Road to Rio #1: The First of Many

As many of you would know, I am a massive football fan. I think that for everyone in that same boat, World Cups provide some of our greatest footballing memories. My first World Cup memory is of Robbie Baggio blazing his penalty way over the bar at USA ’94 (no doubt I saw more of that one, but that is the memory which sticks out). I remember my mate Painey, who was a much bigger football nut than me at the time, waking me up ultra early on a school excursion to catch glimpses of France ’98 in a Canberra caravan park. I watched a whole bunch of Korea Japan ’02, trying to avoid high school study and the woeful Channel 9 coverage in equal measure. Of course Germany ’06 will always hold a special place in my heart, and those of every Socceroo fan my age. The first time we saw our nation on world sports’ grandest stage, and I rode every high and low. Timmy Cahill’s last gasp goals, Zelko’s blunder, and of course that exit at the hands of Italy. I recall going to work the next day devastated, and not being able to watch the rest of the World Cup, because it was utterly ruined for me.

But my favourite World Cup memory or rather memories are those that arise from South Africa 2010. The Socceroos were there again. And once again I rode the highs and lows. The disaster that was the Germany game, Kewell’s sending off, Holman’s strike (seen whilst wearing my Carle #10 jersey) and the ultimate, somewhat unfortunate exit. This time I was able to keep watching. And I watched a vast majority of that World Cup, most of it from the World Cup bed me and my girlfriend had set up in front of the television. There is something about the dog-tired mornings at work, and the fact that you know you will do it all again the next night which lets you know how much you love the game. In three years time I hope to add some more amazing World Cup memories by attending the World Cup in Brazil. Brazil is in many ways the spiritual home of the world game, and the opportunity to be there live, is one I am not keen to give up. I briefly met Les Murray before the last World Cup, and mentioned how I wish I could be in South Africa seeing it live. He wholeheartedly recommended I go to the World Cup in Brazil, because if there is any place to see a World Cup, that is the place. It will take a lot of saving and planning, but hopefully I will make enough sacrifices between now and them to make something that truly is a dream, a reality.

So I thought that it would be a good idea to start chronicling the long journey to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, hence the title of this piece. However, the title also refers to the Asian qualifying draw which took place a week and a half ago. This is the draw for the third round of Asian qualifying, with Australia and the other top nations not appearing in the first two rounds. Hopefully this will be the first of many draws that the Socceroos will be part of during the rather long road to Brazil. With Australia only having qualified for three World Cups (including the last two) there are some general misconceptions surrounding the qualifying process. Foremost among them in my opinion is that now we are qualifying through Asia, we should make it easily every time. This is definitely not the case. There are some extremely high quality teams lying between us and Brazil and if we fall behind early in qualifying then it will be hard to make up the ground. Exacerbating this is a problem which is probably more acute for Australia than any other nation in the qualifiers, balancing club and country. While all of these qualifiers will fall on FIFA dates, issues with overseas clubs could ultimately lead to occasionally weaker Australian squads, and enhanced numbers of A-League players playing a part.

The draw utilised the ‘pot’ system, which is designed to ensure that the best teams are not forced to play one another, and knock each other out in the early rounds. As such it was impossible for Australia to face Japan or South Korea in this round of qualifiers. Despite this there was some quality teams littered through the draw. Iraq, who are always up for a game against the Socceroos and whose style of play matches up really well against us. Also the dangerous North Korea who somehow ended up in the lowest pot, despite the fact they qualified for last year’s showpiece in South Africa. They have a very defensive style of play and are hard to break down and this, coupled with the gruelling culture shock and travel of the away trip to Pyongyang makes them another team I was keen for us to avoid. Taking into account the away leg, Iran is another team that the team would have been hoping to avoid. Another hard slog of a trip with the intimidating atmosphere of the Azadi Stadium stadium, filled to the brim in Tehran awaiting you. Luckily for us we did manage to avoid these three opponents. However the three teams that await us definitely still pose some troubles. I have an admittedly weak knowledge of Asian football but with that in mind, here are my thoughts on the three opponents that Australia had been drawn to face.


Saudi Arabia
FIFA Ranking: 92
World Cup Pedigree: Qualified for finals 1994 (round of 16), 1998 (group stage), 2002 (group stage) and 2006 (group stage).
Round 2 Form: 8-0 aggregate defeat of Hong Kong
Head to Head Record: Played 3, Australia 1, Saudi Arabia 1, Draw 1

As three time champions, and three time runners up in the Asian Cup the Saudis have a footballing heritage as rich as any in all of Asia. However, they are similar to Iran in that their recent years have not been as successful. These years have coincided with a general trend that has seen East Asia dominate the West. In fact their current FIFA ranking of 92 is the lowest in their history. Despite this, on paper they seem to pose the biggest threat to the Socceroos in this group. After failing to qualify for the 2010 World Cup after qualifying for the previous four, there will be intense pressure on the Saudis to do better this time. This could manifest itself in two ways. The team could respond positively and play above expectation. Or they could falter badly. A poor early result against either Thailand or Oman will ratchet the pressure on this team right up. I think it is hard to read too much into their two-leg drubbing of minnows Hong Kong in round 2 qualifying. Except maybe to highlight the fact that they are able to rack up some goals against inferior opposition. I think that ultimately they will look to get some sort of result against the Socceroos at home, which will put them on track to move through. These will be interesting matchups with the two countries not having clashed since Australia joined the Asian confederation. A look at the small gap in rankings between the Saudis and the other two sides in the group shows that finishing in the top two is by no means a certainty for them.

