Monday, 25 June 2012

Flammen & Citronen
(2008)

RATING:80%
FORMAT:DVD

[Flame & Citron; Flame and the Lemon]

Just for a change, we have here a tale of extraordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, rather than just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. These characters would stick out in any crowd and the background of the war merely emphasizes their extraordinariness.

This is a world where everyone lives at the limits of human experience because they could not live any other way: Such people need a war to feel anything human at all. This creates a drama that basically asks: Who is right and who is wrong? The answer is, in a way, obvious since there is no such thing as a good Nazi. However, to defeat them one must adopt many of their methods and bring to light aspects of ones own personality that one would probably deny possessing. Without a war, the heroes here would have undoubtedly been common criminals.

It can be difficult to keep ones ethical bearings when one embarks on a killing spree - no matter how justified serial murder often is. Personal relationships become problematic when you may have to kill the one you are involved with, since betrayal and loss of trust - at some point - is more than likely. The two lead characters here are quite different from one another and this effectively demonstrates the differing effects of conflict - emotionalism and emotional repression. In this world of paranoia, informers and ulterior motives, killing is more often to advance personal interests than political or military ones. As is required of such profound thematic content, the performances are excellent throughout.

A psychologically-insightful movie, this one tells how various resistance groups came to fight each other as the Second World War neared its end. It also tells how some became so inured to warfare that, for them, there was no “afterwards” - they had to seek other wars to fight. A clever look at war, as such, in its refusal to conform to the moral certainties of black and white because war itself is not that simple.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.co.uk) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Saturday, 23 June 2012

Divo
(2008)

RATING:60%
FORMAT:DVD



A deeply enigmatic Giulio Andreotti stares out from practically every frame of this film. Almost winking from his mask-like visage, he virtually begs us to decipher the hidden meanings behind his poker face - even delivering his dialogue to camera. Yet this film never finally solves this mystery or even suggests that there is much beyond a man who wishes to survive in the rough world of Italian politics - which he does - as did Talleyrand before him in French politics. Despite 26 arrests for Mafia association and murder, no charge ever stuck. Yet, the circumstantial evidence against him is pretty overwhelming.

The basic problem this movie has is in how to make someone who keeps his emotions buttoned-up an interesting central character. The fact that he is not the hero is bad enough, but we never get beyond the impassive face and that others, too, are as mystified as we are regarding his true motives and passions. It might better have been called The Man Who Wasn't There.

Here the style is everything (in representing nothing) as the camera is choreographed around and along the corridors of power. And we learn no insights into the nature of power and why so many seek it and why so few achieve it. The only interesting question asked is can evil be used to create good via state-sponsored terrorism? For politicians the answer is yes, since the murder of political opponents smoothes the way for the progress of ones own political policies - which, in themselves, might be good. However, the moral compromise here takes its psychological toll.

It would seem that Italian politics is still run by the Machiavelli-inspiring Borgias - purchased by organized crime.



Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Veer
(2009)

RATING:60%
FORMAT:DVD



Joyously-overblown melodrama that is also deliriously anachronistic in it visuals such that the British are still in India yet the dialogue is curiously modern and the costume design cannot quite settle on the correct period. The view of Britain is a parody of the Western view of the East in its cultural inanities and inability to understand foreign realities.

Yet underneath all the pomp and circumstance there are serious points being made about White racism that are profoundly accurate as to how the British, for example, could have stayed in India as long as they did given the hatred felt for them. The answer, as shown here, is the fact that the various Indian kingdoms were never united and it was an easy matter for the British to play the game of divide and conquer. The politics of collaboration with ones national and genetic enemy is given central place while the claim that Indians were being oppressed to civilize them from their allegedly barbarous ways is fore-grounded. In truth, this film is about the problems of modern-day India as much as it is about British occupation.

The overly repetitious and overlong plot is pure hokum and is an inferior rip-off of Romeo & Juliet and Braveheart because the two leads lack chemistry necessary to convince one that they love one another. The characterization is weak although - as usual with Bollywood - the girls are very fetching. The choreography and songs are better than usual and actually help carry the storyline rather than being merely rude interruptions.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

Amazing Grace
(2007)

RATING:40%
FORMAT:DVD

White supremacist view of White supremacy

T he usual White supremacist malarkey about how abolishing the racial slave‑traffic was an act of godliness, but which never explains why the unloving institution – and the racism supporting it – was established in the first place (with the approval of supposedly‑loving Christians).

A fully‑incomplete history that leaves the racism‑instigating White culture unexamined, as if racial slavery were somehow a curable disease, rather than the logical outgrowth of an endemic part of the culture, which helped to fund the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the British Empire.

Inevitably, because of institutionalized White guilt, those who benefit from White supremacy today (White people) are hardly likely to fully‑investigate the true basis and the actual history of their culture, nor the present‑day benefits they currently receive from such supremacy: Institutionalized Racism.

