Decalogue II & III: Show, Don't Tell

Okay, I’m beginning to see why everybody who has seen these films calls them brilliant. Really, the reason is quite simple: it’s because they are frickin’ brilliant. No doubt about it. They are really something special. Just to show all you high-budget punks out there – made-for-TV can be all up in that bizz, yo.

Two things that I find especially amazing about these particular films: the shots and the storytelling. Let me explain.

1. One of my favorite shots of all time is in the movie What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? Those of you who know the movie may remember the scene where he burns the house down. There is a shot as he strikes the match and you see the “Keep Away From Children” warning as the fire flares up – it’s properly scrumtrullescent.[1] Well, in The Decalogue, those kind of shots are almost common. From the I, there was the milk in the tea. In II, there are delicious shots of a cigarette box starting on fire, the water dripping from the ceiling, the wasp struggling in the tea. This last was especially poignant, a perfect representation of the feeling fairly common for humans in the universe. In III, there is that wonderful shot when Ewa leaves her mother’s house and we watch her leave from the window. Several overhead shots such as these give us a strange perspective of the events – one reviewer suggested this may be “God’s perspective.” In any case, this kind of choreography and direction give us a strange, life-like surreal quality to our viewing – it feels like we’re there, it feels like our own story is being told. The almost constant absence of music, the simple, long framing of shots, and the natural dialogue complete with awkward pauses and introspective silence all work towards a very “mundane” reality within the films.

2. In most creative writing classes and books, most likely the principle rule you will learn is “Show, Don’t Tell.” The idea is, don’t tells us, “He was mad.” Show us. Show us his shaking hands. Make us hear his tone of voice. Have him kick something. Anything other than tell us through simple exposition: He was mad. The Decalogue manifests this principle perhaps better than any film I’ve ever seen.[2] There is almost no exposition at all. No conversations happen that explicitly relate to us the plot, tell us what is going on in explicit terms, even tell us what the characters are thinking and feeling. We are shown the story by a woman ripping the leaves off of a plant, a man toppling the donation candles before an altar, a woman standing at a window smoking a cigarette. The film forces you to interact with it, to experience it along with the characters.

Decalogue II tells the story of a woman whose husband is sick, perhaps dying. She tries to get the doctor that is caring for him, who lives in the same building as her (remember that all the stories take place within this one building), to give her a prognosis: will he die or not? The doctor refuses to give a diagnosis. She pushes him, explaining that she is pregnant – but with another man’s child;[3] if he lives, she will get an abortion, if he dies, she will keep the child. Still, the doctor will not give prognosis. “I have seen patients that should have died and pulled through, and patients that should’ve been fine, but died inexplicably.” Eventually the doctor does give in, and his “prognosis” serves to illustrate the commandment “Thou shall not take my name in vain:” No one but God decides who lives and dies. That is the realm of his authority alone.

Decalogue III is probably, thus far, the most abstract examination of a commandment. An exposition of the Sabbath, we have a man who is drawn away from his family on Christmas Eve by a former lover in the midst of crisis. They spend the night together, and we unravel their complex history as well as the deep layers of interaction between them as the night progresses. The main idea seems to be the principle of family within the Sabbath command. It is an examination of fidelity and regret.

I am excited to see the rest. Every 50 minutes feels like a lifetime. They are not exactly fun to watch. But they are encompassing. They are engaging yet “normal” stories that never fail to leave you wondering, and identifying with all the characters portrayed. There are no black and white people – each story is told from all perspectives, so that while some characters are better than others, we find it hard to judge any of them, because they are people. The Decalogue is a meaningful, purposeful look at life, and thus, as we watch, we find that, in some strange way, we are looking at ourselves.

5/5 (for both)

---

[1] Those of you who have not seen the movie, stop everything you are doing right now, give yourself a swirly, then acquire and watch the movie with all the quickness that you can possible muster. This is life or death.

[2] Other films that do this really well off the top of my head: Punch-Drunk Love, Darjeeling Limited (really, any Wes Andersen film), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Yojimbo (and it’s Western interpretation, Fistful of Dollars), and National Treasure. This last one is a complete joke, as National Treasure actually serves as a prime example of how to rely completely on exposition for moving the plot forward.

