The Artist (2011) ****/5: Good film but clearly exploits nostalgia.

The Artist is a good film but there are numerous weaknesses that are largely external, which will eventually compromise its integrity as a distinct work of art. Firstly, it is amazingly ordinary and regressive and this can be reflective of decline or an exploitation of nostalgia without a specific thrust which would inculcate or reinforce why that transition was made and why there is no going back. I say ‘amazingly’ because the medium of silent film used here seems like a welcome break from the noise associated with dolby stereo however this is not the future and the film certainly highlights why silent films will not resonate with the majority of modern day audiences. There was a reason why sound drubbed the silent format and it is not made so clear here definitively and only in bits and pieces. Secondly, it is without a doubt influenced by Singin’ in the Rain (1952), with no clear distinction apart from its texture. It therefore suffers from one essential dilemma: it has been unable to subsume its influences and therefore shine as distinctive by offering a suitable twist on the perspectives associated with the transition from the silent era to that of sound. What I am saying therefore is that this film only enhances the reputation of Singin’ in the Rain without creating its own abstract format which would render it distinctive. Thirdly, the use of the silent medium will only make some audience members see this as a gimmick as opposed to a serious new innovation of the medium. The film does not foster a sense of innovation which is what people are looking for. Hugo (2011) is a better film because thematically it is dealing with the essence of creation and how this is manifest throughout later generations. This abstract is imminently identifiable. The use of the silent film might be a welcome break for some but at a time when people are clamouring for innovation this is the last thing that is needed: a return to the silent medium. It is regressive and it will be absorbed within the silent film canon. One critic accurately said it and here I paraphrase: At three o clock in the morning and the artist is playing what will most modern viewers do…that’s right change the station. It will be seen as another silent film. Its abstract would not have entered into the consciousness of most filmgoers. It contributes nothing substantial from this point and I am inclined to believe because films like this will underscore the reasoning that says film as an art form is losing its vitality when filmmakers feel it incumbent upon themselves to return to the silent medium.

It is still a good film with the evocation of the period of the 1920’s. This is done through the use of black and white and the silent medium where the characters are determined by their actions and the impressions that these physical actions make on the audience. As Ebert and others have pointed out the face  and smile of Jean Dujardin who plays George Valentin  seem to be a stand out and help to pull the audience into the story.    The story is well connected and all the elements form a cohesive whole. It is predictable however and I was hardly moved by the experience but it has all the elements of a well told story as opposed to a memorable one. The story is too predictable and hardly enterprising and daring apart from the moments where sound is actually present and shatters the façade of  the silent medium. Those were the best moments in the film for the intrusion of sound suggests the mirage of the silent medium as a standard form of expression being shattered. These moments could have been developed some more and some of the dramatic moments would have had a more effective impact.

The story is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain. It is about a silent movie star whose career takes a nosedive when audio becomes a part of the film medium. While on top he encounters an aspiring performer Peppy miller (Berenice Bejo) whom he helps on the way up by giving her  added advantage by taking a pencil and creating a beauty mark right above her upper lip and convincing the studio head, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), to keep her on following a mild altercation. They clearly have a romantic connection early on and as his career takes a nose dive and she is on the rise their paths intercross guided by the hands of fate until they are reunited. It is not serendipity for the female aggressively pursues him and therefore the outcome seems predictable. Singin’ in the Rain had more layers and is therefore the superior film whereas The Artist is merely superficial but pleasing to the eye for those audiences not familiar with silent film. It is clear however that this film represents  stagnation in the film industry and seems to suggest that the art of  film is on the decline unless people start making innovations instead of using retrograde formats that have no hope of returning to make a point. People are praising this film for the wrong reasons and this confirms my fears that instead of movie events for the ages films such as this are coming through that cater to the purists; and this is what causes the decline of most art forms as they recede into their enclaves as the new modes of expression take hold.  Question: when the auteurs of the past were seeking to advance the artistic possibilities of film did they once revert to the silent medium in their quest to innovate? This film is clearly elitist. The critics have done their job by inflating the film with excessive adulation without assessing whether or not it meets the criterion which would justify such praise.

What’s good about this film?

The best moments of this film are not the evocation of the distant 1920’s with black and white, the use of silent film techniques or Dujardin’s smile. The best moments come when sound actually shatters the silent mirage. These moments in the film are the artistic possibilities that the film should have developed some more in order to become its own abstract within filmdom. These moments may seem implausible from a practical perspective but as an abstraction dealing with the relationship between what is silent as opposed to what is noise or sound they are significant. These moments are not limited solely to the moments of actual sound. For instance when Valentin first meets Peppy there is a moment of silence and it is clear that an impression is made for from the outset the film had us embracing this medium and there is the monotonous music and the quick movements of the actors however when Valentin meets Peppy for the first time it all stops and this could be used in any format of film whether silent or talkie. She accidentally crashes into him, the great silent star at the peak of his powers, and stuns everyone. He and the crowd look with consternation and there is a moment of uneasiness but he warms to her and it is a sign that the essence of this monomaniacal star has been tainted with something pleasant. There are many moments like this such as when the studio head is stared upon as the crew await his decision about the girl who he initially considers disruptive on set.  As a film about essence therefore it works. This sort of minimalist filmmaking resists the flamboyance of making these characters anything more than abstracts.  There is the actor, the studio head, the girl he loves, the faithful chauffeur and the dog. When we actually hear sound Valentin has come to the realization that talkies are here to stay. We see cracks in the façade for the first time and these moments are poignant however there were times later on in the film where they could have been utilized more effectively so as to suggest that a transition is taking place. This would have made the film more effective as a distillation of the true impact of sound on our own personal reveries. It is only utilized effectively once in the middle and towards the end obviously. What is the essence of sound? Can we live in a world of silence? To what extent is silence a reflection of our own sanctity of spirit?  These elements were not addressed sufficiently. We will always seek moments of silence to try and gather our thoughts and reflect on past occurrences or what is to come etc. Some people feel more comfortable in noise since for them what could be more silent i.e. it is in the noise we find our moments of silence by withdrawing from the noise. This film needn’t have been strictly silent it could have shown us more of a contrast between noise and silence not just as it relates to film. This was done before and better in Singin’ in the Rain. Why not use the medium to explore other issues? or Why not highlight the possibilities of utilizing the medium as opposed to doing a retread?

I liked the use of shadow in this film and other such images that emphasized Valentin’s decline.  I suppose it is a Jungian archetype. It could be considered a bit excessive however.

The film obviously evokes the period of the 1920’s well through the use of black and white and the art direction. The use of the black and white along with the silent medium allows for both French and American nationalities to be featured without any hiccups. It does not distract from the premise should these persons be forced to speak on a consistent basis. This is unfortunate however for there are many issues that are not addressed and so the film comes across as superficial and gimmicky.

What’s bad about this film?

I disliked the story but I will not go into that right now. It is enough to say that it is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain; there are also moments from Citizen Kane (1941) where Valentin and his wife are at the table subtly expressing their dislike while increasing the sense of estrangement between them as Valentin’s career plummets into ignominy.  The story was too predictable and this is always a sore point for me since I am always on the search for the next innovation in the film industry. I was encouraged to watch this because of the inflated praise of the critics and the numerous awards being handed out for this film. This is all unwarranted and only reinforces the subjective elitist views that are suffocating the film industry. The banality of the story is only reinforced by the superficial presentation and the inadequate development of the film’s motifs. Those who have not seen Singin’ in the Rain should also be able to predict the outcome of this film for the story is hardly resonant and you would have seen it in some shape or form before. It is typical romantic drivel with only the guise of the silent medium. The story does arrive logically at its conclusion however and it should satisfy the optimists as it does not take the route of Sunset Boulevard (1950). The superficial elements abound particularly the transition from the silent medium to the one of talkies. Singin’ in the Rain explored this sufficiently and this is why it is a masterwork for it explored all the ramifications associated with the transition which was one of the most epoch making in film history.  Singin’ in the Rain had its banal moments but it was not dominated by it; the framework of the film was about the transition and so all the other elements were subservient to this element. They were not allowed to supersede it. In this film there is no sense of a transition and no revelations that would have made the transition seem definitive. There is no proper discussion of the medium and when the issue arises it is brushed aside when they say ‘this is the future’ or ‘this (the talkie) is only a fad’ or ‘he (valentin) is finished’. This is stating the obvious ; this is utter banality and triteness.  This all exposes the limitations of the silent medium and the production team seem to be content with these limitations and never once is there a suggestion that this medium is dead and buried or that it is or was considered imperfect which is why the transition was necessary. The solutions made in this film in response to Valentin’s crisis are not original. Instead of him embracing his decline he is allowed a lifeline although we are not sure what it is. There is a dance near the end and yet there is no sense of how the idea was arrived at. Singin’ in the Rain did this expertly when it highlighted how the musical would be a likely option for those silent stars that had the will to rebound. This film makes the cardinal mistake of having the romance supersede the necessary elements that require development. This is what lands it in a quagmire for the story is so linear that it never once suggests that there is the possibility that the imagination will be stretched. The film offers nothing new apart from the moments where actual sound is introduced.

 The incessant monotone music is a drag and can be stultifying if you are not well rested. I am annoyed that the producers strove to recreate the silent medium without reinventing it.

This film also highlights that the film industry is in some sort of relative decline. The values that made film great are being strangled in order to preserve some stagnant order of decay. How does the industry expect a film such as this to infuse new blood into the cinema? The silent era makes a return because it was supposed to be dead and buried similar to Chicago (2002) which seemed to revive the musical however the failures of its successors at the box office seemed to be simultaneously driving the nails in the coffin of that genre. People still have to be referring to the past but only with the sense of reinvention not reintroduction. The Artist seems to be taking advantage of this nostalgia with the possibility that it will win the academy award over better films that are striving to reinvent the medium through technology. Film and technology go hand in hand and so if the film industry fails to take advantage of the technology at its disposal it will crumble and decline into a state of warped ideals about human tragedy;  an aging, defeatist philosophy that failed to breathe life back into the decadence of Rome. It will be a shame if other filmmakers start to recreate the silent medium and be forced to absolve themselves of shame when those films crash at the box office. Chicago was good but ordinary. It was popular because it had its own distinctive story that cleverly balanced the superficial and the sublime. It did not hurt that it was based off a Broadway musical. It did not reinvent the musical however but merely reintroduced it in a big way with the hope that people had become so unfamiliar that it would be taken as something new. Even animated films are forced to concede the end of the musical in its own way in film. It was constrained by its genre and failed to supersede it and eventually ran its course with the undeserved academy award. The critics and the promoters and award givers are creating a storm about The Artist much like Chicago. They inflate it with praise and awards thereby creating a compulsion on others to see it and in their own way convince them of this marvel. Then people will talk about it especially the younger filmgoers who are not aware of the genre; they too will spread the love and the popularity will see the film win the academy award yet be forgotten as greater films that are innovative actually reinvent how people see film.

What most concerns me is the film industry as a whole for when there was the break from the silent era and filmmakers were constantly innovating the art how come they never reverted to the silent format? They never looked back as they strove to enhance the viewing experience with fresh stories. If they did look back it was to highlight that there was a definitive break from that medium and those that cling to it are delusional. Film was constantly evolving as it corresponded to each era in which it found itself. When a film such as The Artist can be trumpeted as the next big thing it is clear that a sense of innovation is being lost. Hugo is a better film because although it discusses the birth of the cinema it is also speaking of the essence of creation and how it is manifest through the next generation. Creation takes on new forms by breathing life into the old yet acknowledging that what is old now remains an abstract or objective premise. This film failed to enhance the possibilities of the silent medium in today’s world. They could have chosen a more original subject which could have effectively discussed and simultaneously critiqued the medium of sound vs. silence.

 Whether this film wins the academy award or not is beside the point for it is becoming clearer that the more films like this win the top award the less effective the film industry becomes as a pioneer in the arts. It is now not becoming so important if a film wins or does not win the academy award because they are clearly neglecting the innovators who are actually trying to preserve the age in which we live. If you want to secure an academy award do a silent film like The Artist and win the approval of the critics and the globes and the academy otherwise known as the age old establishment and preserver of the film medium. There is nothing wrong with preservation but thought must still be given to the future and the here and now.

The Descendants ***½ /5: Good film but too superficial and descriptive without the necessary sublime moments which would make it resonate.

The  Descendants  is a good film but it does not match the catharsis/emotional release in Sideways (2004). It is not nearly as funny as the latter film simply because there are no effective contrasts to the main character, Matt King (George Clooney), which would have made his story more poignant. It is clear now, while at the same time not so clear, why  director Alex Payne took a hiatus from filmmaking after making Sideways which certainly represents the peak of his career so far. Let us hope that this film is not a sign that his craft is in a state of decline. The various elements of the film’s structure were not unified sufficiently so as to distinguish it as a clearly original film in the cinema. When a film displays its influences without properly subsuming them in the form of a new creative thrust it opens itself to the maudlin sentiment which is on display here. Sideways was able to distinguish itself as a true original because the emotions were allowed to unfold without any pretentious moralizing and trite domestic episodes.  The setting in Hawaii does not alter the fact that the emotions in this film are bottled up and are not allowed to project forward unabashedly. This is probably because the characters are not eccentric enough or distinctive to make them interesting enough to care about. There is no sense of the compulsions that make the suffering of these characters seem so understandable. The elements that make the main character suffer are all external it does not seem to arise from the worldly interpretation of his subjective characteristics. It is a petty drama surrounding the landed aristocracy of Hawaii. I was saying to myself while watching this:  O Great! another drama about this long suffering class where millions of dollars cannot compensate for their lack of happiness. There are not enough memorable moments in this film that would make the experiences of these characters seem unique. The outcome was predictable and I am stunned to hear critics suggest that the ending would be something to look forward to. I was let down by this sort of inflated praise I suppose. It is still a well made film but it will be forgotten in a couple years time because there is no momentum generated by the unique experiences of these characters that would give the ending that bittersweet taste that Payne was striving to achieve here as he did in Sideways. The Descendants is a sanitized drama and the moments that pull punches (no pun intended; those who have watched the film or the trailer know what I mean) are too distant from another and so it does not gather momentum. The ‘pull punches’ moments are the eccentric elements every film (or work of art for that matter) needs to make it distinctive. Sideways had the superficial and the sublime in the form of Jack and Miles respectively and this relationship was the source of the memorable moments. The character of Matt King in The Descendants, does not have an effective contrast and at first it seems that his eldest daughter would provide that foil for his character but the compromises come too early on in the film and not enough moments to highlight their distinctive characteristics and the reasons for their unity. If the film wants to move future audiences it should have emphasized the sense of disunity more effectively and this would make the eventual unity more rewarding. I understood the element concerning the cheating wife and her mysterious lover but it did not resonate effectively through the children and the members of Matt’s extended family. It is hinted at but never developed sufficiently to have an impact and so it comes across as superficial without the element of the sublime or that eternal motif sought out by every artist . The notion of inheritance was also not fully explored but it was described in typical fashion however the notion of the descendants does not shine through effectively.

The film is about a real estate lawyer, Matt King, who  is forced to reconcile with his family following the boating accident involving his wife which puts her in a permanent coma. He also has to contend with the fact that his estrangement from the family resulted in his wife’s infidelity and his unfamiliarity with his two daughters who he tries to fathom. He also has to contend with the sale of his family landed property throughout the Hawaiian archipelago especially as the entitlement will expire in 7 years or so.

What’s good about this film?

