#45 Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow. Written by Mark Boal.

SPOILER ALERT!!! We get Osama. (Or "UBL" as they like to refer to him in the movie.) I know I for one was sitting on the edge of my chair wondering. But yes, we do get him.

This movie was intense and forced you to pay attention almost to an extent that was tiring. However, it wasn't as smart of a movie as I had hoped. I very much dislike when "intelligence"-themed movies try to seem like they are smart by primarily making all the interactions slightly confusing. This movie was filled with a lot of jargon and incomplete conversations. I don't know if that sort of storyline makes other viewers think that they are using their brain a lot to follow the movie. For me, I really enjoy an "intelligence" movie when there is some actual intelligence involved in making the connections to either figure out whodunnit or find the bad guys. You know, where there's an actual point in the movie like a revelation, like, "wow, that took some smart thinking to figure that one out." Or, I don't know, at least used some sort of cool technology to outsmart the bad guys. There wasn't any moment like that in this movie. In fact, in many scenes I came away thinking how stupid the CIA was and how in reality they wouldn't have fucked it up like that at all. Namely, the upper al-Queda member who has been turned by Jessica, a CIA agent and best friend of Maya the main character, who the guards hesitatingly let through the checkpoints into the CIA black site simply because Jessica tells them to because now he's on their side. I think you can predict fairly well what happens at the end of this scene. Talk about a tense moment. Except for the fact that you could foresee it happening long before it does, and there are about a million "they would never have done that" moments involved. Anyway, as I was touching on before, there isn't really a very good connect-the-dots storyline of how they eventually get to UBL. They kinda just decide to try to find someone that no one wants to talk about regardless of how much they torture them and because he's acting kinda funny, like doing everything possible to not be tracked (a sure sign he's an important bad guy), and then the first moment they do find him, he just leads them right up to the compound by..... driving to it.

A lot of reviewers have commented about the use of torture in this movie and the movie-makers' stance on whether it was allowable or some say made even to look justifiable because it lead to finding Osama. I didn't much care for that aspect of the movie. Torture was bad. Osama was bad. I don't feel really strongly one way or the other about the fact that we got him. I'm really not a big "Yeah us!" proponent, so I didn't do any summersaults or anything when I heard that they killed him. I believe much more strongly that the anti-American sentiment throughout much of the rest of the world doesn't stem from terrorists and their inherent evilness as much as from our own foreign policy and the fact that corporate profits far and above anything else dictate national policy when it comes to oil-producing regions and the impoverished people that live there. But, the best review I came across of this movie was from an old classic movie reviewer, Roger Ebert (and he really went against the grain of what most other reviewers have been saying):

"The film's opening scenes are not great filmmaking. They're heavy on jargon and impenetrable calculation, murky and heavy on theory." He went on, "My guess is that much of the fascination with this film is inspired by the unveiling of facts, unclearly seen. There isn't a whole lot of plot – basically, just that Maya thinks she is right, and she is."

He gives it three stars out of four. And I give it 4 stars out of five.

#24 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 6: Victory and Defeat (1983)

The termination of the war. The collapse of the Popular Front follows a sad but inevitable trajectory. Once the Nationalists were able to reach the east coast and split the Republican army in two, there remained few positive results left for the revolutionaries. As with all wars in the twentieth century, the final months of the war were filled with their fair share of atrocities committed by the victors while refugees attempted to escape and continue surviving in the midst of devastating poverty and the loss of their homes and homeland. The ones who were able to cross the Pyrenees and make it into France had only refugee camps awaiting them—little different from the concentration camps that were the destination of those deemed "enemies of the state" who were rounded up in Spain. A main difference, I guess, was in the camps in Spain there were still thousands of political executions waiting to happen throughout the next several years. Referred to as the "White Terror," these actions by Franco's Nationalists when added to the extrajudicial killings during the war would result in an estimated 200,000 of their fellow countrymen murdered for their beliefs. 

Such a sad chapter in history that is not so far removed from modern times. This series of documentaries does an incredible job of preserving the accounts of real-life witnesses who experienced the stories being recounted for posterity.

