Personal picks, of those I have seen. I certainly can't claim to have seen the best: these days, I tend to make it only as far as the mainstream cinema up the road. Because of this, I saw plenty of very unedifying, average films. Roger Ebert offers a list of films I have largely missed, partly because of the above and partly because Australian release is behind the US, and some of his are still in the up-and-coming here. Ebert also favours Canadian director Guy Maddin - and I simply cannot stand his maddening work (the last I saw of his was largely incoherent, and I have no intention of testing the waters again).
I wanted to see Rock n Rolla, but it escaped me. I hope to see The Day The Earth Stood Still, despite quite poor reviews.
Those I can recall:
1. Michael Clayton. Marvellous thriller. And George Clooney.
2. Burn After Reading. Marvellous, George Clooney, and funny.
3. Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Ham-fisted attempt to a) incorporate science fiction, and b) hand over to a new generation. But it is Indiana Jones.
4. Quantum Of Solace. The reboot works, despite remaining over the top.
5. The Dark Knight. Surprisingly good acting from Heath Ledger. (some media stupidly characterises him as an Oscar "hopeful".)
6. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. Wide in scope and technically impressive, however its philosophising is at best minor, and at worst pseudo-.
7. Prince Caspian. Very pleasant to see these books brought to life with competence. Dawn Treader is next, and despite it being one of my least favourites in the series, it should be a spectacle.
8. Australia. The flaws are minor quibbles (mine, unlike others, pertains to the artifice that remains characteristic of Luhrmann), but this is a very enjoyable epic.
9. The X-Files: I Want To Believe. Good to see them again.
10. I Am Legend. Will Smith is a credit.
Special mention to U2 3D (on a large screen) - I'm not sure I'd call a concert pic a film. Best of the older films seen for the first time: No Direction Home, Scorsese's Dylan biopic.
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Monday, January 05, 2009
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
World: Venality in the energy politics of Syriana
Syriana is a strong film. It integrates the worlds of business, government, military and intelligence services, through oil politics. It discusses nation-building and hegemony, but most of all it depicts the combined resources of business and government, fighting a very real economic war. Who’s the root enemy? China*. Throttle them by cutting off their access to energy. Around that crux, the film illustrates how leaders of those entities have a callously casual attitude to people and small nations.
However, the film’s power lies in bringing these issues home to the family and the personal spheres. The most turbulent moment for me was this integration in a scene where an Arab Prince is discussing power plays with a young executive whose boy was accidentally killed at the prince’s party. At one point he executive balks, bitterly referring to blood money for his son’s death. But the riposte is: what price, then, your other son’s life? $100 million instead of $75 million? The accident is called into question, and the threat made. (It was an accident, but it was used coldly.)
But the venality is shared on all sides. It’s venal, sometimes violent. By comparison, so is Sin City, for example - albeit much more so. Here I would argue that Syriana's violence was central to the thesis of the film, whereas Sin City is more a gratuitous celebration of violence.
Again, in contrast Sin City was driven by personal gratification, personal vendetta. In Syriana, most of the violence was orchestrated at a distance. With an executive flick of the hand, someone’s fate is written off.
Yet, which is more callous: violence executed personally for personal reasons, or for professional reasons at a distance?
Not a simple film to watch. The Herald said you need a whiteboard to understand it; the Sun Herald said it’s one of the few films to underestimate its audience.
Dense, intelligent, powerful.
*Again! See my first post, Feb-06.
However, the film’s power lies in bringing these issues home to the family and the personal spheres. The most turbulent moment for me was this integration in a scene where an Arab Prince is discussing power plays with a young executive whose boy was accidentally killed at the prince’s party. At one point he executive balks, bitterly referring to blood money for his son’s death. But the riposte is: what price, then, your other son’s life? $100 million instead of $75 million? The accident is called into question, and the threat made. (It was an accident, but it was used coldly.)
But the venality is shared on all sides. It’s venal, sometimes violent. By comparison, so is Sin City, for example - albeit much more so. Here I would argue that Syriana's violence was central to the thesis of the film, whereas Sin City is more a gratuitous celebration of violence.
Again, in contrast Sin City was driven by personal gratification, personal vendetta. In Syriana, most of the violence was orchestrated at a distance. With an executive flick of the hand, someone’s fate is written off.
Yet, which is more callous: violence executed personally for personal reasons, or for professional reasons at a distance?
Not a simple film to watch. The Herald said you need a whiteboard to understand it; the Sun Herald said it’s one of the few films to underestimate its audience.
Dense, intelligent, powerful.
*Again! See my first post, Feb-06.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)