Movie Review: Enemies Of The People (2009)

So after listening to "Holiday in Cambodia" by the Dead Kennedys not too long ago, I began to want to explore "The Killnig Fields" again.

Which got me into other movies about Cambodia during the dark days of the Khmer Rouge back in the latter half of the 1970's. And that is how I learned about this particular movie. 

What makes this one unique is that it is, more or less, an amateur film. But it actually interviews people who took part in the killings.

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

Yes, it features interviews with people who actively took part in the killings, and who some people would view as war criminals and crimes against humanity. This includes Nuon Chea, the number two ranked official of the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot had been known as Brother Number One. Nuon Chea was known as Brother Number Two. 

Hearing this, you cannot help but think of George Orwell and the infamous "Big Brother" who was watching over everyone. The benevolent dictator, so to speak. Pol Pot and Nuon Chea were portrayed almost as family, watching over everyone and having everyone's best interests in mind. For the most part, Nuon Chea looks like a harmless old man. You likely would not look at him twice if you came across him back in those days in Cambodia. Yet every now and then, as he explains the doctrine by which some of the most grievous crimes in the 20th century were perpetrated, you get a glimpse of a man with a stony expression and no flexibility - and little to no apparent remorse. 

Communist regimes in world history have been known to go to extremes. Notoriously, the Soviet Union had the punishing gulag system, and millions of people were killed specifically under Stalin. East Germany had the Stassi, one of the most efficient and feared secret police in the world. China had millions of people die during Mao's "Great Leap Forward." 

Yet, the Khmer Rouge was even more extreme in it's vision of implementing policies intended to produce a "pure" society. First of all, it emptied the cities of all people. Some people referred to this as "death marches." Everyone was relocated to the countryside, to what would come to be known in time as the "Killing Fields." They did not believe in modern amenities, so there was no economy, no real market, and no money. Any intellectuals were regarding with extreme skepticism and were often killed. Even the appearance of intelligence, like wearing glasses, could prove dangerous and single people out as targets to be eliminated. 

We hear the word "angkar" in most of these movies regarding this era in Cambodian history. It is the Cambodian word for "the organization," which took the form of the leaders of the group taking order from above in the rice fields. While the specifics regarding what happened in Cambodia are very different than elsewhere, this is one little bit of familiarity. Crimes against humanity are generally dismissed as people simply following orders from above. 

The worst area for the killings, or the area with the most concentration of killings and crimes during the genocide, is in the northwest of Cambodia. This is where most of the killings took place. And it targeted ethnic minority people, in an extreme, crazed vision of creating a "pure" Cambodian state. Crimes and immense suffering and mass killings were perpetrated in Cambodia. Yet, we hear Nuon Chea blaming Americans, blaming the Vietnamese, and the enemy from within, those in Cambodia who were supporters of the Vietnamese (roughly at 41:09). Everyone is at fault except, of course, for himself and the leadership of the Khmer Rouge.  

Of course, he stresses that it was not a kill first policy. No, the policy was first to try and re-educate them. These people were given two or three warnings to stop their treacherous activities.

Next, they would be required to present their revolutionary personal history and to make self-criticism. Show their allegiance to the Revolution and the greater cause. 

If that didn’t work, they would then be expelled from party. 

After all of that, if this behavior still not was corrected, Nuon Chea says “they had to be solved. These people were categorized as criminals.” 

What did they do? How was this done?

Again, Nuon Chea explains:

“They were killed and destroyed. If we had let them live, the party line would have been hijacked.

"They were enemies of the people.” 

So what did Nuon Che ultimately think of Pol Pot’s decision kill all traitors? 

In his own words:

“At the time I agreed. I just wanted to get the problem solved. It was the correct solution.” 

When asked by the movie maker whether it would not have been better to have these violators jailed rather than imprisoned, he states simply that this is a matter of opinion. He explained the urgency of the moment, at least as he saw it. The country was in danger of being taken over by Vietnam. 

Again, this notion of purity comes up. We are basically asked to accept that all of the crimes were by outsiders: Americans, Vietnam, and agents within Cambodia who supported the Vietnamese outsiders. Thus, outsiders themselves. In other words, threats to the pure vision of this new Cambodian revolution, which was creating a just society without exploitation or oppression. 

That, at least, is what Nuon Che and other high-ranking Khmer Rouge leaders claimed. Again, he explains a little bit more in detail.

First, they needed to defend the nerve center of the Party. 

Secondly, they needed to solve the problem and stop the rot from spreading.  

Then he pauses to explain:

“Who decided to kill these people? It was Pol Pot who made the decision. As for the ordinary people, neither Pol Pot nor I knew they were killed.” 

This feels like a mixed bag. Indeed, there might technically be a kernel of truth there, one which Nuon Che clearly grasps onto in order to deflect accusations of being responsible, of being guilty.

Yes, neither he nor Pol Pot could possibly know everyone, specifically, whom they ordered killed. Yet, does that really divorce them of the responsibility for ordering the killings? Are they perhaps innocent because they could not possibly know all of the estimated two million people who were killed during their time in power?

He then returns to talking of Pol Pot, specifically about sweeping out traitors: 

“We had to solve the traitor problem in the way we did so it didn’t get out of control and infect the innocent people lower down. So we dared to conclude our decision was correct. If we had shown mercy to these people the nation would have been lost.

"We would research, not arrest people randomly.  

“I have feelings for both the nation and the individual. But I clearly distinguish between them. If we must choose one or the other, I choose the nation. The individual I cast aside. They must be solved first” 

“I’ve always said I made mistakes. I am regretful and I have remorse. I am sorry for our regime, I am sorry. We won the war, we beat the enemy but then we were defeated. The people were left still poor and suffering."

By now, we begin to feel that we understand how the leaders of the Khmer Rouge justified their actions. But if it is unclear, we see Nuon Che reacting to the footage of another dictator being hanged. At first, he seems to have a difficult time believing that this is actual footage of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein being hanged. At the time that the movie was made, all of this had just happened. So it was at first difficult for him to believe that this really was actual footage of the hanging. But once he accepts that it is real, he has this to say:

“This was the end of a patriot in an unfair society. In spite of his arrest he showed he was a winner, not a loser.”  

Quite an unusual stance regarding Saddam Hussein. While I myself was always opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I also, like most people, recognized that Hussein was a monster. That he used chemical weapons on his own people, and was a brutal dictator with a horrific history of human rights abuses. So while people like me were less than thrilled about the whole U.S. invasion of Iraq, that hardly meant that we were suddenly sympathetic to him, much less viewed him as some kind of a hero. To hear someone else seemingly glorifying Saddam Hussein and referring to him as a patriot and a winner felt strange. Yet, it also helps to understand how he could have helped to orchestrate the massive crimes which he was at least a large part of in Cambodia. 

Of course, not all of the subjects in this movie are of high-ranking Khmer Rouge officials. In fact, three of the men who actually got their hands dirty and did the killings participated in the interviews to make this movie. Like Nuon Che, most of them at first seem hesitant to admit to having done anything wrong. Over time, however, they come to admit their role, and then describe the killings. Describe the places, the circumstances, and yes, often, explaining that they were merely following orders. That they themselves tried to resist, but went ahead once their families were threatened. They did what they had to do, in other words. How much of that is true or now is part of the debate.

One of the men gives a demonstration of the physical act of the killings. A plastic knife is used, and nobody is actually killed. Yet, the now old man - decades removed from the actual killings - seemed to get back into the practice easily enough. From behind, he roughly grabs the man's face and then puts the plastic, non-lethal knife to the throat. No, it is not an actual killing, but we certainly get an idea that it likely did not look far off from this. It was one of the most disturbing parts of the film.

Towards the end of the movie, these three farmers are brought to meet Nuon Che, or Brother Number Two. They instantly recognize him and view him as the venerated leader, an almost sacred man, seemingly, to them. 

After the praise, however, they begin to express their fears for their roles in the killings.

The ambiguity of how such mass killings - such genocide - could have happened, and who specifically gave the orders, is then explained:

At roughly 1:10:00  into the movie, the uncertainty of it all is explained as to how these killings were ordered:

“It might have been from the district level or even the regional or even as high as the Zone. Zone level means the central committee level but then people said, “No, not from the Centre. Then I heard it reached Pol Pot. People kept pointing higher and higher. No one was found responsible.” 

Does that not resemble the defense by high-ranking Nazis at Nuremberg?

However, Nuon Che comforts these men. He thanks them, praises them for being patriots true to the vision of the Party, before explaining the whole thing to them:

“They are not after people like you. Their accusations are against me. Am I right? But that’s okay. I have already fortified my spirit. I will talk about it at the court to open their eyes. Who killed Cambodian people. It was USA and Vietnam. Not Cambodian killing Cambodian, right?” 

“We tried our best to serve the nation and the people. Especially poor farmers. We preserved the country and stopped it falling to the hands of the enemy. You were the fighters. You should be proud. You know the word “proud?” It means one is happy with oneself. You had no intention, you were just following orders. 

“So according to Buddha’s teachings, you need fear no punishment. If there is no intention, there can be no sin, you understand? You did not have the intention, therefore you did not commit any sin. You can start life again."

Thus, we get a strange mixture of Nuon Che somehow managing to explain away any sense of his own responsibility while also making sure that these men can be at peace with themselves, even after the crimes that they have committed. Crimes which Nuon Che and Pol Pot ordered them to do, of course. But there is the sense that, at least for Nuon Che, everything is okay. He even explains it according to Buddha's teachings, which the horrors of the Khmer Rouge apparently were in complete accordance with, at least according to him.

However, the final part of the movie reveals that these men are not so easily or quickly comforted. They go back to some of the rice paddies and what now is generally known as the Killing Fields." It is nighttime now, and they go by torchlight. It seems, on the surface, to be a relatively peaceful, benign scene.

Yet, these men are clearly bothered. Not fully comforted by Nuon Che's rationales, they seem to still be haunted by the guilt of their actions. We hear one of them explaining:

“I don’t know what I’ll be reborn as in the next life. How many hols of Hell must I go through before I can be reborn as a human being again? I feel desperate, but I don’t know what to do. 

“I will never again see sunlight as a human being in this world. This is my understanding of Buddha’s Dharma. I feel desolate."

There is a final mention of one disturbing practice: sipping the fluids from a human gall bladder. They describe the taste, and each of them uses the same word: it is bitter.

And that is how this disturbing film concludes.

One other thing: also towards the end of the movie, the interviewer finally reveals to Nuon Che that his own family - every single member - was killed during the darks days of Khmer Rouge rule in the country. Nuon Che hardly seems shocked, and actually sounds gracious towards his interviewer. Is this real sadness, or just an appropriate act to make him appear in a better light?

Such a determination is ultimately up to the viewer.

Now, this is not a happy movie. This focuses on a very disturbing chapter in history. Yet, it is a chapter in history that remains mostly in the shadow. Most people do not seem to know much about what happened in Cambodia in the late 1970's, during the days of the Khmer Rouge regime. But this film goes a long way to shedding light on that very dark chapter. And it was not done with a big budget or big names, or a massive Hollywood production. Just one guy with a camcorder, who took time off on his own to try and make a movie that would help keep history alive.

To that end, it was very successful.

This movie is highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about the Khmer Rouge, or genocides more generally. Indeed, you really do get a picture that there is a universality to how these things can happen, whether it is in the rigidly cold Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany in the middle of Europe, or in the African Bush in Nigeria or Rwanda, the desert of South Sudan, or in the ride paddies of Southeast Asia. 

I believe that this shows what average people can do, or can make, if they are truly determined to do a thing. What a movie!

Movie Review: The Killing Fields (1984)

This was a movie which fascinated me when younger. Of course, the events were a whole lot closer back then, when I was a teenager. The horrific genocide in Cambodia of the late 1970's did not feel so long ago back then.

Now, of course, things have changed. Cambodia is a modern country, and a tourist mecca of sorts. My girlfriend saw a picture of Angkor Wat and said that we should go there and see it. Indeed, with Cambodia now having been a part of the overall conversion of Southeast Asia to have more modern economies - and again, friendly to tourism - it feels like the dark chapters of history regarding the millions dead from the Vietnam conflict and the millions dead from the Cambodian genocide are far, far away from modern realities. 

Yet, this history did actually happen. In fact, the main actor, Dr. Haing S. Ngor, had no acting experience. But he was uniquely qualified for this role, having himself personally survived the genocide during the days of the Khmer Rouge genocide. Ngor was a Cambodian physician, and again, had really no acting experiences. Still, he wound up winning an Oscar for this role in this movie.

What a story, huh?

For that matter, a lot of the acting extras also were survivors of the genocide. This movie was filmed in Phuket, Thailand, close to the Cambodian border, to lend the movie greater legitimacy and accuracy. It also allowed Cambodians who had escaped the genocide in nearby Thailand to take part in the movie, also lending their expertise. Again, this is not typical for a fictional movie, and gave this particular film greater legitimacy as the standard bearer of these actual historical events. 

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

So are we ready to talk in more detail about this movie? 

Okay, so as mentioned earlier, this movie actually portrays real-life people and events. The Killing Fields is about two men - Cambodian Dith Pran (played by Dr. Haing S. Ngor) and American Sydney Schanberg (played by American actor Sam Waterston) - who are in Cambodia in the mid-1970's, just before the takeover by the Khmer Rouge. They are reporters and taking chances trying to cover this story right up to the final moment of victory by the Khmer Rouge. Ultimately, they take too many chances, finding themselves in personal danger. The Cambodian ultimately is not allowed to leave, while the American, along with other Western journalists, do make their escape. So their friendship is torn by real-life events, as they are separated by the volatile situation in Cambodia at the time. 

The American, Sydney Schanberg, comes home and receives praise and journalist prizes for his coverage of what was going on in Cambodia. However, he has a guilty conscience regarding the mysterious fate of his Cambodian colleague, Dith Pran. Pran was, of course, left behind, and had to face the regime of the Khmer Rouge alone, after securing his wife and family safe passage to America.

We learn that Pran has been taken to the farm fields which pretty much everyone in the country now works. He has lost everything, and is trying to make every effort to hide away any part of his past that might give him away as a former elite. In Cambodia at the time, any level of real education or intellectualism was used against you, and made you a target of the ruling Khmer Rouge. Quite literally, it could get you killed. 

Pran sees the horrors unfolding in his country. There is no modern economy or conveniences. Instead, there is propaganda and ideology that is extremist even by comparison to other communist regimes of the time. For Pran, this has turned into more than a mere story. He is literally trapped in what seems almost like a country turned into one big concentration camp.

Of course, Pran knows that this is no game. That any mistake can cost him his life. This is a time of genocide in Cambodia, and that genocide now is generally regarded as one of the very worst in human history, which really is saying something. So Pran knows only too well that everything he does could mean life or death, quite literally. 

There are narrow escapes. Times when he himself seems sure that he will face execution. Yet, he manages to survive until the time comes when he knows he must try to escape. He does escape his immediate compound but then has to venture through this dangerous country to try and escape the horrors and reunite with his family. Almost through sheer luck, he runs into a man who seems suspicious that he is educated, yet who turns out to be on his side and helps him escape. But this man wants Pran to help his own son escape. Unfortunately, the son is killed when the other man trying to escape accidentally steps on a landmine. Remember, Southeast Asia at this time has been a war zone for quite some time. 

Pran does manage to escape, although it has come at quite a cost. He has lost years of his life in de facto slave labor conditions. He has been tortured and literally stumbled on evidence of some of the worst crimes against humanity in recorded history. And he has suffered tremendously by seeing some people he has grown close to killed. Yet, he does manage to escape.

When he finally does manage this, Schanberg receives word. He then travels to Southeast Asia to reunite with his friend Pran, as their personal ordeal regarding the Khmer Rouge is over. This movie not only tells their story, but also provides very realistic glimpses of the horror of life in Cambodia (which was renamed Kampuchea in those days) under the rule of the Khmer Rouge to the entire world. Since the country has been effectively cut off from the whole rest of the world by that point, this is almost the first time, really, that this story reaches massive numbers of people outside of Cambodia regarding the realities of life there in the second half of the seventies.

All in all, this is an excellent movie and I do recommend it. 

That said, this is not a movie for entertainment purposes. You likely will not enjoy it while kicking back with popcorn and a drink. This is a serious movie which documents the horrors of one specific episode in history, while also calling into question the Western response, especially the sense of hypocrisy of relatively wealthy, comfortable white people trying to get their stories (and their credit along with it) while seemingly allowing others to suffer. 

Again, though, a great movie and it comes highly recommended. 

Movie Review: Invictus (2009)

So I saw this movie, Invictus, many years ago. Don't believe that I saw it in the movie theater, but I did see it not too long after it came out.

However, it did not leave quite as much of an impression with me that time the way that it managed to do this time around. 

Invictus is a 2009 movie which was directed by Clint Eastwood. It stars Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon plays South Africa national team star and captain Francois Pienaar. The events which this film portrays took place in the mid-nineties, while South Africa was still largely transitioning from the oppressive white minority rule of apartheid to a multiracial democracy. 

Perhaps things were different this time around because I actually recognized some of the places portrayed in this movie from having been there. Somehow, it felt more real, more urgent. Or perhaps my mindset was not quite as in tune, for whatever the reason, the first time viewing this movie.

However, this time around was indeed different. This time, I really appreciated the performance as well as the story it was trying to tell. Also, the circumstances under which this true story actually took place, for that matter.

Okay, so let's talk about it in greater detail.

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

So are we ready to talk in more detail about this movie? 

Let me just say that both Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon were solid in these roles. There might be one thing to point out, however. It felt to me that at times, Morgan Freeman suddenly sounded a lot less like Mandela and a lot more like...well, Morgan Freeman, complete with the American accent. A relatively minor criticism, but it did catch my attention. 