Thailand
FIFA Ranking: 119
World Cup Pedigree: Never qualified for the finals
Round 2 Form: 3-2 aggregate defeat of Palestine
Head to Head Record: Australia 3, Thailand 0, Draw 0

The Green and Gold Army will be happy with this one. Is there a more ideal away trip than this? The bargain airfares and idyllic surrounds should ensure a good Aussie contingent for the away trip. They will be confronted with an interesting game as well. The Thais only just managed to scrape past Palestine in round 2. With all due respect to Palestine (it is fantastic just to see a nation such as Palestine involved, and doing pretty well in World Cup qualifying), that does not smack of a team ready to strike the fear into any of the other teams in this group. Despite, or perhaps because of this, the Thai coach has come out with some very confident remarks since the draw. He has said they will go into the games against the Socceroos with a measure of confidence, based around the fact we are ageing and slow, whilst they have some genuine pace. Whilst I can’t make any informed statements on the pace of the Thai team, I acknowledge that pace in defence is definitely not the strong point of the Socceroos and it will be very interesting to see the Thais attempt to exploit it. The Aussies will take a confidence from their last meeting which was a 4-0 drubbing of the Thais in the 2007 Asian Cup finals. Ultimately finding consistency will be the key for Thailand if they harbour hopes of advancing to the next round.

Oman
FIFA Ranking: 107
World Cup Pedigree: Never qualified for the finals
Round 2 Form: 2-0 first leg defeat of Myanmar, second leg abandoned.
Head to Head Record: Australia 2, Oman 0, Draw 1

Since moving into Asia, I think there has been a tendency on the part of the Australian football community to underestimate the ability of Gulf nations. But the performances of countries such as Bahrain and Kuwait in previous qualifying campaigns for both Asian and World Cups would, I should hope, have changed that. I was there in person when Kuwait managed to beat an A-League based Socceroos squad 1-0 in Canberra. We have also confronted Oman three times since joining the confederation, for two hard fought, one goal victories by full-strength Socceroos squads and a draw at the 2007 Asian Cup. Basically the lesson is that no team, playing for their country and higher honours, can be underestimated at this level. And these results of the last five years will definitely give Oman a lot of confidence when facing the Aussies. It has to be remembered that the countries we have competed against are already into the swing of qualifying and will rise to the occasion against the Socceroos. It is also worth noting that Oman are only ranked 15 places lower than the Saudi Arabia side. That, coupled with the quality such as their keeper Ali Al-Habsi who plies his trade successfully in the English Premier League, should make the Omanis a team not to be taken lightly. I have a gut feeling that this team represents a part of the footballing world on the rise somewhat, and that this team could well snaffle second place in the group from the Saudis. They will know that that any points gained against the Socceroos will go a long way towards advancing this ambition. And they will fancy themselves to pick some up.

In summary, this is a draw that could have been plenty worse for the Socceroos. With very little knowledge or research to back up these assumptions, I’m going to back the Aussies to finish first, Oman to come in second, Saudi Arabia third and the Thais in fourth. It is inconceivable that the Socceroos could not do enough to do enough to gain the top two finish they require to advance to the next stage. However inconceivable things happen in sport all the time. Not only that, just getting through is not enough. Fans will want to see Osieck's team continue to play the more attractive style of play which has been seen under the German who has been a real revelation in the job. The heat will be on a number of players from the get-go as well. Harry Kewell, the most unfairly maligned player in all of Australia, will need to be at his brilliant best to silence the haters. For me at least, Lucas Neill has to show that he still has enough in the tank to be a force throughout this qualifying campaign. His lack of pace and tendency for rash challenges (especially in the box), along with the continued rise of the Ogre mean that questions will be asked about his place in the team should his form not be at an extremely high standard. It may come to a point that being captain is not enough to save his place in the side.
That’s a whole bunch of unknowns. What I do know is that I am very excited for this coming World Cup journey. Hopefully involving getting to see a couple of games live and seeing the Socceroos excel, and march to their third straight World Cup finals. I am sure you will enjoy the ride as much as me.

Worth Watching July 2011

Worth Watching:

• True Grit (1969), Henry Hathaway - Portis' novel is an American classic, but definitely not a pulp Western, the kind of tale John Wayne usually trades in. The film combines the atmosphere of Portis' novel with that of a typical Wayne flick. The older, grizzled Wayne certainly embodies the role of Rooster Cogburn. Some stilted, overacting (Glen Campbell is pretty woeful) is balanced out by some good turns, most notably a very young Robert Duvall. Like the book, this is personal story set in the West, rather than a sweeping examination of the frontier, and it works quite enjoyably.

• Star Trek (2009), J.J Abrams – My first experience of Star Trek was a good one. Abrams is a good enough director to keep the epic visuals and time-travel story which both threaten to overwhelm, under control. This space melodrama also shows that Chris Pine has a growing affinity for quality, big budget action pieces such as this.

• 127 Hours (2010), Danny Boyle – Making a film about one guy stuck under a rock, where pretty much everyone knows what happens presents some obvious problems. Boyle innovatively uses editing and sound to overcome these. The frenetic editing should be distracting and take away from the human story but it only enhances it. The soundtrack is exceptional throughout, especially during the notorious amputation scene (the nerve 'jangling' will stay with me). Film also builds tension expertly, in the lead up to the film's two main set pieces. A bold and brilliant film.

• Inside Job (2010), Charles Ferguson – The tale of the economic crisis, told in language it is possible to understand. This film will make you really fucking angry. It illustrates the sheer greed of the financial sector and how nothing has changed. 30 million people became unemployed so that these executives could get $100 million bonuses. This, and many other instances in this film make you realise that the system is fundamentally broken, mainly because of it's increasing disconnect from the society it 'serves.' This is an enjoyable and incendiary film, well made and driven by an excellent interviewer.

