Generation Kill (2008)

Proof that "Generation Kill", the miniseries produced by HBO films and written by David Simon and Ed Burns, their first project after the end of their television landmark "The Wire", a series which is completely incomparable in quality and scope to anything which has come before or since, is too intelligent to be concerned with simplistic political sloganeering, blind patriotism, or taking an anti-militaristic stance is the reaction which the political extremes have had to it. Any person with far right views I've spoken to or read on the internet has said similar things: this movie emasculates the marines and turns them into bleeding heart liberals (presumably because the film, and I will be referring to this as a film from this point onwards because it's definitely as much a film as "Berlin Alexanderplatz" is, has the guts to portray them as having compassion for wounded or killed civilians), and any person with far left views I've spoken to has apparently found the film to be immoral, presumably because it portrays men who spew violent, racist, homophobic, and misogynist invective as human beings.

In fact, "Generation Kill" is the farthest thing from either celebrating the military or being anti-militaristic. Like on "The Wire", David Simon and Ed Burns are on the side of the working class, as Kent Jones in Film Comment points out, and they have no interest in making a moral judgment on the nature of the work they're portraying, whether it's teaching, politics, drug dealing, or invading a country. Like Simon went beyond portraying drug dealers on "The Wire" to transporting us to their world and showing us their own problems, their own moral standards, their own worries and concerns, and introduced us to their own vernacular, he does the same with the marine corps in "Generation Kill". Like "The Wire", this is cunning and clever drama: it is political without taking sides, concerned with the inefficiency and bad planning coming 'from above' but without putting the blame on any individuals. It portrays people, some less likable and morally or politically correct than others, but people.

The only thing keeping "Generation Kill" from truly being a military version of "The Wire" is that its comparatively limited scope- it takes place within the first, 'triumphant' week of the invasion, and focuses pretty much only on one group of people. I'm entirely convinced that Simon could have written a thoroughly engrossing and fascinating drama about the Iraq war which extended past these five days, one which would have taken us past the marine corps into the lives of the other military units involved in the invasion, and the higher-ups as well, as he did starting in season 3 in "The Wire". As it stands, this is not a limitation of the power which "Generation Kill" holds, but a masterstroke in its success of making its point: every element which has made the situation in Iraq so chaotic was present in a latent form from the beginning. The film is not even really making a moral judgment of the war in Iraq, if anything it supports a well-executed version of it: most of the Iraqis we see, nearly 90% of them, are incredibly grateful, at least at this early stage, for being relieved of Saddam's rule.

Moreover, no American marine or any Iraqi is portrayed simplistically as a 'bad guy' or 'good guy', not even the bloodthirstiest of the Americans, and this writing is brought to life admirably well by the mostly perfect cast and the excellent direction and production value (it is obviously not a big-budget Hollywood film, but it still achieves real authenticity in almost every regard- the closest I came to disbelieving it was when a few Iraqis were portrayed as darker-skinned than any I've seen). The closest thing to a villain in the film is Saddam himself, who makes no literal appearance outside of posters on the streets, but then again he is pretty much the closest thing to a movie 'bad guy' in reality.

"Generation Kill" is, like "The Wire", ultimately a workplace drama about workplace politics. That the stakes are higher and that the innocent are killed even more often than they are on "The Wire" is irrelevant to the writers. This may make "Generation Kill" boring to those accustomed to and expecting a more standard war film, one which attempts an anti-war or pro-war statement. Like "The Wire" again, what the viewer is left with in the end is only a dislike of unnecessary violence and casualties, and a portrayal of the toll they take on those involved in either perpetrating the violence or those related to the victims. Both "The Wire" and "Generation Kill" are dramatically built on disappointment and disillusionment with the system in place itself, and like "The Wire" it is all about bad decisions, mistakes, and the rare good decision. The film ends with a montage and a song, much like every season of "The Wire", and with its subtle summation of the hours gone by and its emotional impact it cements David Simon's status as one of the greatest and most important writers of our time.

Pet Sematary (1989, Mary Lambert)

"Pet Sematary" has one thing many of King's better works don't have: a great ending. A great final act, too, which is where a lot of other King novels fall apart a bit. This one really comes together. It's a good story too, a disturbing one, and one of the saddest examinations of a family falling apart, a theme King is fond of. Especially because unlike something like "The Shining", there was no strain on the familial relationships at the beginning of the story. Still, it's not one of King's better novels because there's some notably bad prose ('time was slipping through his hands like something that had been greased' is a particularly egregious example of this), but for the most part it's really very good, and it's a great example of how you can write a horror story which doesn't even really become one until nearly halfway through.

