4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Silence is Deafening
25 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A compelling and chilling documentary about the shocking Indonesian genocide which saw over 1 million people killed between 1964-1965. The documentary follows an optometrist (Adi) who visits the men who ordered and carried out the killing of thousands of Indonesian "communists" including his brother (Ramli). A follow up to the Academy Award nominated The Act of Killing, The Look of Silence is a defining work in Joshua Oppenheimer's fledgling career and one which marks a significant moment in documentary film. The insights into the human psyche, and the justification of mass murder are both enlightening and terrifying.

The Look of Silence is a film about the Indonesian genocide, but more than this it is a study of human conscience, power and ideological and religious beliefs.

I watched the UK premiere along with thousands of others in a simultaneous multi-cinema roll out, this was introduced by Louis Theroux and in his introduction he made an apt and insightful point that the film is so fascinating and enthralling due to the natural human inquisition about human nature and specifically about what evil looks like. The ability of regular people with families and, in this case, strong religious beliefs, to brutally murder millions of people, is baffling to the human mind. The questions that flick through your mind when watching this film are not ones that have a single answer: Why would someone do this? How could someone do this?, this film goes a long way to answering these questions. Through the meetings which Adi has with the death squad leaders who ordered his brother and so many others to be killed, there is a total belief by them that what they did was just and right. Never have I seen such unwavering belief in a cause set on destruction.

The focus on one mans murder brings the national tragedy into perspective. An often quoted statement by Stalin that 'The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic' rings true and Oppenheimer has used the tragedy of the murder of Ramli to accentuate the murder of a million others and to show the personal struggle which millions of others have had to go through in the 50 years since the genocide.

Many comparisons will likely be made between this documentary and those detailing the Jewish Holocaust in the 1940's, however this is a very different case. The power which the perpetrators of the Indonesian genocide still have within the country allows them the status of heroes and explains the complete conviction of those involved. The "heroes" who are spoken to dehumanise the people they killed talking of them as if animals, they describe with great detail how they killed them often laughing, as if a justification to themselves that what they did was natural and casual. They are free, free from persecution as they hold the power, free from criticism as they instil fear in the people. Through the meetings between Adi and these men, Oppenheimer is able to anthropomorphize them and position what they have done in the realm of understanding. Often with documentary films about atrocities such as this, the perpetrators are portrayed as monsters who have committed unspeakable crimes, Oppenheimer's method of speaking openly about the killings with the people who carried them out gives the film a gravitas not seen since Shoah. This is the great strength of the film, the honesty of it.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Manhattan (1979)
8/10
Woody Allen at his Wittiest
14 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Manhattan an original romantic comedy about a middle aged divorcée who is dating a 17 year old schoolgirl but falls in love with his best friend's mistress. Just writing that story line makes me laugh. Manhattan is highly funny and Allen's character is so Jewish and so Woody Allen that it is almost like stepping into the life and times of Woody Allen. The tremendous script and chemistry between Woody Allen and Diane Keaton make this film an instant classic. The wooden performances of the best friend (Michael Murphy), the schoolgirl (Mariel Hemingway) and Allen's ex-wife (Meryl Streep) can be ignored and allow the viewer to be charmed and annoyed in equal measure by Isaac Davis (Woody Allen), as he bumbles through life from attempting to run over his ex-wife's lesbian partner to quitting his job as a TV writer to "focus on his book".

Diane Keaton as Mary Wilkie is the biggest try hard character one could find and only Allen could write this cynical yet delicate part. She floats through with references to religion and Carl Jung, and attempts to camouflage her mental instability and inability to accept life drifting from meaningless relationship to meaningless relationship. The depth of her character is one of the triumphs of the film, as her battle to stay afloat whilst being tugged in a war of love by Yale (Murphy and Isaac (Allen) unfolds.

Delving into the heart of the film it showcases the travesties of middle age and the fight to cling onto youth through intellectualism and sex. And ultimately Manhattan is everything not to do when you contemplate life in your 40's, be divorced twice, date a teenager, quit your job. If there is a serious message to be taken away from viewing this film, it is that middle age sucks but sometimes you have to roll with it and not get carried away (evident in the final scene as Isaac stands aghast at the thought of spending 6 months apart from his teenage girlfriend as she shrugs).

As ever Allen's comedic timing and contextual references make this film essential Woody viewing and kept me smiling throughout.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Afternoon Delight Stoned
8 April 2015
I was completely confused by this film. All I could make out was a wealthy, bored housewife sabotaging her own life in the most ridiculous way she could think of. This could be interpreted as attention seeking from an iPhone addicted husband or to escape the dissatisfaction of her monotonous, repetitive life, but really who knows.

Directed by Jill Soloway (Six Feet Under; Transparent) and starring popular sitcom stars Kathryn Hahn (Parks and Recreation) and Josh Radnor (How I Met Your Mother) it is no wonder that this film feels amateurish and far-fetched, as many American sitcoms are. The film centers around a housewife living in an affluent part of L.A., who befriends a young prostitute and eventually invites her to live with her family. A ridiculous pretense to begin with, reality is lost in the smog of LA and the marijuana smoke. The central theme of the film, early marriage boredom, is an intriguing one and could have made an excellent film highlighting the hurdles that modern marriages must overcome in the technological age. The casting is actually good, Kathryn Hahn plays the part of a borderline depressed housewife convincingly, but the script and the screenplay are overly complicated and abstract. This clumsy and disjointed film, drifts from one idea to the next without links, and much like a drug addled university student loses itself completely. By the end I found myself laughing at the scenarios which unfolded, from jokes about abortions to a group of seemingly close friends showing a complete lack of interest in one of them ruining his marriage in front of their eyes.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Still Alice (2014)
7/10
Still Alice Introverted
8 April 2015
This film has so many good qualities, I desperately wanted to love it and be engrossed in it. However, I left the cinema disappointed. Julianne Moore's performance lifts what is an average film just above average, but it is not enough to mask the difficulty which the writers and director have had with showing the real struggle of an Alzheimer's sufferer. The camera work makes you believe that Moore is trapped in her own world and becomes more trapped as her disease progresses, the close ups and camera movement bring her affliction to life and you can really sympathize with her loss of memory.

The film directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland details a college professors (Juliane Moore) struggle with the early onset of Alzheimer's disease as she fights to maintain a life reliant upon her intelligence and intellect. The speed with which she loses the memories she holds dearest have a profound affect upon her husband (Alec Baldwin) two daughters (Kate Bosworth & Kristen Stewart) and son (Hunter Parrish), as they struggle to come to terms with Moore's Illness.

This is unfortunately the only thing impressive about this film, the other characters seem to be ignored in a way which is puzzling. In a film such as this I would have expected a more family based trauma which highlights the severe affects which Alzheimer's can have. Instead the singular and individual nature of the film made it dull in places and hard to relate to a failing memory, particularly being a young man. It seemed to remain within the boundaries of what it wanted to be and did not express anything past what people would already know about Alzheimer's. The nonchalant nature of Alec Baldwin and Kate Bosworth's characters seemed too forced and deliberate, and though Kristen Stewart was not the worst thing about this film she did not add much, other than her constantly morose face.

Everything felt one dimensional and I struggled to be engaged by the script which at times was irrelevant and obtuse. Overall, the film will be remembered for Moore's sensational performance and not much else. Which is a real shame, as behind Moore is a story that would resonate with many families who go through medical ordeals and is just not captured in the right light.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed