Change Your Image
gring0
Reviews
Thirteen Days (2000)
Gripping but simplistic account
I'm showing the film now to my history seniors so felt obliged to comment on it. Whilst the film is undeniably gripping as a political thriller, it takes considerable liberties with historical facts, thereby compromising its value as an educational resource on this critical period in Cold War history.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film is the exaggerated role of Kenneth O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner. O'Donnell, who was a special assistant to President Kennedy, is portrayed as an influential figure in the crisis, often present in high-level meetings and even influencing the President's decisions. In reality, O'Donnell was not a key player in the crisis management and was largely uninvolved in the ExComm meetings, which were attended by experts in foreign policy and military strategy. The film's focus on O'Donnell seems to be a deliberate attempt to create a relatable character for the audience, but it distorts the historical record and minimises the roles of pivotal figures like Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
Another point of contention is the film's portrayal of President Kennedy, played by Bruce Greenwood. While the film does capture Kennedy's calm and rational demeanor, it fails to delve into the complexities of his decision-making process. The President is shown as almost unilaterally steering the United States away from military action, whereas, in reality, he was under immense pressure from his military advisors to authorize an airstrike against Soviet missile sites in Cuba. The film simplifies the intricate discussions and debates that took place among the ExComm members, reducing them to a binary choice between war and peace.
Furthermore, the Soviet perspective is conspicuously absent from the narrative. The film does not delve into the motivations of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev or explore the geopolitical considerations that led the Soviet Union to place missiles in Cuba. This omission perpetuates a one-sided view of the crisis and fails to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay of factors that averted a nuclear catastrophe.
The film also glosses over the role of backchannel communications between the United States and the Soviet Union, which were crucial in resolving the crisis. The secret correspondence between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin played a significant role in reaching a peaceful resolution, yet this is scarcely mentioned in the film.
So whilst "Thirteen Days" succeeds as a suspenseful dramatisation of a critical moment in history, it falls short as an accurate representation of the events it depicts. The film takes liberties with historical facts, exaggerates the roles of certain individuals, and omits key aspects of the crisis, thereby providing a skewed understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As such, it should be viewed as a piece of historical fiction rather than a reliable educational resource.
My site- Tracesofevil com.
Harry S. Truman: Plain Speaking (1976)
Great portrayal of a Great President
So glad to have found a copy of this. I teach history and would love for my students to devote an hour to really understand the man beyond the key dates. Truman: Plain Speaking is a 1976 American television film that delves into the life and presidency of Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States. The film, directed by Anthony Page, is based on Merle Miller's biography of the same name. Ed Flanders takes on the role of Truman, delivering a performance that is both compelling and nuanced. The film aims to provide an intimate look into Truman's life, his political decisions, and the challenges he faced during his presidency, including the end of World War II, the beginning of the Cold War, and the Korean War.
As an historical source, the film offers a wealth of information and perspectives that are invaluable for anyone interested in American history, presidential studies, or the specific era it represents. However, it is essential to approach it with a critical eye, understanding that any biographical film will inevitably contain a degree of artistic license. The film does an excellent job of incorporating archival footage and historical documents to lend authenticity to its narrative. These elements serve to enhance the film's credibility as an historical source, providing a multi-layered understanding of Truman's presidency. Nevertheless, one must be cautious in taking the film as an entirely accurate historical record. While it does strive for accuracy, the medium itself necessitates certain compromises for the sake of storytelling. For instance, some events are condensed, and dialogues are created to represent what might have been said, but for which no verifiable record exists.
Ed Flanders' portrayal of Truman is another highlight of the film. Flanders captures the essence of Truman's character-his straightforwardness, his unpretentiousness, and his unwavering commitment to what he believed was right for the American people. The actor's performance is not merely an imitation but an interpretation that brings Truman to life in a way that is both believable and relatable. Flanders manages to convey the weight of the office and the toll it takes on Truman, particularly during critical moments of his presidency. The film does not shy away from showing Truman's flaws and mistakes, making it a more rounded and realistic portrayal. This adds another layer of complexity to the film as an historical source, as it does not merely serve as a hagiography but attempts to present a balanced view of its subject.
The film's treatment of key historical events during Truman's presidency is another aspect that merits attention. For example, the film delves into Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a choice that remains the subject of ethical and historical debate. The film does not attempt to simplify the complexities surrounding this decision but presents it as a dilemma that Truman grappled with seriously. This nuanced approach enhances the film's value as an historical source, as it encourages viewers to engage critically with the material and form their own interpretations.
Moreover, the film explores Truman's role in the early years of the Cold War, including the Truman Doctrine, which aimed to contain the spread of communism. It provides insights into the geopolitical considerations and domestic pressures that influenced Truman's foreign policy decisions. While the film cannot replace scholarly articles or primary source documents for academic rigour, it serves as an accessible entry point for those interested in this period. It stimulates curiosity and can act as a catalyst for further research, making it a useful educational tool.
