Waltz With Bashir (Vals Im Bashir) ***

Seen on DVD.
Released in Isreal 2008.
Directed and written by Ari Folman.

This is a flawed film in many ways. It's slow, and confusing. But I admire the intent and the ambitions of the director to make this film the way he wanted. For that reason i rated this film 3 stars in stead of 2 1/2 stars.

First off, it's a documentary but it is an animated film. This animation allows the film to show some eerie and spooky, settings. It's also an interesting premise. The director is trying to remember his involvement in the invasion of Lebanon and subsequent massacre that happened in 1982. He does an excellent job of getting to the psyche of the people he interviews and their memories of the war. For some reason the limits of the animation techniques they used, made people move very slowly which contributed to the slowness of the film. The film makers understood this and instead of trying to hide this fact, they embraced this limitation. The characters tend to float off into space making them seem ghostly. This adds to the level of psychological confusion and angst of the film.

So, the story is that the director is interviewing old veterans of the Invasion of Lebanon. He seems to have forgotten the whole incident, especially those moments of the massacre. He is curious or perhaps more precisely, haunted to know (he doesn't remember) just what his role in this massacre was. So we learn the stories of many of his comrades and the emotional trauma they had went through during the war. Eventually he closes in on the people who were there ( I believe the Lebanese town was laid to siege) at the massacre. What is discovered is that the Christians were mostly responsible. They entered the town and took care of things themselves. There's a hint that it might have been a retribution for the assassination of their Lebanese presidential candidate Bashir (hence the title of the film). But the Israeli army is not entirely off the hook. After all, they witnessed it all. The foot soldiers and lower ranked officers did try to report it, but the upper echelons of the Israeli army either told them not to worry and that nothing was happening, or they said they would do something and instead looked away from the atrocities.

One of the most interesting aspect of this animation as documentary is the ability to reenact the stories of the veterans. Because it was animation, the filmmakers could craft how they thought the incidents really happened and could dramatize it with out silly actors or such. It actually added a dimension of reality to it.

Here's a trailer...

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father **

Directed and written by Kurt Kuenne.
Released 2008?
Seen on DVD.

This movie starts off as a letter to the son of a man (Dr. Andrew Bagby) who was murdered, allegedly, by his crazy ex-girlfriend (Dr. Shirley Turner). The director of the film is a close and personal friend of the victim, so he wanted something to give to his friend's son, so that the boy could know who his father was. He drives cross country, interviewing and filming everyone who was friends or knew Bagby. Until he gets to New Foundland, Canada, the eastern most point of the North American continent. That's where the ex-girlfriend, also the mother of the Bagby's son has fled to. The grandparents (David and Kathleen Bagby) of the Andrew's son (Zachary Andrew Turner) go to New Foundland to facilitate the extradition of her to the states so that she can stand trial for the murder of their son. Though the evidence is convincing, the court releases her on bail several times and allows her to live freely while the legal process continues. This means, that the grandparents, who want to be with the grandchild, have to communicate and play nice to the woman who probably murdered their son. And this stretches out seemingly forever.

I'm going to leave the rest unstated as to not give away the spoiler, but the ending of the movie is pretty astonishing. This is why everyone should watch the film. It is an incredible story! Though I only give the film 2 stars. That's because as a movie, I think it's pretty flawed.

First is the fact of the lack of objectivity. Now of course this film was not intended to be a feature release for the theaters. It was supposed to be a love letter or a valentine to the victim's son - a memorial. So it makes sense that it's not an objective film. Still, I didn't care for the part when Dr. Turner or her lawyer was speaking. It was almost juvenile. They showed a still image of that person and then did a "Clutch Cargo" thing where the mouth moves while the rest of the image doesn't. And the narrator (the director?) would use a mocking voice as the still photos spoke those words. And then it was repeated several times.

And that's my other complaint with the film. There is so much repetition. The same things are repeated over and over as well as some of the scenes. I guess the film maker was trying to emphasis a point in the way directors emphasize points with jump cuts. Jump cuts are repetitions of the same action 2 or three times in a row. The reason is for emphasis. But this is different I believe. Keuune use this technique way too frequently. And the repetitions are not usually all in one place. The repetitions happen through out the whole film.

And then there's the politics. After the events that take place unfold, the grandparents decide that they want to be activists. Specifically they want to see the release on bail laws change so that it is not so easy for a possibly dangerous person to be walking on the street. At face value, this seems reasonable. But I worry, that a reformed law could lead to less civil rights for the prosecuted. What if that person was innocent. Remember, during the setting of bail, they have not proven that the person is guilty of the charge. Still, it's clear that Dr. Turner was allowed out too easily. I suspect that the laws are good enough as they are, but perhaps enforcement and interpretation of the laws are where the problems stem from. Add to the fact that this all takes place in Canada, I'm not really sure how the laws are the same or different than here in the states. Is the Bagby couple working on changing Canadian Law or U.S. law? That's not clear to me or I don't remember them mentioning it. And they even plug the grandfather's book.




And an interview with the director. Sorry about the repeating clips from the trailer.

Man on a Wire **

Directed by James Marsh.
Main protagonist - Phillippe Petit.
Released 2008.
Seen on DVD

I've been accused of only liking movies that the critics like, and for the most part, that's true. Though I trust some critics or publications more than others. Well this is a film that got critical acclaim (it even won an Oscar for best documentary), and I would have to disagree with the critics, though not entirely.

Basically it's about an infamous stunt Phillippe Petit pulled back in August of 1974. He broke into the fledgling World Trade Center, set up his equipment and walked a tight rope between the two towers. Some of us older people might actually remember the event.

I'll start with what I liked. The whole concept and the actual performance are quite intriguing - there's no denying that. It's set up like a caper movie. After all, they are trespassing on property and breaking the law. Everything has to be planned, practiced, organized and studied, before performing the stunt.

Another little subplot which becomes relevant for a small portion of the film is that after the big successful event, the small crew that were also close friend and lovers (they did bring on a couple of guys just for this caper to help out) become estranged from Petit. Apparently he gets a bit too big for his britches. He even sleeps with a woman while still being in a relationship with his girlfriend who was there through out the whole process. The celebrity had gotten to him. This is not explored very much which leaves the actual events of the estranging and feelings of the friends a bit ambiguous or unclear. Though I kind of like that because it makes the viewer have to contemplate what happened and why. There are some clues that something went wrong even before we learn about the affair. In a handful of interviews, his best friend breaks down and I'm thinking what in the world is wrong. Nobody dies or gets hurt (at least physically) so whats the big deal. Something for us to think about... or maybe the film makers needed to explore this idea more. Could go either way.

And some of the images of him were beautiful, like he was floating in air.

Now as for my complaints of the film, it was way too slow. I tried showing this film to my eight year old daughter and she had trouble staying focused on the film. Not that the attention span of an 8 year old girl is a proper test for determining what a good pace for a film should be, but I found myself restless, and I consider myself a very patient film watcher. Even the "caper" part of the film though it was interesting, was just too slow. In a fiction caper or heist film, they don't seem to drag on for so long. There's more dramatic urgency and tension. This film seemed to lack that urgency and tension, though they tried. I think that they were simply unsuccessful at creating it.

I also found Petit to be kind of grating. I mean it's logical since he is basically a street performer who specializes in high wire walking. Think of the old saying or idea that when people see a mime, they want want to slug them because they are so annoying. Petit certainly is smug and cocky. He's arrogant. He really thinks way too much of himself, even before he did the World Trade Center.

I'd be curious to see the documentaries that this film beat at the Oscars.

Here's a trailer.



And here's an interview with the man.