nan | 楠木

An Education is a delightful little film with a big coming-of-age story to tell, and well worthy of its Best Picture nomination at the upcoming Academy Awards. Set in England in the early 60s, the film narrates the the life-changing events of 16-year old Jenny (beautifully portrayed by young actress Carey Mulligan, who in more than one scene evokes images of Audrey Hepburn).

The story revolves around two themes. The first is a predictable yet still heart-wrenching tale of a young girl falling for an affluent and cultured older man (Peter Sarsgaard in a perfect role). As is always the case, the man – David – is not all he claims to be, but he gives Jenny enough excitement and surprises that she goes along for the ride anyway (and pays the price). The second theme is a subtle but thought-provoking discussion of women’s liberation. Jenny is a well-educated and extremely smart young girl, and part of the reason she falls for the thrills is that she doesn’t see a future for her life – what is the value of an Oxford education (her parents’ dream for her), if she would only end up being a house-wife or a “boring” profession such as a high school teacher? So when the sand castle of romance finally crumbles, the most valuable thing that Jenny has lost is not her chastity (another theme in the film) or her shot at Oxford, but her dream of escaping the “boring” and “dead” world. And while that is a particularly bleak moment in the film, Jenny ultimately comes to terms with her condition and rediscovers her meaning and purpose in life, ending the film on a positive note.

This is a blissful film to watch, effusive with the energy and innocence of youth. And like any good coming-of-age film, it strikes a chord emotionally with the audience through the process of innocence lost and wisdom gained. It reminds us of our own youthful days, the forgotten dreams, the could-have-beens and the disappointments that saw us mature. While its chances at winning Best Picture are slim – it doesn’t fit the typical profile of the winners historically – I’m really happy that it got the nomination. More people need to see this delightful gem of a picture.

9/10

I only recently started reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and Robert Kenner’s Food, Inc. is really the perfect companion film which touches upon and (perhaps) expands on the core themes of that book. This is a highly potent documentary – it is designed to stir emotions and thoughts – and it is not shy from advocating a specific agenda.

The basic premise of the narrative is thus – in the last 50 years, the rise of the fast food industry (and to a lesser extent, the massive retail chains) has led to a complete overhaul of food production. Practically everything we eat is now produced through a heavily consolidated and industrialized value chain; and virtually everything we buy in supermarkets can be traced back to one crop – corn. In this relentless drive for greater scale and lower costs, we have fundamentally altered the food we eat, and in the process created many new problems. For example, cattle traditionally eats grass, and when they are fed corn they develop digestive problems (as well as being a breeding ground for E. coli); in turn we pump them with anti-biotics, and all this is passed on eventually to the consumer, who bear the hidden costs with severe health issues and even sudden illness and death.

Furthermore, with massive consolidation in the industry, there is prevalent abuse of workers and farmers due to the mismatch in negotiating power. Agriculture heavy-weights such as Monsanto patent their seeds and actively sue farmers who keep seeds (and thereby infringe their patent); other companies abuse illegal immigrants by using them as cheap labor then allowing authorities to deport them.

The filmmakers contend that this is an industry that blatantly disregards consumers, workers, and its products. It’s an emotionally charged and visually shocking argument, with images of a lost infant (due to E. coli) and undercover footages inside hog slaughter houses. It is intentionally intimidating and leverages all the typical narrative tools available to documentaries.

On the whole, I really like this film. I think it makes a compelling argument. However, there are definitely issues large and small that beg further discussion (and I’d be very glad if this film stimulates debate on such an important topic). For example, one point the film advocates is to buy locally produced food, with the conventional wisdom that this is environmentally friendly. I’m not ashamed of myself being a “skeptical environmentalist”, so I’ll just go ahead point out that there are studies that show locally produced food may actually have a larger footprint (even this essay in support of local concedes this point).

A bigger point of debate is the issue of genetically modified food (GMOs). This used to be a favorite back in the day when I was a college debater, so I really can’t resist saying that the jury is still out, whether from a philosophical or practical point of view. Philosophically, you can argue that the only difference between artificial modification and natural evolution is the speed of which the change is achieved. Of course, with natural evolution the entire food chain has time to adjust to mutations; with artificial modification there could be severe unintended consequences, especially when the industry is so consolidated so a “revolutionary new product” can be rolled out in a matter of years and not centuries. Philosophically you can also argue that mankind has always been trying to change nature (indeed the whole history of mankind is such a tale), and modifying genes really isn’t that different from earlier agriculture techniques such as crossbreeding. Back in China, we’ve always celebrated Yuan Longping and his hybrid rice, which yields 30% higher than traditional seeds – which probably has done its part to alleviate food crises in China. Which brings us back to the original point – yes, it’s terrible that in the pursuit for higher yields at lower costs the food industry has created some serious issues; but this doesn’t mean that the pursuit for higher yields at lower costs itself is fundamentally wrong.

