The Last Kiss

Knowledge exists as the foundation for critical thinking. However, comprehension can taint those few, fleeting moments of otherwise unspoilt bliss. Recognizing the signs of anguished understanding  is simple and instinctual. Look for the knitted eyebrows followed rapidly by glazed eyes about to trespass their gates.

Realizing that intimacy is relative is imperative to comprehend  the despair of the last kiss. It stands as a barrier between connection and indifference. The final moment of closeness marred by the simultaneous act of dissolution; what once represented vulnerability and trust ends in mourning.

Published in: on March 17, 2009 at 2:46 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Loquacious

Words can be garrulous
Not to mention effusive
They can be sensuous
Or even elusive
They cause feelings felicitous
And stem thoughts that are pensive
They can be humorous
Or retort quite defensive

Words can accommodate
And help to exemplify
Or pardon and exculpate
Situations to rectify
They work to exonerate
Or inject slander to vilify
In thoughts they can permeate
And emotions they certify

In short, words are numerous
Which is favorably conducive
Their task is quite arduous
Each meaning is inclusive
One’s speech they ameliorate
Enhance, help and amplify
They satirically evaluate
And publicly crucify.

Published in: on March 15, 2009 at 3:58 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,

Aesthetics drive House of Saddam

HBO and BBC’s collaboration House of Saddam needs little introduction. A miniseries in four parts about one of the world’s most recognizable political figures, Saddam Hussein (Igal Naor), poses a detailed look at life within the dictator’s inner circle. Alex Holmes (Dunkirk) helms the project as director, writer and executive producer. Holmes’ attachment to this project is apparent; he spent several years interviewing anyone whom Saddam had come in contact with in order to create a comprehensive study of the man. While such dedication results in a well written story with engaging performances and commanding cinematography it gets bogged down by the minutia of family and politics so that by the end of the series’ 3 hours and 57 minutes Saddam’s inevitable capture comes as a relief rather than a culmination of preceding events.

Opening on a 2003 televised broadcast of President George Bush addressing the Iraqi people as an ally declaring the imminent demise of Saddam Hussein; the series opens looking through the dictator’s eyes as he watches the announcement while he and his sons, Uday (Phillip Arditti) and Qusay (Mounir Margoum), prepare to go into hiding. Cut to 1979 where Saddam and his comrades quietly bully President Ahmed Hassan to resign from his post and name his tormentor as his successor. The beginning sequence of House of Saddam contains four key human interactions that drive the series: the trust Saddam has in his inner circle, the love and fear that those close to Saddam harbor for him and his dominance over weaker forces.

The film goes on to explore the Iraq/ Iran war where Saddam refuses to back down, declaring, “The Iraqi army does not retreat!” Then Iraq tumbles into bankruptcy from the war and Saddam falls into contention with Kuwait’s oil producers. When he tries to intimidate the oil moguls it plays like a scene between mobsters where machismo takes hold, hostilities build and war begins anew. Then the United Nations’ fruitless weapons inspections begin and it is just a matter of time until the United States enters Iraq on the prowl for Saddam.

House of Saddam resembles a combination of another HBO series, The Sopranos, and Oliver Stone’s Nixon (1995). The title alone evokes images of people propped up like cards, unable be effective since fear of execution keeps them from giving their true opinions. Saddam is the ultimate mobster; not only does he command an entire nation but his demanding and highly violent endeavors leave his opposition either dead or fearing for their lives. After Saddam’s domineering, family-oriented mother dies early on in the story he is free of the one person, the matriarch, who could rebuke his actions without consequence, which adds another element of the mob genre along the lines of films like White Heat (1949).

His dictatorship in Iraq resonates globally; his corruption garners a narrative like Nixon that follows the labyrinthine downfall of a president as his hubris leads to complete failure. The film’s elemental link is that while everyone knows the story of Saddam Hussein they cannot help but be fascinated by his larger than life figure and unthinkable actions. Looking at the man behind the terror provides audiences a chance to view his perspective of how events unfolded.

In capturing Saddam, Naor (Rendition, Munich) takes on the challenge of playing a man who is the embodiment of evil and manages to make a man of the tyrant. His presence commands attention in every scene, yet the script doesn’t afford Naor a plethora of dialogue so he’s relegated to glowering in silence for a good portion of the series. This may have proved to be beneficial since when Naor does speak for long sequences his rumbling monotonous voice makes it difficult to pay attention to what he says. However, Naor’s eyes and body language make the character; either as a pillar of silence or a towering inferno, his eyes maintain a captivating intensity.

