Reviews

The Gabbeh, a type of hand-woven rug made by the Nomadic tribes of the Middle East, is the name and main focus point of the recently released film "Gabbeh".

The film starts as the Gabbeh drifts through a shallow river, an old couple, are attempting to cleanse the rug. As the women begins to clean the rug, the spirit of a young girl, perhaps the old lady as a young women, springs from the rug, the young girl says that the rug used to belong to her tribe, and that the rug tells the story of her tribe. The girls tribe is very family oriented, the girl wish to marry, but is told that she cannot, not till her uncle marries. Time passes and the girl's fiancé/lover follows her tribe on horseback, they finally find a wife for her husband, when her father adds another stipulation. The girl's mother is once again pregnant and the girl, being one of the oldest daughters cannot marry or leave the tribe till her mother has the baby. While this may seem mean of the father, to place all these obstacles in the way of his daughter's marriage, he may have just been ensuring that the man on horseback really wants to marry his daughter; that this man will not just run off at the first sign of trouble or hardship. This could be the father's way of ensuring that the man is serious in his intent to marry the girl. All through the film the fiancé/ lover follows the tribe remaining faithful to his betrothed.

The girl finally decides to run off with her fiancé/lover, and I can't help but think that is exactly what the father wanted, he was unable to physically let his daughter go, so he forced upon her situations, in which the only way she could truly get what she wanted was by running.

Simon of the Desert was directed and by Luis Buñuel, and really serves to show the capacious nature of mankind. Simon, has been on top of a pillar in the middle of a desert for 6 years, 6 months, and 6 days ( a coincidence?) praying, in order to show his devotion to God. People of all walks of life, from a thief whose hands have been cut off, to the Priests of the nearby church, come by in an attempt to witness a miracle, in a thinly veiled attempt to pay their respect. After Simon asks God to restore the thief's hands, the first action the man does with his hands, clasp them together and thank god? I think not, instead he slaps his child, showing that he was not really repentant, and was just taking advantage of Simon's good graces with God. After everyone witness this miracle, they all leave, having seen what they came there to see. It is after this that the devil appears to Simon first in the guise of a beautiful young woman, and then disguised as Jesus (played by Silvia Pinal, the wife of the man financing the films) and tries to get Simon to step off his pillar. The pillar represents Simons attempt to literally get closer to God and get away from earthly desires. As the devil tries to convince Simon to leave the pillar he or she is trying to have Simon renounce God, by giving up, on his internal promise to God. It is not clear whether the Devil has visited Simon any time before visit. If the devil had not visited Simon before then, why was he/she visiting now? It stands to reason that something must have changed, perhaps the fact that more people were going to see Simon and witness the healing power of God, this could have upset the Devil enough to put a plan in motion. Taking Simon away from his pillar.

Cleo form 5 to 7, is a poignant tale of a young singer, who must face her own possible mortality before she is ready. The film starts with Cleo visiting a fortune teller's office, where we find that, Cleo who is waiting for the results of a doctor's test, will experience a major life change soon. Unknown to Cleo, the fortune teller speaks in an aside to the audience, and predicts that Cleo has cancer. This film which runs one and a half hours, and literally spans one and a half hours, is basically a journey that Cleo takes. It is in the moment that Cleo faces her deepest fears that she realizes she has no true friends. Scared of her possible test results, instead of spending the time with friends and family, she spends it wandering around Paris, and with a soldier on leave. Neither her companion, lover, friend, or producers, can understand what she is going through. Cleo may at first choose not to burden her friends with her problems, but the longer she tours Paris the more she realizes that a true friend would be there with her, she wouldn't have to worry about annoying them with her problems, and she would know that they would always have an open ear for her. It is as she walks around a park in Paris that she meets a young soldier on leave who will be going back to fight soon. To Cleo, although it may seem as simple as pouring her problems onto a man she will never have to see again, if she so desires; she is really unconsciously choosing this stranger over all the people in her life. She may subconsciously believe that the soldier know what it is like to be scared and alone, and may believe that he will best sympathize with her problems, since he too has felt fear, as opposed to her other friends, who basically live the golden life.