Despite my opening remarks the film is still well constructed and is easy to follow. I still maintain that the film is superficial however there are moments that do evoke some sense of emotion. These moments of emotion normally occur when Matt discovers that there is the possibility that the essence of his life is about to be taken from him. He already lost his wife, not only through the boating accident but to the man with whom she committed infidelity. He is about to lose his inheritance, the land in Hawaii, to developers and he is in danger of losing his daughters with whom he cannot relate to. He has therefore become estranged from the elements that stabilize him. When this does become clear to him these are the moments that are most striking in the film. When he encounters his cousin Hugh (Beau Bridges) it all becomes clear to him what he is truly losing when he sells the land. This is erroneous but I will speak of that later. His attempt to unite with his daughters thereby restoring some sense of family unity, also ties in with the theme of what constitutes the descendants which is tied in with the landed property of the land. It reminded me of the stagnant mode of thinking present in Gone with the Wind (1939) (see my review) where the land represents some sense of family pride and its root cause of existence.  ‘Land is the only thing that matters; the only thing that lasts’ says Scarlett’s father. When Matt refuses to sell the land to the capitalist developer it is a form of regression as he chooses to focus on the ideal as opposed to the material realities. The economic themes also present in the film reflect the struggle between landed property and the emerging bourgeois class. Matt clearly makes references to the fact that he and his family live off the land by way of lease and sales. They live a luxurious lifestyle backed by excess consumption and the dissolution of character associated with this for they miss the essence of production necessary to make individuals fulfill a certain purpose. This is also reflective of how the aristocrats or landed barons lived prior to the rise of the bourgeois class who used the land productively through mass production. The descendants in this film are therefore landed barons and this is documented well early on in the film where Matt traces the line of his descent. Landed barons, however, represent stagnation in a purely economic sense and the attachment to the land is not necessarily justified apart from emotional reasons which are what you see in this film regarding the sale of the land. This is what occurred in Gone with the Wind where the protagonists were incapable of coping with development. It is no wonder that this film is set in Hawaii, which is more of an exotic location, as opposed to main land America. Hawaii is no great developed area it is dominated by landed barons. It is more of a hindrance to economic  growth than anything positive. These barons extort whatever rents they can from the locals and are not reflective of great production but cottage style industry or peasant based subsistence farming.  This is why Hawaii, an exotic location, caters to tourists who pay rent at the hotels. This is all put forward in the film and this is credit to the writing for at the beginning it is clear that Matt and his family wish to sell to the real estate developers who will convert the land into some resort. The pressure to sell is also reinforced by law where the entitlement to the land expires in 7 years. It makes you wonder what Matt plans to do with the land especially as he is the executor. Is he just going to let it lie idle or will he invest his own accumulated funds and become a capitalist style developer. It is smartly mentioned by his wife’s father who repeatedly berates him for sitting on all of this money without investing it. Matt can therefore make the transition while maintaining his family’s stake in the land. His accumulation of money represents the starting point for most capitalists to invest it in raw materials, instruments of production and exploited wage labour. The other good connection established in this film is the relationship between Matt’s wife and her outside lover. It is ironic that this lover is brother in law to the developer who plans to buy the land from the King family. Is it any irony that Matt’s surname is King? The lover can be seen as a reflection of capital’s greed where it removes all barriers to its expansion and in this case it is Matt’s wife. (This was seen in Melancholia) In a poignant scene where Matt confronts the lover with his wife in the background unaware of what is going on; it is clear that his wife’s lover never loved her but was only using her to get to Matt and thereby destroying his social being or his means for living through the family. It would therefore remove him completely as a barrier to its expansion. This  film merely shows how this is reflective on a personal level. Hawaii as a primarily agrarian area highlights that it really is a small world. In the city trying to find the man who cheated on your wife is pointless. Hawaii seems like a suitable location as a result.   All these elements were explained very well in this film.

The film does try to capture the Hawaiian culture and this is reflected in the musical score and the island hopping of the protagonists and by speaking to the relaxed dressing style of the people. As Matt says the most relaxed dressing style is carried out by even the richest individuals. If you were coming from elsewhere you would feel that these people were bums of some sort but you must not be fooled for it only means that you do not grasp the internal cultural expression of the place. The cinematography is well done and it captures all the spectacle of the Hawaiian environment. There are some moments of surprise such as when an old man punches a younger man. The film needed more physical moments such as this. When matt runs down the block to confront his wife’s friends about his infidelity it was shocking because George Clooney is not as dashing as women make him out to be. Lot of flab there.

What’s bad about this film?

This film regardless of the moments of insight cannot help but seem predictable there are few shocking moments that resonate as the credits start to roll. The film seems a bit superficial as a result because the core of the film is not clearly revealed following the superficial discourse as to whether Matt should sell the land or not. Firstly these people seem to have well to do lives and the problems they are going through do not seem significant. It is an illusion to believe that this story will resonate with future audiences simply because it is elitist. There is nothing that suggests that Matt will truly lose out on his life should his inheritance be lost. If the land is sold he will get a pretty hefty sum and so there is no love lost.  His family could still benefit from the inheritance. In Sideways there were certain elements to suggest that Miles aspirations concerning material property were slowly vanishing in his middle aged years. We see this with his old fashioned car, his small apartment, his small wine collection and that he steals from his mother. In Miles we see a man near the brink of extinction and this is why his story is so moving especially as he does not have children. Matt has everything Miles does not his life is well to do and he does not stand to lose much especially as reconciliation with his daughters comes early on in the film. He has bucket loads of money and so does it really matter that his wife was cheating? He won’t  be the first and last man whose wife cheats on him. Does it matter whether the lover loves her or not? The woman wanted to divorce him. Get over it.   The story does not seem to be saying anything new about humanity. We have to take for granted when Matt harangues his comatose wife about her stupidity despite him showing no affection. It comes across as stupid. When the wife’s lover’s wife starts to wail over her it seems pathetic and unnecessary. It seems like a lifetime style of film but with the feel of Hawaii. It seems so unnecessary. If George Clooney was not the leading man you can see where the film would fail all around. Clooney with his weathered sort of narration anchors the film with some form of world weariness. 

It also seems superficial because there is no effective contrast to the Clooney character. There are flashes and hints but compromises come too neatly. In Sideways, Miles’ counterpart was the superficial Jack who was able to provide Miles with certain insights which would allow him to brush aside his depression. In this current release I thought that the person to counter matt would be his eldest daughter. There are hints that she would be such a person when at first she appears to be a drunkard but father and daughter compromise relatively early and it comes across as a mundane and uninspired relationship. If they clashed more effectively the relationship would clearly have highlighted the risks that Matt faced of losing his family and how difficult it would to reconcile himself with the family he is so close to losing. In the character Miles we see a man who nearly loses all of his close relationships with people before he is reconciled with Maya. This tension is not built sufficiently towards the end and had it been the tension and the idea of life hanging by a thread would be developed more effectively. The reconciliations come too early on in the film. With regards to the inheritance we do not get a clear discourse on the line of descent from a philosophical perspective. Yes the line of descent is described but it is not explored or the idea of descent. There is no sense of letting go here and so the film seems stagnant. There is no sense of a new break or a new thrust in life. The fact that he keeps the land seems like a stagnant move because it is a convenient response to the events in the film. The end is cheap no cycle has been broken no clear new directions are made. Payne should have seen this especially as he expertly rounded off the story of Miles in Sideways by giving that character a new lease on life. The character of Matt does not really get a new lease for he keeps the land and he has some petty reconciliation with his daughters. I never saw the line of descent. This is why although the extended members of the family are mentioned in name they are not given much perspective apart from the cousin Hugh. His role is limited and he just opposes Matt who wants to keep the land. When Matt denounces their lifestyle he seems to be denouncing himself. It is too centred on his views and what he thinks. There is no contrast no proper perspective that runs throughout and makes it clear to the viewer instead of having the film being criticized in such a manner as I am doing now simply because it was not provided in the film. As I said it is hinted at in the form of the elder daughter and cousin Hugh but their characters are not developed sufficiently to provide the necessary contrast that have them resonate apart from the eventual caricatures they eventually become. In Up in the Air (2009) the character played by Clooney was constantly challenged by the youthful character who saw things a different way. This is not present here it only occurs in fits and starts. There are some moments when he consults with his daughter’s male friend but what he says seems maudlin and ineffective and I forgot what he said. The father in Law provides the best contrast but he is dismissed as an old geezer. There is no sense of who the wife is. The character of the wife is not given a chance to defend herself but the clause in her will saying that her life must be terminated should she ever wind up comatose says it all. Free spirited. This is why the daughter who is said to be like her could have provided a more effective contrast instead of her character being compromised. There is no tension as a result. She should have sided with the mother instead of opposing her and this would make for a more lively debate.

The idea of descent is not only limited to the material but to the subjective approach. The descriptive nature of the film does not compensate for the fact that descent implies a definitive break. How surprising it would have been had he sold the land? We would have seen him at sea with his daughters starting a new life with a bittersweet taste for all that they had lost.

The idea that landed property must dominate capital is pretty crude and old fashioned and so there is not much to relate to when you see a man refuse to sell the land and have it lying there in waste. There is no hint about what he plans to do with it. He just wont sell it. There must be a sense of loss and victory. In this film you should be able to have your cake and eat it which is pretty crude in art. Change is compromised by tradition. In Gone with the Wind at least there was a sense of transition to something new despite the sense of melancholy. Landed property must eventually be submerged under the high levels of productivity that comes with capital. When asked what he will do he does not seem to know; he just won’t sell it. Rubbish. There has to be a sense of change but there is none just a lot of compromises. There is no sense that Matt cannot stop what is coming especially as he sees everything centred on him. The film is retrograde and elitist and so there is little sympathy here.

This film might be nominated for best film at the academy awards but it will not win. If the academy has any sense this film will not win. A Golden globe cannot hide that this film has been receiving inflated praise.

