Левиафан (Leviathan) (2014 film)

Director: Andrey Zvyaginstev
Writers:  Andrey Zvyaginstev, Oleg Negin
Cast:       Aleksey Serebryakov, Elena Lyadova, Roman Madyanov
Language: Russian

In a Russian coastal town, Kolya is forced to fight the corrupt mayor when he is told that his house will be demolished. He recruits his old army friend who is now a Moscow lawyer to help, but the man's arrival brings further misfortune for Kolya and his family.

It is a modern retelling of Bible's 'Book of Job' which is used as premise for films numerous times prior to this. It is staggering to think that Russia's 'Ministry of Culture' actually funded this film when it actually deals with things that should be uncomfortable for Putin if you go by the Western media's portrayal of him. I can bet that it will win the academy award for 'Best Foreign Film', for which it has been shortlisted,  just for the fact that it will aid Western propaganda. Even without that it would deserve all the recognition that comes its way since it may well be my favorite film from 2014.

The word 'Leviathan' also originates from the old testament where it refers to a sea monster. In modern culture, it was used by Thomas Hobbes as the title for his work on the social contract and the origins of creation of an ideal state. From there it has been used to portray the power of government in a negative way indicating its tyranny. In the film it is used to indicate the authority of both the government and the church over people and all of this comes as subtext. By doing so the director keeps it ambiguous what he is attacking and whether he is attacking at all. One can say he is using the attack on religion to mask the attack on government. 

The arrival of lawyer gives some hope for Kolya initially but soon enough it leads to problems in his marriage because of his wife, Lilya, starting an affair with the lawyer. The initial problems he has with the authority is compounded by the problems in his personal life. The mayor is shown having talks with the powerful priest from the church and the priest tells the mayor that they both occupy similar positions in the society. As more and more problems are introduced into Kolya's life he has an encounter with a lowly but a pious priest who explains to him the story of Job with the conclusion that Job went on to live till he was 140 years old. To that Kolya dryly asks 'Is that a fairy-tale?'. Being an atheist, I can totally understand his question since it is nothing but a story to make people reverent to the authority/God. How the fuck can anyone get comfort from that story, I don't know. Film ends with a scene from church where the cunning priest gives a sermon on why people should take comfort from God in stead of striving for freedom. If anyone missed the subtext so far, that should make it clear.

The reason for death that happens in the film is kept deliberately ambiguous which is a good thing. Even though it is a plot-driven film, it happens in an understated fashion and the same can be said of the acting. Elena Lyadova, who plays the role of tragic figure Lilya is hauntingly beautiful in it. Cinematography and the locales are stunning as is the soundtrack which is sparsely used with good effect to indicate its grandeur. I haven't seen any other films from the director but his debut film 'The Return' is in my watch-list. I will expedite that on the strength of Leviathan. Leviathan won the 'Golden Peacock' at the International Film Festival of India last year.

Rating: 5/5

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Directors: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller
Writers:    Frank Miller
Cast:        Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Joseph Grodon-Levitt, Eva Green, Powers Boothe

Some of Sin City's most hard-boiled citizens cross paths with a few of its more reviled inhabitants. It is Sin City, you know what you are gonna get.

After a long wait of nine years, sequel to the path breaking Sin City got released in 2014. The incredible cast list got everyone excited but got to say the film was a disappointment on the whole. There isn't much depth to the characters and stories are not that intertwined like it was in the first one along the Pulp Fiction lines. I even thought the visuals looked poor in comparison with a very CGI feel to the whole thing. There isn't as much humor in dialog and some of the action sequences were as bad looking as one would find in Tamil/Telugu films. It seems Robert Rodriguez didn't get out of the Grindhouse mode after making Planet Terror and Machete. Still, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's 'I am ambidextrous' line made me laugh. The character Dwight played by Josh Brolin is the same role that Clive Owen did in 'Sin City' and the events in this one is a prequel to the first part. Change is explained by the plastic surgery that Dwight undergoes.

For people who didn't like 'Sin City', this one should be a  miss but those who loved it like me can give it a go even though there is a high chance that you will get disappointed. Overall it is watchable and nothing more. Film was a flop and I guess there won't be another one immediately in the pipeline because of that.

Rating: 2.5/5

John Wick (2014)

Directors: Chad Stahelski, David Leitch
Writer:     Derek Kolstad
Cast:         Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Willem Dafoe

An ex-hitman comes out of retirement to track down the gangsters that took everything from him. Well, his 1979 Mustang and his dog actually.

