of the nuances. Caine plays by hook and by crook, taking advantage of visual and spoken opportunities to develop his character.
Thomas Fowler (Caine) is a British foreign correspondent in Vietnam, circa 1952, for the London Times. He’s also an opium addict with a girlfriend, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen). He’d love to marry his Asian flower, but he can’t because his wife back in England is a Catholic who won’t grant him a divorce. Fowler is also resentful of American colonialist encroachment in Vietnam, a French colony. The French military is steadily losing a war against the communist rebels, and the Americans don’t want the country to “fall” to the communists. Fowler meets Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser, The Mummy), a quiet young American doctor who eventually vies with the older Englishman for the affection of Phuong and creates a rift between himself and Fowler of philosophical, cultural, political, and emotional ramifications.
Caine’s Fowler seems to exist in three phases. Early in the film, he’s quite uninteresting, just another Western dope addict with a Vietnamese sugar mama. Later, he’s a man with a dilemma who is afraid to lose the love of his life to Pyle, a man without his own marital entanglements. Finally, he’s a troubled man, angry at the growing American involvement in Vietnam, at the rising bloodshed and mounting casualties of a civil war, and afraid of what he might do to hold onto what he believes he has. The viewer literally has to watch Caine’s every facial tick and gesture, watch the actor’s eyes, and even scan the flush of his face. The audience also has to comb through the actor’s dialogue and listen to the subtle changes in tone during the voiceovers. Caine’s performance isn’t an obvious powerhouse; it’s straightforward, almost realistic. It’s almost as if he weren’t acting. There’s nothing phony about it, nor is their artifice. Caine’s Fowler is a mystery, and we can never figure him out even when we think we have him pinned. Fowler shifts with the wind and rolls with the punches, and the movie almost entirely belongs to Caine.
The Quiet American can at times seem almost too understated. The film lacks passion and rarely even smolders. It’s the most sedate thriller I’ve seen in years, which is a surprise coming from Noyce who is known for his thrillers and noisy action films like Dead Calm and Clear and Present Danger. Although he allows Caine room to roam, Noyce leaves the rest of his cast very little room in which to play, but they make the most of it. Fraser is an underrated actor who is quite capable of strong dramatic parts as seen in Gods and Monsters. Ms. Yen’s Phuong is too hemmed in, but Tzi Ma and Pham Thi Mai make the most of their small parts.
Caine’s performance makes The Quiet American worth a look, but the movie may be a bit slow for most viewers. Noyce and his screenwriters really underplay the film’s potential for dramatic impact. It’s a good film that has some very nice moments, but Noyce doesn’t really turn up the heat until the end when the implications of the story come to a head and leave us dizzy and shocked. Thankfully, we have a fine actor in Michael Caine to carry us along the slow journey.
6 of 10
B
NOTES:
2003 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Michael Caine)
2003 BAFTA Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Michael Caine)
2003 Golden Globes: 1 nomination: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Michael Caine)
--------------------------
The Quiet American (2002)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for images of violence and some language
DIRECTOR: Phillip Noyce
WRITERS: Christopher Hampton and Robert Schenkkan (based upon a novel by Graham Greene)
PRODUCERS: Staffan Ahrenberg and William Horberg
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Christopher Doyle
EDITOR: John Scott
Academy Award nominee
DRAMA/MYSTERY with elements of a thriller
Starring: Michael Caine, Brendan Fraser, Do Thi Hai Yen, Tzi Ma, Pham Thi Mai, Robert Stanton, and Rade Serbedzija
Michael Caine earned a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance in Phillip Noyce’s film The Quiet American. It’s an understated, but rich performance by a veteran actor. However, you have to watch closely as you might miss some of the nuances. Caine plays by hook and by crook, taking advantage of visual and spoken opportunities to develop his character.
Thomas Fowler (Caine) is a British foreign correspondent in Vietnam, circa 1952, for the London Times. He’s also an opium addict with a girlfriend, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen). He’d love to marry his Asian flower, but he can’t because his wife back in England is a Catholic who won’t grant him a divorce. Fowler is also resentful of American colonialist encroachment in Vietnam, a French colony. The French military is steadily losing a war against the communist rebels, and the Americans don’t want the country to “fall” to the communists. Fowler meets Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser, The Mummy), a quiet young American doctor who eventually vies with the older Englishman for the affection of Phuong and creates a rift between himself and Fowler of philosophical, cultural, political, and emotional ramifications.
