Chicago Indymedia : http://chicago.indymedia.org/archive
Chicago Indymedia

LOCAL Review :: Media

Another set of radical film reviews from CIMC

Films reviewed: Underworld: Evolution, Munich

Documentary reviewed: The Real Dirt on Farmer John

All three films are showing at multiple venues throughout the city.

Kirsten-John.jpg

The Real Dirt on Farmer John

“I was farming. It was May Day.”

The family farm as a viable economic unit in the United States has been on the verge of extinction for a few decades now. Farm after farm after farm has been bought up or closed down by large agribusiness. It’s not just a transformation of agricultural economics though. It’s also a change in culture. The dying of the family farm has led to a diminishing of the culture of the farm. There are some who don’t give up that easy though, like John Peterson. He’s lived his entire life on a farm through successes and failures. He’s proud of his way of life, never more so than when he’s driving his tractor around his fields, sporting tights and an orange feather boa. At least, that’s the general idea behind Taggart Siegal’s fine new documentary The Real Dirt on Farmer John.

Born and raised in Caledonia, Illinois, John Peterson would seem like a strong candidate for a stereotypical farmer. Born to farming parents whose parents also were farmers, John grew up with tractors on the brain. His dad passed on while John was heading off to college, to study agriculture. This left John to study and run the farm. College in the late sixties changed him a bit though he also had a third job; he ran his own head shop. Friends from all over the country that John met at Beloit College started hanging out at his farm, much to the chagrin of his neighbors. The kids would make experimental films, art and experiment with other things as well, all the while doing the farm chores. The small town did not adjust well to John’s worldly adventures taking place in their community and reacted to comic extremes at times. This is all told in interviews with neighbors, family members and narration by John himself.

The Peterson family was very early in catching the film bug. This has provided Siegal with a wealth of material to draw from and he makes great use of it. The film is at its most effective when it draws upon the experience and records of the Peterson family to tell the history of most American farmers. The family grows the farm during periods of economic growth but with the consolidation of economic power in the hands of fewer and fewer big businesses the costs of competing took a heavy toll on John and his community (the rural Midwest, not hippies). The film loses some energy during the last third when dealing with newer developments in John’s life. While much of this is of a very relevant nature it seems disconnected from the earlier film. The latter parts are strung together more like unrelated shorts about a few different experiences John has had that are only connected by the individual participating in them and not part of a broader narrative.

The Real Dirt on Farmer John has a lot to offer. There is a lovely discussion about the importance of organic agriculture, not only from personal health and environmental perspectives, but as an aspect of farm culture. John’s recent success in business with Angelic Organics has led to a local growth of Community Supported Agriculture. This helps realize some of John’s dreams of the consumer being connected to their food. The film has plenty of comedy too. The neighbors accuse the semi-hippie of being a satan worshipper, a drug runner and a murderer. They also burn down one of his buildings because he’s just damn different. The USDA offers to underwrite a tour for a play Peterson wrote but they have to hire a psychologist to help John out because his mannerisms are “too gay” to sit well with other farmers. This would probably be of some comfort to the parents of one of his ex’s who didn’t like the idea of their nice Jewish daughter dating a guy who raised pigs anyway. Though not without missteps, the film is solid documentary and nice slice of midwestern life from a point of view rarely seen.

B00005JO9E.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Underworld: Evolution

Underwhelmed: Restitution

So in 1202 A.D. there was this fight between some vampires and some werewolves and some died and some were imprisoned and some other stuff happened but none of it was interesting. That’s the premise of Underworld: Evolution, a sequel to the equally inessential film Underworld. Beginning with a second-rate voice over, U:E brings us up to date with what’s going on the centuries-old battle between Lycans and Vampires. In order to do that, and this is a very bad sign, the film has to go back many centuries to show how one crazy ass werewolf was imprisoned for all time against the wishes of his powerful vampire brother, Marcus (Tony Curran). Marcus gets upset and decides to take a nap. Back to the present and one of the villains from the first film has decided to try and wake up Marcus, the most powerful known vampire, in order to kill him. Things go as one might expect and several dead suckers later Marcus is out in the world again and he wants to wake up his brother.