Otherwise, they were both solid in these roles. 

Alright, so yes, this movie is set in South Africa just as it is beginning to transition from apartheid to multiracial democracy. The very first scene takes place in February of 1990, on the very day when Mandela was released from prison. It shows privileged white kids - Afrikaners - playing rugby on a lush field of green grass. Across the street, there are black children playing football (or soccer) on a field that looks a lot less green, and more like a dusty and rough plot of land. Both of these games (or practices?) are stopped as the Mandela motorcade passes by. The reactions from both sides are radically different, of course. The black children run enthusiastically towards the motorcade and show their love and adoration for Madiba. Meanwhile, the Afrikaners are considerably less enthusiastic, with the coach outright telling his young players that this is the day when the country went to the dogs.

Thus, the stage is set for a lot of the friction which exists for the duration of the film.

So the movie briefly touches on the historical transition from apartheid to Mandela's inauguration. It shows him feeling quite overwhelmed with all of the problems he is facing as head of the nation, as well as dealing with some family issues much closer to home. We catch a glimpse of a more human version of Mandela than the monumental figure in history that has become more the stuff of legend than of anyone on a human scale. 

Mandela is clearly trying to appeal to other countries, to open up business relations with South Africa. To generate revenue and improve South Africa's image around the world. There is one major opportunity for the country: the upcoming Rugby World Cup, which South Africa will soon host in 1995.

Now, here is where things begin to get a little bit more involved. You have to understand the reality of the situation as it then existed, with Mandela as a man, with South Africa as a country still working on reforming and exorcising past demons, and with the rugby team struggling. Mandela repeatedly states in this movie that South Africa was a nation in need of a miracle. Indeed, hosting the rugby World Cup tournament seemed likely all of the miracle it would get. Winning the championship given their own struggles, and given the strength of some of the sides which would be playing in the '95 World Cup seemed to be quite a stretch. 

Until well into 1994, South Africa was still under the control of the white minority government from the apartheid era. While South Africa had been in transition away from apartheid since 1990, the first popular government elected by a multiracial election in April of 1994 brought the first majority black government rule in the nation's history. While it certainly could have been worse, there were tensions and fears across the spectrum. Many whites feared retaliation and retribution, by blacks, while many blacks and other minorities still viewed whites through the lens of the oppression which was still quite recent and raw. 

How did rugby enter into the equation?

Well, the racial divide was quite visible with sports, as well. The black majority favored football/soccer as their favorite sport. But among whites - particularly Afrikaners - the most popular sport was rugby. The Springboks were the beloved national team, with their distinctive green and gold colors. During the anti-apartheid struggle, blacks - including Nelson Mandela - would tend to root against the Springboks, pulling instead for whoever happened to be playing against them. Those attitudes were not simply going to change right away. 

Early in the movie, we see a council representing the new black majority government moving to change the name and colors of the rugby team permanently and immediately. Afrikaners would no longer be able to root for or watch their beloved Springboks. At least, that was how the vote was going, until Nelson Mandela showed up in person. He warned that this was petty revenge, trying to take away an institution which was particularly and truly beloved by the Afrikaners. Mandela was taking a political risk, as this was not a particularly popular opinion. Many blacks indeed wanted some revenge against whites - and again, especially Afrikaners - in any way that they could. Also, it seemed like Mandela was suddenly defending Afrikaners, a position many simply did not understand. But Mandela's argument was that the white minority were also South Africans, and past divisions should be left in the past if all South Africans were to feel welcome in the new "Rainbow nation."

So the Springboks name and colors would be preserved. One of the major things which Afrikaners truly loved would continue unaltered. However, there were still questions. First of all, would the Springboks be competitive? Secondly, even if they fared well in the tournament, could they actually gain the support of South Africa behind them, being predominately Afrikaner?

Nelson Mandela clearly wanted it to happen. He had reversed his course from actively rooting against the Springboks. Now, he saw them as possibly a unifying force for the new South Africa. While soccer might be the most popular sport (by far) among the black majority, the South African  soccer team was not especially good or going to bring glory to the country. But the rugby team traditionally had been very good, and could potentially fare well against international competition.

However, the early results were disappointing losses. The Springboks just did not look good with less than a year to go before the upcoming World Cup tournament. Mandela met with the captain, Francois Pienaar, in Pretoria. He talked about leadership and inspiring those around him to be better, to dig in deeper and produce better results. After the meeting, we see Pienaar almost unable to speak after the meeting. When asked what Mandela had wanted to speak to him about, Pienaar remained quiet, then hesitantly said that he believed Mandela wanted the Springboks to win the World Cup.  

The movie keeps going back and forth between the challenges which Mandela faces, both personal and political, while also watching a "Rocky" kind of inspirational story of the Springboks, who slowly but surely, at the behest of Mandela and Pienaar, try to build inroads to being accepted by all of South Africa. We see them working hard to become the fittest team of the World Cup tournament, but we also see them visiting poor townships and getting black youths a little more acclimated with rugby, and of course pulling for the national team. 

Once the World Cup tournament begins, South Africa has to start with a tough game right off the bat. They face Australia, but a win there would help them win their group and clear a workable path to the World Cup Final. Mandela seems increasingly obsessed with how the Springboks are doing, and the challenges that they might or will face. Once they get past Australia, they work their way through the group state and into elimination rounds. Indeed, they do qualify for the Final. 

Unfortunately for them, they have the toughest test yet waiting for them in that game. The All-Blacks of New Zealand are considered by some to be the finest rugby team in history at that point. They set the record for highest score ever produced in a World Cup tournament just days earlier. Now, South Africa had the considerable task of not just slowing them down, but of somehow managing to defeat them.

That's a very tall order. 

Of course, South Africa somehow does slow down the All-Blacks. It is a low scoring affair, a back and forth kind of a game that goes into extra time. Then, somehow, South Africa manages to just squeak by with the win.

It is all over. Just like that, the South African rugby team has pulled off one of the huge upsets and miracles in modern sports history. 

And remember, this is not just a Hollywood movie. It is a depiction of events which actually happened! This particular South African miracle was real. 

Personally, I felt that this was a very good and inspiring movie. Morgan Freeman is solid as Mandela, save for some of those slips with his American accent suddenly, inexplicably returning from time to time. Meanwhile, Matt Damon also is solid as the largely quiet Francois Pienaar. It gives us a glimpse into South Africa during that country's greatest chapter of massive reform during modern times. And it does so largely without lecturing or anything like that. You really do get a feel for what the transition from apartheid to multiracial democracy might have looked like from the inside, especially in the world of sports.

Highly recommended. 

Movie Review: Ljósbrot (Icelandic For When the Light Breaks, or Literally 'Refraction')

One of the advantages of taking the airlines from another country is to get a taste - often literally - of that other country. 

This 2024 movie is the only Icelandic movie that I have ever seen, at least to date. 

It is not a bad movie. The entirety of the movie is supposed to take place over the course of one single, albeit long, day. 

Remember that in Iceland during the warm season, the days are very long, with daylight basically lasting the entire day.

The movie begins with a young couple clearly in love, standing on the rocks and looking westward towards the setting sun. They are dreaming of a future together, of places they can go to be happy. The girl, Una (played by Elín Hall) is waiting for the boy, Diddi (played by Baldur Einarsson) to break up with Klara, his current girlfriend (played by Katla Njálsdóttir).

For now, they are together in secret only. But once Diddi breaks up with Klara, they no longer have to love each other in secret. 

Una is looking forward to this, counting on this. She is happy. Her relationship with Diddi will soon be out in the open, no longer just a secret. 

But the movie shifts gears almost right away. We are suddenly in a dark place and seeing overheard lights in a dark tunnel passing slowly. Then, we see what at first appears to be light at the end of the tunnel, only to see that, in fact, it is a fire. It is a tragedy, and we quickly learn that it is the worst car accident in Iceland's history. And it has taken the life of young Diddi. 

We do not immediately know that, however. 

There is a happy moment when we see Una and Diddi in bed together at his home, which he shares with Gunni (played by Mikael Kaaber), their mutual friend. Later, after Diddi has left early in the morning, Una wakes up alone and is getting ready, when she hears Gunni enter the home. Since she still has to keep her relationship a secret, she is forced to sneak out. But her shoes are out beyond Diddi's bedroom, so she has to borrow a bright orange pair of shoes that do not belong to her, and do not fit.

Little by little, as they go about their day, this accident in a tunnel becomes more prominent. It seems like an isolated news story at first, until it becomes clear that, in fact, Diddi was a part of this tragedy. Just like that, this young man is gone, taken from the world too soon. It happens before he has made good on his promise to break up with Klara, his girlfriend. So while everyone is sympathetic towards Klara on her loss, Una has to deal with the grief of having lost her true love, as well as having to keep it all a secret.

Una feels an obvious resentment towards Klara. Yet, it is something which she mostly has to keep to herself, like everything else.