The lowest estimates for the number of slaves forcibly‑migrated to the Americas are used in a vain attempt to minimize the scale of the Black Holocaust; without taking into account the many slaves that were never accounted‑for: As if this somehow minimizes White guilt. Guilt seen in this way magically becomes a quantity rather than a quality; making it similar to Holocaust‑deniers disputing the Jewish claim that as many as six million Jews were murdered, despite the existence of far more reliable documentation to refute such Holocaust denial.

The patently‑absurd and unchallenged claim is made that racial slavery was accepted by most people as if even the millions of slaves thought the same. White films like this never consider the victims as truly human – only the victimizers, who are viewed more as morally‑misguided rather than what they really are: Volitionally‑evil. (Compare this with the common opposite treatment of the Jewish holocaust, where the victimizers are always seen as willfully bad.)

Whites see Blacks as essentially passive recipients of White goodness; hence, the fact that the ongoing, contemporary slave rebellions are barely mentioned and certainly never actively‑supported by White people. White people see Whites who speak‑out against racial‑slavery as brave, but not the Blacks who actually risk their lives to fight it. The present‑day legacy of racial slavery (White supremacy) is still with us, and likely to remain, since old habits die hard – as racist movies like this amply attest.

There is:

  1. No consideration of the short-lived economic benefits of racial slavery and that its abolition was a long-term economic advantage to Whites, since it rendered them more employable and killed the commodity‑monopolies that would have prevented the expansion of White laissez‑faire capitalism:
    1. Beforehand, Whites experienced more unemployment because slaves do not need to be paid and are thus, in the short‑term, cheaper. In the long‑run, transporting, housing, clothing, feeding & controlling slaves who must be forced to work, eventually, becomes more expensive;
    2. thus, there is also no mention of the economic and political fact that Prime Minister Pitt wanted the slave‑traffic abolished because it was becoming less economically‑beneficial to the British Empire. And also because such abolition would hurt the French Empire (whose slave colonies were far more productive) by depriving them of fresh slaves;
  2. little recognition of the fact that Whites treat the White poor as little better than slaves. Wilberforce himself was a member of a secret committee investigating and repressing lower-class discontent in 1817, as well as opposing feminine anti‑slavery associations;
  3. no reflection on the fact that any democratic system will always tolerate evil so long as a majority of voters supports it; resulting in the moral compromise of gradual abolition in order to avoid the revolt of slave‑masters as well as that of slaves;
  4. no examination of the fact that the racism justifying slavery was not being abolished, since it was also used to justify the British Empire. After so‑called Emancipation in 1833, slaves could not own land nor vote, so the word Emancipation is clearly not the same as Equality, even though this movie implies that it is.

With Caucasians, the only constancy is hypocrisy, since Whites discussing human rights is always nothing more than a parlor game in which human suffering is viewed, by them, only in the abstract – as here. The schadenfreude is self‑evident and suggests racial slavery and abolitionism are two sides of the same coin. The brutality of slavery is simply a recognition of its economic fragility, since it requires the use of expensive force to maintain it. But none of these obvious historical facts is ever mentioned in this dishonest film.

This movie is a perfect example of the narcissism pervading all White anti‑racism; perfectly mirroring the alienated self‑regard of the White supremacist. While it is impossible to imagine any White more committed to the abolition of racial slavery than a Black, yet again, Blacks feature here mostly as passive victims – as if Whites believe the sufferings of Whites to abolish slavery were in any way comparable to the sufferings of slaves. As if Helen Suzman were the architect of the fall of Apartheid and not Nelson Mandela. As if the execution of Colonel Von Stauffenberg was somehow more important than the deaths of six million Jews.

Somehow Whites believe only they can change the world for the better – saviors made in their own image, in a world they have made bad by their own actions; eg, apartheid, Jim Crow, the Third Reich & the British Empire. The obvious mental conflict this causes inside Whites as to the inconsistency between thought, word & deed on show here reveals a love of unearned privilege at permanent war with a hatred of earned feelings of guilt and shame.

This eerie critique of White supremacy ends‑up tacitly‑favouring it by supporting the abolition of racial slavery, but not the racist nature of the British Empire. This Caucasian propaganda tries to abolish the effect, but not the cause and, like the film Amistad, is a weak critique of racial slavery, despite the exceptional quality of the acting talent and the high, overall technical quality of the production.

A film about John Newton (the composer of the eponymous song) would have made for a far more satisfying work, but would have confronted a White audience with a crisis‑of‑conscience (that they still vainly grapple with today) regarding the fact that Negrophobia is a fundamental basis of their culture. But this film brushes all this aside by implying racial slavery has nothing to do with racism; thereby avoiding White blushes.

Whites today still clearly have their moral priorities reversed and their ethical compass pointing in the wrong direction; making this movie as White supremacist as the historical figures it claims to denounce and those it claims to support.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.co.uk) is included. All other rights reserved.

Friday, 8 June 2012

Gangs of New York
(2002)

RATING:60%
FORMAT:DVD

This sprawling, arrogant mess of a movie lacks focus and the elliptical narrative and the rapid appearance and disappearance of apparently important characters suggests that a much longer director’s cut exists.