War Horse ***½/5 : Great cinematography but the sentiment seems cheap.

The splendid cinematography in War Horse definitely compensates for the excess sentiment on display. The cinematography is so good that it enshrines the whole production and creates a work of art as it would have been envisioned in a fairly tale. Once upon a time there was a horse…. The images cater to this sort of fairy tale structure and so every shot is composed and you can imagine it as an illustration reinforced by 10 or so sentences. It reminded me of the structure of those type of fairy tale books I would read while growing up. This is why, although the sentiment on display may seem excessive or indulgent on the part of Spielberg, the structure of the film is certainly understandable from my viewpoint as a young man who grew up on these sorts of fairy tales. The film is an ode to the faded (or fading) British peasantry which has been replaced by large scale capitalist agriculture. It therefore revels in the idyll of the landscape and images assorted with the house on the prairie. This is why other critics have rightly compared it to the classic John Ford films. There are some images that remind one of The Grapes of Wrath (1940), The Searchers (1956), How Green was My Valley (1941) and The Quiet Man (1952) where the peasantry and the working class in How green… is glorified as a reflection of petty bourgeois ideals. This film is more riveting than the latter two because of the images associated with World War 1. The sanitized approach by Spielberg is good from an idyllic point of view but it fails to take the bold steps that would see it transcend. There are some moving sequences however but the film seems too predictable because it failed to take the necessary risks thereby resisting the urge to cater to the emotion of the audiences. In Babe (1995), for instance, the pig is clearly a misfit ( a pig who sees himself as a sheep herder) and this is what gave the film its edge despite the similar idyllic qualities. It is because Babe, the pig, was a misfit that I was able to sympathise with him and be moved by his triumph. The horse in War Horse does not seem like a clear misfit apart from the early stages where, as a thoroughbred, he is not capable of being a plough horse. The misfit moments associated with this are dashed early on in the film and when the horse does go to war his adventures become mundane apart from one or two moments in the middle of no man’s land where trench warfare is being waged.

 The film celebrates the exaggerated relationship between a young man, Albert (Jeremy Irvine) and his horse (Joey). This relationship is shattered by World War 1 where the horse is sold by the young man’s father, Ted (Peter Mullan) in order to raise cash to pay the landlord. The broken hearted young man makes a pledge that he will be reunited with the horse and we follow the horse on his adventures throughout the war, mostly in the countryside of France, where he encounters a captain, a pair of German brothers (Joey is ridden by one and his friend, a black horse, is ridden by another), a French girl and her grandfather, and a German private before he is reunited with Albert. The cycle of war which ends temporarily with peacetime is documented here with one of the most striking sunsets I have ever seen in a film. The idyll will appeal to some but will not to those who understand that life involves some form of loss. There is loss but I mean loss from one of the two leads: the horse or Albert.  The film was simply missing a cutting edge which would make it required viewing for years to come.

What’s good about this film?

The production values are very effective in this film particularly the cinematography. As I mentioned earlier this film features one of the most impressive sunsets I have ever seen in a film. The landscape of rural Britain and France (provided that the scenes said to be in France were actually filmed in France. A lot of the film takes place in the countryside. ), which is some sort of ode to the peasants that toiled the worst type of lands with the rocky soil, is impressive with the grand scope of the shots with the camera. There are also some wonderful shots in the midst of battle. One should look out for the scene where a German soldier and a British soldier agree to a truce so as to aid the war horse trapped in barb wire in the middle of no man’s land. When the snow starts to fall in that particular scene it seems so seamless. There is always a streak of light that shrouds the peasants in their homes in an almost artistic light. The cinematography enshrines the film in such an idyllic portrayal of the peasantry that at times some of the shots seem to come directly from those illustrated fairy tale books. I could see some of the shots in this film composed artistically in the form of a still shot and that is how good the cinematography is. The interaction between the characters is not so memorable however the various scenes that are anchored by the presence of the horse, all seem to be fairy tale like such as the scene where the British and French German soldiers agree to come to a temporary truce so as to aid a horse stuck in a barb wire. This is clear fantasy and so whereas the horse does not speak etc we understand that he is being exalted as a form of abstract or testament imprinted on the pastoral scene. There and back again as Bilbo Baggins says in The Hobbit.

War temporarily disrupts the pastoral scene and so I can understand why Spielberg says that he was not making a war movie. It is about the peaceful pastoral tradition that is given grace by a horse. His misfit nature associated with being a thoroughbred not accustomed to plough the fields is merely his journey at coming to terms with this settled way of living. His introduction to the family is at first met with anxiety because the father, in an effort to outbid his own landlord, paid too much on him and seems to have gotten a bad deal as the horse is at first uncooperative until he meets Albert. These are the best moments in the movie and you come to understand that this horse is essentially free spirited and is eventually tamed. This is the dilemma of the film. The war is an added convenience for that is what Joey is built for as a thoroughbred, to run like the wind as he charges or retreats. This is why the scene where the horse is entangled in the barb wire is important for prior to that scene he runs like the wind amidst the explosions and bullets of trench warfare as a result of retreat by the German soldiers before he becomes entangled. After his burst of speed is thwarted he is battered and bruised and eventually finds solace when he is reunited with Albert, the aspiring, good hearted peasant farmer who provides some sense of stability. These are spoilers because there is nothing to spoil really. It is the pastoral setting that you will admire here. The return of Albert and the horse as silhouettes against the setting sun, seems like a fantastic impersonal shot despite its emotional implications for the main character which is the horse that is finally tamed. The concept of War and Peace abounds and this is good from a philosophical point of view. War implies conflict and desolation and a sense of rootless existence with the promise of adventure whereas during times of peace one is more stable. When the landlord demands his money, for instance, it is done within the context that war is at hand. Would he have been so eager had not news of war been afoot? Who knows? The horse goes on his convenient adventure associated with the war but even he as a robust thoroughbred comes to understand the benefits of peacetime and in no other setting is it so effectively portrayed as in the peasant( yeomanry in the case of the British) lifestyle.

These artistic shots are impersonal and add to its artistic integrity and during these moments the film does not seem as indulgent with the sentiment as is claimed by some critics. It becomes impersonal only from the perspective where you can imagine these characters independently of the actors who portray them. In the final shot as horse and rider approach as silhouettes I could imagine that in a fairytale book and I could not recall that he was being portrayed by an actor. It could have been anybody riding that horse but the actual shot is impervious to any form of critique because you are not seeing an actor riding a horse you are witnessing Albert and his horse, Joey. I was reminded of the final shot of Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath after he decides to fight the good fight. We never see him after that but the image is one where we see Tom  the abstract i.e. Tom devoid of his humanity but representing an ideal. He seems to have become one with the world. He is no longer distinctive because he has found an objective setting where his individuality is absorbed. This is normally within the context of some communal activity. For Tom it was the wider struggle associated with the proletariat who are constantly oppressed by the bourgeoisie, whereas for the horse he is returning home to the pastoral idyll of the peasantry where he will become one with communal activity associated with their way of living which is reaping and sowing crops.  These are good shots and more of this appears in Joey’s adventures where he meets several sympathetic characters along the way. You are not necessarily meant to remember them as distinctive characters but as characters at once impersonal and personal. People come and go in an adventure. These characters embody something for their individuality is at once absorbed within the larger context of war. The horse carries them in his heart I am sure but looking at this broad canvass you the viewer will only remember the horse that has seen it all. Ebert says that the horse is lucky but he is the only personal element in this film and so the risk could not have been taken to make him die or be forever maimed. He is the only personal element in the film. This is why even the character of Albert seems to be absorbed into the portrayal of the horse. It is just like the film Babe where the pig was the personal element and the humans were quite impersonal because for them the pig was a pig and so they could not seem him as anything else. In both films it took the understanding of one particular human being to make these animals seem distinctive i.e. to make them express their true character. With Joey the horse we know he does not like to jump. This is emphasized not only by Albert but the young French girl. In Babe there were talking animals but it did not matter because we were constantly aware of his insights. It is the same here with this film where we come to understand what the horse is saying or what makes him distinctive (there is a goose or duck that has a personality although he does not talk).  When the horse is confronted by a tanker we understand his fright and not as if he were another horse on the battle field but as Joey i.e. something distinctive. The horrors of war make him long for those tranquil pastoral days and this is why war ( a world war to be specific) is portrayed impersonally because it is a time millions or thousands of people are killing and being killed on the battlefield and yet a horse is able to give us a glimpse into personal elements on display.

What’s bad about this film?

