\nLooking Closer\u2019s Film Forum!<\/span><\/div>\n
When the envelopes are torn open and the winners are breathlessly announced on Oscar night, most American moviegoers have already had plenty of opportunities to see the nominated features. But when the Cannes Film Festival crowns the winner of the Palme d\u2019Or each year, only the fortunate festival attendees get to feel the excitement. It often takes months for the rest of the world, America included, to learn what all of the fuss was about. (And most moviegoers are never even curious, because Hollywood does such a good job of convincing us that America is the only place where significant movies are made and distributed.)<\/p>\n I\u2019ve come to anticipate the Cannes award announcements as eagerly as the Oscars, because as I have tracked down the films that win acclaim there, I\u2019ve discovered many of my favorites. Wings of Desire<\/em>, Barton Fink<\/em>, The Double Life of Veronique<\/em>, The Son<\/em>\u2026 so many lasting, rewarding treasures. So I\u2019m eager to see this year\u2019s parade of films that have already won cheers at Cannes.<\/p>\n The winner of last year\u2019s grand prize, Ken Loach\u2019s The Wind That Shakes the Barley<\/strong><\/em>, dramatizes the clash between the Irish and the British in the early 1920s. It focuses on two brothers Teddy and Damien (Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney) who get caught up in the Republican fighting forces resisting British oppressors.<\/p>\n Critics in the mainstream and religious press are both powerfully impressed.<\/p>\n John P. McCarthy<\/a> (CNS) says, \u201cLoach vividly exposes the pitfalls of violence by showing how cycles of reprisal tear apart both the country and the siblings. \u2026 The narrative, beautifully realized from a production standpoint, has been pared down to its essentials and has the universal, inexorable qualities of a tragic fable.\u201d<\/p>\n Salon\u2019s Andrew O\u2019Heihr <\/a>writes that Loach \u201cblends colorful scenery \u2014 in this case, the damp, green lushness of County Cork, on Ireland\u2019s southwestern coast \u2014 with meticulously rendered sociology, straightforward family drama and tendentious political debate.\u201d<\/p>\n Andrew Sarris<\/a> of The New York Observer<\/em> writes, \u201cThere is no happy ending in Barley\u2014only a symmetry of suffering in the killing that brings no solutions to the problems. At the very least, Barley doesn\u2019t partake of the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed anti-war pictures that provide enough violence to satisfy the most bloodthirsty spectators. But though Mr. Loach has escaped that trap, in the process he doesn\u2019t provide any compensatory redemption. Ultimately, Barley is the antithesis of a feel-good entertainment\u2014but it is to be commended for its unflinching seriousness.\u201d<\/p>\n And The Los Angeles Times<\/em>\u2018 Kenneth Turan<\/a> says, \u201cThe Wind That Shakes the Barley<\/em> turns out to be a more complicated, more dramatically potent story than it appears at first. It\u2019s concerned at its core not with how bad the British were but with what the cost of dealing with them was for the Irish.\u201d<\/p>\n Some interesting opinions are popping up at Arts and Faith<\/a> too, where I found this review by Steve Sailer<\/a>:<\/p>\n Why did the UK, which sent 20,000 Tommies to their deaths on the first day of the Battle of the Somme a half decade earlier, not stay the course in Ireland? Ken Loach\u2019s film \u2026 graphically conveys why the English, a civilized people, went home. Defeating a guerilla uprising broadly supported by the local populace requires a level of frightfulness that does not bear close inspection. . . .<\/p>\n Loach is neither the most fluid of filmmakers nor the most historically trustworthy, but Barley is consistently informative about the Anglo-Irish War, if spectacularly wrong-headed about the subsequent Irish Civil War among the victors . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And Tony Watkins at Damaris<\/a> has a thoughtful look from the film\u2019s earlier showings on the other side of the pond.<\/p>\n The Wind that Shakes the Barley <\/em>is not an easy film to watch. It is, as one expects from director Ken Loach, superbly made\u2026 \u2026 It is more than a little uncomfortable to have the brutality of British rule portrayed so starkly, and it is both moving and distressing to see the desperation of the Irish and the poverty to which they were subject. Loach is always a very political director, and his realist approach to film-making (historical accuracy as far as possible in sets, costumes and dialogue as well as in the historical context itself; natural lighting; shooting the story in sequence; and long takes) helps to bring out the seriousness and the complexities of the situation. This is a film which makes clear the ugliness of occupation by foreign powers and of armed conflict. But while it is frank and graphic in its portrayal of the violence, there is no lingering over it or celebration of it. Loach says:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is often a hypocrisy going on in war films, where they claim to be anti-war, but then a large part of the entertainment involves all the explosions and the blood. That doesn\u2019t seem very anti-war to me, if you\u2019re saying we hate killing but let\u2019s enjoy it while it\u2019s on screen.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/em>Instead The Wind that Shakes the Barley<\/em> shows how violence breeds more violence in an escalation of tit-for-tat cruelty. It shows the pain and tragic consequences of betrayal, and the agonies of a nation which becomes so divided that former comrades, friends and even brothers end up struggling with conflicts of loyalty and fighting each other because of passionately held principles. And perhaps most distressing of all, it shows the traumatic experience of ordinary men who end up becoming killers because of what is at stake.