The issue is still one of regulation. it’s fine for the film to advocate organic foods etc., but for most people in the lower income class that will probably always be a luxury (unless of course you scale up organic food production, but that itself seems to be a vicious cycle – scaling it up will inevitably create the same problems we have today, i.e. lots of new production processes with unintended consequences and hidden costs). What we can and should advocate is effective regulatory response, so that consumers are protected.

8/10

John Lee Hancock’s The Blind Side is a mostly faithful adaptation of the book by Michael Lewis (one of my favorite authors). It tells the larger than life story of Michael Oher, a (super)naturally gifted athletic talent from the ghettos of Memphis, who was taken in by the affluent Tuohy family and given the chance to let his talent develop.

While Lewis’s book explores a range of topics (including racism, poverty and the college sports recruiting system, among others), the film mostly focuses on the human side of the story – the immense amount of love Oher received from his new family and the people around him. There are occasional (and successful) jabs at racism and other topics, but the film does not try to go into as much depth as the book. This is a necessary trade-off – there’s a lot of ground to cover in Michael’s story – but it also makes the film fall somewhat short. Most critically, the biggest moral of the book – how opportunity can change a person’s life forever, and therefore equal opportunity should be a founding principle of society – is portrayed but not effectively fleshed out, and arguably drowned in the feel-good mood of the film towards the finale. Michael’s success should be celebrated, no doubt; but there is much to ponder – how many other Michaels are not as lucky as he is, and end up living a life of poverty? And is there anything we could do about this?

8/10

It was 12:50am, December 19 in AMC Lincoln Square, New York, and the line waiting to see the 1:20am IMAX showing of Avatar had extended down from the 4th floor entrance to the ground floor. I was on the ground floor. Luckily after 30 minutes of slow crawl, I found myself in the center of the center row. It was the perfect spot – I put on the 3D glasses, and I was ready.

Avatar marks the end of a 12-year hiatus (in full-length feature films) for director James Cameron. His last work, Titanic, was only the top-grossing film ever (in unadjusted dollars), and earlier works in his resume include Terminator 1 & 2, True Lies, The Abyss and Aliens. Indeed, apart from his first engagement as a full-length feature film director (the ominously-titled Piranha 2 the Spawning), Mr. Cameron has not had a miss – well, maybe The Abyss was not so successful commercially, but it won an Oscar and was nominated for 3 others, and it’s always been a personal favorite. Avatar will probably not reach the heights of Titanic at the box-office, but it’s a strong contender for being the top blockbuster of 2009, and the best sci-fi that anyone has made in a long time.

Many people have raved about the technological advancements of Avatar – this film is certainly groundbreaking in that regard. Thematically, the film is heavily influenced by prior works, resulting in a plot that is quite mainstream Hollywood, but nonetheless it’s highly enjoyable due to its authenticity. Avatar can be seen as the mash-up of Dances with Wolves, Aliens and The Abyss (to name a few films) – the Na’Vi closely resembles American Indians (both aesthetically and thematically), and the human troops and the corporation are straight from Aliens (and did you notice parts of James Horner’s score that sound so familiar to the Aliens score? Perhaps that’s a homage). Mr. Cameron does do a great job of stitching these various elements together, so the end plot, while offering few things truly original, is cohesive and highly emotionally charged. And as one of my favorite film critics, James Berardinelli, commented, Mr. Cameron is truly a romantic at heart – not just in the sense of the love story that forms a central line of development in the plot, but also the bigger picture story of humans embracing extraterrestrial life. Avatar is a celebration of diversity and a call to arms against man’s greed, and this theme is beautifully delivered through the flawless narrative.