The main negative issue with this film is the maudlin sentiment that is buttressed by the excellent cinematography. This attempt to provide the peasant life as a nice homecoming sort of ideal can be ruinous to a film because it masks certain issues and can also be seen as deluding the audience members. The maudlin sentiment is only reinforced by episodic elements in the plot that are hardly resonant and are embodied in a mere horse. These episodic elements would not necessarily occur in real life and after awhile the plot element where the horse is routinely kept alive so as to preserve all the experiences of the war are almost too simple where the essence of complexity or a sense of elaboration is denied. Do you really expect that soldiers would risk their lives for a horse trapped in barbed wire in the middle of no man’s land amidst trench warfare? Do you really expect us to believe that everyone the horse encounters is sympathetic to its agony? It would have been good if the horse could have encountered someone who routinely abused him which would provide some contrast to the naively humanitarian type of character that he is always fortunate to encounter. As a result the horse does not experience much shock apart from the moment where he is caught within the barbed wire. When he pulls a cannon up the hill it was a matter of choice on his part because his friend was injured and would almost be shot. The scene would have been more riveting had it been him who was injured and forced to carry that cannon. The shot itself is well constructed thereby emphasizing the exertion of bodily power required to get the cannon up the hill however it would be more emphatic had it been his experience all along. Instead of his friend there would be a moment where it was Joey who was struggling and under threat of death he would miraculously pull through. The horse does not suffer much in this film and so there is no sense of shock in the film. I heard that this film tugs at heart strings but it did not do that for me apart from the early parts where the eternal struggles of the peasant farmer were on display. These moments emphasized the misfit element which would make the horse seem truly distinctive against the sea of green. From the moment he becomes a war horse he relies too much on his benefactors who are conveniently sympathetic.

The connection between the boy and horse is not clearly established in the film. We do not understand why the boy falls head over heels for this horse. We see some assorted images but there is no connection and here the wonderful cinematography cannot grasp a basic connection. What distinguished this particular horse from any other in the boy’s mind? This was a basic element that Spielberg should have developed. At least in Babe it was clearly explained that the relationship between the peasant farmer and the pig was reinforced by this vague, instinctual connection to the vicissitudes of life that are aligned to the straight and narrow of destiny.  You understand the same here but it must be reinforced by something external as a narrator or a series of episodes where the misfit nature of the horse would shock the casual presence of young Albert as what happened in Babe. This misfit element is what made Babe so effective without being patronizing. The misfit element does emerge in the early parts but it does not resonate by the end as a result of the horse’s experience of war which is too big an event for him to stand out as just another horse and so the sanitized sentiment which is masked by the wonderful camera shots comes across as cheap and unrewarding for those who have seen and heard it all before.  This is why the episodic element does not resonate for there is no element to truly emphasize the distinct nature of the horse. He seems like any horse to me and so I could not be moved. His own experience is not dealt with here only the experience of war through a horse. I understood the notion of the cycle that is war and peace but the horse has to imbue this in his own way for it to be resonant. The horse is the necessary connection amidst the impersonal nature of war and I understood this but you would like the horse to speak for himself.  The elements do add up  but only because it seems deterministic i.e. it seems like various plot conveniences that connect the various episodes and so it becomes predictable. Risk is not taken and so the film is essentially predictable and this is a down side to any work of art. Lack of predictability makes one more assured that this distinctive element would come to the fore. The horse anchors the film but the horse should not have anchored the film in such a manner for there is no centre of gravity that applies to us all apart from the earth’s rotation around the sun. A horse cannot be that for everyone and so the horse should have had his own distinctive experience as opposed to being another anchor.  The misfit element had to be emphasized as it was in Babe which made that film so endearing.

The horse just becomes another horse by the end and the sentiment seems too obvious  because there is none there really. 

The Role of the Critic in Society (with specific reference to the arts and specific socio-political characters in the works of Karl Marx and Plato's The Republic)

Who is the Critic?

Addison Dewitt, the theatre critic in the film All About Eve (see my review), says: 

‘To those of you who do not read, attend the theatre, listen to unsponsored radio programs or know anything of the world in which you live, it is perhaps necessary for me to introduce myself. My name is Addison Dewitt. My native habitat is the theatre. In it, I toil not, neither do I spin. I am critic and commentator. I am essential to the theater.’

I explained in my review what he means by this statement:

 ‘Why are critics important, generally, to the artistic industry? Firstly, critics are the buffers between the artist and the public eye. It is important that the critic not be dazzled like a common fan that is unable to criticize since he or she is simply bamboozled by the artist’s manipulation. It is the critic who ensures that the artistes retain a high standard in their craft and not fall below it. If an artist falls below that standard it is clear that they either have to pick themselves up or that they are undergoing a persistent decline and will never rise to the heights which saw them take the world by storm.’

These statements are still pretty accurate and I went further and stated in my review that the critic is able to create a formidable opposition to the artistes and their followers. This is similar to how politics operates in most social spheres. The critic, in the social sphere, therefore mirrors a basic condition of such a mode of political development. In a democracy, for instance,  there will always be opposition to your views (social , political or economic) or artistic endeavours since there is an encouragement for individuals to express themselves freely. Democracy is a mindset that is only reflected in the corresponding constitutional polities. It is the democratic character that precedes the actual constitution and eventually the democracy that is formed through social consensus will influence the individuals of that particular social group.. I will come to this point later The artistes and theoreticians cannot, therefore, dismiss the critics no matter how desperately they try to dissuade their fans or followers from  listening to the utterances of such lowly people who are only jealous of the artistes’ achievements. The artist or theoretician by informing his or her fans of this particular group in society, unwillingly acknowledges that the critic has his own following that reinforces the divide. Similar to the conduction of bipartisan politics, critic and artist or theoretician do coalesce their viewpoints in order to advance some new phenomenon. It is only the diehards on either side that will resist such a union. If the critic for instance proves to be correct in his decision not to coalesce with the artist regarding his new endeavour he will be exalted however should he fail to see the advancements being made by the artist he will be relegated to the realm of fading conservative values. Likewise if the artist fails to accept the criticism of the opposing member in the form of the critic, he or she will be exalted if they prove to be right with that particular artistic or theoretical endeavour or fall into the pits of ignominy if they chose not to heed the warnings.

The critic is therefore the individual who provides a particular perspective regarding the expression of another. This perspective may oppose the other individual or agree with the decisions made with regards to executing a particular plan.  The critic corresponds to various forms of political milieu that reflect the perception of the populace within a particular social group. The critic is normally responsible for the change of the socio-political structure or in the preservation of social order to ensure the dictate of a particular ruling class. The critic can also be the artist who is pushing for a change in the status quo and so, depending on particular modes of perception, can be seen as an anomaly. This normally occurs regarding rights of succession. The inheritors must either improve on the foundation of their predecessors or maintain a dated mode of development that is no longer compatible with trends in society.  The artists or theoreticians that are vying for particular honours among the populace will come to odds and this will involve a lot of criticism which will be vulgar and credible. This is all done in an effort to prove who is the dominant artist in that particular sphere.  

The work of an artist requires interpretation. When the artist produces a particular piece of work it remains independent of him or her. Art in a vacuum is irrelevant and so the critic is responsible for interpreting this particular work of art by putting it in perspective for the passerby who would normally glance and be on his or her way. The passerby can be drawn to the work regardless of the critic’s input but some will never understand its social significance and will only be dazzled by the colour palette or the emotions the piece invokes. These emotions are fleeting however and what prevents the consumer from eventually tiring of this piece of work is its social significance.  The composition of the work must meet required standards based on past developments and the work must exhibit a philosophy that is reflective of a particular mindset be it historical or contemporary. The critic therefore has his own criterion by which he judges a particular work. The critic is therefore not simply to ridicule a particular work (if he or she does then the work must be really bad or the critic is biased) but to place it within a particular context. If it is that this piece of art does not correspond to a particular context then the artist must be made aware so that he or she can improve. If it does meet the requirements of a particular context then the work should be praised. If it is that the work of art does not correspond to a particular familiar context but to one unfamiliar yet plausible within the context of cultural/social interactions then the critic is liable to misjudge the work and be unable to come to terms with the new mode of development.