"Pet Sematary", the film, is around as good, and is definitely one of the better King adaptations. The screenplay, written by King himself, is terrific, with all the additions and subtractions from the source material making total sense, and no dialogue that stood out as particularly bad to me. Even more pleasingly, most of the psychology at play in the book is present in the filmic version, and I'm becoming increasingly confident that King is the best person to bring his own work to life on the screen as a screenwriter. Even "The Stand", a miniseries I thought dreadfully poor as far as the direction and the general production went, was generally pretty well-written.

The film's major flaw is the acting, with the only really good performance coming from Fred Gwynne, who played Judd. King is a master of atmosphere, and very rarely do the settings his stories play out in come to life well on screen. As many problems as I (controversially) had with "The Shining", Kubrick's Overlook was every bit as good as King's Overlook. Likewise, Mary Lambert and the cinematographer do a great job making this film as effectively creepy as it is, and the pet cemetery and burial ground are tremendously well-realized. Also, the climactic stages of the film could not have possibly been done better. The whole last half hour is absolutely one of the creepiest bits of film ever made.

Had the film featured a better overall cast and had a better-realized Zelda, it really could have been one of the best horror movies ever made, but I found it immensely satisfying in its own right, and Gage Creed makes every other creepy child in cinema history look cute and cuddly in comparison. "I've got something for you, mommy".

The Shape of Things (2003, Neil LaBute)

Until I watched "The Shape of Things" a few hours ago my only exposure to acclaimed modern playwright Neil LaBute were a few clips of Nicholas Cage's apparently horrible performance in LaBute's apparently abysmal remake of the unforgettable British horror classic "The Wicker Man". With my interest in theater, modern theater specifically, growing rapidly with every passing day, it was inevitable that I would sit down and watch a Neil LaBute film, one adapted from one of his own plays for the screen.

"The Shape of Things" is a further extension of my lucky streak with recent movie picks, as I have either really liked or loved all of my past six film viewings, and this film belongs in the latter group. A comedy so dark I felt guilty for laughing, a film so dramatically compelling and ultimately devastating that I was left literally close to tears by the end of it. It's easy to see how many could really, really hate this movie. It's cruel, misanthropic, bleak, its sense of humor is twisted, and it's really not 'fun' at all.

Although I'm sure some will disagree, "The Shape of Things" is one of that rare breed of film I like to call the 'night-ruiner'. LaBute's screenplay, which is probably almost exactly the same as his original play, is a deft, clever, interesting examination of a number of things: friendship, how easily influenced we can be, how we perceive each other, the nature of art, and more, but works ultimately thanks to its emotional impact. A play (or screenplay) of this sort never amounts to anything if the characters aren't compelling and from start to finish these characters most certainly are. Adam is the lead character, played excellently by Paul Rudd in one of the more demanding roles he's taken on, and along with Gretchen Mol's character Jenny he's really the only decent character in the film. Frustratingly naive, but nice enough. All the performances are good enough for the material, and LaBute's direction is very basic but effective enough. I can definitely see how he could fail when taking on a bigger project not adapted from his own work, but I'll wait and see for myself.

Sure, nobody's going to call this a masterpiece of subtlety anytime soon, but lots of great drama is in-your-face, and this is rich enough that when a character stands up and speaks to us for several minutes about some of the things the film is about it doesn't feel dumb or unnecessary, but fairly effective and interesting. There's other stuff the screenplay and the film doesn't shove in our face, and the last half hour probably works because it's so upfront about things. It's a very theatrical presentation, and probably works better in that setting, but the film is still a fast-paced, well-written, and fairly enthralling examination of human behavior and how we look at each other.

JCVD (2008, Mebrouk El Mechri)

"JCVD" had me at its opening scene. A wildly over-the-top action scene with much typical Van Damme ass-kicking (and accompanied by a Curtis Mayfield tune) is followed by Jean-Claude walking off the set, heading straight for the director, a young, talentless hack, to complain about the filming. The director says to his interpreter in Chinese: "Just because he brought John Woo to Hollywood doesn't mean he can rub my dick with sandpaper", and the interpreter gives a nonsense excuse about how not having a gun preserves the character's integrity. It's funnier than anything in Ben Stiller's industry spoof "Tropic Thunder", and certainly far closer to reality.

Thankfully, the rest of the film does not disappoint. The film's conceit is clever: Van Damme's dislike of the films he works on is clear, he's got an awful, typically Hollywood agent (at one point Van Damme asks what he's working on next, to which his agent replies "Feel No Injury, it's about a Vietnam vet who...", Van Damme assures his agent that they shot that film several months ago and his agent responds by looking through his papers and offering a corrected response, "Feel No Injury II, it's about a gulf war vet..."), has basically become a joke and knows it, and is fighting for custody of his daughter. The next step after these establishing scenes is, naturally, to put the 'real' Van Damme in a situation right out of a movie he might have starred in- he gets stuck in the midst of a hostage situation at a bank, while attempting to make a withdrawal to pay his lawyer. The twist? Everyone outside the bank, including the police and a huge crowd of fans, believe he is the one taking the hostages, and in this scenario Van Damme is powerless, unable to just kick and punch his way out of it.