Caine’s Fowler seems to exist in three phases. Early in the film, he’s quite uninteresting, just another Western dope addict with a Vietnamese sugar mama. Later, he’s a man with a dilemma who is afraid to lose the love of his life to Pyle, a man without his own marital entanglements. Finally, he’s a troubled man, angry at the growing American involvement in Vietnam, at the rising bloodshed and mounting casualties of a civil war, and afraid of what he might do to hold onto what he believes he has. The viewer literally has to watch Caine’s every facial tick and gesture, watch the actor’s eyes, and even scan the flush of his face. The audience also has to comb through the actor’s dialogue and listen to the subtle changes in tone during the voiceovers. Caine’s performance isn’t an obvious powerhouse; it’s straightforward, almost realistic. It’s almost as if he weren’t acting. There’s nothing phony about it, nor is their artifice. Caine’s Fowler is a mystery, and we can never figure him out even when we think we have him pinned. Fowler shifts with the wind and rolls with the punches, and the movie almost entirely belongs to Caine.
The Quiet American can at times seem almost too understated. The film lacks passion and rarely even smolders. It’s the most sedate thriller I’ve seen in years, which is a surprise coming from Noyce who is known for his thrillers and noisy action films like Dead Calm and Clear and Present Danger. Although he allows Caine room to roam, Noyce leaves the rest of his cast very little room in which to play, but they make the most of it. Fraser is an underrated actor who is quite capable of strong dramatic parts as seen in Gods and Monsters. Ms. Yen’s Phuong is too hemmed in, but Tzi Ma and Pham Thi Mai make the most of their small parts.
Caine’s performance makes The Quiet American worth a look, but the movie may be a bit slow for most viewers. Noyce and his screenwriters really underplay the film’s potential for dramatic impact. It’s a good film that has some very nice moments, but Noyce doesn’t really turn up the heat until the end when the implications of the story come to a head and leave us dizzy and shocked. Thankfully, we have a fine actor in Michael Caine to carry us along the slow journey.
6 of 10
B
NOTES:
2003 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Michael Caine)
2003 BAFTA Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Michael Caine)
2003 Golden Globes: 1 nomination: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Michael Caine)
--------------------------
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Review: "The Cooler" is an Odd Romance with Good Performances (Happy B'day, William H. Macy)
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 63 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux
The Cooler (2003)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sexuality, violence, language and some drug use
DIRECTOR: Wayne Kramer
WRITERS: Frank Hannah and Wayne Kramer
PRODUCERS: Sean Furst and Michael Pierce
CINEMATOGRAPHER: James Whitaker (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Arthur Coburn
COMPOSER: Mark Isham
Academy Award nominee
DRAMA/CRIME/ROMANCE
Starring: William H. Macy, Alec Baldwin, Maria Bello, Shawn Hatosy, Ron Livingston, Paul Sorvino, Estella Warren, Arthur J. Nascarella, and Joey Fatone
Bernie Lootz (William H. Macy) may be the unluckiest man in Las Vegas, and an old debt keeps him in bondage to his “friend” Shelly Caplow (Alec Baldwin, who received an Oscar® nomination for this supporting role), the crooked casino director of the Shangri-La. The Shangri-La is one of the last mob-run casinos in town, and Shelly uses Bernie as a “cooler,” a casino operative whose contagious bad luck knocks out casino high rollers on a win streak at a table or a slot machine. If that wasn’t enough drama, Bernie falls in love with a cocktail waitress named Natalie Belisario (Maria Bello), and her love and good, hot sex shorts out Bernie’s bad karma, much to Shelly’s chagrin.
The Cooler is a crime drama and romance with a peculiar mood. Though heavily downbeat, the film nevertheless has considerable strength as a romance. While Macy and Ms. Bello, on the surface, may seem to have little by which to connect, they develop tremendous screen chemistry, and it’s actually nice to watch the relationship between the characters grow before our eyes. Actually Ms. Bello’s performance really isn’t all that good (isn’t bad, either), but like a lot of elements in this film, her performance is well-used by director Wayne Kramer, a little-known South African-born director. This film could have died early in the story because Bernie is almost too pitiful to bare and the film’s best love scene happens quite early in the film, but Kramer deftly drives the dramatic narrative.