The Criterion for the Critique

Every critic must formulate a criterion by which he or she assesses a particular work of art or a element of society. The first and most important criterion is knowledge of the subject being criticized. With sufficient knowledge of the subject under review the critic would be more liable to justify his points of reasoning. A lack of knowledge on the subject will expose both critic and artist and condemn them to the halls of ignominy.  Without a sufficient knowledge base the critic will appear emotional or biased in his assignment and so will resort to fallacious/impressionistic arguments to justify his or her claims. This lack of knowledge will then be transmitted to the average viewer or person of passing interest and will then ruin the sophisticated interpretation of the particular subject. In other words the work  suffers from a vulgar interpretation. The knowledge base is not endemic to the composition of the art or theory itself for there are external elements that influenced a particular composition. These external elements may require a particular sort of knowledge be it historical, philosophical, economic, political, literary and scientific. If these elements are not woven into the narrative or discourse by the critic then it weakens his or her argument.  

Secondly the critic must be able to present his arguments in a coherent manner. This includes a sound literary back ground and the ability to express oneself. The critic must avoid jumbling his or her arguments and so every point related to a particular theme must be distinctive. There are some critics that fail in their assessment simply because they jumble the thematic elements of a particular work and the reader will also be confused. My particular approach therefore for my current release sections is to state what is good about a film and what is bad about it. I try not to jumble the elements so that the reader is clear that the film might be bad but that there are good elements that would affect the final rating. In my great film series I make it clear that there are several thematic elements that must be discussed and so I include these thematic elements under headings. This is just to say that in a society that has its values reinforced by a entrenched institutional framework words can be the only remedy at times however violence is another form of critique. Violence results from an urge to challenge the established order and remove the institutional structures that have solidified its rule. Similar to a literary critique one must have a distinct plan in order to carry out your violent critique of society. The critique must be designed to have significant results. Some of these results include making the established order aware that you exist or that you intend to overthrow their regime. It is similar for the conquering party who either wants to expand its territory and institute its own style of government which it considers to be superior to the conquered party. This is a form of criticism.

Thirdly, the critic must be able to grasp the progression of a particular art form or a particular social issue which would justify any form of rating. This will allow the critic to assess to what extent the artist or theoretician is a conformist i.e. he or she does not advance the art form any further or is an auteur or pioneer who encourages the growth of the art form or subject. It is sometimes incumbent on the critic to make suggestions regarding the improvement of a particular art form or theory and this will then transform the critic into an artist or theoretician who is advancing a new paradigm whereby the status quo will shift. When Karl Marx and Frederich Engels authored The Communist Manifesto (1848) this could not have been done without a thorough understanding of the capitalist mode of economic development which would precede the communist state. Karl Marx demonstrated even further his knowledge of the capitalist system when he penned one of the most magnificent pieces of theoretical exposition  ever produced in the form of ’Das Kapital’ which comprises 4 volumes.

Fourthly, the critic must allow for comparative analysis since no theory or work of art exists in a vacuum. The work of art or theory only exists either because it follows on from a former piece of work or because it bases its interpretation or mode of expression  on a prior work of art or subject. Therefore for a theoretician or artist to put forward new insights they must critique former works on the same subject which will identify to the reader why this person is putting forward his or her claims. The critic must not be worried when seeking the support of others who share his or her own views for this will strengthen his argument. This is unless he is a pioneer shunned by everyone.

The critic must also be aware of the potential biases in his argument and must make clear why he or she makes certain assertions.  This will remove notions of bias and will make the reader aware that the critic is also self- critical and has a certain understanding of a particular work of art or theory which would justify them making a critique.

The Critic in a particular socio -political Milieu that will impact on the culture of the populace

There are several characters associated with a particular socio-political milieu. According to Plato, in The Republic,  there are four types of characters that correspond to a particular form of political organization. These are: The timarchic character who resides within a timarchy, the oligarch which resides within the framework of an oligarchy, the democratic character which resides within a democracy and a tyrant which resides within a tyranny. These are all successive forms of governance i.e. each follows from the other.  Within this political framework there are the economic characters such as the aristocrat, the peasant, the artisan, the bourgeois, the proletarian and the communist; these all correspond to a particular political framework that distributes the spoils accordingly.

The transition from one  climate to another was only achieved as a result of sustained critiques of the former political structure that existed. The critic would therefore amass a following large enough to topple the previous regime.  Criticism, as mentioned before, is not only done through words but by violence. When a new group emerges to challenge the established order then it must reinforce its words with violent protest. The timarchic character, according to Plato, is more of a physical character that prides himself on his athletic prowess but is unable to make rational decisions especially as he is not trained to exercise his reasoning abilities. In a timarchy or timocracy these societies are comprised of a military aristocracy. These type of societies normally emerge, based on historical facts, after a coup d’ etat  where there is an overthrow of a tyrant or when there is political intrigue. There are times in history, however, where the generals, during wartime believe that they are better able to rule a populace. We see this with the rise of Napoleon in France and Hitler in Germany. Recently we saw this situation in Egypt with the fall of Mubarak and rule by the army which was forced to relinquish power following violent protests. If one should wish to rise in this particular form of government then you should distinguish yourself through some form of physical  means such as skill in arms or entertainment. His is not reinforced by any sense of reason or sustained intellectual innovations which is why he is prone to be abusive. 

The oligarch emerges following the timarchy because perhaps wartime has become peacetime and the sole concentration is placed on wealth creation. Plato said that the transition from the timarchic character to the oligarch comes with the realization that it is easy to fall from grace in a society that prides itself on use of arms without concentrating on building your wealth resources and so the character becomes obsessed with making money as do all the other members of society and so the once great physical prowess of the nation becomes flaccid and prone to extravagance associated with wealth. The oligarch has therefore successfully criticized the timarchy and succeeded it although it is not necessarily the better option.

The oligarchy with its penchant devices for wealth creation creates an underclass prone to disorder. In order for the oligarchy to thrive it must impoverish another section of society and it reaches a stage where the oligarchy is divided between the very rich and the very poor. The poor become a drone class and are scorned because of their station that is associated with begging, poor upbringing in the home and a lack of education.  The reasons they are scorned are the reasons why it is necessary to reinforce the rule of the oligarchs. There is then the inevitable transition from the oligarchy to the democracy which comes about when the poorer members within the oligarchy come to the realization that everyone deserves an equal opportunity and stage a revolt which overthrows and exile the oligarchs. The oligarchs fail to acknowledge this turmoil because, according to Plato, ‘Mean while the money makers bent on their business don’t appear to notice them , but continue to inject their poisoned loans wherever they can find a victim and to demand high rates of interest on the sum lent, with the result that the drones and the beggars multiply.’ How much does this remind one of the present day and the 2008 recession? The victims of the ‘poisoned loans’ are normally spendthrifts who pride themselves on a extravagant lifestyle. The democracy is therefore a source of criticism against the oligarchy. The democracy allows for a wide range of freedom. One is able to disregard everything as long as it meets your own needs. This encourages the growth of a wide range of characters and in the present day we see the homosexual class, the transvestites, warped fashion ideals and vice ridden individuals prone to violence and promiscuity without much sanction. It is a great form of excess and it is so appealing because everyone is able to get a piece of the pie. This versatility is also an urge to stand out amongst the many characters parading the streets. There is also the inclusion of various foreigners/ immigrants in society. Also in a society predominantly white such as in Europe and America you will see various ethnic minorities  working side by side with them despite these groups being once considered slaves of the whites masters.  Here is what Plato says: ‘ Then in a democracy there is no compulsion either to exercise authority  if you are capable of it, or to submit to authority if you don’t want to; you needn’t fight if there’s a war or you can wage a private war in peace time if you don’t like peace; and if there’ s any law that debars you from political and judicial office, you will nonetheless take either if they come your way. It’s a wonderfully pleasant way of carrying on in the short run isn’t it?’ This is why in a democracy persons will pursue necessary and unnecessary pleasures simply because they can whereas previously with the oligarchy they would restrict themselves to necessary pleasures such as profit gain as opposed to expense on luxuries. The democratic character spends without a care in the world. In the modern day other democracies are encouraged to promote their lifestyles to those unenlightened oligarchs which are normally found in poorer/smaller countries. The Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) is a classic reflection of the democratic character whereas Bane and Ra’s Al Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises (2012) and Batman Begins (2005) respectively are representative of tyranny. Batman is a mixture of both; at times he is a tyrant and a democratic character when he has to respond to one or the other so called villain.

