Guillermo Del Toro and Magical Realism

Something that has always annoyed me a little bit is the free wheeling use of the term "magical realism" to define certain movements within film and literature that originate from Latin America. I thought of this again upon seeing a preview for Hellboy 2 and someone mentioning it as magical realist. I wrote this in MLA format as it is adapted from a much longer essay I wrote about the subject a few years ago. Bear with me, it is still in its smaller version a bit long. Also I will presume that you have either seen the films or are not afraid of those nefarious spoilers.

Talking Goats and Revolution: Magical Realism in the Films of Guillermo Del Toro

In the painting Torre de Pisa (Tower of Pisa), by Magical Realist Christian Schad, a women stares on at the viewer as if posing for a photograph. She is a stunning beauty, with penetrating eyes. All of our attention rests with her realness. We know her and we know her desperation. The classic 80’s film The Goonies is about a group of young kids searching for a pirate’s treasure, while being chased by a team of professional criminals. What these pieces of art share in common is that they both have been referred to as pieces of “Magical Realist” art. As is obvious, the term “Magical Realism” is a fairly fluid term with several definitions. However, there are basically two main ways to look at magical realism. The magical realism in its original state and the modern version of magical realism. One Latin American film director who seems to understand and exemplify both traditions is Guillermo Del Toro. This exemplification can be seen in his two critically acclaimed films Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone.

Some literary and art historians have spent their whole lives attempting to craft a prefect, all encompassing definition of the term “Magical Realism.” However, the original meaning of the definition is actually quite simple. In 1925 Franz Roh published a book in which he compared expressionist painting to a new form of painting. However, he failed to find a descriptive word to fit the painting form. So, perhaps on a whim, he called this new artistic phenomenon “Magical Realism.” To Roh this new kind of painting was a response to the harsh realities of an improvised 1920’s Germany. The popular art at the time was expressionist, but to Roh, this art seemed to betray the harshness of the realities of waiting in food lines and hoping against hope that you would be eating that night. However, realism would not work simply because reality was something unspeakable. So in simpler terms, Roh meant for Magical Realism to be a middle ground between the art forms. These paintings then were somewhat cold and calculated but also with a bit of “magic.” To Roh there was no inherent magic in reality and in life, but the “magic” he referred to was in the eyes of the spectator. That reality could be recreated was the magic of the art, not that the art was inherently magical. Roh saw this phenomenon as a uniquely European idea. In his opinion only the Europeans, in their sophisticated understanding of reality could be so bold as to make this sort of new art. This elitist idea is another idea that separates his use of Magical Realism with the magical realism of Latin American art. In later years the term New Objectivity, would be formed to describe this phenomenon. However, New Objectivity would later fall into two parts. One part would be taken over by a group of Nazis and turned into a catch phrase to describe various sources of propaganda art. The other would be like Roh’s, but with increased understanding of political realities. The idea of leaders with absolute power, like Adolph Hitler, causing the evil found in magical realist art came as a result. (Reeds)

To Guillermo Del Toro this New Objectivity definition seems to have an important place in his films. Perhaps the most striking way is the visual nature of Guillermo Del Toro’s films. In The Devils Backbone we see a world torn apart by the civil war in Spain. Like in many other films, and in life, this depiction is dark and dank. There is a great deal of violence and several bits of grotesque imagery, most notably we see the character Dr. Casares drink from a jar which contains a fetus. In this we see a familiar reality, but one filled with the sort of “magic” apparent in Roh’s writing. Realism here would be a dull repeat of many films and other artistic expressions. Expressionism might serve as too abstract a forum to evoke our emotions. The most striking image of the film is simply the image of the crucifix. It is quite common to see crucifixes in almost every aspect of western society, from the crucifixes that adorn churches and graveyards to many famous pieces of art. However the crucifix of the film is an image that represents Franco’s tyranny. The children in the film are the children of leftist in Spain. Those in charge of the school place the crucifix outside to disguise the school as Catholic. As in Roh’s definition, we take an ordinary crucifix, seen in ordinary daily realism and add to it the weight of oppression and foreboding to form both a unique image and a harsh political reality. (Dalton)

