Steal a Pencil For Me
In case we haven't noticed by now, I have a great interest in learning anything that I can about World War II, particularly the Holocaust. I love war movies in general, especially World War II and the Vietnam War. I think that in these types of films, be they fiction or non fiction, have an inherant emotional connection between the subject/protagonist and the audience member. Those of us watching already know the background and already can sympathize with the main character(s) of the movie. I'm positive film makers are aware of this connection, make a movie about it, and then often get lazy. (Don't even get me started on Valkyrie) I think that's what happened in Steal a Pencil For Me.

The film is about two Holocaust survivors, Jaap and Ina, who fell in love prior to their deportation to Nazi concentration camps. Amazingly they were twice moved to the same camp. The story goes on to tell us why it was so hard for them to be together (Jaap was already married and Ina was much younger than him) While Jaap and his wife had already decided to divorce at the end of the war, for obvious reasons the relationship was seen as taboo among family and friends. They kept it a secret as much as possible and wrote love letters to each other during their time at the camp. Once they were liberated in 1945, they got married as soon as Jaap's divorce was finalized and lived happily ever after. Weaved in throughout are small inclanations and mentions that they will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary at the end of the film.

Like the last post, the director (Michèle Ohayon) should have structured the film differently so that we as audience members were in some sort of suspense, wanting to learn how everything turned out. Did they end up together after all that turmoil? Did Ina's family recognize their relationship despite Jaap's marriage? In my opinion, we shouldn't have been let in on the secret that they were able to marry and live happily ever after until the end of the movie. That would have given the story some arc, instead it flat-lined. Yes, we are working up to their 60th wedding anniversary during the whole piece, but we know it's going to go off without a hitch and be just lovely. We needed a problem and a solution, but were left unsatisfied.

That's really all I've got for this post...See the film if you'd like to, but you'll probably be bored. It's such a shame too, because it really had the potential to be a great, heart-wrenching documentary.
0 comments | | edit post
Forgiving Dr. Mengele
I have to say I'm still making up my mind as to whether I liked this documentary or not. I'm caught somewhere in the middle. Here's why: the directors, Bob Hercules and Cheri Pugh, had an inherently amazing story to tell. What frustrates me often with these documentaries, is that even though you may have something great to share with the audience, it doesn't mean you should participate in lazy film making. We'll get into that more with my next post...

Let's start with the summary... Eva Kor is a survivor not only of the terrible Auschwitz death camp, but more particularly, Dr. Joseph Mengele. For those of you who are unaware, Dr. Mengele is also known as The Angel of Death...and rightly so. He was the "on-site doctor" who was probably second in line to being the sickest Nazi alive behind Hitler himself. We could call him an "experimental" doctor, or we could just call him sick.
 Perhaps his favorite subjects were twins. He liked to do compare their reactions and perform surgeries such as switching out their eyeballs to see if they would work in their brother/sister. Unbelievable, I know. Anyways, Eva and her twin sister Miriam were sent straight to Dr. Mengele's twin quarters upon their arrival at Auschwitz. The rest of their family was sent straight to the gas chambers. They both survived and were liberated in April 1945, but obviously were extremely damaged. The film goes on to tell the story of how Eva comes to "forgive" all of the Nazis, including Dr. Mengele himself and the opposition from other Mengele survivors. We learn about her family, her quest to keep society informed about the Holocaust, and even an attempt to make peace between the Israelites and the Palestinians.

If you're thinking "umm, what?" at the Israel/Palestine thing, you're not alone. This scene did absolutely nothing to further the story. Hercules and Pugh probably kept it in there because it was expensive to film, and they wanted to make sure it was included. I understand this as a filmmaker, but at the end of the day if it makes your film worse, don't put it in the piece! This is an example of stubborn film making. All that happened here is we learned that Eva has her own prejudices that she doesn't want to let go. The rest of the film talks about her forgiving and speaking out against prejudice. Um, what? Also this part was just really boring and it took us away from the rest of the film, allowing my mind to wonder and not really pay attention.

Let's talk about her forgiving the Nazis. Yes it is an amazingly admirable feat, however I'm not sure that that's exactly what she did. Her reason for forgiving the Nazis she claims, is to allow herself to move on and allow herself to have some peace. I think forgiveness of something this caliber is not easy to put your finger on. She says that "It is time to forgive, but not to forget." Regardless of this statement, her quest to make sure everyone knows what the Nazis did to her (building museums, speaking at schools, etc in an accusing, and almost vengeful manner) almost negates that notion of complete forgiveness because of the way she goes about doing it. Clearly I can't judge her heart, and I can't put my finger on exactly what complete forgiveness entails when it comes to something this huge and this emotional, but at the end of the day the filmmaker didn't do a good job of convincing me that's what she did. They tell us she has, but allowed footage that suggested otherwise.

I wish that we would have had a little more background about Mengele and the grotesque-ness of his "practice." What I told you about him above, wasn't really touched on in the film. They definitely portrayed him as a vile, sick individual, but I think that we would have sympathized with Eva even more had they gone into a little bit more depth here. Another thing I wish they would have paid more attention to was Eva's wardrobe. She wore the exact same jacket and scarf in more than half the film (interviews and b-roll included). These things are important because it takes the audience out of the film to wonder "did they film this all in one day, or does she just really like that outfit?" Instructing your subject what to wear is Film making 101.

