Journal memfree's Journal: 1st movie reviews of 2003 (mine, anyway) 7
First: way too much about one short film. Skip down to the bit titled, "-- the movies --" if you'd rather.
I have to bring up a 'festival' films because it relates to my experience watching "The Pianist". If anyone remembers the good ol' Foetus song "I'll meet you in Poland, Baby", and the rest of that album (Scraping Foetus off the Wheel, album HOLE) you have my internal mental soundtrack (lyrics here).
Campaign in Poland: The first was a short propaganda piece from the German Government titled "Campaign in Poland" and on loan from "MoMa -- BUT this version contained English voice-overs instead of subtitles. Here's a summary of the events around the German invasion of Poland. This version is a mere 34 minutes long, but the German Government made other versions of different lengths for different languages (German, French, Italian, etc.).
According to the film, Germany was forced to invade Poland because the Poles were responsible for atrocities against Germans living in the free city of Danzig and surrounding area. Germany tried to settle the disputes peacefully, but Poland would not be reasonable. German troops take the city, and are met by thankful citizens waving, offering flowers, and saluting their liberators. There is some great footage of an air battle, and another with a camera in bomber that descends towards a rail line before releasing its payload. The narration tells us that civilian targets were "carefully avoided" while the screen shows a fly over of a bombed out rail line between unscathed pastures. This is followed by commanders walking through the twisted metal of the rails that now jut in upward twists from the ground.
We see the friendly yet strong German troops. We're shown them acting as police for a line of captured people we're told are accused of torturing Germans. Civilians walk past them and point out the men they claim are responsible. We're seen footage of a church that European news sources claim was destroyed, and the narration tells us the images are proof that the other sources are wrong, and that these shots are more recent than the claims. We see men in plain clothes being marched off, and are told the prisoners are members of the Polish garrison who hid in civilian clothes (but were found by the liberating German troops).
We see a massive barrage from a gunship's battery onto a land target. The smoke from the guns hangs thicker than fog and obscures much of the image from view. It is impressive in its power, and terrifying in its potential. We see images of artillery, and aftermath. None of it contains images of any dead or wounded. The battles are depicted in animations overlaying a map of the area. As the think lines denoting German troops encircle the dark blobs that represent the Polish troops, the German circle constricts around the Polish, and the dark blob dissolves to show the map underneath. For the battles leading to the siege of Warsaw, the dark blob shatters violently into triangular shards before dissolving.
This must have been around September 16th (when the Germans demanded the surrender of the garrison in Warsaw), but the date mentioned here is September 21st (which happens to be the date the "Schnellbrief" came out). We're then told how the Germans asked the officials of Warsaw to surrender, but their request went unanswered. The Germans ask again, but again, there is no response. The Germans approve one road as an exit so noncombatants could leave before the siege, and we see some folks going through the German check point. Then, after Warsaw has failed to capitulate, the narration tells us the German guns "must have their say". The siege begins. Massive guns are stationed miles from Warsaw. Huge shells are fired across the outlying buildings and into the heart of Warsaw. More explosions. More thick, coiling smoke obscures most the city from view. Warsaw surrenders on September 27th and we see the army first enter, then parade through the city. Zeig Heil!!!
Okay, that last exclamation was mine, but the pomp of the parade, the music, and Hitler made the film feel like that was the sort of thing the makers wanted you to think right then. Normally, I'd list the next film I saw (I normally follow my viewing order) but it seems important to talk about a BAD film and the related film next.
If you remember, "Schindler's List" employed Spielberg's typical, cheap gimmicks to convince the audience that Nazis were oh-so mean, The gimmicks were constant, unending, and worked to insult the audience (did Spielberg think we're so dumb that we need the gimmicks or was HE too dumb to convey the story without the such ploys?). Compare the gimmicks in "Schindler's List" to, say, the gimmicks in the completely unrelated film, "Reservoir Dogs". Tarantino can make an audience feel the way he wants them to feel without drawing attention to his ploys. Viewers allow Tarantino to get his message to them.