Pan’s Labyrinth, like The Devil’s Backbone, is set in Spain in the time the civil war. It is curious that a Mexican director would chose to set his two most critically acclaimed films away from the country where he grew up. To Roh the idea of “magical realism” was uniquely European and here again Del Toro conforms to the idea of New Objectivity. In an interview Del Toro mentions that he originally intended to set up The Devil’s Backbone during the Mexican revolution, but upon a chance encounter with Pedro Almodovar, he changed his mind. However, because the films are set in Europe, it allows for the villain to be European and thus conform to another aspect common in New Objectivity. Franco can be quite easily, albeit perhaps too simply, compared to Hitler, the enemy of many artists that made up the magical realist half of the “New Objectivity” movement. The ghosts and mystical creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone are the byproducts of the Latin American part of magical realism, but the real villains of his films are the power drunk fascists of the a specifically European variety. (Chun)

Capitan Vidal, the villain of Pan’s Labyrinth is finally destroyed in the end by the true revolutionaries, the opposing party. Capitan Vidal represents the tyranny of Franco’s rule and of the rule of all nations who give away their freedom. However, before his demise another character, a symbol of resistance, a fighter of liberty, otherwise known as the good guy, cuts open his face. The scene is extremely brutal. We as the audience watch the grotesque scene of the Captain sewing his mouth back together, without any anesthetic, save the alcohol in which he drinks throughout the majority of film. The celluloid is covered in red blood. Here not only does the villain suffer a major setback, but also we see a scene constructed that represents a major setback for fascism itself. Fascism thrives on the rhetoric of the mouth and we see a symbol of this fascism without the ability to help fascism spread. However, instead of asking us to feel the vindictive joy of revenge we are instead left with the distinct and surprising feeling of sympathy. Sympathy for a man who earlier in the film beat an innocent man to death with a glass bottle. Sympathy for a man who treats an innocent child, the hero protagonist Ophelia, in the same manner as a fruit fly. Sympathy for a man who has absolutely no concern for his dying wife save her ability to bear him a son. We feel for him because the image is just so brutal and so overwhelming violent. In other words the image is cold. It shows us a reality constructed anew. A new reality that is not the expected call to arms. New Objectivity simply presents the world as in a raw symbolic form. This doesn’t insight our need for revenge and is merely an observation. (Montagne)

There are entire books dedicated to the evolution of Magical Realism in its New Objectivity form to the “lo real maravilloso” that exists in the Latin American perspective. In fact in 1973 a group of scholars met at the Crongreso de Literatura Iberoamericana in Michigan State University to figure out what exactly magical realism was and whether or not the art or literature of Latin American could rightfully be called: Magical Realism. However, instead of clarifying things the meeting forwarded the confusion. Here is what is known. The term “lo real maravilloso” was coined by the scholar Alejandro Carpentier, who like Roh noticed an artistic movement and decided it needed a name. Whether it was misinterpretation of Roh’s German or just a misunderstanding of his original intentions is a matter of great scholarly debate. The basic difference between Roh and Carpentier is that to Roh Magical Realism is the middle ground between the extremes of expressionism and realism, but to Carpentier Magic Realism is a an issue of extreme ideology. Carpentier believes that in the everyday and mundane realities there is actual magic. A magic that requires a belief its own existence to exist at all. To Roh Magical Realism is a representation of reality where as with Carpentier Magical Realism is the magic that exists in reality. Other distinctive characteristics of “lo real maravilloso” are a change in geography, a less elitist attitude and the insertion of the traditional fable and myths. New Objectivity is best described as an observation of reality in a unique and sometimes political form. “Lo real maravilloso” on the other hand is more often a call to arms in both a political and spiritual sense. New Objectivity simply exists but “lo real maravilloso” demands our faith. Some scholars note that Carpentier merely used the term Magical Realism as way to grab attention for what he believed to be an overlooked but important literary tradition that sprung not from the influence of Europeans but from the minds of creative native people. While there is something decidedly elitist about this notion, there is also something rather poignant. (Reeds)

In an interview Guillermo Del Toro talks about The Devil’s Backbone with the following:

“I think there's an urgent need to know, an urgent need to believe that there's something beyond your monthly paycheck and the traffic jam. I think that in this era where being cool almost becomes synonymous with being cynical, and people who debunk are far more hip than people who believe, I think these movies are a refuge for people who want to believe.” (Chun)