All in all, I'd say that this film is worth a watch. You'll definitely sympathize with our protagonist. It's very thought provoking in the sense that you're not sure whether or not she's actually forgiven the Nazis, or even what that should look like. I just wish that Hercules and Pugh would have made that the premise of the film. The audience member wouldn't be so confused during the movie and would instead be concentrating on Eva's struggle to forgive.  This blog post would look much different had that happened.
0 comments | | edit post
The Cove
Hmmmm...The Cove, The Cove, The Cove. Where do I even begin?

How about here: I believe this is easily the best piece of non-fiction work I've ever seen. I mean, seriously. I just watched it yesterday and I can't stop thinking about it. That's a true sign of amazing story telling.

One of the many reasons why this film is so successful is because the film makers have an excellent message to share with the audience. Further, it's a message that really really appeals to your emotions. Anytime a film maker is able to successfully pull at your heart strings, the film is going to be a success. I'm pretty sure I'll never go to SeaWorld again (don't let that stop you from watching this doc though!) and had I been eating dolphin, I'd stop. This, clearly, is not an issue.

Louie Psihoyos narrated the majority of the film. He explains the main goal, which is finding out what happens in a small cove located in Taiji, Japan where tens of thousands of dolphins are killed each year. Our protagonist is Richard O'Barry who was a longtime dolphin trainer, and starred in the TV show Flipper. After about ten years in the business, and having acquired a large amount of knowledge about the incredible intelligence of dolphins, he began to campaign for their freedom and in many cases, their life. He is able to elicit the help of Psihoyos who has many film industry contacts that are able to help provide their cause with some of the most state of the art equipment in existence today, as well as a group of people whom he describes as his own "Ocean's 11."

So in addition to having a great story, this film was technically amazing. Their budget was obviously extensive. I'd really like to know what they spent here. However, the awesome top of the line equipment they used was absolutely necessary in successfully telling their story. For example, the image above was taken with a thermal-sensing camera that displays pictures based on the heat of the objects around it. Because many of their operations had to occur in the dead of the night to successfully plant cameras without being caught, there was obviously not a lot of light for normal cameras to pick up on. Also, with this piece of equipment, they were able to watch for guards approaching in the dark. And it just looks really cool on your tv screen...They coupled this with several night vision, infrared cameras to add a different dynamic to the scene. Everything they shot, everything, was in high definition and looked amazing. It didn't feel as though they just picked up whatever camera they could get their hands on, despite quality, and started grabbing footage. A lot of documentaries today do have a very digital feel to them. Not this guy...every shot was beautiful. Major kudos to Brook Aitken, their cinematographer...major.

Next we have their method of story telling. We know from the get-go that the whole point of this film, what we want to know most, is what's going on in this cove. The plan is to set up secret cameras to record exactly what is going on there, since the only people who know are the fishermen directly involved in the slaughter. Throughout the movie we get Louie Psihoyos and Richard O'Barry giving us the logistics of pulling off this immensely important footage capture. However, the story often gets interrupted by other imperative information that helps the audience realize more as each scene is completed, why we are dying to see what happens in that cove. We learn about how dolphins became such a fascination in modern culture, how smart they are, who eats them, the current plans to keep them safe, etc. But these little nuggets keep getting interrupted by other scenes that bring us back to the task at hand. The suspense that they build is crazy good. By the time we see the fruits of their labor, I was about to lose it!

That brings me to the conclusion...when we finally see the footage they captured, I had an idea what was coming, but I was completely stunned. Not only was the video telling, it was truly beautiful. They had those cameras placed in extremely successful, strategical positions. They couldn't have had better footage. There's one particular shot, and I can't tell you what it is without giving it away, but this shot was perhaps one of the best and most powerful shots I think I have ever seen in all my years of film watching. No lie. (Normally I don't care about ruining the ending of films on this blog, but you just need to see it for yourself.)

Curious? Go see this movie!! It's on instant Netflix! It won that Academy Award for a reason, people. Seriously.
0 comments | | edit post
Scot PIlgrim vs. the World
"If I peed my pants would you pretend that I just got wet from the rain?"

Oh, Michael Cera. It's a good thing the writers for this film were so good. This is definitely one of the great one liners from the movie, and Cera did a great job with the delivery, but I am just so over him. He plays the same character in every movie which makes things so so predictable.

That little soap box aside, this movie was really really good. Here's why: the post production was some of the best I think I've ever seen. It's just a really beautiful film. The special effects were amazing...I can't wait to rent the blu-ray so that I can see all the behind the scenes features. The fight scenes were really great, and this is probably where I was most impressed with Cera...dude can kick and flip and hit like nobody's business. Maybe that's not true...he's just so awkward it was surprising to see him so coordinated. I think that's it. :)

Besides Cera, I thought the film was really well casted. Kieran Culkan (man those Culkan's have some weirdly spelled names...) did a very good job in his supporting role. Great comedic timing... I really wish we had seen more of Anna Kendrick and Jason Schwartzman...especially Schwartzman. He's definitely a stand out actor in this piece. I just feel like they advertised the heck out of those two and we really didn't see much of them...especially Kendrick. Man I hate it when the studios do stuff like that!

I haven't personally read the comics that this film is based off of, but I've heard from multiple people that they stayed very true to the original. So major props for that! The special effects (again, so good...) made me feel like I was indeed inside of a comic book. It definitely was a really cool experience.
That's all I've got...not a particularly long post...the special effects were amazing and I really hope it's nominated for an Oscar because there was some very impressive, truly amazing work done here.
0 comments | | edit post