[3] This (adultery) has been a theme in two of the films thus far, and we have not even gotten to the commandment on adultery.

Trailer Alert!

I don't think I'll get into the habit of this, but I did think that this was a cool trailer.

http://www.moviefone.com/movie/harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince/27063/main

Love the bit of dialogue at the end.

Random Movie Question Offered Purely to Instigate Discussion

Okay, it doesn't make a great acronym. I'm working on that.

From time to time I'd like to ask some random questions -- I find it helps my "movie memory." Plus, movie arguments are fun.

So, in honor of the upcoming Kevin Costner blockbuster (or merely "bust") Swing Vote, here's this week's question:

Who is your favorite movie president?

Off the top of my head:
Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove "You can't fight in here. This is the War Room."
Michael Douglas in The American President (despite the pretentious title)
Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact (underrated movie)
And, of course, Harrison Ford in Air Force One, where he shot more people than Dick Cheney.

Anyone who nominates Bill Pulman from Independence Day will be mocked and banned.

My New Favorite Movie of the Year -- And It Ain't Close

You can certainly forgive a little bit of hyperbole in a headline, can't you?.

My brother texted me over the weekend -- promising that I would have a new top ten favorite soon. Well, I might. I need to see it 10-12 more times -- but it's on track.

It wasn't The Dark Knight. If you skip down and read my review, I liked it a great deal -- but found a central conflict in the last 30 minutes to be rushed and inconsistent in the world Nolan had created. It's a good film -- perhaps the best comic book movie of all time (though I'm crossing my fingers on Watchmen).

Nope, it's the movie I saw yesterday afternoon, perhaps one of the most strangly beautiful movies I've ever seen. EVER SEEN!!!! (Sorry, the hyperbole keeping coming back).

Frankly, what Pixar has done in WALL-E is create a mostly silent film in the grand tradition of Chaplin -- the Outsider who falls in love and who finds his complete-ness in his Other set in a dystopic future that Aldous Huxley would love, with the beauty and majesty of some of the best shots in 2001: A Space Odyssey (there's a pretty clear reference point in one of the key music cues). That's pretty stinking impressive. And, on top of all that -- it has heart! I haven't loved a bizarre looking creature with an acronym for a name like WALL-E since E.T. That's the short list (okay, okay R2-D2 also on the list -- but I still can't forgive Lucas for giving him the ability to fly).

WALL-E is a trash compactor. That's what he does. But he has a very special trait-- his work inspires him. He stacks his little cubes into spires that would have impressed the ancient Egyptians. And throughout his day he saves the little trinkets he finds along the way ("one man's trash. . ." if you will) to take back to his treasure trove. Oh, and he loves musicals. He's pretty complicated for an automated creature with limited vocabulary.

But he knows that he's alone. Other than a cockroach companion with the resilience of the Terminator, his world is empty. Humanity abandoned it 700 years ago on a spaceship that's a cross between The Love Boat (complete with a Lido deck), a Wal*Mart Supercenter, and Discovery One from 2001 (with its own version of HAL 9000).

That's when EVE comes into the picture. EVE is like most women: beautiful, complicated, does a great cold shoulder, has the ability to say her Other's name with a wonderful variety of tone -- from warm to enraged, and has a death ray. She is boundless whereas he is limited. She is focused on the mission whereas he is focused on her, and doesn't mind tracking dirt all over the nice clean spaceship to get to her. She can give life (in her own way -- the "womb" motif is pretty overt), whereas all he does is clean up someone else's trash. They're perfect for each other.

Big time credit goes to the animators to depict a beautiful silent love story as this. WALL-E's furtive Woody Allen-esque sighs and glances combine EVE's warmth coming through the LED's of her cold exterior to tell a story where dialogue is just unnecessary. It would just clutter up the space. At one moment, they enjoy a gravity-free dance with a fire extinguisher worthy of Fred and Ginger.

Their warmth, beauty, and (all right, I'll just say it) love is set against the backdrop of humanity that needs reminded of Dean Wormer classic piece of advice, that "fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life." They exist in a cultural coma, trapped by the "tyranny of the present" (Cicero), lacking an alternative vision, goal, telos. If anyone needed eschatology -- it's these people. Bizarre, then, that it's the love of two robots together with their band of misfit toys (any movie that references City Lights, 2001, and Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer has to be brilliant, right?) that brings awakening and new life.

WALL-E is a movie filled with awe and wonder. I'm sorry that I couldn't keep my inner fan-boy down in this review. There might be flaws to the picture, but I couldn't see them (and I hope I never do). I was sad to read on some internet film bulletin boards that I respect that some really resented the political stance of the movie (there is a bit of a poke at W at one point). That's too bad. They need to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death and A.J. Conyers The Eclipse of Heaven to find the heart of the film. WALL-E and EVE don't give humanity back heaven, but it reintroduces them to the connection between love and life (complete with a cross-moment). It's the best exposition of 1 John I've seen in a long while.

Bandits: German Rockers Girls

Four young German girls on the run from the law who spend their time blasting out American rock songs – what could be better than that? Wait, don’t answer that. But if your answer is “nothing,” or even “not much,” or maybe even, “I don’t know,” then Bandits is the movie for you. And maybe some others.

It’s foreign film, so if you hate subtitles, beware. But then again, if you hate subtitles, you should probably be reading somebody else’s blog, for in the true pretentious form of a genuine film snob, I must scoff at such apathetic sensibilities. But if you can get past the foreignness, then Bandits is really a fun film.

The story centers, as I have mentioned, on four German girls who meet in prison and start a band. They escape, but before they do, one of them sent off a demo tape of their performance. As the news of their prison break becomes widespread, the record producer guy who originally threw away their demo digs it back up, and quickly after that, the young band of girls (the name of their band, by the way, is “Bandits;” hence the title, right?) become quite popular indeed. The remainder of the film is them dealing with their newfound fame while trying to avoid the police (which ends up feeling like old Beatles films like Help!, where they constantly are on the run in disguise from throngs of fans) and dealing with their own inner turmoil.

The movie is interspersed with artistic (but slightly unrealistic) stylized scenes that are for the most part very fun to watch. Also, at several points, we have music videos of a sort as the band performs their various songs. The psychology of the movie is fairly trite, but believable. The acting is average. But the quality of film lies in the sheer fun of it. It has its serious moments, of course. The theme of death is revisited several times. “We live amidst death all of our lives, until the moment we die,” one of the gals says. When tragedy strikes, the line is repeated. But overall, it is a film about four quirky girls who, in an act of desperation, leave behind the troubles of their previous lives and live a dream, if only for a short time.

If you’re into obscure, foreign films, I would recommend it, if you could find it. It’s fun, it’s got very humorous scenes, and the soundtrack is really good. It is a entertaining watch, and has a certain charm. Plus, it’s German. I mean, Germans are cool.

3.8/5

Doug's review of The Dark Knight -- less effusive, less pretty pictures, more spoilers

SPOILERS ABOUND in this review -- hey, you don't have to read it!



(Space for those who want to skip down)



For those of you who only read reviews for the final "tally," (so boring!) I find that I can't give it one overarching score. To me, the movie felt like 2 episodes in a miniseries. The first episode was terrific -- it made sense in the world it had created (more on that later). The second episode (begun with Joker's escape in the police car) I thought became inconsistent in the established world -- actually, felt more in line with the world of Batman Begins.

So here's my score: Episode one 4.75 pencils out of 5 (he, he). Episode two 3.5 double-headed coins out of 5.

Okay, with that whole scoring business over -- allow me to elaborate.

The real strength of the movie is that it takes place in the real world, much more than BB. One reviewer said that it felt like Batman was dropped into The Departed, and that makes a great deal of sense. Alex compares the movie to Heat, and that is an apt comparison. Nolan's choice of making the story about organized crime (rather than most supervillain's fixation on world domination -- whatever that is) lends credibility to the story, and the movie is better for it. Gotham looks like Chicago (where they shot much of the film) -- we're getting further away from the Tim Burton Gothic style (BB took baby steps in that direction, much more in this film). The Narrows are gone. No mention of Wayne Tower being the center of the city. Even Wayne Manor (and Bat Cave) are out of the picture for the time being. Even the Scarecrow is, in tone, a different character than in the first picture.