#23 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 5: Inside the Revolution (1983)

This episode, in contrast, explains the much more complex nature of the Republican side of the war. The different political parties that fought for their own beliefs and how conflicts arose between the neighboring factions and what that led to. There were such marked differences in political and social thought. The Popular Front was made up of anarchists, progressives, communists, syndicalists, agrarian-revolutionaries, socialists and members of the International Brigades. Unfortunately, the organization of such an agglomeration of entities was exceedingly difficult and resulted in inherent differences even up to the point of armed violence between the separate factions all belonging to the same Popular Front aligned against the fascist Nationalists. These stories comprise a sad but truly fascinating chapter in the history of Western Europe in the twentieth century. Fundamental to this unfolding experiment in social upheaval are terms such as: Revolution, Organization, Syndicalism, Collectivization, Cooperation, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchy, Fraternization with the enemy, Traitor, and unfortunately: Stalin and Trotskyist. It's unbelievably enticing to start asking "what if...?" Had the Soviet Revolution and the resulting Stalinist dictatorship not occurred, could the Popular Front have defeated Franco? Would the concepts of Socialist Revolution that were so fundamental in motivating the people have been understood or believed in without the Soviet example? Could Socialism without authoritarian dictatorship actually have succeeded in western civilization? The truth of the matter is that Stalin was more concerned with not coming into direct conflict with Hitler yet (another participant in the "politics of appeasement"), that his decisions in 37 and 38 regarding the Spanish Civil war basically decided the fate of the entire Spanish Popular Front and the Second Spanish Republic.

In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity....

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

#22 The Spanish Civil War–Episode 4: Franco and the Nationalists (1983)

This episode focused on the nationalist side of the war. Who they were, what their beliefs were, and who their leader Francisco Franco was. 

After finishing my review of Episode 5, I realized that I had written so little for this review. The main idea that I contemplated during this episode that I would like to put down on paper is that the Nationalist side of the conflict was primarily based on three concepts: Traditionalism (societal stratification by classes, capitalism, domination of culture by the Catholic church, etc.), Patria (motherland), and Order. This final fundament of the fascist Nationalist cause was the primary difference between them and their opponents that allowed them to fight and win a military conflict. To form a functioning military, hierarchy, authority, obedience and subservience are fundamental. The anarchist revolutionaries on the opposing side with the support of individuality, free thinking, and state-opposition were the biggest deterrents to fighting a well organized military campaign. It is also why the dictator-authoritarian communist faction of the Popular Front were able to garner much of the power from their side, as they were much more suited for taking orders, carrying them out, and achieving military objectives. This together with the aide given by Stalin in the form of planes and munitions supplied with the objective of supporting the Soviet (Stalinist) version of Revolution. 

The story of the Nationalists and Franco is interesting but not nearly as fascinating as the Revolutionaries. Another interesting "what if...": if they had been able to defeat Franco and his form of fascism, how many years of upheaval would there have been in attempting to establish order following military victory? Would the libertarian-socialist principles of the Popular Front have been able to be converted into a successful peacetime government, and how would the hardships of coming out of a civil war have affected that? Would repression against Franquistas by the victors have been similar to what indeed was actually perpetrated by the fascists especially considering the policies of Stalin in the late 1930s. And most interestingly: what role would Spain have played in WWII?

#20 Rashomon (1950)

Akira Kurosawa.

This is truly a classic in the history of film. This was the first time I have seen it, as I hadn't ever really gotten into Kurosawa despite knowing a little about his work (primarily Seven Samurai) and hearing his name mentioned as one of the top directors of all time. 

Rashomon offers a great philosophical dilema. The movie begins with three men seeking shelter from the rain in a dilapidated building. The priest and woodcutter have just been witness to the trial of the notorious bandit Tajomaru and are retelling the tale. The story is quite simple. A samurai and his wife were traveling through the woods when confronted by Tajomaru. The woman is violated and her husband ends up dead. The dilema comes from the retelling of the story, as three different witnesses, the bandit, the wife and the dead husband (through a medium), all relay conflicting accounts of what occurred. Whose story is to be believed? How was the samurai killed? Why are there such drastic differences in the three versions of the same event? The final straw comes when the woodcutter reveals that he actually was present in the woods throughout the entire affair. When his account of the events offers a fourth version, we are struck with the complexity of what should be a simple straight-forward crime story. The earnestness of the woodcutter, along with the fact that the whole story of the trial is coming from him (with the priest as a corroborator), makes it difficult to question the validity of his account. However, when it is revealed that he hasn't been entirely truthful about every detail, a whole array of larger questions arise about perception, subjectivity, partiality, point-of-view and memory. I can clearly understand why this movie is considered a classic. And, I also wonder why today's movie-making industry doesn't generate many films that invoke mental contemplation from its viewers. Is film losing its place as an artform and becoming solely a commodity? 

#18 The Sessions (2012)

Not a bad movie. John Hawkes is definitely the best reason to see this movie. I went into it not knowing a thing about it and am glad that I didn't because if I had read anything about the story, I probably wouldn't have been interested. So, I'm not going to reveal much more.

