 Sound Of My Voice is a little film and that is a good thing. It is a curious film in how it is extremely and deceptively simple; a couple is making a documentary on a cult. He is a substitute teacher and his co-filmmaker girlfriend is a former party girl who has cleaned up her act. They go into expose a mysterious cult leader but first they have to find their way into the arms of the cult.
Christopher Denham and Nicole Vicius co-star as the would-be filmmakers and the mesmerizing Brit Marling is Maggie, the mysterious cult leader. Marling co-wrote the script. Marling was also co-writer of the film, Another Earth (which she starred in). This film is a much better, tighter effort than the previous one. Maybe that is due to Zal Batmanglij or maybe Marling and her partners have just honed their skills.
This film focuses in on the basics. There is very little set-up. We do not know how the couple first became aware of the cult. We don’t know how the original cult began even. There are a number of details that the viewer has to figure out themselves. While some conclusions are not really open to interpretation there are others that are—and these are the more human aspects of the story. What does it mean?
We find out who these humans are in small snippets of their lives—as they describe them to others. We believe what they do and the conflicts. While it is focused there is no attempt to tie it all up and show what happens to everyone. There is no place for that in this film. It is a very “indie” production. It isn’t trying to spell it all out.
But let’s get back to Marling. She is not the star of the film but she steals it as the cult leader who is beautiful, seductive, threatening and even a little cruel. But all this is displayed with subtlety that leaves the audience guessing. Part of the guessing also comes from Marling’s performance. She is an ethereal, otherworldly presence. You can believe people would believe her—even when her logic is dubious.
But that is part of how cults work? They work like con artists; they convince people silly things are true. But what if they were true?
Denham’s character is vaguely annoying. It isn’t that the actor is annoying; the character, Peter, is. Denham plays it well with small ticks and increasing neurosis. You probably find out more about Peter than any other character in the film. You don’t hate him but you seriously wouldn’t want to have a beer with the guy.
Vicius’ Lorna is a less sexy (using the term figuratively) role but Vicius certainly does everything she has to in bringing her character to life. In a subtle movie with three main characters hers is the character that is least defined. Lorna’s demons are not paraded publicly but are shown as an aside, a flashback. She has less to work with script-wise but makes the role come to life.
If you are fans of smaller films, of indie films, this is one that will appeal to you. If you need explosions it will not. If you need a bad guy who “gets theirs” at the end? Likewise you should look elsewhere. More than anything else the film may be the one people look back on when Marling writes and or stars in a film that reaches a large audience. You will hear from her again.
 There is something extremely likeable about Where Do We Go Now?, the Lebanese/French/Egyptian/Italian film about a small town divided between Christians and Muslims trying to get along in the midst of unrest in the outside world. The film is a sort of modern day Lysistrata but it is a tad less focused (to be charitable). Directed and written by Lebanese actress Nadine Labaki, the movie focuses on the effort of women to keep sectarian violence from breaking out in their town. The town is isolated by a destroyed bridge that will only let a moped in and out. The women strive to keep the hot headed men from killing one another after religious tensions from outside flare and there are several incidents where a mosque and Christian religious icons are profaned. They try deceit; they try (improbably) hiring exotic dancers to distract the men and various other tricks. None of these seem to be particularly well conceived or effective. But this may be intentional. Getting the men under control seems like something of a fool’s errand. It is probably best to think of this as allegory in any case.
The previews are a problem for this film—they make it seem like a wacky comedy. It isn’t. It has comic elements but these are subtle and not at all what the previews imply. This is a drama. Many scenes work. One scene where Labaki’s character, Amale, tells the men, fighting in her café to “go die at home” rings particularly true. And when the shamed men leave, she is left with her child—also a boy. Will he be part of the cycle? Labaki is a real presence on the screen and the acting is all professional and believable.
It is also a good idea to keep in mind that Westerners may not be the intended audience. Americans especially like neat films with all the loose ends tied up. In this film there is no “bad guy” and you never find out who does any of the things that light the fuse of a potential powder keg. That isn’t the point. Although sometimes it can be a little difficult to discern what, precisely the point is. Again, this may well be intentional. The problems, the reasons behind the turmoil under the surface, are in the film and real life not easy to pin down.
One truth is easy to pin down; men are singled out as the root of the problem. It is hard to argue against this, be it in the real world or in the film. Women, with a few exceptions, are not the one’s starting wars or even localized sectarian violence.
