experimenting with hope since sunrise (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} april_wednesday) wrote,@ 2005-07-16 20:11:00 |
|
crashed and burned
finally, my day off arrives. and that means i get to watch movies and relax all day. 2 movies to report; 1 good, 1 sorta irritating.
the first movie i watched today is called DER UNTERGANG(aka the downfall), a german film that chronicles adolf hitler's last few days.
i was always curious on this matter, particularly how german people perceived the second world war. it's easy to see the outcome of the war through american perspective but it's not an easy thing to see the war from native german's point of view. it's not that all germans during that period in dark history were the enemy of humankind, but they were following a man with an obsessive, unjust and egotistical vision of the world that he wish to create for a human kind that he doesn't even belong to. in post-ww2 society hitler is immortalized as the embodiment of evil and all things wrong and unjust but the truth is he too is a human being. this film portrayed hitler as a frail, bitter, angry and unswerving man who refused to accept the inevitable. the generals by his side followed the similar fate due to the oath they swore by and loyalty to the man they called fuhrer. it's absolutely mindboggling that a group of powerful men and women would follow a man with crooked vision without questioning anything. the film doesn't show you the origins of hitler or the war but instead it details last several days that lead into germany's unconditional surrender.
some great comments from imdb users.
Der Untergang is not a movie, as some people would probably expect, that shows the leaders of the Third Reich as real monsters. It is a psychological attempt at creating a slightly different image of Hitler and his closest "companions" than has been preferred by many so far. The "monsters" appear to have human feelings. They, however, have mostly dark rather than black souls. The whole movie is truthful to history since it is highly based on the notions of Hitler's secretary, Traudl Humps - Junge. To my surprise, she herself appears at the end of the movie, old, tired of her sad memories from the 1940s. Her words "One could look for the truth even if we did not know the scale of human tragedy" prove that she was not one of the blind Nazi propaganda followers but someone who believed that everyone is a child of God and it is not right to kill. The strange destiny of hers led her to Hitler somehow unconsciously.
I think the choice of depicting Hitler as a human being with a dispassionate and modest direction was excellent. The film never tries to force viewers into an opinion. Everybody can form his own opinion. Too often the horrors of WWII led writers and directors to depict Nazis as monsters. Perfectly normal human beings can be cruel and merciless if they are blinded (by hate for example), which should never be forgotten.
In a way, a human Hitler to me is more guilty than a raving monster. He had the choice and he chose to do wrong. He could choose life and he chose murder and destruction. A human being lost respect for the life of other human beings and led a country into genocide. Ultimately he loses respect for all life and starts sacrificing his own soldiers at random. This is what I value this film for, making the idea of a human Hitler tangible.
there is a beautiful shot towards the end of this film that stuck in my mind. one of the general's wife brought all their 6 children to bunkers for safety earlier in the film and when the surrender is evident, she first gives them sleeping medicine then comes around to give them poison while they're all passed out. she pulls their blankets over their heads one by one and the blanket is small enough that their feet are exposed.
if you're interested in world war 2 or hitler at all, do check out this unique film. also, check out grave of the fireflies, which tells a story about two japanese war orphans who attempts to survive on their own in war-striken japan.
the second movie of the day was paul haggis' crash(2004).
haggis made a splash last year when he garnered an oscar nomination for his million dollar baby script. he wrote the story and directed this feature about a group of l.a. citizens who are connected by racism. i have to say this now, this movie rubbed me the wrong way from the start. to be fair, i'm not very big on racial themes because it's a tricky thing to pull off and hasn't been done in a manner that i would like. i can only list american history x as a movie that handled the racial matters to a satisfying degree. i know what haggis tried to do, showing how racism is embedded in our multicultral society here in north america and how it can come in both subtle and forward ways, AND how ppl who are racist can do something compassionate towards groups of ppl they're prejudice against and how liberal and open-minded ppl can subconsciously cause racial damage.