The characters: Mr. Cameron’s films have always had a strong boyish female character, be it Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in Aliens (probably the biggest female bad-ass of all-time), Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) in Terminator, the strongly independent “Mrs.” Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) in The Abyss, or even the adventure-seeking Mrs. Tasker (Jamie Lee Curtis) in True Lies. In Avatar, Neytiri (a completely motion captured Zoe Saldana) carries on this proud tradition – she is a match for any boy when it comes to fights - but perhaps conveying more of her feministic characteristics. She is not just the girl that our male lead, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), falls for, but also perhaps the dream girl for anyone in the audience, so there was definitely more Rose than Ripley in Neytiri being displayed. Another interesting female character is the stereotypical sci-fi chopper pilot Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez who looked incredibly hot), who is the quintessential tough-chick and again straight out of the Aliens playbook (remember Pvt. Vasquez?). In addition, surely Sigourney Weaver’s mere presence in this film is a homage to the Alien franchise.

But of course, when it comes to characters, Stephen Lang’s badass antagonist Colonel steals every scene he’s in. He is so stereotypical that it’s almost comical (you could almost expect the next line he’s going to deliver), but he’s authentic enough to command the audience’s respect.

Plot-wise, Avatar more or less follows the narrative arc of Dances with Wolves – there’s the setup and first encounter with the alien species, followed by extended periods of interaction, which eventually brings out the “turn” (being one of the aliens and “betraying” his own species), and leads to the climax and aftermath. The major difference between Avatar and Dances with Wolves is that in Avatar Jake Sully completes the transition and truly becomes one of the Na’Vi, whereas in Dances with Wolves the tone is decidedly less optimistic as Lt. Dunbar ultimately leaves the tribe. Critically speaking, I would say the ending in Avatar is decidedly cartoonish – surely it won’t be “happily ever after” for the Na’Vi and Pandora when there’s billions of dollars at stake.

In the end, Avatar is a masterpiece perhaps exactly because it borrows heavily from prior works and is at times cartoonish in its narrative – it’s the definitive Hollywood film, bold (technically), creative (artistically) and offering pure escapism entertainment via an intellectually smart and emotionally engaging (but not necessarily original) story, and it sets a new bar for big studio productions. This is the blockbuster that every big budget production should be but sadly isn’t. Mr. Cameron has once again put himself at the very top of Hollywood.

10/10

2012, Roland Emmerich’s latest sci-fi disaster film, is mostly rehashing what the director has done before, but at an even more ridiculous level. Once again, the world is nearing its end, this time due to chaotic changes in the sun, which has caused the Earth’s core to boil and is completely reforming the continents. The governments of the big powers have a plan (they have had a few years to prepare for it), which is to build modern day Arks to save the most privileged few (spots on the ships are limited, as you can imagine).

There’s a whole range of characters, from the scientists and the politicians who are running the show, to the average day joe (John Cusack) who is just trying to save his (divorced) family. It’s no easy task, of course, since entire cities and countries are being wiped out by catastrophic earthquakes and nature’s version of nuclear bombs. So there’s a lot of driving on crumbling lands and flying through collapsing skyscrapers, among other CG populated scenes.

For the most part, this is very standard Roland Emmerich material. This is pure entertainment for the senses, though he does try to throw in a few moral questions (the rich can afford to pay the 1Bn Euro price tag to get on the boat). There is nothing wrong with a film offering simple eye candy, but 2012 really has nothing new to say. And running at 158 minutes, it is way too long for a stereotypical genre film.

5/10

State of Play, which features quite an impressive cast and a plot that combines some of the most popular topics being debated, is for the most part an enjoyable conspiracy thriller. A surprise turn near the end makes the film fall into the sub-genre of “smart” thrillers, which is probably best represented by The Usual Suspects. However, in the case of this film, the surprise twist doesn’t add much to the plot and feels instead like a cop-out to quickly wrap up the film, which is frustrating for me.

The film stars Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams, with Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn and Jeff Daniels (to name a few) playing support. The plot follows a newspaper reporter, Cal McAffrey (Crowe), who is investigating the scandal surrounding his old friend and US congressman Stephen Collins (Affleck). The gist of the scandal is the death of Collins’ female aide, who was leading the probe on a private defense contractor PointCorp, and who is revealed to be in an affair with Collins. As McAffrey digs into the story, he realizes that PointCorp seems to be running a massive conspiracy, and he finds himself running against time and the threat of his own life to uncover the truth.

The plot is fairly generic conspiracy material, but the private defense contractor topic makes it interesting. In addition, a sub-plot is around the death of the newspaper industry, and how that’s affecting reporters – McAffrey’s boss Cameron (Mirren) is much more interested in selling more papers, regardless of the story, while McAffrey is still clinching to the ideals of journalism. Della Frye (McAdams), who becomes McAffrey’s sidekick, comes from the Internet side of the paper, and the clash between the two is also an interesting sub-topic.