Interestingly the film begins and ends in a graveyard, one side Christian and one side Muslim. Apparently men in the village have killed one another before and even though they seem to coexist more or less peacefully. There is no real attempt at showing real closeness between the men—more tolerance. The women are another matter, they are friends; they joke and laugh together in a more intimate manner than the men. This isn’t to say the men initially seem hostile but just not close.
The film breaks out into song now and again (one funny song and one about love) in a way that will make the average American filmgoer roll their eyes. But this sort of scene is common in films from various places around the world; from Egypt to India. It seems odd to Americans in a film like this these days. But it wasn’t so long ago dramas and comedies alike had musical “numbers” in them.
This is not a great film but it is a good one.
When a film comes out of the Middle East and is directed by a woman there is a justifiable tendency to give more praise than is merited. In this case praise is merited—with caveats. The film meanders and frustrates. There are a lot of characters and they are hard to keep track of and hard to feel much for specifically. You can care as you would for any human being but there is not a great deal of character development.
It lacks focus but it is still a likeable film especially in the discussion it raises. Unfortunately the people who need to see films like this most are not likely to be in the audience. Nor would it get through to them if they were. And that is a shame.
 The Kid With A Bike is a Belgian film starring the lovely Cecile De France as a hairdresser who takes on a boy abandoned by his father. He keeps running away from the group home he lives in to find his father--often using his missing bike as an excuse for his departures. He will not accept proof. He will not accept that his father has abandoned him.
Enter De France (who was also wonderful in the under-appreciated Clint Eastwood film, Hereafter). She takes pity on the kid and brings him his bike and even agrees to take him on weekends.
But she quickly finds out the bike is not the issue.
The film is a "slice of life" affair. I initially thought John Cassavetes but that is not really accurate and is more of a knee-jerk for any film that depicts real life on a small scale. This film lacks the figurative claustrophobia of a Cassavetes film. It isn't suffocating, there is an openness to it. There is also more hope in this film and less desperation.
The audience of this film will, at least initially, feel a certain anger toward the kid. Why does he do these things? Why doesn't he face facts. He is SOOO annoying.
This is what makes it real. While you watch you are annoyed by him but if, afterward, you take the time to think about it his reaction isn't anything out of line. Imagine your father abandoning you and--at length--telling you he doesn't want you around. Imagine all the justifications for his actions you would make. Imagine how you would try to find acceptance elsewhere. This is what rings true about the movie--the kid.
De France's character is missing something, however. We have no backstory. We do not know why she, out of the blue, takes on this child. Maybe she is just a generous person but aside from the kid we never see her in any context that shows this. She seems to be a little cold toward the man in her life (whose character is not particularly well defined). It isn't a big problem but it nags a bit and it could have been solved by showing one act of disconnected kindness by her character.
Perhaps the idea is to show the connection she has to the boy--that unlike his "real" parent she will do anything for him. Maybe she is supposed to be a symbol of what a real parent SHOULD be. In that case? My arguments are moot (and a little silly).
The film is worth a visit to the theater--or grab it on DVD since it is likely not going to be around the cinemas much longer. There is no one wearing tights in it.
 The reviews on Cabin in the Woods are out. Hell, even the contrarian follow up reviews by people calling the film “overrated” are out (the latter are full of crap). But the film is worth a little further examination.
Every once in awhile a film takes a stab at redefining a genre. The ones that hit it out of the park include Night of the Living Dead for the zombie film and The Godfather for gangster films. Go check out pre-Night zombie movies or pre-Godfather gangster movies; they do not remotely resemble those that follow these two films. Many films, over the past hundred years, can make this claim.
Cabin in the Woods probably can’t but it comes damned close.
It takes the Friday the 13th style, “kids out in the woods” sort of movie and gives it form. It attaches an overarching theme to 50 years of horror film making and it does it with humor and splash of gore.
One of the problems with a film like this is that it might not withstand spoilers very well—which also can mean it might not bear multiple viewings. There is no way to tell at the moment. Everyone will need to wait a few decades (or at least a few viewings) to determine that.M. Night Shymalan’s The Sixth Sense might seem the sort of film to fall apart on second viewing but it doesn’t. It just seems like an entirely different film when you know the “twist.”
The twists and turns in Cabin are, at once, more obvious and more subtle. No spoilers here but it is very reminiscent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Joss Whedon once said he was inspired to create Buffy by how EVERY horror film had a scared blond woman running from a monster or a killer. She was always helpless and always wound up dead. Buffy turned that on its head. The blond girl was the one who KILLED the monsters. She was the one who scared the monsters. Cabin in the Woods does a similar thing with not just “slasher” films but ANY film that sends a group of teens out into the woods. It pokes fun at HOW they wind up there, all the warnings they receive not to go and, once they are there, about precisely what predicament they will face.