There are times when it seems as though Klara surely knows that there is something more to Una and Diddi than meets the eye. Klara had originally believed Una to be a lesbian, but Una makes it clear that she is not a lesbian. Little by little, it seems that Klara is piecing together the nature of Una's real relationship with Diddi, her own boyfriend.

Yet, there is no explosive moment, as you might expect. We sense that Klara knows, but it is never outright stated or revealed definitively. 

Some scenes were very well done. There was one scene in particular when Una and Klara see each other through different sides of a crystal door. Little by little, they merge into one. So there is tension, while there is also recognition and possibly reconciliation. That scene was well done.

Una feels particularly victimized, since she feels that she cannot openly grieve for Diddi. But little by little, she allows herself to both identify with and grieve with Diddi's friends. That includes Klara, despite the tensions between them. 

All in all, it was not a bad movie. There were moments when it felt that certain scenes dragged just a bit. Certain long or meaningful looks, or close-ups. Nevertheless, it is well-done overall.

Recommended, if you can find a way to watch it. After all, it is a movie from tiny Iceland, which likely makes it a bit difficult to find outside of Iceland. I got the chance to watch it, and am glad to have done so. 

Movie Review: Knock at the Cabin

Now, I actually saw this movie, or at least a large part of this movie, probably last year or the year before at some point in time. But somehow, while it seemed entertaining and engaging, it did not quite grab me to the extent that the more recent viewing did.

Here's the scenario: there is a gay couple, Eric, played by Jonathan Groff, and Andrew, played by Ben Aldridge, who are trying to enjoy some time away at a remote cabin in the woods of Pennsylvania. They are there with their adopted daughter, Wen, played by Kristen Cui. Everything seems reasonably peaceful and quiet for the first few minutes.

Of course, that changes. Four strangers approach the cabin and demand entry. They carry these strange weapons and seem threatening. Yet, the situation is not what it might appear at first. In some ways, it is less immediately threatening than first appearances suggest. Yet, there is an eerie feeling that persists throughout the film, and it grows, if anything, once you learn more about the four strangers and what they actually want. 

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

Alright, so now that you have been warned about spoilers, and there are no excuses, let's get into the part of this review which is filled with spoilers.

The movie opens up with Wen just outside of the cabin in the woods, trying to capture butterflies. Unexpectedly, she is approached by this huge stranger, Leonard, played by Dave Bautista. He starts talking to her, and you get this eerie feeling, knowing that little children are obviously not supposed to talk to strangers. And he is just a huge man, so the situation feels threatening. Yet, he helps her to catch butterflies and does nothing outwardly or immediately threatening. 

Then, three other strangers come out of the woods. Leonard turns to them, and he suddenly seems troubled. Wen, meanwhile, feels alarmed enough to finally run away and go back to the cabin to warn her dads. They do not take her too seriously at first, until it is obvious that there are indeed people there. The phone lines are dead, and there is no cell phone reception, and the strangers clearly want to get inside of the cabin, although they insist that all they want to do is talk. They are all carrying these strange makeshift weapons, although they refer to these things as "tools." Andrew has a gun, but left it in the car, so that hardly seems like a viable option. Clearly an uncomfortable, tense situation.

Eventually, the four strangers gain entry into the cabin. Eric gets injured in the process and suffers a concussion. We see the couple tied up in chairs, and the four strangers standing before them. Wen is not tied up, and she is given free range of motion. Not surprisingly, she remains with her two dads, hugging them and clearly uncomfortable. Yet the four strangers do not seem to mean her any harm. 

At this point, the four strangers begin to introduce themselves. We already met Leonard, but learn that he is a math teacher. Then there is Adriane, played by Abby Quinn. She is a mother of a young boy, and is counting on this family to make the right choice, as she sees it. Sabrina, played by Nikki Amuka-Bird, is a broke nurse from southern California. Even after this, it remains unclear what exactly they want or why they are here. But they all have a sense of urgency about this matter, and this keeps the tension going. Finally, there is Redmond, played by Rory O'Bannon, who seems the least inviting and friendly. He is from Boston, but never has the patience to talk much about himself. Later, this comes to be part of the mystery and intrigue. For now, he seems impatient just to get this whole thing going. The mission of these four still seems mysterious, but we are about to find out what they want. 

Little by little, it is revealed to us. They are there because they kept having visions. Really, it is a message from God, or so they believe. What they say - which the family has an extremely difficult time believing - is that the world will end unless the family makes a sacrifice and kills one of their own. Suicide is not an option.

Now, this is when Redmond, one of the four invaders, becomes questionable. He had a very short fuse, and he becomes the first sacrifice when the family refuses their request for a sacrifice. Redmond is killed, and Andrew suddenly remembers something. He instinctively knew that he recognized Redmon, but could not put his finger on where he knew him from. Then he remembers having been attacked in a hate crime at a bar, and is sure that the man who attacked him is none other than Redmond. This convinces Andrew more than ever that these four are crazy and specifically targeting him and Eric for their lifestyle. 

Then, strange occurrences indeed keep happening. There is a massive tsunami that plunges much of the northwest coast of the United States underwater, creating stunning damage and deaths. After the sacrifice, there is a plague which seems to be catching on. Even after these reports, Andrew remains skeptical, claiming that it all could be a conspiracy. That these four knew of these events beforehand, and are just trying to play it on television for dramatic effect. 

However, these strange events become stranger still when literally hundreds of planes begin falling from the sky all around the globe, all at once. This is the event which finally convinces them that this is not being staged or manipulated. That this is all real. 

Eventually, they realize that there really is no escape. One person in the family needs to be sacrificed. Eric convinces Andrew, right at the end, that there can be no other way. He then gives Andrew the gun and gets him to shoot and kill him.

After the sacrifice, some semblance of normality can be restored. The world as it exists will, more or less, continue. 

This is not a typical horror movie. It builds suspense very slowly. Also, there are no real jump scares, or anything like that. Yet, it gives you a distinctly creepy feeling. There is undeniably something wrong right from the start. And as it is revealed, it feels increasingly engaging. 

The acting in the movie was solid. I was particularly pleasantly surprised by David Bautista, who is believable as a sensitive and scared, albeit huge, math teacher thrown into a very difficult and delicate situation. I only had seen him before in very different roles, and was not sure that he could do any other kinds of roles. But he was excellent in this film.

Generally, people seem to have mixed reactions to M. Night Shyamalan. I have met fans of his, and I know some people who absolutely cannot stand him. Perhaps the best description that I heard of him was from a coworker, who said that his movies are either hit or miss. He seems either to hit it out of the park, or he strikes out embarrassingly. There is no middle ground.

Yet, I rather like M. Night Shyamalan. His body of work tends to be complicated, but it seems to me that he often receives unfair criticism. Some of his movies, like The Village and especially The Happening. While those were not perfect movies, I nevertheless did not have quite as many problems with them as most people seem to have. If you suspend disbelief (which is what you often are supposed to do while watching movies or reading fiction, right?), and just accept the story for what it is, these actually can be quite moving and entertaining. 

Then there are those movies of his which everyone seems to love, including me. Classics like The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Split. Those are some of the movies which, generally speaking, most viewers would tend to agree were among his best movies, the ones when he hits it out of the park. I love all of those movies and have seen each of them multiple times.

In this movie, Shyamalan manages to maintain tension consistently. Like other films, there are some surprises. In fact, it would be a surprise if there were no surprises in one of his movies. But this one works for me. 

Not sure what other people said about this one, although I saw some mixed reviews after briefly doing a Google search about the movie. Still, this one was a solid movie as far as I am concerned.

Highly recommended. 

Movie Review: The Edge (1997)

For the first time in years, I watched one of my very favorite movies, The Edge, on Saturday evening with my girlfriend. 

Not sure why this movie is not better known than it is. Most people have never seen it, and in most cases, have never even heard of it. Yet to me, this is a great film. Not everybody likes it. The reviews back at the time were mixed. I can even understand some of the criticisms of it. Watching it again, perhaps for the first time since Trump's rise to political power, it struck me how odd it seems to me that this movie puts the viewer in position to root for the billionaire. Also, it works under the assumption that the most sympathetic character in this movie is that billionaire, and implies that he must have made his fortune because he is so smart and wily and admirable, while the reality is that almost all billionaires inherited much of their wealth, and are incredibly greedy.

But I digress....

This movie has always been one of my favorites since the first time that I watched it, back in the late 1990's. Don't remember if I saw it in the theaters, but I do remember watching it at a friend's home. This would have been around the time when I was obsessed with mountains, and so the scenery of majestic mountains and unspoiled nature really always appealed to me. 

Yet, the reason that I love this movie goes well beyond mere natural beauty. I loved Seven Years in Tibet for the scenery, as well, and enjoy the message within it. However, I never felt quite the desire or even need to watch that movie again like I feel almost a need to watch this movie again. And there is a reason for that. This movie feels like it has important lessons for the viewer, if you are open to it. Also, that message is easier to access for the average person than it is in Seven Years. These characters feel like areal people, and while the circumstances that they find themselves in are relatively rare, it does feel like something which could (and does) happen to people sometimes.  