However, it is crucial to note that the film, like any other historical drama, is a product of its time. Made in the 1970s, it reflects the concerns and interpretations prevalent during that era. For instance, the film's portrayal of the Cold War is influenced by the detente period, a time when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had temporarily eased. As such, the film may not fully capture the sense of urgency and existential threat that characterised the early years of the Cold War. This temporal context is essential to bear in mind when evaluating the film's historical accuracy and its utility as a source for understanding the past.
My website: 'Traces of Evil"
Munich: The Edge of War (2021)
Confused historical narrative
I teach History outside Dachau and have been involved with the memorial site and give tours around Munich. So I know the history behind this adaptation of the book. Seeing the trailer, I was excited to see familiar buildings such as the former Führerbau (where I met the author, Robert Harris) even if there was the disquieting knowledge that the city (as well as Berlin I noted) allowed once again to have American money justify decking the town in Nazi flags.
I don't want to get into the historical aspects too much- it's impossible to do justice to the period within the confines of a two hour drama and books have been written concerning the real Chamberlain and the type of characterisation employed here. So a few observations:
1. I don't understand the tension. Will war be avoided or not? Well, we know it was... for about a year. Given it took place regardless, what's the point about being worked up about Munich?
2. The Macguffin in the form of the document outlining Hitler's real plans. Why does it have to be hand-delivered to Chamberlain personally? How was it even possible? OK- Hitler's really planning for war. We knew that! Why rely on some document when we had Mein Kampf published back in 1925? We knew he'd eventually turn on the Soviets; that's why we took Stalin's support for granted. I just don't get it. Chamberlain is expected not to sign the Munich agreement within the next couple of hours- against the most profound wishes of the vast majority of his country- because of some German document he can't read (he never brought any German speakers to the conference!), has no idea where it comes from, who produced it, how legitimate it is... Meanwhile the Germans themselves are showing no interest in getting rid of Hitler- they'd just taken Austria!
3. All the tension seems to be artificial to create it.
I) So the German protagonist somehow gets a private interview with Hitler in his Prinzregentplatz apartment. Able to smuggle a gun in. Will he shoot Hitler or not? The tension... What tension? Why is this guy even against Hitler in the first place? The show makes such a big deal about how this guy was a Nazi fanatic. He's even shown out of control in a restaurant openly expressing loudly his Hitler support (in a restaurant he didn't want to go to because I assume he thought it wasn't Nazi enough?). Hitler never changed. His views never changed. He wasn't a libertarian at first and then woke up and came up with this diabolical plan. So how does this guy completely change? And given how eccentric he is depicted as being, how does he ever get into a position of such responsibility in the first place?
Ii) His SD mate attacks the hero in his hotel. Huh? This is a guy who is one of, what, six guys in the British delegation officially representing the UK. Some guy breaks into his room and then beats him up in uniform! Does that even make any sense?
Iii) The female characters are unfortunately two dimensional. This is understandable given the period of time, but because they have no power, influence, role, they're reduced to being emotional, self-absorbed people. The hero's wife is more concerned that her husband isn't spending enough time on her rather than him successfully help prevent a second world war. They have a son- isn't she concerned that he'll grow up in a much more dangerous world that may require him to fight and die? Seriously- what is her problem? Why is she even involved in the story besides create a sense of artificial tension (or, for an excuse to give role for women and minorities)? If anything, it just emasculates the hero so much (I forget his name he's so forgettable) that one is embarrassed to be British.
3. Roles created for minorities are reduced to token characters. The secretary is now an East Indian albeit actually from Nottingham. Why the need to turn her into a minority- an even greater one in 1938? The actress involved stated that she was inspired to take on the role (a colourblind white role played by an ethnic minority) by the story of real-life heroines like Noor Inayat Khan who was was murdered near where I live, bravely fighting in the resistance against Nazism whilst at the same time being bitterly opposed to British control of her country. That's what inspired her understanding of her character who happens to be nothing more than a typist? I find that insulting.
Nevertheless she's of course sassy and opinionated and just the sort of person to entrust the Prime Minister's planned speech for secret transmission.
A top ranking British official has to be black. This is 1938 nearly two decades before immigration from the Caribbean. This historical revisionism is dangerous given the message it sends. The British are portrayed as, if not multicultural, at least open at the time to colonials when we still had India and 1/4 of Africa. There was no reason given- such a character is not fleshed out but exists simply to present a black face. Besides my criticism about the need nowadays to create superfluous, token roles by which to reduce actual humans into mere memes, this is important for such a show- the British and Americans were plenty racist at the time. Brits for the most part weren't going on about the Jews as they are made to do here- the Evian conference showed that. They took part in the 1936 Games despite the violence directed against Jews (and others). And yet here the British are told at one point that they're not in any position to take a moral stand without any reason ever given.