If you know Whedon then you will expect humor and you will be happy to see some “old friends” from some of his previous efforts on television --s well as actors from such shows as The West Wing, Six Feet Under, Grey’s Anatomy and The Shield. This is to say nothing of the appearance of Thor.
The movie isn’t a one note film either, it isn’t Scream. It isn’t something there will be a sequel to as the plot, slyly, precludes any sequel. The ending also is a neat turn on some of Whedon’s earlier TV efforts. The film isn’t the best horror film ever made. It is somewhere between scary and the Evil Dead. You are never going to be really afraid here but this works and it should be a welcome change for fans of more mainstream horror films.
 The Raid: Redemption has a message, an important message, for today’s youth. If you come upon a guy, standing in a pile of corpses that he has just killed with his bare hands (or with the corpses’ own weapons) do not, under any circumstances, attack him. Even if your drug lord boss has ordered you to do so; do not attack him. And if you MUST attack him and you do so from behind? Do not run at him hollering “YAAAAAAAAAAAAA.”
I think everyone can admit these are valuable things to know. Also, in real life, do not pick a fight with Iko Uwais or anyone who looks like him.
The Raid: Redemption is an action film that is so focused on the action that it doesn’t even have opening credits. Opening credits take away time from machete fights and this film does not want any time taken from machete fights.
The plot is simple; there is a building controlled by a crime boss and a team of cops are going in to take him down. There are a few twists and turns in this but nothing that veers outside the standard martial arts film formula. But that is a good thing. When you watch a Terrence Malick film you want to be inspired to think. When you watch a romance you want to be dewy eyed. When you watch a martial arts movie you want to see butt-kicking. Machetes must swing, bullets must fly and spectacular acrobatics must ensue.
A martial arts film also a) not be too talky b) not be so stupid you are rolling your eyes between fights c) not use stand-ins in fight scene.
When martial arts movies feel the need to explain the history and details of what is going on? They inevitably fall apart. This is because the details usually range from silly to incomprehensible to dull. Sometimes they manage to be all three. Good martial arts movies paint with a broad brush and let the audience fill in the gaps. I do not need to know more about the cop’s family in The Raid. This is true in much the same way we didn't need to know the minor villain "O'Hara" from Enter the Dragon had a rough childhood.
As to stupidity, most of these movies are full of plot holes and flaws. The trick is to make it so the audience doesn’t notice them. Limiting the talking is one way to do this. Writing a script that moves briskly along is another. Two movies with great fight sequences? The Big Brawl and Rumble in the Bronx are made close to unwatchable by everything that occurs in between the fight sequences. Melodrama and comedy are not usually strong points of martial arts movies. The Raid briefly shows the main character with his wife at the start of the film and he has a brief exchange with an older man. We get he has a pregnant wife. We see him working out so we know he is a bad ass. We do not need his wife put in danger to be rescued when it has nothing to do with the plot (many movies cannot resist this).
Among the other positives of The Raid; Redemption is that it will inspire you to watch great martial arts films of the distant and not so distant past. I, for instance, re-watched Ong Bak last night. Some of the fight scenes are ruined at the end by the obvious use of a double. They likely had to reshoot parts of the scene because the actor was obviously a martial artist. In other cases the actors cannot fight. It is the rough equivalent of a surf movie where the actors cannot surf. Hire different actors. No one cares if there is a “name” Western actor in a movie.
This film’s star, Uwais, is also pretty certainly destined for stardom. He has the intensity of Tony Jaa but also carries himself in a way that indicates he can probably act too. It is hard to tell in The Raid and it doesn’t matter in martial arts movies but if he gets offered the Indonesian equivalent of Hero, he should be able to cut it (and this is meant literally).
 21 Jump Street is incredibly stupid and yet, in this instance “stupid” also means “awesome”. See, many are unaware of the inescapable fact that there are different kinds of stupid. There is the mundane 80s Fox stupid of the original SHOW, 21 Jump Street and the hilarious, awesome stupid of the new movie. This is the sort of stupidness that will make you laugh while simultaneously making you feel embarrassed that you are laughing. I sort of glanced around, thinking; Lord, I hope no one saw me laugh at that. This is truly something for the filmmakers, actors and writers to be incredibly proud of—it is a feat more trying than winning the Decathlon.