• Tangled (2010), Nathan Greno & Byron Howard – An update of Rapunzel seems risky fare in this day and age. But this turns out to be everything Disney do well (great sense of fun, brilliant animal characters) with some nice updates (lush CG visuals and cool, self-aware attitude). You can see John Lasseter’s influence here, and hopefully he can lead a feature film revival over at the House of Mouse.

• The Blue Mansion (2009), Glen Goei – Wonderful generic mishmash which combines comedy, family drama, thriller and ghost story into something always entertaining. A man awakes one day to find he is dead and gets to see his family implode following the aftermath of his passing. Also finishes on a powerful twist that shocks, but doesn’t feel at all cheap. Here’s a not very good trailer (the actual film is a lot more intelligent than this makes out):
  

• Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011), Jennifer Yuh Nelson – If it isn’t Pixar, computer animation has gotten a bit of a bad wrap in recent years. Some justified, some not. This is an example of a well-made, fun and interesting film from another source (Dreamworks). The film is powered by an original story that riffs on Chinese mythology and a funny script brought to life by one of the better voice casts assembled.

• Potong Saga (2009), Ho Yuhang – Part of 15malaysia, a short film project. This is a hilarious short about circumcision and Islamic banking featuring Namewee, a Malaysian hip-hop artist who seems a natural. Witty, a little over the top and a lot of laughs to be had in its engagement with Malaysian social issues, and just slapstick silliness. Watch it here:

Not Worth Watching:

• How to Train Your Dragon (2010), Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois – Starts with a witty opening about the perils of growing up viking. But this attitude gives way to a fairly bland bag of clichés. The guy gets the girl, dragons and humans learn to live together and the son gains his father's respect. All a bit yawn-inducing.

• The Next Three Days (2010), Paul Haggis - This starts slowly, very slowly. It threatens to explode into an excellent fast paced thriller once the central prison-break premise is eventually revealed. Unfortunately though, the film's most interesting character (played by Liam Neeson) disappears as quickly as he arrives and the slow pace ensures this never really rises above tepid midday movie standard.

• The Fighter (2010), David O. Russell – This was massively well received, especially in the States, but it’s a very strange film tonally. The main example is Christian Bale who looks the part as a crack addict, but his character is played strangely for laughs. Add in the troupe of sisters also comedically drawn, some bland direction and the overall aesthetic just doesn’t work. The emotively told redemption of Bale’s character & title fight, as well as top performances from Amy Adams & Marky Mark throughout, can’t save this one.

• Man of Aran (1934), Robert J. Flaherty – Flaherty is generally considered the father of feature length documentary. This film is moderately interesting, til you know the background to it, at which point it becomes meaningless. It is constructed with doco images, but is no reflection of reality – subjects were auditioned, they weren’t actually a family, and the islanders had abandoned the style of fishing the film is at pains to illustrate over 50 years before, so most of the dramatic highpoints were staged. Manipulative.

If you only have time to watch one 127 Hours

Avoid at all costs Man of Aran

Me - Now on your Ipod

A fellow Canberra film buff/blogger/critic Jon who runs the fantastic site www.thefilmbrief.com invited me over to help out with his podcast. It was really good fun so head over to Jon's site on this link http://bit.ly/qV10x7 to either download the podcast for your ipod or stream the audio. I laugh a lot and say "I haven't seen that film" a fair bit also. And hopefully say some more interesting things as well. Take a listen, would love to hear your thoughts on it. I also spend some time defending this guy:

A Very Different Idiot

Leslie Nielson passed away on the 28th of November last year, aged 84 following a career which lasted well over 50 years. As a form of tribute, I took a look at two films featuring him at work.

The Naked Gun (1988) is probably Nielson's most iconic film. It sees him reprise the role of Lieutenant Frank Drebin who he played in the short-lived (but hilarious) TV series Police Squad! (1982). Just like the series, this is a deeply silly film, but in a very good way. It is hilarious, and it shows that comedy can be brilliantly made and silly, without being cringe-worthy, or crass. Unfortunately there has been a decline in this style of film-making over recent years and I think Nielsen recognises the value of these type of movies. I think that possibly explains some of the role choices he made in his later years, featuring in films such as Scary Movie 3 (2003), Superhero Movie (2008) and Stan Helsing (2009). These type of films are currently the ones continuing the legacy of The Naked Gun, but unfortunately doing it in a generally crass and unfunny way. I think Nielsen was aiming to recapture some of the silliness seen in this film, and bring it to a whole new audience by appearing in these films.

It's easy to be dismissive of the spoof film, given the output over the last decade. But a film such as The Naked Gun shows how witty and downright hilarious this sub-genre can be. In fact I can't remember the last time I laughed as much as this. It is not economical with the joke rate, the gags come one straight after another, or even multiple onscreen at the same time. The parody elements of the film, and its beautiful distinct lack of subtlety are laid bare in the opening scene. A spoof on James Bond films, it sees Nielsen's Frank Drebin taking out a boardroom of master villains (and what a crew they are, including Yasser Arafat, Gaddafi and Ayatollah Khomeini among others). From there, it really does not let up for it's snappy 90-odd minute duration. Most of the film is a hilarious spoof on the crime film genre. Frank Drebin is a hilariously deluded cop who seems not to quite grasp the world around him. The faux voiceover and police dialogue that Nielsen delivers, enhances the mock noir stylings of the film, which are also boosted by some cracking Double Indemnity (1944) references. The film refuses to trade in one kind of joke. Instead it bombards the viewer with witty wordplay, over the top slapstick, parody and visual gags, all of which work well. The film is a little more risqué then I recall as well. It features the line “nice beaver”, one of the best wee jokes ever committed to film and a condom joke which is hands down the stupidest joke I have ever seen.

