Movie Review #4 - The Oath (USA)

The Oath
Country of Origin: USA
Directed by: Laura Poitras

Any trip to a European film festival would be incomplete without the mandatory anti-Bush documentary, and I was lucky to discover that The Oath took up that charge even two years since W. went back to Texas. 

But The Oath was not what I expected it to be – that is, a film intent on proving a point instead of searching for truth and accuracy.  It was distributed by Zeitgeist films (makers of Loose Change), but instead of finding a film laden with conspiracy theories, I was pleasantly suprised by this well-made film by American director Laura Poitras. 

Poitras critiques the War on Terror by juxtaposing the contrasting tales of brothers-in-law, Salim Hamdam and Abu Jindal, Bin Laden's personal driver and his body guard, respectively. 

Bin Laden's driver, Hamdam, was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo Bay while Abu Jindal, a man suposedly more valuable than anyone in Guantanamo, is a free man in Yemen. 


While Hamdam waits out his sentence in Guantanamo, we spend most of our time with Abu Jandal, who is now a taxi driver in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a where he runs a support organization for former al-Qaeda operatives.  We drive with him through the streets of Sana’a as he explains why and how he got involved with Al-Qaeda, why he so respected ‘Sheik bin Laden,’ and countless insights into how the organization is run.

The film's strength lies not by dropping controversy-provoking conspiracy theories in your lap, but by taking us into the homes and minds of our self-proclaimed enemies. 

I was suprised by Jindal's testimony - we hear not the zealistic dogma of a die-hard killer, but personal anecdotes from a conflicted and humbled solider.  Jindal discusses his transformation from the inner ring of Al-Qaeda to a 'reformed' terrorist working as a cab driver, begging the question - given all that's happened since 9/11, does his oath of allegience still bind him? 

Jindal's personal testimony reminds us that the bogeymen of the Middle East are not so different than ourselves.  Through Poitras’ lens, we are invited into Yemeni homes, we watch Yemeni youth groups talk to Jindal about the fight against America, and we are even shown young boys explaining why they want to grow up to be terrorists (because ‘the Americans put Uncle Hamdam in jail in Cuba.’)

The camera also moves to the military tribunals of Guantanamo Bay and gives us valuable perspective into the nature of justice being served to suspected terrorists.  I was particularly moved by seeing how little faith Hamdam’s appointed military lawyer had in the very court he was serving.  Charged by the military with defending someone doomed to conviction, his barely-veiled disillusionment spoke volumes about how far tribunals have drifted from true justice. 

This film is stripped of the usual intellectual talking heads expounding upon their own theories.  Instead it takes us deep into the lives of two men and brings the debate back down to the ground level – how people feel when their family is directly affected by international politics. 

Anyone with an interest in American foreign policy should watch this film, if only to remind us that the War on Terror is ultimately not a war of abstract theories, but one that touches people and families not so different than our own.

Trailer - Here 

Movie Review #2 - A Tiro de Piedra (México)

A Tiro de Piedra
Country of Origin: México
Written and directed by Sebastián Hiriart

Perhaps this one was such a let-down simply because of my expectations.  The synopsis made it sound great – a Mexican shepherd finds a key on the ground and takes it as a sign to embark on the adventure of his dreams, one that takes him thousands of kilometers into the United States. 

Wow, I thought, Dreams, wandering, omens, adventure – this sounds right up my alley! 
I imagined it as being a Mexican version of The Alchemist. 

Unfortunately, it was just that – a 97-minute boring Mexican version of The Alchemist made on a $300,000 budget.  Absent were Paulo Coelho’s wise words, replaced only by long periods of silence and an almost complete lack of dialogue.  The plot moved along very slowly as he progressed northward, and I felt as if I were actually in the car with him – that is, I wanted to take a nap so we could wake up in San Francisco and be closer to the end. 

But the similarities to The Alchemist go beyond the protagonists’ identical lives (both were young shepherds, bored with their lives), their dreams of travel (going to the Pyramids in Egypt versus Oregon in the USA), and the omens that spurred their adventure. 