4. And finally, in terms of characters. Whilst I thought Irons did a good job as Chamberlain such as the part created for him, Hitler was just strange. Gaunt within an oversized uniform, it finally struck me- the actor had earlier payed Göbbels in Der Untergang. Talk about being typecast.
M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder (1931)
Perfect metaphor for the Nazi Machtergreifung
I get my students to base their essays on the collapse of the Weimar Republic just on this film- how the authorities, no matter how well-intentioned, were out of their depth and so the public decided to finally enlist the criminals to deal with an intolerable situation. I also like the idea that for the first time, Germans were getting their news free from censorship from a multitude of outlets. There had always been horrific crimes, but only now are they being reported nationwide. With the perceived degenerate art in which men were cripples and women shameless whores in the manner of an Anita Berber, Weimar seemed to have opened a veritable Pandora's box.
http://tracesofevil.com
Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922)
Seminal but flawed
Those who rate this film a full 10/10 do film criticism a disservice by lowering standards so low. While containing powerful scenes that remain landmarks in film history and have seldom been matched, the film itself is overlong (I have just seen the 85 minute version at the town cinema here in Germany) and, at times, incoherent. The acting alone is a major flaw and makes one question how anyone could overlook the stilted mannerisms and over-acting to describe this as a masterpiece. The stop-motion may have been revolutionary at the time, but it seriously dates the film. Where the film retains its value is in the context. Made three years after the Great War, Nosferatu can be seen to represent a Germany that was untouched by the battles but saw its population decimated by a hidden killer courtesy of the British blockade which saw perhaps as many as 750,000 die of starvation-related illness. Soldiers returned home to a familiar landscape but with everything upside down courtesy of the revolution and constant assassination and coup attempts. Within a dozen years the NSDAP will have taken power and a true symphony of terror occur. http://tracesofevil.com
Columbo: Identity Crisis (1975)
A cult classic
Patrick McGoohan (I immediately thought of the Prisoner when I saw a brief shot of a silhouette on a beach without knowing McGoohan was in it- he even keeps saying "Be Seeing You!") and a pre-Police Squad Leslie Nielsen appear- in fact McGoohan directs as well. "The Director" spoken of sounds like 'No. 2" Columbo certainly seems much more absent-minded and even dopey, more interested in a belly dancer than a murder victim. In fact, I notice again that he chats up little girls; two sisters in this episode. He even passes around photos of murdered men to people without warning. Apparently China was thinking of pulling out of the Olympics at the time of the episode! But then, this was during a strange time in history when people would fly by helicopter to ask a couple of obvious questions a 40-second phone call would have managed before having to suddenly rush off again. Chief suspects being told to get their stories straight by the next day when they should show up, whenever they felt like it, at police HQ. Before this can happen, the most inexplicably complex way is seemingly devised to kill them that is sure to only raise more questions than let things quieten (although it is explained). McGoohan speaking in some mock-language to his servants who can only respond in English. Columbo is much more convincing with his Italian! I won't say anything more, but the ending is straight out of the classic Prisoner episode "Chimes of Big Ben.' www.tracesofevil.com
Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)
An enjoyable romp
I show this in class more because of its unintentional humour than for any serious merit. Tom Baker's Rasputin is remarkable and makes the film memorable. Lenin is played the usual lapel-grabbing way with such lines as "You have the right to criticise me. But I have the right to kill you for doing so." A peasant telling Father Gapon how he just wants to kill people because he's living in a dive of a place. Stolypin waiting an extra two years to get killed. Alexei constantly climbing mountains or falling over hedgerows to be saved from certain death by his trusty minder. And Olivier playing the usual prophet respected by none playing up the role to the hilt. The set pieces are more American 70s TV shows than Lawrence of Arabia, but for teenagers it's enjoyable to share a laugh with. www.tracesofevil.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Bombshell (2011)
Shock value over quality
The writers are throwing in the kitchen sink by now. The victim wasn't even a "special victim", so why SVU is wasting its time and resources on the case is left unexplained. What was the point of putting so much effort in presenting a suspect who happens to be an Italian immigrant who has not been able to sleep for 15 months, three shy from what is usually determined to be the time victims expire, only to drop the character and move on? It's no wonder that Stabler himself looked bemused when they were taking leave of him. It was a lazy attempt at a MacGuffin which did nothing to move the plot in a sensible direction. To end the episode with a forced use of 'twincest' also reeks of desperation for scandal rather than imaginative writing. The final nail in the coffin is the re-used music that is heard at the club playing in the background which is identical to that used in the background of the Law and Order: Criminal Intent episode "Purgatory." Even the stock music is redundant.
www.tracesofevil.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Rescue (2010)
Can they not just settle on a single plot at a time?