The Cooler is cleverly paced, and the film has some of the best shot composition I’ve seen in awhile. In fact, the rich color photography by Jim Whitaker and the film editing by Arthur Coburn really looks like classic black and white film noir, not to mention Mark Isham’s fabulous noir-ish jazz score. Somewhat underrated and largely ignored at the box office, The Cooler is an odd kind of romance that should have special appeal to those who like to see the homely guy get the girl, and with fine performances by Macy and Baldwin (a really good actor), this film is worth it.
8 of 10
A
NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nominations: “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” (Alec Baldwin)
2004 Golden Globes: 2 nominations: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Alec Baldwin) and “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Maria Bello)
The Cooler (2003)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sexuality, violence, language and some drug use
DIRECTOR: Wayne Kramer
WRITERS: Frank Hannah and Wayne Kramer
PRODUCERS: Sean Furst and Michael Pierce
CINEMATOGRAPHER: James Whitaker (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Arthur Coburn
COMPOSER: Mark Isham
Academy Award nominee
DRAMA/CRIME/ROMANCE
Starring: William H. Macy, Alec Baldwin, Maria Bello, Shawn Hatosy, Ron Livingston, Paul Sorvino, Estella Warren, Arthur J. Nascarella, and Joey Fatone
Bernie Lootz (William H. Macy) may be the unluckiest man in Las Vegas, and an old debt keeps him in bondage to his “friend” Shelly Caplow (Alec Baldwin, who received an Oscar® nomination for this supporting role), the crooked casino director of the Shangri-La. The Shangri-La is one of the last mob-run casinos in town, and Shelly uses Bernie as a “cooler,” a casino operative whose contagious bad luck knocks out casino high rollers on a win streak at a table or a slot machine. If that wasn’t enough drama, Bernie falls in love with a cocktail waitress named Natalie Belisario (Maria Bello), and her love and good, hot sex shorts out Bernie’s bad karma, much to Shelly’s chagrin.
The Cooler is a crime drama and romance with a peculiar mood. Though heavily downbeat, the film nevertheless has considerable strength as a romance. While Macy and Ms. Bello, on the surface, may seem to have little by which to connect, they develop tremendous screen chemistry, and it’s actually nice to watch the relationship between the characters grow before our eyes. Actually Ms. Bello’s performance really isn’t all that good (isn’t bad, either), but like a lot of elements in this film, her performance is well-used by director Wayne Kramer, a little-known South African-born director. This film could have died early in the story because Bernie is almost too pitiful to bare and the film’s best love scene happens quite early in the film, but Kramer deftly drives the dramatic narrative.
The Cooler is cleverly paced, and the film has some of the best shot composition I’ve seen in awhile. In fact, the rich color photography by Jim Whitaker and the film editing by Arthur Coburn really looks like classic black and white film noir, not to mention Mark Isham’s fabulous noir-ish jazz score. Somewhat underrated and largely ignored at the box office, The Cooler is an odd kind of romance that should have special appeal to those who like to see the homely guy get the girl, and with fine performances by Macy and Baldwin (a really good actor), this film is worth it.
8 of 10
A
NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nominations: “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” (Alec Baldwin)
2004 Golden Globes: 2 nominations: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Alec Baldwin) and “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Maria Bello)
-----------------------------
Friday, March 11, 2011
Review: Oscar-Nominated Doc "Restrepo" is a Real War Story
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 22 (of 2010) by Leroy Douresseaux
Restrepo (2010)
Running time: 93 minutes (1 hour, 33 minutes)
MPAA – R for language throughout including some descriptions of violence
DIRECTORS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
CINEMATOGRAPHERS/PRODUCERS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
EDITOR: Michael Levine
Academy Award nominee
DOCUMENTARY – War
Starring: Dan Kearney, LaMonta Caldwell, Sterling Jones, Kevin Rice, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, and the Men of Battle Company 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team
Restrepo is an Oscar-nominated documentary from Sebastian Junger, the author of The Perfect Storm, and photographer Tim Hetherington. Hetherington and Junger spent a year embedded with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan during their 15-month deployment.
Most of that time, they were hunkered down in the Korengal Valley in an outpost (OP) named OP Restrepo, which the soldiers named after their fallen comrade, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, a platoon medic killed earlier in the deployment. The filmmakers document the platoon’s brotherhood, hard work, fear, boredom, and joy.