The movie is darker, and yet there are many more scenes in broad daylight (this even becomes a point of dialogue in the first meetings of mob bosses). The bank heist, the funeral procession, and the hospital scene take place in broad daylight. Again, this gives more of a flavor of reality to the film.

It's amazing how the Joker fits seamlessly into the realistic fabric of the film. He doesn't really have a character arc -- he's more of a force of nature. I love how his origin story kept changing. We don't know where he comes from. He doesn't get a completely "satisfying" end. He is chaos personified, coming in from "nowhere," with no telos in sight except "watching the world burn." Ledger deserves all the credit he is getting for the role -- his motivation is completely consistent throughout the film, and his scenes with Bale's Batman are stunning (even while hanging upside down -- "I can't kill you because you're too much fun!"). They will be a lot of pressure on the Academy to recogize the role with a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Some have downplayed the arc of Batman in the film, but I disagree. I think Bale has been given plenty to work with here. At the beginning of the film, he's become an elitist, looking "down" on Gotham from his penthouse perch. He has nothing but disdain for his fellow vigilantes "not what I had in mind when I wanted to inspire people." His breakthrough with cellular technology is completely unethical (though pretty cool). But faced with the twin forces of chaos (Joker) and chance (Two-Face), it's his ethics (his "rules" that the Joker has so much disdain for), that bring him back to the hero Gotham needs him to be. He can't bring himself to "burn the forest" a la Alfred. He sacrifices much in the end, and I like the direction the character is going at the end of the film -- back into the shadows from which he came.

Okay, here's what I didn't like -- Harvey Dent's motivation. We see glimpses of the "gambler" mentality (the courtroom scene) prior to the disfiguring event, but he never left things to chance. He's in control the entire way -- the coin has two-heads. Gordon's fake death gave him an Ace in the hole. In addition, it was not chance that made Dent into Two-Face, it was the Joker's choice to deceive Batman. The transformation of Dent into a chance-driven maniac felt rushed, and therefore unsatisfactory. The theme of choice over chaos and chance ended with a pretty satisfactory conclusion (the twin ferries), but the hurried plot (can a 2 1/2 hour film be rushed?) led to Dent being a pretty inconsistent character. Why threaten Gordon's family? The movie became more cartoonish in motivation during the 2nd episode.

In addition, Nolan still struggles with shooting hand-to-hand combat (he needs to watch the Bourne Ultimatum again), and the whole threat that led to the ferry show-down felt underexplained (I stuggled to follow that part).

Is it the best superhero movie ever? Certainly it's the most realistically protrayed (outside of Two-Face). I would count the Star Wars franchise as technically superhero movies, so The Empire Strikes Back would be my choice as the best superhero movie ever (I'm sure Alex and others will disagree with my labelling -- but they're wrong -- and I'll defend that labelling in the comments section if need be). I came away impressed and excited for a third installment with Nolan, Bale, Oldman, Freeman, Caine and whoever they can get to play the Riddler as the master manipulator (the smartest guy in the room -- Daniel Day-Lewis, John Malkovich, Joaquin Phoenix, or Guy Pierce would be great, as would Ed Norton if he hadn't done the Hulk).

Conspiracy: Euphemism and Death

“It is important to know what words mean. But it is also important to remember that in a thousand years, no matter who holds the power, history will be written in those words.”

This is the summation of the policy held by the Nazis, as portrayed in Conspiracy, a film depicting the Wannsee Conference, considered one of the more important meetings during the years of WWII concerning the fate of the Jews. The line is spoken by Heydrich (played brilliantly by Kenneth Brannagh), who was one of the key architects of the Jewish exterminations deployed by the Nazi regime.