I am not really a fan of Keanu Reeves and consider him along with Orlando Bland (Copyright Mark Kermode) to be two actors who have made a career in Hollywood despite their very limited acting ability. 'Speed' is one film which is notorious for sustaining the careers of two questionable actors in Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. To be fair to Keanu Reeves, he at least picks some interesting roles which can kind of mask his own ineptitude and many are a fan of his just because of his presence in Matrix trilogy. Similar to Matrix where Neo doesn't have to deliver many lines, the character John Wick is kind of suitable for him. Despite the extremely unattractive title for the film (John Carter anyone) the film has been getting very good reviews and I decided to take the plunge and it was well worth it.

It is a very fresh treatment of the assassin genre and works much better than shit like 'Taken' which just added a lot of cringe with the whole family angle.  Film takes the assassin business very seriously in a non serious way with the presence of an exclusive Continental hotel where they can stay and there is a code to keep things civilized. The action is similar to the Bourne ones where it is more about grit and shooting accuracy than rope tricks. There are nods to Melville's 'Le Cercle Rouge' (Come to the Red Circle, dude) and even Taken (You stole my car and killed my dog). Thumping music and neon lit action set-pieces are always cool but what makes the film special is all the business that happens when the action set pieces are not going on. It is lots of fun and body count is a whopping 119 and it is none of the PG-13 shiite variety. Lack of any back story to the characters gives it a very Western feel despite the urban New York setting.

It is always good to see some of 'The Wire' alumnus popping up in films and in this one two of them do. Lance Reddick (Daniels from Wire) got quite a good role and Clarke Peters (Lester from Wire) got a minor role in it. The director Chad Stahelski makes his directorial debut with this one and he is know for working in stunts department for films like Matrix, V for vendetta and 300. Surprisingly enough it is not the stunts that makes this one great. The screenplay was in the 2012 Black List. It is inevitably gonna get franchised but whatever shit they are gonna churn out in future, this one was a great watch.

Rating: 4/5 

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

Director: Robert Greenwald

Documentary on reported Conservative bias of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel (FNC), which promotes itself as "Fair and Balanced". Material includes interviews with former FNC employees and inter-office memos they provided.

It is not news that FNC is a propaganda machine for Republican party and Rupert Murdoch himself. As a Liverpool fan, I don't need a documentary piece to become aware of this slimy conservative cunt who goes by the name of Rupert 'fucking' Murdoch. The slanderous coverage of Hillsborough disaster by Murdoch owned 'Sun' which prompted  LFC supporters to start the 'Don' Buy the Sun' campaign have over the years also attracted support from other people who have been the victims of NEWSCORP's version of journalism- reaching a peak during the 'News of the World' scandal. It is a shame that I have to depend on his STAR group of channels to watch the LFC matches and all I can do is avoid watching their shitty punditry during the game coverage. I guess something is better than nothing. Same is true for the LFC supporters in UK where Murdoch owned 'SKY' have got a sort of monopoly on football coverage even though BT Sports is making some inroads.

Having said all that, I don't have much problem with the way FNC operates. They are so obvious and consistent in their propaganda that only people with very low IQ could not see through it. They are anyway going to vote Republican so it doesn't matter that much. I think what he is doing in some other places like UK is much more dangerous. There he owns many different newspapers/tabloids which he uses to curry favor with politicians as well as blackmail them. His support is not always consistent to a particular party and in this form it is much more effective for him and dangerous to the public. As someone in the documentary says, propaganda is much more effective when the people who are being subjected is not aware that it is going own. 

I had read an article in Economist a while back which discussed the idea that a media organization should be unbiased is a very recent phenomenon. When news media outlets started they were operating on a subscription model and it was more profitable for them to cater to their own particular audience and be biased to suit that. It was only when advertising became the major revenue generator that they started trying to appeal to a more broad audience and all this hoopla around unbiased coverage began. Now with the advent of Internet we are again going back to the niche model of catering to a narrower target audience. I actually prefer this model since there is no danger of being deceived since you already know from what angle they are coming from and we won't take everything as gospel. India is still  dominated by newspapers which gives you their own propaganda under the veneer of unbiased coverage- Times of India when it comes to India overall and Malayala Manorama group in Kerala. It is interesting that India is the only country in which Murdoch failed to get a foothold in the News business. It is not a testament to the quality of coverage by Indian media but a case of them being as good or even better than Murdoch in own game of shitty journalism.

One of the main issue that they highlight in the documentary regarding FNC coverage is them passing their opinion as news. That is of course dangerous if people are not aware of it. But in general I am not really a fan of listening to what the traditional news media covers as news these days in their 24x7 frenzy. Most of it is just noise which doesn't add any value. I prefer spending time reading opinion on different subjects than news, but one should always be aware about the biases that creeps into these opinions. I stopped reading newspapers in print around five years back and if at all I get my hands on a newspaper these days I only care for the editorial/op-ed pages and the local cinema listings. I depend primarily on twitter these days for news/opinion and there I follow traditional media outlets like 'The Hindu', 'The Economist', 'New York Times etc as well as new age things like 'Vox', 'The Daily Beast' and 'Slate'. When you are using twitter you just browse through your timeline and save for reading what interests you and most of them tend to be either opinion articles or things that just gives the background details regarding the news item. Still you have to be aware that your timeline essentially replicates your own biases around the issues and since I am a centrist/leftist liberal my timeline kind of reflects that.