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n More reviews are piling up at Rotten Tomatoes<\/a>.<\/p>\n Sure, Sandra Bullock had a significant role in the Best-Picture-winning Crash<\/strong><\/em>. But does that mean she\u2019s going to become a regular headliner of dramas and thrillers? If you ask me, I think Bullock\u2019s comic instincts are her strengths, and my favorite Bullock performances are still her supporting roles in Speed <\/em>and (especially) The Thing Called Love<\/em>.<\/p>\n Bullock stars in Premonition<\/em>, a thriller with a premise that will remind many of the classic comedy Groundhog Day. But this is a thriller with a deeply furrowed brow. And it\u2019s furrowing the brows of critics as well.<\/p>\n Harry Forbes<\/a> (CNS) says, \u201cSerious suspension of disbelief is required on the viewer\u2019s part. Why does Linda coolly seek out an extremely creepy doctor \u2026 when she has already experienced him (in the future) fiendishly strapping her down and administering an injection? Why does she look so panicked when a page in a phone book is ripped out when all she has to do is dial \u2018411\u2019 instead?\u201d<\/p>\n For some reason, I think those questions make the movie sound like a barrel of laughs. Could it be that Premonition <\/em>is the year\u2019s best inadvertent comedy?<\/p>\n Maybe not. Forbes says that \u201cMennan Yapo directs with great skill,\u201d and he calls Bullock\u2019s performance \u201criveting.\u201d<\/p>\n Peter T. Chattaway at CT Movies<\/a> says, \u201c\u2026the filmmakers work themselves into a bit of a corner, and the world depicted in this story owes more to the cruel, ironic fatalism of ancient Greek myths than it does to the liberating hope of the Christian gospel. And it doesn\u2019t help that the positive elements that are there require us to overlook huge gaps in the narrative, both in terms of how Linda experiences the world around her, and in terms of the objective chronology in which everyone else lives.<\/p>\n Crosswalk\u2019s Christa Banister<\/a> says, \u201cThe script doesn\u2019t make even a twitch of sense.\u201d<\/p>\n Taking a different view, Adam R. Holz (Plugged In<\/a>) thinks that the conclusion has \u201creal emotional resonance. Ultimately, the point of the film is not about dark premonitions, but about what it means to keep faith with our families.\u201d But he would prefer that the film was specific, pointing out that what they really need is Jesus. \u201cInstead, the film implicitly endorses faith in faith itself.\u201d<\/p>\n You\u2019ll find plenty more at Rotten Tomatoes<\/a>.<\/p>\n When fans of the great French director Eric Rohmer heard that one of his classics, Chloe in the Afternoon <\/em>, was being adapted by Chris Rock, it was a little hard for them to imagine. Could the popular stand-up comedian translate the subtlety and nuance of Rohmer\u2019s work?<\/p>\n In a word, the answer is \u201cNope.\u201d Critics are responding to I Think I Love My Wife, <\/em>saying, \u201cI think I dislike this movie.\u201d<\/p>\n John P. McCarthy<\/a> (CNS) writes, \u201cRock falls short both behind and in front of the camera\u2026. His film skimps not only on any special insights into marital fidelity but also on pure entertainment value.\u201d<\/p>\n Marcus Yoars<\/a> (Plugged In) says, \u201cThe movie preaches strongly that the final act of adultery will likely destroy your marriage, and you should think long and hard before doing it. But it largely gives a pass to the process, thoughts and compromises that lead up to that act.\u201d<\/p>\n He\u2019s also not happy with the film\u2019s perspective of women. \u201c[Rock\u2019s] movie views marriage as joyless\u2014unless wives can hang on to that \u2018ho\u2019 quality that supposedly attracted their men in the first place. It views women in general as, in the words of Newsday\u2019s Jan Stuart, \u2018either pouting spoilsports, nagging, frigid soccer moms or man-eating vixens.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n GreenCine Daily<\/a> chronicles some lenient reviews and a lot of disappointment. And Rotten Tomatoes<\/a> offers a few positive reviews among the rejections.<\/p>\n 300: <\/strong><\/em> Relevant<\/em>\u2019s Michael Kneff<\/a> asks, \u201cSo, what is so compelling about 300<\/em>? It is, in essence, a gore fest. What causes us to cheer when limbs get hacked off? \u2026 I, for one, couldn\u2019t wait to see this movie. And I enjoyed it. But why?\u201d<\/p>\n His answer doesn\u2019t do much to help me understand that question. \u201cI think that movies like 300 <\/em>create isolated bubbles where we can watch virtues acted out without real consequences,\u201d he explains. \u201cThis is also known as escapism. Frank Miller\u2019s characters exist in a world where words like passion, honor, courage and strength are lived out in pure form. Miller\u2019s world is black and white with no trace of gray. King Leonidas charges his men to act as free men and live with honor. There is a real sense that these men are fighting for something greater than themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019m not persuaded. I personally don\u2019t cheer when limbs get hacked off. I\u2019ve been bored with big battle scenes since Braveheart, except in rare films that make me care about the characters, and in which each moment of the battle is essential to enrich the storytelling. When filmmakers exploit the violence of war for mere entertainment\u2026 that\u2019s not healthy for audiences. And I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m capable of looking, as Kneff does, \u201cpast the pile of dead Persians.