Change Your Image
bojleng_utomo
Reviews
Metropolis (1927)
A Gloomy yet Sagacious Vision
The purpose of development should be none other than to the betterment of people. So it must be strange if mankind look up to civilization as something higher than themselves. If (physical) progress is superlative, and men are mere contributory factors of production--and a very expendable factor, for that matter (brought to existence to be used up as fuels so that some divine machine can keep running).
This movie proposes a critical look at the ever ironical industrialized society's attitude toward the so-called modern life: Developed as we might be, our world is constrained--delusional, no matter what social class we are in. That no matter how industrious we are, without compassion and spontaneity, we're just like an army of robots--humanoids without will that incapable of sensing happiness.
There are a bunch of reasons why this movie deserves respect. Like, the idea is so insightful as well as foresighted, way beyond its time (released in 1927--a couple of years before the Black Tuesday of 1929, many people consider this movie silly). Or, its daring approach in combining the common visual language with drastic symbolic images (this time, two years preceding the destructive style of Buñuel's "Un Chien Andalou"). And surely, its elegant and ingenious futuristic visualizations that strengthen the points yet never strays from the substance.
One of the most important film ever made.
Se7en (1995)
The Zeroth Sin
Let's skip the outline (it's everywhere here). Instead, let's start with some quality points: (++), (+), (0), (-) and (--).
Excellent (++): Morgan Freeman (didn't surprise me; anyone?). Gwyneth Paltrow (the way she plays her relatively small role is anything but defective). And surely the dialog, practically all along, but particularly when Somerset (Freeman) and Tracy (Paltrow) talk heart to heart (trust me, at that moment, even the screen smokes).
Good (+): directing, Brad Pitt, Kevin Spacey, camera work, editing, the way the movie depicts the police' daily life--along with the questionable approach they've sometimes got to take... (The good points are quite aplenty. But considering the space, we've just got to stop here).
So and so (0): screenplay (this is sort of a bargained price; we'll get back to this at the very end).
Bad/weak/silly (-): Somewhat aplenty. We pick one up, just so that you kind reader see my point of what magnitude a (-) might look like. The blood on the killer's shirt. Look again: chop, then ask some delivery guy to deliver the package (500 bucks), take a cab, and on to the police station (he need to BE there). All in THAT shirt. How discreet! The poor guy must be wondering why he didn't attract any attention at all along the way--even up inside the station's lobby (now I know why he's never got caught: he's invisible!). And profile-wise, he always messes up his victims, but never himself. A real turnoff.
Sinful (--): the element of danger.
It's mental. Without danger, there's no fear, suspense (and so forth). And when do we SENSE danger? When we feel that something/someone is THREATENING us--or anybody/anything we care about (our very existence, purpose, grounds, close ones, heroes, etc). In the movie, we never REALLY feel the fear, because no one ever FEELS threatened (not when it still matters, anyway). Yes, we did SEE 'threat' once, in the chase (UPON the culprit, with the fear of being caught). But we ONLY saw that--NOT felt, because somehow the one we felt at that moment was Mills (not the culprit). And our good cop is not being threatened, he threatens, and forgiven(!)--right when we're just about to feel his (or anybody's) fear in the whole movie (the chase itself is good, mind you; it's about the ever-elusive element of danger throughout the movie that I'm referring to all along). And yes, we do feel (strong) feeling once. That cafe talk, surely. But the talk (however good) is about worry, and the motif is love. So it doesn't fall into the fear-danger-threat sense we're talking about. What I'm saying is--whilst not fatally wounded, this middleweight not-a-whodunnit-noir-featured police story is, seriously injured.
There is a much simpler way to look at this issue. Try. WHERE? An unnamed city. OK, we go there--we're in (shake hands with some characters if that makes you feel better). WHAT? A sick crime. OK, focus on it. Now take a few steps back (don't turn around, and keep standing). The purpose of this antic is that now we've got a bigger frame--now we can see the whole city (people, alleys, rooms--everything). OK, now pinpoint someone (anyone) whom you WITNESS ever feels threatened by DANGER.
The funny thing about the city is that, despite the shocking nature of the crime, our two heroes seem to be the only souls who take it seriously. Others (be it someone in the Force or just common townspeople) are barely aware of it (if at all). We might even find the city peaceful (albeit gloomy). We don't really have a CHANCE to worry about anyone's safety because apart from a few segments (like the writing behind the fridge--which is a bit minor, and the tracking down of John Doe's ID--which is quite snappy), cards are laid down on the table as preliminaries (when the game hasn't really started yet) or as post-mortem analyses (when the session is over). We always miss the game. Now we can't really play along or feel the heat if we don't INVOLVE IN THE PROCESS, can we? Don't get me wrong. Seven does have many strong points, indeed (otherwise the blunder would've murdered the movie mercilessly). I'm only saying that it's not suspenseful, at least not in the way I think it's supposed to be (sometimes it's more like doing a character study or reading a homicide paperwork). And if any part of the movie did ever scare you in anyway, check again, maybe you had mixed up fear with other like entities (pity, empathy, sympathy, disgust, dislike, anger etc). Really, we're never been the eyewitness because no SCENE ever really poses a THREAT. And in a movie like this, it is a Sin. Cardinal. So while the screenplay does score (especially if we get down to technicalities), it commits the biggest sin of all--leaving out the very drive paramount in our existence: SURVIVAL.