the main aspect of this movie that bothered so much was how it handled happenstance. the movie takes place over period of one day in los angeles. during this one day, over a dozen main characters(most of whom don't have direct connections before this faithful day) are reluctantly linked by racism. this is one thing that i absolutely cannot believe. let me give you an example. an affrican-american couple driving SUV is pulled over by 2 white cops because the wife was giving her husband a blowjob. the woman is molested by a racist cop while being pat down. they're let go with a warning after her husband's "dignity was taken away". the following day the racist cop's partner switches partners after witnessing this act and they split up. the husband's SUV is almost hijacked in the afternoon and is confronted by the partner while the wife gets into an accident only to be saved by the racist cop around the same time. can you say convenient? oh there's more. later on the movie links one of the hijackers with the partner and that same dude with a detective from the beginning of the film. the coinceidences are just TOO convenient for my liking and it seems like the 2 dozen or so characters are linked too obviously. i got the impression that haggis loved robert altman's shortcuts and p.t. anderson's magnolia just way too much. by no means i absolutely adore non-linear, multiple perspective films with interconnecting storylines but am i to believe that the only thing linking all these ppl to each other is racism??? is that really the only reason that strangers run into each other? ok fine the msg was decent at best but the director had a such narrow and single minded vision that i had difficult time believing anything. there's so much more to life than hatred, prejudice and stereotypes, and definitely so in a metropolis like l.a. the only diversity i could find was the skin colours of the ppl portrayed in this film, which pretty much goes through every ethnicity in the world; persians, caucassians, blacks, asians and latinos. the movie tried to make a point but it was so obvious and in your face, it felt preachy at most times... i'm sorry if you liked this film, many did if you look at the imdb page.
While covering a multitude of arguments and ideas, Haggis's theme for "Crash" centers on the thought of faulty human communication; the film suggests that people have grown cold to affection and respect, instead immediately using hatred and paranoia as a way of communicating with their fellow man, almost always with disastrous consequences. The L.A. backdrop to the film explores the intense racial loathing and confusion that plagues the city, and while I'm not a fan of using the tired metropolis as a location for any film, "Crash" almost couldn't be set anywhere else. The setting has just the right melting pot flashpoint posture to sell this seething tale, instilling the film with a realistic take on racial claustrophobia. Like many films, "Crash" makes Los Angeles look like hell on Earth. Yet, Haggis doesn't give in to that fear, and manages to find a palpable sense of hope behind the shattering of cultures and furious intolerance.
i have to admit the movie did a good job of how ppl(especially those new to the country and language) often jump to conclusions based on stereotypes which leads to further paranoia. also there was one really great shot(pictured in the poster above), where michael pena's character's daughter gets shot while trying to protect him from paranoid persian man who accused pena of trashing his store. don't worry this isn't much of a spoiler and you'll understand what i mean when you watch the film. the shot of pena breaking down, holding his daughter and voicelessly shouting against subtle music is quite marvellous.
but ultimately this one was one hard pill to swallow for me because of its blatant nature.
finally, my day off arrives. and that means i get to watch movies and relax all day. 2 movies to report; 1 good, 1 sorta irritating.
the first movie i watched today is called DER UNTERGANG(aka the downfall), a german film that chronicles adolf hitler's last few days.
i was always curious on this matter, particularly how german people perceived the second world war. it's easy to see the outcome of the war through american perspective but it's not an easy thing to see the war from native german's point of view. it's not that all germans during that period in dark history were the enemy of humankind, but they were following a man with an obsessive, unjust and egotistical vision of the world that he wish to create for a human kind that he doesn't even belong to. in post-ww2 society hitler is immortalized as the embodiment of evil and all things wrong and unjust but the truth is he too is a human being. this film portrayed hitler as a frail, bitter, angry and unswerving man who refused to accept the inevitable. the generals by his side followed the similar fate due to the oath they swore by and loyalty to the man they called fuhrer. it's absolutely mindboggling that a group of powerful men and women would follow a man with crooked vision without questioning anything. the film doesn't show you the origins of hitler or the war but instead it details last several days that lead into germany's unconditional surrender.
some great comments from imdb users.
Der Untergang is not a movie, as some people would probably expect, that shows the leaders of the Third Reich as real monsters. It is a psychological attempt at creating a slightly different image of Hitler and his closest "companions" than has been preferred by many so far. The "monsters" appear to have human feelings. They, however, have mostly dark rather than black souls. The whole movie is truthful to history since it is highly based on the notions of Hitler's secretary, Traudl Humps - Junge. To my surprise, she herself appears at the end of the movie, old, tired of her sad memories from the 1940s. Her words "One could look for the truth even if we did not know the scale of human tragedy" prove that she was not one of the blind Nazi propaganda followers but someone who believed that everyone is a child of God and it is not right to kill. The strange destiny of hers led her to Hitler somehow unconsciously.
I think the choice of depicting Hitler as a human being with a dispassionate and modest direction was excellent. The film never tries to force viewers into an opinion. Everybody can form his own opinion. Too often the horrors of WWII led writers and directors to depict Nazis as monsters. Perfectly normal human beings can be cruel and merciless if they are blinded (by hate for example), which should never be forgotten.