The democracy is inevitably succeeded by the tyranny which emerges as a response to this excess. The tyranny normally involves tight regulations and the concentration of power in a sole individual known as a tyrant. We see this with the Cuban Revolution (1959) with the rise of Fidel Castro and the rise of Mao Tse Tung in China. These individuals crushed the excesses associated with democracy. The democracy is the best place for those who wish to be free. Too much freedom is not necessarily a good thing and we see this in the urban centres and this is what I’m focusing on in my Modes of Urban Alienation series. In a democracy there is a lot of bickering with accusations and recriminations where each side accuses the other of seeking to revert to a oligarchy or to usurp control. In the midst of this bickering, according to Plato, the people will put forward a champion to usurp control and he will use his private army or whatever means to subvert the weak rulers normally associated with a democracy.  He then becomes sole ruler regardless of his social background. The tyrant then seeks to crush all opposition and so all excess becomes concentrated in him. He is a hypocrite and so only he can engage in excess. The tyrant obviously provides an alternative or source of criticism for the democratic character. The tyrant will obviously be overthrown unless he enforces a measure of discipline amongst the populace and he himself does not give in to excess. If he does give in to excess and concentrates all power unto himself and his family then this dynasty will be overthrown. And then the process starts all over again. This is why Gaddafi was an easy target. 

The cycle is repeated endlessly until all these characters become an admixture and only represent a stage of a nation’s development as opposed to being exclusively one or the other. These four characters will thrive in any nation after the cycle repeatedly goes into motion. The timarchic character is a feature of sports or entertainment, the military and the police; the oligarch is seen in the aristocrat, the bourgeois, the usurer, the stock broker etc; the democratic character is manifest in the freedom of the press and the arts and in political parties that encourage equal rights; the tyrant manifests itself in the person that criticizes the excess of individuals or groups in society and may be able to push forward regulations that stem these sort of excesses. You also see the tyrant  in the form of many dictatorships. You see this in the form of the representatives of the law such as  police officers, members of the army and government prosecutors and religious authorities and the mafia styled cartels. You have countries that masquerade as democracies which are not. People respond in a particular manner to the political climate of the time based on criticism of its ideologies. Countries go to war based on these principles alone sometimes.

In the case of Marx he was advocating communism because the bourgeois class reach a stage where they behave like oligarchs and tyrants while seeking to subvert the proletariat. This will normally result in some form of revolt or revolutionary activity. In this day and age you have oligarchs masquerading as democrats and tyrants when it suits their need. This is why the proletariat will always put forward their champion. The difference between the communist and the tyrant is the inclusive nature  of the former whereas the latter concentrates power solely in himself. The communist seeks to include everyone but there is the possibility that he can become a tyrant as we saw with Joseph Stalin in the U.S. S. R. Plato neglected(or could not) to mention this character of the communist who is concerned with some modified form of democracy and tyranny.

The various political characters correspond with the arts and the various critics that judge the basis of their work.

Conclusion

This is why criticism is necessary in society because no form of expression associated with a particular social milieu is perfect. There are always gaps that will be addressed by a certain set of characters known as critics.

Midnight in Paris (2011) ***½/5 : A good film although the tension between fantasy and reality is not fully resolved.

Midnight in Paris is a good film about a whimsical adventure in Paris where a hack screenwriter, Gil (Owen Wilson) is forced to come to terms with the illustrious past which he esteems so much. The film is interesting but certainly not as riveting as No Country for Old Men (2007). The film does boast some colorful performances particularly from those actors that play literary icons in the west however the film never penetrates to the core thereby evoking some sort of emotion. I understand that the film is not simply about evoking emotion but in the proving or disproving of an argument with regards to the golden age fallacy. This is the notion that certain past eras are better than the present day in which one lives. Allen explores this fallacy but his conclusions are rightfully not definite but exploratory. The present life of the protagonist is not sufficiently explored to provide a suitable contrast with the past and so he meanders a lot and does not seem as interesting a character. His experience therefore in meeting these literary icons is more interesting than his character.  It makes you wonder though that had it not been for his foray into the past the film would not be as interesting. This element of time jumping does not tie into his character sufficiently so that we can come to major conclusions about human interaction. He is merely a vehicle for the viewer as opposed to being affecting as a character study which would imply that he is a near original within the context of humanity. It is ironic that this particular film does not measure up to the standard of Allen’s earlier films which were more detailed than this one is. The whimsy in this film also seems vulgarized in parts when it could have been a more effective element in the story. I wished Allen had made the escapades of Gil into a character study thereby having him explore his psyche and the physical locations once inhabited by these famous writers.  A simple illustration, for instance,  could be to actually highlight the past locations from a present day context and then have them come alive and so in that sense the viewer could have been more interested in his journey i.e. Gil coming from the present  into the past. There are several links missing here when you simply meet a car at midnight and then you are physically transported to the past. This is what is missing in this film. I have no problem with the actual fantasy but fantasy is always better when it is integrated with reality or makes reality more vibrant than it actually is. This is why the development of Gil’s present day could have been more effective in providing a contrast with the past.

The fallacy explored in the film however is the most interesting aspect of the film and there were some obvious plot devices in the script but the film still comes together and we understand the foundation of the argument. The city of Paris is excessively praised in this film.  I understand that the romantic aspect is supposed to contrast with the logical aspect.  It is still good to see Allen get back to what he does best: speaking about city life.

What’s good about this film?

The best thing about this film is actually the most important thing: the golden age fallacy. This fallacy is defined in the film as a condition where the distant past appears to be a better era than the present day in  which one currently resides. This is an interesting motif and when Gil goes on his romp through 1920’s Paris encountering literary icons such as Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), F. Scott Fitzgerald Tom Hiddleston) and Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) there is clearly an evocative picture being drawn (maybe by Picasso who is also featured in this film). There is no clear cut resolution about this fallacy simply because fallacies account for the emotional expression of many human beings. If you’re not logical you are indulging in fallacious arguments however fallacious arguments lay the groundwork for logical rigour. There can be no proof with regards to a fallacy and so it becomes the source of endless speculation and insights. The less it can be proved the more interesting it becomes especially as our lives revolve around them.  A fallacy remains the source for many an artistic expression. We saw this fallacy in No Country for Old Men, which was a better film, since it is grounded in a objective reality that does not account for emotional expression. The sheriff in that film reminisces about the good old days simply because he is overwhelmed by  present day circumstances. In that film his fallacy is dismissed by his old friend when he says ‘What you got ain’t nothing new. This country is (has always been) hard on people. It isn’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.’ The present day perspective of the sheriff was reinforced by the actions surrounding the drug trade in the United States along the Mexican/Texas border. In Midnight in Paris we see the same dissonance with Gil however as he is taken into the past he slowly comes to the realization that in every era you will long for the past because we are human however the past cannot be reconciled with the present simply because life must go on. What’s past is past. It is good that he came to this conclusion but we are only human and will always long for the good old days no matter the appeal to logic. We see in Gil the inability to find common ground with his wife, Inez,  because of this fallacy and how he is unable to fathom all her shady dealings with a ‘pedantic’ styled ‘pseudo intellectual’.  Gil’s relationship with his wife and family is therefore essential in understanding how people affected by this fallacy are unable to have relationships with the other type that embraces the present. Every old fashioned trinket that Gil buys  Inez’s mother considers to be cheap.

Gil is able to find two women that share his interests in the history of Paris. One is located in the 1920’s where  Gil  is transported to: Adriana (Marion Cotillard) who shares his nostalgia for the past. The two are unable to be reconciled for she longs for the 1890’s which would be one step backward for Gil. He tries to explain to her that for him the 20’s were a golden age however as she is from the 20’s she cannot understand why he would see this as a golden age era. The other woman to share in his sympathies regarding the past is a French woman, Gabrielle (Lea Seydoux) who deals in antiques. This is all well done for it shows that while you cannot reconcile the past with the present one must come to the understanding that activities in the past did the shape the present day so it is not something one can logically escape. Every past era seems like the foundation era of the present despite the different expressions. Jamaicans for instance long for the rule of Britain despite the fact that we have attained our own independence. We still cling to Britain’s model of governance associated with the monarchy despite it being irreconcilable with our status as an independent nation. This sort of fallacy can therefore be a hindrance to one’s operative style. One favourite scene of mine was Gil listening to a gramophone playing the song of a particular singer (cannot recall his name) whom he had the pleasure of meeting in his romantic trips back to the 1920’s. When he asks Gabrielle about the particular singer she says that he is memorable because he sang a lot of songs about Paris; meaning that how we see things are sometimes influenced by past artistic expressions such as music. It is no surprise that Gil longs for the past especially as he is an aspiring novelist who is fed up with his job as a hack screenwriter which brings in the money. He has reached the stage where he wants to be removed from the crass commercialism that is pervading current artistic ventures and indulge in more creative outlets such as what the city of Paris, which has a long history with the arts and romantic expression, offers. His views about his novel (which he allows no one of the present day to read), following on from the advice of Hemingway and Gertrude Stein, is that he must try and resist being so logical and indulge his imagination by allowing it to go wild a little. Gertrude Stein and Hemingway both state that all art must be life affirming in some way for it to resonate throughout the ages etc. It is clear that for Gil to be in love with Paris he must have heard stories of its magnificence and of its glorious past.