No wonder my wife watches these episodes twice without remembering the first time; all these plot convolutions and deus ex machinas popping up would confuse anyone. Let's see: A woman is killed by another woman at a party. The deceased (or soon to be) is raped by a member of the ambulance crew. Who then kills himself by smashing a window in a café, running from police with guns drawn into his ambulance, locks the door, and has the police watch helplessly as he jabs his neck with the kind of fast-acting poison one expects to find in ambulances. Sod that, because it just so happens that they stumbled upon him and his partner by determining that they were involved in theft at an open house. But instead the theft just so happened was caused by the mother of the child Olivia is looking after. How many live in New York City currently? I thought things were getting better there... Anyway, this woman is now living in sin with another woman who, out of their minds on drugs, manage to nevertheless completely manipulate the judicial system. Until the other woman is killed by the biological father of the boy Olivia is looking after. But not before another guest appearance occurs involving the earlier suspect in the killing of the boy's mother's rapist. But he just happened to be there. No connection to the murder at all. Then this woman, who is allowed to walk around the streets of NYC at will, connives to have her son taken from a respected pillar of the community to live with the parents of the man who killed her "soul mate." Wait a minute- wasn't there a woman's murder at the very beginning that was supposed to be dealt with? I shudder to think what Law and Order UK must be like.... www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
The Expendables (2010)
Shallow, empty, forced advertisement for nothing
The film is forced, predictable, and brainless. The plot makes no sense and replaces plot for machismo. The scenes were thought up to provide self-reverential homages to former action stars; replace the nostalgia for current actors and all excuse for a film disappears. One need only see the scene between Planet Hollywood alumni Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger to see the phony emptiness behind this plastic film- absolutely worthless and meaningless in terms of plot. The actors are given soliloquies to emote with which, no matter the background music, again signify nothing. I appreciate that this was never intended to rival Shakespeare, but at least 80s films tried to engage the emotions of the viewers; this is simply a paint-by-numbers exercise with many of the colours missing. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
World War Two: Behind Closed Doors (2008)
Just what I've been waiting for
This is another outstanding effort by the BBC, from the same producers of Nazis: A Warning From History, Auschwitz, Between the Wars, War of the Century et cet. Many of those interviewed in those earlier efforts are shown here. The actors performing the roles of these historic men are almost perfect, right down to Voroshilov and Beria. The first episode provides what should be the bombshell- the USSR and Nazis working together as partners to conquer Europe. However, I was dismayed to find absolutely nothing at all about Russia's aggression outside of Poland's borders; nothing at all about the so-called Winter War against an helpless Finland for which FDR in a speech in Feb. 1940 complained that Russia was no different to Germany; nothing about the invasion and annexation of the Baltic states. Nothing about Soviet action in Bessarabia which helped in no small part to convince Hitler once and for all to attack. As terrible as Russian atrocities are presented here, they get off lightly. No doubt Rees's book would cover this (I haven't picked up a copy yet) but thought, with four episodes, the first could have at least mentioned more. This is in the end a minor issue in comparison to the overall quality of the series. Nevertheless, overall I was dismayed by the total lack of mention of the Dieppe fiasco which had served as the preliminary to the second front. By omitting this event, the series fails to provide a balanced view of how Britain had in fact tried to carry it out before it was feasible. The war between the USSR and Japan was completely jettisoned; as Max Hastings pointed out in his outstanding book Retribution, the USSR fought its own war completely outside the US; it didn't end its war when the series states the war ended on August 15. By failing to mention the Soviet army's sacrifice, again we only see half the story. I feel too that the Poles, who were the the most aggressive of all European nations in attacking Vilnius, Teschen, Melma, Silesia, Russia, the Czechs again at Munich etc, were made out to be martyrs when the land that was taken from them by the Soviets had, after all, been stolen through acts of wantan aggression only the decade before. Finally, despite the title, the last episode goes beyond a discussion of the alliance against the Nazis, but far too little on the origins of the Cold War to justify such a diversion. No mention, at all, was made of the Fulton Speech of March 5, 1946. Nothing at all about the Marshall Plan or a real discussion of the Truman Doctrine before it. Berlin Blockade? NATO? Korea? Lacking such crucial events, I honestly can't understand why an episode was devoted post May 8 1945. Having six episodes with which to describe an alliance lasting less than four years, I was rather dismayed by how much was left out. One small quibble I also have is to the use of the 1960 US flag of 50 stars on the cover and in the titles; so much attention to detail is shown in these series that it seems glaring to me (and lazy and the part of the makers) that the flag of the United States is incorrect. One wouldn't use the current German flag to represent Nazi Germany... www.tracesofevil.com
Sherlock (2010)
Visually strong with cut-out characters