The 2001 film is based off the conference minutes recorded in Wannsee, a Berlin “suburb,” and the script is said to stick very closely to the timeframe and discussion of the conference. Having studied a little bit in this area of history, I could tell that were several accuracies in the general feel of the film. The interaction between the political and military leaders there was very true to the political climate within the Nazi regime. Hitler was known for pitting his underlings against each other to fight for his approval, and this is well depicted in the partisans politely employed ploys and deceptions. No one says what they mean, but everybody knows exactly what is being said. Also accurate was motivation for the chambers as caused by a drop in morale of the soldiers who would spend hours a day with their only task shooting Jews (including women and children). The feel of the film is very natural. The atmosphere is deftly and wonderfully portrayed.

There was a lot less discussion at the real conference. Most of the 85 minutes of the meeting was a speech by Heydrich. The meeting was not, as is sometimes supposed, to decide the fate of the Jews. That was for the most part already decided, and such a decision would never be made by a council as such at any rate – such a decision would belong to the Führer. The meeting was actually to consolidate the power of Heydrich, who had been put in charge of carrying out the “evacuation” of the Jews. The Nazi regime was notoriously very unorganized, and many different departments and leaders had jurisdiction in many overlapping areas. Heydrich’s intention in the meeting was to make clear his authority over all the members that had a “say” in the Jewish issue of Nazi Germany.

However, the film does not fail to portray this. After about thirty minutes of opinion, Heydrich’s right hand man Eichmann basically feeds the meeting’s attendants about the “successes” of the gas chambers, and the possibilities achievable (something like 61 million Jews a year, estimated). Sprinkled throughout the film is Heydrich’s meeting with several of the more influential members, where a discreet but clear purpose if made: “You have a choice,” Heydrich says over and over. Decide your allegiances. I’m in charge.

The entire film takes place at the Wannsee estate, mostly within the one conference room. Brannagh is absolutely brilliant as Heydrich, as I have already said. Heydrich was known for his charismatic personality, and Brannagh captures this wonderfully. Even his threats are polite, said in a gentle voice with a smile on his face. Stanley Tucci plays a very good, composed, reserved Eichmann, who because of his personal experience with the Jews (even to the extent of knowing the “Jewish language”) was considered one of the most important people for dealing with the Jews “practically.” Walter Stuckart was done wonderfully by Colin Firth, which is to be expected. There is no action, the entire film takes place in dialogue, and is sometimes confusing as you try to keep all the people straight, with all of their job descriptions and such. Although exposition occurs, it is kept to a minimum, and so while this makes much more work for the audience as they try to keep up with the intricacies of Nazi German political culture, it keeps the whole setting very natural and believable. The film works.

It is something of a study in rhetoric, language, philosophy and propaganda. No clear terminology is to be used – the Jews are to be “evacuated,” nothing more. Any mention of clear intentions is “stricken from the record.” At one point, one of the attendees says something to the effect of “why don’t we just call this ‘evacuation’ for what it is.” Tucci as natural and as discreet as can be turns to the transcriber and shakes his head – it is perfectly shot, well done indeed. The film is a parabolic study of the Nazi philosophy/politics. Nietzsche and Darwin are both mentioned, both times with dual connotations (their context and our context would provide the two-sides of the dual meaning).

“We will be moving Jews in days, not weeks,” Heydrich says after the meeting is over. “Start writing up your train schedules. Ah, Schubert Quintet in C major. The adagio will tear your heart out.” Like De Niro in The Untouchables, that amazing scene where Capone cries over Mozart’s Le Mariage de Figaro interspersed with shots of a murder that he commanded, here we have glimpse of someone – a person – who can be so moved by art and yet unaffected by the terrible things that he does. The whole meeting clearly portrays a group of men convinced, for whatever reasons, that they are superior to the Jews, that the Jews are a problem, a problem that needs a solution. Whenever we study the Holocaust, we always wonder how it could be possible, and yet the dark feeling inside remains, wondering if we would have been capable or even disposed to do the same if it had been us. Conspiracy is one more reminder of the double-edged question, and like most portrayals of the Holocaust, provides no clear answers.

4/5