The performances in this are all really good. O.J. Simpson features in a moderate supporting role and shows a surprising adroitness for physical slapstick. As Drebin's love interest, Priscilla Presley is also surprisingly good, handling the comedic and more 'straight' elements of her role with equal aplomb. Nielsen is the film's focal point and star though. He plays the character of Frank Drebin brilliantly. Despite the character's silliness he plays it pretty straight and the film is much funnier as a result. Definitely preferable than if he had of overplayed it, which would be a definite temptation in a role such as this. You can see that like the film more generally, Nielsen's performance was quite influential. I see a lot of Will Ferrel in Frank Drebin.

This is a cavalcade of smile-inducing stupidity. I don't like to hoist my opinions on others because reactions to films are such a personal thing. But I don't really see how anyone could not enjoy this. It's one of the most joyous film viewing experiences I have had in a long time. The best way I can describe it is that it gave me the same kind of joyous contentment I get when watching Buster Keaton films (but with more belly laughs). Go watch it.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter


Whilst most of Nielson's fame can be attributed to his days as a snowy haired comic from the 80s and 90s, his career began much earlier than that. Probably the most well-remembered of these early roles is as Commander John Adams in The Forbidden Planet (1956). This early sci-fi classic is famously based on Shakespeare's “The Tempest”. Whilst there are some obvious plot similarities, I think it draws more on the works of Freud than Shakespeare's play. However if you are unfamiliar with, or simply don't care for either of the above, you will still get something out of this film.

The main thing you might get out of it are the incredible special effects, which I think hold up even today. An early example of this is the crew disappearing as their ship enters hyperdrive. I find it strange that the film is not openly talked about as a highpoint of effects wizardry today, because the effects are clearly technologically advanced and surely ultra-influential. The giant creatures of the subconscious are rendered using some innovative light effects and to see Nielson and his men's gunfire bouncing off these semi-visible beings is a sight to behold. These massive beings create a real sense of danger for the men who have flown on a reconnaissance mission to a far-off planet, where many years before an envoy from Earth was presumed lost. The tale takes place in a future where humans have conquered and colonised outer space. When they arrive, this platoon of men led by Nielsen's commander find the only survivors of the earlier expedition are the strange Dr Morbius, played by Walter Pidgeon, and his smokin' hot daughter Alta, played by Anne Francis. They are of course supported by undoubtedly the film's most iconic character, Robbie the Robot. Morbius is strangely unhappy to see newcomers from his home planet, whilst Captain Adams is insistent that they have a job to do and are not going anywhere. Things become more complicated when Alta captures the eye of pretty much all the men on the planet and starts encouraging them not too subtly (not exactly helped by one unscrupulous crew member who tells the naïve Alta she needs to kiss to maintain peak physical condition). The secrets that Morbius is so keen to hide are slowly revealed, placing Adams' and his crew in profound danger. Can they escape the planet in time? You will have to watch, for once I'm not going to spoil things for you. The film works best when engaging (or I guess possibly creating) sci-fi conventions, rather than focusing on the underdrawn romance that is bubbling along.

It is quite strange seeing Nielson as a strapping, clean-cut young man when so used to seeing him under such different circumstances. The film though, orbits around his performance and it is really very good, proving he is not a mere clown but a man capable of carrying much weightier material. On this evidence it is a shame that he did not get the opportunity to do so more often. It is clearly no coincidence that his character shares a name with the second president of the United States, and in many ways the actor manages to convey the gravitas and upright standing that role is meant to encompass. He is a brave leader, respected by his men and not afraid to make the tough decisions. Reading that description back it is not a role I would have credited Leslie Nielson with being able to pull off, but I was wrong. Narratively the film juggles a number of somewhat strange, disparate subtexts. The enemy here is not hideous aliens or comets, but man's subconscious and the horrors it brings; surely suggestive of some of the horrors man perpetuated in the 20th century, both against his fellow human beings and his planet. Then there are also the occasional hanging homage to Christianity, such as when one of the crew exclaims sincerely that “the Lord sure made some beautiful worlds.” Like many films, these subtexts can be ignored or explored as much as a particular viewer is willing. But they are piled on, with themes of overt environmentalism and even incest popping up. Possibly just as innovative and interesting to a modern audience as the special effects, is the film's somewhat trippy soundtrack. It was rendered using pretty much solely electronic means, groundbreaking at the time, and produces a wondrous array of buzzes, beeps and screeches that enhance the action and enhances the feeling of a dangerous, deep space environment. In fact technically the film is generally pretty incredible. The set-design brilliantly evokes a far-off, otherworldliness, as well as some large-scale, subterranean, industrial lairs which put the hidden hideouts of any James Bond (or Austin Powers) villain to shame.

Whilst this film does hold some of the trappings many sci-fi films of this vintage do for viewers of this era, cheesy dialogue chief among them, Forbidden Planet easily rises above them. The film's conclusion does risk drowning in a sea of Freudian jargon, but manages to stay afloat so to speak. In the end what we are left with is an expertly (and ahead of its time) cautionary tale about the danger humanity poses to itself and anything else that may or may not exist in the universe.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny


Progress: 36/1001

Vego Film

After recently seeing Lars Von Trier's incredible film Dogville (2003) I was keen to check out the sequel Manderlay (2005). However whilst reading about the film online I discovered the story of John C. Reilly. Reilly is probably best known recently for his involvement in silly comedies such as the Will Ferrell vehicles Talladega Nights (2006) and Step Brothers (2008) and has also appeared in the more serious fare such as The Thin Red Line (1998) and Magnolia (1999). The story went that whilst filming on the set of Manderlay, Reilly, a vegetarian, became aware of the fact that a donkey was set to be slaughtered for the purposes of the film. As a result, Reilly refused to work further on the film and stormed off the European set in protest. A little further reading cast doubt on the veracity of this story. The donkey was killed, but it was doubtful that it was the reason Reilly walked off set. In fact he never even made it on set, the reason appearing to be his part had been cut to be so small, it was not worth the trip to Europe to complete filming. The script that Reilly was sent did feature the donkey slaughter so it may have contributed to his decision to abandon the venture. When pressed on the slaughter of the donkey, Von Trier's response was essentially that the donkey was old, and was going to die anyway.