With this quote we see Del Toro’s belief in the power of faith in the magic of everyday life. (Chun) In Pan’s Labyrinth, a child’s innocence stands out as the opposition to war. This is common, but a very large metaphysical sort of idea. It is seen in many ways in all forms of literature from all over the world. However in the world of the Guillermo Del Toro and “lo real maravilloso” this is shown in quite a literally fantastical form. In order to escape war, Ophelia from Pan’s Labyrinth does not just imagine a world where she is queen of mystical creatures, but instead she actually is. With New Objectivity the world can be seen as more real, but “lo real maravilloso” shows us such a hyper-reality that realness is altered. However, in order for us to fully comprehend and fully believe in the world of Pan’s Labyrinth we must have a child like faith in the possible existence of an altered reality. Not just the reality of existence, but reality of that which exists beyond existence. In The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth the main protagonist are always the children. Perhaps this is not only to show the idea of innocence lost in times of war, but also that the faith required to fully believe is the same faith as that of a child. Also the message is so universal and so genially powerful, that it serves as a call for peace. Both The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth are “anti-war films.” If the films were found entirely beneath the heading of New Objectivity they would merely note this with a cold calculated observation, but the films call us to find peace instead. (Katje)

One the most distinctive parts of Latin American Magical Realism can be found with the inclusion of myths and legends within the artwork. Some critics have seen this addition as a negative thing. Some audiences have seen the art of Latin American Magical Realism as perhaps inaccessible or plain juvenile. For Roh the idea of these myths and legends and sharing with them the name of great paintings would probably seem absurd. Here magical realism looses its elitism and becomes a genre of the people. However there is something very distinctly different about the legends and myths of the Latin American world. While there are millions of strange and interesting creatures, there are some that are distinctly Latin American. With the mythology of anywhere in the world, these creatures are not just things to fear. In The Devil’s Backbone the ghost is not something to run in fear of or to spend sleepless nights in worry over. Instead the “lo real maravilloso” manner the ghosts are sadness, they are consequence, they are entities that exist like emotion, sometimes invisible to the human eye and sometimes dead, but still living in our subconscious. The creatures of Pan’s Labyrinth are not just there as filler, they are symbols of power struggles, innocence and belief. It would be wrong to suggest that horror films of other places do not also show this sort of thing, it is correct to state that Guillermo Del Toro does this with great aplomb and in a particularly “lo real maravilloso” sort of way. When Carpentier invented the term “lo real maravilloso” he saw a worthy genre which was in need of a name. Without the influence of “lo real maravilloso” The Devil’s Backbone would probably be little more than a bad “B-movie” and Pan’s Labyrinth probably wouldn’t exist at all. (Atkins)

With the closing of Pan’s Labyrinth we see an extreme example of exactly what “lo real maravilloso” is all about. The scene exists in two ways. The literal level is pure tragedy. Ophelia, our hero perishes. She is killed by the representatives of fascism. The imagery is dark and tragic. At last our hero has fallen. However, if we have given in to the magic of the story, if we have the faith mandatory in understanding Magical Realism then we know she did not die, but did in fact take her place on the throne to govern the strange and intriguing creatures of the labyrinth. Here we see death as merely a stopping point. It is impossible not to feel emotion for Ophelia, but unlike with Capitan Vidal’s death we feel something else. A call to action. A call to cease participating in wars. Also we see myth and fable as the saviors and escapes from reality. We see the concept of afterlife, so important within many religious ceremonies but subverted away from the shinny golden gates of heaven and replaced with something more prominent in the mind of a child. Guillermo Del Toro says he wants us to believe in something beyond this world, something that can be “cool”, but not hopeless, with the power of “magical realism.” (Katje)

From the talking dead people of HBO’s critically acclaimed “Six Feet Under” to the complicated Japanese anime world of “Pokemon” the definition of “magical realism” has become a fad in labeling art forms which uses different approaches to the understanding of the world we share. Guillermo Del Toro however truly understands the world from a unique perspective. He sees the complicated New Objectivity as striking a balance in life. However, he also understands and strives for the magic inherit in real life itself. The film of Guillermo Del Toro use both forms of Magical Realism to construct amazing masterpieces of the human condition and shows us a world of magic that exists just beyond the horizon. Often in our jaded minds we overlook the stunning beauty that sits before us, and through his sometimes violent epics we see the sometimes tragic sometimes beautiful reality of a life with hope.

