maeva Reviews

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Speak louder, please

[8/10 · 24 September 2004]

People often wonder why citizens of others nations don't like America. They think that we are envious or selfish or not understanding or simply prone to hatred. They say that we should hold ourselves fortunate because they saved us from the Germans. Not from the Nazis, though, since a few studies show how private interests (such as the Bush family's, among others) were pretty friendly with the bad guys in those times. But what went wrong with the Germans, after all? Look at them now, there are pretty decent guys in fact. What went wrong is that they happened to find themselves in such a political and social crisis, that when a loony with a lot of 'good ideas' took over the power, they just followed. His ideas were great. Hitler fought unemployment, he created housing and wealth, build amazing Autostrasse, offered free education to the youth… And in order to boost the economy, he went into massive colonialist war. 80 million smart people followed him, without a second thought. Sixty years later, beyond the Atlantic ocean, we have a very similar settings. A loony is promising jobs and wealth, advocating the virtues of Christianity, and even promising that he'll take care of our retarded kids. The price to pay is the same: massive colonialist pseudo- righteous wars. 300 millions people follow without a second thought… It is not about the Americans. We've got nothing against them. They're pretty decent guys after all.

Freedom a speech is a wonderful liberty, but is there much more than half a dozen guys that make proper and decent use of it? Michael Moore does, as well as Mike, Mikey, Mickey and a couples clone of M.Moore. Anybody else has got something to say? Speak louder, please, we can't hear you.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

A TV set for mummy

[9/10 · 24 September 2004]

A requiem is a 'a song or hymn of mourning composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person'. Is it the death of a dream, of the death of someone because of his or her dream?

Whichever case, I would watch this film again because it does show real humans all the way from shear innocence, up through their emotional richness and combats, down to the numbness of it all. It reminded me of the movie-documentary made in 86 about Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols, a band close to my heart for guys and girls of my generation. In both cases, the grandeur that seems accessible at a certain times in life (no matter what age), and even easy to grab, brings unexpected downfalls, generally not reversible. Incidentally it was right on the spot within its most minute details. The 'TV set for mum' episode struck me cause it reminded me of a colleague of mine turned in no time into a cocaine addict-dealer and of the huge television set he had offered his mum for Christmas... Same social background as in the film, same legitimate ideals turned into megalomaniac transfer leading to decay, possibly to death. I have traveled a lot and made a point in keeping clean, but I have met more than one kid who didn't and I'm still amazed on how fast drugs can drag you down the drain. I do not see the plot as exaggerate, but as very well documented. I was not shocked by it, I was impressed by its honesty and almost scientific clarity. I loved the hip- hop pulse, clear, bright images, very appropriated to the feel of the message. I have no doubts it is a testimony against drugs, from someone perceptive and well documented. This movie is realistic, beautifully brought together, vivid and yes, alive. The good thing about DVDs is that you have special features, interviews (one of Hubert Selby) and insights in the making. There's only one likely scenario with drugs, and old Selby as well as young Aronofsky have written and directed it for us, majestically.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Utterly, profoundly appalling

[9/10 · 24 September 2004]

I would have really liked to enjoy it. I did try hard… After all, it took two and a half hours of my life. First of all, the image was crap; Who was the moron holding the camera, anyone knows his name? Secondly I couldn't get what was really happening (that's when I started to put my attention on the crappy camera work). Thirdly it was unnecessarily sexual, violent, and pompous, since each character had as much personality and depth as a cockroach.

Those who can change a pathetic patchwork of nothingness into entertainment with the help of illegal substances, have all my admiration. But what's left for us who prefer to leave our clean pink crispy little neurons untouched? A movie like Cidade de Deus, can be a good choice. Or perhaps Requiem for a Dream (incidentally, two anti-drugs masterpieces).