I have been vegetarian for a few years now and have recently transitioned to a vegan lifestyle. Wherever possible I try and restrict the ways in which my life adversely affects the lives of animals, leading to their mistreatment and/or death. I no longer purchase leather and choose products not tested on animals wherever possible. So is it hypocritical of me not to apply these philosophical tenets to my passion of watching and writing about film? There are a reasonable number of vegetarians who wear a leather belt and shoes to work and I have always found this strange and somewhat hypocritical. I also feel that the way the industry is currently structured, there is a fundamental hypocrisy in eating a vegetarian, not vegan diet (I do not mean for this to be derisory toward vegetarians. The shift to a vegan diet for me has been a tough one and one I have had to think over deeply. If everyone on earth went vegetarian I would be a happy man). But am I any different? Many films, especially of an older era where animal rights was not an issue so central to the public consciousness, feature shocking acts of animal cruelty. Two films on the 1001 list which I have seen, but not yet blogged on fall into this boat. The Sergei Eisenstein silent classic Strike (1924) features the brutal slaughter of a cow intercut with other images toward the close of the film. Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam War-set adaptation of Joseph Conrad's “Heart of Darkness” Apocalypse Now (1979) features an even more shocking and inhumane example of animal cruelty when the local population brutally slaughters a water buffalo with machetes. Like Eisenstein, Coppola cuts this image with others. But the slaughter is still shown unflinchingly, from a stationary camera. The viewer sees the machetes scythe deep into the flesh of the buffalo, exposing its flesh as it slumps to its death. It is truly a confronting scene and one I struggled to watch.

Even between these two examples I feel I can draw distinctions. When Coppola was making his film animal rights were much more of a notable issue. The American Humane Society had begun issuing it's “no animals were harmed” end credit to films as far back as 1940. Apocalypse Now unsurprisingly did not receive such a stamp , rather receiving an “unacceptable” rating from the society. Whatever the case, Coppola certainly understood that by filming the graphic slaughter, he was ignoring the notion of animal rights for some notion of artistic glory. The slaughter does not even add much to the end product of the film from memory, contributing to the overall vagueness and 'otherworldliness' of this world controlled by Marlon Brando's Kurtz that Martin Sheen's Marlowe now finds himself in. I am doubting highly that in 1920's Russia, Eisenstein had a body such as the Humane Society for him to appease. For some reason I think that his is less of a crime so to speak, but this may just be ignorance on my part. Thinking that just because animals rights, in general and in the sphere of cinema, was less of an issue early in 20th century than later on when Coppola was making his film. No doubt Eisenstein was aware that the cow he was killing was a living, breathing, feeling entity just like him. I also feel that the slaughter adds more to his film than Coppola's does. But should this be a consideration at all? Probably not. A question easier for me to answer is will I watch these films again? Yes I will, and I will watch any films on the 1001 list that I become aware feature examples of mistreatment. I have set my task to watch and write about them all and I intend on completing that task (however slowly). Perhaps to remain 'true' to my moral standpoint on the treatment of animals though I need to address and draw attention to these scenes, however briefly.

Will I put money in the pockets of film producers who should and do know better though? No, I will do my best not to. One of the instances that prompted me to write this piece was that not too long ago me and my (also vegan) girlfriend were looking for a film to catch at the cinemas. When we came to Water for Elephants (2011), a film I was none too fussed about seeing, my partner informed me she refused to see it because she had read about the manner in which the main elephant used in the film had been trained prior to filming. I will not see Water for Elephants*** and I wish I had not seen The Hangover 2 (2011) (recently serious questions have been raised regarding the treatment of the 'drug dealing monkey' in that film... plus it was shit). In a funny way, at least in my head, money comes into it. If I was to go and see a current film release I know featured questionable treatment of animals then I would feel like I was directly funding their abuse. I don't think Sergei Eisenstein is cashing too many cheques because of me watching Strike. Even hiring a DVD such as Manderlay would seem like less of a direct endorsement, or at least provision of financial benefit than attending a cinematic release. And does, or should intention come into it. If a movie depicts the slaughter of an animal to promote a cause I believe in, does that make it different to one that mistreats animals for the sake of 'entertainment'. There are numerous scenes of animal slaughter in Fast Food Nation (2006), however this film presents an anti-big business and fast food sentiment that I agree with. Conversely a film such as Jackass 3D (2010) which I have raised my issues with previously, in my view is unacceptable as animals are mistreated horribly for some sick notion of humour.*** So for me, whether rightly or wrongly a spade is not necessarily a spade. Intention and notions of my personal financial endorsement come into it.

I would be interested as always to hear your thoughts on this one. Am I just taking my vego-political correctness too far, or not far enough? Or would it be hypocritical of me to see a film where I am well aware that an animal has been slaughtered to supposedly 'enhance' the experience. By viewing a film such as Manderlay, or Water for Elephants would I be like that strange breed of vegetarians who find eating meat abhorrent but wear a leather belt and shoes to work.