It was, in fact, so similar to The Alchemist that I knew what would happen to the protagonist in advance – essentially the same challenges and vicissitudes that befall Santiago in The Alchemist: naiveté causes him to get robbed?  Check.  People telling him his dream is foolish?  Check.  Getting lost a few times?  Check.  A buildup to the climactic reaching of his destination, in which he is alone and lost, yet so close to home?  Check. 

The only part from which the film deviated from The Alchemist’s plot was at the end, which was poorly written, confusing, and underwhelming.  It would have been better if the filmmakers had restrained their creative impulses and simply stuck to Coelho’s conclusion. 

But I am being quite harsh - there are a few good things to say, principally seeing the perspective of an immigrant coming to the USA.  As someone who was born and raised in southern California, illegal immigration was something at once a common sight and a misunderstood phenomenon. 

This film gives the international audience a first-hand account of the motivations behind immigration, the challenges crossing the border, and the reception in his new host country.  The protagonist actually goes through San Diego and right past my house, bringing home the struggle that so many people go through in search of a better life.  The protagonist struggles to find food, shelter, and onward travel in a country that misunderstand his quest. 

I really appreciated this aspect of the film and eventually abandoned my hope for a decent plot and instead imagined the movie was an insightful documentary about immigration.  That was the only way to get any satisfaction from this mediocre film. 



Trailer - Here

Movie Review #1 - "Buried" (Spain)

Marko’s Movie Reviews
I saw some great movies and some rather horrible ones.  Let’s start with the bad ones. 

Buried
Country of Origin: Spain
Director: Rodrigo Cortés
Starring: Ryan Reynolds

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. 

It was produced and directed by in Spain, starred American actor Ryan Reynolds, and took place in Iraq. 

I initially thought that such a combination could be either great or horrible, a hunch proved correct when I learnt the storyline – Ryan Reynolds is buried alive in a casket in the Iraqi desert with only a limited amount of air left and a cell phone in his pocket.  I was interested to see how it would turn out, so I bought a ticket for the midnight premiere and listened to director Rodrigo Cortés give us his introduction. 

The film’s Spanish director knew he was running the edge between creative genius and total failure.  He came out before the screening and gave a charming speech about how he realized he was working within limitations, and that at the end of the day you can’t escape the fundamental constraint – it’s about a man in a box.  The question, he said, was how to make it work within those constraints? 

After watching the film, I proposed a different question – why not pick a less limiting script?  Perhaps, one that involved more than one scene, one character and one setting?   Sure, maybe one of the history’s great filmmakers could make it work, but Cortés could not. 

For one, the Cortés decided to film in real time – that is, second by second as it happened.  This was intended to build tension and make the viewer feel as if he was in a coffin, but instead it only brought awkward moments where Reynolds was simply crying onscreen before a bemused audience.  That sort of crap should be edited out. 

Secondly, the camera never turns off, never leaves the casket, and never shows any actor besides Reynolds.  Aside from Reynolds swearing to himself in the dark, the only dialogue comes via the cell phone he uses to contact the outside world – his family, the embassy, the Pentagon et cetera. 

As Reynolds struggles to contact someone who can actually help him before he suffocates, he is embroiled in the bureaucracy of the State Department, family problems back in the States, the complex politics of the Iraq invasion, and at a few points he is even put on hold, while the audience listens to a disembodied voice say Your call is very important to us…

All of this conflict was channeled into the coffin via Reynolds’ cell phone.  In my opinion the tried to cram too many things into a box. Without editing, multiple characters, and the occasional change of scenery, it’s hard to tackle so many conflicts in one movie. 

After about ten minutes I just wanted to wish the protagonist the best of luck and move on with my life but I sat through it out of respect.  Towards the end I found myself in the awkward position of wanting for Reynolds to either be rescued or simply die – anything to get me out of the theater. 

Oddly enough, most other people liked it and the movie got quite good ratings on IMDb.  I can’t understand such sentiments. 

I think the director summed it up quite well before the movie even screened – no matter what you do, it’s a movie about a guy in a box. 





Watch Trailer Here