Change Your Image
tfun28
Reviews
The King's Speech (2010)
Straight-Forward-Kitsch (why not?)
The labelling 'kitsch' may be too critical. But this film has no reluctance whatsoever to indulge in melodramatic stereo-types (e.g. it's use of music, of historical characters (e.g. Churchill), the narrative structure of the hero who overcomes his impairs with the help of an adviser and so forth).
Having said that - the film partially manages to engage the viewer.
Even though its classical narrative structure makes the film totally predictable.
But overall I don't like the film because:
1) it is so obviously a Oscar vehicle
2) it pretends to be some kind of historical piece - but it's obviously royal kitsch. The story could been taken from any average royals-magazine (it has to be said though, that screenplays can employ trash-story-lines and make wonderful films out of it - but here it isn't the case).
3) it is only engaging in the beginning. Towards the middle the conflict between the king and its adviser turns out to be rather constructed/ artificial - to create some kind of suspense.
4) with 8.3 points it is terribly overrated (though the acting is marvelous)
Am Ende kommen Touristen (2007)
Eric Rohmer Style at his best.
This film reduces the dramatic form to its most minimal state. It is exactly the opposite to 'Schindlers List'. The difference seems to be, that on one side you have the dramatic (re)construction of historical events with a clear message (bad and good are clearly divided; a hero stands up against state authority (Schindler) to save human lives etc.). 'Am Ende kommen Touristen' on the other side reflects on the problem, that 'in real life' it's much more difficult to learn something out of the past. Moralistic reflections and statements - be it in movies or in real life - about the past have turned into repetitive, self-righteous clichés, that have lost their meaning and their authenticity: What does it mean to say 'Something like that should never happen again'? What political actions (war for human rights etc.) can be justified with past experiences? Why putting up an memorial on a site, where once so many innocent people were killed, when on the other side the present has changed so fast, that the past has lost its meaning? In a way the films message is nihilistic: there is no answer to the question of how the past relates to the present. There can be no lesson drawn from the past - rather the world has become too complex to be fully understood. (And the science of history on the other hand has to solve the problem of relating the past to the present; of persuading the reader that the past is somehow still relevant to the present).
Though the film seems rather nihilistic in its political meaning it gives a rich insight in the often painful and desperate efforts of human beings, who try to deal with those problems of the modern world and who try to find explanations of some kind. And after all the film gives hope in so far as in the end the protagonist returns to the memorial center: therefore he is not just escaping from a hyper-complex world, but tries to face it even though he hasn't found any definitive answers and can only listen wordlessly to the standardised reflections about the past of the teacher, who talks to him in the bus.
The formal style of the film underlines this enigmatic absence of meaning very successfully: minimal use of music; a very subtle dramatization (e.g.: the story is not about life or death); an open end - all this reminds of the sophisticated style of Eric Rohmer. Certainly one of the best German films of the decade...
District 9 (2009)
Moralistic, boring story without any irony!
I gave that film only four points for two reasons: First it is totally overrated. And i am wondering: if it comes down to recently released, successful movies, the rating is often too good, whereas classic, older movies are rated adequately.
So why is the film bad? It's easy to understand, as it has the typical problem, many action films have: it lacks originality. And therefore: the action parts are of no interest at all, for the viewer. They are just the bitter pill, the viewer has to swallow, if he wants to see the unsurprising ending of the film.
The clichés - which unfortunately undergo no variations - are the following: The main character: a naive, stupid man becomes the world saving hero.
The story line: the hero is in need of a substance, which will save his health, and return him to his beloved, family home (his wife is only sobbing and crying at home - what a character !!!). And: he befriends himself with an alien, who is - after all - not a bad creature. So: we've got an moral issue here: not only human have human rights! Then the antagonists: a bad weapon corporation, which is only interested in profit (seen thousands of times!), a racist military squad, which hunts the protagonist throughout 45 minutes of the movie (this last bit appallingly boring; the main dialogue line: f* and the toting of a machine gun), and a group of colored people, who engage in voodoo (!) and criminal business and which is also after the protagonist. (This part is from an ethical point of view especially bad, as it is - in my opinion - an obviously racist stereotype, which lacks even the slightest bit of irony).