In the fight against him are the “death dealer” Selene (Kate Beckinsale) and Michael (Scott Speedman). If one is forced to remember anything from the first film, Michael would be recalled as the guy with Lycan blood, recessive genes apparently, that gets bit by a vampire and turns into a powerful vampire-werewolf hybrid. Marcus finds them and tries to snatch Michael’s chain. Michael gets upset because he’s really concerned about material things and doesn’t want to give up his chain and they fight. Marcus however really wants a social promotion so he fights extra hard to get that goldie-lookin’ chain. Well, actually the motivation of the characters in the fight for Mikey's necklace is not what is typed above. It's even more stupid. It gets worse when Marcus’ pops shows up. He’s got a team of special ops dudes that regularly leave “witnesses silenced but otherwise unharmed.” Huh?

Everyone wears black for reasons not described. Lots of shiny black Matrix latex. It’s not just the weird stylization of the wardrobes. Everything here is overdone. The overacting is comic. The ridiculous hyper-fluid grace of Marcus when he lands is hilarious. The words ‘comic’ and ‘hilarious’ should not be understood as ‘entertaining’. The only entertaining part is the sex scene between Selene & Michael. It’s not hot or anything but it’s very funny watching Michael thrust into Selene’s bellybutton. The actions scenes are done in a way that makes it seems like director Len Wiseman was in a hurry. Though it makes the film less entertaining...oh wait, you can’t multiply by zero. Though it makes the film less energetic it does get the audience out of the theater faster. That’s something to remember come Thanksgiving. Why Wiseman and his wife Beckinsale continue to make these films is puzzling. They must not love each other very much. In any film with vampires and werewolves there are certain biologically impossible things going on. U:E goes a step further. The Law of Conservation of Matter and its partner in crime the Law of Conservation of Energy prohibit the way that werewolves transform. One cannot simply create bone and hair while increasing bone and muscle density without absorbing other nearby matter. That’s impossible. So is enjoying this film. This awful movie devolves right up to the last line, “An unknown chapter lies ahead.” Oh god no!

B00005JOIF.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Munich

Mangling memory: Minding Munich’s multitudinous mistakes

Steven Spielberg is not known for being particularly controversial. His version of sticking his neck out is Schindler’s List. It certainly takes a lot of guts to be anti-Holocaust... He has an untitled project in the works about Abraham Lincoln where he will presumably take the equally controversial stance of being against slavery. So when Spielberg announced that his latest film Munich was “a prayer for peace”, it raised many eyebrows. After seeing the film, many eyebrows must have been raised even more, but in confusion, not intrigue. Munich is a muddled, inaccurate and generally bad film. It has great moments but in a film that hops around so wildly it’s no surprise to find a few good spots.

The films opens alternating between the taking of the hostages at Munich by Palestinian commandos and the reactions of Israelis, Palestinians and the international community to the news. The hostage taking itself is likely a fairly accurate rendition with two Israelis killed in the Olympic Village and an almost comically botched attempt to storm the hotel on live television where the Palestinians could watch the approach. Right before they start the Palestinians share a few whispered words and a hug. This is almost exactly like a similar moment that occurs later with the Israeli assassination squad before they kill a Palestinian in Europe. This is one of many moments in the film where Spielberg equates Palestinian and Israeli actions. He does so to great effect sometimes but generally there is little to no effect at all. The shots of the hostage taking and rescue efforts are parceled out throughout the film. Where it becomes historically incorrect is when it shows Palestinians killing all the hostages at the Fürstenfeldbrook airbase. During the German assault on the airbase a Palestinian killed the hostages in one of the two helicopters. A subsequent German investigation showed that not only did German sniper fire kill several Palestinians, but it likely wounded a German sniper and killed the remaining hostages in the second helicopter as well. When Munich shows the deaths of the hostages in the second helicopter it does not show an angry, hateful terrorist massacring the Israelis. It shows a young man with a gun, terrified under heavy fire, screaming, crying and shooting the hell out of the hostages. While this is clearly more sympathetic one must ask, why? If the idea was to humanize the Palestinian militants to a level that approaches the humanizing of the Israeli assassins, why alter the history? The Palestinians killed two Israelis at the hotel and four at the airbase. Are they going to be much more villainous for killing five more? Does it make it better that the fictional Palestinian killer had some ambiguity and was not Ming the Merciless? The recent documentary One Day in September spelled out the events much more effectively and with no distortion.

