After the downfall in the last 2 years, when I missed as many winners as in all the rest together since I'm doing predictions, I seriously thought to give up with the traditional February = the Oscar entries month. It's clear I don't have enough time any more to analyze what's the Academy thinking. But in the end this never was the main point since 2008 when I started doing this. First of all it's still the opportunity to discover something new + as I said it every time, to keep a constant focus of one month on a series of movies which are at least a bit better than average if not much better. So, let's try again ... one more time. But if I'm messing it up again this year, I guess I'll really call for a break in the next :) ..... So, for now, the nominees are here. We'll see next week what's the starting section...
War movie? That's what the poster says. I'd say that looks deceive... At least figuratively speaking. Or, well, we could say "Hacksaw Ridge" is a war movie, if you can fight war with peace... And probably you, because the story's real.
I guess it's quite clear for who read a synopsis or saw the trailer what's the subject here. An US recruit, detached in Okinawa at the end of WW2, refuses to carry a weapon and enters the battle as medic. And in a night somehow makes a miracle happening saving more than 70 wounded from the enemy lines. What you can't see so clearly in the trailer are the details. Especially the background story. The soldier, Desmond Doss, enlists voluntarily in the army, during the war, being a "conscientious objector". More precisely the guy has an "allergy" to rifles. Not only that he's anti-killing, he effectively doesn't want to touch a weapon. Not even in training, not even to carry a pistol for self-defense. Nothing. Now, remember the time... We're in the US army, the '40s, infantry division. Guess what happens? Well, pretty much everything. Pressure, beatings, psychiatric exam, up to the martial court. Nothing to shatter the man's belief that he can go to war without a gun. And in the end he gets there...
Mel is back. And I don't care about politically correctness regarding the man's personal life and opinions, from my point of view (at least since Ridley Scott started to be too commercially appealing) Gibson is the best director in activity. You can see the long break since "Apocalypto", but can also see that he still knows what he's doing there. The movie is not perfect. There are maybe some exaggerated war scenes. There are some cliches, but not as many as I was expecting. But above all, he delivers a metaphor that I referred in the beginning, maybe not as intended and obvious, but it's there. Is the story of somebody nuts enough, to see with all the risk beyond the noise surrounding that there's a place for calm. Or smart enough to feel that in an action, maybe justified, but destructive by nature, fate must somehow give some winning chance to a complete opposite replica, which doesn't care who's friend or foe, but only about good without evil ... just for the sake of balance.
1. I hate musicals. 2. Romances are depression triggers. 3. What the hell I'm doing at this movie? ... I was asking myself around a week ago when I was ready to jump from my seat and head to the nearest exit of the cinema hall where "La La Land" was running contrary to a strong habit of finishing a movie once I started watching. And while I was trying for one more time to justify to myself that I'm there for blogging interests in respect to an almost certain Oscar contender, that initially seemed tolerable and to be in the same line with "Whiplash" = where music is the movie subject, not the way of expression (didn't watch the trailer, big mistake), well ... the change arrived ...
So, to be clear, "La La Land" is a classic musical = we have the specific singing and dancing intermezzo scenes. Maybe not so frequently, but definitely hits you from start with a scene of a traffic jam in a sunny Californian winter where people have nothing better to do than get off the wheel and develop a group choreography in the middle of the highway. After that the focus moves at last on the main characters, she - an aspiring actress in Hollywood with no success, he - an aspiring jazz pianist in Hollywood with no success. A couple (with no success) gets formed quickly and up to the middle of the movie the story advances in a painfully jolly, optimistic and ... well, musical way (I'm a grumpy grizzly, but even so, trust me... there are limits...). From halfway onward we have a gradual change towards the cruel reality, which I don't know how harsh and/or credible might be, but anyway it gains a lot from the contrast with the first part, so much that I thought I'm watching a different movie. Which ended in an emotional climax with an "what if?..." scene featuring an alternative reality flash that has all it needs to hit you hard if you have some unsolved question marks for turning points in your life. This and the camera work, which I have to admit it's really good, save this movie. Even so, I hate musicals (maybe less now, but still...)
Posts