Works Cited

Atkinson, Michael. “Moral Horrors in Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth, The Supernatural Realm Mirrors Man’s Inhumanity to Man” Film Comment, Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p50-53.

Chun, Kimberly “What is a Ghost? An Interview with Guillermo del Toro” Cineaste, Spring 2002, Vol. 27, Issue 2

Dalton, Stephens. “When the Monster are Human.” The Times April 11 2006. (newspaper.)

Montagne, Rene. “Pan's Labyrinth' is Realer than Reality Itself.” Morning Edition (NPR), DEC 29, 2006

Reeds, Kenneth. “Magical Realism: A Problem of Definition.” Neophilologus, April 2006, Vol. 90 Issue: Number 2 p175-196.

Richstatter, Katje. “Two Dystopian Movies…and their Visions of Hope.” Tikkun, Mar/Apr2007, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p78-79.

Review: Iron Man

I hope you all missed me during my temporary exile from the blog world. But I have returned, armed with more time and a brand new review of the blockbuster hit Iron Man.

Let’s be honest. Who is cooler? Han Solo or Luke Skywalker? Who is more awesome? Superman or Wolverine? Most of us, with a few notable exceptions, would say Han Solo and Wolverine. Why? Because Skywalker and Superman are goody-two-shoes and Han Solo and Wolverine are bad asses. Both rogues, both anti-heroes who fight for good, but not from some eternal cause of greatness from within, but because they had to. That is what makes Iron Man so awesome, that and a stellar cast, a grade A director and one of the best uses of CGI I can recall from recent memory.

The story, if you haven’t seen it yet, is of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) a weapons dealing, womanizing, super intelligent, good looking millionaire. On a trip to Afghanistan to sell his new ware, a particularly lethal missile, he is kidnapped by terrorists and forced to build his first model of the Iron Man in order to escape. There is the buddy character (Terrence Howard) and the loyal servant Virginia “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow.)

Let’s recap for a second. Robert Downey Jr., one the greatest actors of our time, Terrence Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow. Let’s add to that the always interesting Jeff Bridges. And then let’s use this almost always perfect cast of actors in a superhero movie. The result is, as expected, a triumph of the highest order.

Beyond being fun the film does something else too. It refuses to shy away from its political messages, yet never allows these messages to take the center stage. X-Men and Spiderman both have a political agenda, this is certainly true, but in Iron Man the message is not nearly so hidden in the world of fantasy. Yes of course Iron Man is a superhero fantasy adventure, but it is also, above all else, grounded in reality. Thus the political implications of weapons dealings, of making wars and the like, become more apparent. You could argue with the validity of political discourse within most superhero flicks, but Iron Man wears its bleeding liberal heart on its metallic sleeves.

Another way the film is better than your average superhero flick is its utter defiance of all the rules of a good superhero movie. It breaks two of these in the last fifteen minutes so I will spare you this. But, in breaking these rules the film elevates itself to a level beyond most superhero movies.

Ultimately a good popcorn superhero movie should be about having fun and watching things go boom, but while Iron Man does all of the above, in the closing frames it does something else. Something I have read in other blogs and reviews that is a let down to some, but to me, it was the opposite. It becomes about more than explosions and fun and makes one of the simplest statements any film can make. That CGI and action sequences may enthrall our senses, but they will never trump the power of simple, trick-free, quality film making. So if you have some time to spare and promise not to chew your popcorn too loudly, your in for a good night at the movies. And, seriously, does it get better than that?

For The Bible Tells Me So... Part One

I apologize for the delay. My computer decided to show me its famous "blue screen of death." I wrote this last week. So when it says yesterday I mean last Wednesday.

Yesterday I witnessed something amazing. Something like Jesus, awaking Lazarus from his eternal sleep or feeding the multitudes with a bit of bread and a bit of fish. I saw a man stand up and proclaim from a place of deep faith and power that the film we just watched has changed his perspective. He then apologized to the entire GLBT community and confessed, almost in the way one might do at a religious ceremony, that he was guilty, like everyone I suppose, of being prejudice. His God, Christ in his case, was a God of love. And that, above all else, was the film's primary goal. To remind us that religion is not meant to promote intolerance and bigotry. The film, For the Bible Tell Me So examines , both positively and negatively, the way the families of a variety of people in the gay and lesbian community are affected by their children's "coming out" and how that fits into their religion.