In a way, a human Hitler to me is more guilty than a raving monster. He had the choice and he chose to do wrong. He could choose life and he chose murder and destruction. A human being lost respect for the life of other human beings and led a country into genocide. Ultimately he loses respect for all life and starts sacrificing his own soldiers at random. This is what I value this film for, making the idea of a human Hitler tangible.
there is a beautiful shot towards the end of this film that stuck in my mind. one of the general's wife brought all their 6 children to bunkers for safety earlier in the film and when the surrender is evident, she first gives them sleeping medicine then comes around to give them poison while they're all passed out. she pulls their blankets over their heads one by one and the blanket is small enough that their feet are exposed.
if you're interested in world war 2 or hitler at all, do check out this unique film. also, check out grave of the fireflies, which tells a story about two japanese war orphans who attempts to survive on their own in war-striken japan.
the second movie of the day was paul haggis' crash(2004).
haggis made a splash last year when he garnered an oscar nomination for his million dollar baby script. he wrote the story and directed this feature about a group of l.a. citizens who are connected by racism. i have to say this now, this movie rubbed me the wrong way from the start. to be fair, i'm not very big on racial themes because it's a tricky thing to pull off and hasn't been done in a manner that i would like. i can only list american history x as a movie that handled the racial matters to a satisfying degree. i know what haggis tried to do, showing how racism is embedded in our multicultral society here in north america and how it can come in both subtle and forward ways, AND how ppl who are racist can do something compassionate towards groups of ppl they're prejudice against and how liberal and open-minded ppl can subconsciously cause racial damage.
the main aspect of this movie that bothered so much was how it handled happenstance. the movie takes place over period of one day in los angeles. during this one day, over a dozen main characters(most of whom don't have direct connections before this faithful day) are reluctantly linked by racism. this is one thing that i absolutely cannot believe. let me give you an example. an affrican-american couple driving SUV is pulled over by 2 white cops because the wife was giving her husband a blowjob. the woman is molested by a racist cop while being pat down. they're let go with a warning after her husband's "dignity was taken away". the following day the racist cop's partner switches partners after witnessing this act and they split up. the husband's SUV is almost hijacked in the afternoon and is confronted by the partner while the wife gets into an accident only to be saved by the racist cop around the same time. can you say convenient? oh there's more. later on the movie links one of the hijackers with the partner and that same dude with a detective from the beginning of the film. the coinceidences are just TOO convenient for my liking and it seems like the 2 dozen or so characters are linked too obviously. i got the impression that haggis loved robert altman's shortcuts and p.t. anderson's magnolia just way too much. by no means i absolutely adore non-linear, multiple perspective films with interconnecting storylines but am i to believe that the only thing linking all these ppl to each other is racism??? is that really the only reason that strangers run into each other? ok fine the msg was decent at best but the director had a such narrow and single minded vision that i had difficult time believing anything. there's so much more to life than hatred, prejudice and stereotypes, and definitely so in a metropolis like l.a. the only diversity i could find was the skin colours of the ppl portrayed in this film, which pretty much goes through every ethnicity in the world; persians, caucassians, blacks, asians and latinos. the movie tried to make a point but it was so obvious and in your face, it felt preachy at most times... i'm sorry if you liked this film, many did if you look at the imdb page.
While covering a multitude of arguments and ideas, Haggis's theme for "Crash" centers on the thought of faulty human communication; the film suggests that people have grown cold to affection and respect, instead immediately using hatred and paranoia as a way of communicating with their fellow man, almost always with disastrous consequences. The L.A. backdrop to the film explores the intense racial loathing and confusion that plagues the city, and while I'm not a fan of using the tired metropolis as a location for any film, "Crash" almost couldn't be set anywhere else. The setting has just the right melting pot flashpoint posture to sell this seething tale, instilling the film with a realistic take on racial claustrophobia. Like many films, "Crash" makes Los Angeles look like hell on Earth. Yet, Haggis doesn't give in to that fear, and manages to find a palpable sense of hope behind the shattering of cultures and furious intolerance.
i have to admit the movie did a good job of how ppl(especially those new to the country and language) often jump to conclusions based on stereotypes which leads to further paranoia. also there was one really great shot(pictured in the poster above), where michael pena's character's daughter gets shot while trying to protect him from paranoid persian man who accused pena of trashing his store. don't worry this isn't much of a spoiler and you'll understand what i mean when you watch the film. the shot of pena breaking down, holding his daughter and voicelessly shouting against subtle music is quite marvellous.
but ultimately this one was one hard pill to swallow for me because of its blatant nature.