In the end, this is quite a standard industry production, and there’s nothing particularly groundbreaking. It is good material for those who want a more complicated plot to thrillers, and the pace of the film is generally well constructed. Solid entertainment.

7/10

Inglorious Basterds is director Quentin Tarantino’s sixth full length feature film, and perhaps his most ambitious, since it is a period film which puts him out of his usual pop-culture infused comfort zone. But it would be wrong to take this as a serious World War II flick – it is anything but – and under the hood it’s really Tarantino at his usual form of entertainment: a lot of talking, but not about anything in particular. Or, in other words, the main point of this film is not its plot / message (or lack thereof), but Tarantino’s love of cinema and the art of film-making. The fact that the plot happens to be about such a controversial topic is actually rather trivial (at least in my opinion) – Tarantino is not here to outdo Schindler’s List, but just to make a bloody entertaining (literally) film where lots and lots of Nazis get slaughtered. If you can accept this, you will probably enjoy yourself.

As usual, the film contains many many references and homages to films, from the opening scene that was certainly inspired by Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns to the use of Ennio Morricone’s music (one piece I quickly recalled as from The Battle of Algiers, which I’ve recently seen). The opening is especially noteworthy as a classic scene of tension building. It reminded me of the introduction of Angel Eyes (the Bad) in Leone’s classic The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and was essentially a western scene set in France.

The film’s strength, as that of most Tarantino films, is memorable individual scenes filled with long dialogues. The opening scene was certainly one, where the main antagonist, the evil SS Colonel Hans Landa, establishes his on-screen menace by first drinking milk and then massacring Jews. Landa is played by Christoph Waltz, who audiences will probably remember for some time to come, the same way Javier Bardem established himself through Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. It’s a role of inexplicably twisted evil, and audiences always remember these characters.

Besides the opening, an extended scene set in a French bar with around a dozen characters (half a dozen good guys, half a dozen bad guys) was even more enjoyable. Indeed, this scene which happens around the midway point of the film was the film’s climax for me. The essential ingredients that made it work was a great ensemble cast, a rich and often funny dialogue, surprise developments, and an abrupt and violent showdown.

Afterwards, however, the film was all downhill for me. I didn’t enjoy Brad Pitt’s character (as the lead protagonist, he was nowhere as interesting as Landa), and some of the plot developments in the end were too over-the-top for me. So by the end, I felt that Tarantino had created a film with interesting individual moments and characters, but which tied together was less than the sum of its parts. Sadly to say, this is not Pulp Fiction.

7/10

District 9, which heavily employed viral marketing prior to its release, is a surprisingly satisfying sci-fi action film. The film’s brilliance is in its novel plot, which makes many not-so-subtle references to our real society and is therefore a great work of satire.

The basics of the plot is thus: 20 years ago, an alien space ship came down to Earth, and stopped hovering above Johannesburg, South Africa. When Earth scientists penetrated the space ship, they found a species of aliens starving onboard. (The aliens are hideous creatures that look crustacean.) These aliens were brought to the ground, and given food and shelter. They were placed in District 9, a designated part of the city. As the years went past and it became evident these aliens are here to stay, they became more and more of a nuisance to their hosts (and got the derisive nickname “prawns”). Fast forward to the present day, District 9 is a slum, with various factions holding interests. There is MNU (Multi-National United), the private corporation in charge of District 9. And there are the Nigerians, who operate shady rackets that exploit the aliens’ bizarre appetite for cat-food to stock up on alien weaponry.

MNU is about to carry out a mass eviction and relocation of the tenants of the district. The film’s central character, Wikus van de Merwe, is a paper-pusher who has been selected by his father-in-law to run the eviction project. Wikus comes across as a despicable person at first – shallow, selfish, cowardly – but after a freakish accident during the eviction, he starts a mutational transformation towards a “prawn”. This makes him ironically very valuable, as the much-coveted alien weaponry can only be operated by the aliens, and MNU has been conducting secret tests on aliens without success. As he frantically tries to get his body back to normal (and therefore get his life back), Wikus forms a strange alliance with an alien which he calls Christopher Johnson. Christopher is trying to restart the alien ship – and the two work together against the MNU mercenaries, which sets up the film for some very explosive action towards the end of the film (and yes, there is a kick-ass robot involved).