Daniel Karslake, the film's director, stayed after the film to answer some question . This was both an insightful and moving experience. But, first let's examine the film.

The primary makeup of the film is a group of families affected by the the impact of discovering the one of their own is, in fact, a homosexual. The film shows some famous people like Senator Richard Gephart, his wife Jane and their openly lesbian daughter Chrissy. Also, in the section of the film I found most riveting, the story of the first openly gay bishop of the American Episcopalian church, Gene Robertson. Perhaps the most brave part of the film comes from Mary Lou Wallner, who blames herself for his daughters' tragic suicide. Daniel told us afterwards that she wrote a book called The Slow Miracle of Transformation. It is currently out of print, but I hope to find it soon and give it a read. The other families, the Poteats and the Reitans, are both truly interesting to get to know. In fact the most powerful scene in the film comes when the Reitan's take a stand on a particular issue. I won't give it away. See the film, available on DVD now, to uncover this part of the story.

One of the film's most compelling features was the addition of several theologians and scholars who both passionately and objectivity examined the true intentions behind the infamous bible verses that are said to condemn the practice of homosexuality. Nothing about their observations are entirely new ideas, but I imagine to the film's target audience this could be seen as somewhat of a revelation.

Another extremely intriguing aspect of the film was an animated section about what it is that makes people gay and the science behind it. The animated section works in two distinct ways. One, it allows the film to take a break away from the weighty subject material and two, it saves the viewers from what may have been a boring section of "talking head" scientist.

That's the film. But in part two we will get to the touching part. Including a story that Daniel told that made me almost cry.

Also, because we are in the middle of final papers season this blog may not be too active until school ends. However, if I don't get a chance to tell you here are few things you should know.

1) This Thursday for those of you in the Wilmington area there will be an avant-garde (experimental film night.) Afterwards there will be something called a "Live Cinema Explosion" Trust me, as someone working to bring this film festival to Wilmington, it should be a truly memorable night.

2) Also on Friday night is the Reel Teal Festival. A collection of student films will be shown and those in the audience get to vote to for their top picks. If you attend wear something a little nicer.

3) On Saturday, and this only for my UNCW readers, there will be a 24 hour move lock-in where a whole plethora of exciting and classic films will be playing. I went last year and had a blast. There is free food and time to relax before exam study sessions. If you attend wear the opposite of what you wore to the Reel Festival. Like sweat pants maybe?

I should mention that 1-3 are all taking place at Lumina Theatre on the UNCw campus. All of these events are free to the public.

4) If I don't have time to formally write a review I wanted to mention Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I was able to attend a preview screening of the film last week and let me tell you it is a truly funny film. Nothing too new, but funny enough to make up for that.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Film Review: Rocket Science

I am not anti-Juno. I liked Juno. I liked it quite a bit. And when it came time for people to debate its intrinsic value I kept my mouth shut on the subject. I honestly didn’t feel strongly about it either way. To me it was just okay, and not worthy of its numerous Oscar noms but not bad enough to really complain. Today I saw the film that should have filled its place. The little indie drama/comedy which should have taken all of Juno’s accolades away no questions asked. A film which, had I seen it before the creation of last year’s top ten list, the place of Paris Je Taime would have been called into question. This film is Rocket Science and while it is not about teen pregnancy its character could just as easily have inhabited the same world as Juno, except, of course, only better. And more importantly than that, it is a million times funnier.

The story is of Hal Hefner (Reece Thomas), a young man with a suturing problem, whom through the influence of a certain young beauty, Ginny Ryerson (Anna Kendrick,) decides to join the debate team and take the place of a the fallen hero of the debate team. The fallen hero’s name is Ben Weskelbaum (Nichols D’Agosto) and after one crucial screw up he gives up and does something very dramatic. He completely drops out of school.

