Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts

April 27, 2014

Rabbit Proof Fence

Phillip Noyce, 2002
Set in 1931, Three Aborigine girls are taken from their family in an effort to slowly eradicate Australia of its indigenous population. 

Rabbit Proof has some really great qualities, but is ultimately a film that is lacking to a certain degree. The acting and cinematography really stand out, with the young girls showing durability and endurance while encompassed by superior camera work. The barren Australian Outback really invokes a sense of vast despair for the girls as they try to make their way back home. At times the heat radiates from the surface of the dry earth, reinforcing the unforgiving conditions the poor girls must endure. Sometimes the camera is attempting to focus on the silhouettes of the girls as they appear to almost float above the white surface. The actual fence they follow serves as a symbol in a sense, the descendants of British colonists trying so desperately to efface any anterior heritage. Their eagerness to "breed out" the half-castes is similar to that of the Nazi's Final Solution. But with that being said, the film is guilty of dragging when it comes to the story. Wearisome, sometimes almost feeling like homework. It is by no means an un-watchable film, but it certainly is an overrated one based on the wide critical acclaim it receives. The book likely gives the story much better treatment and probably makes more of an impact. That's what is ultimately lacking in Rabbit Proof. The story itself never seems to create a gripping, emotional impression. At the end of the day, the film at least takes you into a chapter of world history not often explored, it's just a shame it lightly glides through it without leaving you with any deep-seated memories.

October 20, 2013

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

George Clooney, 2002


3/5
Ambitious television producer Chuck Barris (Sam Rockwell) who created The Gong Show and The Dating Game also moonlights as a CIA operative assassin in this film directed by George Clooney and a screenplay written by Charlie Kaufman. Based on a memoir written by Barris.

Sam Rockwell is a good choice for Chuck Barris. Barris is sort of an unassuming figure. At one point in the film Jim Byrd (Clooney) says to Chuck: "You're a fairly bright guy. You'll figure it out". And that sort of sums up a lot about Chuck. He has the drive, there's no doubt about that. But his youth was full of rejection, and that never really subsided. And life isn't necessarily timed perfectly. When he finally meets the girl who is sincerely attracted to him, Chuck has a lot of fires burning. He wasn't exactly thrilled to take on the job working for the CIA, but does anyway without much defiance. And that's why Jim chose him anyway. He fit the profile. What was the profile? Probably a softy loner who wasn't going to stand out. Someone who nobody really looks at twice. Someone who is quite forgettable. Not one to solicit a second glance. Someone perfect for Sam Rockwell, who is no stranger to playing the "also-ran" type of character.

The film at times offers a taste of classic film noir. At other times its more of a character study. And other times it feels like a black comedy mixed with a crime drama. Clooney is quite capable in the director's chair, there's no doubt about that. The scene where the camera pans while introducing the various contestants really gives the feeling its all one continuous shot. The cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel plays with a lot of color, at times an absence of it. There's a certain stylistic quality to the film that at times feels almost Sin City-like. You get a sense that the entire film has a lot of skillful people behind the camera, and it's realized quite early on that everyone in front of the camera is more than capable. It's not going to be a film for everyone, and it's certainly not Kaufman's best screenplay, but it's a film that should certainly be appreciated for the production-value.

June 24, 2013

Devil's Playground

Lucy Walker, 2002


2/5
When an Amish teenager reaches the age of 16, they are able to participate in a rite of passage tradition called "Rumspringa". Because the Amish faith believes that one must willingly decide to be baptized as an adult, they are never baptized as babies. Instead, when they turn 16, they are allowed to temporally vacate the Amish lifestyle and return when they are ready to be fully committed to their faith. Some teenagers leave for a month, for some it is years. Lucy Walker directs this documentary that films a group of teenagers indulging in the "English" freedoms in the middle of their Rumspringa.

Before discovering this film I had no knowledge whatsoever of this tradition. Being familiar with how conservative the Amish faith was, it seemed so surprising that they would approve of such a tradition that my own parents would have never condoned when I was 16.

Walker focuses on a small group of teenagers, all of whom participate in similar Rumspringa behavior.  They basically indulge in the same activities that most 16 year old's participate in. Keg parties, cigarettes, "English" clothing, music, dating, driving cars. They are raised in a very strict environment, and of course when they get old enough to spread their wings a bit, they are going to want to do so. It seems as if no matter how much you try to repress natural adolescent impulses, they are eventually going to manifest themselves in one way or another. It's healthy in a sense that the youth are able to express themselves, even if for a short period of time. I suppose it's a very effective tradition, because every person of the Amish faith I have ever met has been nothing short of friendly and welcoming. It also appears to be a very successful tradition - ninety percent of Amish teenagers eventually choose to be baptized. What makes me feel sympathetic is that they lay such a profound sense of guilt on themselves during their Rumspringa. They feel that because of their indulgences in what I personally feel is very normal developmental behavior, they will be punished for it in the afterlife. One of the subjects of the film, Faron Yoder, struggles with drugs and alcohol. He is reluctant to return to the Amish lifestyle, but has a noticeable sense of conscience and innocence to him. He is a heavy-hearted boy who may join the church at some point, but in the meantime he just wants to experience life OUTSIDE of his community.

Walker is effective at moderately examining the subjects of the documentary, but the film lacks organization. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the methamphetamine use. Instead of focusing so much on the parties and the mind-altering aspects of Rumspringa, it would have been nice if she dove deeper into the mind-set of the teenager. There should have been more of a multi-perspective approach. It would have been interesting to interview a recent returnee to the Amish faith, rather than just focus on outsiders treating them as if they were escapees. The film is noticeably low-budget, looking as if it were all shot with a cheap camcorder. The scenic transition shots are devoid of color, bland... a blank landscape. The fields may be barren, but the lifestyle is not. It's a fascinating way of life, and I wish Walker would have done a more intensive examination of it.

January 20, 2013

Changing Lanes

(Roger Michell, 2002)

2/5



Nothing really memorable about this film. Dull, predictable, lackluster. Seems like the director had some good ideas but was never really able to apply them in away that would make this film distinct. They should have put more emphasis as the lost file being a symbol of their morality... Near the end of the film the torn and frayed file folder could have represented their weathered virtue. but it didnt. It was just a file folder. What's funny is the setting is in New York City, but it may as well have been shot in Cleveland. I don't even know if there was one shot of the New York skyline. Affleck was disappointing in the lead, lacked the depth that he seems to in every film. His strength is definitely as a director and not in acting roles. Samuel L. Jackson played himself for the most part. The best performance was Sydney Pollack who has a limited role in the film.