Going into the film I had expected an entertaining, slightly angsty meta-narrative about Van Damme in a hostage situation. What I got was something far funnier, far more thrilling and involving, and certainly far more genuinely emotional than the film probably had any right to be. The in-jokes are fun ("if it wasn't for you he'd still be shooting pigeons in Hong Kong", "... well, at least he made 'Face/Off'"), several scenes are genuinely suspenseful, but most surprising of all is that the film features one of the greatest scenes in years: just past the hour mark Van Damme faces the camera and delivers a lengthy soliloquy on why he made the movie, why he decided to take up karate, and expresses his feelings on celebrity, his own image, women, drugs, and Hollywood. It's bordering on ridiculous, but how can anyone laugh when Jean-Claude Van Damme is baring his soul on camera and actually crying? The scene either proves that Van Damme is not as limited an actor as most think he is, or that there was no real acting involved.

The cinematography, specifically the lighting, will bother some people but I thought it was quite good, and El Mechri is a fine director, who juggles the comedic and dramatic aspects of the film as well as the thriller side of it successfully. Van Damme's performance is, for my money, the best of the year, challenged only by Clint Eastwood's potential acting farewell in "Gran Torino" and Sean Penn's surprisingly effective turn in "Milk". While I don't expect much agreement, "JCVD" is my second favorite film of 2008, just after "My Winnipeg", and one of the most enjoyable viewing experiences I've had in quite some time.

Coeurs (2006, Alain Resnais)

There are several reasons why I chose "Coeurs" as the first Alain Resnais film I would see, chief among them that it seemed interesting and was one of his more acclaimed recent films (and I didn't want to start with films of his that were probably influenced very heavily by the 'Nouveau Roman' writers he worked with, including obviously Alain Robbe-Grillet on "Last Year at Marienbad" and Marguerite Duras on "Hiroshima mon amour"). Also, I find myself very interested in the works of artists who have lived longer than most of us will but are still working, as there is frequently a sort of experience and wisdom there which fascinates me. Also, it was pointed out to me by more than one person that a screenplay I had written with a friend (before either of us had seen or even heard of "Coeurs") was conceptually similar and, according to the one person who had read it, had some plot similarities too. Naturally I wanted to see it for myself.

Ultimately, aside from the format which is quite similar in its moving frequently between different groups of characters for relatively short scenes, there was only one striking similarity which I could detect: in both screenplays two characters go on a blind date using fake names. Other than that, my approach and thought process was almost entirely dissimilar to Resnais', and naturally, although I'd love to say otherwise, it is his which is more interesting. I call it Resnais' approach, but the film is based on an English play and translated/adapted by Jean-Michel Ribes, so due credit to them as well obviously. Still, I was impressed, after hearing from more than one person about Resnais being a generally unintellectual, commercial film-maker, with not only the film's formally dazzling structure, look, and editing, but with the impressive restraint shown at every step. There's no showboating here, and Resnais does absolutely nothing with the film that is not important somehow to the story and characters. His constant use of partitions, the emphasized staginess of the film (though not the acting), as well as the dissolves linking each scene to the next are all crucial to the thematic content of the film.

I initially met the film with some resistance. Some of the humor was too cute, and it felt like light fluff to me initially. However, much like numerous other films, "Coeurs" eventually came together, making the whole experience worthwhile. Ultimately the only things which truly bothered me were some intrusive clichés, all of which were linked directly to the character Charlotte, who really singlehandedly keeps the film from reaching true greatness. Any scenes with her feel like a waste compared to the dazzling scenes with the other characters. Well, to be fair, not every scene: the stuff with Lionel is quite strong (but certainly not the nonsense with his father, which isn't funny nor dramatically strong). When you have a mosaic-like structure of this sort, it's natural that some parts will be less interesting (and it's up to the individual which parts are less interesting), but my personal reaction to Charlotte and her relationship with Thierry was not even mild amusement, but a severe disinterest. The film is oddly distant, surely to emphasize the loneliness of these characters, but it's also wonderfully warm most of the time, and most of the characters are extremely well-drawn. Then you have a caricature who is never truly explored to significantly lessen the quality of the film. It's just plain disappointing.

A very interesting film, certainly a technically excellent and formally interesting one, but I was disappointed in the lesser sections of it. Still, it gets a strong recommendation from me, due to Resnais' direction, thanks to the truly superb acting, and, obviously, the parts of the film (which is the majority of it) which didn't get on my nerves. It's just frustrating that it falls just short of greatness.