I read one review of the film that decried the number of dick jokes, stating unequivocally, that there were too many. This is asinine. There can NEVER be too many dick jokes.
Ever. Period.
Provided, of course, that the jokes are funny. The same goes for fart jokes, poop jokes, racist jokes, drug jokes and teen sex jokes. People do not get offended at jokes that are funny and told with humanity. Recall the mentally handicapped brother in Something About Mary.
If you approach this movie as a critic, or as a human being, with the slightest bit of seriousness, if you are looking for the message, then you are doomed. I do not mean just while you are watching the film. You are totally doomed. Korean Jesus is going to send you right to hell (if you don’t get that, you will after the movie).
21 Jump Street sends up the original TV show and Hollywood’s lamebrainedness at regurgitating old TV shows. It also pokes fun at those TV shows and movies. This "fun-poking" is sometimes obvious. You will see some of the jokes coming down Main Street like Robert Preston in Music Man but odds are you will still laugh. You will laugh again when they use the same gag twice. You will laugh at the little sideline jokes you see out of the corner of your eye (not as many or as funny in films like The Other Guys or Airplane but still, a good number). The film manages to make fun of itself without turning into a Johnny Carsonmonologue—the ones where he made fun of the bad the joke he just told. That is hard to pull off. Channing Tatum? Known more for lightweight romances? He is funny and should be in more comedies. We all know Jonah Hill, at his best, is funny. But Tatum is his equal here.
The cast includes appearances by Ice Cube, Rob Riggle and Chris Parnell who all make the most of their relatively small roles. Ice Cube gets the most screen time of the three but Parnell may get the most laughs per minute. Ellie Kemper also has a few moments. She is also adorable and ergo requires mentioning. Dave Franco is sort of the straight man. How could the eco-friendly popular high school kid not be that? But he also has some funny lines. Brie Larson also deserves mention. If you can be in this movie AND Rampart in the space of a year, kudos are in order for your range! Plus she was in Scott Pilgrim Versus the World which always means, for the rest of your career, you will get bonus credits. You can even be in an Adam Sandler “comedy.”
This brings us back to the rarity of actually funny comedies. I have a standard these days—the six out-loud laughs standard. A film is above average if it can manage that. I was there about 20 minutes into 21 Jump Street. The previews for upcoming “comedies?” If you cannot get ONE funny thing for the previews even with creative editing? It bodes ill. 21 Jump Street is funnier than the previews.
 When a movie costs a lot of money and it flops there is glee amongst late night network talk show host writers. They don’t have to think for a week. All you have to do is compare said movie to pretty much anything and the sheep will baaaaah. Part of the reason for seeing John Carterwas to see if the movie was actually worth a joke. Is it Heaven’s Gate? Is it Ishtar? (please do not post about how Ishtar is underrated. It sucks).
John Carter isn’t bad at all. And they charged me the same amount they usually do—despite how much Disney spent on the film.
In the realm of the comic book hero film (and yes I am aware this isn’t from a comic) this is actually pretty decent. People loved Thor last year. Of course that was, in part, because everyone expected it to be unwatchable and it is actually O.K. A couple of the reasons Thor is decent are shared by John Carter; they don’t try to over explain silly bits of the plot and the supporting actors are all top notch. When a movie like John Carter bends over backward to explain something like “the ninth ray” it spirals around the bowl. We get it when you just show us a guy with a “ninth ray” shiny glove frying everyone. And if the actors, even in small or voice only parts, are bad it makes the audience notice silliness more. To be sure there are failures with great casts but bad actors can kill even coherent fantasy and sci-fi writing.
It is kind of embarrassing to like either Thor or John Carter too much. There just isn’t that much there to get too crazy about. Sure, you can pretend that your interest is ironic and you are an intellectual. You can pretend to be looking at a literary comparison with the Edgar Rice Burroughs story (try to get your thesis committee to bite on THAT). All of that is crap. It is just silly crap that is put together well and gets fuzzy on details that bog it down.
Compared to other comic-like films (Captain America...brrr) it moves along fairly well. It is basically coherent, if silly, in plot. We really do not need to know the details of Thune culture or why some Martians have four arms and some look totally human (but with face tattoos..wait…Mike Tyson is a MARTIAN. That explains a great deal).