So while the first third of the film is still alright - it is a comedy or satire, reminding a bit on Starship Troopers - it becomes towards the end sickeningly moralistic. The problem with that is from my point of view: the film leaves nothing to the viewer; rather the parts between good and bad are traditionally divided, and the viewer can reassure himself after the movie, that there are some bad guys (corporations, criminals, racist) and some good guys (the everyday guy, the John Doe or whatever you wanna call him), and that he himself - as a viewer - surely would choose the good side.
The Divorcee (1930)
Shearer gives a great performance
It is funny how the film portrays love. In the beginning it shows the perfect relationship between Ted and Jerry in a rather comedy like fashion (e.g. as they are joking with the boy (their future kid?) who disturbs them in their love nest). Also they are talking to each other more like friends than sexual partners. At one point they kiss in front of the father and their friends, as if to prove, that their love has nothing to do with sexual desire. That's why, in my opinion, the first 20 minutes are rather dull: the relationship looks superficial.
The drama kicks in with the twentieth minute when the sexual drive starts a life of its own after three years of marriage. With the sexual desire of Ted, suffering starts, and the film has its first brilliant scene: Jerry surprises Ted being embraced by a woman. Now the other side of Ted - who presumably was such a nice, perfect, asexual man - is shown: He got "plastered" one day and went to bed with another woman. For him it is the drive which made him to it, so he can say: "it is not a thing" in the sense that it is not himself, but the animal inside him that forced him to do it. So the modern question the movie rises is: how does a love relationship looks like, that isn't affected by infidelity? Can they arrive at a deeper, more honest form of love, that includes the sexual desire?
The answer the movie gives, in my opinion, is no. Love and sexuality are different things. First of all the latter is associated with the parties, the booze, the jazz music, shortly a decadent, hedonistic lifestyle devoid of happiness. Secondly the somewhat lynchian scene with Dot, Jerry and Paul. It is obvious, that the relationship between Dot and Paul is neither love nor sexual - it is full of pity, guilt and reproaches. Nevertheless Jerry refers to it as a marriage worth saving. (Why? - fidelity itself is more important than love or sexuality?)
In so far I think the film has a conservative touch after all. But the strength and self-confidence of the woman characters is way ahead of its time (even compared to the femme fatale of the film noir period, who were in some way or another evil by seducing the men)
Waterloo Bridge (1931)
A great film!
First I have to apologize for my bad English, but I hope the text can be understood nevertheless.
I think that this is a great movie. It appears astonishingly modern. What I appreciated most is, that the story is not about a conflict between bad and good characters. Rather it's about the inner conflict of Myra, who hates herself, so she can't accept the love of another man. The mirror scene, when she puts on her make up before she walks the streets, is amazing in that respect. In the mirror we see her on one hand through the look of the others, of her 'clients' (as well of us, the spectators), who see in her (only) the prostitute. On the other hand it is also her own look at that part of herself, which she hates. So one could say, that she sees herself through the others. (I like this 'lacanian' logic though it may seem presumptuous).
As well the final scene, where they kiss while in the background London is bombarded by a zeppelin, is great. There seems to be a relation between the war and the strange love affair, which is only possible in a world which is out of control.
The second thing I noticed was, that there are many long shots and just a few close ups. So it has an incredibly realistic look. It reminded me somehow of the films by Ingmar Bergmann, who (as far as I remember) also tried to explore the torn subject.
The ending is erratic. Why is she killed? Is it a punishment from god? For me it seems a bit like it, because we see in the last scene the fur again, which Myra had received from a 'client' in the first scene. So it could be read as a symbol for her greed or her morally wrong decision (leaving the theater), that led her astray. But her death could be also read as a 'carpe diem' motif, which points again at the war, that confronts the human being with the possibility of a sudden, unexpected, unjustified death by accident.
It is exactly this (moral) ambiguity, which makes this a great movie.