\u201d I\u2019m not sure I can cheer for either side of this struggle. And personally, I think that \u201cescapism\u201d that urges us to see the world as \u201cblack and white with no trace of gray\u201d is very, very dangerous.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll admit, I haven\u2019t seen the film. But Kneff\u2019s defense only serves to increase my worries and apprehension, and I think I\u2019d do well not to waste my time with this film.<\/p>\n Wasn\u2019t Osama bin Laden \u201cstanding up for his way of life\u201d and \u201cfighting for something greater than himself\u201d? We need to cheer for something more than that. We need to recognize what \u201cway of life\u201d is being defended, and what \u201cgreater\u201d cause is being celebrated.<\/p>\n There are some interesting reactions to the film in the comments posted to last week\u2019s Film Forum<\/a>.<\/p>\n One commenter to my initial coverage of the film replied,<\/p>\n \u2026 [T]he message was straight out of mein kampf. it was hyper macho, derogatory to the handicapped, the homosexual and minorities. the struggle of a few for the survival of the west from the forces of the darkness from the east is just creepy. all of this pro-western imagery is really intense; it paints the spartans as saints, when in reality (the reality presented by the movie) they were oppressive and brutish.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And I\u2019m especially interested in the comments (and the full review<\/a>) by Opus:<\/p>\n \u2026 All of the talk about honor and sacrifice just rang false, because I knew this was merely padding out the time until the next Persian assault came down the road and the next wave of dismemberings took place.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n At the risk of sounding too nitpicky, the talk about honor and sacrifice also rang a bit false because, after all, the Spartans\u2019 culture (or at least their military) is based on infanticide and what could only be construed as child abuse and brainwashing \u2014 something that the film\u2019s narrator explains early on, and even with a touch of pride. As such, all of this talk about honor felt somewhat deluded, deformed, and even jingoistic to me.<\/p>\n If the film had dealt more squarely with that discrepancy between the Spartans\u2019 noble ideals and the barbarism on which their culture is founded, that might have given the film a bit more substance and ambiguity. I suppose you could argue that the film did just that with the subplot involving Ephialtes. But again, that particular subplot felt a little rushed to me, pushed aside to make room for the next wave of Persian cannon fodder.<\/p>\n The Namesake:<\/span> <\/strong><\/em> At CT Movies<\/a>, Steven D. Greydanus says, \u201cThe Namesake <\/em>is knowing and observant regarding the vagaries of cultural collisions that are a perennial part of the immigrant experience. Yet the basic issues are not cultural, but universal and human.\u201d<\/p>\n He concludes that the film is \u201ca rare adaptation that works better the more familiar one is with the source material. Most adaptations compete with their source material, so that the stronger one feels about the original work, the more conflicted one feels about the adaptation. The Namesake <\/em>may be best enjoyed by viewers most able to connect the dots and fill in the gaps wherever Lahiri\u2019s creation hasn\u2019t quite made it to the screen.\u201d<\/p>\n Christian Hamaker<\/a> at Crosswalk says, \u201cNair\u2019s attempt to condense Jhumpa Lahiri\u2019s novel misses a few other beats. Leaps in time seem arbitrary, and attempts to draw distinctions between the first- and second-generation immigrants are too obvious\u2026. But the film\u2019s color palette compensates mightily for any script deficiencies.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.worstpreviews.com\/images\/posters\/thewindthatshakesthebarley\/thewindthatshakesthebarley1_large.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>James S. Robbins<\/a> (The National Review<\/em>) says, \u201cOne is attracted to the human drama of the story. A small band of fighters willingly sacrifice themselves against vastly superior forces to buy time so armies could assemble to defeat the enemy later. It is no mystery why the defense of the Alamo was soon dubbed \u2018America\u2019s Thermopylae.\u2019 \u2026 But the analogy is inexact, because of what the respective groups were defending. The heroes of 1836 were fighting for freedom. The Spartans fought to maintain their autocratic state. A better analogy is not the Alamo but Iwo Jima, from the Japanese point of view (also recently dramatized in Letters from Iwo Jima<\/em>). Both groups of defenders, Spartan and Imperial Japanese, were prepared to die fighting the enemy \u2014 but not for things we value.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nGreg Wright (Past the Popcorn<\/a>) says, \u201c[E]very cultural detail seems pitch-perfect, every shock and conflict based on keen observance of reality, every generational gap simultaneously universal and specific. \u2026 Long ago, such tales used to be about emotional awakening; since the 1960\u2019s, they have largely centered on the discovery of sexual organs and girlfriends\u2019 mothers. Now, in an era when young adults are not truly achieving independence until deep into their twenties, The Namesake <\/em>offers a new vision for the genre\u2014tales which take emotional and sexual awareness for granted, and instead focus on a different kind of awakening: of identity and purpose, of cultural, societal, and familial reconciliation.\u201d<\/p>\n