-- the movies --
The Pianist: This is the greatest movie Roman Polanski has ever made. Go see it NOW. The film starts off with -- you guessed it -- the siege of Warsaw. We see the Pianist, our Hero Wladyslaw Szpilman (played by Adrien Brody), play his instrument and get interrupted by the initial rounds of the bombardment blowing a hole through the building. The war has reached his city. He's not as concerned for himself as modern viewers know he should be.
I find the juxtaposition between how the Germans portrayed themselves, and how they are portrayed by survivors to be phenomenal (note that though the movie could not have been exact in its depictions, Szpilman's own first-hand account was the basis for the film). I think it wise to remember how there can be such vastly diverging points of view when one hears reports from the U.S. and Iraq. I'm not saying that Iraq bears any similarity to Poland, but I do try to question what comes out of each side's media.
Les Carabiniers (aka The Riflemen) Jean-Luc Godard, 1963, B&W: Yes, another festival film. Not Godard's best work, but representative. This is a surreal anti-war movie. The delivery is unlikely to allow this film to resound on the current era as strongly as when originally released.
Antwone Fisher: Not a bad film. Easy to find on screens. It is exactly what it seems. Hero has problems managing anger, and the tale is how he grows as a person. Based on the Hero's account of himself, it is biased to flattering to all his friends, and showing all his foes in a negative light. By the end, you have to admire the guy for overcoming his past. The opening sequence is used well later in the movie.
Catch Me if You Can: Good film! Humorous and adventuresome. Despite my generally mockery of so many Spielberg films, I'll be the first to say that this one really is fun! See? I don't always rag on Spielberg -- just when he sucks.
Slightly longer reviews here.
Catch Me if You Can (Score:2)
Post Review (Score:2)
Re:Post Review (Score:2)
One of the reasons I don't post to IMDb is *its* copyright [imdb.com] says, "All content on this site, unless otherwise indicated, is copyright © 1990-2002 Internet Movie Database Inc."
So as soon as I post something there, they own it.
Further it says, "Reproduction, distribution or transmission by any means without the prior permission of IMDb is prohibited outside the exceptions listed below. All rights reserved."
So if I keep a copy of what I've written for myself, I'm violating their copyright. Sure, I could argue with them about who owns it, but I'd much rather post somewhere that explictitly allows me to retain ownership of stuff I intend to reproduce for myself.
If MediaGab documented who owned posts, *and* posts were documented as being owned by the Poster (ideally, only in such cases as when the Poster was the original author), *then* I would be happy to put reviews there.
As an affiliate of Amazon (their site copyright statement [amazon.com]), I'm not even sure MediaGab *could* allow its content to remain under the ownership of the content's author.
Additionally, as part of OSDN, slashdot's most technical rules on copyright are covered by the OSDN ToS [osdn.com] -- primarily under sections 4 and 11. Section 4 states, "All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or any other materials whatsoever (collectively, "Content"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that the user, and not OSDN, is entirely responsible for all Content that he or she uploads, posts, emails or otherwise transmits via OSDN or any Service."
When MediaGab documents a similar legal agreement between contributors and itself, let me know.
P.S. (Score:2)
They are too long to post here, but both basically say that they own anything you post completely and forever, and they may or may not choose to indicate that you 're the author.
Re:Post Review (Score:2)
As for Amazon, They do not control any content on MediaGab except for what is on the product pages. Those reviews are entered on the Amazon.com site and like is stated in their legal they own the rights to all reviews.
I hope this policy is in line with your thoughts and concerns. I will let you know when I publish a legal statement as I would love to see you around MediaGab as you seem to be a Movie enthusiast.
Thanks for being a "prick" I don't get many honest critics of my site other then it looks good.
great link (Score:1)
I would love to see Campaign in Poland. Hopefully it will play or is playing somewhere in Toronto. Seems fitting, as I just watched Joseph Vilsmaier's Stalingrad a few weeks ago.
Re:great link (Score:1)
I think most any institution can get "Campaign in Poland" on loan from MoMa (plus many other films -- they have a good collection). Here, it was shown by the University of Pennsylvania as part of a festival of war films [ihousephilly.org]. My guess is that someone decided to run this as a not-so-subtle comment on the U.S./Iraq situation. Whatever the reason for the fest, I'm happy they're putting it on. Expect more of these in my next movie post.