Riveting, compelling, and harrowing, and even poignant, scary, and gut-wrenching in places, Restrepo is a pure documentary. By that, I mean the filmmakers, Hetherington and Junger, document their subjects without commentary and with only the camera as an indication that they are even present. Any opinions and feelings the viewer has are mostly the result of their on interpretations of what they see. They recorded; you decide.
Still, as good as this film is, Restrepo feels like it is missing something, and I still can’t figure out what it is I think is missing. Still, every American should watch at least a quarter of the film. That’s a little over 23 minutes. You can spare the time.
8 of 10
A
NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger)
Restrepo (2010)
Running time: 93 minutes (1 hour, 33 minutes)
MPAA – R for language throughout including some descriptions of violence
DIRECTORS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
CINEMATOGRAPHERS/PRODUCERS: Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger
EDITOR: Michael Levine
Academy Award nominee
DOCUMENTARY – War
Starring: Dan Kearney, LaMonta Caldwell, Sterling Jones, Kevin Rice, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, and the Men of Battle Company 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team
Restrepo is an Oscar-nominated documentary from Sebastian Junger, the author of The Perfect Storm, and photographer Tim Hetherington. Hetherington and Junger spent a year embedded with the Second Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Afghanistan during their 15-month deployment.
Most of that time, they were hunkered down in the Korengal Valley in an outpost (OP) named OP Restrepo, which the soldiers named after their fallen comrade, Juan “Doc” Restrepo, a platoon medic killed earlier in the deployment. The filmmakers document the platoon’s brotherhood, hard work, fear, boredom, and joy.
Riveting, compelling, and harrowing, and even poignant, scary, and gut-wrenching in places, Restrepo is a pure documentary. By that, I mean the filmmakers, Hetherington and Junger, document their subjects without commentary and with only the camera as an indication that they are even present. Any opinions and feelings the viewer has are mostly the result of their on interpretations of what they see. They recorded; you decide.
Still, as good as this film is, Restrepo feels like it is missing something, and I still can’t figure out what it is I think is missing. Still, every American should watch at least a quarter of the film. That’s a little over 23 minutes. You can spare the time.
8 of 10
A
NOTES:
2011 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger)
-----------------------------
Review: Documentary Film, "Why We Fight," Answers the Question
TRASH IN MY EYE No. 177 (of 2006) by Leroy Douresseaux
Why We Fight (2005)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: USA/France/UK/Canada/Denmark
Running time: 98 minutes (1 hour, 38 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for disturbing war images and brief language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Eugene Jarecki
PRODUCERS: Susannah Shipman and Eugene Jarecki
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Sam Cullman, Joe Di Gennaro, Christopher Li, Etienne Sauret (director of photography), May Ying Welsh, Brett Wiley, and Foster Wiley
EDITOR: Nancy Kennedy
DOCUMENTARY – History
Starring: Joseph Cirincione, Gwynne Dyer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (archival), John S.D. Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower, Chalmers Johnson, Donna Ellington, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Wilton Sekser, Franklin Spinney, William Kristol, Sen. John McCain, Richard Perle, Dan Rather, Wally Saeger, and Gore Vidal
It begins with President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, then, the documentary that was a hit at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, Why We Fight, begins its examination of the American military machine – the military industrial complex and asks the question "Why does American wage war?"
Along the way, this documentary becomes an unflinching look at the rise of the American Empire. Much of it filmed during the war in Iraq, Why We Fight also surveys and dissects a half-century of American military adventures. Using archival footage and interviews with peace activists, scholars, soldiers, government officials, journalists, and even a grieving father, Why We Fight scrutinizes and analyzes the political interests (Congress and the Presidency), economic interests (manufacturers of military vehicles, armament, equipment, etc.), and ideological factors (think tanks) that are behind American militarism – the relatively small group of people that really control a government that is supposedly of, by, and for the people.
Directed by Edward Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger), Why We Fight is both sober and compelling. It’s sober because it reveals that much of our military actions and campaigns going back to the atomic bombing of Japan were as much about the U.S. flexing its muscles and establishing itself as the dominate nation on earth as they were about self-defense. In some cases, it was more about imperialism than it was about defending the nation from enemies, as Jarecki’s film claims. Why We Fight is compelling because the interview subjects come from a broad spectrum of people who have worked in the upper echelons of the Department of Defense or are actively involved in covering the government as scholars or journalists. There’s even a former CIA operative.