Helen Hunt is OK, too. I think she got nominated for the Academy Awards. And as we thought back over her performance, she cries, she's got a pretty decent "looking like I'm gonna cry but not gonna cry" thing, and she gets naked, which as M correctly pointed out are 3 pretty good acting moves that are all highly regarded by the Academy. (In contrast to the fave of this years golden globes, Ben Affleck, who "is the worst actor ever! He's only got like two acting moves!")

#8 - Dangerous Moonlight (Suicide Squadron) (1941)

Directed by Brian Desmond Hurst. Starring Anton Walbrook and Sally Gray.

There are several things that occurred to me while watching this movie.

First, it isn't quite as good as the Hitchcock films I've seen this month in terms of writing. The storyline and many of the initial dialogues don't seem as witty. And the development of a romantic spark between the characters is too quick for the viewer to feel much empathy. This film did in the end win me over with it's wonderful argument presented in the second half of the film. Should the world-renown pianist possibly sacrifice himself and give up his ability to provide the world with his wonderful music in order to contribute to a greater cause by being only a contributing member of the war effort as an airman fighting against the evils ravaging Europe? It in some way offers a nice counter view to the movie from last night, Hannah Arendt, in that the cause of the greatest evil ever known is from the loss of the individual and thus the formation of totalitarianism (see blog post for more in depth comments). Whereas here, the question is raised, in order to defeat this evil is the abandonment of the individual also necessary? 

Second, I wasn't happy with how it ended. But, without trying to give too much away (at least no more than what is already revealed in the first scene of the movie), I have to believe that the ending comes from the fact that this movie was made in 1941, and the American public even without wanting to admit it knew that their fate was to join the war effort as well. With that in mind, I can't imagine any wartime movie made with a different ending and receive any public appreciation at the time. (This idea has also made me decide at some point to watch The Pianist by Polanski–a movie that I am yet to see, but which must have a great deal in common with this one, I think.) 

Third, the motivation for watching this movie came from the fact that we have been listening to the Warsaw Concerto by Richard Addinsell on our record player, and M has said how it is her favorite track. Upon looking it up, I came to realize it was written especially for this movie. So, we decided to get ahold of the movie and see if we liked it. The song is ubiquitous throughout, to the point where M was already annoyed with the music despite only sticking around (awake) for the first couple scenes. But, all-in-all, the song really is quite marvelous (embedded video below).

#7 - Hannah Arendt (2012)

By Margarethe von Trotta. Tour de force performance by lead actress Barbara Sukowa.

Incredible work!

A must.

We chose to see this one because it will be the opening night film in SIFF's Women in Cinema mini-festival. And indeed, Hannah Arendt is an incredible woman. 

Labeled a "self-hating Jew" by her contemporary "intellectuals", Ms. Arendt apparently initiated the necessary and wonderfully difficult debate over the Holocaust and the roots of the evil that caused it. The meat of the movie starts when Hannah, a well-respected German-Jewish emigrant philosopher, concentration-camp survivor, and author of "The Origins of Totalitarianism", is asked to report for the New Yorker on the trial of recently arrested Nazi chief Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Her highly controversial report correctly identifies the crime as too huge for any individual to be held responsible and Eichmann as simply too miniscule a cog in the totalitarian machine–a participant in the "final solution" without individuality in the least–even to the point of not being able to think. He, in fact, only acted according to the oath he had taken to always obey the fuhrer, and never acted of his own volition or even to think his own individual thoughts. He never killed anyone. All he did was load the victims onto the trains. What happened to them after that wasn't his responsibility, and therefore none of his concern. He was just a correctly functioning lever in a well-oiled machine.

The main contention her Israeli and American colleagues and friends had with her report stemmed from her delving deeper in her attempt at understanding the complexity of the phenomenon and her failing to admit the complete inculpability of the Jewish leaders. They too had fallen into a system in which their individuality had been taken from them. The victims, as the perpetrators, were unable to veer out of the confines of the machine of the totalitarian system. There was no freedom of choice, freedom to act, or freedom of thought. They only did what they were told. This system wasn't only in Germany. It pervaded all of Europe. Her detractors never forgave her for this betrayal. However, to her, these issues had to be brought up and examined. We all know what people who fail to understand history are destined for. Very much the intellectual, she adequately defended herself by explaining her position on Eichmann, "trying to understand him is not the same as forgiving him." If only more historians were like her...

Truly gut-wrenching, both sides of this argument are so terribly painful. As her close friend and strongest admirer admonishes her at the end with tears in his eyes, "you act like one of the superior Germans lecturing us inferior Jews! You forget that if you hadn't escaped the camp, they would have killed you too!"