My main issue with this series is the complete lack of nuance, of subtlety. Holmes is manic in a way to draw attention to it rather than to use it. His order to "shut up" to someone for simply thinking is a case in point; written in not to develop the story or add to the characterisation but rather to make an empty and quick guffaw. Watson is the not "the perfect foil" as another reviewer would have it. Unlike the stories, his presence is completely superfluous. Far from convincing anyone that this could have been a man back from the wars who has seen more than most, this Watson pathetically gets picked up by the police with a tin of spraypaint in his hand, or is reduced to constantly moaning about being left outside crime scenes whilst Holmes does the work. His expertise and experience count for nothing, he shows no interest in recording his observations or demonstrate anything more than a blank look after seeing Holmes's inductions that he is a character without purpose. The "Blind Banker" was an extremely weak episode not only in leaving none of the characters with a strong enough personality to drag along the pace, but rather ignorant assumptions about China which, although unnoticed by the average viewer, rather put off my Chinese wife whose hometown apparently has a unique code of numbering unknown to her. Having lived in Dalian, the use of Cantonese for people made to come from there was strange, especially given that the so-called 'spiderman' was given a Mandarin term. The music is intriguing but its Arabesque flavour irrelevant to the storyline. This is not to criticise the fine acting, crisp pacing and editing, and impressive visuals. But it is clearly a product of its time- Sherlock Holmes done in an age of advertisements and ipods rather than a fully- textured product. In other words it serves not as a work of its own, but rather is left merely as an interesting retelling without adding to the tale. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Shattered (2010)
I am Woman- Watch me Emote!!!
What a disappointment.My wife and I resumed our watching of SVU as we've just moved to Germany from China (I should point out that the necklace is obviously from the Mosuo in Hunan province, not Tibetan), and the first couple of episodes were well done compared to the way things had been going. But this was nonsense. Over-the-top melodrama, music and lines with a crazed French woman who happens to have a doctorate and is provided with the funds from prestigious organisations to travel the world researching tribes.I kept looking at my watch to see when it would turn out that this woman- crazed, sociopathic to the point of semi-autistic,capable of murdering people and hiring others to help her kidnap her child to take with her to China to live with tribes (it was hard enough for me to live eight years in Peking)- was actually innocent and it was the husband who came up with the idea of kidnapping the child independent of the wife and beat her to it. It wasn't until the final act where one male (child) is dead, the man himself laid low by a blow from a passionate femme fatale straight out from Medea, another shot but able to direct another to make inch cuts into her, and the final one declaring that her mastectomy made her stronger that I saw where it was going. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
High Sierra (1940)
Ultimately unmemorable
Everyone loves "Mad Dog" Collins- a lovable dog, a crippled girl half his age who talks like an eight-year old, her grandpa (who played the doctor in The Invisible Man), and the cynical Ida Lupino. But why? Bogart hardly shows any wit, humour or charisma towards any of the characters. Nor can it be understood why Bogart would choose the childlike Velma over the jaw-dropping Lupina who oozes sex and is practically begging it Bogie-style. "Don't talk like a sap" Bogart tells Lupina, but that would be characteristic of most of the dialogue despite one reviewer's claims that it is "witty." The film seems uncertain as to what direction it wants to take- either a Chaplinesque syrupy romance demanding double-takes, gaping mouths and wide-eyes from its actors and tears and vulnerable innocence from its actresses. Throw in a cross-eyed "coloured boy" who of course is always asleep and a few books short of a library and invulnerable police and you have a film that seems dated even for 1941 standards. As a result the film, already lengthy at 100 minutes, drags until the obligatory final chase (which I must say is creditable). This is not helped by the ultimately pointless diversion involving the doddering old man who is introduced to "Mad Dog" by a pseudonym and yet, the next meeting refers to him by his real name after a contrived coincidence which has Bogart fall in love with a child. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Disabled (2010)
Powerful without the politics
Wow, what a powerful episode! It brought back memories for me as a care assistant years ago for people with MS, so perhaps despite the melodrama I was deeply moved. All too often L&O lathers it a bit thick making the plots overly trite. Such is the case here where Jill Scott portrays the diabolically evil sister, whose the son's feebleness jarred with the measures he took against his aunt's attacker. At least I feel I wasn't subjected to another soapbox rant! As always for me, what stands out is the acting by the ensemble, and the scene showing the video of abuse was absolutely raw; it is hard to remember ever seeing such a scene on a television drama in some time. I would be curious as to the veracity of the Connecticut case involving Westlaw and LexisNexus. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Touch of Evil (1958)
Terribly Dated