But there isn’t much more to say on John Carter. It is watchable. It is entertaining. It has attractive people and decent actors in it. It looks good (3D isn’t necessary to enjoy the film go to a cheap 2D showing). Other “fantastical” films like the brutal adaptations of young adult fiction such as The Lightening Thief or The Vampire’s Assistant or comic book hero fiascos like Iron Man 2, Ghost Rider or any of the X-Men related films after the first two, make you want to get more popcorn.
What is it about a movie like John Carter that makes it not connect with audiences when other, similar, films do? Is it really that John Carter cost so much more? Did it just come out too early or too late? It might be hype. Maybe just not enough Tarzan fans are around these days.
Fortunately in catching up with movies this week I also saw a film with a lot of penis jokes. More on that soon.
 _ The Woman in Black is not a particularly memorable film. But that doesn’t mean it is a bad film either. If you walk into the theater expecting something other than what the film is you will be disappointed. If you walk in with no preconceptions and are a fan of old style ghost stories you will be entertained. The film looks good and is paced well, even if it is allowed that it is quite slow, but what really matters is Daniel Radcliffe. He makes the movie work and he does it with very little dialog, with nervous looks and a stiff, Victorian, upper lip (distinct, of course, from a Georgian or Elizabethan upper lip).
It is to be hoped that Radcliffe will take a few more shots at the genre as well. He is a solid actor and he has a certain “gravitas” about him. It is a different sort than when that term is generally used, however. He seems like one of us; he isn’t a giant of a man, he doesn’t come off as a movie star. He seems like a regular person. He is the sort of actor you want tossed into a supernatural maelstrom.
_ One of the problems with a film like this is its marketing; how it is presented in ads and trailers creates an expectation. And marketing nitwits often don’t seem to get that tricking people into a film is less desirable than just telling the truth about it. The truth about Women in Black is that it is a moody, old fashioned, slow moving ghost story. It has more “creeps” than “leaps” in it. But the film’s promotion shows a woman sitting in the theater with patrons as if to say “This movie will scare the crap out of you.”
Not even if you were five.
Again, that doesn’t mean it is bad. It does a solid job of creating a mood and a place—rural Britain in the late Victorian era (more or less). The mood is heavy, dreary and palpable. As noted, the only character that really matters, played by Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role, is well developed. We know who is; he is a grieving man with a small child. His career is in tatters and his last chance is to sort through the papers of a deceased woman in an old, scary-ass house. The locals are leery of him and jittery. No one wants him there but he has no choice.
That is all we need to know. The other actors in the film are fine. They just are given very little to do. We know what is coming; we know who they are without too many details.
Some of the scenes in the house where Radcliffe moves from room to room seeing a parade of creepy scary things (man, Victorian-era parents gave their kids some spooky-ass toys) go on a little longer than they should. But really what ELSE is the movie going to do? The more detail given the sillier it would get. This never gets silly. It never seems overlong but it never quite 100 percent satisfies either.
In the past year two other horror films spring to mind when watching The Woman in Black. One of these is Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark. It features Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes (who does a fine job) and has the Guillermo Del Toro cachet as well. It is nominally better than The Woman in Black.The other is Insidious, the silly, fun, also old fashioned (but from a later period) horror film released in February 2010. While I am sure Daniel Radcliffe was paid more than Insidious’ entire budget, again, I have to say Insidious succeeds SLIGHTLY better in what it intended than The Woman in Black.
Part of the problem, and it can be debated whether this is actually a problem, is that this has been done before. Really what hasn’t? The trick is for a filmmaker to FOOL us into thinking we haven’t seen it before. That is why they make the big money. That is why we remember a film. You will be entertained by The Woman in Black but it is unlikely you will recall much about it—excluding Radcliffe.
 _ A Separation is a film that could have been made by John Cassavetes if he had been an Iranian and were still alive. It was, in fact, directed by Asghar Farhadi. He also directed the excellent Fireworks Wednesday which is out on video by IR Films.
Whether the film is a real representation of people’s lives is immaterial; it seems like it is real. It feels real. It smells real. It almost tastes real. The writing is close to flawless and the acting is so natural you feel that the film is almost a documentary—excepting the fact that people are usually not so natural in documentaries.
Often, “Iranian” films that are seen in the West are never actually screened in Iran. They are made by brave people bucking the system. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes not so much but people in the West are loathe to attack a film that was so difficult to make. This film, apparently, is an exception to this. I heard it was a hit in Iran (I have some questions as to what that means). But there is at least some indication people in the Islamic Republic connected to it. That is what a “hit” is indicative of a film that somehow connects with people on some level. This fact sometimes makes me unable to fall asleep at night, I wake up shrieking “No…NO…Rob Schneider,” then I realize he hasn’t had a hit for years and I fall asleep for a bit until some specter resembling Michael Bay pulls off the covers and rolls me onto the floor.