Another issue that the documentary highlights is the coordinated way in which the propaganda is delivered by FNC. They take their cue from Republican party on the issue to be highlighted during that particular and you get a coordinated attack. This is something that I have observed in Malayalam news channels. It is a very fertile space with more than eight 24x7 news channels by my count covering this small state. The prime time is filled with debates on some issue and the issue tend to be same for all the news channels almost every day and so are the people who get interviewed. I don't think it is a healthy practice since your are not really getting diversity of opinion despite the numerous coverage on a particular issue. It just becomes a big echo chamber with the only scope for differentiation being the quality of anchor who takes center stage. Don't get me fucking started on Arnab Goswami.

What FNC have essentially done by their coverage and financial profits is that they got other channels in US aping what they are doing. The other channels should have stuck with the adage:         'Don't argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'. Concentration of news media into a very few groups and the corporate ownership of the same is a big issue in US. India is also gonna face the same issue with things like Reliance takeover of 'Network 18' group and paid news scandals already cropping up. I think even if that happens if people are educated enough they will start looking for alternate sources from Internet. It is a lot of ifs and funding for ground level reporting is still a major issue. Internet outlets are still depending on traditional news media for basic ground level reporting since it is a very expensive business. 

Overall the documentary is a very good watch and it is useful to understand the techniques that FNC uses which you can also find in several other news outlets. The director Robert Greenwald is no relation to Glenn Greenwald of the Snowden leak fame. 

Rating: 3.5/5

La Haine (1995)

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz
Writer:    Mathieu Kassovitz
Cast:       Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, Said Taghmaoui
Language: French

After local youth Abdel is beaten unconscious by police, a riot ensues on a Banlieue (project/estate/slum) in Paris during which a policeman loses his gun. The gun is found by Vinz who threatens to his friends that he will kill a cop if Abdel dies.

The principal cast used their own first names as names for the characters and they are a gang of three friends with Vinz being a Jew, Hubert a black guy and Said an Arab Muslim. I had seen the film around six years ago and the motivation to watch it again came when I read an article, related to the recent Charlie Hebdo event, which covered the issue of propensity of French youth from Banlieues to get radicalized because of the systemic neglect and police brutality. The author compares it to the 60s movement in Europe and US when the youth had Vietnam as a cause but since they were primarily from middle class background with education, they got naturally de-radicalized after the fad got over. This is not the case with the radicalized youth in France who takes up causes like the situation Palestine egged on by the batshit crazy fundamentalist preachers. The link for the article is: http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends

Film starts with the lines spoken by Hubert who is the most sensible among the three characters and wants to gets out of the projects: "Heard about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past each floor, he kept saying to reassure himself: So far so good... so far so good... so far so good. How you fall doesn't matter. It's how you land!". It again comes up during the last shot of the film where Vinz compares the guy who is falling to the system itself which is sleepwalking to a crash. "It's about a society on its way down. And as it falls,it keeps telling itself: "So far so good... So far so good... So far so good." It's not how you fall that matters. It's how you land." Vinz in the film is trying to carry himself like Travis Bickle from 'Taxi Driver' and the French version of 'You talking to me' is funny as hell. Said is like the cheer-leading monkey among the three trying to be a buffer to the tension between Vinz and Hubert. Film depicts 20 hours of their lives after the riots and is shot in black and white which gives it a timeless feel. Cinematography is stunning as is some of the sudden change in tones of how it is edited. There is an international feel to the whole thing with the usage of English songs in soundtrack, Hollywood film references and an 'Elvis shot JFK' t-shirt. I guess the whole situation is not much different in plenty of other European and US cities. The usage of 'Nique la Police', interspersed with that kick theme from Inception, was also glorious with Cut Killer himself appearing as the DJ. The ending comes with no warning and is heartbreaking. You expect that fate for another character from the film. I loved the story of the man beating up a nun thinking she was batman. 

Film was a huge critical success and retains a rating of 100 in rottentomatoes. Upon its release the then Prime Minister of France, Alain Juppe, commissioned a special screening for his cabinet in which attendance was mandatory. The title for the film comes from Hubert's line 'La Haine attire la Haine!' meaning 'Hatred breeds hatred'. Vincent Cassel had his career breakthrough with this film playing a 19 year old even though he was 28 at that time.

Rating: 5/5

Copie conforme (Certified Copy) (2010)

Director: Abbas Kiarostami
Writers:  Abbas Kiarostami, Caroline Eliacheff
Cast:       Juliette Binoche, William Shimell
Language: French, English, Italian

In Tuscany to promote his latest book, a middle-aged British writer meets a French woman who leads him to the village of Luicgnano. While there, a chance question reveals something deeper.