***Note: It is worth mentioning that both of these films received positive endorsements from the American Humane Society. Water for Elephants received an “outstanding” rating. However this rating refers only to events on-set, and is in no way an endorsement of the prior training of the animals. Jackass 3D received an “acceptable” rating because not all of the scenes were able to be monitored by the Humane Society, however no animals were harmed in those they did monitor. Quite amazingly (given that there has never been anything really raised about it) it turns out a lot of the Jackass stunts are actually faked. There is a massive database of American Humane Society ratings for films that you can find here: http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/movie-review-archives/

Worth Watching June 2011

Worth Watching:

• A Return to Reason (1923), Man Ray – Early French avant-garde short is an awesome cacophony of images. What look like micro-organisms, street lights, carousels, nails, springs, breasts and more. I'll be fucked if I know what it means, if anything, but it's cool to look at. Check it out:
  

• Hot Tub Time Machine (2010), Steve Pink - This film has a really nice, heartfelt spirit that is missing from most recent comedies. Great performances by the core cast, and the notion of a second opportunity to do things differently if you had your time over held my interest. And I laughed in this a hell of a lot, which is a good thing for a comedy.

• Sanctum (2011), Alister Grierson - This Aussie cave diving flick was much maligned on release. The most cliché ridden script in recent memory, and the visuals losing their impact on a smaller, 2D screen doesn't help. So why worth a watch? Because it's an incredibly intense, full on genre piece. I started getting a bit uneasy physically, so well is the claustrophobia conveyed. From about the half hour point, this had me utterly gripped, helped by some really nice performances from the Australian cast members. However the film does leave a couple of questions unanswered. Like, why the fuck would anyone go cave diving? And what accent is Hornblower going for exactly?

• Allonsanfan (1973), Paolo & Vittorio Taviani – Initially this looks like a cheap BBC Shakespeare adaptation. But things pick up once the action escapes the shoddy internal sets. The tale of a revolutionary released from jail who has to choose between revolution and his family. An interesting, thought provoking film about how hard it is to escape the past and the dangers of standing for nothing.

• X-Men: First Class (2011), Matthew Vaughan – I'm a fan of sequels, prequels and most any other 'el' you can think of. Not so sure about this 'reboot' fad that is going on. But if they're all going to be this good, sign me up. Definitely the best Saturday night popcorn flick I've seen this year. Michael Fassbender as Magneto is obscenely good, and the evolving relationship between him and James McAvoy's Charles Xavier is intriguing.

• Alias Season 1 (2001), J.J Abrams - This was the series that kick-started TV wunderkid (now just wunderkid) Abrams' career. This is a globetrotting spy series that keeps the action coming and the characters always intriguing. It helps that it is brought to life by a pretty darn fine cast headed by Jennifer Garner and Bradley Cooper. A silly and occasionally convoluted mix of James Bond and Indiana Jones, that is always ultra entertaining.

• Shakespeare Behind Bars (2005), Hank Rogerson & Jilann Spitzmiller – This is an incredible and dense doco which chronicles a Shakespeare group in an American prison. Introduces the (at times brilliant) players at work, before gradually unveiling their heinous crimes, making you reappraise judgement. The felons are intelligent and bursting with philosophy, best seen when they summarise The Tempest in their own words. This film is the most truthful piece you could hope to see.

• Seven Up! (1964), Paul Almond - Based on this, the seminal sociological doco series is seminal for a reason. Beautifully shot as it is, this is essentially a 'talking heads' TV. piece. The innocence, but already engrained differences between the youngsters sets the basis for the rest of the series.

• 7+7 Up (1970), Michael Apted - Despite a change in director, this is more of the (good) same. Seven years on and the contrasting rebelliousness and conformity of teenage years are laid bare. Some have changed immeasurably in seven years, whereas there is a suspicion some will never change.

• State of Play (2009), Kevin Macdonald – Investigative journalists, politicians and high conspiracy, all pretty standard thriller plot points. Featuring Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren and Ben Affleck in major roles just shows the power of a decent (more than decent) cast as this positively races by enjoyably. An outstanding supporting cast doesn't hurt either.

• Tree of Life (2011), Terrence Malick - This was my most anticipated film of the year. Having seen it, I find the mixed response it has received utterly incomprehensible. The most ambitious mainstream cinema release I can recall is also the most beautiful. A poem about the cosmos God has created and an individual's place in it. About the way one can choose to live their life by nature or by grace. Whilst this does feature Brad Pitt and dinosaurs, it ain't a popcorn film. But I urge you to see it with an open mind and let the images wash over you. Then go back and see it a second time like I intend to.

• Oranges and Sunshine (2010), Jim Loach – This is a crushing film about family. A portrayal of yet another example of the Aus and British governments colluding in the heinous betrayal of children. Also yet another example of the depth of talent in Aussie acting. The smallest supporting roles are brilliantly, and emotively shown. But it is Weaving who 'stars' delivering a powerful turn that I'd be willing to bet will be as good as any this year.

Not Worth Watching:

• The Hearts of Age (1934), Orson Welles & William Vance – Orson Welles' first film is the first of his I haven't loved. In fact I was bored by it. This out there piece prominently features a tolling bell, and hideous demons. To me, this does not show any of the characteristics that would make Welles the greatest director in history. Maybe I just don't get it. Take a look and let me know if I'm being harsh:
  

• Number, Please (1920), Hal Roach & Fred C. Newmeyer – This stars Harold Lloyd who is considered the third pillar of silent comedy along with Keaton & Chaplin. This is a beautifully shot, traditional love triangle. But a lot of it is similar to the aforementioned two comedians, only they do it better. Also, Lloyd's everyman character lacks any distinctiveness. Pace too slow to generate laughs.

• Jennifer's Body (2009), Karyn Kusama - “Is that the stupid Megan Fox lesbian movie” my girlfriend accused when I bought this home. “But, but...” I spluttered “It's written by the same person who wrote Juno” was my defence. Script starts really well, quite funny, but then the horror shift kicks in, and Megan Fox's sheer lack of acting ability take over. Forgoes any semblance of classical vampire mythology for overt sexuality – a vampire who needs to get her tits out before attacking. Only a very small target audience, easily titillated 14 year old boys, will come out of this one satisfied.