Last week I found myself in a debate with a colleague who had no appreciation or understanding of old films; to him, they are all defective in having staged acting which does not bear relation to reality. I gave several examples of films whose emotional impact continue in an age when films are more about product placement than in making works of art, but I'm grateful he hadn't seen this film. Forget Heston as a Mexican (told to "speak English already" in the bar-room scene after Heston's ham-fisted attempts to string three Spanish words together). Janet Leigh plays the same type of 50s 'broad' as can be seen in nearly every B movie or TV show of the time. Both her and Heston's reactions to threats directed against them are so limp as to affect my own concern for them or build up any feeling of tension. A good example is when Leigh and Heston drive off with no thought at all about bombs in the trunk or worrying about the fact there's no roof. Another is shown in the scene after Grande is slapping around some hoodlum who threw acid at Heston. (Acid! And not a drop reached its target, despite the 'care' he took in trailing Heston). The young tough runs and backs into someone who just happens to have come out from nowhere- more style over substance. The cinematographic window-dressing throughout doesn't make an episode of Dragnet into a Third Man. The slaps themselves are administered in such a ludicrous way that the kid doesn't even react to them. Eccentric people hiding behind pillars and peering through windows and suddenly popping up 'dramatically' from theatrical shadows just gets tedious 30 minutes in and, like the jarring music, never relents. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
....signifying nothing
Being very much interested in the crusades, I gave this movie a fourth chance hoping, as I reviewed the history, that I could fill in the movie's blanks, inconsistencies and occasional nonsense and come away with more. This is made all the more difficult when the director skews the history to serve his purposes. I don't write that disparaging any perceived "liberal" bias as one with tremendous respect for Scott, but he misuses the past so egregiously to fit in a incoherent plot full of such coincidences and examples of 'deus ex machina' that one can only throw up one's hands. With nearly 400 reviews, it seems presumptuous to add one more, but some immediate issues: I bought the 2-disk 'director's cut,' complete with overture before the film starts with France literally in darkness. I understand the orthodox view of the "Dark Ages", but it was ridiculous. Battle scenes, as is typical of Scott films, are difficult to make out and sacrifice realism (knights rushing in with drawn swords against lances) for stop-jerk action. Balian's meeting of his father is given no explanation, and the entire time between them resolves neither the maddeningly unclear background or the vague notions of rank and the duty required. His journey to Jerusalem where his ship is run aground by a storm leaving him and a horse the sole survivors is a cop-out. As is the fact everyone can understand his specific French dialect no matter who he encounters or on which part of the earth's surface. To see a mere, common blacksmith telling King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem the problem with its fortifications, coming up with the (up to that point of time in history) novel idea of a 'star' system of fortifications. The land he takes from his educated, world-weary father he manages to immediately improve, coming up with more ideas no-one else in the whole of the planet thought up. And throughout we hear of Jerusalem being "a kingdom of conscience" without any sense of understanding what made people from throughout Europe come to die through their beliefs. So we have a movie of Christian protagonists without any chance of Christian ideology intruding. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Witness (2010)
Contrived plot serving as soap box
The episode again made me shake my head at the contrived plot, where an unsympathetic rape victim suddenly falls dead of the flesh-eating disease. Researching the disease itself, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, it does appear that it can spread quickly throughout the body before causing death. Despite the contagious nature of the disease, little precaution seemed to be in place to prevent infection; Olivia in fact held her hand as she lay dying without any protection. I too decided to research the issue of rape in the Congo which is involved in the story; again a witness is presented in SVU who comes from darkest Africa whose past seems tainted by terrorist paramilitary groups. I thought how I would feel as a Congolese to have my country (the largest in Africa after Algeria) reduced to a line about how rape is commonplace. Again, I learned something important. But I fear in doing so, the plots are becoming less than public service announcements and Law and Order being reduced to a soap box. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Anchor (2009)
Amateurish attempt at social commentary
I enjoy and respect L&O SVU but this episode was easily the most infuriating I have seen; enough so that, for the first time, I walked away in disgust. The final trial scene, where a public prosecutor starts attacking her own witness, sounded like the writers gave vent to their loathing of Fox news and decided to subject the viewers to their soap-box rant. The resulting fracas where thugs attack each other in a court of law added to the farce. With the previous episode involving a biker gang managing to remove white blood cells and actually manipulating DNA was ridiculous enough, watching this makes me think the series has replaced its integrity for the pleasure of broadcasting its own prejudices. I am not suggesting that I don't share the concerns expressed on the show regarding broadcasters who show no responsibility for their rants, but it should not do so at the expense of the story. I would have thought the likes of O'Reilly, Beck an Limbaugh would be easy enough to denigrate without descending into overblown histrionics. The MO of the murders also defied any sense of reality and makes me question what motivated the writers to resort to it. I am especially disturbed by this episode as it was my girlfriend who introduced the show to me here in China; freedom of speech is something I hold dearly, and having to live in a country that shows absolute contempt for the values I cherish makes me angry when the regime is given another excuse to justify its suppression of free speech and information. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Das Goebbels-Experiment (2005)
What experiment?