Other standouts in the piece are Shohreh Aghdashloo (House Of Sand And Fog) who plays Saddam’s first wife, Sajida. Her talent is not fully used in the series; however, Aghdashloo stands out in all her scenes where her emotions are almost tangible to the viewer. In one scene where Saddam arranges a marriage for his eldest daughter, Raghad (Agni Scott), Aghdashloo acutely portrays the conflict of obeying her husband and fear for her daughter’s future. Her husky, rasping voice makes you want to listen closely to everything she says and her soulful chestnut eyes lend themselves to a strong performance.

Amr Waked (Syriana) shines as Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son in law married to Raghad and Lieutenant General of Iraq’s military. He projects confidence even in the shadow of Iraq’s dictator. Waked plays a character on the rise to the top where he finds success is fleeting; as a star he is untouchable and a twinkle in his eye denotes his self-assuredness, during his downfall Waked portrays a desperate man who will cling to any sparkle of hope just so he doesn’t become “nothing.”

The discussion of the key players in this series must include Holmes and Jim O’Hanlon as directors and Florian Hoffmeister (3° kälter) as cinematographer. The aesthetics and well organized color palette of the film serve as an excellent example of mise en scène; each scene is precisely arranged to elicit a particular mood. Paying attention to the dominant color of each scene allows viewers to sense significant points in the film. House of Saddam is colored predominately beige, which is unsurprisingly the color of Iraq’s landscape: desert. As the story progresses the color scheme shifts to red in times of defiance such as when his mother dies and it turns grey or black in times of distress.

Beige is found many times in Saddam’s opulent palace in the cream colored marble. The scene of Saddam’s mother’s deathbed is shot in front of floor to ceiling red curtains that filter the light while Saddam and his mom are reduced to silhouettes. Another time we see poolside Saddam in a speedo telling his first wife that he is taking a new wife. The cool blue of the water set off by the tan and white architecture sets the scene as breezy and relaxed, everything Saddam appears to be, yet the irony goes down just as smoothly as the end of Saddam and Sajida’s romance.

House of Saddam upholds its place as a docudrama; the tyranny of Saddam Hussein needs no embellishment, yet the series includes so many minor events that hold a faint significance to his reign that you may be overwhelmed in processing all the information. However, the film is worth watching simply for its beautifully captured subject matter.

Published in: on March 11, 2009 at 1:00 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Movie connoisseurs unite: Demand more of your entertainment

While sitting either in a darkened theatre, the couch or in front of a computer screen do you ever get the sense that you’re watching the same tired story line over and over again? Can you remember or even imagine cinema sans special effects? Regardless of whether or not you have pondered such ideas, Americans are spending approximately 150 hours each month watching movies and television. For so much time spent in front of a screen the least people can do is demand quality entertainment from the corporations that benefit from such an abundant viewership.

With audiences accepting reality TV, horror flicks and regurgitated action movies and comedies as the norm it seems that winter is the only time of year to find decent films due to their proximity to the awards season. 605 films were released in 2008 and only a handful have the mettle to withstand time and stand out after box office tickets have become mulch. For a revealing exercise try listing as many 2008 films as you can and for every title ask yourself which is more vivid: the marketing campaign or the quality of the film.

In order to maximize box office grosses movie studios work to create a sense of urgency in the public mind where people feel they must see a film within a small window while in theaters. This necessitates many films whose sole selling point is an intriguing 30 second spot (think: Wanted, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Jumper, etc.). Common threads among these movies are stars, special effects and pithy dialogue. However, even if stars like Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman and Samuel Jackson are attached to a project does not guarantee well-crafted cinema, it merely indicates a decent income.

The time comes for viewer’s to educate themselves on what they are viewing and why. Is it simply for pretty images or stories that buoy the spirit? Or is there something more; what can be attributed to creativity and originality? Are there even any new films out there? Oscar winners Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button were all novels before being adapted to the big screen. Other winners like Milk and The Duchess are based on real people and The Dark Knight is a sequel. If you look closely Hollywood’s talent wanes as production costs soar to feed the egos of star actors and directors while studios panic to recoup expenses. The movie business has capitalized on its business aspects to counterbalance the volatile nature of popular opinion.

These facts are not new or profound but they are shocking. You need to realize that a few hours of prepackaged entertainment each week adds up and when you look back on your life years will have been spent in front of a screen. Do you want to make those years count or do you want to spend them unwinding before mindless drivel. Cinema should be an experience beyond popcorn and sugar, it should stimulate the mind as well as the senses and provoke further analysis after the credits have rolled. Instead of wallowing in indifference, get up and make yourself heard. It’s time to repeat the words of the character Howard Beale (Peter Finch, The Network, 1976) “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” Don’t let politicians bully you or corporations control you; consumers require competent products and when films are purely commercial and void of art it is time to demand change.

Published in: on February 10, 2009 at 11:11 pm  Comments (1)