Hal’s home life is not much better as his parents have recently separated and his mom is seeing someone new. Many people make mention of the fact that the new boyfriend is a Korean-American and that the characterizations of him and his dim witted son are somewhat negative. They attribute this to racism. These people have no life and are in some ways helping to make the race fight continue and that is simply fuel for the fires of racism. The characters are simply not prefect, like all the other flawed characters in this film. It would be the same as showing a black or gay villain and automatically presuming racism or homophobia on the part of the film maker. Sometimes films are racist or homophobic. This one simply isn’t.

Now that that little defense thing is over allow me to continue to praise this film. Diablo Cody may now be the proud owner of a bright little golden man, but the talent that oozes from the screenplay, written by Jeffery Blitz (also the director of the film,) is something Diablo Cody, talented as she may be, could never come close to, at least not yet. Forgive the run-on sentence there.

Also let’s talk about the acting. In fact the acting on the part of Kendrick won her an Independent Spirit Award nomination. I have no doubt of why. Her character is neither evil nor good, and I mean that in the best way possible. She has many layers and with each scene you see her in you learn something new. The main actor, Reece Thomas is quite good too. However, I must submit the majority of my praise to the young actor who plays Ben. He has film presence that is both devilishly charismatic and also painfully shallow. He, I predict, will one day be a bona fide movie star.

And then there’s the direction of the film by Jeffery Blitz. Blitz before directed the Oscar nominated documentary Spellbound. Spellbound, like Rocket Science, is about children attempting to live up to impossible ideals and the disappointment that this ideology will ultimately yield. Both of the films are mini-masterpieces in their own way and deserve to be seen. What I like most about Rocket Science is how it is funny without sacrificing emotion and how honest it is, without sacrificing on style. That previous sentence describes the antithesis of what Juno turned out to be.

Allow me to reiterate upon closing that I don’t wish to join the Juno wars. In fact those wars have been fought and now, I presume, we are talking of history. However, I mention Juno because so many others did. Of course Roger Ebert compared the film to Election and Clueless and decided that this film belonged beside those films as zeniths of the teen “coming of age” film genre. And while this is not an original concept I agree with him. Of course he did go on to crown Juno the best film of 2007, proving that even great critics like Ebert get it wrong from time to time.

If you don’t mind, forgive any grammatical errors or word omissions from this entry. I have written the first 15 pages of a paper and by now words are all just running together. However, just so that I could spread the word about this film I just had to go ahead and write this blog entry. So go rent this film and think about how, even though I was sleepy and weary I wrote this blog just for you. Unless of course you hate the movie. In which case, blame Ebert. He liked it before me you know.

Film Review: Kite Runner

I don’t tend to watch many films that make their home on Lifetime Movie network. I can only take so much weepy drama, mediocre acting and scripts written in two hours flat without the slightest bit of subtlety or grace. So that is why I am forced to give The Kite Runner, a film based on the beloved book of the same name, a negative review, as it feels exactly like a Lifetime Film, a Lifetime film with a really great production value.

I have read the book and while it is fundamentally wrong to judge films based on their book versions, the film doesn’t hold up to the amazing power of the book. In fact the movie is like reading the cliff notes of some great novel and expecting to be as fully enriched as reading the actual novel. This is not say that movies can’t be better than their book version (Clockwork Orange for instance,) but this film is seriously like watching a collection of filmed highlights from the novel infused with weepy falsehoods that negate the power of its source subject. And, that my friends, is a shame.

The movie tells the story of Amir and his friend of lower class, Hassan. The story begins in Afghanistan and spans countries and time periods. It is a story of a life, of redemption, of finding a “way to be good again.” But, the real power of the story comes from the relationships Amir has with his Hasan and his father (or Baba.) I am not going to go over to many plots points here as the film is nothing but plot points and most of you have probably already read the book.

Marc Forster, the film’s director has always been hit or miss with me. I loved his films Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, but I have to say another of his films Stranger than Fiction was a miss for me. Stranger than Fiction is not a bad film, but it does not live up to its excessive praise and don’t get me started about the horrible cop-out ending of that film.

But, let’s avoid that tangent and move to a different one. A friend of mine actually mentioned this too, immediately after seeing the film, the visual style in The Kite Runner is so boring and cliché. The camera work is too Hollywood and something is lost in it. Something about the camera’s determined focus and the musical score as well seems to negate the power of the film. Unlike the book nothing in the film can be a surprise since the score insists on playing the role of physic.