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

Alright, so now that you have been warned about spoilers, and there are no excuses, let's get into the part of this review which is filled with spoilers.

So I mentioned that a lot of people did not seem to like this movie. Gene Siskel said that it was formulaic and not profound, and hated Alec Baldin's acting in this one. He simply did not care about Baldwin's character. Other people also feel that this movie dragged for the first half hour or so, and Siskel's opinion that this movie has been done in other ways a thousand times before is a fairly common view. Point taken.

Except that it has some virtues to it that I think many people are overlooking. I did not think that Alec Baldwin's acting was that bad in this movie. But even if you think that it was, Anthony Hopkins was off the charts with how good his acting was in this one. Somehow, you feel the internal struggle, you almost read what the character is thinking throughout the movie. Hopkins plays billionaire Charles Morse. He is married to Mickey, his literally supermodel wife. It is clear that he loves her, but less clear how she feels about him. There is a significant age difference, which perhaps lead to some questions. Some characters in this movie seem to lean towards pointing this out without blatantly saying it, until one of the characters, Robert (or Bob) Green, played by Alec Baldin, outright states it quite late in the movie. But let me not get ahead of myself. 

This is not a minor point. Indeed, Charles is always, always thinking and observing. He has a wealth of knowledge of things, a fact established almost immediately in the film. He does not always see any real advantage to possessing this wealth of knowledge, although it will come in handy later on. For now, we just know that he is highly intelligent and sees things that others probably do not suspect he knows or sees. For example, we see him observing Mickey, and how she is with Bob, an attractive man in his own right. Bob feels entitled to making his fortune, although he has not yet done so. But it seems clear early in the movie that he and Mickey are closer than they perhaps should be, and that they have not quite hidden it as successfully as perhaps they should have from Charles. This is a source of friction and distrust between Charles and Bob. And while mostly unspoken - again, almost until the very end - you can sense that it is a bone of contention between the two men. 

Anyway, the group is somewhere in the remote north, either Canada or, more likely, Alaska. It is never outright mentioned where they are in the movie, but everyone seems to say Alaska, so let's go with that. It is cold, but we get the sense that it is not yet winter. The weather is growing cold, but it seems like this is the fall season. Bears in this remote region are a huge problem and are not yet hibernating. The danger that bears pose is made clear almost from the first, although early on, it is just foreshadowing what is to come. 

Bob is a photographer, and he is looking for the perfect shot. A model has canceled on him, making him desperate for some kind of replacement. To that end, he finds a picture of a local Native American, Jack Hawk (played by Gordon Tootoosis). Bob feels that this man, Jack Hawk, has the right look for his picture. But he lives in a cabin twenty miles away. Remember, this is a remote mountain region. No major roads - in fact, no roads of any kind can be seen, apparently - and so they will have to get to that cabin by plane. Bob and his assistant Stephen (played by Harold Perrineau) go there, and Bob invites Charles to go with them. Mickey seems to like the idea and encourages Charles, who seems eager to get away after the host of the cabin has pitched a sales idea on him. This is another thing clearly weighing on Charles. He is a billionaire, and so everyone seems to want a piece of his money, making him distrustful of their intentions. 

Ultimately, Charles goes with Bob and Stephen. They get on a plane, flying over some remote mountains. As mentioned earlier, there really is spectacular scenery throughout this movie, and we see it particularly as they fly over these mountains. When they reach the log cabin, there is a note saying that Jack Hawk is out hunting up by Big Bass Lake, about twenty miles north of the cabin. So they head up in that direction. One problem that comes back to haunt the group later: Bob takes the note that Jack Hawk left on his cabin, which means that later, when search and rescue missions begin, nobody will know that this group headed 20 miles north of the cabin.

So when the plane hits some geese along the way, forcing the plane to crash into the edge of a mountain peak and crash into a near freezing lake far below, nobody could possibly know where this group wound up. Which of course means that this group is on their own. They will have to survive the elements and walk out of these isolated woods themselves.

Now, there are problems with all of this. I will address them, but I will not explore them here, because to do so is to get sidetracked from the actual movie itself. However, the pilot gets a face full of glass, limiting his ability to guide the plane after the birds crash into the plane, and thus making a much more serious accident all but inevitable. Yet, the pilot is the only one who sustains any kind of real injury. And in his case, he is the only one who does not survive. After getting out of the lake, they are desperate to warm themselves, and Bob decides - all on his own and against basic common sense - to use the flares to light the fire to warm themselves. Then Stephen cuts himself  - quite badly - while trying to carve a spear. It is a serious injury and, ultimately, it will cost him his life after Bob hangs the blood-stained tourniquet instead of burying it, as Charles has advised. 

Let's get beyond those questions left unanswered. And let's also get beyond the fairly well-known fact that the three survivors are right by a river of some sort, yet steer away from it for some reason. I cannot pretend to be an expert on outdoors survival skills when you are lost in the wilderness. However, the one thing that I do know, and which seems to be common knowledge, is that when you find a river, you stick close to it and follow it, because that will inevitably, eventually, lead out of the wilderness and take you to some sort of signs of civilization.

Yeah, let's put all of that aside. These three guys are lost in the woods, by themselves. Surely, it is no surprise that they likely will make mistakes. And so they do. Let's leave it at that.

They go and head to the direction which feels south to them, even though they seem to ignore the sun in the sky, which could be more effective in terms of giving them a sense of direction. Again, more unanswered questions, but let's get beyond that. They walk and climb, climb and walk. Ultimately, they find the remnants of their own fire by the same lake which they crashed in. Meaning that they have spent a day or two walking in one big circle. 

It is at this point when Stephen stabs himself with the knife and, later, when the bear attacks and kills him. This leave Charles and Bob, and the tensions which exist between them. And yet, to survive the bear and the elements, they are now forced to rely on one another. It is an uneasy alliance to be sure, but for now, it is an alliance. 

By the way, the bear is a real one, played by Bob the Bear. He is excellent in this movie. Probably his best performance. However, even here there are more questions than answers. These guys consistently manage to outrun the bear, which is simply unrealistic. Bears may look big and fat and clumsy, but they are in fact very athletic and can run far faster than even the fastest humans can. So for these guys to consistently outrun him, and since the bear seems to lose interest in them at times, and then resume stalking them, it also feels questionable. However, he will make an appearance again, and soon.

Eventually, they realize that the bear is toying with them. Stalking them, seemingly outsmarting them. Of course, the bear is in his element, and they are not. It will not allow them to eat or make any real progress out of the woods. They had tried to get a squirrel, with a trap, and then immediately forget about it once they hear a helicopter. They run through the woods and manage to find a clearing, but not on time for the helicopter to see them, as it is already too far away. So without any real hope of being saved from a search crew, and without any real resources other than their own ingenuity, they realize that they have to kill the bear. Charles is the first to recognize it, and he convinces Bob, despite Bob's reluctance and obvious skepticism. 

A showdown with the bear is inevitable. Eventually, it comes, and the two men have prepared very well. Probably a little too well, because it feels a little contrived. Their have somehow prepared their battlefield immaculately, although the plan does not go accordingly. Still, it comes down to the two men are in some kind of a stream and have to make their final stand against the bear. Both of them get hit and tossed aside easily, but they get up and resume the fight. Bob is about to get overwhelmed by the bear, but Charles steps in and stabs the bear with a spear. He then provokes the bear to attack, and when the time is right, Charles plants the spear between two rocks and points it upward. When the bears pounces, he impales himself on the spear.

Game, set, match.

Suddenly, the two men have plenty to eat. They also make these nifty makeshift coats, and Charles makes bear tooth necklaces for both men. They have conquered the most immediate and obvious threat. But they have also killed the one thing which kept their uneasy alliance going. Having survived such a grave, serious and immediate threat to their lives, you might think that the experience would help to bring the men closer, right?

Actually, the opposite happens. At first, they continue to work together to brave the still difficult elements. They keep trecking and seem to be in deep and serious conversations most of the time. Until, that is, they find a cabin. 

This is the point where you find out what both men are really made of. It seems to them both that this will be the end of their adventure. The cabin offers some shelter, some drinks (tea and hard liquor) and, most importantly, a canoe. Once they test it and find that it floats, the odds now seem in their favor to walk out of these hostile woods, just as Charles originally predicted. 

Except that Bob begins to drink the whiskey. Heavily. It becomes clear that he is drinking like this for a reason. Charles seems to know, seems to understand. He has seen the note hidden (forgotten) in the box which his pocket knife came in. Somehow, his wife had forgotten to take this little note out, which is actually instructions on what to engrave on two pieces of jewelry. One is the gift knife for Charles, but the other is for Bob's watch, thanking him for all of the nights. By now, Charles knows without a shadow of a doubt that bob is having an affair with his wife, and knows also that Bob intends to kill him. Especially when Bob grabs the gun stored in the cabin and begins to put bullets in it. They talk and all pretense of civility goes away quickly. Bob says that Mickey is only with Charles because of his money, that he has no business with a beautiful woman like that. 