Paisa is a collection of six short films that make up the second part of a war trilogy, directed by Roberto Rossellini. As I watched all six films the main theme I observed was friendship, more specifically the ability to make and retain friends from many different social and cultural backgrounds. Although all the films carry with them this central theme, I am only going to be discussing the first film. This first film deals with three American soldiers, who hire an Italian woman, named Carmella, to lead them through a German minefield. Two of the men decide to go check out the territory, while the third man, whose name is Joe, and Carmella stay hidden in the basement of a seaside castle. While in the basement, Joe uses his limited knowledge of Italian to talk to and befriend Carmella. As they discuss both their lives, Joe and Carmella develop a friendship, at speed which can only be attributed to what I call, fast-friendships, developed at times of great stress, people just want to believe they are not alone in their war-torn life. Joe uses his basic skills in Italian, to talk to Carmella, who could by all accounts be considered the enemy, in fact when the other two soldiers, return to the castle and find Joe dead and Carmella missing, even they believe that Carmella is behind Joe's death. They themselves would find it hard to believe that in the short time that Carmella and Joe were left together, that they could become such good friends. So good, in fact, that when the German/Italian soldiers shot and killed Joe, Carmella made sure to get revenge, sacrificing her own life so that Joe's death, would not go unnoticed. Unfortunately for Carmella, although Joe's death did not go unnoticed, it was not because of her sacrifice. Joe's two army buddies believed that Carmella was the one to kill Joe, which was really sad, because now in the future they will probably not be as quick to help and befriend the native population of the countries they are at war with.

A lot of people make a point of calling attention to the fact that "A day in the country" is an unfinished film, cut short by bad weather conditions and a lack of sufficient funds; I feel that these filming disruptions and hastily put together ending, actually contribute more to the film than whatever was originally planned. Henrietta, her mother, father and fiancé, all head out for a day in the country; when they arrive at their destination Henrietta's father and fiancé go fishing together, while Henrietta and her mother enjoy the company of two men who live in the country. Henrietta, based on dialog between her and the man, seems to truly fall in love with the man she meets. The film, hastily finished, due to the aforementioned reason, is in my opinion a blessing in disguise. While the director took this movie as a chance to show off, the beauty of the French country side, the short length of the film, kept the scenery from overpowering the story line. This plus the abrupt nature of the films end, really served to show, that the main characters pain at not being able to marry the man she loved, was simply indescribable. That true pain such as that could not be faked, so they were not even going to have an actress try to portray it, instead by ending the film when they did, they allow the audience to interpret the ending however they wish. Placing their own thoughts and feelings upon Henrietta and imaging how they would feel if they were in her shoes. All in all the film was not bad, the scenery was lovely, the actors seemed to know just how to act to be in harmony with the scenes used, and while to some the film may seem unfinished I believe the correct choice was made in allowing the film to be published, as is.

When I first watched "It's always fair weather" I expected it to be another 1950's typical Hollywood musical, and in some sense I was correct. Not being musically gifted myself, I find it hard to sit through an hour watching someone else sing, if I wanted that I would go to the opera. I don't mind musicals such as The Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins, or Charlie and the Chocolate factory, since I've never had the chance or the inclination to watch "Singing in the Rain" I really can't compare performances. In the movie, three soldiers returning from World War II, promise to meet up in their favorite bar, ten years down the road. Ignoring the bartenders scoffs, that they will never remember, they make a pact… each vowing to return with their dreams played out. Ten years pass, and the waited day arrives, only one of the three seems to have remembered, the other two through a series of luck, happen to be in the city that exact day, and head to the bar. It seems to me that the one who purposely came back, may have remembered because he wanted to show his two friends, that he, in his simple married life, has everything he ever dreamed of. His two friends, who had forgotten about the meeting, may have subliminally been making the decision not to show up, since their life was not the way they had hoped it would be ten years ago. The show also seems to project the fear that Hollywood had of television in the early half of the twentieth century, portraying the television show (on which the friends are going to be reunited) as a frivolous show, headed by a bunch of money/publicity hungry people. Quite like Hollywood at the same time, if truth be told. This portrayal shows how Hollywood felt threatened by the emergence of television and television show.

To me it seems quite obvious that "Gojira" is not just another monster movie; created in Japan, not a decade after the dropping of Nuclear Bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Gojira" serves as an allegory for the suffering of the Japanese people. The scene opens onto a fishing boat that strays to close to a nuclear testing site, reminiscent of the "Lucky Dragon No. 5", the blast which sinks the ship also awakens the feared "Gojira". "Gojira" a feared beast with rock-like skin, likened to the texture of radiation burns, with the ability to shoot radioactive fire from his mouth and whose footsteps leave radioactive fallout in his wake, seems the perfect living depiction of a Nuclear Bomb. The first shot, of that unfortunate ship is believed to be a reminder of the Lucky Dragon No. 5, a ship that when fishing for Tuna, and instead was delivered a heavy dose of radiation from testing done by the U.S Military on Marshall Islands. The ship, well outside the radius was hit with radioactive fallout when the tested atomic bomb was more powerful than the U.S military realized. As with those in the film, who died as the ship sank, the crew of Lucky Dragon No. 5, obtained radiation poisoning and died quickly. This same atomic testing that killed the crew of the ship, is also attributed with awakening "Gojira", a menacing beast that attacks Japan in the same manner as that of an atomic bomb. Unlike an atomic bomb, the Japanese in "Gojira", find a way to stop the monster, with a fictional "Oxygen-destroyer", thought this may seem the typical happy Hollywood ending the fact that "Gojira", the allegorical Atomic bomb (and in some sense the U.S military), was destroyed, shows the true feelings of the Japanese people. The Japanese mindset is one that believes, what's done is done, and instead of dwelling in the past, the Japanese should work toward the future, the very fact that "Gojira" was so popular, helps the outside world realize that even though the Japanese may not mention it, the atomic bombings are always on their minds.