His impression of the city seems a bit naïve although Allen clearly states that it is a model for his artistic expression. Are his views of Paris intentionally portrayed as naïve or is it unintentionally portrayed this way? If intentionally portrayed as naïve it would highlight this fallacy even further for we are made to believe in the greatness of past eras as if they were perfect completely unaware of the, at times,  barbaric  and backward nature of some of these so called great societies. Paris like any other city only helps to mask the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois class and their lackeys. Yeah it’s a romantic city and full of bright lights but not even that can mask the corruption underneath i.e. the eternal class struggle and the constant exaltation of the bourgeois class and its consolidation of power in the form of industrial centres such as this. If the naïvete of Gil is unintentionally portrayed in such a manner then it is a weakness in the film to have him ramble on and on about how great Paris is. I am sure it has a lot of cultural amusements but it is all a concentration of capital like any other city which is given a panache by a feeble romanticism that deludes the consumer into believing that this is something remarkable and god given. This is just another feature of the commodity and capital fetish.

The presentation of Paris itself is well done in this film. Woody Allen knows how to build a context and the opening shots reminds one of the opening shots of Manhattan (1979). There are elements of the soundtrack that date back to the 1920’s and helps in moulding the viewer’s perception of the city. I did not see much of the famous lights spoke about by the characters. In the film it is said they can be seen from space however it would be good if that could be proven. The lights in Paris seem no brighter than the other major cities and so it can seem that all of this talk is plain fanaticism. The context is well constructed here and so whether it is romantic or not does not matter for there is a suitable contrast between the 20’s and the present day.

There is a light and amusing, caricature based, supporting cast which adds some dimensions to the film. There is the ‘pseudo intellectual’ that recites which contrasts with Gil’s more uninformed and relaxed nature. There is Inez’s mother who states that all of Gil’s purchases are cheap and then there is her father who is a conservative by nature and who contrasts with Gil’s liberal attitude. There is Ernest Hemingway who is portrayed as a man of the world and a astute observer who believes in straightforward prose (his customary writing style) which is clear and to the point. There is Gertrude Stein, the famous art collector who is also a strong literary critic, who is portrayed as a woman who literally consumes art as it is her one true love. She distinguishes herself by being the one who owns the hub through which all of these artists seem to congregate.  F. Scott Fitzgerald is portrayed as an unassuming individual whose love for his frivolous wife must have been the source of his novel Tender is the Night.  There are other characters that add to the whole experience of Paris across different generations.

 It was also good to see that Gil was attempting to escape the commercialism associated with screenwriting in the movie industry and his urge to seek true creative inspiration.

What’s bad about this film?

The main issue I had with the film was with some of the parts of the film that dealt with character Gil and his golden age fallacy syndrome. The character Gil seems to be a mere vehicle or as a means to explore this fallacy as opposed to the viewer gaining any real insights into his character. His character is a centerpiece of the film but it is not really clear whether what distinguishes him as an individual. It is strange that he carries around these emotions in his heart and refuses to share his manuscript with others simply because he disdains contemporary perspectives. Then why does he plan to publish it for the public. His love for the city is almost obsessive and there is nothing that distinguishes Paris from other great cities of the world who have just as much if not more lights and just as much exploitation. His excesses seem to be the source of the film’s momentum. His uninformed position is informed by his visiting the locale thereby allowing him to come to the present and challenge the opinions of others. His present day activities are rarely developed and he mostly just mopes around and lament. It is clear that he is getting married and that he is a screenwriter but we do not get a sense of the creative decisions that force him to wish to relocate to Paris. There is no sense of his work as a screen writer and why he feels that craft is not up to scratch artistically with a novel when in fact a screenplay is the basis for film or photography in motion. It must require some form of artistic insights. It would be good if Allen could show the inspirations for Gil’s work (apart from the nostalgia) and the demands of the job in California that make him wish to relocate.

The context of Paris is well developed but what is it that is pushing him to this particular city. What is it that distinguishes Paris from the others? In older Allen films he would have provided some form of contrast which he does not do here. He does not distinguish between a Paris from a New York or London or a Tokyo and a Shanghai. The film was not really clear here and why these characters obsess over the city. I understand that it must have been the source of artistic inspiration but it is not the only one I am sure. What brought all these great artists such as Hemingway to this city? Is it that Gil found himself in the presence of those who influenced him and he is simply following in their footsteps? Is Paris such a haven that in the long run all great artists must pass through this particular city? Allen could have developed this some more because Paris is not the only city that is a source of artistic inspiration. Hemingway for instance wrote two of his great novels about the human experience in Spain. Why are all these artists in Paris? And What do they think about Paris? These questions were not really resolved apart from the singer who sang a lot of songs about the city. Monet painted his water lilies here and what of it. I am sure other artists embraced their landscapes to create stirring works of still art.  I would have understood it better with regards to the literary icons however and then it would be clear that Gil was following an established path. The notion of the artist and the city would have been better explored. I also never really understood fully what was happening in the 1920’s which would justify Gil’s love for Paris during this time. It was the roaring twenties for sure but Gil coming from the present could have explained that clearly for the viewer.  Paris like any other city is a source for mass exploitation and in all of Gil’s obsessions he never once portrays a potential dark side to such an illustrious monstrosity.

With regards to the fallacy it should have been made clear that things seem so much better in the past because it was a time for expansion. In the present day expansion or growth is not visible. In the present one sometimes feels as if nothing is happening whereas if you look to the past you are able to track growth in the form of development from one period to the other. Growth is not only measured in economics but in artistic expression when a particular set of literary lights laid the foundation for future generations. In their time however these artists never saw themselves like that unless they got older. Therefore once you are in a position to track some form of growth you would have to make some reference to the past. This element was not dealt with sufficiently: a justification for the fallcy instead of seeking to disprove it.

I also had a problem with some of the vulgar elements of Allen’s use of the whimsical elements i.e. a cross section between two different time periods. We see Gil come from the past with all these insights about life which many people from the present could have provided him with. Anyone could tell him the wife was cheating you would not need Hemingway to tell you that. He makes mention of names that are not featured such as William Faulkner and so every time Gil goes for a ride into fantasy land he meets someone new. It is not clear why they all have to be in Paris apart from the character of Adriana. There is also the fact that it does not blend with reality. If Allen chose to pursue Gil’s psyche he would have made it more endearing because the transition to the past is not fully established. He takes a car at midnight and is transported to the land where these literary lights reside. Where does the car go? Is it a myth of the city? Is it a dream vehicle? When Gil is followed the P.I is also transported to another locale from the distant past and we are not sure how he got there. Was that his idea of the beautiful past? It is because these links are not established that the whimsical element seems a bit too redundant at times. The portrayal of these classic artists which abound in this film all seem unnecessary since they are portrayed as mere caricatures who have little or no bearing on the plot. An example is the painter Salvador (Adrien Brody) whose presence made no sense apart from amusement where he speaks of the rhinoceros. He is only featured once and then he is gone and this begs the question as to how relevant are all these famous characters. Some of the characters are portrayed according to type and so Hemingway seems like the Hemingway we all know.  He is therefore caricaturized with no real bearing on the plot especially as his connection to Paris is not fully established. F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife are also portrayed according to type without offering any new insights just fatalistic ones based on what everyone else knows. These characters of the distant past are being portrayed according to established type. How was Gil able to deliver his book to Gertrude stein? If the intermediate links, from the moment the car drives off with Gil to the point where he is left off, was  firmly established to make his back and forth travelling seem plausible how can we believe the essence of his story apart from the fallacy. Does he go through a portal? It would have been good to see Gil fraternizing with the proletariat of society who would have been more likely to retain the cultural expressions of the past without any hypocrisy. Everything becomes an aesthetic when he is transported i.e. everything is sanitized.

Gil does not really make a definite break with the past for how can he since we never knew how he got there? He learns to embrace the present but it is never really explained if he makes a definite break with fantasy land considering that he has lost Adriana. Is it that he could go there anytime he wishes? There is a lot to work out when you juxtapose reality with fantasy. This is the essence of magical realism.

All in All a good film although Allen does not provide the necessary dimensions as he would normally have in his earlier films.