There are a number of interesting points regarding the film’s premise. The most central point is how the aliens are portrayed as the film elapsed. At first, the aliens are shown to be just mindless, crude and potentially violent, just as their appearances suggest. Then as the plot develops and Christopher is featured, and the cruelties of the humans are shown in great detail, we start to identify with the aliens and their perspective. Towards the end, we are fully rooting for the aliens and cheering whenever Wikus turns another human trash into ketchup (and there’s quite a lot of ketchup in this film) with his advanced weaponry. Simply put, we experience Wikus’ transformation, and while we may reject the notion of becoming ugly aliens, by the end of the film we do see mankind from a different perspective – and discover the irony that we are not any better, or perhaps even worse, than these creatures whom we loath so much.

Most critics have pointed out the film’s obvious references to apartheid in South Africa. (See Roger Ebert’s review for a pretty informational summary). This gives the film a poignant edge, and gives the audience some food for thought after all the CG eye candy has resided. District 9 is certainly one of the best sci-fis in recent years, and is immensely enjoyable.

P.S. This was the first film I saw in a US cinema. Not a bad first choice!

9/10

The Battle of Algiers is a two-hour long reconstruction of the Algerian War for independence in the ’50s and early ’60s. Italian director Gillo Pontecorvo takes a very even-handed approach, showing the brutal tactics employed by both the French army and the Algerian resistance. The now legendary Ennio Morricone is the man behind the tense score. The end-result is a film that is chilling yet fascinating to watch.

While this is largely a film that focuses on the general public as opposed to individuals, there are a few characters that drive the plot loosely forward. On the Algerian side, a few leaders of the FLN (National Liberation Front) are portrayed. For the French, a fictional Colonel Mathieu leads the effort to crack down on the insurgency. These characters, though, are really just the backdrop for the realistic portrayal of guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics, torture and interrogation, as well as general brutality in a police state.

Cliched as it may now seem, the film highlights a key question in political philosophy – can the end justify the means? As in, is it moral for a people to adopt terrorism (bombings targeting civilians etc.) in its fight for a moral cause (independence)? And is it justifiable to conduct torture to stop terrorism (a question that certainly has high relevance today)?

Interestingly, another film that I watched last week, the brilliant biopic Gandhi, shows a contrasting path to achieve independence. While Mr. Gandhi’s methods and morals are highly commendable, it is certainly true that not all peoples can use peaceful non-cooperation to fight their oppressors. Gandhi’s success in India is deeply connected to the circumstances under which the struggle was fought – namely, the demise of the British Empire after the two world wars, changing global political climate, and the unique characteristics of British rule in India etc. And just to go off-topic a bit further, Gandhi’s methods were later shown to be not so successful when it came to the issue of Muslims and Hindus coexisting in India – that India was split into India and Pakistan is somewhat of a twisted ending to a glorious (and mostly peaceful) struggle for independence.

But back to the film under review. The film doesn’t answer these questions it poses – it is an observation, not a argument. The objective view taken is perhaps the most important attribute, since this allows viewers of different backgrounds to appreciate the film, instead of judging it as propaganda. Very watchable for anyone interested in political struggles.

8/10

Das Boot was the film that put Wolfgang Petersen’s name on the map, and is probably still the German director’s best work (which highlights how hard it is for foreign directors to be both commercially and critically successful in Hollywood – just compare John Woo’s body of works in HK and the US). Running at three-and-a-half-hours long, the Director’s Cut is a intense viewing experience which literally brings the audience underwater and into the greasy, smelly confinement of a German U-Boat in WWII.

Technically, the film is astounding to watch. It is easy to see how meticulously the sets were constructed – and very early on the moving camera work (which was a smaller scale version of a Steadicam, according to Wikipedia) beautifully establishes the space of the U-Boat in a long take.

The ensemble cast gave a magnificent performance. So much of the film’s tension in its action sequences hinged upon close-ups of the crew’s expressions, and the tension was real. It was as if you could breathe and smell the claustrophobic surroundings and the immense fear of the unknown – in this case, where the British destroyers lurked above and when will the depth charges descend. The germans’ only defensive strategy seemed to be “wait until they run out of depth charges”, so the fear was tremendous.

The film’s ending, which felt like a small twist but was also logical given the grand scheme of things, strengthens the core theme that war is ugly and there can be no victors. The last shot before the credits reminded me of the black and white era – I don’t exactly know why – and the sheer chaos and myriad emotions conveyed in that one scene is simply haunting.

8/10