Bob tells Charles to go outside. They go and continue to talk. Bob clearly seems uncomfortable, and we cannot be sure if he has it in him to actually go ahead and kill Charles. Meanwhile, Charles had spotted a deadfall, a disguised hole in the ground intended to protect against bears. Charles leads Bob close to the deadfall, although Bob remains oblivious. They continue talking, and Charles tries to talk Bob out of killing him. At some point he approaches Bob, making him nervous and forcing him to back up...right into the deadfall, as it turns out.

Despite all of the odds against him, Charles has come out on top. He has used his wits to best the hostile elements, the bear, and Bob's plan to kill him. Yet, he decides to try and save Bob, who otherwise would be doomed. He brings him back to the cabin and applies a tourniquet. Then he gets Bob in the canoe and they paddle down the river. They reach a lake and stop for a break at an isolated stretch. Once again, they talk a bit. Bob apologizes for trying to kill Charles, and then makes clear that he believes he is about to die. Charles urges him to hang on, but Bob will have none of it.

And then a plane comes by. Charles tries waving it down, then runs to grab some pine branches atop the fire to create visible smoke. The plane finally does see it, and heads to the two men. It seems that after all of this, they are finally saved.

Except that when Charles turns around, excited that the plane has seen them and they are about to be saved, he sees Bob laying facedown in an awkward position. He checks and finds Bob is dead.

When we see Charles next, he is getting off the helicopter. A lot of press is there, reporting on this story. So they rush to try and get a comment from Charles. But Charles walks past and first stops by the old man who had last tried to sell him on the idea of developing this region. He asks him why the bunny is unafraid, and the old man responds that the hare is not afraid because he is smarter than the panther, a reference to an exchange between the two men earlier in the movie. Then Charles goes to his wife, Mickey, who first looks at the body bag containing Bob's corpse being taken off the helicopter, then looks at her husband. They embrace, and Charles places something in her hands. It is Bob's watch, with the engraving that she had for him. Clearly he knows that she has cheated on him. They exchange a meaningful look.

Then Charles turns and addresses the press. When asked how the others with him had died, he tearfully explains that they died saving his life.

All of that, at least, sums up what happens in the movie. However, as mentioned earlier, there is a whole lot more going on than that. I loved this movie, despite the lukewarm reception and the criticisms that people have of this movie. Apparently, there were more criticisms of it from my end than even I expected, because it was a longer list than I was consciously aware of, admittedly.

Still, it is a story of survival, even if at times flawed. It is action, yet it is not mindless action. Maybe they make mistakes in this movie, trying to survive in the wild. And maybe the knowledge which Charles has learned of survival in the wild is flawed. Nonetheless, the point is that he is thinking and sees things which others do not. He does not allow obvious or even major disappointments to defeat him, but keeps them in perspective. Maintains an attitude that they are temporary setbacks and not permanent defeats.

Also, his thinking stretches beyond just immediate survival. He is aware that Bob, despite appearances, is himself a rival and a threat to his survival. Silently, keeping his calm, he observes and looks for opportunities to protect himself in the event that he is attacked, as evidenced by his silently observing the deadfall just outside of the cabin minutes before Bob leads him outside to eliminate him. This thinking is what keeps him - and the group as a whole - alive. 

Another aspect of this film that I like is that despite these men not particularly liking each other, they nevertheless work together for their mutual survival. They use their best tools - thinking - to defeat the bear as well as extremely hostile elements in the isolated and unfamiliar wilderness they find themselves in. And there is something to be said for that.

Highly recommended. 

Found this original review from many years ago, and thought it would be fitting to post it here, along with the new review. But I took pains not to read it, although I did go back and reference the names (which I forgot). Otherwise, I did not read it before writing this newer review and, in fact, still have not read it as I am about to publish this particular review. The original review, which I posted here almost 14 years ago now:

Movie Rental Review: The Edge published on Sunday, September 16, 2012:

https://charbor74.blogspot.com/2012/09/move-rental-review-edge.html

"The Charbor Chronicles": Move Rental Review: The Edge

I love this movie! I mean, it just has so much to offer, and it does so in an intelligent, subtle, adult manner. Yet, it is also an edge of your seat thriller!

Perhaps I am dating myself here, but the commercials, when they came out, did not do this movie justice. It looked like an exciting movie, and the bear chasing men somewhere deep in the woods looked exciting enough. But this movie has so much more to offer than that. It is, ultimately, almost a spiritual movie (in a non-religious way), addressing what we have become in this modern world of ours, and how hard it is, in essence, to truly find ourselves, to keep our wits about us and keep an overall better perspective, when thrown, involuntarily, into an unfamiliar setting.

Anthony Hopkins, who I personally think is one of the most capable and talented actors out there, plays Charles Morse, a billionaire who shows a penchant for retaining obscure facts and information that he has never quite fully been able to put a full use to (something that I, admittedly, can kind of relate to on some levels), takes a trip with an entourage to a very remote locale in North America somewhere (we have to figure that it is either in Alaska or northern Canada, somewhere, judging by the nordic remoteness, and the snow capped mountain range). This entourage includes his wife, Mickey (played by model Elle Macpherson) , Charles's assistant Robert (Bob) Green (played by Alec Baldwin), and Stephen (played by Harold Perrineau, who you might recognize from the latter two Matrix movies, and he was also on a few episodes of Lost).

We do not know precisely what business they are in, but we do know that Bob Green is trying to get the perfect photograph. It is during one of his photo  shoots with Mickey (Charles's supermodel wife), that we first essentially learn that she is having an affair with Bob. Charles notices, too, perhaps for the first time, but perhaps not. One way or the other, he knows, but says nothing. Robert is, in fact, having a somewhat difficult and stressful trip, however. It is Charles's birthday, and it clearly bothers him to see Charles and Mickey close together. Also, he has come to get the perfect picture, but the person that he specifically wanted to take pictures of has grown severely sick. When Bob comes across a picture that Styles, the backwoodsman host at the remote cabin lodge where the group is staying, has taken a picture of a local Native American, Jack Hawk (played by Gordon Tootoosis), who seems to have the right look that Bob is looking for in a picture. Bob instinctively decides to go after this mysterious man.

It proves a fateful decision, because when they go up to Jack Hawk's cabin, they find it deserted, but with a note attached, saying that he is out hunting up by Big Bass Lake, about twenty miles north of the cabin. They decide to go looking for him, and that is when a flock of birds winds up flying right into the airplane, and they crash into a lake. the pilot is killed in the crash, while Bob, Stephen, and Charles all survive. Bob has taken the note with him, so there really is no way that anyone would necessarily know that the men are actually twenty miles further north than their last stated destination.

Bob and Stephen went on the plane trip because they were looking for the perfect picture with the native, but Charles has decided to go, rather instinctively (and passively) himself for another reason: to get away from the cabin, and specifically the host, Styles. Styles, played quite well by L.O. Jones) seems to be quite knowledgeable about the wilderness himself. Styles comments on how pretty Charles's wife is, but keeps his thoughts to himself, just essentially noticing it (and hinting, perhaps, at the obvious age difference between husband and wife). When Styles hears that Charles is supposed to be quite knowledge of facts, he challenges him. he takes down an oar that is hanging, which shows a panther, and asks Charles what is on the other side. Charles calmly responds that it is a rabbit, smoking a pipe - a sign that he is unafraid, because he knows that he is smarter than the panther. Styles is impressed each time he finds out how much knowledge Charles actually has and, at one point, begins to talk to him about the possibility of developing the area, in order to try and make this beautiful, but extremely remote location more readily accessible for more people to be able to enjoy. Charles is listening to all of this patiently, wordlessly, until Styles mentions a specific dollar amount, when he stops the conversation, understanding that Styles is trying to make some sort of business proposal, obviously aware of Charles's money. There is now clear tension between the two men, and that proves to be the reason that Charles goes on the fateful plane trip. We get the sense that he just wanted to clear his head a little bit. As it turns out, he gets much more than he bargained for.

So, the three men are out in the middle of a very remote wilderness. They have to try and keep warm (they crashed into a northern lake and had to swim their way out), and build a fire. They have difficulty with it, though, and that is the first time we notice a real difference between Bob and Charles. Bob takes the flares that Charles had the foresight of taking from the plane. It lights the fire that warms them, but in the process, they minimized the chances of using them in order to be found by the inevitable search party.

Charles mentions to Bob at one point that the main reason that people die when they get lost in the woods is due to shame, and says that they forgot to do the one thing that could have saved them - thinking.

As the movie goes on, we find a lot of such differences between Bob, who is not used to the woods and thinks only instinctively, looking for any and all comforts that he can (including the comfort of wanting to indulge in hopes of some miraculous return), and Charles, who constantly, relentlessly focuses on the possible worst case scenario and tries to remain prepared for all manner of possible challenges, although he remains optimistic that they will, in fact, walk out of the woods, and back to safety.