The film’s promise delivers little so ones attention is held by a dazzling central performance from Daniel DAY-LEWIS - but only when he is on screen. In fact, the many British actors here help out the American mediocrities who play the leads by elevating them to world-class status simply by the British presence. The leads are unconvincing lovers with no sexual chemistry and so the love story falls flat. They have surely missed their vocation because they are not much good at acting.

Essentially a musical with violent episodes - as director Martin SCORSESE’s movies tend to be - the cultural mix is well-presented visually but not so dramatically. This lack of resonance also hurts the story of deep-seated political corruption; making this a pretty empty spectacle that forgets to tell an engaging story. Its take on White supremacy, for example, (that it is a backward-looking wish to cut off ones own nose to spite ones own face) is all well and good - but lacks further insight. As with Adolf Hitler, the audience is presented with a charismatic tyrant who rules with his all-powerful will allied to a self-destructive personality.

This film is really nothing more than a large-minded movie, on an impressive scale, but possessing a small heart.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.com) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Thursday, 7 June 2012

Boy in the Striped Pajamas
(2008)


RATING:80%
FORMAT:DVD

[Boy in the Striped Pyjamas]

Accurate portrayal of the way in which Whites brainwash their children to the need to continue Institutional Racism for the economic benefits it provides them; while simultaneously denying the existence of the Nazism that imprisons them in a cage of unending guilt, disloyalty and loneliness.

The constant mental conflict between renouncing ones humanity, in order to murder millions of Jews, and the realization that one is also killing oneself, in the process, produces and drives the moral evasions of the adult characters here; while confusing the children - who will soon have to decide between accepting White supremacy as a birthright or rejecting it in order to achieve full humanity.

As today, Whites must reject the evidence of their senses in order to vainly attempt to deny the reality of the racism they benefit from because they do not wish to ever stop benefiting from it; hence, the non-existence of Institutional Anti-Racism. Whites need their bigotry - since it is the basis of their culture - even while it is destroying them. With only racism as its social glue, it is surprising that White culture does not experience even more of one of the inevitable results shown here: Divorce.

Loving The State as a substitute for family life and friendship leads to the delusion of the existence of a national character - to vainly replace the resultant loss of a personal one. Such polities must destroy personal ties so that the only ones left are political; all the easier to control and manipulate entire populations of self-created robots. Whites thus lack a culture as much as they lack individual character and hope that looting, genocide and rape will solace them.

Not as good a view of childhood and the loyalty bred by friendship as Au Revoir Les Enfants, but close. It fails to be great because the makers benefit from the very Institutional Racism being criticized - still existing today - and this profound conflict-of-interest is not dramatized. Who, after all, would really trade places with a Jew; knowing their fate in the gas chambers? An analysis of why Whites choose to live with the terrible open secret of their guilt would make for better drama.

Saturday, 2 June 2012

Oasis
(2002)

RATING:100%
FORMAT:DVD



Moving love story about disability - both physical and mental - and the social isolation of those who either choose to, or simply cannot, grow up.

Neither of the two families here can communicate with one another as effectively as they might because of the barriers of their respective disabilities. Thus finding someone to love is that much harder. The able-bodied here are unable to accept the autonomous desires of those they are responsible for and so exacerbate this difficulty.

This clever film gets its audience to root for a rapist as he tries cack-handedly to piece together his life by attempting to rape a disabled woman! That this involves more empathy than disgust - since the attempt bizarrely brings the central characters together - is a tribute to the brilliant acting and the (often magical realism) direction from Chang-dong LEE - which are both first class.

This disturbing and affecting romantic melodrama contains compelling and quite remarkable performances from Sol KYUNG-GU and Moon SO-RI along with a subtle mix of fantasy and stark realism. It does not draw too rigid a distinction between the two yet works just fine because it all makes emotional sense. Funny and heartbreaking in equal measure and genuinely jaw-dropping and emotionally-intense this film is laced with an underlying familial guilt and eventual redemption-through-love that will have you reaching for the Kleenex.


Copyright © 2012 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker5.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved.

Contact Form:

Name

Email *

Message *

Science:



No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.



Jacob Bronowski… (1908 - 74), British scientist, author. Encounter (London, July 1971).


Sleep of Reason:



The dream of reason produces monsters. Imagination deserted by reason creates impossible, useless thoughts. United with reason, imagination is the mother of all art and the source of all its beauty.



Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes… (1746-1828), Spanish painter. Caption to Caprichos, number 43, a series of eighty etchings completed in 1798, satirical and grotesque in form.


Humans & Aliens:



I am human and let nothing human be alien to me.



Terence… (circa 190-159 BC), Roman dramatist. Chremes, in The Self-Tormentor [Heauton Timorumenos], act 1, scene 1.


Führerprinzip:



One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions of slaves… There is no organ of conciliation or mediation interposed between the leader and the people, nothing in fact but the apparatus - in other words, the party - which is the emanation of the leader and the tool of his will to oppress. In this way the first and sole principle of this degraded form of mysticism is born, the Führerprinzip, which restores idolatry and a debased deity to the world of nihilism.