What is most fascinating about A Separation is how those DASTARDLY Iranians are not ranting mullahs or slick politicians but people very much like Americans. They do stupid things. They lose their tempers. They have to deal with bureaucracy. They love their kids. They worry about if they are doing the right thing. Sometimes they lie.
_ Of course, the film is being currently castigated in Iran as somehow representing Iranians in a bad light. I cannot imagine how. It represents them as humans. Of course all fanatics, be they religious or Stalinist, usually create an image of the perfect human and then try to pretend their belief system creates this perfect human and no one in society who isn’t a traitor deviates from that “norm.” This isn’t a film they are showing in a Basji barracks. I mean they show a woman’s HAIR. That might ignite a sexual frenzy offensive to God.
But I didn’t start writing this with an aim of castigating fanatics—here or there. This film shows how similar we are, not how different. We face the exact same things—a rocky marriage, dealing with our kids, parents who get old and sick and trying to fit our religious beliefs into the reality of our everyday lives. The film has a great deal in it about differing levels of belief and the conflict between the educated and uneducated, between the middle class and the poor. Change the religion to Christian and the language to English and most of the film could take place in Omaha.
The biggest difference between “us and them,” in the context of the film is that Iranians at least think about emigrating. Americans, traditionally, do not. That is a small thing. There may be better foreign films out there this year. But it is to be hoped that this one wins the Oscar in that category. The world needs to take a deep breath and see that Iranians are people—regardless of how we view their government.
 _ Werner Herzog’s Into The Abyss is not Grizzly Man nor is it Cave Of Forgotten Dreams.Both of those films had some sort of wonder and joy in them. Many will scratch their heads at the word “joy” being applied to Grizzly Man—many cannot see beyond the unhappy ending. How many people tick off days of their lives sitting in an office sending email to someone who sends it on to someone else who decides how the latest widget should be marketed?
Personally? I would much rather be mauled to death by a bear. Timothy Treadwell lived for something and died for something. And he left behind the remarkable footage Herzog used in his film. Argue all you want, then go back to your cubicle and send out another email.
Into The Abyss has none of that wonder and no joy, no hope either. There is a section of the film titled, “A Glimmer of Hope” but it seems a faint and false one. If Herzog truly sees hope in this story his eyes are keener than mine.
The film is the story of a murder, the murderers and the families of the victims. It is about people, not much detail about the town, about the setting. Nothing really matters except the interviews—and most poignantly with a man not even involved in this specific case.
_ One of the greatest things about Herzog as a documentary filmmaker is his honesty. In this day where the likes of Michael Moore have turned the term “documentary” into “political screed” or even, “propaganda” Herzog is honest. When it is his opinion—he literally TELLS you it is his opinion. Herzog does not believe in the death penalty, which is stated right up front. It doesn’t mean the condemned men are “exonerated” either. He directly says that as well and never tries to trick the audience. He doesn't even state the obvious or point out which interviewees are "unreliable narrators." That is left to the audience.
There are several points in the movie where, an audience member trying to find a point may despair; then there is an interview that ties pieces brings it together. A former prison guard talks of his experiences and you see the effect of state sponsored revenge on people guilty of nothing other than doing their job (in fact, this is how the film starts). An aging inmate comes to realize he wasted not only his life but the lives of his sons. None of this is pleasant but should this story be pleasant? Why would you force "pleasantness" upon it?
And just because Herzog makes his distaste for the death penalty known it doesn’t mean everyone’s reaction to the film will be to turn against the ultimate punishment upon seeing the film. It isn’t meant to do that. It is meant to make you think about it, make you see it. The audience sees people who probably deserve to die and the heartbroken people with ruined lives left behind. Who witnessing that has the strength to say; “Enough”?
But if, after watching this, you have no appreciation as to how the crime and the reaction to it by the state, by us, is nothing less than a terrible tragedy, you may have some empathy issues of your own. You may not walk out against the death penalty (it may even make you more for it) but you will think about it more seriously, unlike two older women who sat next to me and my son, who were laughing throughout. My son, who at 14 asked me to take him to this film, said “I wanted to punch those people next to us.” I thought; no punch could be worse than living your life with a mind that thinks any part of Into The Abyss is funny.
|
RSS Feed