They begin their hike back southwards, assuming that they will find their way, hopefully, back to the Jack Hawk's cabin. It is not an easy hike, and along the way, they get chased by a huge bear (played by Bart the Bear), who goes after them relentlessly. They manage to escape, at least this time, and they continue their hike. But when they arrive at the exact location where they had been when they started the hike, they are all disheartened. Charles remains cool, but the other two are showing signs of not just frustration, but nearly panic. Charles gives Stephen a task to do, in order to get his mind off things. He makes him carve a spear, and it is here that Stephen accidentally cuts himself quite severely. Charles tries to attend to the wound, and tears off the blood stained cloth of the pants, handing it to Bob to bury. But Bob hangs it up on a tree branch instead, and the bear smells it in the air and finds them, attacking Stephen and killing him.

Suddenly, the stakes seems very high.

Charles and Bob make their escape, and continue their venture. But before long, they find out that the bear is still following them, essentially stalking them. It is then that Charles knows that they will have to have a confrontation with the bear, a struggle to the death, either for the bear, or for one or both of the men. He prepares, although they are starving, and really still just look for something, some kind of a break that never comes. Help, to be found at last, or even just to finally eat something to restore their strength. maybe a bit of rest.

***Spoiler alert***

Of course, the confrontation is inevitable. The bear comes, and we see just how big of a beast he is. He is huge, enormous, and simply overwhelming. It hardly seems possible that even two grown men with sticks could prevail.

Yet, that is what happens. Charles, having read the book, knows to try and coax the bear and get it to loom over him, then to use it's enormous weight against it once it comes down, in effect impaling it.

Now, they can finally eat as well as stay warm considerably more easily, and can likely traverse through those woods and return to civilization.

Finally, they reach an old, abandoned cabin. It has a boat and some oars, and once they test it out, they know that they have gotten through, and will likely return to the lives that they had known before.

But it is then that Bob, seemingly overly preoccupied with drinking and loading the gun. We see him brooding, and preparing himself to do what he does not want to do.

Charles, in the meantime, has anticipated this. We notice him spotting the deadfall outside, and then, when the two men walk outside in order for Bob to do the deed, Charles rather slyly directs Bob right next to the deadfall, and gets him to engage in conversation, asking him how long the affair with his wife has been going on.

Bob, already nervous and emotionally charged, trying to prepare himself to actually commit an act of murder, just wants to get this whole thing over with. He looks and sounds unstable, while Charles, in facing death, sounds calm and almost conversational. There comes a point when he actually starts to approach Bob, which  startles Bob enough that he takes a step back - and in the process, falls right into the deadfall.

His leg has been impaled by one of the sharp sticks on the bottom. The situation has obviously now completely reversed, with Charles in complete control and alive, while Bob, has sustained a serious injury and has now been rendered completely helpless. Charles has a choice, and he makes it quickly. He decides to save Bob.

It takes some doing, but again, Charles remains calm throughout. Bob seems to be wavering in and out of consciousness, and he is clearly not healthy any longer.

Charles managed to do the best that he can with him, and manages, nonetheless, to get him out and onto the kayak. Equipped with a boat, he intends to take the boat and find safety.


They find themselves on an island, essentially seemingly taking a rest. Charles has figured that Bob really needs to warm up, because he is in really rough shape. So, he builds him a fire on the island to keep him warm. Bob, in the meantime, begins to question Charles, questions why he would save a man who had intended to murder him. Bob finally apologizes for what he did, and seems on the verge of giving up, of expiring.

Just then, there is the whirring of a distant engine, but it is so faint, that Charles cannot be sure if he heard it right. When he hears it more distinctly, and more importantly, when it actually comes into view, Charles does everything that he can to signal it, wave it down. But it seems not to see them, so Charles quickly uses the knife that Bob gave him as a gift to cut some plants in order to create smoke, and once he does this, the plane finally sees them, and circles around towards their direction.

They are saved, and Charles is ecstatic - until he looks over at Bob, and sees that he is in a very awkward position, face down. He has died indeed, and surely of shame, much like Charles had warned him about at the beginning of their wilderness adventure.

When returned finally to the safety of the camp, Charles once again turns to Styles, and asks him the question that Styles asked of him not long before. Why is the rabbit unafraid? Because he is smarter than the panther. Styles gives him a knowing smile.

The media assembled all want anything, any small statement or scrap for stories for the publications back home. Charles mentions how life's tests never seem to come at the time or in the form that you expect them.

When asked how the other men died, Charles tears up, and says that they died saving Charles's own life.

In conclusion, this is a really awesome movie! It is one of those strange movies that I simply cannot get enough of. Nary a year will pass without me somehow putting it on to watch yet again, and I always enjoy it, even though I know exactly what will happen, by now. But there always seems to be some small, subtle thing, perhaps even a detail, that I initially missed. When a movie keeps you interested enough to pay attention to such small details, you know it's good!

Movie Review: Nuremberg

  

A few months ago in late November, I wrote a review of the movie "Nuremberg."

But my girlfriend and I saw it again recently. And after going back to read - or rather, peruse - my own review, something dawned on me: it was not very much to my liking. It just seemed to me that, based on the review, most of what I got from it as a warning about the present day rise of fascism and hatred in the United States.

And while I still believe that this was a prominent part of what audiences are supposed to get out of this movie, it nevertheless is not the full story. After all, this movie is about an actual historical event and the controversies surrounding it. The focal point is, of course, Hermann Göring, the second-highest ranking Nazi of the Third Reich. 

So after seeing the movie again and being less than entirely impressed with my initial review, let me try again.

One note: the review was not disastrous in my eyes. It just felt incomplete, and not as focused as perhaps it should have been. That said, I will keep the original review, but add more to it, and perhaps cut snippets here and there, as deemed necessary.

Here goes:

My girlfriend and I went to see Nuremberg on Sunday evening. This was a movie which had intrigued me since I first learned about it. So I looked forward to seeing it, and finally saw it a little over two weeks after it was released.

Before I go on, of course, there should be the standard warning to stop reading if you intend to read this book, because there will be spoilers ahead.

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Okay, so by now if you are still reading this, I have to imagine that you either are familiar with this movie already, or perhaps you do not mind the spoilers. Please just don't say that you were not given advanced warning. 

Ready?

Now, this is a history movie, largely based on actual events. So in that regard, a "spoiler alert" seems a little...well, pointless. After all, of this has happened and, I assume, most people actually going to see this movie are likely at least passingly familiar with what actually happened here.

Still, there are different interpretations of historical events. I read one review from a Jewish person who was entirely dismissive of the movie and at least claimed to have walked out halfway through, because it was evidently too antisemitic for their tastes. They used one story told by Hermann Göring in particular as the illustration of this perceived bias. And while I can understand that to a certain degree, it did not feel to me that this movie was either antisemitic or hate mongering in total or in tone, or that it glossed over the crimes committed against Jews (and others) during the Holocaust. Far from it. Also, frankly, to claim that the words from a very high-ranking Nazi official in a movie largely centered on that historical figure are somehow proof that the movie is antisemitic seems a little...well, naive. Would you prefer a sanitized version of history, so that the actual antisemitism is glossed over, and the reasons for the crimes against humanity themselves are, therefore, glossed over?

I don't get it. 

Anyway, that was my personal slice of opinion. Yes, there are definitely antisemitic views by some of the characters in this movie. But can you expect anything different with a movie focusing on high-ranking Nazi officials? I'm sorry, but it seems obvious that some antisemitic views will be seen and heard, since this is based on history. Hello? 

So I acknowledge some of criticisms of this movie and how bothered they were by the way that it seemingly humanized the Nazis, and particularly Hermann Göring. While I can sympathize to some degree, it seems also that this is what we need right now. Not another movie which portrays Nazis as inhuman monsters, but to recognize that they actually were human beings. That they had their strengths and weaknesses, their hopes and dreams (yes, even after the war ended disastrously for Germany), and their insecurities, their arrogance and hubris, and all of that.

It is this arrogance which makes so many of these high-ranking Nazis feel exempt from any possible consequences from their criminal actions. Never before had their been anything like a World Court or the Nuremberg Trials, and the Nazis - particularly Göring - are very much aware of this fact. It is in their interests to remind everyone of this fact frequently, because there really was no precedent for the Nuremberg Trials. That is part of the challenge, trying to bring these men to some sort of official justice, and not simply shooting them. It is an attempt by the victorious Allied nations to try to illustrate that they are not as barbarous as Nazi Germany had been. Still, it is not certain that such a trial can be coordinated, or that everyone will be on board. Ultimately, the four major victorious European powers - the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union - did go along with it, adding legitimacy to the trial. The movie did not focus too extensively on this, although it was addressed.