• The Hangover Part II (2011), Todd Phillips – I enjoyed this more than the first one (but I really didn't like that). But it takes Hollywood unoriginality to absurd new heights. It's literally the exact same script as the first one. So unoriginal, yep there's a ladyboy joke. And am I the only one who finds Zach Galifinakis' character incredibly annoying rather than hilarious?

• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009), Michael Bay – The critical community, and my girlfriend, all agreed this film was a heinous crime against cinema. They were all right. A woeful script is brought to life by woeful performances. The most mind-numbingly dumb film I've ever seen (transformers humping legs, transformer testicles???). Racist & sexist to boot. This is a movie so bad, Megan Fox's performance isn't even close to the worst thing in it.

• Bridesmaids (2011), Paul Feig - Sold as a female The Hangover, this starts pretty lacklustre. And while it improves in patches, it still feels like a film which consists of jokes rejected from Will Ferrell and better Judd Apatow films. Good performances from Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd can't save this one.

If you only have time to watch one Tree of Life

Avoid at all costs Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Stanley Goes to War

Stanley Kubrick is one of the most heralded directors in history, and he made two classic war, or more accurately anti-war films. Interestingly, they focused on two of the major conflicts of the 20th century, but ones separated by approximately 50 years – World War I and the Vietnam War.

Both of these films feature stark, two act narratives. The first, Paths of Glory (1957), opens on the battlefields of France in 1926, before switching into courtroom drama mode in the second half. The narrative concerns a platoon led by Colonel Dax being ordered into a suicidal mission by his superiors. These superiors are motivated not by the prospects of the battle being a success, or its effect on the overall war effort, but rather on the fame that victory will bring them. Despite knowing the chances of victory are pretty much zero and the pleadings of Dax, the men are sent into battle and basically annihilated. The scenes of trench warfare here are brilliant. Kubrick takes a side-on view of the men as they run through the mud, barbed wire, shit and dead bodies of no-man's land in a spectacular tracking shot, as good as anything of Kubrick's I have seen. The fact that the film is black and white enhances the atmosphere of these sequences greatly, rather than inhibiting them in any way. But these shots, and indeed the narrative are subservient to the message. The disconnect between the men on the frontline, and the commanders sitting far away in a castle is a reoccurring theme throughout the film, one also explored in Peter Weir's Gallipoli (1981). These commanders seem content in their professed knowledge that “naturally men will have to be killed” - just as long as it's not them of course. These are all pertinent questions as well. Who decides when it is ok for a young man or woman's life to be sacrificed? How can another quantify what risk is worth taking with another's life? The other major suggestion Kubrick makes through the film's first half relates to the futility of war. Especially one where as we're told, victories are measured in hundreds of yards and losses in hundreds of thousands (of troops).

The second part of this film is essentially a courtroom drama. After the disastrous offensive, several of Dax's men are charged with cowardice by his superiors. In harrowing scenes three men are chosen, essentially at random, to face the charges as representatives of the supposedly inherently cowardly group. The fact that these three men are eventually sentenced to death, is a clear statement on the folly of the death penalty, applicable equally to both military and civilian life. Whilst as a piece of pure filmic enjoyment these scenes (especially early on) definitely lag behind the first half they work as a vehicle to evoke the script's concerns. Following the three men's condemning the film again takes another tonal shift, becoming a tense piece with the hour of execution fast approaching. I was genuinely unsure as to whether or not they would be executed. I mean it seemed they would, but this is a Hollywood film so surely the hero Dax would be able to pull it off. The plight of the condemned men, with their horrible emotional rollercoaster is brilliantly conveyed here. The repeated and committed efforts of Dax to alert his commanders to the downright stupidity of the whole situation also enhances hopes that the men will be spared. “There are times when I'm ashamed to be part of the human race, and this is one of them” he pleads whilst denouncing the inhumane and unfair nature of the military court (Guantanamo Bay anyone?). The attitude of the military hierarchy when they state that the executions will be a good “tonic for morale” are a scary premonition to the attitudes depicted in Errol Morris' much later non-fiction film The Thin Blue Line (1988). I won't ruin the outcome of all this for you, but I encourage you to check it out. Hopefully you find it as tense and difficult to pick as I did (I'm pretty confident you will).

The narrative is anchored by two pretty exceptional performances. Kirk Douglas – he of the imperious hair – gives a similarly imperious performance in this film. His moral guardian character is a man forced to, and happy to make the tough calls. When he slips into lawyer mode in the film's second half, he fights just as doggedly as his character does on the battlefield. The early portraits painted of the men in this film are of cowardice and backstabbing. Douglas' Colonel Dax sweeps this away when he bravely leads his men over the troops on their suicide mission. The character is summed up best by one of his slimy superiors who toward the end of the film labels him an “idealist” like it's the worse possible insult and states that he “pities” him. The other standout performance is Ralph Meeker in the stoic supporting role of Corporal Paris. Actually if anything he probably outdoes Douglas, tactfully but emotionally presenting the rollercoaster emotions of a condemned man. The scene where he breaks down in front of a former commander, overwhelmed with pain with the lot he has drawn is extremely affecting, as is his former colleague's response. Meeker is able to realistically convey his character's equal measures of nobility and vulnerability in an exceptional acting display

Some criticism has been made of the film's ending. But I think it works exceptionally well, and rather than a sense of sentimentality detractors claim is there, I think it leaves the viewer with food for thought. The scene shows Dax's platoon boozing in a bar. A scared German girl is paraded on stage, at which point the drunk men scream horrible abuses at her. She is then forced against her will to sing a song. When her song kicks in, the men stop their abuses and begin to hum and sing along. Finally the film cuts to an outside shot which shows Dax watching on, and being informed that his 701st contingent has been ordered back to the front immediately, at which point he asks to give the men a few more minutes of peace. This sequence raises a multitude of issues for me. Firstly the way the innocent woman is abused by the men looking to let off some steam. How are soldiers to use their spare time in war? Because they are fighting for a just cause (lets assume they are), is that a licence to booze and shag as they please? How are we to treat innocent parties caught up in the war, the wives and children of the evil forces we are battling?