When trying to answer the question of “Why do we fight?” much of the discussion uses the war in Iraq – from the build up to the beginning of the invasion of the country – as the frame of reference. At times, Why We Fight comes across as another one-sided documentary/screed against the war in Iraq. However, it has the grace to present the interviews, film footage (archival and recent), and history in a manner that allows the viewer to think for himself. There are a lot of people in this film, and they have a lot to say. There’s enough information from which the viewer can draw his own conclusions.
Sometimes, even good documentaries are compelling, but they’re like fast food. They are as forgettable as many regular non-documentary films. Why We Fight, however, seeks to educate and inform, and it wants to stay with you. Why We Fight has the audacity to feel that it is important and actually attempt to be an important movie. Jarecki offers us the opportunity to take him at his word, or simply watch, listen, and think. His own mind seems made up, but he presents things in a fashion that isn’t necessarily didactic. Just the facts, Jarecki tells us. This is how it is, but in the end, he doesn’t offer a pat conclusion. Why We Fight simply fades away with words of warning – a little something to take root in your mind.
8 of 10
A
Monday, August 14, 2006
Why We Fight (2005)
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: USA/France/UK/Canada/Denmark
Running time: 98 minutes (1 hour, 38 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for disturbing war images and brief language
WRITER/DIRECTOR: Eugene Jarecki
PRODUCERS: Susannah Shipman and Eugene Jarecki
CINEMATOGRAPHERS: Sam Cullman, Joe Di Gennaro, Christopher Li, Etienne Sauret (director of photography), May Ying Welsh, Brett Wiley, and Foster Wiley
EDITOR: Nancy Kennedy
DOCUMENTARY – History
Starring: Joseph Cirincione, Gwynne Dyer, Dwight D. Eisenhower (archival), John S.D. Eisenhower, Susan Eisenhower, Chalmers Johnson, Donna Ellington, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Wilton Sekser, Franklin Spinney, William Kristol, Sen. John McCain, Richard Perle, Dan Rather, Wally Saeger, and Gore Vidal
It begins with President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, then, the documentary that was a hit at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival, Why We Fight, begins its examination of the American military machine – the military industrial complex and asks the question "Why does American wage war?"
Along the way, this documentary becomes an unflinching look at the rise of the American Empire. Much of it filmed during the war in Iraq, Why We Fight also surveys and dissects a half-century of American military adventures. Using archival footage and interviews with peace activists, scholars, soldiers, government officials, journalists, and even a grieving father, Why We Fight scrutinizes and analyzes the political interests (Congress and the Presidency), economic interests (manufacturers of military vehicles, armament, equipment, etc.), and ideological factors (think tanks) that are behind American militarism – the relatively small group of people that really control a government that is supposedly of, by, and for the people.
Directed by Edward Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger), Why We Fight is both sober and compelling. It’s sober because it reveals that much of our military actions and campaigns going back to the atomic bombing of Japan were as much about the U.S. flexing its muscles and establishing itself as the dominate nation on earth as they were about self-defense. In some cases, it was more about imperialism than it was about defending the nation from enemies, as Jarecki’s film claims. Why We Fight is compelling because the interview subjects come from a broad spectrum of people who have worked in the upper echelons of the Department of Defense or are actively involved in covering the government as scholars or journalists. There’s even a former CIA operative.
When trying to answer the question of “Why do we fight?” much of the discussion uses the war in Iraq – from the build up to the beginning of the invasion of the country – as the frame of reference. At times, Why We Fight comes across as another one-sided documentary/screed against the war in Iraq. However, it has the grace to present the interviews, film footage (archival and recent), and history in a manner that allows the viewer to think for himself. There are a lot of people in this film, and they have a lot to say. There’s enough information from which the viewer can draw his own conclusions.
Sometimes, even good documentaries are compelling, but they’re like fast food. They are as forgettable as many regular non-documentary films. Why We Fight, however, seeks to educate and inform, and it wants to stay with you. Why We Fight has the audacity to feel that it is important and actually attempt to be an important movie. Jarecki offers us the opportunity to take him at his word, or simply watch, listen, and think. His own mind seems made up, but he presents things in a fashion that isn’t necessarily didactic. Just the facts, Jarecki tells us. This is how it is, but in the end, he doesn’t offer a pat conclusion. Why We Fight simply fades away with words of warning – a little something to take root in your mind.
8 of 10
A
Monday, August 14, 2006
-----------------------------
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)