To the extent that the movie does document these challenges, it is mostly through American Robert Jackson, one of the prosecutors at the trial. He is played by Michael Shannon, and it is some excellent acting. Indeed, you do get the feeling that you are watching a judge of the 1940's struggling with the newness of this world trial. He is shown trying to gain support, including a trip to the Vatican, where he is actually accused of trying to blackmail the Pope to support the trials. There is also the challenge of trying to build a case, which means isolating the crimes of the Nazis, and not just generalizing. After all, it had been a brutal war, and as Göring makes clear at some points in the movie, the Allies were also guilty of war crimes and astonishing horrors, including dropping "the bomb" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So Jackson has to try and build a case that the Nazis were uniquely criminal in conduct, and that proves anything but easy.

Rami Malek plays psychiatrist Douglas Kelly, who checks on the mental and physical health of these high-ranking Nazis. This also becomes complicated, because there is doctor/patient confidentiality to think about, as well as what seems almost like friendship between Kelly and Göring at times. However, Kelly wants Jackson to succeed in prosecuting Göring and the rest of the Nazis. To that end, he warns Jackson that he is seriously underestimating Göring. Indeed, the first part of the trial shown in the movie reveals exactly that. Göring is in his element and Jackson trips on his own feet in trying to pin down this crafty Nazi official. It is only through the assistance and some fancy legal footwork by the British prosecutor that finally trips Göring up. After this exchange, everyone knows that the outcome of the trial has already been decided.

In short, whether you like it or not, these people were human beings. Yes, they absolutely, undeniably did some things and committed some crimes which force people to question their humanity. But in fact, they are human beings, with real lives and real human traits that we can all relate to. That's not being antisemitic by acknowledging that simple fact. it's just the reality. In fact, to me, the fact that these people really are human beings, and that the movie shows them in that light, makes what happened all the more horrific. Because indeed, these very human people were responsible for a chapter in history that will surely never be forgotten while civilization lasts. The level of cruelty, particularly the bureaucratic nature of a mass extermination, is what makes what they did stand out so uniquely in history. If we dumb it down so that they are regarded only and exclusively as monsters, I think that we miss the point of the danger of something like this actually happening again. These were real people, and they orchestrated a terrible chapter in human history that almost everyone agrees should never be repeated. However, it seems to me a prerequisite for us to understand their humanness in order to avoid something like this in the future. If we turn them into caricatures, to people who we cannot relate to at all, then what lessons are to be learned? 

Remember the timing for when this movie is coming out. After all, the United States itself suddenly cannot seem to avoid putting a seemingly unstable populist who plays people's fear and prejudices and even hatreds for his own narrow political gain. Believe me, I understand the temptation to dehumanize him, or billionaires who keep orchestrating policies behind the scenes so that they can make still more billions or even trillions. However, we must remember that they are human beings, and not mere caricatures (much less Gods). 

At one point, we see Hermann Göring, who is brilliantly captured by Russell Crowe, conversing in a relaxed manner about why he, and Germans more generally, turned to Hitler. And he says that Hitler made them feel more German. He had simple solutions which seemed workable, and promised to restore German pride and greatness. 

Does that sound familiar? Personally, I believe that Trump has that same message for many Americans who otherwise feel forgotten. There are some similarities, albeit obviously also some differences, between Germany in the 1930's leading up to the rise of the Nazis, and the modern day realities and circumstances in the United States which have led to the rise of Trump and MAGA. I never "got" the apparent dark charisma or charm, but that does not mean that it does not exist. What Göring describes in this movie about Hitler felt like it resonated, because Trump seems to make whole groups of people feel less forgotten. He appeals to a largely fictional time in American history when everything supposedly was right, when the country worked well and was unified and strong. He often harkens back to a time when white people - and particularly white men - enjoyed a very privileged status in the country. And I personally believe that this is a large part of his appeal, since the core of his support is white people, and especially white men. Not a minor point, in my personal opinion. 

Of course a movie like this is going to be controversial. It is about a doctor who is ascertaining the mental and physical health of Nazis who are about to go on trial for crimes against humanity. So he is focusing on the very human side of what the entire world at that point viewed as inhuman monsters. Not light subject matter, to be sure. Bound to upset some people.

Isn't that the point, though? 

Personally, I thought that this was a good movie. And timely, for that matter. There is a reason why it came out when it did. Now especially, when Trump for the first time suggested that some opposition government officials might be imprisoned and even executed. It hardly feels like it could have been an accident. that this particular movie comes out when it has.

So to me, it is very important. Crucial, even. We need to understand the history of the Holocaust, of how something like that was possible. These days, too many people seem to have forgotten history and, let's face it, nowhere in any advanced society has the history of the Holocaust been so largely forgotten and/or misunderstood as it has here in the United States. To me, that is why so many people seem to scoff at any comparisons between Trump and monsters of the past. That is why he gets away with so damn much, when he has a hard time criticizing outright Nazis and white supremacists in Charlotteville a few years ago, or when he posts a supporter shouting "White power!" as he did during the 2020 campaign, or when he suggests that parts of the Constitution might need to be suspended, as he did on his Truth Social in 2022, or now that he has very recently called for the execution of political opposition. Too many people are dismissing all of this as inconsequential, or "Trump being Trump."

This is dangerous and, frankly, unprecedented territory that we find ourselves in here in the United States. Sometimes, it feels to me already that our democracy is a thing of the past. Yet we need to keep reminding ourselves that Trump is only as powerful as the American people allow him to be. And the time to stand up to all of this is now, not later. Not when his power is even more entrenched. 

At the very end, the movie moves away from Nazis and the Holocaust, and turns instead to the doctor, who wrote a book that did very poorly. He wrote about the high-ranking Nazis

To that end, we see different aspects of the character of Hermann Göring. He is highly intelligent and capable, and has a fierce measure of self-discipline. Göring also clearly loves his wife and daughter. He is a man of some refinement, having been wealthy and a love of fine art. Yet, this is also the same man who signed horrific orders that made unbelievable suffering possible. He seems unmoved by the images of the victims of Nazi concentration camps and death camps. When pressed and backed into a corner as to whether or not he would still support Hitler knowing what he knows now, he confirms that he would indeed support Hitler, before shouting "Heil Hitler!" 

It seems that what we get to see of Hermann Göring is a complicated man, not just a simple monster. That makes him feel more real which, in turn, makes it all the more astonishing that a man who seems quite reasonable at times could have done such monstrous things. It would be only too easy to not understand him as an actual human being, but as a one dimensional monster completely removed from our understanding of reality. But when we instead see him having issues and concerns that we all can relate to - obvious love and concern for his wife and child, addiction to substances (he was a serious drug addict), struggling with weight and heart issues, then embarrassment when he finds out that most of the guards view him as a fat man and trying to do something about it, to get back into shape- are everyday realities that most of us, if not all of us, face. We can identify with that. Yes, he was a real human being. Yet, he also did some incredibly evil things and, when pushed to a corner, he expressed no real regret and doubled-down, saying that he would do it all over again if given a chance. 

This is important, because to understand the Holocaust - or any tragic chapter in history - we want to understand that it was actual, real human beings who created this misery. In fact, that is what makes this kind of thing all the more frightening. It's not the "Germans," or Hitler, or relegated to one particular era in history. This can happen again. In fact, mass suffering and genocides have happened numerous times since, in Nigeria in the 1960's, in China in the 1960's during the "Great Leap Forward, in Cambodia in the 1970's, in Rwanda in the 1990's, in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's, and in Sudan in the 21st century. 

Can it happen again? 

Absolutely. 

That is why movies like this are so important. They bring these historical chapters to life. In so doing, we see that many of these things are not unique to our time. That there were certainly similarities and, thus, an opportunity to learn from the past.

At the end of the movie, well after the trial and the executions of to-ranking Nazi officials, we see Douglas Kelly warning Americans with his book and on the radio of the dangers of power-hungry, manipulative individuals seeking high positions. While others do not warm to his message that such things could happen here in the United States, that we are different (the old "American exceptionalist" arguments), Kelly insists that Americans also need to be careful, Such hatred can indeed be drummed up here on American soil, and a manipulative, populist leader can possibly come to power in the Untied States. However, his arguments fall on deaf ears, and he grows frustrated with the indifference which his arguments are consistently met with. We find out that he committed suicide about a decade and change after the Nuremberg Trial, using the same method which Göring used.

Ultimately, this is a mature movie with serious subject matter and themes. It takes a bit of knowledge of history and understanding some of the challenges which those who created the trial faced. Also, it does show the human side of all of the characters, including the frustrations of each.

So I highly recommend this movie. 

When the movie ends, this quote is shown on the screen. Figured it would also be worth sharing here, as well:

"The only clue to what man can do is what man has done,"

~ R.G. Collingwood

This is an important snippet of an interview of Hermann Göring by Gustave Gilbert. Göring is explaining how people do not want to go to war, but leaders can get past that and persuade the people to go along with the war. Gilbert then interjects and claims that the exception would be a democracy, giving the example of the United States. Göring, however, pretty easily dismisses this exception, suggesting that fundamentally, these tactics work regardless of the country or political system. 

Take a look at this fascinating and revealing exchange:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."  

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."  

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Here is the link to where I got this exchange from:

Nuremberg Diary - by Gustave Gilbert Interview with Herman Goering:

https://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html

Herman Goering