diagrace-1 Reviews

Fight Club (1999)

great acting too

[22 December 2004]

I think the author of this story knows something about Tibetan Buddhism, but maybe not enough, or maybe he confused what he does know with other views, such as a Robert Bly-ish "rediscovery of primitive masculinity" sort of view. And above all, this movie is a (dark) comedy, so even what truths are pointed at are in the next breath mocked and undermined. In that sense the movie really is a nontraditional, Gen-X product. But I find the possible dharmic messages more interesting.

The Narrator seems to have developed a clear-sighted nausea for the repetitive, numbing, and small way he and others live. He meets/projects his "true self" in the form of highly energetic guru, Tyler Durden. Through some outrageous means, Tyler helps the Narrator and others to feel a new urgency in living. He helps them to know that death could come at any time, helps them go toward pain rather than trying to evade the inevitable, and he requires that they give up some of their cherished beliefs about their separateness and specialness. However, somehow things start to tilt too far toward nihilism, and liberation from suffering has to mean liberation from (the idea of?) the guru. First there is Ed Norton, then there is no Ed Norton, then there is.

The story was a little too either-or for my taste. Either you live a meaningless life or you are hyped up on the super-stimulation of near-death experiences. Either you are a numb consumer or you are a midnight vandal. Either you live in a sterile environment or a rotting one. Etc. Really, one can wake up and see, hear, smell, taste, touch - anytime, anywhere. That is the true marvel of our precious lives. We are intelligent and kind, naturally. No advertiser can permanently take that away from us!

Obviously the author of the story and those who made the movie have no obligation to send this or any message to their viewers. But when Bob says he found "something better than the self-help meetings: Fight club," it would be good to know why. Why is the super-stimulation of a fight better than the moderate stimulation of listening to and speaking with others? Why is adrenaline better than, say, endorphins, or, for that matter, basic appreciation of the many surprises we encounter each day?

A first-rate film for discussing with friends!

Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001)

new genre? hope so

[13 September 2004]

I was warned that this movie was slow, but actually the story moves quickly and is intricate (yet universal), so that the viewer is constantly engaged in the plot alone, not to mention the landscape and the cultural details. The latter two would have sufficed to make an extraordinary film; the story, or legend, is an extra, and a peculiar, only sometimes familiar, and poignant one at that. There are moments when the guys hanging out in the igloos look and act like your basic stadium-rock hooligans, and there are moments when these men and women show directly a nobility that makes your heart flutter and ache. It is a nobility that cannot be acted, not by the finest actors in the world. This is what makes this film so precious and fascinating, almost to the point of voyeurism. It may not be long before everyone in the world has the same set of gestures, the same looks on their faces, the same physical reactions to the same sets of circumstances. Here we are allowed to see different faces, movements, expressions of being. And we are allowed to hear the language. So many languages fade away every year.

My one complaint: why, when we were brought so thoroughly into the world of the Inuit, did we have to hear music from five or six totally other cultures? This created a completely annoying New Age veneer over the whole thing. Is there no music native to the Inuit people (other than singing - and why not just use singing?)?

This movie, along with the splendid one about the weeping camel that came out this year, makes me think that there may be a new genre of film-making emerging. It seems based on traditional documentary style, but uses a narrative, and particularly a legend specific to the culture to dramatize the culture. It seems to have a far more spacious and generous approach to these remaining "far away" places than have had previous attempts to "capture" such places. And the people behind the scenes- writers, directors, etc. - seem to be of the cultures themselves, as well - though the funding is from elsewhere, of course.

May the funding, and the movie-making, continue.

Devil's Playground (2002)

premature "documentary"

[6 January 2004]

Contains spoilers... This movie cannot really call itself a documentary on the Amish, as the Amish themselves largely decline to be interviewed. One wonders why the film- makers bothered to make this movie, given the lack of cooperation on the part of their alleged subjects. The first few minutes of the "Commentary" feature on DVD sheds some light on this question: the film-makers seem to have been desperate to get something, anything, on HBO, and not until they came up with the tabloid story about an Amish kid who is hooked on crystal meth would they be accepted by HBO. Too bad they had to advertise it as a "glimpse into the lives of the rarely filmed Amish" -- this movie is simply not about the Amish. It does not give any context for the radical transition called "Rumspringa". It does not attempt to discuss how an Amish teen is prepared via their community for Rumspringa or how they perceive the "rite" before, during, or after going through it. The Amish are shown us utterly unreflective, and I can only assume that this is an utterly unfair representation of them. They were not ready to be filmed, for their own reasons, but the film-makers were all too ready to make this film, for their own, rather different reasons.

The King Is Alive (2000)

anything new here?

[28 December 2003]

I remain unimpressed, worried, and confused about "Dogma". Is there anything fresh being done here? As for the existential possibilities of a group stranded together in unfamiliar, perhaps threatening conditions; as for the warped-mirroring of theatre and life; and as for disjointed filming and bumpy cameras -- please, don't anyone get their hopes up that there's anything revealing, glimmering, or meaningful here. The film takes a small view of human nature, yet there is one character, the native who watches and narrates, who seems to have a genuine eye. Why couldn't this have been the film- maker's eye? Perhaps ancient cultures are just not "Dogmatic" enough for this postmodern world. I am only glad that the film-makers had room in their hearts for this character.

Bark! (2002)

an intelligent view of those who "lose it"

[12 November 2003]

If you choose the movie Bark based on the trailer or the video/DVD box cover, you are probably going to be disappointed. The movie is only a comedy in the most traditional sense of the word: for instance, it concludes with a beautiful celebration where all the characters are gathered together. It is not a comedy of crass jokes or goofy gags. And is it a romance movie? Again, hardly in the way the promoters advertise it to be. Bark is, however, a loving look at the tragi-comedy of the human condition. Obviously, I liked this movie very much. It moved along well yet had many "timeless" moments. It did not make a big deal of itself. It depicted its characters and their troubles with warmth and kindness, yet was not sappy. I am thankful to those who created this movie, for their intelligence and tenderness toward the whole situation of mental illness. Anyone who has known someone who has "lost it" -- and really that must be all of us by now -- will appreciate this movie for its story. As for the tone, I would say that it has more in common with something like Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors -- another "romantic comedy" which was much more than that phrase generally seems to mean nowadays.