The bulk of the film then begins with Avner (an inconsistently accented Eric Bana) being recruited to head up Mitzvah Elohim, the effort widely, but incorrectly, seen as a reaction to Munich. Where Munich really heads south, historically and qualitatively, is during the organization and execution of the operation. First, what are the odds of a Mossad assassin getting some orders in person from Golda Meir? Pretty good according to the film. Avner is recruited by Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush). While Ephraim’s character is interesting for his wit, many deceits and ambiguities, Rush overacts terribly killing the character far more than any militant could hope to. When the team gets together, they end up spending a lot of time pondering their roles as assassins. Professional killers do not do this. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous idea. If assassins spent that much time talking about what they did they wouldn’t be assassins for very long. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner want to question the wisdom of Israel’s “targeted assassination” policy but they do so through the mouths most unlikely to pronounce tthat skepticism. The crew proceeds to kill many Palestinian officials in Europe. Munich does eventually point out that most of those killed had nothing at all to do with what happened in Munich and in many cases, had nothing at all to do with any Palestinian militancy. It doesn’t point out that the hit team killed some people that were not even related to any political cause such as the murder of a Moroccan waiter in Norway after he was incorrectly identified as Ali Hassan Salameh.

After getting sent to a safehouse in Athens Avner and crew run into a group of PFLP activists. Disguising themselves at ETA, the Israelis proceed to have a dialogue of sorts with some of the Palestinians. The more historically conscious of viewers will recognize the monologue from Ali (Omar Metwally) describing the plight of Palestinian refugees growing up in diaspora as being quite similar to the historical Jewish narrative of homelessness. This along with a later scene between Aver and his mother, is what makes the film at least somewhat watchable. It’s a clever twist from Kushner. When Avner’s mom states that her conflicted son is “what we prayed for” it’s clear that the film is referring to Israel being a settler state that depends on huge Palestinian sacrifices in order to to exist as a Jewish state. Leaving aside, admittedly a problematic omission, the many different strains of Zionism Israel is what was prayed for and it came, and continues, at the cost of countless Palestinians. How these scenes exists alongside Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen), she of “There’s no such thing as Palestinians” fame, being portrayed very sympathetically is never explained.

Munich is nice looking film with a lot of subdued, gray imagery that was probably meant to show mainstream audiences that the even the most violent aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not black-and-white issues. Instead it works better to enhance the confused story and addled politics of the film. The gray might get a bit dull after awhile but much more boring are the redundant dialogue and action, along with the unnecessary family drama tossed in for some reason. This is the main reason why the 164 minute film feels a good hour longer than necessary. That the film is not well told and is too long sucks but more problematic is that Munich, a film “inspired by real events” takes so many liberties with history. Salameh, Meir and others are real historical characters. Avner is not. Avner is the creation of a former El-Al gate guard with delusions of grandeur. There was a team of Israelis, or assassins of some origin at any rate, that carried out Mitzvah Elohim and the coordinator of the mission, Mike Harari, is still alive but he was not contacted for the film nor was former Black September chief Mohammed Daoud, despite being alive and easily available in Jordan. Ha’aretz columnist Yossi Melman has commented on the danger of this film becoming something of a definitive account given how it mangles history and the influence of Hollywood. Despite all this it’s clear that Spielberg has something to say. It's just not clear what that something is.

As always, comments and discussion are welcome and encouraged. peace, JJ

 
 

Donate

Views

Account Login

Media Centers

 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software