The Sacrifice (1986)

Offret

[10/10 · 21 September 2004]

SPOILER: This is the best movie I have seen so far. I watch it again about once or twice a year, like a ritual or an annual holiday I would be taking into levels of consciousness where the mind is not really required. I do not understand, and I do not feel like I have to, it is secondary. I feel touched like only pure and silent beauty can touch me, or bliss. It is obviously created around an idea of sacrifice, being both a gift to others but also to ourselves. By offering his life in order to save his family, his grandson and the world, the main character is also giving a true meaning to his own life that had mostly been of artificiality, questionings and shallowness. Every person who enters the house, he starts seeing under a deeper if not more expressionistic light... And when he meets with magic (while making love with the witch) he creates the bridge that will take him from reality into mystery. The whole film is as breathtaking and self-sufficient as a painting, or even more so, a Russian icon. It is ageless. I suppose it will remain with me for my entire life. I consider it Tarkovsky's last will, but even more so a piece of the Human Heritage that should be protected and kept accessible for future generation.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Quentin, you're fired!

[1/10 · 14 September 2004]

What puzzles me is not the film itself, but the popularity such a piece of non-cinema has risen in this country and elsewhere. The very same plot was already very successfully approached in 1968, by Francois Truffaut, in his 'The Bride Wore Black'. The difference being that, at that time, there really was a story, there really was suspense, and whoever the characters, they all seemed human. In other words, they had FEELINGS. Tarantino seems so much hypnotized by style, that unless you're not a movie-freak, there is no way in which you can't keep on noticing references after references of a superficially exploited collection of stylish movements (mangas, comic strips, Samurai movies, pop culture, watered down atmospheres specific to such or such director, etc.)

This time, his only apparent goal is how to overwhelm the viewer under a shower of violence and ox-blood… No storyline whatsoever, no purpose, no way to identify ourselves with any of the characters, except for Bill's, the only one who seems to have some sort of emotions, and who incidentally is a psychopath (any contradiction here?)

After viewing it, mostly in fast forward mode during those endless figures of sword combats, I asked myself what kind of irreconcilable trauma poor Quent must have suffered in his youth … And again, the targets of his spurs of most sadistic creativity are either women, gays, colored people, or figures of authority (I let you decide which belongs to which in his 3 previous movies). After having had to swallow the exhibitionist and sadistic stances of a New-Born Hollywood shark, here we are again, force-fed with hardly digestible matter and wondering what could be the next step… Hard-core porn, real rapes, real mutilations (how much would an actor take to accept to have a limb actually severed in front of the camera?), feces, children's sacrifice??? Besides, the level of language - mostly sarcasms and insults – is in total contradiction with the argument of the movie that 'revenge is a dish that must be eaten cold', thus dispassionately. I really invite you to watch Truffaut's version and a real contribution to breaking taboos or at least, to allowing us to reflect on tricky matters such as vengeance.

Sadly, Tarantino only talks about Tarantino, and about his obvious failure in processing his personal loads of hostility towards the world or God only knows what else. Pathetic and, even more dangerously, totally deprived of any sense of humor. To be discarded… Quentin, you are perverting the very purpose of the 7th Art… Will that be your last film? In the meanwhile, you are fired… Next, please!

The Awful Truth (1999–2000)

about Michael Moore's series "The Awful Truth"

[16 February 2004]

Michael Moore is definitely one of the best communicators in this country comparable to the Dalai Lama, though in a different genre. Or perhaps not so different, after all. Isn't what he shows us all about compassion, share, justice, fairness, solidarity, tolerance, awareness, etc? And with the same soft and amused smile?

What strikes me most is his absence of belligerence and the sense of grotesque with which he can bring the most unjust, painful, violent or tragic issues to our consciousness. Including the consciousness of some of those responsible for thriving on people's misery.

In a country where freedom of speech is apparently granted to all, it is surprising how few people seem to have anything to say. Thanks to Michael Moore for having the courage to use and make good use of such a precious liberty. And let's hope that there are going to be more Michael Moores in the future. Great work. Bravo!