Birsay Reviews

Human (I) (2015)

The antidote to prejudice: Human shows how we're all connected

[10/10 · 21 November 2015]

My favorite film of 2015. Spanning dozens and dozens of countries and languages, Yann Arthus-Bertrand's Human is a mission to explore our humanity. The three-year project interviewed some 2,000 people and got them to tell their own personal, emotional stories about things most significant in their lives—love, war, poverty, happiness—things to which we all can relate. It's a masterpiece. And the entire film has been released online for free.

The format is simple. Clean, candid close-up interview shots spaced with gorgeous slow-motion aerials backed by a powerful score. It's beautiful. And it had me eagerly awaiting each new story to be told. I've heard it all before in one form or another. But the format makes it easy for us to listen—really listen—to so many people from so many different backgrounds. These stories here can echo so deeply and with such a strong feeling that we are all connected—if you choose to allow them. With this, the film is unforgettable.

This is a film that matters. It has no plot. No drama, no storyline, no action. And no celebrities—save José Mujica, the humble former president of Uruguay. It's simply a grassroots collection of short stories and vignettes united upon a theme. But it's the antidote to so many films that divide us, that reinforce the us-vs.-them dichotomy that enables us to prejudge, to define ourselves against others, and to resort to violence so easily.

I want to travel the world and know even more about others now.

The Meerkats (2008)

Beauty in the Kalahari, beauty in us

[9/10 · 13 January 2013]

Don't let the cutesy cover picture deceive you—this is a phenomenal film. Far beyond a mere wildlife documentary, this is a full feature film with a storyline, action, and drama. Heroes and villains. Family. Culture. War. Play. It's all remarkably human. Or—rather it's that the human experience is understanding of the universal. It's the feeling that we are animals, too. We are one with the life around us, part of a huge family, clearly related, that our similarities remain after eons of evolution.

Meerkats of the Kalahari Desert in South Africa are the spotlight of this film. But you are absorbed into the Kalahari—not only the macro world of the meerkats (only about a foot/30cm tall) but also the surrounding community of scorpions, cobras, eagles, rhinoceroses, lions, and more making their lives in the dust and scrub of the beautiful landscape.

Supported by a full team of expert scientists, the film offers amazing insights into both meerkats and the surrounding life of the Kalahari. We learn about their language and behaviors. Their struggles. We watch them teach and raise their young. The film makes the beauty of nature and life so accessible that one feels a swell of respect for life of all kinds.

The Meerkats gives us a hint of the coming films that capture the stories existing in nature around us—now with the support of a Hollywood-level budget. Innovative filming techniques bring us right in with amazing cinematography. Infrared lighting systems convey us into underground burrows at night, watching the meerkats sleep and wake up as well as a cobra's dramatic underground tunnel attack. Brilliant ground-breaking audio gives us not animal calls but the fine detail of movements, even that of walking insects. Together with the magnetic main characters, alluring score, and an excellent script with a moving storytelling by Paul Newman and you've got one pleasant movie experience.

Floating Weeds (1959)

The play within the play--again

[9/10 · 8 April 2012]

A number of people seem to have difficulty with Ozu films, thinking them slowly-paced, static, or plain boring. But with a little use of patience and reflection, Floating Weeds is brilliantly appealing. Let me expand upon one particular angle that might make this film more accessible.

Other reviewers have already commented on the films beauty in color, the pace of normal, real life in a seaside village, and the intimacy of the film. Others have also mentioned in negative commentary that they really didn't like any of the characters. This point, actually, is the reason why the film for me passes beyond "good" to "brilliant."