In a "Trip to the Moon", directed by George Mêlies, one can tell the film was not meant to be taken seriously. Produced in 1902, when the prevailing thoughts of space travel were mainly nonexistent, this film introduces space travel in a comical light, the moon men proving that even if we could travel into space, we probably wouldn't want to. The film opens into a scene of pseudo-scientists dressed as stereotypical wizards (long beards, cloaks, and pointy hats), showing the prevailing thought of the day, that the only way humans would ever reach the moon was with the help of "magic". Yet Mêlies, tries to mix in some actual science by trying to create a vessel that seems almost an early 20th century version of the 'space shuttles', shaped like a bullet and moved with propulsion, the shuttle is loaded into a type of chamber and shot at the moon with a few brave scientist/wizards inside. It is then that fantasy comes back into play as the 'bullet' hits the eye of the man on the moon. As the scientists explore the moon, they meet a race of violent 'moon-people' that they must fight before they can return home. Now I'm not sure exactly how much actual scientists and the average person knew about outer-space in 1902, but I must assume they at least knew that the moon was not made of a person. This movie is heralded as the first science-fiction movie, and while it has many of the attributes attributed to science fiction, I believe this film belongs more in the fantasy genre. The wizards at the beginning along with the actual face on the moon, scream fantasy to me, I do not believe that Mêlies thought the idea of 'space travel' would ever be realized, I believe he was just making a fun film that the average citizen could enjoy, not a film to make people think about 'scientific advances' in the future or the possibility of 'space travel'.

The ending of Tsotsi, was definitely not what I expected, as I watched it I hoped that the mother of the baby would say that Tsotsi was not the person who had shot her, that he would get away and everyone would live happily ever after (perhaps with less function in their legs, but happy none the less). It was as I told my friend this that she explained to me that I was hoping for a happy ending, a Hollywood ending. Where the bad are punished, and the good live to fight another day; I was obviously equating Tsotsi with the good characters of traditional Hollywood films. As I watched the film, the ending seemed unfinished to me, the alternative ending called Tsotsi dies seemed a more fitting ending for the film. The way the movie ends quite different from the book, leaves you guessing. Will Tsotsi ever see the women who fed the baby again, or will he be put in jail? At least the ending in which Tsotsi dies answers any questions the audience could have, Tsotsi atoned for sins by caring for and giving back the baby, and while it may seem a bit clichéd the baby changed Tsotsi. The baby (David) reminded Tsotsi of his own childhood and the fact life is not all bad. The very fact that Tsotsi took the baby with him near the beginning of the film, shows that Tsotsi still has some good in him; he has not been totally corrupted by the environment he lived in since he was a child. His attempts to care for the child show a human willing to change his ways yet not sure how to bring this change about. Tsotsi seems to gradually change as he takes on the responsibilities of having a child, taking on the role of the parent, and becoming to think of the child as his own. It takes much more courage to give up something you love, than to steal something from someone else.

The plot of Days of Heaven is divided into three parts, each separated by Bill killing someone, and then fleeing along with his younger sister Linda and his girlfriend Abby. The first killing takes place in Chicago were Bill in a fit of rage accidentally kills his factory foremen. Racing home, Bill, Abby, and Linda, all leave the city on a train headed for Texas. They eventually get a job on a farm, owned by a deathly ill farmer. Bill convinces Abby to marry the farmer, expecting him to die soon, and Abby to inherit everything. Of course nothing goes as planned, the farmer remains stable, and Abby begins to fall in love with him. Though Abby, Bill, and Linda all pretended to be siblings as they traveled to Texas, the obvious more than familial bond between Bill and Abby, have some questioning the exact nature of their bond. As Abby falls deeper and deeper and love with her husband, the gossip of some farm workers has him questioning the strong bond between his wife and her supposed "brother", it seems ironic to me that the only time the farmer/husband sees any damning evidence, with his own eyes, is the night that Abby goes to Bill and tells him she can no longer see him because she is in love with her new husband/farmer. As the husband goes after Bill with a gun, Bill once again kills a man, whether accident or not is hard to tell. He uproots his sister and former girlfriend as they once more go on the run, for something they cannot control. Though Abby claims to love her new husband, the very fact that she left with Bill before he ever even told Abby why they need to leave, proves that Abby still had feelings for Bill. Abby didn't know when she left that her husband was dead, so if part, she had to choose between her husband and her former lover, and she choose her former lover.