As an history teacher, there was much that I took from this documentary- the rare footage and selected diary excerpts. However, it is far too broad in its focus; no discussion of the Depression except by 1931 and then, suddenly, Hitler becomes Chancellor. Not only does this approach prevent any understanding of the complex forces at work, but it risks giving the wrong impression of Nazi support. By November 1932 the Nazis had lost significant support (falling from 37% to 32%), and the party was in a state of bankruptcy due to Goebbels's propaganda machine. Historians argue that Hitler had peaked and, with the economy improving, he was about to enter the dustbin of history. In fact, he was suicidal. And so his being made chancellor was for him miraculous, and yet no indication is made of this- he simply becomes Chancellor without any explanation. I began questioning the point of the film, for it so simplified the situation that no indication of why Goebbels is considered a propaganda genius by many and is credited for Hitler's electoral successes. He is far more important than the film describes, but one ends up asking why he is the subject. Indeed, the development of the state in a totalitarian regime is not addressed, nor so many crucial events leading up to war that it doesn't bear reciting here, from foreign policy beginning with leaving the League of Nations, creation of the GESTAPO, rearmament and conscription to the Fall of France... incredible! Of course, Goebbels was not involved in foreign policy, but he was instrumental in devising the rationale. And to ignore the marching into the Rhineland to me was incomprehensible, considering this was Goebbels's very homeland. Some of the images have no commentary at all and so their significance too is lost. By the time 1943 comes around without the slightest reference to Stalingrad, I could only question what the point was that the producers had intended to make. An inordinate amount of time was given to the Venice biennial which only reiterates Goebbels's contempt for foreign films. This hardly constitutes an "experiment" and one finishes the film without any insight or awareness of the man and what he tried to revolutionise (to his mind). To me, the Goebbels experiment was radicalising the people which is only hinted here. It was he who initiated the book burnings. He who started the first Jewish boycott. He who launched Reichskristallnacht. So stale is the portrait in this film that his evil machinations and designs get lost in the times, and he comes across instead as sentimental and caught up in others' actions. My website shows his propaganda ministry then and now, as well as other remaining NSDAP architecture: www.tracesofevil.com
Undergångens arkitektur (1989)
Competent, judicious narration
A documentary worthy of the work of Richard J Evans, looking in depth at the importance f art to the NSDAP regime and top Hitler's weltpolitik. However, I'm not clear as to why many reviewers have singled out Sam Gray's narration for particular derision. True, there are a couple of instances where his pronunciation is not perfect, such as Berchtesgaden, and referring to "the Grecian capital" seems strange, but then he's American and perhaps it's like others referring to Beijing as Peking; to each his own. One can also hear gasps of air and creaking of chairs, particularly when Hitler's Berghof chalet is described which seems a bit careless of the producer, and the sounds of birds chirping during Hitler's three hour tour of Paris are incongruous to say the least. However, Gray's narratives competent and judicious which is not surprising as he has played judges and doctors for so long on television: Judge Greenspan in The Sopranos, Judges Chabot and Leon in Law and Order, Dr. Hough in Equal Justice, Judge Weiss in the film Suspect, Dr. Henry Spivak in C.A.T. Squad, Judge Kaufman in Concealed Enemies, Judge Mineon in Rage of Angels, Dr. John Wolff in Hanky Panky and Dr. Bernstein in A Little Sex. Remark has also been made as to this monotone delivery but, again, I don't know how else he should speak- in the same excitable manner as that of the German propaganda films? www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Nip/Tuck: Sofia Lopez (2003)
A welcome reunion
The one thing that stands out about this episode was the Doctor who McNamara approached who had been involved in malpractice and who turns out to have been his role model. I racked my brain to try to identify the actor until I realised it was Geoffery Lewis in a truly subtle, nuanced and emotional role. I hadn't seen his work for so long (I think maybe an X Files episode ten years ago) and it was good to see him still working. The issue of transgenderism was also sensitively dealt with, but apart from Lewis's appearance, there is little else about this episode to set it apart from others. The concerns Matt had about possible STDs resulting from a one-night stand was not as believable, but then I'm rather watching the show backwards and hate the character. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
Stalin (1992)
Unremarkable study of "Grey Blur" than for a "Man of Steel"