Although the characters have charm and appeal, they also have many unappealing flaws: Sumiko's jealous vengeance, Kayo's blind following of malicious orders, Komajuro's blatant concealing of the truth of his being Kiyoshi's father and subsequent pathetic attempt to reenter his life and become his acting father, and more. But this made me a more active audience member--much like real theater does--made me want to reach out and grab the actors, saying "You fools! What are you doing!?" You can see them make the poor choices that lead to recklessness of Sumiko and the breakups of Kayo and Kiyoshi as well as Komajuro and Kiyoshi, for example. The characters seem to think that they are trapped, that it is their fate. And Komajuro and Sumiko feel that resignation as they come to accept each other and their flaws at the end. But for me, it was a wake-up call that moved me out of my seat. The major human relationship problems could have been helped with better choices. The characters give up too easily on trying to understand each other. Instead of trying to save face by hiding their problems or violently repressing them, Komajiro could have been forthcoming about his past with Sumiko, Komajuro and Kiyoshi's mother could have gone straight to the truth with their son about Kiyoshi's father and about Sumiko's jealous rage in getting Kayo to seduce him. These choices seem to be more difficult to carry out, but they would have nonetheless eased the tension of the plot and averted catastrophe. Communication and striving to understand each other, even the ones most important to us, is not an easy thing.

By setting up these struggles on the screen, Ozu empowers his audience to take their own lives beyond that of the characters limited to the fated script. I think it's the colorful beauty of the scenes, the serenity of the seaside village, the fact that the characters have likable aspects as well as all-too-human flaws, and the masterful construction of the film as a whole that helps drive this process. Movies do well to inspire us, but they don't always do so by showing us flawless heroes to live up to or tell us what the moral of the story is. Sometimes, we learn by understanding how others have failed while coming to our own conclusions on how they could have fared better.

The Wind Will Carry Us (1999)

Slow? Try it from a different perspective

[8/10 · 5 January 2012]

If you attempt, or have attempted, to watch this film, but think it "boring," "slow," "pointless," "meaningless," "a waste of time," or something similar, then challenge yourself to give it another shot. Part of the reason I love this film is actually because so many people think this way about it. A good film is largely what you make of it, and Kiarostami does set this film up to be very accessible to international viewers without specific knowledge of Iranian culture if they choose to give it a real shot. By that I mean you've got to work hard, to think actively, and to let go of your preconceptions and expectations of what a movie should be. Don't try to evaluate this film like you would your usual Hollywood flick. Instead, try to adjust yourself to the film and experience it. It's an exercise in perspective.

This world is rich in diversity and beauty, but one needs to choose to see it. It's how you look at it. Stepping out of your comfort zone is a great way to do this.

Kiarostami has been making acclaimed films for many years and is both writer and director here, unlike most Hollywood films. That means he has a great amount of control and doesn't have to alter his plan to please anyone. He could make the movie any way he wanted to. When something seems baffling, strange, or annoying, give him the benefit of the doubt. He made it that way on purpose. He's provoking you, but find patience. As you're watching, think about why he would do that. What's with all the idle chatter? Why doesn't Kiarostami give you all of the answers, leaving you hanging? Why do we never see many of the characters' faces? Why is the main character not a super-charismatic, witty, funny, and lovable kind of guy? Why devote so much screen time to a chicken in a doorway?

There are several excellent reviews here in which people have noted the film's finer points. They are a wealth of information and inspiration.

If upon further review, this film or others like it go from "boring" to "interesting"--Congratulations!

Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001)

Shockingly real

[9/10 · 15 June 2011]

For those of us who are patient and willing to adventure into the unfamiliar, humankind will never cease to amaze us with it's richness, the result of its diversity—which is to say, its humanity. This shockingly real film is a diamond for both the Inuit people, for it is the first film in the Inuit language and splendidly adapts the story of one of their greatest legends to cinematic format, and for the entire world, who get the privilege and opportunity to journey into life in the ancient Arctic. Atanarjuat is an epic film with its gripping and rich plot, exceptional acting, unforgettable characters, beautiful scenery, thoughtful cinematography, attention to historical detail, and insight into the human condition that take you right into the legend—if you make the choice to go there. "Who are we?" and "Where are we going?" seem to be director Zacharias Kunuk's driving forces, which, perhaps, will lead you to the same questions.