Also I don't think the soldiers humming along is sentimental, I think it represents the one moment of peace they experience throughout the whole film. This was one of many points throughout the film that I thought of the Australian men my age and even younger fighting wars abroad as I write. Feelings concerning the validity of these wars are irrelevant in these considerations. The film merely makes me wonder whether or not these men (boys?) ever get their moments of peace. And I wonder how quickly and brutally that moment of peace is snapped away from them – just as it is in the film when the men are ordered back to the frontline, with the film closing to the same marching type music it opened with, symbolising that nothing has really changed for these men. One measure of a great work of art is its timelessness. And 53 years after its release, this film made me more emotional and thoughtful regarding my country's current war efforts than any film of the last ten years, and a vast majority of newscasts during that time.

This, distinctly anti-war film, raises a number of interesting issues in its running time. It is not merely offering the blanket suggestion that all wars are evil and they should never occur, rather it is a more nuanced wartime universe that prevails. Like all great 'message' films it also works fantastically as an enjoyable, engaging piece besides the message.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny


Probably the more well known of these two films is Full Metal Jacket (1987). The Vietnam conflict was also a more obvious one in which to ground an anti-war narrative. However despite being a much more confrontational film, the message takes a bit of a back seat in this one.

And confrontational is the key here, if anything the film is too confrontational. The first act follows a group of new soldiers as they undergo their training (indoctrination?). Their hair is shaved brutally and uncaringly whilst their rather over the top (real-life) drill-sergeant delights in calling them maggots and continually reminding them that they are worthless bits of scum. This somewhat caricature of a character provides such quotable nuggets of dialogue as “I will gouge out your eyeballs and skullfuck you”. The character throughout this sequence, except for maybe his very last involvement, is played for strange laughs. The stated goal of this brutal physical and psychological training is to turn these impressionable young men into “weapons” who will be “praying for war”. I watched this, and took my notes long before the ADFA scandal broke, but this is an interesting insight into a military training institution. I hope that things are rather different in our country and in this day and age. And although I doubt threats of skullfucking are made too regularly, it is apparent that there are still issues with the way that young men (and women) are converted into the weapons that war requires.

A very young, puppy-fat clad, Vincent D'Onofrio is extremely engaging through these early scenes as the woefully out of his depth Gomer Pyle. Being a physical specimen who is not cut out for the rigours of Army training sees Pyle come in for horrific, confronting treatment at the hands of both the trainers and his peers. His faults see him viciously cut out of the cult-like atmosphere within the training regiment. The last sequences involving Pyle disappointingly see him lose the engaging quality he earlier displayed. Instead he resorts to 'Jack Nicholson in the Shining-lite' overacting. And D'Onofrio is not a good enough actor to pull it off. Or perhaps more to the point, this part of the film jars badly with what has preceded it. This is meant to be a war message film, not a horror one and what should be the film's emotional tipping point instead sees it lose its way. That said this scene, huge spoiler alert is shot with some real Kubrickian style. The killing of the major by Pyle comes in slow-mo with blood splattering toward the camera. Pyle's suicide that immediately follows is graphic, with blood and brain matter splattering over the toilet. Perhaps a suggestion that it is another young life simply flushed down the loo for no good reason?

Halfway through the film, action shifts to Vietnam, a place populated by American soldiers and “these people” as the Vietnamese are disparagingly referred to. Narratively the film loses its way during this second, battlefield half. This is intentional on Kubrick's part, perhaps a comment on the perceived futility of the Vietnam War, a sense of going round and round and never making any coherent progress. But there are other ways to convey this rather then making this half of the film have essentially no coherent narrative thread. It starts off well, taking an interesting approach to telling this kind of story. Joker, one of the marines seen in the early training scenes is now working as a military journalist in Vietnam. Here he is permitted to tell two kinds of stories. Ones that wins hearts and minds, or ones about the Americans winning the war. There are some pertinent statements here on the manner in which bureaucracy runs propaganda campaigns.

The switch for Joker to the battleground comes in an expertly shot and disturbing helicopter sequence. The stark imagery of the Vietnamese countryside being crossed by behemoth American choppers is contrasted with the horrific actions of an American soldier who shoots fleeing peasants from above as they desperately run for safety. The film's inherent quotability continues through the second part of the film, mainly to highlight the utter disrespect and arrogance on the part of the Americans. “Inside every Gook is an American.” There are also horrific images that for me were way too pertinent. American soldiers comically posing with corpses of Vietnamese killed in battle. Similar images have recently surfaced from America's conflict in Afghanistan with quotes from the soldiers involved dismissing the Afghani people as mere savages. Shamefully, it appears some things have still not changed. Throughout this part of the film, Kubrick repeatedly uses the technique of having the soldiers talk directly to the camera, making it feel as though they are talking directly to the viewer. This is especially affecting and successful when Kubrick establishes the camera they are talking directly to, as the point of view of two soldiers who have just been gunned down. Making what is said all the more eerie and arresting. Unfortunately Joker suddenly seems to stop being a journalist meaning that interesting journo-centric dynamic is lost. Rather it's just one meaningless battle out of context after another.

The closing couple of scenes however are among the film's most brilliant and affecting. A Vietnamese female sniper begs to be shot, and Joker grapples with the conundrum of whether he should grant her wish or not. Then the soldiers march away singing the Mickey Mouse troop song. Who's the leader of the troop? Mickey Mouse.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs


Progress: 34/1001