I want to avoid sounding sexist and being one of those people that divides film or other art into specific genders. However, with that being said, I have to confess to me the book story was a story of men and boys, and fathers and sons. The movie wasn’t about that. It seemed more feminine, not that is always a negative thing. Some of the power of book is lost on the film, because of an insistence upon weeping sentimentalism and not enough about how Amir learns, even after he has a wife, to become a man and to make his father proud. The film does make mention of these themes, but makes them more Gilmore Girls (a show I admit to enjoying) than something else. That is not to say women are more likely weepy sentimentalist, but in fact the stereotypical women that inhabit the worlds of Lifetime Films are perhaps the women that I am referring to.

Also I can’t help but note, with a bit of irony, how much this film should have allowed us to see more of the violence of Taliban. I know that sounds weird. Especially from someone like me who has in the past argued against excessive violence. But in the scene which I can imagine to be truly brutal of a stoning we are shown very little. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes not showing too much violence is a good stylistic choice. But, this is a film with a goal of showing the real harsh, hellishness of the Afghanistan of the Taliban and realness and perhaps something that would warrant a R-rating would seem necessary here. I imagine there is some studio pressure in this regard and perhaps the good ladies at book club that went to see the film projected up on the big screen are not interested in seeing this reality.

Perhaps I am being too cynical. This film does have some good features and may encourage some people to seek out the book. In fact that is my suggestion with this film. Read the book first and if you have time and worse options for movies, give this one a look. It’s not awful, just extremely disappointing.

RIP Charlton Heston

We knew him as Moses, as an astronaut lost in a world of apes, as a detective fighting against an evil Orson Welles, Ben-Hur and most recently as a real life villain in Micheal Moore's Blowing For Columbine. If we forget the latter characterization for a minute we can not fault Heston for his acting skills, which while not stunningly good, held with with us a real and memorable presence. Rest in Peace Mr. Heston.

Film Review: In The Valley of Elah

Will cinema survive the horror that is Paul Haggis? Yes, of course. But why, oh why, do his works garner such adulation? Crash, the first film he directed, won him a best picture Oscar. In 2004 he wrote Million Dollar Baby and as we all know it too won for best picture. Let’s add to that list a horrible remake of an Italian film with The Last Kiss and Letters from Iwo Jima, a film which was just okay. We all know how much I loathe Crash, but Million Dollar Baby lines up right behind it with films which I really don’t like. His works have the combined subtlety of something like using an elephant to crack open a peanut.

And yet I watched In the Valley of Elah, Haggis’ second time as director. Once again we are presented with an issue movie. This time the war in Iraq. However, unlike the rest of his usual dribble this film works, sort of. The story begins as Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives word that his son has returned home from Iraq, but is missing. And thus a typical crime solving drama begins. Hank, a retired military serviceman, attempts to enlist help from various unhelpful agencies. In fact one particularly telling scene involves the local police arguing over whose jurisdiction the case falls under. In spite of all these unhelpful folks, Detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) a single mother in a man’s world, helps Hank on his quest. Susan Sarandon plays as the missing boy’s mother and even though she is only in a few scenes, she is quite an intriguing character.

One of the film's great triumphs is the amazing performance on the part of Tommy Lee Jones. In a so-so film, his performance really stands out. Like in No Country for Old Men, Jones is best when he is in pursuit of something. And watching a master of his craft like Jones act is an actual pleasure. Although I would argue that his performance in No Country for Old Men is slightly better and I imagine the Academy chose to nominate his performance in this film as more a recognition of his entire year’s work.

However, the film’s fatal flaw, like all of Haggis’ films is enduring the endless barrage of sermons that Haggis’ hopes to preach to us. In this film “war is hell.” Wow, Haggis that is an insightful as this little ditty “racism is wrong” from Crash. With restraint, In the Valley of Elah could make a profound statement, even if that statement were as simple as the aforementioned one, but Haggis decides to trade in story and style for message. Yes, it is less a problem in this film as with Crash, but still it is a real shame. A shame, because somewhere within this mess of this film is a really, really great film. A film which could have struck some important chords, changed some minds and never once have sacrificed its value as a film for the previous things.

Could Haggis be a good director? Yes, of course. And with some restraint and maybe with the help of a more subtle screenwriter he will write and direct some great stuff. I’m waiting.