tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post116585383353452768..comments2024-03-13T06:02:45.251-05:00Comments on Cinema Romantico: Blood DiamondUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166819099241702152006-12-22T14:24:00.000-06:002006-12-22T14:24:00.000-06:00If you guys are really interested in a deeper view...If you guys are really interested in a deeper view and solutions to problems in Africa, especially concerning child soldiers, you should check out the "Invisible Children" movie. Mr. Romantico, I think you would really connect with the writers because they were just fresh out of film school students that were looking for adventure, but created an amazingly fresh and real documentary. The 3 guys that made it show the film nation wide and will come to any school, church, or theater and answer questions about the film. Check it out at http://www.invisiblechildren.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166127088808429202006-12-14T14:11:00.000-06:002006-12-14T14:11:00.000-06:00My complaint is not really that these movies are t...My complaint is not really that these movies are told from the perspective of white people—I’m white also, and so can hardly criticize someone else for telling a story from that perspective. What I dislike is that ultimately they are shallow movies—movies that have few, if any ideas. Yes, they dramatize injustice, which is worthwhile I suppose, but it seems to me all they say is “Look at this bad thing happening,” while trying to not commit to an actual political or economic perspective (beyond the simplistic “corporations are/can be greedy” cliché) that attempts to <I>explain</I> these injustices. As I said before, right now we are being given a vision of the African continent as full of violence, poverty, and sickness, but these movies seem to show away from root causes or solutions. It is like watching a murder mystery about a Jewish person murdered during the Holocaust that never mentions the Nazis. Something is missing.<BR/><BR/> As for DiCaprio and stock characters—I agree with you that it is near impossible to have a truly original character in contemporary movies. And it is surely no insult to be compared to Rick Blaine. So perhaps we’ll just have to disagree that his portrayal of Danny Archer was internally coherent.<BR/><BR/> So here are the reasons I didn’t find the character interesting. As I said before, I found it unconvincing that the sort of easy cliché’s that are supposed to appeal to the average American moviegoer (the crippled children, the beautiful woman, the religious ritual, etc.) would have the same effect on Danny Archer <I>now</I>. These images are new to us, and so we find them shocking, but he has been seeing this kind of nightmare all his life. Why does it affect him so much now? We are not really ever told. Plus, Jesus, that last scene with him was painful in its hagiography. <BR/><BR/> I am a bit surprised that you don’t think it is a problem that we are able to see what is going to happen to a character from the very beginning. This is the thing about James Bond movies, right? We know what he’ll do in any situation, and we know how the movie will end. That’s no problem for a fluff movie maybe, but it seems to me that an interesting story will place their characters in a situation that provides <I>tension</I>, i.e. where the character is in a real dilemma—where she has act like a real human being and make choices, rather than as a stereotype that will always do as his nature demands.<BR/><BR/> Why is <I>Casablanca</I> so good? At least in part because we really don’t know what will happen between Bergman and Bogart. Right? This is the famous story about how even when they were shooting the movie they didn’t know if she would stay in Casablanca or not (at least until the end). Or think of <I>You Can Count on Me</I> (which if I remember correctly is one of your favorites as well). Partly why it is such a satisfying movie is because there is real tension—we don’t know if Mark Ruffalo will fuck up his relationship with his nephew. We can all see that Ruffalo is pretty irresponsible, but we still wonder if he’ll be able to get his act together (the normal story arc of a movie like this where the irresponsible bachelor becomes a good bourgeois citizen by being forced to take care of some kid who of course doesn’t fit in with his peers: see <I>About a Boy</I>, <I>The Kid</I> for e.g.). <BR/><BR/> And see, in <I>Blood Diamond</I> DiCaprio always does exactly as we’d expect him to and is never placed in a situation of real tension between the plot and the character. So yes, he sells the character, it is just ultimately not a very interesting story about that character.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166112360237163192006-12-14T10:06:00.000-06:002006-12-14T10:06:00.000-06:00Good call, Brad. That honestly hadn't even occure...Good call, Brad. That honestly hadn't even occured to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166049358542889402006-12-13T16:35:00.000-06:002006-12-13T16:35:00.000-06:00Y'know, after "Glory," "The Last Samurai," and now...Y'know, after "Glory," "The Last Samurai," and now "Blood Diamond," I think that maybe the only way director Edward Zwick is capable of telling a story about the plight of an opressed group of people is through the eyes of a white guy.Wretched Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05691397733214664019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166043065106969642006-12-13T14:51:00.000-06:002006-12-13T14:51:00.000-06:00I will certainly agree that it is yet another film...I will certainly agree that it is yet another film attempting to examine the plight of Africa through the eyes of a white person (or people) while the African himself is given one shade of characterization and no more. I’m also willing to bet this is in part because most American studios would be fearful of how much of an audience they would get if the movie were told through the eyes of an African and without someone with whom American audiences could "connect". But I think the best way to address any situation in any African nation would be for an actual African filmmaker to document it. Unless an American can embed him or herself in Africa for an extended period I don't if we can accurately convey what is going on there. (Perhaps our three documentarian friends who are currently there can help to change this.)