The film starts with a discussion on the new book from the writer titled- 'Certified Copy'. It is a book on art which questions the idea of originality taking the value attached to the original paintings for eg. As the writer explains later in the film, why should one disparage a copy work of 'Mona Lisa' since it also captures the emotion of the picture in an accurate way and in a sense Da Vinci's work is also not original since it is also a copy of the expression in her face. We are shown Binoche attending the press conference with her kid and leaving a calling card for the writer. When they eventually meet on a Sunday, it looks like she is trying to court him and the discussion they have is around the ideas from the book. From the start of the film, what we have towards Binoche is a sense of irritation and she continues in that vein throughout the film. A lady from a restaurant asks her questions thinking that they are a married couple and she tags along with the writer also seeming to join in. From there the film takes a weird turn as it looks like they do have quite a shared history and have been in a relationship for fifteen years. It seems that he is quite successful in his line of work and has become tired of her and their kid and lives a life of his own. She is resentful because of that and want to fix things by living together again whereas he is not at all sentimental and feels that where they are now at is just natural progression of things in a relationship when all the false hopes that people have at the time of marriage are vanquished. Bincohe is a sorry sentimental figure the whole way through but I suppose some of my own biases are coming through there.

If one supposes that they are indeed a couple, be it in a marriage or a mistress relationship, then the first 30-40 minutes of the film will look like a great convolution to misdirect us in to thinking that they were not. I am sure plenty of things from the beginning parts of film won't make much sense. So I guess the writer is just role-playing and the whole exercise is like a psychological counselling for her. Maybe they both play the same role they are playing here but with different people in their respective marriages and they are just demonstrating the discussion they had on the idea of perfect copies and the concept of originality. In the end it acts as a very surreal film without any usage of surreal imagery or time and space jumps. I really have to watch it again to determine whether it supports any of the two obvious interpretations.  It can do come across as a bit pretentious but I enjoyed watching it.

It was Kiarostami's second collaboration with Bincohe after 'Shirin'. Film marked the debut for William Shimell who is a well known opera singer. Film got an automatic ban in Iran since it depicts Western culture and la general lack of agreement with Binoche's attire. It won her best actress award at Cannes and she highlighted the plight of Jafar Pinahi during her acceptance speech.

Rating: 4.5/5

ลุงบุญมีระลึกชาติ (Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives) (2010)

Director: Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Writers:  Phra Sripariyattiweti, Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Cast:       Thanapat Saisaymar, Jenjira Pongpas, Sakda Kaewbuadee
Language: Thai

On his deathbed, Uncle Boonmee recalls his many past lives.

When you are watching a film from a place like Thailand you don't expected to be treated with an extremely surreal kind of work. That said, Nicolas Windning Refn's 'Only God Forgives' was a surreal film set in Thailand but that is essentially a Western film. This one solidly exist in the Lynchian Universe but with an Eastern twist dealing with concepts like reincarnation and Karma. Another difference is that characters in it are very down to Earth kind whereas Lynch gives them a very cinematic flourish and stylization. Film very much look like featuring Ozu characters directed by David Lynch. 

Uncle Boonmee is suffering from kidney issues as he lives as a farmer in north east part of Thailand which borders Laos. He blames himself for his suffering and attributes it to Karma due to his past as an army officer who hunted communists and for the bugs he killed in his farm. 'An Act of Killing' was another film which tackled the issue of persecution of Chinese/Communists in Indonesia. I didn't know that it happened also in Thailand, but I guess it is not that surprising since those were the cold war days during which USA supported many un-democratic governments to do the same resulting in the latter using it to crush any opposition. Even though title of the film states that he is is recalling past lives, it is more a case of ghosts of his dead family members visiting him and him reminiscing about things he did in the past. Then again there is one sequence of a princess from distant past getting fucked by a catfish which must be from one of his earlier incarnations. I suppose what the director is trying to do is provide a connection to Thailand's history and the present through the film. The last sequence of the film is set in the urban part of Thailand where an amateur monk is caught between his earlier life and newly found monk life. I don't presume I understand exactly what the director is trying to convey in its entirety but when you watch these kind of films-it is almost always a case of enjoying the unique atmosphere and gleam whatever meaning you can. I like these kind of films where you watch it through the halfway mark in a sleepy fashion and in the latter part you don't want it to end since you have kind of begun to get the point.

The film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes and was the first Asian film to do so since 1997 (Abbas Kiarostami's 'Taste of Cherry') and the first Thai film to do so in the festival's history. It is definitely something that one need to rewatch and I will definitely be checking out other works from the director. It is a very pleasant take on death and the director saw it as a metaphor for the death of use of films for film-making. 

Rating: 4/5