Initial thoughts- the film is long; inordinately so. I feel this is due to the need to add romance and simple human passion in a film about a man who most agreed was quite sexless. It takes an hour to get to 1928, but the whole of the Second World War takes a mere 15 minutes!!! Not enough opportunity for romance and love during a war that saw possibly 27 million Soviets die, one supposes. I admit my hero Churchill is not the prettiest person to dance with at a Russian knees-up. Duvall seems to be conjuring up a Brandoesque Corleone with huge moustache to add to the epic feel, but here I have a quibble. Whilst I don't have a real problem with his performance (he does seem to have the man down), many have noted his accent. EVERYONE speaks with affected Russian accents. Even though it is set in, ummm, Russia. This is rather off-putting as a result and prevents us from further identifying with the individuals. Now, I can understand Stalin having an accent; as a Georgian, his Russian was thick, guttural and hesitant. To others who embodied the outsider. But why on earth does everyone put on mock-Russian accents? I was rather put off by the stock footage from Eisenstein and theft of Prokofiev's score for Alexander Nevsky at the beginning; it appeared neither as homage nor even acknowledgement to greater talents which the workmanlike music arrangement and film direction paled against. The characters themselves are two-dimensional at best- mere brush strokes although I couldn't have expected more from an American production for people for whom Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin mean nothing. But it's hard to see how such people could inspire a revolution. Lenin is presented in an understated way which is appropriate I think, but few would recognise Trotsky apart from his diffident arrogance and facial hair. His dragging off to Alma Alta was, like much shown in the film, poetic licence. I won't even go on about why Molotov's portrayal is an historic injustice (a scrawny nothing referred to in the film not as "Iron Arse" but rather "Iron Pants") or how Voroshilov's public denouncing of Stalin's actions to his face is absolutely ludicrous- the man widely-acclaimed as stupidest man in the whole Soviet Republic who facilitated the purge of the Red Army, accommodation with Hitler et cet. would not have survived Stalin to die in his sleep if that had been the case, and I can't fathom the reasons for it to have been put into the script except to have a "chorus" to reiterate the obvious to us. This is just my own opinion- after all, I think the two-part "Hitler: Rise of Evil" is a great introduction for students... I teach Soviet history in Communist China and ironically I have to use a proxy just to offer my thoughts as the ruling fascists have seen fit to block IMDb because it refers to a single film no-one has heard of. Check out my site www.tracesofevil.com for historic documents and resources pertaining to this aera!
Into the Storm (2009)
Terrific Tribute to a Great Man
As an history teacher whose bust of Churchill graces my classroom wall, I was looking forward with some trepidation, feeling that this would be another example of British film-makers dumbing down for their American cousins. And reading the comments here, it would appear with some reason. Churchill is supposed to come across as an humourless man with chunks of history taken out or exaggerated. However, I find this to be a study in resolution under unimaginable pressure. The war in Britain is presented with broad strokes, but such short episodes manage to convey the mythic times they present. Churchill is not seen to be infallible (at times he expresses gratitude for the war and a megalomania that cost his judgement so dear, whether at Gallipoli or with Norway) but this all the more makes one appreciate his achievement. This film is meant to have viewers come away with an understanding of what his leadership meant and why he was such a towering figure over the past century. Of course much is left undeveloped or left out, but then this was only 100 minutes long. For those who know Churchill intimately through history (including his own), I think you'll be gratified with many of the asides and intimations that may pass over the heads of others. If I have any quibbles, one would be the format. I'm not sure why the narrative goes back and forth after VE day and during the war. It adds nothing but in fact messes up the history needlessly- Churchill had been at Potsdam when news of his crushing election defeat came in, not on holiday in France. That why it was such a blow, and how he knew (as he is made to say here) that Stalin was shocked; if even Churchill could lose elections, better to dispense with them in his Eastern settlements. Churchill's role at Potsdam was crucial, not only in the final settlement with Germany, but in having the US agree with the dropping of the A bomb. Here is an example of his greatness in shaping our world completely erased only to have considerable dramatic licence made concerning his marriage, which was never as rough as is made out. But as a tribute to one of those rare Great Men who change the course of history (even rarer for being, in this case, for our lasting benefit), it makes one watch with back straightened and a lump in the throat. Sure, some scenes appear staged (as when he meets with young airmen about to do battle, inspiring him to come up with "Never in the field of human conflict..." on the spot) but then, Churchill lived by and through myths. With fine direction (it was produced, I noticed, by Ridley Scott!) and acting, I'm going to force my girlfriend now to sit and watch it with me. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com
The Boer War and Other Colonial Adventures (1999)
Good intro to Britain's Vietnam
Saw this on RTE Brian Blessed gives a rousing if over-the-top narration to a good summary of the overall scramble for Africa. If it adds little new in terms of analysis or ideas (although it does put more of the onus on Boer intransigence and aggression), for a newcomer to the Boer War this provides an excellent introduction. This is no mean feat as the war of course is a complex conflict that even the British at the time found hard to comprehend, perhaps best seen through the use of concentration camps for want of any other conceivable. The documentary uses one historian from Sandhurst as well as actors portraying historic characters reading from primary sources (although the one playing Churchill is nothing at all like the man himself in any way) to summarise the Zulu wars (incorporating footage used from 'War of the Zulus'), rivalry with the Germans, Chinese Gordon, Omdurman and the conquest of the Sudan, and the roots and conduct of the war itself. Overall, a fine hour-long documentary.