<BR/><BR/>In regards to the DiCaprio character, I am of the opinion that - with there being thousands upon thousands upon thousands of films for all to see - that essentially all characters now can be considered "stock" characters. What can we do that has not already been seen to some degree? Personally, I also have no problem with knowing where a character is going so long as his or her journey to that place is convincingly portrayed. What I want is a character who never makes a decision that rings false and whose (one might say inevitable) transformation is gradual and not jarring. I felt DiCaprio's character fit the bill on both accounts. Finding a character anymore who does can be a chore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166031836039416392006-12-13T11:43:00.000-06:002006-12-13T11:43:00.000-06:00Oh please. "Tears of the Sun" already summed up t...Oh please. "Tears of the Sun" already summed up the whole struggle for us: all the problems of Africa can be solved by Navy Seals.Wretched Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05691397733214664019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17951989.post-1166029926031675112006-12-13T11:12:00.000-06:002006-12-13T11:12:00.000-06:00I saw this movie last night, and was a bit surpris...I saw this movie last night, and was a bit surprised by your take on it. I'll agree with you that, sure, DiCapricio does a fine job as the lead, but to say this was an interesting character study is hmmm...a bit misleading. The role he plays of the narcissistic "soldier of fortune" with the (eventual) heart of gold is as old as <I>Casablanca</I>, and I can't name a single surprise in this movie. From the first scene in the bar you know that DiCapricio will end up rescuing hero and more than likely die heroically, probably in the arms of Connelly. Perhaps he seems nuanced only because his costars are such extremely stock characters (the naive, but crusading American journalist who doesn't "get" the natives; the noble, but simple, African just trying to protect/rescue his family who needs the help of Westerners to guide him through the "system.").<BR/><BR/> What I usually find unbelievable about characters like DiCaprio is that we start out with this very violent, immoral, but yet intelligent character that is supposed to change through (inevitably) the love of a good, if naive, woman and suddenly gaining the empathy to see through the eyes of the (also inevitable) suffering child (we even had crippled children singing in a church for god's sake). I just don't buy it. We (the audience) are supposed to be touched by these things, and so are meant to think that our hero will be as well. But this person is nothing like us, and probably won't respond to these common liberal American heartstrings tuggers with much interest. He's thirty-one--I'm sure he would already have a well-developed enough character that these things wouldn't be able to easily touch him. And fundamentally, that is the problem. We are supposed to identify with the amoral characters like DiCaprio by supposing that they only <I>seem</I> amoral but, like us, will still respond to trite moralisms.<BR/><BR/> Plus, as usual, the plot holes surrounding the MacGuffin are a bit transparent. The way everyone immediately becomes aware of this diamond because of the rebel leader in the cell, to think that some London banker will promise to buy it sight unseen, and then the ridiculous low amount he ends up paying for it. C'mon, I bet it cost about 2 million pounds for the Colonel to bomb the mining camp. And why does the Colonel care so much anyway? That would be pocket change to him.<BR/><BR/> The recent glut of African explotitation movies to be released in the States (see: <I>The Last King of Scotland</I>, <I>The Constant Gardener</I>, <I>Hotel Rwanda</I>) all seem generally problematic in this regard. They are well-intentioned in their desire to highlight the injustices that exist on the African continent, but always view these problems through the eyes of the white (usually helpless) Westerners who just don't "get" the mystical nature/problems of Africa (okay, <I>Hotel Rwanda</I> is an exception, but even here the problem is dramatized by a Rwandan who is accused of thinking he is white). Unfortunately, movies about our inability to understand something (unsurprisingly) don't help me understand it any better--and so feel superficial. The <I>deus ex machina</I> endings these movies all provide don't provide answers. These movies are fundamentally about the problems of Africa, like violence, poverty, and disease, but these movies seem fairly clueless about either the roots or possible solutions of these problems.<BR/><BR/> What is interesting about these movies is the conflicted nature of the entire project. They are all uncomfortable with the entire Westernization project of Africa--whether it is that done by the greedy corporations to make money, or done by idealistic Peace Corps types, but yet making a movie about Africa for distribution in the States is participating in the very process with which they are uncomfortable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com