ABC Africa (2001)
A Wanderer's Tour de Force
With all those (accidentally) minimized gadgets and plans, this movie is quite unusual. It is also not a very common practice (albeit not very unusual) that the director seems really willing to refrain himself from speaking through his movie. He wants the movie speaks for itself. And here, it does.
Nevertheless, its not that easy to grasp what this movie is really trying to say.
Let's try to take a good look at one piece of the puzzle.
The adopting parents bring the little girl to a traditional market (that's what the story goes) so that she will not be removed from her root. Then we see the market.
Now that is Beautiful (capitalization intended). This invaluable (local) 'collective awareness' about one's own identity is one too many times proved to be some 'intangible' (that is, somehow out of reach) idea to its own stakeholders (the very people who need it most). And here we see a couple (some outsiders) who care.
But hey, where is the little girl? We see the market alright, but not the girl. Yes, we see her in the protective comfort (and luxury, if we consider the environment) of a starred hotel's restaurant (?), in the car, or even on aeroplane. But not in that so called market they're talking about.
This 'eyebrow-raising beauty' is, in a way, somewhat loosening the movie's grip on truthfulness--assuming that it does really matter here (please, I'm NOT implying that anybody is being cheaty, I'm only saying what this fragment MIGHT look like--presented this way). We see that somewhere--sometimes, the movie relies too much on hearsay or telltale. So, even if the motifs might be remarkable, the execution (that is, the filming) is ARGUABLY not.
Interestingly, this could come from the fact that Kiarostami doesn't want to film a made-up thing (not even for the movie's own good). He wants to be sincere, and he's sticking to it. As we know, he's not really directing anything here (if at all, although we can see and assume that he did ask questions sometimes). He's more like snapshotting. He's not wandering around telling people what to do and then shoot'em (while they're still carrying out what he ask them to). No, he just shoot'em. He goes somewhere and shoot what he encounters--people or not (well, mostly people, mind you).
Look again. Kiarostami shot the couple mentioning about the market, then he went to the aforementioned(?) market and shot--in his own time frame. KEYPOINT: he didn't ask the couple to reenact the situation, for that would've taint the truthfulness of this movie (see the paradox?).
So that's the language of the camera here. It just shoots people, not performers. It avoids setups, everything is real-time (act or say).
And it wants to stay that way, no matter what. Even if it could (or would) cost the movie's own integrity (like the 'eyebrow-raising beauty' mentioned above).
And if that is really the case, then this 'odd couple of honesty' (the story of the adopting parents on one scene and the market without the girl on another--where both parts are so consistent with but not supportive to each other up to the degree that the outcome seems lack of integrity) is, indeed, intriguing.
But then again, what is this part of the movie really trying to say here?--Pity? Sympathy? Help sure is handy? (Again, no offense intended, please) Yes, there are other (good) shots as well (you bet) like, a little girl's struggling for life while a (way bigger) boy make fun of her (with his friends cheering thinking they're having a good time), or that daring 'shooting the darkness' (this time we can take it literary).
Still, where (or what) do all these tours de force take (or bring) us? How do all those pieces fit in the big picture? Come to think of it, what is the big picture, anyway? War? AIDS? Uganda? Africa? How a mismanaged (or lack of) national policy keep wreaking havoc upon its own people? Parentless children's life? The struggle of some people to help their youths? Life is good? Everybody should glimpse some hope of a better tomorrow? (Everybody? Who? People who see this movie from a safe distance and do not have THAT problem?) Chance is, there is none. Chance is, the director hasn't made up his mind yet (on what he was about going to say). He MIGHT even haven't had a pretty good idea what the big picture really is, yet (maybe that's why the title). He's just snapshotting--collecting pieces (and they don't have to fit all together to a single idea because it just so happens that he hasn't sorted them out yet).
So if the whole idea of ABC is collecting some information for the UN, then the latter seems (at the very least) having a fair trade. Or if it's supposed to make some pretentiously-shallow-CGI-addict Hollywood movie makers blush, this flick might just do the kick. But if ABC is supposed to be a wake-up call to the Ugandans (or most Africans) that they really need to help THEMSELVES because nothing else really counts (not in the long run anyway), then this movie doesn't look very promising.
With ABC, many (more) people will respect the directing snapshooter and put him on their mandatory list. But not as many will--quite understandably, give the movie similar credit.