So let's talk about the communist over tones in this film. The red flag that they hoist is only the most obvious so I believe I'll just skip that one. All right now communism has a few basic tenants that are shown in this movie. One of which is that the whole is more important than the individual. Now this is shown throughout the movie as rarely is a character named, in fact only a few characters in the entire movie are given names. Later when the dead sailor is laid out and almost all the people in the city walk past it may seem that they are paying undue respect to one person (going against communism), but I choose to interpret it as the dead sailor being a part if the whole (the whole being the people of Russia) and they are honoring him because they all feel his lose, because under the communist principle he's a part of all of them. Continuing communists don't pay much mind to religion, I forget why but I do remember that religion and communism don't really mix. This is shown in the film, first as the representation of Christianity, a priest on the ship is played by a man who basically looks like a hobo. We know from this time period in Russian directors would choose common people who looked the part to play the character. The fact that they chose and unkempt, unclean, man to play a man of god speaks to what they imagined a priest would look like. Later as one person suggests that they attack the Jew, the reaction of the other Russians (looks of surprise, and disgust) show their thoughts of religious squabbles. The current government is shown as a, too powerful entity that needs to be gotten rid of as the soldiers kill defenseless people and the sailors overthrow the captain and attack the other ships. It seems that the rest of the Russian agree with this because the other battleships eventually join in the rebellion.

The second that William married Bettina I knew she'd have to die. I'm not being melodramatic just truthful this movie was made and takes place in the early 20th century; no one got divorced back then, the only way that marriage was going to break up was for either William or Bettina to die. I only hoped for Susie's sake that it would be Bettina. Although, with the careless fashion that William treated her love and sacrifices it might have been better for Susie, if William was the one to die. Susie believed that her happiness was directly related to William, this displays the mindset of the time that women need men to be happy, and is proved as the movies "happy ending" has Susie marrying William, and though it is no longer the mindset of the American public that a women needs a man to be happy, it is still a myth perpetrated by Hollywood as most films still contain this classic "happy ending". If William had died and was out of the picture Susie might have been able to live her life for herself, instead of for William. Throughout the movie every action Susie makes is directly related to William. Whether she's selling her cow to send him to school, or protecting his wife, all her choices are made with William in mind. We never see what Susie wants, besides of course, her desire to marry Williams, which might just have stemmed from a childhood crush; that would have passed if she had not made it her life goal to make sure William got everything he wanted. We learn very little about Bettina except that she's selfish and thinks only of herself, a direct opposite to Susie, who cares only for William and her Aunt. This comparison between Bettina and Susie is alluded to several times throughout the movie, each time with Susie coming out on top. I believe the director did this to keep us from bonding with Bettina, so we would not care when she died and resent Susie her happiness. All in all not a bad movie, pay special attention to the title cards they're hilarious.

"Hypocrites" is the first movie I have seen directed by Lois Weber and my feelings on it are pretty ambivalent, in this review I'm just going to touch on some of the points I found interesting, starting with the naked truth. The naked truth is portrayed as a nude, see-through, woman; now I know that many people believe that "the naked truth" was see-through to keep in standards with the film laws of the day. While I agree on this point, I also believe Weber made "the naked truth" a see-through woman because Weber wanted us to know that even the naked truth can be transparent or unclear. The fact that the lead role dies at the end, makes for the point that humanity is just not ready for the naked truth; this is expounded upon in his dream when the people shocked at the statue of "the naked truth" attempt to recover it with clothes, literally covering up the truth. As the monk leads the two women up the narrow, hill path he refuses to help the two women who choose to follow him, expressing that while one can be lead to the truth, it is a journey one must make alone, with no outside help. The fact that no men, besides the monk followed or even wanted to follow the truth, shows Weber's opinion of the opposite sex. The narrowness of the path "the naked truth" runs up suggests that following or finding the truth, is the path less taken; and that when abiding by the truth becomes too ruff most people give up. While there was uproar over the nudity only a few states banned the movie. In this case I believe Weber's gender worked for her because it was a woman who directed the filming of a nude woman, and because it was tastefully done. The same scenes directed by a man may have been radically different or just interpreted differently because of the director's gender.